Death penalty more expensive? True? (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

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

How many of those people were actually executed? The link you provided doesn't say.

I'm sure there are a substantial number of people serving life without parole who are innocent. I don't think that's a good argument for abolishing life without parole.

 

[Buckfast 1]

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

How is that possible? Can you explain the source of the savings to me?

 

[MaxThreshold]

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

How is that possible? Can you explain the source of the savings to me?

Yeah, that seems like a bunch of BS to me.

 

[FBG26]

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

How many of those people were actually executed? The link you provided doesn't say.

I'm sure there are a substantial number of people serving life without parole who are innocent. I don't think that's a good argument for abolishing life without parole.

Of course its not. But if we find out that a person serving LWP is innocent we can set them free. Obviously not true once you've given someone the needle.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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

How is that possible? Can you explain the source of the savings to me?

Assuming he is speaking of this (summary on page 31) trial cost are included.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

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.

If this was intentional, well-played.

 

[trogg78]

Get rid of the death penalty! Bring back the gladiators!

 

[Buckfast 1]

...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!

An opportunity cost perhaps, but not a difference in actual cost to the state.

 

[-fish-]

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

How is that possible? Can you explain the source of the savings to me?

Assuming he is speaking of this (summary on page 31) trial cost are included.

I don't think you're reading that right. the savings are post-sentencing, so pretrial investigation and trial costs are excluded from the savings figure. it looks like appeals and habeas are still included.

the summary does show what's spent on trials, but that isn't the conclusion of the article.

 

[-fish-]

...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!

An opportunity cost perhaps, but not a difference in actual cost to the state.

there is also a cost for building additional death row facilities. your argument is the same as saying we're already paying for prisons. if we didn't have death rows, we wouldn't need new facilities accommodating them.

 

[technicaldifficulties]

Why do people freak out if even 1000 innocent people were executed in the last 100 years? How many people were drafted and died in Vietnam, guilty of nothing more than being born on a certain day? In a country (now) of 325 million people, some people are just going to be done wrong by the system. Think of it as that seat belt study Ford did: it came out cheaper to not recall the cars and let the people sue the company. What's different here?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Why do people freak out if even 1000 innocent people were executed in the last 100 years? How many people were drafted and died in Vietnam, guilty of nothing more than being born on a certain day? In a country (now) of 325 million people, some people are just going to be done wrong by the system. Think of it as that seat belt study Ford did: it came out cheaper to not recall the cars and let the people sue the company. What's different here?

Good point. Why try to stop any injustice, since injustices have been done in the past?

Haven't heard that argument before.

 

[DaVinci]

...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!

An opportunity cost perhaps, but not a difference in actual cost to the state.

If there are fewer appeals, the state needs fewer attorneys, judges, and staff.

 

[Buckfast 1]

...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!

An opportunity cost perhaps, but not a difference in actual cost to the state.

If there are fewer appeals, the state needs fewer attorneys, judges, and staff.

Do you really think a state's operational need for judges, attorneys, and legal staff is affected significantly by a workload that is as infrequent as death penalty appeals? Do states without the death penalty employ less judges and less attorneys per capita than states with the death penalty? I highly doubt it.

 

[UniAlias]

Why do people freak out if even 1000 innocent people were executed in the last 100 years? How many people were drafted and died in Vietnam, guilty of nothing more than being born on a certain day? In a country (now) of 325 million people, some people are just going to be done wrong by the system. Think of it as that seat belt study Ford did: it came out cheaper to not recall the cars and let the people sue the company. What's different here?

Wow.

 

[Mello]

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.

I wish we would focus on this rather than the death penalty. It could be 1 in 100 and it would be too much. If this is the ratio for cases that are usually high focus and go through an extensive judicial process, what's the ratio for normal prisoners? I think we should consider changing the system to make it harder to convict people. My suggestion would be to remove the requirement of a jury to reach a unanimous not guilty verdict and eliminate hung juries. This would lessen the pressure dissenting "not guilty" jurors feel to go with the majority so they can go home.

If we could significantly reduce the number of innocent people being convicted then I think you could reduce the appeals process which for death penalty cases is a significant part of the cost.

 

[Mello]

Why do people freak out if even 1000 innocent people were executed in the last 100 years? How many people were drafted and died in Vietnam, guilty of nothing more than being born on a certain day? In a country (now) of 325 million people, some people are just going to be done wrong by the system. Think of it as that seat belt study Ford did: it came out cheaper to not recall the cars and let the people sue the company. What's different here?

IMO people should have freaked out more over the extreme waste of life by our government in Vietnam. How about we not just accept injustices and fix them?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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

How is that possible? Can you explain the source of the savings to me?

Assuming he is speaking of this (summary on page 31) trial cost are included.

I don't think you're reading that right. the savings are post-sentencing, so pretrial investigation and trial costs are excluded from the savings figure. it looks like appeals and habeas are still included.the summary does show what's spent on trials, but that isn't the conclusion of the article.

VII. CONCLUSION

Over the last thirty-four years, more than eighty death-row inmates have died in prison before the state carried out their death sentences—essentially a term of life imprisonment without parole— while only thirteen have been executed. If the system remains on its current course, over 500 more inmates will die on death row of natural causes by 2050. Thus, our current death-penalty scheme essentially already is an LWOP scheme, but—according to our calculations—it costs taxpayers roughly an additional $200 million per year to maintain the illusion that California has a functioning death penalty.

Despite disputes over what the precise figures may be, it is now beyond dispute that maintaining the current death-penalty laws in California is taking a staggering toll on taxpayers and that replacing the death penalty with life in prison without parole will result in significant short- and long-term savings. In November 2012, for the first time in over three decades, voters will have an opportunity to weigh in at the ballot box and decide whether our current broken system makes sense, or whether California can do better.

I'm largely on your side, but where does it say that? Not in the conclusion of the PDF.

Your original link explicitly states-

Assessment of Costs by Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell (2011, updated 2012)

The authors concluded that the cost of the death penalty in California has totaled over $4 billion since 1978:

• $1.94 billion--Pre-Trial and Trial Costs
  
• $925 million--Automatic Appeals and State Habeas Corpus Petitions
  
• $775 million--Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals
  
• $1 billion--Costs of Incarceration
  

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.

Which is largely summarizing DPIC's Summary of 2011 California Cost Study which contains a breakdown here as it summarizes the original version of study, while my linked PDF is an update (I think).

Again I just skimmed all of this, but I don't see support that the number excludes trials. If I was not mostly on your side I'd argue that some of these cost are also unique to California such as defending specific federal law suits. But I'll let those that somehow think that the death penalty in the US is cheaper argue that.

 

[culdeus]

California doesn't execute anyone. Why would their costs be high? Have they even killed someone since like 1995? Their death penalty is a just a LWOP in supermax.

Isn't Scott Peterson on death row? He did that girl what? 10 years ago? In Texas he'd be decomposing.

Where are these extra costs to california if there aren't any appeals going on?

Why do we assume LWOP people just shut up and take their medicine and don't appeal anything? All we count for them is 3 hots and a cot?

I'm as anti death penalty as it comes, but the cost argument always has seemed a little too slanted to me. I'd like to see a general accounting done by a CPA or someone along those lines which tracks costs to the bottom line for a death case where they just drug it out forever.

 

[Bourbon Cowboy]

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.

What if you murdered in "self defense." Zimmerman?

 

[lod01]

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.

Guess he ran screaming from the thread. I figure he knew his plan would be weak and mine would be efficient.

 

[lod01]

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.

What if you murdered in "self defense." Zimmerman?

He was found innocent. Now if he was found guilty of murder, then he falls under immediate execution. Guilty of manslaughter doesn't apply. This is for losers at life and the obvious. As I stated, examples are the theater cop and Loughner. We are just wasting tax payer $ if these losers are breathing.

 

[Rayderr]

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.

I prefer the Howard Stern method.

No one actually gets sentenced to death, but on the day that a prison which can only hold 1,000 prisoners get's it's 1,001st prisoner, you go get the prisoner who's been there the longest and strap 'em to old sparky. So now, you have the death penalty being a real deterrent for all crime, plus the prison overcrowding situation has been resolved. As a bonus, you can use the prisoners ashes to fill potholes, so they are finally contributing to society.

 

[-fish-]

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

How is that possible? Can you explain the source of the savings to me?

Assuming he is speaking of this (summary on page 31) trial cost are included.

I don't think you're reading that right. the savings are post-sentencing, so pretrial investigation and trial costs are excluded from the savings figure. it looks like appeals and habeas are still included.the summary does show what's spent on trials, but that isn't the conclusion of the article.

VII. CONCLUSION

Over the last thirty-four years, more than eighty death-row inmates have died in prison before the state carried out their death sentences—essentially a term of life imprisonment without parole— while only thirteen have been executed. If the system remains on its current course, over 500 more inmates will die on death row of natural causes by 2050. Thus, our current death-penalty scheme essentially already is an LWOP scheme, but—according to our calculations—it costs taxpayers roughly an additional $200 million per year to maintain the illusion that California has a functioning death penalty.

Despite disputes over what the precise figures may be, it is now beyond dispute that maintaining the current death-penalty laws in California is taking a staggering toll on taxpayers and that replacing the death penalty with life in prison without parole will result in significant short- and long-term savings. In November 2012, for the first time in over three decades, voters will have an opportunity to weigh in at the ballot box and decide whether our current broken system makes sense, or whether California can do better.

I'm largely on your side, but where does it say that? Not in the conclusion of the PDF.

Your original link explicitly states-

Assessment of Costs by Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell (2011, updated 2012)

The authors concluded that the cost of the death penalty in California has totaled over $4 billion since 1978:

• $1.94 billion--Pre-Trial and Trial Costs
  
• $925 million--Automatic Appeals and State Habeas Corpus Petitions
  
• $775 million--Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals
  
• $1 billion--Costs of Incarceration
  

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.

Which is largely summarizing DPIC's Summary of 2011 California Cost Study which contains a breakdown here as it summarizes the original version of study, while my linked PDF is an update (I think).

Again I just skimmed all of this, but I don't see support that the number excludes trials. If I was not mostly on your side I'd argue that some of these cost are also unique to California such as defending specific federal law suits. But I'll let those that somehow think that the death penalty in the US is cheaper argue that.

how is defending federal habeas suits unique to California?

the savings of $170 million per year comes from commuting existing sentences in the DPIC summary; that's not considering trial costs going forward.

the summary you link is the costs from 1978-2009. the study I linked projects out from 2011 to 2050. trial costs don't go away, but do get reduced. the primary savings is in incarceration costs and building new facilities.

part of the problem there is the bias mentioned earlier. DPIC is summarizing data to make an argument, simply adding up costs for that period and coming up with the $4 billion. the actual loyola study isn't doing the same thing; it's comparing costs projected out. they realize that trial costs will not go away, they'll just change. they're in the projections, and they aren't the major factor in the savings.

 

[culdeus]

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.

I prefer the Howard Stern method.

No one actually gets sentenced to death, but on the day that a prison which can only hold 1,000 prisoners get's it's 1,001st prisoner, you go get the prisoner who's been there the longest and strap 'em to old sparky. So now, you have the death penalty being a real deterrent for all crime, plus the prison overcrowding situation has been resolved. As a bonus, you can use the prisoners ashes to fill potholes, so they are finally contributing to society.

This is not the worst idea ever.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... If I was not mostly on your side I'd argue that some of these cost are also unique to California such as defending specific federal law suits. But I'll let those that somehow think that the death penalty in the US is cheaper argue that.

...how is defending federal habeas suits unique to California? ...

Cost that are unique to California would be building a new facility to house death row inmates (though that isn't in your number). The other items are the specific death penalty law suits that California is defending including the one that demand the immediate execution of fourteen from pages 25 to 30. Sure several other states have similar issues.

 

[MaxThreshold]

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.

I prefer the Howard Stern method.

No one actually gets sentenced to death, but on the day that a prison which can only hold 1,000 prisoners get's it's 1,001st prisoner, you go get the prisoner who's been there the longest and strap 'em to old sparky. So now, you have the death penalty being a real deterrent for all crime, plus the prison overcrowding situation has been resolved. As a bonus, you can use the prisoners ashes to fill potholes, so they are finally contributing to society.

This is not the worst idea ever.

It has some real potential. The road in front of my house is fookin' terrible.