Oregon lawmakers to consider death penalty repeal
SALEM, Ore. (AP) - Oregon's complicated relationship with capital punishment takes center stage this week as a House committee takes up Gov. John Kitzhaber's plea for a public vote on repealing the death penalty.
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee will hear public testimony on a measure that would ask voters in 2014 whether to insert 10 words in the state constitution: "A sentence of death shall not be imposed or executed."
The proposal doesn't seem likely to go very far, especially after voters in California rejected a similar measure last year.
House Speaker Tina Kotek said she wants to see more evidence the measure could pass in Oregon, although she stopped short of ruling out a 2014 vote.
"I think it was unfortunate that California wasn't successful, and I think that impacted our ability to be successful in the near term," Kotek said.
Rep. Mitch Greenlick, the Portland Democrat sponsoring the measure, said he believes it would pass, and he'd like to see the measure go forward. Kitzhaber told reporters last month that he'd like to see a vote in 2014 even if polling showed the measure was unlikely to pass.
One Republican, Rep. Bob Jenson of Pendleton, has signed on. He said death penalty cases are expensive to try and to appeal, and forensic evidence has proven the innocence of some death row inmates around the country.
"Once you throw the switch, it's impossible to reverse those mistakes," said Jenson said.
In 2011, Kitzhaber issued a temporary reprieve for Gary Haugen, a death row inmate who waived his right to legal appeals and was scheduled to be executed. The governor called for a statewide vote on whether to continue the practice, saying he was morally opposed to capital punishment and was convinced Oregon's death penalty system was broken.
Haugen is now challenging Kitzhaber's reprieve, arguing that the clemency is invalid because he didn't agree to it. A Marion County Circuit Court judge sided with Haugen, and the state Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case next month.
Josh Marquis, the district attorney in Clatsop County and a vocal supporter of the death penalty in the most heinous cases, said the legal requirements to impose the death penalty in Oregon are extremely robust to ensure no innocent or improperly represented inmates are executed. The state spares no expense on defending death penalty cases, he said.
"It is rarely sought by prosecutors in Oregon, and it is even more rarely imposed. And I think that's the way it should be," Marquis said.
Oregon has 37 people on death row.
The state has a complex history with capital punishment. Voters have outlawed it twice and legalized it twice, and the state Supreme Court struck it down once. Voters most-recently legalized the death penalty in 1984, with 56 percent in favor of capital punishment.
Since then, the state has executed two people, both during Kitzhaber's first stint as governor between 1995 and 2003. Both inmates, like Haugen, had volunteered for execution, waiving their appeals, and Kitzhaber said that he'd long regretted his decision not to block them.
"I do not believe that those executions made us safer, and certainly they did not make us nobler as a society," Kitzhaber said in announcing his reprieve for Haugen. "And I simply cannot participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong."
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee will hear public testimony on a measure that would ask voters in 2014 whether to insert 10 words in the state constitution: "A sentence of death shall not be imposed or executed."
The proposal doesn't seem likely to go very far, especially after voters in California rejected a similar measure last year.
House Speaker Tina Kotek said she wants to see more evidence the measure could pass in Oregon, although she stopped short of ruling out a 2014 vote.
"I think it was unfortunate that California wasn't successful, and I think that impacted our ability to be successful in the near term," Kotek said.
Rep. Mitch Greenlick, the Portland Democrat sponsoring the measure, said he believes it would pass, and he'd like to see the measure go forward. Kitzhaber told reporters last month that he'd like to see a vote in 2014 even if polling showed the measure was unlikely to pass.
One Republican, Rep. Bob Jenson of Pendleton, has signed on. He said death penalty cases are expensive to try and to appeal, and forensic evidence has proven the innocence of some death row inmates around the country.
"Once you throw the switch, it's impossible to reverse those mistakes," said Jenson said.
In 2011, Kitzhaber issued a temporary reprieve for Gary Haugen, a death row inmate who waived his right to legal appeals and was scheduled to be executed. The governor called for a statewide vote on whether to continue the practice, saying he was morally opposed to capital punishment and was convinced Oregon's death penalty system was broken.
Haugen is now challenging Kitzhaber's reprieve, arguing that the clemency is invalid because he didn't agree to it. A Marion County Circuit Court judge sided with Haugen, and the state Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case next month.
Josh Marquis, the district attorney in Clatsop County and a vocal supporter of the death penalty in the most heinous cases, said the legal requirements to impose the death penalty in Oregon are extremely robust to ensure no innocent or improperly represented inmates are executed. The state spares no expense on defending death penalty cases, he said.
"It is rarely sought by prosecutors in Oregon, and it is even more rarely imposed. And I think that's the way it should be," Marquis said.
Oregon has 37 people on death row.
The state has a complex history with capital punishment. Voters have outlawed it twice and legalized it twice, and the state Supreme Court struck it down once. Voters most-recently legalized the death penalty in 1984, with 56 percent in favor of capital punishment.
Since then, the state has executed two people, both during Kitzhaber's first stint as governor between 1995 and 2003. Both inmates, like Haugen, had volunteered for execution, waiving their appeals, and Kitzhaber said that he'd long regretted his decision not to block them.
"I do not believe that those executions made us safer, and certainly they did not make us nobler as a society," Kitzhaber said in announcing his reprieve for Haugen. "And I simply cannot participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong."
I'm curious why everyone in this country focuses so much on the concept of "justice" rather than what makes sense for society (before you jump at me, I am not implying the death penalty is or isn't good for society, I'm just commenting on a concept). We have this mentality that the world must be just, that there must be karmic balance and that what comes around goes around. The problem is that no matter how hard we try, the world cannot be shaped to be that way. To believe in a system of justice, we must accept that there is some cosmic force of balance in the universe, and that is how everything is and must be. That in itself is false and impossible.Â
Why do we care so much about justice, then? We do it to maintain our own sense of well-being. We commit a self-serving bias by avoiding feeling vulnerable because we believe haven't done anything to deserve what happens to us. The concept of a just world is created mentally as a psychological protection from the fact that the world is in reality not just and there are things we cannot control. We're in fact bombarded with evidence daily that the world isn't just- people suffer all over the world for no apparent cause. This happens constantly. Believing that there is a balance is irrational, and trying to seek that balance of "what comes around goes around" is what we do to protect ourselves from realities we can't accept, because if we do we then feel like we have no control. The reality is that we have no control. We don't want to accept that.Â
This concept holds true outside of crime, too. Ever see comments here about how the poor are that way because they're lazy? Ever hear someone with a great career say others don't have it because they didn't work as hard as they did? Interestingly, a study done by Harvard and UCLA found that people who have a strong tendency to believe in a just world also tend to be more religious, more authoritarian, more conservative, more likely to admire political leaders and existing social institutions, and more likely to have negative attitudes toward underprivileged groups. To a slightly lesser extent, the believers in a just world tend to feel less of a need to engage in activities to change society or to alleviate plight of social victims. I was able to get along fine in life through my own actions, so why can't everyone else? No such consistency exists in this world, no matter how much anyone wants to believe it does. You don't always get ahead through hard work, and you don't always pay for the bad things you've done. This is true MUCH more often than not, in fact.Â
The whole concept of justice boils down to this:Â humans have a need to bring their beliefs about what is right into conformity with the objective reality they encounter- and they will work to achieve consistency either by modifying their beliefs or attempting to modify that reality (in this case, the death penalty). Seeking justice for the sake of justice is futile. We do it, though, because we need to try to find some way to make sense of the chaos that has befallen us.Â
Just some thoughts.
@jowsuf I think the definition of Justice is skewed. I am Christian, and while I'll not shove my beliefs down your throat, I will say some principles in the Bible are very good. Take the 10 Commandments for example. A law system based around that makes complete sense, especially if you match that with our Constitution and Bill Of Rights. As it is, nothing more, nothing less. It places responsibility on the individual to manage his/her actions and reactions. It makes laws plain and clear, easy for even the most ignorant to understand, and it gives us ALL the Freedom to take necessary precautions for our own security, whatever it is you feel is good for you according to your own beliefs. In OLD America, this was mostly how it was, in the Old West anyway. In spite of all the legendary gunfights and gunslingers, violence was pretty low overall. An armed society is a polite one. That holds some truth.Â
Now, justice is being considered, in this case, whether someone should die for their crimes or not. I find this silly argument. For many, it's perfectly OK to kill an unborn child, but an atrocity to hang a serious criminal. So they want it both ways.... Natural Law says such people can not be allowed in society. If you've got someone out killing, and killing, and killing, they're not going to stop. Ever. Ted Bundy was never going to stop murdering women. Gary Ridgeway, same thing. Charles Manson.... Same. You can't rehabilitate these guys. And it's a waste of money to hold on to them*, so what do you do? Either you give them a set time and release them back to the world, or you have to execute them.Â
You're a Christian? And you advocate killing? Is that what Jesus would recommend? Remember, in the New Testament is says all that is old is passed away. I don't ever remember reading that Jesus advocated killing anyone, and certainly stopped it at least once.
@RevKevVNB That is good news, Rev. We need lots less death and fear around here. Pls pray for peace 3/30 when the Klan rallies in Memphis.
@koffietime the prayer for peace is not a part-time occurrence nor one merely fueled by a single even...
@RevKevVNB This event needs extra prayer, although it is wise to stay prayed-up always.Klan rally and anti-Klan rally http://t.co/jLJ1q1B4A4
@koffietime LOL some more than others...
@RevKevVNB I think we all need special prayer these days, Rev. Glad some pastors are speaking out http://t.co/UNBhm4iIXw
@koffietime it is IMHO it is the individuals who choose to participate for whatever reason are in need of 'special prayer'
A lot of states are moving  in this direction. Still think the death penalty is useful but its just getting too expensive for a death penalty process. I would never be in favor of stream lining the process like Texas has where they have already been found to of killed a couple of innocent people on death row.
Hey, Oregon voters: Â How do you feel about people you elected wanting to favor murderers, however horrific their crimes, over murder victims and their families? Â Does that sound good to you? Â I didn't think so. Â
how about if you commit murder and are found guilty, you get executed with out hesitation, same for child molesters and rapists, if you are proven guilty in a court of law, no appeals, just executed..
@M You're only found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not proven guilty. Are you willing to bet your life on that?
@factchekr might cut down on criminal activity, criminals might actually think twice before doing something illegal if we started an express lane for the death penalty...
@Harley-H.S.C. If criminals know they face the death penalty for horrific murders, why do people still commit horrific murders? The answer is that nobody who commits crimes like these give any consideration to the consequences before they do it. They're not normal, mentally sound individuals making a conscious decision to murder after having weighed the consequences. They're impulsive and mentally disturbed. They don't follow the decision making process you and I follow, which is what you're basing your assumption on.
@factchekr @NBA_Is_Useless well lets take the Gabby Giffords shooter for a second and that whack job from Colorado for example, caught at the scene of the crime on both accounts, should not even waste a tax payer dime on the trials, just take them out back and do away with them or have a public hanging...........
@NBA_Is_Useless @Harley-H.S.C. @M @factchekr Just visit deathpenaltyinfo.org and you can see the by-name list of the 142 people sine 1973 who were on death row and have been exonerted.
@Harley-H.S.C. @NBA_Is_Useless @M @factchekr  So what's the basis for your opinion? Please...share your data and analysis.
@NBA_Is_Useless@M@factchekrMost "experts" are idiots with an opinion, hired by and paid by people that need an "expert" to back their argument. If criminals knew that they would DIE if they were caught committing a crime, you can bet your life they wouldn't do it. Some "new age scientist" spouting rhetoric doesn't make it so. Look at the days of the old west......a LOT less crime, and the ones that DID commit them.......PAID for it.
@M @factchekr Data says otherwise. Most criminology experts agree the deterrence effect of the death penalty is zero.
Yeah sure, let's have one more reason not to dish out any justice to these creeps who have no place in our society.
@Zoso Life in prison. Justice done! Oops, we made a mistake, he's not guilty! Glad we didn't kill him!
@factchekr Yeah that works so well with people like Christopher Monfort, Gary Ridgeway, ect.
Most people do not really have anything against a death penalty, but have real problems with the process. Nobody can guarantee that a person is truly guilty. We find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When playing with a person's life, reasonable doubt is not good enough. Over 115 people have been released from death row in this country because of new evidence that showed them not guilty. This proves the system does not work flawlessly. If you don't kill someone, then you always have the option of letting them go. Once they're dead, they're dead. And for you death loving Christians out there, what would Jesus do? (Stick to the New Testament. Don't go Old Testament on me.)
@factchekr It's all in the evidence. I would think that there are plenty of cases where there is no doubt based on the evidence. But maybe your right..maybe Ted Bundy was executed wrongly. Poor guy.
I don't think the death penalty is used ENOUGH. I say that if you get convicted and sentenced to death, you have ONE appeal you can use. If you lose that appeal then the sentence MUST be carried out within 5 years. Quit dragging out the death sentences for 20+ years.Â
There are many examples of killers that got life without parole that were subsequently paroled and went on to murder again. There is no such thing as guaranteed life without parole.Â
@Goodwin Can you please share some examples of people who got "life without parole" who got paroled? Thanks
@NBA_Is_Useless@Goodwinhttp://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_22351982/despite-two-death-sentences-pinole-killer-serial-rapist
@NBA_Is_Useless @Ankle Biter @Goodwin Now..yes..after he killed again. I would hope so. This wasn't even the case I was looking for either. There was another in California where a guy that was on death row at one point got released and killed two teenage girls.
We can never have a perfect system. The only reason to ever execute someone is to protect the public. I'm not convinced the life without parole can do that because prisons are filling up and state budgets are strained. On the other hand..I feel that it takes some pretty hard evidence to justify death but if that is there and if the public would ever be in endangered by that criminal ever getting out...then flick the switch please.
@Ankle Biter @NBA_Is_Useless @Goodwin Nope.He was given life with a possibility of parole. read your own link next time.
@NBA_Is_Useless @Goodwin how about examples of illegals beating up their girlfriends, going to jail, deported and then make it right back up here again to do the same, once again deported for the second time and make it back up here again, only this he kills her and now he is illegal and rotting in jail  on OUR dime........
Some actions are so heinous that the perpetrator loses any right to life. Does anyone doubt that those who committed 9/11 attacks should be executed? It isn't about safety, it is about justice.
Aw hell. Let's just do away with penalties for crimes altogether. All we're doing is hurting criminal's feelings, and infringing on their rights anyhow, so let's just have our society just open up and welcome them with open arms. Might as well, as there are no real deterrents anyhow, and crime has become a comical circle. Do the crime - sit in jail for a bit - eat good - place to sleep - place to get an education - place with free health care - get released - do another crime ---------- total waste of taxpayer money. Now our darling government wants to try to restrict the methods in which we personally, as law abiding citizens, deal with criminals by trying to interfere with gun ownership? Sounds like they WANT a lawless society that gets out of control to a point of imposing martial law. Think about it, because that's the direction we're heading.
The only problem with the death penalty law is that it's not used often enough, that's the only problem with it. Start using it more often, and crime rates will go down, guaranteed.Â
I think this is a big mistake even if it is not used do not take it off the table. There is no Deterrent at all if it is gone.