Without a qualifier of innocent or guilty, the statement "a man was put to death" sends a reflexive feeling of unease to anyone who comes across it. Perhaps for some, the knowledge that this man was certainly guilty may alleviate feelings of alarm or even inspire a supportive attitude toward the death.

However, I believe that many more people would take issue upon hearing that a man who may or may not have been guilty was put to death. This is what happened at the hands of the United States Department of Justice last Wednesday evening when Troy Davis was put to death for the 1989 killing of off-duty police officer Mark MacPhail.

Despite allegations of police misconduct, reports that another person committed the crime and recanted testimonies from several witnesses at the trial, Troy Davis was executed by lethal injection for killing Mark MacPhail. MacPhail's mother understandably responded to the controversy surrounding Davis' execution by explaining that she "just wanted closure" for the killing of her son, and that Davis' case should serve as an admonition to the danger and that is inherent to capital punishment.

As someone who has never been in the tragic position of grieving for the murder of someone I care about, it is not my place to say what a person in that situation may or may not desire from the accused. However, it seems logical that a person in such a position would immediately pine for justice against anyone responsible for the crime.

Unfortunately, the structure of any judicial system does not make death a reasonable means to achieving justice. Though punishments may be based completely on the knowledge that someone committed a crime, a serious effort should be made to isolate circumstances of reasonable doubt before assigning a punishment. Because a legal system can almost never prove the absolute guilt (or perhaps, more importantly, the intention) of a defendant, it becomes impossible to define the appropriate form of justice. And surely, if it is not feasible to determine an absolute guilt or intention, it seems irrational to order the death penalty as a final punishment.

The practice of capital punishment sets up a dangerous, slippery slope. Once death has become the goal of the prosecution, there is a natural tendency to continue to strive for death. As such, an evolving understanding that the acts committed may not have been as heinous as believed at the outset of the trial may fall on the deaf ears of those who hunger for justice.

It is alarming that in spite of all of the reasons not to sentence Troy Davis to death, a jury of his peers made the decision to punish him with death while even an infinitesimal amount of doubt existed. Sentencing a man to death who may not have committed the crime instead of sentencing him to life in jail is a grievous and reckless act. Even scarier is that Davis' 11th-hour appeal was denied by the Supreme Court while, this same doubt existed.

Death is the most final—not the most just—of punishments. It is tainted with emotion and sensationalism that erode the very premise of its existence. Troy Davis' case makes it clear that especially when the alternative of life in prison exists, the decision to kill a criminal for his or her crime does not bring justice but rather brings about a possibly equally unjust death.