Death Penalty: The Ultimate Corrupt, Big
Government Program
By Ron Paul
June 15, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - "RPI"
- 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.
|
Click for
Spanish,
German,
Dutch,
Danish,
French,
translation- Note-
Translation may take a
moment to load.
What's your response?
-
Scroll down to add / read comments
Please
read our
Comment Policy
before posting -
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
|
| |
|
