He’s a politician for sure. Make a big scene out of nothing.
And all the while, it really changes nothing about the status quo of executions in the state, they weren't going to happen before this commutation, and they won't happen after.
Sure it does.
To me this is proof of failure of system to educate a sufficient majority of people to think rigorously.
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-detail...
We spend a disproportionate amount of time/resources on the 10 deaths of people who have actually committed violent crimes.
FSD, Accelerating cures via AI, safety automation all save 10,000x more innocent deaths. But reams of books/articles/philosophy/debates around capital punishment compared to accelerating technology.
Sad state of humanity
Either way, it sounds like you have a very low opionion of the search for justice in society.
Still won't vote for him in a primary.
Maybe not in a general election either (even though I normally practice harm reduction voting)... but if he's the Democratic nominee in 2028 we're already off the cliff.
This is the man that told the entire state, millions of people, to shelter in place ... and then went to one of the fanciest restaurants in the entire state (French Laundry) to solicit campaign donations during lockdown.
Newsom will say or do anything to become president, but he should never become president precisely because he will say or do anything, with no moral compass guiding him.
so, that is interesting I guess.
https://medium.com/luminasticity/commentary-on-n-guilty-men-...
The state is usually paying for the prosecution and defense as well as the court staff in these hearings.
Relative to California's law enforcement and judicial budgets required to investigate, arrest, try and convict them in the first place? Irrelevant noise. That's just a silly argument.
(There's also the whole moral thing about "we should kill people because it's too expensive to keep them alive", but even so, the financial thing just doesn't logic.)
[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Is_the_death_penalty_more...
Probably a good thing considering (what I perceive to be) a rise in political violence that seems to push for and/or celebrate summary executions with little to no due process.
Imagine using _just saving some money_ to justify the death of a person. What a country.
- provide housing, education and medical coverage to people who are trying their best to make a living
- support a person who has killed atleast one more person for reasons that a jury of 12 people found unreasonable
Money unfortunately is zero sum.
The US is also the only "first world" nation that still has the capital punishment.
Our justice system is flawed by bias and careerism (the same is true anywhere, and the US is no exception). The fact that innocent people sometimes exonerated for crimes years or decades later is reason enough to ban the death penalty forever, IMO. Every time an innocent person is put to death, that's horrible itself, but it also means the real offender is still out there somewhere. Even if it happens 1% of the time that's still dozens of people over the years.
I would rather let the worst criminals stay alive in prison if it means one innocent person isn't put to death so they can appeal their case.
This doesn't excuse the immorality of the death penalty.
A lot of them still aren't aware that the death penalty costs so much more because of the intense appeals process.
Accusations of hypocrisy generally only work if they're coming from inside the house. Basically, if you know that I already disagree with you on a fundamental level, you're not going to trust that I have a deep enough grasp of your position to point out a real inconsistency.
expedition32•1h ago
nazgulsenpai•1h ago
cocoalba•1h ago
lnkdinsuxs•45m ago
In the U.S. the state has never been an arbiter of life and death. A jury of peers decide that.
In a state where we struggle to house people, home prices are exploding through the roof, who bears the costs to hold those prisoners for the rest of their lives? to feed them, to provide them a habitable bed, cleaning supplies, medical health as they age and start to need increasingly more care?
mftrhu•41m ago
> The decision to spare death row inmates is largely symbolic in a state that has not executed an inmate since 2006, though experts say it could save millions of dollars in court costs each year. Only 13 inmates have been executed since voters reinstated the death penalty in 1978.
saxonww•11m ago
Virtually all cases involving death penalty have a jury trial, higher stakes == higher priced lawyers, there are built-in automatic appeals, there are actually two separate trials for guilt and application of death penalty vs. one trial with a sentencing phase, etc.
consumer451•38m ago
That's a founding father of the USA, talking about imprisonment. When you extend that to state-sanctioned execution... capital punishment makes no sense, as it cannot be undone.
privong•36m ago
In at least some US states, the jury decides guilt/innocence but the judge determines the sentences for guilty verdicts. So in those cases the jury of peers is certainly not being the arbiter of life and death.
lnkdinsuxs•48m ago
and the costs to hold those prisoners for the rest of their lives? to feed them, to provide them a habitable bed, cleaning supplies, medical health as they age and start to need more care?
TrainedMonkey•46m ago
Edit: after reading the article seems like a no-brainer, CA is not executing anyone anyway, so why maintain the fiction:
> The decision to spare death row inmates is largely symbolic in a state that has not executed an inmate since 2006, though experts say it could save millions of dollars in court costs each year. Only 13 inmates have been executed since voters reinstated the death penalty in 1978.
Aurornis•45m ago
zulux•39m ago
mboerwink•45m ago
IncreasePosts•40m ago
seizethecheese•28m ago