Californians sharply divided on death penalty (Proposition 62 & 66)
This Tuesday, Californians will vote on an overwhelming 17 state ballot measures. Among them are Proposition 62 and 66, two rival ballots that, if passed, would bring "historic changes to California’s fractured death penalty," according to Sacramento Bee writer Alexei Koseff in her article "Californians sharply divided on death penalty ahead of historic vote." Surveys show Proposition 62, which would repeal capital punishment in California, passing by a slim margin. Proposition 66, however, aims to do the opposite: resume executions after more than ten years and speed up the appeals process for death sentences. This proposition has experienced a rapid rise in polling numbers within the last week with now 48% of voters for the prop and 42% opposed (the rest undecided). With both propositions appearing likely to pass, as they are opposing propositions the one with the higher number of votes would become law. While it seems odd that both could pass (as this scenario means that a significant number of voters are voting 'yes' on both), supporters of both propositions have the same criticism of the current capital punishment system in California: it's broken. Many voters are driven by pragmatic views of the death penalty rather than moral or religious ones. Both propositions would reform (or abolish) a costly and ineffective system, which some believe to be the real issue at hand rather than the idea of capital punishment itself.
Questions to consider
1. Where do you stand on each proposition and why?
2. How does your political identity, race, religion, or ethnicity influence your position on the death penalty? And if it doesn't influence your position on the death penalty, why not?
3. These ballot measures are two of 17 that Californians have to vote for this Tuesday. Is 17 too many propositions? Why or why not?
4. What are the benefits and downsides of having such a large number of propositions to vote on?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike many Californians, I too am undecided on the death penalty because while I agree that appropriate justice needs to be dealt to those who commit severe crimes, I also am aware of the many cons to the death penalty. One major con is the potential of sentencing an innocent person to death. As a result, I think the indecisiveness of Californians is very understandable, and I think that more information on this topic needs to be disseminated in order for people to make a more informed decision.
ReplyDeleteThis indecisiveness is the reason I am opposed to Prop 66. There are definitely pros and cons to having a death penalty but if it does exist any errors should be eliminated as much as possible and it does not seem that Prop 66 would do that. Like Priya said, one disadvantage is the possibility of sentencing innocent people. With Prop 66, cases with the death penalty being a possible outcome would stay in lower courts, which would probably increase the chances of executing innocent people.
DeleteI think that it's really interesting how two different propositions that are trying to do the opposite of each other managed to both originate from two separate groups of voters within one state. This leads me to think that it's very important that we place no restrictions on the number of propositions that can be voted on in one election. California is an incredibly diverse place, so especially here of all places, a limit would restrict the ability of constituents to influence the policymaking process. Although a large amount of propositions on the ballot would lend itself to voters not reading up on the issues, it must be recognized that removing propositions that would've been on the ballot could delay legislation that many Californians desire, which in turn can spread further dissatisfaction with the state government.
ReplyDeleteI think there are many pros and cons to having multiple propositions to vote on this election. For one, there are a lot of opportunities for different propositions to be passed and hopefully help reshape our society into a more progressive and helpful one. However, this also gives our society many opportunities to go backwards and stop funding things we once did. In addition, the multitude of propositions can be beneficial in the sense that the public is hypothetically getting more educated and are becoming aware of different pressing issues. However, while it may have a positive outcome on some, for some the large amount of propositions can be daunting and even scare people away from reading any of them. There are definitely a lot of pros and cons to having such a large number of propositions, but overall, I believe it is a positive thing.
ReplyDeleteThe 17 Propositions that are available to California voters are far too many. First, as we have seen throughout our units so far, the US population is extremely uneducated when it comes to voting. This can lead to issues as leaving extremely important decisions up to people that do not fully understand how the bill works is a bad idea. Would you want your representative voting without even looking at the bill, if not why is it ok to have people that have never heard of the bill vote for it? Second, we vote politicians into office to do this very job. They are supposed to be policy experts in order to make these judgements on important bills. Finally, the 17 propositions may be acceptable if they were all straight forward and simple but many like the death penalty are contradictory and work against each other. An other two propositions (65 and 67) involve plastic bags, and like the death penalty the highest vote one wins. This concept can be confusing to voters which could lead to an unfair or unwanted ruling being enacted.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand Andrew's argument, I disagree. I think that limiting the amount of propositions California has on their ballot limits democracy. Though there are propositions that oppose each other and it can get confusing, it is important that everyone has the ability to propose a change to the laws in California. I think that yes, voters must be better educated and must learn to understand how these propositions would win, but ultimately there should be no limit.
DeleteI see both Andrew's and Julia's perspective, yet I do believe too many propositions turns off people, making them vote without really understanding the issues. Because of the fact that California had many different props that contradicted each other, and or were very similar, just made it seem unnecessary. I don't think there needs to be a limit on how many propositions a state is allowed to have, however I do think they should all be clear and straight forward.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are many benefits and cons that come with the death penalty. The whole point of the death penalty being used is to "scare" people away from committing murder. However, the facts do not support such an effect is happening. Furthermore, the death penalty is an action that can not be taken back after it is carried through.The question will constantly ask is if this is the right person? However, the death penalty would allow a reduction in the amount of prisoners each prison has allowing tax payers money to be used elsewhere. In conclusion, I support Proposition 66 due to fixing a broken down system as well as at a certain point a murderer has given up his right to live.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOn the other hand, Prop 66 would continue to disorganize an already disorganized system. Prop 66 allows inexperienced lawyers to be on capital punishment cases. Right now only the State Supreme Court can rule on these cases. An increase of inexperienced lawyers and courts will most likely get some cases wrong and sentence an innocent person due to the lack of practice.
DeleteThe benefits of having so many propositions is that a lot of change has the potential to happen. California has historically set itself apart from other states in its regulations and specific laws. These propositions are a way from California and its citizens to have more influence over the issues that are closer to home rather than the ones that are distant and national. Also, it allows other states to see what effects these many propositions may have, which will then inform their decisions on if they will implement them as well. However, there are also some pretty significant drawbacks. For one, people simply aren't that committed to thoroughly research all of these initiatives. In all likely hood, people will make split decisions based on quick judgments, or they will simply decide that the voting process is much too cumbersome due to the sheer number of propositions, and will therefore forego voting all together.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Hanna. The high number of propositions allows California to have some freedom in our laws and experiment with progressive legislature. However, politicians must also consider that a significant portion of the population will not take the time to investigate these propositions, especially if thee are a large number of them, because they may become daunting and people will be scared away from taking the time to read up on the laws. We must then be wary of politicians taking advantage of this laziness and wording their props in a way that forces the public to vote in a way that does not align with their beliefs. Ultimately, it is advantageous to add so many propositions to the ballot, but we must also be willing to push people to take the time to research what they're voting on and be educated.
DeleteI agree with Hanna and Kaeley when they point out how a large number of propositions would create a voting environment filled with voters who are either unable to be fully informed on each issue, or are to lazy to find more information covering each issue. And this predicament could lead to California passing legislation based off of the votes of ill-informed voters or we could see many abstentions, preventing the passing of key legislation.
DeleteI agree with what everyone above has stated. They all point out how a large number of propositions are going to create an uninformed voting population. This issue could cause a lot of hurt as it could lead to California passing legislation off of votes of voters who don't know what they are voting for.
DeleteIn the case of the death penalty, I think this issue is one that isnt decided based on my political affiliation or ethnic background. The effect of the death penalty is hard to definitively grasp if we have never been exposed to the situation. After listening to the account of Bay Area reporter Frank Somerville, who watched an execution and talked with the family affected by the murderer's actions, it's difficult to say that the death penalty should exist or be abolished based on moral principles that we hold. The implementation of the death penalty largely depends on the situation and whether offenders are repeat offenders or wrongly accused.
ReplyDeleteI think that in the case of murder, the crime fits the punishment. However, with the accuracy of the death penalty in question, it could mean that we need to devise a perfected version before we implement it.
Delete17 propositions is not too many to expect Californians to vote on in a single election cycle. People's analysis of the propositions, while somewhat difficult, cannot cause a delay for the sake of time. In general, it seems that 17 propositions is a large number, but not excessive. In previous elections, Californians have voted on comparable numbers of propositions with limited (if present) ill effect on state legislation in a wide number of areas.
ReplyDelete