by Gil Garcetti
My office sought the death penalty in dozens of cases when I was the Los Angeles County district attorney for eight years, and chief deputy district attorney for four. The cases had horrific and compelling facts; I had no problem seeking death sentences. But though I never was squeamish, I now fully support Proposition 34 to replace the death penalty with life in prison with no possibility of parole. Here’s why.
California’s death penalty is broken beyond repair, hideously expensive, and inevitably carries the risk of executing an innocent person. The hundreds of millions of dollars we throw away on this broken system would be much better spent on solving and preventing crime and investing in our kids’ schools.
I have no qualms with the death penalty in theory. I do, however, object to the way it is carried out in practice. We condemn murderers to Death Row with the hope of delivering severe punishment for their crimes.
Yet the reality is that these criminals enjoy special status. Fan mail, private cells, their own personal television and other special privileges are not what I envisioned when I sought the death penalty as district attorney. I am sure that is not what family members of victims envisioned either.
What’s more, the costs of this dysfunctional system are staggering. There’s special housing, legal teams and a double trial process, among other costs. The Office of the Legislative Analyst in California found that replacing it with life in prison without parole could save us $130 million every year.
We are on track to spend $1 billion on this broken system over the next five years. All for what? Most inmates die of old age. We need to stop the waste wherever we can. We need that money for police and teachers, not a Death Row that exists in name only.
And a sinister problem lurks with the death penalty: the possible execution of an innocent person. I’d like to think that not one innocent person has been sentenced to death in California, but the truth is, we don’t know. The only way to be sure we will never make an irreversible mistake is to vote yes on Proposition 34 in November.
Let me be clear: I am no less adamant about punishing heinous killers now. Proposition 34 is tough justice. Convicted murderers and rapists will remain in prison until they die, with no hope of ever getting out, and will have to work and pay restitution for their crimes.
The time is now to invest our scarce resources where they can do the most good. Fighting crime and funding education are sound investments. We can no longer afford to prop up a system that works only in theory while it robs us of precious tax dollars. California is ready for justice that works for everyone.
Gil Garcetti is a former Los Angeles District Attorney.
Wasn’t Gil Garcetti the prosecutor for a number of notorious cases that were bungled, not the least of which was the OJ Simson case and the Michael Jackson case?
I am glad to see that Gil Garcetti has the courage and intelligence to speak out against the death penalty.
I know his office tried OJ, why is it that you ask?
[quote]Wasn’t Gil Garcetti the prosecutor for a number of notorious cases that were bungled, not the least of which was the OJ Simson case and the Michael Jackson case?
[/quote]
Yes and No, but’s let’s stay relevant.
[quote]Yes and No, but’s let’s stay relevant.[/quote]
I believe it is relevant – it goes to credibility. And I am an opponent of the death penalty!
I believe Jackson was tried in Santa Barbara County.
How does OJ relate to Garcetti’s revised views of the death penalty?
ERM: I can’t believe that any adult in California has forgotten the spectacle. Google O.J.Simpson murder case,…”After a week-long court hearing, California Superior Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell ruled on July 7 that there was sufficient evidence to bring Simpson to trial for the murders.” How did Gil Garcetti play into this soap opera?
Elaine’s just doing what she does best – changing the subject. Yeah, she claims to oppose the death penalty, but every time the issue comes up she can’t help but attack the messenger or bring up peripheral issues.
Bringing up bungled cases and ones history one was involved with is relevant. We’ve already been through this with Cruz Reynoso.
I fail to see how making a mistake, even in a major case, would disqualify one from making a valid point on a different issue.
At least he is admitting the system is broken. Most people that have anything to do with the system know it is broken they usually just won’t admit it.
[quote]I believe it is relevant – it goes to credibility. And I am an opponent of the death penalty! [/quote]
It shouldn’t be a credibility issue. He wasn’t even in the court room. When you get to his position, you stop prosecuting cases and become a politician. Micro-manager? A smart DA trust his deputies. Besides, he was in charge of the largest DA’s office in the country and probably had about 10-15 murder trials going on at the same time. Micro-managing probably wasn’t an option.
Elaine
I am curious about which of Mr. Garcetti’s specific assertions you feel does not have credibility?
1) [quote]Yet the reality is that these criminals enjoy special status. Fan mail, private cells, their own personal television and other special privileges are not what I envisioned when I sought the death penalty as district attorney. I am sure that is not what family members of victims envisioned either.[/quote]
2) [quote]the costs of this dysfunctional system are staggering. There’s special housing, legal teams and a double trial process, among other costs. [/quote]
3)[quote]We are on track to spend $1 billion on this broken system over the next five years. All for what? Most inmates die of old age. We need to stop the waste wherever we can.[/quote]
4)[quote]the possible execution of an innocent person. I’d like to think that not one innocent person has been sentenced to death in California, but the truth is, we don’t know.[/quote]
Do you believe that any of these assertions lacks credibility, or do you simply not trust the credibility of
the messenger ? Two very different statements.
Elaine, it amazes me that you are so eager to jump to the credibility issue here since you continually harp an David for raising it with our own DA. If credibility can be raised against one DA why is our DA so sacrosanct to you?
[quote]Bringing up bungled cases and ones history one was involved with is relevant. We’ve already been through this with Cruz Reynoso.[/quote]
Bingo!
[quote]the costs of this dysfunctional system are staggering. There’s special housing, legal teams and a double trial process, among other costs.[/quote]
After hearing the “other side” on the issue of cost, I believe the cost issue is a red herring and has little validity. There was already a good article posted on this issue so I won’t repeat the arguments.
However, that does not change my mind about the death penalty, which I still think ought to be abolished. But I prefer more credible sources be used to argue the point than someone like Gil Garcetti…