In the 10/12 issue, you made your case against Proposition 34, which seeks to repeal the death penalty. And your agrument against Prop 34 was a very weak one.
There are three basic arguments against the death penalty and you addressed two of them. The first is that the death penalty is too expensive. Your reply to this, “so what?” deserves a strong “duh!” In this state, at this time, in this economy no one cares about government spending?
The second argument against the death penalty is that it is not a deterrent. Your reply, “so, make it work” can be called beating a dead horse. America has been executing criminals for a very, very long time and it is not a deterrent.
You passed over the strongest agrument against the death penalty: it is unjust. When a man who has a below normal I.Q. is put to death in one state for killing one person and a man with no such disability in another state gets life for killing more than 30 people, there is something wrong. When the percentage of female killers executed does not come even close to the percentage of male killers executed, there is something wrong. And I don’t even have to bring up the discrepency when poverty and/or race is involved, do I? It’s a given.
There is no way that the death penalty is moral, effective, or economical. And yes, it is possible to keep a convicted killer locked up for his entire life.