The time for abolition has come
The death penalty evokes strong emotions in those for and against it. The arguments have been thoroughly debated: justice, vengeance, retribution, eye-for-an-eye, we’re better than that, the state should not be in the killing business, it’s inhuman, it’s cruel and unusual, we’re the only civilized country, it is not deterrent, it doesn’t achieve anything, it keeps wounds open.
But we are living in very difficult times. The economy is performing at its worst level in decades – and some might say that this recession is the worst of a lifetime. The costs are piling up and the revenue stream is drying up. The state is facing a budget deficit of close to $1bn this year and over $8bn for the next two years. That’s an astronomical sum. And while Gov. Rell says that cuts are coming, and while taxpayers suggest ways to cut costs, and while legislators debate decriminalizing less than an ounce of marijuana, I have yet to see anyone opine that we should cut one expense in the judicial system: abolish the death penalty.
Abolition has been proposed in CT before: most notably prior to Michael Ross’ desire to be executed. It really hasn’t come up since. We all know, however, that if there is one thing that supersedes politicians’ desire to be “tough on crime”, it would money.
The costs of the death penalty are also well documented and not insignificant. Housing a death row inmate costs approximately $100k a year: in CT, there are currently 10 people on death row. That’s $1 million a year. Each of those death row inmates has either an appeal or a petition for writ of habeas corpus pending. That means lawyers for both the State and the defense, usually two or more on each side. There are also several capital felony prosecutions in progress throughout the state. That means additional costs: lawyers (again), investigators, experts. It means months and years of preparation and legislation. It means that the attention of those lawyers is drawn away from run-of-the-mill cases, which means more lawyers need to be hired to meet Constitutional standards of representation.
Perhaps the good folks at the OLR can do a cost study and inform the Governor of the potential savings in cost if the death penalty is abolished.
At the very least, the time is ripe for a moratorium on the death penalty.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on January 31, 2009 at 9:15 pm, and is filed under ct legal news, death penalty. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
The one thing often overlooked as to why the death penalty makes sense is it’s use as leverage. There are many instances where the threat of going for the death penalty can be used to induce a person to cooperate. Examples are revealing where a body is, or information about additional victims, or where a kidnap victim is being held.
Additionally there are numerous murders committed by inmates in custody. Without the threat of punishment so severe, many have no reason not to do as they please because there is nothing more that can be done to them.
about 3 years ago
I think your statement is overblown. I can’t remember one case in recent memory in this state where either of those scenarios occurred.
In fact, I would say that the first consideration you mention is one of the problems with the death penalty. It is used as a scare tactic, not seriously being imposed.
Do you have links to any studies that back up either assertion? I’d like to read them, if they exist.
None of this, of course, does anything to solve the money problem.
about 3 years ago
Mmmmmmmm let’s see, liberal judges come up with a bunch of crap masquerading as constitutional requirements and allow a lot of nonsense on the part of capital defense attorneys, which drives up the costs immeasurably, and then their fellow travelers point to the costs of the death penalty.
The time has come, not for abolition, but for more vigorous enforcement of the death penalty.
about 3 years ago
So in your opinion the lives of those people who were proven innocent in the course of their appeals was not worth it?
What kind of “crap” are you specifically referring to? Due process? And are you speaking for every state constitution that has apparently been “riddled with crap?” (Since a lot of this is at the state level anyway?)
about 3 years ago
Gideon,
the supporters of capital punishment will argue: Cut the appeals – and you cut the length of stay on death row…And the money problem is fixed.
I think regarding Abolition the “money thing” is a dead end.
Greetings from Germany.
Joachim
about 3 years ago
“Without the threat of punishment so severe, many have no reason not to do as they please because there is nothing more that can be done to them.”
——–
I have heard this argument before and it never seems all that persuasive. I visited the federal prison in Leavenworth during law school and the guy giving us a tour told us that we needed no security at all (as we walked throughout the prison among the prisoners), because the prisoners would not even look at us in the wrong way. The reason- the entire prison had been in lock-down for 6 weeks just prior to our tour.
My point is that there are ways to control the behaviors of prisoners without the threat of killing them. And if altering the conditions of confinement doesn’t deter someone who is already on a life sentence, then the death penalty probably isn’t going to either (the death penalty doesn’t deter folks on the outside, why is it any different in prison?).
about 3 years ago
No surprise that the abolishing the death penalty was not a part of Rell’s proposed budget cuts.
about 3 years ago
The death penalty is political theater. It allows legislators to posture as tough on crime while failing to do the hard things that really do make a difference, like providing the money for well trained police officers in sufficient numbers.
Prosecutors use the penalty not against the worst of the worst but all too often against the cases with the weakest evidence. It often allows them to incarcerate the accused pre-trial, severely hampering the accused’s ability to assist in their own defense. It also ensures a pro-prosecution jury which is much more likely to ignore the evidence and convict anyway, and it makes it more likely that the accused will be the victim of extremely negative pre-trial publicity, further prejudicing the jury pool. Given that it may also be used to intimidate a defendant into accepting a plea, it is too powerful a tool in too many cases.