Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Nebraska

Other states should follow Legislature’s bold move to abolish death penalty

The Nebraska Legislature on Wednesday overrode Gov. Pete Ricketts’ veto and abolished the death penalty in the state. It was a decisive statement of the cross-cutting arguments against capital punishment, drawing bipartisan support for the measure that will replace death sentences with life imprisonment.

Fiscal, moral, religious and political concerns infused the months-long debate, with the scales tipping toward a more humane, cost-effective and appropriate means of punishing those who commit Nebraska’s most heinous crimes. It is a significant step in the right direction for the United States; other states should follow.

Though the Nebraska Legislature is a non-partisan body, it comprises 35 Republicans, 13 Democrats and one independent, Sen. Ernie Chambers, who sponsored the bill repealing the death penalty. The Legislature, according to its rules for all measures, passed the bill three times. Only then could it go to Ricketts’ desk where it received his long-promised veto. The Legislature swiftly overrode the governor with the 30 votes necessary to do so, making Nebraska the first conservative state to abolish the death penalty since 1973 when North Dakota repealed the practice. There are now 19 states that have outlawed the death penalty; there should be many more – for all the reasons that informed the Nebraska Legislature’s steadfast decision.

Practical arguments morph into moral ones where the death penalty is concerned, and Nebraska’s journey to repeal is no exception. Legislators were compelled by evidence showing that procuring the medication necessary for lethal injection – the state’s only sanctioned execution method prior to Wednesday’s vote – was increasingly difficult. Given that there were no legal alternative methods available, repeal proponents argue that the death penalty in Nebraska and elsewhere is not administered fairly, justly or humanely. Plus, the cost to the state for death sentences is far more than that for life imprisonment, and the penalty is shown to have little if any deterrent effect on crime. Further, given the growing number of cases involving innocent people being wrongly executed, there is a compelling moral and religious argument to be made against the death penalty.

“It’s not pro-life because it risks innocent life. It’s not fiscally responsible because it costs millions more dollars than life without parole,” said Marc Hyden of Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, a Montana-based organization that takes issue with the big-government nature of the death penalty. “The question (people) need to ask themselves is, do they trust an error-prone government to fairly, efficiently and properly administer a program that metes out death to its citizens? I think the answer to that is a resounding ‘no.’”

Indeed, the death penalty is a practice without purpose. It does not pass the tests essential for ceding to the state such enormous power: Lives are not saved because of it, nor is money. Safety is not improved, nor is society. In fact, each of these values is compromised by state-sanctioned killing, and Nebraska was right in leaving the practice behind. Colorado should follow its neighbor’s lead. Even those who voted against the override see the fundamental problem: “Today, I will sustain the governor’s veto because I campaigned on it. But this is fair warning,” Sen. Tyson Larson said. “I’m telling you now, that next time this comes up, it might be different. It might be the last time I give this state the right to take a life.”

That is far too much power for any state to exercise.



Reader Comments