Over 250 years ago, Adam Smith famously wrote that “mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” Stated differently, if we show leniency to those who least deserve it, we are enabling evil. So as a society, how well are we applying Adam Smith’s sentiment? On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was fatally shot. Thousands of people witnessed the politically motivated, premeditated shooting. While the suspect has not yet been convicted, the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming. The question we are now confronted with is simple: What should his punishment be?
The Devastating Cost of Leniency
Consider the racially motivated murder of Ukrainian immigrant Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, North Carolina. Her killer had been arrested 14 times prior to her murder for charges ranging from armed robbery, breaking and entering, possession of a firearm by a felon, and larceny. He had served at least five years in prison, and was even briefly committed for schizophrenia.
Despite his violent past and clinically diagnosed mental instability, North Carolina’s justice system repeatedly released him from prison. While Iryna’s killer will ultimately answer to God for his actions, North Carolina’s justice system also shares blame for this tragedy. Because of their attitude of mercy towards the guilty, an innocent woman paid the ultimate price.
Iryna’s story is tragically common. Across America, judges and District Attorneys are deliberately choosing not to prosecute criminals, releasing them early, and softening sentencing and punishments. When crimes are no longer prosecuted, the justice system fails to achieve two of its primary purposes: deterrence and retribution.
A 2021 study in the Journal of Law and Economics estimated the annual cost of crime to be between $4.71 – $5.76 trillion – roughly 20% of the US economy. Deterrence is straightforward: potential criminals are less likely to act when they expect real consequences. Retribution matters too. As generations of children have learned from their parents, picking up one end of the stick means accepting the other end as well.
The Case for the Death Penalty: Proportional Justice & Preserving the Sanctity of Life
How do we appropriately determine what punishments fit which crimes? Justice, according to the principle of proportionality, demands that punishments be proportional to the crime. For example, it is common sense that a shoplifter should not be punished as harshly as a murderer. One has committed a far graver sin than the other.
This brings us to the ultimate question: what punishment best fits premeditated murder? One proven option is the death penalty. American law holds that criminals forfeit specific rights when they commit certain crimes. Those imprisoned are being deprived by the government of certain rights, including the right to assemble, freedom of speech, and the right to vote. Their lives are restricted for as long a period of time as deemed necessary by the laws on our books and the discernment of judges to atone for the severity of their crime.
Given that rights can be forfeited, it is logical to conclude that this principle can also be applied to the right to life. Should a person deliberately choose to kill another person, the logic of proportionality is consistent with the enforcement of capital punishment.
There are opponents of capital punishment who argue that by executing murderers, we are cheapening the value of life. They postulate that by instead imprisoning perpetrators for life, we are protecting the sanctity of life. But this argument gets it backwards.
To quote conservative commentator and author Dennis Prager: “Keeping every murderer alive cheapens human life because it belittles murder… Imagine that the punishment for murder were the same as the punishment for driving over the speed limit. Wouldn’t that belittle murder and thereby cheapen human life? Of course, it would. Society teaches how bad an action is by the punishment it metes out.”
It is also obvious that the execution of a murderer is not the same as the murder of an innocent. One is being punished, the other, victimized. If we deliberately withhold punishment, we invite more lawlessness and crime into our society — and we create more victims.
Answering Objections
Critics argue that capital punishment is more expensive than life imprisonment. They are correct.
In an ideal world, this would not be the case – it doesn’t take a mathematician to know that the cost of a chemical solution or a few bullets would be orders of magnitude cheaper than lifetime imprisonment. However, due to longer, more expensive trials and intense litigation, the average cost of executing a death row inmate is between 2.5 and 5 times the cost of lifetime imprisonment. Nonetheless, this point is misleading, because opponents of the death penalty would still oppose it whether or not it was more expensive.
Furthermore, capital punishment is a moral question, not a financial one. Once it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, America’s justice system should not and cannot seek to lessen the consequences of the guilty’s actions. The decision to act was made by the guilty, and the consequences that follow must not be minimized.
“Keeping every murderer alive cheapens human life because it belittles murder.”
Others assert that the probability of executing an innocent is too high to justify the implementation of the death penalty. Yet the exact same probability of condemning an innocent to death row applies to any other punishment that might be enforced. The same person who could be wrongfully executed might be wrongfully imprisoned for life. We continue to punish offenders, in spite of that probability, because it is better to enforce the law– and make mistakes in the process – than to not enforce the law at all, which would produce far more victims.
Moreover, in the age of DNA evidence and rapidly improving technology, the probability of being wrongfully convicted continues to shrink.
Does the Death Penalty Deter?
Studies examining the deterrent effects of the death penalty have been mixed, but those that have found no correlation between the death penalty and the reduction of homicide rates generally did not control for various factors such as poverty and population density.
Studies conducted by economists that have controlled for those factors (among others) have found a correlation between the death penalty and capital punishment. As noted by the think tank, Just Facts: economic studies… concluded that: each death penalty execution deters multiple murders, shorter time periods from death penalty sentencing to execution deter more murders, and the death penalty’s deterrent effect is stronger where it is imposed more frequently.
Conclusion
For intentional, premeditated homicide, the death penalty best serves the demands of justice. It creates a deterrent effect, delivers retribution, upholds proportionality, and affirms the sanctity of life. Give Charlie Kirk’s assassin the death penalty.
And make it by firing squad, for good measure.
Cover Photo Source: https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/20251211-tyler-robinson-hearing-2.jpg?c=original
Iryna Zarutska Photo Source: https://spectator.com/article/dont-watch-the-murder-video-of-iryna-zarutska/?edition=us
