BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 490
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 5, 2011
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 490 (Hancock) - As Amended: June 28, 2011
SUMMARY : Abolishes the death penalty as a punishment option for
persons convicted of murder in the first degree with special
circumstances. Specifically, this bill:
1)States legislative findings regarding the economic cost of the
death penalty.
2)Makes murder in the first degree where one or more special
circumstances are found to be true punishable by imprisonment
in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole
(LWOP) by eliminating the death penalty option.
3)Provides that the state shall not carry out any execution
following the enactment of this act unless the voters fail to
approve this act.
4)States that in any case where a defendant or inmate was
sentenced to death prior to the enactment of this act, upon
voter approval of this act, the sentence of each defendant or
inmate shall be automatically converted to life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole under the terms and
conditions of this act.
5)Provides that the provisions of this act are severable. If
any provision of this measure or its application is found
invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications that can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application.
6)Makes several conforming changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
SB 490
Page 2
or a fetus, with malice aforethought. (Penal Code Section
187.)
2)Provides that malice aforethought may be express or implied.
Malice aforethought is expressed when the perpetrator
manifests a deliberate intention to take the life of another
human. Malice aforethought is implied when there was "no
considerable provocation" for the killing, or when the
circumstances surrounding the killing show "an abandoned and
malignant heart." (Penal Code Section 188.)
3)Classifies murder according to degrees, either first degree or
second degree. (Penal Code Section 189.)
4)Provides that first-degree murder includes murders perpetrated
by destructive device or explosive; knowing use of ammunition
designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor; poison; lying
in wait; torture; any kind of willful, deliberate, and
premeditated killing; discharging a firearm from a motor
vehicle, intentionally at another person outside of the
vehicle with the intent to inflict death; and any murder
committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate:
a) Arson;
b) Rape;
c) Carjacking;
d) Robbery;
e) Burglary;
f) Mayhem;
g) Kidnapping;
h) Train wrecking;
i) Sodomy;
j) Lewd or lascivious acts on a child under age 14;
aa) Oral copulation; or,
SB 490
Page 3
bb) Penetration of genital or anal openings with a foreign
object. (Penal Code Section 189.)
5)Provides that second-degree murders include all murders not
enumerated as first degree. (Penal Code Section 189.)
6)Specifies that first-degree murder without "special
circumstances" (Penal Code Section 190.2) is punishable in the
state prison for a term of 25-years-to-life. (Penal Code
Section 190.)
7)Specifies that first-degree murder with "special
circumstances" (Penal Code Section 190.2) is punishable by
death, or in the state prison for LWOP. (Penal Code Section
190.)
8)Limits imposition of the death penalty to those first-degree
murder cases where the trial jury finds true at least one
"special circumstance." Currently, the Penal Code lists 22
separate categories of "special circumstances":
a) The murder was intentional and carried out for financial
gain;
b) The defendant was convicted previously of first- or
second-degree murder;
c) The defendant, in the present proceeding, has been
convicted of more than one offense of first- or
second-degree murder;
d) The murder was committed by means of a destructive
device planted, hidden or concealed in any place, area,
dwelling, building or structure;
e) The murder was committed to avoid arrest or make an
escape;
f) The murder was committed by means of a destructive
device that the defendant mailed or delivered, or attempted
to mail or deliver;
g) The victim was a peace officer who was intentionally
killed while performing his or her duties and the
defendant knew or should have known that; or the peace
SB 490
Page 4
officer/former peace officer was intentionally killed in
retaliation for performing his or her duties;
h) The victim was a federal law enforcement officer who was
intentionally killed Ýthe same as Item (g) above];
i) The victim was a firefighter who was intentionally
killed while performing his or her duties;
j) The victim was a witness to a crime and was
intentionally killed to prevent his or her testimony, or
killed in retaliation for testifying;
aa) The victim was a local, state or federal prosecutor
murdered in retaliation for, or to prevent the performance
of, official duties;
bb) The victim was a local, state, or federal judge murdered
in retaliation for, or to prevent the performance of,
official duties;
cc) The victim was an elected or appointed official of
local, state or federal government murdered in retaliation
for, or to prevent the performance of, official duties;
dd) The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,
"manifesting exceptional depravity." "Manifesting
exceptional depravity" is defined "a conscienceless or
pitiless crime that is unnecessarily torturous";
ee) The defendant intentionally killed the victim while
lying in wait;
ff) The victim was intentionally killed because of his or
her race, color, religion, nationality, or country of
origin;
gg) The murder was committed while the defendant was engaged
in, or was an accomplice in, the commission of, attempted
commission of, or immediate flight after, committing or
attempting to commit the following crimes: robbery;
kidnapping; rape; sodomy; lewd or lascivious act on a child
under age 14; oral copulation; burglary; arson; train
wrecking; mayhem; rape by instrument; carjacking; torture;
poison; the victim was a local, state or federal juror
SB 490
Page 5
murdered in retaliation for, or to prevent the performance
of his or her official duties; and, the murder was
perpetrated by discharging a firearm from a vehicle.
hh) The murder was intentional and involved the infliction
of torture;
ii) The defendant intentionally killed the victim by the
administration of poison;
jj) The victim was a juror and the murder was intentionally
carried out in retaliation for, or to prevent the
performance of, the victim's duties as a juror;
aaa) The murder was intentional and committed by discharging
a firearm from a motor vehicle; or,
bbb) The defendant intentionally killed the victim while
actively participating in a criminal street gang. (Penal
Code Section 190.2.)
9)Requires three separate findings at the trial in order to
qualify for the death penalty: (a) guilty of first-degree
murder, (b) a finding that at least one of the charged
"special circumstances" is true, and (c) the jury's
determination that death is appropriate rather than LWOP. The
first two findings occur when the jury deliberates at the
close of the "guilt phase." (Penal Code Sections 190.1 and
190.4.) The penalty determination takes place during the
"penalty phase" where the either the judge or jury considers
factors in aggravation or mitigation. (Penal Code Section
190.3) If the jury fixes the penalty at death, the judge
still retains the power to reject the jury's penalty verdict
and impose LWOP. ÝPenal Code Section 190.4(e).]
10)Provides that during the penalty phase of a death penalty
trial, the prosecution and the defendant may present evidence
relevant to aggravation, mitigation, and sentence. In
determining the penalty to be imposed, the trier of fact may
take into account any relevant enumerated factors. Such
factors in aggravation or mitigation include:
a) The circumstances of the crime and the existence of any
special circumstances;
SB 490
Page 6
b) The presence or absence of threats or the actual use of
force or violence;
c) Prior felony convictions;
d) Whether or not the offense was committed while the
defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or
emotional disturbance;
e) Whether or not the victim was a participant or consented
to the homicidal act;
f) Whether or not the offense was committed under
circumstances that the defendant believed to be a moral
justification or extenuation of his or her conduct.
g) Whether or not the defendant acted under extreme duress
or under the substantial domination of another person;
h) Whether or not at the time of the offense, the capacity
of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his or
her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the law was
impaired as a result of mental disease, defect, or the
effects of intoxication;
i) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime;
j) Whether or not the defendant was an accomplice and his
or her participation in the offense was relatively minor;
or,
aa) Any other circumstance that extenuates the gravity of
the crime, though not a legal excuse for the crime. (Penal
Code Section 190.3.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Capital
punishment is an expensive failure and an example of the
dysfunction of our prisons. California's death row is the
largest and most costly in the United States. It is not
helping to protect our state; it is helping to bankrupt us.
SB 490
Page 7
"Study after study has shown that capital punishment as a
penalty is not a deterrent and that the multiple appeals that
drag on for years and years multiply costs and add to the
uncertainty and anxiety of victims.
"The most recent report "Executing the Will of the Voters: A
Roadmap to Men or End the California Legislature's
Multi-Billion-Dollar Death Penalty Debacle," written by U.S.
9th Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcon, a former prosecutor, and
Loyola Law School professor Paula M. Mitchell, projects that
the cost of maintaining the death penalty will rise to $9
billion by 2030. The study reports that taxpayers have
already spent more than $3 billion on only 13 executions since
the death penalty was reinstated in 1978.
"The death penalty failings cannot be fixed. Distinguished
prosecutors such as Los Angeles County's long-time DA Gil
Garcetti have come out against it. It is time for the
Legislature to act.
"It is not simply a cost issue. More than a dozen people were
wrongly executed in Illinois before that state banned the
death penalty earlier this year. I don't want to see that
kind of tragic statistic in California. We need to join
Illinois and the 15 other states that have chosen to
substitute life imprisonment without the possibility of parole
for a failed death penalty.
"Today, we're not tough on crime; we're tough on the taxpayer.
Every time we spend money on failed policies like the death
penalty, we drain money from having more police officers on
the street, more job training, more education, more of the
things that would truly make for safer communities."
2)Death Penalty Information Center Report : The Death Penalty
Information Center recently a prepared a report, Struck by
Lightning: The Continuing Arbitrariness of the Death Penalty
Thirty-Five Years After Its Re-instatement in 1976 . According
to the report's executive summary, "The United States Supreme
Court approved the re-instatement of the death penalty 35
years ago on July 2, 1976. Although the death penalty had
earlier been held unconstitutional because of its arbitrary
and unpredictable application, the Court was willing to
sanction new systems that states had proposed to make capital
punishment less like 'being struck by lightning' and more like
SB 490
Page 8
retribution for only the 'worst of the worst' offenders. The
court also deferred to the states' judgment that the death
penalty served the goals of retribution and deterrence.
"After three and a half decades of experience under these
revised statutes, the randomness of the system continues. Man
of the country's constitutional experts and prominent legal
organizations have concluded that effective reform is
impossible and the practice should be ended. In polls, jury
verdicts and state legislative action, there is evidence of
the American people's growing frustration with the death
penalty. A majority of the nine Justices who served on the
Supreme Court in 1976 when the death penalty was approved
eventually concluded the experiment had failed.
"Four states have abolished the death penalty in the last four
years, and nationwide executions and death sentences have been
cut since 2000. A review of state death penalty practices
exposes a system in which an unpredictable few cases result in
executions from among thousands of eligible cases. Race,
geography and the size of a county's budget play a major role
in who receives the ultimate punishment. Many cases thought
to embody the worst crimes and defendants are overturned on
appeal and then assessed very differently the second time
around at retrial. Even these reversals depend significantly
on the quality of the lawyers assigned and on who appointed
the appellate judges reviewing the cases. In such a haphazard
process, the rationales of deterrence and retribution make
little sense.
"In 1976, the newly reformed death penalty was allowed to
resume. However, it has proved unworkable in practice.
Keeping it in place, or attempting still more reform, would be
enormously expensive, with little chance of improvement. The
constitution requires fairness not just in lofty word, but
also in daily practice. On that score, the death penalty has
missed the mark."
3)Number of Executions : According to recent articles in the
Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Daily Journal , a legal
newspaper, there are currently 714 prisoners on death row.
Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978 by Proposition
7, there have been a total of 13 executions, while 78
prisoners have died of natural or other causes on death row.
(See
SB 490
Page 9
; and San Francisco Daily Journal, June
21, 2011, page 6.) As of 2008, 98 convicted inmates have left
death row because of overturned convictions or sentences.
(See .)
4)Disparity in Application ? Recently, the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California published a
report on the death penalty, Death in Decline '09 . (See
.) The report states that while the
national trend has seen a reduction in the number of death
sentences imposed, imposition of the death penalty in
California is increasing. (Id. at page 1.) The report
further found that three counties, Los Angeles, Riverside and
Orange, account for the majority of the death penalty
sentences. In fact, in 2009, Los Angeles County sent more
people to death row than did the entire state of Texas in the
same year. (Id. at pages 2-3.) The report also notes that
African Americans and Latinos make up a majority of the people
on death row, which raises questions about the choices
prosecutors make in charging death penalty cases. (Id. at
pages 8-9.)
A 2005 Santa Clara Law Review article examined racial, ethnic,
and geographical variations present in the imposition of the
death penalty in California. ÝGlenn L. Pierce & Michael L.
Radelet, The Impact of Legally Inappropriate Factors on Death
Sentencing for California Homicides, 1990-1999, 46 SANTA CLARA
L. REV. 1 (2005), .] The authors found
that in addition to disparities based on the location of the
crime, as mentioned above, a defendant was 67% less likely to
be sentenced to death if the victim was non-Hispanic white
than if the victim was African American or Latino. (Id. at
21).
5)Delay between Sentence and Execution : The California Supreme
Court has a backlog of automatic appeals in death penalty
cases. The average time to litigate an automatic appeal is
between 11.7 and 13.7 years. Ý2008 Final Report by California
Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, p. 131-132
(hereinafter CCFAJ Report) SB 490
Page 10
f>.] It is only after state appeal and habeas remedies have
been exhausted that the federal court will begin to consider
the case. For federal habeas review, the average time between
filing the application and disposition is 6.2 years. (Id. at
p. 136.) In total, the time from death sentence to execution
in California is 20 to 25 years, compared with the national
average of 12 years. Thirty inmates have been on death row
more than 25 years, 119 for more than 20 years, and 240 for
more than 15. (See
,
citing CCFAJ Report.)
"The reality is that most California death sentences are
actually sentences of lifetime incarceration. The defendant
will die in prison before he or she is ever executed." (CCFAJ
Report p. 144.) The system's "failures create cynicism and
disrespect for the rule of law . . . weaken any possible
deterrent benefits of capital punishment, increase the
emotional trauma experienced by murder victims' families and
delay the resolution of meritorious capital appeals," the
Commission concluded. (CCFAJ Report, p. 115.)
6)Costs of Litigation : A 2011 report, Executing the Will of the
Voters?: A Roadmap to Mend or End the California
Legislature's Multi-Billion Dollar Debacle , by Judge Arthur L.
Alarcon and Professor Paula M. Mitchell, attempts to calculate
the costs expended on litigating death penalty cases.
Death penalty trials take longer and cost considerably more than
non-death penalty murder trials. (Id. at p. 71.) The
additional costs are based on several factors. First, whereas
most criminal trials are handled by one attorney for each
party, there are usually two death-penalty qualified attorneys
for the prosecution and defense, which is almost always
publicly funded. Next, the defense team usually employs
multiple investigators and expert witnesses. Additionally,
the jury selection process takes much longer than in a
non-capital murder trial because each side is allowed more
peremptory challenges and more prospective jurors are excused.
(Id. at pp. S76-79.) Another increased cost is attributable
to the fact that death penalty trials are conducted in two
phases, guilt and penalty. Finally, the costs of statutorily
mandated court reporter are much higher given the lengthy
proceedings. California has spent approximately 1.94 billion
on prosecution of an estimated 1940 death penalty trials since
SB 490
Page 11
1978. (Id. at p. S70, S79.)
In addition to trial costs, the state has "spent approximately
925 million to fund the litigation of the automatic appeals
and state habeas corpus petitions filed by capital prisoners
since 1985." (Executing the Will of the Voters, at p. S79.)
The Office of the State Public Defender currently represents
more than 130 death row inmates in their appeals. The agency,
which is funded by the General Fund, had an annual budget of
approximately $12 million in 2008-2009. (Id. at p. S87.)
Similarly, the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, created by the
Legislature, is available to take appointments in capital
habeas corpus proceedings. However, the number of cases it
can accept is limited by a statutory cap on the number of
staff and by available fiscal resources. In 2008-2009, the
budget was $13,857,000. (Id. at p. S86.) Additionally, the
California Supreme Court has an annual budget of $15,406,000
to compensate and reimburse expenses for privately appointed
lawyers doing both direct appeals and habeas corpus cases for
death row inmates; $5.585 million of that is allocated to the
California Appellate Project (CAP), which maintains a staff of
18 attorneys to supervise and assist private lawyers who
accept appointments to handle death penalty appeals. (Id. at
pp. S85-86.) Finally, the Office of the Attorney General's
Criminal Law Division represents California in automatic
appeals and capital state and federal habeas corpus
proceedings. Former Attorney General Bill Lockyer estimated
in 2005 that 15% of the criminal division budget was devoted
to death penalty cases. The approximate expense incurred by
the Office of the Attorney General for these cases in
2009-2010 was approximately $17,280,000. (Id. at pp.
S87-S88.) Thus, the current annual costs associated with
capital post-conviction litigation is approximately
$58,543,000. (Id. at p. S88.)
7)Other Costs of Administering the Death Penalty : According to
another report issued by the ACLU of Northern California,
housing on death row costs at least $90,000 more per inmate
per year than housing in the general prison population, where
those sentenced to permanent imprisonment are housed. (The
Hidden Death Tax: The Secret Costs of Seeking Execution in
California, by Natasha Minsker
.) And a 2007 report
from the state auditor finds that California is expected to
SB 490
Page 12
spend an additional $1 billion in the coming years to build a
larger death-row facility that will accommodate 1,000
condemned inmates and require hiring 347 additional staff.
(.)
8)Retroactive Application to Final Judgments : This bill
provides that in any case where a death sentence was imposed
prior to the enactment of the act, the sentence shall be
automatically converted to LWOP.
The California Supreme Court held in In re Estrada (1965) 63
Cal.2d 740 that when pending finality of a conviction, the
Legislature reduces the penalty for that offense, the
defendant is entitled to the benefit of that change in the
law. However, the retroactivity provisions of this bill can
apply to judgments that are already final. And yet, the
Estrada rule does not apply to all cases; but only to those
which are not yet final. ÝPeople v. Nasalga (1996) 12 Cal.4th
784, 789.] The Estrada court noted, "It is an inevitable
inference that the Legislature must have intended that the new
statute imposing the new lighter penalty now deemed to be
sufficient should apply to every case to which it
constitutionally could apply. The amendatory act imposing the
lighter punishment can be applied constitutionally to acts
committed before its passage provided the judgment convicting
the defendant of the act is not final." (In re Estrada,
supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 745.)
Estrada draws a distinction between final and non-final
judgments is because of the separation of powers doctrine.
"This doctrine unquestionably places limits upon the actions
of each branch with respect to the other branches. The
judiciary, in reviewing statutes enacted by the Legislature,
may not undertake to evaluate the wisdom of the policies
embodied in such legislation; absent a constitutional
prohibition, the choice among competing policy considerations
in enacting laws is a legislative function. The executive
branch, in expending public funds, may not disregard
legislatively prescribed directives and limits pertaining to
the use of such funds. And the Legislature may not undertake
to readjudicate controversies that have been litigated in the
courts and resolved by final judicial judgment." ÝSuperior
Court v. County of Mendocino (1996) 13 Cal.4th 45, 53,
citations omitted.] An automatic conversion of a final death
sentence to an LWOP sentence arguably violates the separation
SB 490
Page 13
of powers doctrine.
On the other hand, case law recognizes that a final judgment is
not immune from the Legislature's power to adjust prison
sentences for a legitimate public purpose. For example,
constitutional considerations may require that an ameliorative
provision be applied retroactively. ÝIn re Chavez (2004) 114
Cal.App.4th 989, 1000-1001.] Also, no separation of powers
violation occurs when final judgments are affected only as an
incident of a reform of the penal system with some legitimate
purpose other than commuting punishment. ÝWay v. Superior
Court (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 165, 179-180 (rejecting an argument
that retroactive application of the Determinate Sentencing Law
would constitute a legislative infringement of the governor's
power to commute sentences).]
Under either rationale, it might be argued be that the bill's
retroactivity provision can be applied to final judgments
without violating the separation of powers doctrine. To
execute a defendant after the State has abolished the death
penalty because his or her judgment was already final would
give rise to equal protection challenges under the California
and federal constitutions. The two groups of prisoners would
be similarly situated since the only thing distinguishing them
would be the date of finality of their judgments. ÝSee In re
Kapperman (1974) 11 Cal.3d 542.] Likewise, because of the
legislative declarations regarding abolition of the death
penalty as a cost-saving measure, the effect of altering final
judgments of death might be viewed as incidental to a larger
legislative purpose restructuring a class of sentences in
order to realize the intended cost savings.
9)Arguments in Support :
a) According to the American Civil Liberties Union ,
"California's death penalty wastes hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars, as demonstrated in the new study by Ninth
Circuit Judge Arthur Alarcon and Professor Paula Mitchell,
and the 2008 report of the non-artisan California
Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice. Our
state has already wasted more than $4 billion on only 13
executions in more than 30 years. The death penalty
process is long and expensive and yet we remain at risk of
executing an innocent person. Further, the system is a
hollow promise to victims' families, creating uncertainty
SB 490
Page 14
which continues to cause pain and frustration.
"If California replaces the death penalty with life without
possibility of parole, we will save $1 billion in five
years, without releasing a single prisoner. SB 490 is a
step in the right direction. With sentences of life
without possibility of parole, we can hold criminals
accountable, provide victims with the finality they
deserve, and keep dangerous criminals behind bars for the
rest of their life. In addition, we eliminate the terrible
risk of executing an innocent person. Finally, with the
money we save, we can support criminal justice policies
that actually work, like increasing law enforcement, which
makes a positive difference in the safety of our community.
"The death penalty cannot be fixed. It must be replaced with
the effective alternative punishment of life without the
possibility of parole, and with programs that actually make
our communities safer. Our state must prioritize community
safety and cut wasteful programs."
b) According to the Conference of California Bar
Associations , "SB 490 is a practical bill. Whatever one
may think of the death penalty as a moral issue, it is
clear that California's death penalty law may well be the
most expensive and least effective in the nation.
According to a study printed in the Winter 2011 edition of
the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, since the death
penalty was reinstated more than 30 years ago, roughly four
billion dollars in taxpayer money has been spent to
maintain the current death penalty system. For that money,
only 13 prisoners have been executed, and the vast majority
of the 714 prisoners on death row will die of natural
causes before their cases can be resolved.
"The resources that go into a death penalty case are
enormous, adding millions to each phase of the process,
from trail, to appeal, to habeas proceedings, plus the
additional costs of incarceration. Accorrding to the
California Commission on the Fair Administration of
Justice's final report from 2008, a death penalty trial
costs California Counties at least $1.1 million more than a
conventional murder trial. The cost for housing a prisoner
on death row is approximately $90,000 per year, compared to
an average cost for incarceration of other prisoners of
SB 490
Page 15
around $28,000 per year. In addition, the mandatory review
of death penalty cases consumes a significant portion of
the Supreme Court's finite time and thus reduces the
court's ability to hear other matters, further increasing
both costs and delays."
10)Arguments in Opposition :
a) According to Crime Victims United of California , "In
1978, under the guise of Proposition 7, Californians voted
to reinstate the death penalty in California. This law
enacted by the people did not provide for amendments by the
Legislature; rather under our state constitution, changes
to the death penalty law require a vote of the people.
While SB 490 provides that abolishment would only be
enacted after a vote of the people, such a vote is not
likely to occur when a 2010 survey conducted by the Field
Poll for the Press Enterprise and other California media
found 70% of those polled were in favor of the death
penalty.
"With all due respect, SB 490 is an insult to murder victims.
Such action says to victims that even though you have
waited decades for justice, that justice is too expensive
and not important to the State of California. California's
execution process moves along at an incredibly slow pace,
allowing for a virtually unending time frame for appeals -
a major cost driver. That said, twelve-member juries
unanimously found these criminals guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Even though the jurors faced the
agonizing choice of deciding whether a convicted murderer
should die or spend the rest of his or her life in prison,
decided that the aggravating factors outweighed the
mitigating factors, and voted unanimously in favor of
execution. The facts and logic compel the opposite
conclusion - that these offenders committed their crimes
and deserve the ultimate punishment."
b) According to the California District Attorneys
Association , "First, we must convey that we as an
association share the public's support of the death
penalty. As it is currently constituted, the death penalty
is a legally appropriate response to the most heinous
crimes that can be committed. The death penalty deters
future criminality, especially by permanently
SB 490
Page 16
incapacitating potential repeat offenders, and acknowledges
the fact that certain offenses are so serious that a
penalty for violations thereof as strong and final as death
must be available.
"Additionally, we believe that the provisions of your bill
that convert sentences of death that have already been
imposed to LWOP are extremely unfair to communities that
expect justice and to victims' families who have been
promised ultimate closure. We cannot imagine the
conversation prosecutors would have with victims if this
bill were to pass and our members were faced with the duty
to tell victims that the person who killed their parent,
spouse, child, or sibling would not be facing the death
penalty after the years of court proceedings that resulted
in such a sentence. This is especially unimaginable in the
context of those sentences that have been affirmed by the
California Supreme Court and are awaiting federal
disposition. Further, we feel the conversion of these
sentences raises potential constitutional separation of
powers issues inasmuch as the Legislature would be
effectively changing sentences that were appropriately
imposed by the judiciary."
11)Related Legislation :
a) AB 1455 (Isenberg), of the 1993-1994 Legislative
Session, would have prohibited the application of the death
penalty for people determined to be mentally retarded. AB
1455 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.
b) AB 557 (Aroner), of the 2001-2002 Legislative Session,
would have prohibited the application of the death penalty
for people determined to be mentally retarded. AB failed
passage on Concurrence in Senate Amendments on the Assembly
Floor.
c) AB 1512 (Aroner) of the 2001-2002 Legislative session,
would have prohibited the application of the death penalty
for people determined to be mentally retarded. AB 1512
died on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense
file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
SB 490
Page 17
Support
American Civil Liberties Union
California Catholic Conference
California Public Defenders Association
Conference of California Bar Associations
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Kehilla Community Synagogue
One private individual
Opposition
Anaheim Police Association
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California District Attorneys Association
California Fraternal Order of Police
California Peace Officers' Association
Chico Police Officers' Association
Crime Victims United of California
Cypress Police Officers' Association
Imperial County Deputy Sheriff's Association
La Habra Police Association
Laguna Beach Police Employees Association
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles South Chapter of the Peace Officers Research
Association of California
Orange County Chapter of the Peace Officers Research Association
of California
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Three private individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe and Stella Choe/ PUB. S. /
(916) 319-3744