Capital punishment deserves to die

Since the announcement, talk of the death penalty has been everywhere. The press has called on other governors to comment on Ryan's action, President Clinton has addressed federal executions, and Sears has canceled its contract with Benetton over the clothing manufacturer's controversial anti-capital punishment advertisements. Although the American public still overwhelmingly favors the death penalty, it seems that the time has come to reevaluate the question of capital punishment in America.

In theory and in principle, it is difficult to argue against the moral legitimacy of capital punishment when it is carried out by a valid public authority. The state has not only the right, but also the supreme duty to protect its citizens against aggressors. The protection of life, liberty, and property is the very end of the modern state itself. It is certainly conceivable that, in order to protect the innocent adequately against some of the guilty, it might be necessary to execute those offenders, and in such cases the state is absolutely justified in doing so.

While such cases were numerous in previous eras and perhaps still occur in other countries, one wonders whether capital punishment is ever necessary for the state to discharge its protective responsibilities in late 20th century America. Prison systems and technology have advanced to such a degree that it is presently possible to incarcerate grave offenders for life, thus ensuring that they pose no further threat to the public good. It is safe to say that presently, prison escapes are considered highly unlikely. To paraphrase former Princeton professor James Ditulio, Jr., a thug in prison can't kill your sister. This is not to say that an extraordinary case might not arise in which only the death penalty could secure public safety against a given criminal, and in that case capital punishment would be warranted. But extraordinary cases by definition cannot be circumscribed in the explicit criteria and guidelines of law; they must be left to the prudential judgment of the appropriate civil authority.

Ryan summed up another powerful argument for a death penalty moratorium when he said that there would be no more executions in Illinois "until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty." Ryan is referring here to moral certainty of guilt, a necessary condition for the ethical implementation of the death penalty. With the advent of technologies such as DNA testing, the burden of proof for imposing the ultimate penalty has grown heavier, and, as the Illinois 13 show, civil authorities in at least one state are not meeting it. One can reasonably infer that the same may not be true of other states and the federal government.

Perhaps the most compelling case against the American death penalty, however, is the pro-life argument. One must be careful not to blur the real moral distinction between those guilty of a capital crime and the innocent victims of abortion, fetal testing, and euthanasia, but when trying to convert the culture from one of death to one of life, a death penalty moratorium makes a powerful statement. It affirms that the dignity of the individual human life is indeed intrinsic, meaning that not even the most heinous acts can reduce or eliminate it. It states that the crimes of the guilty are reprehensible and that civil society will punish them severely, but it also states that the lives of the guilty have not lost their essential value.

The convincing argument for an American death penalty moratorium, then, does not depend on whether a state has the theoretical right to administer capital punishment. Rather, it depends on the more nuanced point that contemporary circumstances do not necessitate the exercise of that right. This, along with the uncertainty over the guilt of many death row inmates and the need to propagate the truth of the inherent dignity of all human life, all support the case for a national moratorium on the death penalty.

Back to Opinion...