Hospira, the sole manufacturer of sodium thiopental, more commonly known as the chemical agent used in lethal injections, announced today it will cease production of the drug. The company’s main facility is located in Milan, and recently the site was visited by Italian government officials, demanding a guarantee that the chemical compound will no longer be used to end lives. With the imminent postponement of any standing executions as a result of this news, the 35 state governments that currently make provisions for the death penalty should extensively analyze the issue; their findings should lead to nothing less than a massive overhaul.
The death penalty remains one of the most divisive issues in the country. 64% of Americans approve of state-sanctioned executions in cases of aggravated murder, while 29% oppose them; interestingly though, only 49% approve of the same measures when imprisonment without the possibility of parole is the alternative. Since 1976, when the death penalty was re-enacted following the Supreme Court’s decision in Gregg vs. Georgia, 1,237 inmates have been put to death; roughly one-third of these executions has occurred in Texas. An additional 3,259 prisoners currently reside on death row.
The heated argument that stems from considering the death penalty as a barbaric practice is fodder for another discussion. However, executing prisoners under current conditions is not a feasible form of punishment, viewed strictly in terms of expenditure. For instance, the 1989 execution of Ted Bundy cost Florida taxpayers an estimated $5 million; the convicted serial killer, who confessed to 28 murders in four states when he was apprehended, received three stays of execution before he was finally put to death. The act of execution itself is relatively cheap; a 2003 report by the Florida state government claimed that roughly $850 is spent on final meal preparation, undertaker and executioner fees.
This means that, in each case, the exorbitant price tag is mostly derived from the convoluted appeals procedure that accompanies a death sentence. When a prisoner is condemned, the case is typically subjected to three separate processes: direct review, in which an appellate court determines the soundness of the sentence; state collateral review, a supplemental appraisal of the judgment in non-federal cases; and habeas corpus, which allows the prisoner to file a suit in federal court that challenges the findings in the initial trial and the previous two reviews. If a prisoner is still deemed to be worthy of a death penalty after these three hearings, then an execution date is set – that is, unless the prisoner is allowed to file a section 1983, which is essentially a second habeas corpus suit, protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Collectively, this system of justice is a thorough method of determining both soundness of the defendant’s judgment and his/her deservedness of death for their crime(s). However, the accompanying rigamarole can last longer than a decade, and several million dollars for legal fees, court costs and housing/feeding the prisoner are spent in the meantime.
Contrast this with the cost of imprisoning an individual for life. Texas, the runaway leader for annual executions, estimates that the state spends $2.3 million per death penalty case; this is approximately three times more expensive than imprisoning the same individual for 40 years. In California, where capital trials are six times more costly than other murder trials, state officials estimate that $90 million per year would be saved if capital punishment was abolished. Georgia laid off 900 Department of Corrections employees in the last two years, but millions of dollars have been funneled into ensuring that the state is still able to kill its convicted murderers. A recent study of New York’s judicial system estimated that enabling the death penalty for five years cost more than it would to fund 250 state police officers and build facilities that would properly house 6,000 inmates for at least two decades.
Yet, America is a democracy, and the people have spoken. However, given the recent developments with Hospira and the implications they have on our current system, it is reasonable to expect that our leaders will devise a more efficient system for executing prisoners. Whether the practice is inhumane or justified is subject to opinion, but its massive financial expense to American citizens is a matter of public record, and this merits major consideration from everyone.
This is really interesting. I always assumed that the cost of a life-sentence term had to be MUCH higher. I hadn’t taken into consideration all the legal fees…it’s incredible how quickly those add up.
I think it’s notable that the drug, sodium thiopental, is actually only the general anesthetic; it is not a drug that “kills.” I certainly agree that the costs of the death penalty have been due for some serious reconsideration for a long while, but I find this drug a little irrelevant to the discussion.
But the relevance, I guess, is actually that our prisons/state governments/citizens in favor of the DP who hold the ability to execute people so dear, do not have a backup plan, if the ANESTHETIC typically used becomes unavailable. The poor planning involved sends my alarm bells ringing. If they haven’t planned for a different numbing agent, what else have they failed to plan for?
Interestingly, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), Thiopental is a core medicine on the ‘Essential Drugs List’, which is a list of minimum medical needs for a basic healthcare system (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2005/a87017_eng.pdf.)”
I don’t see a need to condemn anesthetics, as they are routinely used in all kinds of medical procedures. And I find it pretty strange to congratulate Abbott Laboratories for their stance, supposedly against the death penalty, when they have simply made a financial decision to stop making something that people the world-over need.
Interesting that you mention the benefits of sodium thiopental, Annie. I was not trying to vilify the drug in the post; I just failed to mention that it has other uses. And, according to the sources I found, Abbott will continue producing the drug once they have cleared a path with the Italian government, which will most likely come in the form of an agreement not to manufacture the drug for the purpose of executions.
I also failed to mention that alternatives to sodium thiopental have been used in the past, with ultimately negative results. The compounds have either failed to numb, or produced very painful effects upon the prisoner in which they were administered. Either way, the “humane” aspect of lethal injection is lost altogether.
I guess I mainly brought up the drug to segue into the main point I was going after, i.e. that the death penalty is much more costly than life imprisonment. Like I said in the blog, I don’t really want to get into the humane/barbaric aspects of the argument. It is interesting to me, though, that when you take away all the subjective beliefs and strip it down to a simple economic model, the death penalty in its current state makes no sense at all, when life imprisonment is a viable option.
Thanks for your comments!
Problem Solved sell death sentence executions on paperview and make back all the money plus some. People would buy you know they would….
[...] lawyers needed to represent someone in a capital case and throughout the appeals process? Society. It cost the state of Florida $5m to send serial killer, Ted Bundy, to the electric chair. It would have cost just under $2m to keep him in prison until he was [...]