New Jersey gets rid of death penalty

[The Irish Doggy]

From CNN

 

Interesting development on a previous topic we've discussed.

 

 

I used to advocate frying them all, but recently I've been on the fence. One statement really popped-out at me:

 

The bill was introduced in November, after a state commission concluded capital punishment does not prevent violent crime, and could lead to innocent people being executed.

 

 

I know I've heard it before, but it seems to make more sense as time goes by.

[Hugh 0ne]

New Jersey hasn't executed anyone since 1963, so it's not like they're getting rid of something they used. Really not a big deal.

[Savage Beatings]

I've always had a hard time with this issue. I've made a decision to be against Capital Punishment because that position fits my underlying belief system, but there are definitely times when I want someone dead because of what they've done (however that doesn't mean that I can rationalize that feeling or reconcile it with my moral code).

[Atlanta Cracker]

I don't really have a problem with capital punishment but it's certainly more for the victims to feel as if they receive some justice than it is a deterrant for ciminals. Given that it's generally cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than go through the whole death penalty process I don't have a problem doing away with it either.

[Double Agent]

I am all for capital punishment, but I agree it does not deter crime. But if I were a family member of a victim, seeing someone get the needle would give me closure. It is for the families.

 

Isn't NJ the state that recognizes gay marriages? Didn't they also have the gay governor? I may be wrong on that.

[Hugh 0ne]

I am all for capital punishment, but I agree it does not deter crime. But if I were a family member of a victim, seeing someone get the needle would give me closure. It is for the families.

 

Isn't NJ the state that recognizes gay marriages? Didn't they also have the gay governor? I may be wrong on that.

 

McGreevey was married with kids, and took it in the pooper. Left his wife. But what does gay marriage or a gay governer have to do with the death penalty?

[Savage Beatings]

I thought that studies have shown that it is indeed a deterrent to more violent crimes in the States that have it? I could be wrong, but I definitely remember hearing that somewhere within the last year or so. Again, I'm not in favor of it either way, but there could be a direct correlation in there somewhere.

[Hugh 0ne]

I thought that studies have shown that it is indeed a deterrent to more violent crimes in the States that have it? I could be wrong, but I definitely remember hearing that somewhere within the last year or so. Again, I'm not in favor of it either way, but there could be a direct correlation in there somewhere.

 

Well, even if it is a deterrent in general, methinks that deterrent isn't quite as effective if you haven't actually executed anyone since 1963.

[Double Agent]

McGreevey was married with kids, and took it in the pooper. Left his wife. But what does gay marriage or a gay governer have to do with the death penalty?

 

Just commenting on how liberal NJ was.

[DMD]

Whether it is a deterance or not, a sentence should be about what is just for penalizing a crime. It is not about making someone into a poster boy for "don't do this or you die", it should be about whatever society feels is the appropriate penalty for a criminal action. I personally do not see rewarding someone with being supported, fed, clothed and housed by society for the rest of their lives for committing a capital crime but I am a bit more wild west in my sense of judgement than many. It is disproportionate to allow someone to commit premeditated murder and then allow them to live on society's dime for the rest of the days IMO. It's like a double injury to society from losing a member and then paying for it for 50 years.

[Azazello1313]

...there are definitely times when I want someone dead because of what they've done.

 

... it's certainly more for the victims to feel as if they receive some justice than it is a deterrant for ciminals.

 

... if I were a family member of a victim, seeing someone get the needle would give me closure. It is for the families.

 

i don't think i really became an opponent to the death penalty until i realized that this was truly the only real justification behind the death penalty, and then thinking about that in terms of my views on morality and the power of the state. and it just seems like a really bad idea to have the state doing something solely to quench someone's thirst for revenge. that lust for revenge is a bad, evil feeling to begin with, all the more so when it is carried out by the government in the name of justice.

[DMD]

When did the penalty for a cirme become more tied to revenge for the victim or deterrant for others? A penalty should be 100% about whatever is fitting for a criminal action and nothing else.

[godtomsatan]

When did the penalty for a cirme become more tied to revenge for the victim or deterrant for others? A penalty should be 100% about whatever is fitting for a criminal action and nothing else.

 

You're the one from Texas....

[The Irish Doggy]

When did the penalty for a cirme become more tied to revenge for the victim or deterrant for others? A penalty should be 100% about whatever is fitting for a criminal action and nothing else.

 

 

I can get with that, but the more stories I hear about innocent people going to jail I go to the side of life in prison without parole vs. the death penalty. If I was 100% certain that only bad guys went to the chair, I'd be all for it. Hell hang 'em, zap 'em, and then kill 'em again, but I don't have that much faith in our system to be sure..

[Azazello1313]

When did the penalty for a cirme become more tied to revenge for the victim or deterrant for others? A penalty should be 100% about whatever is fitting for a criminal action and nothing else.

 

i don't know how a society determines what a "fitting" sanction might be without weighing these and other effects.

[DMD]

If those other elements are germane to the punishment, then an orphan with no friends can be killed with a lesser sentence? Intertwining anything besides the act with the punishment only serves to diminish the severity of the act. To suggest that punishment is about deterrance, IMO, is assuming that criminals are going to rationally going to weigh their actions. If that were true, then there would be no murders outside of people who want to die and just do not have the balls to committ suicide.

 

If someone is comfortable with using a big chunk of society's resources supporting thousands and thousands of people who have acted out in the most heinous manner against society and who will never be anything more than an ongoing drain on society, then that is fine. If you do not feel "the state" has a right to execute people, that is absolutely within your right and you are entitled to that belief. But my point is that a punishment should be entirely about the act performed without considerations of anything else. Not some deterrance factor, not what revenge we want to give to the victims (the ones not killed). But it is nothing more than politicizing the process and trying to support some agenda to blend in other considerations besides the simple fact that society says if you do "X", we do "Y" not because we want to, not because we are trying to warn others, not because we have some axe to grind. It is because you did "X".

[Ursa Majoris]

i don't think i really became an opponent to the death penalty until i realized that this was truly the only real justification behind the death penalty, and then thinking about that in terms of my views on morality and the power of the state. and it just seems like a really bad idea to have the state doing something solely to quench someone's thirst for revenge. that lust for revenge is a bad, evil feeling to begin with, all the more so when it is carried out by the government in the name of justice.

Deterrence is trundled out as a justification by death penalty supporters when in reality it is no deterrent, as can easily be seen by the crime rates. However, there is some justification for the retribution aspect of the death penalty in that society (courts and legislature) is acting, at least in part, on behalf of the wronged parties.

 

I think I'm with Savage Beatings on this one. In principle, I'd like to be against the death penalty but in practice, I can see no justification whatsoever for leaving alive the criminals that have done heinous things. It's a visceral reaction but that doesn't mean it's unjustified.

[Savage Beatings]

If those other elements are germane to the punishment, then an orphan with no friends can be killed with a lesser sentence? Intertwining anything besides the act with the punishment only serves to diminish the severity of the act. To suggest that punishment is about deterrance, IMO, is assuming that criminals are going to rationally going to weigh their actions. If that were true, then there would be no murders outside of people who want to die and just do not have the balls to committ suicide.

 

But deterrence doesn't need to be one of the reasons for enacting a Death Penalty, it can simply be an unintended secondary effect. So, you can still argue as to whether Capital Punishment is a deterrent or not, without it being one of the central arguments for whether or not you support it as a just sentence.

[montster]

I thought that studies have shown that it is indeed a deterrent to more violent crimes in the States that have it? I could be wrong, but I definitely remember hearing that somewhere within the last year or so. Again, I'm not in favor of it either way, but there could be a direct correlation in there somewhere.

 

i remember taking a criminal studies class in college. i can sum up the entire course in a sentence: there is no deterrent to crime. of course, this was maybe 13 years ago, so maybe things have changed, but i doubt it.

[Azazello1313]

But my point is that a punishment should be entirely about the act performed without considerations of anything else. Not some deterrance factor, not what revenge we want to give to the victims (the ones not killed). But it is nothing more than politicizing the process and trying to support some agenda to blend in other considerations besides the simple fact that society says if you do "X", we do "Y" not because we want to, not because we are trying to warn others, not because we have some axe to grind. It is because you did "X".

 

the question is why do we assign "Y" to "X"? how do we go about making that determination? it seems like you're saying we should completely ignore the extent of the harm done, we should completely ignore the harm we might avert in the future by imposing a given penalty, and of course we should also completely ignore the fact that a number of our judgments of guilt or innocence will be wrong (but that is admittedly a tangent). it seems like you're saying we should look ONLY at how "bad" and heinous a crime is.

 

thing is, that is the most subjective, potentially political and agenda-driven consideration of all. for example, which is more "bad": fudging some accounting numbers in a way that leads to lining your pockets with a couple million dollars; or selling illegal drugs to school kids? and how much worse is one than the other? every person's answer to that is going to be totally subjective, reflecting their own mores and prejudices. there is no scientific answer.

[Atlanta Cracker]

If someone is comfortable with using a big chunk of society's resources supporting thousands and thousands of people who have acted out in the most heinous manner against society and who will never be anything more than an ongoing drain on society, then that is fine.

 

What if it actually costs more to process an execution than it would to just shelf em for life?

 

Granted Texas is probably one of the more efficient states at pushing things along.

 

If there were an efficient, cost effictive method combined with a fairly foolproof conviction process then I'm 100% for the death penalty. Given the current setup I'm probably more like 50%/50%

[AtomicCEO]

there are definitely times when I want someone dead because of what they've done (however that doesn't mean that I can rationalize that feeling or reconcile it with my moral code).

 

I can rationalize just about anything. It just takes determination.

[H8tank]

I bet there is at least one neighborhood in Houston that has a drastic reduction in home burglaries.

 

Don't tell me that schit is not a deterrent limp wristed lieberal.

[yo mama]

Meh. Its a state's rights issue. New Jersey made a decision it should be allowed to make for itself. And we can all move to or away from it if we feel that strongly about it. But somehow, I don't get the feeling that violent criminals will be flocking from places like Texas to New Jersey anytime soon because of the law change.

[isleseeya]

have been a minority in my opinion ,on the board whenever threads came up on the death penalty , but I don't believe in the death penalty and dont beleive humans have the right to kill other humans ...dont believe we have the right to play God