It is with some regret that I must take notice of the fact that our local State Senator, Andy Maynard, has not covered himself in glory in the past week or so. My wife has worked long and hard for Andy, and I’ve contributed both money and time. I, for one, have to wonder whether my time and money has been wasted. (I should hasten to add that I’m not speaking for my wife in this post).
Andy voted for Malloy’s budget, somewhat reluctantly. I can understand that, given the way Malloy is treating state employees, but that wasn’t Andy’s problem. My problem is with the reason Andy voted yes. He felt he couldn’t vote no after having extracted various concessions, most of which, in one way or another, benefitted the rich. It’s true that Andy has some rich constituents in Stonington, but most of us are not concerned about the possibility of a luxury tax.
But it’s Andy’s latest position shift that is truly stunning and disappointing. Andy announced he will change his vote on the death penalty. He was in favor of abolishing it, but now he’ll vote no.
Why? Because he had a talk with Dr. Petit, who apparently feels his life as a victim will improve if his family’s killers are killed. That’s Petit’s right, but here’s Andy’s rationale:
Maynard said he was particularly convinced to change his vote after he heard Petit, Chapman and Meyer detail their experience with the legal system.
At one point during legal proceedings, the defendants were referred to as “gentlemen” while Petit’s wife and two daughters were called the “alleged victims,” Maynard said.
“That statement stung me as I thought about being in his place,” Maynard said Wednesday night. “I know that is not a reason to change your mind on the position, but you’re suddenly confronted with: What in the world are we doing to people that have suffered these kinds of horrific experiences?” (Emphasis added)
Whatever side you may be on in this debate, it must be acknowledged that, at base, it’s a profound moral and ethical question. It is nothing short of appalling that someone would make a decision on such a weighty question based on the fact that someone had referred to the victim of a crime as an “alleged victim” or had not addressed a presumed innocent as “scumbag” rather than “gentleman”, all while acknowledging that his change of heart was made without sufficient reason. It is even inadmissible to make the decision based on the fact that the family of the victim feels like its gotten the run around from the judicial department. You don’t make incredibly difficult moral decisions based on what are, by any measure, totally immaterial considerations. Would Andy feel differently if the defendants in the Petit case had been treated like dirt by the authorities, and, if so, why? Apparently he would feel different if Petit were happy with the way the court proceedings are going, though one suspects that would consist of sentence first, trial after. Were that the case, would Andy have stuck with the anti-death penalty vote? It all makes little sense. If a person’s opinion on such an issue can be swayed by such trivial considerations, one must wonder whether that person has any convictions for which he would be prepared to fight.
