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.
URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ardaiz-death-penalty-20121028,0,2074181.story
 |
|
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.
Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times
No comments:
Post a Comment