So I unroll this morning's Hartford Courant to see...
 

"DEATH PENALTY UPENDED", but before you reply, please look up what Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjavsky did to end up on death row. If not by their names it can usually be found searching for Chesire Home Invasion. Then feel free to post if you prefer.

This was the inevitable result of a cowardly act by our liberal legislature. A few years ago, they were debating whether or not the death penalty should be abolished. To no one's surprise, the liberals were opposed (I am also opposed to the death penalty). But then the Cheshire murders happened. Now, if the politicians had any honesty or courage, they would have said "the death penalty is wrong, even in this case." Because if you are anti death penalty, what that means is, you are opposed to it 100% of the time. But they didn't have the courage to say that out loud (because everyne was calling for these 2 to be executed), so they did the unthinkable - they passed a law abolishing all future executions, but left in place the scheduled executions for those currently on death row, including the Cheshire murderers. Now I ask, what sense does that make? If it's OK to execute the Chesire murderers today, by what logic is it immoral to execute someone next year for doing the same exact thing, or even worse? The legislators knew exactly what was going to happen, that the court would say you cannot say that it's OK to execute one person, but not another person, based on the date of their trial. This is the exact outcome the liberals wanted, so they could dishonestly say "hey, the law we passed would have executed the Cheshire murderers, but the courts overturned it, so it's not my fault". Bastards.

I agree w/Jim that the way it was structured was to get it thrown out (just that I don't think calling politician bastards).

Was this the same Mr. Petit who through his church use to protest the death penalty?

I could have said it was dishonest and cowardly, would have been better, when you're right, you're right.

No idea what his position on the death penalty was before this. But his experience would change anybody. Mr Petit was a very highly regarded doctor who specialized in treating diabetics. I know 2 people who thought he walked on water.

aside from the mentioned case here

the death penalty which i am for by the way

has never been a deterrent for those that live with the fear of
death constantly in their lives from an early age

bring back something worse than death like hard labor
breaking rocks....

Raven, I go back and forth on the death penalty. When you about what those guys did, you realize how bad they are.

Hard labor? People get paid to break rocks, work on roofs, paving in 100 degree heat. They do this stuff for a living. Plus they still get the enjoyment of watching a bird, the clouds, stars, etc.

It is a tough subject.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1 bullet costs $1.00. A life in prison costs $1,000,000.00.
That's a budget cut I can get behind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great post, agree 100%. I have changed my mind many times as well.

What bothers me about not having the death penalty is this...say someone gets life without parole. Then they kill a guard in prison. If there's no further punishment, then it's a penalty-free crime. Or if a murderer escapes from prison, he has nothing to lose by killing people to stay hidden right?

Tough subject.

There is a case in Tennessee I followed. If you can imagine, it was, in my mind, far worse than what happened in Cheshire, which happened 5 miles from my house. Couple of college sweethearts, out on a date, got carjacked and kidnapped. Savagery that you'd only think possible in the movies. One could argue we are better off without some people among us.

I'm like most of you guys going back and forth.
However, I think it's a worse punishment for a murderer to be put in solitary
confinement for life so he can think about it and miss out on any fun life offers.
Nebe is right though, it's expensive unless they just serve bread and water
and a vitamin/day.

From what I've read it costs taxpayers a hell of a lot more to execute someone than lock them up for life.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A bullet costs $1.00 a firing squad of 25 guards that all have blanks except for 2 or 3. No one knows for sure who has the live rounds. How more simple can it get?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The actual execution isn't the cost.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well... Change that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You've got a double edged sword then.

The cost is in the litigation, remove that and you take away any safeguard from executing the innocent.

There are some cases that have zero chance to convict an innocent person. (Boston bomber)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed, due process is an important part of who we are.

You think that the guy who killed everyone in the movie theater in CO deserves a lifetime of appeals? Or that maggot who planted the pressure cooker bombs in Boston?

Im all for kindness and compassion but not with people like this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not just about $$$
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It actually costs more to execute generally than a life in prison I believe. Due to the cost of appeals heightened security etc etc
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would think the cost of appeals would be the same as to execute or life
in solitary prison.
One of my problems is knowing I couldn't in good conscience pull the switch
myself and question the morality in having someone else do it for me.

Reading what these two did I think execution is too humane.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The cost isn't the appeal or the legal process, but rather the attorneys and "paid experts" that make the process so costly.

Anyone sentenced to death should definitely be given an automatic appeal, but if they're expensive, taxpayer funded attorney fails at that attempt they should not have any more appeals.
When you start having appeal after appeal on the flimsiest of basis, that's when the money is wasted.

Make the appeal process be a one-and-done process.

This is not a blanket assignment of due process, but rather, an example that could be used for killers that are convicted beyond any reasonable person's doubt.
Examples: The criminal confesses, is caught on film/video, or was witnessed by more than 2 witnesses.

We live in a perverted society that places more favor with criminals than victims, and victims are attacked twice: once by the criminal and again by the system

Rough numbers I heard last night on a TED talk were about $3M+ for each each person on death row. It might have been Oregon that looked at the numbers and then did away with capital punishment. I suppose we could always try to significantly reduce the costs of life imprisonment, but the whole "cruel and unusual" debate would likely become an issue, if you know what I mean.