That means House Bill 285, sponsored by Rep. Gail Chasey, D-Albuquerque will go to Gov. Bill Richardson for signature.
The governor’s office set up a hotline for getting the opinions of New Mexicans on the issue. That number is 505-476-2225. Those wishing to weigh in via e-mail can do so through the governor’s web site at: http://www.governor.state.nm.us/ and clicking on “Contact the Governor.”
“This is an extremely difficult issue that deserved the serious and thoughtful debate it received in the Legislature,” Richardson said in a prepared statement. “I have met with many people and will continue to consider all sides of the issue before making a decision.”
Richardson must act on the bill within three days after he receives it.
The 24 senators who voted for the bill were all Democrats. Three Democratic senators — Richard Martinez of Española, Tim Jennings of Roswell and John Arthur Smith of Deming — joined the 15 Senate Republicans in opposing the bill.
This was the first time since 2001 the Senate has voted on a death-penalty repeal. Martinez voted for the repeal in 2001, but Sen. Phil Griego, who voted for HB285 voted against the similar bill in 2001.
Kate blogged the roll call HERE
Amnesty International just emailed this:
Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) today welcomed the passage of House Bill 285, which would abolish the death penalty in the state. The human rights organization praised the legislature for voting to eliminate a fatally flawed and costly system, and urged Governor Bill Richardson to allow the bill to become law.
“Abolition of the death penalty is a trend that is destined to continue, and New Mexico will be remembered as a trailblazer and a beacon of hope for everyone who believes in human rights and justice,” said Larry Cox, executive director for AIUSA. “With steps toward abolition being taken across the country, it is clear that Americans are beginning to reject a system that does not prevent violent crime. By supporting this legislation, Gov. Richardson would further burnish his human rights credentials by making New Mexico a true exemplar for other states.”
New Mexico would be the second state in the United States to legislatively abolish the death penalty; New Jersey led the charge when Governor John Corzine signed abolition into law in December 2007. Currently Nebraska, New Hampshire, Kansas, Colorado and Montana are considering a variety of abolition bills.
“From a human rights perspective, there are multiple reasons to abolish the death penalty – but in these hard economic times, there is also a clear budgetary argument to be made for scrapping this system,” said Sue Gunawardena-Vaughn, director of AIUSA’s Death Penalty Abolition Campaign. “According to the Public Defender’s Department the state will save millions of dollars, which can then be applied to genuine crime prevention measures. Retaining the practice does not make any financial sense."
Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots organization with more than 2.2 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries who campaign for human rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public and works to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.
Posts
The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation
ReplyDeleteDudley Sharp, Justice Matters
Some wrongly state that executions are a human rights violation. The human rights violation argument often comes from European leadership and human rights organizations.
The argument is as follows: Life is a fundamental human right. Therefore, taking it away is a fundamental violation of human rights.
Those who say that the death penalty is a human rights violation have no solid moral or philosophical foundation for making such a statement. What opponents of capital punishment really are saying is that they just don't approve of executions.
Certainly, both freedom and life are fundamental human rights. On this, there is virtually no disagreement. However, again, virtually all agree, that freedom may be taken away when there is a violation of the social contract. Freedom, a fundamental human right, may be taken away from those who violate society's laws. So to is the fundamental human right of life forfeit when the violation of the social contract is most grave.
No one disputes that taking freedom away is a different result than taking life away. However, the issue is the incorrect claim that taking away fundamental human rights -- be that freedom or life -- is a human rights violation. It is not. It depends specifically on the circumstances.
How do we know? Because those very same governments and human rights stalwarts, rightly, tell us so. Universally, both governments and human rights organizations approve and encourage taking away the fundamental human right of freedom, as a proper response to some criminal activity.
Why do governments and human rights organizations not condemn just incarceration of criminals as a fundamental human rights violation? Because they think incarceration is just fine.
Why do some of those same groups condemn execution as a human rights violation? Only because they don't like it. They have no moral or philosophical foundation for calling execution a human rights violation.
In the context of criminals violating the social contract, those criminals have voluntarily subjected themselves to the laws of the state. And they have knowingly placed themselves in a position where their fundamental human rights of freedom and life are subject to being forfeit by their actions.
Opinion is only worth the value of its foundation. Those who call execution a human rights violation have no credible foundation for that claim. What they are really saying is "We just don't like it."
copyright 2005-2009 Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
LFC Fiscal Error: Death Penalty Repeal
ReplyDeleteThe Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) made a significant error with regard to the following:
" . . . a recent Duke University study done on North Carolina's costs found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million dollars per execution over a system that imposes life imprisonment." (1)
In fact, life without parole cases are MORE expensive than death penalty cases.
Duke University: Death Penalty Cost Study: Some Reality
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
What the North Carolina study really says is that $2.16 million is the average cost of execution, for all death penalty cases.
For example, if 10 people are sentenced to death and only one of those ten is executed and you roll all of the costs for all of those 10 death penalty cases into that 1 execution, you would get an average cost of $2.16 million per execution. You would also get an average cost of $216, 000 for each one of the death penalty cases.
One could be just as misleading and state that the cost of LWOP is $15 million/case, based upon all costs of 2000 LWOP cases being placed into the 40 lifers that have died (given an average cost of $300, 000/LWOP case, so far, for those 2000 cases.)
In reality (read the Executive Summary) the difference in cost between a murder conviction with a "life" sentence and a death sentence is $163, 000-$250,000. See also paragraph 9 Summing up, page 2.(1)
But in the study, a life sentence is only 20 years. You need to add 20-30 years -- or $500,000 - $750,000/prisoner -- to get a real life sentence. The authors also concede leaving out geriatric care, recently found to be $60,000-$90,000/yr/prisoner.
In other words, what the study actually tells us is that an actual life sentence costs much more than a death sentence.
(1) "The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina"
http://fds.duke.edu/db?attachment-34--1667-view-301
copyright 1998--2009, Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
(1) Fiscal Impact Report, H 285 - Repeal the Death Penalty
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessio ns/09%20Regular/firs/HB0285