Tinkering With the Machinery of Death
“[f]rom this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.”
Yesterday in Connecticut, the State Supreme Court heard arguments “in a high-stakes case that could see Connecticut’s prospective abolition of the death penalty thrown out.”
Nearly a year ago to the day, on April 25, 2012, Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy signed into law a bill that repealed the death penalty, “making his state the 17th state — the 5th in five years — to abolish capital punishment.” If the death penalty was repealed, obviously, the repeal would apply to all future convictions, hence the term “prospective” in the phrase “prospective abolition.” The legal issue is, does the law apply to people who were convicted and sentenced to death before the new law? Is it, or is it not, retroactive? I reject the following morally indefensible arguments: 1. that the change was a mere procedural change in sentencing, which would not reach back in time, and 2. the change did not affect substantive rights.
We are talking about whether people have the right to live or die. How is execution not affecting a substantive right? Furthermore, how could and why would anybody manipulate the language or anything else surrounding killing, for political gain or for lessening political losses? Unacceptable.
On April 23, the Connecticut Supreme Court will consider whether the 11 inmates who remained on the state’s row after the legislature voted to repeal the death penalty in 2012 can still be executed. Mark Rademacher, an attorney for one of the inmates, argued that the legislature’s repeal of the death penalty demonstrated the punishment is no longer necessary and, hence, executing his client would be cruel and unusual punishment. Rademacher also asserted that the law’s prospective nature violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it singles out a small group of defendants for the death penalty, while dictating a life sentence for defendants in similar situations. Brian Stull, of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Capital Punishment Project, noted in his amicus brief that, “No state has executed a prisoner after repealing the death penalty. We just think it’s so important for the court to know Connecticut would be the first state to, and that’s not a stat any state wants to take.” The state has argued it was the clear intent of the legislature to only have the law apply to future cases.
I honestly feel as if we are living in a lunatic asylum, with an argument before a state’s highest Court, about whether abolished state-sponsored execution is still okay, for some people. Consider the last statement in the above blockquote. It says: “The state has argued it was the clear intent of the legislature to only have the law apply to future cases.” Legislative ‘intent’ does not matter, unless there is language in the statute, but apparently, there is language. With that language, however, is also the following reported lawmaker ‘concession:’