So don't take the bait.

California has an extraordinary set of legal protections in place for anyone given a death sentence and the appeals process is set up to go on for decades, with huge amounts of money funneled through the system to ensure there is no mistake, including an "innocent" person being executed. According to SAFE California, who are advocating for the November initiative to abolish the death penalty in exchange for life without parole, it costs state taxpayers about $184 million per death row prisoner which has to be spent by law before any other needs of the court system are met. While California courts are currently firing clerks and court reporters and the entire human infrastructure that makes it possible for you to file for a divorce, a small claims action, or what have you, the death penalty money scam continues.

That's what you should be writing about, and what Jerry Brown should be focusing on too. Forget arguing morality, let's talk simple economics which happens to be the right thing to do besides.

@marke: I was at the same press conference and wrote my own, more intelligible version with better photos:

http://sfciviccenter.blogspot.com/2012/03/vote-to-abolish-californias-de...

My point was that Mr. Redmond seemingly hadn't read his own publication and instead was rising to Debra Saunders' troll bait which doesn't help anyone.

Incidentally, I very much liked your American Mavericks Festival preview in this week's issue.

than Tim's claim that many -- no wait, make that "most" -- were "probably" severely mentally ill at the time of their crimes. I'm certain that "most" of them "probably" didn't murder, rape, or assault anyone. Just innocent bystanders picked up off the street and sent to Death Row.

The arguments in support of the ballot measure to abolish the death penalty are exaggerated at best and, in most cases, misleading and erroneous. The Act would only make our prisons less safe for both other prisoners and prison officials, significantly increase the costs to taxpayers due to life-time medical costs, the increased security required to coerce former death-row inmates to work, etc. The amount “saved” in order to help fund law enforcement is negligible and only for a short period of time. Bottom line, the “SAFE” Act is an attempt by those who are responsible for the high costs and lack of executions to now persuade voters to abandon it on those ground. Obviously, these arguments would disappear if the death penalty was carried forth in accordance with the law. Get the facts at and supporting evidence at cadeathpenalty.webs.com.