Proposition 66: Death Penalty Procedures
Changes procedures governing state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Imposes time limits on state court death penalty review. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Authorizes death row inmate transfers among California state prisons. States death row inmates must work and pay victim restitution. States other voter approved measures related to death penalty are null and void if this measure receives more affirmative votes.
A Yes Vote Means
A YES vote on this measure means: Court procedures for legal challenges to death sentences would be subject to various changes, such as time limits on those challenges and revised rules to increase the number of available attorneys for those challenges. Condemned inmates could be housed at any state prison.
A No Vote Means
A NO vote on this measure means: There would be no changes to the state's current court procedures for legal challenges to death sentences. The state would still be limited to housing condemned inmates only at certain state prisons.
Pro Argument
Our death penalty system is bogged down by decades of appeals. We need to reform it, not repeal it, by passing Proposition 66. Prop. 66 saves millions, brings closure to victims' families and justice to brutal murderers. Innocent persons won't be executed under Prop. 66. Victims' families, DAs and law enforcement support Proposition 66. Read more about the pro argument here.
Con Argument
Prop. 66 is not real reform. We don't know all of its consequences, but we do know this: it adds more layers of government bureaucracy causing more delays, costs taxpayers money, and increases California's risk of executing an innocent person. Prop. 66 is a costly experiment that makes matters worse.