Friday, October 08, 2010

2005 Nardello: end the death penalty, retroactively

On a couple other posts this week, there's been some discussion regarding a retroactive prohibition on the death penalty. Gubernatorial candidate Dan Malloy has said he opposes the death penalty, but in Cheshire's instance his opposition means nothing because a prohibition would be forward-looking only.

Not so fast Mayor Malloy. I think we may need further explanation from you because...

AN ACT CONCERNING MURDER WITH SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES was introduced in the 2005 legislative session. It was offered by eleven legislators, including 89th district Representative Vickie Nardello. You can read the language here. But this is the first paragraph:

Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, from the effective date of this section until July 1, 2007, the execution of the sentence of death with respect to any person who has been convicted of a capital felony and sentenced to death before, on or after the effective date of this section shall be stayed and the death penalty shall not be inflicted upon such person during such period.

I'm assuming the legislature and Governor would be able to craft any law as they see fit. And frankly, even if our elected officials obeyed the Constitution for once, I'm uncertain how the penalty component of a crime would be impacted by ex post facto.

It'll be interesting to see what the candidates, including Rep. Nardello, say at the October 20 LOWV debate.

Tim White

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Vickie Nardello and Elizabeth Esty are principled progressives who know that murder is always wrong, especially if done by the state. Their position is not popular now, but they understand that criminals are not fully responsible for their crimes. Like Hayes and Kormisarjevsky, most had bad childhoods, or are persecuted minorities. If these two are sentenced to death, the legislature should retroactively commute their sentences. Vickie and Elizabeth are courageous and strong women.

Anonymous said...

7:37
Are you kidding me??

In one breath, Esty says that the state should not "murder". In her next breath she says it is a woman's choice to end a pregnancy.
Courageous and strong women would say that innocent babies should not be murdered but criminals found guity of one of the most heinous crimes in our life times should be removed from this earth.
Do you think Dr. Petit and his family really car that these guys had bad childhoods which drove them to rape and murder?
Are you saying Hayes and Komarsarjevshy were persecuted minorities??
They were not high on drugs nor drunk. They were just mean individuals with no regard for human life. So we should treat them with the same "respect".

These women are voted for by the people. The majority of the people want the death penaly.
Start representing your constituents for a change.
That's courageous!

All the more reason to vote for Foley, Adinolfi and Brown.

Anonymous said...

courageous and strong men should own up to the fact they fathered a child something your low sperm count member could never do.

Anonymous said...

12:19
Obviously you have no ammunition if that is the best you can come up with.

All I can say is, what would you want to happen to these 2 animals if they did the same thing to your family?

mountain road said...

Responses to Anon. 7:37:

> “murder is always wrong, especially if done by the state”

You’re saying that a just execution is the moral equivalent of what Hayes and JK did to the Petit family. Murder is the taking of innocent life; their executions will be the just consequence of their guilt.

> “criminals are not fully responsible for their crimes … most had bad childhoods”

Most people with bad childhoods do not murder and rape. They may be emotionally disturbed, but they were not psychotic. They knew what they were doing was wrong, so they are fully responsible.

> most criminals “are persecuted minorities”

More spurious liberal crap. Black males murder at a rate seven times greater than white males (USDOJ). Hence the disproportionate numbers of blacks in prison and death row.

> “If (Hayes and Kormisarjevsky) are sentenced to death, the legislature should retroactively commute their sentences”

This is the “we know better than you” attitude of elitist liberals -- let the legislature override both the people’s will and the court’s just sentence.

> Nardello and Esty “are courageous and strong women”

They are zealous leftwing activists, and apologists and enablers of crime.

Also, they see a just execution as murder, but they do not to see abortion (the taking of innocent life) as murder. That’s not courage or strength, it’s twisted rationalization.

Anonymous said...

As much as I am in favor of the death penalty, I would rather see them be given life in general population. Being put to death by the state is painless and humane. In Connecticut, drugs are used to render the condemned unconscious and slow their heart and breathing until dead.

Put these 2 morons in general population. With the crimes they committed, (rape of a child, murdering children) the rest of their lives can be compared to a game show. Someone will kill them. Nobody will know where, when, or how. That will be more exciting for everyone

Anonymous said...

9:06,
They will never be put in the general population precisely because they would be high targets. That means more $$$, costs, and staff to keep them in secure solitary. I don’t want to pay another minute for their sorry lives!

You are right about lethal injection, and I’d rather see hanging restored as the method. Injection is how we put our beloved pets to sleep. Hanging connotes shame.

The main reason they should be executed, by whatever method, is so society can express its ultimate revulsion at their heinous crimes. As at Nuremberg with the Nazi criminals, society must assert JUSTICE as its overriding principle.

Anonymous said...

Let Esty and Nardello hold candles and sing Kumbaya outside the prison walls, but don't let them commute the death sentences of rapist-murderers.
Vote to toss them out on Nov 2 !!!

Anonymous said...

I think many liberals oppose the DP, even when there is certainty of guilt, because they are subconsciously trying to make up for their support of abortion. Opposing the DP makes them feel morally righteous.

Yet there are only 8 men on Conn. death row while over 10,000 babies a year in Conn. are sliced and burnt alive. (And 97% of abortions are for convenience, not involving rape or life of mother). Twisted rationalization indeed.

Anonymous said...

Both Nardello and Esty need to look directly into Dr. Petit's eyes and explain to him why Hayes should not be put to death and why the death penalty is wrong.

I'm certain Dr. Petit will take great comfort knowing that his family was brutally sacrified because these two murderer/rapists had bad childhoods. It's OK if you live in the world of Esty but not in the real world.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Petit cannot even testify at Hayes sentencing because of the wonderful work done by Esty and her cohorts:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/08/connecticut.murder.trial/index.html

"Unfortunately, however, our General Assembly has failed to enact an appropriately clear law to allow a victim like me the right to make a statement on behalf of myself and my family members during the course of a capital sentencing trial," - Petit

"This lack of clarity in the law is a crippling disincentive to surviving family members of victims in capital murder cases to make a statement because such statements could be construed to violate state law, giving a convict "a basis for appeal and possibly even a new sentencing trial." - Petit

BRAVO Esty! BRAVO! But it's OK right, after all, Hayes had a rough childhoold. Esty makes me sick.

Anonymous said...

People like 7:37 are truly clueless.
They want to appear to have concern for human life, yet they would allow a woman to kill an innocent baby. They would allow a victim of a brutal crime to not get justice on the animals who brutally raped his child and wife and then murdered them.
You want to see courage?
Look at Dr. Petit who was not afraid to go to trial each day and so eloquently speaks about seeking justice. That's courage.
What Esty and Nardello do is cowardice. How can you represent this district yet go against what the majority of people in this area want??
Lets hope the majority boots them out in November.

Anonymous said...

Interesting results from the Quinnipiac survey last year.

Conn. voters favor the DP nearly two to one: 61-34%.

73% favor the DP in the Petit case (my guess is that percent has increased).

Even most Democrats favor the DP: 50-43%.

Nice to know that Esty and Nardello are so much more enlightened than us rabble.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1303

Anonymous said...

I am sure Esty and Nardello don't come to their abortion stand lightly but have considered the alternative. If abortion is illegal what will happen is what happened before; rich people can find a Dr and poor women will be butchered. Also, there is the very real problem of holding a woman hostage to her own body..how does that fit into a conservative viewpoint(ie keeping the State from having too much power?). Clinton was right (and I'm sure E and N agree): keep abortion safe, legal and rare.
What is the moral difference between a death sentence for "a monster" and abortion? Well, we all agree abortion is a tragedy. Can't we agree the State killing a person is something we do not have to do to keep people safe? It's all about revenge..and how sweet is revenge? I don't think think it sweet at all. NOTHING will bring back the victims. The tragedy is that such hate exists; that innocent people suffer horribly.
It would be so easy for EE to change her mind on the death penalty and win some votes..but aren't you glad that she has the fortitude not to do the easy thing?
And, for goodness sake, a lawmaker cannot take a poll everytime there is a vote..that is why we elect people who can reason.
Which is a whole lot different than Al A who was recently heard saying that Obama is a Muslim.. we cannot vote for somebody so NUTS.

Anonymous said...

I am not in favor of the death penalty, except in the most heinous of crimes. Clearly, this qualifies.

People can attempt to make whatever argument they wish on this volatile issue-- but with this community so in favor of the death penalty, one must ask why a vote should be cast for Ms. Esty when she has so blatantly disregarded her representation of her constituency.

Wouldn't it have been something to have heard her say, "I personally support this legislation, but I was sent here to represent my district, and the citizens there have been overwhelmingly affected by this tragedy. As a representative of the people of my community, I cannot support an elimination of the death penalty in Connecticut."

It does not take courage to vote the party line or your own personal feelings. The real test of character and leadership is to fully examine the issue in front of you and vote that which is best for the constituency, even when it is at odds with your own personal feelings. Our leaders must acknowledge that sometimes the people do know best.

As spoken here, a moral platform will not apply when the same test fails on other issues of life, and it is at best a sanctimonious argument from a source not equipped to argue it. From where does Ms. Esty draw the right to invoke such platitudes? The qualified answer is from her position of authority as granted by the people.

She has clearly demonstrated her need to be unseated from her position this year. 10/8, 7:37, your understanding of the criminal mind and intent shows your inexperience with violent crime and the manner in which it ravages our communities. There is no worthy excuse for such deeds. It is sad to say that your ignorance will only be alleviated when a personal connection occurs in your life. Mr. "Ricky" Cobb, on death row now, stalked, raped and murdered my friend. I am at a loss to explain why he, after more than 20 years, remains alive. I will not ask Ms. Esty for an answer. I will also not support her with my vote.

Anonymous said...

It would be so easy for EE to change her mind on the death penalty and win some votes..but aren't you glad that she has the fortitude not to do the easy thing?

Was she elected by people in her district to represent us? Or was she elected to follow what is popular with her party?

No need for her to take a poll on everything before she votes. She should know how this town feels about this crime and the punishment we want for them. For her and VN to go against what the majority wants is not acceptable in my mind.

I agree with 9:00, it would take more courage to not vote with your own personal feelings but vote the way those elected you want you to.

You think EE can reason??
Have you talked with her?

A person who reasons would listen to her constituents and represent them.

It may be only 1 issue, but it is an extemely important issue for this Cheshire resident. Any candidate that is looking to abolish the death penalty will not get my vote. I hope that the majority of this town, who favors the death penalty will vote the same way.

Anonymous said...

To the Esty-Nardello apologist (7:42pm):

You essentially argue that abortion is moral because it is convenient, but the DP is immoral because it has a vengeance motive.

By the same rationalization (convenience), we should also legalize the drug trade, prostitution rings, euthanasia of the elderly, and slavery. Rich people will always be able to get and do these things while poor people will not.

You call abortion merely a “tragedy”. No, abortion is homicide. It’s not a frog, not an extracted tooth, the baby is a living human being.

You say that the DP can’t bring back the victims of murder. Neither can abortion!!! Abortion is entirely preventable homicide. You oppose executing only 8 men on death row while you support ripping and burning 10,000 babies each year in Conn.

You argue that convenience trumps justice on abortion, while there should be no justice at all via the DP because justice means vengeance. So then, abortion is OK as long as the motive isn’t vengeance against the unborn baby.

Once again, abortion apologists demonstrate twisted rationalizations and situationally changeable arguments to justify abortion, and there is no acknowledgement of the guilt versus innocence of the criminals versus the babies.

Anonymous said...

Read again the first post on this thread. This is how Esty & Nardello think,

"criminals are not fully responsible for their crimes...
"most had bad childhoods or are persecuted minorities..."

If given the chance, Esty & Nardello won't just vote to abolish the death penalty, they will vote to commute all death row sentences, as Nardello tried to do in 2005.

I'm one Democrat who will be voting for Al Adinolfi this year.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:59AM:
my guess is Esty will feel the heat and pledge not to vote for retroactive abolition of cap punishment, only abolition going forward .... in which case she should be asked, if cap punishment is wrong for future cases, why is it right for past cases?

Anonymous said...

This town and state is loaded with people that had troubled families and difficult early life experiences. They have managed to navigate past them and do fine for themselves and their families so how the first poster on this thread, a real poster child for "everything is beautuful in its own way" thinks Hayes and Komisarjevsky...are somehow less responsible for their actions is extremely troubling. It does paint a clearer pictures of liberals think and demonstarate how they have managed to muddy the waters on every common sense yes or no, right or wrong issue with "lets talk about this".

By the time they're done they have managed to convivnce lightweight lawyers and social reengineers to fall in love with BS as a remedy for all that ails our society.

Anonymous said...

RE: the first post paints a clearer picture of liberal think and demonstarates how they have managed to muddy the waters on every common sense yes or no, right or wrong issue with "lets talk about this".

Exactly right. If they can't beat justice in the courts (jurors have a way of cutting thru the BS and asserting common sense), the liberals will either do it thru the back door (legislatively), or drag it out with 20+ years of nonsense appeals (even though there is no doubt of guilt).

Anonymous said...

The Catholic Church doesn't differentiate between the unborn and the guilty. It mandates that only the Lord can take a life. It's non-negotiable.

Anonymous said...

"The Catholic Church doesn't differentiate between the unborn and the guilty. It mandates that only the Lord can take a life. It's non-negotiable."

The Catholic Church also protects it's child molesters too and based on the child molestation settlements that the Catholic Church has been doling out it's apparent that child molestation can be negotiable. Be proud.

Anonymous said...

Hate the abuser, not the church.

Anonymous said...

The Catholic Church doesn't differentiate between the unborn and the guilty

You mean the bishops don't make this distinction.
Catholics-in-the-pews, however, support the DP by about 2-1 (Gallup).

Anonymous said...

Catholics in the pews are hypocrites. Go to a church with very clear rules and ignore them -- then call yourself a member in good standing of that church. Brilliant. Don't get me wrong - the pro-choice "Catholics" are just as guilty.

Do this exercise: after Mass this weekend ask your priest if the church's doctrine on the death penalty or euthanasia or abortion has any gray area. Ask him what a Catholic's position should be on whether Hayes should get the death penalty.

Look, it's a free country and obviously people can have and express any opinion they want. You just can't be a member in good standing of the Catholic Church and be pro-choice on abortion or pro death penalty. It's not debatable.

Anonymous said...

8:43,
Support for the death penalty, open borders for illegal immigrants, and any number of other doctrines (teachings) of bishops are NOT considered infallible dogmas of faith or morals binding upon Catholics. Just because you raise these teachings to dogma doesn't make them so.

Anonymous said...

Can we send Hayes and Komisarjevsky to Texas? Texas will have no problems with putting these two to death pretty quickly.

Anonymous said...

Then why be a member of the Catholic Church? The church's basic teaching is that only the Lord can take a life. It is the foundation of the faith. Don't practice Catholicism if you don't believe this. It makes no sense to practice a faith you don't believe in.

Anonymous said...

The people of the state should have the right to vote for or against the death penalty.

It should not be left up to God.For those who believe it should be left to God, they are in effect saying that God is involved in every death, and God decided to let it happen for some unknown reason. It doesn't make sense.