Death Penalty Abolition Faces Challenges
by Hugh McQuaid | Jan 13, 2011 6:00am
(16) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Courts, Legal, State Capitol
After lengthy debate in 2009 a bill that would have abolished the death penalty made it through the House and Senate only to be vetoed by then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell. This year, the bill is back and despite a new governor who has indicated he would sign the bill, its author admitted Tuesday it may be a tough sell.
“Some people think that with Dan Malloy taking the governorship this is a done deal, wrap it up, clap your hands it’s over. I think it’s actually going to be tougher than it was the first time,” Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield, D-New Haven, said Tuesday. “It’s because of a lot of things. Partially because the case will be so visible at the time when we’re doing the bill.”
Holder-Winfield, the bill’s author, was referring to the pending trial of Joshua Komisarjevsky, which is set to begin jury selection in late February. Komisarjevsky will stand trial for the 2007 murder of a mother and her two daughters in their Cheshire home. In December his co-defendant Steven Hayes received the death penalty after being found guilty for the murders.
The high visibility of the trial is expected to have an effect on the upcoming debate to abolish the death penalty. An Oct. 2010 Quinnipiac University poll found that even some people who don’t support the death sentence supported it for the Cheshire killers.
“Similar to what we found in the Michael Ross case, support for the death penalty in a specific case can be higher than support in general. This is because some voters who oppose the death penalty in general support it for a particularly heinous crime,” said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Doug Schwartz said in a press release.
Holder-Winfield, who was recently chosen as vice-chair of the Judiciary Committee, said he has no illusions that the incident won’t impact the fate of the bill as the debate heats up.
“I don’t see how it couldn’t. It reminds people of all the emotions they felt. Some of the gruesome details will be rehashed in the media and we operate in the world of politics where facts matter, public opinion matters, all of those things matter and depending on how much it raises the passions of people, it will have an impact on whether or not we can move this bill,” he said.
However, the bill is written to be prospective, he explained, so people like Hayes who are already sitting on death row would remain there. In future sentencing the death penalty would be replaced with life in prison without the possibility of parole.
But Sen. John Kissel, a staunch supporter of the death penalty and the ranking Republican on the committee, said people should know the bill would likely affect everyone on death row because it would form a strong basis for appeals.
“My concern with any bill that’s ‘prospective only’ is that constitutionally that would certainly form the basis of an appeal. It would be cited as community standard and I believe effectively it would mean that the ten folks or so on death row right now would have their sentences commuted to life without possibility of parole as well,” Kissel said. “So it may be appealing to some folks out there to have the bill fashioned that way but I think as a practical matter it really means abolishing the death penalty for everyone both those convicted and sitting on death row including Mr. Hayes.”
Holder-Winfield said that Kissel’s concern is legitimate but also said that is not the intention of the bill. While making it clear he was in opposition to the death penalty, he said it would be disingenuous of him to push the bill in an effort to commute sentences already given.
On Tuesday Holder-Winfield was frank about his assessment of his bill’s chances given the increasingly complicated nature of the debate.
“To be honest with you I don’t know. I don’t know where people’s minds will be, how that case will have an impact on us at the precise time when this bill comes through,” he said.
In addition to the Komisarjevsky trial, the bill faces other challenges, he said, including some new faces in the state’s legislature and the fact that people may not be thrilled about taking up the death penalty debate again so soon.
“It really becomes a matter of whether or not, as the sponsor of this bill I can figure out how to solve the problems, which is to get the requisite number of people to vote with me,” he said. “There’s a mixture of things that I believe will make it difficult to do. That being said, I believe it’s the right thing to do and we are pushing it forward.”
Click here for a list of people on death row in Connecticut
Tags: death penalty, abolish, legislature, Steven Hayes
(16) Comments
posted by: and 1 | January 13, 2011 9:01am
Good for Gary Holder-Winfield for remembering that Justice means reason. That the statute of Justice is blind, carries a scale and a double edged sword. When anyone utilizes emotion to hand down a death penalty that is not just- it is revenge.
posted by: hawkeye | January 13, 2011 12:22pm
With or without a so-called “death penalty,” the law is strictly designed to be a lawyers’ game, “to make money for the lawyers’!
Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield shouldn’t get choked up on the death penalty, unless he is a lawyer, himself.
posted by: City Hall Watch | January 13, 2011 3:35pm
It continues to grieve me that we are going to waste time and energy on a bill of so little substance and that sure seems to be patently fraudulent in its presentation. If a prospective abolition of the death penalty can be used on appeal to overturn the death sentence for people like Hayes and others who have already been adjudged guilty and given the rare death sentence, then why does HW just now admit that’s in fact the case? Why has he been hiding that discussion if he is really concerned about justice?
And speaking of justice, when will just one of these articles ask HW what he thinks justice is as in define it for us. He talks all around the subject and is fast to ask others to define justice, yet, he has not to my knowledge, addressed that question himself.
To those like And 1 - who pretend to understand the motivations and emotions of people like me, attributing our defense of the choice of death penalty to emotion, revenge and rage, think again. It is much more refined than that and not so easily pigeon-holed for your convenient denigration and dismissal.
I would also urge HW to start producing and using CT only statistics and studies. I could care less what they do in Texas or elsewhere with justice systems and practices that have nothing in common with Connecticut.
posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 13, 2011 7:14pm
However, the bill is written to be prospective, he explained, so people like Hayes who are already sitting on death row would remain there. In future sentencing the death penalty would be replaced with life in prison without the possibility of parole.
What would stop a governor from give out executive clemency pardon, reprieve, commutation of sentence.
posted by: Christine Stuart | January 13, 2011 8:23pm
Threefifths the Governor doesn’t have the power under Connecticut’s constitution to commute a sentence or offer clemency to offenders. That power in CT lies with the Board of Pardons and Paroles, it’s not a gubernatorial power.
posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 13, 2011 9:52pm
Threefifths the Governor doesn’t have the power under Connecticut’s constitution to commute a sentence or offer clemency to offenders. That power in CT lies with the Board of Pardons and Paroles, it’s not a gubernatorial power
So would coild stop them.
posted by: Christine Stuart | January 13, 2011 10:35pm
The Board of Pardons and Paroles is a 15-member board and they hold hearings almost everyday deciding whether inmates sentences should be commuted. I’m guessing public pressure would stop them from commuting the sentence of Hayes and Komisarjevsky
posted by: frank o'gorman | January 14, 2011 12:09am
Rep. Holder-Winfield, I applaud your determination in advancing this bill.
The state has no business being in the death business. Period.
There is nothing that gives the state any right to end a person’s life by execution.
The right-wing is getting all worked up about a government health insurance mandate as evidence of their perceived “intrusive government.” Nothing is more intrusive than state-sponsored execution.
The main justification for courts and prisons is to remove people from society who pose a danger to it.
Doing life in prison would give Hayes and Komisarjevsky time to reflect on their crimes and serve as an example to other inmates not to walk that path. They would be living reminders to other inmates that there is noting glorious about committing rape, murder, arson.
In the long run, keeping them alive would steer others from their path, thereby preventing another tragedy and reducing prison costs.
State execution says more about the residents of Connecticut than it does about the people being executed.
End state executions. Let us not continue to practice the violence we abhor.
posted by: and 1 | January 14, 2011 9:31am
To: City Hall- If you think that it is just to have a death penalty then please tell me or help me understand why these people who commit these crimes have all of our attention until the end of their lives? Each time they have a hearing or are close to their death there is another interview and more attention and eventually the victims are forgotten. If you lock them up and throw away the key (no parole) then they are forgotten and their victims can be remembered in peace.
Hawkeye: The lawyers make much more money with a death penalty case than with a life without parole case- you see- because it is a death penalty no expense is spared. Now this is defensible in that in the case that someone is innocent we don’t want them convicted and the sentence to be carried out. So, your argument that the law proposed by Rep. Holder-Winfield does not hold true in that lawyers who handle death penalty cases are more likely to make more money than those handling life in prison without the possibility of parole.
posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 14, 2011 10:58am
Christine Stuart | January 13, 2011 9:35pm
The Board of Pardons and Paroles is a 15-member board and they hold hearings almost everyday deciding whether inmates sentences should be commuted. I’m guessing public pressure would stop them from commuting the sentence of Hayes and Komisarjevsky
Who appoints the people to these boards.Again what guarantee do victims have that there will not give executive clemency pardon, reprieve, commutation of sentence.
posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 14, 2011 4:02pm
How many of you would take in Charles Manson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uhmtAmwnDQ
posted by: and 1 | January 14, 2011 4:46pm
Threefifths- I guess the point is that if you send someone to prison for life they are not going to get out if there is not parole available.
posted by: and 1 | January 15, 2011 2:12pm
Threefifths- There is nothing to indicate that anyone is suggesting we allow anyone who is sentenced to life in prison- out. Just that we do not sentence them to death
posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 15, 2011 7:47pm
Threefifths- There is nothing to indicate that anyone is suggesting we allow anyone who is sentenced to life in prison- out. Just that we do not sentence them to death
There have been times when people are sentenced to life in prison and have got out.So again how do we make should this doesn’t happen.
posted by: and 1 | January 16, 2011 8:52am
Threefifths- Life without parole should mean exactly that. In other words, if the law is written that the person is in prison for the rest of their life without parole then being released should not ever be possible unless the person is found to be innocent.
posted by: Lawrence | January 16, 2011 2:50pm
Re: the Q-poll, it is vitally important to note that when CT residents are given a choice between death and life in prison with no parole, they are evenly split. So to simply say CT residents overwhelmingly support the death penalty is erroneous—when given a choice, they are just as happy with the alternative.
Also, it will be interesting to note the position of various Catholic legislators on this issue once the Catholic Church becomes more involved in this debate and demand, as the Pope has, the end to capital punishment everywhere. Religious legislators can;t use “faith” as an excuse when it comes to civil unions, abortion, rape drugs, etc., and then claim they are “only representing the wishes of their constituents” when it comes to the dealth penalty. You can’t have it both ways, folks—and the media needs to call you on it if you try.
From the Q-poll:
16. Which punishment do you prefer for people convicted of murder, the death penalty or life in prison with no chance of parole?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom
Death penalty 46% 60% 29% 50% 49% 43%
Life/No parole 41 26 61 34 36 45
DK/NA 14 14 10 16 15 13