Connecticut public defender opens a can of worms

[vaskidmark]

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-death-penalty-appeal-20121115,0,3892044.story

Preserving capital punishment for crimes committed before the legislature's abolishment of the death penalty is at odds with "evolving" standards of decency in Connecticut, an attorney for convicted killer Eduardo Santiago said in a legal filing this week to the state Supreme Court which has agreed to take up the issue of whether the repeal of the death penalty can apply only to future crimes.

Executing someone after the repeal would be "unprecedented," Assistant Public Defender Mark Rademacher said in a supplemental brief filed on behalf of Santiago, who faces the death penalty for the killing of Joseph Niwinski in West Hartford in December 2000 ....

Connecticut lawmakers abolished the death penalty in April but kept in place the death sentences imposed on current death-row inmates....

Executing someone in a state that has renounced capital punishment is "inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency," Rademacher argues. "When state lawmakers had the opportunity to vote for an amendment that would 'send a message' that carrying out existing death sentences took priority over abolishing capital punishment, a majority of them chose instead to send the message that abolition was their paramount goal," he wrote.

The state Supreme Court agreed in September to take up the new law's prospective issue when it granted a request by Santiago, whose death sentence was overturned [returned for re-sentencing based on a technicality] in June, for written briefs and arguments that raise questions about the constitutionality of capital punishment for those who committed capital crimes before the law was passed last April.

Seems to me that the public defender's argument about what the lawmakers intended was in fact answered by the lawmakers' decision not to specifically bar the carrying out of existing death sentences.

Avoiding altogether  the question of the usefulness of a death penalty applied decades after the conviction, this seems to be a rather straight-forward questiion  of what was the law at the time the sentence was handed down.  Courts have historically used that rubric based on the notion that to do otherwise (especially in cases relating to the decriminalization of certain behaviors) would mean undoing all previous sentences.  It does suck to be the guy who gets sentenced to death under the old law on March 31st, when another guy who is sentenced for essentially the exact same crime on April 1st (Gah!  Who picks April 1st as the effective date of anything?!?  ) can only be sentenced to life in prison.  But then, if the guy sentenced on March 31st had not committed the murder he would not be in that situation, would he?

In this case I can't even raise my objection to the death penalty - that execution of sentence decades after the sentencing removes any real demonstration of the majesty of the state, which is the only reason I can see for having a death penalty since we all agree that it is not there to exact retribution on behalf of the family/friends of the murdered person, nor is it an effective deterrent (except as applied to the person being executed).  That it is less costly to incarcerate someone for 50 years than it presently is to arrive at the carrying out of an execution warrant should have nothing to do with the discussion about what to do with folks who were sentenced before the new law went into effect.

Here in Virginia we had somewhat similar situations when the no-parole law was passed.  Defendants who were sentenced before the law went into effect earned significantly less good-behavior time than those sentenced afterwards.  They sued (on the theory of envy?) and lost.  But at least in making that decision the Va. Supreme Court had the advantage of case law they created even earlier, when the rate of good-behavior time was adjusted as part of a law changing when an inmate became eligible for parole - in that case inmates were afforded an option to switch from the old to the new good-behavior time accrual rate.  There are still inmates incarcerated under "old law" and "old old law".  IIRC the last one under "old old" law will be released in 2015 if not paroled before then.

Oyez!  Oyez!  Oyez! - The Supreme Judicial Court of APS is now in session. $diety help the Supreme Court of APS.

stay safe.

[Ron]

If there were a utopia type government we could actually trust they would be worthy to have the power to sentence someone to death.

I don't trust our current state or federal governments any longer. Therefore I am in favor of eliminating the death penalty all together.

[AZRedhawk44]

Bad poll.

There's no option for incarcerating Fistful for 20 to life.

[seeker_two]

Would have been easier if all the Death Row inmated had been executed the day before the law was enacted....electric bleachers, anyone?....

[MechAg94]

You also forgot "Damn crazy yankees".  Not sure I should blame all crazy Northerners for this stuff, maybe just crazy Connecticut Yankees.  
I do know that if the death penalty had been outlawed and was made legal, the court wouldn't allow them to change the sentence to the new punishment.  What is the precendent when just incarceration is on the table?  Are prisoners let go early if the sentence for a crime is reduced by the legislature after their conviction?


General death penalty thoughts:

In this case I can't even raise my objection to the death penalty - that execution of sentence decades after the sentencing removes any real demonstration of the majesty of the state, which is the only reason I can see for having a death penalty since we all agree that it is not there to exact retribution on behalf of the family/friends of the murdered person, nor is it an effective deterrent (except as applied to the person being executed).  That it is less costly to incarcerate someone for 50 years than it presently is to arrive at the carrying out of an execution warrant should have nothing to do with the discussion about what to do with folks who were sentenced before the new law went into effect.

Agree the delay in carrying out the execution is terrible, but why does it take so long and cost so much?  IMO, it is that way because people who don't like the death penalty have created so many barriers and allow so many irrelavant appeals/reviews that is takes a long long time and costs a whole lot.  I think it could be done better and faster.  (Why the same people don't fight so hard for people who get life in prison is beyond me.)  How come there are so many lawyers working in the "final hours" to do last minute appeals to stop an execution?  What are they going to find that hasn't been uncovered in the previous 10 or 20 years?  A Texas Judge recently refused to hear a last hour appeal.  From what I could tell, the appeal was baseless, but that didn't stop the judge from catching flak over not wasting time with it.    

Why we punish people for committing crimes is an entirely different question and IMO the same answer applies regardless of whether they just get a few years in prison or the death penalty.  We do it because justice demands it and the alternative of revenge/retribution enacted by the victims or their families is something which society has decided is a bad idea.  The US has a strong and colorful history of vigilantism, good and bad.  

[vaskidmark]

Bad poll.

There's no option for incarcerating Fistful for 20 to life.

Fixed.

stay safe.

[vaskidmark]

You also forgot "Damn crazy yankees".  Not sure I should blame all crazy Northerners for this stuff, maybe just crazy Connecticut Yankees.  

Fixed.

stay safe.

[Balog]

If there were a utopia type government we could actually trust they would be worthy to have the power to sentence someone to death.

I don't trust our current state or federal governments any longer. Therefore I am in favor of eliminating the death penalty all together.

Do you want to eliminate all prisons in toto then? Cause if killing a 20 y/o for murdering someone is too much power for the state to have, surely having that same 20 y/o spend the next 50-60 years getting beaten and butt raped in a little cage of sociopaths shouldn't be a power the .gov should have either, right?

[Ron]

Do you want to eliminate all prisons in toto then? Cause if killing a 20 y/o for murdering someone is too much power for the state to have, surely having that same 20 y/o spend the next 50-60 years getting beaten and butt raped in a little cage of sociopaths shouldn't be a power the .gov should have either, right?

Sounds more like a case for prison reform than an argument for the death penalty.

[RevDisk]

Do you want to eliminate all prisons in toto then? Cause if killing a 20 y/o for murdering someone is too much power for the state to have, surely having that same 20 y/o spend the next 50-60 years getting beaten and butt raped in a little cage of sociopaths shouldn't be a power the .gov should have either, right?

If they are alive, mistakes can be corrected to some extent. Can't if they are dead.

I am for capital punishment. Just not by government, as they have not proven themselves competent to handle it. If more than a few death row inmates have been found innocent, which has happened, then nope.

But yea, reviewing prisons may not be a bad idea.

[AZRedhawk44]

I am for capital punishment. Just not by government, as they have not proven themselves competent to handle it. If more than a few death row inmates have been found innocent, which has happened, then nope.

Vigilantism FTW.

[Balog]

Sounds more like a case for prison reform than an argument for the death penalty.

Not arguing for the death penalty, merely pointing out that being against it but not also against our current legal system seems off.

[lupinus]

I'm fine with the death penalty when there is no question of a persons guilt. Guy caught on video stabbing someone to death? DNA? Confession with collaborating evidence and no evidence of coercion? Fine by me. But just testimony/evidence? Nope. Guilt beyond all doubt is an acceptable standard for the death penalty, and when there is such I see no issue with it. But just beyond a reasonable doubt? Not strong enough.

Frankly, in cases where there can be no doubt, I'd be fine making it mandatory for murder convictions or expanding it to other crimes.

[lupinus]

Sounds more like a case for prison reform than an argument for the death penalty.

Sure, but different topic.

[Ron]

Balog said:

Not arguing for the death penalty, merely pointing out that being against it but not also against our current legal system seems off.

Sure, but different topic.

I don't think I can win on this one!

[Balog]

Hey, I'm all for prison reform. I just don't get why people fixate on the death penalty so exclusively. I get the whole "can't fix dead" thing, but you can't fix decades in a cage either.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I'm fine with the death penalty when there is no question of a persons guilt. Guy caught on video stabbing someone to death? DNA? Confession with collaborating evidence and no evidence of coercion? Fine by me. But just testimony/evidence? Nope. Guilt beyond all doubt is an acceptable standard for the death penalty, and when there is such I see no issue with it. But just beyond a reasonable doubt? Not strong enough.

Frankly, in cases where there can be no doubt, I'd be fine making it mandatory for murder convictions or expanding it to other crimes.

Yup. Well put.  Sadly we get death setences in murky cases or behind politicalnagendas and that needs to be stopped

[roo_ster]

If they can convince the guvnor to commute the DP, run with it.

If not, break out the Big Shot.

[erictank]

Bad poll.

There's no option for incarcerating Fistful for 20 to life.

I think that's just assumed as a given.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

If they can convince the guvnor to commute the DP, run with it.

If not, break out the Big Shot.

they rub there is yet again agendas.
we had a guy here  earl washington on death row
gov wilder commuted his death sentence
later on a rep gov i think it was gilmore had dna run proved he was innocent of murder cut him loose.  at that point the lab mentioned they had run that dna test before and it came out that the dem, wilder, had known he was innocent years earlier. had not wanted to be "soft on crime" so only commuted death sentence. wilder was confronted and said "i commuted his sentence didn't i?" meh

[RoadKingLarry]

Here is my criminal justice reform.

Death penalty only in cases where there is no doubt of guilt. A few recent examples, James Holmes, Nidal Hasan, Jarad Loughner.

Prosecutorial misconduct. When proven the offenders get to serve the same sentence they were fraudulently attempting to impose on their victim, up to and including the death penalty. Nifong comes to mind first.

[Waitone]

Prosecutorial misconduct. When proven the offenders get to serve the same sentence they were fraudulently attempting to impose on their victim, up to and including the death penalty. Nifong comes to mind first.

I know you don't want to hear this but the position you just took is biblical. 

My way of thinking is no one should be able to use the criminal justice system as a way to victimize citizens.  If caught they should suffer the same penalty they sought to impose on innocent victims.  You are right, Nifong is the text book example of what is wrong and how it should be punished.  The man should spend his remaining years on earth regretting what he did and in the cell next to him should be the medical examiner who helped him.  Nifongs kind of crap will cease and cease suddenly when the Nifongs of the world suffer the consequences of their own criminality and stupidity. 

Oh, BTW, the Duke Rape Case is not the only case where the DA conspired with the medical examiner to diddle the evidence in favor of a predetermined outcome.  It is done routinely in NC.

[RoadKingLarry]

I know you don't want to hear this but the position you just took is biblical. 

Why would I not want to hear that?
There's a bunch of stuff in the bible that boils down to some pretty good ways to maintain an ordered society regardless of the claimed source.

[T.O.M.]

As a system insider, I'll say this...

I believe that the death penalty is misapplied in our system.  A guy who robs a store for drug money and shoots/kills a clerk may be rehabilitated.  The death penalty in this situation is about revenge, not necessarily justice.  Yet this is a very common application of the death penalty, and often a situation where the case is later reversed due to new evidence.  Life in prison is a better option.

Take a guy who is a serial child rapist, and I have great doubts that you will ever be able to fix that, no matter what meds or therapy you use.  Apply the death penalty to this guy.  If nothing else, you'l never have to worry about this one molesting a child again, so it's protection of society.  Yet I know of no jurisdiction that even allows the death penalty in these kinds of cases.  In fact, at least in Ohio, absent an application of physical force to compell the molestation, a defendant isn't even eligible for a life sentence.  And, if a judge applies a maximum sentence in these cases, there is an automatic appeal of the sentence.

As for the OP, if the new law does not state that it is to apply retroactively, it shouldn't be applied retroactively.

[Blakenzy]

So, if it becomes "not legal" to kill someone before the execution date comes, what then? Their sentence was death, not incarceration for x number of years. Now the original sentence cannot be carried out anymore. What replaces that sentence? Can they be tried again to be given a different conviction? or do they just walk?

BTW Chris I agree entirely with your idea of the current misapplication of the death penalty.