A study of tax rates and crime rates in Texas coun­ties has found that death-penal­ty tri­als con­tribute to high­er prop­er­ty tax rates and increased rates of prop­er­ty crime. Alex Lundberg (pic­tured), an assis­tant pro­fes­sor of Economics at West Virginia University, ana­lyzed bud­getary and crime rate data from Texas coun­ties and found that coun­ties respond­ed to the high cost bur­den of cap­i­tal tri­als by rais­ing prop­er­ty tax­es and reduc­ing pub­lic safe­ty expen­di­tures. As an exam­ple, he cites Jasper County, Texas, which raised prop­er­ty tax­es by eight per­cent to fund a joint tri­al for sus­pects in the 1998 mur­der of James Byrd. Another Texas coun­ty reduced pub­lic safe­ty expen­di­ture after vot­ers reject­ed a prop­er­ty tax increase.” The reduc­tion in pub­lic safe­ty spend­ing did not affect vio­lent crime, Lundberg found, but as coun­ties reduce expen­di­tures on pub­lic safe­ty in the two years up to the con­clu­sion of a cap­i­tal tri­al, their prop­er­ty crime rate ris­es by an esti­mat­ed 1.5%.”

Studies con­sis­tent­ly show that death penal­ty tri­als are more expen­sive than non-cap­i­tal tri­als in which defen­dants face a sen­tence of life with­out parole. Standard prac­tice calls for two lawyers on each side, and com­per­tent­ly lit­i­gat­ed cas­es involve lengthy jury selec­tion, mul­ti­ple expert wit­ness­es, and exten­sive inves­ti­ga­tion into the defendant’s back­ground to dis­cov­er and present mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence intend­ed to per­suade the jury to spare a defen­dan­t’s life. Lundberg’s data showed that Texas coun­ties bear an aver­age of $1,400,000 in addi­tion­al expens­es cod­ed as judi­cial’ or legal’ in the two years up to the con­clu­sion of a tri­al (or $700,000 in a one-year win­dow).” He exam­ined coun­ty data because “[a] few activ­i­ties, such as hear­ing auto­mat­ic appeals, hous­ing death row inmates, and, occa­sion­al­ly, assign­ing pub­lic defend­ers to indi­gent defen­dants, are cov­ered by the state, but the bulk of the expense falls on the coun­ty in which a cap­i­tal tri­al takes place.” To cope with the high cost of death-penal­ty tri­als, coun­ties meet the cost of tri­al in two ways. The first is by increas­ing prop­er­ty tax­es. The data show prop­er­ty tax rates increase by an aver­age of 2% in years with a cap­i­tal tri­al (as a per­cent of a per­cent­age). When mul­ti­plied by the mean mar­ket val­ue across coun­ties, the increase yields an addi­tion­al $660,000 in tax rev­enue. The sec­ond response is a drop in pub­lic safe­ty expen­di­ture. Court records do not pro­vide tri­al start dates, but cap­i­tal tri­als can take more than a year to com­plete. With the medi­an length of time between the date of the offense and the con­clu­sion of tri­al as an approx­i­mate guide, coun­ties reduce pub­lic safe­ty expen­di­tures by $2,800,000 in the two years up to the con­clu­sion of a cap­i­tal tri­al (or $1,400,000 in a one-year window).”

Lundberg con­cludes that mov­ing the cost of the death penal­ty to the state lev­el might be more sus­tain­able for coun­ties. By hous­ing more costs at the state lev­el, coun­ties would no longer face stark trade­offs in tri­als, tax­es, and pub­lic expen­di­tures. The National Right to Counsel Committee sup­ports a sim­i­lar pol­i­cy for indi­gent defense. According to the Committee, over 50% of indi­gent defense expens­es fall on coun­ties in six­teen states, includ­ing Texas. Aside from reduc­ing the oppor­tu­ni­ty cost of tri­al for coun­ties, a shift in the finan­cial bur­den from coun­ties to the state may improve the qual­i­ty of indi­gent defense, which is fre­quent­ly poor.” He writes, As the pub­lic finance of the death penal­ty cur­rent­ly stands, the oppor­tu­ni­ty cost of tri­al is rel­a­tive­ly high. Citizens in Texas face both high­er tax­es and crime to ulti­mate­ly fund a small num­ber of executions.”

(Alex Lundberg, On the Public Finance of Capital Punishment, West Virginia University – Department of Economics, April 5, 2019.) See Costs and Studies.

Citation Guide