Among the myriad things that really chap my ass, I think that the death penalty is one of the most heinous. To be fair, Cory Maye’s case is an extreme example, but nonetheless it is rife with injustice. There are probably a hundred reasons to oppose the death penalty – the natural rights argument is pretty good, it goes to show the legitimate purposes and actions of a government, which are unfortunately rather opposed to its inability to do anything other than, as Matt puts it, “steal and murder.” But that one has been done to death in libertarian circles – it’s logically derived from the same argument that I used in support of gay marriage.

Well, I’m going to take another stab (no pun intended) at it –

The arguments for capital punishment are many: it is retributive(certainly); the guilty men have forfeit their rights (specious); it prevents recidivism (without a doubt); it is a deterrent (dubious); and so on. On the contrary, aside from the natural rights argument, I submit that we musn’t allow for a government (or agent thereof) to authorize or to act in such a manner that would purposely cause another man’s death, except for imminent threats or retaliation. Well, that’s just your “theory,” they’ll scream: What about recidivism? Those who have killed are more likely to kill again and the government can’t allow such a man to walk free because he “might” kill again, and because the state’s duty is to protect its constituents.

Now that much I can grant: The state’s duty is to protect its constituents. But we cannot allow for it to take men’s lives citing a possible eventuality as justification. Why not? You might ask. If we don’t – this man might kill again, and then the blood will be on the state’s hands!… or so the argument goes. This argument supposes that if the government does not kill a killer, said government is culpable for any subsequent murders perpetrated by said killer. This is an argument of convenience, that the death penalty supporters will hide behind when it suits their needs, and ignore when it does not. Notice that the same argument is not used with regard to other crimes: Logically, the government is therefore liable for any crimes commit by any criminal that it fails to execute, or am I missing something?

It is often recited that “our legal system is designed to allow the occasional guilty man to walk free, which is preferable to ever condemning an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.

But the reasoning ultimately breaks down thusly: the state doesn’t have hands and the state does not act, except by proxy through its agents. And what a shell game it is when it comes to accepting responsiblity and passing blame. For instance, it wasn’t the Government’s fault that FEMA shit the bed, with regard to Katrina relief, it was Michael Brown’s fault for being inept, or it was Bush’s fault for nominating him, &c. Try to derive the appropriate responsibility of executing the incorrect person for a crime: The “State” is not responsible for the tragedy – it’s an honest mistake, or it’s the fault of the jurors for being biased, or the attorney for being unqualified, or of an overzealous prosecutor, or of a cop who planted evidence, or of a witness who later recanted, &c &c ad nauseaum. We see that only individuals may be held accountable by proxy for the actions of the state, and even still they are rarely prosecuted criminally for their actions and/or negligence.

But nothing happens to the institution that fosters the problem of separating action from responsibility.

So long as there persists room for error in our legal system, in the event of mistake, the state cannot compensate the victim of its misdeed. The State, per se, cannot be punished or otherwise held responsible for its actions. Accordingly, the state, through inaction, can be neither responsible nor negligent for the actions of its constituents. But the end result would not be “inaction.” People act as though the you have the choice to execute the Son-of-Sam, Jr., or the only alternative is to set him free in a schoolyard full of helpless children, or something like that.

Recall that the Death Penalty is only as good as the system in which it is implemented. Our justice system is founded on certainty – in most cases excrutiatingly specific degrees of certainty – it is not founded on retribution, revenge, or vigilanteism. This is why we do not have debtors prisons. This is why we do not intentionally submit rapists to rape, or thieves to indenture. The death penalty is never an alternative to “probation,” or “5 years in Folsom,” the death penalty is ONLY ON THE TABLE WHEN THE ACCUSED STANDS CONVICTED OF A CRIME FOR WHICH THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS LIFE IN PRISON.

Of all the dubious, specious, and certain effects of the death penalty – there is one thing which it accomplishes that is matter-of-fact: It prevents the executed man from ever realizing the possibility of being exonerated as new evidence and new methods of analyzing existing evidence come to fruition, either by technicality (an issue of law) or by actuality (an issue of fact).

Precisely because there is room for error, and because nobody can be held accountable for such an error, I suggest we join the rest of the civilzed, western world in condemning this barbaric practice. Currently, we’re holding court with The Palestinian Authority, North Korea, Sierra Leone, and the DPR Congo, to name a few. Hardly the poster-children of democracy and justice, eh?

The french had a saying: “La Roi est mort – Vive la Roi!” which translates pretty much to “The King is dead – Long live the King.” This reverence is to the position of authority conferred upon the king, and not to the man who occupied that post a particular juncture. The underlying idea is that no matter what becomes the king, you can’t really stunt leviathan’s growth. Or, as was put so eloquently on The Simpsons:

Carl: Hey, it’s Duffman!
Lenny: Newsweek said you died of liver failure.
Duffman: Duffman can never die, only the actors who play him. Ooh yea

At least the French could hold the King personally responsible for the State’s misdeeds.

You can read more about Maye’s particular plight via the Agitator, here, and here.