In 2003, Kamala D. Harris ran for the San Francisco District Attorney position and promised never to seek the death penalty. Shortly after her election, she kept her promise, deciding not to seek the death penalty in a high profile case involving the murder of a police officer, Isaac Espinoza. Instead, she sought and received a life without parole sentence for killer, David Hill.
This November, Harris is seeking re-election. Once again, she is promising not to seek a death sentence in any case that crosses her desk. Harris is instead running on a platform that involves balancing prosecutions of violent crimes with rehabilitation for lesser offenders. She is unopposed. The citizens of San Francisco have learned that they can live without the death penalty, despite the fact that California has the largest death row in the country.
Here, in King County, a new prosecutor will be elected in November. Unfortunately, both candidates support the death penalty although they each promise to be careful in deciding who should live and who should die.
This election could have been an opportunity for a candidate to step up and promise to take the money used to seek the execution of a fellow human being and use it instead for crime prevention efforts and to assist the family of victims of violent crime. This election could have been an opportunity to explain why not seeking the death penalty is good public policy and the only decent way to administer justice.
Perhaps, the candidates felt that the public would not support such a position. If so, they should have looked to San Francisco DA Harris. She could have told them that the people will support a true leader.
This November, Harris is seeking re-election. Once again, she is promising not to seek a death sentence in any case that crosses her desk. Harris is instead running on a platform that involves balancing prosecutions of violent crimes with rehabilitation for lesser offenders. She is unopposed. The citizens of San Francisco have learned that they can live without the death penalty, despite the fact that California has the largest death row in the country.
Here, in King County, a new prosecutor will be elected in November. Unfortunately, both candidates support the death penalty although they each promise to be careful in deciding who should live and who should die.
This election could have been an opportunity for a candidate to step up and promise to take the money used to seek the execution of a fellow human being and use it instead for crime prevention efforts and to assist the family of victims of violent crime. This election could have been an opportunity to explain why not seeking the death penalty is good public policy and the only decent way to administer justice.
Perhaps, the candidates felt that the public would not support such a position. If so, they should have looked to San Francisco DA Harris. She could have told them that the people will support a true leader.
