A word to those against the death penalty...

[strredwolf]

Okay, so you've caught and solidly convicted Jack the Ripper.  He's out of appeals, as every angle conceivable has been covered.  So he's going to be there for a long time, well past his natural life span.

Um, there's a problem.  Infact, three problems.

1. The current jails are overcrowded, irrespective of race and gender.  Alot of them are shuffling around, or giving out good behavior credits like candy.  Unfortunately, you can't build any more due to the budget and the usual "Not In My Back Yard" syndrome everyone is afflicted with.
   
2. They are also understaffed due to budget cuts, and the staff there is constantly put into stressful conditions.
3. And in the long term, a lifer (w/o parole or parole past his natural lifespan) will use more financial resources than a death row inmate.  In some cases, the lifer uses much more year-to-year than the death row inmate.

So you want all death row inmates to be lifers?  You need to come up with solutions to the above, without increasing the financial strains and blowing up the budget.  Besides, Maryland's in a long-term deficit, and the feds aren't much better now with a war going on and whatnot.

You can't.  You need more resources, and it's a growing problem.  While you can legislate some of the problem away (adjusting what is a crime, and their penalties), you need to address overcrowding.  The cheapest way is the death penalty.

Is it humane?  NO IT'S NOT.  NETHER IS GETTING KILLED/ROBBED/MAIMED/ETC.  So stop saying it's so.  We know already, and you're missing the other side of the coin.

So?  I'm for the death penalty.  I'm against "life w/o parole" as it's a waste of money and space.  I'm for a law which requires judges to upgrade the sentence to death for any sentence that gives the convicted at least 150 years of jailtime before parole.  And frankly put, I'd give them a time limit of 10 years for direct-from-inmate appeals while raising the bar for third-party appeals.

Comments

[strredwolf.livejournal.com]

I'm with you there (and everyone else here), the laws will need tweaking. I think marijuana use should be heavily regulated, as there's companies outside the USA that are removing the addictive nature and producing rather good drugs from it. Hemp itself is banned by association, when it's nonaddictive and useful in place of cotton.

Oh, and you can't ride the Light Rail here in Baltimore with an open bottle that's IN a paper bag. Guy got arrested while I was on there and hauled off.

[kesarra.livejournal.com]

Marijuana just needs to be taxed like everything else. Hemp is banned because the police can't seem to find the time to recognize the differences in the plants.

The bans on alcohol vary from city to city. California has a similar predicament in its knife law. Unless a city says otherwise, you can legally go around the state with a halberd strapped to your back. It makes it a big place for the Recreationist Society. For the most part, the booze just has to be in a bag and nothing open in a driven vehicle.