My home state of Connecticut is about to make a fatal mistake repealing the death penalty. Don’t do it! We need the death penalty in the case of the most heinous of crimes like Cheshire home invasion and the murder of the Pettit family.
I commend Dr. Pettit for his lifelong commitment of perseverance. If Hayes and Komisarjevski got life in prison with no chance of parole, Dr. Pettit would have closure and be at rest, done dealing with appeals. But justice would not be served. He took the road less traveled and accepts he will be involved with appeals for the rest of his natural life. Dr. Pettit, I commend you!
The raging debate is not over justice, but over economics. The opposition has demonstrated that it costs more to execute than to house the criminals in prison for life. Correct, but they omit the circumstances. It is that way due to the unlimited appeal process in Connecticut—set up to house them on death row for the rest of their lives in the worst case scenario. Senator Rob Kane’s alternate was to retain the death penalty but limit appeals to seven years—reasonable.
Some opponents make a good point about how we have a death penalty but hardly ever use it. I think Connecticut needs to be more like Florida and Texas and execute more heinous criminals. In Connecticut, if the prosecution does not ask for the death penalty, the judge can only sentence life in prison. Who is the prosecution to decide? The judge should be allowed to administer the death penalty whether the prosecution asks for it or not, which is how the two afore mentioned states handle it. And no need for a jury pole requiring the approval of ten out of twelve jurors either—if the jury finds the defendant guilty as charged of first degree murder (premeditated) or murdering a police officer in the line of duty, that is good enough. This is what is required for Connecticut to never see another Cheshire home invasion again.