Execution or Life Imprisonment?
The death of Frank Smith, aged 101, of a night guard during an armed robbery, has reignited the debate over the legitimacy of the death penalty compared to life imprisonment. Smith served 76 years in prison, possibly the longest prison term in history. Although he was initially sentenced to death, his steadfast insistence on his innocence over the years allowed him to evade execution eight times, largely due to the efforts of members of the American Civil Liberties Union. The specter of the electric chair haunted Smith throughout his incarceration, even after the state abolished the death penalty in 2012. This case has intensified calls for abolishing capital punishment and raised questions about the state’s right to end a human life in the name of justice and security, while others hold opposing views.
Supporters of the death penalty, particularly for intentional murders or extremely brutal crimes, argue that imprisonment may not fully deliver justice. They contend that since the perpetrator deprived the victim of life, the perpetrator should also forfeit their right to life. Even if the death penalty does not deter others, supporters believe it remains a just punishment for specific crimes. Furthermore, executing the condemned prevents them from killing others inside prison. While life imprisonment reduces the risk posed by a murderer, it does not eliminate it entirely, especially in systems where pardons, sentence reductions, or escapes may occur. They also believe that the existence of the penalty may deter some from committing serious crimes, given their knowledge of the inevitable outcome. In some cases, states must demonstrate firmness to prevent criminals from perceiving penalties as negotiable. Additionally, some argue that the death penalty provides victims’ families with a sense of justice, particularly when the perpetrator confesses.
Opponents of the death penalty argue that life imprisonment without parole can achieve the same isolation without executing the convict. Scientifically, there is no evidence that the death penalty deters murder more effectively than long-term imprisonment. Nor is there proof that capital punishment lowers, raises, or has no effect on murder rates. Opponents also highlight that one of the most irreparable consequences of executing someone is the potential emergence of new evidence, confessions, or police and prosecutorial misconduct. Recent data indicate that at least 4.1% of those sentenced to death in a U.S. study were likely wrongfully convicted—a conservative estimate, given that the judicial system is not infallible. Therefore, granting the state the power to make an irreversible decision is not prudent.
Moreover, the death penalty is not always applied equally. Sentences may be influenced by the defendant’s poverty, inadequate legal representation, ethnic, religious, or national background, the location of the crime, and the stances of prosecutors and judges. Consequently, opponents argue that the penalty may reflect not only the severity of the crime but also the defendant’s social standing and financial resources. From a human rights perspective, the right to life should not be forfeited even after committing a crime, as long as society can be protected through alternative means. Ironically, in the United States, death penalty cases are typically more expensive than life imprisonment, because courts require additional procedures, lawyers, appeals, and special reviews to minimize the risk of error. Therefore, opponents argue that the funds spent on executing prisoners could be redirected toward crime prevention, improving policing, supporting victims’ families, and addressing addiction and mental health issues.
Ahmed Al-Sarraff
