Why is the death penalty still used? Let's look at the pros and cons and then the facts

On a cold, wet November morning in 1972, Roger Bontems was marched to the guillotine for complicity in two murders, neither of which he committed. He had requested a little extra time to comb his hair before meeting his fate.

The spectacle and crack of the blade so haunted his attorney and future French justice minister, Robert Badinter, that he became a staunch champion of abolition. When the French parliament overwhelmingly outlawed the death penalty in 1981, he put his hand on the plaque commemorating Victor Hugo’s seat, also a strident abolitionist, and said “It is done.”

I recently heard a law professor argue that lethal injection was tantamount to water boarding and fraught with administrative problems. I was compelled to point out the elephant in the room. Why do we still administer the death penalty?

Apologists argue that it is valuable as a deterrent and essential for maintaining public safety. They may see it as a cheap alternative to a lifetime of imprisonment or as justice for taking another’s life. But are these legitimate arguments?

The death penalty is sought in only a fraction of murder cases, and it is often doled out capriciously.

The National Academy of Sciences concludes that its role as a deterrent is ambiguous.

In Tennessee, federally prosecuted capital trials where the death penalty is sought cost about 50% more than those where it is not, and 29% of these sentences are overturned on appeal.

The cost of seeking capital punishment is higher at every point in the process and in some states can multiply the cost as much as eight times. In Maryland, for example, between 1978 and 2008, taxpayers paid more than $37 million per prisoner executed.

With most states spending half of their budgets on education and health care alone, the opportunity cost of that money is great.

There is virtually no difference for public safety between life sentences and execution. It usually takes many years or even decades to bring someone to an execution stage. Even if the convict is ultimately released, the rate of violent crime recidivism drops significantly in older age.

Brain science tells us that our decision making is mostly the product of competing brain centers that have been trained by our experiences, so it is misguided having a criminal justice system motivated primarily by retribution − itself an atavistic instinctual response.

If 80% of all homicides in the U.S. are committed with guns and most of these crimes are committed with the types of guns that are designed to kill people − 25% of all gun deaths are from 9 mm handguns − then why not tightly regulate these types of guns?

Unfortunately, there is a human tendency for someone to double down on bad policy instead of admitting to themselves or others that they are wrong.

More guns and state-sanctioned killings do not represent any form of moral high ground and will never make us safer.

William Culbert is a retired physician. He lives in Oak Ridge.

This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Why is the death penalty still used? Let's look at the facts