Bonnie Dunham

Re: HB 1749-FN, reinstating the death penalty for murder offenses. I am writing to ask you to please oppose HB 1749-FN, reinstating the death penalty for murder offenses. HB 1749-FN amends RSA 630:1, III (for capital murder), RSA 630:1-a, III (for first degree murder), and RSA 630:1-b, II (for second degree murder) to allow that the person convicted of the crime “may be punished by death or imprisonment for such term as the court may order [emphasis added]”. Currently, for individuals convicted of capital murder or first degree murder, there is a mandate that the individual shall be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole [emphasis added]. While HB 1749-FN allows the imposition of the death penalty for persons convicted of capital murder or first degree murder, if the individual is not sentenced to death, there is no longer a requirement that the individual be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, allowing “imprisonment for such term as the court may order”. I oppose this bill for several reasons: - I do not believe that in a just society, it should be acceptable to take an individual’s life, regardless of the crime they have committed. While I can understand the emotions that would drive someone to seek the death penalty, the only purpose it would serve is for revenge. That should not be the role of our criminal justice system. - The death penalty does not deter people from committing murder; it does not increase public safety. States with capital punishment have higher rates of violent crime than those that impose life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. - Death is irreversible. There have been multiple instances where people on death row, and even individuals who have been executed for capital offenses have later been found to be innocent. That is a mistake that we should not be willing to risk. - Reinstating the death penalty will be costly. As the Judicial branch stated in the fiscal impact statement, “this bill would authorize the death penalty for a substantially larger category of cases than current law” and noted that these cases “require intensive judicial resources”. “The Judicial Council states this bill would result in 10 to 20 new death-eligible cases per year ….” While no specific figure can be determined without knowing the exact number and types of cases, the Judicial Council “estimates costs of $1,000,000 to $2,500,000 per year”. Because the bill does not appropriate addition funding, cuts in other spending would have to be made to cover these costs. I can think of many, many better ways to spend those multiple millions of dollars (funding law enforcement actions to prevent violent crimes and/or to solve crimes, adequately funding public education, making necessary infrastructure improvements across the state, etc.). Please vote to recommend HB 1749-FN inexpedient to legislate. Thank you in advance for your consideration of my input. Respectfully, Bonnie Dunham