Libertarians! Weigh in on the death penalty here.

[London]

I want to see the death penalty expanded to include child molesters and rapists.

Expanded? You mean put back where it used to be. Thank SCOTUS for that.

 

[London]

Killing folks is more expensive than jailing them for life.

That's not an argument against the death penalty; it's an argument against an inefficient legal system.

 

[shortround]

Some evil sociopaths just need killing.

Euthanasia as practiced by penal institutions today is just too "clinical."

Bring back the rope, electric chair, and firing squad.

A dead murderer or rapist or pedophile will never commit that offense again.

The death penalty is not about deterrence or vengeance; it is all about preventing repeat offenses by THAT offender.

If execution deters even a small percentage of the population from committing heinous crimes, that is just a bonus.

 

[Saltyag2010]

Killing folks is more expensive than jailing them for life.

It doesn't have to be. The powers that be could make it cheaper. Maybe have higher bonuses for the guys running the system that figure it out. Protect the justice system from frivolous lawsuits from death row inmates. Maybe even pay bonuses for a faster turns on death row.

 

[Saltyag2010]

I'm not against the death penalty in principle, my concern is that an innocent person may be executed so I'm against it for that reason.

What I don't understand are the liberals who are against the death penalty but have no problem killing unborn children. Guess they want to kill them before they have a chance to commit a crime.

If they're innocent they still have a chance to get to heaven faster thanks to the circumstances.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

Heck just ending the drug war alone (not to mention the gun war that some states are waging) would free up the legal system enough to speed up the appeals process for those on death row, making for quicker times to get to the executioner.

 

[Jeffrey]

Ayup.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

It seems to me that in more primitive times...it was a necessity. You have a small group of people you cannot tolerate any crime. Like if you are living near starvation and someone steals the last bag of grain...that guy out of necessity may have to die.

Now our society is so much more stable and sanitized where we can essentially tolerate (and "afford" ) having bad people just locked away from the rest of us.

Then you have the murderers, the guys serving life with nothing to lose, living side by side with guys serving a few years for various non-violent crimes. That's cruel and unusual punishment if you ask me, having to face being murdered by one of these psychopaths for a redeemable offence.

 

[stdreb27]

Choot 'em!
I have no issue with the death penalty.

As far as expanding it to child molesters and rapists?
I initially agreed until I thought of an alternative punishment.
Rapists get a 4" O.D. rusted pipe shoved 8" in their oriface of choice.
Child molesters get genetalia mutilation...

Edit: and then imprisonment for both after punishments. (It'll also cut down on rapes inside prisons! Which is good news for everyone who drops the soap a lot!!!!)

I like to tell people it says cruel AND unusual not cruel OR unusual. It can be one or the other, and the second time it's not unusual. So coat them in honey and toss them in a pit of fire ants.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

To answer your original question, I would have to say that you should clarify what you mean when you say "libertarian."
May be mistaking it with a bastardized form, or anarchism.

Many philosophical libertarians are atheists, so they really don't place a value on life or have a problem with the death penalty.

Libertarianism encompasses many different political and economic philosophies. I don't believe any claim that the state or government is completely divested of the authority to punish criminals (Retributive Justice). This is one of the main reasons for the creation of government.

It's a matter of expediency and it fits in well with the concept of "social contract" that many libertarians adhere to: By living and operating in society, you are rationally bound to agree that if you kill someone in cold blood, you die. This is almost understood by everyone in the world since the beginning of time. You could also add any other crimes that pose such a heavy burden on the function of society, such as habitual thievery, or crimes that are morally reprehensible like child molestation.

 

[ROGER4314]

I grew up with criminals and dealt with them every day in Chicago. The only difference between those thugs and people like us is that they see no reason why they should work 8-12 hours/day and 5-6 days per week in an honest job when they could make a living working one day per week.

I never knew any thug that set out to harm someone. That's not part of their program but, as an occupational hazard, they may smash someone's face to keep from being caught. That is exactly why they prefer to prey on the weak, old, defenseless and disarmed. There is less potential that they'll need to harm someone with those groups of people. They WILL hurt you to protect their own asses.

Later, I worked in the Texas prison. I worked every day surrounded with convicted felons. One said out loud where I could hear him: "I'm not going to stop stealin' just because I got locked up in here!" Unless there is a DETERRENT, the crooks will just keep doing what they're doing. Criminal activity is present everywhere in the lockup. Offenders get to practice and refine their craft while locked up.

The death penalty is irrelevant as a deterrent to crime. If they hauled the guilty party out and executed him immediately, it may help, but making the Offender a guest of the state for 10-20 years before execution gives the killer a free ride and a chance to practice moral corruption just like he was outside!

SO.....
Death penalty like we do it in the US......It's a waste of time. It proves nothing and is not a deterrent.

Death penalty.........swift sure and timely.........It's a deterrent.

Flash

 

[Savage805]

Honestly I would like to see us go cheaper than these expensive ass sodium pentathol shots and just put a few 30c bullets into the offenders skull. I'm sure there are many ranges who would offer the use of their facility to help cut the cost down even more lol.

Death Race, no to much fun for the perp. How about The Running Man with Dave Chappelle instead of Richard Dawson.

 

[London]

Many philosophical libertarians are atheists, so they really don't place a value on life or have a problem with the death penalty.

LOL. The old, "If I don't believe in the Bible, what's going to stop me from murdering someone?" mindset.

 

[Sapper740]

I'm a TEA Party member with Libertarian leanings and a Christian. I'm pretty much with Hammurabi on this one.

 

[Younggun]

Many philosophical libertarians are atheists, so they really don't place a value on life or have a problem with the death penalty.

This is by far, the dumbest thing you have ever posted.

Life has a very high value if you don't believe anything will come after. Every second matters.

 

[TwinGlocks]

I'd be more in favor of the death penalty if it didn't cost so much. With all the legal appeals they get and with the amount of time they spend on death row, it ends up costing more to execute someone then locking them up for life.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

This is by far, the dumbest thing you have ever posted.

Life has a very high value if you don't believe anything will come after. Every second matters.

Okay genius, educate me then on the concept of "value." Explain objective and subjective value and how they relate to the metaphysics and ontology of the atheistic worldview.

Or how about intrinsic and extrinsic/instumental value? Or what makes something valuable?

I really am interested to hear your thoughts on these concepts since I am so dumb.

 

[XinTX]

Many philosophical libertarians are atheists, so they really don't place a value on life or have a problem with the death penalty.

Not really. I know some HARD CORE libertarians who are atheists and strongly opposed to abortion. But their opposition to abortion is not based on any religious grounds. It's basically, "I don't know when life begins, ergo no one has the right to deprive another of life absent their having deprived another of their natural rights." Opposition to abortion and support for the death penalty are not opposite positions. It depends on the thought process and reasoning behind them. A mindset that stems from the idea of 'natural rights' can support both.

 

[Younggun]

Okay genius, educate me then on the concept of "value." Explain objective and subjective value and how they relate to the metaphysics and ontology of the atheistic worldview.

Or how about intrinsic and extrinsic/instumental value? Or what makes something valuable?

I really am interested to hear your thoughts on these concepts since I am so dumb.

I put it in very simple terms in the post you quoted. Was that to complicated for you?

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Not really. I know some HARD CORE libertarians who are atheists and strongly opposed to abortion. But their opposition to abortion is not based on any religious grounds. It's basically, "I don't know when life begins, ergo no one has the right to deprive another of life absent their having deprived another of their natural rights." Opposition to abortion and support for the death penalty are not opposite positions. It depends on the thought process and reasoning behind them. A mindset that stems from the idea of 'natural rights' can support both.

Atheists are logically committed to not believing in natural rights. The ones you know are being inconsistent with their own beliefs.