A Libertarian Speaks Out on the Death Penalty

---

This site has moved to robert.williamsonline.us.

---

I ran across this column by Matt Hayes at FoxNews.com. His column begins with the assertion that conservatives should oppose the death penalty because it is the epitome of big government. The following is my response to him:

---

Mr. Hayes,

I want to respond to your recent article about capital punishment on foxnews.com. I am posting a link to your article, and this letter, at my web site ( http://robert.freeshell.org ) and will also post any response I get from you.

You make two contentions - first that the death penalty is the ultimate in "big government", and secondly that we execute too many innocent people. While you blurred the two issues together, I think it is best to treat them as the separate issues they are.

You argument that execution is the ultimate in "big government" suffers from the same fallacy as the usual liberal argument that killing people as a punishment for killing people is hypocritical. You, like most who use this type of argument, either do not realize the implications of what you are saying, or are purposely omitting the logical conclusion of your argument.

They argument that it is hypocritical to kill murderers does not mention whether it is also hypocritical to imprison kidnappers or fine thieves. Your argument that execution is the epitome of big government does not explain why punishments such as imprisonment, beatings, servitude, or fines would be appropriate. Wouldn't they also be indicative of a big government?

I suspect you are an extreme libertarian (maybe anarchistic?), and if I am right then I also suspect you look upon all forms of punishment with similar disdain. Isn't that the logical (and purposely concealed) conclusion of your position? Why don't you state it? Why does the government (which is just the people in a society) have the right to punish a person in any way whatsoever?

You could just as easily restate some of your column as follows:

So if the government should not have the power to prevent you from adding a room to your landmark house, why should it have the power to *kidnap* your neighbor?

...a government of limited power, but one that can also *rob* Americans?

But popular will alone cannot justify *imprisonment (which is indistinguisable from kidnapping)*, because it could just as well mandate...

If we assert that "popular will alone" (should read: consent of the governed) is not enough to impose any given punishment, then it is not enough to impose any punishment whatsoever - unless you can explain to me at what point "popular will alone" does in fact have any power.

As far as the execution of innocent persons, I find it interesting that 2/3 of your column deals with that topic but it is entirely unrelated to your argument that capital punishment is inconsistent with limited government.

Naturally, I agree that we should reform our legal system to eliminate *any* punishment of innocent persons. Again, you limit your argument to capital punishment, but I do not understand why it would be more acceptable to let an innocent person die in prison or to steal 10, 20, or 30 years of their life from them. Imprisonment is as irreversible as execution - you cannot restore time to a person or compensate them for it.

But just to be perfectly clear, I support tough standards for capital punishment. The Old Testament law, which is the basis of much of our Judeo-Christian heritage and my own religious belief, required either a confession or TWO eyewitnesses to convict and condemn. I support comparably strict limitations on the circumstances under which a death penalty could be imposed - multiple eyewitnesses, confession, DNA evidence, videotape evidence, etc.

I support legal reforms and restrictions on the death penalty. But your argument that capital punishment is inconsistent with conservative thought is illogical unless you are willing to forsake all forms of imposed punishment.

Regards,
Robert Williams

Posted by Robert at June 06, 2002 03:25 PM