And now for a real moral battle in the South Dakota Legislature: Senator Arthur Rusch (R-17/Vermillion) has filed Senate Bill 94, his promised death penalty repeal. As a judge in 1997, Senator Rusch presided over the 1997 retrial that sentenced Donald Moeller to death. Now Senator Rusch seeks to wipe the death penalty from South Dakota’s books and commute the sentences of the three men on our death row to life without parole.
All eight Senate Democrats are co-sponsoring SB 94. None of Senator Rusch’s Republican chambermates have signed on. Another Republican former judge, Rep. Timothy Johns (R-30/Lead) is the prime House sponsor. Seven House Republicans and seven House Democrats are co-sponsoring SB 94. Prominent Republican sponsors poised to bring more of their colleagues around the the idea that the death penalty is immoral and ineffective are Reps. Kristien Conzet (R-32/Rapid City), Rep. Fred Deutsch (R-4/Florence), and Rep. Lee Schoenbeck (R-5/Watertown).
Senator Rusch’s Senate Bill 94 goes farther than last year’s attempt to repeal the death penalty. Senator Bernie Hunhoff (D-18/Yankton) and since-resigned Rep. Steve Hickey (R-9/Hartford) proposed a strictly prospective death penalty repeal that would have left in place current death sentences. Senator Rusch did not sponsor the 2015 repeal. That measure did not advance past its first hearing, with Senate State Affairs killing it 7–2.
Since research has proven time and time again that is costs exponentially more to put an inmate to death vs. keeping them in prison for life, anyone who considers themselves a fiscal conservative or anyone who claims to value human life (and 90% of our legislators claim one or both of these titles) should have no reservations about supporting such legislation.
Then again the voters don’t seem to reward consistency and this won’t be the type of thing that makes it onto the heavy card stock election year mailers…. so I predict this being shot down in committee to prevent the majority of the legislature from having to defend their positions.
Sadly, Craig, I agree with you. Besides, Marty Jackley’s already on record as saying that we HAVE to be able to give minors life sentences without parole in order to punish the most heinous crimes (despite the SCOTUS ruling against it); he’ll argue that we HAVE to be able to give the death penalty for the same reasons.
Bravo for Senator Art Rusch!
Eve, not only did the SCOTUS decide that it is unconstitutional for a State to require judges to impose mandatory life sentences without parole on juveniles, last week in Montgomery v. Louisiana the Court ruled that the rule is retroactive so that whoever was sentenced to a mandatory life sentence as a juvenile will now have one year to seek habeas corpus relief and a new sentencing hearing.
Revisiting these draconian death sentences is long past due. Good for former Judges Rusch and Johns in their efforts, along with their supporters. These men have the experience and knowledge to know the right path for our State on such issues.
Here…Here… to any GOP that will support the end of the 19th century punishment of the death penalty
Bout time Jackley gets relieved and sent down to the most minor league that will take hum. His batting average against unconstitutional laws is nearing ofer,ain’t it?
Schoenbeck, Deutsch and Ms. Conzet? Oh, my… It’s happening as sure as the Winter’s white. I’ve seen it before in South Dakota. It’s ripening like a big ‘ol heirloom tomato. SoDak is turning purple.
Then, pretty soon Republicans won’t be wonderin’, “Who is John Galt?? ..’cause “When Quinn the Eskimo gets here, ALL the pigeons gonna run to him.”- B. Dylan
I have been opposed to the death penalty for at least 30 years.
A government powerful enough to kill its citizens is too powerful.
lol.
The government just gunned down a domestic terrorist in Oregon. Tyranny or law and order? Pick a lane,
ToryTroy.But isn’t it nice to find some common ground with Troy, Larry?
Death penalty is unnecessary,cruel and vindictive-unless I get to decide who dies. Then it is all good.
Jenny, Troy is against capital punishment because of cost of appeals not because he’s altruistic.
Same with Deutsch and Schoenbeck: cheap asses not humanists.
bearcreekbat, yes SCOTUS has made it retroactive (thank God!), but I’ll bet that Marty Jackley will STILL find a way to postpone enacting that for as long as possible. Between that, and fighting on behalf of the latest anti-abortion bill, he’ll be far too busy to do anything about any possible government corruption charges.
Hey, give Troy Jones from Orion a break. He shorted oil and made all his investors millionaires like this guy did. Wait, didn’t he? lol
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/hedge-fund-billion-oil-bet_n_6515704.html
Amen. Costs much less to give a punishment more deserved and the wrongfully accused might still be alive for retribution if desired.
It’s a curiosity why Europeans are so out in ‘front’ of this ‘the most powerful nation on earth’ in abolishment of the death penalty and health care for all its citizens!! Well, not all have national healthcare–but our major competitors do for sure. We still want to ‘rule by fear’ it seems. Fear of the death penalty is no detriment to crime at all. Knowing one stood to be locked up forever and ever with no chance of parole would deter more I think.
I will not begrudge any Republican his reasons for opposing the death penalty. A Republican who can look past tough-guy rhetoric, rationally review costs and benefits, and conclude that killing convicts costs more money than it’s worth is making a positive step in the right direction. I can admire that position as much as I can admire the position of Republicans who may have rejected the DiSanto–Olson welfare-drug-testing bill entirely on the same cool fiscal rationality.