New Jersey Bans Death Penalty

[ChefChiTown]

Which is different from locking them up and throwing away they key... how? The effect is the same; they won't get another chance. Yes, there is a minimal risk that they might escape. I would however say it is considerably smaller than the risk of an innocent person ending up on death row. In the end, I'd consider that risk worth it, for the same reason why I believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea. I don't suppose you're against that?

The way our legal system is set up, a person with a hefty prison sentence still has a chance to get out at some point. If a person is handed a life sentence, all it does is cost the tax payers money just so some piece of shit scumbag doesn't have to die for what he/she did.

My mistake, I just thought it might feel good to know that you're different from them. You just pretty much admitted that you have no regard for another persons life. Funny, that's exactly what you said about the murderer...
Or is this where you go "he started it!"?

Where did I say that I don't care about another person's life? I said that I don't care about a murderers life, just like I don't care if a car thief's Lexus gets stolen.

 

[Imagine]

The way our legal system is set up, a person with a hefty prison sentence still has a chance to get out at some point.

Obvious solution would be to get rid of that chance. I'm quite sure that's already the case for the extremely serious crimes.

If a person is handed a life sentence, all it does is cost the tax payers money just so some piece of shit scumbag doesn't have to die for what he/she did.

As previously mentioned, it costs more to have the person executed than to lock them up for life. But at least that was an objective argument, so I guess we're getting somewhere...

Where did I say that I don't care about another person's life? I said that I don't care about a murderers life...

Well, at least you saved me the trouble of quoting the same line again, and you just eliminated any doubt about what you actually meant (originally you didn't explicitly say it, you merely implied it). I'm no biologist of course, but murderers, as far as I know, doesn't change species when they commit the crime. Furthermore, again as far as I know, being a human qualifies you for the title "person". Thus, if a murderer is a person and you don't care about the life of a murderer, you don't care about the life of a person. Q.E.D.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Well, at least you saved me the trouble of quoting the same line again, and you just eliminated any doubt about what you actually meant (originally you didn't explicitly say it, you merely implied it). I'm no biologist of course, but murderers, as far as I know, doesn't change species when they commit the crime. Furthermore, again as far as I know, being a human qualifies you for the title "person". Thus, if a murderer is a person and you don't care about the life of a murderer, you don't care about the life of a person. Q.E.D.

If a man's sperm meets with a woman's egg and a child is conceived, when that child is born then that man is now a father.

If that same man sexually abuses, emotionally neglects and refuses to care for the child, would you still call him a father? I feel sorry for you if you would.

Murderers are people in the biological sense but that's as far as it goes for me. Both of the men who raped my mother while she was a teenager are both people in the biological sense, but they are fucking rapists, plain and simple.

With that being said, your assumption towards me of "if a murderer is a person and you don't care about the life of a murderer, you don't care about the life of a person" couldn't be more wrong.

 

[McRocket]

As previously mentioned, it costs more to have the person executed than to lock them up for life.

That's very interesting. Any links to back that up (I hope so)?

 

[Imagine]

...would you still call him a father? I feel sorry for you if you would.

What I think about them is irrelevant. As long as a father is defined as the direct male ancestor of someone, nothing they can do and nothing I can say will change that fact.

Same thing with murderers really. You believe it is justifiable killing them for a subjective reason. Do you not believe the murderer believes they had a justifiable reason for killing? That one is subjective as well, and as is the nature of subjective statements, they can't be evaluated. In short, you could just as well be equal to or worse than the murderer as better. If you're fine with that, fair enough.

That's very interesting. Any links to back that up (I hope so)?

There were a couple back on the first page, although I can't vouch for the credibility of those posted as I haven't read them. I found a web page back when we were on the first page as well that had several sources but didn't feel the need to post it unless someone objected to those already posted. If I remember correctly, the costs were estimated to about $2.15M for an execution and $800,000 for 40 years in prison.

 

[Imagine]

Hmm, I can't seem to find them now for some reason. Either I missed them (not unlikely) or I thought links were posted. Oh well, here's a page:
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

I have neither the time nor the energy to look up those sources unless there are any objections to them. Let me know if they don't check out.

 

[D-rock]

That's very interesting. Any links to back that up (I hope so)?

I think there is a possibility that might be true. I think it has more to do with all the rep tape and tying up the judicial system that death penalty cases take than the actual killing of the person, which is relatively cheap.

 

[Friday on my mind]

i'll take a stab at it. i'm against capital punishment, as i've explained. but here is a possible argument for:
Quote:
Originally Posted by a statist
i am a statist. i believe the benevolent state exists to bring order to our lives and protect and nurture us from cradle to grave. capital punishment exists as a deterrent to the most heinous of crimes: premeditated murder, treason, and exceptional others. if an innocent person is put to death because of false testimony, or for any reason, it is a tragedy, but still serves as a deterrent to crime.

I realize you are playing the role of devils advocate(a very approraite term in this context I think also lol)here and are just trying to present the arguement.That said I think that papragraph and ideas expressed above is really a weak arguement.Capital punishment is not a deterent,in fact the stats lead you to exactly the opposite conclusion.Compare crime and murder rates between states like NJ and Texas.NJ has not executed anyone since 1963 and Texas is the state that has had the most executions.The crime and murder rate is much higher in Texas.See the link below,in fact all the states mainly in the south who use the death penalty have very high rates compared to NJ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Unfortunately, our justice system is the U.S. isn't perfect, but nothing is. Yes, innocent people will be sentenced to Death Row, as unfortunate technicalities of the law can be found anywhere. But why should a few unfortunate incidents mean that the death penalty should never be used? Honestly, where should the line be drawn in our justice system just so no single innocent person will ever be hurt? Wishing and/or hoping for perfection from our legal system is just a waste of time because it's never going to happen.

It sucks that a few innocent people will suffer, it really does. But, a few innocent lives, IMO, don't outweigh the much, much greater number of lives of the guilty murderers and rapists who deserve a punishment as severe as death.

As bad as going to Jail when you are innocent is ,being executed removes the possibility of ever fixing it.Death penalty is special in that way.

Lawyers should be held more accountable... like, if an innocent person gets put to death... well, sorry, you gotsta go too... since you obviously suck at lawyering.

How often are they proven innocent after and how often do people just say they were because the person never admitted to their guilt?

Actually it is not the accused Lawyers responsible mainly for innocents who are convicted.It is corrupt police and prosecutors.How often you ask are they proven innocent and on what are their claims based.I am posting again a link to what's known as "The Innocence Project".Right now it is something like 210 people they have gotten off death row and out of prison as they were innocent.The group is a group of lawyers who specialized in DNA usage.I'm sure you know once convicted it is very hard to ever get it reversed.These people have been proven using DNA that they COULD not have been the perpetrator of the murders and have been released.Keep in mind this only helps the ones who have DNA from the crime to compare and have not been executed.How many more innocents with no DNA or have already been executed is anyone's guess.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

If your found guilty with overwhelming evidence, then why the fuck not? Or better yet a confession. Makes no difference if you killed on person or hundreds. Point is you still took a life!

What would you suggest instead? Let them sit in jail for a couple years so they get out on appeal or fuckin probation? Then they are on the streets free to do it again!

The problem is that so-called overwhelming evidence is sometimes it is totally fabricated.There is just no way around that conclusion.As I stated to chef earlier his own state had to call a moritorium on executions when it was revealed the Chicago Police had routinely beaten confessions out of innocent people.Also my above answer mentioning the "Innocence Project" backs that up.People proven later to have definately not done the murders and yet convicted and sentenced to death.Somebody had to have fabricated the evidence used against them.

That's very interesting. Any links to back that up (I hope so)?

Here is a good link that goes over how the death penalty is more costly than life without parole.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108#FromDPIC


So there it is and I have provided links and facts not just emotional feelings of its wrong or right.And my last comment is to anyone who bashes my state compare your numbers on crime and see if you really live in a place so much better LOL.And we are the mostly densely populated state in the the country with big cities and such and still it is much safer here then most places.

 

[geraldhp42]

I was watching Notorious tonight and this episode was on.

Daniel Colwell suffered from schizophrenia and depression. He went to Wal-Mart and shot two people with the intent of being executed. He chose to kill at least two white people so he'd be sure to be executed.

Just thought I toss that one out there.

 

[Facetious]

.And my last comment is to anyone who bashes my state compare your numbers on crime and see if you really live in a place so much better LOL.And we are the mostly densely populated state in the the country with big cities and such and still it is much safer here then most places.

If this is any such a compliment to law enforcement, it's a long time coming. :hatsoff:

 

[Friday on my mind]

If this is any such a compliment to law enforcement, it's a long time coming. :hatsoff:

Well sure as compared to many localities.But still they have their issues, as our state police were under supervision by the US Justice dept. for a policy of discriminatory stops of one group of drivers commonly known as DWB or driving while black.But my point was that state's that respect life officially by not executing seemingly get more respect for life in return at least based on the numbers.