The United States' birth rate is not so ridiculously low that it needs immigrant labor to fill low-skilled service jobs; we are not like Japan. People act like immigrants only take "jobs that Americans don't want," but that's clearly false on its face--there are plenty of Americans today who would be perfectly willing to do blue collar jobs. Immigrants fill the same jobs that native-born Americans do. The only circumstance in which that wouldn't hold true is if our native-born birth rate was unsustainably low, and it simply isn't.
A given job can go to a robot, an American, or an immigrant. That job doesn't always need to go to one or the other (there are valid roles for all three), but it's not like there are separate pools of jobs that only robots, only Americans, or only immigrants could fill or would fill.
I can see the logic in a lower-cost robot replacing a factory worker (though it distresses me that the factory owners gain most of the benefits of automation, and workers get shafted), but a lower-cost factory worker replacing another factory worker is just a race to the bottom for wages. That's not more efficient; that's just more exploitative.
Yeah god forbid you just give someone something without demanding something in return.
That's not what paid family leave is...
The benefits of family leave are 1) make sure people stay good consumers when they have children; 2) make sure people can people can fairly easily go back to being productive at work after having children (when moms - it's usually moms - exit the labor force due to the difficulties managing childcare, the economy suffers); and 3) make sure people aren't disincentivized from having more kids because they can't handle childcare (more kids, to an extent, are good for us all).
It's not a handout. It's a public benefit. It's like the military or a police department: everybody can shoulder some of the cost because the result is good for everyone and the overall economic benefit far outstrips the cost you pay in.
It's just sensible.
(EDIT - not even gonna touch equating pregnancy and childbirth with "nothing in return" )
Yet another thing Europe has figured out long ago and, when it's brought up as a policy here, the argument is (as it is with healthcare) "it just won't work" without offering a single explanation or reasoning as to why, other than greed.
Yeah god forbid you just give someone something without demanding something in return.
That's not what paid family leave is...
The benefits of family leave are 1) make sure people stay good consumers when they have children; 2) make sure people can people can fairly easily go back to being productive at work after having children (when moms - it's usually moms - exit the labor force due to the difficulties managing childcare, the economy suffers); and 3) make sure people aren't disincentivized from having more kids because they can't handle childcare (more kids, to an extent, are good for us all).
It's not a handout. It's a public benefit. It's like the military or a police department: everybody can shoulder some of the cost because the result is good for everyone and the overall economic benefit far outstrips the cost you pay in.
It's just sensible.
(EDIT - not even gonna touch equating pregnancy and childbirth with "nothing in return" )
I was not talking paid family leave but their proposed policy of making people pay for it with later retirement.
Their problem is they continue to delude themselves into thinking playing by the rules will earn them some kind of favor with the electorate. It won't. What price has Mitch McConnell paid for essentially destroying constitutional democracy?? That being said, as long as Mitch McConnell and the Republicans hold the Senate, what point is there?? You won't find 20 Republican Senators willing to convict Trump if he starts chucking infants off the roof of the White House, because he'd be screaming "witch hunt" after every one of them. It's clear at this point it doesn't matter WHAT the guy does. He has already been implicated in felonies. He'd be indicted right now if he wasn't in office. And there isn't a single Republican Senator who cares. So we'd all feel great about impeaching him in the House, and then he'd use his trial in the Senate as vindication of his position and innocence, because, again, we are dealing with a party that has totally capitulated to that fact that we have an organized crime family operating out of the West Wing. So I again ask, what is the point?? There is no Barry Goldwater to walk to the White House to tell Nixon it's over in 2019. That person does not exist. That party no longer exists. I don't believe there is a single thing that could be revealed about Trump that would cause the amount of Senators needed to flip to do so. And when I say nothing, I mean nothing. It's not hyperbole.
By the way, pay attention and bookmark this shit, because if another plane goes down and it flew out of an American airport, then Donald Trump is going to have the blood of hundreds of people DIRECTLY on his hands because the CEO of Boeing twisted his arm, and no amount of right-wing media spin will be able to save him from that scenario:
Once Republicans realize Trump is really a drag on the Republican party they will cut him loose. They'd have to be really really stupid doodoo heads who are criminals just like him to not do that.
So, it's not just that Nick Sandmann and his family are suing the Washington Post and CNN. I suppose that's their right under the law and legal system. But check out the AMOUNT they are suing for when taken together. It's not a million dollars each, it's not 10 million dollars each, hell, it's not even a 100 million dollars each. No, no. They are suing them combined for over half a BILLION dollars. 525 million. There are people who don't get those kind of damages if chemical companies cause their children to die of cancer.
So, it's not just that Nick Sandmann and his family are suing the Washington Post and CNN. I suppose that's their right under the law and legal system. But check out the AMOUNT they are suing for when taken together. It's not a million dollars each, it's not 10 million dollars each, hell, it's not even a 100 million dollars each. No, no. They are suing them combined for over half a BILLION dollars. 525 million. There are people who don't get those kind of damages if chemical companies cause their children to die of cancer.
Now somebody just needs to sue Fox for jumping the gun on somebody. I'm sure they've skewered someone prematurely in the past aeven years. Enough suits like this and maybe networks would start doing their homework before jumping to conclusions. Better yet, maybe they'd think twice before reporting non-news items as somehow worthy of our attention and start reporting on things that are actual news...
So, it's not just that Nick Sandmann and his family are suing the Washington Post and CNN. I suppose that's their right under the law and legal system. But check out the AMOUNT they are suing for when taken together. It's not a million dollars each, it's not 10 million dollars each, hell, it's not even a 100 million dollars each. No, no. They are suing them combined for over half a BILLION dollars. 525 million. There are people who don't get those kind of damages if chemical companies cause their children to die of cancer.
Now somebody just needs to sue Fox for jumping the gun on somebody. I'm sure they've skewered someone prematurely in the past aeven years. Enough suits like this and maybe networks would start doing their homework before jumping to conclusions. Better yet, maybe they'd think twice before reporting non-news items as somehow worthy of our attention and start reporting on things that are actual news...
I was under the impression conservatives were in favor of tort reform. Half a billion dollars?? Even if they can PROVE malicious intent (which will be impossible given the follow-up coverage), even asking for that kind of sum tells me everything I need to know. Half a billion dollars. My god.
And, for the record (since we don't talk about it) when the story was floating around that DNC staffer Seth Rich had been MURDERED on the orders of Hillary Clinton, FOX News and Hannity went on the air every night for a week talking about it, even though Rich's family literally BEGGED them to stop. They sued FOX News only as a last resort. THAT story was literally made-up out of thin air to attempt to use their dead son to win an election. And that case was basically summarily dismissed.
I understand Sandmann's lawsuit is actually for $275 million, though I can't imagine how they decided on that number to begin with. I don't know how much stress the controversy caused the family, or how much money would be an appropriate compensation for a given amount of stress, but that figure is just bizarre. The median household net worth is $97,300, so a successful lawsuit with that payout would make them 2,826 times wealthier (no, that's not a typo) than a normal family.
I understand Sandmann's lawsuit is actually for $275 million, though I can't imagine how they decided on that number to begin with. I don't know how much stress the controversy caused the family, or how much money would be an appropriate compensation for a given amount of stress, but that figure is just bizarre. The median household net worth is $97,300, so a successful lawsuit with that payout would make them 2,826 times wealthier (no, that's not a typo) than a normal family.
That's this one. They previously sued the Post for $250 million in late February. This is the second one. By the time this is over (as I doubt they are finished here) they will likely be asking for a billion dollars in damages.
The thing with Lawsuits is the complaintant chooses how much they feel they are worth. It doesn’t mean they will get that much if they win. They still need to prove their damages equal that amount.
The number is high because they (lawyers, PR firm) are looking to make headlines and to give the perception that both CNN and WaPo are in trouble for “fake news.”
Expect a confidential settlement in a couple of months.
The thing with Lawsuits is the complaintant chooses how much they feel they are worth. It doesn’t mean they will get that much if they win. They still need to prove their damages equal that amount.
The number is high because they (lawyers, PR firm) are looking to make headlines and to give the perception that both CNN and WaPo are in trouble for “fake news.”
Expect a confidential settlement in a couple of months.
I'd bet it's actually the complainent's lawyer who talks the complainant into an amount...
The thing with Lawsuits is the complaintant chooses how much they feel they are worth. It doesn’t mean they will get that much if they win. They still need to prove their damages equal that amount.
The number is high because they (lawyers, PR firm) are looking to make headlines and to give the perception that both CNN and WaPo are in trouble for “fake news.”
Expect a confidential settlement in a couple of months.
I'd bet it's actually the complainent's lawyer who talks the complainant into an amount...
Yeah. They clearly have no agency whatsoever. If it isn't the media smearing them, it's lawyers FORCING them to sue for a half a billion dollars. They clearly had no opportunity to tell the lawyers "no, that's insane". No, I'm sorry, but clients have to sign off on this.
Manafort just got 3.5 more years. Immediately after this second federal sentencing (now at 7.5 years), he was indicted on 16 state charges in Manhattan. Which, if convicted of, will not be able to be pardoned.
It still sounds lenient given the scale and monetary value of the crimes in question, but I suppose for a man of Manafort's age, that's much of his remaining lifespan. In general, sentences are shorter for older convicts on the grounds that older criminals are less likely to re-offend.
But I'm not sure that applies to white collar crime. If anything, older businessmen and powerful figures would be most likely to commit white collar crime when they are older.
The thing with Lawsuits is the complaintant chooses how much they feel they are worth. It doesn’t mean they will get that much if they win. They still need to prove their damages equal that amount.
The number is high because they (lawyers, PR firm) are looking to make headlines and to give the perception that both CNN and WaPo are in trouble for “fake news.”
Expect a confidential settlement in a couple of months.
I'd bet it's actually the complainent's lawyer who talks the complainant into an amount...
Yeah. They clearly have no agency whatsoever. If it isn't the media smearing them, it's lawyers FORCING them to sue for a half a billion dollars. They clearly had no opportunity to tell the lawyers "no, that's insane". No, I'm sorry, but clients have to sign off on this.
Lawyers are good at talking. I'm quite sure whoever the lawyer is in this case has a silver-tongue and likely came up with more than one 'logical' reason for pursuing this amount.
All I can say to this is.....good. Feel free not to vaccinate your kids. But if that's your choice, don't expect the rest of society to put THEIR children in danger because of your choices.
We have, through science and research, basically achieved the ability to eliminate certain horrendous diseases from causing harm. A very small group of people seems hell-bent of putting that at risk for everyone else.
I remember when it was okay to call those little Covington kids vicious little assholes in this thread because of the lies all of the media was peddling about them. It would be a breath of fresh air to see these lie factories be held accountable for once. Might even force them to have basic standards!
Gavin Newsome has put a complete moratorium on the death penalty in California going forward. Since it is the right of any Governor to grant clemency, this hardly falls outside his legal bounds.
But the main point is this: If we (on the state and federal level) had executed just ONE innocent person in all these years, it would be inconceivable someone could make the argument that that innocent person should be sacrificed so victims and society can have their revenge on those who were guilty. But it hasn't been just one person. Since 1973, at least 144 people on death row have been completely exonerated after the fact. In fact, some estimates are that as high as 4% of the people on death row are innocent. Those people can no longer be allowed to be viewed and dismissed as collateral damage. The main argument against the death penalty is that we have without question killed, as a society, SCORES on innocent people:
I remember when it was okay to call those little Covington kids vicious little assholes in this thread because of the lies all of the media was peddling about them. It would be a breath of fresh air to see these lie factories be held accountable for once. Might even force them to have basic standards!
So you apply this standard to Seth Rich's family and Ilhan Omar and AOC who get lied about constantly on Fox News.
If Sandmann, some nothing dispshit kid, is worth $500M in damages then sure AOC and Omar deserve hundreds of billions in damages from fake Fox news right. I'm glad we can all agree it is time they got some of the most basic standards it's about time we broke that clear propaganda outlet like Fox, they aren't making honest mistakes and correcting the record they are just lying. Hundreds of billions in damages.
Gavin Newsome has put a complete moratorium on the death penalty in California going forward. Since it is the right of any Governor to grant clemency, this hardly falls outside his legal bounds.
But the main point is this: If we (on the state and federal level) had executed just ONE innocent person in all these years, it would be inconceivable someone could make the argument that that innocent person should be sacrificed so victims and society can have their revenge on those who were guilty. But it hasn't been just one person. Since 1973, at least 144 people on death row have been completely exonerated after the fact. In fact, some estimates are that as high as 4% of the people on death row are innocent. Those people can no longer
be allowed to be viewed and dismissed as collateral damage. The main argument against the death penalty is that we have without question killed, as a society, SCORES on innocent people:
If the rate of error in the Justice system is THIS high, then this level of punishment simply has no business existing in the first place.
I used to be completely in favor of the death penalty but as I got older I lost faith in our criminal justice system. Now I'm more of the opinion that it's far too draconian for a civilized society. If a mass-murderer is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt I'm still for it, but that should be decided on a federal level. Maybe even involve the Supreme Court...
Gavin Newsome has put a complete moratorium on the death penalty in California going forward. Since it is the right of any Governor to grant clemency, this hardly falls outside his legal bounds.
But the main point is this: If we (on the state and federal level) had executed just ONE innocent person in all these years, it would be inconceivable someone could make the argument that that innocent person should be sacrificed so victims and society can have their revenge on those who were guilty. But it hasn't been just one person. Since 1973, at least 144 people on death row have been completely exonerated after the fact. In fact, some estimates are that as high as 4% of the people on death row are innocent. Those people can no longer
be allowed to be viewed and dismissed as collateral damage. The main argument against the death penalty is that we have without question killed, as a society, SCORES on innocent people:
If the rate of error in the Justice system is THIS high, then this level of punishment simply has no business existing in the first place.
I used to be completely in favor of the death penalty but as I got older I lost faith in our criminal justice system. Now I'm more of the opinion that it's far too draconian for a civilized society. If a mass-murderer is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt I'm still for it, but that should be decided on a federal level. Maybe even involve the Supreme Court...
I don't believe there should ever be even a possibility of the death penalty if the court case itself doesn't involve DNA evidence. This was my main go-to argument for a long time, but even this now seems pointless to me. Remove the need for making a "mistake" that basically makes ALL of us guilty of murder. It's bad enough some people are no doubt serving life in prison (which is arguably a worse punishment than death anyway) for something they didn't do. But we can't continue to allow room for error on this. If ONE innocent person is put to death, the cost is simply too high. We know that has happened, so it needs to be stopped. Vengeance is not the same as justice, especially when that vengeance comes with a side order of innocent people being executed by the state.
Gavin Newsome has put a complete moratorium on the death penalty in California going forward. Since it is the right of any Governor to grant clemency, this hardly falls outside his legal bounds.
But the main point is this: If we (on the state and federal level) had executed just ONE innocent person in all these years, it would be inconceivable someone could make the argument that that innocent person should be sacrificed so victims and society can have their revenge on those who were guilty. But it hasn't been just one person. Since 1973, at least 144 people on death row have been completely exonerated after the fact. In fact, some estimates are that as high as 4% of the people on death row are innocent. Those people can no longer
be allowed to be viewed and dismissed as collateral damage. The main argument against the death penalty is that we have without question killed, as a society, SCORES on innocent people:
If the rate of error in the Justice system is THIS high, then this level of punishment simply has no business existing in the first place.
I used to be completely in favor of the death penalty but as I got older I lost faith in our criminal justice system. Now I'm more of the opinion that it's far too draconian for a civilized society. If a mass-murderer is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt I'm still for it, but that should be decided on a federal level. Maybe even involve the Supreme Court...
I don't believe there should ever be even a possibility of the death penalty if the court case itself doesn't involve DNA evidence. This was my main go-to argument for a long time, but even this now seems pointless to me. Remove the need for making a "mistake" that basically makes ALL of us guilty of murder. It's bad enough some people are no doubt serving life in prison (which is arguably a worse punishment than death anyway) for something they didn't do. But we can't continue to allow room for error on this. If ONE innocent person is put to death, the cost is simply too high. We know that has happened, so it needs to be stopped. Vengeance is not the same as justice, especially when that vengeance comes with a side order of innocent people being executed by the state.
Somebody like the Las Vegas shooter is who I'm talking about. There was no need for DNA to determine his guilt. There will be more people like that who either fail to commit suicide or are captured before they can try it. No shadow of a doubt there. The SCOTUS should be able to decide on cases like that without much difficulty...
In principle, I can see the justification for the death penalty. Some folks are so broken that it's best for the world that they never leave prison, and in those cases, a life sentence is preferable to anything less. In almost all cases, though, a death sentence is far more humane than a life sentence, not to mention vastly cheaper.
However, the way the death penalty is implemented in this country makes no sense. The appeals process is so lengthy and so expensive that it actually wastes more money to attempt to execute a prisoner than to keep him or her in prison for life, and the conditions for death row are even worse than a typical prison cell, since the prisoner has even less exposure to other inmates--it's tantamount to solitary confinement, which frankly is a crime against humanity, given how hideous it is to experience and how mentally damaging it is for the victim.
Worse yet, the number of people posthumously exonerated suggests to me that the reason a prisoner is sentenced to death is more due to the circumstances of the trial than the actual crime. A biased jury, a biased judge, an unusually persuasive prosecutor, an unusually weak defense attorney, a trial that just got screwed up--frankly, these are the things that are most likely to result in the absolute heaviest sentences; not the severity of the crime by itself.
I totally agree with everything semiticgod said about the death penalty.
As far as the principle of it goes theoretically it might get someone to confess and accept a life sentence to avoid the death penalty - but you can get false confessions that way too for people that are afraid of being railroaded.
Overall, I guess I don't trust the criminal justice system to not screw up (or be biased) to trust it with the power over life and death. It's too much responsibility and power for these potentially corrupt people who are prone to power tripping and often just want to get a win at any cost.
"How are you going to pay for it" answered, again.
I totally agree with everything semiticgod said about the death penalty.
As far as the principle of it goes theoretically it might get someone to confess and accept a life sentence to avoid the death penalty - but you can get false confessions that way too for people that are afraid of being railroaded.
Overall, I guess I don't trust the criminal justice system to not screw up (or be biased) to trust it with the power over life and death. It's too much responsibility and power for these potentially corrupt people who are prone to power tripping and often just want to get a win at any cost.
"How are you going to pay for it" answered, again.
Forgiving everybody their credit card debts would likely save millennials even more. The amount shouldn't be the reason for forgiveness.
Sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy for folks who don't get a degree in something that will get them a real financial payback. Liberal Arts will get you a job at Dairy Queen, if it doesn't make you 'overqualified'. Just saying...
Comments
A given job can go to a robot, an American, or an immigrant. That job doesn't always need to go to one or the other (there are valid roles for all three), but it's not like there are separate pools of jobs that only robots, only Americans, or only immigrants could fill or would fill.
I can see the logic in a lower-cost robot replacing a factory worker (though it distresses me that the factory owners gain most of the benefits of automation, and workers get shafted), but a lower-cost factory worker replacing another factory worker is just a race to the bottom for wages. That's not more efficient; that's just more exploitative.
Yet another thing Europe has figured out long ago and, when it's brought up as a policy here, the argument is (as it is with healthcare) "it just won't work" without offering a single explanation or reasoning as to why, other than greed.
I was not talking paid family leave but their proposed policy of making people pay for it with later retirement.
Their problem is they continue to delude themselves into thinking playing by the rules will earn them some kind of favor with the electorate. It won't. What price has Mitch McConnell paid for essentially destroying constitutional democracy?? That being said, as long as Mitch McConnell and the Republicans hold the Senate, what point is there?? You won't find 20 Republican Senators willing to convict Trump if he starts chucking infants off the roof of the White House, because he'd be screaming "witch hunt" after every one of them. It's clear at this point it doesn't matter WHAT the guy does. He has already been implicated in felonies. He'd be indicted right now if he wasn't in office. And there isn't a single Republican Senator who cares. So we'd all feel great about impeaching him in the House, and then he'd use his trial in the Senate as vindication of his position and innocence, because, again, we are dealing with a party that has totally capitulated to that fact that we have an organized crime family operating out of the West Wing. So I again ask, what is the point?? There is no Barry Goldwater to walk to the White House to tell Nixon it's over in 2019. That person does not exist. That party no longer exists. I don't believe there is a single thing that could be revealed about Trump that would cause the amount of Senators needed to flip to do so. And when I say nothing, I mean nothing. It's not hyperbole.
By the way, pay attention and bookmark this shit, because if another plane goes down and it flew out of an American airport, then Donald Trump is going to have the blood of hundreds of people DIRECTLY on his hands because the CEO of Boeing twisted his arm, and no amount of right-wing media spin will be able to save him from that scenario:
Once Republicans realize Trump is really a drag on the Republican party they will cut him loose. They'd have to be really really stupid doodoo heads who are criminals just like him to not do that.
Now somebody just needs to sue Fox for jumping the gun on somebody. I'm sure they've skewered someone prematurely in the past aeven years. Enough suits like this and maybe networks would start doing their homework before jumping to conclusions. Better yet, maybe they'd think twice before reporting non-news items as somehow worthy of our attention and start reporting on things that are actual news...
I was under the impression conservatives were in favor of tort reform. Half a billion dollars?? Even if they can PROVE malicious intent (which will be impossible given the follow-up coverage), even asking for that kind of sum tells me everything I need to know. Half a billion dollars. My god.
And, for the record (since we don't talk about it) when the story was floating around that DNC staffer Seth Rich had been MURDERED on the orders of Hillary Clinton, FOX News and Hannity went on the air every night for a week talking about it, even though Rich's family literally BEGGED them to stop. They sued FOX News only as a last resort. THAT story was literally made-up out of thin air to attempt to use their dead son to win an election. And that case was basically summarily dismissed.
That's this one. They previously sued the Post for $250 million in late February. This is the second one. By the time this is over (as I doubt they are finished here) they will likely be asking for a billion dollars in damages.
The number is high because they (lawyers, PR firm) are looking to make headlines and to give the perception that both CNN and WaPo are in trouble for “fake news.”
Expect a confidential settlement in a couple of months.
I'd bet it's actually the complainent's lawyer who talks the complainant into an amount...
Yeah. They clearly have no agency whatsoever. If it isn't the media smearing them, it's lawyers FORCING them to sue for a half a billion dollars. They clearly had no opportunity to tell the lawyers "no, that's insane". No, I'm sorry, but clients have to sign off on this.
But I'm not sure that applies to white collar crime. If anything, older businessmen and powerful figures would be most likely to commit white collar crime when they are older.
Lawyers are good at talking. I'm quite sure whoever the lawyer is in this case has a silver-tongue and likely came up with more than one 'logical' reason for pursuing this amount.
He was also fined 42 Million.
All I can say to this is.....good. Feel free not to vaccinate your kids. But if that's your choice, don't expect the rest of society to put THEIR children in danger because of your choices.
We have, through science and research, basically achieved the ability to eliminate certain horrendous diseases from causing harm. A very small group of people seems hell-bent of putting that at risk for everyone else.
But the main point is this: If we (on the state and federal level) had executed just ONE innocent person in all these years, it would be inconceivable someone could make the argument that that innocent person should be sacrificed so victims and society can have their revenge on those who were guilty. But it hasn't been just one person. Since 1973, at least 144 people on death row have been completely exonerated after the fact. In fact, some estimates are that as high as 4% of the people on death row are innocent. Those people can no longer be allowed to be viewed and dismissed as collateral damage. The main argument against the death penalty is that we have without question killed, as a society, SCORES on innocent people:
https://www.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889
If the rate of error in the Justice system is THIS high, then this level of punishment simply has no business existing in the first place.
So you apply this standard to Seth Rich's family and Ilhan Omar and AOC who get lied about constantly on Fox News.
If Sandmann, some nothing dispshit kid, is worth $500M in damages then sure AOC and Omar deserve hundreds of billions in damages from fake Fox news right. I'm glad we can all agree it is time they got some of the most basic standards it's about time we broke that clear propaganda outlet like Fox, they aren't making honest mistakes and correcting the record they are just lying. Hundreds of billions in damages.
I used to be completely in favor of the death penalty but as I got older I lost faith in our criminal justice system. Now I'm more of the opinion that it's far too draconian for a civilized society. If a mass-murderer is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt I'm still for it, but that should be decided on a federal level. Maybe even involve the Supreme Court...
I don't believe there should ever be even a possibility of the death penalty if the court case itself doesn't involve DNA evidence. This was my main go-to argument for a long time, but even this now seems pointless to me. Remove the need for making a "mistake" that basically makes ALL of us guilty of murder. It's bad enough some people are no doubt serving life in prison (which is arguably a worse punishment than death anyway) for something they didn't do. But we can't continue to allow room for error on this. If ONE innocent person is put to death, the cost is simply too high. We know that has happened, so it needs to be stopped. Vengeance is not the same as justice, especially when that vengeance comes with a side order of innocent people being executed by the state.
Somebody like the Las Vegas shooter is who I'm talking about. There was no need for DNA to determine his guilt. There will be more people like that who either fail to commit suicide or are captured before they can try it. No shadow of a doubt there. The SCOTUS should be able to decide on cases like that without much difficulty...
However, the way the death penalty is implemented in this country makes no sense. The appeals process is so lengthy and so expensive that it actually wastes more money to attempt to execute a prisoner than to keep him or her in prison for life, and the conditions for death row are even worse than a typical prison cell, since the prisoner has even less exposure to other inmates--it's tantamount to solitary confinement, which frankly is a crime against humanity, given how hideous it is to experience and how mentally damaging it is for the victim.
Worse yet, the number of people posthumously exonerated suggests to me that the reason a prisoner is sentenced to death is more due to the circumstances of the trial than the actual crime. A biased jury, a biased judge, an unusually persuasive prosecutor, an unusually weak defense attorney, a trial that just got screwed up--frankly, these are the things that are most likely to result in the absolute heaviest sentences; not the severity of the crime by itself.
As far as the principle of it goes theoretically it might get someone to confess and accept a life sentence to avoid the death penalty - but you can get false confessions that way too for people that are afraid of being railroaded.
Overall, I guess I don't trust the criminal justice system to not screw up (or be biased) to trust it with the power over life and death. It's too much responsibility and power for these potentially corrupt people who are prone to power tripping and often just want to get a win at any cost.
"How are you going to pay for it" answered, again.
Forgiving everybody their credit card debts would likely save millennials even more. The amount shouldn't be the reason for forgiveness.
Sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy for folks who don't get a degree in something that will get them a real financial payback. Liberal Arts will get you a job at Dairy Queen, if it doesn't make you 'overqualified'. Just saying...