NJ abolishing death penalty?

Question

Is there anyone else besides me that thinks this is wrong? The legislature approved this bill and will send it to Corzine's desk so he can sign it. Corzine says that he will, he is anti-death penalty. This will mean that anyone will be excluded from execution. Even the rapists/murderers of children who were on death row will be spared. What do you think about this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071213/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_new_jersey
-

Btw, I'm an NJ resident and dissapointed that my state is doing this.

Harry K,

I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty. They're separate issues why do anti-death penalty people always try to lump those together?

Answer 1

This is a horrible mistake. I am pro-DP.

When IL Gov. Ryan commuted the sentences of everyone on death row, the Chicago Tribune published the picture and crime of each person on death row.
About 50% (I think it was over 50%, but I can't recall exactly) of the people on deasth row were on death row for the murder of either a police officer, probation officer, or another inmate AFTER the guy had committed a prior murder.

AFTER a prior murder.

So people who say the DP is not a deterrent: there would have been app. 60 people - police officer, probation officer, or another inmate - who would be alive IF the DP had been applied to the murderer in the first instance.

Answer 2

I think a couple more blue states might follow suit (maybe NY?). I must be ignorant, I know the right is supposed to be all for the death penalty, and the left is all against it, but I'm conservative and I could really care less if capital punishment is allowed or not. My reasoning is usually as an alternative to capital punishment, the sentence is life in prison. The net result is we are not going to hear from that person again. Besides, I think a quick death sentence is an easy way to dodge upwards of 50 years in prison. I think 50 years in prison is the harsher sentence. Maybe it's because I've spent too much time in NJ.

Answer 3

I am and have always been pro death penalty in certain cases, and I do not support it because I believe it is a deterent. I believe that someone who commits a crime so heinous that requires his or her permenent removal from society, should not be a drain on that society's resources. I do not care for the fact that my tax money goes to support these people, and in many cases provides them with amenities that I cannot always afford for myself. Certainly, guilt should be very clearly established, perhaps even "beyond a reasonable doubt", and trials should be conducted in such a manner that appeals on technical issues would be reduced. Perhaps each case could be turned over to a non-partisan-non-sectarian legal review board before any appeals are heard so that frivolous appeals, designed specifcally to waste time could be eliminated.

I understand that this issue, like certain others mentioned here, are highly volitile, with supporters of both side very vocal and demonstrative about why they are in the right. There may be no correct answer to the question of the death penalty, other than the will of the people, which is known to change from time to time. I don't think, however, that either the application, or the banning of, the death penalty is an indication of an "enlightened society". It is simply a shift in the thoughts, attitudes and beliefs of citizens of a particular country, which can change for any reason, or no reason.

Answer 4

You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and to think about the risks of executing innocent people. Your question is much too important to settle on the basis of sound bites or without answers to these. New Jerseyans should be proud that their legislators have studied these things.

125 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t.

We have a good alternative. Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 5

The death penalty is an understandably sensitive issue. We all wish there would not be a need for it in the first place. When somebody is to be executed, it should only happen after a thorough investigation, that's obvious to anyone (including pro death penalty Texas). I have to be honest that I can't buy into the anti-death penalty argument which is ultimately based on forgiveness. If you scratched my car I can forgive you if you apologize, if you took my loved one (especially my child) I am sorry but I can't.

Answer 6

Good. For one, New Jersey has not executed ANYONE since 1976. Any value you may THINK it has, it does not. Additionally, the death penalty does nothing to deter or prevent crime. I accomplishes only one goal, vengeance. That is by far the worst reason to have a death penalty.

There is also a school of thought that a person sent to prison for life suffers a worst punishment than someone executed. Once the switch is pulled, it's over.

Read http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf and see what you feel about the death penalty after wards. Don't bash my comments until you have read this.

Answer 7

Unfortunately, I think its a state issue.

I am personally all for the death penalty. I would use it quite often to avoid long term prison costs (given sufficient evidence of the crime(s))

At least at state level, you have a chance of influencing the vote and if you feel very strongly maybe its something you will spend some spare time on.

Answer 8

Illinois did this not too long ago when a good percentage of death row was proved innocent with DNA testing. I'd say it's a good move, a mistake on death row is too much to risk.

Answer 9

What does it matter. NJ has a death penalty and doesn't use it.

Death penalty is wrong anyway.

For the life of me, I can't see how someone can be pro abortion and anti-death penalty or vice a versa.

Answer 10

I think it is wrong, I am pro-death penalty...I'm sorry but I think that certain crimes need certian punishment...maybe you can do a petition, ask your congressman if you want to stop the bill how many signitures do you need?? Dont forget the signatures have to be NJ residents...ask all the details...Message me if you need any help.

Dont listen to Harry K, he obviously didnt read the question correctly!