Democrats Occupy GOP’s Turf, Propel Tough Death Penalty Bill

With Democrats seizing the initiative on an issue traditionally dominated by Republicans, the Senate on Monday passed legislation to strengthen the death penalty and increase the punishment for murderers who are not given the death sentence.

But Senate Republicans, who had tried for a week to amend the bill or kill it altogether, charged the measure would have little effect because it did not contain a GOP-backed provision to withhold state Supreme Court justices’ pay if the court fails to act quickly on final appeals in death penalty cases.

The bill was approved and sent to the Assembly on a 32-5 vote. Four Democrats and one Republican, Sen. Milton Marks of San Francisco, voted against it.

Last week, Republicans, angry at Democrats for derailing GOP-proposed amendments, blocked the bill by Assemblyman Gary Condit (D-Ceres). However, Democrats won permission to have the bill reconsidered.

If passed by the Assembly, signed by Gov. George Deukmejian and ratified by the voters at the June primary election, the bill would:

- Broaden the list of “special circumstances” under which prosecutors could seek the death penalty. Added to the list would be murders committed to prevent a person’s testimony in a juvenile proceeding, and murders committed during rape with a foreign object or during an attempt to maim, permanently disfigure or disable.

- Increase the penalty for first-degree murder to 35 years to life in prison or life without possibility of parole. Current law calls for sentences of 25 years to life or no possibility of parole.

- Increase the penalty for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds found guilty of first-degree murder under special circumstances to 35 years to life or life without possibility of parole. Current law allows such persons to receive limited sentences to the California Youth Authority.

- Specify that appeals of death penalty sentences be handled “expeditiously” by the state Supreme Court.

In a debate marked by a highly partisan flavor, Republicans argued that it was not enough to urge the court to act quickly on such appeals. Instead, they favored a provision that would allow the state controller to withhold the justices’ pay if the court failed to act on the final stage of a death penalty appeal within 150 days after it is filed.

Court Avoids Deadline

Although current law already contains similar wording, the Supreme Court for many years has avoided the deadline by using its own definition of when an appeal is officially submitted, contending that the clock does not start until just before the court issues its opinion.

Sen. John Doolittle (R-Citrus Heights), who led the unsuccessful fight to amend the bill, said the omission of the provision on Supreme Court justices’ pay would take “the heart out of the bill.”

“The Legislature has done the public a great disservice,” Doolittle said. “They’ve given the impression of doing something but they haven’t done anything.”

Sen. H. L. Richardson (R-Glendora) told colleagues that they need not worry about the eventual execution of prisoners on death row because, at the Supreme Court’s current pace of deciding appeals, all those sentenced to death “will die of old age.”

Eye Toward Bird Contest

But Democrats called the bill a strong one, and suggested that Republicans opposed it because they feared the measure could take some of the momentum out of the effort to defeat Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird when she faces election next year.

“This bill is a good one; it’s a strong death penalty statute,” Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) said. “It responds to the desires of the California public that the death penalty be our basic law in this state.”

Others argued that decisions of life and death need to be made with much more care and study than other appeals.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty Ira Reiner, a Democrat who has strongly backed the bill, said he expects Republicans to repeat their attempts to amend or block the measure when it reaches the Assembly floor.

“The Republicans don’t want a death penalty bill,” said Reiner, who watched the proceedings from the rear of the chamber. “They are for the death penalty, but they have another agenda. They want the issue to fester, and they don’t want to be part of a solution.”