Vo⁠i⁠ces

A society can permanently remove dangerous offenders from the public through life imprisonment while refusing to grant the government the irreversible power to deliberately end a human life. That distinction matters because governments are not infallible. Courts make mistakes. Prosecutors make mistakes. Evidence is mishandled. Witnesses are mistaken. Innocent people have been convicted of crimes they did not commit. An execution cannot be reversed. A wrongful conviction can be corrected. A wrongful execution cannot. A government strong enough to protect society without taking life demonstrates greater confidence in justice than one that relies on execution.

“I oppose the death penalty because I follow a consistent life ethic. As a Catholic who is also vegetarian and anti-abortion, I do not believe in playing God by ending another human life. Sentencing someone to death is incompatible with modern standards of justice.”

“As a conservative, my opposition to the death penalty is rooted in the same principles that shape the rest of my worldview: a deep skepticism of concentrated government power and a belief that ultimate authority belongs to God. While many conservatives reach a different conclusion, I am not comfortable entrusting the state with the irreversible power to take a human life. Government is fallible; God is not. For me, the power over life and death should rest with Him alone.”

Conservatives Concerned brings an important perspective to the table for center-right voters and elected officials. They offer a pathway to principled debate for those who believe in the sanctity of life and others who are concerned about a system that makes mistakes in one of every eight capital cases. Whether one is for or against the death penalty, informed discussion is critical to ensuring America has a just and fair criminal justice system.

“While wrongful convictions occur all too often in our criminal justice system, they can sometimes be righted through appeals or new evidence. But when a wrongful capital punishment is carried out, it cannot be corrected. Modern DNA forensic science has demonstrated that hundreds of innocent people have been executed. Human life is sacred to us and we can no longer support the use of capital punishment.”

I first supported the death penalty until I found out how many innocent individuals were being killed and how costly it was on the taxpayers. In a free and just society, we should always strive to protect life, most especially all innocent life. And, ultimately, it costs the taxpayers more to put a man to death than keeping him locked up for life. So after studying the issue, I now strongly oppose the death penalty.

Are some crimes so heinous as to be worthy of the ultimate earthly punishment? Yes. Are some who commit those crimes capable of remorse, redemption and restitution? Yes, but not if they’re dead. Is government guilty of sloppiness and error in its judgments? Oh my God, yes! Add to that the proven fact that capital punishment in our clunky court system costs more than life without parole and you arrive at an inescapable conclusion: the right alternatives to capital punishment offer more hope, more deterrence and more justice.

Government has no business in the taking of life that is not strictly related to national defense. The same people who don’t believe that government can efficiently deliver health services or regulate the economy believe it can execute people without a mistake. Government should have no authority to make decisions where a mistake could mean the taking of an innocent life. I would rather see 100 guilty men go free, than to see one innocent person executed.

On the core issue — yes or no on capital punishment — I’m with the opponents. Better to err on the side of not taking life. The teaching of the Catholic Church, to which I belong, seems right to me: The state has the legitimate authority to execute criminals, but it should refrain if it has other means of protecting people from them. Our government almost always does.