The final sentences of this column were a low blow - offensive and uncalled-for, IMHO.
The Nazis killed people by the millions because of their religion, ethnicity, or political views.
The death penalty (in the U.S., at least) is a punishment administered by a democratic society, under the due process of law, to one person at a time. Capital punishment is very flawed, I’ll admit, but even when badly-administered it is light years removed from the crimes of the Nazis.
I love Cecil, but I gotta agree with the OP. Not that I’d tend to make a big deal out of it. Cecil’s always been an unapologetic leftist (“liberal,” if you will) and I don’t take issue with his political views when he can write such an entertaining and informative column.
The “better than they” lines were hyperbole, anyway.
Regarding the OP, let’s examine a semantically equivalent statement: “The (only reason) the Nazis were worse than us because they didn’t swab off prisoners’ arms.”
:dubious: Hmmm. If I were Jewish, or a Gypsy, or a homosexual, I might find that rather insulting. What if Cecil were to write that “Nazi death camp guards didn’t mind hearing screams coming out of the ovens, and thus Pizza Hut persuades itself that it is better than they”? Would you be yukking it up then?
Here’s what he wrote: “Nazi death camp guards observed no such niceties. Thus do we persuade ourselves that we are better than they.”
How is that “semantically equivalent” to your statement?
I would argue that Cecil’s statement has nothing to do with semantics. His statement was saying that killing a person is killing a person, and it’s wrong either way.
Debate what he wrote not what you made up.
BTW, I recall reading recently that lethal injection turns out to be not so painless after all. Anyone familiar with this?
Given your statements, I’m doubtful whether you understand my usage of the word “semantically”
So in your book, executing Tookie Williams for being a murderer, and gassing Herschel Rosenbaum for being a Jew are morally equivalent acts, I take it.
This is a comment on the same Cecil column but unrelated to the OP in this thread. I hope it’s ok to make this comment here, as it is an update that those outside of California may not be aware of.
According to the California Supreme Court, lethal injections must be administered (or perhaps only observed, frankly I’m not sure) by a licensed medical doctor. Since the California AMA opposes the participation of physicians in executions, California has not been able to find any licensed doctors to participate, apparently they are afraid of losing their licenses if they do (they had a couple who backed out at the last minute, I believe, the last time). So executions in California are at a standstill pending resolution of this issue.
Confessions: I heard this on NPR a couple of weeks ago, and haven’t looked up the details. So pit me for hijacking, or pit me for inadequate research and lack of cites, but I’m pretty sure that the above paragraph is correct in essence.
No. A life is a life. If we’re going to say that taking a life is wrong, then choosing to take another life to right that wrong just seems contradictory in the extreme.
If you want to say that a criminal’s life is worth less, try turning that around and remembering that the Nazis thought that taking Jewish lives was “cleaning up the world” in the same way we see executing murderers as “cleaning up society.” The really commited (read=brainwashed) Nazis honestly thought they were doing the world a favor. Same goes for the bounties on Native Americans. Same goes for the way the Spanish wiped out the South Americans.
You can justify just about anything if you can convince yourself that it’s “for the good of the world”.
This isn’t really the forum for general debate on the death penalty, so I’ll close this thread. Should Cecil wander in here, I’m sure this much is enough to let him know his statement was controversial. Those wishing to continue the debate are invited to avail themselves of the Great Debates forum.