PDA

View Full Version : New Jersey legislature votes to end death penalty


cherokeered
12-13-2007, 09:15 PM
New Jersey on Thursday became the first U.S. state to legislatively abolish the death penalty since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976.

Lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled state Assembly voted 44-36 in favor of a bill to scrap the death penalty and substitute it with life in prison without the possibility of parole for those found guilty of the most serious crimes.

The vote followed approval by the state Senate on Monday, and the measure was expected to be signed into law next week by Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, a foe of capital punishment.

New Jersey, which has not executed anyone since 1963, becomes the 14th state without a death penalty at a time when its use is declining in most of the 36 states -- plus the federal government and U.S. military -- that retain it.

"If someone commits a heinous crime, we need to excise them from society like a cancer, and I believe we can do that without the death penalty," said Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts, a leading backer of abolition.

Nationwide, the United States executed 53 people in 2006, the fewest in 10 years, and the tally is expected to fall further this year. The number of death sentences handed down by the courts fell 60 percent between 1999 and 2006, according to research group the Death Penalty Information Center.

Exonerations of convicts based on DNA testing have fueled concern about the risks of executing innocent people, and doubts persist about the death penalty's effectiveness as a deterrent to murder and other serious crimes.

In a 2-1/2-hour debate, most Democrats spoke in favor of repealing the death penalty while Republicans urged the Assembly to retain it.

'BARBARIC RELIC'

Republican Marcia Karrow urged lawmakers to reserve the death penalty for "monsters" like the man who murdered a relative of one of her constituents.

"He eviscerated her, a beautiful young woman, and he treated her like an animal," Karrow said.

Republican Assemblyman Richard Merkt called the abolition a victory for murderers and rapists and accused legislators of ignoring the wishes of voters.

But Democrat Wilfredo Caraballo, the bill's leading sponsor, said the death penalty means there is always a risk that innocent people could be executed.

An opinion poll published on Tuesday found 78 percent of New Jersey voters would keep the death penalty for the worst criminals, such as serial killers or child murderers. But a Quinnipiac University poll also found 52 percent preferred life without parole for people guilty of first-degree murder.

Eddie Hicks, whose 26-year-old daughter was murdered in 2000, welcomed the vote and called the death penalty a "barbaric relic." Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also applauded the decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court has imposed an effective moratorium on the death penalty pending its decision, due by mid-2008, on whether the method used for lethal injection -- the means of execution in all but one state -- is legal given the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment."

Death penalty opponents say prisoners may be subjected to extreme pain by the cocktail of drugs used to kill them but cannot cry out because one of the substances causes paralysis.

The eight men on death row in New Jersey will now be able to request that their sentences be commuted to life imprisonment. If they fail to do so within 60 days, they may still be executed when appeals are exhausted

Shiane
12-13-2007, 09:40 PM
Cruel and unusual punishment...... I wonder what their victims would call it?:sc




Abolish the death penalty? Hell no!
I'm thinkin we need to have an express lane!

Annie
12-13-2007, 10:36 PM
Cruel and unusual punishment...... I wonder what their victims would call it?:sc




Abolish the death penalty? Hell no!
I'm thinkin we need to have an express lane! I heard they do in Texas.

oldandnaked
12-15-2007, 04:03 PM
I'm not sure which is the more cruel and unusual punishment, being forced to live out your life in a small enclosed box of a cell or death by injection. Either way I have no sympathy for those proven (beyond a shadow of a doubt) to have put themselves in such a predicament.

Unfortunately we can't read the criminals mind to see which punishment he'd prefer, then give him the opposite.

What with the world being over populated as it is, seems like this is a good of a place as any to start thinning the herd.

ethans_so_bad
12-15-2007, 04:19 PM
DAmn skippy we have an express lane, that is IF they make it past the end of the victims concealed handgun - or exposed handgun for that matter. Aint Texas the shit?



I heard they do in Texas.

Huzyerdaddi
12-15-2007, 04:21 PM
Aint Texas the shit?

So I've heard.

spare_change
12-19-2007, 10:35 PM
There are people in this world who are just plain evil -- they "need to be excised from society like a cancer" -- but they don't need to live out their lives in comfort at the cost of the state.

Is it a deterrent? I really don't care. I just want them gone. Call it vengeance, if you like. I don't want there ever to be even the remotest possibility that they could infect, or affect, another human being.

It hurts? Who the hell cares?

UltimateNaneki
12-19-2007, 11:09 PM
Ok I have been thinking about this topic and my question is are these people worth saving??
They must have done something really terrible to be there. And why are we paying to feed and clothe and keep them healthy??
I believe that there is a country that cuts off your hand if you steal and your penis if you rape and so on...Why can't we end a life if they end someones??

mrdiscreet
12-19-2007, 11:11 PM
I don't object to the death penalty in principle.

But I think everyone who supports it should sit through at least one death penalty offense trial. With a defendant who can't afford quality legal help. (Guilty people getting off is a different problem.) No question in my mind innocent people are on death row, as DNA tests show in some cases.

So I'm against it as a practical matter given the shabbiness of our court system for those who don't have a house to mortgage to save their skin.

cherokeered
12-20-2007, 12:22 AM
I can see both sides of this.....the need for closure on the victims side....and the need to make sure, without any doubt that an innocent person isn't put to death....

The fact is...in recent times...with the development of dna testing...convicted criminals have been freed after being proven innocent....
I am an eye for an eye type of person....but I want the right person's eye...not someone elses....so there is no easy solution...because I also don't want to support criminals with my tax money.....
So, perhaps we need a better solution....but doubt there is one...human error and all.....

surfnchat
12-20-2007, 12:37 AM
There are people in this world who are just plain evil -- they "need to be excised from society like a cancer" -- but they don't need to live out their lives in comfort at the cost of the state.

Is it a deterrent? I really don't care. I just want them gone. Call it vengeance, if you like. I don't want there ever to be even the remotest possibility that they could infect, or affect, another human being.

It hurts? Who the hell cares?

100% agreement with you on that Spare! I tend to lean liberal on many issues, but very conservative on this issue. If someone I loved were murdered, I'd want the person who killed them dead. Plain and simple. I'd do it myself if they would let me. Maybe they should let the surviving family decide on the punishment -- life without parole or lethal injection.