FCL NEWSLETTER -- May, 2002

The Death Penalty, War and Terror

Death penalty abolitionists are encountering some turbulence in the wake of the nation's violent response to the terror attacks of last September. Wars in distant lands have always tended to divert public attention from injustice closer to home.

For several years, support for the death penalty has been declining in California due to growing public understanding that, in addition to its high cost and the possibility of error, capital punishment serves no useful purpose. Long before terrorists sacrificed themselves, a series of spectacular suicide-murders, including the Columbine school shootings, had exposed the futility of punishment as a response to violence.

Last year, for the first time in recent memory, there was not a single legislative hearing on a proposal to expand the death penalty. This year there are two such bills.

AB 2103 by Phillip Wyman (R., Tehachapi) is a direct response to the terrorist activities of last fall. The bill proposes to apply the death penalty in cases where a defendant kills a person while committing a 'terrorist' act. When capital punishment is threatened in connection with political violence, witnesses hesitate to come forward. Such cases are more likely to be solved and prevented out of public concern for victims of past and possible future violence, rather than by any threats of retribution. FCL OPPOSES.

AB 2710, also by Assembly Member Wyman, proposes to apply the death penalty in cases where a defendant kills a child under age 14. This bill mistakenly assumes that the victim's age says something about the brutality of the crime, although there is no consistent correlation between the two. Many people who take the lives of children are their parents or other young people, and neither the death penalty nor life without parole are appropriate in such tragic circumstances. FCL OPPOSES.

Within the past few years, society has become painfully aware of the damage that can be done by zealotry, by fanaticism, and by people who suffer from deep depression. The solutions to such problems do not lie in retribution. It is much more useful to focus public attention on the value of reaching these people through their families and communities before they resort to violence.

Data contradicts the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent (see charts). Flaws exist in the best systems of criminal justice, and attorneys, juries and judges do make serious, irrevocable mistakes. The extended trial of a death penalty case can delay the healing process for a victimÕs family. FCL urges policy makers and prosecutors to invest their energy in violence prevention rather than expanding the death penalty. The road toward abolition of the death penalty in the United States has already been long and full of disappointments. It becomes even more difficult when national leaders are promising us decades of warfare in numerous countries around the globe.

Abolitionists need to study the lives of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandella, all of whom knew how to stir up compassion in their adversaries. Advocates for more just penalties will need to emulate the imagination, tenacity, and strength of character of these leaders.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper about the futility of capital punishment, using a particular local case as your subject.
Meet with other local groups that oppose the death penalty to develop a local plan of action that will lead to a moratorium on executions.
Contact your district attorney to find out how much extra money is being spent to investigate and prosecute homicide cases due to the possibility of a death verdict; urge the use of less costly alternatives to capital punishment.
Discuss the cost of death penalty prosecutions with your county supervisor and state legislators; ask them how they can justify those expenditures when the money could better be spent on mental health services or other pressing needs.

Steve Birdlebough

Friends Respond to the Death Penalty Friends have drawn on their spiritual beliefs to lead the way in garnering support for abolition of the death penalty in California. What follows are reports from three Friends Meetings in California outlining some of their activities.

Santa Barbara Friends Meeting

In October of 1996, Friends from Santa Barbara Friends Meeting participated in the Walk for Humanity, a walk from Santa Barbara to Santa Monica calling for an end to the death penalty. Friends also participated in the Candle of Hope Walk, a march from San Diego to San Francisco in October and November of 2000, where we traveled to Ventura and joined the walkers on their march to San Francisco. We had rallies on the courthouse steps in Santa Barbara before both of these walks. We have regularly scheduled vigils in opposition to the death penalty. These began in 1997 as monthly vigils organized by the Meeting. Now, a group of Episcopalians organize a weekly vigil, where we read the names of all those who have been executed since the 1977 reinstatement of the death penalty (over 700 at present count) and collect signatures for a moratorium on executions in California. We also hold vigils from 9 p.m. to midnight whenever an execution takes place in California. These vigils have not only had participation by the Quakers, but the local Amnesty International group, the local ACLU group, and the local Green Party as well. I correspond with, support, and visit a condemned man in San Quentin. We also further our education about the death penalty by hosting speakers, and spread the word about our conviction by speaking to other groups. Friends' commitment to this work led us to form a chapter of Death Penalty Focus, the main California group opposed to the death penalty. This group has received a grant from the 'Fund for Santa Barbara' to assist it in its work. With this financial help, we are able to organize even more activities, and hope to have much more to report next year.

James Robertson

Orange County Friends Meeting

Members of the Peace and Social Concerns Committee of Orange County Friends Meeting have participated in vigils with members of like-minded groups when executions have taken place in California. We also have written letters concerning the death penalty to various political repre-sentatives. As a committee, we composed a resolution calling for an immediate moratorium on, and ultimately the abolition of, the death penalty. We sent the resolution to the Governor, judges of the California Supreme Court, and our local state legislative representatives. We then carried the letter to an annual 'write-in' as an example for others to reference, where it was well received. Much of the content of the letter was borrowed from text published earlier in the FCL Newsletter. Unfortunately, like many others working on domestic issues regarding social justice, we have been sidetracked since September 11, but hope to redouble our efforts as the year progresses. At our last committee meeting we put the final touches on a shorter, pithier, and more quakerly statement on the death penalty, which was approved in April 2002.

Roland Schinzinger

Sacramento Friends Meeting

Because of our proximity to the Capitol, Sacramento Friends are blessed with the opportunity, and burdened with the responsibility, of meeting with the Legislature face to face and informing them of FriendsÕ beliefs about the death penalty. We participate in a monthly vigil on the north side of the Capitol, holding banners alongside other faith-based advocates supporting a moratorium, and are greeted with a wide range of reactions from passers-by. We also participate in midnight vigils on the steps of the Capitol during the night of an execution by the State of California. During one of our recent Peace and Social Concerns Committee meetings, we focused on letters urging the district attorney not to pursue retrial of a death sentence that had been reversed by an appellate court. |

40 Years Ago, Vol. 10 No. 2, May 1962
The Outlook on Capital Punishment

What chance a moratorium? In the legislative races, 13 of the 16 senators who might be expected to support a moratorium on capital punishment are seeking reelection or have two more years to serve. Three of those favorable to the death penalty are not seeking reelection. Therefore, unless some incumbent foes of a moratorium are defeated prospects are dim for favorable action in the 40-man Senate. However, there is always the possibility that efforts by senators friendly to abolition might shift a few votes in the upper house, where personal relationships are often of moment.

The Assembly prospect is highly unpredictable, although it may be generalized that young, new faces tend to favor a moratorium. There will be at least 32 new assemblymen. Of the 40 assemblymen who in 1961 voted for a moratorium, 27 seek reelection. Of the 40 who opposed it, 21 are running.

35 Years Ago, Vol. 16 No. 5, May 1967
Capital Punishment. Still an Issue!

The abolition of capital punishment remains alive as a legislative issue despite the summary execution of SB 403, abolition bill by Senator George Moscone (D., SF), by the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency on April 12. AB 606 (Burton, D., SF), for a four year moratorium on executions with certain exceptions, and AB 607 (McMillan, D., LA), a straight abolition bill, will be heard before the Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure on May 16th.

It was a disappointment to those who worked in Sacramento for Moscone's bill to see the hearing room only half full when the big day of the hearing came. Expressions of support for abolition should go to the Governor [Reagan] and to legislators without let-up. Greatly needed are public expressions of support, through letters-to-the-editor, editorials, sermons, forums, resolutions, the building of new, local anti-capital punishment groups, and through vigils if another execution takes place. Finally, on May 16 the hearing room and Capitol corridors should be crowded with people expressing their deep hope for favorable committee action.
For an Advisory Vote
Before the legislature are two measures which would call upon the people for an advisory vote on whether the death penalty should be retained.

25 Years Ago, Vol. 26 No. 5, May 1977
The Politics of Death

Governor Jerry Brown has promised to veto a death penalty law for 'personal and moral' reasons. He has done very little to head off an override of his veto despite the fact that all other overrides have been considered very embarrassing to a governor. It will take more than a personal preference to stop the death penalty from becoming law.

The governor's position should give legislators who oppose the death penalty the support they need to oppose reinstatement legislation. However, if the governor's message is mixed -- if he wants the luxury of vetoing a bill on moral grounds without risking an initiative drive at the next election -- then the force of his 'leadership' is neutralized.

What is the point of having power if the power cannot be used on issues of right and wrong? What is the point of painstakingly attaining and maintaining a political majority if that majority cannot stand up to fundamental moral questions?

15 Years Ago, Vol. 36 No. 5 May 1987
Politics of the Death Penalty

In addition to appointing three new conservative justices to the [Supreme] Court, Governor Deukmejian, long recognized as a stalwart death penalty enthusiast, has done his utmost, both as Attorney General and, as Governor, to expedite executions. In 1983, as Governor, he cut the budget of the Public Defender's Office by 50% because that office had been particularly adept at stopping the former Attorney General Deukmejian from winning death sentences in capital cases. The success of the Public Defender's Office had incurred the wrath of the man who was to become Governor.