Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
California Proposition 18, Permit Death Penalty or Life Sentence for Lying in Wait First Degree Murder Measure (March 2000)
| California Proposition 18 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date March 7, 2000 | |
| Topic Civil and criminal trials and Law enforcement | |
Status Approved | |
| Type State statute | Origin State legislature |
California Proposition 18 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred state statute in California on March 7, 2000. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported amending the California Penal Code to define "lying in wait" as a special circumstance where the maximum penalty for first-degree murder is a life sentence without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. |
A "no" vote opposed amending the California Penal Code to define "lying in wait" as a special circumstance where the maximum penalty for first-degree murder is a life sentence without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 18 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
5,112,109 | 72.54% | ||
| No | 1,935,113 | 27.46% | ||
Overview
Proposition 18 amended California law so that a case of first degree murder is eligible for a finding of a special circumstance if the murderer intentionally killed the victim "by means of lying in wait." Because of Proposition 18, jurors are permitted to find that a special circumstance exists not only when a murder occurs immediately at the time of a confrontation between the murderer and the victim, but also in those cases where the murderer waits for the victim, captures the victim, transports the victim to another location, and then commits the murder.[1]
Proposition 18 also amended the laws about special circumstances so that "a case of first degree murder is eligible for a finding of a special circumstance if arson or kidnapping is committed to further the murder scheme."[1]
When a jury finds that special circumstances exist, the murderer is subject to punishment by death or by life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, instead of a maximum prison sentence of 25 years to life. Therefore, the ultimate consequence of Proposition 18 is that in cases of murder by "lying in wait" or murder that involves arson or kidnapping, the murderer is subject to punishment by death or life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 18 was as follows:
| “ | Murder: Special Circumstances. Legislative Initiative Amendment. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | • Amends provisions of Penal Code section 190 defining the special circumstances where first degree murder is punishable by either death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Provides that a special circumstance exists for killings committed 'by means of lying in wait' rather than 'while lying in wait.' Provides that a special circumstance exists where murder is committed while the defendant was involved in acts of kidnapping or arson, even if it is proved that the defendant had a specific intent to kill, and the kidnapping or arson was committed to facilitate murder. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 18. That estimate was:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
Support
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition 18 were signed by Hon. George Deukmejian, former Governor of California; Hon. Michael D. Bradbury, District Attorney of Ventura County; and Mrs. Quentin L. (Mara) Kopp, retired social worker:[1]
| “ |
Proposition 18 corrects two odd decisions by the Rose Bird Supreme Court. In 1980, and again in 1985, that court turned our voter-enacted death penalty law on its head. In the first case, the court ruled that an estranged husband who arranged the kidnapping of his wife in order to kill her was not subject to the death penalty or even life imprisonment without parole because the kidnapping was committed solely to murder her rather than to commit a less serious crime! In the second case, the court mandated that a criminal who kidnapped and killed a witness to prevent him from testifying was not subject to the death penalty or life without parole. Under these hapless decisions:
It defies reason to exclude such aggravated murders from our death penalty or life imprisonment law. Proposition 18 eliminates unequal treatment from court-imposed law. It restores equal justice for murder victims’ families, for law enforcement officers who each day confront criminals and even murderers and for all Californians. Voting 'yes' on Proposition 18 ensures a rational standard for capital punishment and life imprisonment and protects the honesty and integrity of the law in our state.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Official arguments
The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 18 were signed by Most Reverend Sylvester d. Ryan, president, California Catholic Conference; Mike Farrell, president, MJ&E Productions, Inc.; and Sen. Patrick Johnston, chair, Senate Appropriations Committee:[1]
| “ |
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. That proof is lacking. Public safety would not be improved by this proposition. Under existing law, the homicide rate in California has fallen steadily and dramatically since 1991. Yet we still have not matched the success of the states that use no death penalty. Massachusetts, for example, is an urban state with no death penalty and a homicide rate one-third of California’s. In fact, states that have no death penalty usually suffer fewer murders in proportion to their population than states that expend resources on capital punishment. Enlarging the death penalty would not make our streets more safe. It costs California taxpayers $2 million over and above the cost of life imprisonment each time a murderer is sent to Death Row. We should be asking some hard questions. Isn’t it better to invest this money in after-school programs for youth? Shouldn’t schools be funded to train all of their personnel in conflict resolution programs that have been proven effective, and why are only a small fraction of schools able to train parents in these programs? Enlarging the death penalty would not enable us to spend our public safety tax dollars more wisely. The quality of justice would not be improved by this proposition. Adjusting the scope of punishment can never compensate for the harm caused by murder. Any murder is deplorable. The community and family members suffer whenever a life is deliberately cut short, regardless of whether arson, kidnaping, or lying-in-wait is involved. In fact, it trivializes the vast majority of cases to imagine there is any link between the circumstances of a killing, the type of retribution imposed, and the agony of friends and family of the victim. There is no evidence that communities and families of murder victims in California are better able to recover from their loss due to the existence of a death penalty than communities and families in Massachusetts heal in the absence of a death penalty. Enlarging the death penalty would not improve justice for communities and families of victims. The law already allows capital punishment in more homicide cases than prosecutors pursue as death penalty matters. And in cases where they do urge a death sentence, jurors often refuse to recommend it. As a result, most death-eligible cases are resolved by plea bargains. To the extent this proposition would expand the number of death-eligible cases, lawyers would expend extra taxpayer dollars on the plea-bargain process. Added litigation would be of no real assistance to the families of victims, nor to the community. This proposition will not improve public safety or the quality of justice. Vote NO.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
Proposition 18 was referred to the ballot by the California State Legislature with the passage of Senate Bill 1878 of the 1997-98 Regular Session (Chapter 629, Statutes of 1998).
| Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 66 | 2 |
| Senate | 28 | 6 |
See also
External links
- Official Voter Guide
- Full text of Proposition 18
- Official declaration of the March 7, 2000 vote
- Smart Voter on Proposition 18
- Cal Voter on Prop 18
- Top Ten contributors
Footnotes
