Letter writer Sean Anderson makes the case that the best reason for not using the death penalty is that it is simply beneath us. It is inconsistent with our humanity and moral values.
If that is true, what do we make of the fact that in the United States, the alternative to capital punishment is almost always life in prison without possibility of parole? Isn’t that also a death penalty?
When we sentence prisoners to life without parole, instead of taking the responsibility for setting the time and manner of the prisoners’ deaths, we pretend to wash our hands of it by waiting until some combination of disease, prison violence, old age or suicide does the job for us. I am uncomfortable with the evasion of moral responsibility involved in using life without parole as an indirect death penalty. I think it would be morally preferable to be upfront about it and actually have an execution.
On the practical side, this is reinforced by the fact that cases involving convicts facing execution receive a great deal more scrutiny than others.
If the death penalty is bad because of the possibility of executing an innocent person, what about the much greater possibility of innocent people being imprisoned for the rest of their lives?
If the death penalty is bad because it may be applied unfairly due to racism or other prejudices, what about the much greater likelihood of a life sentence being applied unfairly?
Many of the people who oppose capital punishment say it’s OK to abolish the death penalty as long as the bad guys are locked up the rest of their lives.
If these people are sure that capital punishment is wrong, maybe they need to expand their horizons and also question the morality of imprisoning people for most or all of their adult lives.
On the other hand, if they do believe that there are people who should never again be allowed to rejoin free society, then perhaps they should consider the possibility that the death penalty is as moral and just as the alternatives.
