Contents
- NEWS: Study Commission holds Community Hearings
- Former NH Chief Justice's testimony urging repeal of Death Penalty
- Death Penalty is impossible to fairly administer-State's grim job: proving the defendant soulless
- Study Commission told there is no evidence that the death penalty deters murder
- NH Religious leaders urge the commissioners of the Death Penalty Study Commission to Repeal the Death Penalty
- Death Penalty Statistics
Commission to Abolish the
Death Penalty hold public hearings in Keene, Durham and Plymouth
In September the Commission will hold public hearings in three New Hampshire Communities. This is an important opportunity for you to express your views and to make a real impact on the future of the death penalty in our state. The hearing schedule is as follows:
- Plymouth: September 9, 2010
- Keene: September 16, 2010
- Durham: September 30, 2010
September 10 --Regular meeting in Concord
October 1 -- Discussion and deliberation bycommission members
November 5 -- Final meeting
December 2010 -- Commission report is dueFor further information contact: Barbara Keshen at (603) 225-3080 or Katherine Cooper at (603) 674-4885.
__________________________________________
An Abolish the Death Penalty vigil is held
on the 4th Friday of each month from
Noon until 1 p.m. on the sidewalk
in front of the State House.
____________________________________________
Former NH Supreme Court Chief Justice urges repeal of the Death Penalty
At the June 18th hearing of the Death Penalty Study Commission former NH Supreme Court Justice Joseph Nadeau urged the commission to recommend repeal of New Hampshire's Death Penalty. The text of his testimony follows:
On the Death Penalty in New Hampshire by Joseph P. Nadeau
It has been my good fortune to serve as a judge in New Hampshire for thirty-seven years. For thirteen of those years I was presiding justice of the Durham District Court. I served as a justice of the Superior Court for eighteen years, nine of which I spent as chief justice. And I at on the Supreme Court for six years before retiring in December of 2005. I am proud of our judicial system and the effort of judges in all our courts to treat people fairly and equally, and to protect their individual rights.
While serving as a judge, I rarely expressed my opinion on capital punishment privately, and until now I never expressed my opinion publicly. Nor did I let my personal opinions influence my judicial decisions. In fact, in 1998 I presided over the capital murder case of Gordon Perry, and on every motion filed on his behalf challenging New Hampshire's capital punishment statute; I ruled he had not established that the law violated our constitution.
Last week, I appeared before the New Hampshire Commission to Study the Death Penalty, whose members I commend for their willingness to undertake the important and challenging task assigned to them by the legislature. My purpose in speaking to the commission was not to talk about facts and statistics or trials and cases but to address the moral issue of death as punishment.
The way we have been dealing with the death penalty for years is to talk about enacting laws, adopting procedures, establishing practices and providing mechanisms, as if by creating an elaborate process we could somehow sanitize the death penalty and thereby ignore the moral issues that capital punishment presents. We cannot.
I appeared before the Commission to answer one straightforward but complex question. Do I believe the systematic killing of another human being by the state, in my name, is justified?
My answer to that question is, No.
During my tenure as a judge, I met many people with strong opinions about capital punishment. Through most of that period, over two thirds of those polled in the United States regularly supported the death penalty. Some people I respect still do. So you would think that anyone looking for answers based upon public opinion or strongly held view should have an easy task.
What is the problem, then? In the face of these odds, why do we continue to struggle with the acceptability of death as punishment? I believe one reason we engage in this process is that no matter what some people say publicly about capital punishment, deep inside many are not as certain as they proclaim.
I believe another reason is that our thinking evolves, as people, technology. and societies progress. And what is acceptable at one time in our history may become unwelcome at another. If that is true then, we are encouraged to re-examine our core principles and to consider whether death continues to be an acceptable punishment in New Hampshire.
I have great respect for the offices of the Attorney General and Public Defender and for the integrity and competence with which the attorneys in those offices handle homicide cases. The primary source of my continuing concern about the death penalty, however, is not New Hampshire's limited capital murder experience but my own professional exposure to criminal justice issues.
There is no question that people who commit murder must be punished and should be removed from society. Life in prison without parole does both. It is interesting to note that two states, New Hampshire, which has not employed the death penalty since before Pearl Harbor, and North Dakota which does not condone capital punishment, did not need death to achieve the lowest murder rates in the nation every year of this century.
No legal system is perfect. Human beings make mistakes. That is one reason we accept the notion that occasiionally the guilty will go free and the innocent will be convicted. But I do not believe anyone accepts the notion that it is alright for a person to be wrongfully executed. So with the most respected judicial system in the world, how can we willingly embrace a sentence which cannot be reversed after it is imposed; and how can we continue to believe that it is morally acceptable for the state to take a human life?
My answer is, we cannot.
As most of us, I have never expierienced the emotions felt by a murder victim's loved ones, and I may never know for sure that I could not be persuaded by thedesire for personal revenge to seek the death penalty for a person I knew killed someone I love. But for me neither of these deficiencies makes opposition to the death penalty any less compelling.
I am not a death penalty expert.
I am not a spokes person for the judiciary.
I am one New Hampshire citizen: one person who believes it is not necessary to kill to show that killing is wrong.
So after thirty-seven years on the bench, after presiding over hundreds of jury trials, after sitting on numerous criminal cases, after listening to witnesses in scores of sentencing hearings, after considering information in thousands of probation reports, after imposing sentences upon countless convicted defendants, after entertaining the arguments of lawyers at every level of skill, after talking with a hose of judges and corrections officials and after continued personal reflection, this is what I believe about capital punishment.
____________________________________________
Death Penalty is impossible to fairly administer-State's grim job: proving the defendant soulless.
by Andru Volinsky (for the Concord Monitor)
After reading the Monitor's exhortation to state senators to take up important but controversial issues ("Senate should have the courage to buck Lynch," editorial, March 31) it is difficult for me to remain silent about one of these issues: the death penalty.
New Hampshire juries, like most juries around the country, do not impose sentences in most criminal cases. Sentencing is generally left to judges, who gain experience over time in this difficult task and who are accustomed to dealing with the arguments of lawyers assigned to prosecute and defend. The death penalty is an exception to this practice. In death cases, the jury decides if the convicted defendant lives or dies. This makes death penalty cases different, and is one example of how these cases are impossible to administer fairly and without mistakes.
A death penalty trial is a battle for the jury's focus. The prosecutors, who must prove the elements of their case, necessarily draw the jury's focus to the often unspeakable act of murder and to the suffering of the victim. The defense tries to humanize the defendant or, failing this, tries to convince the jury that the cause of the defendant's inhumanity is a suffering to which the jury can relate. The defendant may have been abused as a child, for example, and the focus is then drawn by the defense to the abuser and the defendant's suffering.
Although the advocates may not realize they are doing it, the battle to gain control of the jury's focus is the primary struggle in the trial because both sides ultimately believe that a juror will not vote to kill someone who is viewed as being like that juror. The more the defense convinces the jury that it can relate to the defendant as a human being, the less likely the jurors will be to vote to kill him.
Death penalty cases are not about the heinous nature of the murder or so much about who was killed, otherwise all murderers would be in danger of being put to death. Death sentencing trials are about whether or not the jury sees the defendant as a fellow human being. And, here is one reason why I do not believe the state should conduct death penalty prosecutions. Death sentencing is ultimately about proving that the man on trial is bereft of a human soul and undeserving of being treated as a fellow human being. Proving that is fraught with difficulty. We mislead ourselves when we claim that the death penalty is a search for justice becase the concept of justice differs depending upon who defines it and upon whom justice is applied. The more dissimilar the defendant appears, the less justice ultimately requires before he is sentenced to death.
I understand that not everyone will share my feelings about the death penalty, and few have had the same experience I have had in this area. That is why the Monitor was right to implore our state senators to debate the tough issues sent to them by the house and tell us where their beliefs and experiences lead them.
(Andru Volinsky is a Concord lawyer who has represented defendants in death penalty prosecutions in Tennessee, Georgia and before the U.S. Supreme Court.)
_____________________
Study Commission told there is no
evidence that the death penalty
deters murder
by Arnie Alpert April 2010
If the death penalty had any effect on rates of violent crime it would show up in statistical comparisons of jurisdictions with the death penalty to those without it. Or it would show up in statistics when states change their laws one way or the other, or in the aftermath of publicized executions. But according to a criminologist and a mathematician who testified at a recent meeting of New Hampshire’s death penalty study commission, there is no reputable statistical evidence for a deterrent effect. “There may be other reasons to support the death penalty,” said Tomislav Kovandzic from the University of Texas at Dallas, “but the belief that it deters murder should not be one of them.”
Deterrence was the theme of the April 9 meeting, the Commission’s sixth since it was created by a 2009 act of the legislature. Each session has taken up a specific question based on the group’s statutory mandate, which in this case included “Whether the death penalty in New Hampshire rationally serves a legitimate public interest such as general deterrence, specific deterrence, punishment, or instilling confidence in the criminal justice system.”
John Lamperti, a Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Dartmouth, has been looking at the statistical evidence for deterrence for some time. Defending the use of statistics in general and describing the difference between correlation and cause, he said in written testimony,
“We must define the question correctly. We are not asking whether
the threat of punishment, in general, deters crime, nor whether there
should be penalties for murder. The issue at stake is this: Does capital punishment, in a form that could be practiced in the United States, provide a better deterrent to murder than long imprisonment?” Lamperti’s conclusion is that there is no statistical evidence for a positive answer to that question.
Kovandzic has taken the issue further.Not satisfied with the reliability of earlier studies, the criminologist conducted his own, using complex computer models and data from 1977 to 2006 from both the FBI and CDC. In a paper published last year in a scholarly journal, Criminology and Public Policy, Kovandzic and his co-authors found “no evidence that presence of the DP or increases in any of nine execution risk measures studied reduce murder rates,” he said. Acknowledging that some researchers have reached other conclusions, he told the commission members, “You have to torture the data to come to a conclusion that there’s a deterrent effect of the death penalty.”
While no one testified that there is a deterrent effect, the Commission did
hear from several law enforcement officers who defended the death penalty, especially when applied to those who murder police officers. “The death penalty in New Hampshire is here for a reason,” said Belknap Country Sheriff Craig Wiggin, who said he doesn’t know whether it deters or not. But the death penalty “represents a vote of confidence in us,” he said.
Jill Rockey, a 15-year State Trooper, said she thinks the death penalty gives a choice to victims’ family members, even those who oppose capital punish-ment. But Gail Rice, whose police officer brother was murdered in Denver, said her long career working with offenders has given her a different view. Prior to the murder of her brother, Bruce CanderJagt, in 1997, Rice believed that “many criminals’ lives could be restored and redeemed, and that a restorative justice system was worth fighting for,” she told the Commission. “I still believe that today,” she added, “and I believe that there is nothing about that death penalty that is in any way restorative.”
According to Rice, a member of Murder Victims Families for Human Rights, the death penalty is actually harmful to the family members of murder victims. “In cases where executions are actually carried out, survivors are often further devastated to find out that the execution does not bring them the peace and closure promised to them,” she testified.
The Commission also heard from Ray Krone, who spent 2 ½ years on Arizona’s death row and another 8 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. “I don’t want anyone killed in my name,” said Krone, who was the 100th person released from death row due to innocence in recent years. There is now way to estimate the number of innocent people who have been sentenced to prison, he said. “It can happen to anyone.”
At its next meeting, May 14, the Commission will ask “whether the death penalty comports with evolving moral standards.” Leaders of New Hampshire’s religious community are expected to testify, as is Barry Scheck, founder of the Innocence Project, and josh Rubinstein of Amnesty International. The meetings of the Commission are open to the public.
In June the commission will examine the process used by the Attorney General’s office to decide when to seek the death penalty. The study commission also plans 3 public hearings in September, in Durham, Plymouth, and Keene, but has not yet announced details.
___________________________
NH Religious leaders urge commissioners of the Death Penalty Study Commission
to Repeal the Death Penalty
The May hearing of the Commission to Study the Death penalty was devoted to the question of whether the death penalty is consistent with evolving standards of societal decency.
David Lamare-Vincent, Executive Director of the Council of Churches presented a letter signed by 186 New Hampshire religious leaders calling on the state's Death Penalty Study Commission to support reqeal of capital punishment.
The letter calls capital punishment "a gravely unjust method of protecting society," and went on to say:
"We, the undersigned faith leaders, relecting the rich diversity of faith traditions and spiritual practices observed in New Hampshire, stand together in expressing our opposition to New Hampshire's death penalty," the letter begins.
"As faith leaders, the public often seeks our guidance and direction on both spirtual and practical issues. As representatives of our respective faiths, we write to you today to ask you to support repeal of New Hampshire's death penalty," it continued.
The statement was signed by clergy from faith traditions including Roman Catholic, Jewish, Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Christ, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist, Greek Orthodox, Quaker and Baptist.
In addition to the letter leaders of many faith organizations, including Bishop Christian testified in person in favor of repeal.
The May hearing was recorded. Go to: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us
The next meeting of the study commission will be held on Friday, June 18th starting at 9:oo AM in the Legislative Office Building. The Commission will examine the process used by the Attorney General's office to decide when to seek the death penalty.
__________________________________________
Here are some statements from vigilers:
All photos by B. Keshen
Marti Hunt
"This is a very important issue. For me personaly it gives me something that I can do. I am committed to the repeal of the death penalty. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a religious leader. I'm a citizen of NH and I feel that standing in vigil is something I can do as a citizen to register my concern"
Ellen Lankhorst: "This is a way of expressing my concern. It has taken me
a long time to get here because I am not a political person. I think all life is valuable. I just finished a stint as a chaplain in the Strafford County jail. I met many people who are in jail because of their family background. I feel that we need to stand for life, no matter what that person has committed. Each person has a right to life. That is why I am standing here."
Roger Burkhart: "I believe that its wrong to take life; that the state should not be in that business. It costs more to kill someone than it does to keep them in prison for life. I think there is always a chance that a cold killer will repent his action and still be able to lead a life of compassion toward others.
Killing by the state is not something I want to be part of as a citizen of the state.
Jay Smith:
"Nobody ought to think that they have the right to take someone else's life even as retribution and there is no other excuse for the death penalty. We can be wrong
and misjudge the circum-stances that led someone to commit a heinous act. People deserve to live if there is any opportunity to let them live that is safe for the rest of us. The death penalty has never been shown to increase safety."
Dee Swan: "As a Unitarian Universalist I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all people. I believe that death penalty is part of an archaic justice system. If
we can abolish the death penalty maybe we can get attention on other things that would help prevent heinous crimes."
Mark Barker"Over the last 30 years I lived in England. There have been a number of people who were found to be innocent who would otherwise have been put to death, for capital crimes; bombs in particular. But then it was found out that they weren't in fact the bombers. The death penalty is far too final. There are also the scriptural reasons which are my real reasons for not supporting the death penalty."
By Barbara Keshen
Staff Attorney, NHCLU
The death penalty is the ultimate denial of civil liberties. In the past 35 years, 129 inmates were found to be innocent and released from death row. The ACLU Capital Punishment Project is fighting for the end of the death penalty by supporting moratorium and repeal
movements through public education and advocacy. We are engaged in systemic reform of the death penalty process, and case-specific litigation highlighting some of its fundamental flaws.
An estimated 14,000 Americans have been executed since the inception of the death penalty dating back to colonial times. The sanction of death for the punishment of a murder in the United States has declined in recent years. In 2006, the number of death sentences was 114, the lowest level in 30 years. Still, the United States remains the only advanced Western democracy that fails to recognize capital punishment as a profound human rights violation and as a frightening abuse of government power.
Capital punishment in the United States:
(1) is fraught with error;
(2) discriminates on the basis of socioeconomic status, race, and geography;
(3) costs taxpayers far more than life imprisonment without release;
(4) does nothing to protect people from crime;
(5) seriously harms the survivors of homicide victims;
(8) greatly diminishes the worldwide stature of the United States and its ability to work to end human rights violations in other countries.
The Impact of the Death Penalty
The Death Penalty Kills the Innocent
Since 1976, 123 death-row prisoners have been released because they were innocent. In addition, at least seven people have been executed since 1976 even though they were probably innocent [1]. Wrongful convictions often result from false confessions, which are frequent among people with mental retardation, mistaken eyewitnesses, jail house snitches, junk science and prosecutorial abuse.
The Death Penalty is Unfair
The death penalty has never been applied fairly across race, class, and gender lines. Who is sentenced to die often depends on the attitudes of prosecutors, where one is tried, the prejudices of judges and juries, and the abilities and commitment of defense attorneys.
The Death Penalty Cost More than Life in Prison
Prosecuting a death penalty case is extremely expensive for a state and drains money that could be used for education and social programs. Capital punishment costs more than sentencing a prisoner to life without parole. The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty cost North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of these costs occur at the trial level.[2]In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases, including the costs of incarceration.[3]
The Death Penalty is Not a Deterrent to Crime
Since 1977 over 80% of all executions have occurred in the South, the region with the highest murder rate. The Northeast, the region with the lowest murder rate, has accounted for less than 1% of the executions. Although the issue of deterrence has been studied extensively, there is no credible evidence that capital punishment deters murder or makes us any safer.
_________________________________________
[1] Staff of House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights on the Judiciary, 103rd Cong., Innocence and the Death Penalty: Assessing the Dangers of Mistaken Executions available at: http://www.deathoenaltyinfo.org/article.php$scid=45+did=535
[2] Duke University, May 1993
[3] Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003