Death penalty is an empty promise to victims’ families

The question California voters face regarding the death penalty this election is simple: Do we attempt to speed up the lengthy process or entirely scrap this form of punishment that has proven to be a failure since it was reinstated in 1978? This is where the simplicity ends.

As the widow of a police officer murdered in the line of duty, I no longer struggle with this question. To me, it’s obvious that we need to end the death penalty and focus our efforts and resources on strategies that truly improve public safety.

{mosads}I didn’t always hold this view. In fact, I advocated passionately for a death sentence for the man who shot my husband. The killer received a death sentence and is sitting on death row in San Quentin. That verdict did not heal me in the way I thought it would.

I wanted the ultimate punishment for my husband’s killer because I bought into the myths about the death penalty. However, it didn’t take me long to realize the death penalty failed to give me the closure and healing I was promised. I then learned that it is not a deterrent to crime, it does not improve public safety, it is unfairly applied when it comes to race and socioeconomic status, and it costs way too much.

Our failed death penalty system has cost taxpayers $5 billion since it was revived in 1978 and has only been carried out 13 times since. The money wasted by this broken system over the past 30 years is a tragic injustice to everyone in California, especially victims of crime.

What makes this a difficult issue in general is the emotion that entangles both sides. I understand it and remember how angry and full of rage I was — I needed to feel like the loss of my husband’s life was acknowledged in the strongest possible terms. I wanted Irving Ramirez’s life in exchange for my husband Dan’s life. It felt right; it  felt like justice.

Now, eleven years later, I’ve had time to heal and reflect. I realize now that what I really wanted was for this to never happen to another police family ever again. I know my husband’s motivation for doing his job was to increase public safety and I had to seriously consider whether or not Irving’s death would forward that goal. After much investigation and soul searching, I came to the conclusion that it would not and I changed my position — and I am not alone.

According to California Crime Victim Voices, the first-ever survey of crime survivors conducted by Californians for Safety and Justice, 74 percent of crime survivors want investments in crime prevention strategies like drug treatment, mental health services and trauma support for victims over investments in prison. California voters know that our tough on crime movement failed to deliver on its promises and are now supporting smarter investments that reduce the prison population and increase safety and healing in communities most impacted by violent crime.

Those strategies serve all of California by stopping the creation of new victims. I often wonder if Dan would be alive today if we had invested in Irving’s success instead of fast-tracking his failure by continuously ignoring his drug and alcohol issues — fueled by early childhood trauma — as he cycled in and out of the prison system. I have to wonder if our need for vengeance and punishment cost my husband his life.

On Tuesday, I will be casting my vote to shake up this system and find a smarter way to invest the $150 million we waste on the death penalty every year by voting Yes on Prop 62 and No on Prop 66. I hope California voters will join me.

Wilson is a California voter and the widow of Nels “Dan” Niemi, a San Leandro police officer killed in the line of duty in July 2005. She is outspoken advocate for criminal justice reform.

The views expressed by Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.