abolish

New Hampshire could become next state to abolish the death penalty

April 10, 2014

CONCORD, N.H., April 10 (UPI) — New Hampshire, which has sentenced only one man to death since it reinstated the penalty, could become the next state to abolish it.

A bill repealing the death penalty that passed the state House of Representatives 225-104 was released Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a 2-2 vote. The full Senate is expected to act on the measure next week in what is likely to be a close vote.

Gov. Maggie Hassan supports abolition and is expected to sign the bill if it gets to her desk. In 2000, then-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, like Hassan a Democrat, vetoed an abolition bill.

New Hampshire reinstated the death penalty in 1991, after the U.S. Supreme Court found it to be constitutional while overturning most state capital punishment laws in the 1970s. But the state has not executed anyone since 1939 and has not set up an execution chamber for lethal injections.

The only inmate under sentence of death is Michael Addison, who was convicted of killing Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs in 2006.

During Tuesday’s committee hearing, most of the speakers were pro-repeal. But Sen. Sharron Carson, the Republican chairwoman of the committee, said she feared Addison’s execution would be impossible if the bill becomes law, even though, as written, it would not commute any death sentences.

New Hampshire would be the 19th state to abolish the death penalty, along with the District of Columbia.

Legislatures in five states have repealed death penalty statutes adopted after the Supreme Court rulings, beginning with New Jersey in 2007. New Mexico, Maryland and Connecticut still have inmates under death sentence after abolition.

New Hampshire is the only New England state where the death penalty remains legal. Neighboring Maine abolished the penalty in 1887 and Vermont in 1964, while Massachusetts and Rhode Island had statutes on the books until 1984, when they were overturned by the court

Human Rights Commission passes resolution to abolish death penalty in Kentucky

October 19, 2012 http://www.courier-journal.com

Arguing that capital punishment is often applied unfairly against minorities and the poor, the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights board has passed a resolution opposing the death penalty in Kentucky.

The commissioners at a meeting in Lexington Wednesday urged the Kentucky General Assembly to repeal the law that allows the use of the death penalty in murder convictions. The commission also urged Gov. Steven Beshear to sign any such law brought before him.

The resolution unanimously passed by the commissioners will be submitted to Beshear and to each state legislator.

As of April 1, Kentucky had 35 inmates on Death Row at the Kentucky State Penetentiary in Eddyville, according to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Marco Allen Chapman was the last Kentucky inmates executed, by lethal injection in 2008.

State Sen. Gerald Neal, D-Louisville, said the state legislature has considered abolishing the death penalty several times without passing a measure. He said he expects that a bill proposing the end of capital punishment will be introduced again and that he wouldn’t be surprised if the measure might have a chance to be enacted. “In my view, it could happen, because it’s so long overdue,” Neal said.

The commission resolution read:

“Since 1976, when Kentucky reinstated the death penalty, 50 of the 78 people sentenced to death have had their death sentence or conviction overturned, due to misconduct or serious errors that occurred during their trial. This represents an unacceptable error rate of more than 60 percent.”

The resolution said that “statistics confirm that the imposition of the death penalty is disproportionately imposed on minorities and the poor. African Americans constitute 12 percent of the U.S. population, but represent 42 percent of prisoners on death row.”

It cited figures from Amnesty International that more than 20 percent of black defendants executed since 1976 were convicted by all-white juries.

Additionally, it said, states are more likely to seek the death penalty when the offender is black and the victim is white, and that a death sentence is more likely to be imposed on black offenders convicted of killing a white victim.

The resolution also noted that more than 90 percent of defendants in capital cases are indigent and cannot afford an experienced criminal defense attorney.

According to Amnesty International, more than two-thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.

The Kentucky Commission on Human Rights is the state authority that enforces the Kentucky and United States Civil Rights acts, which make discrimination illegal.

Charles M. Harris: Why Florida should abolish the death penalty

april 18 2012 source : http://www.gainesville.com

Wake up, Florida. We have been sold a pig in the poke. If what we got is not totally defective, it is redundant and far less satisfactory than a comparable product which is efficient and cost effective.

I am, of course, talking about the death penalty and why it should be abolished.

It should be acknowledged that we have two death sentences in Florida; death by execution and death by prison. Both accomplish the same purpose: the condemned will never leave prison alive. Further, it is far from certain which sentence will be carried out first.

This article is in opposition is to the death by execution alternative and is based on the law as it now is and will continue to be, and not on the law as it was in some bygone era when a death sentence was imposed within a reasonable time following the conviction. This article does not urge that we end the death penalty on either moral or religious grounds. Others can better speak to that. And although it is of great concern, and should concern all Floridians, this article does not urge the end the death penalty based on the fact that innocent people may be executed under out present system(we have had more people exonerated and released from our death row than any other state, 25.) That issue is beyond the scope of this article.

My opposition is based on more practical grounds: First, the death penalty is not needed since the legislature adopted the life in prison without parole alternative. This was a wise action taken by the legislature but it has rendered death by execution redundant and the amount we spend on it wasted. Second, death by execution is excessively expensive. Most people who support the death penalty believe it is more cost effective than life in prison. Perhaps at one time, when executions were swift and sure, this may have been the case. It is not now. Most people knowledgeable about the subject will agree that the delay now built into the system, more trial preparation, much longer time to get to trial, much longer jury selections and trials, much more complicated and far more frequent appeals, and continuous motions, have increased the cost of capital punishment so that it is now many times the cost of keeping a prisoner in prison for life.

One study have shown that it costs Florida $51 million per year more to support the death penalty than the costs of keeping our murderers in prison for life (Death Penalty Information Center). For example, it costs the state more than $10 million annually to fund the Capital Collateral lawyers who represent those who have been sentenced to death only after the sentence is entered, and this expense must be paid whether or not here is an execution.

The high cost of executions in California caused one of the sponsors who brought about reintroduction of the death penalty there and who is now leading the effort to end it to say: “Close your eyes for a moment. If there was a state program that was costing $185 million a year and only gave the money to lawyers and criminals, what would you do with it?” (New York Times, April 7, 2012).

Quite obviously, a large amount of the money spent on capital punishment goes for legal expenses. That should not be criticized. Proper legal representation of the accused, particularly those sentenced to death, is an essential element of due process. The only way to end the enormous expense is to end the unnecessary reason for it. The $51 million listed as the extra expense for the death penalty is the annual cost of retaining the death penalty apparatus whether or not we have any executions. If it costs that much just to be able to execute someone, what does each execution cost us? The Miami Herald published an article in 1988 stating that it cost $3.2 million to execute a condemned person but only $750,000 to house a prisoner in prison for life. Both of these figures, of course, have increased over the past twenty plus years as indicated by the study mentioned above.

We have averaged two executions per year over the past decade. If we take the $51 million we spend annually merely to be in a position to execute someone and divide it by the two executions we normally have each year, the cost would be about $25 million each.

What do we get for our money? If the death penalty is not a deterrent, and it is not, and if the death penalty does not make us safer, and it does not, then it is only high-cost revenge. There are those who look at Ted Bundy, DannyRolling and Aileen Wuornus and say that at least they won’t kill again. It is unlikely that they would have killed again in any event while confined forever to their 12-by-7 foot cell, but more importantly to the issue of the death penalty being a deterrent is the fact that although Florida has had the death penalty for many generations, these serial killers murdered almost a score of our citizens before they were caught. They were not deterred by the threat of death.

Law enforcement officers, or at least the chiefs of police, seems to realize the futility of the death penalty or at least believe that the money spent on it can be better spent. A recent survey of police chiefs found that a lack of resources and drug/alcohol abuse tied for what most interferes with effective law enforcement. Of the nine categories, insufficient use of the death penalty was a distant last.

Why would anyone ignore the death penalty while considering killing someone? The answer is that the potential killer, for good reason, does not think the death penalty will apply to him. As Justice Brennan said in his Furman concurring opinion: “Proponents of this argument (that the death penalty is a deterrent) necessarily admit that its validity depends upon the existence of a system in which the punishment of death is inevitably and swiftly imposed. Our system, of course, satisfies neither condition. A rational person contemplating a murder…is confronted, not with the certainty of a speedy death, but with the slightest possibility that he will be executed in the distant future.”

full article : click here