Connecticut and Capital Punishment

Published: 2019-09-06 09:30:00
1900 words
7 pages
16 min to read
143 views

The Connecticut became one of the many states that abolished death penalty while insisting just two individuals had been given the capital punishment which indicated that the punishment was untenable in the jurisdiction for the past 52 years which involved a case of volunteers in both cases. According to this instance, Governor Malloy Dan referred to this scenario as a moment for engaging in sober reflection. In any case, death penalty does not offer tangible solution a healing perspective on the users of victims but creates resolution to the actual problem that is associated with the problem. In many instances, it creates a sound level of injustices on the part of the parties involved as it does not lead any form of justice as may be perceived as a retaliatory aspect. The decision made by the Connecticut is very striking as it presented a controversial perspective in the view of the punishment that individual who had been liable to such forms of punishment should be subjected to during a time when the country was also faced with a case of gun tragedy. This perception towards elimination of death penalty must not be upheld as individuals perpetrating the crime.

If this sample essay on
"Connecticut and Capital Punishment" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Even though the termination of death penalty persistently face fierce and stiff battle, it has been noted to be an underlying trend in the context of sentences bestowed on individual with crimes that had warranted the penalty across the entire nation. The execution of the termination of death penalty in US has however receded by about 50 percent in the past decade. In 2012, it was reported that Texas had a lower population of death row than any other time in the past 23 years. This is perhaps one of the indicators of the success in the execution of capital punishment. Nevertheless, the ideal about its perpetration remains highly controversial making its execution to be done partially in many of the jurisdiction both in Texas and beyond. The considerations for this aspect was uniquely important in the sense that it provided a talk point where individual had to reflect upon the essence of it in the execution of criminal justice (Banner & Banner, 2012).

In this regard, while many individuals and entities have perceived death penalty as an unacceptable course of action, it has been clear that despite the opposition that has been rooted in many sources, there has been a recurrent use of the approach as one of the ultimate ways of executing criminal justice. The source of the momentous controversy however is a product of controversial views towards the problem that has ranged across many generations as a result of divergent cultures and social practices in the society. In separate focuses, death penalty has been perceived in multiple perspectives such as interpreted in the Supreme Court of the US during the case Glossip v Gross. During this particular incidence, the Connecticut Supreme Court produce an importance decision regarding its jurisdiction besides addressing the Supreme Court of US directly and openly. However, due to the momentous controversy in the Case, it has been reported to have cause huge source of unease within the court as well as outside it with the regard death trajectory focused over four decade since the decision for the courts to resume this penalty (Paternoster & Bacon, 2008). In many instances, the resumption was based on presumption that death sentence is considered as the ultimate punishment for hard criminal offenders such as criminal associated with murder.

Before any execution, there are provisions of the laws that are provided for towards ensuring that the offences involved are proven beyond reasonable doubts. The question of proof is very important as it ensures that the individuals to whom the punishment is focused to are the actual perpetrators and therefore subject to the suffering that the action posits fit, in this case, death. In many instances, death has been perceived as an important source of momentous controversy due to the fact that every individual including the sinners have the rights to live. However, from the same point of view, Christianity also prohibits any individual from taking away the lives of the others in a chain of element that indicates that, whoever kills by the sword shall die by the sword (Paternoster & Bacon, 2008). Many interpretations to these aspects with regard to death penalty have been considered highly fatal and controversial as the bible does not provide clear guidelines as to whether murders should be put to death as an earthly form of punishment.

Besides, the execution capital punishment in many instances is found to have a deterrence effect on potential perpetrators. When individuals murderers are executed, this action acts as a scare to prevent other minded individuals perpetrating to cause similar havoc. In this regard, it is important for individual and the government to consider upholding death penalty as a form of deterrence to prevent individuals from executing murders arbitrarily. While there has been attributes to associate death penalties to having no tangible benefits, the act scares away potential perpetrators which may inculcate societal values with high attachment to human lives. This act will inspire a valid purpose for the execution of the conduct in the long-run. In the Connecticut case, the decision that was facilitated by Justice Richard Palmer identified flaws in the Death Penalty legislation of 2012 hence the ban on the death sentence. While this position remains an important source of inspiration to drive the society to a newer inculcation of values, it is important to generate a wide range of facts and proposition that provides the essence of death sentence (Paternoster & Bacon, 2008). However, the principal assumption that death sentence has an impact in causing a deterrence effect is significant though with no tangible evidence by virtue of statistical inference to its effectiveness in deterring crimes that would lead to application of death penalty.

Close analysis of the law with consideration of the critical inputs of the governing constitutional values as well as the unique values that Connecticut identifies with, the Connecticut death penalty therefore no longer align with the modern standards put in place for enhancing decency. Besides, the countrys values no longer serve legitimate social legal purpose that provides a sober society form of existence. Thos implies as Justice Palmer observed. In this regard, the perception of death penalty as a cruel act or an unusual punishment to the offenders plays a double standards in the perspective in which the view of the victims right is perpetrated. In this regard, while the constitutional elements of values that are inculcated in the individual lifestyles are perceived to be accomplished, it is partial justice to confer the culprits of social injustices to enjoyment of right to no execution while they are or might have been involved in glaring felony offences (Paternoster & Bacon, 2008).

In many instances and this case notwithstanding, the consideration for appeals is upheld in the sense the death penalty case involving Eduordo Santiago in Connecticut is perceived to have biasness in the sense that the culprit was unfairly sentenced. The clearance of the penalty is unfit to resolve humankind rights and objectives and must be pursued with due regard to its ability to uphold justice for both the victims and the culprits. As a result, it is important for individuals to make considerable choices towards the offenders and the crimes they are accused of to avoid arbitrary prosecution and unfair forms of determinations. In essence, the criminal justice sector must validate and enhance their craving to unravel the course of justice by ensuring proper evidence gathering and subsequent fair hearing bestowed on the individuals as opposed to ministering false accusation that may lead to unfair apprehension (Paternoster & Bacon, 2008). In many instances, it is quite important to consider the elements that are involved in developing a fair course of justice such as upholding important values of honesty and consideration of fair trials. However, since these values are voluntary in nature, it is important for individuals within the criminal justice system to use all the available machinery in their dispensation of justice in order to ensure that individual face fair trials free from unnecessary biasness.

For instance, the High Court of Connecticut asserted that Santiago had been falsely accused and sentenced. In such an instance, the accused may be unfairly subjected to a pull force and an upthrust in the mistrust of the criminal justice system which does not reflect any form of benefits to the victims or the offenders. In particular, individuals with self-sustaining evidence must be contracted towards uplifting the strength of evidence in the overall claims which eventual speeds up the course of justice in the long-run. Majority also considers death penalty to be unconstitutional relative to the minority. However, the factual consideration of the latter claims are biased and virtually skewed to the interest that each party holds. In any case, death penalty provides an instance of reflection in the society that complements a sustainable turning point for not only the peers of the victims of this practice but also the society at large (Banner & Banner, 2012). This process may effectively lead to social change in the society that pre-empts claims of insurgence of negligence to human lives as well as other aggregated crimes that portrays the societal image negatively.

Although death penalty face countless claims of its fall out in the face of poor inculcation in the modern decency, death sentence create a permanent change in the consideration of justice. However, fro effective delivery of justice to both the offenders and the victims, effective investigations must be executed in order to facilitate effective hearing that would yield justice for both parties. This shows that death penalty must be reinstated with similar efforts to enhance the course of criminal justice while promoting the resurgence of positive attitudes in the society and the return of sobriety. This scenario is possible since the penalty is perhaps the harshest form of facing criminal perpetrators (Banner & Banner, 2012). The failure or success of the approach is however also influenced by the political impacts that the practice faces in its current jurisdiction hence dynamic views across many societies.

In particular, the political orientation of a country also acts eminently to shape the perspective in which the consideration for death penalty is perceived or taken. For instance due to the consideration of the political perspective in which the execution of death laws, many laws including the US and the entire globe remains largely impractical in effect. The consideration of the existing capital punishment laws to being impractical is anchored on the fact that very few people are executed at any given period of time despites various actions of felony that has been perpetrated in many instances across the country (Banner & Banner, 2012). As a result of this impracticability, the Connecticut is partially considered to lie on the path of fulfilling believes and interest of majority in restraining the course of criminal justice dispensation through capital punishment. While this is considered as majority proposition especially enhanced with significant political invasion, these actions are often considered as majority biasness and the attempts to shield criminals from facing the full force of the law. In this regard, victims are often denied equitable justice. In any case, capital punishment if well executed leads to the realization of a huge outlay of procedures towards enhancing...

Cite this page

Connecticut and Capital Punishment. (2019, Sep 06). Retrieved from https://speedypaper.com/essays/connecticut-and-capital-punishment

Removal

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:

didn't find image

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Our writers are ready to help you now!

24/7 online support

NO plagiarism

didn't find image

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Our writers are ready to help you now!

24/7 online support

NO plagiarism