Death Penalty: Two Critiques

By Geoffrey F. Reed and John F. Bash

The Liberal Case—Geoffrey F. Reed

Opponents of the death penalty are fortunate in that they have a variety of effective arguments that help them argue their case. They can protest that the death penalty is not cost effective, that it has a high rate of error or that it does not deter crime. Each of these arguments is sound and can be supported with strong empirical evidence. Even so, we should disregard these arguments entirely because it is simply unjust for the state to execute its citizens. Our government does not have the authority to commit murder.

Supporters of the death penalty argue that the government has the authority to implement the death penalty as part of the criminal justice system. This argument, however, is fallacious. The criminal justice system is intended to be rehabilitative. Incarceration, probation and house arrest are each structured so as to convert criminals into law-abiding citizens. But the death penalty is clearly not rehabilitative; it is entirely retributive. The application of the death penalty represents a disjuncture in our criminal justice system because, for some unfathomable reason, the U.S. government seeks retribution against murderers and mere rehabilitation for rapists and arsonists. Most people would probably agree that rehabilitation should be the goal for our criminal justice system. If we were to apply the level of retribution that we use against murderers to all crimes, our government would be in the business of raping rapists and setting arsonists on fire. Citizens would view such measures as barbaric and unacceptable for a civilized society.

The question, then, becomes why do we choose to avenge only murderers, while we rehabilitate other criminals? Some would argue that with government-mandated executions, we guarantee that they can never murder again. But this is not the way our criminal justice system operates; criminals are punished for crimes they have already committed, and not for those they may commit in the future. Of course, we fortunately do not generally employ this logic in our criminal justice system. Criminals must be rehabilitated so that they can operate within society; they should not be incapacitated by a brutal system of retribution.

The Conservative Case—John F. Bash

I support capital punishment—but only in theory. When someone chooses to take another’s life, he commits an act so contrary to fundamental moral principles that execution should be justified. Contrary to the liberals of the Left, I believe the state has the power—and the right—to take human life; after all, it quite frequently exerts this power through its military forces. Like the Slobodan Milosevics and Saddam Husseins of the world, the Timothy McVeighs and Susan Smiths should pay the ultimate price for their crimes.

But what about the Kirk Bloodsworths? This ex-Marine was convicted of child molestation and murder by a Maryland court and was sentenced to die, only to then be exonerated by DNA evidence just in time to save his life. And what about the Jerome Livases? Mr. Livas was convicted of murdering two elderly women—despite there being no physical evidence linking him to the crime, despite failing to match the FBI profile of the killer and despite the continuation of similar murders after he was incarcerated (the police wrote them off as “copycat” crimes). These stories are not anecdotal pieces of evidence; they are indicative of a nationwide system of capital punishment that is fraught with error. In the nearly 23 years since the death penalty was reinstated in Illinois, for instance, 12 people have been executed, while no less than 13 death row inmates have been cleared of their capital-murder charges. This prompted the state’s conservative governor George Ryan to issue a moratorium on the death penalty in his state. Republican leaders around the country should follow suit.

The basic premise behind the death penalty—that those who take an innocent life deserve to lose their own—implodes when confronted with the statistical certitude of conviction error. If a citizen should lose his life for killing an innocent person, what should be the state’s punishment for the same offense? Certainly someone must pay for the murder of an innocent woman or man. But who? The judge and jury? The lawyers and police? All of us? From the sheer number of wrongly convicted citizens, we know that innocent people will be—and have been—executed. If we allow this atrocity to continue, we do so with the same blood-stained hands as Timothy McVeigh or Susan Smith. By allowing capital punishment, we seal the fate of far more innocent people than any one person could kill alone.

One argument that my fellow conservatives (including President George W. Bush) tend to employ is that the death penalty deters homicides. Even if we execute an innocent person, they say, the effect is a net increase in the number of innocent lives saved. I would agree with this, if only the facts supported the assertion. The average murder rate in U.S. states with the death penalty is 8 per 100,000 people, while it is only 4.4 in states without a legalized death penalty. Between 1952 and 1967, California had an execution once every two months, while there were no executions from 1968 to 1991; the homicide rate was twice as high in the first period. These facts blow a large hole through any theory of deterrence.

At times, conservatives feel as if they should—that they must—oppose all positions propounded by Democrats. We cannot allow the death penalty to be one of them. For the moral salvation of our country and ourselves, Republicans must lead a movement to end capital punishment in America.

Geoffrey F. Reed ’03 is a social studies concentrator in Eliot House. John F. Bash ’02 is a history and literature concentrator in Eliot House. They are co-presidents of Students Against Government Executions.