Moreover, it is not necessarily even clear that capital punishment through humane means is worse than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The many prisoners who choose not to appeal their capital sentences and (especially) those who purposely commit capital offences while incarcerated for the express purpose of qualifying for capital punishment provide evidence that life imprisonment may be comparable in "harshness" to the death penalty.
With respect to the issue of mistaken prosecution, that represents a completely valid concern; to the extent capital punishment is justified in principle, it must be applied through procedures that preclude erroneous sentences. However, that is not a valid objection where evidence of guilt in uncontroverted. Likewise, both the general moral obligation and the U.S. Constitution require that execution of capital sentences not involve unnecessary or prolonged physical suffering. At law, that issue has long-been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which specifically determined that the imposition of death where that punishment is warranted by the nature of the crime is not inherently "cruel" or "unusual" (Dershowitz, 2002; Friedman, 2005).
However, the prospect of errors in implementation such as the incorrect administration of the three drugs used in the so-called "lethal cocktail" is also a legitimate concern. As in the case of preventing wrongful conviction, the appropriate mechanism of ensuring against unnecessary cruelty lies within the realm...
Finally, the concern over prejudicial application based on minority status,
poverty, or
social class also raises legitimate issues, but their solution lies in sociological and procedural areas as well, and not in opposing capital punishment in fundamental principle.
Accordingly, all conceivable safeguards must be implemented to address the legitimate ethical and moral issues arising in
connection with capital punishment and its use must be limited to situations that are not contradicted by any of those considerations. However, once the appropriate criteria are satisfied for preventing mistakes in prosecution or implementation, and provided the issues of prejudicial application can be resolved, there is no objectively valid basis for opposing capital punishment. Since there is no justification for burdening the innocent with maintaining the lifelong health and
welfare of the worst
criminals, it is simply the most equitable and fair (albeit unpleasant) consequence of deliberate volitional acts of the perpetrator.
