HB1737

I oppose 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 do the individuals for whom it works, 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 death penalty should never be used for non-homocide crime.

As I stated in my testimony on HB 1749 and HB 1413, the death penalty serves no purpose. It is not a deterrent to murder; it is more expensive for the State than life imprisonment without parole; and most importantly, it is immoral. Vote ITL.

I firmly believe that sentencing a criminal to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is far worse a punishment than the death penalty.

Dear Members of Congress, It is fundamentally against the values of liberty and justice for a government to execute its own people in cold blood. NH abolished the death penalty in 2019 for a reason - state executions have no place here. There’s a reason they haven’t been practiced since 1939. Flawed and biased, the death penalty represents the most dangerous tool for human error in our justice system. Sincerely, Will Oliver Center Conway, NH

TO The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee FROM Julien Olivier, DMin—554 Beauty Hill Rd., Barrington, NH 03825 I respectfully submit the following testimony in strong opposition to HB 1740 In 2019 the State of New Hampshire with bipartisan support wisely and overwhelmingly abolished the death penalty (DP). There is no reason to overthrow that decision of the people and their government. I further offer the following reasons for not reinstating the DP. It is… Ethically inconsistent and ineffective Evidence has clearly shown that the application of the death penalty is inconsistent. Innocent people have unjustly been put to death for crimes they did not commit. Only later were the tragic miscarriages of justice uncovered. The death penalty is not a deterrent. Nor does it bring solace to the aggrieved or justice to society. The evidence for each of these arguments is readily available from academic sources as well as individual testimony. See, for example, https://innocenceproject.org; https://rjp.umn.edu (University of Minnesota); and https://www.theforgivenessproect.com. Morally wrong. As a Christian, I find no justification for the DP in the teachings of Jesus. The Hebrew Scriptures taught the lex talionis—an eye for an eye—proportional justice. But Jesus went further. Forgive as you would be forgiven and turn the other cheek. A high bar, indeed! One that few attain but an ideal nonetheless. Difficult as they are, his teachings offer no harbor for State-sponsored murder. That said, the Christian tradition has found some accommodation for warfare and thus, for the death penalty. But the conditions for killing are narrow. They are sometimes summarized as: just cause, right intention, last resort, with no other possible means to protect society. Reasons definitely not found in this tradition are retribution and revenge. Personally, I find no true justification for the death penalty. Does the DP. offer some degree of temporary relief and vindication? Perhaps. However, what might even be initial elation for the perceived end of an evil is often superficial and short-lived. It does not bring the desired peace. I write from my experience and perspective of having worked with incarcerated people for over 35 years—juveniles and adults; persons charged or convicted for misdemeanors and felonies; as a volunteer mentor, teacher, and chaplain in state and county facilities, in Maine, Manchester and Dover, N.H. Although some inmates appear incorrigible, people do change. We—you and I—change and have changed. Who are we to say differently and rule out what in Christian theology is known as metanoia, change of heart? I write as a student of the correctional system and one who has written and spoken about incarceration. Helpful were courses in restorative justice by the University of Minnesota. I write as a certified clinical and correctional chaplain. Finally, I write as a survivor of two armed attempts on my life. I don’t know who they were or what their circumstances were. I know they threatened to kill me, but who am I to judge them? Were these perpetrators ever caught, I’d want them away from society so they wouldn’t hurt others. But my hope would be for their rehabilitation or at least their change of heart.

Capital punishment is cruel and unusual. It is applied arbitrarily. It is disproportionately carried out on people of color. Convicts are found innocent months and years after conviction. The state should not be killing innocent people. Finally and least importantly, state execution is far more expensive than imprisoning the convict for life. NH should spend any budgetary excesses on its living residents and not in killing them.

I oppose this bill on moral and religous grounds. I do not believe any system of government should have the authority to kill its own citizens. In addition, mandatory sentencing removes the judges ability to decide appropriate punishment for the crime. No system of government is infalliable, because it is created and perpetuated by people, and people make mistakes. So any mandatory death penalty applied would have some percentage of wrongly convicted people also put to death, and I don't agree with that.

No Death Penalty in New Hampshire

I oppose HB 1737 because mandatory death sentences remove judicial discretion and deepen systemic inequities.

Do not kill!

I oppose state sanctioned killing.

If NH reinstates the death penalty, we will be taking an unconscionable step backward becoming the only New England state to have such a sanction. The reasons to not restore capital punishment are compelling: moral, economic, uncertainty. As a practicing Christian we must treat life as sacred from the cradle to the grave. LWP is the moral and economic alternative that ensures that convicted individuals can never harm anyone again including our precious children. For all these reasons I strongly urge you to oppose HB 1737. Thank you for your consideration, John Walsh

The administration of the death penalty has been shown to discriminate against people of color and poor people, who represent the disproportionate number of people who have been sentenced to death throughout the country.

I oppose the death penalty because of the skewed justice system in our country. As long as we have unfair trials, tainted witness accounts, and inadequate legal representation, I am opposed to the death penalty. More oversight is needed in our justice system and law enforcement. I do not trust this unfair justice system, which is tainted by the weaknesses of our federal system under this current federal Administration, to have this Life/Death tool at their disposal.

My reason for opposing any of these death penalty bills is a practical one - time in prison may cause killers to reveal the fates of of other victims. Eventually people talk, revealing other victims. It may aid law enforcement to possibly recover remains. Crimes may be solved when those convicted have time in prison to reveal other crimes. That is a reason not to use death penalties.

Let us assume a hypothetical. IF President Trump were ever proven to have sex with a minor in the many years he was a friend to Jeffrey Epstein, then by this law we would have to put him to death.

I know someone personally who was accused of murder but later exonerated, years of his life taken from him. This should never happen, but it does.

I want the death penalty to remain repealed in NH. The death penalty is costly and does not deter crime. Most importantly, the government should never murder human beings.

I oppose this bill for a number of reasons: 1. This bill is a black-and-white unconstitutional bill: the Supreme Court struck down laws focused on the death penalty for rape in 1977 (Coker v. Georgia) and 2008 (Kennedy v. Louisianna). 2. Any judicial system is not 100% reliable and capital punishment is irreversible. Humans make mistakes in prosecutions, in inadequate defenses, in officials' misconduct, in flawed evidence and even in lacking bias. Life without parole is sufficient. 3. Capital punishment gives our government unlimited power: that is an example of big government, in other words. 4. All major faiths and belief systems are against capital punishment. Shouldn't justice focus on restoring, not retaliating?

I am a Quaker and completely oppose the use of the death penalty for any crime.

While the death penalty may be deserved for the rape of a minor under 13, most of those rapes are committed by a family member or boyfriend. Because the family depends emotionally or financially on the perpetrator,, mandating a death sentence will make the reporting of such a rape less likely and thereby reduce the risk to the perpetrator..

The death penalty has no place in a society that values fairness and restorative justice, not violent retribution. The state should not be taking the life of any human being.