Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State

On Capitol Report , Roy Occhiogrosso, Governor Dannel Malloy’s chief cook and bottle washer during his first term, had this to say about State Supreme Court Associate Justice Andrew McDonald: “I worked with Andrew, as you know for a couple of years.” Before being appointed by Malloy to the Supreme Court, McDonald was the Senate co-chairman, along with House Rep. Mike Lawlor, of the Judiciary Committee. Occhiogrosso continued, “I’ve known him for a long time – very smart, very careful, very conservative in the sense that he observes the bright lines he is supposed to observe.” It is telling that Occhiogrosso, who perhaps knows the mind of Malloy better than most, should be constrained to announce that McDonald is in some approvable fashion conservative. Some legislators, not all of them conservative, might more justly argue that McDonald has rarely seen a bright line he has not ventured to cross.

This Wednesday, you have the opportunity to tell state legislators what you think. The legislature’s Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing on the death penalty repeal bill : When? Wednesday March 14, at 11:00 AM Where? Room 2C of the Legislative Office Building (LOB) 300 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT. The bill up for review is Senate Bill 280: An Act Revising the Penalty for Capital Felonies. The bill would replace the death penalty with a penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of release for certain murders committed on or after its effective date. Here is a link to the bill . Here are the Judiciary Committee’s rules regarding testimony: Sign-up for the hearing will begin at 8:30 A.M. and conclude at 10:30 in Room 2500 of the LOB. Speaker order will be decided by a lottery system. Anyone wishing to testify after the drawing is closed must sign up in the hearing room and will be placed at the end of the list. The first hour of the hearing i...

Lets take this one step by step. In a recent editorial, the Hartford Courant inveighs against Connecticut’s death penalty law. “A legislative committee,” the paper advises, “has taken a brave step toward abolishing Connecticut's death penalty, a law that is all but unworkable, not to mention expensive, unfair and risky." The bill abolishing the death penalty was brought forward by the same folk who recently sought unsuccessfully to deprive Catholic bishops of their responsibility, in an apostolic structure, of determining the finances of their organization. The Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty, for legitimate religious reasons. Now, why does the paper think that bringing forth such a bill is “brave?” It may be right, according to the revised religious precepts of the Catholic Church, but why is it brave? Is the opposition to the death penalty in Connecticut so fierce and unrelenting that those who have petitioned for its abolition are in some sense threatened?...

There’s something to be said for the vigorous application of bad laws; it’s the best way to get rid of them. The anti- capital punishment forces here in Connecticut want state prosecutors to develop a standard for the prosecution of those who commit capital felonies. Once the standard is established, it must be uniformly applied by all prosecutors in the state. A prosecution in which the standard is not uniformly applied then may be contested in court as being selective and falling outside the governing rule, providing plaintiffs accused of capital felonies with yet another useful arrow in their already crowded quiver. Should Connecticut appellate courts agree with those now arguing that the absence of a standard for prosecution in capital felony cases is on its face unconstitutional, one need not argue the guilt or innocence of the murderer; one need only show that a prosecutor in a different district unconnected with the case had failed to prosecute in a similar instance. A consisten...