February 3, 2005
SIDING WITH THE 10%:
Connecticut Debates a Death Wish: A convicted serial killer has his execution postponed against his will. The delays anger many in the state. (Elizabeth Mehren, February 3, 2005, LA Times)
Five times in six days, Michael Bruce Ross was minutes away from death by lethal injection. Execution postponements are routine while death row inmates appeal their fates.But Ross stands out because he refused to pursue legal avenues that might prolong his life. The 45-year-old serial killer has said — over and over — that he wants to die.
The delays have roiled this state, where polls show most residents support capital punishment.
"If they put this to a vote of the people of Connecticut, 80% to 90% would say: 'Execute him now,' " said Gene Smith, owner of Judy's Country Store in Stafford.
"He killed people. He killed eight people," Smith said. "I think what they should do is put it out to bid on who would like to give him the lethal injection. I'd be right up there."
Most of Ross' victims, who ranged in age from 14 to 25, had been raped before they were killed.
Ross, a Cornell University graduate who confessed to murdering eight young women in Connecticut and New York in the early 1980s, fired the public defense lawyers who wanted to fight his death sentence. He bypassed appeals that might have kept him alive another 10 years or more. He even planned his funeral, hoping it would take place in the spring, when the weather would be better for mourners.
But a federal judge Monday stopped the clock on what was scheduled to be New England's first execution in 45 years.
Among the many foolhardy corners the Democrats have painted themselves into, being the defenders of judicial activism is one of the most dangerous, because so clearly anti-democratic and anti-republican. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 3, 2005 7:36 AM
CT Republicans are presenting a petition to James Sensenbrenner to impeach the judge (Robert Cantigny, a Clinton appointee), because he allegedly threatened to strip Ross's lawyer of his license if he didn't step out of the way.
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 3, 2005 11:18 AMBush's refusal to play on American hostility to star chambers by attacking the Imperial Judiciary and clipping its wings through a series of changes like term limits, direct election of judges etc, has been a disappointment.
Posted by: Bart at February 3, 2005 11:31 AMThere's a book out there by a law professor about the federal judges that have been impeached since 1789, all thirteen of them. And four of those were acquitted by the Senate. The constitutional "good behavior" standard nowadays seems to mean in practice "not actually in prison after conviction for bribery, perjury or tax fraud." Which is a crying shame, but a long-running one.
What Cantigny did is probably not much worse than what James Peck was impeached (and acquitted) for doing in 1830. Which isn't to say he shouldn't be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail, just that it won't go anywhere.
Posted by: Random Lawyer at February 3, 2005 12:04 PMNot to say utterly unpredictable. You get stuck with the penumbra emanations whether you want them or not. And the darned stuff does not wash off.
Posted by: LUCIFEROUS at February 3, 2005 6:18 PM