Death penalty: Time to give it up?

Inter Lake editorial

Is the death penalty in Montana on life support?

As in previous sessions, legislation to abolish the death penalty has advanced halfway through the Legislature. It has been approved by the Senate and awaits action by the House and possibly the governor.

There is a stronger possibility than in past years that the bill may get through the full Legislature. And Gov. Brian Schweitzer, although a proponent of the death penalty, has said he might consider signing the ban if it reaches his desk.

Death-penalty foes, beyond the moral arguments about a government putting people to death, point to two prime reasons for abolishing the death penalty: Executing a prisoner (with the attendant years of legal appeals' is more costly than a sentence of life in prison, plus there's the risk of killing an innocent person.

The economic question is one being considered by states across the country as they wrestle with budget deficits. In the words of one California judge, "It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive."

And let's face it: The death penalty really isn't working in Montana.

If it were, then Ronald Smith would not still be alive and contesting his death sentence - 26 years after he first pleaded guilty to a pair of execution-style murders.

Smith, the cold-blooded killer of two young Browning men in 1982, has been successfully fighting execution for decades. He has been sentenced to die three different times, but his legal battle - conducted at all levels of the court system - has succeeded in keeping him away from the death chamber.

Now the Canadian government wants to step in on behalf of Smith (a Canadian citizen) and plead for clemency, since Canada has no death penalty.

That promises to delay even further the slow-rolling wheels of lethal justice.

If you need a poster child to prove that having a death penalty on the books is nearly pointless, Ronald Smith is it.

It may not be as much the fault of state law as it is the convoluted court processes that surround death-row cases, but the end result is a dysfunctional system when trying to implement death as a deterrent to heinous crimes.

This newspaper has long supported the death penalty and still does as an absolute punishment. But look at reality: The death penalty in Montana rarely is effective and in fact ends up being an expensive exercise of principles.

If the will isn't there to install a Texas-type system of speedier executions, perhaps it's time to consider the alternative of replacing the death penalty with life terms with no possibility of parole. Certainly we can all agree, in any case, that the decision about the future of the death penalty should rightfully be made by the Legislature, exercising the will of the people, not by smart lawyers plying the system on behalf of ruthless clients such as Ron Smith.