New Jersey Democrats move to end death penalty
Richard and Shirley Hazard, murdered by NJ Death Row killer Brian Wakefield
Instead of upholding the law, streamlining the appeals process, and carrying out death penalty sentences, New Jersey Democrats are moving to just give up and scrap the death penalty altogether. Yesterday, two legislative bodies took steps to repeal the death penalty–and Democrat Gov. Jon Corzine is poised to sign the bill. An Assembly vote is scheduled for Thursday:
The Legislature moved New Jersey closer Monday to becoming the first state to pass a law repealing the death penalty since it was nationally reinstated in 1976.
The state Senate passed the measure 21-16, and the Assembly Public Law and Safety Committee advanced the bill by a 5-1 vote to the full Assembly. The Assembly will take up the bill Thursday, positioning New Jersey to replace capital punishment with life in prison without parole by early next year.
Support for the repeal in the Legislature comes from different areas. Some oppose it on moral grounds, while others say the unused law — no one in New Jersey has been executed since 1963 — is unfair for victims’ families who seek swift justice but have to endure a lengthy appeals process.
“We shouldn’t have the death penalty unless we’re going to use it. And we shouldn’t use it if there is a chance of executing an innocent person,” said the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak, D-Union.
Senate President Richard J. Codey, D-Essex, said the best thing for victims’ families is “to be honest with them.”
“Don’t tell them we are going to execute somebody when the reality is that it’s not going to happen, at least not here in the state of New Jersey,” said Codey.
If passed by the Assembly as expected Thursday, the bill then goes to Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who has until Jan. 8 to sign the measure. Corzine has strongly indicated he will sign the bill.
A Quinnipiac poll shows 53 percent of New Jerseyans surveyed oppose ending the death penalty and 39 percent support eliminating it.
I received an e-mail from a young woman who graduated from my high school alma mater in South Jersey, Holy Spirit High School. She’s Nikki Hazard Rivera and she wanted me to share her family’s story:
The reason that I write to you is not just for my family but for families across the state of NJ. I am hoping that you may be able to help us add some much needed light to this dire situation.
Unfortunately, you may have heard of my grandparents, Richard and Shirley Hazard. They lived in Pleasantville, NJ for much of my life and many years before. In fact, some of my fondest childhood memories were created with them and in their home. Sadly, on January 18th, 2001, my grandparents’ home was the place where they died. They were brutally murdered in their home by Brian Wakefield. They were beaten, stabbed, robbed and set ablaze along with their home. Brian Wakefield was tried and convicted in March of 2003 and sentenced to death. However, that is in the process of being overturned. My aunt, Sharon Hazard-Johnson, has made it her life’s mission to see that they did not die in vain..
Mrs. Malkin, my grandparents were the mainstay and cornerstone of our family. They taught all of us, children, grandchildren and great-grand children, the right way of life and how to live. They taught us how to be self-sufficient, to work hard for what you want, and that above all love and family ALWAYS comes first. That day, my heart was broken because daughter lost her great grandparents, my dad , aunts and uncle los their parents, I lost my grandparents and we all lost two significant influences in our lives before their time. Even as painful as that is, you can’t imagine how bittersweet the birth of our twin daughters was, knowing that they would never have the honor of knowing and learning from their great grandparents.
As much as our family loved my grandparents, we weren’t the only ones. Here are just a few quotes that others have said about my grandparents and family:
* “Having grown up in our city of Worcester (Mass), it was a great pleasure in knowing all of the Hazards. Our families go so far back as to the civil war. The Troy’s often speak of your family and it is with great admiration and affection of friendships that last a life time.”
* “I personally knew the Hazards. They were fine Christian, God-fearing people who opened their home up to anyone and color had no bearing. They shared their table and their drink and they were very much in love. Mr. Hazard also had his beer every once in a while, and loved to talk about how he was spending his time since he had retired from the electric company. They didn’t deserve to die and they didn’t deserve to die they way they did. Anyone who knew the Hazard children can vouch for the fact the Hazards raised fine, upright children into fine, upright adults. I worked with one daughter’s husband, and did work with another daughter. They are some of the finest people I ever met. My heart almost stopped beating the day I heard the news of their murders. I am still haunted by Mr. Hazard’s Hazard’s visage…still see him in his easy chair next to his zero clearance wood stove, still see him sipping his beer. I don’t believe in an eye for an eye but I do believe in capital punishment for two reasons: a)I don’t want that dog to kill anyone else ever again and b)I don’t see why I should have to pay taxes to cover his incarceration costs. Posted by: Glensan on Tue Nov 13, 2007, 9:05 PM-Pressofatlanticcity.com”
But don’t take my word for it. I’d like for you to see for yourself and meet my grandparents, Richard & Shirley Hazard…
Here’s a video tribute to the Hazards:
More from Nikki:
…The reason that I write to you today, Mrs. Malkin, is that Gov. Corzine will reduce death sentences to life in prison without parole on January 8th, 2008- just 10 days short of the 7 year anniversary of my grandparents’ horrific death (NJ set to scrap death penalty) . He is an opponent of capital punishment and will use his power to abolish the death penalty even though it’s been reinstated previously in 1976. ( Daughter of Slain Couple- NJ Should Not Abolish the Death Penalty ) The people of NJ WERE NOT given the chance to voice their opinion by way of a vote on this issue at ALL. They were not given the opportunity to agree or disagree. Their voice was taken away, just as the voice of my grandparents were silenced, without their say or permission (Abolishing NJ death penalty to get lame duck treatment) .
Any assistance that you can offer by placing a spotlight on this situation would greatly appreciated. It’s unfair to Corizine’s constituents and to the victims and survivors of these crimes or any future crimes that may be committed. The American public SUPPORT the death penalty and cases such as ours strike the hearts and resonates with the people of America’s common man.
Case in point is Cheshire, CT. There a mother and two daughters were sexually assaulted, made to withdrawal money from their checking account and then their home set ablaze, leaving them tied up, to die by smoke inhalation. In the article, the writer, Ms. Marian Gail Brown, quotes a study that ” A Quinnipiac University poll cited by both Connelly and Walkley released about two weeks ago shows that 63 percent of state residents favor the death penalty for those convicted of murder and that 75 percent indicated they did in the aftermath of the Cheshire incident.” Moreover, one of Waterbury CT’s state Attorneys, John T. Wakley, was quoted as saying,” Until the events in Cheshire last summer, I had been convinced that Connecticut was moving away from [imposing] the death penalty,” Walkley said. “After Cheshire, I think that possibility is more than remote.” Another CT state attorney, John A. Connelly said, “If we didn’t have the death penalty in Connecticut, the Cheshire case would have” created a hue and cry for one. I think the Cheshire case is going to change a lot of people’s minds” and influence legislators to consider “toughening the penalties for certain crimes.” (Cheshire slayings shape death penalty views )
While I do understand how late this request is in relation to the progression of this case and situation is, you are our last hope. We have spent time in front of the media, we have sent out petitions, appeared in court ready to testify, but not permitted to do so by the courts ( see attached). All we really want is for the situation to be highlighted and focused on and the chance for the people of NJ to vote on the fate of the death penalty. No lame duck decisions allowed or approved.
Mrs. Malkin, I cannot thank you enough for your time. We so GREATLY appreciate any way that you could assist us in making this case known and the death penalty remain intact.
Thank you and God Bless you and yours.
And here’s Sharon Hazard-Johnson’s letter to the Atlantic City Press published over the weekend:
As the daughter of Richard and Shirley Hazard, who were murdered in their Pleasantville home in 2001, I know the agony of crime and the criminal justice system is real. But do not believe for one second that the death penalty is not working.
When our death-penalty statute was revised, we didn’t just start executing people. We implemented a process that is still in development. For the sake of certainty and justice, it is a process well worth the time, money and resources we have already invested. To abolish it now would be a tremendous waste of our investment and show of disrespect for victims.
The state commission that studied the death penalty didn’t even ask the real question: What or who is keeping the death penalty from being carried out and why?
Today, there is a death-row inmate in New Jersey who has exhausted his appeals. Now is the time to study the stalling tactics, get to the real issues and start administering the death penalty – an unpleasant and difficult task, but one that must be undertaken.
SHARON HAZARD-JOHNSON
Mays Landing
More families of victims killed by NJ Death Row murderers speak out here.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- 2008 Presidential Election » New Jersey Democrats move to end death penalty
- Wizbang Politics
- Ace of Spades HQ
- Wonkette
- Pro Cynic
- Keith Burgess-Jackson » Capital Punishment
- Michelle Malkin » Update: NJ abolishes the death penalty
- NJ bans death penalty, spares Megan’s killer « Crush Liberalism
- texas car accident attorney
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Democrats
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
James Felix: If I called you a Liberal and you are not, then I either did so by mistake and wasn’t paying attention to the name when I sopied the posting for the quote or just am having a diff. time keeping track. Either way, if I insulted you (which if someone called me a Liberal I would take it as the utmost in insult) I whole heartedly apologize. I obviously had too much blood in my caffeine system this morning.
Retfireman,
I understand your sentiment, but you have it surprisingly backwards. The reason why Jesus was treated the way he was treated was because of sin.
To be brief, is Jesus was not crucified, there would be no need for the gates of heaven to be closed.
In other words, the sins of man culminated in Jesus being crucified. If Jesus was not crucified, the foundation for his crucifixion would not exist and thus, the evilness is man would not have existed.
There are only two reasons to incarcerate or execute a convicted criminal; rehabilitation or retribution.
To attempt rehabilitation implies that the convict will reform or can reform. Every report I’ve seen or heard shows that rehabilitation is seldom successful.
Retribution, on the other hand, always works when properly applied. This is understood, even in NJ as MM’s thread indicates.(Quinipiac poll).
The issue with retribution is proportionality. Excessively lenient or excessively harsh penalties defeat the purpose of retribution. The punishment must “fit” the crime.
What punishment “fits” the wanton and heinous taking of a human life? Is it being confined to a cell while being provided food, clothing and shelter? Or is it being deprived of your life for the taking of another’s life?
On-my-soap-box,
I understand the sentiment. But it’s a relatively weak argument. In the same light, if the crazy Christian murdering person were aborted, this horrible crime could have been averted. If Ted Bundy were aborted, many people would still have their lives.
We can go back and forth is arguing by anecdote.
Is Today Friday yet?
#84 Soap I think you mistook my comment. I am not, not, not in favor of abortion at alllllllll!!!!! I was criticizing the troll for his declarative statement that fetuses and zygotes are not human.
I can end this abortion dabate for cRusty with one question.
By your reasoning Rusty, if women die from having an abortion, should we stop the procedure(s)?
mp – your argument is ridiculous…
Abortion does not prevent criminality – and to correlate the two is assinine.
No unborn child ever committed a crime.
The death penalty is exactly that – a penalty for commiting a crime.
With your statement, you completely disregard psychological aspects, upbringing, environment, and other areas which effect human beings in their development.
To say that, even in a hypothetical, abortion would eliminate a crime – is nonsensical.
Again, the Death Penalty is only a deterrent for the person receiving it. Having sat on a Death Penalty jury, when we received our instructions, we were not told that it was a deterrent, we were told that it was a PUNISHMENT. It was a punishment met out to the worst of the worst of America’s offenders. It was our job to decide if the man sitting in the court, who we had found already guilty, met that criteria of being the worst of the worst.
So you see kids, it is a punishment. NOT a deterrent. If, however, it has a secondary use as being a deterrent, and we truly will never really know how many crimes have been deterred by the mere thought that a person will go to their death by committing said crime, then all the better. However, what we do know is, that once that person has forever been removed from the gene pool, he will never again, commit another crime, be a threat to another person, offend another human, forever and ever. And ther is no better crime prevention than that. No Liberal can come up with a better one, no matter what they say. No recidivism rates what-so-ever. Just imagine if it was applied liberally to child sex offenders.
Apology cheerfully accepted.
The fact is, RF, though you and I disagree on some pretty fundamental stuff we’re mostly on the same page. I think the same can be said for most of the regulars around here.
And again, I want to mention that my opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with thinking people don’t deserve it. I shed no tears for Ted Bundy and if they ever stick the needle in Mumia it’ll make me smile. My anti-death penalty stance comes exclusively from my mistrust of the people who are tasked with applying it.
I didn’t realize you were that old Soap…
mpChops,
That is NOT what I am saying. There are some babies that are “supposed” to be aborted because it is deemed that if born, their lives would be sub-standard. I am not saying that Doctors can determine if a baby will be a Bundy. Some do, however, make interpretations about a baby in the womb and decided that that baby has no value and that life should be terminated.
Completely different. I thought that was clear – sorry.
Jrling,
You finally say something on topic and get it completely wrong. I was voicing my opposition to arguing by anecdote by using extreme examples that obviously hold little weight if thought about critically.
Note here when I say: “it’s a relatively weak argument. In the same light…etc”
On December 11th, 2007 at 12:16 pm, On-my-soap-box said:
Soap,
My mother in-law was told the same thing. Her doctor told her to abort my husband’s youngest sister because she may have been born with Down syndrome.
Well, she told that doctor “that’s for God to decide. She is our child and we will love her nonetheless.”
The doctor murmured: I don’t understand people who want to bring children in the world that may not have a chance at a full life.
Well he was wrong. Bekka is a senior in college and does not have Down Syndrome.
Me either – LOL. That is why, when asked, “what do you want to be called?” I answered, “Grand-dude”!
I cannot believe what I am reading from these …um…people? I mean, I have heard of circular logic before, but these guys have turned it into a science. And no, I do not have it backwards. I suggest, as I did to one of your compadres a few days ago, you take a week off and go read the Bible, perhaps for the first time, or again. You seem to have missed some very important parts. I recommend some very special studies in and around the four gospels. That would be Matt, Mark, Luke and John. You might find them to be interesting.
Ret, I didn’t want to have to bring up the zombie argument. But you forced me to do it. And quite frankly, it’s as good as any other lib argument.
I liked how mChops twisted what I posted into another liberal fairy tale.
I wonder how high the body count has to get from a murderer before mChops thinks the victims should get rights too?
30,
Must be in the name. Our daughter is Rebecca (Becca)!
On-my-soap-box,
Sorry, I misunderstood.
I think the abortion debate is best left to another thread.
Personally, I feel that to a certain point(1st term, at most) its the mother’s choice. Others feel strongly otherwise. Abortion and Capital Punishment as largely combative, as stereotypically one can’t be used to defend the other. By that I mean, there are very very few anti-abortion arguments that than can transfer to a pro capital punishment argument and vice versa. To conflate the two is to muddle the both.
Unless you’re pro-choice and pro-capital punishment, or anti-both. Those are probably the most consistent position to have.
MpChops,
You couldn’t be more wrong. I know that RetFireman can take care of himself; however, I must interject.
Jesus was SENT to FREE the world from SIN. Think back to Moses’ time and all the times God had forgiven his chosen people for their indiscretions.
Let’s go one step further into the archives and visit with Adam and Eve. These two along with Satan brought sin in the world.
It is why Jesus came. It didn’t happen when He arrived.
JHSII,
What rights does a victim get with Capital Punishment?
I often see that statement used, but what does it actually mean?
There’s nothing circular or unscientific about Zombies ret, have you seen Dawn of the Dead or it’s various sequels? They represent a serious threat, possibly more so than global warming, and I think we need to spend billions of dollars to make sure they stay in the grave where they belong.
Yup, that’s her. It’s spelled Rebekkah.
That’s awesome!!
Oh, I don’t know. I am swayed in the direction of; Give the baby a chance at life and the killer who had his chance, I am done with him.
30pcs,
I think we agree. God sent Jesus down knowing how he would be treated, and knowing fully what would happen.
The reason Jesus was sent was BECAUSE those things would happen.
Soap-Box,
Fine. But that ceases to be a “sanctity of life” issue. There, it’s reduced to a person personally deciding who deserves or die, and the outside factors that influence such a decision.
Again, there is nothing more dangerous in the prison system than a lifer. They no longer have anything to lose. Especially if they are young. They are the ones that do the killings. They are the ones that attack the guards. they are the ones that cause the trouble. For these Libs to sit here, and say that they will go to prison and that will be the end of it shows just how stupid they are. My brother, who is now a CHP officer, was a guard in the CDC for a year and a half prior to being a CHP. Let me tell you some of the things the lifers would do. Well, some I can’t, for obvious reasons. The gassing is one of the truly more disgusting things. They would put their feces and urine into a 32 ounce cup they all receive and then they would mix it up and throw it into the faces of the guards as they would walk by, hoping to get it into their eyes, nose and mouth. This would then expose the guard to AIDS and Hep.C which a vast majority of the inmates carried. This is a very deadly disease, each of them, in their own right. They would also try to bite or cut the guards and get them infected. They would cause fights in the yard in order to get at the guards. They would shiv other inmates, killing, or maiming other inmates for the most minor perceived offense.
These are not people who just go to prison and become model little prisoners, just like they see in movies. Tookie, their cause celebre of a couple years ago, did not write a childrens book. It was written by someone else who put his name on it. Tookie continued to run his gang, calling for hits and running the drug business from his cell right up to the minute of his death. Mumia is also a career criminal who is running the game from prison. he is no angel and deals in drugs and runnign things from the joint.
The fact that Liberals all feel that there is so many innocent people sitting behind bars shows their stupidity. While it is true that a minute number of people sometimes fall through the cracks and go to prison when they shouldn’t, that nimber is so miniscule, that it does not warrant the actiona that the Liberals are demanding. Work need to be done, and is being done, but you do not let the guilty go. While they like to say.”Would you let an innocent man go to the gas chamber?” the better question is, “Would you let and innocent person be raped and murdered by someone who should have been in prison?” Well, that is what they would want to have happen.
I hate to argue semantics but this is rather important to me.
Sin was in the world. Jesus was sent to free the world from their sins. Jesus was sent to be the Savior of the world.
He didn’t die for nothing nor did He die in vain and His resurrection gives hope to us all.
RetFireman,
(1)Would you let an innocent man go to the gas chamber?”
(2)“Would you let and innocent person be raped and murdered by someone who should have been in prison?”
(3) Would you let an innocent man go to the gas chamber is if you saved an innocent person from being raped and murdered by someone who should have been in prison?
A child has no choice in the matter. The adult made their choice.
Taylor:
As long as we have Ving Rayhmes and William Shatner, all will be well. Trust in Bill and Ving…and a sawed off shotgun. Oh, and a closed shopping mall.
And the Winchester
On December 11th, 2007 at 12:44 pm,
You can place that on me – fine. I would argue that; If a perp knows about the death penalty and decides to take the risk and kill someone, he has made the decision not I and, I agree with him.
In both situations, it is someone other than the one being “killed” that is making the choice.
Those questions are stupid, pointless and Liberal circular hippie logic that go nowhere and have no basis in reality. When has number one EVER happened?
Oh, Rusty, see #105.
What can we do to assist young Ms. Rivera?
Contact Governor Corzine here:
Office of the Governor
South Jersey Office
856-614-3200
30 bringing it home. NIIIICCCCCE
You proposed one of the questions yourself. You’re saying that the question you proposed is stupid and liberal? Personally, I think it’s a relatively valid question.
Regarding number 1, DNA testing has only been in existence for roughly 25 years or so, and it has single handily freed at least 8 people from death row. And that’s WITH the long, long appeals process.
Oh, I see. So asinine chatter about zombies didn’t bring it home? Now we see where you really stand Soap, in the pro-zombie lobby.
Yes.
Trust me, don’t start on the ethical arguments. My sense of ethics is, shall we say, against the norm to most folks here.
Felix:
Agreeing or not agreeing is moot. Calling a fellow Conservative a Liberal…well that’s just downright rude.
I love zombies – taste like chicken.
…and so I’ve derailed the thread. Who will set it back on course? Rusty?!?! HAHAHAHAHA
Let’s face it, mChops doesn’t want to get it.
Rights for the murderer, but nothing for the victim.
For every 1 murderer that is actually guilty another 100 are innocent – put there because of evil right-wingers with a death fetish.
…and now back to our regualrly scheduled actual reality…
anyone know how to get a rolling-eyes smiley on here?
I have no problem with it. If you think that the death of one innocent person will end it, you are wrong. If you think your circular hippie logic is going to change my morals and ethics, you are wrong.
Unlike you, I have had to make that choice. See, I figured you don’t actually read these posts, or you would have read the rather lengthy post I wrote last week about how I actually had to decide about whether someone lived or died. I actually had to sit at home alone with my thoughts, my morals and my convictions. I could no tdiscuss it with my then future wife or anyone. It was just me. I will not tell you what the outcome was, nor what I chose. I will let you figure it out for youself.
But since YOU have never been in a similar situation, you have absolutely no idea what you would do. Believe me, you don’t. There is no way you will tell me or convince me you do. and there is no one here, unless they have actually sat on the jury of a Capital Offense case, where it went into the penalty phase and you had to decide whether that person had to live or die, that you can honestly say you would know what you would do.
You can be for or against it, but believe me when I tell you there are a million and one extenuating circumstances around each and every case.
So would I let an innocent man die? Do I know he is innocent? That is an assinine question you moron. Think about it. Just think about it for just one second. Why would a freaking innocent man be sitting there in the freaking first place.
Would i feel bad if later I found out he was innocent? Yes. Would i let one die? no. See what I mean? You pose stupid hippie logic questions that go nowhere, and to say I posed them is a lie. You are a straight ass in every sense of the word, and are trying to use circular logic to confuse people and sound intelligent and superior. It won’t work. Now either make a point that is actually intelligent and backed with facts, or toddle off to class. I am sure 3rd period English is starting. Computer lab should have ended long ago.
RetFireman,
Your personal attacks are unnecessary. I have read your other posts and in them you propose to be a Christian, but your actions speak louder than your words. Simply because you read the bible doesn’t make you a Christian, and I feel sorry for whomever has the misfortune of having someone like yourself decide their fate.
JHSII – you mean this?
Hmmm, that’s a great liberal principle (one of the few they have.) If they can get it to work for the death penalty, they can use it to get rid of other things they hate. Next target: the military. Let’s plug it in to their formula and see how it works:
We shouldn’t have the military unless we’re going to use it. And we shouldn’t use it if there is a chance of killing an innocent person. So, if there is any chance of “Collateral damage”, we can’t use the military, and if we’re not going to use it, get rid of it.
How about the police, or any armed individual for that matter:
We shouldn’t have guns unless we’re going to use them. And we shouldn’t use them if there is a chance of killing an innocent person.
The possibilities are endless…
At the heart of the uber-liberal belief system is the accepted mantra that there are no criminals (well, except for old white male capitalists). Convicted felons are simply misguided victims, products of an evil society and in no way responsible for their actions. So you see, abolishment of an unenforced death penalty is not about a possible innocent few. ALL of the inmates on death row are innocents.
Well, you just showed everyone here exactly all we needed to know about the “tolerant” and “non-labeling” and all that other crap you Liberals like to put on us Conservatives everytime you open your yaps. You have done nothing here but be a hypocrite my friend. While I have NEVER once stated what religion I am on here, although I have stated I have had Christian and Catholic education, I have also stated I have studied Pagan religions and Buddhist and others as well. I never laid claim to what religion I belinged to. But thanks for playing. However, you have done your fair share of attacking all day, and in every one of you sanctimonious postings, where you play the holier-than-thou Liberal, and the “gotcha” tactics. Now that I nailed you with my last posting, you ahve nothing left to say, but, ” Fine, I’m taking my crayons and going home, you big meanie”. Well, why don’t you answer what I asked,, Hmm? Come on…you have all the answers, don’t you? You can do it…I have faith in you. Just answer the questions I have put forth.
And if you cannot play with the big kids with the big people topics, I under stand that, but please, don’t start. I would like to remind you, you did come in and begin. Nobody asked you to start in with your attacks on people’s faiths and beliefs. You decided to do that all on your own.
Says it all. No matter the problem…
Oh…and Mr. Sanctimonious smartass…I chose Life without parole. I guess you are right. People should fear me when they have their life in my hands.
Proving once again that you don’t know sqaut. Boy, you really don’t know anything, do you? bet you couldn’t feel much stupider if you typed anything else today could you Chopper?
With the total break down of the criminal justice system over the past few decades and lack of real consequences from violent offenders no wonder we see the level of savagery from the criminals in our communities. From what I understand the judicial system was established over the centuries to properly reward those that could not act within the laws of civil behavior and decency with appropriate punishments for the negative behavior. This was also a way to prevent the “blood feud” causing families to go to war to avenge a grievance from a criminal act. All the liberals have done by doing away with the consequences for failing to live within the rules of society to include violent crime is make them more vicious. Why should any of us go to the Police to report a crime for their investigation hopefully resulting in the apprehension of the perpetrator of the crime, and then expect the state to punish the criminal’s behavior? All they are doing is making it very attractive to invoke the “blood feud” or for groups and communities to go back to vigilanty justice to punish those that commit violent acts. Mrs. Boomer is at the point where she is ready to take the leash off and let me loose on those that harm us or our family. No mercy! No quarter! The same you can expect from the criminals that prey on us all.
Oh, and as a Paramedic and a Fireman, I had many people who had their “fates” in my hands daily. Do you think for one moment I ever let my plitical or personal views ever get in the way of what I was doing? Do you think for one moment I was like you? Do you feel bad for those people?
You are a sad, pathetic excuse for a human being who I would not be surprised to find out was single and had no children and used the excuse that it was a personal choice but was , in fact a lonely person that hunted aimlessly on on-line dating sites endlessly and fruitlessly night after night before eating their frozen dinner infront of the television just before getting on line to try and appear intelligent on a conservative sight because hey, even negative interaction is still interaction after all.
Rusty, mpChops and James Felix,
You arguments against the death penalty fail on legal, logical and moral grounds.
1. Legal — The availability of the death penalty as an essential tool of governance was assumed by the framers of the US Constitution. It is well within the state’s legal police power to take the lives of those deemed too dangerous to the lives and property of innocents to live in a free society. Your arguments that an innocent individual might be wrongfully convicted actually deal more with the implementation of any punishment, not just the death penalty. But there is simply no end to your legal argument. If you do not trust yuor legal system to administer the death penalty, then why should you trust it to put someone in prison? Someone wrongfully in prison for 20 years has lost 20 years off their lives just as definitively as someone wrongfully executed. If your argument is taken to its logical conclusion, you wouldn’t punish anybody for crimes, which defeat the entire raison d’etre of government under the social contract — to protect its citizens from the predations of others, foreign and domestic. Your focus should be making the implementation of the punishment more reliable, not taking away options.
2. Logical — Two issues here. First, the safest and cheapest way to remove a criminal from socoety is not to incarcerate them, but to execute them. This was you do not have to pay for their housing, and ther eis no chance thaty some liberal judge concerned with jail overcrowding, a naive parole board (such as Arkansas) or a bleeding-heart governor (like Michael Dukakis) would release these thugs on an unsuspecting public.
Second, while the death penalty would be more of a deterrent if it was implemented in a more timely manner, it is indeed a deterrent and it indeed saves lives, as a study done by Brookings in conjunction with AEI showed.
3. Moral — The Catholic Church, in particular, was OK with the death penalty for 2000 years or so until the Vaticanm Curiae turned far leftist. There is simply no valid biblical argument against the death penalty. Jesus may have said that we should turn the other cheek, blah, blah, blah. But he also acknowledged the separation of church and state with his statement of “Render unto Caesar.” It is in this contest that turning the other cheek must be interpreted, more as a guide to individual conduct than to state conduct. The state has a legal and moral obligation to protect its people, and such forgiveness would run counter to that goal.
Leaving aside the Old Testament for the sake of argument, Jesus himself was given many, many opportunities to speak specifically against capital punishment. For instance, I would think that, if He intended to speak against people being executed by the state, He would have done so when He was being executed by the state. He did not. Far from it. When one of the criminals condemned with Jesus demanded that Jesus save them all, the other criminal rebuked him saying that their punishment was “justified,” but Jesus’ was not. Jesus did not disagree with him. He never spoke against the death penalty during his time on earth, though such penalties were commonplace in ancient Rome.
Only God can judge a man’s soul, but the state is well within its legal and moral power — indeed it has a legal and moral duty — to judge who is a danger to the public and to remove them from this world for the protection of its citizens.
RetFireman ,a few times today I tried to take liberal logic out to it’s end. It was brushed aside without a coherent response.
I have argued with liberals all my life(my own dad included,God rest his soul)and I recognize their tactics. Lots of them here today. They are just trying to “Jam” you.
I gots my toast all ready . It is otay
Alright RF. You have a good one. Otay!
Imagine that, a mangy democrap deciding it’s time to be honest with victims’ families. A historic moment.
Michelle, I have a lump in my throat after reading Nikki Hazard Rivera’s letter to you. Thank you for highlighting this story. Nothing disinfects better than the light of Day. May God the Father Almighty comfort that beautiful, loving family and all families who have endured the aftermath of violent crime.
And just for the record, I am for dungeons. Dungeons constructed on one of the Aleutian Islands.
There are some which, yes, have been found not guilty for the crime of capital murder or the death penalty, but it is here you fail to see that a not guilty person…does not an innocent person make, Rusty.
Some mearly have been able to prove that their crime did not meet or failed to proove the items necessary to get the dealth penalty.
There are not a lot of INNOCENTS on death row, trust me.
And how exactly does one kill another by mistake?
I don’t get what you mean here? An example would be helpful….
A plea/verdict of innocent and a plea/verdict of not guilty are not the same thing. They are two different things. Innocent means you absolutely, positively had nothing to do with it…you were not even in the country at the time kind of thing. Not guilty means that you possibly did it, but there was not enough evidence there to convict you or some other reason.
These 100 people were not suddenly set free and sent home. If I am not mistaken. Almost all if not all are still behind bars. Akk that these tests proved was that there was now a “reasonable doubt” as to their guilt, thus they could no longer be on Death Row. It was not that they were necessarily innocent.
While, like I said, there is that extremely rare case that they find someone who has been wrongfully accused and convicted, that case is so rare as to still make the news and to be one in a billion odds wise. Every convict claims to be innocent. Who are you going to believe? They have appeal after apppeal after appeal. The average time it takes to send a person to his death from the time he is first found guilty and sentanced until he finally sees justice is anywhere between 20 and 25 years. By then, witnesses have died, moved and become impossible to find etc. A shrewed attorney can get a stay of execution on various measures. Look at the latest here in California. That Lethal Injection is Cruel and Inhuman. Sorry kids, you are killing someone. Taking a life is cruel by it’s definition. For someone who has slaughtered someone else in a truly heinous fashion to be whining about possibly feeling pain when the IV is started is like a knife in the family of the victim’s heart, as they are forced to wait even longer. The convict’s rights are forever better than the victim and the victim’s family.
Enough is enough. If you don’t approve of the Death Penalty, fine. However, you cannot use the Bible as a means to be against it, for you don’t understand what it says aout it. Jesus never said anything about or against Capital Punishment, and even turned Himself over for it. The bible actually encourages it, and no little phrase you cherry pick or spout because you overheard some other Liberal using it somewhere is not going to carry any weigt. Also, without facts, your emotionally fueled diatribe, if I may steal Rusty’s favorite descriptive term, really carries no weight. You can put up all these hypotheticals that you want, but to carry your emotionally ridiculous theories to their conclusions, in order to make sure that no innocent person is ever wronged, we must do away with all police and sheriff, mounties, troopers and all law enforcement of any kind, get rid of prisons and courts and anything having to do with crime and punishment and laws and lead a community of pure anarchy where people do what they want and there is no retribution for it. Otherwise, the risk is, an innocent person could get arrested, tried, convicted, sent to prison and executed, and we can’t have that now, can we.
Liberal thought is ridiculous. It is circular reasoning and nonsense that makes people dizzy and ill. Once you back them into a corner they do what Chop did, give a weak attempt at an insult, try to sound like the superior bigger man and, I guess, head off to third period Englsh thinking he won the argument when really, he looked more ridiculous than when he started. All the Liberal trolls here did was prove that the Liberal idiots in New Jersey are just that much less stupid for doing what they are doing than the idiots that were here trying to rationalize their actions.
Liberals are just plain morons, and it is so much better being a Conservative and thinking with my brain and talking with my mouth rather than as a Liberal and thinking and speaking from where I sit.
Gotta get my kidlets fro the Learnatorium and then to get them some Frozen Yogurt and the new Harry Ptter film on DVD and some Diet Pepsi. See youze Guyz laterz.
WOW, I am way late to this party and nobody is probably watching anymore. I thought I read somewhere that MM was from Philly, but I stand corrected.
As for the death penalty, I am against the death penalty because it does not deter crime. The death penalty is not ‘justice’ for the victim. The death penalty is REVENGE.
There is certainly a need to lock people away for life to prevent a danger to society. But even the worst of people might have something positive to give the community from prison. They might read and study and come up with a cure for cancer, or find some invention that would help mankind in some small way.
I don’t excuse anyone who might be sentenced to the death penalty. I just don’t think putting someone to death makes society safer, and I don’t think it administers justice.
Thacker -
I respect your opinion – but disagree.
If you look at today’s prison society – those that strive to better themselves are not in the majority.
And as for the death penalty being revenge – one could argue that so is life imprisonment –
You killed someone – so we’re going to put you in a cell for life – isn’t that, in a way – ‘revenge’?
Sorry – but if someone killed an innocent loved one of mine ( not by accident, but through premeditation – I would have no sympathy.
See, I have a problem with putting non-violent criminals in prison.
The way I see prison is it is a way to remove a threat from society. If someone robs someone, justice would be to have that person pay them back.
If someone kills someone, justice would be to have that person come back to life. So punishing the person is not justice.
Putting them in prison is society’s way of protecting society moreso than enacting ‘justice’ for a capital offense.
Nobody does a crime thinking about the punishment. If I thought for one second that the death penalty was a deterrent, I’d be first in line to fry them. But there is no evidence to suggest that.
Have New Jersey democrats moved to end the death penalty for innocent victims? Perhaps they can pass laws banning murder of actual victims.
Or, perhaps they did not get the memo about what the definition of a criminal actually is.
Who cares if the death penalty deters crime (it does actually)? It prevents repeat offenders.
Dead men don’t wear plaid or engage in recidivism.
eric aka http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com
So does life in prison. There is no evidence to suggest that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. I’ve studied it. It might deter YOU (though I’d be shocked if you ever contemplated actually contemplated committing murder). But most criminals do the crime thinking that they won’t get caught. They don’t consider the consequences of their actions. Human nature just doesn’t work that way for criminals.
What I find very interesting is that all the anti-death penalty crowd doesn’t have a problem locking away an innocent person for the rest of their lives. You all keep bringing up how we shouldn’t execute anyone because one person might be innocent. But locking an innocent person up in prison forever is okay. I don’t get it. Seems like that’s not much of a better place to be. But than again, liberals never were strong ones on the logic.
#164 – it’s funny, because I posted before reading your comment. I was going to ask when society would determine that sending people to prison is wrong, because it’s not a deterrent. But I didn’t, because I didn’t want to be called Chicken Little again. And then I read your comment. I never once have thought that prison is supposed to be a deterrent. It’s a punishment. Because society has to have laws and has to have a way to enforce them. If someone robs someone else, how are you going to make them pay the money back? Send them a bill? And if they rob someone of their life (ie – murder them) what’s the payment then?
This is the problem with our ‘justice’ system. It isn’t really ‘justice’, it is ‘revenge’. Why would you put someone in prison as ‘justice’ for robbing someone when they could WORK to EARN money to REPAY what they stole for JUSTICE.
Justice has a definition, and our legal system does nothing to provide justice.
That’s why if you rob someone of their life, you put them in prison not as ‘justice’, but to keep them from doing it again. And you keep them locked away for life (unless they determine that they were wrongfully accused).
I WISH our legal system would focus on deterrents rather than punishment. Would you rather spend money to put up a fence at the border and deter illegal aliens from coming into our country, or would you rather spend the money to punish them once they crossed the fence-less border? Which would make you feel safer? Deterrence or Punishment?
DETERRENCE should be the goal of law enforcement, not punishment.
As a parent do you prefer punishing a child for doing something wrong? Or would you rather deter that child from the ABILITY to do something wrong?
Yes, I am arguing that our entire ‘justice system’ is poor and does very little to protect the citizens because it focuses on punishment rather than deterrence.
And I am no liberal by any means. I am just as staunchly against abortion at any time as anyone. I just don’t think government sanctioned killing should be justified at all in a civilized society – unless it is during war.
Here’s another example. They could do away with speeding tickets pretty easily. All they need to do is computer regulate all the cars to not go over 70 mph. That way nobody would ever speed on the interstate.
If speeding is the problem, well you will never have another speeder if you do this. I’m not advocating this because I think any speed law is a violation of individual liberty. . . but the government would rather keep the revenue by writing speeding tickets than actually keep people from speeding.
See where we are going here?
Rudy errantly believes that you can reduce crime by keeping people from having guns. I disagree, but in essence he is trying to deter people from using guns to commit crimes. . . gun control doesn’t work though because it doesn’t deter anyone, it just allows you to punish someone who already has a gun. But his foundation is in punishment policing so he thinks it’s a good idea.
ThackerAgency,
Then you favor surrendering a necessary tool for government to protect its people from the predations of others. A utopia where such a tool is not needed does not exist. For instance, Europe has abolished the death penalty for the most part, and now has a higher crime rate than the US.
And you speak empty platitudes when you say you favor “deterrence” without giving any specifics as to how. “Punishment” is a logical part of deterrence, but somehow punishment is not good enough for you.
Now, if you want to get some offenders out of prison, I woudl agree with you, but whereas you focus on “non-violent” crimes, I would focus on victimless crimes, such as drug use, prostitution or gambling. My guess is that you consider residential burglary and car theft to be “non-violent” crimes (correct me if I am wrong), but they have a far more destructive effect on society than murder or rape because of their sheer pervasiveness and the suggestion that law enforcement simply does not care about these crimes or the victims thereof. In my book, the use of the death penalty should be increased to cover such crimes.
And the death penalty does deter crime ina way life in prison cannot and does not. For one thing, the recidivism rate of those to whom the death penalty has been applied. The study I reference above by Brookings says as many as 18 murders are prevented by each execution.
Finally, if the criminal is dead, you won’t have the danger of some stupid judge or governor such as Dukakis releasing them on the streets again.
There is no valid argument against the death penalty. None. Only emotion, emotion that has proven itself wanting in crafting an effective policy against crime.
Thacker,
Unless it is during War?
We are at War…World War III.
3000 Dead New Yorkers, in addition to others in Bali, Madrid, etc.
Life in prison does not prevent recidivism if the criminal escapes. There is no escape from death, unless one is a character on a soap opera.
Respectfully,
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
P.S. The only time I contemplate killing people is when they go slow in the left lane, or when a referee makes a bad call. The moment passes.
Once again, someone who has read NOTHING of what I have written. Where do you get that? ONCE AGAIN: THERE IS NOTHING MORE DANGEROUS THAN A LIFER! PERIOD!!!
Please go back and scan up and readd what I have previously written on this subject as it pertains to what lifers do do prison guards, other inmates, etc. Please go and get the stats as to what inmates that have been incarcerated for life do as far as stabbing, beating and killing other inmates and prison guards since they no longer have anything to lose.
You are just an idiot who is operating from pure emotion. Once again…the Death Penalty is A PENALTY Just as it states in it’s name and as it is explained in the jury instructions when given by a judge to a jury. If there is any deterent value it is a side effect, and one we will never truly know of as we can never truly know people’s minds.
You are just unbelievable and are speaking nonsense and rehashing stuff that has already been gone over. Now go back to the start of this thread and read it before you post anything else. Otherwise, just go to another thread.
Christ Almighty what a doofus.
Sorry folks, but to re=hash an entire day’s worth of postings almost verbatim just because one person is too lazy to read or even skim through to see if what he has to say or is going to say has been said (which it was, everything he has said, and answered ad nauseum, in great detail till we were all blue in the freaking face) is not only lazy, but just freking rude and a serious waste of time and bandwidth and poor netiquette. Yes that was steam coming out of both my ears, but come on, do you blame me?
Since 1973, 125 people in 26 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence
Released from death row to what? To general population? They were still in prison, so what does that mean? It means just what I said, that all it meant was there was a REASONABLE DOUBT. I would be willing to bet that the choice of wording INNOCENCE is YOURS and not the actual wording used. Again, INNOCENCE and NOT GUILTY carry two different meanings. Please provide the actual links to said cases. Otherwise what we have here is nothing but hear say.
RetFireman, based on what I’ve seen over the last few months on this site, ThackerAgency has more intellect in his little finger than you’ll ever have. Your comments are consistently hyperbolic, irrational, emotional, ad hominem and unbelievably repetitive. You’re extremely obnoxious, seriously unoriginal and not very bright. Other than that, I guess you’re okay.
ThackerAgency, I’m not sure I agree with your basic premise on the death penalty, but I found your comments very insightful and interesting.
And Dakine, you think your opinion of my postings and what I have to say means what to me?
Wow, talk about an over inflated ego and sense of self-worth.
Tell you what. When I think I need the opinion of a Liberal know it all that knows about as much about everything as I know about nuclear physics, then i will go ahead and asl your opinion. Until such time, I will give about less than a damn about what your opinion of me is.
But hey, thanks for making me laugh. I really think it is hillarious that you took the time and energy to write that much about someone you claimed not to care about. Hilarious.
Me, I know this may seem like I did the same, but it wouldn’t have been worth much without me telling you so.
Now please, it is late, it is a school night, your mom is probably needing her computer back. I don’t know how many times we need to go over this with you. Go and tuck your self in, Santa is keeping an eye out really hard this time of year and I don’t think you need a piece of coal in your stocking do you?
What a putz.
The emotional argument is ‘They killed so we must kill’. It doesn’t keep the crime from being committed, it doesn’t bring the person back to life, it does nothing to advance society other than make you feel emotionally whole. But it is barbaric. Do you have any issue with the concept that Iran can compare its judicial system with ours by pointing to the death penalty?
I don’t think guilty people should ever be allowed to commit murder again (life in prison is the deterrent to future crime – I realize I did not make that more abundantly clear in my posts).
I agree with the ‘victimless’ part. But as for the thieves, that’s something I am not sure about. If you put them in jail, they’ll just do it again when they get out. They need to be forced to somehow repay the stolen property for appropriate justice. I am glad that we don’t cut their hands off though – I think everyone would agree that would be a punishment that would not be acceptable.
Thank you dakine. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I am often wrong – critical thinking requires it. But I appreciate your comments.
Oh, and if Thacker had bothered to read or even skim the posts that took everyone all day to write, like I had said, he wouldn’t have had to re-hash over everything yet again. Try reading. I know it might be difficult for you to get through all that Liberal hate of yours to actually read, but try some time. It might actually save you some embarrassment Dakine. Unless you feed off of it, which it seems to me that you do. Also, don’t sit here and complain about people’s insults while committing them. That is called being a hypocrite. I know that is your MO, but again, it just continues to make you look like a bigger moron. Just a little friendly reminder. Moron.
Why do you feel the need to call people names? That’s more lazy than not reading all the posts. If you have issues with the arguments, then that should suffice without attacking your opponent’s character. Generally when I hear someone call someone else a name in an argument, it means they are losing.
I don’t hate anyone. . . but maybe you weren’t talking about me. I’m also not a liberal, but I’m sure that you can’t imagine that a conservative could possibly disagree with you on even ONE issue, right?
See how that went? I didn’t even call you a name.
OK, Thacker: Putting someone away in prison DOES NOT automatically stop them from committing crime. I do not know where you get your information on what goes on in prison, but within the prison system, regardless of what state, or whether it is in the county jail or the state penitentiary, there is an ever expanding crime system. It is anything from burglary to theft, to assault to rape to battery to murder. You and several other posters on here seem to think that once you place a criminal behind bars, that all of a sudden this magic thing occurs and suddenly they become model citizens and never again does a crime happen until they once again walk te free streets where, if not given the chance the Liberals try to give them, they will recommit a crime.
Well, that is where you are incredibly wrong. The most dangerous of these convicts is a life without parole convict. In their mind, they have absolutely nothing to lose. They are the ones that commit all the crimes behind bars. The drugs, the beat-downs, the gassings, the murders, the attacks of all types on the guards. Then there are the proson gangs and the infighting amongst them. Inside the prison system, the guards have had to create their own version of the SWAT teams.
I could go on and on with this lesson, but frankly, I have grown tired having to repeat myself today about this. Dakine claims that you have more knowledge about everything under the sun in your little finger than I do, though if that is true, i find that hard to believe since you apparently seem to be incredibly ignorant about all these facts as does the king of trolls, your friend Daline there.
I suggest you do just a wee bit of research. It isn’t difficult. Tell you guys what. Why don’t you look into the Surrenos and the Arryan Brotherhood. That’s all you have to google. Not too hard. Then look up the California Department of Corrections. I believe they have a nifty section on the violence inherent to the California Prison System
However, since you know all this stuff and it is filed away in your little finger, just flip up your nail and scan for it. Hate to be like this, but since Dakine decided to stick his big nose where it didn’t belong, he can either keep out of it, and you and I can talk about this, or he can stay and we can keep this at this level.
Choice is yours.
If you still think there is no more ways someone can continue along the violence trail and can keep killing once he in in prison for the rest of his life, including killing someone who is only in prison for a couple of months for some non-violent crime for say carrying a few joints,,,definately not worth the death sentance he then received being put in general with a known murderer of several people and known to possibly kill again, let me hear your rationalization. Let me hear why that person with a family and a house and friends who was only there for 6 months for holding 3 ounces of pot had to die because you felt the mass murderer shouldn’t have to go to the death chamber and get lethal injection and thus was out on the general population yard and didn’t happen to like the way Pot Boy looked at him that day.
Stand by your convictions. This is not a hypothetical. This is something that happens.
Just another reason to be glad I left NJ shortly after my 18th birthday, never to return.
It is a complete hypothetical and hyperbole. And a massive straw man argument based on made up anecdotes. Now you are suggesting that we have to kill people because we have to protect criminals when they are in prison. I agree that you should be able to protect someone who you have total control over from harm (ie. when they are in prison), or something needs to be changed.
You seem to be suggesting that our prison system doesn’t need to be overrun by the victimless criminals and I would agree. But that would be counter to the harsh 3 strikes penalties that most conservatives approve of in liberal California.
If the justice system functioned properly, we would have enough space to keep violent criminals AWAY FROM SOCIETY. That’s what prison is for. When they are in prison, well too bad. But prison is to PROTECT SOCIETY FROM THESE BAD PEOPLE.
Again, there aren’t that many executions anyway. The most dangerous of the prisoners are held in isolation most of the time (deterrence again). If you opened up the space in the jails by relieving them of people in jail on these ridiculous penalties for minor and victim less crimes, then you wouldn’t have so many people on parole.
Generally the parole is given because they don’t have enough space in the jail. That’s a failure of the penal system.
The death penalty is barbaric. In my opinion, that was the PRIMARY reason that Jesus came to Earth when He did. He wanted to show the world how barbaric people are if they are left to decide what is good and what is bad. Jesus was an innocent man that people decided needed to be killed. If he were alive today, he wouldn’t be killed because his lawyer would have gotten him off. But back then, Jesus showed mankind’s barbaric nature.
God didn’t invent the death penalty in the Garden of Eden – well maybe he did after mankind decided he knew enough not to have to obey his Creator. But again. . . this theological understanding goes way too deep for me to explain here.
But the death penalty is barbaric, and Jesus proved it.
Hear Hear Thacker…
Jesus came to earth because of the death penalty? That’s a new one.
Since this is your opinion and nothing more, I’ll leave it at that. But this claim is non substantiated by the Bible.
“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.” – I Peter 3:18a
This why Jesus was sent to dwell among us.
Jesus’ death was prophesy. He came to earth to die for our sins. Yes, He was innocent but His spilt blood was the only way to reconcile us with God. God sent Him – Jesus’ fate was already decided. He knew why He came, He knew why He would die and He fulfilled the Scriptures. These people that you speak of didn’t take His life – He gave it.
I see that you have made your own correction in #185. Nevertheless, this is pure speculation. Besides, His death was prophetic in nature, this lawyer that you speak of is no match for the Almighty.
Huh?
God did not create evil. God created freedom. The freedom to choose to follow His explicit instructions (i.e., do not eat the apple) or disobey Him and eat of the apple and face the consequences. There’s nothing noble in having to be forced to love and obey someone. You have the choice to follow God or worship a false god.
But again. . . this theological understanding goes way too deep for me to explain here.
But the death penalty is barbaric, and Jesus proved it.
Um, no. The argument is, “They have killed, therefore we must remove them from society permanently and send a message that their conduct is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.” Life in prison does not do that.
I’d also like to know what your definition of “barbaric” is. Abdicating a government responsibility by letting barbarians run the streets to prey on innocents so you can keep your moral vanity sounds more barbaric than the death penalty, and selfish to boot.
And, my gawd, how many times have we seen the argument that “Iran uses the death penalty, so we shouldn’t,” or “Saudi Arabia uses the death penalty, so we shouldn’t?” Talk abut a logical fallacy that is just plain childish. They use cars, too, so I guess we shouldn’t use cars. (Oops! Bad example — liberals hate cars.) They use silverware, too, so I guess we shouldn’t use silverware. They use toilet paper, too, so I guess we shouldn’t use toilet paper. After all, we don’t want to be like THEM.
Judge an idea on its merits, not on who uses it.
Three strikes works just fine if the strikes are counted properly. Drug possession hurts no one but the user. Burglary is a different matter. It is not the job of government to protect people from themselves, only from others. Personally, I would start a points system, just like a driver’s license, except if you get enough points, you lose your life.
Um, have you actually read the Bible? Not just quoted from it, but actually read it? Nowhere does Jesus condemn the death penalty. Not once. In fact, like I said before, He at least implicitly endorses executions by the state, at the exact time, ironically enough, when He was being executed by the state.
Context, people. Context.
What Corzine and his merry band of leftwingnuts have done, is undermine the decision of the respective juries and thumb their noses at justice for the victims and their loved ones.
The liberal mindset has always been more sympathetic to wastes of skin that should have been put to death immediately after sentencing.
It’s the last earthly punishment we can administer to the deserving recipients.
Most liberals against the death penalty have never experienced anything remotely similar to what the families experienced.
I’ve said this before: Give the convicted subhuman filth same death they inflicted on their victims. There would be a line of volunteers around the block.