New efforts under way to abolish death penalty in Washington
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- An effort to eliminate the death penalty in Washington has support from lawmakers and the families of local murder victims.
Our state has only put to death five people since capital punishment was reinstated in the mid-1970s -- Westley Allan Dodd, Charles Campbell, Jeremy Sagastegui, James Elledge and Cal Brown.
"I've come to believe that no one has the right to take another person's life for whatever reason," said Karil Klingbeil, whose sister Candy Hamming was murdered along with her bank teller partner Twila Kapron by Mitchell Rupe.
And Klingbeil has been a longtime advocate of the death penalty.
Rupe's trials and appeals stretched for 20 years.
"It's horrendous and it piles emotion on emotion each time that we had to hear how Candy died," she said.
After 30 years of supporting the death penalty, Klingbeil now sides with opponents, including the sponsor of a bill to abolish the death penalty, State Sen. Debbie Regala.
"I too had a family member that was murdered," Regala said.
Even thought the death penalty issue has been heard several years at the state legislature, it has never come out on the full floor for a vote. In fact, it's never been voted on in committee. But that could change.
"I think it has a chance," said State Sen. Adam Kline, who chairs the powerful judiciary committee.
But supporters of the death penalty say it's a deterrent to crime, and is useful as a bargaining tool like with Gary Ridgway and Terapon Adhahn who showed police where their victims were after the death penalty was taken off the table.
The Legislature opens its new session on Jan. 14.
Our state has only put to death five people since capital punishment was reinstated in the mid-1970s -- Westley Allan Dodd, Charles Campbell, Jeremy Sagastegui, James Elledge and Cal Brown.
"I've come to believe that no one has the right to take another person's life for whatever reason," said Karil Klingbeil, whose sister Candy Hamming was murdered along with her bank teller partner Twila Kapron by Mitchell Rupe.
And Klingbeil has been a longtime advocate of the death penalty.
Rupe's trials and appeals stretched for 20 years.
"It's horrendous and it piles emotion on emotion each time that we had to hear how Candy died," she said.
After 30 years of supporting the death penalty, Klingbeil now sides with opponents, including the sponsor of a bill to abolish the death penalty, State Sen. Debbie Regala.
"I too had a family member that was murdered," Regala said.
Even thought the death penalty issue has been heard several years at the state legislature, it has never come out on the full floor for a vote. In fact, it's never been voted on in committee. But that could change.
"I think it has a chance," said State Sen. Adam Kline, who chairs the powerful judiciary committee.
But supporters of the death penalty say it's a deterrent to crime, and is useful as a bargaining tool like with Gary Ridgway and Terapon Adhahn who showed police where their victims were after the death penalty was taken off the table.
The Legislature opens its new session on Jan. 14.
r.i.p jayme..this young woman wouldnt have lost her life if our state was more concerned with the safety of d.o.c employees and the general public, instead of treating criminals "humanly".We live in such a "hug a thug" state, being sentenced to prison seems more like a free ride then punishment to me. Why do criminals who are given a mandatory sentence which exceeds their life expectancy locked up, instead of executed?. If Maldonado (theTacoma Mall shooter) who was sentenced to 163yrs was executed instead of being sent to CBCC, he would never had the opportunity to pair up with Kevin Newland and attempt to escape. Mr. Hatt would never had to have shot Newland, changing his life forever. The safety of our corrections employees and general public need to be top priority,unfortunatly the treatment of prisioners is more important then the safety of our society.
 @Cara It's not a good idea to copy and paste on this site, (we know) even if this is something you are having passion about. You will get more respect if you change it up and speak your passion in different ways. Now you look like an idiot that can't think of anything else to put and has no passion for the subject.Â
WHEN CRIMINAL ADMITS TO THE CRIME OR IS CAUGHT RED HANDED THERE IS NO DOUBT OF THEIR GUILT. HANG THEM . INSTEAD OF MAKING SURE THEY ARE TREATED HUMANLY. WHEN MORE THEN LIKLEY THEIR CRIME WAS UN HUMANE
 @Cara Hang them really? No matter what what they have done, you want to hang them? Lets see here if we do that, we will have a bigger domino effect on the crime spree. Kids will grow up with out a parent, will act up and become a criminal, the single parent may end up becoming one to support the family. Sounds like a better idea then to figure out how to help these guys, their kids, and family's. You keep walking around in this world with hate, you will get that in return.Â
Why? So we can pay $75,000 a year to keep them alive. I say keep the death penalty with no more than one appeal.
The pro-life Christian groups obviously are going to support the effort to end the death penalty...right? Â Â
The appeals are what is so expensive. And for those who say it isn't a deterrent, it would be if used more often.
The main issues with the death penalty is that its too expensive, and takes too long. I can understand the cost issue but thats just the nature of an overpriced judicial system. If you want to cut costs, cut salaries. I don't care how long it takes to put someone to death as long as there is 100% proof that the man actually committed the murder. The usual culprits in a wrongful conviction is jurors not fulfilling their obligation to look at the evidence or a prosecutor with holding evidence. If a prosecutor is found to with held evidence in a capital musder case the prosecutor should be tried for murder.
People have been executed by mistake, that is reason enough for abolishing it. A lot of information in this site: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
With the science we have now to prove the criminal did the crime, that is very less likely to happen.
@DDG Tomorrow's science will find today's science's mistakes. What is an acceptable rate of innocent people killed by the government?
So, What? No repercussions for someone like Brian Scherf? Kill as many Correctional Officers and fellow inmates as you like because you've already got life without and they can't do anything more to you? No, humanity requires us to put down rabid dogs and he's no different.
I think we need to institute the opposite, frankly, but I'm perfectly happy with the death penalty being outlawed IF the criminals who deserve it are given life behind bars - no parole ever - instead. The safety of the public should be the main consideration.
And again @Wiilow, do you feel it's OK for inmates that have life without to continue living so that they can kill while in prison? Remember Officer Jayme Biendle? That beautiful young lady who was killed while working in prison? Do you think criminals quit committing crimes just because they're locked up? Grow up.
as a taxpayer, and viewing this problem solely in a fiscal light, incarceration for life is FAR cheaper than years of very expensive, taxpayer-funded appeals.Â
Â
other issues aside, i am all about saving money.
@lazarus eliminate the appeals. If it is without a doubt that somebody murdered someone, why do we have this ardous legal system that gives all the rights to the criminal and none to the victim.Â
@justsayin Agreed. Why is it that with a death sentence you get automatic appeal? Other sentences don't get that.
@justsayin Many innocent people have been executed in the US already and you wnt to eliminate the appeals? Post-humous pardons don't help much either...
unfortunately, if we have a death penalty we must also have the appeals. periodically, new evidence exonerates a condemned criminal; therefore, it is a proven fact that we sometimes make mistakes.
Â
without appeals a death sentence becomes vigilante justice. you can't just say, "oops, we goofed" when you later discover that you've killed the wrong man. if we have a death penalty we must also have the appeals.
If it was used when it should be, which is much more frequently, it would actually deter criminals. Once proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, it should be used within a week. In public. As some other commentators have suggested, hanging would be cool, although I prefer the firing squad. Non of this prolonged B.S.Â
I wish the state would use it more. Make it painful and messy, The state should put it on pay-per-view for the public, and make it manditory viewing for all the so-called "hardened" criminals that are about to get out on parole . That way they have something to think about before they go out and rob a liquor store, or rape the girl next door.
@BobDobbs There are societies like that, please move to Afghanistan if you like that kind of societies.
 @Damian Go sit on your thumbs and spin D. I can express my feelings just as much as all the people who rather see violent criminals live out their unrepenting lives on our dime. I for one, would rather see my tax money go to fixing roads and trimming down the dept than being spent on a hotel for murders.Â
@Damien, it wouldn't if there were limits on the appeals. You're forgetting that most inmates that beat the death sentence through the appeals process beat it on a technicallity of due process and not because they are actually innocent of murder. Oh, they're killers, no doubt, but some judge granted some rich lawyer a reprieve. That's where the costs occur.
@BobDobbs Apparently you don't know death penalty costs you more money than life in prision.
The only problem with the death penalty is we do not use it enough. I'm all for Sunday afternoon hangings on the Courthouse Lawn. Just saying.Â
We should just kill every murderer in the courtroom immediately following the judges decision that they are guilty. Sure would save a ton of money.
It seems to me that the kind of people who we would consider to be candidates for execution are very sick people. Most have taken innocent human life, whether out of compulsion, for a thrill, or because they felt it necessary in order to cover up other crimes.Â
Â
When an animal becomes ill and cannot be treated, we euthanize them. Even our most revered pets are so treated, because we are interested in minimizing their suffering, and in extreme cases like rabies, we destroy the animal to prevent the spread of disease (or to minimize injury to others, if you prefer). If someone does something so heinous that it demonstrates an innate sickness, if they are likely to repeat their behavior, and if there is no possible way to rehabilitate that person out of said condition, then the only humane thing to do is to euthanize them. This should not only apply to murderers, but also violent sex offenders because the truly sickest among these groups cannot be helped, and is the reason why there is a 'Special Commitment Center' containing offenders whom the State is afraid to let loose upon society.Â
Â
I am not advocating cruelty, or bypassing due process. The US has a wonderful Constitution with some great protections to see that justice is done, and Washington State's Constitution is just as protective of its citizens. A just society must defer law enforcement and criminal punishment to the state in order to protect those rights and to prevent wild vigilantism, and while it seems that Washington residents want to take away some law enforcement power in the form of relaxing marijuana laws, but we still must protect ourselves from real criminals.Â
Â
Â
@Damned Redneck Many were executed by mistake: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent Are you OK with that risk?
@Damian --- Yes.
@Damned Redneck Well said!
Agree, disagree, and boo me if you want, but I find a great dichotomy with our laws. On one side heinous criminals who commit violent acts of murder on innocent victims, can get away with living in our legal system for years, all at the taxpayers' expense and lawyers' profit;......YET, a little tiny male sperm and a female egg can unite in the natural sequence of human physiology and become one single cell which divides billions of times to become a new human being. Whether it is 100 cells in three days gestation, or a billion cells after 9 months, it is JUST as alive.....that's biology.
Â
Yet, we have laws that legally allow the murder of THAT innocent life via abortion, while we accept the killing of other viable, loved, needed, outside-the womb victims. Ergo: If a cell can divide, it is just as alive, living and growing, yet invisible inside a female uterus. That, again, is physiology and the natural order.
Â
One life ended is the result of either love, hormonal lust, or rape, but inconvenient or not wanted by human choice, but not usually evil or violent; the other end of life is via desperation, hatred, or evil and is criminal, IF legally proven. BOTH scenarios end up with the death of an innocent being who didn't ask nor deserve death. One side of the law is acceptable, the other is not.
Â
Just say'in....both are innocent victims.
 @Yadayada That is your definition of life. Many people do not share that opinion. Your beliefs shouldn't govern the lives of others.
Â
I believe the doctors that research their whole lives to find that within the legal time limit of abortion, the fetus doesn't have a brain developed enough to feel, and couldn't live on it's own. Something that can't feel or live on it's own doesn't really constitute life.
Â
And, if you are going to say that it will eventually be life, then you must believe that every time someone uses a condom or the birth control pill they are killing a potential life.
 @AndySue28 Like I said, if a cell can divide, it is alive. YOUR definition of life apparently is defined by a brain, not biology. I don't govern the lives of others, as you think. I just think there is a double standard, under our laws.
@AndySue28 You have not put enough study into the ACTUAL IDEA of life. Researchers (many of whom have doctorates) are searching for "life" on Mars and get very excited when they find "Bacteria" and pronounce "life" found on other planets, etc. Apparently the idea of "life" is based on convenience.
@AndySue28 However you want to rationalize it. I am just saying that "your" definition of life is different from how other define life.
 @scared_citizen  @AndySue28 Yeah, and every time a man wears a condom millions of lives (sperm) are lost according to you.
Â
There is a difference between microbial life and human life. We aren't talking about killing a human. We're talking about killing something that has the potential to be human.
 @AndySue28  @Yadayada your logic is flawed in that last part. Life doesn't even have the potential to begin in those situations, so how can it be considered killing?
If the person didn't have years and years of appeals the family of the victim would not be put through the reliving of the loss. The cost for getting rid of the criminal wouldn't be millions  of dollars. Society would be rid of a maggot.
If you do a little research you will find the death penalty is many times more expensive than life in prison without parole.Â
@JT Rope at Home Depot cost about $10.00, and it's reusable. A bullet is even less.Â
@BobDobbs Labor cost to fire said bullet or pull lever for rope would be minimal. We might even have a line of volunteers.
 @scared_citizen The next state lottery SC.
The Death penalty is both stupid and wrong - I was a prison cop and trained all over the State, including Death Row (which was the coldest place I've ever seen). I also knew Ted Bundy. Killing him was said to have cost around 25 million dollars - and that was in 1989! Clearly it would cost even more today and the bottom line is we simply cannot afford it - it's WAY cheaper to keep them alive. In Bundy's case, I think he wanted to be caught and killed to stop himself from his killing spree. Â Furthermore, there was a lot to learn from him about serial killers, not a few of which roam the streets today - every State is thought to have at least one. There was much to be learned from Bundy, information which could have gone far towards finding others like him possibly before they became as prolific as he. Anyone who thinks someone incarcerated in our system for life doesn't suffer - well, I got news for you!
 @Mike Libera They really need to find a way to make the death penalty cheaper. I get that life in prison may be a worse punishment for the criminal than a quick painless death. But, I feel we should focus on reducing their cost on society rather than their punishment.
 @Mike Libera Ive always thought death is too easy for some of them.
Iâm sorry Washington, I voted in favor of R-74 and legalization of recreational weed but I am all in favor for the death sentence if there is undeniable proof that someone intentionally killed someone else. Maybe the family of a victim might choose that they don't want the killer put down, but if it's my family member or loved one that has been murdered, I want the guilty party annihilated. How's that for a bleeding heart bunny lovin' latte sippin' liberal?
Sorry I didn't get back at you earlier @rattles, I was at work. Hope you catch this. You may be a tree huggin' bunny lovin' latte' lappin' liberal, but you aint no bleedin' heart. You're that other kind of liberal. Smiles!
 @rattles Perfect!
States with the death penalty have higher rates of crime. The theory is those who don't value life, don't give a crap about losing their own. It is actually not a deterrent.
@Sonolodo - Oh yes it is! That individual will never murder again. Can you say that if you keep him in prison for the rest of his life?