The New Hampshire Death Penalty

I'm about your age (4.00 / 1)

The people most deserving to be put to death, in my mind, when I was a kid, were Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson.

They are both still alive in California prisons. They will probably die there of old age.

That works for me.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 21:04:17 PM CST

My opposition to the death penalty (4.00 / 2)

is a bit unusual.

I'm against it, because I, and nobody else for that matter, knows what happens to us post mortem.  I can't endorse a punishment that is a mystery.  It's also irrevocable, which can be a bit sticky when one discovers that blind Justice was too blind to see the truth in some cases.

I can endorse life without parole, which is very much not a mystery, and which can be made by design very difficult for a prisoner.

And then there's all the practical facts about how it doesn't deter crime, etc...

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 21:29:46 PM CST

Elwood/Dean - Two Good Points To Ponder (4.00 / 1)

I have to say that Elwood's and Dean's comments are two fascinating points to ponder on this issue.  I don't think I've heard of those thoughts before, certainly not said so well, and I'll pass them on.  Thank you for them.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:44:52 AM CST

You're welcome, (0.00 / 0)

and thanks again for coming here to Blue Hampshire.

This place is all the richer when we are fortunate enough to have our public servants show up now and then.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 16:45:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm against the death penalty (4.00 / 1)

And while I'm proud this state hasn't killed anybody since the 30's, I'm ashamed we're still a death penalty state (by hanging no less).

The death penalty was a necessity in earlier cultures that due to either their nomadic nature or scant resources could not support life imprisonment, or prison at all.

It belongs along with the other penal options of those days and those cultures -- cutting off hands, blinding, muting, scarring and whipping -- as an option we no longer have an excuse to use. Just as whipping and mutilation fell away once we had the ability to detain people for extended time, so will our ultimate inhumanity.

And that will be good for us. When people are whipped into a froth with anticipation of killing someone, society suffers.

Thanks for your boldness on this bill. I wrote a post earlier (when Saddam was hanged) asking if a legislator would be brave enough to kill our own hanging law. Let's hope that Lynch will have the bravery to sign it.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:18:43 AM CST

Chiming In (4.00 / 3)

I just wanted to check in to voice my absolute opposition to the death penalty... under any circumstances.  For many many reasons, but the chief is that I find it completely morally wrong that a Government would engage in in democide, the killing of its own citizens. 

The power over life and death of its own citizens is a power that should not be granted to a government. 

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 09:28:11 AM CST

My word! (4.00 / 1)

I think you have just stumbled upon a really interesting libertarian argument for opposing the death penalty.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 16:46:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wrong Time (0.00 / 0)

This is the wrong time to try to get this passed, so close to the Briggs murder.  You should wait until the next session.  I know you probably think there is no better time, because the state will seek the death penalty in that case, but emotions are still too raw for there to be an objective discussion. 

---

by: Frodo @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 17:02:53 PM CST

There will never be an objective discussion (4.00 / 3)

Nothing the legislature does will bring Officer Briggs back.

If this is the right thing to do, it is right now -- and it is sinful to delay. If it is wrong, it will still be wrong later.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 19:00:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's cold (4.00 / 1)

It isn't about bringing someone back.  It is about mourning, anger and respect.  A debate about the death penalty now will be in the context of the Briggs murder. Why is it necessary to have that debate this year?  No one is on death row.  If the death penalty is the sentence in the Briggs case, it won't be imposed for years. Out of respect for the mourning still going on, and in order to have a debate without the anger (at least, the heat of anger), why not wait a year? 

---

by: Frodo @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 19:33:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's a good point that a bill next year would be in time (4.00 / 2)

To stop the possible execution of Michael Briggs killer.

But even if we did it later, we'd be accused of opening old wounds.

Secondly, do we know for sure the family is pushing for the death penalty? Is it possible that seeking the death penalty in the case could be painful to those involved? It's equally possible that the bloodlust surrounding capital cases could be equally damaging to mourning and respect.

While I'm very worried about the family and friends of Briggs, the bigger psychological question is for the million others of us, including our children -- are we going to deal with our anger by talking about killing someone. I believe that damages all of us.

But this can get heated very quickly. I appreciate the point that we can pass it next year without risking anyone dying, and I'll think that over.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 20:51:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not to be delayed (4.00 / 3)

Beyond the basic natural rights argument, there's an economic interest in this as well:

Convicting someone of capital murder costs more than them spending the rest of their life in prison.

With the idea that the death penalty will later be repealed, it makes no sense for the state to spend all that money on a capital trial.


It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 00:28:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]