|| By FITSNEWS || This website has been accused of hero worshipping former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul – and we’ll be honest, there’s some truth to that allegation. We endorsed Paul’s 2012 bid for the “Republican” presidential nomination, and we’ve repeatedly praised him for his tireless advocacy on behalf of individual freedom and free markets.
Paul is the most consistent elected official we’ve ever encountered – which in this case is a good thing because his consistency has been almost universally applied to common sense reform proposals.
But no one – not even Ron Paul – gets it right 100 percent of the time. We were reminded of this when we published Paul’s latest column criticizing capital punishment.
“An increasing number of conservatives are realizing that the death penalty is inconsistent with both fiscal and social conservatism,” Paul wrote. “These conservatives are joining with libertarians and liberals in a growing anti-death penalty coalition.”
Usually this website is at the forefront of pushing precisely this sort of coalition – in which fiscally conservative, socially libertarian perspectives unite around a common sense concept.
A “death penalty ban” is not one of those concepts, though.
Paul is correct when he writes that capital punishment – as currently implemented in America – is a costly proposition. And he’s correct in worrying about potentially irrevocable impositions on liberty associated with the practice. But the death penalty is expensive precisely because our country has been afraid to implement it. And liberty is and will always be a search for balance – exercising our circumstantial discernment in an effort to determine the best method of protecting the most fundamental rights for the most people.
Confessed killers – or killers who are found to have committed premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt – have forfeited their liberty. And we believe in many instances – like this one – they have forfeited their life as well.
“Rather than dispensing true justice, our court system has instead chosen to give the savages who perpetrate these acts free food, clothing and shelter for life,” we wrote earlier this year. “While forcing taxpayers (including the families of their victims) to pay for it!”
“In what way, shape or form does such a policy advance the preservation of life and liberty?” we asked. “Isn’t it just incentivizing additional savagery?”
We believe so …
So yeah. We’re calling it: Ron Paul is wrong on this issue.
85 comments
You conveniently neglect to mention the death row exonerations, which have occurred all to frequently. And yes, one erroneous execution is too frequent. Not to mention the company we keep as a society that imposes death upon its citizenry. As Paul and other conservatives have come to realize, if you don’t trust government how can you give it the ultimate power? No, my friend, Paul’s right on this issue.
Just yesterday FITS was worried about cops abusing civil forfeiture laws and now he’s trusting government with executions despite our current system being proven flawed time and time again. I’m not certain he’s addressed that concern. His attention seems to be on the financial cost of the death penalty, and that solution is to simply remove the brakes. That is undoubtedly going to make the issue of executing innocent people far worse.
You are absolutely correct, one is too many. One is all it takes to bloody your hands.
The aggregate costs, include life and monetary. While I disagree with Ron Paul’s pro-life stance in whole, but in part, I absolutely agree with his position on death penalty. At one time – if I were hard right, I could consider both. I have argued both.
At 49 today – were I to get pregnant contrary to all preventative measure, would I have an abortion? I dunno – and I think that choice is mine for the making unless you want to pay more in taxes to make sure my offspring breeds.
I don’t think even festus might agree with my offspring breeding – ha!
Ha! You’re right. It would be interesting to see whether or not “festus fo da fetus” would say anything to encourage your further procreation.
Festus for Fetus 2016!
From what I can find, 154 exonerations since 1973. Who knows how many should be exonerated for crimes that weren’t death penalty cases.
Libertarians cannot be both liberal, and fiscally responsible. It’s a house divided.
Libertarians mostly pander to both sides of the most irresponsible, in decadent-greed, and populist splendor.
But when it comes time to govern you fall apart. And that is why so few are duped to vote for your candidates. It’s why you’ll always be relegated to a sideshow of wayward clowns and clueless freaks.
IP address located
ISP lookup table accessed
Tracing IP address
Currently in use by……..
Never Mind it’s the poster formerly know as GrandTango. Just ignore it and it’ll go away.
LOL
Who decides what qualifies as “beyond a reasonable doubt”? If there is a chance that even one innocent person could be wrongly sentenced to death, then it should not be allowed to continue.
Juries are not supposed to convict unless it is “beyond a reasonable doubt” that someone did something, so, anyone who has ever been found guilty.
Now, imagine how often juries are wrong.
Remember, juries must be “death penalty qualified.” That means that those unwilling to consider putting a defendant to death are excluded from service. This results in jurors who are deferential to authority deciding death penalty cases.
“This results in jurors who are deferential to authority deciding death penalty cases.”
Your conclusion is illogical.
It may not be logical intuitively, but psychological studies back up the premise.
For example people who say they would have no problem killing people who were found guilty of a crime, would have made great soldiers in the Nazi concentrations camps. They are capable displacing any guilt associated with killing a person, onto an authority figure, who made the decision. “I was following orders.”
Yep, knew someone who was called for jury duty, was immediately disqualified because under no circumstances would this person agree to issue the death penalty.
Like those 1.5 million ‘innocent’ children women kill a year?
morning, flip.
That’s why I want to raise taxes on everyone, to pay for all those kids! Thank goodness welfare doesn’t get taxed so my ass won’t have to fork over any dough! LMAO!!! LMAO!!!
How does that work for a gay marriage? Do we benefit from higher taxes?I am also an illegal considering a transgender operation. Higher gas taxes just might help me, right?
And in news of the exception that proves the rule, Will Folks published an article today that decries Ron Paul’s rather idiotic Death Penalty post from earlier in the week…
It isn’t very popular on this site – lack of death penalty. Let’s burn them all in hell without a fair trial, quickest way to save money.
Maybe if Ron Paul says speaks out, others will agree, or at least research.
“Let’s burn them all in hell without a fair trial..”
Receiving a guilty verdict in a death penalty case does not mean the defendant did not get a fair trial.
‘I’ve heard that side of the argument and I do respect/appreciate your views. However, if I were to err, I prefer it on the side of life. ‘ (SYNTwist)
SYNTwist is pro abortion-YET is against the Death Penalty.She is for a woman being allowed to LEGALLY kill her own innocent child-YET seeks Grace for the heinous murders.
Go figure.
The argument is to shorten the time it takes to convict someone, do away with appeals which make it is expensive. If we do that, they will not get a fair trial IMO.
Faster, Cheaper, Better: Pick two
Death row inmates in the U.S. typically spend over a decade awaiting execution. Some prisoners have been on death row for well over 20 years.
I disagree with the death penalty ( I personally could not sit on a jury in judgement and sentence a person to death) HOWEVER I do agree with you that 99.9% of em got a fair trial.
Ron Paul Is Wrong On
Capital PunishmentSo Many ThingsThere, fixed it for you…
Colonel, I respect you, but I believe you are wrong in this case.
There, fixed it for you…
The Amnesty Project aside, the death penalty is an effective deterrent and would be far more effective if justice was swifter.
I’ve heard that side of the argument and I do respect/appreciate your views. However, if I were to err, I prefer it on the side of life. I personally think that rehabilitation/mental health has more potential than just randomly killing someone – even when a jury agrees. DNA has changed much, but it still doesn’t make killing right. That ole eye for an eye – well, it need reforming right along with ethics. Two peas in a pod.
‘I’ve heard that side of the argument and I do respect/appreciate your views. However, if I were to err, I prefer it on the side of life.’
Except when it is an unborn child.
I’ve never aborted a child. So my views are fairly consistent. I do favor some choice in the case of abortion, as I have repeatedly stated. One of the reasons? I had a child in my 40’s, as with any geriatric mother, or at least that is how we are treated, test after test to determine if the baby has any defects. I finally stopped the testing. In spite of the fact one of my doctors thought I had bladder cancer, which turned out to be false. I also had pre-eclampsia, which has potential to kill the mother and the baby. They couldn’t determine if it was due to kidney function or if I had preeclampsia. AFTER multiple trips to the ER and delivery, it was determined I had preeclampsia.
I now have a young child to take care of and I have made every effort to ensure I do not get pregnant again – too many risks, both birth defects and health reasons. My husband had a vasectomy and I am very cautious. However, I if were to somehow get pregnant, I’m not sure I wouldn’t have an abortion. I think the likelihood of that happening is slim to none, and there is also the possibility that once I got pregnant I wouldn’t be able to go through with an abortion, but given the circumstances – I prefer that option.
Reasons given for having abortions in the United Statesby Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 26 August 2012
Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding “hard case” abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in “hard cases” are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 1%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons.
Sorry about your situation.Almost 99% of abortions are “elective” and have nothing to do with the health of the mother or child.
Just believe it to be hypocritical of you to advocate for saving those on death row and sparing their lives yet being pro abortion.
Just an opinion.
I don’t approve of abortion as a means of birth control, but in the case of the personhood bill as it was originally drafted, it would be nearly impossible to get an abortion for any reason. As I have said over and over, it is a doctors nightmare and a lawyers dream. That is what I disagree with. Assuming your data is accurate, which is questionable, that 1% would have a very difficult time making decisions with their doctor. That personhood bill as originally drafted values the life of the unborn, not equally, but more than the mother’s life, IMO, due to the process the doctors would have been required to go through to perform an abortion.
When the bill was more reasonable and took into account cases of rape, incest etc. Sen. Bright filibustered his own bill because it didn’t go far enough? If he was truly interested in protecting the life of the unborn v. playing politics, he would not have killed his own bill. Assuming your data is accurate, he could have prevented roughly 99% of the abortions here, but because he couldn’t get everything he wanted, he killed the bill.
Let’s kill them faster than evidence can prove they are innocent? What happened to innocent til proven guilty? As someone pointed out earlier, maybe Victorious Secret – I am a bit naive. Or possibly not as calloused?
Deterrent? For the sake of debate – let’s talk about cooking. I get burned on the stove. Now sometimes that burn could be severe enough to send me to the hospital. I am cutting vegetable and put a knife through my finger, that requires stitches on both sides and of course a doctor visit. My question:
Should the doctor detain me if I don’t have health insurance? Should I go to jail because I can’t pay? What if my blood shows up in some random database that is somehow linked to a murder. Should I receive the death penalty because I am an unfit cook?
Is it possible that by my own accidents, I learned a lesson. Though I admit in the lesson above, not productive, but I believe that rehabilitation is far more effective, particularly cognitive behavior. Of course, we could just kill them….
Your example is a non-sequitur. Injuring yourself has nothing to do with intentionally injuring another. Here are some examples of when the death penalty should be applied:
James Holmes shot up a movie theater in Denver. There is no doubt he did it, there is no doubt he planned it with “malice a fore thought”. When he is convicted, he should be given one, exactly one judicial review and then executed, preferably publicly.
Joseph Albert Oberhansley, a cannibal, convicted of an earlier murder (to a lesser manslaughter charge) killed and ate his girlfriend while on parole (the remains of her body were found in the bathtub) He’s so guilty it isn’t funny – this time around he should be put to death, no ifs, ands or buts.
PeeWee Gaskins killed somewhere between 10 and 100 people and was serving a commuted life sentence when he killed another prisoner for which he was finally sentenced to death and executed. He’s the only person to ever kill another prisoner while on death row. He’ll damn sure never kill anyone else.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston marathon bomber.
I might be willing to give him a pass. He may have been duped by his brother but other three I mentioned are clearly all guilty as hell. by that I do not mean that he is not guilty I just don’t know that he is guilty of capital murder. as the facts come out I may change my opinion.
Even after fact that two had been killed, one a small boy, from a pressure cooker bomb he placed and a policemen killed several days later, he was still writing his Jihadists garbage on the inside of a boat that he was hiding in. He had no regrets.
How do you prove that James shot up a movie theater? there wouldn’t be a need for a second judicial review had he been found guilty during the first.
Again, in the second case – your words would imply that the judicial system doesn’t work and he should be put to death without a fair trial. He seems to have cleared that one due to some loop hole in the system?
PeeWee Gaskins is more of an exception to the rule, but again – he killed a prisoner that most think likely should have been dead in the first place, or was he placed in the wrong prison cell and as a result put an innocent to death? I love how cops/lawyers/prosecutors never take responsibility. Maybe in that case isolation might have worked? Might have saved $ and lives. Maybe just having someone to talk to would have helped? Probably not, but we will never know, because we never offer valid treatment to those in prison. They get more abuse, more hate, lousy care, abuse and we expect them to walk out great citizens?
Your religious right is the most dogmatic in this case, IMPO. They claim forgiveness, love, compassion, but all one has to do is see a case that requires it to know where they stand. Unless, of course, you are a paying member of their congregation – 10% minimum contribution, and that is from gross earnings, not after taxes. Some of the smaller churches/charities who have little voice are more inclined to forgive, to help and I have witnessed them do great deeds, but they don’t advocate a death sentence.
I don’t see any problem with Capital Punishment, It should be efficient and quick in all situations where a jury has rendered a verdict that call for to be carried out. No endless string of appeals and delays should be allowed. I place my faith in the jury, if they heard the evidence, debated the alternatives, and considered alternatives, then I am fine with it. I have the utmost confidence in the members of the jury for a just verdict.
Does your faith in our jury system include judgments in personal injury cases, where they have heard the evidence and debated alternatives?
At the present, it is all we have for both situations. Both can be flawed at times, but better a flawed jury than an ambitious bureaucrat.
Have you seen all of the people exonerated by DNA evidence after being convicted by a jury? If so, you are as big an idiot as the dude who wrote this article.
I agree with you about DNA evidence, I just wouldn’t call erneba an idiot because he has a different opinion.
But who will kill the annoying blacks if the death penalty is done away with?
Cops, of course.
Fantastic!
Or annoying white trailer trash.
You should be worried then.
fc you are the one who should be worried. I am no longer white trailer trashed, got a promotion in early 20’s and exceeded expectation in later 20’s and exceeded even yours in my 30’s. Get a life. Try again. I’m that 1% you effing hate. Of course, most have moved that 1%, they hate, so low, that most can fit into that category.
My guess? You are that white trailer trash I am defending – asshat!
Nikki? Nikki! Please triple SYNTwist’s taxes! I’m such a conservative! LMAO!!! LMAO!!!
Exactly what I thought – you are such a conservative! If you believe above, then I also have some lake front property for sale. ha!
so, in addition to being an asshole, you are a liar. you said you were leaving.
If flip left FITS he wouldn’t be able to stalk Buzz and talk about having sex with dogs. Poor little troll would explode.
I’m always amused when a poster makes a really dramatic farewell address only to turn back up within days.
It wasn’t even 24 hours. I guess he doesn’t have a job or a hobby to keep him busy. Idle hands are the devil’s playground, and flip’s must be Satan’s favorite.
Fits News hypocritically says, and I quote: “But no one – not even Ron Paul – gets it right 100 percent of the time.
Precisely. I was in Illinois when Governor Ryan had to adjust 11 death penalty sentences because of the new DNA technology.
I was in Naperville when 7 police officers lied under oath to give Rolando Cruz the death penalty.
No one gets it right 100% of the time, but the government doesn’t get it right even half the time.
The Jobs Site on the net @mk9
.
PlutoNetMoneyHosts/skills/help…
Good post, Fits!!!! While I generally disagree with Ron Paul on this one topic, he is still head and shoulders above just about any other Presidential wannabe with his ideas on liberty and government’s place in our society.
I think that headline meant to read: Ron Paul Is Right On Capital Punishment.
So if we keep the death penalty, but provide that if it is proven an innocent person was killed, the Prosecutor, the Judge, and the Jury must be charged with at least negligent homicide and possibly murder, how many death penalty cases would be prosecuted?
After all , someone should suffer for killing an innocent man or woman.
Yeah, that old eye for an eye, really needs to be perpetuated. No excuses. Let’s just kill everyone we thing has, could, or can commit a murder, without due process. All sarcasm intended.
No one wants to touch this topic – I don’t blame you based on the polling vote. But the truth sometimes hurts. In this case, I have researched Ron Paul’s fact and arrive at same conclusion. Don’t trust him – I certainly don’t -but search with an open mind and I think you will find the truth is very close.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
John Wayne Gacy
Jeffrey Dahmer
Pee Wee Gaskins
Ted Bundy
Charles Manson
Susan Smith
The only problem with the death penalty is that the last two on the list will never get it and probably not the first. Dahmer was killed by another prisoner.
Susan Smith isn’t dangerous to the community at large. She was only a danger to her children. She’s been locked up for over 20 years now. She should be released under an agreement that she has no more children.
The less than 1% of the total death row population, the worst of the worst. Is maintaining an expensive, error prone system really worth it for dealing a minuscule minority of people?
You can probably add Tsarnaev to the list of people that will never be executed. He’ll be traded to Russia, ISIS, etc for something at some point.
No! Susan Smith murdered 2 beautiful children. Why do you think she is only a danger to people who happen to be her children? She killed them in hopes of winning the affections of a rich boyfriend. She would kill again if someone were in the way of her getting a rich boyfriend.
If that were the case she would have killed her husband as well and we know that she did not. He filed for divorce from her after she was in prison.
My point being she’s not a dangerous serial killer, she likely had some form of mental illness and has already served 20 years. Keeping her locked up is serving no purpose. Make her get sterilized as a condition of release and let her go.
Bunch of ignorant fucks on here, starting at the top.
Not counting the innocent who have been executed…..
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row
Taking lives is not a core function of government .
Functionally, one could conclude that is exactly the core function of government.
I voted for Ron and will vote for Rand. However, I disagree with Ron on this issue because it is a jury that decides whether or not the death sentence is appropriate. In most criminal cases, the jury chooses guilty or not guilty, and then the judge sentences. However at least in the federal system, a panel of the people -not the government- decides whether or not a death sentence is on the table.
Ron is arguing about the fact that the death penalty is even an option for the jury.
So you want to make the death penalty cheaper and faster to implement, without executing any innocent people? Knowing how many innocent people have already been executed with our current decades-long appeals process?
I don’t think that’s possible, to make it faster, cheaper, and much more accurate. Somehow on this issue alone, Fits has a high confidence in government efficiency and integrity that is not deserved.
Faster, Cheaper, Better – pick two.
Why should a convicted killer be rewarded with a free place to live, food to eat, medical, dental, clothes, etc. etc. as his victims were robbed of their innocent lives so when found guilty given the death penalty then so be it not sitting in prison forever waiting for this to happen as it should be done quickly as taxpayers should not be having to support those who do wrong……done in 30 days or less!!!
Why should an innocent man convicted wrongfully be forced to pay the ultimate price just so you don’t have to pay for the guilty man’s jail cell and rations?
Something tells me that a bloodthirsty killer maniac is not thinking “Hmm, if I kill this innocent person I’ll get free food, clothing and shelter for life!”
The point Paul is making is that if you give the government the power to take life, it will abuse that power. As a variation on Blackstone’s Formulation, better that a killer should remain in jail for life than for the government to murder even a single innocent individual it wrongfully convicted.
No, it is not better that the government should have the power to take the life of a killer just to free the taxpayers the meager burden of paying for a convicted killer’s jail cell and rations, because that power will be abused. And it has, far too many times.
Lets answer the more complicated question. If we have the death penalty, what should happen when an innocent person is killed?
28-30 years on death row before being exonerated:
“I want to say to the victims, ‘I would continue to pray for you, just as I have for 30 years, a miscarriage of justice just not for me, but for the victims,'” Hinton told reporters before turning his attention to the prosecution’s faulty casework.
“Everyone who played a part in sending me to death row,” he added, “you will answer to God.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-ray-hinton-exonerated-alabama-death-row-inmate-freed-prison-n335251
“isn’t is just incentivizing additional savagery?” this is not an argument. it’s a question, albeit a nonsensical one (life in prison is an incentive?). at the very least, Ron Paul has a staff of people capable of assembling semi-rational arguments to support the positions he pretends to endorse on behalf of his paymasters.
On SynTwist:
“There she goes again, MMMMM
Catch her if you can, MMMMM …”
She would, indeed, be quite the catch. IF she were single.
Yep. Mister Paul iz sho’ wrong on dis! Altho I understands an’ am sumwhat sympathetic to his concerns, sUmtimes death iz th’ onlie fittin’ an’ proper punishmint…
The “state” hasn’t proven it’s mature enough to kill us yet.