George Gascon served for 30 years as a police offi­cer, includ­ing as a police chief in Arizona and California. He is cur­rent­ly the District Attorney of San Francisco. Although he for­mer­ly sup­port­ed the death penal­ty, he now believes it should be replaced with life with­out parole. In a recent op-ed in the Sacramento Bee, Gascon wrote: I have had the oppor­tu­ni­ty to observe and par­tic­i­pate in the devel­op­ment and imple­men­ta­tion of pub­lic safe­ty poli­cies at every lev­el. I have seen what works and what does not in mak­ing com­mu­ni­ties safe. Given my expe­ri­ence, I believe there are three com­pelling rea­sons why the death penal­ty should be replaced. (1) The crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem makes mis­takes and the pos­si­bil­i­ty of exe­cut­ing inno­cent peo­ple is both inher­ent­ly wrong and moral­ly rep­re­hen­si­ble; (2) My per­son­al expe­ri­ence and crime data show the death penal­ty does not reduce crime; and (3) The death penal­ty wastes pre­cious resources that could be best used to fight crime and solve thou­sands of unsolved homi­cides lan­guish­ing in fil­ing cab­i­nets in under­staffed police depart­ments across the state.” He con­clud­ed the death penal­ty is fatal­ly flawed” and bro­ken beyond repair.” Read the full op-ed below.

Viewpoints: Should we OK Prop. 34 to end exe­cu­tions? Yes
Death penal­ty is a costly farce

As a 30-year-vet­er­an police offi­cer who once sup­port­ed the death penal­ty and now the elect­ed dis­trict attor­ney for San Francisco, I am com­pelled to address why I sup­port replac­ing the death penal­ty in California.

From my begin­ning as a street cop in L.A., to assis­tant chief of police for the LAPD, to police chief in Mesa, Ariz., and San Francisco, and now San Francisco’s DA, I have had the oppor­tu­ni­ty to observe and par­tic­i­pate in the devel­op­ment and imple­men­ta­tion of pub­lic safe­ty poli­cies at every lev­el. I have seen what works and what does not in mak­ing communities safe.

Given my expe­ri­ence, I believe there are three com­pelling rea­sons why the death penal­ty should be replaced. (1) The crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem makes mis­takes and the pos­si­bil­i­ty of exe­cut­ing inno­cent peo­ple is both inher­ent­ly wrong and moral­ly rep­re­hen­si­ble; (2) My per­son­al expe­ri­ence and crime data show the death penal­ty does not reduce crime; and (3) The death penal­ty wastes pre­cious resources that could be best used to fight crime and solve thou­sands of unsolved homi­cides lan­guish­ing in fil­ing cab­i­nets in under­staffed police depart­ments across the state.

For me, the pos­si­bil­i­ty of exe­cut­ing the wrong per­son is enough. Even under the most scrupu­lous prac­tices, the legal sys­tem occa­sion­al­ly makes mis­takes. Just since 1973, more than 130 peo­ple on death rows around the coun­try have been exonerated.

Since 1989, more than 2,000 peo­ple across the United States have been cleared of wrong­ful con­vic­tions, accord­ing to the National Registry of Exonerations. Two of those exon­er­a­tions involved homi­cide cas­es tried by my office. It is sim­ply too great a risk, and even the most dili­gent pro­fes­sion­als may unwit­ting­ly have their hand in the exe­cu­tion of an innocent person.

California ranks third for the high­est num­ber of exon­er­a­tions in the reg­istry. These are real cas­es involv­ing real peo­ple where the system failed.

Second, in my long pub­lic safe­ty career with many years of being respon­si­ble for homi­cide units and now as DA, not once have I heard a mur­der sus­pect say he con­sid­ered the death penal­ty when com­mit­ting the offense. The truth is, killers don’t con­sid­er the death penal­ty when they decide to mur­der some­one. They con­sid­er whether they will get away with it.

And shock­ing­ly, almost half do in California.

Data sup­port my expe­ri­ence. The mur­der rates in death penal­ty states such as Florida and Texas are high­er than in New York, where the death penal­ty was replaced.

Third, pros­e­cut­ing a death penal­ty case in California costs rough­ly $1 mil­lion more per tri­al than the aver­age non-exe­cu­tion homicide case.

The spe­cial hous­ing we pro­vide a death row inmate costs tens of thou­sands more than it costs to lock up an inmate in the gen­er­al prison pop­u­la­tion – by some accounts as much as $90,000 more per year per inmate. Over 17.5 years (the aver­age time between con­vic­tion and exe­cu­tion for the 13 inmates exe­cut­ed in California since 1976), this trans­lates to a cost of near­ly $1.6 mil­lion more than hous­ing for a non-death row inmate.

The long wait until exe­cu­tion means death row inmates die of old age or ill­ness, just like ones doing life except for the added cost. Since 1976, 84 death row inmates have died while await­ing exe­cu­tion in California.

I believe the death penal­ty con­tin­ues to exist for two rea­sons, (1) because it appeals to our desire to exact pun­ish­ment for those whom we fear most and who make us angry; and (2) because we are mis­led by half truths and outright lies.

We need to acknowl­edge that the death penal­ty is bro­ken beyond repair.

With Proposition 34, heinous killers will be brought to jus­tice, and kept in prison for the remain­der of their lives with no hope of getting out.

This November we have a choice. We can either hang on to a fatal­ly flawed sys­tem, or join 17 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and replace the death penal­ty with life with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole.

As one who cares deeply for pub­lic safe­ty and has ded­i­cat­ed his life to mak­ing com­mu­ni­ties safer, I urge all Californians to stand strong and vote yes on Proposition 34.

George Gascon, dis­trict attor­ney of San Francisco, was pre­vi­ous­ly the chief of police for San Francisco.

(G. Gascon, Viewpoints: Should we OK Prop. 34 to end exe­cu­tions? Yes,” Sacramento Bee, op-ed, October 14, 2012). See New Voices and Costs. Also find out more about law enforce­ment offi­cers’ views in DPIC’s report, Smart on Crime.”

Citation Guide