There are situations, Guantanamo comes to mind as an example, where even though you know it is bad, it is shocking when you find out just how bad.
California's Death Penalty system is one of those situations. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice does not, though it could have, linger on lurid details. But even in the absence of such details the picture it paints of routine injustice is mind boggling. Hundreds of people on Death Row without lawyers; hundreds of millions of dollars wasted; 70 percent of the death sentences upheld by the state found to be flawed by the higher courts; people waiting years to get legal assistance, the pitiful amount of money available for defending complex cases where someone's life is on the line and the huge amount of money wasted on a death system that has been repeatedly shown to be biased and untrustworthy. And on and on. You can feel the system straining under the weight of its own dysfunction.
And still we let it continue.
It's easy to think this is someone else's problem and that the people upon whom we visit these injustices deserve no better. But when I consider that we know that hundreds of innocent people have been sentenced to our prisons and death rows, across the country and here in California, it becomes even more terrifying. None of us should tolerate the possibility that the state might execute someone who is actually innocent. But given the imperfect nature of human judgment such an execution seems inevitable.
have met people falsely accused, wrongfully convicted, unjustly imprisoned. When I think about the hopelessness, the fear, the outrage they must have felt at being swallowed by an unfeeling system while the rest of us turned away I can hardly breathe. I marvel at their ability to emerge, not undamaged to be sure, but also not full of hate. I think all it takes some unlucky circumstances'''a suspect who matches my description, a faulty eyewitness, an unethical prosecutor, an overwhelmed or under-prepared lawyer'''and that innocent person in prison could be me. The sense of vulnerability is almost paralyzing, the fear runs deep. When we see other people as disposable we hasten the time when others will see us as disposable.
-- Eric Greene, special policy assistant, ACLU of Southern California
California's Death Penalty Too Costly and Unfair, State Commission Report Says

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The balance between the right of immigrants to equal protection and the duty of Los Angeles police officers to keep communities safe was upheld today when Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu granted summary judgment and dismissed a lawsuit aimed at getting rid of the LAPD's Special Order 40, which prohibits officers from using immigration status to initiate investigations.

Two years ago, a local taxpayer, Harold Sturgeon, filed suit to stop the city from spending public money to enforce the policy, arguing that it was an illegal use of public funds.

The judge instead agreed with attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU/SC), who argued that Sturgeon had not proved Special Order 40 is illegal because he could not show that it violates federal law.

'Today, Judge Treu ruled in favor of balance and responsibility,' said Hector Villagra, an ACLU/SC attorney who defended Special Order 40 on behalf of community, immigrant and anti-domestic abuse groups. 'Immigrants in Los Angeles now are saved from having to choose between their personal safety and their future.'

In 2006, the Major Cities' Chiefs Association, a grouping of the chiefs of the 64 largest police departments in the nation, expressed its firm support for policies such as Special Order 40 because they help strengthen the relationship between police and vulnerable communities. Since 1979, when the rule was adopted in Los Angeles, major cities across the country have followed suit with their own similar ordinances.

'Keeping Special Order 40 intact allows beat cops in communities affected by crime to build cooperative relationships with residents,' said Belinda Escobosa Helzer of the ACLU/SC, who also litigated the policy's defense. 'Community members can report crimes without fear that a tip will lead to deportation. That's crucial in a city where more than 40 percent of the population is foreign-born.'

The policy helps ensure justice for the most vulnerable members of society.

'Without the protection of Special Order 40, the ability to assist victims of domestic violence would be significantly hampered,' said Jessica Aronoff, Executive Director for Break the Cycle, one of the groups represented by the ACLU/SC. 'Many domestic violence victims are hesitant to take legal action and do not seek help of any kind because they fear involving law enforcement. This fear is particularly acute for those who are undocumented.'