death penalty or capital punishment essay

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

In its last six months, the United States government has put 13 prisoners to death. Do you think capital punishment should end?

By Nicole Daniels

Students in U.S. high schools can get free digital access to The New York Times until Sept. 1, 2021.

In July, the United States carried out its first federal execution in 17 years. Since then, the Trump administration has executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had in the previous six decades.

The death penalty has been abolished in 22 states and 106 countries, yet it is still legal at the federal level in the United States. Does your state or country allow the death penalty?

Do you believe governments should be allowed to execute people who have been convicted of crimes? Is it ever justified, such as for the most heinous crimes? Or are you universally opposed to capital punishment?

In “ ‘Expedited Spree of Executions’ Faced Little Supreme Court Scrutiny ,” Adam Liptak writes about the recent federal executions:

In 2015, a few months before he died, Justice Antonin Scalia said he w o uld not be surprised if the Supreme Court did away with the death penalty. These days, after President Trump’s appointment of three justices, liberal members of the court have lost all hope of abolishing capital punishment. In the face of an extraordinary run of federal executions over the past six months, they have been left to wonder whether the court is prepared to play any role in capital cases beyond hastening executions. Until July, there had been no federal executions in 17 years . Since then, the Trump administration has executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had put to death in the previous six decades.

The article goes on to explain that Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissent on Friday as the Supreme Court cleared the way for the last execution of the Trump era, complaining that it had not sufficiently resolved legal questions that inmates had asked. The article continues:

If Justice Breyer sounded rueful, it was because he had just a few years ago held out hope that the court would reconsider the constitutionality of capital punishment. He had set out his arguments in a major dissent in 2015 , one that must have been on Justice Scalia’s mind when he made his comments a few months later. Justice Breyer wrote in that 46-page dissent that he considered it “highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment,” which bars cruel and unusual punishments. He said that death row exonerations were frequent, that death sentences were imposed arbitrarily and that the capital justice system was marred by racial discrimination. Justice Breyer added that there was little reason to think that the death penalty deterred crime and that long delays between sentences and executions might themselves violate the Eighth Amendment. Most of the country did not use the death penalty, he said, and the United States was an international outlier in embracing it. Justice Ginsburg, who died in September, had joined the dissent. The two other liberals — Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — were undoubtedly sympathetic. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who held the decisive vote in many closely divided cases until his retirement in 2018, had written the majority opinions in several 5-to-4 decisions that imposed limits on the death penalty, including ones barring the execution of juvenile offenders and people convicted of crimes other than murder .

In the July Opinion essay “ The Death Penalty Can Ensure ‘Justice Is Being Done,’ ” Jeffrey A. Rosen, then acting deputy attorney general, makes a legal case for capital punishment:

The death penalty is a difficult issue for many Americans on moral, religious and policy grounds. But as a legal issue, it is straightforward. The United States Constitution expressly contemplates “capital” crimes, and Congress has authorized the death penalty for serious federal offenses since President George Washington signed the Crimes Act of 1790. The American people have repeatedly ratified that decision, including through the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 signed by President Bill Clinton, the federal execution of Timothy McVeigh under President George W. Bush and the decision by President Barack Obama’s Justice Department to seek the death penalty against the Boston Marathon bomber and Dylann Roof.

Students, read the entire article , then tell us:

Do you support the use of capital punishment? Or do you think it should be abolished? Why?

Do you think the death penalty serves a necessary purpose, like deterring crime, providing relief for victims’ families or imparting justice? Or is capital punishment “cruel and unusual” and therefore prohibited by the Constitution? Is it morally wrong?

Are there alternatives to the death penalty that you think would be more appropriate? For example, is life in prison without the possibility of parole a sufficient sentence? Or is that still too harsh? What about restorative justice , an approach that “considers harm done and strives for agreement from all concerned — the victims, the offender and the community — on making amends”? What other ideas do you have?

Vast racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty have been found. For example, Black people are overrepresented on death row, and a recent study found that “defendants convicted of killing white victims were executed at a rate 17 times greater than those convicted of killing Black victims.” Does this information change or reinforce your opinion of capital punishment? How so?

The Federal Death Penalty Act prohibits the government from executing an inmate who is mentally disabled; however, in the recent executions of Corey Johnson , Alfred Bourgeois and Lisa Montgomery , their defense teams, families and others argued that they had intellectual disabilities. What role do you think disability or trauma history should play in how someone is punished, or rehabilitated, after committing a crime?

How concerned should we be about wrongfully convicted people being executed? The Innocence Project has proved the innocence of 18 people on death row who were exonerated by DNA testing. Do you have worries about the fair application of the death penalty, or about the possibility of the criminal justice system executing an innocent person?

About Student Opinion

• Find all of our Student Opinion questions in this column . • Have an idea for a Student Opinion question? Tell us about it . • Learn more about how to use our free daily writing prompts for remote learning .

Students 13 and older in the United States and the United Kingdom, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Nicole Daniels joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2019 after working in museum education, curriculum writing and bilingual education. More about Nicole Daniels

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Capital punishment.

Capital punishment, or “the death penalty,” is an institutionalized practice designed to result in deliberately executing persons in response to actual or supposed misconduct and following an authorized, rule-governed process to conclude that the person is responsible for violating norms that warrant execution.  Punitive executions have historically been imposed by diverse kinds of authorities, for an expansive range of conduct, for political or religious beliefs and practices, for a status beyond one’s control, or without employing any significant due process procedures.  Punitive executions also have been and continue to be carried out more informally, such as by terrorist groups, urban gangs, or mobs.  But for centuries in Europe and America, discussions have focused on capital punishment as an institutionalized, rule-governed practice of modern states and legal systems governing serious criminal conduct and procedures.

Capital punishment has existed for millennia, as evident from ancient law codes and Plato’s famous rendition of Socrates’s trial and execution by democratic Athens in 399 B.C.E.  Among major European philosophers, specific or systematic attention to the death penalty is the exception until about 400 years ago.  Most modern philosophic attention to capital punishment emerged from penal reform proponents, as principled, moral evaluation of law and social practice, or amidst theories of the modern state and sovereignty.  The mid-twentieth century emergence of an international human rights regime and American constitutional controversies sparked anew much philosophic focus on theories of punishment and the death penalty, including arbitrariness, mistakes, or discrimination in the American institution of capital punishment.

The central philosophic question about capital punishment is one of moral justification:  on what grounds, if any, is the state’s deliberate killing of identified offenders a morally justifiable response to voluntary criminal conduct, even the most serious of crimes, such as murder?  As with questions about the morality of punishment, two broadly different approaches are commonly distinguished: retributivism, with a focus on past conduct that merits death as a penal response, and utilitarianism or consequentialism, with attention to the effects of the death penalty, especially any effects in preventing more crime through deterrence or incapacitation.  Section One provides some historical context and basic concepts for locating the central philosophic question about capital punishment:  Is death the amount or kind of penalty that is morally justified for the most serious of crimes, such as murder?  Section Two attends to classic considerations of lex talionis (“the law of retaliation”) and recent retributivist approaches to capital punishment that involve the right to life or a conception of fairness.  Section Three considers classic utilitarian approaches to justifying the death penalty: primarily as preventer of crime through deterrence or incapacitation, but also with respect to some other consequences of capital punishment.  Section Four attends to relatively recent approaches to punishment as expression or communication of fundamental values or norms, including for purposes of educating or reforming offenders.  Section Five explores issues of justification related to the institution of capital punishment, as in America: Is the death penalty morally justifiable if imperfect procedures produce mistakes, caprice, or (racial) discrimination in determining who is to be executed? Or if the actual execution of capital punishment requires unethical conduct by medical practitioners or other necessary participants?  Section Six considers the moral grounds, if any exist, for the state’s authority to punish by death.

Table of Contents

• Historical Practices
• Philosophic Frameworks and Approaches
• Classic Retributivism: Kant and lex talionis
• Lex talionis as a Principle of Proportionality
• Retributivism and the Right to Life
• Retributivism and Fairness
• Challenges to Retributivism
• Classic Utilitarian Approaches: Bentham, Beccaria, Mill
• Empirical Considerations: Incapacitation, Deterrence
• Utilitarian Defenses: “Common Sense” and “Best Bet”
• Challenges to Utilitarianism
• Other Consequential Considerations
• Capital Punishment as Communication
• Procedural Issues: Imperfect Justice
• Discrimination: Race, Class
• Medicine and the Death Penalty
• Costs: Economic Issues
• State Authority and Capital Punishment
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources

1. Context and Basic Concepts

A. historical practices.

Much philosophic focus on the death penalty is modern and relatively recent.  The phrase ‘capital punishment’ is older, used for nearly a millennium to signify the death penalty.  The classical Latin and medieval French roots of the term ‘capital’ indicate a punishment involving the loss of head or life, perhaps reflecting the use of beheading as a form of execution.  The actual practice of capital punishment is ancient, emerging much earlier than the familiar terms long used to refer to it.  In the ancient world, the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (circa 1750 B.C.E.) included about 25 capital crimes; the Mosaic Code of the ancient Hebrews identifies numerous crimes punishable by death, invoking, like other ancient law codes, lex talionis , “the law of retaliation”; Draco’s Code of 621 B.C.E. Athens punished most crimes by death, and later Athenian law famously licensed the trial and death of Socrates; the fifth century B.C.E. Twelve Tables of Roman law include capital punishment for such crimes as publishing insulting songs or disturbing the nocturnal peace of urban areas, and later Roman law famously permitted the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.  Even in such early practices, capital punishment was seen as within the authority of political rulers, embodied as a legal institution, and employed for a wide range of misconduct proscribed by law.

Medieval and early modern Europe retained expansive lists of capital crimes and notably expanded the forms of execution beyond the common ancient practices of stoning, crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, or poisoning.  In the Middle Ages both secular and ecclesiastical authorities participated in executions deliberately designed to be torturous and brutal, such as beheading, burning alive, drawing and quartering, hanging, disemboweling, using the rack, using thumb-screws, pressing with weights, boiling in oil, publicly dissecting, and castrating.  Such brutality was conducted publicly as spectacle and ritual­—an important or even essential element of capital punishment was not only the death of the accused, but the public process of killing and dying on display.  Capital punishment was varied in its severity by the spectrum of torturous ways by which the offender’s death was eventually effected by political and other penal authorities.

In “the new world” the American colonies’ use of the death penalty was influenced more by Britain than by any other nation.  The “Bloody Code” of the Elizabethan era included over 200 capital crimes, and the American colonies followed England in using public, ritualized hangings as the common form of execution.  Until the mid-18 th century, the colonies employed elaborate variations of the ritual of execution by hanging, even to the point of holding fake hangings.  Stuart Banner summarizes the early American practices:

Capital punishment was more than just one penal technique among others. It was the base point from which all other kinds of punishment deviated.  When the state punished serious crime, most of the methods …were variations on execution.  Officials imposed death sentences that were never carried out, they conducted mock hangings…, and they dramatically halted real execution ceremonies at the last minute.  These were methods of inflicting a symbolic death …. Officials also wielded a set of tools capable of intensifying a death sentence – burning at the stake, public display of the corpse, dismemberment and dissection – ways of producing a punishment worse than death. (54)

In early America “capital punishment was not just a single penalty,” but “a spectrum of penalties with gradations of severity above and below an ordinary execution” (Banner, 86).

The late 18th century brought a “dramatic transformation of penal thought and practice” that was international in scope (Banner, 89). The dramatic change came with the birth of publicly supported prisons or penitentiaries that allowed extended incarceration for large numbers of people (Banner, 99).  Before prisons and the practical possibility of lengthy incarceration as an alternative, “the only available units of measurement for serious crime were degrees of deviation from an ordinary execution” (Banner, 70).  After the invention of prisons, for serious crimes there was now an alternative to capital punishment and to the practiced spectrum of torturous executions: prisons allowed varying conditions of confinement (for example, hard labor, solitary confinement, loss of privacy) and a temporal measure, at least, for distinguishing degrees of punishment to address kinds of serious misconduct.  Dramatic changes for capital punishment also came with the 1864 publication in Italy of Cesare Beccaria’s essay, “On Crimes and Punishments.”  Very influential in Europe and the United States, Beccaria’s sustained, philosophic investigation of the death penalty challenged both the authority of the state to punish by death and the utility of capital punishment as a superior deterrent to lengthy imprisonment.  Philosophic defenses of the death penalty, like that of Immanuel Kant, opposed reformers and others, who, like Beccaria, argued for abolition of capital punishment.  During the 19th century the methods of execution were made less brutal and the number of capital crimes was much reduced compared to earlier centuries of practice.  Discussions of the death penalty’s merits invoked divergent understandings of the aims of punishment in general and thus of capital punishment in particular.

By the mid-20th century, two developments prompted another period of focused philosophic attention to the death penalty.  In the United States a series of Supreme Court cases challenged whether the death penalty falls under the constitutional prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments,” including questions about the legal and moral import of a criminal justice process that results in mistakes, caprice, or racial discrimination in capital cases.   Capital punishment also became a global concern with the post-World War II Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders and after the 1948 Declaration of Universal Human Rights and subsequent human rights treaties explicitly accorded all persons a right to life and encouraged abolishing the death penalty worldwide.  Most nations have now abolished capital punishment, with notable exceptions including China, North Korea, Japan, India, Indonesia, Egypt, Somalia, and the United States, the only western “industrialized” nation still retaining the death penalty.

b. Philosophic Frameworks and Approaches

Capital punishment is often explored philosophically in the context of more general theories of “the standard or central case” of punishment as an institution or practice within a structure of legal rules (Hart, “Prolegomenon,” 3-5).  The philosopher’s interest in the death penalty, then, is embedded in broader issues about the moral permissibility of punishment .  Any punishment – and certainly an execution – intentionally inflicts on a person significant pain, suffering, unpleasantness, or deprivation that it is ordinarily wrong for an authority like the state to impose.  What conditions or considerations, if any, would morally justify such penal practices?  Following a framework famously offered by H.L.A. Hart,

[w]hat we should look for are answers to a number of different questions such as:  What justifies the general practice of punishment? To whom may punishment be applied? How severely may we punish? (“Prolegomenon,” 3)

These different questions are, respectively, about the general justifying aim of punishment, about the conditions of responsibility for criminal conduct and liability to punishment, and about the amount, kind, or form of punishment justifiable to address actual or supposed misconduct.  It is the last of these questions of justification – about the justified amount, kind, or form of punishment – that is foremost in philosophic approaches to the death penalty.  Almost all modern and recent discussions of capital punishment assume liability for the death penalty is only for the gravest of crimes, such as murder; almost all assume comparatively humane modes of execution and largely ignore considering obviously torturous or brutal killings of offenders; and it is assumed that some amount of punishment is merited for murderers.  The central question, then, is not often whether punishing murderers is morally justifiable (rather than rehabilitation or release, for example), but whether it is morally justifiable to punish by death (rather than by imprisonment, for example) those found to have committed a grave offense, such as murder.  Responses to this question about the death penalty often build on more general principles or theories about the purposes of punishment in general, and about general criteria for determining the proper measure or amount of punishment for various crimes.

Among philosophers there are typically identified two broadly different ways of thinking about the moral merits of punishment in general, and whether capital punishment is a proper amount of punishment to address serious criminal misconduct (see “ Punishment ”). Justifications are proposed either with reference to forward-looking considerations, such as various future effects or consequences of capital punishment, or with reference to backward-looking considerations, such as facets of the wrongdoing to be punished.   The latter approach, if dominant, has, since the 1930s, been called ‘retributivism’; retributivist justifications “look back” to the offense committed in order to link directly the amount, kind, or form of punishment to what the offense merits as penal response.  This linkage is often characterized as whether a punishment “fits” the crime committed.  For retributivists, any beneficial effects or consequences of capital punishment are wholly irrelevant or distinctly secondary.  Forward-looking justifications of punishment have been labeled ‘utilitarian’ since the 19th century and, since the mid-20th century, other versions are sometimes called ‘consequentialism’. Consequentialist or utilitarian approaches to the death penalty are distinguished from retributivist approaches because the former rely only on assessing the future effects or consequences of capital punishment, such as crime prevention through deterrence and incapacitation.

2. Retributivist Approaches

Retributivists approach justifying the amount of punishment for misconduct by “looking back” to aspects of the wrongdoing committed.  There are many different versions of retributivism; all maintain a tight, essential link between the offense voluntarily committed and the amount, form, or kind of punishment justifiably threatened or imposed.  Future effects or consequences, if any, are then irrelevant or distinctly secondary considerations to justifying punishments for misconduct, including the death penalty.  Retributivism about capital punishment often prominently appeals to the principle of lex talionis , or “the law of retaliation,” an idea popularly familiarized in the ancient and biblical phrase, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”  Forms of retributivism vary according to their interpretation of lex talionis or in their appealing to alternative moral notions, such as basic moral rights or a principle of fairness.

a. Classic Retributivism: Kant and lex talionis

  A classic expression of retributivism about capital punishment can be found in a late 18th century treatise by Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysical Elements of Justice (99-107; Ak. 331-337).  After dismissing Cesare Beccaria’s abolitionist stance and reliance on “sympathetic sentimentality and an affectation of humanitarianism,” Kant appeals to an interpretation of lex talionis , what he calls “ jus talionis ” or “the Law of Retribution,” as justifying capital punishment:

Judicial punishment… must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he committed a crime.… He must first be found deserving of punishment… The law concerning punishment is a categorical imperative. (100; Ak. 331) What kind and degree of punishment does public legal justice adopt as its principle and standard?  None other than the principle of equality….  Only the Law of Retribution ( jus talionis ) can determine exactly the kind and degree of punishment (101; Ak. 332).

Kant then explicitly applies these principles to determine the punishment for the most serious of crimes:

 If… he has committed a murder, he must die.  In this case, there is no substitute that will satisfy the requirements of legal justice. There is no sameness of kind between death and remaining alive even under the most miserable conditions, and consequently there is also no equality between the crime and retribution unless the criminal is judicially condemned and put to death (102; Ak. 333).

Kant then employs a hypothetical case to insist that any social effects of the death penalty, good or bad, are wholly irrelevant to its justification:

Even if a civil society were to dissolve… the last murderer in prison would first have to be executed so that each should receive his just deserts and that the people should not bear the guilt of a capital crime… [and] be regarded as accomplices in the public violation of justice (102; Ak. 333).

So, even if social effects are not possible, since the society no longer exists, the death penalty is justified for murder.  Kant exemplifies a pure retributivism about capital punishment: murderers must die for their offense, social consequences are wholly irrelevant, and the basis for linking the death penalty to the crime is “the Law of Retribution,” the ancient maxim, lex talionis , rooted in “the principle of equality.”

The key to Kant’s defense of capital punishment is “the principle of equality,” by which the proper, merited amount and kind of punishment is determined for crimes.  Whether the best interpretation of Kant or not, the idea behind this common approach seems to be that offenders must suffer a punishment equal to the victim’s suffering: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” a life for a life.  But as often noted, any literalism about lex talionis cannot work as a general principle linking crimes and punishments. It seems to imply that the merited punishment for rape is to be raped, for robbery to be stolen from, for fraud to be defrauded, for assault to be assaulted, for arson to be “burned out,” etc.  For other crimes—forgery, drug peddling, serial killings or massacres, terrorism, genocide, smuggling—it is not at all clear what kind or form of punishment lex talionis would then license or require (for example, Nathanson 72-75).  As C. L. Ten succinctly says, “it would appear that the single murder is one of the few cases in which the lex talionis can be applied literally” (151).  Both practical considerations and moral principles about permissible forms of punishment, then, ground objections to invoking a literal interpretation of lex talionis to justify capital punishment for murder.

Some retributivists employ a less literal way of employing a principle of equality to justify death as the punishment for murder.  The relevant equivalence is one of harms caused and suffered:  the murder victim suffers the harm of a life ended, and the only equivalent harm to be imposed as punishment, then, must be the death of the killer.  As a general way of linking kinds of misconduct and proper amounts, kinds, or forms of punishment, this rendition of lex talionis also faces challenges (Ten, 151-154).  Furthermore, it is also often noted that, even in the case of murder, there is no equivalence between the penal experience of capital offenders and their victims’ suffering in being murdered.  Albert Camus, in his “Reflections on the Guillotine,” makes the point in a rather dramatic way:

But what is capital punishment if not the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal act, no matter how calculated, can be compared?  If there were to be a real equivalence, the death penalty would have to be pronounced upon a criminal who had forewarned his victim of the very moment he would put him to a horrible death, and who, from that time on, had kept him confined at his own discretion for a period of months.  It is not in private life that one meets such monsters.  (199)

This inequality of experience claim is even more to the point since even Kant maintains that “the death of the criminal must be kept entirely free of any maltreatment that would make an abomination of the humanity residing in the person suffering it” (102; Ak. 333).

b. Lex talionis as a Principle of Proportionality

Most contemporary retributivists interpret lex talionis not as expressing equality of crimes and punishments, but as expressing a principle of proportionality for establishing the merited penal response to a crime such as murder.  The idea is that the amount of punishment merited is to be proportional to the seriousness of the offense, more serious offenses being punished more severely than less serious crimes.  So, one constructs an ordinal ranking of crimes according to their seriousness and then constructs a corresponding ranking of punishments according to their severity.  The least serious crime is then properly punished by the least severe penalty, the second least serious crime by the second least severe punishment, and so on.  The gravest misconduct, then, is properly addressed by the most severe of punishments, death.

To carry out such a general project of constructing scales of crimes and matching punishments is a daunting challenge, as even many retributivists admit.  Aside from these concerns, as a defense of capital punishment this approach to lex talionis simply raises the question about the morality of the death penalty, even for the most serious of crimes.   There is no reason to think that current capital punishment practices are the most severe punishment.  Consider medieval practices of death with torture, or death “with extreme prejudice”; and are there not possible conditions of confinement that are possibly more severe than execution, such as years of brutal, solitary confinement or excessively hard labor?  Such punishments would not likely now be on a list of morally permissible penal responses to even the most serious crimes.  But then what is needed is some justification for setting an upper bound of morally permissible severity for punishments, “a theory of permissibility” (Finkelstein, “A Contractarian Approach…,” 212-213).  But whether today’s death penalty is morally permissible is precisely the question at issue.  The retributivist proportionality interpretation of lex talionis simply assumes capital punishment is morally permissible, rather than offering a defense of it.

One general concern about appeals to lex talionis , under any interpretation, is that relying on “the law of retaliation” can appear to make capital punishment tantamount to justified vengeance.  But Kant and other retributivist defenders of the death penalty rightly distinguish principled retribution from vengeance.   Vengeance arises out of someone’s hatred, anger, or desires typically aimed at another:  there is no internal limit to the severity of the response, except perhaps that which flows from the personal perspective of the avenger.  The avenger’s response may be markedly disproportionate to the offense committed, whereas retributivists insist that the severity of punishments must be matched to the misconduct’s gravity.  Vengeance is typically personal, directed at someone about whom the avenger cares—it is personal.  Retribution requires responses even to injuries of people no one cares about:  its impersonality makes harms to the friendless as weighty as harms to the popular and justifies punishment without regard to whether anyone desires the offender suffer.  The avenger typically takes pleasure in the suffering of the offender, whereas “we may all deeply regret having to carry out the punishment” (Pojman, 23) or only take “pleasure at justice being done” (Nozick, 367) as a retributivist moral principle requires.  Even if desires for vengeance are satisfied by executing murderers, for retributivists such effects are not at the heart of the defense of capital punishment.  And to the extent that such satisfactions are sufficient justification, then the defense is no longer retributivist, but utilitarian or consequentialist (see sections 3 and 4).  For retributivists the morality of the death penalty for murder is a matter of general moral principle, not assuaging any desires for revenge or vengeance on the part of victims or others.

c. Retributivism and the Right to Life

Some forms of retributivism about capital punishment eschew reliance on lex talionis in favor of other kinds of moral principles, and they typically depart from Kant’s conclusion that murderers must be punished by death, regardless of any consequences.  One approach employs the idea of basic moral rights, such as the right to life, an expression of the value of life that seems to work against justifying capital punishment.   Yet John Locke, for example, in his Second Treatise on Government , posits both a natural right to life and defends the death penalty for murderers.  Echoing a line of reasoning exhibited in Thomas Aquinas’s defense of capital punishment ( Summa Theologiae II-II, Q. 64, a.2), Locke claims that a murderer violates another’s right to life, and thereby “declares himself… to be a noxious creature… and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts… both to deter others from doing the like injury… and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal” ( Treatise , sections 10-11).  For Locke, murderers have, by their voluntary wrongdoing, forfeited their own right to life and can therefore be treated as a being not possessing any right to life at all and as subject to execution to effect some good for society.

This retributivist position notably departs from Kant’s extreme view in concluding only that a murderer may be put to death, not must be, and by invoking utilitarian thinking as a secondary consideration in deciding whether capital punishment is morally justified for murderers who have forfeited their right to life.  This form of retributivism—rights forfeiture and considering consequences of the death penalty—is also explicitly expressed by W. D. Ross in his 1930 book, The Right and the Good :

But to hold that the state has no duty of retributive punishment is not necessarily to adopt a utilitarian view of punishment.… [T]he main element in any one’s right to life or property is extinguished by his failure to respect the corresponding right in others.… [T]he offender, by violating the life or liberty or property of another, has lost his own right to have his life, liberty, or property respected, so that the state has no prima facie duty to spare him as it has a prima facie duty to spare the innocent.  It is morally at liberty to injure him as he has injured others, or to inflict any lesser injury on him, or to spare him, exactly as consideration of both of the good of the community and of his own good requires. (60-61)

The retributivist argument, then, is that murderers forfeit their own right to life by virtue of voluntarily taking another’s life.  Since a right to life, like other rights, logically entails a correlative duty of others (see Consequentialism and  Ethics, section 2b ), by forfeiting their right to life murderers eliminate the state’s correlative duty not to kill them; the murderer’s forfeiture makes morally permissible the state’s putting them to death, at least as a means to some good.  Thus, capital punishment is not a violation of an offender’s right to life, as the offender has forfeited that right, and the death penalty is then justifiable as a morally permissible way to treat murderers in order to effect some good for society.

This kind of retributivist approach to capital punishment raises philosophic issues, aside from its reliance on empirical claims about the effects of the death penalty as a way to deter or incapacitate offenders (see section 3b). First, though the idea of forfeiting a right may be familiar, it leaves “troubling and unanswered questions: To whom is it forfeited? Can this right, once forfeited, ever be restored? If so, by whom, and under what conditions” (Bedau, “Capital Punishment,” 162-3)?  Second, given that the right to life is so fundamental to all rights and, as many maintain, held equally by each and all because they are humans, perhaps the right to life is exceptional or even unique in not being forfeitable at all: the right to life is actually a fundamental natural or human right.  One’s actions cannot and do not alter one’s status as a human being, Locke and Aquinas notwithstanding; thus, the right to life is inalienable and not forfeitable.  Even killers retain their right to life, the state remains bound by the correlative duty not to kill a murderer, and capital punishment, then, is a violation of the human right to life.

Developed in this way, as a matter of fundamental human rights, the merit of capital punishment becomes more about the moral standing of human beings and less about the logic and mobility of rights through forfeiture or alienation.  The point of a human right to life is that it “draws attention to the nature and value of persons, even those convicted of terrible crimes.… Whatever the criminal offense, the accused or convicted offender does not forfeit his rights and dignity as a person” (Bedau, “Reflections,” 152, 153).   This view reflects at least the spirit of the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the right to life is universal, is rooted in each person’s dignity, and is unalienable (Preamble; Article 3).   But this view of offenders’ moral standing can be challenged if one considers the implication that, of equal standing with any of us, then, are masters of massacres or genocide (for example, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot), serial killers, terrorists, rampant rapists, and pedophiliac predators.  As one retributivist defender of capital punishment puts it, “though a popular dogma, the secular doctrine that all human beings have… worth is groundless.  The notion… [is] perhaps the most misused term in our moral vocabulary.… If humans do not possess some kind of intrinsic value… then why not rid ourselves of those who egregiously violate… our moral and legal codes” (Pojman, 35, 36).

d. Retributivism and Fairness

A recently revived retributivism about the death penalty builds not on individual rights, but on a notion of fairness in society.  Given a society with reasonably just rules of cooperation that bestow benefits and burdens on its members, misconduct takes unfair advantage of others, and punishment is thereby merited to address the advantage gained:

A person who violates the rules has something that others have—the benefits of the system—but by renouncing what others have assumed, the burdens of self-restraint, he has acquired an unfair advantage.  Matters are not even until this advantage is in some way erased….[P]unishing such individuals restores the equilibrium of benefits and burdens. (Morris 478)

The morally justified amount, kind, or form of punishment for a crime is then determined by an “unfair advantage principle”:

His crime consists only in the unfair advantage… [taken] by breaking the law in question. The greater the advantage, the greater the punishment should be.  The focus of the unfair advantage principle is on what the criminal gained.”  (Davis 241)

In justifying an amount of punishment, then, an unfairness principle focuses on the advantage gained, whereas the lex talionis principle attends to the harm done to another (Davis 241).

The fairness approach to punishment reflects recent uses of “the principle of fairness” as a theory of political obligation:  those engaged in a mutually beneficial system of cooperation have a duty to obey the rules from which they benefit (Rawls, 108-114).  As applied to punishment, though, its roots run also to ancient, archaic notions of justice as re-establishing an equilibrium, to Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics treatment of justice as requiring state corrective action to rectify the imbalances created by criminal misconduct (Book V, Chapter 4), and to G.W.F. Hegel’s claim in The Philosophy of Right that to punish “is to annul the crime… and to restore the right” (69, 331n).   Today’s popular parlance that punishment is how offenders pay for their crimes can also be seen as their paying for unfair advantages gained.

As a general approach to justifying the amount of punishment merited for misconduct, the fairness approach initially appears to work best for petty theft or possibly “free-loading” in cooperative schemes, such as penalizing tax evasion.   In such cases one can perhaps see unfair advantage gained and see the amount of punishment as tied to what is unfairly gained.  But for violent crimes such as murder, the fairness approach seems less plausible.  How does lengthy incarceration or even execution erase the unfair advantage gained, annul the crime, or  re-establish any prior balance between perpetrator and victim?  To the extent that punishment affects such things, it risks conflating retribution with restitution or restoration.  The unfair advantage principle also characterizes the wrong committed not in terms of its effects on a victim, but on third parties—society members who exercise self-restraint by obeying those norms the offender violates.  This oddly places the victim of criminal misconduct, especially for violent crimes: the person assaulted or killed is not the focus in justifying the amount of punishment, but third parties’ burdens of self-restraint are.  Additionally, taken by itself, the unfair advantage approach to establishing the proper amount of punishment can also have some odd consequences, as Jeffrey Reiman rather colorfully suggests:

For example, it would seem that the value of the unfair advantage taken of law-obeyers by one who robs a great deal of money is greater than the value of the unfair advantage taken by a murderer, since the latter gets only the advantage of ridding his world of a nuisance while the former will be able to make a new life… and have money left over for other things.  This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that such robbers should be punished more severely… than murderers.  (“Justice, Civilization,…,” note 10)

The death penalty for murder, then, would not obviously be morally justified if the general criterion for the amount of punishment is an unfair advantage principle.

A defense of the death penalty for murder has been proposed by employing another version of this general approach to punishment.  The key is seeing the kind of unfair advantage gained by a murderer.  As Reiman suggests in the spirit of Hegelian retributivism, the act of killing another disrupts “the relations appropriate to equally sovereign individuals;” it is “an assault on the sovereignty of an individual that temporarily places one person (the criminal) in a position of illegitimate sovereignty over another (the victim)”; then there is “the right to rectify this loss of standing relative to the criminal by meting out a punishment that reduces the criminals’ sovereignty to the degree to which she vaunted it above her victim’s” (“Why…,” 89-90).   So, if a murder is committed and a life taken, the idea is that the amount of permissible punishment is for the state, as the victim’s agent, to assert a supremacy over the criminal similar to that already asserted by the killer; and to do that it is permissible for the state to impose the death penalty for murder.  So, on this interpretation of the fairness principle, the death penalty for murder is morally justified, though, for other crimes, it may not be “easy or even always possible to figure out what penalties are equivalent to the harms imposed by offenders” (Reiman, “Why…,” 69-90, 93).  As with other forms of retributivism, the fairness approach, on either interpretation, is challenged by the plausibility of using a principle that adequately addresses both the merits of capital punishment for murder and also generates a system of penalties that “fit” or are equivalent to various crimes.

e. Challenges to Retributivism

Retributivist approaches to capital punishment are many and varied.  But from even the small sample above, notable similarities are often cited as challenges for this way of thinking about the moral justification of punishment by death.   First, retributivism with respect to capital punishment either invokes principles that are plausible, if at all, only for death as penalty for murder; or it relies on principles met only with reasoned skepticism about their general adequacy for constructing a plausible scale matching various crimes with proper penal responses.

Second, retributivists presuppose that persons are responsible for any criminal misconduct for which they are to be punished, but actually instituting capital punishment confronts the reality of some social conditions, for example, that challenge the presupposition of voluntariness and, in the case of the fairness approach, that challenge the presupposition of a reasonably just system of social cooperation (see section 5b).  Third, it is often argued that, in addressing the moral merits of capital punishment, retributivists ignore or make markedly secondary the causal consequences of the practice.  What if no benefits accrue to anyone from the practice of capital punishment?  What if capital punishment significantly increases the rate of murders or violent crimes?  What if the institution of capital punishment sometimes, often, or inevitably is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, or even mistaken in its selecting those to be punished by death (see section 5)?  These and other possible consequences of capital punishment seem relevant, even probative.  The challenge is that retributivists ignore or diminish their importance, perhaps defending or opposing the death penalty despite such effects and not because of them.

3. Utilitarian Approaches

A utilitarian approach to justifying capital punishment appeals only to the consequences or effects of death being the penalty for serious crimes, such as murder.  A utilitarian approach, then, is a kind of consequentialism and is often said to be “forward looking,” in contrast to retributivists’ “backward looking” approach.   More specifically, a utilitarian approach sees punishment by death as justified only if that amount of punishment for murder best promotes the total happiness, pleasure, or well-being of the society.  The idea is that the inherent pain and any negative effects of capital punishment must be exceeded by its beneficial effects, such as crime prevention through incapacitation and deterrence; and furthermore, the total effects of the death penalty—good and bad, for offender and everyone else—must be greater than the total effects of alternative penal responses to serious misconduct, such as long-term incarceration.   A utilitarian approach to capital punishment is inherently comparative in this way: it is essentially tied to the consequences of the practice being best for the total happiness of the society.  It follows, then, that a utilitarian approach relies on what are, in principle, empirical, causal claims about the total marginal effects of capital punishment on offenders and others.

a. Classic Utilitarian Approaches: Bentham, Beccaria, Mill

A classic utilitarian approach to punishment is that of Jeremy Bentham.  In chapters XIII and XIV of his lengthy work, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , first published in 1789, Bentham addresses the appropriate amount of punishment for offenses, or, as he puts it, “the proportion between punishments and offences.”  He begins with some fundamental features of a utilitarian approach to such issues:

The general object which all law have, or ought to have in common, is to augment the total happiness of the community.… But all punishment is mischief: all punishment in itself is evil.  Upon the principle of utility, if it ought at all to be admitted, it ought only to be admitted in as far as it promises to exclude some greater evil.  (XIII. I, ii.)

Bentham continues by noting the importance of attending to “the ends of punishment”:

The immediate principal end of punishment is to control action.… [T]hat of the offender it controls by its influence… on his will, in which case it is said to operate in the way of reformation ;  or on his physical power, in which case it is said to operate by disablement : that of others it can influence no otherwise than by its influence over their wills; in which case it is said to operate in the way of example . (XIII. ii. fn. 1)

So, there are three major ends of punishment related to controlling people’s action in ways promoting the total happiness of the community through crime reduction or prevention: reformation of the offender, disablement (that is, incapacitation) of the offender, and deterrence (that is, setting an example for others).   Of these three ends of punishment, Bentham says “example” – or deterrence – “is the most important end of all.” (XIII. ii. fn 1).  Since “all punishment is mischief [and] an evil,” any amount of punishment, then, is justified only if that mischief is exceeded by the penalty’s good effects, and, most importantly for Bentham, only if the punishment reduces crime by deterring others from misconduct and does so better than less painful punishments.  In other writings, Bentham explicitly applies his utilitarian approach to capital punishment, first allowing its possible justification for aggravated murder, particularly when the “effect may be the destruction of numbers” of people, and then, years later and late in life, calling for its complete abolition (Bedau, “Bentham’s Utilitarian Critique…”).

In his own writing about law, Bentham notably praises and acknowledges Cesare Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments , its utilitarian approach to penal reform, and its call for abolishing capital punishment. Beccaria called for abolition of the death penalty largely by appealing to its comparative inefficacy in reducing the crime rate.  In Chapter XII of his essay, Beccaria says the general aim of punishment is deterrence and that should govern the amount of punishment to be assigned crimes:

The purpose of punishment… is nothing other than to dissuade the criminal from doing fresh harm to his compatriots and to keep other people from doing the same.  Therefore, punishments and the method of inflicting them should be chosen that… will make the most effective and lasting impression on men’s minds and inflict the least torment on the body of the criminal. (23; Ch. XII)

He then argues that “capital punishment is neither useful nor necessary” in comparison to the general deterrent effects of lengthy prison sentences:

[T]here is no one who, on reflection, would choose the total and permanent loss of his own liberty, no matter how advantageous a crime might be.  Therefore, the intensity of a sentence of servitude for life, substituted for the death penalty, has everything needed to deter the most determined spirit.… With capital punishment, one crime is required for each example offered to the nation; with the penalty of a lifetime at hard labor, a single crime affords a host of lasting examples” (49-50, 51; Ch. XXVIII).

The idea here is that an execution is a single, severe event, perhaps not long remembered by others, whereas life imprisonment provides a continuing reminder of the punishment for misconduct.  In general, Beccaria says, “[i]t is not the severity of punishment that has the greatest impact on the human mind, but rather its duration, for our sensibility is more easily surely stimulated by tiny repeated impressions than by a strong but temporary movement” (49; Ch. XXVIII).

Beccaria adds to this thinking at least two claims about some bad social effects of capital punishment: first, for many the death penalty becomes a spectacle, and for some it evokes pity for the offender rather than the fear of execution needed for effective deterrence of criminal misconduct (49; Ch. XXVIII).  Second, “capital punishment is not useful because of the example of cruelty which it gives to men.… [T]he laws that moderate men’s conduct ought not to augment the cruel example, which is all the more pernicious because judicial execution is carried out methodically and formally” (51; Ch. XXVIII).  Thus, Beccaria opposes capital punishment by employing utilitarian thinking: the primary benefit of deterrence is better achieved through an alternative penal response of “a lifetime at hard labor,” and, furthermore, the cruelty of the death penalty affects society in ways much later called “the brutalization effect.”

Another major utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, also exemplifies distinctive facets of a utilitarian approach, but in defense of capital punishment.  In an 1868 speech as a Member of Parliament, Mill argues that capital punishment is justified as penalty for “atrocious cases” of aggravated murder (“Speech…,” 268).  Mill maintains that the “short pang of a rapid death” is, in actuality, far less cruel than “a long life in the hardest and most monotonous toil… debarred from all pleasant sights and sounds, and cut off from all earthly hope” (“Speech…,” 268).  As Sorell succinctly summarizes Mill’s position, “hard labor for life is really a more severe punishment than it seems, while the death penalty seems more severe than it is” (“Aggravated Murder…,” 204).  Since the deterrent effect of a punishment depends far more on what it seems than what it is, capital punishment is the better deterrent of others while also involving less pain and suffering for the offender.  Such a combination “is among the strongest recommendations a punishment can have” (Mill, “Speech…,” 269). And so, Mill says, “I defend [the death penalty] when confined to atrocious cases… as beyond comparison the least cruel mode in which it is possible adequately to deter from the crime” (“Speech…, 268).

b. Empirical Considerations: Incapacitation, Deterrence

A utilitarian approach to capital punishment depends essentially on what are, in fact, the causal effects of the practice, whether the death penalty is, in fact, effective in incapacitating or deterring potential offenders.  If, in fact, it does not effect these ends better than penal alternatives such as lengthy incarceration, then capital punishment is not justified on utilitarian grounds.   In principle, at least, the comparative efficacy of capital punishment is therefore an empirical issue.

A number of social scientific studies have been conducted in search of conclusions about the effects of capital punishment, at least in America.  With respect to the end of incapacitation, any crime prevention benefit of executing murderers depends on recidivism rates, that is, the likelihood that murderers again kill.  Recent studies of convicted murderers—death row inmates not executed, prison homicides, parolees, and released murderers—indicate that the recidivism rate is quite low, but not zero: a small percentage of murderers kill again, either in prison or upon release (Bedau, The Death Penalty , 162-182).  These crimes, of course, would not have occurred were capital punishment imposed, and, so, the death penalty does prevent commission of some serious crimes.  On the other hand, for a utilitarian, these benefits of incapacitation through execution must exceed those for possible punitive alternatives.  The data reflects recidivism rates under current practices, not other possible alternatives.  If, for example, pardons and commutations were eliminated for capital crimes, if atrocious crimes were punished by a life sentence without any possibility of parole, or if conditions of confinement were such that prison murders were not possible (for example, shackled, solitary confinement for life), then the recidivism rate might approach or be zero.  One issue, then, is how high or low a recidivism rate decides the justificatory issue for capital punishment.  Another issue is the moral permissibility of establishing conditions of confinement so restrictive that even murders in prison are reduced to nearly zero.

Since the mid-twentieth century, in America a number of empirical studies have been conducted in order to assess the deterrent effects of capital punishment in comparison to those of life imprisonment.  Scholars analyzed decades of data to compare jurisdictions with and without the death penalty, as well as the effects before and after a jurisdiction abolished or instituted capital punishment.   Such analyses “do not support the deterrence argument regarding capital punishment and homicide” (Bailey, 140).  Sophisticated statistical studies published in the mid-1970s claimed to show that each execution deterred seven to eight murders.  This exceptional study and its methodology have been much criticized (Bailey, 141-143).  Additional, more recent studies and analyses have “failed to produce evidence of a marginal deterrent effect for capital punishment” (Bailey, 155).  As indicated by Jeffrey Reiman’s succinct summary and numerous, cited literature surveys (“Why…” 100-102), nearly all relevant experts claim there is no conclusive evidence that capital punishment deters murder better than substantial prison sentences.

Determining the deterrent effects of capital punishment does present significant epistemic challenges.  In comparative studies of jurisdictions with and without the death penalty, “there simply are too many variables to be controlled for, including socio-economic conditions, genetic make-up,” demographic factors (for example, age, population densities), varying facets of law enforcement, etc.  (Pojman, 139). Numerous variables may or may not explain the data attempting to link crime rates and the death penalty in different places or times (Pojman, 139). Second, as Beccaria notes, for example, deterrent effects plausibly depend importantly on the certainty, speed, and public nature of penal responses to criminal conduct.  These factors have not been much evident in recent capital punishment practices in America, which may explain the lack of evidence revealed by recent statistical studies.  Third, deterrence is a causal concept:  the idea is that potential murderers do not kill because of the death penalty.  So, the challenges are to measure what does not occur—murders – and to establish what causes the omission—the death penalty.  The latter element is even more challenging to measure because most who do not murder do so out of habit, character, religious beliefs, lack of opportunity, etc., that is, for reasons other than any perceived threat or fear of execution by the state.  Deterrence studies, then, attempt to establish empirically a causal relationship for a small minority of people and omitted homicides within a death penalty jurisdiction.  Finally, there are disagreements about the importance of the studies’ conclusions.  For example, abolitionists typically see that, despite numerous attempts, the failure to provide conclusive evidence strongly suggests there is no such effect: the death penalty, in fact, does not deter.  Defenders of capital punishment are inclined to interpret the empirical studies as being inconclusive: it remains an open question whether the death penalty deters sufficiently to justify it.  And all this is further complicated by the fact that some studies focus on the effects of capital statutes and others look for links between actual executions and crime rates.

c. Utilitarian Defenses: “Common Sense” and “Best Bet”

Regardless of the outcomes or probative value of statistical studies, justifying capital punishment on grounds of deterrence may still have merit.  It would seem, some maintain, that “common sense” supports the notion that the death penalty deters.  The deterrence justification of capital punishment presupposes a model of calculating, deliberative rationality for potential murderers.  What people cherish most is life; what they most fear is being killed.  So, given a choice between life in prison and execution by the state, most people much prefer life and therefore will refrain from misconduct for which death is the punishment.  In short, “common sense” suggests that capital punishment does deter.  But this kind of appeal to “common sense” ignores the essentially comparative aspect of appeals to deterrence as justification: though capital punishment may deter, it may not deter any more (or significantly more) than a long life in prison. We cannot equate “what is most feared” with “what most effectively deters” (Conway, 435-436; Reiman, “Why…,” 102-106).

Another way of looking at capital punishment in terms of deterrence relies on making the best decision under conditions of uncertainty.  Given that the empirical evidence does not definitively preclude that capital punishment is a superior deterrent, “the best bet” is to employ the death penalty for serious crimes such as murder.  If capital punishment is not, in fact, a superior deterrent, then some murderers have been unnecessarily executed by the state; if, on the other hand, death is not a possible punishment for murder and capital punishment is, in fact, a superior deterrent, then some preventable killings of innocent persons would occur.  Given the greater value of innocent lives, the less risky, better option justifies capital punishment on grounds of deterrence. But the argument crucially depends on comparative risk assessments: if there is capital punishment, then certainly some murderers will be killed, whereas without the death penalty there is only a remote chance that more innocent lives would be victims of murder (Conway, 436-443).  Furthermore, the argument openly assumes that not all lives are equal—those of the innocent are not to be risked as much as those who have murdered—and that, for some, is a fundamental moral issue at stake in justifying capital punishment (see section 2c; Pojman, 35-36).

d. Challenges to Utilitarianism

Utilitarian approaches to justifying punishment are controversial and problematic, perhaps most often with respect to possibly justifying punishment of the innocent as a means to preventing crime and promoting total happiness of a society.  Even ignoring this issue and focusing only on justifying the proper amount of punishment for the guilty and the death penalty, in particular, there are concerns to be considered about a utilitarian approach.  The objection is that a utilitarian approach to the death penalty relies on a suspect general criterion—deterrence—for establishing the proper amount of punishment for crimes.  It is often argued that, for purposes of crime prevention through deterrence, a utilitarian is committed, at least in principle, to excessively severe punishments, such as torturous and gruesome executions in public even for crimes much less serious than murder (for example, Ten, 34-35, 143-145).  The idea is that the pain of excessively severe and public punishments for minor crimes is more than counterbalanced by a significant reduction in a crime rate.  It is also argued that significant crime rate reductions could perhaps be achieved, in some circumstances, by disproportionately minor punishments:  if fines, light prison sentences, or even fake executions could deter as well as actual ones, then a utilitarian is committed to disproportionately mild penalties for grave crimes.  Utilitarians respond to such possibilities by indicating additional considerations relevant to calculating the total costs of such disproportionate punishments, while critics continue creating even more elaborate, fantastic counterexamples designed to show the utilitarian approach cannot always avoid questions about the upper or lower limits of morally permissible penal responses to misconduct.  As C. L. Ten summarizes succinctly, a utilitarian approach establishing a proper amount of punishment is “inadequate to account for both the strength of the commitment to the maintenance of a proportion between crime and punishment, and [to] the great reluctance to depart… from that proportion when required to so do by purely aggregative consequential considerations” (146).

Another common criticism of the utilitarian approach points to the very structure of justifications rooted in deterrence.  As evident in Bentham’s classic statements, for example, the purpose of punishment “is to control action,” primarily through deterrence (see section 3a).  Punishments deter and “control action” by example, by the demonstration to others that they, too, will suffer similarly should they similarly misbehave. Capital punishment, then, aims to deter actions of potential killers by inflicting death on actual ones: the technique works by threat, by instilling fear in others.  A fundamental objection to this way of thinking is to see that, in effect, persons are being used as a means to controlling others’ actions; capital offenders are being used simply as a means to deter others and reduce the crime rate.  Such a use of persons is morally impermissible, it is argued, echoing Immanuel Kant’s famous categorical imperative against treating any person merely as means to an end.  No gain in deterrence, incapacitation, or other beneficial effects can justify deliberately killing a captive human being as a means to even such desirable ends as deterring others from committing grave crime.  The argument, then, is that justifying capital punishment on grounds of deterrence is a morally impermissible way to treat persons, even those found to have committed atrocious crimes.

e. Other Consequential Considerations

In discussions of capital punishment, it is deterrence that receives much of the attention for those exploring a utilitarian approach to the moral justification of the practice.  There are, however, other significant consequences of the death penalty that are relevant, as noted even by classic utilitarians.  Beccaria, for example, asserts a brutalization effect on society: executions are cruel and are examples to others of the states’ cruelty.  The suggestion seems to be that capital punishment increases people’s tolerance for another’s suffering, their callousness about human suffering, a willingness to impose suffering on another, even the rate of violent crimes (for example, assaults or homicides).  In contrast, one recent defender of the death penalty, Jeffrey Reiman, argues that, for some developed societies, abolition of capital punishment for serious crimes shows restraint and thereby actually advances civilization by reducing our tolerance for others’ suffering.  Such claims are, in principle, empirical ones about the causal effects of the practice of capital punishment.  As with recent deterrence studies, there is no clear empirical evidence of any brutalizing or civilizing effects of capital punishment.

For classic utilitarian thinking, another important consequence of punishment is its effect on the offender.   According to Jeremy Bentham, one of the three ends of punishment is reform of the offender through “its influence on his will” (XIII.ii. fn. 1).  This penal aim of reform (or rehabilitation) may suggest capital punishment is not justifiable for any crime.  But that need not be the case.  The ancient Roman Stoic Seneca, for example, argues that proper punishment for criminal misconduct depends on its “power to improve the life of the defendant” (Nussbaum, 103).   But he also defends capital punishment as a kind of merciful euthanasia: execution is “in the interest of the punished, given that a shorter bad life is better than a longer one” (Nussbaum, 103, note 43).  Plato also defends capital punishment by looking to its impact on the offender.  In his later works and as part of a general theory of penology, Plato maintains that the primary penal purpose is reform—to “cure” offenders, as he says.  For crimes that show offenders are “incurable,” Plato argues execution is justifiable.  In his late work, The Laws, Plato explicitly prescribes capital punishment for a wide range of offenses, such as deliberate murder, wounding a family member with the intent to kill, theft from temples or public property, taking bribes, and waging private war, among others (MacKenzie; Stalley).  In a utilitarian approach to capital punishment, then, attending to the end of reforming offenders need not be irrelevant to possible moral justifications of the death penalty.

4. Capital Punishment as Communication

A cluster of distinctive approaches to issues of justifying punishment and, at least by implication, the death penalty, are united by taking seriously the idea of punishment as expression or communication.  Often called “the expressive theory of punishment,” such approaches to punishment are sometimes classified as utilitarian or consequentialist, sometimes as retributivist, and sometimes as neither.  The root idea is that punishment is more than “the infliction of hard treatment” by an authority for prior misconduct; it is also “a conventional device for the expression of attitudes of resentment and indignation, and of judgments of disapproval and reprobation….  Punishment, in short, has a symbolic significance ” (Feinberg, “The Expressive Function…,” 98).  Hard treatment, deprivations, incarceration, or even death can be, and perhaps are, vehicles by which messages are communicated by the community.  To see capital punishment as a deterrent is to see it as communicative:  the death penalty communicates to the community—at least potential killers—that murder is a serious wrong and that execution awaits those who kill others.  Various developments of punishment as communication, though, attend to other messages expressed, some emphasizing the sender and others the recipient of the message.

One version of this kind of approach emphasizes that, with capital punishment, a community is expressing strong disapproval or condemnation of the misconduct.  Sometimes called “the denunciation theory,” the basic contention is evident in Leslie Stephens’ late 19th-century work, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (a reply to J.S. Mill’s On Liberty ), as well as by the oft-quoted remarks of Lord Denning recorded in the 1953 Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment :

The punishment for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the object of punishment as being deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else.… The ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is a deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime; and from this point of view, there are some murders which, in the… public opinion, demand the most emphatic denunciation of all, namely the death penalty. (As quoted in Hart, “Punishment…,” 170)

In the United States, Supreme Court decisions in death penalty cases have more than once employed such reasoning:  a stable, ordered society is better promoted by capital punishment practices than risking “the anarchy of self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law” as ways of expressing communal outrage (Justice Stewart, in Furman v. Georgia (1972), as quoted in Gregg v. Georgia (1976)).

As a defense of capital punishment, at least, this “denunciation theory” leaves multiple questions not adequately addressed.  For example, the approach presupposes some moral merit to popular sentiments of indignation, outrage, anger, condemnation, even vengeance or vindictiveness in response to serious misconduct.  There are significant differences between expressing such emotions and punishing justly or morally (see section 2b).  Secondly, the structure of the thinking seems entirely consequentialist or utilitarian: capital punishment is justified as effective means to communicate condemnation, or to satisfy others’ desires to see someone suffer for the crime, or as an outlet for strong, aggressive feelings that otherwise are expressed in socially disruptive ways.  Such utilitarian reasoning would seem to justify executing pedophiles or even innocent persons in order to communicate condemnation or avoid an “anarchy of self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law.” On the other hand, even Jeremy Bentham argues that “no punishment ought to be allotted merely to this purpose” because such widespread satisfactions or pleasures cannot ever “be equivalent to the pain… produced by punishment” (Bentham XIII. ii. fn. 1).  Third, it leaves unanswered why the expression of communal outrage—even if morally warranted—is best or only accomplished through capital punishment.  Why would not harsh confinement for life serve as well any desirable expressive, cathartic function?  Or on what grounds are executions not to be conducted in ways torturous and prolonged, even publicly, as means of better communicating denunciation and expressing society’s outrage about the offenders’ misconduct?  And does not the death penalty also express or communicate other, conflicting messages about, for example, the value of life?  As a justification of capital punishment, even for the most heinous of crimes, a “denunciation theory” faces significant challenges.

Other uses of the idea of punishment as communication focus not on the sender of the message, but on the good of the intended recipient, the offender.  Punishment is paternalistic in purpose: it aims to effect some beneficial change in the offender through effective communication.  In Philosophical Explanations Robert Nozick, for example, holds that punishment is essentially “an act of communicative behavior” and the “message is: this is how wrong what you did was” (370).  Wrongdoers have “become disconnected from correct values, and the purpose of punishment is to (re)connect him” (374).  The justified amount of punishment, then, is tied to the magnitude of the wrong committed (363): “for the most serious flouting of the most important values… capital punishment is a response of equal magnitude” (377).  But, Nozick maintains, the aim of punishment is not to have an effect on the offender, but “for an effect in the wrongdoer: recognition of the correct value, internalizing it for future action—a transformation in him” (374-5).  This paternalistic end seems to preclude the death penalty being imposed for any kind of wrongdoing; however, in “truly monstrous cases” (for example, Adolph Hitler, genocides) there seems to be perhaps the highest magnitude of wrong, a disconnection from the most basic values, and acts worthy of the most emphatic penal expression possible.  As Nozick himself admits and others have noted, this approach to punishment as communication provides “no clear stable conclusion… on the issue of an institution of capital punishment” (378).

Some employing a similar reliance on punishment as communication are less ambivalent about its implications for the death penalty.   The “moral education theory of punishment,” its proponent maintains, precludes “cruel and disfiguring punishments such as torture or maiming,” as well as “rules out execution as punishment” (Hampton, 223).  This argument for death penalty abolition takes seriously the expressive, communicative function of punishments: as aiming to effect significant benefits in and for the offender and, through general deterrence and in other ways, as “teaching the public at large the moral reasons for choosing not to perform an offense” (Hampton, 213).  Punishment as education is not a conditioning program; it addresses autonomous beings, and the moral good aimed at is persons freely choosing attachment to that which is good.  Executing criminals, then, seems to require judging them as having “lost all their essential humanity, making them wild beasts or prey on a community that must, to survive, destroy them” (Hampton 223).  Furthermore, it is argued, capital punishment conveys multiple messages, for example, about the value of a human life; and, it is argued, since one can never be certain in identifying the truly incorrigible, the death penalty is morally unjustified in all cases.   As R.A. Duff puts the abolitionist point in Punishment, Communication, and Community (2001), “punishment should be understood as a species of secular penance that aims not just to communicate censure but thereby to persuade offenders to repentance , self – reform, and reconciliation” (xvii-xix).

Approaches to capital punishment as paternalistic communication are challenged on several grounds.  First, as a general theory of punishment, such expressive theories posit an extraordinarily optimistic view of offenders as open to the message that penal experiences aim to convey.  Are there not some offenders who will not be open to moral education, to hearing the message expressed through their penal experiences?  Are there not some offenders who are incorrigible?  On these approaches to capital punishment, the reasons against executing serious offenders are essentially empirical ones about the communicative effects on the public of executions or the limits of diagnostic capabilities in identifying the truly incorrigible.  Second, with respect to capital punishment, perhaps for some offenders, the experience of trial, sentencing, and awaiting execution does successfully communicate and effect reform in the offender, with the death penalty then imposed to affirm that which effected the beneficial reform in the offender.  Third, as with other approaches to punishment, the moral education theory renders it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to “fashion a tidy punishment table” pairing kinds of misconduct and merited penalties (Hampton, 228).  Focusing on reforming or educating a recipient of a message suggests very individualistic and situational sentencing guidelines.  Not only may this not be practical, such discretion in sentencing risks caprice or arbitrariness in punishing offenders by death or in other ways (see section 5); and it challenges the fundamental, formal principle of justice, that is, that like case be treated alike.  Finally, the implications of these approaches to punishment are quite at odds with the system of incarceration employed so universally for so many offenders.  The implications of punishment as communication aimed at the offender would require radical revisions of current penal practices, as some proponents readily admit.

5. The Institution of Capital Punishment

Much philosophic focus on punishment and the death penalty has been rooted in theoretical questions and principles.  A result is that philosophers have mostly ignored more practical matters and moral facets of the institution of capital punishment.  That historical tendency began to change in the mid-twentieth century with a decidedly American concern: whether the practice of capital punishment is legally permissible, given the United States Constitution’s eighth amendment prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.”  Scholars and lawyers investigated the history and continuing death penalty practices in America, producing evidence of racial discrimination in the institution of capital punishment, especially in southern states.  By the early 1970s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions established especially elaborate criminal procedures to be followed in capital cases: bifurcated trials (one for conviction and one for establishing the sentence), a finding of at least one aggravator for a murder to be a capital crime, automatic appellate review of all sentences to death, guidelines for jury selections, etc. The aim of such “super due process” is to improve criminal procedures employed in capital cases so as avoid arbitrariness in administering the death penalty in America (Radin).

After implementation of these Court-mandated procedures for death penalty cases, a number of empirical studies indicated continuing concerns and problems with the practice of capital punishment in America.  For example, studies of capital cases conducted in some southern states showed that disproportionately large numbers of convicted murderers received death sentences if they were black, a disproportion even greater when the convicted murderer was black and the victim was white (Bedau, The Death Penalty , 268-274).   Also, especially with the advent of new, scientific sources of evidence (for example, DNA matching), studies suggest that numbers of persons innocent of any crime have been wrongly convicted, sentenced, and even executed for committing a capital crime (Bedau, The Death Penalty , 344-360).   Morally justifying punishment in theory is distinguishable from whether it is justified in practice, given extant conditions.  For some, even though questions of theory and practice are distinguishable, they may not be unrelated. As Stephen Nathanson asks, “does it matter if the death penalty is arbitrarily administered?”

a. Procedural Issues: Imperfect Justice

Moral arguments about the death penalty based on procedural issues attend to the outcomes and steps of a long and involved process “as a person goes the road from freedom to electric chair” (Black, 22).  Such a process involves an “entire series of decisions made by the legal system”:  whether to arrest; what criminal charges to file; decisions about plea bargaining offers, if any;  a criminal trial, with jury selection, countless tactical decisions, possible employment of a defense like insanity; sentencing that requires juries find and weigh statutory factors of aggravation and mitigation; post-conviction appeals and possible remedies decided; clemency decisions, to commute a sentence or even pardon the convicted (Black, 22-26).  It is apparent, then, “that the choice of death as the penalty is the result of not just one choice… but of a number of choices, starting with the prosecutor’s choice of a charge, and ending with the choice of the authority… charged with the administration of clemency” (Black, 27).  At each one of these points of decisions, it is argued, there is room for arbitrariness, mistakes, even discrimination.  Furthermore, it is impossible and undesirable to remove all latitude, all discretion, in order to allow each of these decisions to be properly made in light of the particularities of the case, person, situation.  And so, the institution of capital punishment, even as practiced in America, brings along with it “the inevitability of caprice and mistake” (Black).

A criminal trial and, more broadly, criminal procedures in toto are exemplars of what John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice , characterizes as imperfect procedural justice.   There is an independently defined standard external to the procedure by which we judge outcomes of the process; and there is no procedure “that is sure to give the desired outcome” (Rawls 74-75).  For criminal procedures, the aim is “to impose deprivations on all and only guilty convicted offenders because of their wrongdoing”; and for capital punishment, the aim is to impose the death penalty on all and only those guilty of committing crimes for which the merited amount of punishment is execution (Bedau, Reflections 173).  In capital procedures, too, it is “impossible to design the legal rules so that they always lead to the correct result” (Rawls, 75).  Whether due to inherent vagaries of legal language, the necessity of discretion to judge properly complex, particular cases, the fallibility of human beings, or political pressures and other factors affecting decisions made within the system, such as clemency, the risk of error is not eliminable for the institution of capital punishment.  Given unavoidably imperfect criminal justice procedures, at issue, then, is the moral import of any arbitrariness, caprice, mistake, or discrimination in the institution of capital punishment.

The appeal to procedural imperfections is often employed by those opposed to capital punishment and who seek its complete abolition on the grounds that its institution is intolerably arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory in selecting who lives and who dies. This abolitionist reasoning is challenged in various ways.  Given the fact that there are imperfections in the system or practice of capital punishment, what follows is not abolition of the death penalty, but justification only for procedural improvements in order to reduce problematic outcomes.  A second issue, aside from disputes about the actual frequency of problematic outcomes, is a question of thresholds: how many imperfect outcomes are tolerable in the institution of capital punishment?  Abolitionists tend to have near-zero tolerance, whereas some defenders of capital punishment argue that some arbitrariness is acceptable.  For a utilitarian approach to capital punishment, assessing the total consequences—benefits and “costs”— of the death penalty must include the inevitable arbitrariness of its institution.  And in as much as any deterrent effects are linked to certainty of punishment, any degree of arbitrariness in administering capital punishment does affect a central utilitarian consideration in determining whether the institution is morally justified.  For retributivist approaches, the question is whether some arbitrariness in the institution violates requisite pre-conditions for morally justifying the institution of capital punishment (see section 2c).  Jeffrey Reiman, for example, argues, on retributivist grounds, that capital punishment is justified in principle; however, “the death penalty in… America is unjust in practice,” and he therefore favors abolition (see 5b).

A third issue for appeals to procedural imperfections involves limiting the scope of the argument for abolition.   Since all criminal cases are administered through unavoidably imperfect procedures, if arbitrariness justifies abolishing the death penalty for murder, then it would seem also to justify abolishing lesser punishments for less serious criminal misconduct.  In short, the imperfect administration of capital punishment matters morally only if the death penalty is distinctive among punishments.  Punishment by death is often said to be distinctive because, unlike incarceration, death is irrevocable.  But years spent imprisoned, for example, can also not be revoked, once they have been endured.  The idea must be that incarceration, if found to be mistaken, can be ceased: by executive or judicial action the imprisoned can be released and receive remedies, even if only gestures.   On the other hand, a death sentence, once executed, has none of those qualities: death is permanent; punishment by death has finality.  “Because of the finality and the extreme severity of the death penalty, we need to be more scrupulous in applying it as punishment than is necessary with any other punishment” (Nathanson, Eye , 67).

Another major issue involves distinguishing the kinds of imperfect outcomes resulting from the criminal procedures employed in capital cases.  For example, the arbitrariness evident in the procedures may be one of selectivity : among all the convicted killers who merit a death sentence, some of those are actually sentenced or executed and others are not.  As Ernest van den Haag argues, that some who merit the death penalty escape that punishment does not make morally unjustified selectively executing some who do merit that punishment (Nathanson, 49).  Analogies with selective ticketing for excessive speed support this kind of reasoning: justice is a matter of each individual being treated as they merit, without regard to how other, similar cases are treated.  But this argument makes what is just or justified entirely non-comparative, when substantive comparative considerations often are also necessary when arbitrariness or discrimination is at issue (Feinberg, “Noncomparative Justice,” 265-269).  Justice requires treating similar cases in similar ways, and this kind of arbitrary imposition of the death penalty violates that requirement.  Furthermore, it may matter morally what are the grounds of selecting only some convicted killers to receive death sentences or to be executed.  If the selectivity is based on race, for example, then the moral import of the arbitrariness might be far greater, whether for traffic tickets or the death penalty for murder.  Aside from the moral import of arbitrariness as selectivity, there is also an arbitrariness that issues in mistakes , where persons who did not commit a capital crime (or perhaps did not commit any crime at all) are wrongly convicted, sentenced and executed.  This sort of imperfect outcome would seem far more problematic morally than the selective execution of only some of those who merit the death penalty.  As Stephen Nathanson states it with respect to executing the innocent, “this is the moral force of the argument from arbitrary judgment” ( Eye , 53).

b. Discrimination: Race, Class

Criminal justice systems that administer the death penalty operate in the context of a society that may or may not itself be entirely just.  The procedures employed in capital cases, then, can be imperfect due to external social factors affecting its outcomes, and not only due to features internal to the structure of a legal system itself.  Various sources of data suggest to many that American criminal justice procedures produce disproportionately large numbers of capital convictions and death sentences for the poor and for African-Americans.  In short, it is claimed, the institution of capital punishment is imperfect, capricious, or arbitrary in a particular way: it discriminates on the basis of economic class and race.   Poverty and race, it is argued, have “warping effects” on the long, involved process whereby “a person goes the road from freedom to electric chair” (Black, 22).   At numerous decision points, a lack of funds affects how the process proceeds for a poor person charged with a capital crime: the quality of legal counsel for plea bargaining, investigation, and conduct of a trial; financial resources needed to build a strong evidentiary case through crime scene investigation, forensic testing, and expert testimony at trial;  money for background investigations, professional examinations, and expert testimony in the crucial sentencing phase of a capital trial; securing attorneys for legally required and elective appeals; accessing those political offices and officers with the legally unlimited authority to commute a sentence or even pardon a convicted offender.   Given the high correlation in America between poverty and race, any disproportionate outcomes with respect to economic class parallel those with respect to race.  Also, as described above, the “entire series of decisions made by the legal system” in capital cases provides numerous opportunities for unconscious racial bias or blatant discrimination in the exercise of discretion by those administering the process.  Opponents of the death penalty, then, see factors of race and poverty as increasing the likelihood of error in capital cases, and see such discriminatory outcomes as especially problematic from a moral point of view.

This line of reasoning invokes the specter of discrimination in the institution of capital punishment.  The basic empirical claim is that, by race and economic class, America’s imperfect procedures produce disproportionate outcomes.  The issue is not necessarily one of intentional racial discrimination, though that may occur, as well.  Considerations of perhaps unintended discriminatory outcomes, however, need not support abolition of the death penalty.  Aside from disputes about the data supporting the basic empirical claim of disproportionate outcomes, responses parallel those reviewed above with respect to the internal structures of criminal justice procedures in capital cases (see section 5a).  In particular, it is argued that disproportionate outcomes support reforms to mitigate such discrimination, such as quality legal representation being provided for the poor, increased budgetary allegations for defense of the indigent in capital cases, etc. And given that what explains the disproportionate outcomes are social conditions external to the process itself, it would seem that discriminatory outcomes are not inevitable in the way that the effects of ineliminable discretion might be.  The issue, then, becomes the moral import of problematic social conditions that “warp” the institution of capital punishment.  How does such “warping” affect any justification of the death penalty?  Does it matter morally that the institution of capital punishment exists amidst a society insufficiently just regarding matters of economic class or race?

For a utilitarian approach to capital punishment, the issue is addressed in terms of total consequences for the society.  As with other kinds of arbitrariness previously reviewed, any discriminatory outcomes of the institution of capital punishment are part of the total cost of the practice and are to be considered along with all other costs and benefits.  Depending on the causal consequences of the practice in a society at a given time, then, capital punishment is or is not morally justified.  For some retributivists, however, the relevance of current social conditions can be quite different for whether capital punishment is morally justified.  For example, the fairness approach to punishment and the death penalty presupposes a society with reasonably just rules of cooperation that bestow benefits and burdens on its members. Whether America today, for example, satisfies such a pre-condition is, for some, doubtful; and thus, it is argued, even if justified in theory, capital punishment is not justified under current social conditions (for example, Reiman).  Also, retributivists typically presuppose punishment is to address misconduct that is voluntary, a matter of free choice.  But Marx, for example, maintains that such a presupposition of free will is simply false, a delusion:

Is it not a delusion to substitute for the individual with his real motives, with multifarious circumstances pressing upon him, the abstraction of “free will”…?  Is there not a necessity for deeply reflecting upon an alteration of the system that breeds these crimes, instead of glorifying the hangman who executes a lot of criminals to make room for the supply of new ones?

Though Marx is himself sympathetic to a retributivist justification of punishment, theory and practice cannot be divorced.  Marx and many Marxists oppose capital punishment because it is inapplicable to the actual conditions of society where criminality is rooted in structural inequalities of wealth (Murphy).  Thus, for some retributivist and utilitarian approaches to capital punishment, the death penalty may be morally unjustified because of inherently imperfect legal procedures, morally problematic outcomes, or the social conditions surrounding the institution.

c. Medicine and the Death Penalty

In recent years, issues of medical ethics have been a facet of philosophic focus on the institution of capital punishment, especially in America.  Health care professionals—including physicians—can be active participants in the actual execution of a death-row prisoner.  Medical expertise needed for an execution itself can include administering medicines or psychiatric treatments to calm the condemned, judging whether intramuscular or intravenous techniques are best, or actually injecting a lethal dose of drugs to bring about a death (Gaie, 1).  Even if not directly participating in executions and regardless of the method of execution employed, health care professionals can be involved by providing capital trial testimony related to findings of guilt or punishment, such as competency to stand trial, possibly exculpating mental illness, or forensic analyses of murder scene evidence.  Physicians are needed to certify death following a successful execution, and they may have a role in possible organ donations arranged by the deceased (Gaie, 2).  All such participation requires relevant expertise and is important to contemporary death penalty practices.  An important question, however, is whether it is morally permissible for health care professionals to be involved or participate in the institution of capital punishment.

A common assumption is that health care professionals—physicians, at least—have significant moral duties to those they treat or administer to.  Many, like Gaie, address such issues of professional ethics as independent of the morality of capital punishment itself.  Thus, for example, since physicians have a duty to minimize suffering, it would seem to follow that medical professionals’ participation is morally justified for that purpose, perhaps especially in executions by lethal injection.  Others maintain that, analogous to relieving the suffering of a torture victim so that they can be further tortured, physicians ought not participate in executions in order to reduce the suffering of the condemned (Dworkin).  Physician participation in an unjust practice, such as capital punishment, makes them complicit and, so, they ought not be involved. Thus, it is argued, one cannot separate the ethics of physicians’ participation in capital punishment from the moral merits of the institution itself (Litton).

Since the early 1980s, lethal injection has almost completely replaced electrocution as the preferred method of execution for those convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death in the United States.  This recent, novel method of execution has itself generated considerable controversy.  First, unlike other constitutionally permissible modes of execution in America (that is, electrocution, hanging, firing squad, gas inhalation), a lethal injection requires medical expertise in order to be administered properly.  Thus, health care professionals must be direct participants in executions: for example, by preparing the lethal drug dosages, by establishing suitable sites for an injection, and by actually administering the drugs that cause the death of the convicted.   In comparison to other methods of execution, such participation is more essential, more direct, and ethically more problematic.  Execution by lethal injection makes more acute and controversial the ethical issues surrounding the involvement of health care professionals in the institution of capital punishment.  Second, whether employing the typical three-drug “cocktail,” or some variant of that process, acquiring the designated pharmaceuticals has often become difficult or impossible.  Some foreign-based companies face legal restrictions on exporting drugs for such uses, and some foreign and domestic drug companies, for reasons of public image or ethical considerations, for example, choose not to manufacture or supply their pharmaceutical products for use in executions.  This sometimes delays execution or leads governments to employ alternative drugs for which there may not be sufficient evidence of their effectiveness in effecting a human death.  Third, whether any formulas for lethal injections are a humane way (or a more humane way) of causing death is itself controversial, with disputes about the science (or lack thereof) behind the drug formulas and protocols used, disagreements about the evidentiary significance of physiological data from autopsies used to assess the humanity of death by lethal injection, etc.  Finally, so-called “botched executions” are still not entirely avoided by using lethal injection rather than electrocution or hanging, for example.  Cases do occur where the condemned endure an extended process of dying that sometimes suggests lingering sentience, discomfort, or suffering.  As with other facets of the institution of the death penalty, there is disagreement about the import of such practical challenges for the moral justification of capital punishment.

d. Costs: Economic Issues

At least in popular discourse, if rarely among philosophic discussions, considerations of monetary cost are adduced with respect to morally justifying capital punishment.  As Stephen Nathanson rightly recognizes, in its bald form it is a simple economic argument:  the state ought to execute murderers because it is less costly than imprisoning them for life ( Eye , 33).  Even among proponents, though, cost considerations are perhaps plausibly relevant only as secondary, subsidiary supplements to some anterior justification for executing murderers: if murderers merit death as punishment for criminal misconduct, then economic cost is perhaps relevant to justifying their execution over a sentence of life spent in prison.

The argument depends crucially on the empirical claim that, in fact, it is less costly to execute murderers than it is to imprison them for life.  But the facts do not support this supposition.  The costs are not only those of a single execution, but for a system of due process and an infrastructure of facilities and personnel needed for the institution of capital punishment (Nathanson, Eye 36).  A possible reply is that such costs could be reduced, especially if we were to replace America’s elaborate “due process” for capital cases with something much more minimal: fewer appeals and appellate reviews, for example (Nathanson, Eye 38).  Such an approach may save some economic costs but increase the cost of thereby perhaps increasing the frequency of mistakes or arbitrariness.  Furthermore, reliance on comparative costs in determining who is executed potentially introduces a novel, morally suspect kind of arbitrariness.  Given that the cost of life imprisonment would be a function of a convicted murderer’s health and age, younger, healthier persons would be selected for the death penalty, while older, or more feeble, unhealthy killers would be sentenced to life in prison as the cheaper alternative.  The costs argument risks introducing a kind of age and medical status discrimination into the imperfect procedures employed to determine who merits the death penalty for murder.

6. State Authority and Capital Punishment

Exploring fully whether capital punishment is morally justified leads to considering a normative account of the modern state, its foundations, proper functions, and penal powers.  The modern practice of capital punishment presupposes a state which has the authority to make, administer, and enforce criminal law and procedures and then, if merited, impose the death penalty to address serious misconduct.  On what basis does the state possess the authority to punish by death?  This question of justification seems to raise issues about capital punishment that are “more squarely within the province of political philosophy” (Simmons, 311).

Contractarian accounts of the state share the feature that authority is derived from or constructed out of the authority granted to it by individuals that have or would “contract” to create it (see Social Contract Theory ).  Any authority of the state to punish by death is, then, consent-based.  Thus, for example, as with others in the natural rights tradition, John Locke’s contractarian approach grounds state authority in individuals transferring their pre-political right to punish (including by death) those who have violated another’s basic rights by killing.   As Locke maintains in his Second Treatise on Government , the purpose of the state is to protect individuals’ basic rights, and individuals each grant the state the authority to protect rights through laws and punishments that are effective and comply with natural law principles about the amount of punishment (that is, lex talionis ).  Though invoking such a pre-political right of individuals to punish is common in the natural rights tradition, and though there are some recent defenders of such an approach among libertarians (for example, Nozick), Locke himself admits that the notion of a natural executive right to punish “will seem a very strange doctrine to some men” ( Treatis e, sec. 9).

The classic contractarian theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes also justify state authority to punish by death on grounds of individuals’ consent.  In the Leviathan , the pre-political state of nature is famously characterized by Hobbes as a life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (89; Ch. 13).  This life in the state of nature is so insecure that each person, as a means to self-preservation, authorizes the created sovereign power—the state—to punish by death criminal misconduct “to the end that the will of men may thereby better be disposed to obedience” (214; Ch. 28).  Rousseau, in On the Social Contract , holds that “the social treaty has as its purpose the conservation of the contracting parties,” each of whom wills the means to end of preserving his life.  “And whoever wishes to preserve his own life at the expense of others should also give it up for them when necessary….  It is in order to avoid being the victim of an assassin that a person consents to die, were he to become one” (35; Book II, Ch. v).  And so, Rousseau maintains, the political society has the right to put to death, even as an example, those who cannot be preserved without danger to others or the society itself.  In the case of all the classic social contract theories of the state, individuals’ consent to the practice of capital punishment is included in the created authority of the state to rule and to punish.

Some more recent contractarian accounts of state authority to punish are explored in the spirit of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice , with its Kantian conceptions of rationality and basic human goods (for example, liberties, autonomy, dignity).  The general idea is that a system of social cooperation is just if it would be consented to by rational, mutually disinterested individuals making their choice while ignorant of particularities about themselves and their own place in the system.  Such contractarian approaches typically support a penal system which merges both retributivist and utilitarian approaches in establishing a just system of punishment.  Whether such contractarian approaches justify capital punishment depends, as do classic social contract theories, on the details of the conditions under which a rational choice would be made.  A recent proponent of a contractarian theory of punishment, for example, argues that individuals would consent to an institution only if it would leave individuals better off than they would be in its absence.  This “benefit principle,” it is argued, justifies a system of punishment, as each would be better off with punitive sanctions than without.  As to capital punishment, though, “[c]an a person who receives the death penalty… regard himself as better off… than he would have been had he never agreed to the contract in the first place” (Finkelstein, “A Contractarian Approach…,” 216)?  There is a paradoxical air to individuals consenting to a system whereby they may be executed.  Finkelstein argues that, even if the death penalty deters, the benefit principle is not satisfied by a system of punishment that includes the death penalty.  On this contemporary contractarian theory, then, capital punishment is not justified because it would not be agreed to by rational individuals choosing the social institutions under which they would live.

A quite different approach to justifying state authority to punish by death appeals to the idea of societal self-defense or self-protection.  In a short piece, “On Punishment,” John Stuart Mill says, “the only right by which society is warranted in inflicting any pain upon any human creature, is the right of self-defense…. Our right to punish, is a branch of the universal right of self-defence”(79).  One recent development of this approach argues that a societal right of self-protection entails the right to threaten punishment for misconduct, and that a right to impose punishments follows from the society’s right to threaten sanctions (Quinn).  Whether a society has a right to threaten or impose a death penalty for murder, then, is based on its efficacy for deterrence and incapacitation, that is, as a protector of society.  A second, slightly different argument appeals more directly to the model of individual self-defense as a right.  Just as an individual has a right to use deadly force to address imminent, unavoidable aggression against self or other innocent parties, so society, as a collective, has a right to employ deadly force to address violent aggression against innocent third parties within that society.  The amount of punishment that society has the right to employ is constrained as it is for an individual’s moral right of self-defense: the response must be proportionate to the threatened loss.  So, given a moral right of individuals to employ deadly force in defense of their own or other innocents’ lives, by analogy society has such a right to use death as a punishment for murders of innocent third parties in the society.  Whether as an exercise of a right of self-protection or self-defense, the state then has the right to institute capital punishment for serious crimes such as murder.

7. References and Further Reading

A. primary sources.

• References to this extensive work are by number of question and article in the second part of part two (i.e., II-II), available at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/18755/pg18755.html.
• Quotations and references are by page number and chapter number to this translation and edition.
• References to this classic text are by chapter and section number.
• Camus, Albert. “Reflections on the Guillotine.” Resistance, Rebellion, and Death. Trans. Justin O’Brien. New York: Knopf, 1966. 175-234.
• Hegel, G.W.F. The Philosophy of Right. (1821) Trans. T. M. Knox. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.
• References to this text are by pagination in this edition, followed by chapter number, to allow reliance on various translations and editions available in print or on-line.
• Quotations and parenthetical references are from this translation and edition, followed by the standard AK pagination, to allow reliance on various translations and editions available in print or on-line.
• Quotations are from this recent scholarly edition; all references are to section number of The Second Treatise, to allow reliance on various other editions available on-line or in print.
• Marx, Karl. “Capital Punishment.” New York Tribune. 1853. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/02/18.htm.
• Mill, John Stuart. ”Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment 1868.” The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. XXVIII.: Public and Parliamentary Speeches. Eds. John M. Robson and Bruce Kinzer. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988. pp. 266-273. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/mill-the-collected-works-of-john-stuart-mill-volume-xxviii-public-and-parliamentary-speeches-part-i.
• Mill, John Stuart. “On Punishment.” The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. XXI: Equality, Law, and Education. Ed. John M. Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984, pp. 77-79. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/mill-the-collected-works-of-john-stuart-mill-volume-xxi-essays-on-equality-law-and-education.
• Plato. The Collected Dialogues. Ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.
• Ross, W.D. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930.
• Quotations and references are to this translation and edition, using page number followed by book and chapter number, to allow reliance on various translations and editions available in print or on-line.

b. Secondary Sources

• Bailey, William C. and Ruth D. Peterson. “Murder, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence: A Review of the Literature.” The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. Ed. Hugo Adam Bedau. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. 135-161.
• An excellent, thoughtful, and readable rendition of the long history of death penalty law and practice in America, from colonial beginnings through the end of the 20th century.
• Bedau, Hugo Adam. “Bentham’s Utilitarian Critique of the Death Penalty.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 74 (1983): 1033-1065.
• Bedau, Hugo Adam. “Capital Punishment.” Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy. Third edition. Ed. Tom Regan. New York: Random House, 1980. 160-194.
• Despite its publication date, this anthology is still quite useful. It is the best, basic reference for primary and secondary source materials related to American death penalty law, constitutional issues, Supreme Court decisions, public attitudes, social scientific studies of deterrence, and explorations of procedural problems with capital punishment, including matters of race.
• Bedau has long been a prominent philosophic scholar specializing in research and writing about capital punishment in the United States. The first half of this volume is primarily descriptive of the American system, including problematic procedural outcomes and some recent history of the death penalty. The second half of the book “undertakes a critical evaluation…from a constitutional and ethical point of view.” As a matter of applied ethics, Bedau argues for abolition of the death penalty in reasonably just, constitutional democracies, such as the United States.
• Written by a legal scholar, an accessible appeal to problematic outcomes of American criminal procedure as justification for abolishing the death penalty.
• Caplan, Arthur A. “Should Physicians Participate in Capital Punishment?” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 82 (2007): 1047-48. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)61363-3/fulltext
• Conway, David A. “Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Some Considerations in Dialogue Form.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 3 (1974): 431-443.
• Davis, Michael. “Harm and Retribution.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 15 (1986): 236-266.
• Duff, R. A. Punishment, Communication, and Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
• Dworkin, Gerald. “Patients and Prisoners: The Ethics of Legal Injection.” Analysis 62 (2002): 181-189.
• Feinberg, Joel. “The Expressive Function of Punishment. Doing and Deserving. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970. 95-118.
• Feinberg, Joel. “Noncomparative Justice.” Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. 265-306.
• Finkelstein, Claire. “A Contractarian Approach to Punishment.” The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Ed. Martin Golding and William Edmundson. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 207-220.
• Finkelstein, Claire. “A Contractarian Argument Against the Death Penalty.” New York University Law Review 81 (2006): 1283-1330.
• Gaie, Joseph B.R. The Ethics of Medical Involvement in Capital Punishment: A Philosophical Discussion. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
• Hampton, Jean. “The Moral Education Theory of Punishment.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 13 (1984): 208-238.
• Hart, H.L.A. “Bentham and Beccaria.” Essays on Bentham. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. 40-52.
• This essay remains hugely influential in providing the dominant framework for philosophic theories of punishment, including the death penalty.
• Hart, H.L.A. “Punishment and the Elimination of Responsibility.” Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. pp. 158-185.
• Heyd, David. “Hobbes on Capital Punishment.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 8 (1991): 119-134.
• Litton, Paul, Physician Participation in Executions, the Morality of Capital Punishment, and the Practical Implications of Their Relationship (June 28, 2013). 41 Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics 333 (2013); University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-13.  https://ssrn.com/abstract=2286788.
• Mackenzie, Mary Margaret. Plato on Punishment. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
• McGowen, Randall. “The Death Penalty.” The Oxford Handbook of the History of Crime and Criminal Justice. Edited by Paul Knepper and Anja Johansen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 615-634.
• Montague, Phillip. Punishment as Societal Defense. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995.
• Morris, Herbert. “Persons and Punishment.” The Monist 52 (1968): 475-501.
• Murphy, Jeffrie. “Marxism and Retribution.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 2 (1973): 217-243.
• An accessible, readable argument to the conclusion “that the death penalty is not morally acceptable.” Nathanson considers a variety of arguments offered in defense of capital punishment in America: deterrence, costs, problematic procedural outcomes, moral desert and the death penalty, American constitutional considerations. An especially helpful treatment of the arguments based on criminal procedure in America.
• Nathanson, Stephen. “Does It Matter if the Death Penalty Is Arbitrarily Administered?” Philosophy & Public Affairs 14 (1985): 149-164. Print.
• Chapter 4 deals with theories of punishment (retributive and deterrence) with respect to a contractarian theory of a libertarian state developed in the spirit of John Locke’s emphasis on individual rights.
• Section III of Chapter 4 (pp. 363-398) deals with punishment as communication, including some ambivalence about its implications for the death penalty for murderous offenders.
• Nussbaum, Martha. “Equity and Mercy.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 22 (1993): 83-125.
• Pojman, Louis. “For the Death Penalty.” The Death Penalty: For and Against. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998. 1-66.
• Distinctly different, opposing, nuanced approaches to the death penalty in the context of more general theories about punishment and illustrating ways in which justifications are often hybrid theories that synthesize elements of retributivism and consequentialism. Both authors also address the import of imperfect criminal procedures in the administration of the death penalty in America (or perhaps anywhere). The text includes a response by each to the other’s arguments.
• Quinn, Warren. “The Right to Threaten and the Right to Punish.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 4 (1985): 327-373.
• Radin, Margaret Jane. “Cruel Punishment and Respect for Person: Super Due Process for Death.” Southern California Law Review 53 (1980): 1143-1185.
• Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Revised edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971, 1999.
• Reiman, Jeffrey. “Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty: Answering van den Haag.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 14 (1985): 115-148.
• Reiman, Jeffrey. “Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished in America.” The Death Penalty: For and Against. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998. 67-132.
• An excellent survey of the title topic, an aspect of capital punishment not often engaged in the work of others in this list.
• Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1949-1953.: Report. Cmd.8932. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1953.
• Simmons, A. John. “Locke and the Right to Punish.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 20 (1991): 311-349.
• An excellent analysis of the arguments of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant in defense of capital punishment for at least some murders.
• Though the primary aim of this book is to show how philosophic arguments and theories “can be useful in producing an improved moral rhetoric,” Sorell does offer a non-consequentialist and retributivist defense of capital punishment on the ground that murderers deserve to die. He opposes alternative forms of retributivism (e.g., appeals to fairness) and argues that utilitarian or consequentialist arguments are inconclusive, including J.S. Mill’s little-known defense of capital punishment.
• Stalley, R.F. An Introduction to Plato’s Laws. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983.
• A clear, organized introduction to an array of recent theories of punishment, though not specifically addressed to issues of capital punishment. Chapter 7, “The Amount of Punishment,” engages retributivist and utilitarian approaches to justifying the form or kind of punishment for offenders.
• United Nations. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” (1948). http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.
• United Nations. “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” (1976). http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.
• United States. House of Representatives. The Constitution of the United States of America. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2000. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf.
• Waisel, David. “Physician Participation in Capital Punishment.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 82 (2007): 1073-1080. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)61369-4/fulltext.

Author Information

Robert Hoag Email: [email protected] Berea College U.S.A.

An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

Capital punishment is an ancient practice. It’s one that human rights defenders strongly oppose and consider as inhumane and cruel. In 2019, Amnesty International reported the lowest number of executions in about a decade. Most executions occurred in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Egypt . The United States is the only developed western country still using capital punishment. What does this say about the US? Here are five essays about the death penalty everyone should read:

“When We Kill”

By: Nicholas Kristof | From: The New York Times 2019

In this excellent essay, Pulitizer-winner Nicholas Kristof explains how he first became interested in the death penalty. He failed to write about a man on death row in Texas. The man, Cameron Todd Willingham, was executed in 2004. Later evidence showed that the crime he supposedly committed – lighting his house on fire and killing his three kids – was more likely an accident. In “When We Kill,” Kristof puts preconceived notions about the death penalty under the microscope. These include opinions such as only guilty people are executed, that those guilty people “deserve” to die, and the death penalty deters crime and saves money. Based on his investigations, Kristof concludes that they are all wrong.

Nicholas Kristof has been a Times columnist since 2001. He’s the winner of two Pulitizer Prices for his coverage of China and the Darfur genocide.

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

By: Willie Jasper Darden, Jr.

Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. was on death row for 14 years. In his essay, he opens with the line, “Ironically, there is probably more hope on death row than would be found in most other places.” He states that everyone is capable of murder, questioning if people who support capital punishment are just as guilty as the people they execute. Darden goes on to say that if every murderer was executed, there would be 20,000 killed per day. Instead, a person is put on death row for something like flawed wording in an appeal. Darden feels like he was picked at random, like someone who gets a terminal illness. This essay is important to read as it gives readers a deeper, more personal insight into death row.

Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. was sentenced to death in 1974 for murder. During his time on death row, he advocated for his innocence and pointed out problems with his trial, such as the jury pool that excluded black people. Despite worldwide support for Darden from public figures like the Pope, Darden was executed in 1988.

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

By: Bryan Stevenson | From: TED 2012

This piece is a transcript of Bryan Stevenson’s 2012 TED talk, but we feel it’s important to include because of Stevenson’s contributions to criminal justice. In the talk, Stevenson discusses the death penalty at several points. He points out that for years, we’ve been taught to ask the question, “Do people deserve to die for their crimes?” Stevenson brings up another question we should ask: “Do we deserve to kill?” He also describes the American death penalty system as defined by “error.” Somehow, society has been able to disconnect itself from this problem even as minorities are disproportionately executed in a country with a history of slavery.

Bryan Stevenson is a lawyer, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, and author. He’s argued in courts, including the Supreme Court, on behalf of the poor, minorities, and children. A film based on his book Just Mercy was released in 2019 starring Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Foxx.

“I Know What It’s Like To Carry Out Executions”

By: S. Frank Thompson | From: The Atlantic 2019

In the death penalty debate, we often hear from the family of the victims and sometimes from those on death row. What about those responsible for facilitating an execution? In this opinion piece, a former superintendent from the Oregon State Penitentiary outlines his background. He carried out the only two executions in Oregon in the past 55 years, describing it as having a “profound and traumatic effect” on him. In his decades working as a correctional officer, he concluded that the death penalty is not working . The United States should not enact federal capital punishment.

Frank Thompson served as the superintendent of OSP from 1994-1998. Before that, he served in the military and law enforcement. When he first started at OSP, he supported the death penalty. He changed his mind when he observed the protocols firsthand and then had to conduct an execution.

“There Is No Such Thing As Closure on Death Row”

By: Paul Brown | From: The Marshall Project 2019

This essay is from Paul Brown, a death row inmate in Raleigh, North Carolina. He recalls the moment of his sentencing in a cold courtroom in August. The prosecutor used the term “closure” when justifying a death sentence. Who is this closure for? Brown theorizes that the prosecutors are getting closure as they end another case, but even then, the cases are just a way to further their careers. Is it for victims’ families? Brown is doubtful, as the death sentence is pursued even when the families don’t support it. There is no closure for Brown or his family as they wait for his execution. Vivid and deeply-personal, this essay is a must-read for anyone who wonders what it’s like inside the mind of a death row inmate.

Paul Brown has been on death row since 2000 for a double murder. He is a contributing writer to Prison Writers and shares essays on topics such as his childhood, his life as a prisoner, and more.

You may also like

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

15 Root Causes of Climate Change

15 Facts about Rosa Parks

Abolitionist Movement: History, Main Ideas, and Activism Today

The Biggest 15 NGOs in the UK

15 Biggest NGOs in Canada

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Click the buttons below to view arguments and testimony on each topic.

The death penalty deters future murders.

Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.

For years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted murderers being executed, but the results were inconclusive. Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies.

Moreover, even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, that is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the question of deterrence closely, wrote: “Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks.”

Finally, the death penalty certainly “deters” the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, either in prison, or in society if they should get out. Both as a deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.

States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas’s executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, “It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you’ll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse.”

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A 2012 report released by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than three decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy, Fordham University. Excerpts from ” The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense,” (Harvard Law Review Association, 1986)

“Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year. If it does, it seems quite warranted. It is also the only fitting retribution for murder I can think of.”

“Most abolitionists acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than alternatives could deter. Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers.

Deterrence is not altogether decisive for me either. I would favor retention of the death penalty as retribution even if it were shown that the threat of execution could not deter prospective murderers not already deterred by the threat of imprisonment. Still, I believe the death penalty, because of its finality, is more feared than imprisonment, and deters some prospective murderers not deterred by the thought of imprisonment. Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others. Whereas the life of the victims who might be saved are valuable, that of the murderer has only negative value, because of his crime. Surely the criminal law is meant to protect the lives of potential victims in preference to those of actual murderers.”

“We threaten punishments in order to deter crime. We impose them not only to make the threats credible but also as retribution (justice) for the crimes that were not deterred. Threats and punishments are necessary to deter and deterrence is a sufficient practical justification for them. Retribution is an independent moral justification. Although penalties can be unwise, repulsive, or inappropriate, and those punished can be pitiable, in a sense the infliction of legal punishment on a guilty person cannot be unjust. By committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment that he could have avoided by not committing the crime. The punishment he suffers is the punishment he voluntarily risked suffering and, therefore, it is no more unjust to him than any other event for which one knowingly volunteers to assume the risk. Thus, the death penalty cannot be unjust to the guilty criminal.”

Full text can be found at PBS.org .

Hugo Adam Bedau (deceased) Austin Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, Tufts University Excerpts from “The Case Against The Death Penalty” (Copyright 1997, American Civil Liberties Union)

“Persons who commit murder and other crimes of personal violence either may or may not premeditate their crimes.

When crime is planned, the criminal ordinarily concentrates on escaping detection, arrest, and conviction. The threat of even the severest punishment will not discourage those who expect to escape detection and arrest. It is impossible to imagine how the threat of any punishment could prevent a crime that is not premeditated….

Most capital crimes are committed in the heat of the moment. Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended. In such cases, violence is inflicted by persons heedless of the consequences to themselves as well as to others….

If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime.

The vast preponderance of the evidence shows that the death penalty is no more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder and that it may even be an incitement to criminal violence. Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death-penalty states….

On-duty police officers do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide in abolitionist states than they do in death-penalty states. Between l973 and l984, for example, lethal assaults against police were not significantly more, or less, frequent in abolitionist states than in death-penalty states. There is ‘no support for the view that the death penalty provides a more effective deterrent to police homicides than alternative sanctions. Not for a single year was evidence found that police are safer in jurisdictions that provide for capital punishment.’ (Bailey and Peterson, Criminology (1987))

Prisoners and prison personnel do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide from life-term prisoners in abolition states than they do in death-penalty states. Between 1992 and 1995, 176 inmates were murdered by other prisoners; the vast majority (84%) were killed in death penalty jurisdictions. During the same period about 2% of all assaults on prison staff were committed by inmates in abolition jurisdictions. Evidently, the threat of the death penalty ‘does not even exert an incremental deterrent effect over the threat of a lesser punishment in the abolitionist states.’ (Wolfson, in Bedau, ed., The Death Penalty in America, 3rd ed. (1982))

Actual experience thus establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty does not deter murder. No comparable body of evidence contradicts that conclusion.”

Click here for the full text from the ACLU website.

Retribution

A just society requires the taking of a life for a life.

When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer’s life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind.

Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper to take an “eye for an eye” and a life for a life.

Although the victim and the victim’s family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer’s crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim’s family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims.

For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones for which the death penalty is applied, offenders deserve the worst punishment under our system of law, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser punishment would undermine the value society places on protecting lives.

Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, described his concept of the need for retribution in one case: “In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.”

Retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society demand a more measured response.

The emotional impulse for revenge is not a sufficient justification for invoking a system of capital punishment, with all its accompanying problems and risks. Our laws and criminal justice system should lead us to higher principles that demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer. Encouraging our basest motives of revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. Allowing executions sanctions killing as a form of ‘pay-back.’

Many victims’ families denounce the use of the death penalty. Using an execution to try to right the wrong of their loss is an affront to them and only causes more pain. For example, Bud Welch’s daughter, Julie, was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Although his first reaction was to wish that those who committed this terrible crime be killed, he ultimately realized that such killing “is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie…. Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion. But it has no place in our justice system.”

The notion of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life, is a simplistic one which our society has never endorsed. We do not allow torturing the torturer, or raping the rapist. Taking the life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. executes only a small percentage of those convicted of murder, and these defendants are typically not the worst offenders but merely the ones with the fewest resources to defend themselves.

Louis P. Pojman Author and Professor of Philosophy, U.S. Military Academy. Excerpt from “The Death Penalty: For and Against,” (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1998)

“[Opponents of the capital punishment often put forth the following argument:] Perhaps the murderer deserves to die, but what authority does the state have to execute him or her? Both the Old and New Testament says, “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Prov. 25:21 and Romans 12:19). You need special authority to justify taking the life of a human being.

The objector fails to note that the New Testament passage continues with a support of the right of the state to execute criminals in the name of God: “Let every person be subjected to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment…. If you do wrong, be afraid, for [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13: 1-4). So, according to the Bible, the authority to punish, which presumably includes the death penalty, comes from God.

But we need not appeal to a religious justification for capital punishment. We can site the state’s role in dispensing justice. Just as the state has the authority (and duty) to act justly in allocating scarce resources, in meeting minimal needs of its (deserving) citizens, in defending its citizens from violence and crime, and in not waging unjust wars; so too does it have the authority, flowing from its mission to promote justice and the good of its people, to punish the criminal. If the criminal, as one who has forfeited a right to life, deserves to be executed, especially if it will likely deter would-be murderers, the state has a duty to execute those convicted of first-degree murder.”

National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Excerpts from “To End the Death Penalty: A Report of the National Jewish/Catholic Consultation” (December, 1999)

“Some would argue that the death penalty is needed as a means of retributive justice, to balance out the crime with the punishment. This reflects a natural concern of society, and especially of victims and their families. Yet we believe that we are called to seek a higher road even while punishing the guilty, for example through long and in some cases life-long incarceration, so that the healing of all can ultimately take place.

Some would argue that the death penalty will teach society at large the seriousness of crime. Yet we say that teaching people to respond to violence with violence will, again, only breed more violence.

The strongest argument of all [in favor of the death penalty] is the deep pain and grief of the families of victims, and their quite natural desire to see punishment meted out to those who have plunged them into such agony. Yet it is the clear teaching of our traditions that this pain and suffering cannot be healed simply through the retribution of capital punishment or by vengeance. It is a difficult and long process of healing which comes about through personal growth and God’s grace. We agree that much more must be done by the religious community and by society at large to solace and care for the grieving families of the victims of violent crime.

Recent statements of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism, and of the U.S. Catholic Conference sum up well the increasingly strong convictions shared by Jews and Catholics…:

‘Respect for all human life and opposition to the violence in our society are at the root of our long-standing opposition (as bishops) to the death penalty. We see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. As we said in Confronting the Culture of Violence: ‘We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.’ We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for what it does to all of us as a society. Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.’1

We affirm that we came to these conclusions because of our shared understanding of the sanctity of human life. We have committed ourselves to work together, and each within our own communities, toward ending the death penalty.” Endnote 1. Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Catholic Conference, March 24, 1999.

The risk of executing the innocent precludes the use of the death penalty.

The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, over 180 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 1,500 people have been executed. Thus, for every 8.3 people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics represent an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer operated with similar failure rates, it would be run out of business.

Our capital punishment system is unreliable. A study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted.

Many of the releases of innocent defendants from death row came about as a result of factors outside of the justice system. Recently, journalism students in Illinois were assigned to investigate the case of a man who was scheduled to be executed, after the system of appeals had rejected his legal claims. The students discovered that one witness had lied at the original trial, and they were able to find another man, who confessed to the crime on videotape and was later convicted of the murder. The innocent man who was released was very fortunate, but he was spared because of the informal efforts of concerned citizens, not because of the justice system.

In other cases, DNA testing has exonerated death row inmates. Here, too, the justice system had concluded that these defendants were guilty and deserving of the death penalty. DNA testing became available only in the early 1990s, due to advancements in science. If this testing had not been discovered until ten years later, many of these inmates would have been executed. And if DNA testing had been applied to earlier cases where inmates were executed in the 1970s and 80s, the odds are high that it would have proven that some of them were innocent as well.

Society takes many risks in which innocent lives can be lost. We build bridges, knowing that statistically some workers will be killed during construction; we take great precautions to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are a preventable risk. By substituting a sentence of life without parole, we meet society’s needs of punishment and protection without running the risk of an erroneous and irrevocable punishment.

There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in the use of scientific evidence such as DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the need for reform is not a reason to abolish the death penalty.

Besides, many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. Just because someone’s conviction is overturned years later and the prosecutor decides not to retry him, does not mean he is actually innocent.

If it can be shown that someone is innocent, surely a governor would grant clemency and spare the person. Hypothetical claims of innocence are usually just delaying tactics to put off the execution as long as possible. Given our thorough system of appeals through numerous state and federal courts, the execution of an innocent individual today is almost impossible. Even the theoretical execution of an innocent person can be justified because the death penalty saves lives by deterring other killings.

Gerald Kogan, Former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Excerpts from a speech given in Orlando, Florida, October 23, 1999 “[T]here is no question in my mind, and I can tell you this having seen the dynamics of our criminal justice system over the many years that I have been associated with it, [as] prosecutor, defense attorney, trial judge and Supreme Court Justice, that convinces me that we certainly have, in the past, executed those people who either didn’t fit the criteria for execution in the State of Florida or who, in fact, were, factually, not guilty of the crime for which they have been executed.

“And you can make these statements when you understand the dynamics of the criminal justice system, when you understand how the State makes deals with more culpable defendants in a capital case, offers them light sentences in exchange for their testimony against another participant or, in some cases, in fact, gives them immunity from prosecution so that they can secure their testimony; the use of jailhouse confessions, like people who say, ‘I was in the cell with so-and-so and they confessed to me,’ or using those particular confessions, the validity of which there has been great doubt. And yet, you see the uneven application of the death penalty where, in many instances, those that are the most culpable escape death and those that are the least culpable are victims of the death penalty. These things begin to weigh very heavily upon you. And under our system, this is the system we have. And that is, we are human beings administering an imperfect system.”

“And how about those people who are still sitting on death row today, who may be factually innocent but cannot prove their particular case very simply because there is no DNA evidence in their case that can be used to exonerate them? Of course, in most cases, you’re not going to have that kind of DNA evidence, so there is no way and there is no hope for them to be saved from what may be one of the biggest mistakes that our society can make.”

The entire speech by Justice Kogan is available here.

Paul G. Cassell Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah, College of Law, and former law clerk to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. Statement before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights Concerning Claims of Innocence in Capital Cases (July 23, 1993)

“Given the fallibility of human judgments, the possibility exists that the use of capital punishment may result in the execution of an innocent person. The Senate Judiciary Committee has previously found this risk to be ‘minimal,’ a view shared by numerous scholars. As Justice Powell has noted commenting on the numerous state capital cases that have come before the Supreme Court, the ‘unprecedented safeguards’ already inherent in capital sentencing statutes ‘ensure a degree of care in the imposition of the sentence of death that can only be described as unique.’”

“Our present system of capital punishment limits the ultimate penalty to certain specifically-defined crimes and even then, permit the penalty of death only when the jury finds that the aggravating circumstances in the case outweigh all mitigating circumstances. The system further provides judicial review of capital cases. Finally, before capital sentences are carried out, the governor or other executive official will review the sentence to insure that it is a just one, a determination that undoubtedly considers the evidence of the condemned defendant’s guilt. Once all of those decisionmakers have agreed that a death sentence is appropriate, innocent lives would be lost from failure to impose the sentence.”

“Capital sentences, when carried out, save innocent lives by permanently incapacitating murderers. Some persons who commit capital homicide will slay other innocent persons if given the opportunity to do so. The death penalty is the most effective means of preventing such killers from repeating their crimes. The next most serious penalty, life imprisonment without possibility of parole, prevents murderers from committing some crimes but does not prevent them from murdering in prison.”

“The mistaken release of guilty murderers should be of far greater concern than the speculative and heretofore nonexistent risk of the mistaken execution of an innocent person.”

Full text can be found here.

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used.

In practice, the death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. Rather, it selects an arbitrary group based on such irrational factors as the quality of the defense counsel, the county in which the crime was committed, or the race of the defendant or victim.

Almost all defendants facing the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. Hence, they are dependent on the quality of the lawyers assigned by the state, many of whom lack experience in capital cases or are so underpaid that they fail to investigate the case properly. A poorly represented defendant is much more likely to be convicted and given a death sentence.

With respect to race, studies have repeatedly shown that a death sentence is far more likely where a white person is murdered than where a Black person is murdered. The death penalty is racially divisive because it appears to count white lives as more valuable than Black lives. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 296 Black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim, while only 31 white defendants have been executed for the murder of a Black victim. Such racial disparities have existed over the history of the death penalty and appear to be largely intractable.

It is arbitrary when someone in one county or state receives the death penalty, but someone who commits a comparable crime in another county or state is given a life sentence. Prosecutors have enormous discretion about when to seek the death penalty and when to settle for a plea bargain. Often those who can only afford a minimal defense are selected for the death penalty. Until race and other arbitrary factors, like economics and geography, can be eliminated as a determinant of who lives and who dies, the death penalty must not be used.

Discretion has always been an essential part of our system of justice. No one expects the prosecutor to pursue every possible offense or punishment, nor do we expect the same sentence to be imposed just because two crimes appear similar. Each crime is unique, both because the circumstances of each victim are different and because each defendant is different. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a mandatory death penalty which applied to everyone convicted of first degree murder would be unconstitutional. Hence, we must give prosecutors and juries some discretion.

In fact, more white people are executed in this country than black people. And even if blacks are disproportionately represented on death row, proportionately blacks commit more murders than whites. Moreover, the Supreme Court has rejected the use of statistical studies which claim racial bias as the sole reason for overturning a death sentence.

Even if the death penalty punishes some while sparing others, it does not follow that everyone should be spared. The guilty should still be punished appropriately, even if some do escape proper punishment unfairly. The death penalty should apply to killers of black people as well as to killers of whites. High paid, skillful lawyers should not be able to get some defendants off on technicalities. The existence of some systemic problems is no reason to abandon the whole death penalty system.

Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. President and Chief Executive Officer, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Inc. Excerpt from “Legal Lynching: Racism, Injustice & the Death Penalty,” (Marlowe & Company, 1996)

“Who receives the death penalty has less to do with the violence of the crime than with the color of the criminal’s skin, or more often, the color of the victim’s skin. Murder — always tragic — seems to be a more heinous and despicable crime in some states than in others. Women who kill and who are killed are judged by different standards than are men who are murderers and victims.

The death penalty is essentially an arbitrary punishment. There are no objective rules or guidelines for when a prosecutor should seek the death penalty, when a jury should recommend it, and when a judge should give it. This lack of objective, measurable standards ensures that the application of the death penalty will be discriminatory against racial, gender, and ethnic groups.

The majority of Americans who support the death penalty believe, or wish to believe, that legitimate factors such as the violence and cruelty with which the crime was committed, a defendant’s culpability or history of violence, and the number of victims involved determine who is sentenced to life in prison and who receives the ultimate punishment. The numbers, however, tell a different story. They confirm the terrible truth that bias and discrimination warp our nation’s judicial system at the very time it matters most — in matters of life and death. The factors that determine who will live and who will die — race, sex, and geography — are the very same ones that blind justice was meant to ignore. This prejudicial distribution should be a moral outrage to every American.”

Justice Lewis Powell United States Supreme Court Justice excerpts from McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (footnotes and citations omitted)

(Mr. McCleskey, a black man, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1978 for killing a white police officer while robbing a store. Mr. McCleskey appealed his conviction and death sentence, claiming racial discrimination in the application of Georgia’s death penalty. He presented statistical analysis showing a pattern of sentencing disparities based primarily on the race of the victim. The analysis indicated that black defendants who killed white victims had the greatest likelihood of receiving the death penalty. Writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice Powell held that statistical studies on race by themselves were an insufficient basis for overturning the death penalty.)

“[T]he claim that [t]his sentence rests on the irrelevant factor of race easily could be extended to apply to claims based on unexplained discrepancies that correlate to membership in other minority groups, and even to gender. Similarly, since [this] claim relates to the race of his victim, other claims could apply with equally logical force to statistical disparities that correlate with the race or sex of other actors in the criminal justice system, such as defense attorneys or judges. Also, there is no logical reason that such a claim need be limited to racial or sexual bias. If arbitrary and capricious punishment is the touchstone under the Eighth Amendment, such a claim could — at least in theory — be based upon any arbitrary variable, such as the defendant’s facial characteristics, or the physical attractiveness of the defendant or the victim, that some statistical study indicates may be influential in jury decision making. As these examples illustrate, there is no limiting principle to the type of challenge brought by McCleskey. The Constitution does not require that a State eliminate any demonstrable disparity that correlates with a potentially irrelevant factor in order to operate a criminal justice system that includes capital punishment. As we have stated specifically in the context of capital punishment, the Constitution does not ‘plac[e] totally unrealistic conditions on its use.’ (Gregg v. Georgia)”

The entire decision can be found here.

Death penalty: is capital punishment morally justified?

Lecturer in Political Philosophy, University of Essex

Disclosure statement

Jeffrey Howard receives funding from the British Academy.

University of Essex provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

The execution, by hanging, of Yakub Memon for his part in the 2003 Mumbai bombings invites us to revisit the vexed issue of capital punishment. Few topics incite such moral passion and controversy.

The world’s religious communities are divided on the death penalty. Despite a seemingly unambiguous commitment to non-violence (or “Ahimsa”) in both Hinduism and Buddhism, scholars within those traditions continue to debate the permissibility of lethal punishment. The Old Testament enjoins us to take an “eye for an eye” – the principle of lex talionis – while the New Testament exhorts us to “turn the other cheek”. And while Islam is generally regarded as compatible with the death penalty, the Qur'an’s emphasis on forgiveness suggests that Muslims should sometimes respond to evil with mercy, not retaliation.

While many European countries urge an ethic of rehabilitation in their criminal justice systems, many jurisdictions in the United States stand firmly in favour of capital punishment for serious crimes. Even a federal jury in Massachusetts, a liberal bastion, recently doled out the death penalty to the sole surviving perpetrator of the Boston marathon bombing. And while the United Kingdom abandoned the death penalty in 1964 – the year of the last executions – nearly half of the British public favours a reintroduction of it (though that figure has been dropping steadily).

We will not make progress in the public debate about the death penalty unless we realise that it is only one element in a much bigger controversy: about the point of punishment itself. As The Conversation invites us to rethink the death penalty over the next few weeks, we must not conduct this discussion in a vacuum. Before you ask yourself whether we should have the death penalty, consider: why hand out any punishments at all? Considering the three main families in the philosophy of punishment can help us organise our conversation.

Retribution

“Bad guys deserve to suffer.” This is a blunt slogan, but it captures the essence of a deeply familiar notion: people who have committed culpable wrongs deserve their lives to go worse as a result. Why do they deserve it? Perhaps because it’s not fair for the lives of wrongdoers to go well when the lives of the innocent have gone poorly – punishment levels the playing field. Whatever the reason, “retributivists” – those who believe in retribution – argue that the punishment of criminals is intrinsically valuable; it is valuable in and of itself, rather than valuable because of its good consequences (for example, preventing future crime).

Even if punishing murderers and thieves had no effect on reducing the overall crime rate, retributivists tend to think it’s still the right thing to do. Retributivists also think that the severity of punishment should match the severity of the crime. So, just as it is wrong to over-punish someone (executing someone for stealing a pair of shoes), it can be wrong to under-punish someone (giving him a community service order for murder).

If you are a retributivist, you might support the death penalty because you think that certain or all murderers (and perhaps other criminals) deserve to suffer death for their crimes. Depending on how you think about death, however, you might oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it is disproportionately harsh – perhaps you think that no matter what someone has done, she does not deserve to die for it.

On the other hand you might oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it is disproportionately light. Many people who opposed the recent death sentence for the Boston bomber did so on the grounds that life in a maximum-security prison would be a worse punishment – and so more fitting – than death.

“Criminals should be punished so that they and others will be less likely to commit crime in the future, making everybody safer.” Many people criticise retributivism on the grounds that it is nothing but a pointless quest for barbaric revenge.

Inflicting suffering on human beings, if it is to be morally justified, must instead have a forward-looking purpose: protecting the innocent from harm. If this sounds sensible to you, you probably believe the point of punishment is not retribution, but rather deterrence.

The idea here is familiar enough: people face temptations to break just laws; the demands of morality and the demands of rational self-interest sometimes seem to diverge. Threats of punishment realign those demands by making it irrational for self-interested individuals to break the law.

If you are a defender of deterrence, you must answer two questions about capital punishment before determining where you stand. The first is empirical: a question about real-world facts. Does the threat of the death penalty actually deter people from committing heinous crimes to a greater extent than the threat of life imprisonment?

The second question is moral. Even if the death penalty deterred crime more successfully than life imprisonment, that doesn’t necessarily mean it would be justified. After all, imagine if we threatened execution for all crimes, including minor traffic violations, theft, and tax fraud.

Doing so would surely slash the crime rate, yet most people would judge it to be wrong. Deterrence theorists tend to defend some upper limit on the harshness of punishment – and it may be that death simply goes beyond what the government is ever permitted to threaten.

“Punishment communicates to criminals that what they have done is wrong, and gives them an opportunity to apologise and reform.” There are many different variants of this view : educative, communicative, rehabilitative – and there are important differences between them. But the basic idea is that punishment should make the wrongdoer understand what he or she has done wrong and inspire her to repent and reform.

Whatever version of this view one supports, its implication for the death penalty is reasonably clear. What is the point of a criminal reforming herself as she prepares for the execution chamber?

To be sure, many people try to mix and match different elements of these three broad views, though such mixed theories tend to be unhelpfully ad hoc and can offer conflicting guidance. Far better, to my mind, to plant one’s flag clearly and answer the question: which view should have priority in our thinking about punishment?

Then, and only then, can we proceed to think about the justice (or lack thereof) of governments who kill their citizens.

This article is part of a series on capital punishment that The Conversation is publishing. Click here to read more.

• Death penalty
• Capital punishment

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Initiative Tech Lead, Digital Products COE

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

School of Social Sciences – Public Policy and International Relations opportunities

Syracuse Journal of Law & Civic Engagement

An inquiry into the ethics of capital punishment.

D. Alicia Hickok , Partner at Drinker Biddle & member of the American Bar Association’s Steering Committee of the Death Penalty Representation Project , & J.J. Williamson , Associate in the Drinker Biddle’s Litigation Group

The word “ethic” is derived from the Greek “ethos,” which itself has taken on multiple meanings. In the traditional Greek, it is used by Aristotle to describe the apparent character of the speaker. The Oxford English Dictionary recognizes that its origin relates to nature or disposition, but instead defines “ethos” as “[t]he characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its attitudes and aspirations” or “the character of an individual as represented by his or her values or beliefs.” [1] Regardless of the definition, it is apparent that ethical behavior is necessarily an individual action and portrayal in relation to a community – although Aristotle’s definition is more susceptible to an absolute source of such “right behavior” or “moral action” than the Oxford English Dictionary’s.

The United States Supreme Court has certainly recognized that current community values are critical to an analysis regarding whether capital punishment violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [2] But it has also recognized that an examination of those values must be tempered with respect for the “dignity of man” such that punishment must not be excessive, either through “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” or by being “grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.” [3] These “natural law” values correspond in many instances to moral views set forth in ancient and sacred writing. Any analysis of the ethics of capital punishment thus need to echo the Supreme Court’s recognition of the possibility that something that has become “accepted” in society may nonetheless be “immoral.”

The response to an “immoral” but “accepted” practice represents an ethical choice. Indeed, many people have explored the dilemmas that arise when a community – either through its laws or practices – mandates or prohibits a course of action that is fundamentally at odds with what a person recognizes as an ultimate moral code. This is seen in Judeo-Christian scripture at least as early as Daniel 6, when King Darius was beguiled into signing a law that forbade prayer to any but him. Daniel was a slave who had become a trusted advisor to the king. He continued with his duties, but also continued to pray to God at home daily; the legal consequence of which was that Darius was compelled to throw Daniel into a lions’ den (from which, Daniel 6 explains, God delivered him, thus honoring Daniel’s adherence to the conduct dictated by his faith rather than the law created by the king).

In examining the ethics of capital punishment, then, this article will address three questions: Is there an absolute position on the death penalty that renders it immoral in all circumstances? What does the law permit, command, or prohibit? Does the practice accord with these permissions, commands, and prohibitions – and is the perception that it does? The answer to those questions then prompts a fourth: how is a lawyer in today’s legal system to act ethically in a state that authorizes capital punishment?

I. Is Capital Punishment Wrong According to Traditional Moral Measures?

One might perhaps think that the answer to any question of the ethics of capital punishment begins and ends with moral law. To be sure, in Gregg v. Georgia , [4] the Supreme Court recognized that right and wrong can transcends the laws on the books at any given moment. It certainly is the case that for some religious groups, any notion of capital punishment is contrary to fundamental beliefs. But it is equally the case that not all persons within those religious traditions – and not all religions – condemn capital punishment.

It is beyond the scope of this article to explore the full range of religious responses, which range from a conviction that the taking of a life can be compensated for only by another life to a belief that the sacredness of life can never justify condoning of the taking of another’s life, and include everything in between.

A brief overview of a couple of religious perspectives may, however, give a flavor of the moral reasoning undergirding religious responses. Those who favor the death penalty often cite both to the religious admonitions to honor civil law and to the recognition in Exodus 21 that injury is to be recompensed in kind, admonishing Israel to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” [5]

On the other hand, of those who are fundamentally opposed to capital punishment, most believe that taking of the life of another is wrong even for the state to do. In addition, many express a belief that capital punishment is an offense against the community, or that it is unfairly harmful to the person delegated to carry out the sentence. The conviction that the taking of life is wrong is heightened by – or in some cases replaced with – concerns that the punishment does not achieve its stated goals and is too fraught with uncertainty to be a viable sentence, even if there is a theoretical authority for a state to take a life.

Thus, for example, the Green Country Society of Friends spoke out about Oklahoma’s death penalty statute in 1996 by first recognizing that people “have the need and the right to seek safety and order for themselves and their communities” but rejecting capital punishment as a means to achieve that because (1) it does not respect the Spirit of God that they believe dwells in each person; (2) it “magnifies the tragedy of a lost life by killing again, ignoring the human capacity for change, quenching forever the possibility of redemption and renewed contribution”; (3) because it harms the community by giving violence a “legitimate status as a way to resolve problems”, sanctioning vengeance as an acceptable response to harm, shifting the focus from healing and help to victims, offenders, and affected families and communities, and because it is possible that an innocent person is being executed; (4) because those persons to whom the task of execution is delegated are at “moral and psychological peril to themselves.” [6] In 1999, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, observing that it had been opposed to the death penalty for over twenty-five years, stated:

We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes but for what it does to all of us as a society. Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.

We are painfully aware of the increased rate of executions in many states. Since the death penalty was reinstituted in 1976, more than 500 executions have taken place, while there have been seventy-four death-row reversals late in the process. Throughout the states, more than 3,500 prisoners await their deaths. These numbers are deeply troubling. The pace of executions is numbing. The discovery of people on death row who are innocent is frightening. [7]

After Timothy McVeigh, a Catholic, was executed in Indiana, John and Lauren McBride authored an article in the Saint Anthony Messenger, a paper in the area, [8] reflecting on the execution and on a commencement address that Sister Helen Prejean gave at St. Mary of the Woods College in 2001. Sister Helen Prejean had said that that the death penalty was imploding because it “has always been unfair,” remarking on the expense, the lack of deterrence, and the irreversible and irremediable character of the penalty. Quoting Matthew 25, the authors of the article contended that when Jesus taught that what was done to the least of his brothers was done to him, and linked that to Sister Helen’s admonition that scripture teaches not to return hate with hate or violence with violence. The author also quoted Archbishop Daniel M. Buechlein of the Indianapolis Archdiocese (which includes Terre Haute), who wrote that the “death penalty ‘feeds a frenzy for revenge… [which] neither liberates the families of victims nor ennobles the victims of crime. Only forgiveness liberates.’” [9] In conclusion, the authors reflected on a movement in churches across the nation to ring their bells whenever an execution takes place, remembering John Donne’s statement that “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” [10] The author also interviewed others who were not opposed to the death penalty per se but nonetheless expressed concerns that the process needed reform and decried the racial and economic disparities in its application.

These concerns are echoed in Jewish law, which did not proscribe capital punishment, but which did define strict parameters within which it could be applied. The Talmud Sanhedrin, in exchanging views on the Mosaic law from the third to the fifth centuries C.E., stressed the need for procedural protections before a person could be sentenced to death for treason, discussing the scriptural requirement that there be two witnesses. [11] If one witness was disqualified, the evidence of the others was invalid. Witnesses were sequestered and examined and cross-examined, with accusing witnesses permitted to retract testimony but defending witnesses not. Inconsistencies – even as to time or day – disqualified witnesses. These protections were both to “ensure reliability of outcome and to enhance the possibility of acquittal in a capital case.” [12]

A Talmudic brief was submitted as an amicus in Bryan v. Moore . [13] The authors of the brief were addressing only whether electrocution was cruel and unusual. In their analysis, they recognized that from ancient times, rabbis have been divided whether capital punishment could ever be imposed. Even those that sanctioned it required strict standards of proof (before a court of at least 23 judges), and when execution was carried out, the law required a means to be chosen that prevented unnecessary pain and avoided mutilation or dismemberment. Indeed, any in favor point to sacred writings that stress the authority to enforce justice and protect a community but also stress the exceptional nature of the punishment. [14]

These historic and faith-based perspectives, taken together, have led many persons – and an increasing number of states – to conclude that even if it is theoretically possible to have a crime that warrants a sentence of death, the cost (both economically and morally) is too high, the risk of inaccuracy is too great, and the procedural protections are not strict enough.

But many others, including many with deeply-held religious convictions, affirm the decisions of the Supreme Court, Congress, and the legislatures and high courts of many other states that continue to uphold and enforce the death penalty. That said, the law enunciated by the United States Supreme Court has not stagnated over time. Instead, the United States Supreme Court has narrowed the classes of persons who can be subject to the death penalty and has fleshed out the characteristics that need to accompany any capital sentencing scheme in order for it to satisfy the requirements of the United States Constitution.

II. What Does the Law Permit, Command, or Prohibit?

Because statutes ultimately must conform to the Constitution, the starting point for this analysis are the determinations of the United States Supreme Court in holding that capital punishment was not absolutely proscribed by the Constitution. Two days before the bicentennial, on July 2, 1976, the United States Supreme Court issued five opinions, three affirming the constitutionality of state capital sentencing schemes, and two striking down other such schemes as unconstitutional. In Gregg , the Court explained that in an Eighth Amendment analysis of a statute, there is a presumption that a statute is valid, in part because legislative judgment “weighs heavily in ascertaining [contemporary] standards” and to “respond to the will and consequently the moral values of the people.” [15] After tracing the history of capital punishment in this country, the Court found that the “relative infrequency” with which juries imposed capital sentences did not reflect a “rejection of capital punishment per se” but the belief that the “most irrevocable of sanctions should be reserved for a small number of extreme cases.” [16] The Court also recognized both the retributive and deterrent effects of the death penalty. [17]

But while a state has the right to impose the death penalty, it cannot do so arbitrarily or capriciously, and it must ensure that the sentencer’s discretion is guided and informed. [18] In looking at Georgia’s statutory scheme in particular, the Supreme Court observed that the Georgia Supreme Court was required to “review every death sentence to determine whether it was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, whether the evidence supports the findings of a statutory aggravating circumstance, and ‘[w]hether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.’” [19] Thus, each instance in which a death sentence is imposed will receive the direct attention of the justices of the state’s Supreme Court, and they will address directly some of the criteria that the United States Supreme Court found needed to be present in a capital sentencing scheme to render it constitutional. [20]

Particularly troubling is that the shortcomings of the Georgia Supreme Court’s review are not unique to this case. In the years immediately following Gregg , it was that court’s regular practice to include in its review cases that did not result in a death sentence. The Supreme Court later clarified in Pulley v. Harris that a comparative proportionality review was not demanded for every capital sentence. [21] More recently, however, the Court explained that it had intended only to “convey our recognition of differences among the States’ capital schemes and the fact that we consider statutes as we find them” – not to undermine the Court’s prior conclusions that “such review is an important component of the Georgia scheme.” [22] As shown in the attached chart, it appears that currently there are at least nine states that have no provision for proportionality review in their state statutes.

In Proffitt v. Florida , [23] the sentencing findings of the jury were advisory only; the actual sentence was determined by the trial judge, but “‘[i]n order to sustain a sentence of death following a jury recommendation of life, the facts suggesting a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ. [24] The Supreme Court found that jury sentencing was not constitutionally mandated. [25] Likewise, in Jurek v. Texas , [26] the Court upheld Texas’s capital sentencing scheme, concluding that Texas’s narrowing of death-eligible crimes to a limited category of murders served the same function as aggravating factors did in Georgia and Florida. [27] But the Court was careful to say that it would not be enough to limit the evidence relevant to why a death penalty should be imposed; there must also be consideration of evidence why the death penalty should not be imposed. In other words, a capital sentencing system must: “guide[] and focus[] the jury’s objective consideration of the particularized circumstances of the individual offense and the individual offender before it can impose a sentence of death.” [28] “What is essential is that the jury have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine.” [29] Finally, “[b]y providing prompt judicial review of the jury’s decision in a court with statewide jurisdiction, Texas has provided a means to promote the evenhanded, rational, and consistent imposition of death sentences under law.” [30]

In contrast, in Woodson v. North Carolina , [31] the Supreme Court rejected the North Carolina statutory scheme, because North Carolina mandated a sentence of death for first-degree murder – in part because the Court construed such statutes as “simply paper[ing] over the problem of unguided and unchecked jury discretion.” [32] The Court explained what it meant to have a jury consider evidence in mitigation:

A process that accords no significance to relevant facets of the character and record of the individual offender or the circumstances of the particular offense excludes from consideration in fixing the ultimate punishment of death the possibility of compassionate or mitigating factors stemming from the diverse frailties of humankind. It treats all persons convicted of a designated offense not as uniquely individual human beings, but as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the penalty of death. This Court has previously recognized that “[f]or the determination of sentences, justice generally requires consideration of more than the particular acts by which the crime was committed and that there be taken into account the circumstances of the offense together with the character and propensities of the offender.” Consideration of both the offender and the offense in order to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence has been viewed as a progressive and humanizing development. While the prevailing practice of individualizing sentencing determinations generally reflects simply enlightened policy rather than a constitutional imperative, we believe that in capital cases the fundamental respect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment requires consideration of the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense as a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death. [33]

Although Louisiana’s statute used “a different and somewhat narrower” definition of death-worthy murder than North Carolina, it was also mandatory, and the Supreme Court found it likewise unconstitutional in Roberts v. Louisiana . [34] In so holding, the Supreme Court reiterated that mandatory sentences simply could not be upheld, because society has “reject[ed] the belief that ‘every offense in a like legal category calls for an identical punishment without regard to the past life and habits of a particular offender.’” [35] The Court was also troubled that in order to provide an opportunity to sentence a defendant to less than death, juries were instructed on lesser offenses, regardless of the evidence, which the Court found “plainly invites the jurors to disregard their oaths and choose a verdict for a lesser offense whenever they feel the death penalty is inappropriate – a result that contained an unacceptable “element of capriciousness.” [36]

Through a series of opinions, the Supreme Court would later clarify that a jury cannot sentence a defendant to death without being allowed to consider mitigating evidence; indeed, “when the jury is not permitted to give meaningful effect or a ‘reasoned moral response’ to a defendant’s mitigating evidence – because it is forbidden from doing so by statute or a judicial interpretation of a statute – the sentencing process is fatally flawed.” [37] And, of course, a jury cannot consider evidence in mitigation that counsel fails to uncover, apprehend, pursue, and present. Accordingly, counsel cannot competently represent a capital defendant without developing sufficient evidence about his or her background to make a reasonable strategic decision about what evidence to present in mitigation. [38]

Of course, evidence may not be put in front of a jury because it was never produced to the defense. The role of prosecutors to ensure a fair trial predates AEDPA by decades.

The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor – indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.

It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed. [39]

These principles have given rise to a series of decisions, beginning with Brady v. Maryland , [40] in which the Supreme Court has articulated the constitutional obligation of the prosecution to provide the defense with exculpatory and impeachment evidence. Claims involving the obligations of the attorneys in a case (so-called Strickland (ineffectiveness) or Brady (withholding of evidence)) are the primary claims raised in collateral changes to capital convictions.

In addition, in recent years, certain classes of persons have been determined incapable of being sentenced to death, including persons who are mentally retarded (in Atkins v. Virginia ) [41] and juveniles ( Roper v. Simmons ). [42] In extending the rationale of Atkins to juveniles, the Supreme Court found that there were three characteristics of juveniles that rendered the death penalty inappropriate: (1) the lack of maturity and “underdeveloped sense of responsibility;” (2) a heightened susceptibility to “negative influences and outside pressures;” (3) and a less “well formed” character. [43] The Supreme Court concluded that:

These differences render suspect any conclusion that a juvenile falls among the worst offenders. The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible behavior means “their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.” Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment. The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed. Indeed, “[t]he relevance of youth as a mitigating factor derives from the fact that the signature qualities of youth are transient; as individuals mature, the impetuousness and recklessness that may dominate in younger years can subside. [44]

There are also constraints upon the execution [45] and trial of persons who are mentally incompetent, [46] but these constraints have not led to a blanket prohibition against capital sentences for persons with specific mental illnesses – or to a suspension of all proceedings while a person is incompetent. [47]

There is one more factor that has not yet been addressed specifically by the United States Supreme Court but that bears on the reliability of the verdict and the information that is in front of sentencers to consider. There is wide variation in the statutory (or rules) requirements for notice of intent to seek the death penalty by the prosecution, with most states requiring notice at some point after arraignment (typically sixty days or less), but others requiring notice only at a certain point before trial . Indeed, in Alabama, the death penalty may be sought in any case in which a district attorney has charged a defendant with capital murder, with no notice other than the charge itself required. [48] And in New Hampshire, the only requirement is that notice occur before trial or acceptance of a guilty plea. South Carolina and Tennessee require notice only thirty days prior to trial. [49] If a defendant is provided with ample resources to prepare for a capital penalty phase – whether or not it is to occur – notice may not be problematic. But where resources are limited, it appears unreasonable to ask a lawyer – or for that matter, a trial court – to authorize extensive resources to prepare for a case in mitigation that may or may not be a part of the trial. And yet, mitigation preparation – with its requisite investigation and consultation of experts – cannot be authorized and carried out in only a month without seriously undermining the reliability of the information that is placed before the sentencer.

At the moment then, a capital sentence can be upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional only if there is a trial in which the community can have confidence. That, in turn, requires a competent defendant represented by counsel who has the resources, time, and skill to present a sentencer with evidence in mitigation that informs the sentencer’s decision whether to impose death for the narrow class of the most serious crimes by making a non-arbitrary, non-capricious, guided decision.

The standards that are applied to evaluate the fairness of the capital process are increasingly narrowed, however. On the one hand, state and federal law permit collateral attacks on allegedly unfair processes, through state and federal habeas or other post-conviction relief mechanisms. But on the other hand, such attacks are subject to significantly heightened levels of deference and narrowed bases for challenge, some statutory (such as that imposed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”)), and others by the standard recognition that the presumption of the finality of a judgment increases with each level of review. In collateral review, traditional criminal precepts in multiple contexts (including ineffective assistance and non-disclosure of evidence) require a showing of prejudice that is defined, not by “whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.” [50] This concept is notoriously subjective and uneven in its application, thereby undermining the confidence that is the stated goal.

More fundamentally, the Court has grappled – beginning with Woodson – with the recognition that fair procedures and reliability are more essential in the capital sentencing context than in any other, because death is different in kind, and not merely in degree – indeed “[d]eath in its finality differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year prison term differs from one of only a year or two.” [51] And yet, in a system in which the focus – and expenditures of money – increase disproportionately at the very stages when the standard of review becomes the hardest to satisfy, the public message is that procedures are not fair, sentences of death are not reliable, and verdicts are not worthy of confidence.

III.       What is the Community Practice?

Because the United States Supreme Court has determined that capital punishment is not absolutely proscribed by the Constitution, current practice has largely been placed into the hands of the states, and more specifically the state legislatures, to determine how such a process will function, as well as to define its limits. Eighteen states, as well as the District of Columbia, have chosen to abolish the death penalty outright: Michigan was the first in 1846, and Maryland the most recent in 2013. Most recently, Governor Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania imposed a moratorium on the Commonwealth’s execution of individuals pending a review of a forthcoming report by the Pennsylvania Task Force and Advisory Committee on Capital Punishment. [52] The death penalty, then, remains a viable form of punishment for thirty-two states, as well as the federal government and the U.S. military, though the exact contours of the implementation of this ultimate type of punishment varies widely by jurisdiction.

One area in which the states that continue to employ the death penalty differ is in the qualification standards each state has set (or not set) for the lawyers who represent capital-eligible defendants at the trial level. The idea of standards for capital counsel is not new; in fact, suggested qualifications have been published since 1989, when the American Bar Association (“ABA”) published the Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases. [53] A little over ten years later, the campaign to implement capital counsel qualifications began anew when, in 2001, the ABA commissioned the Death Penalty Representation Project to revise the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases (the “ABA Guidelines”). [54] The revised ABA Guidelines were subsequently adopted on February 10, 2003 by the ABA House of Delegates, intended to “set forth a national standard of practice for the defense of capital cases in order to ensure high quality legal representation for all persons facing the possible imposition or execution of a death sentence by any jurisdiction.” [55] Interestingly, the scope of the ABA Guidelines was purposefully broad, and meant to

apply from the moment the client is taken into custody and extend to all states of every case in which the jurisdiction may be entitled to seek the death penalty, including initial and ongoing investigation, pretrial proceedings, trial post-convocation review, clemency, and any connected litigation. [56]

In setting qualifications for capital defense counsel, ABA Guideline 5.1 lists several factors that a state agency establishing such qualifications should consider, including whether counsel has:

• a license to practice in the jurisdiction;
• demonstrated commitment to zealous advocacy and high quality legal representation in the defense of capital cases;
• a completion of suggested training requirements;
• substantial knowledge of relevant federal and state law governing capital cases;
• skill in oral advocacy;
• skill in investigation, preparation, and presentation of evidence bearing on mental status;
• skill in investigation, preparation, and presentation of mitigating evidence;
• skill in the elements of trial advocacy, including jury selection, cross-examination of witness, and opening statements and closing arguments.

The ABA Guidelines also call for such measures as a monitoring of capital counsel’s workload, in order that the lawyer will “provide each client with high quality legal representation in accordance with [the ABA Guidelines].” [57] Additionally, capital counsel is to create a defense team that includes persons such as a mitigation specialist, mental health specialist, and other such specialists or persons as may be needed to bring a high level of legal representation on behalf of the client. [58] The ABA Guidelines do not address, however, how such a high caliber team should be funded, suggesting only that counsel should be compensated “for actual time and service performed at an hourly rate commensurate with the prevailing rates for similar services performed by retained counsel in the jurisdiction, with no distinction between rates for services performed in or out of court.” [59] While most of the guidelines speak to lawyer behavior, funding does not. In most instances, it is the state that funds capital defense, and it is the responsibility of the electorate to hold legislators accountable for ensuring sufficient funds to attract dedicated counsel and to provide them with sufficient resources to provide a thorough defense.

Since their revision, the ABA Guidelines have received some traction among both state and federal courts. [60] These qualification standards set forth by the ABA, however, are merely suggestions; the adoption of the ABA Guidelines, or the development and implementation of a separate code, is ultimately left to the States. This was emphasized by the Supreme Court in Bobby v. Van Hook , a per curiam decision that highlighted the notion that the ABA Guidelines are “‘only guides’ to what reasonableness [in the context of attorney representation] means, not its definition.” [61] So long as capital counsel make objectively reasonable choices in the course of representation, the “states are free to impose whatever specific rules they see fit to ensure that criminal defendants are well represented[.]” [62]

As the chart below illustrates, states have implemented capital counsel qualification standards in various degrees. For example, in 2005 Alabama adopted the ABA Guidelines as its code for capital counsel qualifications, noting, however, that the adoption of said Guidelines was “not to be considered a rule or requirement but only a recommendation.” [63] Texas has adopted a set of guidelines very similar to those promulgated by the ABA, which it calls the Guidelines and Standards for Texas Capital Counsel. [64] Like the ABA Guidelines, Texas requires defense teams to include a mitigation specialist and the lawyers on the team must complete a comprehensive training program in death penalty cases. [65]

Several states have taken some aspects of the ABA Guidelines a step further, requiring counsel to meet quantifiable benchmarks before being accepted—whether formally or informally—into the capital counsel bar. Arkansas requires its capital counsel attorneys to have at least three years of criminal defense experience, as well as having served as lead or co-counsel at least five capital trials. [66] Additionally, it also imposes an additional requirement of six hours of continuing legal education in the field of capital defense within the year leading up to the capital case. [67] California requires its capital counsel to have at least ten years of litigation experience in the field of criminal law, including ten serious or violent crime jury trials, at least two of which were for murder. [68] Like Arkansas, a CLE requirement (a requirement common to almost all states with capital counsel qualifications) is imposed, requiring fifteen hours of training in capital defense within the prior two years. [69]

Most states have crafted requirements that fall somewhere in between the Arkansas and California requirements, but not all. Colorado, for example, imposes qualifications upon capital counsel, but only at the post-conviction stage of proceedings. [70] And New Hampshire does not have any policies regarding qualification standards for capital defense counsel – although it is worth noting that New Hampshire has not executed anyone since 1939, despite the death penalty remaining in state law. [71]

Although the qualification standards discussed above pertain primarily to trial counsel, the only federal “stick” that is used to ensure the quality of representation is directed not at trial counsel but at post-conviction counsel. Sections 2261 and 2265 of title 28 of the United States Code (part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, “AEDPA”) “provide[] for an expedited review procedure by which state courts are given more deference in the federal habeas review process,” only if certain requirements are satisfied by the states. [72] But both provisions place requirements on the appointment of counsel at the post-conviction stage of the proceedings, i.e ., after a capital punishment sentence has already been imposed by the trial court and affirmed on direct appeal. The deference the state court adjudications receive, then, is based not on the quality of representation when the matter was tried before a finder of fact but the quality of representation in post-conviction collateral attacks – and those state-level collateral attacks are themselves entitled to a deference that a court on direct appeal does not employ.

Two states – Utah and Pennsylvania – do not even fund capital defense at the state level. [73] It is a sobering statistic that Philadelphia’s compensation for court-appointed trial lawyers has been among the lowest of any major metropolitan area in the country – and that of the 100-plus inmates sentenced to death in Pennsylvania since 1978, almost all had their appeals overturned on collateral review. [74] Given the costs associated with post-conviction and habeas appeals, one cannot help but wonder whether the Supreme Court’s requirement of a verdict worthy of confidence needs to be the primary focus of funding for all jurisdictions that choose to maintain the death penalty, and whether, at some point, the Supreme Court will find that a right to a fair trial means that the structure that needs to be in place to ensure a fair trial has to precede trial.

It can thus be argued—as this article does—that the AEDPA statute places its emphasis on the wrong stage of the proceedings – and that creating an incentive to expend large sums of money, employ significant teams of lawyers, and retain multiple experts at the two levels of collateral attack – state and federal – at which the greatest degrees of deference are owed to the state court judgment is not only a poor allocation of resources but a trigger for tension between the bench and bar that ultimately can only harm the interests of the capital defendant.

This tension is a product of an appellate system that, on the one hand, accords deference to the fact-finding of judges and juries – and to the discretion of a trial court to manage the conduct of a trial and the evidence and witnesses that may be considered. That deference extends to the reasonable, strategic decision of a lawyer. On the other hand, habeas counsel and others are required to look at the trial through a prism of standards and scopes of review; even though they see in hindsight defenses that could have been raised, experts that could have been proffered, and mitigation that could have been presented to a jury. As will be seen at greater length below, the more convinced that those not a part of the trial become that capital trials are unfair, the further they push the envelope to force a new trial – and the more entrenched the perspective that all death sentences should be overturned, and the more strident and less respectful the call for that relief, the greater a gulf is placed between the bench and the bar.

The parameters that the United States Supreme Court have articulated for state statutory schemes – trials in which the community can have confidence at which sentencers who are fully apprised of the evidence, including evidence in mitigation, render rational and non-arbitrary sentences – are not advanced by comparing lawyers who are frequently poorly paid and who have to seek court approval for any appointed expert or testing to be measured against what sometimes appears to be unlimited resources and an unlimited appetite for flyspecking a trial in hindsight. It is at least an understandable (and perhaps a natural) reaction to say – as numerous opinions on ineffective assistance do – that the right to effective counsel is not the right to perfect or ideal counsel. [75] Or, as a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion explained, “a defendant’s competency to stand trial must be evaluated at the time of trial” – and contrary evidence produced in hindsight “overlooks this requirement.” [76]  But although the response of courts is natural, so is the unease reflected in the public’s reaction to a denial of relief in the face of new information by experts and others.

IV. What is the Ethical Response?

In a provocative article, Fred Zacharias and Bruce Green explain that the nineteenth century debate about what defines a lawyer’s ethical role – that of a lawyer’s ethical responsibility being to his or her client and that of a lawyer beholden to his or her own conscience – creates a false dichotomy. [77] Instead, they posit that a coherent ethic is found in Rush v. Cavenaugh , [78] which said, inter alia , that a lawyer “is expressly bound by his official oath to behave himself in his office of attorney with all due fidelity to the court as well as the client; and he violates it when he consciously presses for an unjust judgment: much more so when he presses for the conviction of an innocent man.” Thus, they conclude, there is a professional conscience that co-exists with a personal conscience and that together set limits on what a lawyer can do in advocating for a client. [79] In this way, “lawyers’ obligations are distinguished from those of other agents because of their office, which imposes countervailing obligations to the court to which the lawyer owes fidelity.” [80]

On this view, there are obligations of professional conscience that transcend the obligations set forth expressly in rules of professional conduct (those being prohibitions against knowingly participating in illegality or fraud, filing frivolous claims, or failing to be candid with a court). [81] In addressing the unwritten obligations, a lawyer must exercise judgment in determining “the legal and systemic considerations that are familiar to lawyers” and weighing those against the client’s interests and the dictates of personal conscience. [82] The challenge here is that in most instances a person presumes that his moral convictions alone will dictate ethical choices and actions. But the legal profession – and particularly in Green’s and Zacharias’s view – requires one’s morality to inform and be informed by one’s obligations to the court and one’s duties to his or her client. This has significant implications for litigating capital cases, and particularly for collateral proceedings, because the goal cannot be to avoid the carrying out of a death sentence; it must instead be to vindicate a particular individual’s right to a fair trial, developed within the (a) law – either as it exists or as extended in good faith; (b) facts and procedural history of the case; and (c) rules of the court and professional conduct.

In 1982, the Honorable Ruggero Aldisert used the positioning of competence as first in the then-new Model Rules of Professional Conduct to discuss the responsibility a lawyer has “to his client, the courts, and the development of the law” – a responsibility that was greater than that imposed by other jurisdictions. [83] Focusing on appellate lawyers, he stressed that American lawyers need to be cognizant of their responsibility not only to the client “but also to the court in its law-making function.” [84] He then analyzed what in his mind makes an appellate lawyer competent, stating, inter alia , that the first argument in an appellate brief should be the one most likely to persuade the court and that the brief should set forth “only those arguments which have the capacity to persuade” – and he suggested that no brief should exceed five points and preferably should not have more than three. [85] This message of his – that winnowing is essential to a good appeal – is widely held among judges.

But in representing a capital defendant, this view is in tension not only with the requirement of exhaustion but with the uncertainty that a defendant will be able to avail himself or herself of developing jurisprudence without arguing for it. In Teague v. Lane , the United States Supreme Court determined that most new rules of criminal procedure – unless they came within certain narrow exceptions [86] – could not be applied retroactively. In O’Dell v. Netherland , the United States Supreme Court applied Teague to deny relief to a capital defendant, finding that the rule enunciated in Simmons v. South Carolina , 512 U.S. 154 (1994) – that a defendant must be permitted to inform his sentencing jury that he is parole-ineligible if the prosecution argues that he presents a future danger – was a new rule of criminal procedure and not a watershed one that “implicat[ed] the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” [87] Likewise, in Beard v. Banks , the United States Supreme Court found that the invalidation of capital sentencing schemes that required jurors to disregard mitigation that was not found unanimously was a new rule that did not come within either exception. [88]

The response of a zealous advocate is to argue for good-faith extensions of the law – and to try to anticipate any such changes that might be on the horizon. But doing so is inconsistent with the premise with which Judge Aldisert and others begin – that only the strongest ( i.e ., the most likely to persuade a court) arguments should be in a brief. The ABA as well has said that given the legal climate, a lawyer has a responsibility to raise all arguments potentially available. [89] The resultant long briefs, filled with issues and sub-issues, some only partially developed, has led to frustrations by the bench at the time it takes to review (or ferret out) arguments and address them carefully, and a sense that the briefing and other tactics are placing personal agendas above the ethical obligation to the courts.

In the concurrence of Commonwealth v. Eichinger , for example, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice quoted the post-conviction trial court, which had had to reallocate its other cases to senior judges to handle a single post-conviction petition.

A lawyer has a sacred duty to defend his or her client. Our codes of professional responsibility additionally call upon lawyers to serve as guardians of the law, to play a vital role in the preservation of society, and to adhere to the highest standards of ethical and moral conduct. Simply stated, we are all called upon to promote respect for the law, our profession, and to do public good. …. This case has caused me to reasonably question where the line exists between a zealous defense and an agenda-driven litigation strategy, such as the budget-breaking resource-breaking strategy on display in this case. Here, the cost to the people and to the trial Court was very high. [90]

Another justice, also concurring, expressed his frustration this way:

Simply put, those who oppose the death penalty should address their concerns to the legislature. Using the court system as a way to delay, obstruct, and thus, by implication invalidate a law passed by duly elected senators and representatives cannot be characterized as proper, zealous advocacy. That is to say, “the gravity of a capital case does not relieve counsel of their obligation under Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct not to raise frivolous claims. . . . While an attorney may have an ethical obligation to be a zealous advocate, he has a duty not to pester the courts with frivolous arguments. In fact, an attorney does his client a disservice by failing to winnow out the weaker arguments and focusing on central, key issues, upon which his client might be granted relief. Adding weaker, particularly frivolous arguments, dilutes the force of the stronger ones and makes it difficult for a court to focus on those issues which are deserving of attention, i.e., those which are non-frivolous. Common sense dictates that, when an attorney raises an excessive number of issues, as occurred in this PCRA case, the motivation for so doing is to paralyze the court system to further political views. It is not hard to discern that, in such cases, the strategy of PCRA capital counsel is not necessarily to put forth the best legal arguments upon which the client may be granted relief, but rather, the strategy is to keep, at all costs, his client from suffering the ultimate penalty proscribed by law. Appellant as PCRA counsel have the duty, like any attorney, to raise and pursue viable claims, and they must do so within the ethical limits which govern all Pennsylvania. [91]

In other words, collateral capital litigation in Pennsylvania and elsewhere demonstrates the divide between those who advocate loyalty to the court and to jurisprudential principles and practices and those who seek to overturn death sentences through whatever procedural or legal means are available or are perceived as potentially available. Those who see the practices as disloyal to the courts also see them as divorced from a lawyer’s loyalty to his client. Those involved adamantly disagree, believing that saving or extending a life is in the best interests of the client.

The ramifications of the dilemma posed by this tension are not merely theoretical, or even philosophical. As the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania explained, its recent movement to strict word limits and other briefing parameters in all appeals was in response to what it perceived as briefing abuses in capital post-conviction briefing in that Court. [92] Similarly, while Pennsylvania has refused to find waiver for claims of incompetency that are raised for the first time in collateral proceedings, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s perception that such claims are being abused has led to an increasing number of justices expressing a willingness to overrule the preservation exception. [93] Said differently, what may extend the time that a defendant is alive may come at the cost of credibility and worse, not just for the defendant or petitioner in a given case but for all parties in all criminal – and, often, civil – cases. That is a high price to pay in response to a system that, if it is to work at all, must provide a cost-effective, reliable, non-arbitrary process for determining whether a defendant is death-worthy.

Moreover, when there is a lack of congruence between morality and ethics, those outside the profession question the efficacy of the system itself. Many people decry capital punishment as “too costly” or, at least more costly than life in prison – and empirically, that is true. [94] Some use that costliness as an additional reason that the death penalty should be abolished. Others decry the expense as wasteful and agenda-driven, and call for changes to the system to make it more “efficient.” [95] Part of the reason that the expense is as high as it is is attributable to the resources that are devoted to multiple rounds of review – direct appeal, followed by post-conviction trial court practice and appellate review, followed by federal habeas trial court practice and appellate review – with the potential for seeking a writ of certiorari after each round. And that may be repeated if, for example, claims in federal court are found unexhausted and a defendant is permitted to return to state court to exhaust them. The only way to lessen the costs on the “back end” of state and federal collateral review is to ensure that there are adequate resources at the front end – at the trial that is the focus of the constitutional assurances that a sentence of death can be carried out.

For states that have a death penalty on the books, the statutes and schemes must provide for verdicts in which a community can have confidence. That means that resources – mitigation specialists, mental health and other experts, and well-trained and fairly-compensated lawyers should represent defendants at trial and on direct appeal. Post-conviction proceedings and federal habeas proceedings should not be the primary stage at which the fairness of a trial is litigated. In order for that to happen, there needs to be changes, which in some cases or in some states may be radical ones.

First , as the law changes, it should change for all who were convicted under the old system. When Ring v. Arizona was decided, there were 30 resentencings on remand. [96] Until the bar has confidence that defendants will get the benefit of evolving law, lawyers will be unable to avoid arguing for extensions of the law in any way they perceive applicable to the defendants they represent.

Second , those firms and private donors that are assisting on the “back end” – at federal habeas or in state post-conviction proceedings – should help instead to fund trial-level resources, whether retaining and presenting experts, funding mitigation specialists, or donating funds to help pay for sufficient adequately compensated counsel.

Third , federal deference should be determined by how well a state ensures verdicts worthy of confidence, not by how well it structures post-conviction relief.

This article has explored several inverted incentives that call into question whether the constitutional scheme that the United States Supreme Court envisioned can be achieved – and that at the least shows that it is not there now. As lawyers, the authors of this article adhere strongly to the conviction that a lawyer may exercise zealous advocacy and personal belief only within the confines of our duties to the courts in which we practice – and, as Judge Aldisert suggested – to the law itself. In that spirit, we offer the following thoughts:

At the end of the day – whether because one cannot countenance any taking of life or because one believes that it is not possible to create a system worthy of confidence when it comes to a sentence of death, there will be some who will say that none of this matters: that no matter how a capital sentencing scheme is structured or what protections are in place, it is wrong to execute persons at all. There are two vehicles for the expression of that ethical choice: the legislatures, state and federal, which enact the laws defining or abolishing the death penalty; and the views of the community, which the United States Supreme Court has said is critical to an Eighth Amendment analysis. But for those struggling to respond to capital punishment as lawyers, all three duties of loyalty must be kept in balance: to one’s client, to one’s own conscience; and to the jurisprudential system – both the development of the law and the individual tribunal before which one appears. Daniel prayed before an open window, but he also continued to serve the king.

[1] “ethos.” Oxford English Dictionary. 2014. http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/64840 (18 Apr. 2015).

[2] Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976).

[4] Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. at 183-84.

[5] Exodus 21:23-25.

[6] Minute of the Green Country Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, on Capital Punishment (May 12, 1996) available at http://www.qis.net/~daruma/cap-pun2.html.

[7] Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, on Ending the Death Penalty (Mar. 24, 1999).

[8] John and Laura McBride, We’d Like To Say: Capital Punishment is Not the Answer , St. Anthony Messenger (Jan. 2002), http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jan2002/feature3.asp.

[9] John and Laura McBride, We’d Like To Say: Capital Punishment is Not the Answer , St. Anthony Messenger (Jan. 2002), http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jan2002/feature3.asp .

[11] Sheldon M. Finkelstein, A Tale of Two Witnesses: The Constitution’s Two-Witness Rule and the Talmud Sanhedrin , 43 Litigation 4 (Summer 2010).

[12] Id . at 17.

[13] Bryan v. Moore , 528 U.S. 1133 (2000) (dismissing as improvidently granted a challenge to electrocution because Florida’s law changed in the interim to permit execution by lethal injection).

[14] E.g., Qur’an 6:151 (“Take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus does He command you, so that you may learn wisdom.”).

[15] Gregg , 428 U.S. at 175-76.

[16] Id. at 181-82.

[18] Gregg , 428 U.S. at 189, 194-95.

[19] Id . at 204.

[21] Pulley v. Harris , 465 U.S. 37 (1984).

[22] Walker v. Georgia , 555 U.S. 979, 983-84 (2008).

[23] Proffitt v. Florida , 428 U.S. 242 (1976).

[24] Id . at 208 (quoting Tedder v. State , 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1975)).

[25] Id . at 252.

[26] Jurek v. Texas , 428 U.S. 262 (1976).

[27] Id. at 271.

[28] Id . at 274.

[29] Id . at 276.

[31] Woodson v. North Carolina , 428 U.S. 280 (1976).

[32] Id. at 302.

[33] Id . at 304 (citations omitted).

[34] Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976).

[35] Id . at 333.

[36] Id . at 335.

[37] Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman , 550 U.S. 233, 264 (2007).

[38] E.g., Wiggins v. Smith , 539 U.S. 510, 535-36 (2003). The first case to define a constitutional right to counsel as a right to effective counsel is Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

[39] Berger v. United States , 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). See also Mooney v. Holohan , 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935) (rejecting the Attorney General’s contention that a prosecutor’s obligation extends only to evidence in possession of the defendant).

[40] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

[41] Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

[42] Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

[43] Id . at 569.

[44] Id . at 570 (citations and internal quotations omitted).

[45] Ford v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 399, 401 (1986) (“For centuries no jurisdiction has countenanced the execution of the insane, yet this Court has never decided whether the Constitution forbids the practice. Today we keep faith with our common-law heritage in holding that it does.”).

[46] Drope v. Missouri , 420 U.S. 162, 172 (1975) (recognizing that it violates due process to fail “to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial.”).

[47] E.g ., Ryan v. Gonzales , 133 S. Ct. 696 (2013) (finding no statutory right to a suspension of habeas proceedings during the pendency of petitioner’s incompetence).

[48] Ala. Code § 13A-5-40.

[49] South Carolina Statutes, § 16-3-26; Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.3(b)(1) (“When the indictment or presentment charges a capital offense and the district attorney general intends to ask for the death penalty, he or she shall file notice of this intention not less than thirty (30) days before trial. If the notice is untimely, the trial judge shall grant the defendant, on motion, a reasonable continuance of the trial.”).

[50] Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995) (emphasis added).

[51] Lankford v. Idaho , 500 U.S. 110, 125-26 & nn. 20, 21 (1991).

[52] See Governor Tom Wolf, Memorandum, Death Penalty Moratorium Declaration, available at http://www.pa.gov/Pages/NewsDetails.aspx?agency=PAGovNews&item=16512.

[53] ABA Resolution, Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases (1989), www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/death_penalty_representation/1989guidelines.authcheckdam.pdf .

[54] ABA Resolution, Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases (2003), www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/death_penalty_representation/2003guidelines.authcheckdam.pdf .

[55] ABA Guideline 1.1(A).

[56] ABA Guideline 1.1 (B).

[57] ABA Guideline 6.1.

[58] ABA Guideline 10.4. In 2008, the ABA published the Supplementary Guidelines for the Mitigation Function of Defense Teams in Death Penalty Cases (the “Supplementary Guidelines”). The objective of the Supplementary Guidelines is to “summarize prevailing professional norms for mitigation investigation, development and presentation by capital defense teams, in order to ensure high quality representation for all persons facing the possible imposition or execution of a death sentence in any jurisdiction.”

[59] ABA Guideline 9.1.

[60] See, e.g ., Littlejohn v. Trammell , 704 F.3d 817 (10th Cir. 2013); Link v. Luebbers , 830 F. Supp. 2d 729 (E.D. Mo. 2011); State v. Hunder , 960 N.E.2d 95 (Ohio 2011).

[61] Bobby v. Van Hook , 558 U.S. 4, 8 (2009).

[62] Id . at 9.

[63] Alabama Circuit Judge’s Association Resolution (Jan. 21, 2005), available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/Death_Penalty_Representation/Standards/State/Alabama_Resolution_for_ABA_Guidelines_Aug_2007.authcheckdam.pdf .

[64] Guidelines and Standards for Texas Capital Counsel, State Bar of Texas , 69 Tex. Bar J. 10, 966-982 (Nov. 2006), available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/Death_Penalty_Representation/Standards/State/TX_Bar_Association_adopted_version_of_ABA_Guidelines.authcheckdam.pdf .

[66] Alabama Circuit Judge’s Association Resolution (Jan. 21, 2005), available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/Death_Penalty_Representation/Standards/State/Alabama_Resolution_for_ABA_Guidelines_Aug_2007.authcheckdam.pdf .

[67] Public Defender Commission, State of Arkansas, available at http://www.arkansas.gov/apdc/news/qualifications.html#Cases.

[68] Cal. Rules of Court, R. 4.117.

[70] C.R.S.A. § 16-12-205.

[71] National Center for State Courts, Indigent Defense State Links, available at http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Access-and-Fairness/Indigent-Defense/State-Links.aspx?cat=Capital%20Case%20Representation#New Hampshire.

[72] Wright v. Angelone , 644 F. Supp. 460, 462 (E.D.Va. 1996) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2261, 2265).

[73] Daniel Silverman, Death Penalty System Broken, Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 5, 2015, available at http:/qqq/philly/com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20150105_Death-penatly_system_broker.html.

[75] E.g ., Yarborough v. Gentry , 540 U.S. 1, 8 (2003) (“The Sixth Amendment guarantees reasonable competence, not perfect advocacy judged with the benefit of hindsight.”)

[76] Commonwealth v. Bomar , 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3078 at *33.

[77] Fred C. Zacharias & Bruce A. Green, Reconceptualizing Advocacy Ethics , 74 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1 (November 2005).

[78] Id . at 8, quoting Rush v. Cavenaugh , 2 Pa. 187, 189, 1845 Pa. LEXIS 306 (1845).

[79] In tracing the disappearance of this concept, they observe that Henry S. Drinker, in Legal Ethics at 145 & n.32 (1953) was the last treatise author to cite to Rush – and he did so as support for his conclusion that “[a] lawyer is not bound to give his client a moral lecture. He should advise what the law requires, but should not further any of the client’s unjust schemes, and should refuse to become a party to them.” Id .

[80] Zacharias and Green at 34.

[81] Id . at 51.

[82] Id . at 52-53.

[83] 11 Cap. U. L. Rev. 446 (1981-82).

[84] Id . at 454.

[85] Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288, 407 (1989).

[86] Teague recognized exceptions for “certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe,” and “watershed rules of criminal procedure.” O’Dell v. Netherland , 521 U.S. 151, 311 (1997).

[87] O’Dell , 521 U.S. at 167.

[88] Beard v. Banks , 542 U.S. 406 (2004).

[89] See ABA Guideline 10.8 (stating that lawyer has duty to “consider all legal claims potentially available” in addition to “supplementing claims previously made with additional factual or legal information”); see also ABA Guideline 10.15.1 (stating that post-conviction counsel should “seek to litigate all issues, whether or not previously presented, that are arguably meritorious under the standards applicable to high quality capital defense representation, including challenges to any overly restrictive procedural rules”).

[90] 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3558 at *68-69.

[91] Id . at *83-85.

[92] See Commonwealth v. Spotz , 99 A.3d 866, 916 (Pa. 2014) (post-decisional single justice opinion).

[93] While only one justice called for overruling the exception in Commonwealth v. Bomar , 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3078 (Nov. 21, 2014), three did so in Commonwealth v. Blakeney , 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3517 (Pa. Dec. 29, 2014),

[94] See Senator Caroly McGinn, “Death Penalty Too Costly,” The Witchita Eagle , March 1, 2009, available at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/new-voices-republican-senator-says-kansas-death-penalty-too-costly; Logan Carver, “Death Penalty Cases More Expensive than Lifetime Imprisonment, But Local CDA Says Cost Never a Consideration,” Lubbock Avalance-Journal, available at http://lubbockonline.com/stories/121309/loc_535156806.shtml .

[95] Arit John, A Botched Lethal Injection Won’t Change Anyone’s Mind About Capital Punishment (posted July 24, 2014), http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/07/a-botched-lethal-injection-wont-change-anyones-mind-about-capital-punishment/375022 (discussing Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s argument that to prevent executions from being cruel and unusual, a more efficient form of capital punishment, such as firing squads, should be employed).

[96] 536 U.S. 584 (2002)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Argumentative essay on The death penalty

2016, Argumentative essay on The death penalty

Related Papers

Gerardette Philips

Brendan Beech

Mary Blakelock

charity mae dacut

Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life. For years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted murderers being executed, but the results were inconclusive. Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies. Moreover, even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, that is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty. Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the question of deterrence closely, wrote: "Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks." Finally, the death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, either in

Meray Maddah

" No crime goes unpunished " ; we are probably familiar with this quote where anyone who is guilty of any committed crime they should be prosecuted for it before the law and be held responsible for the actions that generated such crime. What people are also familiar with is the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights and the number of articles that it calls for, but distinctively the right to liberty, freedom and personal security. This right something that states and their sovereigns, at least most of them, aspire to accomplish in respect to their nationals' own security, well-being and livelihood; because after all what good is a state if it is not able to make its citizens enjoy the type of life that every human being is entitled on the expense of a certain political agenda from the state's part. In this sense, the state in such scenario will be the responsible party for not only distributing these rights but also following up with the citizens' utilization of these rights and making that each one does have the bare minimum of each right; meaning the entire right itself and not to settle with anything less. That said, what if the state in this case was the party that not only did it not allow the enjoyment of the before mentioned right; but also was the reason why that person is no longer alive? Capital punishment or the application of the different methods of death penalty are still part of many states' judiciary systems and are still until the present day categorically practiced based upon the crime committed by the defendant. No matter how heinous a crime maybe or the fact that numerous of these crimes claim other people's lives, but in the process what good and what type of benefit can we justify ourselves with when we are producing the same end result, that is death, through different procedures that fall under the label of " law application " ? Most importantly, how can we distinguish ourselves from these same criminals and why is acceptable to kill in the name of a perceived justice if such death penalty is agreed upon by a judiciary commission, than to reject

Joseph U C H E Anyebe

The issues as touching death penalty is as topical as they come. This Work seeks to address some of those issues and proffer solutions to some of those identified therein

Charadine Pich

Indian Journal of Legal Philosophy, ISSN:2347-4963,

Ashay Anand

Since the ancient ages ‘Death Penalty’ has been used as a means of deterring crime and eliminating criminals, but it has always been fraught with issues that have been hotly debated between its supporters and antagonists. In the contemporary era ‘Death Penalty’ faces severe challenges mainly regarding the shadow of arbitrariness looming over its applicability, its ability to be an effective deterrent and the serious issue of innocent people continuously in a danger of being sentenced to capital punishment under questionable circumstances which are still an integral part of this process. Moreover it also faces a continual threat of acting as a tool of retribution under pressure of public opinion and mass media. As such should death penalty be scrapped or should it be allowed to function as a necessary evil or an invisible scepter that keeps the perverse from doing heinous acts is an issue worth consideration.

Ines Manoylova

David Von Drehle

RELATED PAPERS

Jean-Louis ALBERT

Wolfgang R. Dick

European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics

Bernd Fussnegger

Anggi Pratiwi

IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Analog and Digital Signal Processing

Gordon Roberts

lalit ranakoti

Estudios De Historia Moderna Y Contemporanea De Mexico

Rodrigo Díaz

Türk Hemşireler Derneği Dergisi

Nurgül ARPAG

Jesus Lazaro Rodriguez

Women's Health Issues

Antonio Rene

PengabdianMu: Jurnal Ilmiah Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat

Prima Suci Rohmadheny

In ascolto della bellezza

M.Chiara Beccari

Siti Amla Zuchrifa Aisyah

Journal of Microscopy

Clare Waterman

Indian Journal of Microbiology Research

Supriya Christopher

Journal of Antivirals & Antiretrovirals

gianfranco dedivitiis

Oxford Scholarship Online

Lena Baunaz

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

Evangelos Baltas

Manuel Soldado alarcon

International Journal of Geomate

I Nengah Sinarta

Mauricio Saramago

International Journal of Supply Chain Management

Professor Dr. Noor Raihan Ab Hamid (Staff)

José Moreno-Navarrete

Musik & Ästhetik Heft 109

Christoph Haffter

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Alberto Espinosa

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

"The Penalty of Death" by H.L. Mencken

Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

As shown in H.L. Mencken on the Writing Life , Mencken was an influential satirist as well as an editor , literary critic, and longtime journalist with The Baltimore Sun . As you read his arguments in favor of the death penalty, consider how (and why) Mencken injects humor into his discussion of a grim subject. His satirical use of the persuasive essay format uses irony and sarcasm to help make his point. It is similar in mode to Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal . Satirical essays like Mencken's and Swift's allow the authors to make serious points in humorous, entertaining ways. Teachers can use these essays to help students understand satire and persuasive essays.  ​

The Penalty of Death

by H.L. Mencken

Of the arguments against capital punishment that issue from uplifters, two are commonly heard most often, to wit:

• That hanging a man (or frying him or gassing him) is a dreadful business, degrading to those who have to do it and revolting to those who have to witness it.
• That it is useless, for it does not deter others from the same crime.

The first of these arguments, it seems to me, is plainly too weak to need serious refutation . All it says, in brief, is that the work of the hangman is unpleasant. Granted. But suppose it is? It may be quite necessary to society for all that. There are, indeed, many other jobs that are unpleasant, and yet no one thinks of abolishing them—that of the plumber, that of the soldier, that of the garbage-man, that of the priest hearing confessions, that of the sand-hog, and so on. Moreover, what evidence is there that any actual hangman complains of his work? I have heard none. On the contrary, I have known many who delighted in their ancient art, and practiced it proudly.

In the second argument of the abolitionists there is rather more force, but even here, I believe, the ground under them is shaky. Their fundamental error consists in assuming that the whole aim of punishing criminals is to deter other (potential) criminals--that we hang or electrocute A simply in order to so alarm B that he will not kill C. This, I believe, is an assumption which confuses a part with the whole. Deterrence, obviously, is one of the aims of punishment, but it is surely not the only one. On the contrary, there are at least half a dozen, and some are probably quite as important. At least one of them, practically considered, is more important. Commonly, it is described as revenge, but revenge is really not the word for it. I borrow a better term from the late Aristotle: katharsis . Katharsis , so used, means a salubrious discharge of emotions, a healthy letting off of steam. A school-boy, disliking his teacher, deposits a tack upon the pedagogical chair; the teacher jumps and the boy laughs. This is katharsis . What I contend is that one of the prime objects of all judicial punishments is to afford the same grateful relief ( a ) to the immediate victims of the criminal punished, and ( b ) to the general body of moral and timorous men.

These persons, and particularly the first group, are concerned only indirectly with deterring other criminals. The thing they crave primarily is the satisfaction of seeing the criminal actually before them suffer as he made them suffer. What they want is the peace of mind that goes with the feeling that accounts are squared. Until they get that satisfaction they are in a state of emotional tension, and hence unhappy. The instant they get it they are comfortable. I do not argue that this yearning is noble; I simply argue that it is almost universal among human beings. In the face of injuries that are unimportant and can be borne without damage it may yield to higher impulses; that is to say, it may yield to what is called Christian charity. But when the injury is serious Christianity is adjourned, and even saints reach for their sidearms. It is plainly asking too much of human nature to expect it to conquer so natural an impulse. A keeps a store and has a bookkeeper, B. B steals $700, employs it in playing at dice or bingo, and is cleaned out. What is A to do? Let B go? If he does so he will be unable to sleep at night. The sense of injury, of injustice, of frustration, will haunt him like pruritus. So he turns B over to the police, and they hustle B to prison. Thereafter A can sleep. More, he has pleasant dreams. He pictures B chained to the wall of a dungeon a hundred feet underground, devoured by rats and scorpions. It is so agreeable that it makes him forget his $700. He has got his katharsis .

The same thing precisely takes place on a larger scale when there is a crime which destroys a whole community’s sense of security. Every law-abiding citizen feels menaced and frustrated until the criminals have been struck down--until the communal capacity to get even with them, and more than even has been dramatically demonstrated. Here, manifestly, the business of deterring others is no more than an afterthought. The main thing is to destroy the concrete scoundrels whose act has alarmed everyone and thus made everyone unhappy. Until they are brought to book that unhappiness continues; when the law has been executed upon them there is a sigh of relief. In other words, there is katharsis .

I know of no public demand for the death penalty for ordinary crimes, even for ordinary homicides. Its infliction would shock all men of normal decency of feeling. But for crimes involving the deliberate and inexcusable taking of human life, by men openly defiant of all civilized order--for such crimes it seems, to nine men out of ten, a just and proper punishment. Any lesser penalty leaves them feeling that the criminal has got the better of society--that he is free to add insult to injury by laughing. That feeling can be dissipated only by a recourse to katharsis , the invention of the aforesaid Aristotle. It is more effectively and economically achieved, as human nature now is, by wafting the criminal to realms of bliss.

The real objection to capital punishment doesn’t lie against the actual extermination of the condemned, but against our brutal American habit of putting it off so long. After all, every one of us must die soon or late, and a murderer, it must be assumed, is one who makes that sad fact the cornerstone of his metaphysic. But it is one thing to die, and quite another thing to lie for long months and even years under the shadow of death. No sane man would choose such a finish. All of us, despite the Prayer Book, long for a swift and unexpected end. Unhappily, a murderer, under the irrational American system, is tortured for what, to him, must seem a whole series of eternities. For months on end, he sits in prison while his lawyers carry on their idiotic buffoonery with writs, injunctions, mandamuses, and appeals. In order to get his money (or that of his friends) they have to feed him with hope. Now and then, by the imbecility of a judge or some trick of juridic science, they actually justify it. But let us say that, his money all gone, they finally throw up their hands. Their client is now ready for the rope or the chair. But he must still wait for months before it fetches him.

That wait, I believe, is horribly cruel. I have seen more than one man sitting in the death-house, and I don’t want to see any more. Worse, it is wholly useless. Why should he wait at all? Why not hang him the day after the last court dissipates his last hope? Why torture him as not even cannibals would torture their victims? The common answer is that he must have time to make his peace with God. But how long does that take? It may be accomplished, I believe, in two hours quite as comfortably as in two years. There are, indeed, no temporal limitations upon God. He could forgive a whole herd of murderers in a millionth of a second. More, it has been done.

This version of "The Penalty of Death" originally appeared in Mencken's Prejudices: Fifth Series (1926).

• The Death Penalty in the United States
• Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
• "Crime and Punishment"
• The Grim Sleeper Serial Killer Case
• Pros & Cons of the Death Penalty
• Finding Sources for Death Penalty Research
• Criminal Justice and Your Constitutional Rights
• The History of the Guillotine
• Biography of Ashoka the Great, India's Mauryan Emperor
• A History of the Guillotine in Europe
• Profile of Serial Killer Rodney Alcala
• Capital Punishment: Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty
• Plain Style in Prose
• Furman v. Georgia: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Edgar Allan Poe's Detailed Philosophy of Death
• Ethos, Logos, Pathos for Persuasion

• Death Penalty Essays

Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment Essay

Awarding death penalty to the convicts of capital crimes has always been a topic for heated debates at the international level for a long time since the evolution of civilized societies. Different religions and socio-ethical concerns of some regions of the world criticize the practice of imposing death sentence to culprits for the reason that life is a divine gift of God and men had no right to take it legally or illegally. Certain political and cultural thoughts also decline the proposal for executing the capital punishment for the reason that this system of punishment can cause disastrous implications on economic and ethical values of the society. Even from the perspective of human rights, it has to be seen that death penalty is an absolute denial of the convict’s personal transformation into a good individual. However, there are many arguments that support death penalty with evidences for its deterrence effect in alleviating the occurrences of capital crimes. From the detailed analysis, the support for granting death penalty looks inappropriate for many reasons.

Struggling with your HW?

Get your assignments done by real pros. Save your precious time and boost your marks with ease. Just fill in your HW requirements and you can count on us!

• Customer data protection
• 100% Plagiarism Free

Death sentence initially originated as a mode of punishment to eliminate offenses and to impose the royalty of kings in the early past. Studies by Garland et al indicate that death penalty was exercised by emerging state authorities in the early modern age as a means to their state building efforts (30). The range of crimes that attract capital punishment varies according to the constitution or federal law of different countries. For instance, India and the US consider murder and treason as capital offenses; while China awards death penalty for human trafficking also. Muslim nations have identified sexual offenses, murder and disrespect to Islam as punishable with death sentence. The known-to-be strict Islamic laws were enforced without mercy for the culprit except for the victims pardon. According to Schabas, punishments under the Islamic laws are executed without the spirit of taking vengeance or inflicting torture on the convict (86). In military of most countries, death penalty is attracted by the acts like exhibition of cowardice or insubordination to official commands. The officiating efforts for generalizing capital punishment were initiated by the early British government which awarded death penalty even for excusable crimes like theft or stealing cattle and petty things. Under these circumstances in which there was no specific and unanimous definition for the capital crimes, how can you support this system of punishment in the modern society which had a primitive origin?

Criminal justice system in most countries guarantees individuals to have their time to prove their innocence before the court of law. Although there are arbitrations to evaluate the factors and reasons related to a capital crime, there are various chances for the manipulation of the literature related to each case. In such contexts, several innocent individuals may be incriminated for the vested interest of the real culprits. Apart from this, a major share of failure of justice can be attributed to the failure of defense counsel to produce strong defensive arguments at the time of trial. Greg Wilhoit (as qtd in Vollertsen) has such a saddening story of being wrongly sentenced for an uncommitted crime of murder of his wife for which he had to spend around eight years in prison until he was acquitted. Several such issues in which the adjudicators are forced to declare their verdict on behalf of the given material evidences and witness reports create a fierce outlook of the justice system. As the legal implications of the verdict are confined to the strength of the arguments with solid evidences at the court, the judges may be easily misguided by clever advocates of the prosecution side whereby throwing innocent souls to gallows.

Death penalty cannot easily be conceived as a perfect model of dealing with extreme criminalities in the present context owing to the concern for human rights. Several organizations are of the view that punishment should, by all means, be a corrective measure to redirect the path of a culprit to the socially acceptable way of life. However, there can also be situations where a culprit repeatedly committing major offenses. In such cases, the deterrent effect of death penalty is promisingly enough to guide societies to the path of morality either by fear or by force. Certain studies like that of Marquis reveals that there is contrasting proportion of homicide rates where death penalty prevalent states experienced less murder cases than abolitionist states (194). However, as a counter argument, there can be several situations in which an individual forcibly turning violent or inheriting criminal tendencies from his own family tracks. A momentary act of extreme violence may also attract a person the fitness of capital punishment. Moreover, there are no reliable data to prove that death sentence has ever reduced capital crimes in any community. Considering all these factors, many legal experts believe that death penalty is not the optimum solution for alleviation of capital offenses. In a press release a former prosecutor Stallworth explains death penalty as an ineffective model of punishment which only creates a vicious cycle of violence and instead, he proposes that the measures be taken for preventing crimes before they are committed. Apart from this, the extended trial period and procedures of execution consume a large amount of public fund whereby proving most of such death penalty issues as a gross capital loss to the country. Also, in some cases, the enthusiasm showed by certain prosecutors in the argument for capital punishment to the convicted offenders castes shadows of inferior quality of criminal justice system in many countries. According to a press release, largely prevalent racial bias in case of trials of minority defendants charged with capital crimes increase the chances of them attracting death sentence if the victim belonged to whites (Death Penalty Information Center).

Used our essay samples for inspiration ?

For more help, tap into our pool of professional writers and get expert essay editing services!

In a single line, the compulsion of the judiciary to award death penalty in any case reflects the constitutional failure to mould the citizens of a country through proper guidance. Moreover, it is important to see that death penalty only serves as a tool for the abolition of an individual rather than his criminal background from the world. The major pros of the death penalty may be the effect of deterrence and the increased social security for citizens; however, when considering the factors of human rights and the wastage of public money for the trial of many cases, it may be seen that this punishment may be reduced to life sentence. Repeated involvements of criminal activities occur only when the culprit becomes psychologically tuned for doing that; therefore, it is the criminal justice system that has to see that such individuals are preventively detained for life.

Works Cited

Death Penalty Information Center. “Editorials: New York Times recommends all states to follow connecticut’s lead.” (2012). Web. 24 April 2012.

Garland, David, McGowen, Randall & Meranze, Michael. “Models of capital punishment: The death penalty in historical perspective.” In America's Death Penalty: Between Past and Present. New York: New York University Press, 2011. Print.

Marquis, Joshua K. “Truth and consequences: The penalty of death.” Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make their Best Case. Hugo Adam Bedau & Paul G. Gassell (Eds). New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.

Stallworth, Darryl. “Former prosecutor acknowledges death penalty p[erpetuates vicious cycle of violence.” Death Penalty. (n.d). Web. 24 April 2012.

Schabas, William. War Crimes and Human Rights: Essays on the Death Penalty, Justice and Accountability. London: Cameron May, 2008. Print.

Vollertsen, Nancy. “Innocent and condemned ti die: The story of Greg Wilhoit.” Death Penalty. (n.d). Web. 24 April 2012.

Related Essays

Find Free Essays

We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling

Request must contain at least 2 characters

Popular Topics

Samples by Essay Type

Cite this page

About our services

Topic Death Penalty

Level High School

This sample is NOT ORIGINAL. Get 100% unique essay written under your req

• Only $11 per page
• Free revisions included

Studyfy uses cookies to deliver the best experience possible. Read more.

Studyfy uses secured cookies. Read more.

March 19, 2024

Evidence Does Not Support the Use of the Death Penalty

Capital punishment must come to an end. It does not deter crime, is not humane and has no moral or medical basis

By The Editors

A death penalty vigil, held in 2021 outside an Indiana penitentiary.

Bryan Woolston/Reuters/Redux

It is long past time to abolish the death penalty in the U.S.

Capital punishment was halted in the U.S. in 1972 but reinstated in 1976, and since then, nearly 1,600 people have been executed. To whose gain? Study after study shows that the death penalty does not deter crime, puts innocent people to death , is racially biased , and is cruel and inhumane. It is state-sanctioned homicide, wholly ineffective, often botched, and a much more expensive punishment than life imprisonment. There is no ethical, scientifically supported, medically acceptable or morally justifiable way to carry it out.

The recent execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith demonstrates this barbarity. After a failed attempt at lethal injection by prison officials seemingly inexperienced in the placement of an IV, the state of Alabama killed Smith in January using nitrogen gas . The Alabama attorney general claimed that this method of execution was fast and humane , despite no supporting evidence. Eyewitnesses recounted that Smith thrashed during the nitrogen administration and took more than 20 minutes to die.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Opposition to the death penalty is growing among the American public , and the Biden administration must follow through on its promise to end this horror. The Department of Justice must heed its own admission that the death penalty doesn’t stop crime, and our legislators must continue to take up the issue on the congressional floor. The few states that still condemn people to death must follow the lead of states that have considered the evidence and rejected capital punishment.

Programs such as the Innocence Project have shown, over and over, that innocent people have been sentenced to death. Since 1973 nearly 200 people on death row have been exonerated, based on appeals, the reopening of cases, and the entrance of new and sometimes previously suppressed evidence. People have recanted testimony, and supposedly airtight cases have been poked full of evidentiary holes.

Through the death penalty, the criminal justice system has killed at least 20 people now believed to have been innocent and uncounted others whose cases have not been reexamined . Too many of these victims have been Black or Hispanic. This is not justice. These are state-sanctioned hate crimes.

Using rigorous statistical and experimental control methods, both economics and criminal justice studies have consistently found that there is no evidence for deterrence of violent crimes in states that allow capital punishment. One such study, a 2009 paper by criminology researchers at the University of Dallas, outlines experimental and statistical flaws in econometrics-based death penalty studies that claim to find a correlated reduction in violent crime. The death penalty does not stop people from killing. Executions don’t make us safer.

The methods used to kill prisoners are inhumane. Electrocution fails , causing significant pain and suffering. Joel Zivot, an anesthesiologist who criticizes the use of medicines in carrying out the death penalty, has found (at the request of lawyers of death row inmates) that the lungs of prisoners who were killed by lethal injection were often heavy with fluid and froth that suggested they were struggling to breathe and felt like they were drowning. Nitrogen gas is used in some veterinary euthanasia, but based in part on the behavior of rats in its presence, it is “unacceptable” for mammals , according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. This means that Smith, as his lawyers claimed in efforts to stop his execution, became a human subject in an immoral experiment.

Courts have often decided, against the abundant evidence, that these killings are constitutional and do not fall under the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the 8th Amendment or, in Smith’s appeal , both the 8th Amendment and the due process protection clause of the 14th amendment.

A small number of prosecutors and judges in a few states, mostly in the South, are responsible for most of the death sentences being handed down in the U.S. today. It’s a power they should not be able to wield. Smith was sentenced to life in prison by a jury before the judge in his case overruled the jury and gave him the death sentence.

A furious urge for vengeance against those who have done wrong—or those we think have done wrong—is the biggest motivation for the death penalty. But this desire for violent retribution is the very impulse that our criminal justice system is made to check, not abet. Elected officials need to reform this aspect of our justice system at both the state and federal levels. Capital punishment does not stop crime and mocks both justice and humanity. The death penalty in the U.S. must come to an end.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American .

Capital Punishment Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on capital punishment.

Every one of us is familiar with the term punishment. But Capital Punishment is something very few people understand. Capital punishment is a legal death penalty ordered by the court against the violation of criminal laws. In addition, the method of punishment varies from country to country. Where some countries hung the culprits until death and some shoot or give them a lethal injection.

Types of Capital Punishments

In this topic, we are going to discuss the various methods of punishment that are used in different countries. But, before that let’s talk about the capital punishments that people used in the past. Earlier, the capital punishments are more like torture rather than a death penalty. They used to strain and punish the body of the culprit to the extreme that he/she dies because of the pain and fear of torture.

Besides, modern methods are quicker and less painful than traditional methods.

• Electrocution – In this method, the criminal is tied to a chair and a high voltage current that can kill a man easily is passed through the body. In addition, it causes organ failure (especially heart).
• Tranquilization – This method gives the person a slow but painless death as the toxin injections are injected into his body that takes up to several hours for the criminal to die.
• Beheading – Generally, the Arab and Gulf countries use this method. Where they decide the death sentence by the crime of the person. Furthermore, in this method, they simply cut the person’s head apart from the body.
• Stoning – In this the criminal is beaten till death. Also, it is the most painful method of execution.
• Shooting – The criminal is either shoot in the head or in his/her chest in this method.
• Hanging – This method simply involves the hanging of culprit till death.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Advantages and Disadvantages of Capital Punishments

Although many people think that it’s a violation of human rights and the Human Rights Commission strongly opposes capital punishment still many countries continue this practice.

The advantages of capital punishment are that they give people an idea of what the law is capable of doing and the criminal can never escape from the punishment no matter who he/she is.

In addition, anyone who is thinking about committing a crime will think twice before committing a crime. Furthermore, a criminal that is in prison for his crime cannot harm anyone of the outside world.

The disadvantages are that we do not give the person a second chance to change. Besides, many times the real criminal escape the trial and the innocent soul of the prosecution claimed to guilty by false claims. Also, many punishments are painful and make a mess of the body of the criminal.

To conclude, we can say that capital punishment is the harsh reality of our world. Also, on one hand, it decreases the crime rate and on the other violates many human rights.

Besides, all these types of punishment are not justifiable and the court and administrative bodies should try to find an alternative for it.

FAQs about Capital Punishment

Q.1 What is the difference between the death penalty and capital punishment?

A.1 For many people the term death penalty and capital punishment is the same thing but there is a minute difference between them. The implementation of the death penalty is not death but capital punishment itself means execution.

Q.2 Does capital punishment decrease the rate of crime?

A.2 There is no solid proof related to this but scientists think that reduces the chances of major crimes to a certain level.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

Essay 2 death penalty (1)

Select Page

Capital Punishment’s decline: Report finds more Americans believe the death penalty is applied unfairly

Posted by Reporter | Mar 30, 2024

More Americans now believe the death penalty, which is undergoing a yearslong decline of use and support, is being administered unfairly. That finding is adding to its growing isolation in the U.S., according to an annual report on capital punishment.

But whether the public’s waning support for the death penalty and the declining number of executions and death sentences will ultimately result in the abolition of capital punishment in the U.S. remains uncertain, experts said.

“There are some scholars who are optimistic the death penalty will be totally eradicated pretty soon,” said Eric Berger, a law professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “I think what’s more likely is it’s going to continue to decline. But I think it’s less likely that in the foreseeable future it’ll totally disappear.”

In 2023, there were 24 executions in the U.S., with the final one for the year taking place on November 20 in Oklahoma. Additionally, 21 people were sentenced to death in 2023, which was the ninth consecutive year where fewer than 30 people were executed and fewer than 50 people received death sentences, according to a report by the Washington, D.C.-based Death Penalty Information Center.

Only five states — Texas, Florida, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Alabama — conducted executions in 2023. That was the lowest number in 20 years, said Robin M. Maher, executive director of the nonprofit center, which takes no position on capital punishment but has criticized the way states carry out executions.

“That shows the death penalty is again becoming increasingly isolated in its use in the United States,” Maher said.

A Gallup poll from October found 50% of Americans believe capital punishment is applied unfairly, compared to 47% who believe it is fairly implemented, Maher said. This was the highest such number since Gallup first began asking about the fairness of the death penalty’s application in 2000.

Catherine Grosso, a professor with Michigan State University’s College of Law, said the Gallup survey result could be tied in part to more young people and others questioning the U.S. criminal justice system following the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a police officer.

Nearly 200 death row exonerations since 1975, including three in 2023, also have helped changed people’s minds about the fairness of the death penalty, Maher said.

In recent years, various individuals across the country, including conservative legislators, have raised concerns about the death penalty or debated its future, Grosso said.

But in some states including Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas, the death penalty remains deeply entrenched, Berger said.

Earlier in 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed bills enacting two new death penalty laws. One allows the death penalty in child rape convictions, despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning capital punishment in such cases. The other law ends a unanimous jury requirement in death penalty sentencing.

“If you commit a crime that is really, really heinous, you should have the ultimate punishment,” DeSantis said in May, commenting on the death penalty for child rape convictions.

Ongoing difficulties by states in securing supplies of execution drugs have prompted some states to explore new and untested methods of execution or revive previously abandoned ones, according to the center’s report.

Alabama has set a January execution date for what would be the nation’s first attempt to execute an inmate with nitrogen gas. In July, Idaho became the fifth state to authorize executions by firing squad. The last time a U.S. inmate was executed by firing squad was in 2010.

The center’s report said a majority of states, 29, have either abolished the death penalty or paused executions.

Corinna Lain, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia, said she thinks the number of states that don’t have the death penalty could easily rise to 40. But a nationwide ban would need action from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lain and other experts said that’s unlikely to happen as recent actions show the high court is not going to get in the way of states carrying out executions. The center’s report said the Supreme Court granted only one stay of execution out of 34 such requests made since its 2022-23 term.

Texas, the nation’s busiest capital punishment state, has not been immune to the ongoing debate over the death penalty.

The GOP-led Texas House passed a bill in early 2023 that would eliminate the death penalty in cases involving someone was diagnosed with schizophrenia. The bill ultimately failed as it was never taken up by the Texas Senate.

GOP state Representative Jeff Leach said in March the bill was not part of a secret effort to do away with the death penalty in Texas.

“I believe that in Texas we need the death penalty,” Leach said. “But I am, as a supporter of the death penalty, against executing people who at the time they commit the offense had a severe mental illness.”

Even in Texas, there can be some change with the death penalty, Berger said.

“But you can’t see the kind of change where you could expect them to just say, ‘Ah, we’re done with capital punishment altogether.’ At least not yet,” Berger said.

Juan A. Lozano

Associated Press

HOUSTON, Texas

Carlos Antonio Rios (AP)

About The Author

This published content was produced by Milwaukee Independent under license and in cooperation with the Associated Press (AP), the Pulitzer Prize winning independent news gathering source founded in 1846.

Related Posts

Giuliani claims his lies that shattered American lives were protected by the First Amendment

August 9, 2023

Protracted legal battle begins with lawsuits that target state restrictions on access to abortion pills

March 12, 2023

Election nonprofit renews grants in Wisconsin and other states where GOP lawmakers tried to ban it

December 13, 2022

Dust and rubble: Türkiye’s preparedness remains uncertain six months after devastating earthquake

August 7, 2023

Full Coverage

• ▶ Ukraine Series
• ▶ Special Reports

Recent News

• Reggie Jackson
• Pardeep Kaleka
• Kenneth Cole
• Dominic Inouye
• Contributors

News Analysts

• Heather Richardson
• Thom Hartmann
• John Pavlovitz
• Robert Reich

Remembering the Fallen: Wood National Cemetery’s 88th Memorial Day ceremony

Knezelism of the Week

• Latest News
• Community News
• Police Blotters
• National News
• International News
• Local Sports
• Sport columns
• High School Sports
• Ohio Sports
• National Sports
• Guest Columnists
• Letters to the Editor
• Patty Kimerer column
• Burton Cole column
• Annual Christmas story
• Deals on Wheels
• Garage Sales
• Classifieds
• Open carrier routes
• Terms of Service
• Submit News
• Browse notices
• Place a notice

• Today's Paper

Ohio AG says capital punishment system is ‘costly and ineffective’

WARREN — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost called on state lawmakers to address what he calls a “costly and ineffective capital-punishment system” amid the release of the 2023 Capital Crimes Report on Monday.

“No criminal penalty — capital or otherwise — should carry an empty promise of justice,” Yost stated in a news release. “Ohioans on both sides of the death-penalty debate can agree that our current system of capital punishment is unworkable, and something needs to change.”

Ohio death row inmates spend more than 21 years awaiting an execution date. Contributing to that wait time are appeals and hesitance from pharmaceutical supply companies that provide the drugs used in lethal injections.

Of the 119 inmates on death row in Ohio, 11 are from Trumbull and Mahoning counties.

Seven are from Trumbull County: Danny Lee Hill, Stanley Adams, Sean Carter, Nathaniel Jackson, Donna Roberts, David Martin and Andrew Williams. Four — Scott Group, Lance Hundley, Willie Gene Wilks Jr. and John Drummond — are from Mahoning County. Roberts is the only female on death row in Ohio.

In January, Yost alongside state Rep. Brian Stewart, state Rep. Phil Plummer and Lou Tobin, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, introduced legislation to allow nitrogen hypoxia to be used for the death penalty, in hopes to re-ignite what the news release called a “stalled” capital punishment system.

The report provides a summary of Trumbull County death row inmate Stanley “Ted” Adams convicted for the 1999 murder of Esther Cook and the murder and rape of her 12-year-old daughter, Ashley Cook, in the victims’ Warren home.

Adams was sentenced to death in 2001 in the courtroom of former Common Pleas Judge Peter Kontos — the conviction and death sentence were upheld three years later after Adams attempted to appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court.

Adams’ execution date is scheduled for Feb. 19, 2025, but has been rescheduled twice. Frustrations from the victims’ relatives were highlighted in the report.

“We have a judicial system, laws and the death penalty for a reason,” Kellie Brooks, one of Ashley Cook’s sisters, stated in the report. “Ted has been found guilty. They have the proof; they had the blood; they had semen. DNA doesn’t lie. He exhausted all of his appeals years ago.”

Ashley’s other sister, Kimberly Cook, also voiced her frustration in the report, “I’m always going to feel the grief of not being able to grow up with my mother. And my kids don’t have a grandma. I’m always going to feel hurt and there’s always going to be an empty spot in my heart. But at least I know if I can’t have her, I should have justice for what has been done.”

Sentenced in Feb. of 1986 to be put to death for the murder of 12-year-old Raymond Fife, Danny Lee Hill, is another example of the lengthy delays of executions Yost says has made the system costly and ineffective. The appeal process has been drawn out since 1989 when the first review of the trial was conducted by an appellate court.

Yost joined in with Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins to overturn a recent Eleventh District Court of Appeals decision that would allow Hill another hearing on his long-standing intellectual disability claim.

An execution date for Hill is set for July 22, 2026.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

• Daily Newsletter
• Breaking News

WARREN — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost called on state lawmakers to address what he calls a “costly and ...

Sen. Brown wants to cap insulin costs

LOWELLVILLE — After backing a bill that lowers the cost of insulin for those on Medicare to no more than $35 a ...

Warren resident accused of arson

WARREN — City police arrested a Warren man Saturday accused of setting fire to a North Park Avenue home. ...

Vienna fiscal officer making changes

VIENNA — Communication about finances was a common theme Monday during the Vienna Township Trustees ...

Dave & Buster’s is coming to Eastwood Mall

Mecca residents to collect history of township.

MECCA — Wanting to have a historical society like neighboring communities do, residents in Mecca started one ...

Starting at $4.85/week.

Subscribe today.

Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral? Essay

Introduction, works cited.

Colloquially known as the death penalty, capital punishment has been a highly controversial issue, which has rocked sociologists, criminal investigators, justice, law and order to such an extent that its implications have raised questions. The principle of the sanctity of human life dissuades a person from having an uncontrollable desire for punishment that is inhuman. The topic that I would like to propose is that capital punishment is immoral.

The question of immorality or morality is raised when decisions on social acceptability and cultural codes are put to test. In the light of the above presumption, the view of Immanuel Kant is noteworthy. He maintains that if an offender “has committed murder, he must die. No possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an object of horror in the person of the sufferer).” (Kant).

Though Kant has explicitly stated his view point, it only acknowledges the fact that crime should be punished but the degree of punishment should vary. The Code of Hammurabi proposed different punishments and compensation according to class and groups. History is subject to ordeals ranging from mass deaths due to regicide and deaths due to individual claims. The routes of capital punishments can be traced back to 1697 B.C and the argument over its effectiveness and morality continue to be in the heat of controversy even today. (Student Essay on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe).

It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before proceeding to the subject of my argument. Buddhism denounces capital punishment. Chapter 10 of the Dharmapada decries inhuman punishment. Judaism severely opposes capital punishment. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms that the guilty should be punished in proposition to their crime. Murder and treason are especially morally heinous. The concept is adjusted in the Bible as ‘thou shalt give life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exod 21:23 to 25).” (Kant).

Abolitionists all over the world argue that the death penalty is evil doubled. On the other hand, retributionists argue that death penalty is just. The famous 18 th century abolitionist Cesare De Beccaria claims, “the death penalty cannot be useful because of the example of barbarity it gives to men…it seems to me absurd that the laws…which punish homicide should themselves commit it.” (Kant). Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind.”

This view is held by the pacifists who believe that violence breeds violence which should only propagate crime among youth and children alike. On the contrary, retributionists prefer death sentence as appropriate to the misdeeds. In objection to this stand, I would like to mention that hatred leads to hatred while love and compassion can change minds.

It would be justifiable if every country that upholds democratic values gives space for patient hearing of cases that demand severe punishment. As human beings it would be better to react humanely in dire circumstances as no person is a born criminal. Circumstances and unavoidable situations twist the lives of hapless victims who later become targets of social justice. It should be possible for every government to react in humane manner respecting democratic ideals. In this case, I believe that life imprisonment would serve a better compensation as it gives the criminal a chance for atonement.

In earlier times, capital punishment in the form of corporal punishment, shunning, banishment etc were carried out. Later, they give way to heinous, cruel and inhumane practices as breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism or neck lasing. It is truly grotesque to be subjected to such heinous punishments. Wither has gone the compassion of the human heart! Of late, punishments as decapitation, electrocution, firing squad, shooting, gas chamber, hanging, lethal injection etc have found their way into retentionist countries as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Though countries as Australia and New Zealand have abolished capital punishments, the United States, Japan, India, Africa and the Caribbean islands have retained capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason, rape, adultery, sodomy and apostasy. It seems the countries would not pardon the wrong doers. Christ said, ‘Hate the sin, not the sinners’. It means every individual has to be given the chance of redemption.

Yet another drawback to capital punishment is its brutalizing effect – the disregard for sanctity of life. Every government should formulate the right policies to enhance reducing the harmful effects of capital punishments. Quite often, such punishments are spectator packed that causes shame to the family. They become the object of public ridicule, having to face public disregard and living as outcasts. This is further detrimental to the mental health of the family members of the criminals. They have to face social and political insecurities which would subsequently weaken the morale of the family. This could cultivate second generation criminals in whose mind the seeds of hatred, born out of the desire for revenge, would cost many other innocent lives.

Though economists believe that the death sentence would cut costs drastically, they fail to realize that one life lost would mean no chance to uplift these members of the society. Counseling centers have to be opened and forums and discussions should give a sympathetic ear to correct behavioral problems. It is mandatory that life is precious and a life not lived truly should deserve every chance of rejuvenation. Countries that give importance to such punishments should tone down and believe in the innate goodness of mankind. Police and other law enforcing institutions should play a major role in tracking down criminals and providing social security to them. They should collaborate with medico officials and psychological treatments should be provided. In this regard, law should enforce strict rules wherein human life can be saved. Yet another stumbling block to be overcome is the social stigma that would remain in the lives of the family of the accused. No finger should be raised and they should be able to lead normal lives. The accused should be given the opportunity to meet family members, loved and dear ones rather than guns and objects of punishment. This would create a healthy atmosphere and would definitely be a catalyst in changing the attitude of the criminals in a positive manner. This way either criminal admits their faults and they do not remain hard hearted. Some criminals do realize their mistakes and show interest in redemption.

Over the years, such punishments have deserved a second place and countries are making efforts to change their stand. But serious crimes have not yet received an ultimate solution to the punishment that has to be meted out. Taking into consideration the age of the criminal, it is a relief that juvenile criminals have been saved from capital punishment. All is not done. It can be rightly argued that capital punishment is second degree and should be removed from the pages of law and order. Every individual should be given the chance to make amendments for the wrong he has done. Special courts of hearing comprising of senior most judges should precide of the hearing of the cases and allow the criminals a chance to open up.

To conclude, I firmly believe that laws are made by man, for man – for the betterment of human kind. Bestial injustice in the form of punishments for crimes committed would only grow branches and would not root out the stem that caused the destruction. It is high time that every country sits down to save the wasted energies of individuals and instills humane values. Due regard to values would cultivate universal brotherhood that would enhance political and social goodwill among people and the countries of the world. This would further create a healthy atmosphere wherein every individual would be able to live and let others live. This utopian ideal of society should not remain within the pages of this essay. Can this ideal be realized? The answer lies in the throbbing hearts of the million.

Kant, Immanuel. Death Penalty. Book Rags. 2008. Web.

Kant, Immanuel. Death Penalty: Retributive Arguments.. Book Rags. 2006. Web.

Student Essay on Capital Punishment, Friend or Foe. Book Rags. 2006. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, October 22). Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral? https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/

"Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?" IvyPanda , 22 Oct. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral'. 22 October.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?" October 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/.

1. IvyPanda . "Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?" October 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?" October 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-moral-or-immoral/.

• The Dramatic Sense in Artemisia Gentileschi’s painting
• Issues in Men Against Fire Episode of Black Mirror Series
• Capital Punishment: Proponents and Opponents Arguements
• Human Sanctity: Darfur Crisis
• Visa Tap to Phone Program Overall Review
• Acids, Bases and pH Testing: A Physics Lab
• Blame Them if You Are a True Patriot
• Is the Death Penalty Effective?
• Animal Experiments and Inhuman Treatment
• Wound Care Management in Clinical Environment
• The Death Penalty, a Matter of Morals
• Is Punishment Best Justified by a Utilitarian, Retributive or by a Mixed Theory?
• Lethal Injection as Cruel and Unusual Punishment
• Capital Punishment in the US Analysis
• Death Penalty: Critical Thinking and Arguments

Ohio AG Dave Yost again rails against state’s broken death-penalty system

• Updated: Apr. 01, 2024, 4:30 p.m. |
• Published: Apr. 01, 2024, 4:27 p.m.

In this Nov. 2005 file photo, Larry Greene, public information director of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, demonstrates how a curtain is pulled between the death chamber and witness room at the prison in Lucasville, Ohio. (AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato, File) AP

• Jeremy Pelzer, cleveland.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio—Attorney General Dave Yost is again criticizing other state elected leaders for keeping Ohio’s death-penalty system in a years-long purgatory, arguing in a new report that it leads the state to spend hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily.

But unlike a similar death-penalty report released by Yost’s office last year, which recommended that Ohio lawmakers should either overhaul the state’s capital-punishment system or abolish the death penalty, this year’s report focuses on making the case for resuming executions in the state.

Stories by Jeremy Pelzer

• Ohio lawmakers likely won’t agree on marijuana law changes, House speaker says
• Sam Randazzo’s history of secret utility deals detailed in new court filing: Capitol Letter
• Ex-Ohio utility regulator Sam Randazzo negotiated secret deals long before FirstEnergy payments started, prosecutors say

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.