Two experts in criminology challenged the rationale for California’s high spending on the death penalty in a recent op-ed in the Contra Costa Times. Michael Radelet, chair of the Sociology Department at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Werner Einstadter, professor emeritus of criminology and sociology at Eastern Michigan University, contrasted California’s multi-million dollar spending on capital punishment with the lack of any deterrent effect. Especially in a time of severe economic crisis, the authors maintained, it makes little sense to spend exorbitant sums on a program that produces nothing in return. They pointed to a recent survey of leading criminologists that concluded that the death penalty fails as a deterrent. The survey, published as “Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists,” found that 87% of the nation’s experts believe that capital punishment could be abolished without any adverse effect on the murder rate. The study may be read here and the full op-ed by Radelet and Einstadter may be read below.
California officials must know the death penalty does not deter murder
By Michael L. Radelet and Werner J. Einstadter
A new survey of America’s leading criminologists has concluded that the death penalty does not deter homicide any better than long imprisonment. Eighty-seven percent of the experts believe that capital punishment can be abolished without any adverse effect on the murder rate.
Why then is California keeping this expensive but unproductive policy when it is facing a $26 billion deficit? It is astounding that the State is spending $137 million per year to retain the death penalty and getting nothing in return.
The certainty of a punishment is a more effective deterrent than its severity. In California, nearly 40 percent of all homicides are not solved. If the state is serious about reducing the homicide rate, it is much more constructive to spend tax dollars on apprehending murderers and administering prompt punishment.
In recent years, public confidence in the death penalty has been chipped away by DNA exonerations, evidence of massive inequities and racial bias, its failure to give “closure” to victims, and a general sense that the system is too broken to be fixed. Since 1973, 133 people in 26 states have been released from death row because of evidence of their innocence. Three were in California.
The most important rationale used by friends of the executioner is deterrence. Supporting the death penalty gives politicians an easy way to pretend that they are serious about reducing criminal violence.
However, many studies have shown that murderers do not carefully weigh the costs and benefits of their actions. Anyone who can be deterred from committing murder because of the death penalty can also be deterred by the less expensive alternative, life in prison without parole. Because of security requirements, each inmate on death row in California costs about $90,000 per year more than what it costs to incarcerate a prisoner serving life without parole.
Even most police officers agree that the death penalty does nothing to deter crime. In a nationwide poll of police chiefs, the death penalty was ranked last in effectiveness among crime-fighting programs behind reducing drug abuse, improving the economy and jobs, hiring more police officers, and reducing the availability of guns.
Budget cuts will make it harder for the police to catch criminals and keep the public safe. In the past year, more than 1,000 police officers were eliminated in California. Now, the state is planning to release tens of thousands of prisoners early because it is too expensive to keep them. A proposal to slash $20 million from the state’s crime lab is also on the table, among many cuts that may trigger a public safety emergency.
California faces difficult fiscal choices. Ending a death penalty that is not being used, is enormously expensive, and offers no assistance to public safety should be a no-brainer. Doing so would save California $1 billion over the next five years. One billion dollars would go a long way toward rehiring police officers, solving cold cases, making drug treatment available, and other programs that reduce crime and make a difference in people’s lives.
Professor Michael Radelet is the Chair of the Sociology Department at the University of Colorado-Boulder and the coauthor of “Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists.” Professor Werner Einstadter is a professor emeritus of criminology and sociology at Eastern Michigan University and resides in Walnut Creek, CA. Prior to his academic career, Dr. Einstadter positions in California correctional settings.
( M. Radelet, and W. Einstadter, “California officials must know the death penalty does not deter murder,” Contra Costa Times, July 12, 2009). See Cost, Deterrence and New Voices.
Jan 15, 2025
