God told Abraham, "If I find in Sodom fifty just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake." Forty-five? Forty? Thirty? Twenty? Ten? "I will not destroy it for the sake of ten," he tells a worried Abraham. Would man spare 988 for the sake of one?

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, 989 convicted murderers have been executed in the United States. What if 988 of these convicted murderers committed the crimes they were charged with and one did not? The judge, defense, prosecution, and head juror now question the justice of the trial of Ruben Cantu, a Texan who was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death in 1985 and executed in 1993. The Houston Chronicle presents disturbing evidence, such as an eyewitness recanting his damning testimony and an accomplice confessing that Cantu wasn't with him at the murder scene, that raises doubt regarding Cantu's guilt.

Condemned men have murdered while awaiting (and awaiting, and awaiting) their executions. Thousands of murderers never face justice; thousands of other murderers eventually gain release. Weak punishment undoubtedly fosters future crimes. There are multitudinous acts of unjust leniency. There are few acts of unjust punishment. But just one of the latter can ensure exponentially more of the former. Contemplating the execution of a non-offender leaves us, like Abraham, wondering whether it might be better to spare the rotten lot if it results in saving the lone innocent.

As a resident of a state with a an active death penalty, I think I agree with your statement. As far as I know, no evidence exists that demonstrates that the death penalty decreases violent crime. Furthermore, keeping a prisoner on death row costs significantly more than a maximum security facility. As policy, the death penalty does not make since. As politics, however, it plays well with voters. Just ask Michael Dukakis.

There may be very few, if any, innocents that face the death penalty. So if one slips through the system, although a tragedy, it seems an acceptable risk when you consider the truly guilty vermin that exist on death row.

Our legal system convicts and sentences based on the best information available to do so and death sentences are not taken or handed out lightly. The sentence fits the crime and if somebody receives a death sentence there’s usually a pretty solid reason.

The idea that the handing down of a death sentence should or could be considered a deterrent is thinking too much about it. Who cares if it’s a deterrent or not? There will always be people who commit murder and other heinous crimes who deserve a death sentence and who don’t view life as payback. It’s likely that they could care or think less about the consequences of their actions thus will not be deterred either way.

As in all nature, there are bad animals. And the bad ones need to be exterminated.

If you have absolute proof of guilt I am all for the death penalty. That, however, is almost never the case. I would rather deal with the unsatisfying end of permanent incarceration rather than be responsible for taking the life of one innocent man.

I think there might be more conservatives against the death penalty that many people would imagine.

This is one particular issue (there aren't many) on which I have personally been torn about... Both sides have strong positions. I would say that capital punishment should probably remain on the books, as a possible option, as it is sometimes necessary to use as a threat, in order to convince hardened criminals to cooperate with the authorities. As for when (or if) it should be used, that's something I'm not sure about right now... I would have to look more into this. Thanks to Mr. Flynn, and to the commenters at this entry, for sharing their insightful perspectives on this matter.

My own opinion on the death penalty is that it will never be the deterrent it could be if it is not applied universally and consistently. By this, I mean that I favor making the death penalty mandatory for murder in all fifty states. There was a time, during my own lifetime, when this was very nearly the case and it did serve to keep the murder rate far lower than it is today.

As for the occasional wrongly convicted individual, there is, of course, nothing we can do about those who have already been executed. But, with DNA technology, wrongly convicted prisoners are being cleared and released every year and this promises to eliminate the prospect of future executions of innocents. With that prospect comes the ability to use the death penalty the way it was once used and to make it an actual deterrent. If this sounds harsh, consider how harsh life is being the family of a murder victim. For far too long, liberal lawyers have whined about the rights of the accused and the convicted while putting the victims on trial. Enough.

Anyone who doesn't believe the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent against violent criminals had better ask themselves why violent crime has decreased dramatically after the death penalty returned. Examing Europe we see crime rates soariung, not because the public there is against the death penalty but because the elites are.

Furthermore the death penalty if enforced quickly saves money. Why should the public bear the expense of housing a murderer at the rate of 50,000 per annum for the rest of his life?

As far as ending the death penalty if one innocent man out of a thousand were executed. Let me alter the question and ask would you end the use of a vaccine that prevents death if it resulted in one fatality out of a thousand?

Contrary to the media and Hollywood, people who wind up on trial for murder normally have a long association with institutional correction facilities and are not generally considered to be choirboys. In light of their activities most communities will not weep over their demise.

I also note that the same folks who question the death penalty are usually staunch defenders of gun control laws. Seems the law abidding neighbor who works with you can't be trusted although a murderer should always be given the benefit of the doubt.

Associating the death penalty with crime rates rising or falling is simplistic as it doesn't even begin to take into account other factors. I have heard people who are against the death penalty point out that murder rates are higher where capital punishment is in operation as though this proves that the death penalty causes the murder rate to rise. The reverse is equally wrongheaded.

If capital punishment innoculated the population from from all murder like the Salk vaccine protects all from polio I think your an@logy would be apt. No one makes that claim. Also the threat of epidemics occurring without vaccine makes the murder rate pale into insignificance. I have to say I feel pretty safe from murder death penalty or no, but owning a firearm makes me feel even a little safer.