Override the Governor's Veto (Pass the bill despite the veto; needs two thirds in each chamber)
Motion Passed: Overridden in the House 247–123 on a roll call
Debate printed in the permanent journal23 speeches
Good morning. I've heard it said that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but we all wear our seatbelts and we operate machinery safely and we avoid dangerous cliffs because we, in our own lives, act every day and we change our behaviors because we are trying to avoid the death penalty ourselves.…
Rep. Katherine Prudhomme-O'Brien (R - Rock 6)Good morning. I've heard it said that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but we all wear our seatbelts and we operate machinery safely and we avoid dangerous cliffs because we, in our own lives, act every day and we change our behaviors because we are trying to avoid the death penalty ourselves. I've also heard it asked, are we killing people to prove that killing people is wrong? Well there was a man in the North Country who kept a girl in a cage for a number of months and now he is in a cage. So, is this hypocritical to say that we punish people in a just manner? Because this is what we do to create a more just society that is kind. We are a safe state and I am very proud of that, but this was different. If we were a different state and I won't mention them, but if we were a state that abused the death penalty, I would have a different idea about this. The safety of our state may be blinding us to the evil that is around us and blinding us to how common it can be. My hands are shaking as I talk about this, but I felt compelled to do so because during the last debate I sat back there and I was very frustrated. But, I have never had the luxury of living a life not knowing how common evil is. When I was about 7 or 8 years old I survived a serious kidnapping attempt and, in the area where I grew up, a young boy did go missing. There was a pedophile ring. He has never been found. His name was Andy Puglisi. I feel lucky to be alive. I don't think he is. He has been edited out of our world. We do not hear his story. We don't know what his thoughts are on this. When I was a teenager, I was raped. I thought I was going to be killed. When I was in my twenties I could not function because of the PTSD. I could go to work and I could take care of my kid and I could do laundry and I could make dinner. That's all I could do. I joined a rape survivor support group and it was very helpful and very healing. One thing we did was we spoke to convicted sex offenders throughout the state. We visited the state prison. I was happy to do so. All of the men I spoke to were about to be released. I felt it was my duty to speak to these men and tell them what our side of the story was and how it had affected us. Many of them didn't know. I hope that they have gone on to become better members of society, but they all get out. One man that I met was different. He killed a six-year-old boy and was given a life sentence without parole. I was the only one brave enough to ask him very direct questions because I wasn't going to leave there without asking him direct questions because I sensed that he didn't want us to. And, when I asked him how did you get the boy in your car, it was a truck actually. How did you kill him? Why did you kill him? This man's eyes were blue, but they turned black when I was asking him those questions. I don't what that phenomena is, what that medical phenomena is, but evil is real. I didn't know what to do next and how to fight against his release. I called the Governor's office because in her inaugural address she had said that her door was open to citizens with a concern and I thought that was true. Her aide laughed at me. He laughed at me. I was working at a machine shop at the time and I left. If you know anything about the culture working in a machine shop, that's just not done and you get fired for it. I didn't get fired, but I went home and I went to bed for three days. I thought about a lot of things. I felt very alone in the fight to keep that man in prison. I felt like nobody had remembered the little boy that was killed. Nobody in the state. If anybody does remember what I am talking about and does remember this case, I would like for you to tell me that. His name was Kevin and he would be 58 now. I don't think in this state we use the death penalty irresponsibly. I think we apply it with great sobriety. We don't even use it, but one day we may want to. People here who are against the death penalty now, think they are against the death penalty now, they may change their mind, but I don't want that boy's life edited out of our conversation, edited out of our state, edited out of our story and forgotten about, but he has been forgotten about. Just as I suppose I would have been if I had gotten in that car.
Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is not withstanding the Governor's veto of HB 455-FN, should it become law? The Chair recognizes the member from Tamworth, Rep. Ticehurst to speak for the override.
Rep. Susan Ticehurst (D - Carr 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Before I give my remarks, I would like to acknowledge the human urge to seek revenge and feeling compassion for those who are grieving and hurting. I also want to acknowledge the human drive for safety, justice and fairness for all and I have felt all of those myself. Mister Speaker we are often certain of the rightness and righteousness of the decisions we make here. Since the 1800's this body has been making what it believes is the right decision about capital punishment. As I contemplated my own decision, I wondered what people believed was right in even earlier times. I thought about how my eighth-great grandmother's life, well, the end of her life illustrates our human bias to be certain of our rightness. You may not think that you are interested in any granny of mine, but you and every school child have heard her story before. You may not remember her name, but I will remind you, Susannah North Martin, a mother, Christian and outspoken woman. Susannah was accused of a crime and she received a fair trial, well what was considered fair in her time anyway. Multiple witnesses testified against her and her body was examined for evidence. Intelligent and respected men made the best decision they could given what was understood at the time. They were intent upon protecting the safety of the people in their community. They believed in doing justice and they were confident in the rightness and righteousness of their decision. Their decision was to hang Susannah as a witch in Salem on July 19, 1692. Now, we are in a new time but some things remain the same. Intelligent and respected men and women make the best decisions they can about guilt or innocence. They, too, take their duty to protect public safety seriously. They value justice and they are certain of their rightness and righteousness and as in previous times, they are sometimes wrong. Some things are different now. We have scientific tools which provide evidence that intelligent, well intentioned respected people, witnesses, judges, juries, reporters and the public can be mistaken. We know this. Right here in our own Representatives Hall, we have heard first person testimony from people who have been accused of horrific crimes and erroneously given a death sentence just as Susannah North Martin was. These innocent people were later exonerated and they are by no means the only ones. More than 160 have been released from a death sentence with evidence of their innocence and if gathered here today they would fill more than all the seats of divisions one and two or divisions four and five. How long will we go on believing in our own infallibility? How many other innocent people will we allow to be killed in the name of justice? Fellow representatives, we make a lot of rather mundane decisions here and this is not one of them. This is an opportunity to end the centuries old practice of putting innocent people to death. No insignificant act in the course of our history or in one person's own life's work, I'll be casting my vote in honor of the memory of my granny, Susannah North Martin. I ask you to join me in the memory of those that have been falsely convicted and executed in the past and with respect and compassion for those who may follow without our action today. Thank you, Mister Speaker.
Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall HB 455-FN become law? The Chair recognizes the member from Seabrook, Rep. Abramson to speak in support of the override.
Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I speak in favor of HB 455 repealing the death penalty, notwithstanding the Governor's veto. About one third of all inmates in the country either maintain their innocence or accept a lessor role in their crime than what they were serving time for and those rates vary from state to state. Innocence Project found that 57% of those proclaiming innocence could be proven innocent if DNA were available. When new evidence, new admissions, death bed confessions by the real killer or improvements in forensics have become available, over 1,600 people, mostly men and mostly people of color, have been freed from life in prison, including 365 on DNA evidence testing. Kirk Bloodsworth exonerated from death row was here in the State House cafeteria explaining some of the problems that remain with the process, many of which still have not been worked out. He was the first to work out the idea that DNA evidence testing might be used to prove the innocence of so many who are still behind bars. Of those 365, 11% pleaded guilty to crimes that they did not commit, 69% involved eye witness misidentification, 44% involved misapplication of forensic science, 28% involved false confessions, people confessing to crimes that we now know they did not commit, 17% involved informants, many of whom were offered reduced sentences in exchange for testifying. Even in cases where the inmate was behind bars themselves when the crime was committed. Most jurors do not know that forensic experts have been caught lying about material issues, that prosecutors are allowed to target people who they know to be innocent or they are allowed to introduce witnesses whom they know to be lying about the facts of the case. Defense attorneys are not even allowed to discuss the causes of wrongful convictions in other cases in front of the jury, nor mention the criminal records of witnesses or the contradictions that may exist in written police statements. In the Chad Evans case, the only witness against him was the likely real killer, the last person to see the victim alive and many witnesses and photos were kept away from the jury and still have been. At least Chad Evans is still alive so that new biological evidence may be reviewed which could show that he did not kill that baby. However, there have been at least 15 executions over the last 30 years where the experts have found very strong evidence of innocence after the fact. In 1944, 14-year-old George Stinney has recently been found by a judge to have been wrongfully executed 70 years ago after the violations of due process that led to his wrongful conviction. In the Pamela Smart case, we now know that 3 of her jurors were arguing deliberations for acquittal but three others arguing for the conviction were more stubborn, leading to a possible wrongful conviction in her case. Those in my district who know her two accusers say that they are absolutely certain that they both lied to get off on shorter sentences and there are dozens of others in New Hampshire prisons who maintain their innocence or even have new evidence that they cannot get introduced or they cannot get a new hearing. The Innocence Project found that it takes an additional eight years of fighting in court to get people out after they have been proven innocent. I have seen firsthand the corruption, the abuse and the human error of our criminal justice system. The exaggerated claims by forensic experts, the false statements by witnesses and sometimes officers and a prosecutor who admitted away from the jury that she knew from the start that I was acting in self-defense. I have been involved with or seen countless other wrongful conviction cases where prosecutors intentionally stonewalled to keep innocent people behind bars or to keep evidence out. Every generation looks back on the methods and forensics used by the previous generation to convict the accused and we look back on it with shame, then falsely assume that our own forensics and questioning process must be incontrovertible, but John Adams once said, "It is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent should be punished, because the system exists to protect the innocent." Benjamin Franklin said, "Better that 100 guilty men go free." And, in a greater sense, New Hampshire's death penalty law is not applied uniformly. Removing a double standard in the law where someone killing a police officer may get the death penalty, but only life in prison for purposely killing anyone else is a matter of principle. As a republic, by definition, a republic by definition is a system of principle, one in which a uniform set of laws exist for everyone. Should one class of people be given less protection under the law than another? Should one group of inhabitants be punished more severely for virtually the same act?
Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member will yield. Rep. Baldasaro, you may inquire.
Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. I'm glad I saved my question for you because I didn't know whether the last Rep. would have, that came out with all this data would have taken the question, but you come up with all this information on the death penalty on erroneous people that have gotten off and in the last hundred years can you show me where that problem is in New Hampshire? That's what this is about, New Hampshire.
Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)No, I only know of two death penalty cases in New Hampshire in the last hundred years that I am aware of and I don't believe that either one of those were wrongful convictions. I know of lots and lots of wrongful convictions and probable wrongful convictions where people are spending either a year or two behind bars or even spending life in prison behind bars. The same process where people can be wrongfully convicted and sent to prison right now could also be used in a death penalty case and the difference, for my friend from Londonderry, the difference is once you have executed someone, you can't go back with new forensics and change anything.
Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to another question? Before you ask your question Rep. Buchanan, I just want to remind members that when you come to the well and I heard the opening comment by my friend from Londonderry saying what he believed the former speaker would do and not do. We never assign motives in this Chamber to any member on what they potentially do or not do and so I just remind you that when you come up for a question or to speak on the floor, never reference what somebody else may or may not do. Having said that, Rep. Buchanan, you may inquire.
Rep. Ryan Buchanan (D - Merr 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. My question is quite simple. Of the people who have been executed that were found innocent after their death, who was held accountable for their deaths? Did they fry the judge, the executioner, the prosecutors who erroneously presented evidence or the cops who collected the erroneous evidence to make sure those people found justice?
Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)Are you only asking about death penalty cases?
Rep. Ryan Buchanan (D - Merr 15)On death penalty cases, of those who were executed and then found innocent afterwards.
Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)The only one that I referred to in my case where we know with a very high degree of certainty that he was wrongfully executed was the 1944 case. His exoneration didn't come until 70 years later, just very recently, just a few years ago and no there is no way to hold any judge, juror, prosecutor, forensic expert accountable 70 years after the fact. The 30 cases that I referred to over the last 30 years, I am not aware if any of the prosecutors in those death penalty cases were held accountable.
Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall HB 455-FN become law? The Chair recognizes the member from Hudson, Rep. Rice.
Rep. Kimberly Rice (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of sustaining the veto on the repeal of the death penalty. While I voted in support of the repeal in the last vote I found myself asking myself many questions. Mostly I asked myself is this really a New Hampshire issue? Is this a problem in our state? In sustaining the veto, I have time to address other issues that I have concerns about and in going forward I would ask that you press the red button so that New Hampshire can be an example to these other states in how to responsibly use the death penalty. Thank you.
Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall HB 455-FN become law? The Chair recognizes the member from Bedford, Rep. Danielson to speak in support of override.
Rep. David Danielson (R - Hills 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Good Morning. My proposal to you this morning is to ask you to override the veto the Governor has given on the death penalty, HB 455 passed by the House of Representatives and the New Hampshire Senate recently. We are here today because the chief executive of the executive branch opted to veto the vote of the House. As Representatives, we voted at that time if you remember on our conscience. We searched our conscience to say we know some of us agreed that the death penalty should be enforced. We also had folks who agreed that it's difficult to take someone else's life for whatever reason. So, there was a vote at that time of our conscience. The chief executive voted on his conscience. It's his responsibility and he exercised that responsibility. We can't find any fault with that. That is his job. So, we support what he has done as far as his responsibility, however, we don't, at least I don't support the idea of taking someone else's life. I mentioned in my last presentation to you. I mentioned that I was a supporter of the death penalty when I first came up here and that I got a call one time after I was elected. I got a call from a very senior Republican conservative candidate who asked me if I was pro-life. I mentioned that yes of course I was and there are a number of reasons why and he was aware of some of those. I said, of course I am, yes. He asked where are you on the death penalty? I said I support the death penalty, of course. He said, really, how do you reconcile those two positions? As some professors that we may have had in college, that drove me crazy because now I had a question that I had to resolve and I had to think about the values and morality of those decisions. It took me a whole weekend plus another part of a week to try to rationalize why. I couldn't. So, at the end of a period of two weeks, probably, I decided that I was pro-life. That was it. There is no distinction, just how. I am aware of some of the arguments. I am a soldier. I realize some of those arguments, however, in this particular case, I believe we voted, we the House, voted our conscience. Whether you agree with the outcome or not, we all voted our conscience. If you recall at that time I said we can't hold anybody on account on how they voted, because you did it according to your conscience. I feel the same way today and I feel the same way about the Governor's vote. I believe he voted his conscience, exercised his conscience. That's the goodness of all of you and the Governor. We did what we were asked to do. I ask you this morning to please consider again our overwhelming vote to get rid of the death penalty and to vote green to defeat the idea that we won't repeal the death penalty and I thank you very much for your attention. Mister Speaker, I will take no questions.
Speaker ShurtleffThank you. The question before the House is notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall the House pass HB 455-FN. The Chair now recognizes the member from Salem, Rep. Abbas to speak in support of sustaining the veto.
Rep. Daryl AbbasThank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today in support of sustaining the vote and I would like to just start out by acknowledging the extreme sensitivity this subject has and I'm not ashamed to admit that listening to a lot on the subject, I've even lost sleep over it. I also just want to explain to everyone here why I still support sustaining the veto. One of the things I want people to take into consideration is perhaps the unintended consequences of what would occur if we were to abolish the death penalty. Murders can occur while inmates are in custody as well or while serving in prison and if an inmate were to murder a correctional officer while serving a life sentence, that is what I would refer to someone as judgement proof. They are already serving a life sentence and there would be no justice for the victim or the victim's family. I would find that something hard to accept. In New Hampshire, since the late 1930's we have only had three different defendants sentenced to capital punishment and I don't believe two of those were not carried out and at this point in time there is one defendant that is currently on death row. New Hampshire has been very responsible with its application of the death penalty and I understand there are circumstances that have occurred throughout the country in different states, but due to our responsibility and the way our state has handled it, that's a problem that has not shown its face in New Hampshire. Now, one thing that happened in my life that was a little more personal is I was about a block away from Boylston Street when those two bombs went off where three people were killed, hundreds were injured and I believe fourteen people lost limbs. A few days later a police officer was murdered by the same terrorists. They then kidnapped a civilian, engaged in a fire fight with police officers in a residential neighborhood. Now, Massachusetts didn't have a death penalty and what I observed was a lot of people, even people who don't support the death penalty took a backseat to willingly hand this terrorist over to the federal government so he could be prosecuted there so he could face capital punishment. If a terrorist were to actually commit mass murder in this state, I wouldn't want to rely on the federal government to bail us out. I would like to think that this state, we could take care of our own business. As I mentioned this currently one inmate right now is on death row who murdered a police officer who was responding to a domestic disturbance. Although repealing the death penalty wouldn't overturn that sentence, I do know that by abolishing the death penalty, there are certain to be legal arguments made or advocates are going to support that sentence be commuted because of what we vote today. I know from my perspective that I don't believe that is fair to the victim's family. If I know that what we do today is going to be used to try to overturn that sentence and I don't think that is just for that family and it's not fair to that victim. So, I would ask that you take into consideration and sustain the Governor's veto. Thank you.
Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? Rep. Morrison, you may inquire.
Rep. Sean Morrison (R - Rock 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for taking my question. When you were debating this issue in your own mind, were you able to draw a distinction from using pro-life as an example? Were you able to draw a distinction between an innocent fetus or baby and somebody who had actually taken one or more human lives?
Rep. Daryl AbbasI have been asked this question several times and I can certainly appreciate the value that people give towards life. That's one of the reasons why I lost sleep over this vote and I can imagine I'm not the only one. The biggest difference between the pro-life argument and capital punishment is capital punishment there is still, I believe, due process that is administered. In order to face capital punishment, you would have to have a trial, you are convicted by the jurors and then there is a separate vote by those jurors on whether to implement the death penalty. The jurors, who they screen in advance before sitting on the case, in order to sit on the case where they are asking for capital punishment, the juror has to disclose that they support the death penalty. At that point in time, they then can find the defendant guilty, but then have to have a separate unanimous vote to decide whether they should use capital punishment. So, I feel that in a case of someone who is going through the court system, their due process is being satisfied where without getting too much into the pro-life argument, I don't believe that you can make an argument that there has been due process through the court in that regard.
Speaker ShurtleffFollow up question? Will the member yield? You may inquire.
Rep. Sean Morrison (R - Rock 9)Thank you, again. Just real quick. Just to clarify, this is not only regarding police officers, but this is regarding home invasions where perhaps, hypothetically my family got murdered. It's not just for police officers, correct?
Rep. Daryl AbbasThank you. My understanding is that it would also apply to home invasions.
Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to another question? Rep. Flanagan, you may inquire.
Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. I have some skin in this game. I had a great-grandfather that was killed in the line of duty as a police officer and I know the widow of Officer Briggs testified. Do you think it is fair to that family to have the killer of their husband and father commuted to life in jail instead of the death penalty?
Rep. Daryl AbbasI don't believe it is fair at all and I look at it from that perspective if we were to repeal the death penalty and then to be used as an argument or at least a persuasive argument to commute that sentence. That certainly is not fair to Officer Briggs' family and that's one of the things that I struggle with because I don't think it is appropriate to say it's too harsh a penalty to carry out the death penalty with this defendant when that person murdered their family member. Thank you, Mister Speaker.
Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is not withstanding the Governor's veto, shall HB 455-FN become law? The Chair recognizes the member from Kingston, Rep. Welch to speak in support of the override.
Rep. David Welch (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. It is my belief that the vote to repeal the death penalty is and has been a personal vote of one's own conscience. As enshrined in our New Hampshire Constitution, Part I, Article IV, no one can change your mind if you have convictions on the subject matter. When I spoke last March 7th, I explained my reasons for changing my support for the death penalty to supporting its repeal. I also stated my life long support for those law enforcement personnel that put their lives on the line to protect us. My vote and the reasons for it have not changed. I still have intense grief over the passing of my wife and I am sure that the victim's family are experiencing the same feelings of extreme grief. I believe that the loved ones of the perpetrator will also be subject to extreme grief when and if the state executes him. That family is also innocent. The difference is in my case and as well as the victim's family, neither of us could do anything about it. On the other hand, the state has done the deed. I also believe that as legislators we need to be aware that our votes on this subject will be recorded and should not be different from our earlier vote. If they are, those that we represent will know that on this difficult issue we were not consistent. Last March I was encouraged by the vote of 279 in favor to 88 opposed. Today I urge you not to change your vote from the last time and press the green button to override the veto.
Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall HB 455-FN become law? The Chair recognizes the member from Hampstead, Rep. Mark Pearson to speak in support of sustaining the veto.
Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Governor's veto of HB 455. It has taken a lot of thoughts and a lot of prayer for me to come to this position and I wish to explain why I have done so. First as a person of faith and as an ordained minister for the last 44 years and in anticipation of this vote I read and reread scripture in the writings of acclaimed theologians and ethicists. I was an adjunct seminary professor for 16 years so I understand in depth, nuanced arguments and interpretations on difficult issues. While scripture places boundaries on what the state may lawfully do, it does not rule out the death penalty per se. Many Bible scholars believe the commandment, Thou shall not kill, is more accurately rendered Thou shalt do no murder. Second, the New Hampshire version of the death penalty is very narrowly drawn. It is reserved to only the most heinous of crimes. Our death row is not filled with people. The death sentence is not used racially. We will never find the DNA testing will later indicate that we executed an innocent person. Ours is not the death penalty many of us with anger and shame remember from decades ago and is practiced in less enlightened states. There is to me no compelling reason theologically, ethically, morally, socially or practically why at this time we should change our law. Mister Speaker, I urge my friends and colleagues to stand with me in sustaining the Governor's veto.
Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The question before the House. The member on the side here is asking me if the member who just came down to ask a question should have a jacket on. As you know, we have no formal House Rules that have been adopted by this body. We encourage people to dress appropriately as they would being in this hallowed hall. The member's attire is appropriate for this body, but I thank the member from Londonderry for his question. The question before the House is notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall HB 455-FN become law? The Chair recognizes our last speaker, the member from Hampton, Rep. Cushing.
Rep. Robert Renny Cushing (D - Rock 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The first time I stood up in front of this body and asked the House to abolish the death penalty, my five-month-old baby daughter Grace was sitting in her mother's lap, my wife Christy's lap in the front row of the gallery. As the Speaker was preparing to bring up the bill, I looked up at her and in a way, I think that helped me get up out of my seat and speak about capital punishment. The position I was taking at the time was different than the position that my Governor of the same party had about death penalty. My Governor wanted to expand it and I thought we needed to repeal it. I was under, believe it or not, a lot of pressure from some of my colleagues not to speak. I woke up the morning of the vote when the House was to take it up and read in the newspaper a suggestion from one of my Democratic colleagues that I not talk about the death penalty that day. For some reason, I think because my daughter was up there, I realized I thought about my father, her grandfather who she never knew, my father who was murdered. I felt a need to speak and be his voice. While I had fear here on the floor, looking up at her I had hope and decided to follow my hopes instead of my fears. I was happy, well not happy, but after I spoke up in support of repealing the death penalty, I found myself comforted by some interesting colleagues from across the aisle who shared my position on capital punishment. I know from the past 20 years, this has been an issue that has cut across political divides and I think of my friends, like Loren Jean and Bob Rowe and Kathy Souza, Kevin Avard, John Cebrowski. People who have been stalwarts on this and really helped sustain us as we tried to do this important work. I know that I say that to people because I realize that it is a complicated issue and for some people are wrestling with that conflict between, you know, what one's party is doing, what one's leaders are doing. I have to say I have respect for the Governor. I respect the office and I respect him as a person. I'm sure that he, like all of us, has wrestled with this issue of the death penalty and at the end of the day, you just have come to different conclusions about this issue. We will find common ground on other issues, but I would hope that at the end of this day, when we leave this chamber, we are good as friends and colleagues. Five days ago, I watched my once upon a time five-month-old daughter walk across the stage and graduate from college. I could not believe what happened in just a blink of an eye, 22 years had gone by and as I was sitting at the graduation I was remembering the first time I ever had Grace at a graduation ceremony. It was for her first birthday, six months after I first spoke in opposition to the death penalty here, my wife and I took her for her first birthday to Cambridge, Mass along with her sisters to watch Nelson Mandela receive an honorary degree. I had a flashback of holding my daughter in my arms up so she could see Nelson Mandela and something about being in the presence of that man that fills one with awe. It was a guy who knew something about the death penalty because he faced it at one time for inciting opposition to the racist apartheid regime in South Africa. He didn't receive it but he spent 27 years in prison. When he got out, he didn't look back in anger. He had work to do. He had to free a nation from the burden of apartheid. He went on to become President of a new South Africa. A South Africa that as one of its first acts, abolished the death penalty. That afternoon of this ceremony, there was a musical song that was played for him. It was Amazing Grace. Some of you know it. I thought how appropriate that song was for Mandela and perhaps how appropriate that song is for us today. Amazing Grace was written by a man named John Newton, who was a slaver. Somebody who took human beings from the African continent and transported them here to the new world. He was a man by his own admonition responsible for the death of scores of innocent human beings. In a different time in a different place, John Newton would have been strapped on a gurney and a needle put in his arm and poison pumped into him to kill him in retribution for the murders he committed. As fate would have it, that didn't happen. Instead, he went on to have a change of heart and changed his way and became a proponent of abolishing. He spent the rest of his life fighting that evil institution. He wrote a poem and he gave us these words that some of us remember. It was autobiographical, but it applies to everyone. I once was lost, but now I'm found. Was blind, but now I see. That song, as I was holding my daughter Grace, listening to Amazing Grace, being sung for Nelson Mandela really stuck with me last night as I was thinking about what I was going to say today. You know, for 185 years in this chamber we've been talking about the death penalty. Governor Badger walked out from his old office, what used to be in the anteroom in 1834 and brought a message to this body asking us to repeal capital punishment. We certainly know that we've had extensive debate about it. The death penalty doesn't work. It doesn't work for victims. It doesn't work for society and it's time to go. It's time to let that go. Nelson Mandela was once asked what he thought about political leaders, what he thought about politicians who supported the death penalty. In his quiet, thoughtful way, he said, "Political leaders, politicians who support capital punishment have just not fully evolved." My colleagues, I think today is the day that New Hampshire should fully evolve on the issue of capital punishment. I would hope that we could feel the spirit of Amazing Grace enter into this chamber and into our hearts. I would hope we would have the ability finally together to see that New Hampshire can live without the death penalty. Please I respectfully and humbly ask you to vote yes, vote the green button. Thank you.
Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall HB 455-FN become law? A two-thirds vote is required to override any veto and our state constitution requires this be a roll call vote. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall HB 455-FN become law? The Chair recognizes Rep. Hinch for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Richard Hinch (R - Hills 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I believe that New Hampshire has been an example of prudence and responsibility in its application of the death penalty, not having put a single person to death since 1939. And, Mister Speaker, if I believe that all life is precious, but in order to protect life, there must be methods by which our society and our government can deter threats against life. And, Mister Speaker, if I believe our current law serves as a valuable tool to law enforcement and the justice system to achieve justice even if it is rarely applied. And, finally Mister Speaker, if I believe that the families who have been robbed of a loved one through acts of violence deserve every avenue to pursue justice and closure, would I now press the red button to sustain the Governor's veto and continue our state's responsible, civil and rarely used current law? Thank you, Mister Speaker.
Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall HB 455-FN become law? The Chair recognizes Rep. Pantelakos for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Laura Pantelakos (D - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. As Dean of the House if I know that in 40 years in this chamber the issue of the death penalty has consistently been a vote of conscience, rising above the partisanship that seeks to divide us. And, if I know I for one have changed my position on this issue and a former mother-in-law of a slain police officer and a grandmother of a police officer, I can both honor them and vote my conscience against the death penalty. And, if I know that government is inherently flawed and should not have the power to intentionally kill one of our own citizens, risking the execution of an innocent person. And, if I know 279 of us are on record voting our conscience in support of HB 455 just three months ago, would I now vote my conscience by pushing the green button to repeal the death penalty once and for all? Thank you.
Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall HB 455-FN become law? This will be a roll call vote. If you are in favor of having the bill become law, you will press the green button. If you are opposed and wish to sustain the Governor's veto, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all member present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With a vote of 247 Yea and 123 Nay, the bill has passed with the necessary two-thirds vote.