penalty

Once is a hiccup.

Twice is a habit.

Maybe this is what the Chargers are — lurching, sputtering and unable to consistently move the football, despite an offensive overhaul packed with high expectations.

Just as they did in their abysmal season opener, the Chargers struggled at home Sunday and failed to establish a rhythm on their way to a 26-14 loss to the Las Vegas Raiders.

The Chargers lost their opener to the Arizona Cardinals by an identical score — 26-14.

A week after losing an opener for the first time in his career as an NFL head coach, Jim Harbaugh is off to his first 0-2 start as a coach in college or the pros.

It won’t get any easier. The Chargers play at Buffalo on Sunday against the 2-0 Bills, who have scored a combined 77 points in victories over the Houston Texans and Detroit Lions.

After that, the Chargers play at Seattle, at home against Denver, at Kansas City, and against the Rams as rare visitors at SoFi Stadium. Four opponents, four Super Bowl-winning coaches.

These first two games were supposed to be the soft start, of at least a relatively gentle ramp-up to the thorny part of the schedule.

Well, that’s out the window. The Chargers were dominated by Arizona, a team that won just three games last season, then dropped another home game to the Raiders. As head coach of the Chargers, Harbaugh had won all four of his previous matchups against Las Vegas.

The Chargers last started 0-2 in 2023, when they went on to finish 5-12.

Sunday, the Chargers were unable to get the ball downfield and repeatedly committed penalties and miscues that short-circuited drives. For instance, normally sturdy tackle Joe Alt was flagged for false starts three times.

Snapshot of another major problem: Trailing by a field goal late in the third quarter, the Chargers had a third-and-inches on their side of the field. They could have run a tush-push with 6-foot-6 Justin Herbert. They could have used 220-pound running back Omarion Hampton to hammer up the middle for a first down.

Instead, they had Herbert drop back into shotgun and sent Tre’ Harris in motion from right to left. Then, they snapped the ball at the precise moment the receiver was between center Jake Slaughter and the quarterback. The snap bounced off Harris’ knee, Herbert had to pounce on the loose ball and the threat was thwarted.

The normally stoic Herbert couldn’t hide his frustration. He appeared to angrily yell before retreating to the home sideline.

Chargers quarterback Justin Herbert reacts after an offensive holding penalty on Joe Alt results in a safety late in the fourth quarter Sunday against the Raiders.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Later, with slightly less than four minutes remaining, when the Chargers seemingly had a bit of momentum. They had just gotten a first down on a Raiders penalty — 12 men on defense — and had inched across the 50.

Herbert handed off to Hampton on a draw, and the second-year back was met by linebacker Nakobe Dean and promptly fumbled — one of six on the day for the Chargers. Safety Jeremy Chinn scooped up the ball and returned it 43 yards to the 16.

The final insult came on the Chargers’ last possession when Alt drew a holding penalty while trying to stop pass rusher Maxx Crosby, resulting in a safety.

Raiders fans at SoFi Stadium erupted in glee. For the Chargers, that singsong, taunting “Raiii-derrrs” chant will surely haunt their dreams. The TV cameras didn’t help matters, finding a lone Chargers fan amid an ocean of Raiders fans, a blue dot bobbing in a silver-and-black sea.

Three plays later, Kirk Cousins found Cody White with an 11-yard pass, the second touchdown of the day for the erstwhile practice-squad receiver.

The Chargers took a 14-10 lead midway through the third quarter when Herbert connected with tight end Oronde Gadsden II for a 10-yard touchdown.

But the Raiders responded on the ensuing possession when Cousins threw a 13-yard touchdown pass to White to put Las Vegas up, 17-14.

A key play in that drive showed the creativity of Klint Kubiak, in his first season as coach of the Raiders. Cousins took the snap and pitched the ball to Ashton Jeanty, who in turn threw it back to Cousins.

The quarterback then hit a wide-open Dareke Young for a 27-yard gain, giving the Raiders the ball deep in Chargers territory.

The Raiders led at halftime, 10-7, breaking a tie with four seconds remaining in the second quarter when Matt Gay kicked a 59-yard field goal.

Both teams struggled to find an offensive rhythm in the first half, and each quarterback was picked off.

The Raiders scored first on a 40-yard touchdown reception by Tre Tucker, who was so wide open behind the defense he was able to turn and wait for the ball to arrive.

The Chargers answered in the second quarter when Hampton pounded across the goal line from the one.

That’s something the Raiders failed to do at the end of the opening quarter, when they had a first-and-goal from the four, yet couldn’t score on four consecutive Jeanty runs.

The Chargers had a similarly frustrating moment in the first quarter when Herbert found tight end David Njoku behind the Las Vegas defense and delivered the ball for what should have been a big gain.

Njoku bobbled the pass, however, and the ball was grabbed by rookie safety Hezekiah Masses, who had another pick in the fourth quarter during his first career start.

Making matters worse, Njoku suffered a knee injury on the play and did not return.

TUNIS: Amnesty International urged Algeria’s government on Tuesday to abandon plans to resume executions after it pledged to give the death penalty to those responsible for wildfires following deadly blazes last month.

Algeria struggled to put out fires that swept through its northeast and killed 12 people last month, according to an official tally, while witnesses spoke of dozens of deaths.

The North African country has not carried out executions since 1993 but has handed down the death sentence in some instances, including terror-related cases, without carrying it out.

Last month President Abdelmadjid Tebboune ordered the justice minister to amend the penal code to impose the death penalty for people who start wildfires after the deadly blazes.

“Algeria’s authorities must immediately abandon any plans to expand the scope of the death penalty or resume executions after more than three decades without carrying one out,” Amnesty said in a statement.

It also called for the country to impose an official moratorium “as a first step toward fully abolishing the death penalty.”

Tebboune also said that people sentenced to death should be executed right after exhausting their right to appeal.

The government began looking at draft penal code amendments this month.

Tebboune said “child abductors and abusers” would also be included in the expanded death penalty plans.

Forest fires occur regularly in northern Algeria during the summer, but climate change is amplifying their impact by causing increasingly frequent droughts and intense heat.

But Tebboune alleged that there was “something criminal” about the recent blazes.

Amnesty also said “credible sources have since reported significantly higher casualties” than the official tally in the latest wildfires, “including over 70 deaths in a single municipality.”

More than 30 people were killed in July 2023 when fires tore through thousands of hectares of forests and farmland in Algeria, as well as hundreds of homes.

In 2023, Algeria handed the death penalty to more than 50 people — some in absentia — over the lynching of a 38-year-old man who was falsely accused of starting deadly forest fires two years earlier.

Arsenal will contact refereeing body Pro Ref over the incident in which Ezri Konsa conceded a penalty in Saturday’s win over Sunderland.

Konsa and Black Cats defender Dan Ballard were involved in a physical exchange inside the penalty area in which the Arsenal defender was adjudged to have fouled the Sunderland player for excessive holding.

After the game Gunners manager Mikel Arteta criticised the decision, and it is understood the Premier League champions will hold talks with the professional referee’s body for an explanation as to why the penalty was awarded.

It is understood Arsenal are keen to avoid major refereeing decisions impacting on results and want clarity over how referee John Brooks came to his decision.

Brooks initially awarded Sunderland the spot-kick on the field, and the decision was backed up by the video assistant referee (VAR).

“The referee’s call of penalty to Sunderland for a holding offence by Konsa on Ballard was checked and confirmed by VAR,” read a statement published by the Premier League Match Centre.

But after the game Arteta said: “This is not acceptable at this level.

“I watched it 20 times and I cannot find a way to understand how they think to give a penalty in that situation, or the way the VAR has to intervene.

“So I don’t know what to think. I’m sad that we have to discuss this after such a beautiful game, that at this level has the gravity of that. Because that changes the course of the season and it can cost you the championship.

“At this level, with all the work we put in, this cannot happen.”

Match of the Day pundits Ashley Williams and Thomas Frank both said Sunderland should not have been awarded a penalty, claiming that Arsenal should have had a free-kick.

“I think he’s got it completely wrong,” said Williams. “It’s almost like a perfect hip toss in judo [from Ballard]. In no way is it a penalty.”

California lawmakers are calling for emergency legislation and criminal penalties for creators of rogue AI systems after top AI executives publicly claimed that their technology poses existential threats to humanity.

After Anthropic Chief Executive Dario Amodei wrote in a Sept. 12 essay that they “must slow the pace” of the technology, Silicon Valley congressman Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) blasted him for not going “nearly far enough” to make sure artificial intelligence was erected with guardrails.

The answer, Khanna argued, was simple: Make the companies liable for the harm executives say looks increasingly inevitable.

“If you’re creating an AI that is doing illegal things, you should either face liability or criminal sanction,” Khanna said in a video posted to X on Saturday. “That is what we need to protect humanity.”

In July, officials from OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, disclosed that, unbeknownst to them, its AI models had hacked into rival startup Hugging Face.

Amodei said he believed that, within the next year, “given the accelerating rate of AI capability development,” a similar incident could lead to AI “taking over the entire internet.”

Amodei warned in his essay that AI was rapidly improving itself, through a process known as recursive self-improvement, which threatened to outpace humans’ ability to control it. Khanna argued that banning this capability was the “most obvious” thing Anthropic could do.

“We need to stop, ban self-improving AI,” Khanna said. “You can not have recursive self-improving AI that basically is able to improve itself and exceed human capability.”

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) expressed similar outrage over the weekend, calling on House Speaker Mike Johnson to call lawmakers back to Washington to pass guardrails on the technology now that he said multiple AI companies had conceded “what they are creating is not safe.”

xAI Chief Executive Elon Musk and OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman joined Amodei’s call for a slowdown of the breakneck development Saturday.

The statements come after Jacob Coxon, who worked as a researcher at both Anthropic and OpenAI, said in a widely circulated post that he resigned from the company in protest after becoming convinced the tech giants were “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.” Neither company immediately responded to a request for comment.

“This is a direct result of the trump Administration letting the AI industry run wild,” Lieu wrote on X. “That mistake has harmed America, harmed the industry and harmed the American people. November is coming.”

Former President Barack Obama urged Democrats this week to make AI oversight the core of their agenda and said presidential candidates in 2028 should have a “clear plan” for responding to concerns about the technology, the New York Times reported. Americans appear increasingly alarmed by the technology with seven in 10 polled in March opposing local construction of data centers that power AI technology, according to a Gallup survey.

During a Sunday appearance on CNN, Johnson rebuffed the idea that lawmakers should rush into an emergency session to consider erecting industry guardrails. Instead, he said lawmakers needed to be careful to “not smother American innovation.”

“We will lose the race to China, and that is a threat to every single American,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We don’t need everyone to panic right now.”

Trump said earlier this week that he is not concerned with the pace of AI progress, telling one reporter, “It’s going to be fine.” American AI companies have long argued too much government regulation would shackle them in a race with China.

Calls for a federal fix were echoed this week by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has argued the Trump administration needs to move on national legislation to prepare for fallout from the technology.

Newsom signed bills this week aimed at creating a pathway for outside audits of the top AI companies, many of which are based in California, and a registry for AI auditors.

“The scale and potential consequences of this technology demand sustained action from every level of government,” Newsom said in a statement. “The federal government must step forward with robust, national regulations that match the urgency of this moment.”

Efforts to impose state-level regulations have been mixed, with critics echoing Johnson’s fears that they will stifle innovation.

Late last month, California lawmakers passed sweeping new safeguards around social media, artificial intelligence and data centers, including the ones Newsom signed last week.

Newsom will now decide the fate of the rest of the bills. He has previously vetoed some bills aimed at restricting big tech.

Newsom’s signal that he supports creating some regulation for AI comes two years after he vetoed SB 1047, an AI safety bill that would have required developers to submit safety protocols to the state attorney general, who could hold companies liable if the AI model they directly controlled were to threaten public safety. That legislation would also have required tech firms to be able to turn off the models they directly control if things went awry.

Newsom said at the time the bill would give the public a “false sense of security,” without making a sufficient distinction between the kinds of uses for which AI is deployed.

The bill was supported by a host of prominent AI researchers, but was opposed by Meta, OpenAI and industry groups.

Arsenal maintain perfect start to the season with their fourth win, thanks to goals from Guimaraes and Saka.

Arsenal manager Mikel ‌Arteta has labelled the decision to award Sunderland a penalty ‘unacceptable’ after watching his side ⁠grind out a 2-0 ⁠win to maintain their 100 percent start to the season and move clear at the top of the Premier League.

The defending champions made ⁠it 12 points out of 12 on Saturday as David Raya’s penalty save in the 55th minute proved crucial for the visitors, who went ahead two minutes later ⁠with Bruno Guimaraes’s first goal for the club.

Bukayo Saka wrapped it up deep in stoppage time from the penalty spot to ⁠make it four league wins out of four for the reigning champions.

It could have been different had Enzo Le Fee found the net, but Arteta blasted the decision by referee John Brooks to award a penalty when Ezri Konsa was penalised for pulling down Dan Ballard as a corner was played in.

“It was a huge win ‌, but it could have been something very different,” an angry Arteta said when referring to the penalty award after the match.

“It’s unacceptable at this level; this can change the course of a season and the championship. It’s not acceptable. I’ve seen it 10 times to make sure, and it’s not possible at this level that it can be a penalty. It cannot happen.

“It’s not a penalty in any context, in any league.”

It was far from a vintage Arsenal display against a tenacious Sunderland, who ⁠deserved something for their endeavour, but they dug deep and showed the resilience ⁠that helped them win a first title for 22 years last season.

They have now kept four clean sheets in their five games since the start of the season, including in the Champions League win at Napoli in midweek.

Summer signing Guimaraes replaced Myles ⁠Lewis-Skelly at half-time and made a stunning impact.

After receiving a pass from Declan Rice, he sent a right-footed curler into the top corner.

Arsenal were forced to ⁠defend desperately at times as Sunderland’s physicality rattled them, but ⁠Saka netted his third goal of the season when he beat Robin Roefs with his spot-kick after being fouled by Reinildo Mandava, who was sent off.

“It’s unbelievable the spirit and the courage we have to go again and again and again,” Arteta said. “So ‌pleased in one sense and so worried in another.

“David Raya was unbelievable. He is a player that decides football matches when we need it.

“Sunderland deserve a lot of credit for the way they make it ‌so ‌hard for you.”

Manchester City, the only other side not to have dropped Premier League points this season, can join Arsenal on 12 points if they beat Manchester United on Sunday.

SACRAMENTO — Democrat Xavier Becerra defended the death penalty while serving as California’s attorney general, a punishment his office actively sought in the case of a gunman convicted of an Orange County mass shooting, but as the front-running candidate for governor he has vowed to block executions if elected in November.

Becerra said he will extend the blanket reprieve for all death row inmates that Gov. Gavin Newsom enacted by executive order in 2019, saying he supported “moving our state away from a costly, flawed system that disproportionately impacts Black and brown communities and too often gets it wrong.”

Those comments have reassured anti-death penalty advocates wary of Becerra, who has stated throughout his career that capital punishment should be an option for victims seeking justice. He reiterated that stance just a decade ago during his confirmation hearing for attorney general, though he also expressed concerns about the unjust application of the punishment.

“I support the death penalty, but I hate the way it’s being executed,” Becerra told state lawmakers in 2017.

“If you commit some heinous crime where you have taken the life of someone else, and you knew that there was a death penalty in place in that place where you committed that crime, then you should face the punishment for what you’ve done,” he explained. “It doesn’t give me pleasure to say that, but I simply do believe there’s a simple justice in that.”

Becerra’s challenger in the Nov. 3 election, former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, opposes the death penalty but said he would rescind Newsom’s moratorium because it defies the will of voters.

Becerra has said he is concerned by how death sentences historically have been applied, including a highly disproportionate number of condemned inmates who are Black or Latino men and cases in which they later have been exonerated of crimes.

He repeated similar positions last year during a gubernatorial forum in Los Angeles.

“I do not believe every Californian has gotten a fair verdict in these fights,” he said in response to a question about extending Newsom’s moratorium. “But here is what I will tell you: We have to be aggressive in going after crime, especially the most heinous crime. … I will make sure that we have a judiciary system and a prosecution system that takes into account that we must show fairness.”

Though California has not performed an execution since 2006, prosecutors in some areas of the state continue to seek and win death sentences. As of early August, there were 565 condemned inmates in California prisons, according to the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Newsom’s moratorium stops the state from carrying out those sentences.

In California, county district attorneys are responsible for prosecuting the vast majority of accused murderers when they go to trial and also deciding whether to seek the death penalty. The office of the state attorney general is responsible for defending death penalty convictions on appeal.

Becerra sought the death penalty in a murder case his office prosecuted early in his tenure, though unsuccessfully. Scott Dekraai, who was convicted of killing his ex-wife and seven others in a shooting at a Seal Beach beauty salon, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after a prosecution scandal involving his case.

Some death penalty opponents criticized Becerra for fighting to uphold the death sentence of Robert Lewis Jr., who was deemed by the California Supreme Court in 2018 to have an intellectual disability that made him ineligible for execution.

“I find that reprehensible,” said Mike Farrell, president of Death Penalty Focus, an advocacy group. A longtime anti-death penalty activist, Farrell is better-known for starring as B.J. Hunnicutt in the TV show “M*A*S*H.”

“It may not have been his idea, but he was part of that process,” he said of Becerra.

Others said Becerra cannot be blamed for doing his job. Former Vice President Kamala Harris faced the same dilemma when she served as state attorney general, as does Rob Bonta, who currently holds the office.

“The AG is in a different position because it’s just inherent in their role to defend convictions and sentences,” said Natasha Minsker of the California Anti-Death Penalty Coalition. “For example, Kamala Harris is very strongly personally opposed to the death penalty and still, while she was AG, the office defended hundreds of death sentences. Same with Rob Bonta. He’s very clearly personally against the death penalty, and his office continues to defend death sentences.”

Becerra’s campaign declined an interview on the subject and referred to his statement in support of extending Newsom’s freeze on executions.

Hilton, his Republican opponent in the race, holds starkly different views.

“If you’re arguing that taking a life is such a serious crime, then I don’t think responding by taking a life actually makes that argument,” he said in an interview last month.

But he said California voters spoke clearly by voting twice — in 2012 and 2016 — against ballot measures that would have repealed the death penalty. “I don’t think it’s OK for a governor to just substitute their personal opinion on an issue where the voters had an explicit and direct say,” he said.

“I strongly believe in holding people accountable for what they do,” Hilton said. “But my sort of fundamental belief is that if we’re saying it’s wrong to kill someone, then the state shouldn’t be doing it, either.”

Hilton also would roll back Democratic-led reforms that have shortened many inmates’ prison sentences by allowing them to seek parole sooner.

End or extend? It’s not that simple

Even if a governor rescinds the moratorium, resuming executions would be a long and complicated process because the state has no approved protocol or facilities to carry out death sentences.

Newsom ordered the dismantling of San Quentin’s death row and execution chamber. Even before he took office, the state’s use of lethal injection drugs was part of a long-running and now-dormant legal battle. And a dwindling number of attorneys who specialize in death penalty cases meant 70% of condemned inmates did not have a lawyer at the end of last year, according to a state report.

California’s death penalty also faces a new legal challenge from groups arguing that capital punishment cases have been administered in a way that is racially discriminatory. In May, the California Supreme Court ordered the attorney general’s office to respond to the arguments and assigned the case to a superior court.

The shifts in California’s criminal justice system are reflected in legal battles waged by the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a nonprofit that supports victims of crime and their families in court.

“We used to do a lot of work in the capital punishment area because that was the area where justice and the sentences were under the greatest attack,” said Kent Scheidegger, the group’s legal director.

But as California’s Democratic-controlled Legislature, governor and, at times, voters adopted measures aimed at reducing the prison population, Scheidegger said the foundation’s efforts increasingly are focused on preserving “the finality of sentences.”

Many capital cases were negotiated as “plea bargains to life without parole on the express promise that this will provide the finality that the victims need most,” he said. “Life without possibility of parole, until recently, meant life without possibility of parole. And now we’ve got one action after another coming out of the government to break down that finality and give people sentenced to life without parole opportunities to get out.”

The group has challenged attempts to expand early release for violent offenders under 2016’s Proposition 57 and new regulations that would allow people sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to seek release.

Twenty-seven states allow the death penalty, but governors in four of them — California, Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania — have paused executions.

Slow shifts in public opinion

Attitudes about capital punishment have shifted over time. A 2025 Gallup poll showed 52% of Americans favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, down from its peak of 80% in 1994.

In a 2023 survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, 62% of adults in the state said they “strongly favor” or “somewhat favor” the death penalty in murder cases. When asked which punishment they prefer for a first-degree murder case, 55% said life without parole and 43% chose the death penalty. More than three-quarters believe there “is some risk that an innocent person will be put to death.”

Despite the changing opinions, Minsker, of the California Anti-Death Penalty Coalition, said there’s little appetite for another repeal attempt because of how expensive ballot measure campaigns have become.

“I am personally one of the strongest proponents of ending the death penalty, and I am not sure I would spend $30 million on that right now, given all the other needs that California has,” said Minsker, a former attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who ran the unsuccessful 2012 death penalty repeal measure.

Putting an anti-death penalty measure on the statewide ballot also could have put Newsom in an precarious political position. If it failed, Californians would be sending a stinging rebuke to the Democratic governor’s executive decision to grant a blanket reprieve to all condemned inmates.

Minsker is leading a group of criminal justice advocates, faith organizations, prosecutors, murder victim family members and others urging Newsom to commute every death sentence in California before he leaves office.

But advocates are unsure whether Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028, would risk the backlash a mass commutation would probably bring. The California Supreme Court also must review executive clemency actions for inmates with more than one felony charge.

Commuting all death sentences to life in prison “would be the coup de grâce,” Farrell said. “However, politically, I’m sure those who are advising him are urging him to have caution in that regard.”