>>>>Just to remind you, that the process of exectution costs way more than to imprisson someone for the rest of his life. So the TAX payer pays for each execution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Please back that up?
>>
>>http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7
>>http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost
>>http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death_Penalty_Costs_More/page.do?id=1101084&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99
>>http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html
>
>
>Good Grief! What happened to non-biased sources? Amnesty USA, DeathPenaltyInfo? All activist groups with a cross to burn. That doesn't back up your assertion. Show me an independent, non-biased report and I'll believe you.

John,

Give me a definition of a non-biased source? did you read the content? Those articles do back up their resources (most give references to their source). You can also search wikipedia, google and other source to find exactly the same.

for example: University of Vermont
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/deathpenalty.htm

University of alaska, referring to studies
http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/issues.html

Some real story
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5DE133DF93BA2575BC0A9649C8B63

regardless of these sources, there seems a tendency here that people are rejecting the sources as credible if they say anyting they refuse to beleive, and are in a counter argument throwing in other non-credible sources. So if you refuse to want to believe those resource, I guess you'll have to do your own research in a manner that is unbiased. But again, if your trying to find resources saying the opposite, you'll find them, but that does not make it unbiased.

Personally I find most of the resources above reliable anyways. YMMV