Final answer:
An opponent of the death penalty suggesting life without parole accomplishes the same aims could be highlighting the arbitrariness and potential for the unjust application of capital punishment, as well as concerns about executing innocents.
Step-by-step explanation:
An opponent of the death penalty arguing that life without the possibility of parole fulfills the same societal function is making a claim that touches on aspects of legality, morality, and efficacy. This argument suggests that the permanence of life imprisonment can be as effective as the death penalty in preventing crime, without the risks associated with potentially executing innocent individuals.
Moreover, the conversation incorporates considerations of arbitrariness, a notion that has been recognized by the Supreme Court in cases such as Furman v. Georgia and Kennedy v. Louisiana, which discuss the inconsistent imposition of the death penalty and its limitations to specific crimes, respectively.
The concept of arbitrariness is crucial because it implies that the system of capital punishment may operate in a way that is not consistent or based on fair and rigid standards.
This lack of consistency is often a core argument for those advocating for the abolishment of the death penalty, especially considering historical and ongoing concerns about the potential execution of innocent people, as highlighted by organizations like the Innocence Project.