Topeka — Kansas Attorney General Steve Six on Wednesday gave his full support for the state death penalty.
“Justice requires a punishment that fits the crime,” said Six, a former Douglas County state district judge. “Kansas has a responsible death penalty statute, and it should stand.”
Six’s comments were contained in a column he wrote that was sent to the media.
But a group opposing the death penalty disagreed with some of Six’s contentions.
Six argued that the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous murders, and that prosecutors don’t have “unlimited discretion” in seeking the punishment.
But Richard Ney, a capital case litigator in Wichita, said Six was wrong.
“General Six claims that the process in selecting which defendants will face capital punishment is principled and not arbitrary.
“This is contradicted by the fact that the Attorney General’s Office allowed a defendant in a Salina case to plead guilty for a life sentence, despite having murdered three people, including a child, while his office rejected a plea to life by Justin Thurber, who committed a single homicide. This clearly is the height of arbitrariness.”
Thurber was convicted this week in the 2007 rape and murder of Jodi Sanderholm, a 19-year-old Cowley College student. A jury has recommended that Thurber be executed.
Six also criticized arguments that abolishing the death penalty would save the state money.
The Kansas Coalition Against the Death Penalty has pointed to a 2003 state audit report that looked at 22 first-degree murder cases. The median cost for cases in which the death penalty was imposed was $1.2 million, compared with $740,000 for the median non-death penalty cases reviewed. The calculations included the cost of long-term incarceration.
The audit said numerous factors made death penalty cases cost more, such as lengthier court trials and appeals, and hiring more experts.
But Six disagreed, saying, “That study relies on data reported by interested parties — not actual costs — and projections that are acknowledged to be speculative. It also fails to recognize many cost savings associated with having the death penalty as a sentencing option.”
But the anti-death penalty coalition said the audit was based on data submitted by the attorney general’s office.
“Furthermore, the 2003 Kansas study is in line with many other studies from other states, which consistently show the death penalty to be more costly than long-term incarceration,” the group said.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Informed (anonymous) says…
Not letting appeals drag on for years after the handing down of the sentence would save the state money.
OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) says…
I think that's an assumption on your part.
I know the man who prosecutes death penalty cases for KS. He's a great guy, but I still oppose the practice. Too many are in jail for crimes they didn't commit, and "death" is quite irreversible. No future DNA test can bring you back from the grave.
Informed (anonymous) says…
"Too many" is an arbitrary moniker. "Too many" are on endless appeal, even when their guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet, you and I continue to fund their existence and their legal appeals. THAT is what should end. And that would save the state money, which is fact, not an assumption.
maetl (anonymous) says…
How do we know "too many people are in jail for crimes they didn't commit"?
If we knew that, they wouldn't be in jail. Or am I missing something? Don't get me wrong, we have a flawed legal system, and I would never wish unlawful sentencing to anyone.
Regarding the study of how it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life, than it is to execute them sounds incredibly ludicrous to me. (Lest we forget who made the study)
As far as drawn out litigation, our prosecutors and judges are paid on salary. There's no "over time." There's no, "we have a lot of people on death row, so we're going to have to up our staff."
Whereas with an inmate with a life long sentence, there's cost of food, clothing, utilities he uses, and if we have enough inmates coming in, we'll have to build more prisons and hire more guards.
Sounds to me like the electric bill to run 1800 volts for 60 seconds is a heck of a lot cheaper than housing him for every day of the rest of his life. Him, and thousands of his collegues....
KS (anonymous) says…
Kansas has a death penalty? Haven't seen them use it. Let's see, Kansas is like California. Can't/won't make tax refund payments and can't/won't carry out executions.
maetl (anonymous) says…
So what exactly is the best punishment for murder that doesn't further strain an already horridly taxed society?
Murder is the most heinous crime, and you want those people around on this planet? Because a hell of a lot of people who are imprisoned for murder get parole. I don't want to trust that they found enough Jesus in prison to not pull the same crap that got them incarcerated in the first place--particularly if they go rent a house down the street from me.
Unbelievable. Until we live in a system where we can choose what taxes we pay based on what we support, I'll be supporting the most efficient and fair response for such scumbags--capital punishment. Don't want to be executed? Try not murdering people.
sustainabilitysister (anonymous) says…
If one innocent person's life has been taken (lives most definitely have) by the death penalty then it's one too many. I oppose the death penalty.
Informed (anonymous) says…
You, edjayhawk, apparently have a reading comprehension problem. When someone is guilty of murder, beyond doubt, and they receive the death sentence, that sentence should be executed swiftly, as should the guilty.
Will you provide some actual data to support your claim that "most families of victims prefer life"?
The death penalty, or any incarceration, is not meant to be a deterrent.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"Yet, you and I continue to fund their existence and their legal appeals. THAT is what should end. And that would save the state money, which is fact, not an assumption."
Assuming that what you are advocating here will ever happen, and if started would continue to happen, that is an assumption. One hardly based on fact at all.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"So what exactly is the best punishment for murder that doesn't further strain an already horridly taxed society?"
An answer, possibly, is to look away from incarcerated murderers, and look for the many inmates and potential future inmates that will serve time for meaningless, victimless crimes, and change the statutes to keep those people out of jail. There are many laws on our books that send people to jail built on illusory notions of morals rather than on what is actually directly harmful or destructive to society or the individuals within it.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
Exactly, Jonas. You've said it perfectly. Back to the conversation the other day, legalizing marijuana would save us a bundle. (Maybe even make a few bucks.)
I used to be for the death penalty until so many were vindicated by DNA testing. I also agree that the wrongful execution of just one is "too many". On the other hand, the life imprisonment of just one innocent is too many as well.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
AG Six is clearly running for re-election (well, election) and has determined that supporting the death penalty is the least controversial position for the state's chief law enforcement officer.
asleepinthechapel (anonymous) says…
People who kill people are horrible. We should kill them.
Right?
jrlii (anonymous) says…
I'd like to suggest a compromise, replacing the current death by lethal injection sentence with a "Death by imprisonment" sentence: That way you have both the indefinite chance to fix things if the original sentence was somehow flawed (prosecutors suppressing exculpatory evidence, for example) while still having the emotional impact of saying that the perpetrator is going to die.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
No problem, Logrithimic, a broken clock is still right twice a day.
If you'll recall, though, I never said that you were insane, or that I considered you insane, merely that you sounded insane, which was an intentional phrasing, whether you picked up on it or not. And of course it had nothing to do at all with the side of the issue that you were choosing to defend, or the factual points that you were bringing up in its defense. Which you also seemed to miss.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
"There are many laws on our books that send people to jail built on illusory notions of morals rather than on what is actually directly harmful or destructive to society or the individuals within it."
^^ Winner