Page 14
The INDEPENDENT, December 7, 2011
Opinion
From page 2
cator 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 ex-
ecuted 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 propo-
nents 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 punish-
ment given public concern, evidence of wrongful con-
victions, the unequal application of the law, the ex-
pense 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 ap-
peals 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 sen-
tence. 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
T
N
E
D
N
E
P
E
D
N
N
I
O
I
The
T
P
RI
BSC
0
2
U
S
$
T
Y
NL
GIF
O
R
0
A
1 YE -429-941
503
the life terms of others who happen to have been sen-
tenced 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 in-
mates “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 six years ago that the U.S.
Supreme Court reversed itself and held that it is un-
constitutional 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 ap-
proach. I refuse to be a part of this compromised and
inequitable system any longer; and I will not allow fur-
ther executions while I am Governor.
“I do not make this decision lightly.
“It was the will of the voters in 1984 to rein-
state the death penalty in Oregon. I respect that
and, in fact, have carried out that will on two oc-
casions. 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 deci-
sion today compromises the will of the voters; let
me point out that, in practice, it is the current sys-
tem itself which compromises the will of the vot-
ers. I do not believe for a moment that the voters
intended to create a system in which those con-
demned to death could determine whether that
sentence would be carried out.
“I could have commuted Mr. Haugen’s sen-
tence – and indeed the sentences of all those on
death row – to life in prison without the possibili-
ty 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 inten-
tion – 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 penal-
ty with life in prison without the possibility of pa-
role and will argue for that policy in any future de-
bate 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 contradic-
tions and inequities of our current system.
“I am calling on the legislature to bring poten-
tial reforms before the 2013 legislative session
and encourage all Oregonians to engage in the
long overdue debate that this important issue de-
serves. I am convinced we can find a better so-
lution that keeps society safe, supports the vic-
tims of crime and their families and reflects Ore-
gon values.
“Fourteen years ago, I struggled with the deci-
sion 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.”