My representative, Del. Rob Bell, just gave a brief speech on the importance of killing children.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in Roper v. Simmons that it is illegal for the state to impose the death penalty on children. This seems like common sense to me. Can you imagine the outrage if, say, Iran put a juvenile to death? President Bush would hold this up as evidence of their barbarism, and he’d be right. But the issue of morality aside, the Supreme Court has made their ruling, and it is no longer legal to put anybody under the age of 18 to death.
Rep. Vince Callahan (R-McLean) has introduced a bit of housekeeping legislation, HB 45, that would change Virginia law to change the minimum age for the death penalty from 16 to 18. This is a no-brainer. After all, if a jury did sentence a juvenile to death, it would be thrown out on appeal, because it’s illegal. The law is wrong, and so it should be fixed.
Apparently, it’s not such a no-brainer. Del. Bell prefaced his comments with the helpful explanation that he is speaking “on behalf of real people,” which cleared up whether he was representing mannequins or crash-test dummies. He went on to say that sometimes children do really bad things, and, consequently, we ought to kill them. He brushed aside the minor matter of the Supreme Court by saying that, hey, maybe they’ll change their mind on this. They’re fickle, that Supreme Court.
After Del. Bell spoke, Del. Dave Albo (R-Fairfax) explained that he, too, supports killing children and that he, too, is opposed to the Supreme Court decision. But he concluded that the high court’s ruling leaves no question that the Virginia law is inaccurate, and so it must be corrected.
Reasonable minds may disagree on the matter of the juvenile death penalty. (I don’t actually believe that. It’s a rhetorical device.) But reasonable minds may not disagree on whether Virginia’s laws must be within the bounds of U.S. laws.
Hard hitting, negative campaign add for next election, in the spirit of ‘Swiftboat’:
Small child (lets say ~13 or 14) sitting against a black background says:
“[Insert name] doen’t support letting me drive a car (as probably all delegates would). But he/she supports the government having the ability to kill me.”
End commercial.
That’s it. See if that makes an impact.
While I agree entirely about the cruelty and absurdity of executing minors, I think that judicial challenges by state legislation can be a good thing. When a state passes legislation contrary to precedent by the US Supreme Court it can instigate a reconsideration of the law — sometimes in good ways.
Sorry… I read this and I thought we we’re talking about abortion.
Wow. You didn’t read it very closely.
I am ambivalent on this issue. However some of the problems I have with Juveniles that commit murder is that a life sentance doesn’t mean a life sentance for a juvenile. Eventually there is the strong chance that at some point they may be released and re-enter society. Then they will have a chance to enjoy some sort of life, a chance the person they killed will never have.
If life really ment life I’d probably be a little less ambivalent. But there are too many other factors that can alter that.
come on folks, Somolia is the other country that allows for the death penalty to be administered to children, and you know if it’s good enough for Somalia, it’s good enough for the Commonwealth..you arrogant liberals disgust me!
We shouldn’t just kill them, we should then eat them.
Actually, we should first maim them, then season them, the kill them, then eat them.
I’ll draft a letter to Mr. Bell.
ooh… shoot, I forgot the cooking part.
Yes, we should maim, season, kill
awww forget it!
However some of the problems I have with Juveniles that commit murder is that a life sentance doesn’t mean a life sentance for a juvenile.
Well, here in Virginia that’s just plain wrong. If the juvenile is tried as an adult – which they almost always are – and convicted of capital murder, then the only sentencing option is life without the possibility of parole. The only difference between a juvenile being tried as an adult and an actual adult is that the former cannot be executed. Life without parole means just that – they’re not eligible even for geriatric parole. Only the Governor can let them out of prison, and you can guess how often that happens.
Thanks for the clarification on that Matthew.
I know it isn’t always the case for other states, but I wasn’t certian about Virginia. And I remember for other crimes at least in the past- there was not always “truth in sentencing.” Meaning that a 10 year sentence usually meant the convicted only serves 5.
The other question then if the Supreme Court has said it is unlawful to execute minors, then how does Virginia expect to be able to over-rule the Supreme Ct.?
I just want to make sure I understand this: it’s OK to kill innocent children with abortion, but wrong to kill guilty children with due process of law.
Actually, I have no problem with a debate over the propriety of the death penalty as applied to heinous crimes committed by minors. It’s certainly a debatable point. But the Supreme Court’s decision on the issue is a constitutional monstrosity.
Okay, so how many of y’all advocating lifetime or death sentences for minors actually have any children of your own? I think folks are lucky if they reach some level of maturity by the time they are into their late 20s or 30s (Waldo is an exception :-) ), much less before they reach the tender age of 18. It is insanity to hold these children accountable for their actions for the rest of their lives.
In my opinion, these kids need to be removed from the home (obviously the parents are not succeeding in teaching them right from wrong), put into a facility whose methods have some reasonable chance of reaching and rehabilitating the kids, and then given another chance.
I know each and everyone of you made serious mistakes as a kid. Or perhaps there are folks out there who never drove slightly tipsy, never broke the speed limit, never did anything unsafe – not. You were lucky, and managed not to kill anyone in the process. Really, it was luck and nothing else. Those who are not so lucky must be given another chance.
I think trying children as adults is absurd. The government had decided that children cannot vote until they are 18 because their brain has not developed to the point where they can rationally choose elected officials (who often act like children themselves BTW). The government has also decided that even adults (18-20) have not matured enough to responsibly consume alcohol. So now let me get this straight…. Children are not mature enough to vote, havent developed enough to drink, but dam* it they are old enough to be killed by the state….. hmmm doesn’t sound right to me.
James, I feel silly explaining to this, because you know it, but the overwhelming majority of Americans who support the option of abortion at some point in pregnancy do so because they believe that, at that point, it’s a fetus, not a child. Everybody draws the line at a different point. For some it’s the day of conception, for others it’s at the quickening, and for most it’s somewhere between the two.
Everybody is opposed to killing children. What we disagree on is when a bundle of cells becomes a child.
Everybody except for Rob Bell and Dave Albo.
“fava beans and a nice chianti”…
Yeah… what Waldo said. :)
The other question then if the Supreme Court has said it is unlawful to execute minors, then how does Virginia expect to be able to over-rule the Supreme Ct.?
They don’t and they can’t. The only point of keeping the unconstitutional law on the books would be the hope – macabre and remote as it may be – that the U.S. Supreme Court would one day change its mind on the constitutionality of executing juvenile offenders. Or, I suppose, that the constitution would be amended to permit the execution of juvenile offenders.
Thank you, Waldo. I’m confident that our friend James believes the fairy tale that a fertilized egg is a “child” before it implants in the uterus, even though this does not even comprise the medical definition of a pregnancy.
What a perfect example of the twisted ideology that thinks zygotes deserve more protection than actual, living children. It makes my skin crawl.
It has just occurred to me that the original phrasing of the section about Del. Albo’s comments left some question as to whether he supported Bell’s position or not. In fact, he believes that the law should be corrected, despite being down with killing the kiddies. I’ve added a few more words to that sentence to make it more clear.
This subjective handling of what is and what is not worthy of life is just mindboggling…
The only message I’m reading here is that some folks left-of-center are (rightly) having problems with the implications of allowing society the pleasure of deciding who lives. And who dies.
Shaun, you seem like a bright enough guy. Surely you see the irony in chiding the pro-choice community for “allowing society the pleasure of deciding who lives. And who dies.” But in case you don’t: Nobody’s advocating allowing the Government to exterminate fetuses.
Matthew, dodging 4/5 of an argument to alter the use of the word “society” (a word chosen deliberately) to “government” (a word chosen deliberately to separate abortion from the death penalty), that doesn’t quite encourage responsible, educated debate on the topic.
Again:
On the general topic, I have a lot more respect for the intellectual and ethical consistency of those who oppose abortion AND the death penalty than those who support abortion … er, are “pro-choice,” as a constitutional “right,” yet state that the death penalty is, or should be, “unconstitutional.”
‘Fact is, the Constitution specifically provides for the death penalty, i.e., you may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, but only with due process of law, and says nothing at all about abortion, leaving the matter to the States. So both of these contingents are wrong, though the former possesses an ethical, albeit extra-constitutional, consistency. ‘Though I suppose the latter could be categorized as having the consistency of completely contemptuous of the Constitution’s text.
Shaun, is there some other way that society makes decisions that I’m not aware of? I’m pro-choice precisely because it’s a very tricky moral issue and I’m not comfortable with you and the Republican Party making that decision for my daughter. That kind of “subjectivity” may boggle your mind, but believe me when I tell you that your side’s self-satisfied “objectivity” boggles mine just as much.
Shaun,
The only message I’m reading here is that some folks left-of-center are (rightly) having problems with the implications of allowing society the pleasure of deciding who lives. And who dies.
That sounds like you oppose bot abortion and the death penalty. Is that right?
You make decisions every day, as do civic organizations, places of worship, and other organizations that consist of society other than government. All of which has an impact on the society you live in, yes?
C’mon now… do I seem that disagreeable that you have to start lobbing those kinds of comments?
You make decisions every day. . .
I’m sorry, Shaun. I didn’t realize that when you wrote that this thread was conveing the message that lefties were “having problems with the implications of allowing society the pleasure of deciding who lives,” what you actually meant was that leftists were having problems with the idea of making deeply personal and complicated moral decisions for themselves. Unfortunately, I’m going to have to disagree with you that the death penalty is in any way analogous to abortion in this regard. You can claim that society making decisions is somehow different than the government making them, but since your goal (unless I’ve got you all wrong) is to make abortion illegal, that seems like pretty empty rhetoric to me. Bottom line: I don’t trust the government to make the most important decisions that my wife/daughter/sister will ever have to make any more than I trust it to decide which alleged criminals are unworthy of life.
Apologies if my tone offended you, but I have to say that my comments were pretty tame by internet standards.
Waldo said: “Everybody is opposed to killing children. What we disagree on is when a bundle of cells becomes a child.”
Not quite.
If there is a mutually exclusive choice between a woman’s liberty with her own body, and the life of an unborn child, I would side every time with the woman’s liberty with her own body.
Now, if the choice is not mutually exclusive, then I’m all for saving the baby. But the most personal and important liberty of all is the liberty with one’s own body, the ultimate private property, and it is heinous to take that right away.
fpm Young is showing his idiocy here. He can’t seem to comprehend the difference between personal liberty coming before all else, and government sanctioned murder.
Willis, we’ve talked about this. There’s no need to insult James or anybody else, and you could have made your argument just fine without resorting to that.
Oh, and to correct myself, apparently everybody but Willis is against killing unborn children.
No, Waldo, there are many people like me who believe that a woman should have liberty with her body, regardless of what that entails.
Making the argument of “It’s not really alive” is a loser for democrats, and should be shelved. The argument is personal liberty. Thats why abortion is so important, after all. The body is the most important of private properties; so many people are pissed off at the government stealing private property to build roads and stuff, this should be even worse.
Willis, if you want to support abortions at 35 weeks, I guess that’s your business, but you’ll be completely alone in that cause.
Re-read my post, waldo. I said where the decision is not mutually exclusive, then by all means, save the fetus.
Where the decision is mutually exclusive, the life of the baby is secondary to personal liberty with one’s body.
Waldo, your effort to demand reason from Willis is a lost cause. Look at the time on the posts! Fairly pathetic.
So says fpm Young, for whom being hated is a “singular virtue.”
Willis, why don’t you just e-mail James and insult him personally, and spare the rest of us the trouble of having to read it? I’m just not willing to have my blog used for this.
What exactly did I do that was out of line?? I merely pointed out that he couldn’t understand the difference between abortion and execution.
Just to provide an analagous statement, his statement equivocating abortion to the death penalty is just as ridiculous as this statement: “Everyone who is anti-abortion must also be a pacifist in regards to war.”
If I made that statement, I would expect to be ridiculed for it. Mr. fpm Young should expect ridicule for his statement. I am merely providing the expected criticism.
You called him an idiot. More important, the two of you are just conversing at this point, if this can be considered a conversation. It’s doing no good for anybody else. So carry on this conversation in e-mail and knock it off here.
I called him an idiot, and then continued making my point.
In fact, I didn’t even call him an idiot. I said he was “showing his idiocy”. And that he was.
Point of personal privilege, Waldo. No moral equivalence, please. I am not conversing with willis. Not worth my time. I posted three times, twice on the topic, and once addressed to you.
On your last sentence in the chief in post, I am disturbed by the implication that the Supremes’ decision on the juvenile death penalty is constitutional law. As (liberal) legal scholar John Hart Ely famously commented about Roe v. Wade, it is not constitutional law, and barely pretends to be.
Nor is the ban on gay marriage, fpm Young.