California Voters May Get to Choose Between Two Different Death Penalty Related Ballot Propositions

Faster Executions or None at All? Californians May Get to Choose

If there’s one thing supporters and opponents of the death penalty can agree on, it’s this: The system is broken. Since California reinstated capital punishment in 1977, 117 death row inmates have died. But only 15 of them have been executed. The vast majority have died of natural causes or suicide.

When he was chief justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald George caused a stir when he said “the leading cause of death on death row in California is old age.” The system, he said, is dysfunctional  — and few would disagree.

Even before a federal judge blocked executions in 2006, the pace of implemented death sentences was slow. It wasn’t unusual for condemned inmates to spend two decades on death row, as their legal appeals slowly wound through the courts. But to death penalty opponents, the seemingly endless delays prove that capital punishment is unworkable and should be scrapped altogether.To death penalty supporters, that delay is a travesty of justice and disrespectful to crime victims and their families who, they say, deserve to see the ultimate sentence implemented.

Come November, California voters could have two completely different options for fixing the system. Two groups are preparing to collect signatures for ballot measures that would present stark choices.

One, the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016, would limit inmate appeals, which can drag on for decades, and expedite executions. It would also give the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation more latitude in housing condemned inmates and require them to work, with 70 percent of their wages going to crime victims.

The other proposal, which ballot measure proponent Mike Farrell calls “The Justice That Works Act of 2016,” would ban executions altogether and convert all existing death sentences to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016 is current being reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office. A similar measure was proposed last year and endorsed by three former California governors. It never made it to the ballot.

An attorney advising proponents of the current death penalty reform measure told me that first effort was “controlled by crime victim families,” suggesting it didn’t have the kind of professional political consultants needed to make it to the ballot.

This time around, he said, Sacramento-based strategist Aaron McLear and his firm, Redwood Pacific, will guide the effort.

This week the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office released its fiscal review of that measure. While acknowledging the measure would affect various costs, “the magnitude of these effects would depend on how certain provisions in the measure are interpreted and implemented,” the LAO wrote.

In conclusion, it wrote:

• Increased state costs that could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually for several years related to direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings, with the fiscal impact on such costs being unknown in the longer run.
• Potential state correctional savings that could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
• Proponents of the measure to ban capital punishment must be more pleased with the LAO analysis of their measure. The LAO estimates a “net reduction in state and local government costs of potentially around $150 million annually within a few years due to the elimination of the death penalty.” You can be sure that will end up in a TV commercial for the measure.
• 
  
• Proponents of both measures have yet to collect a single signature. Assuming they get a green light from the attorney general and the secretary of state, they’ll have 180 days to collect the necessary signatures to put it before voters.
• 
  
• If both succeed, they’ll likely join a November 2016  ballot with measures related to legalizing pot, raising the minimum wage and strengthening gun control. All that, plus a presidential election and the race to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
• In other words, a political junkie’s dream come true.

By Scott Shafer

Via http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/14/faster-executions-or-none-at-all-california-voters-may-choose

Federal Judge Rules Death Penalty Unconstitutional in California

A federal judge in Orange County on Wednesday declared the death penalty "unconstitutional" in the State of California.

In the first ruling of its kind, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney in Orange County made the ruling, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

Attorney General Kamala Harris said she is "reviewing the ruling." And a spokesperson for the Claifornia Department of Corrections did not immediately respond for comment.

ACLU of Northern California Associate Director Natasha Minsker, who is not directly involved in the case but following it closely, tweeted as she read the ruling, citing the judge who said the current system is plagued by delay and violates the Eighth Amendment, among other problems.

In her opinion, Minsker said the judge made this unprecedented ruling because he felt that "enough was enough."

Cormac was appointed to the federal bench by then Republican President George W. Bush in 2003.

The case stems from a 1995 case of Ernest Dewayne Jones who sued Kevin Chappell, the warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin.

According to a court document, Jones was condemned to death by the State of California on April 7, 1995. He remains on death row today, awaiting execution, but without any certainty as to when, or whether it will actually come, Carney wrote.

"Mr. Jones is not alone," Craney wrote.

Of the 900 people sentenced to death for their crimes since 1978, when the current death penalty system was adopted by California voters, only 13 have been executed so far.

Calling the system's administration "dysfunctional," Carney wrote that it will continue to result in an unpredictable period of delay preceding their actual execution.

For the random few for whom execution becomes a reality, they will go on to languish for so long on Death Row that "their execution will serve no retributive or deterrant purpose and will be arbitrary."

In his 29-page ruling on the Jones vs. Chappell case, Carney wrote that when an individual is condemned to death in California, the sentence carries with it the promise that it will actually be carried out.

That promise is made to citizens, jurors, victims and their loved ones and to the hundreds of individuals on death row, he wrote.

However, Carney argues, “for too long now, the promise has been an empty one.”

“Inordinate and unpredictable delay has resulted in a death penalty system in which very few of the hundreds of individuals sentenced to death have been, or even will be, executed by the State,” he wrote.

The delays have resulted in a system in which arbitrary factors, rather than legitimate ones like the nature of the crime or the date of the death sentence, determines whether an individual will actually be executed, Carney wrote,

In his closing paragraph, Carney says that the current system serves no “penological purpose.” 

via: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Federal-Judge-Rules-Death-Penalty-Unconstitutional-in-California-267380871.html

San Quentin plans psychiatric hospital for death row inmates

Under court pressure to improve psychiatric care for deeply disturbed death row inmates, state officials are moving quickly to open a 40-bed hospital at San Quentin prison to house them.

The court-appointed monitor of mental health care in California's prison system reported to judges Tuesday that about three dozen men on death row are so mentally ill that they require inpatient care, with 24-hour nursing.

For now, they are being treated in their cells, but the state plans to have a hospital setting ready for them by November, according to documents filed Tuesday in federal court.

The plan calls for taking over and retrofitting most of a new medical unit recently built at the prison. A spokeswoman for the court's prison medical office said San Quentin officials plan to use medical facilities at other prisons if a shortage of beds arises as a result.

The urgency of psychiatric treatment for the mentally ill prisoners demands swift action, the court's monitor, Matthew Lopes, said in court papers. He said an agreement to provide the psychiatric wing at San Quentin was made possible by collaborative effort among the state, courts and prisoners' lawyers.

In December, after weeks of courtroom testimony on the treatment of about 10 unidentified death row prisoners, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ordered the state to provide condemned inmates access to inpatient psychiatric care. The court files show negotiations and planning began almost immediately.

Karlton also ordered mental health screenings of all 720 condemned men at San Quentin. Those evaluations concluded in late May with the identification of 37 condemned men for admission to the psychiatric unit. Lopes' report notes that San Quentin is bound to need room for additional patients.

Twenty female prisoners who are sentenced to die and housed elsewhere are not covered by Karlton's order.

Some analysts see irony in providing for the long-term mental health of those sentenced to die.

"This is the only place on Earth where you'd be talking about building a psychiatric hospital for condemned prisoners," said Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring, who has written about the U.S. capital punishment system. "It is a measure of American greatness and American silliness at the same time."

Federal courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute people who are not aware of what is happening to them. "We are curing them to make them executable," Zimring said.

But San Francisco prisoners' rights lawyer Michael Bien, who argued the San Quentin case in court last fall, regards adequate psychiatric care as a fundamental right.

"The reality is these guys are going to live in this place for a long time, and you need to see they get the care they need," Bien said.

California, with the nation's largest death row, has not killed a prisoner since 2006. Later that year, state executions were stayed when condemned inmate Michael Morales challenged the lethal injection procedures.

The state attempted to adopt new protocols involving different drugs in 2010, but they remain under legal challenge.




In the interim, 44 inmates have died of age, disease, drug overdose or suicide, with the latter raising concerns about psychiatric care on death row. One of those who committed suicide was Justin Helzer, who helped his brother kill five people and dump their dismembered bodies into a Sacramento river in 2000.

According to last year's testimony, Helzer was found by San Quentin doctors to be delusional and schizophrenic and often refused medication. In 2010, he blinded himself by jabbing pens through the sockets of his eyes. In 2013, he made a noose out of his bed sheet and hanged himself in his cell.

Corrections officials had testified that psychiatric care for death row inmates was limited. Those sent to a psychiatric hospital within another state prison were quarantined from the rest of the population, limiting therapy.

San Quentin had set up unlicensed beds, providing the equivalent of outpatient treatment within a corner of its medical building. Karlton found both provisions inadequate.

Unlike other psychiatric hospitals within men's prisons, the one at San Quentin will be run by the corrections department and not the Department of State Hospitals.

Gov. Jerry Brown's administration has not sought legislative approval for the San Quentin project. Finance Department spokesman H.D. Palmer said the state plans to use savings in prison mental health services elsewhere in the state to run the unit.