Between life (imprisonment) and death (penalty), is there room for banishment? by Paul Conroy
(libertarian)
Monday, June 30, 2008
With the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana, where Patrick Kennedy was convicted and sentenced to death for raping his 8 year old stepdaughter (even just typing those words sickens me), I began, again, my internal debate with the Death Penalty v. Life Imprisonment.
As a Libertarian, I feel that if someone's rights are forcefully taken without consent , just and equivalent compensation should be awarded to the victim. Some libertarians seem to think that any form of punishment beyond just compensation is retaliatory coercion and make no distinction between willful aggression and accidental aggression. I do make that distinction. Someone who exhibits willful aggression, shows a mindset that presents an ongoing threat to my rights and therefore imprisonment beyond just compensation can be considered defensive coercion until such a time that the mindset has been rehabilitated and the criminal trusted.
In cases of extreme and violent disregard for an individual's rights, such as premeditated murder, can that mindset and that person ever be trusted again? In our country, that answer is no and therefore we have two options: life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Once the death penalty is carried out it is irrevocable, and since humans are fallible, it is a penalty that makes me uncomfortable, not to mention that it is the State that usually carries it out. I'm not sure it's power I wish the State to exercise. The other option is life imprisonment, which is expensive. I've seen estimates that the cost of life without parole is about 3.01 million dollars including a 2% annual cost increase for 50 years, plus appeals. If as a libertarian you feel it is wrong to be forced to pay for public education, why should I be forced to pay for public incarceration? I haven't been murdered. If you don't think it's fair that you should have to pay for my child's education, why should I have to pay for your murderer's incarceration? You may argue that having your murderer behind bars could benefit me because I don't have to worry about being murdered by him, but I could also say that you could benefit by my child's education by not having to train him when you hire him to work for you.
So on the one hand, I am uncomfortable with the State exercising the death penalty and the risk of fallibility, on the other hand, I don't want to pay for someone being locked up for the rest of their life. I also don't think that letting a murderer go after paying equivalent compensation for someone's life (and how would that be determined and by whom) solves the issue of the ongoing threat that person poses. Even if you set compensation at $100 million dollars, Bill Gates could still murder thousands of people.
Being a member of a third party, I'm always looking for alternatives. On this subject, I feel that I found one that could satisfy both pro-death penalty and pro-life imprisonment arguments: banishment.
If a person exhibits such abhorrent behavior, such as murder, then maybe it is best to banish them from our society. With banishment, the State would not be exercising the power of the death penalty on an individual and if there was a miscarriage of justice, that person would still have their life. The banished would not be subject to life long incarceration and therefore we, as a society, would not be subjected to caring for this individual for the rest of their natural life.
You maybe asking where will these individuals be banished. I would be open to letting the person petition any and all countries for relocation. If no country could be found, we could put to use the uninhabited United States Minor Outlying Islands. Of course they should be supplied with some initial basic provisions and essential survival tools, beyond that, it's up to them. This approach would certainly be a lot less costly than the death penalty (estimated at $1.88 million1) or life imprisonment (as mentioned above, at $3.01 million1)
Finally, here is one more reason I'm supporting banishment. When Cain killed Abel, God banished Cain and sent him to wander the earth. If, as a punishment for the first murder, banishment was good enough for God, it's good enough for me.
Comment: I used this source because their methodology seemed more reasonable that the anti-death penalty sites I had visited. Case in point: deathpenaltyinfo.com sites the cost difference between a death penalty case and an aggravated murder case. This is not comparing apples to apples. In fact, in many states where the death penalty is an option, the jury has the option to render either life imprisonment or the death penalty, hence the cost of the trail would still be the same regardless of outcome. Also, anti-death penalty sites will exclude the appeal process for a life imprisonment conviction with their total cost. People who have been sentence to life can still appeal their sentence and have just as many appeals as those sentenced to death. The cost of those appeals may be less expensive, but should still be counted towards total cost of imprisonment. Finally, anti-death penalty site seem to post figures showing how much more the death penalty costs above life imprisonment and not how much life imprisonment cost and how they reach that figure.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Paul Conroy only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Paul Conroy is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Personally I favor the death penalty because in some cases I think it is a just and fitting punishment. However, I think there are bigger fish to fry than the death penalty issue, so I would not make a big case out of it.
As far as banishment goes, my guess is that other countries would want to ship their banishees to us and our government would be dumb enough to accept them. Also, if you put them on an island what would stop their friends from sailing out to rescue them?
I like where you are going with this, although, with global tracking and the like, this may be impractical. Similar to this, though, death penalties could be commuted to outlaw status. Turn them loose and let society deal with them without the risk of legal retribution.
Sure, it sounds harsh, but that way the state isn't doing the act itself. They merely adjudicate the crime, if there is one, and determine the degree of culpability. Bona fide accidents may require restitution, but the person will be legally protected. Violent offenders will be at the mercy of their fellows without any legal recourse. If forgiveness is the family's choice, so be it. If not, then things will take their course.
I'm sure an outraged family member with a 38 could do things more quickly and inexpensively. 25 cents vs. $3 million? That's an easy call. The state or the citizenry? Another easy choice.
Another solution lying somewhere between banishment and life imprisonment that still costs nothing to the state would be unregulated banishment to an island camp, where the convict would be required produce some value added commodity from a cheaper commodity in exchange for food, clothing and sheltering materials.
The convict would die a natural death if he did not produce.
It would cost the state nothing, rather it would make money for it, and still impose a punishment of hard labor.
The death penalty has one severe criticism that actually turned me away from capital punishment.
Killing the prisoner violates their rights of due process.
Now say what you want about the legal system but it's not perfect. Innocent people go to prison on occasion due to overzealous attornies, lazy police officers, incompetent judges and juries with grudges. Sacco and Vanzetti leap Immediatly to mind.
Whatever the case may be, there are cracks in the system people slip through.
There have been more than one murder case where the person was exhonorated after DNA evidence or some other new technology for forensics was developed to prove innocence.
Terminating their life before their time, takes years away from them proving their innocence, thus violating due process.
Banishment does seem like a good idea. The convict would be forced to relocate. I wouldn't say they would need to leave to leave the country but 500 miles away from the crime scene is a good buffer zone I would think.
Keep them on house arrest for 50 years. This will give them ample time to reflect upon their crime and develop better character, or try to prove their innocence.
Imagine, taking a gang banger out of south central L.A. and putting them in a farming community in Idaho.
This prevents them from maintaining criminal ties and puts them in an enviornment where they would have to learn how to work and behave like regular citizens, how's that for rehabilitation?
The idea of combining banishment with slavery seams even better. It will deter people from committing such offences it will also keep them away from the general society (for certain period). The profit from the lease of the convict can go to the offended family.
I like the idea of banishment instead of a death penalty But disagree with those advocating forced labor in addition to it in the comments. This makes no sense. In that case we are just back to the life imprisonment case with the imprisonment happening offshores.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
