This past week, Connecticut's House of Representatives voted to abolish the death penalty. The vote moves next to the Senate, but Gov. Jodi Rell (R) has indicated that she will veto the legislation if it passes.
Connecticut's death penalty serves no purpose. Since the state reinstated the death penalty in the 1970s, one person has been executed. Serial killer (and former Cornell student!) Michael Ross waived his appeals and was executed in 2005. For 36 years, Connecticut hasn't actually managed to execute anyone who hasn't wanted to die.
Supporters of the death penalty argue that capital punishment serves two valuable purposes: retribution and deterrence. By this view, the families of victims deserve to see the harshest punishment brought on those who killed their loved ones, while capital punishment deters would-be murderers because they know they might be killed for their crimes.
Of course, having the death penalty without killing anyone does not achieve either of these goals. There is no retribution because no one dies. There is no deterrence because the odds of a Connecticut murderer being executed, even if handed a death sentence, is nearly zero.
So, what purpose does the Connecticut death penalty serve, aside from helping Governor Rell to strengthen her tough-on-crime credentials? Essentially nothing.
The House bill would replace the death penalty with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This is an adequately harsh sentence for our state's most heinous criminals, and it's too bad that Governor Rell is placing ideology before common sense.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is estimated by the government that we would save $4 million a year if we abolished the death penalty. That money could go to counseling for survivors, financial assistance for dependents of murder victims, and solving cold cases. That's REAL help for victims.
ReplyDelete