« Scientists Object To Bush's NIH Priorities | Main | Time to Go on the Offensive »

March 01, 2005

Comments

Please, please stop being my posting doppleganger-in-advance.

Ah, don't complain, I beat you in time, but you'll get more readers by factors of thousands.

BTW, thanks for shilling for us last night on the Lebanon thread.

Scalia: the smartest dumb-bell I've ever read.

For years, I used to get the Dukakis sandbagging question from people because of my absolute, no-exceptions opposition to the death penalty: what would you do if your spouse were raped and murdered?

My wife and I have answered this definitely in our wills with this paragraph:

Special Circumstances: If I should be the victim of a murder, and the perpetrator of this crime is caught, tried and convicted; or if said perpetrator confesses to this murder; I instruct my attorney-in-fact to implore the prosecutor, jury, judge or others adjudicating this case not to seek or impose the death penalty, a punishment I oppose under all circumstances.

Some people take this as pacifistic. We are not pacifists, and we believe strongly in self defense. If somebody were attacking me or my loved ones, I would have no hesitation in doing everything necessary to protect myself and others, including killing the attacker.

Some people see these views as contradictory. Not at all. My objection is allowing the state - any state, ultra-democratic or maximally totalitarian - to execute someone. I'm not just talking about cases in which errors are made. In which lawyers don't represent their clients effectively. In which people of color are more likely to be executed than whites. In which the innocent are given the needle, the gas, the volts, the gallows.

Those are the easy cases. We'll have turned the corner only when the majority agrees that the guilty should not be executed.

One final note. I am not soft on crime. A life at hard labor for murderers and some other violent criminals makes sense to me.

Heh. This thread is like the distilled wit and wisdom of 200 comments over at DKos.

DH: Always a pleasure to shill for you.

> "The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.

Well, heck! If he feels that strongly about it, maybe he should resign in protest! :)

I caught about 5 minutes of Michael Medved's take on this. The one phrase I heard was, "We can't let our country be held hostage by 5 justices."

I vasilate on the death penalty. I think MB makes some very valid points but occasionally I find that some people don't deserve to live. But it seems that we can afford to not kill kids without having the whole country fall apart.

The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards

God damned activist judges.

I used to get the Dukakis sandbagging question from people because of my absolute, no-exceptions opposition to the death penalty: what would you do if your spouse were raped and murdered?

That is the best f'ing answer I have ever seen to that stupid question. Ever.

"We can't let our country be held hostage by 5 justices."

Glad to see the right wing hasn't already collapsed into full-blown paranoid hyperbole.

When has the right not been in such a state?

BTW Great site guys.

Damn, you'd think that dicta such as that would get Holy Tony booted right out of the Opus Dei Golf and Hunt Club.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad