The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted Tuesday to reject proposed legislation which would have effectively ended the death penalty in the state. Had it passed, the proposed law would have set the maximum penalty for capital crimes at life in prison without parole.

he debate was emotionally charged by the recent shooting of a police officer for which his assailant now faces execution. Opponents of the bill said overturning capital punishment so soon after the death of Officer Michael Briggs would be an insult to the state's police officers.

The New Hampshire legislature attempted to repeal the state's death penalty in 2000 and again in 2001, but the first attempt was vetoed by then-Governor Jeanne Shaheen and the second try failed to pass the legislature. Current governor John Lynch has threatened to veto any legislation which would end executions in the state. Eleven US states have recently suspended the death penalty for reconsideration. Most recently, the Montana Senate voted to repeal the practice.

"The criminal actions of this corporation had threatened to turn on the lights on the modern battlefield for our enemies and expose American soldiers to great harm," Brownlee said.

ITT defense-related technical data was given to China, Singapore and the United Kingdom in order to cut costs, government investigators said.

"Placing profits ahead of the security of our nation is simply not acceptable for any corporation," Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Julie Myers said in a statement.

ITT, which Brownlee said is the U.S. military's 12th largest systems supplier, is the first major defense contractor convicted of a criminal violation under the Arms Export Control Act that a Brownlee spokesman said was passed in 1976.

According to the prosecutor, ITT agreed to pay a $2 million criminal fine, forfeit $28 million in illegal proceeds to the U.S. government and pay $20 million to the State Department.

"ITT will pay $50 million in restitution to the victims of their crimes _ the American soldier," Brownlee said.

The fine will be suspended for five years and the White Plains, N.Y.-based company can reduce it dollar-for-dollar by investing in the development and production of more advanced night-vision technology so the U.S. military maintains battlefield advantage.

The government will maintain the rights to any technologies ITT develops and can share them with rival defense firms bidding on future contracts, Brownlee said.

Not so, said Washington attorney Theodore Olson, representing a manufacturer of women's accessories.

The idea that such agreements are automatically illegal is "outdated, misguided" and the restriction itself is anti-competitive, Olson argued.

The case stands at the intersection of discount chains and such niche retailers as Kay's Kloset in Texas, which lowered its prices below an agreed-upon minimum with manufacturer Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. Leegin cut off its shipments to the family owned business when Phil and Kay Smith refused to raise their prices.

Leegin said that by maintaining price consistency among its retailers, stores can offer improved customer service. The extra service, said the manufacturer, enables smaller stores to compete against rival brands sold by bigger cut-rate competitors.

If the old standard is abandoned, what about the argument that every American will pay far more, asked Justice Stephen Breyer.

Representing the Bush administration, Deputy Solicitor General Thomas Hungar said that there is a consensus among economists that such agreements are not necessarily anti-competitive.

Consumers "want other things besides cheap," said Justice Antonin Scalia. Some consumers prefer more service at a higher price, said Scalia, and the fact that such price-floor agreements might raise prices "does not prove anything."

The Smiths successfully sued Leegin, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's finding that Leegin and its retailers agreed to fix retail pric-es on the manufacturer's Bright-on brand.

If Leegin can get the 1911 Supreme Court ruling overturned, it would be much more difficult for the Smiths to prevail because they would have to show that the Leegin agreement is anti-competitive.

Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine announced Monday that he has vetoed five bills promoting the death penalty. House Bill 2750 and House Bill 2347  sought to make the murder of a judge and the murder of a witness in a criminal case, respectively, into capital crimes; Senate Bill 1116 proposed a similar measure. House Bill 2348 and its counterpart Senate Bill 1288 would have made accessories to first degree murder eligible for the death penalty. Kaine acknowledged the seriousness of the targeted offenses but said he did not believe that it was necessary to expand the death penalty "to protect human life or provide for public safety needs."

Kaine, a Democrat and a Roman Catholic, ran his 2005 campaign as an anti-death penalty candidate, but said he would not disrupt the current state laws. Monday's vetoes are expected to be overturned by the predominately Republican Virginia General Assembly during a vote on April 4. Virginia currently has the second-highest number of executions in the US after Texas.

A so-called pandering provision makes it a crime to promote, distribute or solicit material in a way intended to cause others to believe it contains child pornography. It carries a sentence of at least five years in prison.

The Supreme Court in 2002 struck down an earlier version of the law that included computer generated images that appeared to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Congress then adopted new legislation in 2003, which President George W. Bush signed into law, in an effort to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling.

But a U.S. appeals court in Atlanta ruled the law still did not pass constitutional muster and violated guarantees that the government cannot suppress lawful free speech.

The Bush administration told the Supreme Court the ruling interfered with the effort by Congress to suppress the market for child pornography. 

Judge L.T. Senter Jr., rejected grouping claims in one lawsuit because a "sweeping relief," as he called it, would prevent State Farm from meeting the burden of proof of cause because of "possible variations" in claims.

Claimant Judy Guice had sought the class-action grouping, a move objected to by State Farm, the Biloxi Sun Herald said.

The insurance company fought grouping claims for legal purposes and wants to handle each separately. No two owners, it says, had the same type of loss, whether from wind or water or what ratio of each destroyed homes during the storm.