[108210] in Cypherpunks
Feb. 12 column - death penalty
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Hettinga)
Mon Feb 8 22:57:45 1999
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:36:20 -0500
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
Reply-To: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
--- begin forwarded text
Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 20:21:21 -0700
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:22:56 -0800 (PST)
To: vinsends@ezlink.com
From: Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com (Vin Suprynowicz)
Subject: Feb. 12 column - death penalty
Resent-From: vinsends@ezlink.com
Resent-Sender: vinsends-request@ezlink.com
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 12, 1999
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
An inquiry about the death penalty
Tracy Lamourie and Dave Parkinson, who sign themselves "directors,
Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty, recently wrote in:
"Dear Sir, How is that you can call yourself a libertarian and yet allow
the government the right to kill its own citizens? Please reconsider this
particularly American view. See our page at http://www.ccadp.org. I'm sure
you won't like it either. We were curious about the Libertarian party. Not
anymore."
After a little head-scratching, I replied:
# # #
Greetings --
My understanding of the rationale that leads the Libertarian Party in the
U.S. to endorse the death penalty is that any responsible philosophy of
personal liberty must also hold individuals accountable for their own
actions, up to and including the ultimate penalty for ultimate crimes --
the crimes of those who organize death camps, for instance.
Also, if an individual has a natural and moral right to kill in
self-defense (which he most certainly does), then the individual also has
the right to DELEGATE that power.
For instance, if I have the right to defend my home against assailants
(as I certainly do), and I call the police to inform them that my house is
under attack, the arriving police have a right to kill those assailants if
necessary to protect my life (even though it's not the individual police
officer's home or family that are under attack.)
This mirrors the moral justification for members of the armed forces
killing attacking enemies.
(I don't believe any of this is "particularly American," by the way. It
seems to me a lot of brave Canadians hit the beaches in Normandy in June of
1944. Did they believe that -- otherwise -- Hitler would soon invade
Newfoundland? I highly doubt it. Also, many other nations impose the death
penalty with far more profligacy than the United States. Singapore, Iraq,
Iran, and China come quickly to mind.)
Now, I see two areas where the above rationale for the death penalty may
fall down: 1) the executioner is not acting in "self-defense"; he may in
fact be exercising a form of vengeance, no matter how sanctified by
statute. While I have a natural right to kill you WHILE you are attacking
my home or family, it does not necessarily follow that (having repelled
your attack and survived my encounter), I have a right to seek you out and
kill you "in cold blood" some months later, at my leisure.
This point is worth some further debate. I and my neighbors may indeed
have some right to sortie forth and "clean out" a nest of bandits if they
have demonstrated a pattern of aggression against my community. The problem
here is how to avoid the mere assertion that anyone with sufficient power
or stealth has "the right" to kill anyone he thinks "might eventually be a
danger to him."
2) The government just does such a damnably bad job of enforcing any
current death penalty justly or equitably. Its purported effect as a
warning is reduced almost to nil by the fact that modern execution is not
quick; neither is it public; nor is it certain. And statistically, your
chance of actually being executed is enormously higher (for similar crimes)
if you are poor, and/or black, Indian, or Hispanic.
It is this last reason -- as well as the undeniable fact that our justice
system is so imperfect as to demonstrably condemn at least several innocent
men to death each year -- which has led me to question and finally reject
(sufficient that I earnestly seek and propose alternatives, like lifetime
exile after tattooing) the death penalty, PERSONALLY.
Therefore, I am usually careful to note that the Libertarian Party holds
the death penalty to be proper IN PRINCIPLE, and that I agree in principle,
but that real-life experience IN PRACTICE is simply so inequitable that I
myself now reject the death penalty as currently imposed by the state.
I have written this many times; if I failed to express this clearly on
some occasion I apologize. You might want to review more of my columns,
available at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and
http://www.nguworld.com/vindex.
This is not to say that I reject the right of the individual to maim or
kill anyone who attacks his home, family or person, so long as the person
being attacked is not doing harm to anyone else such as to justify the
initiation of force against him. The individual does have the right to thus
use deadly force in self-defense, even if the assailant happens to be
wearing some kind of badge or uniform.
Please note this is NOT the same thing as saying it's OK to harm or
resist a duly sworn officer who politely knocks at your door and serves you
with an arrest or search warrant in the lawful conduct of his or her duty,
giving you a reasonable amount of time to read that warrant and then pull
on some clothes.
It does, however, justify shooting and killing every member of any "SWAT
team" that breaks down your door without warning ... just as honest
12-member American juries found Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris and all the
Waco survivors INNOCENT of any capital crime in the deaths of the federal
thugs who assaulted them.
No one who thus defends his home, person, or family should even be
charged with any crime. If so charged, their jurors should acquit without
hesitation. Judges who sign "no-knock warrants" should be indicted and put
on trial. If the excuse is that the evidence of the victimless crime (drug
dealing, prostitution, arms manufacturing) will otherwise be lost, this is
a sure sign that this activity is protected by the Second or Ninth
Amendment, and should never have been outlawed in the first place. Judges
-- even more than regular Joes -- are supposed to know that under the wise
precedent of Marbury vs. Madison there is no excuse to pretend that such
unconstitutional laws are vaild "until overturned" -- they have no standing
at any time.
Therefore your question, "How is that you can call yourself a libertarian
and yet allow the government the right to kill its own citizens," seems
somewhat inappropriate. Given that I expressly DIFFER from the LP national
platform in this regard, it might be more appropriate to ask, "How is that
you can call yourself a Libertarian and yet NOT allow the government the
right to kill its own citizens" ... except, of course, that the states and
their courts rarely seek out my permission before throwing the switch.
Men die. Men sometimes have a right to kill. There are higher values than
life. Given the choice between consigning my child to a life of slavery, or
giving up my own life, I devoutly hope I would always choose the latter.
And I know I would kill to avoid slavery for me or mine.
Wouldn't you?
Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com.
***
Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com
The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John
Hay, 1872
The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not
get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases
to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and
soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt
against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943
* * *
--- end forwarded text
-----------------
Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@philodox.com>
Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
