Benefit Concert for SAFE California

Love Conquers Death: Music and Readings to Benefit Safe California

Join CCC staff and local musicians and actors in an evening of music and readings. All proceeds go to SAFE California, a ballot initiative to replace the death penalty with life without parole.

Where? San Francisco Community Music Center, 544 Capp Street
When? May 26, 8pm

Tickets $15 ($10 with student ID).

See you there!

Deterrence and the Death Penalty: New Report from National Research Council

Before the public conversation about the death penalty was all about money, and before the legal conversation was all about chemicals and devices, before the emergence of innocence projects, research tried to determine whether the death penalty deterred people from committing homicides. This was the first in a series of different discourses about the pros and cons of capital punishment.

As I explained in an earlier post, the first research project of this kind, Isaac Ehrlich’s study from the 1970s, was seminal in bringing back the death penalty in 1976 after a four-year moratorium. Ehrlich found that each execution, on average, prevented eight homicides from occurring.

Throughout the years, the discussion about deterrence was relegated to a bitter feud between two research teams. In 2008, I had a chance to see a confrontation between those teams, and I wrote:

Everyone in the room was allowed to take a peek into the world of econometric studies of the death penalty, and to witness a cross between a genuine debate on the meaning of methodology and replication, and somewhat of an academic three-ring circus. As many readers may know, Ehrlich’s work in the 1970s was cited in Gregg v. Georgia, leading to a reinstatement of the death penalty after a four-year moratorium; studies following Ehrlich’s work have claimed to discredit their findings. The new generation of feuding parties includes Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Paul Rubin, who argue that their work confirms the deterrence effects of the death penalty, and Justin Wolfers (who was the discussant!), whose replication aims at discrediting the findings. Lots of good points were made. There are legitimate questions of what constitutes a faithful replication of a study; also, there’s a respectable debate on the merits of controlling for certain variables and the purpose of including, or excluding, Texas from the analysis. In addition, we all got, for the price of admission, a healthy dosage of mud slinging, including critique over who chose to publish at a peer-reviewed publication and who didn’t, and public exposure of the email exchange that preceded the conference. Afterwards, the two factions exited the room and went to lunch, leaving me to dig into my grilled veggie wrap and ponder other dimensions of the debate, namely, how we should improve dialogue across disciplinary boundaries, and how I wish someone studied the ideological aspect of all this, namely, whether in this sort of debate (or in the gun control/deterrence debate) methodological disagreements scrupulously follow political party lines.

My pal Dave Hoffman thought Wolfers and the dissenters won and wrote a thoughtful blog post about it.

A New York Times opinion piece is citing a National Research Council report, which once again tackles the issue of deterrence. The abstract provides in part:

This new report from the Committee on Law and Justice concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates is not useful in determining whether the death penalty increases, decreases, or has no effect on these rates. The key question is whether capital punishment is less or more effective as a deterrent than alternative punishments, such as a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Yet none of the research that has been done accounted for the possible effect of noncapital punishments on homicide rates. The report recommends new avenues of research that may provide broader insight into any deterrent effects from both capital and noncapital punishments.

This is an interesting addition to the discussion. It seemed to me that the deterrence argument became stale somewhere in the 1980s and remained of interest to a small number of researchers, whose ideological interest in the substance was secondary to their econometric methods. But this NRC report may be the last nail in the deterrence argument coffin.

It also speaks directly to the way SAFE California has been framing its campaign. The website is very careful, you’ll notice, to avoid the words “abolition” and “end”; it does not make humanitarian arguments; rather, it speaks of “replacing” the death penalty with life without parole. I realize this is a political necessity, as not all people on board with the abolition agenda are bleeding-heart rehabilitation enthusiasts (SAFE California has victims and law enforcers on board.) But what I want to point out is that this is not merely a conversation about what needs to go away, but also about what will come in its place. It’s impossible to have a conversation about the death penalty that is not comparative.

Many years after we do the right thing, we will need to have the conversation that European industrialized countries had a long time ago, about the merits of life without parole. By then, coalitions and priorities might shift. But, as Aragorn would say, while that day will inevitably come, it is not this day.

MORE BREAKING NEWS: CDCR Announces $1.5 Billion Cuts By Doing the Right Things

This is shaping up to be quite a dramatic day here at CCC! CDCR has a brand new report out in which it announces plans to cut $1.5 billion out of its budget, doing things that seem eminently sensible. Here are some of the main propositions:

CDCR’s projected population for state institution is quite a dramatic decline between 2012 and 2017. Their graphs predict a gradual decrease in inmate population from the current level of approximately 139,000 to 124,000. This decline, however, will be accompanied by an increase in the total numbers (and percentage) of elderly and infirm inmates.

Some of the changes will include changing security classification, including graduated housing and privileges, as well as a step-down program and support for inmates seeking to disengage from gangs.

CDCR also plans to increase the reach of its rehabilitation programs to 70% of the inmates, as well as various re-entry hubs complete with employment training, which will be primarily available during the last six months of prison time.

By 2015-2016, all out-of-state inmates will be returned to California, thus eliminating completely our reliance on contract beds with private corporations.

Serious changes are made to the mental health bed plan and to medical and dental care.

Read the report in its entirety; the charts and floor plans are instructive and helpful.

This is truly a day of hope for change in the correctional system, and one I see as the silver lining of our fiscal crisis. The need to be fiscally prudent is finally pushing us to do the right thing by our fellow Californians.

BREAKING NEWS: Bill to Replace Death Penalty with LWOP Qualifies for Ballot

SAFE California’s bill to replace the death penalty with life without parole has officially qualified for the 2012 Ballot, having easily surpassed the number of signatures required.

CCC will throw a fundraising house party for SAFE California in late May. Watch this space for details.

UPDATE: We are organizing a benefit concert for SAFE California on Sat, May 26. Click here for details and ticket reservations!

Solitary Confinement for Juveniles

Earlier this week, the Public Safety Committee killed SB 1363, a bill that would disallow subjecting any minors, whether in prison or in jail, to solitary confinement, unless they pose an immediate and substantial risk or harm to others and other options have been exhausted. Even in the latter case, the juvenile would have to be constantly evaluated.

Activists are making one more push for it this coming Tuesday. Linda Roldan’s post on the Ella Baker Center blog, A Mother’s Nightmare, offers a personal perspective on the immense harms of solitary confinement for minors.

My son is not a tough kid and wasn’t ready for the gladiator school called DJJ. On his very first day, he was beat up. He’s seen things he should never see, like kids fighting each other and guards assaulting and pepper-spraying kids on a daily basis. After experiencing solitary confinement, violence, and humiliation by guards, he now suffers from severe depression and hallucinations. He never had serious mental health issues before. Now he is suicidal.

We’ll keep you posted as to the status of the bill.

Tomorrow: Protest Day Against Mass Incarceration

Tomorrow is a national day of action to stop mass incarceration.

Events in Southern and Northern CA:

Los Angeles
Convergence at 4pm, Pershing Square, downtown LA, 5th and Olive
March at 5pm to LAPD Headquarters

San Francisco
California State Building, Van Ness and McAllister, 12 Noon
more information here.

New Bill Proposal to CIrcumvent Wholesale Strip Seaches in CA

This recent post discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, in which strip searches were allowed for all those entering general population in jail. A new proposed California bill would bypass this process by creating more hurdles in the path of placing people in general population in the first place.

SB 1536, proposed by Senator Mark Leno –

would prohibit a person arrested and held in custody on a misdemeanor or infraction offense not involving weapons, controlled substances, or violence, from being confined in the general jail population unless a judge or magistrate has determined that the person does not qualify to be released on his or her own recognizance and that, after being given a chance to post bail, the person is not able to do so within a reasonable time. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.


The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.


This strikes me as eminently sensible. I was not one of the commentators who were shocked by the Supreme Court decision. I think security reasons when entering general population require everyone to be searched. I also think that arbitrarily searching only some inmates would give rise to ugly profiling practices and accusations. This proposal is excellent in that it makes sure that non-dangerous folks don’t get committed to general population in the first place, if it can be avoided, thus bypassing the problem entirely. Good job, Senator Leno!

Housing People of Imperfection

The Bay Guardian features an interesting insider look at correctional policy and realignment by Eugene Alexander Day, a three-striker in Soledad Prison. It’s worth a read in its entirety. Here’s a short excerpt:

It took some of the sting off my life sentence when the Supreme Court smashed the CDCR in 2011. Systemic mismanagement corrupted a generation of salvageable prisoners. As someone who lives, breathes, and sleeps the politics of justice, the Legislature didn’t simply kick the can down the road – it pushed the state closer to the precipice. State leaders have set a poor example. By failing to follow the evidence in 2007, all 58 counties had Realignment shoved down their throats in 2011.


This lens through which I see the world is depicted as “synchronized drowning” by Attorney General Kamala Harris. For the last 13 years, I’ve struggled to keep my wits in this sea of despair. Deviants need structured treatment, not more of the same. Shifting the responsibility of tens of thousands of offenders away from CDCR is an idea of brilliant simplicity.


Local law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts are better suited to solve local problems. These offenders are members of your community. The next time the task force stomps through the ghetto snatching up people of color, they must think about how to house all of these people of imperfection. Good. Most need help, not a jackboot.


. . .


The counties might hate Realignment, but I hate the fact it took so long. Marking a happy day in this collaborator’s miserable life, a whole class of offenders have been diverted away from the Monster Factory. Excellent. Realignment is not some hug-a-thug program. It’s basic math. So used to being treated like shit, I will die before I advocate for mollycoddling prisoners. Using offenders as earmarks to maintain an unsustainable status quo is a feeling worse than death. Fix the problem.


My dreams are skewed. In my way of thinking, prisons should become factories that turn monsters into advocates for social justice. Offenders need to learn the difference between pro-social and antisocial behavior, not how to shove dope up their asses or participate in a riot.

I’m not sure whether Day will be pleased or disappointment with the results of the realignment experiment. The intent, to produce jails as instruments of rehabilitation, is laudable, but only if the jails really are up to the task. So far, some initiatives look promising, while others, such as jail building initiatives, absurd cost-rolling measures, and health care fiascos, do not. I guess time will tell.

Gun Production and Gun Murder Rates? An Exercise in Data Interpretation

Today’s Prison Law Blog, an outfit I like and respect, features a guest post by Peter Wagner from the Prison Policy Initiative. Wagner tries to make an anti-gun argument based on a graph depicting gun homicide and gun production.

Here’s what Wagner would have you conclude from this:

The gun lobby would rather not talk about the correlation between the production of handguns and dying. The evidence there is clear. So the question, then, is whether the gun lobby is trying to distract from the problems that guns cause, or are they trying to create them?

I’m no big lover of guns, believe me, and I firmly believe in strict regulation to prevent deadly weapons from being in the wrong hands (of course, sometimes that can’t be helped, unfortunately.) But I do believe that if one wants to make a serious argument based on data, one should read data accurately and honestly.

Take another look at the graph. If Wagner would have you believe that gun production causes gun homicides, wouldn’t gun production have to precede gun homicides? The graph shows quite the contrary. Homicide rates peak before production rates rise. If so, the graph tells us the implausible story that gun manufacturers are responding to the demands of homicidal maniacs. Since only a fraction of all guns sold are used for homicide, that’s not only nefarious, but also rather unlikely. Also, note that for the last five years in the graph, gun production goes up and gun homicides decline. The decline probably has to do with various factors that have nothing to do with gun production (read more about this in Frank Zimring’s new book). This bivariate correlation is close to meaningless.

Accusing the right of alarmism, panic-mongering and inaccuracy doesn’t really work if one resorts to the same tactics. And if you want to make a serious argument for gun control (and there is one to be argued), take the care and diligence to argue it properly.

—————-
Props to Chad Goerzen for shooting the breeze about this with me this morning.

Connecticut Becomes 17th State to Abolish the Death Penalty

The Los Angeles Times reports that the vote was 86-62. And here’s Governor Malloy’s “I’m not soft on crime” reaction to the vote:

Malloy praised the vote, which came at 10:57 p.m., saying it would let the state “throw away the key” and put away the worst criminals for life. “For decades we have not had a workable death penalty,” Malloy said in a statement. “Going forward, we will have a system that allows us to put these people away for life, in living conditions none of us would want to experience.”

As in California, the safety net for abolition coalitions is life without parole. SAFE California, whose proposition advocates life without parole, relies on a coalition with victims and law enforcement officials who would not be on board with a movement to abolish life without parole as well.