The case for ending the death penalty

I used to be in favor of the death penalty. It wasn’t something I gave a lot of thought to, but I supported capital punishment. 

Then, last year, I was selected as a juror for a case involving a double homicide, and by the end of the trial, it became disturbingly clear just how easily an innocent person might be failed by our justice system.

At the start of the trial, the prosecutor declared that the defendant’s DNA was found on one of the victim’s fingernails. “Oh, good,” I thought, “An open and shut case.” But three weeks later, not only did I feel the state had not met their burden of proof, I was wholeheartedly convinced that the defendant had nothing to do with the crime.

Here’s why.

{mosads}The defense claimed that the defendant knew the victims well and was in close contact with them prior to the crime, explaining why some of the defendant’s DNA might be on one of the victims’ fingernails. The prosecution on the other hand, claimed the defendant did not know the victims as well as he claimed, and they spent the first three days of the trial questioning witnesses who backed up this assertion.

But then, it happened. One of the state’s own witnesses admitted the defendant did know the victims well, describing that he was like family. This one witness had completely invalidated three days worth of prosecution testimony.

At this point the prosecution switched tactics, focusing on their most damning evidence, the DNA. The prosecution claimed the only way the defendant’s DNA could have ended up on the victim’s fingernail was if she scratched him in the fight leading up to her death. But as expert witnesses on both sides testified, transference of DNA is extremely common. Especially considering the defendant had long hair and it was said by multiple witnesses, that the victim used to love scratching the defendant’s head. 

And that was it. No motive. No real evidence beyond a partial DNA match. I was shocked that this case had even made it to trial.

When we were told to adjourn to the deliberation room, I once again thought this would be open and shut. We were clearly obligated to find the defendant ‘not guilty.’ To my surprise, not everyone on the jury felt the same. In fact, we were perfectly split down the middle. Juror Number Four even went so far as to say she believed the defendant was guilty just because he never made eye contact with her. I was appalled.

After three days of deliberation, we were finally able to find the defendant ‘not guilty.’ But what’s horrifying is that the verdict just as easily could have gone the other way, sending an innocent person to prison – and potentially death row – for a crime he did not commit.

The good news is that we can ensure we never execute an innocent person.

This November, California voters will have the opportunity to vote “Yes” on Prop 62 to replace California’s failed death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole. California’s death penalty currently costs taxpayers an additional $150 million per year. It makes no sense financially, and with the very real possibility of executing someone for a crime they did not commit, it makes no morally.

Please join me in voting “Yes” on Prop 62 on November 8th.

Love is a writer and concerned California taxpayer living in Sherman Oaks.

The views expressed by Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.