A recent San Jose Mercury News edi­to­r­i­al rec­om­mend­ed includ­ing the death penal­ty in the California Performance Review pre­pared for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to reduce pub­lic spend­ing. The paper stat­ed that the aban­don­ment of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment would save valu­able tax­pay­er dol­lars in the state and praised local efforts to sup­port a tem­po­rary halt to exe­cu­tions while cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is reviewed. The edi­to­r­i­al not­ed:

Termination of the death penal­ty would add immea­sur­ably to the $32 bil­lion in sav­ings pro­ject­ed if all of the rec­om­men­da­tions in the review are adopt­ed. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, The death penal­ty is escap­ing the deci­sive cost-ben­e­fit analy­sis to which every oth­er pro­gram is being put in times of aus­ter­i­ty.”

The cen­ter asserts fur­ther that the death penal­ty is much more expen­sive than its clos­est alter­na­tive — life impris­on­ment with no parole. Capital tri­als are longer and more expen­sive at every step than oth­er mur­der tri­als.”

The Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara has wise­ly adopt­ed a res­o­lu­tion rec­om­mend­ing a mora­to­ri­um and study of the death penal­ty in California. This is a step in the right direc­tion.

(San Jose Mercury News, August 8, 2004; empha­sis added.) See Costs.

Citation Guide