Death Row Becomes "Life In Prison Row" In California, And I Absolutely Approve
I am almost always not a Gavin Newsom fan, but this is a terrific move on his part -- ending the death penalty in California.
Bob Egelko and Alexei Koseff write for the SF Chronicle:
Gov. Gavin Newsom is suspending the death penalty in California, calling it discriminatory and immoral and granting reprieves to the 737 condemned inmates on the nation's largest Death Row."I do not believe that a civilized society can claim to be a leader in the world as long as its government continues to sanction the premeditated and discriminatory execution of its people," Newsom said in a statement accompanying an executive order, to be issued Wednesday, declaring a moratorium on capital punishment in the state. "The death penalty is inconsistent with our bedrock values and strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a Californian."
He plans to order an immediate shutdown of the death chamber at San Quentin State Prison, where the last execution was carried out in 2006. Newsom is also withdrawing California's recently revised procedures for executions by lethal injection, ending -- at least for now -- the struggle by prison officials for more than a decade to devise procedures that would pass muster in federal court by minimizing the risk of a botched and painful execution.
...The death penalty has also "discriminated against defendants who are mentally ill, black and brown, or can't afford expensive legal representation," Newsom said. He said more than three-fifths of Califorina's Death Row inmates are people of color, while studies have shown that those convicted of killing whites are far more likely to be sentenced to death than killers of blacks or Latinos.
"But most of all, the death penalty is absolute, irreversible and irreparable in the event of human error," Newsom said. He noted that 164 condemned prisoners nationwide, including five in California, have been freed from Death Row since 1973 based on evidence that they were wrongfully convicted or sentenced.
From a previous post, a Bloomberg editorial has some strong arguments for why the death penalty should be banned:
After the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a four-year ban on capital punishment in 1976, 32 states brought the death penalty back. The results can't be called a success. There's no good evidence that the death penalty has deterred the worst crimes, and it has been dispensed inequitably. Innocent people may well have been put to death -- a mistake, unlike wrongful imprisonment, that cannot be corrected. Executions should be banned by act of Congress for this simple reason: Experience has shown that the death penalty doesn't serve the cause of justice.If capital punishment deterred the most awful crimes any better than decades of imprisonment, that would be an important fact. A century of research has failed to produce convincing evidence that it does. Comparing murder rates in states before and after the death penalty was reintroduced can't filter out other influences on crime, such as changes in demographic and economic conditions. Comparing states with and without capital punishment is also inconclusive; in death-penalty states, capital crimes can be punished by long terms in prison instead, so their respective effects can't be untangled.
How likely is it, really, that a killer will be more deterred by the risk of the death penalty than by having to spend the rest of his life in prison? The claim fails the test of common sense. Criminologists and police chiefs say the death penalty just doesn't influence murderers -- partly because its application is so haphazard.
This arbitrariness, of course, is a gross injustice in its own right. As well as being confined to people who live in certain states, the death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on the poor and uneducated, on defendants with substandard lawyers, and on those whose victims were white. A study in Maryland found that a black killer of a white victim was 11 times more likely to be sentenced to death than a white killer of a black victim. These disparities violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Worst of all, execution risks imposing the ultimate and irrevocable punishment on the wrong person. The 18th century English jurist William Blackstone wrote that it is better that 10 guilty people escape than that one innocent suffer. A system that accepts any risk, however small, of putting the innocent to death should provoke special revulsion.
"Discriminatory".
Make no mistake: if you fail to defend yourself against deadly force, the wise and benevolent people of California will feed, clothe and shelter your murderer / aggravated rapist, across all government shutdowns and economic crises, for the rest of (his) life. Your friends, neighbors and family will have him to think about for the rest of theirs.
You should defend yourself, for the State cannot in the first place, and will not in the second.
Radwaste at March 13, 2019 3:11 AM
Doesn't it ultimately come out that it is less expensive to just jail them for life than kill them, though, because of all the appeals and such?
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614
NicoleK at March 13, 2019 5:10 AM
And there's the issue of whether juries are less likely to convict if death is likely.
NicoleK at March 13, 2019 5:11 AM
And there's some evidence juries are less likely to convict if death is likely.
NicoleK at March 13, 2019 5:26 AM
And there's some evidence juries are less likely to convict if death is likely.
NicoleK at March 13, 2019 5:26 AM
Also, the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent.
Impulsive humans won't even pause for a second to think about the consequences.
Plus, those who do think that, unlike the poor saps who get executed, they will get away with murder because they have a better plan.
Sixclaws at March 13, 2019 6:18 AM
What happens when Life without Parole becomes "discriminatory and immoral?
Conan the Grammarian at March 13, 2019 6:35 AM
I oppose the death penalty.
I mean, I really don't know what to say - or think - when I hear people talk about the execution of innocent prisoners as if they were so many pesky mice. *I* don't even have to ask myself "what if the innocent party were a friend of mine."
But it's worth mentioning that those who support the death penalty like to say that, when it comes to the penalty's failure to deter crime: "Well, that's not the point; I don't care about that, since the real point is that it's about 'an eye for an eye' and how is that not important?"
lenona at March 13, 2019 6:46 AM
So Conan's point needs to be addressed, and I don't see anyone doing it. In most states, a "life" sentence does not mean what it says. Long-term confined prisoners bombard the legal system with jailhouse-lawyer appeals, and often they continue to taunt and threaten their victims and the victims' families from prison. We're not talking about nice people here. And Conan, your theoretical is already real.
On the other hand, I remember what Tony Snow said: "If I am opposed to abortion because I believe in the sanctity of life, then I cannot in good conscience support the death penalty."
Cousin Dave at March 13, 2019 6:53 AM
On the other hand, I remember what Tony Snow said: "If I am opposed to abortion because I believe in the sanctity of life, then I cannot in good conscience support the death penalty."
Cousin Dave at March 13, 2019 6:53 A
This doesn’t really follow. Not taking a stand here, because I am neither pro or anti death penalty, just saying it is quite possible to believe in the sanctity of innocent life, and be pro death penalty in certain egregious cases.
The church has never required people to be pacifists to believe in the sanctity of innocent life.
I think having a death penalty for certain terrible crimes enforces the social contract and the rule of law. California may be so far past the rule of law, into arbitrary social anarchy, that it won’t make much difference.
Citizens need to believe that the justice system is fair and not arbitrary. Civil asset forfeiture probably does more to undermine the social contract than a rarely applied death penalty.
When people start to think that the police can’t protect them, they also start to lose faith in the courts. When that reaches critical mass, self defense usually devolves into vigilantism.
Isab at March 13, 2019 7:25 AM
A person who made the decision to commit a crime so heinous that society judged his life the only sufficient forfeit is hardly equivalent to an as-yet unborn fetus.
Conan the Grammarian at March 13, 2019 7:33 AM
Living felons have killed more Americans than have died in Vietnam AND the Middle East.
The only part of this that is Californian is that endless appetite for the “do-over”, coupled with the delusion that jail makes this “somebody else’s problem”.
It is completely consonant with the idea of “sanctuary cities“, that blatant attempt to hide criminality.
Radwaste at March 13, 2019 8:11 AM
Another consideration, if the max penalty for any crime, no matter how terrible is life in prison, it creates a tremendous incentive to systematically eliminate witnesses.
Isab at March 13, 2019 8:56 AM
What happens when Life without Parole becomes "discriminatory and immoral?
Oh, I'm sure that someone softie will then commute their sentences to "time served" and "reintegrate" them into the community. Or pass legislation to put that into place.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of murders are committed between people who are at least familiar with each other. It's an intensely personal crime.
Will they be made to pay restitution once they're out?
What's to stop the next of kin of their victims from hunting them down taking a pound of justice out of the perp's flesh?
I R A Darth Aggie at March 13, 2019 9:09 AM
The thing about the American legal system is that the jury makes the most important decisions - to convict or not - and sometimes the sentencing decisions.
The people who have to live with the results, both foreseen and unforeseen, are the ones making the decisions - not some distant magistrate in a wig and a robe who lives in a gated house with security guards.
Californians voted to bring back the death penalty. They voted to live with the results if the system made a mistake.
__________________________________________________
What do we say to the next victim when the "jailed for life" prisoner is released on parole? "Sorry, we felt that a life sentence was immoral and discriminatory."
__________________________________________________
Mob justice is the reaction of a people who've lost faith in their government to protect them from criminals and to adequately punish the guilty. There's no appeal for a sentence of being lynched or stoned by a mob, just the howling mob.
Conan the Grammarian at March 13, 2019 9:15 AM
when it comes to the penalty's failure to deter crime
It prevents that fellow from committing another murder. No more, no less.
What's the incentive for someone on life-in-prison row from just killing a guard, or another prisoner, just for the sheer fun of it? you're gonna Supermax 'em??
Please. At some point, such incarceration moves into the realm of cruel and unusual.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 13, 2019 9:15 AM
When the cops are corrupt or powerless, the people will get fed up. They become a "howling mob".
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130079477
I R A Darth Aggie at March 13, 2019 9:20 AM
What happens when Life without Parole becomes "discriminatory and immoral?>>>
I am pretty familiar with this area of law, society, and activism because I am a career prosecutor and I worked on some death-penalty appeals. The answer to Conan's question is that the many people and groups who are death-penalty-elimination activists also work against life imprisonment. If the death penalty were to be permanently banned, they will pivot 100% to life imprisonment. Another campaign coming down the pike is the movement to extend leniency for criminal responsibility to age 25. This is based on neuroscience and the full development of the brain to make mature decisions at around that age.
RigelDog at March 13, 2019 9:35 AM
The only ethical death penalty is carried out at the scene (time and place) of the attack by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything else is revenge and makes those who carry it out (and support it) as bad as the original attacker. Or worse.
https://blog.kentforliberty.com/2013/06/becoming-what-you-fight.html
Kent McManigal at March 13, 2019 9:36 AM
"Anything else is revenge..."
Sez you.
I don't kill a dangerous animal because I'm offended. I do it because the damned thing will kill again if given the chance.
Can you show me a guarantee that a 15-year-old who committed malice murder, who spent his formative years learning that such a thing was OK, won't do it again?
Bring him to your family first.
Radwaste at March 13, 2019 9:54 AM
There are people on Death Row in CA whose crimes are essentially ongoing. I have no doubt whatsoever that the career criminal who kidnapped and murdered Polly Klaas sits in his cell and looks back fondly over his deeds day and night. Sadly some people are irredeemable in this world. Their only chance to experience remorse is to let them know the time and date of their own death. Not to mention that there have been several cases of convicts ordering the murders of gang rivals or witnesses from prison. It is cruel to draw a false equivalence between an innocent child and a child killer.
Cindy at March 13, 2019 9:59 AM
On the other hand, I remember what Tony Snow said: "If I am opposed to abortion because I believe in the sanctity of life, then I cannot in good conscience support the death penalty."
Cousin Dave at March 13, 2019 6:53 AM
Let's turn that around:
"If I am opposed to the death penalty because I believe in the sanctity of life, then I cannot in good conscience support abortion."
Steamer at March 13, 2019 10:39 AM
We're all guilty of something, so if you go to prison for a murder you didn't commit, well, you can just sit in that call and contemplate all the crap you got away with, mister!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 13, 2019 10:54 AM
"A person who made the decision to commit a crime so heinous that society judged his life the only sufficient forfeit is hardly equivalent to an as-yet unborn fetus."
Well, Tony was making a sanctity-of-life argument here. He also made an argument that the power to take a citizen's life is a power that maybe the government should not have.
I'm playing both sides of the fence here because this is an issue that I honestly have never been able to make up my mind about.
Cousin Dave at March 13, 2019 11:19 AM
I sense that you had a brush-in with the MS13 gangs? I'm asking because they're infamous for using minors as hitmen.
Sixclaws at March 13, 2019 11:27 AM
Sophomoric argument written by a cretin.
Do these hypothetical black and white murderers have the same number of priors? Particularly of violent offenses? What were the circumstances of the murders? Age of the offenders?
There are dozens of factors to be considered when determining sentencing. Every single time, without fail, someone points to a supposed travesty of justice as "proof" that the justice system is unfair, there is invariably numerous factors involved that determine sentencing which the doomsayers are intentionally avoiding.
Isab: This doesn’t really follow.
Oh, yes it does follow. A statement that affirms a belief in the sanctity of life does not make a distinction between soi-disant innocent life and not-so-innocent life.
If you embrace the death penalty, don't hand me any cock-and-bull platitudes about the sanctity of the life.
Tell me you're pro-innocent life. Or you believe the lives of the unborn is sacred. Which is actually a perfectly valid position to have.
But don't say you believe in the sanctity of life. That is an overstatement that is belied by your support of the death penalty.
Patrick at March 13, 2019 12:25 PM
I'm sort of on the fence about the death penalty. I feel like I want to oppose it for all the right reasons. After all, even the best-intentioned jury can make a mistake. Yet, some crimes do merit serious punishment. Some people simply cannot be let back into society - ever.
"Some debts of the human soul are so enormous only life itself is sufficient forfeit." ~ Sue Grafton
"And suppose he escaped ... and did the same thing again? And maybe again? How do you explain that to bereaved parents? In view of his record?" ~ Robert A. Heinlein
Conan the Grammarian at March 13, 2019 12:25 PM
When people start to think that the police can’t protect them, they also start to lose faith in the courts. When that reaches critical mass, self defense usually devolves into vigilantism. ~ Isab at March 13, 2019 7:25 AM
Yep.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/13/former-priest-accused-of-abusing-dozens-of-boys-found-murdered-in-las-vegas/
sara at March 13, 2019 12:35 PM
> Make no mistake:
I love that. Next, do "Don't kid yourself:"
Crid at March 13, 2019 12:43 PM
"This is based on neuroscience and the full development of the brain to make mature decisions at around that age."
And that science is pure quackery. But bad science has long been used to support political goals.
Ben at March 13, 2019 3:20 PM
"But most of all, the death penalty is absolute, irreversible and irreparable in the event of human error"
I'm opposed to the death penalty for this reason alone. Other arguments don't sway me; but, the thought of putting someone to death who did NOT commit the crime does.
If we lock someone up for life and then 40 years later determine he is innocent; while we can never make complete amends we, as a society, can try.
Can't even try if he is dead.
charles at March 13, 2019 5:54 PM
Impulsive humans won't even pause for a second to think about the consequences.
That's a fine reason not to apply the death penalty to 2nd-degree murder (crimes of passion, etc.) and lesser, still-deadly crimes. But for 1st-degree murder or serial killings or pre-planned mass shootings? Forget about it.
Some people need killing. It's like putting down a rabid dog in some cases, IMO. (And please spare me the Holocaust comparisons; you know darn well that's not what I mean.)
As far as the humaneness of the death penalty, I would think double-tapping the head and the heart simultaneously would be the most merciful way of doing it. Our efforts to be humane have probably made the process more grotesque and painful for the condemned, IMO.
As for wrongful conviction, if somebody's deliberate, wrongful testimony led to that person's death, let him suffer the same punishment. That should hopefully deter "testilying" by people who should really know better.
And, I suspect that a deterrent effect might actually be brought on by having the executions in public.
mpetrie98 at March 13, 2019 8:02 PM
Charlie Manson had quite the carefree life in prison. He should have been buried years ago.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charles-manson-cost-millions-to-keep-in-prison/
marina at March 13, 2019 11:17 PM
"I'm opposed to the death penalty for this reason alone. Other arguments don't sway me; but, the thought of putting someone to death who did NOT commit the crime does."
I am amazed that some maintain that there is no way, in any case, to determine guilt.
There is. There are concrete, rock-solid, diamond-hard cases where killers were caught.
I can show you a guy in Oklahoma in jail for Life Plus Two Thousand Years for aggravated sexual battery culminating in murder. He ran a girl over on the sidewalk, kidnapped her broken and bleeding body, had sex with her multiple times as she lay dying and then watched her die.
No doubt at all about whether he did it. It's also not the ONLY such crime he's been involved with - it's just the one he was prosecuted for.
He got a liver transplant last year.
You?
Radwaste at March 14, 2019 3:33 AM
mpetrie98:
As for wrongful conviction, if somebody's deliberate, wrongful testimony led to that person's death, let him suffer the same punishment. That should hopefully deter "testilying" by people who should really know better.
---------------------
This exists in Biblical law. Starts at Deuteronomy 19:15. That same chapter discusses exile to a refuge city for unintentional manslaughter.
In addition to the "utilitarian" reasons given in this thread - deterrence and prevention - there is the idea of upholding society's concept of human worth, and the fundamental equality of human beings. Notice the deliberate parallel structure in Genesis 9.6:
Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
Here is a society of equals.
This is the long way around to deterrence and prevention, best practiced before society declines to neo-pagan utilitarianism.
Ben David at March 14, 2019 12:10 PM
As for wrongful conviction, if somebody's deliberate, wrongful testimony led to that person's death, let him suffer the same punishment. That should hopefully deter "testilying" by people who should really know better.
__________________________________________
Um, that wouldn't bring back the wrongfully executed person. Not to mention that the liar might be able to disappear before the lie gets uncovered - and thus never even get arrested! (But the innocent party would still be dead.)
What I said last year:
Let's say there are four men, A through D.
Let's say A murders B, which in this case would result in a 20-year-sentence. C, for some psychopathic reason, cold-bloodedly chooses to frame D for the murder. (Maybe A and C are brothers.) Would most people - including judges - suggest that C get 20 years as well as A? No, and there are gut reasons for that which are not necessarily unreasonable. It also goes without saying that just because murder sometimes warrants the death penalty, that does not mean that a false accusation should.
Also, if A murders B and then tries to frame someone else, would most judges turn the 20-year sentence into a 40-year sentence? I doubt it.
lenona at March 14, 2019 12:23 PM
If you think that there are no cases with complete and damning evidence, you have Reasoning Deficit Disorder.
Radwaste at March 14, 2019 1:17 PM
> I'm playing both sides
> of the fence here
You freaking coward... We all knew this about you! You don't have the principles or the insight to think decisively about this... So you're a feckless FENCE SITTER.
You should do what I do, CD: Flip-flop!
Try to maintain an interval of no less than three months between node-swaps, and engage them only after reading a thoughtful, non-maniacal argument contrary to your own current oscillation... Something that includes one or more of tradition, religion, humanist passion, atheist ethical review, and abject practicality.
Good luck out there! We appreciate your attention to the issue!
Me?
It's like this: The only punishments that work as deterrents are swift and certain. A righteous society will never permit assembly-line executions without meticulous, iterative review, making them so slow and belated as to lose their signal.
So, no Cap Pee.
But the punitive nature of the sanction deserves respect as well— There are monsters and miscreants who behave so badly that they've certainly conceded their right to live, and killing them will be the only way we can be certain they won't cause more horror later, whether released from prison or not.
In the end, it was a Hitchens essay that dropped me leaning against capital punishment in a big way— As much anything else in human culture, capital punishment is tawdry. I wish I could remember which essay made the point so clearly.... When you look at an execution up close, there's nothing crisp or moral or meaningful to it at all. It's just people killing people....
Big Whoop.
Crid at March 14, 2019 3:41 PM
You can tell the true value that a society puts on human life by looking at the penalty it extracts for the taking of a life.
Jay at March 14, 2019 7:24 PM
So:
the Goddess is willing to let horrific murderers live for decades at government expense to avoid killing even one person by mistake -
BUT
she is full speed ahead on euthanasia of completely innocent people despite mounting evidence of abuse and coercion in Holland and Belgium, and "passive euthanasia" across Europe by public health bean-counters withdrawing standard treatments.
ALRIIIIIIIGHTY.
Ben David at March 15, 2019 6:53 AM
National Review Online has an interesting take on Gavin Newsom's "moratorium" on the death sentence in California, decrying it as executive overreach:
"The reprieve power that Newsom wields is intended to be applied on a case-by-case basis, as a final check against judicial error or egregious injustice. It is not intended to be invoked indiscriminately as a means by which to nullify or thwart well-established laws that the executive happens not to like."
The editors also take issue with Newsom's use of the word "moratorium" to describe his actions during his press conference.
Conan the Grammarian at March 15, 2019 12:00 PM
The editors also take issue with Newsom's use of the word "moratorium" to describe his actions during his press conference.
Conan the Grammarian at March 15, 2019 12:00 PM
Grandstanding. Be accountable Gavin, by commuting the sentence of every death row inmate’s execution order you are asked to sign, and invite the relatives of the victims into the ceremony where you do it.
In a nutshell, while I have no real objection to a good philosophical argument about the morality of the death penalty, the anti death penalty arguments generally include some of the smarmiest self righteousness, abject hypocrisy and emotional appeals you are ever likely to encounter,
It seem to boil down to our betters in the courts and government overriding the will of the voters, because we are all a bunch of deplorable Nazis who need to shut up, or something while the anti death penalty supporters feel smug about their own superior compassion.
When these arrogant assholes start arguing for mercy for the guy who raped and murdered their ten your old child as opposed to yours, I will be more inclined to listen.
Isab at March 15, 2019 12:37 PM
"this is a terrific move on his part -- ending the death penalty in California." He hasn't ended anything. He has merely decided, preemptively, that he won't sign any death warrants. The next Governor can.
Dennis at March 16, 2019 7:27 PM
"Anything else is revenge and makes those who carry it out (and support it) as bad as the original attacker. Or worse." Absurd. There are plenty of reasonable arguments against capital punishment. This is not one of them. You can apply the same formulation to any form of punishment, from prison to fines to a mere scolding.
Dennis at March 16, 2019 7:31 PM
"But most of all, the death penalty is absolute, irreversible and irreparable in the event of human error". This is a sound argument in favor of an absolute prohibition on capital punishment -- as opposed this assertion, which is absurd: "those who carry it [capital punishment] out (and support it) [are] as bad as the original attacker. Or worse."
Dennis Chapman at March 16, 2019 7:36 PM
this is a terrific move on his part -- ending the death penalty in California." He hasn't ended anything. He has merely decided, preemptively, that he won't sign any death warrants. The next Governor can.
Dennis at March 16, 2019 7:27 P
Precisely, and he did it in the most chicken shit cowardly way possible, as opposed to granting clemency for each person on death row whose death warrant he might have to sign.
If you think a guy got a raw deal, read his case, and commute his sentence or pardon him. This just stops the clock and shoves it onto the next governor.
Fucking weasel.
Isab at March 16, 2019 7:36 PM
Leave a comment