Congratulations, New Jersey, for joining in with most of the rest of Western civilization — and going against most of your fellow American states — and abolishing the barbaric practice of capital punishment. Kudos all around for the brave lawmakers who slogged through the trenches and pounded out the legislation for New Jersey’s enlightened governor, Jon Corzine, to sign.
Corzine, who signed the ban December 17, said, “I think it is the winning side, because it is moral, in my heart and in my soul, and that’s why I feel the way I do.”
Well, okay, so after rereading that sentence three times it still doesn’t make any logical sense, but it’s the all-important feelings of the governor, and of all death penalty opponents, that really matter, right?
Granted, their feelings are a bit different than those of, say, Richard Kanka, the father of a young girl whose brutal rape and murder led to the passage of Megan’s Law. Rather than experiencing the warm and fuzzy sensations that usually accompany human enlightenment, he instead only feels unenlightened outrage, which he voiced to New Jersey lawmakers thusly:
“She was suffocated, she was raped post-mortem, her body was dumped in a park. Now if that doesn’t constitute gross and heinous, I don’t know what you people are thinking.”
We can certainly understand how this poor man must feel, but death penalty opponents would want us to understand that his desire for vengeance is itself immoral and unbecoming, and is something which no modern, civilized society should ever indulge by executing human beings who, for whatever reasons, have fallen from grace.
They would have us know that despite the fact that monsters in human form commit acts like the one described above pretty much every day, every human life, no matter how depraved or seemingly irredeemable, has inherent worth and dignity and should be preserved at all cost.
Death penalty opponents would also ask that we not get caught up in the hoopla over the veritable slew of studies that have been done in recent years which have found that for every executed murderer, somewhere between 3 and 18 additional murders are deterred or prevented. Sure, it sounds like some sort of practical justification for capital punishment, but it fails to change the moral calculus of what is still nothing more than state-sanctioned murder, which, of course, is unalterably immoral.
If you consider yourself a diehard supporter of capital punishment, just read the inspiring words of Sister Helen Prejean, author of “Dead Man Walking,” the famous book, later made into a Sean Penn movie, about her experience with a death row inmate:
“And the word will travel around the globe, that there is a state in the United States of America that was the first to show that life is stronger than death, that love is greater than hatred.”
If you are the loved one of someone who was heinously murdered, wouldn’t it be better to wrap your mind and heart around the good sister’s loving message than to continue to wallow in your self-destructive grief and hatred for another human being? Think about it, won’t you?
Greg Strange provides conservative commentary with plenty of acerbic wit on the people, politics, events and absurdities of our time. See more at his website: http://www.greg-strange.com/.
Loading ...
2 users commented in " Enlightened New Jersey Bans Death Penalty (extreme sarcasm alert!) "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackDEAD WRONG: NJ Death Penalty Study Commission
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
from http://www.hallnj.org/cm/listing.jsp?cId=3
Summary
The New Jersey Death Penalty Commission made significant errors within their findings. The evidence, contrary to the Commissions findings, was so easy to obtain that it appears either willful ignorance or deception guided their report.
A brief review.
FORMAT: Below, are the 7 points made within the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission Report, January, 2007. The RUBUTTAL presents the obvious points avoided by the Commission and discussed by this author, a death penalty expert.
I was invited to be a presenter, before the NJDPSC, but my time didn’t fit their schedule.
1) There is no compelling evidence that the New Jersey death penalty rationally serves a legitimate penological intent.
REBUTTAL:
- The reason that 81% of Americans found that Timothy McVeigh should be executed was justice - the most profound concept in criminal justice, as in many other aspects of life. It is the same reason that New Jersey citizens, 12 jurors, put all those on death row.
- Although the Commission and the NJ Supreme Court both attempt to discount deterrence, logically, they cannot.
First, all prospects for a negative outcome deter some. This is not, logically or historically rebutted. It cannot be. Secondly, those studies which don’t find for deterrence, do not say that it doesn’t exist, only that their study didn’t find it. Those studies which find for deterrence did. 16 recent studies do.
- The Commission had ample opportunity and, more importantly, the responsibility to read and contact the authors of those many studies which have, recently, found for deterrence. There seems to be no evidence that they did so. On such an important factor as saving innocent lives, why didn’t they? The testimony before the Commission, critical of those studies, would not withstand a review by the authors of those studies. That should be an important issue that the Commission should have investigated, but did not.
- LIFE WITHOU PAROLE: The Commission considered the risk of innocents executed and concluded that it wasn’t worth the risk and that a life sentence would serve sufficiently without that risk to innocents.
Again, the Commission avoided both fact and reason. The risk to innocents is greater with a life sentence than with the death penalty.
First, we all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after improper release, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers - an obvious truism ignored by the Commission.
Secondly, no knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, it is logically conclusive, that actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
Thirdly, there has been a recent explosion of studies finding for death penalty deterrence. The criticism of those studies has, itself, been rebutted.
- Therefore, in choosing a life without parole and calling for the end of the death penalty, the Commission has made the choice to put more innocents at risk - the opposite of their stated rationale.
2) The costs of the death penalty are greater than the costs of life in prison without parole, but it is not possible to measure these costs with any degree of precision.
REBUTTAL:
- The NJ legislature’s own cost review found that the cost differential was indeterminate. However, based upon their exclusions, LWOP may very well be more expensive.
- For the amount of time and resources allegedly expended by the Commission, this section of their review was unconscionable in its lack of responsibility to the Commission’s directive.
- The Commission concludes that the current system in New Jersey is very expensive, without noting the obvious ways in which those issues can be addressed to lessen those costs. Why?
One example, they find that proportionality review cost $93, 000 per case. Why didn’t the Commission recommend doing away with proportionality review? There is no reason, legally, to have it and it has been a disaster, cost wise, with no benefit.
Secondly, the Commission states: “Nevertheless, consistent with the Commission’s findings, recent studies in states such as Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana, Florida and North Carolina have all concluded that the costs associated with death penalty cases are significantly higher than those associated with life without parole cases. These studies can be accessed through the Death Penalty Information Center.” (Report, page 33).
On many topics the Death Penalty Information Center has been one of the most deceptive or one sided anti death penalty groups in the country. While it is not surprising that the Commission would give them as a reference, multiple times, it doesn’t speak well of the Commission.
Did the Commission read any of the studies referenced by the DPIC? It appears doubtful, or the Commission would not have referenced them.
For example, let’s look at the North Carolina (Duke University) study. That cost study compared the cost of only a twenty year “life sentence” to the death penalty. Based upon that study, a true life without parole sentence would be more costly than the death penalty. Somehow the Commission missed that rather important fact.
These types of irresponsible and misleading references by the Commission do nothing to inspire any confidence in their findings, but do reinforce the opinion that their conclusions were predetermined.
Please see “Cost Comparisons: Death Penalty Cases Vs Equivalent Life Sentence Cases”, to follow.
3) There is increasing evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.
REBUTTAL:
The Commission uses several references to prove their point. None of them succeeded.
- The first was based upon polling in New Jersey. The data showed strong support (78%) for executions in NJ, except when asking those polled to choose between a life sentence or a death sentence, for which life gets greater support. The major problem with this long standing and misleading polling question is that it has nothing to do with the legal reality of sentencing. Secondly, that poll shows broad support for BOTH sanctions, not a call to abandon either. The Commission, somehow, overlooked that obvious point.
Jurors have the choice of both sentences in states with the death penalty and life without parole. Therefore, a proper polling question for NJ would be,
A) should we eliminate the death penalty and ONLY have life without parole? or
B) should we give jurors the OPTION of choosing life or death in capital murder cases?
Based upon other polls, I suspect B would be the resounding winner of this poll in NJ.
We know support is 78% in NJ, for crimes similar to those on NJ death row.
Secondly, the Commissions polling speaker avoided the most obvious and reliable polling question on this topic - asking about the punishment for a specific crime, just as jurors have to decide.
NOTE: 78% of NJ citizens support the death penalty for crimes such as those on NJ’s death row. (Dec., 2007)
81% of Americans supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh. 85% of Connecticut citizens polled supported the execution of serial rapist/murderer Michael Ross.
Thirdly, poll New Jersey citizens with the following questions. Is life without parole or the death penalty the most appropriate punishment for those who rape and murder children? Or should NJ remove the death penalty as a jury option for those who rape and murder children?
- Two religious speakers spoke against execution. Both are easily rebutted by religious scholars holding different views.
- Another alleged example of this evolving standard is based upon the fact there has been a reduction in death sentences. Such reduction is easily explained by a number of factors, other than some imagined “evolving standard of decency”.
Murders have dropped some 40%, capital murders have likely dropped by even a greater number, based upon other factors. This, by itself, explains the overwhelming percentage of the drop in death sentences.
In addition, many prosecutors, such as those in NJ, know that their courts will not allow executions, leading to prosecutorial frustration as a contributing factor in any reduction - not an evolving standard of decency, but an evolving and increasing frustration.
Please review: “Why the reduction in death sentences?”, to follow.
4) The available data do not support a finding of invidious racial bias in the application of the death penalty in New Jersey.
CLARIFICATION:
In fact, there is no data to support any racial bias, invidious or otherwise. The Commission must have read the series of NJ studies.
5) Abolition of the death penalty will eliminate the risk of disproportionality in capital sentencing.
REBUTTAL:
Yes, Commission, and the abolition of all criminal sentences will eliminate the risk of disproportionality in all sentences, as well. This is hardly a rational reason to get rid of any sentence. Get rid of the expensive and unnecessary proportionality review.
6) The penological interest in executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible error.
REBUTTAL:
- The risk to innocents is greater with life without parole than with the death penalty. See (1), above LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE.
7) The alternative of Life imprisonment in a maximum security institution without the possibility of parole would sufficiently ensure public safety and address other legitimate social and penological interests, including the interests of the families of murder victims.
REBUTTAL:
This Commission statement is quite simply, false.
- Life imprisonment puts more innocents at risk than does the death penalty.
- Justice, just punishment, retribution and/or saving innocent lives, among others, are all legitimate social and penological interests all served by the death penalty.
- 81% of Americans supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh. 85% of Connecticut citizens polled supported the execution of serial, rapist/murderer Michael Ross.
The overwhelming majority of those polled did not have family members murdered.
Is the Commission trying to tell us that a poll of NJ murder victim survivors would show a majority opposed to the death penalty? Of course not, that would be as absurd as the Commissions conclusions in this section.
Conclusion:
Almost without exception, The Commission accepted the standard anti death penalty position, without presenting the easily accessible rebuttal to that position.
Enough said.
———————–
NJ Death Penalty Study Commission
It is alleged that the Commission had fair hearings, with both sides adequately presented.
Alleged fair hearings mean nothing, if decisions are predetermined, as this one was.
11 of the 13 committee members were either known or leaning anti death penalty. The contempt for and discounting of pro death penalty positions in both the hearings and final report confirm that.
All the prosecutors on the Commission were up for reappointment - by the staunchly anti death penalty Governor. Would any of them sacrifice their livelihood to fight for the death penalty? Of course not and they did not.
One committee member - one - was confirmable as pro death penalty.
Most, if not all, of Committee Chairman Rev. Howard’s previous affiliations were anti death penalty.
Rev. Howard’s fairness is best shown by the Commission’s final report, which was laughable in its exclusion of pro death penalty positions, positions which would have either overwhelmed or neutralized the anti death penalty, predetermined conclusions of the panel, had those pro death penalty positions been given a fair showing in that report - which they weren’t.
The Commission hearings and final report were, as all show trials, a farce.
copyright 2007 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, CBS, CNN, C-Span, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, BBC and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O’Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Supporters of the abolition of capital punishment are liars and deshonestos.Amnisty International, Human Rights Watch and Penal Reform claim that they want to abolish the death penalty so that they do not die innocent victims of miscarriages of justice but what they do not say is that it is opposed to ferormente The life without parole (lwop) to justify having granted parole to murderers of children and serial killers.Lo truth is that if we defend the parole for lifers assume a high risk that the criminal released vueva to asesinar.casos as Kenneth_Allen_McDuff, Gilberto Champa, Darryl Kemp etc.Si say that the rehabilitation support for these murderers admitting the risk of dying innocents.
Leave A Reply