On December 16, Marin County Superior Court Judge Faye D’Opal reject­ed California​’s new lethal injec­tion pro­to­cols because cor­rec­tions offi­cials failed to con­sid­er a one-drug exe­cu­tion method now in prac­tice in oth­er states. Judge D’Opal also crit­i­cized the state for ignor­ing require­ments of the law regard­ing the revi­sion of offi­cial pro­ce­dures. A fed­er­al court has also imposed a stay of exe­cu­tions while it is review­ing the state’s 3‑drug lethal injec­tion pro­ce­dures. In 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel halt­ed all exe­cu­tions because of con­cerns that exe­cu­tions in California could result in exces­sive and unnec­es­sary pain. No exe­cu­tions have occurred since then. Natasha Minsker, an attor­ney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, said, ​“The time has come to replace the death penal­ty with life in prison with no chance of parole. Any attempt to devise new lethal injec­tion rules will take an enor­mous amount of pub­lic employ­ee time and cost hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars.” A study pub­lished ear­li­er this year by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Loyola Law School pro­fes­sor Paula M. Mitchell esti­mat­ed that tax­pay­ers have spent $4 bil­lion to car­ry out the state’s 13 exe­cu­tions since 1978 and at least $184 mil­lion a year to main­tain California’s cap­i­tal punishment system.

(C. Williams, ​“California’s new lethal injec­tion pro­to­col tossed by judge,” Los Angeles Times, December 17, 2011). See Recent Legislative Activity and Lethal Injection. An ini­tia­tive to repeal the state’s death penal­ty will like­ly be on the elec­toral bal­lot in November, 2012. Money saved would be used to help solve cold cases.

Citation Guide