When people think of the upcoming November elections, names like Romney and Obama come immediately to mind. But voters won’t just go to the polls to elect the President, they will also vote on a number of Propositions that are on the ballot this year.
Among those, is probably one of the most debated issues in the country, the death penalty. Proposition 34 is California’s proposition to replace the death penalty with a maximum sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. The proposition will also create a $100 million fund for law enforcement agencies. This money will help provide more resources for solving rape and homicide cases. Though only 13 inmates have been executed since 1978, when the death penalty was reinstated, California has over 700 inmates on death row. If Prop 34 is passed, all those inmates will be held in prison for life. According to the Yes on 34 website, California’s taxpayers will save $130 million each year without releasing a single prisoner. ACLU is among the supporters of Proposition 34.
Besides Prop 34, ten other propositions will be on California’s ballot, including Prop 35, which will increase punishment and security for sex traffickers and offenders, and Prop 37, which requires food distributers to accurately label their genetically engineered products. There are also a number of propositions having to do with taxes. For the full list of Propositions, see here: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2012_ballot_propositions.
3 comments:
A problem that arises is that if prop 34 gets passed, will wrongly convicted prisoners still have the chance to make appeals throughout their sentence? And if they are still allowed to make appeals, won't the governments still be spending the same amount of money on the appeals just like how they spent it on appeals from death row prisoners? Also, the estimated savings for prop 34 do sound nice, but we must be aware that the facts are coming from a site that is advocating for the replacement of the death penalty. I'd like to say that a more neutral source would be more reliable, but it seems like a large majority of California is leaning towards the "pro" side, so solid opposition might be difficult to find.
I say no to Prop 34. I feel it is utterly ridiculous that some people in California desire to replace the death penalty with a "maximum sentence of life in prison without parole." Regardless of whether the other propositions get passed, evidence shows that taxpayers would save tremendous amounts of money for more meaningful pursuits if we simply executed those who are fundamentally worthless to society and have no respect for order. Our prisons are too stuffed as it is right now, anyways. People put on life sentence are statistically unlikely to reform their ways.
California has not utilized the death penalty effectively these last few years. Proposition 34 is a massive waste of money for law-abiding citizens. The fund sounds nice, but I require further evidence before I can be convinced that the death penalty is less effective than what Proposition 34 can give the country. Allowing vicious murderers to live does not bode well for me or the United States. Would you let Hitler or Stalin live? How are those two not murderers like the rest of those deserving the death penalty? We cannot tolerate such violent acts on the soils of our noble country. Founding Father Thomas Jefferson stated: “Let mercy be the character of the law-giver, but let the judge be a mere machine. The mercies of the law will be dispensed equally and impartially to every description of men…”
Further readings
Aaron makes a good point in mentioning that the statistics and facts about the potential reduced costs from Prop 34 comes from a website that is pro-Prop 34 and therefore cannot be entirely trusted. Similarly, I agree with the point Matthew makes about needing more concrete evidence before making a decision on which side to stand in this debate.
It is important that we recognize the finer details of the election, such as these propositions, that are largely overshadowed by the hype of the presidential election. These propositions directly address specific, widely debated topics, and it is necessary for voters to be more aware of these issues. I think that although the media does address these props in various ads, it could do a better job in informing the public so the propositions are not as subordinate to the presidential election.
Post a Comment