Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:16:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2120 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> 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 see you point of view, but I still feel a life is a life. Personally, I
could never take another life in cold blood - no matter what the reason. The
only death I can remember agreeing with was this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_937000/937586.stm
...and I was not "happy" with that.
Is the US the only democracy with the death penalty? I'm pretty sure it is
not, but I can't remember who the others are. I think in the UK it is still
technical possible to be executed for treason - but it would never happen.
In the UK, this is typical of how the US death penalty is reported:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_995000/995483.stm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_873000/873650.stm
Scott A
>
> 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
|
|
|
|
