Get free daily email updates

Syndicate this site - RSS

Recent Posts

Blogger Menu

Click here to blog

Jill Buck

Are Republicans Opposed to the Death Penalty

I’m on the Drafting committee that will take up the Party Platform this weekend, and honestly, I find myself in a position that doesn’t line up well with either "side" on the Platform debate. I think we need a one-pager that is sort of a "Declaration of Independence" document, which boils down in pithy language "these truths to be self-evident." But I also think we need a "Constitution" like document that is more detailed. If you think about the Constitution, it isn’t a policy document, but rather a framework document that helps shape policy. It isn’t about nit-noid detail, but rather a template over which all policy decisions should be laid. I don’t think our Platform has to be lengthy, but it should be distinguishing and unique, so that our Party identity is not in question when the document is complete. I also believe it should be positive and inspiring, so that even if people don’t fall lock in step with every line of it, they don’t feel attacked or diminished in importance to the Party. 

Having said that, I’m in a quandary about one line of the drafts I’m seeing in my email, so I want to get some feedback from those of you who were unable to attend the hearings that were held recently.

In an email I got last night from my FR boss; my fellow "Flasher" Mike Spence; and Michael Schroeder, they put together a well-thought out draft that included this line:

The Republican Party is the party of life and protects the sanctity of innocent human Life from conception to natural death. 

By "natural death", do we mean that the Party opposes the death penalty? Please share your thoughts, b/c I’d like to ensure they are included in the Drafting committee discussions on this issue.

Sincere thanks in advance for sharing your insights…JB

7 Responses to “Are Republicans Opposed to the Death Penalty”

  1. jon@flashreport.org Says:

    Jill, thanks for your thoughts on this. They operative word in this clause that is important is INNOCENT life. Someone who has been convicted by a jury of their peers for a capitol offense and has been sentenced to be put to death is no longer and “innocent” life. I support the death penalty, and would be open to making that clear in the document.

    Jon

  2. jillbuck@comcast.net Says:

    Good, good, good…this is how we need to be thinking as we go into this process. Clarity and specificity will make or break this document. So let’s noodle on what “innocent” means – b/c we know innocent people have ended up on death row, and were later released – and be sure we say exactly what we mean to say in the Platform.

    Excellent critical thinking!

  3. gab200176@yahoo.com Says:

    I’m starting to think that since the courts rarely let an execution happen here in California anymore, we should just quit wasting money on appeals and trying to send them to death and just jail these people for life without any parole opportunities. Capital punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, but it’s not in California because its never carried out. The death row inmates are all dying of old age & natural causes. If we had a record like Texas where in the words of comedian Ron White…”we have an express lane”(to the death chamber) LOL…maybe it would be worth keeping the current system. So I’m ambivalent about capital punishment right now in our state.

  4. barry@flashreport.org Says:

    I believe the phrase “innocent human life” has been used for some time to differentate from the death penalty, yet Jill, you have a good point. Perhaps there is another, more descriptive way to define innocent.

  5. dittomom@dslextreme.com Says:

    I, for one, support the death penalty. And now that DNA testing is common the chances of sending an innocent man to the gas chamber is almost nil. Because human life is so precious the penalty for murder should be that life. The key word here is “innocent”. The statement you have is sufficient. The word “innocent” should tell anyone that a guilty man is not innocent (obvious to all) and therefore subject to the death penalty, if condemned.

  6. jillbuck@comcast.net Says:

    Allan…I’m so relieved to know I’m not the only Blue Collar tour fan on this site! I was afraid I was the only one, but obviously you know “The Tater” too.

    I know that we’ve used this phrase for a long time without really thinking it through, but I have an english degree, and I think it bears reexamination. If you look up some of the synonyms for “innocent”, you’ll find words like:

    Pure
    Chaste
    Inoffensive
    Blameless
    Guiltless
    Above suspicion

    If we’re only protecting the sanctity of “innocent” human life, that might exclude some of our own Congressmen. I know, I know, that’s below the belt, but that’s most of the problem!

    We might do well to devote more time to the ethics and character we expect of our Party leaders and electeds in the Platform, b/c the truth is, 99.999999% of the population could care less what our Platform says. For them, the people we elect tells them who we are as a Party.

    At the end of the day, I hope everyone involved in the Platform remembers the charter our Party’s founding father gave us…that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth.

    I’m hoping for a Platform that is centered on the people of California, and how we as a Party can best serve them.

  7. hoover@cts.com Says:

    Jill Buck remains the, “Straw that Stirs the Drink.”