Regarding the letter from Charles Hagans ("Our country has a right to be barbaric," March 16):
I hope it will give Mr. Hagans some comfort to learn that, surprisingly, a prisoner can be supported for many years for less money than it would cost to execute him or her. Thus, in most cases, a sentence of life without parole will represent a saving of Hagans' tax money by comparison with a death sentence.
Hagans obviously takes it for granted that all who are convicted of capital crimes are indeed guilty. That's an optimistic assumption, which, unfortunately, isn't always true.
Most prominently in North Carolina, Darryl Hunt spent 18 years in prison for a crime which DNA proved, a year or so ago, to have been committed by someone else.
Our mayor repeated recently what many have said for years, namely, that capital punishment is mostly punishment for those without capital.
One can only hope that the state legislature will in this session enact a moratorium on executions so that these matters can be examined.
Richard Cox
Greensboro
Comments (6)
Mr. Cox, I read your letter with great interest. I was not aware of the costs for either life in prison or execution. I must admit that you have made me more aware of this. Would you please give more detail as to the costs of each?
Thank you,
Posted by Helen Bratton | March 27, 2005 8:50 PM
I'd like complete details on that, too. I can't see how the cost of a drug, a bullet, or any other means of killing somebody could compare to around $70,000 a year (and rising) in the costs of keeping somebody in prison. Please explain cause I ain't buying it. Maybe you're including court costs or the fact that people on death row are hardly ever executed. Those are things that could be fixed fairly quickly.
I'm not saying this because I agree with the death penalty. I don't. I just think that when you make statements like that, you need to provide some facts.
Posted by mr t | March 28, 2005 11:13 AM
Mr. T,
Where did you get the $70,000 figure? Talk about providing some facts, you need to practice what you preach. I don't agree with the death penalty either. Not because of the inmate but because it causes the inmate's family such grief.
Posted by Billy | March 28, 2005 12:13 PM
Billy, I got the $70,000 figure from the News & Record when they ran this story a few years ago. The reason I said "about" is that the cost differs depending on the inmate, the location, etc. Sometimes, it is cheaper, sometimes it is more. I don't have time to go back and research the exact article and date, but it is there if you'd like to do that.
It surprised me that it costs that much since I provide for a family of 4 on about half that much.
Posted by mr t | March 28, 2005 12:28 PM
I, too, wondered about Mr. Cox's assertions. Even if you counted all the appeals, the upkeep between those appeals and the actual injection procedure, how could that possibly cost more than keeping someone in prison for 30-50 or more years?
Tis a mystery to me.
Posted by Yvonne | March 28, 2005 2:10 PM
It is the cost of all of the appeals that causes the death penalty to be more costly than life in prison. You guys might "not buy it" but it is absolutely fact.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html
Posted by Bob | March 28, 2005 5:20 PM