Thursday, May 28, 2009

Dr. Petit on the death penalty

From the MRJs Amanda Falcone:

Dr. William A. Petit Jr. believes that in certain situations the death penalty is the only real punishment.

That's why the General Assembly's recent votes to abolish capital punishment prompted him to write an impassioned letter criticizing the move and to back Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, who has promised to veto the measure.

Tim White


Anonymous said...

For those who voted to abolish the dearh penalty, may they never have to walk in the shoes od Dr. Petit.
It takes great courage for a man to stand up to the Democrats who brought this to the forefront. While he continues to try and keep his family's memories in a positive light, there are those who would rather forget about the living victims.
McDonald & Lawlor will go down in history at 2 of Connecticuts most arrogant, stuff shirt legislators we have ever seen.
All one can say is, walk in ones footprints before you make judgement.

Quod Felix said...

Would the death penalty have prevented the deaths of Mr. Petit's family?

No, I don't think so.

So why have it?

To provide a sense of righteousness for the living?

Maybe. But I'm not sure that's what society needs.

Society needs protection, yes, and some assurance of safety, but we don't need the death penalty to provide that.

Killing one person for another seems a double tragedy to me.

I am sorry for Mr. Petit's loss, and I pray that he may somehow find some healing for this, but the criminals have mothers and fathers too and they too can and should be loved.

Anonymous said...

RE: Would the death penalty have prevented the deaths of Mr. Petit's family?

No but some form of 3-Strikes law would have. While the anti-DP crowd loves to say "lock 'em up" instead of executing them, fact is that most oppose permanently locking up 20+ times convicted felons for life.

RE: Killing one person for another seems a double tragedy to me.

Such a statement denies the basic difference between murder and the death penalty. Muder is the taking of innocent life; the death penalty is the just taking of a guilty life.

Anonymous said...

Much less costly to give people life than keep them on death row. I hope Dr Petit will try to get on with his life as a Dr.....3-strikes law is assinine; I hope the RTC doesn't make this a local issue for the Fall elections; it will only alientate the Republcians more.

Anonymous said...

Actually it's NOT necessarily more costly to execute a murderer than to keep him locked up for life. With all the "rights" these criminals now have, including rights to advanced medical care, some studies show it costs more to keep them in prison, especially the younger ones.

The high cost of execution stems mostly from the endless appeals, even when there is no doubt of guilt (Michael Ross). So the 'high cost' arguement is a self-serving arguement by defense lawyers and the anti-DP crowd. Cut the time and costs of frivolous appeals, and we cut the cost of the DP.

Anonymous said...

937 says 3-Strikes in 'assinine' without giving any reason. Bottom line: there are too many cases of habitual criminals being released and then commiting murder. After their fourth or fifth violent crime, keep them locked up so they won't keep repeating.

However, I agree that the CRTC does not need to take a stand on this. The RTC needs to focus on local issues.

Quod Felix said...

#3 poster says: "Such a statement denies the basic difference between murder and the death penalty. Muder is the taking of innocent life; the death penalty is the just taking of a guilty life."

So if we execute someone who is later found to be innocent, is the execution then "murder" - or even "manslaughter"? Whom will we hold responsible for that? The jurors? The judge? The governor?

Anonymous said...

"Would the death penalty have prevented the deaths of Mr. Petit's family?"First,he DOCTOR Petit.
Second, no, the death penalty has not deterred people from murder. What it does do is provide justice for the victims families. I am not saying that every person convicted of murder should face the death penalty, but in cases as clear cut as the Cheshire tragedy, where children were involved, those animals should face the death penalty.
The death penalty is not meant to give us "assurance of safety". That is not the concept.
To say these animals have parents who love them, I'm sorry. Your child took the lives of 3 innocent people, he will be taken away from you like he took away the wife and children of Dr. Petit. At least if they are put to death, the parents will be able to say their good byes. Dr. Petit didn't have that chance.
I love people like you Quod Felix, lets not hurt the criminals they have families...give me a break. Career criminals need to be punished and the death penalty is one way to give justice to the victims families. I hope you never have to face this sort of tragedy.

Anonymous said...

The Petit incident is a special issue. This was not just a triple murder. There were multiple crimes committed against this family that justify the death penalty. They were stalked, kidnapped, ransomed, raped, assulted, tortured, burned, killed. Dr. Petit was beaten to within inches of his life. The "suspects" tried to burn down the house with the victims in it. They bought tools at Walmart prior to the crime. This was premeditated.

The arguement that the "suspects" have families is also questionable. If the Komisjarzevski family was really trying to help their son, why let him go to a "job interview" at a questionable hour? Even McDonalds hires during normal business hours. (9-5)

Dr. Petits desire to see these men die can be justified. They damaged this student of medicine, who took the hypocratic oath, to the point that he wants to see them die. One could only wish that they would suffer in a way comparable to that of his loved ones.

Anonymous said...

Quod Felix says that an innocent person may be executed.

The law should require 100% certainty of guilt to impose the DP, such as Gov. Romney proposed in Mass.

The DP should apply to cases like Michael Ross who confessed, or the two in Cheshire who were caught at the scene, or where DNA firmly proves their guilt.

Just as modern DNA technology proved the innocence of several falsely convicted, it can also prove the guilt of many more.

But let's face it: the Beautiful People don't oppose the DP because of the slim possibility of wrongful conviction. They oppose it because they imagine themselves to be 'enlightened' and morally superior to the rest of us. Yet most of them have no problem with butchering innocent pre-natal babies.

Anonymous said...

What would Jesus say?

Anonymous said...

Jesus would say go talk to St. Thomas Aquinas.
A vocal supporter of the DP, he believed the state has not only the right, but the duty to protect its citizens from enemies, both from without & within The common good is greater and better than the good of any particular person.

Anonymous said...

WTIC 1080 News jus did a survey and found 61% of the state is in favor of keeping the DP.
So what are our legislators thinking?
They sound like our TC, vote on things that they support, but not listen to their constituents.

Anonymous said...

The liberal Dems in the legislature are Beautiful People who know so much better than the two-thirds of their constituents who are unwashed. Right Elizabeth?

Anonymous said...

It's not "What would Jesus say?"

It's "Who would Jesus kill?"

Anonymous said...

Two questions for the "Statesman" in Hartford.

If the death penalty law is unworkable why not fix it? You tinker with everything else. No you appeal to your emotions and vote its abolition.

Next. Have you asked any of the state's death row inmates if they would prefer death by lethal injection or a life in prison without the possibility of parole?

The most likely answer is...

"NO, we don't have to because we're all mind readers. We know their true feelings. Of course they would prefer death by lethal injection over a life in prison."

Tim Slocum

Anonymous said...

Not one murderer now on Conn. death row claims he is innocent. So what's the delay? Lawyers, liberals, and frivolous appeals.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Petit should be stripped of his medical license for his pro-DP stance. As a medical professional, the hypocratic oath is being tossed aside for personal beliefs in anger. Would not want to be one of his patients that angered him

Anonymous said...

"Dr. Petit should be stripped of his medical license for his pro-DP stance"

What a moronic statement!

The hypocratic oath has nothing to do with justice.

I hope your family never has to endure what his has.

Anonymous said...

"Dr. Petit should be stripped of his medical license for his pro-DP stance"

You are so special, so caring, so sensistive, And what is your position on abortion?

Don't even favor me with your answer. Clearly you would support that.

Anonymous said...

Pro abortion is the same as pro death penalty. You are killing someones unwanted child... before a crime spree or after.

Anonymous said...

RE: Pro abortion is the same as pro death penalty. You are killing someones unwanted child...

No, they are not the same. Abortion is the taking of innocent life. The DP is the just taking of a guilty life. This is the moral difference.

Anonymous said...

the baby of a rape victim is an innocent life?

a baby in state custody costs as much as an inmate

Komisajevski was adopted and his criminal acts began after he found out

Anonymous said...

I fail to see the point of the last comments.

Only 3% of abortions are the result of rape, incest, or mother’s health; another 3% involve health of the baby. 94% of abortions in the US are for convenience alone.

Yes, the baby of a rape is an innocent life. However, most abortion opponents would make legal exceptions for rape, incest, or life of mother. And most of the public is willing to pay the foster or adoption costs of that innocent life, even as most of the public favors executing guilty murderers.

The fact is that most adoptees do not commit mass murder. JK knew the difference between right and wrong; he is responsible for his actions.

Anonymous said...

Hippocratic Oath:
Original, translated into English:[3]

“ I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

Maybe someone can remind Dr. Petit that he is a doctor sworn to this oath. Reviewing it might make him think alittle about if he ever intends to help others again

Anonymous said...

The Hippocratic Oath bars physicians from personally doing harm to patients in the course of their medicine.

It does not bind physicians to being complete pacifists on matters of public policy. Otherwise, every doctor-member of Congress would have to vote against any declaration of war, even following a Pearl Harbor-type attack.

The previous poster not only misuses the Hippocratic Oath to point the finger at Dr. Petit, but shows that he/she has more sympathy for the criminals than the victims. Shame.

Anonymous said...

"...“ I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, ..."

Welcome to the new modern America, home of those who believe in oaths to ancient pagan gods.

A whole lot of people support the death penalty for crimes as terrible as the recent multiple Cheshire murders.

How one could jump from a viewpoint of punishing a murderer to a oath to ancient pagan gods is just so bizarre. Until now I had thought that licensed doctors took their direction from state and federal laws and regulations. Here in town it would appear there is at least one person thinking that our doctors look to ancient pagan gods for direction - - -

Anonymous said...

Ironically, physicians swear in the Hippocratic Oath to never perform abortion. But how many liberal activists insist that doctors keep that part of the oath?

Anonymous said...

How dare you bastards even talk about this.

Anonymous said...

ENOUGH! Forget talking about Dr Petit-- sanctimonious jerks! How can you presume to judge him or any circumstance around his situation? Is everyone in this town so GD arrogant? Tim, you should pull this entire discussion once you see it go the way this one has. Congratulations to all involved-- you win the #1 Bastard Award for 2009. After all h's been through, he has to read this? Give Dr. Petit peace, however he decides to achieve it.

Every once in a while, something happens to remind us that the political bickering, backdoor dealing, and everyday crookedness we see around us daily in this town pales in comparison to some of the crap life can really dish out. You jerks have to continue to reduce it to the only thing you know.

Anonymous said...

petit should be banned from practicing medicine for his kill'em all attitude

Anonymous said...

"petit should be banned from practicing medicine for his kill'em all attitude"

May this never happen to your family...

You can ban all the doctors who give abortions as well.

Justice is what this is about and justice is removing these animals from the face of the earth so they can never walk amongst us. Otherwise, some money hungry lawyer will try to find a way to release them on a technicality and they will go after another family.

Anyone who doesn't feel these animals deserve the DP should sit back and think about how they would feel if their entire family was murdered.

Anonymous said...

You critics of Petit are idiots.

I know Dr. Petit. He and his family are wonderful caring and generous people. The have given to and helped complete strangers in significant ways all their lives - for no compensation or reward. Dr. Petit continues to do so. The pain that he and his remaining relatives must carry is beyond description or your imagination. It will never go away - yet "Dr. Petit continues to do so".

As far as justice goes. I too hope that the death penalty applies. The average murderer only serves 12 years in prison. The average dead person lives no more. The average victim's family member is under age 30, and must carry their sorry for over 40 years.

Forgiveness and justice are separate concepts. Without justice a civilized society has no civilization. Just anarchy.