Except they don't? At least, I haven't personally come across any in real life. And I've known plenty of vegans and bicycle enthusiasts.

I am, by the way, neither vegan nor hard-core bicyclist.

So the argument is, it costs so much to maintain the filter that tries to keep innocent people from being executed, so let's make it cheaper by removing some of that filter.

It costs more to execute somebody than keep them in prison forever in order to make as sure as we can that a person is guilty before executing them, by allowing more appeals.

Suggesting the solution to that is fewer appeals is directly saying that it is better to kill more innocent people at a lower cost than it is to not kill anyone.

Also, that it's worth killing innocent people as long as bad people die. Not to prevent them from committing further harm, but just to kill them.

I'm struggling to see the benefit in that cost/benefit analysis. It's not about protecting people (because it actively kills innocent people), it's about killing people just to kill bad people.

Edit: I misunderstood what you were saying. But I would also say that while it would be great to improve the system for the initial trial, removing appeals would have the opposite effect and wouldn't help the initial trial at all. However, if the initial trials are better, everything would still be cheaper regardless of the appeals because there'd be less people falsely imprisoned on death row.

It feels like you set this up on purpose, lol.

Holy shit, that took a turn.

I'd avoid mentioning it unless you want the ire of the Trickster God.

And you'll be paying student loans for the rest of your life, so...

I would say Moe-lek-yu-lees and Parr-tik-cleese.

You also have to vocally state that you are invoking your right to remain silent. Just remaining silent is apparently not enough.

Additionally, the request for a lawyer must be unequivocal. Not "I think I need a lawyer," as much as any reasonable person would consider that as a request for a lawyer. McDaniel, the guy in the linked case got railroaded after saying that he thinks he would rather have a lawyer there to speak for him, and the claim that the questioning should have stopped was dismissed because he hadn't requested a lawyer, only that he thought he needed a lawyer.

Judges bend over backwards to let police mess with our rights, so clarity and assertiveness are a must.

It entirely depends on the particular workplace and what is involved, but either way a decent manager should work with you.

"John, Sarah, and James have already asked for that time off, and we have to have someone in the shop. Would you be able to change to this time to this time?" And you never, ever, ever call someone in when they are on PTO. If you, as a manager, okayed it, it's on you if there's not enough coverage for whatever reason.

In fairness, I work in Search and Rescue, so operations like mine and other emergency-related workplaces can't just be like "Oh well, I guess we won't have coverage that day, Joe wanted to go hunting." If you work in an office and your work literal lives aren't depending on you and others being there, then managers should work around it as best they can.

"United States... Space Corps?"

Hoooooly hell, good luck getting that study going. No ethical concerns there!

They're a total nut job, but what they are saying with the last line is "nobody believe it, evidence be damned." As in, regardless of all the evidence, nobody believes it except them.

It's crazy, but consistent.