I wrote an article a couple of weeks ago for Porter County Politics (the tab is in the left side bar if you are interested in checking out the site) about a woman who recently killed, maimed, and ATE parts of her three week old child. I went on and on (pretty graphically) about how I hoped that she received the death penalty. Fat Pete (that is his “blogger” name) posed a very good question to me: Would I be willing to do an even trade, no more abortions for no more capital punishment? I’ve thought about it a little, and decided it would make a pretty good post.
First of all I don’t think that the “even trade” agreement would ever come about, mostly because too many “feminists” consider it their God given right to kill their unborn child right up til’ birth. If it were that easy I can guarantee you that EVERY pro lifer out there would hands down give up capital punishment in exchange for the outlawing of abortion.
Second, although I am pro life and pro capital punishment, I’m also a big fan of states rights. If the people in Vermont don’t want capital punishment, great. I’ll make sure I never move there. Now, Texas. That’s my future home. But I digress: my views on abortion have been posted before, but for anybody that may have missed them, they are as follows. I want an outlawing of all third trimester abortions (barring if the mothers life is in danger and incest and rape, yadda yadda yadda) and for the states to put ON A BALLOT whether or not second trimester abortions will occur. I’m willing to leave out first trimester to appease some of the more “feminist” groups in hopes of some support, and also because more often than not if there are genetic defaults or possible problems with the pregnancy, you can usually tell by the first trimester anyways. I know this may not be enough for some of you out there, but hey, I’m not ganna lie about what I think about it. Me personally? I think abortion is sick and unnecessary and not economical for the country, but I think that my means would lead to the same ends and with less friction because it would be done democratically so that the only person that Maddow can demonize would be THE VOTERS, not a politician. I believe the same with capital punishment. Put it on a ballot and watch the voters vote UNANIMOUSLY to kill the killers, not the unborn children. Now, personally, I agree with Dennis Miller: “Tracking devices on rapists? Kill the SOB and you know right where he is, right there, in a grave.”
But back to the original point: trading abortion for capital punishment. Since I am the apointed “economics guy” (thank you, Kevin, for the flattering bio, by the way) I would of course say yes.
Capital punishment, even though I think it is a great crime deterrent and I believe in it, does cost a heck of a lot more money than to put the perp in jail with no parole. The reasons are obvious:
• More pre-trial time…
• More experts…
• Twice as many attorneys…
• Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment.
• And then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in the high security of death row.”
That adds up to almost double the amount that it would cost just to throw the guy enough food to keep him alive. So for me it would be a double whammy: no more abortions (which, arguably, saves the government money) and no more spending on lengthy trials and appeals. However, as I stated above, I don’t see either side ever coming to such a cut and dry agreement. I could see the left offering up, say, my idea, in PLACE of unlimited abortion, and I would not get behind that at all if it meant no more death penalty. I’m a poker player, and this trade would have to be “all or nothing.” If the right has to push all of their chips into the pot, the left would as well.
This post cross posted at www.ktracy.com and linked from www.mattersofopinion.net
