Many libertarians (myself included) favour the death penalty for murder. However, there is one conundrum - what if the criminal is in debt to other people he has offended against and is in the process of paying off the money? Should he be executed after he's paid off is debts? What if it will take him ten years to pay them off?
Which is the worse crime: failing to pay your debts or killing someone?
Since killing someone is by far the worse crime the murderer should be executed without hesitation. Any life insurance, property, whatever he may leave behind should be liquidated and the proceeds distributed to his creditors. If there is anything left over the money should be given to his next of kin. If the creditors can't be satisfied by liquidating his assets then I suppose they could try to get him to pay the money back but it might be difficult.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
kingmonkey:If there is anything left over the money should be given to his next of kin.
"If there is anything left over the money should be given to his next of kin victims' next of kin."
I'd would have written it that way, but otherwise, you're right on all of it, given the premise of the death penalty, which I lean against. (Which should not be mistaken for ambivalence on the use of lethal force for immediate protection.) I oppose punishment per se in any form, and death can never serve as restitution. It's only remaining legitimate purpose would be protection if his very existence is deemed to be an ongoing threat.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
I believe Walter Block spoke on this once.
If you feel that the taking of a life, means that the criminal must surrender his life, then that should be at the mercy or judgment of the next of kin. They could decide to free the killer, negotiate a monetary settlement, order the death, or a combination thereof.
In my opinion, justice is not served if the court sets the penalty, rather than the victims.
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
liberty student:I believe Walter Block spoke on this once.
Here's the link to the article it seems you're referring to:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html
histhasthai: kingmonkey:If there is anything left over the money should be given to his next of kin. "If there is anything left over the money should be given to his next of kin victims' next of kin." I'd would have written it that way, but otherwise, you're right on all of it, given the premise of the death penalty, which I lean against. (Which should not be mistaken for ambivalence on the use of lethal force for immediate protection.) I oppose punishment per se in any form, and death can never serve as restitution. It's only remaining legitimate purpose would be protection if his very existence is deemed to be an ongoing threat.
Yes, you're right. Thank's for the correction.
Since the victims have the right to compensation in this case I would think that the murder victims family and the previous victims of theft should get together and work out a settlement.
Obviously a dead guy cannot pay. And a dead guy would have no incentive to work to pay off an earlier death and then be killed. Maybe the theft victims would give up the payment owed to them. Maybe the murder victims family would pay off the criminal's debt to the theft victims in exchange for their right to revenge. But no matter what they decide I think the correct position would be to let them all get together and decide.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
But why should the family of the murderer be held responsible for his debts? They didn't create them, he did. The creditors took a risk when they loaned him money but unfortunately they lost. But you can't hold the murderers family responsible for any debts he racked up while alive.
True story. A friend of mines dad died of cancer. His mother had died some years earlier. About a month after his dad died he gets a phone call from a credit card company looking for his dad. He told him he died a month ago. They asked if his estate was going to pay off the debt owed but my friend informed them that there was no estate. The man had no life insurance, had no house, had no savings -- nothing. Everything had been liquidated to pay for his cancer treatments and the last of the money was spent to bury him. They had the nerve to ask if my friend was going to pay off his dads debts! In fact, they went so far as to try and SUE him for the money! Nothing ever came of it though but I still find it funny that someone will try and hold family members responsible for the debts of someone else. If I didn't make the debt I'm sure as hell not going to pay it back.
I agree that the victim's family should be under no obligation to pay the murderer's debts, though in some counries they might feel bound to do so to preserve the family's honor.
There is a way, however, in which the murderer could be compelled to repay his debts, though it is pretty gruesome. If he is healthy then his organs (heart, liver, kidneys, etc) would have a high market value, and they could be extracted without his consent in payment of his debt.
I'm not sure that I like the idea. I've never liked the selling of organs - it's too similar to selling yourself into slavery. But it might be just deserts for a murderer.
I view it more or less as gambling. The creditors took a bet and lost. Oh well. That's life. Move on to the next sucker.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap