Tough on Crime

Conventional wisdom has always been that support for the death penalty is a prerequisite for attaining public office, particularly in California, which has the largest death row in the country.  Since at least 1986, when Chief Justice Rose Bird (appointed by Jerry Brown) and two fellow justices were voted off the bench after a vitriolic campaign that focused on their death penalty reversals, successful politicians have relied on enthusiasm for the death penalty as shorthand for their "tough on crime" bonafides.  Yesterday’s election results undermine this long-held assumption.  The California Democratic Party for the first time included in its party platform a plank supporting abolition of the death penalty, which declares that Democrats will "replace the death penalty with a term of permanent incarceration, which will serve to protect the public, provide swift and certain justice for victims' families, and save the state an estimated $1 billion over the next five years."  Democratic candidates, including Jerry Brown (Governor) and Gavin Newsom (Lt. Gov.) as well as those down the ticket, are all personally opposed to the death penalty yet they all won.  Most notably, S.F. District Attorney Kamala Harris remains ahead in a very close race for Attorney General against "law and order" L.A. District Attorney Steve Cooley.  Cooley's main line of attack against Harris was her refusal to pursue the death penalty for the killer of a San Francisco policeman, and the Republican State Leadership Committee used $1.6 million for ads attacking Harris's opposition to the death penalty.  The attempt to paint Harris as soft on crime, however, didn't work.  Harris has maintained that she will uphold the law if elected, but she has unapologetically maintained that the death penalty is flawed.  She believes that life without possibility of parole is more efficient and cost effective.  (A recent study by California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice estimated that the death penalty conservatively costs $137 million per year).  She has skillfully argued that the death penalty has not made us safer and that the money spent every year on the death penalty could be far more productively used to put more cops on the street and to fund programs which aim to stop recidivism. This genuine tough on crime stance is a principled position and a political winner. 
[Related posts: Banality of Evil, Drug Problem]