Death penalty is indefensible
Californians have been offered two options on the Nov. 8 ballot to “fix” a system of capital punishment that all sides agree has produced enormous legal bills, no semblance of deterrence to would-be murderers and too little justice to victims’ loved ones over the past four decades.
One of those measures, Prop. 62, offers a straightforward and certain solution: abolish the death penalty, and replace it with a punishment of life without the possibility of parole. The other, Prop. 66, proposes a highly complex, probably very expensive and constitutionally questionable scheme for streamlining the appeals process in hopes of shaving years off the timeline between conviction and execution.
Even the most ardent advocates of capital punishment should be wary of the promises in Prop. 66. Its core time-saving provisions would reduce the number of habeas petitions and tighten the deadlines for filing (within one year of acquiring an attorney) and resolving appeals (within five years).
In so doing, it brushes aside the legal and practical realities in the way of achieving any time savings.
One of the major congestion points in capital appeals is the dearth of defense attorneys with the skills and motivations to take them. Condemned inmates often must wait years for representation. The measure attempts to compel attorneys to take up capital appeals by excluding them from certain other defense work. This raises two serious concerns: One is the prospect that attorneys less steeped in the fine points of capital appeals — and it is a specialized part of the law — will be representing inmates with lives on the line. The other is the possibility of attorneys enlisted against their free will in these appeals. Neither scenario would suggest a path toward greater justice. The alternative would be to significantly raise the compensation level, and budgets for discovery, to attract well-qualified attorneys.
By moving those death-penalty proceedings from the Supreme Court to the already caseload-heavy superior courts at the county level, as Prop. 66 proposes, the civil and criminal justice system is likely to be overwhelmed by complex capital cases. Are Californians really ready to accept further delays in everyday cases for the sake of a few faster executions? Again, an alternative would be to significantly boost court spending, thus undermining the Yes on 66 promise of cost savings.
The state initiative, by its very nature, has no effect on the treatment of appeals in the federal courts — which
often are the greater source of delay.
The bottom line for Californians who might not have a moral issue with capital punishment is: What are we accomplishing? Is the death penalty a deterrent? Myriad studies failed to show any such correlation. In our editorial board meeting, a police-union representative cited the recent horrific assassinations of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge, La., as evidence of the need to protect officers with the ultimate deterrent. Yet both Texas and Louisiana have the death penalty. Each shooter was killed at the scene; neither was deterred in the least by the thought of a date with the executioner.
Does it bring a sense of closure to the victims’ loved ones? That issue is not so clear. The answer often rests with the individual survivor, and often his or her expectation of equanimity can waver before an execution, and change afterward. We certainly empathize with Marc Klaas, whose 12-year-old daughter, Polly, was kidnapped from a Petaluma slumber party and killed in 1993, at the frustration he expressed before our editorial board that her murderer remains alive on Death Row. But there is no guarantee that his execution would bring the peace we all would wish for a grieving father.
Thirteen inmates have been executed in California since 1992. The Death Row population now stands at 750 and growing. If Prop. 62 passes, gone is the incentive for them to file extended appeals that are guaranteed them under the extraordinarily high legal standard that is required for the state to take a life under the Supreme Court’s reading of the U.S. Constitution. Each would remain in prison without the possibility of parole. Also gone is the possibility that we — the people of California — might kill an innocent human being.
It’s humane, it’s practical, and it’s fiscally prudent. Vote yes on Prop. 62 and no on Prop. 66.