I used to be an enthusiastic backer of the death penalty but no longer.  I suppose the death penalty retains its moral justification in exceptionally egregious cases where evidence is unimpeachable (e.g., terrorism cases) but not in other situations.  The fact that there have been more than a few death row inmates exonerated through the efforts of college and law school student volunteers should give anyone pause for concern, because non-professional students should not be necessary to prevent the state from killing the wrong person.  Certainly, it seems unbelievable (as reported at the end of the article) that people would continue to support the death penalty even if they believe that innocent people have been put to death.

The deterrance data is certainly interesting. It contradicts long accepted data which suggests the death penalty does not deter capital crime.  I live in Texas, with the highest death penalty usage in the nation (unless Florida is ahead of us these days).  Certainly, our crime rates have dropped over the past generation, but not as much as states less prone to execute, and probably due more to other factors, such as population age and the state of the economy.

Our concern as Christians, first and foremost, must be with justice. Deterrance is not separate from that.  Nor is the concept of proportionality separate from justice: certain crimes are heinous enough that one who commits them forfeits his/her life. However, that comes perilously close to “an eye for an eye”, and I think the death penalty proponent bears a burden to explicate the difference.

My objections to the death penalty are mostly pragmatic; as a (relative) conservative and one who works in the public criminal justice system, I simply don’t trust the government with this sort of power. We know of many cases where condemned inmates were exonerated, and I can testify to the capricious nature of sentencing. Moreover, there simply is a correlation between sentencing and socio-economic factors (race and the ability to hire qualified legal representative).  These are justice issues which should concern Christians, not to mention the pragmatic fact that we can contain violent criminals without killing them.

The death penalty satisfies a very simple desire for justice. Certain kinds of criminals deserve to die. This proposition is so simple, so nearly universal, it is definitive. But is executing a criminal barbaric, inhumane? Not if done quickly and finally. It is, I would argue, less barbaric than putting mn in prison, esp. in solitary, for the rest of his life.

I grant that sending innocent men to their deaths is thoroughly bad, and this may be the only worthwhile argument against the death penalty.
But to argue that the penalty is inhumane is precious. This is like arguing, in a much simpler level, that God cannot condemn a soul to punishment because it is merciless. L

The issue of deterrence is a red herring.  If society were to judge its laws on the basis of deterrence (effectiveness) then we would (should?) repeal them all.  Speed limits are routinely ignored and laws against any crime are continually broken, yet no one is advocating we abolish them.  Captial punishment when used definitely prevents that person from committing any further crimes.

Except I think that we can be fairly confident that God doesn’t make mistakes.  His judgment involves the ultimate punishment but His judgment is always perfect.  In our current system, the death penalty presents several problems both practical and moral.  Execution of the innocent (which we know has happened); disparate treatment of the poor and of minorities and of men; disparate vengence based on the identity of the victim; inadequate defense funds… the list goes on and on.  Not to mention, the abandonment of the sanctity of life.  I have friends who are in prison ministry who are friends and pastors to people serving Life Without who have been redeemed and are, in turn, ministering to others in prison who truly need leadership from a person who has “been there.” 
Who is so bad he cannot be saved?  Who am I to make that determination?

For those who are troubled by the death penalty, just think of it as postpartum abortion.

Words Matter wrote, “I simply don’t trust the government with this sort of power. We know of many cases where condemned inmates were exonerated, and I can testify to the capricious nature of sentencing. Moreover, there simply is a correlation between sentencing and socio-economic factors (race and the ability to hire qualified legal representative).” WM, I wholeheartedly agree with you. While I am opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, your professional background gives even more weight to the pragmatic argument.

Larry Morse: “But to argue that the penalty is inhumane is precious. This is like arguing, in a much simpler level, that God cannot condemn a soul to punishment because it is merciless.” Actually, I would argue both. I am beginning to question the concept that the God who is Love would condemn one for all eternity. This theology is far too inconsistent for me to accept. (Uh-oh, awaiting for the off-thread rebuttals…)

Who is so bad he can’t be sved? Who am I to make tht determination?

If you have ever sat on a jury as I have, you MUST make a determination. The law doesn’t permit indefinite equivcation - fortunately. To be sure, God doesn’t make errors, but that doesn’t alter the principle. Still, as I said, human error may be the only reason to deny the death penalty. But the recent news is that the death penalty DOES deter further crime. Well, if true, what then? LM

You only must make that determination if death is an option.  If life without parole is an option, then the possibility exists for redemption.  Trust me, there really is a lot of that going on in prison thanks to some incredibly devoted prison ministries and a very persistent God!
As someone who has represented several people on death row, I can say with some confidence that their’s were crimes of passion and thus, would not have been deterred.  In Alabama we execute everyone we possibly can so they certainly knew it was out there!  I’m pretty sure no one is talking about just letting people go.  The choice is between allowing an imperfect system make life and death decisions or simply sentencing to life without.  From a purely pragmatice standpoint, LWOP is much cheaper!

The death penalty is definitely a deterrent to crime.

It has deterred me.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Crimes of passion. Yes, well, why are these not called hate crimes, since this is what crimes of passion really are? Why isn’t hate crime law applied to these cases? Even if the penalty has no deterrrent effect on such crimes, why should they not face the death penalty if the crime has in fact been commited? LM