# New Jersey Bans Death



## Wandering Man (Jul 9, 2006)

Penalty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217..._new_jersey;_ylt=AtlsDKrMAsaob_pkLBfAyql34T0D



> *New Jersey bans death penalty*
> 
> By TOM HESTER Jr., Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 17, 2:10 PM ET
> 
> ...


WM


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

> * 'Megan's Law' killer escapes death under N.J. execution ban*
> 
> *
> TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN)* -- 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.
> ...


score one for the criminals. If this bastard would have done this to my daughter, he'd already be dead. Therefore, there would be no reason for the state of NJ to get involved.

My heart goes out to the parents of Megan Kanka.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Clearly, the People's Republik of New Jersey values its resident murderers far more than its decent citizens. All this says to the families of murder victims is that the life of a murderer is worth more than the life of their loved one.

Has anyone seen poll data on this? Do NJ residents support this change? Ah well, the people of NJ voted for these rascals. They will now get to stew in their own juices.


----------



## drummin man 627 (Dec 25, 2006)

Boy am I glad I'm outta there. If you check the N.J. section of this forum, you'll see there's a conversation about N.J. criminalizing more of the decent citizens with even more strict gun laws.
I knew that as soon as Corzine got the Governor spot, those poor Jersians were in for more hell.
Now you not only will not be able to defend yourself, but the perp gets a life-long free ride from the very people he hurt. Last I heard (several years),it costs about $40,000 per year to house and feed, each inmate, and to keep them healthy in N.J.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

It's just beon me how the good people of these states keep letting these slimballs slip back into office. Everyone of them should be hung for treason against the state. I got to puke.:vom:


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2007)

Corzine has his own agenda and I can't believe the majority of citizens are in step with him. It's up to the people to throw him out of office. I don't know what redeeming value Timmendequas brings to this earth. What he did he should die for.


----------



## SuckLead (Jul 4, 2006)

Well, if people in NJ were allowed to defend themselves in any way at all, they may have no need for the death penalty. But NJ has been telling it's residents for years that they aren't as valuable to the state as their criminals.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Well, I am sorry - I guess I am in the minority here - I do not support the death penalty. A good example of why are the guys around teh country that have been exonerated.

Granted, the majority of prisoners do deserve to be in jail. Some do not. But, there is no taking the death penalty back after it is done.

Actually, working in the criminal justice field, and having a criminal justice degree - I know I am in the minority among my peers on this issue. But, all my life until the late 1990s, I WAS pro-death penalty. (I have no problem with self defense - that's a seperate issue)

When I became a Buddhist in the late 1990s, however, I realized that the death penalty is wrong.

We are all free to have our opinion. More power to ya. But, as everyone seems to be against this decision, I thought I would share my point of view...

Many of these guys should NEVER walk the streets again. But I can't support execution by the state. And if the victims' think it will bring them some sort of closure at the end - I think they are wrong. I've read statements after the fact from such cases - and these people usually eventually admit that it didn't bring them what they were looking for.

Now, I'll put my shields up for the flaming :mrgreen:


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

No flames here, *Ship*. I think the possibility of executing an innocent person is really the only valid argument against the death penalty (I am not sure about the Buddhism ;-)). However, with advances in forensics, I think we can be more sure of guilt now than we've ever been.

Leaving aside the religious angle, if you are able, would you support the death penalty if we could be 100% sure that the offender was guilty?


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Leaving aside the religious angle, if you are able, would you support the death penalty if we could be 100% sure that the offender was guilty?


At one time in my life - yes. Now - no. I just don't think its right.

If someone killed a member of my family - and I was not around to defend that person... But learned of it later... I'd like to think that I STILL would NOT support the death penalty. But, that's a personal choice I have made.

It is such a hot button argument. I only point out the chance of an innocent person possibly being killed because that's the easiest point to point out in my view.

Back in college in criminal justice classes, I too supported the death penalty. Although - one of the biggest arguments FOR the death penalty - that it will deter others from being killers... I think that argument can be found to be untrue. It doesn't. In fact, for whatever reason, I have read stats that show that crime is typically higher in states with the death penalty. Of course, stats can be twisted to point out any view you want.. So, who really knows about that, I suppose.

But, if it isn't a deterant, then it's just the equivalent of "getting even" with the criminal. I think that life w/o parole is satisfactory.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Shipwreck said:


> Back in college in criminal justice classes, I too supported the death penalty. Although - one of the biggest arguments FOR the death penalty - that it will deter others from being killers... I think that argument can be found to be untrue. It doesn't.


I agree that statistics show it is not a deterrent to murder. Most criminals don't think they'll be caught, as I understand it, so why would they think that far ahead? And people who commit "crimes of passion" aren't thinking about consequences.



> But, if it isn't a deterant, then it's just the equivalent of "getting even" with the criminal. I think that life w/o parole is satisfactory.


In a sense, but I am not sure that's a bad thing. I think that society making the statement that we valued the life of the victim more than the life of the murderer is important.


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 9, 2006)

Shipwreck said:


> Back in college in criminal justice classes, I too supported the death penalty. Although - one of the biggest arguments FOR the death penalty - that it will deter others from being killers... I think that argument can be found to be untrue. It doesn't. In fact, for whatever reason, I have read stats that show that crime is typically higher in states with the death penalty. Of course, stats can be twisted to point out any view you want.. So, who really knows about that, I suppose.
> 
> But, if it isn't a deterant, then it's just the equivalent of "getting even" with the criminal. I think that life w/o parole is satisfactory.


I think this is sadly true.  Most (not all) murders are emotion-driven with little in the way of rational thought contributing to the act. If there is no reasoning, then there is no concern for consequences. This also contributes to murder having the lowest recidivism rate. Once you've murdered the source of your anger (spouse, parents, etc) you have no need to go out and kill again.

While I support the death penalty, I have to concede that its major function may be for revenge, rather than as a preventative.

WM


----------



## jwkimber45 (May 6, 2006)

This makes me want to puke.......

I think in this day and age with all the technology we have in criminal investigation the chances of an innocent party being sentenced to the death penality are so slim as to make that a non-issue in the argument. If you murder someone, you deserve to die. Plain and simple. I'll even go a step further and say it sould be made more public than it is, further the deterrent for others to murder.....I'll donate the rope.....


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

Well with in our family a couple slim balls killed my wifes cousin and left her husband for dead. They tortured them for hours with knifes and a leg off the coffee table. They left her with her head almost completely cut off. Who were they? Debra Brown and Alton Coleman. They killed several others in their spree. They finally did execute Coleman but Brown is still alive. When some one takes innocent life they deserve no life. Don't give me a bunch of fancy words and this old bleeding heart BS.:smt076


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Baldy said:


> When some one takes innocent life they deserve no life. Don't give me a bunch of fancy words and this old bleeding heart BS.:smt076


Hey, we're all welcome to our opinion. And, this being a firearm site - I know my opinion will be in the minority. It doesn't make it any less valid than your point of view, however.

I do believe in punishment - I just don't believe in the death penalty. It's not a bleeding heart BS thing to me.

But, I can understand anger if that happened to your family member. I get upset when I hear certain stories about how victims were tortures as well. That is a terrible situation. I hope never to be faced with such an event in my life or in the lives of anyone I know (or anyone, for that matter)

I also know that no one here is going to change their mind on this issue simply by what's said on this thread.


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

Well, it is a deterrent in one way.......the murderer will never do it again, in or out of prison! Wonder how many of the people that have murdered someone and are still walking around (either got off or didn't get caught) will murder again. We will never know the answer to that one.


----------



## Joeshwa24 (Nov 14, 2007)

Shipwreck said:


> I have read stats that show that crime is typically higher in states with the death penalty. Of course, stats can be twisted to point out any view you want.. So, who really knows about that, I suppose.
> 
> But, if it isn't a deterant, then it's just the equivalent of "getting even" with the criminal. I think that life w/o parole is satisfactory.


Ok this is a long, long answer but I have been thinking about this a lot.

I have seen these stats and I agree that at this point the death penalty is not acting as a deterrent. However in my humble opinion this is directly related to the controversy surrounding it, if the law of the land was simple, if you are convicted of premeditated murder you are going to spend ten years in jail and at the end of that time you will be hung, the sentiment about capitol punishment might change. I also think that politically correct capitol punishment is an oxymoron and most people who commit truly hennas crimes value there own lives less than that of there victims and a clean lethal injection is no deterrent. I am not a proponent of cruel and unusual punishment however fear of the death penalty is, frankly greatly increased if you think its going to hurt. I think you would see a drop in the rate of hennas crimes if this were the case. In the case of people who are wrongly convicted and then set free; this method would more than likely decrease this as well, how you may ask? Every time we see someone freed from death row it comes along with a caveat that the time they have served pays for the crimes that they did commit. We get this idea that because they were exonerated that they committed no crime when in reality most of the time they were so deeply involved with the crime that the evidence simply pointed to them. It is extremely rare that we someone would be set free because of malicious prosecution. So people having the understanding that if there was even a minute connection to a crime that there was a real possibility they could be fingered for it and, while it would be unjustly done, put to death people would be much more careful about there lives even appearing to be out of order. The case of "The wrong place at the wrong time" is rarer than the media would lead us to believe. As fare as the death penalty being "just the equivalent of 'getting even'" I think under that phrasing anyone would agree that capitol punishment was wrong but change "Getting even" to "Paying the predetermined well known penalty" and that sentence reads "The death penalty is just he equivalent of paying the predetermined well known penalty by the criminal"; Doesn't sound so bad now does it. I know that I know that if I run out in front of a freight train going 80 mph its going to kill me, and if a criminal knows that he knows that if he rapes and murders a little girl he is going to be hung then the judgment isn't up to the lawyers, the jurors or the guy in the robes, its up to the criminal.

I'm not trying to derail anyone from there opinion, this is simply mine. No Disrespect Ship you seam like a good guy I simply disagree with you on this one point; no hard feelings I hope.


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

I say let the family of the victims decided what should be done with them after they have had there day in court. Why should the tax payers hang on to a slimball for 30 or 40 years. Three meals, free medical, most can have tv's and computers. I had to work for mine and I have to pay for theirs. If you choose to let some slimball live so be it. Not me. 
Hope you never have to see what her father seen as he was the frist to find out. He's the one who called the police. He died six months later from grief. Slimball Brown is doing fine on death row. Going on 35yrs now.:smt076


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Joeshwa24 said:


> I'm not trying to derail anyone from there opinion, this is simply mine. No Disrespect Ship you seam like a good guy I simply disagree with you on this one point; no hard feelings I hope.


No, none at all. As long as we can all discuss this honestly, without making fun of the opposing opinion, I have no problem with U guys who believe in the other side of this...


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

Kudos to all for the civil discourse on such an explosive topic.

I agree with the death penalty:
not for it's deterent, as I don't see it as effective, 
not for revenge, as I see that as sinking to the same level,
but simply as an appropriate consequence for taking an innocent life.

Imprisonment without parole serves somewhat as a punishment, but is better treatment than many can afford outside of prison, and at the expense of law abiding citizens. It's almost a reward in some cases.

I'd be in favor of the most humane, and cost effective method of execution for those who we are certain are guilty.


----------



## SuckLead (Jul 4, 2006)

One arguement I _could_ make against the death penalty is that if I was sentenced to life in jail I'd rather die. Life in jail is probably worse than dieing.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

MLB said:


> Kudos to all for the civil discourse on such an explosive topic.
> 
> I agree with the death penalty:
> not for it's deterent, as I don't see it as effective,
> ...


+1

I think it's sad that we have to pay, via our tax money, to keep someone alive that has taken a life. 3 meals a day, free health care for life, free room and board, etc.

Personally, I believe that law abiding citizens should be given the choice of how our tax money is spent when it comes to housing violent criminals who rape, molest and murder.

Let the people who want to show them compassion foot the bill. Kind of like child support... garnish their wages monthly to keep a murdering bastard alive. Hell, even send them a profile package (pictures, bio) of their criminal so they can feel all warm and fuzzy inside for sparing the life of someone who took another, or more, without even blinking an eye.

sorry ship, just my humble opinion...


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

What I don't understand here some think they have a right to take a life when it's them or their love ones in peril with a bullet but want to deney others the right to throw the switch on a slimball that took one of their loved ones out. It's not revenge where I come from it's called justist.:smt076


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Several studies have shown that it costs more money to put an inmate to death than it does to keep him imprisoned for 30-40 years. Presumably this is because of the lengthy appeals process, which theoretically helps us make doubly sure the accused is guilty.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Baldy said:


> What I don't understand here some think they have a right to take a life when it's them or their love ones in peril with a bullet but want to deney others the right to throw the switch on a slimball that took one of their loved ones out. It's not revenge where I come from it's called justist.:smt076


I am in favor of the death penalty, but I think there's an obvious difference between using your pistol to _prevent_ a murder, and using the death penalty after the murder has occurred. The pistol can save an innocent life, but the death penalty can't bring the innocent back to life. I don't think *Shipwreck's* argument is contradictory, since the pistol is prevention and the electric chair is punishment.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Several studies have shown that it costs more money to put an inmate to death than it does to keep him imprisoned for 30-40 years. Presumably this is because of the lengthy appeals process, which theoretically helps us make doubly sure the accused is guilty.


and that's where the system is broke... "multiple appeals". Why go through the jury selection, trial, verdict, sentencing process... if in the end it means nothing.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

js said:


> Why go through the jury selection, trial, verdict, sentencing process... if in the end it means nothing.


I'll go way out on a limb here and say: to make sure we don't execute an innocent person?


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> I'll go way out on a limb here and say: to make sure we don't execute an innocent person?


oh I know, I think you miss understood... I'm just saying that the "multiple" appeals process is the problem. Give them 1 appeal... set a time limit for that appeal so it doesn't bog down the system and cost the tax payers more, Then move on....

Confessions on the other hand should be simple to handle... but, they're not. We have a guy here in NC who is currently milking the appeals process, even after confessing to killing 2 elderly people in a home break in back in 1993.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Yes, I did misunderstand. Thanks for clarifying. I agree that a single appeal should be sufficient.


----------



## Silly (Nov 19, 2006)

I don't think the death penalty will prevent these pieces of crap from committing a crime. They are not "right" in the head with no chance of rehabilitation. The question is why should hard working tax paying citizens fund their existence. Why waste good air on something that does not belong in society or on earth. If they confess to murder or child molestation, kill them on the spot and quit wasting tax payers money. These are crimes that are unforgivable and they should pay the ultimate price.


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

These two slimballs admitted the murders they comitted and still spent about six years in appeals courts. They left finger prints all over the crime scene in her blood. Millions was spent on their appeals. Brown said" that b#@*^ was hard to kill. Said she had to beat her brain out" and she did. Now don't tell me she should not be hung. This is just one of many cases like this in the US.:smt076


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 9, 2006)

SuckLead said:


> One arguement I _could_ make against the death penalty is that if I was sentenced to life in jail I'd rather die. Life in jail is probably worse than dieing.


Offenders can and do make adjustments to prison, and there is even a bit of a social order there. Nevertheless, as someone who has walked among them I can say that living in prison is different from living in society. It isn't a place I'd like live.

Our freedom is very precious, and all too easy to take for granted.

WM


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> The pistol can save an innocent life, but the death penalty can't bring the innocent back to life. I don't think *Shipwreck's* argument is contradictory, since the pistol is prevention and the electric chair is punishment.


Yes, you explained my point of view reasonably. And, you also pointed out the cost in dollars for carrying out the death penalty.

I am glad that in general, we were able to have this discussion with no persona attacks on each other.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Wandering Man said:


> Offenders can and do make adjustments to prison, and there is even a bit of a social order there. Nevertheless, as someone who has walked among them I can say that living in prison is different from living in society. It isn't a place I'd like live.
> 
> Our freedom is very precious, and all too easy to take for granted.
> 
> WM


I have been inside prisons before too (and jails as well). You are right - a prison is not a place I would want to be at either.


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

"I think it's sad that we have to pay, via our tax money, to keep someone alive that has taken a life. 3 meals a day, free health care for life, free room and board, etc.

Personally, I believe that law abiding citizens should be given the choice of how our tax money is spent when it comes to housing violent criminals who rape, molest and murder.

Let the people who want to show them compassion foot the bill. Kind of like child support... garnish their wages monthly to keep a murdering bastard alive. Hell, even send them a profile package (pictures, bio) of their criminal so they can feel all warm and fuzzy inside for sparing the life of someone who took another, or more, without even blinking an eye.

sorry ship, just my humble opinion..." Quote from js.
__________________


js is right on target! Don't use everybody's money, just the ones that disagree with the death penalty..........or just Nuke'em all. :supz:


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

js said:


> Let the people who want to show them compassion foot the bill. Kind of like child support... garnish their wages monthly to keep a murdering bastard alive. Hell, even send them a profile package (pictures, bio) of their criminal so they can feel all warm and fuzzy inside for sparing the life of someone who took another, or more, without even blinking an eye.
> 
> sorry ship, just my humble opinion...


That's fine. We all have our own opinion. But come on. honestly expecting people opposed to the death penalty to pay for them being housed? Come on'... That's as bad as the "nuke em all" comment just made. We have a society. We pay taxes. The govt must protect us. Part of that is paying for law breakers. If you want to fix the system, there are MANY other areas to start. Unfortunately, I see the same criminals committing crime after crime. If you fixed the criminal justice system in other places, you'd have less murders - It wouldn't necessarily stop the crimes of passion. But, it could prevent these guys who commit crime after crime from taking things further and killing someone one day.

This is a highly emotional issue - but one must look at things rationally. We are a civilized society. And, I'm not taking this side of the issue as some liberal nut job. That ain't me. But, if taking this stance on this one issue makes me liberal. So be it.

I may disagree with a lot of the views here, but I respect your right to have this view. And, I hope you do the same to me. As I've said before, I had the same view as you for a long time in my life.

It was mentioned above that the family of the victim should decide... I think this is a bad idea. These are the last people that should decide. They have too much emotion involved in the incident. They can't make a rational decision.

While somewhat related, but on a side topic... I know Charlie is pissed about what happened. I would be too. And, I would never forget if that happened to one of my relatives. But at some point in your life, you are going to have to forgive the killers, or it will eat you up inside. While not quite on the same scope - my parents treated me pretty bad as I grew up. At one point in my early 20s, I left one afternoon when I couldn't take it anymore. I didn't speak to them for over 5 years. I can't even begin to tell you how pissed I was at them. They didn't even know where I was during that time (I got married, graduated college, and had other milestones in my life - I didn't want them involved in any of that).

But, I eventually learned that this type of anger just eats YOU up inside. YOU become a victim of your own anger - even if you don't acknowldge it. Now, things take time. And, I believe in the old addage - "Time heals all wounds." Eventually, I made peace with myself and forgave them. I didn't forget, but I forgave.

I have contact with my parents now - years later. I'm not super close, because I'm smart enough not to repeat mistakes, but I have forgiven them.

I stated above that if someone killed someone I loved, I'd like to think that I'd still be opposed to the death penalty. And, eventually, in order for myself to be at peace, I'd have to forgive that person. Otherwise, I'm not doing myself any good. Would that happen in 1 day? No.

Now, we all have our own views and our own religions. But, I think at least some of you will agree with me.


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

Ship, I think you meant Baldy is pissed.......I'm not anymore pissed about this deal than I would be normally :mrgreen: I believe it was Baldy that had relative(s) murdered by the slimeballs.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I guess our tax returns could have a big list of check boxes. Just check the things you want your tax dollars to go toward:

[ ] National defense
[ ] Police
[ ] Contraceptives in schools
[ ] Faith-based "initiatives"
[ ] Universal health care
[ ] Housing violent offenders
[ ] Battery for electric chair
[ ] Etc., etc., etc.

But seriously, there's no practical way to let everyone just pay for the things in the government they like. That's why we have a legislature, to enact the laws that are desired by most people.

I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides of the issue, and as much as I am loathe to admit it, *Shipwreck* has presented some good arguments from a pretty rational point of view. I remain unconvinced that the death penalty is a bad thing, since I believe in the concept of social judgment, and have no religious leanings that prevent me from advocating the ultimate punishment. It wouldn't be a controversial issue if there weren't arguments to be made on both sides, just like a lot of issues of our day: abortion, the war in Iraq, even gun control.

I am not sure about the whole "forgiveness" angle, though. I mean, there are lots of unforgivable acts - take 9/11, for example. And parents treating their kid badly is pretty damn far from smashing an innocent woman's skull, unless we're talking incest or something.

I am pleased to see that (most) everyone is holding their tempers in check in this thread...which has the potential to be a flamefest.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Charlie said:


> Ship, I think you meant Baldy is pissed.......I'm not anymore pissed about this deal than I would be normally :mrgreen: I believe it was Baldy that had relative(s) murdered by the slimeballs.


Oops. Sorry....


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> I am not sure about the whole "forgiveness" angle, though. I mean, there are lots of unforgivable acts - take 9/11, for example. And parents treating their kid badly is pretty damn far from smashing an innocent woman's skull, unless we're talking incest or something.
> 
> I am pleased to see that (most) everyone is holding their tempers in check in this thread...which has the potential to be a flamefest.


I agree, it is a step up. But, my point is that each individual person will get eaten up inside with anger if they can't, at some point, let it go. I know this is a side branch of the original topic of the death penalty, but it is releated.

Are their relatives of victims of any violent crime who will be pissed and will never forget? Yes. I imagine that it would be even harder to forgive if a person survived, but was left in a horrible state for the rest of their lives. Not everyone could do it.

And, I don't necessarily look at it as a religious thing, although forgiveness is tied to almost every religion. My original point is that such all consuming hatred for the criminal, maintained for the rest of your life, will hurt you even more. But, that's a personal choice each of us has to make. I've made it in my life, and while I hope I never have to face an event so horrible in my future (as the things we have discussed above) - I know what I would have to do inside to get past it and move on with my life.

The funny thing is that when I started all of this in the 1990s - I wasn't looking for religion. I just found myself being pissed more and more - until I was pissed about things 24 hours a day. Not necessarily for any particular reason. I was just always irritated. I tried buying things to make me happy - it didn't work...


----------



## Joeshwa24 (Nov 14, 2007)

I don’t think that it’s a matter of forgiveness as much as a matter of consequence. I have held off on telling this until now but I may as well. My best friend in the world Mike O. was murdered 5 years ago by a guy who confused him with the man his wife was having an affair with; He stabbed him 28 times then slit his throat. I have forgiven him and I even go play chess with him about once a month, his name is Philip H. That being said Phil has a consequence to pay whether I and Mikes family have forgiven him or not. Forgiveness is about the victims and there families learning to heal, consequence doesn’t go away with forgiveness. On a smaller level; I have a three year old when she does something she knows she shouldn’t I forgive her but if I didn’t spank her as well she wouldn’t understand consequence until it was something unavoidable, the preverbal hot stove, if you will. Death is a analogous consequence for premeditated murder in my opinion and has nothing to do with forgiveness.


----------



## babs (Nov 30, 2007)

Chalk it up as reason #546 why I don't and won't live in NJ.

Maybe if they're too "decent" to rid the world of an animal like that, they should make the law to ask the parent(s) or legal guardians of the victim which of the two (execution or life w/o parole) the animal that killed their child shall receive.. 

Then they can play Pontius Pilate and wash their weak mob-owned hands of the thing.

Amen!


----------



## jwkimber45 (May 6, 2006)

Charlie said:


> "I think it's sad that we have to pay, via our tax money, to keep someone alive that has taken a life. 3 meals a day, free health care for life, free room and board, etc.
> 
> Personally, I believe that law abiding citizens should be given the choice of how our tax money is spent when it comes to housing violent criminals who rape, molest and murder.
> 
> ...


Hell Yes!!!



> Several studies have shown that it costs more money to put an inmate to death than it does to keep him imprisoned for 30-40 years. Presumably this is because of the lengthy appeals process, which theoretically helps us make doubly sure the accused is guilty.


Yeah right. I'd say those "studies" are skewed to promote their liberal point of view....


----------



## Joeshwa24 (Nov 14, 2007)

jwkimber45 said:


> Yeah right. I'd say those "studies" are skewed to promote their liberal point of view....


I would tend to agree that those Studies are at the very least biased but the reality is its very hard to get an unbiased study. Regardless the cost of a person on death row going to an appeals court is no different than that of someone with a life sentence so its a flawed argument altogether.


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2007)

NJ............:horsepoo:


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

Well here's how it shakes out for an old country boy who can't write all them fancy words. At frist you hurt like you never hurt in your life for the loss of a loved one. You watch a father waste away and die 8mons later from pure grief not revenge or anything like that from a very mild mannered man. A husband who can't remember hardley anything from being beat so bad. The hurt never goes away but you don't dwell on it all the time either. The slimballs are given death sentences and all you can do is wait. They did put one slimball down but the other one has been a guest of the state for 30yrs. All we ever wanted was justice. Justice is not life in prison as they were both given the death sentense. 
If you commit the act of murder with out just cause and are convicted of it in a court of law you should be hung. That's justice. Don't give me that life in prison BS.
I'll get out of this now and sure hope it never happens in one of y'alls family. Might change your mind on how you feel about slimballs and hanging. :smt076


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

I will admit - I do not know how U feel. I have had a friend die when I was 18 from drinking and driving, but it's not the same thing. I will admit that - I don't know how U feel.

But, having the killer executed will not change the facts of what happened. And, it won't make your grief any less.


----------



## jwkimber45 (May 6, 2006)

> If you commit the act of murder with out just cause and are convicted of it in a court of law you should be hung. That's justice. Don't give me that life in prison BS.


Right on!!!! Like I said, I'll donate the damn rope!!!!!


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Shipwreck said:


> And, it won't make your grief any less.


ummm... how do you know what another human being feels...? How do you know that it may not bring some sort of closure or a feeling of justice for that person? The feeling of grief will never go away if a loved one has been brutally murdered/raped/molested... but knowing that the person who committed the brutal act is no longer breathing and will never be able to experience even the simplest of earthly pleasures may be all takes to get through the "Lifetime" of grief. Also take into consideration of someones religious beliefs... Not everyone is a "Buddhist". Some...correction... Most believe in Hell or the equivalent of. So an eternity in Hell or the equivalent is far worse then a lifetime of being taken care of in a prison.

Not trying to flame ya... but it's a pretty bold statement to say that you know what another person feels or is going to feel.


----------



## babs (Nov 30, 2007)

Shipwreck said:


> ...Having the killer executed will not change the facts of what happened.


Good discussion.. yeah in a lot of forums people get all pissy and argue.. I'm proud of you guys here.. Much more civil. Good stuff..

The above statement, unfortunately, is very very true.. Nothing can fix what happened.

The main benefit to society for capital punishment is this....

Lining up the sorry sack of @#% that found it in his heart to rape and kill a child, racking the bolt actions and firing 20 rounds of .308's at close range will do one little thing in the future, even though the past can't be changed...

Maybe it just might make at least one other sick animal think twice before he does something like that again to someone else's baby girl.. 
*
If it has just a slim remote possibility of saving just one other child by deterring such behavior, I'm for shooting or hanging every single one of these sick @#$%'s that have been fully convicted. One by one.. In public.*

See that's the problem with *capital punishment.. It's not effective to deter unless it's in public square.. **The gallows need to be seen by all* above a certain age.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

I've read many reports from the families of victims - and over and over again - they say that having the criminal die didn't bring them the feeling they were looking for.

And, this issue of forgiveness is something you should strive for no matter what your religion.

All I'm saying is that if U go through the rest of your life with that hatred - its not doing U any good. There are many religions that you can use to help you get thru such an ordeal. And they all do teach you about forgiveness. So, this has nothing to do with being a Buddhist - and, I'm sorry I mentioned that actually. I thought it might be helpful to see where I got my point of view from.

Would a person be angry, disgusted, in shock - over the loss of a loved one? Yes, they will. For the rest of their life they will. But having the criminal executed won't change any of that.

I see I am the only one here with this point of view. Mostly things have been civil here - but I think I'm just gonna keep my mouth shut on this topic after this post. I've said what I have to say - and its obvious no one here agrees with me. We all have our own personal decisions to make on this issue. I've made mine and you have made yours. No one here will change our minds, more than likely...

I've just been one that doesn't always toe the line on a topic, even if I disagree with the majority. I had to say something.


----------



## babs (Nov 30, 2007)

hehe.. you posted same time I did.. gooooood morning. 

I'll add to above point in my last post, I don't think capital punishment should be about making anyone feel better.. killing anyone isn't a reason for anyone ever to feel better.. 

It's about minimizing the burden of probability of the crime occurring again in the society.


----------



## jwkimber45 (May 6, 2006)

Ship, you're flawed in your thinking. Its NOT, i repeat, NOT about feelings. Thats a big issue with this country today, people want to insert "feelings" into issues that have nothing to do with feelings. Its about justice, and paying for your crime. You torture, rape, murder, you DESERVE to not walk around any more.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

babs said:


> If it has just a slim remote possibility of saving just one other child by deterring such behavior


Anti-gunners use the same emotional argument: "If it might save just one child, isn't gun control worth it?"

Frankly, my answer is: no. There's been no demonstrated deterrent effect of the death penalty, probably because most criminals do not think consequentially. Emotional appeals of "doing it for the children" aren't very convincing if there are no facts to back them up.



> Regardless the cost of a person on death row going to an appeals court is no different than that of someone with a life sentence so its a flawed argument altogether.


But the cost is still the same or less for life imprisonment, according to several studies I've seen, so cost to taxpayers is hardly a good argument for the death penalty (at least with the current appeals system). I'd be very pleased to see some other studies that showed the reverse, and I'd be grateful if anyone can point me toward them. I've never seen any.

I agree with the death penalty on the principles of justice and societal judgment...but as a practical deterrent or economic measure, I think it's a loser.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Shipwreck said:


> And, this issue of forgiveness is something you should strive for no matter what your religion.


My religious belief is that cold blooded murder, in the eyes of God, is unforgivable. I strongly believe that. Has nothing to do with anger.

Murder is Murder. It isn't stealing a car... or robbing a bank... or breaking into someones car. There is a line that is crossed when someone commits a murder and that someone should receive the ultimate punishment for taking an innocent life. Especially a child's life. All that your doing is devaluing the life of the innocent victim by showing mercy and compassion to the murdering POS who took their life.

I'll show compassion and forgiveness in a heartbeat... and do just that on a daily basis, but murder is where I personally draw the line.

I know you're the minority in this discussion and I respect your views... Although you may want to consider moving out of Texas. As the comedian Ron White says... You guys have an "express lane" there... I mean, you're a gun toting Buddhist who's against the Death Penalty... living in Texas! You may be better off up North somewhere. :smt033


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

js said:


> All that your doing is devaluing the life of the innocent victim by showing mercy and compassion to the murdering POS who took their life.


Nicely said. That is essentially my position...though stated a bit more aggressively! ;-)


----------



## babs (Nov 30, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> Anti-gunners use the same emotional argument: "If it might save just one child, isn't gun control worth it?"
> 
> Frankly, my answer is: no. There's been no demonstrated deterrent effect of the death penalty, probably because most criminals do not think consequentially. Emotional appeals of "doing it for the children" aren't very convincing if there are no facts to back them up.
> 
> ...


Good point.. The end goal really in any action being preventing future recurrence.

There's pretty much two things going on.....
1. whata we do with the murderer in custody?
2. how do we keep this from happening again?

I agree, typically a nutjob that has the capacity for such things won't care one way or another what happens to them, but in a lot of cases they just might... slim chance.

But NOT if executions are as currently behind prison walls in private. It's far far less an effective deterrent if it's not seen. That's my guess though.. But hanging in public square will solve problem #1, and potentially assist #2 as well. I'm sure socialogists have argued extensively on the effectiveness of public execution verses private as deterrent.

*... Biggest thing here is parents have to be parents ...*
_Make sure their kids are taught as well as possible as young as possible.. Sad but true, they have to know the world is full of nutjob fruitcakes and animal predators at a young age. We can't protect them 24/7 always. Deer teach their fawns by learning and instinct to tread lightly and flee when needed unless antlers are warranted and strong.. So must we._


----------



## jwkimber45 (May 6, 2006)

> All that your doing is devaluing the life of the innocent victim by showing mercy and compassion to the murdering POS who took their life.


BRAVO!!!



> you're a gun toting Buddhist who's against the Death Penalty... living in Texas! You may be better off up North somewhere


:anim_lol::anim_lol::anim_lol:


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

The death penalty IS a preventative measure because once dead the slime ball can not rape torture or kill again. If that is not prevention I certainly don't know what is.

If I shoot someone committing rape and he doesn't die till the next day does that make me a murderer because I killed him after the act? I think not. I consider the death penalty process as beginning at the beginning of the crime for which it applies. The perpetrator establishes their death sentence by their actions, not you or I.

I believe in the death penalty and do not believe the appeals process should be allowed to stretch out for 20 years. There should be a reasonable time limit set. 

:smt1099


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2007)

Shipwreck said:


> I will admit - I do not know how U feel. I have had a friend die when I was 18 from drinking and driving, but it's not the same thing. I will admit that - I don't know how U feel.
> 
> But, having the killer executed will not change the facts of what happened. And, it won't make your grief any less.


It will sure as shootin save the tax payer a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!!!

And the SOB will never have the chance to do it again,in society or prison. It sure doesn't make the victims loved ones grief, knowing the SOB still lives either. Nut's em!


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)




----------



## babs (Nov 30, 2007)

I know the subject isn't funny.. But that pic is hilarious!! saving for future use.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

babs said:


> I know the subject isn't funny.. But that pic is hilarious!! saving for future use.


I think the pilot would have used a different term than hilarious to describe what occured. :anim_lol::anim_lol:

We aren't flaming you Ship just stating "Our" opinions.

:smt1099


----------



## babs (Nov 30, 2007)

At guys our age.. I doubt anyone would actually be able to change anyone's mind on it.. We're set in our ways and values, etc. I know my views on it even though it weren't one of mine nor anyone I knew ... hang 'em high.. so I could only imagine how I'd feel if it were one of mine.. I guess I think that's why I posted that they can give the family the choice.. feed 'em or fry 'em.. Then they'd be subject to the values of the victims who might rightly have more say in the matter than me I 'spose.

Merry Christmas all and I pray no one here, nor anyone within earshot of here ever has to ever deal with such a thing again.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TOF said:


> The death penalty IS a preventative measure because once dead the slime ball can not rape torture or kill again. If that is not prevention I certainly don't know what is.


How would life imprisonment (perhaps in solitary confinement) be any less effective than the death penalty? The murderer still wouldn't be on the loose to commit such crimes again.



> If I shoot someone committing rape and he doesn't die till the next day does that make me a murderer because I killed him after the act? I think not.


Presumably you shot him to _stop_ him from committing his criminal act, not to _kill_ him. The fact that he died from his wounds is irrelevant to stopping him. If he dies as a result of the wounds you had to inflict to stop him, that's his problem, but that's not the same as intentionally killing him after the crime has been committed.

Shooting someone to _prevent_ a crime is hardly the same as killing someone _afterward_ as punishment. Prevention and punishment aren't the same thing.



> I consider the death penalty process as beginning at the beginning of the crime for which it applies. The perpetrator establishes their death sentence by their actions, not you or I.


It is society that acts as judge and arbiter of what is a reasonable punishment for a given crime, though. Society's standards of what is a reasonable and fitting punishment for a given crime may change and evolve (or devolve, as the case may be). So in a sense, you and I _do_ establish the death sentence.



> I believe in the death penalty and do not believe the appeals process should be allowed to stretch out for 20 years. There should be a reasonable time limit set.


I agree with that.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Put them in prison for life and they have a lifetime to figure out how to kill a fellow inmate or guard. That is not prevention.

So the slime ball has just finished the rape when I shoot him. What is your fine line that defines a righteous shoot from murder? I believe a 24 hour rule should apply.

If society has established the Death Penalty and someone chooses to commit a capital crime they will have chosen their punishment as far as I am concerned. You can have whatever twisted opinion you wish to have.

A few years back every body knew the penalty for stealing a horse was to be hung from the nearest tree. When they stole a horse they knowingly chose their punishment.

I could be convinced to give a slimeball freedom as long as they were willing to live at the north pole with nothing but a pair of levis and a T shirt. They can even have a set of plastic dinnerware to eat with. They would have to catch their own food however.

:smt1099


----------



## Randall Donahoo (Nov 2, 2007)

+1 in favor of the death penalty in the case of brutal murders. Make that +3, as I know my wife and daughter agree, though they are not gun fans like you and me. :mrgreen:

In fact, I'm not sure the death penalty is an unfair outcome for a few other things too. Repetitive child molestation comes to mind. (Yes, all you guilty priests out there, that includes you!) Repeated drunk driving resulting in death or near destruction of another's ability to appreciate life might be an example too. Like the creep who ran over a family of 4 in a Denver crosswalk and kept right on going. If he was ever ticketed for drunk driving before (and I think I remember that he had been), this last occurance should be a ticket to the death penalty maybe. How long do we keep letting these uncaring idiots loose to harm innocent people?

Yes, death by gas, injection, or electricity gives me the shudders. I'd support more instantaneous methods. The French of many years ago may have had the right idea. Though scary and gruesome, the gillotine was certainly quick and final. 

As for costing more to execute a killer than to keep him/her alive and well for decades... give me a break. If it is so, it is so only because, like so many other things, we've screwed the whole thing up completely.

Yeah, I'm getting carried away here, but the arguments against the death penalty, the laziness of our plea-bargaining prosecutors, the revolving door nature of our criminal justice system, and the treatment of victims by our "justice" system are all making me extremely ill.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TOF said:


> Put them in prison for life and they have a lifetime to figure out how to kill a fellow inmate or guard. That is not prevention.


As I wrote, solitary confinement is certainly an option. Then there is no possibility of them killing another inmate. I do not know how many inmates in solitary have succeeded in killing a guard, but I suspect it isn't very many - if any at all. Anyway, this is a poor argument in favor of the death penalty, since the condemned still has five or ten years of appeals with which to kill a fellow inmate or guard.

Besides, if the point is to save taxpayers money, wouldn't it be a "good thing" if the condemned criminal killed another inmate? Hey, that's *two* bad guys off the public dole! 



> So the slime ball has just finished the rape when I shoot him. What is your fine line that defines a righteous shoot from murder? I believe a 24 hour rule should apply.


My "fine line" is the line that separates a man acting lawfully in defense from that of a cold-blooded murderer who is no better than the man he shot. Society permits us to kill in *defense*, immediately prior to or during an act of unprovoked lethal (or seriously harmful) aggression. It does not give us the right to exact our version of vengeance after the fact. This is why civilized societies have police forces and courts.

If you'd like to see what a society that is essentially lawless looks like, I suggest you contact the Afghan Ministry of Tourism (it exists, seriously). Then you can see fathers killing their own daughters for looking at a boy, tribesmen beheading the leaders of rival clans for perceived slights, or men slaughtered in the bazaar in an argument over the price of a sheep. This is where your "fine line" between defense and murder is headed.

A "24 hour rule?" To allow murder in the day after an assault? Are you serious? If you can look at a man who is offering you no threat, is not acting belligerently, perhaps begging for his life, and still pull the trigger and splatter his guts on the sidewalk...well, as far as I'm concerned you belong in cage, too.

You do not destroy your enemy by _becoming_ your enemy.



> A few years back every body knew the penalty for stealing a horse was to be hung from the nearest tree. When they stole a horse they knowingly chose their punishment.


But there were still a lot of horses stolen, no? And it wasn't so much the fact that you stole a guy's horse as much as that on the frontier, a horse was life. You could do little without a horse, and a man whose horse was stolen might as well be murdered if he was far from civilization.

To reiterate, I am in favor of the death penalty, but not because I think it accomplishes much in terms of saving taxpayer money or deterrence.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

I have to many things going today to go point by point but have to remind you that the Afghans are not "Lawless". They simply follow a set of laws we don't agree with. 

They provide a good example to go by. ie. They are wrong and we are right.

Just as you are always wrong and I am always right.

:smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TOF said:


> I have to many things going today to go point by point but have to remind you that the Afghans are not "Lawless". They simply follow a set of laws we don't agree with.


They follow ancient tribal customs and theocratic edicts, not laws in the sense of crime and proportionate punishment.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> They follow ancient tribal customs and theocratic edicts, not laws in the sense of crime and proportionate punishment.


Do all of our "Laws" over one generation old in your mind = "Customs"?

Our laws are based on old english laws which are based on ancient tribal customs and theological edicts so other than not agreeing with some what's the difference?

Proportionate Punishment: Does that mean Eye for Eye, steal from me and I steal from you, kill mine and I kill you, or does proportionate always equal less value for the victim than what the criminal did, by your method of measurement?

:smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I'm aware of the connections between English Common Law and the Dutch traditions to our present law. Perhaps it is a semantic thing, but Afghanistan is not by any means an orderly, lawful society in the Western sense. Order and rule of law are preconditions of civil liberty, which is one reason neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have civil liberties like we do in America.



TOF said:


> Proportionate Punishment: Does that mean Eye for Eye, steal from me and I steal from you, kill mine and I kill you, or does proportionate always equal less value for the victim than what the criminal did, by your method of measurement?


Here in Afghanistan, going by those tribal customs and theocratic edicts, punishment is often very _dis_proportionate. A teen girl is killed for looking at a young man too long. A man is hanged because he has given offense to a tribal elder. An man's hand is cut off for stealing a bit of food.

In America, we sometimes go the other direction. We often don't kill a murderer. But my point isn't that we shouldn't kill the murderer; I have said three or four times that I favor the death penalty. Rather, my point in regard to your post ("24 hour rule" and other private vengeance) is that it should be done after careful deliberation and with due process of law, as it says right in the Constitution. In a civilized society, punishment for a crime is determined and carried out by society, through its representatives in government. Anything else leads inexorably to anarchy, and that is not the right road for the civilized men of the West, versus the savages of Southwest Asia.

I would much rather live in a society that has abolished the death penalty than one that has lost all sense of proportion when it comes to punishment. Fortunately, there are enough corrective mechanisms in Western law that the choice isn't necessary.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2007)

TOF said:


> I have to many things going today to go point by point but have to remind you that the Afghans are not "Lawless". They simply follow a set of laws we don't agree with.


This is true sir! Also the point by point bit hits home with me also. 
It isn't all that hard to get a point accross without making it sound like some legal document. As far as putting the scum in the North Pole, I disagree with the part about feeding him. Give him a polar bear, alive. Tied togeather. In the end...'Nuts em!!'


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> I'm aware of the connections between English Common Law and the Dutch traditions to our present law. Perhaps it is a semantic thing, but Afghanistan is not by any means an orderly, lawful society in the Western sense. Order and rule of law are preconditions of civil liberty, which is one reason neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have civil liberties like we do in America.
> 
> Here in Afghanistan, going by those tribal customs and theocratic edicts, punishment is often very _dis_proportionate. A teen girl is killed for looking at a young man too long. A man is hanged because he has given offense to a tribal elder. An man's hand is cut off for stealing a bit of food.
> 
> .


You can write all you wish to but the fact remains they (Afghgans Males and Ruling individualls) think they are right and you are wrong. You made a key statement "Like we do in America". They do different and don't try to twist that to mean I support them in any way shape or form. We after all started out addressing American grown sleaze. We have enough of our own to talk about in this thread.

:smt1099


----------

