California: Newsom calls for commutation of 548 death sentences

On November 5, 2026, the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, announced his intention to replace the sentences of the 548 state death row with life imprisonment without parole. The BBC, Deutsche Welle and the South China Morning Post report the same initiative. However, the official communiqué describes a planned measure, not a fully completed procedure: a majority of cases require the intervention of the California Supreme Court. [S2] [S3] [S5] [S7]

Saving life without restoring freedom

For the persons concerned, the consequence would be clear: they would remain in prison, but would no longer be sentenced to execution. The Governor's explanatory document indicates that only capital punishment would be replaced. The convictions, other elements of convictions and restitution obligations would remain unchanged. This leniency is therefore neither an acquittal nor an acquittal of criminal responsibility. [S8]

California has not executed anyone since 2006. Newsom introduced a moratorium on executions in 2019, without removing existing convictions. Switching would change the sentences themselves, but would not abolish the death penalty in Californian law: new convictions would remain possible until the law changed. [S2] [S5] [S9]

A power subject to judicial review

The governor cannot act alone in all cases. The Californian Constitution requires a favourable recommendation from the State Supreme Court, with the agreement of at least four judges, for a person convicted more than once for a felony offence. The official document identifies 382 convicted persons affected by this requirement, also reported by Deutsche Welle. [S3] [S8]

There is a discrepancy in the records: the Los Angeles Times refers to approximately 60% of the cases, while the document sent to the Court explicitly designates 382. This official number is the most accurate reference. Despite some titles presenting commutations as acquired, the sources consulted do not show that all necessary judicial recommendations have been obtained. [S2] [S8] [S9]

According to the case law cited in the explanatory document, this review is intended to determine whether leniency would constitute abuse of authority, not to approve its political opportunity. The Governor also stated that he had not examined the individual circumstances or progress in the reintegration of beneficiaries: his approach was based on a general opposition to capital punishment and on continued incarceration. [S8]

The Governor's Awareness of Voter Choice

Newsom presents its decision as a limit to what the State can legitimately impose. He believes that executions are incompatible with California's values and claims personal responsibility for this choice, as he would have assumed responsibility for each execution. This moral and political position is not a consensus finding on the sanction to be applied to the most serious crimes. [S2] [S3]

Democratic objection remains central. In 2016, Californian voters rejected a proposal for abolition. Newsom recognizes this choice, but invokes its constitutional leniency. The Los Angeles County Attorney, Nathan Hochman, recalls, in a statement reported by the BBC, that voters refused abolition in two consultations and distinguished the power to commute sentences from that of abolishing capital punishment. [S2] [S3]

Conversely, the American Civil Liberties Union welcomes the announcement. Its Executive Director, Anthony Romero, described the death penalty as a discriminatory, misleading and inhuman punishment. The disagreement thus concerns both the limits of the power to punish and the legitimacy of a collective measure applied to individual convictions. [S2] [S3]

Families with different expectations

The victims' relatives do not defend a single position. When questioned by the Los Angeles Times, Bethany Webb, whose sister was killed, describes the capital procedure as an additional test for families. Sandy Friend, whose son was murdered, on the contrary, regards the initiative as a lack of respect for the victims. These testimonies illustrate opposite experiences, without measuring their representativeness. [S9]

The governor's office plans to inform victims registered with the competent services and offer them support. In financial terms, the BBC reports potential savings of several million dollars per year in court fees, without presenting a detailed methodology. Their amount remains uncertain. The legal scope sought is explicit: to remove the threat of execution, while maintaining life without parole and convictions. [S2] [S8]