Well, no one really thinks that her own opinions will be representative of the governments policy, other than publicly drumming up support from headless politics obsessed people. I am happy for that, because as a DA she was quite aggressive and has a questionable history of abusing her position of power with weirdly authoritarian logic.
"As district attorney of San Francisco, she declined to pursue the death penalty. But as attorney general of California, she defended the state's use of the death penalty. She essentially said: look, I'm doing my job. It's the largest attorney general's office, second to the U.S. attorney general. And after the Supreme Court ruled that California had basically put way too many people in prison, her office argued that they needed to have these folks in prison because they were essential to prison labor."
You can decide whether you find that credible or not but it seems worth noting that the California AG’s office is large enough that nobody can micromanage it. What I’d look at is what she did _after_ becoming aware of it.
Thanks for this, your framing is fair considering you kinda have to take it on faith and her word that she didn't know and was this just a deflection and reaction(political) vs she was unaware of what her own office was doing(Not good, but human).
(Ref- https://www.npr.org/2020/10/13/923369723/lets-talk-about-kam...).
"As district attorney of San Francisco, she declined to pursue the death penalty. But as attorney general of California, she defended the state's use of the death penalty. She essentially said: look, I'm doing my job. It's the largest attorney general's office, second to the U.S. attorney general. And after the Supreme Court ruled that California had basically put way too many people in prison, her office argued that they needed to have these folks in prison because they were essential to prison labor."
Not a fan.