Propositions aim to expand scope of death-penalty crimes
By Michelle Best
Daily Bruin Contributor
Just above an immense steel door at California’s San Quentin
prison are two small words which read: "Death Row."
But the line to get in may be getting larger.
On death rows nationwide, nearly 2,000 prisoners wait under the
shadow of these two words and their looming death sentence. Of
those, 400 await execution in California.
But two laws proposed on the March ballot would enlarge the
scope of California’s death penalty, possibly increasing the number
of prisoners awaiting execution.
On the March 26 primary election ballot, Californians will vote
on Propositions 195 and 196, which seek to amend the murder
special-circumstances laws that make criminals subject to the death
penalty. The two measures would expand the criteria for capital
punishment in certain murder cases.
Proposition 195 would add the death penalty to juror murder and
to cases involving carjacking or carjacking-related kidnapping.
Proposition 196 would add death penalty punishment to drive-by
shooting murders.
State Sen. Steve Peace (D-El Cajon), who authored measure 195,
is known in the Senate as the sponsor of several crime bills to
enhance sentencing severity. Sen. Ruben Ayala (D-Chino) is
responsible for 196 and an advocate of policy to impose more
stringent punishment on juvenile offenders.
Gov. Pete Wilson saw Proposition 195 as a "clean-up" provision,
designed to narrowly tailor California’s death penalty to specific
cases. Currently, carjacking, drive-by and juror killings fall
under a broad definition of the death penalty.
In a prepared statement,Wilson said "this bill sends an
unmistakable message to gang bangers: if you take someone’s life
while committing a cowardly carjacking, you can expect to pay for
your crime with your own life." The two-term governor added that
the measure was "a victory in the fight to take back our
streets."
But to Francisco Labaco, legislative director for the American
Civil Liberties Union, Proposition 195 is, at best, a politically
manufactured piece of legislation. But at worst, it’s simply a
redundant revision of existing law.
Among others, opposition for Proposition 195 and 196 is coming
from the State Senate Committee on Criminal Procedure, California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the California Public Defenders
Association.
Sen. Milton Marks (D-San Francisco), who chairs the Senate
Committee on Criminal Procedure, argued that the carjacking measure
would not serve any real purpose, except to add another law with
which Californian lawyers would have to contend.
"Because robbery is already a special circumstance, a person who
commits a murder during a carjacking may already receive the death
penalty, and thus Proposition 195 is unnecessary," Marks said.
Like Proposition 195, 196 was fashioned in response to
heightened street violence and the "epidemic" of drive-by shootings
plaguing gang-ridden neighborhoods. Wilson welcomed Proposition 196
and its expansion of the death penalty applicability as a needed
response for areas "under siege" from waves of gang violence.
"What’s required are tougher laws that speak to these animals,
who so callously disregard human life, in the only language they
understand," Wilson said.
But opponents criticized Wilson for taking a shallow stand on
the issue, calling Proposition 196 an violation of Californians’
rights.
"Proposition 196, by placing the emphasis on the location of the
shooter, fails to meet the meaningful basis for distinguishing
death penalty murders from other murders, as required by the U.S.
Supreme Court, and thus may be unconstitutional," said Marks, whose
State Senate committee oversees California’s death-penalty
apparatus.Comments to webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu