Voice of Voie: Not Sad to See the Death Penalty Go

Posted

I found myself frustrated with the conversation surrounding the constitutionality (or lack thereof) in Washington State following the announcement of the State Supreme Court’s ruling this week.

For many people, the question of whether or not we should utilize the death penalty comes down to a question of morality, beliefs and personal views on humanity or spirituality, or even justice. But there is so much more to look at when we’re talking about the death penalty at the state — and even county — level.

Headlines tended to focus on the racial aspects of the majority opinion. And for many, the conversation stopped short there.

“Prosecutors aren’t racist!”

Well, okay … but that’s not what the ruling said. I think to understand a little more fully what the court ruling really said, you have to understand a bit more about the death penalty in Washington State.

In Washington, you can only be sentenced to death by the court following conviction of aggravated first-degree murder, which includes instances including domestic-violence murders, murders of police or judicial officers or particularly heinous acts. 

That means, you have to commit a specific type of crime at a certain level for that sentencing option to even be considered. Once that threshold is met to charge someone with a capital crime and the death penalty, and a person is convicted, the jury that decided the case is given an opportunity to make a recommendation on leniency, or whether or not the death penalty should be imposed. 

The jury decision must be unanimous — if it isn’t unanimous, then it’s a life sentence.

In the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, judges repeatedly referenced a study by researchers from the University of Washington. This study examined data on how race plays a role in convictions. The study stated that, “In aggravated murder cases, jurors are more than four times more likely to impose a death sentence if the defendant is black.”

Well, if you understand that death penalty sentences can only be applied with a unanimous jury, then you can begin to see where potential racial disparities really can potentially arise. If even one juror is more sympathetic of a white killer, they get life in prison instead of death.

I actually like the way Bob Ferguson termed the court’s opinion: “The court recognized that Washington state’s death penalty is broken.”

The court didn’t so much rule on the death penalty itself as they did the current death penalty process by which it is applied.

What people seemed to miss beyond the racial aspects — and what frustrated me about many of the headlines — was that the death penalty often has geographical and economic factors as well.

According to stats compiled by Amnesty International, in some counties, prosecutors may elect to seek the death penalty in more than two-thirds of all aggravated murder cases, while in other counties, prosecutors may never choose to seek the death penalty.

That’s more than just a rural versus urban crime rate disparity. It’s economics.

“The death penalty is unequally applied — sometimes by where the crime took place, or the county of residence, or the available budgetary resources at any given point in time, or the race of the defendant,” says the lead opinion.

Jay Inslee would echo this sentiment in his statements: “The fact is that the death penalty is not anywhere close to being used in an equitable measure. … One person gets life, the other person gets death — it depends on which side of the county line you are.”



And they’re not wrong. Smaller counties with fewer resources and smaller budgets are less likely to seek the death penalty. If you murder someone in Lewis County, you’re less likely to be sentenced to death than if you murdered someone in a larger, more urban county. That’s just the reality.

Why? Economics. I’ve heard it whispered in Lewis County several times over the years: We’ll likely never see a death penalty case in Lewis County because it would cost the taxpayers in excess of $1 million.

Through the decades, additional United States Supreme Court rulings have created additional requirements for local governments when seeking the death penalty. In fact, when you look at just the sheer hours required for a life sentence versus a death penalty case? You’re talking the difference between maybe 1,000 hours versus 10,000 hours of legal time required.

And yeah, those legal hours are on us, the taxpayer.

The general rule of thumb in legal aspects is that it’s 10 times more expensive to sentence someone to death than it is to sentence them to life in prison.

There’s a lot of reasons for this. One of my favorite stats and data sites, FiveThirtyEight, summarizes the reasons for this really well: “We know the basic reasons why death penalty cases are expensive: more lawyers, more experts, more time. Prosecutors and defense attorneys often spend more than a year preparing for death penalty trials. Every successful conviction is appealed to several state and federal courts, meaning the government pays for both prosecutors and defenders to pick over the trial transcript and for judges and clerks to spend hours reading appeals. While this is going on, it costs more to house prisoners on death row than in the general population.”

Now, you might find yourself thinking: “Well, easy. Let’s just throw out the appeals process.”

But according to Amnesty International, based on data from state and local courts, even without appeals, costs of housing death row inmates alone would still easily exceed that of life in prison with everyone else.

And, despite all the costs we’ve talked about here, there’s the current nationwide struggle to obtain the humane pharmaceutical drugs required for executions (unless an inmate elects for hanging). Several European drug manufacturers have divested from execution drugs entirely, specifically to deter the U.S. justice system from utilizing them for capital punishment.

While legislators might attempt to resurrect the death penalty by coming up with a new system — which the court ruling left room for — I’m just not sure it’s in the ultimate best interests of the the taxpayers.

I myself am not necessarily against the death penalty, but when I consider the sheer money and additional energy and resources expended in these cases, I can’t say I’m sad to see the death penalty go.

Life in prison is still life in prison.

 

•••

Brittany Voie is a columnist for The Chronicle. She lives south of Chehalis with her husband and two young sons. She welcomes correspondence from the community at voiedevelopment@comcast.net.