California Gov. Gavin Newsom announces moratorium on death penalty

[Beet]

Good for him.

Now do something about housing.

[OSR stands with Israel]

 In fact for people like Charles Manson and Terrorists in General, the death penalty should be the minimum sentence.

 But this isn't what happens. The majority of Death Penalty cases are not terrorists and serial killers. Just look at the racial disparity to illustrate how that isn't true. Also the Death Penalty is insanely expensive.

Its expensive because of endless appeals of the sentence not the verdict itself. You can solve this by writing a bill which make the death penalty the minimum sentence for terrorists, serial killers, and for murders who did the killings in a very gruesome or cruel way.

Then you can put in the bill evidence requirements as well before your allowed to charge someone with murder in the above circumstances which would have a minimum sentence of the death penalty. If it doesn't mean the above circumstances the death penalty would be taken off the table before the trial would begin .

[politicallefty]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_California_Proposition_62

Disappointing, I know, but I think repeal will pass eventually. I thought I heard that the campaign coincided with some high profile capital cases. I don't recall exactly, but news events can easily tilt the debate to one side on an issue like this.

CA voters also voted for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_California_Proposition_66

That's far more troubling to me, but it doesn't change what I said. California is very divided and polarized on the death penalty and news events can easily change the debate (as I believe happened in 2016). The other thing is that the death penalty isn't really a reality for the state. Since 1967, the state has only executed 13 (all between 1992 and 2006).

Personally, I think lack of use has artificially kept support higher. It's easy to hand down a death sentence that will likely never actually be enforced. If the state started executing prisoners at a rate like Texas or even faster, support would fall quickly. There's a massive amount of cognitive dissonance surrounding capital punishment.

[politicallefty]

 In fact for people like Charles Manson and Terrorists in General, the death penalty should be the minimum sentence.

 But this isn't what happens. The majority of Death Penalty cases are not terrorists and serial killers. Just look at the racial disparity to illustrate how that isn't true. Also the Death Penalty is insanely expensive.

Its expensive because of endless appeals of the sentence not the verdict itself. You can solve this by writing a bill which make the death penalty the minimum sentence for terrorists, serial killers, and for murders who did the killings in a very gruesome or cruel way.

Then you can put in the bill evidence requirements as well before your allowed to charge someone with murder in the above circumstances which would have a minimum sentence of the death penalty. If it doesn't mean the above circumstances the death penalty would be taken off the table before the trial would begin .

I missed this when I posted, but that would be unconstitutional. A mandatory death sentence is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The bifurcated trial system we have now is the result of a long line of precedence that has been upheld by both liberals and conservatives on the Court. Even Justices Scalia and Thomas agreed that the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty must be determined by a jury.

[OSR stands with Israel]

In fact for people like Charles Manson and Terrorists in General, the death penalty should be the minimum sentence.

 But this isn't what happens. The majority of Death Penalty cases are not terrorists and serial killers. Just look at the racial disparity to illustrate how that isn't true. Also the Death Penalty is insanely expensive.

Its expensive because of endless appeals of the sentence not the verdict itself. You can solve this by writing a bill which make the death penalty the minimum sentence for terrorists, serial killers, and for murders who did the killings in a very gruesome or cruel way.

Then you can put in the bill evidence requirements as well before your allowed to charge someone with murder in the above circumstances which would have a minimum sentence of the death penalty. If it doesn't mean the above circumstances the death penalty would be taken off the table before the trial would begin .

I missed this when I posted, but that would be unconstitutional. A mandatory death sentence is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The bifurcated trial system we have now is the result of a long line of precedence that has been upheld by both liberals and conservatives on the Court. Even Justices Scalia and Thomas agreed that the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty must be determined by a jury.

I thought thats cause currently, the law is pretty vague on what aggravating factors are so the jury must decide at a different phase of the trial but cant you write in detail into law what the aggravating factors are and then at the trial the judge can give instructions to the jury that they can find the defendant guilty but they can also say find the defendant guilty with these aggravated factors or without these aggravated factors

[politicallefty]

I thought thats cause currently, the law is pretty vague on what aggravating factors are so the jury must decide at a different phase of the trial but cant you write in detail into law what the aggravating factors are and then at the trial the judge can give instructions to the jury that they can find the defendant guilty but they can also say find the defendant guilty with these aggravated factors or without these aggravated factors

That's part of the Sixth Amendment jurisprudence and the right to a trial by jury. A jury must find the aggravating factors first, not a judge. Mandatory death sentences (i.e. minimum sentence of death) were ruled unconstitutional under Gregg v. Georgia, the decision that reinstated the death penalty in the US. The Eighth Amendment requires mitigating factors to be taken into consideration before a sentence of death can be imposed.

[henster]

I think most people are fine with the death penalty for heinous crimes such as for Dylan Roof or the Boston Bomber where there really isn't a question about supposed innocence. Not really a fan of just blatantly ignoring the will of the voters especially considering Newsom wasn't explicit about doing this during the campaign.

[Bojack Horseman]

Why hasn't the legislature just passed a bill abolishing the death penalty and be done with it?

I'm assuming because it would inevitably be subject to a referendum. Two propositions to repeal the death penalty have narrowly failed in the past few years, most recently in 2016. Either way, it will need to pass through the voters. I've read they're going to probably try for another repeal initiative in 2020.

I was actually under the impression that Prop 17 forbade the legislature from the abolishing the death penalty on its own, but it actually only removed the issue of constitutionality under the California Constitution (basically, California state courts cannot rule the death penalty unconstitutional under the state constitution).

he should just commute all the sentences to life imprisonment.

The Governor doesn't have absolute power on that issue. It was an issue a couple months ago when the CA Supreme Court rejected some of the Brown's commutations. From what I understand, anyone convicted of a felony more than once has their clemency request reviewed by the CA Supreme Court. There may be hope there now because as of January, a majority of the Court was appointed by Governor Brown. It's possible they may fear what happened in 1986, but California is a radically different state compared to then.

So why not just do what the Republicans here in Michigan did to any controversial bill: put an appropriation in it so it can't be voted on?

[politicallefty]

Why hasn't the legislature just passed a bill abolishing the death penalty and be done with it?

I'm assuming because it would inevitably be subject to a referendum. Two propositions to repeal the death penalty have narrowly failed in the past few years, most recently in 2016. Either way, it will need to pass through the voters. I've read they're going to probably try for another repeal initiative in 2020.

I was actually under the impression that Prop 17 forbade the legislature from the abolishing the death penalty on its own, but it actually only removed the issue of constitutionality under the California Constitution (basically, California state courts cannot rule the death penalty unconstitutional under the state constitution).

he should just commute all the sentences to life imprisonment.

The Governor doesn't have absolute power on that issue. It was an issue a couple months ago when the CA Supreme Court rejected some of the Brown's commutations. From what I understand, anyone convicted of a felony more than once has their clemency request reviewed by the CA Supreme Court. There may be hope there now because as of January, a majority of the Court was appointed by Governor Brown. It's possible they may fear what happened in 1986, but California is a radically different state compared to then.

So why not just do what the Republicans here in Michigan did to any controversial bill: put an appropriation in it so it can't be voted on?

Pretty sure the California Constitution doesn't have a loophole like that or I'm sure it would've been used many times by now.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think most people are fine with the death penalty for heinous crimes such as for Dylan Roof or the Boston Bomber where there really isn't a question about supposed innocence. Not really a fan of just blatantly ignoring the will of the voters especially considering Newsom wasn't explicit about doing this during the campaign.

But the death penalty isn't going to bring their victims back. It accomplishes nothing outside of satiating a primitive sense of vengeance within people. Picking and choosing who gets the death penalty because those perpetrators are more well-known is probably even worse than applying it to everyone who commit certain felonies. Public opinion isn't always rational, just look at those who move Trump's approval ratings beyond his ~38% floor.