Count us among those who have been skeptical that Howard Dean is really a liberal. We've always been concerned about his support for the death penalty. Now, according to the Times-Argus, Dean is expanding his support for the death penalty and aligning himself closer to Bush on the issue.

In his 11 years as Vermont’s governor, his position on capital punishment “evolved” from staunch opposition to limited support, Dean acknowledges. Now, on the stump for the Democratic nomination for president, Dean has extended his endorsement of a death sentence for those who kill children or police officers to include those who commit terrorist acts.

“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. The events of September 11 convinced me that terrorists also deserve the ultimate punishment,” Dean said in a statement released by his campaign last week.

Compare that to his stance when he first became Governor of Vermont:

In the infancy of his governorship, Dean was an outspoken opponent of the death penalty.

“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,” he said in 1992.

His weakening began in 1997.

In defending his switch, Dean attributed some of the impetus to a weak judicial system that allowed murderers to go free, and in some cases kill again. “Until life without parole means life without parole, the public is not safe without a death penalty,” Dean said in 1997. “Until we have a judicial system that can adequately protect us, the only thing that will is the death penalty.”

Ron Weich, whom we admire tremendously, is Dean's policy advisor but is utterly unconvincing in his attempt to spin the change of heart by attributing it to the difference in cases facing a Governor and a President--and in this comment:

“But (Dean) would not apply the death penalty in the kind of wanton and reckless manner Attorney General Ashcroft has used.”

What does that mean? That Dean would still seek the death penalty for say, the juvenile sniper suspect, he just wouldn't forum shop for the venue most likely to return the death verdict? Or that Dean would only have sought the death penalty for the older sniper suspect?

Dean needs to be questioned in much more depth on this issue. While we don't hold out much hope that any of the major presidential candidates will oppose the death penalty, we at least want one that will consider a moratorium until reforms are instituted that would reduce the possibility of sending an innocent person to death and eliminate the arbitrariness and racial disparity inherent in the current system.

Dean is no liberal in our book if he can't jump on board. Ron, have another talk with him.

Update: On January 19, 2003, The New York Times reported:

Four of the seven Democrats who have already joined the presidential race or are likely to do so have longstanding views supporting the death penalty and have not changed their positions because of the circumstances in Illinois. Along with Mr. Lieberman, the group includes Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri. Of the seven, only the Rev. Al Sharpton opposes the death penalty, as he has done for years. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts supports it in the case of convicted terrorists, and Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, supports it for murderers of children or police officers.

Update: Governor Dean denies the newspaper's charge that he is aligned with Bush on the death penalty. At the suggestion of Patrick of Electrolite, we edited the title of this post. Fair is fair.