Proposition 18

Title:			Murder: Special Circumstances.
Sponsor:			Senator Quentin Kopp
Legislative History:			SB 1978 (Chapter 629, 1998). Legislative Initiative Amendment

Major Provisions:

• Declares that lying in wait and immediately killing another person, or capturing and killing the victim later, is a special circumstance of first-degree murder and punishable by death or life in prison without the possibility of parole.
  
  
• States that specified felonies, including kidnaping or arson, with intent to kill are special circumstances of first-degree murder and punishable by death or life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Background:
Current law specifies that specified felonies, including lying in wait, kidnaping or arson are special circumstances of first-degree murder, and punishable by death or life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Lying in Wait:
Under current law, if a person kills immediately while lying in wait, then this act is considered a special circumstance. However, if a person lies in wait, captures and transports victims to another location, and subsequently kills them, then the lying-in-wait special circumstance does not apply.

Kidnaping or Arson:
Under current law, if a perpetrator's primary purpose is to kidnap or commit arson and subsequently the perpetrator decides to kill the victim, the act is considered a special circumstance. On the other hand, if a defendant's primary purpose is to kill, and kidnaping or arson is the means to achieve this goal, then the defendant's crime is not considered a special circumstance. As explained in People v. Weiders (1985), a California Supreme Court decision:

"This court recently held that where an accused's primary goal was not to kidnap but to kill, and where a kidnaping was merely incidental to a murder not committed to advance an independent felonious purpose, a kidnaping-felony murder special circumstance finding cannot be sustained."

The sponsors of this initiative believe that this and similar rulings should be overturned on grounds that a person who "...carefully plans and executes a kidnaping for the purpose of murdering his victim is no less culpable than a defendant who kidnaps and then kills to avoid apprehension." Consequently, this initiative would overturn the "independent purpose" doctrine.

Policy Considerations:

• Since this issue is very complex, technical and legalistic, and it is quite costly to place such initiatives on the ballot, shouldn't this issue be debated and decided by legislative representatives, legal experts, and other interested parties in lieu of the uninformed general public?
• Establishing "independent purpose" appears to be a form of due process, and has been defended by several courts. If this doctrine is overturned, could it deny defendants an opportunity to receive all the process due for their defense?
• Is this initiative really necessary, since current law subjects to the death penalty defendants who kidnap or commit arson and death occurs?

Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. Probably minor, additional state costs.

Support Arguments:

• Court decisions have illogically and unreasonably held that these special circumstances do not apply if the arson or kidnaping was committed for the purpose of facilitating the murder. Prop. 18 corrects two odd decisions by the Rose Bird Supreme Court.
• It defies reason to exclude such aggravated murders from our death penalty or life-imprisonment law. Prop. 18 eliminates unequal treatment from court-imposed law. It restores justice for murder victims' families and for law enforcement officers.
• Opposition arguments almost seem to trivialize murder cases. Their statements ring hollow with actual family and friends of murder victims. For example, training school personnel in "conflict resolution," while commendable, doesn't cure injustices in the current murder law. Prop. 18 does.

Support Arguments Signed By:
Honorable George Deukmejian, former governor of California; Honorable Michael D. Bradbury, district attorney of Ventura County; Mrs. Quentin L. (Mara) Kopp, retired social worker; Mrs. Harriet Salarno, chair, Crime Victims United of California.

Opposition Arguments:

• As a taxpayer, you are being asked to enlarge the death penalty. You deserve clear proof that this proposed change would improve public safety and the quality of justice. Nobody has been able to demonstrate statistically that capital punishment deters murders or saves lives. State and nations without capital punishment have lower murder rates.
• Research demonstrates it costs $2 million more per case to prosecute a murderer through to the death penalty than if the defendant serves for life without the possibility of parole.
• Capital punishment gives us no way to learn about the root causes of murderous conduct. As we grow to recognize that violence is learned behavior, it's evident we can learn more about their lives, and ferret out the root causes of their murders, if these folks are alive.

Opposition Arguments Signed By:
Azim Khamisa, founder, Tariq Khamisa Foundation; Wilson Riles, Jr., executive director, American Friends Service Committee of Northern California; Senator John Vasconcellos, chair, Senate Public Safety Committee; Most Reverend Sylvester D. Ryan, president, California Catholic Conference; Mike Farrell, president, MJ&E Productions, Inc.; Senator Patrick Johnston, chair, Senate Appropriations Committee.

Cal-Tax Position:
No Recommendation. This measure appears to be outside the scope of Cal-Tax's legislative mission.