In an edi­to­r­i­al sup­port­ing Washington Governor Jay Inslee’s recent­ly-announced death penal­ty mora­to­ri­um, the News Tribune (Tacoma) said its edi­to­r­i­al board ​“has grown increas­ing­ly uncom­fort­able with cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in recent years, and we now share Inslee’s feel­ing that Washington should move beyond it.” The paper said the gov­er­nor’s deci­sion ​“forced a wel­come new dis­cus­sion” of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. While acknowl­edg­ing the heinous­ness of many crimes, the edi­to­r­i­al dis­agreed that killing is the answer: ​“Opponents of the death penal­ty, includ­ing us, must look the evil square in the face while say­ing that exe­cu­tion is not a moral pre­rog­a­tive of the state.” It high­light­ed the incon­sis­ten­cies of the death penal­ty and its high cost. The edi­tors praised Washington for only using the death penal­ty rarely, but said, ​“We don’t think it’s a big leap to go from rare to nev­er.” Read the editorial below.

A welcome new debate about the death penalty

The death penal­ty is as weighty and dif­fi­cult an issue as a soci­ety can deal with — a ques­tion that leaves hon­est and prin­ci­pled peo­ple deeply divided.

A state that exe­cutes crim­i­nals ought to reg­u­lar­ly revis­it whether its gov­ern­ment ought to be in the busi­ness of tak­ing human life in the absence of imme­di­ate dan­ger, even the lives of the most mon­strous mur­der­ers. Gov. Jay Inslee on Tuesday forced a wel­come new dis­cus­sion by grant­i­ng a blan­ket reprieve to the nine killers on Washington’s death row.

It was a half mea­sure. A reprieve does not guar­an­tee a con­demned man’s life; it tem­porar­i­ly sus­pends his sen­tence pend­ing further deliberation.

The next gov­er­nor could pro­ceed with the exe­cu­tion of the men the state has sen­tenced to die. Tuesday’s reprieves put the issue square­ly in the hands of the cit­i­zen­ry, where it belongs.

Inslee will have to face the vot­ers in 2016, and he’s like­ly to draw a chal­lenger who will oppose him on this issue. If enough vot­ers favor cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment strong­ly enough, the machin­ery of death will once again begin grinding.

The News Tribune’s edi­to­r­i­al board has grown increas­ing­ly uncom­fort­able with cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in recent years, and we now share Inslee’s feel­ing that Washington should move beyond it.

Honest oppo­si­tion to the death penal­ty must acknowl­edge that Washington — unlike some states — has applied it rarely, care­ful­ly and to killers whose guilt is beyond dis­pute. The few who do get exe­cut­ed here tend to have com­mit­ted uncom­mon­ly hideous crimes, or else have waived their appeals and more or less vol­un­teered to die.

We should have no illu­sions about them. The last man to receive lethal injec­tion, in 2010, killed a 21-year-old woman after rap­ing, burn­ing and elec­tri­fy­ing her on and off for 36 hours. The man who may be next in line for exe­cu­tion — an imme­di­ate ben­e­fi­cia­ry of Inslee’s reprieve — mur­dered the wife of a deployed sol­dier, her 5‑year-old and 3‑year-old sons, and her sister.

Evil of that mag­ni­tude makes its own case for putting the per­pe­tra­tors to death. Opponents of the death penal­ty, includ­ing us, must look the evil square in the face while say­ing that exe­cu­tion is not a moral pre­rog­a­tive of the state.

The anti-cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment posi­tion car­ries prag­mat­ic prob­lems, includ­ing the impos­si­bil­i­ty of fur­ther pun­ish­ing a mur­der­er who kills a guard or inmate while serv­ing a life sen­tence. So does the pro-cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment posi­tion: In a state that rarely uses it, it can’t be applied with­out wild con­sis­ten­cies. And pros­e­cu­tions, tri­als and appeals are noto­ri­ous­ly expen­sive in capital cases.

Ultimately, though, this is a ques­tion of prin­ci­ple, not cir­cum­stance. The rar­i­ty of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in Washington — the fact that the pub­lic does­n’t bay for the blood of com­mon killers — says some­thing good about us. We don’t think it’s a big leap to go from rare to never.

(Editorial, ​“A wel­come new debate about the death penal­ty,” News Tribune, February 12, 2014). See Editorials and New Voices.

Citation Guide