The Solemn Sentence of Death: Capital Punishment in Connecticut

Introduction: The Paradox of Capital Punishment

1 INTRODUCTION The Paradox of Capital Punishment ✴ It seems strange to me that in these days when capital punishment has been abolished in many states, that Connecticut, one of the leading and most liberal states in the United States, still uses capital punishment. Rabbi Dr. David S. Hachen to Governor John Dempsey, April 14, 1967 On November 13,1817,morethan15,000people—men,women,andchildren— converged on Danbury, Connecticut. It was an unusually large gathering for the time. Some had traveled from as far away as twenty-five miles and arrived the previous night. They came to see the public execution that day of Amos Adams, a twenty-eight-year-old African American who had been convicted of raping Lelea Thorp, a married white woman and mother. Adams was to be the last person in Connecticut executed for a capital crime other than homicide.1 In contrast, Michael Ross in 2005 died by lethal injection in a supermaximum prison during the early morning hours. An admitted sexual sadist, he had manually strangled eight girls and young women after raping most of them. Only a few witnesses were permitted at the execution, and protesters against the death penalty were kept well away. Despite a judicial process that would have continued to stay his already much-delayed execution, Ross voluntarily waived his legal rights and opted to die. His was the only legal execution in New England since 1960, when Connecticut electrocuted Joseph Taborsky, another serial killer who relinquished further appeals. At a time of declining execution rates in the United States and the abolition of capital punishment in much of the western world, Connecticut is the only state in New England to have executed anyone during the last half century. As of 2010, it had ten inmates on death row, by far the most in New England.2 The opening quotation by Rabbi Hachen asks why, and The Solemn Sentence of Death: Capital Punishment in Connecticut responds to that question.3 2 INTRODUCTION This book examines what happened in one jurisdiction over nearly four hundred years. Criminologist David Garland observed that “the social meaning of punishment is badly understood.” He added, “To say—correctly—that punishment is a form of power immediately raises the question: ‘what kind of power?’ Is it authorized? Does it command popular support? What values does it convey? Which objectives does it seek? How is it shaped by sensibilities and in what kind of culture and morality is it grounded?”4 The death penalty, the most extreme and irreversible form of retribution, is intrinsically a social and legal artifact. The focus is the criminal justice system, but the larger context is the ethical values of New England culture. In Connecticut over the centuries, 158 people have been judicially executed in civilian courts. In sheer numbers, that is slightly more than the number of people executed—154—during the five years that George W. Bush was governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000. The contrast is striking and points to significant regional variation in the United States. No southern or far western state, areas with indelible traditions of racial suppression and vigilantism , has abolished the death penalty. In New England and the Northeast (excluding Pennsylvania), only New Hampshire and Connecticut retain a capital code, yet no systematic historical analysis of capital punishment exists for Connecticut. In addition, only recently has a comprehensive study appeared for another state (Massachusetts, which executed 237 people from 1630 to its last in 1947).5 This book, then, explores new ground.6 The major conclusion of this work is that after nearly four centuries, capital punishment in Connecticut presents a paradox. The current restrictive statute and the lengthy appeals process have in recent decades blocked executions unless, ironically, the convict stipulates for death, as Taborsky and Ross did. State policy seeks to have it both ways: a commitment to the death penalty, but one that is not carried out. There is an uneasy tension between supporters and opponents that has resulted in halfway measures. Public opinion, the General Assembly (except in 2009), most governors, and the courts (state and federal) sustain the death penalty, at least for particularly cruel and heinous murders. A substantial majority of citizens believed that Taborsky and Ross got what they deserved. At the same time, however, there has been a judicial mandate to limit the scope of the law to the extent that it is virtually ineffective. The result is that the death penalty in Connecticut is contradictory in...