The Economics of the Death Penalty

AIR DATE: Monday, November 23rd 2009
POSTED BY: REBECCA ROBINSON

$14 million is no small sum. That's how much Oregon will spend on death penalty litigation in the next five years, according to a recent Oregonian article. The state has executed just two men since voters reinstated capital punishment in 1984, but has borne many millions of dollars in legal costs for its Death Row inmates - including 10 rounds of state and federal appeals per defendant that can take nearly 15 years to complete.

Washington state has its fair share of Death Row expenses. A 2006 report by the Washington State Bar Association noted that a death penalty case generated nearly $470,000 more in costs than would an aggravated murder case without the death penalty. Such six-figure sums are why Stevens County commissioners, already facing a $1.2 million deficit, are loath to take on a capital case.

The current recession has state and county governments carefully eyeing the bottom line, and in the process reconsidering the amount of time and money they allot to death penalty cases. Eleven states introduced legislation this year to abolish capital punishment or reduce the number of cases eligible for a death penalty verdict. (The former was introduced in Washington, the latter in Oregon; neither were brought up for a vote.) However, staunch proponents of the death penalty argue that, in addition to deterring crime and providing closure for victims' families, it is less expensive in the long run than life without parole.

Should the death penalty be abolished or curtailed to cut costs? Or is it an essential component of our criminal justice system regardless of its price tag?

GUESTS:

Tagged as: death penalty · economy · politics

Photo credit: Still Burning / Creative Commons

In college, I attempted to conduct a formal research project on views of the death penalty and how they relate to religious and political views.

I was surprised that across the political and religious spectrum significant majorities support the death penalty (these local stats are consistent with national stats).

As a strong opponent of the death penalty, I was most disturbed by the reasons given to justify their support.  Most people referenced crime deterrence and cost-effectiveness, yet these two factors are not supported by any factual evidence.  Studies indicate that the death penalty does not deter murder.  In fact, in states with the death penalty violence is often higher, and immediately following a publicized execution crime generally spikes.  As for cost-effectiveness, because of the system of appeals and the trials we require in death penalty cases, the death penalty sentence is more expensive than life in prison by millions of dollars.

I was not surprised that the survey respondents who supported the death penalty were far more likely to get basic stats about executions in the U.S. wrong.  For example, most did not realize that the U.S. is ranked among the highest in the world in executions (we are currently ranked 4th, but in previous years has been ranked higher).

There are so many reasons to oppose the death penalty: spiritual (hello, what would Jesus or Buddah do?), political (minority and poor people are disproportionately executed and why would we give the state the power to kill?), logistics (all the reasons given to justify are not valid, it comes down to retribution).  Our country has the blood of innocent people on our hands because of our desire to perpetuate retribution.

windance88 —

I some what agree with windance88 but lets look at the otherside.  Why let a convicted murderer sit and be pampered in jail until his demise is in question.  I beleive that if you are a convicted felon of a violent crime such as murder and the evidence is over whelming why ask for an appeal that last 10 years.  Something of this magnitude should go directly to Federal Supreme Court for immediate review. Once it is determined that everything is in order (evidence, rules of trial, etc) then you get your death warrant issued to you and upon that, Then your done.  No waiting just a trip through the express line. We as a nation have become soft.  To get tough on criminals then the system has to be tough.  There are too many people that are complacent about this matter.  When we become complacent thats when things get out of hand.  Other countries do not have this problem.  In Japan and other countries when you are convicted of violent crimes and you get the death penalty.  Justice is swift and its done. No waiting 10 years no tax money spent on giving the criminal 3 hots and a cot, a gym to workout in, tv and a education.  Im for justice when it serves the rightous. I also believe that when you are a convicted felon of violent crime YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO ANYTHING NONE WHAT SO EVER. As far as retribution, the bible says that we as man make laws and we should obey them.  Thats just the order of things. There is also another thing that is unseen by the naked eye.  Lawyers like gragging out trials so they can get that extra few hours in to make more money.  I know you dont go for statement but figure this out. If I  was a lawyer and someone hired me at a rate of 1000.00 retainer and 500 dollars and hour.  And you commited murder I am going to get paid to defend you for the next 10 years. And on top of that you are a paying customer. When you get fried im gong to retire cause you have just paid me over a million to try and get you off the chair. Now you see why lawyers are so damn expensive they get paid to lie while you take and oath to tell the truth Kind of a catch 22.  Hell you could make a whole other story on this idea.

myopinionnow —

Stop giving them so many appeals.  I understand that mistakes are made in our judicial system. so you get 2 years to get NEW information if none is present no appeals no trials just death, and not the nice and easy injection do it however is cheapest even if that means you just push em off a cliff.  Whatever happened to when inmates had to work while in jail.  that is a huge resource we could be using to "keep oregon green" if nothing else make them smash big rocks into little rocks sun up to sun down.  dig a hole fill it in and do it again.

stevenmiles —

In matters of justice, economic considerations should largely be irrelevant---or at least require separate deliberation from the ethical conversation. Combining them can confuse people, especially when they are used to allegedly reinforce ethical arguments, because they are nothing of the sort. This process ends up diluting the authentic debate and we are left forgetting where the crux of the argument is or was. If any of these side arguments can be refuted or shattered then we are back at go, and it often tarnishes the perhaps sound ethical arguments in the process.

scottmil —

I do not even consider costs in death penalty cases. Some isssues are beyond economics.

A major argument against the death penalty is exradition of suspects from other countries. Consistently other nations will not release suspsecs for this reason. 

raymondovich —

What about the economics of the prison system?

What about the costs to offer free room and board to people, sometimes for life?

If our taxes are going to support them, they should be working for us. Eight hours of hard labor every day would be an acceptable tradeoff for our investment in them.

EvMack —

One enormous issue with the way the death penalty is generally applied in the US is inconsistency. If the punishment should equal the crime, then a murderer should always be murdered. Which of course does not happen. So are murderers who are not murdered inadequately punished? If loss of life is what we are seeking retribution for, then by picking and choosing which life deserves greater retribution we are in effect saying one life was more valuable then another. So in a way the more violent or egregious your death the greater retribution you deserve. Because, the real victim of the crime is the dead person, no matter how much grief the family feels, because if there are no family or friends then who are we seeking seeking retribution for?

You could argue we treat all crimes with different punishments but no punishment is as final and severe as death. It certainly goes an extra step beyond the usual metrics of time in prison that is used in all other cases.

scottmil —

It would be illegal to not apply the death penalty for economic reasons, as the guy who is opposed to the death penalty is advocating on the air, as it would be a violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. That is exactly why he is advocating this - he would want all of the convictions to be overtured.

Reality is that there is nothing wrong with the death penalty. The biggest issue is that if you mess up, you can't ressurect someone. You have to be very careful with it... but there's nothing wrong with it.

I am opposed to live without parole. The possibility for reform is there, and it is a pure vengence thing. If we are going to put them in jail forever, we might as well execute them as it is fundamentally the same thing - their life is over.

Titanium Dragon —

My father was a federal warden and director of corrections for Alaska in the 80s. He says at that time you could keep someone incarcerated for 55 years in a federal prison for the same price as trying a capital punishment trial.

campbell2002 —

There was a time in recent US history when today's discussion about money and the death penalty would not even have been thought of.  The period after WWII up until the time of the Kennedy presidency was a period when America worked.

Why was that?  Because Americans were willing to pay to have the government function properly.  The highest marginal tax rate on income was 91% up until JFK.  During that time American systems worked efficiently and well.  Schools, universities, roads...all infrastructure, including the courts, worked because they were funded properly.

Now, thanks to Americans greediness, we have dropped tax rates to a point where the government is basically choked and struggling to function.

So when you hear death penalty proponents claim that it doesn't matter what a death penalty case costs - that we should pursue them all at full throttle, ask that proponent if he/she is willing to pony up for the money it costs to try these cases.

My guess is that the level of greed, selfishness and self-interest has grown so deeply into the American psyche that the answer is NO.

So, Americans will eventually shoot themselves in the foot.  The government functions more poorly as time goes by even as the greed-head citizens demand more services, more programs, more death penalties, more prisons, more medical benefits...more - more - more.

At some point the country will go broke and all systems will shut down.  Then we will see how happy the "Don't Tax Me" types are.

hartman john —

It seems that your guests were commenting on the cost of the death penalty vs. the morality of the death penalty.  For me there is no separation or conflict in these these considerations.  How I choose to spend my money is based on my morality.  How the governmental entity chooses to spend its (our) money is based, ultimately, on moral convictions.

JoanneElliott —

One might suggest subcontracting death penalty cases to an offshore entity (China for example), I understand they are very efficient in these matters.

rethomas —

I was disappointed, but not suprized by the level to which District Attorney Norman Frink lowered today's discussion on the death penalty. Instead of providing cogent proof of his assertion that the death penalty can "save" the state money -- a positition that is flatly disputed by all research on the topic -- he attempted to imply that Matthew Rubenstein's evidence that costs run up to 10 times more for capital cases - was irrelevant because Mr. Rubenstein opposes the death penalty. He did the same with the comments made by Stevens County Commissioner Malcom Freidman, who during a time of shrinking statewide and county budgets, thinks there might be better ways to spend tax dollars than bringing forth costly death penalty cases.  

In both situations, Mr. Frink wanted listeners to ignore fact based research because the presenters had policy opinions about capital punishment.

What?

Mr. Frink also has an opinion about the death penalty -- and that is that it as a valuable tool and that he does not want it, nor the process that capitol cases come before the courts -- to be changed. Yet, we are to take his words at face value?

The Multnomah County Prosecutor has made of living out of framing and then usurping the debate and that is what he attempted to do in today's show. 

He should have been called on this. 

The fact is, he came to today's program with nothing but anecdotal evidence of what he believes to be the effectiveness of capital punishment. Because he had little else to contribute, he resorted to petty and irrelevant attacks that added nothing to the discussion.

Naseem Rakha

naseemrakha —

I agree with you, but that is part of the game our society has started to play. If you try to advocate a position by using other ancillary arguments, that is the risk you run---having your objectivity called into question even if the ancillary arguments are valid. This is exactly what the anti-abortion camp is trying to do---finding any other roundabout, and sometimes disingenuous ways to get what they want. We run the same risk with climate change, when we turn the argument into economics, by trying to suggest there is an economic value to a green economy. There may be economic benefits to a green economy, but those are secondary considerations and if you focus too much on these ancillary benefits---what do you do when there is an economic disincentive? It is similar to the crusade against illegal immigrants, surely the motives or psychology of the crusaders is relevant and called into question---or do we simply believe the crusaders are such die-hard adherents to law? Each argument should be judged individually, but often the context will set off alarms. 

scottmil —

Just an observation for the hosts: Al Gore couldn't get two sentences of an answer out before being interupted by the hosts. The guests on the death penaly show were allowed to bloviate ad nausem.

Gene Dieken —

If our taxes are going to support them, they should be working for us. Eight hours of hard labor every day would be an acceptable tradeoff for our investment in them. Byty na prenajom

Zemkovic —

Comments are now closed.

Become a sponsor