Posted on 04/19/2013 5:12:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
Don is angry with me. He cannot understand why I support punishing rapists with death while simultaneously defending the rights of the unborn. He accuses me of applying double standards, promoting hypocrisy, and of being "inconsistent." But I am perfectly consistent in my beliefs. And, truth be known, so is Don.
The reason so many people are unfairly labeled as "inconsistent" is because the term "double standard" is applied in such a haphazard fashion. People are actually guilty of applying a double standard when they treat two identical things differently. On the other hand, they are not applying a double standard when they treat two different things differently. They are just applying common sense.
It’s pretty easy to see that I am not applying a double standard in opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty. An unborn child is not the same thing as a convicted murderer. In fact, no unborn child has ever committed murder. Forgive me for going out on a limb, here. But we are dealing with different things.
Of course, opposition to abortion and support of capital punishment is perfectly consistent with respect for innocent life. Abortion must be stopped because it takes an innocent life. Murderers must be stopped because they take innocent lives. And nothing deters like capital punishment. No executed man has ever become a recidivist.
Those liberals who claim the lack of a "general deterrence" effect of capital punishment are to be dismissed as smug hypocrites. General deterrence refers to the discouragement of would-be offenders – as opposed to those already convicted of crimes. Of course, general deterrence is not possible when the appellate process extends over a period of decades. The would-be killer is not deterred because he knows that punishment would not swiftly follow his offense. That is due to the almost endless appeals in capital cases. These endless appeals are caused by liberals who block any and all efforts to reform the process. Therefore, they lack the moral authority to protest the condition they have created.
Of course, my desire to extend the death penalty to cover first degree rape does not introduce inconsistency into my worldview. The convicted rapist is not an innocent human being. Additionally, I want to insure that if the victim becomes pregnant, she can kill someone in order to assuage the memory of the rape. Presently, too many people would prefer that she kill the innocent child. I would rather spare the innocent child and kill the guilty rapist. See how I keep coming back to a concern for saving innocent life? You may disagree with me. But at least I’m consistent.
Of course, Don thinks I’m crazy. And there's a reason for that. He likes having sex with a lot of women. In fact, besides smoking pot and bombing my Facebook page, there's nothing he enjoys more than "getting a little strange" - as he likes to say.
Don's sex life is relevant to the discussion because it is the only reason he supports unrestricted abortion. He has an otterbox to protect his iPhone. But he won't wear a condom to protect himself during sex. If the woman won't assume the responsibility he shirks, he must rely on abortion as a back-up plan. Otherwise there would be a lot of little Dons running around - and one less Don Juan hitting the bars looking for some "strange."
Of course, Don consistently employs the rape exception in abortion debates because the issue makes pro-lifers seem calloused towards women. He also uses the rape victims in debates so he can keep using women for sex after the debate is over. I always agree with him when he says a woman has a right to terminate a life in order to help assuage the painful memory of rape. We just disagree on which life should be terminated. Don thinks she should have a doctor kill the baby by dismemberment. I think she should have a prison doctor kill the rapist with a lethal injection - after a fair trial, of course.
Don fights back hard when I say rape should be a capital crime. But he's just being consistent. The more he sleeps around, the greater the likelihood he will be charged with rape. Therefore, it is in his best interest to promote leniency in the law of rape - the kind of leniency he is unwilling to extend to the unborn.
My friend Don says we can’t legislate morality. What he really means is that we shouldn't legislate morality because it would interfere with his sex life. His reasoning is strangely consistent. It is also consistently selfish.
If you punish rapists with death, why would they ever leave a victim alive?
The most idiotic of all cliches, yet almost never challenged.
Almost every law we pass is intended to legislate morality, since all "morality" means is the difference between right and wrong.
Why have we made murder, rape and kidnapping illegal? Because they're wrong, which is to say immoral.
We've even gotten around in recent years to criminalizing certain actions more severely depending on the perp's presumed motivation, the famous "hate crimes." Why? Because we believe such crimes to be uniquely wrong = immoral.
In fact, the whole PC and multi-culti movement is based on proclaiming certain actions to be wrong or immoral, even if they can't at present get them made illegal.
What those who use this cliche really mean is that, "We can't legislate sexual morality." I wish they'd just say so.
I also wish someone would explain why sexual morality is so uniquely invulnerable to legislation when a great many other personal and private actions are fully open, in their minds, to being legislated.
This is why a lot of what used to be capital crimes had the punishments made less severe. Robbery used to be a capital crime. Until jurists started noticing that robbery victims inevitably turned up dead or disappeared without a trace.
Not all rapists are killers, but your point is an excellent one.
Hmm ~ well, why? Go ask one.
Rape is a terrible crime, and I would be for Capital punishment for it if I thought it wouldn’t result in more murders.
Could you clarify?
I absolutely and utterly disagree with this author.
Capital punishment shouldn’t be allowed based on someone testimony. All it takes is for one woman to sleep with a guy and cry rape and he’s DEAD?
Nope. And nope.
I agree. Also it should be noted that it is the only crime that exists only in the mind of the victim, since all of the activities that might result in physical evidence are engaged in by some consensually.
Certain activities + consent = no crime.
Same activities - consent = rape.
Women never file false charges. /s
That can’t be used as a justification to leave them alive.
Start hanging the scumbags and at least some of them will be afraid to rape and not do it.
That is the only reason I can think of NOT to punish rapists and child molestors with death.
There is nothing inconsistent with punishing the guilty with death, and trying to spare the innocent. Only the sick minds of the Left could confuse the two.
So when some chick lies in a he said - she said, we just put him to death? There are numerous cases where the woman admits filing false charges later. You okay with killing innocent men just to set an example?
The constant push for ever-increasing punishments for every level of crime is a very big mistake, and one that future generations will pay the price for.
As bad as any other crime may be, if the person doesn’t take the life of more than one person, or possibly just one person in a particularly heinous manner, capital punishment should not be on the table.
Not Mike’s best piece. He’s correct that executing a rapist makes much more sense than executing a child conceived through rape, but there are far too many other factors for him to make as much of it as he’s doing.
Fortunately, this is just an opinion column, and his ideas won’t go further than talk.
That’s absolutely true. There’s rape, and then there’s legitimate rape. I’m not being sarcastic.
That person should not be convicted. If I were a juror I would not convict a person of a crime unless it was proved they did it. If I was a prosecutor I would not charge a man on the word of a victim alone. That is a larger issue.
That you might execute an innocent person is the only valid argument against the death penalty. I support it anyway but I acknowledge that argument is a serious one, the government is incompetent.
Perhaps not every rapist I would but in certain cases yes, they should definitely die. Pedos, ones where they beat the girl half to death, etcetera. There are too many rapes, fear needs to be put into these scum.
What you said earlier, what if they just kill the victim, well if a murderer knows he will get the noose if caught, why would he surrender if caught by the cops instead of shooting at them? We can’t let them dictate the rules.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.