So the objection I find most persuasive:

"The death penalty is a waste of government resources: the time and money spent putting someone to death far exceeds what it takes for life imprisonment [or other equivalent punishment]"

A large incremental price is paid for what is, in terms of punishment, small incremental utility. Though the efficiency varies among states, a death penalty conviction is always the start of a long-term relationship between the courts and an inmate.

Who does this benefit? It turns criminal punishment into epic-length judicial theater. I don't see how this serves any of the social purposes of criminal punishment. (I dimly remember them from 1L crim law)

I think folks don't like this argument because it seems to prioritize govt interest in efficiency over a prisoner's interest in not being executed. But it also makes it more durable – I haven't heard any argument that the death penalty is administratively efficient.

It seems to be couched more in the idea that the victims' interest in retribution is worth any cost. I don't agree with that on principle, and I wonder if victims really feel that way or if it's a politically imposed projection.

THE END
Back to our regularly scheduled idiocy

23 Jan 06