Most of us feel strongly about capital punishment, either one way or the other. Where do I stand? I’m not “pro-capital punishment,” but I’m also not “anti-capital punishment.”
I’m for respecting the will of the public by following the laws they enact. For those who believe life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) is a just punishment for heinous murderers on death row—like Isauro Aguirre, who intentionally tortured and murdered 8-year-old Gabriel Fernandez—my concern lies with the California Legislature.
LWOP may not mean LWOP years from now. The Legislature can, at some point, try to pass legislation to allow people sentenced to LWOP from a death sentence to actually get a chance at parole. That isn’t closure or justice. The Legislature has already done that in California for some LWOP cases and they will continue to do so.
When 12 jurors from the community sit on a capital case, they have to decide if they are going to sentence a person to LWOP or death. That is a terrible weight. That is a decision every juror will have to live with for the rest of their life.
A prosecutor who handles a capital case will have to live with that case for the remainder of their life. I certainly do. The judge who sentences someone to death will have to live with that for the rest of their life. It is as serious as it gets. It should never be taken lightly.
That being said, California voters rejected efforts to repeal capital punishment in 2012 (Proposition 34) and again in 2016 (Proposition 62), when they also approved Proposition 66 to speed up the process.
With these votes, the option of capital punishment is the will of the voters and the law in California. Despite what ideologues claim, the death penalty in California can only be considered for first-degree murder with a special circumstance. The worst of the worst.
I believe every case is unique, and the decision to pursue the death penalty or not cannot be made wholesale or by just one person if we respect the law and the will of the public. Every case should be filed based upon the law and the evidence. The most heinous crimes require the most serious punishment.
If a person intentionally murders a child by torturing them to death, or sexually molests and then murders a child, or goes into a school, synagogue, mosque or church and commits mass murder, or intentionally kills an on-duty police officer, and there is clear evidence beyond all doubt, capital punishment should be an option.
The process to pursue the death penalty is, as it should be, an onerous one. As in Gabriel’s case, the matter first went through a grand jury, followed by a rigorous special circumstances committee of experienced deputy district attorneys. Both the prosecution and the defense presented evidence, including mitigating factors, before the committee decided to seek capital punishment. The case then went to trial, where all 12 jurors convicted the accused. In a second trial, they unanimously agreed to death as the punishment. Judge Lomeli then agreed, after all motions and arguments, to sentence the defendant to death.
To be clear, there is a separate jury trial for punishment versus guilt. The jury must return two verdicts. That is, the jury can, even after a defendant is found guilty of murder with special circumstances, opt to not apply the death penalty.
No matter what the punishment is, no one can bring back a murder victim. However, that is not our charge as prosecutors. Our charge is to pursue justice. Capital punishment is to say to the entire community that the worst crimes deserve the most serious punishment. It is to say to everyone, in those limited cases, that if you brutally murder a police officer, torture a child to death, rape and murder a child or commit mass murder, you will risk losing your life by facing the most serious punishment available under the law.
Still, this is only after a rigorous process and a jury of 12, after hearing all the evidence, unanimously agrees to a death sentence.
People can disagree and we should have healthy debates. But it shouldn’t be up to the governor, one person who was not involved in any part of the process, to make the law or simply override the entire process because of his morals, his beliefs or his limited discussions with others.
No one can bring back Gabriel. But we, as a community, should make victims and their surviving families as whole as they can be, and bring justice to those who seek to murder our children and destroy our communities and way of life. That is called leadership. Our community deserves that. We all do.
Gabriel mattered! All victims do.
Jonathan Amir Hatami serves as a deputy district attorney in the complex child abuse section of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. The views expressed are his own.