Great: New Jersey’s death penalty ban saves “Megan’s law” killer
posted at 7:15 pm on December 17, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
The politicians couldn’t save Megan, of course, but now they have saved the man who brutally ended her life.
The man who raped and killed 7-year-old Megan Kanka — the 1994 crime that inspired “Megan’s Law” — is one of eight men whose sentences were commuted to life in prison this week as part of New Jersey’s new ban on execution.
The Garden State on Monday became the first state in more than three decades to abolish the death penalty after a commission ruled the punishment is “inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.”
Gov. Jon Corzine the day before commuted the sentences of eight men sitting on the state’s death row. They will now serve life in prison without parole, according to the governor’s office.
Among the eight is Jesse Timmendequas, 46, who was sentenced to death in June 1997 for Megan’s murder.
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.
Michelle followed this story last week, noting some of the other killers that would be spared and noting this about New Jersey’s opinion of the death penalty.
A Quinnipiac poll shows 53 percent of New Jerseyans surveyed oppose ending the death penalty and 39 percent support eliminating it.
Since when did public opinion matter?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Since there’s no death penalty, then there must be no death row segregation any longer, so put the guy in with the general population…. problem solved.
rw on December 17, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Did you agree with public opinion when it was heavily for pulling out of Iraq?
Anyway, our politicians aren’t elected to be swayed by polls. Actually they were elected so that we don’t have to worry about the stuff of government because we are busy with our own lives.
EIGHT PEOPLE. You are complaining about EIGHT people who will NEVER see the light of day. It’s not that they got away with anything. Killing this guy won’t bring Megan back.
It’s not a big deal, it won’t make a difference in the crime rate. I’m thankful that our society is moving past government sanctioned killing of people.
But I understand that I’m on the wrong side of the ‘polls’.
ThackerAgency on December 17, 2007 at 7:26 PM
If that is what Jersey wants then that is what Jersey gets. Long live Timmendequas.
Theworldisnotenough on December 17, 2007 at 7:27 PM
*rolls eyes*
Theworldisnotenough on December 17, 2007 at 7:30 PM
remember NJ is the state, in 2004 or something, where their D candidate was going to jail – so the party pulled him out and violated election law by putting a corpse in his place – and he got elected. does anything really surprise you anymore?
lorien1973 on December 17, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Would you still feel that way if he had raped and brutally murdered your child?
EnochCain on December 17, 2007 at 7:32 PM
From the story (bolded parts by me): The Garden State on Monday became the first state in more than three decades to abolish the death penalty after a commission ruled the punishment is “inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.”
Ah, the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency. Have they said how they think Megan’s rape and murder fit in with “evolving standards of decency”?
reine.de.tout on December 17, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Neither will keeping him a live in a cell.
Uh, yes it will. There have been numerous studies released this year that confirm that the death penalty does act as a deterrent. These studies were by various groups who were looking to prove the opposite.
More than that . . .
Blake on December 17, 2007 at 7:33 PM
If I thought killing the criminal would bring my child back, I’d want the person killed. Other than that, killing this person would NOT make me feel better. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Have you ever heard that?
Do you enjoy the Dinner Jacket comparing his justice system to ours BECAUSE we have the death penalty?
I would not want the person to ever get out of jail, but I would not feel better if he were killed by the government, no.
ThackerAgency on December 17, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Are these the same studies that ‘prove’ that there is no medicinal use for marijuana – though we have this legal synthetic version for prescription available.
ThackerAgency on December 17, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Did the Huckster pardon him? Heh.
HerrMorgenholz on December 17, 2007 at 7:38 PM
I want that person buried under the jail and why am I supposed to care what some homicidal dictator thinks about our country?
EnochCain on December 17, 2007 at 7:38 PM
GOLD.
fusionaddict on December 17, 2007 at 7:39 PM
let him stay at the Gov. Corzine’s residence.
A great BIG WTF over.
Texyank on December 17, 2007 at 7:40 PM
That’s a good point. Corzine and the state representatives can be voted out if the voters are strongly opposed. It hadn’t been used in 40 years, so I don’t think it will be much of an issue.
I think the death penalty is legitimate, but only if they kill the right guy. The mistakes that have been made in some states are alarming.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Just frickin’ great! This only means more Yankees moving to Raleigh and other NC cities. Good luck finding a place with all the illegals here!
SouthernGent on December 17, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Non sequitur. So far your arguments have been less than persuasive. And when I say that, I am being kind . . .
Blake on December 17, 2007 at 7:41 PM
In all seriousness, the death penalty is a boondoggle. It’s rarely carried out, and when it is it is because of zealous prosticutors making a name for themselves, because they all think they’re going to be governor. They’re all for spending a couple million bucks to ensure their political futures.
It is moral to kill a man that threatens you. It is not moral to kill a man in handcuffs, no matter his crime. It really is that simple. Flame away, but that’s my opinion.
HerrMorgenholz on December 17, 2007 at 7:41 PM
While I disagree with the action of eliminating the death penalty, the way it was being
usedabused in NJ was even worse.Unlimited appeals and the fact that no one had been put to death since the 1960’s made it a farce anyway.
AZ_Mike on December 17, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Hey, why not just let him out on weekend furloughs too? Don’t worry, he learned his lesson, he won’t do it again.
Tony737 on December 17, 2007 at 7:44 PM
I’m for the death penalty,these monsters need to be executed
the sooner the better.That way they,there’s a 100%they’ll
never reoffend.We had a guy in Canada who repeatly raped,
video taped and murdered two high school girls,with the help
of his wife,this is an example that meets the test for
execution.
canopfor on December 17, 2007 at 7:45 PM
That state is run by a left wing political mob and it matters not what the residents think or want. Corzine should be forced to keep his murdering felons within his own jurisdiction.
rplat on December 17, 2007 at 7:46 PM
While those opposed to the death penalty claim innocent people have been executed, since the re-instatement of the death penalty, there has never been a documented case of an innocent person being executed. Believe me, nothing would make an anti-death penalty proponent happier than to have an innocent person executed. Sick, huh?
Blake on December 17, 2007 at 7:46 PM
Mike, is that you? Huck?
HerrMorgenholz on December 17, 2007 at 7:46 PM
I live in Jersey. Death Penalty is a tough one for me. I waffle between wanting it and not minding if it’s abolished so long as the person gets life without parole.
With this guy, either shoot him in the head or lock him up forever. No rehab. No parole hearings. No special treatment.
I’m not going to sweat it either way.
Dash on December 17, 2007 at 7:46 PM
Dude. You should be running the Department of Justice.
Griz on December 17, 2007 at 7:47 PM
She’s out and has given birth. Maybe, she can have her daughter raped and murdered like she did her little sister.
Blake on December 17, 2007 at 7:48 PM
If the eight were already convicted and condemned, NJ should have had an 8-way hanging before the Gov. signed the new law.
And yes, I do want my government to kill people that kill people.
AZCON on December 17, 2007 at 7:48 PM
While I believe that innocent people have been executed, it’s likely to have happened quite a while back. In fact, it seems the only people executed any more are “volunteers”: those that have foregone their appeals. I have a problem with that, because they are obviously a bit mental. Any sane man, no matter his crime, would attempt to preserve himself.
The death penalty is carried out against these people, not those that deserve it, and they have been almost universally prosecuted by a power broker, ready to see higher office. That’s the political life. I don’t trust the government with my mail. Why should I trust them with the life of my fellow citizens?
There’s that God thing too, but we’ll stop here for now.
HerrMorgenholz on December 17, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Oh, as a footnate for all;
After Iran and AQ set their nukes off in several American cities there’ll be many of these creeps excape in the kaos. Or they’ll be paroled in the kaos. Then they’ll be just another problem… for you.
Griz on December 17, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Would it bother you if the person given lwop murders a correction officer? Or, greenlights a murder on the outside? Remember, Clarence Ray Allen who was executed by the state of California 2 years ago was already serving life in prison for murder when he arranged the murders of 4 innocent people who had testified against him.
Blake on December 17, 2007 at 7:52 PM
That comment was, uh….unfulfilling… WTF?
HerrMorgenholz on December 17, 2007 at 7:52 PM
I follow this fairly closely and I am aware of very few condemned waiving their appeals.
Blake on December 17, 2007 at 7:55 PM
There has not been one single case of the death penalty being executed where the dead criminal perpetrated another crime.
Wade on December 17, 2007 at 7:58 PM
As far as the death penalty, should a woman be hung like a man?
Wade on December 17, 2007 at 8:01 PM
I kind of agree with AZ_Mike here. I live in NJ, and have for most of my life (no jokes, please). They never used it here anyway, so it’s really more a difference without a distinction.
Nevertheless, I’m not happy with this. I don’t think this is going to rise to the level of voter discontent as what happened to Florio and the Democrats in the mid-90’s when they raised everybody’s taxes, and the Republicans then earned a veto-proof majority in BOTH houses, but hope springs eternal.
asc85 on December 17, 2007 at 8:05 PM
She’s out and has given birth…
Blake on December 17,2007 at 7:48PM.
Blake:Ya I know,sickening,the prosecutor made
a deal with the Devil!
canopfor on December 17, 2007 at 8:06 PM
No, they tend to weigh less, therefore, they should use a shorter rope.
Blake on December 17, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Pray tell, New Jersey, if our common sense of decency has so evolved, how then are we still subject to such crimes?
Spirit of 1776 on December 17, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Look at that guy’s ugly mug — that is what that little girl had to look at as he raped her, slammed her head, suffocated her, and raped her again. Please don’t lie and say that his life has any value. It doesn’t.
Blake on December 17, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Maybe they can’t find anyone to kill him in their pussy state. I’d do it for free– then take my kids to get some ice cream.
JiangxiDad on December 17, 2007 at 8:26 PM
I hope the guards just release this evil man into the general prison population. Freaks like him do not fare very well there.
Gatordoug on December 17, 2007 at 8:35 PM
It was good enough for Ignacio Ramos. Why not for Jesse Timmendequas?
RushBaby on December 17, 2007 at 8:45 PM
You’re talking about Toricelli. Acording to wiki, Laura Ingraham once dated him.
/crushed
sibobr on December 17, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Cortazone , Corazine, whatever………sleep well?
Limerick on December 17, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Someone else for President Huck’s pardon list.
Valiant on December 17, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Or if they escaped to kill their child? Or if their son/daughter works at the prison and they kill them?
Tim Burton on December 17, 2007 at 9:11 PM
I’m sure you remember Cuomo vetoing the death penalty every year. He insisted that Thomas Grasso be extradited to NY to avoid execution. When Pataki got elected he extradited him back to Oklahoma where justice was served.
sibobr on December 17, 2007 at 9:16 PM
As do I, and I note that very few are executed. Not to be glib, but Texas really doesn’t count.
HerrMorgenholz on December 17, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I believe more than 100 people have been exonerated after being sentenced to death and having served time on death row–some of those through DNA evidence. That shows that a jury trial can get it wrong.
I don’t have a principled problem with the death penalty but the practical problems of mistakes, sloppy investigation, poor lawyering, and arbitrary application are issues.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Late to this thread. I remember when Megan Kanka was killed by this animal that should have never gotten out of prison in the first place.
In 1979, Timmendequas pleaded guilty to the attempted aggravated sexual assault of a five-year-old girl in Piscataway Township, New Jersey. He was given a suspended sentence but, after failing to go to counseling, he was sent for nine months at the Middlesex Adult Correctional Center. In 1981, he pleaded guilty in regards to the sexual assault of a seven-year-old girl, and was imprisoned at the Adult Diagnostic & Treatment Center (ADTC) in Avenel, New Jersey for six years.
Timmendequas reportedly participated little in the treatment program offered at the ADTC. He was described by one therapist who treated him at the facility as a “pouter” who spent most of his time sleeping. Another therapist stated that she had believed that Timmendequas would eventually commit another sex crime (although she did not believe he would commit murder).
Timmendequas lived with two other convicted sex offenders across the street from his victim. He lured the girl into his house by offering to show her a puppy. After raping her, he slammed her head onto a dresser, put two plastic bags over her head, and strangled her to death with a belt. He moved her body to his truck, assaulting her once again before placing her in a wooden toy chest and dumping it in nearby Mercer County Park. The next day, he confessed to investigators and led police to the site of the body. Evidence including bloodstains, hair, and fiber samples, as well as a bite mark matching Kanka’s teeth on Timmendequas’ hand, led to Timmendequas being found guilty of kidnapping, four counts of aggravated sexual assault, and two counts of felony murder.
Congressman Dick Zimmer stated, “I believe he is exactly the kind of predator that the legislature had in mind when it enacted the death penalty.” The court sentenced Timmendequas to death, and the sentence was upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court on appeal.
If there was a candidate for the death penalty, Timmendequas is the poster boy for it. In New Jersey, you punish the victim and you let the criminal go free. The whole political system in New Jersey is hopelessly corrupt, from that idiot Governor Corzine, the New Jersey Supreme Court, the liberal democratic party of New Jersey, State Troopers and DYFS.
Kini on December 17, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Actually, they were elected to use their just powers derived from the consent of the governed. I hope the governed have the will to get rid of those who do not recognize that we have a representative government.
DrMagnolias on December 17, 2007 at 9:24 PM
NJ is machine politics. The incumbents keep their jobs unless they are caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Did a politician say this??? Is this some kind of surreal joke???
JellyToast on December 17, 2007 at 9:41 PM
The only way to ensure that the person never gets out of prison is to execute that person. It’s really that simple.
Without the death penalty, even those who have been sentenced to life without parole have been paroled.
You have no proof of that, and death penalty advocates have proof to the contrary. It’s one of the reasons this is an emotional issue on the other side as well.
You’ll do better if you’ll drop the smug attitude.
Personally I’d only be thankful if our society could move past repeat rapists and murderers, or even just the combination of the two.
As far as I read my Bible, it is immoral to allow an innocent person to die needlessly. And if you value those convicts so much, wouldn’t you want to protect them from people who rape and murder? What about the guards? Or do you actually believe no one is murdered in jail?
And what wouldn’t a person do when he or she has nothing left to lose?
It’s not even possible at that point to convince serial killers to give up the locations of the bodies so that family members might bury their own. It would even be stupid at that point for said killer to admit to ever murder, giving family members the peace of knowing what happened to their loved one.
And there’s also no reason for a murderer who has been caught to surrender without a fight. Killing a cop (or several) will make no difference in the end.
How can those of you who are against the death penalty also support the war? Iraq hadn’t attacked us? Weren’t we basically attacking and killing people without an American life being directly threatened?
And about the death penalty killing innocents, does not war kill innocents?
This is an absurd discussion.
Esthier on December 17, 2007 at 10:01 PM
I’m sure you are correct, and those exonerations make it seem highly likely that an innocent person was executed; however, I believe it’s also true that they’ve never proven an innocent person has actually been executed.
And they have tried. There have been several cases tested after the fact.
Esthier on December 17, 2007 at 10:04 PM
I respect the honest intellectual convictions of a principled death penalty opponent like Governor Corzine, so I propose a simple compromise regarding the death penalty: every member of the state government, from the Senate on up to governor, should have the ability to sponsor a death row innmate, automatically commuting their sentence to life in prison. If the sponsored inmate ever commits another capital crime, both the inmate and sponsor are put to death immediately. I’m sure there would be no shortage of heroic death penalty opponents volunteering for sponsorship positions, and their courageous example would help to lead us to the high state of enlightenment they have already reached. There would be no real danger to the sponsors, right? After all, there’s no way any of those rapists and murderers on Death Row are ever getting out of prison.
Doctor Zero on December 17, 2007 at 10:06 PM
I’ve never heard that proposition before. It’s very interesting.
Esthier on December 17, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Verrrrry creative. Just one problem: It makes a politician accountable.
RushBaby on December 17, 2007 at 10:29 PM
You stated that: In fact, it seems the only people executed any more are “volunteers”: those that have foregone their appeals. That is simply not true.
Blake on December 17, 2007 at 10:30 PM
And for the record, “exonerated” as used by the DPIC is not the same as innocent. The DPIC is infamous for playing fast and loose with their statistics.
Blake on December 17, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Kini:wasn’t to familar with facts of this case,
thanks for the information.
canopfor on December 17, 2007 at 10:45 PM
I’m not surprised by that. I am concerned about poor lawyering and the DNA exonerations. It seems cheaper to put the criminal away for life.
Also, sure, there is a difference between execution and life w/o parole. There are many crimes for which I’d like to see the perp hang rather than get life. A bigger concern to me though is the murderers and rapists who get out in 10 or 20 years. I’m really surprised that some murderers do less time than some non-violent offenders.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 11:32 PM
For the statistics/lies about the deterrent effect, remember that NJ hasn’t executed anyone in 30+ years.
DavidM on December 17, 2007 at 11:51 PM
See, that is why he killed his next victim, so he wouldn’t have a witness.
He should never have gotten out after the second attack.
The sumbitch would consider himself LUCKY if the police got to him first….
ArmyAunt on December 18, 2007 at 12:25 AM
I strongly disagree. The last thing we want is to encourage criminal to think of themselves as agents of justice. I let a criminal sleep in my basement during the cold months and he told this story: He shared a cell with a guy who had to put down his dog because she was dying and in pain. Someway some other criminals decided he was being cruel to the dog and beat him up. We just don’t want such activity to play into criminal justice, as many criminals don’t exhibit good judgment.
I strongly support heavy use of the death penalty as I think we should just get rid of the worst elements in our prisons. This will give the more savable elements a greater chance at redemption within prison. Besides, to be honest, I resent paying to keep someone around just so a bunch of hypocrites can feel cool that no one got killed.
thuja on December 18, 2007 at 12:40 AM
I too am Canadian and remember with horror and disgust the Karla Holmolka/Paul Bernardo case. I can’t believe that they let her out. She helped to rape and kill her own sister, for goodness sake. I think Bernardo is the prime example of when the death penalty should be imposed in Canada, even if occasionally.
I’m uncomfortable with the death penalty, unless it is used with discretion and wisdom. But that’s not much of a bad thing because the death penalty shouldn’t be used without some thought of what it means.
On the final other hand, I’m kind of disgusted that the death penalty wasn’t used MORE after Nazi Germany fell. I could be more than a little biased, but I think maybe there were a few more Nazis who deserved it.
mjk on December 18, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Oh my goodness, the guy in that photo used to be my roommate!
Tzetzes on December 18, 2007 at 1:47 AM
Um, that guy killed a dog and the guy we are talking about murdered an innocent young girl…yeah…pretty much the same thing.. /sarc
EnochCain on December 18, 2007 at 2:07 AM
The primary purpose of sentencing is not reform, but punishment. It is not enough for a criminal to simply right the wrong they have inflicted by, for example, returning stolen property. The criminal must bear the pain of additional punitive measures so as to connect his actions with consequences. This is the reason for our penal code.
In the case of the death penalty, it is obviously not possible to take back the punishment if it were assigned in error. However, when it is known beyond doubt that a criminal has taken another’s life through force, he should bear the same punishment in return, because there is no other like punishment for the crime of premeditated murder. Life in prison is not enough punitive action for first degree murder. And especially when it is aggravated. It matters not that we are unable to restore the victim to life. The purpose of the punishment is to subject the criminal to the like consequences of his actions. It is immoral to refer to the death of the victim and the death of his murderer as two equal wrongs.
There are indeed some ambiguous homicide cases and of course many manslaughter cases. And in nearly all of those cases, there is a lesser sentence to deal with the reasonable doubt and or lesser degree to the charge. In the case of the obvious first degree murder, and especially when guilt has been readily admitted, or has been readily proven beyond reasonable doubt, the criminal should be put to death. That is certainly the case with Timmendequas.
If and when our penal code provides a consistent and well correlated connection between action and consequence, it serves very effectively as a deterrent. The current rhetoric of reform and criminal rights is an abomination, and a perverse injustice to all wronged victims.
JeffB. on December 18, 2007 at 3:45 AM
My cousin, after a business trip to New Jersey, noted that it seemed that everyone was “pissed off that they have to live in New Jersey”.
Here’s another reason not to move there.
What an absolute disgrace.
Hawkins1701 on December 18, 2007 at 4:01 AM
You’re right: it is not literally true. Outside of Texas though, there is truth to it. (And I’m not cracking on TX. Their law is very different from the rest of the country, and should be excluded.)
About five years ago, a guy blew his wife away in a fit of anger just outside my home town. He had recently been released from prison one state over after 10 years or so. He had a previous armed robbery conviction, so this murder, combined with a violent-felon designation, made him death eligible under our state’s law. Now, prosecutorial discretion would have ruled out a try for the death penalty in 90 percent of the jurisdictions out there. Killing your wife when she is leaving you is a horrid crime, and you should never see the light of day again. But death? Probably not. Well, our county is famous for our prosecutor, who is certain that one day she will be in the governor’s mansion. She is a republican, but she does everything “for the children”, etc. Puke…
He “volunteered”. He dropped all appeals. He was executed within three years, which I think is a record for our state. The prosecutor laughed and made jokes in the death chamber’s witness area, and the inmate’s family was standing there when it happened.
Meanwhile, he shared death row with a man that killed five people in a spree around Christmas 1992. This animal has two more bites at the federal appellate apple before he gets the three-needle salute. Seven to ten years minimum to go.
And that is my point. This system is great for the suicidal inmate. It is utterly unworkable in most cases. We are spending millions of dollars per case on death row inmates, and most of them will die in prison waiting on their appeals to run out. Further, while as I said I doubt many if any innocent have been executed, it is only a matter of time. The vast majority of those sentenced to death in the modern death penalty era are still on the row, awaiting execution. I am not so trusting of the courts to deal out justice as to believe that all of those people are guilty.
HerrMorgenholz on December 18, 2007 at 5:25 AM
Public opinion was NEVER heavily (or even a majority) in favor of pulling out of Iraq, contrary to what a lot of Liberal propaganda spew had to say.
If it was, we would have pulled out. Look what happened with the shamnesty deal. The American people WERE heavily against that and they made their feelings clear to congress.
And look, no shamnesty.
As for NJ, the legislature there ignores the people just like the legislature in the people republic of Mass.
dogsoldier on December 18, 2007 at 6:52 AM
Once again, in both the state and federal system, very few inmates on death row waive their appeals. Repeating otherwise, will not make it true. It has nothing to do with Texas law, and Texas law is not “very different from the rest of the country.” I can’t believe the stuff you are coming up with.
Spoken like a true anti! You people salivate over the thought of an innocent man being executed. You must be terribly disappointed.
Blake on December 18, 2007 at 7:21 AM
Wipe the sputum off of your chin. Your rush to insult those who disagree with you is most unbecoming. And, yes: I am a true anti. The death penalty is a waste of time, money, and effort. As one of “You people”, (thanks Ross Perot!!) I do not “salivate” over the thought of the innocent being executed. For you to say such is akin to me saying that in your bloodlust you don’t care if the innocent die or not. And I don’t believe you think that way.
Yes, very few people waive their appeals. Very few are executed, too. That’s not a coincidence, Watkins.
By the way: brush up on your Texas law vis a vis the other states. You’re talking out of your hat.
HerrMorgenholz on December 18, 2007 at 7:41 AM
Way to go, Kenobi. =P
ZK on December 18, 2007 at 9:03 AM
No, I simply point out the lies, mis-statements of facts, and base motives of anti-dp proponents like you.
I’ve been practicing criminal appellate law for 12 years. Besides those of my own state of practice, I read the opinions, state and federal, of every Texas capital decision and any applicable state law. Once again, thank you for displaying your dishonesty and need to lie in order to bolster you sad position.
Blake on December 18, 2007 at 9:07 AM
Exactly. That would work for me.
4shoes on December 18, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Blake:
I am not a liar. While I am unencumbered by your education and experience, I am heartened to know that you can answer these questions:
1. Is Texas the only state in the Union that allows capital sentencing under the “law of parties”? I.e., A party to a robbery in which someone is killed can be executed, though that party did not pull the trigger.
2. Is Texas the only state in the Union that does not give the option of mandatory life in prison to the jury as an alternative to death?
3. Do these two provisions in Texas law lead to more people on death row, and are those people equally as death-worthy, on average, as the condemned of other states?
Please. Enlighten this liar, as you call me. By the way, what exactly is wrong with being against the death penalty? Oh forgive me, great Blake (Esq.), whose righteous wrath bestrides the Earth like a Colossus for the sin of having moral reservations about killing people. I must have missed the small print in the Sixth Commandment where it says “Thou shalt not murder (except after direct appeal, three habeas corpus petitions, Motion for Post Conviction Relief, three reviews by the SCOTUS, the review of the Clemency Board, and trying to get the governor on the phone. Then it’s hunky dory).
Perhaps the most frightening thing, Blake, is that as a lawyer you know what stupid, horrendous errors our legal system is capable of better than most. You’re on a conservative website, so my assumption is that you’ve got plenty of problems with the way our government operates. But hey, if it’s about killing my fellow systems, why then the gubmint can do no wrong. If we just follow the procedure, the outcome HAS to be right. Right? Right?
Get over yourself.
HerrMorgenholz on December 18, 2007 at 9:41 AM
systems=citizens, obviously.
Ranting leads to error.
HerrMorgenholz on December 18, 2007 at 9:43 AM
The death penalty isn’t murder as it is defined biblically.
Darksbane on December 18, 2007 at 9:45 AM
You’re obviously right, and my keyboard was a bit spittle flecked when I wrote it. I can’t tear myself away from the teaching, though, that every life is a gift from God, and that every soul is redeemable. I’m a conservative, and there is a very strong case from the conservative side (as there is from the liberal side) against capital punishment. I take three paths to the decision to oppose it. The first is as I just said. We are taking a life, a gift from God. Second, I am anti-abortion, and intellectually honesty requires me to oppose the death penalty as well. (Don’t start the argument comparing unborn babies with murderers. They are very different, except where they are the same, which is that they have souls.) Third, I do not trust the government. I’ve seen them foul up too many things. I will not entrust my fellow citizens’ lives to them in this manner. That’s all.
HerrMorgenholz on December 18, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Well, I for one am 110% in favor of the death penalty, although it needs to be carried out in a much more timely manner.
You are right… every life is a gift from God. But how we chose to live those lives have consequences. So, if you or I decide to murder another innocent human being, then we forfeit our “right” to live. I’ll say it again… our choices in life have consequences.
Being anti-abortion is completely different from the death penalty. Unborn children are innocent and have done nothing to deserve death. That is completely different from a person who chooses to take the life of an innocent human being… That person (the murderer) had free will and choose to do something that merited forfeiting his/her life. Those are completely different scenarios (abortion and death penalty) and I have yet to hear a valid argument against it.
And finally, I don’t completely trust the government either, but with the advances in science and DNA testing that we have today, that is a stronger argument in favor of the death penalty. There is LESS of a chance of sending an innocent person to death row than there has ever been.
Nineball on December 18, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Just as we are finding in the case of NJ abolishing the death penalty, times change and governments change opinions about what they want to do about penalties. When jurors gave this animal the death penalty, his fate should be secured to that ruling.
Giving someone life “without parole” is bs, because it’s just possible that some government idiocy in the future may just determine that keeping someone in jail for the rest of their life is “cruel and unusual punishment”. With the further pussification of our society, this is a certain.
Also, what if something is to happen to the prison that the lifer is in, and he gets out??
As stated earlier in this thread, there is no guarantee that a lifer will remain in prison. So, he/she is always still a threat unless he/she is dead.
Death Penalty is the only way to insure violent criminals will never harm others.
tickleddragon on December 18, 2007 at 10:44 AM
If you use this logic, then you also don’t believe in killing bugs, or using anti-bacterial soap, eating meat, etc. It’s a ridiculous statement, devoid of the ability to determine differences between “living things”.
tickleddragon on December 18, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Nineball:
I used to be in favor of the death penalty, but I’ve gotten older and mellower. To take your points one by one:
If we’re going to do it, do it. You’re right (despite the fact I don’t think we should do it). The variations in the appeals process from inmate to inmate are so extreme that I don’t think “equal protection” can be said with a straight face. Cheaper, too.
I am extraordinarily uncomfortable being the one to make that judgment. The destruction of a gift is best left to the giver of that gift. I can’t do it in a case where my family isn’t threatened. A man in a 6X8 cell is not a threat.
They are completely different, except where they are the same. Again, both are a gift, and both have a soul. The murderer is still capable of redemption. Extinguishing hope for that redemption is reprehensible. (That atheists can condemn people to death is worse, in my eyes. In their religion, which it is, they do not send this person to a premature judgment, they merely extinguish them.)
Here I think you’re off the mark. When the witness is describing that the marker found on allele X313B from the sample Exhibit 7 and compared it to the this, that or the other using the University of Chicago genetic screening protocol, I doubt that this serves to convince the jurors any differently than when a different witness in a different case says “I seent him do iit!” In fact, it may well confuse them more. Really, you have to trust the government to use that evidence properly, and that is a trust I have trouble granting.
HerrMorgenholz on December 18, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, the theological stylings of our very own tickledragon. He’ll be here all week.
HerrMorgenholz on December 18, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Herr… I can respect your perspective on the issue and I do appreciate that you presented your case in a courteous manner.
I understand your point of view. I disagreee with them, but I understand where you are coming from.
Nineball on December 18, 2007 at 11:18 AM
So God creates and we destroy?
I’m not opposed to the death penalty in principle, but I wouldn’t be able to reconcile it to a Creator who gave us the OK for it in the Bible some 3500 years ago but waited until the last decade for us to understand and apply DNA.
If we believe that God has delegated to us the power to judge that a human life should be terminated, then determining when life begins and allowing a woman to choose when to reproduce could also be decisions that God wants us to work out for ourselves.
dedalus on December 18, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Thanks Nineball. That’s the best that can be hoped for in this debate. Courteous disagreement is just that.
HerrMorgenholz on December 18, 2007 at 11:27 AM
One wonders if ThackerAgency would still be so enthused if New Jersey had abolished another form of killing, abortion. Something tells me that would have been treated differently.
Oh well. At least New Jersey mobsters won’t have to worry about the death penalty anymore.
Glen
harnessg on December 18, 2007 at 11:28 AM
That, my friend, is not even mediocre snark there. And didn’t even answer the assertion. Good one.
And by the way, smart guy, if you’d been paying attention to anything I’d said on any thread, you’d be enlightened to the fact that I am a woman. Observant one, ain’t cha?
And yes, I’ll be here all week…
tickleddragon on December 18, 2007 at 11:32 AM
No I wasn’t paying attention to anything you said earlier. Obviously, you paid much closer attention, as you noticed where I clearly stated that bugs, bacteria, and steaks all have souls that can be redeemed, just like unborn babies and condemned inmates!
Ya got me on that one, ma’am.
HerrMorgenholz on December 18, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Sure it’s a big deal. Taxpayers will have to continue to pay for their incarceration until they die.
eanax on December 18, 2007 at 12:14 PM
It’s called free will.
eanax on December 18, 2007 at 12:16 PM
And since they haven’t, what has been NJ’s crime rate? Up or down? I don’t know and haven’t researched it.
If the crime rate has gone up in those 30 years or so, then a strong argument could be made that banning the death penalty was just another bad idea made into law yet again.
eanax on December 18, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Sure. Either God has given us the power over life & death or not.
If your answer is “yes”, then it is up to governments to decide when they are allowed to kill some people–murder, treason, drug kingpin, child rapist, tax cheat? Voters might vary on the list of crimes over the course of decades, and other countries might choose differently. However, you are giving the government the right to kill its citizens for some crimes. If they end up extending it too far or killing the wrong person, you can’t go back to an argument that your life is sacred.
Personally, I’m OK with citizens and their legislators trying to figure out how to apply the death penalty. NJ decided it couldn’t do it fairly and that it wasn’t worth it. That seems reasonable to me.
I do respect the points that HerrMorgenholz has made. To draw a line that says the government can’t execute any of its citizens is appealing to me since I believe in a more limited government than we currently have. It might be more fitting if the right to life resided always with the citizen (and his God) and not with the state.
dedalus on December 18, 2007 at 12:35 PM
…anyone else tire of their regional bigotry?
When New Jersey’s spokesman proclaims moral superiority over another state, don’t die laughing.
maverick muse on December 18, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Comment pages: