:EVT 2002 - Perspective;

:Jul 21, 2002;

:Perspective;

:2

Dithering on death penalty

Napolitano faltered in handling issue

    After an embarrassingly clumsy start, Republican     Matt Salmon is finally putting sturdy legs under     his gubernatorial campaign. Now it’s Janet Napolitano, the Democratic front-runner, who’s caught in an embarrassing pickle over a leading issue — the death penalty.

    Both Salmon and Napolitano profess to favor the death penalty. At issue is how to fix Arizona’s capital punishment penalty statute after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional last month.

    Napolitano formed a commission to look into the matter, but its recommendation last week to either eliminate the death penalty or put it on the ballot puts her in an awkward position. While it squares with the anti-death penalty views of many in the Democratic Party, it clashes with the popularity of capital punishment among most Arizonans, as registered by opinion polls.

    Salmon has deftly exploited Napolitano’s predicament by correctly pointing out that as the state’s attorney general, she shouldn’t have had to rely on a commission for guidance in fixing what’s essentially a legal problem. He also noted that several other states already have passed laws correcting deficiencies in their capital punishment statutes.

    The crux of the high court’s ruling is that judges may not sentence defendants to death; that can only be done by juries. Salmon says state officials should focus on promptly fixing the statute and setting up a process to review death row inmates.

    Salmon has accused Napolitano of trying to have it both ways: Claiming to favor the death penalty while also appeasing those in her party who oppose it.

    It’s a credible accusation. Indeed, if there’s another explanation, the voters of Arizona deserve to hear it.

    Let’s be clear here: The Tribune has voiced concerns about the death penalty repeatedly on these pages.

There is a rousing debate throughout the land over whether capital punishment should be abolished.

    But if Arizona is to retain its death penalty — and that indeed appears to be the wish of the electorate — then let’s make the statute as fail-safe and constitutional as it possibly can be. As the state’s top lawyer and a candidate for state chief executive, Napolitano could and should have charted a legislative course to answer the Supreme Court’s objections, and then recommended that Gov. Jane Hull call a special session to take action.

    That she failed on both counts raises troubling questions about how she would proceed on other pressing — but politically sensitive — issues of state.