A recent edi­to­r­i­al in the Great Falls Tribune in Montana out­lined some of the key prob­lems with the death penal­ty as the state leg­is­la­ture con­sid­ers its repeal. The edi­tors expressed con­cerns about the risks of mis­take with exe­cu­tions: There is no way to take back an exe­cu­tion. That rea­son alone pro­vides good cause to elim­i­nate the death penal­ty in Montana.” The paper also not­ed that vic­tims’ fam­i­lies wait for decades for exe­cu­tions to be car­ried out, with the defen­dants receiv­ing most of the atten­tion: “[D]uring the long peri­ods before their exe­cu­tions, these men received reg­u­lar pub­lic­i­ty and noto­ri­ety for their crimes. If they had been sim­ply locked up for life with­out pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole, peo­ple could have for­got­ten about them.” The edi­to­r­i­al con­clud­ed, Our bot­tom line is that it’s risky to exe­cute peo­ple when they might not be guilty. In addi­tion, the cost and trau­ma of court cas­es that drag on for years is not worth the sat­is­fac­tion some peo­ple receive from the final­i­ty of exe­cu­tions. We sim­ply can­not afford to spend mil­lions of dol­lars each on future death penal­ty cas­es.” Read the editorial below.

Death penal­ty risky, too expen­sive
Tribune editorial board

A coali­tion of Democrats and Republicans raised the issue of the death penal­ty again in the Montana Legislature.

These activists con­tend there are a vari­ety of rea­sons to oppose the death penal­ty, includ­ing the high cost of lit­i­gat­ing death penal­ty cas­es and the extend­ed peri­od, some­times decades, it takes for those cas­es to be settled.

Morality is anoth­er rea­son. Some con­sid­er the death penal­ty immoral or hyp­o­crit­i­cal because it calls for the state to kill some­one, usu­al­ly after the per­son who was con­vict­ed com­mit­ted murder himself.

Others, who con­sid­er them­selves pro-life when it comes to abor­tion, have acknowl­edged a con­tra­dic­tion when they also sup­port­ed a death penal­ty for killers.

Back in September, we stat­ed our oppo­si­tion to the death penal­ty and we will restate it here as the Legislature con­sid­ers whether to tack­le this issue again.

A bill was intro­duced Monday, and its pri­ma­ry spon­sor was Rep. Doug Kary, R‑Billings. Sen. Dave Wanzenried, D‑Missoula, request­ed that the bill be drafted.

Several aspects of the death penal­ty — which in Montana takes place by lethal injec­tion, when the indi­vid­ual case or the method of exe­cu­tion is not tied up in the courts — concern us.

One is the large num­ber of pris­on­ers exe­cut­ed in the United States over the years who have turned out to be inno­cent. There is no way to take back an exe­cu­tion. That rea­son alone pro­vides good cause to elim­i­nate the death penal­ty in Montana.

Money is anoth­er rea­son. The Urban Institute esti­mat­ed the addi­tion­al cost of one death penal­ty tri­al in Maryland was $1.9 mil­lion, when com­pared with a sim­i­lar case in which the death penal­ty was not sought.

The aver­age cost to incar­cer­ate an inmate in Montana is $35,659 per year, accord­ing to Bob Anez, com­mu­ni­ca­tions direc­tor for the Montana Department of Corrections.

In addi­tion, fam­i­lies of crime vic­tims some­times must wait decades for a pun­ish­ment to be carried out.

It’s not like this issue comes up every two weeks. Convicted mur­der­er Duncan MacKenzie was exe­cut­ed in Montana in 1995, the first exe­cu­tion in the state in 50 years. Then killer Terry Langford was put to death by the state in 1997, and David Dawson in 2006. That’s it. Of those three, MacKenzie was the only one to pro­claim his inno­cence to the end, Anez recalled.

In any case, dur­ing the long peri­ods before their exe­cu­tions, these men received reg­u­lar pub­lic­i­ty and noto­ri­ety for their crimes. If they had been sim­ply locked up for life with­out pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole, peo­ple could have for­got­ten about them.

No doubt Americans 50 years from now or a cen­tu­ry away will look back on such exe­cu­tions as unciv­i­lized, just as we look back with hor­ror on bar­bar­ic prac­tices such as cru­ci­fix­ion, draw­ing and quar­ter­ing or hang­ing, the lat­ter of which took place in this coun­try dur­ing the last century.

As for the idea of reserv­ing the death penal­ty for ser­i­al killers, Montana has not exact­ly been a hotbed for them. And only two peo­ple are sit­ting on death row at the Montana State Prison at the moment, Ronald Smith and William J. Gollehon.

No doubt all these issues will be dis­cussed at length in the Legislature this session.

Our bot­tom line is that it’s risky to exe­cute peo­ple when they might not be guilty. In addi­tion, the cost and trau­ma of court cas­es that drag on for years is not worth the sat­is­fac­tion some peo­ple receive from the final­i­ty of executions.

We sim­ply can­not afford to spend mil­lions of dol­lars each on future death penalty cases.

(“Death penal­ty risky, too expen­sive,” Great Falls Tribune, edi­to­r­i­al, February 5, 2013). See Innocence and Costs. Read more Editorials on the death penalty.

Citation Guide