VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LAW PREVENTS NEW EXECUTION RULES

Last Modified: October 15, 2020
May 30, 2013 | Rabin Nabizadeh | Three Strikes, Voluntary Manslaughter

Officials in the California system who have authored a bid for new rules on execution, including using a different method than most states in the U.S., have evidently not bothered to “do their homework” when it comes to state laws on the subject.  The need for a change in the system and methods of execution is simply unnecessary and, for many citizens, unreasonable.  There is, to be sure, a long and hotly debated history of capital punishment in the state of California.

Before the 1972 case, People v. Anderson, there were 709 executions carried out in California, beginning in 1778 when San Diego County officials shot several Native Americans charged with conspiracy to commit murder.  People v. Anderson caused the death penalty to be revoked in the state, until it was reinstated in 1978.  Yet, since 2006, there has been a moratorium on executions in California due to a decision made by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, who found so many problems with the state’s methods when executing prisoners that he stopped the process entirely.

Now, California prison officials are attempting to return to the era of capital punishment – with one serious problem that the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco cannot allow.  What is that issue?  They have completely altered and re-written the state’s execution rules to include, not one injection of lethal substances, but three: an anesthetic, a paralytic, and potassium chloride (which causes an electrolyte imbalance and thus causes the heart to stop). Most states use a large dose of one medication – a strong barbiturate that prevents pain and prevents the possibility of a prisoner becoming conscious during the process.

Whatever your thoughts may be on capital punishment in general, it is certain that most Californians would agree with the new ruling that prevents “cruel and unusual punishment” as suggested by the recent changes submitted to the court by the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.  It makes sense for the First District Court of Appeal to reject these changes because they are, in fact, unreasonable and simply unlawful.  The authors should have done a little more research before submitting this re-written document – and it is frightening that the very Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation representatives are so unaware of the laws in the state to which they are duty-bound.

latest news

February 6, 2024
What Can I Expect After Being Arrested for a DUI in San Jose?

Getting arrested for a DUI in San Jose can be a stressful and confusing experience. You might have many questions about what happens next and what you should do. Knowing the process and what to expect can help you navigate this challenging situation. It’s important to remember that a DUI arrest is severe, and the […]

February 6, 2024
Effective DUI Defenses You Can Utilize

Facing a DUI charge can be a burdensome experience and frightening. You might feel like there’s no way to defend yourself, but that’s not true. There are several effective defenses that skilled DUI lawyers use to protect their clients. Understanding these defenses can be crucial in fighting a DUI charge. DUI defenses vary depending on […]

October 10, 2023
Do You Lose Your License Immediately After a DUI Charge in San Jose?

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a major offense in San Jose. If you’ve been arrested for a DUI, you might be worried about the future of your driver’s license. Following a DUI arrest, you might be wondering what to do next. Knowing your rights and the next steps can significantly impact the outcome of […]