Mac-There is no Black and White ( or Left and Right ) on that issue. All media "breaks news".

Here is an idea for a sub-sub thread: Who would have been where on June 5-6, 1944? Who would have been on the beach? Waking up German High Command? In England on the docks or air bases?

Every media person has their "sources" and once they speak, the world just has to know.....Every paper, broadcast news and cable network et al........

And before you say anything, I read at least two of the local papers a day and watch several of the news shows at night.

If you look into the costs, currently keeping people on death row for the average length of time they're there is more expensive then tossing them in "normal" prison for life. This also includes appeals and such.

Keep in mind that I'm also against it because of other reasons.

As for third party candidates, locally, I don't need them. MOst of the time I can find a good candidate for State Rep, Sen. or Governor. Beyond that, voting for a third party candidate that hardly gets their name out, much less stands a chance at affecting the election is.. well.. ineffectual.

I'd rather change the system. Currently the Dems and GOPs have rigged it so that they will ALWAYS get on the ballot and the "other guys" may or may not make it. And they don't get to debate, etc.

I thought that publicly appointed counsel ended at the trial stage, but maybe i'm wrong, i've only been in law school for two weeks. I assumed that most appellate cases involving the death penalty were handled by private attorneys or anti-death penalty groups...somebody fill me in

It is my belief that your "assumtion" is correct Shiner..at least in the strong majority of the cases....

I thought that public defenders/legal aid can be retained through all appeals. However, if I am wrong it still costs the state. Time is money and a lot of time is sunk into those appeals.

True, while they can be retained ( a perhaps stay as a second chair), money, expertice and knowlege take over.

Not necessarily true. Democrats and Republicans spend MILLIONS of dollars trying to sway the middle from voting for a third party candidate, just because of the effect it has on an election. It was Perot that lost the election for Bush, and it was Nader that lost the election for Gore. Third party candidates have a huge effect on the outcome of an election, unfortunately, it's an adverse affect from their policy stance (Perot was more conservative, Nader more liberal).

Not saying that voting for a third party democrat is good or even something I would suggest, but it is the breaking point for a lot of elections. However, the more and more disillusioned the public becomes with both parties, the more and more people there are who will vote for a third party candidate. And, eventually, one of the two will "go out" much in the same way as it has happened in the past, and the third party will "come in."

In this case, however, it's just taken a fairly long time (almost half of the US as a political system, meaning since the republic was formed under the Constitution, has been under a Democrat v. Republican basis!).

Name one person she's shamed. Bill Maher makes it a sport of making her look foolish.

Shouting down an opponent isn't shaming a person. Screaming and throwing insults doesn't mean a person can debate. Stating facts does that.

And the GOP Agenda isn't about destroying the DNCs?

Dude back away from the kool-aid.

I believe in capital cases public defenders are retained throughout the appeals process. However, even in privately defended cases, for every motion that is filed there is cost and the prosecution (the state) must argue each time

On a national level yes, but while third party candidates can be the "spoiler" for an election there's the problem that if I want Nader to win, I probably REALLY didn't want Bush to win, but voting for Nader means Bush is more likely to win.

But if you look at the restrictions on third party candidates, there are some in place that attempt to prevent them from ever having near an equal footing in the campaign, much less the election.

But the prosecutor, the judge, the clerks, etc, all are still getting paid out of state funds.

Regardless of appeals costs (which I'm sure there are plenty in non-death penalty cases as well, although I'm aware of the auto appeal), I still can't imagine that abolishing the death penalty would really reduce punishment costs in any substantial amount (if at all).

Regarding Bill Maher, I've never seen him shame anyone. His show is a joke. He generally brings on like one republican he picked up off the street to debate himself and James Carville. The basic show is like, "alright, we're gonna have a fair debate tonight with Shannon Doherty for the GOP, and Paul Begala and John Edwards for the left...Obviously I'll be the "impartial" moderator."

Maybe not a lot, but I also think it's NOT fullproof as our legal system is full of errors. Plus I think living with what you've done is a worse punishment than dying, especially for those who welcome death. And finally, there is a chance for these people to internally redeem themselves whether by regaining faith or whatever. We shouldn't let them out of jail because of it, but giving them the chance to "repent" so to speak is, IMO, the right thing to do.

I'll try to find the citation for the cost of life imprisonment vs. death penalty.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108

There's a ton of info.

shinerbock, I wouldn't be surprised if you reversed your position on the death penalty by the time you're out of law school. A lot of people do.