PLAL said:
Your Response to Those Who State You Cannot Be 100% Pro-Life & For the Death Penalty?
Basically I tell them neither one of these issues is any of their business. Why? Because they have lost credibility in any good-faith discussion on the Gospel of Life, which is something they showed neither any interest in nor any knowledge of in the first place. If I am feeling in a really good mood or particularly drowzy I say it’s a false analogy or a strawman which I will then --somewhat archly – not weigh into.
Like people have a right to be in a discussion. No they don’t. People earn their way into discussions by being informed and principaled.
Basically for me, there is the theory and the ideal. And there is the reality and the practical management of avowed murderers. As you may know, Canada has not had the death penalty for decades. I am used to it. It is hard for me to argue for anything else. When I was young I fell over onto the give-em-another-chance side. That was then. This is now.
Now I have seen things which truly lead me to believe that the only reason I am not dead and robbed is by virtue of the grace of God or brute-stupid luck or both.
Sitting with a neighbour who had been called into Estreat Court due to an administrative error, I saw that 99% of those whose bail had been called into estreat failed to show up for the estreat hearing. My neighbour was the
only one who had signed bail and then rescinded it through legal channels!
Everyone else skipped and let skip. So what do people think those who skipped are doing to make a living?
Regularly, we see sex offenders serve their time and then get released back into the community and then re-offend. I agree with Ophrah on this.
Once gets life. The choice offered to Karla Homolka should have been between life served soft-time or life served hard-time. She should *never *have been offered the choice between life and 12 years. Now she’s out and arguing that she should be allowed to see her avowed murderer-boyfriend. And she has never admitted guilt to raping and murdering her sister and two other teenagers.
I think the distinctions between first degree and other forms of killing are clear enough during trial. I know the question is about the death penalty. But, for me, I just don’t even know where to start. Why make a big deal about the death penalty when everything else doesn’t work? If folks could get everything else in the penal system to work, then talk to me about the death penalty.
I think you have some things in the States which are good. Like in California, 3-strikes-u-r-out. And you have the whole constitutional tradition of the right-to-bear-arms which we don’t have. The whole thing up here is gentrified and three times removed from reality. Meanwhile real flesh-and-blood continues to be sacrificed over drug deals gone wrong or over just another turf war in the hood, where whole cities have now become the hood.
Sheesh a while back there was guy down the street called the Nose-biter. He just bit people’s noses off to show em who was the boss. What exactly is up with that? Praytell! Someone explain to me why the best course of action is mercy given the unlucky event of having to deal with such a person.
