The death penalty debate is relatively recent in the history of humankind. Nearly all foregone civilizations embraced the notion that certain crimes warrant capital punishment. Those who object to the death penalty, however, usually do so on the grounds that capital punishment transgresses oneÆs inherent right not to be killed. In other words, every person has a right to life, and it ought not be taken away under any circumstance. This right is based on the notion of the sanctity of life. Proponents of the death penalty believe that moral principlesù-including the sanctity of lifeù-necessitate the execution of perpetrators of specified crimes. As such, therefore, the nature of this timeworn controversy ultimately boils down to a clash of moral positions.
Outside of the moral conflict, the issue revolves around political, factual and legal arguments. Death penalty abolitionists argue that capital punishment does not and cannot discourage crime, and that there exists no credible evidence to support otherwise. Since most murders are committed in the heat of passion and/or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, perpetrators give little thought to the potential consequences of their acts. Killers plan to not be caught and thus avoid punishment altogether. Charles Black, in his book Capital Punishment: The Inevitability of Caprice and Mistake, states that ôafter all possible inquiry, including the probing of all possible methods of inquiry, we do not know, and for systematic and easily visible reasons cannot know, what the truth about this ædeterrentÆ effect may be . . . ,ö since ôno adequately controlled experiment or observation is possible . . .ö (33). Thus, any deterrent effect that statistics may show in reference to capital crime, abolitionists argue, cannot be ascribed to threat of punishment by death.
However, those who support the death penalty, citing its deterrent effect on crime, point out that, ...