Death in Connecticut

The ongoing saga of convicted serial killer Michael Ross may end tonight with Ross's execution, even as the Connecticut legislature begins discussions of a bill to ban the death penalty. However, another report says Ross is going to delay the execution to prove his competence. The executions has already been delayed once after a U.S. District Attorney accused Ross's lawyer of failing to fully investigate evidence that Ross was incompetent. The Ross case is a complicated one b/c, as I understand it, Ross claims he wants to die, but his defense attorneys have been arguing against those wishes, saying his expressed desire to die is a clear sign of incompetence. It would also be the first execution in Connecticut in 44 years. Will Ross's execution basically become a state-assisted suicide? And if so, will that become another argument against the death penalty? Ross says one of the reasons he wants to die is that he can't stand the thought of spending the rest of his life in prison; therefore, the death penalty is actually a lesser punishment for Ross than life in prison would be. This gives the lie to death penalty proponents who claim it is the “ultimate” punishment (as in the most punishment society can give), and thus becomes potentially another argument against the death penalty. What would become of the death penalty if large numbers of death row inmates voluntarily gave up all appeals and asked to die swiftly? Would death penalty proponents give up their support for this barbarous practice? More specifically, what the heck should a defense attorney do when his/her client gets the death penalty and says “I want to die”? Attorneys don't really take a Hipporatic Oath to do no harm; should they? See also this fascinating story about David Kaczynski (brother of Ted, convicted Unabomber). David basically turned his brother in, then fought hard to make sure he didn't get the death penalty, and now has become an anti-death advocate.

Posted January 31, 2005 07:23 AM | law general