Even death could not end the death-penalty debate. The federal moratorium on the death penalty that ended in 1976 has been followed by a sustained and increasing use of the highest punishment that American courts are allowed to mete out. The death penalty has come under additional scrutiny lately, as the 1,000th execution to be carried out after its reinstatement looms near. The state of Wisconsin stands to move into the middle of this imbroglio as state legislators consider legislation that would legalize the death penalty in one of the 12 states that still has a ban on the sentence.

If a death-penalty bill were to pass, if would be the first time since 1853 that Wisconsin would have capital punishment in its law books. So why, after all this time, is this issue being rekindled? There has not been a crime wave that has prompted a public outcry for it, nor has there been a particularly visible crime that has shocked the state. If the state of Wisconsin is to seriously consider this, it is essential to look at all possible ramifications that could arise from its implementation.

The death sentence has two ostensible purposes. The first purpose is to deter serious criminal activity. The rationale for this argument is rather syllogistic: If a state has the death penalty, criminals will be more reticent to commit crimes that qualify as capital cases, thus causing a decrease in the targeted criminal activity. While this argument is a staple for capital-punishment proponents, it is of a dubious nature. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the murder rate in states with the death penalty is disproportionately higher than in those states without it. Furthermore, this disparity has been increasing, even as murder rates have fallen. In 1990, the difference between the two stood at 4 percent. By 2003, the gap had increased to 44 percent.

The second — and more cogent — purpose is that some crimes are, by their nature, so heinous as to invalidate even the possibility of an attempt at reform, thus necessitating a punishment that is commensurate with the offense. Through the winnowing of history, murder remains the only crime with the requisite egregiousness to merit even consideration of the death penalty. There are some very specific instances where the death penalty would be applicable and would serve justice in a way that an ordinary punishment could not. For instance, a prisoner serving life who kills a guard is probably not too concerned with having extra years added onto his or her sentence.

Although there are valid points supporting the use of the death penalty for select crimes, the most salient problem arises from the fallibility of the persons responsible for its application. Current counts put the number of death-row inmates exonerated of their crimes at more than 110, and there have admittedly been innocent men put to death. Marquette University political science professor John McAdams claims this is merely a result of realizing policy. "The mass public isn't particularly deterred by the notion there may be some innocent people on death row," said McAdams. "No public policy works perfectly … so they're realistic about policy."

This margin of error is due to the overbroad use of capital punishment. While murder should remain the standard at which crimes become capital, there should still be reluctance in applying the death penalty. Cases that are especially horrific, or where other types of punishment would not serve justice in an equal way, are the instances when capital punishment should be sought.

Furthermore, the requirements to seek and convict on a capital crime should become more stringent. These requirements should include conclusive DNA evidence and not hinge on circumstantial evidence.

The absoluteness of the death penalty — once carried out — leaves no margin for error. To look to what foreign governments suggest or statistical studies indicate should be an irrelevant factor for what Wisconsin decides on the death penalty. The basis for evaluation should begin with one's sense of justice, personal liberty and value of life. If the death penalty can achieve justice without endangering personal liberty through insufficient investigative means and error-prone decisions, then maybe reversing 150 years of history might not be out of order.

Mike Skelly ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in finance and political science.