CT to repeal the death penalty

[TJ in Wisco]

Wait vengeance is the primary purpose of the justice system? So we seek "vengeance" against people who drive too fast or illegally park?

I believe the primary purpose is deterrence- people get a ticket, others don't park illegally or speed. People get fried- others don't murder

That's part of the problem with the death penalty, I might actually decide not to park illegally or speed because I don't want to have to pay for the ticket, but almost no one is going to decide not to kill somebody just because they'll get lethal injection rather than life imprisonment, especially since the lethal injection is years and years off.

[Grumps]

The problem with the death penalty not being a deterent is that's it not used often.  If I park downtown and I'm only going to get a ticket once every few thousand times I do it, I'll chance it and save a bundle.

[Joe Republic]

The problem with the death penalty not being a deterent is that's it not used often.

Texas still has a well above average murder rate, despite being by far the most prolific enforcer of the death penalty.

[Grumps]

The problem with the death penalty not being a deterrent is that's it not used often.

Texas still has a well above average murder rate, despite being by far the most prolific enforcer of the death penalty.

Even they aren't prolific enough to make it a true deterrent.  Honestly, Joe, no one will use it enough to make it one.  I see it going away in nearly every state eventually.

Edit:  Joe - according to this site  http://www.txexecutions.org/reports.asp?year=2011  They had 13 in 2011.....hardly enough to be a deterrent.  But that's 13 more than most states so it's news.  I wouldn't call it prolific though.

[Simfan34]

What about the people already on Death Row?

They still get the axe.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

What about the people already on Death Row?

They still get the axe.

So, they sentences are not commuted automatically? In most cases, when jurisdiction abolished the death penalty, sentences are commutted. In some cases, like in New Mexico, the death penalty is eliminated in all future cases, while those already sentenced are "grandfathered".

[Simfan34]

What about the people already on Death Row?

They still get the axe.

So, they sentences are not commuted automatically? In most cases, when jurisdiction abolished the death penalty, sentences are commutted. In some cases, like in New Mexico, the death penalty is eliminated in all future cases, while those already sentenced are "grandfathered".

I too was surprised, but it is what I heard on the morning news. I won't be surprised if Malloy commutes them all, but that would be his responsibility, the law does not do that.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

What about the people already on Death Row?

They still get the axe.

So, they sentences are not commuted automatically? In most cases, when jurisdiction abolished the death penalty, sentences are commutted. In some cases, like in New Mexico, the death penalty is eliminated in all future cases, while those already sentenced are "grandfathered".

I too was surprised, but it is what I heard on the morning news. I won't be surprised if Malloy commutes them all, but that would be his responsibility, the law does not do that.

Speaking of New Mexico example, it would be a sad irony to see three remaining death row inmates executed by the state, that abolished the death penalty.

[Simfan34]

What about the people already on Death Row?

They still get the axe.

So, they sentences are not commuted automatically? In most cases, when jurisdiction abolished the death penalty, sentences are commutted. In some cases, like in New Mexico, the death penalty is eliminated in all future cases, while those already sentenced are "grandfathered".

I too was surprised, but it is what I heard on the morning news. I won't be surprised if Malloy commutes them all, but that would be his responsibility, the law does not do that.

Speaking of New Mexico example, it would be a sad irony to see three remaining death row inmates executed by the state, that abolished the death penalty.

It would be a shame...

[Tender Branson]

Signed !

GOV. MALLOY ON SIGNING BILL TO REPEAL CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
 
(HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Dannel P. Malloy today released the following statement after signing S.B. 280, An Act Revising the Penalty for Capital Felonies:
 
“This afternoon I signed legislation that will, effective today, replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of release as the highest form of legal punishment in Connecticut.  Although it is an historic moment – Connecticut joins 16 other states and the rest of the industrialized world by taking this action – it is a moment for sober reflection, not celebration.
 
“Many of us who have advocated for this position over the years have said there is a moral component to our opposition to the death penalty.  For me, that is certainly the case.  But that does not mean – nor should it mean – that we question the morality of those who favor capital punishment.  I certainly don’t.  I know many people whom I deeply respect, including friends and family, that believe the death penalty is just.  In fact, the issue knows no boundaries: not political party, not gender, age, race, or any other demographic.  It is, at once, one of the most compelling and vexing issues of our time.
 
“My position on the appropriateness of the death penalty in our criminal justice system evolved over a long period of time.  As a young man, I was a death penalty supporter.  Then I spent years as a prosecutor and pursued dangerous felons in court, including murderers.  In the trenches of a criminal courtroom, I learned firsthand that our system of justice is very imperfect.  While it’s a good system designed with the highest ideals of our democratic society in mind, like most of human experience, it is subject to the fallibility of those who participate in it.  I saw people who were poorly served by their counsel.  I saw people wrongly accused or mistakenly identified.  I saw discrimination.  In bearing witness to those things, I came to believe that doing away with the death penalty was the only way to ensure it would not be unfairly imposed.
 
“Another factor that led me to today is the ‘unworkability’ of Connecticut’s death penalty law.  In the last 52 years, only 2 people have been put to death in Connecticut – and both of them volunteered for it.  Instead, the people of this state pay for appeal after appeal, and then watch time and again as defendants are marched in front of the cameras, giving them a platform of public attention they don’t deserve.  It is sordid attention that rips open never-quite-healed wounds.  The 11 men currently on death row in Connecticut are far more likely to die of old age than they are to be put to death.
 
“As in past years, the campaign to abolish the death penalty in Connecticut has been led by dozens of family members of murder victims, and some of them were present as I signed this legislation today.   In the words of one such survivor: ‘Now is the time to start the process of healing, a process that could have been started decades earlier with the finality of a life sentence. We cannot afford to put on hold the lives of these secondary victims.  We need to allow them to find a way as early as possible to begin to live again.’  Perhaps that is the most compelling message of all.
 
“As our state moves beyond this divisive debate, I hope we can all redouble our efforts and common work to improve the fairness and integrity of our criminal justice system, and to minimize its fallibility.”

http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/cwp/view.asp?Q=503122&A=4010

[I left.]

Good news and well said by Malloy.

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

Dammit!

[Senator Napoleon]

What a moderate hero douchebag.

[Big DaddyTX]

Yay! They can go back to work in the GA and raise taxes and force young people out of the state again!

[Senator Napoleon]

Yay! They can go back to work in the GA and raise taxes and force young people out of the state again!

Ned Lamont would have put this state back on track.
I am glad we abolished the death penalty but Malloy shouldn't hide behind buzzwords, he should firmly dismiss an archaic form of punishment.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

I guess I forgot to say yay

so yay

[Gustaf]

Wait, are people here claiming that vengeance is not a valid foundation of the justice system? I would argue it is the only sensible (and, yes, rational foundation).

What else would be the purpose of the justice system?

Maintaining a civilized society where everybody is treated equally?

Seriously, this is one of the most reactionary posts I've ever read. And coming from Gustaf that says a lot.

Lol, what? That's not the specific purpose of the justice system. We have schools and hospitals to achieve that. Maintaining a civilized society is a rather vague concept as well.

To the others who answered with various remarks.

Justice is precisely what vengeance is about. Giving someone what they deserve.

Public mutilation would not be a logical consequence of retribution as the foundation for justice. Most people wouldn't consider it just retribution. If the purpose is to remove a threat to society we should obviously execute all criminals. That's the most efficient way of achieving that goal. Rehabilitation doesn't really work but besides that it's obviously not how we built our justice system. For starters, people who can't be rehabilitated shouldn't get any punishment at all if that's the foundation for the system.

BRTD as usual doesn't really get it. Vengeance is a bit of a loaded term, retribution is probably more apt. Parking tickets are arguably not really a key part of the justice system, it's more of a societal tool to deal with a specific problem. Still, to an extent sure. Most people want people to be punished for bad behaviour. That desire for vengeance is in my opinion the core of the justice system in most countries. That offends peoples' sensibilities quite a lot, apparently.

And saying that the justice system is to keep a law-abiding society seems a bit circular. That's essentially to say that the purpose of the justice system is to make people follow the justice system. That does nothing to explain the underlying principle of it.

But, anyway. What was the point of the Nuremberg trials in the opinion of Px, BRTD, Antonio and the rest of our most esteemed intellectuals on this site?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

@ Gustaf, isn't quite obvious in my post as to what I believe the underlying principle of a justice system is? The main goal is to ensure that criminal action that causes damage to life, erodes fairness etc is prevented. The rehabilitative goal of the criminal justice system exists for this reason and punitive aspect as well. I only believe in retributive justice as an intrinsically beneficial part of the system with regards to murder, assault and other exceptions. In this case, you're correct: vengeance would be a major goal and I am at times conflicted as to whether or not I should support the death penalty. I generally support what is least costly to the state yet still humane and fully litigated yet still punishes the criminal properly so generally that means I'm opposed.

I think we both misunderstood each other. Looking back on your post, I highly doubt that you believe that retribution is the main goal of the system with regards to the vast majority of crimes and I certainly don't want to eschew the idea of "vengeance" entirely from the system.

[Californian Tony]

"Giving people what they deserve" isn't vengeance. Vengeance is "making people suffer like I suffered". It's something subjective and highly primitive. It's the idea that justice is something individualistic and particularist rather than universalist. It is, in short, reactionary.

There are three fundamental goals of a penal system. That is :

1. To create the bases for a social contract : to make people know that their rights will be respected and that those who infringe them will be punished, so that people are confident enough in their fellows to allow for the establishment of a well-functioning society.

2. To improve people : through punishment, one should ideally understand that what he has done is wrong, and thus strive to adopt a better behaviour ; thus to become a better person.

3. To prevent crimes : since people know they will be punished for their wrongdoings, they will have a significant disincentive.

Vengeance should absolutely never be one of them.

[Gustaf]

@ Gustaf, isn't quite obvious in my post as to what I believe the underlying principle of a justice system is? The main goal is to ensure that criminal action that causes damage to life, erodes fairness etc is prevented. The rehabilitative goal of the criminal justice system exists for this reason and punitive aspect as well. I only believe in retributive justice as an intrinsically beneficial part of the system with regards to murder, assault and other exceptions. In this case, you're correct: vengeance would be a major goal and I am at times conflicted as to whether or not I should support the death penalty. I generally support what is least costly to the state yet still humane and fully litigated yet still punishes the criminal properly so generally that means I'm opposed.

I think we both misunderstood each other. Looking back on your post, I highly doubt that you believe that retribution is the main goal of the system with regards to the vast majority of crimes and I certainly don't want to eschew the idea of "vengeance" entirely from the system.

If we're talking about crimes (and not say misdemeanors) I do think that retribution is the main   aspect.

Again, if we only had the justice system to prevent crime why not have the death penalty for everything? That would maximize deterrence would it not?

Also, to clear up potential confusion, being a retributivist does not necessarily mean favouring capital punishment. So that's not the point I'm making, in case someone thinks so.

[Gustaf]

"Giving people what they deserve" isn't vengeance. Vengeance is "making people suffer like I suffered". It's something subjective and highly primitive. It's the idea that justice is something individualistic and particularist rather than universalist. It is, in short, reactionary.

There are three fundamental goals of a penal system. That is :

1. To create the bases for a social contract : to make people know that their rights will be respected and that those who infringe them will be punished, so that people are confident enough in their fellows to allow for the establishment of a well-functioning society.

2. To improve people : through punishment, one should ideally understand that what he has done is wrong, and thus strive to adopt a better behaviour ; thus to become a better person.

3. To prevent crimes : since people know they will be punished for their wrongdoings, they will have a significant disincentive.

Vengeance should absolutely never be one of them.

Maybe you should back up your idea of this meaning with something. And also take note of the fact that I said vengeance might not be the best term and retribution might be less confusing. If one wikipedias "vengeance" one gets to revenge and the following paragraph:

"Revenge is a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real or perceived. It is also called payback, retribution, retaliation or vengeance; it may be characterized as a form of justice, an altruistic action which enforces societal rules and which is based on a deep rooted evolutionary instinct that helped humanity by implementing social cohesion in a subtle way."

Obviously reactionary nonsense right there!

Anyway, I assume given your stated criteria, that you consider it an outrage that we punished Goering and the other Nazi leaders after 1945? That did not improve them, it hardly prevented them nor any other politicians from doing it again and peoples' general confidence in strangers for societal interactions was hardly affected either.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Parking tickets are arguably not really a key part of the justice system, it's more of a societal tool to deal with a specific problem.

An argument can be made that 'a societal tool to deal with a specific problem' is not an inaccurate characterization of laws against things like murder.

[Gustaf]

Parking tickets are arguably not really a key part of the justice system, it's more of a societal tool to deal with a specific problem.

An argument can be made that 'a societal tool to deal with a specific problem' is not an inaccurate characterization of laws against things like murder.

Sure, but would you actually make that argument? When someone gets a parking ticket, do we nod approvingly to each other and say "justice has been served"?

In a society without cars there would be no parking tickets so it's perfectly possible to imagine a justice system without them that would still be just. That's sort of why I don't consider it a fundamental part of the system.

Parking tickets is a technical solution to the problem of cars being in the way that could theoretically be dealt with in different ways. I don't think most people or justice systems take the same view of murders.

Anyway, it's a bit of a side issue, in my opinion.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Parking tickets are arguably not really a key part of the justice system, it's more of a societal tool to deal with a specific problem.

An argument can be made that 'a societal tool to deal with a specific problem' is not an inaccurate characterization of laws against things like murder.

Sure, but would you actually make that argument? When someone gets a parking ticket, do we nod approvingly to each other and say "justice has been served"?

No, and you're right that it's a different sort of issue, but that shouldn't be our reaction to killings, either.

[Gustaf]

Parking tickets are arguably not really a key part of the justice system, it's more of a societal tool to deal with a specific problem.

An argument can be made that 'a societal tool to deal with a specific problem' is not an inaccurate characterization of laws against things like murder.

Sure, but would you actually make that argument? When someone gets a parking ticket, do we nod approvingly to each other and say "justice has been served"?

No, and you're right that it's a different sort of issue, but that shouldn't be our reaction to killings, either.

To killings? I meant when we arrest someone for murder and gives them whatever punishment has been established (like a prison sentence for example).

Again, I'm not making a case for the death penalty here.