Comments on: Death penalty abolition measure cleared by AG

By: joseywalesz

joseywalesz — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 05:24:06 +0000

The cost to taxpayers to feed and house admitted murderers , when we could fix little kids teeth , money to do good things for the population is wasted on lawyers fees to save admitted criminals of their wrong dooings . What should we spend our money on , fixing a little kids teeth … or protecting a thug murderer from the death penalty that they deserve ,Reinstate the death penalty I vote for helping kids , Fry the gang bangers and thugs Sub humans that are … They ae so common it seems normal to the freakos . trash is not a endangered thing .

By: John W

John W — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:15:50 +0000

Re: #2

The AG’s legal approval of the proposed ballot measure has nothing to do with her personal opposition to the death penalty or her decision in the case of Officer Espinoza’s murder. Even an AG who was a strong death penalty supporter would have been required to approve the ballot measure absent any legal grounds for not doing so. I’ve been against the death penalty since first becoming aware of it as an issue at age 13 in connection with the Chessman case here in California. However, I do believe the deterrence and public safety arguments carry more weight in the case of killing cops, judges or public officials.

By: For Liberty

For Liberty — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:09:20 +0000

From SF Gate.com (2004):
“San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris said Tuesday she will not seek the death penalty against a man accused of killing a San Francisco police officer over the weekend, a decision that legal experts say is rare if not unprecedented in California. Instead, Harris said she will charge David Hill, 21, with crimes that could send him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Hill is suspected of killing Officer Isaac Espinoza, 29, with an assault weapon and wounding his partner, Officer Barry Parker, 38.”

As noted in the above article, this initiative is in line with Harris’ nature, which she has demonstrated before in the case involving SF Police Officer, Isaac Espinoza. Harris’ decision in Hill’s behalf was a total slap in the face of the Espinoza family, the SF Police Dept. and for Law Enforcement in general across CA.

Hill knew what he was doing, when he chose to gun down Espinoza. Espinoza went to work that day, knowing the dangers of his job, but did not know it would be his last day.

When it comes to supporting our CA men and women in law enforcement, in the Hill case, Harris chose her political aspirations and correctness over those who are on the streets each day and night to protect us. Those like Officer Espinoza who run in to danger, when shots are fired.

Thanks to Harris, that scum bucket, Hill, clogs our prison system, waiting to be rehabilitated by making license plates, while Espinoza lies six foot under.

Rest in peace, Officer Espinoza. I will never forget!

By: Margo Schulter

Margo Schulter — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 03:40:33 +0000

As the Attorney General’s summary very fairly notes, the SAFE California Act will save ten of millions of dollars each year while strengthening law enforcement and establishing a uniform and swiftly enforced penalty for our worst murders of life without parole — already a part of California law — while strengthening the requirement for labor and restitution to victims and their families. Actually “tens of millions” may be a cautious estimate of the savings: recent studies suggest savings in the range of $125-184 million annually. Whatever the exact figures, the initiative will make California a safer and fiscally more viable place to live.