Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Gunny, Dec 17, 2007.
And of course what this scumbag did was the model of the "evolving standards of decency."
I hold my government to higher standards than those of a convicted rapist.
No one's been executed in NJ since the 60's... is it really a big deal?
He raped and murdered a child. No way he deserves to live. Period.
There are people who by their own actions have forfeit their right to live. Their continued existence is a waste of natural resources and tax dollars and for what? He gets to exist and be cared for until he dies on his own.
No wonder criminals are more and more brazen. They don't fear the consequences of their actions because there are none to fear.
I disagree. I rather like the bumper sticker "why do we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?".
Right...he thought about life in prison and was like "eh...whatevs, I can do that, peace of cake".
Whether or not he thought about life in prison is irrelevant since he was sentenced to death. My comment was to the bleeding heart attitude in general that a smack on the wrist and saying "no" is punishment enough for criminals.
Your bumper sticker is intellectually dishonest as it removes context. We execute people as the price for murder. An equal price for what has been taken.
And more and more society is deciding that government shouldn't be in the business of murder. It doesn't make the crimes committed any less heinous. It simply raises questions about what happens when we sink to the level of the lowest common denominator since there's no deterrant effect to the death penalty (well, specific deterrant, but wouldn't keep the crime from having been committed in the first place).
Also, the reason for the Jersey repeal of the death penalty, aside from its non-use, was the recognition that government cannot guarantee that only guilty people are sentenced to death.
The government isn't in the business of murder, and society isn't deciding anything. A segment of society thinks executing criminals as punishment for their crimes is wrong; however, this is clearly a case of a Justice legislating from the bench rather than the legislature acting on the beliefs of its consituents.
The government is in no way sinking to the level of a child rapist and murderer by demanding he pay the same price he extracted. That's called punishment commensurate with the crime.
That you believe there is no detrrent effect of the death penalty is opinion, not fact, and one that will hardly ever be proven given it's hard to prove who DOESN'T commit a crime for fear of the punishment.
How is it justice legislating from the bench when the NJ state legislature repealed it's own death penalty?
As for what constitutes cruel and inhuman punishment, that IS EXACTLY the purview of the Court. It isn't legislating from the bench at all.
Finally, no, it isn't my opinion that there's no deterrant effect to the death penalty. It's actually the one subject they've been able to study with fairly good data because of the patchwork of states with and without it. Absolutely no difference in recidivism or nature of criminal activity. The only deterrance is the specific one you get from keeping a specific individual from committing any more heinous acts.
Separate names with a comma.