Inequality Fuels the Death Penalty

Emily Garcia-Munoz, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

Note: This article was written by a student of Dr. Meghan Cohen, in the class, Global Human Rights Advocacy. The Highlander is proud to serve as a platform for guest contributions and encourages collaboration between our community and our publication. 

Imagine being sentenced to death for a crime you did not commit. For more than 170 people in the United States, this nightmare has been real, and many of them were Black or from low income communities. These are not just numbers; they are lives nearly taken by a system that claims to deliver justice. The case of Troy Davis, executed in 2011, is often cited as a powerful example. His case raised serious concerns about racial injustice, recanted testimony, and the lack of physical evidence (Whitaker, 1999). Situations like this raise an important question. If the system can execute the innocent, can it truly be called just, or reflect the American dream many call our country?

Supporters of the death penalty argue that it deters crime and brings justice to victims' families. They point to procedural safeguards and claim the legal system is fair. Some even warn that eliminating capital punishment could harm public safety. At first glance, these arguments may seem reasonable. However, research tells a different story. Studies show that states without the death penalty often have similar or even lower murder rates than those that use it (Steinback, 2007).

Beyond deterrence, racial and socioeconomic disparities appear at every stage of the process. Black Americans are disproportionately sentenced to death, and low income defendants face a higher risk of wrongful conviction because they often cannot afford strong legal representation (Innocence Project, 2022). Mistaken eyewitness identification, misconduct, and systemic bias continue to place innocent people on death row, showing the urgent need for reform.

Even when safeguards exist, they are often difficult to access. Several states restrict post conviction DNA testing, preventing some wrongfully convicted individuals from proving their innocence (Steinback, 2007). Even when people are exonerated, the harm does not simply disappear. Many continue to experience stigma, trauma, and social isolation for years. In short, the damage lasts long after someone leaves prison. This pattern of injustice is not new.

Yes, the legal system includes safeguards and appeals, but these measures fail too often and are applied unevenly. A safeguard only works if it is consistently enforced, and evidence shows that is not always the case. Reform is urgently needed, and students have a role to play. Congress and state legislatures should expand access to post conviction DNA testing, reform jury selection processes, and seriously reconsider the use of the death penalty. Alternatives such as restorative justice programs and life imprisonment without parole can protect public safety without risking innocent lives (Sriwidodo, Fitriana, and Budisetyowati, 2024).

At the same time, staying informed, supporting organizations like The Innocence Project, and participating in campus discussions about criminal justice can help shape public opinion. The issue is not whether the system is perfect. It may never be. The real question is whether we are willing to continue supporting an irreversible punishment within a system that shows clear bias towards marginalized groups. When the state executes an innocent person or comes dangerously close, justice is not served. As Sriwidodo and colleagues argue, the death penalty often prioritizes revenge over fairness (Sriwidodo, Fitriana, and Budisetyowati, 2024).

For Regis students, this is more than an abstract policy debate. It is a call to reflect on how our society values life, justice, and equity in light of Jesuit values we uphold. If we truly believe in justice, it must be more than a promise. It must become reality.