The death penalty has been a highly controversial issue throughout modern history. Supporters argue that it deters crime, correctly punishes the worst offenses, and protects society. Opponents maintain that it is an inhumane form of punishment that is cruel and unusual, irreversible if a mistake is made, distributed unequally, and supported through inherent bias and discrimination in the criminal justice system. This dissertation has thoroughly examined moral, practical and legal arguments on both sides of this debate.

While supporters claim the death penalty effectively deters murder rates by serving as an example of the ultimate sanction, the evidence does not conclusively prove this theory. Numerous empirical studies have found no correlation or have found a positive correlation between use of capital punishment and murder rates. Its deterrent effect is questionable considering that many other factors like imprisonment terms, probability of apprehension, the state of the economy, drug use, and demographics influence murder rates. The possibility of wrongful convictions threatens the rationale behind retribution and deterrence. While arguably few in number compared to valid convictions, the over 160 death row exonerations since the 1970s indicate that mistakes are made in the adversarial system. This reflects ongoing flaws that risk legalizing murder by the state.

The application of the death penalty also raises serious moral concerns regarding dignity, fairness, and inhumanity. Execution constitutes an intentionally imposed, irreversible denial of human dignity and life, violating fundamental human rights principles against cruel punishment. The lengthy process imposes mental suffering on inmates, while providing no benefit to victims’ families. The arbitrary nature of which killers receive death further erodes moral authority, since African American defendants are still more likely to be sentenced to death, especially for killing white victims. Income level and quality of legal defense also introduce unequal treatment. As the most severe sanction, it must be reserved for only the very worst crimes where the accused’s guilt and full culpability is certain without doubt. In practice, this high threshold is difficult for any legal system to meet in a wholly fair and impartial manner.

On the other hand, some arguments for retaining capital punishment deserve fair consideration. Certain very brutal murders that involve torture, multiple victims or the murder of children could reasonably merit society’s harshest punishment. Lethal injection as a method is designed to be humane and painless when carried out properly. For some, the death penalty’s enduring public support reflects a democratic consensus that deserves respect. Opinion polls also indicate public preferences may depend on other sentencing alternatives presented; support drops when life without parole is an option. Any policy that denies human dignity must be weighed very carefully in a civilized society that values due process and equal treatment under the law.

Upon considering all of these complex moral, legal and empirical issues, my view is that the risks and flaws inherent in the administration of the death penalty outweigh the potential benefits claimed by proponents. The concerns regarding wrongful convictions, unequal treatment, lack of clear deterrence, inhumanity, and erosion of due process standards cannot be dismissed or remedied. Even a single miscarriage of justice through a wrongful execution undermines the retributive aims of just deserts and outweighs all other practical considerations. Ultimately, the state should not be in the business of intentionally imposing the irreversible denial of life. The death penalty is an archaic and imperfect system that violates evolving standards of decency in a modern democracy that values dignity and rehabilitation over retribution at all costs. Given the lack of compelling evidence that it achieves legitimate social purposes better than available alternatives, the prudent course of action would be to abolish it in favor of life without parole sentencing in the most heinous murder cases. This conclusion maintains justice and community protection whilst avoiding the unacceptable moral risks inherent in state-sanctioned killing that cannot be reversed if errors are discovered later. A just, compassionate and progressive society should move on from using the premeditated and irreversible denial of human life as a form of punishment.