|
Recently a reader contacted us at XEKE.com talking about the hypocrisy of simultaneously advocating the Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion position & supporting Capital Punishment. This is not an unusual charge from the sensitive among us. "How can one be such an ardent defender of life on the front end, but then be willing to take a life at the back end?" they passionately inquire. One party to the conversation is missing the big picture and holding an inconsistent position, and it is not the Anti-Abortion/Pro-Capital Punishment advocate. Let me explain.
We at XEKE.com hold firmly to the Pro-Life position. This has been made quite clear in our comments regarding abortion and those folks who support abortion for any number of reasons. This Pro-Life position is actually what informs our view of Capital Punishment and allows us to consistently be in favor of it at the appropriate time. First of all, Capital Punishment ought to be reserved for those who commit willful murder. Capital Punishment ought not be handed down for acts of manslaughter or, as was recently a hot topic of discussion, for child rape. While this may appear to place us at odds with our Conservative friends on the Supreme Court, it should be noted that their dissent was based on policy arguments, application of the law, and separation of powers, per se, not on the legality or morality of Capital Punishment. This is an opportune time, as well, to note that XEKE.com is not comprised of ideologues that take marching orders, blindly or otherwise, from anyone. Furthermore, this being a discussion of Capital Punishment, and not one of how child rapists ought to be punished, I'll save my defense of this particular position for another time. Returning to the topic at hand, it is vital for a society to place a value on life. To what extent will life be defended? To what extent will those who prove that they do not value life be punished for their decision and their crime(s)? These are questions a society must answer. Our position at XEKE.com advocating Capital Punishment stems from our placing the absolute highest value on human life. "How can this be?" the anti-death-penalty folks want to know. If a member of society plans and carries out murder, that individual has demonstrated through their actions that they do not hold the Pro-Life values that ought to be embraced by the society. Payment must be made, and what is the greatest payment that can be made for subverting this most sacred societal standard? To accept anything less diminishes the value of the life of the deceased, who is the victim of an irrevocable crime. If the victim loses his/her life and the criminal gets 20 years, is there justice? If the victim loses his/her life and the criminal spends the rest of his/her life in prison, is there justice? This isn't about "an eye for an eye," nor is it about any other type of revenge. It is about setting the standard in a community or a society that there are some things that just simply won't be tolerated, murder murder above all. Life must be valued, and consequences must be in place for those who prove by their actions that they do not seek to preserve life.
The anti-death-penalty folks always want to equate murder with Capital Punishment. You've seen them protesting long into the night prior to an execution. "What's the difference between killing a person and taking someone's life?" they ask. Come on... are they serious? On one hand, we have a victim whose life has been taken from them, having been granted no due process, given no attempt at defense (either physical or intellectual/legal), and been granted no regard for their humanity and person-hood. On the other hand, we have the criminal who has been convicted in a court of law following due process with a legal defense, high-priced or otherwise. Anymore now, this criminal has had the benefit of a lengthy appeals process, a process, by the way, that they did not afford to their victim. There can be no intellectual honesty to a position attempting to argue a moral equivalence between the two. While I in no way believe that this closes the book on our dialogue with our readers regarding Capital Punishment, I do believe that this opinion makes for a good starting point. Let me reiterate in closing that it is the Pro-Life/Pro-Capital Punishment advocate that maintains the consistent stand, and not the other way around. rg 7/19/2008 |
|
Archive | Home
|
