SR-10-02-2012-13DOctober 2, 2012
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: Councilmembers Shriver, Holbrook and O'Connor
Date: October 2, 2012
13 -D: Request of Councilmembers Bobby Shriver, Bob Holbrook and Pam O'Connor
that the City Council adopt a resolution in support of Proposition 34, the
Death Penalty Initiative Statue. This is a voter initiative on the November 6,
2012 ballot, which repeals the death penalty in the State of California as
maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces itwith
life imprisonment without possibility of parole; applies retroactively to
persons already sentenced to death; states that persons found guilty of
murder must work while in prison as prescribed by the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, with their wages subject to deductions to be
applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them; and directs $100
million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape
cases. The legislative analyst estimates that State and county savings related
to murder trials and death penalty appeals and corrections is about $100
million annually in the first few years, growing to $130 million annually
thereafter. This is largely dependent on implementation and sentencing rates.
1 13- D
October 2, 2012
PROPOsITION DEATH PENALTY. STATUTE.
34
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEATH PENALTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE
• Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with
life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
• Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death.
• States that persons found guilty of murder must work while in prison as prescribed by the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation, with their wages subject to deductions to be applied to any victim
restitution fines or orders against them.
• Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
• State and county savings related to murder trials, death penalty appeals, and corrections of about
$100 million annually in the first few years, growing to about $130 million annually thereafter. This
estimate could be higher or lower by tens of millions of dollars, largely depending on how the measure is
implemented and the rate at which offenders would otherwise be sentenced to death and executed in the
future.
• One -time state costs totaling $100 million for grants to local law enforcement agencies to be paid over the
next four years.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
Murder and the Death Penalty. First degree murder
is generally defined as the unlawful killing of a human
being that (1) is deliberate and premeditated or (2)
takes place at the same time as certain other crimes,
such as kidnapping. It is punishable by a life sentence
in state prison with the possibility of being released by
the state parole board after a minimum of 25 years.
However, current state law makes first degree murder
punishable by death or life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole when specified "special
circumstances" of the crime have been charged and
proven in court. Existing state law identifies a number
of special circumstances that can be charged, such as in
cases when the murder was carried out for financial
gain, was especially cruel, or was committed while the
defendant was engaged in other specified criminal
activities. A jury generally determines which penalty is
to be applied when special circumstances have been
charged and proven.
Implementation of the Death Penalty in
California. Murder trials where the death penalty is
sought are divided into two phases. The first phase
involves determining whether- the defendant is guilty
of murder and any charged special circumstances,
36 1 Title and Summary / Analysis
while the second phase involves determining whether
the death penalty should be imposed. Under existing
state law, death penalty verdicts are automatically
appealed to the California Supreme Court. In these
"direct appeals," the defendants' attorneys argue that
violations of state law or federal constitutional law
tools place during the trial, such as evidence
improperly being included or excluded from the trial.
If the California Supreme Court confirms the
conviction and death sentence, the defendant can ask
the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. In
addition to direct appeals, death penalty cases
ordinarily involve extensive legal challenges in both
state and federal courts. These challenges involve
factors of the case different from those considered in
direct appeals (such as the claim that the defendant's
counsel was ineffective) and are commonly referred to
as "habeas corpus" petitions. Finally, inmates who have
received a sentence of death may also request that the
Governor reduce their sentence. Currently, the
proceedings that follow a death sentence can take a
couple of decades to complete in California.
Both the state and county governments incur costs
related to murder trials, including costs for the courts
and prosecution, as well as for the defense of persons
charged with murder who cannot afford legal
PROP DEATH PENALTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
representation. In addition, the state incurs costs for
attorneys employed by the state Department of Justice
that seek to uphold death sentences in the appeals
process. Various state agencies (including the Office of
the State Public Defender and the Habeas Corpus
Resource Center) are tasked with providing
representation to individuals who have received a
sentence of death but cannot afford legal
representation.
Since the current death penalty law was enacted in
California in 1978, around 900 individuals have
received a death sentence. Of these, 14 have been
executed, 83 have died prior to being executed, and
about 75 have had their sentences reduced by the
courts: As of July 2012, California had 725 offenders
in state prison who were sentenced to death. Most of
these offenders are at various stages of the direct appeal
or habeas corpus review process. Condemned male
inmates generally are housed at San Quentin State
Prison (on death row), while condemned female
inmates are housed at the Central California Women's
Facility in Chowchilla. The state currently has various
security regulations and procedures that result in
increased security costs for these inmates. For example,
inmates under a death sentence generally are
handcuffed and escorted at all times by one or two
officers while outside of their cells. In addition, these
offenders are currently required to be placed in
separate cells, whereas most other inmates share cells.
PROPOSAL
This measure repeals the state's current death penalty
statute. In addition, it generally requires murderers to
work while in prison and provides new state funding
for local law enforcement on a limited -term basis.
Elimination of Death Sentences. Under this
measure no offender could be sentenced to death by
the state. The measure also specifies that offenders
currently under a sentence of death would not be
executed and instead would be resentenced to a prison
term of life without the possibility of parole. This
measure also allows the California Supreme Court to
transfer all of its existing death penalty direct appeals
and habeas corpus petitions to the state's Courts of
Appeal or superior courts. These courts would resolve
issues remaining even after changing these sentences to
life without the possibility of parole.
CONTINUED
Innate Work Requitement. Current state law
generally requires that inmates — including
murderers —work while they are in prison. California
regulations allow for some exceptions to these work
requirements, such as for inmates who pose too great a
security risk to participate in work programs. In
addition, inmates may be required by the courts to
make payments to victims of crime. This measure
specifies that every person found guilty of murder
must work while in state prison and have their pay
deducted for any debts they owe to victims of crime,
subject to state regulations. Because the measure does
not change state regulations, existing prison practices
related to inmate work requirements would not
necessarily be changed.
Establishment of Fundfor Local Law
Enforcement. The measure establishes a new special
fund, called the SAFE California Fund, to support
grants to police departments, sheriffs' departments,
and district attorneys' offices for the purpose of
increasing the rate at which homicide and rapes are
solved. For example, the measure specifies that the
money could be used to increase staffing in homicide
and sex offense investigation or prosecution units.
Under the measure, a total of $100 million would be
transferred from the state General Fund to the SAFE
California Fund over four years —$10 million in
2012 -13 and $30 million in each year from 2013 -14
through 2015 -16. Monies in the SAFE California
Fund would be distributed to local law enforcement
agencies based on a formula determined by the state
Attorney General.
FISCAL EFFECTS
The measure would have a number of fiscal effects
on the state and local governments. The major fiscal
effects of the measure are discussed below.
Murder Trials
Court Proceedings. This measure would reduce state
and county costs associated with some murder cases
that would otherwise have been eligible for the death
penalty under current law. These cases would likely be
less expensive if the death penalty was no longer an
option for two primary reasons. First, the duration of
some trials would be shortened. This is because there
would no longer be a separate phase to determine
For.text of Proposition 34, see page 95. Analysis 1 37
PROP DEATH PENALTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
whether the death, penalty is imposed. Other aspects of
murder trials could also be shortened. For example,
jury selection time for some trials could be reduced as
it would no longer be necessary to remove potential
jurors who are unwilling to impose the death penalty.
Second, the elimination of the death penalty would
reduce the costs incurred by counties for prosecutors
and public defenders for some murder cases. This is
because these agencies generally use more attorneys in
cases where a death sentence is sought and incur
greater expenses related to investigations and other
preparations for the penalty phase in such cases.
County jails. County jail costs could also be reduced
because of the measure's effect on murder trials.
Persons held for trial on murder charges, particularly
cases that could result in a death sentence, ordinarily
remain in county jail until the completion of their trial
and sentencing. As some murder cases are shortened
due to the elimination of the death penalty, the
persons being charged with murder would spend less
time in county jail before being sent to state prison.
Such an outcome would reduce county jail costs and
increase state prison costs.
Savings. The state and counties could achieve several
tens of millions of dollars in savings annually on a
statewide basis from reduced costs related to murder
trials. The actual amount of savings would depend on
various factors, including the number of death penalty
trials that would otherwise occur in the absence of the
measure. It is also possible that the state and counties
would redirect some of their court - related resources to
other court activities. Similarly, the county jail savings
would be offset to the extent that jail beds no longer'
needed for defendants in death penalty trials were used
for other offenders, such as those who are now being
released early because of a lack of jail space in some
counties.
The above savings could be partially offset to the
extent that the elimination of the death penalty
reduced the incentive for offenders to plead guilty in
exchange for a lesser sentence in some murder cases. If
die death penalty is prohibited and additional cases go
to trial instead of being resolved through plea
agreements, additional state and county costs for
support of courts, prosecution, and defense counsel, as
well as county jails, could result. The extent to which
this would occur is unknown.
38 1 Analysis
CONTINUED
Appellate Litigation
Over time, the measure would reduce state
expenditures by the California Supreme Court and the
state agencies participating in the death penalty appeal
process. These state savings would reach about $50
million annually. However, these savings likely would
be partially offset in the short run because some state
expenditures for appeals would probably continue
until the courts resolved all pending appeals for
inmates who previously received death sentences. In
the long run, there would be relatively minor state and
local costs — possibly totaling about $1 million
annually —for hearing appeals from additional
offenders receiving sentences of life without the
possibility of parole.
State Corrections
The elimination of the death penalty would affect
state prison costs in different ways. On the one hand,
its elimination would result in somewhat higher prison
population and higher costs as formerly condemned
inmates are sentenced to life without the possibility of
parole. Given the length of time that inmates currently
spend on death row, these costs would likely not be
major. On the other hand, these added costs likely
would be more than offset by the savings generated by
not having to house hundreds of inmates on death
row. As previously discussed, it is generally more
expensive to house an inmate under a death sentence
than an inmate subject to life without the possibility of
parole, due to higher and more expensive security
measures to house and supervise inmates sentenced to
death.
The net effect of these fiscal impacts would likely be
a net reduction in state costs for the operation of the
state's prison system, potentially in the low tens of
millions of dollars annually. These savings, however,
could be higher or lower for various reasons. For
example, if the rate of executions that were to occur in
the future in the absence of the measure increased, the
future cost of housing inmates who have been
sentenced to death would be reduced. Therefore, there
would be lower correctional savings resulting from this
measure's provisions eliminating the death penalty.
Alternatively, if the number of individuals sentenced to
death in the future in the absence of the measure were
to increase, the cost to house these individuals in
PROP DEATH PENALTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
prison would also increase. Under this scenario,
eliminating the death penalty would result in higher
correctional savings than we have estimated.
General Fund Transfers to the SAFE California Fund
The measure requires that a total of $100 million be
transferred from the state General Fund to the SAFE
California Fund from 2012 -13 through 2015 -16. As
a result, less General Fund resources would be available
to support various other state programs in those years,
but more funding would be available for local
government agencies that receive these grants. To the
extent that funding provided from the SAFE
California Fund to local agencies results in additional
arrests and convictions, the measure could increase
state and county costs for trial court, jail, and prison
operations.
Other Fiscal Effects
Prison Construction. The measure could also affect
future prison construction costs by allowing the state
to avoid future facility costs associated with housing an
increasing number of death row inmates. However, the
extent of any such savings would depend on the future
growth in the condemned inmate population, how the
CONTINUED
state chooses to house condemned inmates in the
future, and the future growth in the general prison
population.
Effect on Murder Rate. To the extent that the
prohibition on the use of the death penalty has an
effect on the incidence of murder in California, the
measure could affect state and local government
criminal justice expenditures. The resulting fiscal
impact, if any, is unknown.
Summary
In total, the measure would result in net savings to
state and local governments related to murder trials,
appellate litigation, and state corrections. These savings
would likely be about $100 million annually in the
first few years, growing to about $130 million annually
thereafter. The actual amount of these annual savings
could be higher or lower by tens of millions of dollars,
depending on various factors including how the
measure is implemented and the rate of death
sentences and executions that would take place in the
future if this measure were not approved by voters. In
addition, the measure would require the state to
provide a total of $100 million in grants to local law
enforcement agencies over the next four years.
For text of Proposition 34, see page 95. Analysis 1 39
PROP DEATH PENALTY.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Evidence shows MORE THAN 100 INNOCENT PEOPLE
HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH in the U.S., and
some have been executed!
Prop. 34 means WELL NEVER EXECUTE AN
INNOCENT PERSON in California.
Franky Carrillo was 16 when he was arrested and wrongly
convicted of murder in Los Angeles. It tools 20 years to show his
innocence! Cameron Willingham was executed in 2004 in Texas
for an arson that killed his children; impartial investigators have
since concluded there was no arson.
"If someone's executed and later found innocent, we can't go
back." Judge LaDoris Cordell, Santa Clara (Retired)
California's death penalty is TOO COSTLY and BROKEN
BEYOND REPAIR.
• Only 13 people have been executed since 1967 —no one
since 2006. Most death row inmates die of old age.
• WE WASTE MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS on special
housing and taxpayer - financed appeals that can last 25 years.
• Today, death row inmates can sit around doing nothing.
34 MAKES CONVICTED KILLERS WORK AND PAY into
the victims' compensation fund, as ordered by a judge.
It keeps killers who commit heinous crimes IN PRISON -
UNTIL THEY DIE.
It frees up millions of WASTED TAX DOLLARS whelp
our kids' schools and catch more murderers and rapists without
raising taxes.
34 SAVES MONEY.
California is broke. Many think the death penalty is cheaper
than life without parole— that's just NOT true.
An impartial study found California will SAVE NEARLY
$1 BILLION in five years if we replace the death penalty with
life in prison without possibility of parole. Savings come from
eliminating lawyers' fees and special death row housing.
http,'Il media. lls. edu /doasn:entsITxecuting the Will of the Irtetspdf
Those wasted tax dollars would be better spent on LAW
ENFORCEMENT and OUR SCHOOLS.
JERRY BROWN SAYS THERE ARE NO INNOCENT
INMATES ON CALIFORNIAS DEATH ROW.—San Pmncisco
Chronicle, 317/12.
Yes on 34 is so desperate that they'll say anything to get your
vote. PUBLIC OPINION POLLS SHOW OVERWHELMING
SUPPORT FORTHE DEATH PENALTY, SO THEY
PURPOSELY USE MISLEADING TERMS LIKE
INNOCENCE, SOLVING CRIMES AND SAVING MONEY.
Don't be fooled.
. "PROP. 34 TAKES $100 MILLION FROM CALIFORNIAS
GENERAL FUND. PROPONENTS' CLAIMS THAT THE
MONEY COMES FROM ALLEGED SAVINGS IS FALSE.
Furthermore, Prop. 34 will cost taxpayers millions more annually
by guaranteeing murderers lifetime housing and healthcare
benefits." —Mike Genesr, 2005 -2009 California Finance Director.
Prop. 34 supporters can't defend their initiative. Instead, they
deceive.
Prop. 34's so- called "work requirement ?" Malting killers take PE
classes sheets it.
Exonerated Franky Carrillo ... He never got a death
WE CANNOT LET BRUTAL KILLERS EVADE JUSTICE.
Every year, almost half of all murders and over half of all rapes
GO UNSOLVED. Killers walk free and often go on to rape and
kill again.'Thousands of victims wait for justice while we waste
millions on death row.
Killers who commit monstrous acts must be swiftly brought to
justice, locked up forever, and severely punished.
• 34 SAVES TAX DOLLARS and directs $100 million in
savings for more DNA testing, crime labs, and other tools
that help cops solve rapes and murders.
• 34 makes killers who commit horrible crimes spend the
test of their lives in prison with NO HOPE OF EVER
GETTING OUT. It makes them WORK so they can PAY
restitution to their victims.
• That's JUSTICE THAT WORKS.
Every person justly sentenced to life in prison without
possibility of parole since 1977 is still locked up or has died
in prison. Life without possibility of parole works and ensures
we will NEVER EXECUTE AN INNOCENT PERSON in
California. '
"The death penalty doesn't make us safer— better crime- solving
does. " — Former Attorney General John Van de Kamp
"I am troubled by cases like Willingham'sof innocent people
who may leave been executed. I support 34 because it guarantees
we will never execute an innocent person in California."
— Bishop Flores, San Diego Diocese
Vote YES on 34.
GIL GARCETTI, District Attorney
Los Angeles County, 1992 -2000
JEANNE WOODFORD, Warden
California's Death Row prison, 1999 -2004
JENNIFER A. WAGGONER, President
League of Women Voters of California
NOT TAXPAYER WATCHDOGS —just the opposite. THEY
MAKE JUSTICE MORE EXPENSIVE.
"Prop. 34 punishes families of those who suffered horrific deaths
by condemned killers. Thais why EVERY MAJOR CALIFORNIA
LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION OPPOSES
PROP. 34." —Scott Seaman, President, California Police Chiefs
Association.
DON'T LET GUILTY MURDERERS WIN. Scott Peterson
callously murdered his wife Iasi and their unborn son. He earned
his death sentence. LACI WAS INNOCENT. BABY CONNER
WAS HELPLESS.
Remember the victims, including 43 police officers murdered
protecting us. Stand up for a safer California.
Vote NO on 34.
CARL V. ADAMS, President
California District Attorneys Association
KERMITALEXANDER
Family Executed by Los Angeles Gang Member
RON COTTINGHA
sentence. M, President
There's no "California's Death Row prison." It's San Quentin. Peace Officers Research Association of California
Voters are smart and know Prop. 34 supporters have been
working for decades to eliminate capital punishment. THEY ARE
40 1 Arguments Acg+u..n.opriwdaa thiupage,n. the opinion ofthe atahoa rnedhave not been eheehedfor,mjwry by m,y oflaialagen%
PROP DEATH PENALTY.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
California is broke. Abolishing the death penalty costs
taxpayers $100 MILLION OVERTHE NEXT FOUR YEARS
AND MANY MILLIONS MORE IN THE FUTURE. Instead
of justice, killers get lifetime housing /healthcare benefits.
PROP. 34 ISN'T ABOUT SAVING MONEY. It's about the
ACLU's agenda to weaken public safety laws. They're desperate to
convince you that saving murderers from justice is justified. Or, if
you dorit believe that, they claim it saves money!
THE ACLU's EFFORTS ARE INDEFENSIBLE, CRUEL
TO LOVED ONES OF VICTIMS, MISLEADING AND
INSULTING TO VOTERS AND DANGEROUS FOR
CALIFORNIA.
Prop. 34 lets serial killers, cop killers, child killers, and those
who kill the elderly, escape justice. Proponents don't acknowledge
that when California's death penalty was eliminated before,
condemned criminals were released only to rape and kill again!
Voters had to restore capital punishment to restore justice.
HERE ARE THE FACTS. The death penalty is given to less
than 2% of murderers whose crimes are so shocking that juries of
law- abiding citizens unanimously delivered the sentence.
Richard Allen Davis: kidnapped, raped and murdered
12 -year -old Polly IQass.
Richard "The Night Stalker" Ramirez: kidnapped, raped,
tortured and mutilated 14 people and terrorized 11 more
including children and senior citizens.
Gang Member Ramon Sandoval: ambushed and shot Police
Officers Daryle Black (a former U.S. Marine) and Rick Delfin
with an AIG47, killing Black, shooting Delfin in the head and
wounding a pregnant woman.
Serial killer Robert Rhoades, a child rapist, kidnapped 8 -year-
old Michael Lyons. Rhoades raped and tortured Michael for
10 hours, stabbing him 70 times before slitting his throat and
dumping his body in a river.
Alexander Hamilton: executed Police Officer Larry Lasater
(a Marine combat veteran). Lasater's wife was seven months
pregnant at the time.
WELL NEVER EXECUTE AN INNOCENT PERSON with
Proposition 34. -
California's death penalty is costly and broken beyond repair.
CHECKTHE FACTS:
The impartial cost analysis in this voter guide says 34 SAVES
MILLIONS every year. Read it yourself.
Lary enforcement leaders and prosecutors found California's
death penalty is BROKEN and COSTS MILLIONS more
each year than life in prison without parole. Read here:
http: / /ccf¢j.mg /rt- 1p -aQ ciaLhtn:d
' 34 ends expensive special housing, lawyers, and private cells
for death row inmates. We need those wasted tax dollars for
our schools.
"There's no chance California's death penalty can ever be fixed.
The millions wasted on this broken system would be much better
spent keeping teachers, police'and firefighters on their jobs."
— Justice Carlos Moreno, California Supreme Court (Retired)
34 helps CATCH AND PUNISH KILLERS. It will:
• Keep heinous killers IN PRISON UNTIL THEY DIE with
NO HOPE OF EVER GETTING OUT.
• Make them WORK and PAY court- ordered victim
restitution.
Capital murder victims include:
225 CHILDREN '
43 POLICE OFFICERS
235 RAPED /murdered
90 TORTURED/murdered
THE ACLU IS THE PROBLEM: They claim the death
penalty is broken and expensive. What hypocrisy! It's the ACLU
and supporters who have disrupted fair implementation of the
law with endless delays. Other states including Ohio and Arizona
give criminals full rights and fairly enforce the death penalty.
California can too.
PLAYING POLITICS: Marketing Prop. 34, supporters make
cost claims based on newspaper articles and "studies" written by
the ACLU or other death penalty opponents.
- Department of Corrections data suggests abolishing capital
punishment will result in increased long -term costs in the tens of
millions, just for housing /healthcare. Taxpayers will spend at least
$50,000 annually to care for each convicted killer who didn't think
twice about killing innocent children, cops, mothers and fathers.
DO YOU THINK GIVING VICIOUS KILLERS LIFETIME
HOUSING AND HEALTHCARE BENEFITS SAVES
MONEY? OF COURSE NOT!
THAT'S THE SECRET PROP. 34 PROPONEN'T'S DON'T
WANT YOU TO MOW It's not about money ... it's about
their political agenda.
Prosecutors, cops, crime victims and community leaders across
California are urging you to vote NO on 34. Stop the ACLU.
Preserve the death penalty. Protect California.
Visit wnitingfoijunice. net. Please join us. Vote NO on 34.
HON. PETE WILSON
Former Governor of California
MARC KLAAS
Father of 12- Year -Old Murder Victim Polly Klaus
KEITH ROYAL, President
California State Sheriffs Association
Save hundreds of millions and directs $100 million to law
enforcement to solve rapes and murders. 46% of murders
and 56% of rapes GO UNSOLVED while we WASTE
MILLIONS on a handful of criminals already behind bars.
Every person justly sentenced to LIFE IN PRISON
WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE since 1977 REMAINS
IN PRISON OR HAS DIED IN PRISON.
Remember, evidence shows MORETHAN 100 INNOCENT
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEKFH in the U.S.,
and some have been executed!
WE'LL NEVER EXECUTE AN INNOCENT PERSON
with 34.
That's justice that works.
Vote YES on 34.
MAYOR ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA
City of Los Angeles
HON. JOHN VAN nE KAMP, Attorney General
State of California, 1983 -1991
JUDGE LAOORIS CORDELL (Retired)
Santa Clara County Superior Court
Aquw ovprlutedo ntUspogeare the ophd.,. oftheauthors andba.,,. th, wrbee kedAracnnacyby any offidalagenVii. Arguments 1 41