Proposed Ballot Measure Would End Death Penalty In California

Now to our top story on KPBS midday edition a new initiative is being proposed in California to and the states death penalty. Longtime death penalty advocate actor Mike Farrell is promoting measure called the justice that works act of 2016. Is just the latest move toward ending capital punishment in California. Leicester federal judge ruled[ Indiscernible ] unconstitutional that ruling is awaiting review. Cofer and has not executed a prisoner in nearly a decade despite our state having more than 740 condemned convicts on death row with the largest number of any state. Joining to talk about the status of the death penalty in California is Alex Simpson is a associate director of the California innocence Project of the California Western school of law here in San Diego. Alex, welcome back to the program. Hello, Maureen. Invited[ Indiscernible ] to join us but no one was available. So Alex, if this new initiative to abolish but that penalty qualifies for the ballot it will be the first time since a similar measure was seated in 2012. What do you think has changed since then? You know, I think that the tone the tenure of the conversation of the death penalty Zoe's influx. There are people who are proponents of the death penalty people move opponents of the death penalty and I don't know that there's really any -- there's going to be any long-term change about that. I think that the issue is a new one just because as California finances have gotten more and more dire, the cause that the death penalty exacts on caliber to taxpayers, it means that there are more and more people who might be receptive even if your a proponent of the death penalty can see that it costs a lot of money that money is not going to other services that might be used for. And that seems to be the focus of this particular proposed initiative circle the fact that how much keeping these prisoners on death row, keeping these appeals going keeping the death penalty statute in California is actually costing the state. Yes, and I think that one of the misconceptions about the death penalty is that the cost is really a lot of upfront cost in other words that it costs an exorbitant amount of money to actually prosecute and convict and sentence an individual even before you are talking about their appeals or their atheist or postconviction work. Cost may be $2-$3 million to put somebody on trial for the death penalty and get them sentence. That's money that we don't have to pay for firefighters or to pay for police officers, to pay for teachers and I think this ballot initiative is really kind of reflecting that. This is something that is at its base it's a fiscal argument. Now in recent years California has tended to support capital punishment at the ballot box. Open mortgage looked at with mother states to actually carry out executions. What are the issues that have stopped us having more executions in the state? You know, one of the big issues not just in California but across the country in recent years has been this issue of how do we carried out in terms of lethal injection? And some of the companies that used to provide correctional and cetaceans with the drugs to carry out the death penalty have now of their own accord refused to provide these drug cartels to California Department of [ Indiscernible ] to this one of the big stepping stones, stepping blocks that the opponents of the death penalty have kind of trumped but there are other issues and specifically California, you know, there was a federal court that found that it was unconstitutional partially because the execution of individuals on death row was largely arbitrary in other words a person could be sentenced to death and another person could be sentenced to death literally the same day and there are paths to the execution chamber can take such different terms that it really doesn't make a lot of sense who was being executed in who was in. Is there currently Alex, and exocrine drug protocol in place and Capri connects Mac know what is on hold right now and the reason for that is because there are challenges to the drug cartels. Sure your listeners have seen some of the attempts at other states to provide substitutes for some of the more traditional drug cartels workout in recent years and those executions have been very, very traumatic, very botched. Some people take up to half an hour to die and because these other methods have really been unproven and so as it stands right now, I don't see California starting up the death penalty regardless of whether this ballot initiative goes anywhere. I don't really see the execution starting up again California and anytime soon. As he mentioned last year federal judge Cormac Carney made ruling that surprised many people that the death penalty as it is carried out in California is unconstitutional and as he mentioned Alex, the reason for that is this strange circuitous route that can affect one person or in another. Why did the appeals process act -- manifest itself in the wink out when I? What is it about the way we have appealed here that can keep somebody on death row 20 years off someone is ready to get a sentencing date 10? Yes, I think the judge pointed out, I think this is common in California by the way I think the judge pointed out that there is no real rhyme or reason to a particular person being executed because it has a lot more to do with some of the behind-the-scenes movements in the particular case. It doesn't matter for example how heinous the crime one or how serious it was. Doesn't matter whether or not there were multiple victims of older brother was the killing of a police officer. Really matters the types of things like pointed that person get a lawyer after the conviction? When was the appeal filed? Those of take the things that really don't have anything to do with the case and that's what's troubling to the judge. You know, the critics claim Alex that defense attorneys exit program the appeals process. Is there truth to that? And on think there's any truth to the idea that defense attorney is trying to just to delayed the case, extended by decades as we see in California. A lot of the delay comes from people who are sentenced to death and there are only a certain number of attorneys are qualified to handle a postconviction death penalty case and they only have so many days in the year and they only have the ability to take on some of the cases so that's really where a lot of the delay is is there's not enough people to actually represent people postconviction. But is the limiting number of attorneys five for the post conviction work isn't that -- don't some people point to that and say that's a machination within the legal system that is trying to keep people from being executed? No, I think when you're talking about whether or not you're qualified to represent somebody on death row, it's an incredibly -- have to be incredibly experience as a defense attorney. Do can just have for example I've been practicing for 15 years and is no way I would be able to represent someone on death row. It's the type of not just your experience as an attorney for specific types of cases and there are really only a handful of people who can do that kind of work. Now, again, with the critical aspect of this saying it would be okay it would be ruled constitutional California we would have a constitutional death penalty if this whole process was speeded up a little bit. They also say that most if not most defense attorneys are opposed to the death penalty. Do think that is true? You know, I know a lot of my defense attorney friends would probably say they are opposed to the death penalty. That's really the type of survey that I think people should rely upon. But in terms of speeding up the death penalty, one of the national statistics that we see on the instance project is that on average a person who is a monthly convicted it takes about 13 to 15 years before they actually get their convictions reversed. City speed up the death penalty that increases the likelihood that we're actually going to sentence somebody and execute somebody who is innocent. Was to think of release of former death for inmates has fueled? What some see as anti-death penalty sentiment that is growing in the US? Is difficult to say. Somebody has been sentenced to death and even somebody who is sentenced to life without the possibility of parole that person is going to die in prison. They are either going to be executed or they going to die of old age. In California, a life without the possibility of parole sentence or death sentence is largely the same thing. If only executed 13 people since 1978 and as he mentioned, we have one of the largest death row populations in the country. If not the world. So people don't get out and I think that's a misconception. People who are sentenced to life without the possibility of parole or maybe there's a chance that they are going to get release. Fetches to happen. Right, but what I was alluding to is that people in recent years have seen some men condemned to death some people contempt step actually with new evidence being introduced found that they did not commit the crime they were convicted for and they are released from death row where they could have been executed, some asking how much do you think just seeing that the public scene that has fueled an anti-death penalty sentiment US? Think that looking back on the time that I spent in the innocence Project it has been this movement think has change the perception that people have about the death penalty or about incarceration generally. Whereas before somebody might just give the benefit of the doubt to the system, now that's necessarily just simply automatically the case. I think really the surprising thing that I have seen from the perspective of just the death penalty debate is that really the thing that resonates the most with everybody is that it just cost too much and that's one of the things that I think will ultimately be the deciding factor in this new ballot initiative. The supporters of the death penalty have their own DNA argument and they say that with DNA evidence supporting a conviction we can be more sure than ever that the state is executing a guilty person. To agree with that? The system is never perfect and obviously there are new forensic techniques like DNA to make a determination of a person's guilt more and more secure, but we are never going to be hundred percent which means that we have to be if we have a death penalty we have to have some comfort ability with some error rate and if it's one in 100 or one in 1000 we have to be comfortable with the idea that because we are not perfect at some point to me are going to execute an innocent person unless we get rid of the death penalty. Was during the conversation talking about this proposed ballot initiative. Sony thinking the appropriate number of signatures to gain a place on the ballot and we also discussed the fact that a federal judge has found the state death penalty unconstitutional. That needs to be reviewed now the state has requested a review by a panel of federal judges. When those federal judges judgment first able to have an idea when that review might take place? They are reviewing it right now. Okay. It could be months it could be years of these cases sometimes take an incredibly long period of time. Some people are saying regardless of what that review finds, that in that case probably would be headed to the US Supreme Court to allow the Supreme Court to perhaps issued a rather broad ruling on the constitutionality of the death penalty across the US. Woody think about that? You know, I think that the United States Supreme Court has kind of an interesting relationship when it comes death penalty cases. There are times for there were ticket that case where I don't think they would have as of the times really passport really seems like this is an issue that should be resolved. If I had to that I would say that the United States Supreme Court is going to let it be resolved by the states and probably wouldn't take this case. That's currently pending because it's a very kind of novel situation and the Ninth Circuit's kind of perceived by the United States Supreme Court is kind of a little bit out there. Switches don't think they're going to take it out. Last time an anti-death penalty initiative was on the ballot it lost but just loves. To think we may see a turnaround of that this time if he gets on the ballot in 2016? I have no idea. This is something if you read the ballot initiative I think it does make some very -- death penalty neutral point. Really telling talking about cause. And that is something that I think does resonate with people even if you are proponent of the death penalty can see that California doesn't have a limitless pit of money that we can spread around so that might turn the tide, it might not just a no. Want to think if your expertise Alex is some associate director of the covenant innocence project with the California Western school of Law. Pink slip. Thank you.