House lawmakers send death penalty budget rider to study
~~By: Matt Murphy
~~By: Matt Murphy
In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings and the murder of an M.I.T. police officer, some members of the House on Tuesday pressed to reinstitute the death penalty in Massachusetts, calling on Democratic leaders to allow an up-or-down vote during budget debate.
Rep. James Miceli's bid to attach a death penalty amendment to the fiscal 2014 budget was met immediately by a further amendment from Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty that instead called for an analysis of the costs of reinstating capital punishment in Massachusetts.
The study was approved 119-38, avoiding a direct vote on the death penalty.
Miceli, a Wilmington Democrat, filed the death penalty amendment before last week’s bombings, but still used the events to make his case for capital punishment.
“After we witnessed all of that carnage last week, who could be against a bill like this?” Miceli said, later telling his colleagues to “put your money where your mouth is” and vote to protect the members of law enforcement that have been cheered since the terror attack.
O'Flaherty, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he did not believe it was appropriate to take up the death penalty as part of the budget debate, and vowed to follow through with the study of its costs despite concerns expressed by some representatives that that would never happen. “This is not an issue we are seeking to evade,” O’Flaherty said, arguing that the committee process is a better venue to deliberate over a death penalty bill.
Prior to the floor debate, Miceli led a press conference outside the House chamber to call attention to his amendment to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts for murder cases involving police officers, judges, court witnesses, correction officers and other law enforcement officials.
The amendment mirrors a bill filed in 2005 by then-Gov. Mitt Romney cra,fted by a Blue Ribbon commission and described as the “gold standard” because of featured safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions.
Miceli was joined on Tuesday by Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton), Rep. Geoff Diehl (R-Whitman), Rep. Stephen DiNatale (D-Fithcburg), Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson and Rep. Daniel Winslow, who helped write the Romney bill as the governor’s chief legal counsel.
“I think the speaker should step up and let the membership vote on it without using these parliamentary maneuvers with further amendments and what have you. Who are we protecting? If you’re man enough or woman enough to step up and take a vote yes or no and not worry about being spotlighted,” Miceli said at the press conference, hours before his colleagues derailed his amendment.
Rep. Sheila Harrington, a Groton Republican, spoke out against the O’Flaherty amendment, but also said she opposed the death penalty. Harrington also said she worried her colleagues might be enticed to favor of capital punishment as a “kneejerk reaction” to the April 15 bombings.
“Leave the province of the decision to take a human life to your God,” Harrington said, suggesting the evidence tampering scandals at a state drug lab left her unconvinced that scientific evidence can ever be trusted 100 percent to prove guilt.
Though bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faces federal charges that could carry the death penalty, O’Connell said crimes such as the alleged murder of MIT police officer Sean Collier last Thursday by the bombing suspects could be prosecuted in state courts and not carry the same punishment.
“Justice is served when the punishment fits the crime and the lives of victims should be held in higher regard than the lives of murders,” said O’Connell, arguing that her phone has been “ringing off the hook” since the marathon bombing with calls from constituents inquiring about the death penalty.
Winslow said the narrowly tailored death penalty provisions were “designed to guard against attacks on the system of justice itself.” Miceli expressed confidence that the bill could pass the House if a vote were allowed, but was more skeptical of its chances should it be expanded to include murders of other non-law enforcement victims.
“We have this option on the federal side. We should have the same option on the state side for the same reasons,” Winslow said.
Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson said lawmakers should put aside arguments against the death penalty that it does not serve as a deterrent, suggesting there was a more basic reason for supporting the amendment.
“We know one thing for sure. When that death penalty is carried out, that individual will no longer have the opportunity to hurt anyone else and continue in that vain to try to bring horrific tragedy to so many families,” Hodgson said.
When asked why a life sentence without parole would not accomplish the same goal, Hodgson said the justice system can be imperfect, and sometimes cases can be overturned or murders can kill again behind bars in prison.
The last time the death penalty came close to passing the House was in 1997 when a bill prevailed by a one-vote margin only to be overturned the next day when former Rep. John Slattery, of Peabody, changed his vote.
Since then, support for the death penalty has waned in the overwhelmingly Democratic House.
Rebekah Gewirtz, director of government relations for the Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, said, “Now is not the time for vengeance. It’s a time for healing.” The social workers’ group has long been opposed to the death penalty.
“There is no evidence the death penalty is a deterrent. It hasn’t been shown to be in any state that has it, and it’s important we continue to stand for our values in Massachusetts. We’re for justice,” Gewirtz said.
Rep. Christopher Markey, a former prosecutor and Dartmouth Democrat who sits on Judiciary Committee, said that last session the committee held a hearing on the death penalty bill and others related to abortion rights, restraining orders for pets and the use of gestation crates for farm animals that lasted late into the night.
While dozens of people came to discuss those topics, only Rep. Miceli and “a woman from West Roxbury” showed up to debate the death penalty, he said. “If it was so darn important, where were you?” Markey asked his colleagues.
Rep. Paul Heroux, a freshman Attleboro Democrat, gave his maiden floor speech on the issue. “I probably spent more time in prison than any other person in this room,” said Heroux, a former research director in the Massachusetts Department of Correction and assistant to the commissioner of the Philadelphia Prison System.
“There is no place in society for the horrible crimes that some people do, but the notion that bringing the death penalty to Massachusetts is somehow going to deter police officers from being killed, judges from being killed, it doesn’t add up. If it did, we would see it in other states,” Heroux said.
Heroux mentioned Gov. Michael Dukakis’ infamous answer during a 1988 presidential debate when asked if he would support the death penalty if someone raped and murdered his wife.
Dukakis gave an “insensitive” answer focused facts and figures, Heroux said, adding, “What he failed to mention is that we don’t honor the dead with the death penalty.”
Rep. James Miceli's bid to attach a death penalty amendment to the fiscal 2014 budget was met immediately by a further amendment from Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty that instead called for an analysis of the costs of reinstating capital punishment in Massachusetts.
The study was approved 119-38, avoiding a direct vote on the death penalty.
Miceli, a Wilmington Democrat, filed the death penalty amendment before last week’s bombings, but still used the events to make his case for capital punishment.
“After we witnessed all of that carnage last week, who could be against a bill like this?” Miceli said, later telling his colleagues to “put your money where your mouth is” and vote to protect the members of law enforcement that have been cheered since the terror attack.
O'Flaherty, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he did not believe it was appropriate to take up the death penalty as part of the budget debate, and vowed to follow through with the study of its costs despite concerns expressed by some representatives that that would never happen. “This is not an issue we are seeking to evade,” O’Flaherty said, arguing that the committee process is a better venue to deliberate over a death penalty bill.
Prior to the floor debate, Miceli led a press conference outside the House chamber to call attention to his amendment to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts for murder cases involving police officers, judges, court witnesses, correction officers and other law enforcement officials.
The amendment mirrors a bill filed in 2005 by then-Gov. Mitt Romney cra,fted by a Blue Ribbon commission and described as the “gold standard” because of featured safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions.
Miceli was joined on Tuesday by Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton), Rep. Geoff Diehl (R-Whitman), Rep. Stephen DiNatale (D-Fithcburg), Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson and Rep. Daniel Winslow, who helped write the Romney bill as the governor’s chief legal counsel.
“I think the speaker should step up and let the membership vote on it without using these parliamentary maneuvers with further amendments and what have you. Who are we protecting? If you’re man enough or woman enough to step up and take a vote yes or no and not worry about being spotlighted,” Miceli said at the press conference, hours before his colleagues derailed his amendment.
Rep. Sheila Harrington, a Groton Republican, spoke out against the O’Flaherty amendment, but also said she opposed the death penalty. Harrington also said she worried her colleagues might be enticed to favor of capital punishment as a “kneejerk reaction” to the April 15 bombings.
“Leave the province of the decision to take a human life to your God,” Harrington said, suggesting the evidence tampering scandals at a state drug lab left her unconvinced that scientific evidence can ever be trusted 100 percent to prove guilt.
Though bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faces federal charges that could carry the death penalty, O’Connell said crimes such as the alleged murder of MIT police officer Sean Collier last Thursday by the bombing suspects could be prosecuted in state courts and not carry the same punishment.
“Justice is served when the punishment fits the crime and the lives of victims should be held in higher regard than the lives of murders,” said O’Connell, arguing that her phone has been “ringing off the hook” since the marathon bombing with calls from constituents inquiring about the death penalty.
Winslow said the narrowly tailored death penalty provisions were “designed to guard against attacks on the system of justice itself.” Miceli expressed confidence that the bill could pass the House if a vote were allowed, but was more skeptical of its chances should it be expanded to include murders of other non-law enforcement victims.
“We have this option on the federal side. We should have the same option on the state side for the same reasons,” Winslow said.
Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson said lawmakers should put aside arguments against the death penalty that it does not serve as a deterrent, suggesting there was a more basic reason for supporting the amendment.
“We know one thing for sure. When that death penalty is carried out, that individual will no longer have the opportunity to hurt anyone else and continue in that vain to try to bring horrific tragedy to so many families,” Hodgson said.
When asked why a life sentence without parole would not accomplish the same goal, Hodgson said the justice system can be imperfect, and sometimes cases can be overturned or murders can kill again behind bars in prison.
The last time the death penalty came close to passing the House was in 1997 when a bill prevailed by a one-vote margin only to be overturned the next day when former Rep. John Slattery, of Peabody, changed his vote.
Since then, support for the death penalty has waned in the overwhelmingly Democratic House.
Rebekah Gewirtz, director of government relations for the Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, said, “Now is not the time for vengeance. It’s a time for healing.” The social workers’ group has long been opposed to the death penalty.
“There is no evidence the death penalty is a deterrent. It hasn’t been shown to be in any state that has it, and it’s important we continue to stand for our values in Massachusetts. We’re for justice,” Gewirtz said.
Rep. Christopher Markey, a former prosecutor and Dartmouth Democrat who sits on Judiciary Committee, said that last session the committee held a hearing on the death penalty bill and others related to abortion rights, restraining orders for pets and the use of gestation crates for farm animals that lasted late into the night.
While dozens of people came to discuss those topics, only Rep. Miceli and “a woman from West Roxbury” showed up to debate the death penalty, he said. “If it was so darn important, where were you?” Markey asked his colleagues.
Rep. Paul Heroux, a freshman Attleboro Democrat, gave his maiden floor speech on the issue. “I probably spent more time in prison than any other person in this room,” said Heroux, a former research director in the Massachusetts Department of Correction and assistant to the commissioner of the Philadelphia Prison System.
“There is no place in society for the horrible crimes that some people do, but the notion that bringing the death penalty to Massachusetts is somehow going to deter police officers from being killed, judges from being killed, it doesn’t add up. If it did, we would see it in other states,” Heroux said.
Heroux mentioned Gov. Michael Dukakis’ infamous answer during a 1988 presidential debate when asked if he would support the death penalty if someone raped and murdered his wife.
Dukakis gave an “insensitive” answer focused facts and figures, Heroux said, adding, “What he failed to mention is that we don’t honor the dead with the death penalty.”
Courtesy: Boston Herald.com
