For decades, debate about the death penalty in America centered on the morality of the state-sanctioned execution of another human being. In the mid-1990s, the focus of the "abolitionists" changed to a more utilitarian argument about the unfairness of the implementation of the death penalty, with attention to issues of racial discrimination in the dispensing of death sentences, the weak defenses mounted for indigent defendants, and the prevalence of "innocent" individuals convicted and sentenced to death. This paper challenges this three-pronged argument by providing empirical evidence that there is minimal racial discrimination against African-Americans in capital sentencing when legal factors, notably the severity of offenses, are considered; that with relatively few exceptions, public defenders have impressive records in defending those charged with capital offenses; and that relatively few offenders on death row can be pronounced "innocent." The author further attacks the "abolitionist" movement by noting that many in this movement also oppose life sentences without parole, which means that dangerous offenders capable of repetitive heinous crimes would be released back into the community. Although acknowledging that no system will ever be perfect in eliminating all injustices, the author fears that the abolitionist movement will lead to a relaxation of the deterrence afforded by severe sanctions for selected heinous offenses and possibly the elimination of lifetime incapacitation for dangerous offenders. 145 notes