Preparations are underway for Utah’s first execution via lethal injection in nearly 25 years. The Utah State Correctional Facility has constructed a brand-new, state-of-the-art execution chamber, and is conducting rehearsals to prepare for execution, which is scheduled for next week.
The man scheduled for execution is Taberon Honie, 48, who brutally murdered his ex-girlfriend’s mother in front of her grandchildren in 1998. Make no mistake, this crime is utterly heinous and merits the strongest punishment we can provide in good conscience. But that begs the question — is the death penalty conscionable?
Not only is the death penalty unconscionable, it doesn’t even work.
The death penalty is not only morally questionable but also fails to achieve its intended goals. As a public policy, it creates more problems than it solves, burdening taxpayers, risking innocent lives, and causing prolonged suffering for victims’ families. Here are the key reasons why the death penalty is ineffective and why many are calling for its repeal.
Risk to Innocent Lives
One of the most alarming issues with the death penalty is the potential for wrongful executions. Despite rigorous legal procedures, the justice system is not infallible. Over 190 individuals in the United States have been exonerated from death row since 1973, revealing significant flaws in the process.
The irreversible nature of the death penalty means that an innocent person could be executed before errors are discovered and corrected. This fundamental risk makes the death penalty an unconscionable form of punishment.
Financial Burden on Taxpayers
Contrary to the belief that the death penalty is a cost-effective solution, it actually imposes a significant financial burden on taxpayers. Capital cases are more expensive than non-capital cases due to longer and more complex trials, extensive pre-trial procedures, and numerous appeals.
These legal processes are necessary and beneficial because they provide opportunities to uncover mistakes and prevent wrongful executions. The fact that over 190 individuals have been exonerated from death row underscores the importance of these appeals. Without the ability to challenge their sentences, these individuals would have been wrongfully killed by the state.
The solution that is safest for everyone and cheaper by comparison is the abolition of the death penalty all together.
Prolonged Trauma for Victims’ Families
The lengthy appeals process associated with the death penalty not only incurs financial costs but also inflicts emotional distress on the families of victims. Each appeal and legal maneuver can reopen old wounds and prolong the grieving process. Instead of providing closure, the drawn-out legal proceedings can re-traumatize families for years, if not decades. This ongoing suffering undermines one of the purported justifications for the death penalty: delivering justice and peace to victims’ loved ones.
Given the numerous problems associated with the death penalty, many experts and policymakers argue for its repeal. Replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole could address many of the current system’s shortcomings.
It would eliminate the risk of executing innocent people, reduce legal costs, and provide victims’ families with a more definitive and timely form of justice. Moreover, reallocating resources from costly capital cases to crime prevention and rehabilitation programs could enhance public safety more effectively.
In conclusion, the death penalty is an ineffective and problematic policy that fails to deliver justice or deter crime. Its potential to kill innocent people, financial burden on taxpayers, and emotional toll on victims’ families make it a policy that should be reconsidered. The growing opposition to the death penalty reflects a broader recognition that more humane and effective alternatives exist, and it is time for policymakers to act on this understanding.
—
For additional reading:
- See why being pro-life means being anti-death penalty.
- Read why a 30-year prosecutor in Utah—who worked on capital punishment cases—called the death penalty a “counterfeit promise.”