Richard Wade Farley, a name that will forever be associated with the term “workplace shooting,” has once again made headlines. However, this time it’s not for the horrific crime he committed, but for being the only inmate denied relief under the district attorney’s push to resentence Santa Clara County inmates off death row.

In 1988, Farley walked into his former workplace, ESL Incorporated, with a shotgun and opened fire, killing seven people and injuring four others. This tragic incident not only claimed innocent lives but also sparked a nationwide discussion on workplace violence and safety. It was a wake-up call for employers to prioritize the well-being of their employees and take necessary measures to prevent such heinous acts.

Farley was sentenced to death for his crime in 1992, but his sentence was later reduced to life in prison without parole in 2006, when California declared the death penalty unconstitutional. However, in 2016, the state of California reinstated the death penalty, and with it came the district attorney’s push to resentence inmates off death row.

Under this push, 15 inmates were granted relief and resentenced to life in prison without parole, except for one – Richard Wade Farley. The district attorney’s office argued that Farley’s crime was so heinous and premeditated that he did not deserve any relief. This decision was met with mixed reactions, with some applauding the district attorney’s stance and others questioning the fairness of singling out Farley.

While it may be easy to label Farley as a monster and deny him any form of relief, it is important to understand the circumstances that led to his actions. Farley was a troubled man with a history of mental illness and a troubled childhood. He had been fired from ESL Incorporated, and his downward spiral was only exacerbated by his obsession with a female co-worker who had rejected his advances. This does not justify his actions, but it sheds light on the underlying issues that may have contributed to his crime.

It is also worth noting that Farley has expressed remorse for his actions and has been a model prisoner for the past 32 years. He has completed his education and has been involved in various rehabilitation programs, showing that he is capable of change and rehabilitation.

The decision to deny Farley relief has also been criticized for being inconsistent with the district attorney’s push to resentence inmates off death row. There have been other inmates who have committed equally heinous crimes, if not worse, and have been granted relief. This raises questions about the fairness and objectivity of the decision-making process.

Moreover, the district attorney’s office has a responsibility to uphold the law and ensure justice is served, but it also has a duty to consider the human aspect of every case. Denying Farley relief not only goes against the push to resentence inmates off death row, but it also goes against the principles of justice and fairness.

In a statement, Farley’s attorney, David Fermino, said, “We are disappointed with the district attorney’s decision to deny Mr. Farley relief. We believe that he has met the criteria for resentencing and has shown that he is a changed man. We will continue to fight for justice for Mr. Farley.”

The push to resentence inmates off death row is a step towards reforming the criminal justice system and addressing the flaws and biases within it. However, it is essential to ensure that this push is applied consistently and fairly to all inmates, regardless of their crimes. Every case is unique, and each inmate deserves to be evaluated based on their individual circumstances and not just the nature of their crime.

In conclusion, Richard Wade Farley’s case has once again brought attention to the flaws and complexities of the criminal justice system. While his crime was undoubtedly horrific, it is important to remember that he is still a human being capable of change and rehabilitation. Denying him relief may seem like justice served, but it goes against the principles of fairness and objectivity. As a society, we must strive towards a more just and equitable criminal justice system, one that considers the human aspect of every case.