I don’t post political a lot, but I think about politics a whole bunch.  Lately, I’ve been thinking about the death penalty, and have come to the conclusion that I oppose it on purely moral/philosophical grounds, i.e., a civilized society should not put people to death.  Not because you never know if a convicted killer is innocent, and not because there might be a particular convicted killer with evidence out there which tends to exonerate him or her, and not because of the statistics which demonstrate the death penalty isn’t a true deterrent.  I think those are all interesting and compelling factors, but none are determinative. 

Take the first argument- that you never know if a convicted killer is innocent.  Does it then follow that if you have a killer who is unquestionably guilty, he should be put to death?  (Think videotapes, confessions, multiple eyewitnesses, etc.)  The convicted killer with exonerating evidence is subject to the same scrutiny.  If you do not take the position that the death penalty is immoral, there will always be circumstances where it is appropriate or acceptable.  Every convicted felon is subjected to significant, near total, diminutions of liberty.  I don’t think many people believe incarceration is inherently immoral or otherwise objectionable.  The focus, therefore, is on the process.  Is the process leading to conviction and incarceration sufficient to justify that diminution of liberty?  For the most part, a jury of 12 peers must unanimously find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  There are myriad protections in the criminal investigation and interrogation process.  Very few people disagree that when due process is met, some penalty is appropriate.  However, once it is accepted that punishment and incarceration of convicted criminals is appropriate, where is the line drawn between the severity of that punishment and the significance of the diminution of liberty?  For many people, it is the ultimate diminuition of liberty, i.e. the taking of life.  And that distinction, I think, is a purely moral one. 

I don’t like the position that the death penalty can be acceptable in the right circumstances, i.e., put Bin Laden to death, but not a run of the mill murderer.  Reasonable people can disagree on where the lines of “execute killer A, sentence killer B to life” can be drawn, and you will have large groups of reasonable people deciding where to draw those lines.  Which is, ultimately, what the individual American states do.  No, I think the line has to be drawn at “no state-sponsored executions under any circumstances,” and I think the rationale for it has to be morality based.