Asymmetrical Information

Jane Galt wrote:

Rather than help the Iraqis build a competent court that might impose the death penalty, the UN and EU would rather let them have an incompetent court imposing the death penalty.

Just out of curiosity Jane, why the sudden faith in the supposed “competency” of an international body that couldn’t enforce the dozen or so resolutions it had against Saddam Hussein, appears to have a number of officials who were on the take during the “Oil for Food” program, and when attacked earlier one bugged out with their blue helmets between their legs?

Thorley - I didn't read Jane's post as an endorsement of the UN's effectiveness. Rather, it was a critique of the UN's priorities: If Iraq won't adopt our position on the death penalty, we won't help them establish a court system. It would seem that a fair and well run justice system would be something the UN should want. Yet, if such a court system might impose the death penalty, the UN won't help Iraq establish one -- you have to accept the premise that the UN thinks it could be of some material assistance in this area.

Rather than help the Iraqis build a competent court that might impose the death penalty, the UN and EU would rather let them have an incompetent court imposing the death penalty.

The "guilt" of those accused has already been determined in the White House. Any court which renders a verdict different from the pre-destined verdict will be viewed as "incompetent." It is obvious. Which is why no one else is willing to get involved.

The "guilt" of those accused has already been determined in the White House.

Oh, bullshit. Stop wasting the time of serious people and go back to the tin-foil-hat crowd if that's all you have to contribute.

BS? The point of the TNR article and the original post is that both a guilty verdict and a death sentence are already decided. Perhaps that is wishful thinking by Jane and the folks at the TNR.

Resolved: When we found out it was Saddam in that spider hole, we should have just rolled a grenade in and covered our ears. When have show trials providing Victor's Justice ever done any lasting good?

And last I checked, the Milosevic tribunal had the "imprimatur of the international community," which is a nice way of saying it's as messed up as a soup sandwich.

Here's hoping we don't make the mistake of catching OBL alive.

Seems to me that an awful lot of the people opposed to the death penalty (and I don't mean you, Jane) aren't opposed to killing people--they're opposed to killing *guilty* people. All the innocent people killed by Saddam & Co bothered them not at all, but if it's Saddam's neck at stake, all of a sudden they become concerned.

Why?

Peter, get a life.

The UN is involved in the elections. They may prove to be the greatest accomplishment we could have achieved. Of course Kofi has taken the side of the terrorists in proclaiming that the elections should be postponed. As to other help, they ran like rats when their HQ was attacked. Don't tell me about appause and approval.

Peter,

[M]any European countries don't allow the death penalty.

I rather think none of them do, but if it's the UN balking as well as the EU, it's another matter. China, for one, has execution down to a science.

"[H]elping" set up such a court would give tacit approval of the invasion: collaborating and legitimizing that which they have condemned.

That, I submit, is bull. You can see exactly how much bull by turning it around. Suppose the US strenuously opposed some UN action; suppose said action resulted in a human disaster of a kind that the US had the ready means to alleviate; suppose we sat it out on the grounds that "it wasn't our idea anyway, and we warned you at the time, and . . ." The US here comes off as (a) principled and virtuous; or (b) a bunch of sanctimonious skinflints?

One thing I've never understood is how someone could be against the death penalty, but in favor of abortion. I mean really - what ethical issue against the former could not be applied to the latter as well?

James -

Maybe that the kid hasn't killed anyone?

James: I am pro-death penalty (with serious reservations about how trial courts determine guilt and decide on the penalty in practice) and against most legal restrictions on abortion. That makes me "pro-choice", not "pro-abortion" - I'm not out there trying to persuade women to have more abortions, but I think the law is far too blunt an instrument to use in this case.

You are assuming that the pro-choicers agree that the fetus is a "human being" and a person entitled to legal protection, AND that merely by existing it is entitled to force another person to serve as a life support system for nine months. I disagree on both these points, although my position on the first point makes the second one largely irrelevant.

So the first question is: what makes a mass of cells a "person"?

a) Christians might argue that it's the possession of a soul. Until they invent a soul detector, that's irrelevant.

b) Some argue that it's human DNA. But we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees and gorillas, and I (for one) am not about to support outlawing killing them. OTOH, if a green-skinned three-eyed alien with no DNA at all steps peacefully out of its flying saucer and tries to communicate with us, I would consider it a person and consider killing it to be murder.

c) I think the proper test of personhood is a certain level of nervous system development - that is, if it can knowingly exchange ideas by sending and receiving symbols, it's a person. Because this is a pretty fuzzy boundary, I'd draw a wide safety band around it, to include all live births. I'd consider banning abortions of normally-developing fetuses for the last 3 or 4 months of pregnancy, although this is both legally and philosophically much messier than the "live birth" rule. But before 5 months the fetus certainly has less brain functioning than a dog, and I see no reason to give it any more legal protection than a dog gets.

The second question is, when may the government require one person to support the life of another?

a) I'd say never - except when enforcing a contract the person has voluntarily taken on. (E.g., "for better or worse, in sickness or in heath...") One reason I like the "live birth" bright-line rule is that it separates this issue entirely from the abortion debate.

b) Liberal pro-choicers aren't entitled to debate this point at all - they already chose the pro-slavery side when they supported taxes for welfare and social security - unless they are brazen enough to claim that it's different when it involves non-economic activities, or when only women have to make the sacrifices.

c) But if there's a conservative justification why a contraceptive failure or a foolishly risky decision by a 15-year old girl, requires a person to serve as a life support system for nine months, at immense inconvenience and some risk to her health, that doesn't involve the theme that "she should be punished for having sex", I would sure like to hear it.

markm writes:

You are assuming that the pro-choicers agree that the fetus is a "human being"...

If a human fetus is not a human being, what species is it? Despite our DNA commonality with gorillas and chimpanzees, I have yet to see a human fetus turn into a gorilla or chimpanzee.

I think the proper test of personhood is a certain level of nervous system development - that is, if it can knowingly exchange ideas by sending and receiving symbols, it's a person.

Have you ever tried to exchange ideas with a 2 month old?

Because this is a pretty fuzzy boundary, I'd draw a wide safety band around it, to include all live births.

Why choose birth? Why not a few months earlier or later?

But before 5 months the fetus certainly has less brain functioning than a dog, and I see no reason to give it any more legal protection than a dog gets.

A 5 month old baby has less brain function than an (adult) dog - why should it receive any more legal protection than a dog gets?

The second question is, when may the government require one person to support the life of another?... Liberal pro-choicers aren't entitled to debate this point at all - they already chose the pro-slavery side when they supported taxes for welfare and social security

I agree that a "pro-death" (both penalty and abortion) position is logical - I just don't understand the anti-death penalty, pro-choice position, as the values inherent in such a philosophy directly contradict each other.

James: one more time, liberals don't see abortion as killing a person. They seem to view it as something like removing a mole...

OTOH, the death penalty is definitely killing a person. IMO, a person who abundantly deserves it (if the investigators and court didn't screw up). But liberals can't quite get their minds around the concept that common criminals deserve punishment at all, let alone that some of them deserve the ultimate punishment.

OTOH, let the "crime" be something like tossing a shovelfull of dirt into a swamp ("destroying wetlands") and you'll discover that liberals want that sort of criminal punished harshly.

James: one more time, liberals don't see abortion as killing a person. They seem to view it as something like removing a mole...

I have difficulty viewing a four month old fetus as a mole rather than a person, but then I've never understood the values held most sacred by those on the left.

Comments are Closed.