NJ Ends Death Penalty

[scottinnj]

And the NY Times couldn't be happier (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15sat1.html?hp):


It took 31 years, but the moral bankruptcy, social imbalance, legal impracticality and ultimate futility of the death penalty has finally penetrated the consciences of lawmakers in one of the 37 states that arrogates to itself the right to execute human beings.


Don't hold back NY Times, let us know how you really feel.

The "moral bankruptcy" is a result of the Roman Catholic belief that all life is precious, therefore we have no right to play God. Or it is the mistaken notion that somehow life in prison is soooooooooo much worse then a quick and humane injection of poison. Which is hypocritical because the left who are against the death penalty use that argument at the same time making up theories that form of execution is "cruel and unusual" when standing before a judge.


The social imbalance argument is not within my knowledge: is it a valid assumption by the left is that it is a majority of blacks and hispanics that get executed in the USA versus whites? I'll form my opinion if someone replies with some stats.

The legal impracticality is because of the endless appeals by liberal lawyers opposed to the death penalty and stays of executions given by liberal judges and spineless politician scared of losing votes. Death Penalty reform should include a limit of appeals:

1) An automatic appeal to a judge who reviews the trial and the behaviour of the prosecutor, defense attorney and the presiding judge.

2) A second appeal to the supreme court of the state that convicted the prisoner to death, where the prosecutor and defense attorney can have one final argument before an impartial panel of judges to make their case.

3) One appeal for clemency from the state's governor about a month or so before the scheduled execution.

That's it. If I were one of the jurists here in NJ who convicted a prisoner to death since 1963, I'd be very angry that my judgement was treated as a joke by NJ supreme court justices and lawmakers:
Although there are eight people on New Jersey’s death row, the moratorium was in place, and the state has not put anyone to death since 1963.


The ultimate futility of the Death Penalty in NJ is a result of the good 'ol boy Democrat machine that has been controlling Trenton with an iron fist for a good number of years now:
Nevertheless, it took political courage for lawmakers to join with Governor Corzine. Their renunciation of the death penalty could prick the conscience of elected officials in other states and inspire them to muster the courage to revisit their own laws on capital punishment.

Political Courage? What a joke! New Jersey lawmakers do what they want, when they want. That goes double for King Corzine, and Emperor Codey (State Senate Majority Leader-defacto Lt. Governor). Pay for Play, shutting down government, and the incredible spending and budget deficit that is only addressed when elections come up. There is no courage in Trenton NJ. Only self-aggrandizing and corruption. No matter the polls in NJ that the people want to keep the death penalty and use it more often.

But that's my opinion. I'd like to hear yours. And I'd like to finally have an epic thread:king:, so argue hard, argue passionately and feel free to re-post and quote each other many, many times! :thumbup:

[thejives]

The death penalty is wrong.
You don't need a good reason to stop killing people.
Lock it up.

[A.J.]

Keeping violent offenders locked up like animals in small cells for the rest of their lives where they can assault corrections officers and other prisoners, at taxpayer expense mind you, is definitely the better solution! Kudos to you New Jersey!

[cupcakelove]

Why do you have to be some religious nut to be against the death penalty? And you linked to an opinion piece. Why can't they express they're opinions in the opinion section without you getting upset about it?

[A.J.]

Why do you have to be some religious nut to be against the death penalty?

I know religious nuts that are for it.

http://www.somalicenter.com/2005/apr/images/saudi_killings.jpg

[BoondockSaint]

And the NY Times couldn't be happier (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15sat1.html?hp):





Don't hold back NY Times, let us know how you really feel.



Um, it's an editorial in the Opinion section. Writers are supposed to give their opinion in those pieces.

[zentraed]

I'm opposed to the death penalty for a number of reasons. First, I don't trust my government to execute its own citizens. And as evidenced by Illinois, it's far from a perfect system. While you might be able to make the argument that a lot of the problems with the death penalty stem from it's selective application (lack of a deterrent effect, racial inequalities in its application, variations in counties who use it, etc.), the fact is as it's used today, it's a waste of money, it's ineffective, and it leads to the loss of innocent lives.

[Tenbatsuzen]

Did Timmequendas get the Death Penalty for Megan Kanka?

EDIT: Yes, he did. And now Corzine feels oh so good about repealing.

Nice job, there, Jon.

[foodcourtdruide]

And the NY Times couldn't be happier (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15sat1.html?hp):





Don't hold back NY Times, let us know how you really feel.

The "moral bankruptcy" is a result of the Roman Catholic belief that all life is precious, therefore we have no right to play God. Or it is the mistaken notion that somehow life in prison is soooooooooo much worse then a quick and humane injection of poison. Which is hypocritical because the left who are against the death penalty use that argument at the same time making up theories that form of execution is "cruel and unusual" when standing before a judge.


The social imbalance argument is not within my knowledge: is it a valid assumption by the left is that it is a majority of blacks and hispanics that get executed in the USA versus whites? I'll form my opinion if someone replies with some stats.

The legal impracticality is because of the endless appeals by liberal lawyers opposed to the death penalty and stays of executions given by liberal judges and spineless politician scared of losing votes. Death Penalty reform should include a limit of appeals:

1) An automatic appeal to a judge who reviews the trial and the behaviour of the prosecutor, defense attorney and the presiding judge.

2) A second appeal to the supreme court of the state that convicted the prisoner to death, where the prosecutor and defense attorney can have one final argument before an impartial panel of judges to make their case.

3) One appeal for clemency from the state's governor about a month or so before the scheduled execution.

That's it. If I were one of the jurists here in NJ who convicted a prisoner to death since 1963, I'd be very angry that my judgement was treated as a joke by NJ supreme court justices and lawmakers:



The ultimate futility of the Death Penalty in NJ is a result of the good 'ol boy Democrat machine that has been controlling Trenton with an iron fist for a good number of years now:


Political Courage? What a joke! New Jersey lawmakers do what they want, when they want. That goes double for King Corzine, and Emperor Codey (State Senate Majority Leader-defacto Lt. Governor). Pay for Play, shutting down government, and the incredible spending and budget deficit that is only addressed when elections come up. There is no courage in Trenton NJ. Only self-aggrandizing and corruption. No matter the polls in NJ that the people want to keep the death penalty and use it more often.

But that's my opinion. I'd like to hear yours. And I'd like to finally have an epic thread:king:, so argue hard, argue passionately and feel free to re-post and quote each other many, many times! :thumbup:

It's an editorial. Opinion pieces aren't necessarily a reflection of the newspaper.

My opinion of the death penalty is that if ONE person is incorrectly killed then we are all guilty of murder.

[Tenbatsuzen]

It's an editorial. Opinion pieces aren't necessarily a reflection of the newspaper.

My opinion of the death penalty is that if ONE person is incorrectly killed then we are all guilty of murder.

They had DNA, defensive wounds, and a confession from Timmequendas. THERE IS NO REASON THAT MISERABLE PIECE OF FILTH SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO LIVE OUT HIS YEARS.

[foodcourtdruide]

They had DNA, defensive wounds, and a confession from Timmequendas. THERE IS NO REASON THAT MISERABLE PIECE OF FILTH SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO LIVE OUT HIS YEARS.

Do you think there is a chance that an innocent person has been executed in the United States?

[MadMatt]

If the prison system actually worked, I would feel better. However, our prison system neither reforms, nor appropriately punishes, criminals. There are some exceptions, but they prove the rule.

There is no good option. The death penalty is not a deterrent, because it isn't used swiftly or effectively. Prison time isn't a deterrent because it is barely a punishment these days - food, cable TV, drugs, etc.; it's not "hard time" anymore.

I don't have any good options (that anybody will listen to), so I guess we - as a culture -are stuck.

[Alice S. Fuzzybutt]

I'm all for executing the clear-cut scumbag socio-paths who are beyond any means of rehabilitation (John Wayne Gacy, for example). But until there is a system in place that is 100% fool proof and there is no way an innocent person could be executed there is no way I can support the death penalty.

There are just too many gray areas. I wonder how many innocent people have been executed because, say, an immunity deal was made with a partner in crime? That's right-- your life hangs in the balance because the DA struck a deal with a scumbag. Granted, you may be a scumbag yourself and perhaps you have done your share of crimes, but if you didn't commit a crime that is punishable by death then you shouldn't die for it.

It's not a perfect system but until someone comes up with a better one we're stuck with it.

[Gvac]

Given the choice of life in prison without parole or a quick, painless death, which would you choose? Which seems more humane?

Just askin'.

[thejives]

Given the choice of life in prison without parole or a quick, painless death, which would you choose? Which seems more humane?

Just askin'.

I would never choose to end my life.

And as for prison: Many fine books have been written in prison.

[Grendel_Kahn]

To be honest I'm not sure how I feel about the death penalty. I feel on the one hand the need to put down some of these animals is a just one. But looking back, I also see the need for better science behind such a verdict. Look at Ruben Carter. But if we have a smoking gun, and no remorse, then fry the bastard.

[DarkHippie]

it's about time. The constitution is supposed to protect us from cruel and unusual punishment. Execution is cruel and unusual. Tell me honestly that you do not think that killing someone is cruel. The act of killing, no matter who it is or what they did, is an evil act.

Its about time that the death penalty was abolished in every state.

[Alice S. Fuzzybutt]

quick, painless death,


Actually, it's not always so quick and painless (http://www.abolishdeathpenalty.org/botched_executions.htm). Even with lethal injection. A lot of times the prisoner is a drug addict and it's difficult to find a viable vein. I consider poking someone with a needle for upwards of 45 minutes a form of torture.

[ralphbxny]

So they killed the death penalty in NJ...hmmm!

[SatCam]

There's not a day goes by I don't feel regret. Not because I'm in here, or because you think I should. I look back on the way I was then: a young, stupid kid who committed that terrible crime. I want to talk to him. I want to try and talk some sense to him, tell him the way things are. But I can't. That kid's long gone and this old man is all that's left. I got to live with that. Rehabilitated? It's just a bullshit word. So you go on and stamp your form, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a shit.

[SatCam]

that quote probably has nothing to do with the death penalty

[PapaBear]

Does this mean he has to be njlifemetalmoe, now?

[scottinnj]

Why do you have to be some religious nut to be against the death penalty? And you linked to an opinion piece. Why can't they express they're opinions in the opinion section without you getting upset about it?

Well, I said the Catholic Church, because it's doctrine says what I stated: They are pretty much pro-life from conception to death. That doesn't make them religious nuts, but the doctrine is pretty much the catalyst for mainstream Americans to be against the death penalty.

[TheMojoPin]

Well, I said the Catholic Church, because it's doctrine says what I stated: They are pretty much pro-life from conception to death. That doesn't make them religious nuts, but the doctrine is pretty much the catalyst for mainstream Americans to be against the death penalty.

I heartily disagree with that idea.

[scottinnj]

Did Timmequendas get the Death Penalty for Megan Kanka?

EDIT: Yes, he did. And now Corzine feels oh so good about repealing.

Nice job, there, Jon.

The local paper pointed that out. The scumbag responsible for killing Megan Kenka is one of the prisoners who is going to have his sentence commuted to life because of this law.

[scottinnj]

Um, it's an editorial in the Opinion section. Writers are supposed to give their opinion in those pieces.

Yes, I know, hence the sarcastic dig at them.

[scottinnj]

Do you think there is a chance that an innocent person has been executed in the United States?

Yes, which is why even though I am for the death penalty, I wouldn't give it to a person unless I had the DNA evidence like in the Kanka rape/murder case.

I could convict a person of being guilty of the crime he/she is accused of with less evidence, but when the penalty phase came, then the standards get raised.

[TheMojoPin]

The local paper pointed that out. The scumbag responsible for killing Megan Kenka is one of the prisoners who is going to have his sentence commuted to life because of this law.

This points to the issue of the need to reform our prison system, not use the death penalty as a tool to make some room. Make our prisons something that have a better shot of actual reform and work as something that is more of a punishment. That said, it's not like this guy is getting off. He's in jail for he rest of his life, which is also usually cheaper than what it takes to get someone executed.

[TheMojoPin]

Yes, which is why even though I am for the death penalty, I wouldn't give it to a person unless I had the DNA evidence like in the Kanka rape/murder case.

I could convict a person of being guilty of the crime he/she is accused of with less evidence, but when the penalty phase came, then the standards get raised.

I just don't see the point since numerous studies show it doesn't work at all as a deterrent, it usually costs more than keeping someone in jail for life, and it puts us in the company of counries like China and the religious zeaots and totalitarian dictators around the world that we claim to decry.

[scottinnj]

I heartily disagree with that idea.


Over here in NJ, most people I talk to who are against the death penalty want it to end based on their Catholic beliefs.
There are those who think that prison life is worse then death. But that is because we live in a state where half of us weren't even born when the last one was executed. We have been numbed into the notion that a death penalty prisoner is probably going to outlive the needle anyway. Hence the lack of deterrance when sentencing someone to death.

[scottinnj]

and it puts us in the company of counries like China and the religious zeaots and totalitarian dictators around the world that we claim to decry.

That I disagree with. China will kill you for complaining about your ration of electricity. And to compare our judicial system of appeals and jury trials to dictatorships and roving bands of mullahs making up the rules as they go, well, it's apples and oranges.

[scottinnj]

I just don't see the point since numerous studies show it doesn't work at all as a deterrent,

We have been numbed into the notion that a death penalty prisoner is probably going to outlive the needle anyway. Hence the lack of deterrance when sentencing someone to death.

We must be reading each other's minds to be posting the same counterpoints at the same time.

[chubbyknuckles]

The death penalty is wrong.
You don't need a good reason to stop killing people.
Lock it up.

Honestly what does the death penalty do thats sooo wrong?

[Yerdaddy]

Yes, which is why even though I am for the death penalty, I wouldn't give it to a person unless I had the DNA evidence like in the Kanka rape/murder case.

I could convict a person of being guilty of the crime he/she is accused of with less evidence, but when the penalty phase came, then the standards get raised.

DNA evidence is not infallible because it's still subject to human actions. This should be clear to all of us because of the case that introduced DNA evidence to us - the OJ case. The DNA proved the blood on the Broncos was OJ's, but the jury acquitted him because of the evidence that the LAPD planted that evidence. So a system that trusts DNA evidence completely, like you're suggesting here is going to make tampering and human error even more likely.

[waltermitty]

Fuck Jersey....
My cousin was stabbed 76 times and the guy who did it got 20 yrs....

They never used the death penalty. It may have well been eliminated 30 yrs ago...

[Yerdaddy]

And the NY Times couldn't be happier (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15sat1.html?hp):





Don't hold back NY Times, let us know how you really feel.

The "moral bankruptcy" is a result of the Roman Catholic belief that all life is precious, therefore we have no right to play God. Or it is the mistaken notion that somehow life in prison is soooooooooo much worse then a quick and humane injection of poison. Which is hypocritical because the left who are against the death penalty use that argument at the same time making up theories that form of execution is "cruel and unusual" when standing before a judge.


The social imbalance argument is not within my knowledge: is it a valid assumption by the left is that it is a majority of blacks and hispanics that get executed in the USA versus whites? I'll form my opinion if someone replies with some stats.

The legal impracticality is because of the endless appeals by liberal lawyers opposed to the death penalty and stays of executions given by liberal judges and spineless politician scared of losing votes. Death Penalty reform should include a limit of appeals:

1) An automatic appeal to a judge who reviews the trial and the behaviour of the prosecutor, defense attorney and the presiding judge.

2) A second appeal to the supreme court of the state that convicted the prisoner to death, where the prosecutor and defense attorney can have one final argument before an impartial panel of judges to make their case.

3) One appeal for clemency from the state's governor about a month or so before the scheduled execution.

That's it. If I were one of the jurists here in NJ who convicted a prisoner to death since 1963, I'd be very angry that my judgement was treated as a joke by NJ supreme court justices and lawmakers:



The ultimate futility of the Death Penalty in NJ is a result of the good 'ol boy Democrat machine that has been controlling Trenton with an iron fist for a good number of years now:


Political Courage? What a joke! New Jersey lawmakers do what they want, when they want. That goes double for King Corzine, and Emperor Codey (State Senate Majority Leader-defacto Lt. Governor). Pay for Play, shutting down government, and the incredible spending and budget deficit that is only addressed when elections come up. There is no courage in Trenton NJ. Only self-aggrandizing and corruption. No matter the polls in NJ that the people want to keep the death penalty and use it more often.

But that's my opinion. I'd like to hear yours. And I'd like to finally have an epic thread:king:, so argue hard, argue passionately and feel free to re-post and quote each other many, many times! :thumbup:

The moral objections to the death penalty is predicated on the fact that - because of the impossibility of post-mortem appeals or compensation - it presumes the omnipitance of our legal system. As the literally dozens of people who have been realeased after a decade or more from death row have show - that premise is arrogant and absurd.

[Heather 8]

Yes, I know, hence the sarcastic dig at them.

*sigh*

Don't hold back NY Times, let us know how you really feel.

It is the writer's opinion, which does not necessarily reflect that of the NYT.

Reading comprehension (or simple comprehension) is not to be feared.

[jauble]

The new penalty is...you have to live in Jersey??? Someone please contact the Supreme Court that sounds cruel and unusual

[TheMojoPin]

That I disagree with. China will kill you for complaining about your ration of electricity.

No, they won't.

And to compare our judicial system of appeals and jury trials to dictatorships and roving bands of mullahs making up the rules as they go, well, it's apples and oranges.

We're the only so-called "first world" nation that still executes its own citizens. Whether you like it or not, think about the company we share in that distinction. Then compare our crime rates with those of the other "first world" nations. And it's a false point to argue that it doesn't work as a detrrent because of "legal issues" when it's those "legal issues" are what's key to defining our justice system. A system where someone is sentenced to death wih no chance of appeal is monstrous. You just get done condemning other countries for their harshnss, and then basically state that to "fix" ours we need to take a huge step to becoming even more like them.

Like Yerdaddy said, the problem with the death penalty is that it functions under the idea that our criminal justice system is infallable, and it isn't.

[sailor]

No, they won't.



We're the only so-called "first world" nation that still executes its own citizens. Whether you like it or not, think about the company we share in that distinction. Then compare our crime rates with those of the other "first world" nations. And it's a false point to argue that it doesn't work as a detrrent because of "legal issues" when it's those "legal issues" are what's key to defining our justice system. A system where someone is sentenced to death wih no chance of appeal is monstrous. You just get done condemning other countries for their harshnss, and then basically state that to "fix" ours we need to take a huge step to becoming even more like them.

Like Yerdaddy said, the problem with the death penalty is that it functions under the idea that our criminal justice system is infallable, and it isn't.

but china will execute you for tax evasion (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/31/asia/AS_GEN_China_Death_Penalty.php).

japan and russia both allow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation) the death penalty. not sure on russia, but i'd think japan would be considered first world.

[TheMojoPin]

but china will execute you for tax evasion (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/31/asia/AS_GEN_China_Death_Penalty.php).

Oh, China will execute the hell out of people for tons of things...but not for "complaining about your electricity ration." They've had a rash of executions over the last 10-15 years focusing on economic and corporate corruption as they've expanded their marketplace, so it doesn't surprise me that tax evasion would fall under that.

japan and russia bothallow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation) the death penalty. not sure on russia, but i'd think japan would be considered first world.

The quote I've always seen states America is the only "western" nation that still has capital punishment, and honestly, I just forgot that Japan still does it, so I went with "first world." That said, I'm still standing by my point that we're in REALLY shitty company by and large in term of the other countries that still have capital punishment, and that our crime rates are generally much worse than the other western nations that have done away with it.

[A.J.]

I consider poking someone with a needle for upwards of 45 minutes a form of torture.

That was my last trip to the doctor's for blood work.

[Tenbatsuzen]

The moral objections to the death penalty is predicated on the fact that - because of the impossibility of post-mortem appeals or compensation - it presumes the omnipitance of our legal system. As the literally dozens of people who have been realeased after a decade or more from death row have show - that premise is arrogant and absurd.

Haven't those "dozens" of people been released off death row because DNA evidence proved otherwise? One would think that door could swing both ways, especially in the Megan Kanka case.

As a New Jersey taxpayer, I'm disgusted that I have to pay to let this guy live, even though it's not that much. It's the principle.

[scottinnj]

DNA evidence is not infallible because it's still subject to human actions. This should be clear to all of us because of the case that introduced DNA evidence to us - the OJ case. The DNA proved the blood on the Broncos was OJ's, but the jury acquitted him because of the evidence that the LAPD planted that evidence. So a system that trusts DNA evidence completely, like you're suggesting here is going to make tampering and human error even more likely.

The jury acquitted OJ because they ignored the DNA evidence.

Like I said, I would convict a person on lesser evidence. To go for the death penalty I would have to see some DNA evidence as well.

The OJ jury were a buch of dopes, just like the DA, Judge Ito, Chris Darden and Marcia Clark. They played right into the hands of Johnny Cochran.

[scottinnj]

The new penalty is...you have to live in Jersey??? Someone please contact the Supreme Court that sounds cruel and unusual

Skid Row:

"18 and life in Jersey...18 and life to goooo!"


Someone commute my sentence so I can go back to Kansas.

[badmonkey]

The death penalty has not been an effective deterrent since it was removed from the public square and turned into a gentle needle prick. Now when somebody is up for execution, the story is not about the horrific deaths suffered by their victims. The story is how horrible it is that this guy will be pricked with a needle and how we should overturn the death penalty. We turn the murderers into victims and forget why they're being executed in the first place and that's if it gets a mention at all.

Either make the death penalty the most in your face thing since public hangings or get rid of it. Although, why anybody's worried that a guy that tortured, stabbed, and dismembered his victims might feel pain when executed by the state with a needle is beyond my comprehension. The death penalty SHOULD be painful if we're going to have it at all. We're not talkin about humanely putting down the family pet. We're talking about the execution of murderers. Going to sleep isn't that scary unless you're afraid of the afterlife. Firing squads, hanging, electric chairs, etc is scary and might actually deter somebody from committing murder.

If it's not going to be a deterrent, then we might as well get rid of it and continue to sentence our criminals to time with law libraries so they figure out how to get away with shit on technicalities and badass weight rooms so they can beat the crap out of the police offers that try to arrest them for their next crime.

It's one thing to argue against the death penalty. It is entirely different and disgusting to turn murderers into victims in order to do it. If you want to cry about somebody's death, look up the people that the monster on death row killed and maybe shed a tear for them instead.

[A.J.]

Firing squads, hanging, electric chairs, etc is scary and might actually deter somebody from committing murder.

IMPRISONMENT alone should deter somebody from committing murder or crime but it doesn't.

Consider this though: the first thing you see when you fly into King Khaled International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is a sign that says "DEATH TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS". Pretty scary shit, right? Yet every Friday in downtown Riyadh, in a place affectionately known as "Chop Chop Square", you can watch some drug trafficker, murderer or rapist get beheaded or a thief have his hand chopped off. Does the punishment DETER the crime? No. It's punishment FOR the crime.

I don't care about the death penalty being a deterrent to crime -- I want it to help rid society of worthless, unproductive pieces of shit. Watch that "Lockup" show on MSNBC and you'll see what I mean.

[badmonkey]

IMPRISONMENT alone should deter somebody from committing murder or crime but it doesn't.

Consider this though: the first thing you see when you fly into King Khaled International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is a sign that says "DEATH TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS". Pretty scary shit, right? Yet every Friday in downtown Riyadh, in a place affectionately known as "Chop Chop Square", you can watch some drug trafficker, murderer or rapist get beheaded or a thief have his hand chopped off. Does the punishment DETER the crime? No. It's punishment FOR the crime.

I don't care about the death penalty being a deterrent to crime -- I want it to help rid society of worthless, unproductive pieces of shit. Watch that "Lockup" show on MSNBC and you'll see what I mean.

You're absolutely right... i take that part back. Just the fact that the punishment is death should be a deterrent and the fact that it isn't is probably a stronger argument for the death penalty than against it. Make it fucking hurt and then if it starts being a deterrent, then hey... that's great. If it still isn't a deterrent, at least the punishment fits the crime and that's great too. We do far too much coddling of assholes on this planet.

[Tenbatsuzen]

Look, I understand that no jury is infallible. That there's always human error. But check this:

Timmequendas lured Megan Kanka into his home. He raped her repeatedly and killed her. He then hid the body. She was seven years old.

They found his DNA all over his body. A bite on his hand matched Megan's mouth. He LED THEM TO THE BODY AND ADMITTED HIS GUILT.

Please tell me how there is "reasonable doubt" in this case why he shouldn't be put to death. He a sick individual who cannot be rehabilitated. He killed an innocent little girl. He stopped her life. There's no reason that you can explain to me why his life shouldn't be stopped either.

[badmonkey]

Look, I understand that no jury is infallible. That there's always human error. But check this:

Timmequendas lured Megan Kanka into his home. He raped her repeatedly and killed her. He then hid the body. She was seven years old.

They found his DNA all over his body. A bite on his hand matched Megan's mouth. He LED THEM TO THE BODY AND ADMITTED HIS GUILT.

Please tell me how there is "reasonable doubt" in this case why he shouldn't be put to death. He a sick individual who cannot be rehabilitated. He killed an innocent little girl. He stopped her life. There's no reason that you can explain to me why his life shouldn't be stopped either.

Prime candidate for the death penalty. They should find a female dog in heat and rub it's crotch all over that guy and then lock him in the basement with a horny pitbull for a few days at the end of which, I fully support lethal injection as an appropriate punishment.

[scottinnj]

*sigh*



It is the writer's opinion, which does not necessarily reflect that of the NYT.

Reading comprehension (or simple comprehension) is not to be feared.



It does, that is why the NY Times is liberal and the NY Post is conservative.

[thejives]

Honestly what does the death penalty do thats sooo wrong?

Are we still talking about this?

[Yerdaddy]

The jury acquitted OJ because they ignored the DNA evidence.

Like I said, I would convict a person on lesser evidence. To go for the death penalty I would have to see some DNA evidence as well.

The OJ jury were a buch of dopes, just like the DA, Judge Ito, Chris Darden and Marcia Clark. They played right into the hands of Johnny Cochran.

They didn't ignore the DNA evidence. How could they when the whole world learned about it and had absolute faith in it due precisely on the lessons the prosecution gave that jury and us about the miracle of DNA evidence? But, because it was their job, they also payed attention to the fact that DNA tests only prove that the DNA you're testing belongs to the person you're matching it up to. It does nothing to prove that the DNA you're testing came out of the Hall of Famer and landed on the Bronco on the night he cut his wife's head off. How could it?

They ignored the DNA evidence because the LAPD searched the Bronco, found no blood, then a lab worker said a vial of OJ's blood went missing, was returned with some missing, then officer N-hater got a hunch that there might be some blood on the floor of the Bronco and Shazaam! there is some blood on the floor of the Bronco!

The jury paid attention to those facts as well as the DNA and rightfully let OJ free. Why do I say rightfully? Because that's the system of law we have - it's winner take all based on the rules of the game. The police broke the rules and lost it for their side. While I don't like the fact, (theory really), that an innocent man went free, but it should have resulted in the police department firing their corrupt cops so you'll have a better chance at winning next time.

And if you don't like our fucked up system then the only alternative is trial by the media - which is what we do when we scream "look at the evidence on this animal; we should chop his head off at the local water park!" - and we know about the evidence we got in the media. And yet what does everyone saying that kind of thing think about the media on every other subject? I'm not buying it.

Haven't those "dozens" of people been released off death row because DNA evidence proved otherwise? One would think that door could swing both ways, especially in the Megan Kanka case.

No. Depending on the specifics of the case DNA testing can help determine if the DNA evidence came from an individual - suspect or victim. That's why I support requiring DNA testing whenever applicable. But it doesn't mean "CASE CLOSED" like you guys are saying and I can't really understand why you guys are still saying it. It's just a lab test - not a fucking crystal ball!

When I was in Chicago they let a kid out of jail two years after his conviction for murder. It happened when his public defender was finally removed from his case because he was spending all his time on the job defending himself from drug charges. His replacement looked at the file and found that 1) the kid confessed to a cop that had been found to have been torturing confessions out of suspects for years - he'd kept typewriters in the office years after they switched to computers because the plastic dust covers were awesome for suffocating confessions out of people without leaving marks - and 2) that he had confessed to stabbing the girl - SHE WAS STRANGLED! (They also said they found blood on his sweater and then lost the sweater.)

That's the system about which you guys say the solution is to kill people sooner. And I find it absurd and depressing that you continue to ignore the obvious fallability in the system and advocate a punishment which will, (and probably has), murder someone because we trust ourselves like we're smarter than God.

Imagine you were the family of someone who was brutally murdered and the police and the media told you they caught the guy and he's going on trial. They convict the guy, he goes through his appeals and is executed. News cameras are sticking cameras in your face all the way and you're thanking the cops, prosecuters and judges and condeming the bad man for what he did. You feel some sense of peace because the guy's not walking the earth. Then you find out it wasn't the guy. What's that person going to feel then - knowing not only that the real killer is still out there and that he now participated in the murder of someone too? Who's fault would that be?

This is a totally plausible scenario.

[Tenbatsuzen]

This is a totally plausible scenario.


That's great. Except in the Megan Kanka case, it's not. I'm all for playing Devil's advocate and seeing both sides of the story. He did it, he admitted he did it, HE LED THEM TO THE BODY. And before you say "what if he found the body and wanted to be an attention whore?" he had defensive wounds on his body that matched Megan. HIS SEMEN WAS IN HER VAGINA. What the hell more do you want?

You have a confession, you have phsyical evidence, and you have DNA evidence, you have an MO and you have a pattern of behavior. He did it. He should die. I'm not saying the death penalty should apply to every single murderer, but in this case - definitely. And now the taxpayers in NJ are now on the hook to keep this piece of trash alive until the day he dies.

[TheMojoPin]

As a New Jersey taxpayer, I'm disgusted that I have to pay to let this guy live, even though it's not that much. It's the principle.

It would almost certainly "cost" you much more to have him executed.

[TheMojoPin]

I really am baffled by the idea that frustration over our prisons system failing in all areas, reform or punishment included (something I totally agree with), is responded with the idea that a quicker or higher percentage capital punishment system is the right answer. Shouldn't the focus be more, "hey, our prison system used to be the envy of the world and became the model for almost all western nations over the last century...let's get back to that?" All of these other countries adopted our reform and punishment model from 70-100 years ago and their crimes rates are almost universally lower than ours. Shouldn't that be what we're striving for again? A system that at least somewhat works most of the time?

Most of these western countries also had public executions, just like we did. Crime didn't magically get reduced to next to nothing because of these. The death penalty has never been shown in any major western nation to be an effective deterrent to criminal activity, with public or private executions. This should encourage us to reform and improve our prison and criminal justice system, not clamor for more expensive and ineffective executions that drain the resources from the rest of the prison and legal system.

[Yerdaddy]

That's great. Except in the Megan Kanka case, it's not. I'm all for playing Devil's advocate and seeing both sides of the story. He did it, he admitted he did it, HE LED THEM TO THE BODY. And before you say "what if he found the body and wanted to be an attention whore?" he had defensive wounds on his body that matched Megan. HIS SEMEN WAS IN HER VAGINA. What the hell more do you want?

You have a confession, you have phsyical evidence, and you have DNA evidence, you have an MO and you have a pattern of behavior. He did it. He should die. I'm not saying the death penalty should apply to every single murderer, but in this case - definitely. And now the taxpayers in NJ are now on the hook to keep this piece of trash alive until the day he dies.

You're talking about one guy and all the information you have you learned through the media. I'm not saying he isn't guilty. But among the other points about the death penalty you're ignoring is the fact that you're trying him through the media. That is not our system of justice and it's nothing more than an anecdote in support of the death penalty.

Even if this guy is guilty and everything you say about the evidence in this case is factual it does not represent the issue of the death penalty as it is practiced in America any more than the case of the kid who confessed to and was convicted of stabbing the girl who wasn't stabbed. It's useless to say "I support the death penalty for guys we KNOW are guilty" because that system doesn't exist. The only system we have, have ever had, or will ever have is one that includes with corrupt and ambitious professionals working in an imperfect system. If you can't even address that point then you aren't really taking the issue seriously at all.

[Soupy_Dreck]

Eliminating the death penalty just removed a weapon from the state's (i.e prosecutor's) arsenal. without the threat of the death penalty, what would compel a guilty person to "cut a deal" to plead guilty to their crime in exchange for a life sentence? If there is no death penalty, why would a defendant spare the state the cost of the court process? what about families who will now have to sit in court and listen to the description of how their loved one perished and hear it debated back and forth? I would like to see how much time, effort and feelings were saved by a prosecutor agreeing to let a defendant plead guilty and accept a life sentence instead of death and i sure as hell would like to know how many families got to properly bury a loved one because the threat of the death penalty compelled a murderer to cut a deal and lead the police to the body.

Also, the death penalty is a deterrent. The executed criminal will not be murdering anyone else. For a sentence to be a deterrent, it must stop a person from committing the same crime. it doesn't have to have the effect on society as a whole.

[Knowledged_one]

Are we still talking about this?

Well your first response was so succinct and full of facts it truly is mystifying isnt it.

[TheMojoPin]

Eliminating the death penalty just removed a weapon from the state's (i.e prosecutor's) arsenal. without the threat of the death penalty, what would compel a guilty person to "cut a deal" to plead guilty to their crime in exchange for a life sentence? If there is no death penalty, why would a defendant spare the state the cost of the court process? what about families who will now have to sit in court and listen to the description of how their loved one perished and hear it debated back and forth? I would like to see how much time, effort and feelings were saved by a prosecutor agreeing to let a defendant plead guilty and accept a life sentence instead of death and i sure as hell would like to know how many families got to properly bury a loved one because the threat of the death penalty compelled a murderer to cut a deal and lead the police to the body.

Also, the death penalty is a deterrent. The executed criminal will not be murdering anyone else. For a sentence to be a deterrent, it must stop a person from committing the same crime. it doesn't have to have the effect on society as a whole.

Numerous states do not have the death penalty, or have not had it for along time, and they're able to "cut deals." On top of that, the majority of deals cut involve crimes that are not punishable by the death penalty. Insisting that we need the death penalty so deals can be cut to "find bodies" is such a bizarre reasoning to use in favor of it since it's such a relatively rare happening in the grand scheme of the criminal justice system.

And contrary to what people seem to believe, the vast majority of people who go to jail do not want to go there or think it's no big thing. The Hollywood image of the stoic criminal who mans up and does his time no matter what does not apply to most people who are facing prison time. I don't see why you're just dismissing the threat of jaltime as something totally useless when it comes to cornering criminals.

And if our prison system was run correctly, it would prevent someone from murdering anyone else. It's redundant to argue the death penalty is necessary to prevent someone from commiting a crime against the general population.

[thejives]

Well your first response was so succinct and full of facts it truly is mystifying isnt it.

I think it also made sense.

Reading through the board it seems like the most compelling argument for the death penalty is vengeance. I can understand that.

However, vengeance is not the state's job. Justice is the state's job. The death penalty is unjust, so it should not be law.

And I don't think there's anything mystifying about that.

[Tenbatsuzen]

I actually changed my mind on this.

If the end of Death Row means that Timmenquendas is going into GenPop, I'm all for it. Appeals process? What appeals process? Lolz.

[scottinnj]

at least with Espinosa, who pled guilty for aggravated manslaughter. If we had executed him, he wouldn't be alive to escape and threaten more innocent people (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/17/nj.jailbreak/index.html). He'd be dead and a non-issue.


And out from Union County Jail, NJ. Just classic jersey bullshit. We can't keep in jail or in the mental wards (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/opinion/editorials/story/7522329p-7422573c.html).

But if we lock 'em up for life, well, the citizens are safer. Until the murderers escape and wreak more havoc.

[Yerdaddy]

at least with Espinosa, who pled guilty for aggravated manslaughter. If we had executed him, he wouldn't be alive to escape and threaten more innocent people (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/17/nj.jailbreak/index.html). He'd be dead and a non-issue.


And out from Union County Jail, NJ. Just classic jersey bullshit. We can't keep in jail or in the mental wards (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/opinion/editorials/story/7522329p-7422573c.html).

But if we lock 'em up for life, well, the citizens are safer. Until the murderers escape and wreak more havoc.

I don't think you can get the death penalty for aggrivated manslaughter. Now if you expand the death penalty to include it you'd also have more people on this List of exonerated death row inmates. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates#United_States )

[scottinnj]

No, I know that, that is why he plead guilty to aggravated manslaughter to avoid a trial-which is exactly why we need the death penalty.

Put that needle out there for them to see that they could potentially get it if found guilty at trial, and they'll confess to escape it.

[thejives]

No, I know that, that is why he plead guilty to aggravated manslaughter to avoid a trial-which is exactly why we need the death penalty.

Put that needle out there for them to see that they could potentially get it if found guilty at trial, and they'll confess to escape it.

So now you're holding the Espinosa case out as a success story?

I think it's clear that there's something wrong with the way our justice system deals with violent criminals. However, I don't think the death penalty factors into any kind of solution. And your arguments certainly haven't convinced me otherwise.

[scottinnj]

No I am just pointing out to Yerdaddy that aggravated manslaughter is (or was) eligible for the death penalty in NJ.

However, an argument was made in this thread that the death penalty is a good tool to use to get criminals to plea deals and confess. This may have been one of them.

Anyway, my original point is that a confessed murderer is on the loose, and that if you think giving them life instead of the death penalty is good, remember this guy the next time someone escapes from jail in NJ who could have gotten the needle before Corzine signed the ban into law.

The only guaranteed way to keep society safe from murderers is to execute them. Once they're dead, they can't escape from jail.

[thejives]

The only guaranteed way to keep society safe from murderers is to execute them. Once they're dead, they can't escape from jail.

That's one way of reforming the prison system.

Kill all the prisoners.

[scottinnj]

That's one way of reforming the prison system.

Kill all the prisoners.

No, but we have to get back to putting the rights of society higher then the rights of the prisoner. The jail is to punish, not to rehabilitate. A person who robs and steals needs to get put in jail for a set amount of time, and that way the rest of us know that if we do the same thing, we get the same punishment.

Murderers and rapists/kid touchers are the most danger to society, and while we need to respect thier rights for habeus corpus, after being found guilty by a jury, then the right of society to be safe takes precedence. Hence kill them, and quickly, to make it a detterant.

[thejives]

Murderers and rapists/kid touchers are the most danger to society, and while we need to respect thier rights for habeus corpus, after being found guilty by a jury, then the right of society to be safe takes precedence. Hence kill them, and quickly, to make it a detterant.

This isn't going to happen.
Or, if it does get sped up, you'll have more mistakes and more judges ruling against the death penalty.

I agree with everything you're saying, except the part where you conclude that the death penalty is part of the solution. It's just not.

[TheMojoPin]

No I am just pointing out to Yerdaddy that aggravated manslaughter is (or was) eligible for the death penalty in NJ.

However, an argument was made in this thread that the death penalty is a good tool to use to get criminals to plea deals and confess. This may have been one of them.

Anyway, my original point is that a confessed murderer is on the loose, and that if you think giving them life instead of the death penalty is good, remember this guy the next time someone escapes from jail in NJ who could have gotten the needle before Corzine signed the ban into law.

The only guaranteed way to keep society safe from murderers is to execute them. Once they're dead, they can't escape from jail.

Very few people actually escape from jail. And reforming our prison system would ideally ultimately make them even more secure.

[scottinnj]

Very few people actually escape from jail. And reforming our prison system would ideally ultimately make them even more secure.

But even if its a very few, it still is no guarantee that life in prison keeps people safe. Prison escape, parole (remember Hinkley?) and judicial interference with jury verdicts all mean that unless the killer is dead, there is no guarantee.

[TheMojoPin]

But even if its a very few, it still is no guarantee that life in prison keeps people safe. Prison escape, parole (remember Hinkley?) and judicial interference with jury verdicts all mean that unless the killer is dead, there is no guarantee.

So we should endorse our government executing its citizens over "maybe's" now?

[scottinnj]

Simply put, yep. Commit the crime, suffer the consequences.

[PapaBear]

But even if its a very few, it still is no guarantee that life in prison keeps people safe. Prison escape, parole (remember Hinkley?) and judicial interference with jury verdicts all mean that unless the killer is dead, there is no guarantee.
Hinkley was found not guilty. If he had shot your average Joe, instead of the President, he'd have been set free years ago.

[thejives]

Simply put, yep. Commit the crime, suffer the consequences.

You've stopped making sense.
You're just talking in meaningless circular platitudes now.

The death penalty is a problem with our justice system, not a solution.

[Yerdaddy]

No, I know that, that is why he plead guilty to aggravated manslaughter to avoid a trial-which is exactly why we need the death penalty.

Put that needle out there for them to see that they could potentially get it if found guilty at trial, and they'll confess to escape it.

And like my previous story illustrates, put a plastic typewriter cover over someone's face long enough and they'll confess to stabbing a girl they didn't stab - and who wasn't even stabbed - and our court system will even convict them of stabbing the unstabbed girl. I think it is irresponsible and immoral to trust that system to kill people.

[Yerdaddy]

No I am just pointing out to Yerdaddy that aggravated manslaughter is (or was) eligible for the death penalty in NJ.

However, an argument was made in this thread that the death penalty is a good tool to use to get criminals to plea deals and confess. This may have been one of them.

Anyway, my original point is that a confessed murderer is on the loose, and that if you think giving them life instead of the death penalty is good, remember this guy the next time someone escapes from jail in NJ who could have gotten the needle before Corzine signed the ban into law.

The only guaranteed way to keep society safe from murderers is to execute them. Once they're dead, they can't escape from jail.

What that case shows is that the prison system is fucked up just like the court system. Killing people is not a solution to prison breaks. And every one of the wrongful convictions on the Wikipedia list I linked to represents a killer on the loose. If you want to improve the "killer on loose" problem then fix the court and prison systems instead of allowing the fucked up system to play God.

[Yerdaddy]

No, but we have to get back to putting the rights of society higher then the rights of the prisoner. The jail is to punish, not to rehabilitate. A person who robs and steals needs to get put in jail for a set amount of time, and that way the rest of us know that if we do the same thing, we get the same punishment.

Murderers and rapists/kid touchers are the most danger to society, and while we need to respect thier rights for habeus corpus, after being found guilty by a jury, then the right of society to be safe takes precedence. Hence kill them, and quickly, to make it a detterant.

You're ignoring too many of our arguments, Scott. You talk about the jury system like it's infallible when we've posted numerous sources that show that it is not even close to that.

As to prisons being for punishment - we've got the highest rate of incarceration in the world, and the highest rate of any civilization during peacetime in human history. And we've got the highest crime rate in the developed world. And we are one of two that have the death penalty. Your theory that our giant cages for punishment over rehabilitation and extermination of higher numbers of offenders - guilty or innocent - is belied by these facts. It isn't serving the public interest - it has the opposite effect. Any method of rehabilitation that works - by preventing recommission of crimes is in fact the definition of a public service. Our system is, as you are advocating it, is revenge, and it is an obvious failure.

[FUNKMAN]

jesus christ! it's the holiday season and all you guys can do is talk about the death penalty

sheesh!


:tongue:

[PapaBear]

You're ignoring too many of our arguments, Scott. You talk about the jury system like it's infallible when we've posted numerous sources that show that it is not even close to that.

As to prisons being for punishment - we've got the highest rate of incarceration in the world, and the highest rate of any civilization during peacetime in human history. And we've got the highest crime rate in the developed world. And we are one of two that have the death penalty. Your theory that our giant cages for punishment over rehabilitation and extermination of higher numbers of offenders - guilty or innocent - is belied by these facts. It isn't serving the public interest - it has the opposite effect. Any method of rehabilitation that works - by preventing recommission of crimes is in fact the definition of a public service. Our system is, as you are advocating it, is revenge, and it is an obvious failure.
QFT

And to tell the truth, prisons are intended to be used for rehabilitation. They just aren't used that way. If it was meant for strictly punishment, the guards wouldn't be called "corrections" officers.

[TheMojoPin]

Simply put, yep. Commit the crime, suffer the consequences.

Eye for an eye?

It doesn't work.

And it flies in the face of so many things this country is supposed to be about.

Radom side note...violent crimes in this country have been steadily declining in this country for years now as more and more states suspend the death penalty. Isn't that something else that blatanly dashes the idea that it's a deterrent?

[A.J.]

jesus christ! it's the holiday season and all you guys can do is talk about the death penalty

sheesh!


:tongue:

Seriously -- save it for Easter!

http://www.truecatholic.org/pix/sc12.jpg

[scottinnj]

jesus christ! it's the holiday season and all you guys can do is talk about the death penalty

sheesh!


:tongue:

Yeah, it is a moot point on my part because the ban on the death penalty is now law. I was just venting, and have a good argument with my freinds.

[ralphbxny]

Xmas gift for Death row inmates!!

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/ralphbxny/lightupxmas.jpg

[foodcourtdruide]

It does, that is why the NY Times is liberal and the NY Post is conservative.

If I was a conservative I'd be humiliated by this statement.

[Furtherman]

Well, I said the Catholic Church, because it's doctrine says what I stated: They are pretty much pro-life from conception to death. That doesn't make them religious nuts, but the doctrine is pretty much the catalyst for mainstream Americans to be against the death penalty.

Over here in NJ, most people I talk to who are against the death penalty want it to end based on their Catholic beliefs.


If you only talk to Catholics, you're only going to get their point of view. And why would that catalyst define a "mainstream" American?

[LordJezo]

Radom side note...violent crimes in this country have been steadily declining in this country for years now as more and more states suspend the death penalty. Isn't that something else that blatanly dashes the idea that it's a deterrent?

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1483/piratesarecool4ze0.gif