New Jersey to Become First State to Ban Death Penalty in 42 Years

[Cap]

Jag-Tookie Williams was a fucking murderer who got what he deserved.  He was such a repentant person that he died because he never admitted his guilt and apologized.  What a real braniac.   

You joke like do because you have no answer to that point.  Why can DNA exonerate an innocent person but not convict.  I bet you didn't Google that murderer I mentioned did you?

Murderers are worthless and have no value for innocents, kind of like Dems that butcher babies.

If I murdered anybody the way Tookie, Kevin Cooper or Jeff Dahmer did I would hope that people would call for my execution and I would deserve it.  Hmmm.

[24KT]

Jag-Tookie Williams was a fucking murderer who got what he deserved.  He was such a repentant person that he died because he never admitted his guilt and apologized.  What a real braniac.   

I made no comment about Tookie Williams being deserving or not of the death penalty.
I simply stated at that point in his life, he was more valueable to society alive than dead.

You joke like do because you have no answer to that point.  Why can DNA exonerate an innocent person but not convict.  I bet you didn't Google that murderer I mentioned did you?

Murderers are worthless and have no value for innocents, kind of like Dems that butcher babies.

If I murdered anybody the way Tookie, Kevin Cooper or Jeff Dahmer did I would hope that people would call for my execution and I would deserve it.  Hmmm.

No, it's simply the way I cope when dealing with people who I consider to be getting a little hot under the collar, and I don't know if I have the desire, inclination, or even patience to attempt communication with someone so overwhelmingly ruled by their emotions and their bloodthirsty desire for vengence. DNA evidence in and of itself is not fool-proof.

Let me give you a scenario Cap... someone is raped, and identifies you as the rapist. You swear you are innocent. Rape kit comes up missing. So no DNA to test. Evidence circumstantial at best, ...but the jury is so horrified at the brutality of the crime, they want blood. The Superbowl is about to take place, and a quick verdict means they'll be home in front of the big screen, with a beer in one hand, and cheezy nachos in the other. They can't be bothered to to really think it through. They want beer, cheezy nachos, and to drool over the sexy GoDaddy girl. Your verdict comes in guilty. You all for the death penalty then?

Scenario 2:
You and your girlfriend have a big fight in public. Later that night in private, you make up. You have make up sex. You leave your DNA inside her. You go home. Scumbag breaks in, ...brutally rapes her using a condon, then kills her. You are #1 suspect. DNA testing comes back, ...it's your DNA all right. Conviction on trial. You all for the death penalty then?


How about if you freely gave samples of your blood at the police station (afterall, you're innocent and have nothing to fear)... and the technician who draws your blood swears out an affadavit he drew so much. Then instead of immediately walking across the hall and checking the blood into custody, the 25 yr veteran detective decides it would not be safe locked up at Parker Center, but rather be muuuuuch safer if he took it home with him for the weekend, ...brings it over to your house just as crime scene techs are wrapping up, ...then all of a sudden forensics are finding new droplets of your blood all over the place, collected and tagged out of order from everything else so meticulously done., ...then amounts of blood go missing from the original sample, but the original technician who drew the blood refuses to change his original sworn testimony under oath, but is willing to change his testimony, provided he is not required to take an oath. And of course your forensics guy is busted lying on the stand?  Would you say that any blood match was solid enough evidence worthy of convicting you?

How about a lab technician pressured to provide guilty results or else? Don't think it happens?

How about if you happened to land a psychopathically ambitious DA like the case of the Duke LaCross players? Don't think you could be falsely accused, ...then railroaded? You all for the quick rush to judgement & speedily carried out execution then?

Or what if you happened to be a law abiding, honest to goodness real life American hero who discovered high crimes, & treason against the American people, ...but isn't of a medal and a ticker-tape parade, you got a criminal record and a 90 yr jail sentence. Which would you prefer, the bullet, or the 90 yr sentence knowing there's a good chance you could be getting out because the SOBs that put you there had to high-tail it to a non-extraditing South American country real fast?

Are you beginning to understand now?

[Cap]

Okay Jag, you failed to answer anything I really said so I assume you know little although it seems you dislike some people at the LAPD.  Hide behind age and claim that I know nothing.  It cracks me up every time.

BTW, you don't get death row for rape although I am happy rapists get beaten and killed in jail. 

We are also assuming there is a jury trial like we see on television in many of these cases.  Rape cases are many times handled by a judge, I have seen footage of the cases.  But playing by your "JAG" (tv show) logic in either scenario I would volunteer DNA in both cases and the second would be a non-issue considering they would consider my relationship and the fact that she would be reporting someone other than me.  Scenario one is tricky but without a rape kit there is no evidence.  You assume that people would convict and that I wouldn't have an alibi, like being at work or the gym, which can be proven.  Hey, if your buddy OJ can get off so can I.  Any other brain busters?  Even if I had to go to appeal, I wouldn't be on death row, ever.

The Duke boys were exonerated because another Black Welfare mom wanted a handout and  DA wanted to be in office.  Justice prevailed.

The last scenario needs more detail to even warrant a response. 

[Hedgehog]

JBGRAY-a story for you if I may.  A Los Angeles judge, a liberal Democrat, believed in healing prisoners and not sending anybody for long sentences and felt that harsh punishments served a purpose.  Then, one night his house was broken into and his wife was brutally raped and beaten while he sat watching, tied up also beaten.  From that point on he was one of the harshest sentencing judges in the city and county.  I bet if anyone on this board had a family member/wife/etc killed they would want revenge. If we are going to pay for murdering assholes to live a full life then we need to stop abortion ASAP and allot funds for those kids to live for 50 years.  I wonder if NJ will abolish abortion.      Oh, but a woman's right to choose ... .  It's a sad world we live in.  If you murder you deserve to die.  In cases of clear cut murder who honestly thinks there can be foul play?  I still want to know how people think DNA can exonerate a man but nor convict.

Yes, a victim or the relatives of a victim have every right to wish for revenge.

But we live in a modern, civilized society.

And it is not efficient, not economic, not productive, to put away potential tax payers, potential workers, potential production units.

The cost for the society for each and every meth abuser is in the $millions before they die.

That is not sound macro economics, obviously.

It is not sound macro economics to put hundreds of criminals in limited areas, with little supervision or organized activity.

Prisons today are like Universities in criminality, when you get out, you got an MBA in crime.

But nothing else.

Doesn't make sense.


That is the economical aspect of the matter.

Then there is the legal safety aspect of the matter: Why can't we have death penalty?

Because we don't have a fail proof legal system.



Again, let me reiterate: It is the right of every person to wish revenge. But it is the responsibility of the society to support the victim, not to help out in some sort of vendetta.

One more thing: It's one thing when Atheists, Muslims or Jews argue the death penalty.

But I cannot understand Christians who support the death penalty. How can they justify that? Just blatantly disregard "Cast the first stone" "Turn the other cheek" and numerous other quotes from Jesus.

It's so totally against the Christian message of forgiveness, that I have to question whether these people are actually Christians.

[Deicide]

Yes, a victim or the relatives of a victim have every right to wish for revenge.

But we live in a modern, civilized society.

And it is not efficient, not economic, not productive, to put away potential tax payers, potential workers, potential production units.

The cost for the society for each and every meth abuser is in the $millions before they die.

That is not sound macro economics, obviously.

It is not sound macro economics to put hundreds of criminals in limited areas, with little supervision or organized activity.

Prisons today are like Universities in criminality, when you get out, you got an MBA in crime.

But nothing else.

Doesn't make sense.


That is the economical aspect of the matter.

Then there is the legal safety aspect of the matter: Why can't we have death penalty?

Because we don't have a fail proof legal system.



Again, let me reiterate: It is the right of every person to wish revenge. But it is the responsibility of the society to support the victim, not to help out in some sort of vendetta.

One more thing: It's one thing when Atheists, Muslims or Jews argue the death penalty.

But I cannot understand Christians who support the death penalty. How can they justify that? Just blatantly disregard "Cast the first stone" "Turn the other cheek" and numerous other quotes from Jesus.

It's so totally against the Christian message of forgiveness, that I have to question whether these people are actually Christians.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Luke 19:27, Jesus speaking...boy was a Jesus a moody character...so much for forgiveness.

[sync pulse]

You cannot have death penalty unless you have a bulletproof legal process.

And that is impossible today.

There is always a slim margin for error.

There may be a day when the legal system is perfect, and there are no errors made, and then we should definitely have a proper discussion regarding the ethics of a death sentence.

But since we cannot guarantee the legal procedure, the death penalty has to be put on hold.

While it is great to think about a legal system where there are no errors. A legal system where there is no possibility of error.  It occurred to me that by definition that could only happen in a police state.  Where everyone's life is known in perfect detail by the authorities.  Not saying I want rampant criminality, its just that there are sometimes unforeseen consequences of things you wish for.

[Dos Equis]

Yes, a victim or the relatives of a victim have every right to wish for revenge.

But we live in a modern, civilized society.

And it is not efficient, not economic, not productive, to put away potential tax payers, potential workers, potential production units.

The cost for the society for each and every meth abuser is in the $millions before they die.

That is not sound macro economics, obviously.

It is not sound macro economics to put hundreds of criminals in limited areas, with little supervision or organized activity.

Prisons today are like Universities in criminality, when you get out, you got an MBA in crime.

But nothing else.

Doesn't make sense.


That is the economical aspect of the matter.

Then there is the legal safety aspect of the matter: Why can't we have death penalty?

Because we don't have a fail proof legal system.



Again, let me reiterate: It is the right of every person to wish revenge. But it is the responsibility of the society to support the victim, not to help out in some sort of vendetta.

One more thing: It's one thing when Atheists, Muslims or Jews argue the death penalty.

But I cannot understand Christians who support the death penalty. How can they justify that? Just blatantly disregard "Cast the first stone" "Turn the other cheek" and numerous other quotes from Jesus.

It's so totally against the Christian message of forgiveness, that I have to question whether these people are actually Christians.

I don't think the death penalty, or punishment in general, is about revenge.  It's about accountability, justice, safety, and deterrence.

There is nothing anti-Christian about the death penalty.  What you're essentially advocating is anarchy.  If we, as Christians, are required to "turn the other cheek," then no person is punished.  We might as well close down our prisons.  The Bible doesn't require any such thing.  It doesn't condemn punishment, including the death penalty.  To the contrary, it advocates accountability.

As a Christian, I am not conflicted in the slightest about the justice system, including the death penalty.   

[24KT]

The last scenario needs more detail to even warrant a response. 

That's why I consider it pointless to argue with you.
What more detail do you need?
The guy is innocent and was railroaded because of corruption in high places? That's simple enough.
...or is it that you don't believe such egregious abuses of power & authority take place?

[Cap]

That's why I consider it pointless to argue with you.
What more detail do you need?
The guy is innocent and was railroaded because of corruption in high places? That's simple enough.
...or is it that you don't believe such egregious abuses of power & authority take place?

Discovering high treason by whom?  You need to present more of a scenario to warrant a response.  If it was against the President or anyone high up I'd likely keep my mouth shut because I'm not naive.

You don't argue with me (yes you do) because you assume I know nothing and then when I answer your posts you don't like what you hear, call me a baby, meltdown, or dismiss me based on age.  It's amusing especially since your responses show you to be more childish than I.  If your classless meltdown against Berserker is the mark of age and maturity then I'll forever remain a Lost Boy.  Good thing you aren't in law or debate. 

BTW, I believe power abuses are a reality but you can't post two sentences that were not well thought out or explicit and expect a good answer but I feel my follow up is enough for this discussion.

[24KT]

Discovering high treason by whom?  You need to present more of a scenario to warrant a response.  If it was against the President or anyone high up I'd likely keep my mouth shut because I'm not naive.

You don't argue with me (yes you do) because you assume I know nothing and then when I answer your posts you don't like what you hear, call me a baby, meltdown, or dismiss me based on age.  It's amusing especially since your responses show you to be more childish than I.  If your classless meltdown against Berserker is the mark of age and maturity then I'll forever remain a Lost Boy.  Good thing you aren't in law or debate. 

BTW, I believe power abuses are a reality but you can't post two sentences that were not well thought out or explicit and expect a good answer but I feel my follow up is enough for this discussion.

Touche! I will grant you your last statement was very well put. {LOL}

But since you acknowledge power abuses are a reality, ...it stands to reason that capital punishment should be abolished.

[Cap]

Touche! I will grant you your last statement was very well put. {LOL}

But since you acknowledge power abuses are a reality, ...it stands to reason that capital punishment should be abolished.

By that logic, which others have stated as well, no punishment should be dealt because anyone can be framed and remain in jail unjustly.

[24KT]

By that logic, which others have stated as well, no punishment should be dealt because anyone can be framed and remain in jail unjustly.

There's a big difference between remaining in jail unjustly, and being dead.
Granted no innocent person should ever have to go to jail, but at least in jail, s/he stands somewhat of a chance to regain their life. Execution doesn't allow for that.

[Cap]

There's a big difference between remaining in jail unjustly, and being dead.
Granted no innocent person should ever have to go to jail, but at least in jail, s/he stands somewhat of a chance to regain their life. Execution doesn't allow for that.

Duly noted.  My point is that unless one commits treason or murder they have a good chance of getting out of jail, with other crimes like kidnapping being another example of a possible life sentence.  In these cases where the only other alternative is life in prison, what life is there to regain.  In the case of corruption, which we both agree happens, if the corruption is deep and strong what chance does the accused stand at gaining parole or even winning an appeal?

What always strikes me as amazing is barring cases involving actual detection, why not execute those involving clear cut murder.  A police officer is shot by a suspect or husband walks in on wife being murdered.  Assuming the suspect is not killed and there is no question on the killer, why not execute them?  If we shall not execute innocent men and women can we justify killing innocent babies?

[24KT]

Duly noted.  My point is that unless one commits treason or murder they have a good chance of getting out of jail, with other crimes like kidnapping being another example of a possible life sentence.  In these cases where the only other alternative is life in prison, what life is there to regain.  In the case of corruption, which we both agree happens, if the corruption is deep and strong what chance does the accused stand at gaining parole or even winning an appeal?

What always strikes me as amazing is barring cases involving actual detection, why not execute those involving clear cut murder.  A police officer is shot by a suspect or husband walks in on wife being murdered.  Assuming the suspect is not killed and there is no question on the killer, why not execute them?  If we shall not execute innocent men and women can we justify killing innocent babies?

1st trimester abortions do not kill innocent babies. They dispose of unwanted organized clumps of parasitic cells. 

[Cap]

1st trimester abortions do not kill innocent babies. They dispose of unwanted organized clumps of parasitic cells. 

That's exactly what the death penalty does.

[Dos Equis]

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine Signs State Death Penalty Ban
Monday, December 17, 2007

WASHINGTON —  Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed a law on Monday making New Jersey the first state in four decades to abolish the death penalty.

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

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.

Among the eight spared is Jesse Timmendequas, a sex offender who murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994. The case inspired Megan's Law, which requires law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living in their communities.

Although New Jersey reinstated the death penalty in 1982 — six years after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to resume executions — it hasn't executed anyone since 1963.

A special state commission found in January that the death penalty was a more expensive sentence than life in prison, hasn't deterred murder, and risks killing an innocent person.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317123,00.html

[Cap]

Way to go.  A bunch of liberals feeling sorry for the shit of society.  The same hypocritical bunch who allow children to be killed.  Big surprise this state of idiots was the first to do this. 

Like I've said.  Maybe this practice would deter people if the shit bags didn't know that they could have 20-30 years of appeals and avoid the death penalty all together.

[kh300]

i dont know about other states. but in NY it's up to the prosecuter to decide which penalty they go for. if they have evidence such as a video tape, and every piece of evidence you need for a slam dunk conviction, they go for capitol punishment.. if they dont have much they'll go for 1st degree, or manslaughter or something else.

most of the time, when they have that much evidence they let the defense settle. so instead of going to trial, they take 30 years, over getting the death penalty. thats the way it works here. the death penalty is just a tool they use, more for the courts then for any other reason.

[Cap]

i dont know about other states. but in NY it's up to the prosecuter to decide which penalty they go for. if they have evidence such as a video tape, and every piece of evidence you need for a slam dunk conviction, they go for capitol punishment.. if they dont have much they'll go for 1st degree, or manslaughter or something else.

most of the time, when they have that much evidence they let the defense settle. so instead of going to trial, they take 30 years, over getting the death penalty. thats the way it works here. the death penalty is just a tool they use, more for the courts then for any other reason.

Exactly, and nobody can explain to me why that scum bag doesn't deserve to die.  Everyone needs to do some research on cases with obvious guilt and explain why there needs to be 30 years of debate over the same pieces of evidence.  Countless appeals of ruling on appeals. Enough is enough.  The evidence isn't going to change so accept your fate.  We're not talking about decent men and women, but rather the shit stain on the white undies that is society.  They are useless.  These are not cases of self defense but murder.  If you have an alibi for the time in question and the evidence is inconclusive you shouldn't have a problem with the system. 

Cut out frivolous appeals, which cost too much money and burden the legal system for decades.  Do not allow plea bargains or any chance for appeal or reduced sentence. 

[Dos Equis]

i dont know about other states. but in NY it's up to the prosecuter to decide which penalty they go for. if they have evidence such as a video tape, and every piece of evidence you need for a slam dunk conviction, they go for capitol punishment.. if they dont have much they'll go for 1st degree, or manslaughter or something else.

most of the time, when they have that much evidence they let the defense settle. so instead of going to trial, they take 30 years, over getting the death penalty. thats the way it works here. the death penalty is just a tool they use, more for the courts then for any other reason.

kh - New York doesn't have the death penalty. 

[kh300]

kh - New York doesn't have the death penalty. 

lol, i havnt been in a court room in awhie. forgot they got rid of it a couple years ago.. but im not sure if its official. there might be an appeal going on, but im too lazy to look it up

[benz]

I made no comment about Tookie Williams being deserving or not of the death penalty.
I simply stated at that point in his life, he was more valueable to society alive than dead.

Sure he was ...



epic gangster looking

[Cap]

Sure he was ...



epic gangster looking

On more gear than Arnold at one time and could not even admit his guilt.  Seriously, for someone who was given a Nobel Prize and hailed as intelligent, this idiot couldn't even do the one thing to keep himself alive.  He tried to become a martyr but it's just another dead gang banger. 

[Dos Equis]

On more gear than Arnold at one time and could not even admit his guilt.  Seriously, for someone who was given a Nobel Prize and hailed as intelligent, this idiot couldn't even do the one thing to keep himself alive.  He tried to become a martyr but it's just another dead gang banger. 

Glad he's dead.  Took a while, but justice was served. 

[Hedgehog]

I don't think the death penalty, or punishment in general, is about revenge.  It's about accountability, justice, safety, and deterrence.

There is nothing anti-Christian about the death penalty.  What you're essentially advocating is anarchy.  If we, as Christians, are required to "turn the other cheek," then no person is punished.  We might as well close down our prisons.  The Bible doesn't require any such thing. It doesn't condemn punishment, including the death penalty.  To the contrary, it advocates accountability.

As a Christian, I am not conflicted in the slightest about the justice system, including the death penalty.   

Yes, Anarchy (at least Anarchy as most people defines it, not the political definition: see Bakunin, Kropotkin) is what would happen.

If someone committed an act of sin against you, then you would turn the other cheek, or offer him/her your cloak as well.

Not ask for vengeance, or "justice".

Just forgive and move on.

The argument could be made that a lot of people would abuse this, but a Christian cannot worry about that, he/she has to live according to the Faith, the Righteous way, and hope that it will save more souls (those who abuse the "system" will eventually be convinced that they are wrong, and repent).


Eg, monks refusing to use violence to defend themselves when doing missionary work in hostile countries, and getting slain, accepting that faith.