CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS: THE AD CAMPAIGNS

The issue: Proposition 115, the anti-crime initiative. Whose ads? Two by proponents; one by opponents.

The initiative, known as the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act, would amend the state Constitution to limit the rights of criminal defendants to only those required under the federal Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court. The measure also would expand death penalty statutes to allow execution of certain accomplices in felony murders; establish a new crime of torture; and impose a wide range of reforms--modeled after the federal system--in an effort to reduce delay in criminal proceedings.

Elements of the ads, with analysis by Times staff writer Philip Hager:

Pro-115 Ad: Backers of the measure have produced a 30-second commercial that focuses on the case of convicted “Night Stalker” murderer Richard Ramirez to spotlight improvements they assert Proposition 115 would make to the criminal justice system. The ad shows news film of Ramirez and features commentary by Ginny Petersen of Northridge, who with her husband was shot and wounded in their bedroom in an attack by Ramirez in 1985. The couple’s 4-year-old daughter, sleeping in another room, was unharmed. An announcer says the “loopholes” that allowed four years to pass before Ramirez was convicted of this crime and several others, including 13 murders, are “still on the books.” But, the announcer adds, Proposition 115 would put an end to these “agonizing delays.” Mrs. Petersen points out that their daughter was nearly 9 years old before a verdict was rendered.

Analysis: The ad cites a notorious and unusual case as an example of the slow pace of the criminal justice system. The case was complex--Ramirez was charged with 13 murders, as well as numerous other offenses--and a wide range of factors contributed to its length. For one thing, it took six months just to select a jury. Proposition 115 would change current jury-selection procedures to reduce delay in several ways.

The initiative would ease current requirements that prospective jurors in capital cases be questioned individually and in private. In all cases, judges, rather than attorneys, would do the questioning--and the scope of the questioning would be restricted to detecting clear bias, with jurors no longer being asked about personal views or habits that might only indicate how they would ultimately vote in the case. The measure also would eliminate the need for sometimes-lengthy preliminary hearings for defendants already indicted by a grand jury. In all probability, the measure would have reduced the length of the Ramirez case.

Pro-115 Ad: A 15-second commercial features U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson, a Republican gubernatorial candidate and one of the measure’s chief backers. In a courtroom, surrounded by crime victims, Wilson says these victims have “suffered through a court system that’s more responsive to criminals and their lawyers than it is to them.” Proposition 115, he says, “will put a stop” to “agonizing and costly” legal delays.

Analysis: The measure, in certain instances, would eliminate the need for victims and other witnesses to appear repeatedly in criminal proceedings. But basic rights of defendants--such as the presumption of innocence, the right to confront one’s accusers and the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt--would remain intact. While proceedings would move faster, there is sharp dispute over whether the initiative will end up increasing or decreasing taxpayer costs.

Anti-115 Ad: Opponents of Proposition 115 have paid for a 30-second ad centering on their contention that the measure would undermine state constitutional rights to privacy and abortion rights. The commercial shows film of a burned abortion clinic and jeering anti-abortion protesters, while an announcer says that “extremists” have waged a “campaign of intimidation and terror” against abortion rights and that now their efforts are taking a “dangerous turn.” The ad says Proposition 115 contains “hidden provisions” that could be used to outlaw abortion. The ad also says: “Proposition 115--it seems simple. But who’s behind it--anti-abortion extremists.”

Analysis: In fact, there are no anti-abortion organizations among the major groups supporting the measure. Individual supporters include both proponents and opponents of abortion rights. The measure limits a number of criminal defendants’ rights, including the right of privacy. Opponents say that under the initiative, the state constitutional right to privacy would be restricted or eliminated if the U.S. Supreme Court limits federal privacy rights. In that event, they say, there would no longer be a state constitutional obstacle to the enactment and enforcement of statutes criminalizing abortion.

Backers of the measure say the right-of-privacy restriction applies only to criminal procedures and steadfastly deny it would affect abortion or any other civil right. They note that similar conclusions have been reached by the nonpartisan legislative counsel and analysts in the state attorney general’s office. If the issue does eventually arise, it will be up to the courts to resolve it. The current state Supreme Court is more conservative than its predecessor, but the justices thus far have given no indication how they would rule on such a question.