The Connecticut House of Representatives, by a vote of 86-62, has approved the bill abolishing that state’s death penalty. It will now go to Governor Dannel P. Malloy for his signature.
With Connecticut set to join, there will soon be 17 states (plus Washington, D.C.) in the abolitionist club. Five years ago, there were only 12.
And other states seem likely to follow in the near future. Maryland already has a majority in its legislature that supports repeal. Oregon now has a Governor-imposed moratorium on executions. Montana and Colorado, with just two and four people on their respective death rows, have been close to ending their death penalties in recent years. New Hampshire and Kansas have had no executions since 1939 and 1965 respectively. And in California, some 800,000 citizens have endorsed a November 2012 ballot initiative that would replace their state’s incredibly expensive death penalty.
Governor Malloy is expected to sign Connecticut’s bill into law soon.
all this will cause is vigilantism to rise..murderers shouldn’t have a free ride, a roof over their head and 3 squares a day.
Congratulations to Bob Nave and everyone who made such a wonderful, hard-fought victory possible. This is what the power of ACTIVISM and perseverance is, and should be, all about. This historic result can only hasten the inevitable downfall of America’s immense moral wrong, and it is further proof that the day is coming, in our lifetimes, when we shall all see a death penalty-free
USA.
Again, KUDOS!!
Rick Halperin
SDPAC, Texas
I have never been a proponent of the death penalty – it isn’t a deterrent against capital crimes, and its use against anything less is abhorrent.
Nevertheless, iit’s only recently that i’ve come to dislike the death penalty in toto. The misuse of execution is once again on the rise, and absurd laws (like the law of parties, or requiring 100% proof of innocence to get a re-trial), are guaranteeing the deaths of innocents at the hands of the state.
Abolishing the death penalty Is a good thing think of it as a way to prevent wrongfull death and avoid large amounts of collateral damage. It’s got to stop somewhere. If the States don’t abolish the death penalty.Then aren’t the states as bad or worse than the people they convict? I mean really I think some people in law think that if they believe a person is guilty of a crime that they all of a sudden have a reason to become just as guilty or even more so than the person they were thinking of in the name of stopping what they don’t want to happen? witch might not have even happend? so whom would be guilty then?
Think about it it might make some sence if you’ve ever been on both sides for a time?
yea GOV.
I live in Connecticut.
I’ve there my entire life.
How many times has a person(or should I say monster), been put to death in Connecticut? Can “Holy and High and Mighty” Rick and Sean answer the question?
“This historic result can only hasten the inevitable downfall of America’s immense moral wrong, and it is further proof that the day is coming, in our lifetimes, when we shall all see a death penalty-free USA.”
~Rick Halperin
Rick-Busy yourself with what goes on in Texas and not Connecticut.
“Then aren’t the states as bad or worse than the people they convict?”
Sean-Do you know anything about a triple murder of three women back not too long ago? A Mother and her two daughters were raped, tortured and burned alive…though I pray they weren’t alive when their flesh melted off their bones…You need to look that case up and tell me the state is as bad or WORSE than the two men who did the raping and burning and tying to beds and a little more rape…
” I mean really I think some people in law think that if they believe a person is guilty of a crime that they all of a sudden have a reason to become just as guilty or even more so than the person they were thinking of in the name of stopping what they don’t want to happen?”
Sean- Apparently, you don’t read or write very goodly
” witch might not have even happend? so whom would be guilty then?
Think about it it might make some sence if you’ve ever been on both sides for a time?”
Sean– No no noooo…The men didn’t burn a witch. They raped and tortured and lit the house on fire thinking it would cover up the crime scene. Gee! Boy oh boy did they show those no good lawyers and a jury of their peers, who..apparently, were ALL just as guilty of rape and torture and enjoying the smell of human flesh, right?
And I have to say Sean, that I’ve never been both sides for a time.
Both sides of what? The good and the bad? The right and the wrong? The sane and the insane? The murdered in cold, premeditated blood and the cold blooded murderers?
~Sean Lynch
“yea GOV”…….
~Sean Lynch
Sean- Do you for one minute really believe the good GOV Dannel Malloy REALLY in his heart of hearts, wants more monsters to sit in their little cells, eat their 3 meals/day and sleep the sleep of the innocent? It’s a political move. It makes our…my…democratic GOV look good to those who really DON’T believe in capital punnishment.
Do you know what happens to child rapists in prison Sean?
Be on “both” sides. But fair warning; if you go to the other side first? You won’t be around to come over to the good side.
KB
Registered Democrat
The abolition of the death penalty is a step forward. To me no one else except God has the right to decide about life or death for people even if they committed terrible crimes.
I always thought that amnesty was about human rights… i would like to ask you guys (1.) whether or not humans have the “right” to condemn found-guilty humans (of such atrocities of child-rape and murder) to death? and (2.) if not, what “rights” can these alleged child-rapists be expected to receive once imprisoned?
(KB referred to people of such crimes to be monsters, and i agree. but if so, have we now decided to look past their humanity only at their crimes? i dont know the answer to this, that is why i am asking you guys)
Gianna … humans, and the governments they create, do not have the right to kill prisoners, any more than they have the right to torture them. Certainly, those who commit terrible crimes can be denied certain rights (such as being imprisoned) in order to protect public safety and provide redress for victims, but torturing and killing such prisoners are red lines that no government should be allowed to cross. I agree with you that calling people who have committed terrible acts does “look past their humanity”, and a key to preserving human rights is to never deny an individual’s humanity no matter what crimes they have committed.
if someone is given a life-sentence instead of death, and they are stuck for the rest of thier lives in jail, able to communicate with society except for jail-cell drawings, they have very little or no purpose in society. When these people have their purpose taken away from them, what good is it doing society or theirselves? I think that they criminal system needs to been reformed because in my mind, taking away a human being’s purpose or ability to make a difference in their lives and society is just as bad as killing them, basically just a slower way of doing it. If we want to treat these people more “humanely” without killing them, there needs to be a way for them to help make a difference in some way in society. We shoudn’t be content to just let these condemed criminals rot the rest of their lives away in a jail cell and pat ourselves on the back, saying how “nice” and humane we are. There needs to be an outlet for these people, there needs to be a way they can realistically pay back for their crimes.