Pay Now, Execute Later: Why Counties Should Be Required to Post a Bond to Seek the Death Penalty

Adam M. Gershowitz
{"title":"Pay Now, Execute Later: Why Counties Should Be Required to Post a Bond to Seek the Death Penalty","authors":"Adam M. Gershowitz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.956380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When death sentences are reversed - and many of them are reversed for prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other reasons - local prosecutors are not forced to fully internalize the costs of their failed prosecutions. While counties make the decision to seek the death penalty, they do not have to fund the very expensive appellate and post-conviction stages of capital cases that are typically handled by state attorneys general's offices. This paper proposes that state legislatures could improve the functioning of the death-penalty system, while simultaneously acting out of financial self-interest, by requiring counties to post (and possibly forfeit) a bond to seek the death penalty. Faced with the prospect of losing a bond if the capital prosecution fails at trial or on appeal, local prosecutors would have an incentive to choose their capital cases more carefully and to avoid any type of misconduct that might lead to reversal on appeal. The prospect of forfeiting a bond also would create secondary benefits, such as encouraging prosecutors to protest the appointment of unqualified defense lawyers in order to stave off ineffective assistance of counsel claims. As a financial matter, the bond proposal should be appealing to state legislators because it would shift the exorbitant costs of failed capital prosecutions away from state budgets and into the hands of the county actors who instigated the failed prosecutions.","PeriodicalId":83423,"journal":{"name":"University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond","volume":"31 1","pages":"861-896"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.956380","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

When death sentences are reversed - and many of them are reversed for prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other reasons - local prosecutors are not forced to fully internalize the costs of their failed prosecutions. While counties make the decision to seek the death penalty, they do not have to fund the very expensive appellate and post-conviction stages of capital cases that are typically handled by state attorneys general's offices. This paper proposes that state legislatures could improve the functioning of the death-penalty system, while simultaneously acting out of financial self-interest, by requiring counties to post (and possibly forfeit) a bond to seek the death penalty. Faced with the prospect of losing a bond if the capital prosecution fails at trial or on appeal, local prosecutors would have an incentive to choose their capital cases more carefully and to avoid any type of misconduct that might lead to reversal on appeal. The prospect of forfeiting a bond also would create secondary benefits, such as encouraging prosecutors to protest the appointment of unqualified defense lawyers in order to stave off ineffective assistance of counsel claims. As a financial matter, the bond proposal should be appealing to state legislators because it would shift the exorbitant costs of failed capital prosecutions away from state budgets and into the hands of the county actors who instigated the failed prosecutions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
现在付款,以后执行:为什么县应该被要求提交保释金以寻求死刑
当死刑判决被撤销时——其中许多是由于检察官的不当行为、律师的无效协助和其他原因——地方检察官不必完全承担起诉失败的成本。当县决定寻求死刑时,他们不必为死刑案件的非常昂贵的上诉和定罪后阶段提供资金,这些阶段通常由州检察长办公室处理。本文建议,州立法机构可以改善死刑制度的运作,同时出于财政利益考虑,要求县缴纳(可能没收)保证金以寻求死刑。如果死刑起诉在审判或上诉中失败,面临失去保释金的前景,地方检察官将有动力更谨慎地选择死刑案件,并避免任何可能导致上诉逆转的不当行为。没收保函的前景还会产生次要的好处,例如鼓励检察官抗议任命不合格的辩护律师,以避免律师索赔的无效协助。作为一个财政问题,债券提案应该对州议员有吸引力,因为它将把失败的资本起诉的高昂成本从州预算转移到煽动失败起诉的县行为者手中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
How (Not) to Talk about Abortion Tribute to Professor Carroll "John Was Third" The Recent Amendments to UCC Article 9: Problems and Solutions Harry L. Carrico and the Ideal of the Lawyer-Statesman Tribute to Chief Justice Harry L. Carrico
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1