Ron Paul and the Death Penalty

[Ronin Truth]

Ron Paul and the Death Penalty

By Bionic Mosquito

June 25, 2015

Ron Paul has written a very good piece regarding the death penalty. I will begin with his conclusion:

Until the death penalty is abolished, we will have neither a free nor a moral society.
​

As I have developed in libertarian thought, I have moved away from acceptance of the death penalty. I would say that I agree with every word written by Dr. Paul in this piece, but “every” is always a dangerous word; so let’s just says I agree with virtually every word.

He wrote a very interesting paragraph; I will break it up into bite-sized pieces:

As strong as the practical arguments against the death penalty are, the moral case is much stronger.
​

This paragraph comes right before the conclusion; a good portion of what precedes the paragraph examines the practical arguments: the death penalty is an expensive undertaking; pretty much everything that government touches isn’t run well (think TSA and a 95% failure rate).

But it is the moral case that interests me – and it is a moral case that is accepted within every major religious tradition and also within the non-aggression principle: the right to (call it “ownership of” if you like) my life, to be free from coercion. The Golden Rule (although I like the application of the Silver Rule, personally).

Since it is impossible to develop an error-free death penalty system, those who support the death penalty are embracing the idea that the government should be able to execute innocent people for the “greater good.”
​

This is the sentence that struck me. This is precisely what is accepted by a good portion of the American population when it comes to the myriad overseas adventures since 911…and Vietnam…and World War Two…and…well, you get it.

It is the idea that makes “collateral damage” acceptable; the idea that allows unthinking people to spout off “war is hell” as a get-out-of-jail-free card for every evil conceivable to man.

Carpet bombing Dresden; Hiroshima and Nagasaki; fire-bombing Tokyo; napalm; starvation sanctions; drone strikes on wedding parties. It’s all good because probably at least one person who got it was maybe thinking about doing something really bad in the future.

The idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their right to life for imaginary gains in personal safety is even more dangerous to liberty than the idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their property rights for imaginary gains in economic security.
​

I agree: war is the issue for libertarians.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

The Best of Bionic Mosquito

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/bionic-mosquito/should-the-government-be-able-to-poison-people/

 

[wizardwatson]

It's just wrong on so many levels.

Economic, yes.
Moral because no error-free, yes.

And with mental illness and mind-control drugs like scopolamine that rob you of free will where you'll obey any order, even having someone on camera confessing as they commit a murder has grey lines.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Death Penalty: The Ultimate Corrupt, Big Government Program

Written by Ron Paul

Sunday June 14, 2015

Nebraska’s legislature recently made headlines when it ended the state’s death penalty. Many found it odd that a conservatives-dominated legislature would support ending capital punishment, since conservative politicians have traditionally supported the death penalty. However, an increasing number of conservatives are realizing that the death penalty is inconsistent with both fiscal and social conservatism. These conservatives are joining with libertarians and liberals in a growing anti-death penalty coalition.

It is hard to find a more wasteful and inefficient government program than the death penalty. New Hampshire recently spent over $4 million dollars prosecuting just two death penalty cases, while Jasper County in Texas raised property taxes by seven percent in order to pay for one death penalty case! A Duke University study found that replacing North Carolina’s death penalty would save taxpayers approximately $22 million dollars in just two years.

Death penalty cases are expensive because sentencing someone to death requires two trials. The first trial determines the accused person’s guilt, while the second trial determines if the convicted individual “deserves” the death penalty. A death sentence is typically followed by years of appeals, and sometimes the entire case is retried.

Despite all the time and money spent to ensure that no one is wrongly executed, the system is hardly foolproof. Since 1973, one out of every ten individuals sentenced to death has been released from death row because of evidence discovered after conviction.

The increased use of DNA evidence has made it easier to clear the innocent and identify the guilty. However, DNA evidence is not a 100 percent guarantee of an accurate verdict. DNA evidence is often mishandled or even falsified. Furthermore, DNA evidence is available in only five to 10 percent of criminal cases.

It is not surprising that the government wastes so much time and money on such a flawed system. After all, corruption, waste, and incompetence are common features of government programs ranging from Obamacare to the TSA to public schools to the post office. Given the long history of government failures, why should anyone, especially conservatives who claim to be the biggest skeptics of government, think it is a good idea to entrust government with the power over life and death?

Death penalty supporters try to claim the moral high ground by claiming that the death penalty deters crime. But, if the death penalty is an effective deterrent, why do jurisdictions without the death penalty have a lower crime rate than jurisdictions with the death penalty? And why did a 2009 survey find that the majority of American police chiefs consider the death penalty the least effective way to reduce violent crime?

As strong as the practical arguments against the death penalty are, the moral case is much stronger. Since it is impossible to develop an error-free death penalty system, those who support the death penalty are embracing the idea that the government should be able to execute innocent people for the “greater good.” The idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their right to life for imaginary gains in personal safety is even more dangerous to liberty than the idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their property rights for imaginary gains in economic security.

Opposition to allowing the government to take life is also part of a consistent pro-life position. Thus, those of any ideology who oppose abortion or preemptive war should also oppose the death penalty. Until the death penalty is abolished, we will have neither a free nor a moral society.

---

Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archive...-the-ultimate-corrupt-big-government-program/

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Ron Paul says death penalty trial fueled Texas county's tax hike

Ron Paul says death penalty trial fueled Texas county's tax hike
By W. Gardner Selby on Thursday, July 9th, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

More than a decade ago, three men were prosecuted by an East Texas county for the racist 1998 dragging death of James Byrd Jr. One drew a life sentence, two were sentenced to death.

Now comes Ron Paul of Texas, the former Republican U.S. House member and presidential candidate, hammering the fiscal impact of that case. Paul, whose senator-son, Rand, seeks the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, wrote in a June 2015 opinion column: "It is hard to find a more wasteful and inefficient government program than the death penalty." By way of example, he offered: "Jasper County in Texas raised property taxes by 7 percent in order to pay for one death penalty case!"

A reader asked us to check on whether such a case had that tax impact.

Conclusion after investigation...

Our ruling

Paul said Jasper County "raised property taxes by 7 percent in order to pay for one death penalty case."

The chief appraiser’s research and letter demonstrates there was nearly a 7 percent first-year increase in taxes attributed to the costs of a death penalty trial.

We rate Paul’s claim True.

TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.

 

[Vanguard101]

I don't believe government should exist so I can't believe in the death penalty

 

[Ronin Truth]

I'm much more into protection and prevention, than revenge.