The death penalty is a hotly debated issue. In the article "Death penalty criteria must be transparent" (Viewpoints, July 2), Carol Chase and Chris Chambers Goodman say the criteria district attorneys use to charge the death penalty should be more transparent. They erroneously leap to the conclusion that the decision-making process is flawed based on limited responses to a survey.
Actually, there are no more transparent criteria than those district attorneys must use to decide whether to seek the ultimate penalty. Regardless of personal opinion, a DA is duty-bound to follow the law when deciding whether to seek the death penalty.
The California Penal Code states that only murders with listed "special circumstances" are eligible for the death penalty. It is reserved for the most brutal and premeditated killings, such as Richard Davis' murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas or Scott Peterson's murder of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son.
It might be surprising to learn that from 1996 to 2005, prosecutors statewide sought death in only 2.1 percent of all filed murder cases. Likewise, according to statistics published in The Bee, Los Angeles County had 10,116 murders from 1998 to 2007, yet only 72 of these cases included a death verdict.
The decision whether to seek death is the most serious decision a district attorney makes. It is often made months after the crime so the DA can thoroughly review evidence, obtain input from family members and receive mitigating evidence from the defense.
Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury, which then hears additional evidence from both sides before making a separate, unanimous decision whether the death penalty is appropriate. The judge then still has discretion to overturn the death verdict.
Next, the case is reviewed by the California Supreme Court, federal courts and finally the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 30-year history of California's death penalty law, no court has ever found that a prosecutor sought the death penalty for an improper motive.
District attorneys are elected and accountable to their constituents, so ultimately each county's citizens determine whether they believe their district attorneys fairly administer the death penalty.
We will undoubtedly continue to have a debate on whether the death penalty should be the law in California. However, until voters decide otherwise, it is the law, and the district attorneys' decision-making process whether to seek the death penalty will remain the most transparent and scrutinized process in our criminal justice system.
Gary Lieberstein is president of the California District Attorneys Association and Napa County district attorney. Jan Scully is Sacramento County district attorney and a past president of the California District Attorneys Association.
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.