When New Jersey’s spokesman proclaims moral superiority over another state, don’t die laughing.

It’s called free will.

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.

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

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.

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

It’s called free will.

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

Sure it’s a big deal. Taxpayers will have to continue to pay for their incarceration until they die.

Ya got me on that one, ma’am.

HerrMorgenholz on December 18, 2007 at 10:54 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…

Oh well. At least New Jersey mobsters won’t have to worry about the death penalty anymore.

Glen

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

Thanks Nineball. That’s the best that can be hoped for in this debate. Courteous disagreement is just that.

then we forfeit our “right” to live.

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.

HerrMorgenholz on December 18, 2007 at 10:52 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.

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

Ladies and gentlemen, the theological stylings of our very own tickledragon. He’ll be here all week.

I used to be in favor of the death penalty, but I’ve gotten older and mellower. To take your points one by one:

it needs to be carried out in a much more timely manner.

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.

So, if you or I decide to murder another innocent human being, then we forfeit our “right” to live.

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.

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…

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.)

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.

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.

Second, I am anti-abortion, and intellectually honesty requires me to oppose the death penalty as well.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

I must have missed the small print in the Sixth Commandment where it says “Thou shalt not murder

The death penalty isn’t murder as it is defined biblically.

Ranting leads to error.

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.

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

Exactly. That would work for me.

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.

No, I simply point out the lies, mis-statements of facts, and base motives of anti-dp proponents like you.

By the way: brush up on your Texas law vis a vis the other states. You’re talking out of your hat.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Further, while as I said I doubt many if any innocent have been executed, it is only a matter of time.

Spoken like a true anti! You people salivate over the thought of an innocent man being executed. You must be terribly disappointed.