Spokane7
59°
January 24, 2012 in News, Region
Some lawmakers want death penalty abolished
OLYMPIA — Lawmakers are considering a measure to abolish the death penalty, an effort that has failed in Washington state in recent years but which supporters hope will gain traction after other states have recently either issued moratoriums or outlawed it completely.
The bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Debbie Regala, of Tacoma, is set to receive a public hearing Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“We can keep the public safe with putting people in prison for the rest of their life, as opposed to the costly expense of executing them,” she said.
Regala also argued that the death penalty doesn’t deter someone from committing a murder. She cites her own personal experience with the 1980 murder of her brother-in-law. His killer was never caught. Even if the killer was charged, Regala said she wouldn’t have wanted the assailant to face death.
“It doesn’t do anything to heal your grief,” she said. “It doesn’t bring the victim back.”
Fiscal documents from a similar bill last year showed that, not counting incarceration costs, a death penalty case runs about $1.2 million in state and local costs, compared with $89,000 for a life-without-parole case.
Lawmakers are in the midst of a 60-day legislative session where they are tasked with patching a projected $1 billion dollar shortfall.
“It’s always important and valuable for us to look at public policy and see if it’s actually getting us the results that we want,” Regala said. “When you’re facing an economic crisis, you add an extra lens.”
Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire has not taken a position on the measure, said her spokeswoman, Karina Shagren.
The death penalty is currently used by the federal government and 34 states, including Washington. Sixteen states have abolished it, with Illinois being the most recent last year. And while a death penalty statute is still on the books in Oregon, Gov. John Kitzhaber last year stopped a pending execution and declared no one would be executed during his time in office.
“There is absolutely no question that there is a growing tide of public sentiment that the death penalty is economically and morally deficient,” said Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle. Carlyle sponsored a similar bill in the House but acknowledged he didn’t have the support in the House to get a hearing. “The pressure is growing for Washington to design a more thoughtful approach.”
The last execution in Washington state was in September 2010, when Cal Coburn Brown died by lethal injection for the 1991 murder of a Seattle-area woman. He was the first Washington inmate executed since 2001, after spending nearly 17 years on death row.
Since 1904, 78 men have been put to death in Washington. Eight men are on death row at the state penitentiary.
Bills have been introduced in past years but have not garnered much support. In November, a coalition seeking to change the state’s death penalty laws was formed called “Safe and Just Alternatives.”
“The death penalty is enormously expensive,” said spokeswoman Mishi Faruquee. “Given the budget situation right now in Washington state, you can’t be spending those resources on a broken system.”
Republican Sen. Mike Carrell of Lakewood, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that he is opposed to any discussion of abolishing the death penalty.
“When somebody takes your life, to get rid of the possibility that they too could be executed for what they have done I think is simply wrong,” he said. “Who’s speaking for the victims?”
Carrell said that the death penalty also “is an essential tool for prosecutors.”
“When people know there’s a possibility that they could be subject to the death penalty, that loosens some tongues,” he said.
Tom McBride, executive secretary for the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said the group hasn’t taken a position on the bill but welcomed discussion on the issue.
“Why not have that debate and decide?” he said.
Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, said his organization has never weighed in on the issue.
“I suspect that our sheriffs and chiefs have mixed feelings on this,” he said.
Carlyle said that while it’s unlikely the measure will pass this year, “there’s a profound structural shift under way.”
“I’m hopeful that in the very near future, we may find we reach a tipping point of our ability to pass this legislation,” he said.
© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Recent stories in News
Gay marriage foes: referendum has enough signatures May 30, 2012 29- 1992 murder trial begins against sex offender May 30, 2012 1
- Supermajority for taxes unconstitutional, judge rules May 30, 2012 29
- Man dies following early Saturday car crash May 30, 2012 16
- Sex trafficking suspects released as probe continues May 29, 2012 7
The_Seer on January 24 at 4:35 p.m.
If I can’t legally kill people how can I convey that right to the state?
So what if Prosecutors object to no longer being able to coerce defendants with threat of death into plea deals? In most civilized places that would be considered extortion, but not so in the United States. Here it is simply business as usual.
Nugget on January 24 at 5:06 p.m.
****not counting incarceration costs, a death penalty case runs about $1.2 million in state and local costs, compared with $89,000 for a life-without-parole case.****
Now let’s add on those incarceration costs per year. Say they are in prison for 50 years (life without parole)? It costs what for taking care of them for life? Okay, in 2008 Washington paid $45,900 per person per year. So $45,900 X 50 = $2,295,000 + $89,000 = $2,384,000. Wow! We would save a bit over 1 million dollars per prisoner.
I think it’s time we were more like Texas & put in an express lane!!
detroitdude on January 24 at 5:11 p.m.
“I think it’s time we were more like Texas & put in an express lane!!”
Yeee-haw! Perhaps we should also go back to public hangings, or drawing and quartering people in the public town square too.
Rod_Foss on January 24 at 5:20 p.m.
Seer:
Perhaps you cannot personally convey that right to the state, but “the people” can. Besides, the state has conveyed that right to every woman. 100% of unwanted babies sent to the abortion shredder were innocent, guiltless of any crime, much less capital. The tally now stands at 50 million, but somehow that’s not genocide or injustice. Yet guilty murderers (and I mean unquestionably guilty) must be forgiven and live out their lives in relative, if mundane, ease at taxpayer expense in prison—our way of saying thanks?
jdspokanewa on January 24 at 5:25 p.m.
He comes the preacher man who wants to dictate every aspect of our lives cuz tha bible sez
liberal_in_right_wing_land on January 24 at 5:32 p.m.
I am in the minority among the liberals, but I actually agree with the death penalty. However, when people like Robert Lee Yates and Gary Ridgeway and officer Karl Thompson aren’t given the death penalty, its pretty much useless at this point.
So, I also will not be that upset if we do away with the death penalty, as I have no problem letting some murdering a-hole sit in jail to rot for the rest of their life.
dataxman on January 24 at 5:42 p.m.
and I agree with Seer (gawd it pains me to type that!)…
This was one of the more interesting discussions I remember from one of my philosophy classes @ Gonzaga using the logic Seer used
empyrius on January 24 at 6:22 p.m.
The death penalty may have been a necessary evil in the days of ‘eye for an eye’ morality; but those are the old ways and we no longer put adulterers, murderers, fornicators, etc., to death.
There are only two able to condemn and forgive the murderer - the victim and God - and obviously the victim is dead.
And there is no Catholic, Judaist, Protestant, Muslim, etc., on this planet who can tell me they know the mind of God sufficiently enow to put people to death!
Jesus forevermore wiped the old law off the face of this planet.
Putting the murderer in a cell block with like-minded individuals will administer justice quite appropriately.
pax vobiscum
richardch on January 24 at 6:48 p.m.
Some lawmakers don’t want to do away with the death penalty.
Spokane Indoctrination on January 24 at 6:52 p.m.
Empyrius: It may administer justice in your religion with warped moralities… but it doesn’t solve any problems. Not all horrible people that are locked up with other horrible people have horrible things happen to them in prison. Some are taught and/or forced to adapt to a more horrible lifestyle, so when they get out they’re even worse off than when they went it.
That being said… I completely agree that we’re not in the dark draconian days anymore and there needs to be something else done beside adult time-out and a death sentence.
How do you all feel about the idea of a forced coma for a certain amount of years? No need for a bunch of guards… but rather a bunch of doctors who would put these people in induced comas to live out their sentence.
empyrius on January 24 at 7:33 p.m.
Not killing the killer does solve problems I believe.
* It demonstrates that revenge is not the pathway unto righteousness.
* It frees us from error entirely in this regard: the evil doer is punished with life in prison with his fellow murderous pals and no possible, but increasingly unlikely, innocent is executed.
* Most importantly, in my eyes, the teaching of the Son of Man is faithfully abided and we are justified in our non-violent condemnation.
Yep.
SMARTGUY on January 24 at 7:47 p.m.
The death penalty would not be needed if they gave out real punishment for murder. Today if you kill someone you will probably get between 7 and 12 years in jail. That is pathetic, give out a true life sentence and do not let them out when their health costs get too expensive. We should also end concurrent sentencing. How can you serve time for two crimes at the same time, it is not possible. We need to move the prison system to mexico to cut costs. Visitation and parole hearings can be done via video, one guest worker pass for every prisoner taken, problem solved.
jessiepn on January 24 at 8:08 p.m.
So – is the United States in good company, with 34 of its 50 states using the death penalty?
“The club of prisoner-executing nations is an inauspicious one. You’ve got the world’s great dictatorships and autocracies (Iran, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia, Cuba, Belarus), it’s most failed and failing states (Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Congo, Chad, Yemen, Guinea, Bangladesh), not to mention the entire Middle East save Israel.”
“So who’s left? Which countries use the death penalty but are neither among the world’s most failed states nor its most autocratic? The outliers make a strange list: India, Japan, Nigeria, Uganda, Botswana, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Kuwait, Oman, Lebanon, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and the United States. This is our league of capital punishment nations.”
With the exception of Japan, none of the other countries on this list would be models of world leadership. Are they what we want to emulate?
Nugget on January 24 at 8:59 p.m.
I thought liberal might actually speak with some sense until he started in with the Thompson death penalty crap. Comparing him with Yates & Ridgeway is just dumb. Guess I really wasn’t wrong about liberal after all.
“Yeee-haw! Perhaps we should also go back to public hangings, or drawing and quartering people in the public town square too.”
Maybe if we did there wouldn’t be as many brazen thugs in this world.
lewis8457 on January 24 at 9:07 p.m.
i am all for an eye for an eye if we hung more of the killers and child molesters we would not need so many prisons.
i am all for the public hangings, the crime rate would drop like a rock. a man can rape n kill a child and be out on parole long before a pot dealer now how is that right?
here we see karl the klubber took ottos life and lied for 5 years and will only be sentenced to 33 months max. what lesson was taught? none he switched his assets to his wife and will be home with her in less then 3 years. still enough time to go find some other guy and club him to death.
our justice system is badly broken.
seer get your self a police uniform and badge then murder is legal. and since the police work for the state hence murder is legal for the state.
Dr_Dachshund on January 24 at 9:52 p.m.
I personally support the death penalty for certain crimes - pedophilia, rape, psycho murders, etc…. I don’t see any benefit of keeping such psychopaths in jail to live out their entire lives. As someone pointed out above, far too much money is wasted on these thugs to keep them happy and alive in jail! Abolishing the death penalty may also cause an increase in the number of “private jails” in the country!
Scoutster on January 24 at 9:54 p.m.
Who would Jesus inject with poison?
EricW on January 24 at 11:20 p.m.
So am I hearing some of you correctly that a death sentence in the case of some of the most extreme criminal acts are still unjust to you? With that line of thinking are you then also opposed to you yourself using deadly force to protect you wife being raped in your home or your children being tied to their beds to be later burned to death. In that situation would you negotiate with the perp and justify waiting for police citing the economic advantages or would you use deadly force (legally killing someone seer, yes you can).
So is a death sentence warranted in your home if your timing is correct to administer it yourself in defense of your loved ones but not moral or justified if you got home late after the act was committed and the perp found guilty of it? Can’t have it both ways folks.
If you really could not take the life of a criminal in the protection of your life or your loved ones then I understand your opposition to the death penalty and pray that your loved ones are never in a position to need your protection.
If you really think the fear of death is not a fear that is possessed or recognized by criminals then you would have to wonder why more criminals don’t choose to victimize cops, the President, or Chuck Norris.
I think I know why.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 25 at 1:28 a.m.
Eric,
Now how about considering a hypothetical that actually relates to the real world?
The s.o.b. has raped your wife or torched your kids in their bed or finished committing whatever other too-horrible-to-contemplate act you care to imagine, and the cops have him in custody.
Can you now walk up and blow his brains out?
“If you really think the fear of death is not a fear that is possessed or recognized by criminals…”
If the death penalty is something that criminals consider before commiting crimes, why do states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates than states with the death penalty?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
Why does study after study show that the death penalty has no significant deterence effect?
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf
EricW on January 25 at 6:29 a.m.
“Why does study after study show that the death penalty has no significant deterence effect?”
I can hardly wait for the next study that shows how life in prison serves no deterance and actaully a healthy dose of vitamin D will reform murderers in a far more humane way wih sharp economic benefit to the public.
Any studies on states that force their murderers to take vitamins vs those that let them make better food choices?
Sheeeesh.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 25 at 6:53 a.m.
In other words, you have no substantive answer to the question so you resort to sneers and contrived irrelevancies.
“Sheesh” indeed.
WillyPeter on January 25 at 7:14 a.m.
Well, Jeff, here we go again….:-)
If it’s my wife and children, and the culprit is found guilty of the crimes described in your hypothetical, yes, I agree that I shouldn’t have the right to “walk up and blow his brains out.”
But….I absolutely believe that his sentence should include a provision stating that I should legally be given that right.
EricW on January 25 at 7:24 a.m.
“contrived irrelevancies”
OK, you out vocab’d me. I didn’t even know I was using “contrived irrelevancies” effectively, how cool is that?.
I simply don’t embrace any study by a special interest or an agenda driven source that is opposite of my common sense.
No doubt there are studies with completely opposite findings of those you cited as well, why do you not link those?
Now I’m gonna have “contrived irrelevancies” in my head all day….Thanks a lot. lol.
EricW on January 25 at 7:36 a.m.
A quick search of “studies in support of death penalty” found this. Keep in mind that I am an admitted cyber Flintstone and wish this box also had spell check.
http://www.wesleylowe.com/deter.html
I guess I was right…….studies prove it.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 25 at 7:47 a.m.
“I simply don’t embrace any study by a special interest or an agenda driven source that is opposite of my common sense.”
‘I know what I know, don’t try to confuse me with facts!’ Bonus points for, ‘Any facts that contradict what I know must be the result of partisan bias.’
My common sense tells me the notion ‘human life is so impotant and sacred, we have to kill to protect it’ is logically absurd upon its face. So I get to reject any studies that contradict my belief because they just have to be the product of special interest bias and agenda. Right?
“No doubt there are studies with completely opposite findings of those you cited as well, why do you not link those?”
Why don’t you? If they’re out there, why don’t you go and find them? ‘I know you must be wrong so it’s very dishonest of you not to prove it yourself.’
Brilliant!
Jeffrey_Grey on January 25 at 8:15 a.m.
Here’s the rebuttal to your cited proof of deterence studies:
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies
(emphasis mine)And:
(emphasis mine)There are other criticisms of your studies in that link as well.
So what it boils down to is basically this: My experts say your experts are wrong.
Now, given that you’re working from the premise that anything that contradicts you must be the product of bias and agenda (but, conversely, I can’t dare make the same claim about your facts) whatever I show to refute what you say is a priori invalid.
That means; ‘I’m not going to convince you.’ So… Okay. I’m not going to try. I’m just going to put ‘my facts’ out there and see if they’ll convince people who are open-minded enough to consider them.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 25 at 8:33 a.m.
Why?
PROFINTOX on January 25 at 11:25 a.m.
This is probably a little tangential in nature, but I always find it interesting when the Christian argument is brought up to support why we should not have the death penalty. Why? Because the God of the bible (Old and New Testament) will, if you do not believe in his Son, send you packing off to hell where you will suffer horrible torment beyond imagining for ETERNITY. So, you are using your belief in a God who has no problem sentencing a non-believer (and possibly otherwise a very good person) to eternal torment, a fate worse than death to support the fact that we should not execute people who do these horrible things we are discussing. And apparently that all makes sense because if God does it, it is OK because, well, he is God but for us to do something actually MORE merciful, is a sin. Sorry, I have problems reconciling all of that.