26

There are some claims on anti-death penalty sites that death penalty (in USA) costs are significantly more then costs of long-time imprisonment.

For example :

The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated.

If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole*, which costs millions less and also ensures that the public is protected while eliminating the risk of an irreversible mistake, the money saved could be spent on programs that actually improve the communities in which we live.

Is this calculation accurate? Or does life-long imprisonment include almost all same costs? e.g. appeals, careful investigations, higher costs to house, etc.

valodzka
  • 1,305
  • 1
  • 12
  • 15
  • There 23 off-topic comments here. According to our [Privileges section](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment), you should only use comments to request clarification from the author or leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving this post. Please review the **When shouldn't I comment?** section and act appropriately in the future. – Sklivvz Jan 28 '13 at 20:02
  • Litigation is very expensive and can be used as a political tool. Cross reference [SLAPP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) –  Jan 12 '19 at 06:35

1 Answers1

26

Yes it does.

The source that you provided does a very good job in citing its credible sources and should suffice alone. But it touches only California, and it's not the only source out there and there are many others (although some cite the same sources). There are news reports about the high costs of execution in different US states:

In Illinois (In an article about Iowa):

The cost of prosecuting death penalty cases makes them difficult for governments, said Andrea Lyon, an Illinois death penalty defense lawyer. She noted that one reason Illinois abolished capital punishment two years ago was because it cost the state so much to prosecute.

“The cost to try, convict and imprison someone for life is a quarter of what it costs to give them the death penalty,” she said.

In North Carolina:

In North Carolina, Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham, recently told the House Ways and Means Committee, "We might want to, at some point, revisit whether the death penalty ought to be imposed, or whether we ought to impose a life sentence without parole, because it's a strong, persuasive and convincing argument when you talk about the astronomical expense of capital cases."

In California:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R88AHtXmIKA

Since 1978 Tax payers have spent more than 4B dollars on capital punishment in California alone, or about 308M dollars for each of the 13 executions carried out since then.

The Death Penalty Information Center also has a page with the costs of execution in different states, and while they are an organisation that apposes the death penalty they cite credible sources for their information.

The counter argument to the cost is that the capital punishment is a moral choice that the American/each state's public wants and they are willing to pay the appropriate price, as cited in this article about the failure of prop 34 in California:

"The people of California sent a clear message that the death penalty should still be implemented for those who commit the most heinous and unthinkable crimes," said McGregor Scott, the former U.S. attorney for Sacramento who served as the opposition's co-chairman.

HOWEVER, it should be noted that it's not the process of the execution itself that costs all that money (The process costs only around 500$), but the process of lengthy litigation, multiple appeals and the fact that a prisoner sits on Death Row for a long time, in 2010 the average was 178 months, which is almost 15 years (according to the Bureau of Justice) contribute to the high costs of the capital panishment:

Graph

And (at least in California) inmates on the death row prefer to stay on death row rather than get Life without Parole:

That is so counter-intuitive to what most people believe about capital punishment that its worth repeating. People on death row, not just folks in an abstract all night dorm room discussion about whether death or LWOP is worst, but folks actually condemned to die, prefer to continue with their death sentence.

...

Many prisoners hold out the hope that their conviction will be overturned and they will be able to go home. Ending their right to court appointed lawyer on habeas would close that door forever to most if not all of them (a handful might find lawyers to voluntarily continue their appeal).

Voters who support the death penalty should think carefully this November before they vote “No.” If you defeat Proposition 34, you will be continuing to give people convicted of capital murder exactly what they most desperately want — a lawyer that will help them get out of prison.

This lengthy process is in place to minimize the number of innocent people that will get executed as well as making sure that the defendant/inmate has exhausted all possible legal options to prove their innocence. In China, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq (3 of the other 4 world "leaders" in executions in the year 2011, together with the US), it's easier, quicker and cheaper to execute a person:

China:

All trials in China are fundamentally flawed – with courts routinely relying on evidence extracted through torture or other ill-treatment, and defendants frequently denied the right to choose their own lawyers.

Saudi Arabia:

Many of those executed over the past years were foreign nationals, mostly migrant workers from developing countries in Africa and Asia. They are disproportionately affected by the secretive and summary nature of the criminal justice process.

Iraq:

The accused were often condemned to death after trials lasting just a few minutes.

SIMEL
  • 29,037
  • 14
  • 123
  • 139
  • 3
    How reliable is "Russia Today", the uploader of the youtube link? (Or any major media organization based in Russia that the Russian government allows to operate, for that matter...) – Andrew Grimm Jan 27 '13 at 12:27
  • 1
    It doesn't matter how reliable RT, but how reliable their sources. The figures that they present are the figures from the same study (http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol46/iss0/1/) by Judge Arthur L. Alarcón and Paula M. Mitchell that everyone present about the cost of executions in California, and I would say that the former DA of the LA county for 20 years is pretty reliable. – SIMEL Jan 27 '13 at 15:12
  • On a side note, even if one would argue that RT are not a reliable/objective source about issues related to Russia, they are probably unbiased regarding isues that are not Russia related, and to the best of my knowladge they don't report about Russia, but about the US. Just like you wouldn't go to FOX news to get objective info about the teaching of evolution in class rooms, but their report of the prices of stocks and weather is probably reliable. – SIMEL Jan 27 '13 at 15:13
  • 1
    There's a major difference between "cost of death penalty", and "cost of extra-long imprisonment and non-ending appeals before you can execute someone because opponents to death penalty force it to be that way". – user5341 Jan 27 '13 at 16:09
  • 5
    @IlyaMelamed - Russian media has a vested interest in presenting America in bad light, to make life in Russia and russian government sound better. I HAVE seen/watched/read a lot of their reporting about USA, a lot of it is either incompetently inaccurate or agenda-driven lies. My favorite was some TV program "interview" with a woman who supposedly lived in USA for 20 years, and said that "nobody owns more than 1 car in a family", "everybody is too poor to buy a new car for cash", "nobody owns a home", "nobody with college degree can find a job" – user5341 Jan 27 '13 at 16:13
  • 6
    @DVK I guess with the same argument we can dismiss most US 'News' channels. Especially FOX. And probably even the Newspapers. – Stefan Jan 27 '13 at 16:32
  • 6
    @DVK, a discussion about the trustworthiness of Russian media is irrelevant here, They report figures from a study by an american Judge and interview an american former DA. Even if it was made by the North Korean news agency or the Stalin era Soviet press, the facts that they present (in an awful accent) are from independent, credible **American** sources. – SIMEL Jan 27 '13 at 16:52
  • If you say that it's cheaper in China to execute someone, could you cite a specific source? – Christian Jan 27 '13 at 21:04
  • @Christian, the source for the high cost of executions in the USA is the lengthy legal process that the inmate goes through. Do I really need to provide sources that condemned men in china don't get 15 years between their sentence and their execution when they get to appeal the sentence to the highest courts? – SIMEL Jan 27 '13 at 22:03
  • @DVK: "cost of extra-long imprisonment and non-ending appeals before you can execute someone because opponents to death penalty force it to be that way" Death sentences would go a lot quicker if executing some innocent people was OK. – Mike Dunlavey Jan 27 '13 at 22:27
  • @MikeDunlavey - Exactly how many people on Death Row were exonerated during appeals process? Not "had their sentence reduced due to technicality", but proven **innocent** (or at least, conclusively objectively not guilty). – user5341 Jan 28 '13 at 00:22
  • 1
    @DVK, The question whether the wait on death row should or shouldn't be so long is really off topic here, maybe you should move to the chat to discuss it. – SIMEL Jan 28 '13 at 00:28
  • @IlyaMelamed - Hm. Given that your own answer explicitly states the causation (`HOWEVER, it should be noted that it's not the process of the execution itself that costs all that money (The process costs only around 500$), but the process of lengthy litigation, multiple appeals and the fact that a prisoner sits on Death Row for a long time`), this seems to be ontopic, but it's your answer, so you're the boss :) – user5341 Jan 28 '13 at 02:59
  • 3
    @DVK, I do give this as the cause. However, you are not arguing if it's true or not, you are arguing if it should be this way or not. You are arguing that the process should be changed. Changing the process is off-topic, unless I didn't understand you, and you are arguing that the execution process is not as long as I've written. – SIMEL Jan 28 '13 at 12:00
  • 1
    "Do I really need to provide sources that condemned men in china don't get 15 years between their sentence and their execution when they get to appeal the sentence to the highest courts?" Yes, yes you do. It might be "obvious" but back it up with data anyways. You could be skewed by your perception of China, unless you give sources. @DVK "nobody with college degree can find a job" this seems to be a somewhat accurate statement. :) I jest, I have a college degree and a job in my field. Also, can we move this discussion to chat? – Sam I Am Jan 28 '13 at 15:09
  • 1
    If an innocent person is sentenced to life without parole and dies in prison 50 years later, is the harm done to that person any less than the harm done to someone who is sentenced to death and executed? If prevention of the latter latter is deemed sufficiently important as to justify spending a certain amount on legal protections, why should not the prevention of the former be just as important, and justify comparable spending? – supercat Aug 21 '14 at 22:23
  • 1
    @supercat - If evidence is found exonerating an innocent person after five years, then they've lost five years, not their lives. I think it's more the irrevocable nature of the punishment, in addition to our predictably abysmal record of human fallibility that makes the argument for so many safeguards, or doing away with that sanction. The punishment of life in prison does not in any way preclude a convicted prisoner from continuing to pursue their quest for exoneration as long as they can. Can't say the same for execution. – PoloHoleSet Jan 12 '19 at 02:28
  • 1
    And yet despite such a lengthly process, the rates of innocent executions is staggering. – forest Jan 12 '19 at 04:10
  • 1
    @PoloHoleSet: Which is generally more likely--that evidence of innocence will be found within the first five years of a conviction, or that evidence that wasn't found in the first five years will be found within the next 50? What fraction of innocent people who aren't exonerated in 5 years would be exonerated ever? If a person's guilt isn't certain enough to justify killing them after 5 years, the notion that if they're innocent they might get vindicated within the next 45 years shouldn't be enough to justify imprisoning them either. – supercat Jan 12 '19 at 07:54
  • @supercat - We don't have to speculate. There have been 164 exonerations from people on death row since 1973. Not "got off on a procedural technicality," but were found innocent. 124 of those were five years or more after conviction (not arrest or charge). That's more than 3/4 (75.6%). Even if it was less than 10%, less than 5%, what percentage of innocent people killed by society when they didn't have to be is okay with you? https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row – PoloHoleSet Jan 14 '19 at 15:25
  • @PoloHoleSet: The figure of 40 having been acquitted within five years of conviction seems much lower than I would have expected, especially since only cases involved DNA evidence, and leaves me wondering what prevented the remaining 100+ people from having been exonerated sooner? In an increase in effort placed on exonerating people whose execution is imminent causing people on Death Row to be essentially ignored until that point, or are people who get sentenced to death likely to have that sentence annulled within five years in ways that don't put them on the list? – supercat Jan 14 '19 at 16:08
  • @supercat - Probably the belief that they got it right before sentencing someone to death, the belief that a convicted death-row inmate was trying anything and everything, so a reluctance to enthusiastically dive into those details by the authorities, who hold all the cards. Plus, initial representation for often poor and minority defendants is not the best, and it's not until you get to the more advanced appellate levels of their cases that they get better representation. But that's all very speculative on my part. It often takes years for the trials to happen in the first place. – PoloHoleSet Jan 14 '19 at 16:31
  • @PoloHoleSet: If a guy sits on Death Row for 15 years until his execution becomes sufficiently imminent that people start investigating his case, whereupon they find evidence that acquits him, I'd view much of the time between conviction and scheduled execution not as having assisted in his vindication, but rather as having delayed it. If investigations are delayed until execution is imminent because there aren't enough resources to investigate cases in more timely fashion, *that's* a problem that needs to be fixed, rather than mitigated by postponing executions to compensate. – supercat Jan 14 '19 at 19:25
  • @supercat - It's not that they wait around until he's ready to die, and then suddenly check on stuff. If the case is flimsy enough on the surface that it would scream for re-evaluating and re-testing physical evidence, probably the person would not have been convicted in the first place. Just as the initial trial is often years in the making, examining the evidence, getting the institutions to go through the time, cost and effort of making that information available, re-testing, etc is a process. If we had infinite resources and manpower, we could just redo everything, but it's a process. – PoloHoleSet Jan 14 '19 at 20:37
  • Seems like a lot of work and expense to expedite things just so you can have the satisfaction of killing someone off. Why not remove the cost and expense of death row by eliminating it? – PoloHoleSet Jan 14 '19 at 20:38
  • @PoloHoleSet: Because locking up innocent people until they die of natural causes should be just as unacceptable as executing them? I suspect many of the people on your list owe their freedom to the fact that they were sentenced to death. Had they merely been sentenced to life without parole, their cases would never have attracted anyone's attention and they'd still be in prison today. – supercat Jan 14 '19 at 20:51
  • 1
    Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/88308/discussion-between-poloholeset-and-supercat). – PoloHoleSet Jan 15 '19 at 16:51