One of the more interesting questions has emerged in the sweethearts murder trial, in which Richard Hirschfield, 32 years later, was finally convicted of the murders of two UC Davis students in December 1980. With the special circumstances conviction, Mr. Hirschfield is now eligible for the death penalty.
But given Mr. Hirschfield’s age, the state of the death penalty system, and the length of time it takes to bring a case from prosecution to execution, even under the best of circumstances, there is simply no way that the convicted killer will ever be executed.
So in a time of budget crises and limited resources, not to mention the anguish of the victim’s families, why pursue the death penalty here?
In a recent Daily Democrat article on the case, they quoted the father of one of the victims on this very issue.
“Dr. Richard Riggins, father of John Riggins, said, “We were told from the start by the district attorney that we’d never see him executed by the death penalty, but his activities will be severely limited if he gets the death penalty. It’s not the same as being imprisoned without the possibility of parole. That’s why we’re seeking the death penalty – we want to limit his activities as much as possible in prison.”
This struck me as an odd claim from the start. For one thing, death row inmates in California, in essence, last fall chose remaining under the death penalty over Proposition 34. The ostensive reason for this was that some retain automatic state funded appeals.
But given that a number of people who are on death row are actually guilty, it stands at least to reason that if the treatment were horribly worse for death row inmates than LWOP inmates (those sentenced to life without parole, which is what Prop 34 would have converted all death sentences to), they probably would not have opposed the proposition.
So we asked a number of people who might know. One point that was made is that the idea that the prosecutor was acting in the best interest of the victim’s family runs into an immediate problem, since often the victim’s family prefers the closure of LWOP rather than the death penalty to begin with.
There have been cases where the victim’s family has asked and advocated against the death penalty and the DA has pursued it anyway.
No one argued that life on death row was great, but San Quentin is an older prison and some of the more modern prisons like Pelican Bay may be far worse for the inmates.
There is more human contact on death row; it is not as isolated as the newer maximum security prisons. Studies have shown that isolation is harmful for the inmates.
San Quentin, for example, it is a “turnkey prison,” where the staff (unlike Pelican Bay) must maintain contact with prisoners at all times because nothing is automated – as in delivery of food to the cells, coming and unlocking tray slots, cuffing and uncuffing prisoners for movement because each door must also be unlocked manually.
I was told there are opportunities for human interaction that do not exist in a place like Pelican Bay.
One person told me that the living conditions on death row are horrendous and by no means a picnic. However, that does not compare with LWOP, which is described as a living hell.
On death row they have private, single cells which is a step up over the double cell or triple bunk of some of the newer prisons.
As Jonathan Simon, a professor of law, explained in evaluating why death row inmates in California opposed Prop 34, he wrote: “Less explicitly discussed but quite clear from the above, is how punishing a true LWOP sentence is. The prospect of never being released from prison ever, with not even a low odds hope for an appeal or a parole board decision in your favor, is terribly terribly punishing.”
He continued: “In California it is compounded by the fact that prison conditions are extremely poor due to overcrowding and in recent years according to the Supreme Court, the prospect of torture through abysmal or non-existent medical treatment (see Brown v. Plata). Death row inmates in California have a cell to themselves, receive more attentive supervision and visits from their lawyers, not to mention a measure of international celebrity and the scores of pen pals that brings. All of that disappears when your death sentence is vacated (as all of them would be, should Prop 34 pass), and you get dumped into the long dark tunnel known as LWOP.”
Professor Simon ended up supporting Prop 34 for, as he argued, “I personally oppose LWOP as “cruel and unusual punishment.” I will vote for Proposition 34 because it will at least take us to a more honest place, where we acknowledge what we are actually doing in California. After that we can begin to have a more realistic conversation about what punishment can achieve and how long that takes.”
That’s the fundamental problem with all of this – we are dishonest with what the death penalty means in California. Prop 34 pulled away part of that veil – forcing officials to acknowledge that the death penalty will not mean execution to the Marco Topetes or Richard Hirschfields of our state.
But even with that veil gone, the bottom line is that it appears that the prosecutor sold the families of the victims a line to convince them that there was a purpose for spending an inordinate amount of additional money, even though there is no chance Richard Hirschfield will ever be executed by the state of California.
Prop 34 was, of course, narowly defeated in November by the voters. But the prospects for execution remain slight. It is disheartening to learn that prosecutors remain so committed to this form of punishment they concoct thinly-veiled excuses to convince victims’ families to support them in an endeavor that will bear them no fruit and lead them only to frustration and heartache.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Too many prosecutors like death penalty cases because it enhances their resumes. They brag about how many death penalty cases they’ve tried.
When our relative was killed, the DA in southern CA told us that life in prison, living within the general population, would be far worse than life on death row.
Half of prisoners are mentally ill. Far better for everyone if resources would go to early treatment before crimes are committed.
My work for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has allowed me to visit prisons all over California and on numerous occasions, San Quentin and Death Row (which is really three separate units at SQ). What David says about living conditions is basically true. Single cells may sound nice but it is good to remember that these are 6X10 cells with bars on front. There is a toilet, a sink, and a bunk. Condemned inmates are allowed extra storage for their legal work and more visiting time with attorneys. However, they live a very minimal life and to suggest that their “perks” make being on death row “better” than in the general population is, in my mind, ludicrous. Granted many of them may want to be segregated because they would be targeted if in the general population. General population inmates do not have to be “cuffed up” everytime they leave their cell or accompanied to any kind of appointment or visit. They cannot work, they cannot go to school, they cannot socialize with anyone except other condemned inmates. They are treated as “segregated” housing in CDCR – just like inmates in any SHU unit. I think the argument that condemned inmates have it better off than other inmates is bogus. By comparison, the 4500+ inmates currently serving LWOP are distributed throughout the system. Many of them go to work or school and program within the general inmate population. One indicator of how bad things might be for an inmate group is the number of suicides. Over the last ten years, the numbers of LWOPinmates who have committed suicide has been fairly low, and no higher than the numbers of condemned inmates. This, of course is a rather crude measure, but nonetheless, illustrative that LWOP is probably no worse than condemned in the CDCR system.
And a point of clarification – Pelican Bay SHU (which houses only 1400 of over three thousand inmates at Pelican Bay) inmates are fed by real people in their cells, must be manually cuffed-up when leaving their cells and are delivered medications by live people. It is true that the cell doors are operated electronically, but that is no different than most of the cells in CDCR. The reason that the Pelican Bay SHU is considered detrimental to inmates’ mental and physical health is, in part, the physical plant – cells have no windows and look out on a blank wall. The opportunities for interaction with other inmates is at a minimum. Inmates are locked in their cells approximately 23 hours per day.
Clarification on one of my statements. I state that “They cannot go to school or work…” and this was meant to refer to condemned inmates, not the general population inmates mentioned in the preceding sentence.
rdcanning’s professional assessment of prison conditions for select populations is quite interesting and illuminating. Thank you for that.
To allege that the prosecuter lied does not seem to hold up particularly well, in light of this subsequent, and at times conflicting, analysis. I don’t see any remarks specifically attributed to Dr. Riggins saying he was lied to by the prosecutor.
A perfect example of abuse of the system and how the DA can use it for personal gain, either in politics or in owed favors or for personal importance such as headlines or benefits.
Case in point, when DA Jeff Reisig got the death penalty conviction for the guy that killed the CHP officer, Reisig was rewarded with a personal helicopter ride in the CHP chopper and was given kit glove treatment from the CHP. Thousands of tax dollars wasted so Mr. Reisig and his buddy Bruce N. got to ride in the helicopter and they followed the suspect being transported to San Quentin Prison and then he was given a personal tour of the bay, all for doing his job that he was paid to do by tax payers and then wasted more tax payer dollars getting pay back from the CHP.
The death penalty is a joke and huge waste of tax payer money and is used as a pawn for unethical DA’s to use for their benefit.
I will vote for Proposition 34 because it will at least take us to a more honest place, where we acknowledge what we are actually doing in California. After that we can begin to have a more realistic conversation about what punishment can achieve and how long that takes.”
If only we could really have this intelligent conversation.