The Cause Endures
It is in these moments that people who are novices or who are inexperienced in the way of politics, and the long arc of history get frustrated and often walk away. For example, I saw one commenter on Facebook blame the Democrats in the General Assembly for the vote. That person is probably the same type of person who blames President Obama for Republican obstruction. And he, and those like him, need some education on how long and involved a process politics and change is. If you are getting into politics for instant gratification and neverending victories, you will be bitterly disappointed.
Yesterday, the defeat of the Senate Bill 40, which would have repealed the death penalty, by an official vote of 16-23-2, was not a defeat. It was a victory when you look at change and politics from a longer view, or a higher altitude. Over the course of three years, we went from no bill for repeal even being considered, to having it be introduced, pass through the Senate, and die in the House Judiciary Committee, to having it pass the Senate again, and get debated and voted on on the House floor.
Yesterday was a step forward. To be sure, the vast majority of the Democratic caucus voted for the repeal of the death penalty. Step back and think about that for a second, while looking at this vote roster (I have excluded the Republicans voting no, because they are irrelevant to this conversation, well, are irrelevant to most things really).
DEMOCRATIC REPEALERS
Baumbach–YES
Bennett–YES*
Bentz–YES
Bolden–YES
Brady–YES
Heffernan–YES
J. Johnson–YES
Keeley–YES
Kowalko–YES
Lynn–YES
Matthews–YES
Potter–YES
B. Short–YES
M. Smith–YES
Viola–YES
K. Williams–YES**
REPUBLICAN REPEALERS
Miro–YES
Ramone–YES
DEMOCRATIC BETRAYERS
Carson–NO
Jaques–NO
Q. Johnson–NO
Longhurst–NO
Mitchell–NO
Mulrooney–NO
Osienski–NO
Paradee–NO
Schwartzkopf–NO
16 out of the 25 Democratic members of the House of Representatives voted to repeal the death penalty. Nearly two thirds, or 64% of the caucus. Now, remember back to the late 1980’s and 1990’s, when every Democrat was rushing to look moderate and tough on crime, and supporting the death penalty was an easy way to do that. But now the overwhelming majority of the caucus has returned to sanity and returned to progressive values. Pete Schwartzkopf, as a former cop, is a leader without followers in his own party on this issue. Perhaps that is why he and Larry Mitchell allowed this bill to go to the floor: he was facing an uprising by the overwhelming majority of his caucus.
I would like to personally thank Rep. Sean Lynn, who was simply superb yesterday in his prosecution, and that is what it was, of the death penalty and its supporters during the debate. He showed himself to be a damn fine lawyer, and he did it knowing that he may suffer political consequences in his own district. Contrast that profile in courage to that of Valerie Longhurst, to Ed Osienski, to Earl Jaques, to Michael Mulrooney. All four are from safe Democratic districts, so they had nothing to fear politically. So they either voted no out of fear, or they voted no because they actually believe in the death penalty.
I used to be ambivalent on this issue, as Representatives Brady and Representative Short said yesterday. But seeing more and more evidence pile up that the system is not perfect, that the death penalty is not universally applied, that it is actually applied with racial and economic bias, thus making it an arbitrary and capricious punishment, and that we are killing and have killed innocent people; I have gone from ambivalent to an opponent. So such a change is possible, and as more and more time goes by, as more and more evidence piles up, as more and more states repeal it, opposition to the death penalty, and affirmative actions to repeal it, is becoming a required and imperative policy position that must be possessed by anyone wishing to call themselves a Democrat, let alone a progressive or a liberal. Remember, we are the rational party, the party devoted to science and evidence.
We are not that party solely motivated by vengeance, fear and hate. If you want to pass and enforce laws with those emotions as your motivator, join the Red Team.
So I want to personally thank all those with courage to stand for your convictions yesterday, all the yes voters, even the Republican ones. To the no voters, to the Democratic Betrayers, reevaluate your position. Look in the mirror. Why are you for killing? Why do you want to become evil to fight evil? The logic behind the death penalty is the same as the logic for torturing terrorists: that we must lower ourselves to fight our enemies. I disagree. We can keep ourselves, our children, our families, our societies safe, while at the same time standing for higher ideals. It’s called life without parole, which, as we were reminded yesterday, is a much tougher death penalty than the death penalty, since it is death by incarceration.
Finally, if you voted for the death penalty yesterday, do not dare call yourself a Christian. Jesus Christ, you know, the guy you are supposed to be following the teachings of, did not support it. He was against killing your enemies. In fact, he said the opposite, if I recall. If you oppose other things because of your supposed moral code, while at the same time supporting the death penalty, realize that you have no morality.
The fight will continue. Next session (or maybe even this one), the repeal bill will be back. And soon, it will pass. So keep your head up.
*–Bennett was absent but my sources have it that she supports repeal.
**–Williams voted no for procedural reasons, but supports repeal.
Tags: Featured
I appreciate everyone’s efforts especially Mr. Lynn. Bryan Stevenson makes me proud to be a Delawarean. I too was ambivalent about the death penalty. A number of years ago I was appointed as counsel in a death penalty case. I am currently handling a Rule 61 petition in a death penalty case. In my opinion neither case should have been a death penalty case. I am firmly convinced we do not apply the death penalty in Delaware or nationwide on a rational basis and thus should not apply it at all.
I’m sure I am going to get slammed on this one, and I don’t know your thoughts on this one Delaware Dem, but when you talk about God and murder and how no one can call themselves a Christian if they support the death penalty, do you feel the same way about abortion? Because under that line of thought, death is death. I am against the death penalty, but I am also against abortion unless it is a matter of life or death for the mother. I find it odd that both parties tend to support one but not the other.
On abortion, for me personally, the important question is when life begins. I do not believe human life begins the moment conception occurs. Human life begins the moment the fetus can be removed from the mother’s womb and survive on its own. So you cannot tell me life begins at conception. It doesn’t. All that happens at conception is the creation of a potential human life, which needs a lot of time and other things to go right for it to become human life. If you say the zygote at conception is human life, they why not the egg, or the sperm? Hell, according to some fundamentalists, I could be causing a mass genocide every time I masturbate.
So I am fine with women exercising their freedom to chose during the three to six months prior to viability. Personally, if woman in my life came to me about whether to have an abortion, I would probably counsel against it. But it is not my choice, not the choice of the government, not the choice of some hypocritical religious leader. It is the choice of the woman.
But in the end, I do not see a grouping of cells as human life in the earlier stages of pregnancy, and to say that it is will lead to the outlawing of birth control and sex for reasons other than strict procreation.
Personally, I’d like to keep religion and abortion out of it. The biggest problem with the death penalty is how, and who, it is applied. That’s the issue for me.
Perfectly argued, DD.
I’ll add that if you are Christian, THE founding event of your belief system is the state-sponsored execution of an innocent man.
What this crystalizes for me is how well the state police strategy of abandoning the GOP for the ruling Democratic Party is working out. Until Schwartzkopf, ex-SP were reliably Republican. Now that they’re posing as Democrats, they’re still reliably Republican.
Pandora, I wasn’t even going to comment on this, much less write my own blog post about it, since I tend to hold views on these matters in my heart. However, Delaware Dem brought religion into it by bringing up “do not dare call yourself a Christian”. I’m pretty sure Jesus would not favor abortion.
“Now that they’re posing as Democrats, they’re still reliably Republican.”
Sadly that is true of Delaware voters in general.
Jesus had nothing to say about the unborn. You may guess what he would say but you do not know. And even if you did, Christian scripture does not determine US law any more than Islamic scripture does.
Exactly, Puck. We don’t know what Jesus would say about abortion. We do know his opinion on loving your enemies, and as LG pointed out, he was the victim of a wrongfully applied death penalty.
So yes, I did bring religion into it. I did that to expose the hypocrisy. But eliminate the religious argument and we are still left with mountains of evidence that the death penalty is wrong.
I made a comment on Facebook that the Leadership in both the Democratic Party and among the elected officials who call themselves Democrats are not Democrats. They prove it time and time again Between this vote the Corporate givaway vote and the way the minimum wage vote had to be amended makes the point
Puck is correct. No mention of the unborn, despite the fact that women were having abortions during that time. I did, however, say, “I’d like to keep religion and abortion out of it.” I didn’t single one out.
And what DD was pointing out is hypocrisy. DD didn’t use his religion to make the point. He didn’t say, “The death penalty is wrong because Jesus.” He simply called out people who selectively use their faith to back up an argument they can’t make on facts.
Is it really possible to be a hypocrite if you don’t hold any core values?
This talk of people “not being Democrats” doesn’t really make sense to me. I mean, what does it even mean to be a Democrat? The word has been sapped of any coherent meaning.
To say Jesus had no view on abortion in the Bible is correct. It didn’t exist at the massive scale it does now. It did exist in Roman times, but not to the extent it does now. However, he did have very clear views on killing.
“Human life begins the moment the fetus can be removed from the mother’s womb and survive on its own. So you cannot tell me life begins at conception. It doesn’t. All that happens at conception is the creation of a potential human life, which needs a lot of time and other things to go right for it to become human life.”
Human life does not begin at that moment, human viability begins at that moment. By your logic, how can we justify abortion when a fetus at 20 weeks old has been taken out of the womb for health reasons and actually survived? Is that not a fully-developed fetus not a human life at that point? Yes, these are rare circumstances and most don’t survive in those situations. But some have. Since the death penalty repeal argument is that “if there is even a chance the guilty are not guilty we should abolish it” is the central tenet of that philosophy, shouldn’t the same be held for the existence of human life in the womb? If there is a chance of survival?
I am fully in support of the death penalty repeal. I believe in all life. I think it is foolhardy for any human to determine what life is worth keeping and which is not, or even to answer the basic questions about when life begins.
Kevin,
Please. Stop.
Thanks
“Sadly that is true of Delaware voters in general.”
No, it’s not. What Delaware voters are is moderate — a higher percentage of moderates than any other state. That’s why they don’t fight very hard for either liberal or conservative causes.
I don’t necessarily agree with everything Mr. Ohlandt is saying, but I don’t think he should stop. Nothing wrong with a rational discussion about important topics. We don’t see that on the other side.
On the overall post, I’ve expressed frustration, too and stand by it. That said, the movement on gay rights happened quickly and we can only hope that the tide will turn on this issue. As of now, a majority of Americans support the death penalty. Many Democrats have and still do. We can only continue to present rational arguments against it in hopes of changing minds, or at the very least causing some to give pause to their enthusiastic support of state-sanctioned killings.
“What Delaware voters are is moderate”
How is it that Democrats always have to demonstrate their moderation by supporting Republican goals? I think it is high time Republicans demonstrated some moderation.
How is it that water is wet?
@Mike: At the risk of posting something one of the proprietors would eventually, that’s what Open Threads are for.
If you add surfactants, it breaks down the hydrogen bonds and makes water wetter
Geezer’s correct. DD has a topic on the table. I should have been clearer. That said, I’m fine with Kevin taking this subject to the open thread and having a discussion on it.
Morality aside, the death penalty is ineffective as a crime deterrent, it is astronomically expensive to apply, and there is no consistency as to when prosecutors seek it. For those reasons alone it should be repealed.
On the national level:
Hillary Clinton supports the death penalty.
Bernie Sanders is against the death penalty.
Thanks for the support everyone. I genuinely appreciate all the words of encouragement today and over the last several days.
It truly means a lot to me.
I also want to thank my colleagues who stood with me – especially my friend Kim Williams. She has more guts than everyone in that room put together.
I try to read the blog frequently and always find inspiration and hope here.
Thank you all.
Best,
Sean
My thoughts are that if we can not change the repesentatives mind, we must work to change the representative.