A Morally Justified Debate: Abolishing the Death Penalty

Just last week, another prisoner was taken off Death Row in Texas after it was discovered that he was innocent. The history of wrongful convictions in the American justice system, particularly in states like Texas, highlights the inherent flaws in its application of the death penalty. This practice, which is often applied unevenly, racially, and with significant disparities, cannot be justified in a fair and just society.

Uneven Application and Racial Disparities

The death penalty is applied in the United States with such an uneven and often racially and sexually biased approach that its fairness is heavily questioned. The system sees people being executed in a haphazard manner, and even during the execution process, defendants are expected to assist in their own procedures. These practices not only violate basic human rights but also fall short of providing a fair process.

The High Cost of Wrongful Convictions

It’s estimated that approximately 4 percent of those sentenced to death may be innocent. However, the political and ideological priorities of certain groups, such as Republicans, often prioritize the execution of individuals regardless of their actual guilt. The death penalty does not serve as a deterrent and instead provides a form of entertainment or gratification for those who watch it take place.

Pragmatic Objections to the Death Penalty

I understand that there may be cases where certain individuals are so dangerous and irredeemable that their existence on Earth is deemed to be unacceptable. However, my concerns are more pragmatic. If a state has the authority to take lives, it must have an infallible and incorruptible process to ensure that innocent individuals are never wrongly convicted and that every person sentenced to death fully deserves their fate.

The Flaws in the Current Legal System

The American legal system has historically not met this standard. For instance, the potential for errors and wrongful convictions is high. When evidence emerges post-conviction that could exonerate an individual, what then? The death penalty provides no opportunity for such evidence to overturn the sentence. It is a final and irreversible act. Until there is a guarantee that no innocent person will be wrongly executed and that every death sentence is just, I cannot support the system.

Alternatives and Compromises

Other punishments, like life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, offer the chance for errors to be corrected. If a wrongful conviction is discovered, the individual can be released. This is not the case with the death penalty.

While there may be cases where the death penalty seems warranted, the risk of executing the innocent is too high. The state must protect its citizens and uphold justice, but it must also avoid becoming a mechanism for wrongful deaths. As long as there is a possibility of wrongful convictions, I cannot morally justify the continued use of the death penalty.