THE DEATH PENALTY

Now that Trump has reinstated the Federal death penalty statute, I thought it’d be a good time to share some thoughts about where I stand on the issue.

1.     Anyone who attempts to inject “pro-life” in a discussion of the death penalty is either attempting to deliberately mislead you or doesn’t understand EITHER issue.

a.      “Pro life” is as specific a term as “pro choice”. “Pro life” is specific to the abortion issue and is not applicable to other issues. “Pro choice” is specific to abortion as well. If I was to suggest that, because you, Mr./Mrs. Liberal, believe that big game trophy hunting should be banned, or that smoking in public places should be banned, or that carbon emissions should be banned, then you cannot claim to be “pro choice”, I would be wrong in the application of that term. Likewise, anyone claiming, as Alyssa Milano just did, that, in supporting the death penalty, a  person has, “…lost the right to pull your, 'pro-life' narrative-talking-point- b------t with me…”, is wrong in the application of the term “pro life”. (In the case of Milano’s comments, I’ll confidently side with the ‘doesn’t understand EITHER issue’ explanation).

2.     The death penalty IS, without question, contemplated in the Constitution. It’s right there in the Fifth Amendment, which, in part, states, “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”. In other words: with due process of law, a person CAN be deprived of life.

3.     Erich Reimer penned an opinion piece for Townhall.com, https://townhall.com/columnists/erichreimer/2019/07/19/capital-punishment-is-government-overreach-on-our-liberty-n2550320 . It is worth reading, not because I agree with his opinion, but rather because I DON’T agree with his opinion (if you are not educating yourself on both sides of an argument, you are not educating yourself; you are indoctrinating yourself). A couple specific points of disagreement:

                                               i.     Comparing the United States to North Korea, the PRC, etc, is meaningless. Some of these countries also call themselves “republics” (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, People’s Republic of China, etc). Does that make the republic we have in America a Communist country? Nonsense.

                                              ii.     Reamer argues that the government is able to “…deprive a citizen of something as fundamental as one’s own very life.” This is simply not accurate. In the case of the death penalty, the person being executed deprives THEMSELVES of their own life.

                                            iii.     Reimer argues that the death penalty was contemplated in times far more “savage” than our current, civilized, society. I beg to differ. Read the headlines on any particular day, and the horrors of today’s society are evident. The five persons scheduled for execution, between December 2019 and January 2020 are perfect examples. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/us/five-inmates-federal-executions/index.html )

                                            iv.     Reamer argues that our society is far removed from such historical horrors as “The Great Purge” (Soviet Union; two years, 750k killed) and the “Reign of Terror” (France; one year, 40k killed). I’d argue that abortion law, which has cost the lives of at least 61 million (aprox. 1.3 million/year) unborn children, is FAR worse.

4.     The Catholic Church, currently, argues against the death penalty on the grounds that incarceration protects society from the worst of society. I disagree completely. An example: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-aryan-brotherhood-prison-gang-federal-investigation-20190606-story.html.  Another example can be found in the Willie Horton case (while Horton did not kill anyone when furloughed, it is certainly that he retained the capacity to do so). In addition, while the Church (and others) make this argument, they seem unconcerned with the brutal rapes and murders that take place, regularly, within prison walls.

5.     The essential difference between abortion and the death penalty is simply this:

                                               i.     Abortion punishes (by putting to death) a child who is the result of actions taken by others.

                                              ii.     The death penalty punishes (by putting to death) a person who has CHOSEN to commit an act that carries with it the possible consequence of forfeiting their life.

Hopefully, this explains a) my position on the death penalty and b) why the death penalty is a fundamentally different argument than abortion. But it is also important to understand why Democrats oppose the death penalty, while staunchly supporting abortion. This, too, is simple:

-       In opposing the death penalty, Democrats take the opportunity to weaken what is clearly contemplated in the Constitution. They attack the First and Second Amendments, the Electoral College, etc, with the same ‘slippery slope’. Their long term goal, of course, is to render the Constitution meaningless, since they cannot outright abolish it.

-       In opposing the death penalty, Democrats’ desire to seek what is the common denominator in their legislation: elimination of personal responsibility. Abolishing the death penalty would relieve the convicted of the most severe punishment for a crime in which they voluntarily engaged. (This also explains their position on abortion: to seek the relief from personal responsibility of persons who, for the most part, engaged freely in choice. Of course, a discussion is certainly warranted in cases of involuntary incest and rape, but that is for another post….).