HB1730

The death penalty is fraught with all sorts of mistakes made by prosecutors, witnesses and lawyers. No one should be put to death. We haven't done it in New Hampshire in a long while. I don't see the necessity for it.

I oppose the death penalty. Period.

Anyone who is commits sexual violence against anyone, especially a minor, must be held accountable. However, to kill someone for that crime compounds the injury rather than mitigating it. Taking a life after a crime does not mitigate or undo the crime, it simply adds another tragedy..

I am appalled and horrified at the content of this bill. I am absolutely opposed to this bill.

Question: When is an individual justified in using deadly force? Answer: Under conditions of a credible imminent threat of grievous bodily harm to self or innocent others. I do not consent to a government that operates under looser requirements than individuals do, that may legally kill without similar sober justification -- even if it could somehow guarantee that it would never get the verdict wrong (which, of course, it can't). No credible imminent threat? No lawful killing. Not even by the State (perhaps ESPECIALLY not by the State). Simple. And if a defendant in custody IS such a credible imminent threat, then you've got bigger problems.

Capital punishment is more costly to implement than a life imprisonment sentence, roughly $1.1 million versus $6-700,000 for life imprisonment. As you gleefully repeal all manner of state revenue, where are you going to get the money to legally kill people?

Opposition Testimony for HB 1730: Death Penalty for Offenses Against Minors The proposed HB 1730 seeks to extend capital punishment to sexual offenses against minors, ostensibly as a way to enhance protections for children. However, this legislative push is fraught with serious oversight and funding concerns that undermine its stated goals. The bill lacks sufficient trauma-informed approaches and intersectional frameworks, which are critical in addressing the complexities of sexual assault cases involving minors. The significant focus on punitive measures overlooks the need for comprehensive healing and support systems for survivors, thereby doing more harm than good. Funding Gaps and Ethical Concerns One of the most alarming aspects of HB 1730 is its potential for funding gaps within the criminal justice system. Implementing a bifurcated trial system similar to existing capital murder procedures will necessitate considerable resources that the bill fails to address. This raises ethical questions about the allocation of limited resources towards enhanced punitive measures rather than preventive and supportive services. By diverting attention and funding from essential community-based interventions that address root causes of violence, the bill risks perpetuating cycles of trauma and inequity. Impact on Marginalized Communities Furthermore, the implementation of HB 1730 poses significant risks of disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities. Communities already facing systemic inequities may find themselves further marginalized as the bill's punitive focus overshadows necessary preventative and rehabilitative measures. Policymakers must critically evaluate the potential for retraumatization among victims and the likelihood of exacerbating existing disparities within the justice system. The urgent need for protective outcomes must be balanced with a commitment to equity and justice that genuinely supports survivors and their communities. In its current form, HB 1730 fails to meet these essential criteria, warranting strong opposition.

I’m writing to state my firm opposition to re-instating the death penalty in the great state of New Hampshire in any form. Our flawed justice system kills innocent people with great regularity. For every 8 people executed in this country, one person sentenced to death has been exonerated. We have executed over 200 innocent people in the United States since I was born (1972). The death penalty does not deter crime. After we repealed the death penalty in 2019 there was no big upsurge in violent crime, and New Hampshire continues to have the lowest murder rate in the country. It is far more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them in prison, even for a life sentence. The appeals process consumes time, money and resources that could be better spent on programs and policies that would actually improve our communities and help deter people from engaging in crime in the first place.

I oppose this and bills 1749, 1413, 1737.

The death penalty is morally reprehensible. Our government should not be in the business of murdering its citizens.

This bill is too broad. I support punishing people who take advantage of minors but death is an extreme solution.

My name is Bess Klassen-Landis. In 1969, my mother, Helen Bohn Klassen, was murdered at age 41, during what is now called a home invasion. Her case was never solved. She was stripped, beaten, raped, strangled and shot four times by an unknown intruder while my 3 sisters and I were at school and my father was out of state. We were 11, 13, 15, and 16 years old. At 13, I could not voice out loud to anyone, my utter despair, grief, fear and rage. I needed to pretend for others that I wasn't being torn apart inside, that I wasn't afraid to live in a home with bullet holes in the floor and sliver finger print lifting spray on the walls and furniture, and pretend that our family was doing okay. The incongruency of what I showed on the outside to the world, and my inner feelings was so great, that it produced tremendous feelings of failure that were almost intolerable. Because my mother’s case was never solved, healing my grief, rage and fear took a very long time. In a death penalty case, due to recurring triggers caused by the mandatory appeals process and the recurrent press coverage, victim family members also endure years of troubling re-victimization and uncertainty. My heart breaks anew for them. There is no path to heal the trauma, when it is continually reopened. The death penalty is a physical manifestation of hatred. The total opposite of who my mother was and how she lived her life. It would have been the LAST thing she would have wanted to see happen in our lives. It is pre-planned, state sanctioned, homicide. It is unnecessary to keep society safe. It is devoid of life and love, which is what victim family members need to go on. We heal when we are able to reclaim our own humanity and look with love upon the world. In my eyes, it is obscene to think of allocating money to kill people, to show that killing is wrong, especially in light of this weekend’s headlines: –1 in 4 Granite State households lack $2,000 at hand for emergencies –New Hampshire nonprofits brace for tough times I hope your vote will be for shoring up the lives of your citizens, not pursuing hatred by spending millions of dollars to put a person to death. When instead you lock someone up, it leaves the door open for transformation and healing, even for a murderer. I have experienced that miracle in my own life, and I fervently wish it for all. Respectfully, Bess Klassen-Landis 33 Clough Ave Windsor, VT 05089

Executing people is barbaric, inhumane, and cruel. It does not belong in a civilized society. With innocent people having been sent to their deaths, bungled and unnecessarily painful executions, and repeated trauma for the victims' families and the families of the executed, nobody wins. And, again and again the death penalty has been proven ineffective in deterring future crime. It truly doesn't matter the terrible thing the criminal did. Nobody should be able to take another life, particularly the government, with its whims and the shifting politics of the times. We need to be better. Kinder. More humane. More HUMAN. More thoughtful. More creative in solving society's problems. Let's bring this culture forward, not backward into the ruthless barbarism of the dark ages.

This bill and other bills to reinstate the death penalty will do nothing to protect children or others at risk of violence. Instead, it would divert resources from actual solutions Please vote ITL.

I'm a voter asking you to ***please oppose*** this bill, because using the death penalty for predators opens up the possibility of using the death penalty for people who've committed non-predatory crimes. The death penalty is wrong for New Hampshire, period. I ask again that you please *oppose* this bill. Thank you.

I strongly believe that restorative justice is the best, most effective practice, especially as opposed to the death penalty, and especially when it comes to minors. Thank you.

I do not support the death penalty for any reason whatsoever.

I am a physician, and I believe the death penalty is morally wrong. Basically, I try to live by the golden rule, and I believe putting people to death is never the right thing to do.

There is no evidence that the death penalty is preventative. Whatever the offense, killing a suspect does not benefit society.

Although this type of crime against a child is heinous, I am against the death penalty for many reasons. Killing a murderer does not undo the murder he committed. It is possible that the murderer will come to regret his action. We can never fully understand the motives of a murderer or be sure that he is guilty.

The state of NH does not have or need the death penalty. The death penalty is NOT a deterrent from crime. The death penalty carries an extreme weight; ties up court cases with appeals, costing the tax payers; and the government should not be given the power to kill it’s citizens, this is a precedent that should not be set.

I oppose the death penalty. It does not deter crime and there is no way to reverse a wrongful conviction if the person is dead.

This is a terrible idea and should be tabled.

Just killing off every offender is inhumane. Would you like a chance for evaluation and maybe help? I am not advocating that people who commit these crimes be let off the hook, but is sanctioned murder the blanket answer?

Dear Chair and Members of the Committee, My name is Kim Lawrence, and I am a resident of New Hampshire. I am writing to respectfully submit testimony in opposition to HB 1730-FN unless major safeguards are added. At the outset, I want to be clear: I support aggressive prosecution and long prison sentences for sexual crimes against children. These offenses are among the most traumatic and life-altering crimes imaginable. Children deserve protection, survivors deserve justice, and dangerous offenders should be held fully accountable. However, HB 1730-FN does far more than increase penalties. It creates a framework to treat a broad range of offenses as capital crimes eligible for the death penalty. Because the death penalty is irreversible and carries an increased risk of wrongful conviction, excessive plea leverage, and years of retraumatizing litigation, I cannot support this bill unless strict legal safeguards and funding requirements are put in place. 1) The bill expands death-penalty eligibility too broadly This bill expands aggravated offenses and makes them death-penalty eligible, including offenses involving “sexual contact,” which can include circumstances far less clear than violent penetration cases. Any attempt to attach capital punishment to these crimes must be narrowly limited to the most extreme cases with the strongest evidence. Without narrowing language, this bill risks inconsistent charging practices across counties, politicized prosecutions, and plea bargaining under threat of death. 2) The death penalty requires safeguards because mistakes cannot be undone If New Hampshire is going to allow death as a punishment, the law must include safeguards to minimize wrongful conviction risk. At minimum, HB 1730-FN should require the following safeguards before the death penalty is allowed: A heightened reliability standard for key evidence, not merely the typical burden of proof. A corroboration requirement so death-eligible convictions cannot rely solely on uncorroborated testimony. Mandatory recorded interviews and interrogations to reduce coercion and contamination of evidence. Independent review before seeking death, including Attorney General-level approval. Exclusion of cases relying substantially on unreliable evidence, including jailhouse informant testimony or questionable forensic methods. 3) If the death penalty is on the table, fewer victims will come forward One of the most serious unintended consequences of this bill is the impact it could have on reporting. In many cases involving child sexual assault, the offender is not a stranger. It may be a family member, caregiver, trusted adult, or someone connected to the home. Victims and families may already feel fear, shame, and pressure to stay silent. If the death penalty becomes a possible outcome, it creates an added barrier. Some victims may be less willing to report or cooperate if they believe their disclosure could lead to the death of someone they know, someone in their family, or someone they are afraid of angering. Others may fear the length, public attention, and retraumatization that comes with a capital case. A law intended to protect children should not create conditions that discourage victims from coming forward. 4) Safeguards must protect survivors, not retraumatize them Death penalty cases require more hearings, more litigation, more appeals, and significantly more time in court. That reality places a heavy additional burden on survivors and families. If the Legislature considers a capital punishment framework, it should include survivor protections such as privacy safeguards, trauma-informed processes, and resources for victim advocacy so victims are not forced into years of repeated proceedings. 5) The bill provides no funding, which makes it reckless policy The Fiscal Note makes clear that death penalty cases are extremely costly. This bill expands death-penalty eligibility without funding the courts, prosecution resources, indigent defense counsel, expert witnesses, investigations, or survivor support systems. Without funding, the outcome will be delays, uneven justice, and increased risk of errors. If the Legislature insists on expanding capital punishment eligibility, funding must be written into the bill as a condition of implementation. 6) Strong sentencing can be improved now without expanding capital punishment If the goal is accountability and safety, New Hampshire has a clear path forward without expanding death penalty eligibility: Longer mandatory minimum sentences for severe offenses Life imprisonment without parole for the most aggravated crimes Enhanced penalties for repeat offenders Enhanced penalties for offenders in positions of authority These reforms protect the public and strengthen accountability without creating an expensive and highly litigated capital punishment process. Conclusion New Hampshire must treat child sexual assault with the seriousness it deserves. But HB 1730-FN expands death-penalty eligibility without the safeguards, protections, and funding necessary to ensure justice is accurate, fair, and survivor-centered. It may also unintentionally discourage reporting and cooperation by victims. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to vote ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) on HB 1730-FN unless it is amended to include strict safeguards and required funding. Thank you for your time and service to the people of New Hampshire. Respectfully submitted, Kim Lawrence