By the time you read this, Louisiana may have carried out its first implementation of capital punishment in 15 years. As opposition mounts—from ideological activists, sympathetic media, and those oversimplifying the issue—remember that many of these opponents don’t prioritize justice or ethical consistency. For them, stopping executions is the only goal, and any means to that end is justified.

Waiting on death row is Jesse Hoffman, Jr., sentenced nearly three decades ago for the gruesome kidnapping, rape, and murder of Mary “Molly” Elliott. His execution was delayed because Louisiana law permitted only lethal injection, and activists successfully pressured pharmaceutical companies to withhold the necessary drugs. That changed when the state added nitrogen hypoxia as an alternative method.

Now, the usual suspects are trying to block or delay his March 18 execution. Some are principled opponents who may not realize—or choose to ignore—that capital punishment, when carefully applied to those who commit premeditated murder with extreme malice, ultimately saves lives. The problem is, they may not be leading the charge. More often, opposition is driven by those prioritizing ideology or personal gain over justice.

Anyone interested in this debate should watch the documentary A Murder in the Park. It tells the story of Anthony “Tony” Porter, an Illinois death row inmate spared just days before execution due to concerns over his mental fitness. Eventually, anti-death penalty activists—led by a rogue (now former) professor and a gun-for-hire investigator—secured his release and exoneration, which imprisoned another man, Alstory Simon. Years later, Simon was himself exonerated after it became clear that activists had railroaded him, suppressing incriminating evidence against Porter in pursuit of their anti-capital punishment agenda. Their deception and the ignoring of incriminating evidence, amplified by the media and backed by political clout, twisted justice to fit their cause.

(In fact, Porter’s exoneration helped lead to Illinois repealing capital punishment. Some of the same activists who orchestrated his release remained in the field despite their discredited methods. Republican Gov. George Ryan, who placed a moratorium on Illinois executions after Porter’s case, later went to prison for corruption. Decades later, Louisiana’s Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards tried to engineer a similar mass commutation effort, echoing the same political maneuvering.)

While a dispassionate weighing of evidence might leave small doubt of Porter’s guilt and Simon’s innocence, their case exposes how some anti-execution activists are willing to manipulate the system—regardless of truth, justice, or the consequences for others. That’s to be expected as while supporters of capital punishment view the issue in instrumental terms–a terrible practice that adumbrates permission for the state to have an awesome power of taking a life but one regrettably needed in order to save lives – its opponents couch their opposition in absolutist moral terms driven by emotion. Some will cross ethical lines, and worse, they will marshal political power to corrupt justice.

These activists will always be among us, and they endanger risk to society. Naturally, the prudent citizen will heed the specifics of their opposition, ensuring no detail is overlooked in determining the guilt or innocence of those sentenced to death. Fortunately, advancements in forensic science bring greater surety than ever that such sentences are appropriate.

So, as Louisiana begins to increase public safety through regular implementation of capital punishment, justly meted out, policy-makers must remain vigilant. They cannot allow ideologues or glory-hunters to interfere with the fundamental duty of securing the lives of the citizenry.