THE QUESTIONShould California expand the law prescribing execution or permanent imprisonment to include certain murders involving ambush, murders by arson, and kidnap-murders? THE SITUATIONIn 1977, the California Legislature rewrote the state death penalty law to conform more narrowly to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Furman v. Georgia. In 1978, voters also approved a broader death penalty initiative (Briggs), which is now the California law. For first-degree murder, the law now provides for a term of 25-years-to-life in prison, with eventual parole eligibility. First-degree murder can also result in a sentence of death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole if additional specified felonies or "special circumstances" apply. THE PROPOSALProposition 18 would change the law for murder involving two felonies: arson and kidnapping. Present law prescribes execution or life imprisonment for murder committed while any of a dozen specified felonies is attempted, assisted, or accomplished, or during flight afterward. Proposition 18 would add that: · the special circumstances requirement is met when the intent to kill and the "elements" of kidnapping or arson are established. Present law makes murder punishable by death or life imprisonment when a defendant intentionally kills a victim "while lying in wait." This is generally interpreted to mean that a murder occurred immediately and deliberately upon confrontation with the victim. Proposition 18 would change the language defining special circumstances to include: · murder that occurs "by means of" lying in wait, so that a series of actions or "means" may be equated with immediate and deliberate action. FISCAL EFFECTOverall, since this measure will probably affect relatively few cases, costs are likely to be minor. The Legislative Analyst notes that death penalty trials cost more to prosecute and to defend than non-capital cases, so the cost of these trials would increase accordingly. Appeals upon conviction in capital punishment cases are mandatory and automatic. The cost of incarceration on death row is also greater than the cost of confinement in other prison settings. The state would bear some additional incarceration and appeals court costs if convictions were obtained in cases that would not otherwise qualify as capital offenses. SUPPORTERS SAY· Criminals who use arson or kidnapping to murder deserve the same punishment as murderers who commit arson for some other purpose than to kill the victim. · All murderers who ambush a victim should be punished the same, whether or not the killing takes place immediately or occurs some time later in a different location. OPPONENTS SAY· Expanding the death penalty will not improve public safety, the quality of justice, or the cost of justice. · Capital punishment is immoral and unjust because it is used mostly on people of color, the poor, and the uneducated. For more information: Supporters: (805) 654-2501, website not available. (Analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund  
On Propositions:
About our Analysis -
List of Props -
Election '00 -
Smart Voter
LWVC Home -
Voting Q&As -
State Props -
About Us
Last updated: January 18, 2000 Send comments and suggestions concerning the content of this page to lwvcprocon@hotmail.com. Send comments concerning the format or usability of this page to cmwatts@ibm.net Copyright 2000 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund. This page may be linked to or printed in its entirety. |
