The punchline here - not included in the article - is that "savings" are a perennial anti-death penalty talking point. Housing a death row inmate in California costs the state three times more than housing a normal inmate, much of the extra burden coming from perks. Now some people might be inclined to view that travesty as a justification for reducing the privileges rather than the number of death row inmates. Those people obviously lack the subtle insight of California lawmakers:

In October in Orange County, Calif., Billy Joe Johnson, who had just been convicted of murder as a hit man for a white supremacist gang, begged the judge and jury, in all sincerity, to sentence him to death. Johnson knew that those on California's death row get individual cells and better telephone access, nicer contact-visit arrangements, and more personal-property privileges than ordinary inmates... Johnson was so eager to be put on death row that he tried to confess to two murders that no one yet knew about.

Now the disincentive that's supposed to prevent people from asking for the death penalty is - not to put too fine a point on it - death. But California has managed to execute a grand total of 13 out of almost current 700 death row prisoners since 1977. Compare that to the possibility of a prisoner like this getting killed in race-related violence over a lifetime, and those are pretty attractive odds.

And then there are the perks to consider. Individual cells and personal-property privileges? That's a new direction! I'd have to check, but I bet it's probably easier to find somewhere to smoke on death row than it is in Burbank, CA. Actually I don't have to check. Next up from the Sacramento nannie : soda.

Anyway, relative luxury for death row inmates but no more mammogram subsidies for women between 40 and 50. This state is magical.

References:
* News of the Weird: California's Death Row: Bigger cells, better privacy, more stuff, and almost no chance of being executed! [LAT]
* Smoking Ban in Burbank, CA
* UPDATE 1-Calif. lawmaker plans hearings on soda-obesity link [Reuters]
* Death Panel in California Ends Mammogram Subsidies for Women Between 40 and 50 [Ace]

Related Mere Rhetoric Categories:
* American Politics
* Democratic Politics
* Law

Asked...

The most interesting part of this is Fenstermaker's refusal to call 9/11 a case of murder. He could have conceded that it was while arguing that the defendants weren't responsible for it; the fact that he doesn't suggests at least the possibility that the defense will argue insanity or ... some form of justifiable homicide. Doubtless The One would love to see them try, as it would make conviction a foregone conclusion -- irrespective of how horrific relatives of 9/11 victims might find it.

... and answered:

At least one -- and possibly all five -- of the detainees with alleged ties to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, will plead not guilty in a "justification defense," arguing the attacks were responses to American foreign policy, according to a lawyer who met with one of the defendants. Attorney Scott Fenstermaker said he met with defendant Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility last week, and that when Ali and four other men face trial in New York, they likely will plead not guilty and then argue that the attacks were justified.

To repeat what I said over the weekend, it's interesting that we're supposed to listen intently to the pitter-patter of jihadi hearts when it comes to stopping our incredibly successful and cutting edge drone war. But when it comes to giving a gleeful jihadist the world's loudest megaphone to rail against the US, suddenly acknowledging the direction of jihadi sentiment is the height of cowardice. The contradiction almost gives the impression that it's actually the nature of the objectively anti or pro-terrorist action that's at stake for the left.

This is going to be spectacular:

Feeling a little nauseous? Coward.

References:
* O'Reilly to 9/11 defense lawyer: "You know people hate you, right?" [Hot Air]
* Lawyer: 9/11 suspect to plead not guilty, argue attacks justified [CNN]
* Watchers Council - The Left's Updated Definitions Of "Cowardice" And "Dangerous" [MR]
* Lawyer: 9/11 suspect to plead not guilty, argue attacks justified [CNN]

Related Mere Rhetoric Categories:
* Islamic Terrorism
* Law
* American Politics

As the mind numbing boredom of August recedes into the haze reserved for particularly traumatic memories, even the Supreme Court is getting back into the action. A fresh Court and a wide-open primary - whatever will we do with this kind of plenty? As if that wasn't enough, here's the Court season's first laugh out loud Dahlia Lithwick crush paragraph:

And then this year, all hell breaks loose. The last few weeks have produced one Oprah-grade revelation after another. Which makes gazing up at the justices today something like waking up the morning after Woodstock: There's a tangle of naked judicial limbs up there on the bench, and the uneasy collective sense that it's best to avoid eye contact... Justice Antonin Scalia - who somehow over the summer became the court's most reticent justice - wants to know how it can possibly be fair to the political parties that "candidates can associate themselves with the parties, but parties can't dissociate from the candidate." He asks whether there is any way to test the truth of the candidate's alleged preference for the Republican Party.

If only a crippling loss of strategic depth and national identity wasn't about to be imposed on Israel - followed by the very real potential for an apocalyptic war in the Middle East - it really would be all candy and unicorns this week.

References:
* In the Bedroom [Slate]

Previously:
* Mere Rhetoric: December 2006 Archives
* More Fun With The 9th Circuit
* Israelis For Kerry, Jews For Kerry, and Israeli Jews for Kerry