According to multiple recent local California news sources, [“on July 16, 2014, federal judge Cormac J. Carney – (Jones v. Chappell), ruled a death penalty sentencing”, stemming from years ago, now “unconstitutional”]. This case was re-opened after the petitioning of the courts by death-row inmate Jones. One such news source that describes this landmark decision, was CNN. The state of California is believed likely to appeal the decision, according to similar Internet sources. This despite public outrage over a recent botched lethal injection, which was torturous, lasted for hours, and severely bothered even state employees who witnessed the murder. Why the outrage? Because these events put blood on the hands of every freedom loving Californian for permitting it.

The state is currently engaged in a public discourse, after prior attempts through similar rulings throughout many years, by justices and the public, arguing in essence, that one does not need to be a strict interpreter of the constitution to find state sponsored murder objectionable and moreover wrong. In alignment with the sentiment of significant numbers of federal justices, overall popular support among the public for state sponsored murder, has been in decline, according to public polls dating as far back as the 1960’s. This statistic is according to wikipedia.com and other informational sources. According to “http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=686” and other sources, hundreds of state prisoners have been executed and hundreds are still awaiting such death.
Particularly troubling in the laws which have sanctioned such rulings in California since the late 1970’s, is the court’s historic applications/definitions of crimes that technically justify such death rulings. Specifically, broad or loose interpretations, even misunderstandings of ruled events, and outright false rulings such as those based on false witness, can give way to death sentencing and this has happened with documents proving such. Recanting of false testimony is far too rare due to the consequence to the testifying person, and so truth is often carried to the grave.
As the popularity of state sponsored murder has declined, many individuals find increasingly such practice morally inconsistent for a state claiming that it is free and democratic; respecting life and liberty. I must agree that unless someone is willfully choosing martyrdom oneself, which should also be deterred anyway, there seems to be little resolution through court ordered murder.
Upon renewed interest and reconsideration of law, I sence the political climate to be improved in a generalized more relaxed and freedom loving attitude among the local population, as I speak about this topic with people. It is an attitude which in theory can be traced directly back to citizens’ relief that they are in fact at less risk of being branded as a criminal by the state after rulings as July’s occur. Especially in light of potentially extremely loose interpretation of the current law. That is a positive sign for a jaded populace which is entitled to benefit from a state, that might, just might be embarrassed to harbor such practices. In a state which is one of the world’s leading economic engines, maybe we can sign up for the higher moral standard. That freedom and prosperity can more successfully and abundantly come from a place of freedom in the heart, rather than be imposed down from a state that might otherwise be all too equipped to use murder, in enforcing a place of safety through intimidation – with justice failing to truly serve the people.