The abolitionist group Death Penalty Focus has just announced the appointment of Jeanne Woodford, the former warden at California's San Quentin prison, as its new executive director. Woodford, who also was the director of the California Department of Corrections at one point, will be lobbying against the death penalty. After years in the prison business -- even carrying out four executions at San Quentin -- Woodford is now opposed to the death penalty. As she puts it: "The death penalty serves no one. It doesn't serve the victims. It doesn't serve prevention. It's truly all about retribution."
I agree with Woodford. It's time for California and the other 33 states where the death penalty is on the books to repeal the death penalty as have Canada, Australia, Mexico, and all of Europe. The UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.
After spending four years on the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, it became clear to me and several other members that the death penalty should be repealed. The death penalty is too costly, the possibility is high that a person who has been wrongfully convicted will be put to death, capital punishment inordinately affects communities of color, the imposition of the death penalty varies greatly from county to county within the same state, a low income defendant faces a troubling disadvantage when charged with a capital offense, the death penalty forecloses any possibility of healing and redemption, and the death qualification juror requirement inherently and unjustly biases the process against the defendant.
Costs. The resources that go into a death penalty case are enormous. The pursuit of execution adds millions at each phase of the process, from trial to appeal, and habeas proceedings. For example, at a time when state and local budgets are suffering, a death penalty trial costs counties at least $1.1 million more than a conventional murder trial.
Racial and geographic variation. Counties with the highest death penalty sentencing rates tend to have the highest proportion of whites in their population and are more rural. Also, those who kill African Americans and Latinos are less likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill whites. Persons of color have been sentenced to death at rates far exceeding their numbers in the population. The correlation between poor communities (that are comprised of many blacks, Latinos, and Southeast Asians) and crime and inadequate representation is just too high to accept capital punishment as a potential penalty.
Economic disadvantage. The death penalty disproportionately punishes the poor. Those from economically deprived, marginalized communities are particularly vulnerable in society and within the judicial system. Over 90 percent of defendants charged with capital crimes are indigent, and as a result, the vast majority of death row inmates are poor. The indigent accused may not be fortunate enough to be represented by an institutional public defender team with the experience, skills, and resources to provide high quality, zealous advocacy.
Risk of error. The risk of a wrongfully convicted person being executed is unmistakable. In our criminal justice system, wrongful convictions arising from such factors as faulty eyewitness identification, false confessions, police mistake or misconduct, and prosecution mistake or misconduct occur with unacceptable frequency. Inept defense representation, lack of defense resources, and shoddy investigations also increase the risk of error. Many individuals on death row have been exonerated or otherwise have had their convictions set aside. That means that now or in the future, a person improperly sentenced to death will likely be sitting on death row.
Closing off other options. The death penalty closes the door on any possibility of redemption and healing. I have heard testimony from relatives of murder victims who had the opportunity meet with the murderers of their loved ones. Several were convinced of the sincerity of remorse that the perpetrators expressed and believed in their redemption. Those experiences have convinced many such relatives that capital punishment must be abolished. As a civil, compassionate society, we should embrace the opportunity to develop the humanity in all individuals through our own humanity, but the death penalty forecloses that option. For those beyond rehabilitation, then life in prison without the possibility of parole is the solution.
Death qualification bias. During jury selection, potential jurors in capital cases are questioned about their views regarding capital punishment in order to determine whether they will be able to follow the law in deciding what sentence to impose. In order to be "death-qualified" to serve, a juror must be willing to consider all the sentencing options -- including death. If they would not consider the death penalty, then they cannot sit on the jury. Studies show that with such a requirement, capital case juries may be bias toward a verdict of guilt for the defendant.
Evolving standards in other countries. Capital punishment has been abandoned by a majority of the countries of the world. The list includes allies like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, Mexico, Ireland, the Philippines, and Canada. Russia and Myanmar have de facto bans on the death penalty. The 34 death penalty states in our country share the ignoble company of North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Cuba, and Egypt.
No government action taken against an individual is more serious than the imposition of the death penalty. Nothing is more severe. Nothing is more final. Our position on the death penalty says much about us as a people. Its process and administration are inherently flawed. Its costs are too high. The death penalty should be abolished.
Follow Bill Ong Hing on Twitter: www.twitter.com/immprof
Michele Somerville: Can the Death Penalty Deliver Justice or Peace?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view
All juries have to be sentnece qualified, meaning any selected juror has to be able to give all sentnecing options available for that tiral, be it for jay walking or a capital murder case.
Obviously, a potential juror who cannot give any of the range of punishments for any trial cannot be chosen as a juror in that trial.
REDEMPTION and HEALING
All redemption and healing must be done prior to death, what ever that death may be - cancer, car wreck, old age, execution , rape/murder.
We all die and we all must finaize our redemptions and healing prior to our deaths, just as a death row inmate must.
On the cost issue, we are all aware at how poorly expenses are managed in Ca and the death penalty is no different.
Reform is the answer to savinf money and making the death penalty no more costly than a life sentnece or, better yet, less expensive.
Virginia executes in 5-7 years, which would make the death penalty less expensive than life, Simply refor m the Ca system.
There are some ridiculous estimates of death penalty vs life costs in Ca, here are the corrections to one of them:
See 4th comment down within comments:
The California Death Penalty Fraud:
Posted by dudleysharp on August 19, 2010 at 4:35 AM | Report this comment
Rebuttal to ACLU:
and A Rebuttal to "Cut This: The Death Penalty"(1)
Death Penalty vs Life Costs in California
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/are-capital-punishments-financial-costs-worth-it/Content?oid=2003765
More cost reviews upon request.
Fact checking is crucial within this discussion.
countries with no death penalty law: 95
countries with the death penalty: 102
source: Amnesty Intl. AI plays with the numbers, but when you weed through their nonsense, this is the reality.
It appears most likely that the majroity populations in all countries support the death penalty for some crimes. Why? Justice.
"Death Penalty Support Remains Very High: USA & The World"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-polls-support-remains.html
Ms. Woodford, of course it is about retribution. Just retribution, or justice, is the foundation for all criminal sanctions.
And, again, of course, the death penalty serves prevention.
We all know that executed murderers never harm, again, but that many living murderers do harm and murder, again.
In addition, there is deterrence:
1) 27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
2) "Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
3) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
4) This is out of date, but corrects a number of the misconceptions about deterrence.
"Death Penalty and Deterrence"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent--confirmed--seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx
5) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
the only thing bogging down the system is the appeals process. instead of having the opportunity to have up to 3 appeals, it should be limited to 1, especially if dna evidence was used to convict. the death penalty's process would be less costly, and the victims and families would receive justice sooner!
And the sentence of death is FINAL...meaning, if you mess up and kill the wrong person, there is NO WAY to atone for that mistake. So attempting to eliminate the number of appeals will in effect, eliminate a safeguard that helps ensure that we're 100% certain we have the right man/woman. We've already executed innocent people. There are others on death row who are there based primarily on eye-witness testimony, which has been PROVEN to be unreliable...no DNA testing, and in some cases, requests for DNA testing by the convicted person has been denied.
This system of "justice" is archaic and barbaric, and needs to end. We've already proven that we have effective ways to keep these criminals off the streets.
and if life in prison is such a "proven, effective" way to deter crime, then why aren't the murder rates ceasing? because it doesn't work!
i suppose all of you who are against the death penalty just want criminals to receive a slap on the wrist for their crimes until criminals do something to you or someone you love. then, you want to have the full extent of the law available to you. well, you can't have it both ways! in states where the death penalty is an option, and especially if you live there, it is the full extent of the law.
The idea of violent retribution carried out by the state is alive and well in this country - witness the post Bin Laden assassination celebrations and all of the media talk about how now families of the victims will have "closure" - and no matter how much empirical evidence is presented against the effectiveness of the death penalty as deterrent, as a cost-effective measure, as an impartial, dispassionate means of justice that is color-blind, classless and infallible, the bloodlust and black and white Old Testament morality of a large number of Americans will keep the United States alone among civilized nations as a mass-executioner of citizens who no longer present any threat to society.
Except for recent cases where inmates have been exonerated from death row due to new evidence, it's hard to see how this issue will get any political mileage. After all, standing up for the basic human rights of murders is always a difficult moral issue, let alone political issue in an age where many Americans seem to be lacking basic compassion even for the jobless, the hungry, the poor, the immigrant, or dark-skinned folk overseas.