doubledog said:

---

Harry Stone said:

---

I always hear the cost of using the death penalty is more than leaving someone in prison for life. Does anyone have exact or nearly exact numbers on this?

---

Depends on the method of death. For example, rope and electric chairs are reusable.

---

Or they could get the community involved and bring back stoning.

And, as an added benefit, the rocks are reusable, too.

I believe it's more expensive due to the additional administrative costs that come from 2 sources,

1) laws that grant additional resources to those on death row for the appeals process and
2) additional free legal resources offered to death row inmates from NGOs against the death penalty


If you're poor and get sentenced to life, no one gives a **** so you can't really fight the legal process anymore. You just sort of rot.


But if you get sentenced to death a lot of people suddenly want to help you get the chance to rot in prison.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

The death penalty should only be embraced in instances of zero doubt, IMHO (video, multiple eye witnesses, etc) ... but when that's the case, just shoot them in the head and stop with all the bull***** Zero reason for death penalty to cost even a tenth of life in prison.

---

Appeals exist to ensure the lower court handled the case properly, and it's critically important where the punishment isn't reversible. I'm no longer a proponent of the death penalty, but if we're going to have it, I'd rather it take 10+ years to ensure everything was done correctly than execute an innocent person.

---

I don't disagree, philosophically... but let's take a school shooter that's apprehended at a scene... I just don't understand dragging that out. Shoot them and be done with it.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

I belief it's due to the amount of recourses we automatically make available to death row inmates for the appeals process

---

Agreed. After the Furman v. Georgia SCOTUS opinion finding a de facto violation of cruel and unusual punishment, states phasing their DP statutes back into state laws began adding many more safeguards, enhanced defense teams and automatic appeals. Some states even use a bifurcated process where it is a different jury for the guilt phase and then a new one for sentencing phase. Meaning essentially two trials.

That strains resources in every area. Public defender's office, prosecution team, appellate teams, not to mention court time.

Old May Banker said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

The death penalty should only be embraced in instances of zero doubt, IMHO (video, multiple eye witnesses, etc) ... but when that's the case, just shoot them in the head and stop with all the bull***** Zero reason for death penalty to cost even a tenth of life in prison.

---

Appeals exist to ensure the lower court handled the case properly, and it's critically important where the punishment isn't reversible. I'm no longer a proponent of the death penalty, but if we're going to have it, I'd rather it take 10+ years to ensure everything was done correctly than execute an innocent person.

---

I don't disagree, philosophically... but let's take a school shooter that's apprehended at a scene... I just don't understand dragging that out. Shoot them and be done with it.

---

Due process exists to protect the criminals society really, really doesn't like.

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

There is zero percent chance that is true, common sense my man

---

It's not the housing vs killing.

It's the years and years of appeals afforded to the death penalty defendant that cost millions.

---

Is that something congress can change?

aggiehawg said:

---

Harry Stone said:

---

I always hear the cost of using the death penalty is more than leaving someone in prison for life. Does anyone have exact or nearly exact numbers on this?

---

Kind of depends on what you term are costs. For defendants charged with crimes in which the DP is on the table who need public defenders (most of them, usually) that requires an entire team of DP certified defense attorneys, investigators, psychologists, etc. So that will be a higher cost to the state. Ditto for all of the appeals that inevitably follow a conviction and death sentence.

---

The legal costs when the prosecutor seeks the death penalty are through the roof and, for that reason, some prosecutors just will not pursue the death penalty out of fear of what it will do to the budget of a small county.

So, when you look at it in a vacuum, only comparing cost of those two options, it's clear that the death penalty is more expensive. However, for all those that argue this proves the economic case for abolishing the death penalty, that comparison misses the biggest factor which is how many capital defendants accept a life in prison plea rather than forcing a full jury trial. That is the greatest economic utility of the death penalty.

Old May Banker said:

---

The death penalty should only be embraced in instances of zero doubt, IMHO (video, multiple eye witnesses, etc) ... but when that's the case, just shoot them in the head and stop with all the bull***** Zero reason for death penalty to cost even a tenth of life in prison.

---

This is where i am as far as making absolutely sure in a death penalty case. Not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but absolutely no doubt. I just finished reading "Framed", by John Grisham and Jim McCloskey. The book outlines ten separate instances where innocent people were convicted and in some cases executed. In each case, those convicted were not only innocent, but were railroaded by law enforcement and prosecutors that were only interested in closing the books on horrific crimes. I realize that this might be a minuscule percentage of criminal investigations, but I finished the book with huge reservations concerning our legal system.

mslags97 said:

---

Quick search found this:

---

There is zero chance it costs $75k to imprison someone for life. Is that an annual figure? That I might believe.

ETA: Wait, is this the cost of the death penalty trial vs life in prison trial + appeals, etc…?

the age of the defendant / killer should factor into the discussion / equation

VerdeAg said:

---

Rope costs $10

---

Subsequent uses are free.

I'm willing to get rid of the death penalty if we can also get rid of the death penalty for unwanted infants.

If you want the death penalty to cost less than life imprisonment then put the prosecution's life on the line if evidence comes forward that the defendant was innocent. Kind of like making ambulance lawyers pay if they lose. Once the death penalty has been carried out it is final. I'm not opposed to the death penalty but as a society we have to do all we can to make sure we get it right. Seems petty to complain about the cost if you advocate for it given what's at stake.

Cost should not be a determining factor in the administration of justice.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The issue is we absolutely don't want to get a death penalty case wrong, as there is no possible restitution, so there are numerous avenues for appeal and that must be systematically plodded through. It is bad enough to unjustly imprison a wrongly convicted person. Imagine someone innocent being executed?

So, the lengthy and costly appeals process is morally and ethically necessary and it often is cheaper to keep someone in for life. It is less of a punishment but it is a punishment and keeps the public safe from the criminal, and in the extremely unlikely but possible case of a bad conviction due to a corruption of the process, restitution is possible.

---

The family of Aubrey Hawkins might disagree with this.

It is also true that LWOP prisoners are extreme behavioral risks. They have nothing to lose.

austagg99 said:

---

If you want the death penalty to cost less than life imprisonment then put the prosecution's life on the line if evidence comes forward that the defendant was innocent. Kind of like making ambulance lawyers pay if they lose. Once the death penalty has been carried out it is final. I'm not opposed to the death penalty but as a society we have to do all we can to make sure we get it right. Seems petty to complain about the cost if you advocate for it given what's at stake.

---

Tell us you aren't serious. Your statement would make a little sense if you're talking about secreting or fabricating evidence, but are you seriously suggesting that if exonerating evidence comes to light after the trial, the prosecutor should be executed? Geez.

Martin Cash said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

If you want the death penalty to cost less than life imprisonment then put the prosecution's life on the line if evidence comes forward that the defendant was innocent. Kind of like making ambulance lawyers pay if they lose. Once the death penalty has been carried out it is final. I'm not opposed to the death penalty but as a society we have to do all we can to make sure we get it right. Seems petty to complain about the cost if you advocate for it given what's at stake.

---

Tell us you aren't serious. Your statement would make a little sense if you're talking about secreting or fabricating evidence, but are you seriously suggesting that if exonerating evidence comes to light after the trial, the prosecutor should be executed? Geez.

---

Serious about what? I'm very serious about justice being served. The prosecution is PAID to represent the state. Are we willing to pay the price it takes to make sure we get it right?

I understand stretching it out for death row inmates where their cases were not 100% without a doubt. I do have a problem with how many years it takes to finally execute the ones that were, without a doubt, guilty. Put a bullet in their head, after sentencing, and be done with it.

mslags97 said:

---

Nope. It is absolutely true. I don't have the figures, but the process and the incarceration while waiting while on death row has outrageous costs. They system has made it much more expensive.

---

Right now, it's because the the death penalty exists and groups will expend **** tons of money to litigate and defend someone on death row.

If the DP was ended, those groups would just move to doing the same thing for people with life without parole.

So, then the argument would be that life without parole is inhumane and life WITH parole would be the worst punishment people should get.

Then...rinse repeat with Life WITH Parole...

No, there are just substantial additional legal issues associated with the death penalty that make the trials much more difficult regardless of who is on the defense team and appeals are usually automatic by law and complicated due to the rigid standards around implementing the death penalty, again regardless of who is on the defense team

TXAggie2011 said:

---

No, there are just substantial additional legal issues associated with the death penalty that make the trials much more difficult regardless of who is on the defense team and appeals are usually automatic by law and complicated due to the rigid standards around implementing the death penalty, again regardless of who is on the defense team

---

That is NOW.

If the DP is outlawed, I have ZERO doubts that those same "additional legal issues" will then be applied to Life w/o Parole.

austagg99 said:

---

Serious about what? I'm very serious about justice being served. The prosecution is PAID to represent the state. Are we willing to pay the price it takes to make sure we get it right?

---

What does that mean? If evidence comes to light after the trial is over, we're going to kill the prosecutor because he 'didn't get it right?' Username checks out.

Martin Cash said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Serious about what? I'm very serious about justice being served. The prosecution is PAID to represent the state. Are we willing to pay the price it takes to make sure we get it right?

---

What does that mean? If evidence comes to light after the trial is over, we're going to kill the prosecutor because he 'didn't get it right?' Username checks out.

---

Seems like we should get it right if we are confident enough to kill someone over it. What does my user name have to do with principles? FWIW I don't live in Austin.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

There is zero percent chance that is true, common sense my man

---

It has to do with the appeals.

Harry Stone said:

---

I always hear the cost of using the death penalty is more than leaving someone in prison for life. Does anyone have exact or nearly exact numbers on this?

---

The average cost of a Texas death penalty case is $2.3 million vs. $75,000 per year for life in prison.

Google gets so confused.

When making the argument for easy parole, cost per year for incarceration is $100,000.

When making the argument against the death penalty, it's $10,000 a year.

The big advantage in the death penalty is that once applied, it doesn't matter what bleeding heart liberal is in charge, they can't commute the sentence or grant a pardon.

The problem with AI is that it really doesn't do the thinking - it just uses pattern recognition to regurgitate the human information available to it via the internet.

The problem is the internet is a huge pile of bad data, disguised propaganda and contradictions. AI is basically like your aging aunt who believes whatever she read last on the internet.

Harry Stone said:

---

I always hear the cost of using the death penalty is more than leaving someone in prison for life. Does anyone have exact or nearly exact numbers on this?

---

It's the Legal-Industrial Complex. Limit appeals to five years y Roberto es su tio. Expressway to execution. And if there is exonerating/exculpatory evidence purposely withheld from court by prosecutors or police, make sure they are prosecuted. Make the process efficient and honest so that juries hear the totality of information relevant to the case. These guilty predators deserve a fair trial.

I would not minding the slightly additional cost to carry out the Death Penalty over life sentences, IF we would capitalize on the Deterrent Factor public executions intended with the Death Penalty to begin with.

One thing that is interesting is to see how other countries handle their prison sentence.

Does everyone remember Anders Brivik who killed 77 people, mostly children, in Norway? That was back in 2011, I believe.

He got the maximum they could charge him with -- 21 years. There is a longer sentence, but I think that it is strictly for terrorists. I don't remember why Breivik was not treated as a terrorist.

Will Breivik get out after 21 years? Probably not. For those who are expected to continue to present a serious danger, the prosecutor can petition to extend the sentence. If granted, the prison is kept an additional two years. This cycle of petition, petition granted, can occur every two years until the prisoner dies.

There is also the question of parole. If I understand it correctly, all prisoners in Norway can request parole after ten years in prison. According to reports, Breivik has already applied twice and was turned down both times.

He is also suing claiming that his human rights are being violated because he is mostly isolated from the other prisoners.

So there are other approaches that have the potential to keep someone in prison for life (two years at a time), but they have to accept the chance that someone who should never be released could be released. If that should happen, watch out.

Breivik is sufficiently notorious that it doesn't seem likely that he will ever be released, but you never know. It doesn't seem likely that he will be transferred to Bastoy any time soon.