This is one of those issues we see eye to eye on, Mitch.

Struggling with the fairness, concerned about having the right person, the knowledge that there are those that deserve it.

In this case, I don’t think we would be fighting over the reality of the execution, we would be fighting over the gun, so we could do it ourselves!

Flash

Mitch,

Fact sheet on California's current condemned inmates. The racial numbers might surprise you. Or may not. I report, you decide. (The first number below is condemned inmates. The number in parens is total 2003 male prison population by race)

White: 251 (40,867)
Black: 222 (43, 258)
Hispanic: 121 (53,218)
Other: 36 (8,385)

The death penalty is a disaster to administer fairly, possibly an affront against God, and of dubious value.

And Mitch, if Rodriguez is guilty--and I've seen nothing that suggests he isn't--then you won't be able to shoot him, 'cause I called dibs.

Actually, being a Republican, you probably know more about guns than I...oh, Hell, we'll both shoot him.

I'm still against capital punishment. But I won't cuy for this guy.

James:

I respect your opinion, and your effort in sharing the above figures, keep in mind the following:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Ethnicity CA (USA)
White 59.5% (75.1)
Black 6.7% (12.3)

Flash

Something I had been mulling about for potential death penalty cases to help alleviate the unfairness in application. The solution I had been thinking about would be for the defendent in a death penalty case would have all court costs paid for by the state... thus allowing the defended to get the best defense money can buy. Still, some kind of agent would have to oversee that lawyers weren't charging above their normal rates.

I would happily open up the coffers a bit more to ensure no innocents are executed. I would also limit executions to murders, exclusively, at the state level. I don't mind federal executions for treason however.

There is no conflict in asserting that Rodriguez desrves death while also asserting that the death penalty should be abolished. It is hubristic in the extreme to think that we can assure that people get what they deserve; that is among the fallacies that statism founders on. What can be accurately stated is that the death penalty assures that innocent people will be killed by the state, since no human endeavor is without error. It can also be stated that it is possible to lock up murderers in a fashion that reduces their threat to others to a very, very, negligible percentage; the inmates at the Federal super-max prisons really never come into contact with other human beings.

Thus, it seems to me, on a cost-benefit basis, it is best to simply avoid the possibility of executing an innocent person altogether. I sure wish that non-homicidal violence was punished more severely, however. Very rare is the muderer who kills with his first offense. The overwhelming majority, like Rodriguez, work up to murder. If Rodriguez had been incarcerated upon his first violent offense until he was old and infirm, Ms. Sjodin would still be alive.

Flash,

You assume my opinion from the fact that I provided statitstice from the Dept. of Corrections without comment?

The difference between the racial population breakdown and the racial make-up pf prisoners is fairly well known, and a seperate issue from the death penalty. I just thought it was interesting that for condemned inmate population, the statistics were contrary to what most people might expect.

What you do with those numbers is up to you.

If you let the beavers on the island, they will fell the trees without discernment. You may catch and release them, you might even try to fence them out, but if you let the beavers on the island, they will fell the trees.

The expense of catch and release is ineffective, as the beavers return time and again. The fence is unsightly and obscures the view, ridding the island of its purpose. The choice is whether it is our island or the beavers' island, and there is only one way to settle the conflict.

Either we kill the beavers, or the beavers kill the island. The choice, of course, is unpleasant. But the alternative is unacceptable. There is only one responsible course of action regardless of deep regret and arguments of how and when. This is not a perfect world.

Far better to be swift and true even in mistake than to dawdle as the trees come crashing down.

Aim small, miss small.

Outrage is a given. Also grief, frustration, a need to act etc. However. This is a broken system. The DP wasn't the first or only thing broken thing in this ladder anyhow. He shouldn't have been on the street in the first place. Furthermore, the DP was no deterent for this guy obviously. The whackos will be whack. They're in an alternate reality anyway so why try to use reason - a consequence...
LWOP while we fix this thing. And the other thing. Nuff' said.

The suspect in the murder of Dru Sjodin will face the death penalty if he is found guilty of the crime, North Dakota's U.S. attorney announced today in Fargo.Speaking on the steps of the federal courthouse, Drew Wrigley said he was given the go-ahead Wednesday night by Attorney General John Ashcroft to seek the death penalty against Alfonso Rodriguez Jr.