About a week ago, Henry McCollum walked out of a prison where he had been on death row for 30 years. DNA evidence showed him to be innocent of the crime for which he had been convicted. Also recently, botched executions in Arizona, Ohio, and Oklahoma made headlines as prisoners experienced torturous deaths.
Such cases have prompted renewed debate about the morality of the death penalty. While opinion polls show a majority of Americans still backing it for at least some crimes, that support has been slipping over the past ten years, down now to about 60 percent. While people take stands on the issue for differing reasons, it is especially important for us to recognize what abolishing the death penalty conveys about our moral character as a society.
Ethical debate on the issue typically engages a familiar set of questions. Does the death penalty actually deter people from committing murder? Does it cost more or less than life in prison? Do errors in conviction and the irreversibility of death entail that it should be abolished? Does the fact that it is disproportionately used against African-Americans mean that it is unjust? Is it fair or unfair?
For the most part, those on opposing sides of the issue have traditionally invoked contradictory answers to those questions. Some facts, however, are becoming clearer and less deniable. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, for example, became an opponent after seeing conclusive studies indicating that it is far more expensive to convict and hold a prisoner on death row. Use of DNA evidence to exonerate death row prisoners also increasingly highlights the errors and injustice embedded within the criminal justice system, including and especially how it reflects racism.
It is also no longer the case that conservatives and liberals split on the issue as evenly as they used to. One prominent group, called Conservatives Concerned about the Death Penalty has roots in Montana. Its website states that “Together, we are questioning a system marked by inefficiency, inequity, and inaccuracy.” Some of them also, in their words, “don’t believe that small government and the death penalty go together.”
The choice of words is striking here. Inefficiency, inaccuracy, and mistrust of government, while important, seem to be terms reflective more of political philosophy than the more fundamental moral commitments to how we treat each other as human beings. The latter, I believe, is most crucial to recognize.
True respect for the dignity of human life—a value also affirmed by conservatives—should not draw lines that exclude even the worst offenders among us from the human community. Denying the humanity of another has been the mark of societies that find ways to discriminate against, demonize, torture, and kill others who by their actions, race, religion, or other features are considered outsiders. Too often, innocent lives are taken—whether in warfare or in capital punishment—while both judges and the accused are dehumanized in the process.
To those who argue that capital punishment actually affirms the value of life and our moral order, I would agree with philosopher Stephen Nathanson who argues that all of the death penalty’s problems accomplish quite the contrary. Instead, he believes that abolishing it affirms “our belief in the inalienable, unforfeitable core of human dignity.”
While the preponderance of difficulties with capital punishment—reflected by recent headlines—may push it closer to its demise, we should not ignore or underestimate both the practical and symbolic significance of abolishing it. Doing so would be one remarkable step of limiting violence and vengeance. It would be a remarkable acknowledgement of the fallibility and racism that so often has led to the wrongful conviction of men like McCullum. And just as important, it would be a remarkable expression through our laws of how respect for human life and dignity is central to our national moral character.
Our society glorifies violence, enables it among people in so many ways, and degrades human dignity much too readily. Ending capital punishment would be a significant expression of our collective belief that respect for human life is greater when it is not taken, even from those who have not shown such respect themselves.
This is Mark Hanson, guest commentator for the Mansfield Program in Ethics and Public Affairs at the University of Montana.