Death penalty works as intended

A Democratic legislator from Arlee is proposing to abolish the death penalty in Montana, but the more you look at the evidence, the more you conclude the death penalty works - in this state at least - the way it was intended.

Supporters of Rep. Joey Jayne's bill argue that by requiring life sentences with no chance of parole instead of the death penalty, the state would "reduce court costs and Montana taxes used to defend and prosecute the most serious criminal cases."

That's probably true, because death sentences often turn out to be nothing more than life sentences that cost taxpayers a premium because of ongoing appeals. But that is a result of the way our court system works, and does not in itself demonstrate the error of the death penalty.

Take Ronald Smith, Montana's poster child for prolonged death sentences. Smith was convicted of murdering two people way back in 1982 - that's 23 years ago - and there is still no indication his sentence will be carried out anytime soon. In fact, he has been sentenced to death three times because of appeals.

Our judicial system has become hog-tied by procedural back-door evasions for many on death row. When it takes a quarter century for the state to carry out a death sentence, that is nothing short of cruel for victims' families who do support the death penalty.

But that means we should fix the system, not eliminate the death penalty.

There are good reasons to keep the death penalty as well. It ensures that those who are executed will not take innocent life again. It also ensures that society's standards of right and wrong are crystal clear.

In the past, you could easily make the case that innocent men had been put to death because of wrongful convictions. For many years, that was probably the best argument against the death penalty, and DNA tests have been used to clear many innocent men from long prison terms or death row.

But today, those same DNA tests are making it more and more unlikely that the wrong man will ever be convicted, let alone be put to death. It is much easier for the state to be sure the right man is behind bars than it ever was in the past.

Another argument against the death penalty that came up Monday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing is even less relevant in Montana. Former Supreme Court Justice John Sheehy claimed that capital punishment is applied disproportionately to minorities.

But the facts argue against that conclusion in Montana, where the death penalty has been used sparingly and judiciously. In fact, since 1943 only two men have been executed in the state, and both of those were white.

All these arguments are probably moot in any case. The House voted down similar measures during the 2001 and 2003 sessions, but even if Jayne's bill somehow passed this time around, Gov. Brian Schweitzer is presumably ready with a veto pen since he supports the death penalty.