The death penalty when used properly is Pro-Life

Does a man who murders another man have a right to life?

Any man who murders another man, has declared that he does not accept the principle of individual rights. He is worse then an animal, as he has chosen to abdicate his reason, in order to act like an animal. He has adopted the code of the jungle, and must be dealt with like the animals in the jungle. He can make no claim to the principle of rights for protection. He deserves death.

What is the proper purpose of the death penalty?

Justice, i.e., retribution. It is not primarily to discourage murder. Whether the death penalty prevents crime, or not, is irrelevant, or at best secondary. The issue is not one of prevention, but one of justice.

What is the danger in having a death penalty?

One reason we should be wary of the death penalty is to prevent it from being used as a political tool, i.e., for something else besides killing cold blooded murderers. Unfortunately, this is how it is used in statist countries (like Nazi Germany, Cuba, etc.); it is used as a tool for political oppression: obey or die. The danger with having a death penalty 'on the books', is that it may be broadened if a government goes completely statist, or applied by some stupid politician (an all to common occurrence) acting out of expediency (egged on by the mob).

How do we ensure that an innocent man is not murdered?

When the courts put an innocent man in jail, they can release him if they later discover that they made an error. However, when the state executes an innocent man, no one can bring him back from the dead.

I am no legal expert; but, from a layman's point of view, I would say to prevent the killing of non-murderers we must make sure that we have absolute proof of the murderer's guilt through a lengthy judicial process with many appeals. I recommend there at least be a waiting period of *ten years*, or greater, from the time of death sentence until the execution. In regards to the death penalty, a speedy trial -- at the expense of justice -- is precisely what we do not need.

The principle here is: it is better to let one hundred murderers go free, rather then to execute a single innocent individual. This is because the killing of a murderer is the destruction of evil -- from which we gain nothing; the killing of an innocent individual is the destruction of the good -- an irreparable loss. Justice's first purpose is not to punish evil; rather it is to reward the good. The punishment of evil is a corollary of the rewarding of the good.

Should drug dealers be executed?

I remember some moronic conservative politician suggesting that the government should execute drug-dealers. They wanted to stop the so-called "War on Drugs" by handing out the death sentence to people who sold state unapproved plant extracts! (For the record, I think that recreational drug-use is stupid; however, as the sale or use of any drug is not a violation of anyone's rights, government's role in such matters is laissez-faire -- to leave them alone.)