First-cut reactions to the NJ report on the death penalty

"Sentencing Law and Policy" - 4 new articles

1. First-cut reactions to the NJ report on the death penalty
2. NJ commission urges abandoning the death penalty
3. More FSR coverage of victims at sentencing
4. Profiles of two men who could greatly impact Booker's future

First-cut reactions to the NJ report on the death penalty

Unsurprisingly, the media and blogosphere are already buzzing about the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission Report (basics here), which "recommends that the death penalty in New Jersey be abolished and replaced with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole." Here is coverage from Reuters and the New York Times, and a nice set of reaction quotes from Newsday. In addition, early reactions can be found at the blogs TalkLeft and Capital Defense Weekly.

Though I have only read the report quickly, I must say that I am quite underwhelmed. Though I tend agree with some the report's findings, the supporting analysis is no more sophisticated than what I would expect to see in a college term paper. Perhaps the goal of the report was to make it accessible to lay readers; the report could readily be assigned as reading in a high school civics class. But I was hoping that, after a year of work and five public hearings and a public working session, this report would be much more sophisticated.

Two related points spotlight my concerns about the report's lack of sophisticated analysis: (1) there is barely any mention, and absolutely no analysis, of how the death penalty might impact charging and plea bargaining practices; (2) the discussion of costs is simplistic and does not explore the possible costs of abolishing the death penalty. Especially since New Jersey has not had any executions in the modern era, these failings of the report seem particularly problematic. In a state that clearly won't ever have a lot of executions, the real question seems to be whether and how having the death penalty on the books genuinely impacts criminal justice actors in New Jersey.

The short dissent by Senator Russo also suffers from simplicity. Senator Russo asserts that arguments about costs "are utter and sheer nonsense.... It doesn't matter what it costs. The taking of a human life is something far too important to be influenced either way by costs." Really? Would Senator Russo demand that New Jersey pay for the costs of a taxi ride home for anyone concerned they had too much to drink to avoid the chance of drunk drivers taking human lives. Of course, it would cost the state a fortune to provide free taxi rides for everyone heading home from the Meadowlands after a game, but apparently Senator Russo believes that any "taking of a human life is something far too important to be influenced either way by costs."

• Email to a friend •