I’ll just let Josh Marshall’s post speak for itself:
Tom Coburn, a former member of the House of Representatives from Oklahoma, who is campaigning to become the Republican party’s candidate to replace retiring Senator Don Nickles, recently said he supports the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions.
“I favor the death penalty,” Coburn told the AP last week, “for abortionists and other people who take life.”
The Republican primary is July 27th; the winner will face likely Democratic nominee Brad Carson.
I’m speechless…
Categories: Election 2004, In the News
8:35 PM | 15 comments
July 13th, 2004 at 10:42 PM
That’s pretty far to the right…. just to see where you are on the issue, what are your thoughts on the proposed Lacy Peterson law?
July 13th, 2004 at 11:29 PM
it’s an unnecessary law… it’s already a crime to kill the mother… the penalty goes to the maximum allowed by each state. What’s the purpose of charging the person with a separate crime? If he’s guilty of one, he’s guilty of the other… same for not guilty.
So, it’s unnecessary. It seems to me that there is something to be said about the law being used as an end around on abortion, especially since they chose the bill with language specifically about the unborn child rather than the Feinstein amendment that would’ve been the same except for that language.
July 14th, 2004 at 12:01 AM
A burglar breaks into a home while both people are asleep. The burglar comes into the room, startled one person sits up, the criminal turns and fires a one single shot. The bullet passes through the person and lodges in the others brain. Both people die…
Which murder is the criminal charged with when caught?
July 14th, 2004 at 1:20 AM
except that there aren’t two people being killed when the mother is killed. The law doesn’t recognize the fetus as a person, nor should it.
July 14th, 2004 at 1:51 AM
to put this a simpler way, what is better about the feticide laws vs. simply increasing penalties and jail terms for murders where the victim is pregnant?
July 14th, 2004 at 8:47 AM
Don’t forget that Lacy Peterson would not have been covered under the “Lacy Peterson Law.”
You want to have enhanced penalties for killing a pregnant woman? I’m fine with that (although I do take an issue with it, since there isn’t a compelling reason to have enhanced penalties unless she was murdered because she was pregnant).
Doug’s analogy is weak because the answer is well established in law and precident and deals with indiviuduals. “Protecting” the fetus, which this law really doesn’t, requires granting rights to a fetus…a dangerous precident.
July 14th, 2004 at 9:21 AM
i agree, Bram… I didn’t say I was in favor of either law. It seems to me that killing someone carries a maximum penalty in many states of, well, death, and judges already have it within their power to deny parole, for example.
I don’t like extra laws that just make people “feel” better. But if you want a law to make you feel better, again, go for the most direct path. It seems to me the whole feticide debate is really about calling the fetus a person… as Doug stated it, he believes there are two people involved in the crime if the victim is pregnant.
My thought on that immediately is that the fetus better have a passport when he/she/it travels, better have a social security number, and you better be able to claim him/her/it as a dependent if the fetus is a person. Nowhere else do we recognize the fetus as a separate person, yet Doug wants it to be a separate murder…
July 14th, 2004 at 12:02 PM
Here is the point to my statement… and the fetus has been brought into the argument and abortion has also been brought into the debate.
1) Abortion is a choice (I may not agree with it and I have my bias on this issue which we can debate openly later.) and I respect the right of the individual to choose. But in the instance of killing the pregnant woman, that was not a choice… It is a choice of the perpetrator to commit the crime and take what would have been two lives had the crime not been committed. Do we really find ways to protect the guilty above the innocent?
2) Point 4 is relevant only to those who have no point of reference in regards to becoming a parent. I mean no disrespect in the following statement because I may have agreed with you at one point in time. I think people may change their mind on this point the day the love of their life tells them that they are pregnant or when a woman finds out she is pregnant. Your whole world changes in an instant. I wish I could put it into words but I can’t explain it. It will be something people need to experience. The simple protection of that child with every fiber of your being becomes a prime responsibility in your life. And that responsibility starts long before birth or neo-natal care wouldn’t be as prevalent today as it is in our society.
3) point 5 is a semantical issue. It is why our government gets so bogged down in minutiae because the right wants what the right wants and the left wants what the left wants… it is very troubling at times. Simple compromise from open and honest debate is what makes good legislation. I can see either one of those language choices being adopted into law and I would be fine with it. I could accept either choice. As long as the rights of the family and the innocent victim(s) are protected, it works for me.
4) The analogy is an elasticity of the “Murder-Felony” law which states that during the act of committing a crime, a murder is accidentally committed then the homicide albeit an extreme accident and not the intent of the action is enforceable as murder… Under the Lacy Peterson law (whatever language you choose to support it) would state that in the act of committing a crime, the unfortunate circumstance of killing a pregnant woman would result in (insert correct language….whatever people like best) the result of being charged for said crime and punished to the fullest extent.
It doesn’t engage in necessarily giving the fetus rights, it recognizes the CHOICE of the innocent individuals who decided to have a baby and the result of a crime that took that CHOICE away.
(opinion being stated) I find it, by the way, interesting how far case law, lawyers, and in some respect others go into protecting the rights of a criminal but are unwilling to recognize the rights of the innocent victims.
5) point 7, the statement “I don’t like laws that make people ‘feel better’.” Isn’t that what laws do? They hold people accountable? They make people feel better? They make people feel safe? They give people options? They set up a system of “causiality(matrix word)” that allows society as a whole to feel better?
Until now, I never stated I believed “there are two people involved in a crime if the victim is pregnant.” I asked two questions from which the asumption was made.
My belief is much simpler then you assume.
But for this argument, I will grant you the language that people like best that simply states that the action is not a double homicide but neglible to the nth degree because of the circumstance. I can accept a combination of language or a compromise between the two sides that suits the purpose of making sure the Family’s rights (including rights of choice) are protected. Laws need to protect the innocent, not the guilty.
My children were not fetuses. They were babies from day one and if my wife was murdered and it caused the death of my child in utero, I would expect a classification in the penal code to punish the crime committed.
When we stop trying to protect criminals, our judicial system will finally end up being just that… a judicial system.
And I am not arguing that you don’t still need a trial and conviction. And just like all trials, the jury has the right to accept some charges and throw some out, but why not give the people the ability to have the option?
I do find, however, how personal some people take any of my statements. It instantly creates an ire that surprises me. I asked a question, presented a scenario, and by point 7 I am the antithesis of all that is right with rational thought in the world. And yet, I never stated what I believed before this posting.
I accept that the assumption could be made. I accept the criticism for my previous thoughts or opinions. We will not always agree. I also accept and give credit to all of the opinions stated above. Well thought out and presented. I don’t agree with all of them but we all come from different places and perceptions and therefore, those places and perceptions lend special privelege to our individual opinions.
I am not the guy you posted about in your original post. His statement was wrong. Death penalty for doctors who perform abortions is an incredulous thing to say. It does not take into account the freedom of CHOICE that has been granted to all individuals in our society.
I do not believe in certain things, I choose not to engage in them. I agree with certain things, I choose to engage in them. God will decide in the end if I was right or wrong and their isn’t a single human law I will ever be able to use to defend my actions in his court, and I will accept God’s judgement when passed (like I have a choice in the matter).
But yes, I am a conservative. Right wing, do or die? No. You’d be amazed how may of your opinions I do agree with and you’d be amazed at how new information or data can change an opinion or a stance. That’s why I love open debate… it’s educational.
With that said, the last paragraph of point 7 just takes a shot at someone who at the point it was made may/may not have a different opinion. But this kind of shot, albeit an attempt at humor (sarcasm is so hard to deliver in the written word), is read like a condemnation of me for having an opposing opinion. I am reading it like “don’t listen to him, he’s a conservative and we can fault him for his ignorance, it’s just the way he is.”
I never said I was right or wrong. I never said my way or the highway and I never will. I wouldn’t (as stated above)mind the language suggested.
But I don’t feel I have belittled anyone and if I did, I apologize. But doesn’t two, three, four, and even more differing view points lead to the best type of law possible because it listens to what everyone has to say on an issue?
I don’t know. just me. Maybe I am reading more into what is really there but my perception is that the final paragraph dismisses me as a person of subordinate thought or opinion.
July 14th, 2004 at 12:09 PM
pardon the many spelling errors…
July 14th, 2004 at 12:39 PM
>>When we stop trying to protect criminals, our judicial system will finally end up being just that… a judicial system
Our constitution clearly sets the standard that we are to protect criminals. The goal is to protect ourselves from becoming them.
Frankly, saying that we are “protecting criminals” in itself is garbage. Choosing less harsh sentences is not “protecting” them. It is setting out what is just punishment for being found guilty of commiting a crime.
Guess what? Victims of crimes have no constitutionally defined rights (except possibly restitution). Criminal matters are “The People v…,” not “Dave Jones, victim, v…” They have been given some rights, such as to speak at parole hearings, but otherwise, they don’t and shouldn’t have any. Again, “The People v…” Society and not the individual must define the punishment.
>>it recognizes the CHOICE of the innocent individuals who decided to have a baby and the result of a crime that took that CHOICE away.
Couching the debate in the frame of abortion language is dangerous all around. What if a woman is so frightened after she gets robbed, she miscarries? Do we ask for enhanced penalties then? How long after the incident? Do we start getting into medical arguments about the exact causation (1/3 of all clearly fertilized, implanted ova will be miscarried). What if someone runs a redlight and she miscarries in the accident? What if someone just yells at her really loudly? How about if a woman who is trying to get pregnant is murdered? Do we want enhanced penalties for the loss of that “choice?” I’m sorry, but this starts pushing the grey zone out too far. Unless there is clear evidence that she was murdered BECAUSE she was pregnant, the boundries get blurred way too far.
Obviously I could go on for quite some time.
>>he’s a conservative
On a differing note, I’m really getting sick of this crap “liberal” vs “conservative” language. It is endemic in the political discussion and quite frankly, they are misnomers. A conservative is against changing the system and a liberal is for changing the system. More recently, it has become one of individual rights versus government rule. However, now, they seem to be defined as “Wacko Christian” versus “Psycho Communist.” Frankly, these labels just polarize and serve as buzzwords (and epithets), instead of frame and simplifying debate.
July 14th, 2004 at 2:15 PM
Bram’s post is on the money.
Just one note: Doug, you’re the one who broke out the “liberal” and “conservative” labels, have accused me of being partisan. I don’t consider myself “liberal” (you should talk to Heidi some day), nor do I consider myself a “conservative” in political debates.
You keep complaining about discourse but then wrap up my comments with assumptions about the fact that I think you’re a “conservative” and that’s just the way you are…
I never said that. What I did say was lay out the inconsistency of your argument. Your analogy about two people being shot is invalid if there aren’t two people in the pregnant mother scenario. If there are two people in the pregnant mother scenario, the law already makes numerous distinctions that the fetus is not a person. You can’t have it both ways.
It wasn’t a shot against you, but, I think, a valid argument about why feticide laws are unnecessary from my standpoint.
July 14th, 2004 at 2:21 PM
my sense is that current criminal legal scholars are mostly againt crimes that punish based on outcomes, since that does little to actually deter crimes in the first place (as sujal mentioned, laws that only seek “revenge” or “to make the victim feel better”–have generally been shown to have limited effect…those supported limited government might also consider whether making people “feel better” is one of the essential gov functions) …rather, the penal should be all about intent (and thus deterrence)…having a law that punished murderers extra for killing pregnant women would only be ok theoretically if the fetus is explicitly classified as a life..and even then, if it wasn’t intended (i.e unaware she was pregnant), i *think* (kim? this is all the rambling of a law student, not lawyer) that the murderer couldn’t be charged with intentional homicide (requires purpose or knowledge)…only with (at most) reckless (which doesn’t carry the death penalty)…of course, this is all under the Model Penal Code, not the various ones that states actually have, but anyway
July 14th, 2004 at 3:10 PM
Since my name was invoked, I guess I should chime in. I think Payal is probably right up to a point. From what I’ve seen, scholars of criminal law who favor the criminal laws as a deterrent do favor focusing on intent, rather than outcome. But there is a contrary strain in our legal system, largely brought over from the law of tort, that says you take your victim as you find them. Say, for example, you have a victim that’s a hemophiliac. The assailant doesn’t know this, and cuts him/inflicts some other form of harm that induces bleeding. Even if the assailant’s intent was to harm, but not kill, the victim, I believe the intent would transfer, and would support a charge of homicide. Not to mention the statues that, as Doug suggested, punish manslaughter that occurs during the commission of a crime as a homicide.
As for statutes like Lacy’s Law, I’m not sure what I think about it. I think I would support harm to a fetus being an aggravating factor to be considered when weighing the penalty to be imposed (presumably for the assault on and/or murder of the mother), but I’m not sure I would support it being a separate crime. I think there are very few situations in which you would cause the death/miscarriage of a fetus without doing something to the mother that would be punishable in and of itself. How’s that for straddling the fence?
July 15th, 2004 at 10:26 AM
Bram, talk to a prosecutor. They are going after just punishment and justice for the family and the victim. Call it what you want.
As for your second point, the abortion debate was brought up earlier and I was responding to it by pointing out we all have choice. The rest of that paragraph is crap. Clear parameters can be set up to decide what is and what is not inside the parameters of the law….
AND ONCE AGAIN, you still need to have a trial. Juries, judges, lawyers have the ability to get charges that are not warranted or supported thrown out!
July 16th, 2004 at 8:23 PM
nice doug, ignore all the other points people brought up and call something crap. He brought up some relevant concerns about framing the need for a feticide law in terms of your “choice” to have a baby and in terms of the abortion debate. It’s not healthy, nor is it relevant.
If the law were written so that penalties were harsher if the assailant knew the victim was pregnant, I think you’d get nearly 100% agreement from everyone here that, well, that’s OK.
The problem is defining it as a second crime, something that does nothing except add fuel to the abortion debate. It’s also unnecessary from a legal standpoint. It’s also inconsistent in my eyes, since you don’t grant the other rights and requirements of personhood to the fetus.