But light hearted stuff aside, this article brings up a very important discussion about Connecticut's current candidates for Governor and their respective stances regarding the Death Penalty (or in certain cases the abolition thereof.) Considering the timing, with the entire state anxiously waiting for the penalty phase of Steven Hayes trial to begin.
I am a registered Democrat and have been for most of my life, but I have been crossing party lines more than once again voting for candidates who support tougher crime measures, (and who have the voting history within the legislation to prove it. )
I have voted Republican whenever an existing Democratic legislator has proven themselves to be a Lawlor-esque robot having voted against tougher measures for crime, and for monies to be spent on criminal re-integration programs in its stead.
In the case of a new would-be Lawmaker running, I research their "official stance" regarding things such as the Death Penalty, a three strikes/repeat offender law, and their general take on Crime and Public Safety. If these things are not found on an official website, I will call the candidates headquarters and ask why not and what is their position on such matters? It is a bad sign if a candidate for the General Assembly does not make clear their views on life and death issues surrounding crime and public safety. There really is nothing more important that any legislator will do in their service to the State, albeit within their respective districts.
The voting records of every single legislator in the house and the senate, can be found at the State House of Representatives Website: I suggest that for those not acquainted with the system and its players, begin the process of familiarizing themselves now.
It is the most important issue to face the people and lawmakers of this state - crime and public safety. Our judicial system allowed the Petit family murders to happen. The men that committed these crimes were both on early release parole, neither of them should have been candidates, nor certainly Paroled at the junctures that they were. There were missteps and screw-ups all along the way. If our lawmakers and Judicial system cannot learn from these horrific crimes, than they have failed us as a government and as individual human beings.
Last Year, in the middle of a ridiculously long wait for either of the two men who committed the Petit family slayings to be scheduled for Trial, our Connecticut Judiciary Committee led by Mike Lawlor Democrat East Haven quietly ushered in a vote to introduce a bill that would abolish the death penalty. If the implications weren't so serious, I would say that the timing was ludicrous and laughable.
Mike Lawlor has been a thorn the side of any citizen that wishes to see Connecticut become a safer place, a state where would- be criminals think twice before taking a life, lest they find themselves swiftly delivered to their own fate via lethal injection. A fate that incidentally is much more pleasant a way to exit this world than any of the crimes that would render such a fate to a murderer.
In any event, Lawlor did his homework well, he obviously managed to massage the members of the house of Representatives for months prior to the official presentation of the bill ( not difficult considering the average IQ of some of our selectmen and women, not to mention lLawlor's Svengali like influence over a goodly portion of this particular State entity.
The Senate, well that's another story.
Fortunately, the Senate has historically had more common sense and brains then the General Assembly: And although the bill actually passed in the Senate, (a big surprise to me and a lot of other people) it did pass by a considerably less substantial margin than its General Assembly counterpart, thereby nullifying any chance of its actual passage. ie Governor Rell had strongly inferred that she would exercise a rarely -used Veto, if the Death Penalty abolishment bill passed.
A 75 % For ratio is needed in both houses for any bill to be Veto-proof. The Governor thankfully cared what the people of the Connecticut wanted and had she not had the intelligence and the courage to veto this bill, the state of Connecticut would currently have life without the chance of parole as its capital punishment.
This would swarm our courts with murderers led by their state- paid attorneys (with our Tax dollars) who would now have nothing to lose by taking their cases to trial. The worst that could happen if they proceed to a trial is the jury would give them life, and thus they can roll the dice with a trial and possibly wind up with life with the chance of parole.
Currently 96% of our States violent crime cases are plea bargained, meaning they never make it to trial because their attorneys are offered a deal" that always involves the lowering of original charges - and subsequent corresponding prison sentences. In the case of capital murder, there will be no leverage for our prosecutors working within the court system. They will now be at a distinct disadvantage dealing with our states most dangerous offenders.
Instead of saving the state money, which was reportedly one of the main reasons for the Bill's introduction, according to its authors, the state would now have no leverage at all within our court system. It would be a veritable free for all, causing our busiest court dockets to fill to the brim with scheduled trials. This would cost the state million of dollars a year.
And this doesn't begin to address the notion of determent. There would be absolutely none, without the threat of a death sentence or at least a life waiting on death row, our states child predators, murderers and rapists would have little to lose. Statistically, those that kill have been in prison before. They are familiar and indeed often-times comfortable in prison. Therefore a life sentence as the worst possible punishment for murder, is not enough. This would mean an automatic rise in violent crime and an overall shift in criminals and would be criminals mindsets, that imperceptible shift will mean more brutality sexual assault and loss of life.
Now, lets look at the candidates for Governor : Malloy is against the Death Penalty and has stated that he will not veto any bill that the Ct Legislation passes to abolish it. This is more than a likely happenstance after the next governor is voted in. Foley a Republican has openly stated that he believes in the Death Penalty and he would veto any bill to abolish that the Connecticut legislature might pass.
The Ct judiciary has been chomping at the bit, with it's spokesmen stating that its " just a matter of time before Connecticut abolishes the DP, and "as soon as we have a democrat in the Governors mansion, Connecticut will join all of the other "progressive New England states, and ban this archaic and expensive form of capital punishment" (This a reference to New Jersey and more recently New Hampshire, both who recently abolished the DP, despite the clear wishes of their citizens via state polling; And in fact that is two states out of all of New England pal..
It is inevitable" we have heard time and again from lawmakers like Mike Lawlor Co-Chairmen of the Judicary committee who is the very worst defintion of a "professional politician"- We must hope or see to it that a decent candidate for Lalwors long held East haven seat in the General Assembly materializes, with enough time to end Lawlors reign over the Connecticut General Assembly. His influence has been malignant in all matter concerning public safety and yet he touts himself as "tough on crime" whenever he's running for re-election.
Below is a link to all of the current candidates for various government slots across the State of Connecticut, as well as links to all of the Party's and their forerunners. Check it out. //www.uselections.com/ct/ct.htm