74

According to dumblaws.com, in New York (City? State? or both?):

The penalty for jumping off a building is death.

It is the second most-voted weird law in NY in ranker.com also:

If Jumping Off a Building Doesn't Kill You... the City of NYC Will
The penalty for jumping off a building is death.

I couldn't find anything in the website below but maybe I didn't search properly:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/navigate.cgi

Is this a made-up law or could it be a historical law?

ermanen
  • 1,628
  • 2
  • 15
  • 16
  • 13
    Suicide attempt used to be punishable under English law: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14374296 I don't think it was ever by death, but I didn't look too deep back in history. – Fizz Jan 17 '18 at 00:04
  • 2
    If [this page](http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2014/07/24/is-suicide-illegal-suicide-laws-by-country/) is to be believed, the same was true in the US. And still illegal [in Singapore](http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/attempting-suicide-is-illegal-but-rare-for-person-to-be-charged) apparently. Actually, there's a whole Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation – Fizz Jan 17 '18 at 00:10
  • Similar question about UK here https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2936/did-there-use-to-be-a-law-that-made-attempted-suicide-a-capital-offence-punishab – Fizz Jan 17 '18 at 00:29
  • 28
    Try looking at **Physics** laws: jumping won't kill you, but reaching the ground of the city at high velocity is sure death. – Cœur Jan 18 '18 at 05:23
  • 2
    There are buildings in New York that are *way* less tall than Empire State or Chrysler. – Hagen von Eitzen Jan 18 '18 at 07:23
  • 1
    I think the fact that they don't cite any sources should be a good indication on how much it can be believed. Sounds a lot like [Citogenesis](https://xkcd.com/978/) to me – MechMK1 Jan 18 '18 at 08:53
  • 1
    Can't be a real law, what if the building is really short and kids jump off of it for fun, so now they have to die? lol I jump off buildings all the time, but they are not tall, anyone can jump off any building regardless of height. – Huangism Jan 18 '18 at 21:38
  • 3
    Well, if I intentionally jump onto someone below, trying to kill them, and succeed.... "jumping off a building" can cover a very, very broad range of activities, not just an attempt to kill oneself from many stories up. – PoloHoleSet Jan 18 '18 at 23:08
  • 4
    I think you're misinterpreting "The **penalty** for jumping off a building is death." Read "penalty for" as "consequence of". ;-) – JonBrave Jan 20 '18 at 12:17
  • Judging by the answers and [@Cœur 's comment](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40438/is-there-a-death-penalty-if-you-jump-off-a-building-and-dont-die-in-new-york#comment169879_40438), this is most probably a joke. _"...the City of NYC Will"_ as in "by ramming into you at a high speed with its pavement". Also note *"**the City** of NYC"* as in the part of it with all the skyscrapers. – ivan_pozdeev Jan 20 '18 at 13:01
  • @ivan_pozdeev there are thousands of one-story buildings in New York City if not tens or hundreds of thousands. – phoog Jan 20 '18 at 18:22
  • 1
    I don't think NY has the death penalty at all. However it's a historical fact that suicide has been criminalised in the past in various jurisdictions (for example suicide was illegal in the UK until the 60s and was punishable with imprisonment for survivors and even imprisonment of the deceased families when the suicide succeeded!). maybe an expansion of this question to suicide and legality as opposed to specifically the death penalty would be more worthwhile? – GordonM May 21 '18 at 11:05
  • Of course, if you jump, and survive, they'll likely haul you off to [Rikers](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/18/704424675/former-physician-at-rikers-island-exposes-health-risks-of-incarceration), and that can be a death sentence. – Daniel R Hicks Mar 19 '19 at 21:47

4 Answers4

110

No, New York does not have the death penalty.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center:

In 1995 newly-elected Governor George Pataki fulfilled a campaign promise and signed legislation reinstating the death penalty in New York, designating lethal injection as the new method of execution. In 2004, that statute was declared unconstitutional by the New York Court of Appeals, and in 2007 the last remaining death sentence was reduced to life, leaving New York with a vacant death row and no viable death penalty laws. In 2008 Governor David Paterson issued an executive order requiring the removal of all execution equipment from state facilities.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • 11
    Thanks. Could it be a historical law then? or is there any legit law that might have prompted this made-up law? – ermanen Jan 16 '18 at 20:25
  • 9
    In fact the quote says it is the city of NY and not the state. I think the city NEVER had a death penalty. – GEdgar Jan 16 '18 at 22:47
  • 18
    @GEdgar can the city of NY issue *any* criminal laws or assign the death penalty for anything? Isn't that the prerogative of the state? – Peteris Jan 17 '18 at 08:45
  • 3
    @Peteris NYC is surprisingly independent from the rest of the state -- for example, the firearms laws are pretty different (more restrictive) than in the rest of the state. I don't know how much this carries over, though. – Nic Jan 17 '18 at 20:58
  • 1
    @ermanen I recall hearing that suicide (of any sort) was punishable by death in the Roman Empire, if the person attempting suicide failed to kill themselves. Perhaps this New York thing is a result of the telephone game based on that. (Also note that *I have zero sources* regarding the veracity of this law in the Roman Empire.) – Steve-O Jan 19 '18 at 15:21
  • 1
    @Steve-O I suspect that's more confusion than fact. IIRC, inheritance worked differently for suicide and execution, so many people who would otherwise be executed instead committed suicide. In that case, a failed suicide would indeed lead to execution. – fectin Jan 20 '18 at 18:18
  • 2
    @Steve-O, Romans had nothing against suicide - opening one's veins or falling on one's sword could even be the *honourable* thing to do. Suicide was forbidden to soldiers because it was tantamount to desertion (which could be punished by death, but it depended on circumstances), to slaves because they didn't own their life, and to people already sentenced to death (they would deprive the State of their estate). Later, to tackle the problem raised by fectin, sentenced suicides were considered carried-out sentences, and heirless - thus, problem solved. – LSerni Jan 20 '18 at 23:33
77

All laws related to attempted suicide in the State of New York were repealed before 1964. If the law had existed before then, it was never used.

Any laws against suicide that may have existed were repealed by the State of New York prior to 1964.

It should be emphasized that suicide is not against the law in most parts of the United States of America. According to written reports from the Attorney General of each of the states (in 1964), there are only nine states [...] in which suicide is a crime.

...

In recent times, two states (Nevada, New York) repealed such laws, stating in effect that suicide is a grave social wrong, but there is no way to punish it.

In addition to the fact that all laws regarding suicide were removed, and the death penalty hasn't existed in NY since 2007 (see also Oddthinking's answer), there has never been an instance of someone being executed for attempted suicide, reckless endangerment, or anything that could be construed as "jumping off a building" in the State of New York.

Wikipedia has a list of every person executed for crimes in the State of New York. Since 1800, the only persons on the list who were executed for something other than murder or conspiracy to murder are

All other executions on this list were for murder or conspiracy to murder.

Community
  • 1
DenisS
  • 22,355
  • 8
  • 95
  • 95
  • 4
    @Acccumulation which would probably be a misdemeanor rather than a felony. Death would be an extreme penalty indeed for a misdemeanor... – jwenting Jan 17 '18 at 12:16
  • 8
    @Acccumulation Well there were no executions for reckless endangerment either. It looks like there were three ways to get killed by the State of NY: kill someone, be a famous spy, or do something bad during a war on US soil. – kingledion Jan 17 '18 at 16:37
  • This alone isn't evidence of no law. Do we know of any cases where people jumped and didn't die? Maybe it never happened, which could mean the law exists and never needed to be enforced. – Octopus Jan 17 '18 at 17:13
  • @Octopus http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11156342 – Danica Jan 18 '18 at 03:29
  • @Dougal, it would make sense to use that case and argue that "since somebody did this and wasnt charged the law must not exist" but as it stands this answer is only arguing that "nobody was charged therefore the law doesnt exist". Its an incomplete argument. – Octopus Jan 18 '18 at 05:51
  • This is not really an answer though, is it? – Sklivvz Jan 19 '18 at 07:18
25

As an addendum to Oddthinking's answer...

Under the current US Constitutional regime (since 2008), the Death Penalty can only be applied by a state for crimes against people that are aggravated murder, or for a "crime against the state" (and the latter might be unconstitutional in some cases too. KvL didn't rule on that).

There are many more limitations, but these should be more than sufficient to invalidate any general law instituting capital punishment for suicide attempts. So not only is there no such law, but there cannot be any such (enforceable) law in the USA.

T.E.D.
  • 1,588
  • 1
  • 11
  • 16
  • Interesting point, though that ruling seems extremely tenuous, was decided 5-4, and was opposed by many from both political parties (including both Obama and McCain who were running for President at the time.) That said, while I wouldn't be shocked to see this particular ruling overturned in the future, I would indeed be very surprised if a future court ruled that the death penalty for attempted suicide (or any other similar crime for which jumping off of a building would qualify) did not violate the 8th Amendment. – reirab Jan 17 '18 at 06:50
  • 2
    Just wanted to point out that you can in fact murder someone by jumping off a building and landing on them. Perhaps not the best way but... – pipe Jan 17 '18 at 09:13
  • @pipe jumping off a building on the crowded street could be actually quite an effective suicide terror act... –  Jan 17 '18 at 09:58
  • 1
    @9ilsdx9rvj0lo - Not really. Even in a crowded street there will usually be a foot or more between people - you will be very lucky to hit six people, and you will be unlikely to kill them all. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Jan 17 '18 at 12:55
  • @9ilsdx9rvj0lo - Besides, even if you manage to find a clever way to commit an act of terrorism via autodefenestration, I have complete confidence in the authorities' ability to find something appropriate with which to charge you with our already existing anti-terror laws. – T.E.D. Jan 17 '18 at 16:55
  • 2
    @pipe - In 1965 an Italian woman was dumped by her boyfriend when he was in her (upper story) apartment. He then left. After a minute or two, she decided she couldn't live without him. She jumped through her apartment window. However, he was just leaving the apartment building and she landed on him. He died. She survived. – WhatRoughBeast Jan 17 '18 at 20:00
  • Unconstitutional laws are enacted all the time, and remain in effect until someone has the need, stamina, and money to fight them all the way to the Supreme Court. That's the main reason the Supreme Court even exists, to strike down laws that are found to be unconstitutional after enactment (and occasionally that means reverting its own decisions). – jwenting Jan 18 '18 at 08:21
  • @WhatRoughBeast Here's [Snopes](https://www.snopes.com/love/revenge/suicide.asp) on that general category of legend, and wikipedia with [my favourite version](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ronald_Opus) of it. – Jamie Bull Jan 18 '18 at 11:44
  • @jwenting - Once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject, the lower courts are supposed to take that as gospel and uphold that decision on anything that crosses their desk, unless the case somehow is different. They generally do so (execptions being some of the elected lower layers on very politically charged issues, like the inital desegregation rulings). – T.E.D. Jan 18 '18 at 13:17
  • @T.E.D. I'm talking about governments at all levels putting in place unconstitutional laws all the time, which over the years percolate up to the USSC at great cost to those falling foul of them. – jwenting Jan 19 '18 at 06:48
  • This is not an answer, you are required to address the claim directly, through some citation or reference and not answer indirectly with a theoretical schema such as "if it were true it would be against the constitution". Either such a law was ever passed or it was not: unconstitutional laws are passed often, it's not like they don't exist... – Sklivvz Jan 19 '18 at 07:17
  • 3
    @Sklivvz - The question in the *title* is not "Was a law ever passed?", it is "Is there a Death Penalty...?" I'm answering that directly (just like the currently top-voted answer is). There is not (regardless of what might technically be in the books). Also note that its arguable if any statute invalidated by a supreme court decision can be considered "a law". Many states in the US still have anti-sodomy statutes, but they are all unenforceable. Its arguable whether the are "laws" or not (depends on what you mean by that word), but there are indisputably no "penalties" for violating them. – T.E.D. Jan 19 '18 at 18:58
  • @T.E.D. "Once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject, the lower courts are supposed to take that as gospel and uphold that decision on anything that crosses their desk, unless the case somehow is different." While I agree this is the current norm, can you cite any laws stating such? I'm not sure this idea is encoded anywhere; it may only be a convention. The problem with the idea is that the Supreme Court is equally able to made bad rulings as is any other court. – jpmc26 Jan 19 '18 at 19:49
  • @jpmc26 "can you cite any laws stating such?" Ummm, noooooo. This is *above* written law. Its how laws are implemented under our system. This would be like asking where in the student handbook it says school administrators agree to abide by state laws. – T.E.D. Jan 19 '18 at 20:14
  • @T.E.D. If the Supreme Court rules that ice cream must be illegal, then surely you wouldn't expect everyone to simply abide by this without challenge. 9 Justices do not hold ultimate authority over everything. The idea that a lower court is forbidden from challenging all the Supreme Court's rulings strikes me as dangerous. – jpmc26 Jan 19 '18 at 20:53
  • @jpmc26 no, they cannot. that is why we have other branches within the federal government. Furthermore, I direct you to look through the US Constitution. That is where such details lie. Surely one does not need to citate the US Constitution regarding something that everyone should know. Namely the fact that they are the Supreme Court and have the final word? – user64742 Jan 19 '18 at 23:11
  • @Sklivvz it is an *addendum* to a *currently existing* answer. It isnt an answer by itself. – user64742 Jan 19 '18 at 23:16
  • @TheGreatDuck I actually looked into it, and the Constitution is somewhat vague on exactly what powers it grants. (What did "judicial power" mean when the founders wrote it?) I was reading this explanation but didn't have time to finish it: https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/107/judicial-power. We're also talking about *state* laws here, which complicates the issue further since the states are explicitly granted the power to do a lot without federal involvement. Additionally, the idea that any branch has the "final word" is antithetical to the balance of power. – jpmc26 Jan 19 '18 at 23:19
  • @jpmc26 I meant that in the judicial brach (which includes all courts of law) the Supreme Court has the final word on a ruling of a case. So technically any law they find to be wrong can be overturned by them. That is to say they are the highest level of appeal so any law they to rule one way or the other can be made to go their way. Of course, that might not occur in practice as they cannot see every case. However, they have the final say with regards to courts of law and prosecution. If that is wrong then feel free to prove me and the general education system wrong as thats where I heard it. – user64742 Jan 20 '18 at 03:53
1

There is a very good chance that the "law" is spurious, but it's entirely possible that such a law once existed. See the Wiki article Criminalization of Attempted Suicide If it ever existed in New York, I'm pretty sure that New York City did not have the authority to execute people, so as stated the law is probably bogus. There may have been a Colonial-era law, though.

Through the 1960s attempted suicide was in many places a crime (although the law was hardly ever enforced). The analysis was that the person had attempted (with premeditation) to kill a person. This made it attempted murder. In the 1800's attempted suicide in Britain was punishable by hanging.

WhatRoughBeast
  • 387
  • 1
  • 7