Death Penalty: Choice & Justice

Death Penalty: Choice & Justice

The death penalty in America is more than a legal sentence. For many, it is a slow psychological death carried out over decades—an existence defined by isolation, uncertainty, and relentless appeals that offer hope one day and crush it the next. If a system is going to claim “justice” while using this punishment, it must, at a minimum, confront an uncomfortable reality: not every person sentenced to die wants to endure a lifetime on death row.

There is a simple, humane reform that respects both accountability and human dignity:

Give capital defendants a clear, enforceable choice between (1) life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) and (2) execution.

Not as a trap. Not buried in fine print. Not as a rushed plea. As a genuine, informed, documented choice.

The Psychological Torture of Death Row

Living on death row for 20, 30, or even 40 years is its own form of punishment—often worse than the sentence itself.

Men and women sit in tiny cells, often in near-solitary conditions, cut off from normal human contact and left in limbo. They do not know if a last appeal will save them or if a date will be signed next month. Every knock, every legal update, every denied motion becomes another swing between survival and surrender.

For some, that endless uncertainty is more torturous than death.

If we claim to care about “cruel and unusual punishment,” we cannot ignore that reality. A person who has accepted responsibility, or simply cannot bear the perpetual mental torment, should not be forced by the state to endure decades of slow psychological destruction with no lawful way to say: I choose to stop.

Choice as an Act of Human Dignity

Recognizing a prisoner’s right to choose between LWOP and execution is not about leniency. It is about agency.

A just system should not only punish; it should recognize that people remain human beings—even at their worst moments, even after conviction.

Allowing an informed choice:

Acknowledges that different individuals experience punishment differently.

Respects autonomy rather than treating the condemned as property of the state.

Aligns with basic human rights principles: the right to bodily integrity, the right to be heard, and the right to make decisions about one’s own fate when no freedom remains.

We already allow prosecutors, judges, and governors enormous discretion. It is not radical to say the person actually living the sentence should have a voice in how that sentence is carried out.

Moral and Practical Benefits

There are also hard, practical reasons to support a choice-based model:

1. Reduced Legal Costs

Capital cases drag on for decades through mandatory appeals, postconviction litigation, and constitutional challenges. When a prisoner—fully informed and competently advised—chooses LWOP or chooses to waive further appeals and accept execution, the state can reduce years of litigation, saving public resources without removing safeguards for those who maintain their innocence.

2. Focused Protection for the Innocent

The biggest moral horror of the death penalty is executing an innocent person. Offering a structured choice framework—with heightened review for those who do not choose death—allows resources and attention to stay focused on contested cases, new evidence, and credible innocence claims.

3. Consistency With Responsibility and Accountability

We constantly say people must “take responsibility” for their actions. Choosing a sentence outcome—LWOP or death—is the highest form of that, for those who decide they do not want to live out decades of slow-motion suffering.

Answering the Criticisms

“Isn’t this just state-assisted suicide?”

No. It is the state recognizing that once it has imposed one of two ultimate punishments—death or permanent cage—it cannot then pretend the person has no say in how that punishment is experienced. Any choice system must include:

Verified mental competency

Independent counsel

A clear record that the decision is free from coercion or abuse

That is not suicide. That is due process plus autonomy.

“But what about wrongful convictions?”

The answer is stronger safeguards, not stripping all prisoners of choice. Anyone raising innocence, coercion, or major constitutional violations should not be allowed or pressured to “choose” death. The choice option should be limited to those whose guilt is not in dispute, who have had a full review, and who still—voluntarily—refuse to live out decades of death row conditions.

Get LAURÉL J BAILEY’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

“Isn’t LWOP already harsh enough?”

Yes—and that is exactly the point. We already accept LWOP as a legal and constitutional punishment. If the system accepts that a person may be locked in a cage until they die, recognizing their right to say “I cannot and will not do 40 more years like this” is not weakening justice. It is confronting the reality that both options are extreme—and letting the person living it choose which extreme they can bear.

Justice With a Spine and a Soul

Real justice is not soft. It demands accountability, consequences, and protection of the public. But a system that claims to stand for justice cannot be blind to psychological torture, racial disparities, wrongful convictions, and decades of legal limbo dressed up as “process.”

A choice-based death penalty framework:

Holds people fully accountable.

Respects human dignity and mental reality.

Reduces pointless suffering and wasted resources.

Forces the system to be honest about the cost of its harshest punishments.

If the state insists on keeping the death penalty, the very least it can do is allow the condemned—fully informed, mentally competent, and documented—to choose between the two cages it has built:

LWOP is a paradox equal to not ever getting out.

On death row, you have more of a chance of being exonerated.

Imagine being Innocent and being sentenced to life without parole. Appeal if you want, but it's an endless road of hope.

So why not consider giving those convicted a choice?

Die slowly in the shadow of execution, or face it on their own terms.

That is not mercy. That is JUSTICE with a conscience.

#senators

#lawmakers

#prisonreform

# The rights of inmates

#deathpenalty

#corruption

#laws

#rehabilitation

#cruelandunuaualpunishment

#8thamendment

#trumpadministration

#Bondi

#PRISON

#jails

#LWOP

#LIFESENTENCE

Written by LaRule Laurèl

At ONE FAIR JUSTICE.

Advocating for change.