A recent edi­to­r­i­al in the Nebraska Star-Herald indi­cat­ed a shift in its posi­tion on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. Although the paper has always sup­port­ed the death penal­ty in the past, its lat­est edi­to­r­i­al described the death penal­ty as ​“a mock­ery of jus­tice” and a ​“cha­rade.” The edi­tors con­tin­ued to express the belief that some mur­der­ers might deserve cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, but the infre­quen­cy and unpre­dictabil­i­ty of exe­cu­tions led them to con­clude that “[S]o few killers are actu­al­ly put to death that it’s become a judi­cial aber­ra­tion.” The paper point­ed out that ​“only three peo­ple have been put to death since 1976” and “[n]one of the cur­rent 11 death row inmates are sched­uled for exe­cu­tion,” lead­ing them to the posi­tion that ​“Maybe it’s time to put an end to the cha­rade.” Read the full editorial below.

OPINION: Is it time to end the death penal­ty in Nebraska?

We’ve always favored cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment for mur­der in Nebraska, in large part because the pub­lic favors it and because what a self-gov­ern­ing peo­ple want ought to count for some­thing, even in the 21st century.

In prac­tice, it’s become a mock­ery of jus­tice. Only 37 peo­ple have ever been exe­cut­ed in the state’s entire his­to­ry. And despite dozens of mur­ders in the state every year, only three peo­ple have been put to death since 1976.

Eleven peo­ple now sit on death row, includ­ing one who’s been there for more than 30 years. To the state’s court sys­tem, nei­ther the law nor what the peo­ple want mat­ter. The legal com­mu­ni­ty is rife with death-penal­ty oppo­nents. Judges and courts have piled on ridicu­lous lay­ers of obsta­cles, turn­ing every cap­i­tal mur­der case into what amounts to a sequence of sev­er­al cir­cus tri­als: one for the mur­der itself, one to deter­mine whether the case mer­its the death penal­ty and one auto­mat­ic appeal to a three-judge panel.

On top of that, the state Supreme Court capri­cious­ly ruled in 2008 that the state’s use of the elec­tric chair — in use since 1920 — sud­den­ly con­sti­tut­ed ​“cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ment” under the Nebraska Constitution, effec­tive­ly stay­ing all death sen­tences in Nebraska.

And when the state adopt­ed lethal injec­tion as a more humane man­ner of exe­cu­tion, the oppo­si­tion revved up again — in one case argu­ing that the chem­i­cals used in exe­cu­tions, obtained from a source in India, might be too impure to use on a killer who mur­dered two cab dri­vers so that he could buy drugs off the street.

Even in cas­es that clear all the hur­dles, exe­cu­tion isn’t guar­an­teed. Since 1976, 31 mur­der­ers have been granted clemency.

And any mur­der­er younger than 18 or any­one deemed ​“men­tal­ly chal­lenged” gets an auto­mat­ic pass from fac­ing the death penalty.

Against that back­drop, the Legislature is plan­ning once again to debate doing away with cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. The bill is the pri­or­i­ty of long­time death penal­ty foe Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, who wants to out­law exe­cu­tions and replace them with life with­out parole. Those in favor usu­al­ly argue that once in awhile an inno­cent per­son gets put to death, Those opposed are out­raged by the prospect of hous­ing and feed­ing mur­der­ers for what often amounts to decades, and point out that the num­ber of peo­ple who get away with mur­der could fill an arena.

Although the streets of Omaha alone are a week­end shoot­ing gallery, not one Nebraska mur­der­er has been exe­cut­ed since lethal injec­tion was adopt­ed in 2009. In fact, no mur­der­er has been put to death in the state since Robert E. Williams in 1997. None of the cur­rent 11 death row inmates are sched­uled for exe­cu­tion because of the pend­ing legal chal­lenge involv­ing one of the three lethal injection drugs.

Maybe it’s time to put an end to the charade.

A total of 18 states don’t allow cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. We still believe that some crimes are so heinous, and some crim­i­nals so irre­deemable, that the death penal­ty ought to be an option. But so few killers are actu­al­ly put to death that it’s become a judi­cial aber­ra­tion. If noto­ri­ous mass mur­der­er Charley Starkweather and Robert E. Williams qual­i­fy, then why are Raymond Mata, who kept a child’s skull as a tro­phy, and Jeffrey Hessler, who raped and mur­dered a Gering teenag­er, still around?

Part of the answer to that is that Nebraska death penal­ty cas­es are a gold mine for lawyers who get paid, usu­al­ly by the tax­pay­ers, to drag them out for as long as pos­si­ble. Critics of the death penal­ty like to point out that it’s more expen­sive to put a killer to death than to lock him up for life, although they con­ve­nient­ly fail to point out that if death sen­tences were car­ried out on any sort of sen­si­ble sched­ule, that wouldn’t be the case.

Our main con­cern is that a legal bureau­cra­cy that ignores the death penal­ty could just as eas­i­ly ignore the man­date con­cern­ing ​“with­out parole.” Already, plen­ty of peo­ple com­plain about the high cost of lock­ing up dan­ger­ous felons and advo­cate turn­ing them loose among law-abid­ing peo­ple once they promise to be good.

If Chambers and his allies suc­ceed in exe­cut­ing cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, we’ll just have to hope that enough sen­si­ble leg­is­la­tors remain to ensure that a life sen­tence for mur­der means just what it says.

(Editorial, ​“Is it time to end the death penal­ty in Nebraska?,” Nebraska Star-Herald, March 28, 2013). Read more Editorials. See New Voices.

Citation Guide