Replace California s Failed Death Penalty System. Vote Yes On 62! Prop. 62 Supporter Toolkit

Transcription

1 Replace California s Failed Death Penalty System. Vote Yes On 62! Prop. 62 Supporter Toolkit 2016 Yes on 62, No on 66. Replace the Costly, Failed Death Penalty System. Sponsored by Taxpayers for Sentencing Reform. Major funding by Nicholas McKeown and Reed Hastings.

2 Prop. 62 Supporter Toolkit Table of Contents Letter from the Director... 1 Letter to the Editor and OpEd Guide... 3 Yes on 62 Fact Sheet... 5 No on 66 Fact Sheet... 6 Yes on 62 / No on 66 comparison... 7 Quote Sheet... 8 Death Penalty and Race... 9 Yes on 62 Endorsement Form No on 66 Endorsement Form Supporter Sign-up Sheet Speaker Request Information Form Sacramento Bee OpEd San Diego Union Tribune OpEd Make your Own at Home Poster Yes on 62, No on 66. Replace the Costly, Failed Death Penalty System. Sponsored by Taxpayers for Sentencing Reform. Major funding by Nicholas McKeown and Reed Hastings.

3 Dear Volunteers, Thank you very much for getting involved with Yes on 62. By joining the Prop 62 team, you will become part of the larger movement to end the failed death penalty system in California. Between now and Election Day we must broadcast our message as loudly as possible and reach as many people as possible, but we can t do that without your help. Volunteers will play a key role in achieving our goal of winning this November. The enclosed packet will give you the tools and resources necessary to be an effective voice and powerful advocate for Prop 62. We hope that you find your volunteer experience with us to be a fulfilling and rewarding one. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at layla@justicethatworks.org. Welcome again and thanks for all that you do! Sincerely, Layla Oghabian Field Director 1

4 2

5 Letter to Editor and OpEd Guide Letters to the editor and OpEds Template Letters to the editor are a way to respond to a newspaper article, editorial or OpEd. They are typically limited to about words in length. OpEds are another way to get our message into the opinion pages. They typically have a word length. Below is information and guidance for drafting letters to editor and OpEds in support of Prop 62 and against Prop 66. Intro: Reference the story or opinion piece and what was missed. Argument: For letters to the editor, select the key message points in favor of Prop 62 or against Prop 66 that best refute the arguments made in the story or opinion piece and also drive our campaign message. Consider the publication s audience when deciding which message points to highlight. Call to Action: End with push for Yes on 62, No on 66, or both. Submitting a letter or OpEd * OpEds: OpEds often follow a similar outline as letters to the editor but have more room to develop key message points. OpEds can have a narrative theme and use anecdotal stories, or they can simply be a well-argued essay. For submission information or further guidance, please contact Allison Martin at AMartin@wearerally.com or Jacob Hay at JHay@wearerally.com. Yes on 62 key message points Prop 62 - the Justice That Works Act - is a statewide ballot initiative to replace California s costly and failed death penalty system with life in prison without the possibility of parole. Prop 62 provides certain justice and requires serious offenders to work and pay restitution to their victims families. Prop 62 brings closure to victims families and is the only way to guarantee California never executes an innocent, wrongly convicted person. Prop 62 will save taxpayers $150 million a year according to the Legislative Analyst s Office. Prop 62 is the only real solution to an expensive, ineffective, unjust death penalty system. The death penalty system in California is failed and ground to a halt. We have not executed a single convict in more than ten years but we keep paying for it in many ways: Since 1978, California taxpayers have spent $5 billion to put 13 people to death a cost of $384 million per execution. Our failed death penalty costs the state 18 times more than life in prison without parole. The death penalty is an empty promise to victims families it drags out the legal process for decades and denies them closure. The death penalty does not achieve any of its supposed crime prevention or deterrence benefits according to a 2012 National Academy of Sciences study. The death penalty is arbitrarily applied. Inherent economic and racial bias, local political pressures on prosecutors and judges, and whether the accused has access to a quality defense all impact the outcome of cases involving life and death. Two people convicted of the same crime can face very different punishments depending on who they are and where they live. Despite lengthy appeals guaranteed by constitutional due process rights, the risk of executing an innocent person is very real, and unavoidable. DNA technology and new evidence have proven the innocence of more than 150 people on death row around the country. In California alone, 66 people had their murder convictions overturned because new evidence proved they were innocent. 3

6 Letter to Editor and OpEd Guide No on 66 key messages points Prop 66 backed by groups committed to maintaining the status quo is really just a deceptive attempt to double-down on a failed death penalty system. Prop 66 only makes things worse while costing Californians even more. You cannot fix what is so fundamentally failed. Prop 66 moves hundreds of death penalty cases to local courts, adding more layers of government bureaucracy. To meet the unrealistic timelines, death penalty cases will take priority over every other type of case. Our courts are already over-stretched. If Prop 66 passes, they will grind to a complete halt as even more resources and judges time are spent reviewing death penalty cases. With all the attorney fees, legal expenses and the resources spent building and operating new death rows around the state, Prop 66 will drive up taxpayer costs by tens of millions a year, according to the impartial Legislative Analyst s Office. 156 people sent to death row since 1973 were later exonerated. The risk of executing an innocent person is real and unavoidable. Prop 66 increases those risks by handing death penalty cases over to attorneys with no criminal law experience. Prop 66 is just another empty promise to victims families. If it passes, they will still wait decades for closure. Prop 66 is complicated, confusing and costly. It just shows how unworkable the death penalty system really is. Vote No on 66. Voters have a choice this election. Instead of making the problems worse and more expensive, vote Yes on 62 to replace a failed death penalty with life in prison and save $150 million a year. Sample letter to the editor responding to No on 62 The Bakersfield Spectator s endorsement against Prop 62 left out some important facts Central Valley voters need to know. Because of all the unavoidable delays and other problems, a death sentence actually costs 18 times more than life in prison without parole. Since 1978, California taxpayers have spent $5 billion to put 13 people to death. Not a single death sentence has been carried out for 10 years so why keep paying to keep murders sitting idly on death row? It s the ultimate failed government program. Prop 62 ends this sentencing in name only. It replaces a failed death penalty with life in prison without parole. And it saves taxpayers $150 million a year. The choice is clear for me. I m voting Yes on Prop 62 this November. Sample letter to the editor responding to Yes on 66 Anne Marie Schubert s OpEd in Thursday s Sacramento Bee failed to mention what a deceptive and poorly written law Prop 66 really is. Prop 66 actually manages to cost California taxpayers more while making the problems even worse. It hands high-stakes death penalty cases over to attorneys with no experience. The unrealistic timelines for appeals will jam up our already overcrowded courts. And taxpayers will be footing the bill. We should expect better from our elected officials, like Ms. Schubert, than to push such a deceptive and costly initiative. A proposed fix this bad only proves how broken the death penalty really is. Prop 66 is a false promise. Yes on 62 to replace our failed death penalty with life in prison without parole is the only real solution. Yes on 62, No on 66. Replace the Costly, Failed Death Penalty System. Sponsored by Taxpayers for Sentencing Reform. Major funding by Nicholas McKeown and Reed Hastings. 4

7 What is Prop 62? Replace California s Failed Death Penalty System. Vote Yes On 62! Prop 62 replaces California s costly and ineffective death penalty system with life in prison without the possibility of parole. Prop 62 saves taxpayers $150 million a year according to the Legislative Analyst s Office. Prop 62 requires inmates to work and pay restitution to their victims families. Prop 62 provides certain justice to victims families and is the only way to guarantee California never executes an innocent, wrongly convicted person. Why must we vote Yes on 62? A failed policy: The death penalty system in California has failed and ground to a halt. 746 inmates sit on death row, more likely to die of old age than to be put to death. We have not executed a single convict in more than ten years - but we keep paying for it in many ways. Costly: California taxpayers have spent $5 billion to put thirteen people to death since 1978, at a cost of $384 million per execution. Our failed death penalty system costs the state 18 times as much as life in prison without parole. Denies closure: The death penalty is a false promise to victims families. The legal process keeps the families of victims tied up in hearings and appeals for 20 to 30 years. Arbitrarily applied: Inherent bias, local political pressures on prosecutors and judges, and access to a quality defense attorney all impact death sentence cases. Two people convicted of the same crime can face very different punishments depending on who they are and where they live. Ineffective: There is zero evidence showing the death penalty deters crime according to a 2012 National Academy of Sciences study. Mistakes are unavoidable and irreversible: Despite lengthy appeals guaranteed by constitutional due process rights, the risk of executing an innocent is person very real and unavoidable. DNA technology and new evidence have proven the innocence of more than 150 people on death row around the country. In California alone, 67 people had their murder convictions overturned because new evidence proved they were innocent. Yes on 62 Endorsements : California Democratic Party California Federation of Teachers California NAACP California Labor Federation SEIU California Dolores Huerta Foundation Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter California Catholic Conference Amnesty International USA Plus more Questions or interested in getting involved? Contact David Crawford at David@justicethatworks.org Visit us at Follow on Twitter Yes on 62, No on 66. Replace the Costly, Failed Death Penalty System. Sponsored by Taxpayers for Sentencing Reform. Major funding by Nicholas McKeown and Reed Hastings. 5

8 Vote NO on this costly and reckless experiment with justice. Prop. 66 is a confusing and poorly written initiative that will only make matters worse. It will cost taxpayers millions, add layers of bureaucracy leading to more delay and increase the risk that California executes an innocent person. Prop 66 is NOT the real reform our criminal justice system needs. Increases Risk California Executes an Innocent Person This measure is modeled after flawed laws from states like Texas where innocent people have been executed. People like Cameron Willingham. Willingham was executed in 2004 despite new evidence showing that the fire that caused the tragic death of his three daughters was actually an accident, not arson. Prop. 66 limits the ability to present new evidence of innocence and other important legal safeguards. Costly Experiment Prop. 66 wastes even more money on our prison system while our schools, hospitals and other priorities suffer. According to the state s nonpartisan analysts, Prop. 66 would increase taxpayer costs by tens of millions with even more unknown costs beyond that. Prop. 66 will lead to construction of new, taxpayer-funded death row facilities and authorizes the state to house death row inmates in new prisons, anywhere in California. Bureaucratic Nightmare Prop. 66 moves complicated death penalty appeals from the state Supreme Court, to our local county courts, adding more layers of government bureaucracy. It forces California to hire hundreds of unqualified attorneys to take high profile death penalty cases and forces these cases on inexperienced judges. These deeply flawed provisions will only lead to costly mistakes and more delay. The California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, The League of Women Voters of California, SEIU California, the NAACP of California, and the ACLU of California ALL OPPOSE Prop. 66. Visit us at Follow on Twitter! Questions or interested in getting involved? Contact campaign@cafairjustice.org. Paid for by No on Prop 66. ID# Major funding by ACLU NC and Proteus Action League. 6

9 Prop 62 and Prop 66 Comparison Two initiatives on the ballot address California s failed death penalty system. Prop 62 solves the problems and saves taxpayers $150 million a year by replacing the death penalty with life in prison without parole. Prop 66 doubles down on the death penalty and spreads the costs and burdens to local courts and counties. Prop 62 - A Real Solution Replaces California s failed death penalty system with life in prison without the possibility of parole. Guarantees the state of California will never execute an innocent person. Saves California taxpayers $150 million a year, according to the Legislative Analyst s Office. Eliminates the decades of delays and assures victims families certain justice. Requires inmates who would sit on death row to work and pay restitution to victims families. Ends the arbitrary and racially discriminatory application of the death penalty. Prop 66 - A Real Mess Maintains California s failed death penalty system. Raises California s risk of executing an innocent person by attempting to rush constitutional due process protections Increases taxpayer spending by tens of millions of dollars per year with additional unknown costs to the state, according to the Legislative Analyst s Office. Imposes unworkable time frames for appeals that will still deny closure to victims families for decades. Makes no changes to the arbitrary and biased application of the death penalty. Requires attorneys who may be inexperienced, unqualified or unwilling to take death penalty cases - with local counties picking up the costs for attorney fees and legal expenses. Moves death penalty appeals from the state Supreme Court, to our local county courts, adding new layers of government bureaucracy. Prioritizes death penalty cases in courts throughout the justice system over other criminal and civil matters. Transfers 747 death row inmates from San Quentin to minideath rows around the state, built and maintained by county budgets. Exempts lethal injection cocktails used by the Department of Corrections from public oversight. Makes changes to court procedures that are unenforceable and infringe on judicial and legislative separation of powers. Yes on 62, No on 66. Replace the Costly, Failed Death Penalty System. Sponsored by Taxpayers for Sentencing Reform. Major funding by Nicholas McKeown and Reed Hastings. 7

10 Diverse Perspectives Support Yes on 62 California s death penalty system is a long, agonizing ordeal for our family. My sister s killer was sentenced to death, but countless appeals keep our wounds open and fresh. The death penalty is an empty promise of justice. A life sentence without parole would bring real closure. - Beth Webb, sister of a victim in the 2011 Seal Beach hair salon mass shooting I led the campaign to bring the death penalty back to California in It was a costly mistake. Now I know we just hurt the victims families we were trying to help and wasted taxpayer dollars. The death penalty cannot be fixed. We need to replace it, lock up murderers for good, make them work, and move on. - Ron Briggs, led the 1978 campaign that brought the death penalty to California When I was the District Attorney, I supported the death penalty. But I ve reversed my position because I believe it s a total waste of money. It s of no useful purpose, it s not a deterrent, and you can better spend that money addressing bigger issues rather than housing people on death row in California. Prop 62 is the only real solution to a failed death penalty system. - Gil Garcetti, former Los Angeles County District Attorney I prosecuted killers using California s death penalty law, but the high costs, endless delays and total ineffectiveness in deterring crime convinced me we need to replace the death penalty system with life in prison without parole. - John Van de Kamp, former Los Angeles District Attorney and former California Attorney General I am asking mothers and families to vote for the law that will end the death penalty. Most people who receive this punishment are low-income residents who do not have the resources to defend themselves, and many are innocent. We can change this. Vote to end the death penalty. - Dolores Huerta, labor and civil rights leader Whether you look at the death penalty from a taxpayer, a criminal justice or a civil rights perspective, what is clear is that it fails in every respect. We have to do better in California. - Mike Farrell, Yes on Prop 62 proponent I call on all Californians to support Prop 62. We must take action to ensure that justice is served, society is protected and victims receive restitution whenever possible. When society undertakes to impose the ultimate sentence on its citizens it must meet the most stringent standards of fairness and due process. - Loretta Sanchez, U.S. Congresswoman I am living proof that our justice system sometimes gets it wrong. I was wrongly accused of murder and spent 20 years in prison for a crime I did not commit. After a long legal battle where witnesses recanted and new evidence came to light - I was exonerated and given my freedom back. If I had been sentenced to death instead of life in prison, this might have been a different story. I lost 20 good years, but not my life. We re seeing almost daily in the news that our criminal justice system is not always just, fair, or blind. It makes mistakes. Passing Prop 62 is the only way to make sure we never execute an innocent person. It s time to end the death penalty in California. - Franky Carrillo, wrongly convicted, released after 20 years in prison Prop 62 will replace the death penalty in California with life in prison without parole, saving California hundreds of millions of dollars every year and abolishing a system that is administered with troubling racial disparities. I realize that this is a controversial issue that raises deeply-felt passions on all sides. But I also believe that decades from now, like with so many other oncecontentious issues, America will look back at the death penalty as an archaic mistake. On issues such as this, elected leaders owe it to themselves and to their constituents to speak up and speak out - regardless of political consequences. - Gavin Newsom, Lieutenant Governor of California The Catholic Bishops of California support Proposition 62, which would end the use of the death penalty in California. Capital punishment has repeatedly been shown to be severely and irrevocably flawed in its application. In the long but absolutely necessary process of ensuring an innocent person is not put to death, we have seen many accused persons being exonerated as new forms of forensic investigation have enabled us to better scrutinize evidence. - Catholic Bishops of California Additional endorsements include: California Democratic Party California Labor Federation Service Employees International Union California Federation of Teachers Exonerated Nation The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Rainbow Push Coalition The California NAACP Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice The California Catholic Conference The League of Women Voters of California Yes on 62, No on 66. Replace the Costly, Failed Death Penalty System. Sponsored by Taxpayers for Sentencing Reform. Major funding by Nicholas McKeown and Reed Hastings. 8

11 "Justice is NOT Blind" for African American and Latino Communities The death penalty embodies the cruelest consequences of racial discrimination, disproportionate sentencing, and mass incarceration. Of 156 persons sentenced to death in the US since 1973, who were exonerated prior to their imminent execution, 60% were persons of color: 13 Latinos and 81 African Americans. In California, although most murder victims are African Americans or Latinos, juries impose the death penalty more often when the victim is white, and the accused is non-white. While around 28% of murder victims in California are white, 80% of executions in California have been for those convicted of killing whites. In California: o Persons convicted of killing whites are over four times more likely to be sentenced to die as those convicted of killing Latinos. o Persons convicted of killing whites are over three times more likely to be sentenced to die as those convicted of killing African-Americans. o A person convicted of the same crime is more than three times more likely to be sentenced to die simply because the crime was committed in a predominantly white, rural community rather than a diverse, urban area. Although African Americans comprise around 6 percent of California s population, over 36% of the inmates on Death Row in California are African Americans. Nationally, since 1976: 9

12 o 297 African American defendants have been sentenced to death in the US when the victim was white. o Only 31 white defendants have been sentenced to death when the victim was black. A 1990 US. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that 82% of the studies surveyed concluded that the defendant had a greater likelihood of being sentenced to death if the murder victim was white than if the victim was nonwhite. People of color accused of murder often are low-income persons who cannot afford the significant legal costs involved in mounting a vigorous defense in a murder trial, and thus receive the death penalty in error. "We know that because of racial disparities, and because of income inequalities that people of color do not often get equal justice in our courtrooms. We could have two people who commit the same crime, but if it is a person of color that person is most likely to get convicted because they do not have the resources to get the proper defense for themselves." "We have this wonderful opportunity now in the November election where we can actually end the death penalty in California. Our state, we know, has always been a pioneer in justice. We need to bring that justice back. We can do it very simply by voting Yes on Proposition 62. Si se puede! We can do it!" Dolores Huerta, former Vice President of the United Farmworkers of America "The NAACP has a strong adverse opinion on the death penalty in general, particularly in cases of botched executions stemming from a shortage of drugs; the death penalty system's racial disparities; and death row inmates later found to be innocent. There is a real need for California to consider getting rid of the death penalty in California. The findings depict a disparity in the implementation of the death penalty in California -- out of 748 inmates on death row over 36% (271) are African American and less than 35% are white (259). " Alice Huffman, President California NAACP 10

13 ENDORSE Prop 62, The Justice That Works Act Prop 62 replaces California s failed death penalty with life in prison without parole. It provides certain justice and requires convicted murderers to work and pay restitution to their victims families. By passing the Justice That Works Act, California tax payers will save $150 million a year, according to the Legislative Analyst s Office. Individual Endorsement I support the Prop 62 and permit the usage of my name throughout the campaign. Full Name: Title/Affiliation: Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Organizational Endorsement My organization supports the Prop 62 & permits the usage of our name throughout the campaign. Name of Organization: Full Name: Title/Affiliation: Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Please return this form to: Yes On 62, 5 Third Street, Suite 724, San Francisco, California or it to David Crawford at david@justicethatworks.org. Yes On 62 and Californians for Fair Justice are coordinated campaigns collaborating to end the death penalty by supporting the JTW Act and opposing the DPRS Act. -- Yes on 62,. Replace the Costly, Failed Death Penalty System. Sponsored by Taxpayers for Sentencing Reform. Major funding by Nicholas McKeown and Reed Hastings. 11

14 OPPOSE Prop 66, Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act Prop 66 is a confusing and flawed measure that will only cause more delay in death penalty cases, increase taxpayer costs by millions and increase California s risk of executing an innocent person. Prop 66 is a costly experiment that would waste tens of millions of dollars and is a bureaucratic nightmare. Individual Endorsement I oppose the Prop 66 and permit the usage of my name throughout the campaign. Full Name: Title/Affiliation: Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Organizational Endorsement My organization opposes the Prop 66 & permits the usage of our name throughout the campaign. Name of Organization: Full Name: Title/Affiliation: Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Please return this form to: Yes On 62, 5 Third Street, Suite 724, San Francisco, California or it to David Crawford at david@justicethatworks.org. Yes On 62 and Californians for Fair Justice are coordinated campaigns collaborating to end the death penalty by supporting the JTW Act and opposing the DPRS Act. -- Paid for by No on Prop 66. ID# Major funding by ACLU NC and Proteus Action League. 12

15 Join the campaign to replace California s costly and ineffective death penalty system! Full Name Address Phone # (specify cell or hm) City & Zip Code Would you like to Volunteer? Yes on 62, No on 66. Replace the Costly, Failed Death Penalty System. Sponsored by Taxpayers for Sentencing Reform. Major funding by Nicholas McKeown and Reed Hastings. 13

16 Speaker Request Information Form Date of event: Group name/event name: Contact name/title: Contact phone: Contact Event location: Time of day: Expected Audience: How many: Event purpose: Prior knowledge of death penalty in Ca: Speaking Format (circle one): panel debate roundtable keynote presentation other: Please completed forms to We will contact you for more information as needed. Thank you for your interest! Yes on 62, No on 66. Replace the Costly, Failed Death Penalty System. Sponsored by Taxpayers for Sentencing Reform. Major funding by Nicholas McKeown and Reed Hastings. 14

17 Death penalty is destructive to California Ron Briggs July 7, 2016 In 1978, my family wrote and sponsored the ballot initiative that expanded the death penalty back to California. We worked tirelessly to pass the initiative, putting in long days gathering signatures and late nights stuffing envelopes. Instituting the death penalty, we thought, would save Californians money, bring safety to our communities and provide closure to victims families. We could not have been more wrong. Though I was once California s biggest proponent of the death penalty, I now feel compelled to admit the policy is destructive to our great state. What we didn t know then is that the death penalty would become an industry that benefits only attorneys and criminals, and no one else. It s an extreme expense to taxpayers, does not make our communities safer and fails to deliver the justice it promised. Since the initiative became law, California taxpayers have unknowingly spent more than $5 billion to maintain a death row that now houses 747 convicted criminals. During this time, only 13 people have been put to death, at an eye-popping price tag of $384 million per execution. Beyond its economic burden, the death penalty in California is a myth. Not a single individual has been executed in the past 10 years because of many problems. An exhaustive appeals process, guaranteed by our Constitution, can drag on for decades. Meanwhile, death row inmates are kept in private cells, don t have to work and are afforded privileges they would not be getting in the general prison population. Because of all this, the death penalty costs taxpayers 18 times more than a sentence of life in prison. So why are Californians paying for an exorbitant capital punishment program that does not accomplish justice? The constitutionally mandated appeals keep the wounds of victims families open. The death penalty does not make our communities any safer, either. New studies conclusively show that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. My family and I believed the death penalty would serve as the ultimate warning to criminals, but nearly 40 years of evidence proves it does not work. Don t get me wrong I m still as tough on crime as I ve ever been. I firmly believe those who committed the most heinous acts should do the hardest of time and never again see the light of day. But it s time to face facts: the ultimate punishment has become the ultimate failed government program. Fortunately, we now have the chance to deliver real justice. The Justice That Works Act Proposition 62 on the November ballot would replace the death penalty with a punishment that brings swift and certain justice: life in prison without the possibility of parole. Instead of paying for endless appeals, we would lock up the worst criminals and throw away the key forever. It would also force inmates to work and pay restitution to their victims families while saving California taxpayers $150 million annually money that could go to programs that can prevent crime. 15

18 Another initiative on the ballot Proposition 66 promises to fix the death penalty by hiring more attorneys. But do not be deceived. It s a sloppy initiative that will make things worse. Every attempt to fix the death penalty over the past 40 years has only made it slower and more expensive, wasting resources on criminals, attorneys and a bloated bureaucracy. The only real solution is to replace the death penalty with life in prison without parole. Like my family, California thought expanding the death penalty initiative was the right thing to do in We were wrong. Now as a state, we have the chance to end the wasteful program and maintain our commitment to tough justice by passing Proposition 62. Ron Briggs is a former supervisor of El Dorado County. Contact him at ronvbriggs@gmail.com. 16

19 No to death penalty: It is unfair, unreliable By Mike Farrell June 27, 2016 Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court recently said the death penalty is unconstitutional and unworkable. I agree with him. And in November we Californians will get to be heard on the question. Justice Breyer caused quite a stir last year with a thoughtful, deeply detailed dissent in a case, Glossip v. Gross, about Oklahoma s plan to use a particular chemical, Midazolam, to execute Mr. Glossip. His lawyers argued that the drug, the cause of two botched executions in one of which the condemned man struggled and suffered through two hours of torture before dying was illegal, its effect amounting to cruel and unusual punishment banned by our Constitution s 8th Amendment. The lawyers did not prevail, but Justice Breyer s dissent virtually eviscerated the death penalty, carefully addressing its failure on each of the legal grounds used to justify it since capital punishment was reinstated by the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia in In his dissent Breyer cites facts and studies showing the death penalty to be an unreliable, arbitrary, and ineffective failure. To date 156 women and men have been tried, convicted and sentenced to death only to be finally sometimes after three or four decades exonerated and freed. The number of innocent people executed is not known, though Justice Breyer names some who possibly were. There is too much arbitrariness in the criminal justice process for the death penalty to ever be carried out fairly. Inherent economic and racial bias in our criminal justice system conscious or unconscious, local political pressures on prosecutors and judges, and whether the accused has access to a quality defense all impact the outcome of cases involving life and death. Two people convicted of the same crime can face very different punishments depending on who they are and where they live. No matter where you stand on the death penalty, we should all be able to agree it is grossly ineffective. It takes too much time and costs far too much money to administer. While necessary to protect the innocent and guarantee fairness, the appeals process, as Justice Breyer noted, involves unconscionably long delays that undermine its penological purpose, weakening any possible retributive or deterrent value, while at the same time denying many victims families the closure they ve been promised. After dismantling the rationale behind our failed death penalty, Justice Breyer said: I recognize that in 1972 this court, in a sense, turned to Congress and the state legislatures in its search for standards that would increase the fairness and reliability of imposing a death penalty. The legislatures responded. But, in the last four decades, considerable evidence has accumulated that those responses have not worked. 17

20 With more than 40 years to try to make the death penalty reliable, fair and effective, the states have failed. If anything, it has gone in the opposite direction. Today, the death penalty is more unrel iable, less fair and more ineffective than ever. The death penalty is broken beyond repair; maintaining it demeans us all. Justice Breyer s one mistake is counting California among the 11 states where the death penalty has not been used for eight years. He s correct that we ve had no executions, but it s certainly not for lack of trying. Despite a court ruling that put California s execution chamber on hold, death sentences continue to be pursued vigorously by ambitious prosecutors, giving us the country s largest death row: 748 women and men one-quarter of the entire nation s condemned. California s death penalty has cost us $150 million per year since its re-establishment in 1978, a total of $5 billion to date. We ve sentenced almost 1,000 women and men to death and executed 13 a cost of$384 million per execution. During those years, eight times as many on death row have died of natural causes or suicide. Fortunately, we now have the opportunity to solve the problem. The Justice That Works Act an initiative on California s ballot this November replaces death row with life in prison without the possibility of parole, requires inmates to work and pay restitution to their victim s family, and saves our state s taxpayers $150 million every year. It s the only real solution to a failed death penalty system. That s why a diverse coalition of victims families, law enforcement, taxpayer advocates, civil rights and community leaders are gathering together to pass it. Whatever the reason whether it s unreliability, unfairness or ineffectiveness I hope you ll help us put an end to our failed death penalty this November. Mike Farrell, best known as BJ Hunnicutt of TV s M*A*S*H, is a human rights activist and currently the president of the board of Taxpayers for Sentencing Reform. 18

21 Replace the Costly, Failed Death Penalty YesOn62.com Yes on 62, No on 66. Replace the Costly, Failed Death Penalty System. Sponsored by Taxpayers for Sentencing Reform. Major funding by Nicholas McKeown and Reed Hastings.