Would repealing death penalty really save money?

On Nov. 6, Californians will vote on a statewide initiative, titled SAFE (Savings Accountability Full Enforcement) California, that would repeal our death penalty. If the initiative passes, the maximum penalty for murder in California will be life without possibility of parole (LWOP). Those supporting the initiative argue that repeal of the death penalty will save the state $1 billion within five years. The claim is based on a 2011 essay written by federal judge Arthur Alarcon and his law clerk. For a state teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, the idea of saving a billion dollars is appealing. But there is no reliable evidence that repealing the death penalty will save money.

One problem is that it is difficult to determine the true cost of prosecuting a capital case, instead of prosecuting an LWOP case. In both, the prosecution must prove (at trial) that the defendant is guilty of first-degree murder and that at least one special circumstance exists, making a defendant punishable by death or LWOP. In an attempt to show that death penalty cases are far more expensive than non–death penalty cases, initiative supporters rely on the huge costs of infamous trials such as those of Scott Peterson and Charles Ng. Those trials were extremely expensive, but that was not because the prosecution sought the death penalty.

[more...]