DEFEATING THE DEVIL’S GAME: VOTING NO ON PROPOSITION 34 (NOVEMBER 6, 2012) [THE DEBATE OF THE MONTH ~ NOVEMBER 2012]

            On this date, November 6, 2012, Proposition 34 was defeated by Voters in California. It was an initiative to end the death penalty in California, replace it with life without the possibility of parole. We, the Comrades of Unit 1012: The VFFDP, voted no on that evil proposition 34 and we thank God for protecting us when we prayed to him to protect the people of California.

         We will post information about Proposition 34 from ballotpedia and also photos of different topics for viewers and will highlight the words in blue bold ink. We will give our proposal at the end.

Proposition 34, titled by election officials as "Death Penalty. Initiative Statute", was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated.

If the state's voters had approved it, Proposition 34 would have eliminated the death penalty in California and replaced it with life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Specifically, Proposition 34 would have:

• Repealed the death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaced it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
• Applied retroactively to persons already sentenced to death.
• Required persons found guilty of murder to work while in prison, with their wages to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them.
• Created a $100 million fund to be distributed to law enforcement agencies to help solve more homicide and rape cases.

At the time of the vote on Proposition 34, California had 725 people on death row. If Proposition 34 had been approved, their sentences would have been replaced with "life in prison without the possibility of parole". These prisoners would also have been required to seek jobs within the prison system, and their earnings would have gone to crime victims. Seven of the 725 people on death row at the time of the vote had exhausted all appeals and were eligible for execution, although legal challenges to California's lethal injection procedure must be resolved before any of them could be executed. The last time a prisoner was put to death in California was in 2006. At that time, a federal judge halted executions in the state until various changes were made in how the state administers the death penalty. 

California was one of 33 states that, as of 2012, authorized the death penalty. 

The death penalty in California was judicially invalidated in the 1970s and was then reinstated via Proposition 7 in 1978. 13 inmates have been executed since then.

Unit 1012 does not support this evil Proposition 34, where evil will triumph and more innocent people will be murdered for sure. It is like a rotten apple destroying the whole barrel.

  

PHOTO SOURCE: http://yaymicro.com/stock-image/proverb--a-rotten-apple-spoils-the-barrel--written-on-bunch-of-s/4371794

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

 

California Proposition 34
Result	Votes	Percentage
No	6,460,264	52.0%
Yes	5,974,243	48.0%

These final, certified, results are from the California Secretary of State.

Support

Supporters

The arguments in favor of Proposition 34 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:

• Gil Garcetti. Garcetti was the District Attorney of Los Angeles County from 1992–2000.
• Jeanne Woodford. Woodford is a former Warden of San Quentin State Prison who presided over 4 executions.
• Jennifer A. Waggoner. Waggoner is the president of the League of Women Voters of California.
• Antonio R. Villaraigosa. Villaraigosa is the mayor of the City of Los Angeles County.
• The Hon. John Van de Kamp. Van de Kamp was the Attorney General of California from 1983-1991.
• LaDoris Cordell. Cordell, now retired, was a trial court judge in the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Other supporters included:

• H. Lee Sarokin, a retired federal judge. He said, "I've always said that I cannot envision that somebody contemplating murder sits at the kitchen table and says 'I'm not going to commit a murder because I could face the death penalty, but I will if I only face life imprisonment without parole'."

• Gerald Barnes, Bishop of the Diocese of San Bernardino.

• The California Catholic Conference of Bishops supported Proposition 34.

• The American Civil Liberties Union.

• Ron Briggs, who ran the successful campaign for Proposition 7 in 1978.

• Donald J. Heller, who wrote the language for Proposition 7.

• The California Democratic Party

• The California Nurses Association

Arguments in favor

Arguments that were made in favor of replacing California's death penalty included:

• Repealing the death penalty will "save the state millions of dollars through layoffs of prosecutors and defense attorneys who handle death penalty cases, as well as savings from not having to maintain the nation's largest death row at San Quentin prison."

• The death penalty is intrinsically wrong.

• "Our system is broken, expensive and it always will carry the grave risk of a mistake."

• “SAFE California will provide public protection by keeping those truly guilty of death penalty crimes locked up for life, and in the meantime saving us millions of dollars that will be invested in crime-fighting measures leading to the apprehension of serious criminals.” -- John Van de Kamp, former Attorney General of California and former Los Angeles County District Attorney.

• "[The death penalty] does not make our streets safer and it takes away resources from things that prevent violence, like keeping our kids in school and putting cops on the street. It also denies justice for thousands of grieving mothers who, like me, will never see their children’s murderer be held accountable for their crimes." –Lorraine Taylor, Murder Victim Family

• “We know that innocent people have been convicted of murder in California – three were released in 2011 after serving a total of 57 years – and that innocent people have been executed in other states. Nationwide, 140 inmates from death rows have been exonerated of the crimes for which they were wrongly convicted. In light of possible innocence, using the death penalty puts all Californians at risk of perpetrating the ultimate injustice of executing an innocent person[.]” –Bishop Cirilo Flores

• “Life without parole protects public safety better than a death sentence. It's a lot cheaper, it keeps dangerous men and women locked up forever, and mistakes can be fixed.” -- Don Heller, SAFE California supporter and author of the 1978 initiative that reinstated the death penalty.

• A 2011 study by former prosecutor and federal judge Arthur Alarcón indicated that California spent approximately $4 billion to execute 13 people since the death penalty was reinstated. The Alarcón report also indicated that implementing the death penalty in California costs $184 million dollars per year more than implementing sentences of life without the possibility of parole.

• Carlos Moreno, a former justice of the California Supreme Court, voted to uphold about 200 death sentences in his time on the state's highest court. He does not regret those votes and said that the convicted defendants "richly deserved to die." At the same time, Moreno supported Proposition 34 because "there’s no chance California’s death penalty can ever be fixed. The millions wasted on this broken system would be much better spent keeping teachers, police and firefighters on their jobs."

Donors

The donors listed in the chart below are the $50,000 and over donors to the "Yes on 34" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012. Note that some of these donors gave their money to a committee that was simultaneously supporting or opposing more than one of the ballot propositions on the November 6, 2012 ballot. When that is the case, it is not generally possible to break down how much of that donor's money specifically was spent on the campaign for a particular proposition. Those contributions are listed below with shading; readers should not assume that all or even most of a donation to a multi-purpose committee was used for expenditures related to this particular proposition.

Donor	Amount
Nicholas Pritzker	$1,000,000
The Atlantic Advocacy Fund	$1,000,000
ACLU (various local groups)	$757,847
Nicholas McKeown	$287,500
M. Quinn Delaney	$275,000
Farfalla Trust	$250,000
Reed Hastings	$250,000
Emerson Collective	$150,000
Robert Alan Eustace	$125,000
Stephen M. Silberstein	$125,000
Denise Foderaro	$100,000
Jody Buckley	$100,000
Roger Bamford	$100,000
Amnesty International	$91,858
Edward Redlich	$85,000
Death Penalty Focus	$76,200
Sarah Timberman	$75,000
Asena McKeown	$62,500
California State Council of Service Employees (SEIU)	$62,500
BISC	$54,721
California Teachers Association	$50,000
K.S. Rhodes	$50,000
Keith Randall	$50,000
The Saul Zaentz Company	$50,000
Valeta Massey	$50,000

UNIT 1012 supported the Vote No on Proposition 34 Coalition. As one of Edmund Burke’s quote: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”, in this sense, we will not allow ACLU to destroy California. We need to work as a team to defeat this evil bill. Edmund Burke wants good people to combine to defeat the baddies. 

Opposition

Opponents

The arguments against Proposition 34 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:

• The Hon. Pete Wilson. Wilson is a former Governor of California.
• Marc Klaas. Klaas is the father of Polly Klaas, who was murdered when she was 12.
• Keith Royal. Royal is the president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association.
• Carl V. Adams. Adams is the president of the California District Attorneys Association.
• Kermit Alexander. Alexander's family was executed by a Los Angeles gang member.
• Ron Cottingham. Cottingham is the president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California.

Other opponents included:

• McGregor Scott, a former U.S. Attorney.
• "Californians for Justice and Public Safety", a coalition formed to oppose the initiative.
• The "Criminal Justice Legal Foundation".
• Michael Ramos, San Bernardino County District Attorney
• The California Republican Party.
• Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully. Scully is a co-chairwoman of the "No on 34" campaign.

Arguments against

• "On behalf of crime victims and their loved ones who have suffered at the hands of California's most violent criminals, we are disappointed that the ACLU and their allies would seek to score political points in their continued efforts to override the will of the people and repeal the death penalty."

• “As we know, the citizens of California have voted for and approved the death penalty. I think the SAFE California Act is a slap in the face to the victims and their family members. Not only is the title of this initiative misleading but its proponents are simply using California’s tough economic times to further their cause.” - Michael Ramos, San Bernardino County District Attorney

• “You want to save money, let’s start carrying out the will of the voters and putting the prisoners on death row to death.” -Michael Ramos, San Bernardino County District Attorney

• “Whether or not to seek the death penalty is probably one of the most serious decisions I have to make as a district attorney. I have nothing but respect for the entire process, and just as much respect for our victims and their families who didn’t have a choice. They didn’t get to say goodbye to family members.” - Michael Ramos, San Bernardino County District Attorney

Donors

As of November 3, the "No on 34" campaign had raised about $392,000, versus the roughly $7.4 million raised by the "Yes on 34" campaign. McGregor Scott, a spokesperson for the campaign who is a former U.S. attorney, said, "We know we are going to be out-raised because we don't have Hollywood celebrities and liberal do-gooders on our side. Ours will be an old-fashioned, word-of-mouth, grass-roots" effort.

These are the $10,000 and over donors to the "No on 34" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012:

Donor	Amount
Peace Officers Research Association of California PAC	$192,967
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians	$25,000
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs	$20,000
Riverside County Deputy District Attorney's Association PAC	$10,500
Los Angeles Police Protective League	$10,000
Kern County Prosecutor's Association	$10,000
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff's Association	$10,000
Riverside Police Officers Association	$10,000
Diane Lake	$10,000

Here is a list of 13 people executed in California since 1992, Unit 1012 do not want the 700+ on California Death Row to be left alive.

There are a number of Comrades of Unit 1012 who felt justice was served years later even after the killers of their loved ones were put to death. As the same time, serial killers like William Bonin who murdered more than 21 boys do not deserve to live.

 

William Bonin

Text of measure

See also: Complete text of Proposition 34 and Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

Title

Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.

Note: The original title given to Proposition 34 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute." 

Supporters of Proposition 34 filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court (Sacramento) seeking to change Proposition 34's official ballot title. Their lawsuit was rejected by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley.

Official summary

The state's official voter guide included two summaries for each statewide ballot measure. One summary, in bullet-point format, appeared in the long-form description of each measure. A shorter form of the summary appeared on the ballot label in the front of the voter guide, where there is a short description of each measure. 

The long-form summary for Proposition 34 said: 

Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. States that persons found guilty of murder must work while in prison as prescribed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, with their wages subject to deductions to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them. Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases.

The short-form (ballot label) summary for Proposition 33 said: 

	"Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases."

Neither of the two summaries in the final voter guide was identical to the summary that was originally given to Proposition 34, when its sponsors sought a summary prior to circulating petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot. The summary that was given by election officials to Proposition 34 at that time said: 

"Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. Requires persons found guilty of murder to work while in prison, with their wages to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them. Creates $100 million fund to be distributed to law enforcement agencies to help solve more homicide and rape cases."

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

 

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.) 

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.

8-Year-Old Michael Lyons who was murdered by a serial killer, Robert Rhoades. The serial killer is still on California’s Death Row. The poster of Michael Lyons says it all.

Michael Lyons (PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=601742139849382&set=pb.601603449863251.-2207520000.1380190203.&type=3&theater)

Editorial opinion

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

"Yes on 34"

• The Bay Area Reporter: "It costs state and county governments collectively between $100 million to $130 million annually to pay for the costs of death penalty trials, appeals, and corrections, savings that would be allocated to pay for increased investigation of unsolved rape and murder cases."

• The Contra Costa Times: "California's death penalty is archaic, unfairly applied and fiscally insane."

• The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "Initially we were opposed to this measure, but the more we read about the barbarity of the death penalty, and the number of nations worldwide which have banned it, the more we were in favor."

• The Lompoc Record: "The deliberate taking of another human’s life is the worst of transgressions, and if one adheres to the eye-for-an-eye belief, the death penalty seems appropriate. On the other hand, death-penalty opponents will point out that the same religious teachings promote the concept that thou shalt not kill, as in execute."

• The Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Supporting Proposition 34 doesn't mean being sympathetic to the state's most heinous murderers. These are bad people who have done unspeakable things. But the reality is that sentencing them to die doesn't result in death, just a private cell and a personal legal team dedicated to sparing their life."

• The Los Angeles Daily News: "Ending this farce of a punishment would save California about $130 million a year."

• The Los Angeles Times: "...eliminating the death penalty would end the risk that the hands of all Californians will be stained with the blood of an innocent."

• The Marin Independent Journal: "California's death penalty has become more of a deterrent for executions than for murderers. Meanwhile, California taxpayers foot billions in legal costs for numerous trials and appeals."

• The Merced Sun-Star: "California voters should support Proposition 34 and end the charade of the death penalty as a method of ultimate punishment in our state. This position should not be construed as any form of sympathy for these criminals nor mercy towards them. Peterson, Stayner and their counterparts on death row have been convicted of brutal, unspeakable crimes and deserve the harshest possible punishment. The reality of the situation, however, is that none will likely face their death at the hands of the state anytime soon."

• The Modesto Bee:

• The Redding Record Searchlight: "Many Californians, for moral or ethical reasons, oppose the death penalty. We do not. The 727 inmates on California's Death Row have committed appalling crimes — murders sinister, vicious and cold-blooded. They have no business in human society. And a sentence of death is entirely just. Unfortunately, California does not have the death penalty. Not in reality. It has a sham of a system that sentences the worst murderers to die, but first runs through a circle of legal appeals so costly and slow that the condemned are more likely to die of old age or at their own hand than in the execution chamber at San Quentin."

• The Sacramento Bee: "In November, California voters will have a chance, through Proposition 34, to end the death penalty and replace it with a system of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. We urge you to vote for it. While capital punishment remains popular in California, polls suggest that a majority of those surveyed would accept ending the death penalty if it were replaced with a mandatory sentence of life without parole. Numerous longtime supporters of capital punishment have concluded our system can't be fixed and are supporting Proposition 34 because of it. Like The Bee, they want California's justice system to be honest with its citizens and with the victims of crime. The current system is anything but."

• The San Bernardino Sun: "California's death penalty, for all practical purposes, is not a death penalty. It is a costly sentence that sucks up millions of dollars in public funds to support a special class of inmates who are more likely to die of old age than from lethal injection. It does not provide justice in any form."

• The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "The cost of implementing the death penalty since it was restored in California in 1978 exceeds $4 billion — about $308 million for each of the 13 people the state has killed. So: California could hire 5,000 more teachers for every inmate strapped into a gurney and pumped full of lethal drugs."

• The San Francisco Chronicle: "California's death penalty has not satisfied anyone since it was reinstated 35 years ago. Those who are morally opposed to capital punishment decry the 13 lives taken by the state. Those who believe the death penalty brings justice and closure are frustrated that the average time between sentence and execution is 25 years."

• The San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "It is a system broken beyond repair and should be ended, once and for all, and replaced with an efficient and harsh punishment: life in prison without the possibility of parole."

• The San Jose Mercury News: "Prop. 34 would end the racial and class imbalances that make capital punishment in California and other states unfair and inequitable. And most importantly it would end once and for all the possibility of an innocent person being executed."

• The Vallejo Times-Herald: "Never mind moral arguments; The death penalty simply doesn't work. Since it was reinstated in 1978, California has spent $4 billion on just 13 executions. We are no safer."

• The Ventura County Star: "But this way, at least there would be the certainty that heinous killers will die in prison, instead of making victims' families suffer for decades in California's grotesque charade about executions that probably won't occur at all."

"No on 34"

• The Fresno Bee: "Supporters of Proposition 34, which would abolish the death penalty in California, maintain that the state's system of capital punishment is too flawed and expensive to continue. We agree that the death penalty is flawed and the almost unlimited appeals make it very expensive. But instead of throwing out the death penalty, let's fix the problems in how it is administered. We oppose Prop. 34 on the Nov. 6 ballot, and believe that the appeals process doesn't have to be long and burdensome to ensure that an innocent person isn't executed."

• The Orange County Register: "If prison without possibility of parole becomes the toughest penalty, then a slippery slope could develop in which lesser penalties could be imposed for heinous crimes. Eventually, we could end up like Norway, where Anders Behring Breivik murdered 69 people last year and was given that country's harshest penalty, 21 years in prison."

• The Press-Enterprise: "Californians should not throw away a useful tool simply because it is temporarily broken. The state should fix and improve the death penalty, not jettison it."

• The Victorville Daily Press: "Voting yes for Prop. 34 would be one more step toward the Europeanization of California, which is probably the state closest to becoming a clone of most European countries. The only real bar to our joining the European Union is geography; on most other societal issues — unions, environmentalism, a socialistic form of government, taxation — we seem to be a member of the United States in name only."

Unit 1012 thanks The Three Musketeers of California for speaking up to preserve the death penalty in California on October 30, 2012. 

Pete Wilson, George Deukmejian and Gray Davis (PHOTO SOURCE: http://www.kmvt.com/news/regional/176609881.html)

Polling information

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

 

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll was conducted from September 17-23, 2012. 

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
September 17-23, 2012	USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times	38%	51%	11%	1,504
October 7-9, 2012	SurveyUSA	32%	48%	20%	700
October 7-10, 2012	California Business Roundtable	42.9%	48.1%	9.0%	830
October 15-21	USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times	42%	45%	13%	1,504
October 21-28, 2012	California Business Roundtable	41.3%	47.9%	10.8%	2,115
October 17-30, 2012	Field Poll	45%	38%	17%	1,912

A Los Angeles Times poll conducted from October 15 - October 21 found that 45% of voters were in favor of the proposition and 42% were opposed when voters heard about "the financial ramifications and details of [Prop. 34's] effect on prisoners."

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

• Jeanne Woodford submitted a letter requesting a ballot title on August 29, 2011.
• The ballot title and ballot summary was issued by the Attorney General of California's office on October 20, 2011.
• 504,760 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
• The 150-day circulation deadline was March 19, 2012.
• Supporters of the initiative submitted approximately 800,000 signatures to county election officials on March 1, 2012.
• On April 23, 2012, the California Secretary of State announced that Proposition 34 had qualified for the November 6, 2012 ballot.

Cost of signature collection:

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify Proposition 34 for the ballot came to $1,418,122.

The signature vendor was Kimball Petition Management. 

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Unit 1012 was praying to God to preserve the death penalty in California and we know that Jesus Christ watches over the victims and the good people of California and he supported us. Praise God!

 

PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=719860831361825&set=pb.595135110501065.-2207520000.1383476019.&type=3&permPage=1

Lawsuits

See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012

Superior Court Case

Supporters of Proposition 34 filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court (Sacramento) seeking to change Proposition 34's official ballot title. Their lawsuit was rejected by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley.

Opponents of Proposition 34 filed a lawsuit asking that part of the ballot argument in favor of Proposition 34 that was submitted by its supporters be changed in the official voter guide. This lawsuit was successful. Proposition 34 supporters wanted to say in their argument that Proposition 34 would "redirect" $100 million in general fund money to law enforcement from the savings that would be generated by the elimination of capital punishment. Superior Court Judge Frawley, however, agreed with Proposition 34 opponents that if $100 million were to be allocated out of the state's general fund money, this would be "unrelated to ... any savings achieved by Propostion 34." With that in mind, Frawley ordered the California Secretary of State to change the wording in that part of the argument from "redirect" to "direct."

OUR PROPOSAL:

            Unit 1012 feels that the death penalty in California needs to be fixed and be like Texas, Virginia, Japan, Singapore and Dubai where the criminals were executed at least seven years from the year they committed the homicide. These states have massive safeguards to prevent a wrongful execution, so does California but their justice system had been harassed repeatedly by the ACLU, who nothing but to delay executions. 

          We will pray to God and ask him to fix the problem in California and protect the good people from evil.

Here is a prayer from Comrade MP:

Father God, we bow down before you with humility and humble adoration. Whenever we are faced with problems and difficulties, which seemingly have no answer, we can rely on your word to make the crooked road straight and impossible possible. When discussing the death penalty, or any other subject, we need clear understanding and the ability to rightly discern your word. We are not affiliated with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians or any other political party, but we are born again servants of the Most High and have to align ourselves accordingly.

Lord, the forfeiture of life is not something that you suggest, but in Genesis 9:5-6 you require it. Because of mans' unique place in creation, whoever is to take a man's life is to forfeit theirs. We know from your word that there is a difference between murder and killing. Thou shalt not kill, (Exodus 20) is really "thou shalt not murder." Immediately after giving this command, the following two chapters list at least ten offenses that merit punishment by death. Rape, incest, and other sins are set before us that demand being put to death. Even Jesus Himself, in John 19:10-11 affirmed that Pilate had a certain authority, (power) as a magistrate to inflict capital punishment. If capital punishment was evil, why didn't Jesus rebut the Governor? And the list goes on and on.

Our prayer Father is that you open the eyes of the self-appointed whose arrogance inflates their egos and elevated their thoughts to, as it did to Satan, of being of higher thoughts than yours. We come against the spirit of self-aggrandizement that encases the A.C.L.U. and their followers. Father God, we know you love truth and are displeased with lies. We pray that you grant a spirit of Truthfulness, especially to or lawmakers and the media, along with a spirit of fairness and honesty, wisdom and discernment. Proverbs 29:2 says that when the godly are in authority, the people rejoice, but when the wicked are in power, they groan. Hear our groans Father.

Let the murderers, rapists and others who make themselves judge and jury, with total disregard for life, know, that if they commit these acts there are dire consequences to face, up to and including death for the perpetrator. Raise up godly leaders who will do the right thing, in spite of controversy or political retribution, but most of all, let Your will be done. Amen

  

Guido Reni's Michael (in Santa Maria della Concezione church, Rome, 1636) tramples Satan. A mosaic of the same painting decorates St. Michael's Altar in St. Peter's Basilica.

Please check out this article:

INTERNET SOURCE: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinion/20121117/our-view-reform-the-death-penalty

Our View: Reform the death penalty

Posted:   11/17/2012 06:27:30 AM PST

Updated:   11/17/2012 08:39:47 PM PST

DESPITE its serious flaws, Californians made it clear on Nov. 6 that they want to keep the death penalty.

A majority of Californians voted down Proposition 34, which would have replaced the sentence with life in prison without the possibility of parole, leaving the expensive and dysfunctional process of state-sponsored executions in place.

We supported the initiative as a cost-effective and humane alternative to our messy and inefficient death penalty, but recognize the will of the voters. Now, the state must do a better job of it.

It's up to supporters - primarily those in the law enforcement community - to push for remedies that make the death penalty more than just a punishment in name only.

There are two clear ways to do that: streamline the cumbersome appeals process and move to a single-drug protocol for lethal injections.

California's death penalty is broken in its current form and does not serve the justice it promises. Only 13 inmates have been put to death since California resumed executions in 1992. During the same time, 84 Death Row inmates died of natural causes while more than 720 others continue to sit in their prison cells.

Part of the reason is because executions have been on hold since 2006 due to challenges to the three-drug lethal injection method that was previously used to carry out California's capital punishment.

The state's Department of Corrections should adopt a single-drug form of lethal injection, joining the ranks of Ohio, Arizona and Washington, where it is already deemed to be legal.

The same single-drug protocol is what caring people use to put down sick and injured pets. If it is considered humane treatment of our beloved companions, it should be humane enough to carry out the death sentences of California's most heinous murderers.

Instead, these criminals are treated - at considerable taxpayer expense - to the comfort of private jail cells as their dedicated legal teams file a seemingly endless stream of appeals aimed at sparing their life. That's where the other need for reform comes in.

The state Legislature must carry out the will of the voters by writing laws aimed at shortening the drawn-out appeals process that only serves to extend the lives of Death Row inmates.

The current appeals process also has the unintended consequence of extending the agony and anticipation of the families of murder victims, who must wait for decades for a resolution that rarely ever arrives.

The appeals process could be expedited right away through just a few minor changes aimed at clarifying court procedures, according to Michele Hanisee, a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who actively campaigned against Proposition 34.

Other changes, Hanisee said, would require amendments to the state Constitution, such as keeping appeals within the local courts that are familiar with the death penalty cases, rather than sending them up to the state and federal systems for consideration.

Another change that would improve the state's death penalty would be to limit the so-called "special circumstances" that qualify first-degree murder cases for a death sentence, suggested Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in downtown Los Angeles.

Only 10 such instances applied to capital punishment cases in 1973, but that number has skyrocketed to 39 today.

Clearly, there is a need to narrow the circumstances that qualify someone for a death sentence.

Levenson said the simple reform could be presented to voters the same way reformers of the state's three-strikes law successfully presented Proposition 36: as a cost-effective idea that reserves the worst punishment for the most serious criminals.

Regardless, those who are working to reform California's death penalty acknowledge it will be a long process. But other than another ballot measure (it's possible, considering that only 53 percent of voters rejected Proposition 34) to repeal it, that's what the state must do.

We also pray for good judges like The Seven Good Judges whom Unit 1012 honor and respect. We nickname them The Seven Archangels.

Seven Archangels (SOURCE: http://www.marianland.com/sanfrancis2/sevenarchangels.html)

Unit 1012 have an excellent proposal if there is a problem with lethal injection. If we can send The Seal Team Six to kill Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists. Why can we not use them as the firing squad to kill all the guilty murderers in America?  

(SOURCE: http://www.politifake.org/navy-seal-team-six-double-tap-osama-bin-ladin-dead-politics-6958.html)

PLEASE WATCH THESE VIDEOS TO SEE PEOPLE FROM THE VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 34 CAMPAIGN:

VIDEO SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/user/waiting4justice2012