What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Death penalty more expensive? True? (1 Viewer)

eoMMan

Footballguy
Just heard that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison due to all the appeals and what not. Is this true? I would think the years in prison would add up to more than all the appeals.

Also heard that 1 in 10 people put to death, on average, have been found to be innocent. Whoa.

 
Yes according to studies it costs about twice as much to execute someone as it does to keep them in prison for life. And yes of course we have executed innocent people all it takes is simple math to show that.

 
I have heard this stated confidently for a long time now, and I have no reason to doubt it, however I have never seen the studies used to support the contention.

I guess I never cared enough to do the research.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have heard this stated confidently for a long time now, and I have no reason to doubt it, however I have never seen the studies used to support the contention.

I guess I never cared enough to do the research.
I have posted the North Carolina study here many times. It's older now but basically it was 1 million to do the trial and lock someone up for life. It was 2 million to do the trail and actually execute someone. Give or take on the money

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes according to studies it costs about twice as much to execute someone as it does to keep them in prison for life. And yes of course we have executed innocent people all it takes is simple math to show that.
Technically, I don't think you can "prove" that innocent people have been executed using math alone. Common sense, sure. Math, no.

 
Yes according to studies it costs about twice as much to execute someone as it does to keep them in prison for life. And yes of course we have executed innocent people all it takes is simple math to show that.
Technically, I don't think you can "prove" that innocent people have been executed using math alone. Common sense, sure. Math, no.
and i have no idea where they came up with 1 in 10

 
Yes according to studies it costs about twice as much to execute someone as it does to keep them in prison for life. And yes of course we have executed innocent people all it takes is simple math to show that.
Technically, I don't think you can "prove" that innocent people have been executed using math alone. Common sense, sure. Math, no.
X3*D/C+L=Innocent man put to death.

 
I oppose the death penalty, but I highly doubt that the death penalty is actually more expensive for the state than life in prison. The studies that have concluded that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison assess the "cost" of the state district attorneys handling death penalty trials and appeals; however, the salaries of these state attorneys handling these cases are a fixed cost for the state that don't vary based on the type of cases they are handling. It's not like the state attorneys are charging the state by the hour and running up big legal bills for the state on death penalty appeals. I just don't see how you can fairly assess the fixed salaries of state district attorneys as a "cost" of the death penalty, unless death penalty trials and appeals somehow force the state to hire more attorneys.

 
Yes according to studies it costs about twice as much to execute someone as it does to keep them in prison for life. And yes of course we have executed innocent people all it takes is simple math to show that.
Technically, I don't think you can "prove" that innocent people have been executed using math alone. Common sense, sure. Math, no.
You are right prove was a bad word use.

 
Please find a citiation for this study. Having a hard time believing the death penalty is more. If so, a bunch of people are ripping the taxpayers off again.

 
Buckfast 1 said:
I oppose the death penalty, but I highly doubt that the death penalty is actually more expensive for the state than life in prison. The studies that have concluded that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison assess the "cost" of the state district attorneys handling death penalty trials and appeals; however, the salaries of these state attorneys handling these cases are a fixed cost for the state that don't vary based on the type of cases they are handling. It's not like the state attorneys are charging the state by the hour and running up big legal bills for the state on death penalty appeals. I just don't see how you can fairly assess the fixed salaries of state district attorneys as a "cost" of the death penalty, unless death penalty trials and appeals somehow force the state to hire more attorneys.
If they weren't spending time doing death penalty appeals, they would be doing something else. There is, therefore, a real cost to death penalty appeals. One that isn't incurred in non-death penalty cases.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buckfast 1 said:
I oppose the death penalty, but I highly doubt that the death penalty is actually more expensive for the state than life in prison. The studies that have concluded that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison assess the "cost" of the state district attorneys handling death penalty trials and appeals; however, the salaries of these state attorneys handling these cases are a fixed cost for the state that don't vary based on the type of cases they are handling. It's not like the state attorneys are charging the state by the hour and running up big legal bills for the state on death penalty appeals. I just don't see how you can fairly assess the fixed salaries of state district attorneys as a "cost" of the death penalty, unless death penalty trials and appeals somehow force the state to hire more attorneys.
trial costs include more than lawyers' salaries. the state has to pay for experts, exhibits, court reporters, etc.

 
B-Deep said:
Rich Conway said:
NCCommish said:
Yes according to studies it costs about twice as much to execute someone as it does to keep them in prison for life. And yes of course we have executed innocent people all it takes is simple math to show that.
Technically, I don't think you can "prove" that innocent people have been executed using math alone. Common sense, sure. Math, no.
and i have no idea where they came up with 1 in 10
Through the work of organizations such as the "Innocence Project" and many law enforcement organizations in preserving blood evidence, many people convicted during the 60's and 70's were unequivocally proven to be innocent by later DNA testing (when the technology became available). That rate was about 1/10 of all executions.

Statistically, the argument is that these created a big enough sample size for the ratio to be reliable. I'd imagine that the rate is now far lower given the major benefit of DNA testing.

 
How many additional appeals does a death penalty case have?

it's not like most accused just take a plea for life at arraignment, or don't appeal after the first guilty verdict.

 
Please find a citiation for this study. Having a hard time believing the death penalty is more. If so, a bunch of people are ripping the taxpayers off again.
It's probably more, but nobody is ripping off anybody.

I always hate when I hear this "stat." While technically true, the reason that death penalty cases are more "expensive" is that plea bargaining - which happens is about 95% of all other cases and saves a ton of court costs - is non-existent since nobody will ever sign up to the death penalty. Also, since plea bargaining is out the window, a defense attorney is ethically bound to file any non-frivolous motion possible (a lot of cases have ripe legal issues but those are often never litigated because a plea bargain is reached). Trials will generally have way more witnesses and the bifurcation process includes a separate sentencing trial. Additionally, since a person's life is at stake and there is no downside to appealing, numerous appeals are often filed (at least one is mandatory). Accordingly, unlike in the average criminal case, a death penalty case is one where extensive litigation takes place throughout the entire criminal process. It's this part that becomes expensive since the Defendant has a right to counsel (e.g. in Phoenix a private attorney(s) is usually contracted to take the case and will usually do nothing but for a year and very justifiably bill about 150k), a prosecutor usually spends the bulk of his or her time for a year doing nothing but the case, experts are consulted and hired, and the court's time and man-power are substantially taken up.

Accordingly, while I don't doubt that it is more expensive on a per day basis to literally house an inmate, since that isn't an issue once a defendant is dead the only real "reason" why death penalty is more expensive of a punishment is because of the cost of the actual process since going through it all is inevitable. That said, if the death penalty were abolished and the max punishment is something like life without parole, the resulting costs would probably still be close to the same (although the costs of bifurcation and possibly the automatic appeal would be saved) since there is still no incentive to plead guilty. Trials would probably still be as long with full out litigation and then with a life sentence the state would incur the costs of incarcerating the guy until he naturally died - and then have to pay for his general healthcare as required by the 8th Amendment.

In my opinion there are numerous very good reasons for abolishing the death penalty. However, the "cost" of it versus lifetime incarceration isn't one of them and is a very misleading statistic.

 
So what you are saying is lawyers have an incentive to keep the DP going?
Sure. We also have the incentive to keep as many substances criminalized as possible, sentencing ranges as ridiculously high as the 8th Amendment allows, and the percentage of people getting a public defender to the absolute minimum as consistent with Gideon.

But you'd be hard-pressed to find a defense lawyer who would ever actively advocate for any of those three things. Despite your cynicism, it's not always about the money.

 
Please find a citiation for this study. Having a hard time believing the death penalty is more. If so, a bunch of people are ripping the taxpayers off again.
Comparative costs for various states

Death penalty has automatic appeals, the trials take longer, and the cost of death row is higher.
I appreciate this link. I've never really seen before an attempt to break down the 'apples-to-apples' costs, that is, usually one side of the argument frames the numbers in a biased way to make a point. For example, sometimes the 'get rid of the death penalty' folks will take the full cost of trial, appeals, incarceration, etc for a Death Penalty case, and compare it to only, say, the cost of providing 3 square meals a day to an inmate for 40 years, and ignoring the fact that a lot of the costs are duplicated in both cases (both go to trial, both have some appeals, etc).

That said, this site of course has its own agenda, so I would certainly appreciate information from more sources on this issue. I'm sure there's another side to the argument that I'm just not seeing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
eoMMan said:
Also heard that 1 in 10 people put to death, on average, have been found to be innocent. Whoa.
You talkin' innocent like Andy Dusfrense?

I find it hard to believe that someone COMPLETELY innocent who had no hand in crime whatsoever could be on the hook for the death penalty.

 
Please find a citiation for this study. Having a hard time believing the death penalty is more. If so, a bunch of people are ripping the taxpayers off again.
It's probably more, but nobody is ripping off anybody.

I always hate when I hear this "stat." While technically true, the reason that death penalty cases are more "expensive" is that plea bargaining - which happens is about 95% of all other cases and saves a ton of court costs - is non-existent since nobody will ever sign up to the death penalty. Also, since plea bargaining is out the window, a defense attorney is ethically bound to file any non-frivolous motion possible (a lot of cases have ripe legal issues but those are often never litigated because a plea bargain is reached). Trials will generally have way more witnesses and the bifurcation process includes a separate sentencing trial. Additionally, since a person's life is at stake and there is no downside to appealing, numerous appeals are often filed (at least one is mandatory). Accordingly, unlike in the average criminal case, a death penalty case is one where extensive litigation takes place throughout the entire criminal process. It's this part that becomes expensive since the Defendant has a right to counsel (e.g. in Phoenix a private attorney(s) is usually contracted to take the case and will usually do nothing but for a year and very justifiably bill about 150k), a prosecutor usually spends the bulk of his or her time for a year doing nothing but the case, experts are consulted and hired, and the court's time and man-power are substantially taken up.

Accordingly, while I don't doubt that it is more expensive on a per day basis to literally house an inmate, since that isn't an issue once a defendant is dead the only real "reason" why death penalty is more expensive of a punishment is because of the cost of the actual process since going through it all is inevitable. That said, if the death penalty were abolished and the max punishment is something like life without parole, the resulting costs would probably still be close to the same (although the costs of bifurcation and possibly the automatic appeal would be saved) since there is still no incentive to plead guilty. Trials would probably still be as long with full out litigation and then with a life sentence the state would incur the costs of incarcerating the guy until he naturally died - and then have to pay for his general healthcare as required by the 8th Amendment.

In my opinion there are numerous very good reasons for abolishing the death penalty. However, the "cost" of it versus lifetime incarceration isn't one of them and is a very misleading statistic.
This is a good post. Your last paragraph appears reasonable to me.

 
Please find a citiation for this study. Having a hard time believing the death penalty is more. If so, a bunch of people are ripping the taxpayers off again.
Comparative costs for various states

Death penalty has automatic appeals, the trials take longer, and the cost of death row is higher.
I appreciate this link. I've never really seen before an attempt to break down the 'apples-to-apples' costs, that is, usually one side of the argument frames the numbers in a biased way to make a point. For example, sometimes the 'get rid of the death penalty' folks will take the full cost of trial, appeals, incarceration, etc for a Death Penalty case, and compare it to only, say, the cost of providing 3 square meals a day to an inmate for 40 years, and ignoring the fact that a lot of the costs are duplicated in both cases (both go to trial, both have some appeals, etc).

That said, this site of course has its own agenda, so I would certainly appreciate information from more sources on this issue. I'm sure there's another side to the argument that I'm just not seeing.
If you look at the sources of the studies they cite, you're looking at law reviews, state bars, departments of corrections, etc. While the authors of the website definitely have a stated agenda, the sources of the data seem to be generally reliable.

 
Please find a citiation for this study. Having a hard time believing the death penalty is more. If so, a bunch of people are ripping the taxpayers off again.
It's probably more, but nobody is ripping off anybody.

I always hate when I hear this "stat." While technically true, the reason that death penalty cases are more "expensive" is that plea bargaining - which happens is about 95% of all other cases and saves a ton of court costs - is non-existent since nobody will ever sign up to the death penalty.
The study found that even when a death-penalty case ends in a plea agreement and a life sentence, the process takes a year and a half longer than an LWOP case with a trial.

(J. Marceau and H. Whitson, "The Cost of Colorado's Death Penalty," 3 Univ. of Denver Criminal Law Review 145
 
Please find a citiation for this study. Having a hard time believing the death penalty is more. If so, a bunch of people are ripping the taxpayers off again.
Comparative costs for various states

Death penalty has automatic appeals, the trials take longer, and the cost of death row is higher.
I appreciate this link. I've never really seen before an attempt to break down the 'apples-to-apples' costs, that is, usually one side of the argument frames the numbers in a biased way to make a point. For example, sometimes the 'get rid of the death penalty' folks will take the full cost of trial, appeals, incarceration, etc for a Death Penalty case, and compare it to only, say, the cost of providing 3 square meals a day to an inmate for 40 years, and ignoring the fact that a lot of the costs are duplicated in both cases (both go to trial, both have some appeals, etc).

That said, this site of course has its own agenda, so I would certainly appreciate information from more sources on this issue. I'm sure there's another side to the argument that I'm just not seeing.
If you look at the sources of the studies they cite, you're looking at law reviews, state bars, departments of corrections, etc. While the authors of the website definitely have a stated agenda, the sources of the data seem to be generally reliable.
I'm not disagreeing with the data, I'd just like more info on the analysis. Like Woz pointed out, the plea bargain is off the table. So what's the added cost of a death penalty case vs. a life-without-parole case that went the full distance at trial, for example. Instead of just looking at the average of all LWOP cases. Or subtracting the second sentencing trial as a separate entity. That kind of stuff. Just a little more info on how the numbers were arrived at.

Your post right above mentions the issue with LWOP cases that went the full distance, so that's probably a start. But that study's measuring court-days and not the full cost of incarceration.

I'm just saying there are lots of ways data can be massaged to reach the desired conclusion, and it's done by both sides.

Also, I don't really mind that DP cases are more expensive. They probably should be, we want to be sure, after all. I guess it's a matter of the factor involved. Not that I'm a fan of the death penalty in the first place, I think I'm in favor of scrapping it entirely.

 
Please find a citiation for this study. Having a hard time believing the death penalty is more. If so, a bunch of people are ripping the taxpayers off again.
Comparative costs for various states

Death penalty has automatic appeals, the trials take longer, and the cost of death row is higher.
I appreciate this link. I've never really seen before an attempt to break down the 'apples-to-apples' costs, that is, usually one side of the argument frames the numbers in a biased way to make a point. For example, sometimes the 'get rid of the death penalty' folks will take the full cost of trial, appeals, incarceration, etc for a Death Penalty case, and compare it to only, say, the cost of providing 3 square meals a day to an inmate for 40 years, and ignoring the fact that a lot of the costs are duplicated in both cases (both go to trial, both have some appeals, etc).

That said, this site of course has its own agenda, so I would certainly appreciate information from more sources on this issue. I'm sure there's another side to the argument that I'm just not seeing.
If you look at the sources of the studies they cite, you're looking at law reviews, state bars, departments of corrections, etc. While the authors of the website definitely have a stated agenda, the sources of the data seem to be generally reliable.
I'm not disagreeing with the data, I'd just like more info on the analysis. Like Woz pointed out, the plea bargain is off the table. So what's the added cost of a death penalty case vs. a life-without-parole case that went the full distance at trial, for example. Instead of just looking at the average of all LWOP cases. Or subtracting the second sentencing trial as a separate entity. That kind of stuff. Just a little more info on how the numbers were arrived at.

Your post right above mentions the issue with LWOP cases that went the full distance, so that's probably a start. But that study's measuring court-days and not the full cost of incarceration.

I'm just saying there are lots of ways data can be massaged to reach the desired conclusion, and it's done by both sides.

Also, I don't really mind that DP cases are more expensive. They probably should be, we want to be sure, after all. I guess it's a matter of the factor involved. Not that I'm a fan of the death penalty in the first place, I think I'm in favor of scrapping it entirely.
Plea bargains aren't off the table at all. Not many people will accept a plea for the death penalty, but pleas that come with life sentences are fairly common in capital cases--and they still take more time and money than a trial in a non-death penalty case.

As far as the data being massaged by both sides, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a study that says the death penalty is cheaper.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
eoMMan said:
Also heard that 1 in 10 people put to death, on average, have been found to be innocent. Whoa.
You talkin' innocent like Andy Dusfrense?

I find it hard to believe that someone COMPLETELY innocent who had no hand in crime whatsoever could be on the hook for the death penalty.
oh yeah, that would would never happen.

 
eoMMan said:
Just heard that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison due to all the appeals and what not. Is this true? I would think the years in prison would add up to more than all the appeals.

Also heard that 1 in 10 people put to death, on average, have been found to be innocent. Whoa.
The 1 in 10 figure is just made up. There are no cases that I know of in which an executed person has been shown to be indisputably innocent, although there are a handful of cases where the preponderance of the evidence makes it pretty likely. But not anywhere near 1 in 10.

I oppose the death penalty. It doesn't do our side any favors to pull numbers out of our asses. A basic understanding of statistics is enough to realize that if you have a death penalty, it is inevitable that you will eventually execute an innocent person (just like we occasionally jail innocent people). No need for made-up numbers.

 
Please find a citiation for this study. Having a hard time believing the death penalty is more. If so, a bunch of people are ripping the taxpayers off again.
It's probably more, but nobody is ripping off anybody.

I always hate when I hear this "stat." While technically true, the reason that death penalty cases are more "expensive" is that plea bargaining - which happens is about 95% of all other cases and saves a ton of court costs - is non-existent since nobody will ever sign up to the death penalty.
The study found that even when a death-penalty case ends in a plea agreement and a life sentence, the process takes a year and a half longer than an LWOP case with a trial.

(J. Marceau and H. Whitson, "The Cost of Colorado's Death Penalty," 3 Univ. of Denver Criminal Law Review 145
I don't necessarily doubt that stat, but it's still easily distinguishable from the standard plea bargaining process - where generally negotiations are held almost immediately (or, in reality, the prosecutor shoots off some policy plea offer and the defense attorney merely relays it to her client) and a plea bargain is struck prior to the bulk of any potential litigation. While I have only been tangentially involved in some death penalty cases, my impression, at least in my death penalty jurisdiction, is that plea bargains only result from some unforeseen weakness in the State's case and/or some mitigating factor arises that was not initially apparent. The plea bargaining isn't done with the motivation of judicial efficiency.

 
eoMMan said:
Just heard that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison due to all the appeals and what not. Is this true? I would think the years in prison would add up to more than all the appeals.

Also heard that 1 in 10 people put to death, on average, have been found to be innocent. Whoa.
The 1 in 10 figure is just made up. There are no cases that I know of in which an executed person has been shown to be indisputably innocent, although there are a handful of cases where the preponderance of the evidence makes it pretty likely. But not anywhere near 1 in 10.
Per the innocence project, 312 have been exonerated.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php

 
eoMMan said:
Also heard that 1 in 10 people put to death, on average, have been found to be innocent. Whoa.
You talkin' innocent like Andy Dusfrense?

I find it hard to believe that someone COMPLETELY innocent who had no hand in crime whatsoever could be on the hook for the death penalty.
Prior to improved forensic investigation, and back in the days of racism, it happened probably more than any of us would ever want to believe.

 
Maybe we should be focusing on limiting the number of appeals.
Among other things. If applied and used correctly the death penalty is a major deterrent. A few changes need to be made and we are off and running.

1. All Murderers die. The hell with 1st or 2nd. You murdered, you now die. Theatre cop dies.

2. Simply start with the obviously guilty. There are plenty of examples of 100% guilt. Get rid of them right now. That will lower costs instantly.

3. No one gets a pass due to 'mental illness'. If you killed and try the mental illness route, you die because you are worthless and a financial drain.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
eoMMan said:
Just heard that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison due to all the appeals and what not. Is this true? I would think the years in prison would add up to more than all the appeals.

Also heard that 1 in 10 people put to death, on average, have been found to be innocent. Whoa.
The 1 in 10 figure is just made up. There are no cases that I know of in which an executed person has been shown to be indisputably innocent, although there are a handful of cases where the preponderance of the evidence makes it pretty likely. But not anywhere near 1 in 10.
Per the innocence project, 312 have been exonerated.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php
These are guys that were on death row, not those that were executed wrongly.

 
Why bother wasting time with the theatre cop? Everyone knows he murdered the other dude. Prime example of someone that you put on trial, find guilty and execute on the same day.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe we should be focusing on limiting the number of appeals.
Among other things. If applied and used correctly the death penalty is a major deterrent. A few changes need to be made and we are off and running.

1. All Murderers die. The hell with 1st or 2nd. You murdered, you now die.

2. Simply start with the obviously guilty. There are plenty of examples of 100% guilt. Get rid of them right now. That will lower costs instantly.

3. No one gets a pass due to 'mental illness'. If you killed and try the mental illness route, you die because you are worthless and a financial drain.
So sad! So wrong!

 
eoMMan said:
Just heard that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison due to all the appeals and what not. Is this true? I would think the years in prison would add up to more than all the appeals.

Also heard that 1 in 10 people put to death, on average, have been found to be innocent. Whoa.
The 1 in 10 figure is just made up. There are no cases that I know of in which an executed person has been shown to be indisputably innocent, although there are a handful of cases where the preponderance of the evidence makes it pretty likely. But not anywhere near 1 in 10.
Per the innocence project, 312 have been exonerated.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php
These are guys that were on death row, not those that were executed wrongly.
oops, you're right.

I know they have the data I was referring to someone on there though. Or maybe it was provided to me when I volunteered with them. I forget exactly, but I know they were able to document a lot of the older cases of the wrong man being executed due to later DNA tests.

 
Maybe we should be focusing on limiting the number of appeals.
Among other things. If applied and used correctly the death penalty is a major deterrent. A few changes need to be made and we are off and running.

1. All Murderers die. The hell with 1st or 2nd. You murdered, you now die.

2. Simply start with the obviously guilty. There are plenty of examples of 100% guilt. Get rid of them right now. That will lower costs instantly.

3. No one gets a pass due to 'mental illness'. If you killed and try the mental illness route, you die because you are worthless and a financial drain.
So sad! So wrong!
On the contrary, efficient and without flaw.

 
Maybe we should be focusing on limiting the number of appeals.
Among other things. If applied and used correctly the death penalty is a major deterrent. A few changes need to be made and we are off and running.

1. All Murderers die. The hell with 1st or 2nd. You murdered, you now die. Theatre cop dies.

2. Simply start with the obviously guilty. There are plenty of examples of 100% guilt. Get rid of them right now. That will lower costs instantly.

3. No one gets a pass due to 'mental illness'. If you killed and try the mental illness route, you die because you are worthless and a financial drain.
Sounds like a great plan. Except for that whole pesky Constitution getting in the way.

 
Maybe we should be focusing on limiting the number of appeals.
Among other things. If applied and used correctly the death penalty is a major deterrent. A few changes need to be made and we are off and running.

1. All Murderers die. The hell with 1st or 2nd. You murdered, you now die. Theatre cop dies.

2. Simply start with the obviously guilty. There are plenty of examples of 100% guilt. Get rid of them right now. That will lower costs instantly.

3. No one gets a pass due to 'mental illness'. If you killed and try the mental illness route, you die because you are worthless and a financial drain.
Sounds like a great plan. Except for that whole pesky Constitution getting in the way.
Those guys didn't invision the cesspool that exists today. If they did, they would be on board all day long.

 
Maybe we should be focusing on limiting the number of appeals.
Among other things. If applied and used correctly the death penalty is a major deterrent. A few changes need to be made and we are off and running.

1. All Murderers die. The hell with 1st or 2nd. You murdered, you now die. Theatre cop dies.

2. Simply start with the obviously guilty. There are plenty of examples of 100% guilt. Get rid of them right now. That will lower costs instantly.

3. No one gets a pass due to 'mental illness'. If you killed and try the mental illness route, you die because you are worthless and a financial drain.
Sounds like a great plan. Except for that whole pesky Constitution getting in the way.
Those guys didn't invision the cesspool that exists today. If they did, they would be on board all day long.
Right they were just around for the time of slavery, duels, lynchings, and blatant class and gender discrimination. A veritable utopia compared to today.

 
Maybe we should be focusing on limiting the number of appeals.
Among other things. If applied and used correctly the death penalty is a major deterrent. A few changes need to be made and we are off and running.

1. All Murderers die. The hell with 1st or 2nd. You murdered, you now die. Theatre cop dies.

2. Simply start with the obviously guilty. There are plenty of examples of 100% guilt. Get rid of them right now. That will lower costs instantly.

3. No one gets a pass due to 'mental illness'. If you killed and try the mental illness route, you die because you are worthless and a financial drain.
Sounds like a great plan. Except for that whole pesky Constitution getting in the way.
Those guys didn't invision the cesspool that exists today. If they did, they would be on board all day long.
Right they were just around for the time of slavery, duels, lynchings, and blatant class and gender discrimination. A veritable utopia compared to today.
I think they called it 'cleaning up the countryside.' Get out of line, see what happens.

 
Ok Zow, give me your plan for the theater murdering cop and also for Jared Loughner. Both 100% guilty of murder. I'll then give mine and we will see who's cost less.

 
Buckfast 1 said:
I oppose the death penalty, but I highly doubt that the death penalty is actually more expensive for the state than life in prison. The studies that have concluded that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison assess the "cost" of the state district attorneys handling death penalty trials and appeals; however, the salaries of these state attorneys handling these cases are a fixed cost for the state that don't vary based on the type of cases they are handling. It's not like the state attorneys are charging the state by the hour and running up big legal bills for the state on death penalty appeals. I just don't see how you can fairly assess the fixed salaries of state district attorneys as a "cost" of the death penalty, unless death penalty trials and appeals somehow force the state to hire more attorneys.
trial costs include more than lawyers' salaries. the state has to pay for experts, exhibits, court reporters, etc.
The overwhelming percentage of the "cost" of death penalty trials is the hours logged by the state salaried attorneys. The state court reporters are also salaried employees that will be making the same amount of money whether they are recording a death penalty or non-death penalty case. Sure, there will likely be some higher costs associated with exhibits/copying in a big death penalty case and possibly even expert testimony, but that hardly accounts for the difference between housing an inmate for life at around $30,000 per year and executing someone.I just don't think that it makes much sense to count the salaries of salaried employees -- who make the same regardless of what type of penalty the case they are trying has -- as a cost of the death penalty. If a state attorney is working a high profile death penalty case, then he will certainly be preoccupied by that case -- just as he would a high profile murder case without the death penalty on the table, but the rest of the office will generally pick up that slack. I would guess it is extremely rare that a state has to hire more salaried employees to compensate for rare death penalty cases.

I think there are great arguments against the death penalty, but I'm just not convinced that cost is one of them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
...I just don't think that it makes much sense to count the salaries of salaried employees -- who make the same regardless of what type of penalty the case they are trying has -- as a cost...
Unless we expect these salaried employees to be collecting those salaries while doing nothing else there is a cost!

 
Buckfast 1 said:
I oppose the death penalty, but I highly doubt that the death penalty is actually more expensive for the state than life in prison. The studies that have concluded that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison assess the "cost" of the state district attorneys handling death penalty trials and appeals; however, the salaries of these state attorneys handling these cases are a fixed cost for the state that don't vary based on the type of cases they are handling. It's not like the state attorneys are charging the state by the hour and running up big legal bills for the state on death penalty appeals. I just don't see how you can fairly assess the fixed salaries of state district attorneys as a "cost" of the death penalty, unless death penalty trials and appeals somehow force the state to hire more attorneys.
trial costs include more than lawyers' salaries. the state has to pay for experts, exhibits, court reporters, etc.
The overwhelming percentage of the "cost" of death penalty trials is the hours logged by the state salaried attorneys. The state court reporters are also salaried employees that will be making the same amount of money whether they are recording a death penalty or non-death penalty case. Sure, there will likely be some higher costs associated with exhibits/copying in a big death penalty case and possibly even expert testimony, but that hardly accounts for the difference between housing an inmate for life at around $30,000 per year and executing someone.I just don't think that it makes much sense to count the salaries of salaried employees -- who make the same regardless of what type of penalty the case they are trying has -- as a cost of the death penalty. If a state attorney is working a high profile death penalty case, then he will certainly be preoccupied by that case -- just as he would a high profile murder case without the death penalty on the table, but the rest of the office will generally pick up that slack. I would guess it is extremely rare that a state has to hire more salaried employees to compensate for rare death penalty cases.

I think there are great arguments against the death penalty, but I'm just not convinced that cost is one of them.
The authors calculated that, if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years.
Note this doesn't consider trial costs

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top