Death penalty debate is revived in N.J.

[chanel]

Singer has introduced a bill to bring back the death penalty for those convicted of certain capital crimes — including the murder of police officers and children under the age of 14. He said the contentious, divisive bill has the support of Gov. Chris Christie, a fellow Republican — but even so, it's an emotional issue in an election year.

But there's another glaring consideration: During the 24 years in which it was on the books in New Jersey — at a cost to the state over that time of about $253 million, according to a 2005 report from New Jersey Policy Perspective — the death penalty was never imposed.

The last time anyone was put to death in New Jersey was in 1963.

The bill would also cover those who perpetrate mass murders or terrorist attacks resulting in more than one death.

"I think right now, if that bill came up in the Senate to reinstate it, it would pass," Singer said

.
Death penalty debate is revived in N.J. | NJ.com

I was always on the fence about the death penalty until the murder of Megan Kanka. (Megan's Law). That monster deserved to die.

Congressman Dick Zimmer stated, "I believe he is exactly the kind of predator that the legislature had in mind when it enacted the death penalty." The court sentenced Timmendequas to death, and the sentence was upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court on appeal.[4] Timmendequas remained on New Jersey's Death Row until December 17, 2007, when the New Jersey Legislature abolished the state's death penalty. This ban resulted in Timmendequas's sentence being commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole.[5][6]


Comments?

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm against the Death Penalty. Not because of any legal issue, but because I'm pro life as well. I can't square being Pro-Life AND Pro Death Penalty.

But as a result, I'm NOT against Life in Prison or Chemical Castration (or actual castration) Jail doesn't have to be expensive. Inmates should get a Jail Cell, a Bed or a Cot, three square meals a day, no exercise equipment, TV's only in group areas and so forth. If we were so inclined, we could (as a nation) house a prisoner for half of what we spend now, easily.

Besides it's jail, it's supposed to suck!

 

[rightwinger]

Singer has introduced a bill to bring back the death penalty for those convicted of certain capital crimes — including the murder of police officers and children under the age of 14. He said the contentious, divisive bill has the support of Gov. Chris Christie, a fellow Republican — but even so, it's an emotional issue in an election year.

But there's another glaring consideration: During the 24 years in which it was on the books in New Jersey — at a cost to the state over that time of about $253 million, according to a 2005 report from New Jersey Policy Perspective — the death penalty was never imposed.

The last time anyone was put to death in New Jersey was in 1963.

The bill would also cover those who perpetrate mass murders or terrorist attacks resulting in more than one death.

"I think right now, if that bill came up in the Senate to reinstate it, it would pass," Singer said

.
Death penalty debate is revived in N.J. | NJ.com

I was always on the fence about the death penalty until the murder of Megan Kanka. (Megan's Law). That monster deserved to die.

Congressman Dick Zimmer stated, "I believe he is exactly the kind of predator that the legislature had in mind when it enacted the death penalty." The court sentenced Timmendequas to death, and the sentence was upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court on appeal.[4] Timmendequas remained on New Jersey's Death Row until December 17, 2007, when the New Jersey Legislature abolished the state's death penalty. This ban resulted in Timmendequas's sentence being commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole.[5][6]


Comments?

NJ is not going to put anyone to death regardless of the circumstances. Why go through the expense of a capital murder trial and all the appeals if the case will eventually be thrown out anyway?

Try it as life without parole and be done with it

 

[California Girl]

I support the use of the Death Penalty.... within very specific guidelines. For example, I don't think we should be executing those who are mentally impaired without very significant reason. I do think we should execute those who kill police officers (because they put their lives on the line for us, so I believe we owe them the respect to provide a very harsh sentence to anyone who kills one of theirs), anyone who murders a child, serial killers, and the like. I do not think we should apply the DP as a matter of course, it should be the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crimes.

 

[chanel]

That's what this law covers CG and I believe it will also close many of the loopholes that prevented its implementation pre 2007. Frankly I don't see it passing because the whole country is moving away from it, but I'm with you.

 

[rightwinger]

Personally, I would just as soon the Government stay out of the sanctioned killing business.

Life without parole.....let them rot

 

[Rogo]

The death penalty has always seemed so primitive to me.

The bill won't pass anyways.

 

[George Costanza]

The death penalty has always seemed so primitive to me.

The bill won't pass anyways.

You just said it all.

 

[martybegan]

Personally, I would just as soon the Government stay out of the sanctioned killing business.

Life without parole.....let them rot

The problem with life without parole is you end up with a 80 year old prisoner, that costs you tons of money just to provide basic medical care to. You also start getting bleeding heart types doing thier 2 min news story on this old frail man, wondering why he is still in prison, forgetting he slaughtered 5 people in drug fueled frenzy when he was 23.

The death penalty is no picnic either, usually taking 15 years or so to implement, but when you sentance some 25 year old to life without parole, sooner or later he turns into an old man, one you havr to take care of on the taxpayer's dime.

 

[rightwinger]

Personally, I would just as soon the Government stay out of the sanctioned killing business.

Life without parole.....let them rot

The problem with life without parole is you end up with a 80 year old prisoner, that costs you tons of money just to provide basic medical care to. You also start getting bleeding heart types doing thier 2 min news story on this old frail man, wondering why he is still in prison, forgetting he slaughtered 5 people in drug fueled frenzy when he was 23.

The death penalty is no picnic either, usually taking 15 years or so to implement, but when you sentance some 25 year old to life without parole, sooner or later he turns into an old man, one you havr to take care of on the taxpayer's dime.

Death penalty you get to pay to keep him on death row for fifteen years while he files appeal after appeal

I still don't like the govermment as sanctioned killers whether they deserve it or not

 

[chanel]

There are certainly valid points on both sides of the issue but the 15 year wait time and cost of appeals should not be one. That doesn't usually happen in other death penalty states. There should certainly be a better way to do it, if it is the law.

 

[rightwinger]

There are certainly valid points on both sides of the issue but the 15 year wait time and cost of appeals should not be one. That doesn't usually happen in other death penalty states. There should certainly be a better way to do it, if it is the law.

In NJ it's pay for 15 years of appeals and then give him life

Might as well just give them life to start with

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is one more issue worth considering. See: The Innocence Project - Know the Cases

 

[Mr Natural]

Apart from relieving the taxpayers the cost of caring for a prisoner for life, what purpose does the death penalty serve?

Once the convicted is dead, his punishment ends.

I say better to give him life with no parole and let him have plenty of time to think about what he did.

 

[George Costanza]

Personally, I would just as soon the Government stay out of the sanctioned killing business.

Life without parole.....let them rot

The problem with life without parole is you end up with a 80 year old prisoner, that costs you tons of money just to provide basic medical care to. You also start getting bleeding heart types doing thier 2 min news story on this old frail man, wondering why he is still in prison, forgetting he slaughtered 5 people in drug fueled frenzy when he was 23.

The death penalty is no picnic either, usually taking 15 years or so to implement, but when you sentance some 25 year old to life without parole, sooner or later he turns into an old man, one you havr to take care of on the taxpayer's dime.

The cost of maintaining a prisoner for the rest of his life without possibility of parole, as opposed to executing him, is the price we pay for being able to call ourselves a civilized society.

 

[martybegan]

Apart from relieving the taxpayers the cost of caring for a prisoner for life, what purpose does the death penalty serve?

Once the convicted is dead, his punishment ends.

I say better to give him life with no parole and let him have plenty of time to think about what he did.

I would think that the reason is that for some crimes, letting a person live for another 40-50 years just isn't punishment enough.

For some crimes the concept of incarceration is part punishment, part protection of society, and part attempts at rehabilitating the person. When you give life without parole you are basically giving up on the rehabilitation part.

To me for some crimes, the punishment should be your life.

 

[Mr Natural]

Apart from relieving the taxpayers the cost of caring for a prisoner for life, what purpose does the death penalty serve?

Once the convicted is dead, his punishment ends.

I say better to give him life with no parole and let him have plenty of time to think about what he did.

I would think that the reason is that for some crimes, letting a person live for another 40-50 years just isn't punishment enough.

For some crimes the concept of incarceration is part punishment, part protection of society, and part attempts at rehabilitating the person. When you give life without parole you are basically giving up on the rehabilitation part.

To me for some crimes, the punishment should be your life.

Yeah, I hear you but is spending you life in prison really living in the truer sense of the word?

For me, I'd rather be dead than have to spend the rest of my life in a prison.

 

[martybegan]

Apart from relieving the taxpayers the cost of caring for a prisoner for life, what purpose does the death penalty serve?

Once the convicted is dead, his punishment ends.

I say better to give him life with no parole and let him have plenty of time to think about what he did.

I would think that the reason is that for some crimes, letting a person live for another 40-50 years just isn't punishment enough.

For some crimes the concept of incarceration is part punishment, part protection of society, and part attempts at rehabilitating the person. When you give life without parole you are basically giving up on the rehabilitation part.

To me for some crimes, the punishment should be your life.

Yeah, I hear you but is spending you life in prison really living in the truer sense of the word?

For me, I'd rather be dead than have to spend the rest of my life in a prison.

We could always give them the option. Life in a 10 x 10 box, or death.