Unequal Justice: The Case for Federal Oversight of the Death Penalty

Winter 2025

Stella Etcheverry Edited by: Annaliese Damm

The Death Penalty, a legal punishment of killing someone for a crime they have been proven to commit in a court of law, has raised various debates as to whether the act of consciously executing a human is morally permissible. The most broad discussion is whether it is just and humane or cruel and discriminatory [1]. The Supreme Court of the United States is respon­si­ble for ensur­ing that state use of the death penal­ty adheres to our fundamental rights [2]. Though deemed “responsible”, the Supreme Court ruled that states can carry out executions in 1976 through the case ‘Gregg v. Georgia’, which upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty under certain conditions, allowing states to re-institute capital punishment laws with stricter guidelines [3]. Examining Texas and California’s respective death penalties and the results of these laws, will give valuable insight as to why the death penalty should be federally instituted. Texas and California were selected for this article on the death penalty due to their contrasting yet significant roles in shaping capital punishment policies in the United States. Texas, historically known for its high execution rates and firm stance on the death penalty, provides insight into the implementation and continued use of capital punishment. In contrast, California, despite having the largest death row population, has taken radical steps to reform the death penalty, including a moratorium on executions. Examining these two states allows for a comprehensive analysis of how differing political, legal, and geographical landscapes influence the application and future of the death penalty in the U.S.

Specifically examining Texas’ penal code, “An individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state seeks the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life without parole or by death. An individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state does not seek the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice” [4]. Conversely in 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-09-19 instituting a moratorium on the death penalty in California in the form of a reprieve for all people sentenced to death [5]. The executive order also called for repealing California’s lethal injection protocol and the immediate closing of the execution chamber at San Quentin State Prison [6]. No executions have taken place in California since 2006, meaning that individuals who have committed heinous crimes after this date have not been executed, and remain on “death row” [7].

This article examines why the state in which a crime is committed should not determine the fate of the perpetrator’s life or death. The focus should be on evaluating the crime based on its severity and the circumstances under which it was committed rather than being influenced by geographical, public opinion, or political factors that vary from one state to another. This newsletter critiques the state's power to conduct executions by directly addressing the state’s authority and decision-making flaws.

Additionally, this newsletter highlights the disproportionate death penalty outcomes by exploring the cases of two individuals who committed similar crimes: Wesley Ruiz, who was executed in Texas [8]. At the same time, Luis Bracamontes remains on death row in California [9]. Both of these perpetrators were tried for the killing of a police officer. If Wesley Ruiz had committed his crime in California, would he still be alive? The disparity in the application of the death penalty across states highlights the complex interplay between penitence, public opinion, and regional governance. By examining the contrasting outcomes of similar crimes in Texas and California, this newsletter argues that heinous crimes deserving of the death penalty should not be subject to geographical locations and that the death penalty should only be determined under federal law.

My critique of the judicial system's allowance of the death penalty being determined by state statutes is based on three key concepts: public opinion regarding execution, foundational arguments of the government in terms of a deliberative democracy, and the attitude of the perpetrator toward their crime. I will examine each concept, to argue that states should not have due process regarding executions. In my final point, I will specifically explore the cases of Wesley Ruiz and Luis Bracemonto, comparing their remorse regarding the crimes committed. Cases like these should be evaluated under strict scrutiny and federal law. 

Public opinion regarding the death penalty has been an ongoing debate, with views varying across states and over time. Support for capital punishment has steadily declined in California [10]. However, a 2021 survey by the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley reveals key statistics that challenge the idea that states and constituents should have the power to determine the outcome of death penalty cases [11]. According to the survey, 44% of voters support repealing the state's death penalty, 35% oppose repeal, and 21% remain undecided [12]. This close division in public opinion highlights the difficulty of reaching a consensus. The numbers are so evenly split, that it is nearly impossible to account for all perspectives, creating a divide among constituents. Another striking result from the survey is the high percentage of voter indecision [13]. This indecision speaks to a larger issue: if a significant portion of the public—and by extension, lawmakers and judges—struggles to take a definitive stance, should states have the authority to determine death penalty cases? Given this uncertainty, imposing the ultimate punishment should not rest with states. Instead, it should be subject to rigorous federal oversight, as the authorities adequately assess the crime case by case, disregarding geographical location. I will explain what I mean by “rigorous federal oversight” using facts from the Death Penalty Information Center. "Each federal death penalty case is authorized by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, DC, in consultation with local United States Attorney Offices" [14]. This in-depth case analysis reveals collaboration between the federal government and local officials. I would argue that the collaborative assessment of a case between the DOJ and the Attorney offices is more credible, and demonstrates rigorous federal oversight. 

As stated previously, California has halted all executions, which disregards the importance of public opinion concerning the death penalty [15]. However, my argument for this concept lies in the various views in California and Texas, highlighting the inconsistency and unpredictability of state-level decision-making on such a critical issue. This variation exposes the need for a standardized federal approach to ensure fairness and justice in capital punishment cases. Examining Texas’ constituents, public opinion regarding death row is also surprising. According to a survey conducted in 2021 by the Texas Politics Project, constituents’ attitudes regarding death row differ greatly, concluding that 40% strongly support, 23% somewhat support, 12% somewhat oppose, 13% strongly oppose, and 12% remain undecided [16]. Although these numbers lean towards support of the death penalty, there is still a wide range of opinions that reflects deep divisions among the public. This inconsistency, evident in Texas and California, highlights the flaw in allowing individual states to dictate capital punishment based on regional attitudes. The fact that a person’s fate can be determined by the geographical location of their trial and or the mer majority of those constituents in favor of the death penalty undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. Moreover the fact that constituents have everchanging opinions further emphasizes my position that the death penalty should be governed by standardized federal law. 

The foundational ideologies of the United States remain vital in assessing the constitutionality of the death penalty, as they continue to shape legal and political assessments today. The Fifth Amendment established that the federal government could not deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law” [17]. However, this protection was not initially applied to the states [18]. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, extended due process protections to state governments, ensuring that states, like the federal government, could not impose the death penalty, or any deprivation of rights, without following fair legal procedures [19]. This amendment was a crucial development in the legal system, reinforcing the principle that federal and state government power must be exercised justly and constitutionally. While this extension of the Constitution was significant in limiting states' ability to act irrationally, states still retain the authority to enforce their death penalty laws. How, then, can states ensure the protection of 'life, liberty, and property' in a cohesive manner when each has different laws in place? How can it be ensured to the utmost rationality? In The Federalist Papers No. 63, James Madison advocated for a steady, educated, and knowledgeable body of government that would act in the best interests of society [20]. He writes, "In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their passions?" [21] In this passage, Madison argues that during critical times, it is essential to have a respectable and rational governing body to prevent impulsive or emotionally driven decisions by the public. He warns that unchecked public passions can lead to harmful outcomes, as was often the result in ancient Athens. I would argue that this idea directly applies to the issue of the death penalty, considering Capital punishment is an irreversible decision that carries profound moral and legal implications. Allowing such a critical issue to be determined by fluctuating public opinion at the state level opens the door to impulsive, emotionally charged decisions influenced by regional biases, political pressures, or temporary public sentiment. Just as Madison warned against the dangers of passionate, unchecked public choices, the death penalty should not be left to the shifting moods of state constituents and governments [22]. Instead, it should be governed by a standardized federal law, ensuring that decisions about life and death are made with the utmost care, consistency, and impartiality. A federal approach would serve as the “respectable body” as Madison described, prioritizing reason, justice, and truth over the unpredictable and often divisive nature of geography and public opinion [23].

"A criminal is someone who has committed an offense that society cannot forgive, but the first step toward redemption is admitting wrongdoing," said by Winston Churchill, a British statesman, military leader, writer, and orator, best known for serving as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during World War II [24, 25].  This statement amplifies the difference between a willing and unwilling criminal to admit wrongdoing and exemplify sorrow for their actions. In comparing the cases of both Wesley Ruiz and Luis Bracemontos, it is evident that the remorse for each crime appears juristically different [26]. Although, arguably, the attitude of the perpetrator of a crime deemed unforgivable does not have a significant effect on the overall judgment, it does apply to this specific situation in comparing these two criminals, as one is alive and one was executed.

 Wesley Ruiz was executed on Feb 1st, 2023 by lethal injection for the shooting death of a Dallas Police officer, in a high speed chase [27]. The bullet hit the officer’s badge, which then exploded, rupturing an artery in his neck [28]. He then died in the hospital [29]. In the trial, Ruiz exemplified genuine sorrow, and heartbreak for his actions. He testified, “I would like to apologize to Mark and the Nix family for taking him away from you, I hope this brings you closure” [30]. Even though this statement is concise, it demonstrates a willingness to admit wrongdoing, and genuine sorrow for his actions. Luis Bracamentos was sentenced to death in 2018 for the killing of two police officers in Northern California. Bracamentos killed two and wounded the third, and a civilian was also injured in the shooting [31]. He remains alive on death row in California, and is held in San Quintin [32]. When he was allowed to speak on his victims and to the families, he stated “F--- all the stupid cops and f--- the families, too,” he said, looking directly at the row of seats where the families of Deputies Danny Oliver and Michael Davis Jr. were seated. “More f------ cops are going to be killed – soon,” he shouted [33]. With this statement, Bracamentos began laughing, and was asked to leave the courtroom multiple times for disrespect [34]. The contrast in sorrow and attitude between Ruiz and Bracamentos demonstrates their character. How is it just, that someone so inhumane with a crime worse than that of Wesley Ruiz, may have his life spared on a moratorium solely because of the state he was tried in? Such discrepancy highlights the issue this newsletter is ultimately trying to address: should justice be determined by geography rather than the crime’s severity or the offender’s character? 

In conclusion, this article suggests that the death penalty ought to be subject to federal judgment rather than state governments because it is inhumane to evaluate similar crimes based on laws that vary by geographical location. The variety of constitutions, opinions, and values across the United States regarding the death penalty results in inconsistent applications of justice, where individuals may receive vastly different punishments for similar crimes—such as Wesley Ruiz and Luis Bracamentos—solely based on where they are tried. This disparity highlights the principles of equal protection and due process under the law and raises concerns about fairness. By placing the death penalty under federal jurisdiction, the United States can ensure a more standardized and just approach, free from the arbitrary influence of state-by-state variations. This newsletter addresses three key critiques on why the death penalty should be subject to federal regulation. Public opinion on the death penalty is deeply divided, demonstrating the complexity of the issue. Given this division, the decision should not be left to individual states but should instead be regulated at the federal level to ensure consistency and fairness. The Federalist Paper 63 provides applicable concepts to the death penalty, stating that critical decisions must be made with time, thoroughness, and reasoning [35]. In a federal case, the collaboration between the DOJ, the US District Courts, and the Attorney General accounts for deliberative cooperation in determining the fate of an individual [36]. This collaboration should be consistent throughout the United States rather than left to state governments’ decisions, as it would ultimately uphold the principles of equal protection and due process under the law. Finally, comparing Wesley Ruiz and Luis Bracamentos reveals differences in level of remorse and attitude toward their crimes. Bracementos is disrespectful, laughing, and shows no sign of remorse towards the families of from whom he took lives. The fact that Luis Bracamontes remains alive while Wesley Ruiz was executed solely due to varying state laws on the death penalty highlights a fundamental flaw in our justice system. This inconsistency emphasizes the foundation of justice—proving that where a crime is committed matters more than the crime itself, a failure that only federal oversight can correct.

References

[1] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Death Penalty: Issues & Debate. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/death-penalty-issues-debate

[2] Death Penalty Information Center. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org

[3] Gregg v. Georgia. Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-6257

[4] Texas Penal Code § 12.23

[5] California Office of the Governor, Executive Order N-09-19, March 13, 2019 https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/3.13.19-EO-N-09-19.pdf

[6] California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Capital Punishment https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/capital-punishment/

[7] Death Penalty Information Center

[8] Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Wesley Ruiz https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/ruizwesley.html

[9] California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Condemned Inmate List, Luis Bracamontes https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/capital-punishment/condemned-inmate-list-secure-request/

[10] Hannah Wiley, Newsom’s Death Penalty Opposition Still in Line with California Voters, Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2021 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-20/gavin-newsom-death-penalty-opposition-new-california-poll

[11] Mark DiCamillo, Director, Berkeley IGS Poll, Plurality of Voters Support Constitutional Amendment to Repeal the State’s Death Penalty, May 20, 2021 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5qq8v6c1

[12] Mark DiCamillo, “Plurality of Voters”

[13] Mark DiCamillo, “Plurality of Voters”

[14] Death Penalty Information Center

[15] California Office of the Governor, Executive Order N-09-19

[16] Support for the Death Penalty (April 2021). Texas Politics, University of Texas at Austin https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/support-death-penalty-april-2021

[17] The Fifth Amendment. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment

[18] The Fifth Amendment. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School

[19] Amendment XIV. National Constitution Center https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/amendment-xiv/clauses/701

[20] The Federalist Papers: No. 61-70. Library of Congress https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70

[21] The Federalist Papers: No. 61-70

[22] The Federalist Papers: No. 61-70

[23] The Federalist Papers: No. 61-70

[24] English-Speaking Peoples on War Crimes. International Churchill Societyhttps://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-115/english-speaking-peoples-on-war-crimes/

[25] English-Speaking Peoples on War Crimes. International Churchill Society

[26] “Send them to hell. Accused cop killer disrupts courtroom with tirade in Spanish, English,” Sam Stanton, The Sacramento Bee, Jan 18, 2018https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article195120434.html

[27] Texas Executes Inmate For 2007 Fatal Shooting Of Dallas Cop, Associated Presshttps://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-crime-legal-proceedings-homicide-huntsville-dd13e47e59d8804518a24343e91b69e8

[28] Associated Press. (same source as [27])

[29] Associated Press. (same source as [27])

[30] Associated Press. (same source as [27])

[31] “Send them to hell” by Sam Stanton. (same source as [26])

[32] California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (same source as [9])

[33] Stanton, “Send them to hell” (same source as [26])

[34] Stanton, “Send them to hell” (same source as [26])

[35] The Federalist Papers: No. 61-70

[36] Death Penalty Information Center, Stages in a Capital Case https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/resources/high-school/about-the-death-penalty/stages-in-a-capital-case