A Cruel and Indecent Ruling

In a 4-3 split decision, Connecticut’s supreme court declared the death penalty “unconstitutional”, claiming the death penalty “no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency and no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose”.

Seriously? How is it possible that the execution of people convicted of horrific crimes “no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency” in a society that executes a million unborn babies every year?

Let’s see. Which is less decent? To tear an innocent unborn child to pieces as you extricate her dying body from her mother? Or to end the life of a person convicted of taking the lives of innocent people?

Granted, there are some problems with the death penalty.

The first problem is that very, very rarely an innocent person may be executed. The solution is to only permit the imposition of the death penalty in cases where there is zero doubt that the person committed the crime, such as in cases where there is overwhelming forensic evidence, or multiple credible eye witnesses.

The second problem is that very, very few who are sentenced to death actually have the sentence carried out. The solution is to permit a single appeal, and to carry out the execution within a fixed amount of time. If there is zero doubt about guilt, there is zero reason to allow the appeals process to drag on, and on, and on.

The third problem — in the minds of some — is that the executions aren’t always quick and painless. Frankly, I am not that concerned that a person guilty of the death penalty, who probably inflicted great suffering on his victim(s), suffers before dying. So what. But even for that there is a simple solution: Use anesthesia to knock the criminal unconscious, then execute him.

What the death penalty is NOT is “cruel” or “unusual” punishment.

Cruel to end the life of a convicted murderer? I see nothing cruel about doing that.

Unusual to end the life of a convicted murderer? Since it doesn’t happen often enough in our country, it might be considered unusual. But taken in the context of history, there is nothing unusual about the death penalty. On the contrary, I think what is unusual — and even cruel — is to keep someone worthy of and sentenced to death locked up indefinitely. Dogs are “put to sleep” regularly, and I’ve never really heard anybody argue that doing so is cruel. But to keep a dog locked up in a cage all the time, most people will tell you that is cruel. Why a different standard for humans convicted of brutal crimes? (Perhaps because life in prison is so cushy nowadays?)

The Connecticut Supreme Court’s cruel and illogical ruling changes multiple Connecticut death row inmates’ sentences to life imprisonment, including the death sentences of the depraved murderers Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky.

In July of 2007, Hayes and Komisarjevsky invaded the home of Dr. William Petit, where Petit, his wife Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and their two daughters were sleeping. They assaulted and bound Dr. Petit and his family, putting them in separate rooms. Hayes left the home with Jennifer, took her to a bank, and forced her to withdraw money, which was caught on surveillance camera, and witnessed by a bank teller. He then bought gasoline, putting it into two gas cans from the Petit home. Returning to the Petit home with Jennifer, Hayes and Komisarjevsky then photographed their rape of Petit’s 11-year old daughter, after which they raped and strangled to death Jennifer Hawke-Petit. Dr. Petit, meanwhile, had managed to escape to a neighbor’s house to call 911. Hayes and Komisarjevsky then doused Jennifer’s corpse and her still-alive and bound daughters with gasoline, ignited a fire, and fled the scene in the Petit’s car. Police quickly spotted, pursued and apprehended the depraved duo a block from the Petit home.

There is absolutely zero doubt that Hayes and Komisarjevsky brutally raped and murdered the female members of the Petit family.

There is also zero doubt that their crime is worthy of a speedy execution. In fact, it would be cruel, unusual, illogical and even indecent to not execute the two vile scumbags. They really should be castrated and burnt at the stake, but a post-anesthesia lethal injection would suffice, so long as these two devils pass into the next world, where their burning will be commensurate with their crimes. But now, thanks to an illogical ruling by an indecent court, it won’t be until their natural deaths, likely after years of taxpayer funds pay for them to be clothed, fed, medicated and entertained.