he arguments for the death penalty sufficient to justify executing some innocent people and executing others without clear, rational guidelines? Does the death penalty save money? The death penalty may appear to be a cost-effective punishment that is cheaper to the taxpayer than prolonged imprisonment. Yet studies reveal that a criminal justice system with the death penalty is considerably more expensive than one without the death penalty. The death penalty is expensive because the trial process in death penalty cases is longer and more complicated than other trials owing to the safeguards required to minimize errors and arbitrariness. The appeals process is also more costly. And costs of maintaining those on death row are higher than normal prison costs. Even after spending huge sums on trials, appeals and death row, many people who are tried do not actually receive the death penalty, adding the costs of long-term imprisonment to the costs of the death penalty trial and appeal. Executions themselves are surprisingly expensive. A recent Texas study estimated that costs for trial, appeal, housing on death row and execution run to more than $2,300,000 per person -- three times the cost of keeping a person in a maximum security prison for 40 years. Similarly, New Yorkers were told it would cost them $118 million annually to reinstate the death penalty. But even if the death penalty did save money, could financial considerations justify taking life? When we as a society spend so much time and so many resources condemning a few offenders to death, then we are choosing not to spend them in ways that could save lives by preventing murders. Can the death penalty be humane? Two developments have raised this question in recent years: the move to use "more humane" methods of execution such as lethal injection, and decisions by some death row prisoners to die rather than continue to live under sentence of death. Death row and execution are inherent...
