I do not believe in the DP, however, if the crime has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, I believe the person should spend the rest of their life in jail. I think death is too easy for those convicted of heinous crimes.
11
@Donna
That depends upon what awaits them in the afterlife
The editors of this fine paper should read factual trial documents describing the crimes of these death row inmates.
I've done that, during a time when my room mate worked as TX Asst Atty Gen prosecuting federal death penalty appeals for the state of Texas. Mountains of paper were generated in back and forth arguments to kill or spare each convicted criminal.
And factual accounts of their crimes were heinous, beyond my ability to describe here. The methods and malice and casual nature of their killings were extraordinary.
I challenge any liberal who believes we should eliminate the death penalty to read 100 actual accounts of the crimes these inmates are convicted of committing.
Imagine young girls murdered with knives, shovels, choked by bare hands. Imagine elderly people bludgeoned with bricks or pipes. Imagine rape victims murdered after the crime to prevent reporting.
The crimes are indeed horrific, and we should expect the punishment to be no less so.
14
@Joey All of these accounts may be 100% true, except for the one that isn't.
And that 1% of cases may have reached a guilty verdict based on aggressive prosecution, inadequate defense, eyewitnesses with unreliable memories or some other miscarriage of justice.
Such cases are the only ones I can think of where the 1% in America should have their way. Except the number of cases where the DP is applied to the innocent is more like 4%.
Sorry, I'm not murdering the innocent to slake your conservative blood thirst for vengeance no matter how venal the circumstances of the crime happen to be.
One innocent life lost in our gigantic incarceration complex is one too many.
15
@Joey False equivalency. Heinous crimes are committed by heinous criminals. Execution demands that the STATE become a murderer! You are operating under "an eye for an eye" principal (if you can call it a principal). Have you ever considered that prison may be a more harsh punishment than execution?
5
I applaud Governor Newsom’s thoughtful explanation for a halt to capital punishment in California. He spoke to families personally and listened to them. Many families were deeply distraught. To all the families of victims; I would never judge them for wanting the ultimate justice carried out against the guilty criminals on death row. These families deserve our utmost respect, many are devastated that they feel their loved ones will never get justice. This is a nuanced and difficult issue.
2
Can there be a justified “execution” for the most horrendous of mass murdering crimes, when there is no possibility of mistake?
2
A couple of years ago I was summoned to jury duty. I had hoped for a quick exit, but was bound to six hours of painfully waiting to even be spoken to. When we were finally ordered into the courtroom for a preliminary culling, the unimaginable happened: the court let us know this was a murder trial and the state was seeking the death penalty! A lightning bolt of energy went through my body.
They wanted each of us to stand and tell the judge - and the lawyers and the accused, who was present! - if we were for or against the death penalty, and why. And they told us the grisly details of how the accused had murdered his victim, randomly, after a botched robbery.
I watched in total shock as person after person got up and said they were all for it:
"Why should we pay to take care of this scum for the rest of his life." "He deserves it," without even know if he was guilty. "This will deter others."
I couldn't believe I was the only one who was sitting there going through all the arguments why the death penalty should be abolished, even though I figured the guy probably had killed this person - this father, this son, this husband. Oy, it was horrible - but I couldn't see that killing him was any "solution" and definitely not "justice." Certainly it went against my faith - I'm Catholic, although long since lapsed.
Finally, when it was my turn to stand and answer the judge - after thinking through all the multiple reasons I had - I simple stated, "IT'S WRONG!" Then silence.
17
@Random - I was called to be considered for an anomalous jury in a gang slaying of two of its lapsed members. The prosecutor asked me if I could convict the defendant of murder considering he had ordered it but not actually pulled the trigger. Quoting Lonesome Dove I said Yes, "You ride with outlaws, you hang with outlaws". I slept in my own bed that night.
1
I’m proud to be a CALIFORNIAN and proud of governor Newsom. When he was Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom did something similar in allowing same sex marriage in SF. I loved going to City Hall and the Civic Center in those days because there were so many happy, joyful ceremonies going on. Newsom was checked but was instrumental in moving the fight for equal rights for LBGTQ people, including the right to marry, giant steps forward. His action in putting a moratorium on state sponsored murder has national significance.
6
California leads the nation once again!
3
@Loretta Marjorie Chardin ... What about Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, all of which actually banned the death penalty. Nobody is going to move off of death row, the only success here is continuing a state of limbo for over 700 people. I certainly hope California isn't leading the nation, we would be moving backwards.
1
I wonder what, exactly, a stay fixes. Yes, it kicks the can down the road, but that’s all it does. Everyone remains under the same sentence. There’s no reason for inmates to stop litigating the validity of their sentences, even if affirmances mean nothing for the next several years at least. So public money will continue to be poured down the rat hole in propping up the system, paying teams of lawyers and investigators on both sides to do massive battle with each other, even as Governor Newsome claims a moral victory. This is not really a solution.
1
“The intentional killing of another person is wrong,” the governor said.
I completely agree with Governor Newsom. Abortion IS wrong.
1
Regrettably, I can not relish the moment as so many of my Democratic friends are. As much as I vehemently oppose capital punishment, I am deeply troubled by Governor Newsom’s executive order, insofar as it makes Dems vulnerable to one of the very same charges for which we are denouncing President Trump: circumventing the Democratic process.
Though by slim margins, Californians have voted in the affirmative for pro-capital punishment ballot measures (as noted in the editorial.) Until Californians vote otherwise and pass a measure to repeal state-sanctioned murder, then it would appear the governor’s recent executive order is subverting the will of the people.
At a minimum, the burden of proof is on Governor Newsom to explain how and in what ways his order does not so subvert.
4
I was in Norway when the sentence for Anders Breivik who killed 75 people in an act of political terrorism was pronounced: 25 years in jail. I admired the moral stance of the Norwegian people. If you oppose death penalty, you oppose it in all cases. However, chances of Breivik to ever walk as a free man are nil. There are provisions in the law that allow for people like him to be held indefinitely in mental hospitals or similar institutions and this is, of course, just. Certain crimes mark their perpetrators as less than human. Would you try to rehabilitate a child rapist and killer? Would you show mercy to a man who mowed down a household of people for drug money? I am opposed to death penalty on general grounds: it coarsens the public sentiment; it does not act as deterrent; and innocent people are executed. So I applaud the Governor’s decision. However, certain criminals need to be put away forever and forgotten. If they die quickly in jail, all the better; and modern medicine can certainly make it easier to dispose of them.
It's astonishing how devoted modern progressives are to raw, bare democracy (without any of that messy representation or republicanism) when it comes to enacting their policy goals -- confident that they're on the right side of history, the right side of demographics, and that the tyranny of the majority is nothing to worry about -- and yet so eager to overturn actual votes when the outcome isn't what they want.
The Progressives of the early 20th Century pushed for direct democracy in California (a.k.a. ballot propositions) as a way of end-running around an untrustworthy state government - a legislature that that was ineffective and executives who were corrupt.
This is not the first time California voters have directly passed through democratic means and have had the executive branch thumb their noses at the will of the people. Governor Newsom may think he's riding a wave of social change that he will be forgiven for in a few years, a la 2008, but he's much more likely to end up as another Gray Davis if his subversion of the residents continues.
Make no mistake about it: California is blue -- but it's not *that* blue. And when Trump-as-foil is gone, the true cost of Progressive overreach may be felt in future election days.
2
Barbaric is a relative and individualistic description of the death penalty. Sometimes we are so afraid as a society to face death. There is the question of the quality of life and the impact of that life on society. Mental health institutions of the past were described as barbaric. Can we bring back better systems? To me being confined in a cell would be good reason to consider ending 'life'.
We keep the comatose on ventilators. We have no limits on people having children that have a history with child welfare, I'm a foster mother.
Medical treatment for the mentally ill needs to be a higher priority in research.
Death should be a choice, but my mentally ill acquaintances thru CWS think that all possible means should be provided to extend their lives. They have tortured children, law enforcement and everyone they interface with in public.
My very cold side thinks they are not 'living' and if they could be gone tomorrow, it would be a positive.
1
We need regular publications of obituaries like this:
J.W. died today in prison. He was given a life sentence in 1978. He spent 41 years incarcerated, never leaving the prison. He was convicted of murdering three people and was given a without-parole sentence.
It's hard to say that J.W. got off easy by not getting the death sentence. The regular presentation of obits like this should convince us that we don't need the death penalty.
4
I have and always will favor the death penalty for crimes so horrific that it would truly be a travesty of not only justice but morality in the face of indisputable evidence. Send them on their way to perdition and let God judge them further.
@Rodrian Roadeye
-Perhaps, but in America the rich walk. When the right to impose death is unfairly applied, it is better to limit the damage by abolishing the death penalty.
3
The state has had at least two votes on the death penalty and voters chose to keep it. How can the NYTimes give so much positive press to the governor overriding the will of the constituents? I thought this outlet believed in democracy, in 'the vote matters.' Guess votes only count when the NYTimes agree with how one voted. That must be why their daily news is filled with multiple anti-Trump articles; doesn't matter that he was voted in as president over Hillary because their votes don't count. We're told that those that voted for Trump or support any of his policies are uneducated people living in fly over states. Well, I didn't vote for Trump, but somehow I'm not relieved with the current bias of the NYTimes anyway.
5
The death penalty is not nearly as barbaric as some of the military actions high-minded Americans and the esteemed editors of the NYT have supported. It would take a better argument than the NYT and Gavin's to persuade me that is is always wrong, for sometimes it is deserved--mass murderers, child killers/torturers, high traitors, if guilt is proved beyond a doubt, it's smart for the state to kill them so they do no more harm.
4
"Six in 10 prisoners on California's death row are people of color"---This alone warrants demise
6
@TWShe Said. I am betting none of them are rich.
2
No matter that voters support and want to expedite the death penalty in CA.
4
Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 & caused the deaths of almost 100 million people. What would have been his just punishment? Who knows? Would his execution have made us feel better about the hundred million? I’m glad I don’t have to answer such questions.
@JGSD Hitler should have been aborted at birth by a just and loving merciful God! How could an all knowing Creator allow his birth and such aimless destruction? Because suffering and death offered up in his name is noble? Spare me the narcissistic histronics.
End this horror now !
2
So if you are arguing for the death penalty you are in good company, here's some folks on your side:
China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Libya, Uganda...
7
Here's what I can't square - the very same bleeding-heart liberals that think it's barbaric to take a life of a criminal seem to have no compunctions doing that for unborn (or recently in just-born) children.
6
The death penalty is barbaric. People scream against abortion, but scream for mortal vengeance. Life is sacred, but only after it leaves its mother's womb.
2
@Jo Ann - How convenient. Life is not sacred when it has a beating heart, unless it also is breathing the same air as you. As my grandmother said in the 1970's, "Of course it is alive, that is the problem!".
@Jo Ann According to the Bible life begins at first breath.
This is typical liberal nonsense, the voters of California are clearly for execution of these animals, the governor comes in and twists the will of the people because he doesn’t have the backbone to execute it .
All the weak kneed comments on this string come from people that can’t stand seeing real justice done, some people in this world, unfortunately, simply do not deserve to live
3
Gov. Gavin Newsome has taken a very courageous approach to this fundamental question: Should the state put anyone to death? As I understand it, the first and basic purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect the public, As a secondary goal, it should attempt rehabilitation if possible. Nowhere does the idea of vengeance come into the process. Nowhere is retribution a goal of the system. I hope that Governor Newsome's courageous act will lead the way to other states and eventually, the entire USA.
5
@Earle Jones
President Trump has taken a very courageous approach to this fundamental question: Should all persons who simply desire it be allowed to move to the US? As I understand it, the first and basic purpose of the federal government is to protect the public, As a secondary goal, it should attempt benevolence and compassion towards non-Americans if possible. Nowhere does the idea of desire-to-move-here come into the process. Nowhere is uninhibited-entry a goal of the system. I hope that President Trump's courageous act will lead the way to sensible Congressional allocations and eventually, sanity in the entire USA.
The death penalty doesn't stop murderers. It doesn't bring back the dead. If the wrong person is executed it means that the real criminal might still be out there and he got away with murder. How can we call ourselves a civilized country when we still execute people and call it deterrence? How can we say that prison teaches criminals how to become productive citizens when we don't bother to try to rehabilitate prisoners? What sort of country imprisons people, frees them with little or no preparation to deal with the world outside prison, and then gets angry when they re-offend? A country that is careless with its most precious resource: its citizens and America has become careless with all of us.
15
@hen3ry
Don't disagree with you. I simply disagree with the method used to get there in this case.
The death penalty has been for the worst cases of shocking depravity. A night shift nurse stepped outside to smoke a cigarette. Her body was found, raped with her nipples burned off. Lots of DNA left behind by her killers. Gavin should give as much thought to her life as the lives of the murderers.
Why not ask the people of that state. Death penalty yes or no. After all it is their legal system. Their turf where the crime was perpetrated. Then ask what is more cruel. Allowing a human to rot behind bars in a prison society that mimics the worst hood in the world, or perhaps it is more humane to end this persons tortured life. Then ask what the victims surviving family members think. Point here is we go about capital punishment often times with a system made for the 18th and 19th century. It’s easy to declare the death penalty won’t happen here. But who are you governor? What gives you moral authority. If you want to take a mans life for his crime, make sure everyone is on board that train. Don’t declare the train does not run anymore for your own vanity.
1
Don't speak for me and my values Mr Newsom.
2
What I find interesting about American culture is that it is the only western European culture that believes that killing somebody actually solves a problem. You see this their attitude to executions and personal firearms.
4
State-sanctioned capital punishment is lazy and cowardly.
2
@Pedestrian Advocate And allowing the cartels to get away with kidnapping and murder is lazy, and cowardly, as well. Defend your country, fella!
1
In our current ugly climate of hate and vengeance, Gov. Gavin Newsom surfaces as a humanistic hero. His words were something like this: 'do we have the right to kill?'
He offers a 21st century step forward beyond 'an eye for an eye . . . '
5
Grateful to live here in CA.
4
Why not have the next Democratic President ban the barbaric practice nationwide. Any President has the power to pardon all death row inmates. Have any candidates repudiated "the intentional killing" of fellow Americans? If not, why not? And why doesn't the New York Times call on them to stop this barbaric practice?
1
Now the California legislature should act to remove the death penalty from the state's laws.
5
I have never supported the death penalty, but I am weary of executive power changing law by fiat. I also believe the cost argument is paramount in ending capital punishment, because the moral argument falls on deaf ears for those who believe in retribution.
We live in a democracy where the abolition of the death penalty can be argued debated and passed through our legislative branch. Then our Governor can sign it. Why is Trump characterized as a tyrant for sweeping executive orders outside the legislative process, but Newsom lionized here for his stand ?
If something is rotten with the state of American democracy it is this.
Unless and until we begin using our legislatures to enact the laws we are no longer being powered democractically. Constitutional power effects genuine change, because the law results from a process. In the age of instant gratification, it seems further out of reach year by year.
5
@Paul Hartnett
Exactly! I'm no supporter of the death penalty, I consider it too prone to error and predjudice and favor true life without parole, but the method used to get there in this case is destructive to democracy. We've had enough of that lately.
4
I oppose the death penalty on ethical grounds but there maybe a practical reason for it to continue for some crimes committed by individuals who are simply not deterred by anything else. I refer to a class of people who have no empathy for others and who only can be convinced not to kill others from fear of being killed themselves.
1
Bravo. That the death penalty is based on fundamentally flawed logic and is morally wrong is a truth that has to be told over and over again until it is forever abolished.
Bravo to the NYTimes Editors for taking the courageous stand against those who cling to a barbarous vengeful notion of 'justice'. Thank you as well to California Governor Gavin Newsom for his truly civilized and principled actions. Such moral leadership is a rarity.
2
Would anyone that’s cheering this decision whom I would presume is also part of the "Trump is a fascist " crowd, like to explain to me how overruling the direct will of the people (see the ballot initiative) with this Executive Order is good for "democracy"?
Additionally, I find it interesting that the New York Times' editorial board, which favors abolishing the Electoral College because its viewed as inimical to "democracy", is in favor of a Governor issuing Executive Orders prohibiting something; (i) in direct contravention of the peoples will (see ballot initiative) and (iii) in contravention of the people of California's will through the exercise of their popular sovereignty (see the fact that the Death penalty was passed by the will of the people into law). Considering the anti-democratic nature of this move, and the praise the NYT Op-Ed Board is lavishing on Newsome, this can only mean one thing. They do not actually believe in abolishing the Electoral college because its inimical to "representative democracy", it is only because the Electoral College cuts against their preferred party's ability to obtain the highest Federal office in the land. If they actually were for repealing the EC to promote a more representative democracy, then they couldn’t plausibly at the same time be lavishing praise on an anti-democratic Executive Order.
Time for some intellectual honesty or introspection on the left relating to the matters heretofore described.
7
As a lifelong Californian excepting the last 6 years, I and many others have come to regard DP as unconscionable and discriminatory.
Why is the DP only for violent crimes? Financial crimes can be just as devastating to victins. Why are so many poor people of color on death row? A skimpy and under funded public defender system that does not give poor people a chance. Why is there no acknowledgement from state that truly innocent people can be sentenced to death?
Commute all DP inmates to life in prison w/o parole. Forget the fantasy that justice is served by the state taking a life. Forget the fantasy that the DP brings closure to victims' families. Forget the fantasy that living in a California prison for decades is easy. (cot and 3 hots argument)
Close San Quentin
4
Once again our betters have overridden the express will of the people ( CA population passed a proposition to speed up the death penalty process in 2017) and feel virtuous about it. Trying to stage a Brexit referendum redo and the multifaceted campaigns to remove Trump by non-electoral means such as the 25th amendment are also manifestations of progressive idea of governance.
Let’s say Brexit is a bad move, Trump is awful and you find death penalty abhorrent. What are you willing to trade off when the shoe is on the other foot? Impeachment of a liberal SCOTUS to shift the balance to the right, moratorium on abortions? I am sure the answer is resounding NO because “everybody knows” that such an impeachment would undermine the republic and that abortion is “ constitutional” while death penalty should not. Ok, so why to bother with all the voting expenses, the progressives should just let us know what is ok and what is not and when. All socialist countries wind up in that mode anyway.
4
@Just Saying Ok, let's say you are unfortunate enough to be falsely arrested and convicted of a capital offense, and you are sentenced to death. What are you willing to trade off when the shoe is on the other foot?
1
Perhaps the death penalty could be justified if the state was absolutely certain that the person being executed had committed the murder(s) he was condemned for. However there are enough times when there is no certainty that the death penalty itself is cruel and unusual punishment. If we did not incarcerate so many people for so long for so many crimes it might be easier to hold someone in prison for the rest of his life.
The other problems with our justice system are the inherent racism and the wealth factor. In America if you are accused of a serious crime if you are African American it's likely that you will be serving more time than a white person. If you are rich you will get the best justice money can buy. In other words, this country feels that justice for poor people deserves poor funding. We don't believe in rehabilitation. We don't believe in second chances unless the criminal in question is rich, a celebrity, or in the White House.
All the death penalty does during peace is reinforce economic, racial, and social differences. It does not serve justice. Nor do victim impact statements. We need to think about what crimes deserve long jail sentences. Murder does. So does rape. But does shoplifting deserve prison time? Does drug possession for personal use?
3
I consider the death penalty repugnant, brutal and medieval. However, I also believe that governors are not kings. CA voters, in what is the nations most democratic state, both big and small D's, chose to continue this horrific and demonstrably racially inequitable punishment via a direct vote of the people.
If Californians are not civilized enough to banish capital punishment, I believe the U.S. is at least a century from reaching a European level of civilization.
I love my country, but it is so disappointing. We shouldn't require Kings to tell us what is moral.
3
My cousin, Susan D. Eubanks, has been on California's death row for 20 years. She has exhausted her state appeals and is now working with her lawyers on a federal appeal. During the penalty phase of Susie's trial I testified in her defense and about her extremely traumatic childhood. Susie's mother died in a house fire when Susie was just eight years old. Susie was raised mostly by alcoholic grandparents who were my aunt and uncle. She also lived above a bar with her alcoholic father who died when she was 18. She also stayed with other relatives in Texas and Florida. Susie never knew what having a normal life was like. This in no way excuses what she did. At trial she did not have a mother or a father or grandparents to beg the jury to spare her life. She did have other relatives and friends who made efforts to explain what happened to Susie. Her own half sister testified about being raped by their father in 1971. There was testimony from my father's twin about Susie's father's drunken state at her mother's funeral. During the funeral her father never offered comfort or any emotional support to his four children. He was so absorbed in his own pain and too drunk to notice his children's pain. Susie writes me and I have bought her 3 TVs and other electronics over the years. Susie wrote me that she had failed at life. I know from her many letters that she is a changed person. She has matured in prison and her mind is clear from substance abuse. I always sign "forever love"
1
@Wyman Elrod Interesting that you don’t mention what she did.
2
If someone I loved was murdered - I would want the harshest execution possible for them - instead they are secure in a prison where they are fed, clothed and safe - if it were up to me I would let the families make the decision about what to do with the prisoner!
1
Bravo California, welcome back to the civilised world.
2
There remains this question:
Is “execution“ ever warranted, for the most horrendous mass murdering or crimes against humanity, where there is no possibility of a mistake?
1
Because she is now a candidate for Democratic nominee for president, no discussion of the death penalty in California should neglect to mention the disappointing role played by Kamala Harris, who was the Attorney General of California from January 3, 2011 – January 3, 2017.
Kamala Harris has always professed to be "personally opposed" to the death penalty. Yet, she worked actively to uphold the death penalty when she was the Attorney General.
In 2014, a federal judge ruled that the death penalty as applied in California was unconstitutional. Kamala Harris appealed this ruling and her office aggressively defended the death penalty. She won, and hence the death penalty has been in force in California.
This was a pro-death penalty choice that she made. She had the discretion to refrain from defending it, yet she aggressively fought to save the death penalty.
But it gets worse. She also declined to allow the testing of potentially exculpatory DNA in the case of Kevin Cooper, who was on death row but widely suspected to be innocent due to many serious irregularities that occurred during his arrest and trial, as revealed by Nicholas Kristof in this paper. (see link).
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/17/opinion/sunday/kevin-cooper-california-death-row.html
It's important for people to know when a candidate for the highest office in the land has not demonstrated the courage of her convictions and seems totally oblivious of the fact.
6
I draw the opposite conclusion — she worked to implement the laws in place that she was elected to enforce. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if every elected official decided to follow their conscience on abortion, gun control, climate change, etc. rather than what the law is.
3
California voters voted just a few years ago to NOT abolish the death penalty. This is just another instance of executive overreach - just what the Democrats are accusing Trump of doing.
3
As long as human error and bias exist the death penalty shouldn't. That pretty much means forever, folks. QED.
5
So we should instead house and feed 9/11 killers forever?
1
How great would it be if terrorists/criminals/gun holders reciprocate and do not kill any of their victims. Killing animals for food only is allowed in civil societies?
1
I am against the Death Penalty
but I am also against the New York Times
saying:
Take, for instance, Richard Boyer, a death row inmate at San Quentin State Prison — where the state’s only death chamber was closed under Mr. Newsom’s order. Mr. Boyer, who was sentenced in 1984 for the murder of a couple in their 60s, has spent 34 years on death row and is one of 25 inmates who have exhausted all appeals, which would put them next in line to be executed, if not for the moratorium.
Why do you mention Mr. Boyer and not the names of his victims and why don't you say what Mr. Boyer did when he
killed his victims, who have been dead longer than Mr. Boyer
has been on death row ? They were Francis and Aileen Harbitz. Their son knew Mr. Boyer, the couple invited Mr. Boyer into their home where he claimed he hallucinated -
he did happen to steal their wallets - which contained a total of $ 50.
Mr. Boyer stabbed the husband 24 times and the wife 19 times. He may well have killed another person for which he
was not tried. He may well have been high on drugs when he
killed. Mr. Boyer admitted he killed the couple.
Mr. Boyer was tried three times and he has appealed his
conviction and sentence in the years since the last trial.
If 4 % of the people on Death Row are indeed innocent
what does that say about those convicted of felonies who
are in prisons who do not have automatic appeals and advocates appealing their cases ?
4
Not one word in this article about the victims of these inmates or their families friends etc. Your compassion is totally reserved for the wrong people. This is why I am not a liberal.
4
@mptpab I am a liberal, but I agree with you. I was also a capital prosecutor for a long time, and I came to the conclusion that the death penalty is simply unworkable. Under American law, it is not t the person commit murder; they must also be found morally culpable sufficiently to choose death over imprisonment. And that’s always a fuzzy determination, one that has nothing to do with the victims. An example of the sort of reasoning involved can be found in the Eubanks letter above, where the killer’s cousin writes about all the difficulties the killer faced in life, and doesn’t say a word about what she did (kill her four children).
"Why do we kill to show people that killing people is bad?" / a phrase seen 40 years ago or so in somewhere in the Netherlands...
2
How can you protect police and prison guards without the threat, at least, of the death penalty? What deterrent exists for a terrorist or a person with a 200 year sentence to prevent them from killing a guard or a fellow inmate? The worst thing about the death penalty is that it is a form of welfare for lawyers. The extensive appeals mandated make it cheaper to keep a killer in jail for 40-50 years than the ultimate penalty. The death penalty in its present state is a loser; there is no reasonable debate.
1
There are two reasons for not having a death penalty.
(1) Death is much too kind a fate for those who might truly deserve the death penalty.
(2) There may be people who deserve the death penalty, but the rest of us do not deserve to live in a country that puts intentionally puts people to death.
5
No government, no court of law, no institution of the people ought to have the power and capacity to terminate a human life.
Why? Two Reasons.
1. The punishment can't fit the crime if the punishment is a crime. Murder is murder whether premeditated or spontaneous without regard to who is the killer; state or individual. Moreover, capital punishment does not function as a deterrent and may in fact encourage the heinous offenses.
2. How many mistakes have been made where innocent men (mostly) and some few women were killed by the State? Is one in a million acceptable? I say one in 10 million is unacceptable. Maybe not one in the whole list of executed criminals is worth the risk of killing an innocent human being.
So sad to see we still haven't quite gotten it.
My brother and I have each had to drop the hammer to stay alive and have we each suffered so much that I cannot tell you.
Isn't this a no-brainer?
2
Good news at last!
on something meaningful too.
I agree wholeheartedly with the "barbaric practice's demise" in your lead-in to the article.
and while I have no doubt the system is discriminatory and prone to error as you say in your closing, my take is so much simpler - ONE innocent person executed is enough for me to be against institutionalized killing. One or 30 makes no difference to me. ONE is too many.
Do as we preach - no killing. By a person or by the state.
2
Since 1976, California has executed only 13 inmates. Mr. Newsom said the state has spent $5 billion to keep the death penalty on life support in the last 40 years. Far more death row prisoners have died of illness or old age than in the death chamber.
___
13 inmates executed since 1976 explains WHY California has the largest DP backlog in the U.S. Even as executions across the country are down and Texas now offers LWOP as an option, executions are still so commonplace that only the AP reporter covers the story/attends the execution.
"The California governor’s moratorium on executions in the state should signal the demise of a barbaric practice."
In 2004 San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed the city-county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Four years later same sex marriage was legal in California. By 2015 it was legalized nationwide. Generations from now, young people will find it incomprehensible that LGBQ people were barred from marriage as we find it hard to comprehend how interracial marriage was once banned.
The federal government lags the social conventions by generally ten years. Perhaps this will shorten if we continue to elect younger, more idealists members of congress as we see in the freshman class in the House.
Gavin Newsom has the moral backbone to do the right thing and halt the 'eye for an eye' type of barbaric response to horrible crimes. Two wrongs do not make a right.
4
If the US put as much energy into prevention of crime as it does punishment of criminals (as determined by a deeply flawed criminal “justice” system), they might not be number 1 in the world in incarceration rates. Why is there so much crime in the US?
4
@RickyDick
That is a complicated question but I believe that the primary cause of crime in the US is extreme inequality and the lack of legal ways for people to escape it. When you can not better your lot in life by working hard and playing by the rules you take whatever measures are available to you.
3
I have to just shake my head in disbelief at reading some of these comments. To say that it is all right to execute an innocent person in the service of getting the really bad ones is more than scary. Let those who support this idea be the first innocents to volunteer for this walk on role.
10
A simple solution is that all jurors, judges, prosecutors and prison staff who unjustly sentence and carry out an execution on an innocent person should, themselves, be tried from premeditated murder. Let's see how many death sentences are dealt out after that.
6
I find it interesting - if not definitive - that I have never read an argument against the death penalty that gives detailed account of some of the crimes people are executed for.
Not the crimes which are obviously unjustly punished (and they do exist). I mean the crimes of hellish unthinkable cruelty, greed, and unreasoning violence.
Any serious attempt to halt the death penalty must convince a majority. And that must include the latter sort of crime, committed by people who make a life study of harm.
7
The problem with California is that the state is so large that it will never form a consensus on such a volatile topic as the death penalty. Thus far all ballot measures to abolish the death penalty have failed.
In taking executive action, Newsom flagrantly violated Prop 66 which requires the state to maintain a protocol and a death chamber.
Meanwhile prosecutors can still ask for the death penalty and courts can still review those cases brought on appeal.
All Newsom has accomplished with his outlaw approach is to throw a monkey wrench into the operation of the state's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The only way for California to abolish the death penalty is via a ballot measure and that has little to no chance of passing.
So what are the victims of crimes to do when the death row perpetrators are given a reprieve by a bleeding heart governor? Under Prop 66 that can sue him and win.
5
@Alabama
"The problem with California is that the state is so large that it will never form a consensus on such a volatile topic as the death penalty. Thus far all ballot measures to abolish the death penalty have failed."
On the contrary: California has indeed formed a consensus. It has repeatedly voted in favor of the death penalty and in favor of actually doing it.
1
Opposing the majority will of the people as expressed through election is within the Governor’s distraction - issuing a “stay” but is still a bad idea. True hat some convicted may be innocent, abd that there is a racial and education disparity. But the jury who heard the case and still convicted should be the final word, barring an appeal.
And we still haven’t considered the victim. They died, and their murderer lives? To me, this is justice denied.
9
Decades in a California prison, knowing you're never going to get out, is punishmnent. Ever visited a Calufirnia prison? I have - as a reporter. They are sheer hell like something from Dante's Inferno!
1
I'm fully against the death penalty in principle. It's less punishing than life in prison, it's less expensive, it has no chance of being overturned, and it reduces the state to a vengeful murderer. If someone killed my niece, I'd feel driven to eliminate them extrajudicially, but I wouldn't want the state to be driven by similar visceral, instinctive revenge.
So on a philosophical level, I'm in full agreement with Gov. Newsom, and the civilized elimination of the death penalty.
On the other hand, it doesn't really matter. There are too many humans on the planet, no offense, and if a few dozen get executed in America every year, so what? Doesn't matter much if every single one of them was innocent (not likely), because it's a few dozen out of 330 million, completely unnoticeable.
So yes, this is nice, but overall, it makes no difference either way. If that's not a popular opinion, that hardly matters either, see if there's any difference in the rise in sea level and global temperature increase, depending on whether California stopped executing people.
Ummm - you think it might interest the person awaiting execution?
1
People have come from very different philosophical positions to agree with at least one of the following reasons that capital punishment has far too many problems to be supported (this list may be incomplete). People--
--Who are morally opposed to taking life under any circumstances.
--Who take their New Testament out for a spin beyond Sunday morning.
--Who know that a potential death penalty does not deter future crime.
--Who know a death sentence, after appeals, costs more $ than life w/o parole.
—Who know that minorities are far more likely to end up on death row than whites for the same crime, by any measure.
--Who are concerned with the number of faulty death sentences overturned by DNA evidence, inadequate representation or prosecutor misconduct.
--Who understand the difference between justice and revenge.
--Who understand the near impossibility in obtaining court-approved drugs to avoid the "cruel and unusual punishment" Constitutional problem.
Proponents of capital punishment live in a world that requires disagreement with every one of the above reasons to end this barbaric practice.
27
@Leading Edge Boomer
--Who are morally opposed to taking life under any circumstances.
I have no moral qualms about ending the life of those who chose to do the same to other innocents. Would you say it's immoral to punish Dylan Roof for his crimes for example?
--Who take their New Testament out for a spin beyond Sunday morning.
An increasing amount of the US population, republicans included, are non-religious and don't care about the texts in the bible.
--Who know that a potential death penalty does not deter future crime.
How do you measure how many are deterred from crime if the crime never takes place? In the case of a convicted criminal, they are no longer able to commit a crime.
--Who know a death sentence, after appeals, costs more $ than life w/o parole.
Since when is the cost of punishment a factor in of our justice system?
—Who know that minorities are far more likely to end up on death row than whites for the same crime, by any measure.
This can be subject to additional scrutiny without doing away with it.
--Who are concerned with the number of faulty death sentences overturned by DNA evidence, inadequate representation or prosecutor misconduct.
Apply the penalty in cases where guilt is confirmed and all appeals have been expended
--Who understand the near impossibility in obtaining court-approved drugs to avoid the "cruel and unusual punishment" Constitutional problem.
There are plenty of other methods that don't require these drugs. Such as nitrogen gas.
I don't agree with the California's executive branch overriding the authority of the legislative branch. I regard it as an abuse of power by the governor.
It is not a barbaric practice to insert a needle into a vein, put the inmate to sleep, then stop his heart.
The State of Alabama where I live has an extraordinarily high rate of violent homicides. Just this week a man who was recently paroled from prison randomly murdered two people and tried to murder others before he was caught. The people he murdered were good people going about their daily lives.
How do you look the victims family in the eye and tell them that the death penalty is barbaric?
The only thing barbaric about the death penalty is that justice is not administered in a timely manner taking years of appeals before the sentence is carried out.
8
While I appreciate the high browed opinions expressed in the comments, I would simply like to express that in 2016, we had not one, but two death penalty propositions on the ballot. Not only did Prop 62 (the repeal) fail, the voters passed Prop 66 (speeding up the execution process). And California isn't exactly the bastion of right leaning values. We're a solid blue state, yet we are a solid blue state that still wants to execute people. In fact this very issue has been on the ballot eleven times since 1972, and every single time the voters have said we want this penalty.
You can call Governor Newsom bold, but I'd suggest he was going against the will of the people. It's almost like not getting your own way when you want to build a wall, so you do an end run around the process because you KNOW that you know better.
5
Moratorium does not necessarily mean abolished.
1
@Blue Zone True, but change, real change takes moral leadership and guts. Perhaps... this is it.
18
Every report of Gavin Newsom’s latest action makes me just a little less cynical about American politicians. But - of course - my inner cynic can’t help hoping that everything he’s done the last few years is geared toward a 2020 presidential run. Such a wonderful conflict!
11
This is excellent news. I wasn't quite sure what to think of Gavin Newsom, but he's just risen a lot in my estimation.
23
Here in Illinois we eliminated the death penalty many years ago. It happened after it was proven that some of the individuals on death row did not commit the crime. I must wonder how many of those awaiting execution in California are also innocent of the crime. I also must wonder how many innocent people have been executed over the years in California and other states. There are many arguments against the death penalty, but the one that convinces me most is the idea that an innocent person could be executed. What is the justification for doing so? That it is worth executing a few innocent individuals it we can get rid of some really bad ones? Is a "beyond a reasonable doubt" guilty verdict by a jury good enough to sentence a person to death? I believe not. And I praise Governor Newsom for his decision.
34
Certain murder crimes are so heinous that it is difficult to make the argument that there are no instances where the death penalty is warranted. Some criminals are so dangerous that the guard population can be at risk if the death penalty is eliminated entirely. Recent stories of lethal injections gone awry has added to the push to eliminate the death penalty, but that is not a valid argument to stop the administration of final justice in the rare cases it is called for.
16
@Babel The cases where it is called for is not rare in Alabama.
@Babel
Nonsense. There are thousands - possibly hundreds of thousands - of dangerous criminals in prisons all around the world. While any criminal is potentially dangerous, it has never been shown that prisoners on death row are more dangerous than others. Yiu should stop rewatching fiction movies like Silence of the Lambs and start reading the facts.
2
@Babel--Don't even know where to begin on ridiculous logic--if you can call it that
1
The problem with the death penalty is the possibility of executing an innocent person.
The only way to make sure we do not execute an innocent person is to execute no one.
Remember the Central Park 5.
Every one "knew" they were guilty.
They confessed.
IF NYS had a death penalty and the jogger had died the five INNOCENT youths would have been fried.
Trump [despite DNA evidence exoneratng the five] still believes them to be guilty.
40
No, the problem with the death penalty is that a person is being killed.
2
@david NO. Abolishing the death penalty means abolishing death penalty for guilty criminals.
How can you argue, apparently without irony, that delays in carrying out the death penalty justify abolishing it when those delays are caused by the people striving to abolish it?
12
@Paul McBride to get rid of the delays means changing the appeals process, and a state would end up executing even more innocent people.
12
@PaulMcBride There is not much that we can do about our home grown murderers. The governor is within his rights. As far as murderers from Mexico are concerned, however, Mexico should pay their lifetime prison costs. We have better things to spend our taxes on.
1
@Laura Wirick
Oh yes, most of these people on death row are absolutely innocent, this is the type of bleeding heart liberal is in that is ruining our country
The current use of the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent because it is neither reliably applied nor temporally proximate to the commission of crime. (Would-be killers don't think twice unless they face a high probability of imminent execution.)
It's cruel and torturous because it strings out the execution over years or decades and adversely affects the communities of the condemned (family, friends) as well as the prison staff.
It's incredibly wasteful because it costs an enormous amount of money and resources.
It's inherently unjust because it is applied unevenly (not every killer gets it) and prejudicially (poor and non-white people tend to get it more).
If you really support the death penalty, you should advocate for its universal extension, mandatory application, and public execution. That is the only way is would have any claim to justice whatsoever.
24
Did you say “public execution”, like the French Revolution?
1
I am against death penalty, but for life-long exile of murderers to a remodeled uninhabited island, with no contact to the outside world, and where they would have to feed themselves in the sweat of their brow. I am hesitant to be as firmly against death penalty for mass murderers and crimes against humanity.
Humankind has gone through a long series of execution methods, many of them for crimes considered minor today. As a whole, the view of human life as being cheap has changed for the better in the course of human history.
The Governor of California has made a step in the right direction, even if the coastal cities in his State are the foci of Evil emanating therefrom and expanding over the country.
1
Anyone who believes that the death penalty is just, and that we have a color-blind justice system, needs to read Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson. Also, review what the Innocence Project has done to free wrongfully convicted people who were on death row or serving life in prison for crimes they were ultimately found not to have committed. The only conclusion one can reach after learning the facts is that no civilized, just society should have the death penalty.
66
@J. And then read Marc Mauer's The Meaning of Life about the slow death penalty, also known as Life Without Parole. A person should always have a chance at redemption and at least a parole hearing to see if they are still a public safety threat. Most individuals age out of crime.
21
Thus will be the next battle. The moment the death penalty is abolished the opponents will start a campaign against life without parole and after that against life and after that against maximum of years. In few “enlightened“ socialist countries the max is 15 years. If the crime is really bad to them, such as when right winger few years back shot bunch of young communists, they will declare the criminal mentally incompetent so they can keep him locked up longer regardless of him being a perfectly lucid and competent murderer. The progressive ideology is a study in unintended consequences. Be they fires in California or white liberals trying to get their white kids who cannot play the diversity card to Ivy schools with bribes or the criminal who, protected from ICE by CA regardless of 9 official requests, murdered a woman just day before yesterday.
Criminals age out of crimes? Never heard of a victim aging out of being dead.
@J.
Another suggestion: a fairly obscure but powerful 1988 movie called The Thin Blue Line.
3
Advances in DNA science have made wrongful murder convictions much less likely, so the argument that innocent people are frequently executed is no longer valid, if it ever was. To say the DP is barbaric without admitting that murderers are have destroyed many lives, and are MORE barbaric is dishonest, and so is avoiding the fact that the electorate supports DP, and that this is a public safety issue, so the public should have the deciding voice.
21
@me -- DNA evidence is often not even available, and yet people are convicted.
38
@me Degrees of barbarity? The state reserves to itself the right to be barbaric? In the name of what? Justice or vengeance?
The fact is that no evidence whatsoever indicates that the death penalty deters crime. Public safety isn't an issue here. The mere act of the state engaging in killing undermines its claim to be an independent arbiter of justice.
38
@me (1) You implicitly admit that the frequency of state-murdered innocent people is greater than zero. This is unacceptable.
(2) The DP does not have to be MORE barbaric than the criminal's actual crimes; it is sufficient to argue that the government should not be taking lessons in morals from murderers.
(3) Public support for the DP is irrelevant to questions of moral rightness. Compare emancipation, civil rights, desegregation, miscegenation... The popular will can be, and often is, wrong. Justice is not a majority decision.
Apart from all that, the state should have as few legal ways as possible to execute its own citizens. (And isn't it weird that so-called "small government" enthusiasts are generally the ones clamoring for state powers over the life and death of private individuals?)
52