Libertarianism is grounded in the Non‑Aggression Principle and the belief that individuals possess inviolable rights to life, liberty, and property. When a person deliberately violates those rights—especially through murder—they forfeit a proportional measure of their own rights. Under this framework, the death penalty can be justified not as an expression of state power, but as a form of proportional justice rooted in the rights of victims and their families.
The case of Christa Pike illustrates why some Libertarians support capital punishment in narrowly defined circumstances. Pike’s murder of Colleen Slemmer was not an ambiguous crime, nor a product of questionable evidence or unreliable witnesses. It was a prolonged, sadistic killing, openly confessed, corroborated by physical evidence, and witnessed by accomplices. Libertarians who support capital punishment argue that when guilt is certain and the crime represents the most extreme violation of another person’s right to life, execution is a morally proportional response.
From a Libertarian standpoint, the key question is not whether the state should kill, but whether the murderer’s actions have nullified their own claim to the right they violated. In Pike’s case, the brutality of the crime—torture, mutilation, and intentional cruelty—demonstrates a complete rejection of the victim’s humanity. Under a proportional justice model, the murderer’s right to life is forfeited to the same extent they destroyed another’s.
This argument also aligns with the victim‑centered nature of classical Libertarian justice. In a fully Libertarian legal order, punishment would be driven by victims or their heirs, not by the state. Pike’s crime left no possibility of restitution; no amount of compensation could restore Slemmer’s life or undo the suffering inflicted. Execution, in this view, is not an act of state aggression but the maximum proportional remedy available to the victim’s family.
Critics argue that the modern state cannot be trusted to administer capital punishment fairly. Libertarians who support the death penalty respond that this is a problem of state incompetence, not of the principle itself. When guilt is absolute, evidence overwhelming, and due process exhaustive—as in Pike’s case—the risk of wrongful execution is effectively eliminated. Under these rare conditions, capital punishment becomes a defensible extension of the victim’s rights rather than an expansion of state power.
In short, a Libertarian defense of the death penalty is not broad or casual. It is precise, limited, and rooted in proportionality. The Pike case demonstrates the narrow category of crimes where execution is not only justified, but morally coherent within Libertarian philosophy: when a murderer has so completely violated another’s right to life that they have forfeited their own.
Let Colleen Slemmer speak. Oh, wait, she can’t. She’s dead.
Disclaimer: Member articles are published to encourage debate and discussion within the party. The views and opinions in each piece belong to the author and do not always reflect any platform plank or official LP stance. We encourage people to challenge the status quo — including our own.