Dear Governor Rell: death penalty’s broke and we can’t fix it
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Dear Governor Rell,
Hi, it’s me, Gideon. This is my second attempt at a letter to you. The last one was somewhat trivial by comparision. I hope you take the time to read this, though, as I’m sure the last one ended up quickly at the bottom of your rubbish bin.
Governor, there is a piece of paper on your desk. A piece of paper that has the power to restore humanity and dignity to our State. A piece of paper that will say to the world: “We are no longer barbaric, we are no longer uncivilized, we are no longer cruel”. A piece of paper that has the chance to shape your legacy and the legacy of our Constitution State. A piece of paper that will close an ugly chapter that is the death penalty in our State.
You are concerned, I am led to believe, about the support of the public. You are concerned about the victims’ families. You are right to have that in your mind. But in doing so, I implore you to consider the families of all the victims, not just certain ones. I ask you to listen to Walter Everett, whose son was murdered, but the defendant did not receive the death penalty. I ask you to go to your window or perhaps even step out onto the grand foyer in the legislature this morning and listen to the victims’ families who will gather there. Their wishes must mean something.
You’re concerned about appearing “soft on crime”, about life without the possibility of release not being “justice”. Perhaps you’re afraid of appearing weak. I think you’ve got it backwards, Governor. It’s not weak to abolish the death penalty. In fact, it’s just the opposite. It’s a show of strength to rid ourselves of this blight. It’s a show of strength to tell the families of victims that they will no longer have to wait decades to begin the healing process, to have their names dragged through the spotlight, to relive their painful memories. It is strong to say that we are not in the business of retribution. It is weak to say we believe in an eye for an eye. A man far greater than either one of us can ever aspire to be warned us that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind”. We should take heed, Madam Governor.
Do not hang your hopes on fixing the death penalty either. Over the last few weeks I’ve heard much said about the length of the “appeals process”. I’ve heard much about these “endless appeals and habeas appeals”. There is nothing that you or the legislature can do (or have done) that can “fix” it. These appeals take so long and there may be so many of them, because it is what is Constitutionally required.
I know that at times you have taken the position that the Constitution is a suggestion, not a mandate, but here is your chance to show the people of the Constitution State that you, just like them, take pride in its protections. Recognize that if you do not sign this bill, it won’t magically make execution dates be set for those on death row. That isn’t going to come for years. If ever. It is strong to say that you will not let that happen, that you will be the force that drives the victims’ families closer to healing.
I want to say just a little bit about the definition of justice used by those in your party. Many a times did I hear Republican Senators say that the death penalty is the only proportional punishment for murder. That’s false, Madam Governor, because it isn’t. The death penalty isn’t even applied to people convicted of murder. If it were, our death row would be much larger. And if we’re in the “tit for tat” business, then why isn’t the punishment for assault a sound beating? Why isn’t the punishment for robbery gunpoint theft of the robber’s own belongings? Why isn’t the punishment for rape rape? Because we don’t do that, just as we shouldn’t kill those that kill.
The death penalty cannot be fixed because it must be extremely narrow. And by being required to be extremely narrow, it opens itself up to the whims and fancies of individual prosecutors. It opens itself up to being applied in a racially discriminatory manner. I’ll give you two examples:
1. Michael Ross himself. Prosecutors in New London declined to charge him with the death penalty, while those in Waterbury did not.
2. Russell and Adrian Peeler. One committed the murders, one did not. Russell is on death row, while is brother serves 20 years.
What is “justice” in either one of those cases? How do you fix it? You don’t, because you can’t. And since you can’t fix it, the right thing to do is to get rid of it.
The decision before you, Madam Governor, is a momentous one. As Sen. Williams said this morning, passage of an abolition bill was unthinkable a mere 10 years ago. Much has changed, including the attitudes of people living in this State. Our standards of decency and morality have evolved. Let us join the rest of the New England states and most of the civilized (and “uncivilized”) world in rejecting an antiquated punishment that has no place in modern society. We claim to be an enlightened people; let us put that on paper.
The pen is in your hands.
Sphere: Related Content
I’ve worked on murder appeals that missed being death penalty cases by quirks of fate (a defendant being a few days shy of his 18th birthday), trial judge rulings, and jury verdicts.
One of the things I don’t think the proponents understand is how many of these cases are built on witnesses you ordinarily wouldn’t trust to walk your dog — folks with long histories of crime, drug abuse, and mental health issues — who are often vulnerable to charges in the same case and get deals from prosecutors eagar to make a high-profile case often with horrific facts and substantial pressure from the community. This is not good foundation for life and death decisions.
Ah, but proponents will say, what about forensics. Many of these cases involve inculpatory forensics. The recent National Academy of Science report ought to make one wary of relying on forensic evidence. More so if one considers the Mayfield mis-ID made by the FBI’s lab. As the Stacey report mentions (Stacey, A Report on the Erroneous Fingerprint Individualization in the Madrid Train Bombing Case, 54:6 J. Forensic Identification 706 (2004)) one of the contributing factors to the mis-ID is the pressure of high profile cases — the same pressure inherent in any homicide that’s likely to be a potential death penalty case.
As a procedural matter, if not a moral matter, the death penalty is a bad idea. The Innocence Project exonerations tell us that our justice system is too riddled with error — error that the legislature is reluctant to address (i.e. eyewitness ID, recorded confession, snitch testimony, etc.) — to be allowed to make the decision to kill.
Nice job. One correction: Ross received the DP out of New London; it was in Windham that he pled to life sentences.
I’ll fix it. Although it all seems pointless now that she’s going to veto the bill.
Amen, amen. Comments and letter.
I think Connecticut should abolish the death penalty. There are many very good reasons for it:
1. THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT A DETERRENT AT ALL — the best proof is TEXAS with its OVER 400 EXECUTIONS.
2. Mostly it is POOR and MINORITY people who cannot afford a good defense who are executed.
3. AN INNOCENT EXECUTED PERSON CANNOT BE BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE!!!
4. THE DEATH PENALTY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH MODERN INDUSTRIALIZED DEMOCRACIES, only the USA, Japan, Singapore, and–with a moratorium–South Korea still have it.
Different US states planned to end the death penalty this year, but only New Mexico has really done so. Since in Connecticut BOTH HOUSES VOTED FOR THE ABOLITION, Connecticut is nearer to the abolition than other US states are, so Governor RELL should USE THIS UNIQUE CHANCE instead of blocking. Connecticut should follow New Mexico’s example and should be an example itself.
PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO E-MAIL Governor RELL AT Governor.Rell@ct.gov OR CALL HER OFFICE AT 86O566484O AND ASK HER PLEASE TO SIGN THE DEATH-PENALTY-ABOLITION BILL!
That’s right guys, 60% of Nutmeggers think that the death penalty is justified, and you guys call them barbarians.
As for this:
1. Michael Ross himself. Prosecutors in New London declined to charge him with the death penalty, while those in Waterbury did not.
2. Russell and Adrian Peeler. One committed the murders, one did not. Russell is on death row, while is brother serves 20 years
Since when do murderers have some entitlement to cosmic fairness in their punishment?
Given how hard it is to find jurors willing to endure the economic hardship of serving on a long capital trial and/or willing to swear under oath that they could follow the law, imposing the penality if they reach the appropriate conclusion based on the evidence, and imposing life without possiblity of parole if they reach that conclusion, and given the confused responses of many venirepersons when asked about their understanding of Connecticut law, I strongly suspect that the 60% support would shrink rapidly, if those responding were actually faced with a jury summons on an actual capital case.
I always wondered what is greater punishment: death or life in prison? And lately I came to think that the latter one is greater, because it makes the person suffer for what they did, for the rest of his life.