Mare's Mess

Good article.

After just a quick read his argument seems to have a few holes. He immediately loses credibility when he says it would be good if the court house killer was met at the door with a 12 guage, but then goes on to say he is against the death penalty. I guess he is okay with personal vengence as long as the state is involved.

I agree that capital punishment is not a deterent, but how about that capital punishment is for punishment. I agree that the justice system is flawed and can make mistakes, but sometime, as in the case of the courthouse killer, there is no mistake as to what he has done. What punishment fits that crime?

I'm not sure that I understand his last argument about the state having control over life. If the state can lock me up for a crime aren't I also a subject, with the state being able to take my freedom at its sole whim or discretion according to its own rules? To say that the death penalty starts down the slippery slope to the state deciding to who lives and dies based on its sole opinion seems to be quite a leap. Again, could'nt it do the same regarding our freedom? This seems a lesser leap - just ask those accused of being terrorists who are sitting in jail without access to an attorney. (But then, being lock away from all attorneys might not be that bad)

Enough of my rant, I gotta get ready for work.

i agree with most of your comments - especially your last one - and it's why i wasn't crazy about it.

you say that he seems to like personal vengeance, but he doesn't want the state to be involved. i think that's exactly what he's saying. we all want horrible things to happen to horrible people (down deep inside if not blatantly), but is that what our justice system should be based on? i had a discussion with elaine about this a couple weeks ago and i told her that if someone molested my kids i would want to scratch their eyes out or strangle them with my bare hands. but i don't think that's the punishment we should dole out - the most horrible thing the victims can think of that they'd like to do to the perp. i don't think that's a very christian approach and (completely separately) i don't think it's a very civilized approach for a government to take when distributing "justice." i do agree with him that we aren't capable of justice. i think only God is. i think the best we can do is protect society by confining criminals and making the punishment miserable enough that they're less likely to commit the crime again - if given the opportunity. how on earth does anyone think WE can possibly provide justice? we are so flawed and short-sighted, it's laughable for us to be so arrogant.

and i agree with the flaw in his last argument. if the government fines us are they in control of our money? unfortunately they already think they are. although i do think taking a life is crossing the line.

my admission: i liked his abortion debate so much and i really like some of his other stuff too - he's got a great one on social security (http://www.spedro.com/nf_soc_sec.html). i was so excited about reading his death penalty piece that i felt compelled to link it even when it was a bit of a let-down. i didn't think it was horrible and thought he had some really good points, just wasn't what i was hoping for.