|
What I would do if I were President for a day
Submitted by Michelle L on Tue, 2007-11-13 14:06.
1.Abolish the death penalty. When even the American Bar Association is calling for a moritorium on executions, I believe it is time to pay attention; these are not generally the bleeding-heart types and are on the front lines of legal battles. The accepted view of it being better to execute one innocent person to guarantee execution of 9 guilty ones fails to hold water-in fact I believe the converse to be true: it's better that 9 guilty parties allowed to live (albeit in prison for life) than for the state or government to kill an innocent person. And if the powers that be really feel that the convicted person deserves to die for their crime, and have proven it way beyond any doubt whatsoever as well as exhausted any and all tests concerning DNA and other biological evidence; how about letting the victim's family do the deed rather than someone who never knew the victim-never nursed or nurtured or laughed with the victim? If I were a criminal, the fact that the family of someone I had killed would be allowed 45 minutes-armed- in a closed facility would serve as a powerful deterent. 2. Decriminalize drugs 3. Voting in favor of war No Green Zones, no special forces to accompany them, no secret in-and-out trips for photo ops. Front line fighting amongst the lowliest troops with the same weapons and armor (or lack thereof) and at the same pay scale. 4. Nuclear option 5. No riders to bills 6. Abolish capital crimes based on job/position I doubt seriously I would make a good President; I'm sure I would be every bit as big an asshole as any other but I would differ in that I would begin every daily briefing, every Congressional session with a reading of the Constitution rather than a prayer. It would be my hope that eventually, the words would sink in and effect some much-needed change.
Michelle L's bio:I am a 54 year old with a 9 year-old daughter... so obviously I'm bats**t crazy. I am also mother to a 27 year-old son and a 22 year-old daughter who have both forgotten more than I will ever know. I come from a time of rotary dial phones and black and white television who, inexplicably, has both a Twitter and a Facebook account. I am a lover of freedom who has little patience with politicians in general and especially those with wide stances and narrow minds. |
Good ReadsLike our Writers?Then buy your Amazon items through us. Costs the same and our Authors get a cut. Recent commentsRational Review |
I definitely agree with
I definitely agree with number 1), 2) and 5). Number 6) is a toughie, I agree as far as it goes for political figures but I do think anyone involved in law enforcement should be subject to different level of protection. They put their lives at risk by arresting and prosecuting criminals, for all our sakes, reprisals are common and should be discouraged by a greater sentence. I vehemently disagree with 3) and 4) though.
I agree with most of your
I agree with most of your points. I have a little concern over #5 though. I hate pork-barrelling as much as the next guy, but unfortunately it's the only way some worthwhile projects (think new highways, upgrades to bridges, etc) get the federal funding they need.
I would go along with #5 if you could think of a way to still get worthwhile projects funded.
Scott-O-Rama
http://www.scott-o-rama.com
[Linking removed as they use rel="nofollow" on their Blog's comments. -Ed.]
I really like #6. That's
I really like #6. That's something that has always bothered me. Such as why does a crime against a police officer take precedence over the same type of crime perpetrated on a normal citizen?
For the reason I said ;). So
For the reason I said ;). So long as it's on-duty it should take precedence. Otherwise you're asking people to risk their lives to protect yours without giving them any sort of recognition for it.
Equally I think acts against serving military personnel should be subject to higher punishment. It's different for people like politicians. We can protect them by simply making "assassination" a seperate offence punishable more strictly.
In an ideal world it'd be great to say all lives are equal but they're not. I'll give you an example. If two children were in a burning building and you could save just one, and you knew one of them was going to go on to cure cancer and the other was going to be a homeless bum, which would you save?
For the reason I said ;). So
Ah, yes, but who's to say a homeless bum could not cure cancer? And, of course, there's really no way to know exactly how children are going to turn out; there's the whole nature/nuture as well as unforseen events that could result in a much different outcome than one might expect.
And as far as police/military risking their lives to protect-they are supposedly better trained and better armed (think about the community police departments equipped with helicopters and tanks) than the average citizen; an example being that the average citizen can't buy body armor. So, in my most humble opinion, that would seem to give police forces an edge thereby reducing the need to have enhanced punishment for their murder. Conversely, who is to say an unknown, simple housewife murdered might not have given birth in the future to the very same child that cures cancer-would not that be an argument for enhanced punishment?
I think what I was trying (unsuccessfully) to say, is that all humans have potential and all humans have someone who loves them, someone who has nurtured and interacted with them; someone who's day-to-day existance is every bit as important as the POTUS or the cop on the street.
Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.
With all due respect I think
With all due respect I think you dodged the hypothetical. In my hypothetical the homeless bum will amount to nothing, and the other child will cure cancer.
These are certainties. Of course in real life there are no such certainties but my hypothetical merely showed that one life may be worth more than another.
Your example of the "simple housewife who gives birth to the child that cures cancer" only serves to prove my point, that ultimately some lives are worth more than others.
I wasn't using that as the basis of arguing for increased protections, because I don't believe in greater punishment because one life is worth more than another. My argument for greater punishments is more subtle than that.
I don't think you were unsuccessful in making your point, I understood it, I simply questioned whether it's naive to assume that the greater sentences imply that the life taken was more "important". That's not the case at all.
As a lawyer, and as one who is already not inclined to go into public prosecutions I'd be even less inclined to do so if killing a prosecutor didn't result in greater punishment. If you make a living putting criminals in prison you take the risk of reprisal attacks on your life. The increased punishments act as an incentive for people to take on those jobs.
You're correct to mention the added training and protections police officers get. Nonetheless, what about the situation where an officer is trying to negotiate the surrender of a murderer? If that murderer knows that they'll face no greater punishment for shooting the police officer than for the murders they have already committed they're less likely to surrender peacefully. That's the reason for the protections.
Going back to my earlier point, what sort of body armour and training do public prosecutors (or judges) get? As far as I'm aware in most jurisdictions they have no greater rights with regards to weapons or protection than anyone else. The greater protection is not there because these lives are worth more, but simply to make sure that we have people willing to become judges and prosecutors.
Whilst I appreciate your point as an ideal I think it is predicated upon a misunderstanding over why these greater punishments exist. I think your analysis is a tad naive.
I have little doubt that my
I have little doubt that my analysis would be a tad naive-as I am a tad naive about many of the finer points of law (and have had this pointed out to me on many occasions!). My points were presented simply as a layman; with only a miniscule knowledge of legalities-it seems the more I try to learn, the more aware of what I don't know I become :)
"As a lawyer, and as one who is already not inclined to go into public prosecutions I'd be even less inclined to do so if killing a prosecutor didn't result in greater punishment. If you make a living putting criminals in prison you take the risk of reprisal attacks on your life. The increased punishments act as an incentive for people to take on those jobs." I had no idea, I would have thought prosecutors would be eligible for the same types of protection as police-after all, they are part and parcel of the same judicial system. By citizens not being allowed to by body armor, I meant those completely outside of the judicial system.
I sincerely bow to your greater expertise in this matter; and I wholeheartedly agree that police work is a dangerous and for the most part, thankless job. My simplistic pie-in-the-sky hope is that someday, all lives will be equal and precious.
Good post
Good post
No One Should Play God
I agree to get rid of the death poetry. I believe that no one deserves to play god. And I know that some of these individuals would have played god by killing someone themselves to be put in a situation of the death penalty but I just don't believe in it. And you can test my by we'll TooBIG what if you were in that situation. what if it was one of your family members that was killed by someone that's up for the death penalty. I know it cost money to keep a person in life in prison but the facts also stats that it costs money to kill that person. I guess I could forgive and know that they person is sick but I just can't see someone playing god and flipping a switch or injecting someone. OK I'm done.....lol
TooBIG
http://blog.toobig.net
[Linking removed as they use rel="nofollow" on their Blog's comments. -Ed.]