Civilization comes to and through New Jersey. I hope the Legislators appreciate that they are capable of not only taking the first step, but of taking the lead in helping our entire nation mature and learn to make better, more creative choices.

Well, if they’re not even gonna use it anyway…
I don’t know how I feel about this. On the one hand, I am against the death penalty, but if Ms. Hazard-Johnson is correct and the majority of people are for it…hmm, difficult call.
God bless.

Whether or not a lot of people are for it would depend on how the question is put to them, I think. And whether some awful crime had recently been committed or whether it had recently come out an innocent person had been wrongly executed.
Since that’s the worst thing that can happen, and since really bad people can be imprisoned for life without parole, there’s really no up-side to the death penalty. I doubt many crimes have been not committed because someone stopped and thought “If I do this, I might be executed.” Surely most such crimes are committed by people in the heat of passion or who are dumb enough to think they won’t be caught.

I keep reading that giving a murderer life is less expensive then putting him to sleep. I’d like to see in dollars and cents on paper how this can be so.
Forensic Science is becoming more accurate all the time in many ways. DNA has saved lives of men who were judged to have been murderers, who were sentenced years before this was possible. It has also released people for other crimes that were in for many years for lesser crimes until they had the DNA tests done. Death should only be given if it is defintely proven the person killed a person or people. If they are mentally sick they should receive treatment in Mental hospitals. If the killing was an accident they shouldn’t be given a death sentence. If the killing was because the killer was being abused by a husband or wife, or a child trys to protect themselves they shouldn’t receive the death penalty. All murderers on death row at this time should be given a DNA before they carry out the sentence. If for some reason a DNA isn’t possible they should be given life in prison, and taken off Death Row. Everyone should be judged equally, no exceptions for wealth, race, religion or sexual discrimination.

There are some crimes done that are so horrific that the thought of the person who committed it has, IMO, no right to continue living…even in jail with no parole. But as H22 mentioned, there should be absolutely NO doubt of the person’s guilt. With today’s methods, much doubt can be eliminated. If in doubt, life without parole is OK. My first thought is to side with the victim, who, if a criminal is charged, is usually dead by the hand of the criminal.

I’m confident innocent people have died with absolutely NO doubt of their guilt, at least by anyone who could affect the outcome.
And it’s harder to sell “Thou shalt not kill.” or any version thereof when the state kills. Harder still, of course, when the fed’s idea of foreign policy is shock and awe.
I think if we are to maintain a good government and living environment it will include some things each of us dislikes.

I wasn’t there when the 10 Commandments were composed, but I think the admonition of “Thou shalt not kill”, was meant for the public in their everyday to day life of living, not for huge prisons of 2007 with murderers incarcerated, that have already been on trial for the horrific deeds they committed, and the lives that were ruined or at least damaged for all time in the families, and friends that were left behind to mourn for the rest of their lives. Of course, like Pagansister and I said, only if they are defintely proven the killers.

A country cannot proclaim itself to be “pro-life” while at the same time having the death penalty. Too much time is spent talking about fetuscide and yet you willfully ignore adulticide. Guess “life” is only important until one is born.

When was our country proclaimed Pro-life?? We do claim to have Justice for all, and that HAS to be protected. Peaceful people who are trying to live their lives and bring up their families should be able to do so, and not have killers murder them. Murderers should pay the penalty as the courts see it.

Agreed, Henrietta22!

I subscribe to the Don’t steal as well as Don’t kill rules. Basically, don’t take what you cannot give back. We cannot give bak life, so we should not take it. We ought to be able to ocme up with something better than simply killing someone. One murder does not erase another, it simply makes 2 murders. Easy math, difficult decision.

True jestrfyl. But how does one deal with the victim being snuffed out, while the killer gets to continue his/her life. Sure he/she isn’t exactly living in the lap of luxury but breathing and living. Not the victim.
We have disagreed on this before. I am truly trying to see the situation from your point of view, but it still isn’t working.

“But how does one deal with the victim being snuffed out, while the killer gets to continue his/her life.”
I’d try to get past that. Suppose the killer tortured, then killed the victim. Neither of us want the state involved in torturing people to death, surely; there will always be some kind of asymmetry. I’d hope counseling would be provided the loved ones of the victim.

I have to confess this is not my first inclination. I would prefer that the killer die the same way the victim died. Or, perhpas some other manner of killing that would feel like it was just compensation could be worked out.
However, as much as I appreciate that one-for-one justice, how can one death compensate for two, ten or hundreds? It cannot. Also, we have yet to devise a foolproof way to determine guilt. And even then, as I said, one death does not erase or ease the first, it simply compounds it.
I prefer to hope the best (and expect the worst) for humanity. I never loose the hope that, given the opportunity someone will find a better way to deal with heinous crimes. I don’t have the answer, but a second killing is no better than the first. From what I have read (and thankfully, no personal experience with this), no one really feels better after the execution.

I was friends with a prosecuting attorney years ago who explained to me that while rehabilitation is nice, the ultimate purpose of a judicial sentence is punishment; an individual commits a crime, and their sentence upon being found guilty is the price they must pay for whatever violation/violations of the law they perpetrated. Given this was one man’s perspective amidst a great number of opinions, I tend to concur with him.
For starters, one cannot toss this argument back to the decalogue (10 commandments) by insisting that to be consistent, “thou shalt not kill” includes ALL types of life-taking, including homicide, state-sponsored punitive execution, killing as the result of war, etc. The hebrew of the “thou shalt not murder” concerns unjustified homicide by individuals, NOT death that results from punitive execution related to a criminal trespass.
Back to the modern era, there are some crimes so grizzly, so inconscienibly inhuman that life in prison without parole seems wholly insufficient. Are ya’ll aware of the tremedous number of offences that result in life without parole? It’s something of a “glass-ceiling” of punishment, if you will. The social deviant who murders one of his coworkers gets the exact same punishment as the psycopath who has tortured and brutally murdered his previous five girlfriends. To utilize the exact same form of punishment for both men seems to imply that their crimes were qualitatively equivalent, which they obviously were not.
Everyone seems to agree that felons forfeit rights after the commission of a crime. A great number of us are simply stating that certain crimes are indeed great enough to require the ultimate forfeiture of one’s life; said another way, you break the societies rules to such a tremendous extent, you wholly give up your right to participate in society.
These violent criminals will never participate in society ever agin behind bars. HOWEVER, the heinousness of certain crimes MERITS the ultimate loss of one’s freedoms: the forfeiture of their life. This is not a decision based upon heat of passion, nor is it premeditated; capital punishment is a judicial decision based upon due process and as determined by evidence… awarding criminals the death penalty is a slow, deliberate process that bears no resemblance to casual murder. THUS, punitive execution is DIFFERENT from murder. This is not murder for murder. To imply such a thing is to equivocate crime and punishment.
FYI THIS IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPIC MATTER, but for whoever made the comparison, many pro-lifers (including this one) make the very qualitative distinction between the lives of unborn innocents and matured criminals… the former hasn’t even been allowed to engage their humanity yet, and the latter has astonishingly abused theirs (apples and oranges).

I hear and agree with many points of view on both sides. No one wants to let a rampaging murderer get away with anything. Yet, IMO, there’s one part of this argument that bothers me. I think everyone will agree that this person needs to be punished in some way. Just because someone is executed, does that mean they have received the ultimate punishment? We assume this, but a lot of that has to do with one’s belief. Because the larger part of the population of this country believes in a Christian ethic, most believe the murderer will be judged and go to hell. But, because we don’t know definitely what will happen, I tend to side with the life in prison part of the argument. At least if a loved one of mine would be horribly tortured and murdered, I know how this individual will suffer, not if they will. If you look at different spiritual beliefs, they could be reincarnated to a lower life form, they could even cease to exist. Not everyone believes in the burn in hell part.
If I was on death row, I would much rather take an injection and take my chances with the afterlife or lack of it, rather than become a living pariah to all who have known me. Look at the example of Timothy McVey, the guy from the Oklahoma City bombing. He was young and knew he was never going to get out of that little cell for the rest of his life. He actually gave up his right to due process and SPED UP his excecution!
For the posting above about how life in prison can cost less than the death sentence, you can google the subject. Someone did a study on the two and most has to do with the cost of a capital murder trial. When someone is on death row, by the time they are done with their appeal process, it’s something like 20 years later they are put to death. That’s 20 years of the taxpayers paying for the cost of a capital murder trial, which is cheaper than housing someone for 40 years in a cell.

“The social deviant who murders one of his coworkers gets the exact same punishment as the psycopath who has tortured and brutally murdered his previous five girlfriends. To utilize the exact same form of punishment for both men seems to imply that their crimes were qualitatively equivalent, which they obviously were not.”
So, Michaeel, you are definitely against the death penalty for murdering a coworker but for it for murdering five former girlfriends. Where, between those two, do you draw the line, and why?
“For starters, one cannot toss this argument back to the decalogue (10 commandments) by insisting that to be consistent, “thou shalt not kill” includes ALL types of life-taking, including homicide, state-sponsored punitive execution, killing as the result of war, etc. The hebrew of the “thou shalt not murder” concerns unjustified homicide by individuals, NOT death that results from punitive execution related to a criminal trespass.”
So you are saying the Bible was improperly translated, and thus that we should not give credibility to what’s in it? Good for you!

Un-named poster (why do I get so many of these???),
“So you are saying the Bible was improperly translated, and thus that we should not give credibility to what’s in it? Good for you!”
Any student of foreign language understands that whenever you translate, their is an almost unavoidable level of interpretation involved. Read 5 different Bible translations, chances are that some or many parts, while saying similar things, are not word-for-word equivilents. As I indeed have studied Hebrew academically, I can vouch for what I said. Your dramatic leap suggesting that one shouldn’t allow for the credibility of the Biblical text is flawed logically (as that is obviously NOT what I was saying) and value-driven (as you obviously would support such a discrediting).
As for my hypothetical example, I was attempting to illustrate, by both quantity and quality, how two separate criminals who commit two vastly varieties of crimes (though, given, I should perhaps have not used murder-one for both offenses) could be punished equally without capital punishment. This example is not to demonstrate whether both individuals should receive the death penalty, but rather that one individual deserves a greater punishment than the other. Without capital punishment, both individuals would get the maximum of only life in prison wihtout parole.

Sorry I’ve forgotten to sign my work so often. I think I’m both the un-named posters.
You are now saying translations change things, which I certainly agree with. But you still make claims for the truth of the Bible. Well, translations change things, copying changes things, editing changes things, choosing among various texts what will constitute a canon with political and religious power in mind changes things. Yet you still claim credibility for such a document.
“I was attempting to illustrate, by both quantity and quality, how two separate criminals who commit two vastly varieties of crimes (though, given, I should perhaps have not used murder-one for both offenses) could be punished equally without capital punishment.”
Didn’t work, did it. You can have capital punishment and still have two very different crimes punished the same. But with capital punishment you can also have the state kill an innocent person.

And, in particular, you said earlier translation changed the meaning of “Thou shalt not kill.” quite significantly. If we can’t trust something so seemingly simple as one of the 10C’s, what can we trust about the Bible?

Nnmns, even German has individual words that are not best translated in a word-for-word fashion but as concepts. Some languages have numerous individual words for snow… soft snow, wet snow, light-&-fluffy snow… whereas English has one word, “snow,” and must use adjectives to describe which type of snow we’re referring to.
Hebrew is a Semitic language. You’re running away with my statement that all translations contain elements of interpretation. From this faulty premise you conclude that no credibility is possible for such a text. This faulty argument is your own, as it most certainly is not what I maintain. As is often the case, there is a plethora of Biblical commentary that enumerates passages that might be difficult or ambiguous. The commentary is not required by any means, but it is usually helpful in the face of those who might otherwise misconstrue certain Biblical statements. But on this let me be clear: translations don’t change the meaning of a given passage or document, but they sometimes leave enough room for people to.
FYI, for an example of one single document being read in a number of different, often times competing ways, I reference you to the Constitution.
As it relates to the topic, it is indeed possible for two different crimes to be punished in the same fashion (e.g. life in prison). However, capital punishment at least affords the OPTION of a more sever punishment for a more severe crime.

Michael, if the Bible was to be translated correctly, it should have been translated with the caveats. It was instead, apparently translated in error or for dramatic effect. In either case it’s clear one of the seemingly simplest and more important statements in the Bible, “Thou shalt not kill.”, was translated in error (according to you).
So if it’s to be understood correctly, in your interpretation, it has to be accompanied by some commentary that agrees with your interpretation. Most people surely don’t accompany their Bibles with such commentaries; I don’t see them in motel rooms for instance. And if they have commentaries how are they to know whether they are the correct ones?
So you’ve made a strong, if inadvertent, case that the Bible is not to be trusted. My congratulations.

Here’s an example of a situation where a bunch of people were sentenced to the same penalty, death, and surely most of us would agree at least one guy didn’t deserve it and only escaped it because a LOT of people got involved; something that doesn’t happen all that often.
And on death row he’d been denied butter for years; don’t ask me why. But if you want to differentiate punishments there are all sorts of things people can be denied.

Nnmns,
You stated: “So you’ve made a strong, if inadvertent, case that the Bible is not to be trusted. My congratulations.”
If this is the conclusion that you have somehow gleaned from my comments, then by all means, live comfortably in your ignorance.

Dear pagansister,
You ask a tough question: “But how does one deal with the victim being snuffed out, while the killer gets to continue his/her life.”
I will have to answer it with another: What does taking yet another life do for the victim? For society?
I agree that it is both unfair and very difficult, but an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves us all blind and toothless.
There have been (and in W’s Texas, there continues to be) FAR too many innocent people put to death by the State already. I hope New jersey doesn’t succumb.

R.Ex-Pentecostal:
What does taking yet another life do for the victim? Obviously nothing. For society? Guarrantees that that person won’t take yet another life. If I had had a relative killed by someone, I think I’d feel a lot better if indeed they weren’t given food, shelter and medical care for the rest of their life while my loved one never got the chance to live a full life. Very fortunately I have never had to experience that kind of horror.
I’m only advocating capital punishement for PROVEN guilt…any doubt at all spares the life. Yes, unfortunately innocent folks have been put to death. Not good. But also I’m sure many guilty ones have paid for taking the life of someone else.
When I start to think of horrible crimes committed by people, to children, and others, I have no sympathy for the criminal. Key word is PROVEN guilty. 20 years or so on death row should be enough time to prove, in most cases, guilt. Death sentences aren’t carried out swiftly in this country.
Believe me when I tell you that you and others have given me their points of view on how wrong capital punishment is. I’m still trying to wrap my head around their opinions. I respect them, but am very much involved in the victim and those who are left behind.

Michael,
Valiant tries (on the issue of translation and commentary), but I fear you’re wasting your effort, gallant though it was…

They say the confederate soldiers were gallant but look what they were fighting for!

Jestr, We ought to be able to come up with something better than simply killing someone.
How about giving them a brain transplant?
Ex Pent. What does taking yet another life do for the victim?
Like MICHAEL said, it punishes him. It protects the future unsuspecting innocent from being killed as PS said. For people who believe in God it sends the persons soul to the other side and the Powers of the Universe will take it from there. Reincarnationists believe the soul will have to learn what it didn’t in its last incarnation, and that the soul will pick his next incarnation to do just that. Early Christians believed in reincarnation, and much of that belief shows in scripture. Yes, I know keep rejecting it, but new Bibical finds are showing this aspect and scholars are studying them.

I support the death penalty. My brother-in-law was brutally murdered in front of his wife and children. Their car was filled with blood. My niece and nephew still have nightmares. The 17 year old murderer got a life sentence for the murder done with a rambo knife. He has lost out on parol chances due to bad behavior in prison. It was the second death caused by him. The first was reckless vehicular homicide. He got off as a minor. The death penalty has a valid place. Richard

I’m sorry about your family; that was terrible and the guy needs to be severly punished and should not be elligible for parole, it seems to me. But that doesn’t mitigate the certainty that if the death penalty is available, some innocent people will die by the hand of the state.

Richard, I’m sorry about your brother-in-laws brutal death, and what this has cost your family. That’s why I support the death penalty for proven murderers, also.

Your horrible story, Richard, is the reason I am not against the death penalty, for those who have been PROVEN guilty.

We here in nj never used it anyway that was the crime here,criminals could do the most evil thing imaginable no death penalty,where in states that use it Texas,Alabama the violent crime rates are down 1 third than other states that dont use it,I think this is a big mistake and always has been,like I said we never used it any way,in a state with so much coruption,from Govenors to mayor constantly getting caught in stings,and we wait for there Trials,a State with so much tax payer money we cannot kill the worst of the worst,the animals who rape and kill people in our families,this is the worst thing tha has happend here,far as justice goes ever and stay that way until we find and vote in a govenor thats not corrupt and not gay and giving jobs to to his lovers,this is just another reason this state the butt of jokes and will always be,when so many good peolpe live here,and we cant handle the death penalty ,just onather JOKE!,when the next litle kid is sexualy abused,or raped then murdered,you think the parent will want this person breathing eating being housed most likely in solitary wich cost more money for extra guards,I don’t maybe people will not be able to let there kids outside or around the blockto see a friend,IHAVE TO STOP NOW JUST TOO DISGUSTED

Tony, years ago in CA we went through the same thing that is going on now. Sorry for the killer, maybe they are making too many mistakes and putting the wrong person to death. I was probably in my early 30′s, and voted to stop the death penalty along with the majority of the state, and over the years the crimes soared! I don’t remember if I was in my late 40′s or early 50′s, and we all voted to reinstate it again. It is necessary, unfortunately, but there are forensic tests, DNA, incl. now to make it accurate or very nearly so. As far as a gay governer, etc. There are just as many heterosexual womanizers, and they give jobs to whoever they want, too. Your dislike for GLBT doesn’t make sense anymore. Everything else you said does.