Jump to content

Talk:Capital punishment in California

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aymonroy (talk | contribs) at 08:06, 22 May 2020 (Update Field Study Writing Seminar assignment details). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2020 and 5 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aymonroy (article contribs).

California wasn't a state until 1850

It [the State of California] carried out 709 executions from 1778 to the 1972 California Supreme Court decision in People v. Anderson that struck down the state capital punishment statute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.34.135 (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation Update

The U.S. District Court opinion finding California's death penalty unconstitutional was reversed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 12, 2015 in Jones v. Davis, 14-56373. The article should be updated accordingly. --Kurtkoeh (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clemency Statistics

Does anyone know how many death row inmates have been granted clemency?

Or how many innocent people that has been executed ?

Why injection ?

Why does all theese executions in the USA just not take place in a normal way ? Seven men (and women) of the custodial system is given a rifle, at 10 meter distance. Only one gun is loaded with a sharp shot (but none knows wich gun that is loaded with a real bullet) Then the inmate is tied to a pole and all seven guns are fired at the same time. If the execution fail the inmate goes free. The injection method is a bizzarr combination of healthcare and punishment, unworthy of a civilized country like USA. NOTE ALSO the difference between getting murdered whithout knowing it until a few seconds before and the countdown to an execution date. The entire time between the death centence and the execution (wich may be from some months up to 25 years) is clearly a psycic torture. It is also very disturbing how big difference good loyers can have in America. People with lots of money never gets the death penaties. (Robert Blake and that american-"football"-player Simpson would most likely been both convicted and got the death penalty if they were pennyless.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.34.146 (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admission to union

California was admitted to the union in 1850. Therefore, this sentence seems odd:

  • The first recorded execution in the area that is now California took place on April 11, 1878 when four Native Americans were shot in San Diego County for conspiracy to commit murder.

By 1878, California had been a state for 28 years. Further, it's hard to believe that this was the first recorded execution in the history of the state or the area that became the state. What's our source for this? Could the date be wrong?   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To give just one example, Tiburcio Vásquez was executed in 1875.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that the date was 1778 when first added.[1] I don't know who changed it, but I'll change it back (and add a citation request).   Will Beback  talk  07:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition of Prop 34

There are several issues with the final paragraph of "Proposition 34, the SAFE California Act", which summarizes the opposition to Prop 34. The words "Critics of the SAFE Act" are used without naming any specific organizations or figures, which is too-vague attribution. The paragraph goes on to state that these unnamed critics do not accept the findings of Judge Alarcon's study (And by proxy, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice). Unless a reputable or notable critic of Prop 34 actually accused Judge Alarcon's study of being factually wrong, I believe this statement should be removed.

I have issue with the closing statement: "[critics of the SAFE act] point to the irony that SAFE supporters decry the high costs of death penalty appeals (for which they are largely responsible) while raising concerns about the possibility of executing the innocent. Moreover, proponents of the SAFE ACT are unable to establish that any innocent individuals are on California's death row." I see no reason why it is logically inconsistent to be both worried about the high costs of the death penalty and the possibility that innocent lives might be taken in the implementation of the death penalty, even if higher costs are necessary to prevent innocent lives from being taken. If anything, the fact that abolishing the death penalty would both reduce the high costs of the death penalty and prevent the possibility of innocent people being executed proves that the two concerns are not contradictory. As such, unless anyone can cite a reputable or notable figure who actually has made this argument, I will delete this section.

Finally, I have removed the link at the end to http://cadeathpenalty.webs.com/. It is not a proper source, but rather a biased and one-sided political website. 76.103.138.118 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There continue to be issues with the final paragraph of "Proposition 34, the SAFE California Act."

The content of the first sentence is not supported by its citation "[r]ecent surveys establish that a majority of Californians strongly support the death penalty if given a choice on the upcoming ballot initiative." The Field Poll cited did not refer to the upcoming ballot initiative; it is from 2011, before the initiative even qualified for the ballot, and I will delete this section.

The following sentence is also not supportable: "Moreover, California government statistics as well as more liberal articles arguing for the abolition of life-long sentences establish that the costs of housing inmates for life far outweigh any claimed savings from avoiding capital appeals" The sources cited (except for the the No on 34 website, which does not cite any sources) do not compare the cost of life in prison without the possibility of parole to the cost of the death penalty. I will delete this section. California2012 (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving the section on polling to the public opinion section of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by California2012 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting the following sentence: "Supporters of the measure raised $6.5 billion dollars, dwarfing the $1 billion dollars raised by opponents of Proposition 34." because it is wildly untrue and not supported by the source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by California2012 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The measure's backers vastly outspent opponents $6.5 million to $1 million. Billionaires Nicholas Pritzker and Charles Feeney, through his philanthropic fund, each donated $1 million to the campaign for repeal. The American Civil Liberties Union contributed more than $700,000 and ran the campaign. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gquIMgeR1ld7hT0r2x5K26IEtwIg?docId=661fb8e4c49646868cd9a158b4eef211
You can argue that the source is wrong, perhaps (the AP is a decent if not amazing source, please provide a rival source in this case), but it's absolutely supported by the source cited. (That said, I disagree with John Doe 1346's change to emphasize "6 times more" which is not what the source says and is less helpful than actual numbers anyway.) You both are also horrifically mangling the references - please at least keep the reference to the official vote count! SnowFire (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Well, it's correct if "billion" means "million" of course. Oops, that was my bad. SnowFire (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of sentence on fund raising

John Doe 1346, re this edit: I agree that fundraising for Prop 34 should be in the article, but the fundraising happened *before* the election, and there's really no reason to bring it up only after the election. When the article on fundraising was published is totally irrelevant unless scholarship somehow changed on the fact - e.g. "Before the election, people thought fundraising was equal on both sides, but afterwards, revelations showed side X had more instead," which isn't the case here. Your original addition made this appear as some kind of POV sting against proponents - "Prop 34 lost despite getting 6 times the money" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Capital_punishment_in_California&diff=next&oldid=521878089 ). Phrasing it that way is weird anyway - things like number of soldiers in a war, the rosters of competing sports teams, etc. are all discussed BEFORE the result is typically. SnowFire (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you just changed it back with no explanation and no notice last year. Please stop. SnowFire (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No executions from 1978 to 1992?

The article doesn't explain why.--217.250.213.95 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capital punishment in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Capital punishment in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Capital punishment in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kozinski says California has "no functional death penalty"

If Kozinski's dissent in Kirkpatrick v. Chappell is a correct or at least widely shared interpretation of the state of California's death penalty:

Nonetheless, California has no functional death penalty. How this came about is no mystery. As part of a nationwide campaign to have lethal injection declared unconstitutional, California death row inmates challenged the state’s execution protocol in 2006. A district court eventually held that California’s execution method was “broken.”.... That ruling likely was wrong in light of subsequent Supreme Court cases.... Regardless, the state did not appeal. Instead, state officials set about revamping California’s execution protocol. They have been busy with that task since 2006. Other states have managed to amend their protocols..., But California officials haven’t managed to come up with a workable protocol.... Meanwhile, the people of California labor under the delusion that they live in a death penalty state.

then I think it might be worth a sentence in the introduction to this article, perhaps something like this:

California stopped executions in 2006 when a federal district court struck down its execution protocol. Since then the state has neither appealed the decision nor crafted a new protocol, leaving the state with "no functional death penalty" according to....

Can anyone more knowledgeable than me comment on whether this is a fringe view, and if not, whether it is significant enough to the topic? Lee Choquette (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Capital punishment in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Executive clemency

The article says that: - 1. "As of March 2019, further executions are halted by an official moratorium ordered by Governor Gavin Newsom." 2. "Under the state Constitution, the power of clemency belongs to the Governor of California. But if the offender was twice convicted of a felony, the governor can grant a commutation only on recommendation of the Supreme Court, with at least four judges concurring." So, if the conditions in (2) are not met, does the Governor's moratorium apply? Alekksandr (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like those are different situations. A moratorium on executions means that the prisoners still have a death sentence that is just not carried out yet. A commutation is a changing of a sentence. Were the moratorium to end, those with commuted sentences wold not be executed, but others might. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. See https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/california-death-penalty.html - "For now, the moratorium amounts to temporary reprieves for each of the 737 men and women on California’s death row, which will last for the duration of his time as governor." I suggest that this sentence (with cite, or course) should be added as the last sentence in the first paragraph of the article, as that is the only place where the moratorium is currently mentioned. We could also add that his term is due to expire in January 2023. Thoughts/comments?Alekksandr (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capital_punishment_in_California&oldid=958170161"