Letter: Death penalty validates hate, vengeance

Saturday, Feb. 24, 2001 | 10:15 a.m.

The death penalty is wrong. There are only two moral reasons to justify state-sanctioned killings: self-defense and as a deterrent to prevent future killings. As for self-defense, once you've rendered your opponent helpless and have the means to maintain him in that condition, then the self-defense reason does not exist.

As for the deterrent factor, studies have shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Homicide rates in death penalty states are not lower than in states without the death penalty, and we continue to have shockingly higher rates of murder than do Western European nations, none of which practice capital punishment. If the death penalty is not used for self-defense, and it is not a deterrent, then the only reason for it is revenge and that is neither a moral nor rational reason. It sends a lesson to society that it is acceptable to kill; that revenge is justifiable.

If one innocent person has ever been executed, it should be an overwhelming argument against the death penalty. The execution of an innocent person is an irreversible atrocity that governments should not sanction.

I am frequently asked if I would favor capital punishment if the victim was a member of my family. I don't know. But I do know that my response could not be rational based on the circumstances. Governments should act rationally. Capital punishment does not represent justice. It represents vengeance and hate -- and these are not appropriate for governments.

MEL LIPMAN President, Humanist Association of Las Vegas