Hacker News Reader

Comment by xvxvx | Hacker News Reader

‘The decision to spare death row inmates is largely symbolic in a state that has not executed an inmate since 2006, though experts say it could save millions of dollars in court costs each year. Only 13 inmates have been executed since voters reinstated the death penalty in 1978.’

He’s a politician for sure. Make a big scene out of nothing.

View on HN

In what way is he making a scene? All he did was release a written statement, in the midst of ubiquitous coverage of a hugely significant national election. If anything he is trying to minimize publicity.

As a political move it's not a bad one. It saves the state money (eliminating the mandatory appeals), and it forces the pro-life fiscal conservatives who want to oppose it to explain that they're actually pro-death and in favor of spending more money, not less. Which puts them in a conundrum. Espouse their actual views and let their opponents use it against them, or stay quiet and irritate their constituents who want them to be in favor of executions (irrespective of the cost).

And all the while, it really changes nothing about the status quo of executions in the state, they weren't going to happen before this commutation, and they won't happen after.

"It saves the state money.."

Sure it does.

If he wanted to save the state money he would execute all death row inmates immediately.

He doesn't have the power to do that, obviously

It sure does. Death row is expensive.

I can fix that!

I suspect part of the problem here is that all the lawyers involved get a steady income, if they can keep it going for as long as possible. Self preserving machines form wherever a flow of money exists.

> and in favor of spending more money, not less.

A lot of them still aren't aware that the death penalty costs so much more because of the intense appeals process.

As can be seen with all the people in this comment section who assumed by default that executing people is cheaper.

The apparent contradiction between "pro-life" and "pro-death-penalty", and "anti-spending" and "pro-expensive-appeals" has always been addressed by "tough on crime saves more lives" and "its worth it because the death penalty is a deterrent".

Accusations of hypocrisy generally only work if they're coming from inside the house. Basically, if you know that I already disagree with you on a fundamental level, you're not going to trust that I have a deep enough grasp of your position to point out a real inconsistency.

It permanently protects these people from ever being executed, which the moratorium doesn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com