Comments on: Death penalty on our minds

By: Gideon

Gideon — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:15:59 +0000

Done. Thanks for commenting!

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:32:59 +0000

My bad–and my apologies to Gideon and readers. Sometimes my anger at politicians (and my knee jerk liberal tendencies) lead me to open mouth and insert foot. I regreted the post the minute I posted it–Gideon, if you wanna delete it, I’d be appreciative.

SPO–I suppose if we’re going to HAVE a death penalty (and that’s a point we could debate until the cows come home), it should be carried out “efficiently.” But what’s “efficient”? A system which insures the defendant is treated fairly, or one which insures he’s executed as soon as possible.

My annoyance is derived from the fact that whatever legislator put this bill up obviously made no attempt whatsoever to find out the actual facts and mechanisms in place in the CT judicial system for handling capital cases before drafting it. Quite simply, it makes no sense. Currently, it takes about a year here to get a transcript in a capital case, and since the attorneys handling the appeal are different than those trying the case, it should be patently obvious to anyone who talks to someone involved in the system for 2 minutes that a 4 month time limit won’t work.

This was put up for the purposes of playing to someone’s conservative base. The proponent has no expectation its ever going to be enacted. And that kind of pandering isn’t helping anyone.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:48:30 +0000

It is a civility policy and yes, I’d prefer it if people refrained from using that word or words like that. I’m not going to delete it, though, just like I didn’t delete your characterization of Judge Fuger.

By: SPO

SPO — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:30:14 +0000

Ed: The offending portion of the previous comment having been removed, this comment is now pointless and there’s no need to remind anyone of what might have been said. Thus I have edited it.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:36:28 +0000

Presently, briefs are due on a date certain following the completion of the transcript, not the imposition of sentence….

Has it occurred to the idiot proposing this bill that we don’t even GET a transcript within 4 months of the imposition of sentence in a capital case?

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:23:46 +0000

To think that anyone could put together any sort of intelligent, meaningful review of the record, much less a meaningful mitigation investigation in 42 days (or even 4 months – or even a year) is absurd.

Compounding the problem here is that post-conviction proceedings run concurrently with the direct appeal, leaving a host of errors potentially unpreserved for habeas. The ISC seems to think it all works fine though. :/

By: Gideon

Gideon — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:45:26 +0000

How many people do you have working on capital appeals? Are those 42 days enough? Would you recommend that?

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:52:06 +0000

The bill would require both the defendant and the state to file its briefs within 4 months of the imposition of the sentence and it would require the Supreme Court to schedule oral argument no later than 6 months from the date of the imposition of the sentence. These time limits are absurd and arbitrary and unworkable.

Oh please! Out here in Idaho, we wouldn't know what to do with an extra 80 days.

Idaho Code § 19-2719(3): Within forty-two (42) days of the filing of the judgment imposing the punishment of death, and before the death warrant is filed, the defendant must file any legal or factual challenge to the sentence or conviction that is known or reasonably should be known.

Even more ridiculous when considering the ISC recently defined 'reasonable' also as 42 days.

By: Capital Defense Weekly

Capital Defense Weekly — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:33:42 +0000

[...] A Public Defender looks at attempts to modify the Nutmeg state’s death penalty: Two separate news items of note on the death penalty in Connecticut today. The first is a hearing in the judiciary committee on a bill that sets absurd time limits on the filing of appeals and habeas corpus petitions. S.B. 320 is a resurrection of an almost identical bill that failed in the last legislative session. The bill would require both the defendant and the state to file its briefs within 4 months of the imposition of the sentence and it would require the Supreme Court to schedule oral argument no later than 6 months from the date of the imposition of the sentence. These time limits are absurd and arbitrary and unworkable. There is no way that all issues that need to be raised in capital cases can be raised in two months.. . . [...]