More perspectives on Massachusetts death penalty bill
The introduction by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney of a bill to bring capital punishment back to the state (first discussed here, initial commentary here) is already garnering interesting debates. For example, the Boston Herald has weighed in with this editorial which contends “the categories of murder justifying capital punishment in Romney’s bill are too narrowly drawn and the jury’s “no doubt” standard is set ridiculously high.” The Herald also notes in this article that advocates of the death penalty are not too impressed with the proposal:
“It looks like it was written by a criminal defense attorney,” said Mike Paranzino of the pro-death penalty group Throwawaythekey.org. “It is stacked again and again in the killers’ favor and victims are an after-thought. It would be unlikely to ever lead to an execution in Massachusetts.”
Meanwhile, The Republican has expressed its opposition to the bill in this editorial which stresses that “no death penalty is foolproof, even with multiple safeguards in place.” Taking a different approach, I was pleased to see the Blue Mass. Group blog in this post has picked up the theme of costs, which I flagged in my earlier commentary here, asking “is Romney absolutely committed to the vast sums it will cost to provide highly qualified counsel, scientific testing, and all the rest of the bells and whistles this bill promises? And how, exactly, does he plan to do that while cutting taxes?”
I have received a copy of the bill, which comes fronted by an interesting cover letter signed by Gov. Romney. You can download below the bill, and come to your own judgments on its merits.