Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder As far as I'm concerned, yet another reason to do away with the death penalty. All you Californians, remember the Polly Klaas case? She was murdered in 1993, which led ot the infamous and cotly Three Strikes rule here in California. Yesterday, in 2009, the state Supreme Court finally got around to confirming death for her killer. 16 years and an untold amount of taxpayer dollars later. <a href="http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/davi060209.htm" target="_blank">http://www.metnews.com/article...0209.htm</a>
Originally Posted By barboy I'm missing why 16 years(6 or 26 years for that matter) to confirm or deny the sentence as well as the asinine and unfair '3 stikes' rule would be a reason against the death penalty......... the financial and certainly the ethical claims against the death penalty makes sense to me though.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder My point is, while, yes, since we have the death penalty, it's eminently fair the defendant gets heard at all levels before getting put to death, but it's such a waste of judicial time and money when all we had to do after conviction was lock the door and throw away the key.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo So,"It takes too long and costs too much money" is your basic argument against the death penalty? How much time and money does it take to host the perp in jail for the rest of his life? Or are you saying we should get rid of that too?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So,"It takes too long and costs too much money" is your basic argument against the death penalty? How much time and money does it take to host the perp in jail for the rest of his life? Or are you saying we should get rid of that too?" We covered this recently. My main argument against the death penalty is that one, I'm against state sponsored killing and two, the death penalty has never been proven to be a deterrent.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Yeah, but we can only hope that person is actually guilty. I remember the Polly Klaas case well, we lived in Sonoma County during that time.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It detters the person being executed from ever killing again." So does life in prison.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***So,"It takes too long and costs too much money" is your basic argument against the death penalty?*** That's certainly one of the arguments against it. If it's cheaper and faster to hand down a life sentence without possibility of parole, why kill? ***How much time and money does it take to host the perp in jail for the rest of his life?*** As SuperDry has pointed out numerous times, it's cheaper to house them for life than to kill them. As far as quicker, that would depend on the merits of the case for the lifer, they might be able to appeal and that takes a long time. For a death row convict though, such appeals are mandatory thus is MUST take a long time (even if the criminal has confessed and it's an airtight case). ***Or are you saying we should get rid of that too?*** Only if there was a better solution.
