Howard Dean’s ‘evolving’ position on the death penalty

Over time, reasonable people can change their opinions about issues. If sincere, there’s nothing wrong with this. I, for example, once thought Howard Dean made a compelling presidential candidate. I’ve since changed my mind.

But speaking of the good doctor, Dean admitted a few days ago that his opinion about the death penalty has “evolved” over the years.

As far as presidential politics goes, this is no trivial matter. For years, the Democratic Party was recognized by many Americans as the party that questioned and generally opposed capital punishment, and Dem candidates suffered as a result. Most voters, surveys showed, support the policy.

The issue became something of a de facto litmus test among Americans when considering Dem presidential candidates. Opposition to the death penalty translated to the perception of being too liberal. Indeed, Bill Clinton was able to position himself as a “New Democrat” in large part because of his support — both in principle and in practice — for the death penalty.

Dean, meanwhile, hasn’t had to worry too much about this issue. Vermont abolished the death penalty in 1965, so Dean was not forced to grapple with whether or not to kill anyone as governor.

He nevertheless made his opinion known. In 1992, Dean said, “I don’t support the death penalty for two reasons. One, you might have the wrong guy, and two, the state is like a parent. Parents who smoke cigarettes can’t really tell their children not to smoke and be taken seriously. If a state tells you not to murder people, a state shouldn’t be in the business of taking people’s lives.”

Fine. These are two good reasons to oppose capital punishment. It’s a perfectly defensible position that I happen to agree with.

Last week, however, Dean announced that he had changed his mind.

“As governor, I came to believe that the death penalty would be a just punishment for certain, especially heinous crimes, such as the murder of a child or the murder of a police officer,” Dean’s campaign said in a press release. “The events of September 11 convinced me that terrorists also deserve the ultimate punishment.”

Dean and his supporters argue that his beliefs have “evolved.” I’m not exactly sure what that means. What about concerns that the state might “have the wrong guy”? What about the moral hypocrisy of the state opposing murder but being “in the business of taking people’s lives”?

I’m not condemning Dean for his support of the death penalty, though it is an issue about which he and I disagree. I’m more concerned with how this “evolution” occurred. Why, in other words, has Dean flip-flopped on the issue?

Vermont’s Rutland Herald noted over the weekend that Dean started to change his mind in 1997. At the time, Dean said, “I really just became so convinced that some acts are so incredibly depraved that the death penalty is an appropriate redress.”

Even then, however, Dean refused to pressure the Vermont legislature to change the law on capital punishment. “If I thought the death penalty was going to stop the next depraved murder that might occur in Vermont, I would ask the Legislature to enact it,” Dean said. “I truly don’t believe it’s a deterrent.”

This is a bit confusing. Dean initially opposes the death penalty in 1992. He wavers in 1997 because some criminals commit “incredibly depraved” acts. Yet in the same year, he says the death penalty won’t stop “depraved” murderers and that it isn’t “a deterrent.” Now he’s running for president and Dean wants the state to execute “certain, especially heinous” criminals.

Is this the same candidate who wants to be respected as a “straight shooter”?

As The New Republic put it, “‘Evolution’ is one way to describe Dean’s meandering into the pro-death penalty camp. ‘Shameless flip-flop’ is another.”