Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s appointment to chief justice by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger marked a huge moment locally, as she grew up in Sacramento and is a graduate of the UC Davis School of Law.“I don’t think it is working,” she told the Times. “It’s not effective. We know that.”
California’s death penalty requires “structural change, and we don’t have the money to create the kind of change that is needed,” she said. “Everyone is laboring under a staggering load.”
In response to a question, she said she supported capital punishment “only in the sense I apply the law and I believe the system is fair…. In that sense, yes.”
But the chief justice quickly reframed the question.
“I don’t know if the question is whether you believe in it anymore. I think the greater question is its effectiveness and given the choices we face in California, should we have a merit-based discussion on its effectiveness and costs?”
Writes the Times, “Cantil-Sakauye’s comments suggest a growing frustration with capital punishment even among conservatives and a resignation that the system cannot be fixed as long as California’s huge financial problems persist.”
They also note that her predecessor, retired Chief Justice Ronald M. George, “was similarly disheartened.” Justice George concluded toward the end of his tenure that the system was “dysfunctional.”
Some may question a California Supreme Court Justice offering up an opinion on an issue that might come before her. On the other hand, the structure of California’s death penalty is such that it requires the voters to change it.
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye is hardly what one could mistake for a liberal.
As the Times notes, “In her first year on the state high court, Cantil-Sakauye has more often sided with its conservative justices than its more moderate jurists, said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the court. He said her early track record shows her as more conservative than George, who was a key swing vote on the seven-member court.”
Professor Uelmen, however, called the chief justice’s comments on the death penalty “powerful” and said, according to the LA Times, “they confirmed what he has been hearing privately – that even the conservatives on the California Supreme Court have grown disillusioned with the state’s capital punishment system.”
“Men and women on death row are far more likely to die of old age than by the executioner’s needle. Litigation has brought executions to a halt, and there is a shortage of lawyers willing to take capital cases. Inmates must wait an average of five years before getting lawyers to bring their first appeal,” the Times notes.
They add: “Cantil-Sakauye has written a ruling affirming a death sentence and joined other justices’ decisions upholding capital sentences since her elevation to the high court last January. Her biggest ruling came in a Proposition 8 case in which she said initiative sponsors have the right to defend their ballot measures in court when state officials refuse to do so.”
What does this all mean? It is too soon to know. The LA Times was clearly not expecting what they must have thought a routine interview with the Supreme Court Justice, following her first year on the bench, to be headline-making and potentially game-changing.
They ran the story on Christmas Eve day, December 24. A few other papers, including the AP, have syndicated the article, but none of the interest groups or the SAFE Coalition fighting against the death penalty or pushing a measure for next year have commented yet.
In the end, it is up to the voters and not the judges, or even the legislature, to decide the future of California’s death penalty.
This is noteworthy, because a noted conservative judge is but the latest to throw in the towel on the death penalty. As we have noted in the past, the turn against the death penalty is mainly the unworkability and cost angle, rather than it being immoral.
On the other hand, that is the basis for the SAFE Coalition’s challenge. It is led by people who are recent converts to the cause precisely because of the length of stay and prohibitive cost, who quickly jumped on a study released this summer from U.S. Ninth Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Loyola Law School professor Paula M. Mitchell, which found that the death penalty adds $184 million to the budget over what it would cost to imprison people for life.
Seizing on that study, the Safe Coalition was formed, led by notables such as former San Quentin Warden Jeanne Woodford, and former Los Angeles County District Attorney Don Heller, who wrote the original 1978 legislation.
Don Heller said back in August, “I wrote the death penalty initiative for Senator Briggs in 1977, it was passed in November 1978. It’s a well-drafted document, except, it doesn’t work. It’s flawed because the process has become so incredibly expensive that it cannot be remedied by any legitimate means.”
He said it will continue to drain much-needed resources from law enforcement and the protection of society.
“I wrote it in 1977, at the time it was written no one considered the impact of capital punishment,” Mr. Heller continued. “No one ever thought about the number of people that would end up being convicted under the initiative.”
While the justice’s views will not be decisive, they will be another authority that the SAFE Coalition can cite to bolster its case.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[i]”While known as one of the high court’s more conservative members”[/i]
LOL! Yes, by left-coast standards.
So, what will death penalty advocates do once we abolish the death penalty? They will start to advocate we do away with life sentences because they do not work and cost too much. Next it will be to prosecute and convict fewer people shorten all prison sentences because it does not work and it costs too much.
Then crime rates will increase again, and the REAL victims will get the consideration they deserve, and we can start the tough-on-crime/weak-on-crime cycle all over again.
Jeff
“So, what will death penalty advocates do once we abolish the death penalty? They will start to advocate we do away with life sentences because they do not work and cost too much. Next it will be to prosecute and convict fewer people shorten all prison sentences because it does not work and it costs too much.”
I truly did not think you had the ability to out do yoursel in terms of unfounded speculation. I was wrong! At least some of us who are morally opposed to the death penalty and who favor the perspective that incarceration should be about protection of our society will do what we have always done. That is, advocate for life with no possibility of parole for the truly dangerous amongst us, and assigned reparation under supervision for those who break the law, but do not pose a physical threat to others. There are categories of offenders ( Manson, Bundy, McVeigh) who are too dangerous to ever be given access to the general population. That does not mean to me that another human ( or 12 of them for that matter)
should have the ability to decide that their life has no value.
“They will start to advocate we do away with life sentences because they do not work and cost too much.”
I think most will go after three strikes for minor third offenses, if that one doesn’t go first. My other concerns would be attacking causes of wrongful convictions and I would go after gang laws. I can’t speak for others. I don’t have a problem with life sentences for people who kill. I think you hit on a strawman argument. There are clearly people who should never see the light of day again, I doubt many death penalty opponents disagree on that point.
[i]”I don’t have a problem with life sentences for people who kill.”[/i]
Wouldn’t any prisoner have rights to continue to legally challenge his conviction? I think the cost argument is disingenuous since these legal costs plus the cost of incarceration is not likely to be less than it is for a prisoner on death row.
Next, wrongful conviction is quickly becoming a negligible concern because of advances in forensic science.
So, then we get to the moral argument being the only differentiating consideration. Is it amoral to put a person convicted of capital murder to death?
My (deep) thinking on this question…
I recently lost two relatives in their mid 40s to suicide. Apparently, their full and free lives were not full and free enough to cause them to want to continue to live. Depression is a disease, but it is also a perspective as many people that have conquered depression tell us so.
The motto “live free or die” belies a common American sentiment, and I think, a fundamental human need.
Considering both of these things, I think those that oppose the death penalty on moral grounds, are being somewhat selfish. They would eliminate the death penalty because it caused them to personally recoil and feel guilty… at the expense of the very people they claim to be advocating for.
My thinking is that a life in prison is not the better option. At least it should NOT be the better option. If it is the better option, then I do not consider it to be adequate punishment. And “punishment” is the goal here. It is not just to put killers in a locked resort so they cannot kill again.
Where I can be made to change my mind on the death penalty, is if the convict that should otherwise be put to death is allowed to live doing work in prison to earn money sent to the victim’s family. In fact, I would set up a system that allows the prisoner to make the choice of death or earning life credits for working to pay restitution to the nearest relatives of the victim… or lacking these, some designated non-profit.
What I don’t support is this notion that putting someone to death for murder is any less moral than locking them up, taking away their freedoms and keeping them in this punishing environment for the rest of their life. I think I would support giving prisoners the choice as long as their “life” option required them to give something back to the society they took so much from.
Jeff
“Considering both of these things, I think those that oppose the death penalty on moral grounds, are being somewhat selfish. They would eliminate the death penalty because it caused them to personally recoil and feel guilty… at the expense of the very people they claim to be advocating for. “
That would assume that we believe that we are “advocating for” the convict. I am making no such claim. My main objection to the death penalty is not because it causes me to ” recoil and feel guilty”. It is because I feel that the justification for it undermines the moral basis for a system of justice. Laws are by their nature arbitrary, transient, and dependent on cultural context. They are made by men for their own protection or gain or advantage. If we decide as a society that it is justified to kill another human being under one set of circumstances codified into law by the dominant social group of the time, then why not by some other, militarily dominant group, say a militia, or gang or mob, or racist group, all of which at various times have justified their right to kill. To me, eschewing the right to kill another human is about the humanity of all, not about the fate of the individual. I simply do not believe that humans should have the right to terminate any life except their own except in self defense or the immediate defense of others.
“Wouldn’t any prisoner have rights to continue to legally challenge his conviction?”
In death penalty cases, there are automatic appeal rights that go far beyond any other conviction.
“Next, wrongful conviction is quickly becoming a negligible concern because of advances in forensic science.”
That’s not true at all, forensic science and DNA testing exists in a tiny percentage of cases.
“Wouldn’t any prisoner have rights to continue to legally challenge his conviction?”
In death penalty cases, there are automatic appeal rights that go far beyond any other conviction.
“Next, wrongful conviction is quickly becoming a negligible concern because of advances in forensic science.”
That’s not true at all, forensic science and DNA testing exists in a tiny percentage of cases.
[quote]Where I can be made to change my mind on the death penalty, is if the convict that should otherwise be put to death is allowed to live doing work in prison to earn money sent to the victim’s family. In fact, I would set up a system that allows the prisoner to make the choice of death or earning life credits for working to pay restitution to the nearest relatives of the victim… or lacking these, some designated non-profit. [/quote]
Very interesting idea… I’m all for putting prisoners to work…
JB and ERM,
“Where I can be made to change my mind on the death penalty, is if the convict that should otherwise be put to death is allowed to live doing work in prison to earn money sent to the victim’s family. In fact, I would set up a system that allows the prisoner to make the choice of death or earning life credits for working to pay restitution to the nearest relatives of the victim… or lacking these, some designated non-profit.”
It’s an interesting concept, but I think there may be some legal issues that make implementation difficult. I would add: using the money to support their families/pay child support and for the nonprofit to be one that’s located in the community in which the offenders’ crime was committed.
mw opined: [quote]I simply do not believe that humans should have the right to terminate any life except their own except in self defense or the immediate defense of others. [/quote]
So Doc, are you ‘pro-life;’ ergo ‘anti-abortion?’
SM, these policies are currently alive & well in CA. Indeed, when a family member puts monies on a prisoner’s “books,” CDCR may take a portion off the top and direct it toward ‘direct victim restitution.’ BTW, same goes for ‘earnings.’
AR,
“these policies are currently alive & well in CA. Indeed, when a family member puts monies on a prisoner’s “books,” CDCR may take a portion off the top and direct it toward ‘direct victim restitution.’ BTW, same goes for ‘earnings.'”
But there’s nothing currently that requires inmates to “work” for a wage for the purpose of victim restitution or some other “repayment” to society, is there?