I joined the New Hampshire Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty almost 20 years ago, and since that time I have submitted letters of support for repeal of the death penalty to House and Senate committees, state commissions, my legislators, newspaper editorial pages — wherever people can make their voices heard publicly.
New Hampshire has come close to repeal several times. Just last year we almost succeeded but didn’t because there weren’t the votes to override Gov. Chris Sununu’s veto.
A bill to repeal the death penalty, HB 455, is now before the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. If you support repeal, contact your local representatives and help the bill pass out of committee to go before the entire House for a vote. New Hampshire residents who represent law enforcement, faith communities and the families of murder victims, along with our legislators, will make thoughtful, persuasive arguments in favor of repeal and will rebut the usual tired reasons for holding onto the death penalty. For more information, go to www.nodeathpenaltynh.org to find resources, as well as the documentary of New Hampshire law enforcement veterans speaking out.
I don’t think it should be legal for the state to execute people, period. I am familiar with the data and agree with all the arguments advocates for repeal make concerning deterrence, cost and the like. But for me, the bottom line is that the state should seek justice and ensure public safety. And this can be done without pursuing the death penalty. There is no reason or role for sanctioned killing on the part the state.
We need to repeal the death penalty in New Hampshire this year.
LINDSAY DEARBORN
Lebanon
I am no less opposed to H.57 now that the Vermont House Committee on Human Services has made two changes to the bill.
Because the denial of rights to the “fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus” was not essential to the cause of unrestricted abortion, it could be dropped to appear as a concession to the opposition. The statement of assurance that the bill does not contravene the federal ban on partial-birth abortion is meaningless and condescending. Does the committee believe opponents are ignorant? A bill need not include a statement affirming the primacy of federal law.
If the committee members who voted for this addition to the bill were truly against partial-birth abortion, they would add a statement expressly banning the practice in Vermont. That they did not is telling. Should the federal ban ever be lifted, partial-birth abortion will be legal in Vermont under this legislation.
Don’t be fooled, these legislators have not moved from their original stance. They condone the use of the most barbaric practices against the most helpless victims. Opponents must keep up the outcry against this bill.
The Legislature has the power to ram its progressive agenda down our throats, but we can gag and retch while they do.
HEATHER PEETS
Bradford, Vt.
Regarding the article about the allegations of sexual abuse at Camp Lanakila on Lake Morey (“Abuse inquiry widens at camp,” Feb. 5), the lack of a meaningful response from the Aloha Foundation (then and now, beyond an apology) is stunning and speaks to why sexual abuse is so rampant — people can get away with it.
Sure the #MeToo movement has brought down some celebrities and executives, but that is almost certainly only a small percentage of all the serial offenders out there.
My story and voice would not have been heard unless I was willing to identify myself by name in the newspaper as a victim. This is not an incrimination of the Valley News or its practices but of the extreme societal bias that exists against people who report allegations of sexual abuse.
I firmly support being innocent until proven guilty, and encouraging the anonymous reporting of abuse is not inconsistent with that. Only in such an environment will others come forward.
What John Hall did at Camp Lanakila in the 1980s is only now being fully revealed, even though some at the camp knew about it and failed to respond appropriately. Because of the time that has gone by, there may never be accountability or justice. If there had been a culture of support for victims, anonymous reporting and swift action, then maybe he and offenders like him would not have gotten away with abusing children again and again and again.
ALDEN HALL
Lebanon
As a retired educator, I would like to express my appreciation for two pieces published in the Jan. 20 Sunday Valley News. One, an Opinion column by Steve Nelson, addressed the issue of educating boys in the current atmosphere of empowering women to speak out (“We’re crushing the ‘essential nature’ of boys”).
Nelson suggests that the nature of boys needs to be honored, in order that they grow into responsible adults. I wholeheartedly concur with this. A child’s essential nature needs to be seen and honored creatively, rather than suppressed. This is difficult, as any teacher knows. But it is worth it. I applaud Nelson.
The second, a letter from Keri Gelenian, head of schools at the Rivendell Interstate School District, points out the power of language when considering issues of education (“Education isn’t a ‘delivery system’ ”).
Gelenian makes a strong case for how the use of language shapes our thinking: Education is not a “delivery system” as described by Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, but “a human right with immense power to transform,” as described by Kofi Annan. We do well to watch how our language reflects what we want in our culture.
Bravo to Nelson, Gelenian and the Sunday Valley News for bringing us these inspiring attitudes.
FREDERICA GRAHAM
White River Junction
Claims that registration and the procurement of a license are necessary to drive a car and that these prevent the misuse of autos are patently false (“Register guns just like cars,” Feb. 8). Those requirements are only necessary to drive a car legally. Failure to register a vehicle and operation without a license are common, and the misuse of registered autos by licensed drivers is ubiquitous, often with deadly consequences.
Further, the courts ruled long ago that requiring someone to register a firearm that he isn’t legally allowed to possess is a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s proscription against self-incrimination. In other words, registration would not apply to the very people it is claimed to be aimed at even if it passed muster otherwise.
In the end, gun registration in the U.S. would prove to be an even more colossal waste of time and resources than it has proved to be elsewhere.
ANTHONY STIMSON
Lebanon