New Jersey will be the first state in forty years to eliminate the death penalty (the governor will sign the measure in a few days). Government members voted in favor of replacing the death penalty with life in prison without parole 44-36. Supporters state that the death penalty has not discouraged murder from occurring and the death penalty sentence provides the possibility of killing an innocent person. Opponents of the measure such as Assemblyman Richard Merkt, state that the bill is “a victory for murderers and rapists. It does not benefit families. It does not benefit New Jersey society. It does not benefit justice.” Senate Republicans offered a compromise of upholding the death penalty for those who murder law enforcement officials, rape and murder children, and terrorists, but the Senate denied the suggestion. Since the Supreme Court permitted the death penalty in 1976, 1,099 people have been executed. While some states have deliberated about prohibiting the death penalty, currently, 37 states use the death penalty. Is the death penalty too radical of a punishment, and should other states follow New Jersey’s example of banning the death penalty?
14 comments:
Although I can't speak from experience, I can't imagine that the death of another benefits the mourning family--what if by some chance the wrong person ended up dead? I know if I was part of a family that pushed for that execution I would be devastated after the fact. It's BENEFICIAL to families to kill another after one of your own is killed? They may not be a great person, but they have a family just like the victim. And benefiting justice? Is it justice to swap one life for another? I've always been told that life is precious, and taking another's life doesn't seem like it should be considered an exact exchange for a tragedy that they might have committed. I'm not speaking for all the rapists and murderers, but from the stories you hear outside of prison, it sounds like living out your life there is just as much of a punishment, if not worse. I think other states should follow New Jersey's example.
I don't know why the death penalty is such a big deal. As long as the really bad criminals aren't getting back in society I don't care whether it's because of the death penalty or life in prison.
I support the death penalty, and I think that more drastic measures should be taken in certain situations. Punishment for crime needs to help prevent that crime from occuring again. If we captured Bin Laden I think that we should take a more drastic measure than just killing him. It is also possible that putting someone in a cell for life could be more damaging to them than simply killing them. I would have to say that torture should be used in certain situtations. The point is to punish the criminal and almost any action should be available in certain situations.
I believe that the death penalty is actually somewhat of an easy way out for criminals. I think that life in prison, isolated in a cell for your whole life, would be a much more devestating punishment than lethal injection. Of course, as Cheevers said, as long as the criminals don't return to the streets I could really care less what happens to them.
States should be more like Texas and allow people who have committed a homocide with at least three witnesses to be put to death relevantly quick. I dont belive in keeping people alive in a box with tax money when thay have perhaps comitted some terrible offense. And yes. perhaps they are innocent, but the death penalty requires substancial evidence. Its not like the prison wards have gone on a killing spree or anything. Besides, think of all the money that could be saved without having to spend so much money on the people who are sitting on Death Row, repealing their trials.
In short, I think that New Jersey did what they felt was necessary, but it doesn't mean all of the rest of the states should follow suit. Texas has a more realistic was of dealing with the death penalty. In the words of the great Ron White, "If you kill in Texas, we kill you back."
Ok, to be honest I feel that right now if someone gets sent to death, if the family wants to they should be allowed to pull the trigger or put the injection in. IF THEY WANT TO OF COURSE. It kind of sounds odd, but what would happen if like in a will, people wrote what they preferred to happen if they were murdered. Kind of odd, but I am not totally for or against the death penalty like my man J Cheeves. The only problem I have is when someone blows up a school bus or something and I know that they get to stay in jail and work-out. But really, correct me if I am wrong even without parole one can be released on pardon. And, is it fair for someone who lives in Texas to die if they kill one person, while in New Jersey they might just get locked up. Against my mane beliefs, I would not mind a set in stone crime punishment system where the same rules applied in every state across the board!
Especially the murderer of a police officer or a terrorist, why should they be allowed even eat food. MY suggestion, lock them up in a dark room and check on them in 60 days, if they live through that then we can think about life. For now, I think the idea of not allowing the death penalty is a huge mistake.
Ok, to be honest I feel that right now if someone gets sent to death, if the family wants to they should be allowed to pull the trigger or put the injection in. IF THEY WANT TO OF COURSE. It kind of sounds odd, but what would happen if like in a will, people wrote what they preferred to happen if they were murdered. Kind of odd, but I am not totally for or against the death penalty like my man J Cheeves. The only problem I have is when someone blows up a school bus or something and I know that they get to stay in jail and work-out. But really, correct me if I am wrong even without parole one can be released on pardon. And, is it fair for someone who lives in Texas to die if they kill one person, while in New Jersey they might just get locked up. Against my mane beliefs, I would not mind a set in stone crime punishment system where the same rules applied in every state across the board!
Especially the murderer of a police officer or a terrorist, why should they be allowed even eat food. MY suggestion, lock them up in a dark room and check on them in 60 days, if they live through that then we can think about life. For now, I think the idea of not allowing the death penalty is a huge mistake.
I think the death penalty is way too extreme for common to moderate crimes. However, if the crime consists of mass murder, genocide, some kind of intent to deliberately harm and torture people, or an extreme danger to the world, then I think the death penalty is acceptable. However, it has to be 100% sure that the convict is the guilty one. I think that only in that situation is the death penalty a viable option.
I think that all states should follow New Jersey's example. They could modify their bills a little so that they suit their situations, but overall, they should ban the death penalty from the United States, except for the extremely scenarios.
I agree with Addie- and I really love Ron White's saying, by the way. I'm for the death penalty if you kill or rape someone else, but there has to be enough evidence, of course. But, I wanted to say: isn't America torturing people now? I think that's a lot worse than the death penalty. I don't understand how people can condone torture but be against the death penalty.
I support the death penalty. I think that life in prison is a worse punishment for the person then death bc in life you will be there forever while death you arent even conscious. and for the people who say that you could be killing an innoncent person, being on death row is a very lenghthy process bc of all the appeals. and wouldnt it be worst if that person had to sit in jail for there entire life knowing they are innocent too. plus the whole pardon thing even though i doubt a president would pardon some one on death row it could possible happen.
I believe in, “an eye for an eye.” If someone commit’s a crime involving murder, the only exceptable thing for their crime is capital punishment. I think Texas should not ban the idea of the death penalty. Keeping the death penalty will hopefully make people think about the consequences before they commit a horrible crime. I know it seems harsh, but if someone killed a friend or family member of mine, I would want that person dead. Also, without the death penalty, we would just over crowd jails with people serving life terms.
sorry i meant New Jersey
I think that the death penalty should be substitued for life in prison. As long as the criminal doesn't get out of jail then there is really no point in the death penalty. I think the only real purpose of killing someone is for the victim's revenge. This should not be a good enough reason to end someone's life and possibly kill an innocent person. Some argue that the death penalty provides deserving punishment, but who are we to take someone else's life, especially when there are often cases of innocent people getting convicted for a crime they didn't commit. Besides, the conditions that people convicted for these types of crime must live in are definately punishment enough. Also, I don't think the death penalty deters crime because people who are about to commit a crime deserving of the death penalty probably aren't thinking about the punishment.
If a person committed a crime to such an extent that they should be executed, they should be executed. I believe dying is a cheat out of a miserable life in prison though. If you committed a heinous crime, you should suffer for the rest of your life, not die and get things over with. I have nothing against the death penalty, I just believe that a life in prison, without parole or the right to visitation, is harsher than death.
Post a Comment