Ignoring survey on death penalty

Re “Death penalty survey spurned,” Feb. 20

The reaction of most of the state’s district attorneys would lead one to think that the author of the survey was some knee-jerk, limousine liberal wing-nut. No, it was the citadel of conservatism, Pepperdine University.

If the people of California are not permitted any transparency in the choice of death penalty targets, how can we know that the process is legal? One must now presume it is riddled with prejudice, discrimination, racial overtones and unrestrained political ambition. Why else would the district attorneys blatantly hide their most important public assignment?

I once supported the death penalty as the only response to the most hideous crimes. Recently, I have had many doubts about the constitutionality of the administration of the death penalty. My most sinister suspicions have now been validated, and so I will fight against the death penalty with the few rights I still retain.

Joan Bien

Moorpark

--

Proponents and opponents of the death penalty should be equally dismayed over the refusal of many California district attorneys to respond to the survey regarding criteria for selecting cases in which to seek the death penalty. Clear and consistent criteria clearly and consistently applied for death penalty cases is a matter of public policy and should be a matter of public knowledge.

District attorneys are our public servants and should be accountable not only for what they do but how they do it. If survey results show a lack of clarity and consistency, such results undermine the fairness of capital punishment from the outset. If the results demonstrate clarity and consistency, such results support the existing policy.

Given that prosecutors and defense attorneys alike say the current death penalty system is dysfunctional, the more transparency, the better the ability to understand and to change, whether that means fixing the death penalty system or abolishing it.

John W. Tulac

Claremont

The writer is an attorney.