two poorgradstudents

Following their February 6th Editorial “Don’t expand capital punishment, abolish it,” the Concord Monitor made space for its readers to debate the death penalty.

By my count, on the 10th of February, three Letters to the Editors appeared in the Monitor.  Two, one by Gerri King and one by Arnie Alpert, sided with the editorial, citing cost, the non-existent deterrent effect, and mistakes as reasons to oppose the death penalty.  Shane Miller came out against the editorial, saying that the money spent on capital cases is money well spent, especially since those who aren’t executed can murder again while in prison.

On the 13th, Denis J. O’Connell Sr. expressed his support of the death penalty, saying that it could be effective and could deter crime, if used appropriately – that is, if the punishment was administered swiftly.  The next day, the Concord Monitor published a letter by Mel Curry in which Curry asks readers

So why shouldn’t the criminals spend the rest of their lives paying for the crimes they commit? The problem then becomes, who should pay for it? If someone killed your significant other, would you want to support that person financially?

Well, if capital punishment is abolished in New Hampshire, you will pay for it. Just imagine, you shared 25 years with the love of your life and a stranger killed him or her. The criminal is convicted, but we have no death penalty. So, now you have to pay to support the person who killed you wife or husband.

Given that the Monitor’s original editorial noted the expenses associated with death penalty cases, I’m not sure why they chose to publish this particular letter, since it implicitly misrepresent the financial costs of prosecuting and punishing murder cases.