Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson signed a bill Wednesday repealing the death penalty in his state, his office confirmed.

"Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime," Richardson said in a statement Wednesday.

He noted that more than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years, including four in New Mexico.

"Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe," he said.

With the governor's decision, New Mexico joins 14 other states that don't impose the death penalty. Several other states, including Colorado, Kansas, Maryland and Montana, are considering changes to their capital punishment laws.

The bill replaces the death penalty with life without the possibility of parole.

New Mexico currently has two men on death row and has executed one person -- convicted child killer Terry Clark, in 2001 -- since the United States reinstated the death penalty in 1976. As the legislation is written, it will not affect current death row inmates.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/18/new ... index.html

new mexico should become a haven for crime now. the death penalty is legal and has been used for a long time. you can't say the founding fathers would have approved of this decsion because they didn't stop them during their time. george washington had traitors excuted during the american revoluition

Yeah, I can see it happening as we type, criminals all across the country plotting to descend upon the now practically punishment free state of New Mexico to do their evil doing all over the place.

Based on the number of exonerations, it's pretty clear that reasonable doubt isn't a high enough standard to impose the death penalty. It either needs to be abolished or states need to raise the standard to "beyond a shadow of a doubt". You shouldn't kill someone if there is a possibility that they might be innocent.

"Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime," Richardson said in a statement Wednesday.

He noted that more than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years, including four in New Mexico.

Bingo. Very sad, but very true.

the death penalty process has some problems but so does leaving them in jail.

wildkyle wrote:the death penalty process has some problems but so does leaving them in jail.

The issue is not that the death penalty has flaws, the issue is that the judicial system has flaws. People are wrongly incarcerated, more and more frequently it seems (or more and more frequently we are realizing they WERE wrongly incarcerated before technology was available), and that is a scary thing to say when you are putting someone to death because of that system. Life in prison gives a little more room for error if the person is innocent. Once someone is dead, they are dead (don't absolute truth me).

killing people saves tax dollars

Although it would cost less if people were not jailed for every single thing. People wouldn't care how a murderer lives in Jail, but because someones cousin got busted with weed and has to spend a month in jail it has to be livable. Find a better corrections sytem that saves money and we do not need a death penalty.

even one innocent man executed is too many.

wildkyle wrote:new mexico should become a haven for crime now. the death penalty is legal and has been used for a long time. you can't say the founding fathers would have approved of this decsion because they didn't stop them during their time. george washington had traitors excuted during the american revoluition

Yes, because we can plainly see that the states without the death penalty are havens for criminals, while states that execute at will, like Texas, are crime free.


The Death Penalty as a deterrent is a lame and disproven meme. There are other arguments for the Death Penalty, however, using that one only shows how out of touch with reality you are.


George Washington also had slaves - how much can I buy you for?

Great News

I don't understand how Conks can be against abortion and pro death penalty.

Gil Dobie wrote:Great News

I don't understand how Conks can be against abortion and pro death penalty.

I doubt to many unborn fetuses (is that even the plural?) have been serial killers, or serial rapists, or really criminals of any stretch.

wideright82 wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:Great News

I don't understand how Conks can be against abortion and pro death penalty.

I doubt to many unborn fetuses (is that even the plural?) have been serial killers, or serial rapists, or really criminals of any stretch.

But there are innocent people on death row, and some of the unborn babies could become serial killers or serial rapist or criminals in general.

Gil Dobie wrote:Great News

I don't understand how Conks can be against abortion and pro death penalty.

Beat me to it, that was my question for wildkyle (I will assume he is against abortion as he assumed I'm a Democrat ).

Anyways, bravo to New Mexico, I wish North Carolina would abolish the death penalty. Just as I believe in limited government interference, government should not be in the business of killing someone back.

dbackjon wrote:

wildkyle wrote:new mexico should become a haven for crime now. the death penalty is legal and has been used for a long time. you can't say the founding fathers would have approved of this decsion because they didn't stop them during their time. george washington had traitors excuted during the american revoluition

Yes, because we can plainly see that the states without the death penalty are havens for criminals, while states that execute at will, like Texas, are crime free.


The Death Penalty as a deterrent is a lame and disproven meme. There are other arguments for the Death Penalty, however, using that one only shows how out of touch with reality you are.


George Washington also had slaves - how much can I buy you for?

I don't think abolishing the death penalty was the answer. Correcting the MISUSE of the death penalty would have been the more correct answer. As Jon stated, there ARE arguments for the death penalty and comletely eliminating it takes THAT off the table...poor decision in my opinion.

Gil Dobie wrote:Great News

I don't understand how Conks can be against abortion and pro death penalty.

This Conk is Pro-Choice AND Pro-Death Penalty and I know many, MANY "conks" who have the same set of beliefs, so you might want to reshape that "box" you're thinking in, Gil.

Gil Dobie wrote:

wideright82 wrote:

I doubt to many unborn fetuses (is that even the plural?) have been serial killers, or serial rapists, or really criminals of any stretch.

But there are innocent people on death row, and some of the unborn babies could become serial killers or serial rapist or criminals in general.

Really, Gil? Are we using a tarot card to find this out? I don't think that is anything close to a good comparison. I agree about the death penalty thing for the reasons you, I, and others (including Richardson) have said, but to compare the ideals of the death penalty to the ideals of abortion is just wrong.


I can go another route and say one of the fetuses could develop a cure for cancer.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Yes, because we can plainly see that the states without the death penalty are havens for criminals, while states that execute at will, like Texas, are crime free.


The Death Penalty as a deterrent is a lame and disproven meme. There are other arguments for the Death Penalty, however, using that one only shows how out of touch with reality you are.


George Washington also had slaves - how much can I buy you for?

I don't think abolishing the death penalty was the answer. Correcting the MISUSE of the death penalty would have been the more correct answer. As Jon stated, there ARE arguments for the death penalty and comletely eliminating it takes THAT off the table...poor decision in my opinion.

What argument for the death penalty, other than retribution is accurate? It's been proven it's not a deterrent, which clearly shows it doesn't "set an example." I don't believe the government should have the power to kill someone--to pay them back. It is dangerous, in my opinion, to allow the government that power. I know I'm in a minority here with limiting the power of the government, but I am 100% against the death penalty, and nothing (in the news, books, articles, or studying the DP in law school) has changed that.

But, on a separate part of your post. How do you propose to correct the MISUSE of the death penalty? Is it to further refine who can and cannot face the DP? Changing the judicial system as a whole?

ASUMountaineer wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I don't think abolishing the death penalty was the answer. Correcting the MISUSE of the death penalty would have been the more correct answer. As Jon stated, there ARE arguments for the death penalty and comletely eliminating it takes THAT off the table...poor decision in my opinion.

What argument for the death penalty, other than retribution is accurate? It's been proven it's not a deterrent, which clearly shows it doesn't "set an example." I don't believe the government should have the power to kill someone--to pay them back. It is dangerous, in my opinion, to allow the government that power. I know I'm in a minority here with limiting the power of the government, but I am 100% against the death penalty, and nothing (in the news, books, articles, or studying the DP in law school) has changed that.

But, on a separate part of your post. How do you propose to correct the MISUSE of the death penalty? Is it to further refine who can and cannot face the DP? Changing the judicial system as a whole?

Let me paint a picture for you: 3 men walk into a crowded bank, intent on robbing it. In the process, they kill (execution-style), every employee and customer in the bank, but not before one of the tellers hit the silent alarm button. The cops respond, trap the guys in the building, a shootout ensues, one cop is killed, one of the bad guys is killed, but two surrender. A cop and multiple innocents are dead.

You can honestly say that in THIS situation, where they're caught RED HANDED, that these fcuksticks should NOT be subject to the death penalty? You'd rather they rot in prison and cost taxpayers millions MORE dollars? I'm not looking at it as a deterrent. I'm looking at it as retribution. That person has LOST his right to live.

AZGrizFan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
What argument for the death penalty, other than retribution is accurate? It's been proven it's not a deterrent, which clearly shows it doesn't "set an example." I don't believe the government should have the power to kill someone--to pay them back. It is dangerous, in my opinion, to allow the government that power. I know I'm in a minority here with limiting the power of the government, but I am 100% against the death penalty, and nothing (in the news, books, articles, or studying the DP in law school) has changed that.

But, on a separate part of your post. How do you propose to correct the MISUSE of the death penalty? Is it to further refine who can and cannot face the DP? Changing the judicial system as a whole?

Let me paint a picture for you: 3 men walk into a crowded bank, intent on robbing it. In the process, they kill (execution-style), every employee and customer in the bank, but not before one of the tellers hit the silent alarm button. The cops respond, trap the guys in the building, a shootout ensues, one cop is killed, one of the bad guys is killed, but two surrender. A cop and multiple innocents are dead.

You can honestly say that in THIS situation, where they're caught RED HANDED, that these fcuksticks should NOT be subject to the death penalty? You'd rather they rot in prison and cost taxpayers millions MORE dollars? I'm not looking at it as a deterrent. I'm looking at it as retribution. That person has LOST his right to live.

1. It costs MORE to kill em than incarcerate em

2. you are seeking vengeance, not justice. there is no justice in the state committing murder, even of a murderer. lock em up, toss out the key. prison is a terrible fate, and a suitable punishment (IMO a fate worse than death)

Screw the electric chair I say bring on the electric bleachers!


Just kidding. Good for New Mexico. I hope more states follow. It seems this is one of the few decisions left up to the States.

wildkyle wrote:new mexico should become a haven for crime now. the death penalty is legal and has been used for a long time. you can't say the founding fathers would have approved of this decsion because they didn't stop them during their time. george washington had traitors excuted during the american revoluition

That's a great point but not "The point"
The point is The Governor believes the justice system in his state is "broken" and thus to protect innocent people from this "broken" system he is compelled to make this decision...

AZGrizFan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
What argument for the death penalty, other than retribution is accurate? It's been proven it's not a deterrent, which clearly shows it doesn't "set an example." I don't believe the government should have the power to kill someone--to pay them back. It is dangerous, in my opinion, to allow the government that power. I know I'm in a minority here with limiting the power of the government, but I am 100% against the death penalty, and nothing (in the news, books, articles, or studying the DP in law school) has changed that.

But, on a separate part of your post. How do you propose to correct the MISUSE of the death penalty? Is it to further refine who can and cannot face the DP? Changing the judicial system as a whole?

Let me paint a picture for you: 3 men walk into a crowded bank, intent on robbing it. In the process, they kill (execution-style), every employee and customer in the bank, but not before one of the tellers hit the silent alarm button. The cops respond, trap the guys in the building, a shootout ensues, one cop is killed, one of the bad guys is killed, but two surrender. A cop and multiple innocents are dead.

You can honestly say that in THIS situation, where they're caught RED HANDED, that these fcuksticks should NOT be subject to the death penalty? You'd rather they rot in prison and cost taxpayers millions MORE dollars? I'm not looking at it as a deterrent. I'm looking at it as retribution. That person has LOST his right to live.

you paint a good picture...
Let me paint one

A drug store gets robbed... in the process an employee is shot to death and the robber flees out the front door... five minutes later the police have their suspect running down the street - he fits the description perfectly and he has the bag of stolen drugs in his hand...

He is tried & convicted and now on death row...

Turns out he is not the killer and in no way guilty of murder... he simply picked up the bag as a guy ran buy him on the street - and like an idiot ran (because he was 17 and stupid) when the police car rolled up

Now what...? over 6% of all death row inmates are actually not guilty of Murder.. they are most likely not "great guys" and in no way are they model citizens... but not guilty of the crime they are being put to death for

BTW: I'm not necessarily against the death penalty - just a fun topic to discuss

wideright82 wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
But there are innocent people on death row, and some of the unborn babies could become serial killers or serial rapist or criminals in general.

Really, Gil? Are we using a tarot card to find this out? I don't think that is anything close to a good comparison. I agree about the death penalty thing for the reasons you, I, and others (including Richardson) have said, but to compare the ideals of the death penalty to the ideals of abortion is just wrong.

I can go another route and say one of the fetuses could develop a cure for cancer.

First, I believe that Freakanomics presented the argument that the drop in crime in the 90's (or thereabouts) was due in part to Roe vs. Wade.

Second, I think people were making the comparison between the death penalty and abortion because they don't understand how you can condemn one "murder" and support another. This is an area where I give props to the Catholic Church; they've been consistently pro-life.