RE: PAMELA SMART
New Hampshire Attorney General Argues:
You Don’t Have to Do What’s Right, You Just Have to Do What’s Legal
The message from the state of New Hampshire’s attorney general to the N.H. Supreme Court was simple: You don’t have to do what’s right; you just have to do what’s legal. Yes, that was the message wrapped in a 22-page brief that urges, no, demands that the justices give their tacit blessing to a sham proceeding. Why? Because it’s legal.
Yes, the argument by the AG is simple: Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah – we don’t have to follow any sense of decency. We just need to do what we say is legal, and that means that a prisoner who has served 32 years (so far) on a life sentence is not entitled to a voice.
This filing was done in response to a plea entered on behalf of Pamela Smart – yes, that Pamela Smart, who at age 21 was arrested on conspiracy to kill her husband. The story made headlines that exploded internationally after the killers – two of the three who shared the same jail cell for months – told a story that the girl wanted them to kill her newlywed husband because she loved her dog more, because she loved a teenage heartbeat more, because she wanted to avoid divorce and keep her couch, etc.
There were three movies made (loosely) on the case and multiple books written which took the murderers’ words as gospel. If you watched two of the movies, you would have ordered the death penalty. If you watched the trial and read what wasn’t presented to the jury, you would have a different view, but innocent or guilt is not what is before the courts now. Instead, after enduring 32 years in a state of New York maximum security prison (insert full body shudder here if we wrote all the stories of that facility), now in her 50s, Pamela Smart would like to have the opportunity to present her petition for future possible parole. Many others have had their petitions read (and many have been heard and then denied), but for “she who shall not be named” – the celebrity prisoner – disposed of by the state of New Hampshire to New York three decades ago: No. To the AG and others, Pamela has no rights, no recourse, no appeal for release without the accompaniment of a coffin. She’s too dangerous to society. Even the words Pamela Smart – 32 years later – should not be spoken, whispered, nor acknowledged.
So, the governor and his Council on March 23, 2022 dispensed with Smart’s request in “less than two-and-a-half minutes,” the AG acknowledged (and appeared to say even that was too much time to spend on a prisoner). The name Pamela Smart is not to be mentioned! That case cannot be discussed! Who is she today and what has she done? Blasphemy if spoken!
So, if the AG can find a way in 22 pages to wipe away any sense of morality, any sense of rehabilitation, any sense of any responsibility from the residents of New Hampshire to one of their own, then he will do so, or rather, he has done so.
In short, the AG demands that the justices deny any request to even hear a requested 15-minutes of oral arguments before the court of last resorts.
Smart was shipped off in the dead of night to a New York maximum security prison three decades ago when she was about a year out of college. What danger exists in doing what is right, and allowing 15 minutes after 32 years? Is it possible to do what is legal and what is morally right, in the Live Free or Die State? ♦