{"id":27976,"date":"2016-11-16T21:38:36","date_gmt":"2016-11-17T05:38:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cjnotebook.com\/?p=27976"},"modified":"2016-11-16T21:38:36","modified_gmt":"2016-11-17T05:38:36","slug":"27976-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cjnotebook.com\/?p=27976","title":{"rendered":"Editorial: California Voters Okay with Death Penalty But Fight Against it Should Continue"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"los_angeles_times_logo\"<\/div>\n

Editorial\/Nov. 16, 2016<\/span><\/h3>\n

The death penalty lives on \u2014 and so should the fight to end it<\/h1>\n
A majority of California voters peered into their souls on election day and decided that, yes, they are OK<\/a>\u00a0with the\u00a0government executing people in their names.\u00a0That\u2019s tragic, but,\u00a0as the old saying goes, the people\u00a0have spoken.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Perhaps even more\u00a0disappointing than the rejection of Proposition 62, which would have ended the death penalty, was the\u00a0passage of Proposition 66, the competing\u00a0measure designed to\u00a0speed up<\/em> the death penalty appeals process. Californians, it seems, not only want to keep the death penalty in place, but they want to execute people more quickly and efficiently, and give the condemned less opportunity to appeal their fates. This measure\u00a0already is being challenged<\/a> in court on grounds<\/a> that it will \u201cimpair the courts\u2019 exercise of discretion, as well as the courts\u2019 ability to act in fairness to the litigants before them,\u201d among other things. Further\u00a0court challenges are expected over potential violations of the\u00a0constitutional right\u00a0to due process. So there\u2019s hope yet that the court system might\u00a0save the state from itself.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Proposition 66 passed on the dubious promise that it would shorten the time\u00a0between conviction and execution while saving tax dollars by requiring all state-level appeals to be completed within five years. It may, but it may not. After all, it actually adds a new layer to the appeals process. And it relies on a requirement that appellate-level lawyers take on capital cases even if they have no interest. And is a five-year limit fair? Note that 156\u00a0death row exonerations since 1973 occurred after an average of 11.4\u00a0years, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.<\/p>\n

Rather than sigh and accept that state-sanctioned killings could resume, the anti-death penalty movement needs to take stock of where it stands\u00a0and craft new strategies. Part of that involves determining why a majority of voters continue to see capital punishment as politically, fiscally and morally sound despite clear evidence of wrongful convictions, disproportionate targeting of the poor and people of color, exorbitant costs, and an appeals process that, while critically necessary, often adds to the arbitrary nature of who ultimately gets executed.<\/p>\n