California Independents Support Ending The Death Penalty
By Genevieve Santiago | 09/28/2012 | Ballot Initiatives, California, Electoral Reform, Headline, States | 8 Comments
©CDCR
In polls, it appears that California independents support ending the death penalty. Proposition 34, which aims to repeal the death penalty in California, will be on the November ballot.
Life without the possibility of parole would become the new maximum sentence, and would apply to current death row inmates. In addition, the initiative would require inmates with the maximum sentence to work and use their earnings towards their victims’ restitution. A SAFE California fund would be established, and over the course of 3 years, the fund would receive $100 million to assist with the state’s unsolved homicide and rape cases.
Party preferences are transforming, and this may incur changes in California’s policies. This August, the Public Policy Institute of California found that 21.3% of voters identified as Independents in the June primary. Since 1992, the number of Independents has grown by 10.3%, reaching an all-time high for the state. As Independents have increased, the number of registered Democrats and Republicans has declined over the past 10 years.
Democrats and Independents Support Ending The Death Penalty
On Tuesday, the Field Poll revealed that support for Prop. 34 is divided by party preference. 54% of Independents and 50% of Democrats favored its passage, whereas only 23% of Republicans did. In a state where 43.4% of voters are registered Democrat, 30.2% are Republican, and 21.3% are Independent, Prop. 34’s passage will not be an easy call.
This is good news for independent voters. Often characterized as middle-of-the-road or indifferent, independent voters seem to be eroding that notion on this particular issue. The majority of independent voters support Prop 34, and as the elections draw closer, voter education on the proposition could significantly sway the November results.
The SAFE California Campaign (YES on 34) proposes that the initiative’s passage would save the state $130 million per year. Their drive behind the proposition focuses on current death penalty costs, holding prisoners accountable by employing them, and using state facility closures (3 agencies that deal with death penalty appeals) to off-set the $100 million over 3 years.
Financial strains are not the only concerns of supporters. Communications Director at the Innocence Project, Paul Cates commented:
“There are simply too many flaws in this system. As we’ve seen through the DNA exoneration, 17 people have served on death row who were exonerated by DNA evidence… We look at this from the perspective of the likelihood that someone who is innocent will be executed, and that’s why we have the position that we do.”
In opposition to the initiative, Californians for Justice and Public Safety counter the SAFE California Campaign’s efforts. Opponents argue that the YES camp has inflated death penalty costs and argue, “Eliminating the death penalty will not eliminate the fixed costs of the court system.” Instead, opponents have adopted the slogan, “Mend It Don’t End It” to promote a series of reforms.
Opponent, and KlaasKids founder, Marc Klaas stated:
“Yes on 34 people are pretty clever. They have created the environment that they are now using to overturn the death penalty… When you put these guys in prison with life without the possibility of parole, you know as well as I do there are going to be people that say that life without the possibility of parole is cruel and unusual punishment. Nobody should be able to live without hope, and someone living in that circumstance has no hope. That will then be an effort to give everybody yet another chance.”
In a predominantly “blue” state, where Independents align closer to the Democratic Party, Prop 34 certainly has a chance at passage this November.





Leave Your Comment →
8 Comments
Chad Peace
09.28.2012
@Chad_Peace
I took a class in law school exclusively on the Death Penalty and was blown away at the time, money, and resources used to completely prosecute a single death penalty case, let alone the times we get it wrong. On a purely financial matter I think its a no brainer. On a philosophical level, I don’t know what killing does to remedy a wrong, even so severe … I very much appreciate the comfort an execution may give grieving loved ones though.
Genevieve Santiago
09.28.2012
@gsantiago87
Chad, I am also blown away by the death penalty costs. According to the Field Poll released on Tuesday, California’s delay time from when someone is sentenced and executed is averaging over 25 years. It is no doubt an extremely costly sentence.
In many ways, the death penalty seems like a feudal practice, that has somehow prevailed to modern day. On the other hand, I can see why its elimination is worrisome to opponents. As Mr. Klaas noted, it is likely individuals will condemn life in prison without the possibility of parole. Mr. Klaas mentioned the case of Robert Lee Massie to me. Massie was given the death penalty, had his sentence changed to life, then eventually received parole only to kill again. For me, this is really hard topic. The practice seemed outdated, and it hardly occurs, but does its threat serve an actual purpose? As you said, I think it can really provide a sense of justice for victims and their families.
Only time will tell if its repeal will save the state millions.
Jane Susskind
09.28.2012
@jsusskind
I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty on both moral and financial grounds. Killing someone for killing someone just doesn’t make sense to me. I’m hoping the controversial nature of this issue will increase voter participation in CA.
Alex Gauthier
09.28.2012
@alexg
Wow. Simply eliminating death penalty appeals saves a massive amount of money. Plus the added benefit of somewhat unclogging an over encumbered court system.
Jane Susskind
09.28.2012
@jsusskind
Also, this is one of the few unbiased articles I’ve seen on Prop 34, so thanks Genevieve!
Lucas Eaves
09.28.2012
@lucaseaves
I like the idea of having the prisoner to work and give the money to a fund for the families of the victims. That will help the victims better than just killing the person.
Blaz Gutierrez
09.28.2012
@blazgutierrez
This law only restates existing rules on convicts working and contributing to a victim compensation fund. The initiative directs that $40 million be directed to a fund to help local law enforcement solve crimes. Any other savings will presumably go to the State General Fund. If the proposition was truly victim friendly it would redirect some of those savings to the already existing fund, which suffers from too little resources to distribute among so many claimants. http://www.vcgcb.ca.gov/
Mareike Lucht
09.28.2012
@malu
“Nobody should be able to live without hope, and someone living in that circumstance has no hope.” – how is that a compelling argument? Living on death row isn’t exactly a hope-filled situation. Aside from that, I do not understand the hypothesis that killing someone undoes the harm they’ve committed. It is unlawful to kill and since the government is just another body of people the rules that apply to all citizens should apply equally to their elected government. Sentencing a person to death takes away human dignity, and as far as I am concerned, the United States is the only country in the so-called western hemisphere that still allows this method of punishment.