An analy­sis by the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice of the cost of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment has found that cas­es in which pros­e­cu­tors seek the death penal­ty are more cost­ly than cas­es in which life with­out parole was the max­i­mum sen­tence. The Commission’s Death Penalty Working Group reviewed recent stud­ies of death-penal­ty costs in Utah and across the coun­try and found that, while there was dis­agree­ment about the mag­ni­tude of the cost dif­fer­ence, there was con­sen­sus that the death penal­ty was more expen­sive than non-cap­i­tal alter­na­tives. The two Utah stud­ies includ­ed in the report were a 2012 analy­sis that esti­mat­ed the death penal­ty added $1.6 mil­lion over the life of each case, com­pared to life with­out parole, and a 2017 study of the last 20 years that found that Utah spent about $40 mil­lion on 165 death-eli­gi­ble cas­es, which result­ed in just two death sen­tences. The report also reviewed recent pub­lic opin­ion data on the death penal­ty from polls admin­is­tered both nation­al­ly and in Utah. Noting what it called ​“some­what dis­crepant” results from recent Utah polls depend­ing upon the ques­tions respon­dents were asked, the report con­clud­ed ​“based on nation­al data … and con­sis­tent­ly low­er sup­port from younger respon­dents in the Utah polls” that ​“pub­lic sup­port for the death penal­ty in Utah is declin­ing over pre­vi­ous highs.” The work­ing group also exam­ined Utah’s aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances, which make cas­es eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty, and the impact of the death penal­ty on vic­tims’ familiy mem­bers (whom it called ​“cov­ic­tims”), but did not draw any con­clu­sions on either. The report did note that vic­tims in non-cap­i­tal cas­es have a greater oppor­tu­ni­ty to be heard because their non-tes­ti­mo­ni­al state­ments to the court are not lim­it­ed by the rules of evi­dence that apply to tes­ti­mo­ny in cap­i­tal cas­es. It quot­ed the aca­d­e­m­ic lit­er­a­ture on the impact of cap­i­tal pros­e­cu­tions, say­ing that the assump­tion that the death penal­ty pro­vides clo­sure is ​“unproven … The process of deal­ing with mur­der and cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is dif­fer­ent for every cov­ic­tim” and there is no guar­an­tee that the death penal­ty will enhance recov­ery. While the com­mis­sion did not make any pol­i­cy rec­om­men­da­tions based on its find­ings, Utah Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty said the report points to the need for a recon­sid­er­a­tion of Utah’s death penal­ty. ​“This report should give pause to any­one who thought that because cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is so rarely used in Utah that the cost of main­tain­ing a death penal­ty would be neg­li­gi­ble,” said Kevin Greene, the group’s direc­tor. ​“We have been spend­ing tons of mon­ey with­out much in return and we hope law­mak­ers will close­ly exam­ine the report and agree that the death penal­ty is any­thing but fiscally conservative.”

(Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice Subgroup Report: Death Penalty Working Group, Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, 2017; Jessica Miller, New study of Utah’s use of the death penal­ty sug­gests life with­out parole costs less, prompts anoth­er call to abol­ish cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, Salt Lake Tribune, February 9, 2018; McKenzie Romero, Support for the death penal­ty wan­ing in Utah, study says, Deseret News, February 9, 2018.) See Costs, Victims, and Public Opinion.

Citation Guide