Report Says Ending Death Penalty Could Save Millions of Dollars

By Opposing Views Editorial Staff , To Protect and Serve Opposing Views - October 20, 2009

Icoemail3
Comments(13) | (1)
Put aside the moral and ethical debate for a moment. In these difficult economic times, a new study says there's a very simple way to save a whole lot of money: eliminate capital punishment.

The anti-execution Death Penalty Information Center report says that since 1976, an extra $2 billion has been spent on death penalty cases in the United States that wouldn't have been spent if the highest penalty was life in prison. That takes into account the cost of the initial trial, as well as the decades of appeals that all capital cases require.

"It is doubtful in today's economic climate that any legislature would introduce the death penalty if faced with the reality that each execution would cost taxpayers 25 million dollars, or that the state might spend more than 100 million dollars over several years and produce few or no executions," argued Richard Dieter, director of the Center and the report's author.

The report says even when the harshest sentence is handed down, it rarely results in a criminal being put to death, which wastes even more money. "Further down the road, only one in?10 of the death sentences handed down may result in an execution," said Dieter.

In the United States, 35 of the 50 states currently have the death penalty. But only around?12 states use it regularly. Another dozen or so are reconsidering the punishment, in part because of the high cost. New Mexico and New Jersey recently abolished it. In fact, the report says New Jersey spent $253 million on death penalty cases over 25 years -- and never executed a single prisoner.

"There is no reason the death penalty should be immune from reconsideration, along with other wasteful, expensive programs that no longer make sense," Dieter said. "The same states that are spending millions of dollars on the death penalty are facing severe cutbacks in other justice areas. Courts are open less, trials are delayed, and even police are being furloughed."

Cash-strapped California, for example, spends $137 million a year on capital cases. A comparable system that instead sentenced the same offenders to life without parole would cost $11.5 million, says the report.

But even with these economic numbers,?states might have a hard time eliminating the death penalty. A recent poll finds 65% of Americans still support it.
This content is inappropriate
Loading

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:


Regarding Article
NEWS:Report Says Ending Death Penalty Could Save Millions of Dollars

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • jordon
    I think its a waste of money

    I'm still undecided on the ethical dimension of the death penalty . However its for practical reasons like this and the possible execution of innocents that I think it should be abolished. Especially considering that I've heard no solid evidence for a deterrent effect I think the death penalty is a waste of money . We should spend the money some place else.

    - jordonUS October 20, 2009 9:50PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Don Earl
      I'm not undecided, but agree.

      There's really no question in my mind that the worst of the worst deserve death. On the other hand, I recall reading about a case where after 25 years of appeals, the guy was finally executed in his late 60s. IMO, that's totally absurd. When the death penalty is in practice a natural life sentence, it's dumb to call it and treat it as anything else. The bad guy is off the streets, which is all that's really needed to protect society from him anyway.

      - Don EarlUS October 21, 2009 9:44AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • quantummechanik
    I think closing down prisons could save BILLIONS

    But that's not really a good argument for exonerating millions of convicted inmates.

    - quantummechanikUS October 21, 2009 9:32AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • mike1948
      Death penalty.

      Then there's all the wrongful convictions.

      - mike1948US October 21, 2009 11:11AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • SolarSanitizer
        All 7 of them.

        Let's dismantle the entire capital justice system for an infinitesimal minority while ignoring huge problems killing tens of thousands of people a year.

        Or, reinstate the 5th amendment and allow capital suspects a grand jury indictment proceeding instead of a prosecutor/judge indictment hearing.

        - SolarSanitizerUS October 21, 2009 11:47AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • mike1948
          7?

          The Innocence Project has exonerated more then 7 people on death row and there is no reason to believe that they are the only ones.

          Since the prosecutor usually controls the grand jury process reinstating it wouldn't by itself solve the problem

          - mike1948US October 21, 2009 1:55PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • SolarSanitizer
            The Innocence Project is likely a biased source for information.

            Yes, I was exaggerating. The ratio is still quite small and a false conviction is exceedingly rare. But this does not mean it is a non-issue. I know if I were the innocent man on the stand, I'd want the fairest possible trial.

            If we change from a 3 person indictment panel(judge, prosecution, and defense) to an 11-27 person indictment panel, more truth will surface preventing false convictions before they even start.

            An ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure rings particularly true here, in my opinion.

            - SolarSanitizerUS October 21, 2009 2:41PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • quantummechanik
        I'm just wondering why

        "It's Cheaper" is now a valid argument when referring to literal life and death situations.

        - quantummechanikUS October 21, 2009 12:23PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • mike1948
          Why?

          Money isn't the best argument but a lot of people think in terms of money rather then morality.

          - mike1948US October 21, 2009 1:57PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • ks76
    Doesn't need to cost so much

    The death penalty does not need to cost anywhere near as much as it does. Most of the additional expense is for lawyers to investigate the defendant's entire life -- facts having nothing to do with the crime . Then on review of the case, another set of lawyers investigates his whole life again to claim that the first set didn't do it right.

    If we just limit the penalty trial to the facts of the crime and the defendant's criminal record or lack of one, most of that additional expense would vanish. To do that, the Supreme Court needs to overrule one of its many wrong decisions in this area.

    - ks76US October 23, 2009 1:03PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • dudleysharp
    How bad is the Death Penalty Information Center?

    How bad is the Death Penalty Information Center?: A response to the DPIC's "Smart on Crime: Reconsidering the Death Penalty"
    Dudley Sharp, contact info below

    -The DPIC cost reviews are, extremely, misleading.

    1) For example, their highly inaccurate description of costs in North Carolina. The study actually shows that life without parole is considerably more expensive than the death penalty . (1) This is typical of DPIC and infects their entire report.

    2) If relevant states wanted to improve death penalty efficiency, they would emulate Virginia: executions occur within 5-7 years, 65% of those sentenced to death have been executed and only 15% of their death penalty cases are overturned - a protocol that would be much less expensive than life without parole. (2) In a bad economy , most of us look at improving efficiency, the DPIC only looks at highly inefficient, irresponsible death penalty systems, or mischaracterize cost studies. Standard, for them.

    - Likely, the police chiefs are unaware that there have been, at least, 16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, which have found for death penalty deterrence. All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. There is no exception. (3)

    - The death penalty would be at the bottom of police chief's violent crime priorities, as capital murders represent, thankfully and by far, the fewest of all violent crimes.

    - The DPIC should have ask police chiefs if they believed the death penalty was appropriate for those who murder police. I bet about 90% do.

    Dudley Sharp
    e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com , 713-622-5491,
    Houston, Texas

    Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

    A former opponent of capital punishment , he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.


    (1) Duke (North Carolina) Death Penalty Cost Study: Let's be honest
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/06/duke-north-carolina-death-penalty-cost.html

    (2) "Cost Savings: The Death Penalty"
    http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/07/cost-savings-the-death-penalty.aspx

    (3) a) Articles on death penalty deterrence
    http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

    b) "Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
    http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx


    c) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html


    d) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
    http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

    (4) The 130 (now 138) death row "innocents" scam
    http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

    - dudleysharpUS October 23, 2009 2:26PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • cbooh
    save money???

    I guess the next report will say it will save even more money by letting them sit in prison and feed them for the rest of their lives..or let them out to kill again...that will save a lot ...less people after they kill them will save money????? this is so stupid it is unreal.....

    - cboohUS October 29, 2009 11:15PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...