The Death Penalty - are you for or against it and why?

[theVOID]

Killing people for their crimes doesn't actually solve anything. I'd propose that if they murder someone, they essentially sacrifice a few of their rights. So instead of killing them, just throw them in the gulag.

I am NOT for spending money to incarcerate these people, they should get NONE of our resources.

Ideally we'd dump them all on an island and let them fight for their lives on a plot of land with limited resources.

[Jaysyn]

I oppose the death penalty in the US for the fact that statistically it has killed innocent men.

Death penalty statistics are also so disproportionate race wise that it also seems to be applied unfairly in the states that do have a death penalty.

If you believe in justice it's only rational to be against the US death penalty as it stands today.


"If one innocent person is executed along the way, then we can no longer justify capital punishment."
--Gerald Kogan, former Chief Justice of Florida's Supreme Court

[Tiberius]

Throw them in jail, make them to work to pay for their keep, and take away all of their luxuries. They then have the choice to do the time for their crime, or to end their own lives. I am completely against the state making that decision for them. Prisoners who want to commit suicide shouldn't be stopped (nor should any person in my opinion). A prison under a Libertarian government would receive minimal support from the state, and would largely depend on revenue generated from the labour of the prisoners.

[fr0d0]

They always have the choice to end their own lives anyway. Paying for their keep is a must tho'.

[theVOID]

What do you do with a psychopathic prisoner who refuses to work his keep? You can't make him work, you can't beat him, you can't starve him and you're going to throw bucketloads of resources at a problem with no beneficial result for anyone, might as well kill them or maroon them.

[Tiberius]

You wouldn't be starving them; they would be starving themselves. People in society know that in order to eat, they have to work. The same should be the case in prison. If a person refuses to work, they don't get food, simple as that.

Libertarianism holds that certain rights are undeniable, and that includes the right to life. Just because you take someone's right to life doesn't mean the government (or anyone else) has the right to take yours. If we accept this right, then we are left with only two choices: lock them up to protect society, or maroon them somewhere. Of course, the second option always runs the risk of them finding a way back, and I don't think many families of the victims would appreciate that idea, so the only viable option is to lock them away.

It's a bit like national defense. In a Libertarian society we would spend money on training the armed forces, not so that we can invade, but so that we are ready for the worst possible scenario. You can see it as a waste of money, but it does have benefits in the long run.

[Dotard]

What do you do with a psychopathic prisoner who refuses to work his keep? you can't beat him, you can't starve him ....

I say, "Why Not?"

[theVOID]

You wouldn't be starving them; they would be starving themselves. People in society know that in order to eat, they have to work. The same should be the case in prison. If a person refuses to work, they don't get food, simple as that.

I get where you're going now. I agree.

Libertarianism holds that certain rights are undeniable, and that includes the right to life.

This is the part I don't so much agree with, these concrete rights are naive, some comparative value statement works much better, for example: In circumstances where you could kill 100 to save 1,000 you will ultimately be denying 100 people the right to life despite the fact that the decision promoted more desires to live than the alternative scenario.

Another scenario where you may be forced to deny someone else there right to live is as follows: You return home to find a man holding a baseball bat, ready to swing it at your child, the blow will certainly kill the child, your only option is to shoot the offender - killing him. You either actively deny this offender his life or you let him deny your child their life.

There are many other such scenarios where the intentional killing of one person benefits the greater number of people, scenarios where you deny someone their right to life, I think that is a good case against a single undeniable right to life that must be upheld.

Also, conceptually, where does this undeniable right to life come from?

Just because you take someone's right to life doesn't mean the government (or anyone else) has the right to take yours.

Of course not, you would need a more compelling reason than "person x killed person y", such as "person x will kill person y unless I kill person x first", in that case I would be justified in taking someone's right to life to prevent another loss of life.

If we accept this right, then we are left with only two choices: lock them up to protect society, or maroon them somewhere.

These are still good options, regardless of the right being undeniable or not.

Of course, the second option always runs the risk of them finding a way back, and I don't think many families of the victims would appreciate that idea, so the only viable option is to lock them away.

Highly unlikely I would think, but it could happen.

It's a bit like national defense. In a Libertarian society we would spend money on training the armed forces, not so that we can invade, but so that we are ready for the worst possible scenario. You can see it as a waste of money, but it does have benefits in the long run.

Agreed.

[Thor]

With the technology we have today (forensics, DNA, video cameras, etc...) we can be nearly 100% certain that the accused is guilty. I also support the death penalty to prevent psychopaths from killing again. I know some argue for life without parole. But killers have escaped from prison to kill again. They have also killed prison guards and other inmates. The death penalty is a solution to this problem. Plus, if a killer is in prison for life with no possibility of parole, what do you do if he kills someone while in prison? Give him ANOTHER life sentence?

I think the death penalty should be an option in certain circumstances. Off the top of my head these would include:

1) Murder of a law enforcement officer or prison guard
2) Multiple murders
3) Murdering for hire
4) Murder while committing another felony (robbery, rape, etc.)
5) Murder resulting from a terrorist act

Also, if somone has already committed a crime that will result in life without parole, what does the criminal have to lose by killing some cops in an effort to escape? The sentence will be the same. A death penalty may at least make a criminal think twice about shooting at the police. Not to mention that the prospect of the death penalty can be used by prosecutors to get criminals to talk .

[reverendjeremiah]

I still cant make up my mind wether I support it or not. I pispise the idea of an innocent being murdered by the state...not to mention the hypocrisy of the state saying "You shouldnt kill. Killing is bad. If you kill then we will kill you." Yeah, thats hypocritical. I would say that I am leaning more towards "I support it" but for admittingly selfish reasons:

If I ever get thrown in person for, lets say causing an accidental death, then I will be in the same prison as murderers who have received 3 or more consecutive life terms (this fictional state prison has abolished the death penalty for story purposes). What is there to stop this man from killing any and every inmate he wants to kill? What is he going to get? Another life sentence? I dont want people like that around people who may actually have a chance to be rehabilitated. The only way I would be against the death penalty in that situation is if a federal law was mandated that anyone serving life in prison must serve it in solitary confinement.