By Rylie Painter | LTVN Reporter
The death penalty has been used in the United States since 1608. its continued use raises questions surrounding wrongful convictions and the methods used to carry out executions. Unlike the death penalty, life imprisonment holds criminals accountable and also give them time to recognize the consequences.
When someone commits a crime severe enough to be presented with capital punishment, the death penalty cannot undo the harm already caused. Executing the person responsible does not change the outcome of the crime. Instead, life imprisonment and resources to reform can help those who are sentenced take steps toward rehabilitation.
Capital punishment has a long history of being ineffective and being wrongfully sentenced. A 2026 analysis of more than 9,000 death sentences imposed in the United States between 1972 and 2025 found that more than 3,700 were later overturned by courts. The analysis also found that about 200 people sentenced to death had been exonerated.
The year of 2022 was given the name “Year of the Botched Execution,” due to 7 out of 20 execution attempts being problematic, earning a 35% fail rate. The problems occurred in states including Alabama, Arizona and Texas.
One of the most known botched cases involved Alabama’s execution of Joe Nathan James Jr. in July 2022. It took approximately three hours to properly establish an IV line before James was executed. Multiple puncture wounds were later documented, along with other injuries associated in the attempts to establish the IV access.
This case illustrates the consequences when an execution does not go as planned. Examining how the process was carried out highlights the risks of pain and complications during lethal injection.
Innocent people have been put in the cross fires of a death sentence when they were truly innocent. Michael Blair spent 14 years on Texas’ death row for a 1993 murder of 7-year-old Ashley Estell. In 2008, his conviction was overturned by a later DNA test excluding Blair from biological evidence connected to the crime.
The 2025 trial involving the murders of four University of Idaho students showed the victim’s families were both for and against capital punishment. In July, Bryan Kohberger accepted a plea deal for his crimes that included four consecutive life sentences without parole instead of the death penalty.
The families of the victims were divided among their opinions on the punishments. Ethan Chapin and Madison Mogen’s families supported the life sentence. Kaylee Goncalves’ family opposed it.
Mogen’s father told CBS News that the agreement would allow his family to avoid years of additional court proceedings. “If you get that quick death sentence, you don’t have to spend decades thinking about how terrible you made the world,” Mogen said.
Goncalves’ family argued that a life sentence did not provide the same level of accountability they wanted. “We are beyond furious at the State of Idaho. They have failed us,” the family said.
The case can demonstrate that even victims’ families who had a devastating crime happening to their family, can have different ideas about punishment. For some families, the death penalty can represent accountability. For others, a life sentence without parole can provide punishment.
Tax payers are on the hook to fund the death penalty, which is considerably more expensive than a life without parole sentence. The Death Penalty Information Center reports that capital cases can cost between 2.5 to 5 times more than non-capital cases, which often ends up being between $1-3 million more than a life imprisonment case.
In the field of criminology, the death penalty is not regarded as an effective form of reducing criminal activity. A study conducted by the DPIC found that “ 94% [of criminologists] agreed that there was little emperical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty.”
Justice’s job is holding people accountable for their actions, not an “eye for an eye”. That is not justice. A life sentence creates a lifetime of dealing with one’s consequences rather than giving someone the easiest way out of their decision.
If someone is able to make the decision punishable by death, perhaps making them live with their decision is the better outcome than sentencing them to die.
