I am unceasingly amazed by people who are simultaneously aghast at the idea of capital punishment, yet when faced with the infinitely more agonizing moral dilemma of abortion are (to use the modern vernacular) "totally down with that".
I won't deny that, though I support the death penalty in some cases, I also find myself questioning how that support fits in with my beliefs as a Christian. My qualms stem chiefly from the concern that by executing a criminal-- even the most heinous-- we are potentially denying him/her the chance of redemption. I must admit that in certain instances (especially brutal murders), I have trouble caring about that (no inclination whatsoever toward mercy), but I feel I ought to be troubled, because I believe that even those I personally cannot tolerate are still of value to God. (Then again, by the time most of these criminals are actually executed, they've sat on death row long enough to give them ample opportunity to realize what they've done and to turn to God...) To say it's a difficult, confusing issue is a vast understatement.
So yes, I can understand where some people are coming from, when they object on moral grounds to the execution of criminals. What I can't understand is how those same people don't bat an eye at the thought of the senseless execution of the innocent unborn. Yet there it is. So, a couple of convicted criminals were executed last night, and the story of at least one of them has been plastered all over the news for days. How many abortions do you think occurred (in the US alone), yesterday? I don't know, but I'm willing to guarantee it was more than two unquestionably innocent lives snuffed out before they had even been given the chance to draw breath-- and of course you haven't heard a peep about those. Too many of the same people who were outraged-- offended-- teary-eyed over the former are completely unperturbed by the latter. I don't think I'll ever make sense of that mindset.
Edited to add:
Yes, I realize that some of the outrage over one of these particular cases was based on worries that this individual might not have been guilty (though from what I've heard, it seems unlikely). This fact doesn't change my confusion over how the same person can agonize over the death of a criminal but unthinkingly support abortion.
Edited again:
Here's an interesting, brief blog post about Christianity and the Death Penalty.
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Random Topics
(Not likely to interest anyone very greatly, but at least it's not about my driver's license!)
Gulf Oil Leak:
I'm glad it's sealed, obviously, and happy that (so far) it doesn't seem to have been quite so catastrophic as feared-- but I'm still not convinced that we know the full extent of the damage. I hope and expect that things will continue to improve, but in the meantime I feel like I'm waiting something out...
Some would not agree (a few might even be furious and say that people of my opinion are hurting their businesses), but personally, I still don't feel completely comfortable with the thought of prolonged time in the water or a diet filled with local seafood. I'm probably being overly cautious, but what's the point of pretending to feel otherwise? The fact is that we hardly ever eat seafood, anyway, so my abstinence will not hurt the local economy.
I will admit that for all I know, our local seafood on a bad day may be safer than much that is imported on a good day. I never said my instincts were right-- just that they are what they are. The "smell test" doesn't feel like enough to me, at the moment. I believe that (even if something were to slip past the safety checks) you can probably eat the occasional meal that is contaminated and still not feel any long-term ill effects-- but what's the point of eating something when you have no appetite for it? (Okay, I think I've made my point, so I'll move on.)
Politics in General:
I'm not particularly happy with a lot that's been going on, but that's not surprising. I try not to worry about it (not always possible), but I also feel obligated to stay somewhat aware of what's happening. I wait for my next chance to vote and hope (and pray) that enough of my fellow voters see things the same way I do to effect real Change We Can Believe InTM.
Moving:
It's those irritating new neighbors of ours. We're outta here! ;o)
Alright, not really. We're not moving.
The blog's not moving, either.
But there's another blogger I follow... I gather that her husband designs and builds (or oversees the building of) homes-- one at a time. I haven't seen her ever spell out their lifestyle, but it definitely seems like this is the pattern of their lives: They live somewhere temporarily while he builds the next house. When it's finished, they move in-- settle in. She decorates the home beautifully with their belongings. She writes about what a brilliant job her husband did on the house-- how much she loves this or that feature. The house is home and school to their two sons. (She homeschools.) Meanwhile, the husband locates another site and begins the process all over again. If they sell their current house before the new one's done, they rent until they can move into the new place.
I don't know about you, but that sounds fairly torturous to me. I could look on the bright side and say that life would never get dull-- you'd get to experience a lot of locations-- learn what you really like in a house, etc. But the truth is that it sounds excruciating to me. Moving everything in your house every couple of years (or less)? Just when you're starting to feel "at home" in a house, having it sold and moving on to another? You could never really put down roots-- never feel completely that this place is yours-- never make and execute long-term plans for a place. I don't think I'd like that, at all.
Maybe it's an unavoidable situation for them, but I'm doubtful... They must like it. To each his own way, of course, but I'm so thankful that's not how we live. I like a little more stability, a little less moving. (Or, ok, a lot less moving.)
Tropical Whatever-It-Is-Now:
It's no secret that the "news people"-- and especially the "weather people"-- tend to go a little crazy when there's something unusual stirring in the atmosphere. You can't really blame them. It's their time to shine! I have a greater-than-usual interest in weather, myself-- but lately they've really gone overboard. I've gotten used to the more frequent "severe weather" watches and warnings. What I'm not used to is the fuss they make over even the humblest of tropical depressions.
There's one out in the Gulf right now (for those of you who don't live around here-- because if you did, you could barely escape knowing all about it). There was one a month or so ago, too. That one turned out to be nothing. Unless you live right on the water and get a little extra wave action or slightly higher than normal tides, these depressions usually pack less punch than we get in an average afternoon thunderstorm. But because they're "tropical", we're supposed to be sitting on the edge of our seats. I do want to know the latest-- but that doesn't require an all-day crawler of information about a tropical depression. They started yesterday (afternoon? evening?), and we're not even supposed to get rain from it until this afternoon, at the earliest.
Does it hurt anyone to have the news crawler / warning map across the bottom of the screen? No, not really. (Though it can be annoying when they cover the important portions of the TV program you're trying to watch.) However, it does seem excessive, given the weakness of the "storm" and the fact that most people have access to the Internet, where they can go for weather updates 24 hours a day, if they wish. (Oh! And there are also two local channels that are devoted almost entirely to weather!) Worse, when they make so much noise about little, no-account depressions, they desensitize people to the threat of truly dangerous weather. It's a perfect example of the old "don't cry 'wolf'". When something big and bad does come along, some people might not take it as seriously.
Does everything have to be Big-Huge-Awful, these days? It certainly feels like it, sometimes. If it's not potentially The End of the World, no-one will care, so let's hype it up!
The Guy Who "Escaped" Down the Chute:
(I'm referring the bizarre flight attendant story that's been in the news for the past day or two.)
What? Is this guy really being hailed as some sort of folk hero? I just don't get it.
Look, I'm sorry that the man's mother has... lung cancer, is it? That's truly awful.
I'm also sorry that the passenger he was dealing with was behaving like a spoiled brat. Maybe if the flight attendant hadn't made such a spectacle of himself in response, she would have been the one facing legal troubles.
However-- There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with life stresses and unruly customers. Cursing someone out over the airplane's intercom system is not the right way. Opening the emergency exit and fleeing the plane (with beer?!) wasn't the right way, either.
I keep hearing about how the man will be sure to get some money for his story, because obviously everyone wants to hear all about it. Honestly, I don't. It sounds like he was being a bit of a diva. I don't know if he should face the exact charges that have been pressed against him, but yes, some sort of reprimand is in order. Did he put the passengers in danger? I don't know. It seems unlikely, but possible. Certainly I wouldn't handpick him to be a flight attendant on any plane I ever fly on. (I prefer someone with a cooler head, thank you very much!) He definitely didn't behave in a professional manner, and there's no telling how much his little outburst will end up costing the airline and society at large.
All in all, not very heroic, in my humble opinion.
Gulf Oil Leak:
I'm glad it's sealed, obviously, and happy that (so far) it doesn't seem to have been quite so catastrophic as feared-- but I'm still not convinced that we know the full extent of the damage. I hope and expect that things will continue to improve, but in the meantime I feel like I'm waiting something out...
Some would not agree (a few might even be furious and say that people of my opinion are hurting their businesses), but personally, I still don't feel completely comfortable with the thought of prolonged time in the water or a diet filled with local seafood. I'm probably being overly cautious, but what's the point of pretending to feel otherwise? The fact is that we hardly ever eat seafood, anyway, so my abstinence will not hurt the local economy.
I will admit that for all I know, our local seafood on a bad day may be safer than much that is imported on a good day. I never said my instincts were right-- just that they are what they are. The "smell test" doesn't feel like enough to me, at the moment. I believe that (even if something were to slip past the safety checks) you can probably eat the occasional meal that is contaminated and still not feel any long-term ill effects-- but what's the point of eating something when you have no appetite for it? (Okay, I think I've made my point, so I'll move on.)
Politics in General:
I'm not particularly happy with a lot that's been going on, but that's not surprising. I try not to worry about it (not always possible), but I also feel obligated to stay somewhat aware of what's happening. I wait for my next chance to vote and hope (and pray) that enough of my fellow voters see things the same way I do to effect real Change We Can Believe InTM.
Moving:
It's those irritating new neighbors of ours. We're outta here! ;o)
Alright, not really. We're not moving.
The blog's not moving, either.
But there's another blogger I follow... I gather that her husband designs and builds (or oversees the building of) homes-- one at a time. I haven't seen her ever spell out their lifestyle, but it definitely seems like this is the pattern of their lives: They live somewhere temporarily while he builds the next house. When it's finished, they move in-- settle in. She decorates the home beautifully with their belongings. She writes about what a brilliant job her husband did on the house-- how much she loves this or that feature. The house is home and school to their two sons. (She homeschools.) Meanwhile, the husband locates another site and begins the process all over again. If they sell their current house before the new one's done, they rent until they can move into the new place.
I don't know about you, but that sounds fairly torturous to me. I could look on the bright side and say that life would never get dull-- you'd get to experience a lot of locations-- learn what you really like in a house, etc. But the truth is that it sounds excruciating to me. Moving everything in your house every couple of years (or less)? Just when you're starting to feel "at home" in a house, having it sold and moving on to another? You could never really put down roots-- never feel completely that this place is yours-- never make and execute long-term plans for a place. I don't think I'd like that, at all.
Maybe it's an unavoidable situation for them, but I'm doubtful... They must like it. To each his own way, of course, but I'm so thankful that's not how we live. I like a little more stability, a little less moving. (Or, ok, a lot less moving.)
Tropical Whatever-It-Is-Now:
It's no secret that the "news people"-- and especially the "weather people"-- tend to go a little crazy when there's something unusual stirring in the atmosphere. You can't really blame them. It's their time to shine! I have a greater-than-usual interest in weather, myself-- but lately they've really gone overboard. I've gotten used to the more frequent "severe weather" watches and warnings. What I'm not used to is the fuss they make over even the humblest of tropical depressions.
There's one out in the Gulf right now (for those of you who don't live around here-- because if you did, you could barely escape knowing all about it). There was one a month or so ago, too. That one turned out to be nothing. Unless you live right on the water and get a little extra wave action or slightly higher than normal tides, these depressions usually pack less punch than we get in an average afternoon thunderstorm. But because they're "tropical", we're supposed to be sitting on the edge of our seats. I do want to know the latest-- but that doesn't require an all-day crawler of information about a tropical depression. They started yesterday (afternoon? evening?), and we're not even supposed to get rain from it until this afternoon, at the earliest.
Does it hurt anyone to have the news crawler / warning map across the bottom of the screen? No, not really. (Though it can be annoying when they cover the important portions of the TV program you're trying to watch.) However, it does seem excessive, given the weakness of the "storm" and the fact that most people have access to the Internet, where they can go for weather updates 24 hours a day, if they wish. (Oh! And there are also two local channels that are devoted almost entirely to weather!) Worse, when they make so much noise about little, no-account depressions, they desensitize people to the threat of truly dangerous weather. It's a perfect example of the old "don't cry 'wolf'". When something big and bad does come along, some people might not take it as seriously.
Does everything have to be Big-Huge-Awful, these days? It certainly feels like it, sometimes. If it's not potentially The End of the World, no-one will care, so let's hype it up!
The Guy Who "Escaped" Down the Chute:
(I'm referring the bizarre flight attendant story that's been in the news for the past day or two.)
What? Is this guy really being hailed as some sort of folk hero? I just don't get it.
Look, I'm sorry that the man's mother has... lung cancer, is it? That's truly awful.
I'm also sorry that the passenger he was dealing with was behaving like a spoiled brat. Maybe if the flight attendant hadn't made such a spectacle of himself in response, she would have been the one facing legal troubles.
However-- There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with life stresses and unruly customers. Cursing someone out over the airplane's intercom system is not the right way. Opening the emergency exit and fleeing the plane (with beer?!) wasn't the right way, either.
I keep hearing about how the man will be sure to get some money for his story, because obviously everyone wants to hear all about it. Honestly, I don't. It sounds like he was being a bit of a diva. I don't know if he should face the exact charges that have been pressed against him, but yes, some sort of reprimand is in order. Did he put the passengers in danger? I don't know. It seems unlikely, but possible. Certainly I wouldn't handpick him to be a flight attendant on any plane I ever fly on. (I prefer someone with a cooler head, thank you very much!) He definitely didn't behave in a professional manner, and there's no telling how much his little outburst will end up costing the airline and society at large.
All in all, not very heroic, in my humble opinion.
Friday, December 5, 2008
A Kinder, Gentler Prison Sentence. . .
Good grief.
I just read this entry at "A Swedish American in Stockholm"*, a blog I stumbled upon a few months ago. This particular entry is primarily his reaction to the news of a convicted murderer's escape in Stockholm.
The facts of the case are these:
Well-- but really, it makes perfect sense. You can't keep someone cooped up like that without the occasional treat. You know, a little trip now and then for some variety. A chance to stretch his legs and mingle with society at this most festive time of the year. Keeping him shut away from the rest of the world without a holiday now and then would be inhumane. I mean, it's not like he's a murderer or something. Oh, wait. . .
The article closes with a reassuring message from the Stockholm police representative: The escaped prisoner is not considered dangerous. Well, thank goodness for that, at least! If he'd been one of those dangerous murderers-- one shudders to think what could happen! Of course, you brilliant people didn't think he'd try to escape in the first place, so who are you to say he's not a danger?
Well, I guess it's worth risking an occasional. . . "incident" like this, if it means those cherished prisoners are treated in a kinder, gentler fashion.
*The author of the blog is the son of an American woman and a Swedish man. As he puts it, "born in Sweden, raised in the US", he's now living (and "exploring his roots") in Sweden. His blog is mostly about his experiences as a cultural foreigner in a country where he is technically (not to mention genetically) a citizen. As someone whose potential children could someday be in the same situation, I find this subject interesting. Besides, I'm always entertained by people's reactions to and insights into Sweden. (These days, at least. Before I knew Donald, of course, that wasn't the case. But you'd already surmised that, so why am I still typing?)
I just read this entry at "A Swedish American in Stockholm"*, a blog I stumbled upon a few months ago. This particular entry is primarily his reaction to the news of a convicted murderer's escape in Stockholm.
The facts of the case are these:
- The man was convicted of murder and attempted murder.
- He was sentenced to 14 years, but would've been eligible for parole in July, after serving only ten years.
- He escaped while he was out shopping with a couple of "guardians"! (Yes, you read that right. A convicted murderer still serving his sentence was out running a shopping errand!)
- The "guardians" were surprised that he ran away (ha!), because apparently he was a model prisoner on his eight previous supervised temporary releases.
Well-- but really, it makes perfect sense. You can't keep someone cooped up like that without the occasional treat. You know, a little trip now and then for some variety. A chance to stretch his legs and mingle with society at this most festive time of the year. Keeping him shut away from the rest of the world without a holiday now and then would be inhumane. I mean, it's not like he's a murderer or something. Oh, wait. . .
The article closes with a reassuring message from the Stockholm police representative: The escaped prisoner is not considered dangerous. Well, thank goodness for that, at least! If he'd been one of those dangerous murderers-- one shudders to think what could happen! Of course, you brilliant people didn't think he'd try to escape in the first place, so who are you to say he's not a danger?
Well, I guess it's worth risking an occasional. . . "incident" like this, if it means those cherished prisoners are treated in a kinder, gentler fashion.
*The author of the blog is the son of an American woman and a Swedish man. As he puts it, "born in Sweden, raised in the US", he's now living (and "exploring his roots") in Sweden. His blog is mostly about his experiences as a cultural foreigner in a country where he is technically (not to mention genetically) a citizen. As someone whose potential children could someday be in the same situation, I find this subject interesting. Besides, I'm always entertained by people's reactions to and insights into Sweden. (These days, at least. Before I knew Donald, of course, that wasn't the case. But you'd already surmised that, so why am I still typing?)
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Poor guy! He's so misunderstood!
Remember the man who imprisoned his daughter for 24 years and fathered 7 children with her-- three of whom he also kept locked away from the light of day? (I wrote about the story not long ago.) Now he's upset with the media coverage of his case. (You may wonder how he knows what they're saying about him. Perhaps his legal representation has told him-- or family? Maybe, but he can see it for himself, as he has a TV in his cell. He's had it tough in jail so far, you can tell.)
Fritzl insists that he is not the "monster" he has been made out to be by the media. He doesn't deny what he did, but apparently he feels that because he allowed the children of his incestuous crimes to live, he deserves some sympathy points. "I could have killed all of them, and no one would have known," he reminds us.
Oh, no, he's not a monster!
Fritzl insists that he is not the "monster" he has been made out to be by the media. He doesn't deny what he did, but apparently he feels that because he allowed the children of his incestuous crimes to live, he deserves some sympathy points. "I could have killed all of them, and no one would have known," he reminds us.
Oh, no, he's not a monster!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Outrageous.
You've probably heard the horrible story about the Austrian woman who was held captive for over twenty years by her abusive father. After everything he did to her, not to mention the terrible mistreatment of at least some of their seven children, I'm shocked to read today that "he faces up to 15 years in prison if he is convicted of raping his daughter, among other offences." What? Only "up to" fifteen years?! Admittedly, the guy isn't young, and he might not live out even a fifteen-year sentence, but I think this crime deserves a much more severe, "symbolic" punishment than that.
Then of course there's the whole issue of determining whether or not he has a psychiatric disorder. I can save them some trouble. Yes, the man obviously has problems. No normal person could be guilty of this. There has to be something wrong with him. But if he was clever enough to create a sound-proof cellar and manage to keep the everything hidden for so long (and possessed of enough awareness of the world and the laws of men to see the necessity of these measures), he obviously knew that what he did was wrong. Honestly! It's enough to make you wish you were a prosecutor, yourself!
Apparently the government thought he was capable enough to allow him custody of a few of his children (whom they thought had been abandoned by their mother). If he was deemed fit to raise those children, then you'd better believe he's fit for the worst punishment the law has to offer. (Which, judging by the whole "up to 15 years" thing is probably not all that bad!)
Maybe he ought to be locked away in the prison he himself created. . .
ETA: Yes, I actually do know how to spell "outrageous", when I stop to think about it. :oP
Then of course there's the whole issue of determining whether or not he has a psychiatric disorder. I can save them some trouble. Yes, the man obviously has problems. No normal person could be guilty of this. There has to be something wrong with him. But if he was clever enough to create a sound-proof cellar and manage to keep the everything hidden for so long (and possessed of enough awareness of the world and the laws of men to see the necessity of these measures), he obviously knew that what he did was wrong. Honestly! It's enough to make you wish you were a prosecutor, yourself!
Apparently the government thought he was capable enough to allow him custody of a few of his children (whom they thought had been abandoned by their mother). If he was deemed fit to raise those children, then you'd better believe he's fit for the worst punishment the law has to offer. (Which, judging by the whole "up to 15 years" thing is probably not all that bad!)
Maybe he ought to be locked away in the prison he himself created. . .
ETA: Yes, I actually do know how to spell "outrageous", when I stop to think about it. :oP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)