Costs

STUDY: "The Hidden Costs of Wrongful Capital Prosecutions in North Carolina"

A new study by North Carolina's Center for Death Penalty Litigation examines the financial and human costs of cases in which, "prosecutors sought the death penalty despite a clear lack of evidence, resulting in acquittal or dismissal of charges." The report found 56 such cases in North Carolina since 1989, in which innocent people spent a total of 112 years spent in jail, with $2.4 million spent in defense costs alone in these weak death penalty cases. The authors compare these cases to those in which people were wrongfully convicted and sent to death row, saying, "We found cases in which state actors hid exculpatory evidence, relied on junk science, and pressured witnesses to implicate suspects. In several cases, there was no physical evidence and charges were based solely on the testimony of highly unreliable witnesses, such as jail inmates, co-defendants who were given lighter sentences in return for cooperation, and paid informants. Reliance on such witnesses was a factor in more than 60 percent of the cases we studied." In addition to the clear-cut time and financial costs, the study also describes the effects of wrongful prosecutions on the defendants: "In addition to leaving many in financial ruin, the state does not even do these exonorees the favor of clearing their criminal histories. They must request a court order to expunge their criminal records, an expensive and lengthy process. Those who were already living at the margins of society often struggled to find jobs, and some fell into homelessness after they were released from jail." The authors conclude by contrasting the intended use of the death penalty with their findings: "A punishment as serious as execution should be pursued only in the most ironclad cases: those with the strongest evidence of guilt and in which the circumstances of the crime make the defendant more culpable than most—the 'worst of the worst.' Yet, the reality is entirely different. This report uncovers a system in which the threat of execution is used in the majority of cases, regardless of the strength of the evidence."

NEW VOICES: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Urges Abolition of Death Penalty

In his column for TIME Magazine, basketball hall of famer, author, and filmmaker Kareem Abdul-Jabbar broadly explores the state of the death penalty In the United States and concludes that life without parole is the better option for American society. Stating that "[t]he primary purpose of the death penalty is to protect the innocent," Abdul-Jabar notes that there is a significant difference between the death penalty's goal in theory and its application in practice. "While it’s true that the death penalty may protect us from the few individuals it does execute," he says, "it does not come without a significant financial and social price tag that may put us all at an even greater risk." Abdul-Jabbar points to the death penalty's financial cost, the risk of executing the innocent, and racial and economic disparities in its application. Financially, he says, "[t]his isn’t a matter of morality versus dollars. It’s about the morality of saving the most lives with what we have to spend. Money instead could be going to trauma centers, hospital personnel, police, and firefighters, and education...The question every concerned taxpayer needs to ask is whether or not we should be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on executing prisoners when life without parole keeps the public just as safe but at a fraction of the cost." His column discusses the "high probability that we execute innocent people," citing the more than 140 people exonerated from death row and a recent study indicating that 4% of people sentenced to death may be innocent. Abdul-Jabbar also describes racial bias in capital sentencing, and the problem of inadequate representation, saying, "[t]his lack of fair application is why some opponents of the death penalty consider it unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment." He concludes, "we can’t let our passion for revenge override our communities’ best interest...With something as irrevocable as death, we can’t have one system of justice for the privileged few and another for the rest of the country. That, more than anything, diminishes the sanctity of human life."

California Seeks More Funds as Death Row Runs Out of Room

California's death row -- the largest in the country -- is expanding beyond the capacity of San Quentin State Prison to hold it. In response, Governor Jerry Brown has proposed a $3.2 million expenditure to make about 100 new cells available to incarcerate death row inmates. California has not executed any death-row prisoner since 2006.  Court rulings have barred the state from using its lethal injection protocol and, last July, in the case of Jones v. Chappell, a federal district court declared the State's death penalty statute unconstitutional as a result of systemic delays in providing appellate review of death sentences. In the nine years since its last execution, California's death row has grown from 646 to 751 inmates. The death-row facilities at San Quentin, which can house 715 inmates, currently hold 708. The remaining inmates include 20 women housed in a separate facility and 23 inmates held elsewhere for court hearings, in long-term medical facilities, or in prisons in other states. Under the governor's new proposal, death row prisoners could be held in another housing unit at San Quentin, where cells have recently become available as the state releases low-level offenders under a measure approved by voters in 2014. Gov. Brown asked the legislature to approve the additional outlays to increase security and staff at the prison. State Senator Loni Hancock, head of the budget subcommittee that will consider Brown's proposal this month, said, "California is in a Catch-22 situation. We are required by the Courts to address prison overcrowding and we are required by law to provide certain minimum conditions for housing death penalty inmates. The Legislature can't avoid its responsibilities in these areas, even though the courts are currently considering the constitutionality of the death penalty, and I hope will agree to end it."

PUBLIC OPINION: Majority of Pennsylvanians Prefer Life Sentences, Support Moratorium on Death Penalty

According to a new poll by Public Policy Polling, a majority of Pennsylvanians find some form of a life sentence to be preferable to the death penalty, and more support the death penalty moratorium imposed by Governor Tom Wolf than oppose it. When asked what sentence they preferred for people convicted of murder, 54% of respondents selected some form of life sentence, while 42% preferred the death penalty. 50% were in favor of the Commonwealth's death penalty moratorium, including 29% who say they "strongly support" it. 44% said they opposed the moratorium. The poll, which was commissioned by Dr. Eric Ling, a criminal justice professor at York College, also asked respondents whether they thought the death penalty or life without parole was more expensive. 70% erroneously believed that life without parole was the more expensive punishment. Dr. Ling said, “This poll suggests that there is a really significant opportunity to explain to voters why the death penalty costs so much more than a sentence of life in prison without parole. Pennsylvania has spent $350 million on the death penalty over the past few decades while carrying out just three executions. Clearly, more information about how much the state is really spending on the death penalty and what taxpayers are getting in return would be helpful. This is the type of information the Advisory Committee on Capital Punishment should be able to shed some light on when they issue their report.” (Click image to enlarge.)

NEW VOICES: Former Police Chief Says Pennsylvania's Death Penalty Is "Broken"

Terence Inch, a former police commissioner in Hellam Township, Pennsylvania, recently wrote in support of Gov. Tom Wolf's moratorium on executions and pointed to the mistakes that can happen in high-profile crimes: "In the aftermath of a brutal homicide, particularly one involving multiple victims or children, there is enormous pressure on law enforcement to solve the case and to solve it quickly...In the rush to solve these high profile cases it is easy to make mistakes, or to ignore evidence that points away from the 'person of interest.'" He pointed to the numerous exonerations of death row inmates, including six in Pennsylvania, as evidence of the risks in capital prosecutions: "Mistakes happen too often, as evidenced by the fact that 150 men and women in the United States have been convicted and sent to death row - only to be released when conclusive evidence of their wrongful conviction emerged." He also noted the high cost of capital punishment in the state: "Pennsylvania has spent upwards of $350 million dollars on a death penalty system that has produced just three executions since 1999. All three of those executions involved men who voluntarily gave up their appeals. The system is obviously broken."

Texas Case Illustrates Trend Away From Death Penalty

Midland County, Texas, District Attorney Teresa Clingman (pictured) recently accepted a sentence of life without parole rather than seeking the death penalty for Dan Higgins, a man who pled guilty to killing a Midland County Sheriff's Deputy. Clingman's decision was part of a larger trend of prosecutors choosing life without parole even for the most serious crimes. West Texas A&M criminology professor and former prison warden Keith Price said, "Capital death has so many requirements -- it's so expensive. Capital death: the convicted dies in prison by lethal injection. Capital life: the convicted dies in prison whenever his natural life is over. From an incapacitation standpoint, the DA has accomplished the same thing. That particular person will never see the Texas public again." As a result of similar decisions by other prosecutors, and juries preferring life without parole more often, death sentences in the U.S. have declined by about 75% since their peak in the mid-1990s. Clingman cited a request from the deputy's widow not to seek the death penalty, saying, "The reasoning is because we can't punish him any more than we're already punishing him. It saves the victim in that case from having to go through a trial. [The victim's widow] also took into consideration that Mr. Higgins will now spend his time in general population rather than on death row in a single cell by himself for the rest of his life." Midland County Sheriff Gary Painter supported the prosecutor's decision, saying, "I think saving the county money, saving the heartache for the families involved is the best solution for this particular case. The Midland County's Sheriff's Office not only lost a brother and a friend, this county lost a great employee. Only time right now can help settle the feelings right now."

Pennsylvania Governor Announces Moratorium on Executions

On February 13 Governor Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania announced a moratorium on all executions in the state. He said no executions will take place at least until he has "received and reviewed the forthcoming report of the Pennsylvania Task Force and Advisory Commission on Capital Punishment, established under Senate Resolution 6 of 2011, and there is an opportunity to address all concerns satisfactorily." The legislature commissioned the report in 2011. In his statement, Governor Wolf said, "This moratorium is in no way an expression of sympathy for the guilty on death row, all of whom have been convicted of committing heinous crimes. This decision is based on a flawed system that has been proven to be an endless cycle of court proceedings as well as ineffective, unjust, and expensive. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty, 150 people have been exonerated from death row nationwide, including six men in Pennsylvania." Terrance Williams, whose execution was scheduled for March 4, has been granted a reprieve. Governor Wolf joins the governors of Oregon, Washington, and Colorado in placing a hold on executions because of concerns about the death penalty system. In addition, 18 states have abolished the death penalty.

COSTS: Pre-Trial Expenses Exceed $5 Million in Aurora Death Penatly Case

“Counties"(Click to enlarge)Trial preparations in the death penalty prosecution of James Holmes in Colorado have already cost the state about $5.5 million, and the trial and likely appeals will add significantly more. Holmes is accused of the mass shooting in a movie theater in Aurora. Most of the costs - $4.5 million - have come from the salaries of personnel working on the case, including the prosecutors, defense attorneys, the judge, investigators, and victims' advocates. Additional court security for hearings in the case has cost $463,000. Experts hired by the prosecution have been paid $220,000, and the defense team has likely spent a similar amount. Holmes has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. He offered to waive his right to a trial in exchange for receiving a sentence of life without parole. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper called off a recently scheduled execution, describing the death penalty system as flawed and inequitable, essentially putting all executions on hold. (Image by Yahoo News, click image to enlarge.)

Pages