i wake up in the morning and i ask myself is life worth living should i blast myself don't even wanna get out of bed i got the glock to my head feel like i rather be dead.

Death Penalty Survives In California, But Three-Strikes Law Cut Back

When 53 percent of California voters rejected Proposition 34 on Election Day, they were choosing to retain the death penalty instead of replacing it with life in prison without the possibility of parole. The same day, a larger percentage of the California electorate voted to radically reduce the number of felons serving life sentences under the state’s so-called “three-strikes” law. In both cases, the punishment costs the state dearly—either because of years of fighting an inmate’s appeals or years of housing and feeding him. How could the same voters care so much about saving money in one context but be so indifferent to the squandering of it in another?

The answer to that is something that the backers of Prop 34 didn’t seem to understand—but if they did, then it’s all the better that the measure failed. When Americans think about ordinary matters of crime and punishment, economics are key. But when you throw the death penalty into the mix, moral considerations rule. Economic arguments matter at the margins, but at its core, the debate over the death penalty is never really about dollars and cents—rather, it turns on our id⁄ea of what it means to be a human being.

I doubt the 726 inmates on California’s death row care very much about this debate. The state has not executed anyone since January 2006, when officials administered a lethal injection to 76-year-old Clarence Allen, and because of a federally imposed moratorium there is no immediate prospect that any of the dozen or so death-row inmates whose appeals have run their course will be put to death any time soon. In fact, California has executed a total of only 13 people since capital punishment was reinstated there in 1978—an average of one execution every two and a half years.

Meanwhile, in Texas two days after the election, Mario Swain became the 13th person executed in the state this year. Swain was my client. Ten years ago he broke into a house owned by a woman named Lola Nixon, intending to commit burglary. While he was inside, Ms. Nixon returned home, and Swain killed her.

The courts ruled against our final appeals late on the night of Nov. 7, around 26 hours before Swain was put to death. I decided to wait until Thursday morning to tell him, hoping that by keeping the news to myself, it would give him a better final night. Another lawyer might have told him right away. Death-penalty lawyers disagree about such things.

Gun Control vs. Gun Rights

The Issue

The debate over gun ownership is centered on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Gun control advocates believe that right does not extend to ownership of military-style firearms that are otherwise known as assault weapons. They point to incidents such as the Columbine high school massacre in April 1999, which resulted in the deaths of 14 students (including the two gunmen) and a teacher, in support of banning assault weapons. They also support measures intended to curb gun-related violence, such as mandatory child safety locks, background checks on those wishing to purchase a gun, limits on the number of guns a person can buy and raising the age limit for gun ownership.
Gun rights groups, led by the National Rifle Association, argue that these and other proposals infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. They maintain that bans on the sale of certain types of weapons have not proved effective in reducing violent crime, and that proposals for stricter background checks at gun shows are designed to eliminate gun shows themselves. Some gun manufacturers have volunteered support for safety locks, but the NRA has criticized safety locks for placing an undue burden on gun manufacturers without a proven benefit to the public.

How it May Affect You

At the forefront of the debate over guns is the assault weapons ban that went into effect in 1994. The ban, which was part of a larger anti-crime bill passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton that year, applies to 19 specific models of semi-automatic firearms and to other guns with assault-weapon features. The ban expired Sept. 13, 2004, and gun rights groups were pressing Congress to allow the ban to lapse. Gun control advocates responded with a massive public relations campaign encouraging voters to tell their elected representatives that Congress should renew the ban.
The issue has become a hot potato in a presidential election year, with President Bush and Sen. John Kerry taking positions designed not to infuriate voters on either side of the debate. Bush said he supports an extension, but gun control advocates accused him of failing to pressure Congress into action. Kerry announced his support for extending the ban, even as his campaign sought to boost the Democratic presidential nominee's credentials as a gun owner and hunter.
Republican congressional leaders say the ban was allowed to lapse because gun control advocates in the House and Senate did not have enough votes to extend it. They may be right. Most Republicans in Congress oppose an extension, and Democrats were far from united in support of preserving the ban. Democrats representing rural areas kept mum on the issue, perhaps mindful of their constituents' sensitivity to gun control measures. In addition, some Democrats believe their support of the assault weapons ban cost them control of the House and Senate in 1994, and that the gun control issue hurt Al Gore's standing in key states during the 2000 presidential election.

The Money

If lawmakers are guilty of tiptoeing around gun control issues, it is because the NRA and other gun rights groups wield an enormous amount of influence in Washington. The source of that influence is money. Gun rights groups have given more than $17 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989. Nearly $15 million, or 85 percent of the total, has gone to Republicans. The National Rifle Association is by far the gun rights lobby's biggest donor, having contributed more than $14 million over the past 15 years. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, contribute far less money than their rivals -- a total of nearly $1.7 million since 1989, of which 94 percent went to Democrats. The leading contributor among gun control advocates is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly known as Handgun Control, which has given $1.5 million over the past 15 years.
If gun rights groups have a substantial advantage in campaign contributions, they dominate gun control advocates in the area of lobbying. The NRA alone spent nearly $11 million lobbying elected and government officials from 1997 to 2003. But it wasn't the gun rights lobby's biggest spender. That was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbing over the same period. By contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent under $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent $580,000.
The National Rifle Association has an additional advantage over all other groups in the debate. As a membership organization, the NRA can spend unlimited funds on communications to its 4 million members that identify pro-gun candidates. Those members also contribute millions of dollars in limited donations to the NRA's political action committee, which runs ads aimed at the general public that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. Since 1989, the NRA has spent more than $22 million on communications costs and independent expenditures, with more than $18 million spent in support of Republican candidates.

Analysis of Prior Congressional Vote

The Center did the following analysis of votes on gun control proposals that Congress considered after the Columbine massacre in 1999. The results shed light on the relationship between campaign contributions and the way lawmakers voted on the issue.
Senate:Just weeks after the Colorado school shooting, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), approved immediate floor consideration of S. 254, the Senate Juvenile Justice Bill. The bill, ultimately amended to include tough provisions on background checks and safety locks, was approved by a vote of 73-25.
However, senators voted three times on proposed background checks at gun shows, first voting against a three-day waiting period, then approving a 24-hour waiting period, then giving final approval to the mandatory three-day background check. [see Senate vote chart]
House: The House rejected legislation loaded with gun control provisions similar to those approved by the Senate. However, House Republican leaders split the gun debate into two separate pieces of legislation –- one focusing on youth culture and violent crime and another specifically dealing with gun shows. Among the more contentious points of debate, gun-rights backers passed an amendment limiting gun show background checks to 24 hours, rather than the Senate-approved mandate of three days. The provision meant that if a background check on a potential gun buyer was not completed within 24 hours, the sale would be approved automatically. Discontent with that amendment  –- among gun-control advocates who viewed it as too weak and gun-rights advocates who thought it went too far  –- led to the bill's demise.
The House voted 218-211 in favor of the amendment that would limit background checks at gun shows to 24 hours. In a 193-235 vote, lawmakers voted down the amendment that would have mandated a three-day waiting period. The House vote to kill was 280-147.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/13/politics/susan-rice-profile/index.html

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009039