California Governor Gavin Newsom has made a significant announcement just as he nears the conclusion of his eight-year tenure. On November 5, he declared that he will grant clemency to all death row inmates in the state.
In his statement, Newsom noted that California currently has 548 individuals on death row. He has decided to exercise his executive clemency power to modify the sentences of all those awaiting execution, converting their death sentences to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
In an open letter to California residents explaining his decision, Newsom wrote, “Today’s decision is made after nearly 30 years of my public opposition to the death penalty by the government. Soon after I took office as Governor on March 13, 2019, I announced a moratorium on the death penalty.”
Newsom emphasized that death row inmates have caused unimaginable pain to victims, victims’ families, communities, and the entire state. Many Californians believe that those who have committed the “most heinous” crimes should not be afforded clemency.
“However, as Governor, I believe that the state should not kill these individuals in the name of morality,” he stated. He also pointed out that the current death penalty system cannot be executed fairly, leading to his decision to commute death sentences so that these offenders will spend the rest of their lives in prison.
On October 25, the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) publicly opposed Newsom’s blanket commutation of death sentences. Prosecutors argued that such a move disregards the judgments made by juries and judges in individual cases, and fails to adequately consider the suffering that victims’ families have endured over the years.
On October 23, Dan Dow, the District Attorney of San Luis Obispo County, wrote a letter to Newsom urging him not to pursue a “one-size-fits-all” commutation policy.
Dow asserted, “A blanket reduction of sentences is an insult to the victims of every murder case involving special circumstances and their families.”
He emphasized the rigor of the legal processes involved in imposing the death penalty in California. Defendants must first be found guilty of first-degree murder, with juries also having to find at least one special circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.
Subsequently, courts conduct separate sentencing hearings where juries weigh aggravating and mitigating evidence before deciding on a death penalty. This sentence must then be reviewed by a trial judge, followed by an automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court.
Dow stressed that these cases involve varying circumstances of crime, backgrounds of defendants, and experiences of victims. He argued that it is fundamentally unjust to override hundreds of meticulously adjudicated death sentences solely through a directive from the Governor without case-by-case evaluations.
Opponents of the blanket commutation also highlighted that many death row cases involve serious crimes, including kidnapping, rape, and the murder of children, which may be intolerable for victims’ families to bear if the punishment is shifted from death penalty to life in prison.
In a statement, Dow’s office cited two specific death row cases to illustrate the potential impact of a blanket reduction in sentences. One case involves Rex Allan Krebs, a habitual offender with a lengthy record of violent crimes. In 1984, he was sentenced for grand theft in Idaho, and by 1987 he faced convictions including rape and first-degree burglary in San Luis Obispo County, which resulted in severe bodily harm to others. After being released on parole in 1997, Krebs kidnapped, raped, and murdered a California Polytechnic State University student in 1998, and then kidnapped, raped, and killed a 20-year-old Cuesta College student in 1999. In both murder cases, he was sentenced to death, and the California Supreme Court upheld these convictions in 2019.
Another case involves Michael Whisenhunt, who had also been imprisoned for violent crimes and firearm offenses. In 1995, he tortured and murdered a 19-month-old infant. The jury found that this murder involved aggravating circumstances of torture, leading to a death sentence that was upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2008.
Prosecutors indicated that the distress of victims and their families must not be overlooked during the commutation process. They argued that the Governor should consider each clemency application based on specific case details and notify local prosecutors and victims’ families accordingly.
The current list of death row inmates in California reveals a total of 548 individuals. While some of the commutation decisions can be directly approved by Newsom, over sixty percent of cases involve defendants convicted of multiple serious crimes, requiring review by the California Supreme Court to complete the commutation process.
Newsom also clarified in his open letter that those receiving clemency will not gain opportunities for parole due to the change in their sentencing; instead, they will serve life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This marks the largest single commutation of death row inmates in U.S. history.
California voters have previously supported the preservation of the death penalty through multiple ballots. In his letter, Newsom acknowledged that this commutation will not abolish the death penalty, but will only apply to all current death row inmates in California.
On the same day, Nathan J. Hochman, the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, issued a statement noting that California voters have twice chosen through ballot measures to retain the death penalty for the most severe crimes. Until there are any legal revisions, his office will continue to rigorously evaluate every death penalty case.
He remarked, “Today, my foremost concern is for the families of the victims. They deserve to be treated fairly, and our judicial system must operate within the law, ensuring that every case undergoes a just and legal process.”
This monumental decision, which impacts 548 death row inmates and numerous victims’ families, will undoubtedly invite further scrutiny and discussion over its implementation in the coming months.