Not in Their Names: The Death Penalty
Some families of murder victims ask the state not to speak for them. Some legislators are listening.
Calling the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment for murder victims’ families, some opponents of the practice say they want it abolished.
“I find it tremendously disturbing that the state uses the names of victims to defend its position,” said Elizabeth Brancato, whose mother was murdered on May 9, 1979. “I believe if we are sincere about wanting to help the victims we will repeal the death penalty right away.”
Other death penalty opponents agreed. They argue capital punishment indefinitely extends courtroom proceedings, leaves victims’ families adrift, and costs the state more than $4 million annually.
That’s where H.B. 5036 comes in. It proposes Connecticut replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of release. Like the last bill, this one is prospective; it will not apply to past murder trials.
Vice Chair of the Judiciary Committee Gary A. Holder-Winfield, a Democrat representing New Haven in the 94th House District, introduced the bill. State Rep. Patricia Miller, a Democrat representing part of Stamford in the 145th House District was one of the bill’s co-sponsors.
That’s problematic, said state Rep. John Hetherington a Republican representing parts of New Canaan and Wilton in the 125th House District.
“Can you imagine in the Cheshire case if one defendant gets sentenced to death and the other one doesn’t because of timing?” said Hetherington, a ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. “I don’t know if that would even be constitutional.”
Recently a group of family members pressed for repeal. The Judiciary Committee will likely hold a public hearing this spring, Holder-Winfield said.
“Our direct experiences with the criminal justice system and struggling with grief have led us all to the same conclusion: Connecticut’s death penalty fails victims’ families,” according to the letter signed by at least 75 individuals.
In 2009, the state legislature passed legislation to replace the death penalty with life sentence without the possibility of release. The Senate voted 19-17 to abolish the death penalty and the House voted 90-56. However, then Gov. Jodi Rell vetoed the bill.
Because Gov. Dannel Malloy, a former prosecutor, favors abolishing the statute, this legislature might succeed. Still the vote will be close.
Republicans favor the death penalty by an 80 percent to 12 percent margin and Democrats favor it by a 51 percent to 37 percent margin, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.
In 2009, state Sen. Toni Boucher, a Republican representing Redding, Ridgefield, Westport, Wilton and parts of Bethel, New Canaan and Weston in the 26th Senate District, voted against repeal. So did state Sen. John McKinney, a Republican representing Easton, Fairfield, Newtown and part of Weston in the 28th Senate District.
Also opposed to a repeal were Republican state Reps. John Frey, who represents Ridgefield in the 111th House District and Tony Hwang who represents parts of Fairfield and Trumbull in the 134th House District.
By contrast, state Reps. Kim Fawcett a Democrat representing parts of Fairfield and Westport in the 133rd House District, and William Tong, a Democrat representing parts of New Canaan and Stamford in the 147th House District, support repeal.
Recent high profile trials will likely affect a vote, not something that escapes Holder-Winfield or the victims’ families.
“Of course it will color things. It would be ridiculous of me to pretend otherwise,” Holder-Winfield said, adding the Cheshire home invasion trial shouldn’t be used to push an agenda.
Currently the death penalty is reserved for ‘particularly heinous murders.’ To many victims’ families that defines some murders as merely ordinary. It also creates two classes of victims — one seemingly more important.
“Every murder is heinous,” Ridgefield Police Commissioner Dr. George Kain, said. “No one murder is more heinous. We operate in a criminal justice society where some murders are judged to be crueler and somehow more special than others.”
However, Hetherington said categorizing murder is Ok.
“It appropriately punishes the more heinous crimes,” Hetherington said. “It asks whether the murder carried was more cruel, whether torture was involved. Some are more cruel than others.”
Kain, an Associate Professor of Justice and Law Administration at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury, didn’t always think this way. The former probation officer once thought capital punishment made law enforcement officers and the public safer.
“We know there is a more civilized response to murder than state-sanctioned murder,” Kain said.
That response can include forgiveness.
Every day the Rev. Walter Everett, formerly of Easton, thinks about his son Scott, shot in 1987. His was one of 60 homicides that year.
Everett now speaks with his son’s killer. He learned to forgive the killer so he might start healing.
“I forgave him because otherwise what killed my son would kill me,” Everett said, adding he believes the state must redirect its resources. “The state should abolish and take the money to use for victims services.”
According to the Hartford based- Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty the state spends $4 million annually on capital punishment related issues. Instead it could spend that money on police training and victims’ services, said Ben Jones, CNADP’s Executive Director.
Connecticut and New Hampshire are the only two New England states with the death penalty. Currently 10 male inmates sit on death row at the level five, maximum security Northern Correctional Institution in Somers. Since 1973 Connecticut has had more than 4,700 murders, 14 death sentences, and one execution. The sole execution took place in 2005 after Michael Ross refused further appeals.
Gail Canzano, a clinical psychologist from West Hartford, called the death penalty injurious because repeated trials force families to constantly relive their loved one’s murder.
“Criminals could be put away and forgotten instead of becoming celebrities,” Canzano asked. “Where is the justice in that? Why do we do that to families? The death penalty doesn’t work. It’s archaic.”
Hetherington said he understands the anguish, and agreed interminable appeals are an issue.
“It kind of loses its meaning. I can understand that,” Hetherington said. “But if they try to speed the process and eliminate repeated and reduced appeals they can argue the accused wasn’t accorded his rights. It’s a real dilemma and I am not deaf to those arguments.”
According to a 2010 Quinnipiac University Poll, the majority of Nutmeg State voters support capital punishment. When presented with a choice between the death penalty or life in prison without release, 46 percent polled supported the death penalty while 41 percent supported life in prison.
Sunny Khadjavi of Shelton lives with the fact that her father’s 40-year-old murder remains unsolved.
“While I want to know more about why my father was killed, I never imagined that finding the perpetrator and enacting revenge would help me with my healing,” Khadjavi said. “The death penalty could not bring back my father.”
Gerry Bryson
7:30 am on Saturday, February 25, 2012
I support the appeal of the death penalty. In CT it's moot anyway because, even after 30 years of costly appeals, it is rarely carried out. But the endemic reason is that no State has the moral authority to take the life of another human being. That right is reserved only by God alone.
In addition, no appeal should be incumbant on a particular case or trial: this is called "situation ethics"...never a reliable or principled thing. Gerry Bryson, Oxford, CT
gail jarvis
10:40 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
Interesting Topic............
Its about "For" or "Against"
I really don't know where I fall.....and I am talking in the singular (I ) but I am sure that many will agree..........But But But some of the crimes are so heinous that some "people" don't deserve to live. I am talking about EVIL/DEVIL.
Think about it! Think about it! Think about it!!!!!
Tom Falconieri
12:13 am on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Here is how i see it. The cheshire animals the 2 of them do not have the right to live on this planet. As the state convicted them they are under state control. And this state has the death penalty. So i say let them exhaust their appeals of stay of execution by 2 appeals max even though they pleaded guilty and confessed to killing those poor people. Once their 2 appeals are denied FRY THE ANIMALS THAT THEY ARE. Their is no one in their right mind that can deny these two are animals. Or the good doctor should have killed both of them and saved his kids and wife. Funny hoe Jerry Bryson is so quick to say the state has no right it is up to GOD. That is BS. The state of CT does not have a CASTLE DOCTRINE. Which means it does not condone self defense. Sorry set of rules by our liberal representatives. Even gthough our Governor is surrounded by armed guards. So i say Fry them after 2 appeals when the DNA or visual evidence is overwhelming and fact. They are animals any way so who cares. just me and i think i am correct. God has enough to worry about murder should not be his decision when carried out by a person or persons that wiped out an entire family with not a shread of compassion. I say FRY THEM> PERIOD!!!!!!!!!
Alex Tytler
8:12 am on Sunday, February 26, 2012
The animals all understand getting killed. It registers with them and they fear it.
Amo Probus
9:09 am on Sunday, February 26, 2012
require the perps' family to pay for lifetime prison costs
Tom Falconieri
10:18 am on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Here is the reason for the death penalty. Everyone on this planet will DIE some day that is a fact. But we dont know when or where. So for the Animals that kill people that get the death penalty and sentenced to a particular day and time it works on their brain because they know precisely when. And that is the difference. Knowing when is the ultimate issue. I also say in the way they are put to death should match how they killed their victoms. Plain and simple. So i would tie both of them to beds soak them with gas and light them on FIRE. Just me a simple law abiding person!!!!
Alex Tytler
12:27 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Can I throw the match?
Tom Falconieri
7:48 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
We will have to FLIP a coin for that one. Hope i WIN. But your heart is in the right direction. Thanks.
OLDTIMER
4:48 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Ct. law absolutely allows the use of deadly force against a reasonable belief of the threat of deadly force. (If someone points a gun at you and it is reasonable to believe it is real and you are in danger, the law allows you to shoot first)
The Chesire convicts do not deserve any sympathy, but the death penalty may not be the best way to go. It triggers automatic appeals that can take many years and can result in a guilty convict being released, all on our dime. Better they should each be sentenced to 99yrs with NO POSSIBILITY of parole and locked up forever. Neither will manage prison life well and that will be their problem. The only good reason to keep a death penalty law on the books is it works as an excellent incentive to get people to agree to plead guilty when the state agrees to not ask for it..
Good people will argue forever about the death penalty for good reasons and the issue may never be resolved. It is too bad these two didn't do something really stupid when they were arrested and get themselves killed by the police.
Tom Falconieri
7:44 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Better read the law you are INCORRECT, No castle doctrine in this state. Kill someone and you will go straight to jail and not PASS GO.
Pi
5:45 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
The death penalty is wrong. I honestly don't care about the lives of convicted killers so I'm not going to make the argument that they can be rehabbed or it is an 8th amendment issue. It costs too much money and it is not a deterrent.
I have had this argument too many times. A pro-death penalty person will ask me how I would feel if one of my loved ones was murdered. I would be angry like any reasonable person would be. What I always think about is if one of my loved ones was on death row and I knew they were innocent.
When they can make the death penalty fail proof and less expensive than life in prison, I'll be the first person to support it. Until then, no. I will not support it.
Tom Falconieri
7:47 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Better hope you dont meet up with a bad GUY. Lets see easy to say until they grab someone in your family. Thats right coddle the bad guys and of course OJ was innocent..Got to love the liberal MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pi
8:26 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Glad to see you actually read my post before you wrote that. Where did I say we should "coddle the bad guys"? Life in prison is hardly coddling someone. I also addressed how I believe I would feel if my family fell victim to a violent crime.
For the record, while I am a liberal, I think OJ most likely did it but the prosecution was terrible. The defense did a good job of raising reasonable doubt and Mark Fuhrman's past did a lot of damage. That's the system though. You need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty.
J Bauer
6:49 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
"According to a 2010 Quinnipiac University Poll, the majority of Nutmeg State voters support capital punishment"
Why should this matter? Afterall, we are a state governed by Democrats... when have they ever listened to the will of the people"
Malloy would sign the repeal.. of course he would.. soft on spending, soft on welfare, soft on crime.. just plain old soft.
Tom Falconieri
7:58 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
The law establishes special rules for using deadly force to defend one's self or another person. Specifically, the law prohibits anyone from using such force unless he or she (1) reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm and (2) knows he or she cannot avoid the need to use deadly force by retreating. But the law specifies that a person does not have to retreat before using deadly force if he or she is in his or her dwelling or workplace.
The new AG is an anti gun JERK and will chomp at the bit to convict anyone claiming self defense. With that it will cost you tuns of money to defend yourself ans the reason is this state does not have a castle doctrine. We tried to get it passed a few years ago. But the Liberal Dems would not hear of it. Until this state signs in a CD. The winner will loose case closed.
OLDTIMER
7:02 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
TOM
That is a "Castle doctrine". A reasonable belief in a threat of deadly force or great bodily harm and no requirement to retreat in home or workplace. A guy threatens in my house, it will be the last dumb mistake he ever makes and my use of deadly force is protected by law. There will be inquiry, and it will be my word against his except he won;t be able to contradict me.
A gun in the house would not have helped much in cheshire, they were all asleep.
P. Pilot
8:30 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
To all of you commenting. First, I will defend my family at all costs. Second, The death penalty is wrong because Jesus says it is. He is my only judge and jury. Get into The Word (The Bible) and it is very clear. Chat back and forth about castle doctrine, liberals and conservatives, OJ, Mark Furman, Governors, and legislators all you want, in the end all will be judged by our amighty God.
Frederick Klein
8:43 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
Ironically, having the death penalty makes us act like we are the animals. Read some of the posts above and see how bloodthirsty it makes us act.
It's already been mentioned that the death penalty involves costly appeals and guilt of the convicted is not always guaranteed. I have not yet seen it mentioned that it is carried out in a way that is statistically racially disproportionate. (I personally have no interest in any religious arguments one way or the other.)
Walt
9:48 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
Enough of the religious voodoo.
I used to be for the death penalty and still would be if it were actually possible for it to be used. If there was some short time frame attached to a conviction, say within a six month window the convicted gets ONE appeal and then sentence is carried out, fine. What we have now are endless appeals for frivolous reasons that drag on for years and cost the taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars. It is much cheaper to simply lock the criminal up with no possible parole and be done with it.
These two pieces of excrement in the Cheshire case will be bleeding taxpayers for years with appeals, I think it was actually a huge mistake for the court to not have simply accepted their guilty pleas saving the taxpayers money during that trial and all subsequent trials. This kept their names in the news, made the Petit family endure years of reminding and after all, they are not ever going to go to the death chamber.
P.Pilot
11:19 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
Just remember that if these two children of God had been raised properly under the word of God. They would not have commited this crime. It is the root problem of our civilization today. If all people worked to maintain family units (Father, Mother and children) and raised them by the word of God we would not have these crimes commited.
Walt
12:16 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
If
P. Pilot
2:50 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
Thank you Walt.