Some of who are usually our more conservative/libertarian state house and senate members are once again trying to repeal New Hampshire’s very limited death penalty statute. If they succeed again this time, the Governor should once again veto the repealing legislation. RSA 630:1 sets out the only circumstances that constitute “capital murder” that can be punished by imposition of the death penalty:
If he (or she) knowingly causes the death of:
(a) A law enforcement officer or a judicial officer acting in the line of duty or when the death is caused as a consequence of or in retaliation for such person’s actions in the line of duty;
(b) Another, before, after, while engaged in the commission of, or while attempting to commit kidnapping;
(c) Another, by criminally soliciting a person to cause said death or after having been criminally solicited by another for his personal pecuniary gain;
(d) Another, after being sentenced to life imprisonment without parole;
(e) Another, before, after, while engaged in the commission of, or while attempting to commit aggravated felonious sexual assault;
(f) Another, before, after, while engaged in the commission of, or while attempting to commit an offense punishable under the laws dealing with controlled substances (i.e. illegal drugs); or
(g) Another, who is licensed or privileged to be within an occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied section thereof, before, after, or while in the commission of, or while attempting to commit, burglary.
Of course, notwithstanding valiant attempts to eliminate this exception, the meaning of “another” in the death penalty law does not include a fetus, even if otherwise viable. Welcome to the world of Dr. Kermitt Gosnell. And, no person under the age of 18 years at the time the offense was committed can be charged with capital murder. Think back over the past decade or two and try to remember how many teenagers under the age of 18 committed heinous crimes in New Hampshire- I believe it was more than a handful, and some of them are probably walking around free today.
Now that’s the death penalty law as it stands today.
I respectfully suggest that there are some crimes so heinous that the person convicted of committing them has forfeited their right to live in a free society, which should not have to shoulder the burden of keeping them housed, fed and alive for the rest of their miserable natural lives.
Rather than repeal of our existing death penalty law, I suggest that it should be expanded to cover more crimes, and that the laws that permit numerous and repetitive rounds of appeals should be subjected to more reasonable limits so that the penalty has more meaning.
Two of the main arguments opponents of the death penalty espouse are that (1) innocent people can be put to death; and (2) the death penalty does not deter further criminal conduct.
With the huge increases in sophistication of DNA analysis, the possibilities that an innocent person will be wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death have been vastly reduced.
Of more importance to our society is that it is absolutely certain that the death penalty does in fact serve as a real deterrence to future criminal acts: Application of the death penalty will most certainly deter the executed inmate from committing further crimes.
Finally, if we as a society wish to retain the death penalty, rather than have executions take place essentially in secret, with only a limited number of official “observers,” public access television or PBS should televise executions as a public service. We should have the courage of our convictions to see how imposition of the ultimate penalty looks in real time.
