Anthony Ray Hinton knew he was going to die. Sentenced to death for a crime he didn’t commit, he had no money for another appeal. When his best friend Lester visited, Ray asked him to tell Ray’s mother when he died. “Tell her I died with joy in my heart and I wasn’t afraid. You lie to her.” Lester never had to protect Ray’s mother with a lie, but she died before Ray was finally exonerated after 30 years on death row. This story, which is included in Ray’s memoir The Sun Does Shine, is one of many about the death penalty. In this article, we’ll explore 10 reasons why the death penalty is wrong, including the fact that wrongful convictions are too common, the death penalty inflicts torture and that it doesn’t deter violent crime.
#1. The death penalty inflicts torture on everyone it touches
No part of Clayton Lockett’s lethal injection went smoothly. First, the execution team took at least 16 pokes to get the IV inserted. As the first of three drugs entered his body, Clayton writhed in agony. The execution was halted, but 43 minutes after that first drug hit his bloodstream, Clayton died of a heart attack. A witness said he had been “tortured to death.” Clayton’s execution was botched, but even when lethal injections are performed properly, autopsy evidence indicates a painful, suffocating death.
Even if you’re okay with executed people experiencing pain, what about those who have to perform or witness the executions? In 2022, NPR spoke with current and former executioners, lawyers, wardens, and other workers involved with more than 200 executions. They reported “serious mental and physical repercussions,” even if they’d never witnessed an actual execution. Nearly everyone NPR spoke with no longer supported the death penalty. Even without considering the people executed, the death penalty is wrong because it hurts everyone involved in the process.
Do you want to pursue a career in human rights?
Our eBook "Launching Your Career in Human Rights" is an in-depth resource designed for those committed to pursuing a career in the human rights field. It covers a wide range of topics, including the types of careers available, the necessary skills and competencies, and the educational pathways that can lead to success in this sector. Whether you're considering a master's degree, looking for your first job, or exploring specific human rights issues, this guide offers valuable insights and practical advice. It's a helpful tool for anyone looking to understand the complexities of working in human rights and how to effectively navigate the challenges and opportunities that come with this important work. Learn more.#2. The death penalty is biased against people experiencing poverty
In 1983, Glenn Ford was arrested for the murder of his employer. Glenn couldn’t afford his own lawyer, so the judge assigned him two. There was a big problem: one lawyer specialized in oil and gas law (and had never tried a case), while the other worked on slip-and-fall cases (The Fear of Too Much Justice). Because Glenn couldn’t afford a lawyer, his life depended on a counsel team wholly unequipped to handle a capital trial. According to the United Nations, people experiencing poverty are “disproportionately affected” by the death penalty. Even if they can afford better lawyers (or are lucky enough to be assigned one), they still have to pay for things like investigations, experts and DNA tests. In a system where you need money to mount a decent defense, the death penalty is inherently unjust.
Glenn Ford was sentenced to death. A better defense would have revealed major cracks in the state’s case. For one, the prosecution depended on the testimony of a witness who, on the stand, admitted to lying. The murder weapon was also never recovered. Regardless, Glenn spent almost three decades on death row before his sentence was vacated. He died of lung cancer less than 16 months later, half his life stolen because he couldn’t afford a decent lawyer.
#3. The death penalty hurts people with severe mental illness and disabilities
Andre Thomas’ grandmother believed she heard God’s voice. So did his mother, and so did Thomas. However, the voices Thomas heard drove him to first try to take his own life at 10 years old. After years of hallucinations, Thomas killed his family and removed their hearts, believing they were demon-possessed (A Descending Spiral: Exposing the Death Penalty in 12 Essays). As his trial date approached, Andre didn’t understand his family was dead. Then, he cut out his own eye, forcing the system to ask: is this man sane enough to stand trial?
Many people believe those with intellectual disabilities or severe mental illness like Andre should not be held fully responsible for their crimes. Most courts agree; in the United States, Ford v. Wainwright (1986) states that the “insane” cannot be executed. However, as the book The Fear of Too Much Justice describes, prosecutors and judges face public pressure to convict people charged with violent crimes, even when it’s clear they’re deeply unwell. When Andre’s insanity plea was rejected, he was sentenced to death in 2005. He was forced to wear protective mittens, but after continuing to see demons, he gouged out his remaining eye and ate it. At the time of writing (March 2025), Andre Thomas remains on death row while the legal system debates if a man who ate his own eye is sane enough to execute.
#4. Wrongful convictions are too common
Anthony Ray Hinton had an alibi for the murders he was convicted of. He was working, which his boss attested to. In court, the state argued the weapon they’d found at Ray’s mother’s house was used in the crime, but there was no physical evidence. His defense expert, who should have proven his innocence, was blind in one eye, did not test-fire the weapon, and did not know how to use a microscope. Even if you believe the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, errors like the ones in Ray’s case are too serious to ignore.
In a 23-year period, ⅔ of death penalty sentences had “serious, reversible errors.” For every eight people executed, one person on death row has been exonerated. Ray spent 30 years on death row before his exoneration. He now works as an advocate against the death penalty, but he could have easily become part of the 4.1% of innocent people who are executed in the United States. That percentage is “conservative,” meaning, it’s likely higher. In its current form, the death penalty can never be a tool for true justice because wrongful convictions are simply too common.
#5. The appeal process is broken
In theory, Johnny Joe Martinez was a perfect candidate for life in prison. Before he killed Clay Peterson, Martinez had no criminal record. He also showed remorse immediately by calling the police himself. The victim’s own mother wanted Martinez’s life spared after he was sentenced to death. However, when Martinez tried to call his lawyer about his appeal, the man didn’t pick up. Martinez then wrote him letters, but his lawyer never replied (Let the Lord Sort Them: The Rise and Fall of the Death Penalty). Martinez finally learned his lawyer had filed a 17-line petition (good petitions can be hundreds of pages long) without ever speaking to him. The petition was promptly denied. Martinez was executed in 2002. He was 27 years old.
Appeals are a vital part of the criminal justice system, but for death sentences, appeals can drag on for decades, causing intense trauma for those on death row. At the same time, the convicted must act quickly. As Maurice Chammah explains in Let the Lord Sort Them, people facing the death penalty have just one year after state review to file a federal habeas petition, which can be the difference between death or life in prison. Only in rare cases can someone file more than one petition. You depend not only on your lawyer’s competency, commitment and speed, but information available in a tight timeframe. An appeal system this broken seems eager for executions, not fair and equal justice.
#6. Racial bias is too persistent in the criminal justice system
We’ve talked about Anthony Ray Hinton’s case before, but why was he convicted with a clear alibi and no physical evidence tying him to the crime? Racial bias played a huge role. All 12 jury members were white, as were the prosecutor and judge. As Ray writes in his memoir The Sun Does Shine, “The good old boys had traded in their white robes for black robes, but it was still a lynching.”
In a study analyzing murder convictions between 1978 and 2002, researchers found Black defendants were 4.6-8.7 times more likely to get a death sentence. Between 1976 and 2016, 34% of those executed were Black, despite Black people comprising just 13% of the population. The victim’s race matters, too. According to a 2003 study, prosecutors were more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim was white. This creates a two-tiered system of punishment infected with racial bias. None of this data is new. In McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), the Supreme Court accepted evidence showing Georgia defendants were four times more likely to get sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. They then declared that racial bias was “inevitable.” If racial bias is inevitable, how can the death penalty ever be just?
#7. The death penalty doesn’t deter violent crime
In a survey on a previous version of this article, 38% of our respondents identified crime deterrence as the most influential factor in their opinion on capital punishment. Does crime deterrence matter on a moral level? One could make the argument that if applied fairly and humanely, the death penalty could be moral if it prevents future violence and death. The problem is that it doesn’t. Even if the death penalty was always applied fairly with no discrimination or pain, it would still fail at its most vital purpose.
A 2020 analysis found that 9 out of 10 states with the highest pandemic murder rates had the death penalty. This data echoes other studies showing again and again that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Why? According to an article in Psychology Today, most violent offenders don’t behave rationally. A lack of mental health treatment is a common trigger; 43% of those in state prisons have a diagnosed mental disorder. With “expressive crimes,” which are crimes driven by rage, depression, and drug or alcohol use, fear of the death penalty doesn’t factor into decision-making, making it a useless prevention tool.
#8. Taxpayers bear the financial costs
In 2024, Utah executed Taberon Honie, a man who started drinking at age 5, and when he was 22, killed his girlfriend’s mother while intoxicated. His execution cost $288,685. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, that cost is equivalent to one year of healthcare for 38 people or one year of education for 65 public school students. That cost doesn’t include how much taxpayers spent on Honie’s 25-year stay on death row. In California, holding people on death row costs taxpayers $90,000 more each year than people in the general population.
The death penalty forces taxpayers to bear the costs, even if they’re morally opposed to it. If you support the death penalty in theory, wouldn’t you prefer your money to go to programs and services that actually reduce violent crime? As mentioned earlier, the death penalty does not deter violence in a meaningful way. Research shows that investing in healthcare, especially behavioral health services, is much more effective. So is education; one study found that students who attended better-funded schools were 15% less likely to be arrested through age 30. Paying for executions invests in nothing but death.
#9. The death penalty is too easily abused by authoritarians
In the Nasiriyah prison in Iraq, executions happen without warning. Men have their names read out on a loudspeaker, and then they’re gone. They’re not executed because they’ve committed horrendous crimes. One man told Human Rights Watch that his imprisoned brothers were accused of terrorism because they refused to be extorted by a militia group. In prison, the men endure physical torture, as well as the psychological torture of not knowing when they might be executed. To avoid public outrage, the Nasiriyah prison conducts mass executions in secret. Death row holds around 8,000 people, most charged with bogus terrorism offenses.
Most advocates of the death penalty believe it’s appropriate for only the most serious crimes. However, in places like Iraq, governments abuse executions as a tool for control. Justifications include “terrorism,” a charge that often includes any defiance of the government, and drugs. According to Amnesty International, more than 700 executions for drug-related offenses occurred between 2018 and 2022. It’s clear many governments inflicting the death penalty are not interested in real justice. As long the death penalty is legal, it has the potential to be abused for a government’s own purposes.
#10. The death penalty doesn’t help victims heal
Rachel Sutphin was nine years old when William Morva killed her father. In 2017, the state of Virginia executed Morva, but Sutphin felt no peace. When interviewed by The Appeal, she said, “Now there’s two dates that I remember every year. I remember Morva’s execution and my father’s death.” Before the execution, Sutphin wrote a letter asking the governor for mercy. She continues to advocate for an end to the death penalty.
Studies suggest Sutphin’s experience is not unique. One showed that only 2.5% of co-victims (the term used to describe the family and friends of murder victims) reported closure from the death penalty. 20.1% said it did not help them heal. Another study found that co-victims reported better physical and psychological health when life sentences were given. This isn’t to say no co-victims find relief following an execution, but it’s clear that the death penalty isn’t the only path to healing.
