I sent this off to
I sent this off to frontpagemag.com in response to Jamie Glazov's "Andrea Yates Part II. A Reminder of the Need for Execution." Glazov's work is a continual disappointment.
"Dr. Glazov's arguments are incoherent.
Dr. Glazov’s seemingly interchangeable use of the terms ‘ethics’ and ‘moral’ indicate that he has little or no idea of what the terms mean. ‘Ethics’ refers to the discipline of studying that which is good and bad and what constitutes moral obligation. ‘Moral’ refers to the principles that actually determine what is good or bad. The presence or absence of the death penalty has nothing to do with the presence or absence of the ongoing ethical study of our human cruelty to each other. The existence of the moral principles that underlie such study are similarly unaffected. To claim that this is not so is naďve at best.
Dr. Glazov may also want to examine the meaning of the word ‘categorically.’ It means ‘absolute, unqualified.’ The fact that Dr. Glazov can demand an unqualified condemnation of the taking of human life as part of an argument for the necessity of taking human life does not reflect very well on his thought process.
Dr. Glazov’s characterization of the ‘fear of the innocent’s condemnation’ argument is, quite simply, logically and morally wrong. To casually claim that the imperfect nature of the state system intended to dole out death as a punishment has ‘absolutely no bearing’ on whether the death penalty ought to be implemented gives the lie to Dr. Glazov’s moral claim that he believes in the preciousness of human life. His claim that arguments against the death penalty imply that life imprisonment ought to be abolished because it is also unfair to sentence an innocent person to such punishment is similarly illogical and sloppy. A sentence of life in prison bears with it the possibility of revisiting the trial and conviction. A sentence of death, once carried out, is irrevocable. The two punishments do not exist on a continuum. One is categorically different from the other (and I use ‘categorically’ here in the way that it is supposed to be used).
Finally, Dr. Glazov seems to have forgotten that Andrea Yates committed her crimes in a state that enthusiastically embraces the death penalty. That didn’t seem to affect her decision to kill all of her children.
The final question Dr. Glazov asks is important, but his answers contribute nothing of substance to the debate."
[10:48PM. The letter's not up yet. I didn't much care for ex-editor Richard Poe's polemical and scattershot argumentation, but he did manage the FrontPage forums well. -IW]
