Why I oppose the death penalty and why I’m working to abolish it in Pennsylvania.
I have long been personally opposed to the death penalty and am now working to take it off the books in Pennsylvania via House Bill 888, which I introduced this week with balanced, bipartisan support.
I wanted to take some time to detail my reasons for doing so, because I believe others who currently support the death penalty may be open to reconsidering their position if provided more information.
Below I will offer my philosophical reasons, some practical and political reasons, as well as some general observations that help explain my opposition to the death penalty. But first, let’s review some facts about the death penalty as we know it in Pennsylvania.
The Facts
In 1972, the US Supreme Court invalidated all existing death penalty laws in the United States because they constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment, requiring states to rewrite their death penalty statutes. Pennsylvania did so in 1974, and after a court challenge the death penalty took its current form in 1978.
To receive a sentence of death in Pennsylvania, a jury must first unanimously find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of first-degree murder, which requires specific intent to kill someone.
After issuing a guilty verdict, the jury weighs a slate of applicable aggravating and mitigating circumstances, after which a sentence of life imprisonment or death is issued based upon a preponderance of the evidence. The sentencing decision must also be unanimous.
In Pennsylvania, unlike most other states, life imprisonment means life without the possibility of parole. If a sentence of death is imposed, automatic direct appeals begin and voluntary appeals are available.
Only three individuals have been executed in Pennsylvania since 1978. All three voluntarily waived their appeals. The last execution in the state occurred in 1999. According to the Department of Corrections website, there are currently 95 individuals on “death row” in the Commonwealth.
Philosophical Objections
As someone who considers himself 100% pro-life, I believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. As such, I cannot support the intentional termination of any human life.
As a Christian, I believe the sacrifice made on the cross was made for the redemption of every soul, regardless of the nature of sins in the past. None of us – individually nor collectively – are qualified to claim to know when redemption may occur, or that the opportunity for such redemption has expired.
As a Pennsylvanian I believe that all power is inherent in the people1 and as an American I believe that government only derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.2 Since as an individual I cannot take another’s life except in the most extreme instance of self-defense, I cannot consent to grant a greater power to government and consider it just. There is no element of self-defense in executing someone already in captivity. Permanent incarceration satisfies our collective need for self-defense.
Practical Considerations
Risk of Wrongful Conviction and Execution: The irreversible nature of the death penalty magnifies its tragic consequences. Two hundred individuals nationwide have been exonerated from death row since 1973, some within days of scheduled execution. Thirteen individuals who had been sentenced to death in Pennsylvania were later exonerated, including one in 2024 after 27 years of incarceration. This stark reality reminds us that the system is fallible and that every error can cost an innocent life.
Economic Cost: Pursuing the death penalty burdens taxpayers with excessive costs, diverting resources away from victim support and crime prevention efforts. A 2016 study by the Reading Eagle3 found that since Pennsylvania restored the death penalty in 1978, it had cost taxpayers at least $816 million dollars more than the cost of life without parole. Nearly a decade later, that price tag is certainly much higher.
Deterrence is a Myth: Decades of research show no evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. In fact, statistics reveal that murder rates are higher in states with the death penalty than in states without the death penalty.4 In a subset of that statistic, law enforcement officers are more likely to be murdered in death penalty states. And finally, more mass shootings occur in death penalty states.5
Bias and Inequities Persist: The application of the death penalty can disproportionately affect people of color, those with limited financial resources, and individuals with mental illness or intellectual disabilities. It also varies widely from county to county in Pennsylvania, as seeking it is subject to the discretion of a locally-elected District Attorney. There is disparate variability in the pursuit of the death penalty depending on the race of the victim.6
Jurors Misunderstand Their Choices: Capital jurors in Pennsylvania have been more likely to vote for death because they did not believe the alternative to the death penalty is truly life in prison without the possibility of parole. A study by the Capital Jury Project revealed that a significant majority of Pennsylvania capital jurors interviewed after their jury service believed the murderers they convicted would be released within 9 to 19 years if sentenced to life imprisonment.7
Revictimization of Families: Due to the long drawn out nature of appeals in death penalty cases, families of victims may be traumatized anew every time they become aware of a fresh development or court filing connected to pursuing an execution. Families of the convicted suffer a higher rate of traumatization.6
Perpetuation of Violence and a Culture of Death: Capital punishment perpetuates a cycle of violence and culture of death that devalues human life and undermines efforts to build a culture of life and hope. Justice can be served through life imprisonment, the alternate sentence for first-degree murder in Pennsylvania, which holds offenders accountable while preserving life.
Political Arguments
From a pro-life perspective, I’m not sure how we can ever convince supporters of abortion that we’re serious about the sanctity of life while still supporting intentionally taking life by execution. Winning the war against abortion will require changing hearts and minds, and that task is made more difficult if abortion supporters perceive our own hearts and minds as inconsistent or hypocritical.
Having witnessed the horrific and devastating governmental response to Covid-19, the underhanded gaming of the electoral system in 2020, and the years-long weaponization of the justice system against President Trump, I’m not sure how any conservative or Republican can still trust government enough to award it the power to purposely terminate life.
General Observations
- There is nothing conservative about wanting a government big enough and powerful enough to terminate a life already held in captivity.
- Being tough on crime and opposing the death penalty are not mutually exclusive.
- When the sentence is death, justice is neither swift nor sure.
- We’ve spent far too many taxpayer dollars pursuing executions in Pennsylvania while not executing anyone for over a quarter of a century.
- The three individuals executed in Pennsylvania since 1978 effectively committed suicide, assisted by the state.
- Quickening or eliminating portions of the death penalty appeals process would only increase the chances of an innocent person being executed.
- Law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and juries sometimes make mistakes, but can always be corrected. An execution cannot.
Final Word(s)
Reasonable people of good conscience may disagree with my personal philosophy. It’s a bit more difficult to argue with the practical considerations. And you can dicker over my political arguments and general observations, but there are those who vehemently disagree with me politically but still land at the same spot as I do in opposition to the death penalty.
I have given deep consideration to this issue for many years. I intended to address it legislatively several years ago, but got sidetracked for various unfortunate reasons. The political atmosphere of the last five years has convinced me that the time to act is now. There is never a wrong time to do the right thing.
As of this writing, House Bill 888 lists three Republicans and three Democrats as sponsors. This column only speaks to my own reasons for introducing HB888. I cannot speak for my other five sponsors, other than to say that I issued my co-sponsorship memo for the bill on January 16th, and they added themselves as co-sponsors.
The language of HB888 itself does not reflect any of my personal beliefs or political rationale; it simply removes the death penalty as a sentencing option, leaving life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as the mandatory sentence for first-degree murder.
Pursuing the death penalty is a moral minefield riddled with far too many flaws and excessive expense for taxpayers. It’s time for Pennsylvania to abolish it.