The California Senate Committee on Public Safety and the Assembly Committee of Public Safety will hold an informational hearing on Proposition 34 on Tuesday.
Prop. 34 is the November election ballot measure to abolish the death penalty in California. If passed, it would require replacing the ultimate court punishment with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
After long using the practice, California suspended its application of capital punishment in 1972. It was reinstated in 1977. Since then, 13 people have been executed by the state.
The passage of Prop. 34 would make it so all California inmates currently on death row would retroactively receive life without parole.
Tuesday’s hearing will include an overview and financial impact breakdown of the initiative by the Legislative Analyst’s Office. It will also involve two panel discussions.
The first panel will be made up of Prop. 34 supporters, which include former San Quentin Warden Jeanne Woodford and former Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti. The second panel will be made up of the initiative’s opponents, including Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones and San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe.
The hearing with be held on Tuesday, Sept. 18 from 10 a.m. to 12 noon in 4203 of the State Capitol. It will open to the public for public comment at 11:30 a.m.
Should Californians ban the death penalty? Share your thoughts on the issue in comments.
1- Guilty Verdict, 2- 30 day appeal period, then 3- Death by hanging or electrocution. 4- Eliminate execution while "dreaming." The people that these monsters killed were not in a "dream state." 5- Reduce San Quentin backlog by having 2 executions per day until the backlog is cleared.
Deterrence is, primarily, a function of the execution, not how long it takes to execute, although studies indicate that more executions, sooner, will deter, even more. That makes sense, since the media broadcasts, widely, whenever there is an execution. If there were 300 executions this year, that would create the deterrent effect, whether those executed had been on death row for one year or twenty, prior to the time of their execution.
Deterrence isn't measured by murder rates, but . . . 1. The United States has had double digit executions, annually, from 1984 - 2010. Murders are, now, at a 43 year low. Murder rates are, now, at a 48 year low. It's not surprising that death sentences are at a 35 year low. 2. Double digit annual executions stopped in the US in 1964 and resumed in 1984. During that period, murders increased by 100% murders in 1964 9,360, murders in 1984 18,670 3. There was a moratorium on all executions in the US from 1967 to 1977. During that period, there was a 56% increase in murders. murders is 1967 were 12,240, murders in 1977 were 19,120 From United States Crime Data, Dssaster Center, US Crime http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Dudley Sharp There is much confusion about deterrence, some, understandable and, some, intentional. There are many examples of: 1) murder rates dropping in death penalty jurisdictions and 2) murder rates being lower in death penalty jurisdictions and many examples of 3) murder rates dropping in non death penalty jurisdictions and 4) murder rates being lower in non death penalty jurisdictions In different instances, murder/crime rates might suggest deterrence or non deterrence of sanctions. In other words, gross murder/crime rates are not an accurate method of showing or understanding deterrence. Some anti death penalty folks work hard to muddy the waters - as with this study, wherein some thought the criminologists had agreed that the death penalty deters none, a finding not confirmed within the study: "Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock" http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx Confusion and understanding, respectively, are revealed by these two questions from a death penalty opponent. contd
Confusion: "If the deterrence contention holds true, why does the enthusiastic application of the death penalty not suppress the overall murder rate across all death penalty states?" Then, with understanding: "I understand your point that the death penalty has some deterrent effect. Perhaps the citizens of South Dakota are simply more homicidal than their northern neighbors, and without the death penalty keeping them in check, the murder rate would go through the roof." Yes, it has some deterrent effect, but it is clear he had not read the provided deterrence studies because they contradicted his comment about murder rates going through the roof. The deterrent effect has a very small impact on murder rates, but a substantial savings in innocent lives, as reviewed below. The death penalty, as all criminal sanctions, deters some, which will be reflected in net murder/crime rates, not gross ones, as explained: Whether murder/crime rates are high or low, whether they are rising, falling or staying, roughly, the same, all sanctions deter some. contd
A perfect example of this is: "Henderson, Nev., takes the No. 2 spot (America's Safest Cities) despite its location within the Metropolitan Statistical Area of Las Vegas-Paradise, which ranked ninth this year on Forbes’ list of America’s Most Dangerous Cities." (1) Does this mean no potential criminals are deterred in Las Vegas-Paradise and yet some are deterred in Henderson? Of course not. Some are deterred in both. It means that there are different factors in each jurisdiction which provide for different crime rates, as with all jurisdictions, inclusive of the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions, within both jurisdictions. This should come as no surprise. Death penalty opponent response: "However, the fact that murder rates are lower across the board in non death penalty (USA) states suggests that there is something else, some more effective deterrent which you would do well to investigate, if you weren't hidebound by your single minded advocacy of the death penalty." They are not lower across the board. Even if they were, it could not contradict the clear and accurate point. Furthermore, anti death penalty folks neglect the obvious reality that there are a very wide range of murder/crime rates between communities/cities/counties, within each individual state, be they death penalty or not, revealing the obvious error of the opponents intended point (2). contd
I think everyone knows that there are multiple deterrents to committing crime: Morality, change of social status if caught, the prospect of being caught and/or sanctioned, being some of the most obvious (2). Note that the 28 recent studies, finding for deterrence (3), find for deterrence of from 1-28 murders prevented per execution. Deterrence was also found to exist just by the presence of the death penalty statute. While this represents a substantial and very important savings of innocent lives, it has a very small impact on murder rates. The US has averaged around 33 executions per year since 1973, which equals a deterrent savings of innocents lives of from 33 to 924 per year. My guesstimate is that the US has averaged about 18,000 murders per years since 1973. The deterrent effect provides a near negligible impact on the murder rate (min 0.2% to max 5%), based upon those deterrence studies, but provides a huge savings in innocent lives. Even without those studies, most of us realize that all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is an unqualified truism, for which no exception exists. Some are so hidebound by their opposition to the death penalty that they must find that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the ONLY criminal sanction that deters none - a truly absurd notion. contd
Some questions the accuracy of the studies. The nature of social science studies are that they are not an exact science, as reflected in the range of deterrence strength. Yet, no social scientist will say that the death penalty deters none. That is because all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The question is not does the death penalty deter. It does. The question is "How much does it deter?" - a question that will never have a consensus answer. The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over life without parole. Therefore, death penalty opponents must live with sacrificing more innocent lives, if they accomplish their goal - a sacrifice they have admitted they are more than willing to allow others to make, as detailed within: Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html =================== 1) "America's Safest Cities", Lifestyle section, Forbes, 12/15/2011, http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethgreenfield/2011/12/15/americas-safest-cities/ 2) See Sections C and D within: The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html 3) 28 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/dpdeterrencefull.htm
Do you equate the sanction of community service to slavery, or fines to robbery or incarceration to kidnapping? You do if you equate murder and execution. Crime and punishment are very different things, morally, just as there is a differnece between guilty murderer and their innocent victims. Most folks can tell the difference, easily.
This is not how deterrence is measured (FOOTNOTE), however . . . . 1. The United States has had double digit executions, annually, from 1984 - 2010. Murders are, now, at a 43 year low. Murder rates are, now, at a 48 year low. It's not surprising that death sentences are at a 35 year low. 2. Double digit annual executions stopped in the US in 1964 and resumed in 1984. During that period, murders increased by 100% murders in 1964 9, 360 murders in 1984 18, 670 3. There was a moratorium on all executions in the US from 1967 to 1977. During that period, there was a 56% increase in murders. murders is 1967 were 12, 240 murders in 1977 were 19, 120 United States Crime Data http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm FOOTNOTE 3) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear" http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
I consider any murder a horrible crime. And you? It is hard to dind stats just on death penalty elgible murders. But, the most common death penalty elgible crimes are rape/murder and robbery/murder. As all three of those category of crimes - murder, rape and robbery, have all seen dramatic reductions, it is very likely that those two combinations may have dropped 60-70%. I have looked at the US and Texas. You can do Calif. Texas murders rapes robberies 1991 2652 9266 47900 2010 1249 7622 32843 1403 1644 15057 53% 18% 31% reduction US murders rapes robberies 1991 24,700 106,590 687, 730' 2010 14,748 84,767 367,832' 9952 21,823 319,898 41% 20% 47% reduction Source: Disaster Center http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
As I detailed, deterrence is, likely, not in effect in the majority of potential murders, but it is very important, nonthelkess in the lives that it does save, again, as I detailed, in my above posts. Again, as I already detailed, above, innocents are much more at risk without the death penalty. In the majority of cases what we are dealing with is evil.
You are not the first person to avoid discussing the facts and you won't be the last. To summarise my review. 1) The death penalty has enhanced due process over all other sanctions, inclusive of LWOP, therefore the death penalty is a better protector of innocents charged and tried, convicited and appealed, than does LWOP. There is no dispute, here. 2) Innocents are more at risk from living murderers than from dead ones. Again, an unqualified trusim which is, factually, uncontestible. 3) 99.7% of all murderers subject to the death penalty do everything they can to get a sentence less than death. That which we fear the most deters the most. Again, a trusim. Execution is feared more than life, life is much preferred over death. Unqualified trusims. Disagree all you wish, you cannot confound the facts which totally contradict your unsupportable opinion.
You are not the first person to avoid discussing the facts and you won't be the last. To summarise my review. 1) The death penalty has enhanced due process over all other sanctions, inclusive of LWOP, therefore the death penalty is a better protector of innocents charged and tried, convicited and appealed, than does LWOP. There is no dispute, here. 2) Innocents are more at risk from living murderers than from dead ones. Again, an unqualified trusim which is, factually, uncontestible. 3) 99.7% of all murderers subject to the death penalty do everything they can to get a sentence less than death. That which we fear the most deters the most. Again, a trusim. Execution is feared more than life, life is much preferred over death. Unqualified trusims. Disagree all you wish, you cannot confound the facts which totally contradict your unsupportable opinion.
Of these victims, at least 211 of them were raped and 319 of them robbed. Sixty-six victims were killed in execution style, usually bound and shot in the back of the head. Forty-seven victims were tortured. Forty-three of these victims were law enforcement agents and another seven were security guards. Not included in these numbers are cases where the killer attempted to kill a police officer, but was unsuccessful, as in the case of Oswaldo Amezcua who shot three police officers. Eleven death sentences were handed down after an already-incarcerated inmate murdered another inmate.
The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office did their own study, and found that replacing the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole will save the state $130M per year. SAFE California has over 10,000 donors and supporters behind this effort, with donations from $5 to $5,000 and more. Supporters include clergy, law enforcement, labor leaders, elected officials, victim family members, conservatives and liberals. The SAFE California Fund will provide $100M over 3 years to help solve crime in our communities. The money will be directed to local law enforcement to bring down the shocking unsolved crime rates in this state. Right now, 46% of murders and 56% of reported rapes go unsolved every year. Voters would rather spend precious state resources on keeping our communities safe than on death row inmates who are already safely locked up behind bars forever. Life in prison without parole is a harsh punishment, and it will keep heinous killers behind bars until they die, with no hope of ever getting out.
Most of the $ for Prop. 34 comes from liberal Chicago trust funds and the ACLU. Look it up. The $ for law enforcement is less than 1.5% of the LA Sheriff's Dept. budget. Divide it among 58 counties and even more police departments, it is a pittance and will have no affect on crime. (And it's only for 3 years.) Brown just signed a bill to let 300+ LWOP inmates out on parole in as little as 15 years after conviction. Liberals would like to get rid of LWOP. So promises that men jurors found to dangerous to live in prison for life will stay in prison carries no weight.