A recent opinion piece by the Editorial Director of the Clarion-Ledger in Mississippi points to the high costs of the death penalty as a way in which arbitrariness enters into the application of capital punishment: “When is a crime a crime deserving of death?,” David Hampton asks. “When the county can afford it, of course.” The paper supports the death penalty but the Editorial Director offered the example of Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith, who said his county cannot afford to prosecute death penalty cases. The author noted, “It’s a matter of how much ‘justice‘ the county can afford. But if one county can ‘afford‘ to send someone to death row and another can’t, isn’t that another example of how inequitable the death penalty can be?“ Hampton also cited geographical location as contributing to the death penalty’s arbitrary nature. “Ironically, it is very difficult to get a death penalty jury sentence in Hinds County anyway. Prosecutors have avoided seeking death for that reason. Yet, another jury in a different county with a different racial or gender makeup might not hesitate.” The author concludes: “The death penalty costs too much, literally and in many, many other ways.” Read full text below.
Nov. 1, 2009
Death penalty just too costly
Some criminals in Hinds County who may have been headed to death row just got a reprieve.
There hasn’t been any change of heart when it comes to using the death penalty. It’s just a matter of money. Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith says the county can’t afford to prosecute death penalty cases.
When is a crime a crime deserving of death? When the county can afford it, of course.
Therein lies another reason why the death penalty is wrong.
Smith is no opponent of the death penalty. It is just reality of the county budget. It costs more, a lot more, to prosecute a death penalty case.
Affordable justice
It’s a matter of how much “justice” the county can afford. But if one county can “afford” to send someone to death row and another can’t, isn’t that another example of how inequitable the death penalty can be?
Death penalty supporters who argue that taxpayers shouldn’t have to house a criminal for life might think again. According to an editorial in The New York Times, getting a criminal to the hangman is more expensive than locking him away.
It was estimated that it cost Florida $51 million more to kill prisoners than to keep the offenders locked up for life. In California, the costs are $114 million more. The Death Penalty Information Center estimated that California has spent $250 million each on the 13 people executed since 1976. North Carolina got a bargain. It only cost about $2.16 million per execution.
Jury location
But back to Hinds County. Ironically, it is very difficult to get a death penalty jury sentence in Hinds County anyway. Prosecutors have avoided seeking death for that reason. Yet, another jury in a different county with a different racial or gender makeup might not hesitate.
There are many troubling questions about the death penalty. There are questions of racial disparities. There are questions of the mentally ill. There are questions of mistakes.
This newspaper has long supported the death penalty. Polls show overwhelming support for it. Opposing the death penalty is not a popular position. But, I am opposed to the death penalty. Morally, I don’t think the state should kill people. But I also don’t think the death penalty is practical. It is not a deterrent to crime. It takes so long that any idea of timely justice is lost.
Some criminals certainly deserve it. All of us, including me, get so outraged over heinous crimes that we want the same for the criminal. It is a natural response.
But, is it the right response? The smart response? The best response?
The death penalty costs too much, literally and in many, many other ways.
(D. Hampton, Editorial Director, “Death penalty just too costly,” Clarion-Ledger, November 1, 2009, citing DPIC’s recent report, “Smart on Crime: Reconsidering the Death Penalty in a Time of Economic Crisis”). See also Costs and Editorials.
