Since I was young, I have always been against capital punishment. This is one of those beliefs that I can genuinely say was not adopted from others, but was, rather, something I very specifically and very memorably pondered while I was taking my high school courses in ethics. I learned all about situational ethics and still I concluded that man simply does not have the right to inflict a punishment with such finality and profound moral impact as a death sentence. Clearly this is one of a handful of societal and legal conundrums that seem always to be in play, especially when political and religious violence is at its worst. It would be overly simplistic to say that this is simply a right versus left issue. I think it goes much deeper.
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, has a complex history spanning thousands of years across virtually every civilization. The earliest recorded death penalties date back to ancient Mesopotamia around the 18th century BC. The Code of Hammurabi prescribed death for numerous offenses, including theft and adultery. Ancient civilizations like Egypt, Greece, and Rome all employed capital punishment, often through methods like crucifixion, stoning, or beheading. During the Middle Ages, European societies expanded the use of capital punishment significantly. By the 1700s, England had over 200 capital offenses, including minor crimes like stealing sheep or cutting down trees. Methods became increasingly elaborate and public, with hangings, burning at the stake, and drawing and quartering serving both as punishment and public spectacle. The Enlightenment brought the first systematic challenges to capital punishment. Cesare Beccaria’s influential 1764 work “On Crimes and Punishments” argued against the death penalty on both moral and practical grounds. The first permanent abolition occurred in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany in 1786. The 19th and 20th centuries saw gradual restrictions on capital punishment in many Western nations. Some countries abolished it entirely, while others limited it to the most serious crimes. The United States has had a particularly complex relationship with the death penalty, with the Supreme Court effectively suspending it in 1972 (Furman v. Georgia) before allowing its resumption in 1976 (Gregg v. Georgia).
Today, the global trend moves toward abolition. Over two-thirds of countries worldwide have abolished capital punishment in law or practice. However, several nations, including China, Iran, and parts of the United States, continue to carry out executions. Methods have generally become more “humane,” with lethal injection being the most common current method. The debate continues between those who view capital punishment as a necessary deterrent and form of justice, and those who argue it’s inherently inhumane and ineffective at preventing crime. The argument that capital punishment is inhumane rests on several key principles and concerns. Many argue that the intentional taking of human life by the state violates basic human dignity. This perspective holds that all people possess inherent worth that cannot be forfeited, regardless of their actions. The deliberate killing of a defenseless person, even one who has committed terrible crimes, is seen as reducing human life to something that can be discarded. Capital punishment is unique in its finality – there’s no opportunity to correct mistakes. Since 1973, over 190 people on death row in the United States have been exonerated and released. Each execution carries the risk of killing an innocent person, which many consider an unacceptable moral hazard for any justice system. Even methods designed to be “humane” can go wrong. Botched executions occur regularly, causing prolonged suffering. Beyond the execution itself, death row inmates endure years or decades of psychological torment waiting for their deaths, a condition some describe as psychological torture.
Extensive research has found no credible evidence that capital punishment deters crime more effectively than life imprisonment. If it doesn’t make society safer, the argument goes, then the taking of life serves no practical purpose beyond retribution. Studies consistently show that capital punishment is disproportionately applied based on race, class, and geography. Defendants who kill white victims are far more likely to receive death sentences than those who kill Black victims. Poor defendants, who often receive inadequate legal representation, are executed at much higher rates than wealthy ones. The global trend toward abolition reflects growing international consensus that capital punishment violates human rights. Many view its continued use as a mark of a less civilized society. These arguments reflect deeper philosophical questions about the role of government, the nature of justice, and whether any person or institution should have the power to deliberately end human life.
Supporters of capital punishment make several key arguments in its defense. Many argue that certain crimes are so heinous that only death can provide proportional justice. The principle of “an eye for an eye” suggests that murderers, particularly those who commit multiple murders or especially brutal killings, have forfeited their right to life. This retributive justice view holds that society has a moral obligation to impose punishment that matches the severity of the crime. While research on deterrence remains contested, some studies suggest capital punishment may prevent murders. Supporters argue that the ultimate penalty creates a unique psychological deterrent – the fear of death being fundamentally different from fear of imprisonment. Even if it prevents just a few murders, they contend, it saves innocent lives. Death permanently prevents any possibility of the offender committing future crimes. Unlike life imprisonment, there’s no risk of escape, early release due to changing laws or politics, or harm to prison staff and other inmates. Some notorious killers have murdered again after escaping or being released from prison. Many families of murder victims report that execution provides psychological closure and a sense that justice has been served. They argue that life imprisonment doesn’t adequately acknowledge the value of their loved one’s life or provide the finality needed for healing. While death penalty cases are initially expensive due to lengthy legal processes, supporters argue that lifetime imprisonment also carries enormous costs. Housing, feeding, and providing medical care for inmates over decades can exceed the costs of capital cases, particularly as the prison population ages. Murderers serving life sentences sometimes kill again in prison, targeting guards or other inmates who pose no threat to society. Death sentences eliminate this risk entirely. Some argue that society has not just the right but the duty to express its ultimate condemnation of the worst crimes through the ultimate punishment. This sends a clear message about societal values and the sanctity of innocent life. These arguments reflect beliefs about justice, public safety, and the appropriate response to the most serious crimes, even as they remain highly contested in moral, legal, and practical terms.
All that said and done, the recent fervor about inflicting the death penalty on the presumed murderer of Charlie Kirk, a kid of 22 named Tyler Robinson, seems more about retribution than justice of any sort. It is very clear to any casual observer that the MAGA movement and Trump are all about retribution. Let’s not forget the Central Park 5 case. On April 19, 1989, a 28-year-old white investment banker named Trisha Meili was brutally beaten and raped while jogging in Central Park. Five Black and Latino teenagers were arrested and charged in connection with the attack. Less than two weeks after the incident, Donald Trump spent $85,000 to place full-page advertisements in four New York newspapers (including The New York Times) with the headline “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!” The ad called for the city to send “a message loud and clear to those who would murder our citizens and terrorize New York.” The five teenagers initially gave confessions during police questioning but later recanted, pleading not guilty in court. They were convicted in 1990 and served sentences ranging from 6 to 13 years. In 2002, they were completely exonerated after convicted serial rapist Matias Reyes confessed to the crime, and his DNA matched evidence from the scene. New York City paid the five men $41 million in 2014 to settle their civil lawsuit. The case has been extensively documented and studied as an example of wrongful conviction and the problems with coerced confessions from minors. Trump’s statements about the Central Park 5 are demonstrably false on multiple factual points, particularly his claims that they pleaded guilty and that someone was killed, neither of which occurred. All he ever wants is to be right at all costs……and retribution. Death NEVER becomes any of us.