'Megan's Law' killer escapes death under N.J. execution ban

[jillian]

Which the second part of the post allowes for.



Sorry, just seemed like a rather convenient ommission since it is such a common practice now.

But seems like your first choice would be to put someone to death.

DNA does better at excluding someone than definitively saying that someone did something. But, yes, I'm familiar with the Innocence Project.

That said, I've never said that I was opposed to the death penalty in all cases. I don't like it, though. And I acknowledge that it is simply for retribution and specific deterrance and serves no other purpose.

 

[Bern80]

But seems like your first choice would be to put someone to death.

DNA does better at excluding someone than definitively saying that someone did something. But, yes, I'm familiar with the Innocence Project.

That said, I've never said that I was opposed to the death penalty in all cases. I don't like it, though. And I acknowledge that it is simply for retribution and specific deterrance and serves no other purpose.

The purpose it serves IMO, is so that insult isn't added to injury. Not only do individuals who conribute nothing and are essentially a waste of space get to live, but John Q. taxpayer gets teh priviledge of keeping them alive.

 

[Gunny]

Not on this issue.

Yes, on this issue. There is no way the argument can be proven one way or the other.

Regardless, it IS a deterrent to the criminal who is executed. He will never kill again. This isn't about fear, it's about paying a price commensurate with the crime.

 

[Gunny]

Right that attitude which doesn't really exist in this country.



Ahh an equal price. Eye for an eye right? So we should rape rapists, torture torturers, steal from thiefs, etc, etc? Seems like a damned silly way to run things really.

The attitude DOES exist in this country, as exemplified in this very thread.

The eye for an eye thing is YOUR words, not mine. Equal does not necessarily mean the exact same thing.

 

[jillian]

Yes, on this issue. There is no way the argument can be proven one way or the other.

Regardless, it IS a deterrent to the criminal who is executed. He will never kill again. This isn't about fear, it's about paying a price commensurate with the crime.

Tell you what, if you can find me a study that says there's a deterrant effect, I will stand down. But I've never heard of any study that says anything but that there's a specific deterrant. Never.

I thought you guys gave up the eye for an eye thing.

 

[Gunny]

It isn't possible. ID testimony is notoriously unreliable and the inter-racial recognition rate is something like 15% with the wind at your back.

Let me know when you find a way to solve those problems and we'll talk. And I'm not quite sure how that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater which means tossing out something good with the bad. So what good was tossed? Killing people? As I said, hadn't been done in Jersey since the 60's anyway. *shrug*

Eyewitness testimony plus evidence is not notoriously unreliable. With forensic science at the level it is now, it's pretty easy to narrow things down.

I agree with Bern. You can call it "killing people" for effect all you want, but it amounts to forfeiting your life for unjustly and maliciously taking another. It's called justice.

FYI, I don't agree with sentencing people to death where there is doubt. But I don't see the cure for that as taking away the death penalty for those where there is no doubt.

 

[Annie]

Eyewitness testimony plus evidence is not notoriously unreliable. With forensic science at the level it is now, it's pretty easy to narrow things down.

I agree with Bern. You can call it "killing people" for effect all you want, but it amounts to forfeiting your life for unjustly and maliciously taking another. It's called justice.

FYI, I don't agree with sentencing people to death where there is doubt. But I don't see the cure for that as taking away the death penalty for those where there is no doubt.

I'm not negating the fact that some on death row were found not to be at fault. With that, what is this?

FYI, I don't agree with sentencing people to death where there is doubt. But I don't see the cure for that as taking away the death penalty for those where there is no doubt

 

[Gunny]

I'm not negating the fact that some on death row were found not to be at fault. With that, what is this?

What it says. The effort should be made to ensure those on death row belong there. Throwing out the death penalty absolves them of having to correct THAT problem. And that's ALL this argument amounts to. Instead of fixing the problem, they're just trying to hide it.

 

[Larkinn]

The purpose it serves IMO, is so that insult isn't added to injury. Not only do individuals who conribute nothing and are essentially a waste of space get to live, but John Q. taxpayer gets teh priviledge of keeping them alive.

Except that keeping them alive is less expensive than killing them. Well we could get rid of the appeals process...oh wait, but then that would mean more innocents would die. Bit of a bind your in, eh?

 

[Larkinn]

The attitude DOES exist in this country, as exemplified in this very thread.

Oh? So you equate life in prison with a "smack on the wrist and saying no"? Thats absurd.

The eye for an eye thing is YOUR words, not mine. Equal does not necessarily mean the exact same thing.[/QUOTE]

No, but thats the only way to tell whether its equal.

 

[Larkinn]

Eyewitness testimony plus evidence is not notoriously unreliable. With forensic science at the level it is now, it's pretty easy to narrow things down.

So why do 1/3 of jury criminal cases end up in acquittals?

I agree with Bern. You can call it "killing people" for effect all you want, but it amounts to forfeiting your life for unjustly and maliciously taking another. It's called justice.

No, its called killing someone. They were alive, and now they are dead due to human actions. Thats called killing someone. That is factual. The whole "forfeiting your life" crap is opinion.

FYI, I don't agree with sentencing people to death where there is doubt. But I don't see the cure for that as taking away the death penalty for those where there is no doubt.

So what standard would you propose? The standard was, in the first place, set up to make it very hard to convict innocent people.

 

[Bern80]

Except that keeping them alive is less expensive than killing them. Well we could get rid of the appeals process...oh wait, but then that would mean more innocents would die. Bit of a bind your in, eh?

No bind at all. I don't solve problems like the left. I.E. if there are inefficiencies or deffects in the system throw out the whole system. I would rather solve the inefficencies.

 

[Larkinn]

No bind at all. I don't solve problems like the left. I.E. if there are inefficiencies or deffects in the system throw out the whole system. I would rather solve the inefficencies.

Like how the left wants to chuck the UN, right?

Nice moronic generalization. Try harder next time.

 

[Bern80]

Like how the left wants to chuck the UN, right?

Nice moronic generalization. Try harder next time.

Try harder to address actual points instead of comeing with lame excuses not to.

Your given reason for getting rid of the death penalty was that death row is expensive. You solve that problem by trying to make the system more efficient and less costly, not by scraping the whole system.

 

[jillian]

Try harder to address actual points instead of comeing with lame excuses not to.

Your given reason for getting rid of the death penalty was that death row is expensive. You solve that problem by trying to make the system more efficient and less costly, not by scraping the whole system.

Nothing lame about it. You talk about not over-reacting and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.. .unless it's something that doesn't suit your ideology, of course.

 

[Larkinn]

Try harder to address actual points instead of comeing with lame excuses not to.

You'll need to make some first.

Your given reason for getting rid of the death penalty was that death row is expensive.

Umm, no. I was pointing out the stupidity in your incompatible beliefs that we should make the death penalty more accurate (hence making it more expensive), while simultaneously arguing that life in prison is "insult to injury" because it is so expensive.

You solve that problem by trying to make the system more efficient and less costly, not by scraping the whole system.

Actually there are multiple ways to solve the problem. You prefer one while saying that liberals always prefer the other which is an absurd, moronic generalization. How about, if you want to talk about the issues, you keep it on the death penalty instead of making asinine generalizations about liberals?

 

[Bern80]

Nothing lame about it. You talk about not over-reacting and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.. .unless it's something that doesn't suit your ideology, of course.

Could you give an example? While we look at the lefts solutions to problems:

Problem:

Some people use guns irresponsibly and kill people.

Left's Solution:

ban guns (which does little to nothing to solve the problem of people acting irresponsibly)

Problem:

Private health care is too expensive and some aren't adequately covered.

Left's Solution:

Scrap privitized health care and let government take over (instead of comeing up with private sector solutions when private sector has shown time and again it is vastly more efficient than government)

Problem:

The death penalty is too uncertain to warrant the finality that is killing someone and it is rather expensive:

Left's solution:

throw out capital punishment (instead improveing DNA technology and finding ways to reduce expenses)

These examples show how the left has turned right along with most of the country to a group of people that must be instantly gratified rather than 1)identify the actual problem and 2) work on it

 

[jillian]

Could you give an example? While we look at the lefts solutions to problems:

Problem:

Some people use guns irresponsibly and kill people.

Left's Solution:

ban guns (which does little to nothing to solve the problem of people acting irresponsibly)

Problem:

Private health care is too expensive and some aren't adequately covered.

Left's Solution:

Scrap privitized health care and let government take over (instead of comeing up with private sector solutions when private sector has shown time and again it is vastly more efficient than government)

Problem:

The death penalty is too uncertain to warrant the finality that is killing someone and it is rather expensive:

Left's solution:

throw out capital punishment (instead improveing DNA technology and finding ways to reduce expenses)

Your first problem is that you stereotype "the left" as if it is some homogeneous organism. Most people to the left couldn't agree on whether or not to turn the light in a room on or off.

That said, let's see ...

I find that ALL politicians overdo "solutions". Because the real problems aren't capable of simple solutions. So how do they do things? They stand on the floor of Congress and pontificate. This is true of both left and right and is a nature of the political animal. It's how they pretend they're doing something.

As for the rest of your generalizations, stereotypes and assumptions, each issue is complex on its own. And you're not going to acknowledge that what you're talking about is a problem of left and right. For example, 16 guys from Saudi Arabia kill a bunch of people. The right's solution.... blow up a country that had nothing to do with it and force them to love us and emulate our democracy.

 

[Larkinn]

Could you give an example? While we look at the lefts solutions to problems:

Problem:

Some people use guns irresponsibly and kill people.

Left's Solution:

ban guns (which does little to nothing to solve the problem of people acting irresponsibly)

Problem:

Private health care is too expensive and some aren't adequately covered.

Left's Solution:

Scrap privitized health care and let government take over (instead of comeing up with private sector solutions when private sector has shown time and again it is vastly more efficient than government)

Problem:

The death penalty is too uncertain to warrant the finality that is killing someone and it is rather expensive:

Left's solution:

throw out capital punishment (instead improveing DNA technology and finding ways to reduce expenses)

These examples show how the left has turned right along with most of the country to a group of people that must be instantly gratified rather than 1)identify the actual problem and 2) work on it

Problem: The UN is inefficient

Rights solution: Get rid of it.

Problem: Social security is running out of money.

Rights solution: Get rid of it.

Problem: The government is inefficient on healthcare

Rights solution: Scrap it and privatize it.

Try educating yourself a little bit about what the left actually believes, and how diverse the different viewpoints are before running your mouth. Your idiotic caricatures are no more correct than mine are. And for the record (RGS take note), they are caricuates and purposefully not accurate.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sounds good to me.

Lefties also forget that government is GOVERNMENT, not our mommies. Governments historically have the right and obligation to protect the people...up to and including killing of our enemies. Whether those enemies are threatening us from beyond our borders; or from within them.

I have no problem with a state choosing to do without the death penalty. I think that's a state's choice, and they should have the right to make it. But this claptrap about "government shouldn't be in the business of killing" is unrealistic and irrelevant. In every sense.