Last updated on: 10/20/2008 | Author: ProCon.org

State of Connecticut Commission on the Death Penalty Biography

Position:
Not Clearly Pro or Con to the question "Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed?"
Reasoning:

“The Commission agreed that the Death Penalty Act did not ask members of the Commission to recommend whether death as a punishment for crime is proper or should be abolished. Accordingly, the Commission confined its analysis to the fourteen topics set forth in the statute. This report expresses no opinion as to whether Connecticut
should have a death penalty.”

Study Pursuant to Public Act No. 01-151 of the Imposition of the Death Penalty in Connecticut ,” State of Connecticut Commission on the Death Penalty, Jan. 8, 2003

Theoretical Expertise Ranking:
  Organizations/VIPs/Others
Individuals and organizations that do not fit into the other star categories.
Description:

“On July 6, 2001, the General Assembly created ‘a Commission on the Death Penalty to study the imposition of the death penalty in this state.’ Public Act No. 01-151 (the ‘Death Penalty Act’), Section 4(a). The Death Penalty Act required the Commission to study fourteen aspects of the death penalty and, by January 8, 2003, ‘report its findings and recommendations, including any recommendations for legislation and appropriations, to the General Assembly.’ Commission members were appointed and began their work in December of 2001… The Commission prepared its report in a manner that responded to the statutory mission set forth in the Death Penalty Act. The Commission focused on Connecticut’s experience with the death penalty from 1973 to the present, and attempted to seek as much information as possible with limited available resources. No funding was appropriated for purposes of conducting the study.”

“Study Pursuant to Public Act No. 01-151 of the Imposition of the Death Penalty in Connecticut,” State of Connecticut Commission on the Death Penalty, Jan. 8, 2003

Mission:

“The Commission framed its study upon the fourteen topics set forth in the Death Penalty Act. These are:
(1) An examination of whether the administration of the death penalty in this state comports with constitutional principles and requirements of fairness, justice, equality and due process;
(2) An examination and comparison of the financial costs to the state of imposing a death sentence and of imposing a sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of release;
(3) An examination of whether there is any disparity in the decision to charge, prosecute and sentence a person for a capital felony based on the race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age or socioeconomic status
of the defendant or the victim;
(4) An examination of whether there is any disparity in the decision to charge, prosecute and sentence a person for a capital felony based on the judicial district in which the offense occurred;
(5) An examination of the training and experience of prosecuting officials and defense counsel involved in capital cases at the trial and appellate and post-conviction levels;
(6) An examination of the process for appellate and post-conviction review of
death sentences;
(7) An examination of the delay in attaining appellate and post-conviction review of death sentences, the delay between imposition of the death sentence and the actual execution of such sentence, and the reasons for
such delays;
(8) An examination of procedures for the granting of a reprieve, stay of execution or commutation from the death penalty;
(9) An examination of the extent to which the Governor is authorized to grant a reprieve or stay of execution from the death penalty and whether the Governor should be granted that authority;
(10) An examination of safeguards that are currently in place or that should be put in place to ensure that innocent persons are not executed;
(11) An examination of the extent to which the victim impact statement authorized by section 53a-46d of the general statutes affects the sentence imposed upon a defendant convicted of a capital felony;
(12) A recommendation regarding the financial resources required by the Judicial Branch, Division of Criminal Justice, Division of Public Defender Services, Department of Correction and Board of Pardons to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in the prosecution, defense and appeal of capital cases;
(13) An examination and review of any studies by other states and the federal government on the administration of the death penalty; and
(14) An examination of the emotional and financial effects that the delay between the imposition of the death sentence and the actual execution of such sentence has on the family of a murder victim.”

“Study Pursuant to Public Act No. 01-151 of the Imposition of the Death Penalty in Connecticut,” State of Connecticut Commission on the Death Penalty, Jan. 8, 2003

Other:
None found
Quoted in:
  1. Should Victims' Opinions Matter When Considering the Death Penalty?