Monday, May 18, 2009

The NYTimes on the politics of the death penalty vote

As I mentioned last Thursday, the state House voted (90-56) to repeal the death penalty. Our members votes are here (Esty - repeal, Fritz - retain, Nardello - repeal). But the NYTimes expanded on the MRJs limited blog explanation.

Near the end of the NYTimes piece by Mark Pazniokas you can see how our elected officials think and work:

Democratic leaders in the House began polling their members on Tuesday, asking if the bill should come up for a vote, given a likely veto. Mr. Holder-Winfield said he was aware that some colleagues would prefer to avoid the issue until the state has a governor who opposes capital punishment.

The House majority leader, Denise Merrill, Democrat of Mansfield, said leaders had to consider exposing someone like Ms. Esty to a difficult vote.

I understand that no one offered an amendment to make this bill retroactive. That's surprising to me. It seems that if the death penalty should be repealed, then a truly principled stand would make the bill retroactive... not just prospective.

Tim White


Anonymous said...

Mike Lawlor is nothing but a 2 faced representative.He would rather let scum bags live a full life. Even those who were caught red handed fleeing a house after they brutally murdured a family and left a man brutally beaten both physically and mentally
He has his own agneda for everything.
Go to this link to hear one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard a law maker say:
Lawlor might not want to report every felony or sexual assault he's seen.

tim white said...

That's crazy... how could he say that??

Anonymous said...

It is scary to think the power this man has.
Hopefully voters in East Haven will realize he is not ou for their inerests.

I am also disappointes with our own legislators who chose to repeal the death penalty. You would think that a town like Cheshire, that had one of the most gruesome, violent crimes this state has ever, would be a little more open to making sure these animal get their just due. They should also remember that the remaining survivor, who is one of their constituents, still needs to see justice done.

Anonymous said...

(re-posted from last week):

There are two kinds of people who oppose the death penalty. There are those who are consistently pro-life, including on abortion. Then there are those who are anti-DP and pro-abortion rights.

Esty, Nardello, and most liberal Democrats are the latter: moral relativists. To them it's OK to "choose" to butcher an innocent baby, but it's not OK to execute a guilty murderer, even when there's no doubt of guilt.

I truly believe that these anti-DP liberals are subconsciously trying to compensate for being pro-abortion, to convince themselves that they are really moral and 'compassionate'. Just my theory, but a reasonable one.

Anonymous said...

In Lawlor’s, Esty’s, and Nardello’s liberal fantasy world, only society is guilty. Murderers are ‘victims’ of society: they didn’t receive enough social programs, they experienced traumatic toilet training, blah blah blah. No one is personally responsible for choosing to do evil, except of course Bush and Cheney.

Anonymous said...

Those two little girls died screaming as gasoline was poured and they were set on fire. Yet the elitist Beautiful People feel more compassion for the career criminals who did this than for their victims.

redtown said...

Tim said: “I understand that no one offered an amendment to make this bill retroactive.”

Fact is that not one person on Conn. death row today even claims to be innocent. Their lawyers tie up the courts with appeals based on trivial technicalities.

It would have been much more politically difficult for Nardello, Esty, and their comrades to commute outright the death sentences of these definitely guilty murderers, including the two caught red-handed on Sorghum Mill Drive.

Anonymous said...

Remember that Esty lost in Cheshire where residents finally realized what she was about. She received more votes in the other towns simply because she had a "D" after her name. Democracy only works well with an informed and educated populace. Her election indicates we have neither.

Greg said...

These are some interesting comments. I especially like the one about not having an informed or educated populace. Now look at the comment right above it--the killers caught red handed are not on death row and have not been sentenced or even tried at this point. Likewise, the other comment really disrespects the girls as--by my reading of the events--they were not set on fire. The coroner reported they died of smoke inhalation after the house was set on fire. There's a difference. And if you are going to use the killings to promote an agenda, step one is to know the facts and use them to your advantage. By getting facts wrong you discredit your argument. Also, it does not follow that anyone from Cheshire necessarily supports the DP because of what happened here. With all possible sympathy for the survivor, most reasonable people take a position based on a lifetime of personal experiences, beliefs, morals, etc--not just on one thing that happened in the neighborhood. I used to be greatly in favor of the DP but have come to oppose it after years of deep reflection and contemplation. The murders in town, unthinkable as they were, have not swayed my position. I believe it is simply not right for the state to deliberately end someone's life. At the same time, if the killers had been gunned down in the street by the police (with cause) I would have been fine with that. And as far as seeing justice done, people and politicians have their own ideas of justice and shouldn't be making decisions to please, satisfy, or ingratiate themselves to one citizen.

Bill said...

Keep it simple, you kill somebody your ass is going to be dead. I do not care what the excuse or reason is for taking a life, I will take yours. If I'm wrong politically then to damn bad.

Anonymous said...

I think you are way off base.
First, when you make the statement "after the house was set on fire. There's a difference. And if you are going to use the killings to promote an agenda, step one is to know the facts and use them to your advantage."There was a lot of info on what happened that has not been made public. You should be careful not to follow exactly what is stated in the police report since some of the facts have remained locked up.
Second,when you state: "it does not follow that anyone from Cheshire necessarily supports the DP because of what happened here." I think if you asked residents before this happened if they were in favor of the DP and then ask them now, you will get a lot of people who have changed their minds. I am one of them. All it takes is one horrendous, violent act like this to make someone change.

Would you feel the same way if it happened to your family?

I love to hear from people like you who don't think we have the "right" to take someone's life for killing another human. You are probably in favor of abortion as well, but that isn't taking someone's life, is it?

Although you feel it may not be the right thing to do, I feel it isn't right for the state to allow these animals over 2 1/2 years to prepare for a trial and then allow endless amounts of appeals. The state should think of the families left behind and force 1 speedy trial and then administer the punishment...period!

Anonymous said...

Greg's arguing that the girls died of smoke inhalation rather than burning (as if to mitigate what these monsters did) misses the point that the girls were conscious and screaming as the fire was set, and this following hours of unspeakable abuse.

Greg said...

Anonymous--I just re-read my initial comments and can sort of see how you could mis-interpret them (if I squint). It's just that I'm a literalist--that helps in legal proceedings. One point I made was that mis-stating the manner of death hurts the argument. I do not mean to mitigate or diminish anything. The crimes were most vile and hiddeous and stand for themselves--they don't need to be exaggerated. I agree entirely that I do not know all of the facts and that's why I used the phrase "by my reading of the events."

I have no compassion for the killers--and please note I don't consider them "alleged killers" or "the accused"--to me they are and always will be the killers. They did what they did and there are no excuses. I stated that I have come to oppose the DP over many years of consideration. That's my position. Where I live or what the good people of Cheshire think has no bearing on my position. Obviously, I can't predict how I would feel if my family were involved but I can add that to me the most severe punishment is to put the killers in a cage (that being a segregation cell) and force them live out their pathetic lives in misery and mental torment.

I also agree with your point regarding the lack of a speedy trial. See-I'm not such a bad guy.

Lastly, I don't know where you came up with vicious personal attack that I'm pro-abortion. I happen to be rabidly anti-abortion. If I don't want a judge putting the killers to death, I sure as hell I don't want a doctor killing the innocent unborn.

I don't think I missed any points. Thank you for saying you loved hearing from me.

Anonymous said...

I am sure you're not a bad person, but this crime was way too close to home for many of us.
We all have strong feelings on this.
You will see that the Governor has already said she will veto any bill that comes to her to abolish the DP.
I just hope these legislators could figure out that the problem is the system, not the act.
One of these animals is actually on suicide watch, if you can believe that. This means we are paying extra to keep him aeay from the general prison population and paying to have someone watch him. I say you give him a rope and turn your back.
I apologize for generalizing you in the group of pro-abortionists, it was the way you came across. I shouldn't have done that.
I just find that many who are against the DP are in favor of abortion.
I value innocent life, but if you are guilty of violently taking another's life away fro their loved ones, then you should not be allowed to live on this earth anymore. Your amily should not be allowed to see you anymore. You should be put through a similar pain that you put these innocent victims through.
Sorry to generalize Greg, but it hits home here.

Anonymous said...

Put Esty in Pettits shoes and see how she feels