• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. Gavin Newsom vs. California Law

WillyPete said:
So dramatic!

It seems to me if the applications are processed normally, your only gripe will be will be with how he announced his policy.
Click to expand...

His policy is an executive order which grants a blanket reprieve. That's not processing any applications. That's exercising a power he doesn't have.

The key is that he won't be permitting executions during his tenure, and that's within his powers.
Click to expand...

Only on a case-by-case basis, through an application process.

How the paperwork is processed is quite uninteresting, and certainly doesn't mark the collapse of society.
Click to expand...

Proper process may be uninteresting to you, but proper process is in fact what the rule of law is.
 
Harshaw said:
CA Gov. Gavin Newsom has announced a "moratorium" on the death penalty in CA.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announces moratorium on death penalty, halting more than 700 executions - ABC News




I generally oppose the death penalty myself (I'm squishy on it when it comes to really, really heinous crimes). But the law is what it is in California, and the death penalty has been reaffirmed numerous times, even recently, by the voters of California.

The governor does not have the power to simply decide not to enforce the law as written. He does have the pardon power, but that's not a blanket license to nullify state sentencing law; it's a case-by-case power meant to alleviate injustice on an individual basis. This is also not a case of "prosecutorial discretion"; the prosecution is already done.

The governor doesn't get to decide what California law is or should be. That's up to the state legislature and the people of California.

This is a blatant unconstitutional abuse of power.
Click to expand...

California hasn't carried out an execution since 2006, though. As far as I understand it, Judge Fogel's ruling that it's Lethal Injection protocols violate the 8th Amendment is still in effect.

U.S. Judge: California Executions Unconstitutional : NPR
 
What's more, the California State Constitution (Article 5 §8(a)) gives the Governor the power to grant reprieves. There's no Constitutional provision that suggests that he can't issue an Executive Order granting blanket reprieves, is there?
 
Cordelier said:
What's more, the California State Constitution (Article 5 §8(a)) gives the Governor the power to grant reprieves. There's no Constitutional provision that suggests that he can't issue an Executive Order granting blanket reprieves, is there?
Click to expand...

Post #12, this thread.
 
Cordelier said:
Perhaps, but California isn't the only state that has Governor-issued moratoriums.... similar ones exist in Colorado, Oregon and Washington.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.
 
Harshaw said:
And by the way, this is the governor's clemency power by the California constitution:



It is FAR from absolute, is limited by statute, and is to be done case-by-case, by application:

https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Application_for_Executive_Clemency.pdf

There is no blanket authority for the governor to do this.
Click to expand...

I don't argue with this.... but if any occupant of death row applies for a reprieve, what the Governor's moratorium does is make it clear that such reprieves will be granted unconditionally. The pro-forma report to the Legislative will read something like "Mr. X's request for a reprieve was granted in accordance with Executive Order N-09-19".
 
Last edited:
Cordelier said:
I don't argue with this.... but if any occupant of death row applies for a reprieve, what the Governor's moratorium does is make it clear that such reprieves will be granted unconditionally. The pro-forma report to the Legislative will read something like "Mr. X's request for a reprieve was granted according to Executive Order N-09-19".
Click to expand...

The constitution makes it clear that reprieves can only be granted case-by-case, by individual application. The executive order grants blanket reprieve, without application.
 
Harshaw said:
The constitution makes it clear that reprieves can only be granted case-by-case, by individual application. The executive order grants blanket reprieve, without application.
Click to expand...

That's the practical effect of it, yes.... but the inmates still have to make an application of a reprieve for it to be accepted. And even if some small handful of inmates choose not to apply for a reprieve, there's not much sense in putting more state resources into a system that's obviously going to be held in abeyance, is there?
 
Cordelier said:
That's the practical effect of it, yes.... but the inmates still have to make an application of a reprieve for it to be accepted.
Click to expand...

Read your link. That's not what it says:

canewsom.jpg

There's nothing there about anyone having to make an application. According to the order, it's done.
 
Harshaw said:
Read your link. That's not what it says:

View attachment 67252504

There's nothing there about anyone having to make an application. According to the order, it's done.
Click to expand...

You're splitting hairs... the Governor's Executive Order can be repealed by any of his successors. However, if an inmate is granted an individual reprieve, then his/her death penalty can't be reinstated by the repeal of the Executive Order. For the individual to be granted such a reprieve, they have to make an individual application. Governor Newsome's EO makes clear that such applications will be accepted across the board. If an inmate doesn't make such an application, then he/she would still eligible for the death penalty in the case of the EO's repeal.
 
Cordelier said:
You're splitting hairs... the Governor's Executive Order can be repealed by any of his successors. However, if an inmate is granted an individual reprieve, then his/her death penalty can't be reinstated by the repeal of the Executive Order. For the individual to be granted such a reprieve, they have to make an individual application. Governor Newsome's EO makes clear that such applications will be accepted across the board. If an inmate doesn't make such an application, then he/she would still eligible for the death penalty in the case of the EO's repeal.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense.
 
Some years ago during the Cold War, a guy who was the French equivalent of our Attorney General wrote "Trace a map of freedom in the world" and it corresponds to where the death penalty does not exist. The notable exception to that pattern was the US. In our hemisphere it is rare, existing in Cuba, tho no one has been executed for years, and I believe in some former British colonies in the Caribbean.

It persists in the US, I assume, due to the strength of our religious culture, with a tinge of race attached. When I worked on the issue some years ago, the stats said that of the combinations of killings white/white, white/black, black/black, and black/white, the most likely to be sentenced to death were blacks who killed whites, least likely whites who killed blacks, with white/white producing more death sentences than black/black, furthering the suggestion that white lives matter. I don't know if these patterns persist, but would not be surprised if they do, just as it is no surprise that the states the most enthusiastic for executions correspond to the states that used to be the most enthusiastic for lynchings.

And then there is the ceremony of it all: solemn faces, relatives of victims and the condemned, the phone in case the governor calls, the last words, the blank cartridge in the firing squad, or the "executioner's face always well hidden," as Bob Dylan sang. It's Solemn High Mass for law and order.

The best prescription for dealing with it was offered by Lenny Buce decades ago. Lets's stop all the bleeding heart liberals from whining very few weeks about executions, he proposed. Do them all on one day, any day, say the evening of December 24. When they turn the lights on the big Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center, let that be the signal for switching on the electricity, dropping the cyanide pellets, etc.
 
Harshaw said:
This doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Only if you don't think too much about it. Every death row inmate is an individual with their own case file... for them to receive their own reprieve, they have to formally request it.

I'll give you this....from a legal perspective, Governor Newsom's EO is a pretty sloppy document. By my reckoning, it was written by his political staffers - not his legal ones. I can pretty much guarantee that he didn't consult much with Attorney General Becerra or get his input on it in any meaningful way. There's pretty much zero legal boilerplate in it. I just see it as a statement of Executive intent. Maybe that's the way he wanted it, I don't know.... but to me, there would have been a lot less ambiguity if it were more specific. But all of this is a style criticism... for all intents and purposes, it does makes clear what the Governor's policy is toward death penalty reprieves. If I were an attorney with a client on death row, I'd make sure my client made the suitable application and get the Governor's autograph signing off on it at the earliest opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Cordelier said:
Only if you don't think too much about it. Every death row inmate is an individual with their own case file... for them to receive their own reprieve, they have to formally request it.
Click to expand...

That is simply not what the executive order says. You are denying reality.
 
I'll be perfectly frank with you... I don't really know Gov. Newsom at all.... from what I've seen of him, though, he strikes me as a lightweight. I am, however, a big admirer of Xavier Becerra....I've been watching him for about 25 years now. When I put myself in his shoes and I read that Executive Order, I just sort of shrug and decide that probably the best policy is to just take it as it says, put in place an adequate system for dotting the i's and crossing the t's on the death penalty reprieve application system, and re-assign all of the legal resources that up to this point and been designed to lift the Federal Court injunction and contest death row appeals. Even if he disagreed with the the policy (which I'm sure he doesn't), there wouldn't be much point contesting the point - the Governor is exercising his constitutional powers... all the Attorney General can do is put the rubber to the road and carry them out.
 
Cordelier said:
Again, the EO is a sloppily-worded. What I'm doing is attempting to derive practical legal policy from a political document.
Click to expand...

You are making up things which aren't there.

Things that don't even make sense. There's no executive order necessary if all he was doing was saying he'll grant a reprieve to every single applicant. All he'd have to do is announce it and do it as it comes.

The only way this executive order even makes any sense is that it acts as a blanket reprieve for everyone, effective immediately. But that's not constitutionally possible.

Not sure why you're trying to spin for Newsom if you don't have skin in the game, but you're trying really hard.
 
Harshaw said:
You are making up things which aren't there.

Things that don't even make sense. There's no executive order necessary if all he was doing was saying he'll grant a reprieve to every single applicant. All he'd have to do is announce it and do it as it comes.

The only way this executive order even makes any sense is that it acts as a blanket reprieve for everyone, effective immediately. But that's not constitutionally possible.

Not sure why you're trying to spin for Newsom if you don't have skin in the game, but you're trying really hard.
Click to expand...

Have you ever had a boss who was an idiot?
 
Cordelier said:
Have you ever had a boss who was an idiot?
Click to expand...

If you feel you have to make things up to cover for him, or to try to make it constitutional, then you must know he's in the wrong, and that it is unconstitutional.
 
Harshaw said:
If you feel you have to make things up to cover for him, or to try to make it constitutional, then you must know he's in the wrong, and that it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that.... granting the reprieves is entirely Constitutional. The problem with the EO is that it doesn't address the actual process.... but does it really have to? It's like the idiot boss.... he can tell you what he wants done and what the end result is going to be.... but then he leaves the actual implementation to the people who actually know what they're doing. At the end of the day, does it really make a difference if the boss is an idiot or if he knows what he'd doing an writes a proper EO laying it all out? Doesn't it all just boil down to a question of style?
 
Cordelier said:
I'm not saying that.... granting the reprieves is entirely Constitutional. The problem with the EO is that it doesn't address the actual process.... but does it really have to? It's like the idiot boss.... he can tell you what he wants done and what the end result is going to be.... but then he leaves the actual implementation to the people who actually know what they're doing. At the end of the day, does it really make a difference if the boss is an idiot or if he knows what he'd doing an writes a proper EO laying it all out? Doesn't it all just boil down to a question of style?
Click to expand...

You're continually approaching this as though the construct you made up is true, that this EO only means that reprieves are to happen through an application process.

By the plain language of it, that's what not what it says. It says, by executive order, they are reprieved. Now.

There's no reason to continue if you're going to cling to things which simply aren't there.
 
chuckiechan said:
You have to understand that this is a game where everyone makes money. An anti death lawyer can have three or four death row clients, and he will be working full time on the states dime forever.

They are certainly genuinely against the death penalty, and the judges are happy to play the game too, because at the end of the day judges are lawyers in funny clothes and go to the same parties, and all want to be appointed to higher judicial roles. No one really gives a damn about the victims, the voters, or the criminals. It's all about politics and making it become nearly impossible to execute a murderer because they are right and you are wrong.

The total on death row is misleading. The number that should be on death row is closer to 2000, based on how the sentence is arrived as and how appeals are handled. Many are there for killing someone in prison. In fact, if murder one were enforced more tightly, it's would be 10,000. Then what?
Click to expand...

Yes, follow the money, and it will lead to the truth. As long as people are making money on the death penalty, even if only a small handful of murderers actually are executed, then the system won't change.

If It were up to me, we'd not have a death penalty and the game would stop being played. For one, there are too many innocent people convicted of crimes. For another, it gives the government too much power to have a life and death power over anyone. For a third, being locked in a cage forever has to be a harsher penalty than a painless death.

But, it's not up to me. As long as people are making money on the current system... well, I already said that.
 
Harshaw said:
You're continually approaching this as though the construct you made up is true, that this EO only means that reprieves are to happen through an application process.

By the plain language of it, that's what not what it says. It says, by executive order, they are reprieved. Now.

There's no reason to continue if you're going to cling to things which simply aren't there.
Click to expand...

If you're arguing that it's a badly-written EO, I agree with you... and I've said so several times already. But for all intents and purposes, all death row inmates are going to receive a reprieve once they apply for one. That's not to say there won't be legal fall-out down the road... let's say there a death row inmate who doesn't apply for a reprieve and then the next Governor repeals Newsom's EO and tries to proceed with that inmate's execution.... the inmate might then argue that Governor Newsom's EO gave him a reprieve. In that case, I'd say that the inmate's argument wouldn't hold water for exactly the reasons you suggest.

My argument is that for all intents and purposes - as things now stand - they won't be any executions carried out in California so long as Newsom remains the Governor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom