Community Columnist: Death penalty comes down to dollars, cents

SATURDAY, MARCH 24, 2007

BY JIM DAVIDSAVER

As a career law enforcement officer, I considered myself

an interested spectator as the Legislature debated the bill,

LB476, sponsored by Sen. Ernie Chambers, that would have replaced the state’s death penalty with mandatory life

imprisonment without parol and allowed the victim’s family

to seek restitution. I do not, however, think my job is directly affected by

whether or not Nebraska has a death penalty. Either way, I

always can fall back on the age old police cliché, “I don’t

make the laws. I just enforce them.” In general, I do not think the average Nebraskan spends

much time thinking about the death penalty. I spend more

time worrying about the price of a gallon of gas or wonder-

ing whether my DVR will work properly than contemplat-ing Nebraska’s stand on capital punishment.

The topic resurfaces every time there is a sensational,

violent crime where the death penalty is a possibility. For-tunately, those cases in Nebraska are few and far between.

During my career, which includes 10+ years as a certified

crime scene technician, I have experienced countless vio-

lent crime scenes where the perpetrators inflicted horrific injury, pain and suffering on their victims. Of the accused

murderers my fellow officers and I have brought to justice,

I do not believe any of them was deterred in the least by

Nebraska’s death penalty. The whole death penalty issue is crowded with philoso-

phical debates, ethical dilemmas, religious discussions and

emotional pleas. Death penalty opponents often cite that executions, especially those carried out by electrocution,

constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Of the 38 states

currently with a death penalty, Nebraska is the only one

with the electric chair as its sole means of execution. In the cruel and unusual punishment argument, this point is often

brought to bear as a prime reason why Nebraska should

repeal its death penalty. A discussion of the death penalty should include an over-

view of the court system. This system — with its

prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and juries — is re-

sponsible for determining an accused’s guilt or innocence. By design and application, the current system is a model of

inefficiency.

In no way is this a condemnation of the process. A blind-

folded Lady Liberty holding the scales of justice is a fitting symbol of our system. With the basic unalienable founda-

tion that not only is an individual innocent until proven

guilty but an individual’s guilt must be proven beyond a

reasonable doubt, it is often a time-consuming, expensive

process to secure a conviction. The average citizen may not understand the strict, complex, often redundant procedural

rules of the courts, but the saying, “It is better to let 99

guilty people go free rather than one innocent person go to prison,” characterizes the system’s integrity and inherent

“inefficiency”.

One facet of the issue that is rarely mentioned is the eco-

nomic cost of capital punishment. Many who oppose the death penalty are quick to mention the “cost” in abstract

sociological terms, referring to the negative impact on soci-

ety when reverting to “an eye for an eye” retribution and

punishment. I do not know whether it is proper or ethical to base a

death penalty discussion on simple economic terms, but this

aspect deserves consideration. With the “ultimate penalty,” death, as the ultimate pen-

alty, capital punishment cases are the most expensive cases

by far. The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

estimates the average cost of a single death penalty case, from arrest to execution, ranges from $1 million to $3 mil-

lion. Other studies have estimated this cost as high as $7

million. This compares to an average of $500,000 for a life

imprisonment case, including incarceration. The mandatory fiscal note attached to LB476 shows the attorney’s general

office estimates no fiscal impact if the law is adopted. The

Department of Correctional Services stated the fiscal impact cannot be determined.

An indigent defendant charged with a serious crime is

appointed counsel at the taxpayers’ expense. An indigent

defendant facing a possible death sentence is afforded the best, high-priced, top-level legal representation complete

with expert witnesses. This explains why death penalty

cases are the most expensive. Taxpayers foot the bill to prosecute and defend the accused.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is an absolute re-

quirement to maintain the integrity of the system and ensure

justice is served. Removing the death penalty variable from the justice equation should reduce the overall cost.

I had my own personal, moral, ethical and professional

reasons for supporting LB476. But then again, I don’t make

the laws. I just enforce them. Jim Davidsaver is a 20-year veteran of the Lincoln Po-

lice Department.