Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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
Not too mention executing doctors who prescribe, and the pharmacists who supply opiates.
I am also against the death penalty for the reasons Ms. Mandel mentions, especially the idea that the power of the government over individuals should be limited. I’m also aware that most conservatives are for the death penalty.
The problem with the libertarian idea of decriminalizing opioids is that there is no upper bound to the proportion of citizens that could end up addicted to them. In China in the 1800s it got to the point that 80% of the citizens of some cities were addicts spending their time in opium dens, and the economy in those places was destroyed. The number of users in China eventually reached 15 million, and the population dropped.
While decriminalization of these drugs is a nice libertarian ideal, it’s not practical in real life. We ought to be able to see that by the effects of our own opioid crisis which is killing off Americans at an exponentially rising rate.
Corporal punishment provides a cheap deterrent and a certain satisfaction, but it’s inhumane. Of course, in our country we struggle with it, taking away the “cheap” argument and diluting the “satisfaction” of vengeance and justice. Personally, I know I’m capable of killing another human being under certain circumstances. Under those same circumstances, I would not likely be humane. As a result, I reject the “inhumane” argument and will settle for the proxy killing by the state. So the question becomes, could “drug dealing” rise to the level of the death penalty? I can see where it could. Drugs destroy lives – meth, cocaine, heroin, prescription opiates and synthetic opiates like fentanyl. I can see where specific drugs that have caused a fatality can be traced to a source, a retail dealer or a distributor, and where that person could be charged with murder. This would be similar to a murder charge assessed against an armed criminal in a murder case, even if the charged was an accomplice and not the shooter. I can also see where a series of deaths in a drug distribution case could result in a death penalty conviction. I think that every drug dealer reasonably knows that what he is peddling is deadly.
Look at it this way, if someone sells you something that is both illegal and so dangerous it could easily lead to your death (a viper as a pet, for example, or a bomb) would they not be an accomplice to your murder if your death results? And if they did this multiple times and caused multiple deaths, would this not be worthy of the ultimate punishment?
Yep.
I have a hard time supporting the death penalty as it is currently used. To extend it to crimes that involve voluntary (to a certain extent in light of the nature of addiction) transactions seems obviously wrong. I believe in the retributive justification for punishments, but I could not pull the switch in these cases.
Joe P, if I wanted “news” I could head over to chyron land and lap up the news. I come to Ricochet, National Review, Instapundit, Powerline etc. for intelligent and complex analysis of the “news” not incessant Trumpophobic trolling.
Trump proposed a politically calculated tariff. Yes, it should be set against the preposterous sets of tariffs which have dominated the US trading system for 50 years.
Trump proposes an unworkable, charged capital punishment proposal. Analyze it. Criticize it. Don’t try to conflate it into a argument against capital punishment and then declare anyone who supports capital punishment is violating the basic precepts of conservativism.
I don’t suffer from TDDS, else I wouldn’t enjoy Charles Cooke’s thoughtful dissections of Trump so much.
But, of course, such a denial is one of the primary symptoms of TDDS, isn’t it?
No, TDDS is taking an argument which is about a Trump supported policy and reading into it animus toward Trump himself, and by proxy his supporters, which is not sustained by the text. Bethany said nothing about Trump other than to mention the indisputable fact that he was the one who suggested this policy change, and yet your first response was to accuse her of being, “deeply opposed to Donald Trump and harbor[ing] an almost never concealed distaste for conservatives who support Trump.”
Umbra, this is silly. Here’s the conclusion: 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.
Gee, no animus there at all. I don’t think Bethany would deny she holds Trump in very, very low regard and she expresses deep distaste for conservatives who have decided to support Trump.
She makes those arguments consistently and passionately.
You should make your own arguments and stop shadow boxing behind her like Jimmy Walker behind John Amos.
My guess is, out there with the Trump voters this is an attractive idea.
Where we are, is that “conservative” clearly means something different to the GOP primary voter than it does to Conservatism, Inc. and the Donor class. This was uncovered by Trump. It is not Trump’s fault, and it does explain why, as I mentioned today in another thread, we have seen Conservatism, Inc. attack people who voted for Trump. They cannot stand us because we have betrayed their principles. The thing is, those were not the principles of the GOP primary voter in the first place. They see us all as Archie Bunkers, and feel there is should be no voice for us at all.
I don’t see how we can fail to reach the conclusion, that the GOPe, the GOP Donor Class, and Conservatism, Inc. are more like the Democrats than they think. They all go to the same schools, marry the same people, and live in the same sorts of lives. The idea that anyone could be for the death penalty just shows how horrible a person he or she is, I would guess.
It’s the opening bid in a negotiation, like ‘Fire and Fury’ and the total Muslim ban. My prediction is that the final policy will look fine. Just chill for a bit.
Most average, non-politiphile people, when they think drug dealer, think Breaking Bad kingpin or Graceland or some other straight to tv show cliche drug lord plot line.
They don’t think low level, couple grams of pot college students sharing and splitting a pizza.
Politiphiles and skeptics of law-enforcement know the ones most likely to be brought up on drug dealing charges are petty offenders, because it’s too hard to actually get close to the kingpin.
I am pro-capital punishment, I’m skeptical of this law, I’m not blowing my wad on excoriating my demi-emperor until I see something more solid start making it’s way into congress.
I don’t doubt you could find some drug dealer here and there whose conduct might warrant this kind of reaction, but that is going to be very rare. In reality, tracing exactly which dealer sold the the fatal dose to the victim, what they intended when they sold it to them, what they knew about the stuff they were selling, gets very messy to figure out. You’re just not often going to find someone that deserves death for that. Putting the death penalty on the table for all those other defendants who clearly don’t deserve it will make a mess of things. (I admit here I’m making assumptions about the proposal).
Given Trump supporters’ tendency to respond to any and all criticism as if it were a personal attack, I think I’m going to go ahead and call this projection.
Pretty sure being called a cultist is a personal attack.
The demi-god must be protected!
He’s not serious, he’s just blowing smoke. I had a friend at work who said identity thieves should get the death penalty.
Now, I know what you’re going to say next: “But he’s the President!”
Yes he is, but he vocalizes the frustrations we ordinary people have with trying to rid our country of one of the most destructive forces we have next to liberalism: illegal drugs.
I’d say being in favor of the death penalty as an option for certain crimes is pretty damn conservative. It’s the liberals and libertarians that tend to be against it.
Personally, I’m in favor of expanding the death penalty. A life sentence, without the possibility of parole, makes one less than a slave. That person’s life is essentially over. Their freedom is certainly gone, forever. All they do is take up space and resources. Why not execute them, and save everyone the trouble (even the criminal)?
Now, we can talk about sentencing, and what particular crimes merit this. Does merely being a dealer mean one is guilty of murder? How about a drug kingpin? Does rape merit death? I’m not going to get into that. I think the president here might be wrong in his thinking. But maybe not.
And then, at some point we have to look at the greater good of society vs. any individual’s right to life. At some point the crimes’ affects on society might outweigh even individual’s most basic rights, as those individuals are affecting the life, liberty, and/or property/pursuit of happiness. The God of the Old Testament certainly thought so, even for crimes less than murder (and for things we humans don’t think are so bad). It’s not like God Himself was judging these cases – people were (sinners were). Personally, I think that gang members should be classified as Outlaws – robbers, bandits, land pirates – and executed at first opportunity, even without trial (being Outlaws, they are Outside the protection of the Law, which thing they chose themselves).
Since I’m definitely in the donor class ($20 level) I think I can speak for my fellow GOPers (thanks for bringing that back!) when I say we don’t think anyone is horrible for holding a contrary view. People don’t engage “civil center right conversation“ with those they find horrible. I can think you’re wrong but admirable. Presumably so can you.
Trump: Crazy crazy crazy!
America: Wuuut?
Trump (the next day): Slightly less crazy!
America: Just give him what he wants before the crazy guy comes back!
Bethany,
I’ll go along with you on the “no” in this particular instance, but not on the generic opposition to the use of the death penalty that I believe I’m reading in your post.
When I was more of a social libertarian I was emphatically opposed to the death penalty, believing that the principal role of the government as regards criminals is to keep them away from society, and that incarceration for life would achieve that. Given that, the unnecessary taking of a life seemed excessive, and I opposed it.
I’m no longer a social libertarian. On several issues, including drug legalization and capital punishment, I am now a more traditional conservative. Part of that shift is the result of a growing appreciation for the value of traditions in sustaining a culture: I like American culture, and so I’m inclined to want to preserve her traditions.
In our culture (and many others), the death penalty has long been reserved for particularly heinous acts. I think this is unlikely to be a practical matter, and I suspect it’s some kind of social mechanism for both signaling social outrage and achieving some degree of catharsis. It reestablishes a sense of balance when a horrific injustice has occurred.
Many disagree, of course, and I’m sympathetic to their arguments. But I’d stop short of characterizing the use of the death penalty as in total opposition to a respect for life and its preservation and defense, as I think a reasonable argument can be made that it is a legitimate option society may use, in extremis, to reaffirm that respect.
But, again, I wouldn’t endorse its use as a penalty for drug dealing.
The death penalty is the pinnacle of our system of retribution for criminal actions.
so when I say I am opposed to the death penalty, as I am, that necessitates a reorganization all the way down the penal system.
We have waaaaay too many people in prison. No one should be incarcerated unless he is a danger to other people. I mean danger of physical harm.
If we didn’t lock up,so many petty criminals ( instead of manacling them electronically and forcing them to make retribution) we would have room to incarcerate the violent psychopaths.
and I’ve said before: IF we are going to kill anyone, we’re killing exactly the wrong people. We should be killing the criminally insane. Because those are the people who cannot be rehabilitated and can never be let out.
I just disagree. I have visited jails, and those are people not yet convicted. They need to be there. They are dangerous to other people. Most killers have rap sheets as long as their arms. Had we locked them up for a long time sooner, they would not have killed.
The “petty” criminals are going to do worse, given time, on average.
I have a friend who’s home was broken into, and the teenagers had a little drug and sex party. Now, at 15-18, if you don’t already know it is wrong to trash someone’s place, you have no sense of morals, and don’t need to be walking around society. Is some magic going to happen if we don’t put those people away that they transform into productive people? No.
Put them away and don’t let them out until they are over 35, when most of this sort of thing has burnt out.
Yes, we should not go into it lightly and for the wrong reasons. Which Lyndsey decided not to do.
I had a childhood friend who spent a year in county prison and it straightened him out.
Well, it’s right there in the Fifth Amendment:
“No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Do libertarians who do not support the death penalty (at least in the worst crimes) not support the Bill of Rights? (Leftists like that enlightened constitutional law professor Barack Obama do not seem to support ANY of the Bill of Rights.)
I am not sure how I feel about the death penalty for those who have only killed one person, with part of the problem being that justice may not be equally applied to both the poor and the wealthy, etc. The margin of error may be too great, especially when based upon non-scientific evidence, etc.
However, I do not really have many mixed feelings about those who kill more than one person. Lethal force is even more horrible and sometimes questionable during war, especially when one person does not have the manpower to take many prisoners captive. I think the Allied soldiers during D-Day were often told not to capture Germans prisoners.
…
List of last executions in the United States by crime other than murder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_last_executions_in_the_United_States_by_crime
Robbery, 1964, Alabama
Rape, 1964, Missouri
Assault by a life convict, 1962, California
Kidnapping, 1960, California
Espionage (The Rosenbergs), 1953, New York/Federal
Desertion, 1945, France by firing squad/U.S. Army, only one since the Civil War
Burglary, 1941, Alabama
Train Robbery, 1901, New Mexico territory/Federal
Arson, 1884, Alabama
Conspiracy to Commit, 1863, California
Piracy (Slave Trading), 1862, New York/Federal, only one American executed
Slave revolt, 1860, Alabama
Aiding a runaway slave, 1859, South Carolina
Theft (by a slave), 1855, Alabama
Horse stealing (grand larceny), 1852, California
Forgery, 1840, South Carolina
Counterfeiting, 1822, Alabama
Sodomy/buggery/bestiality, 1785, Pennsylvania
Concealing the birth/death of an infant, 1785, Massachusetts
Witchcraft, 1779, Illinois territory
As that article and other sources state, abortions aren’t really allowed in the Netherlands and Singapore after around the 20 or 24th week.
The world’s abortion rate is the lowest in Western Europe (a region that includes the Netherlands), 12 per 1,000 women; Southern Africa, 15 per 1,000 women; Northern Europe, 17 per 1,000 women; Oceania, 17 per 1,000 women.
The world’s abortion rate is the highest in Eastern Europe, 43 abortions per 1,000 women.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/abortion-around-the-world-where-are-rates-highest/2/
…
The abortion rate is apparently low or quite low in the Netherlands (9.7-12.10 per 1000 women) and Singapore (6.3 per 1000 women) and even a bit lower in Vietnam than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Netherlands
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp336abrate2.html
Greenland seems to have the highest rate of abortion at 85.8, about twice that of Cuba’s 46.69.
Chile, Panama, and Trinidad and Tobago seem to have the lowest rate at 0.02.
Catholic countries like Poland at 0.14 and Mexico at 0.76 and some Muslim countries also seem to be quite low. United States with a rate of 17.13 is at least lower than countries like the New Zealand, UK, Canada, and Sweden.
Here’s what’s wrong with your argument. Bethany, and many others including myself, argue that the state should be denied the power to kill in cold blood; That is, in circumstances where self defense is not in play, thus excluding most war time scenarios etc. You counter by quoting a procedural right (we can disregard substantive aspects here as they are not implicated by your comment) that prevents the federal and state governments from taking a life without some formal procedure. (I assume here that life means only the state sanctioned killing of a person and not imprisonment or other bodily restrictions only for clarity.)
What that clause emphatically does not require is that the various governments must take lives in certain circumstances. At its maximalist interpretation, the clause permits the state to take a life only if certain condintions are met. One of those conditions is the consent of the people via their elected representatives through legislation. It is absurd to argue the Constitution mandates the death penalty. It merely provides the structure whereby an elected government may decide certain crimes are punishable by death. Your argument is tantamount to suggesting because the federal government may tax income, it must collect 100% of all income in certain circumstances.
Finally, I don’t have the energy to add in the Jeff Goldblum Jurassic Park quote here. But I am sure thinking it…
And it’s absurd that mass murderers should not be put to death.
I never said that the Constitution requires the death penalty.
…
A Leftist might say that life in prison is too much of a cruel and unusual punishment for a mass murderer. That is also a death penalty — just one that can be taken back.
When Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people in Norway in 2011, he was “adjudged sane and sentenced to containment … with an approximate time frame of 21 years (or about 100 days per each life he took).”
I think most Americans would find that absurd. It all depends what you personally find to be absurd.
Your response is entirely divorced from both your own original comment and my reaction to it. As you originally stated, libertarians who do not support the death penalty in the worst cases do not support the bill of rights and thus the Constitution. You based this on the language of the fifth amendment and it’s offer of due process protection from state deprivations of life. This suggests those who do not advocate the death penalty are unfaithful to the Constitution. But I accept your retraction which states you did not intend your words to be constructed as such.
I attacked your argument as assuming too much. You have responded by noting punishments imposed in some far away land. I do not find that responsive.
We’ve been at war with drugs for 50 years and it has only gotten worse. Isn’t it about time we discussed alternatives? Every arrest, every interdiction drives profits up. We’ve had some huge busts over the years and the broad market effects have been zero so presumable they’ve been local and short term as drugs immediately flow in to replace the loss. Dealers actually rat on each other to reduce supples.
There are so many institutional interests invested in fighting the war that there is no way to inject a reasoned policy at government level. It just keeps getting more rotten at all levels. There must be a popular demand for policy change but focusing on the death penalty as too severe doesn’t advance the discussion because whether right or wrong it won’t help so it distracts from real policy discussion. Neither does calling for full legalization as if this stuff were chewing gum. Such arguments give officials defending their turf reasons to ignore their own failures because “they have no choice”.
The one argument against expanding the death penalty is the likelihood of a criminal executing a hostage, kidnap victim, rape victim, etc. because he’s already committed a crime worthy of death. Why not kill the witnesses?
Still, expansion could be examined for some crimes.