Justice is a principle that everyone can agree on even if the way that it is carried out is contested. Proposition 34 would have one of the highest forms of justice diffused under the guise of safety.

An argument in favor of repealing the death penalty is that it, the death penalty, is intrinsically wrong. Is the crime that was committed to earn such a reprimand not also intrinsically wrong?

A family is lost to brutal murder and people argue that it is the death penalty that is wrong.

This proposition would give the criminals life in prison without the possibility of parole and supposedly save millions of dollars for the state. This is not a valid argument for repealing the death penalty. It’s as if supporters are saying that the price of justice far outweighs it’s purpose.

The argument that innocent people are being convicted of murder is also one that can be dissected. It is not the penalty that is on trial in these instances. It is the fallibility of man that changes the outcome. Granted, the concession can be made that the death penalty needs reform. Reform, not elimination.

The appeals process and incarceration total cost is $2.7 billion. That is just for California. The aforementioned monetary argument can be taken on both sides. If the appeals process were to take on reform and cut down the time frame of appeals, the cost would decrease.

Once the appeals process time is reduced, a criminal that has been charged with the death penalty faces his sentence and the cost of incarceration reduces as well.

With the process being reformed and the sentence actually being carried out the total cost could be reduced greatly.

According the California Secretary of State’s web page, this initiative would cost voters $100 million for the “first few years” with millions more extending into the future.

The opposition argues that too much money is being spent on and surround the death penalty. Now they want to bring out $100 million in taxpayer funds for the initiative.

At what point does justice stop being about money? At what point are victims considered?

Michael Ramos, San Bernardino County District Attorney was quoted saying that “…the SAFE California Act is a slap in the face to the victims and their family members.”

It is time for this issue to really be examined and put to bed once and for all. The voters have already made their will clear in the past. This initiative violates that will and imposes another, focused on dollar amounts instead of lives.

Respect the victims. Respect their families. No on 34.