Death penalty necessary tool for prosecutors

The debate surrounding the death penalty is always an emotional one. People on both sides of the issue feel deeply and passionately that their views on the death penalty are valid, and appropriate. I understand the views of both sides of the debate, but I have been, and remain, a strong advocate of the death penalty as the only just punishment for the most heinous of crimes. Many other legislators, along with Gov. Rell, and a majority of the public also favor keeping the death penalty on the books. A Quinnipiac University poll released on May 28 revealed that 61 percent of Connecticut residents support capital punishment, while just 34 percent feel it should be abolished.

There are a number of factors that lead me to my decision. One of the most significant factors is justice. How is it fair or just to allow the most vile, cold-hearted killers to live out their lives with accommodations, essentials, and a roof over their heads after deliberately taking someone else’s life and at the same time permanently affecting the lives of the bereaving family?

Take, for instance, the tragic case of the Petit murders in Cheshire two years ago. Dr. William Petit had his wife and two young, vibrant daughters stalked, brutally raped, tortured, murdered, as he was left for dead in their home engulfed in flames. As someone who has lived and survived the nightmare of losing those loved ones closest to him, he has advocated for the death penalty to be sought in the case against the two suspects awaiting trial. A thoughtful, intelligent man by any measure, Dr. Petit simply can not think of any other punishment that fits the crime. I have had the opportunity of listening to the heartbreaking description of the life and dreams that they shared that were extinguished in the most heinous way imaginable.        

There are some that argue that life in prison without the possibility of parole is sufficient punishment for the most brutal of crimes. That may sound good, but in a pragmatic sense, it is not a workable policy. Defense attorneys often try to make plea arrangements for clients in murder cases. If the death penalty is hanging over their head, a suspect would consider a sentence of life in prison a reprieve. Without the possibility of a death penalty sentence, suspects will start at life in prison without the possibility of parole, and plea down from there.

The death penalty must only be pursued and applied with the utmost discretion. Taking a look at the 10 convicted criminals currently sitting on death row in Connecticut, the crimes they have committed are savage and brutal. Even so, these criminals must be afforded every reasonable opportunity to appeal their convictions. According to FBI statistics, the imposition of the death penalty is extraordinarily rare. Since 1967, there have been more than 560,000 murders nationwide, and 358 executions carried out between 1967-1996. In Connecticut, there has been just one execution carried out in the last 45 years. 

Over the course of the last several years, there have been technological advances in the arena of DNA evidence that have made law enforcement’s task of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt both smoother and more dependable. Modern DNA evidence makes a suspect’s guilt, or innocence, a virtual certainty.  

The average cost of incarceration for an inmate at Northern Correctional Institution in Somers, where death row is located, is $96,000 per year. The national average of time spent on death row prior to execution is about 13 years, and even longer in Connecticut, given the virtually unlimited number of appeals afforded death row criminals.

The argument that the death penalty does not deter murder is also a somewhat spurious one. Dismissing capital punishment on the basis that it is not a deterrent would logically lead to the elimination of all prisons because they do not seem to be any more effective in the deterring crime.

Currently in Connecticut, death row inmates are allowed what are essentially unlimited appeals, which effectively renders our current death penalty statute moot. There is perhaps some merit in taking a look at the current death penalty statute to try and make Connecticut’s death penalty more workable, but abolishing the death penalty is not the prudent course of action.