We often hear the phrase shouted outside courthouses: "Justice must be served." It’s a gut-level demand for balance. When a horrific crime shatters a community, the immediate, lizard-brain response is to take an eye for an eye. But as the legal dust settles, a growing number of legal experts and families of victims are coming to a startling realization—the idea that justice must be served or killing them isn't justice is more than just a philosophical debate; it’s a critique of how the American legal system actually functions.
Execution isn't always the "win" people think it is. Honestly, it’s often a bureaucratic nightmare that drags out the trauma for decades.
The Illusion of Finality in Capital Punishment
Let’s talk about the "closure" myth. Politicians love that word. They say the death penalty brings closure to the families. But if you look at the data from the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), the average time between a death sentence and an execution in the United States is now over 20 years. Think about that. That is two decades of mandatory appeals, evidentiary hearings, and technical stays of execution. For a family waiting for "justice," this isn't a resolution. It's a wound that is kept open and salted by the state for half a lifetime.
When we say justice must be served or killing them isn't justice, we are talking about the difference between a quick, quiet resolution and a twenty-year media circus.
Take the case of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. While Timothy McVeigh was executed relatively quickly in 2001, many survivors and family members, like Bud Welch—whose daughter Julie was killed in the blast—eventually realized that killing McVeigh didn't actually balance the scales. Welch famously became an opponent of the death penalty, arguing that the cycle of violence didn't offer the peace he was promised. He found that the act of execution was a hollow substitute for a more holistic sense of accountability.
The High Cost of the "Ultimate" Penalty
It’s expensive. Ridiculously expensive.
Most people assume it’s cheaper to execute someone than to feed them for 40 years in a cell. That is factually wrong. Multiple studies, including one from the Susquehanna University in Pennsylvania, have shown that death penalty cases cost millions more than life-without-parole cases. Why? Because the legal safeguards required by the Constitution—specifically the "super due process" required in capital cases—demand more lawyers, more experts, and more time.
✨ Don't miss: Who Is More Likely to Win the Election 2024: What Most People Get Wrong
If we spend $3 million to execute one person, that’s $3 million not spent on cold case units, victim services, or mental health programs that might actually prevent the next crime. In this light, the argument that justice must be served or killing them isn't justice becomes a question of resource allocation. Is justice served when we bankrupt the system for a single act of retribution while leaving a thousand other victims without support?
The Risk of the Irreversible Error
We have to mention the Innocence Project. Since 1973, at least 196 people have been exonerated and released from death row in the U.S. after evidence of their innocence emerged. That’s a terrifying statistic. If the state kills an innocent person, the "justice" being served is actually a second, state-sanctioned crime.
Basically, the system is human. Humans are messy, biased, and sometimes just wrong.
Accountability vs. Retribution
What does it actually mean for justice to be "served"?
For many, accountability means the perpetrator has to live with what they did. In a maximum-security prison, life without the possibility of parole is a slow, grinding realization of one’s crimes. Killing the offender, some argue, is actually an "out." It ends their journey. It ends their period of reflection.
Sr. Helen Prejean, the author of Dead Man Walking, has spent decades working with both death row inmates and the families of murder victims. She argues that the death penalty is a "distraction" from the real needs of the bereaved. The state focuses all its energy on the defendant—their rights, their health, their execution date—while the victims are often left as footnotes in their own tragedy.
🔗 Read more: Air Pollution Index Delhi: What Most People Get Wrong
True justice might look like:
- Consistent support for the families of victims (counseling, financial aid).
- A swift trial that leads to a permanent, non-negotiable removal from society.
- The offender being forced to work and pay restitution, however small, to the survivors.
When we prioritize the death penalty, we often sacrifice these practical forms of justice for a symbolic one.
The Psychological Weight on the Executioners
It's not just about the person on the gurney. It's about the people we ask to do the killing. Ron McAndrew, a former warden at Florida State Prison, has spoken extensively about the "soul-crushing" nature of overseeing executions. He describes the process as something that haunts the staff long after they leave the service.
When the state kills, it does so in our name. If the process leaves the "servants of justice" traumatized and broken, we have to ask if the outcome was worth the cost. Is it justice if it creates new victims among the correctional officers and medical staff involved?
The International Perspective
The United States is an outlier. Most developed nations have moved away from capital punishment, viewing it as a violation of human rights. This isn't just a "European thing." Many countries have looked at the data and decided that the risk of executing the innocent and the lack of a proven deterrent effect make the death penalty a bad policy.
Does the death penalty deter crime? Most criminologists say no. According to a survey of the American Society of Criminology, 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide. People committing violent crimes are rarely thinking about the long-term legal consequences in the heat of the moment.
💡 You might also like: Why Trump's West Point Speech Still Matters Years Later
Moving Toward a More Authentic Justice
If we accept that justice must be served or killing them isn't justice, then we have to redefine what a "win" looks like in the courtroom.
It starts with transparency. We need to stop pretending that the death penalty is a fast-track to peace. We need to acknowledge that life without parole is a severe, permanent, and significantly cheaper alternative that avoids the risk of executing an innocent person.
Actionable Steps for a Better System
If you’re looking to engage with this issue beyond the headlines, there are concrete ways to advocate for a system that prioritizes real justice over symbolic retribution:
- Support Victim Services: Redirecting the conversation from "how do we punish" to "how do we help" is crucial. Support organizations like the National Center for Victims of Crime.
- Advocate for Sentencing Reform: Encourage policies that prioritize Life Without Parole (LWOP) as the maximum sentence. This ensures the dangerous are removed from society without the decades of costly appeals.
- Transparency in Prosecution: Support the election of District Attorneys who are transparent about the costs and risks of seeking the death penalty. Many modern DAs are moving away from capital charges because they realize it drains the office's budget and delays justice for years.
- Focus on Prevention: Real justice is the crime that never happens. Funding for community violence intervention programs has been shown to have a much higher "return on investment" for public safety than any execution.
Ultimately, justice is served when the community is made safer and the victims are supported. Killing an offender might feel like a resolution in a movie, but in the real world, it’s often just a different kind of tragedy. We owe it to the victims to build a system that is accurate, fiscal, and truly final. Life in a cage, forgotten by the world, is a heavy price. For many, that is where true justice resides.
Focus on the facts of the case, the needs of the survivors, and the reality of the law. That's how we move forward.