Last night at the Vanguard annual dinner and awards ceremony, Don Heller, a former prosecutor who helped to draft and write the 1978 Death Penalty Statute, argued that Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig’s op-ed released on Wednesday was so filled with errors and factual misstatements that its obvious intended purpose was to politicize the death penalty issue rather than bring forth honest discussion and debate.
Mr. Reisig, in his op-ed, wrote: “In fact, the only objective study on the issue of costs associated with the death penalty, conducted by the non-partisan Rand Corporation in 2008, does not even support the death penalty opponents’ claims. There is simply no solid evidence that eliminating the death penalty and replacing it with life in prison will save taxpayers money.”
There are actually several errors within this statement.
As Public Defender Tracie Olson points out, no such study actually exists. “The study was contemplated but never executed due to time and budget constraints,” she notes.
As Robert Canning noted in a letter to the editor, one of the reasons that this study never was completed was due to the fact that many believed it would show the tremendous costs in the death penalty process.
The Rand testimony stated (in part): “[M]any of the stakeholders in the current death penalty process are wary of the kind of independent study we have proposed, for fear that it could end up swaying opinion in a direction contrary to their own convictions”
There are, however two studies since then that have shown the tremendous costs to the system.
Writes Ms. Olson, “In 2011, U.S. 9th Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcon (who does not oppose the death penalty) and Loyola Law School professor Paula Mitchell (who favors abolition) released a study which concluded that the death penalty has cost Californians over $4 billion since 1978. They found that capital cases often cost 10 to 20 times more to litigate than murder trials that don’t involve the death penalty. They found that the cost of automatic appeals and state habeas corpus petitions in capital cases in California was $58 million in 2010 alone.”
“Additionally, they found that Californians spent an estimated additional $70 million in 2010 just to house condemned inmates on death row,” Ms. Olson adds.
As Don Heller points out, Judge Alarcon not only does not oppose the death penalty, he is no bleeding heart liberal either.
A second study, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, in 2011 reached a similar conclusion to the Alarcon-Mitchell study.
That study “concluded that eliminating the death penalty would result in net savings to taxpayers due to savings in trial costs, appellate litigation costs, and correctional costs.”
The LAO concluded, “This measure is likely to result in a reduction in costs to the state for support of the trial courts, as well as a reduction in costs to counties for prosecution and representation of indigent defendants charged with murder, as well as the costs associated with housing these defendants in jail prior to their sentencing.”
These are two objective studies on the death penalty that Jeff Reisig simply ignores in his op-ed, apparently because they reach inconvenient findings.
Mr. Reisig throws out an often repeated argument about the risk to those in the correctional system that those on death row pose.
He writes, “The deadly criminals that have made their path to death row pose a unique risk to the free men and women working inside our state prisons every day.”
He adds, “Eliminating the death penalty will simply grow this dangerous population of murderers and create expanding daily dangers for all involved in watching over them.”
However, Tracie Olson counters, “There is no credible evidence that supports the notion that those on death row pose a unique risk to other prisoners or to correctional staff.”
She adds, “Multiple studies have shown that, contrary to the public perception of their future dangerousness, most death row inmates are cooperative and manageable. In fact, studies show that demographic indicators such as age are much more related to assaultive behavior in prison than capital offender status.”
Robert Canning notes, “Research with death row inmates has shown they are no more dangerous after conviction and incarceration than other inmates (see the work of Mark Cunningham with Texas inmates).”
“Some states have gone as far as to ‘mainline’ their death row inmates since they pose no greater violence risk in prison than other inmates,” he adds. “Having worked in the California prison system for over ten years and having visited San Quentin’s condemned unit many times, the men on this unit are under higher security than most other inmates in our system – but their level of violence toward staff is less.”
Finally, as we noted yesterday, it is one thing for a Jeff Reisig to make unsubstantiated claims in support of the death penalty, but it is another thing to hear such from Governor Jerry Brown, as well.
Mr. Reisig references the erstwhile death penalty opponent when he writes, “Governor Jerry Brown himself has recently stated that he has not seen any evidence that there are any innocent inmates on California’s death row.”
As we noted yesterday, the governor said back in March, “As Attorney General, I think the representation was good. I think people have gotten exquisite due process in the state of California. It goes on for 20 or 25 years and to think that they’ve missed anything like they have in some other states, I have not seen any evidence of it. None. I know people say, ‘Oh, there have been all these innocent people,’ Well, I have not seen one name on death row that’s been told to me.”
Last night, Don Heller questioned the governor’s statement, believing there are likely several on death row who are factually innocent.
Ellen Eggers, who works for the State Public Defender’s Office which is in charge of handling first order death penalty appeals, said that her office has several that may be innocent, they simply do not know for sure, and Mr. Brown certainly could not credibly make that statement.
In the end, Mr. Reisig has chosen to get involved in this issue. That is certainly his right, but he also, in our view, has an obligation to get his facts right.
Writes Mr. Canning, “As an elected official Mr. Reisig should apologize to Yolo County for his false statements and distorted reasoning about the costs of the death penalty.”
We concur. We believe Mr. Reisig’s op-ed, factually challenged and filled with emotional appeals to our base instincts, has failed to contribute to a better understanding of this important issue facing our community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
Importing the theme of celebration when things go well, I wanted to congratulate you on a very successful and informative dinner and awards ceremony last night.
I personally was especially affected by Frankie Carrillo’s story. For those who don’t know, Frankie was falsely convicted of a drive by shooting and spent 20 years in prison for a crime of which he had no knowledge. His only crime was being a Hispanic male and thus appropriate in gender and ethnicity to the suspect. This is not speculation, conjecture, or an “emotive story”. This is fact. And for me, given that as Frankie rightly points out, had he received the death penalty, he might not have been there last night to discuss the flaws in our legal system.
An eye opening presentation of the issues surrounding the death penalty in California from those who should know best, the author of the bill and a former warden who supervised executions while coming to the conclusion that, in her own words, “did not make us any safer or improve the world in any way,”
Jeff Reisig quoted a study to support his views that does not exist (The Rand study).
So that means that Reisig is using evidence to support his argument that is false? This does not bode well for the district attorney. It shows that either he does not follow up and investigate his supporting evidence, or that he creates it. Both are extremely unfitting of someone in his position.
[b]Fact-checking “Commentary: Reisig’s Error-Filled and Inaccurate Polemic”[/b]
DA Reisig writes:[quote]“In fact, the only objective study on the issue of costs associated with the death penalty, conducted by the non-partisan Rand Corporation in 2008, does not even support the death penalty opponents’ claims. There is simply no solid evidence that eliminating the death penalty and replacing it with life in prison will save taxpayers money.”[/quote]The Vanguard writes:[quote]“There are actually several errors within this statement.As Public Defender Tracie Olson points out, no such study actually exists. “The study was contemplated but never executed due to time and budget constraints,” she notes. As Robert Canning noted in a letter to the editor, one of the reasons that this study never was completed was due to the fact that many believed it would show the tremendous costs in the death penalty process.”[/quote]The truth is: the RAND group did conduct a feasibility study on death penalty issues. This pilot study was intended to determine what barriers there might be to carrying out a proposed series of in-depth studies on the costs of California’s death penalty.
The pilot study to which Reisig obviously is referring was described in testimony prepared by Susan S. Everingham. “Investigating the Costs of the Death Penalty in California” February, 2008
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/2008/RAND_CT300.pdf )
Some excerpts that include Ms. Everingham, herself, citing the Reisig-noted “RAND study” include the following: [quote]“Given uncertainty regarding availability and access to data, RAND agreed to start by undertaking a [u]feasibility study[/u]….the key objective of the [u]feasibility study[/u] was to determine whether data could be collected to answer the questions posed in the proposed study….for the [u]feasibility study[/u], we limited our focus to those agencies that play the most significant roles….we interviewed officials at each of these agencies as part of the [u]feasibility study[/u]. In addition, we consulted with a representative of the California Supreme Court who served as a source of information about the state-level appeals process….For the [u]feasibility study[/u], we contacted these respective offices in one large county with a high rate of serious crime and high rate of seeking the death penalty, as well as the District Attorney’s Office of one other California county. For the purposes of this [u]feasibility study[/u], contacts with these key agencies were sufficient to establish likely obstacles to project success….Although we were in contact with only two districts for this [u]feasibility study[/u], it is our impression that few if any districts maintain such records, as they have no incentive to do so….”[/quote]Contrary to Mr. Canning’s contention, the study to which Ms. Everingham refers concludes: [quote]“Our pilot study did reveal one clear fact, endorsed by nearly everyone with whom we spoke: there are inefficiencies in the system that cause long delays and affect the rights of the accused. We strongly believe that a study like the one we discussed with the Commission could shine a light on how to address those inefficiencies, and thus we were disappointed that the study was tabled, a decision driven largely by the dearth of data.”[/quote]Was Mr. Reisig’s reference to a RAND study appropriate and does it support his claim of a “shortage of solid evidence” about capital punishment costs? Yes.
Does the testimony to which everyone involved obviously is referring support the Vanguard’s reporting that “there are actually several errors within (Reisig’s) statement”? No.
Conclusion: “Pants on fire” not true.
The question is why, with all of the great stuff on which to report from last night, does the [i]Vanguard[/i] decide it’s more important to make yet another personal attack on District Attorney Reisig and without checking out the “letters to the editor” contentions of anyone other than Reisig?
Why try to make fun of Reisig’s wrong-headed opinions by arguing that there’s such no such study–when there is–and the only issue has to get down to definitions about the meaning of “study,” “feasibility study” and “pilot study”?
Why is it so important to find any way to criticize Reisig that [i]Vanguard[/i] commentary is utterly wasted by personalizing such an important issue and detracting from vital discussion about capital punishment itself?
Focus!
To Just Saying: Thanks for the additional insight. It was extremely illuminating…
RAND never did the study, they simply contemplated it, but it never happened.
Here is the actual link: link ([url]http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/2008/RAND_CT300.pdf[/url])
[quote]In August of 2006, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (CCFAJ) approached the RAND Corporation seeking a study on the costs and administration of the death penalty in California. This was to be one of four death penalty studies commissioned by CCFAJ to assist in their deliberations. Given uncertainty regarding availability and access to data, RAND agreed to
start by undertaking a feasibility study. After interviewing state-level participants and a small sample of county-level officials, [b][u]we concluded that to collect the quantitative data necessary to generate defensible cost estimates for the death penalty would be much more difficult and more costly than we had originally envisioned, and that the proposed study was not feasible within the
scope of the original timeframe and budget.[/u][/b][/quote]
My quotes in this article were directly from this report on the RAND site.
vanguard: your quote doesn’t address the pilot study refrenced by Just Saying. The specific FEASABILITY study they did not do as you are pointing out but it does reference a the PILOT study which supports just sayings contention. And it also calls into question the claim that Reisig is lying.
the main point just saying made is worth repeating: it appears if it is a “feasibility study” it exists, and if it is a “pilot study” it does not. lol
Rather than get into it, the Rand folks did no more than see if there was enough data, and concluding they could not complete a definitive study – they withdrew without making conclusion either way. My point was that DA Reisig asserts that the Rand study came to some conclusion – they did not.
And it remains true that DA Reisig made untrue assertions about the risk of violence by death row inmates towards correctional staff.
This is, of course, not a discussion about the facts, but rather one about strongly held beliefs and attitudes about crime, punishment, and incarceration.
My question is if there is a “dearth of data”, then how can any “study” accurately conclude much of anything?
Furthermore, Alarcon is a judge whose report is part of the site of DPIC, which is a nonprofit with a clear agenda – eliminating the death penalty. From their website:
[quote]“The Death Penalty Information Center is the primary information and communications vehicle to educate the public and shape the national conversation about the death penalty in the U.S. DPIC’s reports and research reach millions of people through the media. The DPIC opens the public’s eyes to the incredible flaws that underpin America’s death penalty.”[/quote]
The LAO’s report is certainly not definitive:
[quote]Net Impact. In view of the above, this measure is likely to result in a reduction in costs to the state for support of the trial courts, as well as a reduction in costs to counties for prosecution and representation of indigent defendants charged with murder, as well as the costs associated with housing these defendants in jail prior to their sentencing. [b]The magnitude of the net savings to the state and counties from these factors relating to murder trials is [i]unknown[/i][/b], but could be in the low tens of millions of dollars annually on a statewide basis.[/quote]
Note – the savings are UNKNOWN but COULD BE thus and such…
In addition to my comments about the Rand non-conclusions, I also included some numbers that the Calif. Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice put out there in a table in it’s section of the costs of the death penalty and alternatives (you can find the report at: [url]http://www.ccfaj.org/rr-dp-official.html[/url]).
They gave what appears to be a good faith effort at making an estimate of the “additional annual charges to the California state budget which each of the … alternatives would impose…” The total additional costs over and above the current budget for the death penalty as it is currently administered was noted as $137.7 million (and increasing). The two alternatives that included keeping the death penalty but modifying it were $232.7 million and $130 million respectively. The additional cost for substituting LWOP was listed as $11.5 million.
The commission was created by the state Senate in 2000 and ceased functioning in 2008. Here’s the web address so you can see who was on it and their reports: [url]http://www.ccfaj.org/index.html[/url].
The other criticism I had of DA Reisig’s and Ms. Diaz’ op-piece had to do with their charge that those on condemned row are a danger to those who work there. Mr. Reisig and Ms. Dias do the public a disservice by publishing false information about these inmates.
It was obvious to me from the tone of his piece that Reisig and Dias are not interested in rational debate, but simply appealing to the public’s baser instincts and black-and-white thinking. Not a good way to make public policy – but also nothing new.
Elaine
[quote]My question is if there is a “dearth of data”, then how can any “study” accurately conclude much of anything?[/quote]
[quote]we concluded that to collect the quantitative data necessary to generate defensible cost estimates for the death penalty would be much more difficult and more costly than we had originally envisioned, and that the proposed study was not feasible within the
scope of the original timeframe and budget.[/quote]
It does not appear to me that this indicates a “dearth of data” but rather a recognition that there was not the inability to find, collate, and analyze the available data within budgetary and time constraints.
A conclusion about the feasibility of doing a comprehensive study is obviously not the same as having done the comprhensive study and conclusions which can be drawn are not in any way comparable.
I have another objection to Jeff Reisigs position with regard to victims of violent crime and their family members.
As was pointed out by several of the speakers at last nights’s Vanguard event, there is no unanimity of thought amongst the survivors of the victim of a murder. Some do indeed favor the death penalty.
But many of us are equally opposed. Many years ago, a cousin of mine was murdered. I did not then, and do not now favor the death penalty, which I consider state sanctioned murder. My point is not to impose my moral objection to the death penalty on anyone else, but to point out that there is not agreement on this issue. Jeff Reisig is supposed to represent all the people within his jurisdiction. When he presents himself as a champion of victims and survivors, he does not speak for me, and I am sure that there are others for whom he does not speak as well.
[quote]“No study occurred.”[/quote]You must have missed my fairly lengthy accounting of RAND Corporation’s Ms. Everingham, who provided testimony in 2008 (to which I provided a link) about the RAND study analysis and conclusions about the “dearth of data” and the high costs of developing useful conclusions.
Reisig obviously feels his “no solid evidence” view is supported this RAND study saying that there’s inadequate data available to make judgements about the costs of capital punishment and that the definitive studies they’d proposed could not be accomplished without far more money than they had expected.
If a RAND representative testifies that they completed the pilot study, who are you to claim they did not do it? If she provides conclusions from the feasibility study on which she’s reporting (and that Reisig uses), what basis do you have to say “no study occurred”?
Interesting that you provide the same link that I gave, but along with a cherry-picked paragraph, including the pilot study’s conclusion, that “the proposed study was not feasible within the scope of the original timeframe and budget.”
How do you think that RAND got the information to decide to give up on their proposal? [b]From their study![/b] This would have been obvious if you’d read your own citation in its entirety instead of looking for a snippet that referred to a [u]different[/u] study (more accurately, several proposed studies) that was jettisoned.
Obviously, quoting a nonexistent study would discredit and humiliate Reisig. It’s a shame that your obsession with the district attorney makes it so important to spend so much time and effort to make fun of him, especially when it’s obvious that you’re just wrong.
I don’t understand why you didn’t just concentrate on the newer studies that tend to rebut his point. (Or, ignore [u]his[/u] letter entirely since you’ve already covered that story.)
The RAND feasibility study obviously considered more definitive studies that would have required too much time and money. While the newer, completed studies aren’t as extensive as RAND’s would have been and suffer the shortages of data about which RAND lamented, they do provide valuable support for the anti-capital punishment argument.
I’ll be interested in seeing a citation for Mr. Canning’s odd claim that “one of the reasons that this study never was completed was due to the fact that many believed it would show the tremendous costs in the death penalty process.” This isn’t been supported in anything I’ve read so far. Ms. Everingham’s reasoning about data problems and money problems seem legitimate to me.
Just to be clear about it, here is the letter I submitted to the Daily Democrat:
[quote]To the Editor:
The Guest Opinion published on July 25, 2012 and authored Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig and Guadalupe Diaz provides misleading and false information to the citizens of Yolo County. Mr. Reisig and Ms. Diaz do the public a disservice by publishing misleading and false assertions in the guise of fact and objective data.
False assertion 1: “[T]he only objective study on the issue of costs associated with the death penalty, conducted by the non-partisan Rand Corporation in 2008, does not even support the death penalty opponents’ claims. There is simply no solid evidence that eliminating the death penalty and replacing it with life in prison will save taxpayers money.”
The truth: In February, 2008 the Rand Corporation provided testimony to the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice that given the funds available and the time allotted, it was impossible to answer the question about cost-savings. The Rand testimony stated (in part): “many of the stakeholders in the current death penalty process are wary of the kind of independent study we have proposed, for fear that it could end up swaying opinion in a direction contrary to their own convictions” (see http://www.rand .org /pubs/testimonies/2008/RAND_CT300.pdf) The Commission itself made rough estimates of the annual costs of the current death penalty and several alternatives, including life without parole. The Commission found that the current system costs California $137 million per year and is increasing, while a switch to life without parole would cost less than one-tenth the cost – $11.5 million (page 84 of the report – downloadable at: http://www.ccfaj.org/rr-dp-official.html).
False assertion 2: “The deadly criminals that have made their path to death row pose a unique risk to the free men and women working inside our prisons every day. From correctional officers to prison nurses, doctors, counselors, food workers and others, all face daily threat from these heinous killers.”
The truth: Research with death row inmates has shown they are no more dangerous after conviction and incarceration than other inmates (see the work of Mark Cunningham with Texas inmates). Some states have gone as far as to “mainline” their death row inmates since they pose no greater violence risk in prison than other inmates. Having worked in the California prison system for over ten years and having visited San Quentin’s condemned unit many times, the men on this unit are under higher security than most other inmates in our system – but their level of violence toward staff is less.
As an elected official Mr. Reisig should apologize to Yolo County for his false statements and distorted reasoning about the costs of the death penalty. Ms. Diaz, as much pain as she has had to endure in the last two years, should also take a closer look at the facts before stepping forward into the public forum.[/quote]
This seems to be a debate for which no amount of data will provide an answer that is satisfactory to all. It seems to me it’s about how the public wants to deal with individuals who have intentionally taken others lives.
I’ve worked in the prison system for 11 years. I didn’t favor the death penalty when I went to work for CDCR and I don’t now. Many of my colleagues in the medical/mental field and on the custody side of the house have the opposite view.
I think it is a waste of my taxes to continue the death penalty. But if we are going to have a debate about (and we are in the next few months) we ought to avoid (if possible) the kind of emotional and obviously slanted rhetoric in the op-ed piece by Reisig and Diaz. The statue of justice has a blindfold on for a reason.
The DA represents everyone – not just the victims of crime. He represents the people who oppose three-strikes, the people who favor tougher sentencing, and the people who didn’t vote for him. Maybe we should limit DA’s to one six year term so they don’t have to get into these emotional and slanted arguments so they get re-elected. One would have thought he might have learned a little from the Clinton Parrish debacle.
[quote]“Elaine: It does not appear to me that this indicates a “dearth of data” but rather a recognition that there was not the [s]in[/s]ability to find, collate, and analyze the available data within budgetary and time constraints. A conclusion about the feasibility of doing a comprehensive study is obviously not the same as having done the comprhensive study and conclusions which can be drawn are not in any way comparable.”[/quote]The “dearth of data” conclusion was one made by RAND, based on what the company itself termed a “feasibility study” as well as a “pilot study.”
Ms. Everingham’s concerns included the fact that much of the data needed to determine death penalty costs was, in fact, not even collected by agencies which logically would be sources in the proposed study/studies because it wasn’t seen in their interest to collect it and they might have their own budget constraints.
So, in RAND’s mind, there was “a dearth of data” at that time. And, that’s what gave Reisig room to argue that no entities associated with the radicals (and you know how they are) could draw legitimate conclusions–since an “objective” outfit found in their study that they couldn’t get adequate data.
Reisig is on the wrong side of this argument, in my opinion, and not much he has to say on the topic is convincing. What fascinates me is how important it seems to find some way to discredit him as a person as opposed to focusing on arguments against his opinions (although they are shared with fully half of our neighbors).
Why does the issue of him quoting a study even come up? Only in an attempt to humiliate him, it appears. I thought I’d learned what the definition of “is” is, but now I’m not so sure anymore. But, here a misreading (purposeful or unintentional) of Ms. Everingham’s testimony has Ms. Olson and David all excited that Reisig’s somehow been caught in a foolish lie. Too bad they have so little basis on which to argue that contention.
I pretty much agree with everything else you’ve observed about the DA, although we need to cut him some slack since he’s basically a politician (and you know how they are).
the DA gave his opinion. The undertone of both Canning and vanguard is that Jeff reising shouldnt be able to express his opinion in an op ed. If you deem his arguments wrong. but it appears Canning/vanguard arguments have their own flaws in them – flaws that wouldn’t have reared their ugly heads if it weren’t for being so anti reisig.
91 Octane: Not so, I never said (nor would I say) that he can’t express his opinion. I have a different opinion than you about the content of his piece and also whether a district attorney who – as I said above – should comport himself when he represents [i]all[/i] the citizens of Yolo.
And it is interesting that no one here seems interested in taking on the flaws in Reisig and Diaz’ arguments about the threats to correctional employees who work on condemned row.
“As an elected official Mr. Reisig should apologize to Yolo County for his false statements and distorted reasoning about the costs of the death penalty. Ms. Diaz, as much pain as she has had to endure in the last two years, should also take a closer look at the facts before stepping forward into the public forum.”
lol no you didn’t say directly “reisig cannot express his opinion.” but it is implied in this statement. He should “apologize” for his opinion and IN YOUR VIEW “distorted reasoning.” In my book that is little different from telling him he shouldnt be able to express himself. Sure he can express himself but if I think his reasoning on this issue is distorted, he should apologize afterwards for his opinion. We live in a free country here.
“This seems to be a debate for which no amount of data will provide an answer that is satisfactory to all. It seems to me it’s about how the public wants to deal with individuals who have intentionally taken others lives. I’ve worked in the prison system for 11 years. I didn’t favor the death penalty when I went to work for CDCR and I don’t now. Many of my colleagues in the medical/mental field and on the custody side of the house have the opposite view. “
Boy, have you got that one right. The role of data vs. gut feelings somewhat parallels the choice/life debates. How can anyone move an inch if no amount of information is persuasive?
Also, I agree 100% with your opposition to killing our citizens, even if they’ve killed someone themselves. It’s interesting that your anti-death penalty views generally have remained constant with your closeness to killers.
To what do you attribute the different views of your medical and custody colleagues? Anything to do with their occupations; did their attitudes change with their prison experience?
“…one of the reasons that this study never was completed was due to the fact that many believed it would show the tremendous costs in the death penalty process.”
Do you know where this comes from? I’m assuming it could be an opinion regarding the state’s decisions AFTER the 2008 testimony rather than an alternate rationale to what the RAND Corp. gave (“dearth of data” and higher than expected expense) for determining that earlier proposal couldn’t fly.
In addition, please expand on the condemned row abuse of officers issue.
Just saying:
Differences in opinion – we are a huge department (largest number of state employees) so I would expect a substantial portion to support the death penalty. And prisons are pretty rigid places – many military folks find a home there and are comfortable working in that environment – being a correctional officer is like being in a paramilitary organization. I also think (remember these are just one man’s opinions) that prison is not always the easiest place to change opinions/attitudes/beliefs. The inmate’s lives are also so different than many of our lives – although that’s probably somewhat myopic and doesn’t take into account the range of people who end up in state prison. There’s also a culture of punishment that pervades prisons in California.
If I were to express an opinion about those who work on death row, my hunch is that most support the death penalty (most people who work on death row are corrections officers and staff). But it’s hard to know definitively. Death row is a surreal place with some different rules and regulations which sets it apart from other high security units.
[quote]“…one of the reasons that this study never was completed was due to the fact that many believed it would show the tremendous costs in the death penalty process.”
Do you know where this comes from? [/quote]
I don’t. I think what’s more interesting is the statement in the Rand testimony about stakeholders’ worries that a study may find support for opinions opposite their own. Shows how deeply held and tightly guarder these attitudes are.
[quote]In addition, please expand on the condemned row abuse of officers issue.[/quote]
Mark Cunningham (http://www.markdcunningham.com/index.php) is a forensic psychologist in the Dallas area whose major area of research and forensics is capitol sentencing and the characteristics of condemned inmates and those accused of capitol crimes. His research in Texas has shown that condemned inmates have are not more violent than the non-condemned, and the same for LWOP inmates.
On California’s death row security is quite high. They are escorted everywhere by one or two officers – they are shackled anytime out of their cells. There really is little chance of much violence toward staff. And although one might think they have nothing to lose, many death row inmates are very well controlled because few of them want to have a record of disciplinaries and misconduct as far as their appeals go. I would say that most of them are on “good behavior.” But you have to remember when you have greater than 700 people like this, their circumstances are quite varied – from gangbangers, copkillers, murderous pedophiles, psychopathic killers, drug-influenced killers, psychotics, etc. etc. So, it’s complicated and I think there are lots of myths about people on condemned row. But there are lots of murderers who are not on death row because of the whims of politics, policies of DA’s (San Francisco hasn’t sent anyone there in decades as far as I know), plea bargains, county expenses, etc. etc. and for many reasons I can’t think of. CDCR still have about 140,000 inmates, so condemned row is only about half a percent of the total.
RD,
[i]And although one might think they have nothing to lose, many death row inmates are very well controlled because few of them want to have a record of disciplinaries and misconduct as far as their appeals go. I would say that most of them are on “good behavior.”[/i]
So condemned inmates do have something to lose? If LWOP replaced the death penalty, how would that affect inmate behavior?
The intent of the prop is to end the death penalty, thereby significantly limiting the lengthy appellate process which you contend reduces condemned inmates’ “bad behavior.” What would encourage “good behavior” among this inmate population in LWOP replaced the death penalty?
If the argument is that condemned inmates historically pose little threat to CDCR staff, as a result of the death penalty (ie lengthy appellate process, level of security on death row, which is costly, etc.), in what way does this predict the threat level posed by the same inmates if LWOP were to replace the death penalty? It would seem ending the death penalty would also end or limit that which opponents reference as the reasons for which the condemned pose little threat to staff and others.
Superfluous – start with Mark Cunningham’s paper entitled (aptly enough): [i]Nothing to lose? A comparative examination of prison misconduct rates among life-without-parole and other long-term high security inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33 (6), 683-705. doi: 10.1177/0093854806288273[/i]
Here’s the abstract:
[quote]The impact of life-without-parole (LWOP) sentencing for inmate misconduct has important implications for inmate classification, prison management, capital sentencing determinations, and public policy considerations. This study seeks to illuminate these issues by comparing the disciplinary behavior of 1,897 inmates sentenced to LWOP in the Florida Department of Corrections to that of 7,147 inmates serving sentences of 10 to 30 or more years. The sample is restricted to inmates admitted between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2002, sentenced to a prison term of 10 years or longer, who remained in prison on December 31, 2003, and classified to close custody. The data show that the likelihood and pattern of disciplinary infractions and potentially violent rule infractions among LWOP inmates during 1998 to 2003 is broadly similar to that of other long-term inmates, supporting a conclusion that LWOP inmates act as a stabilizing rather than disruptive force in the prison environment.[/quote]
Lifers, LWOP as well as indeterminately sentences lifers (15-life, 25-life, etc.) have always been considered a calming influence on the prison environment. They typically (although not always) want to do their time and “get on with it.” From what I understand, in the “old” days lifers were often celled with younger inmates. Younger inmates are typically more violent and have more disciplinaries but this slows down over time as they age. One simply sees less and less violence among 40-50 year olds in prison.
Superfluous – and as I said earlier, there are many more inmates NOT on condemned row who have committed equally heinous crimes but have not been sentenced to death. Many of the worst gang leaders have not been convicted of murder with special circumstances and live among other inmates. Many are housed in special units such as the SHU at Pelican Bay, or in the case of those like Charles Manson, in a special unit at Corcoran State Prison. Some on condemned row have committed one murder while others have committed many. There are multiple murderers and multiple rapists in the general population of CDCR. The correlation between type of crime and disciplinary record in prison is 1.0. One example are pedophiles who commit homicide. They typically do not commit many violent crimes and their crimes are of one kind. Placed in a prison setting, their behavior is very different than in the community.
[quote]“If I were to express an opinion about those who work on death row, my hunch is that most support the death penalty (most people who work on death row are corrections officers and staff).”[/quote]Yet, one might think that these folks would be in a position to come to see these inmates as human beings instead of the monsters the rest of us perceive they must be. Especially if they tend to be on good behavior. Oh, well.
I forgot a very important “not” in my note to Superfluous. The sentence should read: “The correlation between type of crime and disciplinary record is [i]NOT[/i] 1.0. Sorry about that.
JustSaying: good observation. The acculturation into the world of correctional officer starts at day one at the academy. Also, there is a certain professional distance that must be kept to get one’s job done. The walls between prisoner and jailer are pretty high. But this not to say that in,ages on death row are not treated hi,anely. I believe they are.
“Furthermore, Alarcon is a judge whose report is part of the site of DPIC, “
DPIC may have a copy of the report on their site, but they were not involved in the report.
My rebuttal to Ms. Olsen’s ponts, inclusive of costs, in the comment section, here:
Guest Commentary: The Truth About The Death Penalty
http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5561:guest-commentary-the-truth-about-the-death-penalty&catid=74:court-watch&Itemid=100
[quote]DPIC may have a copy of the report on their site, but they were not involved in the report.[/quote]
It is clear Judge Alarcon had an agenda…
How so? He is a Republican appointee, conservative, and favors the death penalty, so I’m confused by your claim.
[quote]How so? He is a Republican appointee, conservative, and favors the death penalty, so I’m confused by your claim.[/quote]
See [url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/LoyolaCalifCosts.pdf[/url]
The article was co-authored by Judge Alarcon, and it states in the final paragraph:
[quote]We hope that California voters, informed of what the death penalty actually costs them, will cast their informed votes in favor of a system that makes sense.[/quote]
Oops, skipped the important part of the quote. Let me try again:
[quote]Abolishing the death penalty will result in the immediate
savings of millions of dollars per year and a savings of billions of
dollars over the next 20 years. We hope that California voters,
informed of what the death penalty actually costs them, will cast
their informed votes in favor of a system that makes sense.[/quote]
RD,
I didn’t see your reference to Cunningham in that particular post. Thanks.
[i]Lifers, LWOP as well as indeterminately sentences lifers (15-life, 25-life, etc.) have always been considered a calming influence on the prison environment. They typically (although not always) want to do their time and “get on with it.” From what I understand, in the “old” days lifers were often celled with younger inmates. Younger inmates are typically more violent and have more disciplinaries but this slows down over time as they age. One simply sees less and less violence among 40-50 year olds in prison. [/i]
Are LWOP and indeterminately sentenced lifers generally older upon conviction? If they enter young and “typically more violent,” what difference does it make that they may calm down, as most inmates do, at 40+?
Superfluous Man: Mark Cunningham’s paper entitled (aptly enough): Nothing to lose? A comparative examination of prison misconduct rates among life-without-parole and other long-term high security inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33 (6), 683-705. doi: 10.1177/0093854806288273. (the abstract is in the post from last night)
I’m not geting your point – sorry – could you put it differently?
I don’t know the ages on conviction for different crimes. The average age of an inmate in California is 38 and the current age of most condemned inmates is over 40 (average time on death row I believe is around ten years). The research is clear that LWOPs are not more violent than other inmates. Cunningham, using Texas data, has found that condemned inmates are no more violent than other inmates. And for all inmates, disciplinaries decline as they age (that’s true in the community too). Also, condemned inmates make up a tiny proportion of the overall lifers (around 13,000) and LWOPs (about 4,400). Even if they were more violent their numbers would be barely be felt (that might be an exaggeration). And again, we are focusing on this group of 720 inmates who happened to have the death penalty because they qualified for special circumstances. But there are other lifers (LWOPs in particular) whose crimes were equally heinous but for other reasons did not get condemned to death.
RD,
I’m referring to what will happen to those who would have been sentenced to death if the DP is no more. The argument regarding current death row inmates is, in part, their age (older) and how they are less likely to be violent [i]now[/i], thus eliminating the DP and housing them in general custody poses little threat to staff and others in prison as it relates to those currently on death row.
If the death penalty is eliminated and age is a determining factor in inmate violence (threat to other inmates and staff), are those would’ve been condemned inmates generally younger and more likely to be violent? How will this impact threats to staff and others in prison?
They would be like every other inmate and being younger they may have more disciplinaries. But probably at no higher rates of LWOPs, life-term inmates, and others who have violent offenses. Again, we are talking about 720 inmates out of 140,000 overall and about 20,000 life-term inmates. It simply would not raise the level of violence already experienced by correctional staff. Cunningham wrote an article in which he looked at federal capitol convitee’s who were not condemned – those who had plead out, who had death withdrawn before trial or were sentenced to LWOP by a jury. Here’s the abstract:
Assertions of “Future Dangerousness” at Federal Capital Sentencing: Rates and Correlates of Subsequent Prison Misconduct and Violence Law and Human Behavior, February 2008, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 46-63, Mark D. Cunningham, Thomas J. Reidy, Jon R. Sorensen)
[quote]The federal prison disciplinary records of federal capital inmates (n = 145) who were sentenced to life without possibility of release (LWOP) by plea bargain, pre-sentencing withdrawal of the death penalty, or jury determination were retrospectively reviewed (M = 6.17 years post-admission). Disaggregated prevalence rates were inversely related to infraction severity: serious infraction = 0.324, assaultive infraction = 0.207, serious assault = 0.09, assault with moderate injury = 0.007, assault with major injuries or death = 0.00. Frequency rates of misconduct were equivalent to other high-security federal inmates (n = 18,561), regardless of infraction severity. Government assertions of “future dangerousness” as a nonstatutory aggravating factor were not predictive of prison misconduct. These findings inform federal capital risk assessments and have public policy implications for procedural reliability in death penalty prosecutions.[/quote]
Again, we have many inmates who have committed heinous crimes, these 700+ have qualified by special circumstance. There are others in our system who also committed multiple murders (one of the qualifiers) but did not get death. Getting death depends on a lot of things besides the crime.
RD,
I see. I think I was getting bits and pieces of your comments. Thanks.