Skip to main content

Common Sense And The Death Penalty


Connecticut’s Supreme Court has decided that the state cannot execute the eleven convicted killers sentenced to death awaiting punishment on Death Row.  Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane ran up a white flag shortly after the decision had been rendered. According to a story in the Hartford Courant, Mr. Kane said the eleven Death Row inmates would be re-sentenced to life in prison without benefit of parole.

The High Court’s earlier judgment on the death penalty was a sand castle built on sand: So said Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, who last August wrote a stinging dissent following the decision of the court. The court at that time ruled that executing a Death Row inmate "would violate the state constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." The death penalty, the court noted, “no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency." Three justices – Rogers, Justice Carmen E. Espinosa and Justice Peter T. Zarella offered a stinging rebuke: Every step of the majority opinion, the three dissenting justices wrote, was “fundamentally flawed.”


Connecticut Commentary noted, following the abolition of the death penalty by the General Assembly, that the pending executions should not be permitted.

However, Connecticut Commentary did not argue that the retention of the death penalty would offend “contemporary standards of decency.” Only a few years before, the General Assembly, Republicans dissenting, had reinforced contemporary standards of decency when the legislature decided to retain the death penalty for the eleven Death Row inmates.

The legislature overturned the death penalty prospectively only, which amounted to a declaration that the death penalty itself did not violate contemporary standards of decency.

In fact, General Assembly abolition  was driven by political cowardice; the bill abolishing the death penalty was highly political. The General Assembly could not have abolished the death penalty in two specific cases without offending contemporary standards of decency. The murders of three women in Cheshire were at the time very fresh in the public mind. The Democrat dominated General Assembly wanted to retain the death penalty for Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes, both of whom had recently been sentenced to death after tortuous legal proceedings.

Their crime was particularly heinous. The paroled prisoners battered Dr. William Petit with a baseball bat, tied him up in the basement of his house, restrained three women, a mother and her two daughters, upstairs, forced the mother to withdraw money from a bank, raped the mother and a daughter, tied the two daughters to beds and murdered all their victims by setting fire to the house. That multiple murder truly offended contemporary standards of decency.

Briefly, the politically timid  General Assembly should have abolished the death penalty retrospectively – to include the 11 Death Row inmates – because it is a violation of the natural law to impose a punishment upon a convicted offender AFTER the law had been repealed. The state must have a warrant for punishment, and when the warrant – the law prescribing capital punishment – has been repealed, it is indecent, illegal, unconstitutional and an offense against natural law to impose a penalty in the absence of a positive law prescribing punishment.

None of these points were urged upon the Connecticut Supreme Court by those charged with representing the interests of the prisoners on Death Row. Abolitionists had other rabbits to hunt.

The General Assembly wanted to repeal the death penalty without adopting measures that undoubtedly would have made it impossible for them to pass the abolition bill. Prospective abolition was dictated entirely by politics – and not a just consideration of the matter. Connecticut’s High Court, predictably, did not want to disappoint legislative ambitions, and so the Court produced a ruling  highly attenuated and, as three of the justices rightly said at the time, “fundamentally flawed.”

When you mix politics and jurisprudence, you get mud. The addition to the High Court of former co-chair of the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee Andrew McDonald has further politicized and muddied a court that in the past has shown abject deference to left-wing politicians such as … well, Andrew McDonald, who, along with co-chair of the Judiciary Committee Mike Lawlor, now Connecticut’s prison czar, was principally responsible for the cowardly abolition of the death penalty in the General Assembly. Mr. McDonald should have recused himself from any Court decision affecting the death penalty. In a world governed by common sense and constitutional restraint, foxes are not generally permitted both to fashion and later rule on laws governing access to hen houses.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Murphy Thingy

It’s the New York Post, and so there are pictures. One shows Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy canoodling with “Courier Newsroom publisher Tara McGowan, 39, last Monday by the bar at the Red Hen, located just one mile north of Capitol Hill.”   The canoodle occurred one day or night prior to Murphy’s well-advertised absence from President Donald Trump’s recent Joint Address to Congress.   Murphy has said attendance at what was essentially a “campaign rally” involving the whole U.S. Congress – though Democrat congresspersons signaled their displeasure at the event by stonily sitting on their hands during the applause lines – was inconsistent with his dignity as a significant part of the permanent opposition to Trump.   Reaching for his moral Glock Murphy recently told the Hartford Courant that Democrat Party opposition to President Donald Trump should be unrelenting and unforgiving: “I think people won’t trust you if you run a campaign saying that if Donald Trump is ...

The PURA soap opera continues in Connecticut: Business eyeing the exit signs

The trouble at PURA and the two energy companies it oversees began – ages ago, it now seems – with the elevation of Marissa Gillett to the chairpersonship of Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulation Authority.   Connecticut Commentary has previously weighed in on the controversy: PURA Pulls The Plug on November 20, 2019; The High Cost of Energy, Three Strikes and You’re Out? on December 21, 2024; PURA Head Butts the Economic Marketplace on January 3, 2025; Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA on February 3, 2025; and Lamont’s Pillow Talk on February 22, 2025:   The melodrama full of pratfalls continues to unfold awkwardly.   It should come as no surprise that Gillett has changed the nature and practice of the state agency. She has targeted two of Connecticut’s energy facilitators – Eversource and Avangrid -- as having in the past overcharged the state for services rendered. Thanks to the Democrat controlled General Assembly, Connecticut is no l...

Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA

Marissa P. Gillett, the state's chief utility regulator, watches Gov. Ned Lamont field questions about a new approach to regulation in April 2023. Credit: MARK PAZNIOKAS / CTMIRROR.ORG Concerning a suit brought by Eversource and Avangrid, Connecticut’s energy delivery agents, against Connecticut’s Public Utility Regulatory Agency (PURA), Governor Ned Lamont surprised most of the state’s political watchers by affecting surprise.   “Look,” Lamont told a Hartford Courant reporter shortly after the suit was filed, “I think it is incredibly unhelpful,” Lamont said. “Everyone is getting mad at the umpires.   Eversource is not getting everything they want and they are bringing suit. It was a surprise to me. Nobody notified me. I think we have to do a better job of working together.”   Lamont’s claim is far less plausible than the legal claim made by Eversource and Avangrid. The contretemps between Connecticut’s energy distributors and Marissa Gillett , Gov. Ned Lamont’s ...