An Open Letter to Political Pundits: Convicts != Fetuses != Animals

[rowyn]

What is with this whole soundbite rhetorical argument that, somehow, one's position on the death penalty needs to be aligned with one's position on abortion and/or hunting? Is it so hard to imagine that one could believe that convicted criminals, fetuses, and wild animals are not, in fact, identical creatures and should not, therefore, be treated as though they were? I am so sick of hearing "how can she be pro-life and yet favor the death penalty?" or "how can he allow the murder of unborn children and yet oppose the execution of hardened killers?" Neither one of these positions is ethically inconsistent. They just require a marginally nuanced version of the world that does not do things like, oh, group frogs and plants in the same family because they're both green. No one over the age of ten is going to change their position on any of these things based on this line of argument. Please, stop. Thank you.

Comments

[circuit-four.livejournal.com]

This is merely supplementary information, clearly not a direct rebuttal nor is it intended to be... but it's just interesting:

Dr. Temple Grandin (made famous for being interviewed about her autism by Dr. Oliver Sacks) did some research that indicated the treatment of animals, the treatment of convicts, and the treatment of the disabled are actually highly statistically correlated. (By U.S. state, I believe it was.) I can dig: I believe the study was mentioned in Dr. Sacks' An Anthropologist on Mars.

Of course, take it with a grain of salt -- and note that Dr. Sacks also used to design "humane" abattoirs for a living. ^_^

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Interesting. Does the research address the policy positions held by the subjects, or their actual treatment in personal contact? (For example, by prison guards.)

It occurs to me that a voting or "official" position may well be substantially out of phase with real behavior -- but I am not familiar with Dr. Grandin's work.

===|==============/ Level Head

[rowyn]

A study on the correlation between actual behavior vs philosophy vs political beliefs would be interesting, too. Differences between practice and politics aren't necessarily indicative of hypocrisy, either: one can easily believe something is good without believing it should also be enforced by law.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice..."

And the distinction between good and mandated is certainly a valid one. I don't think that very many people now believe that smoking is "good for you" -- but the people that agree it's bad aren't necessarily in favor of outlawing smoking in your own home. Their polls answers would vary wildly based upon the wording of the question.

There's a hierarchy of good -- and personal liberty trumps "we're going to legislate you for your own good" in most instances, it seems to me.

===|==============/ Level Head

[rowyn]

That is interesting! I couldn't find reference to the study through casual Googling -- do you recall anything else about it that might make it findable?