OK, the bleeding hearts that are around, have a good chance of convincing people that the "financial" impact of a death sentence is such that we should eliminate it in favor of a life sentence.
Are they all nuts?
In Saturday's Orange County Register, there was a great example of why the death sentence make good financial sense. Take Robert Allah Lehmann's case. He was convicted of "Point Blank shooting of Emily and Russell Ford."
What was he sentenced to and what will it cost? He is to serve, this is funny, two life sentences without parole plus, yes, plus 50 years.
Robert is 37 years old. Life expectancy is now 78, so he gets 41 years to serve on his first life sentence.
At $47,000 per year, we get to invest $1,920,000 so he can get three squares a day, exercise and medical care. But wait, there's more!
His next life sentence goes for the full 78 years. That means $ 3,666,000 and we're not done yet. He then has to be dug up again and serve 50 more years. That's another $ 2,350,000 we'll have to spend. That means we have to budget $7,936,000 of our hard earn dollars to fully penalize this creep.
I mean the judge must have had this in mind when he sentenced him otherwise a person could look at the sentence handed down as a joke.
On the other hand, if the sentence had been death and it was executed properly --complete with reasonable appeals -- we would spend far less and justice (Isn't that what we all seek?) would be served.
Come on Californians. Don't be fooled.
The death penalty is a sound penalty for the heinous crimes committed. Two life sentences plus 50 years is a joke.
SHAME ON THE JUDGE AND AND SHAME ON US if we eliminate the death penalty for financial reasons.