Capital Punishment: Saving Lives and Money

For Professor Matt Hill

WRIT 1133-29
The University of Denver
April 8, 2011
 The history of capital punishment in Colorado is as long as it is complicated. Although

Denver is not commonly associated with the issues that surround the death penalty, Denver has

played a pivotal role in the development of what has now become capital punishment in the

United States. Six months after the establishment of the settlement of Denver by the Europeans

in 1859, the first murder and consequent hanging occurred in Colorado (Radelet). “[The

confessed perpetrator John Stoefel was] driven in a two-horse wagon to a cottonwood tree in

Cherry Creek, a rope was put around his neck, and he dropped to his death when the wagon was

driven out from underneath him. A fortnight later, the inaugural issue of the first Denver

newspaper, the Rocky Mountain News, published the news about the crime and execution

(Radelet).” Since Stoefel was hanged in 1859, only 101 legally mandated executions have

occurred in what became the state of Colorado (Radelet). In addition to this, the last execution

before the Furman v. Georgia decision in 1972 occurred in Colorado’s Cañon City (Radelet).

While Colorado’s experience with capital punishment remains deeply engrained in its policy, it

is important to look at capital punishment’s positive effects in Colorado as crime deterrent and

contrast them with our ethical responsibilities as well as financial cost in order to make sure that

capital punishment is really right for Colorado. In order to do this, it is simplest and perhaps

most representative to focus on where capital punishment began in Colorado in the first place,

Denver. Capital punishment has been an effective deterrent of crime in the city of Denver and is

responsible for the downfall of violent vigilante justice in historic Denver and the greater

Colorado area. When used effectively, capital punishment can save the city millions of dollars in

prison costs which we need now more than ever.

 While the merits of capital punishment are undeniably true as the rest of the paper will

prove, opponents of capital punishment have a seemingly convincing argument as well.

Opponents of capital punishment will typically argue that: 1) capital punishment is a financial

stress on the government 2) capital punishment is an overextension of the government’s power 3)

since the overall fairness of the judicial system falls into question; capital punishment comes into

question as a manifestation of the supposedly “corrupt” judicial system.

Fortunately for the city of Denver, the views of the opponents of capital punishment are

backed by information that shall be thoroughly disproved in due course. This issue in the validity

of information is what many are calling the “Disinformation Problem”. Anti-capital punishment

interest groups commonly interpret the numbers incorrectly in order to try and make capital

punishment seem expensive in order to gain a following. However it is actually estimated that

$380,000/year is the true total cost of the death penalty in Colorado (The Economist), which is

much less than is spent on lifetime prison sentences and legal fees. Still, opponents of capital

punishment are unfortunately often successful in producing convincing yet misleading statistics

that contribute to the disinformation problem. For example: “Some studies compare the cost of a

death penalty case, including pre-trial, trial, appeals and incarceration, to only the cost of

incarceration for 40 years, excluding all trial costs and appeals, and geriatric care for a life

sentence (Homicide Survivors).” Opponents to capital punishment in Colorado accidentally

revealed the inexpensiveness of capital punishment by trying to get rid of it. Said opponents had

proposed that the estimated $380,000/year should be allocated to the investigation of the some

1,400 unsolved murders in Colorado (Homicide Survivors) as it was so much money. While this

is a seemingly noble action, it also shows the relative “cheapness” of the system of capital

punishment. The total price of capital punishment in Colorado that was going to be allocated to
the investigation of these “cold cases” was simply covered by a “$2.50 surcharge on all traffic

tickets and criminal convictions in the state (the Daily Sentinel)." That is to say, the true total

price of capital punishment in Colorado can simply be covered by a miniscule surcharge on

traffic tickets and criminal convictions (law abiding citizens will never have to pay anything!).

Opponents of capital punishment will always drivel about the expenses involved in capital

punishment, however the big price tag can be seen in the cost of not utilizing capital punishment:

“[the cost of] Plea Bargain to life: Only the presence of the death penalty allows for a plea

bargain to a maximum life sentence. Such plea cost benefit, estimated at $500,000 to $1

million/case, accrues as a cost benefit/credit to the death penalty. I am aware of no study which

includes this (Homicide Survivors).” $380,000/ year is a very small cost relative to the price of a

lifetime prison sentence, and with the city of Denver folding beneath the cost of its debt, we need

money now more than ever. The real issue with capital punishment in Denver is the unnerving

trend of modern Coloradans to move away from the system of capital punishment towards a

criminal justice system with more moderate to liberal leanings that does without capital

punishment at all, or at least does not use it to its fullest potential.

Another issue (brought up earlier) often brought up by those whom oppose capital

punishment is that capital punishment is an overextension of the government’s power. However,

this is simply not true! The ability of the government to enact laws on capital punishment is

merely a reflection of the sentiments of the majority view of the voters. The government doesn’t

have the power to support or oppose capital punishment, the power to change policy on capital

punishment lies in the hands of the average voting American. As for the ethics of capital

punishment, it is simply a rephrased version of the ever-important question, “would you kill one

to save a thousand.” If we focus simply on the ethical approach to this situation, of course you
kill the single person because in exchange you will save the lives of a thousand. Ethically, it is

right for the greater good to execute a murderer so that he may never harm another person again.

As for complaints about the overall fairness of the judicial system, again one should be reminded

that the power is in the hands of the people and the actions of the courts merely reflect the

sentiments and opinions of the American voter. If the voting person does not believe that the

judicial system is fair then demand change! However, for those that still insist that inequalities in

the judicial system still exist (and are too last to do something about it), it is important to notice

the recent trends in capital punishment policy which are attempting to get rid of any inequalities

that may exist. Two prime examples are shown in recent legislation that has been passed that

protects those who cannot defend themselves from the death penalty. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme

Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute those who are legally mentally handicapped

(the Governor of Colorado even pardoned a victim of capital punishment whom had been

mentally handicapped and executed 72 years earlier (Death Penalty Information Center))

(Henderson). In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled again in order to strike down inequality in the

judicial system regarding capital punishment by ruling that it was unconstitutional to give out a

death sentence ruling to those whom committed the crime while they were under the age of

eighteen even if at the time of the trial they are over eighteen (Feinberg). Also, do not forget that

while it is in the government’s power to condemn, it is also in their power to forgive. “The power

of the executive to pardon 1 has shown many faces through its long history. It was a sign and

derivative prerogative of the absolute power of despots; it was a delegation of divine authority to

earthly rulers; it was an implication of personal bonds of fealty between lord and vassal; 2 it was

a propaganda tool; 3 it was a tool for quelling political division; it was a tool for enriching the

public coffers and filling the navy; 4 it was an equitable ameliorative for harsh, unjust, or
superannuated laws; and it was a place for pure, unjustified mercy. (Sarat and Nasser)” This

balance of power allows for those who represent this country to both keep us safe from deadly

criminals, but also to keep those whom are undeserved of the death penalty alive. It is this

balance that makes our system of capital punishment so great.

Colorado is one of the few states that use capital punishment after previously abolishing

its use. Capital punishment was abolished in Colorado between 1897 and 1901 (Radelet-

Colorado University). Unfortunately, those who were in favor of capital punishment at the time

took the abolition of capital punishment to mean that they had to take justice into their own

hands. “The Tuskegee Institute Study lists 63 lynchings from 1882 to 1902 in Colorado

(COADP).” To make matters even worse, “all but four victims were white”. In these years of

supposed vigilante justice, being lynched was the easiest way to go. Minorities more often than

not were rounded up by posses and their deaths were not reported (COADP). While lynching had

always played a part in the Coloradan justice system, there were two reported lynchings between

the years of 1882 and 1902 that were especially brutal in which the victim was burned at the

stake (pdweb). The pure violence of this new system of vigilante justice quickly inspired the

early Coloradan government to repeal its abolishment of capital punishment. While it is probably

true that if capital punishment was abolished today no vigilante justice would occur and certainly

not on the same scale as occurred in the 1800’s and early 1900’s, this history is important for

another reason. The abolition of capital punishment has been unsuccessful in Colorado and this

fact has now embedded itself into the history of Colorado. This is great news for the capital

punishment cause. It is human nature to resist change, and therefore it will be very difficult to

completely abolish capital punishment again. “CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE is the mantra of

our age, yet our human nature leads us to prefer doing things the same old way (American Press
Institute).” This is a commonly overlooked strength for the longevity of capital punishment in

Colorado. People will unconsciously always resist change.

Now that the popular concerns of those whom oppose capital punishment have been

refuted and the history of capital punishment has been briefly covered, the true problem can be

addressed in a more accepting state of mind. The current upcoming generation has become

increasingly liberal especially in Colorado. Commonly referred to as “The Progressive Generation”

this new generation of liberals has become subject to the “Disinformation Problem” and

therefore more commonly oppose the death penalty despite the overwhelming positive influence

it has on this country, this state, and this city. Since the pre-Furman period, only one execution

has occurred in the state of Colorado, (Amnesty International) while in 2008 in just the months

of January to December, a total of 50 homicides have occurred in Denver alone (Denvergov).

That’s two months and twelve violent offenders who are costing the system millions of dollars of

tax payer’s money in legal fees and prison expenses caused by liberal methods of punishment for

violent crimes. Not utilizing capital punishment is the same as not having capital punishment,

and not having capital punishment is not responsible fiscally and dangerous for the city of

Denver. “The average murder rate for the 38 states with capital punishment was 5.22 murders per

100,000 people. The average murder rate for the 13 states (including the District of Columbia)

without capital punishment was 5.96. So in fact the states with capital punishment had a lower

murder rate... (Johansens).” In order to further prove the effectiveness of capital punishment, “In

1976 the Supreme Court issued several decisions in which they basically backtracked and again

allowed capital punishment. (They didn't quite say that they were changing their minds or

admitting error, but rather that the flaws which they had discovered in the previous capital

punishment laws had now been corrected.) The first person was actually executed in 1977. In the
very year of these Supreme Court decisions, the homicide rate plummeted. But no more than two

people were actually executed in any one year through 1982, and so perhaps criminals concluded

that the danger of execution was remote, and the homicide rate crawled back up. Then the

number of executions suddenly went up in 1983, and in that year the homicide rate showed its

biggest one-year drop. With the sudden surge in executions in 1996, the homicide rate again fell

(Johansens).” What Denver needs is a decrease in the leniency of current capital punishment

policy/mindset and a return to a system similar to that used by the state from 1995 to 2003 in

which a three judge panel decided between life and death sentences (Peters). The return to a

system where the death penalty is ruled on by a unanimous jury was both foolish and too soft on

crime. It would be much more efficient and effective to allow studied and knowledgeable judges

whom are designated to be part of the three judge panel to make rulings on capital punishment

cases. The common citizen lacks the appropriate knowledge of our judicial system required make

a proper and justified decision. More often than it should, the softness shown by the common

citizen allows convicted murderers and other violent offenders to keep their lives while

simultaneously costing the system millions.

Thankfully, there is still hope. Denver is a large city and therefore represents a large

population of American voters. This representative power needs to be yielded in order to keep

our system of capital punishment alive and allow for stricter laws regarding capital punishment

in Colorado. Capital punishment deters crime, stops the unnecessary spending involved in life-

time prison sentences and legal fees that cost the government millions in tax-payer’s dollars, and

has a history here in Denver. This means that every voice in favor of capital punishment and

every vote in favor of those who support capital punishment is more important than ever. If

people are made aware the merits of capital punishment, then they will surely hear the voice of
reason and stop this ridiculous liberal movement away from capital punishment. Capital

punishment is more important than ever for this city, this state and this country.

Works Cited

2008 Crime Statistics." Denver the Mile High City. Denvergov. Web. 06 Apr. 2011.

<http://www.denvergov.org/sopa/2008CrimeStatistics/tabid/429247/Default.a

spx>.

Amnesty International, "List of Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries,"

Report ACT 50/01/99, April 1999

"Colorado Governor Grants Unconditional Pardon Based on Innocence to

Inmate Who Was Executed." Death Penalty Information Center. Web.

09 Apr. 2011. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/colorado-governor-

grants-unconditional-pardon-based-innocence-inmate-who-was-

executed>.

"Death Penalty May Live on." , The Daily Sentinel [Nacodoches] 5 May 2009.

Print.

Feinberg, Joel, and Jules L. Coleman. Philosophy of Law. Belmont, CA:

Thomson/Wadsworth, 2008. Print.

Henderson, Harry. Capital Punishment. New York: Facts on File, 2006. Print.

"History of Capital Punishment in Colorado." Coloradans for Alternatives to the

Death Penalty. 4 July 2005. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.

<http://www.coadp.org/thenews/history.html>.
"Overcoming Resistance to Change - American Press Institute." The API Homepage-

American Press Institute. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

<http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/pages/resources/2007/01/overcomin

g_resistance_to_chang_1/>.

Peters, Colette S. "COLORADO'S DEATH PENALTY — BACK IN THE HANDS OF A

JURY." Colorado Legislative Staff Council Brief 14 (2003): 1-4. COSPL

Coalliance. A Legislative Council Publication, 18 Aug. 2003. Web. 08 Apr.

2011.

<http://cospl.coalliance.org/fez/eserv/co:2791/ga4200314internet.pdf>.

Radelet, Michael L. "CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN COLORADO: 1859–1972."

Office of the Colorado State Public Defender. Web. 09 Apr. 2011.

<http://pdweb.coloradodefenders.us/index.php?option=com_content>.

Radelet, Michael. "Colorado's Attitude Toward Death Penalty Shows Longstanding

Unease, CU Expert Says | News Center | University of Colorado at Boulder."

University of Colorado Boulder. 24 Apr. 2009. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.

<http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/397b201cd3eed92530d75d588352a5bc.ht

ml>.

Sarat, Austin, and Nasser Hussain. Forgiveness, Mercy, and Clemency.

Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2007. Print.

Sharp, Dudley. "Comments on The Death Penalty: Saving Lives and Money |

The Economist." The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics,

Business & Finance. 12 Mar. 2009. Web. 09 Apr. 2011.

<http://www.economist.com/node/13279051/comments>.
Sharp, Dudley. "Death Penalty Articles: Cost Savings: The Death Penalty."

Death Penalty Articles. 7 May 2009. Web. 09 Apr. 2011.

<http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/07/cost-savings-the-death-

penalty.aspx>.

Peer Edit: Andrew Thomas

1. The introduction captures the reader’s attention and encourages the reader’s
attention throughout the writing?
Yes, the introduction is rather succinct and captivating. The introduction is the best
thought out piece of the paper in my opinion.
2. Includes a clear argument that the writer is trying to support. In other words, the
author makes a clear claim a about the issue in the paper?
The claim is clear, but only introduced at the very very end. I might include that in
my introduction to increase the effectiveness of your main claim.

3. Supports this thesis with evidence?

You provide equal evidence for both sides which is good, but possibly you should
refute the other side or at least make your side sound more convincing by providing
even more facts.
4. Provides at least 2 sides to the issue at hand?
Definitely. Equal views are represented. But possibly too unbiased?
 5. Uses at least 5 academic/peer reviewed sources? At least three of these sources are
academic/scholarly? If you are unsure if a source is either, please ask me and I will
weigh in on the question.
Looking at the quotes and the names, the sources you use seem relatively academic.
6. Effectively incorporates source materials into author’s own style?

Yes, while the facts belong to the sources, the arguments are yours. It’s well

researched.

Reverse Outline:

I. Conclusion: Whatever the outcome is, it will have very large effects on both the
economy and the environment so all options should be thoroughly considered.

II. Body paragraph 4:

III. Body paragraph 3: Environmental risks

a. Oil is bad for the environment

b. Natural gas isn’t, but drilling for it still is.

IV. Body paragraph 2: Strong potential for profit

a. Creates jobs

b. Fights recession

V. Body paragraph 1: We must address our addiction to oil and begin to

harness natural gas.

a. Not without risks, chemicals and other contaminants in the

water.
VI. Intro: The issue is not a straightforward one and we have to carefully

consider all of our options.