# House Votes To Repeal Death Penalty



## MJS (Apr 12, 2012)

Looks like the Death Penalty is on its way out in CT.  It will be replaced by life in prison without the possibility of parole.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-death-penalty-house-vote-0412-20120411,0,2935160.story



> The Connecticut House of Representatives late Wednesday gave final legislative approval to a measure repealing the state's seldom-used death penalty after more than 9 1/2 hours of often gut-wrenching debate.
> Senate Bill 280 cleared the House 86-62, a vote that broke largely along party lines. The bill now goes to Gov.Dannel P. Malloy, who has pledged to sign it, ending a form of punishment in the state that dates back to Colonial times when those convicted of being witches were sent to the gallows.
> "This vote tonight ... allows Connecticut to break with a centuries-old tradition of executing people and rejoin the rest of the Western world, which has long since cut bait with the death penalty,'' said Benjamin Todd Jealous, the national president of the NAACP, who watched the back-and-forth from the House gallery. "It also moves our nation forward."


----------



## cdunn (Apr 12, 2012)

Good.

 Cheaper, faster, more tolerant of errors, and a just plain more retributive punishment for those that are guilty.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 12, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Good.
> 
> Cheaper, faster, more tolerant of errors, and a just plain more retributive punishment for those that are guilty.



I don't live there, so I have no dog in that fight.

I will say this; I am generally in favor of the death penalty in theory.  Any criminal that would otherwise have been sentenced to death still has the chance, however remote, of being released or escaping to prey upon our citizens again.  I don't have a problem with the state taking the life of those convicted of the most heinous crimes.  And I have never cared what other countries think of our laws; I don't think much of many of their laws either.

However, it is painfully clear that the death penalty is disproportionately applied along racial lines in the USA.  I do not believe that this is due to the mere circumstances of each convicted criminal; it appears to me that similar crimes often result in a death penalty for blacks more often than for whites.  Unless and until we can find a more impartial method of meting out the ultimate penalty, I have and continue to support a moratorium on the death penalty.

I also accept that because the death penalty is final once a person is executed, they are and must be entitled to a high degree of protection and examination of their rights under the law.  This has the practical effect of making death penalties cost more financially than the cost of keeping a prisoner alive in prison for life.  States have the right to decide these issues on financial grounds, since taxpayers ultimately have to bear the burden of paying for either incarceration or execution.  I do not support the idea of making the death penalty more of a 'take him out back of the courthouse and put a bullet in him' theory.  I believe we've had enough people on death row who were later exonerated by proven 'actual innocence' to permit that.

So my position is nuanced.  I don't have a problem with the death penalty, but unless it is fairly and evenly applied, I can't support it either.


----------



## MJS (Apr 12, 2012)

I think one of the main issues with the DP in CT, is that, well....it basically didn't exist.  Michael Ross was the last one to be executed and that was after he waived all of his appeals.  Now, compared to other states in which the process is quicker, the DP here is basically the same as life in prison.  We have guys on death row right now, that've been there for many, many years.  To be honest, I dont see them being put to death anytime soon.

However, with the plan that they are proposing, it sounds like its going to work.  I can't find the article, but in one that I did read, it said they'd be locked up for 22hrs/day, only coming out for 2.  Every 90 days, they'd be moved to a new cell.  

I guess time will tell.


----------



## billc (Apr 12, 2012)

Technically, you are just changing which type of innocent is going to suffer more.  Is it possible that an innocent person will be executed, yes, but not likely.  With the length of time it actually takes and the increases in technology that go into criminal investigations, the execution of an innocent person becomes even more remote.  

However, by putting a violent killer in prison for life, you increase the chances of the maiming or killing of guards, prison staff or other prisoners, not to mention any innocent people who come across escaped prisoners.  You also run into the innocent victims of "old" prisoners who may be released from prison on the false assumption that they are too old to be a threat and have paid they their debt to society.  Once you make life in prison the maximum, the activists will say that that is too harsh as well.  After all, is the 20 year old violent killer the same person when they are 60 years old.  Haven't they been punished enough?  That will eventually be the argument.


----------



## billc (Apr 12, 2012)

I think that there are inaccurate statistics about race and the death penalty going around.  

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976#defend


----------



## MJS (Apr 12, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Technically, you are just changing which type of innocent is going to suffer more. Is it possible that an innocent person will be executed, yes, but not likely. With the length of time it actually takes and the increases in technology that go into criminal investigations, the execution of an innocent person becomes even more remote.
> 
> However, by putting a violent killer in prison for life, you increase the chances of the maiming or killing of guards, prison staff or other prisoners, not to mention any innocent people who come across escaped prisoners. You also run into the innocent victims of "old" prisoners who may be released from prison on the false assumption that they are too old to be a threat and have paid they their debt to society. Once you make life in prison the maximum, the activists will say that that is too harsh as well. After all, is the 20 year old violent killer the same person when they are 60 years old. Haven't they been punished enough? That will eventually be the argument.



Yeah, I'm sure the BHC (Bleeding Hearts Club) will find something to ***** about.  God forbid you lock some dirtbag up for life.  What I'd like to know is...all the BHC members cry about this, cry about that, yet they offer no options.  Perhaps they should just shut the **** up! 

As for the DR inmates....they're locked up in the states max. security prison and are isolated from all other inmates.  Due to the behavior of the inmates in this prison, extra precautions are taken when movement happens.  

As for them being loet out due to no longer being a threat...well, Charlie Manson is still rotting away in prison, and I believe he just went before the parole board...again.


----------



## billc (Apr 12, 2012)

Some more stats on race and the death penalty...

http://books.google.com/books?id=fF...&q=Race myths about the death penalty&f=false


----------



## cdunn (Apr 12, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't live there, so I have no dog in that fight.
> 
> I will say this; I am generally in favor of the death penalty in theory. Any criminal that would otherwise have been sentenced to death still has the chance, however remote, of being released or escaping to prey upon our citizens again. I don't have a problem with the state taking the life of those convicted of the most heinous crimes. And I have never cared what other countries think of our laws; I don't think much of many of their laws either.
> 
> ...



I have two problems with the death penalty.
Where it is deserved, it is insufficent penalty. 
Where it is undeserved, it cannot be undone.
Therefore, it is never the appropriate penalty.


----------



## granfire (Apr 12, 2012)

cdunn said:


> I have two problems with the death penalty.
> Where it is deserved, it is insufficent penalty.
> Where it is undeserved, it cannot be undone.
> Therefore, it is never the appropriate penalty.



well, add to that that the ones that 'needs killin' won't be executed because of mental defect...


----------



## billc (Apr 12, 2012)

Charles manson is an exceptional case in that he is a well known criminal and people remember and associate him with specific victims.  Try keeping an unknown killer in jail after 50 years in prison.  The ability to keep them in may not be the same.


----------



## granfire (Apr 12, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Charles manson is an exceptional case in that he is a well known criminal and people remember and associate him with specific victims.  Try keeping an unknown killer in jail after 50 years in prison.  The ability to keep them in may not be the same.



Considering he did no actual killing....

However, just because that nut case makes the headline for each parole hearing he gets, does not mean there are not others that are in a similar boat - just because they don't kill celebrities they won't get the publicity.


----------



## WC_lun (Apr 12, 2012)

You do know what life WITHOUT PAROLE means, right?  That means they do not leave prison unless the conviction is overturned, they escape, or they die.  Out of all of those, the latter is far more likely.  Just how many murderers have escaped from maximum security prisons?  How many killed while escaped?  Not enough to fear it happening.

No one on the left is seriously going to argue that murderers who commit crimes serious enough to be on death row in another state be released because of old age.  That is just nonsense.  Those type of people do not get to rejoin society.  Period.  Saying the left would argue for that is just bashing people that have a different political view point than you do to try and score political points.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 12, 2012)

cdunn said:


> I have two problems with the death penalty.
> Where it is deserved, it is insufficent penalty.
> Where it is undeserved, it cannot be undone.
> Therefore, it is never the appropriate penalty.



I agree with your second premise.  Being irreversable, if the person is innocent, you can't bring them back.  

But your fisrt premise sort of misses the mark in my opinion.  Would you prefer buring at the stake, water dripping on the forhead until death, perhaps drawing and quartering, or how about flaying?  I'm sure you didn't mean that, but what would you propose?

I do take your point you are against the death penalty, and you only need to say so.  I have the same qualms you and Bill have.  There must be strong safegards against mistakes.  Other than that, I am less worried.  Not completely convinced, but less worried.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 12, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I think that there are inaccurate statistics about race and the death penalty going around.
> 
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976#defend



I think there is some cherry-picking of the data going around.  The report in the link above cited this report:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/DRUSA_Winter_2012.PDF

And taken as it stands, the information leads me to a different conclusion.




And if you look at the population breakdowns by state...grim.


----------



## cdunn (Apr 12, 2012)

granfire said:


> well, add to that that the ones that 'needs killin' won't be executed because of mental defect...



Well, you end up against the essential questions that a justice system has to answer: 

Will the judgement correct the essential injustice? In any case where the death penalty is an issue, the answer to this is ALWAYS no. You cannot unmurder someone. 

Will the judgement deter the offender from repeat offense? The death penalty is final. There is no reoffense. Imprisonment can also be final. In theory, Life without parole is final. Reoffense is a critical factor. 

Will the judgement deter others from performing the crime? Frankly, this is more reflective of the visibility of conviction vs frequency of the crime in the public eye. If we kill every murderer we catch, but only catch one in twenty, that's not much of a deterrent... And with the visibility of wrongful executions in the public, the deterrence factor is greatly reduced: Who cares if they appear likely to catch and execute the wrong person?

Finally, does the judgement sate our instinctive need for vengance? Death is a terrible option here, imo. It ends when the person dies - and fifty years in a cell trumps five-ten years in a cell while appealing. 

When you have an actual mental health issue, the real point is to address point two: Anyone similiar won't be able to reflect on point three enough to make it matter, and point four won't matter because the perpetrator of the crime can't understand what's going on! On the other hand if they 'need killing' because they're amoral in some fashion, point two IS point three and four; the high visiblity of wrongful executions and the lack of suffering the truly amoral face can well lead up to a reason to roll the dice and do it anyway. 

Beyond the issue of giving the government the power to annul the right to life, the most fundamental right we have, the death penalty is simply not a superior choice.



			
				oftheherd1 said:
			
		

> But your fisrt premise sort of misses the mark in my opinion. Would you prefer buring at the stake, water dripping on the forhead until death, perhaps drawing and quartering, or how about flaying? I'm sure you didn't mean that, but what would you propose?



Not killing them. Put them in prison until they die of old age, and have that many years to deal with it. The end of life is the end of all possible reflection of guilt and wrong doing, the end of all possible suffering. If our mandate to cause them suffering equal to what they have done to not only their victim, but to those who held the victim dear, then the old standbye of eye-for-eye is woefully insufficient, and I would absolutely not attempt pass along the responsibility for it to anyone other than the perpetrator's fellow humans.


----------



## billc (Apr 12, 2012)

To those who doubt the do gooders will want violent criminals eventually released...

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/23/opinion/la-ed-juvenile-without-parole-20120323



> Seven years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that offenders younger than 18 couldn't be sentenced to death, arguing that juveniles are generally less culpable than adults because they are less mature, more impulsive and more susceptible to peer pressure. By the same unassailable logic, the court should hold that sentencing young murderers to life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment.



And this poll...

http://www.legion.org/news/162492/l...nusual-punishment-juveniles-convicted-serious

And killers who were released and killed again...

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/prisoners-let-out-on-parole-only-to-kill-again-20110105




> Domenic Cinelli was out on parole when he killed a Woburn police officer on the day after Christmas. Fox 25 has now learned he's not the only paroled criminal in Massachusetts who got out and killed again after being let out of prison.
> Two more cases have now come to our attention. All three of these cases have taken place in the span of about 14 months.
> The first is one a lot of people will remember. A man named Edward Corliss is going on trial for the murder of Surendra Dangol.
> Dangol was the Tedeschi store clerk in Jamaica Plain who was killed after Corliss allegedly put on a woman's wig and demanded money from Dangol. After Corliss got the money, he allegedly shot Dangol in the chest anyway and killed him. Corliss was a convicted killer released from prison on parole when he allegedly committed the crime. He is currently awaiting trial.
> ...



http://articles.mcall.com/2010-07-0...20100703_1_parole-board-second-parole-inmates



> *Parole Board wants to forecast who will kill again*
> 
> 
> *Quadruple homicide in Northampton has state parole board trying to predict which inmates might kill again.*
> ...



And the U.S. isn't the only country that has escaped  killers who kill again...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Straffen


> *John Thomas Straffen* (27 February 1930 &#8211; 19 November 2007) was a British serial killer who was the longest-serving prisoner in British legal history. Straffen killed two young girls in the summer of 1951. He was found to be unfit to plead and committed to Broadmoor Hospital; during a brief escape in 1952 he killed again.


----------



## MJS (Apr 13, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Charles manson is an exceptional case in that he is a well known criminal and people remember and associate him with specific victims.  Try keeping an unknown killer in jail after 50 years in prison.  The ability to keep them in may not be the same.



Well, I guess time will tell, however, unless there's a very good reason, I don't see anyone being released early.


----------



## billc (Apr 21, 2012)

This is what happens when a convicted cop murderer becomes a celebrity, avoids the death penalty, and now they want him freed...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-department-of-justice-to-defend-a-cop-killer



> Among Mumia&#8217;s many well-wishers in the K-12 community is Milwaukee Teachers&#8217; Education Association President Bob Peterson, the entire Chicago Teachers Union, and the Rethinking Schools crew who produce anti-American lesson plans and teaching materials that are used in countless classrooms.
> To understand why responsible Americans should find it troubling that Mumia has become a folk hero to much of the teaching community, a little background is in order.
> Mumia was a founding member of the Philadelphia Black Panther Party, and was working as a cab driver in that city in 1981.
> On the night of Dec. 9, his brother, William Cook, was pulled over by police for driving the wrong way on a one-way street without headlights. Mumia apparently came across the scene in his cab and claimed the officer was beating Cook with a flashlight.
> ...





> Emboldened by their success, leftists have moved on to the next phase of their plan, as the organizers&#8217; memo reveals: "Short term goal: release Mumia. Long term goal: end mass incarceration."


----------



## MJS (Apr 21, 2012)

Sounds like a bunch of *******s all around...the activists as well as the chicken **** DA.  I'll go back to Charlie Manson.  This nutjob had a bunch of followers too....and wheres Charlie sitting? Oh yeah, prison.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2012)

When the State puts an innocent man to death, do we execute the people who killed him?  The logical contradictions with the death penalty are enormous and unsolvable.  

I've been reading some books on Medieval History lately and one thing that jumps out is the use of the death penalty by lords and kings in their domain.  There was a time and place in the West when execution of criminals wasn't very common.  It was far more common to have the criminal pay restitution to the family for the results of the crime or be banished from the realm.  Execution becomes more common when governments begin to get more organized and populations rose.  Essentially three reasons explain it.

1.  Individual justice becomes too difficult when there are too many people living in one area, therefore execution becomes an easy way to deal with crime.
2.  Property of the "criminal" was confiscated by "officials" after the fact...this eventually grew into a racket.
3.  Execution became a sign of total power over the individuals in the realm and it always grew into one of the many methods used to terrorize people into submission.

I don't think that the State should be given the power to initiate force (and take life).  I don't think justice is actually served with execution because the criminal gets to take the easy out and die, while the victim's family must live on without economic and social support from the deceased.  Essentially, execution prevents any obligation from being fulfilled by the man who did the crime.  It's the worst form of punishment with an odious history and cannot even reasonably be called justice, IMO.


----------

