N.J. Senate to Vote on Abolishing the Death Penalty

By Jeralyn, Section Death Penalty
Posted on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:35:19 PM EST
Tags: death penalty (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The New Jersey Senate will vote Thursday on a bill to abolish the state's death penalty.

New Jersey is set to consider becoming the first state to abolish the death penalty legislatively since capital punishment was reinstated 31 years ago. A Senate committee is slated Thursday to consider replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole.

The initiative stems from a January report from a special commission appointed by the Legislature. The panel determined New Jersey’s death penalty costs taxpayers more than paying for prisoners to serve life terms and concluded there was no evidence the death penalty deters people from committing murders.

“There is increasing evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency,” the report said.

Will it happen? It's possible. Both Gov. Jon Corzine and the leaders of both houses in the legislature oppose the death penalty.

More...

The state has nine men on death row, but hasn’t executed anyone since 1963. A death penalty moratorium was imposed in late 2005 when the law creating the commission was passed.

Republicans oppose the measure.

< ACLU Files Objections to Real I.D. Regulations | Jeanine Pirro Accused of Withholding Evidence in Murder Trial >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

N.J. Senate to Vote on Abolishing the Death Penalty | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

THE POLITICS OF DEATH (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by TKindlon on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:12:51 PM EST

Recent history reminds us that eternal vigilance is indispensable when it comes to the death penalty. In 1965 then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller signed legislation that eliminated capital punishment in New York State for all except cop killers and lifers who murdered in prison, and, simultaneously, he commuted all pending death sentences (and the death penalty bill he signed into law was eventually declared unconstitutional). At the time, Rockefeller explained that "The death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency..." George Pataki brought the death penalty back to New York in the mid-90's, and we wasted huge amounts of time and boatloads of money fighting against it until the courts declared it unconstitutional and now, in the aftermath of a NY State Trooper accidentally shooting one of his fellow troopers in the back of the head during a gunfight with a small-time loser, New York's current Democratic Governor, Eliot Spitzer, is talking about bringing the death penalty back for another run. When will we ever learn?

otoh (none / 0) (#1)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:52:34 PM EST

there was no evidence the death penalty deters people from committing murders.

there is no way to measure the whether there is or is not a deterent effect from the DP, so the above sentance could just as accurately be written:

there was no evidence the death penalty doesn't deter people from committing murders.

There is a way (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by HK on Mon May 07, 2007 at 01:32:33 PM EST

of giving a good indication (although not absolute proof) of the deterent effect of the death penalty. The murder rate in a State during the time the death penalty is available as a sentence can be charted and then compared with a time (either before or after the death penalty) when capital punishment was not an option. If the murder rate stays the same or shows a similar decline or increase in the time without the death penalty as with it, it can be reasonably assumed that the death penalty has little impact on the murder rate in that State.

I hope the Senate will do the right thing in New Jersey, for humanity and for their citizens and vote to abolish the death penalty.


Well (none / 0) (#5)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:36:40 PM EST

one persons "good indication" is another's "indicates nothing of the sort." It all depends on your agenda.

Anyway, had this guy on NJ's death row been executed, NJ would have at least one less murder on its hands:

"TRENTON -- Ambrose Harris was indicted today on murder charges in the killing of fellow death-row inmate Robert (Mudman) Simon last month, Mercer County Prosecutor Daniel G. Giaquinto announced."

From what I read bout this a year or so ago, Ambrose is 300+ lbs. and he beat Simon unconscious and then jumped off a table onto Simon's head a half-dozen times or so until it squashed like a pumpkin into a 1" high wedge of blood, brains and bone.


If Ambrose Harris (none / 0) (#6)
by HK on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:48:06 PM EST

deserves to die, then so did the fellow death row inmate he beat to death, right? The way I look at it is Simon did not deserve to die prematurely and neither does Harris...although solitary imprisonment for life seems appropriate.


Right, they both deserve to die, (none / 0) (#7)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:05:45 PM EST

although not to be brutally murdered by another inmate.

I'm fine with solitary LWOP or any method that is as foolproof as exection that ensures that the murderer won't murder anyone - fellow inmate, guard or civilian - again.


I wish we had those guarantees.... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by kdog on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:13:54 PM EST

We can't guarantee every guy we execute will be guilty. We can't guarantee every murderer we inprison for life will never kill again.

It all boils down to which side you wanna have the state error on.

Sadly, murder ain't going nowehere, but executions can go away. Thats how I look at it.


I look at it differently (none / 0) (#11)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:42:10 PM EST

and you may have seen his before from me.

What system ensures the fewest innocents killed?

I think the DP does.

The most reliable estimate I've been able to find of innocents executed is:

The book, In Spite of Innocence, notes that between 1900 and 1992 there have been 416 documented cases of innocent persons who have been convicted of murder or capital rape -- a third of whom were given a death sentence. The authors discovered that in 23 of these cases, the person was executed.

23 is still very much 23 too many, however it seems pretty obvious that many more than 23 people have been killed in those 92 years by convicted but unexecuted murderers.


Where our opinions differ.... (none / 0) (#14)
by kdog on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:31:57 AM EST

I think is I am more concerned by who is doing the killing, you are more concerned with the number of killings. You seem to make no distinction between some random murdering bastard and the State of New Jersey. I see a big difference, and hold New Jersey to a higher standard.


Well (none / 0) (#15)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:27:54 AM EST

to be clear, given the choice between more people murdered w/o the DP vs. less people murdered w/the DP, I choose less.

To choose more seems pretty heartless to me.


I'm the opposite.... (none / 0) (#16)
by kdog on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:00:00 PM EST

sacrificing 23 innocents to the altar of the state's death chamber is what I find heartless. The end might be a good thing (less murder victims), but the means to get there (inevitable wrongful executions) is unacceptable to me.


I agree (none / 0) (#17)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:03:37 PM EST

we're the opposite.


and, I agree, too (none / 0) (#19)
by Peaches on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:09:33 PM EST

That you two are opposites.

Not that, thats bad. ;)


Not bad at all.... (none / 0) (#20)
by kdog on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:36:54 PM EST

It's a good thing...if somebody agreed with me all the time I'd worry about them.

And whats a really good thing is we can be opposites with no ill will towards each other...if only the rest of the world could follow suit:)


: Speak for yourself you #!$&*!!$!! (none / 0) (#21)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 08, 2007 at 03:01:49 PM EST

;-)

People always forget (none / 0) (#3)
by phat on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:02:58 PM EST

Nebraska's legislature voted to abolish the death penalty in 1979. The Governor vetoed the bill.

phat

Death penalty as a deterrent... (none / 0) (#8)
by TheFlash on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:43:45 PM EST

Of course the death penalty is a deterrent. How many of those who are executed will commit murder again? None...

How many of those who have committed murder have murdered again because they were not put to death?

Too many to enumerate here...but, if there had only been one, it would have been one too many.

I will say it again...carrying out the death penalty is a valid deterrent.

How many executed innocent people... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Dadler on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:09:55 PM EST

...have successfully won their freedom on appeal?


Innocents... (none / 0) (#12)
by TheFlash on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:16:54 PM EST

In modern times, since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court, how many definitively innocent people have been executed?


: We will never (none / 0) (#13)
by HK on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:02:47 AM EST

have the true figures for how many of those executed in the US were innocent. Why? Because there are too few capital defence lawyers as it is and in the main, they prioritise the cases they work on by trying to save the lives of clients who have yet to be executed. It is a shame that these figures are unlikely to ever be ascertained as they are relevent and significant in the death penalty debate.

: Judging from the recent numbers... (none / 0) (#18)
by Dadler on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:04:51 PM EST

...of inmates released from Death Row because of DNA evidence, glaring logic tells me that a disturbing number of innocents must have been executed. I'd say it verges on pure prejudicial denial not to consider it a call to action. If that many have been released in the last few years simply because they were lucky enough to have DNA available for testing, how many have been put to death or linger in prison (especially for non-murder cases) because they lacked that evidence to test? Again, what logic tells me is loud and shocking.