You do realize that the death penalty in California is now basically an extremely expensive form of life in prison, don't you?
Perhaps. I still don't favor abolishing it, however.
Any particular reason why an inoperative death penalty is better than no death penalty?
I believe that the possibility of capital punishment should exist, even if it is not used. The fact that California has an inoperative death penalty, to me, is more of an argument against the fact that it is inoperative, not against the death penalty itself.
See, we're approaching a paradox here. The constitution guarantees a little thing called "due process", especially in capital cases. Having a proper due process (which still doesn't give you an absolute guarantee) simply costs money and, in U.S., it's far more expensive than having inmate locked up for life.
Death penalty hardly can be "operative", unless you hang em' all the next week without proper appeals and other safeguards. Especially in states that are unlikely to actually execute anyone in foresable future. And California is the case.
So, what's the use of having the death penalty in the books outside of having "the death penalty must be an option!" fetish?
Poll
