I’ve got to admit, I am somewhat impressed with new Los
Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley so far. First, there is his flexible approach toward the three strikes
law so we won’t have people convicted of stealing a piece of pizza for their
third strike being sentenced to 25 years to life.
More recently, Mr. Cooley revised his policy for those
accused of felonies who decide to flee the country. There is an important distinction between the manner in which he
is handling these cases versus the approach of his predecessor Gil
Garcetti.
When an individual is charged with a felony that can lead to
the death penalty some take refuge in a country that does not believe in the
death penalty and will not extradite people to countries or states that impose
the death penalty. The individual knows he will never be returned to California
and will generally, end up with a much lighter sentence if sent to trial in the
country to which he fled.
With the Cooley administration, the policy they are
promulgating would allow the District Attorney’s office to inform the country
harboring the fugitive that the death penalty will not be sought in the
particular case in question. This would
clear the way for extradition from anti-death penalty countries.
This is not to say that I don’t understand where Gil
Garcetti was coming from. His view is
that if people charged with serious felonies learn that by seeking haven in a
non-death penalty country, they will then avoid it if they are sent back here,
it will encourage more people to flee.
The theory is that we don’t want people suspected of felonies going to
Canada and Mexico on a regular basis knowing that those countries will not be
inclined to extradite due to their anti-death penalty views.
I feel, however, that the Cooley approach is a far more
practical one. This will lead to a far greater number of extraditions and will
lead to an increased number of prosecutions and an increased number of
convictions and the individuals will be sentenced to life in prison without the
possibility of parole. There are those
who would argue that life without parole is a harsher sentence than the death
penalty. I don’t necessarily subscribe
to that line of thinking, however, obviously it is a very harsh punishment and
if someone wants to flee knowing that life without parole is what they will be
facing if they are extradited, that’s OK with me.
Along with Mexico and Canada, the European Union tends not
to extradite to states or countries where capital punishment is an option.
Mexican authorities are happy about this policy change
because they have indicated that it will now be easier for them to extradite
fleeing suspects back to Los Angeles.
I think the key here is that this is a reasonable compromise
with other countries for the greater good.
On the one hand you are giving up the opportunity to impose the death
penalty; on the other hand, we’re going to get an increased number of suspects
returned and they will then have their jury trial in the state of California,
facing staring at prison bars for the rest of their life.
From a policy standpoint,
a trial in California with the potential for severe punishment is better
than letting the individual live the rest of his or her life abroad in relative
freedom. Keep it up Mr. Cooley, I think
you’re off to a good start.