No death penalty, more cash

October 22, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Proponents of abolishing the death penalty have argued for years it costs more to sentence someone to death and execute them than it does to have that person sit in prison for life. A report released this week is taking advantage of the current economy to re-emphasize that point in hopes to getting states to end the death penalty.

The Death Penalty Information Center’s report, which included a poll of police chiefs around the country regarding their thoughts about the death penalty and crime, argues states can save hundreds of millions of dollars by getting rid of death sentences. The report may catch the attention of legislators because what state isn’t looking for extra cash right now?

Numerous groups opposed to the death penalty have cited the extra costs associated with that sentence because investigations have to be more thorough, trials can take longer or be delayed, and often the death sentences are appealed. If a state can really save around $10 million or more, as the report claims by abolishing the death penalty, that’s money that can be put toward expanding jails, putting more police on the streets, or creating more crime-deterrant programs.

A study in California last year revealed the state spends nearly $140 million a year on the death penalty and hasn’t put anyone to death in four years. Florida spends $51 million a year on the death penalty. A study of New Jersey found it spent more than $250 million on the death penalty since 1983.

You may ask, what does a poll of police chiefs have to do with the death penalty? According to the DPIC’s report, most police chiefs ranked the death penalty last when asked to name one area as most important for reducing violent crime. The police chiefs also ranked the death penalty as the least efficient use of taxpayers’ money. They believe hiring more officers, community policing, neighborhood watch programs, and other methods would be more efficient uses of tax dollars.

Is the thought of saving millions of dollars going to be enough to convince states that executions should be ended? If that angle didn’t work before the economy tanked, is it the best argument death penalty opponents have right now?

You can view the report at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT