Thursday, April 26, 2012

Connecticut Abolishes the Death Penalty


 Connecticut has abolished the death sentence for all future cases, becoming the fifth state in five years to repeal the ultimate punishment as the abolition movement gathers steam across America.

The governor of Connecticut, Dannel Malloy, described the death penalty as one of the "most compelling and vexing issues of our time", as he put his signature to SB280, rendering his state the 17th in America to make a break with judicial killings. The bill replaces the death sentence with life without parole for all new cases.
You know what's funny. Neanderthal gun-rights laws are coming faster than we can keep up with them, The Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground, for example, while examples of enlightened legislation like the abolition of capital punishment are few and far between.

What's your opinion. Is Connecticut doing the right thing?

Please leave a comment.

11 comments:

  1. About time the US came out of the dark ages instead of modelling their capital punishment policies on such wonderful places as Somalia and China.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are you aware that Anders Breivik faces either a vacation in a civilized mental hospital or twenty-one years in a pleasant Norwegian prison? (The country may be able to keep him confined after his sentence runs out, if he's still considered to be a danger to society, but they'll have to review that decision periodically.) Does that strike you as a sufficient punishment for what he did? We were able to put Timothy McVeigh out of our misery.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No, its not the right thing as it comes to a cost to society. Besides the huge monitary cost, it gives criminals a no fear approach to their criminal activity if not makes them bolder. They could kill whom ever they want and get rewarded with a bed a three squares a day. Not have to worry about paying bills, taxes, health care or any of the things that the law abiding work at and worry about every day.

    Their prisions will eventually over crowd and will either have to do one of two things, raise taxes and build more prisions or let them out. More criminals on the street to commit more crime and cost society even more.

    Life without the possibility of parole has never made sense to me. Line them up to the injection camber, gas chamber, electric chair, rope of firing squad. And make the lessor criminals watch before release. Make it available for public viewing to make it clear that dying isnt as glamorous as the gangs would have you belive, or honorable for that matter for crimes.

    But I do belive that the death sentence should only be for those that have killed with proven undeniable evidence, hard evidence not circumstancal. Eye witness, camera, DNA and such works for me. Convicted and then swift (within days not years) sentence carried out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Life is sacred, even that of a criminal. Life without parole is the best we can do and still maintain some degree of moral rectitude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mikeb, go look at the conditions in Norwegian prisons and then tell me that such will be a sufficient punishment for Breivik. Justice cries out for him to suffer pain equivalent to the pain that he caused.

      Delete
    2. Greg - I have to disagree with you. Justice does not demand that people suffer pain equivalent to the pain they caused. I do think prison life should be difficult and filled with work. The prisons should be designed to be as self sufficient as possible where the prisoners are made to work during the day to produce something that offsets their costs of maintaining the prison. We also should cut out things like TV and other luxury items not necessary to living in prison. I think there can be a logical position somewhere between Norway's prison system and making people suffer pain for "justice."

      Delete
    3. What is your basis for saying that life is sacred?

      Delete
  5. Do you want a Philosophy lesson now? Or are you just breaking balls?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MikeB I assume you directed your question at my question about the basis of life being sacred. It is a critical question. If there is a faith basis, then the death penalty often makes sense. If there is no faith basis, then arguments for or against the death penalty are debatable ad nauseum.

      Beyond the basis that life is sacred, if a society claims that life is sacred, then how can a society do little when a criminal murders someone -- especially when the criminal acted in a callous and heinous way? I believe there are only two possible responses to a callous, heinous murder. Either the death penalty or the criminal spends the rest of their life serving the survivors of the victim.

      There is a natural sense of justice in all of us. What happens now to a criminal convicted of a callous, heinous murder is not justice.

      Delete
  6. Greg: "Justice cries out for him to suffer pain equivalent to the pain that he caused."

    You've got a distorted view of what incarceration is all about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know what incarceration is about. Mostly, what we do today is stupid, but I know why it's done.

      Delete