Richard Branson Backs Newsom’s California Death Sentence Commutations

In a recent LinkedIn post, Richard Branson discusses California Governor Gavin Newsom’s decision to commute the death sentences of more than 500 people to life without parole, presenting it as an act of political courage and a step toward greater humanity. This article reports on Branson’s post and his arguments; it was not written by Branson.

“Every once in a while, political leaders rise above the cautiously calibrated messaging of daily political business and make decisions reflective of a greater humanity.”

Branson frames the decision as a moral choice

Branson applauds Newsom’s action while acknowledging that it is likely to be controversial and provoke debate. In his view, the commutations place Newsom “on the right side of history.” That framing casts the decision as more than a change in punishment: Branson presents it as a test of whether political leaders will act on their convictions despite potential criticism.

As Richard Branson notes, he “fully support[s]” the governor’s decision and applauds his courage. His post does not dwell on the legal mechanics or individual cases behind the commutations. Instead, it makes a broad argument about the legitimacy of capital punishment and the responsibility of public officials.

An argument against the death penalty

Branson describes capital punishment as “outdated, inhumane and barbaric,” arguing that it has no place in modern society. He also challenges its practical justification, saying it does not deter violent crime or make communities safer. According to Branson, the resources spent on carrying out the death penalty could be better used elsewhere.

“As has been shown time and again, its existence doesn’t deter violent crime, doesn’t make communities any safer and is a massive waste of public resources that could be better spent elsewhere.”

The post links Branson’s moral objection to claims about public safety and government spending. He presents abolition as the conclusion that follows from both: if capital punishment is inhumane and does not deliver the benefits its defenders claim, he argues, it should be eliminated.

A call extending beyond California

Branson’s position reaches beyond Newsom’s action. He writes that the death penalty “should be abolished everywhere,” adding that California and the United States would be included in that change. The post therefore treats the commutations as a meaningful decision while keeping the focus on a larger policy goal.

“It should be abolished everywhere.”

Branson offers a clear endorsement of Newsom and a categorical case against capital punishment. His LinkedIn post invites debate over the role of the death penalty, but leaves detailed questions about alternatives and the consequences of commutation largely outside its scope.