Oct 15, 2010

Judge Blues Rules No to Ullmann's Death Penalty Cost Argument

Judge Blue has officially ruled regarding Steven Haye's Defense team's request to argue on the grounds that the cost of a death penalty sentence would be cooperatively far too expensive for the Jury to impose upon his client - compared to a life sentence which would be substantially cheaper according to Thomas Ullmann who had predictably, done all the math and included it within his proposition to the court.

His argument was in fact a preemptive attempt at setting up a very questionable "mitigating factor" several of which are traditionally offered by the defense as grounds for the jury to consider not imposing the death penalty for any defendant convicted of capital crimes within a trial where the Death Penalty was ion the table.

Thomas Ullmann, lead defense attorney for Hayes, has been attempting to set up the defenses arguments for the penalty phase of Hayes trial which is set to begin next week, after a two week hiatus following the Hayes convictions of 16 felony charges including 6 capital murder charges, only one of which is required in order to qualify fora death penalty verdict from the Jury.

of Connecticut and that a life sentence would be far for cost effctive than a death penalty sentence for Steven Hayes. Ullmanns latest motion was supposed to qualify as a mitigating factor based upon the notion that the death penalty is too expensive in the State of Connecticut to be given to his client for the murders and sexual assaults of Jennifer Hayley and Michaela Petit.

Ironically, the reason that our death penalty system has become so costly is due to an unwieldy appeals process that has become misused and abused by attorneys like Mr Ullmann, who use it as a perpetual stalling tactic, ensuring that their client/ murderer never actually gets put to death in this state.

In fact, the last person to be put to death in the last 25 years was serial killer Michael Ross: he actually had to sue the state in order to receive his death sentence, a sentence that believe it or not, he wanted, as he continuously explained to the court, his lawyers and several judges. Ross wished to take accountability for his crimes which were indeed heinous - the rapes and murders of over 13 women and children.

However, it seems that the concept of taking responsibility for one's criminal actions was something that our bent and broken system couldn't seem to get its head around. That system fought Ross tooth and nail at every turn, until finally, 10 years later he got his way via the Connecticut Supreme court and lethal injection, a decidedly kinder exit from this world than Ross gave any of his victims.

The Bottom-line is that the death penalty system in Connecticut is indeed ridiculously and needlessly expensive. This does not equate to simply scrapping it as many members of our legislature voted to do last year. Addressing the financial issues alone, in the long run it will be considerably more expensive to abolish the death penalty and replace it with life without parole, as some members of our state Government propose.

If this were to happen,
our courts would become clogged with criminals who with nothing to lose and everything to gain by opting to now go to trial, hoping a jury might award a sentence of life with the chance of parole rather than plain old life without parole. Understand that these same defendants are now willing to plead guilty in order to avoid the possibility of receiving a death sentence by chancing a trial by Jury. You'll recall that both of the Petit murderer's offered to plead guilty early on in the process for this very reason. Every single rapist/ killer/child predator will proceed to trial with their lawyers blessing, with hopes set upon a possible life with parole sentence, and absolutely nothing to lose.

And when considering Connecticut's ridiculously time consumptive and expensive voire-dire, even ten extra trials a year will cost the State millions in manpower and resources. The moral issues aside, as one can see abolition should not continue to be cited as a money-saving option for the State.

The death Penalty system needs to be made workable, less wasteful, and obviously much less time consumptive, thereby enforceable. However, using the mess that the death penalty system has become here in Connecticut,thanks largely in part to defense attorneys,who have in effect hijacked it , is the very definition of irony. Predictably,Judge Blue was having none of it.

Note to new readers; For those of you who interested in researching the effects
of the long standing debate about the death penal within the State of Connecticut, feel free to peruse the archived Posts on this issue, via the blog search engine located at the left side of the blog header. Enter the words death penalty and all related Posts from late 3007 to the present should appear.

No comments: