Issue: Life: Death Penalty

[hroos]

I have been looking for RP references on his stance against the Death Penalty. I have only been able to find a short reference about the disproportional number of poor criminals receiving the death penalty proves that it is unfairly applied.

Please post some links or other quotes of his on the death penalty

[literatim]

I have been looking for RP references on his stance against the Death Penalty. I have only been able to find a short reference about the disproportional number of poor criminals receiving the death penalty proves that it is unfairly applied.

Please post some links or other quotes of his on the death penalty

Considering it is a State issue, he would leave it a State issue.

[hroos]

Its not just a state issue. The Federal Courts also issue the death penalty. Treason for example is a crime punishable by death which is of course what some Neocons want to have happen to certain newspaper reporters.... (but I digress)

[Bradley in DC]

Its not just a state issue. The Federal Courts also issue the death penalty. Treason for example is a crime punishable by death which is of course what some Neocons want to have happen to certain newspaper reporters.... (but I digress)

Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes: treason, piracy (on the high seas, not you music downloaders), and counterfeiting (which of course, the Fed is guilty of).

[hroos]

So what is your point? Two of those crimes are punishable by death.

[Shmuel Spade]

Actually the punishment for counterfeiting was also death at the beginning of the country. Confer the Coinage Act of 1792.

[SeanEdwards]

Any day I expect Cheney to announce an executive order regarding pre-emptive death penalty prosecution. In the interest of ensuring domestic security, everyone will be pre-emptively convicted of a capital offense, which for administrative purposes, be treated as an indefinite stay of execution so that the general public may go about working and paying taxes. This pre-emptive, and postponed, conviction will streamline the process by which the state may address any subsequent criminal activity. :D

[foofighter20x]

My opinion: the death penalty should only be used in cases where the crime is appallingly heinous and that the burden of proof meets absolute certainty that the person that committed the crime did in fact commit the act (i.e. video or DNA evidence).

[Ponce]

As the old saying goes "He who has the gold makes the rules"..... Bush has the gold and is making the rules as he goes along with no plan or destination on site.

[ChrisM]

Treason is so hard to prosecute by its legal definition that if indeed the prosecution's case could convince a jury, it's probably safe to assume that the certainty is there. That is why, so often, Federal prosecuters charge a person with espionage or sedition instead of treason and why treason is so rare.

[Gee]

Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes: treason, piracy (on the high seas, not you music downloaders), and counterfeiting (which of course, the Fed is guilty of).
Well, there are federal laws created because they are necessary and proper to carrying out other constitutional programs. Thing enforcement of tariffs and the horrible "interstate commerce" legislation of the anti-drug laws... Though I don't think any of them have a penalty as stiff as death. Has anyone actually been convicted of treason or piracy any time recently?

I would say many neocons are guilty of treason (Bush, Cheny, Wolfowitz at the least), but I doubt they'll even get a slap on the wrist.

[Capitalism]

In this video from 1988, http://www.ronpaulpresshub.com/?p=84 RP says he supports the death penalty at the end, unfortunately.

[angrydragon]

I believe he changed his stance on that.

[hroos]

I believe he changed his stance on that.

I have heard the same. The wikipedia article on him mentions something about this but without any specifics. Anyone know about the specifics?

[rpf2008]

I'm also interested in his stance on the death penalty. I think it should be abolished due to these facts :

1. Death penalty cases cost 3x to 5x as much as non-death penalty cases
2. Many innocent people have been released from death row
3. Even though black people only make up ~10% of the population they traditionally have made up ~%50 of death row (!)

[axiomata]

I think Gandalf the Grey said it best:

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."

[Alle88]

Altough i believe there should be very severe consequences for certain crimes, i dont support the death penalty. And its not becouse of the criminals that get the execution, but its becouse of potential victims. The justicesystem is not perfect, its better to lock in people on lifetime. That way the sentenced have a lifetime to be proved innocent if thats the case.

One person said it could be used with "certain evidence" like DNA. Even DNA is not 100% certain, it could be placed at the spot, well, there are many reasons DNA is not completely certain evidence even if it is no doubt very strong such.

[DrKevorkian]

My opinion: the death penalty should only be used in cases where the crime is appallingly heinous and that the burden of proof meets absolute certainty that the person that committed the crime did in fact commit the act (i.e. video or DNA evidence).

i could get behind this but it seems like it'd be a whole lot simpler just to get rid of it entirely.

But then again it is a state issue so it should stay there.

[JS4Pat]

In this video from 1988, http://www.ronpaulpresshub.com/?p=84 RP says he supports the death penalty at the end, unfortunately.
Darn - Almost the PERFECT candidate...

Pro-Life
Anti-War
Pro-Constitution
Anti-Income Tax
Anti-Federal Reserve

Oh well - I can "live" with his pro-death penalty position.

[hroos]

Reading RP's positions "On Life" from wikipedia (click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul))... it states that he does oppose the death penalty. However, I also hear that he is not totally against it simply that he opposes the uneven application of capital punishment... see other posts before for more info

[Frank in Phoenix]

This is my first post at this site. And since the last post on this thread was 8 days ago, I hope this thread isn't "stale" yet.

From the Wikipedia article on Dr. Paul's political positions:


Consistent life ethic

Congressman Paul adheres to the consistent life ethic, and therefore opposes all forms of killing not done in self-defense. His pro-life views factor into his support for non-interventionism and opposition to capital punishment and abortion. ...
A little over a week ago, I e-mailed Rep. Paul's campaign re. the philosophical basis for his opposition to capital punishment. This was the reply:


Dr. Paul is a Pro-Life candidate. To be pro-death penalty and Pro-Life at
the same time would be hypocritical.

It is safe to say in contrary to being anti-DP, Dr. Paul is in favor of
appropriate judgment for offenders.

I'm a strong supporter of Ron Paul, but the statements above are non sequiturs. It is neither inconsistent nor hypocritical to both be pro-life and support capital punishment.


Dr. Paul is a Pro-Liberty candidate. Does he therefore oppose imprisonment?

Dr. Paul supports the right to private property. Is he therefore opposed to the levying of monetary fines?

Indeed, based on his campaign's reply,


... Dr. Paul is in favor of appropriate judgment for offenders.
... I must assume that Dr. Paul supports either the imprisonment of, and/or the levying of fines against, certain convicted criminals.

So you can see that being Pro-Life and supporting the death penalty is no more inconsistent or hypocritical than being Pro-Liberty and supporting incarceration, or being Pro-Private Property and supporting monetary fines.

Dr. Paul is an intelligent and principled man. As a candidate for the highest executive office in this land, I hope he rethinks his opposition to capital punishment. For if, as a ruler who always supports life, he would therefore always oppose capital punishment, then, as a ruler who always supports liberty and private property, he has no firm philosophical basis upon which to support imprisonment or fines.

Rulers -- by definition -- exist to punish wrongdoers appropriately. Dr. Paul's campaign even grants this fact.

Sometimes imprisonment or fines are appropriate. Sometimes, execution is appropriate.

Now if a ruler opposes execution in all cases, fine. But he cannot oppose execution merely because he is "pro-life."

[MBA2008]

Frank said, "Dr. Paul is a Pro-Liberty candidate. Does he therefore oppose imprisonment?

Dr. Paul supports the right to private property. Is he therefore opposed to the levying of monetary fines?"

I reply,

You possess your rights to life, liberty, and porperty until you infringe upon the life, liberty, or property others. When you take someone's life (or reduce it in length or quality), take someone's liberty (kidnapping, rape), or take someone's property (theft), you have forfeited your rights to the above, assuming of course due process of law.

It is consistent to be in favor of taking away someone's liberty (imprisonment) if that someone has taken the liberty of someone else.

I think it is consistent to apply this to life (death penalty, imprisonment) and property (fines) as well, although given the fact that so many innocent people are on death row or have been executed, the death penalty has to be supended until the systme can be fixed.

[jblosser]

I support the death penalty in concept but I wouldn't trust the current government to walk my dog let alone figure out something like consistent capital punishment.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm opposed to the death penalty, as is Dr. Paul :)

[axiomata]

This is my first post at this site. And since the last post on this thread was 8 days ago, I hope this thread isn't "stale" yet.

From the Wikipedia article on Dr. Paul's political positions:


Consistent life ethic

Congressman Paul adheres to the consistent life ethic, and therefore opposes all forms of killing not done in self-defense. His pro-life views factor into his support for non-interventionism and opposition to capital punishment and abortion. ...
A little over a week ago, I e-mailed Rep. Paul's campaign re. the philosophical basis for his opposition to capital punishment. This was the reply:


Dr. Paul is a Pro-Life candidate. To be pro-death penalty and Pro-Life at
the same time would be hypocritical.

It is safe to say in contrary to being anti-DP, Dr. Paul is in favor of
appropriate judgment for offenders.

I'm a strong supporter of Ron Paul, but the statements above are non sequiturs. It is neither inconsistent nor hypocritical to both be pro-life and support capital punishment.


Dr. Paul is a Pro-Liberty candidate. Does he therefore oppose imprisonment?

Dr. Paul supports the right to private property. Is he therefore opposed to the levying of monetary fines?

Indeed, based on his campaign's reply,


... Dr. Paul is in favor of appropriate judgment for offenders.
... I must assume that Dr. Paul supports either the imprisonment of, and/or the levying of fines against, certain convicted criminals.

So you can see that being Pro-Life and supporting the death penalty is no more inconsistent or hypocritical than being Pro-Liberty and supporting incarceration, or being Pro-Private Property and supporting monetary fines.

Dr. Paul is an intelligent and principled man. As a candidate for the highest executive office in this land, I hope he rethinks his opposition to capital punishment. For if, as a ruler who always supports life, he would therefore always oppose capital punishment, then, as a ruler who always supports liberty and private property, he has no firm philosophical basis upon which to support imprisonment or fines.

Rulers -- by definition -- exist to punish wrongdoers appropriately. Dr. Paul's campaign even grants this fact.

Sometimes imprisonment or fines are appropriate. Sometimes, execution is appropriate.

Now if a ruler opposes execution in all cases, fine. But he cannot oppose execution merely because he is "pro-life."
Property and liberty can be restored, (as far as I know,) life cannot.

[Frank in Phoenix]

You possess your rights to life, liberty, and porperty until you infringe upon the life, liberty, or property others. When you take someone's life (or reduce it in length or quality), take someone's liberty (kidnapping, rape), or take someone's property (theft), you have forfeited your rights to the above, assuming of course due process of law.

It is consistent to be in favor of taking away someone's liberty (imprisonment) if that someone has taken the liberty of someone else.

I think it is consistent to apply this to life (death penalty, imprisonment) and property (fines) as well, although given the fact that so many innocent people are on death row or have been executed, the death penalty has to be supended until the systme can be fixed.

I'm actually inclined to agree with your last remark, re. temporarily suspending CP due to injustices in the system. If only Dr. Paul had put it that way, I'd agree with him.

But that isn't what he or his campaign has said.

They have said, "Dr. Paul is Pro-Life, and to be Pro-Life is inconsistent with supporting capital punishment."

And I reply (again), that is untrue. One can defend the right to life and still support the death penalty.

Indeed, it is precisely because the murderer has violated the right to life of another person that he foreits his own right to life. Thus it could be argued that people who oppose the execution of murderers value life less than those who support CP.

[Frank in Phoenix]

Property and liberty can be restored, (as far as I know,) life cannot.

Property can usually be restored, but the years lost in prison cannot.

Still, the finality of death is precisely why convicted murderers -- those who have taken from others what can never be restored -- must forfeit their own lives at the hands of the civil magistrate.

When a society is satisfied to punish convicted murderers with something less than the loss of their own lives, that society simply does not properly value innocent life.

[jblosser]

They have said, "Dr. Paul is Pro-Life, and to be Pro-Life is inconsistent with supporting capital punishment."

And I reply (again), that is untrue. One can defend the right to life and still support the death penalty.

That's under your definition of pro-life, and your definition of right to life.

As others have noted, you can take people's property and even liberty partially and temporarily. We don't yet have the technology to take their life temporarily. There's nothing particularly bizarre about choosing to hold the right to life to a more absolute standard that the right to property and liberty in a punitive context.


Indeed, it is precisely because the murderer has violated the right to life of another person that he foreits his own right to life. Thus it could be argued that people who oppose the execution of murderers value life less than those who support CP.

While I personally tend to come from this position as well, it's not relevant to the absolute right to life position he's chosen to stand behind. The argument is that the right to life is so inviolate, you don't forfeit it even in taking another life. It's a different metaphysical valuation than I would use but it's by no means a bizarre or logically bankrupt one. Life is a hard thing to quantify and place relative value on, and yet you simply either have it or you don't.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

But Dr. Paul doesn't support the death penalty.

[Capitalism]

My guess is that if Ron Paul now opposes the death penalty, he might have started to think about all the crooked cops, crooked prosecutors, judges with no respect for due process, ignorant jurors, and bad defense attorneys and realized that he'd rather play it safe and not take part in the killing of other human beings, even if they're likely horrible people.

[rpf2008]

What you need to know about the death penalty :


capital punishment cases cost 3x to 5x as much as non capital punishment cases ! This is not the cost of housing them, this is the cost in court fees and stuff ALONE

even though blacks only make up ~10% of the population they historically make up 50% of death row (!)

~1% of the people on death row are innocent, we know this because we keep releasing them !

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I wish I were a governor so that I could pardon everyone on death row!!! ohh, but what about overcrowding? Work on drug decriminalization and start by pardoning prisoners that are in prison for non-violent drug charges.

[axiomata]

I wish I were a governor so that I could pardon everyone on death row!!! ohh, but what about overcrowding? Work on drug decriminalization and start by pardoning prisoners that are in prison for non-violent drug charges.
Exactly. Though I wouldn't pardon non-violent drug offenders outright, I would give them a bunch of community service hours. Think about those hundreds of thousands of people sitting in jail sent back out into their communities for service.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Exactly. Though I wouldn't pardon non-violent drug offenders outright, I would give them a bunch of community service hours. Think about those hundreds of thousands of people sitting in jail sent back out into their communities for service.

hmmm that might be good for PR, yes. ALL non-violent drug offenders? wow..

The U.S. nonviolent prisoner population is larger than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.

Source: John Irwin, Ph. D., Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg, America's One Million Nonviolent Prisoners (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 1999), pg. 4

That's a lot of community service :) I'd support it.

[MBA2008]

Joseph said, "I wish I were a governor so that I could pardon everyone on death row!!! ohh, but what about overcrowding? Work on drug decriminalization and start by pardoning prisoners that are in prison for non-violent drug charges."

I reply,

You meant to say commute, right? Some of the people on death row actually are guilty of the crimes for which they have been convicted. They shouldn't be pardoned. Their sentences should be commuted to life.

I have to say, I agree if that's the case. Although in my state, I don't the think the governer can commute sentences. S/he can only grant a reprive.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

ha yes..commute