Death Penalty in Wisconsin

With SJR 5, the advisory referendum for the death penalty on the Senate agenda today, Mark Green and JB Van Hollen issued statements in support of Wisconsin prosecutors having the option to pursue capital punishment for the most vicious, heinous cases. Paul Bucher then also issued a release saying the same thing. All three men have had this position previously.

This evening Scott Walker also issued a statement in favor of the referendum and capital punishment for the most vicious cases.

This surprised me. It's a new position for Walker. For the dozen years I've known him, his pro-life views included opposition to the death penalty and I was impressed with his consistency.

Perhaps the Halbach murder has had an impact; maybe its the advancement in DNA testing. Whatever the reason, he's now in favor of the death penalty, where in the past he has not been.

Conversions on the death penalty issue are not unprecedented, or even uncommon. For example, I had been in favor of capital punishment but a few years ago determined I personally didn't think it was right. (My opposition is based on both moral and financial reasons that several conservatives also share.)

So the flip flop isn't outrageous or unprecedented or terrible.

But I have to admit, it is surprising.


Scott's full statement:

“I support a referendum on the death penalty for multiple first degree vicious murders. It is also critical that the convictions be based on DNA evidence. This will guarantee that only guilty people face capital punishment and is key to my support for the referendum question.”

This is the statement that our campaign put out today from me on the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 5.

Brian,

While my head tells me that the death penalty will not be a deterrent, my heart tells me that there must be an option for the worst offenders.

In the past, one of my concerns over the death penalty was the possibility that an innocent person might be put to death. Just a few years ago, we saw serious problems in Illinois with capital punishment.

What is different in the language of the advisory referendum is that the conviction must be based on DNA evidence. The facts show that if DNA evidence is strong enough to get an innocent person out of prison, it should also be strong enough to guarantee the sentence of a guilty person.

Years ago, I pushed to end the statute of limitations in rape cases where DNA evidence could be used to convict. As the Chair of the Assembly on Corrections and the Courts, I spent a great deal of time reviewing DNA evidence. It is amazingly accurate.

Finally, it is something of a conflict for people like me who have pro-life beliefs and who always to seek to protect innocent life, but the connection to the scientifically pure DNA evidence insures that only the guilty will face the death penalty in this state. With this in mind, I support the referendum question.

- Scott