READER COMMENTS ON
"CONNECTICUT ABOLISHES DEATH PENALTY"
(4 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 4/25/2012 @ 1:38 pm PT...
Here in California, come November, voters will have the opportunity to do one better than Connecticut.
The California End the Death Penalty Act, if it passes, would reduce all existing death sentences to "life in prison without the possibility of parole."
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 4/25/2012 @ 5:10 pm PT...
"Welcome to the civilized world"?? "Welcome"??
Brad, I thought you lived in (uncivilized) California. Perhaps you should be saying goodbye to Connecticut, not hello?
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 4/25/2012 @ 8:17 pm PT...
Parke Bostom @ 2:
Ha! I think you've got me there!
In truth, however, while I didn't have time to delve into that point while quickly posting the above, as I was prepping for my KPKF show today, I did speak to that very issue at the very top of the show, which is now posted here.
(That's followed on the show by my interview with Joyce Block, the 90-year old PA woman who was denied her "free" ID under the new GOP voter suppression law out there.)
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 5/14/2012 @ 6:15 pm PT...
A step in the right direction, one state at a time until all states recognize that capital punishment is a violation of the 8th amendment;
"The general principles the United States Supreme Court relied on to decide whether or not a particular punishment was cruel and unusual were determined by Justice William Brennan. In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."
The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." (Many prisoners have been denied access to DNA evidence which could confirm or exonerate from guilt, many prisoners of particular ethnic groups seem to be given more severe punishments for the same crimes)
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." (we can only hope)
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
Continuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles. In this way the United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual [,if] it was too severe for the crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty." (Note the last statement - Has anyone ever proved that capital punishment statistically deterred or reduced capital crimes? - I have not seen that study if there is one.)