Generally speaking, legislatures can make reductions in punishments retroactive to old cases or not, as they choose.  The Connecticut Legislature's repeal of the death penalty was unambiguously not retroactive, and politically it would not have passed without that savings clause.  The ink was not dry on the bill before the anti-death-penalty crowd attacked that clause of their own bill.  In a shocking act of judicial activism, the Connecticut Supreme Court in Santiago v. State declared the death penalty unconstitutional despite having rejected that claim many times over the years and despite the established history of nonretroactive changes in sentencing law in that state.

Last Thursday's News Scan noted the oral argument in the case of State v. Peeler, in which the state asks the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision.  Video of the argument is now available here.

The defense lawyer's argument is really painful to watch.  He just keeps insisting over and over that the Santiago decision must be respected as final.  So why did Santiago itself not respect as final all the earlier cases rejecting constitutional attacks on the death penalty?  The defense side seems to think that precedent is a ratchet.  No decision favoring the prosecution is ever final.  Every one is subject to constant attack.  But once the defense wins a point, it becomes absolutely sacrosanct.  This is utter nonsense.

A decision should receive no more respect as precedent than it gave to precedent.