Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Coddling the criminals

I have jury duty January 24. Somebody please remind me.


Flamingo Jones said...

I'm very jealous. VERY jealous.

Phillip said...

Remember, it's your job to convict. Kill them all and let God sort them out, right?

Kyle said...

Will you fulfill your civic duty?

Ian McGibboney said...

I shall indeed fulfill my civic duty to be an impartial peer who decides the best path of fair justice consistent with the unadulterated facts of the case. That should be enough to get me rejected so I can go home and read about the latest Scott Peterson death party.

Nick said...

So Icon:

You don't think Scott Peterson should get the death penalty? Personally, I haven't followed it too much. I think it's a shame that this one particular trial got so much publicity when crap like this happens all over our country.

Personally, I'm against the death penalty for him. It's not that I don't believe in the death penalty. However, our current dealth penalties are just an easy way out. What real harm and justice is there in putting a guy to sleep, then enjecting the drug? And I had a 12 yr. old cousin of mind murdered 3 yrs. ago, so I know what I'm talking about. I think that Peterson, if in fact guilty, should be sent to prison the rest of his life, w/ out all the security. B/c, as most people know, someone convicted of a crime, as his, will be raped then probably killed by the inmates in San Quinton prison. Though it may not be very Christian of me to think that way, I think that would be more poetic justice.

Ian McGibboney said...

Scott Peterson's case garnered the publicity it did because his wife was pregnant. And a babe. Period.

The case was less a national debate about the death penalty than it was a debate about killing of an unborn baby. For the record, I regard that as a double homicide, plain and simple. I do, however, resist attempts to equate such a killing with abortion. The abortion issue, in both my opinion and that of the Supreme Court, involves the right of the mother to choose how she handles her reproductive capacity. When someone kills Lori Peterson and her fetus, that person has violated the mother's choice. Two completely different and unrelated issues.

I'm against the death penalty completely, though not quite for the same reasons as Nick. I do think that death is an easy, and often vindicating, outlet for a serious criminal (Let's face it: did Timothy McVeigh's execution accomplish anything other than proving his point that the government can be a killer?). That said, however, I believe that the government has no right to determine who lives and who dies. What is to stop a government that says a baby must live (or a criminal must die) from declaring that another baby must die? That's not a power I want government to have.