OpinionEditorial
Editorial

Kamala Harris' decision to defend the death penalty is the right one

Courts and the JudiciaryLaws and LegislationMarriageSame-Sex MarriageKamala D. HarrisProposition 8 (California, 2010)
Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris' decision to defend the death penalty, despite her opposition to it, is the right one

State Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris' decision to appeal a federal district court ruling that found the death penalty in California unconstitutional is a welcome example of putting professional responsibility over personal politics: Harris opposes the death penalty and now will be defending it before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. We commend her professionalism and hope she loses.

Harris' decision should not be confused with an act of political courage. Although public support for the death penalty has declined markedly over the last decade, a majority of Americans still favor it, and Harris can only benefit by being seen as someone willing to overcome her personal objections to enforce a popular law. Nor is her move a model of consistency: She now argues that her professional duty requires her to defend state law, but both Harris and Gov. Jerry Brown refused to stand behind Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, arguing in part that once a district court had found the measure violated the U.S. Constitution, they had no obligation to defend it further.

That decision had real consequences. Last year, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to gay marriage in California because it concluded that the supporters of the proposition lacked standing to defend it before the court. That produced a happy result — gay marriage resumed in the state — but one that was hardly satisfying in legal terms. The measure died only for lack of a defender, not because the court reached the serious constitutional questions at the heart of it.

The two cases are not identical. Efforts to ban gay marriage confronted — and continue to confront — a chorus of constitutional objections, while the death penalty case rests on the notion that delays in executions by themselves create a cruel or unusual circumstance, a position the U.S. Supreme Court has never accepted. Yet Harris' response to the two cases suggests a willingness to pick and choose the limits of professional obligation.

Still, consistency is not the only virtue in politics, and here Harris' sense of professional duty — with a dash of political expediency mixed in — has led her to the right conclusion. Capital punishment is a moral and legal abomination, and its demise cannot come too quickly for this state or the rest of the nation. But it should not end because California's top lawyer refused to defend it. It has long been the law of California, and it has many supporters. Harris and her office are right to vigorously represent that law and those constituents, even in a cause that she does not embrace.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
Courts and the JudiciaryLaws and LegislationMarriageSame-Sex MarriageKamala D. HarrisProposition 8 (California, 2010)
  • Executions should not be run by trial and error
    Executions should not be run by trial and error

    For the third time this year, state executioners administering a lethal injection to a condemned man have botched it. This time it happened in Arizona, where it took nearly two hours Wednesday to kill convicted murderer Joseph Wood using the same two-drug protocol involved in Ohio's...

  • Los Angeles leaves the flat-roof society
    Los Angeles leaves the flat-roof society

    Think of the nation’s most impressive skylines. New York City has Art Deco points atop the Empire State and Chrysler buildings and the spire capping the new One World Trade Center tower. Besides the soaring Willis Tower (formerly known as the Sears tower), Chicago’s skyscrapers...

  • Parsing the Forest Service's (bad) proposed photo regulations
    Parsing the Forest Service's (bad) proposed photo regulations

    Early last month the U.S. Forest Service posted a proposed regulation that seemed to set the stage for government control of journalists’ access to public lands, with the added insult of wanting to charge hikers for photographing or filming their experiences in public wilderness areas.

  • Why so many injury claims from L.A. public safety workers?
    Why so many injury claims from L.A. public safety workers?

    Los Angeles' police and firefighters take paid injury leave at significantly higher rates than public safety employees elsewhere in California. Why? Is it more strenuous or stressful to work in the city of Los Angeles, compared with L.A. County or Long Beach? Does the city have an older...

  • Obama's mixed messages on war
    Obama's mixed messages on war

    It's funny how President Obama is always talking about "I" and "me" whenever it makes him look good, but suddenly it's "they" and "we" when mistakes are made.

  • How to kill hotel jobs in L.A.
    How to kill hotel jobs in L.A.

    Last week, members of the Los Angeles City Council voted to increase the minimum wage for hotel workers within the city to $15.37 per hour by next year. Why? You'd have to ask them.

  • Cruel and usual punishment in jails and prisons
    Cruel and usual punishment in jails and prisons

    The 8th Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. Yet it happens every day in prisons across the country. Putting aside capital punishment, which I would argue is cruel and unusual on its face, Americans are ignoring a host of horrific conditions that inmates are subjected to. This is not...

  • Gavin Newsom for lieutenant governor
    Gavin Newsom for lieutenant governor

    The most important responsibility of California's lieutenant governor is simply to be there, to wait around just in case the governor should die, resign or become incapacitated.

Comments
Loading