Transcript
Anne Holsinger 00:01
Hello, and welcome to 12:01 The Death Penalty in Context. I’m Anne Holsinger, Managing Director of the Death penalty Information Center. Our guest today is Aramis Ayala, executive director of Fair and Just Prosecution and a former elected prosecutor. Ms. Ayala made history in 2016 as Florida’s first Black state attorney. In 2022, she received the Democratic nomination for state attorney general, becoming the first Black woman in Florida to be nominated for that office by a major party. Since then, Ms. Ayala has joined Fair and Just Prosecution, where her team’s work brings together elected prosecutors committed to working for a legal system, quote, grounded in fairness, equity, compassion and fiscal responsibility, end quote. Thank you so much for joining us today, Ms. Ayala.
Aramis Ayala 00:47
Thank you for having me. It is a pleasure.
Anne Holsinger 00:49
To begin, could you tell our listeners about your past state attorney? What drew you to being a prosecutor?
Aramis Ayala 00:55
Gladly. So when I think about where this all came from, I was in the fifth grade. I remember telling my fifth-grade teacher that I wanted to be a prosecutor. It was then that looking back that I, I thought that there was this innocence. There was this real concept of justice, and that naivete stays with me even till today. I never got caught up in the idea of, convictions. I was fully committed to seeking justice, and that was kind of just my my personality. I believe what ended up happening is I had this desire to be a prosecutor, went to undergrad, went on to law school. My first job out of law school was being a prosecutor. I was an assistant state attorney here in Florida. I started seeing the system a little bit different from the innocent eyes of a fifth grader. I saw some of the problems with motions to suppress, with officers, playing with concepts of consent, and I knew that wasn’t for me. I became a public defender. I was there for ten years where the humane side of the system became very real to me, spending time at the jail, meeting families, and really connecting with human and that’s the part that is often missing. So when I left the office to go back to the prosecutor’s office again as an assistant state attorney, I took that with me and then ultimately ran to become the elected state attorney after realizing that I had something very unique to offer.
Anne Holsinger 02:19
Thank you. In 2017, you announced that you would not seek the death penalty in any cases. Could you walk us through what led to that dis and what kind of reaction you got from your constituents?
Aramis Ayala 02:30
Absolutely. You know, what what’s interesting and I love the fact that as we say, there’s receipts. When I was running for office in 2016, as most people are familiar with death penalty, especially in the state of Florida, it was clear that there was no death penalty in the state of Florida. You know, Hurst decision, both at the federal level as well as the state level, had declared death penalty procedure in the state of Florida unconstitutional twice in less than two years. So it was never an issue when I was running for office and I remember when I first took office, immediately, we had a case that from my experience would have possibly been a death case, but I had taken an oath. I had, committed to the community that I was going to make data-based decisions. I was going to, seek the evidence, and I was always gonna pursue justice. So, I started down the rabbit hole, as many of you are familiar with, of death penalty. And it was much different than what I had seen on the prosecution side as an assistant state attorney. And I knew at that time that there were problems looking at the amount of money we spend to seek death, the disparate regard to race, this hierarchy of victims that is created. And then I remember, for the first time being exposed to the PTSD associated with those who have to carry it out. All of those were weighing heavy on me, and I decided that that oath to seek justice could not prevail if I were to seek death, and I made that decision. You know, you ask about how people responded. Many people were very supportive. It was amazing, the support. It’s just quite often the negativity; the savage associated with those who appreciate and value the death penalty was so much louder.
Anne Holsinger 04:18
So, despite what you told us about the reaction from constituents and about your reasoned decision to not seek death, after you announced that position, then-Governor Rick Scott reassigned dozens of capital cases from your office. From a prosecutor’s perspective, what was it like to have charging decisions, which are such a key part of a local prosecutor’s responsibility and discretion, overridden by state officials?
Aramis Ayala 04:43
You know what’s interesting is it wasn’t just overridden by state officials, it was overridden by an inexperienced state official having never been practicing, death cases in the state of Florida. I always find that interesting that, depending on who you are, your demographic, that you think that you have a right to tell someone of a different demographic on how to do their job that you’ve had no experience. So that was always interesting and, painful, but it was completely outside of those dynamics, it was inconsistent with how we talk about discretion. I remember being in law school in the late nineties where the conversation was about this concept of unfettered discretion that prosecutors have and that’s what I believe and I still believe in, that we have to have that discretion in order to make decisions if we’re going to pursue justice and see cases on an individual basis and constantly ensure that justice, prevails in the end. So, it was completely problematic to understand that discretion was being removed by someone who’s totally removed from the circumstances. But what I also like to highlight is while the governor tried to make a move, the legislature did as well. Many people don’t know and those who do don’t often talk about the fact that the Florida legislature stripped my budget in my office $1,400,000 during that term. So, I was still expected to maintain safety. I was still expected to handle an office, and that was based upon less than point zero zero one of cases in our office. It was such a small amount to remove that large amount of money. So, it was problematic. It was inconsistent with the concept of justice but I’m glad to say that we never skipped a beat, and, public safety never was compromised when it was in my hands as state attorney.
Anne Holsinger 06:26
Today, we understand that the federal government is threatening to override the decisions of local prosecutors and seek the death penalty, even in some states whose residents have abolished its use. How do you view these escalations?
Aramis Ayala 06:36
I think that it’s a larger trend, you know, that begins to threaten our democracy. Unfortunately, people have used the idea of the threat to democracy and the dictatorship and the autocracy. All of those things often seem as talking points, but when we really look at what’s happening, it’s a threat. And this is what we’re seeing. The problem is on so many levels, but the problem is that elected prosecutors are called elected because why? They were elected in their local jurisdictions. And many times you have these jurisdictions that favor progress, that want to see something different, that want to see increased account and not the way that the system has run and failed so many times. So they elect someone that they want, and you have at a higher level, someone that doesn’t represent their wants or their needs decide to do this hostile takeover, which is certainly part of that that trend, as I said, that threatens our democracy.
Anne Holsinger 07:39
I think that’s a great segue to learning a little bit more about Fair and Just Prosecution, the organization that you lead. Could you tell us about the mission of Fair and Just Prosecution and why you decided to lead this organization?
Aramis Ayala 07:51
Absolutely. You know, prosecutors are trying to do good work. When prosecutors are trying to make change, as you just talked about in your last question, it’s very real. There is a threat to them, and there is this division, this idea that if we can separate them and keep them isolated, then maybe they won’t do as much change. Well, Fair and Just Prosecution, it strives to eliminate that division, and we bring them together. We are a network of elected prosecutors who seek more accountability, higher degrees of safety, and transparency and have a genuine commitment to justice and want to see it played out numerically in the data that shows after they’ve been in office, which we’ve been able to see. So FJP, we consider ourselves a resource, and we consider ourselves an anchor and certainly one with the ability to build a coalition. It’s not about any one policy. We have a spectrum of prosecutors who join and work together with us and participate. And so, there’s not like this litmus test that you must do this. This really, I want to be clear, the goal of Fair and Just Prosecution is to ensure that prosecutorial independence and discretion are protected because that is a necessary element of it. So, we bring them together, and all that we do is to ensure that they are able to do this as a group and have the resources that they need to protect independence and discretion.
Anne Holsinger 09:27
We’re seeing some prosecutors take more active approaches to reviewing old death sentences, while other prosecutors have fought to defend those old death sentences. What fact are influencing these very different approaches?
Aramis Ayala 09:41
I think the number one factor is arrogance. The willingness or lack thereof to admit we got it wrong. I’m saddened by the fact that my ego, I should say the ego of others because it wasn’t mine, is bigger than a person’s life. Not wanting to look bad, not wanting to make one of your colleagues look bad, that we don’t consider our own humanity, our own infallibility. I think that it is extremely dangerous. But when you look about look at what happens to those who eliminate their ego, who eliminate it being about me, and saying that it is truly about serving the community and seeking truth and justice, not just efficiency and ending the case. So, it really has to do with a willingness to admit that we got it wrong. We, unfortunately, live in a time where people turn a blind eye to injustice, and they just keep the ball rolling. Every single day, the machine goes and turns. We know that there are casualties out of the machine, but it just keeps going and keeps going. And that reveals one of the major distinctions is those who are going to defend wrongful cases versus those who are going to pursue a review of them. The truth is that I should say the distinction is one is truly committed to the concept of truth.
Anne Holsinger 11:01
Historically, most elected prosecutors have been white men who spent their whole careers as prosecutors. In recent years, though, we’ve seen voters elect people with more diverse backgrounds, more women, more people of color, and more attorneys with defense backgrounds. How are you seeing these differences influencing prosecutorial decision making?
Aramis Ayala 11:20
Oh, I mean, it’s, it’s, it’s very profound. The attack wouldn’t be so big if it didn’t have a big benefit and didn’t have high influence. You know, we often talk as the way that the question is framed. We often talk about the face of the prosecutor changing and that creating this line of attack and all of the pushback that we’re seeing. But the reality is there are white men out there fighting for this change, and there are others who don’t fit that category of white men who may not be fighting for that change. So, what really happens is we start looking at the demographic that these prosecutors are trying to protect. We recognize that systemic racism is a big part of our system. We recognize the imbalance of power and the saturation of police and the increased death sentences depending on the race of the defendant as well as the race of the victim. We see all of these factors, and they’re looking to change the way that prosecutorial decisions are made. It’s who they’re fighting for. They’re attempting to eliminate much of the systemic racism. They’re attempting to be accountable for the oversaturation and over prosecution and high bail of those who have not generally been protected other than having to hire a defense attorney because the system is so imbalanced when it comes to prosecution. So, for me, it definitely has to do with a more diverse prosecutor. I mean I represent that, but I also recognize for my counterparts that don’t look like me, it also represents those who are attempting to being properly protected.
Anne Holsinger 12:56
Another change that has come about with the rise of reform prosecutors and organizations like FJP is the increased role of conviction integrity units. Could you tell us a little bit about their role, particularly in death penalty cases, and what obligations you think prosecutors have when questions arise about the integrity of older convictions?
Aramis Ayala 13:17
I think prosecutors are 100% responsible in dignifying the question of conviction integrity when they are asked, especially in a death case. We’re talking about the loss of life. We’re talking about accountability before a person is killed by the state. I think that is an extremely dangerous road to go up to again turn a blind eye to the injustice, especially when that injustice leads to a lifetime of incarceration or death. We cannot ignore the value of conviction integrity where a person sits in an office and considers all the ways that a prosecutor could have gotten it wrong, all the ways that a prosecutor may have been unethical, improper, or a defense attorney may not have done his or her job that led to a death sentence. That is our responsibility. When we as prosecutors take an oath, we take an oath to follow the law. We take an oath to seek justice. There is no justice in death, but there certainly is no justice in a death sentence that is wrongfully obtained. So, conviction and integrities are the way that we get to exactly where we need to get. I don’t even understand how conviction integrity units, especially in death cases and especially in the state of Florida are ever a controversial thing. You know? Florida leads the nation in death row exonerations. Like, how dare we ignore that fact and just keep handing down death sentences like their candy on Halloween? It is offensive. And I think if we’re going to truly call ourselves professional and those who are protecting the public and the sanctity of our law, we have to acknowledge the value of conviction integrity.
Anne Holsinger 14:57
Multiple states, including Florida, which you just brought up in which, of course, you have the most experience with laws regarding the disclosure of identities of execution drug suppliers and personnel. What are the impacts of these secrecy statutes?
Aramis Ayala 15:12
You know, it’s really funny. In in criminal law, you can request public records. We can do, the demands to see files. You can see an inter person’s entire background, the facts of the case, their address, what they had for dinner last night, photographs of what they may look like and dispose. It is outright to think that we have that much access and willingness to be transparent in the facts of a case that may lead to death, but not actually how we execute a person. The lack of transparency is inconsistent with the idea of justice because justice is not about the end. It is also about the process of how we get to the end. So, if we’re talking about life and death, how do we get to that death? Not how do we just get to the death sentence, but what leads up to the person taking his or her last breath? And the drugs that are used, problematic, we don’t even understand what is being compromised, what relationships are being compromised in order to secure any of the execution drugs. So, the transparency is what the people deserve Because if you are going to take a life in my name as a part of the public, I deserve to know what it is that you’re doing and what is, again, being compromised by that. It’s a trust issue.
Anne Holsinger 16:32
That makes sense. And I think it’s tied to the next thing that I wanted to ask about, which is public opinion, which we have over the last few decades. And in fact, in October 2025, the Gallup poll recorded a five decade low of people who support the death penalty at 52%. Maybe that’s related to the trust issue that you just brought up, but I’m curious how prosecutors factor public sentiment into their charging decisions in capital cases.
Aramis Ayala 16:57
You know, it’s really interesting because I can’t say how they consider public sentiment, but I think that they must. The the reality is we represent the public. We don’t just represent the voting public. So a lot of times, democracy means that we have to ensure that those whose voices we are representing are also reflected in the voter data. Because while there may be many people who understand the dangers of death and become against the concept of state sanctioned killing, we also recognize that many of them may not be voters. So all of that has to be taken into consideration when we’re considering the data and ensuring that we are getting more people in a place where they understand that voting on your local state attorney does end up reflecting your review your views when it comes to death and not just your your reviews in a Gallup poll, for example. You know, I think that it’s really important for also for us also to recognize that when you have crime victims associated with this, it is the victim’s family. So many times, their voices aren’t heard in this process, and it is important for us to recognize that this decision is representing so much more than a state official.
Anne Holsinger 18:12
In the work that you’ve done with your fellow prosecutors through FJP, what do they tell you about the considerations that go into deciding whether to seek the death penalty in a particular case?
Aramis Ayala 18:23
A lot of the conversation is the the statutory distinctions. Because even in my in my case, which I’m happy to talk about the scenario, what we talk about is the factors that the jury must consider, and that is on the back end. And many states give completeness to the prosecutor, and for some reason, we often don’t talk about that. You know, even in the state of Florida, despite the outcome of the scenario with the Supreme Court here, let’s not forget that the statute specifically says if a prosecutor decides to seek death, that means that if is 100% in my hands. And then it goes on to talk about the mitigators and the aggravators and the aggravators being that which has has approved. So, of course, me, I wanted to acknowledge. Like, it’s not just if you look at Arizona, you know, they in they have the very similar wording that if the state, intends to seek notice. You look at Louisiana. Their code has a general statutory language that provides for broad discretion. There are so many other states that that recognize this. You look at, certainly North Carolina, the language is there as well. And I’ve already mentioned Florida, but Texas and Ohio. So, these are the things that have to be part of the conversation when prosecutors are deciding or figuring out. It is, do I really have the or am I going to have to answer to someone that is nowhere written in the statute because they’re going to change the rules as we go along? They’re going to change the goalpost. And what is at stake ends up being public trust, therefore, public safety.
Anne Holsinger 20:01
How do you see the prosecutor’s role in the capital punishment system evolving in the future?
Aramis Ayala 20:07
I think it really comes down to how accountable are we willing to be. And when you think about the role of a prosecutor, you know, it goes back to the beginning. Like, the role of the prosecutor is to seek justice. The role of the prosecutor is to find the truth. So when I think about the prosecutor’s role evolving, it’d be one that it must be it must evolve in a way that increases accountability where we’re willing to admit that we’ve gotten it wrong, where we’re willing to admit we may have gotten it wrong, where we’re willing to admit that this is not just, where we’re willing to admit how much money we spend, how long we get it, how we treat, victims differently, and how racially disparate it is, how much PTSD is associated with it. We have to come to a place where it’s not just when we sit in this big chair, beat our chest because we are certain, and decide that we’re gonna play God whether or not someone lives or dies. We have to recognize, number one, that prosecutors have discretion. And more importantly, with that discretion, we must increase our transparency and our accountability as the role evolves.
Anne Holsinger 21:17
Is there anything else you’d like to share with our listeners?
Aramis Ayala 21:20
You know, I think that is important whenever we’re talking about the death penalty to remember that this is a permanent decision. You know, I remember up and people were talking about young juveniles using guns and not understanding the the reality of death. Sometimes I wonder, even as adults, do we really understand the finality of death when there’s a death sentence? Or we just relieve that we can blame someone in a horrific death even if it’s not the right person? You know? So I want us to to really begin to focus on the idea that it is an imperfect system. Those are ever changing. And when you have something that is ever changing and imperfect, how dare we make a permanent decision? It is extremely dangerous for us to be so committed to something that is so wrong to call ourselves truth seekers. The accountability must increase.
Anne Holsinger 22:22
Thank you so much for that and for taking the time to speak with us today.
Aramis Ayala 22:26
Gladly.
Anne Holsinger 22:27
If our listeners would like to learn more about the work of fair and just prosecution, they can visit the website at fairandjustprosecution.org And to learn more about the death penalty across the US, you can visit DPI’s website at deathpenaltyinfo.org. To support the twelve oh one podcast and all of DPI’s work, please visit deathpenaltyinfo.org slash donate. And to make sure you never miss an episode, please subscribe to twelve oh one in your podcast app of choice.
