California is one of 34 states that still allow capital punishment. If passed, the Savings, Accountability and Full Enforcement for California Act would change this, abolishing the death penalty and retroactively sentencing criminals on death row to life without parole.
The SAFE California initiative obtained a total of 800,000 signatures from supporters on March 1, far exceeding the 504,760 required to appear on the Nov. 6 ballot.
Amnesty International at UCLA gathered 530 of those signatures from UCLA students, said Lilit Arabyan, a fourth-year political science student and co-president of the club.
SAFE California is a step in the right direction, both for California and the United States. The question isn’t whether to repeal the death penalty, but rather why haven’t we already, when over two-thirds of the world’s countries already have.
Two of the primary arguments cited in support of capital punishment are overpopulation in the prison system and net cost. But neither of these arguments holds true, especially in California.
Our prisons are not overcrowded because we don’t execute often enough, but because roughly 65 percent of inmates return to the prison system after release. Our correctional facilities would benefit more from effective rehabilitation programs rather than sentences to death row, which rarely result in an execution following years of appeals in some cases.
The cost problem is more complex. A live prisoner costs more to sustain than a dead one, the reasoning goes. But that’s not the whole story.
According to the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, our state spends $126 million more per year on its 719 death row inmates than if those inmates were part of the general prison population.
Each inmate spends an average of 25 years on death row, and only 13 have been executed since 1976. This means each death row inmate carries an average price tag of more than $4 million, regardless of whether he is exonerated or executed.
SAFE California’s approach is fiscally minded. While serving their life sentences, the inmates would be forced to work, and their wages paid into their respective victims’ compensation funds.
The act would also create a fund that would take $30 million from the aforementioned $126 million-per-year savings each year for three years. This money would be allocated to the investigation of unsolved rape and murder cases, creating a safer state.
The most emotional argument in favor of the death penalty is retribution. Supporters say executions bring closure to victims’ relatives.
But multiple groups comprised of victims’ families endorse SAFE California, such as Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights and California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. These individuals have managed to look past their own losses to act for the greater good. Executing a killer cannot bring a victim back, but working toward justice can save a life.
“This is a moral issue,” Arabyan said. “Clearly, (capital punishment is) doing more harm than good.”
Email Mirea at
nmirea@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
opinion@media.ucla.edu or tweet us @DBOpinion.