New Jersey to abolish death penalty - your thoughts?

[nawth21]

It is cheaper to keep them in prison for life. And also theres no real indication that the dead penalty acts as a deterrent. People commit the crimesregardless. The only reason to have the death penalty is for punishment for that one individual. Not that theres anything wrong with that either, but many prodeath penalty people claim that is saves money and such which is false.

 

[kdwallace]

Isn't New Jersey like one of the baddest places in the United States right now?


And that's a good point for abolishing the death penalty - it's not an effective deterrent.

I've never managed to find them but I would be interested in seeing statistics comparing similar states with and without the death penalty and their crimestats. Jersey and Michigan would seem to be the obvious ones from that list at the top.

 

[zierra28]

Originally Posted by AC4Three

I support the death penalty, but I also realize it's a difficult issue with salient arguments on each side. But...

More often than not the wrong person is killed.

Are you kidding? What is your source for this information???


If ONE innocent person's life is lost, that's already ONE too many. If it were you, would you be like "well they got the wrong dude, butit's still a good system, so I can't complain." ?

Originally Posted by ebayologist

There are numerous studies I'm sure you can find just with a simple google search or someone will later post that show that just giving someone life in prision is signifcantly cheaper than trying to execute someone. Basically as a result of the lengthy appeal process afforded to death row inmates the cost of their lawyers (if they're state appointed) and the cost of the states laywers, judges, clerks, etc. and just the general costs in using a court room for that kind of time add up along with just the time the inmate already spends in seperate death row jail/prison or section of a jail/prison adds up to be signifcantly more than just giving someone life in prison where their appeal process is significantly shorter and less costly as they can be just placed in a regular prison.

I know that many people don't believe the "eye for an eye" philosophy, but I strongly, strongly do. In certain cases, leniency shouldn't be shown to someone who's knowingly and brutally overstepped one of the core tenets of any society.

I don't believe it's being lenient to make someone sit in a small room NEVER free, forced to think about or ACTIVELY avoid what they did to someone else. If they're mentally unstable and have no remorse, that's somethign different, but to the avg human being, that IS torture. Also, it's my understanding that a true killer, could give a damn if they die or not. They don't really care, dying is like w/e. "I've already done my damage so go ahead and kill me. Won't bring molly back." Where's the consequence in that? What do they get to learn?

Honestly, I think killing sans self defense, or immediate protection of a loved one (or whomever) is wrong. But if I need sound reasoning, and not just my conscience, I would use the appeals process, and how DNA tests have proven that the DP isn't full proof

 

[nawth21]

Originally Posted by kdwallace

Isn't New Jersey like one of the baddest places in the United States right now?

And that's a good point for abolishing the death penalty - it's not an effective deterrent.

I've never managed to find them but I would be interested in seeing statistics comparing similar states with and without the death penalty and their crime stats. Jersey and Michigan would seem to be the obvious ones from that list at the top.

I have similar stats in one of my corrections text books. Not sure if those states are included, but it shows per capita stats of states with DP, thosewithout DPs and even within states when they had it versus not having it anymore.

 

[prurientsole]

Originally Posted by Zierra28


I don't believe it's being lenient to make someone sit in a small room NEVER free, forced to think about or ACTIVELY avoid what they did to someone else. If they're mentally unstable and have no remorse, that's somethign different, but to the avg human being, that IS torture. Also, it's my understanding that a true killer, could give a damn if they die or not. They don't really care, dying is like w/e. "I've already done my damage so go ahead and kill me. Won't bring molly back." Where's the consequence in that? What do they get to learn?

Honestly, I think killing sans self defense, or immediate protection of a loved one (or whomever) is wrong. But if I need sound reasoning, and not just my conscience, I would use the appeals process, and how DNA tests have proven that the DP isn't full proof

In regards to the second statement, that's why I said that there needs to be irrefutable evidence for the death penalty to be carried out inthe manner that I suggested. If there's even a shred of doubt that the convicted individual is guilty of the crime, then yes, leave 'em in prison forlife. But in the case of someone who's caught on video committing the act, has victims' bodies buried in their backyard or chillin' out in thefreezer, etc., I would advocate the death penalty in those situations.

It's not about making things "right", because, as you said, killing Molly's killer ain't gonna bring Molly back. I have no pie-in-the-skybelief that the death penalty deters anyone from committing murder, I don't believe that the thought of their impending death will make them suddenlyrealize the error of their ways, and I couldn't possibly care less if a convicted killer is apathetic about dying or not. For me, the death penalty, as Idescribed it, is simply pragmatic: it removes from existence someone who is a detriment to a safe, properly-functioning society, and saves a good chunk ofmoney in doing so.

As far as the "eye for an eye" aspect, it has more to do with what I said above about removing someone from society than it does with making things"even", i.e. if you kill, then you have proven that you're of no use to society so you shall be killed as well.

 

[jrellcuse10]

Originally Posted by Roscoe P Wallace

Originally Posted by ebayologist

Originally Posted by jrellcuse10

New Jersey. Why waste taxpayers money by giving them shelter and food? If they are deservedly on death row give them a lethal injection. Painful death.

There are numerous studies I'm sure you can find just with a simple google search or someone will later post that show that just giving someone life in prision is signifcantly cheaper than trying to execute someone. Basically as a result of the lengthy appeal process afforded to death row inmates the cost of their lawyers (if they're state appointed) and the cost of the states laywers, judges, clerks, etc. and just the general costs in using a court room for that kind of time add up along with just the time the inmate already spends in seperate death row jail/prison or section of a jail/prison adds up to be signifcantly more than just giving someone life in prison where their appeal process is significantly shorter and less costly as they can be just placed in a regular prison.

I'm entitled to my opinion whether you agree with it or not.

 

[ebayologist]

^It's not about agreeing with me. It's not wasting taxpayers money by giving them food and shelter in prison. It's saving tax payers money. Just asimple fact as the result of the appeal system.

And if you want to change the appeal system to make it shorter and cheaper so that the state can excute people with more cost effectively I would say thatsinsanity. They already on occasion excute innocent people, I think shortening the appeal process would even make the death penatly even more flawed than italready is. If someone later gets proven innocent and is in jail they get some kind of severance package of sorts and they're free, clearly not equal tothe amount time they've had their freedom taken but nonetheless, if you excute someone and later prove their innocent their isn't really %%$$ you cando... Hence why they have that long appeal process...

 

[kapepper]

Originally Posted by NYelectric

I don't agree with the death penalty. Ever.

CO SIGN

deathpenalty = civilization???

 

[tcw 96]

Instead of the death penalty, they should have a harsher penalty than life in jail.

As in something that will be tourture w/out actually physically doing it.

It should be reserved for the worst criminals.

 

[zierra28]

Originally Posted by PrurientSole

Originally Posted by Zierra28


I don't believe it's being lenient to make someone sit in a small room NEVER free, forced to think about or ACTIVELY avoid what they did to someone else. If they're mentally unstable and have no remorse, that's somethign different, but to the avg human being, that IS torture. Also, it's my understanding that a true killer, could give a damn if they die or not. They don't really care, dying is like w/e. "I've already done my damage so go ahead and kill me. Won't bring molly back." Where's the consequence in that? What do they get to learn?

Honestly, I think killing sans self defense, or immediate protection of a loved one (or whomever) is wrong. But if I need sound reasoning, and not just my conscience, I would use the appeals process, and how DNA tests have proven that the DP isn't full proof

In regards to the second statement, that's why I said that there needs to be irrefutable evidence for the death penalty to be carried out in the manner that I suggested. If there's even a shred of doubt that the convicted individual is guilty of the crime, then yes, leave 'em in prison for life. But in the case of someone who's caught on video committing the act, has victims' bodies buried in their backyard or chillin' out in the freezer, etc., I would advocate the death penalty in those situations.

It's not about making things "right", because, as you said, killing Molly's killer ain't gonna bring Molly back. I have no pie-in-the-sky belief that the death penalty deters anyone from committing murder, I don't believe that the thought of their impending death will make them suddenly realize the error of their ways, and I couldn't possibly care less if a convicted killer is apathetic about dying or not. For me, the death penalty, as I described it, is simply pragmatic: it removes from existence someone who is a detriment to a safe, properly-functioning society, and saves a good chunk of money in doing so.

As far as the "eye for an eye" aspect, it has more to do with what I said above about removing someone from society than it does with making things "even", i.e. if you kill, then you have proven that you're of no use to society so you shall be killed as well.

First of all I want to think you for presenting your thoughts eloquently. THANK YOU. 2nd, what do you think your chances are of getting your"utopian DP system?" All the appeals are there to "MAKE SURE" that the convicted is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. So, take away theappeals, increase the doubt.

Just because someone has committed murder doesn't mean they've got no purpose here on this earth, that they can't still influence society. Even indeath we change lives and affect those around us (look at how inspired people get when a famous person is killed, alot of people end up wanting to make adifference as well) Lessons can be learned from everything. Jesus on the cross (duno if you're Christian or not) saved a seat in heaven and save the soulof the murderer next to him. (I believe he was a murderer. I'm sure someone will check for me.) The whole point of being a Christian (if you are) is tobe like Jesus, and if you were open to it, He was a forgiver. The point of that was no matter what you've done, there's always space for you toexperience salvation.

 

[illscan]

Morality aside, look at the flaws in this countries judicial system. Is a minority in America really judged (fairly) by a jury of his peers??? Is an individualliving in poverty able to obtain the best council & defend him/her self fully???
Mistakes & injustices occur everyday in the courts of this country. Death is a certain punishment with no means of correcting a potential mistake.That's why I'm against the death penalty.

Isn't New Jersey like one of the baddest places in the United States right now?
We have some of the most dangerous cities in America, but as a whole NJ is not "bad". We are one of the most educated states with one ofthe highest median household income's in the country.