By Tracie Olson
I am writing as the Public Defender of Yolo County. Contrary to District Attorney Jeff Reisig’s recent opinion piece, there are numerous, overwhelming reasons to oppose the death penalty, and none involve dishonoring victims.
INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH AND EXECUTED.
District Attorney Jeff Reisig laments the “endless delays in the criminal justice system, frivolous appeals, and a mountain of misinformation” caused by the “ACLU and its agents.” However, he conveniently ignores the fact that the National Registry of Exonerations has recorded over 920 exonerations across the United States since 1989, more than 100 of which had been sentenced to death.
Kirk Bloodsworth was the first American to be freed from death row as a result of exoneration by DNA fingerprinting. Ray Krone is the 100th American to have been sentenced to death and later exonerated. For those exonerated of murder, the biggest problem is perjury, usually by a witness who claimed to have witnessed the crime or participated in it. False confessions, witness misidentification, junk science, and prosecutorial and police misconduct are other significant reasons that result in incarcerating the innocent.
A handful of Americans have been exonerated posthumously. Many believe that Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in 2004 for the arson death of his three daughters, will likely be another, as arson experts have all but debunked the evidence that convicted him at trial. At least ten more have been identified as executed but probably innocent.
I doubt anyone could defend the notion that the long legal processes that freed these innocent people were frivolous. Indisputably, those exonerated posthumously did not receive due process of the law, and the established checks and balances of the criminal justice system irrevocably failed them. Speaking to the French Chamber of Deputies in 1830, years after having witnessed the excesses of the French Revolution, the Marquis de Lafayette said, “I shall ask for the abolition of the punishment of death until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me.”
ELIMINATING THE DEATH PENALTY WILL SAVE TAXPAYERS MONEY.
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. Importantly, this figure excludes the cost of providing counsel in federal proceedings, where nearly every condemned inmate whose state claims have been denied seeks relief (and where federal courts grant relief – in the form of a new guilt trial or a new penalty trial – in roughly 70% of the cases they reviewed). Additionally, they found that Californians spent an estimated additional $70 million in 2010 just to house condemned inmates on death row.
Alarcon and Mitchell’s findings mirrored those made in 2008 by the California Commission of Fair Administration of Justice – a 22-member commission created by the state Senate. Likewise, the Legislative Analyst’s Office 2011 report 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. Lastly, it is imperative to point out that District Attorney Jeff Reisig’s recent assertion that a “study” by the Rand Corporation in 2008 “does not even support the death penalty opponents’ claims [that eliminating the death penalty saves money]” is bogus. No such “study” exists; the study was contemplated but never executed due to time and budget constraints. The following is the ‘link’ to the Rand Corporation’s 2008 non-report to which Mr. Reisig refers: http:www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/CT300html.
THE DEATH PENALTY HAS NO DETERRENT EFFECT.
The Death Penalty Information Center compared the murder rates per 100,000 people among the fifty states and found that, in 2010, the average murder rate of death penalty states was 4.6, while the average murder rate of states without the death penalty was 2.9. Of the ten states with the lowest murder rates, six do not have the death penalty. Quite obviously, the existence of the death penalty had no deterrent effect on those that ended up on death row.
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.
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.
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE NO LONGER REFLECTS SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.
It is commonly reported that the American public overwhelmingly approves of the death penalty. More careful analysis of public attitudes, however, reveals that most Americans prefer an alternative; they would oppose the death penalty if convicted murderers were sentenced to life without parole and were required to make some form of financial restitution. In 2010, when California voters were asked which sentence they preferred for a first-degree murderer; 42% of registered voters said they preferred life without parole and 41% said they preferred the death penalty. In 2000, when voters were asked the same question, 37% chose life without parole while 44% chose the death penalty. This is evidence of what the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly referred to as “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” In 2002, the United States Supreme Court forbade executing mentally retarded criminals under the evolving standards of decency embraced by the Eighth Amendment. In 2005, it prohibited executing individuals who were juveniles at the time of their capital crimes.
Recently, New Jersey and Illinois have eliminated the death penalty, joining 12 other states. Today, either by law or in practice, all of Western Europe has abolished the death penalty. The United Nations General Assembly affirmed in a formal resolution that throughout the world, it is desirable to “progressively restrict the number of offenses for which the death penalty might be imposed, with a view to the desirability of abolishing this punishment.” Indeed, the unmistakable worldwide trend is toward the complete abolition of capital punishment. In the United States, opposition to the death penalty is widespread and diverse. Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant religious groups are among the more than 50 national organizations that constitute the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.
VENGEANCE IS NOT JUSTICE.
As others have articulated more beautifully than I trust myself to muster, I offer the following:
Opposing the death penalty does not indicate a lack of sympathy for murder victims. On the contrary, murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life. Because life is precious and death irrevocable, murder is abhorrent, and a policy of state-authorized killings is immoral. It epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality of violence, rather than reason, as the solution to difficult social problems. Many murder victims’ families do not support state-sponsored violence to avenge the death of their loved one. Sadly, these victims have often been marginalized by politicians and prosecutors, who would rather publicize the opinions of pro-death penalty family members.
A society that respects life does not deliberately kill human beings. An execution is a violent public spectacle of official homicide, and one that endorses killing to solve social problems – the worst possible example to set for the citizenry, and especially children. Governments worldwide have often attempted to justify their lethal fury by extolling the purported benefits that such killing would bring to the rest of society. The benefits of capital punishment are illusory, but the bloodshed and the resulting destruction of community decency are real.
I urge everyone to learn the truth and educate themselves about the death penalty prior to November. Only by becoming self-informed will our society, as much as I do, realize that the death penalty can no longer be tolerated in California.
— Tracie Olson is the Yolo County Public Defender.
Our event is tonight – Tracie Olson will be giving opening remarks. To purchase tickets still – click here ([url]https://secure.yourpatriot.com/ou/dpd/150/1029/eventsignup.aspx[/url]) or above on the red buttons
Glad to see Tracie stand up against Reisig. He has bullied his way around and has most people scared to talk against him. I only wish she would be more aggressive about pointing out misconduct of those DA’s that take their direction from Reisig and do questionable and unethical things under the direction of Mr. Reisig.
I think the most interesting piece in Tracie Olson’s article is that 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.
Ms. Olsen:
You need to fact check.
The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are both blatant and legendary
Some examples:
4) “The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception–death-penalty-opponents–draft.aspx
5) The 130 (now 140) death row “innocents” scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx
6) “Exoneration Inflation: Justice Scalia’s Concurrence in Kansas v. March”, by Ward Campbell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, p 49, The Journal of the Institute for the Advancement of Criminal Justice, Issue 2, Summer 2008
http://www.cjlf.org/files/CampbellExonerationInflation2008.pdf
7) “The innocence tactic: Unreliable studies and disinformation”, reports By United States Congress, Senate, 107th Congress, 2d Session, Calender no 731, Report 107-315. The Innocence Protection Act of 2002, (iv) The innocence tactic: Unreliable studies and disinformation, p 65-69
http://alturl.com/6j7oc
8) “The Innocent and the Shammed”, Joshua Marquis, Published in New York Times, 1/26/2006
http://coastda.blogspot.com/2006/01/innocent-and-shammed-nyt-oped.html
9) “Troy Davis & The Innocent Frauds of the anti death penalty lobby”,
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2011/11/troy-davis-innocent-frauds-of-anti.html
10) “The Myth Of Innocence”, Joshua Marquis, published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology – 3/31/2005, Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, Illinois
http://coastda.blogspot.com/2005/03/myth-of-innocence.html
11) Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean–the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx
12) “At the Death House Door” Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx
13) “Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown”, A Collection of Articles
http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron Todd Willingham.aspx
On costs, you write:
“Alarcon and Mitchell’s findings mirrored those made in 2008 by the California Commission of Fair Administration of Justice – a 22-member commission created by the state Senate.”
That is the problem. That study was a very bad joke, for anyone that decided to fact check it.
Response to Absurd California Death Penalty Cost ‘Study”:
A Rebuttal to “Cut This: The Death Penalty”(1)
Death Penalty vs Life Costs in California
By Dudley Sharp. contact info below
NOTE: Clark is a Calif. ACLU activist and The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice’s (CCFAJ) is a Calif. government commission.
Clark’s/CCFAJ’s cost review is wildly inaccurate and misleading. I doubt that there is any more veracity to the death row costs than with their lifer cost evaluations. None of Clark/CCFAJ’s numbers can be relied upon.
Clark/CCFAJ says: “In total, California’s death penalty system costs taxpayers $137 million per year. Contrast that with just $11 million per year if we replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.”
For 700 inmates, that is:
death penalty costs: $137 million per year or $196,000//inmate/yr.
life imprisonment costs: $11 million/year or $15,700/inmate/yr.
It is complete, utter nonsense.
Some reality:
The last full California audit (Sept 2009) found the average costs, 2007-2008, per adult inmate was $49,000/inmate/yr. (2) In 1997, it was $25,000/inmate/yr. (3).
This $49,000/inmate/yr is the average for all inmates, not the level IV security of death row inmate like criminals that will cost more, if not much more.
Clark/CCFAJ is stating that these enhanced security prisoners will cost $34,000/inmate/yr LESS than the average cost for all Ca inmates. Clark’s’SSFAJ’s lack of credibility is of an astounding level. Clark’s analysis is laughable.
But, Clark/CCFAJ get even worse.
Without the death penalty, Clark/CCFAJ’s select group of former death row murderers would likely be in level IV security and, as lifers, would die as geriatric prisoners or from earlier illness, likely costing on average $80,000-$100,000/inmate/yr., or more, with a rare few costing a $1 million or more per year with illness and/or geriatric stages.
Geriatric problems often begins at age 50 for inmates.
NOTE: The California Medical Facility for corrections averages $83,000/inmate/yr. (4). There, likely, would be additional costs when dealing with Level IV security prisoners.
But, for Clark/CCFAJ, former death row inmates, now lifers, cost $15,700/inmate/yr.
But, it gets even worse for Clark/CCFAJ.
contd
contd
Clark/CCFAJ will admit, if prodded (5) that “the figure of $137 million estimates the entire cost of the death penalty system, not simply housing, but also inclusive of all post-conviction costs, including legal appeals.”
In other words, Clark/CCFAJ is admitting escalating the death penalty costs over the alleged cost comparisons of incarceration between lifers and death row. Not at all surprising Clark/CCFAJ excludes such from the lifer costs.
The Clark/CCFAJ’s cost comparisons/evaluations are a very bad joke. Instead of making an honest apples to apples cost comparison, Clark/CCFAJ brings us an apples to Rolls Royce cost comparison, as if it is apples to apples.
Because so many of these cost comparisons are so pathetically unreliable, California considered that an objective assessment by RAND should be considered (6). The basis for a proper evaluation was presented, but Ca rejected doing the study, because . . . it was too expensive!
CONCLUSION – Save even more money?
There is no need for California to have a death row. Current death row prisoners can be placed in Level IV security cells, or lower levels depending upon evaluations, just as Missouri and Kansas do.
California can make their death sentenced inmates cheaper than their lifers, if they properly manage their citizens money, as Virginia does. California must only have the will to be responsible stewards of their citizens resources – something that seems to elude California lawmakers, just as basic, accurate evaluations evade Clark/CCFAJ.
(Later update: Virginia executes, on average, within 7.1 years and has executed 75% of those so sentenced, a protocol that would, on average, be less expensive than comparable LWOP cases).
Today, there is no reason for Ca death row to cost more than level IV security and a proper evaluation would likely show death row cheaper or no more expensive than Level IV.
There would be no cost savings in getting rid of death row, with the exception that, if Calif had a responsible death penalty protocol, there would be many more executed murderers, thus reducing incarceration costs on death row, saving money on incarcerations costs over other level IV prisoners.
(1) An article by James Clark, field organizer, ACLU of Southern California.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-clark/cut-this-the-death-penalt_b_627759.html
(2) pg 77, fiscal year 2007-2008, http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-107.1.pdf
(3) http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/97125.pdf
(4) page 80, fiscal year 2007-2008, http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-107.1.pdf
(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-clark/cut-this-the-death-penalt_b_627759.html
(6) “Investigating the Costs of the Death Penalty in California: Insights for Future Data Collection in California, RAND Corp., 2/2008
http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2008/RAND_CT300.pdf
Reisig needs to fact check, as well.
There was no Rand study, but a preliminary review of what it would take to do such a study and the problems involved.
They did conclude:
p 7 “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.”
“DEARTH OF DATA”
[u][i][b]So, Ms. Olsen, how and why could you have any confidence in either the CCFAJ or the Alarcon/Mitchell “studies”, which is just the progeny of the idiotic CCFAJ “study”.[/b][/i][/u]
Ms. Olsen:
That is not how deterrence is measured.
Please review:
3) “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
Of course the death penalty deters.
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
1) 28 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/dpdeterrencefull.htm
2) “Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
3) “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
4) This is out of date, but corrects a number of the misconceptions about deterrence.”Death Penalty and Deterrence”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent–confirmed–seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx
5) “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents” http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
Of course the death penalty deters. A review of the debate
Reason, common sense, history and the facts support that the death penalty deters and deters more than lesser sanctions.
1) Anti death penalty folks say that the burden of proof is on those who say that the death penalty deters. Untrue. It is a rational truism that all potential negative outcomes deter some – there is no exception. It is the burden of death penalty opponents to prove that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the only prospect of a negative outcome that deters none. They cannot. NO DETERRENCE STUDY FINDS THAT THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS NONE. THEY CANNOT.
2) There have been 28 recent studies finding for death penalty deterrence. A few of those have been criticized. The criticism has, itself been rebutted and/or the criticism doesn’t negate no. 1 or nos. 3-10.
3) Anti death penalty columnists Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune states, “No one argues that the death penalty deters none.” “Will someone bent on murder turn from the crime when he contemplates the fact that he may be executed for it? Obviously that will happen.”(1). More precisely, it “does” happen and always has. Yes, some do argue, beyond reason, that the death penalty deters none. But Zorn is correct, the issue is not “Does the death penalty deter?”. It does. The only issue is to what degree. Therefore, anti death penalty efforts must contend with the reality that sparing murderers does sacrifice more innocent lives , by reduced deterrence, lesser incapacitation and lesser due process, and executing murderers does save more innocent lives, by enhanced incapacitation, enhanced deterrence and enhanced due process.
4) The evidence is expressly clear and overwhelming that death is feared more than life and life is preferred over death, not just for murderers facing death, but by a majority of all of us.
When 99.8% of murderers, who are subject to the death penalty, tell us they fear death more than life (2) and when about 99.9% of the rest of us (excluding the terribly ill) tell us they prefer life over death, it is a certainty that potential murderers, overwhelmingly feel the same, and thus fear execution more than life.
What we fear the most deters the most.
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. No surprise. Would a more rational group, those who choose not to murder, also share in that overwhelming fear of death and be deterred by the prospects of execution? Of course – just as we all do.
contd
contd
5) There are a number of known cases of individual deterrence, those potential murderers who have stated that they were prevented from committing murder because of their fear of the death penalty. Individual deterrence exists.
6) General deterrence exists because individual deterrence cannot exist without it.
7) Even the dean of anti death penalty academics, Hugo Adam Bedau, agrees that the death penalty deters .. . but he doesn’t believe it deters more than a life sentence (3). Number 4, specifically, and Nos. 5, 6 and 10 provide anecdotal and rational evidence that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Bedau has not and cannot rebut that. In addition, the 28 studies finding for deterrence, find that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence.
8) All criminal sanctions deter. If you doubt that, what do you think would happen if we ended all criminal sanctions? No rational person has any doubt. Some would have us, irrationally, believe that the most severe sanction, execution, is the only sanction which doesn’t deter.
9) If we execute and there is no deterrence, we have justly punished a murderer and have prevented that murderer from ever harming/murdering, again. If we execute and there is deterrence, we have those benefits, plus we have spared even more additional innocent lives via deterrence. If we don’t execute and there is deterrence, we have spared murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths, via the loss of a greater deterrent, as well as by lesser incapacitation.
10) Overwhelmingly, people prefer life over death and fear death more than life.
===============
“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.”
John McAdams – Marquette University/Department of Political Science
============
(1) “Death penalty and deterrence — the argument from anecdote”, Eric Zorn, Change of Subject page, Chicago Tribune,4/23/2011,
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/04/deter.html
(2) About 99.8% of those murderers who are subject to the death penalty do everything they can to receive a lesser sentence, in pre trial, plea bargains, trial, in appeals and in clemency/commutation proceedings. Only about 1/3 of all murderers who have a death penalty trial receive that sanction, meaning 2/3 receive a sentence less than life, as they had hoped and even more murderers plea bargained to a sentence less than death, pre trial. Only 1.7% of those sentenced to death “volunteer” for executions by waiving appeals – 98.3% do not.
(3) “An Abolitionist’s Survey of the Death Penalty in America Today”, Hugo Adam Bedau, Chapter 2, within Debating the death penalty: should America have capital punishment? : the experts on both sides make their case, editors Hugo Adam Bedau, Paul G. Cassell, Oxford University Press, 2004. SHARP REVIEW: AN EXCELLENT BOOK PRESENTING BOTH SIDES.
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
Of all endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.
1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html
2) Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html
US Death Penalty Support at 80%: World Support Remains High
Dudley Sharp, April 2012
Summary
For some time, with different polls and today, 80% of Americans support the death penalty, when the poll, properly, asks about specific “death penalty eligible” murders (1) , as opposed to asking the general question, about all murders, for which about 90% are not death penalty eligible.
Death penalty opposition falls by 43%, with death penalty support rising 25%, when polls switch from the general question to specific “death penalty eligible” murders.
It is very likely that life without parole (LWOP) has support around 95%.
Support is overwhelming for what the US has, now, which is a death penalty option in some, very limited cases, whereby the other option in those cases is LWOP, the actual sentencing options that judges or juries consider in these cases.
Death penalty support remains high, throughout the world (1).
Those who have lost loved ones to death penalty eligible murders, if not all murders, support the death penalty above 95%, based upon the anecdotal evidence (2).
The rest at http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/04/us-death-penalty-support-at-80-world.html
Pingback: Eye on the Court: Death Penalty Creates Unequal Applicability Under the Law | .:Davis Vanguard:.