April 28 MASSACHUSETTS: Romney files bill to bring back capital punishment Gov. Mitt Romney filed a bill Thursday that would bring back capital punishment for people convicted of terrorism, multiple murders and killing law enforcement officers, using conclusive scientific evidence to ensure only the guilty are executed. The Republican governor called the proposal the "gold standard for the death penalty in the modern scientific age." Massachusetts is one of a dozen states without capital punishment, and the state last executed someone in 1947. Several recent efforts to reinstate it have failed, and any death penalty bill faces a tough battle in the Democrat-controlled Legislature. But Romney said his bill should help alleviate the reservations of some lawmakers who were concerned the death penalty would be applied too broadly or that evidence standards weren't high enough or proper safeguards in place. He said his bill answers those concerns. "We believe that the capital punishment bill that we put forward is not only right for Massachusetts, but it's a model for the nation," Romney said at a news conference. "The message that we're trying to send to the people of Massachusetts who think about crime is very clear. If you commit a heinous crime of this nature, the ultimate price will have to be paid by you." Romney also said there was no doubt in his mind that the death penalty is a deterrent and could save lives by preventing crimes. Opponents of capital punishment said it's impossible to craft a foolproof death penalty, citing Illinois, which emptied its death row in 2003 after several inmates were found to be innocent. The governor's bill would limit capital punishment to the "worst of the worst" crimes including terrorism, the murder of police officers, murder involving torture and the killing of witnesses. The bill specifies lethal injection as the method of execution. It includes a series of safeguards he says will prevent the innocent, including a requirement that physical evidence, such as DNA, directly links the defendant to the crime scene. The bill also mandates an additional review of that evidence before a death sentence is imposed, and every death penalty case would have separate juries for the trial and sentencing. Every case would automatically be reviewed by the state's highest court, and a commission would be created to review complaints and investigate errors. Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey said torture is defined as the infliction of pain over an extended time while the victim is conscious. She said that definition could apply to a rape that preceded a murder. State Rep. David Linsky, D-Natick, helped investigate or prosecute 25 murder cases as an assistant district attorney before being elected to the House. He said Romney is overstating the foolproof nature of DNA evidence. "The thought that DNA evidence is a panacea is completely and 100 % wrong. Under the governor's bill innocent people can still be put to death," he said. "DNA evidence is only as good at the human being who is collecting evidence or who is analyzing the evidence." Critics said the millions of dollars it could cost to prosecute death penalty cases would be better spent on fighting crime and law enforcement. They also disputed the notion that the death penalty is a deterrent. They pointed to the case of a Georgia man, Brian Nichols, 33, accused of overpowering a court deputy in March, taking her gun and fatally shooting 3 people, including the judge on his rape case. "Georgia is a death penalty state," said state Rep. Michael Festa, D-Melrose. "The man who committed that crime was not deterred at all by the death penalty." Romney filed his bill nearly a year after a panel he appointed released its recommendations on how to craft foolproof death penalty legislation. But even he has conceded that it might take another horrific crime, like the 1997 murder of 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley, to rally support for the bill among skeptical members of the House and Senate. Curley was abducted from a Cambridge street and killed by 2 men who later got life sentences. Public outrage fueled calls for a death penalty bill that passed easily in the state Senate. But foes defeated it by a single vote in the House. Since then the margin has grown in the House, which defeated another death penalty bill two years later by 80-73 margin. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, D-Boston, has voted against the death penalty in the past. A spokeswoman said his position hasn't changed. A spokesowoman for Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, said he is also opposed to the death penalty but will allow it to go through the committee process. State Rep. Byron Rushing, D-Boston, a member of DiMasi's leadership team, promised the bill would get a full hearing before a legislative committee and would come up for a vote on the floor of the House. (source: Associated Press) IOWA: Death penalty should be discussed at later date -- It wouldn't be the first time the rules have been used to push a point. But whether you think he was playing politics or simply following procedure, Senate Co-president Jack Kibbie's quash of debate over the death penalty was the right thing to do. The murder of 10-year-old Jetseta Gage of Cedar Rapids, allegedly by a convicted sex offender, is still strong in the public's mind. It's understandable that a lawmaker such as Larry McKibben, R-Marshalltown, would raise the issue. Legislators have not debated the death penalty in Iowa in a decade. Events of the day bring the discussion to the fore. But the time to decide is later, when the emotion has subsided. Then, cool heads can prevail. The many issues the death penalty invokes - justice, deterrence, economics and the value of human life - must be calmly and thoroughly considered. Right now, all we know is retribution. The interjection of politics in this particular debate bolsters the case for delay. Democrats accuse McKibben of grandstanding, even exploiting the Gage case. Now Republicans accuse Kibbie of similar designs in wielding the rules against debate. How will the real issues of the death penalty ever be addressed? Only when time has been allowed to separate the heat from the light. (source: Editorial, Ames Tribune)
