"When Gov. Martin O’Malley appeared before the Maryland Senate last week, he made an unconventional argument that is becoming increasingly popular in cash-strapped states: abolish the death penalty to cut costs."

Yesterday's New York Times contained an article titled "Citing Cost, States Consider End to Death Penalty."

Read the article by CLICKING HERE and be sure to check out the graphic.

More highlights:

"The economic realities have forced even longtime supporters of the death penalty, like Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, to rethink their positions.

Mr. Richardson, a Democrat, has said he may sign a bill repealing capital punishment that passed the House last week and is pending in a Senate committee. He cited growing concerns about miscarriages of justice, but he added that cost was a factor in his shifting views and was “a valid reason in this era of austerity and tight budgets.”

My favorite highlight:

"Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, an organization in Sacramento that works on behalf of crime victims, called the anticipated savings a mirage. He added that with the death penalty, prosecutors can more easily offer life sentences in a plea bargain and thus avoid trial costs.

But Eric M. Freedman, a death penalty expert at Hofstra Law School, said studies had shown that plea bargaining rates were roughly the same in states that had the death penalty as in states that did not."

Here in Tennessee, we are spending millions on our death penalty system while we have viable alternatives like life without parole and life in prison (51 years before parole eligibility). Like other states, we are in a budget crisis and the death penalty is a black hole of spending that will continue to cost this state millions of taxpayer's dollars.

Labels: cost, New York Times

Richard C. Dieter, Executive Director of Death Penalty Information Center, had an excellent article published by the Huffington Post that makes a compelling argument for "letting go of the death penalty."

Read the article by clicking HERE.

Dieter examines the death penalty for what it truly is: a costly, time consuming, resource expending, and flawed public policy. In this time of financial crisis, Dieter questions the death penalty's existence as public expenditures like education and health care are in jeopardy.

Consider these facts from the article:

-California spends $138 million per year on their death penalty "but only executes less than one person every two years"
-California is now planning a new death row that will cost the state $400 million
-Maryland's death penalty over the past 28 years has cost $37 million per execution
-Florida spends $24 million per execution
-California spends $250 million per execution

Tennessee is not an exception. The state is in a serious financial crisis. And yet, Tennessee is spending millions on its death penalty. Meanwhile, the true costs are unknown because the state does not have a centralized data collecting method. In this time of economic recession, how can Tennessee justify the exorbitant costs of the death penalty and not even know what it is truly spending?

Proponents of the death penalty advocate that the death penalty is necessary to be tough on crime.

"In the past, people were often scared into believing that the death penalty was needed to be tough on crime. Today, the death penalty is more like a bridge to nowhere--an expensive government program that does not advance the general good. It may be time to let this extravagance go."

Labels: cost, Huffington Post

Tennessee's State Funding Board has heard from experts that there will be a revenue shortfall between $271 and $380 million dollars. "State officials have been told to expect to cut up to $380 million more in spending before the fiscal year ends in June." This news prompted TCASK members Harry Simpson of Nashville and Steve Reddick of Oak Ridge to write their local papers because they both believe that the state is spending far too much money on one area of public policy.

Read Harry's letter in the Tennessean HERE.

"For years, experts have known that the death penalty’s costs are exorbitant. Maryland found that the death penalty cost taxpayers at least $186 million more in prosecuting and defending capital murder cases over two decades than would have been spent without the threat of execution and has executed a total of five people."

Read Steve's letter in the Oak Ridger HERE.

"And I'm not suggesting that abolishing the death penalty would solve all (or even many) of our state's budget woes. But abolition would certainly free up dollars to better address the root causes of crime and to help crime victims and their families. That, to me, is an investment worth making."

Labels: budget, cost

Labels: cost, death penalty, Maryland, study

Kudos to James Staub for his piece in Sunday's Tennessean. As a murder victim's family member, James' voice is of vital importance as the state of Tennessee examines the death penalty, particularly concerning the question of whether or not it serves victims' families.

James points out that the current lethal injection debate is just one detail as we consider the larger questions involved with the death penalty. He raises issues of wrongful convictions, cost, and the increasing numbers of victims' families, law enforcement, and district attorneys who believe that the death penalty is a diversion of tax dollars and an ineffective deterrent.

As I read the article and continue to reflect on the death penalty as a public policy, I wonder again and again why we hang on to it? If it is not a deterrent, costs too much, does not serve victims' families, and is not necessary to protect us, then why? Why?

Labels: cost, death penalty, innocence, James Staub, lethal injection, Supreme Court, Tennessean, Tennessee, wrongful convictions