The Oregonian

Aug. 6

Gov. John Kitzhaber argued last fall that his decision to halt executions for the rest of his term was a matter of principle. After approving a pair of executions during his first term, he wrote in November, he questioned the decisions repeatedly before deciding never again to participate in something he considers morally wrong.

The governors qualms are understandable, as is his desire for the Legislature to revisit capital punishment. Nonetheless, its time to give two-term killer Gary Haugen what he wants: a date with the executioner.

Haugen said last year that he was cool with the penalty. That turns out to have been an understatement. Lawyers acting on Haugens behalf have sought to make the governors temporary reprieve even more temporary. On Aug. 3, they won the support of Marion County Circuit Court Judge Timothy Alexander, whos no fan of capital punishment. I agree with many of the concerns expressed by the governor, Alexander acknowledged in his ruling. And, like the governor, hed like the Legislature to rethink sentencing for aggravated murder.

But as a matter of law, Alexander wrote, Haugen has the right to reject Governor Kitzhabers reprieve.

Kitzhaber, of course, has the right to appeal Alexanders decision and is likely to do so, says Liani Reeves, his general counsel. Thats too bad. The test of wills, and lawyers, between Haugen and Kitzhaber is creeping ever closer to bizarre-sideshow territory. With an appeal, it will gain full residency.

In support of his temporary reprieve, the governor listed a number of problems with Oregons system of capital punishment, including its expense and the enormous amount of time inmates can twiddle their thumbs on Death Row while the appeals drag endlessly on. While both are good reasons to rethink Oregons approach to capital punishment, neither is exactly the stuff of moral outrage.

Neither is the governors argument that one person can be sentenced to life without parole for a crime that might land another on death row.

After all, Kitzhaber argued last year, The reality is that Oregons death row is an extremely expensive life prison term. Whys that? Because The only factor that determines whether someone sentenced to death in Oregon is actually executed is that they volunteer.

Like Haugen, the two killers executed during Kitzhabers first term who happen to be the only two executed since voters reinstated the death penalty in 1984 decided they were cool with it.

It would be one thing to roll up even more appeals and legal bills in order to prevent a genuine travesty of justice, but travesty isnt a word that pops into mind in connection with Haugens execution. In 1981, he raped the mother of an ex-girlfriend, then killed her with a baseball bat and hammer. He pleaded guilty and got life. While in prison, Haugen helped kill another inmate, for which he was sentenced to death. Most Oregonians just guessing here would probably be inclined to give Haugen what he wants.

So should Kitzhaber, his qualms with the death penalty notwithstanding. He gave Haugen a reprieve even though Haugen didnt want one, and now a judge has sided with Haugen.

The governor should turn his focus, instead, to the larger issue, and the Legislature should work with him to fix it. You could make a compelling case that Oregon would be better off without the death penalty at all. You also could make a compelling case that Oregon should have a death penalty that lives up to its name.

What you cant make a good case for, though, is the status quo.

Or spending more public money to keep Gary Haugen from receiving a penalty he accepts.