The Shad had an email exchange this morning with one of the reporters covering the Hayes murder trial, also known as the “Cheshire home invasion murder trial.” I told her that even the coverage was getting harder and harder to watch or read and that covering it must be stomach-turning. The point is, if there was ever a case that screamed for the death penalty, it’s the Cheshire case.

However, the Cheshire case is not the only issue (although it seems so now) in the death penalty debate. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dan Malloy opposes it and says he would have sign the bill the state legislature passed (Gov. Rell vetoed it and said no change in the law were needed—real shocking, eh?). Republican candidate Tom Foley favors the death penalty. The thought here is that Malloy has a bit more standing on the issue as a former prosecutor who has seen the system from the inside.

Malloy strategist Roy Occhiogrosso put quite simply—and cleverly—telling, “Dan was a prosecutor; he put people in jail for a living…Tom’s experience with the criminal justice system consists of being arrested twice, and then paying lawyers to seal his arrest records. For voters making up their minds on issues of public safety, we’re confident they’ll choose the former prosecutor and tough-on-crime mayor…as opposed to the guy who was arrested for a felony and then lied about it….” Tough stuff.

The problem for Malloy on the issue is, 1. Dr. William Petit, the lone survivor of the Cheshire attack, has been outspoken in his support of the death penalty for the scum who killed his family; and, 2. You don’t win an argument telling 61-percent of the people in the state they’re wrong. That’s the number of people who support the death penalty in the last Quinnipiac University poll done on the subject.

Obviously, it’s a tough subject. The Shad opposes killing things in general but unfortunately, it’s not that simple.