# data[].attributes.body
Click to view all Stats on Death Penalty

# data[].attributes.body
There are death penalty for various acts in Bible: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)...
Even every sin we commit ought to result in the death penalty because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Thankfully, God demonstrates His love for us in not condemning us "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us"(Romans 5:8).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Interview with Sister Helen Prejean, author of the book "Dead Man Walking" -- on the 20th anniversary of the book, what she's been doing the past 20 years -- and the future of death penalty in the USA. Interviewed by Rachel Maddow, originall boradcast June 18, 2013 on MSNBC.

# data[].attributes.body
The final and most significant scene of Dead Man Walking, an academy award winning film about Helen Prejean's work with a rapist/ murder put on death row. Warning: viewer discretion is advised.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
the powerful climax of a very good movie

# data[].attributes.body
The WCADP is an international alliance of over 120 NGOs, bar associations, local authorities and unions dedicated to obtaining the universal abolition of the death penalty through lobbying at the state and international levels, support of regional, national and local abolitionist groups, and the organization of international campaigns, including the annual World Day Against the Death Penalty. Their website contains many useful resources in English, French, Arabic and other languages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Uniting all those committed to the universal abolition of the death penalty

# data[].attributes.headline
2016 Elections may change California's Death Penalty

# data[].attributes.subject
2016 Elections may change California's Death Penalty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California Proposition 62, the Repeal of the Death Penalty Initiative, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported repealing the death penalty and making life without the possibility of parole the maximum punishment for murder.

A "no" vote opposed this measure repealing the death penalty.

There was another death penalty related measure, Proposition 66, that appeared on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California. If both measures pass, the one with the most "yes" votes would supersede the other.

Election results

Proposition 62

Result

Votes

Percentage

No
7,218,625 53.15%

Yes

6,361,788

46.85%

As of 2016, California was one of 30 states in which the death penalty was legal.

In 1972, the California Supreme Court ruled the state's capital punishment system unconstitutional. However, in 1978, Proposition 7 reinstated the death penalty. Voters rejected an initiative to ban capital punishment, titled Proposition 34, in 2012.

The measure would have repealed the state death penalty and replaced the maximum punishment for murder with life in prison without possibility of parole. It would have applied retroactively to those already sentenced to death. The measure would have also required all persons found guilty of murder to work while in state prison in order to pay debts to victims of the crime committed. Current law requires 20 to 50 percent of an inmate's earnings to be deducted from his or her wages to pay these debts. Proposition 62 would have changed this range to 20 to 60 percent.

Yes on 62 raised over $10.1 million, and No on Prop 62 had received $12.6 million. Yes on 62 was spending contributions to approve Proposition 62 and defeat Proposition 66. No on 62 was spending to defeat Proposition 62 and approve Proposition 66. Polls indicated that about 42 percent of residents supported and 46 percent opposed the measure prior to election day. The California Democratic Party supported Proposition 62, and the California Republican Party opposed the initiative.

Proposition 62 vs. Proposition 66

Proposition 62 and Proposition 66 were not compatible measures. Therefore, if both were approved by a majority of voters, then the one with the most "yes" votes would have superseded the other. The table below outlines some of the major differences between the two initiatives:

Repeals the death penalty.

Keeps the death penalty in place.

Replaces the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole as the maximum punishment for murder.

Changes the death penalty procedures to speed up the appeals process by putting trial courts in charge of initial petitions challenging death penalty convictions, establishing a time frame for death penalty review, and requiring appointed attorneys to work on death penalty cases.

Retroactively applies to prisoners already on death row at the time that the measure would take effect.

Stipulates that all effects would occur once Proposition 66 is enacted and authorizes death row inmate transfers among California prisons.

Would require prisoners sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole to work and pay restitution to victims' families. The portion of wages to be provided as restitution would be between 20 to 60 percent.

Would require prisoners on death row to work while in prison and pay restitution to victims' families. The portion of wages to be provided as restitution would be 70 percent or the restitution fine, whichever is less.

Stipulates that any provision found to be invalid will not affect the other provisions of the measure.

Stipulates that other death penalty measures approved would be void in the event that more affirmative votes are given for Proposition 66.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was:

Ballot summary

The long-form ballot summary was as follows:

"

Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death.

States that persons found guilty of murder and sentenced to life without possibility of parole must work while in prison as prescribed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Increases portion of life inmates' wages that may be applied to victim restitution.

"

The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:

"

Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Increases the portion of life inmates' wages that may be applied to victim restitution. Fiscal Impact: Net ongoing reduction in state and county criminal justice costs of around $150 million annually within a few years, although the impact could vary by tens of millions of dollars depending on various factors.

"

The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 62 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.

Fiscal impact

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance.

"

Net ongoing reduction in state and county costs related to murder trials, legal challenges to death sentences, and prisons of around $150 million annually within a few years. This estimate could be higher or lower by tens of millions of dollars, depending on various factors.

"

The full text of the measure can be found here.

Yes on 62 led the campaign in support of Proposition 62. The measure was developed by the group Taxpayers for Sentencing Reform.

Supporters

Former officials

A Yes on 62 ad featuring Ron Briggs, leader of the campaign for California's Death Penalty Law in 1978

First lady Rosalynn Carter

U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis (D)

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D)

Texas Gov. Mark White (D)

U.S. Rep. John Burton (D-5)

Attorney General John Van de Kamp (D)

Virginia Attorney General Anthony Troy (D)

Sen. Don Perata (D-9)

Rep. Tom Ammiano (D-17)

Rep. Dion Aroner (D-14)

Judge Cruz Reynoso, California Supreme Court

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D), Los Angeles

Mayor Willie Brown (D), San Francisco

City Councilor Robert Farrell, Los Angeles

Organizations

Individuals

Don Heller, author of California's Death Penalty Law in 1978 and former U.S. Attorney for California Eastern District

Ron Briggs, leader of the campaign for California's Death Penalty Law in 1978 and former El Dorado County Supervisor

Dolores Huerta, civil rights and labor activist

Bryan Stevenson, Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative

Van Jones, activist and CNN contributor

Stephen Gutwillig, Deputy Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance

Paula Mitchell, Executive Director of the Alarcon Advocacy Center and Legal Director of the Loyola Project for the Innocent

Karin Ryan, Senior Advisor for Human Rights at The Carter Center

Journalists

Religious leaders

Los Angeles Archbishop José H. Gomez

The Rt. Rev. Barry L. Beisner, the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California

The Rt. Rev. Marc Andrus, the Episcopal Diocese of California

The Rt. Rev. Mary Gray-Reeves, the Episcopal Diocese of El Camino Real

The Rt. Rev. David C. Rice, the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin

The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles

The Rt. Rev. Diane Jardine Bruce, the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles

The Rt. Rev. James R. Mathes, the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego

Business leaders

Tom Steyer, founder of Farallon Capital Management

Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group

Reed Hastings, Netflix chairman and chief executive

Richard Branson, founder and CEO of the Virgin Group

Nicholas McKeown, co-founder of Abrizio and Nemo Systems

Russell Simmons, Chairman and CEO of Rush Communications

Gwynned Vitello, President of High Speed Productions

Actors and artists

Archbishop José H. Gomez calling on Catholics to support Proposition 62

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 62:

The proposition would save taxpayer money by replacing a costly, inefficient system that is unworkable.

The proposition would provide criminals the opportunity to work and pay restitution to victims' families.

The proposition would provide victims' families closure.

The proposition would eliminate the risk of executing an innocent person.

The proposition would erase the most extreme racial inequality in the criminal justice system, the disparity in death penalty sentencing.

The proposition is supported by former death penalty advocates.

Official arguments

Jeanne Woodford, a former death row warden; Donald Heller, the author of California's death penalty law; and Beth Webb, the sister of a victim murdered in 2011, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 62 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:

California's death penalty system has failed. Taxpayers have spent more than $5 billion since 1978 to carry out 13 executions - a cost of $384 million per execution.

The death penalty is an empty promise to victims' families and carries the unavoidable risk of executing an innocent person.

YES ON 62 REPLACES THIS COSTLY, FAILED SYSTEM WITH A STRICT LIFE SENTENCE AND ZERO CHANCE OF PAROLE

Under Prop 62, the death penalty will be replaced with a strict life sentence. Those convicted of the worst crimes will NEVER be released. Instead of being housed in expensive private cells on death row, murderers will be kept with other maximum-security inmates.

WORK AND RESTITUTION

Criminals who would otherwise sit on death row and in courtrooms during the decades-long appeals guaranteed by the Constitution, will instead have to work and pay restitution to their victims' families.

REAL CLOSURE FOR VICTIMS' FAMILIES

"California's death penalty system is a long, agonizing ordeal for our family. As my sister's killer sits through countless hearings, we continually relive this tragedy. The death penalty is an empty promise of justice. A life sentence without parole would bring real closure," - Beth Webb, whose sister was murdered with seven other people in a mass-shooting, at an Orange County hair salon.

HUGE COST SAVINGS CONFIRMED BY IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS

The state's independent Legislative Analyst confirmed Prop 62 will save $150 million per year. A death row sentence costs 18 times more than life in prison. Resources can be better spent on education, public safety, and crime prevention that actually works.

DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM FLAWS RUN DEEP

California has not executed anyone in 10 years because of serious problems. For nearly 40 years, every attempted fix has failed to make the death penalty system work. It's simply unworkable.

"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.'

THE RISK OF EXECUTING AN INNOCENT PERSON IS REAL

DNA technology and new evidence have proven the innocence of more than 150 people on death row after they were sentenced to death. In California, 66 people had their murder convictions overturned because new evidence showed they were innocent.

Carlos DeLuna was executed in 1989, but an independent investigation later proved his innocence. Executing an innocent person is a mistake that can never be undone.

FORMER DEATH PENALTY ADVOCATES: YES ON 62

"I led the campaign to bring the death penalty back to California in 1978. 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 campaign to create California's death penalty system.

www.YesOn62.com

Campaign advertisements

The following video advertisements were produced by Yes on 62:

Opposition

Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty, also known as No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 62.

Former officials

Organizations

Individuals

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 62:

The proposition would protect the worst criminals while diminishing protection of victims' rights.

The proposition would cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

The proposition would end the death penalty system when it should be mended.

Official arguments

Mike Ramos, district attorney of San Bernardino County; Marc Klass, the father of a 12-year-old murder victim; and Mike Durant, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, wrote the official argument against Proposition 62 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:

Join us in VOTING NO on PROPOSITION 62!

Let's be clear what Proposition 62 does.

Proposition 62 says the worst of the worst murderers get to stay alive, at the taxpayers' expense, decades after committing their horrible crimes, and mocking the pain of their victims' families.

The death penalty is reserved for only the worst murderers like child killers, rape/torture murderers, serial murderers, and cop killers. Just 1- 2% of about 2,000 murders in California annually end up with a death sentence.

Proposition 62 says these most heinous crimes should have no higher level of punishment. We disagree. For the very worst criminals, there needs to be a death penalty.

We all know California's death penalty system is broken. Death row inmates are now able to file one frivolous appeal after another, denying justice.

The answer is to MEND, NOT END California's death penalty laws.

Prosecutors, law enforcement, and the families of murder victims OPPOSE PROPOSITION 62 because it jeopardizes public safety, denies justice and closure to victims' families, and rewards the most horrible killers.

The backers of Proposition 62 want you to believe they are protecting wrongly-convicted death row prisoners from being executed.

But in a meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle, Governor Jerry Brown, "a former Attorney General, said there are no innocent Inmates on California's death row." (March 7, 2012)

The backers of Proposition 62 says it will save taxpayers money. WHO ARE THEY FOOLING?

Under Prop 62, taxpayers are on the hook to feed, clothe, house, guard, and provide healthcare to brutal killers until they die of old age. Even give them a heart transplant!

That's why Mike Genest, former California Finance Director, says, "Prop 62 will cost over $100 million."

If Proposition 62 doesn't protect victims and doesn't protect taxpayers, just who does Proposition 62 protect?

Prop 62 protects Charles Ng, a brutal serial killer who kidnapped families, tortured/killed children in front of their parents, killed the father, and then repeatedly raped the mother before killing her.

Ng committed his crimes over 30 years ago, delayed his trial for nearly 15 years with appeals, and was finally tried, convicted, and sentenced to death almost 20 years ago. He's still on death row, filing appeals to delay his punishment, long after his victims were silenced forever.

Who else does Proposition 62 protect?

Richard Allen Davis, who kidnapped, raped, and tortured 12-year-old Polly Klaas.

Serial killer Robert Rhoads, who kidnapped, raped, and tortured 8-year-old Michael Lyons before stabbing him 70 times.

And hundreds more like them. California's death row inmates include the killers of:

- Over 1,000 MURDER VICTIMS. - 226 CHILDREN.
- 43 PEACE OFFICERS.
- 294 victims who were RAPED or TORTURED before being killed.

The American Civil Liberties Union supports repealing the death penalty; the very same people who file all the frivolous appeals that have bogged down the system. Now they are using the problems they created to argue the death penalty should be repealed.

DON'T BE FOOLED. Join us and VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 62!

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions[29]
as of February 1, 2017[30]

Support:

$10,141,300.76

Opposition:

$12,698,420.18

As of February 1, 2017, the support campaign for Proposition 62 raised $10.1 million, and the opposition campaign raised $12.7 million.

As of February 1, 2017, the following PACs were registered to support Proposition 62 and the total amount raised below was current as of the same date. The Yes on 62 committee was also registered in opposition to Proposition 66. The Million Voter Project Action Fund was also registered in support of Propositions 55, 56, 57, 58, and 62 and in opposition to 66. The amount spent listed below was current as of February 1, 2017.

As of February 1, 2017, the top five largest donors in support of Proposition 62 were:

Note: Thomas Steyer contributed to the Million Voter Project Action Fund, which is spending funds on six initiatives.

Opposition

Three ballot measure campaign committees were registered in opposition to Proposition 62 as of February 1, 2017. The committees were also registered in support of Proposition 66. The committees received the following total contributions and expenditures as of February 1, 2017.

Note: The California Correctional Peace Officers Association Truth in American Government Fund and San Francisco Police Officers Association Issues PAC contributed funds to Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty. These funds that flowed between the committees were not counted twice. Therefore, the aggregate total below does not simply reflect the two committees' received contributions.

The following were the top five donors who contributed in opposition to Proposition 62 as of February 1, 2017:

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs State PIC

$210,000

Methodology

Ballotpedia calculates campaign finance based on the political committees registered to support or oppose a measure and independent expenditures, when relevant and available. When a committee is registered to support or oppose multiple measures it is impossible to distinguish between funds used for one measure and funds used for the other.

In calculating campaign finance for supporting and opposing committees, Ballotpedia does not count donations or expenditures from one ballot measure committee to another since that would amount to counting the same money twice. This method is used to give the most accurate information concerning how much funding was actually provided to and spent by the opposing and supporting campaigns.

Ballotpedia subtracts out committee-to-committee contributions-both cash donations and in-kind contributions. Because of this, it is possible for certain committees to have negative contributions. Negative contributions mean that a committee has provided more contributions to other committees than it has received. If expenditures exceed contributions, it means the committee has accrued unpaid bills, has unpaid or unforgiven loans, or has contributed a certain amount of in-kind services to another committee.

Ballotpedia provides information about all reported in-kind donations. In-kind contributions are also counted toward total expenditures since, with in-kind gifts, the contribution and services or goods are provided simultaneously. Ballotpedia does this to provide the most accurate information about the cash-on-hand of supporting and opposing campaigns.

Media editorials

East Bay Times and The Mercury News: "Donald Heller wrote the 1978 proposition that brought back capital punishment. He now favors abolishing it. He knows that it costs California $90,000 a year more per prisoner on death row than it costs to jail our worst criminals for life. No other Western nation has the death penalty. California shouldn't share the values of places such as North Korea, China, Pakistan, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Vote no on Proposition 66 -- and vote yes on Proposition 62. Abolish the death penalty in California."

Opposition

A USC Dornsife and Los Angeles Times joint poll found a slim simple majority opposing Proposition 62, with 51 percent against and 40 percent in favor, in early September 2016.

SurveyUSA reported that 52 percent of Californians surveyed opposed Proposition 62. African-Americans were the only demographic group in which a simple majority supported the measure. A majority of people identifying as a "strong Democrat" or "very liberal" also supported it.

In September 2016, The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 942 registered voters and found support for Proposition 62 to be 48 percent. Democrats supported the measure at 63 percent, independents at 53 percent, and Republicans at 21 percent.

CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 62 in mid-October 2016. Support among respondents was 37 percent.

The Hoover Institution and YouGov surveyed 1,250 likely voters between October 4 and October 14, 2016. Support for the measure was 42 percent.

In mid-October 2016, SurveyUSA found support for the initiative around 35 percent and opposition to the measure around 53 percent.

In late October 2016, USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times surveyed 1,500 registered voters and found 43 percent favoring and 46 percent opposing Proposition 62.

The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 1,498 likely voters between October 25 and October 31, 2016, and found support for the measure at 51 percent.

Polls with margins of error

Polls without margins of error

Note: The Field Poll/IGS Poll does not report a margin of error because "[polls] conducted online using an opt-in panel do not easily lend themselves to the calculation of sampling error estimates as are traditionally reported for random sample telephone surveys."

California Proposition 62 (2016)

Note: A "0%" finding means the candidate was not a part of the poll. The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

The Field Poll surveyed Californians in December 2015 and January 2016 on their support for two initiatives related to capital punishment. About 47 percent of respondents favored the provisions of Proposition 62, while 48 percent preferred the provisions of Proposition 66. The former initiative would replace the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole, and the latter initiative would speed up the execution process.

California Proposition 62 (2016) and California Proposition 66 (2016)

Note: A "0%" finding means the candidate was not a part of the poll. The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Proposition 7

See also: California Proposition 7, the Death Penalty Act (1978)

In 1972, the death penalty in California was invalidated by the California Supreme Court in People v. Anderson. It was reinstated by Proposition 7 in 1978. Over 70 percent of voters supported the reinstatement. Since that time, 13 inmates have been executed.

Proposition 34

See also: California Proposition 34, the End the Death Penalty Initiative (2012)

Proposition 34, which would have ended the death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without the possibility of parole, appeared on the November 6, 2012, ballot in California. The measure was defeated, thereby continuing the use of the death penalty system in the state of California.

Death penalty invalidation

While Proposition 34 was defeated in 2012, Judge Cormac J. Carney invalidated the state's death penalty on July 16, 2014. The ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Court, which held that the legal precedent of federal habeas corpus was not applicable to the case because Judge Carney used arguments for legal doctrine that did not exist at the time of the relevant death penalty inmate's conviction. This kept the death penalty operational in California.

Death penalty by state

Prior to the November 2016 election, capital punishment was legal in 31 states. It was illegal in 19 states and the District of Columbia. In Colorado, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Washington, laws providing for the death penalty were in place but had been placed under gubernatorial moratoria. After the November 2016 election, voters did not change the legal status of the death penalty in any of the states with measures on the issue.

In 1846, Michigan became the first state to abolish the death penalty. Between 1846 and 1911, four states banned the practice. For the 46 years following Minnesota's 1911 repeal of capital punishment, no other states followed suit. Then, between 1957 and 1965, five additional states abolished the death penalty. During the 1970s and early 1980s, four more states followed suit. In 2007, both New Jersey and New York prohibited the death penalty. Seven states abolished the death penalty between 2007 and 2017. In August 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional.

In the November 2016 election, voters in three states showed support for the death penalty. Voters in California rejected Proposition 62, which would have repealed the state's death penalty, and they approved a measure designed to speed up the death row appeal process. The people of Nebraska voted to repeal on Referendum 426, thereby preserving the death penalty by voting against the legislature's 2015 motion to abolish capital punishment. Voters in Oklahoma, where the death penalty was already legal, approved State Question 776, which constitutionalized capital punishment.

Path to the ballot

Mike Farrell submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on September 15, 2015.

A title and summary were issued by the California attorney general's office on November 19, 2015.

A total of 365,880 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.

On February 4, 2016, petitioners reached the 25 percent mark in their signature-gathering effort, collecting more than 91,470 signatures.

On May 2, 2016, petitioners submitted signatures to county election officials.

Supporters had until May 17, 2016, to collect the required signatures.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired PCI Consultants, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $3,192,775.30 was spent to collect the 365,880 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $8.73.

State profile

This excerpt is reprinted here with the permission of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics and is up to date as of the publication date of that edition. All text is reproduced verbatim, though links have been added by Ballotpedia staff. To read the full chapter on California, click here.

Both sides of America's political divide have taken the opportunity to emphasize how different California is from the rest of the country. After the 2016 presidential election, supporters of Donald Trump complained that were it not for Hillary Clinton's margin of victory in California, Trump would have won the popular vote. For their part, California's Democratic politicians have taken a leading role in opposing Trump's vision for America; some Californians are even flirting with seceding from the union, though "Calexit" faces constitutional obstacles that make it highly improbable. Despite such antagonism, California and the United States need each other, even if it no longer seems like it.

Americans have long thought of California as the Golden State -- a distant and dreamy land initially, then as a shaper of culture and as a promised land for millions of Americans and immigrants for many decades. America's most populous state remains in many ways a great success story. But in ...( read more)

Demographic data for California

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in California

California voted for the Democratic candidate in all five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Proposition 62 death penalty California 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Related measures

External links

Basic information

Other resources

Additional reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California Proposition 62, Repeal of the Death Penalty (2016) - Ballotpedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California Proposition 62, the Repeal of the Death Penalty Initiative, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute. It was defeated. A "yes" vote supported repealing the death penalty and making life without the possibility of parole the maximum punishment for murder.

# data[].attributes.headline
Catholic Church Still Actively Ending Death Penalty. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Catholic Church Still Actively Ending Death Penalty. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vatican City - Two decades after her anti-death penalty work was transformed into an Oscar-winning movie, "Dead Man Walking," Sr. Helen Prejean's campaign continues with the backing of Pope Francis.

Prejean met with the pope on Jan. 21 to deliver a thank-you letter from Richard Glossip, whose execution in the U.S. was halted in September after intervention from the pontiff.

But her celebratory meeting with the pontiff came just hours after another death row inmate, Richard Masterson, was put to death in Texas.

"I said, 'They killed him'. And he [Francis] lowered his eyes and said, 'I pray, I pray.' He really feels for people on death row," Prejean recalled.

Masterson was convicted for killing Darin Honeycutt in 2001, although his defense team argued the victim died of a heart attack during consensual sexual relations.

The pope had been following the case closely, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn said on Jan. 19.

Francis voiced his opposition to capital punishment while addressing Congress in September. "Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty," he said. "Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation," Francis told lawmakers.

Prejean remains hopeful in the case of Glossip, convicted of hiring a man to kill a motel owner. His execution was indefinitely postponed after it was discovered the wrong drug had been presented for the lethal execution.

The execution was stayed by Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, who received a letter from the Vatican's top U.S. diplomat, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, urging her to save Glossip's life on behalf of the pope.

"I sensed his innocence from the beginning. I'm with the seventh person on death row; three of the seven have been innocent -- that's how broken the thing [system] is."

More than 150 people have been released from death row since 1973, following evidence of their innocence, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Executions are disproportionately high in Southern states and people are more likely to be sentenced to death if their victim is white.

Campaigning equally for those who are guilty and innocent, Prejean argued those on death row feel deep remorse and should not be executed for one act. Discussing a particular case, she said a man asked for forgiveness and admitted to being so high on drugs he had no memory of the crime.

The nun's fight against capital punishment began in the 1980s, when she became a spiritual advisor to Patrick Sonnier, who was put to death in Louisiana. Prejean presented the pope with a Spanish copy of the book based on her experiences, "Dead Man Walking," which was turned into a film for which Susan Sarandon won an Oscar for her role as Sister Helen.

Prejean said she felt compelled to act after witnessing Sonnier's execution and realized the U.S. public could not see the reality of the death chamber.

"I came out and I vomited. I'd never watched a human being be killed, that I knew, and I remember thinking it was very clear: people are never going to get close to this."

Before discussing capital punishment it is important to talk to opponents of the death penalty about the crime scene itself, she said.

"If you don't go to that place and let them know you feel the outrage too, they'll never be able to come over with you finally to the place where they can have compassion for the person [convicted]."

Prejean said Francis' influence and support is never far away.

"The pope's like a little lighthouse, and he keeps sending out that beam -- this is what it's about."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Still fighting the death penalty, Sister Prejean gets pope's blessing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vatican City - Two decades after her anti-death penalty work was transformed into an Oscar-winning movie, "Dead Man Walking," Sr. Helen Prejean's campaign continues with the backing of Pope Francis. Prejean met with the pope on Jan. 21 to deliver a thank-you letter from Richard Glossip, whose execution in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pro Death Penalty View (arguing for the use of the Death Penalty) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Pro Death Penalty View (arguing for the use of the Death Penalty) 

# data[].attributes.body
"1. The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much
2.It creates another form of crime deterrent.
3.Justice is better served.
4.Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims.
5. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence.
6. DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence
7.Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill.
8. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system .
9. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life.

2. It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights.

3. The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system.

4. We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.

5. It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong.

6. Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent.

7. Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America.

8. Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death.

9. The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process.

10. The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death.

11. Mentally ill patients may be put to death.

12. It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes.

13. It often draws top talent laywers who will work for little or no cost due to the publicity of the case and their personal beliefs against the morality of the death penalty, increasing the chances a technicality or a manipulated jury will release a guilt person.

14. It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.

1. The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much.

2. It creates another form of crime deterrent.

3. Justice is better served.

4. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims.

5. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence.

6. DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence.

7. Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill.

8. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system.

9. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.

Related Links

Overview/Background

The United States remains in the minority of nations in the world that still uses death as penalty for certain crimes. Many see the penalty as barbaric and against American values. Others see it as a very important tool in fighting violent pre-meditated murder. Two things have once again brought this issue to national debate. One is the release of some highly publicized studies that show a number of innocents had been put to death. The second is the issue of terrorism and the need to punish its perpetrators.

1. Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. Most people don't realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 timesmore than keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life. How can this be? It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out. It's not unusual for a prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years. Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks, and court facilities all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers. Do we really have the resources to waste?

2. Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent. For those of you who don't feel much sympathy for a murderer, keep in mind that death may be too good for them. With a death sentence, the suffering is over in an instant. With life in prison, the pain goes on for decades. Prisoners are confined to a cage and live in an internal environment of rape and violence where they're treated as animals. And consider terrorists. Do you think they'd rather suffer the humiliation of lifelong prison or be "martyred" by a death sentence? What would have been a better ending for Osama bin Laden, the bullet that killed him instantly, or a life of humiliation in an American prison (or if he was put through rendition to obtain more information).

3. It often draws top talent laywers who will work for little or no cost due to the publicity of the case and their personal beliefs against the morality of the death penalty, increasing the chances a technicality or a manipulated jury will release a guilt person. Top attorneys are world-class manipulators. They know how to cover up facts and misdirect thinking. They know how to select juries sympathetic to their side. They know how to find obscure technicalities and use any other means necessary to get their client off without any punishment. Luckily, most criminal defendants cannot afford to hire these top guns; they must make do with a low-paid public defender or some other cheaper attorney. However, a death penalty case changes everything. First of all, a death penalty case almost always garners significant media attention. Lawyers want that exposure, which enhances their name recognition & reputation for potential future plantiffs and defendants. Second of all, thousands of attorneys have made their personal crusade in life the stomping out of the death penalty. Entire organizations have sprung up to fight death penalty cases, often providing all the funding for a legal defense. For an example, look no further than theCasey Anthony trial, in which a pool of top attorneys took on a high profile death penalty case and used voir dire and peremptory challenges to craft one of the stupidest juries on record, who ended up ignoring facts and common sense or release an obviously guilty woman who killed her daughter. After the "not guilty" verdict was rendered, defense attorneys such as Cheney Mason went into long-winded speeches for the media about the evils of the death penalty.

4. It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life. Perhaps the biggest reason to ban the death penalty is that it doesn't change the fact that the victim is gone and will never come back. Hate, revenge, and anger will never cure the emptiness of a lost loved one. Forgiveness is the only way to start the healing process, and this won't happen in a revenge-focused individual.

1. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. What about people already sentenced to life in prison. What's to stop them from murdering people constantly whilein prison? What are they going to do--extend their sentences? Sure, they can take away some prison privileges, but is this enough of a deterrent to stop the killing? What about a person sentenced to life who happens to escape? What's to stop him from killing anyone who might try to bring him in or curb his crime spree?

2. DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. One of the biggest arguments against the death penalty is the possibility of error. Sure, we can nevercompletely eliminate all uncertainty, but nowadays, it's about as close as you can get. DNA testing is over 99 percent effective. And even if DNA testing and other such scientific methods didn't exist, the trial and appeals process is so thorough it's next to impossible to convict an innocent person. Remember, a jury of 12 members mustunanimously decide there's not even a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. The number of innocent people that might somehow be convicted is no greater than the number of innocent victims of the murderers who are set free.

3. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. The number of criminal cases that are plea bargained (meaning the accused admits guilt in return for a lesser sentence or some other concession) can be as high as 80 or 90 percent of cases. With the time, cost, and personnel requirements of a criminal case, there really isn't much of a choice. The vast majority of people that are arraigned are in fact guilty of the crime they are accused. Even if you believe a defendant only deserves life in prison, without the threat of a death sentence, there may be no way to get him to plead guilty and accept the sentence. If a case goes to trial, in addition to the enormous cost, you run the chance that you may lose the case, meaning a violent criminal gets off scot free. The existence of the death penalty gives prosecutors much more flexibility and power to ensure just punishments.

Reader Comments Death Penalty Information Center ProDeathPenalty.com Death Penalty Organization - Pro and Con Criminal Justice: Capital Punishment Focus Miscellaneous Death Penalty Links National Coalition to Ban the Death Penalty DeathPenalty.org NoDeathPenalty.org ReligiousToleragance.org
Is anything missing? Is any of the material inaccurate? Please let me know.
Joe Messerli
Page Last Updated:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BalancedPolitics.org - Death Penalty (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system.

# data[].attributes.body
Why is capital punishment so controversial?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should There Be A Death Penalty? - The People Speak

# data[].attributes.headline
The Catholic Church's Views on the Death Penalty 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Catholic Church's Views on the Death Penalty 

# data[].attributes.body
"A study commissioned by the governor of Maryland found, "Defendants who killed white victims were more likely to advance to a penalty trial and are more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed a black." Of those on death row,  42% are black, but blacks make up less than 15% of the population. The GAO  analyzed 28 studies on capital punishment and found:

"In 82% of the studies, race of victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found to be more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks. This finding was remarkably consistent across data sets, states, data collection methods, and analytic techniques."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United States needs to abolish the death penalty. It's archaic, costly, ineffective, and most importantly, unjust. The first place to start with the death penalty may be philosophical. The purpose of our criminal justice system is to deter crime, rehabilitate convicts, and incapacitate hardened criminals. Philosophically speaking, life in prison serves these functions better than the death penalty. Life imprisonment is certainly a deterrent -- in fact, it may be worse than death itself. Life in prison allows for rehabilitation, whereas death is final. And with supermax prisons, escape is no longer a real possibility, so incapacitation is served equally well by both.

Therefore, any argument for continuing the death penalty is not an argument about criminal justice, but rather one based on some other preference, usually one which we would have to sacrifice justice to achieve. That is, the death penalty ultimately twists the purpose of the criminal justice system and makes it about: 1) Institutionalized revenge, 2) Emotional closure, 3) Racial violence, or 4) Monetary cost.

Since the death penalty is not actually about criminal justice, that leaves one possible argument in its favor -- some sort of deterrence. Sadly, this idea is forwarded by a few Chicago school economists who try to explain all behaviour (even criminal) in terms of homo economicus, and their arguments have been thoroughly discredited. The reason is obvious: Murder isn't rational, so why expect a rational response to incentives? Further, is the death penalty a significant disincentive compared to life in prison? The reason for confusion has generally been the lack of a significant enough sample for any real empirical work.

However, while it brings no benefits, the death penalty does seriously undermine the the criminal justice system for three reasons: racism, false incrimination, and revenge.

Germany is one of the many countries that has abolished the death penalty. Their reason: After the crimes of Nazism, the very idea of the state putting individuals to death is too much to countenance. Consider the justifiable outcry that would ensue if Germany reinstated the death penalty and Jewish inmates were far more likely to receive the death penalty for the same crime as a German inmate. Consider if, although Jews made up less than 15% of the German population, they made up a large portion of those executed. And consider if the chance of a Jewish prisoner getting the death penalty was far higher if there were no Jews on the jury. There would be widespread accusation of racial preference. And yet, without fail, this is the case with America's criminal justice system. As Richard Pryor notes, "I went to see justice, and that's what I saw -- just us."

A study commissioned by the governor of Maryland found, "Defendants who killed white victims were more likely to advance to a penalty trial and are more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed a black." Of those on death row, 42% are black, but blacks make up less than 15% of the population. The GAO analyzed 28 studies on capital punishment and found:

"In 82% of the studies, race of victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found to be more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks. This finding was remarkably consistent across data sets, states, data collection methods, and analytic techniques."

Brian Stevenson, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, argues that if the victim is white, the defendant is 11 times more likely to receive the death penalty than if the victim is black. If the victim is white and the defendant is black, than the likelihood of death penalty sentence is 22 times higher. Further, all-white juries are more likely to hand down a death sentence then a jury with African-Americans.

I used to argue, when defending the death penalty, that if someone could show me a single instance of an innocent man being executed, I would concede. I knew that this would be tough. After all, most murder investigations end when the accused is killed by the state. But there is ample evidence that we have already killed an innocent man. Consider Carlos DeLuna. Or Cameron Todd Willingham. Or Troy Davis. With the number of death row exonerations in triple digits, it's likely we would have killed many more. In Alabama, there has been one exoneration for every five executions.

The justice system, if it is anything, must be greater than institutionalized revenge. The death penalty turns the justice system from a mechanism of controlled force aimed at eliminating violence, to a system of violence itself. Rather than move our society towards mutual cooperation and understanding, we have institutionalized the very "eye for an eye" justice we have sought to end. We would do well to note which other countries our commitment to death aligns us with: China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

The death penalty undermines the very purpose of our criminal justice system. Since the death penalty does not serve any purpose that cannot be served through the justice system without it, and any potential benefits (already shown to be illusory) would serve ancillary ends, it should be abolished -- again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States needs to abolish the death penalty. It's archaic, costly, ineffective, and most importantly, unjust. The first place to start with the death penalty may be philosophical. The purpose of our criminal justice system is to deter crime, rehabilitate convicts, and incapacitate hardened criminals.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Four Main Reasons the Catholic Church argues Against the Death Penalty: 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Four Main Reasons the Catholic Church argues Against the Death Penalty: 

# data[].attributes.body
1. dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil...

2. State-sanctioned death in our name diminishes all of us

4. The system is flawed

biased & discriminatory (race/gender)

Those on death row are often falsely accused.

those put on death row often are not given proper representation  (if you can’t afford a good lawyer to defend you)

4. There are more effective ways to punish criminals and protect society

People often feel that in order to protect society they have to kill these “monsters” for their crimes

rehab/ therapy/ mental issues not being addressed

--USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death