The Missouri Senate is poised to debate a bill to examine the cost of the death penalty. Sponsored by Sen. Joe Keaveny (D-St. Louis), SB 61 would direct the State Auditor to conduct a cost analysis of the death penalty and alternative sentences. When originally introduced, SB 61 required that the cost study would be paid for by the State of Missouri. In committee the bill was changed so that private funds would pay for the study.

The Catholic Church has long opposed the use of capital punishment because it disregards the sanctity and dignity of human life. SB 61 would provide important information about the real cost of the death penalty in Missouri and would give lawmakers practical information on whether capital punishment is a wise use of state resources.   

Contact your Senator and urge him or her to support the introduced version of SB 61 in which the cost study would be paid for by state funds. 

• SB 61 promotes fiscal responsibility. Missouri taxpayers have a right to know, particularly during these challenging economic times, the cost of state programs, including the death penalty. Missouri reinstated the death penalty in 1977, but no state review of its cost has ever taken place. In looking at the cost of the death penalty in their state, North Carolina discovered they could save $11 million annually by dropping the death penalty in favor of life without parole. California found that $125 million a year could be saved by repealing the death penalty.  

• SB 61 promotes a more complete assessment of public policy. Regardless of how lawmakers feel morally about the death penalty, they are the stewards of taxpayer funds. Just as lawmakers need to know the cost of state programs in making a state budget, they should be aware of the cost of the death penalty and its impact on state resources. At the very least a cost study would provide information about the inefficiencies of the death penalty system and ways that the state might make changes to ensure more fairness and accuracy.

• SB 61 should be paid with state funds, not private donations. A review of state-program costs is the business of our government. Few private organizations have the resources to pay for such a study. Furthermore, if conducted by advocacy groups, it could jeopardize the credibility of the Auditor's findings.