Why is New Jersey throwing away the Death Penalty it never used anyway?

the last execution was like in 1963 then it was banned and then brought back under the Popular vote NOW the Jim McGreevy pansy party is looking to slip it back out of law! not that they had the Guts to use it, But come on it is still favored to be there and if Not have another Popular votte and see....

Why is New Jersey throwing away the Death Penalty it never used anyway?
New Jersey is heavily influenced by socialist propaganda spewing from the heart of liberal journalism- New York City.



The overwhelming bias and influence of socialism and liberals have affected New Jersey, thus they side with criminals who murder and don't want these criminals punished. They prefer the tax payer support murderers until they die from natural causes.



Politicians in New York and New Jersey would be crucified by the liberal media if they took a stand to enforce the law to apply the death penalty or to make capital punishment a common practice. Politicians are afraid to stand up to the media, can you blame them?



The disease of socialism from NYC is like radioactive damage that extends 500 miles in every direction.
Reply:It is not good public policy to keep it on the books. The death penalty system costs the state much more than the cost of keeping murderers on death row for the rest of their lives.

It promises much more than it can deliver. Instead of wasting money on a failed system, New Jersey will be able to spend it on victims services, better equipment and training for police, police salaries and other crime fighting initiatives that do work. You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them to avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people.

New Jersey's death penalty study commission included police chiefs, prosecutors, victims family members. Here is some of what the commission found out:



124 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.



The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that don’t.



We have a good alternative. Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.



The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.



The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?



The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.



Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.
Reply:Maybe they thinks its better to waste money on keeping prisoners on death row alive.
Reply:If they never used it anyway, why keep it on the books? Logic tells me that a law that isn't being used should be canned. What does logic tell you?