Election-Fraud Law Violations Should Carry the Death Penalty
However the 2020 American election fiasco plays out, one thing is clear: substantial reform is needed to continue using democracy as a means of governance. Democracy is dying.
Ironically, fear of deaths from a histrionicly-endorsed pandemic [*1] was used as cover to flood American precincts with mail-in ballots counted last-minute, giving statistically impossible spikes for presidential candidate Joe Biden[*2] along with unusually high numbers of Biden-only ballots [*3],
while kicking out Republican poll watchers and handing out pamphlets on how to distract them [*5],
pulling out suit cases to count votes without supervision [*6],
running ballots through multiple times, hiding the fact that computers for voting machines were connected to the internet [*7]
while we have an affidavit from a computer scientist on how the software can remotely manipulate votes [*8],
and countless other comically-obvious examples that emerge every day.
Leftists can gaslight us all they want with their ridiculous "fact checks" that disprove none of the above evidence and only serve to stir up more righteous indignation on our side. The fact is: about half of America believes this election was stolen with fraud [*9]."
Democracy is broken. How can we fix it?
Let's start with an old thought experiment. A sum of cash sits in a room. Do people steal the cash? The experiment's goal is to parse out four types of people: (1) people who risk taking the cash even when there is risk of being caught, (2) people who take the cash when there is virtually no risk of being caught, (3) people that don't take the cash when there is a risk of being caught, and (4) people who still don't take the cash even though there is no risk of being caught.
If men were angels, no laws would be needed, as all would be in category (4). Category (1) is the metric to measure whether a functional society is even possible, as too many people willing to risk consequences to steal or unjustly harm others breaks civil society. A government can only effectively rule over a society with X number of category (1) people. What X is, I can't quantify, but it must be a very low number, as government can only employ so much law enforcement to maintain a civilization, let alone create one.
This leaves us with how to manage category (2) versus (3). Law makes no difference in the conduct of angels, but it can make people act ethically who otherwise would not. This is the chief justification for law or consequences imposed by an authority for unethical behavior.
If the structure of our laws is premised on democracy (loosely defined), and voting is the act that makes a government democratic, then the foundational laws of a democracy are those pertaining to voting. Thus, to the extent we rest our foundation for law in democracy, the law's foremost aim must be to protect the integrity of votes. This means the punishment for cheating must be sufficient to minimize its occurrence to a point well below the documented occurrences of election fraud referenced above.
The states in America have differing laws on election fraud, but here are the principle federal legal penalties encompassing most fraudulent election conduct[*10]. Is five years in prison enough of a deterrent?
Choosing different voting systems (paper ballots versus computers), partitioning the votes into clusters to avoid concentrated fraud (e.g., the American Electoral College), and civic education on ethics only goes so far. Ultimately, we must have sufficient punishment for cheaters.
Corrupt jurisdictions can, of course, choose not to enforce election laws in order to assist favored candidates. Thus, the law should first encompass willful failure to enforce laws on cheating in elections as a core tenet and allow jurisdictions outside the failing-to-enforce jurisdiction to enforce penalties on the cheating jurisdiction's cheating enablers.
The exact manner and scope of conduct considered "cheating" is debatable, but running ballots through a machine multiple times, kicking out or obstructing the view of poll watchers, and violating chain-of-custody rules on ballots should all be part of our definition of election fraud. We all know dishonest conduct when we see it. I'm comfortable defining election fraud broad enough to allow a jury to decide what conduct constitutes cheating.
America has these two aspects covered: laws broadly defining fraud and jurisdictions above the cheating one to enforce penalties. Yet, the above-referenced conduct in the 2020 election still occurred, egregiously so.
This leads us to the reality that the penalties must not be stiff enough and should be increased. But what to?
The stiffest penalties in law apply to two types of conduct: taking human life and treason. Even with taking human life, law takes into account circumstances. Killing in self-defense or defense of other's lives reasonably being put in jeopardy or serious bodily harm is justified. And the law places lesser penalties on people who kill even multiple people in moments of passion or through neglect than it does on people who premeditatively kill even one person. The type of person who can kill with a calm and collected mind is the most dangerous. Thus, the law should aim to deter such people with sufficient penalties.
Treason is more difficult to define. The left certainly used that word loosely regarding allegations President Trump "colluded" with the Russians to steal the election. If Trump did "collude" with the Russians to commit election fraud, the highest penalties should of course apply to him. But there was no evidence Trump or any of his associations did so.
Should the penalties for election fraud be more in line with treason than they are for stealing a car? What is the difference between election fraud and treason? If you can find a reasonable means to parse the two, what is the moral difference between the two forms of conduct?
And what difference does it make if I enlist the aid of a non-citizen to commit election fraud as opposed to a regular citizen? The impact is the same. Considering America via the CIA has engaged in at least 81 known election-interference operations from 1947-2000 (did it really stop in 2000?) [*11], should we truly be more indignant about a foreign agent assisting in reciprocal fraud?
Thus, to engage in fraudulent conduct with the intent to steal an election needs a sufficient penalty in line with treason to the extent they are morally the same.
What should that penalty be?
The classic penalty for treason was death, albeit less-so enforced in the modern era. To the extent treason should carry the death penalty, election fraud should as well. Too harsh? What is worse? Selling classified information to a foreign government or subverting the premise of democracy and destroying faith in the very system we rely on to craft and enforce law?
There are two objections to the death penalty. (1) It is unethical to prematurely end the life of a fellow human being no matter the conduct he engaged in or danger he poses to society when physical isolation (prison) can be imposed instead. (2) Human knowledge of events is imperfect since material reality comes through flawed human senses. Thus, the law will wrongly be applied to people who didn't engage in the conduct they were accused of. A later-discovered innocent man can be released from prison, but we can't bring back to life a man wrongly executed. Thus, the justice of killing X number of people who deserve death must be balanced against the reality that Y number of people will be unjustly killed.
I've been skeptical of the death penalty solely for reason number (2) but never (1). Some conduct is evil. It is just to kill people engaging in sufficiently evil conduct. The ceiling on penalties should encompass the maximum of evil conduct. Thus, the death penalty should be deployed under such circumstances of maximum evil. Further, the type of person who would engage in maximum evil conduct needs a sufficient penalty to deter such conduct. To the degree people engage in conduct that is the maximum of evil is the the degree the maximum penalty should follow for violation.
But to accept a death penalty means some people will be unjustly killed, since human knowledge of events can never be perfect and unjust convictions occur. Principally, I understand the deontological objection to death as a penalty in law.
At some point, however, we must recognize that crimes are being flagrantly committed that undermine the very nature of our system of governance. Pragmatically, we must balance the interests of preventing unjust deaths versus the preservation of our democracy.
We can't sustain democracy when half of its subjects believe that fraud has stolen its most important election. Thus, reforms need to encompass sufficient weight to reestablish the people's trust in voting. When about half of America does not trust in the results of an election, the penalties for election fraud need to be increased sufficiently to decrease future fraud.
Some people may be unjustly put to death for fraud they didn't commit. But election fraud is morally the same as treason, as it undermines the very foundation of our democracy in a way selling some classified documents to a foreign country never could.
Is life-in-prison sufficient to deter election fraud? Is it a false dichotomy to ask the following question? Do you want to continue democracy and accept a number of unjust deaths to preserve it? Or do you want to sacrifice democracy in exchange for preserving those lives?
----
FOOTNOTES
Ironically, fear of deaths from a histrionicly-endorsed pandemic [*1] was used as cover to flood American precincts with mail-in ballots counted last-minute, giving statistically impossible spikes for presidential candidate Joe Biden[*2] along with unusually high numbers of Biden-only ballots [*3],
while kicking out Republican poll watchers and handing out pamphlets on how to distract them [*5],
pulling out suit cases to count votes without supervision [*6],
running ballots through multiple times, hiding the fact that computers for voting machines were connected to the internet [*7]
while we have an affidavit from a computer scientist on how the software can remotely manipulate votes [*8],
and countless other comically-obvious examples that emerge every day.
Leftists can gaslight us all they want with their ridiculous "fact checks" that disprove none of the above evidence and only serve to stir up more righteous indignation on our side. The fact is: about half of America believes this election was stolen with fraud [*9]."
Democracy is broken. How can we fix it?
Let's start with an old thought experiment. A sum of cash sits in a room. Do people steal the cash? The experiment's goal is to parse out four types of people: (1) people who risk taking the cash even when there is risk of being caught, (2) people who take the cash when there is virtually no risk of being caught, (3) people that don't take the cash when there is a risk of being caught, and (4) people who still don't take the cash even though there is no risk of being caught.
If men were angels, no laws would be needed, as all would be in category (4). Category (1) is the metric to measure whether a functional society is even possible, as too many people willing to risk consequences to steal or unjustly harm others breaks civil society. A government can only effectively rule over a society with X number of category (1) people. What X is, I can't quantify, but it must be a very low number, as government can only employ so much law enforcement to maintain a civilization, let alone create one.
This leaves us with how to manage category (2) versus (3). Law makes no difference in the conduct of angels, but it can make people act ethically who otherwise would not. This is the chief justification for law or consequences imposed by an authority for unethical behavior.
If the structure of our laws is premised on democracy (loosely defined), and voting is the act that makes a government democratic, then the foundational laws of a democracy are those pertaining to voting. Thus, to the extent we rest our foundation for law in democracy, the law's foremost aim must be to protect the integrity of votes. This means the punishment for cheating must be sufficient to minimize its occurrence to a point well below the documented occurrences of election fraud referenced above.
The states in America have differing laws on election fraud, but here are the principle federal legal penalties encompassing most fraudulent election conduct[*10]. Is five years in prison enough of a deterrent?
Choosing different voting systems (paper ballots versus computers), partitioning the votes into clusters to avoid concentrated fraud (e.g., the American Electoral College), and civic education on ethics only goes so far. Ultimately, we must have sufficient punishment for cheaters.
Corrupt jurisdictions can, of course, choose not to enforce election laws in order to assist favored candidates. Thus, the law should first encompass willful failure to enforce laws on cheating in elections as a core tenet and allow jurisdictions outside the failing-to-enforce jurisdiction to enforce penalties on the cheating jurisdiction's cheating enablers.
The exact manner and scope of conduct considered "cheating" is debatable, but running ballots through a machine multiple times, kicking out or obstructing the view of poll watchers, and violating chain-of-custody rules on ballots should all be part of our definition of election fraud. We all know dishonest conduct when we see it. I'm comfortable defining election fraud broad enough to allow a jury to decide what conduct constitutes cheating.
America has these two aspects covered: laws broadly defining fraud and jurisdictions above the cheating one to enforce penalties. Yet, the above-referenced conduct in the 2020 election still occurred, egregiously so.
This leads us to the reality that the penalties must not be stiff enough and should be increased. But what to?
The stiffest penalties in law apply to two types of conduct: taking human life and treason. Even with taking human life, law takes into account circumstances. Killing in self-defense or defense of other's lives reasonably being put in jeopardy or serious bodily harm is justified. And the law places lesser penalties on people who kill even multiple people in moments of passion or through neglect than it does on people who premeditatively kill even one person. The type of person who can kill with a calm and collected mind is the most dangerous. Thus, the law should aim to deter such people with sufficient penalties.
Treason is more difficult to define. The left certainly used that word loosely regarding allegations President Trump "colluded" with the Russians to steal the election. If Trump did "collude" with the Russians to commit election fraud, the highest penalties should of course apply to him. But there was no evidence Trump or any of his associations did so.
Should the penalties for election fraud be more in line with treason than they are for stealing a car? What is the difference between election fraud and treason? If you can find a reasonable means to parse the two, what is the moral difference between the two forms of conduct?
And what difference does it make if I enlist the aid of a non-citizen to commit election fraud as opposed to a regular citizen? The impact is the same. Considering America via the CIA has engaged in at least 81 known election-interference operations from 1947-2000 (did it really stop in 2000?) [*11], should we truly be more indignant about a foreign agent assisting in reciprocal fraud?
Thus, to engage in fraudulent conduct with the intent to steal an election needs a sufficient penalty in line with treason to the extent they are morally the same.
What should that penalty be?
The classic penalty for treason was death, albeit less-so enforced in the modern era. To the extent treason should carry the death penalty, election fraud should as well. Too harsh? What is worse? Selling classified information to a foreign government or subverting the premise of democracy and destroying faith in the very system we rely on to craft and enforce law?
There are two objections to the death penalty. (1) It is unethical to prematurely end the life of a fellow human being no matter the conduct he engaged in or danger he poses to society when physical isolation (prison) can be imposed instead. (2) Human knowledge of events is imperfect since material reality comes through flawed human senses. Thus, the law will wrongly be applied to people who didn't engage in the conduct they were accused of. A later-discovered innocent man can be released from prison, but we can't bring back to life a man wrongly executed. Thus, the justice of killing X number of people who deserve death must be balanced against the reality that Y number of people will be unjustly killed.
I've been skeptical of the death penalty solely for reason number (2) but never (1). Some conduct is evil. It is just to kill people engaging in sufficiently evil conduct. The ceiling on penalties should encompass the maximum of evil conduct. Thus, the death penalty should be deployed under such circumstances of maximum evil. Further, the type of person who would engage in maximum evil conduct needs a sufficient penalty to deter such conduct. To the degree people engage in conduct that is the maximum of evil is the the degree the maximum penalty should follow for violation.
But to accept a death penalty means some people will be unjustly killed, since human knowledge of events can never be perfect and unjust convictions occur. Principally, I understand the deontological objection to death as a penalty in law.
At some point, however, we must recognize that crimes are being flagrantly committed that undermine the very nature of our system of governance. Pragmatically, we must balance the interests of preventing unjust deaths versus the preservation of our democracy.
We can't sustain democracy when half of its subjects believe that fraud has stolen its most important election. Thus, reforms need to encompass sufficient weight to reestablish the people's trust in voting. When about half of America does not trust in the results of an election, the penalties for election fraud need to be increased sufficiently to decrease future fraud.
Some people may be unjustly put to death for fraud they didn't commit. But election fraud is morally the same as treason, as it undermines the very foundation of our democracy in a way selling some classified documents to a foreign country never could.
Is life-in-prison sufficient to deter election fraud? Is it a false dichotomy to ask the following question? Do you want to continue democracy and accept a number of unjust deaths to preserve it? Or do you want to sacrifice democracy in exchange for preserving those lives?
----
FOOTNOTES
[*1] Death numbers for the COVID-19 pandemic have been theatrically over-stated (to put it mildly) for political purposes, per the CDC and Illinois Public Health director, for some of many examples:
[*2] Donald J. Trump - Posts | Facebook
[*3] Report: Detroit Poll Watcher Logged "Tens of Thousands" of Biden-Only Ballots Delivered in Weird Way (redstate.com)
[*4] A Measure of Cowardice and Sociopathy: Finding Courage During Historic Times (stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com)
[*5] Id.
[*6] Georgia Video Footage Shows Poll Workers Staying Behind, Producing Boxes of Ballots (theepochtimes.com)
[*7] Id. at FN 4.
[*8] Id. at FN 4.
[*9] Id. at FN 4.
[*8] Id. at FN 4.
[*9] Id. at FN 4.
[*10] 52 U.S. Code § 20511 - Criminal penalties | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
[*11] The Agency: A History of the CIA (thegreatcourses.com)
[*3] Report: Detroit Poll Watcher Logged "Tens of Thousands" of Biden-Only Ballots Delivered in Weird Way (redstate.com)
[*4] A Measure of Cowardice and Sociopathy: Finding Courage During Historic Times (stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com)
[*5] Id.
[*6] Georgia Video Footage Shows Poll Workers Staying Behind, Producing Boxes of Ballots (theepochtimes.com)
[*7] Id. at FN 4.
[*8] Id. at FN 4.
[*9] Id. at FN 4.
[*8] Id. at FN 4.
[*9] Id. at FN 4.
[*10] 52 U.S. Code § 20511 - Criminal penalties | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
[*11] The Agency: A History of the CIA (thegreatcourses.com)
Comments
Post a Comment