Tag Archives: rell

Governor Rell vetoes death penalty bill

Posted on by
Reply

Governor Rell, as promised, has vetoed legislation that would eliminate the death penalty in Connecticut. And, as Channel 3 reports:

Its supporters in the Democrat-controlled General Assembly have said they do not have the necessary two-thirds majority of votes to override her veto. The bill, which would have replaced capital punishment with life in prison, passed 19-17 in the Senate and 90-56 in the House last month.

The Governor’s letter to Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz reads as follows:

Dear Madame Secretary:

I am hereby returning without my signature HB 6578, An Act Concerning the Penalty for a Capital Felony. This bill eliminates the death penalty as a sentencing option for crimes committed on or after the bill’s effective date.

There is no doubt that this issue evokes the deeply held passions of individuals on both sides of the issue. I sincerely respect the beliefs of those who support this bill and the passion with which they have presented their case. I cannot, however, sign this bill into law.

As I have stated previously, I understand and sympathize with the anguish and pain of those families who have lost a loved one due to a cruel and heinous crime. These are the crimes forever embedded in our minds, haunting us long after they have been committed. They cause us to lose our innocence relative to the world around us. The death penalty is, and ought to be, reserved for those who have committed crimes that are revolting to our humanity and civilized society.

The death penalty sends a clear message to those who may contemplate such cold, calculated crimes. We will not tolerate those who have murdered in the most vile, dehumanizing fashion. We should not, will not, abide those who have killed for the sake of killing; to those who have taken a precious life and shattered the lives of many more. Dr. William Petit recently quoted Lord Justice Denning, Master of the Rolls of the Court of Appeals in the United Kingdom, who said:


Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing: and, in order to maintain respect for law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishment as being deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else. . . . The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong-doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not.


There is no doubt that the death penalty is a deterrent to those who contemplate such monstrous acts. The statistics supporting this fact, however, are not easily tabulated. How do we count the person who considered the consequences of the crime and walked away? We cannot, but we know that this occurs. We have a responsibility to act to prevent these heinous crimes and to ensure that criminals will not harm again.

I also take note of the concerns expressed by some regarding the tremendous financial cost to the state, the perception that the death penalty is inconsistently sought for certain crimes, the lengthy appellate process that is involved and the roles that race, gender and economics play when seeking the death penalty.

These very questions, and more, were the basis of a death penalty study commissioned by P.A. 01-151 and analyzed in a comprehensive report submitted to the Legislature on January 8, 2003. The report made significant and thoughtful recommendations that have been largely ignored by the Legislature, including training for public defenders and prosecutors. The goal of the report is to ensure that each decision to seek the death penalty is based upon the facts and law applicable to the case and is set within a framework of consistent and even-handed application of the sentencing laws, with no consideration of arbitrary or impermissible factors such as the defendant’s race, ethnicity or religion.

The co-chairmen of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee have asked that I submit a proposal for “fixing” the death penalty statute. I believe that the current law is workable and effective and I would propose that it not be changed. If the co-chairmen are seeking suggestions, however, I would urge them to review the above-referenced report, which has been largely ignored since its issuance.

In the meantime, for the reasons cited above, I must return House Bill 6578, An Act Concerning the Penalty for a Capital Felony without my signature.

Very truly yours,

M. Jodi Rell

Governor

If we have learned anything about our legislators in recent years, it’s that they can be persistent. We can expect to see this come up on an annual basis.

Pain on the way as State, towns grapple with budget cuts

Posted on by
Reply

When the chickens come home to roost as they eventually do it’s a safe bet that you don’t want to be sitting under the roost.  So, I’m cringing as I think about how our debt habit is finally starting to hurt us in ways that really count.  What’s going to get cut? Who’s going to get hurt? And will we learn the larger lesson about the borrower being the servant to the lender?

There’s lots of misery to go around, apparently.

Courthouses: Will the Derby courthouse close? Local businesses would suffer, other courthouses which already lack space would have to pick up the slack. (story)

Nursing Homes: “Representatives for Connecticut’s nursing homes are warning that budget cuts proposed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the legislature’s Democratic leaders could cost thousands of jobs at facilities across the state, and might plunge currently stable facilities for the elderly into financial peril.” (story)

It’s not only the State of course, but towns are varied as Greenwich and Hartford that are seeking ways to cut expenditures, raise taxes or both.

The next shoe to drop: commercial real estate.

Continue to pray for the Governor and all our State legislators.

State deficit deepens

Posted on by
Reply

I guess that’s a good way to put it… after all, chasms are deep! This one is over $900 million deep.

Whatever people may think about Mrs. Rell, it doesn’t look like she’s one to candy-coat things. From the Republican-American:

“It is grim and it is getting grimmer,” Rell said.

On Jan. 1, State Comptroller Nancy Wyman reported the adopted $18.4 billion budget was running a $343 million deficit.

Wyman will upgrade her official estimate on Feb. 1 based on the latest figures from the governor’s budget office.

Robert L. Genuario, the governor’s budget director, said income tax collections are $665 million below projections.

Rell and the legislature budgeted more than $7.6 billion in income tax revenues this year.

Genuario also reported the revenues from the corporation tax are $100 million below projections and sales and use taxes are off $15 million.

The corporation tax is budgeted to raise $791.5 million this year and the sales and use tax is budgeted to raise $3.7 billion.

“The economic tempest that has already ravaged so much of the nation has now made landfall in Connecticut with all of its fury,” Rell said.

Please watch and pray for all those affected by layoffs, foreclosures, etc.

Praying for Connecticut’s economy

Posted on by
Reply

The economy is on all our minds and the news goes from bad to worse.  With the State deficit ballooning, Governor Rell is looking to put a moratorium on foredclosures.  However, she’s also said that bringing back the tolls is not an option for her.

Earlier this week The Courant told us just how bad it is:

In Connecticut, Rell must erase a current-year deficit of more than $300 million and also close a $6 billion shortfall in the new two-year budget.

Economists who recently briefed Rell on the recession said the state is facing not only a cyclical downturn, but also structural changes in the region’s economy.

Klepper-Smith said the state can expect to lose 60,000 to 80,000 jobs, many of them from the financial services sector important in Hartford and Fairfield counties.

Edward J. Deak, a Fairfield University economics professor who also has advised Rell, said the structural changes mean some of those losses will be permanent.

“Even as we pull ourselves out of the cyclical recession, we’re going to have to pay attention to the fact that the financial system that we’ve known and loved is gone, it’s not there anymore,” Deak said.

Public colleges are also in trouble.

Some are excited about the claim that gay marriage will boost our economy and that of Massachusetts.  But the $13M that might produce is a drop in the bucket.  Also, I’m not sure we wish to be known as the Las Vegas of gay marriage.

Let’s remember to pray for the State economy!

Connecticut Supreme Court Justice says gay marriage “not going away”

Posted on by
Reply

A very interesting article in the Yale Herald explored the response of Christians to the recent decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, establishing a right to gay marriage in our State.  Writer Dennis Howe says Christians have sat silent but his article is also noteworthy for the revealing glimpses it gives of some of the participants at the center of the Kerrigan drama, particularly State Supreme Court Justice Richard Palmer.

The court issued its decision on Oct. 10, and, unsurprisingly, initiated an immediate backlash from opponents of gay marriage. Social conservatives and the religious right formed the Connecticut Constitution Convention Campaign to encourage voters to vote “yes” on a ballot proposal to call a constitutional convention that could reexamine the Supreme Court decision and potentially propose a constitutional amendment to overturn it. Supporters included Republican governor Jodi Rell, the Family Institute of Connecticut, and the state’s Roman Catholic bishops, who called on Catholic voters to vote “yes” on the convention. This was no small matter—46 percent of the state is Catholic, placing Connecticut second among the 50 states.

But in the weeks leading up to Election Day, this initially fervent conservative reaction began to steadily decline. In California, religious conservatives were busy raising $35 million in support of Proposition 8, and their amendment banning gay marriage in the state passed by four percentage points. In the closing days of the Connecticut campaign, however, proponents of the constitutional convention were being outspent 83 to 1 by their opponents, and despite polls that suggested that the majority of Connecticut citizens were opposed to same-sex marriages, the anti-gay marriage camp was conspicuously subdued. The convention failed by an overwhelming margin—almost 20 percentage points—and Kerrigan and Mock received their marriage license just one week later.

“People don’t seem to have a lot of energy to spend time undoing our decision,” said Justice Palmer when asked in a Trumbull College Master’s Tea on Mon., Nov. 20. “We can say with certainty that there is going to be gay marriage in this state for the foreseeable future. Unlike in California, it’s not going away.”

Justice Palmer has taken the spiritual temperature of the State’s Catholics and Evangelicals and found us to be as cold as ice. Time alone will tell but for the moment he is probably correct.

The piece also contains an in-depth profile of Evangelicals working at Yale and their response to the culture as a whole on these issues, which is well worth your time.

Read the rest here.