{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015655577299412915, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005870841487279843, 'mean_word_length': 5.237804878048781, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Starving the Death Penalty: Do Financial Considerations Limit Its Use?

Death penalty cases are expensive for judicial systems to administer, in terms of both time and money. This is a potential problem for the equitable administration of justice when such cases are financed by local governments. The relative wealth of local jurisdictions varies, giving some a greater ability to raise revenues for public purposes. Given the scarcity of resources, especially in poorer jurisdictions, it is possible that cost considerations play a part in the decision over whether to file capital charges. We explore this issue in South Carolina through both interviews of local prosecutors and analysis of death penalty caseloads for 2005–07. While local prosecutors recognize that cost can be a concern, they claim that money issues do not influence their decisions regarding whether to file capital charges. In contrast, we find in our quantitative analysis a positive relationship between county wealth and death penalty caseloads.