The former warden of San Quentin prison in California, Jeanne Woodford, regrets having taken part in executions and has called for replacing the death penalty with life without the possibility of parole. In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Woodford notes that after each execution, “someone on the staff would ask, ‘Is the world safer because of what we did tonight?’ We knew the answer: No.” The full article can be found below.

Death row realism: Do executions make us safer? San Quentin’s former warden says no.
By Jeanne Woodford

As the warden of San Quentin, I presided over four executions. After each one,
someone on the staff would ask, “Is the world safer because of what we did

We knew the answer: No.

I worked in corrections for 30 years, starting as a correctional officer and
working my way up to warden at San Quentin and then on to the top job in the
state — director of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation. During those years, I came to believe that the death penalty
should be replaced with life without the possibility of parole.

I didn’t reach that conclusion because I’m soft on crime. My No. 1 concern is
public safety. I want my children and grandchildren to have the safety and
freedom to pursue their dreams. I know from firsthand experience that some
people are dangerous and must be removed from society forever — people such
as Robert Lee Massie.

I presided over Massie’s execution in 2001. He was first sentenced to death
for the 1965 murder of a mother of two. But when executions were temporarily
banned in 1972, his sentence was changed to one that would allow parole, and
he was released in 1978. Months later, he killed a 61-year-old liquor store
owner and was returned to death row.

For supporters of the death penalty, Massie is a poster child. Yet for me, he
stands out among the executions I presided over as the strongest example of
how empty and futile the act of execution is.

I remember that night clearly. It was March 27, 2001. I was the last person to
talk to Massie before he died. After that, I brought the witnesses in. I
looked at the clock to make sure it was after midnight. I got a signal from
two members of my staff who were on the phone with the state Supreme Court and
the U.S. attorney general’s office to make sure there were no last-minute
legal impediments to the execution. There were none, so I gave the order to
proceed. It took several minutes for the lethal injections to take effect.

I did my job, but I don’t believe it was the right thing to have done. We
should have condemned Massie to permanent imprisonment — that would have made
the world safer. But on the night we executed him, when the question was
asked, “Did this make the world safer?” the answer remained no. Massie needed
to be kept away from society, but we did not need to kill him.

Why should we pay to keep him locked up for life? I hear that question
constantly. Few people know the answer: It’s cheaper — much, much cheaper
than execution.

I wish the public knew how much the death penalty affects their wallets.
California spends an additional $117 million each year pursuing the execution
of those on death row. Just housing inmates on death row costs an additional
$90,000 per prisoner per year above what it would cost to house them with the
general prison population.

A statewide, bipartisan commission recently concluded that we must spend $100
million more each year to fix the many problems with capital punishment in
California. Total price tag: in excess of $200 million-a-year more than simply
condemning people to life without the possibility of parole.

If we condemn the worst offenders, like Massie, to permanent imprisonment,
resources now spent on the death penalty could be used to investigate unsolved
homicides, modernize crime labs and expand effective violence prevention
programs, especially in at-risk communities. The money also could be used to
intervene in the lives of children at risk and to invest in their education —
to stop future victimization.

As I presided over Massie’s execution, I thought about the abuse and neglect
he endured as a child in the foster care system. We failed to keep him safe,
and our failure contributed to who he was as an adult. Instead of spending
hundreds of millions of dollars to kill him, what if we spent that money on
other foster children so that we stop producing men like Massie in the first

As director of corrections, I visited Watts and met with some ex-offenders. I
learned that the prison system is paroling 300 people every week into the
neighborhood without a plan or resources for success. How can we continue to
spend more than $100 million a year seeking the execution of a handful of
offenders while we fail to meet the basic safety needs of communities like Watts?

It is not realistic to think that Watts and neighborhoods like it will ever
get well if we can’t — or won’t — support them in addressing the problems
they face.

To say that I have regrets about my involvement in the death penalty is to let
myself off the hook too easily. To take a life in order to prove how much we
value another life does not strengthen our society. It is a public policy that
devalues our very being and detracts crucial resources from programs that
could truly make our communities safe.
- - - - -
Jeanne Woodford is the former director of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and the former warden of San Quentin State Prison.

(J. Woodford, “Death Row Realism, Do Executions Make Us Safer?”, LA Times, October 2, 2008). See New Voices, Costs, and Deterrence.