A recent Los Angeles Times edi­to­r­i­al called on California law­mak­ers to impose a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions until a state com­mis­sion charged with exam­in­ing the fair­ness and accu­ra­cy of California’s death penal­ty laws can fin­ish its work. The paper not­ed that a sim­i­lar review led by New York state law­mak­ers result­ed in find­ings that effec­tive­ly end­ed cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in that state for this year. The edi­to­r­i­al stat­ed:

Many Californians, law­mak­ers as well as vot­ers, share those con­cerns (as expressed in New York) about fair­ness and fal­li­bil­i­ty. They wor­ry as well about the inequal­i­ties that rid­dle the death penal­ty in a state as large and diverse as ours.
…

This state has the nation’s largest death row, with 640 inmates. So large, in fact, that tax­pay­ers pony up $114 mil­lion every year to house them at San Quentin, on top of the extra costs to pros­e­cute them and pro­vide for required appeals. The state’s con­demned pop­u­la­tion is so large in part because vot­ers and law­mak­ers have allowed pros­e­cu­tors to seek death sen­tences in more cir­cum­stances than allowed in most oth­er states.

That lat­i­tude has pro­duced glar­ing dis­par­i­ties. Wealthy (and often white) defen­dants who can afford expe­ri­enced lawyers end up at San Quentin less often than poor defen­dants (often Latino or African American) who are stuck with lawyers assigned by the coun­ty. Prosecutors in some con­ser­v­a­tive, rur­al coun­ties more read­i­ly ask juries for death than those in many urban coun­ties. In some coun­ties, pros­e­cu­tors haven’t tried a cap­i­tal case in years.
…

State law­mak­ers last year char­tered a com­mis­sion to exam­ine cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment with an eye toward rec­om­mend­ing reforms. That pan­el expects to begin its research and delib­er­a­tions in the com­ing months. A mora­to­ri­um … should be among its first actions.

(Los Angeles Times, April 21, 2005). See Editorials and Recent Legislative Activities.

Citation Guide