Yet another step to get rid of death row at San Quentin prison, then close the prison, demolish it and sell one of the last large bay side pieces of land to developers.
JRocks
June 4, 2021 - 8:45 AM 8:45 AM
Semantics. Our duly elected tyrant Von Newsome has already cancelled the death penalty. Nothing to see here. Move along.
@TheProfessor: True. I guess if they were going to say that they were going to abort a prisoner instead, nobody would have an issue with the termination of life. They just don’t like the term death penalty. But death penalty is exactly what the fetus is subjected to in abortion.
Alexey
June 4, 2021 - 10:07 AM 10:07 AM
I personally against the death sentence and I would rather see all of the cases converted to life without parole, but people of California voted to keep death sentence.
What is going on now is similar to anti-abortion laws – abortions are technically still allowed, but it becomes more and more difficult to get them in some states.
That would be great if he’d at least allow a jury make a decision and stand by it. The man who murdered my brother was convicted to life without parole. We could have asked for the death penalty. We were guaranteed he would never be released. Newsome released him.
Janus
June 4, 2021 - 10:23 AM 10:23 AM
To say the death penalty is “unconstitutional” is a pretty big leap of the legal logic considering the 5th & 14th Amendments specifically mentions it (5th) ” No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; (14th) “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
The next argument, if the death penalty is ever removed on moral grounds, will be that life without the possibility of parole is cruel and unusual punishment.
The way I heard it is that the California Supreme Court has ruled that the California death penalty statute was unconstitutional under the US Constitution because it does not allow mitigating circumstances to be admitted as evidence.
I think that the constitutional argument that is most often cited is that the 8th amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. When used, the argument is usually something like “Killing is cruel. Therefore the Constitution does not allow it.” The counter to that is “Killing isn’t cruel. inflicting undue pain and suffering is cruel. Therefore execution is permitted if death is as pain-free as possible.”
This is why the US don’t draw and quarter someone or slowly disembowel them or burn people at the stake. Executions are done as quickly and humanely as possible.
Since the closing arguments happened yesterday, something tells me the California Supreme Court has not ruled on this case yet.
I’m pretty sure you meant “aggravating circumstances” and not “mitigating circumstances”. The latter is used during the penalty phase for leniency in sentencing and is an opinion not evidence.
Consistency of application of capital punishment is the question defense lawyers have raised. For decades, the California Supreme Court has left it up to individual jurors to decide whether certain circumstances (aggravating) increase the severity of a crime and thereby warrant the death penalty in murder cases that qualify. Defense lawyers argue juries from trial to trial are not unanimous in their reasonings of aggravating circumstances since it is left up to jury to decide.
Capital Punishment is constitutional. It is the application of it or the lack there of in California that is the problem.
To Do List
June 4, 2021 - 11:28 AM 11:28 AM
In addition to Janus’s excellent point, I just like to consider whether there was a death penalty at the start of the country under this Constitution. The founders would not have created a document that immediately said what they are doing is wrong. Clearly they thought the death penalty was Constitutional.
Ricardoh
June 4, 2021 - 11:56 AM 11:56 AM
The left is out to wear everyone down. Incrementally they will take over everything. The right needs to wear them done instead of playing defense. You have to be prepared to be called a racist White Supremacist. If not you lose.
Martinezmike
June 4, 2021 - 12:03 PM 12:03 PM
No death penalty. Instead we have the living in California penalty.
Randy
June 4, 2021 - 1:48 PM 1:48 PM
… why? it was the will of the voters… Newsom stopped it
It’s a very conflicting issue: as a Christian, I am pro-life, but as a taxpayer, I am anti-parole for life on the taxpayers dime. How about we do what the Mexican government does, which is to require the prisoners family to cover food and medical care for the inmate. If that fails, they die.
so what, gavin won’t enforce it
#RecallGavinNewsom
We need professional jurors.
Yet another step to get rid of death row at San Quentin prison, then close the prison, demolish it and sell one of the last large bay side pieces of land to developers.
Semantics. Our duly elected tyrant Von Newsome has already cancelled the death penalty. Nothing to see here. Move along.
thank God no one is ever murdered here
@TheProfessor: True. I guess if they were going to say that they were going to abort a prisoner instead, nobody would have an issue with the termination of life. They just don’t like the term death penalty. But death penalty is exactly what the fetus is subjected to in abortion.
I personally against the death sentence and I would rather see all of the cases converted to life without parole, but people of California voted to keep death sentence.
What is going on now is similar to anti-abortion laws – abortions are technically still allowed, but it becomes more and more difficult to get them in some states.
But it is still easier to abort an unborn baby then it is to abort a violent felon.
That would be great if he’d at least allow a jury make a decision and stand by it. The man who murdered my brother was convicted to life without parole. We could have asked for the death penalty. We were guaranteed he would never be released. Newsome released him.
To say the death penalty is “unconstitutional” is a pretty big leap of the legal logic considering the 5th & 14th Amendments specifically mentions it (5th) ” No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; (14th) “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
The next argument, if the death penalty is ever removed on moral grounds, will be that life without the possibility of parole is cruel and unusual punishment.
The way I heard it is that the California Supreme Court has ruled that the California death penalty statute was unconstitutional under the US Constitution because it does not allow mitigating circumstances to be admitted as evidence.
@- Janus
I think that the constitutional argument that is most often cited is that the 8th amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. When used, the argument is usually something like “Killing is cruel. Therefore the Constitution does not allow it.” The counter to that is “Killing isn’t cruel. inflicting undue pain and suffering is cruel. Therefore execution is permitted if death is as pain-free as possible.”
This is why the US don’t draw and quarter someone or slowly disembowel them or burn people at the stake. Executions are done as quickly and humanely as possible.
Since the closing arguments happened yesterday, something tells me the California Supreme Court has not ruled on this case yet.
I’m pretty sure you meant “aggravating circumstances” and not “mitigating circumstances”. The latter is used during the penalty phase for leniency in sentencing and is an opinion not evidence.
Consistency of application of capital punishment is the question defense lawyers have raised. For decades, the California Supreme Court has left it up to individual jurors to decide whether certain circumstances (aggravating) increase the severity of a crime and thereby warrant the death penalty in murder cases that qualify. Defense lawyers argue juries from trial to trial are not unanimous in their reasonings of aggravating circumstances since it is left up to jury to decide.
Capital Punishment is constitutional. It is the application of it or the lack there of in California that is the problem.
In addition to Janus’s excellent point, I just like to consider whether there was a death penalty at the start of the country under this Constitution. The founders would not have created a document that immediately said what they are doing is wrong. Clearly they thought the death penalty was Constitutional.
The left is out to wear everyone down. Incrementally they will take over everything. The right needs to wear them done instead of playing defense. You have to be prepared to be called a racist White Supremacist. If not you lose.
No death penalty. Instead we have the living in California penalty.
… why? it was the will of the voters… Newsom stopped it
Newsom is an evil spawn hatched in a wet market.
It’s a very conflicting issue: as a Christian, I am pro-life, but as a taxpayer, I am anti-parole for life on the taxpayers dime. How about we do what the Mexican government does, which is to require the prisoners family to cover food and medical care for the inmate. If that fails, they die.
Either way, Newsome is dead. #RecallNewsome