New Jersey bans death penalty

[onehandle]

Source: AP

TRENTON, N.J. - Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed into law Monday a measure that abolishes the death penalty, making New Jersey the first state in more than four decades to reject capital punishment.

The bill, approved last week by the state's Assembly and Senate, replaces the death sentence with life in prison without parole.

"This is a day of progress for us and for the millions of people across our nation and around the globe who reject the death penalty as a moral or practical response to the grievous, even heinous, crime of murder," Corzine said.

The measure spares eight men on the state's death row. On Sunday, Corzine signed orders commuting the sentences of those eight to life in prison without parole.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_new_jersey

[tekisui]

1. Kick for NJ!!!

Every state will follow suit.

Some may take decades. It is the right thing to do.

[ckramer]

2. I'm not getting this

Why can't a real killer be killed?

Where is the justice?

[pleah]

6. It's not practical when some of the people you put to death are innocent.

When bushdicky was running for reelection, tweety,(matthews) had a guy from TX that just barely got out of jail before being executed, on his show. It took him several years to PROVE his innocents.

Bush put more people to death in TX than any other governor in the US.

[brentspeak]

10. This is NJ we're talking about, not TX

[ckramer]

58. Then don't put innocent people in deathrow

There are many scientific tools to achieve that.

We can send men to the moon, but can't identify the real killer?

[LostinVA]

61. Down the rabbit hole -- AGAIN

[alarimer]

62. There are a number of recent cases in which men on death row were exonerated.

Over 100 total since the death penalty was reinstated.

http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/941a6d5b3ad55cd485256b05008143fd/3c7e49809ae337b885256bdb005185af?OpenDocument

[ckramer]

65. Find out why this was happening and fix it the system

How could people get away with throwing innocent into death row?

For those who are responsible for deadly error like this must be going to jail themselves.

But abandoning death penalty is not the answer.

[LeftyMom]

92. Somehow every other civilized country gets along fine without it.

Since our murder rate is much higher than any other first world nation, I'd guess life without state execution goes on.

[customerserviceguy]

111. I'm with you

There have indeed been people on death row exonerated by DNA evidence, but conversely, there are people on death row who have been shown by DNA evidence beyond a shadow of even a reasonable doubt, to be guilty of the crimes they have been charged with and convicted of.

DNA is a two-edged sword, it removes doubt like no other thing ever did.

[Solon]

134. That doesn't mean every case is that rock solid...

There are people on death row that are sitting their after being convicted in circumstantial cases, where there is no direct evidence, DNA or otherwise. What do you do with them?

[customerserviceguy]

231. Did they get a fair trial?

If so (and there are many places where they would have), then carry out the sentence. If not, then the appeals process is there.

You're going to see many more cases be 'solid' in the future, the jury pool has seen enough CSI-type shows to want DNA evidence before they convict in a capital case.

[Orsino]

251. Abandoning the death penalty is the only way...

...to keep the innocents alive until their innocence can be proven.

How many people, and exactly which, are you asking to die unjustly before some fix at a later date? How will such a fix ever be proven to be airtight?

[Mojambo]

15. You're not seeking justice. You're seeking vengeance.

There's nothing wrong with vengeance, necessarily, but I don't think the State should be engaged in it.

[ckramer]

34. Are you saying t he people should take

law into their own hand?

The whole point of being a state is to administer justice.

Now NJ takes the easy route.

What kind of chaotic world are we living in?

[Mojambo]

35. If you want vengeance, yeah, you do it yourself.

You don't make ME participate, and by sanctioning the state to do it you're making ALL of us killers whether we want to or not.

[ckramer]

37. So okay, are you pro-gun?

I hope you do if you want people do it themselves.

Actually I don't mind doing it if the law allow me.

[Mojambo]

39. I never said I wanted people doing it themselves. I don't want people exacting vengeance at all.

But if you, personally, think that the only way you can have justice is by exacting a revenge killing then I'd ask you not to involve all the rest of us in it.

[ckramer]

51. rest of us?

There has to be a cleansing mechanism for a society to maintain healthy.

Death penalty is necessary for real killers.

[Mojambo]

56. I don't share your sentiment.

Cleansing society?

Your rhetoric begins to make me a tad uneasy.

Good day to you.

[CTLawGuy]

66. perhaps these nations would be more to your liking

China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan...

they all believe in the "cleansing mechanism". I'm sure their societies are much safer than ours.

[ckramer]

71. I'm not sure about Sudan, but

if you look up the criminal statistics in the rest...they indeed are safer than ours.

[CTLawGuy]

77. well if you believe that

I wish you good luck in getting your immigrant visa to any of those countries.

But I'd like to see said statistics if you have them.

[ckramer]

84. If you look for statitics of crimes

Look no further ...

USA is #1 in the world in every crime category that you can think of...murder, rape, robbery, and violent attacks...

[CTLawGuy]

85. and the US

is a death penalty country (mostly)

that kind of undermines your point doesn't it???

[ckramer]

89. No

USA is a death penalty country in name only. Not only real criminals get no punishment for their crimes with the current justice system, they are now even encouraged on it by banning death penalty all together.

Justice didn't get serve because of that.


The result is, and I'm not surprised - crime country #1 in the whole world.

[CTLawGuy]

97. huh?

we are responsible for the 4th most executions in the world in 2005, and the 6th most in 2006. How does that make us a "death penalty country in name only?"

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=127&scid=30#interexec

[ckramer]

126. In that I mean USA sometimes executing those who shouldn't be killed

while left behind those who should be.

Inconsistency in every state.

[LanternWaste]

168. South Africa has a higher rate of violence

South Africa has a higher rate (per capita) of violence, gun violence, aggravated assault and property crime (as per World Almanac 2007-- World Almanac Publication Group, NY 2007).

[ckramer]

214. And that made you very proud (presume your number was correct) ?

to compare USA to South America?

[EstimatedProphet]

183. And your wanting to be able to hunt down people you think are killers is going to help?

[JerseygirlCT]

241. Sure. Unless you happen to be a woman, or non-native, or

Christian, or Jewish, or... name your basic unentitled group. Then life is pretty damned dangerous.

There's no in-between in those countries. You're either the priviledged male power group, or you're out of luck.

Go enjoy, by all means, if that's to your taste.

[MH1]

Death penalty = "cleansing mechanism"??

Hardly.

[LanternWaste]

167. I'm afraid I don't understand...

"There has to be a cleansing mechanism for a society to maintain healthy..."


I'm afraid I don't understand what the precise and measurable differences on society there would be between locking up a killer for life versus killing him/her. In both, the end result is that the killer is not able to strike again (to maintain a healthy society as you postulate...).


"Death penalty is necessary for real killers."

Not a necessity as other counties with more enlightened criminal justice systems and no death penalties have illustrated to us.

[LostinVA]

41. Good God

Down the rabbit hole.

[LostinVA]

40. How the hell is life without parole "chaotic" or "easy"?

That is justice.

Strawman.

[ckramer]

52. Are you willing to pay for it personally?

I don't.

[LostinVA]

59. It's CHEAPER than executing someone

Quit making so many strawmen -- cattle won't be able to bed down in comfort.

[ckramer]

64. Justice should not be calculated in dollar and cents

Justice should be carried out regardless of the cost.

[CTLawGuy]

83. justice? or revenge?

NT

[ckramer]

86. I am thinking these two words too

Justice...revenge...justice...revenge...

For victims, if you don't get revenge, can you get justice?

I just couldn't think of any way on how to get justice without getting revenge.

Help me out.

[CTLawGuy]

96. well justice is not the same as revenge

or we would allow victims to retaliate against their aggressors directly.

The whole point of the criminal justice system is to protect society from people who act outside certain norms of conduct. that is why we incarcerate and try to correct the behavior of criminals. The criminal system is about society (with some interests of the victim accounted for) vs. the criminal.

Justice is served when the person who committed the crime is removed from society for a period long enough to ensure they will not likely harm anyone else. For some people that means they should never be let back into society. Killing is NOT necessary to separate someone from society permanently.

Justice is a RATIONAL process of protecting society through incarceration and correction.
Revenge is an EMOTIONAL process designed to wreak against the aggressor that which the agressor has wrought on the victim.

The death penalty is uniquely emotional. It is designed for the emotional satisfaction of victims and nothing else. Victims are justifiably irrational about the whole process. They have suffered great loss. But their irrationality should not extend to the justice system.

They would not torture a criminal because a victim demanded it.
They would not knowingly execute an innocent person rather than take the risk of the case never being solved.
They would not rape a criminal's innocent child while the criminal was forced to watch, becuase it might bring "closure" for a child rape.

The death penalty is inappropriate for protecting society's interests when considering the ever-present and inevitable potential for mistakes, and the irreversibility of mistakes, and the moral reprehensibility of a government taking the life of a person.

[Mojambo]

87. Weren't YOU the one who brought out cost as a concern? n/t

[ckramer]

90. No

I brought out the cost factor on justice not being served, not on justice being served.

That's the difference.

[Mojambo]

93. And apparently it's only justice if your bloodlust is sated.

I will hope for your eventual enlightenment, sir.

[polmaven]

103. Which is it?

:shrug:

First, in post #52, you state you are not willing to pay for life without parole....But when it is pointed out that that is actually CHEAPER than imposing the death penalty, well, then....Justice should be carried out regardless of the cost......Justice should be carried out regardless of the cost.

:shrug:

The death penalty is simply immoral. It's as simple as that. It is revenge, not justice. It is state sponsored murder. All of the civilized countries EXCEPT the United States have recognized that.

Actually, we did recognize it for a time. Then legalized murder was reinstated by SCOTUS.

And please don't tell us about how it is a deterrent. The state of Texas executes more people than any other state in the country. It also maintains the highest murder rate in the country, soooo.....Well, there goes THAT theory.

[ckramer]

112. Let me clarify -

What I was trying to say is that I'm not willing to pay for the cost of putting a murderer in jail for life, for the reason that it does not serve the purpose of justice - first, victims getting no revenge, and secondly, increasing of taxpayers' financial burden for a wrong reason.

life without parole is not justice.

[EstimatedProphet]

185. Victims shouldn't get revenge. They should get justice.

The fact that you want revenge says a lot about you.

[superduperfarleft]

105. This debating thing must be new to you.

First, you claim that human beings are capable of administering a justice system that guarantees 100% accuracy when it comes to guilt. When it's pointed out, with examples, that this is false, you turn to the DP as a deterrent with cries of "OMG SOCIETY WILL COLLAPSE!!!11" When it's pointed out that other countries on our planet demonstrate that a society can function just fine without a death penalty, you backpedal and start trying to argue cost. When it's demonstrated to you that it costs far more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life, you backpedal on that and revert to meaningless platitudes about "justice." I'm getting dizzy trying to follow your "argument."

Either you're drunk, english is not your first language, or you're just randomly hitting keys hoping that a coherent thought comes out somewhere. Keep trying.

[ckramer]

113. All you need to do is stop putting words in my mouth

The modern scientific technologies afford us to administer a justice system that guarantees 100% accuracy. That's eventual goal and reasonably achievable. As I pointed out, this is much easier than sending men to moon.

Have we tried? No.

All you want to do is abandoning it quickly, as NJ just did, taking the easy route.

I call it lazy, irresponsible, and conduct unbecoming of being an authority.

One of the big reasons voters don't want to put democrats into power.

[magellan]

123. Abandon it quickly, as NJ just did?

Did you even read the article? First state to abolish the death penalty in FORTY years.

The death penalty is proved not to deter murderers. All it does is give the victim's family some sense of having been avenged, which is pretty barbaric in itself. That's why, as someone else pointed out, all civilized Western countries abandoned it a long time ago.

Every day I see indications this country has more in common with its enemies than not. No wonder most Americans don't care how many innocent people die in its lust for revenge, on all fronts, and are then surprised when the violence is revisited upon them tenfold.

[ckramer]

137. The point is that death penalty is about justice via revenge

So we should not consider if it's deterring crime or not. It's irrelevant to the third party. It's between the victim and their murderer, administered by the state.

You have got it wrong. Murderers are not innocent people. They are capable of raping you then putting you to death.

[magellan]

142. Justice via revenge

Do you hear even yourself? You sound like a savage.

Some innocents are accused as murderers and will always be, regardless of forensics. Because there will always be people who'll abuse their power and railroad suspects for their own gain.

Kind of like Guantanamo.

Kind of like Iraq.

[ckramer]

144. Actually I agree with you

It means that the justice system has serious defects that need to be fixed, quickly.

But meanwhile, why do you have mercy on serial killers and mass murderers that you know for sure that are guilty?

[magellan]

147. I don't have mercy

I think they should be locked away and not see a tv or a gym or a kind face for the rest of their lives. Stick them in a cell with a candle and let them read, if they can. Why pay for the all the luxuries for these people?

[ckramer]

196. Be careful magallan

By locking them away and giving no TV or gym with no electricity someone here is going to call you cruel and no heart.

[magellan]

198. I admit, the candle was a bit much

The conditions I'm talking about are similar to what children endure when their parents tell them "No tv, no music, no going out with your friends, go to your room and think about it". Only for much longer.

Personally I think killing someone for their crime is letting them off easy. And "an eye for an eye" is no way to manage a civilized society.

[Selatius]

250. Your faith is misplaced. No human institution is 100 percent accurate, not even with technology.

With humans comes politics. With politics comes the potential for an institution to become blind to the real facts. Many people have been wrongly convicted because of public pressure for "results." Many people have been wrongly convicted because of race or ideology. These are things technology can never solve, at least not in our lifetimes. There will always be jury tampering, corrupt DAs, shoddy witness testimony, and many other things. It's human nature. Technology can't "correct" that. You place too much faith in technology to overcome something that is essentially a condition of being human: Imperfection.

I am morally opposed to the death penalty. It's about revenge, not justice. They are not the same. Revenge is selfish in nature. It seeks satisfaction. Justice seeks to protect society at large and to reform people if they can be reformed. The aim of justice is not satisfaction as a result. However, reform is not possible if there is no room given for atonement on apart of the convicted. The death penalty takes away the chance for atonement.

[ckramer]

259. It is easy to be on the high horse,

if the one get killed is not the one you know or love.

It's so easy to say "I'm morally opposed to death penalty" if you are not personally involved in the tragedy.

Murderers take away lives and make the life of victim's love ones miserable and hopeless.

Murderers terrorize, destabilize the society. They are domestic terrorists that deserved to be cut down.

Revenge, what's wrong with justified revenge? Since when revenge has become a bad name?

Interestingly, every killer wants a chance for atonement after the fact. Isn't that strange? Trying so much and using every imaginable trick under the sun to try to escape the hot chair. Obviously they are so very much afraid of death. Yet so many people here have a pre-determined mentality that death penalty has no deterrent effect.

Technology is not everything, but it helps a lot in avoiding errors. You are right about the human imperfection. But we can't give up the ultimate punishment for law-breakers because of human imperfection. That's wrong; that's coward. That's a big blow to the morality of every good law abiding citizen.

[Selatius]

262. No, it's not. As a member of a family who survived a brutal war. I can attest it is not.

I have already laid out the differences between revenge and justice. If you call yourself a Christian man, then you would know revenge gained a "bad name" since Jesus laid down his teachings on atonement. I don't know if you are a Christian man, and it is not my business to assert it as such, but I lay it out there as a fairly common example all or nearly all are familiar with.

For the argument that the death penalty has a deterrent effect to be true, one would have to demonstrate that crime rates in nations that abolished the death penalty rose after the death penalty was abolished. I have seen no evidence that crime rates in nations such as Germany, Japan, France, and others in the EU have incontrovertibly risen after the abolition of the death penalty.

If you are going to argue that we need the death penalty as a form of deterrence, I'm afraid you won't find much evidence to support the claim, given that despite the death penalty in the US, crime rates in the US outstrip crime rates in other nations of the industrialized world including those I specifically mentioned.

If you are going to argue that we need the death penalty despite the fact that innocent people have been put on death row, then you have yet to demonstrate why there should not be a nation-wide moratorium on the death penalty until there is a 100 percent guarantee that the innocent have been spared death.

If you are going to argue that we need the death penalty because it is a moral thing to do, your argument simply falls upon your own ethical code vs. my own ethical code. I am not above the use of violence or force in certain specific instances such as self-defense or the right to revolution after all peaceful remedies have been exhausted or the right to wage a defensive war against an invader.

As a result, I divide killing into necessary and unnecessary killing (or ethical killing and unethical killing if you wish). The death penalty is an unnecessary killing. If the person has already been isolated away from society and is secured in a prison cell, there is no reason to kill him. To have the death penalty then would be unnecessary or unethical, and it's even more unethical given the fact that there are innocent people on death row. I will not tolerate even one innocent person being put to death simply because one wants to put to death others who are guilty. That is unethical.

I am a relativist as far as killing goes. I readily admit that, and I will stand by it. An absolutist would be a pacifist who is against all killing.

You, too, are also a relativist as far as killing goes. Unlike me, however, you wish to kill where I find it unethical.

[ckramer]

267. Yes you are articulate, but have not convinced me

So is the principle of "an eye for an eye" from the Bible that is familiar by all. Revenge is good as long as you are hitting the right target (=justice). Denying revenge bring justice, you throw all the law of past 200 years out of the window .

The argument that death penalty has no deterrent effect is bogus. It's just common sense that for everyone under the sun, to survive is the first instinct. Death is the first thing one is to avoid by all means in a civilized society no matter what. If crime rates in those nations you mentioned after the abolition of death penalty did not rise, one should not logically attribute to it.

High crime rates in USA is due to its unfair nature of the society - winner takes all, losers let die. It has nothing to do with execution rates of death penalty.

Yes, maybe it does fall upon my ethical code vs. your ethical code. But there has be a prevailing one.

Your concern that there are innocent people on death row is fine and I agree. I didn't say there are none. My morality of prohibiting killing innocent excluding them in the first place. The goal is to improve the system so that no innocent will be executed. Stop execution (but not abandoning it) until the system is fixed and 100% safe, I have no problem with that.

The difference between you and me is that you are not even want to kill 100% surely identified killers like Jesse Timmendequas, Scott Peterson, or Seung-Hui Cho. That's wrong and dangerous to the victims (no closure, life without parole is a lie), to taxpayers (life without parole is not a lie), therefore to the society. Nothing good would come out of that kind of foolish love for criminals, really.

[Selatius]

274. Now, it's up to you to provide empirical evidence the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

Of course, everybody has a survival instinct. That much is known and is not disputed. What is disputed is the numbers. Provide the crime numbers to back up your claim. For you to assert it has a deterrent effect, you must provide at least three cases where a criminal has said he avoided such and such crime because of the death penalty. I await your numbers.

Again, I must strike the difference between you and me as far as unnecessary killing, and I repeat it again for you such that you are absolutely certain where I stand on the issue. If the person is already imprisoned and incapacitated, then further killing is unnecessary, as I have said. Killing him becomes unnecessary as far as ensuring justice. No, justice and revenge are not the same thing, as I have already laid out in my previous post, but which you seem to have ignored.

As far as killers whose guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, I simply refer you back to my position on necessary and unnecessary killing. If the convict is, again, incapacitated and isolated away in a prison cell, he is no further threat to the society or any single person, especially with life without parole, and since you just had to go and mention "taxpayers" in your previous post, I must reiterate that the evidence is incontrovertibly clear that the death penalty is not cheaper than life without parole, that it does not save taxpayers money.

Yet if you're going to argue in favor of the death penalty on grounds of saving taxpayers money, I must point out how insanely vulgar and offensive it is for anyone to even dare to weigh justice in dollars and cents.

And I also find it insulting that you think life in prison without parole is considered "love" for criminals, as if prison life is tremendously easy or a cake walk. What an absurd idea that prison life is easy. The only people who push that kind of rubbish are people who've either never been in one or watched one up close.

[ckramer]

275. Insulting?

The destination of the feeling of being insulted and violated, being emotionally hurt should go to the victims and their family under the no-death-penalty system. But obviously nobody cares about them.

Pretty much this system conveys to the victims this message - "you were fucked. Tough. You were in the wrong place and wrong time. There is really nothing the system can help you with. The killer gets to live, sorry. Not your love one though, s/he's dead. Too bad." The impression is - the criminal is more loved than the victim he killed.

This is no justice.

No, I reject the notion of that imprison, isolation and incapacitation (life without parole) are equivalent to the punishment for the murderous crime; furthermore, that whether he is of no further threat to the society or not is irrelevant. The point is that the murderer needs to be punished, properly, in this case - death.

I don't have the numbers, and it's self evident IMO. If you can't dispute humans' survival instinct, the default is positive. Look at Scott Peterson, how many intricate schemes and excuses he had devised prior to the murderous act? Apparently, the hopeful goal was getting away with the murder.

Please don't feel insulted. Anyone who are against death penalty for identified killers like Jesse Timmendequas, Scott Peterson, or Seung-Hui Cho are deserved to be called "lovers of murderers." There are no better names for them on this.

[Skittles]

277. there are plenty of people personally affected by murder

who are against the death penalty - they don't see how murder solves anything. And resorting to murder is cowardice in itself - no matter WHO is doing it.

[Esra Star]

20. Killing killers because they kill is a closed loop.

The killing will never end.

[fujiyama]

44. Because the death penalty is capricious and very arbitrarily applied

I'll say that on the face of it, the desire for vengeance is tempting.

But if you've looked in detail at the number of people on death row that are later cleared, it shows that the system does not work. The state cannot be "accidentally" murdering people.

Also, we can see that the death penalty is operated, under the whims of those administering it - and it is irreversible. And ultimate it's a matter of values. We as a society should not be killing people. Most other developed nations have come to that conclusion. It is time we do too.

[pberq]

48. The Death of Innocents

I read this book, and what an eye-opener!

http://www.deathofinnocents.net/innocents.html

. . .The book contains the stories of two men I believe to be innocent who were executed and whom I accompanied to their deaths. The stories are going to break your heart. Then there's the story of the Supreme Court and the appeals courts which deny constitutional rights and rubber stamp death sentences without ever allowing a fresh hearing of the evidence. I encountered Justice Antonin Scalia in the New Orleans airport (would you believe he goes duck hunting with my brother Louie in Louisiana?). My encounter with him opens the chapter entitled "The Machinery of Death." The last chapter is called "The Death of Innocence" and tells stories of jurors and prosecutors and judges and wardens and politicians who get tainted and corrupted by the death penalty. In the end, with government killings snaring both innocent and guilty alike, we all lose our innocence.

Sister Helen's website:

http://www.prejean.org/

. . .Her book Dead Man Walking was on the New York Times bestseller list for 31 weeks. It was also on the International bestseller list. It has been translated into ten different languages.

S. Helen’s second book, The Death of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions, was published in December 2004. In it, she tells the story of two men, Dobie Gillis Williams and Joseph O’Dell, whom she accompanied to their executions. She believes both of them were innocent. In The Death of Innocents she takes the reader through all the evidence, including evidence the juries never heard either due to the incompetence of the defense lawyers or the rigid formalities of court procedure. S. Helen examines how flaws inextricably entwined in the death penalty system inevitably lead to innocent people being executed and render the system unworkable . ..

I heard Sister Helen speak in person about two years ago, and it was quite and experience - not a dry eye in the audience of about 400 people - and this is a very conservative area.

[freedom fighter jh]

49. If killing is wrong in the first place, then . . .

where is the justice in killing the killer? It's just more of the same evil.

Tit for tat isn't justice.

[ckramer]

80. Not all killings are wrong mind you

like killing terrorists using guided missiles...

Like killing Nazi Germans using B-52...

Like killing Japanese using atomic bombs...

Like killing a murderer using a needle...

They were all justified.

If it's justified, it's justice.

[superduperfarleft]

104. And I bet you thought that post was so insightful.

:eyes:

[PittPoliSci]

150. the same reason why rapists don't get raped...

oh wait...i guess they sorta do sometimes.

oh well.

[Alexander]

177. Well I guess if you like killing people...

there isn't much to get.

[Ellen Forradalom]

188. Justice is more than about vengeance for the victims.

It encompasses that but has larger aims. It about upholding society's values and ensuring its continued functioning by deterrence, rehabilitation and punishment. NJ believes these aims can be achieved by means other than the death penalty. I happen to agree.

[ckramer]

3. "grievous, even heinous, crime of murder"

"This is a day of progress for us and for the millions of people across our nation and around the globe who reject the death penalty as a moral or practical response to the grievous, even heinous, crime of murder," Corzine said.


Is he saying that the victims deserved their fate but a real murderer should be loved by us all.

If death penalty can not be a moral or practical response to the grievous, even heinous, crime of a real murder, I don't know what can be.

[Zynx]

7. Killing is only justified if it will stop other killing.

Revenge is not a proper motivation. It does not constitute moral equity.

[pleah]

8. If these are so called christians that scream for the death penalty,

they are only fooling themselves. "REVENGE IN MINE" SAYETH THE LORD.

[ckramer]

69. Killing the killer stops the killing

Revenge is not a proper motivation. I do not agree.

Most law today are built upon the foundation of revenge.

It's just human.

[Zynx]

160. Our system of laws was actually nominally built on the idea of either

specific incapacitation or rehabilitation until the last couple decades when it shifted more toward incapacitation due to a series of stupid popular laws that have filled our jails while not having a demonstrable impact on crime. We used to care more about rehabilitation, but now we don't.

How does killing the killer stop the killing? All it does is add one more death to the toll. What purpose does it serve other than satisfy a barbaric impulse? Removing such a wretched individual to lifetime confinement is a more effective deterrent and one sounder moral footing.

[LanternWaste]

170. I'm beginning to think you don't really have a grasp...

"Most law today are built upon the foundation of revenge."


I'm beginning to think you don't really have a grasp of the general history of codified laws, let alone the specifics of the American Criminal Justice System. I'm beginning to think you're pulling statements of opinion out of the air as they suit you and then applying them to your argument as though they were fact.

Sorry... we wasted each other's time. Have a nice day. :eyes:

[ckramer]

212. Never read that quote somewhere before?

And what's your point?

[Orsino]

252. It IS human. It must be...

...or there would not be so many people demanding the death penalty in cases that never affected them personally. We enjoy proxy blood-lust, and down the millennia this has been a tool for the powerful to keep the rest of us in line. Bread and circuses, and if bread's a little short this week, give the masses another circus.

"It's just human" is the reason we want to answer murder with more killing--but it's not an excuse. See, murder itself is also human.

There may be some justice in capital punishment, but it is a great way for a government to hide its mistakes. Our mistakes, too, as death sentences don't happen without the collusion of juries.

[ckramer]

261. "We enjoy proxy blood-lust"

Sure. We also enjoy proxy nicety and good feelings while ignoring the pains and sufferings of the victim.

[Orsino]

264. No. We don't ignore the victims.

Criminal justice is designed to accommodate their suffering, and the possible suffering of future victims, as well as making the rest of us more secure.

But, again: are you willing to have innocents executed in order to make victims (or victims' families and friends) feel better? Are you willing to make them feel bad when the innocence of an executed criminal is later established? How do you feel about the great number of executed innocents, and their families and friends?

[LostinVA]

43. OMG -- this isn't even strteching like your other posts, it;'s fabrication

There's nothing wrong with life without parole. It's actually better, because it is a living punishment.

[ckramer]

53. Yep, I don't mind it if you take him home for life

Why do you want to rely on the State to housing them? (to apply the logic of "why should State kill people")

Lovely.

[LostinVA]

60. Nonsensical

And now on my Ignore list. I don't go for threadstalking nor for personal attacks.

[CTLawGuy]

67. I don't want to pay to house or feed ANY criminal

but I know that I have to in order to keep society safe. It's not a matter of "do I want to?"

[Judi Lynn]

4. Congratulations to the first state to rejoin the civilized world!

It's time the spiritually deformed stopped driving the bus.

Our law was not created as a vehicle of revenge.

Only some people are primitive, and violently self-centered. Everyone else has to grow up, and learn NEW ways of dealing with fellow beings.

Fighting fire with fire only shows you to be an asshole, not a completed man or woman.

[JeanGrey]

24. Civilized?

This is civilized?

"Prosecutors said Timmendequas lured Megan to his home by saying he wanted to show her a puppy. He then raped her, beat her and strangled her with a belt. A day later, he led police to her body.

"Megan's Law," introduced after her death, requires that authorities notify neighbors when a sex offender moves into an area. Timmendequas had twice been convicted of sex crimes -- on 5- and 7-year-olds -- before he murdered Megan".


Definitely we should be worried about being "civilized" to this piece of garbage. And don't tell me we "could have" kept him from doing it. He was convicted TWICE before of sex crimes. Even if you keep him in prison who might be rape or tortue there? Please.

[DutchLiberal]

27. If you had DECENT prisons, he wouldn't have the chance to rape and torture there.

So start right there.

[ckramer]

57. Decent prison?

Why prison should be decent?

[Heywood J]

81. Dude,

I'm slightly on your side, and you're managing to push me away. It should be decent because a number of people there are in for the wrong reasons - e.g. heavy sentence for non-violent crime, wrongly convicted, selective prosecution, etc.

You speak of justice - what sort of justice says it's okay to brutalize people? The Constitution forbids cruel punishment, remember.

[ckramer]

114. Did I say brutalize people?

Now that's your imagination.

Decent vs. reasonable vs standard, but not too fancy...after all, we are talking about criminals...

[Heywood J]

118. If they're not decent,

they're indecent - by definition of the word.

in·de·cent
1. offending against generally accepted standards of propriety or good taste; improper; vulgar: indecent jokes; indecent language; indecent behavior.
2. not decent; unbecoming or unseemly: indecent haste.

Those "generally accepted standards" WRT prisons are the eighth amendment, which prohibits cruel punishment - i.e. brutality. That's where I got it from - not my imagination. You would do well not to assume or insult.

[Centered]

225. Carefull

Though I agree that prison should not be a "holiday inn" let's be very carefull about "we are talking about criminals..."

I think it may actually shock some people to find out just how easy it is to become a criminal. I counsel "Criminals" arrested for Domestic Violence and you would be surprised how many (males AND females) Arrested and Charged for DV Battery are what might fit your description of "wife beaters." Also in my state that particular charge carries a mandatory prison sentence of 2 days to 3 months I also see the before and after affects of "prison on the brain"

I realize you are referring to a specific person but I just wanted you to keep in mind that the mindset is dangerous.

[ProudDad]

233. No, asshole

we're talking about your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins and uncles.

The folks locked up are also human beings not much different from you or me.

In fact, most of the murderers all have your fucked up blood thirsty attitude -- you'd fit right in...

[DutchLiberal]

153. Oh, I don't know... to adhere to human rights?

I'm just guessing...

More practical? To make sure that, when prisoners get out, they haven't become worse than when they got in. Or to prevent further violence in jail?

Again just guessing...

Sorry, I meant: again: just using common sense. You should try it too.

[Zynx]

166. Most criminals don't commit severe crimes so I don't see why they need

to exist in torturous conditions.

[JeanGrey]

108. I disagree. I don't think any prison could keep someone of this

magnitude from doing harm, period.

[DutchLiberal]

155. Yes, they can. Why you think nobody gets killed in Dutch prisons?

Because they're not the medieval dungeons the American prisons are.

[Bill McBlueState]

106. thirteenth, actually

Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin all have no death penalty.

[ckramer]

115. This is just unfortunate

13 states abandons justice out of 50.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

175. You must prefer living in Saudi Arabia than in Norway, then. -nt

[ckramer]

205. Why do you like to ask people move?

Why is that your business any way?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

227. Well, you live in a horrible, horrible state (MA) that has no death penalty. I only want to help.

I'm sure you'll be happier in any of the places I mentioned.

Does the lack of Proper Justice™ where you live give you ulcers?

[ckramer]

244. No.

But watched so many killers got away with murder is the confidence destroyer of the justice system.

It's the ulcer of the justice system.

I'm sure voters will put back death penalty in Massachusetts before long.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

255. Define "get away with." What happened to them? -nt

[ProudDad]

270. Don't feed the trolls (n/t)

[Judi Lynn]

154. Thanks, Bill McBlueState. Very helpful learning which ones they are.

Hope their number will increase.

Had absolutely no idea about these others. Hope they won't be the only ones in 2008.

[fascisthunter]

5. Good!

The system is too imperfect for such a punishment. Too many have been put to death, when after the fact, they were found innocent. Real punishment is locking on up for life.

[brentspeak]

9. NJ resident here: I oppose repealing the death penalty in NJ

There are some crimes which deserve the death penalty. And since NJ hasn't executed anyone since 1963, it's not like the state has been killing people left-and-right (but it's not like the average NJ criminal has been aware of that, either). Now, however, every criminal in the state will soon be reading the headline, "NJ abolishes the death penalty!", and you can be sure every criminal in the state will be aware of that. If anything, this is going to be a confidence-builder for would-be NJ murderers.

[harmonicon]

14. no way

Fewer people are murdered in European countries that don't have the death penalty than are murdered in the US. People who commit murder aren't considering the consequences of their actions, or think they'll get away with it, so any legal consequences don't matter to them. If anything, I think an argument could be made that having state-sanctioned killing could justify it in other cases for would-be criminals. I'm not against the death penalty on principle, because I think there are cases where people shouldn't ever be allowed to be part of society ever again, even the society of prison inmates. However, I would never want to be the person who had to make that judgement, and I could never be the one to pull the switch, so I can't expect others to do otherwise - i.e. repealing the death penalty is A-Ok by me. But as was mentioned above, it simply doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong - innocent people have been put to death in this country in our lifetimes for crimes they did not commit, and that's reason enough to ban the death penalty.

[DutchLiberal]

17. Bullshit.

Criminals usually don't plan on getting caught, so it's not like they will look up the punishment they will receive before committing the crime. That means the abolishment of the death penalty will not influence murder rates. It's not like all of a sudden people will say: "heck, let's go kill somebody because we won't be executed anyway". :eyes:

[LostinVA]

45. There are compelling arguments that in some cases the murder rate would go down

ie there's not as great a need to kill the victim/witness if it's not a capital crime.

[ckramer]

54. If that's not BS then I don't know what is.

LOL

[LostinVA]

55. Guess all those law enforcement folks are a bunch of anti-DP bullshitters then

Careful...

[LanternWaste]

171. Well, hate to break this to you, but you're right

"If that's not BS then I don't know what is."


Well, hate to break this to you, but you're right. As per your posts on this thread, you really don't appear to know what is and what is not BS.

[TommyO]

18. How will life in prison with no parole be an incentive to commit murder?

[lost-in-nj]

23. yup

a place to sleep
and 3 meals a day.....

better then living on this steam grate.....


lost

[TommyO]

30. And a complete lack of freedom

not to mention horrific living conditions. Any sane person would rather be dead.

[CTLawGuy]

68. let's go commit murder!!

so we can get free food and housing for life!!!

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

everyone's doing it! Free food and housing for life!

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

no one works anymore, we just kill kill kill and then we've got it made in the shade!

:sarcasm:

[ckramer]

75. It's now in NJ

that it guarantees you free food, free medical care, free housing, free education and free entertainment if you murder someone...

Now that's dream come true for lots of people, isn't it? I mean most people in this country work for their whole life for just trying to attain that goal.

Democrats have been striving for all the people to have these privileges one day, haven't they?

Now all you need to do is going out to kill someone.

Is it strange?

[CTLawGuy]

78. so society should fall apart in

3... 2... 1...

[Diclotican]

38. brentspeak

brentspeak

Sir

Can you prove that the treat of Death Penalty have been a deterrence when it come to crimes?.. Can you prove, for all to se that the treat of a gass camber ore the more modern penalty with medication have been a deterrence when it come to horrible crimes?..

Death Penalty is just revenge, not "penalty" as such. Ok it is not the individual who are punish others for their crime, but is it better if the Government kill men?.. I don't believe that. I believe that even the worst criminals should been treated as a human been, even the worst of the worst. Put them into prison for the rest of their natural life. Lock them up, and close the door. But not _kill them. Let them know for the rest of their life what they have been doing. In a prison...

And for the record. You should really have doing something with 2.5 million inmates in your prison system.. That is more than China have.. Or ever USSR had... And USSR was not a nation who was easy on the prison sentence.. It is little ironic that the country who claim that their are the "land of the free" also is the nation who are putting more peoples in the prison system then every one else on the earth...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad engelish, not my native language

[Judi Lynn]

73. Diclotican, every year Amnesty International has a huge report on US resistance to human rights.

Here's the section on the death penalty from the January, 2007 report:

A recent indicator of this shift against the death penalty came on 2 January 2007, when the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission – set up by the state legislature in 2006 to study all aspects of capital punishment in New Jersey – released its final report.(9) The Commission noted evidence of a trend against the death penalty in the USA, including the moratorium on executions in force in Illinois since 2000; the striking down of New York’s death penalty statute by its Court of Appeals in 2004 and the state legislature’s failure to reinstate it; abolition bills introduced in the legislatures of 10 states over the past two years;(10) and the recent decline in death sentencing both in New Jersey and nationally. After a process in which it held five public hearings and took evidence from a wide range of witnesses, the Commission recommended abolition of the death penalty in New Jersey, having failed to find any compelling evidence that it served a legitimate penological purpose and concluding that only abolition could eliminate the risk of irreversible arbitrariness and error. State Governor Jon Corzine welcomed the Commission’s findings, adding that he was looking forward to working with the New Jersey legislature to implement the Commission’s recommendations.(11)
(snip)

A shortage of human rights leadership

Other elected officials are failing to offer human rights leadership on this issue, including at federal level and in the three states – California, Florida and Texas – which together account for more than 40 per cent of the country’s total death row population.(13) About 30 per cent of murders in the USA take place in these three states, a figure which has changed little over the past 30 years despite their resort to the death penalty.(14)
(snip)

In Texas, by 10 January 2007, Rick Perry’s governorship had seen 141 executions since he took office in 2001, following the 152 executions that marked the five-year term of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Texas has routinely violated international law and standards in its pursuit of the death penalty over the years, executing child offenders, the mentally disabled, foreign nationals denied their consular rights, prisoners whose guilt was in doubt, and those denied adequate legal assistance at trial or on appeal.(19)

In 2002, the Texas Defender Service (TDS) published a study having reviewed 251 habeascorpusapplications filed on death penalty cases in Texas between September 1995 and the end of 2001. It found that "an alarmingly large proportion" of them were "perfunctory".(20) Matters outside the trial record – such as the withholding of evidence by the prosecutor or the failure of the defence lawyer to present particular evidence – are supposed to be presented via the state habeas corpusappeal. The habeasappeal lawyer must therefore conduct a thorough investigation of the inmate’s case. While a habeasappeal filed by a properly funded, experienced, competent lawyer might be expected to run to 150 pages, the TDS report found that:

"Of the 251 habeasapplications reviewed, 76 (30%) were 30 pages or less. Of those, 37 applications (15%) were 15 pages or less. Twenty-two applications (9%) were 10 pages or less - quite a feat, because the procedural requirements for habeaspetitions usually consume five pages alone. It is no surprise that many of the shortest petitions contained only record-based, direct-appeal-type claims presenting nothing for review, thereby forfeiting future review by the federal courts."

Carlos Granados was put to death in Texas on 10 January 2007. For his state-level habeasappeal in 2001, his lawyer had filed a two-page petition raising a single issue. He never met with the prisoner. On the day of the execution six years later, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to grant a stay, acknowledging that the 2001 habeaspetition had been "unusually brief" but writing that "in some circumstances, brevity is the wisest course. A single valid claim is all that is necessary to achieve the desired result…A single, well-crafted sentence may speak volumes while a 150 page application may be full of sound and fury signifying nothing".(21) In a concurring statement, three of the judges said that Granados "was found guilty of a brutal crime and may well deserve his sentence of death."(22) They noted the trial testimony of a clinical psychologist who had included race and ethnicity in his list of 22 factors predictive of "future dangerousness" (a finding by the jury of the defendant’s future dangerousness is a prerequisite for a death sentence in Texas). (23) Agreeing with the decision not to stop the execution, the judges stated that this testimony "may or may not have improperly influenced the punishment assessed by the jury". But surely there should be no room for doubt when employing this irrevocable punishment? Governor Perry was asked to stay the execution, but refused to intervene. At the time of writing, another nine men and one woman were scheduled to be put to death in Texas before the end of May 2007.

Texas, where less than eight per cent of the USA’s population resides, accounts for about nine per cent of the nation’s murders and 36 per cent of its executions over the past 30 years. For all but one of the past 10 years, more than half of the country’s annual total of executions has occurred in three states, Oklahoma, Virginia and Texas, which, combined, account for 11.5 per cent of the population of the USA, and between 12 and 13 per cent of its murders. This is geographical bias in judicial killing on a grand scale.
(snip/...)

http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/eee4fd2d-a2ca-11dc-8d74-6f45f39984e5/amr510112007en.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The conditions in which people NOT awaiting death sentences are also hideous, as Amnesty points out, regardless of some feeble minds which imagine prison is a holiday for homeless people. This would be stupid, considering homeless people themselves are preyed upon by suburban idiot teenagers who have all the comforts in the world, and are so full of hatred they have to go kill people to find any meaning in their filthy lives.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Head of state and government: George W Bush
Death penalty: retentionist
International Criminal Court: signed but declared intention not to ratify

Full report:
http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Americas/United-States-of-America

[Diclotican]

132. Judi Lynn

Judi Lynn

Intersting, You know a lot of this I see;).. As a foreigner, and living in a country who have no death penalty in the criminal code I am mindbondling that the death penalty is still a hot issue. It is barbaric, ,primitive, and plain stupid - period!

That so many people are been killed in Texas is worrisome. Because, who are guilty and who are not?.. And even if they are guilty in the crime they are been accused off, Could a more easy penalty do the same trick?. I know that Texas State still use Change gang to do manual work - they even have what I would call a concentration camp system lite. Where inmates are treated little less than slaves... And housed in tent winter and summer around.. And the chief of this "tent city" is just dam proud of what he manage to do.. He are not the sharpest knife in the book I guess.. And many americans still (again as I are looking about it, from the outside) support the idea that if you have have a criminal record, you are not a "real person" anymore.. I believed that the criminal system was to protect the Innocent, and to help the criminals to behave and re-educate them to be a part of the country when their time are up, and they are been setting free. Not to be punished for the rest of their life..

The Whole case with death penalty is just stupid if you ask me. And as many have pointed out, death penalty have been proven to be less than perfect.. how many criminals have been executed and the evidence of their Innocent have coming to light.. Police have admitted to be less than good in their pursuit of justice. They often have chosen the "easy way" and take a man (usually it is a man) who have a long record of criminal behavior and say this man have been doing it.. Even I who are living on the other side of the pound (the atlantic ocean) know that in the last couple of year more than 30 former inmates of Death row have been setting free, with the courts apology because evidence had been suppressed and never come to cort. Or the public defender have been slipping in court and never doing their job. Or as in one instance the judge himself have been sleeping on the bench... That it _NOT_ fair justise... Rather the opposite...

If the cort system want to execute a person, they have to be dam sure about their guilt. And as long it is proven that the criminal system are bungling, failing and not doing their job, then the whole death penalty should be stopped, and the prisoners who are waiting their needles, should be given a new trial, with ALL the evidence, not just the evidence the police was giving the first or second time.. I know that in many US states death penalty is automatic given over to the governor, so he/she can decide the fate.. But as you pointed out. Some of them are just wherry happy to send people to the gallows.. And mr Bush are just one of the most famous of them. I still remember when he was governor of Texas, and the case with the woman, who in prison have been behaved good, and who have doing great things for the inmate, was executed, even that most of the Texas believed the best case was to send the woman to a facility where she could live for the rest of her life. Inside the prison system, but not at death row.. And mr Bush was just SO proud when he was giving the poor woman the date... And that man many american managed to vote in some President... :spank:

I do hope in time that US are coming to the rest of the world. As one of the nation who are not using the death penalty anymore.. When even Russia have stopped the practice of Death Penalty, then the time is right for US to se about the system, and maybe close the system down.. In theory you CAN be punished with death in Russia, but you are automatic been pardoned by the president - and you may end in some cold ex-soviet prison camps in Siberia.. But you ARE alive... And you would be treated better now, then you may be in the old soviet system anyway... Even that russian prison are not a place I would be near if I have something to say about it...

When it come to ICC I understand why mr Bush DON'T WANT to sign it. If US ever was to sign the treaty, and to ratify it, many in the american government present and retired maybe bee in jeopardy big time.. Rumsfeld was running for his life to germany for some time when french government was "seeing into" a case where french groups have been advocate that Mr Rumsfeld should be locket up on charges of criminal behavior in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places when he was secretary of Defense in US.. And if half what is coming to light about the present Administration, for the most part they all would be seeing the ICC, not as prominent guest, but as inmates in the criminal prison system.. To be honest. Nobody of the current Administration should be living US anytime soon, after they have retired from office.. It is many groups and organizations who want their head on a plate, at ICC if possible off course;)

In fact, if US was to ratify the ICC treaty, many american who have been served in the armed forces, present and future can be send to ICC, some maybe just because they are american, and a country have problems with that. But many because the US armed forces are sometimes all for hewyhanded when it come to how to protect them self against the enemy.. As in Iraq, many, have doing things that would be classified as war-criminals if anyone else than US was doing it.. If Russia have been acted like that in Poland, the US would be treating with nuclear bombs, if Russia wa not giving up, and sending the troops home. And pay a hard fine to Poland for the criminal behavior.. Maybe some Russian military even have been send to Haag to stand trial...
But because it is the US armed forces. Even hard criminal behavior are not been seeing as war criminals, and they are free to go around as they would... It is a shame that many in US doesn't dear to se what the armed forces are doing to the reputation for US.. Don't get my wrong here. I know that for the most part the american armed forces are great men and woman who are not criminals!. But many cases from 2004 (Abu Girab and such) have not doing the armed forces something good... The pictures from Abu Girab destroyed a lot for the armed forces, and for USA as a whole.. I am still being angry when I see the pictures, and the smiling faces of their captures.. And as others criminal they are just saying "I am just doing my job": In 1945-46 many germans was hang because they "just was following their orders"... Then the US was on the side who was proving to the world, that you maybe be powerfully, but if you kill Innocent people, we would find you, trial you and then hang you... In the first trial at Nuremberg 12 of the them was executed, in later trials many more was given death penalty or harsh, hard prison sentences..

But that was maybe Little of the scale here I am afraid.. I tried to se that once US was seeing as one of the country who respected the law... Today nobody know... It looks like the current administration just doesn't care about law and are burning everything, so the next president have to start all over again, to fix what is broken you need more than ONE president.. you would need many years with hard work to just get past mr Bush 8 year in office...



Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[Judi Lynn]

149. You have observed a lot about our "justice" system, and expressed yourself very well.

Maybe one day it will be possible we will catch up with you, but that won't happen until we have intelligent, cleaner leadership in the White House, and a more moral Congress, and a decent Supreme Court.

I really appreciated reading how well you have thought about out problems. This things really matter to many Americans who have been sick and furious over what has happened to drive this country so far in the wrong direction.

Really enjoy seeing your comments here. You do far better communicating in English than almost all Americans could do trying to communicate in another language. Very happy you have started participating at D.U. :hi: :hi: :hi:

[Diclotican]

189. Judi Lynn

Judi Lynn

I hope one day that USA abolish the death penalty and are doing what most of the rest of the world have fined to be the best solution when working with criminals.. But I do believe it Will take a long time fore United States are one of us in that prospect.. Many american sees to support the idea of death penalty for crimes - and I doubt it is many who are on election who dear to not support the death penalty if that is on the table. To much to loose then to stick to your belief, and say loud and clear that you don't support the idea of death penalty - and that criminals are just humans, and who deserve better than a needle....

As you point it out. You need decency, and a government with the courage to do what many american want, the abolishment of the death penalty.. The right wing is maybe loud and for the moment have the upper and. But I doubt the right wing, as in Fox news and other neo-cons would prevail for long.. If the public are not been totally corrupted anyway...

I try to communicate as best I can. I know my English is far from good, but for the most part I are given a rather warm welcome her on DU;). Many american who like the idea of foreigner to put in some words here. But I do warn everyone that I am not fluent in English, and if I spell thing wrong, please bear over with me)..
I have a lot of time to though out problems, as a man with a handicap, a Small one, but a handicap I am not working, but thanks to our safety net I have enough money, and roof over my head and even a old car.. But the petrol price is just horrible... Used nkr 480 last time, to full the car with 40 L. And that is a old cheap Toyota Corolla.... You american are just spoiled when you pay for the petrol.. I really fear if the american public ever have to pay the same price as many european have to pay, it would be revolution before the end of the day.. Or maybe civil war...

I fear that the right wing of your country are driving US very far to the right. And it Will take a lot of time, and a lot of "education" to try to convince the public that what is happening today is wrong.. What US need are another FDR. A man who was respects in his own lifetime. And maybe even more respected after his death.. In our capital Oslo, outside the wall of Akershus fortress and Castle, it is a statue with FDR sitting and seeing out the Oslo fjord. http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akershus_slott_og_festning It is in Norwegian, but I guess you would find it in English too at wikipedia.

Well as I say, I try my best to communicate, good to see that other enjoy my writing here on DU, with all the spelling wrongs and the whole.. US is a BIG country who maybe are not used to communicate in another language. For the most part, the smaller country have to communicate in English, if they want to talk with american or to the official US. For a little country like Norway, it is important to communicate outside of our little world. And english have been used for many year - specially after WW2 when german was putting aside as "bad"... And for the most part Norwegian have good grasp of English, and the use of it..Usaly we learn it from the age of 8, so I guess it is because of that we can write/read/speak it fair..

;)

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[ckramer]

95. One of the misconceptions

was that death penalty has to be crime deterrent to be justified.

But it should not be.

Justice does not have to be deterrent to be served.

Each case is individual, specific, although one can't deny it's side effect of being educational or deterrent.

[Diclotican]

120. ckramer

ckramer

I se the death penalty as revenge from the state. After the state often failed to help, to protect and to do their work - when the inmate was a child. I really don't believe that people is evil. What I believe is that people can be damaged, mentally and physical, so they can DO hideous crimes. And not even know about it after..

I believe in deterrence, if you do a crime, you Will be send to prison, and you Will serve a long sentence. For many of them, who are on death row, or are in prison for life, the life outside have been horrible, and they maybe better inside than outside...

But it exist people who's behavior is not in the common interest. And for them, even the death penalty is just a bump in the road... I hope we one day can live in a world, there people with defects, criminals in this case is taken care of, in institution who have the capacity to help, re-educate and maybe even help them to be "productive citizen" again. I doubt we would se this in our time, but it Will come some day I hope..

The death penalty is a tricky one. Many american are grown up to se death penalty as the ultimate punishment, who bad people are giving (as I understand it). But for the rest of the world, death penalty is just primitive, uncivilized and wrong. I live in a country who have no death penalty in the criminal code. But you can in theory be sitting rest of your life behind bars, if you are not shaping up, the first 21 year you are inside.. And I know that US have a much harsher criminal system than in my country by the way...


Diclotican

Sorry my bad engelish, not my native language

[ckramer]

125. What country are you talking about here? nt

[Diclotican]

133. ckramer

ckramer

I am talking about a little country in the north of europe, called Norway..


Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[ckramer]

139. So you are from Norway

Do you enjoy your free national healthcare system;

Do you enjoy your free higher education?

How many other benefits from the society please tell me.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

181. Wow, I didn't know you could grind your teeth in written communication too. -nt

[Diclotican]

191. Commie Pinko Dirtbag

Commie Pinko Dirtbag

pardon? Maybe it is just me, but I don't get it?. Maybe my English who are bad;)

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

ps nice name you have here;)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

228. Let's just say that YOU, my friend, bring the cold, hard truth to us

And the cold, hard truth tends to hurt some people a lot. ;)

Your reports are highly enlightening.

Oh, and chatting around here, on its own, WILL improve your English. If you want to improve it even more read American comics. Yeah, comics. Like Superman or Spider-Man. That's what I did. I'm Brazilian. MY country is a fucking mess, but I love it even so.

[Diclotican]

230. Pinko Dirtbag

Pinko Dirtbag

AH, thank you;) When write in a language who are not exactly my own, I have to go to the red line, and say it as it is. If I was better in English I may manage to use other words, who are better, but who doesn't "hurt" as hard at the language I have:) But it is better to speak plainly so everyone understand me, then to use a lot of words, who you have to be professor to understand. Or have a dictionary to use..

Off course, chatting around in a English language site would manage to do a lot for my English;). I read some English language books, and understand for the most part what is writing here. And other places. But I do find it difficult sometimes when experience some words I don not use daily..

Ah, Brazil. Its summer there now isn't it?. Here in Norway it is winter, and for the moment -12 Celsius.. And I do believe it would be allot colder in the night.. And it is snow, little but it is still snow here;)
Brazil, have never been there, but I have read allot of the country. Amazing, vibrant, and full of life.. Potentially a rich country but under many bad government.. But I do believe the current President have been doing some good work since he was voted in to office?

Diclotican

Sorry my bad engelish, not my native language

[Diclotican]

186. ckramer

ckramer

Yes I enjoy our free national healtcare system. Have been hospitalized sometimes, and have not coming out with a bill I never can repay. In fact I have not paid for my medical treatment ever... Not when hospitalized.. And the medication I have to use, against allergy and asma are on blue receipt, and that will see that I am not paying full price for the product I need to use. Some of the bill are passed over to other offices. I think I pay for my ventoline 60 NKR... Last time I was hospitalized, with a rather big problem with my stomage. I was admited at once, and was there one week in all. The treatment helped, the food was rather good,to be in a hospital it was excellent food;) and the nurses and doctors was pretty to se what was the problem, and to help it go away;)..

Yes I have some higher education, to say that it is free is maybe not correct, but you don't pay for going to school.. But some expenses you may have to pay for higher education. The books can be costly, but for the most part you can sell the books after you are finished with it...

Hm difficult to pinpoint all the benefit our little country have to offer. The system is good, not perfect, but I would rather pay the taxes needed to have this type of system, then to be depended of a healtcare system there half the population have to relay on less healtcare than some else, because they cant afford the insurance to have it... The system we have have its fault, and need some overhaul I guess. But it is working, pretty well to. And for the most part the patient are coming out of hospital better than they was when they arrived...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[ProudDad]

271. And your logic process is INFINITELY better

than a lot of posters on this board...

Please keep posting!

[LostinVA]

211. Your English is better than some native posters on this site!

[Diclotican]

224. LostinVA

LostinVA

Thank you then my old English teacher have some ting right then;).. And use of Dictionary, and the spelling check have also some ting to do with it I guess;)

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[Zynx]

164. NJ has a lower murder rate than the national average.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169

North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, etc have higher murder rates and actually use their death penalties.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

178. Correct, and that's why states with the DP tend to have lower murder rates.

Oh, wait...

[ProudDad]

234. Well, tough shit

You're going to have to get your blood thirsty rocks off somewhere else.

Hey, I got an idea -- move to texas...

[ronnie624]

247. Don't give him any Ideas.

We have plenty of rednecks here, already.

[Orsino]

265. This reminds me of a certain right-wing "argument" against atheism...

...namely, the fallacy that all morality is based in religion, and that therefore an atheist has no incentive to behave. It falls apart under the lightest scrutiny, as atheists are no more inclined toward crime than are people who claim a religion.

[AX10]

11. It's about time we joined the Western World.

At least New Jersey and 13 other states have done so.

[noamnety]

12. Michigan was the first state to do away with it

after an innocent man was hanged in 1846.

Glad to see New Jersey joining us.

[DutchLiberal]

13. Finally. At least 50 years too late, but still... Will the other states follow to end this Medieval

and barbaric measure?

[MidwestTransplant]

16. Jesus is going to be piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiised. According to Freepers anyway.

[slackmaster]

19. I guess that makes Jesse Timmendequas the new Charles Manson

[mconvente]

21. I'm so proud to be from NJ today!

I've been following this development over the past month at BlueJersey.com (check it out if you aren't from NJ, it's an excellent blog) and finally the death penalty ban comes to fruition. It definitely helped that we have a Democratic-controlled State Assembly and Senate, plus a Dem. Governor, but still, what a great day for New Jersey.

NJ gets a lot of dissing from all over the country, and rightly so sometimes based on our former (and in some pockets, still existent) corruption, but light shines proudly on New Jersey today!

[lost-in-nj]

22. sorry

I can't be happy about this......

some people should be executed.....
they RAPE babies..... let them live
they KILL babies.... let them live
they KILL families for a fucking TV... let them live
they KILL their spouse because they are unhappy/jealous
let them live


oh yeah... they will repent...
tell my friend who's sister and her SO were KILLED by a room mate.

BECAUSE OF A FUCKING CAKE!!!!!!!!!!



Corzine is power hungry

What ever his money will buy
he will buy it

lost

[calteacherguy]

25. The reason nobody should be executed is simply this:

If you execute the guilty, you will at some point execute an innocent human being.

There is no way around that. There is no perfect justice system. It is unacceptable to kill innocent people, therefore there must be no death penalty, period.

[DutchLiberal]

28. No, the reason nobody should be executed, is that it is barbaric and uncivilized.

And no victimizing right-wing parroting "let's hug the killers" bullshit will change that.

[calteacherguy]

31. But some people won't agree with that.

Nobody can disagree it's wrong to kill innocent people.

[DutchLiberal]

151. You're right. Your approach is more practical to convince people.

Still, I felt like adding the 'moral' aspect.

By the way, I've met some freepers who wouldn't mind putting innocent people to dead if that was the 'price' that had to be paid to 'put all the evil killers to death'...

[ckramer]

63. There is nothing barbaric or uncivilized about killing a real murderer

On the contrary, it's civilized, moral, and justified if administer properly.

A society can not function normally without death penalty.

[Solon]

72. A society cannot function normally without the death penalty?!?!

Please tell me you are joking!

[CTLawGuy]

74. wow, incredibly ignorant.

I guess 90 countries in the world "don't function properly". and if you count those who don't use the death penalty or who heavily restrict its use, that number goes up to 133.

also I guess here are the "functioning societies" (really functioning societies in bold)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=30&did=140

RETENTIONIST COUNTRIES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes

AFGHANISTAN
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
BAHRAIN
BAHAMAS
BANGLADESH
BARBADOS
BELARUS
BELIZE
BOTSWANA
BURUNDI
CAMEROON
CHAD
CHINA
COMOROS
CONGO (Democratic Republic)
CUBA
DOMINICA
EGYPT
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
ETHIOPIA
GUATEMALA
GUINEA
GUYANA
INDIA
INDONESIA
IRAN
IRAQ
JAMAICA
JAPAN
JORDAN
KAZAKSTAN
KOREA (North)
KOREA (South)
KUWAIT
LEBANON
LESOTHO
LIBYA
MALAYSIA
MONGOLIA
NIGERIA
OMAN
PAKISTAN
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
QATAR
SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS
SAINT LUCIA
SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES
SAUDI ARABIA
SIERRA LEONE
SINGAPORE
SOMALIA
SUDAN
SYRIA
TAIWAN
TAJIKISTAN
THAILAND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
UGANDA
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UZBEKISTAN
VIET NAM
YEMEN
ZIMBABWE

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now the "non-functioning" societies

ABOLITIONIST FOR ALL CRIMES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries whose laws do not provide for the death penalty for any crime

ALBANIA
ANDORRA
ANGOLA
ARMENIA
AUSTRALIA
AUSTRIA
AZERBAIJAN
BELGIUM
BHUTAN
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
BULGARIA
CAMBODIA
CANADA
CAPE VERDE
COLOMBIA
COSTA RICA
COTE D'IVOIRE
CROATIA
CYPRUS
CZECH REPUBLIC
DENMARK
DJIBOUTI
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
EAST TIMOR
ECUADOR
ESTONIA
FINLAND
FRANCE
GEORGIA
GERMANY
GREECE
GUINEA-BISSAU
HAITI
HONDURAS
HUNGARY
ICELAND
IRELAND
ITALY
KIRIBATI
LIBERIA
LIECHTENSTEIN
LITHUANIA
LUXEMBOURG
MACEDONIA (former Yugoslav Republic)
MALTA
MARSHALL ISLANDS
MAURITIUS
MEXICO
MICRONESIA (Federated States)
MOLDOVA
MONACO
MONTENEGRO
MOZAMBIQUE
NAMIBIA
NEPAL
NETHERLANDS
NEW ZEALAND
NICARAGUA
NIUE
NORWAY
PALAU
PANAMA
PARAGUAY
PHILIPPINES
POLAND
PORTUGAL
ROMANIA
RWANDA
SAMOA
SAN MARINO
SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE
SENEGAL
SERBIA
SEYCHELLES
SLOVAKIA
SLOVENIA
SOLOMON ISLANDS
SOUTH AFRICA
SPAIN
SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND
TURKMENISTAN
TURKEY
TUVALU
UKRAINE
UNITED KINGDOM
URUGUAY
VANUATU
VATICAN CITY STATE
VENEZUELA

[ckramer]

124. What made you say these countries are not functioning properly?

AFGHANISTAN
CHINA
IRAN
IRAQ
JAMAICA
JAPAN
JORDAN
KAZAKSTAN
KOREA (North)
LIBYA
PAKISTAN
SAUDI ARABIA
SUDAN
SYRIA

Please educate me.

[Solon]

127. Let's see, most aren't democracies, human rights records are atrocious...

And in a few of them, being a Homosexual is a death penalty offense. I don't see that as functioning properly, but your mileage may vary.

[ckramer]

128. Okay

But for not being a democracy doesn't mean that they can't be functioning normally, in their own way, right?

A country's proper running has nothing to do with the form of government, as long as it works.

You are using your political point of view to judge them and their way of running the country properly, aren't you?

[Solon]

130. I prefer governments that don't oppress their people...

Its a matter of priorities, I believe human rights and political freedoms are paramount. No country runs "normally" or properly without these mechanisms in place.

[ckramer]

135. Of course

From the point of view of the west, human rights and political freedoms are paramount.

However, there are different interpretations of what human right and political freedoms are, which may not be agreeable with that of yours in these countries.

We are not in the position of judging others. Bush tried to do that to Iraq, tens of thousands lost their life in the process.

[Solon]

136. The United States destroyed democracy in Iran, in 1953, and both Iranians and Americans pay for it.

Justice, true justice, should be upheld, with human rights and political rights being paramount, not trumped up shit like what Bush does.

[CTLawGuy]

159. so

you can function normally as, say, an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship... that's ok.

but not having the death penalty will make your society crumble... gotcha

:shrug:

[ckramer]

200. I didn't say if it's okay or not okay

you said it.

Not my problem.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

179. No, come on, dig deeper. I'm enjoying this immensely. -nt

[ckramer]

201. I'm glad you are

grab a chair.

[ckramer]

202. I'm glad you are

grab a chair.

[CTLawGuy]

158. according to you

those are "functioning societies" because they have the death penalty.


I pointed them out because of their particularly stellar commitments to human rights :eyes:

[ckramer]

215. I don't think we should mix death penalty with human rights

These are two different things.

[alcibiades_mystery]

101. LOL

Oh boy. That was so incredibly stupid that your valiant efforts on the rest of this thread fall into disrepute as a consequence. Whatever we think about the death penalty, it's quite clear that many different societies function perfectly well both with and without it. To think otherwise is childish chauvinism at best, rank idiocy and willful ignorance at worst.

[ckramer]

131. Give me both examples what countries that function perfectly well

with or without it.

[DutchLiberal]

152. LOL!

How are ya, Rush? Didn't know you were on DU too!

All European countries without death penalty, which all have a far lower murder rate, can't function!
:rofl:

[ProudDad]

235. Let's see

so you have the state murder another human being and that's better or more moral than what the executed human being did?

"A society can not function normally without death penalty."


Ah, you're a proponent of fuzzy logic, I see... :eyes: :wtf:

God Damn...

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. Thank you: this is categorical imperative, ethics writ large

All the pragmatic criteria in the world don't get to the real point: the State should not be given the power to take a human life. Period. End of story. Categorical imperative.

The bloodlust and vicious nonsense on this thread is despicable. Good on New Jersey.

[ckramer]

129. "the State should not be given the power to take a human life"

I don't know where you get this wrong idea from.

It's not the state that is taking a human life. It's the people taking people's life justifiably. The state just acts on the power given to it by the people.

[alcibiades_mystery]

140. You're a murderer in my book

Vicarious, true enough, but little more than a common street thug.

[ckramer]

143. I will stop when you start to call names

Irrational that's I can say.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

180. No more irrational than your post #63. Why don't you go live in Iran?

Since their society "functions so well?"

[ckramer]

197. Commie Pinko Dirtbag

someone also asked "why don't you move to France?" when I praised them gave no support to Bush's Iraq invasion.

What a name.

[polmaven]

107. Yes, that ,

and just plain and simply immoral. I do not want my tax dollars used for state sponsored murder.

[calteacherguy]

26. The reason nobody should be executed is simply this:

If you execute the guilty, you will at some point execute an innocent human being.

There is no way around that. There is no perfect justice system. It is unacceptable to kill innocent people, therefore there must be no death penalty, period.

[lost-in-nj]

46. I understand this

I really do...

I do not EVER want an innocent human being executed..... NEVER

But I know in this day and age
with the forensics they have now

it might become a rare .... very rare occurance....
I HOPE AND PRAY

it will never happen...

never


lost

[CTLawGuy]

79. shit in one hand and wish in the other

see which fills first.

[lost-in-nj]

94. OK... DEAL

lets see what fills first......



lost

[LanternWaste]

172. I wish I had a lot of work on my desk today.

I wish I had a lot of work on my desk today.

Wow! The wish hand filled up more quickly.

Now, of to the loo for a quick hand wash... :evilgrin:

[polmaven]

109. Is "very rare occurrance"

really good enough for you? Is even one innocent life acceptable to satisfy your lust for revenge?

[Zynx]

162. Even with DNA evidence it is still possible to have a screw up.

Think if someone happened to be at the scene when some chaotic incident happened and their DNA got on the person that was murdered. Granted it is hard to think of a precise incident that would qualify for 1st degree murder, but it is possible. I could see an unsophisticated jury sentencing them to death.

[RestoreGore]

100. The death penalty is unconstitutional

it is also expensive and kills innocent people. It is cheaper to keep someone in prison for life wthout parole than to spend money on appeals. This isn't about being soft on crime or about feeling sorry for those on death row who deserve to be there. Anytime you want to give up the life you have and spend the rest of it in a prison in this country let us know... you wouldn't be so quick to think it is being soft on crime if you did time.

[ckramer]

141. Do you really think murderer would think twice before committing it?

It's probably didn't matter to them either way.

[Zynx]

161. They certainly don't take the death penalty into account.

I remember studying crime trends in England in the 18th century that showed that even as the English executed more and more and more people for a greater series of crimes, their crime rates kept increasing. It is not a deterrent. The only thing that can be done is specific incapacitation through life imprisonment. The death penalty no more belongs in the modern world than slavery.

[ckramer]

199. Well I disagree

Death penalty itself can't do it all. It's an effort of the whole society. We can't only rely on killing guilty people in hoping that the society will improve by itself. We need to trace and address the root of the issues that turn out murderers.

There are considerations on education, transition assistance, fairer distribution of wealth...etc...that eventually contribute to the improvement of the society.

[Zynx]

207. How does the death penalty help at all?

I've never seen any concrete evidence it reduces crime, improves society, or does anything positive other than satisfy a visceral human blood lust.

[ckramer]

210. One murderer less on the street is one murderer less

Take them out one at a time.

It's an operation of subtraction. Eventually you will see the evidence.

On visceral human blood lust:

Why did America invade Iraq?

Why did America invade Aghanistan?

Why did America nuke Japan?

It's a tradition as I was told.

[Zynx]

220. When they're in jail rotting in a cell for the rest of their life they are

removed just the same way. You are speaking of specific incapacitation, which is a perfectly legitimate theory, but the death penalty is not the only way of going about it.

As for visceral blood lust, our nuking of Japan was not "revenge" for Pearl Harbor. It was the most efficient way of ending the war. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with revenge in practice, though many people thought it did, which certainly doesn't make it right. As for Afghanistan, it had to do with dismantling a terrorist group so that 9/11 wouldn't be repeated, at least in theory. We can argue about Afghanistan all we want. Vengeance is pointless, but removing threats is not. Jailing is the most moral way of isolating threats, not killing.

[ProudDad]

236. I'm afraid you're wrong about that

"our nuking of Japan was not "revenge" for Pearl Harbor. It was the most efficient way of ending the war"

It was neither -- it was a coldly calculated message to Joseph Stalin that he'd better keep his place in the new, new USAmerikan Emperial world order or he'd get nuked.

[ckramer]

243. What kind of bloody message that would have killed

hundreds of thousands of Japanese in split seconds?

Let's admit it, you are a closet killer.

[Zynx]

248. I read enough on the subject to reject that theory.

It was a small consideration, not the primary one. Truman didn't entirely know what to make of Stalin's intentions. His primary concern truly was ending the war with Japan.

[Ellen Forradalom]

190. I wish there were a simple answer.

I am from Illinois where *half* the inmates on death row were found innocent before then Gov. George Ryan declared a moratorium on the death penalty. Some innocents came within 48 hours of execution.

That an innocent should be put to death is also senseless. When the state does it and we raise no protest, we are all implicated in it.

[Solon]

29. Why are all the pro-death penalty folks assuming everyone executed is actually guilty?

There are stories damned near everyday of people being exonerated of crimes due to DNA evidence, malicious prosecution, police misconduct, etc. Keeping the death penalty guarantees that someone innocent will die of it, that should be enough to ban it.

[calteacherguy]

32. Clearly, as long as the death penalty exists innocent people will die.

And yes, that should be enough to ban it, forever.

[Zynx]

165. Yes, and I'm not sure anyone fully realizes how horrible it is that a totally

innocent person might be executed. Imagine sitting at home, the cops come, interrogate you for a few hours in some small room, you go to endless hearings, the trial comes and you are called a vicious, psychopathic killer by an overzealous prosecutor, and then an incompetent, vengeful jury finds you guilt and a couple months later you are sentenced to death. Years later, still knowing you are innocent, you are strapped down and slowly your life is taken from you by some chemical cocktail as a majority of your fellow citizens around your state, especially your state's governor, cheer your death.

[ckramer]

219. Serving justice could possibly have caualties

But we can't stop eating because we choked a few times in our life time.

That's dumb.

[ProudDad]

237. Well luckily your blood thirsty

idiotic attitude is UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

[slackmaster]

50. I oppose the DP and am confident that nearly all of them are guilty

Nearly all isn't good enough, and 100% certainty is not within the capabilities of human beings.

[alarimer]

70. 100 have actually been released from death row since 1973

I don't know how many innocent people are still languishing, nor how many actually were executed.

And that article I cited above was from 2002, so there might be a lot more than 100 by now.

[alcibiades_mystery]

102. I don't care if they're guilty or not

No death penalty, ever. It's ethics, not pragmatics, and we should start thinking in such terms.

I don't care what they did. No state murder, period. No excuses, no exemptions, no "just in this particular case," nothing. No death penalty. No state murder. Done. It's an ethical question. The argument for real innocence is useful enough, I suppose, but has the negative effect of obscuring the underlying ethical imperative: no state sanctioned murder, ever.

[ckramer]

121. "I don't care what they did."

Have you no moral, man?

[alcibiades_mystery]

138. Actually, the opposite

My ethics says killing is wrong in principle, and thus you should not do it. That's Kantian ethics.

You, on the other hand, practice a situational ethics: killing, for you, is sometimes right. And you're questioning me?

[ckramer]

145. Kantian ethics - nice

but not practical.

Killing is absolutely wrong in my book. Since killing is so wrong in my book, I believe in stopping killing by justifiable killing.

That's where justice serves.

[TommyO]

156. Killing is wrong, so we'll stop killing by killing?

There is something incredibly wrong and twisted in that "logic".

[ckramer]

193. Yep

Just like the mother war that stops all wars.

Same idea.

[alcibiades_mystery]

157. No, killing is not "absolutely" wrong in your book

It is relatively wrong for you, by any sane definition of absolute and relative. You are a relativist when it comes to killing, because the action itself must be related to circumstances (i.e., whether the victim of the killing has been duly convicted and sentenced in a court of law, etc.). That's a relativist position.

Please try to understand the basic meanings of the terms you're using before you go spouting incoherent nonsense.

[ckramer]

194. Killing innocent is absolutely wrong

Killing murderers is absolutely right.

Do you call that a relativist position?

For instance, bin Laden killing Americans, that's wrong; Americans kill bin Laden, that's right. That's a moral pattern of justice.

Murderers killing innocent, that's wrong; murderers hence get killed, that's right.

[alcibiades_mystery]

203. Ridiculous

You don't even understand the meaning of your own words. You - for some strange reason - want desperately to be "absolute" in your position. You are not. If killing is absolutely wrong, you cannot divide up classes beneath it (innocent, murderers) because that makes it relative again. Or, it is just as I said in the last post: you have a situational ethics (relativistic) when it comes to the deliberate killing of human beings. That's fine, but own it. You don't get to smuggle an absolute ethics through the back door with petty and pathetic semantic dodges. You're a relativist on killing, just as I said. Own that. What's worse is that you don't even understand the basic philosophical concepts you're deploying here. It's laughable. And embarrassing.

That said, you seem to be arguing here that every person convicted of murder should be executed (your supposedly "absolute" position). Is that your contention: everybody? Because that puts you well beyond the position of even mainstream conservatives, and virtually all jurists since the mid-19th century. So this is a strange position indeed!

[ckramer]

208. Ridiculous?

Is this your position:

Killing innocent is right; killing murderer is wrong.

My impression so far is yes.


Sign!

[alcibiades_mystery]

213. From ridiculous to dishonest

You know damn well my position:

Killing the innocent is wrong.
Killing the guilty is wrong.
Killing is wrong. Period.

That's what a moral absolute looks like, bub.

That's an absolute ethic, champ.

That's what it looks like. Your situational ethics are what they are, but you should at least be honest and own your relativism. Of course, you don't want to do that because you probably heard somewhere that you should be a "relativist," and so you don't want to be, even though you have no idea what it means and you very clearly are one. Like I said, it's embarrassing.

[ckramer]

216. "Killing is wrong"

Then answer me what are we doing today in Afghanistan and Iraq?

What were we doing in WWII?

You are the one that is called "moral relativist"

[alcibiades_mystery]

217. As usual

You have no idea what you're talking about. How am I a relativist? Explain it. And no dodges.

[ckramer]

218. If you can answer the questions I asked you first

I'd be happy to explain.

[alcibiades_mystery]

222. You already have my answer

Killing is wrong. Period.

Iraq. Afghanistan. World War II. Doesn't matter. Killing is wrong. I still think the bravest all were the Quakers who refused to serve in combat.

Now go "prove" that I'm the relativist. What you cannot and will not prove is that you're NOT a relativist. You very clearly are.

[ckramer]

223. So you are a pacifist

who believes that all killings are wrong.

If you say "Iraq. Afghanistan. World War II. Doesn't matter" then maybe you are not a moral relativist, you are a pacifist.

Pacifists are childish naive idealists; they do not live in reality.

[alcibiades_mystery]

226. An ethic is an ethic

In any case, it is clear that YOU are a moral relativist, however "realistic" you might be in that position.

Right now, I'm touching a real keyboard and drinking real coffee, so I think perhaps I may just "live in reality."

Cheers.

[ckramer]

242. I'm not a moral relativist

My morality is clear - "you commit the crime, you do the time or pay for your life."

It's straight forward, there is nothing relative about it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

246. You are clearly a moral relativist

Sometimes killing a human being is right; sometimes killing a human being is wrong.

That's moral relativism. It just is. I know you don't want to believe it is, because somewhere along the line you got it into your head that moral relativism is bad bad bad. But it is a relativist position. There's no way out of that. You base your judgment of an action relative to the circumstances under which that action is committed. That's relativism. By definition. I know it's hard for you to accept that, because you got it into your head, etc. But that's what you are. You should own it. And own up to it.

[ckramer]

257. "Sometimes killing a human being is right; sometimes killing a human being is wrong"

I believe you and your fellow anti-death-penalty people here have your head seriously messed up.

When you say "Sometimes killing a human being is right; sometimes killing a human being is wrong", it really does not apply to me. You see, you can call me a moral relativist if and only if I decide to kill person A for reason B, and also decide not kill person C, for reason D. That's moral relativism. Google it.

I am third party observer here. My moral principle is very clear - crime needs to be punished accordingly; all the way to death if the punishment fits the crime.

What part of that logic you don't understand?

[Zynx]

163. Now how does executing someone who will otherwise be permanently

confined and unable to kill stop the killing? It's like executing POWs.

[ckramer]

195. Murderers != POWs

Please try again.

[Zynx]

206. The principle is the same. They have been incapacitated when they are

captured and jailed. There is no further point in killing them. How does that stop the killing as you suggest? That is akin to shooting POWs to stop the fighting in a war.

[ckramer]

209. No I disagree

POWs are enemy soldiers; they were armed, so were you. They are equal in fighting.

But murderer and victim are not equal in that sense. There had never been an equal confrontation between them before the murderer struck.

[Zynx]

221. My point was it is just as senseless from the stand point of preventing killing

to kill a jailed murderer as killing a POW. Killing a POW doesn't stop the war, killing a prisoner doesn't stop crime. In each case, it is over for them. It doesn't do anything except add one more to the scoreboard.

[ckramer]

260. Often time people did kill POWs for logistic reasons

They could escape, they could disobey order, they could re-arm to fight back...you'd never know, in a short handed war situation the quickest and saftest way is to cut them down and to stop their suffering.

[ProudDad]

238. Here, here!

Couldn't have put it better.

Sometimes I despair when I read crap from the mindlessly murderously blood thirsty pro-death idiots.

[DutchLiberal]

187. He has. You, I'm not so sure...

[LanternWaste]

173. That there are "progressives" that can not...

"No state murder, period. No excuses, no exemptions, no "just in this particular case," nothing..."



That there are "progressives" that can not (or will not) comprehend this is staggering to me, on both the general and the specific scales of morality.

[polmaven]

110. Of course, don't we hear....

"There is no evidence that any innocent people have ever been executed".

I have asked from just where that evidence might come. I mean...have they gone into the graves and extracted DNA from the bodies? All I get is the same "there is no evidence" crap.

[ckramer]

116. It's you who is assuming here

At least I don't assume that.

[Solon]

122. So you have no problem with innocent people getting executed? n/t

[ckramer]

146. I do n/t

[olddad56]

33. If Bush could veto this, he would. He is a big fan of killing people.

[balantz]

36. You can bet he'll try to undermine it!

[cboy4]

42. Life in prison without the possibility of parole is a much

harsher penalty than being allowed to take the easy way out with cap punishment.

And we can be assured no more innocent people are put to death.

I can't imagine why anyone would complain about this.

[LostinVA]

47. Me either, Damien

Oprah had a show after the outgoing Illinois governor out a moratorium on the DP in that state. Oprah was allowed onto Death Row to talk to the inmates there... to a man, they were NOT happy about this. They considered life without parole a much harsher and hellish sentence than the possibility of being executed.

[CTLawGuy]

82. I can imagine

if Osama were put in prison for life, the anguish and humiliation he would feel being a ward of the very country he despises for the rest of his life.

Instead of dying a martyr, he would slowly waste away as people forgot about him, and he would realize that his movement was a failure. And he'd have to live like that for a long time.

[ProudDad]

239. Life Without Parole is also a fucked up instrument

of vengeance that's nearly as bad as the death penalty.

It denies the redemptive capacity of human beings.

I complain...strenuously

[LostinVA]

253. Sociopaths can't be redeemed, so they can't live in society

[ProudDad]

269. You are kidding, right?

Nearly every person in politics is at some level sociopath and narcissistic. They wouldn't engage in that kind of behavior if they weren't...

Ooops, I guess I just proved your point...




On edit: Seriously, most people doing "Life Without" are NOT sociopaths... and most sociopaths are NOT locked up in jail or prison...

You're committing an egregious logic error called "overgeneralization" ie. you seem to think that because a few people locked up in prison have been "diagnosed" or appear "sociopath", all persons in prison or jail are "sociopaths".

[zoff]

76. and what if ...

your OWN son or daughter or mother or father were on death row? Would you tell them that they deserve what's coming to them? Or would you now do a necessary flip-flop because it is in YOUR best interest not to see a beloved family member dead?

The concept of an eye for an eye must be struck from our consciousness. We degrade our humanity as long as the act of taking a life is, wrongly and imho never ever rightly, justified.

[ckramer]

119. As their loves, It wouldn't be you to decide their fate

Justice must be served no matter how painful the experience to you.

Have you thought of that of the victims' love ones?

Killing people is not acceptable in a civilized society. Death penalty is the justifiable punishment for that kind of crime.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

176. Here, look at some people who are better than you:

http://www.willsworld.com/~mvfhr

http://www.mvfr.org/

[Ellen Forradalom]

192. It may be a justifiable punishment

But is it an act which serves justice and the interests of society at large? That's not the same as justifiable punishment.

[ckramer]

204. I think so

it is an act which serves justice and the interests of society at large.

We should never be sorry about a bad guy die.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

229. If it serves society, why do places without the death penalty have LOWER murder rates?

It only serves that part of society that gets a woody out of a ritual murder.

[ckramer]

258. Every country is different

We simply can't just do the copying.

That's called foolishness.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

266. Heh. So much for "A society can not function normally without death penalty."

Fuzzy logic indeed.

[ProudDad]

240. HEY -- Death Penalty = Killing People

Geez :eyes:

[ckramer]

245. Death Penalty = Killing Bad People

Why do you love them?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

254. Don't you get tired of those old straw men?

Try to build a new one for once.

[ProudDad]

273. Because they are fellow human beings... (n/t)

[ProudDad]

272. Don't you read this shit before clicking on the Post button?

"Killing people is not acceptable in a civilized society. Death penalty is the justifiable punishment for that kind of crime"


KNOCK, KNOCK -- the death penalty is KILLING PEOPLE!!!!


Geez....

[Heywood J]

88. Personally, I'm very, very slightly

for the death penalty - BUT that's qualified support. The only things I support it for are extremely heinous crimes, and those for which there is proof beyond any doubt that you have the right person. But I'm also of the opinion that if you're executing more than twenty people in a year (as a country), you have serious problems in society that need to be looked at before anyone else is executed.

I am neither pleased nor displeased by this news, actually, I can see the arguments on both sides. I come from a country where it hasn't been legal in decades, but where we did have criminals who deserved to get it. I really don't want to pay room and board for Paul Bernardo or Robert Picton, but I'm not about to hang an innocent person who hasn't had the benefit of every test that can be done and every piece of evidence collected.

[bonito]

91. KICK! I'm pro life by choice and approve of this message!

Two wrongs never makes it right, except one time installing a vinyl floor, I made it look right, but it wasn't.

[RestoreGore]

98. Proud of my Governor and state today

New Jersey now paves the way hopefully for more states to see that this is about more than revenge. It is about serving justice and not just ourselves.

[davidinalameda]

117. thank God!

the death penalty doesn't deter squat

if it did, you wouldn't have murders in any state with the death penalty

[Zhade]

148. Good!

NT!

[LynnTheDem]

169. I salute you, New Jersey!!!

BRAVO!!!

[gauguin57]

174. As Ghandi said, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

I'm glad NJ is using the logic that having the death penalty is not worth killing an innocent person -- anything to stop capital punishment ... but I wish someone would just stand up and say it's wrong for the state to kill anyone, no matter what they've done.

I've believed that all my life. I think having capital punishment is one more sign of our degeneration as a society (now we torture, too, and invade countries that did nothing to us in order to secure fossil fuels to feed our greedy lifestyles). Where does it end?

[allisonthegreat]

182. Pretty interesting...n/t

[killbotfactory]

184. Good job

:toast:

[ProudDad]

232. About Time! It's Happening!

Maybe sometime this century the USAmerikan people will pull their fucking heads out of their asses and realize that allowing their "government" to murder others is completely indefensible on ANY FUCKING LEVEL.

And anyone who thinks differently is a blood-thirsty, deluded asshole (and you know who you are)...

http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/d18adc00-a37d-11dc-9d08-f145a8145d2b/afr010132004en.html

(4, 6, and 10 are enough for me)


10 reasons to abolish the death penalty

By 2004, 118 countries had abolished the death penalty, in law or practice. An average of three countries abolish the death penalty every year. The worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty is reflected in the Africa region, where 24 members of the African Union had abolished the death penalty, in law or practice, by 1 October 2004.(1) Here are ten reasons for the total abolition of this degrading and inhuman punishment:

1 - the death penalty violates the right to life.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognises each person’s right to life. Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples´ Rights (ACHPR) states that "human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the physical and moral integrity of his person." This view is reinforced by the existence of international and regional treaties providing for the abolition of the death penalty, notably the second optional protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1989.

2 - the death penalty is a cruel and inhuman death.

The UDHR categorically states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."All forms of execution are inhuman. No government can guarantee a dignified and painless death to condemned prisoners, who also suffer psychological pain in the period between their sentence and execution.

3 - the death penalty has no dissuasive effect.

No scientific study has proved that the death penalty has a more dissuasive effect on crime than other punishments. The most recent investigation into the links of cause and effect between capital punishment and the murder rate, was conducted by the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002. It came to the following conclusion: "...it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment."

4 - the death penalty is premeditated murder, demeans the state and makes society more violent.

By executing a person, the state commits a murder and shows the same readiness to use physical violence against its victim as the criminal. Moreover, studies have shown that the murder rate increases immediately after executions. Researchers have suggested that this increase is similar to that caused by other violent public events, such as massacres and assassinations.

5 - the death penalty is discriminatory in its application.

Throughout the world, the death penalty is disproportionately used against disadvantaged people. Some condemned prisoners from the most impoverished social classes would not have been sentenced to death if they were from wealthier sectors of society. In these cases, either the accused are less able to find their way through the maze of the judicial system (because of a lack of knowledge, confidence or financial means), or the system reflects the generally negative attitude of society and the powerful towards them. It has also been proved that certain criminals run a greater risk of being condemned to death if their victims come from higher social classes.

6 - the death penalty denies the capacity of people to mend their ways and become a better person.

Defenders of the death penalty consider that anyone sentenced to death is unable to mend their ways and could re-offend at any time if they are released. However, there are many examples of offenders who have been reintegrated and who have not re-offended. Amnesty International believes that the way to prevent re-offending is to review procedures for conditional release and the psychological monitoring of prisoners during detention, and under no circumstances to increase the number of executions. In addition, the death penalty removes any possibility for the condemned person to repent.

7 - the death penalty cannot provide social stability nor bring peace to the victims.

An execution cannot give the victim his or her life back nor ease the suffering felt by their family. Far from reducing the pain, the length of the trial and the appeal procedure often prolong the family’s suffering.

8 - the death penalty denies the fallibility of human institutions.

The risk of executing innocent people remains indissolubly linked to the use of the death penalty. Since 1973, 116 people condemned to death in the United States have been released after proof of their innocence has been established. Some of them have only just escaped execution, after having passed years on death row. These repeated judicial errors have been especially due to irregularities committed by prosecution or police officers, recourse to doubtful evidence, material information or confessions, or the incompetence of defence lawyers. Other prisoners have been sent to their deaths when serious doubts existed about their guilt.

9 - the death penalty is a collective punishment.

This punishment affects all the family, friends and those sympathising with the condemned person. The close relatives of an executed prisoner, who generally do not have anything to do with the crime, could feel, as a result of the death penalty, the same dreadful sense of loss as the victim’s parents felt at the death of their loved one.

10 - the death penalty goes against the religious and humanist values that are common to all humanity.

Human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent. They are based on many traditions that can be found in all civilisations. All religions advocate clemency, compassion and forgiveness and it is on these values that Amnesty International bases its opposition to the death penalty.

[ronnie624]

249. Number 8 should be enough for anyone.

I just don't know what to think about those who are so enthralled to their need for vicarious revenge, that they are willing to allow the state to murder innocent people, in order to get some guilty ones. The primary defender of capital punishment on this thread has said as much:

"Serving justice could possibly have caualties...But we can't stop eating because we choked a few times in our life time."

Revolting!

Thanks for the link.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

256. That baffled me too. How do you reply to what in essence is "I am evil, so what?"

And wait till he comes here and denies having implied anything about innocent deaths being an acceptable cost.

[Guaranteed]

263. Just 4 & 10, even. Or just 4.

It's a cultural issue. Someone upthread said that it's the state's responsibility to uphold the values we hold dear. Taking life in this manner- vindictively- does not uphold those values. It demonstrates a callous disregard for life, which translates into bloodthirst in our citizens.

[fascisthunter]

268. I'm in Agreement with You

When I was very young and angry, I was asked about this issue, and without much depth to this subject, I concluded that the death penalty was justified (eye-for-an-eye). Now that I understand more, and have thought long and hard about the death penalty I have concluded that:

1. the death penalty is too imperfect and has on many occasions killed innocents

2. it does nothing to bring back loved ones

3. it's an easy way out for those who are not innocent

4. it does not curb crimes by those who are willing to do them (they are nuts)

5. it's morally indefensible

6. it's pure revenge

[rayofreason]

276. Life without parole in New Jersey..

..Cruel and Unusual punishment?

Actually, just let convicted murderers ride in a car on the Turnpike with Corzine.