This story is archived
New Jersey lawmakers vote to abolish death penalty »
Posted by: david_nwpa 2 years agoNew Jersey lawmakers have voted to abolish the death penalty in the state, sending the governor a bill he has already said he will sign. The measure will make New Jersey the first state in more than 40 years to outlaw capital punishment.
Read Full Story at cnn.com »
Submitted By:
david_nwpa
Hello folks,
Welcome to my little corner of Propeller. I am also available as davidnwpa09 on Twitter.com. I have many followers on Propeller whom ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 225
-
david_nwpa
Dec. 13, 2007, 9:30 p.m.Governor Corzine will abolish the death penalty with the swipe of a pen. He will save lives of those convicted and sentenced to be executed. One would presume that as a result of the change in the law, those on death row will automatically have their sentences commuted.
-
jumpmaster
Dec. 14, 2007, 10:03 a.m.Was that the death penalty for murderers or the death penalty for victims?
-
blinkers
Dec. 14, 2007, 10:24 a.m.Thanks David, for this story.
The only way I can relate to it is through personal feelings (thank goodness you're not a lawmaker, I hear you cry!)
If someone kidnapped and murdered one (or more) of my children, I know that I could never rest until I knew the killer had been brought to justice. And by justice I mean execution.
All the rest is open for discussion, but an absolute and total abolition of the death penalty, I could never support.
-
crghss
Dec. 14, 2007, 10:38 a.m.Is that the will of the people of New Jersey? If so, then it's as it should be. Surprised Alaska doesn't have the Death Penalty.
-
panzerv
Dec. 14, 2007, 11:13 a.m.WOW! Thats AWSOME! I so look forward to supporting convicted murderers for the rest of their lives in prison. I had nothing better to do with the money I have extorted from me in the form of taxes. What a worthy cause! Let's by all means keep those worthless a%@holes in a nice, dry, warm place, making sure they get three dietician designed meals a day, with cable, internet, lets not forget exercise. Have I left anything out? Oh...sex of course, and drugs, and medical care, and everything else WE have to pay for.
God forbid their human rights should be violated. When did prison go from a place you didn't want to be, to a place you did want to be? It's real punishment getting all those perks for free. Zietgeist the movie on youtube. Worth the price of the popcorn!
-
Poulenc
Dec. 14, 2007, 11:22 a.m.A happy day for New Jersey and the rest of us.
It's often difficult for people to see that the state shouldn't be in the business of killing--to do so puts it on the same level as those who murder. Once a life has been taken, taking another doesn't right the initial wrong.
Life in prison is a worse punishment than execution, in my opinion, and should satisfy the need for justice.
-
theido
Dec. 14, 2007, 4:57 p.m.You mean "all victim's left behind". Screw the victim's and their familys, protect the murderers at all costs.
-
joeblowe
Dec. 14, 2007, 11:31 a.m.I don't personally see the benefit to keeping someone alive in prison for a lifetime. If a person is THAT flawed that they think it's OK to just go and kill someone, why keep them alive? they are NOT going to "get better" - ever. And if they are in for life, what difference if they do? The only thing that MUST be in place is an absolute CERTAINTY of guilt. And I DO NOT mean just a conviction. Absolute, incontrovertible physical evidence. Here in Illinois, we seem to have a bad habit of sending guys to death row, and then having to turn them loose later when DNA came along and PROVED - conclusively - that they really were NOT guilty of the crime they were convicted of. Let's face it, people on a jury are well short of infallible. There need to be guidelines for putting someone to death, and they need to be very carefully thought out and followed.
-
anioklyComment has been removed: Spammer
-
oneironaut420
Dec. 14, 2007, 12:07 p.m.Murder is murder, whether it's committed by a citizen or the state...it's like when I was a kid, and my parents told me that because I was the oldest, I had to be the mature one. The government has to be "mature" and not resort to the same level of violence committed by these criminals.
The death penalty only keeps the circle of violence spinning out of control.
-
Poulenc
Dec. 14, 2007, 12:23 p.m.Joe, people are endlessly fallible (have you noticed?) a fact multiplied a zillion times by bureaucracy.
You seem in favor of the death penalty in certain situations, after the application of stringent tests; I take your point, but the issue is ultimately a moral one.
The question is, does an individual's (or even a group's) need for eye-for-an-eye vengeance trump the need (or wish) for the state's hands to remain unbloodied.
I say no.
-
-
jumpmaster
Dec. 14, 2007, 12:48 p.m."The death penalty only keeps the circle of violence spinning out of control"
That isn't the only thing it does.
It also removes a defect from the gene pool.
It also gives closure to the victims' families.
It also serves as a deterrance. Even if it is only one deterrance, it would be worth it.
-
NoWayMan
Dec. 14, 2007, 1:50 p.m.good for new jersey.
we're the only western, industrialized country that still practices the death penalty and its about time we grow up.
unless the family of the victim has very strong feelings about execution, we should let these people rot in a cell for fifty years, then they'll go to hell after they die old and broken. thats a much better punishment in my book. and if there is no hell, we're letting them off the hook by not making them stay for fifty years in the hell on earth called prison.
also, as much as you'd all like to believe, the death penalty is not a deterrent. just look at the murder rates in the US vs. other wetern countries. a good economy is a better deterrent thatn the death penalty. crime rates go down when the economy is booming.
-
jumpmaster
Dec. 14, 2007, 1:53 p.m.Why punish the taxpayers for fifty years by housing a murderer?
All those who are against the death penalty, please send your checks to your state governments. I am sure they will spend the money wisely.
-
Poulenc
Dec. 14, 2007, 2:01 p.m.Red, no one is suggesting that justice should not be meted out to those who commit a crime; the question is, what kind of justice?
The state isn't JUST us; it's meant to represent a consensus based on principle, which is to say, morality.
You and I just can't kill someone because they've killed someone else, even though they have, in your words, breached the rights of others; and neither can--or better, SHOULD--the state.
The state must stand for more than the individuals who constitute it; therefore, it shouldn't respond to murder, which is immoral, with murder.
-
Poulenc
Dec. 14, 2007, 2:16 p.m.Jump, why punish the taxpayers by making them complicit in murder committed in their name?
-
jumpmaster
Dec. 14, 2007, 3:07 p.m.I would support housing all death row inmates in lieu of execution if all prisons adopted Sherrif Joe's approach to running a jail.
See attached. Sherrif Joe has gotten it right.
-
Truzseeker
Dec. 14, 2007, 3:08 p.m.I have heard of a penal island used by the Europeans for similar offenses. They just drop them off, and let them fend for themselves. No further appeals, no food, and no support.
-
NelsonR
Dec. 14, 2007, 6:37 p.m.I will not take this back. I sincerely hope and pray that the elected representatives that voted against the death penaly have themselves or their family member killed, slaughtered and abused by a felon. Paybacks a B^^ch!!
-
oneironaut420
Dec. 14, 2007, 7:38 p.m."I sincerely hope and pray that the elected representatives that voted against the death penaly have themselves or their family member killed, slaughtered and abused by a felon. Paybacks a B^^ch!!"
What an ugly thing to say about people who did nothing to you, except happen to have a family member who is in politics and has different views from yours. Some of their family members are probably children...what a sad, hateful person to actually pray for an innocent child to suffer a horrible death. 8(
I sincerely hope, for the sake of your family members, that karma is not the same b^^tch that you claim payback is.
-
OldHickory
Dec. 14, 2007, 7:53 p.m.I am ambivalent about the death penalty as long as the guilty party is punished, whether it be by death or life in prison. The only fear I have about abolishing the death penalty and resentencing those animals to life in prison is that in the future some bleeding heart legislature, governor, president or supreme court may come up with a way to further reduce their sentences so that they become eligible for parole. And I don't care to hear about how they were unfairly convicted and their other sob stories. If they weren't guilty of the crime(s) for which they were sentenced then most of them certainly were guilty of other crimes they got away with. I wonder if that ever crossed the governor's mind?
-
PatrioticAmerican
Dec. 14, 2007, 8 p.m.i hope the people of NJ are looking forward to a tax increase to pay for the jail time that Murderers and rapists get after this, because they will be paying the bill for the life sentences.
-
-
aceofspades1
Dec. 14, 2007, 9:30 p.m.do you really think the death sentence ever deterred anyone from killing? do you really think life without parole ever deterred anyone. Personally I doubt it.
The death penalty is a costly & flawed process - life without parole is not t he worst punishment- some of those so sentenced fit into the prison systyem very well because their inability to accept the responsibilty of living free in society is served.
however, life without parole removes them from our midst & their threat of violence is nullified.
The death penalty should & must be used against terrorists, they are fanatics whoose only punishment should be death.
-
Ratskii
Dec. 14, 2007, 10:04 p.m.I find it interesting that some many people wish the U.S. to mimic China on this issue. The use of the death penalty in China dwarfs its use in the U.S. Personally I think that there are better ways to reduce the murder rate in the U.S. than the death penalty. If I'm right, than the death penalty is a waste of resources.
I have also heard that in the 18th century, when convicted pickpockets were put to death in front of the public, that pickpockets usually circulated through the gathered crowds picking pockets.
Those who want to speed up the process thinking that this will help make the death penalty more of a deterrent, consider this: Several people on death row were proven innocent of the crime within days before they were to be executed. Do you really want the execution of innocent people on your conscience?
-
truthiness
Dec. 14, 2007, 10:55 p.m.it matters not whether it is a deterrent or the cost. western society is based on the Social Contract. especial America whose founders were so entrenched in enlightenment philosophy. The short version of the social contract is "we will agree to live together for a common good, respecting each others' rights, contributing to the common needs, and obeying the agreed upon rules which are based upon common mores. When members of the group break this contract they will be punished by the group."
We have stated that it is a grievous violation of the common mores to kill another human. So if we punish this violation by killing the offender, does this contradiction not rob the group of the moral integrity required to enforce its own edicts? why should a member of the group respect rules that apparently the group as a whole doesn't respect?
-
EsaEngr
Dec. 14, 2007, 11:41 p.m.Oh how I long for the good OLD days when America had it right!
Kill someone, get arrested, wait for the Judge to get into town (with a cot and 3 hots a day), trial the next day... verdict in the morning (if that long), public hanging the next morning!
Without putting to death a KILLER, we have no deterent!
-
EsaEngr
Dec. 14, 2007, 11:43 p.m.Oh how I long for the good OLD days when America had it right!
Kill someone, get arrested, wait for the Judge to get into town (with a cot and 3 hots a day), trial the next day... verdict in the morning (if that long), public hanging the next morning!
Without putting to death a KILLER, we have no deterent!
-
Poulenc
Dec. 15, 2007, 11:10 a.m.Nelson, above, above: your combi-platter of anger, self-righteousness and just plain meanness is loathsome.
Do you wish the death of all those who disagree with you? You don't buttress your argument, whatever it might be, by doing so; you just forfeit credibility.
-
slate
Dec. 15, 2007, 11:37 a.m.The people that seem to always be the least talked about during this type of debate are the victims and the families of the victims. I have know a few people that have had their lives taken from them by criminals and every family wants those that took their loved ones from them to pay the same price that was given to their murdered family member.
Yes we need to make very certain that someone committed the crime before we execute them, that's why it takes 10 or more years to go through that process. Until you live through the pain of having a loved one murdered it would be difficult to understand.
The young man and woman that murdered their little girl here in Houston has been on the news, and from what I remember from the thread here about it, many called for their execution and far worse.
Remember, those that would be kind to the cruel will most likely have no problem being cruel to the kind.
-
truthiness
Dec. 15, 2007, 10:20 p.m.its a justice system not a vengeance system, this is the reason you are tried by a jury of peer and not by the victims.
the fact that our system is currently rife with corruption is not justification for government sanctioned murder.
for centuries people have been put to death for all sorts of crimes, all of those crimes continue, the argument for deterrence is false.
punishment of any type doesnt not offer deterrence to the next criminal. what it offers is the removal of the criminal from society. for heinous crimes like murder, there should be a permanent removal, not by commiting murder on the criminal because that contradicts the argument that murder is wrong, but by imprisonment (or exile as slate suggests). this may cost us money but it does allow us to retain the moral integrity of our culture without which we are simply barbarians.
-
slate
Dec. 16, 2007, 9:30 a.m.gamahuche Maybe you can have them live with you since you don't feel they need to be punished for taking another's life?
-
nostalgia
Dec. 16, 2007, 11:38 a.m.In effective NJ abolished the death penalty years ago
Time: NJ reinstated the death penalty in 1982, six years after the Supreme Court allowed states to resume executions, but nobody has been executed in NJ since 1963.
Seems like the legislature is out of step with the residents in the state: Dec 12, 2007 story
Quinnipiac University polled the public
Democrats - get rid of the death penalty by a margin of 50 to 43%
Republicans - keep it by a margin of 65 to 26%.
Independent voters- oppose the death penalty by a margin of 54 to 38%.
Flipping the results around, the Democrats prefer the life sentence over the death penalty by a margin of 65 to 27% and the Republicans prefer the death penalty by a margin of 52 to 38%. And with the independents, life without parole wins by a vote of 49 to 40%.
But the voters are more in agreement when it comes to the most violent of criminals, with 78% saying the death penalty should be kept for the likes of serial killers and child killers.
-
-
tkyrchncs
Dec. 16, 2007, 11:12 p.m.Fine. If you are willing to take the consequences, go ahead and kill the one who kills someone in your family. Does this include the state executioner, should one of your family be sentenced to death? If your older son kills your younger one, are you gonna kill your older son? If you want to see the ludicrous one here, I'm sure you own a mirror.
It is plainly demonstrated that the death penalty in America is prejudicially applied to the poor, to males, and to racial/ethnic minorities. It is also demonstrated that it has been sentenced and carried out against the innocent. It is not equal and not just; therefore its administration cannot be trusted, and must cease.
-
haydenmacdonald
Jan. 28, 2008, 11:11 a.m.Have a great day! http://sitezanka.rchival.info/sitemap.html
-
stevendalton
Jan. 28, 2008, 12:09 p.m.I Did't sea Turkish Font. http://bestroyalties.info/sitemap.html
-
jumpmaster
Dec. 14, 2007, 3:32 p.m.Have you ever had a friend, relative, or loved one who was murdered?
-
crghss
Dec. 14, 2007, 4:49 p.m.Why would a victims family have feelings like "my" complicity in the execution". It really doesn't have much to do with them.
-
NelsonR
Dec. 14, 2007, 7:38 p.m.Poulenc - Poppycock. I do not know who Jumpmaster was referring his comment to but I think you, hope. Same question, have you had any close relative slaughtered, killed or abused by a felon? I think your opinion is based on non experience.
If you are a bible thumper, eye for an eye if that comment needs to rethink your position. Myself I would throw the switch without any guilt associated with his/her death for righteous retribution. No wonder we have felons all over, the do gooders abound.
The first 220 comments are shown. Show all 225 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
