Different in that they were all pretty bad people

Yes it is more expensive this way, and it is the only way we can justifiably execute people. If we sped up the process, yes we'd execute alot of people who probably deserve it, but we'd end up executing alot of people who don't.

As ive said, no we wouldnt, the burden of proof to get the death penalty is so big that it is next to impossible to be wrongfly convicted.

Jesus Christ are you serious? You really think China is a standard we should be holding ourselves to? China is horribly corrupt, this is a very rare case of them getting something right via the shotgun approach; execute as many people as possible and one or two will probably deserve it. If you people like China so much, go fucking live there and leave the United States for those of us who actually give a shit about liberty and freedom.

You're missing the point that you either execute a whole bunch of people who might deserve it at a low cost and get a whole bunch of innocent or not-deserving people executed with them, OR you go through the lengthy and expensive due process to make sure you only execute people who absolutely deserve it, thus using up resources and allowing many to slip through the cracks. It's not worth it to go through all that energy, time, and money to execute a few dozen people every year when hundreds more just like them are life sentences at a lower cost to the public.

Or we could just not have life sentences

http://www.cs.brown.edu/courses/cs02...s/canon/06.jpg

It's not a full firing squad, just a bullet to the head. And killing a panda is a capital offense there.

SW, your not helping the cause much, and BRM, the due process is a trial and then an appeal if new evidence comes up, not 3 appeals since mr. bad guy doesnt want to die.

"My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?"

Gandhi wrote against the creation of a Jewish state in the middle east because he knew the biblical claim used to rationalize it's existence was ridiculous. He was not an antisemite.

"Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."

What he meant was that with the passiveness they presented in the face of the holocaust, they may as well have killed themselves. He was not calling for Jews or anybody to commit mass suicide because he didn't like them, he simply stated that had they called attention to their own plight (in this case by committing mass suicide) the world could have responded beforehand. This quote came from 1946, nobody outside of Germany (most Germans as well) even knew about the holocaust until after the war was over.

And no, Gandhi did not support Adolf Hitler.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/a...dhihitler.html

I said I like their stance on the death penalty

And something else I'm a Soldier in the United States Army jackass, don't you tell me about giving a shit about liberty and freedom.