George Gascon (pic­tured), San Francisco’s District Attorney and a for­mer chief of police, recent­ly dis­cussed his con­cerns about California​’s death penal­ty. He wrote, ​“Despite say­ing that I would­n’t rule out the death penal­ty as dis­trict attor­ney, I want to make clear that I have seri­ous mis­giv­ings con­cern­ing the poten­tial for wrong­ful con­vic­tions and the dis­pro­por­tion­ate impact of the appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty on racial minori­ties. Moreover, vic­tims’ fam­i­lies are sub­ject­ed to an emo­tion­al roller coast­er as they wait decades for jus­tice and clo­sure. I am also con­cerned about the increas­ing finan­cial impact that death penal­ty pros­e­cu­tions have on our already over­bur­dened crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem.” Gascon par­tic­u­lar­ly point­ed to the prob­lem of mis­take: ​“Given the irre­versibil­i­ty of the death penal­ty, the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a wrong­ful con­vic­tion can nev­er be over­stat­ed.” Read his full op-ed below.

S.F’s dis­trict attor­ney on the death penal­ty
by George Gascón

When I was appoint­ed dis­trict attor­ney by Mayor Gavin Newsom on Jan. 9, I stat­ed that I was not cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly opposed to the death penal­ty and would con­sid­er it in appro­pri­ate cas­es. I have also stat­ed that I do not per­son­al­ly believe the death penal­ty is a good tool. These remarks have been close­ly ana­lyzed by many and have caused con­cern from some quar­ters, so I want to explain my posi­tion.

I made those remarks for two pri­ma­ry rea­sons. First, in my three-decade career as a police offi­cer, I have seen some pret­ty bad crimes, not the least of which have been heinous mur­ders. And that expe­ri­ence has caused me to be hes­i­tant to say that I would nev­er con­sid­er the death penal­ty. Second, the death penal­ty is the law of the state. Rather than refuse to enforce our laws, I believe the more appro­pri­ate approach is to accept the law and work to change it. As much as we might oppose it, the death penal­ty is the law in California, and every crim­i­nal case brought by a dis­trict attor­ney in this state is brought on behalf of the peo­ple of the state of California. I don’t believe dis­trict attor­neys should be allowed to sup­plant the views of the state with those of their own.

Despite say­ing that I would­n’t rule out the death penal­ty as dis­trict attor­ney, I want to make clear that I have seri­ous mis­giv­ings con­cern­ing the poten­tial for wrong­ful con­vic­tions and the dis­pro­por­tion­ate impact of the appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty on racial minori­ties. Moreover, vic­tims’ fam­i­lies are sub­ject­ed to an emo­tion­al roller coast­er as they wait decades for jus­tice and clo­sure. I am also con­cerned about the increas­ing finan­cial impact that death penal­ty pros­e­cu­tions have on our already over­bur­dened crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem.

The crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem is not per­fect. Occasionally, we have seen cas­es of wrong­ful con­vic­tions caused by mis­tak­en eye­wit­ness iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, tri­al mis­con­duct or incom­pe­tent defense coun­sel. Given the irre­versibil­i­ty of the death penal­ty, the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a wrong­ful con­vic­tion can nev­er be over­stat­ed.

Also, strong evi­dence sug­gests that the appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty has a dis­pro­por­tion­ate impact on the poor and racial minori­ties. Sixty-two per­cent of all inmates on California’s death row are minori­ties.

Additionally, it often takes decades for death penal­ty cas­es to be resolved. Justice delayed is jus­tice denied. For the fam­i­lies of vic­tims of homi­cides, the ongo­ing legal bat­tles and delays and the pub­lic­i­ty sur­round­ing some of the more sen­sa­tion­al cas­es exac­er­bates the pain, reopen­ing the wounds each time new pro­ce­dur­al steps are tak­en, nev­er allow­ing for clo­sure.

Finally, pros­e­cut­ing death penal­ty cas­es comes at a very high cost. Typically, California tax­pay­ers pay half a mil­lion dol­lars to pros­e­cute a cap­i­tal case. These funds could be used far more pro­duc­tive­ly.

Some have giv­en me the polit­i­cal advice to sim­ply say I will not seek the death penal­ty in San Francisco. While I am not pre­pared to say that at this time, I can say that I do intend to be a dis­trict attor­ney com­mit­ted to San Francisco val­ues.

Under my lead­er­ship, this office has not sought the death penal­ty, and we have no pend­ing death penal­ty cas­es.

I am also proud to say that I have made every effort to be inclu­sive and to lis­ten to all voic­es in our com­mu­ni­ty, from fam­i­lies of homi­cide vic­tims to the ACLU, and have dis­cussed this and oth­er issues in a trans­par­ent and open man­ner. I met with the entire staff of the Public Defender’s Office at Jeff Adachi’s invi­ta­tion and field­ed a wide range of ques­tions relat­ed to the admin­is­tra­tion of jus­tice in our city. I have been told that no pre­vi­ous dis­trict attor­ney of San Francisco has ever agreed to such a free-form dis­cus­sion.

To be clear, I will not bring pol­i­tics into my deci­sion-mak­ing process. I firm­ly believe it is my legal duty to eval­u­ate on a case-by-case basis the pros­e­cu­tion of defen­dants charged with spe­cial-cir­cum­stance offens­es. To that end, if I ever believe a case mer­its the death penal­ty, I will seek the advice and coun­sel of a pan­el of local pros­e­cu­tors to eval­u­ate these cas­es and pro­vide me with their rec­om­men­da­tion. Ultimately, the deci­sion will always rest on my shoul­ders, and it is a deci­sion that I will not take lightly.

-George Gascón is San Francisco’s dis­trict attor­ney and a for­mer chief of police.

(G. Gascon, ​“S.F’s dis­trict attor­ney on the death penal­ty,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 1, 2011). See New Voices and Costs.

Citation Guide