The death penalty is once again at the center of a national debate as the case against Tyler Robinson, the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk, moves toward trial in Utah. Robinson has pleaded not guilty, and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. A Utah judge recently ruled that the aggravated-murder case can proceed, making the death penalty a possible sentence if Robinson is ultimately convicted.
For supporters of capital punishment, the case raises a broader question: Should the death penalty remain available for individuals convicted of the most serious murders?
As a strong supporter of capital punishment, I argue that it should.
The Death Penalty as a Deterrent
One of the strongest arguments for the death penalty is deterrence. Let’s consider arguments attributed to legal scholar Alan Dershowitz concerning the amount of time some convicted murderers ultimately spend incarcerated, as well as the possibility of early release, escape, or additional violence while imprisoned.
From this perspective, a sentence of death permanently removes the possibility that a convicted murderer can later kill another person.
Let’s also consider the research involving prisoners in Harris County, Texas, that demonstrates that the possibility of execution can influence decisions about committing murder. I further argue that examples of people crossing state lines demonstrate that differences in criminal penalties can affect criminal behavior.
These considerations support the argument that capital punishment can serve as a deterrent.
Justice for Victims and Their Families
The death penalty can provide a sense of relief or closure for surviving family members.
I recall interviewing a representative of Parents of Murdered Children. My guest described the execution of a victim’s murderer as bringing significant relief to surviving family members.
Capital punishment is not simply about punishing an offender. It is also about recognizing the permanent loss suffered by innocent victims and their families.
Taking an innocent human life represents such a profound violation that, in the most extreme cases, death can be an appropriate punishment.
Addressing the Arguments Against Capital Punishment
Opponents of the death penalty raise several objections. Let’s consider those arguments.
One argument is that the United States stands apart from other developed nations because it continues to permit capital punishment. But that is insufficient to resolve the question. In my view, whether other countries permit the death penalty does not determine whether the United States should. We are a sovereign nation based on God-given rights and independence.
Another argument concerns racial disparities in capital punishment. Let’s be clear; discrimination in the justice system should be addressed directly. The existence of discrimination should not require abolishing the death penalty itself.
The argument I consider most serious is the possibility that an innocent person could be executed. I acknowledge that this concern cannot simply be dismissed. At the same time, advances in DNA testing and other forensic technologies have strengthened the ability of the justice system to identify the correct perpetrator. The possibility of future murders committed by released or escaped prisoners must also be considered when evaluating the risks associated with different forms of punishment.
Life, Innocence and Punishment
Support for capital punishment is also about the value of human life. I’m pro-life and I reject the argument that support for the death penalty is inherently inconsistent with that position. One must draw a distinction between innocent human life and an individual who has been convicted, following due process, of deliberately taking an innocent person’s life.
The distinction is fundamental: protecting innocent life and imposing the ultimate punishment for an intentional and exceptionally serious murder are not morally contradictory.
The Larger Question
Ultimately, the death penalty should remain available for the most serious crimes, provided that the accused receives due process and that the legal standards for imposing capital punishment are satisfied.
The debate surrounding the Charlie Kirk case provides another opportunity for Americans to examine that question—not simply in terms of one defendant or one victim, but in terms of justice, deterrence, victims’ families, constitutional protections, and the appropriate limits of government punishment.
For those who support capital punishment, the central principle is straightforward: when an individual deliberately takes an innocent human life under circumstances that meet the legal requirements for capital punishment, society should retain the ability to impose its ultimate criminal penalty.
By South Florida’s Conservative Voice Mike Essen, Blog Contributor