Proposition 195
Death Penalty Proposition: Carjacking
- Adds murder during a carjacking, murder resulting from a carjacking kidnap and the intentional murder of a juror in retaliation for, or prevention of, the performance of the juror's official duties to the existing list of special circumstances for first-degree murder for which the death penalty or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is authorized.
- Joined to Proposition 196 (Chapter 478, Statutes of 1995). If both measures pass, murder by intentional discharge of firearm at persons from a motor vehicle is also added to the list of special circumstances.
The information below was provided by the California Journal.
Background: In the run-up to his 1994 re-election
campaign, Governor Pete Wilson unveiled a tough-on-crime legislative package,
which included making drive-by shooting and carjacking murders eligible for the
death penalty. The year was a good one for crime bills, most of which passed
easily in the wake of the hugely popular three-strikes law. But the several
death-penalty bills died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. The
atmosphere changed halfway through 1995, when Assembly Republicans finally were
able to turn their election victories into majorities on policy committees. A
more conservative committee passed the death-penalty measures out with little
trouble. The Legislature as a whole sent the bills to the governor with a
substantial majority vote, but both must be ratified by a vote of the people
before becoming law. Under state law, murder is ordinarily punished by a
25-years-to-life sentence, with the possibility of parole. To be eligible for
the death penalty, the killing must have taken place in conjunction with one of
a list of special circumstances such as robbery, rape or arson.
Proposal: Proposition 195 adds carjacking kidnapping in
the course of a carjacking and the retaliatory murder of a juror to the list of
special circumstances that make a defendant eligible for the death penalty or
life imprisonment without parole. The measure is in part redundant, since
prosecutors currently may charge carjackers and kidnap-carjackers with the
existing special circumstances of robbery or kidnapping. The state legislative
analyst estimates only minor additional state costs, due to this overlap and
the infrequency of juror murders.
Arguments for: A long list of law-enforcement groups,
crime victims' organizations, Governor Wilson and tough-on-crime legislators
point to the death penalty as a needed deterrent to these crimes. They note
that every other "felony murder" category -- in which someone kills a bystander
while committing another crime -- is included on the state's list of special
circumstances, and this measure would bring the two categories into conformity.
The murder of a juror belongs in the same category as the murders of witnesses,
prosecutors or judges, which already qualify for capital punishment, they
say.
Arguments against: Opponents, including the Northern
California Episcopal Diocese, several other church groups and liberal advocacy
organizations, say the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent to murder and
other violent crimes. The resources that go into prosecuting and litigating
such cases are high, they note, and would be more efficiently spent addressing
crime prevention rather than further ratcheting up penalties. They point out
that the provisions of this measure are largely cosmetic, since prosecutors can
already seek the death penalty for carjackers and kidnap-carjack killers under
existing law.
For additional information please see:
- Yes on 195
None submitted.
- No on 195
None submitted.
