A Citizen of California

On June 29th, 2009, I learned that California still has the death penalty even though no one has been executed since 2005. On June 30th, 2009 I was at the public hearing in Sacramento where the public was to comment on the new lethal injection procedures developed by the California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation so that executions could begin again. Over 100 people spoke. Everyone was given 3 minutes to respond to the new procedures and the entire process lasted eight hours with an hour break at noon for lunch. It was an emotional day. Only two speakers came to support the new procedures. They came together and spoke back to back. Their message was one of a vengeful justice that asserted opponents of capital punishment had “misplaced compassion.” Those compassionate souls spoke for the next 8 hours.

Teachers spoke against the death penalty asking for money for education not execution, stating that $1 billon could be saved over 5 years if the state executions were done with. Doctors, future doctors, and nurses spoke against the death penalty stating that it was their duty to protect and sustain life. Students, spiritual leaders, and everyday citizens spoke out against the death penalty and spoke for dignity. Families of prisoners on death row spoke against the death penalty. Families of victims killed by prisoners on death row spoke against the death penalty. Former prisoners on death row, who had been found innocent, spoke against the death penalty. The new procedures were the only things meant to be discussed—the technicalities. The appropriateness or morality of the death penalty itself, were not on the table, and the facilitators reminded the witnesses in the room of this once or twice an hour. For many stepping up t the podium, this was impossible. How were they to talk about a procedure that leads to the legal murder of another human being without mentioning the end product?

Some people were able to step up to the podium and focus on the problems with the procedures alone. They often stated, “I am against the death penalty, but because this hearing is meant to discuss these new procedures, I will simply state my problems with these.” They believed that in order to be taken seriously they had to play by the rules set before them. They only talk about the procedures themselves, and hoped that if they showed the human rights violations within them alone—the dignity that was being stripped of not only the prisoners, but their families and the staff members to be carrying out these new procedures—that maybe a seed of humanity and understanding would be planted.

There were plenty of things in the new procedures to be concerned with. Prisoners on death row were not able to meet with personal spiritual counselors in private. They were only allowed to meet with State appointed chaplains who were required to record descriptions of all communications with the prisoner. Spiritual counselors were not able to hold the hand of prisoners while they were being killed. They were not even allowed to be in the same room. There was no maximum number of victim’s family members who could be present at the execution. If there wasn’t enough room a closed circuit television was provided in another location, and each family member was to be provided with psychological counsel after the event. Family members of those being executed were limited to five. There was no psychological counsel provided, and they were escorted on and off of the property as if they were criminals themselves. Those carrying out the state mandated killings were poorly supported in the new procedures, acting as if a person would not be affected by killing another human being as long as they were paid.

“There is no protection of dignity here. When dignity is taken away long enough, we lose our humanity, we lose our life. These procedures are not taking away just one human life, but parts of every human life that is involved in the process.”

On June 29th, I was a shocked New Yorker who has always seen California as the leader in common sense, compassion, and social innovation. On June 30th, I felt a little out of place, stuck in the mindset of a community developer, where the citizens—the voters—should always be given a voice. Did I have a right to even be here? Then a Swedish women walked up to the podium and told the witnesses in the room that Sweden was watching California, waiting for them to join their country in universal abolition of the death penalty, believing as I did that California had a history of inspiring, challenging and changing the country. It was then that I saw myself became a citizen of the state of California, not because I had bought a house here or spent $28 dollars on a California license, but because my heart was instantly connected to its citizens, as I realized that my humanity, the country’s humanity, and the world’s humanity lay in its hands. I realized that even if I am not a legal citizen of this state, it is still part of my home. It is a part of this country and part of this world, and the decisions that are made here are a reflection of the voices that are speaking the loudest. Fear usually causes people to scream. Love can cause people to sing, but we have to sing louder and in one unified voice without worrying if we have the right.

Sometimes it is good to stick to the rules, like those at the hearing who only spoke about the procedures. It may be the only way to be heard. Sometimes it is good to push past the boundaries, like the women from Sweden who spoke at a California State hearing. It may be the only way to be heard. Most of the time, it’s more powerful to do a little of both. People are always listening to conversations at various frequencies, and as messengers of human rights, dignity and love, it is our jobs to tap into all of those frequencies. And it is our job to unite.