- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
You asked straight questions. I will give you straight answers.
1. Death penalty. Stay with me here, because my position is slightly unusual. I believe that when someone is killed, there is a pre-state, private right of the next of kin to exact retribution. That might be death. It might mean mercy followed by imprisonment. I believe if a relative of mine were murdered, I would favor mercy. I know of situations where the next of kin have furnished funding for counseling, education, and the like in prison for a murderer, provided they serve time until at least an age where they are unlikely to be a danger again. I would like to think I would do the same.
Why allow for the death penalty? Because again, it's not my place to take that away from someone who wants it. Now, before you say this scheme of mine is absurb, let me submit that it is something of the de facto scheme today, in states which permit the death penalty. Quietly, prosecutors often seek input from family members, and act accordingly. I think that's appropriate.
Secondly, I would favor an enhanced burden of proof before exacting the death penalty. Modern DNA has proven the need for this. Those who can't envision anything other than the current system say that's balderdash, you can't have beyond reasonable doubt for one thing, and beyond any doubt for another. But of course you can. I would only support the death penalty for the latter.
And by the way, before you say, aha, he's not an absolutist on life/death issues, let me interrupt and say you're right, I'm not.
2.-3. I'm not an expert on end of life decisions, by any means, but I would favor something like the Dutch approach to this. Fifty years ago, people had heart attacks or strokes, and died in their beds. Today, it is much different. If the plug needs to be pulled, so be it. I did not understand the Terry Schaivo controversy in Florida. By the way, I also think this standard must be subjected to severe review, lest it be abused. There were stories in Holland several years ago about dubious life support withdrawals for indigent patients. I certainly would not want support withdrawn other than under a uniform standard.
4. Full funding for unwanted children. Yes, at let me avoid sarcasm. We already have public housing for the needy, although it is inadequate. We have head start, school lunches, public education and scholarships - heck, at Harvard, you don't have to pay anything now if you make less than $X per year. I'm not sure what they call aid for families with dependent children now, but something like it exists. In other words, it would not break the bank for society; i.e., government, to pay for unwanted children. I would certainly support that. By the way, back in my university days I wrote a paper on the welfare reform act and noted then the interplay with abortion and the need to account for the poor and unwanted, from a governmental perspective.
5. Although you did not ask, my view on abortion on demand is that there is no right to abortion under the federal constitution. And how do I know this? Because the written constitution is a social contract; a binding instrument between governed and government. It's like the old saw: if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it. If you have to ask whether a newfangled right in 1973, post-women's emanciapation, was contemplated by a group of men concerned with slavery in the 1860's, the answer is no. And if it's not in the 14th Amendment, it isn't anywhere else, either. That means, in turn, that the states should be permitted to decide the abortion question, on a state by state basis, come what may.
I don't know for sure what I would do, in a state referundum, but I certainly would curtail the legality of the practice. I have mixed feelings about the morning after pill, because you're talking about a very tiny creation at that point, not a beating heart. I also don't favor illegality in cases of rape, but would consider that a justifiable homicide because no rapist should be permitted to dictate another person's life course, such as a child. But I do consider abortion homicide, just like killing (in war, in the death penalty) is a form of homicide - by definition, death of another. I'm just not an absolutist about it. I don't have as much sympathy for the backalley scenario as many pro-choicers, because in my book you make the choice when you choose to have sex, especially if you don't use responsible birth control. Our drug companies can make pretty darn sure you don't get pregnant, if you try. We have millions of abortions in this country because people aren't responsible enough, and haven't tried. I think it's appalling.
* * *
So, there you have it.
