Trimming the Budget, Skipping Death Sentences

One county in Mississippi has announced that it won't be seeking the death penalty in upcoming cases because it just doesn't have the money. Slowing death sentences by any means is progress, but this story makes me wonder if prosecutors are cutting fair trials to save a few bucks.

The exorbitant cost of capital cases and executions has caught the attention of the public recently, with a report from the Death Penalty Information Center, an editorial from the New York Times and more columns and comments than I can count.

The cost argument is one I employ often when talking about why the death penalty should be abolished. But it gives me pause to see Hinds County, Mississippi, cut back on scientific experts, investigators and sentence mitigation reports that would be used in a death penalty case. Aren't these resources we as a society should be providing in life without parole cases, as well?

The death penalty costs millions more than life sentences, from trial to execution. The increased cost of housing death row prisoners is unnecessary (California spends $90,000 more per prisoner on death row and just approved a new $400 million death row facility).

But it's important to ensure that the money saved by cutting capital trials goes into resources the system badly needs -- investigators in cases from misdemeanors to serious, violent felonies, lab testing, defense representation, victims services ... I could go on.

The recession argument can be an effective tool against the death penalty and the drug war, but it's a double-edged sword. Cutting resources too broadly from the criminal justice system could mean less justice for everyone.

Photo by zaldylmg