« Defendant barely wins in Freeman, as SCOTUS clarifies/complicates guideline retroactivity rules | Main | Another take on the consequences of SCOTUS crack retroactivity work in Freeman »

June 23, 2011

Lengthy new article/study on the costs of California's capital system now available

Regular readers likely recall this post from earlier this week reporting on news reports of a forthcoming law review article that examined state, federal and local expenditures for California capital cases over three years and estimated that the additional costs of capital trials, enhanced security on death row and legal representation costs California's $184 million each year.

A helpful reader has now sent me this link to the now available full text of the 184-page article by Judge Arthur L. Alarcón and Paula M. Mitchell titled "Executing the Will of the Voters: A Roadmap to Mend or End the California Legislature's Multi-Billion-Dollar Death Penalty Debacle."  Here is the full abstract from the piece:

Since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California taxpayers have spent roughly $4 billion to fund a dysfunctional death penalty system that has carried out no more than 13 executions. The current backlog of death penalty cases is so severe that most of the 714 prisoners now on death row will wait well over 20 years before their cases are resolved. Many of these condemned inmates will thus languish on death row for decades, only to die of natural causes while still waiting for their cases to be resolved. Despite numerous warnings of the deterioration of California’s capital punishment system and its now imminent collapse, the Legislature has repeatedly failed to enact measures that would improve this death row deadlock.  At the same time, voters have continued to expand the death penalty through the direct voter initiative process to increase the number of death-eligible crimes.

This Article uncovers the true costs of administering the death penalty in California by tracing how much taxpayers are spending for death penalty trials versus non–death penalty trials and for costs incurred due to the delay from the initial sentence of death to the execution.  In addition, the Article examines how the voter initiative process has misled voters into agreeing to the wasteful expenditure of billions of dollars on a system that has been ineffective in carrying out punishment against those who commit the worst of crimes.  Our research reveals that in every proposition expanding the list of deatheligible crimes between 1978 and 2000, the information provided by the Legislative Analyst’s Office in the Voter Information Guides told voters that the fiscal impact of these initiatives would be “none,” “unknown,” “indeterminable,” or “minor.”  Relying, at least in part, on this information, Californians have used the voter initiative process to enact “tough on crime” laws that, without adequate funding from the Legislature to create an effective capital punishment system, have wasted immense taxpayer resources and created increasingly serious due process problems.

Finally, this Article analyzes corrective measures that the Legislature could take to reduce the death row backlog, and proposes several voter initiatives that California voters may wish to consider if the Legislature continues to ignore the problem.  It is the authors’ view that unless California voters want to tolerate the continued waste of billions of tax dollars on the state’s now-defunct death penalty system, they must either demand meaningful reforms to ensure that the system is administered in a fair and effective manner or, if they do not want to be taxed to fund the needed reforms, they must recognize that the only alternative is to abolish the death penalty and replace it with a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Recent related post:

June 23, 2011 at 05:10 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lengthy new article/study on the costs of California's capital system now available:


Of course the best way to end the DP in California, with its associated costs, is to convince California voters that there is no case in which justice demands it.

Good luck, guys.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 23, 2011 5:46:03 PM

"Of course the best way to end the DP in California, with its associated costs, is to convince California voters that there is no case in which justice demands it.

Good luck, guys."

People are going to reject the death penalty eventually, Otis. It's not going to happen in either one of our lifetimes, but it is going to happen someday. I give it 300 years worldwide, and 100 years in the U.S. at most.

Posted by: The Death Penalty Sucks. | Jun 23, 2011 6:42:03 PM


Gads, I wish I had your crystal ball. Personally, I have a hard enough time predicting what's going to happen next week.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 23, 2011 9:13:09 PM

do not worry Otis, You will see it.

Posted by: Dott. claudio giusti, italia | Jun 24, 2011 11:40:15 AM

As a former prosecutor, and current criminal defense attorney ... and tax payer... if these numbers are actually accurate and not misleading this is absolutely attrocious. It does not matter what your personal, moral, or even legal viewpoint on the death penalty is - spending 4 BILLION dollars to execute just 4 people is an incredible waste of tax dollars. Those tax dollars could have been spent reducing the massive, unconstitutional, overcrowding that California prisons suffer from. Wow.


Joseph C. Patituce
Patituce & Associates, LLC
26777 Lorain Road, Suite 503
North Olmsted, Ohio 44070

Posted by: joe patituce | Jun 24, 2011 12:01:55 PM

claudio --

What I will live to see is your making a substantive argument.

OK, just kidding.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 24, 2011 12:08:38 PM

the high cost of California dp is an old issue

Posted by: Dott. claudio giusti, italia | Jun 24, 2011 2:02:33 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB