Last spring the New Hampshire Senate and House passed a bill to repeal the death penalty. But Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed it, saying that the death penalty deters criminals and brings justice to the victim’s families.
These arguments are flawed. There are no convincing studies that show the death penalty is a deterrent; in fact, a study by the Death Penalty Information Center shows that murder rates in general, and murder rates of police officers in particular, are higher in states with the death penalty. So it is clearly not protecting our citizens or law enforcement officers.
Second, not all relatives of murder victims support the death penalty; many believe that punishing a killing with another killing is immoral. New Hampshire Rep. Renny Cushing, whose own father was murdered, has worked for years to repeal the death penalty.
A crucial argument against the death penalty is wrongful conviction. Since 1973, more than 160 people have been released from death row when new evidence showed their innocence. Recent data from the National Registry of Exonerations shows the most prevalent causes of wrongful convictions in death penalty cases are official misconduct, perjured testimony or false accusation. When wrongfully convicted people are later found innocent, you can release them from prison, but you can never reverse the mistaken application of the death penalty.
Finally, studies consistently show that pursuing death penalty cases costs the state many times more than cases involving life without parole. This is due to many causes: the need for qualified defense lawyers, a more complex jury selection process, required appeals after conviction, etc. There are too many reports to cite here, but state after state is finding that the cost to taxpayers is huge.
To ensure innocent people are not put to death by the state and to save the enormous costs of prosecuting death penalty cases, please contact your state legislators and urge them to support repeal of the death penalty this year.
Rebecca Powell
Enfield
The episode in Washington, D.C., involving high school students in MAGA hats protesting abortions, epithet-hurling Hebrew Israelites and a native American elder beating a drum in the midst of it all illustrates the complications that emerge when impulsive online communications become “news.” I recall from the 1960s that mini-confrontations like this occurred during many of the demonstrations of that era. These exchanges never became “news” because there was no simple way to record them, no media “platforms” on which to share them, and no cable news channels thirsty for a story that fit their ongoing narrative.
Social media provides an opportunity for everyone to share their innermost thoughts quickly and without any filters. One result of this sharing is a growing appreciation that our initial impulses are often wrong and filters serve a purpose. But restraint is difficult when you begin scrolling through Facebook, and no one wants a world where Facebook or the government decides what you can share.
Social media also provide us with a chance to connect with like-minded individuals. But we are gaining an appreciation that connecting people with similar ideals might not necessarily be beneficial to the well-being of our country or our world. We’ve recently learned that both political parties used social media to promote their candidates in recent elections, and we’ve also learned that ISIS makes extensive use of social media to recruit and retain members. But no one wants a world where Facebook or the government decides what groups are acceptable.
There is no easy way for Facebook or the government to remedy the problems that emerge from the ready access to social media. Our best hope is that print news outlets like the Valley News will continue to point out when viral social media reports and the subsequent “breaking news” stories are wrong or incomplete, and hope that readers seeking a clearer understanding of reality will wait at least one news cycle before jumping to any conclusions.
Wayne Gersen
Etna
There’s a difference between “news” and “stuff on the internet.” We are bombarded with videos of events, that we start commenting on immediately. These videos become news when the backstory is researched and context is discovered. That sometimes takes days.
The confrontation in Washington, D.C., that involved high school students, a group of Hebrew Israelites and a native American drummer was confusing at first and remained so for days after it happened. We all want the narrative to follow our own political bent, but this story shows clearly how jumping to conclusions can backfire.
Go ahead and interpret it in a way that makes you feel comfortable, but when high schoolers, their parents, and their school are threatened with violence, we’ve all had a bad day.
David Cooper
Hartland
Proceedings are being initiated. Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, is legally required to present the evidence. After nearly 20 years, the case for the obvious demolition of the three World Trade Center towers will be presented to a special grand jury.
It would be my opinion that the actual perpetrators of the massive crime demolished this country when they demolished those buildings. We have been in ruins since that horrific day. But what has been covered up will inevitably be uncovered. It can’t be stopped. No other single event more clearly reveals the depth of depravity, violence and deception of those who really have control in this world. People like to pretend that the stories we’re told are true. Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.
Neil Meliment
Hanover