In January of this year, the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission recommended that the "death penalty in New Jersey be abolished and replaced with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole." The bipartisan group, which was created in 2005 at the request of New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, had spent more than a year hearing testimony and deliberating the state's system of capital punishment. In the end, the commission was nearly unanimous in its finding that the death penalty was irreparably flawed.
The commission included a former State Supreme Court justice, multiple state prosecutors, policemen, the author of the current New Jersey death penalty law and several other officials. Among their findings, they reported:
"(1) There is no compelling evidence that the New Jersey death penalty rationally serves a legitimate penological intent.
(2) The costs of the death penalty are greater than the costs of life in prison without parole ...
(3) There is increasing evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.
...
(5) Abolition of the death penalty will eliminate the risk of disproportionality in capital sentencing.
(6) The penological interest in executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible mistake."
Their assessment of the costs of the death penalty was an understatement. In 2005, the New Jersey Policy Perspective reported that the state had spent over $253 million on the death penalty over the previous 23 years. The total number of executions that had occurred during that time: zero. The state had spent over a quarter of a billion dollars while executing no individuals. The NJDP Study Commission wisely recommended that savings resulting from replacing the death penalty with life in prison go toward supporting the families of murder victims.
Today, the New Jersey State Senate and General Assembly are considering a bill (A795/S171) that reflects the commission's recommendations, abolishing the state death penalty and replacing it with life in prison without the possibility of parole. Last May, members of the Princeton Coalition Against Capital Punishment (PCACP) attended a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where the committee ultimately cleared the bill after hearing testimony from members of the study commission and other voices. The full Senate and Assembly are expected to debate and vote on the bill in the coming months.
The PCACP supports the abolition of New Jersey's death penalty for all the reasons listed by the commission and more. We applaud the finding that the risk of killing an innocent person outweighs the benefits of executing a small number of guilty persons. We further appreciate the commission's willingness to engage with the evolving standards of decency, which suggest that lethal injection and the death penalty more generally constitute cruel and unusual punishment (something that has come to the forefront in recent months as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule on this issue in the coming year).
Historically, the upcoming lame-duck session has been a time when progressive legislation has passed in New Jersey's State Senate and General Assembly. The PCACP hopes that 2007 will reflect this general trend, and that A795/S171 will be passed along for Corzine's promised signature.
To that end, we will be in Frist Campus Center today and tomorrow, encouraging likeminded Princeton community members to call New Jersey legislators. We will have the contact information for all the state assemblymen and senators, as well as more information about the proposed changes. We encourage all students, faculty and staff who believe it is time to end this antiquated, wasteful and unjust institution to make their voices heard. David Christie '10 is a co-head of the Princeton Coalition Against Capital Punishment. He can be reached at dchristi@orinceton.edu.
Read More
It’s time to step it up on diversity and inclusion
Christofer RoblesOver the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Over the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Class of 2029: Reject selective views of free speech
Charlie Yale and Siyeon Lee"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
For a more effective USG, train newly elected members on the bureaucracy
Luqmaan BambaFor student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
For student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.