Execution After Repeal

[MJS]

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-death-penalty-appeal-20121115,0,3892044.story

HARTFORD -—
Preserving capital punishment for crimes committed before the legislature's abolishment of the death penalty is at odds with "evolving" standards of decency in Connecticut, an attorney for convicted killer Eduardo Santiago said in a legal filing this week to the state Supreme Court which has agreed to take up the issue of whether the repeal of the death penalty can apply only to future crimes.
Executing someone after the repeal would be "unprecedented," Assistant Public Defender Mark Rademacher said in a supplemental brief filed on behalf of Santiago, who faces the death penalty for the killing of Joseph Niwinski in West Hartford in December 2000.


No one faces execution in New Jersey and Illinois after recent death penalty repeals in those states and New Mexico has not carried out any executions since a 2009 repeal even though a former governor of that state declined to commute the death sentences of two remaining condemned killers, Rademacher wrote.

The State of CT, recent did away with the death penalty. Anyone however, that was on death row before it was repealed, is supposedly, still slated for execution. I believe this rule only applies to future criminals. So, of course, the group that still remains on death row, is feeling that this is unfair, that they too, should be re-sentenced to life w/o the possibility of parole.

So, what do you all think? Is this a fair process or should things be changed?

 

[Touch Of Death]

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-death-penalty-appeal-20121115,0,3892044.story



The State of CT, recent did away with the death penalty. Anyone however, that was on death row before it was repealed, is supposedly, still slated for execution. I believe this rule only applies to future criminals. So, of course, the group that still remains on death row, is feeling that this is unfair, that they too, should be re-sentenced to life w/o the possibility of parole.

So, what do you all think? Is this a fair process or should things be changed?

Abolish!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think it is up to the state. It seems pretty clear from the article that the state legislators had the opportunity to make their new law effective retroactively to prisoners currently on Death Row, but chose not to. That seems a sufficient answer to me.

I would also look at it from the other side. If the state had removed a moratorium on the Death Penalty instead, would those sentenced to life imprisonment be re-sentenced to death?

 

[billc]

Well, to be really fair, the victim,

for the killing of Joseph Niwinski in West Hartford in December 2000

should be given a reprieve from his death sentence, already executed by the criminal on death row...and then I might see things more Santiagos way...What? ... You say there is no way to bring back Joseph Niwinski...well tough s**t for his killer, Santiago, then. Otherwise, I think it is dumb to get rid of the death penalty.

 

[Big Don]

CA had a ballot proposition about abolishing the death penalty. It failed. We still can't execute anyone, because, apparently, every manner of death is cruel and unusual...
I advocate vacuum powered exsanguination, i.e., stick a large bore needle in an artery and suck all their blood out.

 

[arnisador]

While it's clearly legal for them to execute those convicted under the previous law, it does seem pointless and cruel to do so.

 

[Carol]

Did I read that correctly in that Santiago's death sentence (but not the conviction) was overturned in June? If he is going to be sentenced for his crime, then I think his sentencing should be in accordance to what the laws are at the time of his sentencing.

 

[Sukerkin]

I agree with Carol when it comes to threading the needle of the legalities.

However, as noted before, I am one of those who, whilst trying to retain his veneer of civilisation, firmly believes that in those cases where proof is absolute, those that have proven they are a danger to the rest of us should be prevented from demonstrating that any further.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

While it's clearly legal for them to execute those convicted under the previous law, it does seem pointless and cruel to do so.

Cruel to whom? Does the family of the person he killed get a say? They were given the word of the state that the killer of their loved one would be deprived of his life as a result. Now they don't get that, but life imprisonment instead? Oh, and of course, life imprisonment, well, it doesn't mean that anymore, as various states have proven sufficiently. So, I ask; to whom is this cruel? The murderer has given up his right to not be treated cruelly, it seems to me.

 

[arnisador]

Cruel to whom? Does the family of the person he killed get a say? They were given the word of the state that the killer of their loved one would be deprived of his life as a result.

False. Appeals, clemency from either the gov. or pres.--no one can promise that. And it's twisted logic to argue that it's cruel not to kill someone. I reject that entirely.

Now they don't get that, but life imprisonment instead? Oh, and of course, life imprisonment, well, it doesn't mean that anymore, as various states have proven sufficiently. So, I ask; to whom is this cruel? The murderer has given up his right to not be treated cruelly, it seems to me.

It's cruel to stop executing people because executing people is wrong and then execute someone because of the timing issue working against them. It's legal--it's just cruel. If you're going to stop executing people--do that.