Carla Eckles Interview abut Death Penalty

they carry the death penalty. And in this case, now Senate Bill 422 would give an option for juries to either sentence someone to death or to life without the possibility of parole. It almost replaces the heart of 50 sentence. And it's interesting. They said that people, supporters of the bill say that some juries and capital cases bulk at recommending a heart of 50 because they're still worried about killers getting out of prison eventually. Right, right. And more, that is a key issue. But also a key issue is really making sure that folks in capital murder cases, juries and capital murder cases, understand that they do have that option. And we think that with this new sentence and guideline or sensing option, that will make sure that folks in capital murder cases where people have done truly terrible crimes, that they will feel comfortable to sent

and it's sentencing that those people to life in prison knowing that they do not have the possibility of parole. Now, another thing supporters are saying that they believe juries will take the option of recommending life without parole and reduce the overall cost associated with capital cases. Any comment? I'm going to have to have you repeat that one part of it. Sorry, I kind of said it quickly. Supporters also believe juries will take the option of recommending life without parole and reduce the overall cost associated with capital cases. That's correct. Generally, in capital murder cases, they're not generally. There are in capital murder cases mandatory appeals process. And in this new life without the possibility of parole, they're still an appeals process, but it's a much diminished appeals process. It doesn't require the extensive funding on both sides, both the prosecution and defense.

Most capital murder cases in Kansas are served through public defenders. And so the taxpayer is paying on both sides. And this is something that especially in a tight although, I hope this isn't why it was passed, but especially in a tight budget year, it's likely to make it a very real difference in our finances. OK, all too. I'm just wondering, what about those who really believe in the death penalty? I'm assuming that they would be disappointed in this bill. Any comment? The death penalty in Kansas has never been an amazingly popular option. And in some cases, there are people who very much want the death penalty for certain crimes. And I guess what I can best say is that's up to the judge and to the jury in those instances. This is not replacing the death penalty, although interfaith ministries would like

to remove the death penalty from Kansas. But it's not replacing the death penalty. It's giving an option to the death penalty. So they can still sentence someone to death or? Yes, or to life in prison without parole. If you would just say that part again, I interrupt you, but I would like you to say that. OK, so this will allow, I'm sorry, I need to phrase that sentence in my head. What this does is this does not remove the death penalty. This allows, this provides for an option for the death penalty so that juries can either sentence someone to death or to life without the possibility of parole. And again, I want to stress that interfaith ministries opposes the death penalty and has taken that position for many, many years. We think that this is a good step in the right direction. So basically, this is an alternative. Is that right to the death penalty?

I want to make sure I understand it. This is an alternative to the death penalty. Yes, this is an alternative. This is a sentencing option for people who are convicted of capital murder. They may be sentenced to death or to life in prison without the possibility of parole. And it's interesting that they had talked about how the hard 50 that people are concerned, that people still get out of jail. Well, if you're 20 and it's 50, they're 70 years old. I mean, but I guess if you're spending 50 years of your life in jail, I just I wonder how many people can survive that. But that's a very real fear. Just as people quite often are worried, they don't want to convict someone of a what's a called an insanity defense. They don't want to use the insanity defense because they think that to rethink that people will get out in two months or six months. That's not real, but that's a jury perception

and it affects our legal system. It affects how people are tried and convicted. And it's sort of the same thing here. Someone who's convicted in their 20s, and they're going to be in their 70s when they get out, if they survive 50 years in jail. But that's not very likely, but it's a jury perception. Do you know, I wonder how this even came about this whole idea of changing having an alternative? Do you know, by chance, to be dead for me? I don't actually know. I could put you in contact with sister Donna. OK, I can check with her. But let me switch gears just a moment here and talk to you about the concealed weapons. I don't have any information from me. So I'm going to go off the top of my head. I know that you guys have something planned at five, but I don't want to talk about that because I'm not, this does not air today. But tell me what your what your thoughts are in regard to the governor of vetoing that bill. Well, quite frankly, we're not terribly surprised that we're happy to hear of the governor's veto,

but she has said throughout this entire session that she is not in favor of a broad licensure bill that would allow people to carry hidden guns. We have supported her in that, and we're quite pleased to see that she has vetoed the bill. I believe that she is representing the majority of Kansas when she does so. What is your concern with the bill? Our concern with the bill has been and will always be that when we're trying to make communities in Kansas safe and we're trying to keep folks safe, it doesn't make sense to put more guns on the streets. I can get into a lot more detail about whether or not background checks will limit, will weed out the folks who have charges pending against them or who, and those types of issues, about whether eight hours of training is really sufficient to know how to handle

yourself in a life and death situation with a firearm when police officers have 120 hours. But what it comes down to is the vast majority of Kansas do not want concealed carry. They have not wanted it for years. And I'm glad that the governor has the guts to stand up and say that this is not good for Kansas. Kansas do not want it. It will not make our communities or individual women safer. This is the right move. I love that. I love that was great. I love had the guts. Well, and now here I'm thinking, though, I hope it won't be old news when I'm trying to do it next week, but we'll see. I'm just trying to think what the next point now. Is there something else that you all will do at this point or is it pretty much a done deal now that she's vetoed the bill? Well, now that she has vetoed the bill, technically, the folks who supported this bill could try to override that veto. They don't have a veto override majority in the house.

And so they have decided not to. Last week heard it's been in the associated press that they will not attempt a veto override in the house without that veto override house, the bill is dead this year. But as you probably know, it has come up every year, every other year, for the past 10 years. It's probably come up five times in the past 10 years. I would not be a bit surprised if it was brought up again. This is something that the gun lobby has pushed for very, very hard in many states. They brought in outside lobbyists into Kansas to try to get this bill passed. So there's significant time in human resources and funds going into passing this bill. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it come up again. My goodness. I mean, it doesn't pass. So I was surprised that they still, but they think maybe eventually may. That's the goal.

Yeah. OK. Well, yeah. And you're right. I did see that there wouldn't be enough votes. You know, so it's sort of a done deal, at least for now. As you said, it may come up again. Anything coming about that, Carol? Sorry. I was taking a drink of water. We're prepared every year to fight this particular issue. Carol, hold on. Believe it or not, the other phone is ringing. Let me see if we stop. OK, you said we're prepared, hold on. OK, go ahead. OK. We're prepared every year to fight this particular issue. This is going to be a constant battle. And I do believe that the majority of Kansas, the only reliable scientific statewide nonpartisan poll that exists shows that almost 70% of Kansas opposed this bill. Kansas are not people who just blow with a wind in their political thoughts.

We're pretty solid folks. I can't believe that Kansas will suddenly decide that they want this bill in the next few years. Nonetheless, I'm sure it will come up and we'll be there to oppose it. Well, thank you so much for telling me you said when you saying will, tell me who you talked to. Oh, the Safe State Kansas and Interfaith Ministries. Safe State Kansas is a program of Interfaith Ministries related to gun violence prevention. Oh. Yeah, that's kind of the tie. There is always some little tie in the Interfaith Ministries. Yeah. And so just go ahead and tell me as well now, anyway. What's happening today at five? What's happening today at five is just a little victory celebration for the folks who in Wichita who have worked so hard to oppose this bill. And we've been looking for a governor's veto. We've been hoping for it ever since the Senate vote. And we're really pleased that it has come through today. Well, thank you so much for your time, Carol.

I really appreciate it. Thank you very much. Ah, bye-bye. Or if it's eliminated. Well, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. Well, glad you called. OK. Bye-bye.