Death Penalty

 Not everyone wants to abolish the death penalty, but some states do want to change the efficacy of it. While some see the lack of reverence for human life alone as reason enough, states such as Ohio and Texas are searching for fairer ways to administer the death penalty and make it cost effective. Hopefully, they will come to the realization that there is no fair, effective, reliable and humane death penalty.

A 2005 law in Ohio has allowed for prosecutors to seek the second "toughest" sentence of life without parole. Before the passing of this law, the option of life without parole was only an option for jurors looking for alternatives to the death penalty. Prosecutors have realized that seeking life in prison without parole saves the complications and exorbitant price tag of a capital case. The number of death penalty indictments sought throughout the state has dropped 32% from 2004 to 2007, while the number of life without parole sentences has risen by 66%, according to figures analyzed by the Ohio Public Defender's Office.

Increasingly, juries shy away from the death sentence when there is no other available option, and the costs associated with the pre-conviction phase of a capital case can drain a prosecutor's budget, notwithstanding the money that will go into the post appeals process.

Texas has established a West Texas Regional Public Defenders for Capital Murders, in which 85 counties pay into a pool of money each year that will be allocated for a capital case. It costs nothing to join, but could potentially save the county thousands of dollars. This insurance policy is for indigent defense for defendants in capital crimes who cannot afford their own lawyers (which for the most part is everyone). With the aid that would be provided via the fund, defendants could receive a qualified lawyer to represent them. Public defenders are often limited by state law as to the amount of money that they can receive for a capital case, which is an obvious deterrent beyond the complexities of representing someone. In addition, the state hopes that by establishing a sort of parameter on quality representation, fewer cases will be overturned.

If viable alternatives and cost-effective ways of administering the death penalty are to be evaluated, it would make sense that reform and abolition would have to center around the sustainability of all of the options involved. The recent California Commission on California's death row found that the staggering amount of money necessary for reform was simply not a viable option for taxpayers. States should begin to realize for their own self-interest that it is not advantageous, or even responsible to have a death penalty, and that capital punishment may be a luxury that they cannot afford.

Emily

DPAC