The death penalty debate is really three debates
Rights, deterrence and mistakes: why people who agree on the facts still end up on opposite sides.
This article is still under review by our editors.
Ask two people whether the death penalty should be abolished and you will often get two confident answers. Ask them why, and you will find they are not arguing about the same thing. The death penalty debate is really three debates stacked on top of each other.
1. Does the state have the right?
The first is a question of principle. One side holds that taking a life is something no government should ever do, whatever the crime. The other holds that justice means a punishment proportionate to the crime, and that for the very worst murders only death is proportionate. No statistic settles this, because it is a disagreement about values.
2. Does it work?
The second is a question of evidence: does the death penalty deter murder? Here the honest answer is that researchers have not been able to show a clear effect either way.1 That uncertainty is used by both sides. Abolitionists say a punishment with no proven benefit cannot justify its costs; supporters say the absence of proof is not proof of absence.
3. Can we avoid mistakes?
The third is a practical question. Since 1973, 185 people sentenced to death in the United States have later been exonerated.2 Supporters argue that better safeguards, such as DNA testing, can reduce errors. Opponents argue that no system run by people will ever reach zero, and that an execution is the one mistake that can never be corrected.
Why it matters for debaters
Strong speakers decide which of the three debates they are in, and pull the round toward the one where their side is strongest. Read the full list of arguments on the pro/con page below.
Should the death penalty be abolished?
6 pro · 6 con · 7 sources- National Research Council, Deterrence and the Death Penalty, The National Academies Press, 2012.
- Death Penalty Information Center, Innocence Database.