TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS AND LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION OR “DEATH IS DIFFERENT”
1.1. DEFINITION OF SCOPE AND KEY WORDS
1.2. PUTTING DEATH PENALTY INTO PERSPECTIVE
1.3. ARGUMENTS POLARIZING THE DEATH PENALTY DEBATE
1.4. QUESTIONING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DEATH PENALTY
1.5. ECONOMIC CRISIS AND THE ANTAGONIZING EFFECT OF SAVINGS IN CAPITAL CASES
2. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COST OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
2.1. THE EVOLUTION OF COST STUDIES
2.1.1. EARLY BEWILDERMENT PERIOD FOLLOWED BY THE LUCUBRATION PERIOD
2.1.2. THE POLITICAL PROPAGATION PERIOD AND THE UNFLINCHING PUBLIC
2.1.3. THE UNSUCCESSFUL WAKE-UP CALLS FOR A FINANCIALLY BURDENED NATION
2.2. REVEALING WHAT MAKES CAPITAL CASES MORE EXPENSIVE BY SCRUTINIZING SELECTED COST TRAPS
2.2.1. TRIAL ASSOCIATED COST AND THE LOOPHOLE OF PLEA BARGAINING
2.2.2. EXCESSIVE REVIEW PROCESS AND THE COSTLY ABIDANCE ON DEATH ROW
2.2.3. THE BOTTLENECK OF INSUFFICIENT EXECUTIONS AND THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED BY THE DRUG SUPPLY SHORTAGE
2.3. THE BENEFITS OF JUDICIAL KILLING AND OPPORTUNITY BENEFITS
2.3.1. ARE THE(RE] BENEFITS WORTH THE COST
2.3.2. OPPORTUNITY BENEFITS
2.4. HOW ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS CAN IMPACT JURISPRUDENCE
3. CONCLUSION OR DEATH MAKES NO DIFFERENCE
4.1. APPENDIX A - ANNUAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES, DEATH SENTENCES AND EXECUTIONS (1976-2011]
4.2. APPENDIX B - EXCERPT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
4.3. APPENDIX C - ILLUSTRATION OF THE BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE
4.4. APPENDIX D - COST TRAPS IN A DEATH PENALTY CASE
4.5. APPENDIX E - SAMPLE ANNUAL BILL FOR CALIFORNIA'S DEATH PENALTY 51 SYSTEM
4.6. APPENDIX F - PUBLIC OPINION BETWEEN 1957 AND 2010
Abbreviations and List of Illustrations
illustration not visible in this excerpt
List of Figures
FIGURE 1 - current DEATH PENALTY LEGISLATION LANDSCAPE
FIGURE 2 - TIMELINE OF EXECUTIONS (1976-2011]
FIGURE 3 - PUPLIC BELIEFS IN 2003
FIGURE 4 - NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES AS OF OCTOBER 2010
FIGURE 5 - CALIFORNIA'S COST OF THE DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM SINCE 1978
FIGURE 6- THE DELAY IN CALIFORNIA'S APPEALS PROCESS
FIGURE 7 - ANNUAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES, EXECUTIONS AND DEATH SENTENCES (1976-2010]
FIGURE 8 - INTERFERENCE FACTORS OF EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT
FIGURE 9 - ALTERNATIVE SPENDING OF $ 95 MILLION IN PREVENTIVE MEASURES
FIGURE 10 - CA'S VIEW ON CONVERTING DEATH PENALTY TO LWOP TO SAVE COST
List of Tables
TABLE 1 - COST FOR DEFENSE REPRESENTATION IN FEDERAL CAPITAL CASES
TABLE 2 - DEATH ROW INMATES AWAITING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
1. Introduction or “Death is Different”
This especial concern is a natural consequence of the knowledge that execution is the mostirremediable and unfathomable ofpenalties; thatdeath is different.
JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL, 1986
Awareness surrounding the financial burden of capital punishment is increasing and slowly beginning to permeate the American Society. However, not enough light has been shed on the sources that are causing the financial devastation. The death-is-different legal doctrine in the United States grants procedural protection that is unique for capital litigation providing individual consideration for each case.
The paper investigates the price increase by capitally adjudicating a case compared to a non-capital litigation. Looking at the economic side of the impact of legal statutes should contribute to the discussion about choosing alternative punishments, such as life incarceration without the possibility of parole, and the systems' improvement prospects or the lack thereof. In the aftermath of a severe economic crisis and with ongoing financial solvency crises of interdependent nations, cost cutting considerations become all the more essential. Further, it is "Time to consider whether maintaining the costly death penalty system is being smart on crime" by briefly looking into where the money could be invested instead in order to achieve an equivalent effect.
In short, the paper aims at ascertaining the financial cost of capital punishment and how the discoveries can impact jurisprudence. The central questions are the following. How to approach the financial cost of death penalty? What are the cost drivers of the system? Are there calculable benefits? How did and can economic arguments influence the legitimacy of capital punishment?
The paper is structured as follows. The introduction is designed to lay out the framework of the United States capital punishment system. The main part provides an overview of the developments in approaching the cost of state- sanctioned killing, then explores the key cost drivers and finally takes the reader through the difficulty of quantifying benefits. The main part concludes with a section offering a deduction ofhow economic reasoning may impactjurisprudence. At last, the conclusion presents final remarks.
1.1. Definition of Scope and Key Words
Capital punishment is death imposed as punishment of crime. It is also a question of justice and morality. It is controversial topic with prevalent arguments considering a death sentence as an "Ethical judgment expressing the conscience of the community as to whether 'an individual has lost his moral entitlement to live'". It is illusionary and too rational to think that the debate of changing death penalty can be limited on terms of cost only. It is and will always be a moral, philosophical, ethical, personal, political and religious altercation influenced by the Zeitgeist.
The pillorying of the fairness or the proportionality of the punishment is left to other scholars. This paper aims at analyzing the statutes authorizing the imposition of capital punishment from an economic viewpoint to educate the public about the use of taxes.
The scope of the paper is limited to the United States of America (U.S.), one of few established democracies that still carry out executions, but also one of the only nations that collect and publish data on the lethal system. The focus lies on developments after the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 by the ruling in the Gregg v Georgia case due to the prior lack of evaluable data and the antiquated estimations.
Performing a cost-benefit-analysis, as frequently applied in the case of public policies, is unfeasible to conduct since benefits to society, on grounds of greater deterrent or valuable retribution, are not reliably quantifiable.  A breakeven-point is self-evidently a matter of perspective and not of data. Therefore, the underlying thought is to study the system's cost-effectiveness . The financial cost of capital punishment in turn is based on the concept of social opportunity cost. In the context of the paper, the term cost is typically referred to as "The difference in the costs of adjudicating an aggravated murder case as a capital case and as a noncapital case". Other terms that are less frequently used are defined within each chapter.
Another limitation is caused by the problematic partial data collection hindering overarching and comparable cost studies amongst states. Therefore, the publications of the state of California are used for a more in-depth analysis of the cost drivers. California is a prime example for illustrating the fiscal impact due to being on the forefront of elucidating the cost of the tax-swallowing system.
Further, the paper depicts the relationship between law and the causes for cost. Differently put, the economic effect of the execution of the death penalty legal status is scrutinized while observing how economic reasoning impacted the system's legal maintenance. This approach to analyze law from an economic viewpoint is based on the Economic Analysis of Law insofar as the economic implications of the interpretation and execution of existing legal statutes are
revealed. The paper is not systematically applying any theoretical frameworks laid out by the school of thought's representatives. The thought of why economic arguments should impact jurisprudence per se is not relevant to discuss given the paper's intention to focus on how constitution was and is interpreted in reality and not theoretically. For that purpose, it is indispensable to look at the context and framework first.
1.2. Putting Death Penalty into Perspective
Cuius regio, eius religio.
The Death penalty is still present in our more and more democratizing world. In 2010, there were 23 countries that officially carried out executions and 67 countries in the world reported to have imposed death sentences according to Amnesty International. From the G-20 major economies China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. executed prisoners in 2010. In the U.S., there are 34 states with a death penalty legislation installed alongside the U.S. government and U.S. military as illustrated in the following Figure 1.
FIGURE 1 - CURRENT DEATH PENALTY LEGISLATION LANDSCAPE 
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Even though death penalty statutes exist, not all states exercise their right to sentence to death and finally to perform the execution. In 2010, there were 46 people executed and Texas alone accounted for 37.0% (17). Overall, 112 death sentences were projected to have been imposed in the same year. From the beginning of the year until July 2011, 27 people were executed.
Since 1976, there have been 1,261 executions carried out in the U.S. as shown in Figure 2. The annual number of executions each year sharply decreased over the last 35 years as shown in Appendix A or Figure 2. In the 30's and 40's, an average of 148 executions per year was common in contrast to 35 executions per year between 1976 and 2010. Texas inherits a questionable leading role with accounting for 37.5 % (463) of all executions since 2010. California did not carry out a single execution since 2006 while having the largest death row in the country at present.
FIGURE 2 - TIMELINE OF EXECUTIONS (1976-2011)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
The tone at the top is construed as being in favor of the death penalty with the current President, Democrat Barack H. Obama II, supporting the view that death penalty should be applied in extreme cases. 
In a global context, there is no intercontinental framework impeding judicial killing. The international human rights law, including Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), still recognizes the imposition of capital sentences.  Then again, the UN Human Rights Committee considers "All measures of abolition should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to life" . When the Human Rights practice of the U.S. was under review during of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in November 2010, many participating nations called on the U.S. to put a moratorium on the state-sanctioned killing.  The U.S. government rejected the recommendation, but ensured that the "Implementation of the death penalty complies with our international obligations; the portion asking that we end capital punishment does not enjoy our support" . In order to understand this position, it is helpful to look at the arguments in the on-going heated death penalty debate.
1.3. Arguments Polarizing the Death Penalty Debate
An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye... ends in making everybody blind.
MAHATMA GANDHI, 1869-1948
Common issues that are usually discussed in the context of the death penalty in the U.S. include race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination, executing innocent, the leftover debate of juveniles on death row, the lack of transparent laws concerning mental disabilities, women with a death sentence, bias in jury selection, inefficient bureaucracy, rareness of clemency, flawed criminal justice system, and above all the question of the deterrence effect of capital punishment.
In 1844, Charles Spear - an abolition advocate and important prison reformer at that time - already summarized the still prevailing death penalty counter-arguments ranging from the idea of a breach of social contracts, lack of deterrence, and brutalization of society. The explanation of the latter argument by the former Governor of New Jersey and now Chief Executive Officer of MF Global, Jon S. Corzine, is that "Society must first determine if its endorsement of violence begets violence - and - if violence undermines our commitment to the sanctity of life".
Pro-death penalty justifications include the prevention of future endangerment by the condemned person, biblical doctrines (such as lex talionis) and other strong religious strands, crime reduction through deterrence, and even cost savings are named amongst others. Nowadays, the support is predominantly rooted in the belief of retributive justification since many empirical studies or interest groups tried to undermine the just mentioned arguments. Regardless of studies and rational counter-arguments, the attitude towards capital punishment is deeply entrenched in emotions, culture, education, upbringing, prejudice and history.
The constitutionality of death penalty is granted by the interpretation of the Amendments as demonstrated in the following chapter.
1.4. Questioning the Constitutionality of Death Penalty
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
amendment vin to the u.s. constitution
To analyze what can unhinge the capital punishment legal statutes and what caused the process to be so costly, it is essential to look at historical influences and the landmark cases. The death penalty is legally justified and constantly challenged by the interpretation of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. constitution forbidding crueland unusualpunishment. Supported by claims of the violation of the 14th Amendment that is postulating equality protection under law and the right for a fair process (refer to Appendix B).
A brief glance at the history shows that after decades of an established and accepted death penalty culture, the first successful turning point came in 1968. No executions were carried out due to the growing disapproval and initiatives of society, marking the beginning of the moratorium on executions. In 1972, the Supreme Court resolved the issue with rulings in three cases, most notably Furman v Georgia, and declared capital punishment statutes as unconstitutional. Interesting to note is that the ruling of the Supreme Court judges in the Furman case was significantly influenced by public opinion. The capital statutes were considered discretionary and sentences were perceived as arbitrary and discriminatory. Caused by the gradually diminishing public support of death penalty since the 1960s, the interpretation was that the standards of decency have changed and large parts of society rejected the punishment. Therefore, justly classifying the capital punishment as cruel and unusual based on its arbitrariness, hereby violating the constitution, seemed appropriate.
In sum, to understand what impacts the legal statutes of death penalty, it is to note that public opinion always played a crucial role. The pro-death penalty lobby during the moratorium period, including President Richard Nixon, feared the moral deterioration of society and invested into strategies to redraft and develop a new legislation for reinstating capital punishment including enhanced procedural protection measures. 
Consequently, 28 states reenacted their capital punishment statutes only two years after the Furman decision. In order to correct previous deficiencies, the new statutes included the consideration of aggravating or mitigating circumstances and a two-phase trial was established to bestow fairness.  However, a death sentence could not be carried out without a ruling of the Supreme Court declaring the new statutes as constitutional. The reinstatement of capital punishment - after nearly ten years of intermission - followed in 1976 with the ruling in the Gregg v Georgia case.  In our day, the country is in the grip of an economic crisis and has to face the cost of these precautions.
1.5. Economic Crisis and the Antagonizing Effect of Savings in Capital Cases
Amerika, mit mehr als 14 Billionen Dollar verschuldet, muss sparen. Selbst wenn es um Leben und Tod geht.
S. BOOKAND G.P. SCHMITZ, DERSPIEGEL, 2011
The U.S. economy is hardly recovering from the financial crisis and the country's national debt keeps growing. In the context of the financial constraints of the allegedly too big to fail  country, reconsidering the financial cost of capital punishmentbecomes even more pressing.
By mid-May 2011, the U.S. already reached the predetermined debt ceiling by encumbering a public debt level of $ 14.3 trillion.  The deficit results from the excess of government spending (e.g. social welfare, military spending) above earnings (e.g. tax revenues) constitutes the amount that needs to be borrowed. The U.S. is the only country that defined a fixed ceiling on the amount that can be borrowed. To prevent a latent failure to pay, the U.S. had to pass a bill in order to raise the federal debt level.  A default of one of the world's superpowers seemed imminent if no compromise in the state budget had been found before the 2nd of August 2011.
In order to raise the debt limit, so the state can borrow more money, the vote of the Congress is de rigueur and usually a technicality. The debt ceiling has been raised 72 times since 1962.  This time, it created an opportunity for the radical Republican Tea Party to prolong the consensus finding by propagandizing their ideals and putting a halt on a fast solution. 
The U.S. House of Representatives finally passed a bill to raise the debt limit by up to $ 2.4 trillion in two stages until 2013 and additionally save $ 2.4 trillion within the next ten years. A nominated bipartisan committee has to draft a spending plan by the end of September 2011, evaluating where the severe cuts of at least $ 1.5 trillion can be executed (refer to Appendix C for illustration). A Democratic Congressman described the deal as "A sugar-coated Satan sandwich". The Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin goes even further and calls the U.S. "A 'parasite' on the world economy by living through debt". The new agreement truly has its deficit since the previously advertised tax increases on the rich vanished into thin air and it is unlikely that the cuts in spending will outweigh the increase in the borrowing amount in the future.
With public opinion stirring the debate, it is essential to provide transparency and highlight possibilities of savings without putting a threat on society. The underlying aims of social welfare or social security need to be protected. Years ago, the cost implications of the death penalty system were rather vague. Up until today, some research has been conducted revealing stunning cost saving potential which is highlighted in the next paragraphs. With the U.S. being forced to tighten the belt in the next years, the paper wants to draw attention to one option to save costs.
 FordvWainright (1986). 477 U.S. 399.
 Bedau, H.A.,1987. Death is Different: Studies in the Morality, Law, and Politics ofCapital Punishment. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
 Dieter, R.C., 2009. Smart on Crime: Reconsidering the Death Penaltyin a Time of Economic Crisis. [Online] Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). Available at: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org [Accessed 23 April 2011].
 The terms "capital punishment" and "death penalty" are used interchangeably throughout the paper.
 Law, J. and Martin, E.A., eds., 2009. Oxford Dictionary ofLaw. 7th ed. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press Inc. P. 76.
 Abramson, J., 2004. Death-is-DifferentJurisprudence and the Role of CapitalJury. [Online] Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 2:117-164. Available at: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu [Accessed 2 June 2011].
Definition: The general moodor quality of a particular period of history, as shown by the ideas, beliefs, etc. common at the time. Source: Hornby, A.S., 2000. OxfordAdvanced Learner's Dictionary: of CurrentEnglish. 6th ed. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press Inc. P. 1507.
 Gregg v Georgia (1976). 428 U.S. 153. definition: Cost-Benefit Analysis attempts to place a dollar valuation on the outcomes of a program of intervention and to answer the question: How much is society willing to pay for the output of this program or what are the benefits to society of having this output? The dollar valuation of this output or the benefits are then compared with the costs of producing it. If the benefits exceed the cost, the program is considered to be an efficient use of society's resources. Source: Guess, G.M. Farnham, P.G., 2000. Cases in Public PolicyAnalysis. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. P.303.
 As discussed in Chapter 2.3.
 Definition: Giving the best possible profit or benefit in comparison with the money that is spent. Source: Hornby, supra note 7, p.282.
 Definition: Social opportunity cost represents the loss to society from using the resources for a government project instead of consuming them, investing them, or borrowing them. Source: Boardman, A.E. Greenberg, D.H. Vining, A.R. and Weimar, D.L., 1996. Cost BenefitAnalysis: Concepts and Practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. P.171.
 Cook, P.J. and Slawson, D.B., 1993. The Costs ofProcessing Murder Cases in North Carolina. [Online] Terry Sanford Institute ofPublic Policy, Duke University. Available at: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org [Accessed 28 April 2011]. P.5.
 The project of the American Bar Association (ABA) starting in 2003 to assess the administration of the death penalty of several states showed the enormous difficulty to obtain information, even the most basic ones. Source: Fleischaker, D., 2009. The ABA Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project: Setting the Stagefor Further Research. In: Lanier, C.S. Bowers, W.J. and Acker, J.R., 2009. The Future of America's Death Penalty: An Agendafor the Next Generation ofCapital Punishment Research. Durham, NC: CarolinaAcademic Press. Ch.5.
 Definition: Economic analysis oflawapplies the tools ofmicroeconomic theory to the analysis oflegal rules and institutions. Source: Kornhauser, L., 2011. The EconomicAnalysis ofLaw, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online]Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia [Accessed 10 April 2011].
 Exemplary: Posner, R.A., 2007. EconomicAnalysisofLaw. 7th ed. Frederick, MD: Aspen Publisher.
 Latin phrase translated to "whose realm, his religion” and referring to the principle of rulers dictating the religion in their territories agreed upon in the Peace ofAugsburg (1555) during the time of the Holy Roman Empire. Source: Fulbrook, M. ed., 1999. A Concise HistoryofGermany. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. P.46
 Amnesty International, 2011a. Death Sentencesand Executions2010. [Online] London: Amnesty International. Available at: http://www.amnesty.org [Accessed 15 April 2011].
 "The Group of Twenty (G-20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors was established in 1999 to bring together systemically important industrialized and developing economies to discuss key issues in the global economy.” Source: G-20 Website. Whatis the G-20. [Online] Available at: http://www.g20.org [Accessed 16August 2011].
 DPIC, 2011. FactsAbout theDeath Penalty: Updated July 19, 2011. [Online] Washington, DC: Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). Available at: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org [Accessed 20 July 2011].
 Author's own illustration based on: DPIC, supra note 20.
 Snell, T., 2010. Capital Punishment 2009: Statistical Tables. [Online] The Bureau ofJustice Statistics. Available at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov [Accessed 16July2011].
 Rhee, F., 2008. Obama Backs Death for Child Rapists. [Online] Boston Globe, 25 June 2008. Available at: http://www.boston.com [Accessed 25 April 2011].
 CCPR General Comment No. 6, The Right to Life ('Article 6), 1982. Geneva, CH: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
 United Nations GeneralAssembly, Human Rights Council, 2011. Reportofthe Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: United StatesofAmerica. 18 March 2011. (A/HRC/16/11/Add.1) Geneva, CH: Office ofthe United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. P.3.
 Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi in: Fischer, L., 1950. The Lifeof Mahatma Gandhi. NewYork, NY: Harper. P. 77.
 1) Carter, L.E. and Kreitzberg,E., 2004. Understanding CapitalPunishmentLaw. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis Group.Ch.2. 2) Dieter,R., 2003. Understanding Capital Punishment: A Guide Through the Death Penalty Debate. Washington, DC: Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). Not publically available anymore, but on file with the author.
 Spear, C. cited in: Martschukat, J., 2002. Die Geschichte der Todesstrafe in Nordamerika: Von der Kolonialzeit bis zur Gegenwart. München: Beck. P.62.
 MF Global is a leading broker of financial securities. Refer to the homepage for further information. Available at: http://www.mfglobal.co.uk
 Governor Jon S. Corzine's Remarks (as Delivered December 17, 2007) quoted in: Heuvel, K.V., 2007. NewJersey Leads on Capital Punishment. [Online] The Nation, 17 December 2007. Available at: http://www.thenation.com/blog/new-jersey-leads-capital-punishment [Accessed 02 August 2011].
 Dieter,R., 2003. Understanding Capital Punishment: A Guide Through the Death Penalty Debate. Washington, DC: Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). Not publically available anymore, but on file with the author.
 Describes the relief for the family of the victim.
 Library of Congress, 2011b. A CenturyofLawmakingfor a NewNation: U.S. Congressional Documentsand Debates, 1774 - 1875. [Image] Library of Congress. Available at: http://memory.loc.gov [Accessed 15 May 2011].
 Library of Congress, 2011a. 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [Online] Library of Congress. Available at: http://www.loc.gov[Accessed 12 May2011].
 Martschukat, J., 2002. Die Geschichte der Todesstrafe in Nordamerika: Von der Kolonialzeit bis zur Gegenwart. München: Beck. P. 130-35.
 Furman v Georgia (1972). 408 U.S. 238.
 Martschukat, supra note 29, p.149.
 Trop v Dulles (1958). 356 U.S. 86. Excerpt: "The Court recognized in that case that the words of the Amendment are not precise, and that their scope is not static. The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
 Martschukat, supra note 29, p.139.
 Banner, S., 2002. The Death Penalty: An American History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. P.268 f.
 Gregg v Georgia (1976). 428 U.S. 153. Note: The post-moratorium phase officiallybegins after 1976. “Translates to: The United States, with more than $14 trillion in debt, needs to save money. Even in matters oflife and death. Source: Book, S. and Schmitz, G.P., 2011. Der Preis des Tötens. DerSpiegel, 18July 2011 (29), p. 87.
 A phrase that was born in the context of the world financial crisis of 2008-2010. Itrefers to the theory offinancial institutions that are supposedly too large and interconnected with the economy that a failure would lead to a breakdown of the global economy. Explained in: Sorkin, A.R., 2009. Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Foughtto Save theFinancialSystem and - Themselves. NewYork, NY: Viking Press. P.xii.
 Bureau of the Public Debt, 2011. DebtPosition and ActivityReport: Total Public Debt Outstanding as ofJune30, 2011. Washington, DC: The Bureau of the Public Debt. Available at: http://www.treasurydirect.gov[Accessed 31 July 2011].
 Lately, the two issues - raising debt level and stopping the debt level from growing - got intertwined in the debate, although they are in fact two separate economic measures.
 Sahadi, J., 2011. Debt Ceiling FAQs: What You Need to Know. CNN Money, 18 May 2011. Available at: http://money.cnn.com [Accessed 5August2011].
 A Republican suggested bill to limit federal spending (currently at 24 % of GDP) to 20 % implied a tradeoff in relentlessly cutting social spending. Obama vetoed against it as expected and the quarrel went on. The ideas of the Republicans and the Democrats about where to cut expenses and where to get more cash differ. It seems the parties are destined not to find a mutually satisfactory solution. Democrats see Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security in jeopardy and Republicans traditionally fear a cut in military funding. Obama's ambitious initial plan to cut government spending by $4 trillion within the next decade will shift a great deal of attention towards cost-cutting measures. Only by raising the debt ceiling and/or cutting cost government can afford the projected federal spending. Raising revenue foremost by increasing tax and/or lowering the expenses will eventually help reducing debt ofwhich both choices raise strong opposition. Source: Anonymous, 2011. Scheme, Stonewall and Fulminate. [Online] The Economist, 21 July 2011. Available at: http://www.economist.com[Accessed 15 April 2011].
 Hulse, C. and Cooper,H., 2011. Obama and Leaders Reach Debt Deal. New York Times, 31July 2011. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com [Accessed 5 August 2011].
 Anonymous, 2011. US Debt Limit: House Votes on Last-minute Deal. BBC News, 1 August 2011. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk [Accessed 5 August 2011].
 Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin quoted in: BBC News, ibid.
 Whether the abolition of death penalty threatens the security of society is only implicitly mentioned throughout the paper.
- ISBN (eBook)
- ISBN (Buch)
- 1.2 MB
- Institution / Hochschule
- Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht Berlin
- Capital Punishment Death Penalty Economic Analysis of Law Texas cost United States USA Death Row Death Capital execution cost-benefit-analysis cruel and unusual