|
Ok, in reading through some of the materials in that link, I think somebody isn't doing their math. In the Kansas example, it says that executing the sentence, not just the prisoner, but the sentence, a death penalty case incurs half the costs of a non death penalty case. In the long run then, one could surmise that the trial costs would be partially balanced out by this.
The example above, for Tennessee, I believe, says at the beginning that there are no records kept for cost, then continues on to say that the trial costs 48% more. If there are no records, where does that number come from?
Logic dictates that a 25 year old man, sentenced to life, without possiblility of parole could very well live 60+ years, drawing resources for Medical, Housing, Dental for all of those years. The State is responsible for those, on top of the day to day expenses involved in maintaining a legal environment for detainment.
In Kansas, the "Super Max" inmates are housed in a cell house where they are in their cells 23 hours a day. They have access to items from the commissary, such as TV's, etc, depending on whether they are on suicide watch or not. These add additional costs to maintaining them.
I don't see how housing an inmate for 60+ years can be counted as more expensive than housing a death row inmate for 10 years prior to their execution, if they are housed that long. One aspect of the sentencing may be more expensive, of that there can be little doubt, as everyone wants to be sure they have the right person, however, these costs are balanced out by the amount of time they won't be serving, compared to a non death penalty case, as can be evidenced by the Kansas example in your link.
|