JUD Committee Hearing Transcript for 01/31/2005

SENATOR MCDONALD: As I mentioned, there are a number of people who have signed up today. I do want to remind members of the public that we have from now until 7:00 for this public hearing. It looks like, based upon the number of people who have signed up, that time will be sufficient to allow everybody an opportunity to present testimony before the committee, if we adhere to the rules.

The rules, as I have mentioned, you are allowed three minutes of time to testify. We apologize that it's such a hard and fast rule, but to accommodate everybody, we ask you to abide by that. I will ask you at three minutes to stop your testimony. If you need to finish a sentence, I'll allow that. We really do need to adhere to that time.

Again, there are no signs to be displayed. We ask that if you have cell phones or beepers, that you set them to silent or turn them off preferably. I should note, for members of the public, that though you see a number of seats empty, this is being telecast. Members of the Judiciary Committee may very well be watching.

I can tell you many of them will be watching as well as other legislators who will be watching this testimony around the building. So just because somebody might not be physically present, that doesn't mean that your testimony isn't being heard by many more legislators than just the Judiciary Committee.

I understand, if you've been in the building much today, that there are a number of other meetings going on. There is another public hearing before the Public Health Committee on stem-cell research. There are some members of this committee who also sit on the Public Health Committee. So it is, unfortunately, the way things happen around here sometimes. Legislators are called to other meetings to attend to other business. So you will see members of the committee coming in and going on, trying to attend to all of it.

I should also mention that many of you have submitted written testimony to the committee, which we have in front of us. Legislators from the committee will have that testimony available to them as well. So having said that, Representative Lawlor, did you have anything else you wanted to say?

REP. LAWLOR: Just to be complete on the presentation Senator McDonald was making, if you are new to this building, you may not realize that aside from the fact that these proceedings are telecast, not just throughout the building, but throughout the state. If you watch CTN, you know they are rebroadcast throughout the week. Every word that is spoken before the committee is transcribed.

Those transcripts stay with the bills forever, essentially, at the State Library. After a time, there may be only a few members of the committee here, but we just want you to understand that everyone will ultimately get an opportunity to hear your words and understand your sentiments.

That is a very important part of our process. So it may not be obvious from watching the sparse turnout at moments here in the committee, but it's very important that you are aware that all of your words will, in effect, live on forever.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. The first member of the public to testify is Antoinette Bosco. Ms. Bosco? Antoinette Bosco? All right

UNIDENTIFIED SPEARKER: She was here.

SEN. MCDONALD: After all that with the lottery, the first person isn't here. The next speaker is Matthew Oller.

REP. DYSON: Mr. Chair, even though she's not here, will there be an opportunity for her to speak when she gets back? When would that be?

SEN. MCDONALD: There will be an opportunity for individuals who missed their spot to testify, but it will be after everybody else has testified. The people who are participating in the lottery system had an expectation of when they were going to testify.

Otherwise, it would allow people to come in and testify whenever they chose. That wouldn't be fair to other members of the public who are here and are prepared to testify.

So the next speaker is Matthew Oller. I'm sorry, Sir. Please, have a seat at the table. Please, make sure that the white light is on for the microphone. Just identify yourself and the town from which you come.

MATTHEW OLLER: Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Matthew Oller. Can everyone hear me?

SEN. MCDONALD: Yes.

MATTHEW OLLER: Okay. One cannot legislate love. If it were so, people would still break the laws. Today, I honor my brother's memory. He died of cancer. In his effects, it was evident that he was in every death-penalty opposition he could be. Killing to teach not to kill is a poor lesson.

Execution is a case of, do as I say, not as I do, but love is the proper powerful feeling agent for all ills. Time, money, effort, and love would be better spent on life rather than death. I wish Representatives would focus on life becoming a light to the world, rather than a source of darkness that the death penalty entails.

I do not defend Michael Ross's actions anymore than I would defend Representatives who kill. There is no due process for the death penalty. When we become the killers, our society has failed, and we become Michael Ross. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Actually, I should have mentioned this. I'm sorry. After people testify, we allow members of the committee to ask any questions that they might have of the speaker. I don't know that there are any questions, Mr. Oller, but I did want to mention that. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Senator Handley?

SEN. HANDLEY: I just want to thank you particularly for coming in your brother's memory. That was a very generous thing for you to do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Woody Anderson.

WOODY ANDERSON: Thank you very much. Senator McDonald, Representative Lawlor, members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.B. 6012, an act concerning murder with special circumstances. My name is Sherwood Anderson, and I am an attorney, past chair, and current member of the Executive Committee of the Human Rights and Responsibilities Section of the Connecticut Bar Association.

On behalf of that section, I respectfully request the Judiciary Committee to favorably report H.B. 6012. This section strongly supports this bill and other similar bills raised by this committee that would abolish the death penalty in Connecticut while specifying a maximum capital felony sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

As we all know, execution is irreversible. Also, it is a fact that since 1973, 117 people in the United States have been released from death row and exonerated of capital felony charges due to new evidence and other reasons. Thousands of others have had their convictions overturned by appellate courts and their cases remanded for retrial due to procedural or prejudicial mistakes during the trial or ineffective assistance of council.

There are many other reasons besides the possibility of convicting an innocent person. Studies do show that the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime. For example, the South, over the past 30 years, is responsible for over 80% of the executions of people on death row. Yet, the South has the highest rate of murder in the United States. Whereas the Northeast has almost no executions in the last 30 years, it also has the lowest murder rate.

Also, it is a fact that the costs of capital-felony-murder cases are significantly higher than the cost of non-capital felony murder cases. That is the time. I thank you again. On behalf of the section, I wish to thank the committee for raising 6012. I respectfully request that the bill be favorably reported. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Mr. Anderson? Thank you for your testimony.

WOODY ANDERSON: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Next is Dennis Calhoun. I'm sorry. I will try to tell people the next two speakers, so that you can be prepared. After Mr. Calhoun is Richard Tulisano and then Lawrence Adams. Good afternoon, Mr. Calhoun.

DENNIS CALHOUN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am Dennis Calhoun from Middlebury. I am the pastor of a congregation of the United Church of Christ, the second largest religious body in the State of Connecticut. I've come to bear witness against the death penalty and to urge you to repeal the law that currently gives the State of Connecticut the unwarranted authority to kill in my name.

In the last ten years, I've been called on for pastor care and support of the family of a murder victim and also the family of one who committed murder before taking his own life. The two cases were not related, but the unspeakable grief of both families certainly was.

In addition, not long ago, a woman came to our church seeking support after being paroled on a murder conviction. The state apparently made the decision to send her home to die of the breast cancer she developed while in prison. I conducted the funerals of all three of these individuals, one victim of a senseless killing and two who committed that most egregious of crimes.

Not surprisingly, given all this exposure to murder and its victims, my congregation has deeply mixed feelings. Murder has struck close to home. We've seen and felt it up close and from both sides. The truth is that the people in my congregation espouse a range of opinions about the issue you are deliberating here today.

So I don't come to speak on behalf of my congregation because like you, we do not speak with one voice on the matter of the death penalty. There is one voice I find terribly compelling, a voice I want you to hear. It is the voice of a teenager who was brought to me by his exasperated parents for some counseling after he found himself in trouble for violent behavior at school.

I tried to convince this still-impressionable young man that violence never accomplishes anything and only leads to more violence. I told him that as a person of faith, my view is rooted in God's law, a code of moral behavior that was laid down ages ago for the good of all society.

He said, you mean, like the Ten Commandments, like thou shall not kill? I said, yes, that is precisely the moral law that we must obey for the good of everyone. His reply was, if our government can break the law by imposing the death penalty, he didn't see why anybody else should have to obey it.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the question I would like to pose to you. If our government, under your stewardship, can disregard the injunction against killing, the most violent crime of all, why should anyone else have to obey it? I'd be happy for you to come and explain your answer to this still-impressionable young man. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Representative Cafero?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you. Thank you, Sir, for your testimony. Sir, assuming your wish were to come true, and the death penalty would be abolished, what do you feel is the appropriate penalty for people charged with the kinds of crimes that currently now call for the death penalty?

DENNIS CALHOUN: I think that life without possibility of parole.

REP. CAFERO: In the most recent case, the case of Michael Ross, which has dominated the headlines, there have been various arguments made that the circumstances by which Michael Ross has lived for the past 20 years with restricted movement, obviously, restricted visitation, etc., has caused him, in the minds of some people, to become mentally incompetent.

Do you find either that to be true or does that make any difference in what you just stated to me?

DENNIS CALHOUN: The question of his competency I don't think should enter into the debate about the justifiability of the death penalty in general.

REP. CAFERO: What I'm saying, I'm making the assumption that the death penalty is abolished. Is there a kind of situation that you could foresee where life in prison without parole would be considered cruel and unusual and, therefore, should be modified itself?

DENNIS CALHOUN: I couldn't speculate about the conditions of life without parole. I have visited prisoners myself and found that the conditions were far beyond anything I had imagined. Cruel and unusual, I'm not certain how to define those terms, but I certainly think that the conditions would have a terrible deterring effect on future crimes.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Any other questions? Thank you very much.

DENNIS CALHOUN: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Next is Richard Tulisano followed by Lawrence Adams, and then Clare Laura Hogenauer. It is always a pleasure to see you, Mr. Tulisano.

RICHARD TULISANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, I am here in support of S.B. 6012, which I am sure is no surprise to anybody. I have spent almost 30 years on opposition to the death penalty. I have seen public opinion ebb and flow. I think that is an essential element of one of the reasons why I am against the death penalty.

Of course, Mr. Connelly's testimony this morning sort of put, for want of a better phrase, the nail in the coffin for me. You heard him very vehemently say today that he never plea-bargains in certain kinds of cases, when a cop gets killed, what he perceives to be a horrendous murder, but somebody else might.

It doesn't matter what district it's in. I know we've all talked about which district it's in. What he's really shown is the subjectivity that is involved in the imposition of the death penalty all along, whether it be the issue to withhold or not to go down certain ways for evidence purposes, when the police are investigating a crime.

When it's the State's Attorney making a decision whether or not to impose the death penalty or to seek the imposition of the death penalty, whether it's the [inaudible] because under the new law, unlike we've heard all week long, this is the hardest case, the Ross case before us. After this, it gets easier. Mr. Connelly said it's expensive to do that kind of thing. No, it's easier to take one's life. Under that, how do we weigh and outweigh whether it's heinous or there are mitigating factors?

That depends on who the 12 folks are on the jury. How could it ever be fair, and just, and equally applied? We try, but how could it be? When you talk about the jury and you go to the jury, do you remember the theory of jury nullification? If the one check against a tyranny would be the jury, we're going to make sure that some jurors are never going to sit to check the way the government imposes the death penalty. Where does that occur?

We know you can't argue jury nullification to juries. You know you're not supposed to discuss it, but certain lawyers, in their hearts, always know when the government is been unjust, when the law for which they wish to impose the death penalty, whatever the circumstances, they are unjust.

They may find guilt, but in their check on government, they may will to say, we're not prepared to impose the ultimate penalty. I have about six more minutes, but I accept the rules. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: I knew you would. I knew you would, Sir. I believe, however, you're not going to escape the questioning of Senator Cappiello.

RICHARD TULISANO: Six more hours, Mr. Senator.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Richard, for your testimony. First, I want to say I have a great deal of respect for you, and your years of service, and also because on this issue, like the issue of euthanasia and abortion, you are very consistent on where you stand. I have a great deal of respect for that. On euthanasia and abortion, you are very consistent on where you stand.

I have a great deal of respect for that, for people who stand by their convictions. I wanted to ask you a question that I would have liked to ask some of the expert witnesses before because I think you are an expert witness. The issue of death row syndrome has come up.

RICHARD TULISANO: Yes.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Can you tell me the difference between someone who has committed the crimes of Michael Ross, if we had no death penalty, and he was serving life in prison without parole, what is the difference in his prison time, if he were going to be serving that time, in regard to the difference between that and death row syndrome?

Why is it so, that because he is on death row, his sentence is a little bit different than life in prison? How do they treat him differently?

RICHARD TULISANO: I will beg a lack of knowledge. I do know, on death row, you spend 23 hours, you only get 1 hour out a day, I gather, for exercise. Essentially, you are by yourself. I stand to be corrected. You don't get out of your cell for 23 hours a day. Now, when you're in the regular population, I mean, we all know that is not what happens.

I suppose you're, again, on death row, there is much more restriction. Those arguments are new to me this year, frankly. I have not really studied it very much. It's very interesting to find, of what I have read, the British Courts have already found that as existing theory.

We have looked to them in the past for how we impose our law. I've not researched it, but I think that is the difference. They are just not out at all.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: So do you think that Michael Ross should serve life in prison without parole because of his crimes? Do you think that he should serve them as he is right now, currently, only having one hour a day?

RICHARD TULISANO: No. Let me just say this. Yes, I think he should stay in jail the rest of his life. Obviously, no one who is against the death penalty condones in any way any of the actions of anybody. That is clear. I think it belittles all of us when we impose, whatever that penalty is, including for Michael Ross, to say that he has to stay in that kind of a situation.

The damage is not to him. It will be damage to him. It is the damage to us who impose it, the death penalty or an unfair way to keep somebody in prison. There are places that don't see this Draconian measure of this world as we do.

They have a better lifestyle, generally, when it comes to how they treat criminals and what happens when they get out. Most criminals come out, not death penalty. In any event, I just think that belittles, makes less of us in those situations, not what happens to him.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Okay. I know we have a lot of people to testify, so I just have one more question, if I may. What do you think we should do, if we were to abolish the death penalty, what should the penalty be for someone who is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole, if they killed someone in prison or killed a correction's officer?

RICHARD TULISANO: I'm not sure. I probably would just keep it the same way it is, make sure that maybe we know life in prison without parole doesn't stop a pardon from coming, maybe have a special statutory provision where they are not eligible to seek a pardon for certain reasons.

Again, as you know, as the Chairman said, pardons, those things are in the legislative purview, not the executive. That is an exercise of legislative power. You may take away one more freedom from them. Those cases are so rare. I mean, they really are rare. They do happen.

Everything happens, but we shouldn't be judging our whole life on the exception to the rule. It is the rule that we should be judging our lifestyle, how we treat others, and how we treat ourselves.

SEN. CAPPIELO: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you.

RICHARD TULISANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. MCDONALD: Well, actually, I don't think you're done. I did just want to let members of the committee know, and members of the public, that at least according to the associated press, as of about five minutes ago, the Department of Corrections has canceled the scheduled execution for this evening. [applause] Please.

I did want people to know because I understand there are a number of people who were planning on leaving from here and going up to the prison. So based on the advice of the Chief State's Attorney and the Attorney General, the Department of Corrections has canceled the execution that was scheduled for this evening.

It will now go back for a new death warrant at some future point in time. I just wanted to make members of the public aware of that fact. I believe Senator Newton had a question for Mr. Tulisano.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you, Richard. It is good to see you.

RICHARD TULISANO: Nice seeing you again, Senator.

SEN. NEWTON: Let's just for the record say that in my earlier years in the General Assembly, you and now Judge Wollenberg probably gave the best arguments pro and con.

RICHARD TULISANO: Unfortunately, he won.

SEN. NEWTON: Let me ask you a question. In those states that do execute prisoners, has it ever been shown to be a deterrent?

RICHARD TULISAO: Let me be honest. It is a deterrent, as Senator Cappiello mentioned. I guess it's a deterrent for that individual to commit another offense. That would be called in literature, a specific deterrent, and it is. I don't think it's a general deterrent.

There is certainly enough evidence that shows that, in fact, that is where the crime rates are higher. I think someone testified that earlier today. There are a number of programs in which it is clear that some people have moved from non-death-penalty states, murderers, to death-penalty states and committed crimes. So I don't think it has shown a general deterrence at all.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Lawlor?

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was just occurring to me, Richard, when did you first become a member of this committee?

RICHARD TULISANO: When was I first a member of this committee?

REP. LAWLOR: Yes.

RICHARD TULISANO: As a member or working?

REP. LAWLOR: Member.

RICHARD TULISANO: Member, '75.

REP. LAWLOR: Before that, you were a staff person.

RICHARD TULISANO: I was a staff person.

REP. LAWLOR: When did that start?

RICHARD TULISANO: 1968.

REP. LAWLOR: So you were here when Connecticut first reenacted its death penalty.

RICHARD TUILSANO: Yes.

REP. LAWLOR: One of the things that comes up all the time--

RICHARD TULISANO: I was younger than any member of this committee.

REP. LAWLOR: --that is before we had the child labor laws, right? One of the arguments that comes up all the time, aside from the philosophical one, which you very eloquently restated here, there is a whole practical side of this, I mean, really. If we're going to have a public policy that promises justice, if you define justice this way, can we ever actually deliver on that, and if so, when?

My recollection is that ten years ago, former Governor Rowland said, if elected, I'll establish a workable death penalty. There was lots of frustration about the old statute and how it did or didn't work. I know before that, Governor O'Neill and Governor Weicker had vetoed bills, which were almost identical to the one that Governor Rell signed.

There is so much controversy about, if we could only just fix it, then we could finally deliver on this and give justice to the victims, etc. So putting apart the philosophical argument, I guess, if it's possible to do that, I mean, do you recall what kinds of things people said?

If we can only deliver justice, I mean, is there anything we can do to make this work?

RICHARD TULISANO: To make the death penalty work, yeah, you could do what the State's Attorney Office said, take away appeals. I mean, they would take it on no appeal, if you could. I mean, that is the way it used be, right, a long time ago. You had the judge and jury find guilt with some very minor ability to appeal. Essentially, executions were imposed pretty quickly.

Gradually, our concept of due process [inaudible] in theory. You could do what the Federal Courts have done to make it work faster, if you will, have [inaudible]. You can put in automatic aggravating as you did for policemen, for any person. I mean, frankly, my own opinion is that your life has as much value as lots of other lives.

When we start deciding who is more valuable than others, we get into other problems. I mean, the mere fact that you took a life is aggravating. It is almost redundant, but it's true. You can say you don't have writs of habeas corpus, one shot. One bite of the apple, and that is the ballgame.

If you didn't raise the issue before the DNA law, the DNA law, if you didn't make your arguments within four months, too bad you were innocent. The law was applied properly. It was a fair trial, as we then understood it. The fact that it became, and you found out later, unfair is another thing.

You take all the things away, take away all these due process things, what we've built in for sureness, and I suppose, impose it really quickly, don't put a telephone line in the execution room. Just do it. I guess that worked. I don't think that does it for any of you. Those who oppose it, I don't think you agree with that.

REP. LAWLOR: You heard Mr. Connelly say a few moments ago that maybe we could somehow short-circuit all this habeas and some of that. You know, it occurs to me that the issue in the current mess that we have, this Michael Ross mess, is competency.

I understand that there is nothing really that the state could do to change any rule because this is something that the United States Supreme Court said.

RICHARD TULISANO: Right. The United States Supreme Court has said that in all death-penalty cases, extraordinary due process. I guess that is still being defined, that extraordinary due process is required. That is what we've built into this state.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there other questions? Representative Hamzy?

REP. HAMZY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Richard, good to see you again.

RICHARD TULISANO: Nice seeing you.

REP. HAMZY: I have a question with regard to this issue of deterrence. The system that we have established, it has established certain punishments for certain types crimes. The more serve the crime, the more serve the punishment.

RICHARD TULISANO: That is theoretically what is done. There are many political crimes in our books where we have various stiff penalties for things that you might think are less serious. The potential may be greater, but they are less serious than others. The imposition of penalties is different.

REP. HAMZY: I would agree with that. As a general rule, we treat shoplifting different than we treat murder.

RICHARD TULISANO: Yeah.

REP. HAMZY: With respect to this issue of deterrence, if the penalty for murder was a $50 fine, that would not be considered to be a deterrent, in my mind at least. So we make the penalty for murder something greater than that, which acts, we hope, as a deterrent.

RICHARD TULISANO: Well, that is if you believe it does that. That is correct.

REP. HAMZY: Well, we have a proportionality of punishments codified in our criminal statutes.

RICHARD TUILSANO: Yes.

REP. HAMZY: So the issue of, you know, severely punishing certain types of crimes is reflected in our criminal statutes. So whether they actually act as a deterrent or not, that is what the basis of the criminal penalties is, correct?

RICHARD TULISANO: The basis, yeah, we have seen certain offences as being more serious, and, therefore, you get more serious, I guess I'll use the word Mr. Connelly used, retribution. Retribution is escalated on the basis of how you perceive the crime.

REP. HAMZY: So if we took the rare, but foreseeable offense of someone who has already been sentenced to death, I'm sorry, someone who has already been sentenced to life in prison without parole committing the murder of a correction officer, without the death penalty there, there is no other penalty that we can impose.

RICHARD TULISANO: I guess you can let him out for half an hour. I'm not being facetious. I agree. That is a rare occasion. All I'm saying to you, and I said it before, and I'll reiterate, for the once or twice that happens in many times, should that be what guides us?

Now, if you come down and say, yeah, that is what defines us, that rare occasion, that is not the rule. That is not what happens. If you're going to let that judge how you react to all things, then I understand how you get there.

I just don't concur that that is the way, that you should allow the exception to be what judges everything you do. I know we do that a lot.

REP. HAMZY: How many people do we currently have on death row?

RICHARD TULISANO: I think there are six or seven.

REP. HAMZY: Six people. So the exception--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Seven.

REP. HAMZY: --six or seven out of all the serious crimes that are committee. The exception, in my opinion at least, has been imposing the death penalty on people who commit very serious and heinous crimes.

RICHARD TULISANO: Okay. My response would be that it goes back to my first statement. You're right. You've got seven people, people who have maybe done more heinous things who aren't there. I think Mr. Connelly, in his statement, tried to cite Judge Chatigny, I guess it was, about saying that, in fact, Mr. Ross was the least culpable. I think that was the language he used.

Assuming we understand what Mr. Connelly said, therefore, Ross is the least culpable and probably shouldn't be there, but he is. I don't think that is what Judge Chatigny said. I think he just took it out of context.

What Judge Chatigny said, maybe, I believe this is what he said, his capacity to be held accountable for his actions should not be death, his capacity, not that the actions weren't least culpable. I think he left us with that impression from what I heard.

REP. HAMZY: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Cafero?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Richard, it's good to see you.

RICHARD TULISANO: Mr. Cafero, nice seeing you.

REP. CAFERO: I want to follow up on something Chairman Lawlor brought up, this whole notion of the workability of the death penalty.

RICHARD TULISANO: Yes.

REP. CAFERO: I heard many people say, well, obviously, in light of the fact that no one has been executed in 45 years and that Michael Ross has been on death row waiting death for 20 years, our death penalty doesn't work. Do you measure the workability of a death penalty by how many people have died under it?

RICHARD TULISANO: I don't, but I think people do. I think, if I might say, with your permission, that, in fact, that is one of the other things I've always had in my head. If, in fact, it is workable in this case, you execute the person who everyone agrees is someone who should be executed, I mean, general consensus publicly.

The next case, somehow or other, they are not found, the death penalty is not imposed, the death penalty has now become unworkable because it didn't do what the general public has thought it should do in this particular case.

You're never going to have that, and maybe that is where the Chairman was going, a workable situation because everybody is going to judge, again, subjectively, certain things. I think people are judging it on how you impose it, how many times you impose it. I've always believed that sooner or later, we'd execute somebody. I think it's happening.

REP. CAFERO: One of the measurements of whether or not it's workable, as you already said, is how many people have died under it.

RICHARD TULISANO: Some have said it.

REP. CAFERO: You had already mentioned another thing. Over the years, in order to better, I don't know if the word is strengthen or weaken, but in order to make better the penalty that we have on the books that calls for death, we have put more due process in allowing people who are faced with that ultimate penalty the right to appeal more than maybe others would wish.

Does that right, giving people the right to appeal, does that make, in your mind, a law unworkable?

RICHARD TULISANO: Not in my mind. There are people who would say that. I mean, I'll admit that is what the State's Attorney was saying. In fact, some of those due process rights, if they were restricted or removed, would make it more workable, easier to impose. I don't mean to put words in his mouth either. That is the impression I got.

REP. LAWLOR: Let's not assign those words to him, but to whomever. Doesn't that make the assumption, though, that you measure workability or success by how many people you kill?

RICHARD TULISANO: Yeah. I think people believe that.

REP. LAWLOR: But don't you believe there is a whole other group of people that might believe in the concept of the penalty, but if the penalty, either because the crimes weren't committed or the it wasn't justified was never imposed, that still doesn't make the underlying law unworkable? Would you agree with that?

RICHARD TULISANO: That it was never imposed, no. You are right. The law would still be a workable law, but never imposed. Public policy makers would continue to be under pressure by the general public, as you are now, to make sure certain things do occur because they perceive the death penalty to be, and I'll acknowledge that, they have been advised and told that it works good. It does retribution or whatever.

If it is not imposed, it is not workable. I mean, you have to deal with what reality is. That is technically correct. I think you cite that, technically, you could have one where the death penalty has never been imposed, but could at some magical time in the future as opposed to what the public perceives, what the general public perceives.

That is, if it's not being used and imposed, they have made the decision of whom it should be imposed upon, then it is not working. You have two things going on at the same time.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you.

RICHARD TULISANO: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there other questions? Representative Dyson?

REP. DYSON: I just wanted to say I'm pleased to see Mr. Tulisano here. It is always a pleasure.

RICHARD TUILSANO: Thank you, Bill. It's nice seeing you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Mr. Tulisano, I just had one question myself. We were talking about what it might mean for someone to potentially be charged with a capital offense in one judicial district in the state and not another and how it could be arbitrary. It occurs to me that the European Court of Human Rights has said that it's unlawful for a European citizen to be subjected to capital punishment in this country.

RICHARD TULISANO: That is right.

SEN. MCDONALD: So if an individual committed a capital offense, be it Michael Ross or someone else, who would have been otherwise charged with that capital offense, and yet, they were a citizen of--

RICHARD TULISANO: Italy.

SEN. MCDONALD: Britain or Italy or Spain or any of--

RICHARD TULISANO: Or Canada.

SEN. MCDONALD: --or Canada, and fled to that country, isn't it a fact that we couldn't have them extradited back unless we agreed that they would not be executed?

RICHARD TULISANO: Absolutely correct. I've made that argument a couple of times in the past, and I thank you for bringing it up again. In Canada, we've had at least twice that I know in Canada, and currently, a Connecticut accused is in Italy and was involved in, I think, a murder for hire, which would be a capital felony, a capital case. The extradition hearing is scheduled now.

The argument is and has been, they supposedly have said, I don't know if that's true, I just read it in the paper, that the State's Attorney Office has said they would not seek death. Some courts in Europe, Italy in particular, have not always believed what our prosecutors say. They take it as a [inaudible] view, and they have not gone along with extradition. They try them in that country under their law, so they won't be executed.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you.

RICHARD TULISANO: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: And you got more than your three minutes, but not your six hours.

RICHARD TULIASNO: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Next is Lawrence Adams followed by Clare Laura Hogenauer and then John Stamm. Good afternoon, Sir.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Lawrence Adams. I come to you from Boston, Massachusetts. I'm glad to be here today. I was sentenced to death by electrocution in 1974. Even though I knew I was innocent of all charges, nevertheless, I was found by a jury of my peers, and I was sentenced. I have a short transcript I would like to give to the committee.

The jury found me, and they were convinced that I was a murderer, even though I knew better. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld the decision. I did 32 years before I was finally exonerated of the charges. It was the death penalty being abolished that probably saved my life. It allowed me the time and opportunity to prove my innocence, to have my lawyer find different materials that were never produced before.

You heard testimony today about 117 individuals across this country on death row being freed by DNA evidence, but not yet has one talked about the human error of nondisclosure and the principle of due process failing. There is human error. The law may be pure in its pure form, but when we, as people, have to collect the evidence and have to present the case, we're not infallible

All the things that we bring to the table come with us. I'm here to say today, right, that I am here because the death penalty in Massachusetts was abolished. My lawyer found things that others didn't, and I'm here today. I'm glad to give all respect to him.

I think that it's important that this committee understands that when you talk about the death sentence, right, we have to talk about human error. That is what we have to do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much, Sir. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Yes, Senator Newton followed by Senator Hamzy.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you. I want to thank you for coming to Connecticut to give your testimony. When was it that they found the DNA, after how many years?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: It wasn't DNA. It was exculpatory evidence. It took 31 years.

SEN. NEWTON: Thirty-one years?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes.

SEN. NEWTON: Did you have a public defender?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Excuse me?

SEN. NEWTON: Did you have a public defender or a lawyer?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: In the beginning, I had a public defender.

SEN. MCDONALD: All right. Senator, I really don't even know how to address that.

SEN. NEWTON: The point I'm trying to get at, and you all laugh, but this is very serious, is that in some cases, it's been proven that those who can afford attorneys have a better chance. I'm not saying anything bad about public defenders, but in some incidents, you know, cases have been proven.

If you have a high-price lawyer, you stay out of jail. You know, that is the point I was trying to get to, not to disparage anything about our public defenders throughout this country. When you have your own lawyer, it seems that he might be able to collect that evidence, as you said. You know, that was the only point that I was making.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: It has been my experience, right, that I would say that I was unique in the fact that my lawyer, Mr. John Battarac, did work that I don't think anybody else could have done. I was fortunate to that extent.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. I should just note for the record that actually the Chief Public Defender's Office has probably the greatest breadth of information in history on the defense of capital cases than any other group of attorneys in the state. Are there other questions? Senator Handley followed by Senator Cappiello.

SEN. HANDLEY: Thank you for being here. I thanked you out in the hall, but I want to thank you again. It is very good of you to come here to relive, in a sense, what you've gone through one more time for the benefit of us who need to understand.

I just really have one question in terms of the fact that you're here today, including the Massachusetts decision to abolish the death penalty. The fact that you were freed, would you consider that it was essentially a matter of luck, good luck that something happened that made it possible or that the system in the long run prevailed, the justice system prevailed or a combination of both? I'm just kind of curious how you would see it.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: I see it, by the death sentence being abolished, that allowed me the time that was necessary. As I said, it took 31 years to bring to light, you know, fruition, that exculpatory evidence was withheld that exonerated me.

SEN. HANDLEY: My question is, how was that found? You attributed it to the hard work of your attorney.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: By my attorney.

SEN. HANDLEY: So it was, in a sense, the persistence of this one person and the fact that--

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes.

SEN. HANDLEY: --and the fact that he was there and believed in you.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes.

SEN. HANDLEY: Yeah. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you, Senator. Senator Cappiello followed by Representative Berger.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to thank you for coming to testify, even though you were fortunate [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1A to 1B] I cannot imagine what you went through during that time.

My question for you, Connecticut, we seem to prefer, for better or for worse, whether you agree with the death penalty or not, we seem to have one of the most difficult to apply in the nation. You hear about down in Texas, the death penalty is applied quite regularly.

Here in Connecticut, it's been 45 years since it has been applied, even in the case of Michael Ross, which everyone knows is guilty. There is no question of his guilt. My question for you, in the case of Michael Ross, the issue of guilt or innocence isn't an issue. We know what he did. He's admitted doing what he did.

Do you still think in that case or in any of the cases in Connecticut because I think we are [inaudible] each and every person on death row is guilty. So do you still oppose the death penalty on that basis?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: I only oppose the finality. I think that the reality of jurisprudence in America is that we have killed innocent people, and we probably will again because we have human error. We have, you know, I mean, not everybody is perfect. There is not perfection.

I mean, the law is perfect as far as those that are guilty can go free. Justice will always forge another opportunity bring them to justice. The innocent only get one shot. That is what we deal with when we deal with something where the penalty is so extreme that it is irreversible.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: So even in the case of Michael Ross, knowing that he did what he did, you still oppose it.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Let's just say that what he did, I have no feelings for it one way or the other because I can't understand it. You know, I can never understand how somebody would just do something like that for no apparent reason or for whatever reason he thought it was good for. I don't think putting him to death is the answer. I mean, I don't see it.

You can't kill one man to put fear in somebody else. He did it, right? If he did it, okay, then the law will take its course. We'll lock him up, and he should never see the light of day again.

I don't believe that we, as civilized people, need to satisfy and relinquish our fears by saying that he is so evil that this happened, and this is the only thing that we can do for him. I don't believe that.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you. I appreciate your answer.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Berger followed by Representative Gonzalez.

REP. BERGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming and providing testimony to this committee this afternoon. The evidence that you were able to bring forth to the State of Massachusetts through your attorney representing your innocence should be applauded. Actually, shame on the State of Massachusetts for incarcerating you for 32 years when, in fact, you were found to be not guilty.

Just to explore a little bit about that, if you would indulge me, what was the crime that you were accused of?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Felony murder.

REP. BERGER: Can you just give a description of what was involved? Have they found the person, the State of Massachusetts, that committed that murder?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes. Yes, they did.

REP. BERGER: They did. I guess this is in the way of maybe just a comment. In your situation, there was evidence brought forward, and we've heard that you were found to be not guilty. They, in fact, found the person that was guilty. It was not DNA evidence that did that.

However, I think it must be made perfectly clear that while I certainly understand your situation, and I certainly believe that everyone on this committee does, let it be known clearly that the individuals that are sitting on death row right now in the State of Connecticut, no DNA evidence, no other circumstantial evidence will ever exonerate those individuals.

Those individuals committed crimes against society and the people of the State of Connecticut, and were found guilty by a jury of their peers, given legal council, given every right and privilege under the laws of the State of Connecticut, those people were found guilty. They will, hopefully, see their just rewards for the crimes they committed against this state and the people.

Congratulations to you, Sir, but make no mistake, for everyone in this room, those individuals that are on death row deserve to be on death row and were proven to be convicted of the crimes they did. Thank you.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Senator, I understand your position. In your place, I would have no one, but that position. The evidence that exonerated me, they had from day one.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Next is Representative Gonzalez followed by Representative Walker.

REP. GONZALEZ: Thank you for being here today to testify in front of us. Representative Berger, he asked one of my questions. Thanks for that. My second question, what was your experience in those 32 years when you were locked up, what was the experience? Do you think that they treated you differently than others?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: With all due respect, Senator, I don't think that in the time that is allotted with me that I could go through what I went through in 32 years that I was incarcerated.

RE. GONZALEZ: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Walker?

REP. WALKER: Good afternoon, Sir. First of all, I want to also thank you for coming here and testifying about something that is so serious and has so many ramifications in our society. I thought you were very eloquent in your responses to some of the people today. Obviously, you have worked hard at this.

I guess, as one of my colleagues pointed out, many of the people on death row, by no stretch of the imagination, they are guilty. I'm sure they said that about you at one point also. DNA, there are a lot of things that change that make us look at crime in a different way each year, each time because we evolve and we grow.

I realize that we have to debate this. It is a difficult issue to debate. How many other people were on death row with you at the time that you were there? Can I ask that?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: There were like five of us, but they were abolishing death row at that time.

REP. WALKER: Were any of the others found innocent with DNA evidence?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: No. At the time of my incarceration, DNA evidence, technology hadn't yet been applied.

REP. WALKER: Okay. So the other four are now in prison for life, as far as you know. The other people that were on death row are spending life in prison right now.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes.

REP. WALKER: Can you tell me, just give me a brief idea, what were your accommodations like when you were on death row? Where you allowed an hour out during the day?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Well, death row, they took the old death row housing area and turned it into a segregation unit, which pretty much kept it the same way. A 24-hour lock, you get 15 minutes out for a shower, 15 minutes in the yard. That was it.

REP. WALKER: Did you participate, once you were found guilty and they committed you to death, did you do a lot of your own research and everything to help defend yourself as you were in there?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes, I did.

REP. WALKER: Did you get a degree while you were there?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes, I did.

REP. WALKER: Congratulations. I kind of thought that. Very good. Do you go out and talk to the kids in the community now about this whole situation?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes, I do.

REP. WALKER: Thank you very much for you testimony. Thank you for this. It is important that we carry this message, especially out to our kids. I think, as a lot of people have said today, the death penalty helps to deter crime.

When depression, and poverty, and no other future are there, death row, all of these things don't deter crime. I think we're looking at the wrong direction. Thank you, and keep up the good work.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Okay.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. [applause] Please. Please. Please. I understand that you support Mr. Adams' testimony, but, please, refrain from clapping. It would just be more efficient for all of us. I appreciate that. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? If not, I just wanted to ask you a couple of things.

First, let me thank you for coming and testifying before the committee. I think perhaps more than anybody, you have the unique perspective on the issues that we are talking about this afternoon. I want to explore just for a moment this notion of the death row phenomenon, if you will. I've had an opportunity to read some materials about it. We've heard some testimony about it. You perhaps lived it.

So could you explain to me, if you can, and I know this is a difficult question, what was the impact on you psychologically for being incarcerated up to 23 and one-half hours a day every day for 31 years? Did you, in your time since your release, did you have an opportunity to sort of reflect on how you started your time in prison and how you came out at the other end?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: I don't believe that there is any reflection. As, you know, I was talking to a friend before I came in here, we were out in front of the building. We were walking back and forth and talking because we hadn't seen each other for a while. We stopped.

I had this thing in my head that we have to keep moving because that is what they do when you're inside. You can't sit still. You've got to keep moving. You've got to keep walking. You can't stand on the quad. That is one of the things in the institutions in Massachusetts. So I am still suffering.

You know, I find myself always questioning myself, even though I put the work in for degrees, and I tried to give myself council as well as go to council. I'm still, taking it day for day. I'm still trying to undo, right, what the Massachusetts' prison has done to me.

I'm pretty sure that as many members of the Senate also understand that at one time, Massachusetts Walpole Prison was one of the most feared penitentiaries in the world.

SEN. MCDONALD: And, forgive me, you may have said this, how long have you been out of prison now?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Nine months.

SEN. MCDONALD: Nine months. You are receiving counseling?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Excuse me?

SEN. MCDONALD: Are you receiving any counseling?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes, I am.

SEN. MCDONALD: And did you ever have an actual scheduled execution date?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Oh, excuse me, no. No, because at the time, Massachusetts was in the process that Connecticut is in now. They were talking about the death penalty being unconstitutional.

SEN. MCDONALD: I'm just asking because I'm trying to figure out what happens to an individual on death row, the closer that individual comes to a scheduled date for execution. You are saying that was not your experience. You didn't have a scheduled date. You didn't come within an hour of being executed. Is that correct?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: That is one way to put it, Senator.

SEN. MCDONALD: Well, you put it in your own words, Sir.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Well, when I was signed into Walpole, every day of my life was death row. Walpole was averaging three murders a week, every day of my life.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. One other thing, you mentioned that the exculpatory evidence, which ultimately was revealed 31 years after your incarceration began, that it was in the possession of the state from day one. I think that is what you said.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes.

SEN. MCDONALD: Can you tell me a little bit about why that evidence was never revealed previously? Did the prosecution withhold it from your defense? What happened?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Well, we say that it was in their possession because we received it from them after 31 years, right? We received it from the Prosecutor's Office. Like I said, we recognized the dates on it, and we saw who went to the Grand Jury. We knew that they had all the information from that time, from the very beginning.

SEN. MCDONALD: And just out of curiosity, was it your attorney who moved for you to be released or did the prosecution, after disclosing the evidence, move to have the charges dismissed against you and your conviction overturned?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yeah. I think it was a mutual arrangement between the District Attorney's Office and my council.

SEN. MCDONALD: And was the prosecutor who did that the same prosecutor who originally tried you?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: No.

SEN. MCDONALD: So it depended on what prosecutor was in office at the time.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yeah, in order for the information to be turned over.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay. Thank you very much, Sir. I want to thank you for reminding each of us that none of us are infallible. Thank you. Representative Farr?

REP. FARR: Yeah. Could I just clarify this? You were convicted of murder and sentenced to death 31 years ago.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes.

REP. FARR: But then at some point, then you were only released nine months ago, so at some point, you were awaiting execution. Massachusetts repealed the death penalty 20 years ago, didn't it?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yeah.

REP. FARR: So you haven't been on death row for 31 years. You were convicted on death row--

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yeah.

REP. FARR: --and then you've been serving, in effect, a life sentence.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes.

REP. FARR: So the conditions that you've been describing are the conditions that you would have encountered, had you been given a life sentence from the beginning.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: No. That is why I said I have sent some transcripts on issue to the committee. It was the stipulation that although Massachusetts' death penalty was on hold, it was still up to the Superior Court. They were waiting for the decision to come in. They didn't define if it was constitutional or unconstitutional.

REP. FARR: All the way up to the time you were released?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: No. To about, I think it was 1977 when the clerk came to me and told me that, you know, the paperwork had been put in. You know, actually, officially, they couldn't change the sentence, right, but there was not going to be an execution, and it was actually a life sentence.

REP. FARR: So for the last 29 years or so, you've been serving a life sentence.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yeah.

REP. FARR: Okay. And then the exculpatory information was testimony of someone else, is that what it was?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes, it was.

REP. FARR: And I think I've read something about your case, but that testimony was that someone else had done it or that you were somewhere else?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: No, that somebody else had done it.

REP. FARR: Okay. Thank you very much.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Senator Newton for the second time.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you. I just have one question that I didn't get a chance. Over here, he's looking. Here you go.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Oh, excuse me.

SEN. NEWTON: Yeah. I didn't get to ask. You said you were just released nine months ago.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes.

SEN. NEWTON: What did the State of Massachusetts do? Did they do any restitution for you? Did they give you a settlement? Did they just say, I'm sorry, we had the wrong person?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Well, that is still in process.

SEN. NEWTON: So did you have to sue them?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Excuse me?

SEN. NEWTON: Did you have to sue them in order to--

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Well, the Legislature is trying to put together a bill for, you know, compensation. I'm just one of 22 others that were falsely in prison, so they are trying to, you know, settle with 22 newly freed persons.

SEN. MCDONALD: Senator Cappiello for the second time.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for asking the second time, but we have such a unique witness. I just wanted to ask you two more questions, if I could. Just to follow up on the Chairman's questions and Representative Farr's questions, when you were serving your sentence, and Massachusetts still had the death penalty in place, were you treated any differently as a prisoner before they abolished the death penalty?

Was there anything different in your sentence and the way you were treated in how much time you had that was free than after they abolished it?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yeah. Before they abolished it, they had a housing unit. That was segregated from population, right? When they found it might be unconstitutional, they said, okay, we're going to do away with what they called the death house, which was Nine Block.

They made it a segregation unit. I mean, when you say death house, it usually means you're segregated from general population, right? I mean, that is the difference.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Okay. My second question, you said just serving there is being on death row even without the death penalty because there are three murders a week, did you say?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Is that an exaggeration?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: No. That is not an exaggeration. That is what Walpole was averaging.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: So what do you think should be done to those prisoners? Assuming they were serving a life sentence, what do you think the punishment or penalty should be for someone who is serving a life sentence and then murders someone else in prison?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: I think I spoke on that, Sir.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Okay. I'm sorry.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: I don't believe that you can do something to one man to cause fear in another. I don't believe that.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: I'm not asking you to--

LAWRENCE ADAMS: In other words, I'm saying--

SEN. CAPPIELLO: --I'm asking, what do you think should be done to them?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: You know, like I said, the only thing that I can think of is restraints, you know, that you have to curtail that behavior. You know, as far as, like I said, because the death penalty is so irreversible, right, I don't believe that it should be applied in many cases, if any at all, unless due process has been met 100%. We can't get that. We can only get 99.9% to infinity.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Okay. I only ask because, hopefully, as far as I know, we don't have that problem in our prisons in Connecticut. I would think that would be a real issue if prisoners were committing three murders a week while in prison.

I don't know how a state would then control that situation. Do you give someone a double life sentence? I don't know how you would curtail that kind of activity.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Well, Massachusetts managed to do it without putting in the death sentence.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: So you're saying--

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Now, they--

SEN. CAPPIELLO: --you're saying that was before the death penalty was imposed?

LAWRENCE ADAMS: No. I'm just saying that now, they're not even averaging a murder every five years because the control.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: So that was 20 years ago. That is not today.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Okay. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative [inaudible] you're all set. Are there any other questions for Mr. Adams? Again, Sir, thank you for your testimony.

LAWRENCE ADAMS: Okay.

SEN. MCDONALD: Next is Clare Laura Hogenauer followed by John Stamm and then Gail Canzano. Good afternoon, Ma'am.

CLARE LAURA HOGENAUER: Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

SEN. MCDONALD: Could you, please, pull the microphone towards you?

CLARE LAURA HOGENAUER: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you for allowing me to speak with you. My name is Clare Laura Hogenauer. I'm a lawyer. I'm here because I have opposed the death penalty since I first understood the concept. I would say that was perhaps age three in 1949.

I am here, despite the fact that I have incurable bone cancer and have described myself as being death row for the last years that I have been diagnosed with this cancer. I can't help but notice one particular difference.

No doctor would say to me, Clare, you're going to die Wednesday morning at 2:00 and then a day later say, oh, no, you're going to die on Saturday at 2:00, and then the next day say, oh, no, it will be Sunday at 2:00, and then the next day they will say, no, it will be Saturday at 2:00, and then the next day say, oh, no, got it wrong, read the wrong chart, it's going to be Monday at 9:00, then on Monday tell me, oh, no, you know, maybe it will be awhile longer and maybe not at all.

If that isn't cruel and inhumane treatment, I don't know what is. I don't just mean to Michael. I'm speaking on behalf of all the unmentioned victims of this entire circumstance. They are people who really haven't been spoken for. The obvious victims are Michael, his father, the families of his victims that my heart goes out to, all the people who were immediately involved, the lawyers.

I'm speaking about a prosecutor who gets sick to his stomach after rehearsing this charade. I'm speaking about a woman who is 85 in a nursing home who despises the death penalty and has to watch this. I suggest there are hundreds of thousands of victims of this choice. They aren't spoken for, and I'm speaking for them, people in a frail condition, a debilitated condition whose life will be negatively affected by an execution.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you.

CLARE LAURA HOGENAUER: I have been opposed to it since age three. I am proud to tell you that at the age of 16 in high school in 1962, I prepared a paper against the death penalty, and I presented it in my history class. At the time, I mimicked the last minute of a man's life.

Now, what I've done is mimicking lethal injection. While I speak, this is dripping. My intention is to mimic what it will be like for someone dying of lethal injection.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much, Ma'am. I appreciate your testimony. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Thank you very much for your time. The next speaker is John Stamm followed by Gail Canzano and Arthur McClanahan. Good afternoon, Sir.

JOHN STAMM: Good afternoon. I am John Stamm. I am a resident of West Weston and am a retired scientist. I thought I would report to you briefly about a personal experience I had. Last Friday, I was in [inaudible] and preparing to walk to the prison on a cold night. I had a memory of my young years.

I lived in Germany. I was 14 years old, 71 years ago. I was a 14-year-old Jewish boy. One night, a friend of mine took me with him to the Dachau concentration camp, and I spent several hours in front of the camp where my friend tried to get his brother released. I also thought earlier, after the Nazi takeover in 1933, a good friend of mine was sent to a concentration camp and was killed.

After this, I've had several experiences, and I was arrested too. Then when I was 15 years old, a wonderful thing happened to me. It's incredible. I got a visa to come to the United States, to the land of democracy and freedom. The United States was good to me. I got an education. I had a profession. I had a family. I had friends. I was socially active.

Ever since that time, I also fought against the death penalty. I would like to remind this committee that my friends who were killed were killed by a legal process. The Nazis may have had to invent the law after they killed someone, but they did everything legal. This was a beginning.

As all of you know, it ended in Auschwitz. I am a loyal American. I am glad to be here. I am saddened that the United States is one of the few countries, which still kills people. Certainly, many countries in Europe and elsewhere have found ways to deal with criminals without killing them. One of my activities after my retirement was that I visited prisons in New York State.

I participated in projects of nonviolence. I got to know many prisoners, including those who were in a super-maximum prison. I don't need to tell you what they're like. No two people are alike, and no two prisoners are alike.

A final comment, the question was asked, what should we do with a prisoner who kills somebody in prison? Well, my answer is that's the responsibility of the prison authorities. They certainly can and do prevent killings in prisons. It is just like [inaudible] in New York.

Serious sex offenders are totally isolated from other prisoners and protected. So I think this question has been answered.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much, Sir. Are there any questions for Mr. Stamm? Thank you for your testimony. Next is Gail Canzano followed by Arthur McClanahan and Rebecca Michel.

GAIL CANZANO: Good morning. I am a clinical psychologist. I am a family member of a homicide victim. I am so deeply sorry for the families ravaged by the unspeakable acts of Michael Ross. I am saddened further to think that there are those who feel his execution will lessen their pain.

I know firsthand something about the rage they must feel. I know better than most the outrage toward a man like Michael Ross. My brother-in-law was murdered five years ago. He died an ugly, brutal, and horrifying death. His murder was not only savage, but it was filled with horrifying details, details I now know by heart because I have played them over and over again in my mind.

Like the families of Mr. Ross's victims, my family suffered with every piece of publicity, every nightly news report, and every court appearance. Compared with them, we had it easy because ours was not a capital case. Two years after Tom's death, his murderer was sentenced to 30 years in prison with no possibility of release. And my family could finally let go.

We could turn our energy away from the murderer and toward healing. Had Mr. Ross been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release, this would have been over 18 years ago. Instead, we have a deranged maniac choreographing a legal circus and torturing the families of his victims. Shame on us.

In spite of my own horrifying experience with murder, I have never heard one rational argument in favor of the death penalty. There are none. The only thing satisfied by capital punishment is the desire for vengeance.

Hatred and rage are normal responses to psychological trauma. Together with a desire for vengeance, they are part and parcel of homicide grief. The families of Mr. Ross's victims are calling for blood because of deep psychological distress that not one of you can imagine.

I beg you, do not inflame their cry for vengeance because the quest for vengeance makes us ill. The obsession with revenge is an indication of a person overwhelmed by pain. Their healing will not come from the legal system.

If you care about these families, if you want to see justice done, get rid of Michael Ross, but do not execute him. Close the door. You don't have to execute him to do that.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Thank you for your testimony. Arthur McClanahan followed by Rebecca Michel and then Paul Ariola.

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: Thank you, Senator. When Mother Teresa was asked to join a protest against the war in Vietnam, she refused, even though her sympathies were well-known. In the next breath, she gently said, when you choose to march for peace, I will join you. Please, here me today when I encourage you to vote for a legal remedy that will bring justice to even the most heinous crimes one human being can commit against another.

The ancient standard of an eye for an eye is one that expects and demands restoration for committed wrongs. Well, some might choose retribution and swift harsh punishment. The most sacred example demands that we stop the evil that we do, even imposing a life-long time-out, so that in our future, we will go and sin no more.

Repentance, remorse, and respect for the sanctity of all life are lesson that we all need to learn. Some among us may need an indeterminate sentence of life without the possibility of parole to understand it. When we choose to lay claim to the license of ultimate judgment, we intentionally condemn ourselves to perpetuating evil that we declare a decent God-fearing human being would never do.

So today, honorable Representatives and Senators of the State of Connecticut, I respectfully request that you who are our elected Representatives choose for life, even if without the possibility of parole. That simple choice will redeem the wrongs of the worst and the best of us all. Thank you, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Representative Cafero?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you. Thank you, Sir, for your testimony.

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: Yes, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: Sir, assuming that there was no death penalty, did I hear you say that you feel an appropriate penalty for, say, someone like Michael Ross would be life in prison without the possibility of parole?

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: Yes, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: Are there any other conditions you would put upon that individual?

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: Some of the conversation that I overheard from some of the Senators and Representatives earlier asked about if certain additional offenses were committed within a period of incarceration. I was trying to think of what the answer might be to the question that you posed a few times.

I would say that restriction without even the hour, restriction even being confined by mechanical means would limit even more what little exercise of freedom that person so incarcerated would have.

REP. CAFERO: Do I take it from those comments, Sir, that you believe that an appropriate punishment would be total deprivation of freedom for an individual for the rest of their natural life?

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: If in the context of the presentation that was raised of additional offenses, I would say that would be appropriate.

REP. CAFERO: Therefore, let's say, if someone were, in the hypothetical--

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: Sure.

REP. CAFERO: --that you were reacting to were to be confined in solitary confinement, even physically restrained, and denied an hour of exercise of activity a day for the rest of their natural life. Do you find that would be an appropriate penalty?

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: Yes, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: And the difference between that? In other words, is it your objection to the death penalty that you find it to be cruel and unusual?

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: Yes, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: And what we've just described would not, in your mind, be cruel and unusual punishment.

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: Because there is the opportunity for a redemption of spirit and an opportunity for the restoration of God-given goodness from the beginning. There could be change within the life of that individual.

We've heard testimony here that within certain circumstances or behaviors within a prison system, that privileges are granted at certain periods. It may be possible that in the midst of an extended-life-without-parole imprisonment, perhaps some of those restrictions might be eased to some extent. I would say based on the particular circumstance, one is responsible for one's actions.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you.

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: Thank you, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Green?

REP. GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to follow up on the statements you just made about redemption. I've heard a number of people give us an option to the death penalty, life without parole.

If there is a thought that one may be able to redeem themselves, should we consider not putting the life without parole and maybe look at the situations on a case-by-case basis?

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: I think there are standards to which we must all adhere. I am convinced, and I should say that I'm the pastor of the Fairfield Grace United Methodist Church in Fairfield, so that gives context perhaps for my answer. I'm convinced from my own spirituality, when the word in Scripture says in reference to Jesus as he comes by John the Baptist, and some of John's disciples see him, there is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.

That is the one who can remove the sins from our world. Jesus is the one, speaking from my own context. In terms of spiritual redemption, I am not in the position to remove, nor are any of us in the sense of removing a life from this world. I would answer your question by saying that there are responsibilities that we have to sisters and brothers in this world.

I think that the imposition of a penalty of life without the possibility of parole is one that should be among the remedies for the actions that we commit. To take a life puts us, I think, squarely at the place where someone has chosen to take a life.

REP. GREEN: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Senator Cappiello?

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your very honest answers. Just to go along the same line of questioning as Representative Cafero and Green, I just want to try to get a little bit more out of you, if I can.

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: Surely.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: You had mentioned the idea of redemption. In the hypothetical that I had given earlier, if someone is in prison for life, and they commit another capital offense, then they are put into their cell without any time, maybe even put into restraints.

You mentioned the idea of redemption, that they would still have the chance to redeem themselves for good behavior or I'm not really sure how you would do that. Do you think that we would then consider that we should take them out of that situation and put them back into the general population, if they had good behavior after committing multiple offenses?

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: I don't want to use the absolutes of always or never. I think if there are behaviors that are so contrary to the respect for other human life, any moment allowing the possibility of such deplorable behavior, you wouldn't give someone the license, the freedom, the space to recreate that horror all over again.

If you saw that there was, within reasonable, observed, trained, appropriate experts in the system of all varieties, there is a possibility, I would think, you would allow inch by inch. It would be over an extended period of time.

I don't think you would say, oh, I've changed my mind. I'm good, and I'll be good from now on. I would say that there should always bee an element of hope in anyone's life.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Again, I appreciate your honesty. I guess maybe to this line of questioning and through Representative Green's question, you can understand my hesitation in moving on this issue. I think once we remove this barrier, I truly believe that there will be some that will try to remove the next barrier, to say, you know what?

Even though they committed a capital offense, they committed murder, a heinous murder, eight rapes, eight murders, and then they were put in prison for life without parole. Then they committed another crime, and we put them into complete solitary. Then we might still give them the opportunity to go back in the general population.

It gives me pause to change my mind on where I stand on this issue. I understand where you are coming from. I do think by removing this one barrier, there will be attempts to remove other barriers as well. I am trying to balance this. This is a very difficult issue. I respect people, especially people of consistency on a host of issues, that oppose the death penalty.

I can understand it, as I said, especially those that are against abortion, against euthanasia, against stem-cell research, if you will. There is consistency there. It is something I struggle with, and I think other members of the committee struggle with every year.

How do we balance the respect for human life, if you will, with the respect for the people who are injured by these people? [Gap in testimony. Changing from tape 1B to 2A.]

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: That is the conundrum of life. If the question in the midst of that is, at some point, does one go back in the general population, I'm not the expert of day-to-day life within the prison system to say, here is the exact parameter where that would take place.

Nor am I one who is willing to say that there should never be a possibility of life, a landmark at which we walk precariously close on Friday night, Saturday morning, and thought we were walking again today.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Thank you for your testimony.

ARTHUR MCCLANAHAN: Thank you, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD: Next is Rebecca Michel.

REBECCA MICHEL: Michel.

SEN. MCDONALD: Sorry. Followed by Paul Ariola and Elizabeth Brancato.

K. REBECCA MICHEL: I am Rebecca Michel, and I am against the death penalty. I invite you to reflect on how the human race is constantly evolving in its myths, its perceptions, and behaviors with regard to life. Over the centuries, we have emerged from darker places to more enlightened areas.

Although we still have a long journey ahead of us, we have arrived at a better understanding of the universe, of human development, of women's leadership roles in shaping society as examples. We have come to grips with the immorality of the institution of slavery by abolishing it.

Now, I ask the people of Connecticut, it is time to abolish the societal institution of execution. Globally, we are on the threshold of a new response to those who kill. This response, the substitution of a death sentence with a life sentence without parole is based on human rights. The United States is one of the few countries in the world that has failed to eliminate the death penalty.

Execution is irrevocable and exists in a world of human error, as we have heard, error in interpretations and decisions. Because the judicial system is a human institution, it is also flawed. The death penalty is the greatest avoidable human error. Even in cases where without a doubt, the defendant has committed murder, there still remains the great unknown dwelling in the murderer's psyche to warrant a nonviolent response.

Besides human error, there exists the margin for growth and healing. As long as there is life, every person has the potential for change, even one who has committed murder. James Gilligan, a psychiatrist and author of, Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic, has made inroads in understanding the source of violent acts as he worked with violent criminals in changing their behavior.

Until we are willing to examine the seeds of violence, we will continue to compete with the perpetrator's violence by sanctioning execution. I agree with Bertrand Russell that we need to approach crime the way we approach disease, quote, when a man is suffering from an infectious disease, he is a danger to the community.

It is necessary to restrict his liberty of movement, but no one associates any idea of guilt with such a situation. On the contrary, he is an object of commiseration to his friends. Such steps as science recommends are taken to cure him of his disease. The same method in spirit ought to be shown in the treatment of what we call crime.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you.

K. REBECCA MICHEL: I have a quick conclusion. It is very quick. In conclusion, the death penalty ought to be abolished because of the sacredness and mystery of each person with the potential for growth.

The death penalty ought to be abolished because we, in society, possess a human mind and heart with infinite capacity to create life-giving solutions. Let us not resort to unimaginative minds with closed hearts. Let us not tragically choose death.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there questions from members of the committee? Representative Cafero?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Ms. Michel. Ms. Michel, I appreciate your testimony today. Obviously, you've stated your case very clearly that you are opposed to the death penalty.

Again, if that were to be abolished, excuse me, what do you think is an appropriate penalty for someone who has committed the crimes that currently now call for the death penalty?

K. REBECCA MICHEL: Life sentence without parole. I also think we have to really look at the seeds of violence. I really encourage all of you to, please, take a look at James Gilligan's book. He worked with criminals. He saw that our system is based on shame.

Shame and punishment, that kind of approach is exasperating what's happened. When there is less shame and self-respect, then there is nothing to live for. Whereas once he understood that, and he worked with these people, they were able to change their behaviors.

If a person has cancer, we don't lock them up, and isolate them, and say, well, you've got cancer, what did you do wrong? We work with them. We sit with them. I think in our prison systems we need to do more to rehabilitate and restore.

REP. CAFERO: So do you believe, for instance, in the case of Michael Ross, that a person who murdered and raped eight women could be rehabilitated?

REBECCA MICHEL: I am not in a position to judge any of that. I do believe that is possible because every human person has the potential. I think given the circumstances of assistance and help wherever he is needed, I do believe there is a mental illness there. With that, it is possible.

REP. CAFERO: That being the case, I would assume then you disagree, say, were we to abolish the death penalty, a person should have his or her freedom restricted to the point where they are absolutely isolated from the world and have absolutely no opportunity for parole. I assume you would be opposed to that.

REBECCA MICHEL: For a life sentence without parole, I would be opposed to having the criminal or the person released from prison. I think what we need to do then is to look at our structures of our prisons and provide ways for people who are making headway and changing their behaviors. Give them incentives and provide nurturing environments for them and productive lives.

REP. CAFERO: See, the reason I ask the question, and I know there are a lot of people who want to testify, and I would encourage them to try to think of this question when you come up and testify. What we're talking about here is the abolishment of the death penalty.

There are many people that say, okay, the crimes that currently now call for the death penalty, if we were to abolish the death penalty, what will happen to these people? What will happen to them? I've heard a variety of responses. I've heard some that say, actually, I've heard opponents of the death penalty actually say it's actually a tougher duty to have life in prison with parole.

When I've heard them say that, I say, well, is the object of this to punish them worse than killing them? Is that the purpose of life without parole? I've heard some people say that they should have all their freedoms restricted for the rest of their life. In some cases we've heard, someone says, maybe even physical restraint for the rest of their life, deprived of any interaction with another human being.

I say to myself, is that cruel and unusual? How do you justify that? I've heard you say, well, no, not necessarily. I think if we are going to abolish the death penalty, we owe it to society and those victims to say what happens to the individual who is found guilty of those crimes that we currently have a death penalty for.

If we're going to get rid of it, we better make darn sure we are clear, and clear to the entire state, as to what we are going to do with those people. Are we going to punish them more because they deserve it? It's harder, and tougher, and crueler on them if we make them live in an eight-by-ten cell for 24 hours.

Are we going to try to rehabilitate them? Are we going to give them certain freedoms, so they can earn their way back into society? What are we going to do? We have to have that answer. I ask you all, I guess, when you come up, if you say, I'm opposed to the death penalty, that is fine, but you have to have an alternative.

You have to think through the alternative. You have to think through the alternative because society needs to know what is the consequence of your behavior when you commit the kinds of crimes that Michael Ross commits.

REBECCA MICHEL: Well, I think that the main reason for prison and life sentence is, first of all, society has to protect itself from those who kill. That is the first thing. Secondly, society also needs to treat them as human beings and provide what they need in order to mend their ways, in order to restore their own selves as human beings with correct choices in their life, and to be able to be a productive member in some way in society.

So I think we have to also look at what we do in our prisons. Are we restoring the person and rehabilitating the person?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Senator Cappiello?

SENATOR CAPPIELLO: Thank you. I'm sorry. I'll try to be brief. Just to follow up on your line of thinking, so if Michael Ross were to spend his entire life in prison, and the prison system tried to rehabilitate him, nurture him, make him a productive member of society, is there a point at which you think he could possibly be released, if he is proven to be a productive member of society, proven that he has been remorseful?

Do you think he should be released possibly in the future, even if it's 20, 30, 40 years down the road?

REBECCA MICHEL: At this point, no, I don't think so. If we are going to try to seek an alternative to the death penalty, then we really have to be firm on the fact that they will have a life sentence without parole. Society needs that reassurance as well.

What we need to do is have incentives within the prison structure, so that if someone as Michael started to see and feel remorse or started to regret what had happened, which I think he has, then they can live a productive life. He can be treated as a human person. He is a human person.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: So don't keep him locked up 23 hours a day?

REBECCA MICHEL: Well, I think that is inhumane, to lock people up 23 hours a day. I am not for life sentence in order for punishment, to make it really bad on people that kill.

We must find a humane way to treat all of our members of society. Those who kill are the most vulnerable and the most in need of our help and our understanding.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: See, here is where I have a problem with this. In my opinion, the most vulnerable and the most in need of our help are the families of the victims of people like Michael Ross. I don't see Michael Ross as a victim or as someone who is need of our help. I do respect people who don't believe in the death penalty, but the fact that I should be looking to nurture him, I have a real problem with that.

I also have a real problem with the idea that as an alternative to the death penalty, we say life in p