Advertisement

Second Opinion / OTHER MEDIA : LOS ANGELES SENTINEL : Garcetti’s No-Death Decision in ‘Best Interests of His Office’

Share
<i> The Sentinel is an African American weekly published on Thursdays</i>

There are many people in the Southland, and, indeed, the nation, who are pleased that the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office has elected not to seek the death penalty in the double murder case involving O.J. Simpson.

And, there are a goodly number of people who are upset with the decision, announced last week by Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti. The district attorney, they say, just wimped out to the black leaders who urged Garcetti not to “go that way.” In this respect, the operative word is that Garcetti “elected” not to go that way for several very practical reasons.

First, Garcetti heads a district attorney’s office that has a mediocre conviction rate in high profile cases. Being a politician up for reelection in two years, he wants this one very badly.

Advertisement

Past history also has something to do with his decision. Garcetti can remember that it was the black vote that was credited with sweeping his former boss, Ira Reiner, into office in 1984, keeping him there in 1988, and helping him hasten his decision to throw in the towel in 1992. Virtually all of the black community is galvanized around Simpson for one reason or another. Why take a chance on ticking off a potentially potent voting bloc by going for the death penalty?

Another reason Garcetti is stepping back from seeking lethal injection or the gas chamber is because juries have traditionally not opted to convict popular defendants in capital cases or defendants alleged to have committed “crimes of passion.”

Thus, by lowering the stakes Garcetti raises his chances of conviction.

Understanding how this decision may sit with women and women’s rights activists and organizations, we categorically reject the notion that failing to go for the death penalty is waffling on the issue of spousal abuse. These are separate issues.

We believe that Garcetti’s decision was a prudent one in the best interests of his office and administration of justice.

Advertisement