Several hitches have been encountered in the analysis of the costs that are associated with capital cases. This is as a result of the wide range of costs which are related to capital cases. For example there are huge costs which are associated with the prosecution processes, paying defense attorneys, expert witnesses, psychiatrists, interpreters, secretaries, jury consultants and court reporters (Steiker & Stetker, 2010). In addition, the process of prosecution in capital cases is both complex and long. Such cases go through three possible stages or phases and as a result they normally take years before a verdict is reached. The first stage involves the state trial court in which two trials are carried out with the first trial being focused at determining the guilt of the accused and the second trial for passing a sentence. The post conviction process comprises of the second stage of capital cases and the final stage which entails appeals within the Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court (Cary, 2011). Data on expenditure on capital cases poses a challenge of collection and analysis because each state has a different budget of the financial resources allocated for capital cases. It is because of these problems in determining the comparative cost of the death sentence and life imprisonment without parole that debates on the cost of capital punishment has escalated. This research paper gives a critical analysis, discussion and illustration of the anti death penalty arguments versus life imprisonment with a special focus on the cost factor.
It is argued that the death penalty is expensive in significant excesses as compared to life imprisonment. This is attributed to the delay that has been put into the current judicial system on cases on the death penalty (Fan, 2011). More time has been allocated for preparation of death sentence cases and it is taking even longer to get into trial. This illustrates that the processes of death penalty cases are more which translates to higher costs. Furthermore, the time allocated for the selection of the jury and case trials has been extended. More notably, death penalty cases are more complex and characterized by frequent appeals. Motions on the death penalty are also described as continuous and lengthy. These processes in death penalty cases are therefore argued to have significantly increased the amount of financial resources to an extent that it is far more costly as compared to the costs associated with keeping a convict in prison for the rest of his or her life (Cholbi, 2009).
The death penalty cases are said to cost at least two million dollars per case. On the other hand life imprisonment without parole is argued to cost must less with an estimated one million dollars per convict within a period of fifty years (Steiker & Stetker, 2010). However these cost estimates for capital cases have attracted a lot of debate concerning whether the death penalty is cheaper than life imprisonment. For example proponents of the death penalty argue that life imprisonment case processes are equally costly as the death penalty cases. Therefore life imprisonment would be costlier because of the expenditure of the convict within state penitentiaries. Proponents of the death penalty have therefore estimated that life imprisonment costs $3.5 million more than the death penalty. An analysis of past literature and debates on the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment without parole shows that the death penalty is demonstrated to cost three to ten times more as compared to life imprisonment (Cary, 2011).
Strong oppositions have been staged against the death penalty with illustrations that the involvement of the Department of Justice in authorizing death penalty cases as federal cases makes them to be about eight times more than the death eligible cases which are not authorized as federal death penalty cases. In this sense therefore it is argued that death penalty costs the government much more than life imprisonment. Contradictory utterances from various attorneys on the other hand have opposed the high costs that are argued to be incurred in the death penalty cases. Such attorneys argue that death penalty executions should not cost the American taxpayer anything. In this sense, suggestions for volunteer members of the firing squad with their own ammunition and guns have been suggested (Hillips, 2009). However these are obviously against the legal framework and procedures for capital cases and punishment.
An analysis of per offender basis reveals that the death penalty is the most costly aspect of the judicial system. This is demonstrated by the fact that regardless of the million dollars which are spent on the death penalty cases, most of these penalties are often not carried out at the end (Fan, 2011). As a result this acts as a reflection of the large amount of money that is spent on death penalty without a guarantee that it would eventually be imposed on the individual being convicted. This money spent on the death penalty is argued to be required by the police departments to enhance their law enforcement mechanisms and should not be spent on death penalty cases and execution processes (Williams, 2011). In this sense, the death penalty unlike life imprisonment is regarded as a waste of the taxpayers’ money which would have been channeled to the law enforcement processes. On the other hand, proponents of the death penalty argue that if fiscally responsible and ethical layers of prosecution and appeal for death penalty cases were implemented, these cases would cost much less than life imprisonment without parole (Cholbi, 2009).
Anti death penalty assertions point out that it is a costly process because of the forensic and mental health experts which are required in the stages of the death penalty case unlike an ordinary criminal case (Cary, 2011). In addition there are trials for guilt and sentence in death penalty which makes it more complex and longer. A focus on both the death sentence and conviction of the suspect and the appeals that are associated with death penalty are also argued to be the factors which makes the process more complex and costly as compared to life imprisonment cases and processes (Bienen, 2010). In addition the fact that death penalty prosecution requires an appointment of two attorneys for guilt and suspect sentencing processes makes them much more expensive. Furthermore it is demonstrated that the burden for proof in death penalty cases is greater which requires than more resources are invested in accessing, exploring and presenting the proof or evidence. It is in line with this that the death penalty should not be subject to no longer than necessary reconsideration so that unnecessary expenditure on its processes are avoided (Steiker & Stetker, 2010).
Proponents of the death penalty argue that keeping a convict in prison for life is no less costly. This is due to the constitutional right which makes individuals who are serving life to stage appeals (Hillips, 2009). This is related to the illustration that convicts who are serving life in state prisons spend most of their time conceiving on how they world stage the unlimited habeas corpus petitions. In this regard therefore life imprisonment is more expensive and costly for the government and the taxpayer (Fan, 2011). on the other hand the complexity that the constitution offers death penalty cases is argued to be the reason why they are more costly than life imprisonment. The constitutional provision on the death penalty is aimed at ensuring that innocent individuals are not convicted. Regardless of this it is argued further that these protections by the constitution do not completely eliminate the risk of execution of an innocent individual (Reams & Putnam, 2011). This is reflective that the expenditure on death penalty cannot be justified fully and instead a life imprisonment is a more viable option.
It is demonstrated that over 3400 men within the state of California have been given a life imprisonment without a chance for parole. This is attributed to the need of protecting the society from crime and homicide in addition to elimination of the risks associated with a repeat of a capital crime (Williams, 2011). These illustrations are used to point out that the highly costly death penalty should be replaced within the life sentencing which denies parole. This is shown to be a better choice than the excessive expenditure on death sentencing processing. The money that would be spared from elimination of a death penalty will then be used in funding programs which purpose to improve the society and make is a better place (Cary, 2011). It is therefore reflective that opponents of death penalty consider this form of justice to be unrealistically expensive. In audition the anti death penalty claims reveal that it presents a form of misallocation of funds which would be used to fund activities that are helpful to the society at large.
A review of more than thirteen studies and investigations on the costs associated with the contentious death penalty demonstrate that it is much costly than the life sentencing (Cholbi, 2009). These studies targeted the state, county and federal level death penalty cases. These cases were reveled to be generally costly with the federal death penalty being reported as being most expensive cases (Hillips, 2009). This shows that the cost associated with the death penalty have variations that would be the justification for debates and arguments for and against this form of judicial processes. The estimates of these studies for death penalty cases ranged from $650000 to $1.75 million (Fan, 2011). In general, it is evident that the death penalty is no cheap case or process. As a result arguments against this form of justice and support for life sentencing are comprehensible.
The costs of death penalty cases have also been analyzed within every stage of judicial processes. For example the trial phase of death penalty cases is shown to be more than $515 000 more costly than the life imprisonment cases. The penalty phase and the appellate phase are also reflected to be more costly by more than $145 000 and $ 200 000 respectively (Steiker & Stetker, 2010). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that a death notice on an individual adds an extra of more than $ 1 million in the expenses incurred during the course of the case. These figures reflect that the opposition for the death penalty has a lot of ground and base of argument. It is also notable that more studies have been carried out on the costs of the death penalty as compared to the costs of life imprisonment. These studies are motivated by the observation that there is much more financial expenditure on the death penalty as compared to life sentencing.
The resources that are invested on death penalty cases and processes have also been investigated in line with the expenditure of counties and states on these cases. These investigations further disclose that enormous amount of resources are spent by counties and states in death penalty processes as compared to life sentencing processes (Williams, 2011). When execution is the agenda of judicial processes, counties and states incur an extra $1 million at every stage of the death penalty processes (Bienen, 2010). Counties have been shown to be spending an excess of $1.1 million for death penalty cases as compared to conventional murder trials which lead to life imprisonment. Furthermore, it is shown that state governments spend an extra $116 million per annum on death penalty cases (Hillips, 2009). The annual expenditure of the state on capital penalty cases is estimated twice as much as the prison expenses which are incurred in life imprisonment (Cholbi, 2009). These statistics further reflect the differences in expenditure for death penalty cases and life imprisonment proceedings as a basis for arguing for or against the death penalty.
Because death penalty cases take longer, they displace other hearings or cases from courtrooms which leads to cost consequences (Cary, 2011). Moreover similar cases with one tried with a focus of a death penalty as the final verdict and another with a verdict of life imprisonment without a chance for parole show that the former costs more and takes more time (Reams & Putnam, 2011). More than $465 000 are generated by the prosecution at the trial level of a death penalty case as opposed to only $ 50 000 at the same phase for a life imprisonment case (Fan, 2011). In this sense therefore per phase basis, death penalty cases cost more than life imprisonment. It is further argued that the prosecution is equally contented when an individual is convicted into life imprisonment within a chance for parole because the convict has no opportunity of returning to the community to commit the same crime again (Williams, 2011). Therefore life imprisonment is justifiable as compared to the death penalty conviction. This is due to the cost factor in addition to the differences in complex of these cases and the duration of time taken before a verdict is reached.
It is estimated that when a direct appeal of a death penalty case is sought an extra $100 000 is incurred in the appellate case as compared to the life imprisonment cases which cost much less. Furthermore individual restraint petitions which are files on a death penalty case costs an extra $136 000 (Hillips, 2009). Since these costs are incurred by the public defense, it is evident that a lot of financial resources are used in the judicial processes of death penalties (Steiker & Stetker, 2010). These resources are argued to be more useful if they are channeled to state programs which are aimed at improving the society. The higher costs which are associated with individual restraint petitions and direct appeals in death penalty cases are related to the fact that a lot of time is spent by the prosecutor and attorneys in responding to the Supreme Court defendant’s legal concerns. This makes a death penalty case to be more costly especially due to the complex appeal processes which characterize the death penalty appeal case.
A death penalty defendant often receives greater or more constitutional guarantees at every stage of the proceedings as compared to non-capital defendants. This is attributed to the longer attorney time which characterizes the death penalty cases and the resultant higher costs. In this sense therefore the anti death penalty arguments and debates seem more justifiable. The support of the death penalty often emanates from legislators and politicians. This notwithstanding, it is the communities within local counties that bear the costs associated with the proceedings of the death penalty cases. This burden that the taxpayers bear is often to the detriment of social and health services within the society (Reams & Putnam, 2011). This is the basis for the anti death penalty sentiments which are articulated in debates and political forums (Cholbi, 2009).
A lot of concern has been specifically articulated from the state of California in opposition of the death penalty. Research on this state have reported that more than $4 billion of federal and state has been spent within California since 1978 in terms of the expenses that are incurred in the judicial processes of the death penalty (Fan, 2011). These costs do not include the extra funds which are targeted at maintaining and improving the current judicial system in the state. The California statistical information on the death penalty and the related expenses has been used extensively to demonstrate why a life sentence is economically better and logically viable as compared to the death penalty. Since there is no penalty stage of trial for life imprisonment suspects, the government will not incur the expenses that are associated with this stage if it abolished the death penalty (Williams, 2011).
Conclusion
In the light of the above analysis, discussion and illustration, it is argued that the death penalty is by far more costly as compared to life imprisonment. This is attributed to a variety of factors which include the complexity of judicial processes in death penalty cases, long attorney time, an extra penalty phase and long duration of preparations, selection of the jury and constitutional guarantees. On the other hand, life imprisonment especially when there is no chance for parole is less costly as compared to the death penalty. These considerations form the basis for the anti death penalty debates and arguments. It is therefore conclusive that if the government abolishes the death penalty the high costs that the taxpayer incurs will be used for other social and health programs in addition to enforcement of the law by the police departments and agencies.