Many people agree that the most severe crimes deserve the most severe punishment. A great deal of people views the death penalty as a just and the most appropriate measure in this case. But do you know how many executions were carried out since 1978? Only thirteen. And these thirteen deaths cost about $4 billion taken from the pocket of California taxpayers (Alarcon and Mitchell 541). Impressive numbers, aren’t they? These figures speak for themselves. The death penalty system turned out to be ineffective and has to be replaced with more productive measures. The Proposition 34 is a suitable solution. It will have significant fiscal effects, and the money saved will be used to prevent new crimes and improve the safety condition.
The death penalty is an extremely expensive procedure while the measures suggested in the Proposal 34 will help to save a considerable sum of money. Up to $300, 000 are spent by the state on attorneys for the execution cases. The process of selecting the jury in case of the death penalty lasts three to four weeks longer. Thus, additional $200, 000 are spent comparing with the life imprisonment without parole. In comparison, the latter costs up to 20 times less money than the capital punishment. $1.1 million less is spent on the most expensive case of the life imprisonment without the possibility of parole comparing with the least expensive execution. About $184 million can be saved each year due to the savings of the expenses spent on the life prisoners without the possibility of parole rather than the prisoners expecting the death penalty. The enhanced security of death row inmates adds extra $72 million (Alarcon and Mitchell 569-579). The Proposition 34 suggests the option of saving money. Some murder cases will cost less as the trials will last less and the procedure of selecting the jury will be shortened. Moreover, the costs spent on public defenders and prosecutors will be reduced as the agencies usually require more money for the preparation of the capital cases. The reduced costs of murder trials can result in additional tens of millions of dollars for the state and counties (Proposition 34 Title and Summary).
The Proposition 34 can contribute to the public safety. It suggests establishing a fund that will invest money in the investigation of homicides and rapes. The money will be available in the form of grants for the local government agencies (Proposition 34 Title and Summary). The safety of California citizens has to be the state’s priority when it comes to spending money. More than 1,000 murderers in California are not even arrested and this number increases each year. The police cannot solve about 46 percent of homicides performed in the state. Instead of spending $130 million annually on capital punishment, this money should be used for improving the safety conditions and investigating the crime (Thompson and Genest). It is clear that the death penalty does not prevent people from killing other people. The expected deterrent effect does not work. Many of those who break into the house have no intention to kill anyone. Many people who commit a murder never think about the death penalty or prison. They are not scared. Otherwise, they would not do that. That is why the Proposition 34 is a better way out. With the help of the money saved the legal system will work better and bring significant fruit. The estimated sum is about $100 million (Proposition 34 Title and Summary). Police departments and attorney’s offices need this money to lessen the murder rates.
According to the Proposition 34, working in a state prison is obligatory for every person who committed a murder. The money for this work will be paid to the victims or their relatives (Proposition 34 Title and Summary). The expenses of court trials may be also covered by this money. Without doubt, the money cannot compensate severe sufferings of the victim’s family but this measure makes the perpetrators of the crime pay for it by many years of hard work instead of quick dying. The prisoners will perform the work that is beneficial to the society. Although the sums obtained for it may seem insignificant, imagine that they are received every year till the end of the prisoner’s life. Together with the money saved from the expensive death penalty procedures, these figures seem impressive. Thus, the Proposition 34 has not only the fiscal effect but a social benefit as well.
Many critics of the Proposition 34 state that the murderers deserve the maximum punishment. It is a fair and understandable demand. However, the capital punishment does not fit the case. It brings an easy death to the murderer instead of spending his or her whole life in prison and working. They will have plenty of time to regret their deeds and to repent of what they have done. If this argument still seems not solid enough look at the following numbers. The amount of people on death row is 714 prisoners now. And there is a little chance that they will be executed. They will have to wait for their capital punishment more than twenty years (Alarcon and Mitchell 541). Most of them will die of natural causes. The prisoners on death row have a special status. Their living conditions are far better than those who have the life imprisonment (Thompson and Genest). People think that they choose between the severe execution and the relaxed life of the murderer in prison. But de facto it turns out to be a choice between improved imprisonment conditions and worse conditions combined with hard work. The benefits of the Proposition 34 are evident.
Annotated Bibliography
Alarcon, Arthur and Paula Mitchel. "Executive The Will Of The Voters?: A Roadmap To Mend Or End The California Legislature’S Multi-Billion-Dollar Death Penalty Debacle". The Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 44 (2011): 569-579. Web.
This article provides the data concerning the costs of the death penalty in California. It also gives the information how much the incarceration costs. The authors of the article state that the system of the death penalty is ineffective and leads to the expenditure of billions of dollars paid by California taxpayers. This article is an academic source retrieved from Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School website.
This source is cited in this work as it contains figures that prove the necessity of reforms in the legal system and the system of punishment. It contributes to the idea that the Proposition 34 can be a good alternative to the current system that does not work.
"Proposition 34 Title And Summary | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary Of State". Vigarchive.sos.ca.gov. N.p., 2012. Web. 18 July 2016.
This source is an analysis of the Proposition 34 conducted by the attorney general. It includes the information about the implementation of the death penalty in California. It also provides the main statements of the proposal and what impact they may have on the legal system and the economics of California. This source is quite useful for this assignment as it explains the consequences of the Proposal 34 in detail including its fiscal effects and the effects on the murder rate.
Thompson, Marshal and Michael Genest. "Pro/Con: Proposition 34: Repealing Death Penalty Is About Cost - To Budget And Society". Los Angeles Daily News 2012. Web. 18 July 2016.
This is a newspaper article dealing with pros and cons of the Proposal 34. It is written by two authors that have opposite opinions on this issue. The first one is Marshal Thompson who worked at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for 27 years. he provides his arguments supporting the Proposal 34. The second author is Michael Genest. He is an expert on fiscal and budget issues and is against the Proposition 34. This article is cited here because it gives clear arguments concerning the proposal from two professionals.
Works Cited
Alarcon, Arthur and Paula Mitchel. "Executive The Will Of The Voters?: A Roadmap To Mend Or End The California Legislature’S Multi-Billion-Dollar Death Penalty Debacle". The Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 44 (2011): 569-579. Web.
"Proposition 34 Title And Summary | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary Of State". Vigarchive.sos.ca.gov. N.p., 2012. Web. 18 July 2016.
Thompson, Marshal and Michael Genest. "Pro/Con: Proposition 34: Repealing Death Penalty Is About Cost - To Budget And Society". Los Angeles Daily News 2012. Web. 18 July 2016.
