(Go to Action Alerts)( Go to Bill Status)( Go to Prior Newsletters)( Go to FCL Homepage)
The Lifer Problem -- by Steve Birdlebough
Polls and Death -- Public Support for Life Imprisonment
Ballot Proposition Glut Looms -- by Ken Larsen
Not long ago Arianna Huffington urged that political poll results be exiled to the back of newspapers. "By the horoscopes," she suggested. Arianna is one among many press-pundits with whom I often disagree, but this time she almost had it right. Arianna's point was that political polls err -- their forecasts don't pan out. The pollsters missed a few of the November, 1998 outcomes and those failures miffed the fair Arianna who settles for nothing less than perfection -- in others.
The pollsters know better than anyone that they make a few mistakes; that's why they ritually attach a weasel statement to their results. That weasel statement usually reads, "The margin of error is ?3.2%." There is a reason for their infatuation with that number but I have no intention of lumbering you with the explanation. Instead, consider Humphrey Taylor who declares, "The possible margin of error (in surveys) is infinite." Humphrey ought to know. He's the CEO of The Harris Poll.
The rationale behind Arianna's huff is dead wrong. Although they can err spectacularly, the polls mainly call the shots accurately and, by doing so, offer many citizens a powerful disincentive. Why bother to vote when your guy1 is a shoo-in -- or an also-ran?
Even so, there may be reason to follow her suggestion to bury poll results somewhere in the nether regions of the paper. If it were adopted it is conceivable that the incidence of motivated non- voting behavior would decline. Were the electronic media to do something analagous like placing the poll bite behind the medical miracle of the day, interest and participation in elections could get a needed shot in the arm.
There are other good reasons for deep-sixing polls even though some of them do provide an ongoing source of innocent merriment.
In the final analysis the poll forecasts the outcome of another poll -- the only one that really matters -- the election. Is there anything more absurd than a weightless make-believe prognostication about a forthcoming real-life event? While the pollsters offer the caveat "if the election were held on (whatever the date of the poll is)..." the election never happens on that day. The poll result is meaningless the moment it appears and is worth precisely as much as the value Cactus Jack Garner attached to the vice-presidency of the United States.
The questions asked of pollees -- people with telephones who are at home to answer them when the phone rings -- are often dumb or slanted. Two to four times each month the major polling organizations ask telephone subscribers what kind of job the president is doing. They've been asking the question for decades. The question is dumb because the people at the other end of the line have no clear idea of what the job is or how the incumbent is carrying it out. What are the duties of the president? The constitution is laconic on that point. Commander-in-chief. Do things with the advice and consent of the Senate. Report on the state of the nation.
People see a couple of clips a day -- some days -- that show the president doing something, but there isn't enough there to provide an informed idea of what the president is up to, and even less basis for evaluating performance. In short, raw uninformed opinion. Even his golf score is not a matter of public record although the fact that he plays the game at all does provide as solid a basis for forming a judgment as many of the other snippets offered.
In addition to President Clinton (who is usually and cozily identified as "President Bill Clinton" in the poll queries) California's senators, governor2, constitutional officers, and the legislature are routinely subjected to this sort of baseless scrutiny.
People have opinions, of course. But if the opinions sprout out of ignorance, what good are they?
Sometimes political polls drink deep from triviality's spring. The Field Poll recently asked Californians if they would like to see Hillary Clinton represent the Empire State in the U.S. Senate. It seems unlikely that a mass exodus, millions of Californians, will chug Eastward-ho to cast a ballot for Hillary in 2000. The information gained from that exercise seems to be magnificently irrelevant.
Political polls also contribute generously to the demise of the English language. "What do you personally (emphasis added) think..." pollees are asked. Is there another way to think than personally? Impersonally? Vicariously? Or any one of a lot of other ill-fitting adverbs?
Worst of all, political polls spawn a special kind of ugliness. They are routinely used to identify issues that matter to the electorate. Schools. Taxes. Law enforcement. Potholes. Bingo. Once identified these issues become the basis for a two-pronged stratagem. Line your guy up as supporting the modal position and do whatever you can to convince voters that the other guy opposes it.
These defining issues -- "wedges" -- are used mercilessly and often unscrupulously in campaigns for public office. A candidate's entire history is scrutinized and often enough one lone statement, one single, isolated past action can and will be resurrected, taken out of context, possibly distorted or misrepresented, and used to portray a candidate as favoring the wrong side of an issue. The result? Pathological middleatarianism, a horror at confronting or speaking out directly on issues. Dennis Renault nails the syndrome in his accompanying cartoon and the incumbent governor embodies it.
"What is your position on a tax cut?"
"Potholes are the result of my opponent's party's history of neglect of the infrastructure. Tax money should be used prudently."
Blame politicians' evasive, off-the-subject, meaningless statements and attack ads on the polls. And, of their misbegotten stepchildren, exit polls and focus groups, the less said the better.
The First Amendment to the Constitution probably assures that polls will rampage on. The irony is that, in the political context, protected freedom of speech is stifling openness of discourse. The more we know about voters, the less we know about candidates. In last fall's contest for the Assembly I reluctantly wound up voting for the candidate who steadfastly refused to identify herself as a Democrat in all of her campaign materials. See what I mean?
-Ed Klingelhofer
(footnote 1) Throughout the piece I use "guy" or "guys" in the gender neutral way these nouns have recently come to be employed, especially by waitpersons in modestly upscale restaurants in Northern California.
(footnote 2) A psychologist friend remarked that asking the job performance question about California's incumbent governor would be analogous to presenting a patient with the blank projective test plate and asking, "Now, what do you see here?" The answer would tell nothing at all about the Guv and everything about the pollee.
A serious breakdown in the parole process for prisoners serving "life top" sentences has significantly worsened overcrowding in the state prisons. In the past, as many as three hundred individuals convicted of first or second degree murder were paroled each year, usually after serving 10 or more years with good conduct. The overwhelming majority completed their paroles successfully, and became tax-paying members of the community.
Times change. A mere 14 of the many thousands of prisoners serving sentences for murder without special circumstances and eligible for parole consideration were granted parole in 1998. This year, so far, Governor Davis has flatly rejected the first five unanimous recommendations for parole of such prisoners made by the Board of Prison Terms.
Unless things improve soon, the public will find itself running obscenely expensive geriatric prisons for thousands of people who could have been safely returned to their families and communities after serving lengthy terms of imprisonment for their involvement in a serious crime.
Many of these cases involve accomplices who intended no killing; the "felony-murder rule" awarded them a sentence based on the acts of the most culpable participant in the crime. These cases do not involve a special circumstance which could result in a death penalty, or a life sentence without possibility of parole. The trial judge may recommend a minimum sentence, but an actual release date is not proposed by the Board of Prison Terms until the prisoner has served a minimum term (now 12 to 18 years; for offenses prior to 1978, five or seven years). Once the Board of Prison Terms makes a recommendation on these cases the Governor has the final say.
Recently, the Joint Committee on Prison Construction and Operations chaired by Senator Richard Polanco began looking into the reasons for the virtual halt in paroles of inmates with "life top" sentences. The Committee's hearing produced very disturbing charges that a former Governor had rigged the process out of fear for his own political future; that prisoners and their lawyers were often denigrated, that important evidence was lost or ignored, and that candidates for parole were assigned inconsistent, irrelevant, or impossible tasks to establish their suitability for parole. [A videotape of this April 29, 1999 hearing is available from the Senate TV Program Office, 1020 N Street, Rm. 585, Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-4913; cost: $18; make checks payable to Senate Rules Committee.]
The testimony clearly suggests that changes are in order: There must be an efficient and reliable way of compiling an accurate record of the prisoner's history, performance, and potential for re-intergration into his or her community. Victim testimony needs to be integrated into the proceedings, rather than being an appendage after other issues are sorted out. Appointments by the Governor to the Board of Prison Terms must reflect the gender, ethnic, and occupational diversity of the state. Board members need much more effective training in the law which they administer, in communication, and in demonstrating respect for hearing participants. Videotaping of a significant number of parole hearings could both facilitate this training, and lead to improved performance.
FCL supports two Senate bills moving toward Assembly policy hearings that would address some of the above problems; suggestions and information should be sent to the authors and to Assembly Member Mike Honda, Chair, Assembly Public Safety Committee. The bills are SB 128 (Richard Polanco, D., Los Angeles) and SB 878 (Tom Hayden, D., Los Angeles). See Whatever Happened To..., page of this issue for descriptions.
-Steve Birdlebough
Lengthy imprisonment is the most favored penalty for murder, according to numerous
surveys of voters throughout the United States over an extended period. While
many polls merely ask whether people support or oppose capital punishment in
the abstract, some ask whether the respondents favor the death penalty over
a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Here is a review of some recent
polling results:
| State/year (survey source) | Prison | |
| Michigan/ 1999 (EPIC/MRA - Lansing) | 56% | 33% |
| New York/ 1998(Quinnipiac College Polling Institute) | 53% | 38% |
| Virginia - 1998 (Quality of Life in Virginia Poll) | 56% | 37% |
| Ohio - 1997 (Buckeye State Poll) | 59% | 31% |
| National - 1993 (Greenberg/Lake &Tarrance Group) | 44% | 41% |
| California - 1989 |
67% | 26% |
In order to discern public attitudes about complex issues, it is critical that we ask good questions. The fact that few politicians or pundits are attuned to the public's real preferences on an issue as important as capital punishment shows how much work informed citizens need to do.
The next California election is now only eight months away. Although the presidential primary will command most of the attention, the ballot will also contain a large number of propositions seeking voter approval. Six initiatives and referendums have already qualified; dozens more are currently circulating to the public or are under review by the legislature.
Over the coming months, the FCL Newsletter will preview those measures of greatest interest to our supporters. We encourage you to contact us with your views. Our coverage will culminate with the February 2000 Newsletter, which will present the FCL Executive Committee's recommendations.
This month, we look at two constitutional amendments presented to the voters by the 1997-98 legislature. Neither has yet been assigned a ballot number, so, for the time being, we've identified them by their legislative bill numbers.
Transit and University Police Powers (SB 1690)
Sponsored by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), this legislative initiative amendment extends various provisions of law pertaining to other peace officers to the University of California Police, the California State University Police, and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Police.
Those provisions include 1) standards of proof required to secure convictions for falsely reporting a bomb, falsely reporting a crime, and giving false identification to a peace officer; 2) authority of peace officers to form a posse comitatus to apprehend a suspected lawbreaker; 3) enhanced penalties for second degree murder of a peace officer; 4) licensing requirements for active and retired peace officers to carry a concealed weapon or a loaded firearm.
The sponsor, BART, indicates that its police are involved in mutual aid agreements and joint operations that require them to handle the same types and variety of criminal investigations as city and county police officers. According to BART, this legislation equates the treatment of BART police officers to that given their city, county, and state counterparts.
Supporters during legislative deliberations included San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, California School Employees Association, California Peace Officers' Association, California Police Chiefs' Association, Los Angeles County Firefighters, and Alameda County Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs Association.
The only registered opponents were California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the statewide association of criminal defense lawyers, who stated: "Each time categories of peace officers are expanded, the applicability of criminal penalties relating to certain acts involving peace officers also expands. The end result of these changes is that defendants spend more time in prisons and jails, with no deterrent effect and at significant expense."
The measure passed both houses of the legislature with broad bipartisan support.
Special Circumstances for Imposition of Death Penalty (SB 1878)
According to its sponsor, the Ventura County District Attorney's Office, this legislative initiative seeks to correct two separate problems with the law of special circumstances in capital murder cases. These problems are the result of court decisions.
The proposal eliminates the so-called independent purpose doctrine for arson and kidnaping special circumstances. Court decisions have held that these special circumstances do not apply if the arson or kidnaping was committed for the purpose of facilitating the murder. This means that if a defendant kidnaped a victim with the intent to kill him, or set fire to a building with the intent to kill him, the special circumstances would not be applicable. On the other hand, if the defendant kidnaped the victim with the intent to assault the victim and decided after the kidnaping to kill him, the special circumstance would apply and the defendant would receive either death or life without possibility of parole.
The proposal also changes the lying-in-wait special circumstance. Case law has interpreted this special circumstance to require that the killing must occur during the lying-in-wait period, which is almost immediately upon confrontation. This means that the lying-in-wait special circumstance does not apply if the defendant lies in wait, captures the victim and transports him to some other location and then kills him.
The sponsor offers the following instance as an example of the need for the measure: "In Ventura County, a female defendant was recently convicted of kidnaping a mother of two, killing her and leaving her body in a rural location where it was not found for several weeks. Evidence showed the defendant, who was having an affair with the victim's husband, had planned this abduction, rented a car and obtained a wig and handcuffs that were used in the crime. The DA could not charge her with the special circumstance of kidnaping because her purpose in perpetrating the kidnaping was to kill the victim."
Supporters during legislative deliberations included California District Attorneys Association, Los Angeles District Attorneys Association, Doris Tate Crime Victim's Bureau, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs, and California State Sheriffs Association.
In opposing this initiative in the legislature, the FCL and ACLU argued that it would make many additional murder cases death eligible, and there is no need for further expansions of the statute. Other opponents in the legislature included California Public Defenders Association, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and California Conference of Catholic Bishops.
This measure had broad bipartisan support, with opposition limited to Senators Dede Alpert (D., San Diego), John Burton (D., San Francisco), Teresa Hughes (D., Inglewood), Patrick Johnston (D., Stockton), Byron Sher (D., Palo Alto) and John Vasconcellos (D., Santa Clara) and Assembly Members Sheila Kuehl (D., Santa Monica) and Carole Migden (D., San Francisco).
-Ken Larsen
Many Friends Meetings and organizations around the state have scheduled fund-raising and outreach events for FCL in 1999. The FCL Executive Committee and staff extend a hearty thanks to all of you who work so hard and contribute so much to help FCL remain a strong voice for compassion and justice at the State Capitol.
The events this year include
Davis Meeting Forum (January 17)
Palo Alto Meeting Benefit Concert (February 14)
Appleseed Meeting Forum (February 28)
Whittier First Friends Church (March 10)
Berkeley Meeting Yard Sale (March 20)
Sacramento Meeting Forum (April 10)
Santa Barbara Meeting Yard Sale (May 22)
Santa Cruz Meeting Book Sale (May 22)
Redwood Forest Friends Meeting/Friends House Strawberry Social (May 30)
Friends of the Homeless (Santa Rosa) (July 12)
Grass Valley Meeting Event (August 14)
Palo Alto Meeting Fall Bazaar (September 25)
If you would like to schedule a fund raising and outreach event, let us know at (916) 443-3734. We can help with publicity in the Newsletter, mailings, and suggestions about spreading the word.
(Go to Top)
(
Go to Action Alerts)(
Go to Bill Status)(
Go to Prior Newsletters)(
Go to FCL Homepage)
Friends Committee on Legislation
926 J Street #707
Sacramento, CA 95814-2707
(916) 443-3734
This page is supported by Peacetree.