Zach LarkinsCAPITAL PUNISHMENT III
James Abbott is the police chief of West Orange, N.J. and has dedicated his life to making his state safer. He is a registered Republican with a lifelong career in law and order, 27 years with the local force, and he was also a long-time supporter of the state's death penalty. But after New Jersey Senate President Richard Codey appointed him to the state's death penalty study commission last year, he changed his mind. Not for emotional or moral reasons, but instead, a practical one.
Abbott believes New Jersey's capital punishment system is broken beyond repair and doesn't serve anyone well, not the killers waiting in limbo to be killed, not the families of victims waiting for closure and certainly not the taxpayers who are footing the bill. He says, ""If capital punishment was actually used, I may have voted differently. But it hasn't been used, it's not being used and I have no confidence that it's going to be."
What concerns Abbott is that despite the deaths of many officers in New Jersey during his law- enforcement career, none of their killers are on death row. And because of the delays in executions, several inmates on death row in New Jersey will be set free. We've already touched on this subject and suffice it to say, that in the eyes of the families of the victims, justice is certainly not seen to be done when this happens. New Jersey, like a third of the states with death penalty laws on the books, is not currently killing anyone on death row, nor has it since the death penalty was reinstituted in the state in 1982.
Abbott tells the tale of Robert Marshall, a man convicted in the murder-for-hire killing of his wife. Marshall spent 18 years on death row before his death sentence was thrown out. The release of Thomas Trantino is the case that hit close to home for the Chief. Trantino was out on parole when he shot two New Jersey police officers to death in 1963. He was sentenced to die, but his sentence was commuted to life in prison after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty. He was released on parole in 2002. Just how fair is this? The man is convicted under one set of rules, then set free under another set. Sorry, but that sticks in my craw. Eighteen years is more than enough time to present an appeal and be set free if you are judged not guilty. Plus, Trantino had obviously been in trouble with the law before. He was out on parole when he shot these officers. Perhaps we should look more closely at California's ‘Three Strike' law.
Sharon Hazard-Johnson is a proponent of the death penalty. Her beef is with a man named Brian Wakefield because she is the eldest daughter of Richard and Shirley Hazard, an elderly couple that Wakefield murdered in 2001.Wakefield, 29, is the youngest and most recent addition to New Jersey's death row. In 2004, he was sentenced to death for murdering the Hazards at their home in Pleasantville on Jan. 18, 2001. Mrs. Hazard, a 65-year-old former postal worker, held a part- time job at a department store while Mr. Hazard, 70, was a retired electrician and former sailor with the U.S. Navy. Mr. Hazard was home alone when Wakefield broke into their home to rob it. He was beaten over the head and stabbed. When Mrs. Hazard walked in on the attack, carrying the groceries, Wakefield hurled her down a flight of stairs, kicked her and stabbed her. Wakefield then set the Hazards' bodies on fire. The killer went on a spending spree at a mall, rented a hotel room at a casino and threw a party. And the liberal mind set would have us believe that all Wakefield needs is a bit of rehabilitation and then he should be set free. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
The Hazard house suffered damage in the fire and the children made the heartbreaking decision to sell it. Their five children also unanimously agreed that their parents' killer must die no matter how many trials, appeals and commissions they must endure. I say, "Bravo!" for their stance. Ms Hazard-Johnson says, "Of course, our first thoughts were that we just wanted to get him and kill him ourselves. But the death penalty is humane. We're law-abiding citizens. We're not vengeful people. We're law abiding and we do want justice." She goes on to say that while the death penalty may seem barbaric to some, it is more humane than what her parents were put through before they died, she reasons. "Eye for an eye would mean that Wakefield would have to be beaten, stabbed, thrown down cellar stairs and set on fire. Humanely, he should be executed by the state. We don't hang people today in New Jersey. We don't shoot them by firing squad. We don't cut off their heads. The death penalty has evolved to be as humane as possible. If somebody is executed, they are sedated and then their heart is stopped. That's humane."
John Russo, a former state senator and prosecutor blames New Jersey's problem on liberal judges who he says disregard the process, not the law itself. He argues instead that it fulfills the human "instinct for retribution." And the risk that someone would be wrongly executed is "infinitesimal." He notes that under New Jersey's selective application of the law, where only those murderers deemed the most heinous are candidates for execution, there have been no exonerations from death row since capital punishment was reintroduced in 1982. Mr. Russo, whose own father was a murder victim, does not take any pleasure in the notion of killing people. Russo acknowledges the death penalty has gone out of fashion and he does not argue the death penalty is a necessary deterrent to crime. But he thinks having the statute on the books is necessary, even if it means running the risk of putting someone innocent to death. "I'm willing to take that chance, even though it would horrify me if it ever happened."
Sources: Mary Vallis The Fight To Kill The Death Penalty The National Post
Abbott believes New Jersey's capital punishment system is broken beyond repair and doesn't serve anyone well, not the killers waiting in limbo to be killed, not the families of victims waiting for closure and certainly not the taxpayers who are footing the bill. He says, ""If capital punishment was actually used, I may have voted differently. But it hasn't been used, it's not being used and I have no confidence that it's going to be."
What concerns Abbott is that despite the deaths of many officers in New Jersey during his law- enforcement career, none of their killers are on death row. And because of the delays in executions, several inmates on death row in New Jersey will be set free. We've already touched on this subject and suffice it to say, that in the eyes of the families of the victims, justice is certainly not seen to be done when this happens. New Jersey, like a third of the states with death penalty laws on the books, is not currently killing anyone on death row, nor has it since the death penalty was reinstituted in the state in 1982.
Abbott tells the tale of Robert Marshall, a man convicted in the murder-for-hire killing of his wife. Marshall spent 18 years on death row before his death sentence was thrown out. The release of Thomas Trantino is the case that hit close to home for the Chief. Trantino was out on parole when he shot two New Jersey police officers to death in 1963. He was sentenced to die, but his sentence was commuted to life in prison after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty. He was released on parole in 2002. Just how fair is this? The man is convicted under one set of rules, then set free under another set. Sorry, but that sticks in my craw. Eighteen years is more than enough time to present an appeal and be set free if you are judged not guilty. Plus, Trantino had obviously been in trouble with the law before. He was out on parole when he shot these officers. Perhaps we should look more closely at California's ‘Three Strike' law.
Sharon Hazard-Johnson is a proponent of the death penalty. Her beef is with a man named Brian Wakefield because she is the eldest daughter of Richard and Shirley Hazard, an elderly couple that Wakefield murdered in 2001.Wakefield, 29, is the youngest and most recent addition to New Jersey's death row. In 2004, he was sentenced to death for murdering the Hazards at their home in Pleasantville on Jan. 18, 2001. Mrs. Hazard, a 65-year-old former postal worker, held a part- time job at a department store while Mr. Hazard, 70, was a retired electrician and former sailor with the U.S. Navy. Mr. Hazard was home alone when Wakefield broke into their home to rob it. He was beaten over the head and stabbed. When Mrs. Hazard walked in on the attack, carrying the groceries, Wakefield hurled her down a flight of stairs, kicked her and stabbed her. Wakefield then set the Hazards' bodies on fire. The killer went on a spending spree at a mall, rented a hotel room at a casino and threw a party. And the liberal mind set would have us believe that all Wakefield needs is a bit of rehabilitation and then he should be set free. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
The Hazard house suffered damage in the fire and the children made the heartbreaking decision to sell it. Their five children also unanimously agreed that their parents' killer must die no matter how many trials, appeals and commissions they must endure. I say, "Bravo!" for their stance. Ms Hazard-Johnson says, "Of course, our first thoughts were that we just wanted to get him and kill him ourselves. But the death penalty is humane. We're law-abiding citizens. We're not vengeful people. We're law abiding and we do want justice." She goes on to say that while the death penalty may seem barbaric to some, it is more humane than what her parents were put through before they died, she reasons. "Eye for an eye would mean that Wakefield would have to be beaten, stabbed, thrown down cellar stairs and set on fire. Humanely, he should be executed by the state. We don't hang people today in New Jersey. We don't shoot them by firing squad. We don't cut off their heads. The death penalty has evolved to be as humane as possible. If somebody is executed, they are sedated and then their heart is stopped. That's humane."
John Russo, a former state senator and prosecutor blames New Jersey's problem on liberal judges who he says disregard the process, not the law itself. He argues instead that it fulfills the human "instinct for retribution." And the risk that someone would be wrongly executed is "infinitesimal." He notes that under New Jersey's selective application of the law, where only those murderers deemed the most heinous are candidates for execution, there have been no exonerations from death row since capital punishment was reintroduced in 1982. Mr. Russo, whose own father was a murder victim, does not take any pleasure in the notion of killing people. Russo acknowledges the death penalty has gone out of fashion and he does not argue the death penalty is a necessary deterrent to crime. But he thinks having the statute on the books is necessary, even if it means running the risk of putting someone innocent to death. "I'm willing to take that chance, even though it would horrify me if it ever happened."
Sources: Mary Vallis The Fight To Kill The Death Penalty The National Post
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern