Seemingly out of the blue, the death penalty in California has been put under the microscope, with new scrutiny being cast upon the most controversial aspect of our judicial system. A federal judge in Orange County ruled last Wednesday that the death penalty as it is practiced in California is unconstitutional due to delayed executions and the seemingly arbitrary applications of said executions.
This is clearly a step forward, a formal declaration that the death penalty system in California is currently broken, whether you support it or not. In California, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, over 900 people have been sentenced to death according to the Los Angeles Times, but only 13 have been executed, an embarrassing number for those who tout the so called “deterrent effect” of the death penalty.
More people on death row have died of natural causes or suicide than actual executions carried out by the state. Why don’t we just sentence our most deplorable criminals to life in prison and let nature do its work? It has already done so more effectively than the death penalty, so why bother attempting to carry out executions that will never materialize.
The reason why so few executions have taken place is linked to our sense of justice in this country and this state more specifically. The taking of a life is, naturally, a very serious matter, and because the justice system recognizes that we are not infallible, the appeals process for someone sentenced to the death penalty is lengthy and extensive. The state must prove with very little doubt that the accused is guilty and that the death penalty is the most appropriate punishment for their crimes, which can often take decades of legal work.
Recognizing that our current system concerning the death penalty is the result of the conflicting interests of justice and retribution, it’s easy to see why it has become so arbitrary and inefficient. The two interests are, in many ways, contradictory. Retribution cares not for justice and fairness, and justice pays little to mind for the blood lust inherent in retribution.
When the courts struck down the death penalty in California, they struck down an unsteady compromise that served neither interest well. They struck down a policy of inaction in either direction. And while I do not anticipate the push for more rapid executions that will surely come from the right wing, this is a golden opportunity to rethink the death penalty. It would be wasteful for this decision to fail to inspire a renewed debate about whether the death penalty is truly the correct response to serious crimes.