N.J. soon to pass Death penalty

[zoey]

My thoughts on this being pass. I was wondering if crime will rise in the state of
N.J. since they pass the no Death penalty. Also I guess if you should shoot and kill
a LEO will not get the death penalty. To answer my ? I think crime will go up big time. Last time they put someone to death was back in the mid 60's.

thank you

[MarcS]

The death penalty has be proved time and time again to be ineffective as a deterrent.

There are 3 kinds of people who murder

-Premeditated killers who don't think they'll get caught
-People who commit murder in the heat of passion and don't think about the consequences
-Crazy motherfuckers.

None of these groups are deterred by the death penalty.

[LittleRedToyota]

I think crime will go up big time. Last time they put someone to death was back in the mid 60's.

i don't think it will have any effect. as you pointed out, they haven't actually executed anyone since the 60's, so this really seems more like a formality than anything else.

and, as marc pointed out, the death penalty doesn't really work as a deterent anyway...and, even if it did, it would only work for crimes that are potentially punishable by death...which is a tiny percentage of all crimes...so the effect would still be negligible on the overall crime rate.

i would support the death penalty, though, for heinous crimes such as forcible rape and wanton murder (not because of any deterrence, but just because rapists, etc. deserve to die)... if i had any faith in our justice system to not convict and execute an innocent person. however, since i have no faith in our justice system to not convict an innocent person, i don't support the death penalty.

[TonyF]

The death penalty has be proved time and time again to be ineffective as a deterrent.

There are 3 kinds of people who murder

-Premeditated killers who don't think they'll get caught
-People who commit murder in the heat of passion and don't think about the consequences
-Crazy motherfuckers.

None of these groups are deterred by the death penalty.

Screw deterrence.

The first and third examples need to be removed from society and I'm not agreeable to paying for their room and board for life.

However, the third example needs to be well defined. The mentally deranged who truly aren't aware of their actions need help. OTOH I've read accounts of "crazy" people intimating they're just brutal and barbaric with respect to their willingness to do physical harm during the commission of a crime.

For example, the two actors who home invaded that family in Connecticut. They're not mentally deranged, just barbaric.

[TonyF]

if i had any faith in our justice system to not convict and execute an innocent person. however, since i have no faith in our justice system to not convict an innocent person, i don't support the death penalty.

Lots of examples of cut and dried.

We had two guys from Apollo, PA go on a murder spree over 20 years ago. No mistaking they were the perps (Lesko and Travaglia). Why are we still feeding those f**ktards?

[TRB]

^^^

Exactly.

The statistics are correct. The death penalty is not a deterrent.

But removing brutal criminals, those for whom the spoils of a robbery are just icing on the cake; those that plot the demise of another for whatever reason, rather than to work out their problems; and for those who do it simply for the gain; their removal from society makes sense. They should be prevented from doing it again.

[KeithPA]

It's pointless, but it brings up another question.

Some people flee to europe or even canada because they will not extradict if someone is facing a capitol case. Would the same happen now with NJ?

[LittleRedToyota]

We had two guys from Apollo, PA go on a murder spree over 20 years ago. No mistaking they were the perps (Lesko and Travaglia). Why are we still feeding those f**ktards?

like i said, i have no problem with the death penalty for such people. they deserve it, and i don't want to pay for their room and board either.

if there is some way to guarantee that the death penalty will never be used against an innocent person, i'll support it in general as well.

but i can't think of any way to guarantee that.

(or even without a guarantee, just fixing the justice system so that it is actually about finding the truth instead of "winning"...getting rid of politically motivated prosecutions/mandatory minimums/zero tolerance BS/etc...and doing something about ridiculously overworked and understaffed public defender's offices, etc.)

personally, i'd rather keep paying for room and board for 1,000,000 people who really should be put to death than to help pay for the death of even one innocent person.

in general, i am a big believer in the idea that it is better for the state to let 1,000 guilty men go free than to imprison 1 innocent man...and adding the death penalty into the mix only makes adhering to that philosophy even more imperative, imho.

[ChamberedRound]

+1 with Tony. The death penalty may not be a deterrent, but it should be used to get rid of the scum and not have to keep them around at the taxpayer's expense.

[MarcS]

+1 with Tony. The death penalty may not be a deterrent, but it should be used to get rid of the scum and not have to keep them around at the taxpayer's expense.

They were estimating the additional trial expenses of death penalty cases were costing new jersey taxpayers $11 million a year. Housing them may be expensive, but killing them isn't cheap. Really, the prison system needs to be streamlined. There's no reason it should cost as much to keep someone in jail as it does to give them an ivy league education.

If you're really worried about prison expenses, set all the non-violent drug offenders free. There's a lot more money wasted holding those guys then you're spending holding a handful of people who would otherwise be executed.