The worst crimes across the nation for which people have been sentenced to death have a common theme of incomprehensible cruelty and suffering inflicted on helpless people. In the face of such crimes it is hard for some to object to the death penalty.
However, a recent study, by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Arthur Alarcon and Loyola Law School Professor Paula Mitchell, of correctional records reveals the stunning toll that legal proceedings take on the financial resources of our state. In the face of the staggering cost of capital punishment, California can no longer afford the legal proceedings required, by law, to put a person to death.
That enormous expenditure has led State Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) to introduce a bill eliminating the death penalty and replacing it with permanent imprisonment. The Senator says that the death penalty is a failed policy that is bankrupting the state. She explained that at a time of “the heart-breaking cuts to public safety and public education,” we cannot afford the death penalty. Looking at the cost of the death penalty and what else could be done with the money, and given that the debt crisis is likely to take years to repair, we are compelled to agree and we support Hancock’s bill – SB 490.
The amount of money saved by abolishing the death penalty could be used to strengthen law enforcement, provide more sophisticated tools for evidence gathering, strengthen social services and maintain such basic civic services as education and health. Putting the quantity of money in perspective, Senator Hancock explained that the UC system budget was reduced by $200 million.
At the Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing on SB 490, Former San Quentin Warden Jeanne Woodford and former prosecutor Don Heller, who actually wrote the 1978 death penalty law, were present in support of the bill. Clinton Duffy, Warden of San Quentin in the 1940’s, oversaw 90 executions and was another strong opponent of capital punishment.
While the use of the death penalty here in California may be warranted in a number of cases, we would save $184 million per year if we used permanent imprisonment instead. Considering the debt crisis that our state is engulfed in, that civic services are being cut and that it will be a number of years before we recover, it’s time to end the death penalty and spend the money on more urgent needs.
[quote]The amount of money saved by abolishing the death penalty could be used to strengthen law enforcement, provide more sophisticated tools for evidence gathering, strengthen social services and maintain such basic civic services as education and health. Putting the quantity of money in perspective, Senator Hancock explained that the UC system budget was reduced by $200 million. [/quote]
It isn’t a huge amount of money in relation to the entire budget, but it certainly could go towards something more useful. It will be interesting to see if this bill gets anywhere…
[quote]”In those more-than-3 decades, thirteen people in total have been executed here – an average cost to us of $308 million per execution.”[/quote]A better argument for Senator Hancock to press is the cost per capital case that [u]doesn’t[/u] end “successfully.”
As long as we accept the notion that “the use of the death penalty here in California may be warranted in a number of cases,” the costs will continue to increase for at least two reasons.
First, conservatives will be unable to find many capital crimes to remove from the list. Cop killers, nope. Serial murderers, nope. Child torturers, nope. The person who kills one of my relatives, nope.
Then, liberals will be unable to skimp on providing support to defend the rights of the accused to fair trials and the convicted to appeals.
Let’s get rid of third strikes and capital punishment all together. At least, the savings could cover the cost of our new water/sewage treatment system.
“The amount of money saved by abolishing the death penalty could be used to strengthen law enforcement, provide more sophisticated tools for evidence gathering, strengthen social services and maintain such basic civic services as education and health. Putting the quantity of money in perspective, Senator Hancock explained that the UC system budget was reduced by $200 million. “
Great suggestions! We need to stop allowing fear to be used as a scare tactic to keep the money flowing into such a wasteful system. Life in prison without parol should be enough even for the worst crimes. Now, if someone from the legislature could offer suggestions on reforming the entire system, we could redirect even more money to worthwhile services.
Playing devils advocate, one might make the argument that we can go about changing procedures to make it cheaper to implement the death penalty!
Having said that, like many other citizens (perhaps the majority) it is not the cost of the death penalty that I have major issues with; but the nagging reality that there is always a chance that some innocents might get executed (exemplified by DNA-based exonerations over past decade).
I would be for the death penalty if an additional standard of guilt is applicable; not only “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” but “guilty beyond any doubt”; this higher standard might apply to some (but not all) currently on death row. (I realize setting up such an additional standard is likely not feasible in the USA; still I wonder if other legal systems around the world might have such a standard?)
If we extend the logic of a financial argument to evaluate the merit of the death penalty; if our system evolves such that it becomes cheaper to execute someone than imprison this person for life; would this imply that we therefor should perform more executions?
I think like anything you have to weigh your policy decisions based not only on cost but value. So let’s suppose you are concerned about the cost, but we executed a lot of people, and you think the value of those executions outweighs the cost. On the other hand, perhaps you look at the present situation and see not only cost but lack of executions and therefore question the policy.
Reversing the cost issue, you then calculate your policy choice in reverse. Obviously if you are in favor of more executions anyway, that makes it an easy choice If you are on the other hand, inclined to oppose them, it would not impact your choice.
To jimt: You make excellent points!