By Max Kolonko | August 18, 2015
The decision made by the state’s Supreme Court. Roszkowski is the man who’s life was defended by the former president of Poland B. Komorowski who claimed that Roszkowski is a Polish citizen so his life should be spared as there’s no death penalty in Poland.
The Connecticut Supreme Curt made such a decision as in 2012 the politicians in the state decided that death penalty should be abolished there. They passed the bill in state’s parliament but after that they had a problem what to do with 11 inmates that were on death row and that’s how the state’s Supreme court came into play.
The state’s Supreme Court said in its opinion if the politicians decided that capital punishment is a cruel punishment and is unconstitutional why those 11 should be now penalized with that cruel punishment?
Based on that logic they had written their majority 4-3 decision arguing, among others, that the law is a-changing. that in XVII century we used to flog and now we have financial penalties instead and that the death row inmates “suffer” as they have to wait for years for their death as well as argued that death penalty has a minimal impact on killer’s decisions so the deterrence factor is here minimal.
That’s what we read in court’s opinion. The majority also said that those condemned to death receive a celebrity status in the media and they enjoy undeserved popularity as a side factor.
Charles Manson wouldn’t have been a celebrity he had become had he fried 40 years ago as he should. He’s got the death penalty but the law had changed and he got away with life imprisonment. Now he is a celebrity. He’s got books, movies etc. and should be but a cemetery stone for the past 40 years lying in the ground in some forgotten field called helter-skelter. That’s that happens when we change death penalty sentences to life imprisonment.
Roszkowski – that thug – he grabbed on a boardwalk in Bridgeport that poor woman by her head, put the gun to her head. She screamed: please don’t kill me in front of my child! He did. The child’s running. She’s running for her life. He starts after her – after a 9-year-old girl – a big man with a gun in his hand is chasing a child. He shoots, hits her in the leg – the girl falls – he runs up to her – the little girl covers her face with her hands:
Please don’t kill me! – she begged. He shot her in the face.
During the trial he acted out a deranged man. They ARE afraid of death penalty –
it’s not true that it is not a deterrent; it is a preventive measure when you know you got a death penalty for a violent crime It’s like in Texas. Everyone in America knows two things about Texas: you kill a cop – you’re dead. You kill with cruelty and you got the chair.
Those are the unwritten rules always encoded in the minds of those who decide to hurt someone out there in those places where the law works as it should.
Two: I don’t know how the law functioned in XVII century or if they swapped flogging for financial penalties but I know that at that time in England when a woman murdered her husband she was burnt at stake. We are talking about a severe punishment for severe crimes. We are talking about acts of cruelty. Penalty for cruel acts was always cruel appropriate to crime committed and punished by the means available at the time .
Thus we had a guillotine. Or firing squad, or hanging and now we have the gas amber
or lethal injection etc. depending on the state. But not everyone still likes that.
In California the state’s over 700 death row inmates protest they protest the new death chamber – they have lethal injection in CA – they protest as they don’t like the chamber for it’s too cruel in appearance. Federal judge suspended in July all death sentences
for the state to figure out the mess they have there. In my opinion those liberal lawyers and judges, they would spare the death penalty for Nazis in Nuremberg. They would’ve been writing memoirs now pointing to a gas chamber saying: ” – I’m not going in there. That’s too cruel!” Why, you got better ones in Auschwitz, right?
Three: Issues like death penalty – those are petitional issues.
It is not for politicians to decide – raise hand up in a vote to look better in front of a nation or elsewhere on some international arena that we don’t have the death penalty.
It is not up to president to decide that in a given country we are abolishing death penalty cause we’re signing up to some international agreements death penalty is a petitional issue cause it pertains to us, the people cause the killers hide among us, they kill us – so it is US to decide whether the death penalty should – in our society, state, or country – be imposed.
Since you’re approaching the referendum in Poland I propose to add to the referendum a very important question: Are you for reinstatement of capital punishment in Poland?
and while you’re at it – I’d add: Are you for the right to keep and bear arms?
Telling it like it is – Max Kolonko – New York.
Comments are closed.