Wyoming death penalty kept alive after Senate rejects repeal effort

By Ramsey Scott and By CJ Baker
Posted 2/19/19

An effort to end the death penalty in Wyoming was shot down in the Legislature on Thursday.

After making it through the House by a relatively comfortable margin, House Bill 145 was defeated on …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Wyoming death penalty kept alive after Senate rejects repeal effort

Posted

An effort to end the death penalty in Wyoming was shot down in the Legislature on Thursday.

After making it through the House by a relatively comfortable margin, House Bill 145 was defeated on its first reading in the state Senate on a 12-18 vote.

Park County’s senators split on the bill, with Sen. R.J. Kost, R-Powell, voting to repeal the death penalty and Sens. Hank Coe, R-Cody, and Wyatt Agar, R-Thermopolis, voting to keep it on the books.

Prosecutors opposed the repeal, with Park County Prosecuting Attorney Bryan Skoric urging Coe to vote against the “bad bill.”

“Wyoming has had cases that warrant the death penalty, and Wyoming will have cases in the future that warrant the death penalty,” Skoric said in an email. “That is why the law should remain.”

While the death penalty is rarely imposed in Wyoming, prosecutors more often use it as leverage when attempting to negotiate plea deals in murder cases.

Sen. Brian Boner, R-Douglas, laid out the arguments for HB 145 during a floor debate Thursday, focusing on the financial cost for the state, the moral issues with giving government that much power over its citizens and the real possibility of executing an innocent person.

“This is something we have to get right each and every time,” Boner said. While saying the U.S. has an excellent legal system, he noted that 164 people on death row have been exonerated since 1973.

“... If that number was one, that would be enough to give me pause. But it’s not — it’s 164 people who were falsely convicted and sentenced to death,” Boner said.

Other senators who supported the bill tried to focus the debate on both the financial cost of keeping the death penalty bill on the books and the mental cost placed on juries who have to make that life-or-death decision.

Even without anyone currently on the state’s death row, bill sponsor Rep. Jared Olsen, R-Cheyenne, said local and state government would be saving by not having to staff attorneys and other experts for the potential of a death penalty case. The fiscal note for HB 145 estimated the state would save $756,035 in 2020.

Since 1976, Wyoming has only executed one person: Mark Hopkinson, who was put to death in 1992. One inmate, Dale Wayne Eaton, had his death sentence overturned in 2014. Boner said if prosecutors try to pursue death for Eaton again, the Wyoming public defender’s office expects it will need to spend around $2.1 million to defend the man.

However, Skoric argues that having the death penalty on the books actually saves the government money — and he said the fact that death penalty cases “get unnecessarily stalled in the federal courts for decades is no reason to throw in the towel on appropriate justice.”

“Hopefully next year, some legislators will actually do their homework on this subject and not just hide behind the usual flavor of the day, which is ... it will save [money] to get rid of it,” Skoric added. “Deterrence should not be lessened and community safety and justice should not be cheapened.”

Many opponents of the bill argued that the death penalty helps ensure justice for victims and their families. But some arguments centered around the religious impact of the death penalty.

“The greatest man who ever lived died via the death penalty for you and for me. I’m grateful for him for a future hope because of this,” said Sen. Lynn Hutchings, R-Cheyenne, who voted to keep capital punishment. “Governments were instituted to execute justice. If it wasn’t for Jesus dying via the death penalty, we would all have no hope.”

In contrast, Sen. Stephen Pappas, R-Cheyenne, cited his Christian faith in arguing for a repeal; he said that, when someone is put to death, they lose their chance to change and repent.

Boner described his support for ending the death penalty as stemming from his pro-life beliefs, but one of his anti-abortion colleagues had a different take.

“I find it disheartening in America that, on the one hand, we’re saying it’s OK to sentence innocent children to death up to the day of birth for being an inconvenience and yet all the while we’re seeing a push across this country to spare the lives of convicted rapists, murderers and pedophiles,” said Sen. Bo Biteman, R-Ranchester. “I find it backwards and I would much rather we abort the murderers, rapists and pedophiles. We need to get our priorities straight in this country.”

Under Wyoming law, only first-degree murder can be punished by execution — and only if at least one “aggravating circumstance” is present.

Another opponent of the bill, Sen. Anthony Bouchard, R-Cheyenne, said the death penalty remains a strong deterrent for crime and something that can provide closure for victims. He also argued that some of the push to end the death penalty comes from the “prison industry” wanting to grow the prison population and make more money.

Boner said he was disappointed with the result, but noted the bill had gotten farther than any previous attempt to repeal capital punishment in Wyoming.

Skoric said he was surprised by how much traction the effort gained this year, adding that he thinks the “vast majority of people in Park County still support the death penalty.”

Sabrina King, policy director for the ACLU of Wyoming, said the organization was “immensely disappointed” with the Senate’s decision to keep the death penalty.

“We will continue fighting and look forward to the day we end this disgrace of a practice in our state,” King said.

In a Thursday night Facebook post, Sen. Kost said his decision to vote for an end to the death penalty was not easy, noting the Senate’s lengthy debate.

“... I don’t think anyone felt great about the final decision,” he wrote, “because we value and respect the thoughts and decisions of each side.”

Comments