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

Post a comment to this story

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
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.