**We just found $130 million for Education

I am often baffled by the lack of logic and reason used by some voters, with such issues as capital punishment. We are at a nexus in our state’s budget; we are cutting back on school programs such as summer classes, sports, art, music, and other creative skills. Eliminating the capital punishment program and choosing life imprisonment will save the state enough money to employ approximately 2,000 more teachers, so what more do we need to know?
The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation, and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime.
States that have the death penalty have a murder rate that is approximately 30-50% greater than those that do not have the death penalty. One might conclude that there is a coincidence of more crime in death penalty states, which creates a need for the death penalty. A more realistic conclusion is that those states with the death penalty are more likely to have an environment of violence, perpetrated by the state that sends a message to potential murders to be more violent. Other support for non death penalty punishment is countries mainly in the European Union that have lower murder rates that have abolished the death penalty. Unfortunately the US has lagged many other developed nations in its ability to implement human rights progress.
There are racial and geographic disparities in who is sentenced to death. There is typically underfunding of defense counsel for poor defendants. Juries do not necessarily represent the ethnic makeup of the community. Ninety five percent of death penalty cases are defended by public defenders, whereas someone such as O.J. Simpson who’s innocence is very questionable, had the financial clout to hire the best criminal attorneys, was acquitted. Those who are actually sentenced to the death are predominately the poor who cannot afford thorough defenses. Death penalty juries are picked based on the fact that they cannot have a bias against the death penalty, so therefore are pro death penalty, which leans in the favor of granting the death penalty.
Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, Ten wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row. The above does not take into account those on death row who have not sought further proof that they are innocent. Execution unfortunately is not reversible, and no money or reparations by the state can make an innocent executed person free or come back to life.
In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found a pattern of evidence indicating, racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty. The study concluded that a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. This has been confirmed by the findings of many other studies that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim. On average a Black person is 4 to 5 times more likely to be executed than a Caucasian for committing murder. From initial charging decisions to plea bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when they are victims. All-white or virtually all-white juries are still commonplace in many localities.
Using conservative rough projections, a study estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million. In California the current system costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty. In 2009, New Mexico became the 15th state to repeal the death penalty, in part because of budget considerations and the high cost of death penalty appeals.
Executing the murderer will never bring back the life of the victim. If there is a possibility of giving restitution to the victim’s family from the accused, then executing the accused erases any possibility for the accused to make restitution to the victim’s family. What needs to be examined is our antiquated value system of an “Eye for an Eye” that has come out of an ancient book. Some of us have a defect in our emotional chemistry that somehow lets us believe that if we injure, or kill the perpetrator that another violent act against the perpetrator will heal the victim. This is not meant in any way to weaken the ability of a victim to defend them against a perpetrator. Some people are confused about the concepts of “Forgiveness” and healthy physical and emotional “Boundaries”.
Based on what knowledge is available to the present, there is no scientific data that supports the benefit of capital punishment to society over a lifetime of incarceration. The movement in most countries as well as states in the USA is the abolishment of capital punishment. The question is why are we so slow to abolish capital punishment in California, even though there is volumes of supportable data that flies in the face of capital punishments benefit to society. Could it be both myths, traditions, and our emotional need for revenge? With such a shortage of government revenues to cover important services, why is eliminating the death penalty such a logical conundrum. I believe we can make better uses of $130 million dollars that is a premium cost for capital punishment.