Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On April 24, 1972, the Supreme Court of California ruled in People v. Anderson that the state's current death penalty laws were unconstitutional. Justice Marshall F. McComb was the lone dissenter, arguing that the death penalty deterred crime, noting numerous Supreme Court precedents upholding the death penalty's constitutionality, and stating that the legislative and initiative processes were ...
Proposition 17 of 1972 was a measure enacted by California voters to reintroduce the death penalty in that state. The California Supreme Court had ruled on February 17, 1972, that capital punishment was contrary to the state constitution. Proposition 17 amended the Constitution of California in order to overturn that
Abolition of the death penalty through California Proposition 34, 2012 was rejected by 52% of voters. [5] The path to the ballot started when Mike Farrell, an American actor and activist, wrote a title and ballot summary on September 15, 2015. A title and summary was then issued by California attorney general's office on November 19, 2015. For ...
California hasn’t executed a condemned prisoner in nearly 20 years, but prosecutors continue to seek the death penalty, leading to court costs of more than $300 million in the last five years ...
The lawsuit says California’s death penalty violates the state constitution’s equal protection guarantees because courts and prosecutors apply it in a racially-biased way, according to a news ...
One looked at more than 55,000 homicide cases in California between 1979 and 2018 and found that Black individuals were more than twice as likely to receive a death sentence as white individuals ...
It would also mean that if any person was ever charged with a murder committed in California before 1972, the death penalty could not be imposed. The United States Supreme Court in Aikens v. California , 406 U.S. 813 (1972) denied an appeal of a death sentence because:
A new state report concludes that the death penalty is 'imposed so arbitrarily — and in such a discriminatory fashion — that it cannot be called rational, fair, or constitutional.'