New Jersey get a spine!

[hoosierhunter]

Normally I don't get involved into this type of discussion, but I can't help on it. Who exactly does New Jersey think they are? Two major political decisions that seem to go against what the rest of america protects. One is the banning of bear hunting by antis. An obsolute incredulous decision. The most recent one is the ban of the death penalty. Now I know this is a touchy subject, but my point is that not a single state in 40 years has banned this. Why New Jersey? It's not a matter if you believe in it or not, but a matter of what in the heck are these politicans pulling in Jersey? Not only do they want to ban hunting up there, but now they make a monumental decision in a political arena that I'm sure will have significant effects for for years to come. The only thing I can think of is that these New Jersey politicans are craving for some lime light to draw attention to their state.

I would like to know what others think on this matter. I'm trying to not object in this post my opinion too much, but it's hard not to. Has I've said whether a person believes in the death penalty or not isn't the point. The point is that New Jersey is making some very big political decisions in a state that to me means little to the overall scope of america.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Its really quite simple. New Jersey is full of liberals. Liberals don't believe in killing animals or murderers, only unborn children.

[wtnhunt]

Liberals don't believe in killing animals or murderers, only unborn children.

That pretty well covers it right there.

[LifeNRA]

what in the heck are these politicans pulling in Jersey?

They are just making it easier for the criminals to get away with MURDER!!!:mad:

Its really quite simple. New Jersey is full of liberals. Liberals don't believe in killing animals or murderers, only unborn children.

That pretty well covers it right there.

Yep! What they said!!!

[njbowhunter27]

I am thinking about moving my family its getting really bad in Jersey. Not just hunting they also want to stop the summer flounder fishing. This would destroy the fishing industrey at the jersey shore. Its hard to try and stay here. My taxes are so high because of things like paying to keep killers alive instead of using the death penalty. Its getting harder and harder to be an outdoorsman from new jersey. I guess maybe after a few people are killed by bears then we will be able to hunt them.

[stevebeilgard]

now, when the murder rate goes up in nj, they can blame the evil guns. it won't be long before bears are eating people, either. california eliminated mt. lion hunting in the early '90's. before that, there was never a recorded killing of a human by a lion. now, 3-5 joggers each year get killed. that's just right, imho. let the lions eat the ones who stopped their hunting.

[nativetexan]

The politicians up here are on the payrolls of many anti-hunting groups and groups that seek to abolish state killing. If I were governor of New Jersey, I certainly would be concerned about the fact that just about every day somewhere on the news or the internet is negative press that exceeds any press other states are getting.

[slugshooter]

I guess I'll start with the question that was at the beginning of the post, if it really was a question. I suppose that New Jersey believes that the are a state just like any other that can make their own laws as long as they don't conflict with any federal law. Yes, I read today that New Jersey banned the death penalty, but does it really matter, because I can't remember the last time I heard of an execution in NJ, and besides, the death penalty has been proven to not be a deterrent to violent crime, especially in a state that does not use it very often. Now, some say that the death penalty is not a deterrent but a punishment, and I can go along with that to some extent but if a state is not going to use it, then what is the point of having it. As far as bear hunting being banned, or other types of hunting, then it seems to me that the anti-hunting lobby is stronger than the pro-hunting lobby, and the only ones that are to blame essentially for that is the hunters. If there are more hunters than non-hunters in NJ, then why are all these anti-hunting politicians being elected. Each person has a right to their opinion and their own vote. To vote one way is in essence to deny the rights of someone else. That is the democratic process. There is one winner and one loser. Not everyone can be pleased. If you don't like the way things are going, try to change them. Each person has a voice, it's up to that person whether they want to be heard or not.

[stevebeilgard]

sorry, marc. but i have to disagree. the death penalty is absolutely a deterrent. while i can name you case after case of someone who committed murder, (huckabee released a criminal that fits here) was let out of the death penalty, and was finally paroled for being so good... then went on to commit another murder. literally dozens of examples out there.

now, can you please name me one case where a convicted murderer was exectuted, and went on to murder another victim? simply put, killing a convicted murderer is a 100% guarantee that that person will never commit another murder.

[slugshooter]

sorry, marc. but i have to disagree. the death penalty is absolutely a deterrent. while i can name you case after case of someone who committed murder, (huckabee released a criminal that fits here) was let out of the death penalty, and was finally paroled for being so good... then went on to commit another murder. literally dozens of examples out there.

now, can you please name me one case where a convicted murderer was exectuted, and went on to murder another victim? simply put, killing a convicted murderer is a 100% guarantee that that person will never commit another murder.

True, it's a deterrent in the sense that if you put the convicted to death, they will never commit another murder. What I was getting at was that a state with a death penalty doesn't really see a decrease in murder because it takes so long to carry out the execution, and there are so many ways to have the sentence commuted to life in prison that I am sure the perps look at it as a joke. The only way that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent in preventing murder is if it was swift and just, not taking 10 years or more.

[stevebeilgard]

you'll never tell a texan it's not a deterrent. they zap the convicted pretty quick...

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

I don't support the death penalty because I think it's a deterrent (although it might very well be one), I support it because I believe it is a fitting punishment for certain crimes.

[bobw]

.

I Live In N.j But Cant Do It Alone ...

[elkoholic]

a sad truth

For those of you who do not believe that hunting could ever be banned, be aware that the ratio of hunters to non-hunters in New Jersey is not all that different from that of the nation as a whole and, although there are areas where hunters have a strong influence, the non-hunting public controls our destiny. I fear that the liberals will be the death of hunting and very well the death of this country as we know it. Not in my lifetime, but my children may see it. It is an election year. Get out and vote! Join the NRA, or a like organization, that is fighting the good fight, to preserve our hunting heritage.

[3whunt]

It is more expensive to kill murderers than to let them rot in prison. I have no problem with killing them, but would rather have them rot in jail with their new boyfriends than pay millions to let them get off easy. Click here for numbers:

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

[wtnhunt]

Click here for numbers:

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

That link provided is from the LA Times and is based on statistics from California. Would have to wonder about how Texas would compare statistics wise to California? Would go out on a limb and make the assumption that their rate of execution is much more expeditious and costs the taxpayers a bit less than it does in places like California.

My opinion is that the death penalty has its place, the overcrowding in prisons could be cut way back which in turn would eliminate some of the needs for some of the new prisons costing multi-millions to build and the extra personel involved, problem is some places are too liberal and do not carry out those punishments leaving those sitting on death row for excessive periods of time.

[3whunt]

Texas Link. Still way cheaper to keep em alive

http://texasdeathpenalty.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=62

[wtnhunt]

Might try and check some links that are not anti death penalty. Both those sites are anti death penalty and the second one even has a place to make contributions to support that cause. Looks like the argument can go both ways depending on who is providing the information:confused:. Found a few that present the stats from the opposite perspective, here is one http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#D.Cost

• There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive - from $1.2 to $3.6 million - than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP.

(1) The $34,200 is conservative, if TIME Magazine's (2/7/94) research is accurate. TIME found that, nationwide, the average cell cost is $24,000/yr. and the maximum security cell cost is $75,000/yr. (as of 12/95). Opponents claim that LWOP should replace the DP. Therefore, any cost calculations should be based specifically on cell costs for criminals who have committed the exact same category of offense - in other words, cost comparisons are valid only if you compare the costs of DP-equivalent LWOP cases to the cost of DP cases. The $34,200/yr. cell cost assumes that only 20% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in maximum security cost cells and that 80% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in average cost cells. A very conservative estimate. The $60,000/yr., for those on death row, assumes that such cells will average a cost equal to 80% of the $75,000/yr. for the most expensive maximum security cells. A very high estimate. Even though we are calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent LWOP cases are relevant.