Murder: Special Circumstances. Legislative Initiative Amendment.
	Argument Against Proposition 18

Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

As a taxpayer, you are being asked to enlarge the death penalty. You deserve clear proof that this proposed change would improve public safety and the quality of justice. That proof is lacking.

Public safety would not be improved by this proposition.

Under existing law, the homicide rate in California has fallen steadily and dramatically since 1991. Yet we still have not matched the success of the states that use no death penalty. Massachusetts, for example, is an urban state with no death penalty and a homicide rate one-third of California's. In fact, states that have no death penalty usually suffer fewer murders in proportion to their population than states that expend resources on capital punishment. Enlarging the death penalty would not make our streets more safe.

It costs California taxpayers $2 million over and above the cost of life imprisonment each time a murderer is sent to Death Row. We should be asking some hard questions. Isn't it better to invest this money in after-school programs for youth? Shouldn't schools be funded to train all of their personnel in conflict resolution programs that have been proven effective, and why are only a small fraction of schools able to train parents in these programs? Enlarging the death penalty would not enable us to spend our public safety tax dollars more wisely.

The quality of justice would not be improved by this proposition.

Adjusting the scope of punishment can never compensate for the harm caused by murder. Any murder is deplorable. The community and family members suffer whenever a life is deliberately cut short, regardless of whether arson, kidnaping, or lying-in-wait is involved. In fact, it trivializes the vast majority of cases to imagine there is any link between the circumstances of a killing, the type of retribution imposed, and the agony of friends and family of the victim. There is no evidence that communities and families of murder victims in California are better able to recover from their loss due to the existence of a death penalty than communities and families in Massachusetts heal in the absence of a death penalty. Enlarging the death penalty would not improve justice for communities and families of victims.

The law already allows capital punishment in more homicide cases than prosecutors pursue as death penalty matters. And in cases where they do urge a death sentence, jurors often refuse to recommend it. As a result, most death-eligible cases are resolved by plea bargains. To the extent this proposition would expand the number of death-eligible cases, lawyers would expend extra taxpayer dollars on the plea-bargain process. Added litigation would be of no real assistance to the families of victims, nor to the community.

This proposition will not improve public safety or the quality of justice. Vote NO.

Most Reverend Sylvester D. Ryan
President, California Catholic Conference

Mike Farrell
President, M J & E Productions, Inc.

Senator Patrick Johnston
Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee

Proposition 18 | Vote 2000 Home | Next - Prop 19 | Secretary of State Home |