| Imagine a world with no Jack Kevorkian! Former doctor Jack Kevorkian, who was released from prison allegedly because of his age and infirmity, and upon the promise that he would no longer assist in suicides, spoke at Wayne State University today, suggesting that he was only in jail because of a corrupt legal system, according to this Santiago Esparza piece in the Detroit News. This is priceless stuff from the convicted murderer. Kevorkian compared his persecution and that of literally all criminals to that of Jesus Christ, suggested that the nation's penal system needs reform (perhaps a fair claim, but for reasons far different than his incarceration), and claims that the Ninth Amendment basically gives "Americans the right to do as they please providing it does not cause harm to another person." There's some truth to that latter claim, although I want to address that and the Ninth Amendment, along with other things. The Ninth Amendment "reserves" all other power not vested to the federal government or the states to the people. It says nothing about standards of whether another person is harmed or not being justification for the law. If that was the case, 90% of our crumby laws wouldn't exist. That said, the Ninth Amendment is an amendment we need to fight harder for - but Kevorkian misapplies it. First, medicine can and is properly regulated by Congress through the Commerce Clause. Would Kevorkian advocate for no restrictions on doctor licensing and quackery medicine "if no one is harmed"? (Well, obviously, licensing and regulations on medical conduct prevent harm indirectly, just as regulating doctor's from assisting suicide). Second, does suicide "do no harm to anyone"? Suicide damages families, causes emotional pain to friends, and may not be entirely "voluntary," meaning it is ripe for legitimate regulation to protect both the suicidal individual and others. Even the most libertarian and anti-government idealists such as Ron Paul (a constant advocate of the Ninth Amendment, an issue Paul understands and articulates very well) are pro-life in the realm of fetal life protection. The moral questions with adult life issues are somewhat inverted, where there is no question in the case of suicide and assisted suicide as to whether a human person is being terminated (in the question of the abortion, abortion rights advocates suggest that a human person isn't involved because the fetus hasn't become that yet, and without that assumption, pro-choice becomes a much more difficult thing to defend morally because of the harm to others) but the question becomes pure choice and control over one's own body despite the consequences. While I sympathize with the right to control one's own body and even take grave risks, there's a logical line to be drawn between risky actions and actions calculated to certain self-destruction. There's also a line between self-destruction and helping others harm themselves, and a line that doctors as both commercial service providers and as the age-honored profession of doing-no-harm are subject to both in their internal ethics and by regulation. The ironies of the left on this are that they on one hand advocate for the right to choose death and even assist in the choice of death, and simultaneously advocate for government regulation against risky behaviors that only harm the self like smoking. They argue for freedom in use of medical marijuana, but nanny-state control over fatty foods. Even a broken clock is right twice a-day, and this Kevorkian quip has truth: "If you think someone else is going to preserve your liberty, you are sadly mistaken," Kevorkian said. "I mean sadly mistaken."
Alas, I agree with that sentiment. But is Kevorkian fighting for liberty, or a new source of income? According to the Santiago: Kevorkian's visit was free to attend, but about 40 students were not able to get into the auditorium because it was at capacity, campus public safety officials said. The university's Criminal Justice Department, Criminal Justice Club and WSU Student Council sponsored the visit. They paid a few hundred dollars, department officials said, but did not say exactly how much Kevorkian received.
Kevorkian's idea here of criminal punishment comes from somewhere left of la-la-land. Check this out: He also said the only way to help people who commit crimes is to take away punishment as it is handled now. Kevorkian advocates a system in which the offender and victim talk about what happened and a peaceful resolution is reached without incarceration. Now that would be a "Where would Christianity be today if Christ got off for good behavior," he jokingly asked.
I'm starting to sing a song in my mind. John Lennon. Imagine. Imagine a world with no war. No religion (well, Jack thinks he and criminals are Christ, and we should just talk nice to the murderers of families and rapists of our daughters and sisters and come to a peaceful resolution). I can imagine a world with no incarceration. Vigilanti justice would replace the justice derived from rule of law (and rightly so in this limited case). "Peaceful resolutions" would still come - at the hands of mobs and on ropes hung by trees. Justice comes in many forms, and sometimes its in the eye of the beholder. Peace is also difficult without both justice and structure. |
