Now
Fair
32°
High
33°
Low
26°

Legislators reject death penalty change

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By JoANNE YOUNG / Lincoln Journal Star

Thursday, Apr 12, 2007 - 07:32:44 pm CDT

Omaha Sen. Brad Ashford believed supporters of a bill that would change how the death penalty is assigned in Nebraska had made their case.

He also had heard some of his colleagues say they were struggling with their position on the controversial topic.

“We are here today because, like the Nebraskans we represent, we are conflicted by this issue,” he said. “There can be no other conclusion than that.”

How they voted

Roll call of the Legislature’s vote Thursday on an amendment to a bill (LB377) that would change how death sentences are determined:

Yes (23): Aguilar, Ashford, Avery, Carlson, Chambers, Dierks, Dubas, Fulton, Howard, Johnson, Kopplin, Kruse, Lathrop, McGill, Nantkes, Pedersen, Preister, Raikes, Rogert, Schimek, Synowiecki, Wallman, White

No (25): Adams, Burling, Cornett, Engel, Erdman, Fischer, Flood, Friend, Gay, Hansen, Harms, Heidemann, Hudkins, Janssen, Karpisek, Langemeier, Louden, McDonald, Mines, Nelson, Pahls, Pankonin, Pirsch, Stuthman, Wightman

Excused (1): Christensen

Poll shows support for change

A recent Nebraska poll commissioned by Nebraskans Against the Death Penalty shows 51 percent of 500 respondents favored repeal of the death penalty if accompanied by life without parole and restitution to the victim’s estate.

It also showed 62 percent would favor a bill that would allow a jury to disallow a death penalty if a convicted murderer could be imprisoned for life without risk to the safety of others.

The poll of likely voters, which was conducted between March 29 and April 3 by Myers Research & Strategic Services of Springfield, Va., is the first one on the death penalty conducted in Nebraska in a while, said Eric Aspengren, executive director of Nebraskans Against the Death Penalty.

Fifty-four percent of the sample was registered Republicans, 34 percent registered Democrats and 12 percent independent voters. The margin of error was 4.38 percent.

Aspengren said the results did not surprise him because in the years he has worked against the death penalty he has seen people changing their minds about the issue. Nationwide polls show much the same results, he said.

The poll question on repealing the death penalty read: “Currently, Nebraska allows the death penalty for people convicted of first-degree murder, though only three people have been executed by the state in the last 40 years at a cost of at least $70 million to Nebraska taxpayers. The Legislature has considered a proposal that would repeal the death penalty and instead require life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, with a requirement of restitution to the estate of the victim. Would you say you favor or oppose that proposal?”

The poll showed 55 percent of Nebraska Democrats surveyed favored repeal of the death penalty and 34 percent opposed; 49 percent of Republicans favored repeal and 44 opposed; and 48 percent of independent voters favored repeal with 44 percent opposed. Fifty-three percent of women and 49 percent of men favored repeal.

Among younger college age respondents, 43 percent favored repeal and 52 percent opposed repeal.

On the proposal in LB377, both parties and independent voters gave a majority support, along with men, women and other subgroups.

Respondents also weighed in on these statements:

The death penalty is too arbitrary because some people are executed while others serve prison terms for the same crimes. Sixty-two percent agree, 30 percent disagree, 8 percent don’t know or refused to answer.

Defendants who can afford good lawyers almost never receive a death sentence. Sixty percent agree, 28 percent disagree, 12 percent don’t know or refused to answer.

I have moral doubts about death as a punishment. Forty-four percent agree, 48 percent disagree, 8 percent don’t know or refused to answer.

A 1991 poll of Nebraskans by the Northeastern University College of Criminal Justice asked: “If convicted murderers in this state could be sentenced to life in prison with absolutely no chance of every being considered for parole, would you prefer this as an alternative to the death penalty?” Forty-six percent said they preferred life without parole and 43 percent preferred the death penalty.

When restitution was added, 64 percent preferred life without parole with restitution and 26 percent preferred death.

In the end, senators hit more red lights than green. They voted 23-25 to defeat the amendment to LB377 that would have disallowed the death penalty for first-degree murderers who could be judged to be safely confined in prison.

Sen. Greg Adams of York said he wrestled with this proposal and the one last month that would have repealed the death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without parole and restitution.

“I feel somewhere here in the pit of my stomach that there is a place for (the death penalty),” he said.

Still, four words during debate haunted him.

Fairness, subjectivity, consistency and justice.

He was hoping for a way to make the assignment of the death penalty fair.

“I just felt like the language (of the bill) did not really help the issue of inconsistency and fairness. In fact, it made it even more complicated,” he said after the vote.

Sen. Russ Karpisek of Wilber, who voted no, said the issue caused some soul searching.

“I e-mailed one of my good friends today and I said, ‘Boy, this … has really turned me inside out,” he said. “I know how I feel but I have to start asking myself why.”

Thursday was the second time in four weeks that senators had been over the issue. On March 20, after two days of debate, they voted 24-25 to defeat Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers’ repeal bill.

The day after the vote, the Nebraska Supreme Court set an execution date of May 8 for death row inmate Carey Dean Moore. A day later, the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee met to talk about the possibility of crafting another bill that might make death penalty sentencing fairer.

Omaha Sen. Steve Lathrop called the new bill a bold move, saying it would develop a legitimate standard for who gets the death penalty and who doesn’t.

“This will become a standard for the nation, I’m telling you,” he said.

But during debate, some senators said they feared it would effectively repeal the death penalty. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman had already threatened to veto the bill, and Attorney General Jon Bruning had threatened to file suit if it passed.

Was there room in this debate for politics, some asked.

If senators supported the death penalty only because that’s what they thought their constituents wanted, why were they not educating them, asked Sen. Dwite Pedersen of Elkhorn.

“Please search your minds and hearts to do what is right here, not just what is political,” he said.

Others questioned the mechanics of the proposal, such as how a jury could predict what an inmate might do in the future.

“It’s quite a burden to predict future dangerousness of murderers in Nebraska,” said Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk.

Scottsbluff Sen. John Harms said he still looked at a death sentence as justice. And he questioned why the senators were not talking about how to clean up the criminal justice system if it is as fraught with errors and inconsistencies as they suggested.

“That is the issue. Let’s clean up the system first,” he said. “Until we’re willing to fix this … to make the judicial system the best we can possibly make it, I will fight this until we finally correct it.”

In the end, the votes just weren’t there, Ashford said.

With the failure of the amendment, he said, LB377 remains the way it started, a bill to reallocate district court judgeships.

Reach JoAnne Young at 473-7228 or jyoung@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
FS wrote on April 12, 2007 1:32 am:
" Thou shalt not kill. Judge not, lest ye be judged. An eye for an eye...Anyone who is going to jump in here with religion...chill out. This is a discussion about the law. If an accused killer requests the death penalty, we should allow it? Why give them what they want? Money? The cost of incarceration? Think about those in our society who kill and rape and maim. Deal with the root cause. Look at American culture. It feels good to kill, I suppose, when revenge is the motivation, but, take a moment and reflect. Stop and think. Let them rot in jail. Don't stoop to the level of the offender. "

Michael wrote on April 12, 2007 7:34 am:
" I strongly support the death penalty. Why should someone who murdered your family be allowed to live in comfort and get 3 meals a day. We need to make it easier to eliminate these wastes of humanity. Why should they live when my friends and family are dead. Take a poll on that. I suppect that the results would be very different. "

Gerard Harbison wrote on April 12, 2007 8:07 am:
" Boy, couldn't Nebraskans for Peace made the poll wording any more biased? Shouldn't they have included the fact that death penality supporters like to torture puppies? Like most absolutists, Nebraskans for Peace fell that any degree of dishonesty is excusable if their cause is 'just'. "

More bias. wrote on April 12, 2007 8:21 am:
" That is the most bias and leading poll question I have ever read. "

Mike Honcho wrote on April 12, 2007 8:30 am:
" How about we commission a survey by a NEUTRAL organization, and see what happens with the results. "

Dlm wrote on April 12, 2007 8:33 am:
" I didn't have anyone poll ME and there is no human way to imprison a Killer for life without risk to the safety of others. You imprison a killer for life you will always have a chance he will kill or assault prison staff, other inmates or through connection harm people on the outside. How would you like to be a witness and this killer calls you after being sentence to life an Says Someday I break out of here and kill, rape you and your whole family..... Then you have to live in fear for the rest of your Life ..... "

Cool with it wrote on April 12, 2007 8:55 am:
" I am cool with it provided we eliminate Appeals and execute immediately (within 7 days). If they can prove that they are no risk in that time frame, so be it. Otherwise, the death penalty should be enforced. Oh, and the case regarding the crime is heard before a jury within 60 days of teh crime... "

Mark wrote on April 12, 2007 9:02 am:
" I don't think most have a problem with the death penalty except when justice is carried out over two decades later. The shell of the man may be the same, but that person who committed the crime is long, long gone. If were gonna use the chair, use it in a timely manner, not 20+ years after the terrible deed was done. "

peb wrote on April 12, 2007 9:20 am:
" Did any of you saying the poll was biased read the entire article? Read the last two paragraphs about a 1991 poll. Over and over polls show Nebraskans basically don't like the death penalty. I personally don't like the death penalty because violence always brings more violence. The death penalty is violence being acted out by you and me--killing a citizen of Nebraska. "

foolish wrote on April 12, 2007 9:24 am:
" This is just foolish. They keep discussing the same thing over and over. If it doesn't go their way the first time change a few words and try it again. Put it to the vote of the people of the State of Nebraska and see the results. We the voters have said over and over to keep the death penalty. Why is that so hard to understand!!! "

Oh Yeah... wrote on April 12, 2007 9:27 am:
" Nice ideas, "cool with it". Under your plan, the number of innocent people put to death would skyrocket. I guess there is nothing wrong with your ideas if one believes that it benefits society to kill nine other people in order to bring swift justice the one guilty person. "

Mike Honcho wrote on April 12, 2007 9:27 am:
" How can a convicted murderer on death row be a citizen of Nebraska when he is no longer a human being? "

Ok. wrote on April 12, 2007 9:35 am:
" Yes, I read the entire article. It seems that polling data on the death penalty really doesn't mean anything? I honestly don't believe we should be putting someone to death because of what 500 people say right before they eat dinner. Capital punishment is more serious than polls. As to your second point, the death penalty is not strictly violence being acted out, it is justice being done. Isn't it violent to lock someone in a cell? Would you call that violence? Isn't it violent to threaten someone with jail if they don't pay a fine? Punishment is a justifiable form of violence. As to your final point, about killing a citizen of Nebraska, the citizen of the Nebraska killed himself when he or she performed the act that is punishable by a capital sentence. "

What? wrote on April 12, 2007 9:39 am:
" I didn't read anywhere in the article where Nebraskans for Peace paid for this poll. Please don't blame an organization that had nothing to do with this.

Do you people realize that most christian religions oppose the death penalty? How can you call yourself a christian and go against your church's tenets? I guess as long as you sit in church on Sunday, you can do whatever you want the rest of the week.

To all you people wanting to limit appeals and rush executions, will you personally guarantee that there will never be an innocent person executed? Are you willing to stake your life on this? "


K-man wrote on April 12, 2007 11:22 am:
" I think the death penalty should be changed to only those with no question of quilt such as recorded on camera or there are witnesses. Then it should be done like in the past within a few hours or days of the trial. The main problem with appeals are that no one remembers the crime 20 years later. I'm 32 and don't remember murders from the 1970's. It would be easy to say let him live because we have no connection with the victims. It is already too late to execute the murders from the bank in Norfolk because too much time has passed. The system is too slow with all the appeals. With the recorded murders or with witnesses it would be much cheaper to have the execution within hours. The appeals are what costs us taxpayers so much. "

Mike Honcho wrote on April 12, 2007 11:46 am:
" Though Nebraskans for Peace didn't commission the poll, Nebraskans Against the Death Penalty did...and the name should be more than enough evidence that the poll was not conducted by an unbiased organization. The question was extremely leading. A more balanced approach is needed. "

peb wrote on April 12, 2007 12:26 pm:
" Killing is killing. Using the definition of "violence" found in the dictionary, lifetime in prison is not "violence," neither is jailing someone. I believe God or another being with much higher powers than any human I know, should be the only one to make the judgement whether a person should live or die for their sins. And yes, I have been a victim of several crimes. "

HRH The Prince of Wales wrote on April 12, 2007 12:51 pm:
" To all you Bible beaters, remember Jesus Christ said, an eye for an eye is a sin. "

Honest question... wrote on April 12, 2007 1:37 pm:
" So if all the faithfuls out there believe that only God should judge us...doesn't that mean that everyone should be free to do whatever they want to do until God hits them with a lightning bolt? Wouldn't the sentencing that puts them behind bars be seen as a judgment that only God should do? So how can you be against death, but for life in prison? I truly don't mean any disrespect to the believers, it's just something I have always wondered. I personally believe that we have to take care of ourselves, because no one else is going to. Could someone please answer this? "

Ann wrote on April 12, 2007 2:05 pm:
" I totally believe in the Death Penalty. Why should people that kill other people for no reason get off with just a jail sentenace especially if it is a pre-meditated crime!! They deserve the Death Pentalty!!! No if's and's or but's!!!!! "

CSS wrote on April 12, 2007 3:03 pm:
" Perhaps we should be asking ourselves why America still has the death penalty. We are one of only four developed nations that retains it, the others being Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Why, in every other developed country is the death penalty banned? It's a question worth asking. Also, it would be pertinent to look at the numbers of innocent people put to death, as well as the outrageous cost of administering the penalty. Prison isn't a nice place, no matter how we like to paint it, and we can let the vermin--rapists and murders--rot there until they die. There is no need to execute them. Clearly, since reinstating the penalty it has done nothing to curb violent crime. "

BD wrote on April 12, 2007 3:16 pm:
" "Thou Shall Not Kill" That's pretty unambiguous to me. Let God do the judging, and just keep these guys from harming the rest of society. Unless you're convinced we're 100% right all the time when we put people to death. And if you are, you're quite mistaken. "

Chris wrote on April 12, 2007 7:34 pm:
" If it was an "eye for an eye," then the state would do to the murderers what they needlessly did to their victims. "

Forrest wrote on April 12, 2007 8:13 pm:
" God did judge, he had the killer found guility and a sentance of death by execution by a jury of his fellow americans. The killer should have no rights as the rest of us have, but they have more rights than we do. "

nemo wrote on April 12, 2007 8:28 pm:
" The reality is, we must judge each other and ourselves. Yes, God is the ultimate judge. That's a judgment for eternity. While we're here, we judge each other. Right, we don't do whatever we want, we have laws. I dont think any of us really know the answer to this one, I think there is a place for the death penalty I just can't figure out myself who decides where that place is.....I don't envy our lawmakers on this one at all. Pathetic ain't it? "

contradiction wrote on April 12, 2007 8:48 pm:
" If the government tells its citizens they cannot kill then the government can't kill. Plain and simple. What the hell is ambiguous about the commandment that says "though shalt not kill?" It means you can't kill. easy. To many "tough guy" conservatives in this state to see through their tough guy act to acknowledge reason. Oh yes. The point of the law is not revenge. And justice does not mean revenge. It means everyone gets a fair break. "

Rick wrote on April 12, 2007 9:59 pm:
" I think what is really sad are the forgotten victims of the inmates that inhabit our death row. Everyone is concerned about their rights and whether or not the death penalty is being administered fairly and whether or not it is cruel and unusual punishment. At last count among others we have one who murdered his girlfriends child and placed parts of the murdered childs body in a dog dish. Another who drowned a child and raped another. A religious fanatic who stomped a man to death after forcing a boom handle into his rectom, and skining him with a pair of pliers. Now those are the facts, religion aside. As for the Nebraskans for Peace, what if these victims were your chidren? For most of these guys electrocution is far too kind. "

tkosmo wrote on April 13, 2007 2:26 am:
" I am a stong supporter of the death penalty and just so you know, I have never tortured or killed a puppy or any other animal. I think that once you become a murderer all your rights should be taken away. I am sick of hearing about the murderers rights all the time. What happened to the rights of the people they killed and the rest of society that are in harms way of these murderers? Yes, God does make the final judgement, but that doesn't mean we should put ourselves in danger waiting for that time to come. If we just continue sentencing these sorry excuses for human beings to life in prison I hope you death penalty nay sayers are going to soley foot the bill for more prisons and for the housing, meals, entertainment, education and all the other privileges these worthless people get. "

Waiting too long... wrote on April 13, 2007 7:41 am:
" I think part of our problem in debating this subject is that most people today have no idea who is on death row or what they did to get there. I'm 26, I'm old enough to vote on the subject but wasn't around when most of the guys that are there committed their crimes. I'm a supporter of the death penalty, but I have to consciously take myself back to the time of the crime to justify it. If the process was sped up, I believe there would be more supporters because they could still remember the disgusting things these guys did. "

Bulldog wrote on April 13, 2007 7:52 am:
" Instead of the Legislature wasting time on drafting bills to repeal the death penalty, why not have it on the ballot and be voted on by the people of Nebraska. Just how accurate are the polls when they are based on such a small percentage of the people of Nebraska? "

tr67 wrote on April 13, 2007 10:07 am:
" What if it was your child sentenced to death? Would you feel the same way? I think not. "

Victoria wrote on April 13, 2007 3:33 pm:
" Remember all those who voted to keep the Death Penalty and the claim to be Pro-Life. Can't be pro-life and be for the death penalty. Maybe voters need to view the issue of Pro-Life as much more as defending only the fetus in the womb. "

Chad wrote on April 13, 2007 7:55 pm:
" The death penalty is fine by me. All convicted first degree murders, no exceptions. It's the exceptions part where we are getting hung up. Why should one guy live because he has a better lawyer? Or woman just because she is a woman? "

Penny Patterson wrote on April 17, 2007 11:37 am:
" I am proud of Nebraska for their choice of supporting their death penalty. I live in Texas where we also have the death penalty and I fully support it. Why should the American Taxpayer pay to keep murderers behind bars. The Bible says an Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I don't believe that Americans enjoy having the death penalty, but they do consider it a necessity. My hat is off to the Nebraska Senate for up holding this law. Murderers should have no right to live in society. "

Legislature Coverage