Costs

Arizona Prosecutors Drop Death Penalty in Two Cases, Citing High Costs and Lengthy Legal Process

Prosecutors in Mohave County, Arizona announced in February that they will drop the pursuit of the death penalty in two murder cases in the county. Justin Rector and Darrell Ketchner were separately charged with first-degree murder, and officials said their defense teams had already spent over $2.2 million preparing for trials that are still far from taking place. Mohave County Attorney Matt Smith said, “Everybody’s looking to save money and these death penalty cases are extremely expensive." The murders happened in 2009 and 2014, but because of the thorough investigation and preparation required to competently defend a death-penalty case, Smith said, "[t]he anticipated soonest trial date in this case will be 10 years after the events charged." Even if the defendants were sentenced to death, "there is no reasonable likelihood of the death penalty actually being imposed in a realistic and efficient timeframe given the current state of affairs surrounding persons sentenced to death," he said. Bob Allison, whose granddaughter, Ariel, was allegedly killed by Ketchner, said he approves of the prosecutor's decision, in part because his other grandchildren were being bullied as a result of publicity around the case. “We’re OK with it because we want to protect the kids,” he said. “It’s a waste of money in my opinion and the end results are going to be the same.” Between fiscal years 2010 and 2018, Mohave County has spent nearly $3.6 million on defense costs in death-penalty cases. Because no lawyers in the county public defender’s or legal defender’s office meet the state's qualifications to handle death penalty cases, the county must contract out for those services, paying lead counsel at a rate of $125 per hour and $90 an hour for second-chair counsel. In 2016, the Mohave County Board of Supervisors authorized $344,000 in county funds to cover the costs of trying Rector and Ketchner. A Mohave County Superior Court judge granted the prosecution's motion to withdraw the death penalty in Rector's case on February 20, and allowed death-penalty counsel to withdraw from representing Rector. The court granted the motion to drop the death penalty in Ketchner's case on February 14. Only one case originating in Mohave County has ever resulted in an execution.

As Support for Death Penalty Falls in Utah, New Study Again Says Life Without Parole Costs Less

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."

Bipartisan Effort to Abolish Death Penalty Gains Momentum in Washington

With the backing of the state's governor and attorney general, Democratic and Republican sponsors of a bill to repeal Washington's capital-punishment statute have expressed optimism that the state may abolish the death penalty in 2018. In 2017, Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, was joined by former Attorney General Rob McKenna, a Republican, in calling on the legislature to end the state's death penalty. Ferguson, who has said "[t]here is no role for capital punishment in a fair, equitable and humane justice system," is pressing legislators to take up the bill this year. Governor Jay Inslee featured the bill in his January 9, 2018 State of the State address, urging legislators to "leave a legacy that upholds the equal application of justice by passing a bill to end the death penalty in the state of Washington." The bill, now numbered SB 6052, has bipartisan backing: two of its sponsors in each house are Republicans. And Senator Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle), the chair of the Senate Law and Justice Committee, to which the bill has been referred, said "[t]he stars may be aligning now for support of doing away with the death penalty." Both Republican sponsors in the Senate have questioned the value of the death penalty for murder victims' families and stressed that capital punishment runs counter to conservative values. Sen. Mark Miloscia (R-Milton) wrote in a recent op-ed, "many murder victims’ families oppose capital punishment because it’s little more than a long, re-traumatizing process that doesn’t give them the justice that they deserve." He said continuing with the death penalty is unjustifiable given its failure to contribute to public safety, its high cost, and the "ever-present risk of killing an innocent person." Sen. Maureen Walsh (R-Walla Walla) said, "The death penalty isn’t really accomplishing a wonderful relief to [victims'] families." The repeal bill was stalled in 2017 when Senator Mike Padden, the former judiciary committee chairman, refused to hold hearings on the bill. When Democrats gained control of the state senate after the November 2017 elections, Pederson replaced Padden, paving the way for committee action on the bill. “The votes are there,” Attorney General Ferguson said. “I’m reasonably optimistic that this could be the year.” Miloscia said he, too, is “highly optimistic .... I think this is something that people on both sides of the aisle want to get done.” Washington has a similar profile to other states that have recently abolished the death penalty. Its murder rate is significantly below the national average and, as with most of the states that have done away with capital punishment, it has a very low rate of murders of police officers. The high cost of the death penalty is also a factor for legislators. According to a 2015 Seattle University study, each death-penalty prosecution cost an average of $1 million more than a similar case in which the death penalty was not sought. In an email to the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association, Senator Walsh said "taxpayers foot the multi-million dollar appeals process for the accused and we spend $50,000/year for incarceration. ... A life sentence with no chance of early release saves money and issues the ultimate punishment by denying the convicted their freedom and liberties for life.” Washington has not carried out an execution since 2010, and Governor Inslee—who imposed a moratorium on executions in February 2014—has said he will not allow executions to take place while he is in office.

Idaho County Considers Leaving State Defense Fund As Way to Deter Capital Prosecutions

To deter future use of the death penalty in their county, the Blaine County, Idaho County Commissioners on January 2 voted to consider withdrawing from the state's Capital Crimes Defense Fund as a way to choke off state funding in capital prosecutions. “This is a way for our county to say we don’t support the death penalty, and that we don’t want the prosecutor seeking it in Blaine County,” said Commissioner Larry Schoen (pictured), who proposed the withdrawal. Two days later, however, the commissioners backtracked after learning that participation in the fund was a prerequisite for the county to be eligible to receive the services of the State Appellate Defender's office in a wide range of non-capital appeals. The commissioners had believed that, by requiring the county to absorb the entire cost of defending death penalty cases, pulling out of the fund would create a disincentive for local prosecutors to seek the death penalty. At a minimum, Schoen said, “the prosecutor would have to certainly be aware that [a capital prosecution] would be an enormous financial burden on the county.” Blaine County Prosecuting Attorney Jim Thomas, who has not sought the death penalty since assuming office in 2000, strongly opposed the proposal, saying that decisions to seek the death penalty should not be based on cost. “It’s probably the most important, weighty decision that I would make,” he said. “And to think that we would make it on the basis of finances, I think that’s probably what insulted me most, frankly.” After considering a letter from Thomas and reviewing the conditions of Blaine County's agreement with the appellate defender's office—under which the county would lose an estimated $22,000-$25,000 annually in state appellate assistance in non-capital felony cases if it withdrew from the Capital Crimes Defense Fund—the commissioners decided against withdrawing. “My underlying thoughts haven’t changed," Schoen said. “But at this point, there would likely be too many unintended consequences and negative implications involved with not participating.” As a result, he recommended that the county “continue participation in the Capital Crimes Defense Fund, though I hope we can pursue a legislative solution to decouple that from access to the state’s public defenders.” A 2014 study of death-penalty costs in Idaho by the Idaho Legislature’s Office of Performance Evaluations found that the State Appellate Public Defenders office spent 44 times more billable hours on the average death-penalty appeal than on cases in which a life sentence had been imposed. The study also concluded that, on average, capital trials took seven more months to reach a conclusion than non-capital cases. More than half of the 40 people sentenced to death in Idaho since 1977 have had their death sentences overturned on appeal and then received lesser sentences. In November, the commissioners in Ada County—the state’s largest county and the county that most aggressively seeks the death penalty—voted to leave the fund to reduce payments for capital defense services. The commissioners reconsidered that decision after realizing that withdrawal from the fund would make the county responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in appellate costs for non-capital cases.

Conservative Voices Continue to Call for End of Death Penalty

From October 2016 to October 2017, support for capital punishment among those identifying themselves as Republicans fell by ten percetage points. Two op-eds published towards the end of the year illustrate the growing conservative opposition to the death penalty. Writing in The Seattle Times on December 27, Republican State Senator Mark Miloscia (pictured, l.) called for bipartisan efforts to repeal Washington's death-penalty statute. In a December 13 commentary in the Washington Times, conservative political strategist Richard Viguerie (pictured, r.) describes what he calls the "stunning" surge in Republican sponsorship of bills to end capital punishment. Setting forth moral and practical reasons for his support of Washington Senate Bill 5354, Miloscia writes that "[i]t is time to pass a strong, bipartisan repeal of the death penalty." Miloscia cites his Catholic pro-life beliefs as the primary reason for his opposition to capital punishment and highlights Pope Francis' calls for an end to the death penalty. He writes, "Given our modern prison system and ability to neutralize individuals as threats without killing them, it is never imperative to execute someone." But beyond religious beliefs alone, Miloscia sees "many practical reasons why conservatives of all faiths are rethinking the death penalty." Among them, he cites the high cost of capital punishment and the "ever-present risk of killing an innocent person," which he says are "even more unjustifiable" given the absence of any valid evidence that executions affect murder rates. Further, he writes, "many murder victims’ families oppose capital punishment because it’s little more than a long, re-traumatizing process that doesn’t give them the justice that they deserve." Miloscia sees a major shift underway in Republican thinking on the issue, paving a path for bipartisan repeal: "Republicans are turning against the death penalty, which means that opposition to capital punishment is no longer a partisan stance. As the death penalty slowly loses its supporting constituency, the punishment’s future becomes doubtful." Conservative leader Richard Viguerie also sees a dramatic change in how conservatives view the death penalty. Viguerie cites a 2017 report by Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, which found a surge in Republican sponsorship of death-penalty abolition bills that Viguerie says "has been gaining momentum." As part of this "massive shift," he writes, one-third of all sponsors of death-penalty repeal bills in 2016 were Republicans. Viguerie writes, "conservatives are recognizing that capital punishment is a broken government program that runs counter to conservatism’s foundational tenets of valuing life, fiscal responsibility and limited government." He, too, points to religion, and Catholicism in particular, as a reason for conservative opposition, but says that the Tea Party movement—with its support of limited government—and the election of younger legislators who are statistically more likely to oppose the death penalty, has contributed to the change. He foresees a continuing decline in conservative support for the death penalty: "As state legislatures undergo their makeovers, the public turns against the death penalty, and political leaders voice their capital punishment concerns, we should expect to see even more from Republican officials. Republicans will likely continue to sponsor repeal bills with increasing frequency and reverse the flawed criminal justice policies once advocated by their ideological predecessors of the 1980s and 1990s."

New Jersey Marks Tenth Anniversary of Abolition of Capital Punishment

On December 17, 2007, New Jersey abolished the death penalty. On the tenth anniversary of abolition, the editorial board of the New Jersey Law Journal writes, "On the Death Penalty, New Jersey Got it Right." The editorial board wrote, “Abolition has proven its worth, in that there has been no surge of murders, a significant decline of prosecution and appeal expenses, and the elimination of unremediable judicial mistakes. [Abolition] was and remains both the right thing and the sensible thing to have done.” In August 1982, New Jersey reenacted the death penalty, six years after the United State Supreme Court decision in Gregg v. Georgia upheld the constitutionality of state capital punishment laws. However, no defendant was ever executed in the state. In January 2006, the state legislature passed a bill creating the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission and imposing a moratorium on executions until the commission issued its report. The study commission’s report, released on January 2, 2007, recommended abolishing capital punishment. Among other findings, the commission determined that the costs of imposing the death penalty were “greater than the costs of life in prison without parole” and that there was “no compelling evidence that the New Jersey death penalty serves a legitimate penological intent.” Less than a year later, Governor Jon Corzine signed legislation abolishing the death penalty. Murders fell in New Jersey after the moratorium and repeal bills became law, marking the first time since 1999 that New Jersey experienced a drop in murders for two consecutive years. One year after repeal, New Jersey prosecutors reported that the abolition had not hindered prosecution of the state’s most violent offenders. The Law Journal editorial board said that, after a decade, the study commission’s assessment that the death penalty was not a deterrent to murder “has proven its worth." The murder rate in New Jersey has been lower than it was in 2007 for eight of the past nine years and a 2017 DPIC study of murder rates over the last three decades found no difference in murder trends based upon whether a state had, or did not have, capital punishment. A December 15 statement released by the Catholic Bishops of New Jersey hailed the state’s abolition of the death penalty “as a victory for the dignity of life.” The Bishops wrote that while they “affirm the state’s duty to punish criminals, to prevent crime, and to assist victims,” they also “recognize the need to improve our criminal justice system and to forge a greater societal commitment to justice.” Society, they said, “has effective ways to protect itself and to redress injustice without resorting to the use of the death penalty.”

Underfunding of Capital Defense Services in Louisiana Leaves Defendants Without Lawyers

Facing court challenges for underfunding the state's public defender system and pressure from prosecutors angered by the zealous capital representation provided in the state by non-profit capital defense organizations, the Louisiana legislature enacted a law last year redirecting $3 million to local public defenders that had previously been allocated to fund capital defenders. As it has nearly every winter, however, the Louisiana public defender system has run out of money, and the underfunded capital defense offices, already at full capacity, say they cannot take any more cases. As a result, The Marshall Project reports, "[a]t least 11 Louisiana defendants facing the death penalty — including five who have already been indicted — have no defense team and may not have one until new money becomes available in July." And, with Louisiana law requiring prosecutors to seek the death penalty in murder cases unless the prosecutor explicitly decides otherwise, the wait list is expected to grow. Ben Cohen, an attorney with the non-profit The Promise of Justice Initiative likens the situation to “a conveyer belt" of murder cases. He said, "we’re grabbing them off as they come. But with the funding cuts, they essentially pulled some of us away from the line, and now the cases are piling up and crashing to the floor.” “They robbed Peter to pay Paul,” said Jay Dixon, chief defender for the Louisiana Public Defender Board. “We’re still in crisis; it’s just a different crisis ... [and] we could be facing an even greater crisis next year." Hugo Holland, a death-penalty prosecutor who doubles as chief lobbyist for the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, suggests that the capital defenders should lower their standards in providing representation, taking more than the five cases per year recommended by the American Bar Association standard adopted by the state Public Defender Board in 2007. He also argues that the defenders should back off of the ABA-recommended standard of a defense team of two lawyers, a fact investigator, and a penalty-phase mitigation specialist. He rails against the capital defenders as "boutique law firms" whom he believes are "intentionally thwarting the administration of justice." The defense lawyers, he says, should "do [their] f***ing job and provide anyone represented by [them] constitutional representation." Cohen says Louisiana has placed capital-defense lawyers "an awful moral conundrum." It is, he says, "[l]ike a doctor who has to perform 12 heart surgeries in a day, but then his staff gets cut in half. He can either do a crappier job on these life-or-death procedures, or he can take fewer of them and make the others wait." Prior to the new law, the Louisiana Public Defender Board had spent about 28% of its annual budget on capital cases, totaling about $9.5 million two years ago and 8.5 million last year. Louisiana's death penalty has been plagued with problems. Former Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Pascal Calogero has characterized prosecutorial misconduct in capital cases as "endemic and persistent." There are equally persistent allegations of racism in its administration of capital punishment. And since 2000, courts have reversed 96% of the Louisiana death sentences that have completed appellate review. Eleven prisoners wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in Louisiana have been exonerated, the most recent exoneration occurring in April 2017. New Orleans capital defense attorney Nick Trenticosta says that if the state wants to have the death penalty, it has to pay for it. "You can’t try to put a man to death on the cheap."

BOOKS: Deadly Justice—A Statistical Portrait of the Death Penalty

In their new book, Deadly Justice: A Statistical Portrait of the Death Penalty, a team of researchers led by University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill political science professor Frank Baumgartner uses forty years of empirical data to assess whether the modern death penalty avoids the defects that led the U.S. Supreme Court to declare in Furman v. Georigia (1972) that the nation's application of capital punishment was unconstitutionally arbitrary and capricious. Their conclusion: "A reasoned assessment based on the facts suggests not only that the modern system flunks the Furman test but that it surpasses the historical death penalty in the depth and breadth of the flaws apparent in its application." Deadly Justice explores an enormous range of issues—including, among others, racial, gender, and geographical bias, innocence, deterrence, mental health, childhood abuse, length of time on death row, reversal rates, and execution methods—to determine whether the death penalty is fairly and proportionally applied and reserved for the "worst of the worst." Reviewing the data, Baumgartner et al. find that the modern death penalty "is it just as arbitrary, just as biased, and just as flawed as the pre-Furman system." Worse yet, they write, "it has added to these flaws increased levels of geographical focus on the South, even more concentration in just a few jurisdictions, astronomical financial costs unimagined in the earlier period, average periods of delay now measured in the decades, odds of reversal well over 50 percent, routine and often successful last-minute legal maneuvering even while the inmate is in the execution room and has been prepared to be executed, and a medicalization paradox that was not even imagined in the pre-Furman period." In an interview with the Houston Chronicle, Baumgartner says "[t]he key driver in the system" is not the frequency of homicides or the nature of the murder but "the choices that district attorneys make .... There's really no rhyme or reason to it." He says the biggest change in public opinion began in the 1990s as evidence began to mount that "there might be innocent people on death row. ... The innocence argument has really shaken people's faith that you can count on the government to get it right every single time. ... The system is so tied up in knots, partly because of the concern of executing an innocent person. It's really hard to justify or have enthusiasm about a system so dysfunctional as the current modern death penalty, even if you're a prosecutor."

Pages