Economic costs of capital punishment in the United States

Economic View of the Death Penalty

In 1972, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty, as applied in three capital cases in the state of Georgia was "cruel and unusual punishment and in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Hastings and Johnson, 2001, paraphrased) A mere four years later the state of Georgia was once against before the Supreme Court in the case of Gregg v. Georgia, a case in which the decision handed down by the court found that the death penalty was in fact constitutional. (Hastings and Johnson, 2001, paraphrased) The objective of this study is to examine the practice of the death penalty from an economic perspective. Towards this end, this study will examine the literature in this area of study. According to a recent report there are several states considering abolition of the death penalty including the states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and New Hampshire, all of which have "shifted the debate about capital punishment, at least in part, from morality to cost." (The Economist, 2009, p.1)

I. Costs of the Practice of the Death Penalty

The Economist reports that in a recent study conducted and reported by the Urban Institute, a think tank estimations stated are death the death penalty "cost Maryland's taxpayers $186m between 1978 and 1999." (2009, p.1) Various reports state that there is no evidence that the death penalty deters violent crimes. (Donohue and Wolfers, 2006; Economics Resource Center, 2003) The Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice reports the following facts:

( 1) Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

( 2) The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

( 3) The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

( 4) The cost of a system, which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty, would be $11.5 million per year. (Death Penalty Information Center, 2012, p.1)

The work of Richard C. Dieter states as follows of the death penalty:

"The exorbitant costs of capital punishment are actually making America less safe because badly needed financial and legal resources are being diverted from effective crime fighting strategies. Before the Los Angeles riots, for example, California had little money for innovations like community policing, but was managing to spend an extra $90 million per year on capital punishment. Texas, with over 300 people on death row, is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case, but its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country." (nd, p.1)

The death penalty is reported as being much more expensive than life imprisonment without parole. (Dieter, nd, p.1) The high price of the death penalty is reported to be felt "most keenly in those countries responsible for both the prosecution and defense of capital defendants." (Dieter, nd, p.1)

II. Costs to Local Governments and Political Support for the Death Penalty

Dieter additionally reveals that the largest percentage of the costs of capital punishment or the death penalty, are borne by local governments creating an excessive burden as just one death penalty trial "can exhaust a county's resources. Politicians singing the praises of the death penalty rarely address the question of whether a government's resources might be more effectively put to use in other methods of fighting crime." (nd, p.1) Dieter notes that only one million dollars spent in putting one individual to death could serve better in long-term crime reduction that is of an effective nature. While politicians believe that they must be viewed as 'tough on crime' the truth is that little if any evidence exists on the efficacy of the practice of the death penalty and little considered by politicians in support of the death penalty are the associated costs

Summary and Conclusion

The findings of this brief study are clear in that there is little to no evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of the death penalty practice in reducing the rate of crime so this practice has little deterrence effect. Secondly, the practice of the death penalty is much more costly that other alternatives while not being nearly as effective. The annual costs associated with the practice of the death penalty total approximately $137 million while the cost of a system imposing a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration would cost a the greatly reduced amount of $11.5 million annually. Furthermore, the practice of the death penalty are resulting in funds being diverted from financial and legal resources to fight the death penalty when the money would be better spent on community policing programs which have been shown effective in reducing the crime rate. Finally, the death penalty puts to death one individual and does not have the potential to create an overall societal change, as do the alternatives to the practice of the death penalty. Clearly, imposition of a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration rather than the death penalty is a more cost-effective means of punishing violent crime.