Voters should say yes to Prop. 62, ending a broken system of capital punishment.

Voters can end California’s failed experiment with the death penalty by passing Proposition 62,and replacing it with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

Among many problems, California’s death penalty leaves too much power to county district attorneys. A critical factor determining who receives a death sentence is not the nature of the crime or the record of the defendant, but the county where the crime was committed. Only a tiny fraction of counties (16) in the country account for most current death sentences. Five are in California.

Another factor contributing to arbitrariness is the quality of the defense. Those represented at trial by well-trained capital defense attorneys – particularly public defenders – are far less likely to get death than those represented by private lawyers.

Then there is race and the reality that one who kills a white person is far more likely to get the death penalty than one who kills a person of color. Add the ability of prosecutors to strike African Americans and Latinos from juries, and that most judges and prosecutors in counties where the death penalty is most frequently sought are white, and we are left with racial bias.

In sum, California’s current death penalty is an arbitrary, unreliable government program costing taxpayers $5 billion while resulting in “just” 13 executions (none in the past 10 years) and the largest death row in the country.

Two death penalty initiatives are on the Nov. 8 ballot for California voters:propositions 62 and 66. Prop. 66 would take a broken system and make it worse. It purports to speed up appellate review of death sentences by saddling local trialcourts with the responsibility (and cost) of adjudicating capitalappealsand forcinginexperienced attorneys to take them. A San Francisco Chronicle editorial called it a “highly complex, probably very expensive and constitutionally questionable scheme.”

Prop. 66 would do nothing to address the root problems with California’s death penalty. Prop. 66’s proposed changes would actually slow down, not speed up, appeals that already take 25 years or more. But even assuming it could miraculously speed up the first part of the appellate process in state court, there would be a second layer of mandated review in federal court; 66 does nothing to address the delays in federal court, and thus delays overall.

Prop. 66 would undermine the already tenuous ability of the system to ensure that death sentences are fairly imposed.

Proposition 62, on the other hand, provides a simple, common-sense solution. It would end the death penalty and replace it with life sentences without the possibility of parole. According to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, it would save taxpayers$150 millionevery year. More importantly, Prop. 62 will finally put an end to this risky, discriminatory and dysfunctional mess.

Andrew Love is a partner at Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd. He has represented California death row inmates for over 25 years. He is on the board of the Yes on 62 campaign, and he blogs at Fair and Unbalanced.

Editor's note: This story has been updated to reflect the following correction: Due to an editing error, an earlier version stated Prop. 66 does nothing to address the delays in federal court, and adds to delays; it should have said it does nothing to address delays overall, rather than adding delays.