When the death penalty repeal bill was being considered in the Connecticut Legislature in 2012, the proponents swore up and down that the nonretroactivity clause meant that the murderers currently on the state's death row -- especially the notorious Chesire murderers -- could still be executed. They managed to convince enough swing votes with that argument to squeak the bill through despite the 2-1 opposition of the people of the state.
To the surprise of no one who has been involved in this battle for any length of time, the anti side then turned on a dime and began fighting in the state courts to set aside the existing death sentences. The Connecticut Supreme Court fairly quickly took up the question of whether the statute had that effect, and then they sat on the case for over two years after argument.
Today, that court decided in State v. Santiago:
To the surprise of no one who has been involved in this battle for any length of time, the anti side then turned on a dime and began fighting in the state courts to set aside the existing death sentences. The Connecticut Supreme Court fairly quickly took up the question of whether the statute had that effect, and then they sat on the case for over two years after argument.
Today, that court decided in State v. Santiago:
Upon careful consideration of the defendant's claims in light of the governing constitutional principles and Connecticut's unique historical and legal landscape, we are persuaded that, following its prospective abolition, this state's death penalty no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency and no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose. For these reasons, execution of those offenders who committed capital felonies prior to April 25, 2012, would violate the state constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.So even though a statute is expressly not retroactive, it has the effect of changing the constitution to achieve the same result as if it were retroactive? That is bizarre, twisted logic. Further, to say that the death penalty no longer serves a retributive purpose in cases such as the Cheshire murders is patently absurd.
The take-home lesson for any state where a repeal is being proposed is do not, under any circumstances, believe proponents who say it will not affect existing sentences. They are lying, and they will attack those sentences before the ink is dry on the repeal bill, just as they did in Connecticut. The anti-death-penalty movement is dishonest to the marrow and absolutely nothing they say can be believed.
Why did this decision take over two years? After all, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Gregg v. Georgia barely four months after oral argument. The only explanation I can see is that the anti-death-penalty majority intentionally stalled for political reasons. They probably didn't want to hinder repeal efforts in other states, so they waited until there were none under active consideration. If so, that is conduct unbecoming a judge. If there is any other explanation, I'd like to hear it.
Lying is the main deal with these people. They hold themselves out as the essence of refinement while they lie to your face. You can't have been following this subject and not know this, see, e.g., http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2015/01/yet-more-arrogance-and-lying-a.html#more