Death Penalty to End in NH as House & Senate Override Governor's Veto!


Originally published at:

ACLU Sign to End Death Penalty in NH

ACLU Sign to End Death Penalty in NH – Photographed in Keene

New Hampshire today became the 21st state to abolish the death penalty, as the state Senate and House have now both voted to override the governor’s veto. Despite the death penalty having no deterrent effect on violent crime, governor Sununu stood firmly with the police, as he has foolishly done on cannabis legalization, and against the overwhelming tide of history.

It’s refreshing to see some level of compassion win the day and see the police state taken down, even if it’s only symbolic. New Hampshire hasn’t actually put someone to death since 1939 and though one man is currently in state prison with a death sentence, according to the Washington Post, the state prison system has no plan to acquire any lethal injection drugs.

According to one anonymous state rep, bloodthirsty Republican legislative leadership apparently cranked up political pressure in their attempt to stop more compassionate Republicans from voting along with Democrats to end the insanity of the death penalty. While they were successful in changing some votes to back the governor, they ultimately failed as many Republicans followed their conscience instead of party dictates. The bill first passed the House in March by a vote of 279 to 88, while the House’s veto override passed last week by a closer 247 to 123 vote. In April, the NH Senate voted 17 to 6 to abolish the death penalty while its veto override today passed 16 to 8.

All the New England states now no longer have the death penalty! Kudos to all liberty reps who did the right thing and shame on any who sided with the cop-loving governor.

1 Like

a little less violence from the State :slight_smile:


Not really. The N.H. death penalty hasn’t been used in our lifetime.

Since 1734, twenty-four people have been executed in the state for capital murder, the last in 1939.

I am opposed to sentencing some to life in prison. The state ends up protecting horrible criminals. The victims of crime, or the victims family shouldn’t be prevented from taking revenge.


I don’t think we should seek revenge.

1 Like

You don’t have to.

But why take freedom to seek revenge away from others?

Forcing the victims to pay for room, board and protection of criminals is wrong.

I kinda like what they do in Iran.

In the case of a murder, the victim’s next of kin is allowed to pull the stool out from under the condemned. There have been occasions where the victim’s family pardoned the murderer right at the foot of the gallows. A few times, the person was pardoned and cut down from the gallows after surviving the hanging process.


I am not “taking freedom to seek revenge from others”.
I have just heard that the government is often wrong in their “convictions”, so I am not eager that they wield the sword.


I’m not talking about wrongful convictions. Sometimes there is no question over guilt.

I think next of kin should be allowed to “get even” if that is what they desire.

I don’t think the government should be in the business of protecting criminals from their victims, or the victims family.


If the government stops executing criminals, does that mean protecting them from victims?


there have been people who have been convicted above a reasonable doubt … who are later to be proven innocent of the charge


The government is protecting criminals when it pays guards to protect them.

1 Like

I’m not talking about those cases. Sometimes people admit guilt or there is video tape evidence.

How many innocent people die from automobile accidents each year? If we care about innocent people dying so much, we should ban automobiles.


that seems like an opposite case
I am advocating that the government get out of the execution business … not do anything new.

I am not advocating for more jails and longer incarcerations. I don’t want to pay for any guards.


When people talk about ending the death penalty they always mean replacing it with life in prison. So people who advocate for the end of the death penalty are pushing for more prison capacity.

Personally I think the only use for a prison is death row. If someone is so bad they need to be locked up…someone should take care of that.


I also used to support capital punishment, until I read “The Structure of Liberty”, by libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett. He’s the same law professor who represented our side in the Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Raich, about medical marijuana in California. Barnett’s book is brilliant, and worth reading for many reasons (like the focus on victim-centered justice), but it convinced me that capital punishment is a bad idea on many levels. Blackie, you’d probably like it, as Barnett shares some of your inclinations, if not conclusions.


I had no idea that the veto-override numbers were so close. Kudos indeed to the liberty reps!


It may be a bad idea, but it is better than the alternatives.

First, I feel like we should establish that we are talking about piece of shit violent criminals. People who harm other people.

If you don’t want to kill these people, someone needs to take care of room and board for them. You also have to pay people to protect them. The guards don’t just keep people in, they also keep people out.

You also have to pay for medical treatment. How much medical treatment do you give to someone in prison? Do you let them die of cancer, or fight it?

If you were on a space station or colony on mars there would be no question as to what you do. You don’t use your precious resources to keep horrible violent criminals alive.

I’d rather spend resources on housing and feeding and protecting non-criminals.


Yeah, we get it. That was my thinking about 30 years ago. You’ve got a bit of Dunning-Kruger going on. Read the book. Don’t worry–no one is arguing that criminals should be pampered, or excused for their difficult childhoods.


No, but you are arguing to provide them with room, board, and protection. That is called welfare. Welfare for criminals. I don’t want to give these people anything. I’d rather help lazy people over violent criminals.

Locking someone in jail for life is a waste of precious resources. I wouldn’t choose to use mine that way. Who would ever choose to spend their resources in that way? Parents of violent criminals?

If you want to have a sanctuary for violent criminals, go for it. Pay for it yourself. But you should also take responsibility for anything those violent criminals do if they escape, as if you did it.


I still do not support the government killing people, even if there was a trial and conviction.
I do not support incarceration either.
I do not support the government deciding who gets money.

1 Like

When did I say that? All I said was that we shouldn’t execute them. But your arguments against incarceration would apply equally to non-murderers, so you seem to be suggesting capital punishment for all criminals, or at least all violent ones.