I don't feel very good about this country this morning, and as so many of us are I'm thinking of how Troy Davis was hustled off this mortal coil by the State of Georgia without a lot of thought of what it means to execute the innocent.
And given the choice, I'd rather see us abandon the death penalty altogether, for reasons that must, at this moment, seem self-evident; that said, it's my suspicion that a lot of states are not going to be in any hurry to abandon their death penalties anytime soon now that they know the Supreme Court will allow the innocent to be murdered.
So what if there was a way to create a compromise that balanced the absolute need to protect the innocent with the feeling among many Americans that, for some crimes, we absolutely have to impose the death penalty?
Considering the circumstances, it's not going to be an easy subject, but let's give it a try, and see what we can do.
The ACLU of California supports the striking prisoners' demands to end cruel and inhumane conditions in the Security Housing Unit (SHU) at Pelican Bay State Prison. These conditions include prolonged, solitary confinement in small, windowless concrete boxes with little to no human interaction and other severe physical deprivations.
Not only are such conditions inhumane and harmful, but they also jeopardize public safety. Solitary confinement causes and exacerbates mental illness, and prisoners who are subjected to such extreme isolation cannot properly reintegrate into society, resulting in higher recidivism rates.
An alarming number of prisoners are released directly from secure housing units into the community. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) must implement policies that enhance safety both within prisons and within our communities. Current practices do not achieve these equally important goals.
The ACLU calls on the State to re-double its efforts to engage in meaningful negotiations with the strikers to bring the hunger strike to a swift and peaceful conclusion. In addition, the ACLU calls on Governor Brown and CDCR Secretary, Matthew Cate, to significantly curtail the use of the SHU at Pelican Bay and other California prisons and to provide all prisoners confined to the SHU items, services, and programs necessary for psychological and physical well-being including warm clothing, out-of-cell time, and participation in rehabilitative programs.
Guest blog by James Clark, ACLU of Southern California
New data in a study to be released next week on California’s death penalty has revealed that the price tag for death is even higher than we thought: $4 billion since 1978. Put another way, we spend $184 million more per year for death penalty inmates than we do on those sentenced to life without the chance of parole. All told, California is on track to spend $1 billion on the death penalty over the next five years.
The new estimate is the result of a three-year comprehensive examination of state, federal, and local expenditures on California’s death penalty by Arthur Alarcón, a federal judge on the 9th Circuit, and Paula Mitchell, a Loyola Law School professor. Mercury News called the study “highly credible” and that it made the case for replacing the death penalty “nearly indisputable.” Not that anyone was disputing the wasteful spending before – except for that guy who comments on all my blogs. By now, most folks get that the death penalty wastes hundreds of millions of our dwindling state dollars. Only now we know that it actually wastes billions.
$4 billion and what did that get us? A grand total of 13 executions. That’s over $300 million per execution above the cost of life without parole.
The revised California budget is out and sentencing reform is, well, left out. In his revised budget Gov. Brown recommitted to his criminal justice realignment plan, but didn't include any sentencing reforms that would help ensure that the plan is effective and affordable. Realignment reserves state prison for people with the most serious offenses and redirects people with low-level offenses to local control. This is a step in the right direction but it leaves a key piece of the puzzle missing: we should convert minor offenses from felonies to misdemeanors so that the punishment and its associated taxpayer cost fit the crime.
Two reforms alone would save the state hundreds of millions annually while keeping communities safe: making possession of a small amount of drugs for personal use a misdemeanor instead of a felony and making low-level, non-violent property offenses--like vandalism or writing a bad check--a misdemeanor. These sentencing reforms also help lower the cost of realignment. By making low-level offenses misdemeanors instead of felonies, we decrease costs because sentences are shorter and court costs are lower.
California voters came out in droves to support Proposition 19 this November. More than 4.1 million people voted for Prop. 19, which would have allowed adults 21 and older to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for personal use and allow cities and counties to tax and regulate commercial sales. That's more votes than Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina garnered. Though the measure didn't pass, the degree of support marks an undeniable leap forward in the movement to end marijuana prohibition. In the end, Prop. 19 achieved a higher percentage of "yes" votes (46%) than any state-level legalization measure on the ballot over the past decade.
This is clearly only the beginning of a new, more rational public discussion about marijuana. It's no longer a question of whether marijuana prohibition should end, but rather when and how. Post-election polling data shows that many voters who rejected Prop. 19 nonetheless believe that marijuana should be made legal. Even the leaders of the opposition to Prop. 19 publicly stated that they are not opposed to marijuana legalization, "if it's done the right way."
By James Clark, Death Penalty Field Organizer, ACLU of Southern California
California’s death penalty has always been a bit of a head-scratcher, but the news over the last two weeks may have the record for furrowed brows and rolled eyes. The legal drama that has unfolded as the state tries to execute Albert Brown has shocked legal experts, but just confused everyone else.
There’s a reason for that. Five years ago, when executions were put on hold, it was because of myriad problems with the process of putting people to death. Execution teams were poorly trained, didn’t understand the deadly substances they were handling, and were working in dark, cramped conditions. That’s a recipe for botched executions, which has happened too often in California. When Judge Jeremy Fogel, a federal judge, heard that evidence, he told the state they had to fix the procedure.
So that’s what the state tried to do for nearly five years. The problem is, it wasn't fixed. When Albert Brown’s execution date was originally set, legal experts reported little chance of the execution taking place because of no less than three pending lawsuits over the procedure and a brand new set of regulations that had never been reviewed by a judge. There were just too many open questions, and the state had simply not finished its task of creating a workable procedure. But Attorney General Jerry Brown went ahead anyway and set an execution date for Albert Brown, knowing full well all of these questions remained.
By Diana Tate Vermeire, Racial Justice Project Director, ACLU of Northern California
The state's criminal justice system is quickly becoming the only social service California is willing to fund. Our prison system is bursting at the seams, while school funding is drying up at the well. In the midst of a fiscal crisis -- one that only seems to be getting worse -- California continues to prioritize criminal justice spending instead of investing in the future of our state. Public education and crucial social service programs like welfare-to-work continue to experience drastic cuts, but California is loath to cut criminal justice spending.
Rather than choosing to prioritize basic necessities like a quality education, a job, and a place to live, our state's leaders are instead forcing social service agencies to close their doors, deny services, or turn certain individuals away altogether. Meanwhile, our jails and prisons remain open to anyone brought to their doors, no matter the cost. That choice-pouring scarce financial resources into the criminal justice system rather than much-needed social services-has resulted in the disproportionate incarceration of people of color, and an alarming uptick in the number of women - both women of color and white women - who are behind bars.
Imagine you're a soldier stationed overseas and discover you're pregnant. If you want to have an abortion but are living in a country where it's illegal, you might as well be living in pre-Roe v. Wade America. Why? Current federal law prohibits almost all abortion services at U.S. military hospitals, even if a woman pays for the procedure herself.
By James Clark, Death Penalty Field Organizer, ACLU of Southern California
Remember that episode of The Simpsons where Homer is so broke he breaks into his daughter's piggy bank, only to find it full of IOUs from himself?
On Wednesday, that scene was reenacted in Sacramento, with Gov. Schwarzenegger playing the role of Homer. The governor announced that he would be "borrowing" $64 million from the General Fund in order to move forward with one of his pet projects, the construction of a new death row facility at San Quentin. And $64 million is just the tip of the iceberg. Altogether, the new facility is expected to total upwards of $400 million. That's half a million dollars per prison cell — roughly the cost of a nice house in California.
Every year tens of thousands of people in California are arrested for simply possessing small amounts of marijuana. These arrests overload our already stressed courts and jails. They also divert scarce public safety dollars that could be used to address violent crime. California's Proposition 19, on the November 2010 ballot, offers a remedy that will move marijuana policy in a direction that makes sense. The California Legislative Analyst's Office explains that the passage of Proposition 19 would allow redirection of court and law enforcement resources to solving violent crimes.
By Ramona Ripston, Executive Director, ACLU of Southern California
The California Supreme Court has just 'sentenced' our state's taxpayers to an additional debt of at least $180,000 more per year. How? The state's high court upheld the death penalty in two cases.
Imposing the death penalty adds enormously to the cost of prosecution and permanent lifetime housing for an inmate. The death penalty is certainly a polarizing public policy issue, but I wonder how many people realize that it's also a vortex-like drain on their own pocketbooks.
By Michael Risher, Staff Attorney, ACLU of Northern California
Forcing people to provide a DNA sample without any judicial oversight, just because a single police officer has arrested them, violates the Constitution. That’s why California’s law mandating that DNA samples be taken from all felony arrestees is facing a legal challenge from the ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-NC).
At issue is Proposition 69, a voter-enacted law which mandates that anyone arrested on suspicion of a felony in California has to hand over a DNA sample, regardless of whether or not they are ever charged or convicted. As a result, tens of thousands of innocent Californians will be subject to a lifetime of genetic surveillance because a single police officer suspected them of a crime.
ACLU-NC filed suit in federal court last year seeking to stop this invasive law that violates the Fourth Amendment. Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the ACLU’s appeal of a lower court’s denial of a request for a preliminary injunction to halt the law while the suit continues. The appeals court hearing on July 13 showed that the court takes the privacy concerns and other constitutional issues in this case very seriously. The court clearly recognized the importance of the case, questioning both sides closely and extending the time allotted for oral argument.
Today, for the first time ever, Californians will have the chance to weigh in on the state’s broken death penalty system. Victims, clergy, legal experts, wrongfully convicted individuals and concerned taxpayers from around the state will converge on Sacramento for a public hearing of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to give their comments on new regulations for lethal injections.
The hearing comes after three years of legal challenges and three years without executions in California. If the rules are adopted and more pending legal challenges are resolved quickly, executions could resume as soon as 2010. But only four people have exhausted all of their appeals and would even be eligible for execution. Meanwhile in the last three years, 16 people on death row have died of natural causes or suicide. California has only managed to carry out 13 executions since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977.
Yet despite having no official method of execution for the last three years, California has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on the death penalty system, and stands poised to waste another $1 billion over the next five years. So after voicing their opinion on executions today, concerned taxpayers will also have their chance to voice their opinion on wasteful spending, calling on the Governor to end the death penalty altogether and save the state millions.
In the market for a prime piece of real estate? Governor Schwarzenegger has the deal for you! Facing a $21.3 Billion budget deficit in California, Schwarzenegger has offered to sell state-owned property to make up the difference. The crown jewel of the proposed fire sale is San Quentin State Prison, home to California’s death row and beautifully situated in the San Francisco Bay.
But before he can flip San Quentin for a profit, Gov. Schwarzenegger will have to figure out what to do with the 680 condemned inmates who currently call it home. Fortunately, there is a solution. The best way to solve California’s budget woes would be to do away with the death penalty all together. By eliminating the death penalty, the state will save $1 billion in five years. And that’s not even counting the profit from selling San Quentin.
California currently has the largest death row in the country and spends more than any other state on the death penalty. In the next five years, California can save $1 billion by getting rid of the death penalty. Here’s how:
Save $125 million per year by cutting extra costs of the death penalty—costs not incurred through permanent imprisonment. According to the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, the annual cost of California’s death penalty to the state is $137 million. If the worst offenders were condemned to permanent imprisonment instead, the cost would be only $11 million and California would not be any less safe.
Save $400 million in construction of a new housing facility for death row inmates. According to the State Auditor, this is how much it will cost to build a new facility at San Quentin, needed because the current facility is filled past capacity. And this is the state’s cost saving measure; building at any other site will be even more expensive.
Keep in mind that any attempt to “speed up” the death penalty will cost even more. The California Commission concluded that in order to reduce the time needed to review death penalty cases, the state would need to spend an additional $100 million each year.
These figures don’t even take into consideration the windfall profits from selling off San Quentin, if anyone even wants it. But before death row can go on the market, Gov. Schwarzenegger will have to come up with an effective alternative for the inmates already living there. Luckily, California has such an alternative already in place—permanent imprisonment—which is just as safe as and so much less expensive than capital punishment. The money saved can be used to provide victims’ services or other crime prevention measures. And there would still be money left to help dig California out of this economic hole.
Right now, Gov. Schwarzenegger can convert all of the current death sentences to sentences of permanent imprisonment, ensuring these inmates are kept off the streets forever and die in prison. Every guilty person sentenced to permanent imprisonment in California stays in prison until he or she dies, and it costs $175,000 less per inmate per year than a sentence of death by execution.
Before selling San Quentin, the Legislature will also need to temporarily suspend any new death sentences until the state recovers from the current fiscal crisis so we don’t recreate the current problem. As an added bonus, suspending new death penalty trials would also save county budgets, which are in no better condition than the state budget. Each death penalty trial costs the local counties at least $1.1 million more than a trial where the district attorney seeks a sentence of permanent imprisonment. California currently averages about 20 new death sentences a year, so stopping death penalty trials could save counties an additional $100 million in five years.
Of the many proposals Gov. Schwarzenegger has put before the voters and the legislature to rescue the state from financial meltdown—all of which have failed—none are quite as simple or reasonable as suspending the death penalty and saving $1 billion in five years. Since the Governor is now into real estate, he should know a “money pit” when he sees it. The longer he waits, the more money he wastes.
We're working on a case now that will make your hair stand on-end.
Our client, Naji Hamdan, a U.S. citizen, was detained and tortured this fall for three months by the United Arab Emirates with United States involvement. Naji is still in prison there, now under the custody of local officials who charged him with terrorism-related offenses based on coerced confessions.
We recently wrote about the Department of Veterans Affairs decision to open its facilities to voter registration drives after months of urging by voting rights groups and elected officials. This week, however, "VA voter suppression continues," as AlterNet's Steven Rosenfeld wrote Tuesday, with voter registration efforts being blocked in California and the VA general counsel criticizing the pending Veterans Voting Support Act (S. 3308), which would bolster federal protection of voter registration opportunities for all wounded veterans. With just three weeks left to register voters in most states, advocates say now is the time to support voter registration efforts in VA facilities and, most importantly, it needs to be explicitly protected from now on through federal law.
This should come as no surprise to Calitics readers, who have been treated to a steady diet of articles on the flaws with our prison system. In a system with too many prisoners and too few funds to properly accommodate them and their legal processes, those combined factors mean that the death penalty system is on the verge of collapse, according to a state commission report released today:
The commission did not advocate abolishing the death penalty but did note that California could save $100 million a year if the state replaced the punishment with sentences of life in prison without possibility of parole. Death row prisoners cost more to confine, are granted more resources for appeals, have more expensive trials and usually die in prison anyway, the commission said in its 117-page report....
Among the panel's findings:
* Seventy-nine death row inmates have not obtained lawyers to handle their first appeals, which are by law automatic, and 291 inmates lack lawyers to bring constitutional challenges based on facts that the trial courts did not hear. It takes inmates an average of 12 years to obtain a state high court ruling on their first appeals.
* The California Supreme Court has such a backlog that only one appeal from a conviction after 1997 has been resolved.
* California does not meet the federal standard for paying private lawyers to handle death cases, and the state's method of paying these attorneys -- sometimes with flat-fee contracts -- violates American Bar Assn. standards.
The problems facing the state's administration of the death penalty stem from the same causes as the broader prisons crisis. California voters and politicians embraced "tough on crime" policies in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s but neglected to properly fund the system, which has grown like a cancer on our budget. It's never difficult for politicians to propose new crimes or higher sentences, but these same legislators - like the Runners - also work to cut the state's taxing ability, putting California on a collision course with both the federal courts and common sense. Either we fund the system properly, or pursue saner correctional policies.
Considering California's fiscal crisis, spending all of this money is not only unlikely, it's impossible....
Few people realize that condemning someone to permanent imprisonment costs California taxpayers millions of dollars less than sentencing him or her to death. We have had the option of permanent imprisonment for as long as we have had the death penalty, and it's proven itself to be a more functional system that serves as a severe, but cost effective, punishment.
Which brings us to our third option, according to the Commission: replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment until death, and save millions of dollars for public safety programs that actually work to punish criminals, protect the public and help victims. This would cost us less than $12 million, a savings of more than $200 million a year over option one.
The report itself notes that most death row inmates die before they can be executed anyway, rendering the whole process somewhat pointless. Combined with the racial biases that Minsker describes in her article but that the report did not closely examine, and the fiscal issues involved, it seems sensible from a public policy standpoint to eliminate the death penalty and embrace the life imprisonment option.
It's clear that California's correctional policies are totally unsustainable. But with a broken political system and a lack of leadership from either party on fixing it, it seems unlikely we're going to get any real solutions anytime soon.
While congress fiddles with FISA, the California Assembly has the opportunity to add another layer of consumer protection to our phone records. Will they or won't they? Will the telecom lobbyists make sure Sacramento does their bidding, or can we pressure our members to do the right thing?
The board of directors of the ACLU of Southern California has passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for their abuses of basic civil liberties.
