Serious Question About Death Penalty Costs

[Trent 0]

It got ignored in the thread I originally posted it to, but I'd really like to know...
---------------------------------------------------------

Just a general question here since I've seen it repeatedly brought up...

How do you figure our what it costs for the state to have a trial? I mean, the DA's are paid salary, right? They'd be getting paid no matter what the trial. The judge is on salary, he'd be getting paid too. The defense is either paid by the accused or provided by the state. Is this usually pro-bono or does the state pay million dollar lawyers to defend people? So all I can see that's left is expert witnesses that are compensated for their time and expertise.

Does all that really add up to a few million? How about someone talk about the incremental cost of having an appeal. Or are people trying to base estimates on opportunity costs? Honestly, I don't know how it works... maybe a lawyer here could lay it out.

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

How do you figure our what it costs for the state to have a trial? I mean, the DA's are paid salary, right? They'd be getting paid no matter what the trial. The judge is on salary, he'd be getting paid too.

By using cost basis analysis. Yes, they are salaried, but you have to employ more salaried people if you have more trials/appeals. Also, death penalty cases are usually assigned to the leading DA's who get compensated more highly. The trials also usually take longer than non-death penalty cases.

[jakee 1,276]

Well not being a lawyer or anything but, the appeals process in a capitol punishment case would create a hell of a lot of paperwork wouldn't it, plus its usually dragged out over a loooong time. Isn't it that which drives the cost of capitol punishment so high? And of course add to it the cost of keeping the guy in his own personal death row cell while all this is going on.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Trent 0]

So it's not the death penalty cases per se that are costing so much, but the sheer volume of all cases? Because the way I imagine it, is that all those salaried DA's and staff would probably be working on some case somewhere if the death case/appeal was not going on. So then all these cost estimates are based on someone's version of opportunity cost?

I really don't want to be contentious here, I just want to know how someone arrives at the conclusion that a death penalty case costs taxpayers X million more than if it were a life-sentence case. To me, it really looks like "soft" numbers, which are more than apt to be inflated from one side or another to prove someone's point. But I definitely want to hear more about it.

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

There is a higher burden on the prosecutors to prove the case for inflicting the death penalty. There are higher investigative costs. Death penalty trials take, on average, 4 times the number of days in court than non-death penalty cases.

It's not the volume of death penalty cases, it's the volume of work added by making it a death penalty case.

[slug 1]

Suggest you google Gary Ridgeway AKA Green River Murderer. Due to the volume of victims (upper 40's)
Cost to prosecute was to high would take to long etc the county had to accept a plea bargin.

Life w/o parole. Ever, never no way.

R.I.P.

[Trent 0]

So the DA's have more work to do, but they're on salary so they'd be getting paid no matter what. Are the investigators used by them private or police force detectives? If it is mainly police, they're also on salary and getting paid regardless of the investigation. Now this might lead to fewer available resources for other work, that makes sense.

I guess I just want to better understand how a trial, no matter the length or burden of proof required, can be said to be costing taxpayers more... other than just tying up available resources which requires the hiring of more police, DAs, etc. It would seem that that kind of thing would happen regardless if it were a death case or not, the gap would just be filled by multiple additional cases.

But I'm still asking, so I appreciate your patience here...

Oh, hello again!

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

So the DA's have more work to do, but they're on salary so they'd be getting paid no matter what. Are the investigators used by them private or police force detectives? If it is mainly police, they're also on salary and getting paid regardless of the investigation. Now this might lead to fewer available resources for other work, that makes sense.

I guess I just want to better understand how a trial, no matter the length or burden of proof required, can be said to be costing taxpayers more... other than just tying up available resources which requires the hiring of more police, DAs, etc. It would seem that that kind of thing would happen regardless if it were a death case or not, the gap would just be filled by multiple additional cases.

But I'm still asking, so I appreciate your patience here...

generally in the field of law costs are closely tied to a particular case. Lawyers keep track of their hours etc etc. You can then do a comparison based on averages. Same with time requirements. LWOP case on average lasts not as long as a DP case. that differential carries a cost.

[PhillyKev 0]

You're missing the concept of man hours. Yes, they are salaried. Yes, they'd be getting paid anyway. But if the states burden for trials is higher, than they must employ more of these salaried employees to get the work done.

There's an axiom in project planning based on a triangle. The triangle is made up of 3 sizes. Resources, budget, and goals. You start with an isoceles triangle and it must remain that way. In other words, if you increase your goals (e.g. more death penalty cases) that side of the triangle gets longer, and the others must as well to maintain the correct aspect.

[Jib 0]

Quote

Lawyers keep track of their hours etc etc. You can then do a comparison based on averages.

Usually only lawyers that bill by the hour (or have cost accountants annoying them) keep track of the hours expended on a particular case. I'm guessing that they say X days in trial usually means X hours outside of court preparing but I don't know how they then apportion hours to an hourly rate for a salaried employee and her overhead.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Trent 0]

I fully understand man hours. I was a consultant in my past life. The same thing applied there too however. I was paid a salary, regardless of how I long I worked on any one project. My employer, because a project went over estimated time, did not incur any more REAL costs except that I was not available for another project. Now, in consulting that costs a bit because if we don't get on a project, we could lose it. For the DAs, don't they have quite a backlog and take the cases as they can?

I understand that a case may have used up more man-hours, but the end result of that would not necessarily be an additional real cost to taxpayers.

And as far as increasing the goals for more death penalty cases (not that I think that's a great idea), wouldn't that simply lengthen the time it took to get people to trial up until a point where the HAD to hire more DAs?

Oh, hello again!

[PhreeZone 15]

The added cost comes in a few different ways I've heard. One is that you now need to have an ADA dedicated to that level of case pretty much since they only get to do about 10 cases a year max due to the time involved. That means hiring other ADA's to reduce the other cases. Almost all death penility cases are handled by a Public defender. A lot of the time the pubilc defender is just an attorney or firm that has worked out a deal with the local courts that they will be the defense attornies in exchange for a greatly reduced fee. Normally it helps them since they can knock out lots of little cases (like DUI, speeding) and its a constant income for them. In larger cases/DP it can hurt them since now they are billing for a greatly reduced fee compared to what they normally would be making. The county/state still has to pay their fees. Estabilishing a death penilty means the case takes a lot longer, more expensive experts, more expensive testing (DNA testing is getting cheaper but its not free). You now have to pay for paralegals to handle the additional work (they get paid damn good for their work), jury fees to keep the juries for that long, etc.

Generally the case backlog can only get so high before the county/state is required to higher/elect a new judge. This is added expence too since if the original judge was'nt tied up for 4 months on a DP case and only spent 6 weeks on it for a life with out parole case they could have prevented hiring that new judge. Then you have to have speical appeals judges hired for the case load too.

It is kinda soft money figures because you can't say just having 1 case racks up all the expense, but when you add up all the total expenses across the whole system for the increase in time/man hours spent on the difference between a life sentence with no automatic appeals and the instant auto appeals and additional burden of a DP case and its burden you have to put that $ some where.

Lets not forget its just the legal system the additional expense comes in at. In the prision system the death row inmates have to be held in a seperate area with special guards. The cost of that wing, the guards, the additional procedures, etc all need to be taken into account too. On a per sq foot basis of jail room cell area death row inmates are 2-3 times more expensive to house.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

It got ignored in the thread I originally posted it to, but I'd really like to know...
---------------------------------------------------------

Just a general question here since I've seen it repeatedly brought up...

How do you figure our what it costs for the state to have a trial? I mean, the DA's are paid salary, right? They'd be getting paid no matter what the trial. The judge is on salary, he'd be getting paid too. The defense is either paid by the accused or provided by the state. Is this usually pro-bono or does the state pay million dollar lawyers to defend people? So all I can see that's left is expert witnesses that are compensated for their time and expertise.

Does all that really add up to a few million? How about someone talk about the incremental cost of having an appeal. Or are people trying to base estimates on opportunity costs? Honestly, I don't know how it works... maybe a lawyer here could lay it out.

The defense is either paid by the accused or provided by the state. Is this usually pro-bono or does the state pay million dollar lawyers to defend people?

And this is a big US Sup Ct decison under the 6th. What is, "competent counsel?" If the state throws big money at a trial, shouldn't the defense get the same?

So all I can see that's left is expert witnesses that are compensated for their time and expertise.

Yep, part of that delima.

I don't how the total cost is tabulated, but court time, judge time, etc plays in too. Remember, the court establishes how many judges to hire based on need.

[tunaplanet 0]

It's cheaper to kill them. In Florida the average time on death row for an inmte is 11 years. Rather spend money for just 11 years as opposed to their entire lives.

Forty-two

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

So it's not the death penalty cases per se that are costing so much, but the sheer volume of all cases? Because the way I imagine it, is that all those salaried DA's and staff would probably be working on some case somewhere if the death case/appeal was not going on. So then all these cost estimates are based on someone's version of opportunity cost?

I really don't want to be contentious here, I just want to know how someone arrives at the conclusion that a death penalty case costs taxpayers X million more than if it were a life-sentence case. To me, it really looks like "soft" numbers, which are more than apt to be inflated from one side or another to prove someone's point. But I definitely want to hear more about it.

When you're taking the cost of a capital case, you're talking appeals there. Also the original trial takes longer, costs more, etc, but the cost of 17 years (AZ average) of appeals is steep.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Suggest you google Gary Ridgeway AKA Green River Murderer. Due to the volume of victims (upper 40's)
Cost to prosecute was to high would take to long etc the county had to accept a plea bargin.

Life w/o parole. Ever, never no way.

R.I.P.

At the same time, prosecutors can try one case at a time until they get a conviction and death sentence. They wouldn't try all 40 @ once.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

So the DA's have more work to do, but they're on salary so they'd be getting paid no matter what. Are the investigators used by them private or police force detectives? If it is mainly police, they're also on salary and getting paid regardless of the investigation. Now this might lead to fewer available resources for other work, that makes sense.

I guess I just want to better understand how a trial, no matter the length or burden of proof required, can be said to be costing taxpayers more... other than just tying up available resources which requires the hiring of more police, DAs, etc. It would seem that that kind of thing would happen regardless if it were a death case or not, the gap would just be filled by multiple additional cases.

But I'm still asking, so I appreciate your patience here...

You own a DZ, you count on doing 50,000 jumps/year, so you hire staff to handle all these people. If you get your 50k jumps, great, you figure in your cost per jump and go from there. If you only do 30k jumps next year it costs you more so your profit per jump is less, since you have the same # of staff on board.

Get it? That's the trial cost, now the appeals go for 20 years and the costs just add up.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

You're missing the concept of man hours. Yes, they are salaried. Yes, they'd be getting paid anyway. But if the states burden for trials is higher, than they must employ more of these salaried employees to get the work done.

There's an axiom in project planning based on a triangle. The triangle is made up of 3 sizes. Resources, budget, and goals. You start with an isoceles triangle and it must remain that way. In other words, if you increase your goals (e.g. more death penalty cases) that side of the triangle gets longer, and the others must as well to maintain the correct aspect.

Well put

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I fully understand man hours. I was a consultant in my past life. The same thing applied there too however. I was paid a salary, regardless of how I long I worked on any one project. My employer, because a project went over estimated time, did not incur any more REAL costs except that I was not available for another project. Now, in consulting that costs a bit because if we don't get on a project, we could lose it. For the DAs, don't they have quite a backlog and take the cases as they can?

I understand that a case may have used up more man-hours, but the end result of that would not necessarily be an additional real cost to taxpayers.

And as far as increasing the goals for more death penalty cases (not that I think that's a great idea), wouldn't that simply lengthen the time it took to get people to trial up until a point where the HAD to hire more DAs?

If it weren't for that pesky, "Speedy Trail" clause. I see you're trying to argue that cap cases don't increase the cost, and I appreciate you at least addressing the issues, but can't you see that more projected work means an increase in staff? It's not logical to say that those court workers would have to be there anyway, as if the requirement wasn't there, they wouldn't be there - nor would the cost.

[EBSB52 0]

Really comprehensive and well put. The costs are so cummulative and inclusive in so many areas. Then don't forget that when cases get so big taht 1 courthouse can't handle them, another courthouse get's built, new judges hired (appointed by gov in AZ).

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

It's cheaper to kill them. In Florida the average time on death row for an inmte is 11 years. Rather spend money for just 11 years as opposed to their entire lives.

Everyone sit down..... ready for a shocker...... Tuna is wrong still, er, uh, I mean again

http://www.peaceb2you.org/death_cost_penalty.htm

Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above and beyond what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post. Based on the 44 executions Florida has carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution.

[tunaplanet 0]

I guess you don't follow basic math. It's not hard. You can drum up all the obscure articles you'd like...especially ones done by world renowned papers such as the Palm Beach Post. In the end your math doesn't add up. It's simple logic.

Forty-two

[ad151 0]

I only skimmed this thread but wanted to add it can cost 35-40k PER inmate PER year to keep these dirt bags alive.. And we wonder why there isn't a balanced budget and not enough room to hold the lighter criminals their entire sentence. We should take them into a field, let the victim’s family put a 25-cent bullet in their head and call it even.

[kallend 1,677]

Quote

It's cheaper to kill them. In Florida the average time on death row for an inmte is 11 years. Rather spend money for just 11 years as opposed to their entire lives.

Summary execution is cheaper still - why bother with trials?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,677]

www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.