There really only needs to be one state with the death penalty. How about...Texas? They have lots of practice after all.

There really only needs to be one state with the death penalty. How about...Texas? They have lots of practice after all.

POSTED BY NESS_GADOL

And only one city in Texas Huntsville

Good for Jersey!

The death penalty (like abortion) ought to be managed at the state level.

You don't like the law in America's Chemical Garden Dump? OK. Move to Louisiana.

But if every state had a vigorous death penalty, there would be no crime, just like in Texas.

New Jersey Will Repeal Death Penalty

That should make Tony Soprano and his boys happy.

"New Jersey Will Repeal Death Penalty"

And all the murderers in New Jersey rejoiced. Meanwhile, all the families of the murdered victims wept with sorrow. This is just another example of how liberal Democrats support the rights of criminals over the rights of law abiding citizens.

And all the murderers in New Jersey rejoiced. Meanwhile, all the families of the murdered victims wept with sorrow. This is just another example of how liberal Democrats support the rights of criminals over the rights of law abiding citizens.

Posted by Republican4ever at 2007-12-11 07:22 AM

I'm gonna assume that was one of those off the cuff easy jabs to make at an opposition party. But just out of curiosity, do you see any grey area in the idea of a Death Penalty?

Now before you go getting all anti-liberal defensive. I'm much more of a libertarian and even voted for Bush in the first election. My problem isn't with killing murderers, its with a flawed justice system.
We have a good justice system, but it can never be perfect. With over-zealous prosecutors and politicized reprieves, I don't really see the point in executing people when even the slightest chance of executing an innocent man exists.

Despite all the "appeals" we allow, it is still possible.... and when we can lock someone away for the rest of their life in an 8x10, surrounded by the meanest dregs of society, I don't really see the point.

What about all those wussy families who forgive the murderers of their loved ones and/or don't want them to be put to death? Ain't they some F'd up Sh't?

And what about the murderers who now need to live the rest of their lives tossing salads, instead of being set free from their torturous lives by the gift of death? Are they not lamenting?

Guess I gots ta be more slim in my thinkins to avoid these conundrums.

"My problem isn't with killing murderers, its with a flawed justice system."

Amen. Too many ambitious people with an agenda in the system. Think about it. Would you want Mike Nifong to be a prosector in a case against YOU?

"But just out of curiosity, do you see any grey area in the idea of a Death Penalty?"

Posted by gustogus at 2007-12-11 08:04 AM

When a jury of your peers is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're guilty of a capital crime, then there are no gray areas. If there were any gray areas, the accused should be found innocent.

juries dont make mistakes?

Good for Jersey!

The death penalty (like abortion) ought to be managed at the state level.

You don't like the law in America's Chemical Garden Dump? OK. Move to Louisiana.

Posted by vernon

Very good point Vernon. I think people have been conditioned into believing that in order to support aborting rights, you have to support Roe v. Wade. But that is not necessarily true. Roe v. Wade could be done away with and we could go back to each state deciding for themselves.

The argument is that poor girls may not be able to travel to other statse to get abortions, well, who said life was fair anyways?

Not in right wing world.

And no prosecutors ever withhold evidence, and no witnesses ever lie.

The culture of death only sees right and wrong. There are no gray areas.

Eighth Amendment Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.


and gee I thought punishment for crimes was a federal issue.

you from jersey?

who you asking?

"When a jury of your peers is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're guilty of a capital crime, then there are no gray areas."

There are waaaayyy too many cases where juries have been convinced "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and innocent men were later released from death row. I think it is Illinois that has set a moratorium on executions since there were eleven cases proven by DNA found to have been in error. I'm pretty confident that there have been innocent people executed in the past.

wow jest and I are agreeing on something, that is scary.

"I think people have been conditioned into believing that in order to support aborting rights, you have to support Roe v. Wade. But that is not necessarily true. Roe v. Wade could be done away with and we could go back to each state deciding for themselves.

"The argument is that poor girls may not be able to travel to other statse to get abortions, well, who said life was fair anyways?"

Let's make a few changes and see what we get:

I think people have been conditioned into believing that in order to support equal rights, you have to support Brown v. Board of Education. But that is not necessarily true. Brown v. Board of Education could be done away with and we could go back to each state deciding for themselves.

The argument is that poor children may not be able to travel to other states to get a good education, well, who said life was fair anyways?

The people have spoken via their legislators. Now that the law will be on the books there will be some interesting trends to follow. A couple...

1. Will there be more crimes that would otherwise warrant the DP? I tend to doubt it - and I'm pro DP.

2. The vote was very very close (with three not voting). How will those voting against the new law fare in their next election? Will their opposition to the DP be used against them... and with what success?

"wow jest and I are agreeing on something, that is scary."

I bet we agree on the War on Drugs, legaling prostitution and some other things too. Yeah...we might even vote the same way next year...ya' think? :-)

HANS-
By your retort to MEM (Roe/Brown substituting) are you suggesting New Jersey was in error in being able to deviate from the SCOTUS' ruling that the death penalty was constitutional? It would appear that way to me if you are equating Roe with Brown. Thoughts?

Or maybe Hans is saying that New Jersey should not be allowed to repeal the death penalty? Is taht it?

As far as Brown, that was just the Supreme Court cleaning up an earlier mess they made in 1896 when they ignored the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment should suffice when it comes to treating people equally, be it education or whatever.

Criminal law is traditionally handled by the States more than the Feds.

As far as aboortion, is is such a copmlex issue that I don't think you want a once-size-fits-all Federal approach.

juries dont make mistakes?

Posted by truthhurts

And how many appeals dos eh have before they actualy execute him? He has 20 years from his first trial to prove the court wrong.

"Thoughts?"

Oohrah, my thoughts are:

The SCOTUS says that it is constitutional for states to carry out the death penalty. One or many states have said "thanks, but no thanks." The SCOTUS did not say that had to have a death penalty, just that having one is constitutional.

The SCOTUS says that citizens have a constitutional right, the right to privacy. This includes the right for women to have an abortion. A state cannot take this right away.

It boils down to a state using or not using a penalty which the SCOTUS has deemed constitutional, versus a state taking away a constitutional right.

Hans

appeals courts dont make mistakes?

until the system could be made perfect, when an innocent party is killed by the state that is state sponsored murder.

to say nothing of the fact that death is by nature cruel and unusual punishment IMO

HANS-
I thought that would be your response. And while I follow your logic on it I do have some concerns.

1. Are we depriving the rights of the citizenry to mete out constitutionally-protected punishment? If it's constitutional for the DP in one state, can a neighboring state determine it isn't available?

The same sort of logic could apply to the illegal alien situation. If it were deemed constitutional to prohibit the hiring of illegals... would some states be able to pass a law to allow it under some sort of "compassion" basis?

If a state like NJ or others unilaterally decides to buck the system can/should they be denied any federal monies?

2. Roe's lynchpin of the right to privacy is shaky at best. But that was what is was based on (however misguided) so there's little sense debating that. You are correct - based on how that decision was reached. I happen to disagree and am not alone in that stance.

3. If a state felt strongly that abortion was wrong/murder, etc., couldn't it make a case that it was protecting the rights of the baby? Already on the books are laws protecting the fetus/baby - kill a pregnant momma and you're facing double murder. Couldn't a state say that where there is doubt about abortion (killing a human vs simply a choice) that abortion ought to be placed on hold till more information could be gathered? Would you strip away a state's ability to adopt that stance?

Hans wrote:

"The SCOTUS says that it is constitutional for states to carry out the death penalty. One or many states have said "thanks, but no thanks." The SCOTUS did not say that had to have a death penalty, just that having one is constitutional.

The SCOTUS says that citizens have a constitutional right, the right to privacy. This includes the right for women to have an abortion. A state cannot take this right away."

Hans, don't you think the SCOTUS is rather in inconsistent? Why is it the perrogative of each state to carry out the death penalty, but not regulate abortinon? A death row inmate in, say Texas, is not treated the same as a convicted murdered in, say Michigan which has no death penalty. Don't you think this disparity would violate the 14th Amendment? If there is a disparity when it comes to being punished, why not a disparity when it comes to privacy?

(And even if Row was corectly decided, which I am trying to figure out, all I am saying is that it would not be the end of the world if it was overturned. Whereas before I held my nose when voting for pro-life candidates, now abortino is way down the list of issues I really give a damn about).

From a pragmatic point of view, I'm fine with this.
From the extra trials and the 14 appeals, it costs more in lawyer fees to put a murder to death than to just lock him up for life. I don't think it's worth the effort.
Plus, the condemmed always get way to much media coverage. I think it'd be better if a muderer, after being found guilty, simply disapeared into a hole, never to be seen again.

They all get the death penalty, eventually. It's not like we're immortal.

"1. Are we depriving the rights of the citizenry to mete out constitutionally-protected punishment?"

I would classify it as a constitutionally-permissive punishment, not a constitutional-mandated punishment. If the people in a state (through their representatives) say "thanks, but no thanks" to a constitutionally-permissive punishment, that's their prerogative.

The SCOTUS did not say states have to implement a given punishment, just that if they do implement the death penalty it is constitutional.

"2. Roe's lynchpin of the right to privacy is shaky at best. But that was what is was based on (however misguided) so there's little sense debating that. You are correct - based on how that decision was reached. I happen to disagree and am not alone in that stance."

I disagree about the "shaky" part, Oohrah. For me, the right to privacy (regardless of its implications regarding abortion) goes right to the heart of being an American citizen.

"3. If a state felt strongly that abortion was wrong/murder, etc., couldn't it make a case that it was protecting the rights of the baby?"

It could make that case, yes. But under stare decisis they would lose.

Can the SCOTUS change its mind and reverse RvW, sending that issue back to the states?

I hope that they do.

Hans

How about leaving the decision up to the condemned? If they don't want to live out their life behind bars, let them decide.

Wisgod,

It's called a bedsheet hanging. They can check out anytime they want....

This is just another example of how liberal Democrats support the rights of criminals over the rights of law abiding citizens.

Posted by Republican4ever


Either that or a statement of opposition to the state having the power to execute its citizens, or of being faithful to their religous beliefs, or to recognizing that there is no link to the prevention of crime, or to preventing the accidental execution of an innocent person.

But your simple-minded, talking point answer is the only one your little head has room for, so I guess you're right: Democrats support criminals over law abiding citizens.

What an ass.

It's called a bedsheet hanging. They can check out anytime they want....

Posted by Norm

I'd make it even easier. Leave a syringe with a leathal dosage on their nightstand.

"I'd make it even easier. Leave a syringe with a leathal dosage on their nightstand."

Sort of the "big house" equivalent of the mint on the pillow? And, Wisgod, would you also include turn down service?

;0)

Hans

would you also include turn down service?

No, but I would leave them a Bible if they want to read it. And 1 hour of pay-per-view porno (unless they are convicted rapists, of course).

Good... although in all my time living here, I've never heard of someone being executed, but still its good to get rid of the Death Penalty. Our system still relies too heavily on people to make the judgement of guilt or not. Crafty lawyers, incompitent prosecuters/defenders, stupid juries (ie OJ), so called experts... There is too much room for mistake in our system to take an action as permanent as killing the defendent. If there were a way to definitively prove a case without any doubt, not just reasonable, I would be more open to it... but until you remove the chance of mistake I won't support killing (Except in the case of Child Molesters).

States that don't follow through on the sentence shouldn't have it anyway.

When a jury of your peers is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're guilty of a capital crime, then there are no gray areas. If there were any gray areas, the accused should be found innocent.

Posted by Republican4ever


I love intellectual gems like this. Damn! I guess OJ was innocent. There are NO gray areas after all. Just how much shit can you soulless purveyors of fear and death monger? Innocent men HAVE been executed! I won't have that blood on my hands. Even the execution/murder of the guilty...truly evil bastards, takes it's price on our collective soul. People cheering for an execution like it was a football game, now there are some spiritually enlighten individuals.

Besides, it isn't a deterrent...it's more expensive then putting them away for live...and I have to believe that death is a better alternative than life in prison(IMHO).

And every once in awhile, A scum bag like Jeffrey Dahmer gets 'offed" in prison, and justice is served and our collective soul doesn't have to a pay price.

Besides, it isn't a deterrent...it's more expensive then putting them away for live

I've always been curious about the math on this statement that is thrown out a lot... take into account the cost of feeding and clothing and housing a prisoner, plus the salaries of the guards that watch them along with the other personnel, along with medical/dental, as well as the bills of running a prison (heating, lighting, maintenance and repair)... all that and probably much, much more over decades has to come out to a lot of money...

s well as the bills of running a prison (heating, lighting, maintenance and repair)...

seems that the costs associated with the minimal number of applicable prisoners is deminimous

"Either that or a statement of opposition to the state having the power to execute its citizens, or of being faithful to their religous beliefs, or to recognizing that there is no link to the prevention of crime, or to preventing the accidental execution of an innocent person.

But your simple-minded, talking point answer is the only one your little head has room for, so I guess you're right: Democrats support criminals over law abiding citizens.

What an ass."

Posted by midiman at 2007-12-11 10:24 AM

Based on many of the leftie Democrats that post here, they profess to not having a belief in God, so I doubt very much that they are being faithful to their religion.

Plus, don't tell me that the death penalty is not a deterrent. That is such a lame argument. By your standards, let's just slap their hands and not send any criminals to jail. After all, if the death penalty is not a deterrent, then having to spend time behind bars is not a deterrent either.

Plus, no system of justice is perfect. The automatic appeal for death penalty convictions is a method used to be sure we've convicted the right person. If we convict an innocent person and execute them, it is not much different than convicting an innocent person and forcing them to spend their life behind bars, is it? Either way, their life is over. Think about it.

Plus, how many executed convicted murderers have ever killed again versus the convicted murderers sentenced to "life", who after serving 20 years, are released?

"Can the SCOTUS change its mind and reverse RvW, sending that issue back to the states?

I hope that they do." - HANS (941am)

Why do you say that?

Civilized countries do not have a death penalty.
Christian countries do not have a death penalty.

Since the USA is not either one, it is OK.

If we convict an innocent person and execute them, it is not much different than convicting an innocent person and forcing them to spend their life behind bars, is it? Either way, their life is over. Think about it. R4E
If their life is over with life behind bars, no need for death penalty. Right, of course right.

If we convict an innocent person and execute them, it is not much different than convicting an innocent person and forcing them to spend their life behind bars, is it? Either way, their life is over. Think about it.


ummm no

see there are things called appeals and also occassionally it happens that innocent people are found to be innocent years later.

it is impossible if the person is dead.

Plus, don't tell me that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

Posted by Republican4ever


Post your evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent. I've never seen any.

Plus, how many executed convicted murderers have ever killed again versus the convicted murderers sentenced to "life", who after serving 20 years, are released?

Posted by Republican4ever

That's the trick...a 'life sentence' should be just that...for life! No parole for murders and rapists, or child molesters(IMO). Unfortunately, thanks to the right-wing's insane drug war, we have to parole all the violent scumbags to make room for all the small time pot dealers and users.

Let me correct myself....I should have said, the right AND the left wing's insane drug war. I've seen no evidence that the left has any intention of bringing the craziness to an end either.

*sigh* It figures it's New Jersey. I'll never be able to lure my ex-husband there.

I do not have a problem with the death penalty.
My problem stems from the fact people on death row that were eventually freed.
The death penalty should mean just that.
Life without parole should mean the same.
I agree with the poster above who stated that they should just be put away and forgotten.
Death will eventually come anyway.
Life without parole is a better sentence then death anyway.
Gives them time to think about their crime.
Maybe.
But who cares.

rwd

Kenneth McDuff is my poster boy for the argument that there remains a place for the death penalty; But the rules of evidence must be tightened up.

Posted by mrsoul62 at 2007-12-11 04:15 PM

Post your evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent. I've never seen any.

The death penalty is in fact not a deterrent. In fact, states without death penalties have lower murder rates.

I guess it is the liberal in me but the death penalty is a wasteful process. It isn't a deterrant and it is very costly in that it takes way too long to execute folks anyway with all of the due process with appeals.

Perhaps it is the pro-life in me that doesn't like it.

New Jersey. People living on that peat bog may think that living there is punishment enough.

No death penalty in Michigan, and isn't Detoit in competition for the national murder per 100,000 championship?

Posted by eberly at 2007-12-11 07:27 PM

I guess it is the liberal in me but the death penalty is a wasteful process. It isn't a deterrant and it is very costly in that it takes way too long to execute folks anyway with all of the due process with appeals.

Well, the process could be expedited if you were willing to eliminate some of the appeal procedures. No problem.

But that is not realistic. If the chance exists (even very small) that we could execute an innocent man will continue to allow for a very long and exhaustive appeal process.

Yeah New Jersey!

Someone finally admits the truth is that the process is flawed...it does not work well (people still murder people) and innocent people are dying.

Mr. Codey, who sponsored legislation in the early 1980s that reinstated New Jersey's death penalty, said the system plays a cruel hoax on murder victims' families by giving them the false hope of an execution.

Besides the death penalty should not be about revenge or for making the victims "feel better".

It should be about justice.

Oh No! How will the Culture of Death(rightwing death penalty supporters) survive?

-Vermin