Death Penalty Repealed in New Jersey

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
December 17, 2007
Death Penalty Repealed in New Jersey
By JEREMY W. PETERS

TRENTON — Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed into law a measure repealing New Jersey’s death penalty on Monday, making the state the first in a generation to abolish capital punishment.

Mr. Corzine also issued an order commuting the sentences of the eight men on New Jersey’ death row to life in prison with no possibility of parole, ensuring that they will stay behind bars for the rest of their lives.

In an extended and often passionate speech from his office at the state capitol, Mr. Corzine declared an end to what he called “state-endorsed killing,” and said that New Jersey could serve as a model for other states.

“Today New Jersey is truly evolving,” he said. “I believe society first must determine if its endorsement of violence begets violence, and if violence undermines our commitment to the sanctity of life. To these questions, I answer yes.”

New Jersey has not executed anyone since 1963, when Ralph Hudson was put to death in the electric chair for stabbing of his estranged wife.

In 1982, six years after the United States Supreme Court allowed states to start executing prisoners again, New Jersey re-established its death penalty. It switched its method of execution to lethal injection and built a new execution chamber at the New Jersey State Prison here, where death row is housed.

While juries have sentenced more than four dozen people to death since then, the vast majority of those sentences were overturned on appeal. And even if the state had wanted to follow through with an execution, it would not have been able to.

A state appeals court ruled in 2004 that New Jersey’s procedures for administering the death penalty were unconstitutional. The state rewrote the procedures but never finalized them, and they expired in 2005.

The process of abolishing the death penalty moved forward at an unusually fast pace. A bill replacing capital punishment with life in prison with no chance of parole first passed a Senate committee in May, but did not advance any further until this month. Leaders of both chambers in state Legislature made the bill a top priority of the current legislative session, and vowed after the November elections to vote on the issue before the end of the year.

In less than two weeks, the bill passed the state Senate and General Assembly and was signed by the governor.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/nyregion/17cnd-jersey.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login

I'm quite interested in your opinions on this.
 
Well, it's been practically repealed here since the 60s so no big deal I guess even though I'm all for frying the guilty.
 
The older I get, the harder I find it is to support the death penalty. Sure life in prison is more expensive, but I still think I'd rather pay more than to possibly execute an innocent person.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']The older I get, the harder I find it is to support the death penalty. Sure life in prison is more expensive, but I still think I'd rather pay more than to possibly execute an innocent person.[/QUOTE]

.
life in prison is cheaper than an inmate being on deathrow, taking into accoutn appeals and paroles and everything.
 
I have no problem with a state repealing their death penalty if that reflects the will the residents of that state. But please refrain from the self-righteousness as if abolishing the death penalty is somehow gives you some moral superiority over those that still favor the death penalty.
 
[quote name='dopa345']I have no problem with a state repealing their death penalty if that reflects the will the residents of that state. But please refrain from the self-righteousness as if abolishing the death penalty is somehow gives you some moral superiority over those that still favor the death penalty.[/QUOTE]

I'd really disagree on the actual method, given the known problems with lethal injection - but in the case of an overturned sentence (e.g., the kind being the result of The Innocence Project) - in the case of a person serving a life sentence, they get an opportunity to leave the prison. The executed prisoner does not get that liberty.
 
Good for the innocent convicted murderers. Hopefully they'll actually get out of prison...


[quote name='dopa345']I have no problem with a state repealing their death penalty if that reflects the will the residents of that state. But please refrain from the self-righteousness as if abolishing the death penalty is somehow gives you some moral superiority over those that still favor the death penalty.[/quote]

Maybe they think they're being the best, bravest, and holding their head high above the others. :p
 
If they've sentenced more than four dozen people to the death penalty since 1982, it would seem that repealing it doesn't reflect public opinion.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not sure I get what you're arguing, GWG.[/quote]
I'm not arguing for or against. I'm just saying that four dozen death penalties is a lot, and of the people of New Jersey didn't want the dealth penalty then they would stop issuing it in the first trial.
 
[quote name='GuyWithGun']I'm not arguing for or against. I'm just saying that four dozen death penalties is a lot, and of the people of New Jersey didn't want the dealth penalty then they would stop issuing it in the first trial.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I see - but I think you're making the false conclusion that the general public thinks they could have an effect on judicial rulings, rather than feeling helpless against people in a particular position of power.

It's an interesting point, and you may be onto something, but I don't think I'm seeing the direct connection.
 
[quote name='Unickuta']What if the guy's innocent? It's happened before.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I was under the assumption that an innocent person has never been executed. Can you provide some info (with proof not conspiracy theories)?
 
Look the proof that no innocent people have been executed is about as questionable as the proof that they have been. Do you really think the government is going to issue reports: "Well it was learned that someone confessed to the crimes we executed Jo-bob for last year. Oops. We would like to apologize to Jo-bob and his family."

The sheer statistics of how many people have been executed would argue that at least one of em was innocent. Abolishing the death penalty sends a message that even one, or the chance of one innoncent person being wrongfully executed is too much to tolerate.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Look the proof that no innocent people have been executed is about as questionable as the proof that they have been. Do you really think the government is going to issue reports: "Well it was learned that someone confessed to the crimes we executed Jo-bob for last year. Oops. We would like to apologize to Jo-bob and his family."

The sheer statistics of how many people have been executed would argue that at least one of em was innocent. Abolishing the death penalty sends a message that even one, or the chance of one innoncent person being wrongfully executed is too much to tolerate.[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to argue with you here. Hell, I believe what you're saying. But like Mark Twain said, "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable."

You can't say, well, statistically one of these persons must have been innocent, so let's get rid of the death penalty. That's just not a vaild argument.
 
[quote name='munch']I'm not trying to argue with you here. Hell, I believe what you're saying. But like Mark Twain said, "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable."

You can't say, well, statistically one of these persons must have been innocent, so let's get rid of the death penalty. That's just not a vaild argument.[/QUOTE]

I think it is a valid argument. Decisions are based on possible statistics all the time. An example that jumps to mind, but is probably not the best is collateral damage in war. We never exactly know how many innocents we might kill in an attack, but we base whether or not we carry out the attack on pretty much made up statistics.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']I think it is a valid argument. Decisions are based on possible statistics all the time. An example that jumps to mind, but is probably not the best is collateral damage in war. We never exactly know how many innocents we might kill in an attack, but we base whether or not we carry out the attack on pretty much made up statistics.[/QUOTE]

But that's not the argument he is making. He is saying the system is broken because it kills innocent people. I say, OK, show me where an innocent person has been killed. He says, well, with all the people that have been killed by the state, statistically one of them had to of been innocent. That doesn't hold water.

I am adamantly against the death penalty too, and I am inclined to agree that surely one of the persons killed through the state must have been innocent. But I'm not going to make that my argument because it doesn't stand without proof (unless someone can provide it, which might be out there, and I just don't know it).
 
Thanks for the support Mr. Unorig.

An executed innocent is not even necessary to make my point. Here it is again worded slightly differently: "Abolishing the death penalty sends a message that even one, or the chance of one innoncent person being wrongfully executed is too much to tolerate." Read it without the stricken words and you'll catch my drift.

EDIT: I never said as you mischaracterized me, "the system is broken because it kills innocent people." Nor did I say "statistically one of them had to of [sic] been innocent." What I said was that the stats would "argue" that there has been one innocent executed not that it definitely happned or that it was a cold hard fact. Like you, I beleive it has happened, but never said there was proof that it did, (though there probably is if one were inclined to look). As to the proof I would guess that the proof that there had been an innocent executed is as subject to suspect as the proof that there had not been.

Munch, the next time you want to make an argument for somebody, make sure you understand the confines of its narrowest and broadest meaning. Otherwise you stand the chance of extrapolating an incorrect point out of a correct one and putting words in others' mouths that were not originally there.
 
[quote name='munch']But that's not the argument he is making. He is saying the system is broken because it kills innocent people. I say, OK, show me where an innocent person has been killed. He says, well, with all the people that have been killed by the state, statistically one of them had to of been innocent. That doesn't hold water.

I am adamantly against the death penalty too, and I am inclined to agree that surely one of the persons killed through the state must have been innocent. But I'm not going to make that my argument because it doesn't stand without proof (unless someone can provide it, which might be out there, and I just don't know it).[/QUOTE]

I understand then. I would put my stance at least close to pittpizza by saying that I wouldn't support it because of the possibility of executing an innocent.
 
[quote name='javeryh']We don't need the death penalty - isn't that what Australia is for?[/QUOTE]While the U.K. once sent prisoners to Australia, it's never been done by the United States due to the clause against cruel and unusual punishment in the constitution.
 
The Innocence Project claims to have overturned 102 people, I believe, found wrongly convicted who were on death row.

Now we know, of course, that not all of these people would have been executed by the state, taking appeals to the court, appeals to the people, and other things into context. A good number of death row inmates have their sentences reduced to life without parole. But it is incorrect to think that this would have happened to every one of the 102 - and that's where the "you can't prove innocents have been executed" argument comes to an end. Based upon mere probability, at least 1 of these 102 people would have been - and likely more.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, I see - but I think you're making the false conclusion that the general public thinks they could have an effect on judicial rulings, rather than feeling helpless against people in a particular position of power.

It's an interesting point, and you may be onto something, but I don't think I'm seeing the direct connection.[/quote]
In order for the death penalty to be imposed, a jury is required. Thus, when the jury decides during the sentencing that a person should be put to death, that is in a small way representative of the public's opinion.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Not really. Moral superiority is as subjective as anything in this world.[/QUOTE]

Nope. Innocent people will not die, the guilty will still be punished, and the people of New Jersey will apparently incur fewer costs.

Every single idea or action can be subjected to some form of reasonable judgement which can find it superior or inferior to others. The "Everything is subjective." line is an debate ender that serves no function but to show the lack of argumentative ability on the part of the one presenting it or to avoid a sensitive topic that the presenter does not wish to address. It's something you learn in any decent debate/critical thinking class.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

The sheer statistics of how many people have been executed would argue that at least one of em was innocent. Abolishing the death penalty sends a message that even one, or the chance of one innoncent person being wrongfully executed is too much to tolerate.[/QUOTE]

That's not a valid argument at all. An assuming something is true is far different from actual facts.
 
[quote name='GuyWithGun']In order for the death penalty to be imposed, a jury is required. Thus, when the jury decides during the sentencing that a person should be put to death, that is in a small way representative of the public's opinion.[/QUOTE]

Not when we don't have information on the % of cases where the death penalty is presented as an option is not supported by that jury.
 
[quote name='evanft']Nope. Innocent people will not die, the guilty will still be punished, and the people of New Jersey will apparently incur fewer costs.

Every single idea or action can be subjected to some form of reasonable judgement which can find it superior or inferior to others. The "Everything is subjective." line is an debate ender that serves no function but to show the lack of argumentative ability on the part of the one presenting it or to avoid a sensitive topic that the presenter does not wish to address. It's something you learn in any decent debate/critical thinking class.[/QUOTE]

But you still simply cannot say that the death penalty is inherently immoral. That's why philosophers have debated the concept of morality for thousands of years. For example, there are studies (illustrated in a NY Time article a month ago) that actually show that the death penalty may actually save lives. Thus I could make the argument that by not having the death penalty, you are sacrificing future innocent lives needlessly. Is it immoral to place one person's life over that of another? If given a choice between the death of a murderer or that of a family member, would you place the value of the life of a parent or sibling over that of a murderer? A Kantian would not while a utilitarian (which most people tend to fall) definitely would. It's not a clear cut moral issue and frankly shouldn't be the centerpiece of the argument for that reason.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Not when we don't have information on the % of cases where the death penalty is presented as an option is not supported by that jury.[/quote]
% or not, 4 dozen is a lot.
 
[quote name='dopa345']That's not a valid argument at all. An assuming something is true is far different from actual facts.[/quote]

You're right. It's not an argument. It's a fact.

To get to Dopa's latter points. I somewhat agree but somewhat disagree. The death penalty is a means to an end. All philosphers desire a similar end, namely a more virtuous more moral society, but the means by which they would tolerate to go about achieving those ends can differe greatly, both in their execution and in thier morality. Someone has something similar to this notion in their sig, citing the communist manifesto IIRC.

Either way, arent there studies that show that the death penalty has no deterrence effect on homicides (Again with the caveat, I do not mean to imply that I do not beleive deterrence exists in other contexts...Myke!) but I do recall hearing that a death penalty had no correlation to homicide rates and in America at least, this says alot because murder is the only crime which is punishible by death.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']You're right. It's not an argument. It's a fact.[/quote]

To get to Dopa's latter points. I somewhat agree but somewhat disagree. The death penalty is a means to an end. All philosphers desire a similar end, namely a more virtuous more moral society, but the means by which they would tolerate to go about achieving those ends can differe greatly, both in their execution and in thier morality. Someone has something similar to this notion in their sig, citing the communist manifesto IIRC.

Either way, arent there studies that show that the death penalty has no deterrence effect on homicides (Again with the caveat, I do not mean to imply that I do not beleive deterrence exists in other contexts...Myke!) but I do recall hearing that a death penalty had no correlation to homicide rates and in America at least, this says alot because murder is the only crime which is punishible by death.
 
[quote name='GuyWithGun']% or not, 4 dozen is a lot.[/QUOTE]

It puts NJ somewhere in the middle of state rankings of death sentences over the past few decades. But you're right, 48 is a lot compared with some that have
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
pitt, treason is punishable by death. You're the attorney.
[/quote]

Oops. Forgot about that. It's not taught in law schools, not tested on the bar exam and probably not encountered by 99% of lawyers in thier lives practicing. But yes, the extremely rare crime of treason is punishible by death. I would imagine though (no data to back it up of course) that most guilty of treason don't get trials...or obituaries for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top