2007
Week 12
March 24, 2007

Hi

The Death Penalty received serious discussion in the legislature this week for the first time in twenty years. Since it is a fascinating study of the legislative process and the best debate example I have seen, I will use it for illustration.

First, similar bills have had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee every two years for over 35 years. A bill to replace the death penalty with a life sentence without parole was put out on the floor and passed about 20 years ago. Governor Thone vetoed it and supporters could not muster the 30 votes for override.

We assume that present committee members are not all supporters, but they felt that, in his last term, Senator Chambers deserved to have a go at it, so they voted it to the floor. After six hours of debate, the measure came one vote short of passing, 24 to 25 with every senator present and voting. More important, the bill was six votes short for an override of the governor's promised veto.

Since it was so close and since amendments would pick up a few votes, the committee reportedly has stripped another bill of its content and put death penalty in for a second run. The amendments that may be considered are to continue death penalty for a crime by a prisoner and to remove the retroactive effect, so that death sentences which are now ordered but not completed could be carried out.

Three amendments were tried during the debate. One changed court procedures and passed. One would have changed the method of execution to lethal injection, in case the courts rule that the electric chair is cruel and usual punishment. Other states have replaced the chair, but lethal injection, which is a cocktail of three chemicals given in sequence, has not worked well in several cases where it was not “quick, sure, painless” as is required. I sought to amend lethal by substituting a firing squad. It is not only quick, sure and painless but it is also cheap, as we already have the equipment. The guillotine is the best alternative, in my mind, as it is guaranteed. But we would have to build one and some complain about it being messy. Hello? We are a bunch of folks in a back room trying to figure out how to kill someone. We have the law on our side, as we make it, so all we discuss at this point is how to do it. If you plan to kill someone it will be messy from someone's point of view. Both amendments were withdrawn in order to vote on the death penalty itself.

That being a summary of strategies, the thinking on both sides -- or several sides -- was carefully detailed in debate.

For the death penalty:
The arguments were mostly emotional. A factual one was “The guy would be dead.” However, with it was “Sometimes the guy is innocent.”

Other statements: people want it as a way to avenge a particularly heinous crime. It could give a family closure, though doubt was expressed due to the long wait. Thoughtful persons would want to avoid the possibility of dying, so might be deterred even in a crime of passion.

Against the death penalty, the arguments tended to relate to statistics:
Is not a deterrent in any study. Increases violent crime rate.
Gang members prefer death to a life sentence, which is quick and sure.
Execution takes up to twenty years, while life in prison begins at arrest.
Costs the state more. Estimate was about $2 million more to execute.
Innocent persons will be executed. Nebraska has done that twice.
Killing is action which angry youth tend to copy.
Minorities are more likely to be executed.
The poor, and lower social class are more likely to be executed.
We do not execute the wealthy, elderly, women, senators, successful, etc.

Adding to the bias in application is that many prosecutors will not charge for the death penalty. Especially in rural communities, it does not get the support of the people. One senator complained about a terrible death of a child, from beatings over several days, without remorse of her father, for wetting herself. The charge was only second degree murder. Pro or con, all agreed the penalty is unevenly applied.

On the emotional side, we want not to kill anyone, not to set the example for our kids of violence toward someone who has hurt us, not to encourage violent persons, not to feed the anger of the down and out.

Religious arguments were mostly opposed to death. The Ten Commandments instruct not to kill. Jesus opposed killing, quoting “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord”-- meaning, it was said, that punishment is up to God, who does not make mistakes.

Lightweight arguments were that those who favor death get a rush and will even party at a killing. Or those against feel sorry for the offender. I receive the comment that I would be impressed by a ‘deathbed’ conversion of an offender. Not. If truly converted, good, but that is God's job. In no way could I evaluate it. The horrific crime stands and does demand punishment in an orderly society. No one said that the person ‘deserved’ to live.

A violent criminal deserves to die, in most cases. I simply do not want to be a party to killing. Every member of the legislature shares in the guilt of the death, no matter how you speak or vote. I believe the same is true for citizens.

A few were curious about details. Nebraska executed a man in 1887 and four years later the ‘victim’ came back to town. Wouldn't you like to know about their relationship? And how was the ‘victim’ successful in setting up the state to kill his adversary? The other probable innocent man was in the early 1900s, when another man, on his deathbed, confessed to the murder.

Stay out of jail. Ummm, change that. Do not do anything that would warrant placing you in jail.

Lowen