Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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 ...
Gov. Gavin Newsom announcing a moratorium on the death penalty on March 13, 2019 in Sacramento, California. (Getty Images) “Our death penalty system has been, by all measures, a failure ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
Proposition 66 was a California ballot proposition on the November 8, 2016, ballot to change procedures governing California state court challenges to capital punishment in California, designate superior court for initial petitions, limit successive petitions, require appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty ...
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.'