incapacitates, it does so at a high social and moral cost. Alternative ways of restraining offenders do exist. And not all offenders require permanent restraint. There are dangerous people who must be restrained on a long-term basis. Under current law, some of these individuals are released too early, a legitimate cause for concern. Yet statistics reveal that many murderers commit the crime once in a lifetime. Such murders happen under extreme pressure and abnormal circumstances and are unlikely to be repeated. Statistically, people convicted of murder are among the most unlikely to commit violent crimes again, either inside or outside prisons. Prison wardens often observe that murderers are among the easiest prisoners to handle. Moreover, some murderers genuinely do reform. Provisions are needed to take such transformations into account. The death penalty does incapacitate but so can imprisonment for those who need long-term restraint. While legal changes are needed to help sort out those who require such restraint and to ensure restraint for those who need it, imprisonment can protect society effectively. The questions are whether the death penalty prevents murders significantly better than imprisonment does and whether any possible advantage outweighs the substantial costs. Is our legal system adequate for decisions of life and death? Can our legal system dispense justice accurately and fairly? This question is especially important in the case of the death penalty. Capital punishment is different from any other punishment: It involves the termination of life itself and therefore is irreversible. If we are to take a step so drastic, we must be careful that we apply it rationally and without error. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes this requirement. It demands special trial procedures such as a two-stage trial that separates questions of guilt from questions of penalty. Similarly, it requires opportunity for appeal and review of decisi...
