Death penalty repeal is dead... for the moment.
CT News Junkie's Hugh McQuaid is reporting:
Speculation about the fate of the bill began early Wednesday when Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, said she would not be voting in favor of repeal.
Prague had strong words for Komisarjevsky.
“They should bypass the trial and take that second animal and hang him by his penis from a tree out in the middle of Main Street,” she said.
Thank you, Senator Prague... and Senator Maynard too. Both have switched their vote and ended the discussion of repealing the death penalty during this session. And though it will most likely come back next year, hopefully the clarity of thought will continue.
I completely agree with the notion that government should not take a chance on putting an innocent man to death. I suggest passing a law which requires "absolute certainty," for the death penalty. It'd be a more difficult bar to cross than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
We all know exactly what these two murderers did. With them, there is "absolute certainty." So they would still be executed. And they should die, although death is too kind for them.
Tim White
6 comments:
Elizabeth Esty must be really bummed out....
Breach... I know you left a comment. I have no idea why it got deleted, but blogger locked me out last night.
I'm sure Sen. Prague doesn't want to abolish the right to trial, and her high rhetoric is understandable. Most important: the people of Conn. overwhelmingly favor the DP, and it's about time legislators began to reflect that.
I agree there should be 100% certainty of guilt to impose the death penalty... and these two were caught right at the scene, where the little girls died screaming as gasoline was poured on them and they were set on fire.
An anti-DP bumper sticker asks, "Why do we kill people to teach that killing people is wrong?"
ANSWER: Because to impose the highest penalty is to express society's ultimate revulsion at such crimes. To not impose the highest penalty is to signal that we value the lives of the murderers over the lives of the victims.
ANSWER: Because to impose the highest penalty is to express society's ultimate revulsion at such crimes. To not impose the highest penalty is to signal that we value the lives of the murderers over the lives of the victims.
And in imposing the highest penaly we take what isn't ours to take...which is exactly what revulsed us about the crimes in the first place.
There are so many murderer who want to make a deal to avoid the death penalty. Society has an important tool in maintaining the death penaly and it has helped in many cases for a plea for a life sentence, or in having the muderer reveal a victims location.
How many expensive trials have been averted by allowing a plea deal?
Post a Comment