Although it seems counterintuitive, the cost of executing a convicted murderer is substantially more than the cost of punishing a criminal with life in prison without parole. Extra costs for hearings and appeals, legal defense costs, and imprisonment on death row are extremely costly.
John Van de Kamp, former attorney general of California and a supporter of the death penalty, developed Proposition 34 several years ago urging California to suspend the death penalty in order to save money in these fiscally difficult times. He estimated Prop 34 would save $1 billion over five years.
In 2012, California voters voted down Proposition 34 by a vote of 53-47. The Proposition would have ended the state's death penalty and converted all death row sentences to life imprisonment without parole. At the time of the vote, 726 inmates awaited execution on death row. The legal costs to the state of remaining appeals for these inmates are estimated at $700 million. Supporters of the proposition have indicated they will try again to get it passed. Opponents (especially law enforcement officials and victims' rights groups) have said they will try to pass their own proposition in 2014 that would eliminate most appeals.
Considering the cost of the death penalty to taxpayers, what are the pros and cons of this proposition as a utilitarian? How does J.S. Mill's utilitarian analysis support the death penalty?