558 N. Main St., Prineville, OR 97754 | (541) 447-6205
Generally the Central Oregonian writes editorials about issues with direct connections to Prineville and Crook County.
Today we are making an exception to that rule following a decision recently made by Oregon governor John Kitzhaber.
Late last week, the governor suspended the death penalty in Oregon stating that he will allow no executions as long as he is in office.
His decision was made after the state scheduled Dec. 6 as the date to execute Gary Haugen, a prisoner who asked the appeals court to waive his right to appeal.
Our purpose here is not to debate the death penalty. At issue rather is the rationale behind Kitzhaber’s decision.
Kitzhaber gave two reasons for his decision to suspend the death penalty while he remains in office. He stated his opposition to the death penalty and then added that any decisions on capital punishment should be made by Oregon’s voters.
The problem is that his reasoning is both flawed and inconsistent.
To begin with, the last two inmates to be executed in Oregon both came under Kitzhaber’s watch as governor. The first in 1996, and the second in 1997 — both during Kitzhaber’s first term as governor. Prior to both executions, Kitzhaber stated his opposition to the death penalty, but cited his duty to uphold the law. In both cases, the individuals sentenced to death had waived their right to appeal just as Haugen has.
However, it’s Kitzhaber’s second objection to the death sentence that we find to be the larger problem.
Oregon’s constitution originally had no provision for the death penalty. In 1864, a statute allowing the death penalty for first degree murder cases was enacted. From then until 1964, Oregon allowed the death penalty. Then, in 1964, Oregon voters decided to end the death penalty. Two days later, then Governor Mark Hatfield honored the will of the people and commuted three death sentences that were scheduled to take place prior to the law going into effect.
In 1978, Oregon voters decided that they had made a mistake and reinstituted the death penalty. Subsequently, the Oregon Supreme Court declared the new law unconstitutional. As a result, in 1984, Oregon voters chose by a 75 percent majority to once again make the death penalty legal in Oregon, this time with a constitutional amendment. Since then, the courts have consistently upheld Oregon’s death penalty law.
So the reality is that Oregon voters have made their position on the death penalty very clear. It is Kitzhaber’s job to uphold Oregon law, and carry out the will of the people. If he is opposed to the law, then he has every right to propose new legislation.
Although he may be within his legal rights to suspend the death penalty, Kitzhaber is going against the will of the people, and is clearly not standing on the moral high ground that he has used as an excuse to insert his personal views into the public decision-making process.
To be clear, Kitzhaber neither pardoned, nor commuted Haugen’s sentence. All he did is force Haugen to sit on death row, against his own wishes, until after Kitzhaber leaves office.
Regardless of how you feel about the death penalty personally, Governor Kitzhaber has sworn to uphold the law. Instead he has chosen to ignore both the law and the will of the people. He should take a lesson from former Governor Hatfield, and honor the people’s wishes.
