Berry 1

Lara Berry
Professor John Dursema
English 1010
20 April 2015
Life or Death
When it comes to the topic of the death penalty, there is no question that is sparks a bit of
controversy. In order to be sentenced, one has to have committed crimes involving murder or
terrorism. Ted Bundy, a well know serial killer that confessed to twenty eight murders, was
sentenced to the death penalty. Despite his sentencing in 1979, he was not executed until 1989.
He had eight appeals and the total cost of his execution was five million dollars (Ted). The story
is similar if not the same for many serial killers, yet even still some people are for the death
penalty and some are against it. Those that are for the death penalty may see this as an eye for an
eye punishment, and those that are against it may see it as an immoral act. Based on the facts, the
death penalty should no longer be practiced because it takes too long, costs too much, it does not
deter crime, and it is a morality issue for many.
According to the California Supreme Court, statistics show twenty percent of their
judges time is spent on death penalty appeals annually (Steiker). This means that they are
reviewing cases from lower courts that have already received a verdict. The intention of the
people filing these appeals is to receive a different verdict or punishment. Since there are thirteen
appeals courts, it can take a decade for any sentenced man or woman to face their death, just as
Ted Bundy did with his eight appeals. Time is wasted here considering most of these people are
guilty beyond reasonable doubt anyway. California is just one state that has reported about the

Berry 2
amount of time spent on the death penalty, so we can imagine the total amount of time spent on
appeals such as these all across the United States.
According to the California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, they
estimated that it costs tax payers about one hundred fourteen million dollars per year on death
penalty cases (Frances). This number is not including the cost of accompanying appeals and
writs of habeas corpus proceedings, which is a writ of protection against illegal imprisonment.
Money like this could be used instead to better the education system, aid in construction projects,
or other public utility projects. The death penalty also comes down to a morality issue. One
hundred forty three people that were originally on death row, have been proven innocent and
released from death row since 1973 (Johnson). This is a large number of people that have been
able to clear their name before their execution takes place. How many were innocent and did not
have the money or the resources to prove their innocence and were executed. Life is too precious
to rely on the mistake-prone processes like the death penalty.
Trials that end in a verdict of life without parole account for an average of one hundred
two million dollars for all of capital punishment cases per year. There is no habeas corpus
proceedings associated with the life without parole sentences. This is a large opportunity to save
quite a bit of money. In fact, there are a minimum of three trials that take place for a death
penalty case. First, they have to hold a trial to find the defendant guilty of a crime. Second, they
hold another trial to determine if a death-sentence crime was committed. Finally, a third trial is
held to sentence the offender to the death penalty. Conversely, there is only one trial for a capital
punishment case when life without parole is the only option, reducing the time in court and
saving the taxpayers money. Most death row inmates never get executed and live long lives in

Berry 3
expensive death row cell and require a slew of expenses for each state that houses a death row
cases awaiting execution (Gavrila).
There are many advocates for the death penalty that will argue that having the death
penalty in place it is a deterrent to crimes involving murder. Their theory is that an individual
might think twice before committing a certain crime if feel that the state they live in has the
death penalty. Seventeen out of the eighteen states that do not have the death penalty are among
the lowest in murder rate per capital incarceration (Heather). A large majority of offences are not
planned, such as a robbery. Death by a jilted lover in a fit of rage is usually not planned either.
Those offenders are not focused on deterrence anyway. By abolishing the death penalty and
having life without parole, the millions of dollars that would be saved could be used for our
youth and focus on stopping future crimes, or helping a woman that feels she has no way out of
an abusive life. It would be a wonderful world without murder, or even the death penalty.
The appeal process may take up to ten years to be exhausted before executions actually
take place. Many of the victims family members have pleaded for a life sentence to end the all
the years of appeals. Ted Bundy exhausted all of his appeals and wasted a lot of the tax payers
money. His execution took place almost ten years after he was sentenced to death. There are still
many people that feel the death penalty is the final say to committing murder. But Mahatma
Gandhi once said the death penalty is nothing but another murder and serves no other purpose
than revenge, (Gandhi). If all states abolished the death penalty, and the maximum punishment
was life in prison without the possibility of parole, families would probably be emotionally
satisfied and get on with their lives (Gary). If there was only life without parole the need for
families to attend long parole board hearings or attend court proceedings due to appeal process

Berry 4
Life is just that: life. The victims are no longer with their families and the families are the
ones who will be on trial for many years to come. So life without the possibility of parole would
ease the pain of the families, allow them to heal and get on with their lives. Many of the Ted
Bundys victims families attended several unnecessary, court proceedings for eight years before
his execution. He cost the tax payers a lot of money. Not having appeal after appeal and trial
after trial could let the states use the money saved for youth programs, mental health or victims
of domestic violence. Instead of using the death penalty as a deterrent to crime we could help our
foster kids before they turn to a life of crime. Society needs the help first, before crime begins.
Without the death penalty, there is no need for special cells and sections for death row inmates.
The money spent in botched executions and years of appeals alone could change the world and
possibly change how people perceive crime and capital punishment all together. Times change,
and with them our moral sentiment. If enough states abolish the death penalty, eventually the
Constitution will catch up, (Kaveny).

Berry 5
Works Cited
Frances, Allen. "The US Can't Afford To Continue The Death Penalty: Not A Cost Effective Way
To Reduce Crime." Psychiatric Times (2014): 1-2. CINAHL Complete. Web. 15 Apr.
2015.
Gavrila, Adina Nicoleta. "Should The Death Penalty Be Abolished? Arguments For And Against
The Centuries-Old Punishment. Journal for Communication And Culture 1.2 (2011):8298.
Gray, James P. "Essay: Facing Facts On The Death Penalty." Loyola Of Los Angeles Law Review
44.3 (2011): S255-S264. Legal Collection. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.
Heather, Micha L., and Issitt Newton. "Death Penalty Overview." Salem Press Encyclopedia
(2015): Research Starters. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Kaveny, Cathleen. "Justice or vengeance: is the death penalty cruel & unusual?" Commonweal
135.3 (2008): 9. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Steiker, Carol S. The Death Penalty And Mass Incarceration: Convergences And Divergences.
American Journal Of Criminal Law 41. (2014): 189 LexisNexis Academic; Law Review.
Ted Bundy." Bio. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Johnson, Drew. "Drew Johnson: Capital punishment inconsistent with conservative views."
Journal Media Group. Knoxnews. 1 December 2013. Web. 23 April 2015.