New Jersey became the first state to ban the death penalty since its reinstallment in 1976.?

Question

What is your opinion? should other states follow new jersey's example? Why or why not?

Answer 1

NJ already has capital punishment...It's called the New Jersey Turnpike...

Answer 2

New Jersey did the right thing and in the right way. It instituted a year long study commission before taking up an abolition bill. Among the many witnesses before the commission were families of murder victims who do not support the death penalty. I have given a link to the commission report, below.

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 without thinking about these.

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 3

no. if a muderer kills somebody brutally, why should the murderer get to live? That's not fair. You do the crime, pay the time, and get the death penalty. simple & easy.

they always have all these nuns and activists who stand outside and say "DON"T KILL THE MURDERER! ITS WRONG"!! Hello.... people are killed and murdered every single day by theses horrible people. And you think they should live? I think the death penalty should be enforced more and actually be used,

Answer 4

Wonder if a loved one of Governor Gorzine is brutally murdered. would he still sign the law??