Limited government and capital punishment

[SMemmett]

I'd like some opinions on the death penalty from you guys. I oppose capital punishment entirely on the basis that I believe no human-ran government should have the power to end someone's life, that no government should be able to exercise that much power, to deprive someone of the inalienable right of life (regardless of how depraved a crime or criminal may be). Perhaps the McVeighs and Rosenbergs of the world (if they are undeniably guilty) would be the exception to the rule, but even then, I'm not sure I would agree with it.

But, for those of you who align yourself with the principles of limited government (and correct me if I'm wrong, I think that is quite a few of you here) what are your thoughts on capital punishment?

 

[NeekReevers]

I'd like some opinions on the death penalty from you guys. I oppose capital punishment entirely on the basis that I believe no human-ran government should have the power to end someone's life, that no government should be able to exercise that much power, to deprive someone of the inalienable right of life (regardless of how depraved a crime or criminal may be). Perhaps the McVeighs and Rosenbergs of the world (if they are undeniably guilty) would be the exception to the rule, but even then, I'm not sure I would agree with it.

But, for those of you who align yourself with the principles of limited government (and correct me if I'm wrong, I think that is quite a few of you here) what are your thoughts on capital punishment?

I consider myself a libertarian leaning conservative and I am against it as well, mainly because I can't find a reason to support it. I think it serves no purpose other than vengeance. I have always read it is more expensive than life in prison. It does not deter crime. There is little to no danger to society because inmates rarely escape and are normally quickly recaptured. Additionally our justice system convicts innocent people too regularly to be comfortable executing folks and I believe poor people often times are inadequately represented in court. Finally, I am against it as a Christian.

Having said all of that, for death penalty type offenses where rehabilitation isn't really a concern I'd be all in favor of harsher, hard labor type prison conditions.

 

[windriverrange]

Capital punishment should be a state issue (already is) and it should be practiced with the swiftness of a hummingbird. Most people on death row are habitual criminal scumbags and can not function in a free society so unless the people against the death penalty are willing to let them live and breath with them then I don't want to hear about how cruel it is. My family or myself should not be exposed to people that are known criminal risks, have no intention of being reformed and have a recidivism rate through the roof. Yes you will execute innocents, although I think that will occur less and less and any prosecutor or police officer that fabricates evidence should go away forever.

The problem is that people on death row have had sentences commuted, then be paroled and done what with their new chance? They have killed again. Look up Kenneth A McDuff as an example.

 

[Ostatedchi]

In my opinion capital punishment isn't cruel and unusual. However, it has been grossly misused historically and I'm generally against its application in all but the most heinous cases where proof is undisputed.

 

[Medic007]

For it. In my opinion, if you willfully kill another person, you forfeit your rights to life since you deprived someone else of theirs.

Unless it is applied to the extreme, like in Islamic states, it won't reduce crime because those that willfully kill don't care and don't value human life. For that, they should die at the hands of the state so there is no scenario that can ever exist that will give them another chance to murder.

 

[imprimis]

Some appeals court halted the execution of a man in Huntsville scheduled for tonight. That SOB deserved to die several years ago and did tonight. Anyone who calls his estranged wife on the phone and then proceeds to shot their daughters so his wife can listen to them die deserves to be put to death. The wife heard their daughter pleading with her father, "no Daddy don't". Then the SOB shot her and her sister.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Some appeals court halted the execution of a man in Huntsville scheduled for tonight. That SOB deserved to die several years ago and did tonight. Anyone who calls his estranged wife on the phone and then proceeds to shot their daughters so his wife can listen to them die deserves to be put to death. The wife heard their daughter pleading with her father, "no Daddy don't". Then the SOB shot her and her sister.

Probably should bring back public executions for this lovely type of human.

 

[imprimis]

All you have to do is watch any one of a number of the crime documentaries on TV and see that many of these killers don't give 2 shits about their fellow man. Killing someone for their shoes, car, money, or a piece of gum doesn't phase them. Those people need to be exterminated immediately, if not sooner.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

• It should be a state issue
• It isn't cruel and unusual as defined in the 8th Amendment, as illustrated by the fact that it was widespread at the time of the passing of the 8th Amendment and for over a century thereafter
• It doesn't conflict with limited government because it doesn't go beyond powers ascribed in the Constitution.
  
• I share some apprehension with entrusting the growing leviathan of government in the 21st century with the power to execute.
• If executions were carried out swiftly in those cases for which there is no doubt as to guilt, or fro chronically habitual violent offenders, you bet it would become a deterrent
• Public executions would aid in this

 

[imprimis]

If the movement is on for bringing everything Muslim (their culture, religion, rule of law, etc.) without objection or opposition into this country then let's incorporate caning and other forms of punishment (beheading) into the system. Let's not do it half-assed.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

I don't have a problem with it in theory, but too many innocent people have been wrongfully convicted. The system that produces executions isn't trustworthy. The lawyers, jurors, judges and appellate courts aren't reliable enough to get it right.

Some people are just rotten, and closure for victim families and the public is very important, imo. The SCOTUS (the conservatives on it, of course) held that an innocent guy in Louisiana that spent a looong time on death row because of prosecutorial shenanigans didn't have a remedy. Until governments develop some conscience, I don't trust them to kill people.

I'm not a criminal defense lawyer now, but I did some back in the day and there simply are jurors (like some posters on here) that reeeeally want to get someone's ass before the evidence is ever heard.

 

[CBradSmith]

Commend you on a great post @syskatine

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Commend you on a great post @syskatine

YOU TAKE THAT BACK.

 

[JimmyBob]

Whatever the question, gurney ride is the answer.

 

[imprimis]

Today on the local news there was another example of someone needing a one-way ticket to the death chamber.

A mother and her boyfriend shot up with heroin. They beat the woman's 4-year old daughter with a belt and bamboo stick for drinking her brother's juice. The boyfriend strangled her and tied her to a coat rod in a closet. She died at the hospital.

It's unclear if the boyfriend will face charges. WTF?

 

[CBradSmith]

Please stop.

I don't watch news for a reason.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

I'd like some opinions on the death penalty from you guys. I oppose capital punishment entirely on the basis that I believe no human-ran government should have the power to end someone's life, that no government should be able to exercise that much power, to deprive someone of the inalienable right of life (regardless of how depraved a crime or criminal may be). Perhaps the McVeighs and Rosenbergs of the world (if they are undeniably guilty) would be the exception to the rule, but even then, I'm not sure I would agree with it.

But, for those of you who align yourself with the principles of limited government (and correct me if I'm wrong, I think that is quite a few of you here) what are your thoughts on capital punishment?

And your view on abortion is ......?

 

[Medic007]

And your view on abortion is ......?

True. If we're able to kill babies mostly for convenience, we should be able to execute the scourge of the country without batting an eye.

 

[SMemmett]

And your view on abortion is ......?

Personally, against them except in cases of rape, incest, or cases where the mother's life is at risk. But, my political philosophy is that the government shouldn't have anything to do with a woman's right to choose. And as a man, I don't believe my opinion on abortions carries much weight at all.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Personally, against them except in cases of rape, incest, or cases where the mother's life is at risk. But, my political philosophy is that the government shouldn't have anything to do with a woman's right to choose. And as a man, I don't believe my opinion on abortions carries much weight at all.

If the right to life is inalienable then how does a woman have the right to choose if that life will be ended or allowed to continue?

 

[NeekReevers]

And as a man, I don't believe my opinion on abortions carries much weight at all.

Why not? A fetus is the product of a man and a woman. A man is expected to financially support the child if it is birthed. Why does the man have no say in what happens to the child...just because it incubates in the woman?

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Why not? A fetus is the product of a man and a woman. A man is expected to financially support the child if it is birthed. Why does the man have no say in what happens to the child...just because it incubates in the woman?

To take this one step further.......She doesn't want the child, wants to abort, but the man is willing to take 100% custody of the child at birth, expects nothing from the woman other than birthing the child, will pay for the birth, and then let the woman go on her merry way. Why can't that be an option when the situation presents instead of the man being told he has no say in the matter? The life after all is inalienable. And would it not be best to protect said life instead of preaching about some "right" that cannot possibly exist if you truly believe in the natural rights doctrine?

 

[SMemmett]

They might be logically inconsistent, but my personal feelings on things don't change what I believe the role of government to be.

I don't shed any tears when vicious criminals are put to death, or are beaten to death/attacked in prison and I don't care particularly for their well-being, and I truly believe many of them deserve death or as an earlier poster said, their families deserve closure. Again, it's solely my thoughts on what government has the right to do.

And I don't mean to say a man has no say in something like this, it's just I've never been pregnant and don't feel like my opinion means as much as a person who has been, and understands what that is like.

As far as the man having an opinion, in the examples you guys give, with a attentive father who will take sole custody, etc... sure. I don't believe that is the most common scenario with most potential abortions, but that is just anecdotal.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

They might be logically inconsistent, but my personal feelings on things don't change what I believe the role of government to be.

I don't shed any tears when vicious criminals or put to death, or are beaten to death/attacked in prison and I don't care particularly for their well-being, and I truly believe many of them deserve death or as an earlier poster said, their families deserve closure. Again, it's solely my thoughts on what government has the right to do.

And I don't mean to say a man has no say in something like this, it's just I've never been pregnant and don't feel like my opinion means as much as a person who has been, and understands what that is like.

As far as the man having an opinion, in the examples you guys give, with a attentive father who will take sole custody, etc... sure. I don't believe that is the most common scenario with most potential abortions, but that is just anecdotal.

I'm with you on the role of government. I just like to get a fell for consistency in positions. Sys for example, contradicts himself all the time in justifying his positions on different issues. I used to be against abortion but a proponent of capital punishment. Until I really sat down and thought about how contradictory that view was, either I am a proponent of life or I am not. I would like to know how you reconcile limited government in an aspect such as this but support a candidate who wants total government control in other aspects.

 

[imprimis]

To take this one step further.......She doesn't want the child, wants to abort, but the man is willing to take 100% custody of the child at birth, expects nothing from the woman other than birthing the child, will pay for the birth, and then let the woman go on her merry way. Why can't that be an option when the situation presents instead of the man being told he has no say in the matter? The life after all is inalienable. And would it not be best to protect said life instead of preaching about some "right" that cannot possibly exist if you truly believe in the natural rights doctrine?

Because this is a rational approach to saving an innocent life. Allowing what you describe to occur puts a chink in the intransigent armor of the abortion industry.

 

[imprimis]

And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death.

 

[SMemmett]

I'm with you on the role of government. I just like to get a fell for consistency in positions. Sys for example, contradicts himself all the time in justifying his positions on different issues. I used to be against abortion but a proponent of capital punishment. Until I really sat down and thought about how contradictory that view was, either I am a proponent of life or I am not. I would like to know how you reconcile limited government in an aspect such as this but support a candidate who wants total government control in other aspects.

Well, there is no candidate that aligns perfectly with my idea of government and likely never will be. But, there are 4 somewhat realistic choices right now for President, and Sanders by far is the closest ideologically to myself, but I don't agree with everyone of his platforms. Ideally I'm in favor of a small government body that puts the onus on the citizen to choose but I think a lot of things have to change, education-wise and poverty-wise before we can reach that point.

I've mentioned it in other threads, about the personal importance I place on education, to the point where I might be considered radical about it, and Sanders is the only candidate who consistently mentions anything about education, even if I'm not truly in favor of free tuition for public universities.

But, I refuse to vote for Trump or Hillary and I disagree with Cruz on most things, so Sanders it is.

 

[Colorado_Poke]

I'm in favor of the death penalty, but agree with many on here that it should only be used in certain situations (likely on a more limited basis than it's currently used in Texas). The link below is to an article that discusses a particularly heinous case that is a perfect example of why I will always support the use of capital punishment for some individuals. (Warning: difficult to read)

http://www.people.com/article/man-charged-with-rape-murder-of-shaylyn-ammerman

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

I'm with you on the role of government. I just like to get a fell for consistency in positions. Sys for example, contradicts himself all the time in justifying his positions on different issues. I used to be against abortion but a proponent of capital punishment. Until I really sat down and thought about how contradictory that view was, either I am a proponent of life or I am not. I would like to know how you reconcile limited government in an aspect such as this but support a candidate who wants total government control in other aspects.

What is the virtue of ideological consistency?

 

[ThorOdinson13]

What is the virtue of ideological consistency?

Why don't we let your own inconsistency answer your question.

Until governments develop some conscience, I don't trust them to kill people.

Yet, you whole heartedly support the monopolization of gun ownership into the hands of governments. Yup, makes sense. You trust them and their lack of conscience with guns but you don't trust them and their lack of conscience to put a man to death after conviction in a court of law.

 

[MegaPoke]

Why don't we let your own inconsistency answer your question.



Yet, you whole heartedly support the monopolization of gun ownership into the hands of governments. Yup, makes sense. You trust them and their lack of conscience with guns but you don't trust them and their lack of conscience to put a man to death after conviction in a court of law.

Feel the burn.

 

[Medic007]

Yet, you whole heartedly support the monopolization of gun ownership into the hands of governments.

Still very strange that a guy that owns 30 guns is pro gun control. That's like an OSU fan wearing an OU shirt.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Why don't we let your own inconsistency answer your question.



Yet, you whole heartedly support the monopolization of gun ownership into the hands of governments. Yup, makes sense. You trust them and their lack of conscience with guns but you don't trust them and their lack of conscience to put a man to death after conviction in a court of law.

Yep - just like you. You think that same incompetent government should have a monopoly on nuclear power, air traffic control, wavelength use, etc. of course I and everyone else necessarily trusts government with some things and not others. Exactly who else do you think should have access to nuclear weapons?

 

[Medic007]

Great argument. Nukes and firearms. Yep, great argument.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Yep - just like you. You think that same incompetent government should have a monopoly on nuclear power, air traffic control, wavelength use, etc. of course I and everyone else necessarily trusts government with some things and not others. Exactly who else do you think should have access to nuclear weapons?

Nope, I've never advocated government control over any of that, especially federal control. You're just reaching now because you know that you have so completely contradicted yourself that you know your only hope is to shift the debate or be forced to recognize the complete and totally illogical difference of positions.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Nope, I've never advocated government control over any of that, especially federal control. You're just reaching now because you know that you have so completely contradicted yourself that you know your only hope is to shift the debate or be forced to recognize the complete and totally illogical difference of positions.

Ok you got me. So who should and should not be allowed to have nuclear plants and bombs?

 

[Medic007]

syskatine came to win this one!

 

[JimmyBob]

syskatine came to win this one!

Gawd, I can see it in his eyes; he touches his dog in strange places.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Ok you got me. So who should and should not be allowed to have nuclear plants and bombs?

Why don't you explain to me the requirements government has to meet to show the required conscience to put convicted criminals to death but yet should not ever demand the right to monopolize the ownership of firearms into its own hands despite an obviously superior conscience?

 

[twiza]

I'm not a fan of the death penalty for many of the same reasons listed above. However, I have had a hard time processing an article recently where a guy confessed to his dad that he kidnapped a friends 1 year old daughter brutally raped her and strangled her with he blanket. At minimum, anyone who commits a crime against a child should never leave jail. There is no rehabilitation for people like this.