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.”

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 Greg Adams of York said he wrestled with this proposal and the one last month that would have repealed the death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without parole and restitution.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