Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:23:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
710 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> I accept abortion is an issue. Most have opinions on it which at times may
> be hard to convey due to underlying emotions etc. However, I am always
> amazed at the importance of the issue in the US. Is there a reason for this?
> I know it is a separate issue, but I get the general impression that the
> political pro-life supporters in the US are also pro death penalty in
> general - is this wrong?
Scott:
Perhaps I can answer this, as I am indeed both a political pro-life supporter,
and a death penalty advocate as well. Some charge that it is an inconsistent
position - that life is life, and indeed killing is killing. To this charge I
reply that these two issues are not, when examined, birds of the same feather.
In a nutshell my answer (I cannot claim to speak for other "pro-life, death
penalty advocates" - only for myself) is that there is objectively a world of
difference between ending the life of a developing fetus/infant and punishing a
guilty adult.
I believe that some crimes objectively deserve to be punished by death.
Premeditated murder? Yes. Heinous brutalities? Yes. Even Rape? I'm not
sure, although arguably, Yes. The primary responsibility of the criminal
justice system is to deliver justice. Rehabilitation is secondary, and should
often be the responsibility of the private sector. Of course, dangerous
criminals who are serving time should be rehabilitated to the best of the
state's abilities and resources, but their time in prison should be to the
maximum extent required to satisfy the reasonable requirements of justice. The
Texas prison system is terribly over-crowded because we have thousands and
thousands of inmates serving time because of petty drug possession. Those
offenses in my opinion mostly deserve fines. Lock down the dangerous criminals
to the nth degree of the law, and mete out the death penalty when it is
warranted, but let's not make permanent felons out of the wrong people. Prison
is for those people who truly deserve it, and so is death-row. As a "pro-lifer"
and a death-penalty advocate, my main concern is for Justice. Justice for
developing life when freely-created, and Justice for society when victimized by
intolerable crimes. I take no pleasure when the death penalty is carried
through, but I support it nonetheless.
Since I have already strayed into the topic of incarceration, I would like to
address one political issue that has been misunderstood by the popular media
lately. Much has been made of Texas' record on executions and Governor Bush's
refusal to commute sentences. There is indeed a problem in the Texas criminal
justice system that needs to be remedied: In capital murder cases, jurors do not
have the option of giving life without parole - their choices are either life
with the possibility of parole, or death. Not wanting to chance the release of
dangerous criminals in the future, jurors have no recourse but to decide for
death in order to protect society from future crimes if they are paroled. I do
believe that certain crimes indeed may warrant life in prison without parole
rather than death, and in those situations I support permanent incarceration.
But to the point - the office of Governor in Texas has not the power to commute
sentences when guilt has been found beyond a shadow of a doubt. He must uphold
the law, which (though it needs to be changed) does not offer permanent recourse
without death. The national media has been quite uninformed as to why certain
sentences have not been commuted by George Bush (Gary Graham comes to mind -
although I would argue that his sodomizing of an elderly woman constitues a
heinous crime worthy of death). It may be a defficiency in the system, but it
is not a deficiency that is layed upon the shoulders of the office of Governor
(in Texas the office of Governor is quite weak - it was made so after
Reconstruction because of the many abuses suffered by Texans under the post-
civil war Reconstruction government. In fact, the greater power resides within
the office of Lieutenant Governor.)
Ok, I ask pardon for my digression...my answer to your question, Scott, is that
while I recognize that I may be wrong in this matter - that certain crimes may
not objectively deserve death and that the death penalty may in fact be Wrong -
I have nonetheless wrestled with this issue for quite some time and have come to
the conclusion that it is not inconsistent to condemn abortion whilst condoning
the death penalty, and I feel free to hold this position in good conscience.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
