New Hampshire lawmakers vote to repeal death penalty with veto-proof majority
The New Hampshire Senate voted Thursday to repeal the death penalty with a veto-proof majority, setting the stage for the state to become the latest to outlaw capital punishment.
The 17-6 vote comes more than a month after the state House of Representatives passed the repeal bill with its own two-thirds, veto-proof majority. Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, who previously threatened to veto the measure, said Thursday that he remains opposed to repeal.
"Governor Sununu continues to stand with crime victims, members of the law enforcement community, and advocates for justice in opposing a repeal of the death penalty," his office said in a statement.
State Democratic Rep. Renny Cushing, a sponsor of the bipartisan bill, cheered the vote as "historic." Both Cushing's father and brother-in-law were murdered, personal tragedies that he said did not change his opposition to capital punishment .
"New Hampshire's poised to live without the death penalty," Cushing said in an interview Thursday.
Though the measure was expected to pass, Cushing said he found the reflections from senators from both parties "incredibly eloquent and powerful."
He said he was particularly moved by the speech of Republican state Sen. Ruth Ward, whose father was killed when she was 7, according to The Associated Press .
"That just touched me because she talked from the heart about being a family of a murder victim and not wanting the death penalty," Cushing said. "It was very compelling.”
If the governor is unsuccessful in blocking the bill from becoming law, New Hampshire — where one person remains on death row — will join 20 other states and the District of Columbia in abolishing the death penalty.
Experts note that similar repeal efforts have taken off in state legislatures across the country, mostly in places where the death penalty has been seldom issued in recent years as lawmakers in both parties have increasingly embraced the issue.
Of the 17 state senators who voted in favor of repeal Thursday, five are Republicans and 12 are Democrats.
“What we’re seeing in New Hampshire is consistent with a national trend and that is increasing bipartisan support for repealing death penalty statutes," Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said Thursday.
Last year, Sununu vetoed a similar bill aimed at repeal and the Senate fell just two votes short of overriding it. Cushing said that should the governor reject the new measure, he is confident that the level of support in the Legislature — where Democrats control both chambers — will be sustained.
"I don’t think the governor really understands victims," Cushing said. "He equates being a victim with support for capital punishment, and if he took the time to meet with family members of murder victims who are opposed to the death penalty, he might gain a different perspective, and I think it would help him understand why people want to repeal capital punishment."
An eye for an eye, or no justice with by killing?
"Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, who previously threatened to veto the measure, said Thursday that he remains opposed to repeal."
For those who didn't grow up in New England, this is the state that was once as Republican as the old newspaper that was once so influential around these parts - The New Hampshire Union Leader, published by NH's own William Loeb. The states motto was "Live Free or Die". At one time NH had no sales or income tax. Capitol Punishment was a given in the state.
What happened?
Sometime in the 90's (during the tech boom), Massachusetts middle class began to migrate up to NH. Some lived there while working in MA. Evidently they were spoiled by the costly government programs they had in MA because I have to believe it was they who turned NH blue. Notice that both chambers of the NH legislature are now controlled by democrats.
For those who are in doubt:
"A recent study conducted by the University of New Hampshire confirms what curmudgeons in these parts have been complaining about for a long time: The Granite State may be turning into a suburb of Boston. The report, "The Changing Faces of New Hampshire: Recent Demographic Trends in the Granite State," released last month by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, indicates that nearly 25 percent of New Hampshire residents were born in Massachusetts, and Internal Revenue Service data indicate that the largest source of new migrants to New Hampshire is Greater Boston."
Repealing the death penalty in NH is but the final straw.
Hate to break it to you but we live in the United States and citizens are FREE to move to whatever state they wish to.
Thanks for the bulletin
You can send some of those folks to Arkansas if you want. I would like to turn this state to at least nice shade of purple.
Of course, finding jobs might be difficult
I think you, like Lady in Black, may have missed the point. There is a big difference between people moving because they want to and moving because they have to.
You don't want to send your blue voters to Arkansas?
The blue voters still residing in MA are mainly very comfortable professional types. Good luck getting them out to Arkansas.
Oh, don't I know that. This is a red state that hates education and good paying jobs.
We don't be getting any of those blue voters any time soon.
Once again, you missed the point, people are free to move to whatever state they want for whatever reason they want. It's none of anyone's business why someone moves to another state.
You also have beautiful Oaklawn Park and a nasty trailer park in North Little Rock, where I had to scare some thug out of killing his x
Did I upset you?
is there some reason you think I should care?
I thought you were trying to trash the state? No?
New Hampshire has it's mobile homes and parks too. Less than Arkansas and Vermont though.
You may want to direct that to Trout.
Nah, why would I?
Your the one lamenting the liberal incursion into NH, while taking shots at AR for having manufactured housing and the associated parks.
Arkansas is a beautiful state but some of the people are not so beautiful
Doesn't every state have its share of trailer parks, tho?
You may have that backwards, but your'e entitled
Why?
Because they're not nice
You're not bitching about the liberalization in NH?
In what way?
Use your imagination, Vic
Actually, I'm bitching about the uprooting of an entire class of people - the working class. You know, the deplorables!
I'd like to know what upsets you about them. Do tell...
Can you smell them at Walmart???
I don't believe that most working class Americans consider themselves racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and Islamophobic which were the defining characteristics of 'deplorable", and just because middle and upper income Americans move into an area doesn't mean working class Americans have to move. While there is some increase in the cost of living due to supply and demand in our capitalist system, that can help increase a working class or low income family build equity if they had purchased homes in a low income area that is seeing more influx of middle and higher income Americans moving in. The local economies can be revitalized, there's more opportunities and needs to be filled in an expanding community. Will some folk sell and move out? Or will some who don't own a home see rent price increases? Yes, but overall that is an indicator for a healthy thriving local economy and just means those moving out failed to take advantage of the rising tide.
Look who's acting like a snob now
"can you smell them at Wal-Mart?"
No, Vic...it's their attitudes about religion. And that's all I'm going to say about that.
Hmmmm....one would think that mobile homes wouldn't be a good idea in hurricane prone areas.
Neither do I. I don't think any of them consider themselves that, but I am convinced that most think they have been blamed for all the discriminatory acts of history. They will now vote against those who have smeared them. I'm 100% positive of that!
and just because middle and upper income Americans move into an area doesn't mean working class Americans have to move.
I don't think you get it! In CA and MA the middle class have and are fleeing high taxes and the high cost of living. Have you missed it?
While there is some increase in the cost of living due to supply and demand in our capitalist system.
What do you think the dramatic rise in housing & rent costs costs were about during the 90's? And then that was compounded by the government forcing banks to make obscene mortgages. Why do you think Trump won?
What about sky high taxes like they have in CA?
You mean that they have a religion and follow it's rules?
If you are Christian you are to oppose the death penalty.
Matthew 5:38.
There is no rational reason to support the death penalty because it is simply about revenge. You cannot claim to be a small government libertarian and support the death penalty because the action gives the state to take the lives of its own citizens.
There are cases when an innocent person was executed and later found to be innocent. What do you do then because you cannot say "oops" or "sorry" and bring them back to life.
And if you are not a Christian, you shouldn't be quoting the Bible to others.
There is no rational reason to support the death penalty because it is simply about revenge.
Revenge is best applied to social justice. Executing murderers is true justice.
There are cases when an innocent person was executed and later found to be innocent.
There are also cases when a guilty person is acquitted and kills again. And what do you say to the families of the new victims? Do you tell them how compassionate you are?
Say what?
It is perfectly allowable to point it out when a group of people try to insist on a set of rules for everybody that they don't bother to follow themselves.
Jesus hated a hypocrite.
Are we down to smearing religious people as hypocrites? Let's assume they were...I'd prefer a hypocrite to a forthright progressive any day!
Nope. Just the ones who actually are.
I suppose you think that's to your credit.
Are you saying that only a Christian has read and can understand the Bible? Which Christian sect do you prefer because there are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are sects or preachers/priests?
Does this mean that you cannot read and quote the Koran because you are not a Muslim, or does your previous claim not apply in those situations?
BTW, Why would you prefer a hypocrite over someone telling the truth?
Are you saying that Jesus is wrong to teach turn the other cheek, or are you trying to avoid addressing a direct statement by Jesus because you would be forced to change your opinion and follow the Bible?
Jesus was not fond of hypocrites,
Should I continue or have I made the point clear enough?
Life without the possibility of parole is justice. Executing them is just revenge. Justice is not about revenge via the power of the state. If killing a person is the ultimate offense, then it is also wrong when the state schedules their death date 3 years in advance as a form of revenge. There is nothing to support the death penalty that is not based on emotions.
What is it about the death penalty that is so appealing to you that couldn't be rationally accomplished by life without parole? Do you understand how few murder cases qualify for the death penalty? Do you want to use capital punishment for drunk driving if someones die because a person drove drunk?
What happens when an innocent person is executed for the crimes of another? Is that also justice?
It's like me reminding progressives about civil liberties. Do you remember when liberals used to believe in that? What happened to things like freedom of speech?
Which Christian sect do you prefer because there are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are sects or preachers/priests?
And that's another reason not to be using it on others.
Does this mean that you cannot read and quote the Koran because you are not a Muslim, or does your previous claim not apply in those situations?
Me (a non-Muslim) quoting the Koran to a Muslim would amount to what? Think about it for a minute and see how condescending & insulting that might be? Especially, if the person quoting the Koran obviously didn't like that particular faith. Are you getting it? The image isn't so nice, is it?
BTW, Why would you prefer a hypocrite over someone telling the truth?
Why do you assume a straightforward progressive is telling the truth? Progressives have beliefs, not necessarily truths. The beliefs include redistribution, retribution and identity politics. I'll take just about anything over that.
What progressive has ever threatened your freedom of speech? Has the ACLU ever ignored your rights or tried to take something from you that others enjoy?
Are those passages not in your bible, or do you prefer to ignore them?
Do you not have religious beliefs?
What redistribution, retribution, and identity politics are you referring to?
Yeah, we get it. The Bible tells Christians not to do some things that they'd rather be doing. You don't want them to be called out on them, so you declare calling them out off limits.
Beams and motes, Vic. Beams and motes.
I don't care if they try and follow the "rules"....it's that they insist that I follow their "rules", also.
I don't murder, cheat, steal, or lie about my neighbor but I'm not going to deny people their rights because of who they love
A progressive who doesn't tell the truth is not "straightforward"
I'm pretty sure "straightforward" means honesty
They better not dare, but surely you know that speech is being denied at the nation's universities? You don't? Here:
"The University of California at Los Angeles Higher Education Research Institute gathered data in 2010 and 2011 examining the political ideologies of university faculty members nationwide. Based on information from their survey, approximately 63 percent of faculty members identify as liberal or far left, while only about 12 percent identify as conservative or far right.
Furthermore, Young America’s Foundation’s (YAF) annual commencement speakers survey for 2014 showed that out of the top 100 universities in the United States, 43 speakers were liberal while only nine were conservative. Some conservative speakers scheduled to speak at 2014 commencements were shunned—former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and International Monetary Fund (IMF) Chief Christine Lagarde both withdrew after protests from liberal groups on campus."
It is not just going on at the universities, but everywhere in our culture. People are being silenced when they are called names. For instance, rep Omar can't be criticized for her anti Semitic & anti American remarks without the critics being called Islamophobic. Another prime example would be Newsvine. Do you remember some of the bi-laws of those "nations"? Certain people got kicked out of "nations" for violating by-laws and they happened to hold an opposing view of certain people. Remember that?
Has the ACLU ever ignored your rights or tried to take something from you that others enjoy?
Did the ACLU care about Carter Page's rights? Or this President's rights?
Are those passages not in your bible, or do you prefer to ignore them?
Do you live by them?
Do you not have religious beliefs?
No
What redistribution, retribution, and identity politics are you referring to?
Never heard of it, huh? That's the point where this conversation comes to an end
And the secularist elite just does whatever feels good. Sorry, you simply have no moral standing to tell others what is right or wrong.
You got it backwards.
Remember when the Little Sisters of the Poor faced a lawsuit?
"The Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling on Monday in the consolidated challenge to Obamacare’s requirement that nonprofit employers collaborate in the provision of employee health insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs and devices.
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court “vacated,” meaning erased, all of the lower court cases and required them to reconsider the claims brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor and others that the regulations promulgated pursuant to Obamacare violate their religious exercise in light of the government’s admission that it could indeed provide contraceptive coverage without the Little Sisters’ collaboration.
This is a victory, not only for the Little Sisters, but for all individuals and organizations who step outside the four walls of a house of worship to serve the poor, heal the sick, or educate the next generation."
The day Obama was rightfully shamed.
Hitler was honest in "Mein Kampf"! He told everyone exactly what he wanted to do & why..... So which would you prefer?
The Bible tells you not to bear false witness, Vic.
If secularists aren't supposed to be quoting the Bible to Christians then I wonder why my 4 copies of the Bible haven't been confiscated so I can't misunderstand the words or point out the obvious hypocrisy of believers when they ignore direct teaching of their savior.
If secularists can't quote the Bible, then theists can't address secular beliefs, either, and certainly not incorrectly. But I have no doubt that this is intended to be a single-edged blade.
The various Protestant sects are far from being in agreement on Biblical interpretation, not to mention Catholics, Orthodox Christians and other minor sects such as Mormons, Quakers, and Unitarians. So are they also forbidden to quote the Bible to members of Vic's denomination, or is this rule determined on a case-by-case basis?
I have never heard such obvious hypocrisy in my life and I've seen religious people shovel (bleep) by the truckload when it suits their beliefs.
The moral imperative of Woodstock was "If it feels good, do it", Sandy
And I'll point out the evil in progressive ideology, and I don't need to try and shame those who have none!
Praise the Lord! It's the Second Coming!
So? Do Woodstock attendants represent all secular progressives?
No.
You're trying to impose rules on others that you're insisting on not following, yourself.
If you get to quote scripture, I get to quote progressive icons (sort of your Bible), how about "Turn on, tune in, drop out" ?
You're trying to impose rules on others that you're insisting on not following, yourself.
Now your'e down to projection. Such an intelligent mind bent to such sorry purpose!
"It's who we are!"
And now you're down to grasping at straws just to get the last word!
Give it up, Vic. [deleted]
[deleted]
I always knew you were a nice, Christian man. Bravo, Vic! Bravo!
Generally I am. I have my limits. [deleted]
What is this progressive ideology, except equal rights for all in an interconnected society?
What am I supposed to be ashamed of by being a secular progressive?
I'm really not sure what I said to cause all this vitriol but keep up the good work, Vic!
And it's really special that somebody who is not supposed to have any contact with me voted up your comment that calls me vermin.
Have a great day, Gentlemen! And I use that term loosely
Lol, Oh, but I'm sure you do!
Because according to Vic and his "special" friend from Texas think we have no morals.
We're immoral and amoral depending on what day of the week it is
No, I don't.
Saying that you already made a fool out of yourself? Does that deserve calling me a moron and telling me to stick it up my ass and then calling me vermin?
Bye, Vic
Already making your plea? - to me?
Vic doesn't obey the teachings of his own religion, so he shouldn't be calling others out when he has a fence post in his eye.
Trying to hold other people to the teachings of a religion that they do not belong to is also irrational.
Say, Vic, I am having a great day--what about you?
Seems there is some concern about that issue--just want to make sure you are having as great of a day as I am!
Keep up the good work!
As Felix Cavaliere used to say I'm "groovin"
No icons speak for me. You voluntarily choose the Bible as your moral guide.
And it is not projection for me to point out that you're setting rules (no quoting the Bible) for us that you don't want to follow (you're inventing people to speak for me, and then quoting them).
It's a bit ridiculous, to tell the truth.
WHERE?
And it is not projection for me to point out that you're setting rules (no quoting the Bible) for us
That's right! Don't you ever preach to others!
Stop me
And you told Trout you're usually a Christian, so you voluntarily choose the Bible as your moral guide. Nobody's forcing you to follow it (or not follow it, as the case may be, or actually is).
The tornadoes keep blowing the eastward
He said he thought of me as a "nice Christian man". I said I generally am (meaning nice). The Bible hasn't been my moral guide since I was about 10 years old and even then I have my doubts about who or what "guided" me. I am not a religious person. That being said I will always defend religious people against those who hate them or try and deny them their rights.
Stop me
Your'e safe in northern Virginia. Have a good day!
The timing and selectiveness of your denial is very convenient.
And Trout is a woman.
How many times does one have to describe themselves. If I was religious, I would be proud of it. I am not and have stated it in various articles & seeds on numerous occasions.
And Trout is a woman.
What does that have to do with the conversation?
It's a bit odd for a secularist to Express such disdain for other secularists as you have done here, isn't it?
And I told you that Trout is a woman so that you can address her as such, rather than using male pronouns. You're welcome for the information.
There is a tremendous difference between a secularist and an agnostic
And I told you that Trout is a woman so that you can address her as such, rather than using male pronouns.
I don't know if it will matter. Her good-by seemed final.
You're welcome for the information.
Should I say thanks for the Orwellian instruction?
So you don't know if there's a god (or gods), but you oppose the secularist attitude toward separation of church and state? That seems to be a bit odd.
You're a man of contradictions, Vic.
You finally got it?
You're a man of contradictions, Vic.
And why would that be a contradiction to oppose unbridled hate?
I can't imagine why somebody who doesn't know if there's a god would think it's ok to be governed by a church. Seems illogical to me.
And I'm not seeing any unbridled hate here. I'm seeing you objecting to nonbelievers knowing and understanding religious scriptures, and saying as much.
No, Not even when somebody makes the sweeping generalization that people of faith are hypocrites?
Which nobody has done. You inferred that which was not implied.
This is what I said:
YOU decided that that the group mentioned must be "all Christians". I, on the other hand, am well aware that there are plenty of Christians who do not insist on others following Christian rules, and many who are in fact opposed to the death penalty, many because of their religious beliefs. They're "turn the other cheek" Christians.
And you also added:
"Jesus hated a hypocrite."
You said that!
Yes, Jesus hated a hypocrite. Nowhere in that sentence did I say or imply that all Christians are hypocrites.
That's what you wanted to read.
Then what on earth did it relate to?
Was it a personal attack on me?
Skirting the code, maybe?
Just a random thought?
Good night Sandy
It was none of that, Vic.
It was what it seemed on the surface - a response to your attempt to impose a rule barring non-Christians from quoting Christian scripture when debating Christians. If some Christians are not living by their own rules, there is no reason to avoid pointing it out. Hypocrisy was kind of a big deal in the New Testament. And nonbelievers aren't going to ignore that just because you don't like it when we point it out.
LOL-- I'm not a member of any conventional religion and I quote the Bible, the Koran-- even the Yoga Sutras of Pantanjali! Heck, I'm not a total asshole and a con artist -- yet I sometimes quote Trump!
This is common on NT. When faced with an argument for which the member has no rebuttal, they misquote / mis-reformulate... and then rebut that.
Some members do this inadvertently, having honestly misunderstood. Others do it intentionally, because they're more interested in "winning the argument" than in "getting to the truth".
Vic......
Then you admit it! Why are we going in circles?
Your sweeping generalization that people of faith (or as you specify -Christians) are hypocrites is wrong and unjust.
It's not the quoting. Dare I say it again....It's the non-believer quoting from a Book they don't believe in to call out religious people they don't like. When I see somebody do that, I go right after them.
I don't ever have to do that. Sandy has admitted what is obvious to all.
Others do it intentionally, because they're more interested in "winning the argument" than in "getting to the truth".
Well Bob, winning an argument is something you can only dream about
I said "some". That makes it not a sweeping generalization.
It wasn't the religious victory that you claim it was. These nuns have no right to make the reproductive decisions of their employees. The ACA gave them a guaranteed exception to the birth control requirement, but they wanted more because of their religious beliefs.
This is what the SCOTUS had to say,
I'm always careful to do the same. So why do we have the sweeping generalization rule, if all we have to do is insert the word "some"?
I can't help it if you either don't understand what a sweeping generalization is and isn't, or don't believe that when I say "some", it's because I don't mean "all".
You sound so confused. So, we have this sweeping generalization rule that anyone can overcome simply by saying "some". In that case only those who haven't learned how to get around the code get called on it. Thus, it should never have been included in the CoC. Just my opinion.
Saying "some" might also be a way of avoiding being hit with a sweeping gen, which is a rule I also don't like. However, it is also a way to indicate that one is well aware that, for example, some, not all, Christians are not hypocrites. IOW, it is not an evasion, but a sincere expression of one's opinion.
My words would not be so confusing to you if you were not so determined to give them meaning they do not hold.
There's a third possibility.
Vic understands perfectly, but answers beside the point.
It's a common behavior on NT, where many members are obsessed with "winning the argument", while caring very little about the truth.
In the English language, a noun without any article means "all of them".
"I like flowers" means "All flowers, no exceptions". If I want to signify something else, I must be more precise: "I like petunias" or "I like some flowers".
This has nothing to do with the CoC. It is a straightforward rule in the English language.
The CoC has a fundamental flaw: it does not concern what members do, only what they say. And therefore, unfortunately, those who are best able to abuse the English language are allowed the worst behavior.
Shamed for what?
These sisters should be ashamed of themselves for denying employees the right to birth control with insurance that they paid for.
You mean the insurance that the nuns paid for? They buy it they can decide what is covered. No one was deny the use of birth control any of the women could take it if they choose
The nuns did no such thing. Please research that.
What is your problem with repealing the death penalty?
My personal opinion is that those who murder the innocent us must be executed.
The death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime, and very few murder cases qualify for the death penalty (capital punishment).
I'm not arguing that it is a deterrent.
Then what is the reason to continue with a policy that has resulted in innocent people being put to death? Can we execute your spouse for the crimes of another? We'll give you $250K and say we are sorry 3 years after she dies by mistake. You'll be fiscally devastated because the many legal appeals to save her life so you might need the money.
Do you remember what destroyed the candidacy of Michael Dukakis? Bernard Shaw asked him, during a debate, "If your wife (Kitty) were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis replied, IN A COLD INSTANT, "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life".
That's the other side of it.
You may also recall Dukakis, then Gov of MA had a prison furlough program that even included first degree murderers. Do you recall how that worked out?
Google Willie Horton.
What do either Dukakis or Horton have to do with anything?
Just about everything. If Horton was executed, he wouldn't have killed again, would he?
Some refuse to understand that punishments aren't supposed to be deterrents--they are supposed to be exactly what they are--punishments for crimes.
Shouldn't the law be the deterrent, and punishment is what happens when people choose to ignore the deterrent?
If Horton had been held for life, he wouldn't have killed again.
If Horton had had a heart attack, he wouldn't have killed again.
What is your point?
He wasn't eligible for the death penalty because the store clerk's death wasn't premeditated.
Willie Horton killed a store clerk in the commission of a robbery. It wasnt a premeditated murder that is necessary for first degree murder, plus the necessary aggravating circumstances. Why was he released on weekend parole when he was doing life without parole? Something tells me that someone at the prison made a mistake because if he was doing life without parole he wouldn't be eligible for a weekend release program that is usually only offered to low-level non-violent offenders.
Your first sentence and your second sentence are contradictory.
The death penalty has never been shown to be an effective deterrent to crime.
No, that is just your understanding.
Again, if you understood the first part, you would realize how silly that is.
I have never claimed any sentence is a deterrent. I don't believe that is what sentences are. I believe that sentences are punishments.
In your reply 2.4.8 you did says that the death penalty is supposed to serve as a deterrent to crime.
Here is my entire post.
Please do quote me where I say anything at all about the death sentence, or it being a deterrent.
Please don't start down this road--quoting shit I didn't write.
[deleted]
That would be too much common sense. I let them spew so the objective reader of these little discussions gets to see what the nation is up against.
No, not even a guard or a fellow prisoner...It dosen't happen?
And some innocent human being paid for it with their life
They can really twist words. "Find" gets replaced with "hack" and is repeated by the left a million times....until people believe it!
Seems to me they want to argue against stuff I didn't even state.
Weird way to "debate", huh?
It's called the Pete Buttigieg argument. (A strawman argument on steroids). See you attack something or someone who never attacked you to inject some narrative. In the case of Buttigieg, he is using his status as homosexual victim to get votes. Here the argument is that "people of faith are hypocrites" to pummel those the left hates.
So tell us, why he brought up Pence?
The vast majority of murder convictions do not meet the legal standard of capital punishment. People die because of involuntary manslaughter so do you also want to execute those people who killed someone in an accident? Many convicted murderers are paroled after 20 years.
Executing the prisoner doesn't bring the victim back.
What good happens when the state executes the wrong person?
Your support of the death penalty is purely emotional, and that basest of drives cannot determine a conviction in the legal system.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with a conviction.
A jury or a judge has already convicted someone if they have received the death penalty.
Nothing emotional about it.
Another false herring argument.
To choose the death penalty over life without the possibility of parole in the penalty phase of the trial is an emotional judgment of revenge. Society is just as safe and they are being denied their normal freedoms as punishment for the rest of their natural life with life without the possibility of parole. The death penalty also costs more and there is no proof that serves as a deterrent to crime.
What happened when the jury convicts the wrong person, as happened many times. usually, it is caught during the appeals phases but innocent people have been executed. How do you correct that wrong, when the state willfully takes the life of an innocent person?
Name one in the past 50 years. Saying someone may have been innocent dies not count on you need absolute proof of innocence
Some can say that choosing life in prison without parole is an emotional decision. In fact, one can say the need for revenge would be illustrated by the harsh sentence--often drawn out over decades as opposed to a merciful end to a nothing existence in prison forever.
Works both ways.
Cost is something that, I agree, we should work on. It is ridiculous that keeping someone alive for 30-40-50 years is cheaper than execution.
How can life without parole be an emotional decision? If they have committed these crimes and there is no evidence or proof that they can be rehabilitated then they are not safe in society so we put them in prison so society is safe from them. We do not need to give the state the power to take the lives of its own citizens so either the person is punished or that society is safe from a person who has no ability to conduct themselves in a rational manner.
If they could be reliably rehabilitated and returned to society then that is what should happen, but as of now, there is no proof that can happen.
There is no proof that the death penalty helps the family of the victim heal.
Same as you claim that a death sentence I san emotional decision.
it works both ways.
Pretending otherwise is rather silly.
What a surprise.
Some argue just for the sake of it.
Please do tell what you consider to be contradictory in my post.
This is silly. A speed limit sign (the law) isn't the deterrent. The ticket (punishment) is the deterrent. Without the ticket, the speed limit sign is just a suggestion.
If sentences are punishments but don't deter crime-- then what would be the point of punishing someone? (Incarceration costs the taxpayers a lot of money. If they don't deter crime, then what's the point? Seems like mere revenge-- and I'd rather have my tax dollars used in better ways).
If sentences actually deterred crime, the recidivism rate would be much, much, much, much lower.
The point is that sentences are punishments for people who refuse to obey the laws of society. Sentencing them removes them from society, at least for a time.
Vengeance!
While it may be hard to believe, at one point Vermont was a reliably Republican state! (I know-- its hard to believe). But what happened is somewhat similar to what happened to NH-- lots of people from MA moved there. In addition, a lot of New Yorkers moved to Vt.
This change happened earlier than the one in NH-- I think it began in the early 80s (perhaps earlier?), so many people are not aware of it.
You are so right. I know your'e a local. What amazes me is how people end up demanding the same system that they are fleeing.
Doing away with the death penalty? Welcome to the civilized world.
Another Job Creator !
Considering how long it takes to play out the appeals processes over and over again,
it may not be.
Granted, one can argue that a few more guards may be needed to keep them locked up for life,
but a lot of lawyers, judges, and supporting staff will be freed up of the endless appeals BS.
In some states entire departments could be laid off.
And "Contractors"....don't forget "Contractors".
Ya gotta free up space for "Others" coming into the system ! We wouldn't want an "Overcrowding Debacle" now...would we !
Nope, there would be plenty of funds to expand prisons if need be, by the savings created by not pursuing the death penalty originally, and eliminating the appeals processes.
Note:
Nebraska has on average 12 inmates on death row. I guess $144-150 million is worth it to them for whatever they conceive of as "justice".
Your talking about a government that ALWAYS runs in the "RED" …. right ?
Sure....there is "Plenty" !
We'll let out the non-violent drug offenders. and replace them with managers/CEOs who steal and lie to create profits.
Managers and CEO's have killed ….whom again ?
I agree on the Non-violent drug offenders thingy. If they want to kill themselves.....GO FOR IT !
Just don't look for those that are "Law Abiding", to pick up YOUR pieces, and fund some "Feel Good" policy, because some "Leftist" wack job became concerned....after the FACT !
Prison is not limited to murderers. The theft of millions or even billions of dollars from people for their own personal gain deserves to earn them a corner cell in the gray bar hotel for 15-30 years. They are just as dangerous if not more dangerous to society than someone who kills in a robbery or a rival.
YOU are in control of YOUR money. If YOU get scammed....it's on YOU !
If your broker or fund manager is lying to you and other investors about the solvency and returns of your investments, is it your fault? The SEC exists to protect investors from scams.
Yep !
ANYONE can look into ANYTHING, all on their own.
Considering how the law is applied when the death penalty is imposed, I think this is a good cost-effective decision.
For example, while trending down currently the average time spent on death row is over 16 years while going thru all of the appeal process.
While we are paying the cost to incarcerate them for those years we are also spending a lot of money on their legal costs. So I believe the numbers bear out, it's cheaper to sentence them to life rather than impose a death penalty. Now if government can change the process and shorten the time spent then it's a different calculation. After all, I'm not against the death penalty because I think it's cruel and unusual.
Shorten the years and cut the taxpayer funding for massive appeals.
What happens when an innocent person is put to death because of the shortened appeals? Maybe that innocent person could be you or your child.
To do so would require that the law be changed and I'm not sure a court would uphold such a change. Our legal system allows for a series of appeals to a higher court all the way to the US Supreme Court. It's been the precedent all along so would be difficult to change. Without truly incontrovertible proof that the person is guilty of the crime I don't know that you could limit the appeal process. And if there is a chance the person is innocent I wouldn't want the process shortened. You find a way to rebuild the system and provide the incontrovertible evidence to prove guilt then I can agree to a shortened process, but it has to be truly incontrovertible. An eye witness is not enough, I've seen too many witnesses provide different versions as people are really terrible about seeing and remembering without adding their own color.
DNA can prove "innocent" now.
Other than that, "I'm innocent" can only be proven from word of mouth of others !
That's life.
Moral of the Story:
"Don't put yourself in that predicament" !
Innocent people are accused of crimes when they did nothing wrong. I've been accused of breaking into cars by cops because I often take walks at night due to my PTSD. I've done nothing wrong by taking a walk at midnight.
You need to understand that in the US we are innocent until proven guilty. The state has the job to prove that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You do not have to prove that you are innocent. This is a critical cornerstone of our justice system.
DNA is not always available, nor it is perfect.
Now that's Fucking Funny !
Trump Bashed Lately ?
I guess it all depends on the "Situation".....huh ?
Since when is criticizing someone a criminal trial?
How soon do you plan to put Hillary in prison, because the GOP have been chasing her for the better part of 25 years and so far they haven't been able to prove more than an unpaid parking ticket?
It's only a certain group of people that can't tell the difference.
One of the minimum requirements for EU membership is the abolition of the death penalty.
The Union's reasoning is that killing a defenseless person is wrong, regardless of what that person may have done previously. The death penalty is "society choosing to kill". That's morally wrong.
The death penalty validates killing. That's the wrong moral message.