San Jose, California – A California judge has denied a prosecutor’s request to reclassify the last death-row case in Santa Clara County. District Attorney Jeff Rosen was seeking to change the sentence of gunman Richard Farley, who killed seven people in a workplace shooting in 1988, to life in prison without parole. Judge Benjamin Williams declined the request, stating that Farley had not shown rehabilitation or remorse over the years.
Rosen had successfully reclassified the sentences of 12 inmates in the past year but faced opposition in the case of Farley. Victims’ family members, survivors, and public safety officers voiced their concerns at hearings before the judge’s decision. They argued that reducing Farley’s sentence would not serve justice for the lives lost in the tragic event.
The resentencing of death row inmates like Farley has sparked debates in the state of California. Governor Gavin Newsom halted executions in 2019, citing ethical concerns and a lack of lethal injection drugs. While the moratorium remains in place, prosecutors still have the option to seek death sentences in future trials.
Rosen’s decision to refrain from pursuing the death penalty has drawn mixed reactions. Some, like Elizabeth Williams Allen, who lost her husband in Farley’s shooting, feel betrayed by the resentencing process. Allen believes that the severity of Farley’s crimes warrants the death penalty, given his lack of remorse and the impact on the victims’ families.
Legal experts like Berkeley Law professor Elisabeth Semel argue that the death penalty system is flawed and ineffective. Studies have shown that the cost of capital trials and death row inmates far outweighs those sentenced to life in prison without parole. The financial burden on taxpayers and the lack of evidence supporting the deterrence of crime raise questions about the efficacy of the death penalty.
While Rosen’s decision reflects a shift in approach to criminal justice, it has reopened wounds for those affected by Farley’s actions. The debate over the death penalty continues to evolve, with legal and ethical considerations shaping the future of sentencing practices in California and beyond.