Wednesday, October 13, 2010

QU Poll: 65% favor death penalty

The NHR reports:

Support for Connecticut's death penalty has reached its highest point in more than a decade, and even some who generally oppose capital punishment say it's appropriate for a man convicted in the 2007 deadly Cheshire home invasion, according to a new poll.

Quinnipiac University's poll, released Wednesday, found 65 percent of those surveyed support the death penalty. That's up from 61 percent two years ago, and the highest number since the year 2000.

I certainly hope that state Rep. Vickie Nardello doesn't continue introducing legislation to repeal the death penalty retroactively. I think the death penalty is entirely appropriate for these two predators.

Tim White

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's amazing that this persentage gets higher and higher, yet we have representatives in this very district who want to vote to abolish it. I bet the percentage is even higher in Cheshire, yet Esty & Nardello feel it should be abolished. As does Malloy.
Who are they representing?
Not the voters of Cheshire.

Breachway said...

Esty is a disgrace to her position. I have no problems with her or anyones personal beliefs on the subject but she should be voting according to the people she represents.

Anonymous said...

Tim, you conveniently missed the more-relevant stat: Connecticut residents favor the death penalty only 46-41 percent over life in prison without parole -- the situation at hand in the Hayes case. Now, how did you miss that?

Anonymous said...

8:57
46 is still more than 41.
The bottom line is, this state wants to keep the Death Penalty in tact for such cases like the Petit murders.
What don't you get?
In certain cases, I would favor Life in prison over the death penalty, but you need to have the option.
You take the option off the table and people who murder will get off easy. You need to let them know that they can face death.

Don't try twisting those numbers, no matter how you look at it, people want the death penalty in this state.

Anonymous said...

The same poll also shows that 76% want the DP for Hayes (& presumably JK). That's 11% of voters who oppose the DP in principle but want it in this case.

I'd bet that a far fewer than 41% would favor life without parole in this specific case.

Anonymous said...

Only Jesus Christ can decide who lives and who dies.

Anonymous said...

I am sure even Jesus Christ has made up his mind about these scum bags.
Let them burn in Hell!

Anonymous said...

Jesus loves and forgives everyone, but he doesn't say they should escape the earthly consequences of their actions. Our Christian duty is to pray for their eternal souls, not to excuse them from earthly justice.

Anonymous said...

Jesus will make sure they burn in hell -- and He does leave room for earthly justice. He also makes it as clear as it can be that only He decides who lives and who dies.

Anonymous said...

Jesus also makes it as clear as it can be that only He decides who lives and who dies.

Where in the New Testament does Jesus protest the just use of the death penalty? In fact, one of the two men crucified with him acknowledged,
"We have been condemned justly, for our sentence we corresponds to our crimes, but this man (Jesus) has done nothing criminal." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:39-43)

Jesus does not say that this man shouldn't receive the death penalty. Rather, he says because he has repented, he will receive spiritual mercy.

Also, you cannot say with certainty that Jesus "will make sure SH & JK burn in hell." It's entirely possible that they will sincerely repent for their heinous crimes and be forgiven by God. However, they must still suffer the earthly consequences.

Anonymous said...

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you... whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Mat. 5:38-39


"He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." John 8:7

"But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Mat. 6:15

"Judge not, that you be not judged." Mat. 7:1


"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse... Repay no one evil for evil... do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I Will repay," says the Lord." Rom. 12:14, 17, 19


"Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13).

Anonymous said...

All of those quotes could be used to argue that there should be no prisons, no laws, no law enforcement at all. Why stop at abolishing the death penalty? Why not release Hayes, Komisarjevski, and men like them from prison?

Breachway said...

Separation of church and state....this is America not the Vatican....how about an eye for an eye....any atheists out there want to chime in?

Anonymous said...

"Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13).

Here are a few more quotes for you to look over:

"Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
St. Thomas Aquinas

Vatican City had the death penalty in their lawbooks until it was abolished in 1969 by Pope Paul VI,

"If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made." Genesis 9:6.

"If I have committed a crime or done anything deserving death, I do not seek to escape the death penalty" St. Paul

Anonymous said...

There are many conflicts in the bible. You can accept the interpretation of the U.S. Conference of Bishops or the interpretation of anonymous trolls on Tim White's website.

Anonymous said...

So a Protestant Christian who does not agree with the Catholic Bishops is an "anonymous troll"?!
(9:40 ignors the fact that he is anonymous, and arguably trolling).

Rome and the RC bishops have switched their views on many issues over the centuries. They always affirmed the death penalty until very recently. Were they in error before, or are they in error now?

Were they wrong in condemning the Jews for 2,000 years, or are they wrong now since recently repudiating that view? Were they in error when they condemned Galileo or when they exonerated him? Was John XXII (1316) in error when he denounced the doctrine of papal “infallibility”, or was Pius IX (1870) in error when he thrust it upon the Church?

The point is that official Catholic Church’s views have changed and even self-contradicted over time, and all their teachings on faith and morals are clearly not infallible.

Anonymous said...

This has nothing to do with religion but more a case of common sense. Fry 'em.

Anonymous said...

Nardello and Esty are Protestants? My bad. I thought they were Catholic, which was the entire point.

Anonymous said...

"Nardello and Esty are Protestants? My bad. I thought they were Catholic, which was the entire point."

They'll be whatever you want them to be come election day so they can get your vote.

Anonymous said...

At least they're not witches, like the crackpot Tea Party woman.