The Union Leader writes on the NH Senate’s vote against SB344. In it, Senator Joe Kenney (R-Wakefield), sponsor of the bill, calls NH’s capital murder laws arbitrary.

Sen. Joseph Kenney, R-Wakefield, sponsored the bill after the killings of three men during the robbery of a camping goods store in North Conway this year.
He said a kidnapper who kills his victim now can face the death penalty, but a serial killer with 30 victims would not.

“How is that justice?” he asked.

The Senate’s vote indicates an unwillingness to amend the state’s laws on the death penalty haphazardly, adding types of killing on a case-by-case basis.

Critics of the bill, SB 344, said its language is too vague to be certain that the state’s death penalty would continue to be invoked strictly, and on a limited basis.

Finally, slate.com’s Dahlia Lithwick writes on the slippery slope between public outrage and apathy at the Bush administration’s approval of torture.

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.

Also on Monday, The Keene Sentinel ran an editorial against the use and expansion of the death penalty in New Hampshire. Specifically, the editorial alludes to “the frightful string of cases in other states where innocent people have been convicted,” as well as the high cost of death penalty cases.

Pass it on.

In 2000, the New Hampshire House and Senate surprised the state and excited many people throughout the country and the world by becoming the first legislative bodies to vote for legislation to abolish the death penalty in over 20 years. We had the public and personal support of Coretta Scott King, Bishop Desmond Tutu, former President Jimmy Carter, even the Vatican. Imagine — it passed!

With just a signature waiting for the bill to become law, we heard that the Rome Coliseum would turn on its lights, but…

…the bill then ran into a wall. Governor Jeanne Shaheen vetoed it, and we failed to overcome her veto. I was in the thick of that debate, as primary sponsor of the bill. To this day I’m sad about Governor Shaheen’s decision. I understand. But I disagree. We lost.

Citing New Hampshire’s low murder rate and the date of the last execution in the state, the NY Times called the House and Senate vote on capital punishment ‘largely symbolic.’ But because capital punishment remains in the Criminal Code, the state is now ‘prosecuting its first two death penalty cases since 1990′ and the House and Senate are considering bills to expand the use of the death penalty.

HB 1180 would expand the definition of “law enforcement officer” to include bailiffs and court officers; this would, in turn, expand the definition of capital murder, which is punishable by death in New Hampshire. The bill ‘also clarifies that family division judges are included in the definition of “judicial officer” under the capital murder law.’

SB 0344 expands the definition of capital murder to include the killings of ‘two or more persons.’

Local newspapers have covered the debate about these bills. The Concord Monitor published a thorough article by Annemarie Timmins on the bill, its supporters and opponents, and the history of capital punishment in NH. Notably, the article references the debate about the cost of death penalty cases.

Lawyer Michael Iacopino, president of the state’s Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, focused his comments on the expense of expanding the death penalty law. He predicted the cost of prosecuting and defending 1.5 death penalty cases a year would cost New Hampshire at least $3 million.

The state did a similar analysis for the bill.

According to those figures, death penalty cases can cost between $750,000 and several million dollars to defend. And in most cases, the defendant cannot afford his or her own attorney and relies on one paid for by the state. Appeals can tack on between $25,000 and $100,000. And there are additional expenses to the court system and prison.

The Concord Monitor also recently printed a staff editorial opposing the expansion of the death penalty.

The high price of death penalty cases and their impact on the judicial system is not the biggest reason to oppose capital punishment. It is just one of many reasons.

It is extremely difficult to impose the death penalty fairly. Justice, unfortunately, is not always blind to the color of a defendant’s skin or the size of his bank account. Witnesses can be mistaken, informants can lie, police and prosecutors can overlook evidence that may exonerate a suspect, juries can be swayed by emotion. So many things can go wrong. That’s one reason New Hampshire has not put anyone to death in nearly 70 years.

More than 200 U.S. inmates, including some on death row, have been exonerated by DNA evidence since 1989. The intense examinations of cases by just one Northwestern University journalism professor, David Protess, and his students have led to the release of 10 prisoners, including five innocent men on death row. The law and the humans who apply it are simply too fallible to fairly levy the death penalty.

Capital punishment should also be abolished because it is counterproductive. It does nothing to deter people from committing murder, but it simultaneously sends the message that, under circumstances other than war or defense of oneself or another, it is permissible to kill another human being.

Expanding the death penalty to apply to more offenses will not reduce the murder rate. Making killing a cultural taboo so heinous that society doesn’t impose it on the worst of criminals, might.

The Union Leader has also taken a stance on SB 344, supporting it.

Currently, a serial killer apprehended in New Hampshire for murders committed here could not face the death penalty. Nor could someone who goes on a shooting rampage at a shopping mall or college campus.

That should be rectified.

And that rectification should be the first step toward expanding the capital murder statute to include everything now classified as first degree murder: all premeditated murder as well as knowingly causing the death of someone in conjunction with felonious sexual assault, armed robbery, armed burglary or arson, or knowingly killing certain elected public officials or nominees for those offices.

Under existing law, the worst murderers can deal death to innocents knowing that they will never face the same fate in return. They should not have that comfort.

Meanwhile, in a pre-trial hearing, an attorney for murder suspect John “Jay” Brooks, one of the two men currently facing capital murder charges in New Hampshire, argued against the punishment of death.

“It’s an artifact of the pre-exoneration era,” said David Bruck, one of Brooks’ attorneys.

He said the state’s death penalty law doesn’t take into account several constitutional protections guaranteed by the state constitution.

Judge Robert Lynn heard arguments from Brook’s lawyers and prosecutors. According to Derry News, Judge Lynn said that ‘he was inclined to agree with the state’s argument that the death penalty law is valid.’ The paper says that an official decision is expected in the coming weeks.

The other capital murder case – against Michael K. “Stix” Addison, who allegedly killed a Manchester police officer – has cost New Hampshire nearly $978,000, with costs expected to double or triple by the end of the trial.