Whenever I engage in a debate about the death penalty (admittedly, not that often in the political echo chamber that is my family and friends), I inevitably run into this argument: but it’s so much cheaper to kill someone than to keep them incarcerated for life. This, of course, is blatantly false as study after study attest (I know, there are studies that go the other way too. That’s the funny thing about numbers – you can make them say whatever you want).
So maybe when arguing against the death penalty from an economic efficiency standpoint, the best thing to do is use not statistics, but raw numbers.
So here you go: According to an article in today’s Atlanta Journal Constitution, which also features the cool graphic above (click the image for full-size), it will cost over $4 million to prosecute Brian Nichols, who is accused of going on a shooting rampage killing four people last year. Clearly a bad guy. But $4 mil to make sure he ends up dead? And that figure doesn’t even include the expense of actually executing him, should he be sentenced to death. The paper reports:
In large part, the spiraling costs stem from prosecutors’ decision to seek the death penalty. Capital cases require more lawyers, prolonged pre-trial hearings and lengthy trials entailing weeks just for jury selection.
Nichols has offered to plead guilty in exchange for life in prison without parole. But Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard insists that a jury must decide whether Nichols should be executed.
Nichols has offered to plead to life in prison without parole. That would cost a whole hell of a lot less than $4 million (again, a number sure to rise if he is convicted). The bottom line is that the reason the death penalty exists is not because it’s more economically efficient, but because people like retribution and they think it can only come through death.
But there’s no guarantee that a $ 4mil prosecution gets you the truth.*
(Via Sentencing Law & Policy Blog)
* and even if it did, I would not support the death penalty.
10 Comments so far
Leave a comment
even figuring the costs of life in prison (roughly $30K/year), he’d have to spend over 100 years in prison before the cost even came close.
Comment by professorplum March 23, 2007 @ 12:44 pmof course, this is a somewhat sick way to talk about the death penalty. perhaps we should start the discussion by saying it’s morally reprehensible – and also cost inefficient. (though i guess, give you and your audience, the first part was implied.)
You’re right Prof. Plum, it is implied, but it shouldn’t be. Something like that can’t be said enough. So here it is: The death penalty is morally reprehensible and should be abolished on that basis alone.
Comment by bean March 23, 2007 @ 12:54 pmActually, the reason the use of the death penalty in the US increased between 1980 and 1995 is that it was so expensive early on, due to rigid restrictions on the precise circumstances it could be used in. In order to justify the system, state legislatures just added more and more aggravating circumstances in order to drive down the marginal cost of execution.
But yeah, even so, it’s horrendously expensive. Just before the recall election, Gray Davis instituted a new death row system, slated to cost $220 million; to fund it, he hiked tuition at Cal and Cal State. Since 1976, California has executed a grand total of 13 people. Draw your own conclusions as to the efficiency of Davis’s system.
Comment by Alon Levy March 23, 2007 @ 1:21 pmAlon: Tuition, education, execution … makes one want to move out-of-state. Yikes!!
Comment by Swampcracker March 23, 2007 @ 2:21 pmstrong argument, alon.
Comment by professorplum March 23, 2007 @ 2:32 pmadditionally, the problem with the economic argument is that there is no shortage of people who would happily have us pay less for legal defense
Great comments. Some more perspective. In the 10 years, NY had a functioning death penalty since 1995, the state spent about $15 million per year for the Capital Defender Office, millions to the prosecutors for capital prosecutions, millions to counties for the cost of these cases, millions for the Department of Correctional Services to build and run death row, additional funds to the Court of Appeals to hear death penalty appeals, and much more. For the hundreds of millions spent, in 10 years, 7 individuals were put on death row, and (thankfully) none has been executed. The death penalty was declared unconstitutional in NY, and one capital appeal remains pending. A wise investment?
Comment by RickyVermont March 23, 2007 @ 5:02 pmRicky, those numbers are appalling though not surprising at this point. It’s painful to think where else that money could have gone (education in and out of prisons, real crime prevention, etc.)
Question: forthe people who were sent to death row during the 10 years in which NY had a death penalty, what happens to them now? Are their sentences automatically commuted to life? Or do they remain “on death row”?
Comment by bean March 24, 2007 @ 8:29 amBean, you are so right that the money could have been spent more wisely. The public was duped by the Governor into thinking that hundreds of millions spent on a failed death penalty approach would make them safer. Crime may have gone down over those years, but not because we had a death penalty on the books.
To answer your question, yes, those who whose death sentences were vacated are now serving life without parole. There remains one capital case on appeal: People v. John Taylor (the notorious “Wendy’s” case). In that case, the prosecution is arguing that the defect in the statute that led the Court of Appeals to strike the death penalty was cured by an instruction by the trial court. It is scary to think that the Court (with a different lineup of judges) might accept that argument. I believe the case will be argued this Spring.
Comment by ricky vermont March 24, 2007 @ 2:35 pmOn what grounds did the Court of Appeals strike the death penalty?
Comment by Alon Levy March 25, 2007 @ 1:22 amAlon, The Court of Appeals held the NY State death penalty statute in violation of the state constitution because the jury instructions it required in the sentencing phase were found to be coercive. Here’s more:
(from the Death Penalty Information Center, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=38&did=1066).
Comment by bean March 25, 2007 @ 7:16 am