September 18th, 1927

Dear Mr. Mencken

I am writing this letter in answer to the text “The penalty of Death” published in your book
“Prejudices: Fifth series” written by you.
We know that Death penalty is a controversial topic which often arises heated debates.
While Death penalty followers believe that death penalty is right, detractors think that
Death penalty is not right as a judgement. This letter will present both aspects, and it will
lead to a fair conclusion, in my own personal opinion.
While analyzing your text I must say that you have very good arguments, in which there
are some that I cannot argue against them. One of them in which I must give you a
felicitation, is the one of the “abolitionist” who think that the whole aim of punishing
criminals is to deter other (potential) criminals. Because the whole aim of this in my
personal opinion is for getting “justice” and not revenge. However, the use of Katharsis,
that I cannot accept it. Because in my opinion is not the definition of justice or the aim of
punishing criminals.

Another strong argument that you propose was the one that says “I know of no public
demand for the death penalty for ordinary crimes, even for ordinary homicides.” It is a
very good argument because in order to get a death sentence you need to make more
things than just killing someone.
However, there are some arguments that I cannot agree with and can be refuted. For
example, the one in which you employ the term of Katharsis, before employing the
concept we must know what is the justice that we talk about, when we talk about
“Justice” we refer to Justice, not to Katharsis or even vengeance. Justice is the legal or
philosophical theory by which fairness is administrated. When judges take a decision is for
making fair the decision for both sides. Not to satiate the desires of the one that
unfortunately is affected.
Retaking my last argument, I want to add a new one in which I clarify why your “katharsis”
is dangerous. When you mention an example of someone stealing $700, you said that the
person got his katharsis because he forgot his $700 by dreaming a dream in which the
criminal is devoured by rats and scorpions. What is the point of this? You are showing that
katharsis is not wanting justice on that sentence, you want someone to suffer in order to
“forget” about what affected you.
Why death penalty is not the right penalty? Basically, almost all crimes are paid with the
same sentence, being on jail, and that is how our society found a fair way of making the
people who break law pay for their errors. If you steal, you will be on prison. If you sold
drugs, you will be on prison, and many other examples. Why should murdered be paid
different, and of course, with the same treatment as the crime.
If we advanced as society and we forgot about the old verse of the old testament/Tora:
“eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” Exodus 21:24. Why? Why do
we have to go backwards as society, when we found a way to make justice without paying
with the same thing.
On other hand the last argument that I want to talk about is the one that says “The real
objection to capital punishment does not lie against the actual extermination of the
condemned, but against our brutal American habit of putting it off so long.” Of course
that for the condemned it is a torture, if he knows that the real danger is that maybe he
could suffer death penalty. If the death penalty would not exist, he would not be afraid of
the danger of dying, he would be aware of how many years he will be inside the prison,
and on that time he will be able to reconsider what he did, and in best cases, change. I
strongly believe that a person can change, of course there are extreme cases in which
person does not want to change. But if we go to the case, both will fulfill their sentence.
In conclusion I do not believe in death penalty. However, I believe that both sides of an
issue as death penalty must be taken into account before publishing a text on this subject.
I hope I made you take my point of view in your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Pablo Alvarenga