Part 3: A Further Defense of the Death Penalty
One response to these six arguments against the death penalty is to point out that five of them (all except the argument that killing is always wrong) are not objections to the death penalty itself, but are instead objections to the application of the death penalty. For instance, suppose we have a multiple murder on videotape along with dozens of eye witnesses. Suppose further that the murderer shows no remorse and defiantly promises to kill again at first opportunity. There is no possibility in such a case that he is an innocent person, there is no racial or economic bias against him, lethal injection is not thought of as a cruel and unusual punishment, execution will be quick as there are no reasonable grounds for appeal that will drag the case out in court (thus keeping the cost below life imprisonment). What this leaves us with is the argument that this murderer deserves to die (retribution) and the claim that killing is wrong (argument one). In a case like this, it is not unreasonable to support execution.
Of course, many cases are not like this one. Many defendants are on death row with shaky evidence or due to poor defense lawyers (recall the defense lawyer in Texas who actually slept through much of his client's death penalty trial). These sorts of issues are good grounds to support death penalty reform, but do not entail that the death penalty is wrong (only that in its current form it is broken). Even the lack of a deterrent effect might be addressed in some way (public executions or more painful executions might do the trick). Of course, increasing the deterrent effect may violate a respect for persons, be cruel and unusual, etc.
In conclusion, there seems to be solid grounds to oppose the death penalty in practice. However, these grounds may not be sufficient to oppose the death penalty entirely. Much of how we view this issue also depends upon our moral justification for punishment. If we support retribution, we have a strong reason to support the death penalty. If we support deterrence, it is likely that the death penalty today is wanting. Finally, how we define a “right to life” plays a critical role. If a right to life is something that cannot be forfeited, then the death penalty must be a violation of our right to life. If a right to life can be forfeited, then there does not appear to be a right's violation inherent in the death penalty.