Of all the ACDP's policies, the one that many seem to struggle with is the issue of the death penalty. For many, the haunt of crime is enough reason to flee to supposedly safer shores, but the thought of punishment by death seems too drastic a step.
I do sympathise with this view, and I'll admit I'm somewhat on the fence when it comes to the death penalty. It's a very strong action and of all the Biblical principles, the practice of the death penalty, at least in the New Testament, is not a stand-out.
Even so, my concern is that those who don't vote for the ACDP because of the death penalty have lost some perspective. No other mainstream party stands against abortion, but are happy to promote abortion as an effective birth control measure and as a grant of power to women.
Now let me see if I've got this right: we're happy to kill innocent unborn babies, but we're not happy killing convicted murderers. Um. What did I miss? Maybe a voter can argue that they prefer no abortion and no death penalty, but that choice is not available, so which side of this watershed would you fall? And is that really such a hard decision?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Death Penalty: A Watershed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm pro-life: anti-war, anti-capital punishment, anti-abortion.
And yes, the death penalty versus abortion issue was one I have serious consideration to in previous general elections and got me wondering if I should vote for the ACDP or not.
What clinched the argument, though, was something that had little to do with either. A few days before the election I got a whole bunch of ultra-right-wing literature written by one Ed Cain, sent by the ACDP, and that convinced the that the ACDP just wasn't an option.
Thanks for your feedback.
Your decision was a good illustration: you had a scale with your dislike of abortion on one side and your dislike of capital punishment on the other. Given that no other party (bar the really small ones) stands against abortion, you really had to choose between the two. I just struggle to see how you can say that killing convicted murderers is worse than killing innocent children.
In your case, there were other issues to tip the scale of course. I'm fascinated to know what the literature contained. Do you mind sharing it?
Post a Comment