In which Gideon opposes the abolition of the death penalty
Now, now, rest your beating heart. I don’t really oppose abolition of the death penalty (don’t be silly). It is merely this abomination of a bill that I oppose. This bill was scheduled for a public hearing today, but given the gruesome weather we had, the hearing has been postponed to Wednesday.
The bill calls for prospective abolition of the death penalty. It is precisely this hackneyed idea that I cannot in good conscience support. Here is the pertinent new subsection of the bill:
Sec. 5. Subsection (a) of section 53a-46a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):
(a) A person shall be subjected to the penalty of death for a capital felony committed prior to the effective date of this section only if a hearing is held in accordance with the provisions of this section.
That’s one of the most absurd pieces of legislation that I have seen in a bit. There are currently 10 (11?) members of CT’s death row and there are many, many more “capital” prosecutions currently pending in the State of CT. None of those would fall under this new bill and all of those defendants would still be subject to the death penalty.
Oh, how many ways can I say arbitrary? Here’s one: Eight Amendment.
I do not know, for sure, who proposed this bill or why. However, I can guess. And that is a chicken-shit position to take. Those attending the public hearing should get the Rt. Hon. legislators to commit, on the record, to their reasoning for making this a prospective bill (frankly, I need a good laugh). You think they’re going to say “well, we think certain crimes that have already been committed are so heinous they deserve the death penalty and we’re pretty sure that no one is going to commit another crime in the future that will be more heinous, so we feel okay about abolishing the penalty in this fashion”? Of course not.
And what of the purported cost savings? This bill is not going to bring the cost savings that a straight abolition bill would. You can bet every bottom dollar in that rainy day fund that the State has that there will be at least 11 challenges to this bill. That will cost money and lots of it.
So, I have to conclude that I have no clue why this bill was proposed or is even being entertained. Maybe it’s only for show and the likelihood of it passing is slim to none. But if so, then why the song and dance? Why waste people’s time, money and effort? Is anyone buying this as a legitimate bill?
Of course, on the other hand, I recognize that this might be a good start. Analogize, if you will, this to the civil unions bill. It’s part of the way, but not all of the way. The rest of the road can be accessed through the courts. But this is not a serious bill. This is a mockery of an abolition bill and a mockery of the abolitionist effort.
Because of that, I will not be a part of it. I respectfully oppose this bill.
(I hate to do this time and again, but: these are my opinions only and not those of my employer.)
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on March 2, 2009 at 5:43 pm, and is filed under cheshire, ct legal news, ct state law, death penalty, proposed legislation. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 2 years ago
The bill pending in the New Mexico legislature to abolish the death penalty has been amended to make it prospective, as well. (I drafted the bill several years ago, and it is largely the same, except for this amendment.) New Mexico has only two people on death row, but several DP prosecutions pending trial. Death sentences from those, if they occur, would also be permitted under the bill.
Absurd as it is, in New Mexico this limitation on abolition was a necessity of politics. The Repeal movement needs the votes of key state legislators, and those in districts that were terrorized by the crimes of the men on death row could not vote for repeal without it “grandfathering” in those offenders. (Of note, one guy on the row, Bob Fry, a white man, has been convicted of brutal murders of Navajo men and women in Navajoland. Two cases in the hopper involve shootings of law enforcement officers, and no one in NM seems to have the will to vote against the police/DA lobby).
We talk about how New Mexico will, we hope, lose the will to kill after the death penalty is abolished, and courts and prosectutors and defense teams will find ways to quietly make the pending cases go away as life cases, and that perhaps even the cases on the row will get some relief through settling their habeas cases, or some such. There is of course no assurance that this will happen, only hope.
But now you know the context.
about 2 years ago
So it is all political grandstanding. How can one expect any less, when it comes to the death penalty…
about 2 years ago
Thank you for saying what many of us were thinking, Gideon. I’m curious to see how abolitionists speak about this bill tomorrow. Some may believe that a win is a win, but I agree with you and wouldn’t support this bill, either. Some principles do not lend themselves to compromise, and this is one of them. It’s like saying the United States never practices torture, except sometimes it does. All of the reasons the legislators would use to justify abolition are wholly inconsistent with passing a bill that only discontinues death as punishment for future crimes. Although I am less than patiently waiting for the day when CT realizes all of the many things wrong with the death penalty, I won’t “sell out” to support a bill that has no realistic hope of passing anyway.
about 2 years ago
Looking at it from the perspective of victims’ families, prospective application makes sense. Besides, if one of these turds ever gets off the row and murders again, then there would be a blood trail back to those who voted for it, and people like me would ram it right up their liberal criminal-loving asses.
about 2 years ago
No one in CT convicted of capital felony will ever “get off the row and murder again” regardless of abolition.
And how, dare I ask, does prospective abolition make sense for victims’ families?? It’s acceptable to tell a future victim that death is not available anymore as punishment, even though the victim may want it, but it’s not acceptable to tell a victim whose loved one’s perpetrator’s case is still pending in some stage of litigation?
about 2 years ago
There is yet another way of looking at this otherwise unpalatable approach. The bill, as written, provides for a substantial step towards abolition, while lessening the impact that victim’s family members connected to those already on death row can make at the upcoming hearing. Additionally, it provides those currently on death row and those being prosecuted in death cases yet another legal ground for appeal.
And here is another way to say arbitrary: Cheshire. This bill cleverly avoids the Cheshire trap because it won’t apply to Hayes and the guy with the long name. That will help ensure that the debate is less of a circus than it would have been had those two stood to benefit from the bill.
Pro-abolition groups testifying on Wednesday (and there will be several) will make it crystal clear to the legislature that they support full abolition. However, they will oppose this bill, for doing so would kill any chance these groups have of maintaining credibility in the legislature. That’s politics.
about 2 years ago
How will they lose credibility by opposing this bill? How would it look if, supposing this bill passed, they’d come back two years later saying now we want more?
I guess it couldn’t hurt, but I don’t buy that they’ll gain credibility by doing this now.
about 2 years ago
They lose credibility because the legislature sees it this way: we are offering a substantial step towards abolition which ensures that no one else is EVER sentenced to death CT again, and those greedy abolitionists want all or nothing.
They gain credibility, because they are seen as decent people who met the legislature half way and didn’t piss off the Judiciary Committee chairs, who are absolutely vital to have as allies in this battle.
Getting this bill passed will partially accomplish abolition, and may very well set the stage for a court ruling that extends abolition to the rest.
Don’t get me wrong: as an attorney, I cannot with a straight face say this is a good law, because it’s not. It’s plainly unconstitutional. But as an abolitionist, it’s a positive step.
about 2 years ago
I hope these groups at least make clear to the pols that this bill may well be unconstitutional and lead to further litigation, all the while supporting it.
I don’t know – I guess I do understand on some level, but on another, it feels wrong.
about 2 years ago
My apologies — I meant to say the groups will NOT oppose the bill. Previewing didn’t help me the first time around.
about 2 years ago
No one in CT convicted of capital felony will ever “get off the row and murder again” regardless of abolition.
Dont be so sure. And politicians don’t take those risks since Michael Dukakis.
As for families, certainly they have a legitimate expectation that a death sentence will be carried out.
And by the way, guys, liberal hack judges will seize on this “arbitrariness” to toss the death sentences.
about 2 years ago
Um, they won’t “ever get off the row and murder again” because they’d be sentenced to life w/o parole. Awfully hard for them to physically commit a crime while locked up for the rest of their natural lives.
about 2 years ago
SPO — don’t paint the survivors with such a broad brush. I know many, many loved ones of murder victims, whose fervent desire is to NOT see the murderers executed. They know what it’s like to lose a loved one to homicide, and they don’t want the same thing to happen to another mother/father/child/spouse/etc. But don’t take my word for it: http://www.mvfhr.blogspot.com/
about 2 years ago
True enough, but I am guessing that the survivors that do want to see justice carried out are more than those who don’t and have stronger feelings on the subject.
I’d personally like to see at least 1000 executions in the US per year. It would really be a deterrent.
No one’s mourning for Michael Ross, except maybe Judge Chatigny.
about 2 years ago
I’m glad you’ve got the direct line to Michael Ross’ family.
about 2 years ago
Perhaps his family is mourning for him. I don’t really care about that. If you’re going to have a death penalty, you cannot worry about the killer’s family. Maybe, if we had a real death penalty, killers would think about their families before they killed.
about 2 years ago
Tell that to some guard or another prisoner.
about 2 years ago
You’re really coming unhinged. How is that any different from what could happen currently?
about 2 years ago
No. First of all, DP deters lifers. Second of all, if you release a DR inmate to the general population, he then poses a risk that wasn’t posed before. If he kills someone, then but for his release from death row, someone died. And people with my way of thinking will say that the legislators have blood on their hands. As we should.
The whole thing is silly anyway. The US Supreme Court should junk all of its death penalty “jurisprudence” and allow states to impose the death penalty for murder in any way they want to. Mandatory death sentences for cop-killers, people who kill while incarcerated, multiple killings, people who kill witnesses. Take away a lot of the cost.
I think if we could execute 1000 murderers a year, you’d have some real deterrence and cost savings.
about 2 years ago
Curious your thoughts on some of the questioning of Mr. Petit in the legislature. I cannot imagine why such a decent man would be subjected to the indignity of being asked why he didn’t forgive and forget or implying that he was going against his wife’s wishes. I guess anything that advances the cause is ok.
about 2 years ago
I thought the whole thing was pretty embarrassing.
about 2 years ago
Embarassing? How about appalling? These idiots are so blind to their ideology that they cannot view anyone who may have a different opinion on the matter as someone to be fought with. I know this, were I a Ct. legislator seeing such an appalling spectacle, I would have said something very nasty.
But hey, that’s just how the left rolls, see, e.g., Sam Alito’s confirmation.
about 2 years ago
Interesting how this plays out in the US. Its not an issue in the UK although public opinion seems to be in favor of returning the DP in the UK but that nothing seems likely to happen.
about 2 years ago
Interesting the public opinion in the UK seems to favor a return to DP in the UK although I can’t see that it will ever happen.