Prop 66: “A menu of distasteful ideas”
The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board urges voters to vote no on Prop 66 because it “offers a menu of mostly distasteful ideas.”
Highlighting how similar schemes have failed to deliver savings to taxpayers or achieve the promised delay reductions, the Editorial explains why Prop 66 will not work and is not the reform our justice system needs.
Prop 66 Will Not Work
Prop 66 would have local superior courts handle death penalty appeals, “where the initial error may have occurred.”
This would create “an inherent conflict of interest,” and “those cases could still be appealed, [so] it’s hard to see how the changes would lead to any meaningful reduction in the time it takes to handle death penalty appeals.”
And if [Prop 66] does succeed, it would likely require unacceptable compromises of basic constitutional rights, increasing the chance that innocent people might be put to death. In fact, about one in 10 of California death sentences eventually get overturned. There is too much at risk to speed up the process.
Similar “Reforms” Are Disasters
The Editorial goes on to point out that Colorado tried a similar approach, which “has failed miserably.”
With “two current appeals [. . .] in their eighth year with no end in sight.” Former state representative Jeanne Adkins, who sponsored Colorado’s version of Prop 66, recently told the Denver Post that “I’m almost to the point where I would say, ‘Let’s do away with it and save the taxpayers the money.’”
Read the full editorial here.