Proposition 34 to Repeal the Death Penalty is on the November ballot. This has been a long debate in our state. Both sides are passionate in their feelings regarding the death penalty.
Some on the side of repeal are the Los Angeles Times, The California Conference of Catholic Bishops, The American Civil Liberties Union and the Democratic Party.
On the side of keeping the death penalty are a number of police officer associations, deputy sheriff associations, district attorney prosecutors and the Republican Party.
Most of the money is being raised by the groups in favor of repeal. The SF Gate Blog reports the California Business Roundtable & Pepperdine School of Public Policy survey released August 2 that showed 35.9% of 811 likely California Voters approved of Prop. 34 and 52.2% oppose it. These numbers came after the
recent events in Colorado and the Sikh shooting in Wisconsin. The numbers change regularly depending on the news of the day.
I would like to look at something else apparently thrown in to bolster the idea of passing Prop 34. The proposition has a one time commitment of $100 million by the state to local police departments to help them solve more homicide and rape cases.
Where will we get the the $100 million to give law enforcement? I thought we were already going into debt to buy a high speed rail system between a couple communities in the San Joaquin Valley. I thought we were spending our
money to improve schools.
A quick review of this year’s budget process reveals several interesting facts. The legislature approved a $92.1 billion budget and Governor Jerry Brown vetoed about $353 million from that total and signed the budget. There was a gap in revenue of some $8 billion dollars which they hoped to make up with a tax increase on the November ballot. Through April the projected revenue was $10.1 billion below estimates.
The governor says there is $8.1 billion in our rainy day fund, but the state controller says there is actually $11.1 billion in the rainy day fund. Meanwhile, the State Parks administration found $54 million it didn’t know it had. What we have here is evidence the State has no idea how much money it has, but it is positive it needs more.
A quick review is in order. We have an acknowledged budget shortfall of $8 billion. Revenues are down about 10 percent from the projected receipts for this year. Another expected source of income was the taxes on the Facebook public offering. Only problem is this will actually result in about half of what had been expected. I mean, really, what could go wrong?
We can all agree the State of California is in financial crisis. We cannot afford the
government we have, let alone the government envisioned by our governor. So the people who are dealing with the death penalty question decide to stack the cards a little by throwing some money at law enforcement to show they are pro enforcement. I don’t think it matters which side of the death penalty issue you are on, we should all be able to agree we cannot afford $100 million here and there to help pass propositions. This is an egregious act and should elicit a vote against Prop 34.
If there is to be a resolution to the death penalty question, let’s make it based on a serious presentation to the people of California. There are strong arguments on both sides, but it should not be tied to another attempt to grow our already bloated budget and increase the size of government. Is it any wonder people are dissatisfied with the political system in California?
What do you think?
The founding fathers did. James Wilson and Roger Sherman added the three-fifths clause to pass the Constitution. Isn't three-fifths of a person for taxing purposes, absurd? What kind of a compromise is that? (Answer: a pragmatic one for their predicament, a trade-off) "The basis of my posts is we should not vote for a Proposition which adds gratuitous expenditures to entice people" Ah, but you never answered my question. Suppose that it saves more money than the expenditure. That is what the fiscal analysis indicates. AGAIN, it may or may not be true, and needs to be evaluated. It's a simple question. If it does, will you say it is a no-brainer and we should vote YES? Because you made it solely a fiscal issue, and asked us to ignore personal opinions on the issue itself. A social issue under any other clothing. My position is evaluate the issue of abolishing the death penalty. If you agree in principle that it is worth abolishing then you look at what it costs, and if you can live with the trade-offs if any.
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/34-title-summ-analysis.pdf --- Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: • State and county savings related to murder trials, death penalty appeals, and corrections of about $100 million annually in the first few years, growing to about $130 million annually thereafter. This estimate could be higher or lower by tens of millions of dollars, largely depending on how the measure is implemented and the rate at which offenders would otherwise be sentenced to death and executed in the future. • One-time state costs totaling $100 million for grants to local law enforcement agencies to be paid over the next four years. ---
On what factual research are you basing your premise that increased prosecutions for rape and murder equates to a reduction in either? Virtually every decision in public policy requires trade-offs. I am not opposed to incentivizing a proposition of this sort, but, again, I can't help wonder what the true primary motivation is. If it is to save State funding in the long term, fine, but I don't know that the pro-Prop 34 folks have been able to demonstrate that this would, indeed, be the case. One thing we *can* be certain of, though, is that as prosecutions increase, prison populations are very likely to also. What sub-group of people does that benefit more than any other? And, again, with no certainty that either murders or rapes will, in fact, be reduced throughout the State. I would be most interested to know what the CCPOA's position on Prop. 34 might be, assuming they have one.
Huh? I made two pretty clearly stated hypotheticals (pro and con) to even indulge your hat thought. One would *have* to make those cases is what I said. So that I could entertain "This could likewise reasonably result in an increase in murder and rape convictions which, in turn, increases the prison population of those violent offenders." Besides, if an increased number of murderers and rapists are in jail because of prosecution, wouldn't that "likewise reasonably result" in less of them on the streets to commit more murders and rapes? "Virtually every decision in public policy requires trade-offs. I am not opposed to incentivizing a proposition of this sort, but, again, I can't help wonder what the true primary motivation is." Wonder? I would think that it would be obvious. There is a lobby that wants to abolish the death penalty. That is the motivation. There is a group who benefits from the death penalty being in place because there are money-making opportunities. Housing such prisoners, representing those convicted, all the way to the SCOTUS perhaps are two examples. Clearly it is more work if these people are going to lobby against you. So throw them something else to feed that prison/justice industrial complex. I am not the one putting the cynic hat here, but even I can see that.
Yes, of course, but your question seems to pre-suppose a finite number of rapists and murderers. This is not the case. There is an indefinite number, and since a significant percentage of rapes go un-reported each year, those who commit them will not be prosecuted for those crimes and, so, remain entirely free to re-offend. A significant number of rapists do that as well. "Wonder? I would think that it would be obvious. There is a lobby that wants to abolish the death penalty. That is the motivation." I agree that abolishing the death penalty is "a" motivation, but I am not convinced it is, as I stated, "the true primary motivation." "There is a group who benefits from the death penalty being in place because there are money-making opportunities." The very same can be said for abolishing the death penalty. "Housing such prisoners, representing those convicted, all the way to the SCOTUS perhaps are two examples." This can, and does, also occur in the cases of LWOP. In fact, as I have demonstrated, housing violent criminals, particularly those convicted of capital offenses, costs more in CA than enywhere else in the West. Housing more, and for longer periods, is quitely likely to cost even more. Is this not so? Do you support or oppose the death penalty?
Yes, that is an assumption I am making John. If I have to suppose the converse, which is that the number of rapists and murderers are *infinite*, then it will prevent me from considering your scenario altogether. I pre-supposed that there is a certain fraction of the population disposed to rape and murder, statistically speaking. That if we get more of them tried and convicted then there will be a less of them on the streets raping and murdering. You are absolutely correct that if we have an infinite number of them, that it would make no difference whatsoever. "This is not the case. There is an indefinite number, and since a significant percentage of rapes go un-reported each year, those who commit them will not be prosecuted for those crimes and, so, remain entirely free to re-offend. A significant number of rapists do that as well." Yeah, rapists and murderers who are not prosecuted will be free to rape and murder again. [cuts to the chase] "Do you support or oppose the death penalty?" Oppose. However, like I said elsewhere, that is not the discussion I'll participate in the context of this article.
What the LAO actually said (at page 5): "The state and counties could achieve several tens of millions of dollars in savings annually on a statewide basis from reduced costs related to murder trials." http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2012/34_11_2012.pdf Ballotpedia's interpretation: "Net savings to the state and counties that could amount to the high tens of millions of dollars annually on a statewide basis due to the elimination of the death penalty." Beyond the rather inexact placement of the modifier in Ballotpedia's summary, note also the addition of a phrase not to be found in the LAO text at all: "...the *high* tens of millions of dollars annually..." (emphasis added) In its *own* summary, the LAO does state this: "In total, the measure would result in net savings to state and local governments related to murder trials, appellate litigation, and state corrections. These savings would likely be about $100 million annually in the first few years, growing to about $130 million annually thereafter." But it also states this: "The actual amount of these annual savings could be higher *or lower* by tens of millions of dollars, depending on various factors..." (emphasis added) (more)
Can you concede that the Ballotpedia summary of the LAO was considerably less accurate than it could have been?
I think it is a good idea to be very wary of Propositions. Every now and then something great comes along, but for the most part is is a tool which has been kidnapped by special interests.
The number or rapists and murderers is indefinite...e.g. undefined. There may certainly be an infinite number, although I sincerely hope that is not the case, (and to be quite honest there were times during my previous career when I began to feel there *were* an infinite number of them) however, whehter infinite or not, the numbers remain indefinite. As such, when you inquire "...if an increased number of murderers and rapists are in jail because of prosecution, wouldn't that "likewise reasonably result" in less of them on the streets to commit more murders and rapes" you are correct, but only as that applies to the "them"...that is, to those murderers and rapists who are, in fact, incarcerated. As I mentioned, there are many, many, and particularly rapists, who are *not* incarcerated. The quantity of their crimes are not impacted, in one way or the other, by those who are in custody. I am not yet fully decided about the death penalty. I think it can have considerable deterrent value beyond our simply removing one murderer from existence, but I think we would have to impose it far more publicly and expiditiously than we do currently.
I have repeatedly maintained that there are links (KCET, ballotpedia, official guide, Julian Assange's expose, whatever) claim that there are savings, which cannot be immediately dismissed. I have almost always carefully followed that up by saying that it is possible that they are wrong. I could go through all my posts and pick those concessions up, but for the sake of brevity, and because it still matters little to the query I posed to Mr. Webb, and the deceased equine has been flogged enough, I'll simply say that I concede that the Ballotpedia summary of the LAO was considerably less accurate than it could have been. (See, them be the exact words you wanted me to say, John, so that there is NO confusion. But I am NOT sacrificing any small animals.)
Regardless of the sources resorted to, we cannot possibly know what the savings will be (if any) should Prop. 34 pass and even the LAO's (correctly stated) information is just an analysis, just an estimate, intended to be neither precise nor to any degree binding. I'd like to believe that abolishing the death penalty would save us funds and on that basis alone I might even support it, but I remain unconvinced, and largely because of the numbers I have offered for the actual amounts we pay to incarcerate prisoners in our State. Amounts I believe to be exhorbitant and entirely unnecessary. I think we coddle our prisoners in many ways and, because of this, prison is not nearly the punishment nor the dterrent that I think it should be. I think we could change that...and very easily...but our State would have to take a rapid and demonstrable turn to the political right, and those are waters that our Ship of State has not seen any many decades now. Sadly.
I am not correcting anything you wrote John. I am simply responding to the points you raised, in fact agreeing with your suppositions. When you said I assumed the set to be finite, I explained why I indeed presumed the set to be finite. When you used indefinite, I agreed with you on that as well. In other words, I agreed with BOTH your usages, and so noted my agreement.
Sorry, but I will not continue under the assumption that you still have not understood at least three different clarifications, but are busy evading the question. Thanks, it was an interesting topic, and thank you for responding this time, but I leave empty-handed once again.
But *I* did not say that, Shripathi. Did I? That was simply a presumptuous alteration of what I actually did say. Words mean things, Shripathi. Because I believe you to be an intelligent person and worthy of respect on that basis, whenever we discuss an issue, I offer you the very basic courtesy of presuming that you write precisely the words you intend to use to convey your meaning. I then address your meaning as indicated by the words *you* have chosen to convey them. I do not presume to alter your own words to create a different meaning, and then presume to ascribe both the alteration of the word and the altered meaning to you. I show you the simple courtesy of allowing you to make your arguments in the words you prefer to employ and I agree with or rebut them on that basis alone. You might consider trying that approach to debate and discussion sometime. I assure you that if you do, you will seem far less arrogant than you very often come across.
And you respond: "If only you seemed even half as willing to offer me the same basic courtesy." Puzzling response there, John. I'll chalk that up to my poor communications skills. Wish I could do differently.
No one I know of, here, least of all me, is an expert communicator. I think we all can improve our skills in this area. I employ the words *I* choose in the hopes that they will convey the meaning I intend. If my words fail to do so, then that is, indeed, my failure. When I succeed, however, and my words convey precisely the meaning I intend, I prefer that they not be altered to suit someone else's preference. What puzzles me is that, if we are addressing each other as equals here, no one should presume to attempt to alter the words of any other but, rather, simply argue the words as a person has chosen to employ them. Yes. That puzzles me a very great deal.
But *I* did not say that, Shripathi. Did I? That was simply a presumptuous alteration of what I actually did say. +++ Here is what you said "Yes, of course, but your question seems to pre-suppose a finite number of rapists and murderers. This is not the case." If, as you say, I am pre-supposing that there are a finite number of rapists, and then you also say this is not the case, well, words do have meaning, right? But seriously, this is what you are hung up on in 1500 character communication channels? At worst I misinterpreted what you said. Oops. Happens. Just like when I said earlier "*One* pro argument has to be based on less criminals on the street. ***There has to be a case made*** that by spending $100 million, we will increase those convictions, and we will take them off the streets, making us all safe(r)." And you interpreted and asked: "On what factual research are you basing your premise that increased prosecutions for rape and murder equates to a reduction in either?" as if I had done that. (see emphasis added above). Should I have take more umbrage or simply explained that, as I did? C'mon, this wears thin, John. "You might consider trying that approach to debate and discussion sometime. I assure you that if you do, you will seem far less arrogant than you very often come across." OK.
Louisiana prisons are hell holes. Aren't we a tad more civilized that than? We are talking about fellow human beings here. As David A McVicker has proven above, there's a monster is us all. I'm responding because your qualifiers are vague enough to cause concern. Terms like "far less" is what I mean there. As an officer I assume you spent the first few years doing jail duty? If so, how much would you need to be paid to do that full-time and to do an excellent, corruption-free job?