The expenditure of time, money and sparse judicial and prosecutorial resources…
2025
The expenditure of time, money and sparse judicial and prosecutorial resources is often justified by claims of a powerful deterrent message embodied in the ultimate punishment- the death penalty. But studies repeatedly suggest that there is no meaningful deterrent effect associated with the death penalty and further, any deterrent impact is no doubt greatly diluted by the amount of time that inevitably passes between the time of the conduct and the punishment. In 2010, the average time between sentencing and execution in the United States averaged nearly 15 years.
- A.
A single federal death penalty case in Philadelphia was found to cost upwards of $10 million — eight times higher than the cost of trying a death eligible case where prosecutors seek only life imprisonment.
- B.
The ethics of the issue aside, it is questionable whether seeking the death penalty is ever worth the time and resources that it takes to sentence someone to death.
- C.
Apart from delaying justice, the death penalty diverts resources that could be used to help the victims’ families heal.
- D.
A much more effective deterrent would be a sentence of life imprisonment imposed close in time to the crime.
Attempted by 2 students.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Answer: A sentence of life imprisonment imposed close in time to the crime would be a more effective deterrent.
Explanation: The paragraph questions whether the death penalty produces a meaningful deterrent effect and emphasizes that any deterrent impact is greatly diluted by the long delay between sentencing and execution (about 15 years on average). The main concern is deterrence and the weakening effect of delayed punishment.
The statement about a single federal death penalty case costing upwards of $10 million focuses on financial cost. That addresses resource burden but does not respond to the paragraph’s central claim about deterrence and delay.
The claim that it is questionable whether seeking the death penalty is worth the time and resources echoes resource concerns but does not resolve the argument about whether the death penalty deters crime or how timing affects deterrence.
The suggestion that resources could be used to help victims’ families introduces a different issue (reallocation of resources) rather than concluding the deterrence argument presented in the paragraph.
The proposal that life imprisonment imposed close in time to the crime would be a more effective deterrent directly addresses both concerns: it offers an alternative punishment and resolves the paragraph’s point that long delays weaken any deterrent effect.
Therefore, the sentence proposing life imprisonment imposed promptly best concludes the paragraph because it follows logically from the paragraph’s critique of the death penalty’s deterrent effect and the emphasis on delay.