Reform of Capital Punishment Through Appeals Process

I believe that the state of California is in dire need of restructuring within the prison system; namely in the form of Capital Punishment reform through the appeals process. It has become increasingly evident that there are for too many loopholes and stall tactics combined with a grave lack of accountability all contributing to a blatantly weak legal system. This is costing taxpayers an average of 30,929 dollars annually per inmate housed, and with more than 42,000 inmates being held between our 32 prisons alone, the financial burden lies heavily on the shoulders of taxpayers. The consistency in this weak system has given more than enough just cause to criminals who break the law to no longer fear repercussion. It infuriates me that in a system that allows you to plea bargain, buy or remorse your way out of placement in or out of facilities better maintained and equipped than the schools we send our children to, society as a whole is still hesitant to capitalize on our rights as citizens and punish these criminals appropriately.

Under current state law, cases where the death penalty has been decreed the Supreme Court will automatically review the case and may choose to either affirm conviction and death sentence, affirm conviction but reverse death sentence resulting in a retrial of the penalty phase or they may choose to reverse the entire conviction which would then cause a retrial of the entire case. Those convictions that are upheld by the Supreme Court send these criminals to be held where the inmate then spends an average of nearly 10 years appealing their case, some as long as 20. Since the average age of a condemned inmate is around 40, if successful in their appeals the inmate will be around 55-60 years old. If unsuccessful, the inmate still would have cost taxpayers an average of 463,935 dollars in their condemned time alone, an astronomical sum of money to reaffirm twice something already proven by the courts and confirmed by the people. Ironically enough, the cost of lethal injection is almost nominal; merely that of the sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride used in conjunction with normal saline solution, if these appeals fail. By reforming the appeals process in capital punishment California can overcome the population and financial struggles we are faced with and paying for in relation to our corrections system literally, daily.

I propose a radical reform of the entire capital punishment appeals process from a few different angles while keeping some basic principles in place. Ultimately I=d like to see a three- year limit for the appeals process in all cases affirmed by the Supreme Court for the death penalty with no more than two appeals filed and no exceptions, including DNA evidence not found or submitted during that three-year time frame. I aim to take the >25 to life= option out of the sentencing phase after simplifying the streamlining the sentencing process. There would be increased accountability in the legal system, greatly improving stability and by closing some of the loopholes we would effectively save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year that could be better delegated. I would like to see the three-year limit imposed on each condemned inmate from said day forward, with all new limitations in place. Any new cases submitted would be subject to new law and any submissions of requests outside this law should be denied immediately. There would be a no tolerance policy imposed upon initial sentencing detailing this law and all rights included and agreed upon during this sentencing, not to be repealed outside the specified guidelines.

The process for conviction of a capital crime should be streamlined as well to maximize the appeals limitations. Better definition for conviction can be found partially through elimination of the >25 to life= option during the sentencing phase. If the party in question committed a capital offense and is eligible for penalization for that crime and you have determined that they in fact have committed that crime, then the punishment should be rendered. The Supreme Court has the option to re-evaluate the case and overturn a ruling if they feel it is unjust in any way so by eliminating the long-term imprisonment option from the table we are effectively cutting deliberation time and cost to taxpayers in the event of a guilty verdict. The long-term sentencing would be better reserved for other appropriately punishable crimes under lesser charges. Also, since the inmate would be guaranteed the right