« "Five years later, Skilling's sentence is still up in the air" | Main | Interesting new row about mandatory sentencing terms for juves across the pond »

October 25, 2011

Gearing up for "The Next Death Penalty Battleground" in California

Writing in The Huffington Post, actors and activists Alec Baldwin and Mike Farrell have this notable new commentary headlined "The Next Death Penalty Battleground."  Here are a few notable excerpts:

Georgia's decision to go forward with the execution of Troy Davis in the face of an international outcry calling for time, clarity and justice has, once again, galvanized anti-death penalty consciousness here at home. What passes for fairness in parts of this country, and make no mistake, we're talking about "parts of this country," is the issue. 16 states in the U.S. have no death penalty, four of them having done away with it since 2007.  Of the remaining 34, some use it so rarely their citizens forget it's actually on the books.  A quick glance tells us the most active killing states comprise the "Old South," and a look at the racial makeup of death row today suggests to many that it is a relic of slavery. But a closer look tells us even more.

One of the reasons the death penalty was outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 was the arbitrariness of its application.  Two identical crimes committed in the same state often resulted in different penalties: one death, the other life.  That was supposedly fixed by the Court's Gregg decision reinstating capital punishment in 1976, which ordered "safeguards" to protect against that flaw and others.  However, a recent study by the Death Penalty Information Center shows that 32% of the executions in the U.S. since 1976 came from prosecutions in only 15 counties, a number amounting to less than 1% of the total number of counties in killing states. Of those 402 executions, all but 20 (10 each in Arizona and Ohio) came from Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Alabama....

[O]ur sense is that the politics and culture of California make it an excellent battleground for the next death penalty fight.  California has a peculiar relationship with the death penalty. On one hand, California rarely executes people -- 13 killings in 33 years, the last of which was in 2006. In that same period, three times as many death row inmates have committed suicide or died of natural causes.  On the other hand, California's courts sentence people to death faster than any other state, creating the country's largest death row by far, with 715 condemned men and women. More than 20% of death row inmates in the U.S. live at San Quentin.  Two years ago, Los Angeles County alone sentenced more to death than the entire state of Texas.  Long seen as a "liberal" state, California's embrace of capital punishment is odd.  In part, the dichotomy reflects the state's politically diverse population, which spans the ideological, ethnic, cultural, and economic spectra.  With vast areas of both urban and rural populations and strong, conflicting pockets of conservative and liberal voting blocs, it is actually more a plaid than a red or blue state.

However, this very diversity is the reason California, a bellwether, can lead the way in ending state killing in the U.S. Unlike most states, California cannot end its death penalty in the legislature; it must be done at the ballot box.  The voters themselves -- in all their many creeds and colors -- must make that choice.  And they are ready to do so.  New polls tell us that 54% of Californians prefer life without parole to death. That support is even higher among California's new majority, comprised of Latino, African American and Asian voters. Californians are becoming increasingly aware that the death penalty costs hundreds of millions of dollars more every year than life in prison without parole.  And, in what is one of the most significant developments regarding this issue in decades, opposition to the death penalty is now much less a partisan issue.  Today, conservatives recognize it as an inefficient government system with costs that are out of control.

Work has already begun to give California voters a chance to replace the death penalty at the polls in November 2012.  The SAFE California Act will replace capital punishment with life in prison without parole, require convicted murderers to work and pay restitution to a victims' compensation fund, and direct some of the money saved to solving more rapes and murders.  It will bring the sharpest decline in U.S. death sentences, the largest reduction in the national death row population, and it will make a statement by the largest number of voters that public safety will be best served by ending the death penalty.

I agree completely that the "politics and culture of California make it an excellent battleground for the next death penalty fight."  I also am extremely pleased that this fight can and likely will be taking place throughout 2012 because of a DP repeal proposition on the California ballot.  

Given all the economic and human costs that surrounds California's scattered efforts to administer the death penalty, as well as the fact that California has had zero executions but numerous death sentences in recent years, the 2012 election comes at an opportune time to assess the general public's affinity or disaffinity for the modern state-based death penalty.  In addition, because of California's "plaid" politics and its symbolic importance nationally, I would expect an extraordinary amount of time, money and attention will be devoted to a DP-repeal campaign in California.  Thus, the general public should end up relatively well informed on a high-profile single issue that, I will predict, will result in a very close final vote (and may depend a lot on turn-out).

October 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gearing up for "The Next Death Penalty Battleground" in California:


If costs really were the categorical imperative, then executing those whose appeals have been exhausted would seem to be a priority, since they have to be fed, housed, clothed, treated for illness, etc.

Posted by: federalist | Oct 25, 2011 11:39:34 AM

Cain't figger out why they make thangs so dern complicated out there. Killin' is simple. Ya just simply need the right sorta people to git the job done.

Take my man, Rick, fer exsample...You know you ain't gotta worry about a litist with Rick, and that he is very simply suited fer the job. He has always been a balance man - even sense chilehood.

Rick Perry Texas A&M transcript:

Yeah, he got a D in economics, but note the C in U.S. History, nicely balancing the F in organic chemistry. (He was way ahead of himself in not fallin' fer that organic nonsense.)

Posted by: Al Ammo | Oct 25, 2011 1:03:37 PM

I'd be happy to see such a referendum, with one quite neutral condition: The two sides agree in advance that the losing side will not to seek another referendum for a minimum of ten years.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Oct 25, 2011 1:07:38 PM

Bill bill BILL BILL bill...

You call that uh fight? I call it a wimpending compromise.

The problem is there ain't been ENOUGH fightin', and when be been fightin', it ain't been hard nuf.

Yer supposed to fight until ya finish 'em off!!

Spare us the weak stuff.

Posted by: Al Ammo | Oct 25, 2011 2:44:02 PM

Al Ammo --

Spare us the tiresome faux drawl. You're a one-trick pony badly in need of a second trick.

An actual argument might be just the thing.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Oct 25, 2011 3:06:34 PM

@Bill Otis
Don't feed the troll. It fuels the idiocy.

Posted by: MikeinCT | Oct 25, 2011 7:09:24 PM

MikeinCT --

Right you are. My error.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Oct 25, 2011 7:41:07 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB