The Cost of the Death Penalty in
Oregon
A report written by Rachel Cunliffe
Hardesty, PhD., Oregonians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, January 2005
Executive
Summary
Oregon
is one of 38 states in the Union which continues to implement the death penalty.
Over recent years the death penalty has been surrounded by controversy.
Generally it is justified by three arguments: that it deters, that it
incapacitates and that it provides justice for victims and their surviving
family members.
Once
again, Oregonian legislators have the opportunity to consider legislation
related to our capital punishment scheme. It is prudent to consider the fiscal
impact of the death penalty in Oregon as it currently stands.
Fiscal impact is not simply expressed in terms of dollar amounts spent on
pursuing a few individuals to death through the exhaustive criminal justice
process required in such cases. Where money is spent on one policy it is then
denied to others. Legislators are bound to be particularly cognizant of these
trade offs. Therefore, for full understanding of the impact of the policy we
must also look at what money is not being spent on in this state.
Central
findings in this report are:
* Retention
of the death penalty is defended in Oregon on three grounds
Arguments declare the death
penalty to be a deterrent, a necessary incapacitator and the only way to bring
justice to victims.
*
There is no documentation to indicate that the death penalty deters criminals
Oregon’s homicide rates continue to fall as do national rates. Although
our aggravated murder rates are low, 9 of the 12 states without the death
penalty have even lower rates. Our rates were highest after we had reinstated
the death penalty.
*
There is no documentation to indicate that the death penalty incapacitates
more effectively than life penalties
Informal evidence suggests that aggravated murderers do not recidivate in
prison whether sentenced to death or to life penalties. Apparently, conditions
of incarceration are adequate to restrain them at much less cost.
* There is
no evidence that the death penalty provides justice to victims
The death penalty is imposed in few cases of aggravated murder. Some 68%
of death sentences are overturned nationally, and death is sought in only a
fraction of eligible cases. Most victims do not get the palliative of death
sentences. Real needs of victims are met in quite other ways: outreach,
counseling, employer support. These initiative require not only financial
backing but also a change in focus not possible while vengeance is being
pursued. In addition, other interventions made in communities prior to murders
taking place should be prioritized.
*
Substantial documentation exists to show that life penalties are cheaper than
death penalties
When death penalties and life penalties are compared in terms of the
dollar amounts spent, death penalties absorb hugely disproportionate amounts of
the already scarce funds available.
*
Substantial documentation exists to show that early intervention and front
end spending are more cost-effective at realizing public safety objectives than
the death penalty
Oregon’s Citizen’s Crime Commission report: KIIDs, published in 2000,
evaluated public spending on interventions with families compared with back end
expenditure on corrections and found that front end expenditure was far more
effective in increasing public safety.
*
Conservative estimates suggest Oregon is spending over $9 million annually to
pursue the death penalty while effective prevention programs go unfunded
As the budget crunch continues
public officials in state agencies have the best understanding of the impact of
policies. The view of an official at the Public Defense Services is that the
death penalty is breaking the bank.
Recommendations
That Oregon
legislators educate themselves as to the facts about the death penalty’s cost
to Oregon tax payers and vote for effective public policy.
To download a full copy of this report in PDF format
Click
Here
