The Minimal Invasion Principle holds that if individual privacy, liberty, and autonomy are to be invaded and violated, it must be because the end to be achieved is of undeniable importance to society and no lesser degree of interference will suffice. The Minimal Invasion Argument amounts to declaring that the death penalty fails to satisfy a necessary condition of justified punishment. This argument can also be extended to other severe punishments, such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Many supporters of the death penalty have at least two objections to the Minimal Invasion Argument. First, they will insist on the superiority of the death penalty as a deterrent. They refer to a quarter-century of research that shows that there is a measurable deterrent effect of executions. Supporting the death penalty because of its superior deterrent effect does not provide a solution to the problem of where to place the limit of severity of punishment. Second, they will object that the argument ignores the crucial consideration of retribution that, when properly taken into account, leads to a different conclusion. Deserved retribution as punishment presupposes that the offender is fully responsible for the crime and discounts the plight of the juvenile on death row or of those with incapacitating mental illness, disability, or retardation. The death penalty is unnecessary in a modern civilized society. Effective alternatives are available. The Minimal Invasion Argument may best provide the rational grounds on which to support complete abolition of the death penalty in the United States. 10 notes