But that’s fundamentally a flawed argument. It’s more expensive becuase death penalty cases have more rights. Specifically in the US what is called “actual innocence” is not grounds for an appeal to a life sentence but is for a death penalty.

Ideally we would extend that everyone, not save a few bucks and justify continued incarceration of innocent people by noting “hey it’s not a death sentence.”

Imagine the scenario of an innocent person who can’t appeal becuase the trail was fair but would have been freed if they had been sentenced to death, but becuase of the judge or jury’s mercy, they are imprisoned for life.

That has happened here.

Not think a great argument for abolishing the death penalty since it fundamentally is just saying “it is way too expensive to let any prisoners appeal based on being innocent. We could save so much money if didn’t let anyone do that.”

“A murder should only have one victim. When Ratchett kills Daisy Armstrong, a dozen lives are broken, deformed, ended, THEY DEMAND JUSTICE! Of all these wounded souls, we must finally answer — who among them is a killer? Who takes up the knife? The answer is… no single one of you could have done it. Nor any pair. It could have only be done… by all of you."*

That’s fundamentally missing the problem- sales of wine are down 1/5. They have a supply chain that isn’t moving. If you offer cheaper wine you likely won’t move enough more to make up the shortfall and the costs of production/storage ect.

Nah cuz ballots are cast secretly. So there’s no way to know who wrote it. Some 100% safe and fine. No worries friend. Just relax. Everything is fine. Shh.