Posted on 05/28/2015 2:19:32 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Nebraska has abolished the death penalty in a landmark veto-override vote backed by a coalition of conservatives who oppose capital punishment.
North Platte Senator Mike Groene stood with 18 others as an advocate to keep the death penalty.
But that just wasn't enough as 30 other senators decided to over ride Governor Pete Ricketts' veto and abolish the death penalty.
He voted to keep the death penalty and uphold the governor's veto.
"I believe in the death penalty in a civil society, we do not tolerate evil," Senator Groene said.
State Senators voted 30-19 on Wednesday to override Gov. Pete Ricketts, a Republican who supports the death penalty. The vote makes Nebraska the first traditionally conservative state to eliminate the punishment since North Dakota in 1973.
Nebraska joins 18 other states and Washington, D.C., in banning the ultimate punishment.
Some senators say they philosophically support the death penalty but are convinced the state will never carry out another execution because of legal hurdles. Nebraska hasn't executed an inmate since a 1997 electrocution.
The bill was introduced by independent Sen. Ernie Chambers, who has fought for four decades to repeal the death penalty.
Governor Pete Ricketts issued this statement following the vote, “My words cannot express how appalled I am that we have lost a critical tool to protect law enforcement and Nebraska families. While the Legislature has lost touch with the citizens of Nebraska, I will continue to stand with Nebraskans and law enforcement on this important issue.”
The Governor thanks the following state senators that voted to sustain his veto: Senator Dave Bloomfield, Senator Lydia Brasch, Senator Joni Craighead, Senator Curt Friesen, Senator Mike Groene, Senator Dan Hughes, Senator Jerry Johnson, Senator Bill Kintner, Senator John Kuehn, Senator Tyson Larson, Senator Beau McCoy, Senator John Murante, Senator Merv Riepe, Senator Jim Scheer, Senator Ken Schilz, Senator Dave Schnoor, Senator Jim Smith, Senator John Stinner, Senator Dan Watermeier.
The following state senators voted to override Gov. Pete Ricketts' veto and abolish the death penalty: Senator Roy Baker, Senator Kate Bolz, Senator Kathy Campbell, Senator Ernie Chambers, Senator Colby Coash, Senator Tanya Cook, Senator Sue Crawford, Senator Al Davis, Senator Laura Ebke, Senator Tommy Garrett, Senator Mike Gloor, Senator Ken Haar, Senator Galen Hadley, Senator Matt Hansen, Senator Burke Harr, Senator Robert Hilkemann, Senator Sara Howard, Senator Rick Kolowski, Senator Mark Kolterman, Senator Bob Krist, Senator Brett Lindstrom, Senator John McCollister, Senator Heath Mello, Senator Adam Morfeld, Senator Jeremy Nordquist, Senator Patty Pansing Brooks, Senator Paul Schumacher, Senator Les Seiler, Senator Kate Sullivan, Senator Matt Williams.
"Today marks a remarkable and historic victory for our state, said Danielle Conrad, ACLU Executive Director. "We are grateful for the dynamic leadership of policymakers, and we are proud to be part of an incredibly diverse coalition led by faith leaders, fiscal conservatives, and victim’s families. This is a meaningful victory for all Nebraskans.
Senator Beau McCoy of Omaha immediately announced the formation of Nebraskans for Justice. Nebraskans for Justice is an organization that will explore the possibility of a citizen-driven ballot initiative to give Nebraska citizens the option of reinstating Nebraska’s death penalty.
“With the formation of Nebraskans for Justice, I am standing with Nebraskans who are thoroughly disappointed with Nebraska Legislators who voted to end Nebraska’s death penalty,” said Senator McCoy. “Once again, Nebraska’s Legislature has gone against the wishes of an overwhelming number of Nebraskans who believe the death penalty should be in place for those who commit the most heinous crimes.”
ROTFLOLOLOL
You have faith in the system of prosecutors who work in tandem with law enforcement, that these representatives of the state are four-square noble and well-meaning, honest and constitutionally stable and sound.
I do not.
Let's not argue, please.
Isn't execution premeditated murder?
Back in the ‘70s, the death penalty was struck down so those on death row got their sentences commuted to life. Thing is life is 45 years but then subtract good time and shorter time due to over crowding and all the other hooey and you have monsters being set free to roam the streets. It was a matter of hours and days before they were raping and murdering and states were scrambling to reinstate the death penalty. How soon we forget.
There’s been a vigorous push fight about the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of government, in FR discussions about how the recent biker brawl in Waco was treated.
Trustworthiness questions are going to be the game changer for a lot of people. This isn’t our fathers’ government any more.
You put words in my mouth I didn’t say, so please stop doing that. That stuff you typed, that’s your hangup as to why you don’t believe in it. Be clear on that, and own it.
What I believe is this. I believe that when people commit murder, or attempt to commit murder, I believe they deserve to die. It’s as plain as that. And since we have an albeit flawed system of laws still in operation, and are not in a state of living where vigilantism is the only way to get such justice, jury trials comprised of everyday people deciding the evidence and determining a sentence is what we have.
And what we’ve had since the founding of this country and before. And those such people had biblical basis for setting things up this way.
You put words in my mouth I didn’t say, so please stop doing that. That stuff you typed, that’s your hangup as to why you don’t believe in it. Be clear on that, and own it.
What I believe is this. I believe that when people commit murder, or attempt to commit murder, I believe they deserve to die. It’s as plain as that. And since we have an albeit flawed system of laws still in operation, and are not in a state of living where vigilantism is the only way to get such justice, jury trials comprised of everyday people deciding the evidence and determining a sentence is what we have.
And what we’ve had since the founding of this country and before. And those such people had biblical basis for setting things up this way.
True, but both sides disqualify potential jurors for any number of reasons. And eventually both sides run out of how many jurors they can say “no” to as well.
I quite understood you the first time.
A big problem is the vetting for ignorance which gives the court system itself essentially unlimited strikes.
It’s stuff like this, that prevents victims of horrendous crimes, the ability to forgive and be able to move forward in their lives.
When people believe they actually get genuine justice, it makes forgiveness possible. It is really more important for the victim because it lets them move on with their life, such as it is.
Then to see what they thought was justice, get reversed, just shows how much liberal policies just do not give a sh1t about real world ramifications to victims, the ones truly suffering from a crime/act of brutality.
It’s stuff like this, that prevents victims of horrendous crimes, the ability to forgive and be able to move forward in their lives.
When people believe they actually get genuine justice, it makes forgiveness possible. It is really more important for the victim because it lets them move on with their life, such as it is.
Then to see what they thought was justice, get reversed, just shows how much liberal policies just do not give a sh1t about real world ramifications to victims, the ones truly suffering from a crime/act of brutality.
If you went back to a biblical legalism it might actually both disappoint and shock you.
2 witnesses would be needed to convict — and yet they could stone you for sabbath breaking.
No, it’s their failure to believe in God, which is their own sin.
If you did, you wouldn’t have to make up stuff I didn’t say, yet attribute it to me.
It’s not a good quality to have here because people will call you on it.
What I wrote to explain to you exactly what I believe is totally different from the hangup you have about this, but tried to pass off to me and everyone else here as my position.
Don’t pull that liberal strawman crap.
Equating a legal execution as punishment for a premeditated criminal homicide with a criminal homicide is a contradiction in terms, like "homosexual marriage".
Cordially,
Creep
That just isn’t true. The expectation of justice is both temporal and eternal. The desire to see temporal justice meted out is a real thing that can affect a person’s ability to forgive. If it wasn’t important God would not have needed to set up governments and any penalties for anything bad here because “well he will just take care of it later in eternity”.
Yet if the murderer roams free to continue to live life happy without consequence, and continue to murder at will, how can the living victims that survive, or are relatives of the murdered, forgive?
You grossly oversimplfiy and downplay the role that temporal justice plays in the victim’s ability to forgive. God doesn’t downplay it, I don’t kow why you do.
Did I say we have to go back to all biblical legalism? No. You did.
Did I say death penalty for other than what I said? No. You did.
Please don’t do this garbage. I said what I said. Don’t twist it or make more or less of it.
I understood you the first time you said it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.