Nebraska’s Legislature will get another chance this session for a life and death discussion of the death penalty.

This time it will come in the form of an amendment that could cause a substantial change in state policy on which convicted murderers are condemned to death.

The amendment, crafted on behalf of the Judiciary Committee, would allow a death sentence only when the person poses a present and substantial risk to others, and that risk can’t be reasonably and effectively controlled by prison security measures.

If the death penalty is not imposed, the defendant would be sentenced to life in prison without parole. The risk requirement would be in addition to the state proving at least one aggravating circumstance.

The bill would not repeal the death penalty, said Omaha Sen. Brad Ashford, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Some defendants would continue to be sentenced to death.

The amendment was conceived by the committee Thursday, two days after Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers’ bill that would have repealed the death penalty was defeated by one vote.

It will be attached to LB 377, the committee’s priority bill, which will become the death penalty measure. A hearing on the bill is scheduled for Friday at 1:30 p.m. Speaker Mike Flood said Tuesday the bill could be scheduled for debate by the full Legislature in one to two weeks.

Ashford said the amendment was not intended to stop the execution of Carey Dean Moore, scheduled last week for May 8. In fact, the amendment, if passed, would apply only to first-degree murder sentencings on or after the bill takes effect.

It was prompted, instead, by the closeness of the 24-25 defeat of Chambers’ bill, he said. Some senators had said after the vote that if they believed the sentence of life without parole was reasonable, they would have supported it.

If this bill would pass, it could give Moore and other death row inmates grounds for appeal, Ashford said.

Chambers said on the floor Tuesday morning his only reason for participating in the Judiciary Committee’s plan to change the sentencing procedure was to stop the execution.

But the Legislature does not act as the Board of Pardons, Flood said.

“Our process has multiple protections to safeguard the Legislature from making a decision on a whim,” he said.

Flood said he believed the bill had support among senators, but Chambers said some senators were threatening to put pro-life amendments on the bill and question whether the amendment was germane to the bill it replaced, a quality required by the rules of the Legislature.

If that’s the case, he said, “You’re going to be in a battle with me the rest of the session.”

On the issue of whether the amendment is germane, Flood said committee amendments are given special consideration to make the process more efficient. They can be allowed as long as they pertain to the committee’s work.

Details on how a jury would determine whether a defendant posed a substantial risk in prison would be worked out after listening to testimony at the public hearing, Ashford said. The committee could then draft other amendments to the bill.

Flood remains opposed to repealing the death penalty, but said he would not give an opinion on this bill so as not to compromise his position as speaker.

He sent a memo to senators on Monday, outlining his feelings on the process of bringing the bill to the floor. He said it was important the bill would get a public hearing.

“The Unicameral prides itself on transparency in government by giving the citizens the opportunity for participation in the legislative process,” he said in the memo.

Flood set a thoughtful and serious tone for the two-day debate on Chambers’ bill and said he would consider doing the same on this bill.

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