by Ron Briggs
GUEST COMMENTARY – Bill O’Reilly is the newest endorser of Proposition 34, the initiative that will replace the death penalty with life in prison without possibility of parole and make inmates work and pay restitution (rather than sit in private cells without doing anything, as they now do).
It might be surprising to some that O’Reilly, a political commentator on Fox News, a national leader among traditional thinkers, supports Prop 34. But a look at California’s death penalty shows why: California’s death penalty is simply a fiscal disaster that coddles criminals, enriches lawyers, and hurts victims.
Much like O’Reilly, I used to support and even champion the death penalty. In 1978, my father, Senator John Briggs, proposed an initiative to expand California’s death penalty and I proudly worked on the campaign. The voters passed the Briggs Death Penalty Initiative by an overwhelming margin. We were sure we were helping victims and we didn’t pause when the Legislative Analyst Office said the fiscal impacts of the initiative were “unknown.” It seemed obvious: the death penalty would cost less than life in prison without parole.
We were wrong.
California taxpayers have spent $4 billion since 1978 on 13 executions. That works out to about $308 million per execution. In that time, we have sentenced over 900 people to death. Nearly 800 of them (727) still sit on death row while 84 have died from old age, suicide or other causes.
Those numbers really hit home for me once I was elected Supervisor in El Dorado County. Each death penalty trial in our small county cost much more than a trial seeking life in prison without parole. I know because we, the Board of Supervisors, had to pay the bills. And they were steep. Two trials are required in death penalty cases: one to determine guilt, and a second to determine the penalty – life imprisonment with no chance of parole or death. In the second phase, many lawyers are needed and many experts are hired. Unique and endless legal issues must be decided. It all adds up.
After that you have mandatory appeals – safeguards only needed in death penalty cases that we cannot simply toss out because they are in the Constitution. They require hundreds of specialized lawyers at the Attorney General’s Office, more at the three state agencies that represent death row inmates, and even more at the California Supreme Court. A similar blue-print follows in the federal courts. It’s a colossal bureaucracy. A massive government program that flies under the radar.
Even more galling is the special treatment death row inmates get and that we pay for. Unlike all other inmates, death row inmates get private cells and they don’t have to work. They don’t pay restitution to the victims’ compensation fund, like other inmates do. They just sit in their cells, talking to their lawyers, doing nothing or watching TV, and often answering fan mail. That’s why many death row inmates oppose Proposition 34, because they don’t want to lose their special status.
And 34 years after the Briggs Initiative, the Legislative Analyst Office is not saying the fiscal impacts are “unknown.” Today, their non-partisan analysis of Proposition 34 says the initiative will save taxpayers up to $130 million each year. That works out to $178,800 per death row inmate per year.
Opponents of Proposition 34 like to say “let’s fix the system.” Truth is, Republicans have had their hand on California’s judicial death penalty rudder for 25 years. Voters ousted three liberal justices for failing to affirm death sentences and after nearly 20 years on the court, conservative, Republican-appointed Chief Justice Ronald George concluded that the death penalty system is “dysfunctional.” Current Republican appointed Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has echoed these remarks, saying the system is “not effective.” Recently retired Justice Carlos Moreno, who believes in the death penalty, supports Proposition 34 because he knows the system can’t and won’t be fixed. This bloated byzantine program hardly is light years away from the conservative mantra of “smaller, smarter, simpler” government.
Let’s be real. As conservatives we know that “government reform” is an oxymoron. Even if we could do it, it would cost even more money. And in today’s fiscal climate, no elected official of any party anywhere, is going to propose more government spending.
Do we vote simply based on the low bid here? Perhaps not. Californians – and certainly conservatives – should also know that a $4 billion dysfunctional government bureaucracy must sometimes make mistakes, and that innocent people could be subjected to this unique and irreversible penalty. That reason alone supports a YES on 34 vote now and is one of the main reasons O’Reilly supports replacing the death penalty.
Lastly, this system does harm to victims. I have seen what happens when death penalty cases are reversed after decades of appeals and returned to our county for a new trial. We force the victims to confront their worst nightmare again and again.
We have an alternative. Life in prison without parole keeps our families safe and provides legal finality for victims. It also holds criminals accountable by making them work and pay restitution to the victims’ compensation instead of enjoying super star status on death row.
I applaud Bill O’Reilly for supporting Proposition 34. I urge every true conservative to follow his lead.
Ron Briggs is an El Dorado County Supervisor and son of Senator John Briggs who authored California’s Death Penalty Proposition in 1978.
Supervisor Ron Briggs wrote:
> Why Conservatives Like Bill O’Reilly
> and Me Support Proposition 34
I’ve noticed that that most of the “fiscal” conservatives (e.g. people bothered by the growing number of government workers who only have a GED, make more than many MDs and retire young with a huge pension) I know tend to support the end of the death penalty and Prop. 34. For some reason all the “social” conservatives (we need more God in schools, Gays need to pray more to get straight and we need to keep government away from my Guns) want to keep the death penalty and are against Prop.34…
That headline is an abomination against the god of grammar. Were you never taught the distinction between an objective and subjective pronoun?
Prop 34 is something of a scam: It’s not really about the death penalty – executions in CA are extremely rare – it’s about $100 Million dollars for law enforcement, for the Attorney General to distribute in ways that are not defined in the prop.
It’s also about depriving 700+ inmates of their attorneys, condemning those who were falsely convicted to die in prison.
And if life is so great for death penalty inmates, single cell and all, why is the suicide rate over 10% for death row inmates?
And if Prop 34 is such a good idea, it’s strange that public defenders, and private defense attorneys, aren’t publicly supporting it.
Vanguard headline 15 years from now:
[b]Whe Me Supports Ending LIfe In Prision Without Possibility of Parole[/b]
[i]”That headline is an abomination against the god of grammar.”[/i]
A reader of this blog emailed me and said I was being pedantic in this case, that the headline, while grammatically incorrect, was perfectly comprehensible.
Alas, “Why Conservatives [b]Like[/b] Bill O’Reilly and Me Support Proposition 34” is not.
It is unclear whether the word “like” is supposed to mean “such as” or it is a verb meaning “have a preference for.”
If The Vanguard’s intention was “such as,” then the pronoun “me” needs to be “I.” That would then correctly read, “Why Conservatives such as Bill O’Reilly and I Support Proposition 34.”
However, if The Vanguard instead intended “like” to mean “have a preference for,” then the pronoun is correct, but a semi-colon is needed after “me.” That would then read “Why Conservatives [b]Like[/b] Bill O’Reilly and Me; Support Proposition 34.” In that case The Vanguard believes there are two topics in the column: the first explains why conservatives have a preference for the two people in question; the second requests that readers should support Prop 34.
Grammar is important. It makes a difference when a writer is trying to communicate with a wide audience. In cases where you are speaking informally with friends who understand the nuances of your style, it is much less important to use proper English. However, as Bob Dunning points out in his Sunday column regarding Measure E ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/dunning/bob-dunning-will-bad-grammar-kill-education-measure/[/url]), the grammatical mistakes made by the Davis School District are probably going to sink this tax in a court of law. [quote] “… this measure fails the “clarity” test and, as such, is open to several interpretations and, ultimately, a legal challenge.”[/quote]
“And if Prop 34 is such a good idea, it’s strange that public defenders, and private defense attorneys, aren’t publicly supporting it.”
Ours is. Which one isn’t?
I didn’t write the headline, it came with the piece.
Rifkin: [i]…grammatical mistakes made by the Davis School District are probably going to sink this tax in a court of law.[/i]
The ballot language could have been written better, but the extended description of the measure ([url]http://www.yoloelections.org/election_central/voter_guide/20041102/AL1347896151/measure e.pdf[/url]) that goes out to all voting households from Yolo Elections office is clear. It would withstand a court challenge.
wdf1,
I don’t know what case law says. I do know, however, that we do not have an “extended description of the measure” on our ballots. What is said on our ballots, the actual question before the voters, has a serious grammatical error which effectively changes the meaning of the measure. And it is that question which we are voting on. We are not voting on a description.
Most of what the proponents argue to support the proposition are simply false. The provisions in addition to banning the death penalty achieve nothing, but serve as bribes to get the conservative votes of those who haven’t investigated the proposition thoroughly.
The 729 on death row murdered at least 1,279 people, including 230 children. 43 were police officers. 211 were raped, 319 were robbed, 66 were murdered in execution-style killings, and 47 were tortured. 11 murdered other inmates.
No “savings” & Increased Violence Alleged savings ignore increased life-time medical costs, which often double during the last 25 years of life and in some cases exceed $1 million a year. The alleged savings also requires housing these killers in less-restrictive prisons where they share cells. Proponents also want to provide them opportunities for work, where they have more freedom, access to other inmates and guards, and more chances to make weapons.
Michael Genest, former State Of California Finance Director, reported:
While I credit the LAO for a fair and impartial attempt to quantify the costs and savings that may result from the enactment of Proposition 34, the savings claims of the proponents of the measure are grossly exaggerated.
The LAO’s official ballot pamphlet analysis pegs the net savings to state and local governments combined at $100 million annually, growing eventually to $130 million. While I think that the LAO made a good faith effort to guess at what the fiscal effects would be, their estimate is based on a few key assumptions about which they acknowledge there is substantial uncertainty and which may well be wrong.
Moreover, the absence of the threat of a death penalty could substantially increase the total number of murder trials by taking away a major incentive for murderers to plead guilty. based on a study by a California organization, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, is that elimination of the death penalty would reduce plea bargains and increase trials in murder cases by 11%. That would mean trials and appeals in over 140 additional murder cases a year, an added expense that could completely eliminate the savings from trying a much smaller number of cases as life-imprisonment rather than capital cases.
No “accountability.” The proponents claim that inmates will have to work and pay their victims. The maximum earnings for any inmate would amount to $383/year (assuming 100% of earnings went to victims), divided by the number of qualifying victims. Hardly accounts for murdering a loved one.
No “full enforcement” as 729 inmates do not receive the penalty given them by jurors. Also, for the 34,000 inmates serving life sentences, there will be NO increased penalty for killing a guard or another inmate. They’re already serving a life sentence. This should scare the hell out of any prison guard. Also, efforts are also being made to get rid of life sentences. (Human Rights Watch, Old Behind Bars, 2012.) On 9/30/12, Brown passed the first step, signing a bill to allow 309 inmates with life sentences for murder to be paroled after serving 25 years. Life without parole is meaningless. Remember Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan. While not released, they have been up for parole several times despite initially receiving a death sentence. Governors are also notorious for releasing inmates who should never be released. Convicted killers get out and kill again, such as Darryl Thomas Kemp, Kenneth Allen McDuff, and Bennie Demps.
Arguments of innocence bogus. Proponents can’t identify one innocent person executed in CA. They can’t identify one person on CA’s death row who has exhausted his appeals and has a plausible claim of innocence. See http://cadeathpenalty.webs.com/ and http://voteno34.org/ for more facts explaining why you should not be supporting Prop. 34.
“Truth is, Republicans have had their hand on California’s judicial death penalty rudder for 25 years.” ANOTHER LIE. “Both chambers of the California legislature have been dominated by the Democratic Party since 1959 except in 1969 to 1971 when the Republican Party held both chambers and from 1994 to 1996, when they briefly held a majority in the Assembly.” (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_State_Legislature) They have the political power to fix any alleged problem.
A jury of 12 people & a judge confirmed for each inmate that their crimes were so atrocious and they were so dangerous that they not only did not deserve to live, but they were so dangerous that the only safe recourse was the death penalty. Recognizing how dangerous these killers are, the prison houses them 1 person to a cell and does not provide them with work, leaving them locked in their cells most of the day.
Prop. 34 wants to ignore all of this and save $ by placing these killers in less-restrictive prisons where they share cells. They also want to provide them opportunities for work, where they have more freedom, access to other inmates and guards, & more chances to make weapons.
Prop. 34 also destroys any incentive for the 34,000 inmates already serving life without parole to kill again. There would be no death penalty. They are already serving a life sentence, so why not get a name by killing another inmate or a guard?
Prop. 34 also takes away the money for inmates to challenge their convictions. If innocent, they will spend the rest of their life in jail, celled with vicious killers. Prop. 34 will cause more deaths of innocent people– guards and people wrongfully convicted but no longer able to fight it in court.
And they refer to Prop. 34 as the SAFE Act!
Nice to see grammar police never have enough to do but point out errors to somehow show their grasp of the the clearly and easily misunderstood English language that is constantly evolving and changing over time.
All those that were confused, misguided and utterly lost because of the working of the this title, raise your hand?
Lots of butchering of the old and new English language in legal documents and the courts and in older documents, perhaps a new Gov program with a new Department of Grammar is needed to fix this huge problem… *shakes his head
Addressing the article and comments, all the Props are becoming and have been a joke, very few get passed and a majority, even if passed, get over-turned by courts for lame reasons. They are worded with trickery and confusing and misleading language, although probably grammatically correct, they normally have a false and hidden agenda to fool or confuse the voting public. Maybe a prop that requires props to be less than three sentences that are clearly defined and have been approved by the courts as NOT not constitutionally… lol that last sentence was to annoy grammar police.
To the comment about a jury decided, that is a paper tiger, the jury is never allowed to know all the facts and only know what the courts allow and only know what the DA decides as discoverable, so the jury is a easy scapegoat but they are only as good as what they are told or allowed to hear and consider.