So Our Guv had a hearing on his new "flawless" death penalty plan. David has already dealt with the issue of its expense, which would be enormous. The bill’s prospects for passage are dim. But there’s also a convergence of philosophical issues and fiscal issues that’s really at stake: What’s the purpose of the death penalty? And what’s the best use of the state’s money?
First, even the Governor admits that 100% certainty regarding guilt is unrealistic. If the state takes one innocent life through this program, that is too many.
Second: Most people feel that certain criminals deserve death. I find it hard to argue against that: What does the BTK killer (for instance) really deserve? A penalty that is equal to his crimes is almost impossible to imagine, and certainly not contemplated by our Constitution. There used to be such penalties in the Middle Ages, and I think that most of us do not want to go back to that.
So in death penalty situations, we are already in a position of permanent loss. With robbery, you can restore property and pay a fine; but with murder, there is no restoration — we can’t bring people back to life.
However, we do have the possibility of prevention, which would be a much better use of the scarce resources that Romney plans to spend on killing people who are already in prison. The death penalty’s efficacy as a deterrent is doubtful, to say the least. Better ways to spend the money were suggested in Friday’s ‘BUR report, and we can all probably think of a few:
- Fund the crime lab adequately
- More community policing
- Drug rehab
- Battered women’s shelters
- Anti-gang activities: Jobs and after-school activities for at-risk kids
- Adequate homeland security funding
etc. etc. etc. Each of these is a better way to spend the money that would otherwise go to sticking a needle in someone who is in a supermax prison anyway.
So, Romney has had his opportunity to present a plan that is probably DOA (sorry) in the legislature. Besides providing him an opportunity to burnish his tough-guy credentials, maybe it’s also an opportunity for everyone else to think about what we can do to keep people from becoming victims in the first place. The ball’s in our court.
The key is to get everybody to agree that the uber-high standards are necessary in our society. Once those are a given, then you argue that money is better spent preventing future murders/rapes/etc. Instead of the high costs of execution, you just let him rot in jail and use that saved money to (a) build more jails*, (b) provide more cops, and (c) steer kids away from crime in the first place. * Man would I love to see a prison that only held non-violent drug offenders, and made treatment a high priority.
Isn’t death row already more expensive than life in prison? I remember hearing that over and over, though I don’t have the stats at my fingertips right now (and am too lazy and busy to Google them).
Yes, Lynne, I think you’re right. Here’s a page that has plenty of info about that.You can also wonk out here.