In a forth­com­ing arti­cle in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, released online in July, Ben Jones argues that, despite the pop­u­lar con­cep­tion of death-penal­ty abo­li­tion as a polit­i­cal­ly pro­gres­sive cause, its future suc­cess may well depend upon build­ing sup­port among Republicans and polit­i­cal con­ser­v­a­tives. In The Republican Party, Conservatives, and the Future of Capital Punishment, Jones — the Assistant Director of Rock Ethics Institute at Pennsylvania State University — traces the ide­o­log­i­cal roots of the recent emer­gence of Republican law­mak­ers as cham­pi­ons of death penal­ty repeal to long-held con­ser­v­a­tive views. He writes, there is a cogent and com­pelling con­ser­v­a­tive argu­ment against the death penal­ty: it is incom­pat­i­ble with lim­it­ed gov­ern­ment, fis­cal respon­si­bil­i­ty, and pro­mot­ing a cul­ture of life.” Jones says that for much of the 20th cen­tu­ry, the death penal­ty was not a par­ti­san issue, as Republican gov­er­nors signed leg­is­la­tion abol­ish­ing the death penal­ty in Kansas in 1907 and Minnesota in 1911. Later, Republican gov­er­nors com­mut­ed the sen­tences of all pris­on­ers on death row in Arkansas in 1970 and in Illinois in 2003. Jones believes that Republican law­mak­ers’ increased inter­est in crim­i­nal jus­tice reform has cre­at­ed an oppor­tu­ni­ty to reframe the death penal­ty in a way that res­onates with tra­di­tion­al con­ser­v­a­tive con­cerns.” Though Jones is uncer­tain whether the nascent Republican leg­isla­tive oppo­si­tion to cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is part of a longer-term trend,” he says, if it is, Republican and con­ser­v­a­tive oppo­si­tion will pro­vide impor­tant oppor­tu­ni­ties — which oth­er­wise would be absent — to advance efforts to end the death penal­ty in the U.S.” One oppor­tu­ni­ty may be in Utah, where con­ser­v­a­tive Republican state sen­a­tor Stephen Urquhart led an effort that came close to achiev­ing leg­isla­tive repeal of the death penal­ty in 2016. A July 19 Salt Lake Tribune edi­to­r­i­al argued that “[e]nding the death penal­ty would save mon­ey and save souls.” On the same day, Rethlyn Looker, the Utah state chair for Young Americans For Liberty, wrote in a Tribune op-ed, that as fis­cal con­ser­v­a­tives,” the cost argu­ment to abol­ish cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment should res­onate with us” because, in Utah, it costs at least $1.6 mil­lion more to sen­tence a per­son to death than to sen­tence them to life in prison with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole.” But, Looker writes, the most com­pelling rea­son” to oppose the death penal­ty is still the fact that we sim­ply can’t trust the gov­ern­ment to get some­thing this seri­ous right.” She says, “[f]or all of the rea­sons we dis­trust the gov­ern­ment to do the right thing in so many oth­er areas, we should dis­trust the gov­ern­ment to end a person’s life.”

(B. Jones, The Republican Party, Conservatives, and the Future of Capital Punishment,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, forth­com­ing, February 2018; Editorial, Ending the death penal­ty would save mon­ey and save souls,” Salt Lake Tribune, July 19, 2017; R. Looker, Op-ed: Mistrust of gov­ern­ment dri­ves mil­len­ni­als to ques­tion Utah’s death penal­ty,” The Salt Lake Tribune, July 19, 2017.) See New Voices, Costs.

Citation Guide