"Death-penalty cases waste a lot of taxpayers' money," is Ohio attorney Jack D’Aurora's Columbus Dispatch OpEd.
When Mark W. Wiles was executed on April 8, Ohio was set to execute 11 more Death Row inmates, one every two months through January 2014.
If you’re a social conservative, this is good thing, though you’re disappointed that Gov. John Kasich commuted the death sentences for Abdul Hamin Awkal and John J. Eley, who were scheduled to be executed this summer.
If you’re a fiscal conservative, you’re wondering why we spend so much time and money on the death penalty. Wiles was executed for a 1985 murder. Awkal and Eley committed murder in 1992 and 1986, respectively. Of the nine other inmates, four committed their crimes between 1983 and 1989, three between 1993 and 1994, and two in 1997 and 1998. That comes out to a minimum of 14 years between homicide and execution and an average of over 21 years. Another 133 Death Row inmates await execution dates.
Death-penalty cases typically involve lengthy post-trial proceedings, known as habeas corpus, that consume vast sums of time and money for two reasons: The process consists of an exacting review of the entire case, and the government generally pays for both sides, because felons usually are indigent. The cost likely is millions per case.
I spoke with U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frost about the time he and his staff spend on death-penalty cases. Like all federal judges, Frost presides over habeas corpus cases. To assist with the review of these cases, each of the three federal courts in the Southern District of Ohio employs a full-time law clerk (all licensed attorneys), and the court here in Columbus employs a part-time clerk, as well. The law clerks in Columbus handle about 25 cases, which may consist of anywhere from two boxes of documents to tens of thousands of pages.
And:
Frost estimates that he and his staff spend 40 to 60 hours per month on some aspect of death-penalty cases.
The hidden cost of executing murderers reminds me of a commercial a few years back, where corporate executives are not allowed to leave a conference room until they devise a way to cut the company budget. After various ideas are tanked, one executive waives his hand over the binders and reams of paper that cover the table and asks, “How much does all this stuff cost?” The financial guy responds, “Time, people and material — it could be millions.” Everyone’s eyes open wide in astonishment.
Shouldn’t our state be equally concerned about time and money? Life sentences without parole would serve us much better, but we are fixated on a process that drains government resources. And to what advantage?
Corrections counselor Paul Lind writes, "Sparing the life of the condemned is not an act of mercy," for the Oakland Tribune. It's via the Silicon Valley Mercury News.
In November, voters will again consider life for those who denied it to others.
Many are confronted with what they see as a dilemma. Voting no to reaffirm a law that costs millions and fails to deliver or yes to assure life for the life takers.
Most attention has focused on the obscene costs for retaining the failed system; however, there are more compelling reasons for its repeal.
Nationwide, the statistical evidence is in; the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder. DNA analysis, forensics and the actions of a concerned citizenship has resulted in the exoneration of 138 condemned men. The inefficiency and inequality of the justice system has been exposed.
Proposition 34 would replace the death penalty with life without the possibility of parole, save millions, require restitution, and allocate $30 million toward solving murders and rapes in California.
Earlier coverage from Ohio and California begins at the links.
Comments