Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

California’s death row, which is the largest in the nation, has run out of room. In a plea to the legislature, Governor Jerry Brown has asked for $3.8 million to provide 100 additional cells to contain the influx of death row inmates. However, Governor Brown has chosen to ignore the root of the issue in light of just throwing money at the problem.

Regardless of whether you support or oppose capital punishment, the fact remains that opening 100 cells will only temporarily relieve our death row woes, rather than eliminating them entirely. Faced with this problem, two options must be considered: either abolishing the death penalty and removing the need for a death row and specialized facilities, or a streamlining of our current system.

When faced with the decision of rather or not to keep the death penalty, many concerns arise on both sides. Opponents claim it constitutes an eye for an eye, and there are numerous cases of innocent people being wrongly condemned. Proponents argue that it serves as an effective deterrent against violent crime and may be more cost-effective than a sentence of life without parole.

Possible moral dilemma aside, the fact remains that Proposition 34, which aimed to eliminate the death penalty in California, was defeated by voters in 2012. Regardless of morality, democracy is democracy, and the last thing we want is a failure to follow the desires of voters in the higher echelons of government, lest our leaders become tyrants. Since a majority of California voters do support capital punishment, our focus should be on fixing our mismanaged death row, rather than eliminating it in the face of a majority.

Ever since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, the state has spent approximately $4 billion in death row upkeep. Condemned prisoners need special cells and special guards, and the lengthy appeals process that comes with a death sentence often keeps prisoners in limbo for years on end. To look at it another way, we have spent $308 million per prisoner executed, and only 13 people have been executed since 1978. Furthermore, a ruling that the current lethal injection protocol was unconstitutional has put a moratorium on all executions since 2006. In fact, 11 more prisoners on California death row have committed suicide than have been executed since 1978, highlighting the inefficient, arbitrary nature of California’s death row.

Unless the promised punishment is carried out, death row will fail to serve as a deterrent in our corrections system. While it is macabre to discuss, an integral part of having a death row is performing actual executions. Furthermore, the selection process for executions at time of writing is wholly arbitrary, keeping the condemned in a cruel limbo where they never know whether or not they will be chosen for the next execution, should it ever come. This waiting game is tantamount to torture, which violates the federal Constitution and serves no punitive purpose. Likewise, a failure to carry out capital punishment, which is desired by a majority of voters, is failing to heed the desires of the voting public.

The other main hurdle facing lawmakers is how to carry out actual executions after the current three-drug lethal injection protocol was deemed cruel in 2006. Since then, the state’s hands have been tied, as there currently is no set execution protocol in place. Rather than getting into gory detail, I would like to point out that other methods of execution do exist, and these should be explored in the face of overcrowding in lieu of the nothingness the state has adopted since 2006. While a repugnant task, this is something that has to be carried out if our death row system is to stay in place, or else death row will have to expand ad infinitum.

In addition, the appeals process for the condemned needs to be streamlined. The Constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial, and oftentimes the appeals process can be more cruel than waiting for a day of execution. In fact, the lengthy appeals process and the arbitrary nature of which condemned prisoners are selected was ruled unconstitutional in 2014. Instead of putting money into expansion, why not instead use additional capital to open more courthouses? That way, there would be less prisoners existing in a flux on death row, waiting for their appeals to finish. Once they exhaust their appeals or waive their right to continue, the sentence should then be carried out.

With any “hot button” issue, there is undoubtedly passionate discourse from both sides of the argument, and capital punishment is certainly no exception. Regardless of rather you are for or against the death penalty, the fact remains that we live in a democracy, and the majority has ruled that the death penalty should exist in California. Now is not the time for beating around the bush, now is the time for action, and to make death row viable in California a total overhaul is needed, not a delaying tactic of adding 100 additional cells. As of now, the addition of cells won’t even guarantee that any sentences will be carried out, as the Department of Corrections has no viable plan for eliminating death row overcrowding long term, and a failure to plan is a plan to fail.