Lawmakers hear hours of testimony as sponsor seeks to make offenses against minors death‑eligible under HB 17‑30

Representative John Sweeney introduced House Bill 17‑30 as an expansion of capital punishment to cover all offenses against minors involving penetration or contact, saying those crimes are so heinous “I firmly do not believe that somebody can commit a crime against a child in the manner defined in this bill and be rehabilitated” and that penalties should include life or, in some cases, death by jury and judge determination.

The committee heard hours of public testimony. Survivors and family members—including Marnia Cushing Page—spoke emotionally against reinstating executions, saying life sentences had provided them closure. “The death penalty is murder, period. It is state‑sanctioned killing,” Page testified. Several clergy and faith leaders, including the Reverend Zachary Harmon, framed opposition in moral terms, warning that executions normalize violence.

Experts and advocates pressed factual and legal concerns. Devin Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, urged the committee to consider constitutional limits and unequal application: the organization argued death‑eligible penalties are applied arbitrarily, risk violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and may reduce reporting by family members who fear exposing relatives to capital prosecution. Chaffee also cited public‑health research that death‑eligibility can suppress reporting in family abuse cases.

Fiscal and practical costs were a recurring theme. Committee members questioned the bill’s fiscal note; during questioning Representative Sher asked whether the stated $7,500,000 figure referred to a per‑case cost. The sponsor said he did not prepare the fiscal note and that actual costs would depend on how many cases reached capital sentencing. Richard Dieter, former executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, summarized state cost studies showing capital systems typically cost millions more than life‑without‑parole systems and that appellate processes can stretch for decades.

Prosecutors and county attorneys warned of statutory consequences beyond sentencing policy. Emily Gorod, a county attorney, said HB 17‑30’s proposed edits would expand the aggravated‑felonious‑sexual‑assault (AFSA) statute to include a wider range of conduct and age groups, potentially sweeping in Romeo‑and‑Juliet cases, increasing felony caseloads, and limiting prosecutorial discretion without intended safeguards. She urged careful drafting to avoid unintended consequences for juvenile and statutory‑consent cases.

Medical and correctional experts also weighed in. A psychiatrist who worked in secure housing said he had seen people subject to life sentences who later became stabilizing influences in prison—and argued that resources might be better spent supporting correctional officers, victim services, and prevention programs than on protracted capital litigation.

Several witnesses urged the committee to consider alternatives: strengthening investigations, faster case processing, better victim services, and prevention measures. ACLU testimony and survivor testimony both argued that life‑without‑parole already provides severe punishment while avoiding irreversible errors and the prolonged appeals that retraumatize victims’ families.

The chair closed the public hearing after extensive testimony and signaled the committee would consider the bill and related measures in executive session and possible subcommittee review.

Ending: The committee heard sustained, emotionally charged testimony spanning constitutional, fiscal, prosecutorial, and victim‑service perspectives. Lawmakers signaled they will examine drafting details, the fiscal note, and practical enforcement consequences before any floor action.