New Jersey Commission Recommends Abolition of the Death Penalty

EXECUTION REPRIEVES
Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio grant­ed tem­po­rary reprieves to three inmates sched­uled for exe­cu­tion in the next 5 weeks in order to allow more time to con­sid­er whether clemen­cy should be grant­ed: Kenneth Biros, James Filiaggi, and Christopher Newton. (Jan. 19, 2007). See Clemency.

MENTAL COMPETENCY
The Indiana Supreme Court has stayed the January 19 exe­cu­tion Norman Timberlake pend­ing the out­come of Panetti v. Quarterman in the U.S. Supreme Court. Panetti con­cerns the stan­dard for men­tal incom­pe­ten­cy which would ren­der an exe­cu­tion uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. (Jan. 17, 2007). See Supreme Court and Mental Illness.

LETHAL INJECTION
The California Attorney General and Governor have informed the fed­er­al court over­see­ing the lethal injec­tion process in that state that they will make their rec­om­men­da­tions for reform­ing the exist­ing exe­cu­tion pro­to­col by May 15, 2007. They have asked the court for a pro­tec­tive order to shield their delib­er­a­tions from the attor­neys rep­re­sent­ing Michael Morales, the death row inmate who chal­lenged the state’s process. (Jan. 16, 2007).
See Lethal Injection.

New Jersey Commission Recommends Abolition of State’s Death Penalty

On January 2, 2007, the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission issued its report to the state leg­is­la­ture and the gov­er­nor. The 13-mem­ber Commission con­duct­ed five days of hear­ings with tes­ti­mo­ny from a broad spec­trum of wit­ness­es address­ing key death penal­ty con­cerns. The Commission con­clud­ed that ​“There is no com­pelling evi­dence that the New Jersey death penal­ty ratio­nal­ly serves a legit­i­mate peno­log­i­cal intent.”

The County Prosecutors’ Association of New Jersey con­curred with the final rec­om­men­da­tions of the Commission Report. Here are the prin­ci­pal rec­om­men­da­tions and find­ings:

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission rec­om­mends that the death penal­ty in New Jersey be abol­ished and replaced with life impris­on­ment with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole, to be served in a max­i­mum secu­ri­ty facil­i­ty. The Commission also rec­om­mends that any cost sav­ings result­ing from the abo­li­tion of the death penal­ty be used for ben­e­fits and ser­vices for sur­vivors of vic­tims of homi­cide.

FINDINGS
(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, but it is not pos­si­ble to mea­sure these costs with any degree of pre­ci­sion.

(3) There is increas­ing evi­dence that the death penal­ty is incon­sis­tent with evolv­ing stan­dards of decen­cy.

(4) The avail­able data do not sup­port a find­ing of invid­i­ous racial bias in the appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty in New Jersey.

(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.

(7) The alter­na­tive of life impris­on­ment in a max­i­mum secu­ri­ty insti­tu­tion with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole would suf­fi­cient­ly ensure pub­lic safe­ty and address oth­er legit­i­mate social and peno­log­i­cal inter­ests, includ­ing the inter­ests of the fam­i­lies of mur­der vic­tims.

(8) Sufficient funds should be ded­i­cat­ed to ensure ade­quate ser­vices and advo­ca­cy for the fam­i­lies of mur­der vic­tims.

(New Jersey Death Penalty Commission Report, January 2007).

Read the entire REPORT. See DPIC’s Life Without Parole and Studies.