California Has a Plan to Ban Executions, But Death Row Inmates Hate It

“They are better off, in a sense, being sentenced to death.”

Dave Nakayama/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Election Day, California voters will choose between two competing ballot measures: Proposition 62, which would abolish the death penalty in the state, and Prop. 66, which would speed up the execution process. If both pass, the one with the most votes will supersede the other. If neither passes, California’s death penalty system will remain unchanged.

A recent poll indicates that Prop. 66 is on track to be approved, but Prop. 62 is facing some stiff opposition—including from some death row inmates.

Over the summer, a Chicago-based nonprofit called the Campaign to End the Death Penalty sent a survey to all 749 death row inmates in California. The survey asked them to answer six questions about their feelings on the death penalty, Prop. 62, and whether the challenge of Prop. 66 should affect how people vote on Prop. 62. All but one respondent expressed opposition to the death penalty, yet more opposed Prop. 62 than supported it. Of the 46 inmates who had responded as of last Friday, 22 opposed the measure, 17 supported it, and 7 took no position. (No one—including the respondent who supported the death penalty—supported Prop. 66.)

Lilly Hughes, director of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, said inmates’ opposition to Prop. 62 has to do with the way it’s written. The Justice That Works Act—the legislative title for Prop. 62—would make life without parole the maximum sentence for murder and be retroactively applied to all inmates currently on death row. “People feel that it’s just a death sentence with a different name,” Hughes told me. Kenneth Hartman—who has served 37 years of a life-without-parole sentence in California State Prison in Los Angeles County—echoed that sentiment during a phone call. Hartman heads the Other Death Penalty Project, an inmate-run nonprofit that advocates against life-without-parole sentences and opposes Prop. 62. “Fundamentally, we believe that life without parole is just another method of execution,” he told me. “You die in prison. It just takes a longer, slower time to do it.”

“Fundamentally, we believe that life without parole is just another method of execution. You die in prison. It just takes a longer, slower time to do it.”

Many inmates also do not want to give up the state-sponsored resources guaranteed them to fight their convictions as long as they’re facing execution, notes Kent Scheidegger, legal director at the conservative Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. Only inmates on death row are guaranteed an attorney for their appeals—and a review of their trial process by a federal court that considers factors like attorney incompetence, potential procedural errors, and racial bias. Death row inmates are also granted more funding for their attorneys to investigate their cases and retain expert witnesses. “If the inmates’ primary focus is getting the conviction overturned, then they are better off, in a sense, being sentenced to death,” Scheidegger says.

The Justice That Works Act would also require all inmates serving life without parole for murder to work and would raise the percentage of their earnings that must be paid toward restitution for their victim’s families from 50 to 60 percent. It would allow the state to continue taking money out of the funds sent to them by their friends and family as well. Some survey respondents who opposed the act said 60 percent was too high, that their families shouldn’t have to pay, or that they wanted to decide for themselves what to do with their time in prison—including not work.

California has more people on death row than any other state but hasn’t executed anyone since 2006, when the state Supreme Court ruled the state’s lethal injection method unconstitutional and instituted a moratorium on executions. Only 13 people have been executed since 1978, when capital punishment was restored after the state Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional in 1972. The state Supreme Court also currently hears all death penalty appeals—a process that has often taken as long as 10 to 15 years—so many condemned inmates sit in prison for years on end without an execution date. An analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office argues that Prop. 62 would save California taxpayers $150 million annually within a few years, partly because the state wouldn’t have to keep paying for death penalty legal proceedings.

“If the inmates’ primary focus is getting the conviction overturned, then they are better off, in a sense, being sentenced to death.”

Back in 2012, the last time there was a ballot measure seeking to abolish the death penalty, the Campaign to End the Death Penalty sent a similar survey to 100 death row inmates in the state. The vast majority of the 35 respondents opposed the measure, Hughes said, for reasons similar to those expressed this time around. She thinks the amount of inmate support for Prop. 62 has to do with the fact that, this time, there’s also a competing measure that would put inmates on the fast track to execution. Prop. 66 aims to shorten the death penalty appeals process by assigning condemned inmates’ initial challenges to their convictions to state trial courts, creating a timetable for reviewing capital cases, and requiring appointed attorneys to work on death penalty cases.

The Campaign to End the Death Penalty does not have a public stance on Prop. 62 or Prop. 66. Officially, however, the campaign is opposed to both the death penalty and to life without parole. The point of the survey, Hughes says, was not to sway voters one way or another but to bring the voices of death row inmates into the public debate. One respondent wanted voters to know that “both [the] death penalty and life without [parole] are cruel forms of punishment and life without may be worse.” Another, who supported Prop 62., wanted the public to remember that innocent people have been executed. A third advised simply, “Vote your conscience.”

You can read death row inmates’ response to the survey here.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate