Town Square

Post a New Topic

Palo Alto donors back repeal of death penalty

Original post made on Oct 30, 2012

Death and taxes may be the only certainties in this world, but when it comes to campaign contributions, Palo Alto residents are far more interested in addressing the former than the latter, finance documents show.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, October 30, 2012, 9:37 AM

Comments (43)

Posted by Dave, a resident of Fairmeadow
on Oct 30, 2012 at 9:51 am

Lets face it...the death penalty is a bit too "Taliban" for modern societies; that's why most have gone away from it. Electrocution, injection...its all just our own version of beheading in the public square while the throngs of true believers praise their god for providing them with their blood-lust revenge. Time to evolve.


Posted by fact check, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:15 am

In this story, you correctly report that local pillar of the community Charlie Munger has paid over 35 million dollars to defeat our best chance to protect public education in California through Proposition 30. If Proposition 30 is defeated, it will be nuclear winter for almost all California schools -- not Palo Alto, which benefits from our high property tax revenues and wealthy citizens. But schools everywhere else will be crushed.

What you did not report is that former school board member Mandy (Lowell) Munger is the wife of Charlie Munger. It is fair to ask whether she also is responsible for her husband's and family's effort to defeat Proposition 30 and destroy public education in California. Furthermore, it is fair to ask whether when Mandy (Lowell) Munger came to the school board and recommended that they endorse her family's vanity Proposition 38, she should have disclosed to the school board that her own money was being spent to defeat Proposition 30.

Finally, it would be fair to ask why Mandy (Lowell) Munger as a former school board member is part of a family that is actively trying to undermine funding for CA schools which will leave millions of CA children without decent schools or a chance at a future. Does Mandy (Lowell) Munger support her husband's campaign against public education funding? Should she have disclosed a conflict of interest to the board of education before she recommended that they endorse her family's vanity proposition?


Posted by Chris Bernstien, a resident of another community
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:16 am

Most of what the proponents argue to support the proposition are simply false. The provisions in addition to banning the death penalty achieve nothing, but serve as bribes to get the conservative votes of those who haven't investigated the proposition thoroughly.

The 729 on death row murdered at least 1,279 people, including 230 children. 43 were police officers. 211 were raped, 319 were robbed, 66 were murdered in execution-style killings, and 47 were tortured. 11 murdered other inmates.

No "savings" & Increased Violence Alleged savings ignore increased life-time medical costs, which often double during the last 25 years of life and in some cases exceed $1 million a year. The alleged savings also requires housing these killers in less-restrictive prisons where they share cells. Proponents also want to provide them opportunities for work, where they have more freedom, access to other inmates and guards, and more chances to make weapons.

Michael Genest, former State Of California Finance Director, reported:

While I credit the LAO for a fair and impartial attempt to quantify the costs and savings that may result from the enactment of Proposition 34, the savings claims of the proponents of the measure are grossly exaggerated.

The LAO's official ballot pamphlet analysis pegs the net savings to state and local governments combined at $100 million annually, growing eventually to $130 million. While I think that the LAO made a good faith effort to guess at what the fiscal effects would be, their estimate is based on a few key assumptions about which they acknowledge there is substantial uncertainty and which may well be wrong.

Moreover, the absence of the threat of a death penalty could substantially increase the total number of murder trials by taking away a major incentive for murderers to plead guilty. based on a study by a California organization, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, is that elimination of the death penalty would reduce plea bargains and increase trials in murder cases by 11%. That would mean trials and appeals in over 140 additional murder cases a year, an added expense that could completely eliminate the savings from trying a much smaller number of cases as life-imprisonment rather than capital cases.

No "accountability." The proponents claim that inmates will have to work and pay their victims. The maximum earnings for any inmate would amount to $383/year (assuming 100% of earnings went to victims), divided by the number of qualifying victims. Hardly accounts for murdering a loved one.

No "full enforcement" as 729 inmates do not receive the penalty given them by jurors. Also, for the 34,000 inmates serving life sentences, there will be NO increased penalty for killing a guard or another inmate. They're already serving a life sentence. This should scare the hell out of any prison guard. Also, efforts are also being made to get rid of life sentences. (Human Rights Watch, Old Behind Bars, 2012.) On 9/30/12, Brown passed the first step, signing a bill to allow 309 inmates with life sentences for murder to be paroled after serving 25 years. Life without parole is meaningless. Remember Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan. While not released, they have been up for parole several times despite initially receiving a death sentence. Governors are also notorious for releasing inmates who should never be released. Convicted killers get out and kill again, such as Darryl Thomas Kemp, Kenneth Allen McDuff, and Bennie Demps.

Arguments of innocence bogus. Proponents can't identify one innocent person executed in CA. They can't identify one person on CA's death row who has exhausted his appeals and has a plausible claim of innocence. See Web Link and Web Link for more facts explaining why you should not be supporting Prop. 34.


Posted by Chris Bernstien, a resident of another community
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:17 am

A jury of 12 people & a judge confirmed for each inmate that their crimes were so atrocious and they were so dangerous that they not only did not deserve to live, but they were so dangerous that the only safe recourse was the death penalty. Recognizing how dangerous these killers are, the prison houses them 1 person to a cell and does not provide them with work, leaving them locked in their cells most of the day.

Prop. 34 wants to ignore all of this and save $ by placing these killers in less-restrictive prisons where they share cells. They also want to provide them opportunities for work, where they have more freedom, access to other inmates and guards, & more chances to make weapons.

Prop. 34 also destroys any incentive for the 34,000 inmates already serving life without parole to kill again. There would be no death penalty. They are already serving a life sentence, so why not get a name by killing another inmate or a guard?

Prop. 34 also takes away the money for inmates to challenge their convictions. If innocent, they will spend the rest of their life in jail, celled with vicious killers. Prop. 34 will cause more deaths of innocent people– guards and people wrongfully convicted but no longer able to fight it in court.

And they refer to Prop. 34 as the SAFE Act!


Posted by Enough!, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:30 am

Of COURSE they do. The rights of a murderer are ever so much more important than the rights of their murdered victims. No one disagrees that the death penalty needs a major overhaul, higher burden of proof and shorter appellate process. Look at the most recent murders, two women in their mid fifties, just living their lives, harming no one, when vicious dregs of what is loosely called 'humanity' savagely murdered them in their own homes. Now, there are children, grandchildren, spouses and friends bereft without their loved ones, and we taxpayers now get to feed, clothe and supply medical to these scumbags for the rest of their lives. Yeah, that's enlightened.

The irony is that the murderers CHOOSE the death penalty both for the victims, and themselves, when they choose to take the life of another, yet their punishment is LIFE. Anyone check in on Tex Watson of Manson infamy lately? He has an ONLINE Christian Ministry, FOUR CHILDREN, and a wife. He didn't have kids when he went in. He may be in prison, but he has a LIFE and all of the wonderful things that come along with it such as love, children and some sort of meaningful occupation.

Wonder what his victims are doing right now??? Oh, yeah. Mouldering.


Posted by Friend, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:42 am

Mandy is a friend and neighbor of mine, and I know that she cares about our schools. It's true that she is terribly wrong on Proposition 30, but I hope that doesn't diminish the community's respect for her for her other service to our schools. She and Charles are both staunch Republicans, which helps to explain some of this. I'm sure that she will feel terrible if her family's donations end up hurting our schools. But I just want everyone to know that she is a warm, thoughtful person despite all this. Please post if you agree with me so that everyone can know the truth about Mandy.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:47 am

"The 729 on death row murdered at least 1,279 people"

So murder the 729. Yup, that's the ticket to enlightenment.

Go Taliban!

State sanctioned murder -- joining China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and all the advanced countries.

WWJD?


Posted by With friends like these, a resident of Community Center
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:54 am

I am confused. Mandy Lowell gave $35 million to defeat Prop 30 funding for schools? And didn't tell the board but got them to endorse 38? What? I a flabbergasted. All this negative campaigning behind the scenes! That's really stunning. How could she do that?


Posted by resident, a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:57 am

Why doesn't the death penalty apply to corporate criminals who do much more damage to society than the people locked up on death row right now?


Posted by Robert, a resident of Stanford
on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 am

Regarding Prop. 30, let's not forget that Gov. Jerry Brown is responsible for a major part of the problem. He's the one that pushed through the High-Speed Rail boondoggle at enormous and still growing expense to the public, minimum of $100 billion, that for the sake of his own legacy. And let's not forget that he cynically provided local district perks to certain legislators to induce them to vote to support his proposition, which barely passed. He thus put California in much deeper debt than it already is and hopes to bail out the schools with his Prop. 30. He wants the public to pick up the bill to support the schools after his HSR initiative put the state into much deeper debt. The money committed to HSR by Brown could have and should have been used for our schools. I for one refuse to vote to increase my taxes in order to make up for the huge shortfall caused by Brown's decision to use an enormous amount of public money for an unnecessary boondoggle, ego-feeding legacy, and union-payback project that is likely to be an albatross around the neck of the state and its citizens for decades to come. A YES vote on Prop. 30 allows Brown to get away with his warped priorities and escape unscathed. A NO vote on Prop. 30 will hold him accountable for his cynical, wasteful, and self-serving decision on HSR.


Posted by what?, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:21 am

"A NO vote on Prop. 30 will hold him accountable for his cynical, wasteful, and self-serving decision on HSR."

a NO vote on prop 30 would gut public education in California forever. You and Mandy Lowell would punish innocent children in some weird payback scheme having to do with High Speed Rail? Sorry, not my values.


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:35 am

Web Link


Posted by Enough!, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:38 am

Oh NO! A staunch Republican? In PALO ALTO? Gather the villagers, light the torches, storm the gates! I'm so glad THAT explains why she's made this horrific gaffe.


Posted by C, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:42 am

"Mandy Lowell gave $35 million to defeat Prop 30 funding for schools? And didn't tell the board but got them to endorse 38? What? I a flabbergasted. All this negative campaigning behind the scenes! That's really stunning. How could she do that?"
It's her husband, Charles Munger Jr. who has given the money not her. But besides that, if you read Brown's measure carefully you'll note that a) the money eventually goes to the general fund which means nothing for schools and b) the money he's "giving" to schools is actually what he cut from them awhile ago to reallocate $ to the SEIU & Roads/Bridges but regardless I suppose it's better than nothing.


Posted by Toni, a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:50 am

Wow, this is so interesting to read. With all the money that is being thrown at these campaigns, we could save a country! For example, 35 million to defeat a measure that would increase sales tax so there is money for education and not increase income tax on folks who make a lot of money... hummmm...that money could have revamped our education system and much more! Do you think Mr. Munger makes enough money that he will pay $35 mmm in taxes in his lifetime??? I just don't understand why money and politics need to go hand and hand... Wouldn't it be AMAZING if all the money that was contributed to political campaigns was put into 1 big pot and used for things like, oh, I don't know, infrastructure, creating jobs, education, maybe cure cancer... just a thought!


Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2012 at 12:28 pm

Wonder how long after the death penalty is repealed before these same people are back claiming that life in prison is "cruel and inhuman" punishment--and start lobbying to change the penal code to reduce the penalty for murder to more more than a few years in a minimum security facility?


Posted by Duveneck mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 30, 2012 at 12:40 pm

I started another thread about Charles Munger and Mandy Lowell and Proposition 30, because it seems that there are two conversations going on here (and I don't want the death penalty comments to get lost).
It's here: Web Link


Posted by Jim H., a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 30, 2012 at 12:43 pm

Mandy Lowell is supporting Prop 38. Prop 38 is the ONLY proposition that guarantees that nearly all the money will go to the schools. (after 4 years, ALL the money goes to education) I don't see how that is "not supporting the school system".

Governor Brown's Prop 30 only reinstates cuts made and does not state that the increased revenue will go to schools. In fact, the only increase that Prop 30 guarantees is that portion which is mandated by Prop 98 as a minimum funding as a percent of revenue. After that minimum is met, the rest of Prop 30 money will go to balancing the budget and/or Brown's pet projects

Stop giving money to Sacramento so they can waste it. Prop 38 is a much better option if you truly want to support the schools


Posted by Duveneck mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 30, 2012 at 12:55 pm

I really do hope we talk about the death penalty on this thread and so that is why I started a new one. As a strong Christian, I just can't abide it.

I can't agree with you about Mandy Lowell's opposition to Prop 30. Prop 38 is getting approximatley 40% approval, so it is almost sure to fail. Prop 30 is our only hope for avoiding large cuts in school funding statewide and in our community, and it looks like it might fall below 50% -- probably because Lowell and Munger have spent tens of millions of dollars opposing it. Why would Lowell spend millions of dollars to defeat Prop 30? It's OK to support Prop 38, but torpedoing Prop 30 when it is the only real option is just terrible for all of our kids. As someone else said, I just can't see that as part of my values.


Posted by Spend-Less--Not-More!, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2012 at 1:30 pm

> is our only hope for avoiding large cuts in school
> funding statewide and in our community

Schools are overfunded now. Rethinking the whole proposition of government schools is past time. Private schools can deliver a better product, at lower costs. Giving the government more money for its general fund will not guarantee better education for our kids--while it will guarantee more money fr school employees.

Vote NO on Prop.30!


Posted by MandysLostCredibility, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 30, 2012 at 1:39 pm

Mandy Lowell has definitely lost credibility in my view. Prop 38 was dying in the polls, so it seems like the $$Millions she is spending on anti-prop 30 really does come across as sour grapes, or attacking schools. Prop 30 may have been all that remains to help a lot of struggling school districts.

It's unbelievable that she did not disclose her bias to the board when advocating for 38 - I guess I won't believe HER ever again.

It's a sad day when someone spends $$Millions in secret to defeat schools.


Posted by Ducatigirl, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 30, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Back to the death penalty: besides the immorality of it, it is extremely expensive for the government to pay for the endless appeals of the defendant, which can go on for decades. Unless the defendant is wealthy, a public defender is provided by the government.


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 30, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Spend-Less - maybe on your little planet in Palo Alto are schools well-funded, but ot in other areas. If they were, we wouldn't be inundated with sales pitches by friends & co- workers to by crapola to raise $$ for schools.

Using the term "product" to describe educating children demonstrates a narrow, misaligned view, as if schools were businesses. I'm a "product" of private education & some of it was actually inferior to public school education.


Posted by Enough!, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Oct 30, 2012 at 2:23 pm

The death penalty is NOT immoral. It's a choice. The choice a murderer makes for each victim he/she kills. It's also a CHOICE for the killer, because they chose to kill. I am so tired of the usual old tired excuses why the death penalty is wrong. Religion is supposed to not be tied in to government. The death penalty for corporations and George Bush, old, tired. State sanctioned murder, b.s. The state doesn't go out to create victims for the death penalty. The perpetrators do that to themselves. People who oppose the death penalty aren't enlightened, they are hypocritical. They advocate life for those who pronounced death on another. The punishment should fit the crime!


Posted by what?, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 30, 2012 at 2:29 pm

Let's post about how Mandy Lowell Munger and Charlie Munger spent $$$$$$35 million to take away money from public education and another $30 million to kill the teachers' union on the new thread so that this can be about the death penalty? New thread: Web Link


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Oct 30, 2012 at 2:51 pm

>> The First Presbyterian Church has contributed $1,000

That money cannot have been from tax-deductible church donations, n'est-ce pas?


Posted by Spend-Less--Not-More!, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2012 at 4:05 pm

> Spend-Less - maybe on your little planet in Palo Alto are
> schools well-funded, but ot in other areas

Here in California, we spend over 40% of the State's budget on "schools"/"education". The CA LAO documented over $10,000/student. There are over 2M Full, and part time, employees on the local/county/state employment rolls. About 1M of these folks are working in the "education sector". The fact is that "schools" have become "employment engines" for labor unions, and other kinds of folks. It's almost impossible to fire people, and there is little accountability in the system to insure that the school employees are actually needed, and productive. The following study documents this problem on a national level:

Web Link

Here in California, there are far too many laws binding the hands of school districts to spend their funding as they see fit—meaning that they are required, often, to hire expensive union labor, rather than outsourcing to the most cost effective vendor of a given service. So—it doesn't take long for the $60B-$80B targeted for schools to evaporate in labor costs.

> use of the word "product"

It's just a word. However, if more people in the education system began to think of their role in society as producers of "education products", then maybe they might begin to think about the quality of their work as being needed to increase the quality of their "product".


Posted by Spend-Less--Not-More!, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2012 at 4:13 pm

> Spend-Less - maybe on your little planet in Palo Alto are
> schools well-funded, but ot in other areas

Here in California, we spend over 40% of the State's budget on "schools"/"education". The CA LAO documented over $10,000/student. There are over 2M Full, and part time, employees on the local/county/state employment rolls. About 1M of these folks are working in the "education sector". The fact is that "schools" have become "employment engines" for labor unions, and other kinds of folks. It's almost impossible to fire people, and there is little accountability in the system to insure that the school employees are actually needed, and productive. The following study documents this problem on a national level:

Web Link

Here in California, there are far too many laws binding the hands of school districts to spend their funding as they see fit—meaning that they are required, often, to hire expensive union labor, rather than outsourcing to the most cost effective vendor of a given service. So—it doesn't take long for the $60B-$80B targeted for schools to evaporate in labor costs.

> use of the word "product"

It's just a word. However, if more people in the education system began to think of their role in society as producers of "education products", then maybe they might begin to think about the quality of their work as being needed to increase the quality of their "product".


Posted by fact check, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 30, 2012 at 4:31 pm

Spend Less-- So Mandy (Lowell) Munger and her husband are trying to destroy public education and destroy the teachers' unions with their $65 million dollars in political money, trying to buy elections, so that they can privatize education for middle class families in California?


Posted by Spend-Less--Not-More, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2012 at 5:31 pm

> so that they can privatize education for middle class
> families in California?

You'll have to ask them about their motivations.


Posted by Nayeli, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 30, 2012 at 5:46 pm

It won't be long before activists begin claiming that life without parole is "too harsh" for murderers, rapists and child killers.

While I don't approve of capital punishment unless the guilt meets a higher level of certainty, we aren't talking about jaywalkers or burglars here. We are talking about RAPISTS, MURDERERS and CHILD KILLERS.


Posted by Pragmatist, a resident of Community Center
on Oct 30, 2012 at 9:46 pm

Look at the Illinois data collected by the Northwestern University Law group - Center on Wrongful Convictions and you find that an unconscionable number of people are put on death row who are later shown to be innocent. The state is not perfect in sorting out criminal guilt; often the state is corrupt, mismanaged, ambitious, or inept. The death penalty is simply too final, and it is not acceptable to put to death 5% innocent people in order to cast a wide enough net to put to death heinous murderers.

Practically speaking, we are far better off saving the money, and saving innocent lives by sentencing life without parole.

As much as I agree with various posters that the worst murderers should be put to death, there is no perfect way to ensure that innocent people are not caught up in a flawed justice system.


Posted by Common Sense, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:14 pm

There is no one more caring about our community and local schools than Mandy Lowell, and frankly, Charles Munger. Munger's cause is 32,and not 30. He only wants that union or private political contribution be approved and not an automatic payroll deduction.
Mandy Lowell believes that 38 would only provide funding for schools and not go into the California general fund.
Again, Mandy Lowell is a huge proponent/champion for our local schools.


Posted by Aquamarine, a resident of Stanford
on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:29 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by fact check, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 31, 2012 at 7:37 am

common -- "Mandy Lowell is a huge proponent/champion for our local schools." -- well, only if you emphasize the word "local" and only if by local you mean "schools their kids attended." Mandy Lowell Munger and Charlie Munger can't spend $35 million to destroy public education in CA and then be "education advocates."


Posted by Enough!, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 31, 2012 at 10:51 am

"Mom sentenced to life in twin daughters' deaths"


Posted by Howard Jarvis, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 31, 2012 at 2:41 pm

@common sense
Mandy and Charles Munger are the biggest donors for Yes on 32 and No on 30 to the tune of $36.5 million given to the Small Business Action Committee PAC. If Mandy Lowell is a champion of schools then why is she campaigning against the recommendations of the California Teacher's Association? The CTA website homepage says, "We need to PASS Prop 30 to stop the cuts to our schools-and we must DEFEAT Prop 32 so the billionaires & Super-PACS can't silence our voice." I don't think the CTA thinks the Mungers are their allies in this election cycle


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 31, 2012 at 3:09 pm

Who cares more than the Mungers? Uh, I'd say a lot of people, such as overworked educators, concerned parents, volunteers, youth advocates, the students themselves. It's just that they lack millions to throw at their pet politics.


Posted by Nora Charles, a resident of Stanford
on Oct 31, 2012 at 4:18 pm

Posted by Enough!, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:30 am

Of COURSE they do. The rights of a murderer are ever so much more important than the rights of their murdered victims. No one disagrees that the death penalty needs a major overhaul, higher burden of proof and shorter appellate process. Look at the most recent murders, two women in their mid fifties, just living their lives, harming no one, when vicious dregs of what is loosely called 'humanity' savagely murdered them in their own homes. Now, there are children, grandchildren, spouses and friends bereft without their loved ones, and we taxpayers now get to feed, clothe and supply medical to these scumbags for the rest of their lives. Yeah, that's enlightened.

The irony is that the murderers CHOOSE the death penalty both for the victims, and themselves, when they choose to take the life of another, yet their punishment is LIFE. Anyone check in on Tex Watson of Manson infamy lately? He has an ONLINE Christian Ministry, FOUR CHILDREN, and a wife. He didn't have kids when he went in. He may be in prison, but he has a LIFE and all of the wonderful things that come along with it such as love, children and some sort of meaningful occupation.

Wonder what his victims are doing right now??? Oh, yeah. Mouldering.
________
Beautifully said, Enough!


Posted by John Allured, a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 31, 2012 at 4:44 pm

I am a longtime resident of Barron Park -- lived in the same house for almost 30 years -- and strongly support Proposition 34. (1) Every Western nation except the US has abolished the death penalty, and even here, 15 states have abolished it. (2) There is no competent evidence that the death penalty deters crime. At best, the studies are conflicting, and the statement in the informational brochure by the opponents of Prop 34 does not even mention deterrence. (3) Since 1978, when the death penalty was reinstated, California has spent $4 billion on the death penalty system. During that time, 13 inmates have been executed, and 78 have died of natural causes, suicide, or other causes, almost half of them with habeas corpus petitions still pending. The California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice (2008) found that the death penalty system costs $137 million per year more than what taxpayers would spend without the death penalty, and that figure does not even include millions more in federal habeas corpus proceedings and other expenses. (4) The death penalty allows the possibility that innocent people will be put to death. Since, 1973, over 140 inmates on death row have been acquitted of the charges that put them on death row, had the charges dismissed, or been granted a complete pardon based on evidence of innocence. (5) Law enforcement officials -- including a California Attorney General, Los Angles District Attorney, federal and state prosecutors, and former Warden at San Quentin State Prison -- and academic, religious, community leaders, and victims' families support life imprisonment without the possibility of parole instead of the death penalty.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2012 at 4:49 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by To Sharon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2012 at 5:02 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2012 at 5:28 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

To post your comment, please click here to login

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Freshman Blues Don't Mean Wrong College
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 1,313 views

Background and Ideas for the Comp Plan
By Steve Levy | 21 comments | 1,243 views

The life of Zarf
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 1,217 views

When Grandparents Visit
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 964 views

First Impression of Chennai Kings
By Anita Felicelli | 7 comments | 953 views