It is absolutely ridiculous that King County is wasting all this money on trying to murder people.

@3: Don't be a nitwit. They're not trying to "murder" anyone. They're trying to convict them and then have them killed. Murder is a species of killing, you see. All murders are killings; not all killings are murders. See how that works?



But I agrees it's ridiculous to spend so much money on human refuse like Monfort. Process should be cheaper and faster.

Brynn Felix, ACLU of Washington staff: As the article points out, pursuing the death penalty is very costly. We believe the $4.9 million Carnation cost figure is outdated and understates the expense, as a 2012 article from the Seattle Times cites that same number. Since then, we have seen media cite much higher figures: the Seattle Times ($7 million as of September 2013: http://seattletimes.com/html/latestnews/…) and MyNorthwest.com (nearly $12 million as of October 2014: http://mynorthwest.com/11/2619234/Jury-s…).

Does anyone know how this story, about 3 criminals with death penalty charges brought against them, interacts with this story from this year about the Governor suspending the death penalty in WA state? http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…



Are they being charged and given the death penalty while the governor refuses to execute anyone? Is that what is happening here?

@5, I don't. State-sanctioned killing is often of someone found innocent later on. There are a lot felony murder convictions and convictions based on terrible evidence and jailhouse testimony. The more you know about the black box of the US justice system the less confidence you have in it. Revenge and building political careers does not justify this expense, and it's hard to set a dead man free.

@9 there is exactly zero doubt that the three accused in this article are guilty. They are almost perfect death penalty cases.



The real question is whether the cost is worth the punishment. If not for the prosecutors going for execution, they would all be currently waiting out the reaper in prison and saving several million dollars of tax payer money.

I'd have no problem putting any of these animals down.

For $3.50, I'd put all of them out of our misery.

All I need is a tank of helium, and three plastic bags.

Presumably the death penalty defines a rarely-used outlier, the extreme. It should be reserved for the worst of the worst. As such, I have no inherent objection to the expense incurred on the scale we are talking about here.
What does infuriate me is the temporal aspect- I mean, these crimes occurred in 2007 and 2009, ferchrissake.
Now at one point, at least one of these defendants not only admitted guilt but expressed a wish to have her miserable existence terminated. No doubt these sentiments are more commonly expressed earlier on in the process, before defendants have accommodated themselves to prison life.
Ghoulish as it sounds, I think what we need is a fast-track-death option. A human being who has committed a truly heinous crime and has to live with that self-awareness of their own monstrosity is being tortured in a way. It could be seen as an act of compassion to relieve them of a lifetime of suffering and I suspect some would opt for it.

You know what would save a whole lot of money? If these guys pleaded guilty. The decision by a jury whether or not to impose the death penalty is made after what is essentially a separate second trial, after someone has been found guilty. All three of these defendants could plead guilty, then argue in the penalty phase trial that they should not be sentenced to death. A major reason why the cost is so high is because these people have not pleaded guilty. That's absolutely their right, but that is something the prosecutor has no control over. So put the blame where it belongs - on the murderers.

@11 "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

Be angry. Hate them. Curse their names.

All totally legit responses and I'll still pass you the salt when you're done.

But you should feel deep shame for wanting the State to go so far beyond what is necessary to protect it's citizens in the killing of others.

Gary Ridgeway is a pretty good example of what's wrong with the death penalty. He is unquestionably one of the worst murders in the last century in our state. He was also unquestionably guilty. But because he was guilty and had so many victims, he was able to bargain and get a sentence of life without parole. If he wasn't guilty he would not have had the leverage. He also needed the high number of unidentified victims.

If he doesn't qualify for the death penalty, then who does?

People who argue for fast track executions are forgetting that we have a constitution, and rights to adequate defense.

If you think the death penalty is a deterrent look at Texas. It has both the highest execution rate and highest murder rate in the country.

This is why I'll never vote for Satterberg. And if you're a politician/measure endorsed by Satterberg, I probably won't vote for you either.

TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN?

@17: Saying that Ridgeway did not qualify for the death penalty is inaccurate. He most certainly did qualify. And without the death penalty hanging over his head, it's unlikely Ridgeway would have confessed to anything. He committed so many murders and the trail had gone so cold on so many of them, it's more likely that he would have been prosecuted for one or two murders, and none of the rest of the victims' families would have ever had any closure on what happened.

The problem with the death penalty isn't that monsters like Ridgeway and Monfort don't deserve to die for their heinous crimes. They most assuredly do. The problem with the death penalty in many jurisdictions is that it is meted out indiscriminately without adequate protections for the defendant. The fact that we're spending millions of dollars on these defendants is a pretty good indicator that Washington is not a jurisdiction where the death penalty is meted out indiscriminately.

@17,

I'm not following your logic. Ridgeway successfully pleaded down because the families of his victims wanted closure and the state wanted to close a shitload of cold cases. If the death penalty hadn't been on the table, he wouldn't have taken a plea, and most of his victims would still be officially unsolved.

If the death penalty weren't on the table, the only option prosecutors would have had to get that asshole to come clean would be to offer him a minimum security prison or less than a life sentence. Would that be okay with you?

Sounds to me like Dan Satterberg is positioning himself for a run at the Governors office. And doing it on our tax dollars.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty but to be fair, if we're going to compare costs we need to compare all of them. That would be...

(The cost of a death penalty trial including appeals
+
the cost to actually execute them and dispose of the body)
-
(The cost of a life in prison trial including appeals
+
The cost of housing a prisoner for life.)
= X

If you want to write a good article on the cost of the death penalty you really need to figure that all out.

The Death Penalty Should be Cheaper in Washington, as Elsewhere

Government can be much more efficient, as reviewed.

Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/de…