To the Editor:

Re “Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate” (front page, Nov. 18):

The revived debate over the death penalty already seems destined to miss the mark. It is not a technical or empirical issue, but a moral one. As such, economists and other social scientists have little to tell us as empirical chroniclers about the death penalty’s continued use.

Although a demonstration that the death penalty has no deterrent effect would be morally significant in curbing its use, there is no particular or free-standing moral significance to the claim that it does have some deterrent effect.

There are all manner of punishments and innovations that might be introduced if deterrence were the only or main determinant of its social acceptability: chopping off limbs, stoning people and corporal punishment might be usefully retried.

The fact is that the death penalty, like limb-chopping or stoning, is a morally outrageous practice whatever its deterrent effect: it reduces society to the ethical level of the murderer. In a society that aspires to be moral and just, there is no room for such a state-sanctioned uncivilized practice.

Allan C. Hutchinson
Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 18, 2007
The writer is a visiting professor at Harvard Law School.

Note from KBJ: If the death penalty “reduces society to the ethical level of the murderer,” then imprisonment reduces society to the ethical level of the kidnapper and fining reduces society to the ethical level of the thief. Professor Hutchinson needs a crash course in critical thinking.

Note 2 from KBJ: Professor Hutchinson says that the death penalty is “a morally outrageous practice.” Actually, it’s a morally required practice. Killing murderers is not a necessary evil; it’s a positive good. We kill murderers because, and only because, we value innocent human life.

Note 3 from KBJ: Professor Hutchinson is right that understanding the deterrent effect (if any) of capital punishment does not, in and of itself, resolve the moral issue. What social scientists can show us is how many innocent lives we must give up in order to preserve the life of a convicted murderer. Social science is telling us (see the New York Times story) that we must give up several innocent lives. What’s morally outrageous is valuing the life of a convicted murderer more highly than the lives of several innocent people. To quote Professor Hutchinson, “In a society that aspires to be moral and just, there is no room for such a state-sanctioned uncivilized practice.” What we have here is squeamishness masquerading as justice.

Note 4 from KBJ: Professor Hutchinson writes:

Although a demonstration that the death penalty has no deterrent effect would be morally significant in curbing its use, there is no particular or free-standing moral significance to the claim that it does have some deterrent effect.

This is flat-out wrong, as I explained in the previous note. Suppose capital punishment deters. Then not killing convicted murderers costs innocent people their lives. How does that lack “free-standing moral significance”? Does Professor Hutchinson not value innocent human life? What a bizarre letter!