Why We Should Put the Death Penalty to Rest

Stephen Nathanson

“Why We Should Put the Death Penalty to Rest”

Introduction

Purpose of article: (124)

To make the strongest case that the death penalty is unjust and immoral

Strategy: (125)

Focus on two values: Justice and Respect for Human Life
Show that justice and respect for human life is inconsistent with support for death penalty

Path of article:

Step #1: Death penalty is indefensible in theory
Step #2: Death penalty is indefensible in practice

The Death Penalty in Theory

The argument from deterrence

Argument from deterrence (125)

(P1) The death penalty is a more powerful deterrent than lesser punishments

So,

(P2) The death penalty will lead to fewer deaths from homicides.

(P3 DT) A punishment is morally justified if it deters more murders and thus saves more lives.

Therefore,

Principle underlying deterrence argument (126)

(DT) A punishment is justified if it deters more murders and thus saves more lives.

Nathanson’s objection to (DT)

(DT)commits one to defending immoral forms of punishment (e.g., torture, killing family of perpetrator) if these deter more murders

Thus, the deterrence argument itself cannot justify death penalty

The argument from justice and desert

Argument from desert (127)

(P1 EFE) The perpetrator deserves to be punished in proportion to the severity of his crime.

(P2) A person who murders another person takes that person's life away.

So,

(P3) The perpetrator deserves to die.

(P4) Justice is carried out if and only if parties (to the greatest extent possible) get what they deserve.

Therefore,

“Eye for eye” principle (127)
(EFE) The perpetrator deserves to be punished in proportion to the severity of his crime.

Nathanson’s objection to (EFE)

Objection #1 (128)
(EFE) commits one to defending immoral forms of punishment (e.g., torture, killing family of perpetrator)

Objection #2 (128-29)
(EFE) cannot leave room for treating different kinds of homicide differently because it focuses only on the harm caused to the victim

The Death Penalty in Practice

Nathanson “Even if my arguments about the death penalty in theory had failed, there would still be a strong case against the death penalty in practice.” (129)

Why the death penalty is inconsistent with justice

System of United States is unreliable (130)

Actual death sentences are the result of arbitrary factors such as race, socio-economic status, quality of legal representation

Race

1976-1996: 83% of people executed were charged with murder of a white victim
1976-1996: Only 1% of executions imposed on white person who killed a black victim

Socio-economic status

In Georgia, defendants classified as having low socio-economic status were 2.3 more likely to receive death penalty

Quality of legal representation

Defendants with court-appointed attorneys were 2.6 more likely to receive a death sentence than defendants who could afford to hire lawyers
ABA  “in case after case, decisions about who will die and who will live turn not on the nature of the offense the defendant is charged with committing but rather on the nature of legal representation the defendant receives.”

Death penalty as it exists cannot be relied on to produce just results (132)

Argument from unjust consequences

(P1) Justice requires that those who are punished by death deserve the punishment.

(P2) In our current system, race, socioeconomic status, and quality of legal representation influence who is punished by death.

So,

(P3) Our current system is unjust.

(P4) Anyone who supports an unjust system is not committed to justice.

Therefore,

Why the death penalty is inconsistent with respect for human life

Inadequate representation

A system that tolerates inadequate representation for people who may be sentenced to death expresses indifference toward the value of defendants’ lives (133)
Poor quality of legal representation may result in innocent people being sentenced to die

Time limits set by states for submission of new evidence (134-135)

Texas and other 16 states – 60 days
10 states and DC – 1 to 3 years

Nathanson “Death penalty supporters ought to acknowledge that even if in their ideal world the values of justice and human life would be affirmed by executing murderers, in our actual world, the actual practice of capital punishment violates these very same values.” (135)

Argument from disrespect for human life

(P1) Respect for human life requires due regard for human life.

(P2) Our current system tolerates inadequate representation for people who may be sentenced to death.

(P3) Our current system tolerates innocent people being convicted for murder and sentenced to die.

(P4) Any system that tolerates inadequate representation and innocent people being convicted for murder fails to express due regard for human life.

So,

(P5) Our current system fails to express due regard for human life.

(P4) Anyone who supports a system that fails to express due regard for human life is not committed to respect for human life.

Therefore,