ForumGarden

With NJ abolishing death penalty I was wondering what people felt about the death penalty here?

I think it should be kept - some people should just not be allowed to live. Some of the crimes they have committed are so horrific. I really don't think us tax payers should be feeding and housing them.

What crimes, if any, do you think should deserve the death penalty? What about the wrongly accused?

http://wfmz.com/view/?id=193941

Every crime should be capital and falsely prosecuting someone should be a crime. There are lots of consequences of changing to such a system, all of them good.

The problem with the death penalty is that you have to be absolutely sure your person is guilty, once you excecute them, you can't change it if you find they are actually innocent.

Tis a sad day!!! :wah:

If you kill me, then mine should kill you! (As it should be, an Eye for an Eye!)

cars;742158 wrote: Tis a sad day!!! :wah:

If you kill me, then mine should kill you! (As it should be, an Eye for an Eye!)


It was also said - turn the other cheek.

ThePheasant;742007 wrote: With NJ abolishing death penalty I was wondering what people felt about the death penalty here?

I think it should be kept - some people should just not be allowed to live. Some of the crimes they have committed are so horrific. I really don't think us tax payers should be feeding and housing them.

What crimes, if any, do you think should deserve the death penalty? What about the wrongly accused?

http://wfmz.com/view/?id=193941


I seem to recall that we batted this one about fairly recently.

I stand by what I said then - that whilst we cannot guarantee absolute certainty of guilt we should not resort to killing.

I would also add that, the more horrendous the crime the more likely it is that the wrong person will be found guilty. Partly due to the pressure on the Police to produce a result quickly and partly due to the pre-trial publicity and the emotive nature of that trial.

Federal Laws Providing for the Death Penalty

Homicide related Crimes:



Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice. (18 U.S.C. 351 [by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] )



Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment 2003 report.; Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project

Only if I get to decide who is important!:D

I think anyone who really believes they are Christian should of course be against the death penalty as it absolutely flies in the face of Christ's actual new testament teachings (as opposed to the old testament, which is Jewish), and if they don't I would suggest they think hard about what religion they actually believe in. I am not religious, but on principal I would be against giving the state the power to execute its own citizens in peacetime, for lots of obvious reasons. In war, its different, (and its arguable where in exceptional cases their is a case for execution even in peacetime), but I would be against it during peacetime as its not proven to be a particularly good deterrent for serious criminals, the legal system is not 100 percent proof and there are too many examples of flawed convictions to be comfortable with it, and on principal giving a government in peacetime the right to execute its own citizens is giving them too much power in my opinion, well for my country anyway. We finally took Capital punishment off the statue books in the 1990s.

Galbally, when was the last actual execution, i'm guessing it was some time before the 90's?I think ours was Ruth Ellis in 1954.

lemon_and_mint;742211 wrote: I think ours was Ruth Ellis in 1954.No, England kept hanging people for another nine years and didn't abolish the death penalty until 1998 (though that sounds misleading but it's true).

spot;742236 wrote: No, England kept hanging people for another nine years and didn't abolish the death penalty until 1998 (though that sounds misleading but it's true).


oh i know it was abolished a long time after the last execution, i hadn't realised we hung people after the 50's though.In which case I wonder why we didn't hang the moors murderers in the early 60's.?

Although I know that some people would say there is reason not to hang them, too quick, let them suffer for years in prison.

lemon_and_mint;742241 wrote: I wonder why we didn't hang the moors murderers in the early 60's.?Capital punishment for murder in England Wales and Scotland was abolished in 1965 and they were sentenced in 1966.

spot;742259 wrote: Capital punishment for murder in England Wales and Scotland was abolished in 1965 and they were sentenced in 1966.


So 1998 was for ʖtreason?

wasn't murder of a police officer also separated out from plain murder to retain the death penalty?

Bryn Mawr;742269 wrote: So 1998 was for ʖtreason?

wasn't murder of a police officer also separated out from plain murder to retain the death penalty?


Yes (with mutiny and violent piracy... what's non-violent piracy?) and No, they have a habit of killing other people, not getting killed.

spot;742273 wrote: Yes (with mutiny and violent piracy... what's non-violent piracy?) and No, they have a habit of killing other people, not getting killed.


That is somewhat unfair - they might well have a poor reputation when it comes to the death of innocent members of the public but there are also a significant number killed in the line of duty.

Bryn Mawr;742287 wrote: That is somewhat unfair - they might well have a poor reputation when it comes to the death of innocent members of the public but there are also a significant number killed in the line of duty.


Along with firefighting it's one of the safest careers in the country if you check how many die at work.

in fact one of the most famous examples of hanging where they weren't sure of whether or not the person was guilty was in the killing of a policeman -they said the person had said "let him have it", as in telling his accomplice to shoot the policeman, but he could have meant - give him the gun.

lemon_and_mint;742289 wrote: in fact one of the most famous examples of hanging where they weren't sure of whether or not the person was guilty was in the killing of a policeman -they said the person had said "let him have it", as in telling his accomplice to shoot the policeman, but he could have meant - give him the gun.


Given that the poor guy had leaning difficulties and was not known for violence, the second interpretation was always far more likely - but then, it was a Policeman who died so someone had to pay for it.

ETA - They did have the good grace to give him a pardon eventually - fifty years after they hanged him.

lemon_and_mint;742014 wrote: The problem with the death penalty is that you have to be absolutely sure your person is guilty, once you excecute them, you can't change it if you find they are actually innocent.




I agree, and I agree with cars, thank god I have never been called to jury duty for that type of case.

lemon_and_mint;742211 wrote: Galbally, when was the last actual execution, i'm guessing it was some time before the 90's?I think ours was Ruth Ellis in 1954.


Thats a good question, I must check it out, its probably similar to that, I know that there were several executions of IRA men during WWII by the Irish Government as they were conspiring with the German government of the time to overthrow the Irish State, after that I am not so sure.

I must also check whether Capital punishment for treason is still on our statute book, I am presuming that during war time here, then normal civil law is suspended and executions for such offences are possible, but I am not sure actually, I do know a solicitor so maybe I will ask her.

grh;742187 wrote: Federal Laws Providing for the Death Penalty

Homicide related Crimes:



Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice. (18 U.S.C. 351 [by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] )



Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment 2003 report.; Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project

Only if I get to decide who is important!:D




18 USC 351

ThePheasant;742007 wrote: With NJ abolishing death penalty I was wondering what people felt about the death penalty here?

I think it should be kept - some people should just not be allowed to live. Some of the crimes they have committed are so horrific. I really don't think us tax payers should be feeding and housing them.

What crimes, if any, do you think should deserve the death penalty? What about the wrongly accused?

http://wfmz.com/view/?id=193941


Most states have few capital crimes on thier books. Murder of a police officer in the line of duty is generally universal in the states as a capital offense.



If I am not mistaken, LA passed a law permitting the death penalty for the rape of a child under a certain age? Although not "directly" federally unconstitutional, the USSC has ruled it IS unconstitutional to give the death penalty for the rape of an adult as it is a violation of the 8TH AM's provision against cruel and unusual punishment.

It is currently being navigated through the courts, if I have my state and facts right?

ThePheasant;742007 wrote: With NJ abolishing death penalty I was wondering what people felt about the death penalty here?

I think it should be kept - some people should just not be allowed to live. Some of the crimes they have committed are so horrific. I really don't think us tax payers should be feeding and housing them. :mad:What crimes, if any, do you think should deserve the death penalty?

What about the wrongly accused?

What about the innocent victims :-5:-5

http://wfmz.com/view/?id=193941


I just wish we had it here in the UK . I agree with the death penalty, like you said yourself, some people shouldn't breath the same air as the rest of us . If they have no place in society then why keep them alive ...it's pointless:mad::mad::mad:

I think murder should be avoided, even if its state sanctioned against criminals.