Skip to main content

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

tv   [untitled]    May 8, 2012 3:30am-4:00am PDT

3:30 am
of a conviction, will you take action against this? >> we are aware that we're looking at many cases -- with the first homicide -- homicide conviction for this case that was over 20 years old at the office was working on for over one year. and we have the prosecutorial problems in this case. it appears that this was possibly prompted by the police. we believe that this evidence was material, and we decided to read prosecute the case. we have an integrity and it today, and we're looking at a series of cases and convictions. the answer is that i will hold those individuals accountable,
3:31 am
and if there is a case to be prosecuted i would do so. as far as the prosecutor is concerned, if i find that he withheld information intentionally, we will assess a fee should be prosecuted. if we have police officers committing perjury, we will review these cases. we have a number of cases that have been presented, and we're trying to assess the actual occurrence on the basis. the only way the system can work well as if we all play by the rules. >> i agree. >> i want to get the other panelists into the conversation. >> in my particular case, each one of us was put on death row. and right now, you have 135
3:32 am
people have been exonerated from death row. what would be the charge? at of the 138 who were prosecuted, 45 or 40-45 of them was for prosecution misconduct. i am just wondering, since he said that he would prosecute, he would prosecute on what level? >> i do not know the facts behind those cases. >> this is a person who was innocent, but they withheld the evidence to prosecute him on death row. well with the deficit -- will they be charged with? >> we would look for a level of intent and knowledge of the prosecutor had at the time and we would make an assessment. >> with a charge them for murder? >> attempted murder?
3:33 am
>> i do not know that there would be an answer i could give to you. i do not know the circumstances. >> just one more simple question. >> i have a question. you mentioned that there were 40 instances of people who were exonerated because of misconduct by prosecutors. have any of those people been prosecuted? the district attorney has been prosecuted? >> their work -- there was one in louisiana, roger jordan. >> let me try to get the other panelists into the conversation. you were a former warden of san quentin. i wonder if you could share with us your experience at having actually conducted executions? you saw the word from mississippi said that this had a
3:34 am
personal effect on him and i wonder if you can address the issue that comes up with the victim's family often get satisfaction of some kind -- some relief because of the person that they understand has committed the crime and they are finally put to death. can you remark on this? >> let me say, i agree with everything that they have talked about. i cannot really speak for the families of the victims, only what i have observed to the execution process. this has an impact on everyone who is involved, including the staff. and of course the inmates' families. and the people who show up to watch this. and the whole show of people who are there for this. you cannot walk away from this without having been impacted.
3:35 am
i want to talk about the war and has said, that these executions have been 7-10 years after the crime and we're not executing the same person. in california, everyone who has been executed has been 20 years after the crime and you are not executing the same person. people do change. from my observation of the victims' family members, and nothing that there is anything that execution can do for them. i think they come there with high hopes that they will somehow feel better, and that they will somehow be able to close this event, and you just -- it just does not happen. these are horrifying crimes. my heart goes out -- out to the victims' families. >> would you say that the instances -- instances of the
3:36 am
executions, or any of these meritorious? did you see someone put to death that he thought was innocent? >> not in the cases that i dealt with. the things i oversaw, and guilt or innocence was not a question. in one case, it was the intention and not whether they were innocent or guilty of the crime. >> nevertheless, you arrive with the same feelings that the man from mississippi talked about, having gone through this process. >> i arrive at the same conclusion. i started at san quentin in 1978, after graduating. i went there, a small number of us had college degrees. the old guard would say, everyone will tell you that they're innocent.
3:37 am
and in my 26 years, i never had anyone say that they were innocent. including the jewish chaplains clerk. i think 17 or 18 years -- he wasn't tolerated. santa then you learn that many more innocent people have been found around the country, and this really should cause all of us to rethink in criminal justice what we think that we know. there is science out there that is not known to us that will prove that we have been wrong about many things. the death penalty is still final. this man is trying to struggle with the fact that he probably executed an innocent person. we should not ask this of anyone in our society. [applause] >> i want to say one other
3:38 am
thing. how have your former colleagues handled your conversion on this issue? has this been greeted with support? >> i have received much support, and nothing that has been negative. having spent 30 years in criminal justice, it is interesting to me that within the members of the criminal- justice field, people who are involved in this, is there a difference with the views in many different issues. many people are against putting 17 year old kids inside of the state prisons, giving life without the possibility of parole. there is this public face that law enforcement puts on these issues and it appears that we all have to speak with the same voice. i hope that myself and the warden in the movie and other people across the country to talk about these issues are
3:39 am
going to break this. everyone of these issues that we deal with, if this is three strikes were sending the it to prison without a lot -- without the possibility of parole, this deserves a lot of debate. law enforcement should speak from their own personal point of view, more than they do today. >> you are the policy director on the death penalty for the aclu in northern california. can you share with us how the efforts are happening in the united states and whether there is a healthy effort in the state of california? >> this is a great time to work on the issue of the death penalty. every day we get closer and closer to ending the death penalty in california and across the country and indeed, across the world. several states have into the death penalty in the last four years.
3:40 am
most recently, the state of illinois into the death penalty in march of this year. [applause] we are now at the time when 16 states, puerto rico and the district of columbia do not have the death penalty. many more states are addressing this issue, connecticut and montana, colorado, kansas, these are all states that have had bills in their legislature to into the death penalty that have moved through least one house in some cases, both houses. connecticut passed a bill a couple of years ago to end the death penalty that was vetoed by the then republican governor who is no longer in office. this is for states in four years and we expect more on the way. >> this deserves applause. >> we're making progress in california. the statue was enacted by the
3:41 am
voters and it will take the voters working together to into the death penalty in california. this is a very daunting task. although the initial process gave people a voice in politics, this has turned into a situation where money has a voice in politics. this is going to be a challenge to raise the funds that we need to actually mount an initiative campaign with the death penalty, but we're getting closer and closer every day. the people of california are ready to end the death penalty. a couple of weeks ago we were able to do a poll on the question of the governor converting all of these 713 death sentences to life without possibility of parole, and a change would save the city california $1 billion in five years. 63% of the voters support this
3:42 am
idea across the entire state. every region of the state had a majority of support. a majority of republicans and democratic voters support this idea. 63%, ready for the governor to take everyone off of death row. this is an important change from where we used to be on this issue, because for a very long time, politicians have been afraid to talk about reasons for ending the death penalty and this has been seen -- been seen as an issue that would run political careers, as the former district attorney has shown, the death penalty is no longer of liability and the voters are ready for candidates who will say that we need smart criminal- justice policy, to keep the community safe and that will hold the offenders accountable, and that really meet the needs of all of california. the governor took a positive for step by canceling the project to build a new death row.
3:43 am
in his statement, the governor said that this is unconscionable, to spend money on death row inmates as we cut funding for the disabled. it is unconscionable to spend $1 on the death penalty at all when we are cutting a vital services in the state. if we cut the death penalty and save $1 billion, this money would be much better used on law enforcement and education. we need to keep working together to get this message to the governor, to ask him right now to take action to convert all of these death sentences. and we will build momentum and the support that we need to actually put this on the ballot and into the death penalty in california. this goes down to where we started this conversation, whether this attorney would pursue the death penalty.
3:44 am
the d.a. should not be asked to change between life -- choose between life and death. we are the voters to have to take responsibility and take this power away from them. >> are you aware of any other city other than san francisco, where an elected district attorney has announced that they will have a policy of not using the death penalty in a state where this is the law? >> i am not aware of any district attorney who has this explicit policy but we have had conversations with many different attorneys with problems with the death penalty, and we have seen in changing what they do, scaling back dramatically the number of death penalty prosecutions in california county and in other states.
3:45 am
and they have quietly abandoned the death penalty even though they have not explicitly said that this is what they are doing. >> do you feel that -- the district attorney that we have, gason, -- gaston, fits into this category? >> i will have to see what happens. >> i will go to john thompson. we were talking about how often, you have public opinion polls on the death penalty but the last -- the wrong question is asked, do you support the death penalty or something like that. can you elaborate on this? >> this is a tricky question that we have been tricked into believing, so that people say, do you support the death penalty. this is a trick question. you will not put yourself in
3:46 am
that position of being placed under arrest based on these reports. we ask you if you support this and eliminates you automatically. if you ask that same question in a different way, meaning the use of what the state killing you, that is the question. you have no control over the death penalty. he is the only one to make this decision. he is the only one -- he does not want to make the decision. this is a tricky question from the beginning. do we support the death penalty? we never placed ourselves in this position. do you give the state the right to kill you. this is the question and see what the response will be. >> let me ask him that question. do you support the death penalty, under what conditions do you want the state to be allowed to kill you if there was
3:47 am
a law enforcement officer trying to evaluate whether or not to seek the death penalty. >> many of us will not say that we want to stay to be able to kill us. i am not certain that this is the way the question needs to be framed. i think that mrs. woodruff -- they are embracing the point that has been discussed. these are very complex issues. i am not certain that modern society, that the state should have the power of life or death. i understand all the nuances as to why this is here, as well as why this should not be here. i do believe that because of the technology and what we know today, which is there a different from what we knew 20 years ago, increasingly we know
3:48 am
that there are cases of wrongful convictions. this should give all of us a reason to pause and think. and assess whether this is a valid tool in the criminal justice system. i do not think -- the question is about if you want to stay to be able to kill you. nobody will go out and say that they want people to kill them. but there is an inequity, especially in the way that the death penalty has been applied, that should give all of us a reason to talk about whether this is a practice we want to engage in. >> i asked that question. when i was contemplating is the idea that he brings up, which is, if you frame this from the point of view, under what conditions would you want to stay to be able to kill you, a
3:49 am
supporter of the death penalty may form an answer that says, if i were found guilty of a heinous murder, and i was done -- as was done in a certain mental state, and i created a certain amount of harm, you may go down the spaces. this was the spirit in which i presented this, asking it this way does cause a certain amount of recoil away from the question. none of us would want to be in this position. harris has come up as somebody -- and jerry brown was also the governor of the state of california, he was the attorney general and they have at times in the history when they were personally against the death penalty. when they ran for attorney general they both said that they would not interfere with the state law, and they would allow the death penalty to be carried out on their watch. this is correct?
3:50 am
in fairness, i will say that there were a lot of law enforcement officials the route the state of california that had severe reservations about supporting harris for attorney general because of the opposition to the death penalty in san francisco. but george defended her and actually supported her candidacy, and this was an important component of getting support from law enforcement for her. let me ask you this. when we spoke yesterday, as i heard his story i asked him, how did you survive death row? the mechanics of this. i asked about how much time in the yard that he got. i wonder if you could share with members of -- in the auditorium where your daily life was like on death row.
3:51 am
>> i cannot handle i was watching. this was death row in louisiana. you have three televisions on the wall, you were in your cell 23 hours per day, you get out for the shower or exercise, -- >> let me interrupt you to make this clear. you are completely alone, and the televisions are outside of the cell, or multiple inmates can be watching them? and they all may be on different channels? and you have to hear this even if you are not watching television? >> this is crazy. you have sought -- you have for televisions and four different channels, 15 people tried to talk at the same time. i was there was a mentally
3:52 am
disturbed people and they actually had to have shot to calm them down, whatever kinds of drugs that they give them to calm them down. you have to deal with all of this insanity. sometimes they would spread them with pepper spray to get them to take the shots. these kinds of situations, you could not get around and you could not deal with. by the same token, you say, why is that man on the death row with mental problems, you have to feed him medication every day just to keep him down. death row -- this is not the place where -- i don't understand why i am able to function in any capacity because of what had to go through on death row. i just count this as a lesson from god, to enable me to come
3:53 am
out here and tell my story to you, and i hope that we as a people can make a difference, to bring about change. and maybe this return will hear me some time. [applause] >>, the hours per day which allowed to go outside? >> 45 minutes. 15 minutes for the shower. >> was anyone else allowed? >> this is pretty much the same way. we would go into cages, like you would keep a wild animal. they take the shackles and allow you to do whatever exercise that he would do during that time. and then you go back to your
3:54 am
shop -- or sell and take a shower. >> i want to invite members of the public who are with us, the want to ask any of the palace questions. they are passing out some papers, so let me ask -- there is often an argument that is put out, that the death penalty can serve as a deterrent to crime, and i am wondering, if either of you think that this is a compelling argument and if this plays any role if you have opposition to the death penalty on moral or ethical basis. >> i do not know of any studies that show that the death penalty is a crime deterrent, for punishment to be returned this has to be swift, and this is not the case with the death penalty. there are many homicides to do not end with the district attorney is seeking the death penalty. this is a small percentage of
3:55 am
homicides where we seek the death penalty. this is a good thing but this does not deter people. it is so many years before this is carried out, if they carry this out at all. most of the inmates died through suicide or by old age. for those reasons, this is not a deterrent. >> f i was plotting the murder of my partner because the slept in this morning, i would not think about if i was going to get the death penalty or spend the rest of my life in prison. i would ask myself if i would get caught. in california, half of the people who commit murder are not caught. we need to catch the people committing murder. this is what she means when punishment must be firm, if people get away with murder,
3:56 am
they learn that they can and the community learns that they can. this is really the fundamental problem. we can do much better job if we were actually to replace the death penalty to life without parole and invest the money saved in solving homicides. every victim's family should have some justice. >> i wanted to ask you to perhaps tell the audience about the controversy related to the death qualified jury. many people did not realize that when we select a jury for the death penalty case, this is comprised of different members of the city. >> people look to california as we continue to send a lot of people to death row every year, with the highest number of new death sentences. people look at the state and they see how many people in
3:57 am
california are moving away from the death penalty, who favor replacing the death penalty and how can you have so many people voting for death sentences when the population is moving further away from the death penalty? those of us. support replacing the death penalty are not allowed to be on death penalty juries. the process is complicated but the prosecutor and the defense attorney goes through a long selection process when they ask everyone their view of the death penalty. and if you are willing to vote for death. anyone who hesitates is actually removed from serving on the jury. i have never been called for this kind of jury service but i have spoken to people who have been, and they share their experience and how this is very upsetting. and this is very traumatizing to have the judge look at you to say that you are not qualified.
3:58 am
you cannot serve on this jury because of your view of the death penalty. this is what we are doing. 40% of these people are not eligible. they actively seek death sentences from time to time. 40% of them are excused because they will not impose the death penalty. this is not fair to members of the community who are called for jury service to should have a fair opportunity to serve, and people are empowered to choose life and death but they are not a fair cross-section of the community and do not represent the views of californians and you will not be surprised to hear that they kill in the direction of white voters and african american voters -- these women are most likely excluded
3:59 am
because they are in opposition to the death penalty. this is not a fair system. when justice stevens step down from the supreme court, he expressed his opposition. he said this process has made the death penalty fundamentally unfair. >> i will let you answer these in order. can you share any sense that you have a death sentence -- that the death sentence inmates were for themselves as human beings? and how could you bear to preside over an execution and how would you handle this? please describe a situation where you would bring so many charges against a prosecutor for job-related conduct?