Capital punishment must not return

I write with grave earnestness about a topic that recently bolted back into the headlines, and always seems to capture the imagination of all who consider it. Last week the federal government decided to end its moratorium on execution.

As a state senator in 2012, after literally hundreds of hours of conversations, presentations and research, followed by careful analysis and genuine soulsearching, I voted with a legislative majority to repeal capital punishment in Connecticut, and remain proud to have done so.

I recognize that in one respect my vote was counterintuitive. I believe it is intrinsic human nature to want revenge and retribution: we want those who harm us to be harmed, and we want those who cause suffering to suffer themselves. Paradoxically, these completely understandable, alltoocommon, basic human instincts remain the foundation of my support for capital punishment repeal — now at the federal level.

Our system of government was built and literally depends upon the rule of law. The concept rests upon the admittedly inexact notion of justice, meant to prevail over the strong, the mighty, the fast and the wealthy. This system requires more of us than basic human instincts, which suggest “might makes right”; in our system, the rule of law unequivocally trumps the rule of man. The power of reason must surpass a primal, instinctive desire for revenge or retribution.

I’m unable to reconcile this builtin contradiction: the Declaration of Independence, which first set our government in motion, describes life as an inalienable right. So how then can the resulting government justifiably take a life — even that of a convicted criminal? How can our government teach and encourage its citizens and the world a more refined sense of justice when it remains given to vengeance?

Beyond that, I vehemently reject the argument that capital punishment is a crime deterrent. Would that something could prevent it entirely, but capital crimes have always been a part of any landscape, even where capital punishment provisions exist.

Permanent, nationwide repeal of capital punishment does not signal “going soft” on violent crime. To the contrary, life imprisonment without even the possibility of parole confirms the convicted will spend the rest of his or her natural life removed from society knowing he or she is judged unfit to be among the rest of us. To me, this is the very definition of hell on earth.

Furthermore, eliminating the lengthy, anguishing and automatic capital punishment appeals process provides timely and humane closure for family members and others who loved a murder victim. Conversations with some of these collateral victims helped me understand the crushing impact of each appeal and its corresponding requirement to remember, relive and reconsider details of the crime.

The statelevel, 2012 repeal of capital punishment also prompted a haunting tour of Connecticut’s execution chamber at a state prison, where reverse logic painted me into an uncomfortable ethical corner. Failure to support repeal would’ve linked me to the chain of events leading to lethal injection. Failure to repeal would’ve made me partly responsible for someone’s death.

My career in public service is based in a belief that government is an exercise in which our collective wisdom provides for the greater good, where we as citizens aspire to the best aspects of human nature. Governmentsanctioned execution runs contrary to these ideals.

The Declaration of Independence describes life as an inalienable right. So how then can the resulting government justifiably take a life?