I know that an argument that tries to quantify the cost in humanity and compassion when the government deliberately ends the life of a human being won’t go anywhere, because not everyone shares the view that this cost exists, or if it exists that it’s excessive.
But no one should be able to argue with the cost in terms of actual dollars. So to those people unconvinced by the argument that the death penalty is barbaric and wrong, I offer this thought: we can’t afford it any more.
Sure, it was great to kill people when we were living high on the hog. But now, with the economy in a tailspin, we need to face facts. Capital cases cost the state an average of three times as much as non-capital murder cases. Such is the theme of this New York Times article, which details efforts in several states to impose a moratorium on the death penlty by legislation.
This is the right idea, done the right way. As much as I abhor the death penalty, I do not favor it being overturned by judicial action, because as abhorrent as it is, it’s clearly constitutional.
But when the legislature acts to correct an abysmal, barbaric social wrong… it’s good.
The problem is that many of the strongest supporters of capital punishment agree it is too expensive - they just seek to make it cheaper, by removing safeguards, as opposed to acepting we cannot financially afford it.
We can always make it cheaper financially, until we are down to the cost of one bullet. Which I am sure could be billed to the alleged miscreant’s family. The cost to our system of justice and our national morality, however, can never be eliminated.
I personally do not believe the death penalty is barbaric or wrong, and the argument of cost is by far the most compelling one for me.
But, I offer this - if we really want to reform the costs incurred by the criminal justice system, it seems like we would save much more money by at least decriminalizing marijuana consumption and possession, and not putting non-violent drug abusers into jail, and other such things.
The death penalty is far more just in my book than punishing someone for non-violently using or possessing a drug.
I don’t think it’s clear at all. Consider the Eighth Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” What exactly constitutes cruel or unusual punishment? The framers of the Constitution didn’t specify. If they specifically wanted to rule out chopping off hands for theft and being made to wear a scarlet letter for adultury, they would have specifically called those out. But just a vague blanket prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment” allows for the possibility that the standard of “cruel and unusual” might change with time.
Certainly at the time that the Constitution was written, execution was a usual punishment for certain crimes. But nowadays, it’s hard to find any civilized nation which practices it, other than the US. Human society as a whole seems to have come to the conclusion that execution is not an appropriate punishment, even for murder.
Captain Amazing, I am very much opposed to reducing expense by streamlining the appeal process. In Illinois, we have repeatedly demonstrated that people who are not really guilty of a particular crime can be sentenced to death for it. This is not a hypothetical, we did it. I am all for a legislated moratorium on the death penalty.
I would even consider having conditions where we could lift the moratorium. Say, when budgets allow and we reach some bench mark that shows we are not making these errors in death eligible cases, as far as we can tell, for at least 5 years. I imagine those opposed to the death penalty will work hard to demonstrate we are not yet ready.
This has always been my main take on the death penalty…it’s too expensive. It’s pointless to go through all of the stuff we go through simply to whack someone…not when it’s cheaper to simply lock them up for the rest of their lives without parole. It’s a worst punishment in any case IMHO.
The other arguments against the death penalty have always left me saying meh. It’s cruel and unusual…even if I accept that as a given (which I don’t), so what? Other countries don’t do it and we should follow their example…why? I could give a rip what other countries do or don’t do…that’s THEIR business, just as what WE do is OUR business.
Myself, I think we should get rid of the death penalty for practical reasons…it’s a waste, it costs too much, takes too long and is unnecessary.
Saying “you can’t do X until you have done Y” is a pretty clear indication that you can do X after you have fulfilled Y.
So it is pretty clear that the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishments does not include the death penalty.
As to the OP, I think we can agree that the reason imposing the DP is because of the many, many appeals that are filed. I would like further to assume that [ul][li]we would substitute life in prison with no parole for the DP, and [*]the endless appeals would not be filed in cases of LWOP.[/ul]Are we agreed? [/li]
Assuming we are, the fact that DP opponents can agree that they will file fewer appeals for LWOP than DP means that there are certain appeals which are not intended to prevent the innocent from being incarcerated. After all, it may not be as bad to sentence an innocent man to LWOP as it might be to execute him, but it is still a transgression against justice that the appeal system is meant to forestall.
So we could reduce the expense of the DP simply by disallowing those appeals which are not designed to establish innocence, but merely to muck up the system. These appeals are clearly not designed to avoid injustice, since they are forgone in cases of LWOP. So disallowing those appeals creates no further chance of injustice, and also reduce the delay and expense of the DP.
A win-win situation, and one that does not go against the text of the Constitution.
According to the article, the extra legal proceedings in a death penalty case cost approximately $1.9m. That sounds a bit high, but let’s suppose it’s true. Of course, you also save money by not imprisoning the person as long.
Let’s suppose that the net cost is $1m to execute somebody. The US apparently executes less than 100 people per year. So, at most, we’re talking $100 million per year. One tenth of one billion dollars.
That’s pretty small compared to the kind of money which the government regularly throws around on various assorted nonsense.
At the same time, the public gets the mental satisfaction of knowing that many of the most brutal killers are getting what they deserve. On average, we’re each spending 30 cents per year on this, it would seem.
So, from a financial perspective, it seems like a pretty good deal to me compared to other stuff the government does.
That seems to be an unneccesary absolutist stance and not consistant with the way that we handle risk in other situations. The federal government repealed the 55 mph speed limit restriction, even though states raising their speed limits increases the risk of injury or death to motorists. The FDA licenses drugs, in spite of the fact that these drugs are a risk to certain segments of the population. In this thread alone, Monster104 suggests that we might save money by “not putting non-violent drug abusers into jail”, and weakening drug enforcement certainly increases the risk that more people will become injured or die from drug abuse and overdose.
This is a weak argument as to the constitutionality of the death penalty, and I believe in its constitutionality (though not its constitutionality as applied). All it means is that at the time of drafting, the death penalty was not considered “cruel and unusual.”
The fifth means give people process before punishing them; the eighth is that there are some punishments we don’t allow. It was written deliberately as a non-prescriptive list, and deliberately in comparative language.
But saying you cannot execute or imprison someone without a fair trial, does not preclude that other amendments may preclude execution (or indeed imprisonment). I don’t think we are at the stage yet where capital punishment is in and of itself cruel and unusual, but the possibility certainly exists.
Well that is all based on your (uncited) assumption that the net cost is $1m. A number you apparently have just made up. It also ingores the fact there may be other costs associated with the death penalty that aren’t captured in the increased trial costs, such as the cost of separate death rows etc, or the financial costs the distortion of the legal system that results from capital punishment brings with it.
Don’t you mean, ‘the death penalty as currently implemented’? Now, I’m firmly against the death penalty, but, for instance, it would be made substantially cheaper if the penalty were carried out immediately once pronounced.
I admit it’s a bit of a guess, but a buddy of mine who works in law enforcement told me that it costs $50 to $60k a year to incarcerate somebody in a maximum security prison. If you figure that LWOP means roughly 20 extra years of incarceration, then it’s not an unreasonable estimate.
But look, let’s suppose for the sake of argument that it costs an extra $2 million to execute somebody. Heck, let’s make it $3 million. My argument still stands.