A recent edi­to­r­i­al in the Connecitcut Post called for the end of the death penal­ty in the state even as the tri­al began in a cap­i­tal case cncern­ing hor­rif­ic mur­ders in Cheshire in 2007. In 2009, the Connecticut General Assembly vot­ed to repeal the death penal­ty but Governor M. Jodi Rell vetoed the bill, cit­ing the Cheshire crimes. The edi­to­r­i­al cit­ed a vari­ety of rea­sons for repeal­ing the death penal­ty, includ­ing its inabil­i­ty to deter crime, high costs, and the dan­ger of exe­cut­ing inno­cent defen­dants. The edi­to­r­i­al said, ​“To be sure, we are out­raged by the bru­tal crimes com­mit­ted against the Petit fam­i­ly.… But out­rage and sym­pa­thy do not out­weigh our firm belief that it is wrong — plain and sim­ple — for the gov­ern­ment to take an indi­vid­ual life.” Read full editorial below.

Abolish death penal­ty — We share out­rage over Cheshire mur­ders but oppose cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment
September 10, 2010

The jury tri­al set to begin Monday for 1 of 2 men charged in the hor­rif­ic mur­der of a Cheshire woman and her two daugh­ters in 2007 will raise the debate, once again, about Connecticut’s death penalty.

Such a heinous, heart-wrench­ing, cold-blood­ed crime makes it dif­fi­cult to defend abol­ish­ing cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in the state.

But that is the right thing to do. We stead­fast­ly sup­port the abo­li­tion of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in Connecticut.

Principles are not based on cir­cum­stances or par­tic­u­lar cas­es. Principles are based on right and wrong, and the death penal­ty is wrong.

Defense lawyers for Steven Hayes, the 47-year-old con­vict charged with killing Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daugh­ters, Hayley and Michaela, tried in July to get Judge Jon C. Blue in Superior Court in New Haven to block any possible execution.

They argued that the General Assembly had vot­ed last year to repeal the death penal­ty and that Gov. M. Jodi Rell cit­ed the Cheshire homi­cides when she vetoed the repeal bill. Her state­ment would make it hard for a jury to be impar­tial, they argued.

The judge denied the motion, but the debate cer­tain­ly will not go away. Nor should it.

We must exam­ine how we oper­ate as a soci­ety when we leg­is­late killing anoth­er human being in retaliation.

One can argue that the death penal­ty is not a deter­rent to crimes of pas­sion. And that is true.

One can argue that the death penal­ty is more expen­sive than keep­ing the guilty in prison for life. And that is true.

One can argue that the death penal­ty could be admin­is­tered to the inno­cent. And that would cer­tain­ly be true.

But all of the evi­dence weigh­ing against the death penal­ty does not tip the scales as much as morality.

It is immoral to kill. And it is immoral whether the killing is per­pet­u­at­ed by a per­son — or by the government.

To be sure, we are out­raged by the bru­tal crimes com­mit­ted against the Petit family.

And our sin­cere sym­pa­thies go out to Dr. William Petit Jr., the only sur­viv­ing mem­ber of his fam­i­ly, who was beat­en and tied in the base­ment dur­ing the sense­less mur­ders of his wife and children.

But out­rage and sym­pa­thy do not out­weigh our firm belief that it is wrong — plain and sim­ple — for the gov­ern­ment to take an individual life.

(“Abolish death penal­ty,” Connecticut Post, September 10, 2010). Read more Editorials.

Citation Guide