As a retired professor of ethics, I applauded the Tribune editorial board’s recent call for the abolition of Utah’s death penalty. The day after the editorial appeared, Utah’s parole board predictably rejected Taberon Honie’s request for the alternative of life without parole.
I have reviewed all manner of arguments pro and con relating to the death penalty.
The arguments against it are generally fully articulated, appeal to publicly accessible evidence, and are logically presented. They embody rational reflection and deserve responses in kind.
I have never encountered an argument in favor of the penalty that is ethically justified. The “best” pro-death-penalty arguments I have encountered are all variations on the following: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.” Defenders of state executions argue the practice provides ultimate closure. It permanently deters all those condemned to it from ever again harming others.
The penalty’s supporters tend to minimize: (1) the likelihood that innocent persons will fall victim to this barbaric practice; (2) the severe psychological “blowback” that can damage those charged with the hands-on administration of the penalty or with witnessing it; (3) the attendant wider desensitization of society to the value of human life.
If anyone can articulate a reasoned argument for retaining the death penalty in Utah or for re-instating it elsewhere, I would be most interested in reviewing it.
Andrew Bjelland, Salt Lake City
