There is a sense that there is a normative vision of the law that everyone knows and that he is merely acceding to here. The truth is there are multiple theories of jurisprudence. This vision incorporates the elements of two of them. One is a positivism that accepts the law and its operation as valid on its face, eschewing any kind of questioning of race and class realities that might underlie its actual operation, avoiding any kind of critical approach which asks if the law as written and practiced actually produces just results.
Lawyers are notoriously positivist as are most judges.
There are some protections that even those seen as the lowest in a society must be afforded if it is to be seen as a just and humane society, thus the reason for amendments like the 8th prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The state dispenses the punishment. Note the avoidance of personal responsibility here, something that stands in stark contrast with the very positivism that the governor advocates here. Because the system cannot be questioned by positivism, any problems which arise are those of maladjusted or evil-choosing individuals. Here the governor tries to say he is merely following orders, an excuse that was found wanting in the My Lai investigations and at the Nuremburg Trials.