<< No Lawyer Can Be This Stupid..............Not. | Main | Quick Notes on SCOTUS Today >>

The Death of Language

In order to have a sensible debate (or any debate), we have to have language.  In order to have language, words have to have communally accepted meaning.  

Whether they do any more has been cast into doubt by the latest academic shake-and-jive on the death penalty, to wit, a piece titled, "Death in Prison:  The Right Death Penalty Compromise."  The "compromise" is  --  get this  --  that the death penalty would be abolished, and the most severe sentence would be, or at least would be called, "Death in Prison."  DIP would be, in every functional detail, identical to the current sentence of life imprisonment without parole (LWOP), in which, if memory serves, the inmate dies in prison.

Honest. The DIP proposal, by Professor Russell Covey of Georgia State, takes the view that it is a "compromise" to adopt the specific goal abolitionists have been pushing for years as a way to vanquish their opponents and eliminate the death penalty.

Still, all is not lost.  Retentionists should counter with a "compromise" of life without parole, only the life will be shortened by state intervention.  If abolitionists want a game in which language is stripped of meaning, we can play too.


I don't get this at all.

The idea here is that you still get to sentence people to death, so the median voter thinks a death penalty still exists when it doesn't?

Can this argument not be settled on the merits?

No, the idea is that we end the death penalty and sentence even the worst murderers to LWOP, but call it something else, and then claim that this represents a capital punishment "compromise."

If you don't get it, I don't blame you.

Am I now evolved to the state of a “retentionist”?
I thought they called such as I a “retributionist”?

But have we not been forced to excessively compromise
due justice already?

17 year-old murderers, child rapists, intellectually delayed
rapist/murderers et al: capital offences perchance, but punishable
as such, not a chance.



You're not so much either a retentionist or a retributionist as a bloodlusting Nazi. I admit you haven't been called that today, but it's only half past noon.

Calling abolition "compromise" is the purest example of doublespeak I have read in some time (and I read a lot of examples).

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives