Michael Ross

As many of you know, Connecticut has scheduled its first execution since the reinstatement of the death penalty. Michael Ross waived all of his remaining appeals and has requested a death warrant. He is currently scheduled for execution on January 26th.

There has long been speculation that Michael Ross is not mentally competent to waive his appeals and seek death. Dan Ross, Michael's father, is now asking a Connecticut court to appoint him as "next friend" for his son so that Dan Ross may go forward with Michael's appeals and attempt to save his son's life. New London Superior Court is holding a competency hearing today to determine Michael's competency to waive his appeals and proceed to execution. If he is allowed to proceed, Dan Ross is seeking a writ of habeas corpus which claims that Michael's "waiver of the right to seek the writ is not knowing, intelligent and voluntary but is, instead, a product of his desire to commit judicial, state-assisted suicide, which is either a product of or a symptom of his unsound mental state."

Michael Ross' execution has sparked a great deal of controversy. Ross is a convicted serial killer, and many in Connecticut cannot wait to see him die. That said, many in Connecticut are extremely wary of resuming executions in the state. In my opinion, resuming executions for an arguably mentally ill volunteer is an especially wary position. This will set a difficult precedent in Connecticut. It tells the public that the State will only value a life until the individual no longer values his or her own (this is of course setting aside the argument some make that there is no value in the life of a capital murderer...you all know I disagree). Allowing a death row volunteer to commit state sponsored suicide opens the door for others to choose death over life. We put death row inmates on suicide watch to prevent them from taking their own lives; yet, most states are more than happy to inject them full of poison in front of an audience if the inmate so requests. What, per se, is the difference? I think the answer is obvious, those seeking an execution (volunteer or not) have an insatiable need for public display of the murder. There is this odd fascination with the death of condemned killers. Crowds once gathered to view hangings and burnings in town squares. We would be appalled at such a display today. Again, what is the difference in putting Michael Ross on display? Is it somehow cleaner and less controversial because he is behind a piece of glass strapped to a table and no one can see his body writhing from the chemicals? I suppose for some it is. For me, I see no difference.

Ross' Father Seeks Stay of Execution