September 3, 2006
The costly realities of the death penalty
The Sunday papers bring two interesting articles on the economic realities of the death penalty. This article from Washington discusses a "possible death penalty case that has dragged on for more than a year and a half and has cost Yakima County taxpayers more than $1.1 million in defense costs." This article from Maryland highlights the impact of economics on decisions in Baltimore to pursue the death penalty for some murders:
Some say budget problems are the biggest obstacle to more death penalty cases in the city. As Donald J. Giblin, a veteran city homicide prosecutor, says, "I don't have a moral problem with the death penalty; I have a resource problem with it." Death penalty proceedings stretch out over the years and are hugely expensive, with the trial and penalty phases costing at least $500,000, prosecutors estimate. And that doesn't take into account what can become decades of appeals.
Some related posts:
September 3, 2006 at 07:56 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The costly realities of the death penalty:
» Army recommends death for accused GIs
from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
An Army investigator has recommended the death penalty for four soldiers accused of murder during a [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 3, 2006 9:29:53 AM
» Cost of Death Penalty Trials from StandDown Texas Project
Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy picked up news articles on the cost of death penalty trials in Maryland and Washington State. LINK The Baltimore Sun has Death penalty has cost. LINKBaltimore State's Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy has been [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 5, 2006 11:57:45 AM
Only strange part of this is that Sandra A. O'Conner is on her way out. http://resources.co.ba.md.us/Documents/States_Attorney/sandraoconnorflyer.pdf
Posted by: S.cotus | Sep 3, 2006 8:07:13 AM
Why is that strange? I don't get it. Get rid of the death penalty. A student of the law, retired lawyer and Navy veteran returning to the fold. You don't mean Sandra Day?
Posted by: majormori | Sep 3, 2006 8:56:41 AM
My point was that the article might not be entirely timely since SAO is retiring, and whoever takes her place might have different views on the matter.
Why does it matter whether or not you were in the Navy. Does this make your views any more or less correct? Would they be more or less correct, had you served in the Air Force?
Posted by: S.cotus | Sep 3, 2006 9:35:39 AM
Absolutely correct. That I was in the Navy might be immaterial to my points of view. I was simply describing self in response to "a sense of who is reading my blog." To say I'm a veteran might also be immaterial, but it is material to who I am, as is that I am a Navy vet, not AF. I'm proud of Navy. Go Navy!
Posted by: majormori | Sep 4, 2006 8:00:15 AM