An Argument against the Death Penalty

Applying the death penalty as a punishment for capital crimes is a moral argument as old
as law itself. I contend that Pojmans advocacy for use of the death penalty is not sound because
it overlooks the flaws of our judicial system that can and has led to the horrendous act of
executing the wrongfully convicted. We must abolish the death penalty and instead implement
only life imprisonment as our harshest penalty. I will argue for this point of view by first
highlighting the arguments made by Pojman, negating one of his fundamental points, and
defending against any possible rebuttal Pojman could make.
In his article A Defense of the Death Penalty, Louis Pojman argues that the use of the
death penalty for capital crimes is not only a moral right, but a moral obligation. In doing so he
uses two previously established arguments about punishments, the Utilitarian view, and the
Retributivist view. The Utilitarian view holds that punishment is morally acceptable if it
produces an overall good for society (Handout 22, 01). Pojman imbues this argument by
explaining the Utilitarian view is one that focuses punishment on deterring others from
committing crimes by making examples out of previous offenders. In this regard he argues for
the return of public executions. Although there is no clear evidence that supports the affirmation
that the death penalty deters crime, he believes that this argument is common sense. Common
sense indicates that rational actors would prefer to not be in jail and beyond that they would
prefer a life sentence to the death penalty. The Retributivist view of punishment argues that
punishment for the sake of punishment is a good in itself. Societies are morally justified in
punishing offenders even if no good consequence is produced because the wrong doer deserves
to be treated poorly. He goes beyond these two points to say that to not punish individuals on a
level of severity that matches their crime would be disrespectful. Rational actors make decisions

freely that dictate their actions. So a murderer who is of sound mind who freely and rationally
decides to commit murder needs to be punished with the same severity. To fail to do so and be
lenient would contend that the murderer is not responsible for his or her actions and is therefore
akin to that of a child or mentally ill individual. It would be morally wrong to punish the actions
of those who lack the mental capabilities to understand or control their actions. So failing to
punish with the same severity is disrespectful to offenders who can control and understand their
actions. The above arguments led Pojman to the conclusion that not only is it morally acceptable
to use the death penalty, but that we are morally obligated to do so.
I believe that Pojman is misguided in his conclusion simply by a brief look at the
American Justice system. The Utilitarian view is wrong in that the death penalty does not
produce the greatest good for society. Although I believe that punishments should be derived
from whatever creates the most good for a society, I dont feel that should extend to the death
penalty. First of all, cases in which the death penalty is an option are much more expensive
compared to those without. In most states convictions with a death penalty sentence are
automatically entered into a lengthy appeal process which is costly. Lastly it is astronomically
more expensive to keep an inmate on death row versus general population. Studies have found
that the figure might be as high as an additional 90,000 per year (Death Penalty Information
Center). Additionally the argument that the death penalty deters others from committing capital
crimes is something that can never be statistically proven. The example Pojman uses where
murderers are immediately struck down after committing the offense would obviously lead to a
reduction in capital crimes. However, in the justice system of the United States it is years
possibly decades before a murderer whose guilt is absolute is put to death. I believe the length of
time for the justice system to run its course weakens the deterrence argument of the death

penalty to a negligible amount. The Retributivists view cannot be acceptable due to the threat it
poses to those who are wrongfully convicted. Retributivists do not claim to benefit society,
however, executing innocent people would be a direct harm to society. Our justice system is far
from perfect and although it may be a rare occurrence when innocent people have been convicted
and even sentenced to death, it has happened (Innocence Project). This threat to innocent people
cannot be morally acceptable.
Pojman objects to the argument about accidentally executing a factually innocent person
in the following scenario. Pojman states that even the stoutest abolitionist (one who wishes for
the abolishment of the death sentence) would agree that the execution of one innocent person
would be acceptable if it prevented 1000 guilty persons from going free. He states that the risk
of executing an innocent person would be morally justified if the death penalty would prevent
guilty murderers from going free (LPP,187).
I assert that this is a poor rebuttal; you can abolish the death penalty on the grounds of
fearing executing innocent persons without letting anyone free. Abolishing the death penalty to
avoid an accidental execution of a factually innocent person would not result in any number of
guilty convicts going free; instead they would be given life sentences. Through advancements in
DNA technologies and other forensic sciences wrongfully convicted individuals from previous
decades are being exonerated at an unsettling rate. These individuals were found guilty by a jury
of their peers beyond a reasonable doubt. However, due to new, scientifically indisputable
evidence, are factually innocent. Those exonerated, who have served many years in prison can
and should be compensated for this injustice. However, if we execute someone and later discover
that they are innocent there is nothing we could do to even begin to do to right that injustice. I

believe the finality of executing an innocent person is an avoidable outcome that we should not
morally allow.
I believe in this paper that I have effectively proven that the death penalty is not
necessary in both the Utilitarian and Retributivist views. Utilitarians who view the death penalty
as providing the most good too society are probably unaware of the actual costs of executing
someone. Life sentences would still remove the murderers from society providing that good.
Also, deterrence cannot be statistically proven either way. I believe that the law of diminishing
return and the time period in which it takes our society to execute guilty offenders that life
sentences can be just as effective. Retributivism does not save the case for the death penalty
because even though they argue for punishment for punishments sake they cannot guarantee they
will not harm society by executing an innocent person. For these reasons and many more not
mentioned (inequality in sentencing and lack of free will of actions) I believe that the death
sentence should be abolished.

Bibiliography
Pojman, Louis. A Defense of the Death Penalty. In The Right Thing To Do. 5th edition.
Edited by James and Stuart Rachels. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 2010.

Pollock, Ryan. Handout 22: Justifications for Legal Punishment and the Death Penalty.
PHIL 103W. Spring 2016
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.innocenceproject.org