Content Warning: This article discusses the death penalty, including references to violent crimes. Reader discretion is advised.

In the field of criminal justice, the death penalty has long been one of the most divisive topics. It makes us consider hard issues like justice, morals, and the government’s responsibility in deciding who lives and who dies. For some, it is an old and cruel punishment, while for others, it is an essential practice for justice. In my view, there are instances, such as the 2007 Connecticut home invasion in Cheshire, where the death penalty is not only appropriate but also required to bring about justice.

The house invasion in Cheshire was an unthinkably horrific crime. After breaking into the Petit family’s home and terrorizing the family for hours, two men, Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, set the house on fire and killed Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters, Michaela and Hayley. The only survivor, Dr. William Petit, was forced to deal with his family’s tragic loss. I believe that crimes of this size call for the harshest penalty possible. The death penalty would have been a justifiable response, as those who committed such horrible actions forfeited their right to live with us.

However, under then-Governor Dannel Malloy, Connecticut abolished the death penalty in 2012. The repeal caused quite a bit of debate even though it was meant to be prospective, meaning it would not apply to people who were already on death row. Many people were still thinking about the Cheshire case, which had caused significant quivering throughout the state. In my opinion, Governor Malloy should have taken the seriousness of this case into consideration before signing the repeal into law. In 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court eliminated the death penalty for those already on death row, therefore commuting their sentences to life in prison, which further complicated things. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the repeal was not something new; it was previously proposed in 2009 but was vetoed by then-Governor Jodi Rell who was a supporter of the death penalty. 

The death penalty’s supporters often claim that it discourages violent crimes. The reasoning is simple: potential criminals may reconsider their actions if they are aware that certain offenses could lead to their execution. Even if research on the death penalty’s deterrent effect has produced inconsistent results, many people still find the argument to be strong. Some people may be discouraged from carrying out their plans in premeditated murder cases by the thought of the worst punishment, which could save lives. 

Yet, the families of victims do not always want the death sentence to be applied. The story of Jesse Matthew, known as the “back-to-school killer” in Virginia, is one example. Matthew was found guilty of the horrific murders of Morgan Harrington and Hannah Graham, two young women whose lives were tragically cut short. Their families did not want him to be put to death despite the severity of his actions. Their reasons included that they simply wanted him to be contained so that he could no longer hurt any more young people. This point of view highlights the complex context of the death sentence controversy, what one person might see as justice may be seen by someone else as vengeance.  

The idea that the death penalty gives certain criminals the “easy way out” is one argument that I find convincing. Offenders who are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole must deal with the consequences of their actions on a daily basis. It guarantees that they face the effects of their wrongdoings and prevents them from escaping with death. Some people believe that this punishment is much more severe than execution. 

In conclusion, there are no straightforward answers to the death penalty, which continues to be a very controversial subject. Even though I believe it is appropriate in situations like the house invasion in Cheshire, I acknowledge that there are good reasons to argue against it especially when the families of the victims are against its implementation. In the end, the death sentence makes us consider our moral standards and how to achieve a balance between mercy and justice. It’s a discussion that will probably go on for many generations.