We've had fights at TCASK over the moratorium as a goal. Some people have thought that it's a cop out to not fight for pure abolition, but we've consistently maintained that a moratorium allows us to build bridges and have discussions with people who feel that they are death penalty supporters or (especially) politicians who don't feel that they can come out "against" the death penalty. Well, now we've got even more proof that this is true.

On Justice Day on the Hill last week, I had a meeting (along with a constituent) with a fairly moderate representative from a fairly moderate district. The constituent had stopped by earlier and dropped off information and asked when to stop back. So that afternoon, there we were, and we were ushered into the reps office.

He said, "Man! When I looked at the information you left me, I was thinking, 'Oh no, the death penalty, all this controversy!' But then I read the material and this isn't really about being for or against the death penalty, is it?"

Flabbergasted (first of all that he had read the material at all) I responded that no, this was about fairness and accuracy. And the rep, who is famous for being non-committal, just started talking about how he and his wife were really concerned about wrongful conviction, especially when we are talking about the death penalty. Final line (remembering that this legislation isn't going to pass until next year): "Come back and see me again next year, I certainly do agree with you." (Italics added)
Now, if we'd walked into that representative's office talking about abolition, we would have gotten nowhere, but everyone, EVERYONE, is concerned with fairness. Even harshly conservative reps support the idea of a study. So we can start talking to them and educating them about the issues of innocence, racism, cost, etc.