Anti-death penalty support mounting

October 26, 2012

Voter support for a ballot measure to repeal California’s death penalty has increased dramatically now just 3 percentage points behind those in favor of capital punishment, a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll has found. [LATimes]

The survey, conducted last week, showed that the gap between supporters and opponents of Proposition 34, the capital punishment measure has shrunk. Forty-two percent said they would vote for Proposition 34, with 45 percent saying no, the LA Times said

If passed, Proposition 34 will apply retroactively to the 727 inmates on death row, require convicted murderers to work in prison and contribute to victim restitution funds, and direct $100 million to law enforcement over four years. It could save the state up to $130 million a year, according to California’s nonpartisan legislative analyst.

Opponents, primarily law enforcement and victims’ groups, contend that any savings could be consumed by the cost of healthcare for lifetime inmates.



If the death penalty remains, in the coming years we will witness more and more depressed and misguided people taking advantage of it as a way to commit suicide in a spectacular, state-sanctioned manner.

People kill whether there is a death penalty or not. It has been shown time and again it is not a deterrent. It’s the nature of the crime.

The death penalty will increasingly be an INCENTIVE to murder for cowards and sensationalists who crave the attention and wish to go out in a controlled, public manner.


For those who keep claiming that the Death Penalty is a deterrent to murder, I have to ask, “Where is your proof?” Logically, it should be for most people but most people who kill do so with their brains acting anything but logically. If they are thinking at all, they are not thinking about consequences or are under the delusion that they will get away with their action.

It does take too long to go through the appeals process but that seems to be an inherent flaw of our judicial system which is horribly inefficient and far too subject to abuse by glory-hunting lawyers on both sides. As it stands currently, life in prison without the possibility of parole is a less expensive proposition than completing a death sentence to the taxpayer.

While I agree that the majority (perhaps even the vast majority) of people on death row are a waste of protoplasm, I don’t want to see my tax dollars wasted on misguided “deterrence” or providing vengeance to relatives of the victims (which rarely results in long-term peace for them from what I have read.) I would be satisfied that they never see freedom again unless proof of their innocence is provided at a later date.


As the poet Hyman Barshay adeptly explained, “The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down.”

If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.


Embracing the death penalty creates a more violent society, more unnecessary killings, legally sanctioned and beyond. No good comes of it, and so much bad is unleashed.

Besides, it’s never a good idea to give the government the right to kill it’s own citizens. Nothing good ever comes of that.

The death penalty is a tool of fools and cowards, sadists and the insane.


While I also disagree with the death penalty, I must take some issue with your argument and more issue with the characterization in your last sentence.

There is a point where compassion for individuals is either completely wasted or, at best, both highly risky and unreasonably expensive. Sociopaths and psychopaths can’t be tolerated in a civil society and most are incapable of “cures” by the time they have reached the point where they kill for pleasure. Those that kill from blind rages or from some other forms of psychological disorders are equally difficult (if not impossible) to cure.

I agree with death penalty proponents that such creatures (I hesitate to call them humans) need to be permanently removed from society. They are not worth the effort to reform and since such efforts are of questionable effectiveness they are highly risky too.

I do agree with you that giving the government the right to kill its own citizens is not a great idea, but letting murderous types free — even after a long term in a prison — is a worse one. There should be and (for the most part are) strong restrictions upon the rights of the government to kill its own citizens but it can be “the lesser of 2 evils” at times.

Calling death penalty proponents “fools and cowards, sadists and the insane” is ignoring legitimate differences of opinion and not likely to lead to productive discussions. There are times when supporting the end of another life is the product of dispassionate rationality.


What do you mean “legitimate differences of opinion”? Of course. But what does that have to do with it? Sadists, fools, cowards and the insane have “legitimate differences of opinion” all the time.

And I’m absolutely serious when I make that charge. Our society is basically insane. The author Eckart Tolle explains this in further detail in his books. Read him and you may have a better understanding of what I”m talking about.


By the way,there is no such thing as “wasted compassion.” That’s like saying love is “wasted.” Neither is ever “wasted.” Get real, please.


In other words, you are saying if we can’t “cure” someone, then it is okay to kill him. I happen to disagree.

And besides, how can we expect to “cure” a murderer if we promote and perpetuate a culture and a legal system that kills people unnecessarily and for reasons of vengeance and/or saving a a few cents per person? Get real, please.


Ontheotherhand is devaluing life. He is an example of the coarsening of our society, where people kill others for expediency and so-called “dispassionate rationality” which is little more than empty nonsense words used to self-justify the unnecessary slaughter.


If I was as convinced as you are that there are no innocents on death row, I would agree. I am not so I disagree — and I am not happy about paying more to keep them there than to put them in prison for life without parole. I also am inclined to think that few if any people who commit first degree murder would be deterred by the death penalty. (If I were inclined to be a murderer, the death penalty would not deter me because I personally consider life in prison a worse fate than death.) Show me some verifiable evidence of a substantial deterrent effect of a death penalty and I will reconsider. Until then, I will regard your lighthouse analogy as “not equivalent” because ship captains are generally much more rational than your average killer.


I do not like abortion, nor do I like the death penalty. That said, I do think the punishment should fit the crime, and a simple “Life without Parole” does not seem “detailed” enough. How about life at hard labor in some hellhole (like Detroit) or something. That would be a deterrent and resolve the death penalty issue.

One either sanctifies life and all creation, or one does not. Some on the right are pro-life, but support a death penalty… how? Many on the left want to abolish the death penalty, but have no problem killing a fetus. “It’s a woman’s right to choose!” (unless that woman is under 8 months old, apparently).


It’s never a good idea to allow a government to kill its own citizens.

People in the government will always have plenty of “good” and convincing reasons for wanting to kill people. Nearly every murderer does. Why make it easy to carry out the deed? Fear that some “lifer” will escape and kill you? Or are you concerned that the number of government sanctioned killings will escalate, perhaps extend from our borders.

Which is more likely?

If there ever was a “slippery slope”….


It’s quite ironic that most of the teabaggers and others on the far right are intensely critical of the government’s involvement in our lives, claiming the government is often incompetent and mismanaged, and its power and influence on our daily lives should be curtailed.

EXCEPT when it comes to the death penalty, because apparently dealing out the ultimate penalty and irreversibly taking someone’s life is the one thing that they think the government can be trusted to do flawlessly and perfectly every time…

Does that make sense to anyone?

Ted Slanders


Lest we forget, the teabaggers and far right want less intrusion within our lives, but at the same time, these old men want to be uterus monitors as well so they can tell women what they can or can’t do with THEIR bodies.

Barring the fact that GOP Sen. Mourdock tells us that it’s God’s will that a woman is raped and she is not to have an abortion in this case. Oh, I forgot, a member of the SCIENCE COMMITTEE, *cough*, Republican Todd Akin, says that woman have the ability to shut down the sperm when raped so that they don’t get pregnant!

Yep, this is the type of government that we’ve missed since the 1950’s. Thank one of the God’s that it may return on November 6th. NOT!


Ted, While I am in substantial disagreement with one of their basic assumptions, I can certainly understand the reasoning of those who oppose abortion. IF one is convinced that human life begins at conception, abortion should logically be considered murder. The fact that the fetus is within a woman’s body would be, at most, a mitigating circumstance. A woman should not have the right to terminate another human’s life for her convenience.

Where the logic fails is in the assumption that a fetus is fully human — and entitled to full human rights — from conception. The process of becoming human is a gradual one. Just laws require that their be a clear definition of when the fetus is human. But reality doesn’t make that clear definition possible.

Perhaps if people weren’t so militantly wedded to their beliefs, a reasonable compromise could be made by declaring that is a fetus is entitled to full human rights when it reaches a certain stage. (A certain level of detectable brain activity would be one option and could occur around the 6th month of pregnancy.) Alas, I doubt that kind of consensus will occur in the foreseeable future in this country.

Now, with all the emotion they can muster, both sides of this issue are going to attack me. (I guess I won’t be a candidate for public office any time soon.)

Ted Slanders


Regarding abortion and when life begins within the bible, it begins at birth, period! It is said with specificity that when a baby draws its first breath, this is when life begins. The bible defines life as “breath” in several significant passages, including the Adam and Eve narrative of creation in the book of Genesis 2:7.

When Yahweh God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; then man became a living soul.” relates to when life begins. If any Christian disagrees with what this God stated in Genesis 2:7, then they have to enlighten us to where they get their authority to do so.

It’s really quite simple to understand, and the pseudo-christians that say that life begins at conception, go directly against the same God’s direct word that they allegedly worship.


Ted, publicly denigrating other people’s religious beliefs is never a good idea. It will do no one any good, whatsoever, and will likely do harm to our community. Each of the great religions offers a path to the same place.

If you are a Christian, be the best Christian you can be; if you are Muslim, be the best Muslim you can be; if you are Buddhist, be the best Buddhist you can be; if you are an atheist, be the best atheist you can be. But in no case is it advisable to publicly disrespect one of the great religions. It will do no good whatsoever, and will likely lead to increased animosity and disunity in our community, perhaps even lead to violence.

Ask yourself what GOOD are you doing by insulting so many people so frequently? Surely you can make better use of your time.

Ted Slanders


Shhhhh. You’ve been put to bed earlier in this thread. You have nothing else to say except to be a broken record spouting the same rhetoric over and over again.

You are an assumed Christian, but when questions were posed to you pertaining your belief, you failed to address them. That, on you part, IS NOT BEING A GOOD CHRISTIAN! What do you think God is thinking as He is watching you run from addressing the questions of Christianity that I offered up to you? In fact, I had to answer for you below!!!

I would suggest that the next time you try to engage Brother Ted Slanders in ANY religious discussion, at least have a modicum of knowledge, logic and reason as a foundation for your perceived thoughts. It’s not becoming for you to run from my religious posts as fast as Ted Kennedy did from the Chappaquiddick Bridge!

You’re done, finis’, kaput, you have absolutely nothing else to say, the end.


Ted, you continue setting the foundation for increased animosity and violence in our community. Your mean-spirited, obsession truly has people worried for you, your loved ones and our community in general.

The very fact you seem obsessed about trying to get the last word and prove to your ego that you are somehow more “right” than me is very indicative of the problem.

I have compassion for you and offer you my sympathy for whatever it was that scarred you in your past and inspired you to pursue this negative path that will only lead you, and perhaps others, to increased sorrow and discontent.

If I thought you were sincere in the least, I would be glad to communicate with you further and help dispel the over-riding and burdensome compulsion you have to want to bolster your ego in lieu of a sustaining, nurturing faith.

If I thought there was ANY good you were doing for yourself or others with your wild-eyed, compulsive and obsessive belittling of others, then I would say, fine, speak your truth. But it seems clear by now that you are possessed by something that has aimed you on a deadend path for which you will one day regret and see the wisdom and compassion that is being offered to you. May God give you the grace to recognize the power of you ego and how it is distracting you for a path more likely to nurture your soul in ways that will give you the peace that will carry you through to your death.

One day you may choose to get serious. Until then, we will observe you and hope that you wake up from your deadend dream.


Those on death row murdered at least 1,279 people, including 230 children & 43 police officers. 211 were raped, 319 robbed, 66 killed by execution, & 47 tortured. 11 murdered other inmates.

A jury of 12 people and a judge confirmed for each of these inmates that their crimes were so atrocious and they were so dangerous that they not only did not deserve to live, but they were so dangerous that the only safe recourse was the death penalty. Recognizing how dangerous these killers are, the prison houses them one person to a cell and does not provide them with work, leaving them locked in their cells most of the day.

Prop. 34 wants to ignore all of this and save money by placing these killers in less-restrictive prisons where they share cells with other inmates. They also want to provide them opportunities for work, where they have more freedom, access to other inmates and guards, and more chances to manufacture weapons.

Prop. 34 will also destroy any incentive for the 34,000 inmates already serving life without parole to kill again. There would be no death penalty under Prop. 34 and they are already serving a life sentence, so why not get a name for yourself killing another inmate or a guard?

And they refer to Prop. 34 as the SAFE Act!


Since you love statistics, here are some more for you.

141 people sentenced to death that were later found to be completely innocent of all charges.

9.8 years on average between being sentenced to death and being exonerated (so speeding up the process, as pro-death penalty people suggest, would lead to more innocent people dying)

8 people executed and later found to be innocent

39 people executed when there was serious doubts about their guilt.

Also, it is false to say that all 12 people on the jury and the judge thought the defendant should die – that is not what they decide. They are just deciding if the crime meets the legal standard defined by LAW for capital punishment – it does not weigh their opinion if that punishment is what they feel is just or correct – juries cannot and should not allow their personal opinions to get in the way of deciding if crimes meet a particular standard.


Not one of the alleged 141 people were from California. Prop. 34 proponents continue to refer to out-of-state cases and cases where the person was NOT sentenced to death. (Most of these had their case overturned on technicalities, but were NOT proved to be innocent. Big difference.) Arguments of innocence bogus. Can’t identify one innocent person executed in CA. Can’t identify one person on CA’s death row who has exhausted his appeals and has a plausible claim of innocence. See [By the way, where do you get your facts? Have you verified any of them? I don’t believe any of them.)

You are in error regarding sentence. The jurors specifically decide on life or death based upon criteria. The criteria includes how bad the crimes were, how many violent crimes the person has committed in the past, and if the jurors fear he is too dangerous to live. The judge reviews and decides whether to approve their decision.

Prop. 34 will take away all of the funding so that if someone is innocent, they will rot in jail unless they can beg an attorney to work for free.

You really need to do some research, not regurgitate what you’ve heard from others.


So, basically you are saying you don’t expect the government to make mistakes AND you want to continue authorizing the government to kill its own citizens. And where, exactly, will that lead us? Less killing? I don’t think so.

Ted Slanders



Anti death penalty supporters are not Christians and are candy @sses!

It is unchristian to support the anti-death penalty Proposition 34, so saith the Hebrew-Christian God.

Our God wants His creation to put these convicted muderers on a fast track to hell. No death row, no ad infinitum appeals, and especially, no convicted murderer all of a sudden finding God subsequent to their conviction of the death penalty. Our God wants it over with NOW!

“Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.” ( Exodus 21:12 )

“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 24:17)

“Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death.” ( Numbers 35:31)

“If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death.” ( Numbers 35:30-31)

When are these milquetoast pseudo-christians going to actually act like Christians and follow the doctrine that the Hebrew-Christians God has set forth?! Remember, any Christian DOES NOT know more than the God that they worship, therefore, the passages of His “inspired word” shown above are to be followed without question, period!

“Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,” (1 John 2:4)



Ted, you truly don’t understand the teachings of Jesus Christ. You are truly mixed up and your continual ranting on the matter only degrades yourself and our community. You can mock and insult all you want, but you do no one any good with it. Really. Think about it. Think that when you are on your deathbed and you ponder your brief moments on Earth, you are going to likely regret every moment you wasted in your efforts to mock and insult, with such little understanding. You are following a dead end path. You, it seems, are the hypocrite that you rail against.

Think of what you might accomplish that is worthwhile if you stopped wasting so much time and effort with your fruitless word games.

Ted Slanders


I ask you one simple question. Where do YOU get the authority to usurp the direct literal passages in question that I’ve shown relating to one being put to death, and where the bible obviously supports the death penalty? Are you stating that you know more than the “inspired word” of God that I’ve explicitly shown with chapter and verse???! Blaspheme!

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” ( Proverbs 30:5-6 ) Kew word; “EVERY” word of God. Therefore, the passages that seem to give you a weak stomach, are pure in the eys of the Hebrew-Christian God. The death penalty stands.

I am sorry, but you and many others within this forum are guilty of the following godly passage; “For the time will come when men will not put up with SOUND DOCTRINE. Instead to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (2 Timothy 4:3) Get it?

Save your platitudes and very weak refutations for your like-minded cohorts.They do not hold water to actual biblical and godly references.

Ted Slanders


^^^^ You follow up with your postings to me in other areas of this thread, but your silence remains deafening to my post to you above! Is there a reason for this oversight on your part?


Yes, because your words are insincere and its hard to know what part of your krap you take seriously, or is worth taking seriously by anyone. But there is a certain obsessive and compulsive mean-spirited stench in your rantings to signal that what you are doing serves nobody any good, especially yourself.

Your obsessive use of childish insults and silly word games and inability to laugh at yourself are only some of the clues that tell us that there is an element of self-delusion in your obsession.

Let ME ask YOU this: What are you trying to accomplish with your wild-eyed, cut and past ranting and raving that you continually stink up this site with?

Ted Slanders


Let’s make this very simple for you, okay? Once again, address the biblical propositions that I gave to you in the post in question that easily refute your positions, and that you’ve failed to answer.

There is no need for you to run and hide, or for you to come up with any further lame excuses like you’ve done to not address them. Keep your red herring responses for your like minded friends, okay?

We’re awaiting an actual response from you to the post in question, instead of you continually running from biblical facts.

I have been given this following passage when confronting pseudo-christians like yourself, to wit: “When arguing with fools, be sure to answer their foolish arguments, or they will become wise in their own estimation” (Proverbs 26:5)


Thank you for addressing me correctly this time. Would thou be perhaps influenced by the Golden Rule?

Your inability to grasp my point is not my problem. May God grant you the grade to see the wisdom of my words that I gift you with. Take seriously my words for they are not idle chatter, but inspired by love for humankind.

Ted Slanders


Since you’re unable to address the post and passages in question, I need to do it for you. You’re welcome.

TED SLANDERS: “I ask you one simple question. Where do YOU get the authority to usurp the direct literal passages in question that I’ve shown relating to one being put to death, and where the bible obviously supports the death penalty?”

WISEGUY: I don’t know, Ted. I wasn’t taught this part where I have to actually try and defend biblical contradictions that I stepped in. Sorry.

TED SLANDERS: “Are you stating that you know more than the “inspired word” of God that I’ve explicitly shown with chapter and verse???!

WISEGUY: No, because no one knows more than my Hebrew-Christian God. I am just a mere mortal man, and have to accept what my God has specifically stated within scripture. I have no reasonable answer other than to hermeneutics to spin it, sorry.

TED SLANDERS: “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” ( Proverbs 30:5-6 ) Kew word; “EVERY” word of God.

WISEGUY: Ted, this is a tough one once again, because I wasn’t taught how to defend against this passage when it relates to the verses that you showed where one is to be put to death as stated with no ‘ifs ands or buts’. Sorry. Can I buy a vowel?”

TED SLANDERS: “For the time will come when men will not put up with SOUND DOCTRINE. Instead to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (2 Timothy 4:3) Get it?

WISEGUY: Yeah, I get it. I am trying to Satanically spin doctor and erroneously use the old apologetic ruse to get out of this situation. I can’t do it and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath. I am not use to this logic and reason thingy with my religiouis studies, so just leave me alone, okay? I am comfortable in living in my own “interpretation” of the bible, and not what God portends as fact, okay?

TED SLANDERS; “Save your platitudes and very weak refutations for your like-minded cohorts. They do not hold water to actual biblical and godly references.”

WISEGUY: “Huh? I know you are, but what am I?”


Ted, I can see where you are going with this and I am going to throw some extra fuel on the fire.

Some Christians believe that the Bible may not be entirely the LITERAL word of God but the interpretation of that word by the prophets, scribes and disciples that passed it along. (Who knows what the early authorities of the Roman Catholic Church did to it via selective editing and interpretation?)

Many of these same Christians also believe that the messages of Jesus found in the New Testament supersede the contradictory messages in the Old Testament. (“Turn the other cheek”?) They are among those that think the general message is more important than the details and I have to concur that, if you put enough emphasis on the teachings of the Gospels, Christ could very well have advocated opposition to the death penalty.

Ted Slanders


OTOH QUOTE: “Some Christians believe that the Bible may not be entirely the LITERAL word of God”

TED’S GODLY RESPONSE: Look up the term “slippery slope” and then get back to me, okay?

OTOH QUOTE: “Many of these same Christians also believe that the messages of Jesus found in the New Testament supersede the contradictory messages in the Old Testament.”

TED’S GODLY RESPONSE: Barring the fact of your factual statement that the bible contradicts itself, and to the point, Jesus NEVER revoked the Old Testament laws, which are the most important entities listed, as He orders His followers to abide by all of the OT prophets.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20)

Relative to Jesus’ words above, has heaven and earth disappeared yet? No, they have not. Therefore, clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence. None other then Jesus said so! Get it?

When you leave the literal method of reading Scripture, as historically intended, and without any decoder rings necessary when “interpreting” said scripture, you have no means to determine what the passage really says. It is left up to each person to determine for himself what it means without any standard or system of rules to follow.

Clearly, this leads to great confusion and makes it impossible to know what this God concept really intended to tell you!

There’re over 40,000 divisions of Christianity worldwide! But, what this God said once, He did NOT mean for His creation to “interpret” it in many different and contradicting ways! Logically, there should only be ONE sect of Christianity! 2+2=4. Therefore, to get closest to the true word of this God, the literal word has to prevail, as it did in times past.

OTOH QUOTE: “if you put enough emphasis on the teachings of the Gospels, Christ could very well have advocated opposition to the death penalty.”

TED’S GODLY RESPONSE: Once again, see Matthew 5:17-20 to directly refute this ungodly notion.

JESUS QUOTE: “They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.” (Matthew 15:9)


Ted, I see you are indeed a true Christian. Not even the most adept Christian scholar can form a consistent system of beliefs without either ignoring or “interpreting” conflicting passages in the Bible. You have chosen to go the former route.

I could quote passages to counter yours but I am too lazy to go to the trouble to look them up and it has been too long since I have read them to remember exactly where they occurred or the precise wording so I bid you adieu on this subject.


Allowing the government to kill its own citizens is never a good idea.

The death penalty cheapens life and tells everyone that it is okay to kill another human if you feel they did something wrong and need to be punished for it.

Two things we know: The death penalty in the U.S. is expensive and routinely leads to the killing of innocent people (oops!).

“Streamlining” the process will only lead to more innocent victims killed by our government.

The death penalty coarsens our society and perpetuates a culture of violence and vengeance.

Ted Slanders


Oh booo-hooo! Put your crying towel away for Christ’s sake. Our government was allowed to kill many of our arned forces in the two fraudulent wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. Where were you then?

The death penalty cheapens life? Huh? The death penalty coarsens our society and perpetuates a culture of violence and vengeance? What planet do you think you’re living on at this time? How does one even address such bewildering thinking?


To answer your question: I was in the same place then as I am now. What’s your point?

Also, I think you were “bewildered” long before I made my posting. You are having a hard time trying to “address” my comments because you’ve got NOTHING worthwhile. You have insults, sure. Condescension, absolutely. But it still adds up to NOTHING worthwhile. YOU coarsen our community. Sad, but true.

Ted Slanders


With your latest sophomoric stance and the lack of understanding a very simple question posed to you, I have no further questions, therefore, saving you further embarrasment.

What I don’t consider worthwhile in your case, is flogging a dead horse with no foreseeable cogent outcome.


The fact that you have to resort to altering my name in an attempt to insult me, suggests you are desperate and have no cogent response to my legitimate, thoughtful points. That you make the absurd claim that I am suffering from “embarrassment” is further evidence of your desperation and lack of cogent arguments. You are nothing more than an obsessive, compulsive game-player who gets a kick out of insulting people.

My views on the death penalty have been consistent, as have my viewpoints on our nation’s recent wars.

What do you think you have ever accomplished with your wild, insulting, compulsive drive to degrade people and their beliefs? What have you accomplished of lasting value? I’m sure your ego is gratified, but that will only be temporary.

By the way, contrary to your insinuations, I have NOT been crying. Not even close. Get real, please!

Ted Slanders


Barring the fact that you don’t realize that you’re done, and a fork was stuck into a while back, Jesus has given me this apropos passage to combat minions of Satan like you!

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5:11-12)


I stand by everything I’ve written on this thread. Ted is insincere and obsessed with wanting to denigrate people throughout the world. Everyone of his posts takes a condescending, destructive attitude of no value.

Ted is at the mercy of an out-of-control ego that would rather have his body shrivel and his soul be deadened before relinquishing its grip on his mind. No good will come of this. Never has, never will. Don’t end up like Ted.


This is a good idea and should be voted in. Aside from the estimated cost savings of 130 million dollars per year there is another strong case for ending the death penalty. There have been many convictions that have been overturned in recent years through the use of DNA testing of evidence from the crime scene. Other cases have relied on eyewitness testimony that has proven unreliable or has been retracted by the witness years later. Finally, there has been cases where police officers have lied to protect themselves from dismissal or criminal charges because they were involved in wrongdoing during some stage of the arrest, trial, etc. As a society how can we justify the execution of an innocent person? Life in prison protects the public and allows for the chance to rectify a mistake of a wrongful conviction .


The cost savings figuire doesn’t include the cost of the additional victims of crimes, for me a cost I don’t want to see. The cost savings figure is also based on the current cost for a death row inmate, which is a broken system. So fix that part and there would be no cost savings to passing Prop 34.


I completely agree with you. It should not cost as much as it does to put someone to death. We absolutely need to fix the problem… maybe the death penalty should be used when DNA links the criminal to the crime?

If the death penalty is awarded after a guilty verdict, and later determined not be be so, that is a problem with the process of our judicial system, not a reflection of the severity of the punishment. In fact, the lack of severity may be a reason for our high re-offend rate.

There are problems to be fixed, so let’s find some real solutions!


I totally agree. With the technology of DNA today, there should be reason to hold up the process except for policial or financial reasons. Lawyers make millions from these appeals. Establish a process after a conviction (Example: 3 appeals, within 5 years, then resolve the issue – be done). I would be more bat to vote for life IF LIFE MEANT LIFE or they served their own sentence. But, when someone like a Gov Can commute a sentence for a friend, that is just wrong.