Recently I came across a news item describing the observations and somewhat polemic assertions of actress Susan Sarandon regarding the death penalty as it relates to the candidacy of George W. Bush, it’s place in the criminal justice system and effect on society in general. 

Immediately I was concerned about the rank suppositional nature of her thoughts and the fundamental inconsistency contained therein. One would conclude, from her remarks, that the death penalty was only enforced to gratify the state and not effect justice toward the victims. In fact, I looked very closely to find any notice of the case of the victims being mentioned in her diatribe against capital punishment. None was found. She thinks that the state is always in error in ending the life of an individual who acted to initially take the life of another. Racism is also a component of the death penalty, she "reasoned", since many who are sentenced to die are not Caucasian. The respect for the living and the society at large is why the death penalty is a valid corrective measure, irrespective of the color of one’s skin. The death penalty is prospectively enforced to prevent the taking of life by the one executed and for the total respect and good of society against those so inclined to hold in such disregard the life of another so as to murder them. It can be called a "death un-penalty" for the rest of society.

Murders occur for many reasons. Some are crimes of passion. Some result from armed robbery. Some are gang related. The act of murder is mostly committed because the murderer has decided to dispatch with the humanity of another. Whether for a split second or from a mindset of a lifetime, one’s humanity is overridden thereby allowing the murderer to "justify" their act of murder. I bring this up to call into question the inconstancy of Ms. Sarandon’s championing of infanticide. Ms. Sarandon is all for murder as long as she can dispatch with the humanity of the pre-born and pridefully assert that such an act of murder isn’t murder, it’s a woman’s right to choose. It’s her body, it’s her choice. The reader can see that she doesn’t have the human rights of the pre-born under consideration, this allows her and others of her ilk to see them as not "human" and therefore make this wrong a "right".

So for her, death from capital punishment is unacceptable. From her viewpoint it is wrong to preserve the rights of the free society by executing a murderer in it’s midst. It is "right", by her line of thought, for a society to be contributorily negligent for future murders by failing to establish a clear standard that life must be respected. Conversely, death from abortion is right because it isn’t really murder, it is a choice. It is just an unviable tissue mass anyway, so there is no humanity there, go ahead and abort that pregnancy. Her reasoning is parallel to those on death row; they both share a fundamental disrespect for human life. Speaking of consistency, where is her criticism of Bill Clinton or Al Gore who are also for the death penalty? Consider these things when you hear her or any of the anti-death penalty, Hollywood crowd calling for it’s abolition on moral grounds.

The article on Sarandon can be found on the web at http://www.lineone.net/express/00/09/10/news/n1620-d.html