« Even with plea deal, Subway pitchman Jared likely facing at least a decade in federal prison for sex offenses | Main | "Bernie Sanders Announces Bill to Abolish Private Prisons, Hints at Marijuana Policy Platform" »

August 20, 2015

Connecticut Supreme Court retroactive abolition of death sentences prompting prosepctive perspectives

Because I find a lot of state supreme court sentencing rulings quite interesting and important, I am sometimes troubled that such rulings rarely too garner much media or academic attention.  But, as with many stories in the sentencing unverse, these dyanmics change dramatically when the issue is death penalty abolition.  So, I am not too surprised that last week's ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court, which followed up the state's legislature's prospective death penalty repeal with retrospective state consitutional abolition (basics here), has got lots of folks talking a lot.  Two recent commentaries especially have caught my attention this morning:

A key passage: "Although the State of Connecticut vs. Eduardo Santiago ruling definitively bans capital punishment in Connecticut, it raises three key questions about the death penalty nationally.  The first question is for the U.S. Supreme Court: How many states must abolish the death penalty before the high court will strike it down for good?"

A key passage: "In the breadth of its perspective on the history and current problematic state of the death penalty, in its cleareyed dissection of the irreconcilable conflict at the heart of modern death­penalty jurisprudence, the Connecticut Supreme Court not only produced an important decision for its own jurisdiction; but it addressed the United States Supreme Court frankly and directly.  The decision engages the Supreme Court at a crucial moment of mounting unease, within the court and outside it, with the death penalty’s trajectory over the nearly four decades since the court permitted states to resume executions."

Meanwhile, Kent Scheidegger at Crime & Consequences also continues to ruminate on what the Connecticut Supreme Court did in these follow-up posts: "Breathtaking Hypocrisy" and "Death-penalty Deception"

Prior related post:

August 20, 2015 at 09:12 AM | Permalink

Comments

"In the breadth of its perspective on the history and current problematic state of the death penalty, in its cleareyed dissection of the irreconcilable conflict at the heart of modern death­penalty jurisprudence, the Connecticut Supreme Court not only produced an important decision for its own jurisdiction; but it addressed the United States Supreme Court frankly and directly. The decision engages the Supreme Court at a crucial moment of mounting unease, within the court and outside it, with the death penalty’s trajectory over the nearly four decades since the court permitted states to resume executions."

Yep, let's enshrine Linda Greenhouse's policy preferences in the Constitution. The reason for the conflict (e.g., can't be arbitrary vs. individualized sentencing requirement) is the "jurisprudence" of the Court. Well, if we take as a given that capital punishment is constitutional--(it's referred to in the Constitution), then the issue is the jurisprudence of the Court, not the right of the People to impose this punishment.

What's also dispiriting--for the sake of 11 vicious murderers, useful idiots like Greenhouse are willing to trade our right to govern ourselves. The prospective repeal was the result of democracy in action--and an activist court upset the democratic bargain.

Posted by: federalist | Aug 20, 2015 9:52:09 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB