High costs of death penalty

Ashlee Stoddard (7/9, Letters) noted the high costs associated with the death penalty. The extra steps that are required to investigate, try, and incarcerate in death penalty cases, coupled with an extensive appeals process, make such cases more expensive than those involving a life sentence.

Lest we conclude that the solution is to provide death row inmates a much shorter window of opportunity in which to file appeals, we must remind ourselves that, to date, 133 death row inmates have been exonerated, including three in Missouri. Those inmates spent an average of 10 years on death row. Because most of the problems that led to those wrongful convictions remain, and because DNA testing will not catch all of those errors, speedy appeals will certainly result in the execution of innocents.

Life in prison without the possibility of parole is a viable alternative to the death penalty. It provides victims’ families the opportunity to put legal proceedings behind them immediately upon sentencing and frees up funding that can be put to more productive use. Although it does not eliminate all error from the prosecution and conviction of murder cases, at least the defendants remain alive so that wrongs might be corrected.

Amy Posey
Chair, psychology department, Benedictine College
Atchison, Kan.

Comments

[solomon]

.....interesting thread.....

Kee, the way the magic box works is you type "innocent man executed" into myour search box and the answer appears....

Gary, I think the appeal process makes sense as long as there has been new discovery or proof that there was fault at the original trial by any party....

J-man, to me it just makes sense....

balingwire(great name), feed them and let them victimize other inmates but bitch about food stamps....I can see them now...

Marctnts, what is proof....multiple eyewitnesses.....blood and physical evidence of amounts more than a speck of blood on a sock......video proof(soon you will only find respite in public toilets).......that is the kind of proof I am saying.....your points about what has constituted truth in the past is valid, but I am speaking to our times when life has come to mean so little to so many and eventually we'll have prison populations full of killers who don't mind being in prison.....i believe if you knew that if you killed someone there was a good chance you would be executed and not just sent somewhere that you fit in comfortably for 7-10 years death could come to mean more.

devin,devin, devin.....bloodthirsty?.....this is America my man...

[devin]

"I do not have an answer or an excuse for those who have been falsely executed and I lament the system that is not perfect."

So you're OK with the government killing innocent people at it's discretion once in a while because, hey, the system ain't perfect?!

"We routinely see condemned inmates still alive ten or more years after their convictions."

Uh, and as the letter writer pointed out, innocent people who are later exonerated have served an *average* of 10 years...so if you'd like this time to be shortened then what you're essentially saying is you would like for MORE innocent people to be executed?!

"About the only positively "irrefutable" evidence that I can think of is a confession"

Actually, there's plenty of evidence that people will confess to crimes they didn't commit (just google "false confessions" for examples). I heard a "This American Life" episode once in which highly "effective" interrogation tactics led to a teenage boy confessing to the murder of his own sister, which subsequent evidence proved beyond any shadow of a doubt he had nothing to do with. Sorry, but it ain't a black & white world and even confessions aren't a slam dunk.

I'm assuming the vast majority of people who post on who are decent, law-abiding citizens. But if even the law-abiding in our country are as blood-thirsty as this crowd, it's no wonder we have the highest crime rates in the developed world. I'm all for locking violent offenders away where they can do no further harm...and where they can be released if evidence later turns up exonerating them. But killing convicts just for the sake of revenge, knowing full well we are also killing innocent people as well, is pretty cold-blooded.

[Marctnts]

As to the use of cost as a justification for speeding up executions and limiting the appeals process, I'd wonder what the same people making this argument think about the disproportionately high number of people we incarcerate for non-violent drug offences.

Surely, if cost is such an important issue that we need to speed up the state-imposed and irreversible penalty of death lest we spend too much money housing those convicted, we should release most of those currently held for non-violent drug offenses.

[Marctnts]

Sol,

"...that if there is evidence that is irrefutable the death penalty should be imposed."

Let's not forget that what is "irrefutable" changes. Fifty years ago, the eyewitness statement of a white man against that of a black man was considered "irrefutable". Thirty years ago, a blood-type match (not DNA) and a fingerprint was considered "irrefutable". Today, we consider a DNA match as irrefutable. Who knows what scientific progress in the future will establish as being a little more refutable than we'd like to think today. About the only positively "irrefutable" evidence that I can think of is a confession, and if the death penalty is reserved for those that confess, I'd imagine the rate of those willing to do so would drastically decrease.

So, if you're willing to acknowledge the fact that what is truly "irrefutable" is much less than what would probably be workable to retain the death penalty, what margin of error are you willing to accept when enforcing the ultimate punishment?

To answer your question (and remember, the guy's only been accused, not convicted), I'd say that a life term in prison is justified if he's found guilty and it's upheld. If he happens to confess to the murders, I'd agree with you that execution is a viable option, but otherwise, "No".

[balingwire]

If you’re going to debate costs, there are expenses with life imprisonment also. Given the complaints that I’ve heard about supporting those lack-luster, do nothing welfare folks that are eating up our tax dollars, I see very little difference. How can we imprison people, give them three hots and a cot, a roof over their head and the support of an expensive legal system while vociferously objecting to the expenses needed to help those less fortunate than we are? Incidentally, the military offers the same advantages and the UCMJ plus the possibility of being on a different death row. I don’t see much uproar in this area either. My guess is that the poor and downtrodden are not a threat, are easier to abuse and, generally, obey the law. Let’s continue to complain about the welfare crowd and support our prisoners.

Life imprisonment without parole is an alternative to the death penalty. I doubt that it would satisfy the families that think the death penalty is clearly warranted.

As to Solomon’s question, I have a few relatives I’d like to recommend. Myself, nah.

[Jazz-Man]

I agree with Sol, I may be a bit radical on my wanting to NOT delay the death of someone who is guilty with a out a doubt.

[Gary]

The letter writer is being disingenuous. Investigation and trial of capital murder cases have little to do with the cost and delay of imposing the death penalty. It is the everlasting appeal process that takes so long and costs so much. We routinely see condemned inmates still alive ten or more years after their convictions. Appeals that are based on the facts of the case or allegedly improper trial proceedings are routinely resolved much more quickly than that. Unfortunately, the anti-death penalty zealots who represent death row inmates use every trick in their book to put off imposition of the punishment. It is this use of delaying tactics that must be stopped.

[Kee]

Has it ever been proven that an innocent person has been executed? I have never seen any data on this.

[solomon]

Good morning Marctnts,

I have said here in the past that if there is evidence that is irrefutable the death penalty should be imposed. If there is any doubt of a person's guilt the death penalty should not be imposed. I do not have an answer or an excuse for those who have been falsely executed and I lament the system that is not perfect.

My question to posey stands. I would ask it of you, too.

[Marctnts]

Sol,

Let's flip your argument on it's ear. Since your a fan of questions on this board, let me ask you one.

From what I can tell, the letter writer's number of 133 death row inmates being exonerated is accurate. How many innocent people being executed is an acceptable number in the quest to enforce the ultimate (and irreversible) punishment? Is it 1 out of 10? Or 1 out of 100? Or 1 out of 1000?

I've always wondered how the "kill them quicker" crowd would feel if it was actually them (or a family member) who was denied every safeguard in an attempt to save a few bucks by flipping the switch as quick as possible.

[solomon]

.....what would posey have us do with the murderous criminal referenced in the next letter?