NEW VOICES: Former California Chief Justice Questions Arbitrariness in Death Sentencing

Ronald George is a for­mer Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, who reg­u­lar­ly upheld death sen­tences. However, in his recent book, Chief: The Quest for Justice in California, he ques­tioned the geo­graph­i­cal dis­par­i­ties in the appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty in the state. In his chap­ter, ​“Reforming the Judicial System,” he wrote, ​“You could have the exact same crime, let’s say a straight­for­ward street rob­bery homi­cide, result in the seek­ing of the death penal­ty in one part of the state and not in the oth­er, among var­i­ous defen­dants with sim­i­lar past his­to­ries and records. This, to me, rais­es some trou­bling issues. I’m not say­ing I find this nec­es­sar­i­ly ris­es to the lev­el of a con­sti­tu­tion­al infir­mi­ty, but it may raise pol­i­cy con­cerns about the man­ner in which the death penal­ty is admin­is­tered in California.” Similar dis­par­i­ties were high­light­ed in DPIC’s recent report, ​“The 2% Death Penalty,” which not­ed that, in 2009, only 3 coun­ties in California were respon­si­ble for 83% of the death sen­tences, and almost all sen­tences (96.6%) came from just 6 of the state’s 58 counties.

George served as Chief Justice from 1996 to 2011.

(R. George, ​“Chief: The Quest for Justice in California,” Institute of Governmental Studies Press, 2013; DPIC post­ed, Jan. 6, 2014). See Books, Arbitrariness, and New Voices.