We're not following the death penalty process we all voted for
We here in the state of Oklahoma have an excellent judicial system, but regrettably, when it comes to the death penalty — the most terminal of all punishments — we don't always get it right.
Take the case of Tremane Wood. He will be scheduled for execution sometime this calendar year, but he never murdered anyone. A plea agreement traded Tremane's older brother — the admitted killer who had a skilled defense team — for Tremane, who was only at the crime scene because of his brother's influence and was represented at trial by an overworked attorney with substance abuse problems.
It highlights one of the many problems with our system here in Oklahoma. It really doesn't take much to end up on death row.
More: Oklahoma has done nothing to reverse course on wrongful criminal convictions | Opinion
And that fact collides head-on with the constitutional amendment that I and other Oklahomans voted for in 2016 to formally protect the death penalty in the state Constitution. Like most people, I thought capital punishment would be reserved only for people who are guilty of actually killing someone and that we would be 100% sure that we have the right person.
But we keep discovering otherwise.
Tremane Wood's case follows that of Richard Glossip for whom the U.S. Supreme Court just ordered a new trial due to allegations the state withheld evidence.
How many other cases of wrongfully convicted men and women could there be that we don't know about?
This is why I sponsored Senate Bill 601, the Death Penalty Moratorium Act, which will pause the executions of judgments in all death penalty cases for 24 months, as called for in the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission report of 2017. Virtually none of the commission's 45 recommended reforms were implemented, which has helped lead us to where we are today.
Everyone involved in the death penalty process — the defendant, the state and the families of the victims — must be sure of the accuracy of the conviction or there is no justice for any of them. This is the most serious punishment we have as a society, and we have to be 100% accurate.
I became involved in this issue when I started looking at our overall judicial system. I learned we do not pay our district attorney offices enough, we don't have nearly enough public defenders, we don't have enough troopers, enough county sheriffs and deputies, and then if you come into the judicial system and you don't have the right lawyer, or that lawyer doesn't understand your case, you're behind the eight ball.
We also need to remember that juries only weigh the evidence. They don't go out and gather the evidence. They don't know if the evidence has been tampered with, they don't know if it has been made up, if it's accurate. Sadly, my research has found many individuals have been exonerated, and many times because the evidence was not accurate.
The cases of Tremane Wood and Richard Glossip show us that a moratorium is necessary, and I think we need to ask ourselves, "If we aren't absolutely sure, is this really what we want to do? Does the victim really have rest in this? Will this console the victim's family?" I don't think so.
In the Tremane Woods case, there will be no closure for anyone because everyone knows he didn't do it. And that is just one category of concern we need to check out. Again, virtually none of the significant death penalty reforms called for in the 2017 report were ever implemented, so let's just take a pause.
We already know 11 people have been freed from death row and exonerated here in Oklahoma. People like Glynn Simmons, the longest-incarcerated innocent person in American history at 48 years, including two years on death row. The city of Edmond agreed to pay more than $7 million in the case.
Can the residents of Oklahoma accept a system that terminates life without being absolutely sure about the accuracy and waste millions of dollars to find out they did it wrong? I believe the residents will say, "No, that's not the system I voted for in 2016." Polling in 2023 showed 77% of Oklahomans support a halt to executions to make sure the process is accurate and fair.
Oklahomans want justice; it's why we voted to protect the death penalty in the state Constitution, but we simply can't keep getting it wrong.
I want to echo the principle Benjamin Franklin famously articulated for the basis of American jurisprudence. 'That it is better 100 guilty persons should escape, than that one innocent person should suffer." We may have the greatest judicial system ever known, but Oklahoma residents demand that we do it right. There is no room for error when life is on the line.
Dave Rader, a state senator from Tulsa, is a lifelong Republican, professional engineer by training, and was the head football coach at the University of Tulsa from 1988 to 1999. He has been a member of the Oklahoma state Senate since 2017.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: We have put too many wrongfully convicted people on death row | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
6 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump says he's ‘disappointed' with Musk after he turned on the Republican tax bill
He also said Musk was upset that electric vehicle incentives were on the chopping block in Republican legislation that's currently being debated in the Senate. Musk runs Tesla, an electric automaker. Another point of contention was Musk's promotion of Jared Isaacman to run NASA. 'I didn't think it was appropriate,' Trump said, and he said Isaacman was 'totally a Democrat.'
Newsweek
21 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Republicans Get Worrying Update in Red State Senate Race
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republicans have received a concerning update about the 2026 Senate election in Iowa as a major election forecaster has reclassified the race as more competitive. Incumbent Senator Joni Ernst, who is running for a third term, recently sparked backlash from many Iowans after saying in response to concerns about potential Medicaid cuts, "Well, we are all going to die." Newsweek has contacted Ernst's campaign for comment via email. Why It Matters Iowa has shifted toward the GOP over the past decade, with President Donald Trump securing a 13-point victory in the state in 2024. However, one Democratic strategist told Newsweek that Ernst was making the race "more competitive every day," and the national party is eying the state as a potential flip. Democrats are targeting GOP-held seats in Maine, which Trump lost, and North Carolina, which he won by 3 points. They're also defending seats in Trump-won Georgia and Michigan, but there are no other obvious flip opportunities for the party. So Democrats' chances of retaking the Senate in 2026 hinge on their ability to make competitive races in states Trump carried by double digits, such as Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Ohio and Texas. Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, at the Hill and Valley Forum in Washington, D.C., on April 30. Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, at the Hill and Valley Forum in Washington, D.C., on April 137 Ventures/Founders Fund/Jacob Helberg What to Know Election forecaster Sabato's Crystal Ball announced this week that it was reclassifying Iowa as a more competitive race, though Ernst is still favored to win reelection next November. The election shifted from "Safe Republican" to "Likely Republican" in the forecaster's latest Senate ratings. In a report explaining the change, forecasters J. Miles Coleman and Kyle Kondik wrote that Ernst would be running in a "more challenging environment than she faced in either of her previous two elections." "In 2014, she won as part of a broader GOP wave—and she got help from a gaffe-prone opponent. Six years later, she won reelection as Trump was carrying Iowa by a strong margin (Ernst ran a little bit behind Trump)," they wrote. "It's possible that 2026 could be like 2018: Iowa did not have a Senate election that year, but Democrats did end up winning three of the state's four U.S House seats that year, and we suspect that if Iowa had had a Senate election, it likely at least would have been close." Iowa Democratic strategist Jeff Link told Newsweek that Ernst was making the race more competitive "every day" despite Republicans' "substantial voter registration edge in the state." "She ran as an outsider and in just two terms has become the consummate Washington insider, telling Iowans to essentially 'take what you get' from Washington," he said. "That's a very different candidate that was elected in 2014." So far, Ernst has drawn two challengers on the Democratic side. Nathan Sage, a Marine Corps veteran who leads the Knoxville Chamber of Commerce, and Iowa state Representative J.D. Scholten—who almost unseated former U.S. Representative Steve King, a Republican, in a deeply conservative district in 2018. State Senator Zach Wahls is also speculated to be considering jumping into the Democratic primary. A May poll showed Sage with an early lead against Ernst, though other surveys into the race have not been released. Coleman and Kondik said Ernst's initial town hall remarks "did not really tempt us to immediately move off our Safe Republican rating for her race," but that her response to the backlash seemed to be "daring Democrats to make an effort in Iowa." What People Are Saying Iowa Democratic strategist Jeff Link told Newsweek: "We have three candidates who bring youth and energy to this race. For a Democrat to succeed, they need to listen to Iowans, particularly in rural Iowa, and bring a populist perspective that stands up for the average Iowan rather than the lobbyists and Washington insiders." Rachel Paine Caufield, a professor and co-chair of Drake University's Department of Political Science, previously told Newsweek: "Democrats are energized. Iowa Democrats are frustrated and are really looking to mobilize to push back against Donald Trump and reclaim at least one house of Congress, so you might see renewed energy on the Democratic side." Iowa Democratic Senate candidate Nathan Sage told local outlet The Gazette: "I'm out here trying to bring a little bit more of a voice of working-class individuals to Washington and fight for them to have a better life, instead of trying to survive every day. Trying to actually make Iowans thrive." Nick Puglia, a spokesperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told The Hill in May: "It doesn't matter which radical Democrat gets nominated in their messy primary because Iowans are going to re-elect Senator Joni Ernst to keep fighting for them in 2026." What Happens Next Iowa's primary elections are scheduled for June 2, 2026, with the general election following on November 3. It remains to be seen whether other candidates will announce runs, and as the race draws closer, further polling may indicate how competitive it will be. Sabato's Crystal Ball also ranked Senate races in Ohio and Texas as "Likely Republican." Maine's Senate race was marked "Leans Republican," while races in Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina were toss-ups. Minnesota and New Hampshire's Senate races were classified as "Leans Democrat."
UPI
22 minutes ago
- UPI
Supreme Court revives straight woman's 'reverse discrimination' suit
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a straight woman denied a management position in favor of gay hires can revive her Title VII Civil Rights Act job discrimination lawsuit. File Photo by Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a straight woman can move forward with her Title VII Civil Rights Act job discrimination lawsuit, which claimed "reverse discrimination." The justices voted 9-0 to side with Marlean Ames, ruling that she faced a higher burden to be able to sue for discrimination as a straight woman after she was passed up for job opportunities in favor of two LGBTQ applicants. "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs," the court wrote. Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after she was denied a management position in favor of a lesbian woman hired for that job. She also lost out on another job at the agency when a gay man was hired instead as a program administrator. The lower court judgment was vacated and the Ames case was remanded back to the lower court to be heard applying the Supreme Court's finding. The decision said the Sixth Circuit erred when it "implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs-those who are members of majority groups-to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard." The ruling makes it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to argue "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. At issue was the "background circumstances" rule. As interpreted by the Sixth Circuit, that rule requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in Title VII lawsuits. "Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," the Supreme Court decision said. "The Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden at step one. But the text of Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs." The Supreme Court said that provision "focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against 'any individual' because of protected characteristics." The high court rejected Ohio's argument that the "background circumstances" rule does not subject majority-group plaintiffs to a heightened legal standard when they sue alleging discrimination under Title VII. "The 'background circumstances' rule -- which subjects all majority-group plaintiffs to the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case -- ignores the Court's instruction to avoid inflexible applications of the prima facie standard," the Supreme Court wrote. The Supreme Court held that "the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group." The Civil Rights Act bars discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex or national origin." Ohio maintained Ames was not chosen for the jobs in question due to her lack of the necessary vision and leadership skills, not because she was straight. A three-judge Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed that Ames would have been likely to prevail if she was a gay woman. But they ruled against her due to the higher burden created by the Sixth Circuit interpretation of the "background circumstances" rule.
