Menu
- Deadly rural roads and securing a safe ride home (12/17/24)
- The fall of Assad: A sobering lesson in pragmatism (12/13/24)
- Finding transparency in TEEOSA (12/12/24)
- In with a heavy hand, and out with a whisper (12/10/24)
- Applauding leadership that listens: a triumph for local representation (12/6/24)
- Are elected officials above the law? (12/4/24)
- Shopping tips to reduce holiday stress (11/29/24)
Editorial
Academics, attorney general argue facts in capital punishment
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
The Nebraska Attorney General is taking issue with a study that concludes the state would save $14.6 million a year by doing away with the death penalty.
Dr. Ernie Goss of Creighton University, who issues regular reports on the Midwest economy and does studies for a conservative think tank, said he was surprised by the results.
"Through our study, we show that the State of Nebraska has spent $14.6 million annually by having the death penalty. These are costs above and beyond the costs of having life without parole," Goss said at a news conference Monday.
"To put it in other words, if the death penalty stays repealed and we leave in place life imprisonment, the state will save approximately $14.6 million annually," he added.
The five areas of expense associated with death penalty convictions are defense costs, pretiral costs, court length, incarceration and decades of appeals, he said.
The latter was questioned by Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson, who said the study, relying heavily on studies from California, Florida, Texas and other states, does not accurately reflect Nebraska conditions.
Peterson's office said approximately 500 criminal appeals are filed each year, but less than 1 percent of them are in capital cases.
"It is misleading for this report to conclude that, on an annual basis, having the death penalty costs an amount that far exceeds the total annual budget of ... the Nebraska Attorney General's Office and the State Public Defender's Office, combined."
"Nebraska voters are entitled to accurate Nebraska figures as they determine whether to keep the death penalty in Nebraska," according to the release from Peterson's office. "This report fails to do that."
Goss insisted the study was accurate, arriving at the conclusion through meta-analysis of over 19 studies providing "rigorous results" about Nebraska in addition to U.S. Census data on justice expense by state.
The study pointed out that of the 1,842 Nebraska murders between 1973 and 2014, prosecutors obtained 281 first-degree murder convictions, sought the death penalty in only 119 cases, or approximately 2.9 cases per year, resulting in only 33 death sentences.
Of those, Nebraska courts commuted 13 sentences, six individuals dies in prison, one sentence was vacated and three individuals were executed, the last in 1997. Attorneys are currently appealing 10 sentences.
The attorney general is right in that voters need accurate information in deciding whether to reinstate the death penalty, but it would be a mistake to reject the entirety of the Goss study out of hand.
It doesn't help that voters who want to reinstate the death penalty may be confused by the wording on the ballot. Voters who want to keep the death penalty will have to vote to "repeal" the Legislature's action to end it.
Let's hope Nebraska voters take all the facts and arguments into account before casting their ballots, rather than basing their choice entirely on emotion.