Why the Death Penalty Offends Conservatives

Print More
death pernalty

Photo by Charlie O'Hay via Flickr

My state of Wyoming, like most every other state across the country, is struggling to find ways of dealing with the serious fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic on our state budget. The economic slowdown caused by the pandemic has decimated tax revenues, while the demand for government services continues to increase.

Wyoming has experienced the added negative budget impact caused by the drop in oil prices.

Jared Olsen

Rep. Jared Olsen (R-WY)

As state legislator, I view myself as fiscally conservative, as well as socially conservative and liberty-minded. I serve on the Wyoming House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, so I deal directly with the state’s budget. In that position, I have become intimately familiar with the appropriation we make fruitlessly each year to fund the most wasteful government program of all—the death penalty.

Wyoming does not have a single death row inmate, and yet we spend nearly one million dollars a year just to have the death penalty. As long as the statute is on the books, we are obligated to maintain the Death Penalty Defense Fund.

Let’s be clear, I oppose the death penalty for a variety of reasons. The protection of human life in the wake of so many people being falsely accused and sentenced to death—at least 170 nationwide at last count—is reason enough for conservatives to turn against this system.

That’s an individual liberty issue if there’s ever been one.

But I also become downright agitated by the waste of taxpayer dollars on a sentence that does nothing to make anyone safer. In better times, I would like to direct that money instead to bring reforms that will improve our justice system.

But right now, our priority must be balancing the state budget. Last month Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, also a Republican, floated the possibility of a death penalty moratorium. Gov. Gordon told a legislative committee that having the death penalty is a “luxury … that we will no longer be able to afford.”

The governor is facing the reality of a possible $1.5 billion deficit due to the pandemic and the energy downturn.

With so many states facing similar dire circumstances, I recently took part in an online conference with fellow Republican state legislators from Georgia and Ohio, hosted by Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty.

We all agreed that in response to pandemic-caused deficits, the death penalty should be the very first budget item to be axed.

Editor’s note: A YouTube report on the GOP anti-death penalty conference can be downloaded here.

According to a 2016 Susquehanna University study, the pursuit of a death sentence costs “$1.12 million more than a general population inmate.” The study also found that death penalty cases cost more because of the requirement of two trials—one focused on guilt or innocence and another for sentencing—along with the expense of lengthy appeals and the added costs of housing on death row.

Enough said.

As fiscal conservatives, we should all be focused on the bottom line. The money thrown away on the useless death penalty is desperately needed to fund our constituents’ most basic needs at this time of budget crisis.

As the pandemic ravages state budgets across America, there is no way state lawmakers anywhere can justify continued funding of a completely failed and insanely costly public policy, which is exactly what the death penalty is.

Jared Olsen is a state representative from Cheyenne, WY. He welcomes readers’ comments.

One thought on “Why the Death Penalty Offends Conservatives

  1. I appreciate Rep. Olsen’s comments but think that fiscal stringency is not a sound basis for a permanent decision for a state to abolish capital punishment. He is a young man who has grown up entirely in an era when the American political pendulum had swung far to the right. In this era to be viable a Democratic President like Bill Clinton has to temper his liberal instincts to govern at all (e.g., cynically signing the death warrant for a low IQ prisoner), while in an earlier era at the twilight of the New Deal coalition a president with conservative reflexes, like Richard Nixon, sponsored some remarkably “liberal” legislation like the Environmental Protection Act.

    If the nation is at a turning point where public spending expands to fulfill some or part of the Democratic-progressive agenda and the country thrives, along with better pay for teachers, public health, the Foreign Service and a raft of other functions essential to a democratic 21st century polity that have been starved of funds (did I mention the postal service?), monies will also flow to justice and public safety. At that point the budgetary reason for voting against the death penalty will lessen. If Rep. Olsen has other reasons for opposing capital punishment, they are likely to provide a sounder basis for abolition.

    The representative may think that my economic ideas just will not work. Perhaps. But if I am right and a new New Deal era emerges, I fear the representative would not be convinced even as money and power shifted from the private to the public side of the nation’s ledger. After all, the true faith of small government conservatism kept burning as America funded a world war, a G.I. Bill, a national highway system, and an enormously productive basic research foundation that was the seed-corn of the remarkably prosperous era that followed. As the current occupant of the White House likes to say, “we’ll see.”
    Marvin Zalman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *