death penalty on trial

Does the state have the right or responsibility to take the life of a convicted killer? Should certain murders be punishable by death? These questions will be open to public debate in Concord on Tuesday, Feb. 10, when four bills related to the death penalty are heard by the House Criminal Justice & Public Safety Committee.

The subject comes up often at the State House, but attention to this year’s bills is heightened due to two capital murder cases tried in 2008. Both well publicized, Michael Addison’s killing of police officer Michael Briggs resulted in the death penalty, while John Brooks’ conviction of murder-for-hire produced a sentence of life in prison.

The death penalty can be applied to six circumstances of murder in New Hampshire: killing a law enforcement officer, killing during a kidnapping, paying someone or being paid to kill, killing after being sentenced to life in prison without parole, and killing during the course of a rape or certain drug offenses. According to the criminal code, the state’s death penalty is reserved for individuals 18 or older at the time their crimes were committed. Gov. John Lynch has stated that he supports the state’s right to seek capital punishment. The last execution held in the state was in 1939. Michael Addison is appealing his conviction.

Debates don’t get much bigger than life or death, but these bills are only four of many dozens of subjects being worked out in Concord. Next week alone, the House and Senate will hold 149 and 28 public hearings, respectively, plus many work sessions and executive sessions on other bills.

establish death penalty study commission and/or moratorium

House Bills 512 and 520 would both establish a commission to study the death penalty in New Hampshire. According to HB 512 sponsor Rep. David Pierce (D-Etna), the section of his bill that outlines the commission was copied verbatim from a 2008 bill that passed the House. HB 520 also matches this language almost exactly. Both commissions would consist of members of the House and Senate, law enforcement professionals and members of the public appointed by the governor.

And both would study the same aspects of capital sentencing: Is it an effective crime deterrent? Does it match our social standards of decency? Is it fair, cost-effective and worth the risk of making irreversible mistakes? Does it address the interests of victims’ families? In addition, HB 520 asks “whether and how the death penalty affects the behavior or beliefs of the young people of the state.” The commission reports would be due in late fall 2010, and both bills would take effect upon passage.

The major difference between the two bills is that HB 512 would temporarily suspend executions until the findings of the study commission can be considered. The hold would last until Nov. 1, 2011, giving the state a year to process the commission’s report and take any further action called for. HB 520, sponsored by Rep. James Splaine (D-Portsmouth), would not call for such a moratorium.

Pierce explains two concepts behind his suggestion. First, he says, it would signify the seriousness of the commission’s work. “Why bother with the commission,” he asks, if executions won’t be put on hold to wait for its findings? The second reason is a political attempt to provide common ground among opponents and proponents of the death penalty. He hopes that it essentially would buy time for the commission to do its work, suspending not only executions, but also the debate over whether or not there should be any in the first place.

repeal the death penalty or limit its use

The same person sponsoring a bill to repeal the death penalty has also sponsored a bill that would eliminate the possibility of a death sentence if the defendant pleads guilty. Rep. Steven Lindsey (D-Keene) is the prime sponsor of both HB 556 and HB 557. If repealing the death penalty doesn’t pass (and he’s not optimistic that it will), then “maybe the other does,” he says.

In an extensive fiscal note attached to House Bill 556, the Judicial Branch, the Dept. of Justice, and the Judicial Council state that repealing the death penalty—which, in essence, would replace “capital murder” with “first degree murder” in the criminal code—may save their departments significant amounts of money. The N.H. Association of Counties is unclear about its impact on county expenses, and the Dept. of Corrections expects that it would cost the state prison system more money due to longer incarceration periods for would-be capital convictions.

However, as the Dept. of Justice points out, it’s impossible to predict how many capital murder cases may be tried in years to come, so it’s also impossible to forecast related costs or savings.

For his part, Lindsey says it’s not about the money the state may or may not save, “and I’m not even going to bring up the race issue or the class issue … For me, it’s about morality.” But there is something else. “Once you give the state the power of life or death, you give the state the power over every other aspect of our lives,” he says.

Front Door Politics is a weekly legislative update for everyone affected by New Hampshire laws. An online learning center with additional reporting is available at www.frontdoorpolitics.com.