On April 25, 2012, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (pic­tured) signed into law a bill that replaces the death penal­ty with life with­out parole. At that time, Connecticut became the fifth state in five years, and the 17th over­all, to do away with cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. Governor Malloy, who once sup­port­ed the death penal­ty, offered the fol­low­ing state­ment: ​“My posi­tion on the appro­pri­ate­ness of the death penal­ty in our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem evolved over a long peri­od of time. As a young man, I was a death penal­ty sup­port­er. Then I spent years as a pros­e­cu­tor and pur­sued dan­ger­ous felons in court, includ­ing mur­der­ers. In the trench­es of a crim­i­nal court­room, I learned first­hand that our sys­tem of jus­tice is very imper­fect. While it’s a good sys­tem designed with the high­est ideals of our demo­c­ra­t­ic soci­ety in mind, like most of human expe­ri­ence, it is sub­ject to the fal­li­bil­i­ty of those who par­tic­i­pate in it. I saw peo­ple who were poor­ly served by their coun­sel. I saw peo­ple wrong­ly accused or mis­tak­en­ly iden­ti­fied. I saw dis­crim­i­na­tion. In bear­ing wit­ness to those things, I came to believe that doing away with the death penal­ty was the only way to ensure it would not be unfair­ly imposed.” See more of the gov­er­nor’s statement below.

Connecticut’s repeal of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is in line with a grow­ing nation­al trend toward alter­na­tives to the death penal­ty and an increased aware­ness that it is not serv­ing mur­der vic­tims’ fam­i­lies. The bill gained the sup­port of more than 179 vic­tims’ fam­i­lies and friends, who believed that the cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment does not pro­vide the promised ​“clo­sure” after the loss of a loved one. Since 1976, the state had car­ried out only one exe­cu­tion. The death penal­ty repeal bill was prospec­tive and specif­i­cal­ly exempt­ed the sen­tences of the 11 inmates cur­rent­ly on the state’s death row.

(“No More Death Penalty in CT,” NBC News, April 25, 2012; ​“Gov. Malloy on Signing Bill to Repeal Capital Punishment,” April 25, 2012). See New Voices.

Governor Malloy’s Statement fol­low­ing his sign­ing of the repeal bill:

“This after­noon I signed leg­is­la­tion that will, effec­tive today, replace the death penal­ty with life in prison with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of release as the high­est form of legal pun­ish­ment in Connecticut. Although it is an his­toric moment – Connecticut joins 16 oth­er states and the rest of the indus­tri­al­ized world by tak­ing this action – it is a moment for sober reflec­tion, not celebration.

“Many of us who have advo­cat­ed for this posi­tion over the years have said there is a moral com­po­nent to our oppo­si­tion to the death penal­ty. For me, that is cer­tain­ly the case. But that does not mean – nor should it mean – that we ques­tion the moral­i­ty of those who favor cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. I cer­tain­ly don’t. I know many peo­ple whom I deeply respect, includ­ing friends and fam­i­ly, that believe the death penal­ty is just. In fact, the issue knows no bound­aries: not polit­i­cal par­ty, not gen­der, age, race, or any oth­er demo­graph­ic. It is, at once, one of the most com­pelling and vex­ing issues of our time.

“My posi­tion on the appro­pri­ate­ness of the death penal­ty in our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem evolved over a long peri­od of time. As a young man, I was a death penal­ty sup­port­er. Then I spent years as a pros­e­cu­tor and pur­sued dan­ger­ous felons in court, includ­ing mur­der­ers. In the trench­es of a crim­i­nal court­room, I learned first­hand that our sys­tem of jus­tice is very imper­fect. While it’s a good sys­tem designed with the high­est ideals of our demo­c­ra­t­ic soci­ety in mind, like most of human expe­ri­ence, it is sub­ject to the fal­li­bil­i­ty of those who par­tic­i­pate in it. I saw peo­ple who were poor­ly served by their coun­sel. I saw peo­ple wrong­ly accused or mis­tak­en­ly iden­ti­fied. I saw dis­crim­i­na­tion. In bear­ing wit­ness to those things, I came to believe that doing away with the death penal­ty was the only way to ensure it would not be unfairly imposed.

“Another fac­tor that led me to today is the ​‘unwork­a­bil­i­ty’ of Connecticut’s death penal­ty law. In the last 52 years, only 2 peo­ple have been put to death in Connecticut – and both of them vol­un­teered for it. Instead, the peo­ple of this state pay for appeal after appeal, and then watch time and again as defen­dants are marched in front of the cam­eras, giv­ing them a plat­form of pub­lic atten­tion they don’t deserve. It is sor­did atten­tion that rips open nev­er-quite-healed wounds. The 11 men cur­rent­ly on death row in Connecticut are far more like­ly to die of old age than they are to be put to death.

“As in past years, the cam­paign to abol­ish the death penal­ty in Connecticut has been led by dozens of fam­i­ly mem­bers of mur­der vic­tims, and some of them were present as I signed this leg­is­la­tion today. In the words of one such sur­vivor: ​‘Now is the time to start the process of heal­ing, a process that could have been start­ed decades ear­li­er with the final­i­ty of a life sen­tence. We can­not afford to put on hold the lives of these sec­ondary vic­tims. We need to allow them to find a way as ear­ly as pos­si­ble to begin to live again.’ Perhaps that is the most com­pelling mes­sage of all.

“As our state moves beyond this divi­sive debate, I hope we can all redou­ble our efforts and com­mon work to improve the fair­ness and integri­ty of our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem, and to min­i­mize its fallibility.”

(Hartford Courant, April 25, 2012).

In August 2015, a 4 – 3 major­i­ty of the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in State v. Santiago that the death penal­ty vio­lat­ed the state con­sti­tu­tion. The Court resen­tenced the remain­ing death row pris­on­ers to life with­out parole. However, after one of the jus­tices in the Santiago major­i­ty left the Court, pros­e­cu­tors sought and were grant­ed per­mis­sion to re-open the issue. On May 26, 2016, in State v. Peeler, the Court reaf­firmed its hold­ing in Santiago by a vote of 5 – 2.

Citation Guide