Perhaps it will be resolved, for now, by the end of the day. I’m still a fence-sitter. So much for my committment on difficult issues. The Denver Post reports there is one more chance to repeal the death penalty. Death-penalty ban’s last shot at Capitol
I was more intrigued my comments on the issue from two editorial columnists in the paper. Bill Johnson ( Johnson: Senate gutless in bill rewrite) said about favoring a repeal:
"Sometimes leadership means telling those you represent – no matter how many times they call or e-mail – there is a better way, a moral way.
And sometimes, in service to your district, state or country, there comes a moment when you have to reach into your gut and do what may not get you elected the next time.
Now, I’ve never run for office, but I can assure you that if I got booted out for doing what my heart, my mind and my morality told me was the right thing to do, I would kick back in retirement and in my La-Z-Boy with the biggest grin on my face you ever saw."
This, and the recent U.S. Senator Specter defection from Rep. to Dem., made me wonder should a representative "represent" the wishes of his constituents or decide issues based on his personal perspective. Sounds like a topic for a separate but big consideration.
Mike Littwin ( Littwin: Facing the death penalty after all) said:
"The death penalty is, of course, an issue that divides us at our core. It’s an issue that is all about conscience and belief and in our personal understanding of where vengeance and justice intersect." [Agreed-JH]
"But today, I think it’s easy to make a case against the death penalty – the randomness of its application, the DNA-proven fallibility of the system, the march of history that leaves its supporters in league with forward thinkers such as China and Iran, the argument (though still debated) against the deterrence factor." [I’m not so sure it’s that easy. "Randomness of application"? "DNA-proven fallibility"? DNA evidence should be more airtight today than ever before.]
We shall see.