Posts Tagged ‘death penalty’

Why Liberals Are Quintessential Hypocrites As Illustrated In Three Recent Stories

August 25, 2014

Okay.  You’d probably better sit down for this because I’ve got a newsflash: liberals are suing to get their way [GASP]:

Federal judge rules California death penalty is unconstitutional
By Maura Dolan
A federal judge has ruled California’s death penalty unconstitutional
Long delays in California executions violate Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, judge rules
July 16, 2014

A federal judge in Orange County ruled Wednesday that California’s death penalty violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney, ruled on a petition by death row inmate Ernest Dewayne Jones, who was sentenced to die nearly two decades ago.

————

FOR THE RECORD

July 16, 1:16 p.m.: An earlier version of this post said U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney was a federal judge in Los Angeles. He is a federal judge in Orange County.

————

Carney said the state’s death penalty has created long delays and uncertainty for inmates, most of whom will never be executed.

He noted that more than 900 people have been sentenced to death in California since 1978 but only 13 have been executed.

“For the rest, the dysfunctional administration of California’s death penalty system has resulted, and will continue to result, in an inordinate and unpredictable period of delay preceding their actual execution,” Carney wrote.

Carney’s ruling can be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of  Appeals.

Carney, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said the delays have created a “system in which arbitrary factors, rather than legitimate ones like the nature of the crime or the date of the death sentence, determine whether an individual will actually be executed,” Carney said.

In overturning Jones’ death sentence,  Carney noted that the inmate faced “complete uncertainty as to when, or even whether” he will be executed.

The “random few” who will be executed  “will have languished for so long on Death Row that their execution will serve no retributive or deterrent purpose and will be arbitrary,”  Carney said.

“No rational person,” Carney wrote, “can question that the execution of an individual carries with it the solemn obligation of the government to ensure that the punishment is not arbitrarily imposed and that it furthers the interests of society.”

Natasha Minsker, a director of the ACLU of Northern California, said Wednesday’s ruling marked the first time that a federal judge had found  the state’s current system unconstitutional. She said it was also “the first time any judge has ruled systemic delay creates an arbitrary system that serves no legitimate purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.”

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge in 1995 sentenced Jones to death for the 1992 rape and killing of Julia Miller, his girlfriend’s mother. Jones killed Miller 10 months after being paroled for a previous rape.

A spokesman for Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris said only that her office was reviewing the decision.

Okay, so let’s understand what the liberal judge said to this point: the death penalty is “unconstitutional.”  Why?  Because the delays in jumping through all the “due process” hoops took so long that it amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Okay, so – shocker alert here – liberals don’t like the death penalty so they love to rule that it is “unconstitutional.”  It doesn’t matter that the damn death penalty was being implemented before, during and after the Constitution was written.  It boils down to this: if liberals don’t like something, that thing is “unconstitutional,” because the “Constitution” is a “living, breathing document” that only means whatever the hell a liberal wants it to mean at any given moment.  So the death penalty is “unconstitutional” for the same reason that being opposed to the MURDER of more than fifty-six million innocent babies is “unconstitutional” or being for marriage as it has been defined for all of human history up to now is “unconstitutional.”

But keep in mind that at the center of the liberal judges reasoning is that the lengthy delays in jumping through all the due process hurdles creates “cruel and unusual punishing.”  I mean, like if you could just snuff out these rabid dogs faster, it would be okay.

Okay, this will stun the hell out of you: liberals are suing on a different matter to get their way at the same moment they’re suing here.  Consider their reasoning for this lawsuit:

US sued by immigrant rights groups over expedited deportation process
Coalition says Obama administration policies to deal with influx at border is unfair to women and children who flee to safety
theguardian.com, Friday 22 August 2014 16.48 EDT

A coalition of immigrant rights groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s expedited deportation process, claiming that it is unfair to women and children who flee Central America to seek safety in the US.

The groups claim the Obama administration’s new policies have created a “deportation mill” at a new government family detention center in Artesia, New Mexico.

“As the attorneys on the ground in Artesia have told us, the government is implementing a new expedited removal system which presents procedural obstacles that make it incredibly difficult for these women to even articulate their claim,” said Trina Realmuto, staff attorney at the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.

The National Immigration Project, American Immigration Council, ACLU and National Immigration Law Center filed the suit, MSPC v Johnson, in the US district court for the District of Columbia on Friday. They claim the Obama administration’s policies are unfair and violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and US constitution.

Advocates say women in these facilities do not receive proper counsel or time to file asylum claims, which are known for taking time to process.

[…]

Okay, so liberals – who rabidly hate the death penalty because deep down they KNOW that they frankly deserve it so damn much themselves – claim that it’s “unconstitutional” because of the lengthy time to pursue all the due process hurdles.  I mean, it’s “cruel and unusual” to make somebody go through that many appeals (that liberals themselves turned into a farce that drags on for years and years).  But at the same time, since they are open-borders loons who want to overwhelm and “fundamentally transform” the United States of America using the votes of illegal immigrants to do it, they claim the very opposite thing with immigration.  “It’s taking too long to execute criminals so the death penalty is bad” becomes “it’s not taking long enough to process tens – soon to be hundreds – of thousands of illegal immigrants.

In other words, liberals will literally sue you for zigging and they’ll sue you for sagging.  You can’t win with these hypocrite demoniacs.

Liberalism is circular reasoning that begins with, “I want x” or “I don’t want y” and then plays whatever rhetorical games are needed with the law to get what it wants.

They are not decent people who are driven by any code of ethics.  The ends justify the means for them every bit as much as it did for the Nazis or for the Stalinists.  And they will twist and pervert the system any way that is needed to force it to give them what they want.  Or else they’ll violently riot.  Because in their hearts they are FASCISTS.

We’re seeing it play out in Ferguson, Missouri as we speak: liberals aren’t interested in “justice” or “fairness.”  They want what they want and damn whatever laws or regulations or Constitution that gets in their wicked way.  So the Democrat governor calls for “aggressive prosecution” of a police officer even before a grand jury determines that there should even BE a prosecution:

Missouri governor way out of line
He has made a powder keg situation worse
Posted: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:00 pm

The governor of Missouri has become a textbook example of what a politician should not do or say during a crisis that is a racially-explosive powder keg just waiting for the fuse to be lit.

And really that’s being very kind to Jay Nixon. His words in an address on Tuesday night to Missouri residents — and therefore in this case the nation — were incredibly biased and spoken with an almighty know-it-all tone. Those words were outrageous.

Ferguson, Mo., is that powder keg because of the shooting of a young black man by a six-year veteran police officer on Aug. 9.

No one — absolutely no one — at this point can definitively say what happened leading up to the confrontation between 18-year-old Michael Brown, who is black, and officer Darren Wilson, who is white, nor can anyone relate accurately what transpired in the tragic couple minutes of the incident that claimed Brown’s life.

That’s the job of those investigating the situation, including a grand jury that convened on Wednesday.

Nixon on Tuesday night said “a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued” in the case.

That’s not even subtle. He clearly said that there needs to be an aggressive prosecution of Wilson.

Only problem right now, governor, he hasn’t been charged with anything in the case and his side of the story hasn’t even been officially heard yet.

However, the governor of Missouri has charged the police officer with his words and given marching orders to prosecutors to go after him in court with every legal weapon in their arsenal.

The loss of Brown’s life in Ferguson is simply sad and dreadful. But in the name of justice let the process run its course to a conclusion wherever it goes.

As for the governor — what an horrendous abuse of his power

Democrats are people who side with vicious thugs who grab and intimidate business owners and commit strong arm robbery before striding down the middle of the street and punching cops in the face who get in their damn way.

And to quote Eric Holders Department of Injustice, “Never bring a lawsuit against a black.”  It doesn’t matter what “justice” is.  Justice is a totalitarian witch who is only “blind” because rabid hatred and contempt for everything that stands in the way of dictatorial liberalism MAKES her blind.  And bitter and wanting to burn and loot as well.  But don’t you EVER bring a lawsuit against a black in Eric Holder’s Department of Injustice.

The left wants the prosecutor in the Ferguson, Missouri case – whose been in office for 20 years and who was just re-elected only DAYS before the shooting – thrown off the case.  Because they want to jury-rig the outcome and get what they want.  THAT’S “justice” to the left: we get what we want and we destroy all obstacles in the way of getting what we want.  Or else we riot.

They’re claiming that since St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch’s father was gunned down by a black man that he’s biased.

Well, I’ll agree that if the prosecutor had said stuff like, “This is personal to me,” or else if he’d said “I’m here for the police,” or if he’d vowed to protect white people, etc., etc., he should be tossed.

But do you know who DID say crap like that coming from the opposite direction?  Obama’s lawthug Eric Holder.

Oh, yes, this matter is “deeply personal” to Eric Holder.  So let’s throw objectivity out the door and let our biases soar:

[…]

Of Holder’s arrival, USA Today writer Kevin Johnson observes that for the AG the situation in Ferguson is “deeply personal.” Johnson quotes as having told Ferguson residents at a community meeting yesterday:

I am the Attorney General of the United States, but I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over. … ‘Let me search your car’ … Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff. I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me.

This of course is nothing new for Holder, who has made race an issue throughout his tenure as the nation’s top cop. As Jeff Dunetz reminds us, Holder has allowed his own skin color to interfere with his judgment as head of the Department of Justice, so why should his handling of the Freguson investigation proceed any differently?

Johnson has another quote by Holder, made to a group of community leaders assembled at a local community college. (As an aside, the AG certainly did a lot of speechifying on his first day in town). He said:

The eyes of the nation and the world are watching Ferguson right now. The world is watching because the issues raised by the shooting of Michael Brown predate this incident. This is something that has a history to it, and the history simmers beneath the surface in more communities than just Ferguson.

Holder is assuming, like the mobs pillaging the town nightly, that racism is involved here. That is not just premature and reckless. It is blatantly outside the scope of the law. It is reminiscent of the very revealing comment about “empathy” made in 2007 by candidate Barack Obama, who said

We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges. [Emphasis added]

Empathy and compassion are positive traits. But they have no business in a court of law. Judges are supposed to be interpreters of the law and are sworn to render verdicts dispassionately, based on evidence and testimony. That is why justice as wearing a blindfold.
Read more at http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/08/21/holder-personal-thats-problem/#hHJ1v68WGF2fbIQw.99

Imagine the hellstorm had Bob McColloch said the racial equivalent: “I am the Prosecutor of St. Louis County, but I am also a white man.  I can remember when my daddy was murdered by a black thug…”

The NAACP is in this racial stew up to its neck.  Just imagine if “NAACP” stood for “National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People.”

Just imagine if our society were actually FAIR and blacks got back the racial bullcrap they’ve been pissing at the rest of America for a change.

I can’t say for sure, but I’ve got a feeling that the black community would very quickly be willing to return to Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” vision.  You know, the one where we’re all equal and nobody gets to be treated any different than anybody else rather than the one we’ve got where blacks get to be as racist as hell is hot while denying they’re capable of racism because they’ve got the most arbitrary and self-serving definition of “racism” in the entire space-time universe.

Eric Holder says he is “here for the community.”  By which he really means the vicious mob that’s been rioting and looting and burning.  He spent HOURS with the Brown family and with the same community rabble-rousers that his boss Obama came from.  But not one nanosecond with the cop who was viciously punched in the face before he was forced to go through a life-or-death struggle for his service weapon while he laid on his back in his own squad car with a giant thug on top of him.

Just imagine how you would feel if you were in a courtroom literally fighting for your life and the judge walked over and hugged your opponent just before taking the bench and calling the court to order.  That’s what’s going on here.

So the same left that demands McCulloch resign, recuse himself, be dismissed, whatever because of the threat of bias LOVES bias.  As long as that rabid bias is distorting legal reality to suit their race agenda.

So if the left can’t get McCulloch forced out, what’s their next move?  Delegitimize the grand jury in advance and threaten to riot if they don’t get their way.

A Democrat State Senator put her call for a race riot in the form of a “prediction”:

“If you should decide not to indict this police officer, the rioting witnessed this past week will seem like a picnic compared to the havoc that will likely occur.”

Well, I mean, yeah, given the fact that you and your race-baiting pal Al Sharpton are going to go out and foment racial violence the way you do whenever you don’t get your way.

I want you to understand what’s going on here: one side – the conservatives – want a government that will basically leave them the hell alone.  They want a LIMITED federal government.  They want a federal government bound by the separation of powers.  They want laissez-faire free market capitalism, rather than liberal crony capitalist regulations that benefit one politically-chosen side and punish the other.  They want individual liberty and individual personal responsibility.  The other side wants more and more and more government.  They want a president who is “sort of God” who will run roughshod over the Constitution to impose his way by raw force.

One side wants life; the other side wants more abortion-murders than were killed on all sides, civilian and military, in the bloodiest war in all of human history combined.  One side wants marriage as all of human history has defined it; the other side wants the perversion of homosexual sodomy.  One side wants individual liberty and individual personal responsibility; the other side wants a totalitarian nanny-state that will redistribute the wealth the way they want to reward their friends and punish their enemies.  One side wants freedom according to the spirit that our founding fathers created America to be; the other side wants totalitarian government slavery in the mode of European socialist leaders like Hitler and Stalin.  And that side that wants all these evil things will break any law, violate any regulation, interfere with justice in any way, to GET their way.

The only way to have a fair fight here is if BOTH sides were out to use the raw power of government and the courts to get their way to crush and to rule over the other.  But only the rabid left is doing that.

Which is why America is doomed and which is why the Antichrist is coming just as the Bible told us the ultimate big-government totalitarian dictator would come.

Just realize that we are dealing with an ideology in the left that defines “justice” as “we get our way no matter what” and “injustice” as if we don’t get our way we’re going to start rioting.”

 

Advertisements

The ‘Botched’ Oklahoma Execution Of Clayton Lockett And The (Un)Principled Liberal Objections To The Death Penalty

May 7, 2014

Clayton Lockett is a perfect victim for liberals.  After all, he was a black man put to death in a conservative state by a white Republican governor.

The fact that he is a vile cockroach who is getting his chance to burn in hell now after having brutally raped a woman, shot her in the head with a shotgun and then had her buried alive truly doesn’t mean one damn thing to liberals.

You read the outraged liberal accounts of the “botched” execution (from what I hear, the state was actually quite successful in accomplishing the murderer’s death) and again and again you see all the outrage directed at the manner the murderer died and nothing about the demonic horror that the murderer imposed on his victim.

A man who inflicted a horrifying death on his victim died having suffered slightly more pain than the painless death that liberals demand.  That’s what happened in Oklahoma.  And you’d think the Republican governor had personally put a poor, innocent man on a rack and flayed him alive herself.

And, of course, he same liberals who erupt in horror that anyone would so much as suggest that Obama’s use of the IRS to persecute his political opponents or his cover-up of the cover-up in Benghazi where he falsely claimed a Youtube video (rather than “a broader failure in policy”) was to blame, are essentially demanding that the Oklahoma governor resign in shame over this execution.

It’s amazing: investigations are fascist when they are directed at a liberal and heroic when they are directed against an opponent of liberalism 100% of the time.  And it doesn’t seem how blatantly evil liberals have to be to maintain their “victim.”  Even going to making a “victim” out of Clayton Lockett.

I like the way Goldberg responds:

“As for Lockett, he was entitled to a relatively painless and humane execution under the law. As for what he deserved in the cosmic sense, I suspect he got off easy.”

You’re damn right he got off easy.  It would have been a nice object lesson had 19-year-old victim Stephanie Nieman’s family members been able to administer Lockett’s execution.  I suspect it would have taken a lot longer and been an awful lot more painful.  And he STILL would have got off easy were it not for the fact that there is a fiery and eternal hell of torment awaiting Lockett and those like him as they leave this world.

Jonah Goldberg did a brilliant job dismantling several of the key arguments of the left regarding the death penalty.  I shall give a brief summary and post his article below.

The first objective liberals love to use is that the death penalty doesn’t deter crime.  They can claim that because, when it takes DECADES and a dozen lengthy court dramas to finally execute somebody, there are so many years between the act and the punishment of the act that it very likely doesn’t have much of a deterrence effect.  I know that if a powerful man walked into a bar and beat the biggest guy in there to a pulp and then asked, “Does anybody else want to be next?” the bloody unconscious body of the broken man on the floor would very much have a giant deterrence effect to the man who would want some of what that guy just got.  Nobody would want any of what that guy just got.

Contrast that with the following scenario: somebody gets to get up and punch the powerful man repeatedly in the face and the powerful man can’t do anything about it for, oh, say 25 years or so.  And then maybe, MAYBE, he will be allowed to give the guy who hit him the beat-down he deserved DECADES ago.  Does that sound like it’s going to deter anybody?  Because that’s the way liberals have “fundamentally transformed” our capital punishment system.  Only to claim it “doesn’t deter.”

That’s simply the way that human psychology works.  And unless you aren’t human, it works that way for you, too.  Deterrence is real, baby.  But only when criminals actually pay the price for their crimes.

Liberals have made it impossible for the wheels of justice to provide such genuine deterrence.

Goldberg deals with this “deterrence” objection masterfully, pointing out that it would literally be wrong to kill somebody just to provide an object lesson for other people.  As Goldberg puts it, “It is wrong to kill a man just to send a message to others.”  And when you stop and think about it, that’s entirely true.  In other words, as he demonstrates, “deterrence” doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the rationale for the death penalty; it is nothing more than a red herring that the left keeps throwing up and the right too-frequently foolishly attempts to respond to.

If anyone takes a human life, that person’s life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image.”  That is JUSTICE.  If it deters as well, so much the better.

Then he moves on to another red herring: racial injustice over the statistical fact that black people are proportionately more likely to be executed than white people.  He says, “Likewise, Lockett, who was black, wasn’t less deserving of punishment simply because some white rapist and murderer didn’t get his just punishment.”

How is that not true?

If you in any way, shape or form agree with the statement that one ought to be sentenced and punished according to the crimes that one committed, rather than the statement that justice should have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual criminal but ought to somehow reflect the broader society, how is any argument that guilty black murderers shouldn’t be executed simply because somewhere a guilty white murderer wasn’t executed?  How does that not amount to children squabbling over one of the children getting more of whatever and therefore they should get more, too?

We shouldn’t allow childish arguments to interfere with JUSTICE.

If we need to do a better job to make justice blind to race, then let’s pursue that: but to say that we’re going to abandon JUSTICE because of some statistical shenanigans is outrageous.

That is also how Goldberg responds to the final charge: that innocent people may have been executed in the past and therefore could be in the present or future.  Goldberg’s point is brilliant:

Some believe the best argument against the death penalty is the fear that an innocent person might be executed. It’s hotly debated whether that has ever happened, but it’s clear that innocent people have been sent to death row. Even one such circumstance is outrageous and unacceptable.

But even that is not an argument against the death penalty per se. The FDA, police officers and other government entities, with less constitutional legitimacy than the death penalty (see the 5th and 14th amendments) have made errors that resulted in innocent deaths. That doesn’t render these entities and their functions illegitimate. It obligates government to do better.

Do you understand that, liberal?  Given that we have had NUMEROUS events in which the police have killed an innocent person, do you therefore want to abolish the police the way you demand we abolish the death penalty?  Or are you an inconsistent hypocrite instead?  (That’s rhetorical because the answer is obvious: rich liberals need armed people to protect them from poor liberals who would rob them and do worse if they could).  In the same way, it actually gets hard to name a branch of the federal government that hasn’t committed some gross injustice against an innocent victim: and yet the crickets chirp in lieu of liberals demanding that these federal monstrosities be abolished as a result.

In other words, abolishing the death penalty is refuted by the very same liberals who won’t abolish all the OTHER government systems that have been FREQUENTLY documented to have trampled the rights of the innocent.  We need to do a far better job of administering the death penalty, but if you’re going to abolish the death penalty, let’s abolish the federal government along with it if we’re going to be consistent rather than being liberal hypocrites.

Clayton Lockett: A just execution, regardless
By Jonah Goldberg

Last week the state of Oklahoma “botched” an execution..

Botched is the accepted term in the media coverage, despite the fact Clayton Lockett was executed. He just died badly, suffering for 43 minutes until he eventually had a heart attack.

Oklahoma’s governor has called for an investigation. President Obama asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. (who is seeking the death penalty in the Boston Marathon bombing case), to review the death penalty.

Obama’s position was a perfectly defensible straddle: “The individual … had committed heinous crimes, terrible crimes, and I’ve said in the past that there are certain circumstances where a crime is … so terrible that the application of the death penalty may be appropriate.”

On the other hand, Obama added: “I’ve also said that in the application of the death penalty … we have seen significant problems, racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty, situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to be innocent.

“We do have to, as a society, ask ourselves some difficult and profound questions.”

As a death penalty supporter, I agree. Although, I’m not sure we’d agree on what those questions — and answers — should be.

As for Lockett, he was entitled to a relatively painless and humane execution under the law. As for what he deserved in the cosmic sense, I suspect he got off easy.

He and his accomplices abducted two teenage girls (as well as a man and his baby). One of them, Stephanie Neiman, refused to say she wouldn’t tell the police, so Lockett shot her with a shotgun. But she didn’t die. He ordered his accomplices to bury her alive. Here’s an AP summary of his crimes, in addition to first-degree murder: “conspiracy, first-degree burglary, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, three counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of first-degree rape, four counts of kidnapping and two counts of robbery by force and fear.” Maybe you can weep for the man. I can’t.

Let’s get back to those difficult and profound questions. Capital punishment opponents offer many arguments why people like Lockett shouldn’t be executed. They point out that there are racial disparities in how the death penalty is administered, for example. This strikes me as an insufficient argument, much like the deterrence argument from death penalty supporters. Deterrence may have some validity, but it alone cannot justify the death penalty. It is wrong to kill a man just to send a message to others.

Likewise, Lockett, who was black, wasn’t less deserving of punishment simply because some white rapist and murderer didn’t get his just punishment.

The most cynical argument against the death penalty is to point out how slow and expensive the process is. But it is slow and expensive, at least in part, because opponents have made it slow and expensive, so they can complain about how slow and expensive it is.

As for humaneness, Lockett’s execution was botched — “inhumane” — in part because Oklahoma had to use a new drug regimen because anti-death penalty advocates had successfully lobbied the maker of a component of an earlier formula to stop making that drug available for executions.

Some believe the best argument against the death penalty is the fear that an innocent person might be executed. It’s hotly debated whether that has ever happened, but it’s clear that innocent people have been sent to death row. Even one such circumstance is outrageous and unacceptable.

But even that is not an argument against the death penalty per se. The FDA, police officers and other government entities, with less constitutional legitimacy than the death penalty (see the 5th and 14th amendments) have made errors that resulted in innocent deaths. That doesn’t render these entities and their functions illegitimate. It obligates government to do better.

Radley Balko, a death penalty opponent, in a piece in the Washington Post, says that ultimately both sides of the death penalty debate have irreconcilable moral convictions. I think he’s right. As far as I’m concerned, Lockett deserved to die for what he did. Everything else amounts to changing the subject, and it won’t convince me otherwise.

Clayton Locket is screaming in hell right now and he’ll be viscerally screaming one hundred trillion millennia of years from now.  And thank God for that justice.

 

AP Gives Yet Another Lesson On How To Slant A Story

October 20, 2009

The mainstream media never ceases to be able to slant stories to confirm their liberal ideological biases.  Here’s yet another example:

Ending death penalty could save US millions: study

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Even when executions are not carried out, the death penalty costs US states hundreds of millions of dollars a year, depleting budgets in the midst of economic crisis, a study released Tuesday found.

“It is doubtful in today’s economic climate that any legislature would introduce the death penalty if faced with the reality that each execution would cost taxpayers 25 million dollars, or that the state might spend more than 100 million dollars over several years and produce few or no executions,” argued Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center and the report’s author.

“Surely there are more pressing needs deserving funding,” he wrote, noting that execution was rated among the least effective crime deterrents.

In just one death penalty trial “the state may pay one million dollars more than for a non-death penalty trial. But only one in every three capital trials may result in a death sentence, so the true cost of that death sentence is three million dollars,” the study’s author said.

“Further down the road, only one in ten of the death sentences handed down may result in an execution. Hence, the cost to the state to reach that one execution is 30 million dollars,” Dieter added in the report entitled “Smart on Crime.”

That’s right.  Big government liberals really do want to prevent government spending.  So let’s end the death penalty, ban guns, and increase abortions.

Let’s never consider reducing the endless legal procedures that Democrats’ campaign contributors get rich performing.  Or reducing the liberal legal activist groups’ that fight to the last lawyer to prevent even the most heinous monster from being executed.

I’ve got some other ideas as to how to make the death penalty more cost effective:

Death-Penalty-Cartoon

You really COULD make the penalty a lot cheaper, you see.  I for one am willing to do so.

There’s another big problem with the death penalty:

Death-Penalty-Cartoons2

In today’s pathetic and perverted society,  a death sentence means a long and healthy life.  And most death row inmates die of old age.  We could change that, you know.

And if liberals REALLY want to reduce the massive government spending, here’s the best idea of all:

Obama_Keep-him-sedated