Death Penalty

Thank goodness for Steve!  Hiring people illegally is still not punishable by death.

Isn't life in prison cheaper than enforcing the death penalty?  DP abolition is supported by many on both sides of the aisle.  Its abolition has support from strange bedfellows.  It has become a wedge issue, but hurts the families of victims more than it helps them given the slow appeals process in states across the country.

Besides, even if the DP was regularly implemented in this state. wouldn't that give our big state government more incentive to fill up prisons for other offenses?  Thus the creation of yet more meaningless laws.

IMO, fiscal conservatives should support the abolition of the DP.

Any hypothesis deserves scrutiny and reserach to confirm or contradict said hypothesis: But according to Mayor Lonegan's bizarre brand of fundamentalism, the voice inside his head tells him that the death penalty is a deterrent (somewhat reminiscent of Bush when he says that God speaks to him), and therefore the death penalty must be a deterrent. Nevermind that Columbia U. Law Professor Dr. Jeffrey Fagan testified before the senate on the flaws in the few pro-deterrent studies for the death penalty; nevermind that our own Death Penalty Commission found that the death penalty was not a deterrent. Logic, facts, and research on the subject go out the window -- that is, unless the death penalty abolishment would be based on a "pro-life" (anti-women) point of view for justification, according to Lonegan.

I also find it interesting that a self-professed fiscal conservative like Lonegan refuses to acknowledge how much money the death penalty has wasted; according to the non-partisan study conducted for the Commission report, since the 1980s, having the death penalty on the books cost the state nearly $250 million, and each prisoner on death row costs the state nearly twice as much in money as a non-death row inmate. One wonders why Mr. Lonegan conveniently neglects to mention these facts.

There have been two times in the past year where I've been particularly proud of New Jersey's government; government, ideally, is a moral and just institution that helps correct societal wrongs and implements standards of decency and plurality with the least amount of invasiveness. The civil unions law, which a fundamentalist like Lonegan refused to acknowledge, and the upcoming abolishment of the death penalty are two such incredible, defining moments for our government.

Why does everyone on Death Row try to get their sentence commuted? 

Unfortunately Martin, we don't live in an ideal world. If we did, NJ property taxes would be low, crime wouldn't exist, and my Panthers would be undefeated. As it is, we live in reality, where the Democrats have screwed the pooch on innumerable issues, crime in our inner cities is rampant, and no one can throw the ball to Steve Smith.

Your idea of government as a "moral and just institution", even in an ideal world, is simply wrong. Government is only as "moral" as the people in it. And I think you will not disagree that in New Jersey, regardless of who is in charge, be it Democrats or Republicans, there is no morality, only money, greed, and an inner self-serving desire to take as much from the residents as possible while staying in office. This death penalty fiasco is just another instance of that. As it has been said before, why not simply let the voters decide instead of ramming this through lame duck? Surely you would understand how an important decision like this cannot be left up to our elected officials, and that the residents deserve to have their voice heard?

And JerseyGator, the reason it's more expensive to put someone to death than it is for life imprisonment is the infinite number of appeals defense lawyers put the courts (and by proxy the taxpayers) through. If you are sentenced to death, you get two appeals. One as a matter of right, and another one just in case we missed something. 15 years on death row is ridiculous. Expedite the system and see how quickly costs come down (and maybe strike a little fear into a potential killer).

Yeah, let's expedite the death of others!! Better yet, let's get rid of those humane deaths like lethal injection and the chair and go back to public stonings and hangings!! That'll learn 'em!

Nothing makes me more sick for the brutality of humanity than the death penalty debate. It's nothing more than state-sanctioned murder. I certainly am not in favor of "letting off" extreme and heinous criminals by any means, but what gives us humans the right to pass judgment and terminate their life? So because there's no morality in government anyway, we should just give up, shrug our shoulders, and start pulling the swtich as the conga line rolls into the chambers?? Isn't the whole point to clean things up?

I don't trust this going to the voters. This is a manipulative issue that people understand in all the wrong terms. Unlike the right-to-life debate, Rs usually turn this one around and decide that apparently, life is not so special for all God's beings. The hypocritical way they frame the debate is beyond ridiculous. The fact that people want an issue like this to go to the people tells me that they realize the voting public can be manipulated on this issue and it's the only chance they have of seeing the death penalty return.

Let's put the death penalty out to pasture in New Jersey.

By definition, a "deterrent" is something that prevents the behavior in question.   If someone is already on Death Row, clearly they were not "deterred" because they already killed someone!  The fact that they are trying to commute their sentence is because:

 1. It is human nature to keep oneself alive as long as possible

2.  They are bored and figure they may as well pass the time by busying themselves with their appeals

3.  Some defense lawyer or public interest group took their case up out of some kind of legal/philosophical beliefs. 

Just because someone finally figures out "holy crap, I'm going to die" doesn't mean that capital punishment is a deterrent.   More likely, at the time they committed the crime the last thing they were thinking about is what would happen to them if they got caught, and only now the realization is hitting them b/c it was forced upon them by the justice system.  That is why the death penalty is not a deterrent; criminals aren't sorry for what they do -- they are only sorry when they get caught!

How on earth can someone be against abortion and yet for the death penalty, or the other way around? The Sixth Commandment does not say "Thou shall not kill....unless you are killing someone who really sucks." A life is a life is a life. If it were left up to the religious right, we would be forced to allow babies to be born into extreme poverty and gangs and violence and drugs and then kill them after they turn out to be heinous citizens. Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of abortion. But the hypocrisy on the left is far less than that on the right. The religious right are about steadfast righteous morality just as long as we are talking about sex and abortion and gay marriage, three issues that have a far less impact on the greater society than poverty and the death penalty. A society that kills its own is barbaric. The Old Testament says an eye for an eye, it does not say a life for a life. It says, "Thou shall not kill."

Against abortion = killing of unborn children.

Dead penality = Killing the creep that murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka.

Don't look like hypocrisy to me.

Go here for a memorial to the victims of a commuted killer who got "life without parole".

http://www.lodipd.org/memorial.htm

Anytime this state has the guts, but can't find the stones to push the button, give me a call.  I would gladly do it and sleep like a baby that night. 

"The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything."
                --Theodore Roosevelt--

"Anytime this state has the guts, but can't find the stones to push the button, give me a call. I would gladly do it and sleep like a baby that night."

Wow. I should let that statement stand on it's own... but, I'll ask anyway. Does the fact that you'd be willing to kill without remorse or pause make you any better than the criminals? That homicidal instinct is the very thing you're fighting to put to death.

Has anyone ever noticed that people who are strongly in favor of the death penalty are also psycho? They are so quick to want to punch the lever. And yes, if someone murdered one of my loved ones, you bet I would want them dead. But that is why it is so important that I not be the one to make that decision. People who love the death penalty are not rational thinkers and their rash, violent belief in the need to kill people frightens me. I would not want to leave my children alone with you.

"Against abortion = killing of unborn children.

Dead penality = Killing the creep that murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka.

Don't look like hypocrisy to me."

How is that not hypocrisy? People who are prolife always talk about the sanctity of life; that all life is precious and sacred. So is all life precious, or is just some life precious? And who gets to decide whose life isn't worth maintaining and whose is? Isn't the point of why we incarcerate murderers because they took that very same question into their own hands? Why is it different when it is state sanctioned? Just because you attain some type of satisfaction from the death of that person, is that enough of a justification for the taking of a person's life? And I am not defending these awful people or what they did and I firmly believe, like you, that they do not deserve the basic freedoms and rights and priveleges that we do. They deserve to sit in a cell without TV or books or sunshine or fresh air for the rest of their lives. These people do not deserve a good or happy or even passable life. But they deserve life, because otherwise, we are no different then they are. And where does that leave us? 

If you cannot see the difference then you are blind.

"The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything."
                --Theodore Roosevelt--

Don't give me the public can be manipulated argument. If that's the case then certain the public was manipulated when they elected the current crew of legislators and their decisions aren't to be respected.

The bottom line is if the public can be entrusted to elect representatives, then certainly the same process can be used to decide this issue.

As Jesus told Pilate, "my kingdom is not of this earth."  Assuming He was the Son of God, he could have abolished capital punishment on the spot.  In fact, he could have brought the entire Empire of Rome to its collective knees in the blink of an eye.  The fact that He chose not to do so by no means provides any insight whatsoever into Christ's views on putting people to death for their transgressions.  His divine mission was to grant mankind an eternal pardon through the shedding of His blood, not overhaul the prevailing system of jurisprudence. 

If anything, Jesus's actions throughout both His ministry and His suffering on the cross present a compelling argument in favor of grace toward our fellow man, not wrath.  Christ was very clear that forgiveness, regardless of the degree of wrong that has been done or pain that has been inflicted, is neither optional nor relative.  Christians so often forget that we, as sinners, are as deserving of death as even the most horrific criminal in terms of ultimate cosmic justice.    

Which brings to mind a serial killer so vile that he spent his best energies seeking out Christians of the early church in order to condemn them for their beliefs and subsequently torture them to death by public stoning.  This monster's name was Saul of Tarses.  You may be more familiar with the name he took following God's call to preach the good news of the gospel throughout the world -- the Apostle Paul.  The fact that God Himself chose a sadistic murderer who, by all accounts, should have been executed for his inhuman acts, to propogate his Word provides a truly illuminating insight into the heart of Christ and the depth of mercy found therein. 

I could go on, but I've already posted as nauseum on Mike Carroll's blog regarding the implications of Christian theology on the issue of the death penalty.  Suffice it to say that any arguments in favor of the death penalty based on Judeo-Christian principles are best found in the Old Testament.  And, ironically, even there God Himself chose not to impose capital sanction against the world's first recorded murderer, Abel.    

Steve Lonegan is right.  The Death Penalty should not be repealed for a significant number of reasons, all of which are being ignored by a majority of the legislature.

In addition to many of the thoughtful views expressed here, there are significant constitutional problems associated with the provision for having the legislature provide for altering the sentences of those cases already adjudicated (the eight individuals on death row), as was outlined in detail here.  It simply constitutes an ex post facto law.

As we noted there:

"Politically, he would not want to do either acting alone.  It would probably end his political career, and likely precipitate a recall petition.  And, of course, the courts may force alterations of sentencing, or mandate re-trials, through the appellate process.  

They just chose not to in the case of Ambrose Harris.  And they too cannot countenance ex post facto laws.  But our State Constitution expressly prohibits any branch from exercising the powers given to another branch.  And no branch can cede its powers to another." 

In other words, the Governor wants this bill to give him political cover, because as an opponent of the death penalty, he would otherwise be put in the position of using his clemency or pardon power to prevent the imposition of capital punishment in the case of one or more of the eight ruthless killers on death row.  The State Supreme Court just upheld the death sentence of Ambrose Harris, a vicious killer who horribly brutalized an innocent young woman.  Since being in prison, he even stomped another prisoner to death. 

That brings up another point.  Once the prisoners realize they can only get life without parole, that will significantly alter the mind set of those already behind bars.  There will be nothing to prevent the lot of them from looking for an opportunity to kill corrections guards, other prisoners or any others who have to come into contact with them.

In addition, we know that study after study demonstrates that the death penalty is a deterrent to present and future killings.  In fact, two liberal former opponents of the death penalty, Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule recently (2005) submitted a monograph concluding that with respect to the “life v. life” question, the state has a moral obligation to retain the death penalty.  They said, in part:

"Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many as eighteen or more murders for each execution. This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death. Capital punishment thus presents a life-life tradeoff, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment. Moral objections to the death penalty frequently depend on a distinction between acts and omissions, but that distinction is misleading in this context, because government is a special kind of moral agent. "

The fact is that liberals and progressives are so concentrated on protecting the vicious murderers, that they ignore the present and future victims. 

And in New Jersey, a disproportionate percentage of those future victims will likely be blacks and other minorities.  What about their protection?  Why do you think that Senator Ron Rice spoke against the abolition of the death penalty on the Senate floor the other day?  Though he ultimately abstained, it is clear where his views were, and for very good reason.

Liberals ignore that argument because, like MartinOne, above, they have absolutely no answer for it.  Martin refused to address it in his comments on "The Ultimate Sanction," the Michael Patrick Carroll thread, found here, and Martin and all the other liberals and progressives will continue to ignore it here.

Well, I would submit that the failure to retain the death penalty in appropriate circumstances is racially insensitive, and maybe racist.  Someone please prove that wrong -- not with nice theological arguments, mind you -- but with a real argument. 

Why should we not conclude that those who know full well that there will be more living, breathing innocent human beings viciously murdered, now in the future -- absent the known deterrent effect of capital punishment that will inexorably result from passage of this abolition bill -- could simply care less?

We should all take the side of the innocent victims, not the vicious killers.

MartinOne's position is, in my view, intellectual dishonesty, just as the first comment posted on this thread about the costs being less (with life) is an example of intellectual dishonesty.  Even the NJ Commission recommending the abolition conceded on that point, though they "weighed" it the other way by including the "costs" in terms of claiming they were removing of the suffering of victims families. 

That, by the way, was probably the most despicable argument of all in favor of this bill.  They should tell that to the Kanka family, whose child was horridly taken from them by a real monster, Jesse Timmendiquas, who is now on death row, but whose life is about to be "spared" by our legislature!  It is disgusting and reprehensible what the legislature and the Governor are doing. 

They are abrogating their first and most important obligation and duty . . . to protect the public.

by Trochilus

Lord Xenu,

You can post as many strawman arguments as it pleases you in order to continue to self-justify your personal views on this issue.  Just keep knocking them down yourself, though.  Don't expect me to play your game. 

Just as a reminder, your strongly held personal opinion, as you once agreed before, is simply not a basis on which a democratic government ought to be persuaded in figuring out how to resolve important matters of state.

Furthermore, my last comment (above) was not aimed at your personal position, though you curiously now seem to be persuaded otherwise.  It was aimed at all of those who are ignoring a palpable reality -- that, as appropriately applied, the death penalty is a deterrent to present and future murders, and that it would save some innocent lives. 

And contrary to your assertion that I was "incessantly" referring to only one study, please go back (on this thread) and read my above comment again.  And then go back and re-read the Carroll thread again.  Just check in BOTH places for my citation to the studies at this link, all of which demonstrate deterrence, and if you should then feel the need to be intellectually honest, you might consider withdrawing that portion of your comment above.  I won't hold my breath!

As to the bill's provision aimed at altering the sentences of the current occupants of death row, there is simply no justifiable basis to pass a statute intended to legislatively commute the death sentences of those eight individuals.  The legislature has no such authority to interfere in cases already adjudicated.  The Governor could.  But he wants political cover; hence this bill.

You reference the problems that arose in Illinois, and former Governor Ryan.  Those can be and certainly should be instructive to our policy-makers in seeking to avoid like pitfalls.  But it does not require that in response we abandon efforts to protect the public!  Yet, we have a Governor who has also recently adopted the position that the State will not press witnesses to come forward in gang cases, on the basis that the state is incapable of protecting the witnesses!  Not so nice for the victims of gang violence! 

Who will be next on this Governor's list of abandonees?

And regarding to your preposterous question addressed to me:

"Applying your logic, why don't we do away with the requirement that the government obtain a warrant prior to searching our homes or offices?"

Did you mean, other than the fact that the foundational warrant requirement has been firmly and constitutionally rooted in our system as a matter of right practically from the very beginning -- given the fact that it was our first Congress that proposed the adoption of the Bill of Rights? 

What a silly question! 

Capital punishment, however, is constitutional.  That has been repeatedly confirmed by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of New Jersey.  In fact, the New Jersey Supreme Court did so again just the other day.

New Jersey is making a big mistake by passing this abolition.  But the legislature has now done it, and the Governor has said he will sign this disgraceful bill. 

Effective immediately, correction guards, as well as other prisoners, and any other people who have to come into contact with the lifers over the full course of the their lifetimes, are now at higher risk from those ruthless prisoners because they now have absolutely nothing more to lose.  And out in the public, potential killers now know there is nothing more to fear from the potential of the death penalty.

Gee, thanks . . .  for nothing!

by Trochilus

The bill passed...Corzine will sign it..next topic: School Funding..Why is the Governor rushing it?

One wonders about the warrant and substance of someone's claims, such as with Trochilus', who considers The Heritage Foundation and Michelle Malkin as reliable sources from which to quote source material. As per usual in vapid conservative philosophy (not all of which is vapid, of course), the evidence chosen is only set to fit the fundamentalist position at stake. Here, the position from Trochilus is that the death penalty is a deterrent is not a fully fleshed out one because the evidence cited is faulty -- just as Columbia Law Professor Jay Fagan argued in front of the New Jersey Death Penalty Commission. One wonders whether Trochilus even bothered to read the report before going off on his emotional, logos-less tirade against the senate and assembly bill.

There is good reason why the N.J. Prosecutor's Office, which favors the death penalty, agreed with the findings of the Commission: The death penalty is applied too disproportionately to minorities, the costs are too much (hundreds of millions wasted since 1982), and the possibility of a mistaken conviction too probable to warrant having this outdated, cruel method of punishment on the books. The only deterrent studies that Trochilus cites are from the Heritage Foundation, hardly a reliable source. Further, the author refuses to consider other evidence that exposes the faults in his flawed argument, from the Alabama Death Penalty Commission's findings that "the State cannot ensure that fairness and accuracy are the hallmark of every case in which the death penalty is sought or imposed" or the University of Michigan study that concluded thusly:“It is clear that there are many more false convictions that are never discovered.” How many innocent people has the U.S. government killed in the name of "justice" -- this invasive, draconian practice that only furthers murder in the name of correcting murder? 

Since Trochilus is fond of mentioning court precedents, I would in turn mention that the spirit of the landmark Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), which ensured prisoners equal representation under the law, particularly minority prisoners, has not been fulfilled in the current penal system geared towards death row inmates. Study after study, independently done, have affirmed that the death penalty is used arbitrarily and is questionable at best in terms of effectiveness. Further, instead of speaking for victims' families and using them as props for my own argument, I'll let them speak for themselves: The victims' families featured in the N.J. Commission came out against the death penalty because it is a cruel, ineffective and expensive form of punishment that shouldn't be used at all.

The previous poster is right: Today is a day when we should rejoice as New Jerseyans because our government got it right concerning the abolishment of the death penalty.

http://www.jekylhyderacing.com/wn2.htm
It seems so easy to be pro-abolition once you remove context. Unfortunately, we all live in context.

OH JESUS! Now, thanks to this repeal, killers will be bringing people to New Jersey so that they can murder them here as opposed to murdering them wherever they live.  I'm going to go prepare a "WELCOME OJ" sign.  On second thought maybe we can use this to boost tourism.  Think of the new state phrase "New Jersey - A place to kill"

--Saint Joe--