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