News-Record.com

YEA ... and we could have family picnics at the park, waiting on the next bastard getting what he deserves - much better than TV dinners - and it would give the show named "Survivor" a new meaning, perhaps it's like surfing, you know Hang Ten Toes!

See also

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/archives/2006/08/convicted_murde.html

... of course, Algerian Prisons have to be less "customer friendly" than anything America provides.

JDR,

I have little doubt that your comments on this lte will serve to paint a "bullseye" on your postings for the rehabilitation versus punishment debate.

So be it, I'm sure you won't mind, just as I myself wouldn't on an issue where I had similarly strong convictions.

I'm all for rehabilitation in theory, but after fifty years of such efforts the recidivism rates for most felonies have yet to fall appreciably and in some cases - such as child molestation - have actually shown an increase.

In other words, show me results in a given area and I'll support rehab, otherwise you can box it up and store it in the attic for all I care.

Certainly the particular crime and it's circumstances have a major bearing on the issue, but in the overall picture there is a third, often overlooked, consideration in the discussion of rehabilitation versus punishment.

Sometimes an individual needs to be permenently removed from society for the general protection of the citizenry at large.

As I said yesterday, my conclusions on the death penalty are up in the air for both moral and functional reasons, but it's implementation most certainly fits into the "general protection" consideration I've just mentioned.

Pass me a little of that "bullseye" will ya'?

Why not abolish capital punishment? It would save time and money. Of course, it would lower the annual income of some lawyers.

Another thought I have...why is the person who injects the lethal does, pulls the switch, or whatever not guilty of premeditated murder?

What is the difference in our executing convicted criminals and Saddam executing those he considered criminals? Is it the numbers, is it that we are good and he was bad? Is that we can decide who deserves to die and he can't?

Execution is wrong no matter who does it. As many have said, I support LIFE in prison. I am not a bleeding heart who thinks a sad childhood excuses a criminal adulthood. It sometimes explains it but doesn't excuse it.

Or, better yet, why don't we use this opportunity to actually profit from the executions? We could sell raffle tickets for the chance to be the trigger man. Pay and extra buck and you could also enter to win the chance to choose your the means of execution!

Carol, most lawyers that take the death penalty cases and appeals do NOT do it for the money. They often do it because it is a cause they believe in. One that they invest themselves into. And when they have a client, whom has placed their faith in the attorney, get executed notwithstanding countless hours of hard work, constant worry and unbelievable stress, I can assure you that most lawyers are not thinking about the paycheck. Just as most doctors who lose a patient aren't tallying up their bill before the body is cold.

Jan:

I don't think I've posted anything on the rehabilitation versus punishment debate. afaik, I have only posted humble opinions (lol) on the death penalty: it's expensive, too final (you can't retract boo-boos), and not tough enough on real bad guys.

So here's rehabilitation versus punishment: I think we put far too many people in jail. Certainly many need to be just locked away from society, e.g., in my Lobotomy Asylum, but alternative punishments should be sought for many other unacceptable actions ... which raises the question of what are unacceptable actions - but we'll save that for later.

Alternative Punishments:

Should Bernie WorldCom go to jail? I say no. At some level, well before becoming a CEO and perhaps as a condition of employment in a power position, a person's wealth needs to be logged.

If they abuse that power, strip them off all wealth gained plus perhaps 50%. If a corporate schmuck knows he can maintain his houses in Venice, Vail, and Vegas while he appeals forever his conviction, or if he knows that after serving time his stuff will be waiting for him, or if he knows that even if he dies or rots in jail, knows his wife, kids, cousins, grand children, and all past mistress' will live in Nirvana .. then maybe the crime is worth it.

"I don't think I've posted anything on the rehabilitation versus punishment debate."

True, and I hope it didn't seem that I was asserting that you had. I was merely trying to attempt to head off and mention a further aspect of the underlying debate. Judging by your expansion upon the subject, it appears that I succeeded.

I see it as all being inter-related and therefore thank you for your input.

This again? I'm still working on yesterday's thread. To sum up: to kill is wrong. To kill someone who kills is -- guess what -- also wrong. Rehab vs. punishment, cost of appeals, no real closure for families of victims, innequity of enforcement, several people killed later found innocent, etc., are all distractions. To kill is wrong. For the state to kill is also wrong.

Since there seems to be a strong sentiment here that killing human life for any reason is wrong, I would ask all if they equally oppose abortion? If you support life and are against the taking of life for any reason, then you have to oppose abortion as well, right? I find it difficult to understand how one can oppose the execution of a convicted criminal and support the execution of an innocent unborn baby. I know that someone, like Yvonne, will say that a baby is just part of the woman's body or is not really a person, but I do not subscribe to that argument. Human life is life, born or yet unborn.

Carol,

Is an American soldier that gets in a fighting war in defense of his country guilty of pre-meditated murder for killing members of the opposing army? Howie says that killing is wrong under any circumstance. Is there no circumstances that warrants the killing of another?

I certainly don't judge soldiers' actions, unless it is the intentional murder of innocent people. I don't think we are in Iraq protecting our country if those are the soldiers to whom you refer, but that is another topic on which we disagree. I would never be a soldier with a gun following my commander's orders, so I can't put myself in their place. I would probably kill another if it was my life or theirs, or their life or another innocent human being.

I personally don't believe in abortion except in a few exceptions. I do not believe that my beliefs on this subject should be imposed on others. There is always the argument as to when life begins. I don't know the answer to that one, it is something for each person involved to decide.

As has been said, execution is irreversible, and the killing of one innocent person is a valid reason to oppose the death penalty.

Question: Could any who approve of the death penalty be the one to inject or pull the switch?

ORR,

In my defense, I was summarizing what I wrote over several posts yesterday and this morning on a similar thread. In my first post yesterday I wrote that in war or self-defense (and I suppose the defense of another) that taking a life is justified. Sorry for the short-cut today.

As for the abortion argument, I'll echo what I just wrote to Dan on the leftovers from yesterday's string: I am speaking for no one other than myself, but I do not believe in the taking of an unborn child's life. The difference we have is in our definition if when the child becomes a child. Is an embryo a child? I say no, others say yes. Is a fetus at eight months a child? I say yes, there might be a few people who say no (though you'd have a hard time finding any). But when life begins is not my decision. And to enforce my beliefs on a woman is wrong.

Sure! Let's do go back to the gallows! I can't wait for my country to become more like the forward-thinking nations of China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

On another topic: anyone notice that the LTE writer is running for office? I wonder what kind of legislation he's going to propose if he gets in. Maybe scarlet A's for adulterers? Corporal punishment in the class-room? Should be fun!

Carol and Howie,

Fair enough. I can understand and accept your arguments as stated. One exception, Howie, is that you address the aboron issue as a "child". The issue at question was "life". We can discuss, agree, or disagree when a fetus becomes a child, but the real question is when it becomes "life". If we are opposed to taking human life, then at what point is that quickening in a woman's womb, a "life"?

The problem with saying it is an individual woman's decision when life begins is that it needs to be a legally-determined decision. If we are dealing with human life, how can we let a woman decide when life begins? To be rediculous, what if a woman decides that life doesn't begin until the child is one month old and in good health? Should we allow the mother to make that decision? I suspect that the answer for most is "no", so leaving it up to each individual mother-to-be to make that decision seems to be the cause of the problems with abortion. Like it or not, our country's legislators should hammer it out and make it law, so that there is a consistent answer. What we have now will never be satisfactory. Letting individuals make the decision when and why to take a human life is not following the "rule of law".

ORR,

I see your point, but I think the distinction between a "child" an a "life" is just semantic. I say that life begins when the child can sustain itself outside the mother's womb (again, I'm only speaking from my opinion). But it's not my decision to make. And to have our legislators "hammer it out" is probably not the answer either. If they vote today, the answer is maybe 60-40 one way. If they vote four years from now, maybe it's 60-40 the other way. D we have this discussion every year, every four years, every ten? Since there is no absolute answer, there will always be differences of opinion.

If an "anti abortion" person will look me in the eye and say that they believe every child should be born, including rape, incest, and if their own wife, or daughter should have the child, then I can respect that decision. I do not agree, but I have great respect.

What I have found over my many years is that those who claim to be such "pro life" are only "pro birth" for others, not themselves. When given a scenario of their 13 year old daughter showing up pregnant after being raped by a drifter of ill repute, they invoke the "EXCEPTION" rule, which shows they just want to cherry pick for themselves, but have a different idea for others. They are not really pro life but rather a hypocrite.

I choose the pro choice position because it allows those who desire, to take every unwanted pregnancy to term. The most rabid pro lifers seem to be concerned about a fetus until it is born, and then they rail against the government programs that actually assist these children. For that reason, their position should be described as "PRO BIRTH" not "Pro-life".

Death Penalty? If it were applied equally, which it never will be, it would be a deterrent. Unfortunately, if you have money and are white, your chances of getting the death penalty conviction is slim to none. Therefore, I am pro choice across the board.

This is my third time back to these comments and as much as I hate what I am about to do I guess I can't move on until I do it, so here goes: I AGREE WITH DEMON DEACON IN EVERYTHING HE SAYS ON HIS LAST COMMENT CONCERNING ABORTION! (sigh) Dear Lord and the rest of my friends out there please forgive me for seeing anything DD says as worthy. BB

Nice work DD, you've converted another one! Send her the Michale Moore welcome package!

Just kidding BrendaB. Don't wrestle with yourself too much. These aren't personality contests, they're debates about issues. On another topic today, I agreed more with Oak Ridge Runner than I did with the Deacon. That doesn't happen oftern, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. Heck, I think I even caught myself nodding to something Hugh wrote. (But don't tell him though; I'd hate for it to go to his head.)

Brenda Bee,
Thanks for your kind comments. This is how the founding fathers envisioned our Congress. It is a give and take process, and we must build on commonality. The way the congress and the current administration work is "my way or the highway" and that is NOT the way our leaders should govern. If the Democrats did it too, I would say the same thing. We need those willing to compromise rather than those who see EVERYTHING as black and white, for us or against us, etc. Abortion is one of those issues that we should choose the position that allows everyone to satisfy their beliefs--PRO CHOICE.

Brenda Bee,
Thanks again. You ain't so bad yourself.

Demon,

As I said, this debate will never stop unless and until our legislators gather the courage to develop and enact laws that specify what is lawful and acceptable in our society in the fine art of abortion. Until that time, there will continue to be violent disagreement on the subject. The Supreme Court only muddied the waters with their Rowe vs. Wade decision. It really didn't settle the question.

You are right that everyone has some elements of the issue that is uncomfortable for them. Matters of morality and ethics usually do. I suppose that the answer will be to legally define what is legal and what is not. Then, the issue will have legal parameters, whether everyone fully agrees with them or not. It'l be like any law, we may not agree with it, but it is the law in a nation of laws.

You can be pro-choice accross the board, but you still have the issue that life is being taken, whether it be abortion, death penalty for criminals, or soldiers killing within the law of warfare. It's just not possible in a civilized society to say that every citizen can make their own decision regarding taking of life, because then there is no longer a society governed by rule of law, but rather a lawless, self-centered and self-serving one.

I am against abortion.

To answer you, DD, honestly I would hope that I would have the courage to stand by my beliefs, under those circumstances.

I believe that, in your scenario, a life had been concieved, a life innocent of the sins of the father. A life that I think should not be destroyed.

However, I will admit to you, in all honesty, that I don't know what I would do in that circumstance. I think and believe that I would stand by my convictions. But I honestly cannot tell you for certain what I would do, as I have never been confronted by that scenario. I'm sitting here in the comfortable sterility of my office, having to confront only theoretical problems, so it would be easy for me to say that I would certainly stand behind my belief. But I will admit that until that happens, I nor anyone else would KNOW what they would do.

I would not be proud of myself if I lacked the strength to back up my convictions, however, that I can tell you.

Call me a hypocrit, flip-flopper or whatever, but that is as true an answer as I can give at this time.

As I think about your argument, Demon, it occurs to me that you are throwing out an extreme example above. Just how many abortions in this country are done as a result of someone's 13-year old daughter being pregnant because they were raped by a drifter of ill repute? I suspect not that many. That's just a straw man to distract the discussion in another direction. I believe that the vast majority of abortions occur as a convenience, without any threat to the life or health of the mother, much along the lines of the attorney who's story was recently related in this newspaper. That's a good "what if" argument to measure the content of one's morality, but it doesn't really address the real world of abortion.

"Abortion is one of those issues that we should choose the position that allows everyone to satisfy their beliefs--PRO CHOICE." This might be a fine libertarian belief, but the end result is that you are taking another human life "legally" up until one minute before birth through abortion.

Why do 50 states consider it homicide to kill an infant one minute AFTER it is removed from the womb, but it is not homicide one minute BEFORE?

This whole strand started based upon a concern for taking of human life in the context of convicted criminals. I find it very inconsistent for people to be opposed to taking of human life of a convicted criminal, but are libertarian in their views regarding the free and easy availabiity of the abobortion of an unborn life. It seems like an inconcistency that I can not resolve.

Oak,
Are we now into exceptions?
I never said that tons and tons of 13 year olds were getting raped, but it must have struck a nerve.
So, if your daughter, say 13 yrs old, came in and told you she had sex with a black teenager, who happened to be HIV positive and she was pregnant---would you still be Mr. Pro Life at any cost?
Note: I chose a black man to drive the point further home, but it could have been a Mexican itinerate, or a roofer from Guatemala, in any instance it was a "Non white" person.
Seems that the pro life movement bases its entire argument on sweet little babies that are to be born into loving homes, but they are unplanned and therefore terminated. The facts are totally different, but the RTL folks refuse to admit to the public's misconception--no fault of theirs of course!

Bottom Line:
If you list exceptions, you are a hypocrite.

Swankalotapus,
You are at least honest about the situation. Most, when confronted, would want what is best for THEIR daughter, not the fetus. Therefore, as a parent, I have no right to judge what you would do if it were your daughter.
Hence I am pro choice.
If, as ORR claims that abortion is murder, then he would raise the child, love it, care for it and tend to the needs of the underaged daughter as she grappled with having a child as a result of a viloent crime (rape) or a youthful indiscretion. In any event, there is more than the fetus's life at stake. That's why I have problems with the Right to Life folks who are so adamantly for intrusion into the private lives of everyone.
Oak, no strawman here. Just the argument you dare to face.

Can a fertilized egg at conception, exist in the world? NO.
Can a fertilized egg at conception, walk, talk,breathe the air, etc???
NO.

Do you also advocate ending abortion for cats, dogs, and other family pets? (using the logic of the Gay Marriage opponents here) The next thing you know, people will be allowing cats to have multiple litters because they are "pro-life". As you see, it can get ridiculous.

Bottom line for me: A fertilized egg in the first trimester is not a viable life. If the mother's life is in danger during the next two trimesters, I am 100% OK with terminating the pregnancy. No ifs, ands or butts.

Oak,
Although it has become a cliche', it is still good thought provoking language:

"Why does the Pro Life Movement's
concern for life, end at birth?"

"Can a fertilized egg at conception, exist in the world? NO.
Can a fertilized egg at conception, walk, talk,breathe the air, etc???
NO"

Will a fertilized egg become a human baby if allowed to do so? YES

Does a fertilized egg have a heartbeat at five weeks that will beat for the rest of that person's life? YES

Is the gender of the baby set immediately upon conception? YES

But since it's not viable outside the womb, no problem with sucking it into a sink and going to the movies that night.

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php#week3

Maybe it's just the heat, but I have no idea what abortion for cats/dogs has to do with gay marriage, except DD is obsessed with gay marriage. Ya shoulda brought up flag burning and Vernon Robinson too!!

And please tell me about the concept of conservatives, pro-life people, etc. not having a concern for life after birth? Is it just because we don't support all the multitude of social welfare programs? Just because we kinda expect people to share responsibility in raising their children? Are all foster parents liberals? What nonsense.

Dan,
Do you support government programs to feed, cloth and educate the unwanted pregnancies taken to term? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Do you believe in IUD's as birth control?
Again, a simple yes or no will suffice.

If your wife were raped by an itinerate roofer, painter, migrant worker etc who just happened by your place while you were not there, and she became pregnant, would you want her to carry that "fetus" to term and give birth?
What if she wanted to terminate the pregnancy, how would you then feel? How does her "mental" health compare to that tiny protoplasm you refer to as a "baby"? (please answer honestly)

****
As to the dogs and cats line of thinking, I was handing you back some of the Anti Gay Marriage arguments proffered by the religious
Right--"Next thing you know, people will be marrying animals" etc. I even put in the line "you see it can get ridiculous" but guess you just couldn't digest that as you were in a lather over "LIFE".

Where is district 58?

Carol,
This guy sounds like one of those from District Five!!! Just kidding.

Not EVERY candidate from down your way has been a fruitcake. Heck, I always wondered why Gene Kimmel from Pleasant Garden didn't run for Billy Yow's seat on the Commissioners. He's a good old boy, but a smart one. His wife was a school teacher down there, so you know he knows what's going on.

Whoever this neanderthal is, I sure hope he does not get elected. Maybe Vernon has a spot for him on his campaign wagon. Hugh??? Oh, Hugh??