State House Votes To Abolish Death Pe...

State House Votes To Abolish Death Penalty

There are 529 comments on the Hartford Courant story from May 14, 2009, titled State House Votes To Abolish Death Penalty. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

The state House of Representatives voted to abolish the death penalty on Wednesday - the fourth anniversary of the execution of serial killer Michael Ross - and instead impose life in prison without the possibility of release.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

Man of Zinc

New Hartford, CT

#51 May 14, 2009
Heck, I don't want the death penalty as a deterrent, I want it for pay back.

What's wrong with that?

Abolitionists want to let the Cheshire murders live out their lives when they raped and then burned a woman and her children to death?

WTF is wrong with you? If Jesus was around, he'd be applying for the executioner's job.
Man of Zinc

New Hartford, CT

#52 May 14, 2009
Truth wrote:
(Gen 9:6 [KJV])
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
What about the thousands killed by The Righteous in the Bible after Genesis?

The Faithful can't pick and choose.
Man of Zinc

New Hartford, CT

#53 May 14, 2009
Do-Right wrote:
Just keep voting, these, left-winged Lawyers in to office, what do you expect to get in return.....Logic....not a chance
Once again, all the ills of the world are blamed on the legions of Stalinist Democrats who control the world.

"Some people need a deeper level of analysis" - Cornel West

Since: May 09

Newington, CT

#54 May 14, 2009
This is foolish. I support abolishing the death penalty, but even if they have the votes in the senate, which they might not, the governor will veto, and they don't have the votes to override. They foolishly made some of their more precarious members go out on a limb for nothing. That said, I hope that I'm wrong.

Seymour, CT

#56 May 14, 2009
All bleeding heart Democrats . Lets let them sit in prison , eat 3 meals a day , watch television , lift weights , sell drugs etc . ect. ect. Our state taxes at work !

Charlotte, NC

#57 May 14, 2009
I hate to use what happened to the Petit family to illustrate my argument, and if Dr Petit is reading this, I apologize to you for those that have no clue.

I will challenge anyone hear that doesnt think that the Cheshire animals to be put to death immediately, to picture what happened to these women in the greatest detail you can. Play it in detail like a movie in your head, yet these are real people. If this doesnt make you want to vomit or cry you arent thinking hard enough and creating that picture which should be one of horror. If in the end your mind cant take you there, then you are one of those people that cant truly understand evil, so keep your thoughts on justice and punishment for true evil to yourself.

How do I know this works? My wife is against the death penalty. I asked her to do this and she couldnt because it made her uncomfortable. She didnt even get to sick or crying. That tells me that she cant fathom evil the way I can, because she cant internalize it, and therefore doesnt know how to get to those emotions that demand true justice.

United States

#58 May 14, 2009
If someone takes a life out of hate - then they must lose their life as well. Why in the world would you pay for someone to sit in a prison for years. Eye for an eye. nobody ever thinks about the family and the numerous of people that are effected when a life is lost because of hate. And any murder is hate!
Welcome To Reality

Phoenix, AZ

#59 May 14, 2009
The people of CT are more concerned about the rights of murderers than they are of the victims. If you kill, you will be killed! In CT, take a life (lives) & you'll live forever on the taxpayers dime.
George Demetrion

United States

#60 May 14, 2009
Bede wrote:
In these kinds of debates, there is almost always at least one death penalty supporter who says something like "this isn't about vengeance, it's about justice," and then doesn't bother to explain. It seems to me that "justice" and "vengeance" have the same meaning in this context, i.e., you kill, we kill you.
Am I missing something, or is this just another example of PC word choice?
First, I think it's important to challenge the assumption that "justice" is inherently a code word for "revenge" when applied to the death penalty

Second, one can only assume that when the founders of the US Constitution (or was it the Bill of Rights?) wrote about "cruek and unusual punishment" they were not referring to the death penalty

Third, there are situations in which the death penalty be both just and the only viable alternative. The extreme example would be the case of someone serving a lofe sentence who kills a fellow prisoner or guard. I would also agree here with Gov Rell that it is certainly not a case injustice or merely revenge in imposing the death penalty on extremely heinous acts like the murders in Cheshire a couple years back.

No doubt there are problems with the way that the death penality has been implemented which need to be addressed. No doubt, too, abolitionism is an easy solution that bypasses the complexity of the issues involved,in which, in my view, its implementation should be rare,equitable, based on very solid evidence and carried out within some reasonable time frame (see 5 years max) from when the conviction and initial sentence was issued.

Abololitionism may be morally appealing, but I think it is too dismissive of a response to a complex issue as I also believe similarly about moral and legal abololitionism over abortion.
Welcome To Reality

Phoenix, AZ

#61 May 14, 2009
Truth wrote:
(Gen 9:6 [KJV])
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
I believe that refers to "cold blooded murder."

Peabody, MA

#62 May 14, 2009
can somebody put up the link so we can see how our legislators voted?
I haven't been able to find it.
George Demetrion

United States

#63 May 14, 2009
Pondering wrote:
How about all you "right-to-lifers"? If you think abortion is murder, so is a state imposed death penalty.
And, I don't see any discussion about the real possibility of executing an innocent person. This has clearly been an issue around the country. The US is the only country in the developed world that legalizes execution.
You might be right about that and I am not opposed to abortion under all circumstances. Looking at facts on the ground we have had one carried out death penalty in CT for some decades and that was only because Michael what's his name insisted on the death penalty being carried out for himself. And how many abortins have been carried out in CT since whatever date you'd like to start with?

Ware, MA

#64 May 14, 2009
Truth wrote:
(Gen 9:6 [KJV])
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
The Bible also says: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Since: May 09

Newington, CT

#65 May 14, 2009
George Demetrion wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I think it's important to challenge the assumption that "justice" is inherently a code word for "revenge" when applied to the death penalty
Okay, if "justice" is not a code word for "revenge," what is it?

East Granby, CT

#66 May 14, 2009
A sufficient reason to oppose the death penalty is purely practical - it costs the taxpayers far less to keep someone on death row than for the endless appeals.

East Hartford, CT

#67 May 14, 2009
Kinda makes me want to resort to a life of crime. I can bludgeon people, rape their children and then burn their property and get three hots and a cot for free in return.

Bedford, TX

#68 May 14, 2009
The liberal establishment that runs the General Assembly, and the Judiciary Committee in particular, provides daily examples of hypocrisy, illogical thinking and a lack of rationality. Consider the following:

1. They vote to abolish to death penalty based on moral and economic grounds, yet they ridicule moral arguments against abortion and homosexual "marriage," and the high economic cost is due to their own support of frivolous legal arguments on appeal and their failure to adopt reasonable reforms. Have you ever noticed that liberals love to say "You can't legislate morality" but they are the first to use bogus moral arguments to support higher taxes, homosexual "marriage" and abolition of the death penalty?

2. They vote to dismantle the Catholic Church because of alleged corruption and a hierarchical system that prevents accountability, yet they preside over a government that is riddled with corruption and which utilizes a secretive, hierarchical system of committee chairmanships that also lacks accountability.

3. They preach to the voters about the need to treat everyone equally, yet they continue to create more and more protected classes of people who are entitled to special legal rights, now including homosexuals, which requires everyone to continually identify themselves based on these categories.

4. They preside over a government whose tax revenue is derived largely from highly-paid executives in Fairfield County, Indian casino revenue and corporate taxes, yet they leap at every chance to vilify highly paid people and to make it ever more difficult for the casinos and large corporations to do business in CT.

5. They claim to support "green" and environmentally friendly technologies when it comes to grandstanding issues like water bottles and plastic shopping bags, but they oppose measures that would actually help the environment, like alternative fuel power plants, windmills or upgrading our electric distribution system.

I have to get back to work, but if you are interested I can come up with some more examples.

Saint Louis, MO

#69 May 14, 2009
Jamie M wrote:
As a conservative who is also Catholic, I am not a big fan of the death penalty, so I can't say I'm sorry to see it go. I believe in the sanctity of life. In tis case, I applaud the state Democrats for protecting the sanctity of life, even when the person in question has done something terrible.
Here is where the liberals lose me, and where they go off the deep end, and where they abandon all logic. If you're telling me that the 2 guys who wiped out the Petit family in Cheshire deserve to live, how do you not offer that same protection to an unborn baby, who by definition has not had a chance to hurt anybody?
Osama Bin Laden deserves to live, but not an unborn baby? How can any sane person say that out loud with a straight face?
There is zero logic, and I mean ZERO LOGIC, that can defend being against the death penalty but pro-abortion. It's absolutely indefensible.
What about the people that are pro death penalty and against abortion? How you can people say that they need to protect life at all stages, then amend that with "unless they commit a crime"?

Abolishing the death penalty is good. No one has the right to end life, and it is a sin to do so. Just because one person has done so doesn't mean that you can return the favor. It's a difficult spot between not trying to judge people and protecting ourselves, but the best we can do is keep people in prison. How can any of you justify killing someone? You say that God will fix it if you're wrong, but what happens when it is your turn to be judged? No one who claims to follow God can actually feel okay with killing someone, even if the person is a sinner. In God's eyes, all sin is equal and separates us from him. So those cold-blooded killers are equally bad in God's eyes as we are when we lie or get divorced.

You might say that a person's right to life ends when they deny that right to others, but that is a slippery slope. Should we give the death penalty to a busdriver that accidentally runs over a little kid that ran in front of the bus? What if they only threaten the right to life, should we put to death anyone who drinks and drives? Or anyone that just drinks? Or anyone that buys alcohol? Yeah, this is exagerated, but allowing the governemnt to kill people that don't follow the rules can easily get out of hand.

Saint Louis, MO

#70 May 14, 2009
Tommy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible also says: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
And Ghandi once said "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

Tempe, AZ

#71 May 14, 2009
Lawlor is puke. Murder should equal death by hanging. Pocks to those who vote to eliminate the death penalty.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Connecticut Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News FrogWatch USA Needs Connecticut Volunteers Feb 18 America Gentleman... 2
News CCM demands release of $30 million in road aid Feb 18 America Gentleman... 1
Crimes of Atoka County Feb 13 UCONN 1
News A photo of a proposed MGM casino is on display ... Feb 6 America Gentleman... 1
News Wolf pups born at Beardsley Feb 2 BPT 2
Alien Jan 29 25yoap 2
News Bridgeport legislators prepare for casino debate Jan 29 America Gentleman... 1
More from around the web