Report and Recommendations on the Administration of the Death Penalty in California, by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, is our site of the day

Within the last hour, a long awaited report has been issued by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, the first comprehensive review of the operation of California’s death penalty law since its initial enactment in 1978.

Their 145 page Report and Recommendations on the Administration of the Death Penalty in California was prepared after the commission, created by the California State Senate, and whose membership is diverse with representatives from law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, law school professors, and others took extensive testimony at public hearings and funded studies by the Rand Corporation and independent research.

Their bottom line conclusion: “California’s death penalty system is dysfunctional,” they say in agreement with a statement made by California Chief Justice Ronald M. George. They summarized the testimony of 72 witnesses who appeared before them as describing “a system that is close to collapse.”

At the outset, the Commissioners say that they do not view their charge by the California State Senate to include a call for their judgment on the morality of the death penalty. The Commission's membership includes both supporters and opponents of the death penalty.

California has the largest death row in the nation, with 670 prisoners awaiting execution.

Here is an overview of their findings before they make recommendations:

“The system is plagued with excessive delay in the appointments of counsel for direct appeals and habeas corpus petitions, and a severe backlog in the review of appeals and habeas petitions before the California Supreme Court. Ineffective assistance of counsel and other claims of constitutional violations are succeeding in federal courts at a very high rate. Thus far, federal courts have rendered final judgment in 54 habeas corpus challenges to California death penalty judgments. Relief in the form of a new guilt trial or a new penalty hearing was granted in 38 of the cases, or 70%.

“The Chief Justice told the Commission that if nothing is done, the backlogs in post conviction proceedings will continue to grow “until the system falls of its own weight.” While some opponents of the death penalty might welcome such a prospect, the members of this Commission believe that doing nothing would be the worst possible course. The failures in the administration of California’s death penalty law create cynicism and disrespect for the rule of law, increase the duration and costs of confining death row inmates, weaken any possible deterrent benefits of capital punishment, increase the emotional trauma experienced by murder victims’ families, and delay the resolution of meritorious capital appeals.”

The report is divided into three parts:

First, they identify flaws in California’s death penalty system that renders it dysfunctional, and remedies they unanimously recommend to repair it. Repairing the system, they say, would enable California to achieve the national average of a twelve year delay between pronouncement of sentence and the completion of all judicial review of the sentence. There are a number of recommendations made here to increase the availability, resources, and competence of those handling death penalty cases, appeals, and all involved in the process.

These recommendations, unanimously made, come with a price tag. Currently, California is spending $137 million per year on the death penalty and this would rise to $232 million with the Commission’s recommendations. The Commission recognizes the budgetary problems California faces, but feels this is the minimum necessary for a functioning death penalty—and that if we have one, it should be working in a manner that assures “fairness, accuracy and non-discrimination.”

Second, they offer the Legislature, the Governor, and the voters of California information regarding alternatives available to California’s present death penalty law. The Commission makes no recommendation regarding these alternatives, but lays them out. One alternative, a maximum penalty of life imprisonment without parole, would cost $11.5 million and there are other alternatives restricting the application of the death penalty.

Lastly, they present recommendations relating to miscellaneous aspects of the administration of California’s death penalty law, and in this section, they were not able to attain unanimity of opinion. The recommendations in this part include enabling the California Supreme Court to transfer death penalty appeals to the Courts of Appeal, a Death Penalty Review Panel, and various other means of increased reporting and transparency surrounding decisions on the death penalty and allowing the Governor expanded powers to reprieve, pardon, or commute--with reporting to the legislature (reporting is done now), but also to include reports on denials of clemency.

There is a lot here, and this report will be in the news and cited in future debates.

Anyone debating the death penalty and procedures surrounding it should heed the words of the commission and the studies and information upon which this report is based.