American Reason: When, if ever, is the death penalty a viable form of punishment?

The death penalty debate
The death penalty debate redux — photo via AudioVision Public Radio

The recent sentence condemning Nidal Hasan, and Texas carrying out it’s 500th execution, serve as sobering reminders that this is still a nation that employs capital punishment. Should society continue to condone its use of death as the ultimate penalty?

Vikram Patel: In order to maintain the peace, society has agreed that at times the state should have the ability to deprive individuals of their property or their physical freedom as penance for crimes they have committed. To correct for any mistakes made by the state, we have a system of appeals to allow for a redress of grievances if the state prosecutes the wrong individual. Capital punishment does not allow that redress. Yes, we have a very lengthy appeals process for capital cases, and yes an individual can spend decades on death row, but someone who has been executed has no access to meaningful recourse. The finality of an execution puts it in a category that requires justification beyond that of any other trespass on our liberties. Matt, can you see any possible justification for the death penalty given its risks?

Matt Sowada: I find it interesting that your problem with capital punishment lies in the possibility that the courts might make an error. It feels like such a procedural objection to what is a most profoundly existential decision: society agreeing to end the life of one of its members. I am no pacifist; evil exists in the world and it must sometimes be opposed with the judicious use of fist, blade or bullet. However, such violence can only be morally justified if it confers some mighty boon to society in the form of preserving the lives and health of innocent people. I see only one possible mechanism by which capital punishment might deliver such a boon: that of deterrence.

Suppose the death sentence acted as a perfect deterrent. Imagine if we as a society knew that executing one man, proven guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt, would end all criminal homicides until the end of time. I think it would nearly be a moral imperative for society to execute that man. So I think most people would agree that if the deterrent effect is large enough, society should use capital punishment. Unfortunately for us, the deterrent effect of capital punishment on future crimes is not known, but it must exist at some level. To argue otherwise, you would need to advance that the threat of being killed by the state has never once caused even one moment of hesitation in the mind of a potential criminal. That strains credulity.

So the level of deterrence is the important question here. Proponents of the death penalty must prove not only that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is high, but so much higher than the deterrent effects of lifetime incarceration that it justifies the blood that will be on our collective hands when we accidentally execute an innocent man (if, by some miracle, we haven’t already). I remain unconvinced that the deterrent effects of execution are that powerful.

Vikram: I’ll go one step further and say that if the execution of a single individual could deter all future homicides, then that execution would be moral regardless of their innocence. However, I think we have a better understanding of the deterrence effect of the death penalty in the U.S. as compared to other punishments than you admit. If we look at states that have the death penalty and compare them with states that don’t, we see no meaningful difference between murder rates. Furthermore, murder rates seem to be largely unaffected when a state transitions between having a death penalty or rejecting one. This means that the death penalty has no greater deterrent effect than that of life imprisonment.

Our system of justice also serves as a surrogate role for those who have been wronged. We once lived in a time where “eye for an eye” was the norm and the state was expected to execute someone who had committed murder. Our culture has matured beyond that mindset. Revenge for its own sake is now seen as immoral as far as we understand the cycle of violence inherent to retaliation. Our society has changed and the death penalty provides no benefits for us, at least none that justify its existence.

Matt: Ha, I hadn’t thought of that! I suppose that indulging victims’ families in their desire for revenge would count as a possible societal good in some peoples’ eyes. I’m not among those people, but if I were, the possibility of executing an innocent person would be too great a risk for me to be on board with a “revenge” death penalty. Finally, while I disagree with your notion that the lack of a correlation between states that employ capital punishments and lower statewide murder rates conclusively proves that the death penalty fails as a deterrent, I do agree that the evidence is compelling enough that we should wholly abandon capital punishment.

Matt Sowada and Vikram Patel, former hosts of American Reason, bring monthly political, social, and ethical musing to Little Village.


  1. Guys:


    Justice first

    The purpose of sanction is justice, that the convicted party did, indeed, commit the crime and that we punished them in a fashion that reflected the gravity of the crime.

    Safety and deterrence are well know, but secondary outcomes of sanction not the reason for it.

    How unjust it would be if we punished folks for our added safety and deterence of others, if those sanctioned did not commit the crime.

    Safety and deterrence

    The death penalty is a better protector of innocents, in three ways, than is a life sentence.

    Enhanced due process — No knowledgeable person denies that the death penalty has super due process, protections over that for any other sanction, meaning that it is less likely that an innocent will be executed than it is that an innocent will die in prison, serving a life sentence. 5000 die per year in the US, while under criminal custody.

    Enhanced incapacitation — Livng murderers harm and murder, again, in prison, after improper release and after intentional release. Executed ones do not.

    Enhanced deterrence — no one denies that death is feared more than life and that life is preferred over death (with the obvious exceptions). That which is feared the most, deters the most. That which is preferred more, deters less. 99.7% of murderers prefer a life sentnece over the death penalty. What about those more reasoned folks, those potential murderers who chose not to murder, does the prospect of the death penalty deter them more than the prospect of a life sentence? Of course, they like all of us, prefer life.

    There is no doubt that the death penalty deters and deters more than lesser sanctions. However, there will never be any agreement as to how much it does deter.

    So, the choice is to save more innocent lives by executing more murderers, or to sacrifice more innocents by sparing more murderers.


    The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy

    OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS: A review of the debate

    99.7% of murderers tell us “Give me life, not execution”

  2. Regarding murder rates and deterrence

    With the anecdotal exceptions, murder rates are not how deterrence is measured.

    Let’s say that Iceland has a 0 murder rate, therefore every other country has a higher murder rate. Does that mean that only only people in Iceland are deterred from committing murders? Of course not.

    Let’s say country or state A has a very high murder rate. Within that state or country, you will find states, counties, cities, towns and neighborhoods that will have high or low or medium murder and crimes rates, just as you will find in country or state B when they have very low murder rates.

    All sanctions deter some, in all jurisdicitions and all jurisdicitions will very, by murder or cirme rate, depending upon their own circumstances.



    c) “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


A collaboration between The Englert Theatre and FilmScene


Help us build the greatest small city for the arts in America—right here in Iowa City. Learn more »

Donate Today

Strengthen • Grow • Evolve is a collaborative campaign led by two Iowa City-based arts nonprofits, The Englert Theatre and FilmScene that seeks a major reinvestment to strengthen the arts through modern and historic venues, innovative programming, and new models of collaboration.


Enjoy a tasting and drinks from the best chefs the area has to offer!

Presented by

Join us Saturday, February 15, 6 p.m.
@ Coralville Marriott Hotel & Conference Center

For 18 years...

Little Village has been telling the truth and changing our little corner of the world.

If you can, help us head into the next 18 years even stronger with a one-time or monthly contribution of $18, or any amount you choose.



America’s intimate festival experience featuring cutting-edge music, the Midwest’s premier indie book fair, and readings and community happenings across downtown Iowa City.