A recent edi­to­r­i­al in The Oregonian, one of the state’s major news­pa­pers, endorsed a bill in the upcom­ing leg­isla­tive ses­sion that could result in the repeal of the death penal­ty. The bill, to be intro­duced by Rep. Mitch Greenlick, would begin the process of amend­ing the state’s con­sti­tu­tion through a ref­er­en­dum as ear­ly as November 2014. The edi­tors wrote, ​“5 states — New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and New Mexico — have aban­doned the death penal­ty in recent years. Advances in DNA test­ing, com­bined with dogged advo­ca­cy work, have star­tled the pub­lic into real­iz­ing that dozens of inno­cent peo­ple have been wrong­ly sen­tenced to die based on faulty evi­dence and poor legal defense. Oregon has grown more lib­er­al since its last vote on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment about three decades ago, and it’s pos­si­ble to pic­ture Oregon join­ing the ranks of the abo­li­tion­ists.” Read full edi­to­r­i­al below.

Oregon’s life-or-death vote

Oregon’s laws on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment aren’t meant to be played as games of chess between gov­er­nors and con­vict­ed killers. These laws also aren’t intend­ed to cre­ate more uncer­tain­ty and anguish for the fam­i­lies of victims.

This is pre­cise­ly why Oregon vot­ers need anoth­er chance to vote on the death penal­ty. Letting the rules change abrupt­ly based on a gov­er­nor’s per­son­al sen­ti­ments serves only to under­mine con­fi­dence in the state’s justice system.

State Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D‑Portland, says he will intro­duce a bill dur­ing the 2013 leg­isla­tive ses­sion that would pro­pose a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment to repeal the death penal­ty, as The Oregonian’s Helen Jung report­ed last week. Under Greenlick’s plan, Oregonians would vote on the amend­ment in November 2014.

This poten­tial leg­is­la­tion should be wel­come news for every­one who thinks Gov. John Kitzhaber over­stepped his bounds last year when he declared a mora­to­ri­um on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment and derailed the sched­uled exe­cu­tion of 2‑time killer Gary Haugen. Though Haugen had been sen­tenced to death under laws approved by the peo­ple of Oregon, the gov­er­nor chose to sub­sti­tute his own judg­ment in the case.

Now, Kitzhaber and Haugen are duel­ing in appel­late court over the scope of the gov­er­nor’s author­i­ty — as if the case were John v. Gary rather than State of Oregon v. Haugen.

Executions in Oregon are rare. The state has exe­cut­ed only 3 peo­ple in the past half-cen­tu­ry, 2 of them dur­ing Kitzhaber’s 1st term. Kitzhaber, who oppos­es cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, does­n’t want any­one else put to death on his watch. His moral dis­com­fort is under­stand­able and his prin­ci­ples are com­mend­able, yet it’s unten­able for the gov­er­nor’s tem­po­rary mora­to­ri­um to become per­ma­nent pub­lic pol­i­cy: These life-or-death deci­sions belong to Oregon voters.

So which way would Oregon go?

5 states — New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and New Mexico — have aban­doned the death penal­ty in recent years. Advances in DNA test­ing, com­bined with dogged advo­ca­cy work, have star­tled the pub­lic into real­iz­ing that dozens of inno­cent peo­ple have been wrong­ly sen­tenced to die based on faulty evi­dence and poor legal defense. Oregon has grown more lib­er­al since its last vote on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment about three decades ago, and it’s pos­si­ble to pic­ture Oregon join­ing the ranks of the abolitionists.

Yet nation­al­ly, the pub­lic remains sup­port­ive of the death penal­ty — or at least divid­ed on it — in polling. California vot­ers just reaf­firmed cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in the November elec­tion. Also, Oregon has no record of abus­ing its death-penal­ty pow­ers, so vot­ers may pre­fer to main­tain the death-penal­ty option for the state’s most remorseless killers.

Either way, Oregon vot­ers need a say in this pro­found ques­tion of jus­tice. This is why Kitzhaber asked law­mak­ers to intro­duce reforms — and why Greenlick deserves cred­it for promis­ing to lead the way.

(“Oregon’s life-or-death vote,” The Oregonian Editorial Board, November 26, 2012). See Editorials.

Citation Guide