Editor’s Note: This is the first of two articles on the Aug. 2 interview Editor-in-Chief Michael R. Harris conducted with Jeanne Woodford, a former San Quentin warden and former chief of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Please explain where the disbanding of California’s executions stand as of right now?
Senator Loni Hancock, has introduced Senate Bill 490. If it’s passed by the Senate and Assembly that would place the initiative on the 2012 ballot. The initiative would seek to abolish the death penalty in California. It would also change the people on Death Row’s sentence to life without the possibility of parole as the harshest sentence in California.
What steps are you and your organization taking to make sure the death penalty is no longer a part of California’s landscape?
Our efforts (at Death Penalty Focus) are to educate the public about what we call “The myth about the death penalty.” Many people believe that it’s cheaper to execute people than to have them imprisoned with life without possibility of parole. \So, we really talk about those kinds of myths, including the fact that many people believe that victims deserve to have the death penalty, but in fact we have a very broken death penalty system in this state and very few people are actually executed. Of the many homicides that occur in California and around the country, very few people are prosecuted as a capital case. So, it is as people talk about, like being stuck by lightning. Very few people are prosecuted, and of those, very few are ever executed. So, it’s really a false promise to victims.
So, we really do a lot to try to educate the public about how costly the death penalty is, and that there could be better use of that money. There could be more teachers in classrooms, more police on the streets, and it would be better for public safety to have those dollars going to a much more pro-active approach to criminal justice.
What type of organization is the Death Penalty Focus and how is it supported ?
Death Penalty Focus has been around for about 20 years. It has around 50,000 members who have decided that they want to abolish the death penalty in the state. We don’t ask people’s party when they support this issue. People support it for many reasons. Some support it on moral grounds. Some support it because it’s too costly. Some support it because it’s ineffective.
There’re all kinds of reasons for supporting it, so I can say that we have a bi-partisan membership, although I don’t know that for sure.
We are a non-profit. We get some grants, but the majority of our support comes from a grassroots effort – people donating to Death Penalty Focus.
What was that process of becoming the executive director of the Death Penalty Focus like for you? Did you experience much opposition to your appointment? And if so, who?
I’ve been volunteering my time to speak out against the death penalty since I retired. So, when the executive director of Death Penalty Focus retired, after being here for many years, I was asked if I wanted to be the executive director. I think getting rid of the death penalty is critical to California for lots of reasons. It’s a very complicated issue. Those reasons include the money that I’ve talked about – the savings.
I think it’s a very horrible process for victims, going through years of litigation, having to relive these cases over and over again. It’s also, for me, how we think about punishment in our criminal justice system – believing that retribution serves anyone is really against my philosophy.
Certainly many of the crimes committed are very horrific, and we have to have a system to protect the public. But, it should be about protecting the public, not about retribution.
You were once quoted as saying that “putting people to death is not right.” When did you come to that opinion?
I’ve always been opposed to the death penalty, just from my own Catholic upbringing. As many wardens who have carried out executions – I say this to people, “When you’re in corrections, you’re not there to judge. You don’t judge whether the laws are right or wrong. You don’t judge individuals who are sentenced. Your job is to treat people as professionally as you possibly can, and to work on returning people home better people than they were when they came in.” I really try to live that philosophy.
So, from a moral perspective, I’ve always been against the death penalty. But, having been in the system and seen this from all points of view, I absolutely know it’s just wrong, when you start to look at DNA as an example. So when I satarted at San Quetin in 1978 people told me that every inmate would tell you that they are innocent.
‘It wasn’t until I left the Department of Corrections that I really thought about the impact on me personally.’
In fact, they don’t do that, as you know. People don’t run around saying, “We’re innocent.” I think we all lived with this thought that we had just this perfect system, and then here comes DNA, which is only available in about 20 percent of the cases. And, through DNA, we’ve discovered hundreds of innocent people across the nation.
So, that leaves 80 percent of cases where there is no DNA. So, what science is out there that might prove that we’re wrong about what we think about those cases? And so, with a death penalty, that’s so final, and we know that innocent people have been executed in the United States. Willingham in Texas is an example, but there are others who likely were innocent.
And, there are many cases where people actually believed they were innocent. We are a society that just cannot have a penalty that is so final that we can’t allow for the possibility that people might be innocent. Or a system that we now know cannot be perfect.
We have probably one of the best criminal justice systems in the world, but it is not perfect. So, if you’re looking at what the end result of what the criminal justice system should be, which is to protect the public, life without the possibility of parole does that.
We have very safe, secure prisons. People don’t escape, can’t escape because of the kind of prisons we have now in the United States. So, we do not need the death penalty. It does not serve us well. It doesn’t provide for a greater protection. It is costly. And, it hurts so many people in so many ways.
How did you prepare yourself for those executions? Where did you have to go mentally?
My approach to it was to practice what I called, “servant leadership,” which was really not to think about me, but to think about everybody in the process. Try to be sure that staff were okay. Many of you might have seen me just walking around the prison, walking in housing units and making sure that everybody was okay.
You get so busy worrying about everybody else that you don’t think about yourself. And, that’s really how I came through those executions.
It probably wasn’t until I left the Department of Corrections that I really thought about the impact on me personally. In talking to wardens around the country, they’re many now who oppose the death penalty. They make the same statement. On YouTube, there’s a very well-known warden, who’s now a professor at the University of Kentucky, Allen Ault. He talks about this so eloquently, about the impact of executions on him, personally.
And, there’s a video that we have here called, “A view from an executioner.” This is a Southern warden that believes he’s executed an innocent man and he talks about it. It’s just unbelievable how he talks about the impact of executions on him personally. And, he wonders out loud what his family really thinks of him – what his children think of him. These are people who are very passionate about fulfilling the laws of their state, of their country, who now look back and say, “It’s too much to ask of people, to be involved in a process like this.”
How were you able to reconcile your duty to the state with your religious belief during those times?
There are very few prisons where you can work on rehabilitation. I mean, San Quentin is like the star of the Department of Corrections. That’s because of lots of great people, like Larry Schneider that’s right there in front of you.
There’s just lots of people who worked hard to make it that way. So, it’s always been a dilemma for me – if I leave San Quentin and go somewhere else, I wouldn’t have been happy as a warden, because I really loved trying to expand programs at San Quentin and giving staff the freedom to do that. I always say, “The great thing I did was say, ‘Yes’ when people asked me if they could come to San Quentin,” and that probably was the greatest thing I did, was say, “Yes.”
Now that you are fighting for changes in the system that you once worked for, what type of feedback are you receiving from people within CDCR?
I think that it’s amazing to me, how many people are supportive. I think that people always assume that everybody that works in the Department of Corrections are pro death penalty, or pro this or pro that, but that just isn’t the case.
When you work in corrections, you learn that it isn’t your job to question sentences. And, I think lots of people believe that non-serious, non-violent people should not come to state prison – period, as an example.
‘I would encourage England to really look at the facts and implement a policy that really brings down violence because the death penalty will not help.’
But, you have to leave those opinions at the gate and come in and perform your duties without judgment and that is important for two reasons: If people went to work there and judge people for the acts they committed, it would be a pretty horrible place as well. So, you have to remember that you are not the judge.
In fact that would be my joke to the judges’ college when they came in for their tour: “I get to say something that you can’t: ‘I am not here to judge.’”
With that in mind, staff should not share their point of view. I’ve gotten e-mails from people congratulating me. When they see me, they say, “Hope you’ll be successful.” So, I’ve gotten a lot of support.
Everybody? No, not everybody. I think that there are people who misread what I do. Like in the three-judge panel, I testified against the department on behalf of the inmates, and with reason I did that. It’s because I believe it will improve public policy. When I’m passionate about something, I’m going to step up and say what’s on my mind.
Following the recent riots in England there have been proposals to bring back the death penalty. What would you say to that?
I think you have to have the facts lead you to your decision. Here in the United States, we have 16 states that don’t have the death penalty and in those states the crime rate actually is lower than it is in states with the death penalty. In our states that have the death penalty, they have the highest incidents of homicides.
So, if their purpose is to deter crime – the death penalty – that’s just a myth; it just doesn’t work that way. I’ve learned from many of you, who tell me that committing a crime is not a decision; it’s a lack of decision.
So, that’s what deters crime. It’s about how do we help prevent crime. And, we know lots of things about what prevents crime. More police on the streets prevents crime. More teachers in the classroom prevents crime. Solving crime prevents crime.
I would encourage England, any country who thinks about this, to really look at the facts and implement a policy that brings down violence because having the death penalty will not help.
Both Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris have throughout their careers said they oppose the death penalty but as state officials they will enforce the law as it stands. Your view on that?
They both have been committed to carrying out the law as it is. I think what has been helpful about both of them being elected is that they were so public and so courageous about their position, and still got elected. I hope that it will encourage others who really do believe the death penalty needs to be abolished, but are afraid to say so, will step up and say that.
I do think that the voters look to leadership, like Kamala Harris and like Gov. Brown when they think through these issues. I’ve not had the chance to speak to either one of them about this issue. I haven’t had the opportunity to speak to the governor about any issue. I have seen Kamala at different events. While I don’t know what they will do, their very presence, and their very open opinion, personal opinion about this issue, I believe will sway voters.
Because Kamala is the top cop in California and when you have the top cop saying, “The death penalty doesn’t make sense,” and she has said that in her entire career, I think that’s who voters look to for advice when thinking about these issues. Voters have voted in the death penalty – they have to vote it out. So, we hope that Senate Bill 490 will get the issue on the ballot – in front of the voters.
Our job is to educate the voters so that they will understand these issues, and that by getting rid of the death penalty, we can actually make our communities safer, our families safer because we will have the money to spend in a much more effective and appropriate way.
In the terms of costs, I think it’s important for the public to understand that we’ve spent $4 billion on the death penalty since it’s re-enacted. Thirteen people have been executed. That means that each execution cost over $300 million.
I think the voters need to understand that the Death Row at San Quentin – even if the governor stops the building of a new Death Row – so that’s an issues that still needs to be addressed – and if we continue with the death penalty, at some point, they’ll have to build a new Death Row, staff a new Death Row, and that will cost the state millions.
I think it’s important for the public to understand that public safety is met with a sentence like life without the possibility of parole, because individuals do not have the opportunity to be paroled.
They get one appeal at taxpayer expense and if they’re unsuccessful, they spend the rest of their life in prison. The public gets confused between 15 to life, 25 to life, and the sentence called life without the possibility of parole.
For an inmate on Death Row, while it takes years for them to get their appellate attorney, they do have an attorney for life, and can continue to appeal until they exhaust all the resources that are available to them, or all the issues that are available to them. Paid for by the taxpayers.
That is why we spent $4 billion, and then these cases cost millions of dollars each. We spend $4 million per year by the Supreme Court handling these cases; $12 million per year in the attorney general’s office; $30 million per year in individual counties on the death penalty; $38 million a year in defense agencies; $72 million per year in the corrections department; and $400 million for a new Death Row, if we were to. I mean, that’s a very low figure ‘cause that figure actually went up, because of the cost of construction – so if we needed a new Death Row, we would need to spend 400 million or more.
That is why, if we ended capital punishment in California, we would save $1 billion in five years – $1 billion. It is also important for people to know, for the voter to know, 46 percent of homicides go unsolved in this state. And so if you’re thinking about victims, there’re many victims waiting to know or waiting to hear, waiting for resolution of their cases.
Those cases aren’t being solved, because of a lack of resources. If some of the savings from the death penalty could be put forward to bring those cases to resolution, we would be helping victims a great deal – far more victims than are associated with capital punishment.
I think that we all should be concerned if there’s an innocent person in our prison system, no matter what their sentence is, including life without the possibility of parole. And, it is true that if you have life without possibility of parole, you only get one appeal at taxpayers expense.
But, I do think that’s why there so many projects around the state, such as the Innocence Project, and others that are there to help individuals who are able to put forward an argument that they were wrongly convicted of a crime. I know that those organizations work very hard to help individuals who may be innocent sitting inside our prison system.
I think those groups will continue to exist and probably grow as we find more and more innocent people in our prisons across the country. We’re part of a coalition. There are many groups around the state that look at different aspects of this.
While we’re involved in discussions about how different counties handle the issue of capital punishment, our primary focus is to abolish the death penalty, and to educate the public about the death penalty. By the way, a death penalty trial costs 20 times more than a life without the possibility of parole trial.
I think it’s important for the voters to understand that. Because you have two trials, one for the capital case, and then a trial to decide whether the sentence should be life without or the death penalty. And, in order to be on a jury for a capital offense, you cannot be opposed to the death penalty, so jury selection goes on far longer. Trials go on far longer, because of death penalty being on the table. Individuals facing the death penalty will have at least two attorneys. Lots of experts. There’s just lots of money spent on this issue.
What is the social benefit of trying to interact with people who have committed horrendous crimes? Is it so we understand where these compulsions come from?
I do think that people in the academic world do look at these issues, and it is something that we do need to learn a lot more about. But, because they’re on Death Row, and they’re appealing their cases, Death Row inmates are told by their attorneys, not to talk to people about many things.
So, I think that it would be hard to interview Death Row inmates and find out more about them, because that is what their attorney would be doing to attempt to mitigate the crime and be trying to save their client from being executed.
We need to learn a lot more about why, if we’re ever able to solve this issue, so I hope that our focus will be more in the prevention as we move forward as a society.
Have you received any correspondence from men and women on Death Row either supporting or condemning your appointment as the top advocate against the death penalty?
I’ve received both. When I receive a letter – because I still come into the prison – I take people on tours, so I can’t correspond with inmates, so we have to send back a form letter, letting them know that we can’t get into individual issues.
What drew you to this point in your life – being passionate about the death penalty?
I just believe that we can be better than this. And, I believe that our prison system really needs to be about rehabilitation. Certainly, there needs to be a punishment component, but I really want to be a part of changing criminal justice in the State of California, and I absolutely believe that it’s just time to end the death penalty. And, I would be honored if I could be a part of the movement that accomplishes that.
To be continued in the next issue
