California judge strikes down death penalty

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

California judge strikes down death penalty
By Adam Serwer

A federal judge in California has ruled that the state’s death penalty is unconstitutional.

“[F]or most, systemic delay has made their execution so unlikely that the death sentence carefully and deliberately imposed by the jury has been quietly transformed into one no rational jury or legislature could ever impose: life in prison, with the remote possibility of death,” wrote Federal Judge Cormac J. Carney of death row inmates in California. “As for the random few for whom execution does become a reality, they will have languished for so long on Death Row that their execution will serve no retributive or deterrent purpose and will be arbitrary.”

The case involves a California death row inmate, Ernest Dewayne Jones, who was sentenced to death for raping and killing his girlfriend’s mother in 1995. Jones and nearly half of the 750 inmates on death row in California have been awaiting execution for more than 19 years, only 13 of the 900 inmates sentenced to death since 1978 have been put to death by the state. Since 1972, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, but it has occasionally ruled that the death penalty can violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment depending on how it is applied. The high court has also narrowed its use, forbidding it in the case of minors or individuals convicted of crimes other than murder.

Carney’s determination that the death penalty in California is unconstitutional as applied is based on the often interminable delay between sentencing and execution. As a result, Carney concludes, the system does not serve society’s interest in deterring crime or seeing it properly punished.

“When an individual is condemned to death in California, the sentence carries with it an implicit promise from the State that it will actually be carried out. That promise is made to the citizens of the State, who are investing significant resources in furtherance of a punishment that they believe is necessary to achieving justice. It is made to jurors who, in exercise of their civic responsibility, are asked to hear about and see evidence of undeniably horrific crimes, and then participate in the agonizing deliberations over whether the perpetrators of those horrific crimes should be put to death. It is made to victims and their loved ones, for whom just punishment might provide some semblance of moral and emotional closure from an otherwise unimaginable loss. And it is made to the hundreds of individuals on Death Row, as a statement their crimes are so heinous they have forfeited their right to life.

But for too long now, the promise has been an empty one.”

The long delays between sentencing and execution, McCarthy wrote, have resulted in a system “that serves no penological purpose. Such a system is unconstitutional.”

Carney was nominated to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush.

source

It's been a while since we had a big argument about this, yes?

**curran12**

I am still on the fence about the death penalty. But the second to last line there about a system that serves no penological purpose is spot-on.

**whembly**

I'll be honest... I've waffled on the death penalty.

*meh*

I'd be happy with no death penalty and hard forced labor for heinous crimes.

My biggest beefs are: for-profit prisons, mandatory sentencing and war-on-drugs sentencing.

**Ouze**

I too am very, very conflicted. do I think there are some crimes that are so abhorrent that I think the offender has no right to live.

So goes the principle, but the practice - how disproportionately it's applied, how awful it's actually carried out... I don't know. it's a pretty shabby business. I'd at the very least like to see a national moratorium while we get our stuff together about how it's done, and maybe at least determine if it's actually got some deterrent value... because if not, it's pointless.

**curran12**

Ouze wrote:
I too am very, very conflicted. do I think there are some crimes that are so abhorrent that I think the offender has no right to live.

So goes the principle, but the practice - how disproportionately it's applied, how awful it's actually carried out... I don't know. it's a pretty shabby business. I'd at the very least like to see a national moratorium while we get our stuff together about how it's done, and maybe at least determine if it's actually got some deterrent value... because if not, it's pointless.

Exalting this one so hard. It is easy to give an emotional reaction to it either way, but if we are using that as our basis, we really don't know if we have our crap in order.

**d-usa**

My position is still completely unchanged from the last go-around.

**Laemos**

It not like they were executing people anyway. Why have death row if California doesn't want to actually do executions?

**ironicsilence**

I'm pro death penalty, that could change if our prison system did a better job of actually rehabing inmates, or if society as a whole had a place for excons.

Though at its core the above seems to strike down the death penalty because it takes too long to carry out the sentence which is largely a problem with the justice system as a whole....6th Amendment be damned!

**Grey Templar**

And who honestly can say with a straight face that the Death Penalty is both Cruel and Unusual?

Cruel: That's entirely dependent on the method.

Unusual: Not at all. Its done all the time, both now and in the past.

Plus the punishment needs to be both cruel AND unusual. We could painlessly execute someone with a plate of spaghetti or painfully execute them with a knife to the jugular. Neither meets the criteria of Cruel and Unusual.

**Jihadin**

Hanging. Worked in the past. Cheaper then a firing squad.

**Grey Templar**

True.

You could even sedate the person so they aren't conscious during the strangulation.

Although I myself am partial to the Guillotine.

**d-usa**

What about Death by Snu Snu?

**Jihadin**

Three facing outwards and one facing wall...chained.....prison cell....couple hours later...I predict it will not end well. I predict it will not end welll

**Vaktathi**

whembly wrote:
I'll be honest... I've waffled on the death penalty.

*meh*

I'd be happy with no death penalty and hard forced labor for heinous crimes.

My biggest beefs are: for-profit prisons, mandatory sentencing and war-on-drugs sentencing.

Right?

Personally, I'm not against the death penalty in theory, some people genuinely do deserve to die, however I do not trust the justice system *not* to put an innocent person to death, and so am against the death penalty in practice simply on those grounds.

But for profit prisons, mandatory sentencing and drug wars are nothing but cash cows for private companies and police department budgets and are inherently antithetical to justice and the social good which they masquerade as serving.

**Grey Templar**

Vaktathi wrote:
whembly wrote:
I'll be honest... I've waffled on the death penalty.

*meh*

I'd be happy with no death penalty and hard forced labor for heinous crimes.

My biggest beefs are: for-profit prisons, mandatory sentencing and war-on-drugs sentencing.
Right?

Personally, I'm not against the death penalty in theory, some people genuinely do deserve to die, however I do not trust the justice system *not* to put an innocent person to death, and so am against the death penalty in practice simply on those grounds.

But for profit prisons, mandatory sentencing and drug wars are nothing but cash cows for private companies and police department budgets and are inherently antithetical to justice and the social good which they masquerade as serving.

I wouldn't worry about Type 3 error. Otherwise you might as well abandon any justice system.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
I too am very, very conflicted. do I think there are some crimes that are so abhorrent that I think the offender has no right to live.

So goes the principle, but the practice - how disproportionately it's applied, how awful it's actually carried out... I don't know. it's a pretty shabby business. I'd at the very least like to see a national moratorium while we get our stuff together about how it's done, and maybe at least determine if it's actually got some deterrent value... because if not, it's pointless.

This is a fair view.

**jasper76**

IMO, you have to have a whole lot of unwarranted faith in law enforcement and the efficacy of our judicial system to support the death penalty.

The plain fact is that 12 slackjaws can get someone sentenced to death because they don't like the way he looks.

**marv335**

You only have to look at the amount of overturned convictions to see that the death penalty is a bad idea.
It's very hard to unexecute someone if there was a mistake.
It's why I'm for the death penalty in theory, but against it in practice.

**Hordini**

Grey Templar wrote:
True.

You could even sedate the person so they aren't conscious during the strangulation.

Although I myself am partial to the Guillotine.

If you do it properly, they shouldn't die from strangulation.

I think if you're going to argue that the death penalty serves no penological purpose (is penological even a word?), you could just as easily say the same about life in prison without parole.

**Jihadin**

Punishment, Study of

**KalashnikovMarine**

I'm all for the death penalty, but I quite agree with the judge in this case. If you're going to give the sentence it MUST be carried out or it serves no purpose.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

I oppose the death penalty as it's just too easy for mistakes to be made,

but if a society really wants to have one the head of state, chief prosecutor and chief investigation officer should have to sign off on it with the provision that if it is ever shown an execution happened in error (either wrong person executed, or the state used inadmissible/illegally obtained evidence) the head of state, the chief prosecutor and chief investigation officer must also immediately be executed with no possible appeal or stay

(that way they'd think sufficiently hard about whether the case was airtight rather than expedient)

**LordofHats**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'm all for the death penalty, but I quite agree with the judge in this case. If you're going to give the sentence it MUST be carried out or it serves no purpose.

I can get behind this. I get that we want to be really careful with the death penalty, but if someone's just going to be on death row for years and years, we might as well have just given them a prison sentence anyway.

**streamdragon**

whembly wrote:
I'll be honest... I've waffled on the death penalty.

*meh*

I'd be happy with no death penalty and hard forced labor for heinous crimes.

My biggest beefs are: for-profit prisons, mandatory sentencing and war-on-drugs sentencing.

Get your survival rations and rad-detectors folks, Whembly and I agree on something!

Ouze wrote:
maybe at least determine if it's actually got some deterrent value... because if not, it's pointless.

I was under the impression this research had been done, with the conclusion that the death penalty has 0 value as a deterrent.

edit: http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence
I know it's Amnesty International, who are hardly unbiased, but the statistics in that link are from outside sources, so...

Basically it comes down to:
People either don't think they'll get caught, or are doing something in the heat of the moment and don't care.

**Inquisitor Gonzo**

streamdragon wrote:
[quote=whembly 605598 7030074 05660003dd83ed7c53ae82ba11bd5dd1.jpg

Basically it comes down to:
People either don't think they'll get caught, or are doing something in the heat of the moment and don't care.

This is probably the best summation of the state of mind of people when they commit a murder that I've ever read. In some cases I'd maybe substitute 'don't care' with 'genuinely have no understanding of any of the circumstances for anyone involved, including themselves' in some cases, but although it's slightly more accurate it's a lot less catchy

Saying that, I am in favour of the death penalty for the most extreme of cases - sociopaths in particular, people who cannot be rehabilitated (yet) and pose a massive danger to the rest of society.

Also, one of the most often heard comments I've heard about prison where I live (UK) is that it's like a holiday home.

It's really, really, not.

Whilst our prisons are nowhere near as tough as some US prisons or those in Thailand, India etc they are still not fun places to be in. If they were then folks would be randomly committing crime and then just hang around with a big smile on their face waiting for us to turn up......

**curran12**

This is bizarre, this thread has been going on for so long and hasn't completely melted down yet...and both sides are being civil to each other! What is this place?! WHERE AM I?!

**squidhills**

curran12 wrote:
This is bizarre, this thread has been going on for so long and hasn't completely melted down yet...and both sides are being civil to each other! What is this place?! WHERE AM I?!

I know, right? Chongara! Please come save us from reasoned discourse and level heads!

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

Quick someone work out who is the victim so we can blame them for this

**ZultanQ**

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Quick someone work out who is the victim so we can blame them for this

I've got you covered, I suspect the liberals are behind this. What is this, you ask? Well... You know, I'm just saying.

**LordofHats**

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Quick someone work out who is the victim so we can blame them for this

Well obviously if he didn't want to be killed by the state he shouldn't have killed that woman for whatever reason he killed her for