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

[Gunny]

TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN) -- The man who raped and killed 7-year-old Megan Kanka -- the 1994 crime that inspired "Megan's Law" -- is one of eight men whose sentences were commuted to life in prison this week as part of New Jersey's new ban on execution.

The Garden State on Monday became the first state in more than three decades to abolish the death penalty after a commission ruled the punishment is "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency."

Gov. Jon Corzine the day before commuted the sentences of eight men sitting on the state's death row. They will now serve life in prison without parole, according to the governor's office.

Among the eight is Jesse Timmendequas, 46, who was sentenced to death in June 1997 for Megan's murder.

more ... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/death.penalty/index.html

And of course what this scumbag did was the model of the "evolving standards of decency."

 

[Larkinn]

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.

 

[jillian]

And of course what this scumbag did was the model of the "evolving standards of decency."

No one's been executed in NJ since the 60's... is it really a big deal?

 

[Gunny]

I hold my government to higher standards than those of a convicted rapist.

He raped and murdered a child. No way he deserves to live. Period.

 

[Gunny]

No one's been executed in NJ since the 60's... is it really a big deal?

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.

 

[Larkinn]

He raped and murdered a child. No way he deserves to live. Period.

I disagree. I rather like the bumper sticker "why do we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?".

No wonder criminals are more and more brazen. They don't fear the consequences of their actions because there are none to fear.

Right...he thought about life in prison and was like "eh...whatevs, I can do that, peace of cake".

 

[Gunny]

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Gunny]

How is it justice legislating from the bench when the NJ state legislature repealed it's own death penalty?

My bad. Thought I read something else last night. Not awake yet.
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.

There is a BIG difference between "cruel and unusual" and "might cause a little pain".

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.

Sorry, but it's your opinion. There's just as much junk out there on one side of the argument as the other. Just depends on what you wish to believe.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm with Gunny on this one, even though 99.9% of the time I am anti DP. Child killers that have proven to be beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty deserve what they get. Even some of the more henous adult murders too. It is the reasonable doubt part that bothers me the most. You have to get a police force that wants to see justice done, not get a result to clear a file.

 

[jillian]

Sorry, but it's your opinion. There's just as much junk out there on one side of the argument as the other. Just depends on what you wish to believe.

Not on this issue.

 

[jillian]

I'm with Gunny on this one, even though 99.9% of the time I am anti DP. Child killers that have proven to be beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty deserve what they get. Even some of the more henous adult murders too. It is the reasonable doubt part that bothers me the most. You have to get a police force that wants to see justice done, not get a result to clear a file.

It's not that I'm anti DP... I think it has a utility in terms of societal vengeance. But... my issues have to do with innocent people being killed.

 

[Bern80]

It's not that I'm anti DP... I think it has a utility in terms of societal vengeance. But... my issues have to do with innocent people being killed.

So wouldn't it be more prudent to work on that (makeing sure the guilty are actually guilty) rather than trying to get rid of the death penalty? Kinda throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Larkinn]

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[jillian]

So wouldn't it be more prudent to work on that (makeing sure the guilty are actually guilty) rather than trying to get rid of the death penalty? Kinda throwing out the baby with the bath water.

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*

 

[Bern80]

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*

I believe it's referred to as DNA. Not sure how that little technological advancement slipped your mind. That being said I think the simplest solution is to give life sentences if there is even a shred of reasonable doubt.

 

[jillian]

I believe it's referred to as DNA. Not sure how that little technological advancement slipped your mind. That being said I think the simplest solution is to give life sentences if there is even a shred of reasonable doubt.

There isn't DNA at every crime scene, Denny. Not sure how that little factual blip slipped *your* mind. You might try putting aside that patronizing attitude though since it's completely misplaced.

Your ultimate conclusion is closer to correct, though.

 

[Bern80]

There isn't DNA at every crime scene, Denny.

Which the second part of the post allowes for.

Not sure how that little factual blip slipped *your* mind. You might try putting aside that patronizing attitude though since it's completely misplaced.

Your ultimate conclusion is closer to correct, though.

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