Description

Free the People’s Logan Albright and Mike Feuz discuss the libertarian position on the death penalty. Well, not THE libertarian position, but A libertarian position. Or maybe two positions. Mike is a Catholic who has religious objections as well as political ones, while Logan’s points are largely secular in nature, but they both manage to reach the same conclusion in the end.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • I am working on a business model to get this up off the ground. I need help to find the pit falls that might cause problems. Legal hurtles, practical hurtles, anything. Got an idea, had an idea, it will surely help. Just a few rules. 1. Anybody that would come to the court would have to come to it voluntarily. 2. You must be innocent until proven guilty. 3. Must be a quick and cost effective process. 4. It must be a system without a positive action enforcement process. 5. Must be as accurate as possible.

    Jump to Discussion Post 28 replies
  • In a death penalty case, do they have the “Right” to life/live, or is life considered a “Privilege”  and is thus justified in the state taking it away? I go further…Who determines if a life is a privilege or a right? Is that even possible to dictate?

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • In a stateless society, there is no monopoly on criminal justice that can grant immunity from prosecution to a minor criminal in order to get testimony that can convict a major criminal. One court company could grant immunity, but then another could use the minor criminal’s testimony to pursue a case against that person. Is there a way to make this work, or would a stateless society have to seek justice without the evidence gained from immunity grants?

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • A good article on how the legal system is a weak service even though it consumes resources, employees thousands and controls millions. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/13/10737742/husband-rapist I saw and experienced the cold and clinical way “justice is served” to victims, families, and communities. At the end of it, after enormous pain and loss were expressed in victim impact statements, remorse and confusion were expressed in Jason’s statement, and the facts of the assaults were reviewed by the judge, all that happened is that one person was sent to prison for the rest of his life and everyone else was just sent home. It was indescribably empty, with no peace or healing to be found. That was something, it seemed, we would each have to find on our own.

    Jump to Discussion Post 4 replies
  • We have BIG NEWS this week from the Supreme Court in the case of Hurst v. Florida. By a 7-1-1 vote—in fact, even overruling two of its own prior rulings—the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the jury as the sole fact-finding authority in capital sentencing. Specifically, the Court found that the Florida capital sentencing scheme, in which the judge is the one whose job is “to make the critical findings necessary to impose the death penalty”, violates the Sixth Amendment, in light of its own ruling in Ring v. Arizona (2002) requiring that the jury find the aggravating factors if the death penalty is to be imposed. Details here: http://fija.org/2016/01/12/scotus-ruling-in-hurst-v-florida-preserves-jury-rights/

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply