March 18
CALIFORNIA:
California and the death penalty
Gov. Gavin Newsom has not only acted swiftly to save 737 souls on California's
death row, but he has also had the courage to call state-sponsored executions
what they are: uncivilized.
"I do not believe that a civilized society can claim to be a leader in the
world as long as its government continues to sanction the premeditated and
discriminatory executions of its people," the recently elected Democrat
explained. He signed an executive order preventing executions while he is in
office.
Too often, politicians take an easier path in confronting the death penalty
issue. They dwell on the methods used in death chambers, or they fixate on the
costs required to handle capital cases. These considerations, while valid, are
cop outs.
As with many other controversial issues in America, California is at the center
of the death penalty debate. Although overwhelmingly liberal in its state
government, voters here nonetheless approved a measure in 2016 to streamline
the appeals process for capital cases - in effect, a vote for the death
penalty. It passed with 51 % support.
Although California has not carried out an execution since 2006, its roster of
737 condemned inmates represents about 25 % of the national total.
Newsom becomes the 4th sitting governor to issue a moratorium on the death
penalty, joining chief executives in Oregon, Colorado and Pennsylvania. 20
states have banned the practice entirely, with Washington joining that group
last year.
Opponents of capital punishment, understandably, accept any rationale for
halting the practice. But Newsom cuts to the heart of the matter when he says
it is simply "inconsistent with our bedrock values."
That is the only basis on which the United States will eventually join over 100
civilized nations in eliminating capital punishment. It does no good to seek
more "humane methods" of killing, nor to speed up an already flawed appeals
process, nor to find ways of reducing costs.
Most executions worldwide are carried out by Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan and
Iran. Add to that the unpublicized state killings in China, North Korea and
presumably in Russia, and you have a pretty good picture of the company America
currently chooses to keep.
Predictably, President Trump tweeted a fast response to Newsom's action, saying
he was "not thrilled." Trump appealed on behalf of "friends and families of the
always forgotten victims" - as if executing people would do anything to bring
their loved ones back. State-sponsored revenge is immoral.
Newsom's action is likely to rekindle debate about the death penalty on the
national stage. California presidential contender Sen. Kamala Harris opposes
the death penalty but has faced tough questions about her handling of capital
cases while state attorney general
. Every Democrat seeking the presidency in 2020 should speak out clearly
regarding capital punishment. The 2016 party platform, pushed by Sen. Bernie
Sanders, called it a "cruel and unusual form of punishment" that "has no place"
in the nation. The eventual nominee, Hillary Clinton, supported its "limited
use."
The GOP platform that year stated, "The constitutionality of the death penalty
is firmly settled."
"The intentional killing of another person is wrong," said Gavin Newsom while
campaigning for governor. In signing his executive order he has underscored the
fact that the issue is really no more complicated than that.
(source: newtoncountytimes.com)
***************************
Governor’s Reprieve Has Little Effect in Santa Barbara
Even if Governor Gavin Newsom were the sleazy opportunist his detractors
contend, he just demonstrated — yet again — a propensity to push the needle in
historic ways. First, it was with gay marriage and now it’s with the death
penalty. This week, Newsom announced that the death penalty in California is
effectively DOA on his watch. That’s in spite of a statewide proposition voters
approved 2 years ago that was intended to speed up executions, not slow them
down or eliminate them outright. (Technically, a majority of voters cast
ballots to end the death penalty, but an even larger majority cast ballots to
speed up the process.)
In his recent announcement, Newsom argued all the obvious points: that
California’s death penalty has been a grotesque waste of money with absolutely
no deterrent value. To the extent those problems could be ameliorated, he
argued, it would only heighten the state’s risk of executing a factually
innocent person and that those risks fall disproportionately on people of
color.
Given that the state has not executed any condemned inmates since 2006, it’s
unclear how many executions Newsom will actually be stopping with his
announcement. Of the 737 inmates on death row, 8 were convicted in Santa
Barbara County and sentenced to die by Santa Barbara juries. None of the eight,
as far as we know, have been given an assigned date. And some have been there a
very long time.
Malcolm Robbins, for example, was convicted in 1983 for a murder he committed
in 1980. Robbins was convicted of raping a 6-year-old boy in Goleta on Father’s
Day and then strangling him. The victim had kicked the tire of the motorcycle
Robbins used to abduct him. Robbins grew up dirt poor in small town Maine where
he was sexually abused by at least 2 of his mother’s boyfriends. At age 5, he
would be expelled from kindergarten. After that, it was all downhill.
It’s worth noting that there used to be nine Santa Barbarans on death row, but
a couple of years ago, convicted killer George “Spider” Wharton’s death
sentence was overturned upon appeal. Wharton had killed his girlfriend, Linda
Smith, hitting her over the head with a hammer in 1986 and shoving her remains
into an industrial-sized laundry-soap barrel. Wharton, a certified psychotic,
left her body in the drum and continued to inhabit the apartment they shared
for an indeterminate time. His death sentence was overturned in 2016 because
the jury never heard testimony about the gruesomely violent sexual abuse he
suffered as a child. Nor did the jurors hear fears he’d communicated to his own
psychiatrist just days before the murder that he might kill his girlfriend.
Wharton was re-sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
Currently, the only Santa Barbara candidate for death row for whom Newsom’s
announcement might have relevance is Pierre Haobsh, the grim cipher who on
March 23, 2016, shot and killed Chinese herbalist Dr. Henry Han, his wife,
Jennie Yu, and their 5-year old daughter, Emily, in their Goleta home. District
Attorney Joyce Dudley has indicated her office has no intention of dropping the
death penalty enhancements that her office filed against Haobsh despite
Newsom’s pronouncement. The governor let it be known he would sign no death
penalty warrants while in office, but significantly, no laws were changed and
death penalty very much remains on the books. The facts of the Han murders were
sufficiently horrific — 8 bullets to the head of the 5-year-old girl — that
even Dudley, never comfortable with many aspects of the death penalty, felt
compelled to file special enhancements against Haobsh.
Haobsh, who remains in custody awaiting trial, has not confessed to the crime,
but his emails, phone records, internet search records, the testimony of
uncharged accomplices — presumably unwitting — and the smoking gun itself
provide a mountain of damning evidence that defense attorney Christine Voss
will have a hard time overcoming. Haobsh, a man of mysterious pasts, appeared
to have been a skilled — even brilliant — lab technician who worked with Dr.
Han on a couple of research projects involving the cannabinoid CBD — one to
fight cancer, the other for a skin cream that would fight aging. Haobsh
erroneously believed Han had $20 million in his bank accounts. The plan
allegedly was to kill Han, transfer the funds, and head off to Mexico. The
soonest Haobsh will be tried is sometime next year; the trial setting date is
next February 4.
One reason the case is taking so long to get to trial is the avalanche of
electronic evidence; a bigger reason is that the case has been filed as a death
penalty case, which is really 2 separate trials — guilt and punishment — not
just one. The requirements and procedural safeguards attending death penalty
trials are inherently more cumbersome and labor intensive. Just to find a panel
of jurors willing to impose the death penalty in liberal Santa Barbara in the
time of Trump and when public attitudes have shifted starkly away from law and
order will be excruciatingly difficult. Still, pendulums swing both ways. The
prosecution thinking, presumably, is that the pendulum will swing back at some
point. If and when that happens, Pierre Haobsh will be on death row and not in
the general population. Defense attorney Christine Voss declined to comment,
citing a gag order imposed on attorneys for the case. The Public Defender’s
office, for which she works, did issue a press release, extolling Newsom’s
decision.
As a practical matter, the death penalty in California was already dead,
terminally hung up on protocol controversies surrounding the manner by which
lethal drugs were injected. At issue was whether they could be administered in
a manner deemed humane. While neither former governor Jerry Brown nor former
state attorney general Kamala Harris formally opposed the death penalty, their
defense of the state’s procedure was clearly desultory at most.
(source: Santa Barbara Independent)
*******************
Workers remove part of the old death chamber at San Quentin State Prison after
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s order of a moratorium on the state’s death penalty.
Re: “Moratorium placed on executions” (Page A1, March 13):
In reference to an article on the front page of the San Jose Mercury News this
morning, I would like to offer my opinion on the subject of the death penalty
in regard to a statement made by the resident of the Association of Deputy (Los
Angeles County) District Attorneys Michele Hanisee:
“Those in support of abolishing the death penalty point to the possibility of
an innocent person being executed… The innocent can take solace in knowing that
a unanimous jury of 12 citizens must render the death verdict after an
exhaustive trial where the accused murderer is represented by 2 highly
competent attorneys and overseen by an independent judge who ensures a fair
trial.”
If I had a son who was executed for a murder he didn’t commit and posthumously
proven innocent, I would be tempted to avenge his wrongful death (actually
murder) through vigilante justice.
The excuse “I’m doing my job” that people in government have been using is only
legitimate when used by meter maids.
Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of jury verdicts, code law, or
anything else. William Jackson Marion was hanged in 1887 for “murdering” a man
who later re-emerged alive and well.
Paul Taylor
San Jose
(source: Letter to the Editor, San Jose Mercury News)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
