[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]

Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Forget your username or password?
- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers

View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:

Wire Services

$4 Billion Since 1978 - Time to Cut California's Death Penalty

by: nminsker

Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 17:31:05 PM PDT

Guest blog by James Clark, ACLU of Southern California

New data in a study to be released next week on California’s death penalty has revealed that the price tag for death is even higher than we thought: $4 billion since 1978. Put another way, we spend $184 million more per year for death penalty inmates than we do on those sentenced to life without the chance of parole. All told, California is on track to spend $1 billion on the death penalty over the next five years.

The new estimate is the result of a three-year comprehensive examination of state, federal, and local expenditures on California’s death penalty by Arthur Alarcón, a federal judge on the 9th Circuit, and Paula Mitchell, a Loyola Law School professor. Mercury News called the study “highly credible” and that it made the case for replacing the death penalty “nearly indisputable.” Not that anyone was disputing the wasteful spending before – except for that guy who comments on all my blogs. By now, most folks get that the death penalty wastes hundreds of millions of our dwindling state dollars. Only now we know that it actually wastes billions.

$4 billion and what did that get us? A grand total of 13 executions. That’s over $300 million per execution above the cost of life without parole.

nminsker :: $4 Billion Since 1978 - Time to Cut California's Death Penalty

Meanwhile, nearly half of all murders in California go unsolved. How many dangerous individuals could we have locked up permanently and taken off our streets over the last 33 years if we hadn’t executed those 13 people? How many children and families could have accessed the education and health services they needed, or how many students could have had the opportunity to attend college?

Looking ahead, the study predicts another $9 billion will be spent by 2030. Unless of course Gov. Brown just cuts the death penalty spending already – and it really is that easy.

The Governor has the authority to convert all 714 of California’s death sentences to life without the possibility of parole, saving California $1 billion over five years without releasing a single prisoner. Grassroots organizations and thousands of individuals around the state have been asking the Governor to do just that since the day he took office, and these new figures are giving the idea more traction with those looking for budget fixes, like CNNMoney.

And here’s the kicker: California voters agree. Polls as recent as April 2011 show that Californians support cutting the death penalty [PDF]. A full 63% of likely voters favor the governor converting all existing death sentences to life without parole, with the requirement that prisoners work and pay restitution into the Victims’ Compensation Fund (death row inmates are not currently required to work). That support spans party and geographic lines – majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all across the state agree. It’s hard not to when there are four billion reasons.

The case is closed on the death penalty. There’s no question that California’s death penalty is dysfunctional and that the only thing it’s killing is our economy. The experts know it, the voters know it, and our elected leaders need to acknowledge it. Tell Jerry Brown to give up the charade of the death penalty and to give back the hundreds of millions of dollars law enforcement and education leaders need to actually keep our families safe.

Tags: Budget, Cut This, Death Penalty, James Clark, ACLU, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

$4 Billion Since 1978 - Time to Cut California's Death Penalty | 9 comments

nice try. (0.00 / 0)

this is a typical ruse. Death Penalty opponents are upset that the death penalty is legal. they enact rules that make it hard to implement, everything from multiple appeals to rules on the way death is administered (basically making the death penalty life inprisoonment). Now that its so arduous to carry out they come up with ~~ta da~~ our dealth penalty is so expensive!

Careful what you wish for - there are A LOT of ways to make the death penalty cheaper in california and they all involve removing the rules the DP opponents put into place.

by: CaliCon @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 16:27:14 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Umm, not so much opponents (5.00 / 1)

Those appeals are required by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. And given the record of programs like the Innocence Project showing a multitude of innocent men sitting on Death Row, I don't think those due process requirements are likely to be reduced anytime soon.

The death penalty is a failure at every level. It doesn't effectively deter crime, it is expensive, and it is immoral. Until we truly have a perfect justice system, the Death Penalty ensures only that we have a state that commits legal murder.

I think?

by: Brian Leubitz @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 16:40:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

victims not criminals (0.00 / 0)

HOW I'D IMPLEMENT
I didn't say take away appeals but there are certainly extended and delayed far more than the federal death penalty.

The federal death oenalty is not considered as costly as California's so replicating it would be a good start. For examply McVeigh was executed in 10 years.

As for the innocence issue. I agree that it happens but that is more of a case of the system and the governor's not reviewing any sense of doubt. I'd require the dealth penalty be applied only in cases where DNA evidence is proven by three different forensics lab and then reviewed again after a 5 year period. And finally once more at 10 years.

So I'd reduce the number of people that are eligible for the death penalty but not eliminate entirely.

MY ISSUE WITH THE MORALITY AND INNOCENCE ARGUMENT

Contrary to what liberals think there is evil in the world. Buthow can you argue that its immoral? For argument sake, if you believe in evolution then isnt life just a chemical process? who cares if we execute a walking fetus? its just an abortion implemented years later right? At least these individuals are being removed by the best due process we can provide not an individual's personal choice. The morality argument is weak.

But life imprisonment is no deterrent either and its expensive so lets get rid of that too. Is that next? Yeah, It may deter the few of us who are living middle class and up, but we are not as likely to commit the crimes. The perks and protections (free medical care, room and board, food etc) is a step up for a lot of people suffereing in cities where crime and death on the streets are worse than jail. So how is the ACLU accounting for that? How do you justify that we must provide so much to these people that have taken so much from us? The ACLU doesn't want deterrence, in fact I don't think its clear what they want accept to argue.

The ACLU cries for the lives of these criminals but not one tear to the victims that have been punished for nothing more than being the truly innocent. And that should be clear, there may be a very small percentage of death row inmates that are innocent but almost 100% of the victims were innocent. If those people were killed in a car crash or in some way that their survivors could find some monetary restitution than at least they would be paid for their lost. But if the perpetrator is poor, a drug dealer, a homeless psychopath - then they get nothing except to share the tab through taxes with the rest of us on keeping this criminal warm, fed, and healthy.

I agree with you that our system is not perfect in determing the guilty from the innocent but removing the death penalty doesn't make our system as a whole better.

Good chatting with you Brian. I don't think we'll convince each other to change our respective views but I enjoy the discussion and hope you respond. I'll check in later.

by: CaliCon @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 18:12:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

life without parole is the best sentence for the worst crimes (0.00 / 0)

Being imprisoned for the rest of your life, with the certainty that you will die in prison, is not actually an indefinite hotel stay. It's a harsh punishment that will keep dangerous people in terrible conditions until they die. In fact, in CA people serving life without parole are made to work and contribute to the Victims' Compensation Fund -- death row inmates are not allowed to work, and have single cells.

I also think life without parole is better for victims' families. When someone is sentenced to death, the family goes through decades of waiting and uncertainty, usually with no execution at all, and they sit through appeal after appeal reliving the crime. That's not justice. Life without parole is swift and certain justice -- it's immediate, as soon as the person is sentenced they go to jail and never come out. the family can try to move on without being trapped in a legal nightmare.

Crime is deterred by CATCHING criminals. To the extent that a potential murderer is thinking anything rational at all, my guess is they're worried about getting caught, not worried about what the punishment will be AFTER they're caught. In California, 45% of murders go unsolved -- so there's a good chance they'll never have to face any punishment at all. That's why wasting money on the death penalty when it could go toward law enforcement seems so backwards to me.

James Clark

by: jamesclark @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 19:30:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thx (0.00 / 0)

Being imprisoned for the rest of your life, with the certainty that you will die in prison, is not actually an indefinite hotel stay. It's a harsh punishment that will keep dangerous people in terrible conditions until they die. In fact, in CA people serving life without parole are made to work and contribute to the Victims' Compensation Fund -- death row inmates are not allowed to work, and have single cells.

Well I like the VCF. I wish single cells would be applied to most criminals (eliminate the gang problem, stop socializing etc). But what we consider harsh is not necessarily harsh to those that live much worse in our slums.

I also think life without parole is better for victims' families. When someone is sentenced to death, the family goes through decades of waiting and uncertainty, usually with no execution at all, and they sit through appeal after appeal reliving the crime. That's not justice. Life without parole is swift and certain justice -- it's immediate, as soon as the person is sentenced they go to jail and never come out. the family can try to move on without being trapped in a legal nightmare.

Isn't that throwing the baby out with the bath water? This is a good argument for improving the Death Penalty system as I suggested. The Federal System doesnt take decades (I won't mention Texas). I think what makes a case eligible for the death penalty should be stricter but the sentences should be carried out much quicker. Those currently on death row in cases that don't meet the new stricter guidelines I will happily see move to life. But people advocating for Brandon Wilson make me sick. He murdered a 9 ear old boy in a beach bathroom. Contrary to what these people say, he is exactly the people that we need executed:

http://www.angelfire.com/band/...

Crime is deterred by CATCHING criminals. To the extent that a potential murderer is thinking anything rational at all, my guess is they're worried about getting caught, not worried about what the punishment will be AFTER they're caught. In California, 45% of murders go unsolved -- so there's a good chance they'll never have to face any punishment at all. That's why wasting money on the death penalty when it could go toward law enforcement seems so backwards to me.

Well I agree with your point. The deterrence argument and the lack of it doesn't apply to the death penalty. No would-be murderer ever said that they almost did except they didnt want to get the death penalty OR life imprisonment. Once they've crossed the line there is no deterrence. So what is fair punishment?

In an ideal world the money saved from thedeath penalty would go to the cops but we really know that extra cash would go to all kinds of things like pensions, legislator raises, or other pet projects not related to law enforcement.

by: CaliCon @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 21:42:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"make it cheaper" (0.00 / 0)

Of course there are ways to make the death penalty cheaper - and they all result in making even more mistakes than we already do. Even with the system we have now (and who came up with the idea that death penalty opponents got to write CA's judicial procedure?), we still overturn 70% of the state's death sentences.

States like Texas execute faster than we do. That's why they executed Cameron Todd Willingham, who's children died in a fire we NOW know to be an accident.

"cheap" = crappy, and with the death penalty there are lives on the line.

James Clark

by: jamesclark @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 19:18:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

not so (0.00 / 0)

Cheap can also be more efficient and more narrow of an application

by: CaliCon @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 21:43:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here: