Capital Punishment Is an Argument. An Execution Is an Act.

Key Takeaways

• Whether capital punishment is justified and whether we can responsibly carry it out are distinct questions.

• The condemned person retains human dignity, and the people charged with conducting an execution bear responsibilities that the public cannot simply dismiss.

• Supporting the death penalty does not relieve us of responsibility for what happens when the state acts in our name.

Why It Matters

Tennessee’s failed attempt to execute Christa Pike has left me deeply disturbed. Pike was convicted of the brutal murder of Colleen Slemmer in 1995. According to Associated Press reporting, she survived the administration of lethal-injection drugs and was hospitalized afterward. Tennessee’s governor ordered an investigation. The full explanation of what went wrong remains to be established. (apnews.com)

Nothing about examining that failure excuses Slemmer’s murder or diminishes the suffering of her family. Her life matters. Her family’s grief deserves respect, without being enlisted as an argument for whatever position the rest of us happen to hold.

But this incident forces a distinction that our public debate often overlooks: capital punishment as an ethical and political proposition is one thing. An execution, occurring at a particular hour, in a particular room, at the hands of particular people, is another.

We cannot responsibly discuss the first while treating the second as someone else’s problem.

My Perspective

I have long believed that capital punishment can be justified in exceptional circumstances. Some crimes are so grave that the most severe punishment may be warranted. If imposed, I believe it should follow a rigorous and fair legal process and be carried out without needless delay or avoidable suffering.

There is a difficult paradox here. A society’s willingness to impose its ultimate punishment for murder can express how highly it values the life that was taken. But that rationale does not settle every question that follows. Valuing human life must also shape how the state exercises the power to end it.

Once we move beyond the argument, two questions become unavoidable: How will an execution be performed? And who will perform it?

Neither is merely an administrative detail.

I am convinced that there is no ideal way to conduct an execution. Every method requires human beings to deliberately cause another person’s death. A procedure may appear orderly to witnesses without resolving the moral burden of the act. We should be cautious about allowing the appearance of a controlled process to substitute for an honest assessment of what is happening.

The most immediate consequence falls on the condemned person. That must remain central. A conviction, however deserved, does not erase a person’s humanity. The authority to impose a death sentence does not grant permission to become indifferent to suffering.

There is also the burden placed on those who carry it out. Someone must prepare the room, secure the prisoner, administer the procedure, witness the result, and live afterward with having participated. We should take seriously the possibility that this work exacts a lasting psychological and moral cost. We should also ask what support and responsibility the state owes those employees.

My experience in law enforcement and corrections makes it difficult for me to think of these questions entirely in the abstract. Speaking with convicted murderers does not necessarily make a person more sympathetic to their crimes. It does make it harder to pretend that the people involved are merely categories in a political argument.

That experience also leaves me with an uncomfortable question about myself: I have supported capital punishment, but I would be unwilling to participate in an execution. Is it fair to ask another citizen to do, on my behalf, something I would refuse to do myself?

That question does not automatically invalidate my position. Society depends on people performing difficult duties that others cannot undertake. But there is a difference between recognizing that division of responsibility and using it to avoid examining our own.

If I endorse the punishment, I bear some responsibility for the act. I cannot claim the moral seriousness of supporting justice while assigning all the moral weight of its implementation to a correctional employee.

Competence matters for the same reason. When the state undertakes an irreversible act, it assumes an extraordinary obligation to demonstrate that its procedures are sound, its personnel are qualified, foreseeable problems have been addressed, and responsibility is clearly assigned. A lawful sentence does not make its implementation competent. Following a protocol does not, by itself, establish that the protocol was adequate.

A failed execution therefore demands an honest accounting. What happened? What warnings were considered? Who made the decisions? What must change? Those questions deserve answers before assurances that the system can proceed.

I am not writing to declare myself an opponent of the death penalty. I am writing because supporting it in principle no longer seems sufficient to me.

One substantial reason can be enough to refrain from an action. Here, I see at least two concerns that deserve far more weight: the suffering an execution may inflict on the condemned person and the burden it places on those required to carry it out. Even if neither settles the entire debate, together they demand serious restraint.

The question is larger than whether some crimes deserve death. It is whether we can accept responsibility for everything required to impose it.

An execution does not happen somewhere beyond our concern. When the state carries it out, it acts in our name.

Copyright 2026. The Informed Kansan. All rights reserved.