Why Victims' Families Are Saying No to Newsom's Mass Commutation, and Why California Law Barely Hears Them

A murder victim's father went on Fox News on Friday to condemn Gov. Gavin Newsom's death sentence commutations ^[3]. He is not alone. One day earlier, loved ones of California murder victims lashed out at the governor, a week after he moved to commute the death sentences of more than 500 condemned inmates, NBC News reported ^[2].

Their anger is easy to dismiss as grief. It should not be. It points to a real flaw in how California handles clemency: the families who lost the most have the weakest legal claim to be heard before a governor erases a jury's sentence.

What Newsom Did

On November 5, Newsom announced that he would convert all 548 death sentences in California to life in prison without the possibility of parole, the Associated Press reported ^[1]. He framed the decision as a moral judgment, writing that state-sanctioned killing does not fit California's values, and it follows the moratorium on executions he imposed in 2019 ^[1].

Under the state constitution, the California Supreme Court must sign off on 382 of those commutations, about 70 percent, according to the governor's office ^[1]. If the court does not act before Newsom leaves office in January, those requests lapse, the AP reported ^[1]. In fairness, victims' relatives are not of one mind: Polly Klaas's sisters, among others, back the plan ^[1].

A governor's conscience deserves a respectful answer. But conscience is not the only thing at stake. So is the promise California made to crime victims.

The Promise and the Gap

In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 9, known as Marsy's Law, which wrote a victims' bill of rights into the state Constitution, as a state appeals court recounted in Santos v. Brown ^[4]. Most Californians would assume those rights include a say before a killer's sentence is reduced. The court ruled otherwise. In that 2015 decision, it held that Marsy's Law's notice rights do not extend to a governor's power to commute sentences ^[4].

That case began when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in January 2011, cut a prison sentence from 16 years to seven without notice to the victims or the prosecutor ^[4]. Lawmakers responded with Penal Code section 4805 ^[4]. It requires written notice to the district attorney at least 10 days before a governor acts on a commutation application, lets the prosecutor recommend for or against it, and directs the district attorney to make "reasonable efforts" to notify victims and their families, who may send the governor their own recommendations ^[5].

That law was written with one case at a time in mind. Stretched across 548 cases, it leaves county prosecutors to track down the families from hundreds of murder cases on a clock that can be as short as 10 days, and it gives those families a letter to the governor, not a hearing. The California District Attorneys Association warned that the governor's move would erase judgments without weighing the facts of each case or the families affected ^[1]. Patricia Wenskunas, founder of Crime Survivors, called the decision offensive ^[1].

Related Sanders Wants Bigger Social Security Checks. The Program Needs Saving First

Mercy Case by Case, Not by the Hundreds

A governor plainly has clemency power, and no one disputes it. But clemency has always been understood as mercy for a particular person after a look at a particular case. Using it to set aside every death sentence in the state at once turns a tool of individual mercy into a policy decision, one California voters have repeatedly declined to make at the ballot box, as this site reported this week. The constitutional rule that the Supreme Court must approve hundreds of these commutations ^[1] is a check on exactly that kind of sweeping power.

Christians hold mercy and justice together. Scripture tells us to seek justice and defend the oppressed (Isaiah 1:17), and grieving families are owed at least the dignity of being heard before the sentence handed down for their loved one's murder disappears.

Who Is Pushing Back and What Comes Next

The families are leading. The Thursday reaction NBC News reported ^[2] and the father who spoke to Fox News on Friday ^[3] reflect a week of protest from relatives who object to the decision. Prosecutors are with them: the state's district attorneys association has warned against the blanket approach ^[1], and victims' advocates such as Crime Survivors have joined the outcry ^[1].

The decisive step now belongs to the California Supreme Court, which must decide on the 382 cases before Newsom's term ends in January or see them lapse ^[1]. Governor-elect Xavier Becerra has said he will keep the moratorium on executions ^[1], so no one will be executed while the court decides. The question is whether juries' verdicts will stand.

Whatever the justices decide, lawmakers in Sacramento can close the gap the appeals court's ruling exposed ^[4]. If a governor can erase hundreds of death sentences, the families of the murdered deserve more than 10 days' notice and a letter. They deserve a guaranteed hearing. That is what voters thought they were promising when they passed Marsy's Law.