The ongoing debate on the morality of the death penalty has less reason in its arguments and much more of misguided sentiment.

It's too expensive. What about the cost of a life sentence without parole?

It isn't a deterrent. Statistical studies can't prove or disprove so.

And won't we inevitably execute an innocent person? The emergence of DNA testing and other new technologies make such tragic mistakes much less of a possibility. In addition, post-trial safeguards could be put in place to review a jury's death penalty decision.

Capital punishment doesn't diminish life in the way abortion clearly does. It recognizes the value of a human life by exacting a penalty that corresponds to the ultimate injustice of murder. It is not an act of state-sponsored revenge, but rather offers a modicum of justice and closure to the many victims of this the most heinous of felonies.

Obviously this ultimate penalty should not be applied recklessly, capriciously or without regard for mitigating circumstances. Not all killing is murder. But the barbaric crimes of Adam Lanza and the two Cheshire butchers surely would have qualified them for execution, as would acts terrorism, such as the genocide of Christians in the Middle East.

Such crimes deserve humanely-administered capital punishment. 

Peter Wilson

Groton