are those who defend child rapists & child killers happy the death penalty has been abolished in New Jersey?

Question

I bet Gov Corzine is elated that he prefers to defend the rights of child rapists & child killers than the right of the children that are raped & murdered. And please don't give me that crap that we shouldn't judge who lives & who dies. I'm so fed up with those who think the life of an innocent child is worthless while thinking the life of a child rapist & killer is more worth saving.

Jesse Timmendequas is the sex offender who murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994. The case inspired Megan's Law, which requires law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living in their communities.

Congratulations criminal lovers. . You saved the life of a man who had no problem raping & killing an innocent little girl. I hope that makes you people happy.

Here we go again with the poor excuse. Boo hoo people have been proven innocent. More hogwash by the defenders or child rapists & child murderers.

Answer 1

People are using the defense that there are many individuals wrongly charged with crimes that they in fact didn't commit. This does not excuse or justify the abolishment of the death penalty. If you kill out of cold blood or molest or harm an innocent child or any other person, you do not deserve to live. The law allows a certain amount of appeals in an attempt to prove guilt and name the exact violator. Imagine how many guilty parties get out of jail free and go on to commit more crimes. I apologize for those individuals who have been victims of circumstance but I would rather imprison the innocent for further questioning and investigation than to not "want to violate someone's human rights." We have to think logically here. You are right. I too nelieve inan eye for an eye. We are speaking of monsters. There is no saving these monsters and there is no rehabilitation for the type of people who can rip the life away from a child. Anyway, this angers me too. Thank you for caring. We need more people who do.

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 gave 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

Why is it that the only argument that comes back is about the "innocent criminal "? I'm sorry, I have never heard of an innocent criminal, be it a rapist, killer, bank robber, shooter or whatever. Bad part about trying to vote them out is the problem goes much deeper than that. It's the Judges, the lawyers, the criminal defenders, all the way down the line. Which brings us back to what??? It's all about the money. Maybe we need to go back to bounty hunters or vigilantes. An even better idea...a lynching party. It's time for someone to start thinking about the victims here n not spend so much time protecting criminals. Money is the root of all evil....oh h^ll yes it is. The more you have the more you get away with. Like I've said before, nobody has the right to take a life...what ya'll are missing here is your thinking says it's alright for somebody to kill or rape an innocent child or anybody they choose & just go to jail.
Bring on the thumbs down, but please think about it first. Correction: It was called to my attention about my saying I've never heard of an innocent criminal which was misunderstood. What I meant was if the person is proven guilty by a jury with the DNA evidence they cannot be considered innocent. Does that clarify things???

Answer 4

If someone was ever able to come up with a 100% infallible way of convicting the right person, and ONLY the right person, then I'd support the death penalty no problem.

The problem is, that isn't the case.

PA executed a guy for murdering his wife - who later turned up alive and well and living under a false name with her new boyfriend.

Texas executed a guy for murdering a store clerk and later discovered there was an error in his prison records, and that he was released from prison the day AFTER the robbery, not the day before as they told the jury.

New York sent 4 black teenagers to jail for years after they pled guilty to the gang rape and near killing of the "central park jogger". No DNA testing was done on the evidence because they "didn't need to" - the kids pled guilty. Later the real rapist bragged about the crime, and a judge ordered DNA testing. The 4 kids were innocent - they had pled guilty because the DA threatended them that if they didn't he'd have them put into the adult general population at Rikers, where they could expect to be gang-raped themselves.

In the last 5 years the innocence project alone has proven the innocence, through DNA testing, of over 200 wrongfully convicted "rapists and murderers". Since there is DNA evidence to test in only about 5% of criminal cases, how many of the 95% of convicted criminals who have no chance of getting any DNA evidence to exonerate them are actually innocent?

Richard

Answer 5

I've always been on the fence about the death penalty issue. You have to admit, there have been innocent people who were sent to jail for 20+ years. Now that isn't quite fair, is it? What if that were you?

But, on the other hand, murderers and child rapists who have been proven guilty should die, in my opinion. They should die the way their victims did. I have no sympathy for people who are cold hard criminals.

So, i stand undecided. But I guess there isn't much we can really do about it because i believe our political system is totally screwed up.

Should i be scared? i live in NJ.....hmm

Answer 6

I imagine they are but as I am neither from New Jersey or anti death penalty I am not. I am all in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes and a child rapist is right up there at the top of the list even above those who kill police officers. But the liberals rule the roost and short of an all out revolution to get rid of them we are in for an endless string of 'feel good' rulings on various things. Doesn't make it right but until we vote all of them out of office and replace them with people who actually think instead of react there is no justice in sight.

Answer 7

The voters of New Jersey will have the last word on this issue. 1994 was a long time ago, people move on. That's just how it is.

Answer 8

I'm sure the attorney's and the criminals are very happy there will be no death penalty. They are now free to rape & kill children and anybody else they choose.

I personally feel they should get the same punishment they gave that poor, defenseless child, who could not and was not strong enough to stand up for themselves.

Answer 9

and of course YOU on the other side most likely have NO PROBLEM with the fact that hundreds who have been convicted and sentenced to die were later proven innocent !!


I detest child molesters but our system is failable !!

In a recent case a niece who testified 10 yrs ago that it was her uncle who climbed inbedroom window and raped her was proven wrong, the man down the street was caught doing another 12 year old and his DNA matched her panties from 10 yrs ago, THAT MAN WAS INNOCENT AND SPENT 10 YRS IN PRISON !!!

Answer 10

I don't see this will change anything in NJ. NJ has not used the death penalty in 44 years.