By JOSH MARQUIS
Clatsop County District Attorney
December 8, 2011
The state's district attorneys are responsible for ensuring that we are in fact a society that observes the rule of law.For that reason, many of us are profoundly disturbed by Gov. John Kitzhaber's abrupt pronouncement that no jury's verdict of death will be carried out during his term.
Kitzhaber's personal opposition to capital punishment has never been a secret, and yet when he ran for governor, some of us who are in favor of the death penalty as the ultimate punishment endorsed him. That was in part because the governor had respected the rule of law when it came to the execution of Douglas Franklin Wright in 1996, saying he (the governor) was "sworn to uphold the law and could not and would not intervene."That was the right decision legally and morally, and it respected the will of Oregonians, who twice in the past 30 years - in 1978 (by 64 percent of the vote) and then again in 1984 (by 75 percent of the vote) - have voted to reinstate capital punishment.
Gary Haugen, who was hoping for just this act by the governor, is not on death row for his first murder, but for his second murder, that of an inmate Haugen killed while doing a life sentence.
Sentencing someone to prison should not mean a sentence to "gladiatorial combat," and, yet, surely there are other sociopaths in prison who now have little to fear from committing another murder, of a corrections officer or inmate.
The governor cited a "broken system" that he called a "perversion of justice." No one on Oregon's death row has ever made a credible claim of actual innocence. No one has ever been removed from death row for police or prosecutorial misconduct.
He cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision a few years ago that banned the execution of murderers who committed their crimes before the age of 18. Oregon has never allowed such executions.
The governor cited problems in other states that have functionally abolished capital punishment without any input from voters. In 2006 voters in Wisconsin ap-proved an advisory measure to bring back the death penalty, which had not existed there since before the Civil War. The Legislature ignored their vote. In fact, the last time voters abolished the death penalty was in 1964 - here in Oregon.
Oregon voters made very clear their support of the death penalty in 1978 and, after the state Supreme Court overturned that vote, again in 1984. Since then, polls have shown even greater support for the option of death for certain killers who commit the worst kind of murder.
Look at the people who populate Oregon's death row and you'll understand why the editorial board of The Oregonian has distinguished Oregon from other states. We host Jesse Caleb Compton, who in 1997 sexually assaulted and murdered 3-year-old Tessalyn O'Cull. Conan Hale tortured and killed three young teenagers. Dayton LeRoy Rogers is a serial killer of women. All of those killers, and everyone else on death row, received excellent representation, often two or even three lawyers as well as a team of investigators, mitigation specialists and psychologists.
Studies show Deterrent Evidence-Based studies referenced by former University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, now a member of President Obama's Cabinet, show that there is both a specific deterrent to capital punishment (Ted Bundy will never again kill a young woman) and also a general deterrent.
Statistics from the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics show that while use of the death penalty increased by 26 percent in the first decade of the new millennium, the murder rate went down 22 percent in the same time period over the previous decade.
Oregonians are entrusted to make the most important decisions about their laws, from sentencing to end-of-life issues, and Oregon has a long tradition of listening to the voters when they make their will clear, so long as it does not violate the state or federal constitution.
Both state and federal courts have ruled that Oregon's capital punishment laws pass constitutional muster. Oregon prosecutors rarely ask for the death penalty, and jurors even more rarely impose it.
The "conversation" about the death penalty that the governor now wants has been ongoing for years. It can and should continue without casting aside the extraordinarily difficult decisions made by jurors, such as those who voted for death for Joshua and Bruce Turnidge, who intentionally exploded a bomb that murdered two police officers and grievously crippled a third. Or for Angela McAbulty the first woman sent to Oregon's death row in half a century, for the horrific torture murder of her own daughter. Or, for the fourth time in 22 years, for Randy Guzek, for the 1987 execution of Lois and Rod Houser.
The unique intersection of democracy and justice that is the death penalty must be respected
18 comments:
So, if the Governor was upholding the law in 1998 by allowing an execution, he must not be upholding the law now.
The question is: which of our elected law enforcement officials will file charges against the Governor for violating his oath and not upholding the law?
Want to bet none of them will?
Article V, Section 14 of the Oregon Constitution pretty much gives the "Guv" a pass on executions if he/she so chooses but, it doesn't allow for "Moritoriums" does it unless I'm missing something.You read it....Reprieves, commutations and pardons; remission of fines and forfeitures.
He shall have power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, after conviction, for all offences [sic] except treason, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law. Upon conviction for treason he shall have power to suspend the execution of the sentence until the case shall be reported to the Legislative Assembly, at its next meeting, when the Legislative Assembly shall either grant a pardon, commute the sentence, direct the execution of the sentence, or grant a farther [sic] reprieve.– He shall have power to remit fines, and forfeitures, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law; and shall report to the Legislative Assembly at its next meeting each case of reprieve, commutation, or pardon granted, and the reasons for granting the same; and also the names of all persons in whose favor remission of fines, and forfeitures shall have been made, and the several amounts remitted[.]
That's 'moratorium' McGee
Thank you, Patrick, for in your own way supporting my comment that the Governor violated his oath of office and our DA, Josh Marquis, should file charges against him (you will also read that Josh has the power to do this).
Would you like to bet on whether or not this happens?
File charges for what?
Not doing what the voters want?
That's why you have elections or recalls, although this is not likely to cause voters to recall a governor.
Charges for violating his oath of office to support the Constitution of Oregon and the US. Jeez!
Please tell me the crime that's called?
I think that is why Richard Lee was recalled.
He could have been charged with a crime but it was his oath to the voters he really broke.
Ok, its called Official Misconduct.
Or perhaps Official shenanigans?
Ok, if you want to add cute to this issue. In any case, the Governor violated his oath. Who will see justice is done?
Key Words......“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.
Do those words technically apply in context to the law?
Exerpted from Oregon Constitution:...."He shall have power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, after conviction, for all offences [sic] except treason, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law."
So, the "People of Oregon", through vote, have established the ultimate penalty of execution in The State of Oregon as law and made it mandatory in applicable cases.
The governor says he is exercising his power to grant a reprieve of The Law as opposed to an individual because his conscience will not allow him to carry it out, even after he has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of The State of Oregon?
There-in lies the problem for the guy but, how long will it take to get it to the State Supreme Court to interpret it and rule on its legality?
Good analysis, Patrick.
Thanks.
Of course, the Supreme Court will not begin anything until the matter is officially brought to their attention. And, the person we elected to do that is probably the Attorney General, although any District Attorney (all of whom are state officials as we are so often told) should be able to do it.
I suppose time will tell.
Kind of puts the onus on AG Kroger to act doesn't it, being chief law enforcer of the State of Oregon?
Patrick, you said it!
Do you think Kroger will do his job?
He was endorsed by the District Attorneys, but has to have been a disappointment with his many errors in management.
And, he says he is not running for AG again, but, with political people you really never know.
I am betting on a county DA to file the charges,
Will it be Josh?
Kroger?
Errors in management?
How so?
If 'The Guv's" actions were brought to prosecution wouldn't Kroger's office be required to try the case for "The People of Oregon" as well as present it to State Supreme Court?
Couldn't Kroger assign the case to one of his staff?
Of the 32, or so,Death Row prisoners in Oregon, couldn't Kitzhaber have simply reprieved all 32 sentenced till his term ends?
By denying Haugen's scheduled prosecution is it not a fact that Haugen's Civil Liberties are being denied him by Kitzhaber?
Anyway, this is definitely going to be interesting to follow simply because of the myriad(sp) of questions that just keep popping up.
Post a Comment