University of California, Hastings College of the Law
UC Hastings Scholarship Repository
/-.-0(1(-,0 *(%-/,( **-1/-.-0(1(-,0 ,#,(1( 1(3$0
DEATH PENALTY
-**-41'(0 ,# ##(1(-, *4-/)0 1 '8./$.-0(1-/52"' 01(,&0$#2" ! **-1./-.0
7(0/-.-0(1(-,(0!/-2&'11-5-2%-/%/$$ ,#-.$, ""$00!51'$ *(%-/,( **-1/-.-0(1(-,0 ,#,(1( 1(3$0 1 01(,&0"'-* /0'(.$.-0(1-/5
1' 0!$$, ""$.1$#%-/(,"*20(-,(,/-.-0(1(-,0!5 , 21'-/(6$# #+(,(01/ 1-/-% 01(,&0"'-* /0'(.$.-0(1-/5-/+-/$(,%-/+ 1(-,.*$ 0$
"-,1 "1 + /"20"2"' 01(,&0$#2
$"-++$,#$#(1 1(-,
*(%-/,( /-.-0(1(-,
'8./$.-0(1-/52"' 01(,&0$#2" ! **-1./-.0
DEATH
PDALTY.
Initiative
Constitutional
Amendment. Amends
California Constitution
to
provide
that
all
state
str.tutes in effect
February
17, 1972
requiring,
authorizing,
imposing,
or
relating
to
death
penalty
are
in
full
force
and
effect,
subject
to
legislative
YES
17
amendment
or
repeal
by
statute,
initiative
or
referendum;
and
that
death
penalty
provided
for
under
those
state
statutes
shall
not
be deemed
to
be,
or
constitute,
infliction
of
cruel
or
unusual
punishments
within
meaning of California Constitution,
article
I,
section
6,
nor
shall
such pllilishment
for
such offenses be decmed
to
contr
..
vene
any
other
provision
of
California Constitution.
Financial
impact:
None.
NO
(For
I'ull
Text
of
Measure, See
Page
20, Pa.rt
n)
General Analysis
by
the
Legislative Counsel Cost Analysis
by
the
Legislative
Analyst
A ''Yes'' vote on
this
initiative
constitu- The main purpose of
this
initiative is
to
tional
amendment
is a
vote
to
make
effective,
maintain
the
statutory
and
constitutional
au-
to
the
extent
permissible
under
the
United
thority
for
imposition
of
the
death
penalty
States
Constitution,
the
statutes
of
this
state
as
it
existed
prior
to
February
17, 1972. The
requiring, authorizing, imposing,
or
relating
adoption of
this
initiative
does
not
involve
to
the
death
penalty;
and
to
prohibit
the
any
significant
direct
added
state
or
local
death
penalty
from
being
deemed
to
be un- cost
or
revenue
consideration.
constitutional
under
any
provision
of
the
California Constitution.
A
"No"
vote is a
vote
to
reject
the
pro-
posal.
For
further
details, see below.
Detailed
Analysis
by
the
Legislative Counsel
The California
statutes
now
contain
nu-
merous provisions which
provide
for
imposi-
tion
of
the
death
penalty
on
persons
con-
victed
of
certain
crimes. The California
Supreme
Court
has
held
that
the
imposition
of
the
death
penalty
is
prohibited
by
Section
6 of
Article
I of
the
California Constitution,
which
prohibits
the
infliction of
cruel
or
unusual punishments.
Adoption of
this measure
would
specifi-
cally
prevent
the
provisions
in
Section 6 of
Article
I,
or
any
other
provision,
of
the
California Constitution from being held
to
prohibit
the
death
penalty.
(COfI,tinued
in
column
2)
Argument
in
Favor
of
Proposition
17
The California
Supreme
Court
has
ruled
that
the death
penalty
is unconstitutional
under
our
state
constitution.
Proposition
17,
if
passed
by
the
voters, will amend
our
state
constitution
and
overturn
the
Court's
decision.
It
will also allow
the
Legislature
to
revise
our
laws so as to conform them
to
the
United
States Supreme
Court
decision authorizing
the death
penalty
if
certsin
guidelines
are
fol-
lowed.
THE
DEATH
PENALTY
IS
AN
EFFEC-
TIVE
DETERRENT
TO SOME
WOULD
BE
KILLERS.
With
this
deterrent
now elimi-
nated,
the
lives of countless innocent people
(especially
law
enforcement officers, prison
guards,
and
prison inmates) have been placed
in
grave jeopardy.
CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT
IS
AN
AP-
(Continued from column 1)
If
this
mea.sure is
adopted,
every
statutory
law
of
California
relating
to
the
death
pen-
alty
that
was
rendered
ineffective
by
the
decision
of
the
California
Supreme
Court
would
be
reinstated
(subject
to
amendment
or
repeal)
insofar
as
their
validity
under
the
California Constitution is concerneil
Their
vplidity
under
the
United
States
C
stitution,
however, is a
separate
issue.
The
United
States
Supreme
Court
has
held
that
thp
United
States
Constitution
bars
im-
position of
the
death
penalty
in
certain
criminal cases
under
statutes
giving
uncon-
trolled
discretion to
judges
or
juries
to
de-
cide
whether
or
not
to
impose
the
death
penalty.
The
United
States
Supreme
Court,
however,
did
not
hold
that
the
United
States
Constitution
precludes
the
imposition of
the
death
penalty
in
all cases. This measure
would, therefore,
make
effective
the
statutes
of
this
state
relating
to
the
death
penalty
to
the
extent
permitted
under
the
United
States
Constitution.
PROPRIATE
PENALTY
FOR
CERTAIN
CRIMES
AND CRIMINALS. The 107 con-
demned persons on death row in California
at
the
time of the
Court's
ruling
were re-
sponsible
for
the
deaths of 116 victims.
AND
WHAT
OF
THESE
VICTIMS'
WHO
WERE
THEY;
HOW
DID
THEY
DIE
T Some were helpless,
aged
persons
...
two young girls ages 13
and
9 . . . women as-
saulted,
raped
repeatedly
and
killed
...
many
shot to dl'ath . . . a
number
stabbed
.
..
some beaten to death with a sledgeham-
mer . . . all races, colors
and
creeds.
Their
killers showed no mercy, no
compas.~ion.
Tlw
killed ruthlessly.
The death
penalty
is
an
appropriate
puniSh
ment
for
the
willful, deliberate,
premeditated
murder;
the mass
murderers
such as Charles
Manson
and
Richard
Speck;
the
hired
killers;
-42-
the
assassins who would rob
us
of
our
proven
Tlf)litical leaders; the
traitors;
the
bombers
and
jackers;
the
senseless
joy
killers;
the
prison
_aates
bent
on escape
at
any
cost
and
the
cop-killers.
,
Our
criminal legal system,
with
its overrid-
ing
concern
for
the
rights
of
the
accused, in-
sures a
fair
trial
to every person
charged
with
murder
regardlcss of his wealth, education
or
race. The public provides competent defense
counsel
and
all incidents
of
defense free
of
charge to those who
cannot
afford them.
Both common sense
and
experience teach us
that
the
death
penalty
deters
many
potential
murderers.
IF
THE
DEATH
PENALTY
SA
YES
THE
LIFE
OF
ONE
POLICEMAN
OR ONE
PRISON
INMATE
OR
ONE
PRISON
GUARD, OR
ONE
CHILD
OR
ONE
PRIVATE
CITIZEN,
ITS
EXIST-
ENCE
IS
JUSTIFIED.
This proposition qualified
for
a place on
this ballot because over one million Califor-
nians
signed petitions in one
of
the
most
successful initiative drives in
the
history
of
California.
They
did
this so
that
the
people of
this
state
would have
the
opportunity
to vote
on this critical issue.
We
are
faced with a question
of
the
utmost
gravity.
The
people of
this
state,
rather
than
the
Court, now have
the
opportunity
to de-
cide whether
or
not
they
need
the
death
pen-
alty
for
the
protection
of
innocent citizens.
~cept
that
responsibility
and
vote
YES
on
oposition 17.
GEORGE'DEUKMEJIAN
(Republican-Long
Beach)
State
Senator,
37th
District
S.
C.
MASTERSON
Judge,
Superior
COUT'".
JOHN
W.
HOLMDAHL
(Democrat-Oakland)
State
Senator,
8th
District
Rebuttal to Argument in Pavor
of
Proposition 17
Proponents
assert:
1. The
death
penalty
deters
murderers;
2.
Since
murderers
show no mercy, we
should show
no
mercy-"
a
life
for
a
life"
;
3. Accused
murderers
always receive a fair
trial,
regardless
of
wealth, edueation
or
race.
THESE
ASSERTIONS
ARE
FALSE
OR
MISLEADING.
WHERE
WAS
THE
DETERRENCE
T
Since
the
death
penalty
has
not
protected
us
against
murderers
we have no excuse
to
adopt
jungle
law
of
"a
life
for
a
life".
We
must
use
other
ways
and
not
stoop
to
the
murderer's
level
by
killing
in
cold
blood.
3.
As
good as
it
is,
our
system of justice is
human.
The
innocent have been executed,
but
well-to-do, educated white men who
have committed grisly
murders
are
never
executed.
Our
founding
fathers
in
their
great
wisdom
assigned
the
courts
the
job
of
protecting
our
inalienable
rights
against
discriminatory
and
abusive exercise
of
power.
Yet
this
initiative
would
take
away
from
the
courts
the
power
to
protect
the
most
important
right-life.
What
other
of
our
rights
will be
next
f
Would
you
kill
in
cold blood f
If
not,
don't
a&k
others to do
it
for
you.
VOTE
"NO"
ON
PROPOSITION
17.
EDMUND
G.
("PAT")
BROWN
Former
Governor of California
(1959-1967)
ERWIN
LORETZ,
President
California Probation.
Parole
and
Correctional Association
BILL
COSBY
Argument Against Proposition 17
Vote NO to
the
Death
Penalty.
California
has
not
killed a
human
being since 1967. Do
not
cast
your
vote to
start
killing again.
We
must
be concerned with
preventing
rather
than
revenging crime.
Killing
is
not
the
answer to
the
crime prob-
lem. Most civilized countries
no
longer
use
the
death
penalty.
States
and
countries
without
the
death
penalty
have
the
lowest
murder
rates.
Forty
years
of
studies show
that
the
death
penalty
does
not
prevent
murders
or
other
violent crimes.
In
recent
decades
the
rates
of
all
crimes have increased,
but
since
executions have stopped
in
the
United
States
the
increase
in
the
murder
rate
has
been
only
half
as much as
the
increase
for
other
serious
crimes.
Stopping
executions
has
not
led
to
more murders.
Most
murders
are
committed
in
passion
by
people who do
not
think
about penalties.
In
other
cases,
the
death
penalty
causes murders.
Recently, a
girl
killed two children because
she
wanted
to die
but
was
afraid
to kill her-
self. Such suicide-murders
are
Common. r oliti-
cal assassinations have occurred only
in
states
1.
Studies
for
40
years
show
that
murder
which have
the
death
penalty.
rates
for
policemen,
guards
and
private
Dangerous criminals need
not
be killed to
citizens
are
LOWER
in
states
WITHOUT
protect
society.
Capital
punishment
does
not
the
death
penalty.
deter
crime-increasing
the
liklihood
of
cap-
2.
All
civilized people
are
horrified
by
the
ture
does.
The
death
penalty
aggravates
the
crimes described r,y
proponents
and
grieve crime problem
by
wasting resources needed to
for
the
victims;
but
Manson, Speck,
Sir-
fight crime.
Long
trials
and
appeals
in
death-
han
and
most
other
murderers
and
ALL
penalty
cases clog
the
courts
so
that
other
such assassins commit
their
beastly crimes
criminal
offenders
cannot
be
swiftly
brought
in
states
WI'fH
the
death
penalty,
to
justice.
Death
row
requires
large
expendi-
-43-
tures
that
could be used instead to make
the
correctional system more effective
in
rehabili-
tating
criminals.
It
is cheaper to imprison a person
for
life
than
to
execute him.
The
death
penalty
costs
taxpayers millions of dollars yearly
in
court
and
death row expenses which could be bet-
ter
spent
directly for increased police protec-
tion,
safety
of correctional officials
and
finan-
cial
aid
for
the
families
of
murdered
victims.
It
is
not
true
that
murderers
imprif!oned
for
life will soon be paroled. No
murderer
can be
paroled unless the Parole
Board
is convinced
that
he is safe to release.
If
he
is
not
rehabili-
tated, he is never paroled.
We
rely upon
the
good
judgment
of
the
Parole
Board
regarding
hundreds
of thousands of dangerous crimi-
nals, including those convicted of
murder
for
whom
the
death
penalty
has
not
been im-
posed. Through legislation we can also pro-
vide
for
life imprisonment without possibility
of parole.
The death
penalty·
bloodies all of us.
Hu-
man life is
not
sacred when the
state
sets an
example of violence
by
executing someone
simply because
it
seems a convenient disposal
for
the problem of crime. The decision
to
kill
is made unequally because each
jury
is dif-
ferent
with no specific
standards
to guide
its
decision. Some
juries
sentence men
to
die for
crimes
that
other
juries
would punish with
imprisonment. Defendants without money
and
racial minorities
are
far
more likely to be
executed.
Do
not
vote to take life this senseless way.
Vote to respect life universally
and
to fight
crime sensibly.
Vote NO on
the
Death
Penalty.
EDMUND
G.
("PAT")
BROWN
Former
Governor of California
(1959-1967)
ERWIN
LORETZ,
President
California Probation, Parole
and
Correctional Association
BILL
COSBY
Rebuttal to Argument Against
Proposition 17
A society
that
respects
human
life
must
protect
the
lives
of
its innocent citizens.
THE
UNITED
STATES
SUPREME
COURT
HAS
NOT
PREVENTED
CAr~
FORNIANS
FROM:
REINSTATING
Tj
DEATH
PENALTY,
but
to do
so,
we mllb.
first
overturn
the
decision of the California
Supreme
Court
by
voting yes on this Propo-
sition.
Stopping
executions has led to more kill-
ings.
Since 1963,
the
courts have allowed only
one execution
(in
1967).
During
this
period
the homicide rate, which takes into account
the growth
in
population, has increased 250%.
The
fact
that
the
death
penalty
does
not
deter
all killers is no more a valid
argument
against
its
use
than
suggestion
that
all crimi-
nal
laws be abolished because they do
not
deter
all crime.
OTHER
FACTS
IN
REBUTTAL:
• The sentence of life without parole is
not
permanent. The Legislature can change
the
law
and
a Governor can commute sentences.
The median time served
for
those first de-
gree
murderers
released
in
1971 was 145
months.
• The death
penalty
is the law of the
land
for
95% of the
world's
population.
• Passion killings
are
not first degree
murder
and
not
subject to
the
death
penalty.
• Responsibility
for
long
trials
and
appeals
lies with the
courts-not
with
the
death
penalty.
• The facts prove
that
in
California
there
no racist component
in
the
unanimous del
sion
by
a
jury
to impose death.
This
initiative is
supported
by
the Califor-
nia
Correctional Officers' Association,
the
Cal-
ifornia
Peace Officers' Association, the Dis-
trict
Attorneys'
Association of California,
and
the
California
State
Sheriffs' Association.
SAVE
INNOCENT
LIVES-VOTE
YES
ON
PROPOSITION
17
..
GEORGE
DEUKMEJIAN
(Republican-Long
Beach)
State
Senator, 37th
District
S.
C.
MASTERSON
Judge,
Superior
Court
.JOHN W. HOLMD.A.HL
(Democrat-Oakland)
State
Senator, 8th
District
-44-
each class
of
position
of
policemen
or
deputy
Iherifrs employed
by
such
city
or
county.
(b)
Blfective
July
1,
1973
and
effective
July
1
of
each
year
thereafter,
the
board
shall
adjust
and
determine
the
maximum
rate
of
salary
for
each
class
of
position
of
uniformed
members
of
the
California
Highway
Patrol
to
be
at
least
equal
to
the
highest
maximum
rate
of
sala.ry
then
established
for
any
po-
licemen
or
deputy
sherifrs employed
within
the
State
in
a comparable class
of
position.
(c)
The
Board
shall
make
an
annual
writ;..
ten
report
to
the
Governor
of
its
findings
and
the
adjustments
and
determinations
of
rates
of
sala.ry
made
pursuant
to
this section.
(d)
Commencing
with
the
budget
for
fis-
cal
year
1973-74,
any
budgetary
provisions
reqlrlred
to
fully
implement
the
periodic
sala.ry
adjustments
and
determinations re-
quired
by
this section
shall
be
included
in.
each
annual
budget
submitted
by
the
Gov-
ernor
to
the
Legislature
and
shall'
'IJe
mocli1led
or
stricken
therefrom
exc..JY
two-thirds
(%)
vote
of
each
of
the
Senate
and
of
the
Assembly
voting
solely
on
the
issue
of
,such provisions
and
on
no
other
matter.
(e)
As
used
herein,
the
term
"comparabl6
class
of
position"
shall
mean
a
group
of
posi-
tions
substantially
similar
with
respect
to
qualiftcations
or
duties
or
responsibilities.
(f)
The
provisions
of
this section shall
prevail
over
any
otherwise con1ticting provi-
sions
of
this
article
which
may
relate
gen-
erally
to salaries
of
civil service employees
or
to salaries
of
State
Employees who
are
not
elected
by
popula.r vote.
DEATH
PBNALTY.
Initiative
Constitutional Amendment. Amends
California Constitution
to
provide
that
all
state
statutes
in
effect
February
17, 1972 requiring, authorizing, imposing,
or
relating
to
YES
death
penalty
are
in
full force
and
effect,
subject
to legislative
17
amendment or
repeal
by
statute,
initiative
or
referendum;
and
that
death
penalty
provided
for
under
those
state
statutes
shall
not
be deemed to be,
or
constitute, infliction of cruel
or
unusual
punishments
within
meaning of California Constitution, article
I,
section 6,
nor
shall such punishment
for
such offenses be deemed
NO
to
contraV<1ne
any
other
provision of California Constitution.
Financial
impact:
None.
(This lnitiat1ve Constitutional Amendment
proposes to
add
a new section to the Consti-
tution. Therefore, the provisions
thereof
are
printed
in
BOLDFACB
TYPB
to
indi<>ate
that
they
arp
HEW.)
PROPOSED AMBl!fDMENT TO
ARTICLE
I
Sec. 27.
All
statutes
of
this
state
in
ef-
fect
on
February
17,1972, requiring,
author-
izing, imposing,
or
relating
to
the
deatl-
.~
alty
are
in
full force
and
effect, sub.
l)
legislative
amendment
or
repeal
by
Si...
...
te,
initiative,
or
referendum.
The
death
penalty
provided
for
under
those
statutes
shall
not
be
deemed
to
be,
or
to constitute,
the
in1tiction
of
cruel
or
un-
usual
punishments
within
the
meaning
of
Article
1,
Section 8
nor
shall
such
punish-
ment
for
such
offenses
be
deemed
to
contra-
vene
any
other
provision
of
this
constitution.
-ll
OBSCENITY LEGISLATION. Initiative. Amends, deletes,
and
adds
Penal
Code
statutes
relating
to obscenity. Defines
nudity,
obscen-
ities, sadomasochistic abuse, sexual conduct,
sexual
excitement
and
YBS
other
related
terms. Deletes "redeeming social
importance"
test.
Limits
"contemporary
standards"
test
to
local area. Creates mis-
18
demeanors
for
selling, showing,
producing
or
distributing
specified
prohibited
materials
to
adults
or
minors.
Permits
local govern-
mental agencies to
separately
regulate
these matters. Provides
for
county
jail
term
and
up
to $10,000 fine
for
violations.
Makes
sixth
conviction of specified misdemeanors a felony
..
Creates defenses NO
and
presumptions.
Permits
injunctions
and
seizures of materials.
Requires speedy
hearing
and
trial.
Financial
impact:
None.
(This
Initiative
Measure proposes
to
amend
and add
sections
and
chapters
:>f
the
Penal
Code. Therefore,
EXISTING
PROVI-
SIONS
proposed to be
DBLETED
are
printed
in
JilTIUKJilOUT
~
and
NBW
PROVI-
SIONS
proposed
to
be
INSERTED
or
ADDED
are
printed
in
BOLDFACE
TYPB.)
PROPOSED
LAW
SECTION
1. Section 311 of the
Penal
Code
is amended
bread:
31L As used
in
this
chapter:
(a) "Obscene
matter"
means
matter,
taken
as a whole, the
predominant
appeal
of
which
to
the
average person, applying contempo-
rary
standards, is to
prurient
interest, i.e., a
shameful.or
morbid
interest
in
nUdity. -, "
or
excretion;
and
is
matter
which
take
whole goes
substantially
beyond custOll..ary
limits of
candor
in
description
or
representa-
tion
of
such
matters
'1
&Bd
is
fIlMtep
wftleft
-20-
