NJ state legislators preparing to vote on death penalty

Great Debates
1

New Jersey state legislators are set to vote on the status of the death penalty in NJ. The article states that, if this legislation passes, NJ would be the first state to abolish the death penalty since the 1976 reinstatement.

I was unsure of where to start this topic since there are several points that interest me about this situation. Great Debates is likely where it would end up anyway so here it is.

One thing that I am curious about is the response from other states around the union. In discussing this with some classmates earlier, the general consensus was that there would be little to no noticeable effect on other states around the country that actively employ the death penalty. Personally, I feel that it would be impossible for more open debates not to occur in the wake of such legislation.

Do you think that other states would quickly follow suit if one abolished the death penalty? How long would it take for other states to open a more active debate on the issue?

I would also like to know what effect, if any, this will have on states that are more active in the actual execution of accused criminals.

2

[QUOTE=Frosted Glass]
New Jersey state legislators are set to vote on the status of the death penalty in NJ. The article states that, if this legislation passes, NJ would be the first state to abolish the death penalty since the 1976 reinstatement.
[/QUOTE]

So, did the those states that don’t have the death penalty now, not have it before the federal ban? Your article says 37 states have the death penalty, which must mean that 13 don’t. If that just goes from 13 to 14, I don’t know there would be much effect.

But it might inject a discussion of the death penalty into the presidential campaign. Any major candidates anti-? I seem to remember that Obama is, but I’m not sure.

3

[QUOTE=John Mace]
So, did the those states that don’t have the death penalty now, not have it before the federal ban? Your article says 37 states have the death penalty, which must mean that 13 don’t. If that just goes from 13 to 14, I don’t know there would be much effect.

[/QUOTE]

I was under the impression that they (the 13 without the death penalty) did not have it before the ban.

I can see how it looks like it will not have that much of an effect on other states but Kansas, New Hampshire and New York have not executed anyone since 1976 either (South Dakota had an execution in 2007 and the link above goes to data up to 2006). I think that it would at least stir up some debate in states that are in situations similar to NJ.

4

[QUOTE=Frosted Glass]
I can see how it looks like it will not have that much of an effect on other states but Kansas, New Hampshire and New York have not executed anyone since 1976 either (South Dakota had an execution in 2007 and the link above goes to data up to 2006). I think that it would at least stir up some debate in states that are in situations similar to NJ.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think that any New England state has executed anyone since 1976.

5

New York doesn’t have the death penalty either. While the legislature never repealed it the Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional.

6

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
I don’t think that any New England state has executed anyone since 1976.
[/QUOTE]

Texas takes up the slack.

Unfortunately, I think advocating a death penalty ban would be a death sentence on any presidential hopeful. Kerry had to modify his position and advocate the death penalty for “terrorist acts”.

As for the states, even a state as liberal (overall) as CA still has the death penalty, and I don’t see that changing. CA is usually in the forefront of changes like this if they’re going to happen, so I don’t see much movement.

7

[QUOTE=Frosted Glass]
New Jersey state legislators are set to vote on the status of the death penalty in NJ. The article states that, if this legislation passes, NJ would be the first state to abolish the death penalty since the 1976 reinstatement.

I was unsure of where to start this topic since there are several points that interest me about this situation. Great Debates is likely where it would end up anyway so here it is.

One thing that I am curious about is the response from other states around the union. In discussing this with some classmates earlier, the general consensus was that there would be little to no noticeable effect on other states around the country that actively employ the death penalty. Personally, I feel that it would be impossible for more open debates not to occur in the wake of such legislation.

Do you think that other states would quickly follow suit if one abolished the death penalty? How long would it take for other states to open a more active debate on the issue?

I would also like to know what effect, if any, this will have on states that are more active in the actual execution of accused criminals.
[/QUOTE]

I would think it would influence states very little. NJ hasn’t used the death penalty, so removing it from the books would be some house cleaning legislation.

Until a state that has used executions in recent years repeals the death penalty, then I don’t see any point.

Personally, I favor a form of capital punishment, but the way it is conducted in this country is an absolute joke, or it would be a joke if a 55 year old man wasn’t executed for a crime that his 22 year old self committed, or it contained a sense of legitimacy through all of the delays and appeals through state and federal courts.

There is so much emotion and dishonesty on each side that it boggles the mind.

Pro death penalty: It deters crime.

Bullshit. In medieval England more than 100 offenses were punishable by death, yet crime continued. It’s like the seat belt argument; some people think it will never happen to them, so they don’t wear their seat belt despite the evidence otherwise.

Anti-death penalty: We have to pursue every avenue of appeal because an innocent person could be put to death!

Bullshit. If the guy “gets off” with life w/o parole, then these same liberals forget about him and he can spend the next 60 years of his miserable life getting gang raped in prison. What if he was innocent? Well he can go fuck off because he wasn’t executed, so he doesn’t pose a political issue to deal with.

No high standards of review, no getting pro-bono representation from Amnesty International. Just hard dick and bubblegum for the rest of your life. But at least the state didn’t execute you, and these heartfelt, loving liberals have moved on to their next cause.

8

Newsweek had an article on the death penalty a few weeks ago: Injection of Reflection. It mentioned this fact about the use of the death penalty in New Jersey:

9

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
I don’t think that any New England state has executed anyone since 1976.
[/QUOTE]

Connecticut executed Michael Ross in 2005.

10

[QUOTE=jtgain]
Pro death penalty: It deters crime.
[/QUOTE]

Recidivism is low among executed prisoners. Some people are a threat to others, even in prison.

11

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
I don’t think that any New England state has executed anyone since 1976.
[/QUOTE]

Of the New England states, other than Connecticut, which MEBucker mentioned, only New Hampshire has the death penalty.

12

Well that was a lot easier than I would have thought. No more death penalty for NJ.

13

[QUOTE=mks57]
Recidivism is low among executed prisoners. Some people are a threat to others, even in prison.
[/QUOTE]

We kill the innocent every year and some of us are bothered by that. . If that does not bother you,maybe we should execute them when they are arrested. Save money and stop recidivism. We will kill even more wrongly accused but that does not seem to matter.