Senators spent May 13 debating a bill that would repeal Nebraska’s death penalty but adjourned before taking a final vote on the bill.
LB543, as introduced by Omaha
Sen. Ernie Chambers, would replace death penalty provisions with the sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The provisions of the bill would apply retroactively to inmates currently serving capital punishment sentences. It was the 37th time that Chambers has introduced such legislation.
The bill also would allow the court to require payment to a victim’s estate for any pain and suffering to the victim caused by the offense.
Chambers said the death penalty is random, arbitrary and has no clear standards for how it is applied statewide. He said the “vilest” criminal still is a human being who should be treated with basic human dignity.
“Some who oppose the bill may wave the bloody shirt and try to play on emotions of horrendous crimes,” Chambers said. “People who say they support the death penalty do not know what a grotesque ceremony it is.”
Lincoln Sen. Colby Coash offered an amendment that he said was technical and would eliminate language in statute referring to “capital punishment” and replace it with “life without the possibility of parole.” The amendment was later divided into three components.
Chambers supported the amendment, saying it would streamline the bill.
Omaha Sen. Beau McCoy opposed the bill and the divided amendment. He offered, and later withdrew, a motion to bracket the bill until June 5, 2015.
“There are communities that have experienced the most heinous crimes,” he said. “I believe that the individuals on death row belong there.”
Scottsbluff Sen. John Harms supported the bracket motion and cited details of a homicide that occurred in his community.
“There are some crimes that are so heinous they deserve death,” he said.
Chambers disagreed and said the term “heinous” itself is ambiguous and often misused in homicide cases. The federal court has overturned many death penalty cases because the language was inappropriately utilized during the trial, he said.
Kearney Sen. Galen Hadley—who once supported the death penalty—opposed the bracket motion saying his convictions about the death penalty have evolved. He said he attended the execution in support of the death penalty for Charles Starkweather, who murdered 11 people in Nebraska and Wyoming in the 1950s. Since that time, he said, studies have suggested the death penalty is applied disproportionately, so he no longer supports it.
“More minorities are on death row than white people,” he said. “If the victim was a white person then the chances of the perpetrator getting the death penalty are significantly higher than if the victim was a minority.”
Omaha Sen. Steve Lathrop also opposed the bracket motion, saying the death penalty should be repealed because such sentences cost the state roughly three times more than a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
Lincoln Sen. Danielle Conrad said death penalty cases are costly because they are unique, litigated differently and must have three separate trials. At each stage there are at least 40 different grounds for appeal, she said, and without the death penalty sentence the cost involved in the second and third trials would be eliminated.
Omaha Sen. Brad Ashford also offered a motion to bracket the bill in an attempt to gauge how senators would vote on the bill and the Coash amendments.
“This vote is in my view a vote in favor of or against LB543, and that is why I brought the motion,” he said. “A vote for the bracket motion is a vote against the bill and a vote against the bracket motion is a vote for the bill.”
The motion failed on an 18-26 vote. Twenty-five votes are required for passage of a bill; thirty are needed to override a governor’s veto.
Holdrege Sen. Tom Carlson offered an amendment, adopted 26-6, which would add the following language: Life is the most valuable possession of a human being. The State of Nebraska should exercise utmost care to protect its residents’ lives, born and unborn, from homicide, accident and arbitrary taking by the state.
If the death penalty were repealed, he said, the concern about taking innocent lives should be extended to include unborn babies.
Chambers opposed the amendment and called it vindictive and irrelevant. He filed a motion to reconsider the vote taken on the amendment, which was adopted 29-5.
“If you are talking about abortion,” he said, “there is no arbitrary taking by the state.”
Carlson withdrew his amendment and the Legislature adjourned before taking further votes. Several amendments are pending.
