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.
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's 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.
Follow James Clark on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SAFECalifornia
The urge to kill is all too common unfortunately.
Besides that, juries are hardly infallible.
You are right. Some people cannot be rehabilitated.
It is more important for the innocent to be acquitted or the guilty to be convicted?
How many innocent people are you willing to see die because they were A) wrongfully convicted or B) killed by someone who shouldn't have been acquitted?
These are important questions.
It wouldn't do away with the death penalty in CA's sentencing system as proposed in this article.
In California, current Death Penalty statutes were enacted by voters via initiative; therefore, the only way to repeal and/or to amend death penalty is to put the issue(s) to a vote asking the people to repeal and/or amend---the original death penalty law was statute, enacted by the legislature in the 1870's.
Originally, executions were carried out at San Quentin, Folsom and in localities by county sheriffs, pretty much wherever they damn well pleased.
In time it got down to being a San Quentin only kind of thing.
All that was tossed by the California Supreme Court (Rose Bird court). The Briggs initiative got the voters to approve a reinstatement/expansion of the death penalty and that's where we are today.
What is passed by initiative never can be changed or abolished by the legislature.
Though if cost if really a concern for the ACLU I suppose we could do what the Chinese do. They make the family of the condemned by the bullet they are then shot with.
But what any civilized person can cite as a peculiarly American injustice gets little notice because black, brown, yellow and red Americans fill a disproportionate number of the cells, so few of the good white prison supporting Americans note the hyprocrisy of American law and order.
California is the most populous state with about one out of every eight Americans being a Californian. Have a read on the California Department of Corrections' lastest monthly population report: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Monthly/TPOP1A/TPOP1Ad1105.pdf
Cost of executions are high due to automatic appeals and various lawsuits resulting from each and every potential execution. Whatever it takes to delay, irrespective of facts. Streamline this process and million could be saved. No one should be on death role for years and years. I'm sure some die of natural old age before meeting their express elevator to the afterlife (up or down but mostly down). Make the process more efficient, I'd say.
We could call it-vigilante justice!
As far as "streamlining" is concerned, take it up with the writers of the Constitution who wrote in protections so that innocent people were not railroaded by government.
Lil 'Dre: "Yo, grace, what's happening?
Grace: So nice to see you again, Andre. Did you ever enroll in your GRE classes?
Lil 'Dre: Yeah, sister, been working on it 24-7 ya know. That's why I'm here. See, I need money for books. Can you spot me a President Grant?
Grace: Didn't I give you $100 last time you were here?
Lil 'Dre: Ya did. But I had to buy medicine for my sick momma. So that's why I need more money.
Grace: Well, okay. Here's fifty dollars.
Lil 'Dre: Thanks. Can I use the bathroom?
Grace: Sure.
Grace [to herself three hours later]: I'm sure I left my purse in my bedroom. It's got to be here somewhere.
Fact checking is required.
A Rebuttal to "Cut This: The Death Penalty"(1)
Death Penalty vs Life Costs in California
By Dudley Sharp, contact info below
Clark/CCFAJ's cost review is wildly inaccurate and I doubt that there is any more veracity to the death row costs than with their lifer cost evaluations. None of Clark/CCFAJ's numbers can be relied upon.
Clark says: "In total, California's death penalty system costs taxpayers $137 million per year. Contrast that with just $11 million per year if we replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment."
For 700 inmates, that is:
death penalty costs: $137 million per year or $196,000//inmate/yr.
life imprisonment costs: $11 million/year or $15,700/inmate/yr.
It is complete utter nonsense.
Some reality:
The last full California audit (Sept 2009) found the average costs, 2007-2008, per adult inmate was $49,000/inmate/yr. (2) In 1997, it was $25,000/inmate/yr. (3).
This $49,000/inmate/yr is the average for all inmates, not the level IV security of death row inmate like criminals that will cost more, if not much more. Clark is stating that these enhanced security prisoners will cost $34,000/inmate/yr LESS than the average cost for all Ca inmates. Clark's lack of credibility is of an astounding level. Clark's analysis is laughable.
But, Clark/CCFAJ get even worse.
contd
Without the death penalty, Clark/CCFAJ's select group of former death row murderers would likely be in level IV security and, as lifers, would die as geriatric prisoners or from earlier illness, likely costing on average $80,000-$100,000/inmate/yr., or more, with a rare few costing a $1 million or more per year with illness and/or geriatric stages. Geriatric problems often begins at age 50 for inmates.
NOTE: The California Medical Facility for corrections averages $83,000/inmate/yr. (4). Add to that the additional costs of Level IV security cells.
But, for Clark/CCFAJ, former death row inmates, now lifers, cost $15,700/inmate/yr.
But, it gets even worse for Clark/CCFAJ.
Clark will admit, if prodded (5) that "the figure of $137 million estimates the entire cost of the death penalty system, not simply housing, but also inclusive of all post-conviction costs, including legal appeals."
In other words, Clark is admitting escalating the death penalty costs over the alleged cost comparisons of incarceration between lifers and death row. Not at all surprising Clark excludes such from the lifer costs.
The Clark/CCFAJ's cost comparisons/evaluations are a very bad joke. Instead of making an honest apples to apples cost comparison, Clark brings us an apples to Rolls Royce cost comparison, as if it is apples to apples.
contd
Sadly, California considered an objective assessment by RAND, but rejected that (6).
Saving more money?
Replace death row witrh Level IV security cells, or lower levels depending upon evaluations, as Missouri and Kansas do.
California can make their death sentenced inmates cheaper than their lifers, if they properly manage their citizens money, as Virginia does.
There is no reason for Ca death row to cost more than level IV security and a proper evaluation would likely show death row cheaper or no more expensive than Level IV.
There would be no cost savings in getting rid of death row, with the exception that, if Calif had a responsible death penalty protocol, there would be many more executed murderers, thus reducing incarceration costs on death row, saving money on incarcerations costs over other level IV prisoners.
(1) Article by James Clark, field organizer, ACLU
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-clark/cut-this-the-death-penalt_b_627759.html\
(2) pg 77, fiscal year 2007-2008, http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-107.1.pdf
(3) www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/97125.pdf
(4) p 80, fiscal year 2007-2008, http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-107.1.pdf
(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-clark/cut-this-the-death-penalt_b_627759.html
(6) "Investigating the Costs of the Death Penalty in California: Insights for Future Data Collection in California, RAND Corp., 2/2008
http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2008/RAND_CT300.pdf
Contrary to what many believe, the victim and/or their family will not be served by executing innocent people.