SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state's ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the planned executions of 11 men on death row, thereby abolishing all capital punishment in the state.
The 4-3 decision came three years after the state passed a law that repealed the death penalty but did not spare those already sentenced to die.
"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," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.
"For these reasons, execution of those offenders who committed capital felonies before April 25, 2012, would violate the state constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment," he continued.
The court's decision came in response to an appeal by Eduardo Santiago, a man on death row in Connecticut. While public defenders represented him, the ACLU and its Connecticut chapter filed separate amicus briefs to support his case.
Dan Barrett, the legal director of the Connecticut ACLU, told Common Dreams, "We are overjoyed at the ruling because it once and for all declares that killing prisoners is not a part of justice in Connecticut."
The court concluded that the death penalty violates the state's constitution because of: "the freakishness with which the sentence of death is imposed; the rarity with which it is carried out; and the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic biases that likely are inherent in any discretionary death penalty system."
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. Our Year-End campaign is our most important fundraiser of the year. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state's ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the planned executions of 11 men on death row, thereby abolishing all capital punishment in the state.
The 4-3 decision came three years after the state passed a law that repealed the death penalty but did not spare those already sentenced to die.
"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," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.
"For these reasons, execution of those offenders who committed capital felonies before April 25, 2012, would violate the state constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment," he continued.
The court's decision came in response to an appeal by Eduardo Santiago, a man on death row in Connecticut. While public defenders represented him, the ACLU and its Connecticut chapter filed separate amicus briefs to support his case.
Dan Barrett, the legal director of the Connecticut ACLU, told Common Dreams, "We are overjoyed at the ruling because it once and for all declares that killing prisoners is not a part of justice in Connecticut."
The court concluded that the death penalty violates the state's constitution because of: "the freakishness with which the sentence of death is imposed; the rarity with which it is carried out; and the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic biases that likely are inherent in any discretionary death penalty system."
Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state's ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the planned executions of 11 men on death row, thereby abolishing all capital punishment in the state.
The 4-3 decision came three years after the state passed a law that repealed the death penalty but did not spare those already sentenced to die.
"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," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.
"For these reasons, execution of those offenders who committed capital felonies before April 25, 2012, would violate the state constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment," he continued.
The court's decision came in response to an appeal by Eduardo Santiago, a man on death row in Connecticut. While public defenders represented him, the ACLU and its Connecticut chapter filed separate amicus briefs to support his case.
Dan Barrett, the legal director of the Connecticut ACLU, told Common Dreams, "We are overjoyed at the ruling because it once and for all declares that killing prisoners is not a part of justice in Connecticut."
The court concluded that the death penalty violates the state's constitution because of: "the freakishness with which the sentence of death is imposed; the rarity with which it is carried out; and the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic biases that likely are inherent in any discretionary death penalty system."