As Socrates stated, "I cannot make a man wise, but I can make him ask questions." For many years I felt pretty resolute with the idea of the death penalty. Not on a moral high ground, but more in a visceral, retributive act to bring, if I may in today's overused parlance, 'closure' for the victim's families. Inasmuch as the prospect of closure or resolution is purported to evoke, there are more temporal consequences to state approved executions I wish to discuss.
As I stated previously, I was ok for many years with the idea of the state sponsored death penalty. However, just a few months ago I was browsing the web and stumbled across an article discussing the death penalty and its ramifications of state control and power. I wish I had saved the link and have been searching for it since but have been unable to locate the source. Nonetheless, let me paraphrase the main crux of the author's argument; if, we as citizens, give unto the government the power of life and death (more death in this particular instance) then, conversely, what have we abdicated as a society? Essentially, we are saying that only the government can make the determination as to who will live and when they will die.
Many will argue, as I would have prior to reading the article mentioned above, the people on death row actually committed a crime and deserve to die or their death is for the benefit of the victims. The list of possible reasons continues ad infinitum, however, the essence of the argument remains the same; we, as a society, have just empowered, through legal statute, the government to kill its own citizens. As a Libertarian who believes in limited government, I am finding it harder and harder to support the death penalty primarily on control and liberty grounds.
For example, I cannot, in one instance, argue that the state has no business in providing or delivering healthcare to its citizens and then, with equal weight, tacitly give government the power to execute its citizens. Please note that I am specifically looking at the internal affairs of government, as opposed to foreign intervention and wars, which would be an article entirely unto it-self.
I would like to end this article with a few questions:
By sanitizing government executions, such as using 'lethal injection,' does it not make the idea of killing more palatable? If we do continue with the death penalty, wouldn't it be more in keeping with the nature of it to execute the prisoner in as vicious and horrible manner as possible? Should it be the state or the victim's families to decide whether the prisoner gets life or is executed?
As I stated previously, I was ok for many years with the idea of the state sponsored death penalty. However, just a few months ago I was browsing the web and stumbled across an article discussing the death penalty and its ramifications of state control and power. I wish I had saved the link and have been searching for it since but have been unable to locate the source. Nonetheless, let me paraphrase the main crux of the author's argument; if, we as citizens, give unto the government the power of life and death (more death in this particular instance) then, conversely, what have we abdicated as a society? Essentially, we are saying that only the government can make the determination as to who will live and when they will die.
Many will argue, as I would have prior to reading the article mentioned above, the people on death row actually committed a crime and deserve to die or their death is for the benefit of the victims. The list of possible reasons continues ad infinitum, however, the essence of the argument remains the same; we, as a society, have just empowered, through legal statute, the government to kill its own citizens. As a Libertarian who believes in limited government, I am finding it harder and harder to support the death penalty primarily on control and liberty grounds.
For example, I cannot, in one instance, argue that the state has no business in providing or delivering healthcare to its citizens and then, with equal weight, tacitly give government the power to execute its citizens. Please note that I am specifically looking at the internal affairs of government, as opposed to foreign intervention and wars, which would be an article entirely unto it-self.
I would like to end this article with a few questions:
By sanitizing government executions, such as using 'lethal injection,' does it not make the idea of killing more palatable? If we do continue with the death penalty, wouldn't it be more in keeping with the nature of it to execute the prisoner in as vicious and horrible manner as possible? Should it be the state or the victim's families to decide whether the prisoner gets life or is executed?
Source...