Delaware General Assembly Pre-Game Show: Tues. March 8, 2016
We already know what won’t be addressed by the returning General Assembly this week: Abolition of Delaware’s death penalty. However, it’s for the best of reasons. It’s quite possible that the United States Supreme Court has already sounded the, um, death knell for Delaware’s capital punishment statute. The ironies involved in this are dee-lish. The Delaware legislative hardliners some twenty years ago decided that juries were sometimes too namby-pamby when it came to doling out the death penalty, so they decided to give the judges (who must come before the State Senate for nominations and renominations) the exclusive life and death authority.
Which is precisely why Delaware’s statute appears to have run afoul of the recent Supreme Court ruling, which ‘deemed unconstitutional part of a Florida statute that grants exclusively to judges the right to determine a sentence of death in capital cases’. Delaware has the same language in its statute, which is why the Delaware Supreme Court has placed a moratorium on any capital case moving forward until it can review the statute and determine whether Delaware’s statute can pass constitutional muster.
So, let’s assume for argument’s sake that the Court determines that the statute fails the test established by the US Supreme Court. To me as a non-lawyer, it certainly appears that it does. In order to keep execution legal in Delaware, the General Assembly would have to change the statute. In other words, the onus would no longer be on death penalty opponents to eliminate the death penalty, the onus would be on those who want to keep the death penalty to change the statute. And, let’s remember, the State Senate has already voted to eliminate the death penalty. I don’t think that death penalty opponents are gonna bail out the hardliners. So, right now, there’s no need for death penalty opponents to do anything but to wait for the Delaware Supreme Court to make its determination. Especially since I don’t think there have been enough flips in the House to pass the bill yet.
There’s only one bill on today’s Senate Agenda. SB 19(Marshall) permits undercover cops to purchase firearms utilizing Community Firearms Recovery funds.
One of this session’s worst bills tops today’s House Agenda. HB 124 (Wilson) is the first leg of a constitutional amendment to require that the General Assembly spend at least $10 mill a year for farmland preservation. Blatant special interest legislation that continues to throw good many after bad to an undeserving bunch. Mostly R sponsors, so I guess they don’t see this sop unto perpetuity as a waste of taxpayers’ money. But it is.
Oh, boy, here’s a bill that appeals politically while raising all sorts of issues. HB 239 (The Right-Reverend Dukes) establishes a ‘new’ crime of ‘Drug Dealing-Resulting in Death’. The bill’s stated purpose is to ‘address the recent spike in deaths resulting from substances such as heroin and fentanyl’. My experience has been that, when the General Assembly rushes in to address a recent spate of something, the legislation invariably sucks. As does legislation creating new crimes (There’s no such think as an original sin–Elvis Costello). Betcha that won’t stop the House from rushing this through, most likely today.
I’m surprised that HB 220 (Lynn) is not already law in Delaware. The bill enables the prosecution of animal fighting under Delaware’s Racketeering and Organized Crime statute. The list of political strange bedfellows sponsoring this bill suggests that it will have widespread support.
Since I’m not sure that all of the committee notices have gone up yet, I’ll be back tomorrow with an in-depth look at committee activity and a wrap-up of today’s session.
See ya’ then.
Tags: Delaware General Assembly, El Somnambulo, Steve Tanzer Delaware
Thanks ‘Bulo… now that Al’s gone you are needed more than ever. I could read papers and listen to the radio all day long and still not get the facts I get from your legislative reporting here (and the comments).
Obviously HB239 will do nothing to ameliorate the increase in overdoses. Unfortunately, the easy availability of Naloxone won’t either. Just another futile effort to treat drug addiction by treating the consequences rather than the causes. But then it sometimes the illusion of progress is all that is required.
At this point I’d be in favor of a regulated drug trade, with free or subsidized drugs based on need and AGI. It would eliminate overdoses, reduce crime and provide business opportunities and jobs. Not sure how to make it revenue neutral because no one would be taxed on it. The industry would essentially giving the product away because the consumers would have little ability to pay. The consumers would still expire, just later rather than sooner. In exchange for the drug subsidy, I would think that we could have some means to ensure that they don’t reproduce so that children would not suffer the consequences. The resources expended in regulating the drug trade should be a lot less than the resources expended in combatting the drug trade.
Well anyway a lot to consider, but considering the current state of affairs, why shouldn’t we consider it?
I don’t think a regulated drug trade would do any more good than the regulation of alcohol sales and use. Alcohol is still the number one drug of abuse in this country and causes countless medical, legal, social, employment, etc. problems. And, although some people will take offense to this, I think sticking all the opiate addicts in methadone for so many years instead of drug free treatment has fueled this current epidemic more than anything, The state’s adult system is finally beginning to rethink this approach. The kid’s system, in their ass backwards approach, continues to deny appropriate services, therefore making sure we continue to have plenty of addicts in the adult system needing help.
The current system does no good. A regulated system will also do no good, but at a lower cost. If you can’t beat them….
As long as we continue to treat consequences, the outcomes remains the same. So why not try to be more cost effective?