BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2239
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2010
Counsel: Kimberly A. Horiuchi
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2239 (Hagman) - As Introduced: February 18, 2010
SUMMARY : Exempts from the Administrative Procedures Act (APA),
as specified, rules related to the procedures, training of
staff, staffing levels, design and layout of an execution
chamber, or related processes for the administration of the
death penalty, as specified. This exemption shall not be deemed
to alter or otherwise apply to habeas corpus or appellate
procedures in capitol cases.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that the Secretary of California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) may prescribe and amend
rules and regulations for the administration of the prisons
and for the administration of the parole of persons sentenced
under the determinate sentencing law except as specified. The
rules and regulations shall be promulgated and filed pursuant
to existing law, except as otherwise provided. All rules and
regulations shall, to the extent practical, be stated in
language that is easily understood by the general public. For
any rule or regulation filed as regular rulemaking as
specified copies of the rule or regulation shall be posted in
conspicuous places throughout each institution and shall be
mailed to all persons or organizations who request them no
less than 20 days prior to its effective date. [Penal Code
Section 5058(a).]
2)States the following are deemed not to be "regulations" as
defined in the Government Code:
a) Rules issued by the director applying solely to a
particular prison or other correctional facility, provided
that the following conditions are met: all rules that
apply to prisons or other correctional facilities
throughout California are adopted by the Secretary, as
specified; all rules except those that are excluded from
AB 2239
Page 2
disclosure to the public pursuant to the Government Code
are made available to all inmates confined in the
particular prison or other correctional facility to which
the rules apply and to all members of the general public.
b) Short-term criteria for the placement of inmates in a
new prison or other correctional facility, or subunit
thereof, during its first six months of operation, or in a
prison or other correctional facility, or subunit thereof,
planned for closing during its last six months of
operation, provided that the criteria are made available to
the public and that an estimate of fiscal impact is
completed pursuant to existing law, inclusive, of the State
Administrative Manual.
c) Rules issued by the Secretary that are excluded from
disclosure to the public pursuant to provisions of the
Government Code. [Penal Code Section 5058(c)(1)(2).]
3)Provides that the punishment of death shall be inflicted by
the administration of a lethal gas or by an intravenous
injection of a substance or substances in a lethal quantity
sufficient to cause death, by standards established under the
direction of the Department of Corrections. [Penal Code
Section 3604(a).]
4)States that persons sentenced to death prior to or after the
operative date of this subdivision shall have the opportunity
to elect to have the punishment imposed by lethal gas or
lethal injection. This choice shall be made in writing and
shall be submitted to the warden pursuant to regulations
established by the Department of Corrections. If a person
under sentence of death does not choose either lethal gas or
lethal injection within 10 days after the warden's service
upon the inmate of an execution warrant issued following the
operative date of this subdivision, the penalty of death shall
be imposed by lethal injection. [Penal Code Section 3604(b).]
5)States that where the person sentenced to death is not
executed on the date set for execution and a new execution
date is subsequently set, the inmate again shall have the
opportunity to elect to have punishment imposed by lethal gas
or lethal injection, according to the procedures set forth in
existing law. [Penal Code Section 3604(c).]
AB 2239
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "This
legislation is intended to allow CDCR to efficiently make the
necessary changes to the execution chamber so those families
who have been awaiting justice will finally receive what the
state promised them. The death penalty is not something I or
the state courts take lightly, when the sentence is given it
is our duty to see it The current system of having every
change to the way the death penalty is administered open to
public comment severely hampers CDCR's ability to make the
necessary changes to carry out executions in the state of
California.
"The court concluded that the procedural requirements designated
by the APA for administrative regulations were applicable to
Operating Procedure (OP) 770 and that defendants' failure to
comply with the APA invalidated the protocol. The protocol
was a rule of general application. All condemned inmates who
had received an execution date were covered by OP 770 until a
method of execution was selected. Unless an inmate
affirmatively selected the use of lethal gas, all death
sentences would be by lethal injection and would be carried
out consistently with the remainder of the protocol. Because
the protocol declared how a certain class of inmates, those
whose execution dates had been set, would be treated, it was
subject to the APA, even if it did not apply to all inmates,
or even to all inmates sentenced to death. The protocol was
not subject to the single prison exception set forth in Penal
Code Section 5058(c)(1) enacted in a timely fashion once all
appeals have been exhausted.
2)Administrative Procedures Act and Penal Code Section 5058 :
The APA provides rules for state agencies to adopt
regulations, which include public notice of the proposed
regulation, an opportunity for comment by interested parties,
and review by the Office of Administrative Law.
"Penal Code Section 5058(a) requires the Secretary of CDCR to
promulgate rules and regulations for the administration of
prisons pursuant to the APA (Government Code Section 11340 et.
seq.), unless enumerated exceptions apply. The APA was
enacted to establish basic minimum procedural requirements for
AB 2239
Page 4
the adoption, amendment or repeal of administrative
regulations promulgated by administrative agencies (Government
Code Section 11346). A major purpose of the APA is to provide
a procedure for persons or entities affected by a regulation
to be heard on the merits in its creation, and to have notice
of the law's requirements so they can conform their conduct
accordingly. Because of this, any doubt as to the
applicability of the APA's requirements should be resolved in
favor of the APA." [Grier vs. Kizer (1990) 219 Cal.App. 3rd
422, 431.]
Furthermore, the purpose of the APA was to prevent
administrative agencies from engaging in "underground
regulation". Administrative regulations are not subject to
legislative or voter approval; therefore, the APA ensures that
those who may be affected by the regulation have a voice in
the creation and enactment of those regulations.
There are a few exceptions to the APA where rules are not
considered "regulations" within the meaning of the statute:
if the rules issued by the Secretary of CDCR apply solely to a
particular prison assuming proper notice of the rules are made
pursuant to existing law, short-term criteria for the
placement of inmates at a new facility during the first six
months of operation or moving inmates out of facility that is
closing within six months, or rules related to a confidential
matter as defined in the law that are not to be disclosed to
the public.
In order for a regulation to be subject to the APA, the agency
must have intended that its rules apply generally rather than
in a specific case. The rule need not apply universally, but
is considered to have general application so long as it
declares how a certain class of cases will be decided.
[Pacific Gas & Electric Co. vs. State Department of Water
Resources (2003) 112 Cal.App. 4th 477.]
This bill adds another exception to the APA requirements: where
the rules are related to procedures, training of staff,
staffing levels, design and layout of an execution chamber, or
related processes for the administration of the death penalty.
This bill is aimed at resolving the on-going legal dispute
over the administration of lethal injection for inmates
sentenced to death in California. California's lethal
injection policy has been reviewed for both violations of
AB 2239
Page 5
constitutional law and administrative procedure and
ultimately, rejected by the Courts of Appeal and the Federal
District Court. CDCR attempted to redraft its policy on
lethal injection without complying with the APA and was also
rejected by the courts. M, o
3)Morales vs. Tilton (Morales I) : In 2006, after California
executed three death row inmates, Michael Morales filed suit
in federal district court claiming the death penalty, as
administered in California, was unconstitutional as an
"unnecessary wanton infliction of pain" prohibited by the
Eighth Amendment. [Morales vs. Tilton (Morales I) (2006) 465
F. Supp. 2nd 972, 974; See also Gregg vs. Georgia (1976) 428
U.S. 153, 173 (plurality opinion).] The court considered what
it characterized as a "mountain of evidence" and concluded
that the three drug injection "cocktail" of sodium thiopental
(induces unconsciousness), pancuronium bromide (induces
paralysis), and potassium chloride (induces cardiac arrest) as
administered in California, were unconstitutional. The court
stayed the use of the "cocktail" on any other inmates until
CDCR is able to show that the it did not permit the inmate to
essentially consciously suffocate to death. (Morales I at
979.) The court cited five reasons why the current
administration of lethal injection in California created an
unnecessary wanton infliction of pain:
"However, the record in this case, particularly as it has been
developed through discovery and the evidentiary hearing, is
replete with evidence that in actual practice OP 770 does not
function as intended. The evidence shows that the protocol
and Defendants' implementation of it suffer from a number of
critical deficiencies, including:
"Inconsistent and unreliable screening of execution team
members: For example, one former execution team leader, who
was responsible for the custody of sodium thiopental (which in
smaller doses is a pleasurable and addictive controlled
substance), was disciplined for smuggling illegal drugs into
San Quentin; another prison guard led the execution team
despite the fact that he was diagnosed with and disabled by
post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his experiences
in the prison system and he found working on the execution
team to be the most stressful responsibility a prison employee
ever could have.
AB 2239
Page 6
"A lack of meaningful training, supervision, and oversight of
the execution team: Although members of the execution team
testified that they perform numerous 'walk-throughs' of some
aspects of the execution procedure before each scheduled
execution, the team members almost uniformly have no knowledge
of the nature or properties of the drugs that are used or the
risks or potential problems associated with the procedure.
One member of the execution team, a registered nurse, who was
responsible for mixing and preparing the sodium thiopental at
many executions, testified that '[w]e don't have training,
really.' While the team members who set the intravenous
catheters are licensed to do so, they are not adequately
prepared to deal with any complications that may arise, and in
fact the team failed to set an intravenous line during the
execution of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams on December 13, 2005.
Although Defendants' counsel assured the Court at the
evidentiary hearing that 'Williams was a lesson well learned,
one that will never occur again,' the record shows that
Defendants did not take steps sufficient to ensure that a
similar or worse problem would not occur during the execution
of Clarence Ray Allen on January 17, 2006, or Plaintiff's
scheduled execution the following month.
"Inconsistent and unreliable record-keeping: For example, there
are no contemporaneous records showing that all of the sodium
thiopental in the syringes used for injections actually was
injected, and, in fact, testimony revealed that in at least
several executions it was not. A number of the execution logs
are incomplete or contain illegible or overwritten entries
with respect to critical data such as the inmate's heart rate
and the time at which observations were made. Inexplicably,
Defendants use blank paper for their electrocardiogram (EKG)
tracings instead of the graph paper that typically is used,
and provide neither standardization markings nor paper-speed
documentation, thereby precluding accurate interpretation of
the tracings, even as to heart rate.
"Improper mixing preparation and administration of sodium
thiopental by the execution team: Among other things, team
members' admitted failure to follow the simple directions
provided by the manufacturer of sodium thiopental further
complicates the inquiry as to whether inmates being executed
have been sufficiently anesthetized.
"Inadequate lighting, overcrowded conditions, and poorly
AB 2239
Page 7
designed facilities in which the execution team must work:
The execution chamber was not designed for lethal-injection
executions; San Quentin officials simply made slight
modifications to the existing gas chamber, such as drilling
holes in the chamber wall for intravenous lines and installing
a metal hook at the top of the chamber from which the bags
containing the lethal drugs are suspended. The bags are too
high to permit the execution team to verify whether the
equipment is working properly. The lighting is too dim, and
execution team members are too far away, to permit effective
observation of any unusual or unexpected movements by the
condemned inmate, much less to determine whether the inmate is
conscious; this is exacerbated by the fact that the chamber
door is sealed shut during executions as if lethal gas were
being disseminated, rendering it virtually impossible to hear
any sound from the chamber. For some executions, the small
anteroom from which the execution team injects the lethal
drugs has been so crowded with prison officials and other
dignitaries that even simple movement has been difficult.
(Morales I at 979-980.)
4)Morales vs. California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (Morales II) : In an effort to administer
lethal injection in a constitutional manner, CDCR amended OP
0-770 without following the guidelines in the APA. Morales
filed suit in Marin County Superior Court seeking to enjoin
CDCR from implementing the changes to OP 770 without complying
with the APA. The lower court granted the injunction and CDCR
appealed to the California Court of Appeals. CDCR argued that
OP-770 was not a rule of general application and at any rate
applied to a single facility and was an internal management
issue. [Morales vs. California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (Morales II) (2008) 168 Cal.App. 4th 729, 732.]
The Court of Appeals rejected CDCR's arguments and found that
OP-770 must comply with the provisions of the APA, which means
that changes to OP-770 must presented in a public manner so as
to give interested parties an opportunity to comment.
5)Lethal Injection Procedures Should Adhere to the
Administrative Procedures Act : As the court in Morales I
stated at the beginning of its opinion, few issues garner such
strong reactions as the death penalty.
"Few issues in American society have generated as much
impassioned debate as the death penalty. At one end of the
AB 2239
Page 8
spectrum, abolitionists condemn the intentional taking of
human life by the State as barbaric and profoundly immoral.
At the other, proponents see death, even a painful death, as
the only just punishment for crimes that inflict unimaginable
suffering on victims and their surviving loved ones. Even
among those with less absolute positions, there are vigorous
arguments about the social, penological, and economic costs
and benefits of capital punishment. Any legal proceeding
arising in this context thus acts as a powerful magnet, an
opportunity for people who care about this divisive issue to
express their opinions and vent their frustrations." (Morales
I at 973.) A full and fair opportunity to be heard should be
granted to interested parties and to society at large in order
to establish an execution procedure that has the full faith of
the citizens of California.
Moreover, as explained above, the APA allows for those parties
affected by the regulations to have a say in how those
regulations are drafted. In this case, the right of inmates
and their counsel to ensure that the CDCR-adopted procedures
do not inflict unnecessary wanton pain and are not in
violation of the Eighth Amendment must be maintained. As the
U.S. Supreme Court famously stated in Woodson vs. North
Carolina:
"The penalty of death is qualitatively different from a sentence
of imprisonment, however long. Death, in its finality,
differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year prison
term differs from one of only a year or two. Because of that
qualitative difference, there is a corresponding difference in
the need for reliability in the determination that death is
the appropriate punishment in a specific case." [Woodson vs.
North Carolina (1976) 428 U.S. 280, 305; Ford vs. Wainwright
(1986) 477 U.S. 399, 410; Carter, Understanding Capitol
Punishment (2004) pp. 19-20.] Death is different; as such,
any procedure to exact execution ought to adhere to all
administrative procedures.
6)Operation Procedure No. 0-770: Execution by Lethal Injection :
OP 770 was adopted by the CDCR to implement Section 3604
which states that a condemned inmate will be executed by
lethal injection unless he or she expresses an affirmative
desire to be executed by lethal gas. The protocol states the
following purposes and objectives:
AB 2239
Page 9
a) "The purpose of this procedure is to establish
appropriate guidelines for the execution of condemned
inmates in compliance with the laws of the State of
California and the United States.
b) "The objectives of this procedure are:
i) "To establish the care, treatment and management of
condemned inmates from the time an execution date is set
through the completion of the execution.
ii) "To establish criteria for the selection, training,
and oversight of the Lethal Injection Team.
iii) "To delineate specific duties and responsibilities
of personnel in preparation for and completion of the
execution by lethal injection of condemned inmates.
iv) "To ensure direct supervision and managerial
oversight of the Lethal Injection Process.
"OP 770 states the procedure is subject to the approval of the
San Quentin Warden (Warden) and the CDCR Secretary. It
provides, 'The Warden is responsible for the recruitment,
selection, retention, and training of all staff involved in
the Lethal Injection process' and 'for managerial oversight
and overall implementation of this procedure.'
"OP 770 provides that, upon receipt of the execution order,
the Warden and certain other designated officials interview
the condemned inmate and serve the warrant of execution. The
inmate is informed of 'the choices of execution method,' and
is instructed to indicate his choice within 10 days on a
prescribed form. Further, he is informed that 'if no choice is
made, lethal injection will be the method of execution.'
"As to the recruitment, screening and selection of lethal
injection team members, OP 770 provides in part:
a) "With the assistance of the Director, Division of Adult
Institutions (DAI), the Warden will coordinate the
recruitment and selection of Lethal Injection Team Members.
The Lethal Injection Team will consist of a minimum of 20
members. The total number of Lethal Injection Team Members
will be determined by the Warden.
AB 2239
Page 10
b) "In the event the Warden is unable to field a sufficient
number of qualified Lethal Injection Team Members, the
Warden will contact the Director, DAI, to coordinate the
identification of additional potential candidates for team
membership. Prospective team members will be selected from
departmental locations as determined appropriate by the
Director, DAI.
c) "The hiring authorities from designated locations will
select prospective team members from personnel assigned to
their respective areas of responsibility consistent with
selection criteria [enumerated in OP 770]. The hiring
authorities will forward the names and classifications of
prospective team members to the Director, DAI.
"OP 770 provides that the DAI Director will ensure that a
sufficient number of lethal injection team members will be
maintained.
"As to news media witnesses at executions, OP 770 provides,
'When an execution is scheduled, the CDCR, Assistant
Secretary, Office of Public and Employee Communications, will
notify the media and establish a 10-day filing period in which
media may request to witness the execution.' It further
provides, 'The Assistant Secretary, Office of Public and
Employee Communications, and the San Quentin Public
Information Officer will consult with the Warden to select the
members of the news media to witness an execution.' OP 770
also provides: 'The San Quentin Public Information Officer
and Assistant Secretary, Office of Public and Employee
Communications will be responsible for all CDCR press releases
prior to, during and after an execution and for the developing
of all information releases.'
"As to the chronology of events prior to an execution, OP 770
provides that approximately 30 days prior to an execution, the
CDCR Secretary will notify the Governor's legal affairs
secretary in writing of all referrals made to the Marin County
District Attorney's office for sanity review requests under
section 3701. Approximately 10 days before an execution, the
Warden will compile and send a final seven-day report
regarding any changes to the inmate's mental condition to the
DAI Director, whose office will forward it to the Governor's
legal affairs secretary. OP 770 is available for review by
AB 2239
Page 11
condemned inmates at San Quentin and by the general public."
[Morales II (2008) 168 Cal.App. 4th 729, 733-734.]
7)Condemned Inmate Complex Project : As the court in Morales I
points out overcrowding and lack of light and space contribute
to the unconstitutional administration of lethal injection.
Hence, plans have long been in the works to expand and
modernize California's death row. According to CDCR's Web
site, "San Quentin was established in July 1852 at Point
Quentin in Marin County on approximately 432 acres. San
Quentin's first condemned row was established in 1893. North
Block was built in 1934 and housed all males sentenced to
death in the State of California. San Quentin's original
condemned unit was designed to house 68 inmates based on
California demographics and average stay of a condemned inmate
(less than three years) when the facility was first
established. Even though San Quentin State Prison has the
capacity to house over 6,200 inmates, today, San Quentin State
Prison houses approximately 5,850 total inmates, which
includes California's condemned male population. The prison
includes a reception center that houses approximately 3,000
new commitments and a main facility that houses approximately
600 condemned inmates, approximately 1,900 medium and low
security inmates, and approximately 265 minimum security
inmates.
"As a result of today's lengthy sentence and appeal process and
the increase in number of individuals convicted under the
sentence of death, the number of condemned inmates has
exceeded the reasonable design capacity of facilities suitable
for this use. Court intervention has also resulted in the
classification of condemned inmates based on the level of
management required, escape risk, and level of allowed
interaction, all resulting in the need for additional
condemned facilities.
"The condemned inmate population largely consists of violent and
aggressive individuals that must be separated from the
remainder of the inmate population. Because of the aggressive
nature of these individuals, condemned inmates should be
classified and housed in small, manageable groups that are
physically separated from one another. However, the design of
San Quentin State Prison and the growing population of
condemned inmates in California have forced CDCR to house
condemned inmates in four separate housing areas with other
AB 2239
Page 12
institutional inmates rather than in one isolated and managed
area. Furthermore, the design of the existing facilities
provides physical barriers limiting the ability of CDCR to
maintain the appropriate controls, separation, and security
required to house condemned male inmates. To address these
issues, CDCR has determined that a new housing complex and
associated support facilities should be built to house the
condemned male inmate population at San Quentin State Prison.
"CDCR proposes to construct a new CIC on approximately 40 acre
site on the westerly side of the grounds San Quentin State
Prison. The facility would be constructed in an area
currently developed with minimum security, warehouse, and
other support buildings. The CIC would include 1,028 cells
capable of housing up to 1,408 condemned male inmates at
maximum capacity. Facilities will be designed to provide
maximum security and will be within a secured perimeter that
includes a lethal electrified fence. Primary access to the
site will be from the existing Main Gate in San Quentin
Village. The proposed CIC would consist of two
semi-autonomous maximum-security facilities providing a total
of approximately 618,000 square-feet of housing, service, and
support space. The CIC would be separated from the rest of
the prison by an outer patrol road, electrified fencing and an
inner patrol road."
8)Argument in Support : None submitted.
9)Arguments in Opposition :
a) According to Death Penalty Focus , "AB 2239 would
eliminate all rules related to the execution procedure from
the requirements of the APA. The APA process is a
necessary check against abuse government power and
excessive regulations. Nowhere is this safeguard more
critical that when the state exercises the power to take a
human life. The purpose of the APA is to protect the
interests of all Californians from excessive, burdensome,
and incoherent regulations. When a government agency is
given unfettered authority to implement rules and
regulations, there is a substantial likelihood that the
fundamental rights of individuals will be infringed. The
APA provides a critical safeguard against government
overreaching and abuse. By providing an opportunity for
all interested individuals to comment on proposed rules and
AB 2239
Page 13
regulations and by requiring the Office of Administrative
Law to review all regulations before they take effect, the
APA ensures that government agencies only adopt regulations
that are necessary and clear, and that regulations do not
place unnecessary burdens on individuals and businesses.
"The previous execution protocol-which had never been through
the APA process-resulted in serious mistakes during
executions. Problems included the theft of controlled
substances, unequal and unfair treatment of witnesses and
errors during the execution itself. The repeated and
serious nature of these problems led the Federal District
Court to conclude that California's execution procedures
could be found unconstitutional. In response to that
ruling, the Governor agreed that the process would be
overhauled, leading eventually to a new proposed layer of
execution regulations.
"The recent public correspondence regarding these proposed
regulations demonstrates why the APA process is so
important in this context. The California public is
extremely concerned about the execution procedures: more
than 20,000 comments were submitted about the regulations
during the two comment periods. Many supporters of Death
Penalty Focus submitted comments both in writing and in
person on June 30, 2009. Some of these supporters traveled
from as far as San Diego and Fresno to have their voices
heard on June 30th. Death Penalty Focus also submitted two
separate comments with detailed objections to the proposed
regulations. These comments objected to aspects of the
regulations that infringe fundamental rights including the
First Amendment rights of the press, the religious rights
of the person being executed, and the equal protection
rights of women facing execution.
"In response to the first comment period, CDCR acknowledged
that changes must be made to the original proposed
regulations. Notably, the CDCR responded to concerns about
the religious rights of the person being executed, about
the unequal treatment of witnesses and about the failure to
mention women inmates at all in the first set of
regulations. If the execution protocol was not subjected
to the APA process, these acknowledged defects in the
regulations would not have been corrected.
AB 2239
Page 14
"The APA process has provided the CDCR with valuable
information about the impact of the proposed regulations on
a wide range of individuals in California-information that
CDCR did not have when it first drafted the regulations.
The CDCR may now use this information to further improve
the regulations, to ensure that all fundamental rights are
protected and that the regulations place the least burden
possible on individuals and businesses. Changing and
improving the regulations based on information provided
through the APA process would allow the CDCR to avoid
potential litigation on these issues.
b) According to the California Public Defenders
Association , "This bill would exempt from the requirements
of the APA regulations that relate to the procedures,
training of staff, staffing levels, design and layout of an
execution chamber, or related processes for the
administration of the death penalty.
"By way of background, in 2005, a US District Judge held that
California's lethal injection procedure creates an 'undue
and unnecessary risk' of cruel and unusual punishments in
violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, and
ordered the state of California to address the issue prior
to proceeding with any executions. Approximately two years
later, CDCR promulgated regulations regarding the
administration of lethal injection, however these rules
were not promulgated in accordance with the APA, thus, a
superior court judge enjoined the regulation, and that
ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal. In response to
this, CDCR has proposed a new regulation in accordance with
the APA, which has yet to be finalized.
"By attempting to exempt regulations regarding execution
procedures from the APA, AB 2239 seeks to avoid having any
public scrutiny or public input whatsoever regarding
executions. Such public input helps to ensure that the 8th
amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment is not violated. Certain countries such as
China and Iran do not post their death penalty procedures
or allow information about staffing and training of the
executioners and their staff. America stands in sharp
contrast, as a transparency is one of the defining
hallmarks of due process in the American criminal justice
system.
AB 2239
Page 15
"The public needs to know exactly what staff are being
trained to do and not to do and the procedures in which
staff are trained must stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
Moratoriums on the death penalty have been declared in
several states because the 8th amendment was violated
precisely because the procedures involved were found not to
pass Constitutional muster. Under AB 2239, CDCR could
loosen the number and quality of trainings and instruction
and safeguards that are currently in place. The Public
would have no right to know, before or after an actual
execution took place, what any of the changes were.
Further, if the public comment process were to be
eliminated, then the rate of executions would be
expedited-while that may be the goal of some, it does not
comport with the Constitution."
10)Related Legislation : AB 1359 (Huffman) authorizes CDCR to
house condemned inmates in any state prison that contains
Level 4 security or a condemned facility designated by CDCR,
as specified. AB 1359 was held on the suspense file in the
Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
11)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 1672 (Nation), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session,
would have required CDCR to solicit bids and award a
contract for an independent analysis of the cost to expand
death row at San Quentin State Prison, as well as possible
alternatives, such as a rural and urban facility for death
row prisoners. AB 1672, as amended, was never heard by the
Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
b) AB 1715 (Nation), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session,
would have provided that a condemned inmate shall be housed
in any state prison that contains Level 4 security or is a
condemned facility subject to similar privileges and
classifications as would be applied to the inmate if the
inmate were housed at San Quentin State Prison, as
specified. AB 1715 failed passage in this Committee.
c) AB 1762 (Nation), of the 2005-06 Legislation Session,
was exactly the same as AB 1715 as amended on April 24,
2006 and was never heard by the Senate Committee on Public
Safety.
AB 2239
Page 16
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Crime Victims United of California
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
California Catholic Conference
California Public Defenders Association
Death Penalty Focus
Friends Committee on Legislation
Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744