Death Penalty

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't remember seeing much talk about this over the years.

We have a bit of a crime wave at the moment, so it seems apropos.

Vote and comment.

I vote yes, FYI, it's justified for certain crimes.

[dannno]

Justified? Ya, probably. From a logistical standpoint, probably not a good idea to put the government in charge.

How am I supposed to vote again?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

It is justified, as is corporal punishment. Far better than this massive prison bureaucracy we have today.

The myopic progressive focus on rehabilitation is incoherent.

[Working Poor]

Only for serial killers when evidence is over whelming.

[Swordsmyth]

Only for serial killers when evidence is over whelming.

For any killer when the evidence is overwhelming.
And for spies, traitors and rapists and possibly a few other extremely serious crimes like voter fraud.

[Anti Globalist]

Certainly isn't justified when an innocent person get executed.

[Occam's Banana]

I oppose the death penalty, but it is not forbidden under the NAP or libertarian theory.

So depending on what one means by "justified," that can be parsed as "justified" or "unjustified" - or even as "not unjustified" if, contra Orwell, one is willing to permit the "not un-" construction (and/or if one is willing to consider the distinction as not being logically binary).

[Anti Federalist]

I oppose the death penalty, but it is not forbidden under the NAP or libertarian theory.

So depending on what one means by "justified," that can be parsed as "justified" or "unjustified" - or even as "not unjustified" if, contra Orwell, one is willing to permit the "not un-" construction (and/or if one is willing to consider the distinction as not being logically binary).

Yes, this...the question is ambiguous and confusing.

As a justified means of punishment, yes.

Is it justified being carried out by the state, especially one as broken as ours...no.

[69360]

Yes but the standard of proof needs to be very high. Like multiple eyewitnesses and DNA.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, this...the question is ambiguous and confusing.

As a justified means of punishment, yes.

Is it justified being carried out by the state, especially one as broken as ours...no.

I didn't and don't think the question is ambiguous.

As we do not in fact live in an anarcho-capitalist society, or a state society in which vigilantism is either common or accepted, I thought it was fairly obvious that I was referring to the execution by the state of individuals convicted of certain crimes in state courts.

Certainly isn't justified when an innocent person get executed.

Neither is forty years in a cage for an innocent person..

And yet, it is not possible to have any kind of functional society without penalizing evidently guilty people, despite the lack of apodictic certainty. The maxim is along the lines of "better 1000 guilty people be acquitted than 1 innocent person be convicted" not "better every guilty person be acquitted on the off-chance he's actually innocent."

It is justified, as is corporal punishment. Far better than this massive prison bureaucracy we have today.

The myopic progressive focus on rehabilitation is incoherent.

Indeed

Take a look at the output of the prisons and tell me that's rehabilitation.

Man goes in petty thief, comes out gang member ready to kill for nothing.

Yes but the standard of proof needs to be very high. Like multiple eyewitnesses and DNA.

Yes, and they should have a reasonable period to appeal: e.g. one year.

As things stand, however, even in states that in theory have the death penalty, it takes many decades and in effect doesn't exist.

So these people rot in prison, at taxpayer expense.

P.S. How about Charlie Manson?

He benefited, AFAIK, from a timely abolition of the death penalty in CA.

Is there any question that he was guilty? He admitted it himself, if one can parse the insanity.

The only reason to take a life is to protect another life or property.

Hanging murderers, among others, deters just that harm.

[tebowlives]

Hanging murderers, among others, deters just that harm.

The individual owns their own life and can take it themselves but revenge killing, when there is no threat, should not be allowed.

If you kill them they won't learn.

[tod evans]

The individual owns their own life and can take it themselves but revenge killing, when there is no threat, should not be allowed.

If you kill them they won't learn.

Government should never be permitted to kill a citizen but in the same vein government should never be permitted to stop, detain or punish a citizen who kills another for cause.

Some people need killing and the only reason they're breathing right now is government interference.

[r3volution 3.0]

The individual owns their own life and can take it themselves but revenge killing, when there is no threat, should not be allowed.

If you kill them they won't learn.

If not death, what penalty would you impose on murderers, and what specifically is the benefit of that lesser penalty? I fail to see how life in prison at taxpayer expense, for instance, helps anyone other than (arguably) the murderer, who can hardly complain that execution is unjust.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Indeed

Take a look at the output of the prisons and tell me that's rehabilitation.

Man goes in petty thief, comes out gang member ready to kill for nothing.

The progressive rejoinder to this would be that the focus on rehabilitation is, at best, totally cosmetic and shallow, and that the system needs to be reorganized to better help people change, through state action of social workers and therapists and things like that. I think the thing to do is just deconstruct the very progressive paradigm that surrounds so-called "rehabilitation." If the goal is to rehabilitate so violent and antisocial actions don't happen again, all sorts of criminals could be just let off scot free and be totally "rehabilitated." Let's bring back the discourse of punishment. Such a discourse would probably lead to more rehabilitation anyway, ironically.

[r3volution 3.0]

When I first saw your original ask of the thread, two thoughts immediately came to the forefront of my mind: in an ideal world (impossible, I know), there would be no need for a death penalty. That encompasses so much that I don't even want to go down that path because it ends in utopia where there is no crime committed, there's "infinite" resources, etc.

The second thought was: since we live in this imperfect world and we know there will be crime, how has the death penalty mitigated heinous crimes? I think if we analyze that, we'd see it probably hasn't proactively mitigated much. Criminals are criminals, they'll do what they do because that's who they are or who they've become. I doubt many, if any, think before committing a heinous crime (murder, rape, etc.) "gee, I might get the death penalty for this."

Moving straight to the next sub-point on that is what does keeping a mass murderer (probably the most appropriate example for this discussion) locked up for life do? What does it achieve? That criminal becomes a tax burden on the rest of society for several decades. Furthermore, it's not as if they're rotting away in dark rat infested dungeons anymore. So, I think it some instances where there's a mass murderer (all evidence proves he committed the crimes and he's admitted to it, let's put all those things upfront to get them out of the way), we might as well consider putting him to death.

There's a religious aspect here via redemption, etc. but that's a little beyond my realm of thought and I'm still unsure how that would sit even in that context.

You've described my own thought process, more or less.

It may well be that the death penalty doesn't provide much additional deterrence relative a long prison sentence for the sort of degenerate who would commit a capital offense in the first place, but it does have one substantial advantage. The individual criminal in question is no longer able to commit crimes and it costs the taxpayer much less than the alternative, which is to say that it does prevent crime, insofar as needlessly high taxation is itself a crime against the taxpayer.

The progressive rejoinder to this would be that the focus on rehabilitation is, at best, totally cosmetic and shallow, and that the system needs to be reorganized to better help people change, through state action of social workers and therapists and things like that. I think the thing to do is just deconstruct the very progressive paradigm that surrounds so-called "rehabilitation." If the goal is to rehabilitate so violent and antisocial actions don't happen again, all sorts of criminals could be just let off scot free and be totally "rehabilitated." Let's bring back the discourse of punishment. Such a discourse would probably lead to more rehabilitation anyway, ironically.

People seem to forget that punishment is itself potentially rehabilitative (not the death penalty, obviously, but lesser punishments).

Spare the rod, you know.

Now more than ever I am against the death penality. Government at all levels is so completely deviously corrupt that you can not trust the facts in any case they present to judge whether someone should live or die. The same holds true for jurors which can be paid off as well and too easily fooled with propaganda.

Fair point, but I didn't mean for the question to be whether this particular government should execute people.

Suppose we had what you would consider a reasonably competent and fair government; what then?

[Danke]

If a Judge imposes it, then I'm OK with it.

[tod evans]

I'm against government imposing or executing the death sentence.

But I'm absolutely NOT against killing those who need killing.

A jury of 12 to convict then the sentence carried out by the aggrieved would work.

[Sammy]

I support the Death Penalty for Rapists,pedophiles & mass murders.

[tebowlives]

The only reason to take a life is to protect another life or property.

[PAF]

Go back to the Wild West days. Abiding by the NAP, if my [and/or my immediate family] property, life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness is threatened or stolen, I will handle it myself. I do not need or want strangers [government] "figuring it out" for me.

It will be cheaper for you, me and gets right to the point.

How many innocent people are jailed, executed, pay excess fines by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. How many are palm-grease released by those same hands. Cut the red tape. There will be less laws, cheaper on society, and individuals will learn to stand on their own.

Ron Paul was right yet again: how many "felonies" are committed by each person everyday? I never signed those contracts.

Oh, and I did not "vote".

[r3volution 3.0]

Go back to the Wild West days. Abiding by the NAP, if my [and/or my immediate family] property, life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness is threatened or stolen, I will handle it myself. I do not need or want strangers [government] "figuring it out" for me.

It will be cheaper for you, me and gets right to the point.

How many innocent people are jailed, executed, pay excess fines by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. How many are palm-grease released by those same hands. Cut the red tape. There will be less laws, cheaper on society, and individuals will learn to stand on their own.

Ron Paul was right yet again: how many "felonies" are committed by each person everyday? I never signed those contracts.

Oh, and I did not "vote".

This question applies just as well in an anarcho-capitalist world.

The idea that each person will handle it himself is problematic; some people (most of them, in fact) are weak.

Without third party assistance, they will most certainly be brutalized.

Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism in the pejorative sense, is it?

The idea is only that security services will be provided by market firms in lieu of the state; that at least was Murray's concept.

It is ill-conceived and cannot exist in reality, but, supposing it could, these private courts would have to make the same decisions as state courts.

For instance, should a murderer be hanged? If not, how should he be handled?

[PAF]

This question applies just as well in an anarcho-capitalist world.

The idea that each person will handle it himself is problematic; some people (most of them, in fact) are weak.

Without third party assistance, they will most certainly be brutalized.

Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism in the pejorative sense, is it?

The idea is only that security services will be provided by market firms in lieu of the state; that at least was Murray's concept.

It is ill-conceived and cannot exist in reality, but, supposing it could, these private courts would have to make the same decisions as state courts.

For instance, should a murderer be hanged? If not, how should he be handled?

I have contemplated those very things. That is why I live an Agorist lifestyle.

In my perfect world, the NAP would apply in society as a whole. Because I/we do not live in such a world and never, ever will, the Agorist takes the impractical libertarian philosophy and applies it to a practical approach, weighing out the risk versus reward. We strive the best that we can to work via voluntarism, and within our circles we are able to achieve that. But, that only works on a 2-way street, so I have to deal with the force of theft via taxation. Some things in this practical world are unfortunately unavoidable.

[r3volution 3.0]

I have contemplated those very things. That is why I live an Agorist lifestyle.

In my perfect world, the NAP would apply in society as a whole. Because I/we do not live in such a world and never, ever will, the Agorist takes the impractical libertarian philosophy and applies it to a practical approach, weighing out the risk versus reward. We strive the best that we can to work via voluntarism, and within our circles we are able to achieve that. But, that only works on a 2-way street, so I have to deal with the force of theft via taxation. Some things in this practical world are unfortunately unavoidable.

A libertarian social order is not impossible or even impractical (though an an-cap one is, it will be minarchism).

In a century or two, when this unpleasant experiment in popular government is ended, and it will be ended, that is what will happen.

In the meantime, well, interesting times...

[PAF]

A libertarian social order is not impossible or even impractical (though an an-cap one is, it will be minarchism).

In a century or two, when this unpleasant experiment in popular government is ended, and it will be ended, that is what will happen.

In the meantime, well, interesting times...

I see where the miscommunication is. You referred to "in a century or two". I referred to the here and now. The Agorist weighs, in my view, according to current surroundings. We may hope for future events and outcomes, but the analysis occurs in the here and now. ie: should I J-Walk and risk a ticket? Should I pay tax to the state, or drive to the Indian Reservation?

[Okie RP fan]

I think the easiest way for me to answer this is it's justified under certain circumstances.
But, I guess I'm open to all arguments.

[r3volution 3.0]

I think the easiest way for me to answer this is it's justified under certain circumstances.
But, I guess I'm open to all arguments.

Would you elaborate on that?

[Okie RP fan]

Would you elaborate on that?

When I first saw your original ask of the thread, two thoughts immediately came to the forefront of my mind: in an ideal world (impossible, I know), there would be no need for a death penalty. That encompasses so much that I don't even want to go down that path because it ends in utopia where there is no crime committed, there's "infinite" resources, etc.

The second thought was: since we live in this imperfect world and we know there will be crime, how has the death penalty mitigated heinous crimes? I think if we analyze that, we'd see it probably hasn't proactively mitigated much. Criminals are criminals, they'll do what they do because that's who they are or who they've become. I doubt many, if any, think before committing a heinous crime (murder, rape, etc.) "gee, I might get the death penalty for this."

Moving straight to the next sub-point on that is what does keeping a mass murderer (probably the most appropriate example for this discussion) locked up for life do? What does it achieve? That criminal becomes a tax burden on the rest of society for several decades. Furthermore, it's not as if they're rotting away in dark rat infested dungeons anymore. So, I think it some instances where there's a mass murderer (all evidence proves he committed the crimes and he's admitted to it, let's put all those things upfront to get them out of the way), we might as well consider putting him to death.

There's a religious aspect here via redemption, etc. but that's a little beyond my realm of thought and I'm still unsure how that would sit even in that context.

[kahless]

I don't remember seeing much talk about this over the years.

We have a bit of a crime wave at the moment, so it seems apropos.

Vote and comment.

I vote yes, FYI, it's justified for certain crimes.

Now more than ever I am against the death penality. Government at all levels is so completely deviously corrupt that you can not trust the facts in any case they present to judge whether someone should live or die. The same holds true for jurors which can be paid off as well and too easily fooled with propaganda.

[Invisible Man]

It should be clarified that the question of whether or not the death penalty is ever justified is separate from the question of who, if anyone, ought to administer it if it is justified.

I believe that it is often justified, but also that there is no one on this earth who is qualified to administer it. And the least qualified entity of all is the state. If you must support the death penalty, at least recognize that it's far too grave of a matter to let the corrupt bunglers who occupy positions of power in the government to be involved in.

[Pauls' Revere]

Yes, under "justified" overwhelming evidence.

Then, death by hanging on courthouse grounds immediately following with the jury present as witnesses. One last meal and done within two hours of conviction.



Old School.