Hundreds of students packed Wheeler Auditorium Wednesday to hear a debate between the Contra Costa County district attorney and a former prison warden on Proposition 34, a ballot measure that aims to end California’s death penalty at the polls in November.
The debate was between former San Quentin State Prison warden Jeanne Woodford and District Attorney Mark Peterson and was this week’s presentation for the campus course Political Science 179, Haas professor Alan Ross’s undergraduate colloquium on political science.
Prop. 34 will replace all mentions of the death sentence in California law with a life sentence without parole. The proposition aims to save a billion dollars over the next five years, which will be reallocated toward investigating unsolved crimes.
Both debaters focused the bulk of their arguments on massive fiscal inefficiencies in the death row system, citing a report updated last week analyzing capital punishment in California. The report was published by Arthur Alarcón, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge, and Paula Mitchell, an adjunct professor of law at Loyola Law School Los Angeles.
Woodford, who was in favor of the ballot measure to end the death penalty, cited the total state cost of the penalty since it was reinstated about 30 years ago as a reason for its replacement.
“Four billion dollars has been spent on the death penalty,” Woodford said. “Only 13 executions have been carried out.”
Peterson also considered this point from the report, but said the treatment of prisoners and an inefficient appeals process is to blame, not the death penalty itself.
“Appeals take too long,” Peterson said.
When asked by Peterson to raise their hands in a poll, only a few students raised their hands in favor of the death penalty, with most of the remaining 600 responding against it. Roughly 30 students raised their hands as undecided.
“I thought it was an alright attempt at an unbiased debate,” said UC Berkeley senior Phillip Leyva at the conclusion of the debate. “I made up my mind a while ago, but anyone in the middle will have a hard time deciding.”
Contact Jacob Brown at [email protected].
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
PROP. 34: The Truth Will Kill It
Dudley Sharp
An honest
discussion about Prop 34 would result in its overwhelming
defeat.
COSTS
Are the cost claims made by the pro Prop 34 folks
reliable (1)? No.
The ACLU cost review was easily destroyed (1) and
Mitchell and Alarcon, of the $4 billion study infamy, refuse to share their
database (1), which we can presume has problems and, therefore, no one can,
responsibly, depend upon that review.
Is it possibly that life without
parole (LWOP) may cost more than the death penalty? Yes (1).
Is it
required that California citizens allow their representatives to be so
irresponsible with both their state budget and death penalty management? Of
course not.
Virginia has executed 75% of those sentenced to death and
has done so within 7.1 years, on average.
All states, inclusive of
California, could implement similar protocols and save money over
LWOP.
INNOCENTS MORE PROTECTED WITH THE DEATH PENALTY
Is it true that
innocents are better protected by a death penalty protocol? Yes, in three
different ways (2). Innocents are more at risk without the death penalty
(2).
PROP. 34: UNPRINCIPLED? APPARENTLY.
Ask the media (or insert any
industry) this question.
How principled are you?
If you had a
group of corrupt people, who only wanted to shut down the media, by sabotaging
the media, would you say, OK, shut down all media?
Or would you say,
let’s clean it up, get you bad folks out of the picture, and make it
work?
A vote for Prop 34 is a vote for folks who have intentionally
obstructed justice in these cases, meaning anti death penalty legislators, the
defense bar and judges who have made the death penalty so irresponsible and who
are the same folks telling us to reward them by giving them what they have been
working for, based upon the horrible system they have engineered.
A
better idea.
How about demanding a responsible system, such as
Virginia’s, whereby 75% of those sentenced to death have been executed within
7.1 years, on average – a system similar to what Ca should have, if responsible
folks were in charge.
Calif has executed 1.4% of those sentenced because
such mismanagement is what such obstructionists (read Prop 34) had in
mind.
95% OF MURDER VICTIMS’ LOVED ONES SUPPORT DEATH PENALTY:
ANECDOTAL
EVIDENCE (3)
In addition, 80% of US folks support the death penalty for,
truly, “death penalty eligible” murders (3), just as from 56% to 83% have also
supported the death penalty when, wrongly, asked about their approval for the
death penalty for murders, for which about 90% are not death penalty eligible
(3).
1) California Death Penalty Cost “Studies”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/08/response-to-absurd-california-death.html
2)
a) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html
b) Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html
3)
US Death Penalty Support at 80%; World Support Remains High
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/04/us-death-penalty-support-at-80-world.html
Prop. 34 will kill innocent people:
Those on death row murdered at least 1,279 people, including 230 children & 43 police officers. 211 were raped, 319 robbed, 66 killed by execution, & 47 tortured. 11 murdered other inmates.
A jury of 12 people & a judge confirmed for each inmate that their crimes were so atrocious and they were so dangerous that they not only did not deserve to live, but they were so dangerous that the only safe recourse was the death penalty. Recognizing how dangerous these killers are, the prison houses them 1 person to a cell and does not provide them with work, leaving them locked in their cells most of the day.
Prop. 34 wants to ignore all of this and save $ by placing these killers in less-restrictive prisons where they share cells. They also want to provide them opportunities for work, where they have more freedom, access to other inmates and guards, & more chances to make weapons.
Prop. 34 also destroys any incentive for the 34,000 inmates already serving life without parole to kill again. There would be no death penalty. They are already serving a life sentence, so why not get a name by killing another inmate or a guard?
Prop. 34 also takes away the money for inmates to challenge their convictions. If innocent, they will spend the rest of their life in jail, celled with vicious killers. Prop. 34 will cause more deaths of innocent people– guards and people wrongfully convicted but no longer able to fight it in court.
And they refer to Prop. 34 as the SAFE Act!
The 729 on death row murdered at least 1,279 people, with 230 children. 43 were police officers. 211 were raped, 319 were robbed, 66 were killed in execution style, and 47 were tortured. 11 murdered other inmates.
The arguments in support of Pro. 34, the ballot measure to abolish the death penalty, are exaggerated at best and, in most cases, misleading and false.
No “savings.” Alleged savings ignore increased life-time medical costs for aging inmates and require decreased security levels and housing 2-3 inmates per cell rather than one. Rather than spending 23 hours/day in their cell, inmates will be required to work. These changes will lead to increased violence for other inmates and guards and prove unworkable for these killers. Also, without the death penalty, the lack of incentive to plead the case to avoid the death penalty will lead to more trial and related costs and appeals.
No “accountability.” Max earnings for any inmate would amount to $383/year (assuming 100% of earnings went to victims), divided by number of qualifying victims. Hardly accounts for murdering a loved one.
No “full enforcement” as 729 inmates do not receive penalty given them by jurors. Also, for the 34,000 inmates serving life sentences, there will be NO increased penalty for killing a guard or another inmate. They’re already serving a life sentence.
It was interesting that these two really only debated about the money aspects. I oppose the death penalty for a couple reasons.
1) The money saved from not having to go through the appeal process required for death penalty sentences.
2) I don’t think anyone or any institution should murder people. A culture of death is created no matter who is doing the killing, and life should be regarded with much more value.
To me, cost is not the issue. Our legal system has a graduated system of punishment and if we remove the strongest punishment available then those criminals who already face life in prison would see no deterrent to murdering all possible eyewitnesses since the punishment for mass murder is the same as for the lesser crimes.
That’s speculation. Can you show one study where the presence of the death penalty reduces the number of homicides compared to places where the death penalty has been abolished?
It obviously isn’t the only factor because basically everywhere in Europe has abolished the death penalty and they have much lower incidences of violent crime than here (not going to bother giving a citation for that one, it’s pretty easy to look up on the web).
The Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik was declared sane and received a sentence of 21 years in jail for killing 77 innocent people last year. I guess Norway’s deterrence system isn’t working out so well….
You didn’t understand my point. I’m not saying the death penalty
reduces homicidal tendencies in murderers who would have killed anyways.
However, it does deter bank robbers and kidnappers from killing all
the eyewitnesses because they don’t want to face a murder charge if they
get caught. It may prevent rapists from killing their victims too. If
you don’t believe the death penalty is scary enough, then ask yourself
why so many criminals spend so much time and effort to fight a possible
death sentence?
We have a death penalty for societal reasons, not fiscal ones. Everyone agrees that it’s a terribly inefficient system in terms of time and costs, but that doesn’t go against the fact that there are horrific and heinous monsters in our society that we need to rid ourselves of.
Don’t believe so? Why don’t you try living next to a serial murderer or rapist and let me know how well that goes
So you actually think that it is morally justifiable to kill someone for something that they did and will never be able to do again? Not to mention the hundreds of people wrongfully slaughtered under the law for crimes they did not commit, and those suffering from psychological disorders who cannot even understand why something like murder is wrong…You pig.
So your fine then with these killers to have a life in prison, which is free for them, in which they receive free healthcare, warm showers, free food, etc., all at the expense of taxpayers? Plzzz, these people on death row need to be put to death. End of story.
The facts indicate that they won’t be put to death. Instead they get all the free things you mention, plus they get incredibly expensive legal representation for free for the rest of their lives as they go through the appeals process. When very few death row inmates are going to be killed, then why waste all that taxpayer money on legal proceedings?
I’m pretty sure that not every child rapist goes to prison for life, nor does the gang-member who shoots some innocent kid on the streets. It appears that you’re comfortable with some of them to be let out, and that certainly goes against your “never be able to do again” clause.
Bad apples require disposal. Millions of people die of disease and starvation every year, personally, I think we should be focused on those, and not the fuck-ups that have committed heinous crimes…and certainly not those that have committed multiple crimes.
Oink oink.
“It appears that you’re comfortable with some of them to be let out, and
that certainly goes against your “never be able to do again” clause”
I laugh at your interpretation of “life without parole”. You must not know what it means.
Life without parole is not what you think it means. We often hear of criminals who were sentenced to life without parole who got out anyways 20 or 30 years later for being model prisoners. Sometimes sentences are commuted by governors.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/lwop.htm
Not one person in California has been released after being sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, unless they were proven innocent.
@altthymes: What you say is catchy but not quite accurate. Please refer to the case of Montell Johnson. He was convicted of murdering a pregnant woman and in 1999 was sentenced in California to death. He was extradited to Illinois to face another murder charge and because he became sick with MS governor Rod Blagojevich commuted his sentence to time served. Now he’s a free man and he didn’t have to prove his innocence.
Considering the number of inmates in jail for life without parole, the number of criminals getting the sentence adjusted is very small. Just looking at the list on the link you provided, we see how rare it is. I would rather save all the extra taxpayer money for continued legal proceedings if as a trade off a couple of people who have served decades in prison get the district attorney to change its mind about the severity of the punishment.
@I_h8_disqus:disqus : I agree the numbers are small and the costs are great. However, as I said earlier, I’ve never considered the cost because I believe even a bankrupt state needs to enforce its sentencing laws. Just another reason we can’t allow liberals to run our state down to the point that we can’t even afford to carry out justice.
Note Calipenguin below. You’re way too trusting in “absolutes”. When things are political, there’s never a true black & white scenario.
All this does is replace death penalty with a sentence for life without parole. Someone who is sentenced for life without parole is no more likely to live next to you than someone who is on death row. Why maintain a system that does not provide additional public safety, costs more than even keeping them in prison forever, and creates the risk of an irreversible judicial error?