Former NH Supreme Court Chief Justice urges repeal of the Death Penalty

At the June 18th hearing of the Death Penalty Study Commission former NH Supreme Court Justice Joseph Nadeau urged the commission to recommend repeal of New Hampshire's Death Penalty. The text of his testimony follows:

On the Death Penalty in New Hampshire by Joseph P. Nadeau

It has been my good fortune to serve as a judge in New Hampshire for thirty-seven years. For thirteen of those years I was presiding justice of the Durham District Court. I served as a justice of the Superior Court for eighteen years, nine of which I spent as chief justice. And I at on the Supreme Court for six years before retiring in December of 2005. I am proud of our judicial system and the effort of judges in all our courts to treat people fairly and equally, and to protect their individual rights.

 

While serving as a judge, I rarely expressed my opinion on capital punishment privately, and until now I never expressed my opinion publicly. Nor did I let my personal opinions influence my judicial decisions. In fact, in 1998 I presided over the capital murder case of Gordon Perry, and on every motion filed on his behalf challenging New Hampshire's capital punishment statute; I ruled he had not established that the law violated our constitution.

 

Last week, I appeared before the New Hampshire Commission to Study the Death Penalty, whose members I commend for their willingness to undertake the important and challenging task assigned to them by the legislature. My purpose in speaking to the commission was not to talk about facts and statistics or trials and cases but to address the moral issue of death as punishment.

 

The way we have been dealing with the death penalty for years is to talk about enacting laws, adopting procedures, establishing practices and providing mechanisms, as if by creating an elaborate process we could somehow sanitize the death penalty and thereby ignore the moral issues that capital punishment presents. We cannot.

 

I appeared before the Commission to answer one straightforward but complex question. Do I believe the systematic killing of another human being by the state, in my name, is justified?

 

My answer to that question is, No.

 

During my tenure as a judge, I met many people with strong opinions about capital punishment. Through most of that period, over two thirds of those polled in the United States regularly supported the death penalty. Some people I respect still do. So you would think that anyone looking for answers based upon public opinion or strongly held view should have an easy task.

 

What is the problem, then? In the face of these odds, why do we continue to struggle with the acceptability of death as punishment? I believe one reason we engage in this process is that no matter what some people say publicly about capital punishment, deep inside many are not as certain as they proclaim.

 

I believe another reason is that our thinking evolves, as people, technology. and societies progress. And what is acceptable at one time in our history may become unwelcome at another. If that is true then, we are encouraged to re-examine our core principles and to consider whether death continues to be an acceptable punishment in New Hampshire.

 

I have great respect for the offices of the Attorney General and Public Defender and for the integrity and competence with which the attorneys in those offices handle homicide cases. The primary source of my continuing concern about the death penalty, however, is not New Hampshire's limited capital murder experience but my own professional exposure to criminal justice issues.

 

There is no question that people who commit murder must be punished and should be removed from society. Life in prison without parole does both. It is interesting to note that two states, New Hampshire, which has not employed the death penalty since before Pearl Harbor, and North Dakota which does not condone capital punishment, did not need death to achieve the lowest murder rates in the nation every year of this century.

            ____________________________________________

The New Hampshire house has had an accelerated hearing schedule during the past four weeks. Since 2010 is an election year this legislative session may end earlier than the 4th of July!

February 10th

In a lengthy and confusing house session in which all non-controvertial bills were supposed to be decided by one vote, a legislator moved all of them to the regular calendar. As a result bills were taken out of the order listed in the calendar. However, there were two important victories for a women's right to choose.

HB 1454, a bill that would have required perental consent not only for abortion but for any medical procedure on a minor, was defeated in a Roll Call vote of 218-140.

HB 1662, a bill that we referred to as the kitchen sink bill because it contained every provision ever suggestion to delay, deter, frighten or intimidate a women who chose to exercise her right to reproductive autonomy was overwhelmingly defeated. The Roll Call vote was 243-110.

Representatives Phil Preston of Ashland and Lucy Weber of Walpole gave extraordinary floor speaches against both of these bills. If you are their constiuents, let them know that you are grateful.

February 3rd

The House voted on several important civil liberties bills during this session.

CACR 25, a constitutional amendment to permit laws to be overridden by referendum was defeated.

HB 1683, a bill to require random drug testing of recipients of public assistance was defeated.

HB 1402, repealing the crime of adultury passed.

HB 1652, a bill to allow the purchase and use of marijuana by adults, was referred for interim study. This is not passage but it is better than killing the bill.

Two bills that impact a woman's right to choose were also considered in the session.

HB 1666, a bill to require duplicative licensing of out-patient abortion facilities, was defeated by an extraordinary vote of 260 to 101. This bill also intended to gather information on private medical practitioners who provide abortion services for their own patients.

HCR 30, a resolution urging the attorney general to submit the "affiliation" of Catholic Medical Center and Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical passed with amendment on a voice vote.  We are concerned with this "affiliation" because of the potential to limit reproductive health care for Manchester patients and to hinder the provision of abortion services and stem cell research at Mary Hitchcock Hospital.

Other bills that have been heard in the House:

HB 1644, a fetal homicide bill that established personhood at conception was voted ITL (inexpediemt to legislate) by a 14 to 5 committee vote.

HB 1442, a bill to restrict residency for sexual offenders, was voted ITL in committee.

Two significant anti-choice bills were also defeated in committee.

HB 1454, a bill requiring perental consent for all medical consent for minors was voted ITL in committee by a 11 to 7 vote.

HB 1662, a bill that contained virtually contained every abortion restriction ever proposed was voted ITL in committee by a 12 to 6 vote.

The bills with committee votes will likely be on the House Calendar on Wednesday, February 10th. If you are interested in voicing your opinion on these bills contact your state legislator. If you do not know your legislator go to www.gencourt.state.nh.us