EBSB52

You own a DZ, you count on doing 50,000 jumps/year, so you hire staff to handle all these people. If you get your 50k jumps, great, you figure in your cost per jump and go from there. If you only do 30k jumps next year it costs you more so your profit per jump is less, since you have the same # of staff on board. Get it? That's the trial cost, now the appeals go for 20 years and the costs just add up.

At the same time, prosecutors can try one case at a time until they get a conviction and death sentence. They wouldn't try all 40 @ once.

When you're taking the cost of a capital case, you're talking appeals there. Also the original trial takes longer, costs more, etc, but the cost of 17 years (AZ average) of appeals is steep.

The defense is either paid by the accused or provided by the state. Is this usually pro-bono or does the state pay million dollar lawyers to defend people? And this is a big US Sup Ct decison under the 6th. What is, "competent counsel?" If the state throws big money at a trial, shouldn't the defense get the same? So all I can see that's left is expert witnesses that are compensated for their time and expertise. Yep, part of that delima. I don't how the total cost is tabulated, but court time, judge time, etc plays in too. Remember, the court establishes how many judges to hire based on need.

I didn't post it in the context of it being of Canadian origin. I like the, "Texecutioner" thingy! Tell me what it maters where it comes from? Is it less sifnificant if it's from other than the US?

you are not the only one that went to college. But I learned this in High School. Ya, and I have a simple BS in Justice, which is really nothing, hence it's called an, "undergraduate degree." But please don't refer to a high school diploma as something in which to reference great legal knowledge. the extent of high school teachings in regard to law/politics is maybe the structure of Congress, formation of Bills, and the 3 branches of government. BTW, I'm not saying I'm right because I have a simple BS, I'm saying I've supported my position because the evidence that has been presented by me has not been successfully refuted, hell, has it even been addressed?

Just cause you can justify your opinion based on personal feelings doen NOT change anything. The Constitution is over 200 years old...So I guess its not something you credit either? Facts are facts no matter how old they are, or what war the were before. Some critical thinking You posted: http://www.dropzone.com/...post=1381251#1381251 Thats pretty bad when you can just discount a cite since you just don't like it. Just like you are doing here. I posted Right, and I didn't summarily discount it, I fully addressed the circa from which it was written and explained why I think it doesn't contemporarily fit whatsoever. "Theodore Roosevelt Advocates Americanism, 1915" This was a cite from Theodore Roosevelt from 1915, which, as I explained, was a time of war to say the very least. Then you start to understand the protocol of the government and general social climate in the early 1900's and you understand why I think it's not applicable to us now. Furthermore, he was a Republican too, whatever that's worth. The main point with the cite was that Teddy Roosevelt didn't like name hyphenations denoting origin and thought it created divide. I refuted that by saying with the protocol of America with women not even having the right to vote, that I find the cite obsolete by today's standard. Now, if you wanted to be intellectual, you would argue why Roosevelt's statements are contemporarily valid and that they do apply, hence name-origin hyphens should not be used, just as Roosevelt stated. In that post I wrote: That's dated 1915, which places us at the start of WWI. Women hadn't yet even earned (EDIT: a right that should have been inherent and inalienable; they fought for it rather than earned it) the right to vote, and slavery was just abolished 52 years prior, even though forms of it were still in place for some decades later. We hadn't even seen Japanese-American internment or having seperate public restrooms and fountains, that kind of racism was too advanced for us meaning we were far worse that that in 1915. Antimiscegination laws allowed for the deportation of women that married non-white males were still in place too. So to think that in the middle of a major world war, and with civil rights meaning linchings were the soup de jour, I hardly recognize your reference as anything but an interesting piece of nostalgia. So this reference is moot to me. Points I use to support: 1. That's dated 1915, which places us at the start of WWI. 2. Women hadn't yet even earned (EDIT: a right that should have been inherent and inalienable; they fought for it rather than earned it) the right to vote. 3. Slavery was just abolished 52 years prior 4. We hadn't even seen Japanese-American internment 5. Having separate public restrooms and fountains 6. That kind of racism was too advanced for us meaning we were far worse that that in 1915. 7. Antimiscegination laws allowed for the deportation of women that married non-white males were still in place too. THEREFORE.... "I hardly recognize your reference as anything but an interesting piece of nostalgia. So this reference is moot to me. Do you see how critical thinking works? If you would like, I can provide cites for each piece of the supporting claims I've made. Now give me your one-liner response instead of answer each point. And now you're still running from all of it. Just answer these. Just cause you can justify your opinion based on personal feelings doen NOT change anything. No, these are hard historical facts. Would you like cites for the following: 1. That's dated 1915, which places us at the start of WWI. 2. Women hadn't yet even earned (EDIT: a right that should have been inherent and inalienable; they fought for it rather than earned it) the right to vote. 3. Slavery was just abolished 52 years prior 4. We hadn't even seen Japanese-American internment 5. Having separate public restrooms and fountains 6. That kind of racism was too advanced for us meaning we were far worse that that in 1915. 7. Antimiscegination laws allowed for the deportation of women that married non-white males were still in place too. Or would you just like to continue to avoid them and keep moving toward Ad Hominem. Facts are facts no matter how old they are, or what war the were before. Right, and I disputed the contemporary application of the posted words by Teddy Roosevelt based upon the fact that basic human and civil rights weren't then what they are today, hence not applicable in this topic. Please, go back and explain how that article is applicable and refute my historical facts I've posted. The Constitution is over 200 years old...So I guess its not something you credit either? Well, it is very vague and continual reinterpretation was in the writing for it. When it was written we were almost 100 years from the 13th Amendment, stopping slavery. I could go on and on, but the US Const, in its origial writing isn't very contemporary either, which is why they continually reinterpret it. OK, you don't like it, great, that's how they've done it since the writing of it - you're right, everyone's wrong.

Being verbose does not make one right. Much of the semantic content of this website is null. Are those that post alot any more right than one that posts infrequently? Ron has made a somple point. Others have clouded the conversation with rhetoric, and assumption. And you have yet to address the substantive issues of killing innocent people, but as all the other people just like you, and that you are just like, it is virtually impossible to admit the obvious and still remain human.

There is no such thing. I understand that you're not super concerned about proper quoting, but in order to keep your point in context, you should quote the entire sentence, mabe paragraph. Then if you wish, extract your partial sentence and place, "..." on either end as appropriate. I have no idea of the context from which this came. But as a stand-alone statement, there are such things as inherent an inalienable. Post the rest and teh context.

Same applies, although I don't want to be narrow-minded about it and refer to only one person. 1. So are you saying because there are bastards that need to die, and there are, that we should kill innocent people too? It must have hurt your virgin eyes to read me call a murderer a bastard. I'm so sorry, I hope it doesn't forever scar you. Let's see, you advocate killing people for revenge, yet you are offended when I call a murderer that you would condemn, a bastard. Okee-dokee. 2.If so, you sound like McVeigh when he referred to collateral damage in regard to the innocent people he killed when he killed whatever agents he was after. REACTION..... What's the matter, can't answer this one????? Yepper. I spoke only of killing Faye. An INDIVIDUAL! I did not call them a "bastard", something I have no knowlage of. Nothing about mass killing of innocents which is something you added to the convesation. No, I was simply comparing your logic to that of McVeigh's in regard to his stance on killing a bunch of innocent people to get to the ones he wanted to. It's very comparable, unless a person is so brilliant to think that no innocent people ever get executed. BTW, you are sensationalizing what I have to say. You don't happen to be in media do you? And then... Where do you get this shit. Stay on topic MAN! Uh, hum.... See your statement above. Do NOT compare me to anyone else.[/b[ You have some phobia of people speaking for you or being compared to other people. Well, you are just like the group of people here that have an opinion, but are unable to defend it. I love the former; abhor the latter.

You fail to understand that the County's involvement with this fundamentally ceases at the trial court level. Why not look at ome examples of that from the site: You have probably never had any experience with trial or appellate courts. If you did you would realize the process isn't compulsory except for the first level in capital cases. Don't think for a minute the justices are painstakingly mulling over these cases, in fact, they hear only a minute percentage of cases and even if they do hear them they have no responsibility to act any given way. Don't act as if these appeals get the attention they should have. 1) The first three executions were federal. Tried by some lowly US attorney. 99% of all executions over the last century, or something around there, have been state executions, not federal. These were the executions to which I was referring. 2) Miguel Flores - appealed through the state and federal courts all the way to the US Supreme. Review outside of the counties. Was it heard by the US Sup Ct? It doesn't have to be you know. The US Sup Ct certifies via Writ of Certiorari about 150 cases per year, civil and criminal, so not all capital cases are heard, they are just summarily refused attention. The understanding of appeals by laypersons is a giant misunderstanding; virtually all appeals get summarily pitched. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an appeal to the US Sup Ct. These appeals are endless and prisoners have limitless rights to submit these. However, the odds that pro per Habeas gets any attention are about as likely as the Red Sox winning the series; it will happen once a century, but that's about it. 3) Oliver Cruz - the US Supreme Court allowed the Execution to proceed. OK, was the case heard and affirmed, or ignored? 4) Brian Roberson - appealed to the US Supreme Court. Ok. Was it heard? 5) Jessy Carlos San Miguel - the writing on him points to a statement of error that Bush said on June 6, 2000, where he said, "As I understand the facts, there is no question that the man did the crime. It's the penalty phase that needs to be examined. I think the system is working." He also said, "What the attorney general is saying is, 'Let's make sure we review all cases to make sure that everybody in this case gets a fair hearing.'" "As I understand the facts" What does that mean; what the AG told Bush is good enough? You seem to lay great stock in the research of facts by a guy that obviously is enamored with the death penalty. Why in that case did Bush state the case needs to have the penalty phase examined? Has Bush ever once overturned a death sentence or commuted anyone's sentence? Has he ever freed an obviously innocent prisoner? So, what we see is that review is being made by courts nationwide, and Bush stating that the attorney general is reviewing these matters. So your point is therefore disproven, is it not? No, it's not disproved. State what anyone has done to investigate these cases other than lip service. Governor Ryan of Illinois was being told by some private groups (who did extensive research) that atrocities are being done under the purview of state-sanctioned murder. He told the state prosecutors to quit the crap, they didn't quit, and he commuted everyone off of death row and completely exonerated a few from their crimes. Do you think ALL Texas convictions were legitimate? Uh, huh. You're using lip service from a scumbag that loves to kill people as support for your refutation. Did they talk about what they did to investigate?

What about if that inmate was jailed and forced to work his ass off for the rest of his life. The money he would be making would be to cover his expenses (no work= no food. If he dies for not eating, it would be suicide) and the rest to repay the family of his victim. It would be much cheaper for the taxpayer that normal life term or execution, victims would get compensations, and (very important) if it is found later that he was innocent, the state can attempt to compensate him. Everybody wins. Would you ban death penalty under this terms? Welcome to Facist America; it's been that way for years. Oh, you can get out for 1 hour per week to shower, or you can work for 25 cents per hour while you make some corporation thousands of dollars per year. So we're already there.

Maybe you should know the system before you slam it? Trust me, I know they system. I learned it in HS. You didn't. Until you have proof to support your claims, don't bother trying to convince me. Ok, I'm realizing I've been had here .... You learned it in High School? I've been had - you're screwing with me

Reference this post when you ignore a cite "just cause" http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1381251#1381251 Thats pretty bad when you can just discount a cite since you just don't like it. Just like you are doing here. Right, and I didn't summarily discount it, I fully addressed the circa from which it was written and explained why I think it doesn't contemporarily fit whatsoever. "Theodore Roosevelt Advocates Americanism, 1915" This was a cite from Theodore Roosevelt from 1915, which, as I explained, was a time of war to say the very least. Then you start to understand the protocol of the government and general social climate in the early 1900's and you understand why I think it's not applicable to us now. Furthermore, he was a Republican too, whatever that's worth. The main point with the cite was that Teddy Roosevelt didn't like name hyphenations denoting origin and thought it created divide. I refuted that by saying with the protocol of America with women not even having the right to vote, that I find the cite obsolete by today's standard. Now, if you wanted to be intellectual, you would argue why Roosevelt's statements are contemporarily valid and that they do apply, hence name-origin hyphens should not be used, just as Roosevelt stated. In that post I wrote: That's dated 1915, which places us at the start of WWI. Women hadn't yet even earned (EDIT: a right that should have been inherent and inalienable; they fought for it rather than earned it) the right to vote, and slavery was just abolished 52 years prior, even though forms of it were still in place for some decades later. We hadn't even seen Japanese-American internment or having seperate public restrooms and fountains, that kind of racism was too advanced for us meaning we were far worse that that in 1915. Antimiscegination laws allowed for the deportation of women that married non-white males were still in place too. So to think that in the middle of a major world war, and with civil rights meaning linchings were the soup de jour, I hardly recognize your reference as anything but an interesting piece of nostalgia. So this reference is moot to me. Points I use to support: 1. That's dated 1915, which places us at the start of WWI. 2. Women hadn't yet even earned (EDIT: a right that should have been inherent and inalienable; they fought for it rather than earned it) the right to vote. 3. Slavery was just abolished 52 years prior 4. We hadn't even seen Japanese-American internment 5. Having separate public restrooms and fountains 6. That kind of racism was too advanced for us meaning we were far worse that that in 1915. 7. Antimiscegination laws allowed for the deportation of women that married non-white males were still in place too. THEREFORE.... "I hardly recognize your reference as anything but an interesting piece of nostalgia. So this reference is moot to me. Do you see how critical thinking works? If you would like, I can provide cites for each piece of the supporting claims I've made. Now give me your one-liner response instead of answer each point.

What did I say about putting words in my mouth? The natural world does not persist in defending "culls". Ok, sonce you are unwilling to just answer, then let me formally ask you in the form of a question. 1. So are you saying because there are bastards that need to die, and there are, that we should kill innocent people too? 2.If so, you sound like McVeigh when he referred to collateral damage in regard to the innocent people he killed when he killed whatever agents he was after. REACTION.....

Well, it is your justice system, odd you would ask a simple Canadian for an explanation of it. Hahaha, ya, first someone asked you to make Canada a penal country by taking our cinvicted murderers, now they're asking you to explain in full detail the system of another country. Funny thing is, I bet few to no Americans can cite any politicians from Canada or even start to explain how the system works up there. There are a lot of 'Americancentric' attitudes here. The appeals process with the death penalty is significantly different from the appeals process after a life sentence without the posibility of parole. Yep, and all the way down the line, the less severe the charge/conviction, the fewer the avenues to appeal.

I have, but that would mean you would have to read more than you are and educate yourself...Which we have seen you don't do. And when someone does show you something, you discount it since you don't like it. Some critical thinking skills ya got there. I have, but that would mean you would have to read more than you are and educate yourself...Which we have seen you don't do. No, you have avoided all specific issues. I read plenty and cite my sources. There are pages of stuff I've written that you've ignored. And when someone does show you something, you discount it since you don't like it. If I disagree with it I refute it via logic and cite fact. OK, so where's the beef? What has someone shown me that I have discounted unfairly or without support? Please post. Your arguments are of teh Ad Hominem variety, please, answer some points. Do you want me to go back and cite them again?

I do. It's like the old joke. Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this. The doc responds, "Don't do that". When we execute people and some of them happen to be innocent, there's an easy solution to remedy that. Stop executing people. There is NO reason for it except revenge. Some people seem to think it's more expensive to keep them in jail. Even though that's not true, let's assume for a minute it is. Are you people really that greedy and heartless that you would rather risk killing innocent people than pay a few extra dollars a year in taxes? Right, an considerring we've deficit spent for most of the last 24 years, it isn't a penny out of our pockets.

I'm not running from the issue. And, I will go as far to say I agree with you on the flawed nature of our criminal justice system. Do I have the magic answer to fix it? No. Ok, it's flawed, now what? We can't just keep running in circles saying it's flawed; there needs to be a resolve. There are murderers that need to be removed from society forever. It would be nice to not have to pay for them, but the only other option is to execute them. Ok, let's look at any or all issues that stem from that. Could we have an infallable system? probably not. Is it worth it to rid the earth of scum so much that we ourselves become the murderers? I entered college calling cap pun a neccesary evil, now I realize it's unneccessary, hence no longer evil. We can rid ourselves of all of it and there will be no more accidental killings, no more appeals that run for 25 years, no more accusation of governmental murder, no more examples of killing for our kids to see...... It's a win, win, win, win situation, except for the revenge mongers.

You mean like when you totaly discounted something from a former President that proved you wrong based on the fact you just didn't like it? HUH? What are you talking about. Be a little more comprehensive. These 1-liners aren't helping resolve the issue.

Ahh yes another informed response. See this, and tell me there is a better solution. So you're saying because there are bastards that need to die, and there are, that we should kill innocent people too. You sound like McVeigh when he referred to collateral damage in regard to the innocent people he killed when he killed whatever agents he was after.

I can research it, but the average is about the cost is twice to execute versus life imprisonment. The reason is two-fold: max security death row prisons cost more to operate and the appeals cost lots. The only other options are: 1. Repeal the DP 2. Execute at a higher rate with less/no appeals, but the 'accidental' murder rate would soar.

Neo = new con = conservative See, the neo-con agenda differs from the fiscal-con agenda of old, hence the new defintion.

Ahh yes another informed response. __________________________________________________ This is not a slam, so don't take it that way. I see from your profile that you are from Canada, So here is an idea. You petition your government to take all of our death row inmates, you support, house, feed them. I'm sure the only people from the USA that will reject that idea will be the family of the victims. Of course, they will probably set up camp outside your prisons to protest how unjust that arrangement is. Then your government can explain to those family members how what you are doing is the right thing. It's not a slam, but it fails to address whether the US should or should not execute. Please, answer the tough questions.

Well, since taxes seems to be the only thing you are concerned about in this matter, it would be easiest to just kill everybody except yourself, that way there would be no need for taxes. In a less simplified world, it would be more beneficial to put them in jail for life, since that would actually cost you less tax money? If you think that they should be executed within the hour of their first conviciton, then I would question your thoughts on an effective and just system. Great point, like Steve Martin says, "Death penalty for parking violations." That is a good retort to cap pun proponents; kill all prisoners, hence less expense. Before people poo-poo that, do understand that prison used to a public process that was used for holding people until their execution. Per Professor Cavendar, ASU Justice Studies, there were 300 crimes that were punishable by death, including complaining about the price of corn. Now this was 100's of years ago, but jail was just a way to secure people until they awaited their execution. We used to kill people once we decided they were no longer useful.