Conservatives Should Rethink The Death Penalty

in Law/Politics by

Liberals typically do a horrible job of trying to turn conservatives against the death penalty. Here are some examples of largely refuted arguments that need to be put to rest:

Argument a): ″If you are pro-life, shouldn′t you be against the death penalty?″

The distinction is pro-innocent-life.

Argument b): ″If killing is wrong, why is it okay when the state does it?″

Murder is wrong, but not all killing is murder. Go look up the definition of murder if you have trouble with this. Sometimes, the government has to kill bad people. Did we win World War II by being assertive and understanding with Nazis?

Argument c): ″France and Germany don′t have the death penalty, and they have a lower murder rate than the US.”

Singapore and Japan have the death penalty, and they also have a lower murder rate than the US. America has a higher violent crime rate than other industrialized countries for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with gun control or the death penalty.

Argument d): ″It′s not an effective deterrent.″

This would depend on the individual because some people fear death while others don′t care if they die, but the recidivism rate for executed criminals is 0%.

Here is the argument that liberals should use more: The death penalty is more expensive than a life sentence without parole.

Maybe liberals hate arguing against programs on the basis of cost because that puts their favorite programs in jeopardy. Nobody but the government can make the act of killing a person so complicated and expensive. Somehow this country has arrived at a point where sticking a needle in a guy and injecting him with three different drugs is considered the most humane way to kill him. It will take decades of Republican appointments to the Supreme Court before good old fashioned hangings can make a comeback. The death penalty is such a bureaucratic mess at this point that death row inmates are more likely to die from natural causes than lethal injection.

What really drives up the cost of the death penalty is the trial and appeals process. A death penalty trial can cost five times as much as a regular murder trial. About the only mitigating factor cost wise is that prosecutors will keep the death penalty on the table until a plea bargain is reached.

State and local governments absorb the costs of these death penalty cases. This can lead to budget crunches. While police officers are being laid off, a state can spend over $1 million on a single murder case that was solved 20 years ago.

The death penalty should be reserved for the absolute worst people: terrorists and mass murderers. These cases are handled on the federal level. Yes, federal deficit spending is a problem, but the entire Bureau of Prisons budget makes up a minuscule portion of the entire federal budget. For better or for worse, the federal government is better able to absorb the costs of administering the death penalty than state governments.

I propose that state governments put a moratorium on the death penalty. The federal government should retain the option of executing the very worst offenders.

Robert is the chairman of the Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana. He has worked in the private security industry since before 9/11. His new novel, A Long Way From Tipperary, is now available on Amazon.

  • Thought about it: Is there an unlimited amount of time and people a murder can fatally destroy– before he doesn’t get to read, right, and see the light of day? Nope.

  • Blue Drache

    Thought about it. My conclusion? Kill ’em. No matter the cost.

    • Robert Enders

      Should states raise taxes to pay for this?

      • Blue Drache

        You obviously did not comprehend what I said.

        • Robert Enders

          Ok. I explained that the death penalty is more expensive than life without parole. You suggested that states go through with these executions regardless of cost. So if states followed your advice, they would have to either raise taxes, cut funding to other programs, or run a deficit. Which option do you prefer?

          • Blue Drache

            Whatever works. Little out of both. *shrug*

  • Max security can cost a million bucks per perp over time. The correct path is to fight in courts for legitimate state rights to more expeditiously handle the issue and cut court costs.

    • Robert Enders

      Even if this is a policy focus, it will still take time to reform the courts. My article pointed out what should be done in the mean time.

  • Claudio Giusti

    Civilized world lives safely and well without capital punishment

    • Samuel Adams


      • Claudio Giusti

        Italy, Canada, France, Germany, England …

      • Claudio Giusti

        In Italy, France, Germany, eccetera
        In Italy we had 2.000 homicides in 1991 and 475 in 2015.

    • Rick Thomas

      rehabilitation doesn’t work and is costly. I’d rather our tax dollars go towards education then the welfare of an inmate doing life.

  • Brett

    Ending the war on drugs would greatly help, because our legal system wouldn’t be tied up due to having so many criminal laws. Sometimes it will take 3 to 4 years for someone who’s been accused of murder to even receive a trial, and this is because our courts are so incredibly back logged because of so many different laws that are enforced. If the war on drugs were ended and the focus was more on fighting violent crime, the death penalty wouldn’t be so expensive because it wouldn’t take nearly as long for trials to take place and for the guilty to be executed.

  • Mmm-yeah, we should. Rather than waiting for the terminally useless state, we ourselves should just do the death penalty. Moreover, dead thugs can’t speak.

  • Claudio Giusti

    In Italy we have 475 murders and America 15.000. Canada abolished death penalty in the same days of Gregg, and its situation is better than the American.