Opinion: Dear California, abolish your costly death penalty

 

A statue of civil rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at his memorial site in Washington, D.C. / Image Credit: Emeka Ogbatue

(Editor’s Note: This article mentions death and distressing themes. Discretion is advised.)

If there is one thing Californians should push for in the near future, it should be the abolition of the state’s death penalty.

The drafting and ballot results of Proposition 6 — a rejected prison reform initiative and Proposition 36 — an approved initiative that will bring drug court changes and increases to drug trafficking and shoplifting penalties  — are clear evidence that criminal justice is among the pressing issues Californians want addressed.

However, one aspect of crime and justice that is often overlooked by voters and lawmakers when it is discussed is capital punishment, a process that significantly impacts how the state’s economy and criminal justice systems operate.

Even though California’s last execution took place in 2006 due to halts imposed from federal court rulings and a moratorium by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019, the cost of California having a death penalty is still massively burdening taxpayers.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the nonpartisan advisor to the California State Legislature, tens of millions are spent annually on prosecutions and appeals involving the death penalty. When considering current inflation, an analysis by the Sacramento Bee estimates the total cost to be over $300 million in just the past five years Newsom’s moratorium has been in effect.

Having these price tags, especially for an unused practice, is not just ridiculous but entirely unethical, given the state’s progressivism with criminal justice.

Even in cases where that progressive identity is in question, such as progressive Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón’s recent reelection loss, progress remains within the state’s roots. At the same time Gascón lost, two former public defenders aligned with the socially progressive group, The Defenders of Justice, cruised to victory in their bids to serve on the LA County Superior Court.

These judicial wins, coupled with defeats of “tough-on-crime” candidates in competitive LA and Orange County districts for the U.S. House, do not suggest aggressive shifts in opinion on crime that several outlets are claiming. Rather, they signal frustration from voters that their elected leaders are not doing enough on issues they consider important relating to the state’s economy, homelessness, shoplifting and drug overdose deaths — things all related to crime, justice and reduced recidivism.

James “JC” Cavitt, is the executive director of Project Rebound at Cal State Fullerton, a program dedicated to helping individuals who were formerly incarcerated succeed in higher education and their reintroduction into society.

Cavitt says that through his work related to restorative justice, he has had conversations with families who have sought the death penalty against those who killed their loved ones.

He says that the families he has spoken with have felt no closure in the execution of their loved ones’ killers, noting that only more grief befalls them and other families affected.

“The death penalty, in my opinion, is not serving anyone; the victims, the survivors, society, its citizens, the taxpayers,” Cavitt said. “We decide to call it death row; it makes million-dollar clients.”

Supporters of the death penalty argue many things: that its existence deters crimes, protects the rights of victims’ families, promotes ethics and safety and reduces prison costs.

While their arguments may be coming from a place of intense feeling—feelings that are entirely humane to have in situations involving heinous crimes— their reason for having a death penalty is not substantiated by facts.

As cited on the Death Penalty Information Center’s website, research has consistently shown that having a death penalty in the U.S. and other countries does not deter crime, nor does it reduce costs.

Moreover, the idea that executions protect the rights of victims’ families and promote morality and safety is not supported by recent events in states with the death penalty.

In the lead-up to the 2024 election, a string of inmate executions rapidly took place throughout the southern United States. Five states — South Carolina, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma and Alabama — each executed one inmate between Sept. 20 and Sept. 26.

In Missouri, a state with the sixth highest per capita in murder rate per capita, according to the Centers for Disease Control, a male inmate prior to his execution, had the victim’s family, activists and the same district attorney’s office that convicted him, albeit with a different lead prosecutor, call for his sentence to be commuted to life in prison amid controversy surrounding his trial’s fairness.

However, both Missouri’s governor and Supreme Court refused to halt or commute the inmate’s sentence, expressing reasons that were perceived by many as politically-motivated in nature.

Such a reality is negative and unwelcome, especially when considering the deep political turmoil and distrust the U.S. is facing with its elected leaders and its institutions or the U.S.’s well-documented history of racial bias with its death penalty.

Even post-Jim Crow, a study produced by researchers Catherine Grosso, Jeffrey Fagan and Michael Laurence found that among 1,900 homicide convictions in California between 1978 and 2002, Black defendants were 4.6 to 8.7 times more likely to be sentenced to death than other defendants with similar charges of other races. Latino defendants were also 3.2 to 6.2 times more likely to be sentenced to death than other defendants with similar charges of other races and cases with at least one white victim had 2.8 to 8.8 times greater odds of ending in a death sentence than cases with no white victims. 

Having a death penalty only enables worse outcomes, expanding the doorway for people to play politics with people's lives, harming victims’ families in the process and further eroding trust in institutions by giving the government a check to execute people while not acting in timely self-defense of its people.

For Californians, the topic of the death penalty will only grow in relevance over time. Currently, the state has a death row of over 600 people, the largest in the country and the entire Western Hemisphere. Gov. Newsom, who instituted a moratorium on the death penalty and demolished the execution chamber at the San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, is term-limited and will leave office in Jan. 2027.

The 2026 midterm elections may see a constitutional amendment proposed to eliminate the death penalty as a final push from his administration, or citizens may push to eliminate it given this year’s push for criminal justice reforms.

Additionally, 2026 gubernatorial candidates will likely be pressed on their stance on the death penalty as a potential litmus test for likeability and the state’s progressivism and that may apply heavily to someone like Vice President Kamala Harris, whose name has been thrown into speculation both for a gubernatorial bid and regarding the ambiguity of her stance on capital punishment during the 2024 election in contrast to her vocal opposition in 2019.

As these developments shape up, incoming president-elect Donald Trump has also already said he plans to resume federal executions and expand the death penalty as he engages in political battles with California’s elected leaders.

These developments circle back to reasons why Californians should oppose the death penalty now. Nothing is gained from it and everyone is harmed by it.