Murder Victims' Families Say Death Penalty Does More Harm than Good

In his July 16, 2014, ruling in Jones v. Chappell, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney found California’s death penalty system unconstitutional, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause. Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California, appealed this ruling. The case is before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal (now styled as Jones v. Davis), which will hear arguments on August 31st.

The Carney ruling cited facts showing the widespread dysfunction in California’s death system, which has sentenced over 900 people to death since 1978, but has executed only 13 condemned prisoners. Judge Carney found that for those awaiting appointment of counsel and adjudication of their appeals, the current system “has resulted, and will continue to result, in an inordinate and unpredictable period of delay preceding their actual execution. . . for most, systemic delay has made their execution so unlikely that the death sentence. . . has been. . . transformed into. . . life in prison, with the remote possibility of death.” [Court’s emphasis]. He concluded that those who eventually are executed “will have languished for so long on Death Row that their execution will serve no retributive or deterrent purpose and will be arbitrary.” [Order, Jones v. Chappell, July 16, 2014, pp 1-2]. The state’s challenge to the district court’s conclusion that California’s death penalty system is unconstitutional is now before the Ninth Circuit for review.

Predictably, a number of groups, organizations, agencies and academicians sought to file amicus briefs to assist the court in its deliberations on the issues raised in the Jones case, which focused on the delay and uncertainty attending the use of capital punishment in California, resulting in the systemic arbitrariness Judge Carney found violative of the Eighth Amendment. The filing of amicus or “friend of the court” briefs is a procedure that rests on the discretion of the court, which determines the groups or individuals allowed to submit such briefs. They are not considered to be legally binding upon the court, but are helpful in providing other perspectives from those not a party to the litigation, but who nevertheless have an interest in or are potentially affected by the outcome.

Perhaps the most interesting amicus brief filed among the many the Ninth Circuit accepted was on behalf of Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation (MVFR) and California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (CCV). It brought a new and undoubtedly unusual perspective to the court’s attention—that of people who have lost a family member to homicide but are decidedly against capital punishment. MVFR, with 6328 members nationwide and 941 members in California, was founded in 1976; CCV, with 730 members, over 500 who are family members of murder victims, was founded in 2007. Both groups include people from a broad array of faiths and belief systems and reflect a geographically, racially and economically diverse constituency. These groups seek to educate the public, politicians and agencies that carry out the death penalty that continued use of capital punishment harms society, is a waste of resources, and is a misguided public policy that fails to achieve any of its purported purposes. Indeed, as the MVFR/CCV amicus shows, the death penalty system exacerbates the harm to society caused by murder and undermines survivors’ efforts to heal from the tragic loss of their loved ones.

Showcasing the stories of three individuals who lost a loved one to homicide, the brief examines the harm caused by the false promises of closure that are associated with capital prosecutions, as well as the disregard and lack of respect they experienced at the hands of prosecution and law enforcement agencies when they expressed opposition to the execution of the person who murdered their family members. The homicides occurred three years, twenty-two years and thirty-four years ago and each of the subjects described the harm and suffering caused by the capital punishment judgments handed down in these cases. Citing the lengthy delays associated with the cases, causing them to relive the trauma associated with the loss of the victim, these three people described the torturous nature of having to go to court again and again, the anguish associated with their role in proceedings that could result in the execution of another human being, and the failure of capital punishment to achieve any of its stated goals of deterrence and retribution. As stated so clearly in the brief’s argument, the death penalty cannot be justified as a means of obtaining closure; the length of the appeals process exacts a toll on victims’ families; and imposition of the death penalty can exacerbate the difficulty of healing from the trauma of losing someone to murder. These facts, taken together with data establishing the costly and ineffective practice of capital punishment, present a powerful exposition on why the death penalty in California and throughout the country should be abolished without delay. Those on whose behalf the MVFR/CCV amicus brief was filed hope that their voices are heard and recognized as a critical part of the calculus that must be made in deciding the outcome in Jones v. Davis.

The amicus brief filed by MVFR/CCV is below: