SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
California Death Penalty Ruled 'Unconstitutional'
Federal judge says long waits for appeals decisions combined with occasional killings amounts to 'cruel and unusual punishment.'
Jul 16, 2014
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that California's death penalty system violates the U.S. prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" because rampant delays in appeals decisions coupled with sporadic executions create an "arbitrary" and unfair system of justice.
The ruling is a response to a challenge by Ernest Jones, who has been on Death Row in California for nearly two decades, and commutes his death sentence to life in prison without parole.
Orange County U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney--a George W. Bush appointee--wrote Wednesday that the state's "penalty system is so plagued by inordinate and unpredictable delay that the death sentence is actually carried out against only a trivial few of those sentenced to death." Carney continues, "For all practical purposes then, a sentence of death in California is a sentence of life imprisonment with the remote possibility of death -- a sentence no rational legislature or jury could ever impose."
The small number of people who have been executed were forced to remain on Death Row for so long their killing was "arbitrary" and "random," argues Carney.
No one has been executed in California since 2006, following a ruling by another federal judge that California's lethal injection processes put people at high risk of an agonizing execution. Yet 748 people in the state remain on Death Row, at a significant cost to taxpayers.
Natasha Minsker, director of the ACLU of Northern California, told the Los Angeles Times that Wednesday's decision marks the "first time any judge has ruled systemic delay creates an arbitrary system that serves no legitimate purpose and is therefore unconstitutional."
The ruling can be challenged in the 9th circuit court of appeals.
_____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that California's death penalty system violates the U.S. prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" because rampant delays in appeals decisions coupled with sporadic executions create an "arbitrary" and unfair system of justice.
The ruling is a response to a challenge by Ernest Jones, who has been on Death Row in California for nearly two decades, and commutes his death sentence to life in prison without parole.
Orange County U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney--a George W. Bush appointee--wrote Wednesday that the state's "penalty system is so plagued by inordinate and unpredictable delay that the death sentence is actually carried out against only a trivial few of those sentenced to death." Carney continues, "For all practical purposes then, a sentence of death in California is a sentence of life imprisonment with the remote possibility of death -- a sentence no rational legislature or jury could ever impose."
The small number of people who have been executed were forced to remain on Death Row for so long their killing was "arbitrary" and "random," argues Carney.
No one has been executed in California since 2006, following a ruling by another federal judge that California's lethal injection processes put people at high risk of an agonizing execution. Yet 748 people in the state remain on Death Row, at a significant cost to taxpayers.
Natasha Minsker, director of the ACLU of Northern California, told the Los Angeles Times that Wednesday's decision marks the "first time any judge has ruled systemic delay creates an arbitrary system that serves no legitimate purpose and is therefore unconstitutional."
The ruling can be challenged in the 9th circuit court of appeals.
_____________________
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that California's death penalty system violates the U.S. prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" because rampant delays in appeals decisions coupled with sporadic executions create an "arbitrary" and unfair system of justice.
The ruling is a response to a challenge by Ernest Jones, who has been on Death Row in California for nearly two decades, and commutes his death sentence to life in prison without parole.
Orange County U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney--a George W. Bush appointee--wrote Wednesday that the state's "penalty system is so plagued by inordinate and unpredictable delay that the death sentence is actually carried out against only a trivial few of those sentenced to death." Carney continues, "For all practical purposes then, a sentence of death in California is a sentence of life imprisonment with the remote possibility of death -- a sentence no rational legislature or jury could ever impose."
The small number of people who have been executed were forced to remain on Death Row for so long their killing was "arbitrary" and "random," argues Carney.
No one has been executed in California since 2006, following a ruling by another federal judge that California's lethal injection processes put people at high risk of an agonizing execution. Yet 748 people in the state remain on Death Row, at a significant cost to taxpayers.
Natasha Minsker, director of the ACLU of Northern California, told the Los Angeles Times that Wednesday's decision marks the "first time any judge has ruled systemic delay creates an arbitrary system that serves no legitimate purpose and is therefore unconstitutional."
The ruling can be challenged in the 9th circuit court of appeals.
_____________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy