AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY
Thank you, Representative O’Flaherty and Senator Creedon.
And thanks to all of the committee members for providing me with an opportunity to testify this morning.
Like each of you, I recognize the strong emotions generated by the debate over capital punishment. I want to express my respect for the principled stands taken by those on both sides of this issue.
This is a subject that I know most people come to with their minds already made up. I don’t pretend that there is going to be some seismic shift in the debate. But I am responding to the concerns of legislators from both parties who have said they could support a death penalty bill if it had the appropriate safeguards.
This is not a new issue for me. Back in the 2002 campaign, I indicated that I would push for passage of the death penalty if elected Governor.
Right now, Massachusetts is one of only twelve states that do not allow a capital punishment sentencing option. Yet, day after day, headlines in the morning papers bring news of senseless killings and murderers who act without remorse. It’s time for [Massachusetts to join the other 38 states, and allow juries to at least consider applying the death penalty in the most extreme circumstances.
From my perspective, there are two main camps when it comes to the death penalty.
On one side, there are some people who believe there are certain crimes that are so offensive.… so reprehensible…. so far beyond the bounds of civilized society that they demand the ultimate punishment.
In the other camp are well-meaning people who believe that it is immoral for government to ever take a life.
In the middle, I believe, are others who could support the death penalty if it is narrowly applied and contains the appropriate safeguards. It is with that group in mind that we have brought forward the death penalty bill before you today.
Last week, we were reminded yet again of the kind of the type of crime that ought to warrant capital punishment. The terrorist bombings in London left at least 52 innocent people dead and another 700 wounded.
Even more unsettling is the fact that those attacks were just the latest in a string of mass murders in cities around the globe —Madrid, New York,Washington, Jakarta, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Mombasa, Istanbul, Baghdad, Bali, and elsewhere.
The appropriate response of society to terrorism carried out around the world or within the Commonwealth’s borders is to apply the death penalty.
That is why the legislation I filed in April accounts for terrorism, along with a small number of other crimes, including the assassination of a law enforcement officer, judge, juror or prosecutor, for the purpose of obstructing an ongoing criminal proceeding.
My legislation would also allow juries to consider the death penalty in cases that involve prolonged torture or multiple murders, as well as cases in which the defendant has already been convicted of first-degree murder or is serving a life sentence without parole.
The Lieutenant Governor will address the issue of deterrence in more detail. I would note, however, that dangerous criminals already serving life sentences need to know that there are further consequences to the taking of innocent human life.
When a convicted killer knows he has nothing to lose, the results can be horrifying. We saw that in the murder last year of John Geoghan, a state prisoner slain by another inmate serving a life sentence. Only the death penalty can provide the extra measure of protection from people who have killed before and will kill again.
Now, I’d like to address some of the arguments raised by opponents of this bill, and deal with them point by point.
The first one relates to cost. Opponents of capital punishment frequently raise the question of financial cost. Personally, I believe this argument misses the point. We can’t quantify the value of deterring a potential murder.
But in some cases, having a death penalty on the books allows for the avoidance of the costs associated with long, drawn-out trials. In Idaho recently, a registered sex offender was accused of kidnapping and abusing a young girl, and killing her family. In that case, there is a chance the defendant will plead guilty in order to avoid the death penalty. Obviously, we don’t know what will happen because the authorities may decide to seek the death penalty because of the heinous nature of the crime.
But we do know for certain that if Idaho didn’t have the death penalty, you remove one of the strongest incentives for a defendant to admit guilt and save public time and expense.
I would also point out that in my view the number of cases prosecuted every year would be minimal. We’d be talking, most likely, about one to two cases annually. This is not an overly burdensome imposition on our court system.
A second criticism relates to the concern that we’d sentence an innocent person to death.
I share that concern. And that’s why I convened a panel of scientists and legal experts to draft this bill, and they have given us over 20 different safeguards, including nine separate layers of review. Among other things, the legislation requires a first-in-the-nation “no doubt” standard for juries. If only one juror has any doubt whatsoever, the sentence is life in prison.
It also requires conclusive scientific evidence linking the defendant to the crime. There have been tremendous strides made in forensic science in recent years. Just as science can free the innocent, it can also identify the guilty.
In order to ensure that is indeed the case, however, we would require an independent scientific review of all physical evidence before any capital sentence is carried out. This review will ensure that evidence is handled and evaluated according to the highest standards of the medical and scientific community.
In addition:
- Under the terms of the bill, prosecutors have to prove that defendants acted with premeditated malice, were at least eighteen years of age at the time of the crime, and were not mentally impaired.
- The bill also calls for two separate trials and juries — one for determining guilt and another for sentencing.
- And there’s a mandatory review by the SJC; a commission to examine any potential complaints or trial errors; and a provision to ensure the best possible defense representation.
A third criticism revolves around the capacity of the State Police Crime Lab.
Some people have indicated that they can’t support a death penalty bill because of the backlog in DNA evidence processing at the Crime Lab.
Every day, the state’s criminal justice system relies on work done at the lab to prosecute hardened criminals for everything from armed robbery to assault and battery to first-degree murder. Nobody has suggested the state should stop prosecuting these crimes simply because there’s a backlog. The penalty we choose to impose in certain cases is irrelevant.
When an agency or an office has problems, we fix the problems. We shouldn’t use them as an excuse to dodge an honest debate on the merits of capital punishment.
Having said that, we’re making dramatic improvements to the Crime Lab. We’ve tripled the number of DNA chemists, from four to twelve, with another twelve currently in training. We’re also going to hire another seventeen DNA chemists in Fiscal Year 2006. That will bring us to a total of 41 chemists… ten times the number at the start of my administration.
We’ve also increased the funding for the Crime Lab from $3.9 million back in 2003 to $12.2 million in Fiscal Year 2006. And we’re planning to expand the total amount of lab space available for DNA analysis to 100,000 square feet. That’s roughly six times the current amount of available space.
There should be no doubt: Massachusetts will have the facilities and personnel to meet the demands of this legislation. We can meet the most stringent evidentiary demands of capital punishment cases.
Finally, some opponents of this bill have raised concerns that the death penalty is both arbitrary and irresponsibly administered.
To address this concern, our bill specifically requires that potential capital cases be reviewed by a set of uniform protocols developed by the District Attorneys and the Attorney General to ensure the proper exercise of discretion and the consistent application of the death penalty across the Commonwealth.
The bill also provides for specific jury instructions relating to problems associated with eye witness testimony, cross-racial identification, and statements by defendants while in police custody.
I know that, in the past, efforts to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts have failed in part due to concerns that it would be too broadly applied, that evidentiary standards weren’t high enough, or proper safeguards weren’t in place.
This bill answers all of those concerns.
I would have complete confidence in any judgment resulting from a judicial process that followed the guidelines of this legislation.
I would also note that, according to Indiana Law Professor Joseph Hoffman, who co-chaired our Death Penalty Commission, several aspects of theMassachusetts proposal have either been adopted, or are now under consideration, in several other states.
- The provision relating to broad appellate review of the merits of a jury’s decision has already been adopted in Illinois. Ohio has a similar provision on the books.
- The provision imposing high standards for the quality and experience of capital defense counsel has been adopted in several states, including New York and Indiana.
- The provision creating a Death Penalty Review Commission has recently been adopted, and is currently in the process of being developed and implemented, in North Carolina.
- And a variation of the provision restricting jury reliance on so-called “jailhouse snitch testimony,” eyewitness testimony, and custodial interrogation testimony has been adopted in Illinois.
Our citizens deserve the protection that a death penalty statute affords them, and a carefully constructed, properly administered capital punishment law is the appropriate and just response to terrorism and other unthinkable crimes. Let’s give our judges and juries the tools to ensure that justice is done.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee this morning.
Share on Facebook
Share This
