Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Massachusetts Capital Punishment History

  1. #1
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217

    Massachusetts Capital Punishment History

    The Death Penalty in Massachusetts Facts and History

    There currently is no state death penalty in Massachusetts, life without the possibilty of parole being the only punishment for first-degree murder. The federal government prosecutes capital cases within Massachusetts, however.

    On November 7, 2007, House lawmakers again overwhelmingly rejected a bill to reinstate the death penalty by a vote of 46 - 110. Two years earlier in 2005, the House defeated Governor Romney's legislation 53 - 100. Continue reading for a full Massachusetts history.


    The first recorded judicial exection in Massachusetts took place in 1630, when John Billington, who had arrived on the Mayflower, was hanged at Plymouth for the murder of John Newcomen. The last executions were on May 9, 1947 when Phillip Bellino and Edward Gertson, both convicted of murdering Robert William, were electrocuted at Charlestown State Prison. In total, there have been approximately 345 executions within Massacusetts, including 26 convicted of practicing witchcraft.

    Until 1951, murder in the first degree called for a mandatory punishment of death. In 1951, the law was changed to allow the jury the discretion to recommend against a death sentence after considering mitigating circumstances - in which case the sentence would be life imprisonment - unless the murder was committed in connection with a rape or attempted rape, in which case the death sentence was mandatory.

    Following the executions of Bellino and Gertson, people continued to be sentenced to death, however for thirty years six successive governors routinely granted commutations to life sentences. In 1968, voters expressed disapproval with this trend in a nonbinding referendum, voting 49 to 31 percent in support of continued use of the death penalty.

    During the 1970's and 80's, a series of judicial rulings eventually eliminated the death penalty altogether under Massachusetts law:


    * In 1972, the US Supreme Court decision of Furman v. Georgia, threw out Georgia's death penalty as cruel and unusual, citing the arbitrary and capricious manner in which it was administered, and leading to capital statutes throughout the country being overturned. For Massachusetts, this meant that the discretionary death penalty for murder was nullified, but the mandatory death penalty for rape-murder was left intact for the time being (Cf. Commonwealth v. Harrington, 1975).

    * In a 1975 case requiring two separate hearings before the Supreme Judicial Court (Commonwealth v. O'Neal parts I and II), the remaining rape-murder law was voided on the principle that the right to life is fundamental and due process requires that the state bears the burden to demonstrate a compelling interest in execution that could not be served by any less restrictive means (such as life imprisonment). The court concluded that the Commonwealth had not provided adequate justification for capital punishment, and the statute thus violated both the due process and the prohibition of cruel or unusual punishment provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution.

    * In 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled in Gregg v. Georgia that Georgia's revised capital murder statute contained sufficient safeguards to ensure due process and correct the shortcomings that the court had found in Furman. Following the guidelines in Gregg, legislatures around the country began rewriting their death penalty laws.

    * In 1977, the Massachusetts House of Representatives solicited an opinion from the SJC regarding the constitutionality of a proposed capital murder statute. Holding the same view as expressed in O'Neal, the SJC ruled that the Legislature failed to demonstrate that the death penalty contributes more to a legitimate state purpose — e.g., deterring criminal conduct — than life imprisonment. And lacking such a showing, the Article 26 (of the Declaration of Rights) prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment forbids the imposition of a death penalty. read more

    * On October 28, 1980, the SJC ruled in District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. v. Watson that a new capital statute signed into law by Governor Edward King the previous November (c. 488, Acts of 1979) was unconstitutionally cruel for all the reasons laid out in O'Neal and their opinion of the proposed 1977 bill. read more

    On November 2, 1982, voters approved by referendum (54 to 35 percent) an amendment to Article 26. read more The amendment, Article 116 of the Massachusetts Constitution, states that:
    No provision of the Constitution... shall be construed as prohibiting the imposition of the punishment of death.

    This completed the amendment process which had been initiated in 1980 by legislators concerned that their 1979 statute might not survive SJC scrutiny (which it didn't). read more

    The legislature acted quickly to draft another new death penalty bill. On December 15, 1982, the House and Senate passed legislation providing for capital punishment for first-degree murder. The bill was signed into law (c. 554, Acts of 1982) a week later by Governor King and went into effect on January 1. read more

    This 1982 statute was invalidated by the SJC on October 18, 1984 in the case of Commonwealth v. Colon-Cruz. While the death penalty per se was no longer forbidden by the Constitution, this particular statute improperly encouraged defendants in murder cases to plead guilty rather than face a jury trial, thus avoiding the possibility of the death sentence, and violating the right against self-incrimination and the right to trial by jury. Massachusetts has remained without a valid death penalty law ever since. read more


    Subsequent attempts to reinstate the death penalty have failed:


    * By the time of the Colon-Cruz decision, Michael Dukakis had become governor (again). Throughout these two terms, a nearly evenly divided legislature never passed a bill - which the governor would have certainly vetoed.

    * In 1991, William Weld became governor. He, and every governor since, argued for for death penalty reinstatement.

    * In October 1997, both the House and Senate passed bills to reinstate the death penalty. On November 6, the conference committee bill failed on a tie vote (80-80) in the House after a single legislator switched his position. read more

    * An attempt to reinstate the death penalty failed on a 73-80 vote in the House on March 29, 1999. read more

    * On March 12, 2001, reinstatement bills were rejected in the House with a vote of 60-94. read more

    * Four bills which would reinstate the death penalty were introduced in the 2003-2004 legislative session; hearings were held on March 27, 2003 at which only oppponents of the bills appeared to give testimony, and no vote was ever taken. read more

    * Confronted with a growing number of wrongful murder convictions in Massachusetts as well as in other states, and looking back on the failed attempts of two previous governors to reinstate the death penalty, Governor Romney established a blue-ribbon comission to address legislators' concerns over innocence. On May 3, 2004, the Governor's Council on Capital Punishment issued their Final Report, with recommendations for creating a system "as infallible as humanly possible." Legislation based on these recommendations was finally filed on April 28, 2005, but defeated in the House on November 15 on a vote of 53-100. read more

    * On November 7, 2007, House lawmakers again overwhelmingly rejected a bill to reinstate the death penalty by a vote of 46-110. The vote effectively killed any chance of the bill becoming law for the 2007 session. See the AP article here.

  2. #2
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Romney proposed 'foolproof' death penalty in Mass.

    As Massachusetts governor, Republican Mitt Romney set himself a daunting challenge: craft a death penalty law that virtually guaranteed only the guilty could be executed, then push it through an overwhelmingly Democratic state Legislature that was leery of capital punishment.

    Making the task even more difficult, the push by Romney — who is now running for president — came in 2005 at a time of growing national skepticism about the death penalty. Just two years earlier, Illinois Gov. George Ryan had cleared his state's death row after the death sentences of several inmates had been overturned.

    Romney decided to tackle that skepticism by coming up with what he said would be a "gold standard for the death penalty in the modern scientific age."

    In trying to set a new and higher bar, Romney also was chasing two political goals.

    The first was to fulfill a promise, made during his 2002 run for governor, to try to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts, then one of a dozen states that had banned the punishment. The second was to burnish his conservative resume as he looked ahead to 2008 and his first run for president.

    "We believe that the capital punishment bill that we put forward is not only right for Massachusetts, but it's a model for the nation," Romney said at the time, in comments similar to what he said about his overhaul of the state health insurance system. That law became a blueprint for the sweeping federal health care overhaul enacted by President Barack Obama, which has become an issue in the White House race.

    Romney's handling of the death penalty issue opened a window into the type of management style he could bring to the White House if elected. He hand-picked a commission and outlined his goals in broad terms. Then he turned the panel's recommendations into a bill that ultimately failed to get through the Legislature. But his decision to fight an uphill battle on an issue that had begun to lose its urgency also showed Romney wasn't afraid of a political fight.

    His first step was to pull together a panel of legal scholars, prosecutors, crime lab officials, a medical geneticist and criminologist Henry Lee, who played a key role in the O.J. Simpson murder trial and other highly publicized cases.

    One of those heading up the panel was Joseph Hoffmann, a law professor at Indiana University's Maurer School of Law. Hoffman said Romney gave the group a free hand, but suggested they focus on harnessing "the power of science" to improve on death penalty laws in other states.

    "He said 'this is completely up to you.' We were given an amazing amount of discretion and leeway," Hoffman said. "He wanted us to be free to discuss this, talk about it and propose any ideas, any improvement, any processes that would make this the best death penalty anyone had ever proposed."

    The bill Romney filed adopted many of the panel's recommendations.

    It limited capital punishment to the "worst of the worst" crimes — including terrorism, the murder of police officers, murder involving torture and the killing of witnesses — and required a "no doubt" standard of guilt.

    It outlined a series of safeguards, including a requirement that physical evidence, such as DNA, directly link the defendant to the crime scene. Lethal injection was the specified method of execution. The bill also mandated an additional review of evidence before an execution could be carried out. Every death penalty case would have separate juries for trial and sentencing.

    Part of Massachusetts' reluctance to impose death sentences comes from its rocky history with the penalty.

    One of the most controversial cases involved the executions of Italian immigrants Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, who were put to death in 1927 after being convicted of killing two people during a robbery. Many observers, then and now, say the trial focused unfairly on their anarchist political beliefs and immigrant status.

    The state abolished capital punishment in 1984.

    By the time Romney took office in 2003, Massachusetts hadn't put anyone to death since 1947, although it had come within a single vote of restoring the death penalty after the 1997 kidnapping and murder of a 10-year-old boy.

    But by 2005, lawmakers had again begun to turn away from the death penalty. Some cited human error and prejudice among reasons to steer clear of reinstating it.

    "Errors have been made and will continue to be made," Rep. John Keenan, a Democrat and descendant of one of the victims of the Salem witch trials, said during debate over the bill.

    Even Romney conceded the possibility of human fallibility during a public hearing on the measure.

    "A 100 percent guarantee? I don't think there's such a thing in life. Except perhaps death — for all of us," Romney said, although he described the proposal "as foolproof a death penalty as exists."

    Others saw political motives in Romney's efforts.

    "There was no way the Massachusetts Legislature was going to pass a death penalty bill," state Rep. David Linsky, a Democrat who opposed Romney's bill and had helped investigate or prosecute about 25 murder cases as an assistant district attorney, said in an interview. "It was all about setting up his future conservative credentials outside Massachusetts."

    Others, including many Republican and moderate Democrats backed the measure, however. But the bill was defeated on a 99-to-53 vote in the House after more than four hours of impassioned debate.

    Not all the criticism of Romney's proposal came from death penalty foes.

    Some conservatives said his plan was so narrowly drawn and had so many layers of safeguards that it would be virtually impossible to carry out an execution under it.

    Now running for president a second time, Romney hasn't spent time touting the death penalty proposal. He prefers to focus the debate on the issue his campaign believes offers him the best chance of winning in November: the economy.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...9a9e652082bd66
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  3. #3
    Banned TheKindExecutioner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,277
    I'm socially liberal and realize religion is mythology but I'm as pro DP as they get!

  4. #4
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    This day in history: August 23, 1927

    On Aug. 23, 1927, Italian-American anarchists Ferdinando Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were put to death in the electric chair at Charlestown state prison in Boston, Mass.

    Their execution ended years of controversial trials and appeals over the innocence or guilt of the radicals, who many people believe were framed.

    The case was an international sensation. The Vancouver Sun ran an illustration recounting significant dates in the case on the front page, along with a story detailing their execution. Sacco's last words were "Long live anarchy!," while Vanzetti said, "I am an innocent man." He probably was, although Sacco might have been involved in the April 15, 1920, robbery where 2 people were murdered.

    The Boston police speculated the robbery and killings were the work of local Italian anarchists. Neither Sacco or Vanzetti had a criminal record, but they were well known to police for their radical politics.

    Both were followers of Luigi Galleani, whose supporters were believed to be behind a wave of bombings that followed his deportation from the United States to Italy in 1919.

    Before their murder trial began, Sacco was charged and convicted of another robbery, in spite of having an alibi supported by several witnesses. But the witnesses were Italian, and many had to testify through an interpreter, which failed to convince the jury.

    The judge in the robbery case was Webster Thayer, who would also preside over the murder case and subsequent appeals. Thayer had given a speech attacking Bolshevism and anarchism in 1920, and he was so openly hostile to Sacco and Vanzetti and their lawyers a Boston Globe reporter wrote a letter of protest to the Massachusetts attorney-general.

    On July 21, 1921, both Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of 1st-degree murder. Several years of legal manoeuvring followed, but all appeals were fruitless, even though another man confessed to the robbery and murder. Shortly after midnight on Aug. 23, 1927, they were executed.

    (source: Vancouver Sun)
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  5. #5
    Banned TheKindExecutioner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,277
    Heidi, I was reading how in the 90s Mass. came within 1 vote of the DP when a 10 year old boy was killed!

  6. #6
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Quote Originally Posted by TheKindExecutioner View Post
    Heidi, I was reading how in the 90s Mass. came within 1 vote of the DP when a 10 year old boy was killed!
    Yeah, here is an article on that.

    By Associated Press, Published: August 22

    Mass. man convicted of killing 10-year-old boy wants to change his name for religious reasons

    A Massachusetts man convicted of abducting, molesting and killing a 10-year-old boy has asked a court to let him change his name to Manasseh-Invictus Auric Thutmose V because of his conversion to Wiccanism.

    Charles Jaynes, 37, listed his reason for changing his name as “Wiccan religious tennet,” on the petition filed with Plymouth Probate Court in June. He lists his address as the Old Colony Correctional Center in Bridgewater and his occupation as inmate.


    Jaynes is serving a life sentence for the 1997 slaying of Jeffrey Curley. He and another man lured Jeffrey into a car with the promise of a new bike.

    Robert Curley, Jeffrey’s father, said he may exercise his legal right to object to the name change.

    “It doesn’t matter what his name is,” Curley told The Enterprise of Brockton (http://bit.ly/PCjDr1). “Nothing will change what he has done, so I think Charles Jaynes is the name he should be stuck with.”

    Prosecutors say Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari smothered the boy with a gasoline-soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances. The boy’s body was found in a weighed-down plastic container in a Maine river several days later.

    Jaynes and Sicari were tried separately and blamed each other for the boy’s killing. Jaynes, of Brockton and Manchester, N.H., was convicted of second-degree murder and kidnapping. Sicari, of Cambridge, was convicted of first-degree murder.

    The high-profile case prompted talk of restoring the death penalty in Massachusetts.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...425_story.html
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •