Why Supporting the Death Penalty Goes Against Conservative Values

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, crime rates were spiking in the United States. In response, both the Left and Right in the U.S. took a "tough on crime" approach in which tougher sentencing was seen as a solution to a dire problem. The strict sentencing and mass incarceration have shown their uglier unintended consequences, which would help explain why prominent figures on the Left and Right have been denouncing "tough on crime" policy in recent years. As nice as it is to have clarity on such an important issue, there is one issue within criminal justice policy that is lagging a bit: the death penalty. At the same time, support for the death penalty has declined from its 83 percent peak in 1993 to 54 percent in 2021, according to Gallup. The Pew Research Center puts support for the death penalty in the U.S. at 60 percent. In any case, there is still a fair majority that supports the death penalty. 

That is why it was intriguing to come across an article published earlier this month from Left-leaning news site Vox about how Republicans are becoming increasingly anti-death penalty. Looking at the Pew findings (see below), there remains a staunch majority of Republicans who support the death penalty, at 77 percent. Such red states as Kentucky, Georgia, Missouri, and Kansas are looking to curtail or eliminate the death penalty (Vox). The Utah legislature made an attempt to repeal the death penalty, although it was rejected by the majority of the state legislature. 

This trend on the Right to be more anti-death penalty is captivating because being pro-death penalty has been a notoriously conservative stance as long as I can remember. As such, this particular question wanted me to dig into why this is happening. I am sure that there are those on the Right who have done some soul-searching and realizing something incongruent with their other conservative beliefs and their position on the death penalty. I am neither speaking as someone who is conservative nor is pro-death penalty. At the same time, I used to be conservative and I used to be pro-death penalty. I understand the arguments in no small part because I used to make them myself. That is why I want to look at the death penalty from a conservative vantage point and outline facets that show why the death penalty is at odds with conservative values. 

1. Innocence and Error Rates. The government is run by people, and thus, is prone to error because humans are fallible. Here are some payment error rates from government programs: 25 percent error rate with the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC], 21.4 percent for Medicaid, and a 10.7 percent improper payment rate for unemployment insurance. Since the government is fallible, why do pro-death penalty conservatives suddenly believe that the government is going to be flawless when it comes to the death penalty? Is it simply because it is a policy idea that these conservatives happen to like? The government does not magically give us what we want because it is appealing to our moral sensibilities. The truth is that government also makes mistakes when it comes to the death penalty. The risk of executing an innocent person is real, whether a wrongful conviction is brought on by a mistaken eyewitness, an overzealous prosecutor, an incompetent defense attorney, coerced confessions, scrupulous jailhouse snitches, or botched forensics. In addition to the 186 individuals that have been exonerated since 1973 (Innocence Database), the National Academy of Sciences made a conservative estimate that 4.1 percent of those prosecuted under the death penalty are innocent (Gross et al., 2014). Not only does the government wrongly execute people from time to time, there are times where the errors take place with the execution itself. According to University of Amherst professor Austin Sarat, 276 executions, or 3.2 percent of executions, between 1890 and 2010 were botched. 
• We are talking about a literal matter of life and death. One mistaken execution is too many, never mind an erroneous conviction rate greater than one in 25. If conservatives find comparable improper payment rates unacceptable with various government programs, they should a fortiori be all the more outraged with the death penalty's erroneous conviction rates. 
2. The death penalty is not shown to deter crime. One of the main arguments that the pro-death penalty side uses is that the death penalty is a deterrent, particularly for would-be criminals who are thinking about committing heinous crimes. The issue is that there is not evidence showing that the deterrent effect exists. The National Research Council reviewed more than three decades of evidence and were unable to find credible evidence that the death penalty deters. The studies the NRC analyzed that claimed a deterrent effect were considered flawed since they did not take non-capital punishments, e.g., life without parole, into account. The Brennan Center for Justice released a report to figure out what caused the decline in crime in the 1990s and 2000s (Roeder et al., 2015; p. 43). Among the Brennan Center's findings was that there was no evidence that the death penalty contributed to this decline. 
• If the death penalty were as unambiguously as much of a deterrent as proponents believe, the evidence would be there. I know there are multiple factors that can attribute to the murder rate. However, it becomes difficult to argue that the death penalty is such a strong deterrent when the murder rate of death penalty states consistently remains higher than the rate of non-death penalty states (Death Penalty Information Center; Federal Bureau of Investigation). 
• My final point has to do with expert opinion. Yes, the following data come from 2009 since that is the most recent polling available. At the same time, both criminologists and police chiefs at this time overwhelmingly believed that the death penalty does not act a deterrent. 
• Deterring future crimes is one of the main arguments used by proponents of the death penalty. The lack of evidence for a deterrence effect means that the death penalty is not keeping us safer. 
3. The death penalty collides with a pro-life stance. Not everyone on the Right holds to an anti-abortion stance, but most do. As of 2021, 74 percent of Republicans identified as pro-life (Gallup). The premise behind the pro-life stance is the belief that human life is sacred. Those who are against abortion argue that personhood is [one of] the main considerations for their anti-abortion position. If applied consistently, advocating for the totality of life would include accused murderers. Since alternatives such as life without parole (LWOP) can adequately punish without making the permanent decision of ending a life, a pro-lifer should prefer LWOP over the death penalty. 
• It presents a moral conflict to consider oneself pro-life but support a practice that literally has the word "death" in its name. The moral qualm from a pro-life stance is more pronounced when considering the erroneous conviction rate or that the death penalty has not been shown to protect more lives, as previously detailed. 
4. High cost of death penalty goes against fiscal conservatism. I wrote about the fiscal costs back in 2014, but it is worth a bit of an update. In 2017, the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission found that capital cases cost over three times the amount of non-capital cases. For Nebraska, that would be a difference of $1.3 million between a capital case and a non-capital case. A fiscal impact report from the State of New Mexico calculated that it would cost the State an additional $7.3 million over the first three years of implementation. Susquehanna University also calculated the extra cost of a capital case, which is $1.12 million [in 2015 dollars] (McFarland, 2017). It makes sense that a capital case would cost more. There are greater expenditures in a capital case, ranging from more lawyers, witnesses, experts, and pre-trial motions, as well as a more extensive jury selection process and a separate trial for sentencing. Those are the costs before accounting for the lengthy and costly appeals process. 
• Looking at the death penalty from a strictly fiscal lens, a capital case is a bloated, inefficient program that drives up the costs of law enforcement. These are dollars that could go elsewhere in law enforcement, such as numerous unsolved homicides, violence prevention programs, services for victims' families, or modernizing crime laboratories. They could go to other programs, as well as helping reduce government debt. The cost of implementing the death penalty is more startling when you consider that the death penalty has taken innocent lives or that there is no evidence that it keeps us safer. 
5. Limited government. For those who are limited-government conservatives, the main premise is to restrain government power to make sure it does not overreach. Just read the amendments in the Bill of Rights and you can see a pattern of limiting what a government can and cannot do. Limited government also implies that the government still has some powers, including prosecuting murderers, arsonists, rapists, and fraudsters. Even in a pursuit of justice for victims of the most heinous of crimes, we need to limit the power of government. The death penalty is state-sanctioned power over life and death. As Lord Acton once wrote, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." How is supporting the death penalty congruent with supporting limited government? 
• Giving the state a power that potent and that fatal is the opposite of being for limited government. There are nonlethal methods that are less costly (see previous point) and still deliver justice, which means that the size of government stays smaller as a result of not having the death penalty.

Postscript

The death penalty comes with multiple issues from a conservative point of view. If conservatives were to apply its criticism of government inefficacy consistently, they would scrutinize the death penalty as much as they scrutinize government welfare programs, unemployment insurance, and numerous government regulations. The costliness of the death penalty alone should make a conservative cringe. Combining that with conviction error rates, the percentage of botched executions, and the lack of evidence on deterrence should make that cost all the more unjustifiable. The fact that the death penalty is not proven to save lives makes the "pro-life/pro-death penalty" moral stance all the shakier. And how can a conservative maintain a limited government stance while supporting a Big Government policy that is inefficiently run and makes mistakes? I hope that support for the death penalty continues on a downward trend and that conservatives contribute to that decline. 

Some Health and Spiritual Benefits of Fasting

Food and drink play vital roles in shaping culture. More to the point, they are essential components of living. Without them, we would end up dying. It would explain why the practice of fasting seems like such an arduous task. At first glance, it seems to border on the masochistic to not eat and/or drink for a relatively extended period of time, especially if done on a regular basis. We need food and drink to survive. They can also make life more enjoyable. Why would anyone deprive themselves of something so necessary or pleasurable? This is a question I was asking myself after the minor Jewish Fast of Esther (תענית אסתר) last week. Fasting certainly is countercultural in a society that emphasizes instant gratification and convenience. In spite of fasting being counterintuitive, the practice comes with a number of benefits. 

Health Benefits

While fasting deprives us of necessities on a short-term basis, such a break from caloric intake can provide multiple benefits to our health. When one fasts, the body cleanses itself of toxins and forces cells into processes it would not otherwise undergo. Granted, there are those with legitimate health issues that would prevent them from fasting. If anyone has questions, they should ask their doctor first. However, generally, I believe people could benefit from such a practice. Here a few of the health benefits of fasting:

1. Weight loss. This benefit should be the most obvious. If you eat fewer calories than the amount of calories expend, you will run a calorie deficit. If you run enough of a calorie deficit, you lose pounds. Fasting has been shown to reduce body weight and body fat (e.g., Tinsley and La Bounty, 2015). Short-term fasting can also increase metabolism (Zauner et al., 2000), another component that contributes to weight loss.
2. Improved blood sugar control. Fasting can reduce resistance to insulin (Baronsky et al., 2014). Combined with lowering blood sugar sensitivity, it can help with keeping blood sugar steady. This is especially useful for those with risk to diabetes. 
3. Inflammation and cardiovascular disease. Fasting has been shown to reduce inflammatory markers, as well as body mass index, body weight, fat percentage, and blood pressure (Samudera et al., 2020; Aksungar et al., 2007). This effect in turn allows for a lower likelihood of cardiovascular disease. The lower inflammation can help with arthritis and diabetes (Pahwa et al., 2021).
4. Improved brain function. Fasting has the potential to reduce anxiety and depression (Zhang et al., 2015), as well as better social connections (Nair and Khawale, 2016), because it makes such hormones as serotonin more available to the brain.
5. Fasting can improve hunger. Another function of fasting is helping regulate hormones, ghrelin in particular (Muller et al,. 2002). Being able to fast longer and experience true hunger means that your body can better signal when you are full and thus better regulate caloric intake.

Spiritual Benefits

1. Self-discipline. Fasting gives us an ability to control ourselves, especially our passions and appetites. By strengthening our muscle of self-discipline, we are better able to choose our own reaction to external situations instead of becoming victim to forces beyond our control. 
2. Compassion and empathy. Many in the Western world have more than plenty from a material standpoint. Some people have never gone to bed hungry in their lives, myself included. By depriving oneself of food and/or drink, one can truly understand the feeling of true hunger, a feeling that too many in this world sadly have felt. It can create a sense of solidarity with other. However, the fasting would need to go beyond pity and translate into action if it is to mean anything. In the Book of Isaiah (58:3-7), G-d ask us to have a fast that inspires us to become better people, to help free the oppressed, and to share food with the poor. 
3. Gratitude. Not only can fasting transform us in compassion, it can also be helpful with gratitude. After fasting, you are less likely to take your food for granted. Especially if you accept the theory of the hedonic treadmill, it can help reset your sense of satiation, which could help make you more grateful for your culinary experiences. Fasting can also give us an opportunity to appreciate how well the body functions and processes food. 
4. Humility. Fasting reminds us just how frail the body is. While the body can theoretically last without food for three weeks, it can only last without water for three to four days. We are mortal beings that constantly need nourishment to keep our bodies going. We are not all-powerful or completely independent. Fasting is a practice that can remind us of our limits and our mortality. 
5. Better spiritual reflection and introspection. This is one of the main reasons I fast, particularly when it comes to the Jewish fast of Yom Kippur. I make sure I have enough food and drink before the fast starts beforehand. Once it begins, eating and drinking are too less things I need to worry about. I can focus on the loftier things in life and get my spiritual house in order.  
6. Being comfortable with the uncomfortable. I wrote on this in October 2020, but we can learn a lot about learning from being uncomfortable. One of those main lessons is that discomfort is not automatically bad. Fullness is not automatically good since "the constant craving for pleasure can be detrimental, and occasional discomfort can be exactly what we need." The paradox is that emptiness can sometimes lead to us being filled. 

Biden's Ban on Russian Gas and Oil Is Much More Likely to Harm Other Countries Than It Will Russia

The search for policy options to help Ukraine continues. I have already covered how neither U.S. military intervention nor a no-fly zone would be helpful. On March 8, President Biden presented another option. He announced that the U.S. government would not allow the import of Russian, oil, natural gas, or other forms of energy on U.S. soil. Since natural resources accounted for 60 percent of Russia's GDP as of 2019, it seems at first glance that such a ban would hit Russia where it hurts. The idea is to cut off revenue to Russia so that it is less capable of carrying out its war against Ukraine. 

The market for petroleum is a global one. What does this mean? If the U.S. decides to not import Russian oil, the demand would simply be reallocated in a way in which other countries pick up the imports. As the Cato Institute brings up in its critique of the Biden administration's misunderstanding of energy markets, "The global market for oil depends on the amount demanded and supplied, not where it comes from or where it goes." In other words, the nature of the petroleum market means that the unilateral ban will have next to no impact on the demand of Russia's natural resources. It is possible that Russia would make less on its natural resource exports, which could diminish some of its revenues. However, it is not plausible that a unilateral ban from the U.S. will harm Russia enough to incentivize it to pull out of Ukraine. 

Even if the market for petroleum did not work as described in the previous paragraph, the United States would not be able to make the desirable dents. In 2019, the United States accounted for 7.5 percent of Russian oil exports. The United States does not import natural gas from Russia. In contrast, Europe accounts for more than half of Russia's oil exports. How Europe decides to respond is much more meaningful than what the United States does. Given the European Union's reliance on Russia natural resources, it would be hard-pressed to join the United States in this endeavor, although Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell has already been pressured to cease business with Russia. Economists at the University of Chicago's Initiative on Global Markets overall predict a high likelihood that such a move would result in recession throughout Europe. After all, those who trade together are likely to stay together. 

Yes, the United States is looking to negotiate with other countries for more oil. Meanwhile, the citizens of the United States is going to see higher prices at the gas pump. The import ban will almost certainly attribute to the volatility that already exists in the petroleum market because speculators are trying to build in that possibility into oil prices. If the import ban is not unilateral and Europe catches on, it is likely to reduce energy supply and cause these commodity prices to spike further, according to Caroline Crane of Capital Economics. Economically, that makes sense. An import ban reduces supply. A reduction in supply increases prices. That insight hardly surprises me. 

Regardless of whether this energy import ban is unilateral or more multilateral, we have a policy of a natural resources import ban that will do little to nothing to change the outcome in the Russo-Ukrainian War. We are dealing with a geopolitical minefield. In the interim, the volatility will continue to drive up gasoline prices and could cause economic downturn, especially in Europe. 

Biden could do things to ease the pain at the gas pump such as repealing the Jones Act, reinstating the Keystone pipeline, or reviewing offshore projects in the Gulf of Mexico. Those would be sensible things to do. Instead of finding ways to increase U.S. energy production or make the costs of production and shipping cheaper, Biden's agenda and policy decisions suggest he will simply select policies that will drive up energy costs. It would be great to write about a policy that could actually help peacefully put an end to the Russo-Ukrainian War, but as my studies in public policy and time analyzing public policy have taught me, there are many more incorrect policy responses than there are correct ones.

Why a No-Fly Zone Over Ukraine Should Be a No-Go

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has the world on edge. Concerns range from the casualties and the refugees fleeing Ukraine to increasing gas prices and the possibility of nuclear war. People are scrambling to find solutions to end the conflict in Eastern Europe. Last week, I covered why the U.S. military should not intervene in Ukraine. This week, I would like to cover a different policy alternative, one that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky requested: a no-fly zone over Ukraine. 

A no-fly zone (NFZ), or an air exclusion zone (AEZ), is when one military power establishes an area in which another military power is not permitted to fly its aircraft. These zones are most commonly set up during a military conflict with the intent of preventing an enemy power from flying in the designated demilitarized air zone. The modern idea of a no-fly zone did not exist until the 1990s, in no small part due to the development of stealth and precision-strike technologies. The first time that a NFZ was implemented was by the U.S. military in the Gulf War in 1991. The second time was when the United Nations prohibited military flights from the Bosnian air force in the Bosnian War. The third place was the military intervention in Libya: once in 2011 and again in 2018 and 2019. The NFZs in Iraq and Bosnia were successes, whereas the attempts in Libya did not work out as well. While we do not have hundreds of data points, three case studies are still better than nothing. 

If the NFZs in Iraq and Bosnia were so successful, why would precedent not be a reason for me to support a NFZ in Ukraine? Because the case studies of Iraq and Bosnia really do not serve as guidance for Ukraine. With the Iraq and Bosnia examples, their air power was inferior in comparison to the powers that were implementing the NFZs. There was no doubt of who could command the skies in those conflicts. In Iraq and Bosnia, the NFZ acted more as a deterrent than anything else. That is not the case in the Russo-Ukrainian War. In terms of size of air force, the Russian Air Force is second only to that of the United States Air Force. And let us not forget that Russia has nuclear weapons. Let us keep that context in mind as we move forward. 

It is not as if declaring a NFZ makes airspace free of enemy aircraft, no more than declaring a building a gun-free zone means that the space will not have guns or crime. Declaring a NFZ means making a commitment to shoot down planes. If the United States or NATO decides to declare a NFZ, it has one of two options. The first option is not enforcing it. If the United States or NATO declared a NFZ and decided not to enforce it, it would be a paper tiger. The reputation of the U.S. military or NATO forces would be severely undermined. The second option would be to enforce the NFZ, which would mean using firepower in the event that Russian pilots decide to violate the NFZ. Enforcing the NFZ would be an act of war. To declare war would be to make an undesirable situation worse.

Aside from the potential to start World War III or some other considerably larger military conflict, there are other considerations. One is that this is still early in the war. Russia only controls a small portion of Ukraine, and as such, cannot employ air forces in a country in which it does not have near or complete control. Furthermore, the Russian military possesses S-300 and S-400 long-range missiles, which can enter Ukrainian airspace without Russian pilots ever needing to enter said airspace. Even if NATO were itching to implement a NFZ, it would not make sense from a military strategy standpoint to do so at this time. 

There is also the logistical component to consider. As the Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies Dave Deptula brings up, the nation of Ukraine covers twice the air space than the Iraqi NFZs. To have around-the-clock patrols, there would need to be hundreds of fighters to cover that space, as well as the thousands of men to fuel, arm, and maintain the fighters. Combine that with the preparation and clear mission, it would be a huge undertaking to enforce the NFZ over Ukraine.  

To quote Vox political correspondent Zac Beauchamp, "We can't treat Russia like it's ISIS or Qaddafi; the brute realities of the balance of military force change the kinds of tactics and strategies we can bring to bear." The no-fly zone is not some low-risk option that requires little effort. It is an option that takes a lot of resources, would risk military intervention, and would do very little to help the war efforts given that much of the Russian military is primarily using its army. President Joe Biden and NATO officials are correct in rejecting such an option, and I hope they continue to stay the course on this decision.