Around the Water Cooler

Julie Morris: “The death penalty is expensive, fallible and unjust. Since 1978 thirteen executions have cost California taxpayers $4 billion, money siphoned from public safety and schools. We pay roughly $100 million annually for each of the 720 inmates on death row and it takes an average of 25 years to get from conviction to execution, delaying justice for victims’ families. California can’t afford the death penalty: it’s much more cost effective to sentence dangerous criminals to life in prison without possibility of parole and start using taxpayer dollars on programs that benefit law abiding Californians.”

Marty Richman: “No, I believe that there are people whose actions simply forfeit the right to live in society. Their mere continued existence punishes those who loved the victims and the concept of justice.”

Steve Staloch: “Yes, if life without the possibility of parole meant just that. The death penalty does not deter crime, it’s discriminatory against minorities, it’s an imperfect system, and it costs more to pursue a capital case to execution than it does to imprison without parole.”

Nants Foley: “It costs more for the state to house an offender for a lifetime than to put one to death. In addition, so many years pass between conviction and execution that sometimes the offender is a totally different person from the one who committed the crime. They have grown up and evolved. For these reasons I say abandon the death penalty.”

Richard Place: “No, but they should make the Judge who legislates from the bench share the cell with the prisoner.”

Louise Ledesma: “I believe we should abolish the death penalty for several reasons. Morally, only God should decide when we should leave this earth. Economically, it is far less expensive to house a prisoner for 40 years than to pay court costs, attorney fees and millions to develop a new injection procedure.  Finally, for justice we need to remind ourselves that nation wide 130 death row inmates have found to be innocent because of DNA evidence.”

Ruth Erickson: “No! When a despicably, heinous and murderous crime is committed, the death penalty would be the appropriate judgment and hopefully, a strong deterant.”

Previous articleNBA: Attendance is up compared with last season
Next articleBasketball: Balers fall short at Condor Classic
A staff member wrote, edited or posted this article, which may include information provided by one or more third parties.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here