California and the Death Penalty

            The act of killing another human being as a punishment has always been a part of man kind’s history.  Laws depicting the concept of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” can be dated back to 1772 BC with the Code of Hammurabi (Hassall, 1998.) Today, laws and society have evolved.  There are only specific crimes where the punishment may include the possibility of execution: murder, sexual assault of a minor, treason, espionage, and kidnapping are amongst them. There has been controversy over whether or not it is right to execute people as a form of punishment. In the U.S. thirty-three states have an active capital punishment, where as seventeen have abolished it (DPIC, 2012; Dieter, 2007.)   

            California, the state with the largest population, is attempting to change many of the laws that our government has enacted in the late 80’s and early 90’s.  Some of these laws have been accused of creating the long battle that California has had with the overwhelming populations and budget spending in the state prisons (Dieter, 2007.)  On the November 2012 election ballot there are a number of new reforms awaiting their fate. Amongst these reforms are proposition 34, and Proposition 36. Proposition 36, is a reform on the three strikes law which is said to help alleviate any future congestion within the prisons, because it would require that the third strike to be a violent offense; opposed to the law of today, where an individual can get a life sentence simply for stealing a sandwich on their third strike (ballotpedia, 2012.)  Proposition 34, is a reform on California’s capital punishment. If enacted proposition 34, will abolish the death penalty, and turn what would be punishable by death, into a life sentence without the possibility of parole (ballotpedia, 2012.)

The death penalty has had a long history in California. It was first allowed in the state in 1872; however, in 1972 the California Supreme Court ruled against the death penalty describing it as cruel and unusual punishment.  The Supreme Court’s ruling turned the sentence for those on death row into life in prison without the possibility of parole; much like what proposition 34 will do if enacted (CDCR, 2010; DPIC, 2012.)  Again, Californians feared the rising rates and severity of crime so much so, that capital punishment was once again enacted.  California re-enacted the death penalty for first degree murder, in 1977; it was only to be used for those guilty of first degree murder. In 1978, the citizens of California decided to extend capital punishment to murder with special circumstances; these special circumstances include multiple murders, or murder during a rape, robbery, or torture.  Since its re-enactment, California has only executed thirteen inmates and there are currently 724 inmates awaiting their execution (CDCR, 2010; Sangiorgio, 2011; DPIC, 2012.)

There has been controversy over whether or not the death penalty is actually an effective punishment or if it is simply a flawed waste of money.  According to an article published in the L.A.  Times ( Williams, 2011) California’s tax payers have spent more than four billion dollars on the death penalty since capital punishment was reenacted; this means that each of the thirteen executions that have taken place in the last thirty-three years cost approximately 308 million dollars. Today, those who are currently on death row in California cost the state approximately 184 million dollars more per year more than those inmates who are currently serving a life sentence. Also costly to Californian’s are the prosecution costs which are estimated to cost at least twenty times that of life sentence cases. According to a study published in the L.A. Times (Williams, 2011), “the least expensive death penalty trial costs $1.1 million more than the most expensive life-without-parole case (Williams, 2011.)”  

It is obvious that capital punishment costs the state millions of dollars more than it does just to house inmates on a life sentence; however, opponents of abolishing capital punishment such as chief of staff to the Orange County District Attorney, Susan Schroeder (appeal democrat, 2011)  explained that,

“…Even if the death penalty is not carried out often in California, we have to hold the line on tough punishments. If prison without possibility of parole becomes the toughest penalty, then a slippery slope could develop in which lesser penalties could be imposed for heinous crimes. Eventually, we could end up like Norway, where Anders Behring Breivik murdered 69 people last year and was given that country's harshest penalty, 21 years in prison (appeal democrat, 2012.)”

Sometimes, as people with emotions, we do things just because it makes us feel better. Even though it costs a lot more money to put someone to death, some may argue that at least now we know that person will never hurt anyone or their family again. They may also argue that it provides closure for victims and their families when their attacker has been put to death. Although the idea of killing another person as punishment has been a part of man kind’s history, California has had a long battle accepting it.  History usually repeats itself, and I believe that if Proposition 34 does get the majority vote and goes into effect on November 7, 2012, in the future there will be some way to bring another form of capital punishment back to the state. 

Works Cited

Appeal Democrat. (2012, September 26). Our view: No on prop. 34 – repeal of death penalty. Retrieved from http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/death-119740-penalty-prison.html

 

Ballot Pedia. (2012). California proposition 34, the end of the death penalty initiative. Retrieved from http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_34,_the_End_the_Death_Penalty_Initiative_(2012)

CDCR. (2010). Capital punishment: History of capital punishment in California. Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/capital_punishment/history_of_capital_punishment.html

 

Death penalty information center. (2012). State by state database. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state_by_state

Dieter, R. (2007). Changing views on the death penalty. Death penalty Information, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/Beijing07.pdf

Halsall , P. (1998, March). Ancient history sourcebook: Code of hammurabi, c. 1780 bce. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.asp

Sangiorgio, C. (2011). The death penalty and public information on its use. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 25, 33-44. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=93f87b04-76f2-4853-82b2-6c1e4379a5ad@sessionmgr14&vid=4&hid=7

Willams, C. (2011, June 20). Death penalty costs California $184 million a year, study says. L.A. times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/20/local/la-me-adv-death-penalty-costs-20110620

 

 

 

           

Three Strikes and We're Full

Under the tenth amendment, each state has the right to impose laws as they see fit for their jurisdictions as long as it does not infringe the constitutional rights of their citizens. Many states have imposed various laws based on concerns with in their societies and social norms; California is no different. In the early 1990’s, California was in somewhat of an uproar due to the rise in violent crimes.  As a response to these violent crimes, the legislature felt that there needed to be a harsher punishment imposed. They hoped to reduce recidivism rates as well as to create a deterrent; this deterrent became  the three strikes and you’re out law (Attorney General, 2012; LAO, 2005; Males, 2011). There were a few unexpected issues that came along with the new law, such as overcrowding prisons and the use of more money to keep these overcrowded prisons running (LAO, 2005; Males, 2011).   There are a few different aspects of the law that I’ll be discussing such as the intent of the law, how it works, its affects on prisons and inmate as well as  proposition 36.

Intent

In 1994, the three strikes law was passed. It was considered a way to keep repeat offenders off the streets.  Repeat offenders are classified as a group of people that are difficult to manage because no matter how many times they have been put behind bars, they simply do not change their way of thinking.  Because repeat offenders were in and out of prison and crime was continually rising, society as well as policy makers felt that harsher sentencing was necessary (Attorney General, 2012; LAO, 2005; Males, 2011).  The harsher sentencing would serve as a greater deterrent than the typical sentencing guidelines.  Supporters of the three strikes law argued that imposing lengthy sentences on repeat offenders would reduce crime because sentence enhancements would remove repeat felons from society for longer periods of time. In turn, it would control their capability of committing more crimes.  The risk of such long sentences would deter some repeat offenders as well as new offenders of furthering their criminal lifestyle (LAO, 2005­). 

How It Works

            As it was intended, the three strike law adds sentencing enhancements for repeat offenders.  Once a criminal is processed and sentenced for the second time on a felony charge, even if it was not considered a violent crime, the three strikes enhancement doubles the sentence that would have been imposed based on the crime they had committed (Attorney General, 2012; LAO, 2005­).  For example, if a criminal was charged with their second offense and the sentence for that crime was five years, because of the three strikes law, the sentence becomes a mandatory ten years.  When facing a third felony charge, even if it was a non violent crime, the individual is now faced with a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison.  Every felony thereafter is a twenty-five year sentence added on to their term. The inmate must serve their twenty five year sentence without any possibility of parole and cannot be transferred to any other type of facility or programs (Attorney General, 2012; LAO, 2005; Megerian, 2012).

Effects

 Because of laws such as the three strikes law, more individuals are being sent to prison for longer sentences, even though the crime rate has continually decreased over the years.  This has caused prison populations to be almost double the capacity that the prisons were initially created to house.  Also, since they are spending more time in prison, the inmate population is getting older.  Statistics show that the cost for inmates over the age of fifty are double or triple that of the average inmate.  The older inmate population is costing the state, and tax payers, millions more in funding for medications, hospital visits, special housing and personal care. The number of inmates who are over the age of fifty has increased from approximately 5,500 to 16,300 in a ten year time span (Endorsement, 2012; Males, 2011)

  In 2010, the prison population included 40,998 inmates that were serving a sentence based on the three strikes sentencing guidelines.  About 8,727 of those inmates were serving sentences on their third strike.  In current year, the population of inmates serving sentences for their second strike is decreasing; however, the population of inmates that are now imprisoned for a life sentence is increasing and has almost doubled.   Statistics show that the average inmate costs approximately $46,700 a year, making the average third strike inmate serving a twenty-five year sentence around $1.1 million, and an inmate serving a life sentence approximately $1.8 million; these figures do not include any added cost for medical care or special needs (Endorsement, 2012; Attorney General, 2012).    

Proposition 36

            A current solution to the three strikes law is proposition 36, which is on the November ballot this year.  The new initiative would require that the third strike be considered a violent or serious felony in order to hand down the twenty-five years to life sentence.  Supporters of prop 36 claim that if passed, it would keep the true and dangerous criminals where they belong for the rightful length of time (Endorsement, 2012; Furillo, 2012, Harris, 2011).  The proposition would also have sentencing guide lines for those third strike offenders who are not guilty of a serious or violent offense.  The sentencing guidelines would require that the non-violent offender serve a double term; that is double the sentence they would get if it were their first offense (Harris, 2011, Attorney General, 2012).   

            Analysis of proposition 36 also shows that if enacted, the new legislation would save the state millions of dollars.  It is estimated to save approximately $70 million a year and eventually up to $90 million a year after the first few years the law has been put into effect.        Not only would the new legislation save the state money, but it would also help alleviate the prison overcrowding issues (Attorney General, 2012).  If proposition 36 is passed, individuals who have been sentenced to a life sentence for a non-violent crime can petition to have their sentencing overturned and resentenced based on the new guidelines.  Although the resentencing of inmates would cost the state more money to start, the attorney general’s analysis claims that it would be a onetime fee; over time the new legislation would save the state more money even after the resentencing fees (Attorney General, 2012; Harris, 2011; Furillo, 2012).    

Conclusion

            California has dealt with issues of prison overcrowding for many years. Even though the crime rates have been decreasing, prison populations have been increasing; now California inmates are in an unconstitutionally fit environment.  The three strikes law has proven to be ineffective and expensive to the citizens of California; even though it was enacted with good intentions.  Proposition 36, although similar, will alleviate some of the issues and impacts created by the three strikes law.  I believe proposition 36 will help with the inmate relocation issues and keep dangerous inmates behind bars, instead of allowing inmates to leave prison early. Prisoners early release is an  alternative the state is considering in order to meet the lower inmate population the Supreme Court has required of California state prisons. If proposition 36 does not work out as intended, I believe that in the long run it will still have made a difference for the prison systems.

           

Works Cited

Attorney General. The Attorney General's Office, (2012).Proposition 36 three strikes law. repeat felony offenders. penalties. initiative statue.. Retrieved from website: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/36-title-summ-analysis.pdf

Endorsement. (2012, September 26). Yes on proposition 36. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-prop36-20120926,0,3913799.story

Furillo, A. (2012, September 24). How prop. 36 would change 'three strikes' in two ways. Sacramento Bee. Retrieved from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/24/4848167/how-prop-36-would-change-three.html

Harris, K. Attorney General of California, (2011). Request for title and summary for the three strikes law reform act of 2012 initiative. Retrieved from website: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1000_11-0057_(three_strikes).pdf

LAO. (2005). A primer: Three strikes the impact after more than a decade. Legislative Analyst's Office, Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_Strikes/3_strikes_102005.pdf

Males, M. (2011). Striking out: California’s “three strikes and you’re out” law has not reduced violent crime. a 2011 update. Center on juvenile and criminal justice, Retrieved from http://www.cjcj.org/files/Striking_Out_Californias_Three_Strikes_And_Youre_Out_Law_Has_Not_Reduced_Violent_Crime.pdf

Megerian, C. (2012, February 24). Three-strikes law costly and ineffective, study says. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/02/prison-california-three-stirkes.html