Jump to content

If You Hate Big Government, You Should Oppose the Death Penalty


TitanTiger

Recommended Posts

Read.  Then discuss.

Quote

If You Hate Big Government, You Should Oppose the Death Penalty

It’s time for Republicans to kill capital punishment off for good.

From the Postal Service to the Department of Motor Vehicles, the government has proven to be as ineffective as Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy. Conservatives, for the most part, understand the inefficient nature of government, and that’s why they often advocate for free-market policies.

However, there’s one issue where conservatives often give far too much power to the government: capital punishment. Here, many Republicans allow their “tough on crime” mentality to overrule limited government ideals and innate skepticism of state overreach.

There's Nothing "Small Government" about Capital Punishment

This contradiction within the Republican platform, although rarely acknowledged, exposes a weakness in the party’s ideology. If Republicans pride themselves on their limited government philosophy, then why would they grant the government control over life and death?

Take Texas, for example—arguably the nation’s most conservative state. Ever since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 after the Supreme Court lifted its nationwide suspension, 552 of the 1477 executions in the U.S. have taken place in the Lone Star State. While many Texas Republicans pride themselves on their unapologetic use of the death penalty, its enactment, like most government programs, is both inefficient and ineffective.

In Texas, a death penalty case costs about $2.3 million, which is nearly three times the cost of one prisoner’s 40-year sentence in a single cell with maximum security. And this fiscal irresponsibility is far from a Texas problem. It’s a nationwide phenomenon.

California, arguably the nation’s most liberal state, has spent over $4 billionon the death penalty since 1978 and would save $5 billion over the next 20 years if Governor Jerry Brown commuted all those on death row to life without parole.

Both Cruel and Fallible

Not only is the death penalty wasting taxpayers’ money, but some of that money is used to kill innocent people. We currently know of 160 individualswho were sentenced to death but later exonerated. Another 15 were sentenced to death despite clear evidence pointing to their innocence. There were likely countless other innocents put to death as well, especially prior to 20th-century advances in investigative technology.

Death penalty mishaps don’t stop at the courtroom; the failures continue into the execution room itself, as three percent of execution attempts from 1890 to 2010 were botched. Lethal injection, which has been used in 87 percent of executions since 1976, fails seven percent of the time. The Washington Post detailed the gruesome process of a failed injection in a 2017 article.

One specific story explained how one man’s “head began rocking forward and back,” and his chest “began convulsing up from the table.”

Conservative Minds Are Changing

Conservatives are apparently noticing this inefficiency and cruelty, as studies show a clear trend of Republican legislators and voters who are starting to oppose the death penalty.

A 2017 report from a group called Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty noted that  40 Republican lawmakers sponsored a death penalty repeal bill in 2016—10 times the number who did so in 2000. Similarly, a Gallup pollshowed a 10 percent decline in Republican support for the death penalty in 2017.  Anti-death penalty conservatives hope to carry this momentum into the state legislatures, where the death penalty continues to be limited and even abolished in some states.

Yet the pro-death penalty crowd still reigns supreme on the right, with the 2016 Republican party platform stating, “we condemn the Supreme Court’s erosion of the right of the people to enact capital punishment in their states.”

But is the judiciary wrong to put restrictions on capital punishment, or even potentially ban it nationwide?

The legal argument in favor of the death penalty relies on how the Founding Fathers referenced capital punishment in the Fifth Amendment. However, the Founders’ intention for the Fifth Amendment was not to grant the government power but to limit it, and the Eighth Amendment states that “cruel and unusual punishments” should not be inflicted upon the public. It’s certainly debatable whether the Founders would favor the way in which capital punishment is utilized today.

From fiscal irresponsibility to wrongful convictions to botched executions, the death penalty is merely another wasteful government effort. It’s time for Republicans to kill capital punishment off for good.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'd be OK with the change if we could actually count on "life without parole" actually meaning that.  

Strange however that the Federal government still has capital punishment for a large number of crimes as does the military.   So while the Feds don't implement the penalty very often, why does it exist in Federal Codes without much fanfare....and all the pressure is on states to remove it as a punishment option?    

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/death-penalty.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I'd be OK with the change if we could actually count on "life without parole" actually meaning that.  

Strange however that the Federal government still has capital punishment for a large number of crimes as does the military.   So while the Feds don't implement the penalty very often, why does it exist in Federal Codes without much fanfare....and all the pressure is on states to remove it as a punishment option?    

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/death-penalty.aspxly 

Probably because since 1976, states have executed 1477 people, while since 1963 the Federal Gov't has executed only 3, and the last military execution was in 1961.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Probably because since 1976, states have executed 1477 people, while since 1963 the Federal Gov't has executed only 3, and the last military execution was in 1961.

 

 

Could be but there are very few brutal crimes where the Feds claim jurisdiction even if they could do so.    But, absence of Federal executions is not the issue..  If in  a Federal trial,  someone gets the death penalty that's where the costs starts escalating.    Just thinking it's a matter of principle and Feds could lead the way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AU64 said:

Could be but there are very few brutal crimes where the Feds claim jurisdiction even if they could do so.    But, absence of Federal executions is not the issue..  If in  a Federal trial,  someone gets the death penalty that's where the costs starts escalating.    Just thinking it's a matter of principle and Feds could lead the way. 

They could.  But those who oppose the death penalty are probably thinking more about practical results than symbolic gestures.  And given that in most cases the power to prosecute these crimes is delegated to the states, it makes sense to go after the states.  

But regardless of the best plan of attack, do you agree that support for the death penalty contradicts a limited/small government philosophy?  If not, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

They could.  But those who oppose the death penalty are probably thinking more about practical results than symbolic gestures.  And given that in most cases the power to prosecute these crimes is delegated to the states, it makes sense to go after the states.  

But regardless of the best plan of attack, do you agree that support for the death penalty contradicts a limited/small government philosophy?  If not, why not?

Nope…..duty of the government is to protect it's citizens and taking dangerous people out of society is one way to do that....and putting them in prison where they are still a threat to fellow inmates is not necessarily an answer.      I'm mostly of the punishment philosophy …..not eye for an eye but some crimes are heinous enough that it's worth while making the punishment fit the crime.    I see nothing in this argument...pro or con that has any relationship to size of government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise is certainly valid, but it's not the most important reason to oppose the death penalty.  I would rank the reasons as follows:

  1. Fallibility of the justice system
  2. Practically unjustified (retribution vs. protecting society)
  3. Bestows absolute power on the government (or "big government")
  4. Inherently expensive (related to #1 an #2)

I could probably think of more reasons given some time, but those are my big four.  (And I didn't even open up the so called "pro-life" can of worms, although #2 got close. ;))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Nope…..duty of the government is to protect it's citizens and taking dangerous people out of society is one way to do that....and putting them in prison where they are still a threat to fellow inmates is not necessarily an answer.

Did you read the article?  Because this was addressed.  The comparison was to prison in a single cell, maximum security.  You can isolate them from other inmates and it still costs roughly 1/3 the cost of following through to execution on a death penalty case.  How is spending three times the amount of money "fiscally conservative?"

And what of the limited government issue?  A bedrock of conservative philosophy is distrust of government and granting the government too much power.  Yet we're giving government the power of life and death.  That doesn't seem conservative either.

 

Quote

I'm mostly of the punishment philosophy …..not eye for an eye but some crimes are heinous enough that it's worth while making the punishment fit the crime.    I see nothing in this argument...pro or con that has any relationship to size of government. 

I do understand this impulse as I feel it myself.  But the limited or small government issues are applicable, "limited" because conservatives wish to limited the power of government.  I can't think of a greater power to hand government than the legal power to kill a person.  And "small" because any time you're talking about spending 3x the amount of taxpayer money to prosecute and enforce sentencing for the same crime, you're forfeiting the notion of "small."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The premise is certainly valid, but it's not the most important reason to oppose the death penalty.  I would rank the reasons as follows:

  1. Fallibility of the justice system
  2. Practically unjustified (retribution vs. protecting society)
  3. Bestows absolute power on the government (or "big government")
  4. Inherently expensive (related to #1 an #2)

I could probably think of more reasons given some time, but those are my big four.  (And I didn't even open up the so called "pro-life" can of worms, although #2 got close. ;))

I agree, especially with #1.  My biggest problem is that we KNOW we have convicted and executed people for crimes they didn't commit.  And we KNOW we have exonerated others sitting on death row for crimes they didn't commit, only because they were fortunate enough to have DNA advancements that could be used on their case that proved they didn't do it.  This is unacceptable.  Always.  If you convict an innocent man and sentence him to life without parole, you can at least free him and compensate him for the years he spent in prison.  But if you kill him, you can't fix that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I agree, especially with #1.  My biggest problem is that we KNOW we have convicted and executed people for crimes they didn't commit.  And we KNOW we have exonerated others sitting on death row for crimes they didn't commit, only because they were fortunate enough to have DNA advancements that could be used on their case that proved they didn't do it.  This is unacceptable.  Always.  If you convict an innocent man and sentence him to life without parole, you can at least free him and compensate him for the years he spent in prison.  But if you kill him, you can't fix that.

Seems obvious to me. 

That's why I am baffled by the logic of those who claim strong "pro-life" positions but have no issue with the death penalty. 

It seems to me they are conceding that taking a life can be circumstantial (murder conviction), even when that circumstance is known to be fallible. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll re-post what I stated on the death penalty a few years ago:

On 3/14/2014 at 8:50 PM, Auburnfan91 said:

I only support the death penalty for extreme or really heinous crimes like serial killers, mass murderers, or someone like the guy in Ohio that held 3 women captive and tortured them for 10 years.

Not every murderer should get the death penalty.

I think those specific cases would be considered middle ground because I would think the staunch supporters of the death penalty would want to use the death penalty a lot more than just for those cases.

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/137690-new-question-a-riff-on-proud-tigers-partisanship-question/?do=findComment&comment=2029945

 

My thoughts on the death penalty haven't really changed since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I'll re-post what I stated on the death penalty a few years ago:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/137690-new-question-a-riff-on-proud-tigers-partisanship-question/?do=findComment&comment=2029945

 

My thoughts on the death penalty haven't really changed since then.

Presumably that's because you think execution is more severe (worse) than incarceration?

If so, how do you feel about isolation and other torture since they are arguably worse than death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Presumably that's because you think execution is more severe (worse) than incarceration?

If so, how do you feel about isolation and other torture since they are arguably worse than death?

Isolation and torture are effective. Which is why I've said that not every murderer should get the death penalty. A majority of murders shouldn't result in the death penalty. Only the extreme cases. I see no justifiable reason that someone who has killed dozens of people(e.g. Timothy McVeigh) should be allowed a bed to sleep in or food to eat while in prison no matter how much torture they may be given while in prison. They'd still be getting more care than they deserve.

I don't think we should completely abolish the death penalty. I hate the collective punishment mentality when dealing with issues. It's like a teacher in school. If someone in the class misbehaves then the teacher punishes the whole class, not just the student who misbehaved. 'If some states abuse the death penalty then it should be taken away from all states.' That's effectively the argument being made.

The problem is that once you get past the extreme cases that I've mentioned(serial killers, heinous crimes like torturing someone for 10 years) is that any sort of murder could be judged punishable by the death penalty depending on what state you reside. I think making it clear that the death penalty can only be used for extreme cases would help save states money and would help weed out the abuses and wrongful convictions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In keeping with the theme of this discussion, I would suggest we have a maximum of 5 years in jail for any crime.  This would reduce costs significantly vs incarceration for 30 yrs, 40 yrs, life or the death penalty, significantly reduce size and power of government, be very pro-life those committing these acts (not so much for the victim, but for those that are dead anyway,  not much you can do for them anyway), and reduce the cost of the judicial system dramatically.  A big reduction in the number of prisons and jails. It would be way more humane not to keep people locked up for a long time.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Did you read the article?  Because this was addressed.  The comparison was to prison in a single cell, maximum security.  You can isolate them from other inmates and it still costs roughly 1/3 the cost of following through to execution on a death penalty case.  How is spending three times the amount of money "fiscally conservative?"

And what of the limited government issue?  A bedrock of conservative philosophy is distrust of government and granting the government too much power.  Yet we're giving government the power of life and death.  That doesn't seem conservative either.

 

I do understand this impulse as I feel it myself.  But the limited or small government issues are applicable, "limited" because conservatives wish to limited the power of government.  I can't think of a greater power to hand government than the legal power to kill a person.  And "small" because any time you're talking about spending 3x the amount of taxpayer money to prosecute and enforce sentencing for the same crime, you're forfeiting the notion of "small."

We have granted the government the power to draft you into the military and send you off to get killed in some foreign war.   The fact that it costs a lot to carry out the death penalty in the US is not  the fault of the death penalty.  In China it is reported they carry out the death penalty and send the family an invoice for the cost of the bullet they use in the execution.     It's not big government that makes it expensive.....it is our willingness to go to great lengths to get it right. or to avoid getting it right   JMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article.  As a side note (and in light of other comments on here) I would maintain that the death penalty is not intended solely to punish moral blameworthiness. A major objective of capital punishment is to sanction actions relating to a defendant's personal responsibility. In other words, the statutes seek to inflict punishment commensurate with the degree of harm which may be considered independent of the person's moral blameworthiness. 

Surprising as it may seem, the reason that a capital case is more expensive than a non-capital case, and that lifetime cost of a capital case is substantially more than the cost of incarcerating an inmate for life without parole is this: lawyers are more expensive than prison guards.

Lastly, I don't think the death penalty can be banned on a Constitutional basis. The Constitution irrefutably sanctions/authorizes capital punishment for several instances. With that being said, any system (State) imposing death sentences must be systematic and rational to pass Constitutional muster. This isn't to say it cannot be outright banned, it surely can. An amendment would be necessary, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the cost is as high as it is said to be..... fine. In cases that are not cut and dried, remove the death penalty and let the perp rot. There is no need to try to correct or rehabilitate a person who'll never be released. Make it hard time. No tv or entertainment of any kind, only some bland food like rice and water. Unless the convict would agree to buy these luxuries by volunteering to be lab rats for new medical testing or something that risks their life. BUT for slammed door cases like McVeigh or Dylan Roof kill them immediately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, AU64 said:

It's not big government that makes it expensive.....it is our willingness to go to great lengths to get it right.

That is exactly right!

Capital cases involve more pre-trial and trial costs than non-capital cases. Capital cases are far less likely to be resolved via plea bargain, and generally they require far greater time, support services, and expertise to prepare. They're generally longer trials and far more complex - in addition to more attorneys and attorney time, capital cases tend to have more experts and related expenses from experts and support staff. There is also the requirement of a "death-qualified" jury, and bring forth additional costs of the "second trial" which takes place during the penalty phase. Also, because both sides of these cases are usually funded at public expense, the additional costs must be counted twice in calculating the added cost a capital prosecution.

More to your closing point, capital cases involve a significantly longer post-conviction appeal process than non-capital cases. Unlike non-capital cases, capital cases almost always proceed through all avenues of post-conviction relief, including direct appeal, state post-conviction proceedings, at least one federal habeas petition, and multiple petitions for cert. This is typically because capital defendants have much stronger motives to pursue post-conviction remedies - after all, it is their right. Additionally, experience shows that every stage of review is needed to guard against wrongful convictions and correct the unusually "high" rate of error that plagues capital cases (ideally that rate would be at 0%). The upshot of collateral attack and reversal is that the court system is packed with these cases, which in turn take decades to maneuver through the court system. More appeals means more costs, regardless of why said appeals arise. Likewise, reversal means repeating all or part of the process and thus duplicating time and expense.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's why I am baffled by the logic of those who claim strong "pro-life" positions but have no issue with the death penalty. 

Could it be that perhaps you're failing to consider the notion that one may oppose abortion on the basis of adherence to/belief in a natural right to life for the unborn, yet possess no opposition to the death penalty on the basis that some independent acts are so egregious as to justify an infliction of punishment commensurate with the degree of harm caused by the independent act? 

Are you baffled when someone advocates a "pro-life" position, while at the same time does not oppose the death penalty for Dylan Roof? If so, why? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Could it be that perhaps you're failing to consider the notion that one may oppose abortion on the basis of adherence to/belief in a natural right to life for the unborn, yet possess no opposition to the death penalty on the basis that some independent acts are so egregious as to justify an infliction of punishment commensurate with the degree of harm caused by the independent act? 

Are you baffled when someone advocates a "pro-life" position, while at the same time does not oppose the death penalty for Dylan Roof? If so, why? 

No. Yes. It's hypocritical.

(Are you stalking me grasshopper?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I am against the Death Penalty for multiple reasons.

1. I am Pro-Life - To be intellectually honest you can't be against Abortion and for the Death Penalty.  I understand what NolaAUTiger says and at what time I was for the Death Penalty in a few rare instances but upon further prayer and reflection I realized I had to be 100% Pro-Life.

2. The Fallibility of the US court system. If you kill even one innocent person in the name of Justice it is to many and because the poor can't always afford good lawyers, or overzealous prosecutors to many innocents have been convicted.

3. Cost - even though I am not sure that should be a reason when we are talking about life and Death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Isolation and torture are effective. Which is why I've said that not every murderer should get the death penalty. A majority of murders shouldn't result in the death penalty. Only the extreme cases. I see no justifiable reason that someone who has killed dozens of people(e.g. Timothy McVeigh) should be allowed a bed to sleep in or food to eat while in prison no matter how much torture they may be given while in prison. They'd still be getting more care than they deserve.

I don't think we should completely abolish the death penalty. I hate the collective punishment mentality when dealing with issues. It's like a teacher in school. If someone in the class misbehaves then the teacher punishes the whole class, not just the student who misbehaved. 'If some states abuse the death penalty then it should be taken away from all states.' That's effectively the argument being made.

The problem is that once you get past the extreme cases that I've mentioned(serial killers, heinous crimes like torturing someone for 10 years) is that any sort of murder could be judged punishable by the death penalty depending on what state you reside. I think making it clear that the death penalty can only be used for extreme cases would help save states money and would help weed out the abuses and wrongful convictions. 

I'm confused.

First, "effective" to what ends?  We are discussing execution not interrogation (for which, btw, it's not effective.) 

Are you suggesting torture is an appropriate legal sanction to add to incarceration and execution?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No. Yes. It's hypocritical.

(Are you stalking me grasshopper?)

Thanks for the answers.

No. I like talking with you when we aren’t throwing poo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I'm confused.

First, "effective" to what ends?  We are discussing execution not interrogation (for which, btw, it's not effective.) 

Are you suggesting torture is an appropriate legal sanction to add to incarceration and execution?

 

I thought you were talking about people being tortured while in prison? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I'm confused.

That's exactly how I feel. I just assumed you were speaking about criminals who get beat up or tortured in prison.

You said isolation. I assumed that was solitary confinement for prisoners. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...