Category Archives: Justice System

Blue Sky Thinking, Justice System, Libertarianism, The United States Constitution

How to stop Big Brother – A Constitutional Amendment

Leave a comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

We’ve all seen them; and we may have gotten a friendly letter in the mail from our local government as a result of them as well. Those infernal speed and/or traffic light cameras.red-light-camera-springfield-ohio[1]

The people who advocate for them say that they are a deterrent to dangerous driving and therefore reduce accidents, but when scientists actually tabulated the results, it turns out those making the “deterrent” argument are often mistaken. big_brother_obama_parody_poster-p228489253510086489tdcp_400[1]

I’m not completely ignorant of the potential benefit of these devices. During the investigation of an accident, all that is truly desired is the truth; these cameras can provide that. If for instance, an accident occurs, and in an attempt to determine who was at fault, the police wish to review footage from a camera, then this is a very good and fair use of such devices.

But when these devices trigger legal action, this is what changes such machines from a technology advancement in investigation towards the ominous Big Brother. George Orwell’s 1984 was not a heart warming story where Big Brother was a robotic June Cleaver after all, I suspect people from almost all political sides were bothered by it.

The reason this is wrong is that it defies the purpose of our government, which by design, exists solely to protect our rights. As such, the point of traffic laws is to ensure people drive safely so as not to harm other motorists, violating their right to life and/or property. The financial penalties should be to help pay for the people to do the work of enforcing traffic laws and to serve as an incentive not to do it again. The government is not a business intended to make a profit, so revenue generation outside the tax structure violates the core of our nation.

So how is a real police officer doing a traffic stop any different from one of these cameras? There are two very important distinctions.

Every day, people manage to drive safely along the highway using the unwritten rule of 5-10 m.p.h. above the speed limit, and they often do so in front of police who rightly determine that as long as people are driving safely, they don’t need to be hassled. But machines cannot make such judgment calls, they are purely indiscriminate.

The second issue is that if an officer on duty sees someone driving unsafely, they will pull them over in an effort to stop them before they harm someone; something I think is often abused, but is necessary nonetheless. There’s never any way to know of course, but it likely saves lives.

A camera doesn’t stop anything however, the motorist continues on their merry way until days later when they receive a letter with their picture on it, if they were driving so dangerous as to likely kill someone, the deed was already done.

So if we understand from the study mentioned above that they are not an effective deterrent, and we know they don’t physically prevent someone from driving unsafely, then their only purpose left in life is investigation, and revenue generation—only one of which should be acceptable.yourspeed[1]

My idea? A “No Big Brother” constitutional amendment. The verbiage would go something like this:

The right of the people to not be policed, fined, or governed by an inanimate object shall not be infringed. Inanimate devices either owned and/or operated by government may not be used as an impetus for legal action.

Governments have already spent millions of taxpayer dollars on these devices, so I’m not suggesting they be scrapped altogether; that would be wasteful. But while 1984 may be fictional, that doesn’t change the fact that these devices are a fairly accurate representation of how something like Big Brother would start if left unfettered. If we endeavor to remain a free country versus a policed-state, that means at some point a line must be drawn.

Our forefathers couldn’t have accounted for this, 1984 was not written or even imagined back then, electricity wasn’t even understood. But this is why they left open the amendment process so that in the future, new restraints on government could be added to fit the times and protect our liberties from an oppressive government, which is the underlying point of the U.S. Constitution.

The line I’m drawing is fairly simple. If  an occurrence needs investigated, use all the technology available to do so. However, if there has been no crime or incident reported, these devices should just be recording information that will be forever ignored.

Our forefathers may not have been able to anticipate a surveillance state, but every ounce of recorded history shows that they certainly didn’t expect nor want the government to be making the king’s ransom.

Capitalism, Justice System, Libertarianism, Logic & Reason, Social Issues

The often overlooked issue with the Affordable Care Act

Leave a comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

Much like oil, natural gas, and other industries with products we simply can’t often forego, insurance companies operate on a pretty thin profit-margin; on average about 3%. We know this because most are publicly held entities, and must report their earnings. While this seems to be too thin of a margin to be true, it is in large part due to these industries not being subjected to the whims of the market as much as others. They don’t need to build up money in the good times to survive the bad—their business is fairly constant.

For instance, jewelry sales, an industry with profit margins that are significantly higher, often tank in a bad economy—that diamond necklace can wait when times are tough. But, you still need gas and insurance no matter what the economic conditions are.

With that being said, if insurance companies could achieve higher profit margins, they owe it to their shareholders to do so. So why don’t they? The problem is that “pesky free-market capitalism.” If one company raises their rates and another doesn’t, the former better be offering something the latter doesn’t or while their profit margins may rise, their actual profits will sink like a mobster with cement shoes.

So now let’s look at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), because a coworker asked me if I was for or against the law.

First let me point out that I can’t say that I’m completely against the law, it’s 9,625 %$#@ pages, depending on how you count it! I don’t know one hundredth of what is in it. There could be 20 pages worth of things that literally say something to the effect of, “…and The Logical Libertarian blog is to receive a $100,000 monthly stipend” for all I know. In which case, my opinion has just evolved in light of new evidence.

Mitch McConnell Standing Next To A Facsimile Of Obamacare In Print Form
Mitch McConnell Standing Next To A Facsimile Of Obamacare In Print Form

But when I consider that the U.S. Constitution is only six pages long, and it’s a damn-effective framework for a whole country to operate from, I’m pretty comfortable in saying the ACA is probably the quintessential Rube Goldberg of legislation—massively overcomplicated.

However, as people complain about this law for various reasons, one thing that is often overlooked is the intent behind it.

Most of the people behind the ACA take issue with private health insurance companies. While it’s hard to paint a doctor as an uncaring jerk, it’s quite acceptable among the ignorant to attack those evil insurance companies; just watch Bob Beckel on FNC‘s The Five on any given day. The left have conditioned generations of people to forget that insurance companies are simply composed of people with equal unalienable rights as the rest of us, who offer you their money to buy a risk you cannot afford to take yourself. They are not a diabolical monolith hell-bent on draining your blood and back account in one fell swoop.

Bob Beckel - Democratic Strategist on Fox News' The Five
Bob Beckel – Democratic Strategist on Fox News’ The Five

But here’s where the people behind this bill and their atrocious math come in. The ACA was aimed squarely at health insurance costs, not healthcare costs. Since insurance companies are operating on a 3% profit-margin, that means that for every $100 you spend on health insurance, $97 goes to the doctor, medical staff, and insurance company operating costs (something that will have increased, not decreased, to comply with new regulations), $3 goes to the health insurance company’s bank account.

Now lets imagine that this bill completely eradicated every single dollar of health insurance profit, your $100 health insurance bill would now be $97. I don’t know about you, but if I’m trying to reign in burgeoning costs of a bill that’s divided up 97:3, I think I’d focus my efforts on lowering the $97 portion before worrying about the $3 one.

So why didn’t they? I believe there are two issues at play.

Many lawmakers are lawyers by trade, including the president. Legal reforms such as limiting frivolous lawsuits, loser-pays legislation, or my proposal to indemnify people from punitive damages for immediate acceptance of liability (proposed in a previous post here) would severely reduce the income of the ambulance-chaser sub-species of legal counsel.ambulance-chaser_1407[1]

But if we consider the idea that a group of lawyers in Washington are going to pass reforms that would negatively affect the livelihoods of some of their former schoolmates, chances simply aren’t that good. There’s always going to be a sense of loyalty to their fellow law school alum, and sadly it seems to have overridden their oath of office and loyalty to their constituents. These proposed reforms are about justice for those who are being abused by a litigant using the court system as a method of intimidation and ill-gotten gains. There is no rational explanation to oppose them if justice is your goal.

Barack Obama - Harvard Law School
Barack Obama – Harvard Law School

If lowering health care costs isn’t important, just the health insurance costs, they could have opened up insurance markets to increase competition across state lines, dropped coverage requirements, etc., but they didn’t do this either. Capitalism has only been effective for hundreds of years, I’d link to think it has proven itself.

But this bill was passed by people who largely want socialized health care; something they know the populace isn’t willing to accept. They call it “single-payer” because they know “socialism” carries quite the stigma, but I refuse to allow them to rename poison to get me to swallow it.

These lawmakers are offended private health insurance companies even exist because they believe a right to life, and a right to health care are synonymous, and therefore a duty of government. I appreciate the altruism behind it, but that doesn’t make it any less nonsensical.

The problem is that health care isn’t just a thing that exists in the world like food, air, and water that people can consume as needed. It is a service provided by someone who has spent large sums of money and eons of time on education in the field. One person does not, nor ever will have the right to the time and effort of another in a free country.

So if that’s true, and we agree doctors deserve to get paid, why am I against government paying them as a collective then? As cold as it may sound, if I was not physically responsible for you being in a wheelchair, I should not be financially responsible for your wheelchair.

If you want help—ask for it. If I can afford and desire to, I will—it’s called charity, and it’s abundant here. What shouldn’t happen is me being pilfered at the point of government’s gun.

Now that the website is failing, rates are going up, and people are losing their plans that Obama promised they wouldn’t, I think it’s fairly clear that mistakes were made and lies were told. The only way Obama wasn’t lying about being able to keep your plan is if he honestly didn’t know what was in the bill either. The new higher coverage-requirements literally guaranteed this would happen by law.

But maybe they were crazy like a fox all along. Because these policy drops and rate increases, while induced in their entirety by big government, will assuredly be blamed on the evil insurance companies, and then used to promote a healthcare system former Mother Russia would be proud of.

So as we complain about the failed website, the assaults on liberty, the tort reform that didn’t happen, the deregulation promoting competition that were left on the cutting-room floor, and the host of other issues with this law, lets not forget that even if it had been 100% effective, it would still have only lowered costs by a measly 3%, because there was nothing to address health care costs, only health insurance costs; proving once again that math, logic, & reason and big government liberalism are still perfect strangers.

Capitalism, Justice System, Libertarianism, Logic & Reason, Social Issues, Tax System

Poker Players Are People Too. Get Government Out Of Our Way!

1 Comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

In 1986, a professional poker player named Billy Baxter fought the law, and the law didn’t win. Baxter v. United States was a landmark decision that forever changed the lives of American professional poker players from that day forward.

Prior to this, Baxter, like all poker professionals, had been taxed on his poker winnings as if what he had done was simple luck, such as winning the lottery—a whopping 70% based on the tax code at that time. However, Baxter argued that poker is a game of skill—he was not just stumbling aimlessly into good fortune the way people who play actual games of chance like roulette, craps, and slots occasionally do.

As such, he deemed he should be taxed under the “Personal Service Income” code at the time, similar to other skilled trades, which had a maximum rate of only 50%. Billy felt the government owed him 20¢ back for every dollar he had been taxed on, and when the arguments were all over, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with him.

Professional Poker Player Billy Baxter
Professional Poker Player Billy Baxter

Please allow me to explain how poker is different from other methods of gambling.

A true professional poker player is someone who consistently wins, and there are thousands of them. If it were a game of chance, the winnings would be divided up randomly amongst all parties playing. One person might win more than the other in a short span, but over time, unlike actual games of chance, poker has shown that people can consistently win by employing effective strategies.

A Nevada judge who sided with Billy was quoted as saying to one of his differing-opinion counterparts, “I find the government’s argument to be ludicrous. I just wish you had some money and could sit down with Mr. Baxter and play some poker.” His point being that the dissenters who thought Baxter was just lucky shouldn’t be afraid to play against him with their own money to prove it—there were of course, no takers.

Another important point in his favor is that depending on the variant of poker being played, a high percentage of poker hands are won without any player’s cards being shown. This is due to all other players folding as a result of the actions of the hand winner who may or may not have been bluffing. It cannot be the luck of the cards, when the cards often don’t factor in.

In an amazing feat of skill, poker pro Annette Obrestad famously won a tournament online without ever looking at her own cards, simply by employing behavioral analysis of her opponents and the mathematics of odds and probabilities. To argue that this was luck would require a gross misunderstanding of the word luck.

Professional Poker Player Annette Obrestad
Professional Poker Player Annette Obrestad

So why is poker and gambling in general treated differently in the eyes of the law?

Well, the historical issue I suspect, is that gambling of any kind is considered a sin in the eyes of many religions. Older repressed generations conditioned people to believe such activities are bad, and like any old dogma, it can take generations before logic wins out over ignorance.

Poker is simply math, game theory, and psychology; fields that are well-respected on their own. But those who don’t play poker simply don’t know that.

Thanks to the movie Rounders, (a phenomenal cast and script; I highly recommend it) and to the Cinderella-story win of Chris Moneymaker at the 2003 World Series of Poker’s (WSOP) Main Event, where a simple $40 entry fee into a lower-level qualifying tournament was parlayed into a $2.5 million dollar payday, poker has started to permeate the mainstream as more people see the allure of this mentally challenging game. The fact that it can also be a decent source of revenue if done right doesn’t hurt either.

Gone are the days of thinking poker players are degenerate gamblers—these folks are often brilliant minds, like M.I.T. grads, Mensa members, or both in the case of award-winning actor James Woods, who often plays in the WSOP Main Event, along with many of his other acting peers like Ray Romano and Jason Alexander.

With Baxter’s 1986 court case win coupled with the evolution of knowledge of poker, you would think poker players were free from government intrusion, but you’d be dead wrong. This brings me to the point of this blog.

On April 15th, 2011, the U.S. government decided to intervene into the law-abiding actions of poker players throughout America. In United States v. Scheinberg, the case that brought about poker’s “Black Friday.” The government shut down three major online poker sites, Poker Stars, Full Tilt, and Absolute Poker. Full Tilt Poker, as it turns out, was engaged in nefarious activity, which I won’t go into here, but here’s a link. The other two sites however are still quite legitimate, albeit outside the U.S.

Actor James Woods
Actor James Woods

The issue with this was quite simple. Thousands of people were making a living playing poker on these sites. They weren’t competing with us normal folks for jobs, they already had one. On Black Friday, the government not only infringed on the American people’s right to pursue happiness, but they actually rendered thousands of professional poker players effectively unemployed.

Barack Obama has stated he intended to create jobs during his presidency, so I’ll never understand why he allowed his justice department to put so many out of work.

A recent Rasmussen Poll shows that only 40% of Americans oppose the government allowing and regulating online gambling, and for poker players like me, it is encouraging the majority favor and/or are open to it. But I hope that more limited-government minds will start to get behind the idea of getting government out of the way of those of us who used to like to play online.

Some conspiracy theorists think the government is simply concerned about its ability to collect tax revenues from these players. While this may also be true, logic dictates I shouldn’t engage in such theories without empirical evidence to support them.

There is hope however; on April 30th, 2013, Station Casinos went live with UltimatePoker.com, albeit, only for residents of Nevada.

I believe there is a reasonable libertarian case to be made for a federal gaming commission to exist; protecting our rights to property by ensuring these games are on the up and up, even if the anarchist wing of libertarianism hates me for saying it. But as long as we continue criminalizing online poker, these sites will go outside the U.S., and a good source of income and tax revenue will be lost.

Even if the tax collection issue is real, legalizing it could simply be a matter of requiring online poker sites to submit W-2’s at the end of the year for all winners, or better yet, get rid of income tax in favor of a consumption tax as the Libertarian Party promotes, and stop worrying about it altogether.

Poker players are intelligent and respectable competitors in a sport of the mind, and it’s time to let us play without government intrusion. Whether it’s a game of skill or a game of chance, one thing’s for sure, it’s none of the government’s concern whether I fritter my hard-earned money away on poker when they wouldn’t care if I did so playing golf or on a $40,000 plate from a Democratic fundraiser.

So I implore those of you who don’t play to not be part of the ignorant group of folks who want to take our rights to compete from us based on old biases, but instead, stand with me and repeat the libertarian code, “Mr. politician, mind your own damn business.”

Justice System, Libertarianism, Logic & Reason, Poll, Science & Skepticism, Social Issues, The United States Constitution

Forced Medical Treatment Poll

Leave a comment

In Ohio recently, an Amish girl was given chemotherapy by doctors despite objections from her parents, who opt instead to have faith in God to heal her. The government appointed a guardian to the girl on the basis they were protecting her right to life, a Constitutional duty of government. But yet this is also a violation of one’s right to religious freedom.

So where do you stand on this issue? Feel free to comment below after voting if you wash to elaborate on your reason for voting.

Blue Sky Thinking, Justice System, Libertarianism

I never tell a lie, and I’m never wrong. Let’s have some legal reform!

1 Comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

As we all know, politicians are often known for two things: lying and the inability to admit when they are wrong. If you want to see a prime example of both in one instance, look no further than this example from the chairperson of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (DWS).

Lying and the inability to admit fault are traits that are generally considered immoral, and are upsetting to the populace these people are elected to serve, but what’s the real reason behind it?

Let’s first discuss the lying which can be either malicious or altruistic.

I’ll give you examples:

  • Malicious: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky ~ Bill Clinton
  • Altruistic: No honey, that dress does not make you look fat ~ Every husband in history

An easy way to tell the difference is to understand who is being protected by the lie. If it’s the liar, then there’s a good chance it’s malicious.

So are all lies that roll off a politicians tongue malicious? Of course not. But, we all understand how malicious lies come about and agree they are wrong, so let’s focus on the altruistic ones instead.

What’s the one type of altruistic lie that’s good? Every time someone called the government because they saw a UFO and were told, “We’ll look into it” when in reality they knew it was the latest super-secret plane the government was testing and weren’t at liberty to discuss—I’m OK with that. The B-2 Stealth Bomber alone is estimated to be responsible for hundreds of reported UFO sightings before the curtain was lifted on it.

B-2 Stealth Bomber
B-2 Stealth Bomber

There is no way for the government to tell Americans their secrets without telling our enemies too. So some things simply must be kept out of the public knowledge base.

With politicians however, most of their altruistic lies are born out of arrogance. Many think voters can’t understand their superior knowledge or intellect well enough to support their ideas. So they lie to get elected, then proceed with their original agenda because “they know better.”

For instance, many on the left lie about the origins of their proposed social engineering policies, calling them anything but socialism, because they know people in America aren’t very fond of the socialist doctrine, even though these politicians honestly believe socialism can be good.

Many on the right lie about their intent to cut government assistance because they know telling people they intend on putting the kibosh to their government aid will be seen as cruel and heartless, when they truly believe it will help promote self-reliance and actually help those it’s expected to hurt.

I would argue that if these policies are good, they will stand on their merits. An intelligent person should be able to explain their position in such a way that reasonably smart people will understand. If socialism or capitalism are good, just make the best case as to why, and let us decide.

It’s hard to paint politicians as completely immoral here, they legitimately think they are doing what is best. But I find the hubris for them to assume they are more intelligent than me, the person they are nominated to serve, distinctly offensive.

Moving on from the lies, let’s discuss the inability to admit wrongdoing.

Although DWS has a degree in political science, not law, she does serve in Congress with a few hundred other law makers, many of whom do have a legal background; our president too.

I’m not attempting to disparage lawyers, it’s a noble profession. But it is common practice for them to vehemently avoid any admission of wrongdoing or offer any apology for a wrongful act. This practice has sadly become part of our fabric, and it affects all of us morally and financially.

Scales of Justice
Scales of Justice

In our current legal system, an apology is admissible evidence against you, so we have been conditioned to never admit wrong-doing. Lack of personal responsibility is everywhere these days, and I think it’s in no small part to our legal system’s exploitation of apologies.

As you saw DSW pirouette around the issue like she was on Dancing With The Stars (They do share the same initials after all), it became clear she knew she had lied, but was adamant about not admitting it.

What can we do about these two issues? While we will never be able to stop people from lying, we can do something about the admission of guilt issue by changing our current legal system.

If we look at health care, many doctors who know they erred when giving treatment will often refuse to give an apology at the insistence of their legal team, due to its evidential liability. Interestingly enough though, a 2001 University of Michigan program showed that while the liability may increase, the number of actual lawsuits decrease as patients are far more apt to accept an apology as restitution than most lawyers give them credit for.

This study shows that we humans care more about personal responsibility than money, and we are capable of forgiveness if it’s simply asked for. So, I have a simple proposal to make a meaningful reform to our legal system.

Introduce legislation that provides certain indemnities to a person when they accept fault. If a person admits their error, apologizes, and/or makes a sincere attempt at restitution prior to legal action being taken against them, (ruling out criminal activity), they should be immune from additional punitive damages in civil court over and above their actual fiscal liability for the damages inflicted.

This one simple change to our legal system could not only introduce a better moral code in our society by encouraging people to accept responsibility, but imagine the dramatic lowering in prices of goods and services, as insurance premiums and general business operating costs drop due to a lower or complete lack of settlement costs.

There you have it, I have improved our sense of morality and helped our economy with a few strokes of my keyboard, and that’s no lie!

Blue Sky Thinking, Justice System, Libertarianism

The Self-Imposed Death Penalty

Leave a comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

After the unforeseen suicide of Ariel Castro, a man who plead guilty to avoid the death penalty in the first place, the Ohio chapter of the ACLU has asked for a full investigation. I have one simple question—why?

In America we have an incessant need to prevent people from killing themselves. Whether it be someone who is depressed, terminally ill, or in prison for a heinous act, we behave as though it is our duty to stop them from ending their own life. But let’s review these three scenarios.

If I had a loved one who was depressed, I would do everything in my power to talk them off the proverbial ledge, and I would want the police to try to convince them otherwise as well; if they were called to the scene anyway. But would I want police arresting them for a failed attempt? Not on your life!

Imagine you were terminally ill with no chance of getting better, on a morphine drip just so you could eke out another few months, and burning through whatever inheritance you had intended to give to your children. Then imagine you finally come to the conclusion that the life ahead of you is only going to get worse, so you just want to end it. Seriously, close your eyes and imagine it. Now imagine some politician telling you that you may not by penalty of law? Now, honestly say you wouldn’t be furious. How dare some bureaucrat insist that you suffer because suicide is immoral in their eyes.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian understood this, and did his best to help those in pain to the most painless end possible, and he was put in prison for it where he eventually died. Every juror, the judge, and the prosecutor should be ashamed at the disgusting perversion of a trial outcome that took this man’s freedom from him when all he did was help people achieve peace.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian
Dr. Jack Kevorkian

In a free society, no one has the right to dictate to another that they must choose to live—it violates the core concept of freedom—that you own your own body. Yet we so often do exactly that. While I suspect that much of this comes from our heritage as a largely Christian nation who consider suicide a mortal sin, legislating religious dogma violates our Constitution and the freedom of those not encumbered with such beliefs.

Moving on to the Ariel Castro situation, the ACLU, an organization I should be in lock-step with based on their name, continues to show that they’re not about civil rights, but instead about contradicting and interfering with any American government agency. Being a constitutional libertarian versus an anarchist one, I believe our government has a place in this country, it’s to protect the rights of others. But unlike many, I also know our forefathers had another duty in mind that was explicitly implied, but never written: they have a duty to stay the hell out of our way.

If Ariel Castro had been attacked by other inmates, the ACLU would be right to want an investigation; prisons most protect prisoners. But if the ACLU had any concern to actually protect civil rights, they’d agree with me that if Ariel Castro wanted to die, we should simply let him. It’s the ultimate civil right.

Analyzing the actions of offenders who have given themselves the death penalty, I can’t see how we as a society have a problem with it. If they feel they did something wrong and wish to atone for it; good for them—it’s their final act of decency.

If they want to protect society because they know that they are prone to do it  again pending a release or escape; again—good for them.

If they simply don’t want to suffer in prison; maybe not good for them, but good for the rest of us. They have assured that society need never fear them in the future.

Part of me wishes to point out the savings to the taxpayer, but fiscal issues should not play into matters of life and death, however I have an idea I’ll get to in a minute.ACLU_oh[1]

Many have said that Castro took the easy way out as opposed to suffering in prison. While I agree; I don’t care. Prison was not meant for the suffering of offenders, we do have a cruel-and-unusual-punishment clause in the Constitution, after all. It was meant to protect society by detaining people who might infringe on the rights of others. By killing themselves, such offenders merely guarantee a safety to society that prisons attempt to accomplish through incarceration.

We all know I’m prone to some blue sky thinking, so what I propose is the exact opposite. If a prisoner wants to die, let them ask to see the warden and volunteer for a lethal injection. Make them wait a period of time such as 24 hours to change their mind, but if that’s what they want, then I say thanks for protecting society from any future bad acts as well as thanks for saving us taxpayers the approximately $28,000 a year we spend to incarcerate them. If we take it one step further, we could even offer a financial incentive to do the right thing. prisoner[1]

For instance, a 30-year-old prisoner is sentenced and decides to self impose the death penalty. The average life expectancy of a prisoner is approximately 78 years old. So 48 years times $28,000 is $1,344,000. If we took half of that money and paid it out in installments to the victim’s families, it would truly be the last decent act of a violent offender, and still save the taxpayers a decent sum of money.

Either way, I think the majority of America, like me, shed no tears for violent offenders who decide to end their own lives. While we are a republic, not a democracy, the Constitution doesn’t forbid it either. So in such situations the majority rules; maybe it’s time the majority decides to make a rule and insist the government let people end their own lives if they want, and leave it up to loved ones to convince them otherwise. But the days of prison having a suicide watch need to end.

Justice System, Poll

Capital Punishment Poll

Leave a comment

Capital punishment is an issue that often crosses party lines. What’s your opinion?