No to Prop 62 and Yes to Prop 66

            Similar to Vote No on Proposition 34 in 2012, we recommend and endorse No on 62, Yes on Prop 66. Here are several articles explaining why we should vote yes on Proposition 66.

INTERNET SOURCE: http://noprop62yesprop66.com/endorsements/supporters/

Supporters

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS

• Mike Ramos, San Bernardino
• Anne Marie Schubert, Sacramento
• Jackie Lacey, Los Angeles
• Lisa Smittcamp, Fresno
• Lisa Green, Kern
• Greg Totten, Ventura
• Steve Wagstaffe, San Mateo
• Amanda Hopper, Sutter
• Mike Hestrin, Riverside
• Cliff Newell, Nevada
• Gilbert Otero, Imperial
• Scott Owens, Placer
• Mark Peterson, Contra Costa
• Krishna Abrams, Solano
• Kirk Andrus, Siskiyou
• Lawrence Allen, Sierra
• Dan Dow, San Luis Obispo
• Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego
• Birgit Fladager, Stanislaus
• Dean Flippo, Monterey
• Eric Heryford, Trinity
• David Hollister, Plumas
• Vern Pierson, El Dorado
• John Poyner, Colusa
• Jeff Reisig, Yolo
• Todd Riebe, Amador
• Tim Ward, Tulare
• Pat McGrath, Yuba
• Don Anderson, Lake
• Stacey Montgomery, Lassen
• Candice Hooper, San Benito
• James Cooke, Mariposa
• Steve Cooley, Former District Attorney, Los Angeles
• Jan Scully, Former District Attorney, Sacramento

ELECTED OFFICIALS

• Pete Wilson, 36th Governor, CA
• George Deukmejian, 35th Governor, CA
• Ed Royce, Congressman, 39th District, Los Angeles, Orange County
• Mimi Walters, Congresswoman, 45th District, Orange County
• Cathleen Galgiani, State Senator, District 5, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Sacramento Counties
• Jeff Stone, State Senator, District 28, Riverside County
• Young Kim, Assemblywoman, Orange County
• James Bozajian, Mayor, City of Calabasas
• Harry Sidhu, Former Anaheim City Councilmember
• Mike Spence, Councilmember, West Covina City Council
• Kevin Kiley, Assistant Attorney General

CRIME VICTIMS, SUPPORTERS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS

• Donya Airola
• Kermit and Tami Alexander
• Noreen Anthony-Tabar
• David Akinaga
• Tony Andrade
• Teri Bella, Retired CA Corrections
• Mike Boehm
• Jane and Bill Bouffard
• Richard Breidenthal
• Andi Bridges
• Lee Bunyard
• Catherine Burke
• Colene and Gary Campbell
• Donna Canepa
• Gene Cervantes, Citizens Against Homicide
• Eric Coulter, Retired Police Officer
• Maureen Craig
• Brenda Daly
• Kathleen DiGregorio
• Richard Faria
• Kathy Farrar
• Misty Gray
• Philip Gibbons
• Dawn Hall
• Kenneth Hambrick
• Michele Hanisee
• Matthew Hardy
• Kay Harris
• Susan Hittle
• Bill Hughes
• Mary Ann Hughes
• Jennifer Jake Ibarra
• Misty Johansen
• Lisa Johst
• David Keller
• Ronald Lee, Ronald Otis Lee, LTD
• Lotous Lenguyen
• Phyllis Loya
• David Lukenbill
• Richard Malouf
• Jeremy Marsh
• John McAuliffe, Consultant/California Expert on Death Penalty
• Den McDonald
• Josh Mehraban
• Tammy Mitchell, Victims of Violent Crimes Advocate    
• Tonia Monroe
• Joshua Moody
• April Nunez
• Sandee Ogilvie
• Manuel Ortiz
• John Peters
• Rebecca Petty
• Gary Pietila
• Christine Proffitt
• Ourania Riddle, 2015 HJTA Taxpayer Fighter of the Year
• Elliot Rouff
• Todd Rubinstein, Rubinstein Group
• Stephanie Ruiz
• John Russell
• Stephen Scherb, Retired Parole Agent
• Margaret Smethers
• Wendy Solorio
• Anne Stendel
• Heidi Steiner
• M. David Stirling, Former Chief Deputy to the Attorney General
• Jeanine Tuttle
• Kevin VanKleef
• Trina Walker
• Steve Wells
• Patricia Wenskunas, Founder and CEO, Crime Survivors
• James Wichmann
• Matt Wilmes
• Phillip Wyman

SHERIFFS

• Jim McDonnell, Los Angeles
• Scott Jones, Sacramento
• John McMahon, San Bernardino
• Adam Christianson, Stanislaus
• John D’Agostini, El Dorado
• Sandra Hutchens, Orange
• Greg Munks, San Mateo
• Keith Royal, Nevada
• Donny Youngblood, Kern
• Ed Prieto, Yolo
• Tom Bosenko, Shasta
• Ian Parkinson, San Luis Obispo
• Margret Mims, Fresno
• J. Paul Parker, Sutter
• Lou Blanas, Former Sheriff, Sacramento
• John McGinness, Former Sheriff, Sacramento
• Jon Lopey, Siskiyou County

LAW ENFORCEMENT

• Assoc. of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
• Assoc. of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
• Bakersfield Police Officers Assoc.
• California Assoc. of Highway Patrolman
• California Police Chiefs Assoc.
• California Correctional Peace Officers Assoc.
• California Peace Officers’ Association
• California Statewide Law Enforcement Assoc.
• California State Sheriffs’ Association
• Chula Vista Police Officers Assoc.
• Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs Assoc.
• Deputy Sheriffs’ Assoc. of San Diego
• Law Enforcement Managers Assoc.
• Local 1613, National Border Patrol Council
• Long Beach Police Officers Assoc.
• Los Angeles Police Protective League
• Los Angeles Professional Peace Officers Assoc.
• Los Angeles School Police Assoc.
• Oceanside Police Officers Assoc.
• Peace Officers Research Assoc. of California (PORAC)
• Professional Peace Officers Assoc.
• Riverside Sheriffs’ Assoc.
• Sacramento Deputy Sheriffs Assoc.
• Sacramento Law Enforcement Managers Assoc.
• San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Assoc.
• San Diego Deputy Sheriffs
• San Diego Police Officers Assoc.
• San Francisco Police Officers Assoc.
• San Jose Police Officers Assoc.
• San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff’s Assoc.
• Santa Ana Police Officers Assoc.
• Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

ORGANIZATIONS

• California District Attorneys Assoc.
• California Professional Firefighters
• California Taxpayer Protection Committee
• Crime and Capital Punishment
• Crime Survivors
• The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
• Justice for Homicide Victims
• Kern County Prosecutors Assoc.
• Klass Kids Foundation
• Los Angeles Assoc. of Deputy District Attorneys
• Maggie’s Mission
• Placer County Taxpayers Association
• Riverside Deputy District Attorneys Assoc.
• San Diego County District Attorneys Assoc.
• San Diegans Against Crime
• Solano County Taxpayers Association

INTERNET SOURCE: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article90894212.html

July 20, 2016 4:05 PM

California’s broken death penalty system can be fixed

·         Pool of qualified counsel would be expanded to deal with backlog of cases

·         Complaints would be expedited by returning cases to original lower court

·         Experience and common sense confirm death penalty’s deterrent effect

By Anne Marie Schubert

Special to The Bee

In 1978, California enacted today’s California death penalty statute, the so-called Briggs Initiative. Now, Ron Briggs supports repealing the statute his “family wrote,” but his argument reads more like a surrender to death penalty abolitionists (“Death penalty is destructive to California”; Forum, July 10).

Instead of waving a white flag, Briggs should endorse Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016, as a worthy successor to his family’s work. This initiative deals with the concerns Briggs raises about California’s death penalty system.

The reason that no executions have occurred in California for 10 years is the state’s delay in drafting regulations for a method of execution. Otherwise, there could have been at least 15 sentences carried out during the past decade. It’s outrageous that victims’ families were forced to sue the state to draft these regulations. Proposition 66 will prevent biased and unsympathetic politicians and government bureaucrats from interfering with this process.

Proposition 66 also addresses concerns about how death row inmates occupy their time, requiring them to work or lose their privileges. If they owe restitution, it will come out of their wages.

The proposal makes other significant reforms as well. It addresses the backlog of cases at the state level by expanding the pool of qualified counsel for death row inmates. The initiative expedites review of prisoners’ complaints by returning their cases to the original trial court and prompts the Judicial Council to develop standards for the completion of appeals in state court in five years. Victims’ families will have the right to sue to force them to meet deadlines.

Briggs believes abolition will benefit victims’ survivors by closing cases and sparing them further “wounds.” That is offensive and presumptuous. In our experience, most survivors want “justice” for the murderers of their family members. Repealing the death penalty will not heal these peoples’ wounds; it keeps them permanently open.

Briggs naively touts life without parole as a sufficient alternative to the death penalty. He forgets that the last murderer executed in California, Clarence Ray Allen, was sentenced to death for the murder of three people, which he planned while already serving a life sentence for murder. Life imprisonment was not enough to protect the public from Allen.

Moreover, victims’ families will always be haunted by the specter that an inmate sentenced to life without parole will suddenly ask the governor to reduce a sentence – as happened recently in the case of a Fresno murderer who waited 36 years and applied for clemency. As long as an inmate sentenced to life without parole lives, the governor could reduce the sentence and a murderer may be released on the streets.

Finally, Briggs is dead wrong to assert that the death penalty has been conclusively shown not to deter crime. Experience and common sense confirm a deterrent effect.

Briggs risks lives on the unproven idea that the death penalty does not deter murder and that life sentences will protect public safety. Rather than capitulating to abolitionist arguments, he should support his families’ legacy and endorse Proposition 66.

Anne Marie Schubert is the Sacramento County district attorney. Contact her at schubertannemarie@gmail.com

INTERNET SOURCE: http://noprop62yesprop66.com/2016/07/carter-statement/

No on Prop 62 Yes on 66 Statement in Response to The Carters Backing Repeal Measure

“With all due respect to President and Mrs. Carter, whose past efforts in 2012 via Prop. 34 failed to convince the voters of California to repeal the death penalty, it is time to give reform a chance.
The voters have repeatedly affirmed their support for the death penalty, and the backers of Prop. 62 have tried to undermine that. They worked to intentionally sabotage the death penalty, and then having broken the system, cite that as a reason for repeal. The voters didn’t buy it then and won’t this time.
Each year, nearly 2,000 murders occur in California with about 15 resulting in a death penalty sentence. The death penalty is reserved for the most heinous criminals like child killers, rape/torture murderers, serial killers and cop killers. As it stands, some of these killers sit on death row for 30 or more years, using appeal after appeal to delay justice all while costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Prop. 66 reforms will speed up the appeals process, ensuring their appeals are heard within 5 years and NO innocent person is executed. Prop. 66 keeps the death penalty in play while promoting justice for murder victims and their families.
The death penalty in California is broken. It’s time to MEND it, not END it. Vote NO on Prop 62 and YES on Prop 66.”
Jeff Flint
Campaign Manager
No on 62, Yes on 66
Press contact: Bill Bradley 916-213-5230  and Janet Soule 530-220-2522

INTERNET SOURCE: http://www.eastbaytimes.com/opinion/ci_30158674/commentary-paper-wrong-recommendations-death-penalty

Commentary: Paper wrong recommendations on death penalty

By Peter A. MeredithEast Bay Times guest commentary

Posted:   07/22/2016 12:00:00 PM PDT

Updated:   07/22/2016 06:06:14 PM PDT

"A murder, after all, involves an innocent victim; an execution doesn't."

--Burt Prelutsky, Conservatives are from Mars (Liberals are from San Francisco).

This may serve as a response to the East Bay Times (July 18) editorial asking voter approval of Proposition 62, abolishment of California's death penalty, and to vote no on Proposition 66, a measure designed to eliminate delay and modernize appeal procedures that would hasten execution of vicious murderers.

The paper suggests, "Speed [in executions] is the hallmark of places like China ...."

Recall the 2008 rape-murder conviction of Daryl Kemp, the Contra Costa jury recommending the death penalty. Kemp's victim was a 42-year-old Lafayette woman savagely killed in 1979.

These crimes had been committed four months following Kemp's release from San Quentin, where he had been serving a life sentence for the rape and murder of another woman.

The original sentence, imposed in 1959, was death. However, in 1972, the Supreme Court found the death penalty unconstitutional, resulting in hundreds of murderers having their sentences reprieved.

While legislation successfully reinstituted the death penalty, Kemp was paroled in 1978, when a prison psychiatrist determined he no longer constituted a danger to anyone. When DNA evidence linked Kemp to the Lafayette murder, he was in a Texas prison, convicted of raping three other women.

Advertisement

The paper argues that Prop. 62 would impose life without possibility of parole (LWOP). We all should recognize that little is certain, and in California's criminal justice system, nothing is forever.

Note realignment that has provided early release for thousands of felons who today are among us, as well as the California electorate approving the proposition that reclassified many felonies as misdemeanors.

I hasten to add that death penalty opponent Gov. Jerry Brown (who appointed California Chief Justice Rose Bird, later recalled by the voters) now wants voters to approve Proposition 57, which would allow criminals convicted of "non-violent" felonies to be considered for early parole.

We are not informed that violent priors don't count for otherwise "non-violent" convicts.

It's only a matter of time before those who advocate leniency under the guise of saving money and humanitarism will legislate and litigate that life without parole is "cruel and unusual punishment."

There are consequences of LWOP. A prisoner with that sentence has only the possibility of escape to look forward to. Suppose that convict takes a hostage, perhaps custodial personnel or another prisoner and threatens death unless freedom is granted. If the hostage is killed, what penalty could be imposed? Remember, in this scenario, there is no longer a death penalty, only LWOP. Taking hostages is not limited to convicts.

A three-time-loser, cornered with a hostage, has little to lose if he kills or harms that person or a police officer.

The death penalty serving as a deterrent to homicide has been debated for years. To believe that innocent lives have not been spared because of the death penalty is nonsense.

An outstanding example already referred to is the Supreme Court's 1972 decision abolishing the penalty of death; prisoners were released only to murder again.

A deliberate vicious killing, subject to a death penalty verdict can be a thoughtful process. Not all, but surely some would weigh the ultimate penalty and spare the victim.

A long-ago example but one that makes the point happened April 21, 1959, at San Quentin. Two convicts had just escaped. They were pursued to the end of a fishing pier in San Francisco Bay, where the prisoners took an elderly couple hostage, holding knives against their throats.

After several hours of negotiations, the convicts surrendered; the couple was unharmed. During their debriefing, the pair related that the escaped prisoners discussed their dilemma: harming their hostages or surrendering. The prospect of the death penalty was part of the discussion, but giving up became their choice.

The couple believed the specter of the death penalty may have saved their lives.

Peter A. Meredith is a retired police lieutenant with the Berkeley Police Department. He has been a resident of Contra Costa County since 1957.

INTERNET SOURCE: http://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/contributors/valley-voice/2016/07/31/riverside-da-vote-death-penalty-reform/87765614/

Riverside DA: Vote for death penalty reform

Michael Hestrin 1 a.m. PDT July 31, 2016

Historically, Californians have overwhelmingly supported the death penalty.  Yet, during every election cycle a ballot measure comes up looking to repeal it.  Well, this year is no different.  Governor Brown and a host of Hollywood elite are actively pushing Prop. 62, which would repeal the death penalty, granting criminals convicted of murder with special circumstances, a life sentence instead.

Opponents of the death penalty try to point out the possibility of persons being wrongly convicted of capital offenses, sentenced to death and then being executed. The fact is there is no documented case of this EVER taking place in California due to the expertise and painstaking quality of investigation and prosecutorial work that has gone into death penalty cases.

Instead of abolishing the death penalty altogether, a smarter move is to mend a broken system.  Prop. 66 is the answer Californians are looking for.  The goals behind Proposition 66 are laudable and more in line with the thinking of the California electorate that voted to reinstitute the death penalty to begin with mend it, don’t end it.

Prop. 66 reforms will speed up the appeals process, ensuring appeals are heard within five years and no innocent person is executed.  It doesn’t do so in a hasty way intended to cut corners. It does so by eliminating legal and procedural delay tactics while still respecting the legal rights and recourse for those convicted.

Proposition 66 would ensure that every person sentenced to death has qualified death penalty appeals counsel assigned immediately, eliminating the current wait of five years or more. The appeals would then be expedited without endangering due process, and initiated at the trial court level where the facts of the cases are best known.

Death row inmates have murdered more than 1,000 victims, including 226 children and 43 police officers; 294 victims were raped and/or tortured.  It’s time California reformed our death penalty process so it works and provides murder victims and their families with some sense of closure.  Instead of talking about how barbaric and unfair the death penalty in California is, those seeking to abolish it should give thought to those victims who had their lives taken from them, often in truly brutal and horrific ways, and their families who have had to live with the knowledge that the murders of their loved ones continue to live at the expense of the taxpayer.

And regarding the expense, those backing repeal of the death penalty try to point to a great windfall of savings for the taxpayer if those on death row simply spend that time in prison for life rather than face execution. Even at an estimated $150 million reduction in annual costs, one would still have to concede that the savings is a paltry drop in the bucket compared to the vast size of California’s budget and hardly the worst use of taxpayer funds.  Instead, under Prop 62, taxpayers are on the hook to feed, clothe, house, guard and provide healthcare to brutal killers until they die of old age costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Criminals don’t end up on death row unless they are convicted of the worst crimes. Victims left behind, grieving families throughout California and their loved ones, don’t deserve anything less than justice.  Justice is a reformed, not eliminated death penalty.

We urge a No vote on Proposition 62 and a Yes vote on Proposition 66.

Michael Hestrin was sworn in as the Riverside District Attorney in 2015. Prior to being sworn as the DA, Hestrin spent 18 years as a line prosecutor in the DA’s Office. Hestrin's email is mhestrin71@gmail.com.

INTERNET SOURCE: http://www.eastbaytimes.com/opinion/ci_30185350/commentary-reform-death-penalty-approve-proposition-66-east

Commentary: Reform death penalty approve Proposition 66 (East Bay Opinion)

By Mark PetersonEast Bay Times guest commentary

Posted:   07/29/2016 04:00:00 PM PDT

Updated:   08/02/2016 08:32:47 AM PDT

In your editorial advocating the death penalty's abolition, you managed at least one correct fact. California's death penalty has failed. It's failed because death penalty opponents have continually erected roadblocks to prevent its implementation.

Defense attorneys refuse to represent death row inmates to thwart the process, so it takes an average of five years before a condemned inmate is even assigned an attorney. Decades of repetitive, frivolous appeals result in 25 years of delay before an execution date can even be scheduled.

And once that date's set, our governor refuses to follow the law and order the execution to take place.

You describe the death penalty as "barbaric." No it isn't. It's a just punishment reserved for the "worst of the worst" -- only 2 percent of all convicted murderers in California are ever sentenced to death.

The 743 killers currently on death row were sentenced to death for their barbaric crimes during which they murdered over 1,000 innocent victims, including 44 police officers and 229 children. They sexually assaulted 235 of their victims and tortured 90.

You deceptively suggest our death penalty resembles those in unsavory regimes like China and Iran, which is unfair because California has extensive safeguards and constitutional protections.

You speculate that DNA testing might somehow exonerate one of these inmates, despite DNA evidence having been widespread for more than two decades. Any such exculpatory evidence most certainly would've been brought forth by now. Yes, there are reports of other states where death row inmates have been exonerated, but none of those states has the extent of protections California has in place.

You claim that California's death penalty is unfairly applied, yet the a death verdict must be rendered by a unanimous jury of 12 citizens after an exhaustive trial.

The two large counties you claim unfairly apply the death penalty have numerous death verdicts simply because they've suffered numerous horrific homicides.

You contend that since 1978, California has spent $4 billion to execute 13 prisoners. That's not true. The death penalty's actual cost has never been fully determined. The $4 billion figure derives from an obscure law review article whose biased author cobbled his inaccurate figures together using rough estimates, anecdotal reports, and random newspaper articles.

You claim that it costs an additional $90,000 per year to house a death row prisoner, even though the state has never confirmed that amount. You compound that by using that unsubstantiated figure to argue that additional housing costs for death row inmates are excessive.

The estimate from the Legislative Analyst's Office that abolishing the death penalty will save $150 million every year isn't true. It costs at least $50,000 per year to house someone in prison, and it takes approximately 20-25 years from a jury's sentence of death to an actual execution date.

There are 743 inmates currently on Death Row, with an average age of 27 and average life expectancy of 74. Thus, reducing their punishment to life without parole will cost taxpayers $1.8 billion in housing alone.

I agree that our death penalty is broken. That's why the law enforcement leaders throughout California support Proposition 66, which will reform the process by assigning more qualified attorneys to represent these convicted killers on appeal, eliminate frivolous delay tactics while respecting legal rights and require death row inmates to pay restitution. Proposition 66 will implement the common sense reforms recommended by our California Supreme Court, and it'll save hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

Vote no on Prop. 62 and yes on Prop. 66.

Mark Peterson has been the district attorney for Contra Costa County since 2011.