The death penalty debate is MESSY. It's literally a matter of life and death. But it's been going on for decades with no real consensus. Solutions to the death penalty debate are controversial because of strong opinions on both sides. The best solution, however, is the pragmatic one, since a solution must be achievable rather than theoretical.
Let's start with what can't be a solution. Capital punishment cannot be abolished in the United States on the federal level as many would wish. After the Furman decision by the Supreme Court, states either abolished capital punishment themselves or added more regulations to the administration of capital punishment to fit within the restraints of the decision. |
Capital punishment does need to be reformed, though. George F. Will writes in his newspaper article, “Justice Blackmun’s Outburst” that the Supreme Court has said that juries' discretion must be both confined by adjectives and unconstrained in capital punishment cases. These rules very obviously contradict each other. |
These rules should be replaced by a moral philosophy of rule utilitarianism. David Frasher explains this philosophy in his law review article, “Quieting the Controversy.” In rule utilitarianism, capital punishment can be used but only in cases which objectively serve the public good. What best serves the public good, though? |
|
For the most part, life imprisonment without parole serves the public good far better than capital punishment. Socially, the death penalty encourages unjust and racially biased death sentences. Economically, Jolie McLaughlin in her scholarly article, “The Price of Justice,” says that “states would save millions of dollars if they replaced the death penalty with sentences of life imprisonment without parole." |
|
To those who argue that the public will always support the death penalty or that the moral conscience of the country needs it, studies have proven otherwise. Michael Kronenwetter, in his book, Capital Punishment, cites a study which demonstrates that most people would be satisfied by life imprisonment without parole rather than capital punishment. He writes, “84 percent of Floridians favored the death penalty . . . but 70 percent said they would support sentencing murderers to a lifetime of prison labor if the money they earned went to the family members of victims."
|
This leaves the question: Are there any cases in which capital punishment serves the public good?
Source: Created by designer
There are two exceptions where capital punishment should be used.
First, many law enforcement officials would recommend the possibility of the death penalty for criminals imprisoned for life who murder while in prison, according to Kronenwetter. While the possibility for parole incentivizes good behavior, the loss of that possibility lowers life-imprisoned inmates’ inhibitions. |
Second, in his New York Sun article, “Pro-Life, Anti-Death Penalty,” R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. expresses opposition to the death penalty but allows an exception for terrorists. Tyrrell suggests that “[t]errorists locked away in prisons for what would otherwise be capital offenses remain a threat to society." Capital punishment undoubtedly serves the public good by removing single-minded men and women bent on the destruction of innocent lives. |
Therefore, the most pragmatic solution to the death penalty debate is that the death penalty be abolished in most cases, except for those that objectively serve the public good. For when the public good is not served, injustice invariably occurs. As Dr. Martin Luther King once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Capital punishment, as it now exists, is undoubtedly a threat to justice.