|
When is a penalty not a penalty?
After constitutional challenges, New Jersey reinstated the death penalty in 1976, but it seems it was hardly worth the effort. We haven't had an execution in this state since 1963. This raises the question, should New Jersey have a death penalty at all?
The death penalty itself has always been reserved for crimes that are qualitatively different from the "average murder." We are talking about killers who commit murders during acts of terrorism, or who torture or sexually abuse their victims. When the death penalty is imposed, the sentence is automatically reviewed by the New Jersey Supreme Court to determine if it is warranted under constitutional standards. Then begins the endless rounds of state and federal appeals. The nine men currently on death row at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton are more likely to die of natural causes than to see their sentences carried out. In response, the state Legislature created the Death Penalty Study Commission to review the law and to recommend ways of making the law work better. The commission came back and told them simply to repeal the law altogether, substituting instead the penalty of life in prison without parole. It concluded that the death penalty "does not meet evolving standards of decency," that the legal system cannot ensure that an innocent person will not be executed, and, not insignificantly, that we can save money by replacing the law. That last idea is most interesting, especially in these times of fiscal crisis and belt tightening. Despite the cries of many that we coddle criminals and give them jailhouse "luxuries" at taxpayer expense, the truth is it costs us less to house them for life than it does to pursue the expenses of endless appeals. Reforming the system was not even an option considered by the commission, leaving proponents highly frustrated. Still, as West Orange Police Chief James Abbott, a member of the commission, told the Legislature, "What sounds good in theory was actually a complete failure in practice." In any event, the debate in the Legislature has now begun, with the proponents of repeal so far having the upper hand. Just a few days ago, in a contentious hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill to abolish the death penalty by a bipartisan 8-2 vote. The measure now moves on to the full Senate for consideration. Those who consider the death penalty a deterrent live in the land of wishful thinking. The commission reviewed the literature and found no evidence to justify the death penalty on the grounds of deterrence. And although none of the nine people on death row in New Jersey have been protesting their innocence, there is a troubling trend around the country of people wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit, when the cases were reexamined using new technologies and DNA evidence. Nationwide, 200 people have been exonerated from wrongful convictions and had their sentences overturned based on DNA evidence. Some might argue that deterrence would have bite if there was less of a lag between conviction and a penalty that is never imposed. But speeding up the process increases the chances of executing an innocent person. Finally, the system simply does not allow the families of crime victims to get any closure. Instead, they must relive the horror again and again, and reread the articles restating the crime over and over, as these cases wind their way through the system. Remove the need for such appeals as well as the parole process, and you can allow the families to at least grieve normally. The death penalty law has been pointless for decades. We must hope that our courts and legislators do a better job enforcing its alternative: life in prison without parole. The families of murder victims deserve no less. Comment | | | |
| ©2007 New Jersey Jewish News All rights reserved |