Smart on Crime: Reconsidering the Death Penalty in Time of Economic Crisis

Posted on Oct 20, 2009

Executive Summary Top

Smart on Crime is a new report from the Death Penalty Information Center that explores the prospect of sav­ing states hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars by end­ing the death penal­ty. The report also serves to release a nation­al poll of police chiefs in which they rank the death penal­ty at the bot­tom of their pri­or­i­ties for achiev­ing a safer society.

The death penal­ty in the U.S. is an enor­mous­ly expen­sive and waste­ful pro­gram with no clear ben­e­fits. All of the stud­ies on the cost of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment con­clude it is much more expen­sive than a sys­tem with life sen­tences as the max­i­mum penal­ty. In a time of painful bud­get cut­backs, states are pour­ing mon­ey into a sys­tem that results in a declin­ing num­ber of death sen­tences and exe­cu­tions that are almost exclu­sive­ly car­ried out in just one area of the coun­try. As many states face fur­ther deficits, it is an appro­pri­ate time to con­sid­er whether main­tain­ing the cost­ly death penal­ty sys­tem is being smart on crime.

The nation’s police chiefs rank the death penal­ty last in their pri­or­i­ties for effec­tive crime reduc­tion. The offi­cers do not believe the death penal­ty acts as a deter­rent to mur­der, and they rate it as one of most inef­fi­cient uses of tax­pay­er dol­lars in fight­ing crime. Criminologists con­cur that the death penal­ty does not effec­tive­ly reduce the num­ber of murders.

Around the coun­try, death sen­tences have declined 60% since 2000 and exe­cu­tions have declined almost as much. Yet main­tain­ing a sys­tem with 3,300 peo­ple on death row and sup­port­ing new pros­e­cu­tions for death sen­tences that like­ly will nev­er be car­ried out is becom­ing increas­ing­ly expen­sive and hard­er to jus­ti­fy. The mon­ey spent to pre­serve this fail­ing sys­tem could be direct­ed to effec­tive pro­grams that make society safer.

California is spend­ing an esti­mat­ed $137 mil­lion per year on the death penal­ty and has not had an exe­cu­tion in three and a half years. Florida is spend­ing approx­i­mate­ly $51 mil­lion per year on the death penal­ty, amount­ing to a cost of $24 mil­lion for each exe­cu­tion it car­ries out. A recent study in Maryland found that the bill for the death penal­ty over a twen­ty-year peri­od that pro­duced five exe­cu­tions will be $186 mil­lion. Other states like New York and New Jersey spent well over $100 mil­lion on a sys­tem that pro­duced no exe­cu­tions. Both recent­ly aban­doned the prac­tice. This kind of waste­ful expen­di­ture makes lit­tle sense. The death penal­ty may serve some politi­cians as a rhetor­i­cal scare tac­tic, but it is not a wise use of scarce crim­i­nal justice funding.

In 2009, eleven state leg­is­la­tures con­sid­ered bills to end cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment and its high costs were part of these debates. New Mexico abol­ished the death penal­ty and the Connecticut leg­is­la­ture passed an abo­li­tion bill before the gov­er­nor vetoed it. One house of the leg­is­la­tures in Montana and Colorado vot­ed to end the death penal­ty, and the Colorado bill would have direct­ed the cost sav­ings to solv­ing cold cas­es. As the eco­nom­ic cri­sis con­tin­ues, the trend of states reex­am­in­ing the death penal­ty in light of its costs is expect­ed to continue.

The report that fol­lows ana­lyzes the costs of the death penal­ty as mea­sured in var­i­ous state stud­ies. It exam­ines why the death penal­ty is so expen­sive and why it may be impos­si­ble to cut those costs with­out endan­ger­ing fun­da­men­tal rights. The report looks close­ly at the opin­ions of law enforce­ment experts and finds lit­tle sup­port for con­tin­u­ing to spend enor­mous sums on an inef­fec­tive pro­gram when so many oth­er areas of need are being short changed. Many states are look­ing at the death penal­ty in a new light because of the eco­nom­ic cri­sis, real­iz­ing that being smart on crime means invest­ing in pro­grams that really work.