So why do you support the death penalty, Weirddave?
I’m very curious.
Also I would add that the justice system determines whether someone is guilty or not guilty, and “not guilty” is not at all the same as “innocent.” Failure to convict an accused rapist does NOT mean that he did not do it, just that the prosecution was unable to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not sufficient grounds upon which to convict anyone of making a false accusation (and especially, heaven forbid, “having an illegal abortion.” Ugh.) You would have to try her separately on charges of “making false accusations”, thus increasing her troubles, and also risking double jeopardy for the accused rapist.
It is all too horrible for me to contemplate.
I was taking your “say i want an abortion and I claim so-and-so raped me” as an admission of false claim. I threw that minor charge in to address that. And like you said, not being able to prosecute someone for lack of evidence, does not mean the crime didn’t happen. I don’t think Kobe’s accusor was ever charged with anything, or even accused of being a liar by the prosecutors. I havn’t heard anyone say that a conviction is required before the rape exception can be used legally. If it is proven that you made false claims to get an abortion, then under this proposed hypothosis you had an illegal abortion. Putting quote tags on it it doesn’t change it at all.
Because it is a just and proper punishment for certain heinous acts. Because while I strongly believe in the value of human life, that value is contingent upon how that person acts. A person can exhaust what value their life has by, say, burning the face off an infant and then fracturing it’s skull. At that point I don’t think society owes said person anything except a quick and painless exit. Too bad, so sad, don’t let the world hit ya where the good Lord split ya on your way off the planet.
I think you’re missing the point, ie that we as a society are not able to determine the veracity of rape allegations with the precision that would be necessary for it to be an acceptable “exception” to illegal abortions.
Would it help if I made another hypothetical where it wasn’t clear whether the allegations were true or not?
First, you can’t make the claim to dispassionate cost-benefit analysis when a few posts later you say your support the Death Penalty because it happens to fit your sense of justice.* Because there are plenty of us around who think justice moves in other directions. If that’s your argument, it suggests that the DP is legitimate iff it’s administered by a state made up exclusively of people of your view. Because others’ version of the costs and benefits show no benefit in that at all. (And I know you’re not living in a state with such homogeneity of view, because you and I live in the same state.)
Moreover, there is a distinction between direct government action and government acquiescence in – even facilitation of – a scheme of private conduct. Purposeful, active conduct is always different than passive conduct. You can argue against such a distinction if you want, but I think that’s a hell of climb.
–Cliffy
*And given thw construction of that posts, it sounds a lot more like it actually happens to fit your sense of revenge.
Appropos of nothing, but I was pro-choice and pro-DP, then switched to anti-DP. NOT because I believe in the sanctity of life. Life is cheap. The Death Penalty is not. It costs millions more to execute somebody than it does to imprison them for life, and it taxes the judicial system to unnecessary extremes.
For every fetus aborted, dozens more take its place for bleeding hearts to support. Taxes ain’t cheap either. I say go for cost efficiency.
Did you know that the original case of Roe v. Wade is based on exactly such a claim?
Regards,
Shodan
Thank you for your explanation Weirddave.
One of the (many) reasons that I do not support the death penalty boils down to the fact that if indeed our goal is “just and proper punishment for certain heinous acts”, there is no way that we can ever really match the crime to the punishment.
A “quick and painless exit” is in no way comparable to the extreme physical anguish that an infant whose face has been burned off suffers.
We are left with a conundrum-if we truly want to match the crime to the punishment, we would have to torture the murderer prior to execution and we cannot do that and still consider ourselves civilized.
Instead I believe that once someone has committed a truly heinous crime, they have forfeited their right to participate in society and must spend the rest of their life incarcerated.
Having visited a federal prison, I know that life behind bars in a maximum-security facility is adequate punishment, which is why I very strongly advocate life imprisonment without any possibility of parole for specific offences.
I think justice has value to a society, your view may differ.
I do not understand what you are saying.
Apropriate punishment, not revenge.
How typically disingenuous of you, implying that because some else doesn’t share you view of what justice is, then that person must not think that “justice has value to a society.”
How typically pig-ignorant of you, to show up just to snipe at me without reading the comment I was replying to.
I did read it. And, unlike you, i understood it.
Cliffy was in no way denying the importance of justice to a society; he was simply saying that people have different conceptions of what constitutes justice. You accused hiim, essentially, of not being interested in justice, when all he was doing was disagreeing with your idea of what justice is.
Cliffy, if i’ve misinterpreted your argument, i apologize, but that’s how i understood it.
Well, then, pretend I said it. You can couch your insults to me any way you want, Dave, but you’re going to have to do a lot better before you make me cry.
–Cliffy
Where on earth do you get that from? Acceptable to you? I am sure that the legislature can make a law that is acceptable to itself anytime it wants. Like Shodan said, this aint a new pull-it-out-of-you-ass idea. It’s been done before and worked to the extent that it was enforced.
Where do you get the idea that it was working?