Death penalty opponents would
like us to think that a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of
parole means that we lock the door and throw away the key. But that’s not what
it means, and even if it did, life in prison is the next penalty that will come
under attack by death penalty opponents.
I support the death penalty because it is
a just punishment, sparingly applied, and reserved for the most egregious cases
of first-degree murder. That’s as it should be.
--
Bob Evnen, Co-Founder
Bob Evnen, Co-Founder
Nebraskans for the Death Penalty
Bob Evnen received the Rayner
Goddard Act of Courage Award from the comrades of Unit 1012. He favors the
use of the death penalty and is working to retain it in his state.
We have watched him fight for justice and the death penalty in Nebraska
and want him to know that he has encouraged victims' families and leaders
worldwide. We honor and respect him. We hope that more judges and government
officials will follow their courageous character.
Please remember to save
the death penalty in Nebraska by voting repeal (DO NOT vote Retain) to save the
death penalty.
In this article, he
explains why LWOP is not honest at all.
Local View: Life doesn’t mean life
BY BOB EVNEN
Nov 1, 2016
Death penalty
opponents would like us to think that a sentence of life in prison without the
possibility of parole means that we lock the door and throw away the key. But
that’s not what it means, and even if it did, life in prison is the next
penalty that will come under attack by death penalty opponents.
I support the
death penalty because it is a just punishment, sparingly applied, and reserved
for the most egregious cases of first-degree murder. That’s as it should be.
For their
part, death penalty opponents want us to believe that there is a suitable
alternative to the death penalty – life in prison without parole. Is it?
First, as a
matter of law, there is no such thing. The Nebraska Board of Pardons, which
exercises the virtually unlimited power of executive clemency in Nebraska, has
the power to pardon and to commute life sentences to a term of years, which
makes the inmate eligible for parole.
This power is
not just theoretical. Laddie Dittrich was
one of three men convicted of first-degree murder in the beating and stabbing
death of a man they ran off the Interstate in Omaha. Dittrich was sentenced to
life in prison without the possibility of parole.
But in 2013,
the Pardons Board commuted his sentence to a term of years that made Dittrich
immediately eligible for parole. Within a month he was out. The following year
he was arrested and subsequently convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old
girl. He’s back in prison.
That doesn’t
happen very often, death penalty opponents respond. For the 10-year-old girl
and her family it happened 100 percent of the time.
Just as
concerning, many of those who are wooing the public with the claim that a life
sentence is the alternative to the death penalty are themselves challenging the
legitimacy of life imprisonment. This makes their argument disingenuous at best
and very nearly fraudulent at worst.
Brian J.
Adams was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting to death two men in two
separate robberies. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility
of parole. In 2014, Adams sued the state. His lawyers claimed that his
life-without-parole sentence violated his Nebraska constitutional rights. This
year the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled against him. Does anyone really believe
there aren’t more such lawsuits awaiting us?
The ACLU’s
opposition to the death penalty is a given. The ACLU opposed even putting the
issue on the ballot. But the ACLU also is quietly working to end life without
parole. For example, the ACLU filed a brief in a case last year before the U.S.
Supreme Court involving juveniles sentenced to life without parole. In the
brief, the ACLU directed the court to a study that is critical of life
sentences altogether – not just for juveniles, but for adult criminals also.
Ironically, such studies point to the growing number of life-without-parole
sentences resulting in part from sentencing in states that used to have the
death penalty but don’t any longer.
Getting rid
of life without parole is quite plainly the next target. A well-funded national
group called “The Sentencing Project” wrote a paper in 2013 essentially calling
for the elimination of life without parole. Californians will be voting on the
death penalty this year also. There, a proliferation of voices are arguing that
life without parole should be abolished too. Law review articles abound. The
ACLU is on board. You will not be surprised to learn that the challenges to
life without parole are remarkably similar to the claims being raised against
the death penalty.
Often quoted
by death penalty opponents, former Nebraska District Court Judge Ron Reagan
recently intoned, “Let me be perfectly clear about what happens when someone is
sentenced to life in prison. They die in prison.”
But when he
was a judge, and John Joubert, a slayer of young boys, stood before him for
sentencing, then-Judge Reagan didn’t sentence Joubert to life in prison. Judge
Reagan sentenced John Joubert to death.
Bob Evnen is
a Lincoln attorney and a co-founder of Nebraskans for the Death Penalty.
INTERNET SOURCE: https://web.facebook.com/votetokeepthedeathpenaltyinNebraska/posts/1783005358640950
OK, last
thing, I promise. We need to look at the big picture when it comes to the REAL
cost of doing away with the death penalty. And what the anti-death penalty
people NEVER want people to know is how much the death penalty is used by
prosecutors to induce people who are guilty ANYWAY to go ahead and plead guilty
to the murder, and in exchange, the prosecutors will not press for the death
penalty. this is a perfectly sensible and legal plea bargaining process. In
Nebraska law, we have a set of aggravating circumstances (did the murder involve
torture ? was the victim a child? etc.) and mitigating circumstances (was the
murderer low IQ or drunk or did the victim ASK to be killed, etc.). Judges
weigh these factors in deciding between a life sentence or a death sentence.
Well, apparently, a very serious first-degree murder trial that could result in
the death penalty costs a Nebraska prosecutor's office about $100,000 -- all
the paperwork and attorney time, assembling the evidence, expert witnesses,
etc. etc. So if a guy is guilty ANYWAY, and it's not THAT bad of a murder,
though bad enough of course, but if you can get him to plead, you save
taxpayers $100,000. Then the prosecutors will "drop" some of the
aggravating circumstances in their sentencing pleadings before the judge. They
would never plea-bargain an especially heinous case, like the guy who skinned
his victim alive in Rulo, or the couple of guys who raped and killed children
here in Nebraska. Anyhoo, here's a transcript of a hearing in the Legislature
in which Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine talks about plea bargaining, and
it'll give you a sense of how important it really is. Now, I think there are
something like 50 bad murders in Nebraska every year, so if they take away the
death penalty, nobody will plead out and avoid trial -- they'll all roll the
dice and go to trial to try to get off -- even though in the vast majority of
cases the prosecution has them dead to rights -- so that could cost us a
potential $50 million additional in our criminal justice costs in a given year.
NOT GOOD!!!!!!! Oh, and p.s., woman-to-woman -- if they take away the death
penalty, then what is to keep a rapist from KILLING his victims, every time, to
try to avoid capture, since if they are alive they can identify him, but if
they are dead, they cannot -- and if there's no death penalty but the max is
life in prison, why not just "off" the victim and try to get away
with it? Ew, ew, ewww.
Anyway, here's the transcript:
No comments:
Post a Comment