Whenever there’s a death penalty debate, someone usually mentions that “it’s more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.”
Is this true? And if so, why? What makes execution so expensive, and what makes incarceration less expensive?
I know that prisoners wear uniforms, the food is crap, and that they essentially provide their own board by working in the laundry, kitchen, and so forth, besides doing contract work like making license plates. But the cost of incarceration can still add up if multiplied by the hundreds or thousands. Plus, guards and people like prison doctors (hi, Qadgop!) have to be paid what they’re worth—at least I hope they are. And when someone’s executed, that’s it: the final expense.
Not all prisons make the inmates wear uniforms all of the time. In the prison in which my husband works, the inmates only have to wear their “blues” during what we’d call “working hours.” (9 to 5) After that, they’re allowed to wear street clothes.
Secondly, the food is actually pretty good. My husband usually has it for lunch. It’s hot, plentiful, and pretty tasty. Their diet is usually very high in carbohydrates, but they can get special meals to meet their dietary needs, such as Kosher, diabetic, or vegan. They eat a lot of pastas, but it varies, probably as much as what you make at hiome. Yesterday, they had roasted turkey breast. My husband said it was delicious.
The cost per individual inmate is pretty low-- IIRC, it’s only about a couple dollars per day. (Adding a few here or there really doesn’t affect the overall costs.) The big expense is in the administration.
Factor in costs like medical care (which you already noted) psychological services, guards and administrative staff, (my husband’s prison has 500 employees) and maintenance (which in our aging prisons can be astronomical) heating, chaplains, educational materials, and so forth, and that’s where the monsy starts to add up.
The money each inmate generates through work is nearly negligible. In my state, prisoner’s work can only benefit state agencies. For example, a factory can only make things for state use, like desks, which cannot be sold to the public. Some prisons have farms, but the food is used only for the local prisons.
For the most part, work programs are for the benefit of the inmate. It keeps them occupied and out of trouble, and perhaps gives them a marketable job skill for when they are released.
Realize that with or without the death penalty, these costs would still exist. After all, you have to feed, house, and care for the imate until they’re executed, which, given our lengthy appeals process, could be decades. Since not every crime qualifies for the needle, you’d still have to pay for prisons. Housing an extra murderer who escapes the death penalty really doesn’t make that much overall difference.
Yes, according to my Instructor in “Youth and Justice” class, the idea is that the legal costs of unlimited appeals and such make the costs of a Death Penalty judgement quite pricey.
Whenever I have seen this analyzed, it’s the costs of legal appeals that make it much more expensive. If people were immediately executed (am I not advocating this) the cost would be much less for execution.
In addition to the legal fees, the cost of housing an inmate on “death row” for ten years before he is executed, is much more expensive than housing an inmate in general population for, say 20-30 years.
amarone & Haj are correct-the death penalty, in Calif at least, is a full employment act for attorneys & “experts.” 1st is habeas corpus through the state courts, then through the US system. I think Cal has executed about 10 people since 1978(the new law was enacted then) & there are over 600 on death row w/no executions in the near future.
I am really glad I live in a state without the death penalty, so I don’t have to deal with that issue at work. (Hi Rilchiam!)
It is expensive to carry out the death penalty. It can also be very, very expensive to care for lifer inmates as their health fails. Courts have mandated that they be given the same standard of care that any member of the public (with a great health plan or independent wealth) would be able to access.
Thanks for the replies! I’m off to the hell that is Black Friday, so I can’t address individual posts, but if anyone has anything else to add, have at it and I’ll get back to this late tonight or tomorrow!
While certainly there are valid concerns about the DP, the relative cost of incarceration versus the DP is specious argumentation, it doesn’t necessarily follow that execution is required to cost more, this is largely a result of automatic appeals processes and the glacial pace of our judicial system in the “modern” age.
Zangara attempted to kill president-elect Roosevelt but/and managed to kill Chicago Mayor Tony Cermak, he was apprehended, arraigned, tried, convicted and executed in less than thirty days.
It’s a circular argument for those against the death penalty to have, over the years, made it quite difficult and expensive to employ the death penalty to now use this reasoning as justification for their views.
Depends. If they made a plea agreement accepting life imprisonment in order to avoid a probable death sentence, they’ve given up their right to appeal.
And on a related note, how much of the appeals work on behalf of death-row inmates is done pro bono by lawyers who have moral/ethical reasons to oppose capital punishment (seriously I don’t know, is it a lot)? The death penalty cases thus get more attention and face more legal challenges.
I favour the death penalty in principal, but have to admit I’m opposed to its return to Canada on practical grounds. To avoid looking like a bunch of barbarians, we’d have to build in a detailed appeals process, and give every reasonable opportunity for a prisoner to try to challenge his conviction. The problem, of course, is what consistutes a reasonable opportunity. Given the stakes involved, were I on death row, I’d certainly take advantage of every possible legal challenge. After all, what have I got to lose?
Looks like capital punishment is expensive just because those naughty prisoners won’t just admit “You got me, I’m guilty, just give me a rope and I’ll hang myself. Sorry about the mess.”
Don’t think in terms of one execution vs imprisonment, you have to consider the cost of the death penalty as a whole. Bear in mind that there are many results possible in a death penalty case. The accused may be found not guilty at trial, may be given a lesser sentence at trial, may be sentenced to death and later have the sentence commuted, he may be aquitted on appeal, might die through other means, or he might be executed. Only about 1 case in 15 actually proceeds to execution. The one that is executed might be cheaper than inprisonment, but the other 14 are certainly a lot more expensive.
First point, over the last 30 years 111 innocent people have been released from death row. Each one of them was saved through the long and slow appeals process. Many of them were released by evidence that emerged years after the original trial. If executions were carried out in 30 days, all of them would be dead. But you’re right, it would have been less expensive.
Second point, I find that death penalty opponents very rarely use ‘saving money’ as an argument. Usually it is only used in response to pro-DPers who claim the DP is cheaper, and advocate the DP as a way of saving money. Then the antis hit them with the facts. The pros’ response is usually to flip-flop and declare that they don’t mind paying the extra expense after all.
Something not mentioned which I have seen a few shows about is a prisoner’s right to unlimited lawsuits. While I’m sure some of them are valid, the ones where the guy sued because he was given crunchy peanut butter instead of smooth and one where a guy sued so he could get Dove’s blood (he was a Satanist) show a certain frivolity to it. This link gives details on some of the cases: http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/96-08%20AUG/frivolous.html
From what I have read, since they have plenty of time on their hands, it can become a hobby giving them something to do and allowing them to leave the prison to visit court. The below link (the only one I could find with a cost estimate) says it cost California 25 million in 1994 http://www.cains.com/cains/funnies/prisons.htm
I would think this cost should be factored into the “life sentence” side of the cost.
Interesting, that’s usually the first argument that I hear from pro-murder (kidding!) advocates.
Note: 111 “innocent” people, you say, have been released - they are NOT necessarily “innocent” by any stretch. This is a misnomer of the greatest proportion. They are more properly termed “wrongfully convicted” which legally speaking is something entirely different.
Now. With all that, consider that there is no shortage of death row inmates right now with which there is absolutely no question that they are guilty of the crime, none whatsoever. Surely then, there is no objection to execution in these instances, right?
Okay, I’d be happy with the instant (or at least rapid) execution of people who videotape their rapes/murders. I wouldn’t for example, have any problem burning Paul Bernardo personally if the death penalty were in place here (Karla Homolka, too).
Of course, it’s only a matter of time before computers make video ridiculously easy to fake…
Cite? I find its the last one from serious opponents. See for example http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/lcptoc61fall1998.htm
where in several articles by various opponents, its not mentioned at all as far as I can see. Usually they only mention it in rebuttal to a deathie (kidding) that raises the issue.
Many of them are innocent beyond question, having DNA evidence that completely exonerates them, or alternative suspects proven guilty of the same crime, or other proof. Others have had the case against them collapse when the major evidence was shown to be faked or mistaken. In some cases it is possible that they were guilty, but I’m sure there are at least 100 genuine innocents on the list.
I’m sure that there are several dozen more innocents currently waiting on death row. But even with the guilty ones there is doubt, on appeal they frequently have the charge reduced from capital murder to a lesser degree of homicide. Only about 1 in 7 is ever actually executed.
There are plenty of other resons for opposing the DP apart from the innocence issue, and the cost is very low on my list. My main reason for objecting is that I just think it wrong to cold-bloodedly kill people who pose no direct, immediate threat to innocent persons. Every time you execute someone there is a mother or a sister or a daughter left devastated, but it gives no advantage in return. The human cost is greater than life imprisonment.