New Hampshire Republicans file a bill to expand the death penalty
Current New Hampshire law allows the sentencing of the death penalty for the murder of a police officer or judge, or a murder committed during a drug sale, rape, or kidnapping–currently there is one inmate on death row, Michael Addison for murdering a Manchester police officer at point blank range. But the law is about to change if New Hampshire House Speaker William O’Brien has his way–and it seems increasingly likely that he will. Speaker O’Brien has filed legislation which has been named the Kimberly Cates Bill–also known as the home invasion bill–which would expand the death penalty and apply it to murders which take place during a home invasion.
I am not sure how much airtime the story of Kimberly Cates got around the country–if any–but for those of you who are unfamiliar with the woman for whom this bill is named I will give you a brief summary. But be forewarned, it is extremely despicable and disturbing–you may want to skip the next paragraph.
Back in 2009 a 17 year old named Steven Spader decided that he wanted to know what it felt like to kill somebody and he convinced three of his friends to help him. The four friends randomly picked a house to break into because it was on the end of a secluded road and once inside found Kimberly Cates sleeping alone in her bed–her husband was away on business–so they proceeded to hack her to death with a machete while Kimberly’s 11 year old daughter watched in horror. Once they felt that Kimberly was dead, they proceeded to slice the throat of her 11 year old daughter Jamie and left her for dead. Jamie Cates did not die, she is fully recovered and living at home with her Dad, both of these people live with a burden that one simply cannot comprehend but they have become an inspiration to the community and were named New Hampshire’s Citizens of the Year by the Union Leader.
Steven Spader was found guilty and sentenced to spend the rest of his life in jail, but if this new law was in effect at the time of the murder he would have been eligible to receive the death penalty for his heinous crime.
House Speaker is from Mont Vernon–the town where this horrific crime took place–so I am sure he takes this bill a little more personal than does the average lawmaker.
Back to the bill at hand.
This bill was just filed on Friday and still hasn’t even been assigned a legislative number but Governor Lynch has already stated that he supports expanding the death penalty, and the bill looks certain to make its way easily through the new Republican controlled state legislature. This bill will become law.
But there is another interesting political aspect to this bill and that revolves around the changing political climate in this state and the ramifications of last November’s election. This bill came up for a vote last year while the Democrats still controlled the legislature and it was defeated 201-161. Since that time Republicans picked up 124 House seats, all but assuring the bill’s passage this time around.
But what is even more interesting is Governor Lynch’s seemingly recent conversion to the expansion of the death penalty. Governor Lynch now claims that he supports expanding the death penalty, but last year when the bill was being debated by a much more liberal State House, and he knew that they bill would fail, the governor remained silent on this issue. If he supported it then maybe he could have led his party towards passing the bill–but instead he let his party lead him to the left after he had been claiming to be a moderate for years. The truth is that John Lynch was only a moderate during his first term because the Republicans still had a majority in the legislature and they kept him in the center; once the Democrats took full control we saw John Lynch turn into the liberal we feared he was.
We are pleased he is supportive of our efforts, but it would have been better for the people of New Hampshire if he had expressed this opinion last fall,” said O’Brien. “This bill was in play then and blocked by the Democrats. It will be up again soon, and it’s good to see he has come along with his support. I think this is just another example of the governor coming around to the Republican agenda
I think that statement by the House Speaker sums it all up very nicely. He claimed the governor is coming around to the Republican agenda, but that is not entirely accurate. He can’t say it, but the Republicans now control John Lynch with veto-proof majorities and they are in fact leading John Lynch to the right–John Lynch has no choice but to follow. This is going to be the story on every single issue that pops up in this state over the next two years.
John Lynch is still the governor, but he has no power, he is a GINO (Governor In Name Only), a figurehead. The true power in New Hampshire now lies within the Republican party and Governor Lynch can only come along for the ride.
America's Watchtower 
I think people like the Governor are extremely dangerous because they have not allegiance to any particular creed. They are followers and in the days and times we live in, we don’t need followers.
We are in desperate need of leaders, those who know in their gut what they believe and will follow those convictions with their every last breath, if need be.
LikeLike
I think you are right; the governor has always tried to claim that he was a leader but he allowed himself to be pulled to the left by the liberals even though he claimed he was a moderate.
LikeLike
What New Hampshire ought to do is slit Steven Spader’s throat, publicly, and hack him to death after 5 minutes of gasping for breath. At high noon, on payday after letting any student from high school or college out of class who wants to watch. Had Steven Spader had the idea that actions produce consequences, perhaps he wouldn’t have murdered this woman and attempted to murder her daughter to begin with. He should be treated like the pile of dog crap that he is.
LikeLike
There is a lot that is happening in your State that bodes well for the future. People are getting sick and tired of this nonsense, and what is happening in NH, I hope, will follow elsewhere. I am surprised.. I had thought your State was/had been very Liberal??
LikeLike
We bounce back and forth between Democrat and Republican control. We are usually much more conservative than we have been over the last four years–the last two years were the first time in over 100 years that the Democrats have had control of the House, Senate, and Executive Council as well as the governor, and they pulled us hard left–so it isn’t surprising to me that we are turning more to the right in recent days, it is more of a correction than anything else.
LikeLike
I am surprised at the current restrictions on the death penalty, and it is amazing such a heinous murder as the one you described would not qualify. It is rather absurd.
By the way GINO is a great name, and a bit of an acronymistic double-entendre. =)
LikeLike
I think it fits quite well, and I did think of that double-entendra when I wrote it. 🙂
LikeLike
As it is currently implemented, it is not cost effective to use the death penalty. The cost of life imprisonment is cheaper. Plus, for less clear cut cases, what if the guy is innocent? There was a man in LA who was just released after 30 years because DNA proved he didn’t commit the crime.
LikeLike
Strongly have to disagree with you on this one Harrison, I know all the arguments behind your claim, for example, death penalty cases have guaranteed habeas corpus appeals and so forth, adding to the cost to the state, but for the argument to hold water, we have to assume a 17 year old as used in the example above would file no appeals for the rest of his life? Not to mention, most people don’t just “do the time” often adding to their life sentence because they have nothing to lose. Any crime a lifer commits in prison must have a separate trial, hence more cost to the state, and more appeals and so forth.
LikeLike
At 678, California has the nation’s largest death row population, yet the state has not executed anyone in four years.
But it spends more than $130 million a year on its capital punishment system — housing and prosecuting inmates and coping with an appellate system that has kept some convicted killers waiting for an execution date since the late 1970s.
This is according to a new report that concludes that states are wasting millions on an inefficient death penalty system, diverting scarce funds from other anti-crime and law enforcement programs.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-20/justice/death.penalty_1_death-row-population-suitable-vein-execution?_s=PM:CRIME
Plus some people are later found innocent.
LikeLike
With DNA evidence in today it is highly unlikely that anyone who commits a crime today will be wrongly put to death. DNA evidency eliminates that possibility. For those that have been on death row for years I suppose this is still a possibility, but moving forward I don’t think innocent people will be put to death.
LikeLike
Maybe we shouldn’t use anything California does as an example of efficient government, just saying.
To quote from that article:
“A privately conducted poll of 500 police chiefs released with the report found the death penalty ranked last among their priorities for reducing violent crime. Only 1 percent found it to the best way to achieve that goal.”
No penalty is designed to reduce crime, or it shouldn’t be. A penalty is just that, a punishment for doing something. I direct you to a post I made a while back talking about just this thing – http://fleeceme.net/2010/12/09/are-laws-supposed-to-be-preventative/
And lastly, the economics argument holds no water for one reason, it is totally subjective. I could argue that keeping anyone in prison is economically unfeasible and releasing everyone would save us billions of dollars – does that means it is a good idea? Or life termers should be reduced to 15 years, that would surely save money yes? But then we would have a lot of people pissed off that murderers and rapists were only getting 15 years for their crimes. Same holds true for when we determine the life of a criminal is more important than the victim he murdered when we decide the criminal has the “right” to be kept alive at state expense for the rest of his natural life. The death penalty is about a punishment that re-affirms we cherish the life of the persons he affected – to do less means we think the criminal’s life is more valuable.
LikeLike
Well let’s use Texas then!
The average cost to house an inmate in Texas prisons is $47.50 per day, according to Michelle Lyons, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Thus it would cost about $17,340 to house an inmate for a year and $693,500 for 40 years, far less than even part of the death penalty costs. The regional public defender’s office estimates that just the legal costs for a death penalty case from indictment to execution are $1.2 million. Lubbock County Criminal District Attorney Matt Powell said, “I don’t dispute that it’s more expensive,” but said he never takes cost into account when deciding whether to seek the death penalty.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty-costs-texas-outweigh-life-imprisonment
If the murderer can be assured of never getting out of prison, it is cheaper to keep him locked up for life. Since the death penalty is applied in a small percentage of cases, one could argue that all of the times it’s NOT applied it could send the message that the victim’s life is not worth more than the murderer, right? So either apply it 100% of the time or not at all. After all, if two people are murdered but only one of the murderers gets the death penalty, aren’t you telling the family of the person whose murdered didn’t get the death penalty that they weren’t “worth it”?
LikeLike
Damn, typed an awesome reply that for some damn reason didn’t post. =(
So, to make it short, here is a link to a post I made on this subject – http://fleeceme.net/2010/12/09/are-laws-supposed-to-be-preventative/
LikeLike
Sorry about that, for some reason you got caught in my spam filter, I have approved your comment. If it happens again I will notify akismet and they will be able to solve the problem!
LikeLike
I love your writing and learn much from you. You do a great service to the State of New Hampshire and beyond. I want to thank you for your efforts so that you know it is much appreciated even when you don’t see me posting!
LikeLike
Thank you so much for the very kind words! you can never know how much I appreciate them!
LikeLike
Not sure of the source, but it is difficult to find info for the cost of a life sentence (wonder why that is? hint, hint), but these guys, Heartsandminds.org have some info on costs. Before I quote them, let me say they appear to want to abolish our prison system so…but their numbers suit my argument, so I love these guys, lol.
“Prisons cost taxpayers more than $32 billion a year. Every year that an inmate spends in prison costs $22,000. An individual sentenced to five years for a $300 theft costs the public more than $100,000. The cost of a life term averages $1.5 million.”
Take that Harrison! In yo face! Just kidding, lol. As I said, they don’t really claim a source for these stats, but its a number. And, like I said, its not like dudes in prison for 40 years aren’t allow to appeal. They spend a ton of time in court.
LikeLike
Wow, talk about beating a dead horse (does anyone even care about this discussion?) but I found some interesting things that got me to thinking. Apparently, the claim behind death penalty being more expensive is because apparently the courts go all psycho (as in multiple defense attorneys, multiple pre-trial hearings, etc.) because they want to insure we don’t execute innocent people. I sort of have a problem with that mentality.
Isn’t one tenant of our legal system “equal protection under the law”? Is it fair or equal that some dude who went to town on a family with a machete should be entitled to a more strenuously adjudicated trial than say a person on trial for automotive manslaughter? It almost sounds like if you are on trial for murder, you would get a better defense if the state was going for the death penalty. That is bullcrap in my opinion.
And this was not the way the system was meant to work. This is another one of the hypocrisies that seem to flourish in America. Look, if we are basically going to make the death penalty a non-sentence and a non-issue, then let’s just abolish it, legally, as in, through legislation. But to add all these extra rules to make it not even worth trying to seek that punishment is disingenuous and reeks of judicial activism.
LikeLike