First step toward sanity on death penalty

Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts and Assembly Speaker Pro-Tempore Wilfredo Caraballo are ready to do the right thing. The pair announced today — at a press conference featuring Sister Helen Prejean, the anti-death penalty activist — that they plan to push for a vote on a bill that would remove the death penalty from the statute books.

Roberts, in a press release, said the bipartisan bill sponsored by Caraballo (D-Essex) would go before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Dec. 6 “so that it could be positioned for an Assembly floor vote on Dec. 13.” The governor already is on record as supporting a repeal.

A similar measure, which also would commute the sentences of the eight men on death row to live in prison without parole — has been approved by a Senate committee.

Roberts and Caraballo say the legislation would make the state the first to end the death penalty by legislative means, making the state a leader in the push for a more humane approach to criminal justice.

Judging public opinion on the issue is difficult because polling results too often depend on how the question is framed — what alternatives are offered in the poll, for instance, or whether the question is tied to a hypothetical crime. My sense is that both support and opposition — aside from the hardcores like me — are rather soft, that a large percentage of people could be swayed in either direction on any given day.

I’ve written about the death penalty more times than I care to imagine — most recently following the release of an American Bar Association’s report detailing the significant flaws in death penalty statutes around the nation. My position is pretty clear: State-sanctioned, premidiated killing is ethically and morally wrong; the death penalty is not a deterrent; and it is impossible to create enough procedural safeguards to guarantee that we do not send the innocent to death.

One way of looking at the issue is to consider the manner in which we execute the condemned. We have gone out of our way to find methods designed primarily to assuage our guilt, to mollify us, to hide the hideous nature of executions so that we can go on with our merry lives. We want it both ways: we want the condemned to die, but we want them to retain their humanity — and we don’t want to have to pay attention.

I don’t like hypotheticals, but imagine what might happen were executions to be made public events — as there were in the bygone era. How might the public react? Would the same level of support for capital punishment exist? Would there be a general revulsion?

Death penalty supporters dismiss this line of reasoning — though they are famous for engaging in the same kind of emotional logic. Remember Michael Dukakis’ reponse when asked if he would favor an “irrevocable death penalty” for someone who raped and killed his wife? His answer was technocratic — very cool and overly wonkish. It wasn’t a fair question, of course. But it does fairly sum up the emotional nature of the debate — and demonstrates the minefield that discussion of the death penalty can be for politicians.

That’s why it is no accident that Roberts and Caraallo waited until today to unveil their plan. Maybe a December hearing will allow the debate to rise above emotional arguments. I am hopeful that will be the case, but not expecting it.

In the end, however, the only thing that matters is shutting down the machinery of death.

See Blue Jersey for video of the morning press conference.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

You’ve got to be kidding

This is an ugly story. How this can be the dog’s fault, I’m not sure. And how a judge can call for the dog to be destroyed — given that the dog was reacting (as dogs do) to its puppies and owner being threatened and/or attacked.

My dog, as sweet as she is, would probably not take too kindly to any attack against my wife or me — or any of our family members.

Here is are some rules for contractors:

  1. If there are dogs in the yard, stay in your trucks.
  2. If the owner of the dogs tells you to stay in your truck until he puts the dogs inside,do what he says.
  3. Never hit a puppy or touch the dog’s owner if the mother is around.

These things would seem to be common sense but, then, I’m a dog owner.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Runner’s diary, Thursday

Man, it was cold outside this morning. And I’m a wimp. So I stayed inside on the treadmill at the gym and pushed out seven miles in 60:10 — the middle three I pushed as hard as I could, managing a 23:30 (7:50!). I was wiped out, as you can expect.

Then I spent about a half hour streatching.

I think I need a nap.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Election, Part IV: countdown to reform

There is a good post on Blue Jersey about how Tuesday’s status quo election may offer the Democrats a two-year window to get reform done and that, should they left it close, they are likely to find themselves feeling the wrath of voters.

Here is the response I offered:

I am in complete agreement with Mr. Rudy that the time has passed for reform to take place. Property taxes are too high, there are too many layers of government in this state and too many people with too many hands in too many tills.

But I am less optimistic that the voters want reform. My suspicion, from covering elections over the years and writing about local and state government, is that voters know their is a problem and want it fixed, but that they want it fixed without there being any pain — or at least no pain for them.

So suburban voters are ready to toss the urban school kids overboard and residents of towns who are unlikely to face consolidation want to see consolidation happen elsewhere.

Consider Jamesburg, which has almost no tax base and nearly had to close its library this year. Jamesburg should merge with Monroe — it is the donought hole to Monroe’s donought — but its elected officials are vehemently opposed to consolidation, as are Monroe’s. I understand this from a purely parochial point of view — no one wants to put themselves out of a job — but it is an example of the difficulties that consolidating municipalties will face. That’s why I was chagrined to find that the consolidation commission that was created earlier this year was defanged before it ever came into being (originally, towns would have been forced to merge after a vote of the Legislature).

There is a need for progressives to craft a bold plan for reform — municipal and school consolidation, a general reduction in the number of taxing districts (there are about 1,400 in the state right now), a realignment of the counties (elimination??), a new school-funding formula, an increased reliance on income taxes (this would not only reduce property taxes but change the warped, tax-chasing incentives that drive our land-use decisions), etc.

Much of this may not be popular — as I said, New Jerseyans tend to want others to pay for their reforms — and it could lead to some volatility. I would argue — as Mr. Rudy does — that the volatility already is there.

We’ve wasted too much time spinning our wheels. Let’s get the reform
train moving forward.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.