Capital punishment and its application remains controversial, however does it make economic sense?
Today the death penalty forms part of the legal system for 56 countries worldwide, and 31 states in the US, and whilst the general trend is towards its abolition there are still fierce arguments heralding from it avid supporters.
This article’s main focus will be centred on the economic arguments surrounding the death penalty, however in order to assess whether the death penalty is a good idea as a whole arguments from all domains must be considered.
Starting with the idea of justice: the death penalty is only handed out in severe cases in most countries which use it; murder, war crimes, treason etc. For death penalty advocates the punishment acts as some form of justice and peace of mind that the offender isn’t able to re-offend in the future, however this can just as easily be achieved through life sentences without possibility for parole. For some, the death penalty is almost some sort of revenge, the classic biblical adage ‘an eye for an eye’ comes to mind. Again though, a life sentence without parole seems to yield the same outcome, if sent to a high security prison what quality of life does the offender have left thereafter?
One argument that seems to hold water though is the idea of closure. The idea that families that suffer from murder can, in some way, move on after the death penalty is administered and aren’t left with thoughts of the offender still alive out there somewhere stewing in a cell.
For me, the ultimate argument against the death penalty is the simple fact that it is irreversible. We all like to think that our legal systems make correct decisions all the time, however in reality we know this to be false. Add onto this the possibility of new evidence and the whole death penalty process seems unjust. In the case of an incorrect conviction, whilst you can’t give the wrongly accused back the period of life they spent on the inside, you can still give them the rest of it.
Others argue that the death penalty has further impacts for society due to its utility in preventing serious crimes, by acting as a deterrent. In reality though, this just isn’t true. Looking at states across the US, in each year since 1990 the murder rate in states that enforce the death penalty has been higher than those which don’t. On average between 1990 and 2016 states with the death penalty had higher murder rates by 29.19% (deathpenaltyinfo.org).
However, this doesn’t suggest that the death penalty is the cause of murder rates either, it could just be that states enforcing capital punishment have higher murder rates anyway, and would do so regardless of the application of the death penalty. This is argued by the National Research Council of the National Academies in a report where they stated “The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide.”
John Donnohue and Justin Wolfers disputed arguments about the effect of capital punishment as a deterrent: “We show that with the most minor tweaking of the [research] instruments, one can get estimates ranging from 429 lives saved per execution to 86 lives lost. These numbers are outside the bounds of credibility.” (The Economists’ Voice, April 2006)
Whatever the true effect of the death penalty may be regarding deterrence, we do have some reliable data on the actual costs of the death penalty. In times past the death penalty was often used because countries didn’t have the prison facilities to hold all its prisoners and needed a quick fix. In contemporary society, in the developed world at least, this isn’t the case, yes there may be the problem of overcrowding in prisons but this can be dealt with if need be.
One argument you hear quoted often by supporters of the death penalty are supposed figures about the cost of life sentences. Often questioned is why should the taxpayer pay to keep a murderer in prison for decades when they could simply be administered the death penalty, freeing up prison space and no longer costing the taxpayer?
Contrarily, the data show that this supposed cost of life imprisonment isn’t as exorbitant as death penalty advocates claim, in fact in the overwhelming majority of cases capital punishment seems to impose a much greater burden for the taxpayer than non-capital cases.
Dr. Ernest Gross of Creighton University conducted an analysis of all states in America and ascertained estimates that states enforcing capital punishment pay an extra $23.2m a year on average compared against those with alternative punishments.
In Indiana, analysis prepared by the Legislative Services Agency for the General Assembly (2015), found that the average cost of a capital murder case tried before a jury was $789,581, more than 4.25 times greater than the average cost of a murder case tried to a jury in which the prosecution sought life without parole ($185,422). The analysis also found that a death penalty case resolved by guilty plea still cost more than 2.33 times as much ($433,702) as a life-without-parole case tried to a jury.
In Pennsylvania an average of $272m has been spent per execution since the reintroduction of the death penalty in 1978. Using data from a 2008 study by the Urban Institute, the Eagle calculated that cost of sentencing 408 people to death was an estimated $816 million higher than the cost of life without parole.
These aren’t just isolated incidents either, you’ll find a very similar pattern emerging all over the United States. It seems almost certain that the application of capital punishment ends up costing the taxpayer much more than those states seeking life sentences without parole.
So if this is the case, why do states persist with the death penalty? Firstly, reasons I covered earlier in the article. Secondly, the fact that institutions are slow to change probably plays a part, it takes time for momentum to gather against the death penalty, although it seems this is happening, slowly but surely. Thirdly, whilst it is clear that the death penalty is costing the taxpayer more, when divided to the individual taxpayer it probably seems a small, almost insignificant amount and hence the economic impact for the taxpayer doesn’t, for most, carry the same weight as the deterrence or closure arguments we discussed earlier.
Nevertheless, the death penalty represents an economic cost that could be reduced if the states sought life sentences without parole in its place. This, combined with the fact that wrongful convictions cannot be overturned with the death penalty, for me is a strong enough case for perpetual imprisonment as punishment for the most serious criminals, especially when this punishment ultimately achieves the same result.