I've never been able to find much rhyme or reason to it. Being the cynic that I am, I have to wonder how much of it is subject to the political/career interests of the prosecutors involved.

Costs could be reduced by over half by eliminating or greatly limiting the appeals process. But in light of the fact that over one hundred death row inmates have been subsequently found innocent since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, I don't think that would be wise.

 

Dean,

Aren't you supposed to be catching fish or something?

 

[QUOTE=dean,Jul 15 2008, 09:03 AM] Not according to most state studies. Just one of many:

"Overall, first-degree murder cases in which the prosecution has filed a
notice to seek the death penalty cost more than life without parole and life
with the possibility of parole cases. Death penalty cases cost more because:

 

Perhaps the State of Washington was more interested in clearing up a lot of unsolved cases, rather than just saving money and appropriately punishing Ridgway? Bundy bought himself a lot of time tossing bones down there in FL, until the the State tired of his game and decided to stand on principle.
When we as a society are no longer able to be sensitive to the plight of hapless victims, we will have turned another sad corner in this country.
I will remain on the fence on the DP.

 

Not yet, Martha still has to work, just a couple more days to go. I'm just killing time until she's free later this afternoon. Tonight is my mother's BD get-together and I get to spend some time with the grandkids.

 

Tell her Happy Birthday for me! And post pics.

 

Not especially. They did predicate it on him giving a full accounting of all the people he had killed, including where he had dumped the bodies, in order to "give closure" to the victims' families. But everyone was also upfront that the legal costs were going to be absolutely staggering.

The state had spent so much money on building the case over the years that the courts ruled his defense team had to be allowed seven lawyers and millions of dollars just for the defense. Then there would have been all the other costs of the trial. As it is, the county asked the state for $6M in special funding just to cover the extraordinary costs they did incur.

It's interesting that in this case, not pressing for the death penalty was done "to give closure" while in many other cases it is alleged that the death penalty itself is intended "to give closure". One might, if one were something of a cynic, decide that "giving closure" is not really a very meaningful concept.

On the other hand, one might argue that if the death penalty had not been available as a bargaining chip, then Ridgway never would have pled guilty and the state would have still had to pay for a huge trial cost for the "life in prison" murder trial. But should the death penalty really be used as a bargaining chip? Plead guilty or we kill you? Is that moral? Is that ethical? It's not a simple question to answer.

 

The reality of the situation is the topic under discussion, not some hypothetical. As it stands, the death penalty carries a higher financial cost and nearly every serious study of the situation reflects that.

 

Will try to do both. I can't remember - did you meet my mother the last time you folks were down here? I may need a witness in case someone questions that I actually have a mother.

 

No we did not have the privilege; hence the picture request.