Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 79 of 79

Thread: Connecticut Capital Punishment News

  1. #71
    Moderator Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Newport, United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,454
    Connecticut Supreme Court declines request to reconsider ruling that eliminated death penalty

    By DAVE COLLINS
    The Associated Press

    HARTFORD, Conn. — The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday stood by its decision to eliminate the state's death penalty, but the fate of capital punishment in the Constitution State technically remains unsettled.

    The state's highest court rejected a request by prosecutors to reconsider its landmark August ruling, but prosecutors have filed a motion in another case to make the arguments they would have made if the court had granted the reconsideration motion.

    Lawyers who have argued before the court say it would be highly unusual and surprising for the court to reverse itself on such an important issue in a short period of time, but they say it is possible because the makeup of the court is different. Justice Flemming Norcott Jr., who was in the 4-3 majority to abolish the death penalty, reached the mandatory retirement age of 70 and was succeeded by Justice Richard Robinson.

    In the August decision, the court ruled that a 2012 state law abolishing capital punishment for future crimes must be applied to the 11 men who still faced execution for killings committed before the law took effect. The decision came in the case of Eduardo Santiago, who was facing the possibility of lethal injection for a 2000 murder-for-hire killing in West Hartford.

    The 2012 ban had been passed prospectively because many lawmakers refused to vote for a bill that would spare the death penalty for Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes, who were convicted of killing a mother and her two daughters in a highly publicized 2007 home invasion in Cheshire.

    The state's high court said the death penalty violated the state constitution, "no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency," and didn't serve any "legitimate penological purpose." The majority included Norcott and Justices Richard Palmer, Dennis Eveleigh and Andrew McDonald, the same four justices that rejected the prosecution's reconsideration request Thursday.

    Chief Justice Chase Rogers and Justices Peter Zarella and Carmen Espinosa bashed the majority in the Santiago case, accusing the other four justices of tailoring their ruling based on personal beliefs. The three dissenting justices also were in favor of the prosecution's motion to reconsider.

    Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane had said the majority justices unfairly considered concerns that had not been raised during Santiago's appeal and denied prosecutors the chance to address those concerns. He said prosecutors have filed briefs in the still-pending death penalty appeal of Russell Peeler Jr., raising the same issues they did in the motion for reconsideration in the Santiago case.

    Peeler was sentenced to death for ordering the 1999 killings of 8-year-old Leroy "B.J." Brown Jr. and his mother, Karen Clarke, in their Bridgeport duplex. The boy was expected to be the key witness against Peeler in the fatal shooting of Clarke's boyfriend.

    The court heard arguments last year in Peeler's appeal, which claims the state's death penalty amounted to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. Peeler's appeal appeared to be moot because of the Santiago ruling, but the new prosecution motions changed that.

    Mark Rademacher, a public defender for both Peeler and Santiago, believes prosecutors have little chance of succeeding in the Peeler case.

    "No court has ever reversed themselves in a matter of months on an issue of such importance," Rademacher said.

    Proloy Das, an attorney with Murtha Cullina in Hartford who wasn't involved in the death penalty cases, said it is possible that the court could reinstate the death penalty for Peeler, but it would be surprising given how important the issue is and how recently the Santiago decision was made.

    http://www.startribune.com/connectic...ion/331280041/

  2. #72
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Connecticut Supreme Court Rejects Stay On Death Penalty Abolition

    HARTFORD, Conn. (CBSNewYork/AP) — The Connecticut Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by prosecutors to put on hold its landmark decision eliminating the state’s death penalty, while justices consider another appeal of capital punishment.

    The decision was the second time this month that justices have upheld their 4-3 ruling in August that the death penalty violates the state constitution. The court on Oct. 8 turned down a request by prosecutors to reconsider the ruling.

    Justices said Friday that their ruling is final, and that it would be improper and bad precedent to grant a stay to a party that loses an appeal but hopes to succeed in a different case.

    A deeply divided Supreme Court, in the appeal of convicted killer Eduardo Santiago, said a 2012 state law that abolished capital punishment for future crimes must be applied to the 11 men who still faced execution for killings that happened before the law took effect. Santiago had faced the possibility of lethal injection for a murder-for-hire killing in West Hartford in 2000.

    A majority of justices said the death penalty “no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency” and doesn’t serve any “legitimate penological purpose.”

    Prosecutors had asked the Supreme Court to stay its decision in the Santiago case while the justices consider the appeal of convicted killer Russell Peeler Jr.

    Peeler claims in his appeal, filed in 2008, that the state’s death penalty amounted to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. He was sentenced to death for ordering the 1999 killings of an 8-year-old boy and his mother in Bridgeport, when the boy was expected to be a key witness against him in a fatal shooting.

    Joseph “Mad Dog” Taborsky was the last murderer to be forcibly put to death in the state, back in 1960. He had been convicted in a string of murders and robberies in the 1950s.

    Serial killer Michael Ross was executed in 2005, after being convicted in a string of murders in Connecticut and New York between 1981 and 1984. But he waived all appeals and literally begged for death.

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/10/...lty-abolition/

  3. #73
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Public Defender, Prosecutors Continue to Spar Over Conn. Death Penalty Rulings

    A Connecticut public defender who represents 2 former death row inmates is unhappy with continued efforts by prosecutors to persuade the state Supreme Court to reconsider a recent decision to abolish the death penalty in Connecticut.

    The matter was seemingly settled by the Aug. 25 decision in State v. Santiago, when the Supreme Court ruled that the legislature's 2012 decision to abolish the death penalty only for future capital cases, but not for death row inmates, was unconstitutional. But to the surprise of many in the appellate and defense bars, the court shortly afterward agreed to review new arguments in another death penalty case, State v. Peeler. The Chief State's Attorney's Office and Public Defender Mark Rademacher now have Nov. 6 deadlines to file 35-page briefs in the Peeler case.

    Rademacher, who represents both Eduardo Santiago and Russell Peeler, said in an interview: "Everyone thinks the Santiago decision in August was the end of it, but it feels like there's a new round of briefs to write every week, responding to the state's motions."

    The 35-page Peeler brief is the most recent of five briefs Rademacher has had to write in the wake of Santiago. The state had previously filed motions asking that there be a stay of implementation of the Santiago ruling; the Supreme Court on Oct. 30 rejected that request.

    "The state's attorneys simply refuse to accept the fact that they've lost," Rademacher said. He called the idea of staying the Santiago ruling until Peeler is decided "desperate" and "an example of judge-shopping at its very worst."

    The judge-shopping accusation refers to the fact that the Santiago decision was rendered by a court that included Justice Flemming Norcott Jr., who left the court after reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 in October 2013. But under court rules, Norcott, a consistent opponent of the death penalty during his 22 years on the court, was allowed to finish work on the Santiago case, which was argued in April 2013.

    In December 2013, Norcott was replaced by Justice Richard Robinson. In his 15 years as a Superior Court and Appellate Court judge and Supreme Court justice, Robinson has not written opinions on the death penalty, but he often sides with traditionally conservative Justice Peter Zarella on criminal decisions, court watchers say. The more conservative Robinson heard the oral arguments in the Peeler case in July 2014 and presumably was the deciding vote on whether to accept re-argument of the case.

    Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane countered Rademacher's accusations, saying that the state has simply been seeking a chance to argue questions that were not certified in Santiago, but were central to the majority decision in that landmark case. "It's simply a matter of fairness," Kane said. "We were not panel shopping. In fact, we submitted our motions to both the Santiago panel and the Peeler panel, and would have been equally happy to have the opportunity to argue to either one."

    The state says it particularly wants to argue more about Connecticut's fairness in imposing the death penalty, and whether race has been a factor in capital cases. A long-running Superior Court case ultimately found the state was not unconstitutionally discriminatory; that case, In re Racial Disparity, is now on appeal to the Supreme Court. Both Norcott and Robinson are African American.

    Members of the appellate and defense bars have called the attempts to overturn the Santiago ruling just months after his release "flabbergasting," "troubling," "amazing," and "unheard of," among other things.

    Jay Ruane, a Shelton lawyer who heads the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, commented: "It is flabbergasting to me, as a lawyer, to see what has happened with the Santiago decision and with the Peeler decision, and with the change in the composition of the [Supreme Court] panel, and what might happen."

    He said the twists and turns in the matter are "unprecedented," particularly in light of in the stakes involved. "We're talking about men's lives," Ruane said. "While acknowledging that the crimes they committed were serious, it's amazing to me that in this day and age we could have a situation where, after a case is decided and you're off death row, another case is decided and you're back on."

    Social Science Data

    The sequence of events involving the death penalty decisions can be hard to follow. But this is the essence of what's going on:

    In Santiago, a 4-3 majority held that capital punishment was cruel and unusual under Connecticut's Constitution because it did not comply with the state's evolved standards of decency, and served no legitimate penological purpose, such as deterrence or retribution. The decision affected only the 11 men on death row. They include some of the state's most widely detested people: the 2 perpetrators of the Cheshire home invasion murders and Russell Peeler, who ordered the execution of potential witnesses against him - an 8-year-old Bridgeport boy and his mother.

    The original Santiago opinions - majority, concurring and dissenting - are a weighty 250 pages. The majority was written by Justice Richard Palmer, joined by Norcott, Andrew McDonald and Dennis Eveleigh. Chief Justice Chase Rogers dissented, joined by Zarella and Carmen Espinosa.

    Rogers focused her ire on the concurring opinion by Norcott and McDonald. They wrote a summary of Connecticut's history of having the state impose death disproportionately upon members of minority groups and the economically and educationally disadvantaged. Rogers contended that Norcott and McDonald unfairly "cherry picked" the social science data.

    Encouraged by Rogers and the minority, appellate lawyers in the Chief State's Attorney's Office have been taking unprecedented steps to keep the death penalty alive for those on death row. In early September, senior state's attorneys Harry Weller and Marjorie Dauster moved quickly for permission to re-argue Santiago, and to brief additional issues.

    In an apparently unprecedented move, they also asked the court to erase portions of the majority opinion; those dealing with the historic racial disparity in imposing death sentences in Connecticut. They also asked the court to completely strike the concurring opinion of Justices Norcott and McDonald.

    And, in another death penalty case in which oral arguments have already been held, State v. Peeler, the state asked to file supplemental briefs to argue those issues it had not briefed in Santiago.

    On Oct. 7, the Santiago panel denied three of the state's motions, with Rogers posting her emphatic dissent on the court website. But it did grant the state permission to brief and reargue Santiago issues in the Peeler case.

    Still, the prosecutors wanted to keep Santiago from becoming final in order to, according to their briefs, "mitigate any risk that this court will see itself compelled to adhere to bad precedent." Twenty days after reargument is denied, a Supreme Court judgment is final. That deadline was Oct. 27. To beat that deadline, the state filed motions on Oct. 19 and 21 for an indefinite "stay of execution of entry of judgment" of Santiago, pending the future decision of Peeler.

    In response, Rademacher argued that to reinstate Santiago's death penalty would constitute double jeopardy. Nothing in Connecticut's Practice Book allows the high court to do anything but order Santiago's death penalty sentence reduced to life without release, Rademacher wrote in a brief opposing any stay.

    On the afternoon of Oct. 30, after having extended the deadline three days, the court refused any stay to the implementation of Santiago. 6 of the 7 justices agreed on the ruling, including Chief Justice Rogers and Peter Zarella, both of whom had originally dissented in the original decision to abolish the death penalty.

    Palmer explained in detail why the court was dismissing the state's motion for a stay. A stay of a judgment may be proper in some cases, Palmer wrote, but not one like this, in which a losing party hopes that the outcome of a different appeal, filed later by a different party and decided by a different panel of justices, "may be more to its liking."

    Palmer questioned how the state could argue it was not on notice about the central issues of the Santiago case. 6 pages of state briefs argued that Connecticut's standards of decency have not evolved to the point that the death penalty has been rejected. Another 6 pages, Palmer wrote, argued that death was not cruel and unusual under the state Constitution. The state has also argued that the death penalty continues to satisfy the legitimate penological objectives of deterrence and retribution, and not just revenge.

    In her Oct. 30 concurrence, Rogers explained why she initially voted for reargument of Santiago but then refused the state's extraordinary request to stay a settled decision to make way for a subsequent decision in a separate case. She wrote that she had never heard of the Supreme Court doing this before.

    The judgment in Santiago is now final under the rules and procedures of the court, Rogers wrote, and not following them would "undermine the public faith in the integrity of this court, which is ultimately the sole basis of its authority."

    In a final footnote, Rogers added that she would express no opinion whether the Santiago ruling would be binding on the long-pending Peeler decision. That issue, Rogers wrote, "must be decided, not in the present case, but in Peeler."

    'Unpalatable Alternatives'

    Meanwhile, members of the appellate and defense bar has tried, sometimes in vain, to keep up with all the death penalty case decisions. However, they were even more troubled by the bigger-picture issue of the state Supreme Court seemingly flip-flopping on an issue of such importance.

    Ruane, the CCDLA president, said it is unseemly for a one-judge change in the Supreme Court makeup to potentially overturn a decision as momentous as Santiago.

    Daniel Klau, an appellate lawyer at McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, said the rule allowing retiring justices to finish any case they have started on was having far-reaching effects. He found it "troubling" that a major Supreme Court case could still be pivotally influenced by a justice who had left the high court bench nearly 2 years before.

    The chairman of the appellate litigation section at Halloran & Sage, Daniel Krisch, said the court was "between a rock and a hard place," as it sorts out its duties to allow full and fair argument of the issues in the interest of arriving at the correct decision, and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis, which only disturbs a decision for extraordinary reasons and when it is clearly wrong.

    "The court has relatively unpalatable alternatives," said Krisch. It can stick with what it decided in Santiago and apply that ruling in Peeler, he said, and "I assume that's what the Santiago majority would like to do. It would serve the interest of stare decisis."

    On the other hand, said Krisch, "if they reverse Santiago in Peeler, they would reach the result that the dissenters in Santiago think is the correct result, but it could have a negative effect on the court's moral authority.... The prospect of the court deciding such an important issue one way, and then changing its mind in very short order, is something I think could damage the court's standing," Krisch said.

    http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=12027...20151006025104

  4. #74
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Connecticut high court revisits death penalty

    Connecticut's Supreme Court has revisited the issue of whether a 2012 state law repealing capital punishment for future crimes should apply to inmates who already were on death row at the time.

    Arguments were held Thursday in the appeal of Russell Peeler Jr., who ordered the killings of a woman and her 8-year-old son.

    Prosecutors argued the ban on executions should not apply to Peeler and the other 10 death row convicts.

    Justices ruled 4-3 last year that the death row inmates could not be executed because the state law repealing the death penalty for future crimes was unconstitutional.

    Russell was condemned to die for ordering the 1999 killings of Karen Clarke and her 8-year-old son, who had been expected to testify against Peeler in a shooting case.

    http://www.norwichbulletin.com/artic...NEWS/160109724
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  5. #75
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    State Supreme Court Upholds Abolishment Of Death Penalty, Including For Death-Row Inmates

    By Alaine Griffin and Matthew Kauffman
    The Hartford Courant

    The Connecticut Supreme Court has upheld its decision to abolish the state's death penalty, including for inmates on death row.

    The 5-2 ruling, released Thursday, upholds the justices 4-3 decision last August that the death penalty was unconstitutional for all – including 11 convicts on Connecticut's death row – following the legislature's abolition three years ago of capital punishment in Connecticut. Lawmakers made the law prospective, meaning it applied only to new cases and kept in place the death sentences already imposed on those facing execution before the bill was passed.

    Attorneys for those on death row challenged the law, saying it violated the condemned inmates' constitutional rights. The ruling last August came in the case of Eduardo Santiago, who had faced the death penalty for the December 2000 killing of Joseph Niwinski in West Hartford. Santiago has been resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release.

    In the August ruling, the justices in the majority wrote that executing an inmate "would violate the state constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment" and that the death penalty "no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency."

    Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, who joined with Justice Carmen E. Espinosa and Justice Peter T. Zarella in the August dissents, voted this time with the majority, saying she felt bound to the doctrine of "stare decisis," a Latin term meaning "stand by things decided."

    "Just as my personal beliefs cannot drive my decision-making, I feel bound by the doctrine of stare decisis in this case for one simple reason—my respect for the rule of law," Rogers wrote. "To reverse an important constitutional issue within a period of less than one year solely because of a change in justices on the panel that is charged with deciding the issue, in my opinion, would raise legitimate concerns by the people we serve about the court's integrity and the rule of law in the state of Connecticut."

    Rogers said, "stability in the law and respect for the decisions of the court as an institution, rather than a collection of individuals, in and of themselves, are of critically important value, especially on an issue of such great public significance as the constitutionality of the death penalty."

    In separate dissents, Zarella and Espinosa rejected the assertion that respect for precedent mandated Thursday's ruling, saying that doctrine should never be used to enshrine a flawed decision. And they pointedly noted that Rogers herself had blasted the original Santiago decision as "a house of cards, falling under the slightest breath of scrutiny."

    They also criticized Justice Richard A. Robinson, who came on the court after the Santiago decision and voted with the majority, along with justices Richard N. Palmer, Dennis G. Eveleigh and Andrew J. McDonald. Like Rogers, Robinson cited the importance of respecting precedent.

    "I cannot fathom how Chief Justice Rogers and Justice Robinson believe they respect the rule of law by supporting a decision that is completely devoid of any legal basis or believe it is more important to spare this court of the purported embarrassment than to correct demonstrable constitutional error," Zarella wrote.

    In switching her position on Santiago, Rogers wrote that overruling the case so soon after it was decided could lead to public perception that Supreme Court rulings are based on the personal whims of its members and would undermine predictability in the law.

    "The short answer to those concerns," Espinosa wrote, "is that they are unjustified and irrelevant when the prior precedent at issue is clearly wrong." And that is particularly true, she wrote, when the "clearly wrong, recently decided case" upended prior decisions and violated the rule of precedent.

    Zarella also dismissed the assertion that overruling the Santiago decision would send the message that closely decided cases can be revisited whenever there is a change in the Supreme Court membership. "My response is concise and simple: So what," he wrote. "This has been, and will always be the case."

    Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, in a statement released Thursday afternoon, said the ruling "reaffirms what the court has already said: those currently serving on death row will serve the rest of their life in prison with no possibility of ever obtaining freedom."

    Malloy noted that Connecticut in the last half century has executed only two inmates, both of whom volunteered for death.

    "Opinions on this issue vary, and it's critical that we respect that diversity of perspectives," Malloy said. "These are deeply personal and moral issues that we as a society are facing and the court has once again ruled on today. Our focus today should not be on those currently sitting on death row, but with their victims and those surviving family members. My thoughts and prayers are with them on this difficult day."

    Chief State's Attorney Kevin T. Kane said his office respects the decision and would "move forward" to re-sentence the individuals currently on death row to a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release.

    "The Division of Criminal Justice and I extend our deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims of these crimes and to their families," Kane said in a statement. "I also wish to express my appreciation to the dedicated professionals in the Division of Criminal Justice who have devoted so much of themselves throughout this process."

    In October, the high court denied a request by the chief state's attorney to postpone the Santiago decision, a ruling that followed its denial of a request by prosecutors to re-argue Santiago.

    Prosecutors then filed briefs arguing for the Santiago decision to be overruled in the pending appeal of Russell Peeler, who was sentenced to death for ordering the 1999 killings in Bridgeport of 8-year-old Leroy "B.J." Brown Jr. and his mother, Karen Clarke. The justices heard arguments on those briefs in January.

    Prosecutors said in deciding the Santiago case, the court "did not confine its analysis" to the actual claim raised -- whether enacting the 2012 law invalidated the death sentences of those sentenced before the law went into effect. The court made its ruling, prosecutors said, "for reasons having little or nothing to do with" enactment of the 2012 law and "erred in its ruling on lines of analysis and authorities the parties had not discussed."

    Prosecutors also argued that the justices relied on "flawed historical analysis" to justify their "departure from well-established principles of law" and incorrectly determined that state residents prior to the 1818 constitution gave the high court the authority to act independently to invalidate a penalty.

    Public defenders for Peeler made several arguments against overruling the Santiago decision in court briefs, pointing foremost to the legal doctrine of "stare decisis" -- letting decided issues stand. Senior Assistant Public Defender Mark Rademacher told the justices that the state faced an "uphill battle" in getting the ruling reversed.

    "What the state is asking this court to do ... is simply breathtaking," Rademacher said at the January hearing. "It is asking this court to overrule a long line of cases that have affirmed the court's authority as a constitutional matter to protect the citizens of this state against cruel and unusual punishment."

    http://www.courant.com/news/connecti...526-story.html

  6. #76
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    3 Connecticut lawmakers call for restoring the death penalty

    Many states are moving toward eliminating the death penalty, but three Connecticut lawmakers are trying to bring it back.

    Republican Reps. Robert Sampson, Kurt Vail and Kevin Skulczyck have proposed bills that would reinstate capital punishment, which was abolished by the state Supreme Court in 2015. In a sharply divided 4-3 decision, the majority opinion said the death penalty no longer serves any legitimate punishment purposes nor does it comply with “cotemporary standards of decency.”

    Sampson disagrees. He says he believes the death penalty deters crime, and some crimes are so heinous that execution is warranted. But he is not optimistic that lawmakers will reinstate capital punishment this year.

    Thirty-one states have the death penalty. Bills in at least eight states would abolish capital punishment.

    http://wtnh.com/2017/02/12/3-connect...death-penalty/
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  7. #77
    Moderator Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Newport, United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,454
    Would reinstatement mean the death penalty would only be allowed for the murders of law enforcement and correctional officers?

  8. #78
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Herbst calls to reinstate death penalty

    Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim Herbst unveiled his anti-crime platform in Norwich on Thursday, including a call to reinstate the death penalty in Connecticut.

    “I feel very very strongly that capital punishment is an essential tool and deterrent that also provides tools to prosecutors to obtain stronger sentences in the commission of violent crime,” Herbst said, adding that early release programs send the message that violent crime will be tolerated.

    Capital punishment was one part of Herbst’s “six-point plan to restore law and order in Connecticut” developed by a group he calls his Law and Order Task Force. Herbst was flanked by members of that group as he addressed a small crowd in front of Norwich Superior Court to unveil each point from his plan.

    Two members of the task force were not present at the presentation, including State Rep. William Petit (R-22nd District), whose wife and daughters were raped and murdered 11 years ago this week. Two men were convicted on numerous charges including sexual assault and murder, and were sentenced to death. Those sentences were commuted in 2015 to life in prison. Connecticut abolished the death penalty in 2012.

    State Rep. Kevin Skulczyk (R-45th District) is on Herbst’s task force and said he also believes capital punishment can serve as a deterrent against violent crime.

    “A person will think twice before committing a heinous act,” said Skulczyk, who also previously worked as a corrections officer. “The people who commit these crimes should pay the ultimate price.”

    Skulczyk said he knows that programs to reduce sentences are well-intentioned, but but ultimately do not work.

    “In concept, the efforts to reduce sentences are some good-rooted ideas,” Skulczyk said. “But I’ve worked in the system watching crime rise as penalties lower.”

    Herbst is one of five Republican gubernatorial candidates on the ballot for Connecticut’s gubernatorial primaries on August 14. No other Republican gubernatorial candidate has included capital punishment reinstatement as part of their public platform according to a review of each candidate’s published websites.

    In addition to capital punishment, Herbst’s anti-crime platform included increased support for law enforcement, bringing a new vision and accountability to the leadership of the prison system, a zero-tolerance policy for sanctuary cities, cracking down on drug traffickers and eliminating Governor Dannel Malloy’s early prison release program.

    “I am prepared to eliminate the Risk Reduction Earned Credit program that releases prisoners back into our communities without completing their prison sentence,” Herbst said. “There are existing legislative proposals to eliminate the program that warrant serious consideration.”

    During the speech, Herbst revealed statistics assembled by his task force from the first 76 months of Risk Reduction Earned Credit Program passed by the state legislature in 2011. According to Herbst, numerous serious crimes were committed by early discharged prisoners, resulting in readmission to Connecticut prisons. These crimes included:

    -119 murders

    -154 rapes

    -24 acts of arson

    -1,916 assaults

    -1,988 acts of burglary or robbery

    -63 kidnappings

    -1,452 drug-related crimes

    Herbst did not specifically cite the source of the statistics, nor did he provide the total number of prisoners released early through the program. His website sources the statistics as being from the Department of Corrections obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. His website also claimed that 48,162 prisoners were discharged in that period involving inmates who had received Risk Reduction Earned Credits.

    “We have specifically cited and sourced every statistic referenced in this plan, we wanted to do a thorough job backing up what we said because people on the other side of the aisle are going to challenge these numbers,” he said.

    “The program simply does contribute to greater crime and less-safe communities, and I will shut it down as governor,” Herbst added.

    Herbst said that he chose Norwich as the backdrop for his speech due to its proximity to eight prison facilities.

    “The Second Congressional District, where we are now, is home to nearly 60 percent of the state’s correctional facilities,” Herbst said.

    Herbst did acknowledge that violent crime has decreased nationwide, but said, “FBI statistics and national rankings from groups like Neighborhood Scout consistently find Connecticut’s cities to be among the most dangerous in the nation.”

    Herbst said that he believes that despite the decrease in crime nationally should not excuse elected officials to experiment with public safety.

    “The nationwide trend of decreasing crime is not an excuse for radical activists or failed leaders like Dan Malloy to tinker with and experiment with the safety of our communities.”

    Besides Petit and Skulczyck, Herbst’s task force includes former Hartford police Commander Mark Tedeschi, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney David Gulick, former Hartford police Commander Christopher Lyons, retired North Haven police Chief Jim DiCarlo and Woodbridge police Commissioner Stephen Falcigno Jr.

    http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/...-death-penalty
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  9. #79
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Very Predictable

    Judge rules life sentence too “cruel” for former death row inmates

    By Daniel Tepfer
    The Connecticut Post

    A federal court judge has ruled that Connecticut’s 11 former death row inmates can sue the state for causing them “cruel and unusual punishment” when they were resentenced to life terms.

    In the case of Richard Reynolds, sentenced to death in 1995 for killing a Waterbury police officer in 1992, U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill ruled that Reynolds confinement for the rest of his life violates his rights under the equal protection clause of the constitution.

    In 2015, the state Supreme Court declared Connecticut’s death penalty to be unconstitutional and Gov. Dannel Malloy signed a law ordering the state’s 11 death row inmates to be resentenced to life in prison without parole.

    In his 57-page decision, Underhill relied partly on the comments of state legislators who spoke in support of abolishing the death penalty to support his conclusion.

    “Life in prison is actually worse or even more punitive than being put to death,” said state Sen. Joe Crisco Jr. of Woodbridge at the time.

    “How one retains his sanity in an environment like that is incomprehensible,” said Sen. Edith Prague of Columbia.

    The judge ruled that the words from legislators, among others, showed “overwhelmingly a clear legislative intent to punish death row inmates through more restrictive conditions.”

    Underhill issued a permanent injunction enjoining the state from placing Reynolds in high security status which includes having him alone in his cell for more than 21 hours a day, from being segregated from other inmates and not being able to have visitors.

    The state has 30 days to submit a status report to the judge detailing how they have complied with his order.

    Bridgeport State’s Attorney John Smriga, whose office prosecuted former death row inmates Russell Peeler and Richard Roszkowski, said he is still reviewing the decision.

    https://www.ctpost.com/local/article...r-14389147.php
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •