Death penalty critics, many of them recent converts to the cause precisely because of the length of stay and prohibitive cost, quickly jumped on a study released this summer from U.S. Ninth Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Loyola Law School professor Paula M. Mitchell, which found that the death penalty adds $184 million to the budget over what it would cost to imprison people for life.
This week, the non-partisan and impartial Legislative Analyst’s Office released their own fiscal analysis of the death penalty.
Importantly, they reach a similar conclusion to the Alarcon-Mitchell study, and they break down the added costs of the death penalty, which helps to clarify where the costs do occur.
It is important to note that, under the terms of the measure, “$10 million would be transferred in 2012-13 from the state General Fund, the main state fund used for the support of various types of state programs, to the SAFE California Fund.”
Furthermore, “Each year from 2013-14 through 2015-16, $30 million more would be transferred from the General Fund to the fund, bringing the total amount of transfers to $100 million. Monies in the SAFE California Fund would be distributed to local agencies based on a formula determined by the state Attorney General.”
The LAO argues, “Elimination of the death penalty would result in reduced criminal justice systems costs related to some murder trials, in various ways.”
First, they argue that the measure would shorten the time it takes to try some trials. One way that would happen is that jury selection would be shortened and there would no longer be a separate penalty phase. “These factors would reduce state costs for support of the trial courts,” the LAO finds.
“In addition, the elimination of the death penalty would reduce the costs incurred by counties for prosecutors and public defenders for some murder cases, such as preparation for murder trials and participation in the penalty phase of trials where a death sentence is sought,” they continue.
The process would also reduce county jail costs.
“Persons held for trial on murder charges, particularly cases that could result in a death sentence, ordinarily remain in custody in county jail until the completion of their trial and sentencing. As some murder cases were expedited or eliminated due to the prohibition on capital punishment, the transfer of persons convicted of murder from county jail to state prison would be accelerated, thus reducing the operating costs of county jails,” they write.
They also argue it would reduce expenditures by state, county and city law enforcement agencies on such cases.
The LAO finds, “Law enforcement personnel are often key witnesses in murder trials. A reduction in the number of such trials and a reduction in the length of those cases that do go to trial would in turn reduce their law enforcement staffing costs.”
However, none of this is pure savings. They also believe that there could be an offset, that plea bargain incentives could be eliminated in some murder cases.
They write, “Some murder cases are being resolved with an offender’s plea to a murder charge in trade for an agreement by the district attorney not to seek the death penalty. If the death penalty is prohibited and these cases go to trial instead of being resolved through plea agreements, additional state and local governmental costs for support of courts, prosecution, and defense counsel, as well as county jails, could result. The magnitude of these costs is unknown.”
Nevertheless, they conclude, “This measure is likely to result in a reduction in costs to the state for support of the trial courts, as well as a reduction in costs to counties for prosecution and representation of indigent defendants charged with murder, as well as the costs associated with housing these defendants in jail prior to their sentencing.”
“The magnitude of the net savings to the state and counties from these factors relating to murder trials is unknown, but could be in the low tens of millions of dollars annually on a statewide basis,” the LAO concludes.
This is, of course, not the only savings.
In terms of appellate ligitation costs, they believe there would eventually be a reduction in the costs of appeal, but these expenditures would likely continue until the courts “resolve past and pending cases involving death sentences.”
These costs include expenditures for “the state Department of Justice, the Office of the State Public Defender, the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, the Court-Appointed Counsel program, and the California Supreme Court for the costs of litigating and hearing capital punishment appeals.”
These are not small costs, and they run about $50 million annually.
On the other hand, some of these savings would be offset by the increased workload for superior courts and courts of appeal, which would handle more appeals related to sentences of life without the possibility of parole.
“The state would also incur additional costs for providing representation to qualifying, indigent defendants involved in these appeals. The additional costs to the state and counties as a result of these factors are unknown, but would likely not exceed a few million dollars annually once the lower courts resolved any death penalty cases shifted to them by the California Supreme Court.”
In short, the LAO believes that the measure would result, in the long run, in a net reduction in the costs of appeals that run in the tens of millions of dollars on an annual basis.
In terms of state correctional costs, the LAO writes, “The enactment of this measure would result in an increase in state prison operation costs to the extent that offenders who would otherwise have been executed were held in state prisons for a longer period of time. These additional costs would not likely occur in the near term because relatively few persons now sentenced to death would otherwise have been executed as the appeal of their cases continues.”
They continue, “However, the net cost of imprisoning offenders for life without the possibility of parole, instead of sentencing them to death, could be significant in the long term, especially if death penalty cases were to be resolved more quickly by the appeals courts in the future than they are now in favor of allowing executions to proceed.”
Offsetting these costs, however, is that fact that “because offenders under death sentence are generally held in separate cells on death row and do not share cells with other inmates there, the prohibition of the death penalty might permit the state to move some former death row inmates to prison facilities where they could be double-celled with other high-security inmates at a lower security cost.”
“In addition, the state currently incurs additional costs – above the amount typically spent on an average inmate – to incarcerate offenders under a death sentence due to various regulations and procedures that only apply to such offenders,” they add.
They cite as an example that “CDCR staff indicate that such offenders are often escorted by two staff members in circumstances where individuals with sentences of life without the possibility of parole are generally only escorted by a single staff member. Thus, the state could achieve additional operational savings to the extent that such special regulations and procedures would no longer be in effect.”
They believe there to be little fiscal impact from provisions mandating that these individuals work while in prison. “This is because the measure’s inmate work requirement does not change existing statute or regulation regarding prison work programs.”
In total, they believe “it is likely that this measure would result in a net savings to the state on prison operation costs, potentially exceeding the low tens of millions of dollars annually, in the near term. The longer term net impact on correctional operation costs are less certain and would depend heavily on the rate of executions in the future.”
They also write that the measure could affect future prison construction costs. They cite, for example, that it could “allow the state to avoid future facility costs associated with housing a growing number of death row inmates.”
On the other hand, they argue, “It could increase prison construction costs to the extent it increases the number of individuals housed in prison with sentences of life without the possibility of parole.”
Thus, they conclude, the net impact of these factors on prison construction costs is unknown.
They then estimate that this measure would produce a net savings “to the state and counties that could amount to the high tens of millions of dollars annually on a statewide basis due to the elimination of the death penalty.”
There is also a one-time cost of $100 million from 2012-13 through 2015-16 that would provide funding to local law enforcement agencies.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Personally, I believe the death penalty question should be resolved on moral rather than economic law… but that is just me.
hpierce
I agree with the sentiment. But unfortunately find myself in the minority who believe that the death penalty is morally wrong.
I did not say that I believe the death penalty is moral. I, personally am torn. I can make/understand moral arguments for AND against it. I lean against, but am aware that I would be willing to use lethal force against someone who is brutally attacking another, even if it resulted in the death of the attacker. Would you do anything and/or EVERYTHING to prevent an attack on a loved one? What I SAID was that I don’t think we should decide what to do based on [u]economics[/u].
hpierce
My comment was in no way directed towards you. I do not know you and would not presume to know your moral position on the death penalty.
My statement was that “I find myself in the minority”. My reference was to polls that indicate that a majority of Americans favor the death penalty. I am merely hoping that many of them are basing their belief on some moral grounds.
As to the issue of what I would do if a loved one were attacked, I believe this to be a completely separate question having nothing at all to do with the death penalty. I believe that I like almost everyone else, would likely slip into a completely amoral state driven purely by adrenaline and do everything in my power to stop the attacker. This, to me, has nothing to do with what one chooses to do once the attacker is completely and permanently disabled and therefore no longer a threat as in the case of life without the possibility of parole..
The problem with assessing the death penalty on the basis of morality, is that we (as the American people) do not agree on what is moral in these circumstances. Perhaps we can agree on some more quantifiable basis no matter how regrettable you and I may find this.
I am against life in prison without the possibility of parole on moral grounds. Locking a person in a cage for 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 or even 80 years–yes, we have prisoners nearing age 100 who were sent away for life when they were not yet 20 years old–is absurdly immoral. What would you say about a culture which locks up a dog* in a cage for 15 years?
*I used to feel the same way about zoos. However, most zoos (in the U.S. at least) now give their animals the chance to roam in a larger exhibit and zoos play a useful role in studying genetic and health questions in species which are exceedingly rare in the wild. … One of the saddest, sickest displays of a zoo I ever saw was in Amman, Jordan in the late 1970s. They had a full sized gorilla whose cage was about 4 feet by four feet and six feet tall, open to viewing on all sides. Many of the patrons of the zoo–including children–would purchase fruit–bananas and apples and palm dates and grapes and so on–and throw the food at the gorilla and they would laugh when he (or she, I don’t recall the gender) would wince when hit by a piece of fruit.
Rich
I agree with you that life without parole in a cage the size of an isolation cell is immoral. So my answer to that is to make larger cells and allow interaction with guards and other inmates. My response would be to make the living conditions more humane, not to kill the prisoner in the name of morality.
[quote]I agree with you that life without parole in a cage the size of an isolation cell is immoral. So my answer to that is to make larger cells and allow interaction with guards and other inmates. My response would be to make the living conditions more humane, not to kill the prisoner in the name of morality.[/quote]
The more humane answer is to put ’em to work!
[i]”I agree with you that life without parole in a cage the size of an isolation cell is immoral.”[/i]
If you oppose killing these killers, then why not allow them a chance at parole? You take some drug-addicted kid–say 20 or 23 years old–who tries to rob a bank and ends up in a shootout where he kills a security guard, a patron of the bank and a teller. I would have him executed in 5 years or less. But say he gets life without parole, as you would have it.
Now it’s 40 years later. He is 63 years old and he is going to live to 93. Say he has been a model prisoner for 40 years. He is really no longer the person who committed the mass murder. Exactly what is your point in keeping him caged up for another 30 years*? You don’t think 40 years in prison is a long time? You don’t think anyone can be rehabilitated or just age-out of a criminal mentality? I have to wonder why you think it is “moral” to keep this older man in a cell, when he is no longer a danger to anyone and he has served such a long sentence already?
*The best answer I can come up with for keeping him locked up in his old age is that outside of prison he likely will have no way to support himself. My view–and Elaine touches on this when she says, “put’em to work!”–is that prisons should not house anyone for more than 10 years** at a time, and while an inmate is incarcerated, we should be training him for a job or a trade or a profession when he gets out.
**I can think of two exceptions to the 10-year rule: 1) inmates who are certifiably mentally ill and will otherwise be a great danger to society if they are released. I would prefer that such people be treated in a psychiatric hospital, but in reality most of these “psychos” wind up in prison; and 2) serious sexual predators (as opposed to the 19 year old boy who had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend). I don’t think rapists and most serious pedophiles (meaning someone who truly harmed a child for his own sexual gratification) are redeemable. I don’t think executing them is the answer, in that they did not commit capital crimes. In a sense, sexual predators are a type of mental patient. I think we ought to have prisons–say one in a state the size of California–exclusively for them.
ERM
I am absolutely fine with having them work. That is a perfectly fine means of interaction with their fellow prisoners.
Rich
Actually, life without parole would not be my favored solution. What I would favor is sufficient control over their actions to preserve the safety of society for as long as they represent a threat. You summed up the kinds of variation in circumstance and preferred options for securing them safely very nicely by dividing them into those suffering from mental illness from those for whom this is not a factor.
I am interested in how you came to favor the “10 year rule”. Do you have any evidence to back up that particular number of years as the maximum ?
Just as an aside, there was a work program down South, that was talked about on a documentary some years back. Some of the prisoners growing their own food were asked about their life in prison and how they got there in the first place. Many of their stories were chilling. I remember one prisoner who talked about killing his wife because she just kept yapping at him. He was so completely cold-blooded and matter of fact when he talked about killing his wife. No remorse, no feelings of any kind. You knew if he were ever let out, he would do something similar in a heartbeat. Prison is a place to warehouse those who cannot conform their behavior to what is acceptable in society. But these prisoners can make themselves useful, by working their debt to society off in prison. By growing their own food, they learn self-sufficiency, keep their minds occupied on positive things, and help reduce the costs to feed them.