By Mary O’KEEFE

There are two propositions on the Nov. 8 ballot that deal with the death penalty. The first, Prop 62, repeals the death penalty as maximum punishment for a person found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. It would apply retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. The proposition also states that those found guilty of murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole must work while in prison as prescribed by the Dept. Of Corrections and Rehabilitation. It also increases the portion of wages earned by those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to 60% that may be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them.

In California there has not been a death by lethal injection of prisoners since 2006. At present there are reportedly 748 prisoners now waiting on “death row” with many of those in appeal of their death sentence convictions.

If Prop 62 passes it would eliminate the death penalty. The maximum penalty for first-degree murder would be life in prison without the possibility of parole. Prisoners currently on death row would have their sentence changed to life in prison. All prisoners convicted of murder would be required to work and the percentage of their wages used to pay debts owed to victims and their families would be increased from 50% to 60%.

According to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state would save “around $150 million annually within a few years, although the impact could vary by tens of millions of dollars depending on various factors.”

Death penalty trials can take place in two phases. The first phase is the murder trial and, if the defendant is found guilty, a decision will be made whether the defendant is guilty of murder with any special circumstances. If the defendant is found guilty and a special circumstance is proven, according to the LAO, the second phase is to determine whether the defendant will receive the death penalty or life without the possibility of parole.

“These murder trials result in costs to the state trial courts. In addition, counties incur costs for the prosecution of these individuals as well as the defense of individuals who cannot afford legal representation,” according to the LAO.

Under California law, death penalty verdicts are automatically appealed to the California Supreme Court. But the court proceedings do not stop there as defendants can request the U.S. Supreme Court review the verdict, and then direct appeals can be made in both state and federal courts. These challenges are often referred to as “habeas corpus” petitions.

Those in favor of Prop 62 state that getting rid of the death penalty would save the state millions of dollars and would be the only way to make certain no innocent person is executed in California.

Those who oppose Prop 62 state that there is a need to have the strongest possible punishment for the most serious first-degree murderers and what inmates would pay toward the victims’ families cannot make up for the loss of life.

The state currently spends about $55 million annually on legal challenges that follow death sentences.

This brings us to the second proposal on the ballot dealing with the death penalty in California.

Prop 66 asks to change procedures that govern the state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and sentences. It would designate superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions and imposes time limits on state court death penalty review. It requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Authorizes death row inmate transfers among California state prisons. States death row inmates must work and pay victim restitution. States other voter-approved measures related to death penalty are null and void if this measure receives more affirmative votes, according to the League of Women Voters.

This would keep the death penalty active in California and would shorten the time it takes to implement the penalty. A five-year time limit would be placed on legal challenges to a death sentence.

According to the LAO, there is an “unknown ongoing fiscal impact on state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences.” There would be “near-term increases in state court costs – potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually – due to an acceleration of spending to address new time lines on legal challenges to death sentences. Savings of similar amounts in future years [and] potential state prison savings that could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually.”

Prop 66 seeks to shorten the time of those legal challenges. It specifically, according to LAO, (1) requires that habeas corpus petitions first be heard in the trial courts, (2) places time limits on legal challenges to the death sentence, (3) changes the process for appointing attorneys to represent condemned inmates and (4) makes various other changes.

This proposition would also require all inmates to work and that 70% of their wages would go to the debts owed to the victims and/or their families.

The proposition exempts the state’s execution procedures from the Administrative Procedures Act, as well as making various changes regarding the method of execution. Any legal challenges could only be heard in the court that imposed the death sentence. If there was a challenge made concerning the method of execution, the court is required to develop a method of execution that meets federal requirements within 90 days.

Both of these propositions have called attention to the death penalty in California. The death penalty has always been an emotional issue, no matter what state voters live in. The difference between these two propositions are: does California get rid of the death penalty altogether and turn current sentences into life without possibility of parole, or does the state attempt to fix the system that keeps those under the death penalty in courts for years.

The amount of money raised for Yes on Prop 62 is $8,881,851. The amount of money raised for No on 62 is $4,287,009.

The amount of money raised for Yes on Prop 66 is 66, $4,876,198. The amount of money raised for No on Prop 66 is $10,059,365.

Many of those who have contributed to Yes on Prop 62 have contributed to No on Prop 66, and those who contributed to No on Prop 62 have contributed to Yes on 66. See www.votersedge.org for details.

For information on the propositions visit www.lao.ca.gov, votersedge.org, lwv-pa.org or gb.ca.lwvnet.org.

  Mary Okeefe