Death Penalty Analysis: Adding Reality Back In

So from previous posts, argument from cost is the only possibly convincing argument to retain the death penalty. But there were simplifying assumptions I made; we left out a lot of the procedural differences between capital and non-capital cases.

Right now, death penalty cases are subject to additional expensive regulations that other cases aren't. There are two separate trials, lots of judicial oversight, and many additional prosecutor and defense resources are consumed. The appeals process is more complex, and most states provide appeals lawyers that are not constitutionally required to be provided in other appeals cases. All of that is paid for by the state. In theory, all of this is done to reduce the wrongful execution rate.

Let's assume it does. How does that change the arguments?

• Argument from deterrence remains impossible to prove either way.
• Argument from justice still falls against the death penalty, unless the government provided lawyers reduce the false execution rate to zero. Anyone willing to make that claim? I'm not.
• Argument from public safety doesn't have quite as high a standard, as the wrongful execution rate doesn't have to quite get to zero. But given the extremely low escape-and-murder-again rates, it has to get very close to zero. Based on observational evidence, that doesn't seem to happen
• Cost of the death penalty has now gone up substantially compared to life in prison. Executing someone now costs more than simply leaving them in prison forever. The death penalty just lost its only compelling argument.

In theory, the death penalty might make financial sense, if no other kind. In practice, as presently implemented, it doesn't even get that. With the present system, all four arguments work against the death penalty.