Should Francis Hernandez's Death Sentence Have Been Commuted?

When Francis Gerard Hernandez was convicted of committing two murders in 1981, he was sentenced to death. Because he was only 18 years old when he committed his crimes, he was the youngest person on California's death penalty for a long period of time. He filed an appeal, claiming that the judge failed to consider that he was an alcoholic and under the influence of alcohol and marijuana when he committed the murders. He also claimed that there were not enough Hispanics on the jury pool. (According to the Los Angeles Times, only six of the 128 people in the jury pool had Hispanic surnames.) In 1988, the appeals court upheld his death sentence.

In September 2011, another appeals court ruled in Fran's favor. His death sentence was commuted to life in prison. This was rather surprising because Fran had served almost 30 years on California's death row.

When sentencing Francis Hernandez, should the judge have taken Fran's alcoholism and drug abuse into consideration? I don't think so. If the judge should have done so, defense attorneys could argue that judges should take those factors into consideration when sentencing drunk drivers charged with vehicular manslaughter. We have to draw the line somewhere. Being higher than a kite is not a valid excuse for two savage murders.

If more Hispanics had been on the jury, would they have felt sympathy toward Fran and given him a shorter sentence? No necessarily. Francis Hernandez was not persecuted because of his race or ethnic origin. Most of the Hispanics I know are Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church is opposed to the culture of death. I see no reason to believe that Hispanics would have pitied a punk who raped, tortured and murdered two innocent young women.

While I disagree with the 2011 appeals courts' ruling, I feel that the judge should have considered whether Fran was abused as a child. His mother suffered from mental illness. I spoke to several people who knew Fran when he was a boy. All of them said that his stepfather did not treat him well. Violence begets violence. Abuse begets abuse.

Frankly, I'm not sure that any of the above factors really mattered when the appeals court commuted his death sentence. California can no longer afford the death penalty. I've read that the death penalty costs millions of dollars each year, yet few people are ever executed in California. The appeals court may have decided that Francis Hernandez simply isn't worth the enormous expense of executing him.

Many years ago, I worked in the California Rehabilitation Center's infirmary. My duties included supervising two inmate xray technologists who had been convicted of gang-related murders. One told me that inmates absolutely hated Sharon Tate's family because the Tates went to every parole hearing, demanding that Charles Manson and his girls be kept in prison. Not only did the Tates convince the parole board to keep the Manson family in prison, they dimmed other convicted killers' hope of being paroled.

As long as he lives, Francis Hernandez will be a threat to other women and children. If we don't want him to be released from prison, we should remember Edna Bristol and Kathy Ryan. If the parole board conducts a hearing to determine if Fran should be released, family members should appear on his victims' behalf. Residents of Long Beach should write letters to the board, asking the board to remember what Fran did to Edna and Kathy. Be proactive. California certainly cannot afford to let a convicted serial killer go free.