What is your stance on death penalty?
Posted by Piecemeal_Engineer@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 26 comments
What is your LIBERTARIAN stance on death
Posted by Piecemeal_Engineer@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 26 comments
What is your LIBERTARIAN stance on death
Ag-DonkeyKong@reddit
If the death penalty isn't an option for most Libertarians (according to the current, active survey), then the criminals will need to be imprisoned for their lifetime. Who is to carry the cost of this expense and where does that money come from?
NDA0000@reddit
Most libertarians are not ancaps.
_a_008@reddit
I'm pro life so i'm against the death penalty. I'm not going to stop at only abortion. If you're pro life be fulling pro life
GeorgePapadopoulos@reddit
Does that also apply to victims defending themselves from grave physical harm? If you're (hopefully) in support of people having weapons and the right to self protection, then individuals have the power to legally impose the death penalty against violent perpetrators.
So I'll assume your position is about convicted criminals in custody. And I'll ask you, if there was video and DNA evidence of a criminal raping and murdering your daughter, do you think that you or society in general should not erase that criminal off the face of the earth?
BecomingDitto@reddit
Of course as a father, I'd want to see that person suffer a great deal, and I'd want them dead. Luckily I don't make current policy decisions based off of some violent hypothetical that will very likely never happen.
That person should be removed from society and imprisoned.
The death penalty is not a deterrent, and is more costly to the state to execute someone than it is to incarcerate them for life. It serves no purpose beyond a primal desire for retribution. And the State doesn't always get it right.
Besides, do you have any idea what happens to child rapists in prison?
GeorgePapadopoulos@reddit
But it's only hypothetical when discussing your daughter, but I can assure you that it's not hypothetical for dozens of daughters every day of the year.
So you're asking for the relatives of that victim to be forced to pay taxes in order to support the imprisoned lifestyle of the violent criminal. Not very libertarian, unless you think you'll find volunteers to guard and feed such criminals for the rest of their lives.
Only because government allows it to be. Absent government, justice can be served out quickly. I'm not a proponent of vigilante "justice", but that doesn't mean we need to go to the other extreme (like not punishing "minor" crimes or not executing murderers when there are multiple and undeniable pieces of evidence proving guilt).
I hope nothing because you claim "the State doesn't always get it right"? What's your argument here, that routinely getting raped is a libertarian solution you are comfortable with, but not execution?
eagledrummer2@reddit
I'm also pro life and anti-death penalty, but some people have forfeited their right to life by taking it from others.
Tacoshortage@reddit
In favor in certain circumstances but I'm not a true libertarian as I get told on this sub just about every week. The crime of murder has a zero recidivism rate in countries with the death penalty. I don't see why you'd give someone a second chance to commit the ultimate violation of the NAP, and making me pay for their lifetime care/incarceration by force of taxation is theft.
BecomingDitto@reddit
It costs less to convict and imprison them for life than it does to execute them.
LibertarianLawyer@reddit
Fatal retaliatory violence is justified against capital criminals, but I oppose the state having the power to put people to death (along with all other possible state powers, because I am a libertarian).
AccomplishedPoint465@reddit
Ideally, I’m for it. I’m skeptical with giving the state more power though. It should be more of a community thing, like a serial killer that murdered in cold blood for 10 years, your neighbors get to decide if you live. Not some bureaucrat in a suit.
rendrag099@reddit
I don't trust the State to have such power.
divinecomedian3@reddit
Same with offensive war. It's essentially a mass death penalty with no due process.
mountaineer30680@reddit
This, to me, is the only way I can answer this question. If one is defending their life or the lives of others, you are fully right to use deadly force to do that. But for 12 people to decide, that the person the GOVERNMENT says did this awful thing, should be killed? No f'n way. How many people have been released from death row because they were later exonerated? One is too many.
boogieboardbobby@reddit
I genuinely hate that we have taken the approach that the most heinous of criminals have more of a right to life than the people that they have harmed. If a jury finds a criminal guilty of a crime and has the ability to chose the punishment, then it is not the state wielding unusual power.
If there is no penalty of death, what is the alternative? Life in prison? Seems too lenient.
Maybe give the worst criminals a choice....death or get tossed onto a remote frozen island to fend for themselves.
SARS2KilledEpstein@reddit
In a more limited capacity than currently, yes. Contrary to the popular spout about the state shouldn't have that power it doesn't actually have that power its the people who participate as members of a jury (in the US at least). That said I think it should be reserved for only the most egregious murders and should have irrefutable proof i.e. literal recordings of the event. If it relies on witnesses or circumstantial evidence it shouldn't be an option.
I am curious if people who are against death penalties support life sentences which ultimately are a long and slow death sentence. I personally have stronger objections to a life sentence than the death penalty under the restrictions I mentioned.
FakeRedditName2@reddit
There are some crimes that are so hideous that the perpetrator deserves death, but there needs to be safeguards so it's not abused and I can respect those who don't believe in it.
I think Albert Einstein had the best argument against the death penalty: "I have reached the conviction that the abolition of the death penalty is desirable. Reasons: 1) Irreparability in the event of an error of justice, 2) Detrimental moral influence of the execution procedure on those who, whether directly or indirectly, have to do with the procedure."
Mountain_Man_88@reddit
The alternative to the death penalty is life in prison. The DMV providing food and shelter to a person for the rest of their life because they committed som heinous act. Opponents of the death penalty don't like it because of the possibility of someone being exonerated in the future, but if we're not confident in the guilt of a person we shouldn't be convicting them in the first place.
We have cases where murderers kill multiple people in public and are still trying to kill them when police show up. We have cases where people molest their own kids on camera and sell the footage for profit. We have DNA evidence and so many crimes recorded in high definition. There are many instances where we can be certain who it was that committed a heinous crime.
Libertarians don't like that the state would have such a power, but in the US we have trial by jury. The people can reach a verdict and the people can recommend a sentence. The state will actually impose the sentence, but in my opinion that's better than a for-profit corporation carrying out sentences for money.
MajkiF@reddit
Murderers need to be phycically elimated. Just like animals that cross the line and kill people. Capital Punishment is not for the offender, but for the safety of other people who are not a murderers.
Right-wingCommunist@reddit
It's less that I'm against killing criminals, I do belive that there are cases such as extreme crimes where the death penalty is justified, its more that I don't trust the government with this power. As if the government has the power to decide death for certain crimes, and the government also has the power to decide what is and isn't a crime, then what is to stop the government from going "death to anyone who wears a purple tophat in a public space between the hours of 4pm and 8am"?
Tricky-Lingonberry-5@reddit
In this scenario it is totally justified:
Person A,B,C, and D sign this contract:
1) If person C says that A tried to poison B, then A gets executed by person D.
2) If person C says that B tried to poison A, then B gets executed by person D.
natermer@reddit
The death penalty is valid under specific circumstances.
However the current government is too incompetent to be trusted with it.
chaoking3119@reddit
I'm not against the death penalty, but just don't trust the government to properly implement it right now, since it's currently lacking a firm respect for the constitution and individual rights.
PleaseCallMeLP@reddit
I’m for the death penalty in certain circumstances (cruel and unusual acts against children, murder) but I’m anti the government being the ones to decide the fate and carry out the execution. I’d rather a trial by the townspeople and carry that fucker through the streets to be shunned and stoned to death. So that’s me…
Paratwa@reddit
Though I’m not libertarian ( I do support a lot of stances though! ), the idea of supporting a government having the right to murder someone kinda seems quite the opposite of what I assume a libertarian would support.
ScoutRider7@reddit
Against it. Not saying some people don't deserve to die for the horrible things they have done. But I don't believe it's the courts or goverments place federal or state to put its citizens to death. Imo not only is it unconstitutional and a slippery slope when looking at historical record of goverments killing it citizens. But I firmly believe in Blackstones' ratio "It is better that ten guilty person's escape than that one innocent suffer" and since the possibility that someone who was innocent was sentenced to death and is sitting on death row isn't zero then there should be no death penalty.