By Nicholas Proch
Over the course of the last decade, the judicial and correction systems in this country have been examined and reexamined countless times. With the great amount of attention being drawn to the death penalty, especially when comparing policies state to state, there are certain cases in which no one seems to bat an eye.
While there is an age old debate as to whether or not the state of Texas should be sending so many criminals to death, Connecticut never seems to enter this conversation. On the contrary, our state’s citizens seem to be some of the leading proponents against the death penalty.
On Monday afternoon of this week, it was announced that Steven Hayes will be given the death penalty for his participation in the murders of a Cheshire family. This story hit so close to home that no one seemed to have a problem with the decision. For those of you who aren’t in the know, Steven Hayes was found guilty in the killings of Jennifer Petit and her children.
This was the start of the statewide fear of the home invasion. It started a craze of replacing your window and door locks, installing alarm systems and getting familiar with your local neighborhood watch. There were rallies speaking out against such invasions, support for the father of these children and even cries to put this man to death. In a state where only a handful of individuals have been sentenced to death, it was finally the acceptable and the highly uncontested answer to such a heinous crime.
There are supporters for the death penalty who will argue that it costs less to take a person’s life than to house them in our state penitentiary system for the rest of their life. With that being said, one of the biggest problems with death row is the appeals system. When your are involved in this waiting game, which it can be called because it has become such a surreal but yet expected series of events, you can appeal again and again. Not only does this allow the prisoner to delay their capital punishment, but it completely defeats and undermines the main purpose of the death penalty.
With the continued costs of court and legal fees, prison space and other costs which come directly out of tax payers pockets, Steven Hayes has the potential to cost the state more than if he was simply sentenced to life in prison.
Beyond the cost of imprisonment, should the state be taking lives? This can be quite a heavy moral issue. Taking a life of a killer doesn’t seem to be the appropriate response from a state which doesn’t usually favor this type of punishment. Connecticut’s judicial system has been compromised by the people it has been fighting against. If you can picture the age-old image of a horde of angry farmers with pitchfork in hand coming toward the ‘beast’s’ home, then you can make the connection to what has happened with this ruling.
If there wasn’t such an outcry against this terrible crime, this verdict would not have happened. It may have ended as a life in prison sentence. While this is never desired, a quicker sentence may have been what Hayes wanted. Before we say we are not a death penalty state, let’s examine our recent decision and really look at why it was made.
