Slava Novorossiya

Slava Novorossiya

Thursday, January 17, 2013

JUDGE JAMES A. ARDAIZ ON VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 34 [ARTICLE ON THE DEATH PENALTY OF THE WEEK ~ SUNDAY 13 JANUARY 2013 TO SATURDAY 19 JANUARY 2013]



NOTICE: The following article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to violate their copyright. I will give some information on them. I chose this article for the week, to remember the day Clarence Ray Allen paid with his life for his crimes.

PAGE TITLE: latimes.com
ARTICLE TITLE: No on Prop. 34: Let the death penalty live
DATE: Sunday 28 October 2012
AUTHOR: James A. Ardaiz
AUTHOR INFORMATION: James A. Ardaiz was the Fifth District of the California Courts of Appeal. He was appointed by Governor Deukmejian and, after his confirmation, took the oath of office on January 1, 1988. He became the Presiding Justice in 1994. Ardaiz retired from the court at the expiration of his term on January 3, 2011. James Ardaiz was born on December 25, 1947 in Fort Wayne, Indiana. He graduated from California State University at Fresno in 1970. He went on to receive his law degree (J.D.) from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1974. James Ardaiz began his legal career in 1974 as a Deputy District Attorney in Fresno County. He was elected to the Fresno County Municipal Court in 1980. Three years later, he was appointed to the Fresno County Superior Court, where he served until his appointment to the Court of Appeals in 1988. He was nominated to the position of Presiding Justice in 1994.


James A. Ardaiz












latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ardaiz-death-penalty-20121028,0,2074181.story
latimes.com

Op-Ed
No on Prop. 34: Let the death penalty live
A former prosecutor and judge argues in favor of California's capital punishment law, saying it is a deterrent and the right moral choice.

By James A. Ardaiz
October 28, 2012

My entire professional life has been entwined with the death penalty. As a prosecutor, I asked for the death penalty. As a judge, I imposed it. As a citizen, I will vote next month to retain it as a punishment option in California.

I have often encountered the argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent because it did not deter someone from carrying out a particular murder. But the actual issue is a larger one: Would there have been more murders in California without its deterrent effect? That's a hard question to answer with certainty, of course, but there has been considerable research to suggest the death penalty is a significant deterrent.

Additionally, I am all too aware of one case in which the death penalty, imposed in a timely fashion, might have prevented additional killings.

Clarence Ray Allen was the last man to be put to death in California before a moratorium on executions in the state was issued in 2006. His first murder conviction came in 1977 for arranging the 1974 killing of a potential witness against him in a burglary. I was the prosecutor on that case. We won a conviction, and Allen was sentenced to life in prison. Then, in 1980, while behind bars, Allen arranged the killings of witnesses who had testified against him in his murder trial. That was the last case I worked on as a prosecutor before I was elected as a judge.

In that case, he was finally sentenced to death, but even then it wasn't until 26 years after the killing that he was finally executed. During all that time, the loved ones of the deceased had no closure. Retribution is not only a need of society; it is a right of those victimized.

Our system is not infallible. Opponents say the fact that it's possible that someone could be wrongfully executed is enough to conclude we shouldn't have the death penalty. They can't, however, point to a case in California in which the system has allowed an innocent person to be executed.

Every criminal conviction should be based on the highest degree of certainty, and we should certainly shore up weaknesses in the system. No one should be convicted, for example, by eyewitness and informant testimony that is not substantiated by independent evidence. But eliminating the death penalty does nothing to address these issues.

A number of independent empirical studies have reached the conclusion that the existence and imposition of the death penalty results in a statistically demonstrable reduction in murders. And that means human beings are alive today instead of dead as a result of a law.

We have no way of knowing for certain, of course, how many people are not murdered because of the existence of the death penalty, and there have been studies that concluded the death penalty had no deterrent effect, but I don't find them convincing.

Why? In part because of what I saw over a long career. In cases of premeditated murder, considerable planning often goes into the act, and that planning can include the weighing of what is to be gained against the potential penalties. Any penalty can have some deterrent effect, but the more severe the penalty, the greater the disincentive to commit the crime.

If you knew that by executing one guilty person you could save even one or two innocent people from being murdered, the moral choice seems clear. Those who criticize aggressive sentencing laws often ignore the most important moral issue. If we can, through effective sentencing, reduce victimization, then it seems to me we are morally obligated to impose sentences that have that effect.

I respect those who have moral reservations about the death penalty. But moral choices can carry consequences too. If the death penalty has prevented some people from being murder victims, then doing away with it would create additional murder victims. I would far rather face the moral consequence of the death penalty than the consequence of innocent victims being killed. I choose innocent lives over guilty lives.

James A. Ardaiz is the former presiding justice of California's 5th District Court of Appeal. His new book, "Hands Through Stone," chronicles the Clarence Ray Allen case.
Description: http://l.collective-media.net/log;tx=q1-31133542304_1351393064;it=0;vt=15;ic=0;atf=1;pv=1;fv=1;seq=4;et=B;cid=1238cdbfdf8e331;ord=593312?Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

No comments:

Post a Comment