at a minimum, it certainly deters those who are actually executed. In his book, An Eye for an Eye, Stephen Nathanson draws similarities between punishment and self-defense in characterizing the argument for deterrence by way of the death penalty. He states, ô[t]hough we are powerless to restore life to the dead through executing murderers, we can prevent other murders from occurring by imposing this punishment. The death penalty on this view, is a kind of social self-defense, results in saving the lives of innocent personsö (15-16). Thus, both an act of self-defense in which a life is taken and the taking of life in capital punishment are justified in that it is believed innocent life is ultimately saved.
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court found that death sentences were being imposed unfairly and inconsistently. As a result, the Court ruled that death penalty laws in existence at the time were unconstitutional (Furman v. Georgia 240). (The Furman case specifically involved rape.) Later, in 1976, however, the Court approved newly written laws that clearly defined crimes deserving of punishment by death (Gregg v. Georgia 207). Death penalty abolitionists argue, however, that despite the efforts of states and courts to devise legal formulas and procedural rules to meet the challenge, the death penalty remains arbitrary and discriminatory, and as a result, capital punishment is unjust. In addition, death penalty opponents claim that because the criminal justice system often convicts innocent people, there is a danger that an innocent person will be executed. In his article, ôA Catholic LawyerÆs View of the Death Penalty,ö Kevin Doyle reports that, from 1973 to 1998, 6,000 people were put on death row, and that, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, 69 of those had to be released because later evidence pointed to their innocence (951).
Retentionists argue, however, that the death penalty is just. While th...