Loading...
SR-10-23-2012-3OCity of City Council Report Santa Monica City Council Meeting: October 23, 2012 Agenda Item: 370 To: Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Gorman, City Clerk Kathryn Vernez, Deputy City Manager for Special Projects Subject: Support Proposition 34, the Death Penalty Statute Recommendation Action Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution in support of Proposition 34, the Death Penalty Initiative Statute, to be considered by the voters on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Executive Summary This report recommends that the City Council support Proposition 34, a voter initiative, which would repeal the state's current death penalty statute, require convicted murderers to work while in prison and provide new state funding for local law enforcement on a limited -term basis. Background Current state law makes first degree murder punishable by death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole when "special circumstances" of the crime have been charged and proven in court. In California, the death penalty is implemented in two phases: a phase determining guilt and any charged special circumstances and a phase determining if the death penalty should be imposed. Under existing law, death penalty verdicts are directly appealed to the California Supreme Court. If the California Supreme Court confirms the conviction and death sentence, then the defendant can ask the United States Supreme Court to review the decision. The proceedings that follow a death sentence can take decades to complete and both state and county governments incur costs (i.e. such as the costs for the courts and prosecution and defense for persons who cannot afford legal representation) related to murder trials. As of July 2012, California had 725 offenders in state prison who were sentenced to death and current security regulations and procedures, such as assigning one police escort per condemned inmate or housing prisoners in isolated cells, result in increased security costs. it On August 23, 2011, the Council approved support of SB490 (Hancock), which would have allowed California voters to decide whether to change death penalty sentences to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and thereby reduce security costs. The measure, however, failed legislative deadlines in 2011. Meanwhile, a citizens group qualified a similar initiative, Proposition 34, for the November 2012 ballot. On October 2, 2012 the City Council approved adoption of a resolution in support of Proposition 34 to repeal the death penalty in the State of California. Discussion Proposition 34 would repeal the death penalty in California as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replace it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole; apply it retroactively to persons already sentenced to death; state that persons found guilty of murder must work while in prison, with their wages subject to deductions to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them; and direct $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases. Under the proposition, county jails costs would be reduced and state corrections facilities would incur a slight increase in costs. Currently, persons held for trial on murder charges remain in county jail until the completion of their trial and sentencing. With the elimination of the death penalty, persons being charged with murder would spend less time in county jail before being sent to state prison. Although state prisons would incur a higher population and higher costs, 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. Given the length of time that inmates currently spend on death row awaiting the appeals process, these costs would not likely be major. The proposition would also reduce costs associated with court proceedings including but not limited to: eliminating the second phase of a murder trial imposing the death penalty; reducing the costs for prosecutors and public defenders; reducing time spent on screening for potential 2 jurors who are unwilling to impose the death penalty during jury selection; and allowing the California Supreme Court to transfer existing death penalty appeals directly to the state's Courts of Appeal or superior courts Proposition 34 would also establish 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. Under the proposition, a total of $100 million would be transferred from the state General Fund to the SAFE California Fund over four years. Monies in the SAFE California Fund would be distributed to local law enforcement agencies based on a formula determined by the state Attorney General. This would result in less General Fund resources being available to support various other state programs in those years, but more funding would be available for local government agencies that receive these grants. Although largely dependent on implementation and sentencing rates, the passage of the proposition estimates state and county savings related to murder trials, death penalty appeals and corrections to about $100 million annually in the first few years and growing to $130 million annually thereafter. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Prepared by: Sarah Gorman, City Clerk Kathryn Vernez, Deputy City Manager for Special Projects Approved: Forwarded to Council: Sarah Gorman Rod Gould Director, Records and Election Services City Manager Attachments: Resolution November 6 2012 Ballot Language 3 PROPOSITION DEATH PENALTY. INITIATIVE 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 Sunenaary / 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 took 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 lituited -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 Inmate Work Requirement. 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 Fund for 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 the 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. 34 INITIATIVE STATUTE. Evidence show MORE THAN 100INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH in the U.S., and some have been executed! Prop. 34 means WE'LL NEVER EXECUTE AN INNOCENT PERSON in California. Franky Carrillo was 16 when lie 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 LaDmis Cordell, Santa Clara (Retired) Californias death penalty is TOO COSTLY and BROIffN 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 WORKAND 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 —to help 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:// media.I /s. eclat /clocitmentsIFxenetiizg_ the —Will of the lwerspdf Those wasted tax dollars would be better spent on LAW ENFORCEMENT and OUR SCHOOLS. WE CANNOT LET BRUTAL IQLLERS 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 [bat help cops solve rapes and murders. • 34 makes killers who commit horrible crimes spend the rest 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 TI IAT 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 have 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 JERRY BROWN SAYS THERE ARE NO INNOCENT NOT TAXPAYER WATCHDOGS just the opposite. THEY INMATES ON CALIFORNIA'S DEATH ROW. —Sou Francisco MAKE JUSTICE MORE EXPENSIVE. Chronicle, 3/7/12. "Prop. 34 punishes families of those who suffered horrific deaths Yes on 34 is so desperate that they'll say anything to get your by condemned killers. Thies why EVERY MAJOR CALIFORNIA vote. PUBLIC OPINION POLLS SHOW OVERWHELMING LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION OPPOSES SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY, SO THEY PROP. 34. "--Scott Seaman, President, California Police Chiefs PURPOSELY USE MISLEADING TERMS LIKE Association. INNOCENCE, SOLVING CRIMES AND SAVING MONEY. DON'T LET GUILTY MURDERERS WIN. Scott Peterson Don't be fooled. callously murdered his wife Lad and their unborn son. He earned "PROP. 34 TAKES $100 MILLION FROM CALIFORNIA S his death sentence. LACI WAS INNOCENT. BABY CONNER GENERAL FUND. PROPONENTS' CLAIMS THAT THE WAS HELPLESS. MONEY COMES FROM ALLEGED SAVINGS IS FALSE. Remember the victims, including 43 police officers murdered Furthermore, Prop. 34 will cost taxpayers millions inure annually protecting us. Stand up for a safer California. by guaranteeing murderers lifetime housing and healthcare Vote NO oil 34. benefits." —Mike Genest, 2005 -2009 California Finance Director. Prop. 34 supporters can't defend their initiative. Instead, they CARL V. ADAMS, President deceive. California District Attorneys Association Prop. 34's so- called "work requirement ?" Making killers take PE KERMIT ALEXANDER classes meets it Exonerated Franke Camillo .. He never got a death Family Executed by Los Angeles Gang Member sentence. RON COTTINGHAM, President There's no `CalifomUs 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 Aig+unentspriuted on dV pngemet&opiulons of the rtnthors mrd /rtve not been checlredfarrtmuacy by any offivialagency. PROP DEATH PENALTY. 34 INITIATIVE STATUTE. California is broke. Abolishing the death penalty costs taxpayers $100 MILLION OVER THE 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 don't believe that, they claim it saves money! THE ACLU's EFFORTS ARE INDEFENSIBLE, CRUEL TO LOVED ONES OF VICTIMS, MISLEADING AND INSULTING TO VO'1'ERS 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 lull 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 I laas. 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 AK-47, 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. WE'LL NEVER EXECUTE AN INNOCENT PERSON with Proposition 34. California's death penalty is costly and broken beyond repair. CHECICTHE FACTS: • The impartial cost analysis in this voter guide says 34 SAVES MILLIONS every year. Read it yourself. • Law 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: bttp. ✓/ccf¢j.mglndp- afflcial htniZ • 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 GE'I "PING 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 rare for each convicted killer who didn't think twice about killing innocent children, cops, mothers and fathers. DO YOU THINK GIVING VICIOUS KLLERS LIFETIME. HOUSING AND HEALTHCARE BENEFITS SAVES MONEY? OF COURSE NOT! THAT'S THE SECRET PROP. 34 PROPONENTS DON'T WANT YOU TO HINOW. 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 m¢itingforiustice.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 I laas 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 MORE THAN 100 INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH 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 BE KAMP, Attorney General State of California, 1983 -1991 JUDGE LADDRIS CORDELL (Retired) Santa Clara County Superior Court Argrnnentoprinted an tbispage me the opiniwss oftbe authors and bane not been ebeekedfarremrueecy by auy fdad agency. Arguments 1 41 Reference Resolution No. 10712 (CCS).