The possibility of something going wrong should often give us pause, causing us to reconsider our actions. Take, for example, the act of shooting into a bush. We should only aim our weapons at targets we are fully prepared to destroy. Naturally, this principle isn’t absolute. Suppose you point your gun at the ground. There could be a person trapped underground who might get shot. Therefore, we mitigate the risks of our actions to the best of our ability. Mere possibility alone isn’t sufficient to change our actions entirely. This reasoning could have been applied during the COVID-19 epidemic, but hindsight is always clearer.

This same logic applies when discussing the death penalty. Many argue that the mere possibility of executing an innocent person is reason enough to abolish capital punishment. While this concern is valid and should cause us to carefully consider each case, it shouldn’t lead to the wholesale abolition of the death penalty. We must execute those who are rightfully convicted while exonerating those for whom the evidence is insufficient.

The intriguing aspect of this debate is whether the logic can be reversed. If a man is guilty, there is a real possibility of him claiming another victim. According to the objector’s principle, they should and shouldn’t execute the individual because of the potential that he might escape and kill again, harm another prisoner, or even kill prison staff. So, whose possibility matters more?

Expanding on this further, let’s examine the potential consequences of abolishing the death penalty based solely on the fear of executing an innocent person. While the risk of wrongful execution is a legitimate concern, it must be weighed against the undeniable danger posed by convicted murderers who remain alive. Every day that a convicted killer is allowed to live, there is a chance they could escape, kill other inmates, or harm prison staff. This is not mere speculation; there have been numerous cases where violent offenders have continued to pose a lethal threat even after their initial crimes.

Moreover, the presence of the death penalty serves as a powerful deterrent. Potential murderers are less likely to commit heinous crimes if they know that the ultimate punishment awaits them. The argument that life imprisonment is sufficient overlooks the psychological impact of knowing that one’s life will be terminated as a consequence of their actions. Removing the death penalty could potentially embolden criminals, leading to an increase in violent crimes.

In addition, consider the families of the victims. The death penalty provides a sense of closure and justice that life imprisonment simply cannot. It affirms the value of the life that was taken and sends a clear message that society will not tolerate such atrocities. The possibility of executing an innocent person should lead to rigorous legal safeguards and thorough investigation procedures, not the abolition of a penalty that serves to protect society and deliver justice.

Those who oppose the death penalty often focus solely on the rights of the accused, neglecting the rights and safety of the potential future victims. It is a delicate balance, but the safety of the many must take precedence over the possibility of error in the justice system. We should strive for a system that minimizes the risk of wrongful executions through better legal practices and more advanced forensic techniques, but not at the expense of abandoning a critical tool for justice and deterrence.

Ultimately, the question is not just about the possibility of executing an innocent person, but about the broader implications of removing the death penalty. Whose lives are we valuing more? The potential innocent who might be wrongfully executed, or the countless innocents who might be saved by the deterrent effect and the removal of dangerous individuals from society? The scales of justice must weigh these possibilities, and when they do, the preservation of the death penalty emerges as the more compelling and necessary choice.