New Voices

A recent editorial in Pennsylvania’s Patriot-News recommended doing away with the death penalty as a way to address the state budget crisis. "Problems are entrenched in the system and given its high cost, Pennsylvania should definitely put the idea of doing away with the death penalty on the table," the paper wrote.  Among the reasons cited was the fact that the death penalty in Pennsylvania is essentially a very expensive form of life without parole: "In Pennsylvania, with the exception of the three prisoners who were executed, death row already means life without parole. . . . the majority of death penalty cases in our state that move through the appeals process end up as life sentences or less."  The editorial also noted the risk of executing the innocent: "Of course, there is a competing reason, or really a sounding alarm, that also is causing more states to take a hard look at their death penalty. At least 139 death row inmates have been released after their innocence was established, including 6 in Pennsylvania.  This should shake our confidence."

More prosecutors in Texas are opting not to seek the death penalty, according to Randall County District Attorney James Farren, a trend that has been evident over the last decade and will likely continue.  Many prosecutors weigh the uncertainty in securing a death sentence against the high litigation costs as reasons for opting for other alternative sentences even when the death penalty is available.  "The facts of the case are a tremendous factor in the decision on whether to pursue a death penalty or not," said District Attorney Randall Sims of the 47th judicial district.  "You need to have a dead-bang cinch guilt-innocence case and one that you'll prove very easily the person on trial is the person who did it."

Farren points to the case of Levi King as the "quintessential example" of why district attorneys do not seek the death penalty in some cases. District Attorney Lynn Switzer of the 31st judicial district opted to pursue a death sentence against King, who was accused of killing three people in 2005. Even though he pleaded guilty to the crimes, the jury did not impose the death penalty. Switzer's office spent over $750,000 to bring King to trial, about 10% of the county's annual budget. The cost of the trial was a reason why county commissioners were forced to raise taxes and withhold employee raises last year.

Higher costs, the exoneration of innocent death row inmates and jurors’ expectation of DNA proof are all being cited as reasons for prosecutors deciding not to seek the death penalty in Indiana.  Recently, a high profile death penalty case cost the state $800,000 before it dropped the death penalty in exchange for a guilty plea and life-without-parole sentence. "It's the taxpayer dollars, stupid, when it comes to the death penalty," said Indiana defense attorney Bob Hammerle.  "We've got a governor who says we don't have enough money to pay for higher education. What sense does it make to spend millions of dollars trying to execute someone when it's cheaper to keep someone in jail for the rest of their life?"  Adding to the decline in the use of the death penalty, Steve Johnson, Executive Director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney’s Council, pointed to jurors’ reluctance to hand down death sentences. "I think there's a greater hesitancy to pursue it and file it by prosecutors," said Johnson. "I think among our group we talk about the CSI effect and if we don't have the DNA--if we don't have the physical evidence--I think juries tend to think that given the higher standard of proof that may apply anyway, that maybe this isn't the strongest case of the death penalty."  See video below.

A recent article in the American Police Beat highlights the concerns that police chiefs have with the costs and ineffectiveness of capital punishment.  The article notes, "The problem, according to the police chiefs is the fact that capital punishment is costing states hundreds of millions of dollars for relatively few executions and nothing in the way of crime deterrence… Hiring more police officers, fighting drug abuse, longer prison sentences and improved crime databases all are higher priorities for top cops than capital punishment." The article makes reference to an opinion survey of police chiefs commissioned by the Death Penalty Information Center. (See "Smart on Crime").

Los Angeles Chief of Police William Bratton recently defended San Francisco Distrist Attorney Kamala Harris for not seeking the death penalty against a suspect in a police killing.  "It's much cheaper to sentence them to life in prison and throw away the key," said Bratton, who is endorsing Harris in seeking election as California's Attorney General.

(Matier & Ross, "In S.F., Obama 'just not a party guy' like Clinton," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 18, 2009, at C2).