March 29, 2004


I found this comment by Russell in a post by Andrea:

I always took opinions like that of Tutu’s to evidence a very narrow, almost amnesiac, view of the world. Once the killer kills, the victim falls out of the equation. They’re no longer part of the consideration. All that’s left in the punishment calculation is: 1) a live, breathing human being in the person of the murderer, at least somewhat sympathetic if only as a fellow human, and 2) a surprisingly vague, abstract notion of some wrong having been committed by the murderer. But somehow, in the minds of those like Tutu, they never seem be cognizant of the living, personified humanity of the victim. He or she (actually “it,” to more accurately capture how I think Tutu considers it) becomes an abstraction that falls out of sight or mind.

I justify my support for the death penalty as an affirmation of the sanctity of human life - so, if one really cares about it, which should afford greater protection and consideration, the life of an innocent or of a murderer?

an affirmation of the sanctity of human life...I kind of think he's on to something there. I certainly don't think Bishop Tutu's warmed-over lefty-mush is an affirmation of anything...and if Tutu can "rise above" several hundred-thousand corpses in mass graves in Iraq, a handful of murdered Americans are not going to bother him.

Posted by John Weidner at March 29, 2004 8:14 PM
Weblog by John Weidner