Debate Desk
Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished in the United States?
Conservatives divide on capital punishment; the case for it rests on justice for the worst crimes, the case against on error, cost and the limits of the state.
The claim
Opponents say that the death penalty is irreversible and that innocent people have been sentenced to die, that it is applied unevenly across race and geography, that it costs more than life imprisonment, and that a modern society should not take life as punishment.
The answer in three points
- Justice requires that the punishment fit the crime, and for the worst murders many Americans believe the proportionate penalty is death. That belief rests on a moral tradition that holds human life sacred and holds that those who take it deliberately forfeit their claim to life. Others in the same tradition draw the opposite conclusion.
- Conservatives disagree here and the argument is serious on both sides. Some argue the government should not hold the power to kill because it makes mistakes; others argue that careful procedures, DNA testing and narrow use make the penalty just and the risk of error very small.
- Whatever one concludes, the process matters. Trials with competent counsel, reviews of evidence, and a limit to the most aggravated cases serve both sides. A penalty that is rarely carried out and takes decades loses much of what its defenders claim for it.
A question so grave deserves serious argument, and citizens should decide it with open eyes.
The numbers
- The Supreme Court struck down existing death penalty statutes in Furman v. Georgia (1972) and upheld new ones in Gregg v. Georgia (1976).
- The Death Penalty Information Center reports that the United States carried out 98 executions in 1999 and fewer than 30 in each of recent years.
- The Constitution's Fifth Amendment refers to capital crimes and to deprivation of life with due process, according to the text.
What they will say next
"Innocent people have been executed." The evidence for an executed person later proved innocent is disputed, while exonerations of people on death row are documented. That is an argument for caution, DNA testing and thorough appeals.
"It costs more than life." The cost comes largely from the lengthy appeals that the law requires. The remedy might be faster review in cases with strong evidence, not abolition.
"It does not deter." Studies of deterrence are mixed and contested. A just penalty does not depend on deterrence alone, since retribution is also a purpose of punishment.
"The state should not kill." That is a moral argument that many people hold, including many Christians and conservatives. Voters and legislatures are the right place to resolve it, state by state.
This is a matter on which good people differ. Study the cases, read both sides and let your state's lawmakers hear from you.
"Most countries have abandoned it." Many have, and others have not, including democracies. Whether the practice is just is a moral question each country answers for itself, and the public should be informed of the facts.