Opinion ID: 1303713
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 31

Heading: Validity of Death Penalty Under International Law

Text: (35) Finally, defendant contends that the failure of the 1977 death penalty law to require that the trier of fact state in writing the reasons for imposing death violates principles of international human rights law. Defendant acknowledges that we have rejected the argument that such written findings are required as a matter of domestic constitutional law. (See People v. Jackson, supra, 28 Cal.3d 264, 316-317; People v. Frierson, supra, 25 Cal.3d 142, 178-180.) Nevertheless, defendant relies upon various resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and Economic and Social Council to support his international law claim. The foregoing resolutions invite or urge member states to ensure the most careful legal procedures and the greatest possible safeguards for the accused in a capital case. Defendant also observes that various international human rights declarations, charters and covenants recite that all persons have the right to life. As the People correctly point out, a treaty or international declaration or charter has no effect upon domestic law unless it either is implemented by Congress or is self-executing. (See Hitai v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2d Cir.1965) 343 F.2d 466, 468; In re Alien Children Ed. Litigation (D. Tex. 1980) 501 F. Supp. 544, 589-590, affd. sub nom. Plyler v. Doe (1982) 457 U.S. 202 [72 L.Ed.2d 786, 102 S.Ct. 2382]; See Sei Fujii v. State of California (1952) 38 Cal.2d 718, 721-725 [242 P.2d 617]; Rest.2d Foreign Relations Law, § 141, and com. at p. 432.) Defendant cites no authorities suggesting that the international resolutions or other materials on which he relies have been held effective as domestic law. As stated in Sei Fujii : The humane and enlightened objectives of the United Nations Charter are, of course, entitled to respectful consideration by the courts and legislatures of every member nation, since that document expresses the universal desire of thinking men for peace and for equality of rights and opportunities. The charter represents a moral commitment of foremost importance, and we must not permit the spirit of our pledge to be compromised or disparaged in either our domestic or foreign affairs. We are satisfied, however, that the charter provisions relied on by plaintiff were not intended to supersede existing domestic legislation.... (38 Cal.2d at pp. 724-725.) In any event, we have carefully examined the provisions cited by defendant and, as the concurring opinion of Justice Mosk aptly observes, none of them compel[s] elimination of capital punishment.