|
|
| Prop. 34 seeks to end Calif. death penalty |
| By www.correctionsone.com - Sam Stanton |
| Published: 09/05/2012 |
|
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — To some, the death penalty is an important tool for prosecutors and victims. To others, it is a costly waste. These opposing viewpoints will play out in the coming weeks over Proposition 34, which asks California voters to end the death penalty in the state and allow death row inmates to be resentenced to life in prison without any chance of parole. Supporters of the measure, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to attorneys and a former San Quentin warden, are waging a campaign based on the notion that the entire process is far too costly, and that scrapping the death penalty could save cash-strapped California hundreds of millions of dollars. Read More. |
Comments:
Login to let us know what you think
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Consistent with current policies at San Quentin, death row inmates are generally unsuitable for work because of their violent and uncontrolled behavior. For this reason, most of these inmates’ time is spent locked in a one-person cell except for limited time in one of the recreational yards, which are highly controlled to avoid contact with opposing gang members, enemies, etc. Maintaining limited contact between inmates and staff provides greater control, maintains safety, and is much less expensive than attempting to sustain that same control and safety with significantly greater contacts between inmates and prison officials. Thus, providing sufficient control of the inmates in a working environment and maintaining the safety of other inmates and prison staff would be both extremely expensive and impractical.
The arguments in support of the ballot measure to abolish the death penalty are exaggerated at best and, in most cases, misleading and erroneous. Proposition 34 is being funded primarily by a wealthy company out of Chicago, the ACLU, and similarly-oriented trust funds. It includes provisions that would only make our prisons less safe for both other prisoners and prison officials and significantly increase the costs to taxpayers due to life-time medical costs, the increased security required to coerce former death-row inmates to work, etc. The amount “saved” in order to help fund law enforcement is negligible and only for a short period of time. Bottom line, the “SAFE” Act is an attempt by those who are responsible for the high costs and lack of executions to now persuade voters to abandon it on those grounds. Obviously, these arguments would disappear if the death penalty was carried forth in accordance with the law. Get the facts at and supporting evidence at http://cadeathpenalty.webs.com and http://waiting4justice.org/.