A tediously familiar objection inevitably is raised by my piece today, in which I write that one of the main arguments against capital punishment—that it is not morally allowable because the mechanism by which it is imposed is not infallible—also is an argument against incarceration and speeding tickets, which also might be given to those who do not deserve them.


It is true that an executed death sentence cannot be undone, but neither can we undo the injustice suffered by a man who gets a life sentence and dies in prison, or to the man who gets a 40-year sentence and is found innocent in the 39thyear, etc. Yes, we can let them out, but that does not undo the injustice. If out standard is irreparable harm, then incarceration for more than a trivial period cannot be acceptable, and neither can most other sanctions.

The objection goes: “We can let those wrongfully incarcerated go free, but we cannot bring the dead back to life.” This ignores the fact that people suffer death and other irreparable harm in our prisons, the state of which is a scandal. But even if inmates weren’t being raped 600 times over the course of a prison sentence, the time served itself would constitute irreparable harm.

That objection implicitly reads: “We should not countenance any punishment for crime except those that would not trouble us excessively if they were wrongfully inflicted.” I do not think that is a defensible position.


There are many good reasons to abolish capital punishment, and one good way to get it done: legislatively.