Broad coalition will work towards ending the death penalty in California
by Brian Leubitz
It is often said that California voters are attached to the death penalty, that they would never vote against it. That something like 2/3 of voters support it in concept. But reality is far different from concept, and voters know that. We don't actually carry out the death penalty, yet we spend millions of dollars prosecuting it.
It's time for something different.
Today a statewide coalition of law enforcement, murder victim family members, exonerees and community groups announced the launch of signature gathering for the SAFE California Act (the Savings, Accountability and Full Enforcement for California Act), a ballot initiative that will replace the death penalty with life in prison without possibility of parole. The SAFE California Act will save California taxpayers millions of dollars, protect the innocent from execution, and direct funds to local law enforcement to solve more rapes and murders.
Over the last thirty-three years, we have spent something on the order of $4 billion pursuing the death penalty, but executed only thirteen prisoners. That money could have gone to solving some of the 46% of murders or 56% of rapes that go unsolved. Or it could have gone into prevention efforts that actually lower the crime rate.
Now is the time to end the death penalty. We can help save our budget, our prisons, and make us all safer at the same time. This is the right answer for California.
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.
Note by Brian: In the wake of the "execution" of Troy Davis, it is more important than ever to end the death penalty in California and across the nation. Murder is still murder, even when it has the patina of a cover in the form of a dysfunctional justice system. Taxpayers for Justice and their SAFE California campaign have committed to ending the death penalty in California via the ballot box. There are many reasons to do so, but the time for this is now.
SAFE California Campaign
A new poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) showed 54% of Californians prefer life imprisonment with no possibility of parole, with only 39% preferring the death penalty.
The PPIC report shows a clear preference for life in prison with no chance of parole for all adults across the state. Support was strongest among residents of Los Angeles (62%) and Latinos (67%), California residents under 35 and those earning less than $40,000.
"These new numbers confirm what we already know to be true: across the state and across party lines, California voters are ready to replace our dysfunctional death penalty with life in prison without parole," said Jeanne Woodford, former warden of San Quentin and spokesperson for the SAFE California campaign. "Voters express even greater support for striking the death penalty when they have the option to choose life without parole with work and restitution to families through our victim compensation fund."
PPIC's most recent findings are in line with other polling data on the death penalty in California and nationwide:
• A 2011 statewide survey of likely voters conducted by David Binder Research showed 63% of likely voters support converting all current death row sentences to life imprisonment without any possibility of parole in order to save the state $1 billion dollars in five years, where the money saved would be used for public education and law enforcement. The idea was supported by voters from all political parties and from across all regions of the state.
• A 2010 national survey of registered voters conducted by Lake Research Partners revealed that a clear majority of voters nationwide (61%) would choose a punishment other than the death penalty if it were available.
• A 2009 poll of eligible California voters conducted by Professor Craig Haney from the University of California Santa Cruz found that 66% prefer life without parole with work and restitution, over the death penalty.
"Yesterday's protests and vigils against the execution of Troy Davis in Georgia are a vivid reminder that the death penalty will always risk the execution of innocent people," added Woodford. "More and more the public is realizing that the only way to protect the innocent is to replace the death penalty with life in prison without parole."
"California is no different. California's death penalty brings with it enormous costs, it saps money from the investigation of open rape and murder cases, and here too it brings the risk of executing an innocent person. That's why we are confident that voters will replace it with life imprisonment, if given the chance to vote on the issue - 33 years and $4 Billion dollars later."
The SAFE California campaign will start gathering signatures in October to put before the voters at the November 2012 election an initiative to replace the death penalty with life in prison without parole with work and restitution. The campaign is supported by a coalition of law enforcement leaders, murder victim family members, exonerees and advocates.
Coalition aims to repeal death penalty, save a billion dollars
by Brian Leubitz
For a few months now, Sen. Loni Hancock has been working diligently on moving SB 490 through the legislative process. The bill, which would put a ballot measure on the November ballot, would have asked the voters whether it was time to eliminate the death penalty. And she was able to get the bill to fly through the Senate on a 39-0 vote. However, the bill stalled at the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and at this point, the odds are looking quite long for anything to actually happen before 2012.
Of course, in California there is always another option: the signature route. And that is exactly what the California Taxpayers for Justice, a coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victim advocates, and individuals exonerated from wrongful conviction, has in mind.
When legislation to let California voters decide whether to keep the death penalty got shelved last week, death penalty opponents vowed to launch a ballot initiative anyway. They're keeping their promise. California Taxpayers for Justice is unveiling the SAFE California Act, which would replace capital punishment with life imprisonment without parole. ... Proponents of the initiative say that replacing the death penalty with life behind bars without parole would free up money for local law enforcement, victim compensation and schools. (SacBee)
To be clear, this is hardly some lightweight group here. The coalition press conference will feature former LA District Attorny Gil Garcetti and former CDCR boss and San Quentin warden Jeanne Woodford discussing the need to end the death penalty.
But, the argument this time will focus as much on cost savings as it will on morality. While most progressives find the morality argument plenty strong to make the case, the financial side of the debate is nothing to be ignored. By ending the death penalty, we could save $1 Billion over five years. That is money that can be better spent on education, or home health care, or any number of other priorities that have the long-term benefits that the death penalty, in study after study, has shown to lack. In other words, the death penalty accomplishes far too little (if anything) in terms of crime prevention, and costs far too much.
But the polling numbers still make this an uphill climb. As recently as last year, polling showed well over 60% of Californians support the death penalty. The question now is will the financial argument be strong enough to break through, and will the opponents of the death penalty be able to raise the money to get this measure on the ballot and into a strong campaign. We're talking about at least $1-1.5 million to get it on the ballot, and at least another 7-10 for a strong campaign.
While CDP Executive Board delegates seemed to be on edge about the debt ceiling debate, the meeting also contained a fair bit on the accomplishment side. The big news from the CDP was an effort in Los Angeles County to register far more PAVs for the next round of elections. The PAV numbers in LA are far below other counties, and the associated drops in turnout particularly affects minority turnout. Even if we just get LA County to parity with other counties in the state, we could be looking at an extra half million votes. That sure would have made my life easier in the Kamala Harris race last year. Kudos to the CDP for their work on the project, we'll be anxiously watching the results in the coming months.
But that certainly wasn't the only news. As I explained yesterday, there were a few issues of controversy at the CDP e-board this weekend. First, the death penalty resolution that called for the conversion of all sentences to permanent incarceration was passed without much dissent at all. While there was resistance at the April convention for political reasons, that seems to have melted away with the prominent support of CDP chair John Burton.
On the other hand, the fight over bylaws changes was not so easy. The easy cases for the handling of endorsements in the 2012 were handled quickly. Endorsements for the 2012 election will be made at the Feb 10-12, 2012 CDP convention. If the endorsed candidate does not proceed to the general election, there will be another endorsing caucus in the district. The big issue was if the party wanted to endorse somebody who did not express a Democratic preference.
There were quite a few speeches back and forth on the subject, including CYD VP Hillary Blackerby who strongly opposed allowing non-Democrats to get the state party's endorsement. This opinion ultimately carried the day, but only just. Because amending the bylaws of the state party requires a 2/3 vote, the majority that supported the change was not able to succeed.
The other controversial issue was the change of the "convention pull" process for endorsements. Under the current rules, Democrats who did not get the endorsement in the regional caucus at the convention could bring the endorsement to the floor by getting 300 signatures. After verification, these endorsements then went to the floor for debate. The Mark Leno/Carole Migden episode was one of these events. But this is problematic for a couple for reasons.
First, the verification process requires an excessive amount of staff time. On the leniency side, getting 300 signatures at an event of approximately 2000 isn't really all that high of a barrier to entry. There should be more respect for the opinion of the local delegates, but no so much as to allow the Democratic brand to be carried into the gutter. A corollary of this issue is that legislative caucuses are known to pack the local caucuses with delegates in their region. In fact, in that Leno/Migden race, about 15% of all delegates were in the 3rd Senate district. Obviously that was unacceptable, and legislators are now only allowed to appoint half of their delegates outside of the district they represent.
The solution presented over the weekend was to allow appeal to a board composed of the regional director and Chair appointed members of standing committees. The main concern with this process was that it would essentially be a yes-man for the earlier decision to avoid controversy. Whether that would have been true won't be known, as after all the speeches from both sides the rule failed to gain the necessary votes.
However, I think there is a lot of room to build a process that reduces the load on CDP staff while still preserving the convention pull process. I think you'll hear more about that in the next few months, but the contours seem anything but clear now. These issues certainly need to be addressed as soon as feasible.
These issues will eventually be settled. And with that being said, the executive board was an overall success as we head into another election season.
General session will feature debates over the death penalty and some controversial rules changes
By Brian Leubitz
CDP executive board meetings tend to be sedate affairs featuring more schmoozing than anything else. But on occasion the closing general sessions feature a few fireworks, and today may be such a day.
First, a death penalty resolution that called for the commutation of all death penalty sentences to Permanent Incarceration passed through the Resolutions committee with only a minor tweak. The resolution originally called for all sentences to be changed to life without parole, but it has been changed to permanent incarceration. With Chairman Burton's support, it seems likely to pass.
On the other hand, as I discussed in an earlier post, there are a few potential rules changes to be discussed today. First, there is that possibility of endorsing Dts voters in the top 2 primary system. That change has dominated the conversation, but another change just might end up creating quite the stir as well.
Under the current endorsement rules, a Democratic candidate that loses the endorsement in the regional caucus at the convention can gather signatures to bring the endorsement to the floor. The change would instead allow the candidate to appeal to a board that would then decide whether the endorsement should proceed to a floor debate. This would end the gathering of signatures, (as happened in the case of Mark Leno against Carole Migden) and the processing and the associated resource questions. On the other hand, questions of stacking may still arise. Whether this board would be as responsive remains to be seen.
The general session runs from 10 until noon this morning.
Maybe it's just me, but I have this thing about myths. I like to know the difference between reality and, well, not-reality. I spend a lot of time on Snopes.com, I avoid Fox News, my grandfather was even one of those guys who went on an expedition looking for Noah's Ark (seriously).
So I'm pleased to say that the myth of California's death penalty is widely being exposed, as more and more people realize that a functional and efficient death penalty system belongs firmly in the Not-Reality Column.
Death sentences in California are at an all-time low and the Assembly is now considering a bill that would allow voters to replace the death penalty - meaning that the myth is being exposed from prosecutors' offices to jury deliberation rooms and all the way to the statehouse.
UPDATE: The bill was approved by the committee on a 5-2 vote, so it will move on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee before moving to the full Assembly.
Bills are supposed to have passed one house or another at this point, but being that this is Sacramento, there are always to get around such rules. For this one, SB 490, it was amended into a bill about reforming the inspector general of the prisons system or something like that. So, as for this actual bill, today's Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing will be the first legislative discussion.
Of course, it shouldn't really be so. New Mexico, abolished the death penalty in 2009, so talking about the subject shouldn't really be considered some sort of third rail. Yet, here in California, it still has some popularity. Just how popular it is, when people know all the facts, is up for quite a bit of debate.
The witness list is quite interesting for today's hearing:
· Judy Kerr, sister of a murder victim and Spokesperson for California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.
From her bio:
"My brother, Robert James Kerr, was found lifeless, shirtless, barefoot and without identification on July 12, 2003 in Everett, Washington. He had been brutally beaten and strangled. ..My grief is raw and unremitting. But I am absolute in my conviction that another death will not serve me. Justice through execution is not the justice I need and it is not the justice I want in my country or my world. I have never and will never support the death penalty. I know now, more than ever, that killing is wrong. Revenge will not bring my brother back and it will not bring me peace. I honor my brother's life and my memory of him by standing against the death penalty."
· Jeanne Woodford, Former Warden of San Quentin State Prison, where she oversaw four executions, and former Undersecretary and Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Currently Executive Director, Death Penalty Focus; a national non-profit organization.
· Don Heller, the author of California's death-penalty law, Proposition 7 (1978), who now believes the law should be eliminated. He has been an active member of the New York Bar since 1969 and the California Bar since 1973.
· Senator Loni Hancock (D-Oakland), Chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, and Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections (which oversees the state prison system budget).
As you can see from that list, the death penalty in this state has a very sordid history. It just hasn't ever really worked here (or anywhere really), and doesn't accomplish any of its stated goals. Violence is not deterred by violence, it's just a fact of nature. ANd spending billions of dollars on a procedure that is rarely, if ever, used seems like a poor use of resources in these scant times.
(This op-ed is from Sen. Loni Hancock about her work to end California's death penalty. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
by Senator Loni Hancock
As a legislator, I take my responsibility to make wise budget choices seriously, especially as our state faces a deepening fiscal crisis. This year, as in several recent years, the budget is an exercise in attempting to minimize cuts to vital services like schools and public safety. That means that I am always looking for places to cut risk and waste. And that is why I introduced SB 490 to replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole. SB 490 is being heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee this Thursday (7/7) morning.
Since 1978, California has spent about $4 billion dollars on death penalty costs and has executed 13 people, according to a new study. That's $308 million per condemned inmate. By 2030, when the population of San Quentin's death row is projected to reach 1,000, the tab for maintaining the death penalty will reach $9 billion.
We're not being tough on crime: we're being tough on the taxpayer.
Those stunning figures come from a study released earlier this week by U.S. 9th Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Loyola Law School Professor Paula M. Mitchell. Their neutral analysis (she is opposed to the death penalty, he is not) confirmed similar findings from advocacy groups including the ACLU of Northern California and Death Penalty Focus, which estimate the state could save $1 Billion every five years by replacing the death penalty with life in prison without parole.
It might seem counterintuitive that sentencing people to death is more costly than life in prison without parole. However, death penalty cases require extra attention and review, they involve taxpayer-funded appeals, and they demand heightened security and lengthy capital trials. To house these 714 death row inmates and put them through the lengthy process instead of converting their sentences to life without parole, costs Californian taxpayers $184 million every year. A death penalty trial can cost as much as 20 times more than sentencing an inmate to life without parole. Death row inmates are exempt from work and get single-cell housing. It is more likely for a death row prisoner in California to die of illness or old age than execution.
That is an unconscionable investment in a failed policy for a handful of people. As a lawmaker I cannot justify this kind of expense. Not when we are asking families to tighten their belts and to accept deep cuts to police on the street and public education for their children. And certainly not with the knowledge that, today, nearly half of all murders in California go unsolved.
Imagine if we were to use those funds to make our communities safer. How many more officers would $4 billion put on the streets? What if we paid cops and investigators who protect all of us? How many more students could we send to college on full scholarship if even just $1 billion of the $4 billion saved, were put towards funding public education?
My bill would also eliminate the risk of wrongful execution. At least 138 people across the country have been released from death row after new evidence came to light, proving they were wrongfully charged.
Some suggest that public support for the death penalty is strong in California. However, as in many areas of life, a new consensus is emerging. A 2011 poll released by David Binder Research found that 63% of likely California voters would support replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment without the chance of parole. The study showed that this is not a partisan issue. A majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents would vote to convert all death row sentences to life without the possibility of parole. It seems that voters have had enough.
Now is the time. Eliminating the death penalty will save the state hundreds of millions of dollars every year and is the right thing to do. Our state is in desperate need of these savings. This failed policy is a drain on Californian taxpayers, a false promise to victims' families and puts us all at risk. Governor Brown and my fellow California legislators need to listen to the voters and reassess the excessive funds that are dedicated to this broken and dysfunctional system.
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.
Well, the California Democratic Party Convention is set to begin in a few hours, and I am just shoving the last of my items into my bag as I get ready to head to Sacramento. For the most part, the convention will be fairly unified. Democrats are thankful for their electoral success in 2010's elections, but what issues might arise? Well, there's always the budget, but there is one other issue rearing its head as we head into it.
A new David Binder Research poll is showing that a strong majority of voters now supports converting all of our death penalty sentences to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP):
A recent statewide survey of 800 high propensity voters conducted by David Binder Research showed a strong 63% support for converting all current death row sentences to life imprisonment without any possibility of parole in order to save the state $1 billion dollars in five years, where the money saved would be required to pay for public education and law enforcement. Notably, support for this idea to convert all of the death row sentences to save the state a billion dollars over five years receives support from all political parties and from across all regions of the state. This idea appears to be the type of solution voters are looking for politicians to develop, but this idea in particular is one that political figures have so far overlooked.
This is likely to come up throughout the convention, but not likely from the podium. However, grassroots support for a signal of agreement with this poll has been bouncing around over the last few days and weeks. I'm interested to see where the question goes from here.
I'll be focusing much of my communications on Twitter, check my Twitter feed here.
UPDATE: On a somewhat related note, Governor Brown is actually letting the parole board do its job rather than what Govs. Davis and Schwarzenegger did by blocking pretty much every parole. We can't really begin to address the prison mess without prioritizing for dangers criminals.
The end of Illinois’ death penalty comes at a time when more and more people express the view that the death penalty is ineffective, costly, and unjust. A slew of recent editorials and opinion pieces have highlighted the enormous problems with the death penalty in California in particular. As these editorials and op eds show, it is time for California to cut this: the death penalty.
An editorial recently published in The San Jose Mercury, Pasadena Star News, Long Beach Telegram, and other papers, calls on Governor Brown to convert all death sentences to life imprisonment without any possibility of parole to the death penalty, to save the state $1 billion over the next five years. As these editorials point out, the money now wasted on the death penalty could be better spent to fund education and invest in public safety. Yet, at a time of financial crisis, the Governor and lawmakers are instead choosing to cut public safety, as well as healthcare and education, while remaining on track to spend $1 billion on the death penalty in five years.
California's new governor Jerry Brown confronted the state's dire budget crisis this week when he released his budget proposal. True to his word, the proposal contains hard cuts to social services across the board, ensuring that California's most vulnerable will have an even tougher time staying healthy and making ends meet.
He was slightly less true to his word, though, when it came to his oft-repeated slogan that "everything is on the table." At least one overfunded, broken government program was allowed to keep its bloated budget without a single cut: the state's billion-dollar death penalty.
Today, Governor Brown announced that he would be taking 48,000 cell phones away from state employees, in order to reduce costs. Chron:
"In the face of a multi-billion dollar budget deficit, a cell phone may not seem like a big expense. But spending $20 million, and perhaps far more than that, on cell phones can't be justified," he said.
You know what would save even more money? Repealing the death penalty.
That's exactly what the Illinois legislature did today. And what did they cite as the reason, beyond just innocent people being sentenced to death? The cost of killing people for their crimes. ABC News:
"Illinois has spent over $100 million in 10 years and hasn't put anyone to death," said a sponsor of the Illinois bill, State Rep. Karen Yarbrough, a Democrat. "It's time to put this barbaric practice to rest."
As states struggle to cope with major budget shortfalls and even the prospect of bankruptcy, they're confronting the fact that sentencing someone to death is extremely expensive.
In California, for example, a 2008 report showed that the $137 million annual cost of maintaining the criminal justice system would drop to just $11.5 million annually if the death sentence were abolished.
$125.5 million dollars is a whole heck of a lot more than $20 million from taking away cell phones from state workers and likely reducing their effectiveness.
What I want to know is how many kids will go without health care because the state wants to keep killing people?
By Natasha Minsker, Death Penalty Policy Director, ACLU of Northern California
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (CDCR) finally released 989 pages of heavily redacted records to the ACLU of Northern California revealing how it acquired one of the drugs needed for executions. The documents literally mention a "secret mission" to get the drugs. They show the expense and incredible lengths California government officials were willing go to in order to carry out executions — and to keep it all secret.
The ACLU believes that it is crucial for us to have full transparency and accountability in government, especially when it comes to executions. These documents dramatically highlight some of the reasons that is so, and clearly show that taxpayer money, not to mention hundreds of hours of public employee time, were no object to acquiring these drugs.
Back in September, California Attorney General Jerry Brown suddenly hurried to carry out an execution, after a nearly five-year hiatus. Judges, reporters and the public all asked themselves "What's the rush?" Then we found out: the state's supply of one of the critical execution drugs, sodium thiopental, was about to expire on October 1. After a week-long legal rollercoaster, California courts ruled that the expiration date of pharmaceuticals was not a good enough reason to cut short judicial review in a death penalty case. The execution was halted.
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.
We have no budget, no money for child care centers and college students, and no hope that these problems will be solved anytime soon. But take heart California, what we do have is a state-of-the-art death chamber. And soon we will have the best and brightest death row housing facility. Can anyone in Sacramento say “priorities”?
On September 22, “Day 83 Without a Budget,” the Governor revealed a brand new execution chamber. This was his latest leap into the budgetary black hole that is the death penalty. While state employees have been furloughed, the inmates at San Quentin have been hard at work building the new facility to replace the rigged-up gas chamber they had been using. After a judge ruled it was too small and poorly lit to put people to death without risk of serious error, the new one boasts such improvements as a room with lights.
Its price-tag? A mere $853,000.
A few weeks earlier, back on “Day 41 Without a Budget,” the Governor “borrowed” $64 million from the state’s general fund, to be paid out of our still non-existent state budget. That money will be used to begin construction of the new death row housing facility, which in the end will cost $400 million to build. That breaks down to about a half a million dollars per cell. The facility is being designed to hold 1,400 inmates—twice the number of people currently on death row. That’s because the government knows that almost everyone sentenced to death in California will not actually die in the shiny new execution chamber. In fact, almost all will die of natural causes, just like they do now.
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.
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.
A bit of controversy at the General Session