 |
| Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber |
“It is time for Oregon to consider a different approach,” Governor Kitzhaber, a Democrat elected last fall, said in a news conference in Salem on Tuesday afternoon. “I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer; and I will not allow further executions while I am governor.”
Oregon, which uses lethal injection, has executed just two people since its voters approved the death penalty in 1984, and both of those inmates waived certain rights to appeal, making them so-called volunteers. The state, which has 37 inmates on death row, last executed someone in 1997. It has been one of at least seven states that allow the death penalty but have not used it in more than a decade, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
But Oregon’s status appeared likely to change after Gary Haugen, a twice-convicted murderer, waived several appeals and asked to be executed. Mr. Haugen, convicted of killings in 1981 and in 2003, has testified that the death penalty wastes taxpayer money and is unjustly carried out. But in a court appearance in October, Mr. Haugen said, “This is going to be one time where I just don’t do a lot of talking, because I’m ready, your honor. Because I’m ready.”
Outside groups fought to stop the execution, but late Monday the Oregon Supreme Court ruled, 4 to 3, to allow it to go forward. By Tuesday morning, Governor Kitzhaber’s office had scheduled his afternoon announcement.
The governor, a physician who served two previous terms, from 1995 to 2003, noted that he had allowed the two earlier executions to go forward under his watch.
“They were the most agonizing and difficult decisions I have made as governor and I have revisited and questioned them over and over again during the past 14 years,” Governor Kitzhaber said. “I do not believe that those executions made us safer; certainly I don’t believe they made us more noble as a society. And I simply cannot participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong.”
Noting the length of time many inmates spend on death row, often more than 20 years, he said Oregon had an “unworkable system that fails to meet basic standards of justice.” He said there was a wide sense the death penalty process was flawed but that the state had “done nothing; we have avoided the question.”
“It is a perversion of justice when the single best indicator of who will and will not be executed has nothing to do with the circumstances of a crime or the findings of a jury,” he said. “The only factor that determines in Oregon whether someone sentenced to death will actually be executed is that they volunteer to die.”
The governor did not commute the sentence of Mr. Haugen or any of the other death row inmates. He granted Mr. Haugen what he called a temporary reprieve. He asked the Legislature “to bring potential reforms before the 2013 legislative session” and he encouraged “all Oregonians to engage in the long overdue debate that this important issue deserves.”
In all, 34 states allow the death penalty, but only 27 have executed someone in the past decade, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit group which has been critical of how the death penalty is carried out around the country. The annual number of executions nationwide has declined by about half over the past decade.
Gov. George Ryan of Illinois halted executions in that state in 2000, then, as he was leaving office in 2003, commuted the sentences of all death row inmates. The Illinois Legislature banned the death penalty this year.
New Jersey abolished the practice in 2007. The New Mexico Legislature ended the death penalty in 2009.
Richard C. Dieter, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said that states can be forced into the death penalty debate when inmates volunteer.
“An execution focuses everybody’s attention,” Mr. Dieter said. “It becomes real and people have to decide. And of course the governor has a personal responsibility.”
Governor Kitzhaber said he would be criticized, and he was.
“If the review system is broken such that nobody but volunteers are being executed, the answer is to fix the review system,” said Kent S. Scheidegger, the legal director for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports the death penalty.
Mr. Scheidegger said the authority some governors have to commute or delay death penalty sentences “is given for the purpose of correcting injustices in individual cases. It’s not given for the purpose of negating an entire law.”
Governor Kitzhaber said his decision was rooted in policy and personal views. He noted he had taken an oath as a physician to “never do harm.” Asked with whom he had consulted, he said, “Mostly myself.”
Governor Kitzhaber Proclamation -- Press Release: November 22, 2011
Governor Kitzhaber issues reprieve - calls for action on capital punishment
(Salem, OR) –Governor Kitzhaber released the following statement today:
Council of Europe Press release - AP115(2011)
It takes courageous men and women like the Oregon Governor to stand up against the death penalty, says PACE rapporteur
Strasbourg, 23.11.2011 - Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) rapporteur Renate Wohlwend (Liechtenstein, EPP/CD) today warmly welcomed Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber’s decision to stop executions during the rest of his term of office and his intention to advocate a ballot to outlaw the death penalty.
“It takes courageous men and women like John Kitzhaber to abolish the death penalty. Far too often, politicians resign in front of the challenge to ban capital punishment, afraid of what they deem to be an unpopular measure and driven by their own electoral agenda. The Council of Europe’s relentless efforts have largely contributed to making the European continent a death penalty-free zone and we continue to pass the word beyond our borders: death is not justice,” Mrs Wohlwend stressed.
Source: Council of Europe, November 23, 2011
Governor Kitzhaber issues reprieve - calls for action on capital punishment
(Salem, OR) –Governor Kitzhaber released the following statement today:
“Under Article V, section 14, of the Oregon Constitution, I am exercising my authority as Governor to issue a temporary reprieve in the case of Gary Haugen for the duration of my term in office. I want to share with Oregonians how and why I came to that decision.
Oregon has a long and turbulent history with capital punishment. Our state constitution originally had no provision for the death penalty. Enacted by statute in 1864, the death penalty was repealed by voters in 1914, restored in 1920, outlawed again by voters in 1964, re-enacted in 1978, deemed unconstitutional by the Oregon Supreme Court in 1981 and again reinstated in 1984.
It has been carried out just twice in last 49 years in Oregon. Both were during my first administration as Governor, one in 1996 and the other in 1997. I allowed those sentences to be carried out despite my personal opposition to the death penalty. I was torn between my personal convictions about the morality of capital punishment and my oath to uphold the Oregon constitution.
They were the most agonizing and difficult decisions I have made as Governor and I have revisited and questioned them over and over again during the past 14 years. I do not believe that those executions made us safer; and certainly they did not make us nobler as a society. And I simply cannot participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong.
Let me be clear, I had no sympathy or compassion for the criminals or for anyone who commits the most heinous of acts – taking the life of another person. The families and friends of victims deserve certainty that justice will be carried out on behalf of the loved ones who have been taken from them in such a cruel fashion.
But the nature of their crimes was not different from other murderers, some of whom are sentenced to death but never executed and others who are sentenced to life in prison. What distinguished those two death row inmates during my first term was that they volunteered to die.
Oregonians have a fundamental belief in fairness and justice – in swift and certain justice. The death penalty as practiced in Oregon is neither fair nor just; and it is not swift or certain. It is not applied equally to all. It is a perversion of justice that the single best indicator of who will and will not be executed has nothing to do with the circumstances of a crime or the findings of a jury. The only factor that determines whether someone sentenced to death in Oregon is actually executed is that they volunteer. The hard truth is that in the 27 years since Oregonians reinstated the death penalty, it has only been carried out on two volunteers who waived their rights to appeal.
In the years since those executions, many judges, district attorneys, legislators, death penalty proponents and opponents, and victims and their families have agreed that Oregon’s system is broken.
But we have done nothing. We have avoided the question.
And during that time, a growing number of states have reconsidered their approach to capital punishment given public concern, evidence of wrongful convictions, the unequal application of the law, the expense of the process and other issues.
Illinois banned it earlier this year, ending a legacy of faulty convictions, forced confessions, unreliable witnesses and incompetent legal representation. New Jersey abolished capital punishment after determining it had spent a quarter of a billion dollars on a system that executed no one. New Mexico recognized that the death penalty is neither an effective deterrent nor fair to victims’ families burdened with lengthy trials and appeals and replaced it with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
Today, in Oregon, we can no longer avoid the question. Last Friday, a death warrant was signed for another death row inmate, Gary Haugen. And again he has volunteered to die.
He is just one of 37 inmates on death row today. Some have been there for over 20 years. They all have many years and appeals left before there is even a remote possibility of carrying out their death sentence. Two others have died of natural causes after more than a decade on death row. The reality is that Oregon’s death row is an extremely expensive life prison term, likely several times more expensive that the life terms of others who happen to have been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole -- rather than the death penalty.
And while it may be convenient to blame lengthy and expensive death penalty trials and appeals on inmates “working the system,” the truth is courts (and society) continue to reinterpret when, how and under what circumstances it is acceptable for the state to kill someone. Over time, those options are narrowing. Courts are applying stricter standards and continually raising the bar for prosecuting death penalty cases. Consider that it was only 6 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself and held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on those under the age of 18. For a state intent on maintaining a death penalty, the inevitable result will be bigger questions, fewer options and higher costs.
It is time for Oregon to consider a different approach. I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer; and I will not allow further executions while I am Governor.
I do not make this decision lightly.
It was the will of the voters in 1984 to reinstate the death penalty in Oregon. I respect that and, in fact, have carried out that will on two occasions. I have regretted those choices ever since – both because of my own deep personal convictions about capital punishment and also because in practice Oregon has an expensive and unworkable system that fails to meet basic standards of justice. Twenty-seven years after voters reinstated the death penalty it is clear the system is broken.
To those who will inevitably say that my decision today compromises the will of the voters; let me point out that, in practice, it is the current system itself which compromises the will of the voters. I do not believe for a moment that the voters intended to create a system in which those condemned to death could determine whether that sentence would be carried out.
I could have commuted Mr. Haugen’s sentence – and indeed the sentences of all those on death row – to life in prison without the possibility of parole. I did not do so because the policy of this state on capital punishment is not mine alone to decide. It is a matter for all Oregonians to decide. And it is my hope – indeed my intention – that my action today will bring about a long overdue reevaluation of our current policy and our system of capital punishment.
Personally, I favor replacing the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole and will argue for that policy in any future debate over capital punishment in Oregon. Others will point to opportunities to speed appeals or change the criteria for death penalty cases. In any event we can no longer ignore the contradictions and inequities of our current system.
I am calling on the legislature to bring potential reforms before the 2013 legislative session and encourage all Oregonians to engage in the long overdue debate that this important issue deserves. I am convinced we can find a better solution that keeps society safe, supports the victims of crime and their families and reflects Oregon values.
Fourteen years ago, I struggled with the decision to allow an execution to proceed. Over the years I have thought if faced with the same set of circumstances I would make a different decision. That time has come.”
Source: http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/media_room/press_releases/p2011/press_112211.shtml --Office of the Governor.
Council of Europe Press release - AP115(2011)
It takes courageous men and women like the Oregon Governor to stand up against the death penalty, says PACE rapporteur
Strasbourg, 23.11.2011 - Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) rapporteur Renate Wohlwend (Liechtenstein, EPP/CD) today warmly welcomed Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber’s decision to stop executions during the rest of his term of office and his intention to advocate a ballot to outlaw the death penalty.
“It takes courageous men and women like John Kitzhaber to abolish the death penalty. Far too often, politicians resign in front of the challenge to ban capital punishment, afraid of what they deem to be an unpopular measure and driven by their own electoral agenda. The Council of Europe’s relentless efforts have largely contributed to making the European continent a death penalty-free zone and we continue to pass the word beyond our borders: death is not justice,” Mrs Wohlwend stressed.
Source: Council of Europe, November 23, 2011
Related articles:
Nov 21, 2011
Executions by lethal injection are supposed to be quick, painless and more humane than the gas chamber or gallows. The condemned rests on a hospital gurney. Technicians attach heart monitors and place intravenous lines ...
Nov 19, 2011
Oregon State Penitentiary Superintendent Jeff Premo says he has no reason to expect that two-time convicted killer Gary Haugen will try to flip the bird to witnesses. But it's happened elsewhere and Premo says he's taking...
Oct 21, 2011
Now Gary Haugen, a 49-year-old man, is expected to receive an execution date of 6 December after waiving his appeals. He and Jason Van Brumwell were sentenced to death in 2007 for the murder of fellow inmate David ...
Nov 02, 2011
Haugen was sentenced to death in 2007 for the killing of an inmate, David Polin, four years earlier. He had been serving a life sentence with the possibility of parole for the beating death of Mary Archer, a Northeast Portland ...
Comments
Post a Comment
Pro-DP comments will not be published.