Should Iowa reinstate the death penalty, even on a limited basis?

Some state lawmakers believe so and introduced a proposal this past week to restore the death penalty for those who kidnap, sexually assault and murder children.

The sentence would be carried out by lethal injection.

Three top Senate Republicans, including Stewart Iverson Jr., Senate Republican Leader, sent a letter to the Daily Nonpareil arguing their case and blasting Democratic Senate Leader Mike Gronstal of Council Bluffs for trying to block any debate on the issue.

The three senators, the other two being Larry McKibben of Marshalltown and Jeff Lamberti of Ankeny, said their proposal was "a narrowly-focused death penalty that would apply only to those who prey on Iowa's children."

Their action comes in the aftermath of the murder of a 10-year-old Cedar Rapids girl, Jetseta Gage, by a convicted sex offender.

The three Republican lawmakers said Gronstal and other Senate Democrats are avoiding a debate that most Iowans want their lawmakers to have.

"When two-thirds of Iowans support the death penalty, it's flat-out wrong for Sen. Gronstal to block debate on this important issue," the three senators wrote.

Contacted by telephone, Iverson said, "It's a very narrow bill, only aimed at protecting minors."

A person would have to commit all three crimes - kidnapping, sexually assaulting and murdering a child - listed in the proposed legislation to receive the death penalty, he said.

A majority of Iowans agree with the death penalty issue, Iverson said.

"A poll last week in the Des Moines Register found 67 percent favored the death penalty," he said.

Iverson criticized those who want to block the proposal.

"People expect us to have a debate," he said. "They (Senate opponents) don't want to be recorded on whether they are for or against the proposal."

Iverson said he and others will continue to push the legislation for a vote this year as the Senate extends its session this week and possibly beyond.

If a vote in the Senate were held, Iverson admits it could be a close one. Even if it were approved, the issue would have to be debated in the House, and if approved there, Gov. Tom Vilsack would have to agree. Iverson said Vilsack is not in favor of the death penalty.

In response, Gronstal said Republicans are playing politics with the issue.

"They are taking a tragic circumstance (Gage's death) and trying to score political points," he said. "They're playing politics. They know there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass it. They know there aren't enough votes in the House. They know the governor won't sign it. What else could it be besides politics?"

The last time the Legislature debated the death penalty issue was in 1995 and that failed, he said. What's more, in recent years when the Republicans controlled the Senate, they made no effort to bring the issue to the floor, Gronstal said.

The death penalty is perhaps an understandable, yet "misguided" approach to reduce violent crimes, he said.

A much better approach is longer prison sentences and, when criminals like sex offenders get out of jail, there should be better tracking and monitoring of those individuals, Gronstal said.

He is pursuing a package of legislation that calls for tougher prison terms for sex offenders and tighter supervision of those who are released.

He plans to block any attempt on moving the death penalty issue forward, Gronstal said.

The death penalty is also not a deterrent in his opinion.

"Texas has had the third or fourth highest murder rate in the nation and the highest number of executions," he said. "Meanwhile, Iowa has had the lowest or second-lowest murder rate for 25 years, at least."

As far as public polls on the issue, Gronstal said he's seen support for the death penalty go up and down. Yet, when people are asked to compare the death penalty and life in prison without parole, a "plurality, not a majority" support the prison option, he said.

Concerning his own personal opinion, Gronstal said, "I believe the death penalty is morally wrong."

Iowa's two U.S. senators have different opinions on the matter.

"If I were a member of the Legislature, I would vote to reinstitute capital punishment," U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley told reporters this week.

This view is different than when he was a member of the Legislature back in the mid-1960s.

"I argued for and voted for eliminating capital punishment. I think I made a mistake," Grassley said. "We were part of the movement in the country to be soft on crime and that being soft on crime encouraged crime."

In the decades since, the federal government and many states have become tougher on crime, a shift that included reinstatement of capital punishment.

"It's working; it's reducing the crime rate tremendously," Grassley said.

Sen. Tom Harkin, however, said, "I've always been against the death penalty."

He said Iowa's murder rate is much lower than states that allow capital punishment.

"The death penalty is not a deterrent," Harkin said. "Life without parole is more effective. The days of the gallows are gone."

There's also been many cases when someone was put to death and later on, through DNA testing or other means, was found to be innocent, he said.

Advances in scientific testing that could prove someone's innocence after an execution is one reason why a local political leader opposes the death penalty.

"With the death penalty, there's no going back," said Council Bluffs City Councilman Matt Walsh.

It's also very expensive, he said.

"It can cost $300,000 to $350,000 in court expense time in the appeal process in death penalty cases," Walsh said. "I'm not in favor of the death penalty."

Iowa Judicial Magistrate Clarence Meldrum added, "I am not satisfied that the death penalty acts as a deterrent."

Texas has the death penalty, yet also has one of the highest murder rates, he said, whereas life in prison without parole in Iowa means exactly what it says.

Meldrum said he could live with the death penalty if it was fairly imposed, but it's not. It's applied more to the poor and racial minorities, he said.

There's also less money spent on prosecuting a life sentence than a death penalty.

"I don't think much of the proposal," Meldrum said. "I don't see any merit in it. I don't think it's a deterrent."

JETSETA'S BILL

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, this past week introduced legislation, known as Jetseta's Bill, that would enhance criminal penalties and mandatory minimum sentence for child sex predators prosecuted in federal courts.

The bill is named after Jetseta Gage, a young Iowa girl who was abducted, raped and murdered by a repeat sex offender.

"These crimes are some of the worst offenses possible and there are far too many," Grassley said. "It's time for Congress to take aggressive action to keep our children and grandchildren safe from child predators."

The bill would guarantee punishment for criminals who commit violent crimes against children by establishing stiff mandatory minimums. The bill establishes the following mandatory minimums for violent crimes against children:

- If the crime of violence results in the death of a child who is under the age of 15 - death or life in prison.

- If the crime of violence is kidnapping, sexual assault or maiming or results in serious bodily injury - 30 years to life.

- If the crime of violence results in bodily injury of a child under the age of 12 - 15 years to life.

- If a dangerous weapon is used in the crime - 10 years to life.

- In any other case - two years to life.

The bill also increases penalties for the following federal crimes: aggravated sexual abuse of children, abusive sexual contact with children, sexual abuse of children resulting in death, sexual exploitation of children, activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of children, activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography, using misleading domain names to direct children to harmful materials on the internet, production of sexually explicit depictions of children and conduct relating to child prostitution.

- Tim Rohwer