[Dot_the_Bot]

From what Ive read so far, I have to say Im very in agreement with fasteddy.

1. Current statistics lead one to believe that the death penalty doesn't deter people from committing capital crimes at all.

2. From what I know of life sentences, they can be worked off. I think Nevada statutes have a mandatory 30 years, no matter how good the behavior (for the level that crimes which would get the death penalty fall under). But the sentencing can give multiple life sentences to run in succession- so then 3 life sentences would be a minimum 90 years.

3. I think fasteddy has a valid point here. The legal battle required to put someone to death is pretty hefty- and defendants sentenced to death receive free legal representation throughout the process. That said, I dont know if it comes out anywhere near housing a convict for the rest of their life... I cant imagine it does.

4. Damn straight there is. I dont remember which state, but two years ago a govenor pardoned all of death row because dna tests showed that 19% of prisoners they had put to death in prior years were innocent of the crime to which they were sentenced.

The lawbooks have not been altered as a result of dna evidence. The burden of proof on the state is still the same as it was before dna tests...and bear in mind THE STATE is who is doing the dna testing in the first place.

Also, I question the obvious race and gender biases of death sentences. There is a noticably higher percentage of minorities sentenced to death than are convicted of capital crimes- and women are almost NEVER convicted to death.

mikechop's #5: I don't agree with providing the death penalty for the purpose of appeasing the family of the victim's. It has to many weird moral implications and does just as much to counter any purpose it may serve- imo.