The State of California follows the policy of awarding capital punishment to a few persons convicted of serious crimes including murder. The policy was introduced to prevent the recurrence of large numbers of crimes in the State. The legislation has experienced considerable modifications since the 19th century. The State and the community have incurred considerable financial and non-financial expenses while implementing this policy. Alarcón & Mitchell (2012) conducted a financial analysis of the death punishment of the California State. The study reveals that since 1978 the government has spent approximately $4 billion to implement this policy, even though only 17 convicts were executed for 35 years. The State is likely to incur an additional cost of $5 billion by 2050 to implement this policy. The study shows that the government spends a considerable amount of money to implement this legislation (Alarcón & Mitchell, 2012). The policy has a provision for automatic review of capital punishment decisions by the State Supreme Court, and the expense is borne by the government. The government bears additional administrative expenses. Approximately 40 percent of expenses related to pre-trial and trial procedures. The government has spent $1 billion on the incarceration of the accused. The government has also spent $775 million on Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals. The study suggests that California State can reduce its expenditure by modifying the policy. For example, the legislation can allow trial by lower courts. The government needs to replace death punishment with life imprisonment. By implementing this reform, the government can save $ 5 billion for 20 years. This reform would result in an immediate saving of $170 million to the government (Alarcón & Mitchell, 2012). The policy is a legislative-initiated issue. The present law was passed in the year 1978, which replaced the 1977 legislation. According to the legislation of 1978, a result of the California ballot, the capital punishment decision would be reviewed by the State Supreme Court, which can uphold or revise the decision. The convicts are also allowed to challenge the decision in the court based on any other relevant clauses of the constitution. The government introduced legislation that sanctioned the use of lethal injection to execute convicts. In 2010, a regulation regarding lethal injection was notified (State of California, 2013). It is apparent that the voters initiated the legislation, and it was implemented by the legislature. The citizens supported the government’s decision through a ballot vote. The ballot implies that the public has sanctioned the policy. It is important to note that the legislation has been subjected to constant modification since the 19th century. The provisions have been changed to accommodate criticisms concerning this legislation. For example, in 1976, a few convicts were allowed to change their death punishment to life imprisonment (the State of California, 2013). The constitutional issue relates to the possible violation of the Eighth Amendment. The decision of the government to introduce lethal injection as a method of death punishment has been challenged in the court of la