Excerpts from Thursday’s decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court to rule the death penalty unconstitutional.
Majority
Justice Richard N. Palmer writing for the majority (from top left clockwise: Palmer, Justice Dennis G. Eveleigh, Justice Flemming L. Norcott, Justice Andrew J. McDonald:
The revised, 2012 death penalty law “not only reflects this state’s longstanding aversion to carrying out executions, but also represents the seminal change in the four century long history of capital punishment in Connecticut.
“Accompanying this dramatic departure are a host of other important developments that have transpired over the past several years
“Historians have given us new chronicles of the history and devolution of the death penalty in Connecticut.
“Legal scholars have provided new understandings of the original meaning of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.
“Social scientists repeatedly have confirmed that the risk of capital punishment falls disproportionately on people of color and other disadvantaged groups.
“Meanwhile, nationally, the number of executions and the number of states that allow the death penalty continue to decline, and convicted capital felons in this state remain on death row for decades with every likelihood that they will not be executed for many years to come, if ever.
“Finally, it has become apparent that the dual federal constitutional requirements applicable to all capital sentencing schemes — namely, that the jury be provided with objective standards to guide its sentence, on the one hand, and that it be accorded unfettered discretion to impose a sentence of less than death, on the other — are fundamentally in conflict and inevitably open the door to impermissible racial and ethnic biases.
“For all these reasons, and in light of the apparent intent of the legislature in prospectively repealing the death penalty and this state’s failure to implement and operate a fair and functional system of capital punishment, we conclude that the state constitution no longer permits the execution of individuals sentenced to death for crimes committed prior to the enactment of [the revised 2012 law]”
Dissents
Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers:
“The majority’s determination that the death penalty is unconstitutional under our state’s constitution is based on a house of cards, falling under the slightest breath of scrutiny”
“The majority’s decision to strike down the death penalty in its entirety is a judicial invalidation, without constitutional basis, of the political will of the people. It is this usurpation of the legislative power — not the death penalty — that violates the societal mores of this state as expressed in its fundamental law.”
Justice Carmen E. Espinosa:
“Today’s decision is ultimately about disrespect. It is about disrespect for the limits placed on this court’s power, disrespect for the judgment of the people expressed through their juries and their legislature, and disrespect for the value of carrying out punishments deemed warranted by juries and the people’s legislature.”
More Top Picks Shears Plant
“What message do we send to the people of Connecticut when we ignore the reasoned judgment of their elected representatives and substitute our own judgment instead? What message do we send to the people of this state when we ignore the verdicts of their juries? Today’s decision replaces the rule of law with the rule of four. This is not judging. This is not the rule of law.”
Justice Peter T. Zarella:
“Any suggestion that there was little or diminishing support for the death penalty before, during or directly after the constitutional conventions of 1818 and 1965 is a gross mischaracterization of the historical record.”
“I also disagree with the majority’s reliance on legislative enactments as one of the five indicia of evolving standards of decency and with its specific reliance on the passage of P.A. 12-5 as the principal basis for determining that capital punishment is impermissible under the Connecticut constitution. [Under that analysis,] if P.A. 12-5 authorized drawing and quartering for those convicted of murder, the majority would conclude that the standards of decency in Connecticut are established by the public act and are therefore constitutional.”
“If the legislature, as the majority claims, had rejected the death penalty only on the ground that it is barbaric, excessive, arbitrary and discriminatory, then why would it have enacted a retention provision specifically allowing executions to go forward for all current death row inmates, and why would it have permitted future arrests, indictments, the commencement of trials, and executions to be carried out with respect to those who had not yet been charged with a capital crime but who had committed such a crime before the effective date of P.A. 12-5?”