New Jersey Panel Urges End to Death Penalty

[Professor]

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/nyregion/02cnd-death.html?hp&ex=1167800400&en=1838b3917bc685f5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

New Jersey Panel Urges End to Death Penalty

By LAURA MANSNERUS
Published: January 2, 2007

TRENTON, Jan. 2 — Amid growing unease about capital punishment and a state moratorium on executions, a legislative commission recommended today that New Jersey become the first state in more than 35 years to abolish the death penalty.

With just one of its 13 members dissenting, the commission said there was “no compelling evidence� that the death penalty served a legitimate purpose and increasing evidence that it “is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.� The panel recommended replacing capital punishment with the sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The political climate in Trenton appears to be receptive. Gov. Jon S. Corzine said that “as someone who has long opposed the death penalty, I look forward to working with the Legislature� to carry out the recommendations.

Legislative leaders said there was ample support for repealing the law, and Senate President Richard J. Codey said he expected to call for a vote. Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts, while supporting the committee’s findings, stopped short of calling for a vote, leaving the possibility that repeal legislation will remain locked in committee.

New Jersey has not executed anyone since 1963, and its death row has shrunk to nine inmates. The death penalty had been suspended by the State Supreme Court since 2004 when the Legislature voted a year ago to extend the moratorium and establish the commission.

If the Legislature did abolish the death penalty, it would be the first to do so since the Supreme Court halted all executions in 1972 —after which 38 states rewrote their laws to reinstate the practice.

But a repeal would be in line with a nationwide retreat from executions, with the annual count declining by nearly half since 1999. Richard Dieter, the director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, attributed the hesitation to the wave of wrongful convictions exposed by DNA evidence.

“That is the wedge that has made the death penalty difficult to fix,� Mr. Dieter said. “It’s all related to the scientific revolution we’ve had in the last 10 years.�

[NortheastCynic]

Another fine step in the right direction by one of my home states.

-NC

[Stoner]

That would be a shame if they did away with the death penalty.

[NortheastCynic]

I don't see it that way. I see the death penalty as a way that the state can accidently kill innocent people. The good that is done by killing murderers is outweighed by the bad of killing innocent people.

-NC

[Stoner]

I believe in justice and paying for the crimes one committs. So yes, we do see things differently.

[NortheastCynic]

That's a strawman Stoner, I believe in justice and paying for crimes too, but I do not believe that the killing of innocent people is warranted even if it is done with good intent.

-NC

[Stoner]

I believe in justice and paying for crimes too


No you do not.

Look, have any views you want but don't say one thing and then the complete opposite in the next breath.

I know deep down you want to think that you believe in justice but with your views you don't, despite what you tell yourself.

You can't have it both ways.

[NortheastCynic]

Lol...Gee, Stoner, thanks so much for telling me what I believe.Â*Â*I do believe in justice, simply not being pro-death penalty does NOT mean I don't believe in justice. I could care less whether or not you think so, however, I'd like you to address my main point, which you've ignored thus far.Â*Â*How do you justify the killing of innocent people in the attempt to kill the guilty?Â*Â*

Just because I disagree with your view on the death penalty does not mean I do not believe in justice, but thanks for the giggle.

-NC

[Buck Laser]

Forty years ago, I really thought we were on the way to ending use of capital punishment in the US: many states had eliminated it from their penal codes, there were cases in the courts challenging the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment, wardens and policy makers in penal institutions were looking for the end of the death penalty, and it looked as if there might be a real breakthrough. I was pleased because I've always been opposed to the death penalty. Then something happened, and the pendulum began to swing in the opposite direction, culminating in the utter travesty of the George W. Bush gubernatorial reign.

I'm tempted to blame the "war on drugs," which was responsible for filling our prisons to overflow; or perhaps the republicans, who always seem to get a little traction from the "soft on crime" mantra; the most frightening thought is that it might be the right-wing Christians, who always seem to think the New Testament is way too "liberal," and who want to go back to the "eye for an eye" concept of criminal justice. Thank God the courts never went along with the idea of executing juveniles.

Perhaps we'll see some progress in this area in the next few years, but the auguries aren't really all that good--WI seems to have voted to introduce the death penalty for the first time in its history. (By the way, if I'm wrong in this, please don't jump down my throat--I'm using only my own thoughts and memory for this, so if WI really did have a death penalty way back in 18 hundred-something, it's just an honest mistake on my part.)

[Stoner]

Lol...Gee, Stoner, thanks so much for telling me what I believe.Â*Â*

I didn't. You told us what you believe. I'm just going by your actions.

[NortheastCynic]

No, actually, I said that I was anti-death penalty...YOU said I was anti-justice. Let's get over this nonsense and actually debate the issue. Why do you support the death penalty knowing that it results in the death of innocent people? Any further comments about me being "anti-justice" [quite possibly the stupidest notion I've ever heard of] will be ignored.

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Why do you support the death penalty knowing that it results in the death of innocent people?


So your telling me we should disband the court system, since it imprisons innocent people? Live in anarchy?

[Buck Laser]

Why do you support the death penalty knowing that it results in the death of innocent people?


So your telling me we should disband the court system, since it imprisons innocent people? Live in anarchy?


In a lifetime of seeing people make non sequitur arguments, I do believe this takes the cake for utter irrelevance! Step forward, you mangy little simian, and receive your reward. You get five free attaboys from Cheesy!

[NortheastCynic]

You're argument is a non sequitur, a red herring and a strawman, congrats Flea, I think that might be a record. no, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Pop quiz time:
What's the difference between a wrongfully imprisoned person and a wrongfully executed person...

One of them is dead. When you are imprisoned wrongfully, you have the ability to appeal your case and to improve your situation, when you're dead, you're dead. It is not possible to have a criminal justice system and not wrongfully imprison somone, it is however possible to have a criminal justice system without killing anyone who is innocent. Now, I've answered you're question, despite the fact that it was a combination of three logical fallicies, will you give me the same courtesy and answer the question you ignored and twisted:
Why do you support the death penalty knowing that it is responsible for the deaths of innocent people?

-NC

[Cobra]

I support the death penalty, sure innocents could be killed but nothings ever full proof. It’s just as much a valid punishment as any others in our system which innocents could also be victim to.

As many years of appeals that people on death row get I think there;s some pretty good safegaurds.

[NortheastCynic]

"Sure innocents could be killed"
This is a truly disturbing statement.Â*Â*Just think about what you're saying Cobra...Sure innocents could be killed.Â*Â*Are you willing to just casually dismiss innocent human deaths that easily?

Sure innocents could be killed.
No, Cobra, they "could" not be killed. They ARE killed, it's a fact.

The point, Cobra, is that they don't have to be, the good that comes from killing guilty people is outweighed by the bad of killing innocent people, I don't think I can say that any clearer.

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Why do you support the death penalty knowing that it is responsible for the deaths of innocent people?



The exact same reason you support depriving someone of liberty who is innocent.

[Cobra]

The point, Cobra, is that they don't have to be, the good that comes from killing guilty people is outweighed by the bad of killing innocent people, I don't think I can say that any clearer.
But I don't think it's outweighed. Some crimes are so heinous they deserve the worst punishment society can give them. In our society that happens to be the death penalty.

Few people are just killed in our system, they get every opportunity to plead their innocence and if it is found that they are not by the best system we can have which will never be full proof there is no reason that punishment should not be carried out on the off chance that someone somewhere might be innocent. This isn’t lynch mob justice but it is justice IMO. I see your point but disagree.

[NortheastCynic]

The exact same reason you support depriving someone of liberty who is innocent.Flea, honestly, if you're going to dance around the question, let me know, I'll stop wasting my time.

I spent my entire last post explaining the difference between false imprisonment and false execution, ignore it if you want, but let me know if you're going to, I have better things to do than talk to a wall.

But I don't think it's outweighed. Some crimes are so heinous they deserve the worst punishment society can give them. In our society that happens to be the death penalty.We're going to have to agree to disagree then, I don't think killing the really terrible people outweighs the accidental deaths of innocence.

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I spent my entire last post explaining the difference between false imprisonment and false execution



Not the entire post, right?

And your explanation that one can improve the situation if one is still alive doesn't excuse the years, even lifetime lost and the money it costs to fight such a battle.

You drawing an arbitrary line between wrongful life in a maximum security prison, and a decade or more imprisoned followed by execution doesn't really explain why you are OK with imprisoning innocent people. Also in the death penalty cases all appeals are expended before execution, so even if the prisoner is kept alive in a cell he can't improve his situation as you claim he can.

[NortheastCynic]

Not the entire post, right? Uh, yeah, the entire post.

And your explanation that one can improve the situation if one is still alive doesn't excuse the years, even lifetime lost and the money it costs to fight such a battle.I never said it did.Â*Â*I've never defended the fact that the state takes away the freedoms of countless Americans every day on false pretenses, did I?Â*Â*No, instead I explained the difference between a dead person who was wrongfully accused of something and a not dead person who was wrongfully accused of something.Â*Â*Simple enough?

You drawing an arbitrary line between wrongful life in a maximum security prison, and a decade or more imprisoned followed by execution doesn't really explain why you are OK with imprisoning innocent people.The line is not arbitrary at all.Â*Â*I don't believe the state should kill innocent people, period.Â*Â*Cut and dry.Â*Â*I do believe that the state should imprison people, and with imprisonment comes false imprisonment.Â*Â*That, however, has nothing to do with death, because someone who is in prison for life [wrongly convicted], is not dead, can we agree on that?

What you've done [or attempted to do], is divert attention from the fact that all I've said is that the state kills innocent people [a fact] and that that is inexcusable and is preventable [also a fact, the preventable part, that is].Â*Â*Instead, what you've done [or tried to do], is make it appear as though I'm anti criminal justice, which couldn't be further from the truth.Â*Â*I'm anti-state sponsored killing.Â*Â*Feel free to debate that topic, as it is the one at hand.

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The line is not arbitrary at all. I don't believe the state should kill innocent people, period.


And the other side of that is you do believe they should give life imprisonment to innocent people.

The line between locking an innocent person up for life and locking them up for 10-25 years then killing them is arbitrary.

[NortheastCynic]

The line between locking an innocent person up for life and locking them up for 10-25 years then killing them is arbitrary. If you believe that the line between life and death is arbitrary then I think we should stop our discussion right here.

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If you believe that the line between life and death is arbitrary then I think we should stop our discussion right here.

-NC


Well, if you want to leave it with you supporting locking up innocent people for life that's fine by me.

[NortheastCynic]

Yep, that's me, I love false imprisonment, that's why I joined the Libertarian Party, where false imprisonment supporters are welcome.

Good night Flea,

-NC

[Buck Laser]

If you believe that the line between life and death is arbitrary then I think we should stop our discussion right here.

-NC


Well, if you want to leave it with you supporting locking up innocent people for life that's fine by me.

And you think occasionally executing an innocent person is OK because that way we're sure to get all the guilty? My ol' momma tol' me republicans believe some silly things, but I damned sure didn't think they were that silly!

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Yep, that's me, I love false imprisonment


I thought so. I used to be a libertarian also, supported harry browne, met him twice. Then I grew up.

Your argument is weak, you say the death penalty is wrong because innocent people may die, but imprisonment is OK even if innocent people lose years of their life, even the rest of their life to a hell n earth.

It's arbitrary on your part, and a weak argument that sidesteps the truth of the matter. Anytime an innocent man is punished it's bad, no matter if he is killed or imprisoned for life, both are unjust, but you can't honestly say the punishment is wrong in it's entirety because it is misapplied on very rare occasions if at all, anymore than you can say gas pedals are bad because one was misapplied and an innocent suffered.

If you want to argue the death penalty, argue the death penalty, don't draw an arbitrary line and pretend your side has some morality the other doesn't. Be braver than that for once.

[Nemo]

The death penalty serves no penal goal other than to exact retribution for wrong; which is wrong itself.Â*Â*It is part of the human psyche to seek revenge against enemies and transgressors.Â*Â*The philosophy of “tit for tatâ€� is well documented by religious and historical reference.Â*Â*The Old Testament recognized the “eye for an eye and tooth for a toothâ€� - to do otherwise would be against human nature; and the Bible, for all of its superstitious nonsense, at least portrays man as he is.Â*Â*Only in the New Testament does Christ preach to turn the other cheek; but then he was an unworldly philosopher.Â*Â*Revenge gives us the illusion of evening the score; but the sad truth is that by taking revenge, we have only added to the debit column.

[NortheastCynic]

I'll ignore your childish and pathetic attempt to lure me back into a debate in which logic and facts are lost. If you're going to try to do that in the future, don't make it so obvious.

-NC

[slappy]

Howdy folks. I'm new here.

If you want to argue the death penalty, argue the death penalty, don't draw an arbitrary line and pretend your side has some morality the other doesn't. Be braver than that for once.

May I take a stab at the arbitrariness issue here?

In the law of self-defense, there is a question of proportionality of defensive measures to the unreasonableness of the perceived threat posed by one's attacker. If we think of the state as standing in the shoes of the potential victims of a violent offender (and I do), exercising our rights of self-defense by pursuing, apprehending and incarcerating anyone whose past pattern of behaviour presents an unreasonable risk to the rest of us, we must also recognize a corresponding duty on the part of the state to respond to each threat with only such force as is reasonably necessary to deal with each perceived threat.

When a murderer is captured, convicted and incarcerated, there is no reason to go further than incarceration. Stepping beyond incarceration and entering the role of executioner places the state outside of its role as the self-defense agent of its citizens and into the role of aggressor (for whatever reason you might see fit to offer on behalf of the killing). The line between unjust imprisonment and unjust execution under this view is, therefore, far from arbitrary. In the former case, the judicial system was pursuing its proper ends in good faith but failed to reach those ends due to human error. In the latter case, no claims could ever be made to the effect that execution was a proper outcome of the judicial process, regardless of whether the person executed was innocent or guilty.

Now, I emphasize that--in order to accept the view of CP that I outline above--one must subscribe (as I do) to the view that the justification of criminal justice is founded entirely upon the state's role as the enforcer of its citizens' rights of self-defense. If you embrace a retributive theory of justice, I doubt that what I have said here will sway you. However, I seldom see the retributive theory of justice defended in any sort of sustained and coherent manner. Still, I am new here... :)

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

When a murderer is captured, convicted and incarcerated, there is no reason to go further than incarceration. Stepping beyond incarceration and entering the role of executioner places the state outside of its role as the self-defense agent of its citizens and into the role of aggressor


That isn't true, simply for the fact that incarceration alone does not provide certain defense against the future misdeeds of the criminal. Many times a murderer has continued to murder when incarcerated, rarely after escape, sometimes by inappropriate release, and often while incarcerated.

The only way to be absolutely certain that you are providing a sure defense against a callous murderer is to execute him.

[slappy]

The only way to be absolutely certain that you are providing a sure defense against a callous murderer is to execute him.


But the notion of proportionality of response in self-defense is based upon a principle of reasonableness, not absolute certainty.

For instance, if you jump me in an alleyway, knocking me to the ground with a punch in the stomach, I am entitled to respond to your attack with reasonably sufficient force to remove the threat you presently pose to me. Drawing a weapon and shooting you when you appear to be unarmed is not always a reasonable option...and it's never a reasonable option when the onetime victim has rendered his former attacker powerless.

I agree with you that a single-minded psychopathic killer who unrelentingly preys on the rest of the prison population and/or the guards on a regular basis may be so much trouble that we'd be justified in putting him out of our misery rather than going to all the expense of creating a solitary environment for the next sixty or so years of his miserable existence.

However, where a murderer does not place such an extreme risk of further attacks on guards and fellow inmates, there is no obvious argument in favour of execution, unless we're focusing on retribution for the nature of his past acts rather than the proportionality of our defensive measures to the unreasonableness of the threat that he poses to us. Again, the line I see between incarceration and execution is drawn in terms of self-defense.

[Pookie]

I believe that as one has relieved another of his/her right to live, he/she (murderer) should lose that same right they deprived their victim of. People who commit serious crimes should be made to pay for this, even if it is their own life. Especially particularly violent crimes, in which a victim has spent his/her last minutes terrified and in horrible pain.
Hugs,
Pookie