Conservatives Should Be Loudly Against Trump’s Drug Dealer Death Penalty Plan

 

At the Weekly Standard Haley Byrd is reporting:

Republicans in Congress appeared open to President Donald Trump’s proposal to use the death penalty to crack down on drug dealers on Thursday night before the expected release of the president’s long-awaited opioid plan.

Politico reported on Thursday that Trump’s plan to respond to the opioid crisis would involve stricter punishments for convicted drug dealers, including the death penalty for some. Federal law currently authorizes prosecutors to seek the death penalty as an option in drug-related murders, but CBS reported the administration is hoping to expand capital punishment for drug crimes by encouraging prosecutors to utilize it in cases of trafficking leading to fatal opioid overdoses.

As a pro-life, small government conservative, I find this plan not only chilling, disturbing, and wrong, but also completely antithetical to everything I believe.

I’m a conservative because I believe that the state should not be given an overwhelming amount of power over its citizenry, and the ability for the state to legally kill its citizens is perhaps the most disturbing expression of that power in our country. Men are not God, and the death penalty allows us to pretend as though we are. Stories of men being exonerated off of death row are common, and while stories of individuals being released after 20-year sentences are too, they can at least leave prison with the rest of their lives.

I’m a conservative because I believe in personal responsibility. While there are contributing factors when it comes to drug abuse; ultimately, when an individual chooses to get high off of an illegal substance a drug dealer is selling, they are knowingly doing so despite the very real risk of death. Dealers are bad people and should be punished, but they aren’t holding anyone down against their will, either. The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have a problem.

I’m a conservative because I’m pro-life. Doling out death, sometimes to innocents, is in total contrast to my belief that life should be protected and respected – inside and outside the womb. Stories of botched executions sealed (read this from the Atlantic) are chilling, but especially in light of the fact that these barbaric punishments have been given to total innocents over the course of American history.

Ninety-five percent of all known executions were carried out in only six countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Pakistan, and Iraq. While trying to ban late-term abortions, conservatives take note to showcase the barbarity of abortion by highlighting the only places where abortion on demand is permitted until the moment of birth: Canada, China, Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. We should not be proud to be among either of these two groups of countries, but those that give out the death penalty in largest numbers are particularly heinous.

Writing for the Standard, Byrd explains,

Trump cheerleader Chris Collins was quick to offer his support for the proposal. “Absolutely,” said Collins. “I think we need to have real consequences.” And California Republican Darrell Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, told me that using capital punishment for drug-related crimes could be a “useful tool” for law enforcement in fighting organized crime.

Federal drug trafficking penalties vary according to the crime. Currently, possession with the intent to distribute between 40 grams and 399 grams of the opioid fentanyl—in the case of death or serious injury—can be punishable by 20 years to life in prison and a fine ranging anywhere from $2 million to $5 million on the first offense, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency. Penalties get tougher on second offense.

We already have real consequences, and the real world already holds the possibility of dealers being killed over the course of their chosen profession every day; that isn’t a deterrent for irrational actors like drug kingpins. This proposal would do nothing to stop more drug deaths and instead expand the power of the state in a disturbing and unprecedented way. Even if this proposal, like many others out of Trump’s mouth, is mere bluster, the fact that Republicans and conservatives are advocating for it delegitimizes everything we claim to believe, and they should be made to answer for it.

Published in Domestic Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 66 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The problem is the fiscal efficacy of outlawing hard drugs as the cartel’s power compounds by the minute. It’s just a graft system for cops. The government should just sell hard drugs at cost, and be very clear to them that your fellow citizens are helping you die sooner than what anyone would like given better options.

    • #1
  2. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    I too am prolife.

    Our executing drug dealers and for that matter, school shooters, promptly and publicly, would go a long way to solving the conundrums of the opioid crisis (which has naught to do with medical practice and all to do with crime) and the mass shooting problem.

    So BECAUSE. I am prolife, I call for the death penalty for such criminals.  Their deaths should be prompt, public and inevitable.

    While I am at it, I would love to have a flying pony.

    • #2
  3. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Here’s my reading, perhaps unfair:  you are deeply opposed to the death penalty and deeply opposed to Donald Trump and harbor an almost never concealed distaste for conservatives who support Trump.

    This piece is really a mash-up of all three.  Seems a bit calculated and opportunistic.  Why not make the case against the death penalty more directly?

    That said, there are good arguments here (not conclusive for me for all sentences of death however).

    Can’t Trump be wrong and his supporters be wrong on an issue without the violation of all we hold dear and sacred?

    • #3
  4. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Quake Voter (View Comment):
    Here’s my reading, perhaps unfair: you are deeply opposed to the death penalty and deeply opposed to Donald Trump and harbor an almost never concealed distaste for conservatives who support Trump.

     

    You didn’t even read the post, did you?

    • #4
  5. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Additionally, Conservatives should not be so cavalier about the sacrament of marriage.

    • #5
  6. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    Don’t worry, the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom has struck down the death penalty for offenses other than murder.  

    • #6
  7. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Bethany Mandel:Ninety-five percent of all known executions were carried out in only six countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Pakistan, and Iraq. While trying to ban late-term abortions, conservatives take note to showcase the barbarity of abortion by highlighting the only places where abortion on demand is permitted until the moment of birth: Canada, China, Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. We should not be proud to be among either of these two groups of countries, but those that give out the death penalty in largest numbers are particularly heinous.

     

    I despise this argument. The US is also the only developed nation which does not offer socialized health care. We’re also the nation that doesn’t think the Palestinians are helpless victims resisting theocratic oppression. We’re also the only nation in which the right to bear arms is considered sacrosanct. What other countries do is irrelevant to whether a policy is right or wrong.

    (Note: I agree with you, Bethany, on the policy, but a bad argument is still a bad argument.)

    • #7
  8. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):
    Here’s my reading, perhaps unfair: you are deeply opposed to the death penalty and deeply opposed to Donald Trump and harbor an almost never concealed distaste for conservatives who support Trump.

    You didn’t even read the post, did you?

    From the start where the violations concern what “I believe” to the conclusion where the violations are of “everything we claim to believe.”

    That jump from I to We is summary silliness, which is really leftist boilerplate (and I agree in large part with the argument).

    Maybe I am just getting very weary of the righteous anathemas from the Kristol/McMullin crowd.

    • #8
  9. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Trump lacks civic knowledge and experience. When he says stuff like this, you never know if it’s out of ignorance or impulsiveness , or it’s a tactic.

     

    • #9
  10. Mate De Inactive
    Mate De
    @MateDe

    Bob W (View Comment):
    Don’t worry, the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom has struck down the death penalty for offenses other than murder.

    This is why I think the cause to protect the unborn should be changed to Anti-abortion or something. I am Pro-life but also Pro-death penalty. However, the death penalty should only be used, in my opinion, for murderers. Animals like the guys who killed Dr Petit’s family in Connecticut, don’t deserve to live and the State sneakily did away with the death penalty right after these horrific murders and commuted these guys sentences to life imprisonment. The left always seems to bend over backwards to protect the evil but not the innocent, funny how that is.

    Also I doubt any drug dealer would ever be put to death or that it would be allowed to pass. This opioid problem is a big deal but killing drug dealers would probably have really bad unintended consequences.

    • #10
  11. Joe P Member
    Joe P
    @JoeP

    Quake Voter (View Comment):
    Here’s my reading, perhaps unfair: you are deeply opposed to the death penalty and deeply opposed to Donald Trump and harbor an almost never concealed distaste for conservatives who support Trump.

    This piece is really a mash-up of all three. Seems a bit calculated and opportunistic. Why not make the case against the death penalty more directly?

    That said, there are good arguments here (not conclusive for me for all sentences of death however).

    Can’t Trump be wrong and his supporters be wrong on an issue without the violation of all we hold dear and sacred?

    Quake Voter, I like you, but I think if there is such a thing as Trump Derangement-Derangement Syndrome, you’ve come down with it.

    The reason why the piece appears “calculated and opportunistic”, as well as why the tariff debate seems coordinated, is because these things are news. The key feature of news is that it discusses new things. The new things are what the President is doing, so that’s why we’re not having discussions about the death penalty in abstract or pre-existing tariff regime being bad. Those things are not new; they’re old news.

    Even if you want to take the position that Bethany is crazy with TDS (which, I really have no idea about because honestly I haven’t read much of her writing yet), she’s not talking about these things because she caught the TDS and the other TDS zombies are all planning to encircle Trump and the Trump supporters and beat them to death with virtue signalling. She’s talking about it because it’s news, and she’s on a website where people discuss the news. If you see zombies shambling your way merely because something the President does is news, you might have TDDS.

    • #11
  12. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    What do you make of the Philippines?  Can a problem be bad enough to morally justify invoking the judge dredd option, as Duterte appears to have done?  (according to a resident I have come across it has actually been remarkably successful at inspiring people to get clean and finding legitimate work)

    At some point you have to grapple with bare metal utilitarianism /consequentialism.

    • #12
  13. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Joe P (View Comment):
    TDS zombies are all planning to encircle Trump and the Trump supporters and beat them to death with virtue signalling.

    This is actually a pretty good satirization.  Kind of like the Terry Pratchett Character “Smite the nonbeliever with informative pamphlets.”

    • #13
  14. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Bethany Mandel: the fact that Republicans and conservatives are advocating for it delegitimizes everything we claim to believe

    No, not really. “Republicans” and “conservatives” are not a monolithic hive mind, and can have varying nuanced views on several different issues. To suggest that error on one issue means that you’re wrong about all issues exposes really bad critical thinking skills.

    • #14
  15. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    I would also oppose expanding the death penalty in these cases.  As Bethany notes, the government’s power to legally kill someone is a power that must be kept closely in check.

    The death penalty also has a warping effect on the criminal justice system.  Whenever death is on the table as a possible sentence, the state’s bargaining power in the plea negotiations is enhanced monumentally – not based on the evidence, but on the severity of the sentence.  In short, a defendant may be induced to enter a plea to something they didn’t do (or didn’t exactly do) to save their life.

    In cases of aggravated murder, that’s a trade-off I can live with.  Aggravated murders are relatively rare charges.  Drug trafficking is much more common, and the facts of those cases are messier, with evidence much more likely to come in the form of testimony from shady characters.  I realize this proposal is not for everyday drug trafficking, but it’s still best not to open this door.

    • #15
  16. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Joe P (View Comment):
    Even if you want to take the position that Bethany is crazy with TDS (which, I really have no idea about because honestly I haven’t read much of her writing yet), she’s not talking about these things because she caught the TDS and the other TDS zombies are all planning to encircle Trump and the Trump supporters and beat them to death with virtue signalling. She’s talking about it because it’s news, and she’s on a website where people discuss the news. If you see zombies shambling your way merely because something the President does is news, you might have TDDS.

    But I do not like the “If you call yourself a conservative, you MUST be against/for this thing!” construction. It’s the sort of construction you use when you want to browbeat your readers. It is not persuasive.

    As to the subject, show me some documentation of the plan under consideration. Then I can evaluate it. I can’t evaluate it based on a random sentence spoken by the President. Or worse, news reports about a random sentence spoken by the President.

    • #16
  17. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    But I do not like the “If you call yourself a conservative, you MUST be against/for this thing!” construction. It’s the sort of construction you use when you want to browbeat your readers. It is not persuasive.

    That’s correct, but this standard must be applied to both sides. This post is a pittance compared to the amount of “browbeating” Trump skeptics receive on a daily basis.

    • #17
  18. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):
    But I do not like the “If you call yourself a conservative, you MUST be against/for this thing!” construction. It’s the sort of construction you use when you want to browbeat your readers. It is not persuasive.

    It is the “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy.

    Looking at the Death Penalty, I know several people who call themselves conservative (and I think are conservative) who support the death penalty. I know several people who call themselves conservative ( and I think are conservative) who oppose the death penalty.

    Looking at expanding the death penalty to drug dealers, i don’t know. I would have to see an actual bill. Any old dealer, probably a bad idea. A narrow section of dealers, maybe ok. Lets see the details before deciding the policy is defacto bad.

    • #18
  19. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    But I do not like the “If you call yourself a conservative, you MUST be against/for this thing!” construction. It’s the sort of construction you use when you want to browbeat your readers. It is not persuasive.

    That’s correct, but this standard must be applied to both sides. This post is a pittance compared to the amount of “browbeating” Trump skeptics receive on a daily basis.

    Mostly I get it from leftists and other non-conservatives telling me how to be a true conservative. (Just like atheists and other non-Christians constantly tell me all about what Christians believe or should believe.) Of course, certain factions of conservatism like to use it against each other, too. I find it just makes me not want to be associated with conservatism anymore.

    • #19
  20. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Jager (View Comment):
    Looking at the Death Penalty, I know several people who call themselves conservative (and I think are conservative) who support the death penalty. I know several people who call themselves conservative ( and I think are conservative) who oppose the death penalty.

    I’m kinda-sorta against the death penalty for religious reasons. I hope I never have to put that view to the test.

    Looking at expanding the death penalty to drug dealers, i don’t know. I would have to see an actual bill. Any old dealer, probably a bad idea. A narrow section of dealers, maybe ok. Lets see the details before deciding the policy is defacto bad.

    Yep. If we’ve learned anything (if we let ourselves learn) about this administration, it’s that there’s often a big difference between the tossed-off sound bite and the actual wording of a plan. No need for pre-hysteria. Show me the bill. I’ll evaluate it then.

    • #20
  21. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Bethany Mandel: Men are not God, and the death penalty allows us to pretend as though we are.

    ——————————–

    “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”
    Genesis 9:6

    “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.”
    Exodus 21:12

    “Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death.”
    Leviticus 24:17

    “…then you shall select for yourselves cities to be your cities of refuge, that the manslayer who has killed any person unintentionally may flee there. 12The cities shall be to you as a refuge from the avenger, so that the manslayerwill not die until he stands before the congregation for trial.” [God likes due process. Yay!]
    Numbers 35:11-12

    — God

    This is not a refutation of your overall point. Just the claim that capital punishment is not godly.

    BTW, are you aware that it’s nigh impossible to rent refrigerated trucks in Cleveland, Ohio, because they’re mostly in use as temporary morgues holding the bodies of the opioid dead while officials try to clear out the real morgues? Sorry, but not advocating for severe punishment for pushers makes you seem like one of the protected class. It’s not in your back yard, so, meh — just encourage personal responsibility.

    China once had an opioid crisis that capital punishment solved. PDT isn’t proposing anything near that extreme.

     

    • #21
  22. Joe P Member
    Joe P
    @JoeP

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    But I do not like the “If you call yourself a conservative, you MUST be against/for this thing!” construction. It’s the sort of construction you use when you want to browbeat your readers. It is not persuasive.

    That’s correct, but this standard must be applied to both sides. This post is a pittance compared to the amount of “browbeating” Trump skeptics receive on a daily basis.

    I think the other relevant point is whether or not there actually is a contradiction. Because that sort of construction, while browbeating, can be proper to use in cases where there’s a clear, explicit contradiction between two beliefs and some step must be taken to resolve it.

    I don’t think the death penalty and pro-life conservatism are necessarily two things in that explicit a contradiction, though. Nor are most things that Trump does that provoke that kind of argument; the problem is that “conservatism” itself is a fuzzy big tent of at least 3 interest groups that value things differently.

    • #22
  23. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Joe P (View Comment):
    the problem is that “conservatism” itself is a fuzzy big tent of at least 3 interest groups that value things differently.

    And we don’t help our overall cause by trying to create separate small tents of competing groups. Look what that did to the Democrats.

    • #23
  24. Nick H Coolidge
    Nick H
    @NickH

    Bethany Mandel: I’m a conservative because I’m pro-life. Doling out death, sometimes to innocents, is in total contrast to my belief that life should be protected and respected – inside and outside the womb. Stories of botched executions sealed (read this from the Atlantic) are chilling, but especially in light of the fact that these barbaric punishments have been given to total innocents over the course of American history.

    To the best of my knowledge, there’s no way to say whether or not we’ve executed someone who was innocent since the death penalty was reinstated. There isn’t any case where you can claim that there is 100% certainty that the person executed wasn’t guilty. This doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. And, since you said “over the course of American history”, we do know some innocent people were killed. But not in the last 40 years.

    I agree with you that the current proposal to give dealers the death penalty is an awful idea. The death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous crimes, the ones where the killer has unquestionably forfeited their right to be alive. And, unfortunately, there are people who belong in that category. I don’t want the state to take the power to execute people lightly, but that power exists for a reason.

    • #24
  25. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Apparently it’s a more specific “utilize [the death penalty] in cases of trafficking leading to fatal opioid overdoses.”

    So the logic being employed here is that a death by opioid overdose is essentially considered to be a homocide, with the drug dealer the murderer. I think that’s a stretch that’s going to be hard to pass, but it’s not “kill all drug dealers.”

    • #25
  26. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    So the logic being employed here is that a death by opioid overdose is essentially considered to be a homocide, with the drug dealer the murderer. I think that’s a stretch that’s going to be hard to pass, but it’s not “kill all drug dealers.”

    It also opens up a nasty can of worms. It’s inevitable that some Lefty will ask, “How are tobacco dealers any different?”

    • #26
  27. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    So the logic being employed here is that a death by opioid overdose is essentially considered to be a homocide, with the drug dealer the murderer. I think that’s a stretch that’s going to be hard to pass, but it’s not “kill all drug dealers.”

    It also opens up a nasty can of worms. It’s inevitable that some Lefty will ask, “How are tobacco dealers any different?”

    But they all smoke like chimneys.

    • #27
  28. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

     

    As to giving up the Death Penalty, I think no Death Penalty is a violation of the social contract between Man and the King. The one thing that even libertarians agree you surrender to the government is your right to exact your own justice. Blood Feuds are a poor way to exist, and can wipe everyone out. Better to have a code, and have the King enforce it. These days, we rely on our peers to judge us, and judges to sentence us. Much cleaner and better than “he who has the most guns, wins.”

    If I am asked to surrender my right for personal justice, then I think the State has a moral obligation, in some cases, to take the life the criminal, for some acts. Raping and killing my daughter deserves more than a life time in prison, especially as some do-gooder might free him some day later. No, the only thing that serves is death, and he would get a death far less horrible than the one he gave my daughter.

     

    • #28
  29. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

    For example an inmate that has been convicted of murder, and then starts to kill other inmates, or correction officers.

    There is a paradox in this country, in that innocent lives are taken through abortion, but we agonize over the death penalty for those that have committed murder.

    In states that allow a governor to pardon, or reduce a sentence for murder then a life sentence without parole doesn’t really exist, except on paper.

    If you wish to abolish the death penalty then restrict pardons to a hearing process that requires new evidence in a court of law. Do not base it upon whim, or petitions to free an individual before they serve out their full sentence.

    Everyone should now be used to fact that President Trump thinks out loud. That doesn’t mean everything he opines on has any real thought behind it, or merit. It also doesn’t mean none of it has any merit. He’s certainly not as glib as President Obama was, but not every thing President Obama said was well thought out either. Glib just makes nonsense sound more palatable, but it is still nonsense.

    • #29
  30. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I guess Paul Mirengoff needs to be written out of the conservative movement then.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/03/the-death-penalty-for-some-drug-dealers.php

     

    Even so, I can conceive of situations where, personally, I’d support the death penalty for a drug dealer. Whether congressional Republicans would support legislation enabling this outcome is another matter. The Politico article suggests there would be substantial Republican opposition. In addition, it’s quite possible that the Supreme Court would find the imposition of the death penalty in this context to be “cruel and unusual punishment.”

    In any case, the proposal Trump is contemplating could mark a turning point in the debate over criminal sentencing. In recent years, the debate has been one-directional — that direction being lighter sentences.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.