NationStates Jolt Archive


New Jersey Ready to Abolish the Death Penalty

Sel Appa
08-12-2007, 06:20
After a two-year moratorium on a statute that was never used, a study has concluded that the death penalty should be repealed and it looks very likely it will by the end of the year. There are some people on death row in New Jersey, but they aren't likely to be executed anyway. The last execution took place in 1963. I am proud of my state for moving to become the first state to repeal since capital punishment was allowed.

Almost every state now has a de facto or do iure moratorium on it because of a case in the Supreme Court. About two dozen are actually seeing whether to keep it or not. The interesting thing is that despite all these moratoriums, there hasn't been a huge rise in murders. I thought it was a deterrent. Shouldn't people feel compelled to commit more murders since they won't die for it? I guess not. Maybe because people actually have a moral centre and won't just kill. Some will, but there are exceptions everywhere. Murders are caused by poverty or passion in general. The former can be stopped easily. The latter--the person loses all rational thought and cannot think of "the consequences".

I hope the measure passes and this leads to the eventual complete repeal of the death penalty in the United States...except Texas, they'll never understand rational thought.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20071207/pl_bloomberg/apfokxgr5e7w)

Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- New Jersey's Legislature may become the first in the U.S. to abolish the death penalty since the punishment was reinstated more than three decades ago.
ADVERTISEMENT

A bill to replace execution with life prison terms cleared a Senate committee this week and is scheduled for a Dec. 10 floor vote. The Assembly also is expected to consider the measure this month. Governor Jon Corzine, an outspoken critic of the death penalty, said today he will sign the legislation.

``I think everyone knows how I feel,'' Corzine, 60, a Democrat, told reporters at the Statehouse in Trenton.

Democrats, who control both houses of the legislature, have tried to repeal the state's death penalty since 1999. Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, a sponsor who lost his bid for re-election last month, said the measure gained momentum after a state commission recommended in January that the penalty be abolished.

``One of the things about the death penalty that always bothered me is that it seems to lower us to the very level of the people we are trying to execute,'' said Caraballo, a Seton Hall University law professor and Newark Democrat. ``I've been talking to people, and I get good vibes'' that the measure will pass.

A Dec. 10 vote on the bill also has been scheduled by the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee. Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts said last month he hoped to have the measure clear the house as soon as Dec. 13. The Legislature is in the final weeks of a session that ends in January when newly elected lawmakers take office.

``The Legislature has had a year to review the detailed report prepared by the Death Penalty Study Commission,'' Senate President Richard Codey said in a Dec. 4 statement. ``I think it's safe to say that we've had a thorough and nuanced discussion of the issue. It's now time for the full Senate to weigh in.''

Not Since 1963

New Jersey outlawed capital punishment in 1972, after critics argued that it was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, and New Jersey followed in 1982. With eight people on death row, the state hasn't executed a prisoner since 1963.

The state has had a moratorium on the death penalty since 2005. Twenty-one states have such suspensions, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-death-penalty group.

Nationwide, executions have been virtually halted as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether death by lethal injection violates constitution prohibitions against cruel and unusual Punishment, Dieter said.

Thirty-seven states including New Jersey allow executions. Courts in other states, including New York, have suspended the penalty by declaring it unconstitutional. New Jersey would be the first to repeal capital punishment through a legislative act, said Jim Manion, spokesman for Senate Democrats.

`Cruel Hoax'

Opponents of the death penalty say it makes no sense to have a law that is never used. They say they are concerned about the innocent being executed, and content it is more costly to undergo the lengthy appeals process used to defend cases involving the death penalty, which has little effectiveness as a deterrent.

``The death penalty in the state of New Jersey is a hoax. It's a cruel hoax on the families of victims,'' Edward DeFazio, a Hudson County prosecutor, testified before a Senate committee this week. ``The likelihood of anyone being put to death is nil. That's a fact.''

Those on New Jersey's death row include Marko Bey, 42, the longest-serving inmate, who entered in 1983 after being convicted for rape and murder, and Jesse Timmendequas, 46, who has been there since 1997 for the murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka, whose death led to laws to protect children from sex offenders.

$1.3 Million Per Inmate

Housing inmates on death row cost the state $84,400 last year, compared with $32,400 for general population prisoners, said Matt Schumann, a spokesman for the state Corrections Department. The higher costs for death row are due in part to the need for constant and tighter security, he said.

Eliminating the death penalty would save the state as much as $1.3 million per inmate over their lifetime, according to the death penalty commission's January report. The panel also said the Office of the Public Defender would save roughly $1.46 million if execution was outlawed.

Former Senate President John Russo, a Democrat whose father was murdered and who sponsored the state's 1982 execution law, said cost should not be a factor. He was the only one of the 13 commission members to recommend keeping the death penalty.

Russo said New Jersey's system of requiring separate jury deliberations on the conviction and sentencing of a prisoner is an effective safeguard against executing the innocent.

``This is an intense and profound moral issue,'' Russo told the Senate committee last week. ``We can have the death penalty in the most serious, grievous and heinous murders.''
CanuckHeaven
08-12-2007, 06:27
After a two-year moratorium on a statute that was never used, a study has concluded that the death penalty should be repealed and it looks very likely it will by the end of the year. There are some people on death row in New Jersey, but they aren't likely to be executed anyway. The last execution took place in 1963. I am proud of my state for moving to become the first state to repeal since capital punishment was allowed.

Almost every state now has a de facto or do iure moratorium on it because of a case in the Supreme Court. About two dozen are actually seeing whether to keep it or not. The interesting thing is that despite all these moratoriums, there hasn't been a huge rise in murders. I thought it was a deterrent. Shouldn't people feel compelled to commit more murders since they won't die for it? I guess not. Maybe because people actually have a moral centre and won't just kill. Some will, but there are exceptions everywhere. Murders are caused by poverty or passion in general. The former can be stopped easily. The former--the person loses all rational thought and cannot think of "the consequences".

I hope the measure passes and this leads to the eventual complete repeal of the death penalty in the United States...except Texas, they'll never understand rational thought.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20071207/pl_bloomberg/apfokxgr5e7w)
Bravo for New Jersey!! :)
The Sadisco Room
08-12-2007, 06:27
except Texas, they'll never understand rational thought.

Good call. Let's mess with Texas; it's fun.
The Shifting Mist
08-12-2007, 06:34
Murders are caused by poverty or passion in general. The former can be stopped easily. The former--the person loses all rational thought and cannot think of "the consequences".


Poverty can be stopped easily but it also makes people crazy?
Sel Appa
08-12-2007, 06:43
Poverty can be stopped easily but it also makes people crazy?

Crap...you secretly edited my post by hacking into Jolt.
Nouvelle Wallonochie
08-12-2007, 07:40
Good for New Jersey. If it passes it will have taken you over 160 years to catch up to us, but better late than never :p
Kyronea
08-12-2007, 10:33
Good for New Jersey. If it passes it will have taken you over 160 years to catch up to us, but better late than never :p

Indeed.

Now let's have everyone else do it, America! Let's actually bring our country into the twenty-first century!
Robbopolis
08-12-2007, 13:17
Funny. Up here, people are talking about starting it up.

http://www.ktva.com/topstory/ci_7656040
The Lone Alliance
08-12-2007, 13:20
Whatever, their loss.
Isidoor
08-12-2007, 14:17
good.
Lunatic Goofballs
08-12-2007, 14:21
Good. Living in New Jersey is punishment enough. ;)
Trollgaard
08-12-2007, 14:23
How lame.
Maraque
08-12-2007, 14:49
Good. Living in New Jersey is punishment enough. ;)Haha! :)
Muravyets
08-12-2007, 15:54
Kudos to New Jersey!! :)

``One of the things about the death penalty that always bothered me is that it seems to lower us to the very level of the people we are trying to execute,'' said Caraballo, a Seton Hall University law professor and Newark Democrat.
That sums up some of my feelings about the death penalty as well.

I also note that the only state senator who declares in favor of the death penalty is a person who suffered personally because his father was murdered. That's very tragic, but it kind of supports my view that the primary motivation for the death penalty is personal vengeance, which is not something the law should be doing, imo.
The Parkus Empire
08-12-2007, 17:29
I also note that the only state senator who declares in favor of the death penalty is a person who suffered personally because his father was murdered. That's very tragic, but it kind of supports my view that the primary motivation for the death penalty is personal vengeance, which is not something the law should be doing, imo.

I agree 100% that it shouldn't be about vengeance, or even "justice". But executions should still be employed (on the condition they can be done cheaply), merely because I don't want to support the criminal.

As for a deterrent, hell you could use torture as a deterrent too; should we legalize that?
The_pantless_hero
08-12-2007, 17:34
The death penalty isn't a deterrent because no one is guaranteed to be executed before they die of old age on death row.
Call to power
08-12-2007, 17:37
good on New Jersey with the death penalty abolished you can enjoy lower violent crime (which nobody can really explain to my acceptable level but happens anyway)

executions should still be employed (on the condition they can be done cheaply), merely because I don't want to support the criminal.

I'm confused for all this talk on cutting money and such, why are you still claiming to be libertarian:confused:
Greater Trostia
08-12-2007, 17:39
One of the things about the death penalty that always bothered me is that it seems to lower us to the very level of the people we are trying to execute,

Yeah you know, one of the things about imprisonment that's always bothered me is that it seems to lower us to the level of kidnappers.

One of the things about fines, tolls and taxation that's always bothered me is that it seems to lower us to the level of thieves and extortionists.

Punishment of any kind is wrong because punishment = thing being punished for. Instead of punishing people we should reward them - that way we'll show how ethically superior we are, which is clearly the main purpose in criminal justice.
Call to power
08-12-2007, 17:47
Punishment of any kind is wrong because punishment = thing being punished for. Instead of punishing people we should reward them - that way we'll show how ethically superior we are, which is clearly the main purpose in criminal justice.

Idea time:
maybe we shouldn't punish but instead rehabilitate are criminals!
Greater Trostia
08-12-2007, 17:50
Idea time:
maybe we shouldn't punish but instead rehabilitate are criminals!

That idea is based on the assumption that being convicted of a crime means you're sick and need to be made healthy again. And that the state can do it.
Call to power
08-12-2007, 17:59
That idea is based on the assumption that being convicted of a crime means you're sick and need to be made healthy again. And that the state can do it.

Driving safety classes are actually shown to work on unsafe drivers and ignorance is borderline illness so yes

also yes the state (or prison service rather) can do it and was even at it in the 1800's unlike say the concept of letting the private sector handle prisons which didn't even work in the dark ages
Greater Trostia
08-12-2007, 18:14
Driving safety classes are actually shown to work on unsafe drivers

..."unsafe driver" =/= crime.

and ignorance is borderline illness

Crime =/= ignorance.

also yes the state (or prison service rather) can do it and was even at it in the 1800's unlike say the concept of letting the private sector handle prisons which didn't even work in the dark ages

Ooh, without the concept of punishment used?

What prison service is this, I wonder.
Call to power
08-12-2007, 18:39
..."unsafe driver" =/= crime.

erm...actually

Crime =/= ignorance.

erm...sometimes it does e.g. idiot who has no idea about the risks of speeding because hell everybody does it

Ooh, without the concept of punishment used?

What prison service is this, I wonder.

why am I the only person on the planet who did GCSE history


1. Of or for the purpose of penance; penitential.
2. Relating to or used for punishment or reform of criminals or wrongdoers.

the clues in the name but I guess I will explain it:

back in ye olde times the church (who preached the sanctity of the soul and all that jazz) thought up the dandy idea that they should save prisoners souls (explored greatly in clockwork orange)

do I need to go any further? yes I probably do

this was done through bible study and being left alone to think about what they done (which oddly has a relation to the quite time/silent treatment*) of course soon the tabloid was invented and people demanded things like giant hamster wheels

*which is rather scary considering it lead to many suicides
Sel Appa
08-12-2007, 19:45
Good for New Jersey. If it passes it will have taken you over 160 years to catch up to us, but better late than never :p

We repealed it in 1972 and then brought it back in 1982.

Indeed.

Now let's have everyone else do it, America! Let's actually bring our country into the twenty-first century!

21st? Try 20th...or even 19th maybe.
Ariddia
08-12-2007, 19:51
Well done, New Jersey.
Nouvelle Wallonochie
08-12-2007, 19:57
We repealed it in 1972 and then brought it back in 1982.

We abolished it in 1846 and haven't looked back. This makes us the first democracy in the world to abolish the death penalty. Although I will admit that it wasn't complete abolition until 1963, as we had the death penalty for treason until we created our current constitution. Still, from 1846 until 1963 the only crimes punishable by death in Michigan were treason and desertion.

Still, since we've joined the Union we've never executed anyone. There was an execution in 1938, but that was under Federal jurisdiction and the state tried to get the sentence commuted to life imprisonment.
Kyronea
08-12-2007, 20:26
21st? Try 20th...or even 19th maybe.

No, twenty-first. I said exactly what I meant.

And he's an economic libertarian only, not a social libertarian.
Call to power
08-12-2007, 20:29
No, twenty-first. I said exactly what I meant.

And he's an economic libertarian only, not a social libertarian.

no you want Sel Appa I was just thinking that not posting it

seriously how did you make the mistake?
Viavaldi
08-12-2007, 20:30
Ok I'll be blunt I'm from Texas, and while im not a republican I have to say i support death penalty. Call me backwards or whatever I believe anyone that kills in cold blood should pay the ultimate price. Besides a person on life has NOTHING TO LOSE in trying to escape. I mean whats the gov gonna do if they get out and go on a killing spree? Imprison them? Ha they were just on life in prison what does it matter to them? Call me backwards but I'm PRO Death penalty
Neo Art
08-12-2007, 20:35
Call me backwards or whatever

OK
Kyronea
08-12-2007, 20:36
no you want Sel Appa I was just thinking that not posting it

seriously how did you make the mistake?

Wait, what?

...

What the hell?! Stupid forum! I was trying to multi quote both you and Sel Appa and I think it messed up.
Call to power
08-12-2007, 20:37
Ok I'll be blunt I'm from Texas, and while im not a republican I have to say i support death penalty. Call me backwards or whatever I believe anyone that kills in cold blood should pay the ultimate price.

why?

Besides a person on life has NOTHING TO LOSE in trying to escape. I mean whats the gov gonna do if they get out and go on a killing spree? Imprison them? Ha they were just on life in prison what does it matter to them? Call me backwards but I'm PRO Death penalty

maybe we should try helping them become perfectly functional members of society instead of just punishing it would certainly cut down on escape attempts if the prisoner feels they are there for a reason

the other side is of course that it only increases crime:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/stategraph99.gif
Viavaldi
08-12-2007, 20:42
why?



maybe we should try helping them become perfectly functional members of society instead of just punishing it would certainly cut down on escape attempts if the prisoner feels they are there for a reason

the other side is of course that it only increases crime:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/stategraph99.gif


The why is simple because they murder. It's one thing when their insane or have mental health problems it's another when its done on purpose for any sort of gain. Or when a robber commits a murder. I may agree there are times when Death penalty shouldn't be used. Yet when a person knows perfectly well what they are doing; how can you say it is acceptable to let them get off fairly easily compared to the victim who lost the only thing in life you truly own your own life?

I don't disagree on helping the ones that have a valid mental problem. I disagree on simply letting cold blooded murders get off without any payment. I'm simply saying there are times when to me it is PERFECTLY acceptable.
Call to power
08-12-2007, 20:48
Yet when a person knows perfectly well what they are doing; how can you say it is acceptable to let them get off fairly easily compared to the victim who lost the only thing in life you truly own your own life?

because killing the guy who killed your uncle doesn't make it any better?

Spiderman FTW!

I don't disagree on helping the ones that have a valid mental problem. I disagree on simply letting cold blooded murders get off without any payment. I'm simply saying there are times when to me it is PERFECTLY acceptable.

so you think killing people is a perfectly normal action? you assume that if at one time a guy killed it means he is guilty till the end of time?

people learn and people change their ways nobody can be truly evil in this world which naturally means we are all victims of circumstance thus progressive thinking wins again
Viavaldi
08-12-2007, 20:53
so you think killing people is a perfectly normal action? you assume that if at one time a guy killed it means he is guilty till the end of time?


So basically you're claiming that because people change it makes it OK that they did that -.-. I do believe in forgiveness for crimes if they truly regret their actions for a good reason besides the fact the consequences suck. However I don't think simply feeling bad fixes anything or makes it ok. I should also note i DON'T see the universe in black and white, but murder is murder. My belief is the punishment should fit the crime.

However we can both agree to disagree, no?
Call to power
08-12-2007, 21:08
So basically you're claiming that because people change it makes it OK that they did that -.-.

yep because they are changed people who want forgiveness, punishing people just because is not cruel its outright just sad

I do believe in forgiveness for crimes if they truly regret their actions for a good reason besides the fact the consequences suck

hence rehabilitation instead of just sticking people in holes/killing them

However I don't think simply feeling bad fixes anything or makes it ok.

a victims family will never get it "ok" because you can't bring back the dead nor can you erase the pain felt

I should also note i DON'T see the universe in black and white, but murder is murder. My belief is the punishment should fit the crime.

but you don't give any good reason for this thinking (and to kill someone needs a good reason as you have admitted)

However we can both agree to disagree, no?

no because only one of us is advocating killing humans as a way to make things somehow better
Robbopolis
08-12-2007, 21:31
...ignorance is borderline illness so yes...

Watch where you go with that. Pretty soon, you'll justify putting people with low IQs in institutions. Then there becomes the matter of deciding where that low IQ line is, until it's the people who do the intelligence testing who rule.
Call to power
08-12-2007, 21:33
Watch where you go with that. Pretty soon, you'll justify putting people with low IQs in institutions. Then there becomes the matter of deciding where that low IQ line is, until it's the people who do the intelligence testing who rule.

IQ isn't a measure of intelligence, though we do put the "slow" people in some sort of care/public office

the thinking I'm making of course is that ignorance is a very good defense to make when you can prove it ;)
Robbopolis
08-12-2007, 21:39
IQ isn't a measure of intelligence, though we do put the "slow" people in some sort of care/public office

At the moment, we do so only when they are a danger to themselves or others. What I don't want to see is when we do it just based on intelligence, etc.

the thinking I'm making of course is that ignorance is a very good defense to make when you can prove it ;)

I was under the impression that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Next time you get a speeding ticket, try telling the officer that you didn't see the sign.
Call to power
08-12-2007, 22:07
At the moment, we do so only when they are a danger to themselves or others. What I don't want to see is when we do it just based on intelligence, etc.

ignorance isn't affected by a person intelligence hence the elitist chess clubs

I was under the impression that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Next time you get a speeding ticket, try telling the officer that you didn't see the sign.

go ahead if you really couldn't see the sign you have done no crime
Neesika
08-12-2007, 23:55
I knew NJ was much more civilised than the Sopranos would have you believe.
Neo Art
09-12-2007, 00:07
go ahead if you really couldn't see the sign you have done no crime

That's not entirely true. If a sign is legitimatly obscured, it is legally assumable that the speed limit of the road is the speed limit of the highest in the state.

So if you legitimatly can't see the 30 mph speed lmit sign and are doing 50 you might be able to argue you weren't speeding.

If, however, you were doing 90...not so much.
Sel Appa
09-12-2007, 01:46
go ahead if you really couldn't see the sign you have done no crime

Not true. I forget what my law teacher said.

@ Mr. Texan: Death penalty does nothing. Life in prison can be heavy security. And why shouldn't we forgive and forget? What if everyone wanted someone dead--an unpopular citizen. There's rarely ever, if at all, murder that someone thinks of the consequences. It's caused by poverty, passion, or insanity. Poverty can be prevented by helping poor people so they don't have to kill for money. The latter two the person wasn't in their right mind. There aren't really many contract killings, so it just doesn't do anything. We shouldn't be punishing. Punishing causes people to want to do it more. If I get yelled at or slapped, I want to do the bad think just for spite.
Call to power
09-12-2007, 01:59
If, however, you were doing 90...not so much.

what if my speedometer* was broken?

*I just google imaged speedo:(