New Jersey lawmakers vote to abolish death penalty »
Posted by: david_nwpa 8 months, 2 weeks ago218 Comments Report this Story
New 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
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 218
-
-
0%
blinkers8 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply-
0%
wasntme8 months, 2 weeks ago
If somebody kills another person in Iran and is convicted in court, then he /she will automatically get a death sentence. How ever that is not the end of the line for the murderer. The only person who can get that person off the hook is the first kin of the victim. If they forgive the murderer, then he/she will serve some short prison term and then walk. But seldom the family of the victim forgives. I think this is lot better than the state forgiving or not forgiving. Family of the victim has to have a loud voice in the decision.
I have a story about this law. During the revolution in my hometown, Shah's soldiers had fired into the crowd of demonstrators and one soldier had killed this woman's only son. After the triumph of the revolution, they identified the soldier who was a local boy and put him on trial. Mother of the victim would not attend the court and she wanted him dead. It turned out that the boy was just a scared young man who thought mob was going to attack him.
Reply -
0%
wasntme8 months, 2 weeks ago
So in the process of scaring them away that murder had happened. But the mother of the victim was adamant to see him dead. My good buddy Mahmood who was a jail official knew the boy and was convinced that he was not a type who would go for a murder. So Mahmoud and his friends did their best to convince the mother to pardon the boy. She would not give in. Then comes the night before the execution. Mahmood told me that he dressed the boy in civilian and about 2 in the morning they went to the victim's mother house. (In emergency cases it is not uncommon to knock on somebody's door in Iran late at night) She opens the door. She does not recognize the boy and had never seen him. She knows Mahmood and knows that Mahmood is there to change her mind. But she invites them in anyways and as is customary in Iran she makes hot tea and brings them some pastery and fruits .
Reply -
0%
wasntme8 months, 2 weeks ago
They sit down and eat and talk and Mahmood tries to convince her again but she just wanted the murderer of her son killed. By this time she has been talking to the kid and offering him pastries, served him hot tea and they chatted about her slain son. She tells the kid how much she loved her son and how much she misses him.She even tells him that he reminds her of her son .Mahmood tries again to change her mind but no success. .Finally Mahmood puts one arm on kids shoulder and with other arm points to the mother and tells her: Lady, at five in the morning , three hours from now this kid will die by the firing squad. Do you want him dead ? This is the kid you are trying to kill. Does he look like a cold blooded murderer to you? To make a long story short...she breaks into tears , hugs the kid and kisses him. The kid got to live.
Reply -
0%
Candida8 months, 2 weeks ago
I probably would feel the same, and that's why I'm grateful that it's the justice system that would decide what to do and not I. Murder is an abomination, no matter who does it, whether it's the murderer, the victim's family or the state.
Many years ago, I did some research on the "benefits" of capital punishment. In a nutshell, other than the bitter-sweet taste of vengeance, it had none. Things may have changed since then, but I doubt it.
Most people feel that preventing further murders is worth executing people, but what I found at the time was that the vast majority of murderers never kill again, but a fair number of armed robbers and even thieves do.
The biggest problem is that even though criminal cases are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you can't be absolutely certain that you have the right person. The execution of how many innocents is acceptable to get the guilty ones?
Reply -
0%
quackpot8 months, 2 weeks ago
Killing an innocent person would satisfy your thirst for blood and put you mind at ease?
Yes, MANY innocent people have been put to death via false convictions.
Reply -
0%
jaern8 months, 2 weeks ago
I agree with part of your statement:
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.
But I do not agree that their death would bring justice. I'm all for keeping these people away from the rest of society but their death has never brought back a single victim. And what about the wrongly convicted sentenced to death? We have seen sentences overturned with the advancement of technology. How would you feel seeing the justice of your murdered child handed down to the wrong person? Would this not compound your own grief and guilt?
Reply
-
-
0%
crghss8 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply -
0%
panzerv8 months, 2 weeks ago
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!
Reply-
0%
IanFraigun8 months, 2 weeks ago
Well you should be happy then. At the cost of the special facilities, extra security, legal expenses to the state of required appeals, and the long time before a condemned can be executed the costs of capital punishment are astronomical.
For what it costs to keep an inmate on death row for a year you can incarerate dozens or non death row inmates. If you are into the financial costs you should oppose capital punishment more than those morally opposed since the costs are so excessive.
Why are the costs so high you might ask. Well since the punishment is so permanent and cannot be reversed if someone is later found not guilty we spend great sums of money in the persuit of ensuring the correctness of the verict.
Life without parole and you don't need to do that since if something proves lack of guilt you simply release them from prison, but you can never undo capital punishment.
Reply-
NemoShiZniTComment removed: User banned.8 Replies
-
-
0%
Poulenc8 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply-
0%
blinkers8 months, 2 weeks ago
Poulenc, to a certain extent, I agree that "life in prison is a worse punishment.....etc." but with with an ever-changing justice system, as necessarily exists in a representative democracy, the heinous killer given a life sentence can always nurse the hope that one day, maybe one day.....there'll be a parole, a pardon, a retrial, whatever, and ultimately freedom.
The very worst killers do not deserve that hope. (My opinion).
Reply-
0%
IanFraigun8 months, 2 weeks ago
Well first point. In capital cases in most states the alternative to a death penalty is life WITHOUT possibilty of parole so no parole could ever occur.
When those in charge never commute a death sentence what do you think the chances of a pardon would be. To me the chance of that is about as much as me being a 65 year old male becoming pregnant.
Finally if there is a retrial that would mean there were major errors in the original trial. Do we really want to sent people to prison or death without the ability to retry if we find serious problems. with the numbers today being found innocent with DNA evidence would you want to deny that ability to anyone. Remeber bottom line is a retrial if there is good evidence will still result in a conviction but at least without abuse or error within the trial.
Reply
-
-
0%
Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
No! The state should be in the "business of executing killers". The state is US and therefore you are saying the society should not be in the business of meting out justice. It is not "punishment". It is justice. If you hold my life of no value to the point that you attempt to take or take, it then your life as no value either. That is justice. Breach the rights of others then your rights are forfeit.
A society which does not set high value on life has set a low value on its members. This sends the wrong signal. The commission looked into whether the death penalty prevents violent crime. That is the wrong question. The question is "do we value human life?" OR "What do we say as a society to those who consider taking the life of others?"
It seems some states value animals more that humans. But hey maybe that is what they are saying in NJ. "WE are all animals so what does it matter if one animal kills another animal?"
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs8 months, 2 weeks ago
"What do we say as a society to those who consider taking the life of others?" We say "To take the life of another is not justifiable and we will not do it. If you find it necessary to do so we will lock you up until you die." I do not believe it the prerogative of a state to take the lives of any of its citizens; it is contrary to the purpose of founding a state. I resent the state taking lives in my name. I think that those who participate in such a sentencing should have to carry it out with their own hands, in public, with their families watching.
Thank you, New Jersey. 13 down and 37 to go, then the Fed.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
IanFraigun8 months, 2 weeks ago
It can never be justice until the same punishment is given to all for the same crime. With the same crimes causing mostly minority and poor to get death sentences while rich and majority gets most often life with possibility of parole and sometimes judgement of not guilty on technicalities we are too far away from that equality to suit me.
Currently it is retribution and only retribution for those who cannot pay for a proper defense or who are minorities that many in the majority fear. Well if we fear them then lets kill them and we don't need to fear them any longer. Too often that is the feeling of these jurors.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
joeblowe8 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply-
0%
IanFraigun8 months, 2 weeks ago
The first and most basic flaw of our system is simply that no matter what you indicate you still need to be poor and minority in the vast majority of cases to receive the death penalty.
I might be willing to support that penalty if we could remove the prejudice from the justice system and provide truly proper quality defence to those without the funds, such as OJ, to provide for themselves.
When 95% of death row inmates are both poor and minority that says something wrong about our system. Proportionally to population whites murder just as much but rarely if ever receive a death penalty. Fix those errors and problem and then we can talk about the value or use of capital punishment. Until then it is nothing more than another form of discriminatory lynchings that occured a hundred years ago.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs8 months, 2 weeks ago
"If a person is THAT flawed that they think it's OK to just go and kill someone, why keep them alive?"
If you are permitted to decide to put someone to death by the state how are you any better than the one who decides to do this himself? The only difference is that you have spattered the blood on all your fellow citizens, and failed to take sole responsibility for your actions as the criminal must do.
Reply -
NemoShiZniTComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
-
-
-
-
0%
blinkers8 months, 2 weeks ago
A very silly partisan-based comment on an otherwise serious topic. But predictable.
Reply -
0%
tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago
Hey Ani, leaving New Jersey was the smartest move I ever made. In the movie "The Long Kiss Goodnight", Samuel Jackson tells Geena Davis to slow down, she then tells him that she got herself out of Beruit, she can get hrself out of NJ. What he says next always cracks me up. "Don't be so sure, millions try and fail every day, like the entire population."
Reply
-
-
0%
oneironaut4208 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply-
-
0%
Candida8 months, 2 weeks ago
OK, tanglang, if fear of death is what deters people from murdering others, how do you explain this:
Canada abolished capital punishment more than 30 years ago, but it has much lower murder rate than the US. Why?
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_perca...
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Poulenc8 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply
