Flynt Doesn't Want Guy Who Paralyzed Him Executed
There's no proof death penalty is a deterrent, he writes in column
By Evann Gastaldo, Newser Staff
Posted Oct 17, 2013 3:34 PM CDT
Hustler magazine magnate Larry Flynt speaks during a news conference in Beverly Hills, Calif., Wednesday, July 11, 2007.   (AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian)

(Newser) – Joseph Paul Franklin is set to be executed next month for a series of murders. Franklin also shot and paralyzed Hustler publisher Larry Flynt in 1978—but Flynt doesn't want him executed, he reveals today in a guest column for the Hollywood Reporter. "Supporters of capital punishment argue that it is a deterrent which prevents potential murderers from committing future crimes, but research has failed to provide a shred of valid scientific proof to that effect whatsoever," Flynt writes.

In addition, execution costs taxpayers more than a life sentence does—and in Flynt's opinion, a life spent in prison is the more severe of the two sentences anyway. "As I see it, the sole motivating factor behind the death penalty is vengeance, not justice, and I firmly believe that a government that forbids killing among its citizens should not be in the business of killing people itself," Flynt concludes. Click for his full column.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Flynt Doesn't Want Guy Who Paralyzed Him Executed is...
3%
6%
1%
74%
0%
15%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 36 comments
Patrick Sullivan
Nov 20, 2013 2:27 PM CST
What if we learn in the future that JP Franklin was a contract agent working for hire? Now if the families of the deceased or other wounded victims want to seek damages, might they not be barred by not having critical evidence that would have been provided by JP? Might that not at minimum be a case of obstruction of justice, for disposing of the evidence that may have been found in JP? If the families are barred from receiving their justice due, might we then not consider that Capitol punishment at minimum, is intrinsically unjust for more parties than just the accused? Might a properly informed jury not find, that capitol punishment might be construed, as part of a larger conspiracy to perform a destruction of evidence? And who might we guess, would benefit most from this, other than co-conspirators? Do candidates not waste our life forces?
plain_speaking
Oct 18, 2013 7:14 AM CDT
Every part of me hurts as I type this...I agree with Larry Flynt....but I think someone with life in prison should have the option of assisted suicide....
Your_Name
Oct 18, 2013 4:47 AM CDT
Mr. Flynt has got the science right....How many innocent, wrongly convicted people are executed? Many, far more than a few....Usually, convicted murderers aver that life in prison is more punishment than execution,,,,Most religions state that a person killed for any reason makes the grade to stay out of Hell.....My admiration for Flynt grows....Killers killing killers makes for more killing, not less....