Proposition 196
Death Penalty Proposition: Drive-by Shootings
- Adds the intentional murder of a person by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle with the intent to inflict death to the 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 195 (Chapter 477, Statutes of 1995). If both measures pass, murder during carjacking, murder resulting from a carjacking kidnap, and murder of juror in retaliation for, or to prevent, performance of juror's duties, are 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 196 adds murder in the course of a
drive-by shooting to the list of special circumstances qualifying a defendant
for the death penalty or life in prison without possibility of parole. The
state legislative analyst estimates that costs to the state, depending on the
number of new life-without-parole sentences, could run into several million
dollars annually over time.
Arguments for: Proponents, including Governor Wilson, the
California District Attorneys' Association, crime victims and a wide range of
law enforcement groups, say that drive-by shootings have snowballed to epidemic
proportions in the state, spreading outside urban settings and increasingly
harming uninvolved bystanders. They cite a 1991 study that found an average of
more than one youth under 18 to have been a victim of drive-by shooting every
week in Los Angeles in 1991. Making this crime eligible for the death penalty
will serve as a needed deterrent, they say.
Arguments against: Opponents include a handful of law
enforcement officials, the American Friends Service Committee of Northern
California, church organizations and liberal advocacy groups. They note that
the death penalty has not significantly reduced violence in other areas where
it has been tried. This specific proposal makes an irrational distinction based
on the location of the murderer, they say, so that the same drive-by killer
would not necessarily have been eligible for the death penalty if he were
standing outside a car while committing the crime. This artificial distinction
may raise constitutional challenges.
For additional information please see:
- Yes on 196
None submitted.
- No on 196
None submitted.
