Fairmind

The Death Penalty

The death penalty punishes a crime by killing the criminal. Some U.S. states have it; others do not. Should it be abolished altogether?
A room with a medical table that has restraining straps
Lethal injection room at San Quentin prison. Image: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

A Fair-Minded Guide

  • See the best arguments from both sides
  • Factual claims are verified and footnoted
  • 7 minute read (main content)
  • Skeptical? See Accuracy and Fairness

Facts

To understand the arguments below, here are a few preliminary facts about the death penalty (also known as capital punishment):

  • 1976 was the beginning of the death penalty’s modern era in the United States. In that year, the Supreme Court allowed executions to resume under new sentencing rules. Four years earlier, the Court had halted all executions because the old laws were too unfair and inconsistent.1

  • As of November 2025, 27 states, the federal government, and the military allowed the death penalty. 23 states and Washington, DC, had life in prison without parole as the maximum penalty.2

  • A small percentage of counties account for a large percentage of executions nationwide. Even in states that allow the death penalty, only some local prosecutors seek it.3

  • 25 people were executed in the United States in 2024.4 That is well below the modern peak of 98 people executed in 1999.5

  • Executions are mostly by lethal injection. Some states also authorize other methods—electrocution, firing squad, lethal gas, or hanging—but they are rarely used.6

  • As of 2023, the average time between sentencing and execution was 23 years, an all-time high.7

Factors to Consider

There are four main factors to consider about the death penalty, each with arguments from supporters and opponents. At the end of this guide, Appendix: Editorial Choices lists several factors and arguments we did not include in this main section with explanations why.

1. Morality

The death penalty can lead different people to exactly opposite moral intuitions:

Supporters argue the death penalty is morally required for the very worst crimes—such as killing a child, murder for hire, multiple killings, or terrorism.8 They believe people who commit these extreme acts should not live out their natural lives in prison. Allowing that, they say, would be unjust to victims and families.

Opponents argue the death penalty is always morally wrong because it uses killing as punishment. They see this as the last relic of violent punishments like torture or beatings, which society has left behind. They say life in prison without parole already protects society, provides finality, and reflects the seriousness of the crime—without taking another life.

What else to know: Most executions involve crimes with one or two victims and specific “aggravating” factors like rape, child victims, murder for hire, or killing during another felony. Although executions for mass killings make the most news, they represent only a tiny fraction of executions.9

The key question: Does justice ever require taking life?

2. Deterrence

Many people believe that the threat of punishment deters crime, and that harsher punishments create stronger deterrence. But measuring deterrence is extremely difficult, and it remains unknown whether the death penalty prevents more murders than life in prison without parole.10

Supporters argue the death penalty must deter at least some additional murders because it is the strongest possible punishment. Even if the effect is hard to measure, they say, any lives saved would be worthwhile.

Opponents argue that if clear evidence is lacking, we should not assume the death penalty deters more than life without parole. They add that many murders are impulsive or emotionally driven, and that even people who plan murders rarely expect to be caught.

What else to know: The fact that deterrence is hard to measure does not show whether it exists or not. Because the answer is unknowable with current methods, the real issue becomes how much weight people choose to give the possibility of a deterrent effect.

The key question: Should deterrence matter as a justification if it cannot be clearly proved?

3. Innocence and Error

Some people on death row have been exonerated—that is, acquitted, pardoned, or had their cases dismissed. Depending on whether exoneration is narrowly defined as innocence proven or broadened to include procedural failures, the number could be anywhere in the rough range of 65 to 200 people since the 1970s.11 It is also possible that innocent people have been executed, but confirming this is extremely hard because cases are rarely reopened after an execution.12

Supporters argue that exonerations show the system’s layers of review and appeal are catching the rare mistakes. They say these safeguards are essential but believe opponents often use every available step to delay executions as long as possible, even when there is no reasonable doubt about the verdict.

Opponents argue that wrongful execution is the ultimate miscarriage of justice. They note it’s a risk that comes uniquely with the death penalty. They say that exonerations show the appeals system can work, not that it always does work. They emphasize that we don’t know whether, when, or how often the system allows wrongful executions—and that this uncertainty is unacceptable for a punishment that cannot be undone.

The key question: How much risk of irreversible error should society tolerate in exchange for the moral or deterrent value it assigns to capital punishment?

4. Fairness

The death penalty is not applied equally—most notably, a small percentage of counties account for most death-sentencing activity,13 and cases with white victims are more likely to result in death sentences.14

Supporters argue that if someone commits a crime heinous enough to deserve the death penalty, that person still deserves it even if other similar cases were handled differently. Many supporters would like to see the death penalty for those other cases too.

Opponents argue the death penalty is applied in a fundamentally unfair way. The same crime and circumstances get a death sentence in one county and not in the county next door. Change the race of the victim, they note, the odds of getting the death penalty change. Although no one expects exactly equal application, they say, no one should accept systematically unfair application when the difference between outcomes is life and death.

What else to know: In 1987, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the death penalty was applied unequally with regard to race. But the Court ruled such discrimination was unconstitutional only if it could be proved to be intentional.15 Supporters agree with this view—that fairness turns on intent. Opponents argue that a clear pattern of unequal outcomes is enough to make the system unfair, even without proof of intent.

The key question: Can a punishment so final be legitimate when its use varies widely across place and circumstance?

Example Viewpoints

The questions above represent genuine tensions without easy answers. Below are examples of how different people might weigh these and other considerations to arrive at coherent positions. The examples illustrate a spectrum, from believing the death penalty should be used more often to believing it should never be used at all. You might find yourself aligning with one of these viewpoints, or you might form your own opinion by combining elements from multiple of them.

Expander

I believe the death penalty should not only be retained but also streamlined and expanded. Opponents have successfully abused the appeals process to the point that many prosecutors won’t seek a death sentence. They don’t want to spend years fighting every step, even if they will win the vast majority of the time. We need to streamline appeals to prevent abuse and to let the death penalty be used, rather than avoided, when justice demands it.

Pragmatic Supporter

I am for the death penalty because it is the only proper punishment for the worst of the worst crimes—not simply killings but mass killings, child killings, killings for hire and so on. I understand the death penalty is applied unevenly, that it may not be much of a deterrent, and there can potentially be mistakes. But we’ve lived with these flaws for a long time. Why? Because it’s even worse to have a society that lets people kill in the most heinous ways, then live out their own lives in prison, at the state’s expense.

Balancer

I would support keeping the death penalty if it were restricted only to federal and military use. This would stop counties and states from applying it so differently while keeping it available for the true worst of the worst.

Pragmatic Opponent

I am against the death penalty not for moral reasons but because it’s so flawed in practice. In the same state, the same crime can end up with the death penalty in one county and life in prison in another. It has clear racial bias in how it’s applied. And despite taking many years, appeals cannot guarantee we avoid executing an innocent person. That is too much wrong. I am for life in prison without parole.

Abolitionist

I am against the death penalty for the same reason I am against torture as punishment: When the state crosses the line to violence as punishment, it is wrong. I can cite the other reasons people should oppose the death penalty (lack of deterrence, applied unfairly, possibility of error), but even if those weren’t concerns, I’d still say the death penalty is wrong and must be fully abolished.

Deciding

The death penalty debate mixes deep moral disagreement, uncertain evidence about deterrence, and questions about fairness and the risk of error. It’s no surprise that reasonable people reach different conclusions. Our goal has been to give you the facts, arguments, and a range of viewpoints to help inform your own thinking. What you decide is up to you.

Appendix: Editorial Choices

In writing this guide, there were many choices to make—for example, how to frame the issue, which factors, arguments, and viewpoints to include, and how to phrase them. For those interested, below are notable choices. You can quickly scan the topics, clicking any for details.

Framing the Question

We framed this guide around the question “Should the death penalty be abolished?” because it is the normal way the issue is publicly debated. Ballot measures, legislative proposals, and most national discussions have focused on whether to end the death penalty, not whether to expand it or adjust specific features of it.

Advocacy Groups as Data Sources

We prefer to use neutral and authoritative sources for facts. But in the death-penalty debate, the most complete data on death sentences, executions, and exonerations comes from the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), a group that opposes the death penalty. DPIC’s data is widely used by the media, researchers, and courts. On aspects of the topic where DPIC has the best data, we use it in this guide. In one area where DPIC’s data is disputed, exonerations, we provide both DPIC’s count and a lower estimate offered by researchers who support the death penalty.

Prevention of Further Killing

Supporters sometimes argue that the death penalty prevents future murders because an executed person cannot kill again—whether by attacking a prison guard, killing another prisoner, or escaping and harming someone outside. This point is valid, but the situations it describes are extremely rare. In most years, the number of such cases is effectively zero; it can take many years before even one example occurs.16 Because these events are so uncommon, we did not treat this “incapacitation” argument as a major factor in the overall debate.

“Cruel and Unusual Punishment”

The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment forbids “cruel and unusual punishment.” Although the death penalty existed at the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified, opponents argue that evolving standards of decency should now qualify the death penalty as “cruel and unusual.” They often also note that even modern day executions can be “botched” (go wrong in painful ways), which adds to the cruelty.

We did not include this angle in the main factors to consider because, as a legal matter, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that current execution methods are not unconstitutional. Opponents may still argue the Court is wrong, but that position mainly repeats the moral arguments already covered in the section “Morally Necessary or Morally Unacceptable?”

Relative Cost

Death penalty cases cost much more to prosecute than cases that end in life without parole. This is because death penalty trials require more lawyers, longer hearings, and extra safeguards at every stage. Opponents often point to these higher costs as a reason to abolish the death penalty.

However, most cost comparisons do not include the full lifetime cost of keeping someone in prison without parole, which can also be very high. Research results vary depending on what is included, and we did not find clear evidence that one option is consistently more expensive overall.

Because the financial differences are unclear—and because life, death, and fairness are the core issues—we did not include cost as a main factor in the guide.

International Comparisons

Opponents often note that nearly 75% of countries have abolished the death penalty.17 They say the United States should do the same. This comparison can be powerful, but we omitted it from the key factors to consider for multiple reasons:

  • The United States should evaluate the death penalty based on the substance of the debate here—its moral rationale, empirical evidence, and how it fits with our state-based system of laws—not on how other countries resolved their own versions of the debate, each with different specifics.

  • If many other countries started reinstating the death penalty, death penalty opponents here would be highly unlikely to change their views.

  • When countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Germany abolished the death penalty, they did so against public opinion in their countries, which favored the death penalty. These were cases where elites acted without anything like a societal consensus.18 We are not judging this, only noting there is more to the story than a simple international consensus against the death penalty.

Mental Illness and Intellectual Disability

Across multiple cases, the Supreme Court has barred executing people who are intellectually disabled or too mentally ill to understand their punishment.19 Death penalty opponents say that many defendants have impairments that fall short of those legal bars but still make them more vulnerable to mistakes or unfair outcomes. Because errors and misunderstandings in capital cases are irreversible, the concern is about how the death penalty magnifies those risks.

Since this issue relates to the same kinds of fairness and reliability concerns discussed elsewhere in the guide, and because the Supreme Court has already prohibited the death penalty in clear cases of mental illness and intellectual disability, we did not include it as a separate main factor.

Timothy McVeigh

Supporters of the death penalty often cite the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. Killing 168 people, including 19 children, the crime is often seen as clearly warranting the death penalty.

The McVeigh case is rhetorically powerful: It evokes horror, scale, and certainty of guilt. But it is also one of the most extraordinary crimes in U.S. history and far beyond any other crime that received the modern death penalty.

Because McVeigh’s case is so unrepresentative of death-penalty cases, we did not use it in the main part of this guide. Instead, we described the categories of crimes that usually qualify for the death penalty, such as multiple murders, child victims, or killings for hire. The goal was to communicate the seriousness of those crimes beyond ordinary murders while not implying the death penalty is typically used for McVeigh-style atrocities.

Bargaining Chip

Supporters sometimes argue that the death penalty is useful as a bargaining tool. Prosecutors can threaten a possible death sentence to encourage a defendant to take a plea deal or to provide information. In those situations, prosecutors may offer life in prison instead of risking a death sentence at trial.

This point is valid, but it is clearly secondary. The death penalty can only work as a bargaining chip if society is willing to carry it out. And whether we are willing to carry it out depends on the larger questions in this guide—about morality, fairness, deterrence, and the risk of error.

For that reason, we did not include the bargaining-chip argument as one of the main factors to consider.

Further Reading

The arguments summarized in this guide were informed by a range of writings from both supporters and opponents of the death penalty. A web search will return many articles freely available online, usually taking one side or the other. For readers who want to explore book-length, relatively balanced treatments, we recommend the following:

  • Hugo Adam Bedau and Paul G. Cassell (editors), Debating the Death Penalty (2005) — A collection of essays by leading experts with varied views on the death penalty. Bedau was a philosopher and longtime abolitionist; Cassell is a former federal judge and a prominent defender of the death penalty.

  • Scott Turow, The Ultimate Punishment (2003) — A prosecutor-turned-novelist reflects on the death penalty. Turow’s skill as a writer makes this a particularly approachable book, even as it delves deeply into both sides’ arguments. He ultimately aligns closest to what this guide calls the “Pragmatic Opponent” viewpoint.

  • Dale Jacquette, Dialogues on the Ethics of Capital Punishment (2008) — A philosopher presents a fictional conversation among characters exploring arguments on both sides of the death penalty debate.

Footnotes

  1. Scott Bomboy, On this day, Supreme Court temporarily finds death penalty unconstitutional, National Constitution Center, June 29, 2023. ↩

  2. State by State, Death Penalty Information Center, accessed November 5, 2025. ↩

  3. As of November 2025, 439 out of 3,143 counties (about 14%) had at least one execution in the modern era. But only 44 counties (about 1%) accounted for half of all executions. (Calculated from the downloadable version of the Death Penalty Information Center’s Execution Database, accessed November 7, 2025) ↩

  4. Execution List, 2024, Death Penalty Information Center, updated as of December 19, 2024. ↩

  5. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment, 2023 – Statistical Tables, U.S. Department of Justice, July 2025, p. 12. ↩

  6. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment, 2023 – Statistical Tables, U.S. Department of Justice, July 2025, p. 13. ↩

  7. 23 years was a doubling from 2005, which itself was a doubling from 1984. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment, 2023 – Statistical Tables, U.S. Department of Justice, July 2025, p. 12) ↩

  8. Although there is major overlap, different states have different definitions of crimes eligible for the death penalty. As an example, Death Penalty in Texas lists the special circumstances that qualify in the state that has used the death penalty most. ↩

  9. For example, in 2023 and 2024, about half of executions were for single-victim crimes with aggravating circumstances. The other half involved two or more victims, with the high outlier being five total victims. (The links are to the Death Penalty Information Center’s Execution Database for those years.) ↩

  10. Deterrence cannot be measured directly because a deterred crime is one that does not occur. Instead, researchers have analyzed whether murder rates change when death-penalty laws change, or have compared places with the death penalty versus places without. The most thorough review of this research, done by the National Research Council in 2012, found that existing studies could not reliably separate the effect of the death penalty from other factors that also influence murder rates. The bottom line: A deterrent effect may or may not exist, but with current methods, it cannot be measured. (National Research Council, Deterrence and the Death Penalty, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2012, especially chapters 3 and 6) ↩

  11. The high number is from the Death Penalty Information Center’s Death Penalty Census Database from 1972 to the end of 2024, using the “Exonerated” filter. In that timeframe, the database lists 9,938 death sentences, of which 194 met the DPIC’s definition of exoneration. To avoid implying too much precision, we rounded 194 to 200 in the main text. The low number reflects a stricter definition by pro-death-penalty researchers. A 2008 paper (Ward A. Campbell, Exoneration Inflation: Justice Scalia’s Concurrence in Kansas v. Marsh) reported on a re-examination of DPIC’s claimed exonerations. The re-examination argued roughly one-third of DPIC’s exonerations were factually innocent, and the rest were exonerated on procedural failures. Accordingly, we multiplied DPIC’s current number of exonerations by one-third to get 65. Although we could go deeper into the debate about the proper definition of exoneration, we don’t believe the difference between 65 and 200 matters to the underlying questions presented about innocence and error. ↩

  12. Brandon L. Garrett’s The Banality of Wrongful Executions reviews three book-length investigations arguing that specific modern executions were wrongful. Garrett is generally sympathetic to at least one of these assessments, but he also explains why post-execution innocence claims are so hard to resolve with certainty. ↩

  13. “Just 34 coun­ties — few­er than 1.1% of all the coun­ties in the U.S. — account­ed for half of every­one on death row in U.S. states as of 1/​1/​2021. 2% of U.S. coun­ties account­ed for 60.8% of all state death-row pris­on­ers. 82.8% of U.S. coun­ties did not have any­one on death row.” (Death Penalty Information Center, Death Penalty Census: Key Findings, accessed November 9, 2025. ↩

  14. Lowell Dodge, Death Penalty Sentencing: Research Indicates Pattern of Racial Disparities, Government Accounting Office, May 3, 1990. ↩

  15. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987), Justia, accessed November 9, 2025. ↩

  16. The number of correctional officers (guards and other prison staff) killed by prisons averages around 1.5 each year nationwide. The statistics are not broken out by the perpetrator’s type of sentence, but life sentences are about 15% of those in U.S. prisons. So using rough math, we are talking about 15% of 1.5 deaths per year, which is a small fraction of one death per year. And murders by escaped prisoners are even rarer—perhaps a few per decade nationally. ↩

  17. Amnesty International reported that as of December 31, 2024, 145 (out of 195 total) countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice. (Death Sentences and Executions 2024, Amnesty International, 2025) ↩

  18. Sara Sun Beale, Public Opinion and the Abolition or Retention of the Death Penalty: Why is the United States Different?, presented at International Society for Reform of Criminal Law’s conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, June 23, 2014. ↩

  19. Limitations on Imposition of the Death Penalty: Cognitively Disabled, Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, accessed November 13, 2025. ↩