So up to this point, I've got two people excited about the potential debate on the death penalty, Chris Woods and Nicolai Brown from Ames Wire.
Just one problem: No one's answered the challenge yet.
Doesn't anyone want to play with me?
How about you?
Somebody?
Anybody?
KL
9 comments:
Woodsy doesn't want to play with the death penalty? Even with his man Culver ready to gas Iowa's felons (allowing them to vote absentee before hand, of course)?
I'm against the death penalty. I'm with Culver on a lot of other issues, but not the death penalty.
Anyway, Culver's not campaigning to reinstate the death penalty, and its quite unlikely to pass through the statehouse. Read Kyle's first post on the death penalty for more information about.
I'm against the death penalty, myself. Unless, of course, someone were to hurt my wife in any way, shape, or form. Then they die.
I guess this isn't one of my burning issues. I can't get excited about it for some reason. How many felons die at government hands? How many die in Iraq in the same time period? How many die due to tobacco? Traffic deaths? Cancer? AIDS? I guess I'm against the death penalty, but it seems kinda insignificant at the moment...
I tend to side with eminent Mr. Radloff, here. It's not something I can get super-excited about except insofar as it reflects on a judicial system that is racist in result, questionable in accuracy, and terrifying in execution.
While generally I do not support the death penalty, it would not be a deciding factor for me in an election unless all other things were equal -- and that's not likely.
Chris, Culver's stance on executing people is just as two-faced and weasely as Blouin's stance on abortion. Do you recognize that?
Actually, for once I'll step up on Culver's behalf here.
I've never heard Culver say anything but the fact that he supports the death penalty in exceptionally limited cases. His position isn't two-faced, in fact it's remarkably consistent.
I, along with some other Fallon staffers and the candidate himself, met with Culver today, and while I disagree with him on some issues and don't feel he's exceptionally bright, I do respect his stances, largely. They don't look contrived for political gain. In fact, I don't think Chet COULD fake a stance for political gain.
Also, I'd like to stress that this argument isn't about Chet. Again.
So, you're wondering about the morality of the death penalty? Seems simple - killing is wrong, no matter if it's done by an individual, a solider, or a nation.
That said, we DO allow our soldiers to kill people without legal repercussion (and we also take the moral choice away from them). We, as a nation and a people, have decided that certain things outweigh the amorality of murder - defending Europe from Hitler's evil, etc.
So, as a nation and a people, does vindictiveness outweigh morality? Is that what we're choosing when we choose the death penalty? Does our sense of justice demand we override our sense of morals in some instances? I don't know. I'm not arguing or preaching, just asking.
It gets tricky. Especially when beer's involved.
Kyle, thanks for your comment sticking up for Culver's stance on the issue. You essentially said what I would want to say, except I think that for some of these commenters hearing from you probably (or hopefully) made it have a bit more impact.
Still not buying it. Two-faced doesn't mean he's flip-flopped. It means he's trying to have it both ways. The weasely part is saying you'll support ending abortion/bringing about state executions and also saying you'll do nothing to make it happen.
Both Blouin and Culver talk out of both sides of their mouths hoping the red-meaters hear the "pro-life" or "pro-state-execution" and the more enlightened voters concentrate on the "but I won't lift a finger to bring about my desired result." This is weasly and two-faced.
You could say that Culver has been consistantly weasly and two-faced on the death penalty issue, much more so than Blouin was with abortion. But he's still a weasle.
Post a Comment