A: On January 25th, 2024, Alabama death row inmate Kenneth Eugene Smith underwent the first execution by nitrogen hypoxia – suffocation facilitated by the inhalation of nitrogen gas. Long believed to be a more humane execution method than lethal injection, the nitrogen gas execution did not go as peacefully as expected. Smith convulsed, thrashed, and spasmed for minutes during the beginning of his execution. In total, it took him roughly 15 minutes to die. This tragic incident brought mass media attention to death-row inmates, especially those who might die via the controversial method. The real problem, however, is not how the state of Alabama executed Smith; it’s that they even executed him in the first place. The death sentence goes against every system of values society holds. It proudly violates the human right to life, opens the gate for gross abuse of government power, oversteps the role of a democratic government, and most importantly, goes against the sacred law of cost efficiency.
E: I agree with your stance for Alabama. [Add more]
Personally, I grew up in China, where I was taught that the death penalty is legal and justified. Since I came to the States, I found myself exposed to and agreeing with a lot of the arguments against it, just like many Americans according to recent polls published by the Pew Research Center. For example, I agree that the death penalty doesn’t serve as a stronger deterrent than the life sentence, so do 63% of Americans. I acknowledge that in some cases an innocent person might be put to death, so do 78% of Americans. I also agree that the ability to put somebody to death opens the door to an abuse of power by the government. Yet 65% of Americans still support the death penalty. Why would that be?
Many of them might cite “an eye for an eye,” yet personally, I don’t believe in that statement. What I have a problem with is our delicate, almost hypocritical tiptoe around death. Since our laws are already depriving criminals of every other right, why do we carve a line around death? The question for me is not really why death, but why not death? Is there anything fundamentally wrong with the death as a punishment itself that would differentiate it from all others? So I hope you could help me understand that distinction, Anna.
A: I’m glad we agree on at least some points concerning the death penalty. I personally believe that life is far more sacred than you are making it out to be. Yes, everyone dies, but to deliberately take someone’s life is to remove them from our plane of existence. It is to silence their right to free speech, shackle their right to bodily autonomy, to condemn them to an eternity we have no knowledge of. Execution fundamentally differs from incarceration, as while imprisoned, criminals still enjoy (or should in an ideal world not plagued by the injustices of our current criminal justice system) all their human rights. They may speak freely, communicate with others, including those outside of prison (albeit on an extremely limited basis), practice religion, and live moderately fulfilling lives.
E: But Anna, if we fully embrace the doctrine of forgiveness and rehabilitation instead of punishment suggested by the opponents of the death penalty, then why would we have other punishments in the first place? A popular opinion is that prison is purely a security measure rather than a punishment, to keep society safe from further harm from the inmates instead of to punish them per se. Yet if that were true, then it could be argued that a single parent who must and will shoplift every day to keep their children alive would have more “predictable potential to harm society as a whole” than somebody like the character Oliver Quick in the movie Saltburn, who is through and done with his goal of inheriting the property and would have caused no further harm to society dancing naked in his bloodstained estate to Murder on the Dancefloor.
A: I would argue that the purpose of prisons is in equal parts to rehabilitate and to punish. If people have proven to be incapable of following the law to an extreme degree in the past, yes, they should be punished past the typical period of rehabilitation. They should bear the weight and the consequences of their actions, even if that consequence is a life sentence. Even if incarcerated individuals no longer pose a threat to society, they still broke the social contract they made with the government. Just as a debtor must be held accountable to her debts even after she has become wealthy, a criminal must be held accountable to her crimes even after she has been rehabilitated. If this criminal has committed a crime that warrants a life sentence with no parole, then she will serve her full sentence even if she poses no further threat to society.
E: [WORK ON TRANSITION] It could be argued that a personality like Oliver Quick’s would have more potential for further crimes, yet punishing people by determining how much “their personality” is fundamentally criminal opens so many doors that I won’t go into.
A: I agree with your point that a just society should not punish people with “fundamentally criminal” personalities, but it does not have a place in this argument. The United States criminal justice system holds criminals accountable for the crimes they have already committed, even if they are completely reformed individuals. It has no place punishing individuals who may have a personality more “prone” to criminal activity (whatever that might mean), but with a clean criminal record. Otherwise, I would have horrible news for you, Eric.
A: Additionally, all other punishments placed on criminals stem from practicality. Our government does not let convicts serving life sentences own guns because they have proven to be dangerous. Criminals live in a secured and isolated environment so they cannot inflict further harm on society and prison officers monitor them constantly to ensure they do not harm other inmates. So, Eric, do tell. What is the added benefit of executing a criminal, and how does that outweigh the objective moral evil of taking another human’s life?
E: Ok, now to a different train of thought. How do we determine if a punishment is worse than death? That is entirely subjective. Some people might find that mere consciousness is still more preferable to oblivion. Similarly, to some people, an endless life sentence may be even more hopeless than a quick death. If an accused asks for the death penalty instead of the life sentence, shall we grant them the favor?
A: While an interesting point, I believe this falls into to realm of state assisted suicide rather than a death sentence.
E: Assuming the alternative to be life sentence without possibility of parole, we would be spending money providing a terrible person for the rest of their life. Their right to liberty and privacy might be confiscated, yet they have a place to sleep in and food on the table. How many people in extreme poverty or war around the world would beg for such a “punishment?” Why are we spending money to treat criminals better than we are treating innocent people whose only crime is an unlucky draw at birth? Wouldn’t a death penalty save those resources for uses that would actually improve the rest of society, or even better, the broken families from whom the murderer tore out the breadwinner?
A: I completely agree that the United States should not spend unnecessary money on the criminal justice system, pumping money into the inherently corrupt Prison Industrial Complex. However, to answer your question, condemning a criminal to a death would not save money that could be better used elsewhere. A 2008 study conducted by the Urban Institute concerning the death penalty in the state of Maryland found that “an average capital-eligible case resulting in a death sentence will cost approximately $3 million, $1.9 million more than a case where the death penalty was not sought.” The study went on to estimate that the lifetime cost of capitally-prosecuted cases would total roughly 186 million dollars, coming directly from taxpayer dollars (The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, Roman). These costs come both from prison and execution costs as well as taxpayer funded legal costs, which can quickly add up as the 14th Amendment protects citizens’ rights to exhaust the appeals process before execution. Other studies examining the death penalty in Indiana (Fiscal Impact Statement; Subject: Muder Sentencing and Sentence Enhancement, Boots), North Carolina (The Cost of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina, Cook), Florida (The High Price of Killing Killers, Palm Beach Post), and countless other states corroborate this conclusion. You earlier tried to reframe the question as “why not the death penalty?” Again, assuming that you do not see taking another person’s life as any different from taking away their right to living where they wish and how they want, how would you justify the added cost of an execution?
E: That is really interesting. Seeing that that is true, congratulations Anna, you have convinced me! To modify my stance, I now believe that under the current criminal justice system of the United States, there is no reason for the death penalty. Yet I do wonder, how many arguments against the death penalty actually reflect flaws in the justice system itself? The government pours more resources into a death penalty case to achieve a more sound result. Does that imply that in life sentence cases, the accused is more likely to be wrongfully convicted? Does the drawing of the line around death also prevent the life sentence, which is arguably the next severe punishment, from getting the resources needed for a just trial?
A: This is a fascinating point, although I am inclined not to believe it. A 2014 study conducted by Stanford University estimated that roughly 4.1% of people sentenced to death are innocent of the crimes they are convicted of (Rate of false conviction, Gross). Meanwhile, a 2018 study estimated that roughly 6% of imprisoned convicts are wrongfully convicted (Measuring Self-Reported Wrongful Convictions Among Prisoners, Loeffler). While this is a statistically significant difference considering the incarcerated population of the United States, it doesn’t lead me to believe that death sentence cases are more thoroughly tried. Even if death sentences were the most accurate criminal proceedings in the nation, even if 100% of death sentence criminals committed the atrocities they are being punished for, I can not see any moral, legal, utilitarian, or political reason to take another person’s life.