Seems that the UN is so doing:
New York, Nov 19, 2007 (CNA).- The president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Cardinal Renato Martino, said this week the recent resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly calling for an international moratorium on the application of the death penalty is a “relevant step” in the defense of life, although it only has “symbolic value” since it is not “an agreement that binds countries.”
The resolution, which was supported by 99 countries, with 52 voting against and 33 abstaining, “is very important, and it is gratifying that so many Catholic organizations have worked for this and thus they have the right to be pleased.”
“I am very happy,” Cardinal Martino said. “I was the Holy See’s representative to the United Nations for more than 16 years and during that time I collaborated in two efforts during the 90’s to achieve this moratorium: we worked very hard and we were discouraged when the votes were tallied, the project had to be withdrawn because the numbers were just not there. This time the numbers are there and for this reason I am very pleased.”
Mario Marazzit, a spokesman for the Sant’Egidio Community, said, “The vote is historic, because it is very strong moral pressure and it points to a standard that has become important for all of the countries that do not use the death penalty yet.” He said he was hopeful the resolution would have an impact on the laws in individual countries.
One does question the actual motivations of the UN in lining up against the death penalty – but more importantly, it allows us to ask the basic question of the anti-death penalty forces worldwide: Why do you want the death penalty banned?
I know, it seems obvious – because killing people isn’t the answer. The problem is that most people who want to spare the lives of guilty criminals are also in favor of ending the life of innocent, unborn children. This is especially true of the UN, which has essentially taken the pro-abortion fanatic line on how available abortion should be – on demand. If killing is wrong, then abortion is wrong – but that seems to be something the anti-death penalty movement almost entirely misses.
As for me, it is easy – I’m opposed to abortion, and the death penalty. The reason I’m opposed to it is because one can never be 100% sure of what a person deserves to have happen to him. Certainly, the guilt of those on death row is not in doubt – the mental gymnastics some people go through to try and claim that an innocent man is on death row are rather bizarre, and pathetic. But even the guilty have a claim upon our mercy – a small claim, to be sure, but still very real. I don’t support an outright ban on the death penalty because there may always be that circumstance where it is the only thing we can do in the name of justice, but on the whole I would see these men and women sentenced to a life in prison – and really in prison. I’ve got a prison regimen ready for them which will make them wish they were dead…unless, of course, they start to think about it and understand the debt they owe; such people will come to love their regimen as the basis of their path to salvation…those who don’t get it will, then, get nothing but misery, and that is just.
I doubt that most anti-death penalty people can give a strong defense of their view – they can mostly shout slogans and appeal to emotion, but I’ve yet to see a carefully reasoned justification for ending the death penalty except by those opponents who are also of the Culture of Lfe, and thus also opposed to abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. During the 2000 campaign you migth recall how the left tried to cook up a death penalty case to embarras then-governor Bush – Bush couldn’t actually commute the man’s sentence (per Texas law), but that didn’t matter…the “heartless Republican” narrative was too dear to the left to allow facts to get in the way. So, they raised up a death row inmate as an exemplar of what is wrong with the death penalty. The only trouble was that even if the man wasn’t guilty of the particular crime he was eventually executed for, he had done enough horrid things (rape, attempted murder, etc) to make one commentor coldly, but accurately, note that he could choke in hell on the irony of it all if he was, indeed, innocent of the murder.
In the unwillingness of most death penalty opponents to embrace the full Culture of Life is their fundamental weakness – but this weakness, in and of itself, would be surmountable if the anti-death penalty people would stop trying to generate sympathy for entirely unsympathetic people. If anyone really wants to seriously curtail and eventually end the application of the death penalty in the United States, the first step would be to reform our prisons to the point where life in prison really meant life in prison – and was under a rule of extraordinary strictness and austerity. The argument will always be lost as long as killers are portrayed as victims – portray them as they are, insist upon their punishment, and appeal to the sense of mercy of the American people – that would be the way to take a stand against the death penalty in the United States.
Blogs For Victory 
-Bad Boxer
I’m with Angry Redneck on this one. The money argument isn’t a very good one what with how much we pay to keep an inmate locked up. Sure it sounds nice for them to get life, as long as they actually do.
On top of that, I’d prefer it more if our prisions were all like the one in Arizona that Sherrif Joe Arpahoe (I know I spelled that wrong) runs. Lower cost and lower crime now that folks in the area know jail is BAD. Not just a break from the day to day criminal activities. 😦
The death penalty is a deterrent!!!
That’s the message the American people need to know and understand!
AAR
AAR,
Would that be a scientific consensus or scientific conclusion? Nevertheless, if it is scientific, there is no way the liberals coud oppose it, right?
neocon,
If the science god says it’s so, it must be so…
The fact that universities and their academic disciples are among those doing the research and conducting the studies should convince even the most liberal of the Liberals!
Not only does the death penalty deter murders, and I believe many other crimes, but the studies confirm we need to dramatically speed up the process! As for the rest of the criminals in our “overcrowded and uncomfortable” jails and prisons — put them to work building more and larger facilities!!!
The rest of us already know it from common sense, but we must work to re-educate the American public because most of them are products of the indoctrination and brainwashing from the liberal’s public education system!
Remember when rape carried the death penalty? That’s when rape was rare and a “big deal” — not something as common as shoplifting!!!
As far as the U.N. is concerned, Americans should tell them to get lost!
AAR
This might be a bit late, but getting back to the subject of “enhanced interrogation techniques” or “torture”, whatever you want to call waterboarding and/or related techniques… Casper asked for proof that waterboarding had been used only three times. Well, this doesn’t constitute proof, but that’s what this article says. The article also mentions that the technique hasn’t been used since 2003. ABC news has been running a series of articles on the issue. Apparently they have one or more people on the inside willing to talk to them.
Casper also asked if reliable information had been obtained each time. Again, this article doesn’t constitute proof either, but their contention is no. In fact, in the case of Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, it produced important info that is now discredited.
neocon also linked to another ABC news article, which indicated that waterboarding worked on Khalid Sheik Mohammed. But as Casper subsequently pointed out, some officials aren’t sure whether everything he told his interrogators is reliable. Also, later in the article a guy named Brad Garrett suggested that, Mohammed probably would have talked eventually even if he hadn’t been waterboarded. Of course, that’s speculation. And the operative word there is “eventually”.
So there you go. Some people think such techniques work, others do not, and some go so far as to claim such techniques produce more questionable information than reliable info. It’s hard to say for sure, because the whole enterprise is shrouded in secrecy. I’m not complaining — it should be, for lots of reasons. It is as it is.
The questions I asked earlier in the thread were designed to try to constrain the debate. In other words, if you put enough “ifs” in front of the question of when such procedures might be acceptable, most people will eventually concede that yes, under certain restricted circumstances — and IF all of the conditions you mention are true — go ahead. Likewise, if you withdraw enough “ifs”, most people won’t find is acceptable. For example, most people would not condone such techniques if they are applied solely for sadistic reasons. In other words, most people are not as black and white on the issue as opponents on one side tend to assume about the other.
My own opinion is this: because I lack any true knowledge of how it is determined which “ifs” might apply, and considering that there seems to be a difference of opinion among well-meaning individuals within the business, I can’t say unconditionally that such techniques should never be applied. However, I do believe that the call should very clearly be made by someone very high up in the chain of command — say, the president. If not the president, then the SecDef. It’s their head that should be on the line, not some lower-level grunt.
So now, let me reply to coulterfan’s hypothetical, because he was so kind to reply to mine. The question was: “If you could have aborted Bin Laden before he was born, for instance, would you?” My response would have to contain many “ifs”. For example, IF it were the case that I somehow had foreknowledge of what the man would grow up to be, and IF I was certain that no intervention in the interrim would change things, and IF I were certain that no one else would eventually take his place (i.e., eliminating the possibility that something like 9-11 would never happen), and IF I had the authority to make the final determination, then yes, I probably would. But those are really big “ifs”, and in any practical sense, they are impossible.
Just so you know, a friend of mine who I had known for many years (who also happened to be the first woman I ever really loved) was killed on 9-11. So it’s kinda personal to me.
I could not agree more Spook. The UN is currently completely corrupt, inefficient and ineffective. I believe that there is a place for the UN, but it would need a clear mission statement and a complete overhaul of delegates.
AAR,
I agree that the Death Penalty is a deterrent to crime, that’s why we need it!!
But we need to use it more swiftly, with none of the appeals and all that!!
After 12 or 15 years of trials and stuff, society has mostly forgot about the criminal when he finally gets his punishment, and most people make more schemes to do wrong, they say to themselves, “I got a chance to get off scott free”.
We shouldn’t let serial murderers have to think for a split second about their fate …. they should get their punishment the day they get the verdict.
Jeremiah
The decidenator is just plain goofy, regurgitating radical Lefty talking points because it lets him feel superior without having to actually DO anything—like think.
But then he might truly NOT see a difference between removing a butcher who has raped, tortured, and slaughtered people, and wiping out an unborn child who has never committed the least offense against anyone.
As far as allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest, the baby is still innocent. As a woman, I reject the claim that women are so inherently weak and fragile and silly that they simply CANNOT BEAR to carry a child that reminds them of a bad experience.
OK, maybe this could apply to Lib women, if they are as silly as the men who post here, or like plainjane. But the women in MY life, going back to my pioneer grandmother, take pride in being strong, and would not have a problem in telling the difference between an innocent result of a crime and the person who perpretated that crime. She would not have to keep the baby, to make it an ongoing part of her life, but she would not have to destroy it—as if THAT would make up for the crime or remove it from her memory.
But I’ll make you a deal: I’ll take capital punishment off the table if you outlaw abortion. I’ll agree to house, feed, and clothe the most vile of the vile, the truly inhuman who have killed and would kill again if given half a chance, in exchange for an agreement that the truly innocent will not be tortured and dismembered merely because they are inconvenient.
Deal?
As for torture, Rico, you are far too smart and rational to buy into that fatuous old Lib whine about how you can’t get real information from torture. Sure, if you ask something like “Did you shoot the Pope?” and make it clear you will continue to pull out fingernails till you get the answer you want, you’ll get the answer you want, correct or not.
But interrogation techniques are far far more subtle and sophisticated than that, and good interrogators can pick up on all sorts of tidbits which may seem insignificant to the questionee but which can be used to convince another prisoner that someone has said far more that he really has, setting in motion a whole cascade of information-gathering.
Besides, it’s not the ACT of torture that is most effective—it is the POSSIBILITY of torture. When we rush to hold the hands of terrorists and assure them that no matter how many they have killed, no matter how many they are planning to kill, no matter how long they may be held and questioned, they will NEVER be subjected to discomfort, much less torture, we are telling them to just hang on and outwait the questioners, no matter what the cost to innocent lives.
I submit that the perception that we can, and MIGHT, inflict any of many degrees of real unpleasantness is the most valuable tool of the interrogator of the kinds of people who will gleefully destroy as many human lives as possible, as often as possible. The human mind, the imagination, can inflict more pressure than actual physical pain, but we need to be able to work on that human mind and let it speculate for itself what might lie ahead. A blithe dismissal of “torture”—especially after defining “torture” as pretty much anything the prisoner might not like—is removing that pressure.
The act of allowing a prisoner to define “torture” according to what HE would find most unpleasant has an aspect of “please dont’ throw me in the briar patch” which I find bizzarre.
Almiranta: As for torture, Rico, you are far too smart and rational to buy into that fatuous old Lib whine about how you can’t get real information from torture.
I submitted a post wherein I talk about the issue at some length, but apparently it’s “awaiting moderation”.
Consider me selfish, but one terrorists discomfort is worth quite a bit less than countless numbers of innocent lives that could be lost for the information they hold.
The consequences of actions commited are like, for instance…
If one is sexually promiscuous, and that person gets a sexually transmitted disease … we can ask God for forgiveness, and He will forgive us .. He’s already forgiven us, but does that necessarily mean that He will take away the disease?
No!
you still have to pay the price!!
That’s the way the law works, and the way it should work in our system of law … no second chances!! If you don’t, then you just give the criminals more excuse to do more crime!!
Oh well, if no justice is served in this life, I’m confident and know it will be on Judgement day.
Jeremiah
Almiranta,
While watching a news story this morning about police, I though of another more “humane” interrogation technique to replace those couple of minutes of “water boarding” (fear of drowning) that the Looney Liberals find so objectionable and so utterly abhorrent (even if it might save the lives of their family member in Iraq, or American cities, or millions of American citizens)!
Issue TASERS to all of our interrogators and military. If a terrorist won’t talk, a few shots with a TASER and 50,000 volts of electricity should help them talk. It might create a fear of electrocution, but at least the terrorists won’t have to fear a few seconds or a couple of minutes of simulated drowning!
And the best thing — it’s not torture! Police all across America are buying and using more and more TASERS each and every day, even on teenagers and people who refuse to sign their speeding tickets!
AAR
As someone who is both pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, I have often struggled to justify my seemingly conflicting positions. I have long believed that murderous criminals do not deserve to live, but I have consistently been told that this conflicts with the “culture of life” advocated by President Bush and myself. Can anyone who thinks in a similar manner help me find reasonable justification for these positions? Thank you!
Brian,
Both an individual and a society have a right to self defense. In the exercise of this right, a person or society might find it necessary to inflict death. Given this, there is nothing wrong, per se, with the death penalty. What is key in any action of self defense is the use of force proportional to the needs of defense – in other words, we must not over-react.
A man going on a shooting rampage at a mall may only be stopped by shooting him – and when you shoot at someone, you shoot to kill. On the other hand, a man who is burglarising local stores is not a discernable threat to life…so, even at the cost of his escaping, the use of deadly force would not be justified. The reason people like me have come to generally oppose the death penalty is that once a man is in custody – no matter how horrible his crimes – he has generally ceased to be a further threat to life, and that removal of the threat allows us to consider the matter purely from the aspect of justice and mercy.
But, a person can also come to the prudential judgement that even though the captured criminal is no further threat to life, his crimes fully justify the forfeiture of his life. I do not say a person who wants to execute a Jeffrey Dahmer is wrong – I merely say that, in my view, there is a way to treat him which fulfills the requirements of justice, but also allows us to exercise that quality of mercy God commands us to show. As a Christian, I am under command to love my neighbors as myself – all of them, even the psychopathic serial killers…I am to love them entirely divorced from any considerations of what they do; I may have to deal out death, but I believe that I can show greater love to a person by giving them their chance at ultimate redemption.
As it relates to abortion – abortion is a different species of action. While we are justified in using appropriate force – even up to deadly force – to defend ourselves and our society, we are never justified in the deliberate taking of life which is not threatening our lives, or the life of our society. An unborn child may be the most inconvenient thing in the whole world for a particular person, but except in rare instances, such a child poses no threat to the life of the mother, or to society as a whole. And, of course, in those rare instances where carrying a child to term would actually ensure the death of the mother, it is morally licit for a medical procedure which will save the mother, even if an incidental result of that procedure is the death of the unborn child (we can never seek the child’s life…but if, say, a pregnant woman was bleeding internally and the only way to stop it was to remove the womb – and thus kill the child – then that is ok; tragic, but morally acceptable).
To say there is an inconsistency in being pro-death penalty and pro-life is to assume an inconsistency between being pro-apple pie and anti-tennis. Such a thing is absurd – and only a pro-abortion fanatic could ever have posed the question as a moral quandry…that all too many of us have bought this line of thinking, even in part, shows just how badly abortion has twisted our moral sense.
It is up to you, after thought and prayer, to decide how you will view the death penalty – opposing it or favoring it is not a moral imperitive; it is imperitive, on the other hand, that you work to prevent the un-necessary taking of life, so in order to be a person on firm moral ground, you must be anti-abortion.
Brian,
Not exactly sure how others justify their reasoning…for me it’s quite simple. Children are innocent, unable to speak for or protect themselves. Did they choose to be in existence? Adults, on the other hand, make choices…often affecting others. Adults make the decision to have sex, excluding the obvious rape situations. Adults also make the decision to commit a crime and therefore should accept responsibility.
After working with inmates (a majority of my time was spent working with those on death row), and hearing just about every excuse imaginable, it was nice to meet a few who had the same view I did. One such inmate denied his automatic appeals to hasten his sentence and ultimate death back in September 1995. I had/have a lot of respect for this individual as he showed one characteristic I sincerely wish others, both incarcerated and not, had…responsibility…responsibility for our actions.
We are a nation of laws, without the consequences for breaking them, we would be nothing more than a nation of suggestions.
HEY MARK! (or Matt) my comment, which appears on my computer as comment #55, is still labeled as “awaiting moderation”. What’s up with that?
We are a nation of laws, without the consequences for breaking them, we would be nothing more than a nation of suggestions.
Exactly, Angry Redneck!
If there were no punishment for crime, what good is the law?
Jeremiah
Brian, Angry Redneck, & other Republicans, Conservatives, and Christians,
Don’t worry about justifying what you believe to Liberals — it’s what you believe and that’s the way it is!
Don’t fall for the Liberal Political Correctness! Even if Liberals can’t shake your belief, they are hoping to convince other readers to question their own beliefs, opinions, and views. Liberals don’t even need to change anyone’s belief to succeed. It’s enough just to make people think that others “might” think less of them or question them if they do speak out in defense of their beliefs. A silenced opponent is a defeated opponent… one less voice who might help strengthen and reassure other people who share those beliefs and opinions… one less voice speaking out against Liberals and their liberal agenda!
Republicans, Conservatives, and Christians worry too much about justifying what they believe. Instead, find others who believe the same as you do. Re-affirm and strengthen your mutual beliefs.
AAR
Thanks to Mark, Angry Redneck, and AAR. You guys all really helped me. The reason I asked is that today, I randomly remembered an instance in 10th grade where I was the only member of my class who possesed these views, and I was asked to defend them. I did a decent job, but I’ve always wanted to have that moment back so I could give a real, eloquent defense of our beliefs. Thanks again!
Ricorun,
No idea – seems to be happening from time to time with the new blog program.
Jeremiah, Angry Redneck, Gozer the Carpathian,
Your points are well taken.
Jeremiah wants quicker justice. The question is – how can you get it done with the standard delaying processes the attorneys use? OJ gets indicted last week, and won’t see a jury until next spring or summer. A capital murder trail is usually delayed for a year.
Angry Redneck wants to know how much it costs to house a prisoner. It would be a lot less-per-day if all the frills were eliminated. Explain to me why a killer gets attention from attorneys and the ACLU while those groups could care less about the victims of abortion?
Gozer the Carpathian has the right answer – Sheriff Joe in Arizona and his bare bones jail in the 120 degree heat of the desert. The problem is – there isn’t another Sheriff in the country with pelotas like Sheriff Joe, and we all know it. Ask your county sheriff to start one of these camps and see what his PC answer is.
I’m saying that life in prison without the possibility of parole is the best answer for a convicted killer with the present laws we have to deal with.
My grandfather lived in Northern Montana as a homesteader beginning in 1910, and told me of
horse thieves and killers being strung up. This would satisfy Jeremiah, Angry Redneck, and Gozen the Carpathian; with quick trials, no-cost housing, and a sheriff’s job made easier. The problem is – today’s politically correct atmosphere won’t allow it.
Face it – we must fight the fight in diferent times and in different ways. Pray that another conservative Supreme Court Justice is selected by the next President so we can hack away at Roe v. Wade.
Again, I come back to my assertion that the POSSIBILITY of torture is a very important tool. We don’t have to use it. We could even have an internal and secret ruling that we could not use it. But the perception that it is out there, waiting, should not be discarded.
Almiranta,
You’re absolutely correct!!!
Quoting from one of your prior posts…
Most of the terrorists who were broken by waterboarding were never actually waterboarded. They broke and provided information because they “feared” they might be waterboarded. That fear, which Democrats (Liberals) want to remove from the table, actually kept the majority of them from experiencing any real pain, extended mental anguish, or harsher techniques such as actual waterbaording!
Democrats (Liberals) have done exactly the same thing and undermined our efforts to reach a diplomatic solution in Iran. Democrats have basically assured Iran that they will block any attempts to use military action — real or imagined — against Iran. In so doing, Democrats have taken the “threat” of force off the table, and in effect, made a nuclear confrontation more likely!
Liberals wouldn’t know how to play a real game of poker, where a good bluff can be just as good or better than a hand with the winning cards! Liberals would want it to be a “fair” game, with all cards turned face up on the table!
AAR
As far as allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest, the baby is still innocent. As a woman, I reject the claim that women are so inherently weak and fragile and silly that they simply CANNOT BEAR to carry a child that reminds them of a bad experience.
Except, of course, nobody is making the argument that women CANNOT BEAR such a child; they are merely making the argument that women should not be forced to bear such a child. But you sure gave that strawman what for!