I’ve opposed the death penalty for a long time.
I actually support it, for every reason but one – the inevitability of executing the wrong person (and it appears all but inevitable that there’s been at least one and possibly two erroneous executions in recent years). Executing the wrong person is a double crime; society kills an innocent person, and a guilty party goes free, leaving a terrible crime unpaid-for.
So I oppose the death penalty for one reason, and one only.
But there are cases were, I gotta confess, I’m really just going through the motions.
(The suspect is innocent until proven guilty)
Pro-life people have been saying for 50 years…….once you determine that your 10 week pregnancy isn’t a human, then its an easy step to say your 20 week baby isn’t human, or your 35 week baby isn’t human, or your 1 year old isn’t human, or your elderly parent isn’t worth living.
Same with marriage….once your decide that restricting marriage to one adult male and one adult female is bad, then its an easy step to allow anything to go when it comes to marriage.
If you don’t have absolute truths (such as natural law), then anything goes. Its whatever you feel like that day. I see 10 year old kids with pro-gay marriage T-shirts on around St Paul. 40 years from now, I wonder what their children will believe in.
Look up the case of Brooke Bennett in Vermont sometime. I’m pro-life, too, but there many times I think God is putting that to the test. Short version: after at least a decade long career of sexual assault on children, a 38 year old child pornographer trapped his 12 year old niece, drugged, raped and killed her. He was caught several times trying to have witnesses killed and intimidated, and is now fighting Federal death penalty charges saying they’re inappropriate since he’s in Vermont and they don’t have the death penalty there. The problem for him is that the Feds have him on kidnapping a child with death resulting and that’s what’s put him in the Federal system where there is a death penalty. And Vermont’s populace is turning out to be less averse to the death penalty than its legislators. Lots more on the Internet if you want to know more (not that this isn’t the nightmare of all parents).
In Freudian terms, my opposition to the death penalty comes from my superego, the “rational, reasoning” part. My id heartily disagrees. And the ego is quite happy that most of society disagrees with me. So it’s two parts of the psyche against one.
Boy, it looks like the abortion ban forced otherwise law-abiding doctors to murder innocents, didn’t it?
And suffice it to say that my only objection to the death penalty is the same as our host’s. Are we administering it fairly and consistently? In this case, if there are two or more good witnesses, to include good, reviewed circumstantial evidence, let’s fire up Old Sparky.
And one more thing to it; does Texas prosecute perjurers effectively? If not, why?
Mr. Berg has also summed-up my sentiments on the death penalty. I agree with it except for that little inconvenience of it occasionally killing the innocent. Fix that and I’m pro-death penalty.
That also summs-up my feelings on abortion. I tend to agree that a person should control certain aspects of their body and abortion does eliminate a lot of unwanted, unsupported, and unintended kids borne by unsuitable, under-age, misguided girls into a crowded, overpopulated, under-resourced world.
Still, once again there’s that same niggling little uncertainty; at some point, maybe at conception, maybe later, (so far no one has scientifically or ethically determined it) life begins and abortion then may not occur. Determine that, use it as criteria, and I’m pro-abortion.
Also, how long were these “whistle blowers” forced to assist the doctor in his vile practice? What control did he have over them to keep them there as long as they were? I’m glad that they came forward but am confused as to why they waited (and participated) for so long.