Thread: Hell: I am suspending my stance against the death penalty. Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001091
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
[URL=http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=020720&cat=frontpage&st=frontpagekidnappedgirl02 0719&src=abc]Worthless piece of human offal.[/URL]
I do not, however, advocate the use of the chair, the needle, the firing squad or the cyanide capsules. I prefer the "throw him into the general prison populace with 'child molester' tattooed on his forehead" approach.
[ 10. March 2003, 01:24: Message edited by: Erin ]
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
The link invited me to sign in with my Worldnet e-mail ID and such.
However, is the WPoHO in question the one just arrested in So. Cal. in the Runnion case? (That's certainly the one that leaps to my mind.)
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Eh, sorry, it's on the front page of the AT&T signon page, I didn't realize it would ask for an ID since I hadn't signed in yet.
Yes, it's the Runnion case. Here's the yahoo coverage.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Here is a free link to a story on the WPOHO if it's the same one.
I'll pay for the tatooing
scot
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
God how sickening.
I see that he was charged before with molesting children and got off, thus being freed to go out and commit a murder. Presumably his earlier victims just weren't believed.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
L.
Posted by JoyfulNoise & Parrot, O'Kief (# 2049) on
:
I agree Child molesting is devastatingly awefull, but am unable to agree with puting to death. No authority is given to us by God for this action.
Posted by thethinker (# 2344) on
:
Its a waste of time keeping people like this breathing.
Plus I don't want to pay taxes to keep him (his type) living in a prison, I advocate the death penalty in whatever crude or humane form you can think of.
Posted by Coolhermit (# 3004) on
:
To the Thinker - which aspect of Bukowski matches you?
Ch.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
I don't believe in cruel and unusual punishment, so, despite the appeal of throwing him in with the tattoo, it would be more charitable to simply do the lethal injection.
If guilt is certain, there is no reason for the rest of us to support such monsters for life. I understand why so many oppose the death penalty, but it sure does cut down on recividism.
I see that poor child's face in the news stories, and I just can't find any sympathy for her tormenter, child of God though he is. I know I have much further to go in my Christian walk, but it's going to take me a while to get past this stumbling block.
Rossweisse // it's not vengeance; it's nuisance removal
Posted by thethinker (# 2344) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Coolhermit:
To the Thinker - which aspect of Bukowski matches you?
Ch.
Bukowskian wisdom. The Bar room bore.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
And just when you think it can't get any worse...
Good God, what is this world coming to?
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
It's sickening.
How depraved we are.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
Plus I don't want to pay taxes to keep him (his type) living in a prison, I advocate the death penalty in whatever crude or humane form you can think of.
Actually, I understand that, given the legal costs of death penalty trials and appeals, life imprisonment is almost always the cheaper of the two options.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
Plus I don't want to pay taxes to keep him (his type) living in a prison, I advocate the death penalty in whatever crude or humane form you can think of.
Actually, I understand that, given the legal costs of death penalty trials and appeals, life imprisonment is almost always the cheaper of the two options.
Besides: if we as a society really want justice (whatever we may think it consists of - death penalty or otherwise), then we *ought* to be prepared to pay for it. That's just one of those things we need to accept as the consequence of having a fair justice system that by and large aims to render fair verdicts. And if that doesn't come cheap, then it's my priviledge to spend a few tax-dollars (or a little tax-sterling, actually) to ensure justice is done. God knows enough people died for that cause so that I don't have to do. (And God knows that, if I were ever wrongly accused of a crime, I'd want that justice system to be there every step of the way to ensure that truth would prevail, and not just the Bottom Line.)
If we can't accept the need to pay a little for a just system -- if we must insist on the cheap, swiftest, most cost-effective judicial system -- then may I suggest we look to Zimbabwe. I'm sure Robert Mugabe would be glad to provide one.
Posted by thethinker (# 2344) on
:
Well is wasn't really making a comment on whether it was cheaper or not, just the fact that i don't want my money to be spent on keeping these types in prison.
And do you want to know what really sickens me? Those people who are payed to help rehabilitate paedophiles and the like, in essense they are making money out of perversion and suffering. Check out the number of paedophiles who re-offend.
Posted by Jean Michel (# 27) on
:
Gee -whizz. I don't want my taxes spent on nuclear weapons either, but I don't really have a choice. Some people are against the death penalty on humanitarian grounds, but that doesn't convince many folk. Mention the fact that life imprisonment costs the State less than the death penalty, then ears start to twitch. I have this on good authority, from Ann Finnell no less, who works alongside with Patrick McGuinness, in the PDO, Public Defenser Office, of Jacksonville, Florida.
My gut reaction though remains the same. Scum deserve to die prematurely. Yes, I know I shouldn't judge, but I sure aint no saint.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jean Michel:
Scum deserve to die prematurely.
I dread to think what this world would look like if we all got what we actually deserved.
Posted by GUNNER (# 2229) on
:
Wanting retibution and justice for the brutal evils committed by child molesters is understandable. If anything happened to one of my children I'd proably want the person tattooed with child molester on his forehead and thrown into prision. But we're not God. We can make mistakes and prisioners who have been killed have sometimes later on been cleared.
We can't let our feelings redue us to moral weaklings. The hearvest will be done by God and his agents not by us, weak, sinners as we are
Posted by Jean Michel (# 27) on
:
Probably eyeless and toothless. We all possibly merit some form of punishment. The other side of the coin must surely be love, grace and forgiveness. It's just that one rotten apple can ruin the rest.
Posted by Jean Michel (# 27) on
:
p.s. My last post is, of course, in reply to texas.veggie.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jean Michel:
Probably eyeless and toothless. We all possibly merit some form of punishment. The other side of the coin must surely be love, grace and forgiveness. It's just that one rotten apple can ruin the rest.
Doesn't that essentially boil down to this, though?: Show love, grace, and forgiveness to everyone -- except, of course, for the REAL SOB's, since they don't really deserve it?
Surely the whole point of grace, love, and forgiveness that they are not supposed to be easy?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Screw it. I'm going to revel in my humanity. I also want the people responsible for making my 403(b) worth half of what I've invested in it so far to suffer painful deaths involving styrofoam, nipple clamps and Febreeze.
Bastards.
Posted by thethinker (# 2344) on
:
Most of these responses are examples of cowardice, say what you really think!!!
Having a paedophile thrown into prison with 'child molester' tattooed on their forehead is an indirect way of condeming them to death! Leaving them to the retribution of other inmates!
'I hope he gets what he deserves in prison....'
Yeah yeah! Heard it all before.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
And do you want to know what really sickens me? Those people who are payed to help rehabilitate paedophiles and the like, in essense they are making money out of perversion and suffering. Check out the number of paedophiles who re-offend.
And wouldn't it be great if we could actually stop the re-offending and the passing on down to the next generation of the abuse?
I have to say, though, that it's satisfying to draw abusers and put them through the shredder. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
However, doesn't mean justice is done. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
say what you really think!!!
OK. The death penalty is barbaric under any circumstances.
Let there be punishment, by all means. And let there be re-habilitation, if such is possible.
But let not our system be based on retribution. It's not the same thing, and it reduces us all as human beings.
Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on
:
quote:
And do you want to know what really sickens me? Those people who are payed to help rehabilitate paedophiles and the like, in essense they are making money out of perversion and suffering. Check out the number of paedophiles who re-offend.
This is stupid and ignorant. ![[Flaming]](graemlins/angryfire.gif)
1. Does this mean that policemen and prison officers sicken you (making money out of crime)? Counsellors (making money out of mental illness)? Teachers (making money out of ignorance)?
2. The recidivism rate for child molesters who go through a treatment programme is reduced very substantially (by about 60% in NSW). Find out something before you spew bile at people doing a difficult job. THEY are the people who are preventing a further generation of victims. And they don't deserve to have their motivations questioned by ignorant fuckwits.
Posted by Arietty (# 45) on
:
Even if you execute paedophiles who abuse and murder, you will have to wait for a paedophile to work his/her way up to murder before you can 'get rid of them'.
By this time they will have many more victims than if they had been rehabilitated earlier.
A really determined paedophile is proof against any programme - however many paedophiles do want to stop and such programmes have a good successs rate among thg motivated.
Paedophiles themselves do not face up to what they have REALLY done as they know it is horrible just as the rest of us lknow it is horrible. They make up al sorts of rationalisations and fantasies to make themselves feel better. Anyone who works therapeutically with paedophiles has to assist them to accept the truth of their crime, which means becoming graphically familiar with the details, not just what is fit to print in a newspaper but the whole thing, which is always much more horrible that what is made public. This can be very distressing. You have to be really brave and committed to do that and they do it on behalf of the 'society' which does not like this sort of crime.
Posted by thethinker (# 2344) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
quote:
And do you want to know what really sickens me? Those people who are payed to help rehabilitate paedophiles and the like, in essense they are making money out of perversion and suffering. Check out the number of paedophiles who re-offend.
This is stupid and ignorant.
1. Does this mean that policemen and prison officers sicken you (making money out of crime)? Counsellors (making money out of mental illness)? Teachers (making money out of ignorance)?
2. The recidivism rate for child molesters who go through a treatment programme is reduced very substantially (by about 60% in NSW). Find out something before you spew bile at people doing a difficult job. THEY are the people who are preventing a further generation of victims. And they don't deserve to have their motivations questioned by ignorant fuckwits.
I think one is taking this a little too personally. Using the example of policemen, councilours and teachers are not really good examples, well perhaps councillors are but policemen and teachers make up the fabric of society, so are therefore far more important than those people who try to 'find good' in child molesters.
To me rehibilitating paedophiles is like trying to rehibilitate the devil. Is it so beyond anyones belief that these people have the devil inside them? On a wider issue, I know lets try to rehibilitate Myra Hindley! yeah shes sorry for what she has done, how about Brady!?!? Lets not stop at child abusers lets ,move on to serial killers, dhamer? sutcliffe? Lets rehibilitate these psychos, sutcliffe was a truck driver right? I believe theres a job going delivering for pretty polly tights. After all there must be some good in that brain of his, i mean like a paedophile he is obviously mentally ill, and there is nothing the good old psycho therapists can't solve. I perscribe daily councilling and three shots of prozac per day, that'll solve it!
Oh what a shame Adolf Hitler topped himself.... what fun we could have had there!
Posted by Arietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
Oh what a shame Adolf Hitler topped himself.... what fun we could have had there!
On the other hand it's just as well Charles Bukowski is dead or the Ship's lawyers would be making you change your sig after a pile of **** like the above post.
Or maybe not as one of CB's most famous sayings was apparently
quote:
The more crap you believe, the better off you are
thethinker, if you believe even one tenth of what you posted you must be very well off indeed.
Posted by simon 2 (# 1524) on
:
I fully get the sentiments of 'throw them into prison with a big tatoo on thier forheads'. But why wouldn't I be willing to dole out the kicking and the raping that the peadophile would get in jail, if it is so acceptable? Is it because it is wrong and it's just a sinful part of me desiring blood in revenge? or is it because I am too much of a coward to do the job myself but am happy to let people who are already guilty of crime continue in violence on my behalf?
Posted by thethinker (# 2344) on
:
Its only **** because you personally disagree with it.
On the otherhand I enjoy reading yours and other posters opinions as I can always leard something from them.
I've never said that you are wrong, I have changed my mind many times on the issue of the death penalty, and have revised it just recently.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simon 2:
I fully get the sentiments of 'throw them into prison with a big tatoo on thier forheads'. But why wouldn't I be willing to dole out the kicking and the raping that the peadophile would get in jail, if it is so acceptable?
I would be more than happy to take him out back and beat the shit out of him before I put a bullet in his head.
Posted by simon 2 (# 1524) on
:
But would you be prepared to do the sexual molestation that goes with such a sentance?
Plus it isn't just a one off beating, it has to be daily (or a least twice weekly if you're feeling kind) for the rest of his life, so no quick one off kicking and then death.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
It would be highly unlikely he'd survive the first beating.
Would I do the sexual molestation? Probably not, because God knows what funk he'd have. However, I'd be willing to make him a eunuch with a rusty butter knife.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
It would be highly unlikely he'd survive the first beating.
Would I do the sexual molestation? Probably not, because God knows what funk he'd have. However, I'd be willing to make him a eunuch with a rusty butter knife.
... all of which would accomplish what, precisely?
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
It would be highly unlikely he'd survive the first beating.
Would I do the sexual molestation? Probably not, because God knows what funk he'd have. However, I'd be willing to make him a eunuch with a rusty butter knife.
... all of which would accomplish what, precisely?
The children would figure maybe they were ok after all, because other people cared enough to punish the people who made them feel this bad.
Viki
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I feel really sorry for the parents of children hurt or killed when the paedophile reoffends. They must think, if he hadn't been let out my child would still be OK. I know we can never totally guess who is going to do something the first time, but once a person is known as a paedophile it would be better if he is given 'life' immediately. Then he is unable to get out and reoffend.
Maybe that is naive as there are so many paedophiles about, but I would be much happier if I knew exactly where they were (ie. behind bars). By all means try to educate them out of it, but never let them out (to let someone's child be the victim of an experiment) to 'see' if the person has been cured.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
What would it do? It'd ensure that this son of a bitch would never molest another child again.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
The children would figure maybe they were ok after all, because other people cared enough to punish the people who made them feel this bad.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
What would it do? It'd ensure that this son of a bitch would never molest another child again.
Seems to me that you could accomplish both of those things quite handily merely by locking him/her away for a very long time, possibly forever, if need be ... without resorting to the kind of pre-meditated, self-dehumanising violence that s/he him/herself was guilty of.
So I pose the question again: what, precisely, would systematically torturing and murdering such a person accomplish (whether you do it yourself or even get the state to do it for you)?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Locking him away is no guarantee of anything. All you need is some soft-on-crime parole panel and he's free as a bird (and it happens).
Besides, vermin like that don't deserve to live.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
if Erin was to get her wicked way it would make her feel better. But it would not stop a child being murdered - if the person was let out they would probably be so mad they would go on a killing spree. So give them chemical castration by all means, but also keep them locked away where they can do no harm (except maybe to other paedophiles ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
)
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Locking him away is no guarantee of anything. All you need is some soft-on-crime parole panel and he's free as a bird (and it happens).
Besides, vermin like that don't deserve to live.
Both of these statements beg the question asked: First, I specifically phrased it so that locking the person up forever was a possibility (and if we need tougher laws, then so be it). Second, the question of what they deserve was not, strictly speaking, at issue.
What I asked was this: on top of all that, what would it *actually accomplish* for you -- either personally or through the state -- systematically and with pre-meditation to torture and kill such a person?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I already told you. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean I didn't give you one.
Once more, with feeling: it would accomplish the absolutely unbreakable guarantee that he would never, ever be able to molest another child ever again. Which IS my ONLY concern.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I already told you. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean I didn't give you one.
Once more, with feeling: it would accomplish the absolutely unbreakable guarantee that he would never, ever be able to molest another child ever again. Which IS my ONLY concern.
All right, then: let me re-phrase.
How would the systematic and pre-meditated torture of a human being (even such a dehumanised and dehumanising human being) accomplish this any more effectively than simply locking that person up for eternity and throwing away the key?
-- Bearing in mind also that physical castration, whether by blunt instrument, as you suggest, or sharpened surgical steel is in no way a cast-iron guarantee that an erection can no longer be had. (Back in the old days, the sultans had no idea what their eunuchs were up to with those harems.) Also bearing in mind that child molestation takes any number of vile forms that may not include penetration. --
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
Oh, yeh. I forgot. You were going to kill him too.
But the question still stands: how would it be any more effective than locking him up forever? What would actually be gained by torturing and killing him?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
The absolute guarantee that he would not ever be able to molest another child again.
Am I not typing in English here?
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
Bearing in mind also that physical castration, <snip>is in no way a cast-iron guarantee that an erection can no longer be had.
The castration was not suggested as some sort of surgical rehabilitation. It was offered as a preliminary step to the killing of the vicious bastard. It was an alternative means of letting him share in the suffering of the little girl he tortured, raped and murdered.
scot
Posted by simon 2 (# 1524) on
:
I was wondering why rape (male or female) is less offensive to me than peadophilia? Are rapists to be castrated and killed too? or let out to rape again? The same for drunk drivers who kill? and for armed robbers who have killed? after all we can never be totally sure of anybodies reformation.
Sometimes I wonder if peadophilia is the only crime (maybe even sin) that our culture is willing to say is evil. Many criminals are given the excuse of abusive parents, mental illness, drug abuse etc. but something about peaedophilia demands that these people are held to account for their actions irrespective of their background.
Society seems to want to object to evil behaviour and demand justice but nobody has the spine for it anymore. So we are left with only one crime that we get really upset about everytime, the most abhorent and evil crime.
Posted by marmot (# 479) on
:
cut off his hands, too.
Let's not delude ourselves with ideas of rehabilitation. Even with therapy, recidivism rate is 80 percent. And who knows? It may be the devil in there, or it may be some horrible organic brain disease. In any case, these men should not be allowed around other people.
In spirit, I agree with you Erin. I have always thought that the victims (and their friends and families) of sex offenders should be given a weapon of their choice and 10 minutes with the offender. Realistically, life in prison, no parole--ever. And hey, tattoo away--at least then we could see 'em for what they are.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I find rape pretty damned offensive, too. But hurting children... words fail at how abhorrent I find that.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The absolute guarantee that he would not ever be able to molest another child again.
Am I not typing in English here?
Well, yes. But you're still not answering the questions put to you.
So lemme try again. Two questions.
First: you've suggested that torturing and killing the man/woman would be the way to ensure that s/he would never molest another child again. Why not just kill him/her? Doesn't that give the same guarantee? What do you accomplish by mutilating him/her first?
Second: Case study:
Myra Hindley. Molested and killed multiple children. Locked away in the 1960's. Still locked away. Universally reviled by the British Press to this day. Repeatedly denied any chance of parole by successive British Home Secretaries (of both parties), none of whom want to go down in history as "The Cabinet Minister Who Released Myra Hindley". Will always and evermore be denied parole, if for no other reason than this. She will most certainly die in prison.
She has never, to my knowledge, reoffended. Nor will she.
Now this seems to meet your demand for
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
the absolutely unbreakable guarantee that he would never, ever be able to molest another child ever again. Which ...
... you then went on to emphasise ...
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
IS my ONLY concern.
To repeat: concern met. Done and dusted.
Now, that said, would you advocate maiming Myra Hindley? If so, why? What would you stand to gain by doing so?
Following up on that, would you then advocate killing her? If so, why ... noting, in particular, that your
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
ONLY concern
has already been dealt with?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
The answer is easy for me - I have always believed in applying the death penalty in certain cases. This is only one of the times when I think it is totally appropriate.
I, however, think the torture part is not appropriate, and that the method of execution should cause a swift death like guillotine or firing squad.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
She will most certainly die in prison.
Guarantee this, and then we'll talk.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simon 2:
Sometimes I wonder if peadophilia is the only crime (maybe even sin) that our culture is willing to say is evil.
<snip>
Society seems to want to object to evil behaviour and demand justice but nobody has the spine for it anymore.
I wish that our culture was uniformly willing to condemn it. I nominate the pedophilia apologists to share in the "10 minutes of justice."
And don't believe for a minute that nobody has a spine for dealing with this stuff anymore. We're just not in the majority at the moment.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
She will most certainly die in prison.
Guarantee this, and then we'll talk.
I guarantee.
Now answer the questions.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
She will most certainly die in prison.
Guarantee this, and then we'll talk.
I guarantee.
Now answer the questions.
Including the one(s) about why you would maim someone *in addition* to killing them? (the latter of which is, admittedly, certainly a guarantee.)
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The answer is easy for me - I have always believed in applying the death penalty in certain cases. This is only one of the times when I think it is totally appropriate.
I, however, think the torture part is not appropriate, and that the method of execution should cause a swift death like guillotine or firing squad.
sharkshooter, I agree with you that death is the appropriate penalty in this case. I also agree that the torture part is not appropriate, but not because the child-rapist/murderer doesn't deserve it. It is society that is protected by a prohibition on torture, not the pedophile.
scot
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
It is society that is protected by a prohibition on torture, not the pedophile.
not to mention our own humanity (amongst other things).
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Again: I AM answering the question. I am just not giving you an answer you like. Keeping someone in prison is no guarantee of anything. It is IMPOSSIBLE to guarantee that someone won't commit an act while they're still alive. Do you honestly not comprehend this, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Again: I AM answering the question. I am just not giving you an answer you like. Keeping someone in prison is no guarantee of anything. It is IMPOSSIBLE to guarantee that someone won't commit an act while they're still alive. Do you honestly not comprehend this, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
In the first instance, you have most explictly *not* answered the question as to why you seem to advocate torture, as a separate issue, on top of killing the abuser. You have remained wholly silent on this one.
And in the second instance, as for the killing bit, I might ask the same of you: are you being deliberately obtuse? What part of "lock 'em up and throw away the key" are you not seeing? Drop 'em off on a desert island forever with no other human contact. Whatever. The point is not about how the laws now stand. The point is that we *could* construct the law in such a way that a person would be permanently imprisoned -- in which life actually meant life -- and therefore would never have the opportunity to come into contact with a child again. I even gave you a real-life example that has occurred with the laws we now have: this has actually happened in the case of Myra Hindley.
Can't you therefore just answer the question as to why killing the person would be preferable, even if you have your guarantee of life imprisonment only for the sake of argument?
sheesh!
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Christ almighty, would you read the friggin' posts? My point all along has been that the only way to guarantee that he will not commit similar acts is to kill the son of a bitch. You think that sentencing him to life imprisonment is an effective guarantee, I do not and WILL NOT accept that as equally effective, because there's NO GUARANTEE that he will stay there. You're talking theory, I'm talking reality. End of discussion on this point.
As to castrating and/or beating the tar out of him: I already said he deserves it. As I do not accept your life imprisonment theory, you did not accept this. Seems to me we've reached the end of the discussion on this point, too.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
As to castrating and/or beating the tar out of him: I already said he deserves it. ... Seems to me we've reached the end of the discussion on this point, too.
well, yeh, probably. but, at long last, it did flag up one point that I had in mind: that your motive was not ONLY to guarantee that he'd never do it again.
Ultimately, I was trying to raise the issue of retribution as opposed to justice.
Maybe we (or someone else) could take it from there.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
If you think I'm going to let some little red commie have the last word... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
My motive in KILLING him was only to guarantee that he would not do it again. I never commented on my motive for beating the living shit out of him. My motives for beating the living shit out of him are that he's a total scumbag and he hurt a little girl in the worst way possible. I can only imagine what she went through -- how scared she was, if she ever realized that her parents couldn't save her -- ugh. I mean, really: what kind of sick bastard do you have to be, anyway?
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I never commented on my motive for beating the living shit out of him.
errm... Didn't i say that to you about about three times already?!
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If you think I'm going to let some little red commie have the last word...
Oh, I can play this game in spades, sweetheart!
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I mean, really: what kind of sick bastard do you have to be, anyway?
(Deserved a separate, more serious post.)
-sigh- I just don't know.
Someone commented at the beginning of the thread about how sadly depraved we human beings can be. It's true, of course, and God only knows I wish I had some easy answer for it.
Posted by thethinker (# 2344) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Again: I AM answering the question. I am just not giving you an answer you like. Keeping someone in prison is no guarantee of anything. It is IMPOSSIBLE to guarantee that someone won't commit an act while they're still alive. Do you honestly not comprehend this, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Well wonders never cease! The first time that I have ever agreed with old aligator features!
Thats the thing about the death penalty, because people do not like the idea, they automaticly think it wrong. Not so, sure the death penalty is bad, taking a human life is never an easy decision to make, but under these circumstances we have to view these people as monsters and not human beings. Putting them in prison is well and good, but how do we know they are getting the punishment they deserve? If we lock them away in some hole without contact to the outside world, the PC brigade would start rambling on about human rights.
The only plausible arguement against the death penalty is that killing someone off means that we often forget about their wickedness, perhaps leading us to be less aware of the horrors that the world brings forth. If Hindley and Brady were executed they would not be the standout example of evil that they partook in. Would we be as aware to the threat of such people? I have thought about it and i think it is a difficult choice to make, but when you realise the pain and suffering that they brought both physically and mentally, death seems a fair end to their worthless exsistence.
People say we, as humans have no right to take human life. But God wants us to fight off the devil and the evil that he brings. We have seen it in Nazi Germany, and we fought it off. And we must also see these child molesters as being pure evil and by bringing about the death penalty we are fighting the evil that is inside them, they are a hollow shell, not human but i think the devil incarnate.
What rights does this evil have on this earth?
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
but under these circumstances we have to view these people as monsters and not human beings.
just out of curiosity, where would you draw that line?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
Well wonders never cease! The first time that I have ever agreed with old aligator features!
It's. The. End. Of. The. World. (Words capitalised and separated by periods are © Tomb. All. Rights. Reserved.) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Myself, I believe that people who murder anyone deserve the death penalty, but that it should be in as simple and quick a manner as possible (I don't go in for the whole lethal injection or electric chair thing -- firing squad would do well, or cutting off their heads, or hanging). Standard thing about giving them time, if desired, with clergy of their religion to try to prepare for death beforehand, of course.
But it's a bit late for that now as The. World. Is. Ending. Soon.™
AIIEEEEEEE!
David
orthodox secret master of AIIEEEEEEE!
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
Quakers are totally against the death penalty though and so are theBaptists don't agree with the death penalty...the Pope says Death Penalty is "Cruel"
Douglas Wilson and other Reformed Christian Theologians and other Reformed Theologians are pro-death penalty.
I am pro-death penalty since I feel it is bibical. Since I am not a Dispensationalist, I do feel that the OT was replaced by the NT but rather the OT was a shadow of things to come with Christ.
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
but under these circumstances we have to view these people as monsters and not human beings.
just out of curiosity, where would you draw that line?
Monsters steal innocence, destroy children.
Viki
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I think what probably clinched this one for me was the police interview with the little girl she was playing with: "and then he stole my friend". Good Lord, almost as heartbreaking as the kid who asked "Mom, what did we do wrong?" just before that bitch in Texas drowned him.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
Erin, the fact that the brother ran out after he saw his darling sibling drowned in the water...and she chased after him and drowned him also. That made me lose it.
Or the fact that the too little ones drowned in the car...there were signs that the older one was trying to free himself and his baby brother...
Or the car jacker who took off with a toddler who when his mom tried to get out and ended up dragged by the jeep and died being dragged. Saw that on American's Most Wanted.
How can somebody kill an innocent child? I would rather throw myself in front of a speeding car and die than see my niece and nephews hurt at all.
I just can't stand it. DEATH PENALTY! Many of these guys are REPEAT offenders. DEATH PENALTY.
Totally bibical IMHO and totally well-deserved.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
I'm not known for being overly... *ahem* sensitive. But whenever I think of those poor boys in Texas and the fear they must have felt it just breaks me. It's the same with Samantha Runnion. And Danielle van Damme. I look at them and I see my kids. Samantha even looks a bit like my little girl.
It's horrible when kids are killed and even worse when they suffer. But in my view the worst part is the fear they must feel. Young children are naturally so trusting - to violate that trust in the worst imaginable ways feels like the death of all that is good.
Yes, I would throw the switch, pull the trigger, swing the bat, strangle the bastard with my own hands. I wouldn't think twice, and I wouldn't regret it. If only the next child doesn't get hurt.
scot
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
but under these circumstances we have to view these people as monsters and not human beings.
just out of curiosity, where would you draw that line?
Monsters steal innocence, destroy children.
Yes, but I'm suggesting that when you start distinguishing between human beings and monsters (as opposed to human beings and human beings who perform monstrous acts), then where you draw the line becomes arbitrary and subjective ... and that can be a dangerous thing that, ultimately, puts all our civil liberties at risk. What's to stop the Powers That Be for coming after you and giving you the "monster treatment" for, say, jay-walking? Theoretically, nothing. The question, then, becomes: who is entitled to treatment as a human being, who is not? What accusations of crime entitle you to a human trial; and which ones entitle you to a show trial. Can a person be a monster before the trial, or only after being found guilty? What about an inconclusive verdict ... what legal standing has he/she then? Which crimes qualify as "monstor crimes", and who specifically decides this? Can thinking about the crime with no subsequent action be considered criminal? Can the line be moved? And for what reasons? Who makes that decision?
Can: open. Worms: everywhere.
There was a time when the FBI and the CIA considered people like me -- avowed socialists -- to be monsters who threatened the very fabric of Amreican life, merely for the political choices we made. They had carte blanche to treat us as such ... and they did ... just because they could ... because they were allowed to make that distinction, and because no one would hold them to account.
Don't get me wrong: I'm all for ensuring that paedophiles get locked away for a long time and never have access to children again. I'm all for ensuring that children are made safe. And I'm all for bringing home to the perpetrator the monstrosity of their crime.
It's just that when we start going down that particular road on the way to doing so -- i.e., distinguishing between human beings who, because of who they are, may or may not deserve equal treatment under law -- it's very hard indeed to guarantee where it will finally end.
Posted by gandalf35 (# 934) on
:
I think anyone who thinks our penal system is based on reformation, is very nieve. It has always been about retribution. Deterence? get real. If we want deterence then we have the death penalty for any legal infraction commited by anyone over the subjective age of twelve. Do you realise that there are proven remedies for any number of criminal behaviors. The problem is that te cost of implimenting these would bankrupt us and we would not get the satisfaction of seeing those people suffer for their crimes. Good lord, even chimps kill for the benefit of their community.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gandalf35:
... we would not get the satisfaction of seeing those people suffer for their crimes.
... which sort of makes me glad that Jesus wasn't born as a 20th century American. That whole business about free grace for sinners probably would have taken on a completely different tone ...
Posted by gandalf35 (# 934) on
:
What does this have to do with Jesus, and why do you think his motivation would have changed from then to now. Our feelings on this have nothing to do with his teachings. There is no justification for this in the NT.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gandalf35:
Good lord, even chimps kill for the benefit of their community.
I'm not sure that's a road you really want to be going down. After all, they also fling faeces at each other and generally forget to wash their hands before dinner ...
Seriously, though. Sure, like all of you, my gut reaction when I read any of these (increasinly common) stories is that I'd love to get my sweaty little hands round the sorry little neck of anyone who'd do things like that to a child. That's my gut-level reaction.
But I do also think that God calls us to to react in a way more profound than just the gut-level ... not least in the words of Romans 12.14-21. This doesn't mean play it stupid. (Christ tells us to be "wise like serpents", too.) But the whole world already pretty much takes chimpanzees as their model. That's the easy bit: even Peter himself cut the ear off the slave who came to take Christ away. Mercy doesn't really become mercy till it's hard to give. It was Christ who put the ear back on.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gandalf35:
What does this have to do with Jesus, and why do you think his motivation would have changed from then to now. Our feelings on this have nothing to do with his teachings. There is no justification for this in the NT.
My point was that if God took the same kind of delight that Americans do in seeing sinners get their pay-backs, we'd all be screwed.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
Thanks, Texas Veggie, for arguing the points I would have liked to make so much better than I could.
I have been avoiding posting on this thread because I find it too upsetting. The crimes are horrible. But the idea that any person is a 'monster' is more horrible still. That way lies the gas chamber filled with homosexuals, gypsies and Jews. That way lies the regime lead by the Taliban.
I was going to suggest crucifixion as the penalty, and ask whether any bleeding heart liberal would be prepared to suffer it in his place. But perhaps that's a cheap shot.
Surely Christ died for all sinners, no matter how abhorrent their sins? Surely He warned us in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector not to think that our sins are somehow more acceptable than someone else's?
Posted by gandalf35 (# 934) on
:
Every time I try to post a reply the ship locks up on me. Hmmm... hint maybe?
My point is to get Jesus out of the argument. He does not belong there. This has nothing to do with him, just with our sense of retribution not a sense of justice. How many times have we seen extreamist Christians (Fundies and others) crying out for blood at executions.
If you want retribution then call it that, don't drag Jesus into it. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
BTW I often fling faeces at others and since I am a man I never wash my hands ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
Posted by gandalf35 (# 934) on
:
Sorry about the double po
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
Oh, I see. We're on more or less the same side, then? Perhaps I mis-read your earlier post.
quote:
Originally posted by gandalf35:
If you want retribution then call it that, don't drag Jesus into it.
Well, yes. Precisely.
Posted by simon 2 (# 1524) on
:
For me Jesus has everything to do with how I feel on this subject. My heart reaction is, mess them up really bad, tatoo molester on their forhead and throw them into the roughest jail around, in a shared cell. But God says that vengence is his, and not mine. So my opinion is changed, by my faith and my interpretation of what the Bible says.
So people believe it is ok for us to make society safe and then to punish, but for me it isn't ok to punish.
I can't think of any of the names, but there have been so many people released this year due to miscarriages of justice. Many of them were in for life and they are now old men, robbed of their life. Were they to have been executed we would have been guilty of demanding a second murder as revenge.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
I have been avoiding posting on this thread because I find it too upsetting. The crimes are horrible. But the idea that any person is a 'monster' is more horrible still. That way lies the gas chamber filled with homosexuals, gypsies and Jews. That way lies the regime lead by the Taliban.
Utter bullshit. Or are you, unlike the rest of us, really unable to tell the difference between who someone is and the crimes they commit?
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Surely Christ died for all sinners, no matter how abhorrent their sins? Surely He warned us in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector not to think that our sins are somehow more acceptable than someone else's?
And if we were talking about whether or not the guy could be forgiven, this would make sense. We're not talking about SINS, we're talking about CRIMINAL ACTS. There is a difference.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
But doesn't He also say it would be better for him if a millstone was put around his neck and drowned? (Matt. 18v.6 - concordances are wonderful things.........)
I suppose if the alternative was a prison lynching the millstone treatment would be kinder.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simon 2:
For me Jesus has everything to do with how I feel on this subject.
If i may take the liberty of interpreting Gandalf?
What I gather was being said was that when we act on the gut-level feeling of wanting to mess such criminals up, Jesus has nothing to do with that, and it's wrong to drag him into it as a self-justification of that kind of behaviour (i.e. -- acting on feeling, instead of acting on the Gospel of showing more mercy to them than they would to us).
Posted by simon 2 (# 1524) on
:
Aha, please excused my slow wittedness.
Innocent
Posted by simon 2 (# 1524) on
:
Agghhhh double stupidity I pressed the wrong button and sent the reply rather than including a URL.
Innocent are an organisation trying to over turn miscarriages of justice in the UK, several people on this site seem to have been convicted of abusing and murdering children, and possibly on very bad evidence. If they are innocent the death penalty would have been an irreversible punishment, and all because our society calls for blood rather than justice. Is the state murder of innocents a worth while price to pay so that we can have the blood vengence and safety we require?
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
I have been avoiding posting on this thread because I find it too upsetting. The crimes are horrible. But the idea that any person is a 'monster' is more horrible still. That way lies the gas chamber filled with homosexuals, gypsies and Jews. That way lies the regime lead by the Taliban.
Utter bullshit. Or are you, unlike the rest of us, really unable to tell the difference between who someone is and the crimes they commit?
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Surely Christ died for all sinners, no matter how abhorrent their sins? Surely He warned us in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector not to think that our sins are somehow more acceptable than someone else's?
And if we were talking about whether or not the guy could be forgiven, this would make sense. We're not talking about SINS, we're talking about CRIMINAL ACTS. There is a difference.
Erin, in most western countries buggery was a crime until very recently. I well remember my own grandfather ranting about homosexuals in very similar terms to those used on this thread. He thought they corrupted the young (worse than killing them - causing them to be cast into hell) and spread appalling diseases. He also thought they had deliberately chosen to be homosexual.
Hitler justified what he did to the gypsies and the Jews on the grounds that they were not really human, they were less than that. It is a short step from 'you are not worthy to be treated as a human because of what you have done' to 'all people of your type are not worthy to be treated as humans'. I know that you appreciate the difference, but a lot of people don't.
I appreciate there is a difference between criminal acts and sins. Once a society has decided that an act is criminal, offenders are liable to punishment for committing it. But I just can't quite imagine Christ sitting about with his disciples discussing nastier and better ways to torture people, and it worries me when Christians start down this road. I would like to see the content of any law informed by religion.
Clearly, you and I are never going to agree on this point. I feel as passionately about human rights as you do about this murder. The very idea that anyone could advocate gruesome torture as sanctioned by law and right is utterly abhorrent to me. To me, it is the antithesis of law, civilisation, or moral right. You clearly disagree, and I respect your right to do so.
The total of nastiness, ugliness and sin in this world is so great that I would not want to add to it by one iota. I most respect Christians like Corrie Ten Boom, who could pray for the Nazis who occupied her land, and killed her father and sister, and who refused to see them as other than men made in the image of God.
In this country a similar abduction and murder by a paedophile led to riots in certain cities, the driving out of men who might or might not have been paedophiles, and culminated in the home of a paediatrician being attacked due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of that word. The fear now is that no paedophile dare ever ask for help in overcoming his inclinations. It is a taboo subject. The mere allegation is enough to get you hounded out of town, even if it is not true.
The man who committed this crime did something about as loathsome as it gets. But he is still a man, not a monster or demon.
Posted by thethinker (# 2344) on
:
Moth what are you talking about?!!?
Hitler Killed the Jews, the disabled and gypsies out of pure predjudice. The 'crimes' that they committed was against the german people were in hitlers mind! Anything can be called a crime if you don't like it, I could say that your opinion on this subject was a crime.
But when we talk of actual criminal acts Paedophillia is perhaps the worst, and should be treated with the worst possible outcome. For Gods sake they are abusing children in the worst possible way! Sexualy abusing and murdering! I tell you what if its against Gods will to brandish the death penalty against these people then i'm going to have to go away and contemplate how i think of God.
I find it difficult to believe that Jesus and Jesus' disiples would have not looked towards the death penalty (in some instances), given the society that they lived in at the time. And whats that quote from jesus about those who abuse children should be cast into a bottomless pit? Help me out someone!?!
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I am in perfect agreement about human rights, Moth. This guy surrendered his humanity card a long, long time ago.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
I find it difficult to believe that Jesus and Jesus' disiples would have not looked towards the death penalty (in some instances), given the society that they lived in at the time. And whats that quote from jesus about those who abuse children should be cast into a bottomless pit? Help me out someone!?!
I always find it intriguing that people will defend the position that an all-loving God who himself suffered the death penalty would glibly condone inflicting it on all manner of miscreants without a second thought.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
Moth what are you talking about?!!?
Hitler Killed the Jews, the disabled and gypsies out of pure predjudice. The 'crimes' that they committed was against the german people were in hitlers mind! Anything can be called a crime if you don't like it, I could say that your opinion on this subject was a crime.
So who does decide what is a crime, and what is not, thethinker? Have you studied much jurispudence?
quote:
But when we talk of actual criminal acts Paedophillia is perhaps the worst, and should be treated with the worst possible outcome. For Gods sake they are abusing children in the worst possible way! Sexualy abusing and murdering! I tell you what if its against Gods will to brandish the death penalty against these people then i'm going to have to go away and contemplate how i think of God.
I find it difficult to believe that Jesus and Jesus' disiples would have not looked towards the death penalty (in some instances), given the society that they lived in at the time. And whats that quote from jesus about those who abuse children should be cast into a bottomless pit? Help me out someone!?!
I do not deny that paedophilia is a horrible, sickening offence. I also did not actually argue against the death penalty, although you would be right in assuming that I am, in fact, against it for a number of pragmatic reasons unconnected with this thread.
Jesus did indeed say (Matthew 18.6) 'But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.' I interpret that to be about leading children away from faith, but you may interpret it as you wish. I sincerely hope it does mean that unrepentant paedophiles will receive their just desserts in hell.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I am in perfect agreement about human rights, Moth. This guy surrendered his humanity card a long, long time ago.
I would respectfully submit that you might not so much believe in human rights if in fact you think you have the right to pick and choose which humans are entitled to them and which ones are not.
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on
:
In Erin's opinion, and that of quite a few others on this thread, the man 'surrendered his humanity card'. I doubt very much that that is God's opinion of him.
In not just Hitler's opinion, but that of thousands, if not millions, of fellow Germans that were persuaded by his words, Jews, Gypsies etc. were not entitled to be considered fully human. Many people probably thought/think the same of homosexuals - my own father is probably of such an opinion, and I admit I myself used to hold that view.
Moth is making the point that, however sinful, or criminal, or 'weird' (in someone's opinion), a person do not cease to be human, and it is very dangerous to start referring to them as if that were the case.
This is not to say that I am necessarily against the death penalty. I was 'for' it (for muderers/terrorists etc.) before I became a Christian, then against it when I was persuaded by other Christians (Karl included) that it was wrong. My 'gut reaction' these days in certain cases is to be for it. My wife totally is against it, seeing executing someone as 'playing God' and taking 'Thou shalt not kill' to be the overriding command. She does think, hoewever, that a 'life' sentence should mean just that.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I am in perfect agreement about human rights, Moth. This guy surrendered his humanity card a long, long time ago.
I would respectfully submit that you might not so much believe in human rights if in fact you think you have the right to pick and choose which humans are entitled to them and which ones are not.
Wrong again. If you violate the rights of others, you forfeit your own rights. He chose to commit a capital crime in a state that employs capital punishment, knowing full well that if he were caught he would most likely be sentenced to death. He chose to sentence himself to death, why should I or anyone else negate that choice?
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Wrong again. If you violate the rights of others, you forfeit your own rights. He chose to commit a capital crime in a state that employs capital punishment, knowing full well that if he were caught he would most likely be sentenced to death. He chose to sentence himself to death, why should I or anyone else negate that choice?
I fear we may end up quickly talking at cross-purposes again, Erin. So I'll leave that one, except for pointing out that just because something is the law doesn't make it right or decent or moral. (It was the law in Afghanistan that, at the risk of death, women couldn't leave the house without a male escort.)
But what about due process, at least? In this particular case, the one thing we haven't mentioned on this thread is the not inconsiderable fact that the man in question has not actually been found guilty in a court of law.
You've suggested he's no longer entitled to human treatment. Does this assumption therefore extend to due process? Can we legitimately deprive him of that?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gandalf35:
Do you realise that there are proven remedies for any number of criminal behaviors. The problem is that te cost of implimenting these would bankrupt us and we would not get the satisfaction of seeing those people suffer for their crimes.
For what criminal behaviors are there proven remedies, and what are those remedies?
Please be specific.
Moo
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I am in perfect agreement about human rights, Moth. This guy surrendered his humanity card a long, long time ago.
I would respectfully submit that you might not so much believe in human rights if in fact you think you have the right to pick and choose which humans are entitled to them and which ones are not.
Wrong again. If you violate the rights of others, you forfeit your own rights. He chose to commit a capital crime in a state that employs capital punishment, knowing full well that if he were caught he would most likely be sentenced to death. He chose to sentence himself to death, why should I or anyone else negate that choice?
Presumably, Erin, he still has the rights granted to him by the Constitution of the United States, and in particular:
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
That would seem to rule out torture. I accept what you say about the death penalty.
A person does not forfeit all their rights on committing a crime, however heinous. They acquire a new and different set of rights, admirably set out in your constitution.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
A person does not forfeit all their rights on committing a crime, however heinous. They acquire a new and different set of rights, admirably set out in your constitution.
Thank you. Better and more succinctly said that I had managed.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
texas.veggie... if I were living in Afghanistan under the Taliban and knew that leaving the house unescorted was a crime, I would have had to accept the consequences of acting against that law. Just like if I lived 100 years ago you can bet that I would have been repeatedly thrown in jail for attempting to vote and do all those other things that women couldn't do until the 20th century. It is a risk I'm willing to take.
If a law is not right by whatever ethic you use to measure it, does that mean that I am absolved from it even if I am fully aware of what the consequences are?
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If a law is not right by whatever ethic you use to measure it, does that mean that I am absolved from it even if I am fully aware of what the consequences are?
Right, here, like thethinker earlier, you have strayed into the area of philosophy known as jurisprudence. This subject attempts to answer such questions as 'What is law?' and 'What are the moral claims of law?'. Answers to these questions have been hotly debated for centuries. The 'natural lawyers' of whom Aquinas was one, believed that 'what the law is' must be indissolubly bound up with 'what the law ought to be', and therefore must include a conception of moral truth. Others like Bentham and Austin look at the law in terms of political facts and utility, others, like Hart in terms of social function. Others, like Kelsen, divorce the idea of law from any moral content. A quick search on Google has thrown up no sites which actually contain any of the theories (only reading lists for courses). As an introduction, I would recommend 'Legal Philosophies' by J W Harries.
A good starting point for your question would be to consider the Nuremburg trials. Many of the accused were obeying the law in the State they lived in at the time of their alleged crimes. They were still found guilty. If they had refused to obey the law, would they have been morally culpable? In other words, is it just to disobey an unjust law? And what makes a law unjust?
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
This does seem to be going round in circles so I don't know if anyone's going to pay any attention to what I have to say but here goes:
Getting what you deserve: I hope we don't. We would, as someone said earlier, all be eyeless and toothless.
OK, maybe only people who make children suffer should get what they deserve. People who make children die horrible deaths.
Well, at the very least, that is all Western leaders and financiers, as well as all voters in countries that benefit from debt repayments:
see here
You didn't vote for them? Are you absolutely sure every piece of clothing you own was not made by children in sweat shops? Their development is not just being stunted because of the unsuitable work they are doing, but they are more at risk of physical and sexual abuse.
What are you personally doing to prevent children dying from malaria, HIV? If you feel personally involved in the death of a child to the extent that you are willing to consider killing and torturing someone who perpetrates that death, what are you doing to punish those that continue to ensure the spending on health in developed countries is nearly 100 times that in the poorest countries?
Stone, anyone?
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
I cannot believe that some of you are apparently equating the crime of kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering a five-year old little girl with the "crime" of being jewish, being gay, being an unescorted Afghani woman.
The former is evil by virtually any definition ever used. The latter were criminalized within the context of specific legal regimes which have since been repudiated by most of us. With due respect to Erin's point about knowingly committing a crime, there is a fundamental difference between this case and your examples.
I wonder if your views on killing this prick would change if he was standing in front of you, if you knew that your child was his next victim?
scot
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I just don't buy the slippery slope argument.
Here we have a person who kidnapped, raped, tortured and asphyxiated a five-year-old girl. He left her body on the side of the road to be picked over by animals. Now, I am fairly liberal on a lot of issues and in some of my theology, but I firmly believe that there IS such a thing as evil, and the person responsible for this is its incarnation. What he did to this little girl is evil by every definition of the word -- theological, ethical, moral and social. I am not a universalist. I believe that pure evil like this will burn forever.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
texas.veggie... if I were living in Afghanistan under the Taliban and knew that leaving the house unescorted was a crime, I would have had to accept the consequences of acting against that law. Just like if I lived 100 years ago you can bet that I would have been repeatedly thrown in jail for attempting to vote and do all those other things that women couldn't do until the 20th century. It is a risk I'm willing to take.
If a law is not right by whatever ethic you use to measure it, does that mean that I am absolved from it even if I am fully aware of what the consequences are?
like i said. cross-purposes.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
regarding the death penalty, and the murder of children.
this is what i found to be valid and true for me, in regards to what specifically happened in my family.
on nov. 30, 1999, at aprox. 2 am, the husband of my cousin barbara woke up, got out a handgun, and put two bullets through barbaras head, killing her instantly, apparently in her sleep.
he then proceeded into the hall. the noise had apparently woken up their 13 year old daughter, carrie. he shot her twice, wounding her only, apparently paniced, continued shooting, reloaded and shot again, for a total of seven shots to the head and chest. it took her about a minute to die.
for several hours he then got drunk, painted the inside of the garage windows black and sealed it with the intention of running the car and killing himself, chickened out, and eventually turned himself in by calling the police.
i heard later that day. there was a profound numbness and shock.
the family gathered for the funerals, barbaras parents, survivng siblings, our other aunt and uncle, other cousins, my brother, me. we cursed, we cried, we raged. we discussed the death penalty, and life in prison, and what we'd want to do to him. we all pretty much agreed we didn't want the death penalty.
about a week later, for me, the real rage set in. i began to realize what i really wanted to do to him. i'm not proud of this, but here it is: i wanted to, with my own hands, smash his head against a concrete wall over and over, until blood flowed and he was lying on the floor. then i wanted to kick the remains til they stopped twitching. then spit on them. thats what i wanted.
but i realized something. for me, that was wrong. it made me as dirty and as monsterous as him. it made me unclean to feel that way. for me, the only thing i could do was to let go of that rage. i can't tell you how i did it. i don't know. its not forgiveness exactly. i can't forgive him. its a refusal to let myself descend to his level even in thought.
by mutual decision of barbaras closest family,he was allowed to plead guilty and avoid a trial in exchange for life without parole.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
nicolemrw, I have much respect for you
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Might as well weigh in.
To make this post sufficiently Hellish, here is a small, appropriate smilie:
---> <---
There.
I do think that people who do what this man did deserve the death penalty. They may even, possibly, deserve death by torture, but our legal system does not allow that.
I don't think, however, that even if they deserve death by torture, that this makes any human being nonhuman, whether "rights" (natural or legal-fiction) are involved or not.
do believe that Christians are not permitted to actually hate, extremely difficult though this is, but that's part of the whole "sin" thing. And that using the death penalty, without hating the person being executed, is the perfectly correct thing to do as a society when a person commits deliberate murder.
I think we ought to be careful letting the sheer horror of what this man has done tempt us into a sort of masturbatory hatred. It's horrific, yes -- but that can make it very easily to treat it as a form of emotional pornography, because we have what seems an excuse to excite not our pity for the girl, nor a genuine thirst for true, deserved justice (and make no mistake, I think the man deserves death), but all those impulses to hatred which we don't let out in our life otherwise.
I believe we must try, even if it's difficult, perhaps especially if it's difficult, to pray that the man see what he has done and repent, and make a good end even as he's about to be electrocuted/hanged/shot/etc. If we really want him to be not only dead, but damned -- then I think there's something wrong. And I think we must both wish and work for justice to be done (and the outrage can indeed be fuel for that, not only for hatred) -- and be very careful that his crime does not lead to other horrors in each of our own lives by our dwelling on it and each becoming just a bit less Christlike. We could say, "You're not going to win" to both him and our spiritual enemies (the real monsters in this world we're to fight) -- "You're not going to win. You will be given justice. But we will not let you tempt us to hate you."
Has anyone read Neil Gaiman's story arc, "The Doll's House," in which the Lord of Dreams confronts a host of serial killers? It's the best serial killer story I've ever read, partly because it shows so clearly the ultimate banality of evil.
quote:
And YOU, you that call yourselves collectors. Until now, you have all sustained fantasies in which you are the maltreated heroes of your own stories. Comforting daydreams in which, ultimately, you are shown to be in the right. No more. For all of you, the dream is over. I have taken it away. For this is my judgment on you: that you shall know, at all times, and forever, exactly what you are. And you shall know just how LITTLE that means.
Neil Gaiman - The Sandman: The Doll's House
I suppose I should get back to work now, but I thought this needed to be said.
Oh, feh. It wouldn't be a Long Rambly ChastMastr Post™ if it didn't have a quotation from C.S. Lewis, would it?
Here y'go. I live to please.
quote:
Hatred we can manage. . . . If conscience resists, muddle him. Let him say that he feels hatred not on his own behalf but on that of the women and children, and that a Christian is told to forgive his own, not other people's enemies. In other words let him consider himself sufficiently identified with the women and children to feel hatred on their behalf, but not sufficiently identified to regard their enemies as his own and therefore proper objects of forgiveness.
--From, not surprisingly, The Screwtape Letters
David
Back to work now! *crack!*
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Wow!! MANY hugs for nicole -- that's amazing! ![[Heart]](graemlins/heartpump.gif)
David
---> appropriate smilie to make it Hellish: <---
Posted by Atticus (# 2212) on
:
I'm with Erin. in principle.
The main thrust of the argument seems to be that "thank God we don't all get what we deserve." I say, thank god sometimes we do. We seem to get a bit less than we deserve. Less praise when we are good, less shit when we deserve that... Well, a quick an painless death is a far cry from what this man inflicted on that little girl. We should all be so lucky as to get that much less than we deserve.
But as long as we're working on that principle, wouldn't it be nice if we didn't give anyone what they deserved. When someone was mean or nasty or just in general poopey we could give them gifts and throw them a party, so that then they wouldn't be so mean anymore.
Give it up folks. Life in prison isn't much more merciful than the death penalty anyhow.
Now step away from the principle and to the practical.
I'm not saying this man didn't do what he's accused of. But our present judicial system, and even our present forensic science is not enough to condemn a man to die. There are always people being released from death row with new evidence coming out (not having their sentence reduced, mind you, they are being RELEASED). Even DNA evidence only places someone at the scene of a crime, not actually performing the crime itself. WE cannot and do not know all. Let's not suspend the death penalty, even for this one.
(But if some zealous vigilante wants to take him out, by all means, I'll buy you a gun)
Posted by gandalf35 (# 934) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
For what criminal behaviors are there proven remedies, and what are those remedies?
Please be specific.
Moo
Well after I posted i went on a search of my old Psych notes and was unable to find them, (Psychology was my major in college, w/ an emphasis on abnormal behavior). That said I will tell what I remember on the subject. between 1979 and 1989 approx. Several different Universities were doing studies on treatment for a number of different criminal behaviors. What they found was they could treat these people with a combination of intensive in-patient B Mod., C.T., and intensive out-patient follow up.
The recidivism rates were very low (in the range of 9-13% as opposed to 76-83%), but the cost of putting everyone in prison into such a extreem program (24 hour monitoring) was staggering as I'm sure you can imagine. This made implementation impossable.
If you would like I can PM the figures to you when I'm able to find them.
[well your minor wasn't UBB code]
[ 24 July 2002, 12:37: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
Posted by gandalf35 (# 934) on
:
Sorry about the double post,
This included serial rapests, and pedophiles.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Impressive results, but a 13% recidivism rate for pedophiles is unacceptable imho.
scot
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
So we should put all paedophiles to death because 13% might reoffend if released, rather than imprisoning all of them?
What was that about rejoicing over one lost coin? I don't think God particularly operates on the "ah, sod all of them, because a small proportion of them might not be saveable" principle.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
Thank you so much for posting your story, Nicolemrw. You deserve the greatest respect.
I am absolutely with you when you said 'It's a refusal to let myself descend to his level even in thought'.
I don't think it could be put better.
Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on
:
Not living in a country where the death penalty is an option I tend to operate in a nice cosy world where refining my opinion on the matter is simply a useful exercise in brain work. My general view tends to be "humans good; death penalty bad". This, of course, goes straight out the window the instant someone proves the former part of the equation to be false. At that stage I then start thinking about it all again and end up thoroughly confused and have to go and make a cup of tea.
The one thing that usually sways me back into my 'anti' stance though is the thought of the people who's job it is to carry out the executions. That includes those who impose the sentences, but I'm thinking particularly of the researches who refine the chemical cocktails, or design the chairs, as well as those that actually push the plunger or throw the switch. I'm usually quite happy for people to do jobs I would hate so that I can have a nice life - until very recently I was a committed meat-eater, but I'd have baulked at the thought of entering an abbattoir - but in this case I'm really not happy about the people who make their living out of execution - even if their main aim is to make it as quick and painless as possible.
I remember the day Timothy McVeigh was killed thinking "some guy's going to bed tonight with another dead man on his tally". I just can't see how it can be healthy for them.
Or am I being naive?
Incidentally - thanks Chukovsky for reminding me that I can't necessarily believe myself better than those who overtly cause such pain and suffering.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Several different Universities were doing studies on treatment for a number of different criminal behaviors. What they found was they could treat these people with a combination of intensive in-patient B Mod., C.T., and intensive out-patient follow up.
I'm ready to bet that the subjects of these studies wanted to change. If someone doesn't want to change there's not much you can do short of brain-washing.
I have major problems with people who say that it's the job of the criminal justice system to rehabilitate people. One person cannot rehabilitate another. It has to be a do-it-yourself project.
The criminal justice system can create an environment that makes it easier for someone to rehabilitate himself, but the criminal has to do the work, and many of them don't want to. They're satisfied with themselves the way they are.
Moo
Posted by Robert Miller (# 1459) on
:
I'm posting this here, because I don't know where to put it and it is making me rather angry the entire situation in the Middle East.
Front Page Photo
Posted by blackbird (# 1387) on
:
i'll have a stone, please.
you may not want to consider yourself "better" than rapists, ginga, but hopefully you consider yourself safer. i think that's what the goal is.
last week a woman stopped into a burger king off the highway in the wee hours of the morning to use the rest room because it was well-lighted. she was on her way home to newport, ri. when she came out of the bathroom, the cook (a convicted rapist who had gotten out on parole and lied on his job application) was waiting for her with a four inch knife. he was not lucky. after he stabbed her repeatedly in the neck and watched her die in the stall, a state trooper happened in to the use the bathroom. he told the trooper "i just lost it."
that woman was something of a socialite, though, and she probably wore sweatshop-produced clothes. so maybe she was just as guilty as the man who sliced her life away. maybe he was doing God's work. i'll just bet samantha runnion had a teddy bear made by hiv infected children.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
The one thing that usually sways me back into my 'anti' stance though is the thought of the people who's job it is to carry out the executions. That includes those who impose the sentences, but I'm thinking particularly of the researches who refine the chemical cocktails, or design the chairs, as well as those that actually push the plunger or throw the switch. I'm usually quite happy for people to do jobs I would hate so that I can have a nice life - until very recently I was a committed meat-eater, but I'd have baulked at the thought of entering an abbattoir - but in this case I'm really not happy about the people who make their living out of execution - even if their main aim is to make it as quick and painless as possible.
I remember the day Timothy McVeigh was killed thinking "some guy's going to bed tonight with another dead man on his tally". I just can't see how it can be healthy for them.
Or am I being naive?
It is just a job. Other people have distasteful jobs as well. It is a matter of "If you can't handle it, find a different job." For example, I could never be in the medical profession, a mortician or a police officer. You have to look at your job or profession objectively. Some people would not make good defense lawyers or good tax auditors, that doesn't mean those who are don't sleep well at night because of some of the results of their choice of profession.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Incidentally - thanks Chukovsky for reminding me that I can't necessarily believe myself better than those who overtly cause such pain and suffering.
I have no problem thinking myself better than a child molesting murderer, because I am.
Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on
:
It's a job I feel uncomfortable about inflicting on other people. Just a gut feeling really. I'm a lot happy about the death penalty when I think of it as just involving the condemned and ignore those people for whom it is a livelhood.
That was quite harsh babybear. I was just interested to note that until chukovsky posted her post I'd been swimming along with an attitude of 'I'm ok I'm perfect'. I'm well aware of the difficulties of trying to live a harmless life and was not trying to necessarily bring them up here.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Incidentally - thanks Chukovsky for reminding me that I can't necessarily believe myself better than those who overtly cause such pain and suffering.
I have no problem thinking myself better than a child molesting murderer, because I am.
I don't think I am better than a child molesting murderer. But I have behaved better. Surely that's the difference between what you are and what you do?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
But weren't you just arguing a few posts back that by sanctioning the death penalty for what someone does, we're well on our way to persecuting them for who they are? Are you now saying there's a difference between the two?
And yes: I AM better than someone who thinks that kidnaping, raping, torturing and asphyxiating a five year old girl is a way to pass the time.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
Dang it...I have been to Newport, RI. I can't picture that! I was hoping the lady lived somehow...how awful.
I glad the state trooper nabbed him. Death penalty!
My brother thinks everyone should "pack some heat". He brings up the Fanatic who got shot dead cold after killing 2 people by the agents at the Israel Airline. All the agents "pack some heat" and prevent further killings. If we all brought a gun with us, crazy rapists would think twice about pulling stunts like that.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
So we should put all paedophiles to death because 13% might reoffend if released, rather than imprisoning all of them?
What was that about rejoicing over one lost coin? I don't think God particularly operates on the "ah, sod all of them, because a small proportion of them might not be saveable" principle.
Given the extraordinarily high recidivism rate among child molesters, I am uncomfortable with returning them to the general population. If you will go back and read gandalf35's post you will see that the 13% rate was achieved by an extreme treatment. The "normal" rate cited was as high as 83%. By the way, an 83% recidivism rate does not mean that 83% may reoffend - it means that 83% will reoffend.
If you don't have a problem with this concept, then perhaps you should put your money (and children) where your mouth is and open your home to newly released child molesters. No? Hmmm.
If you will go back and read my posts you will see that I never advocated the death penalty for all child molesters. Only the ones who kidnap, torture and murder their children. The others (who only abuse, rape, torment and leave lifelong psychological scars) can simply be locked up forever.
scot
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
My brother thinks everyone should "pack some heat".
That is one way to go. I would hate to think that most people I come in contact with have a loaded gun on them (some people don't like me very much).
I'll pass, thanks. I don't think I could handle carrying one myself. I also suspect that there are others like me.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
I have been avoiding posting on this thread because I find it too upsetting. The crimes are horrible. But the idea that any person is a 'monster' is more horrible still. That way lies the gas chamber filled with homosexuals, gypsies and Jews. That way lies the regime lead by the Taliban.
Utter bullshit. Or are you, unlike the rest of us, really unable to tell the difference between who someone is and the crimes they commit?
In my reply to that post, I agreed with you that there was a difference between what you are and what you do but pointed out that many people slip easily from 'some homosexuals pervert the young and spread horrible diseases (allegedly)' to 'all homosexuals are by definition evil'. It is one reason why we have to be so careful not to give an inch on the human rights front.
I am a sinner capable of the most loathesome evil. One of the reasons I don't even like thinking about this area is that it brings those dark, horrible wells of evil within me to my notice. By the grace of God, I have not yet committed any crime like murder. But I'm not going to congratulate myself on my own righteousness until I'm safely in heaven! I would not presume to judge what you are. That is entirely between you and God.
Posted by blackbird (# 1387) on
:
just for the record, i believe you found me harsh, ginga, not babybear.
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
That was quite harsh babybear.
Um, I haven't even read this thread. I was looking at the 'recent postings' and saw my name come up. It wasn't me I tell you!
I was framed!
bb
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
babybear couldn't be harsh if she tried.
signed, Chorister
Posted by blackbird (# 1387) on
:
calm ya livers, you guys! i already confessed to being the harsh one. sheesh, you're not even americans...how can you hope to be harsh.
meanwhile, duchess, here's a bit of a description of the zapp incident (not meaning to derail the thread) zapp murder
i have learned to shoot guns, duchess (at a target) and enjoy it...it's a power thing...but i'd never want to own one. you see, i know how harsh i am . if someone did this to one of my daughters, however, you can be certain you would REALLY see me harsh.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
blackbird...that link made me cry. Such a waste. Especially the part about her fighting for her life.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
That is one way to go. I would hate to think that most people I come in contact with have a loaded gun on them (some people don't like me very much).
I'll pass, thanks. I don't think I could handle carrying one myself. I also suspect that there are others like me.
All the others like you are in CANADA. It ain't as violent there.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
quote:
All the others like you are in CANADA. It ain't as violent there.
no, many of us are in new york city.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Miller:
I'm posting this here, because I don't know where to put it and it is making me rather angry the entire situation in the Middle East.
Front Page Photo
I agree with you. The cutline to the photo has the dead baby's age wrong, though: she was only two months old when they dropped the bomb on her home.
Perhaps we need to start a new thread on that one? The topic is certainly Hellish enough.
Rossweisse // who has trouble dealing with slaughtered infants (and the people capable of slaughtering them), regardless of race, creed, nationality, etc.
Posted by gandalf35 (# 934) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Several different Universities were doing studies on treatment for a number of different criminal behaviors. What they found was they could treat these people with a combination of intensive in-patient B Mod., C.T., and intensive out-patient follow up.
I'm ready to bet that the subjects of these studies wanted to change. If someone doesn't want to change there's not much you can do short of brain-washing.
I have major problems with people who say that it's the job of the criminal justice system to rehabilitate people. One person cannot rehabilitate another. It has to be a do-it-yourself project.
The criminal justice system can create an environment that makes it easier for someone to rehabilitate himself, but the criminal has to do the work, and many of them don't want to. They're satisfied with themselves the way they are.
Moo
As I remember it it did include a sort of brain washing, but with most studies like this, the impetus was more likely the promise of a shorter prison sentence.
I never said it was the job of the CJS to rehabilitate. I just wish they wouldnt call it that. Here they have a State Prison with the title SATF (substance abuse treatment facility). The recidivism rate is about as high as any other crime.
For the record, I am pro death penalty for extreme cases. As I said before, "Don't drag Jesus into it".
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
What I particularly noticed in the Zapp story was what depresses me in so many of those incidences - the guy had attacked somebody before, got locked up, but then released again. Isn't there somewhere these chaps can be sent, locked away permanently to form their own crazed community (to what use are all those old redundant mental hospitals being put, these days?) and at least leaving the rest of society a safer place for people to live and move freely?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
What I particularly noticed in the Zapp story was what depresses me in so many of those incidences - the guy had attacked somebody before, got locked up, but then released again. Isn't there somewhere these chaps can be sent, locked away permanently to form their own crazed community (to what use are all those old redundant mental hospitals being put, these days?) and at least leaving the rest of society a safer place for people to live and move freely?
From the public safety angle, this would be the ideal solution. I have problems with the ethics of it, though.
I have a friend who is involved in prison ministry, and he's convinced that life-without-parole sentences are much worse than the death penalty. He's not in favor of releasing predators into the community, but he says that it's terrible to be a thirty year old man with nothing to look forward to for the rest of your life.
Moo
Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
to what use are all those old redundant mental hospitals being put, these days?
they're being converted into luxury apartments.
b
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
<snip> ...he says that it's terrible to be a thirty year old man with nothing to look forward to for the rest of your life.
Moo
I agree! However, I feel even worse for his victims.
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
<snip> ...he says that it's terrible to be a thirty year old man with nothing to look forward to for the rest of your life.
Moo
I agree! However, I feel even worse for his victims.
I agree with the sentiment about the victims, Sharkshooter - but not where the perpetrator is concerned.
If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime
Or is that just me being over-simplistic?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
I agree with the sentiment about the victims, Sharkshooter - but not where the perpetrator is concerned.
If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime
Or is that just me being over-simplistic?
I certainly agree with your comments about paying the price. But I still think it is a terrible future for a young man (not that I would have any sympathy for him). I just think the price for murder should be execution. It solves the problem of the 30-year-old who has 50 years to spend in prison before he dies. It also solves the problem of someone getting out and re-offending. It works for me.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
[QUOTE] But I still think it is a terrible future for a young man (not that I would have any sympathy for him). I just think the price for murder should be execution. It solves the problem of the 30-year-old who has 50 years to spend in prison before he dies. It also solves the problem of someone getting out and re-offending. It works for me.
I agree with you.
Moo
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
it doesn't, owever, solve the problem of someone whos executed and then found to be innocent 17 years later.
if they've been in prison for 17 years, they can be released (as in fact just happened, which is why i picked 17 years). bit hard to do that if the person's dead.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
You are right, of course, nicolemrw.
I however view this life as the first small step in our existence. Death is just the passing into our eternal home. So, whether someone dies too early is irrelevant. Not that we should not vigorously ensure that the death penalty is deserved before being carried out, but I do not have a problem with the rare mistake - it will all be so insignificant in heaven (or hell as the case may be).
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
You are right, of course, nicolemrw.
I however view this life as the first small step in our existence. Death is just the passing into our eternal home. So, whether someone dies too early is irrelevant. Not that we should not vigorously ensure that the death penalty is deserved before being carried out, but I do not have a problem with the rare mistake - it will all be so insignificant in heaven (or hell as the case may be).
(Posting as a Shipmate, not as a host) What an astonishing comment! I daresay, sharkshooter, that you might feel differently if you were one of the "rare" mistakes (which, as American jurisprudence is discovering, aren't so rare, God help us).
But if, as you say, "death is the passing from this life into our eternal home," then it follows that you should be against the death penalty so that the offender will have the greatest opportunity to repent of his sins in this life and thus be able to enter into that larger life in the presence of God, as opposed to entering into the larger death of hell.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
The condemmed will certainly have at least one (and probably many more) chance prior to the execution. That should be enough.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
and just to add to what tomb said, even if you yourself wouldn't mind if you were dead or alive, you might care if it was a member of your family. i know the man i mentioned above's mother was very pleased to have him back.
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The condemmed will certainly have at least one (and probably many more) chance prior to the execution. That should be enough.
(As a shipmate) It's always so refreshing to discover somebody willing to arrogate to themselves a timeline properly left to Almighty God.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
I'm guessing tomb and nicole are getting upset with me, and so, since I really do like what they have to say, I'll bow out now before it gets out of hand.
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I'm guessing tomb and nicole are getting upset with me, and so, since I really do like what they have to say, I'll bow out now before it gets out of hand.
I'm not upset with you, s/s. If I get upset with you, I'll be sure to let you know.
Actually, I would be grateful if you would engage in the points I have made. I write this as a shipmate, not a host. I have no plans to track you down if you ignore me.....
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I'd love it if people would engage with mine.
Oh well.
David
The Berdache karma continues
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
OK, as per tomb's request, just to clarify,
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
What an astonishing comment! I daresay, sharkshooter, that you might feel differently if you were one of the "rare" mistakes (which, as American jurisprudence is discovering, aren't so rare, God help us).
I would be in heaven "what a day of rejoicing that will be...".
Nicole said:
quote:
you might care if it was a member of your family
Yes. But I would also care if they were hit by a bus and killed.
and, tomb said:
quote:
It's always so refreshing to discover somebody willing to arrogate to themselves a timeline properly left to Almighty God
I didn't think I was doing that. What I meant by the "that should be enough" comment, was that a person who knew his life was going to end, and was confronted with Christianity, but chose to reject it, is not likely ever to accept it.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
sharkshooter, you said:
quote:
Nicole said:
quote:
you might care if it was a member of your family
Yes. But I would also care if they were hit by a bus and killed.
ah... huh? i take this to mean that you would be unhappy if a member of your family were unjustly killed. yet on the previous page you said:
quote:
I however view this life as the first small step in our existence. Death is just the passing into our eternal home. So, whether someone dies too early is irrelevant. Not that we should not vigorously ensure that the death penalty is deserved before being carried out, but I do not have a problem with the rare mistake - it will all be so insignificant in heaven (or hell as the case may be).
so which is it? is it irrelevant if a member of your family is killed early, or isn't it?
[quotes of quotes tidied up]
[ 25 July 2002, 22:45: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
oh, and forgot to add, in either case, what does the bus have to do with it?
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
OK, as per tomb's request, just to clarify,
... What I meant by the "that should be enough" comment, was that a person who knew his life was going to end, and was confronted with Christianity, but chose to reject it, is not likely ever to accept it.
But that attitude is precisely my point! Who are you to assume that a person "is not likely ever to accept it" given the circumstances you posit? Admittedly, it seems plausible that such would be the case. Nevertheless, it seems possible to assume that a person facing death for a terrible crime is not in the best emotional or spiritual state to have an encounter with the ever-living and ever-loving God.
You imply that if you're not "scared into the kingdom" by the possibility of imminent death, then no other impetus is going to be effective. Yet I daresay that there are enough testimonies out there of people who have come to faith after everybody had given them up for lost to put the lie to that extreme viewpoint.
I can think of nothing more terrible than the arbitrary closing off of a person to every opportunity of repentance. Doesn't that place us in the category of the elder brother of the prodigal son, who was so pissed off at the welcome his brother received after having squandered everything?
Seems to me that one of the most terrible prospects about this whole dilemma is finding the murderer of our child in Heaven while we are burning in hell--or at very least, Purgatory, because of our rage.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
What Tomb said.
Reader Alexis
Posted by blackbird (# 1387) on
:
God would have to be a very sick puppy indeed if the murderer of a child ended up in heaven and the raging parent went to hell. i think the criminal should suffer the consequences of his own actions and leave the hereafter real estate up to God.
and the death penalty doesn't have to imply rage, any more than being opposed to the death penalty guarantees a motive of forgiveness. though i think rage is more than justified in many instances.
as others have pointed out above, it can be seen as more humane than living in a cell for 60 years, though more expensive. some of the survivors of oklahoma city's bombing who watched mcveigh die were sickened to see how peacefully he died compared to their loved ones. it's hardly a fitting revenge.
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbird:
God would have to be a very sick puppy indeed if the murderer of a child ended up in heaven and the raging parent went to hell.
I suspect that the Gospel is more radical than you want to believe it is. You're not the first person, BTW, to accuse God of being "one very sick puppy" just because He didn't make the world in your image and you find His Justice and Mercy incomprehensible.
quote:
blackbird continues:
i think the criminal should suffer the consequences of his own actions and leave the hereafter real estate up to God.
Well yeah. If you're arguing that the death penalty is strictly a societal punishment. And if you believe that a society is able impartially to administer justice, then your point is, perhaps, defensible.
quote:
blackbird goes on:
and the death penalty doesn't have to imply rage, any more than being opposed to the death penalty guarantees a motive of forgiveness. though i think rage is more than justified in many instances.
The death penalty doesn't imply rage? When, in the US at least, one of the main parts of the penalty phase of a capital trial is the balancing of aggravating against mitigating circumstances?
When family and friends of the victim are interviewed on television and they talk about the "need for closure" as if they're talking about closing on a mortgage for a house?
When, for example, the father of at least one victim of the Oklahoma City bombing spoke of the need for forgiveness for Timothy McVey and received threats against his life and property?
When parents of victims of the Columbine High School massacre are so enraged that they are suing anything and everything that moves, when they are quoted in the papers and on television as lamenting the fact that the killers took their own lives because it deprives the families of the satisfaction of "watching them fry"?
When, on this thread, posters have emitted the most shocking vicious statements about what should be done--not to a particular person, but to a category of people when they know absolutely nothing about particular circumstances?
quote:
blackbird:
as others have pointed out above, it can be seen as more humane than living in a cell for 60 years, though more expensive. some of the survivors of oklahoma city's bombing who watched mcveigh die were sickened to see how peacefully he died compared to their loved ones. it's hardly a fitting revenge.
Well color me gobsmacked. In one paragraph you write about killing a person as "more humane" than incarcerating him for a long period of time, then you lament that Timothy McVey went to sleep "peacefully" and that it wasn't a fitting "revenge."
Which is it? Are you saying that we should not imprison people because that would be (in the words of the US Constitution "cruel and unusual"--or are you saying that if we're gonna kill them, we need to find a way to insure that their last moments on earth are filled with an agony exquisite enough to constitute a revenge for their actions?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
When, on this thread, posters have emitted the most shocking vicious statements about what should be done--not to a particular person, but to a category of people when they know absolutely nothing about particular circumstances?
And what "particular circumstances", pray tell, could POSSIBLY mitigate the kidnapping, rape, torture and asphyxiation of a five year old girl?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Tomb: well aren't we terrible sinners then (well aren't we terribly human).
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
tomb, speaking as an emitter of shocking viscious statements about what should be done with a category of people, I will affirm that I really do want to see this person (and his entire category) dead. However, I also wish to clarify why I want this. As long as he is breathing, there is a possibility that he will get the opportunity to do the same thing to another little girl. The only way to be absolutely certain that he never gets another chance is to kill him.
Is there rage at what he did? Of course, and rightly so. But the rage is not the reason he should die. The next child is the reason. The manner of his death and the tenor of his final moments are of no concern to me.
scot
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
And what "particular circumstances", pray tell, could POSSIBLY mitigate the kidnapping, rape, torture and asphyxiation of a five year old girl?
Absolutely none. I'm not talking about mitigation.
quote:
Scot wrote:
tomb, speaking as an emitter of shocking viscious statements about what should be done with a category of people, I will affirm that I really do want to see this person (and his entire category) dead. However, I also wish to clarify why I want this. As long as he is breathing, there is a possibility that he will get the opportunity to do the same thing to another little girl. The only way to be absolutely certain that he never gets another chance is to kill him.
Sorry. Won't fly, Orville. You and I both know that it is possible in the US to put somebody in prison without the possibility of parole. That pedophiles, etc., don't always get so severe a sentence is not proof that they can't get such a sentence.
And reasonably speaking, given the current climate in this country, not to mention the pressure from other nations, there's a greater possibility of a person such as this spending the rest of his life in jail than dying for his crimes.
quote:
scot went on:
Is there rage at what he did? Of course, and rightly so. But the rage is not the reason he should die. The next child is the reason. The manner of his death and the tenor of his final moments are of no concern to me.
Well, I admire you that you are able to separate your visceral emotions from your arguments about justice. Nevertheless, I find unconvincing your argument that the only way to eliminate danger of this sort is to kill the perps.
Setting aside theology for a moment,
Even if it is true (and I subscribe to that theory) and pedophiles cannot ever be rehabilitated, it nevertheless is true that society has the means to restrain people such as this so that they can never commit a similar crime again.
And yes, I understand that jurisprudence in the US has in the past set people free to commit similar and even more heinous crimes.
But it is not reasonable to argue for the most severe sentence as a corrective to the failures of the judicial system when a more measured sentence will achieve the same result.
You may argue that anything less than killing a perp of this sort will leave alive the possibility of something equally or more terrible happening. I would argue that the fact that "life in prison" doesn't always mean "life in prison" can be remedied. And, to restate, you're probably going to find more political will for an absolute life sentence than for a more universal application of the death penalty.
This all suspends the theological arguments against the death penalty, which for me are far more convincing that the societal ones above. But since both Erin and scot confined themselves to that venue, I have tried to respond in kind.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
If I really believed that life in prison really meant life in prison, then I would not continue to advocate death for these people. However, even if the system was changed so that such was the case, where is the assurance that it will not change back?
I will confess that the theological implications of my position weigh heavily on me. Nonetheless, I will not allow hand-wringing on my part to potentially contribute to another occurence of what was done to Samantha Runnion. In my moral world, protection of children is paramount in the absence of an extremely clear and compelling reason to do otherwise.
scot
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I want a guarantee that this man will never hurt another child ever again. The needle guarantees that. Nothing else can. As long as he breathes, he has the potential to kill again. I'm entirely sure his life sucked donkey balls at one point. However, there is no excuse, no reason, no history in the world that could ever explain or justify this. None.
There are excellent theological arguments against the death penalty. But to the last they fall when measured against the thought of another child tortured and killed by a child-raping murderer.
Posted by Robert Miller (# 1459) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I want a guarantee that this man will never hurt another child ever again. The needle guarantees that. Nothing else can. As long as he breathes, he has the potential to kill again. I'm entirely sure his life sucked donkey balls at one point. However, there is no excuse, no reason, no history in the world that could ever explain or justify this. None.
From a recent visit to the States, I note that there is now a precedent being set where those with a low mental capacity can be acquitted from the death penalty. So therefore claim you fall below a certain level of intelligence and be freed from the death penalty.
This would seem to suggest that because of your mental state you can explain why you did it and not be held accountable to the death penalty. It would seem also that you could claim to have any sort of psychological disorder/illness and use this to explain your actions.
Therefore if these are cited as reasons. why punish the accussed because of their lack of intelligence or because of their illness?
(That's very unsubstantiated - but it is a genuine possibility)
Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbird:
just for the record, i believe you found me harsh, ginga, not babybear.
Record duly updated. Apologies to all confused and concerned. I have now had some sleep and am ready to stop being stupid.
Carry on...
Posted by blackbird (# 1387) on
:
(by the way, ginga, only the first sentence of that previous post was intended for you ...it was just my sloppy rambling)
tomb
1. i was only accusing the God YOU described and apparently worship. so you're filling his shoes in the mercy and justice departments are you? how about channelling some of YOUR rage at the murderers instead of people who want them stopped.
2. you're the one who labels people as usurpers of God's role. what is it? or maybe only YOU have the right to measure what is just and merciful? and of course, you can see into the hearts of all and measure their rage can't you. have you measured your own lately?
3. i said the death penalty "doesn't have to" imply rage. stop selectively editing. thank you for so aptly demonstrating that one opposed to the death penalty doesn't necessarily connote a peaceful person.
4. i was arguing that if you're so convinced and offended that people might feel rage and want the death penalty used, that the punishment of lethal injection does not satiate such a desire.
and yes, i was very depressed the morning mcveigh was executed. i was upset that he looked so innocent and was so evil. i was upset at the images that don't leave one's mind of people blown to bits. i can't imagine how the survivors deal with their well-understood rage. but i think he deserved the death penalty. and yes, tomb, color me hypocrite, i even prayed for his soul. and i think lethal injection is the only humane way to do it. and no i don't think all crimes deserve it, but i think some do.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
If you're arguing that the death penalty is strictly a societal punishment. And if you believe that a society is able impartially to administer justice, then your point is, perhaps, defensible.
Well -- yes, for me anyway -- I do see the death penalty as a secular societal punishment, and that while a society may not be able to impartially administer justice (being human and all), it ought to make the attempt rather than giving up based on human error.
However, I wholly agree (as I posted above and no-one commented -- Hey! I'm invisible! Neat! I'll just pop down to my local gym's locker room and -- ahem) that rage is a very very dangerous thing and very wrong. The desire (especially from our armchairs rather than jury-boxes or judge's seat) to, Mikado-like, make the punishment fit the crime (the crime), the punishment fit the crime, can be really, really dangerous. (Examples I came up with have been deleted before I posted this on the grounds that they were too stomach-turning, even for Hell, to subject my fellow Shipmates to) But once we set the precedent -- Really Nasty Criminals Can Be Punished In Really Horrific Ways -- at what point does it stop? Our government has more or less determined that certain things really are "cruel and unusual." Yes, I think they've gone too far -- I really do, joking about my S & M lifestyle aside, believe that being flogged (up to a point) in the public square for theft, for example, is not cruel, and may be less so than being imprisoned with people who will try to rape you in the shower. But they've decided that certain things are cruel based, at least partly, on really horrific abuses in the past. One of the things you find out when you -- salaciously or otherwise (and believe me, reading about the abuses was quite effective at turning me off -- ugh) -- do research on prison conditions from the past is just how horrible people were treated, and often for fairly minor offences. Little things like limbs being dislocated, blindness, maiming, etc. by the "official methods of discipline" which were perfectly legal at the time. And you got some of the more sadistic people into places like that because, well, they could indulge their own nasty little desires on people without getting into any trouble at all. There is a reason we've gone as far as we have in the opposite direction, and any measures we take to correct that must be, I believe, with moderation in mind, lest we either repeat previous errors, or worse, go even further. In my opinion, letting the family of the victim, or other prisoners, have free reign to torment someone in whatever inventive ways they can come up with (and the ones I deleted are fairly simple things one could do with household appliances), is frankly crueller than things like burning someone at the stake, hanging him, or cutting his head off.
I'm not much into Luther but I think he was right when he compared mankind to a drunkard on a horse -- first he falls off on one side, and then makes sure he doesn't again -- and falls off on the other. But I think our job, not only as Christians but as thinking people who do want justice, is to fall off of neither.
Even in our own imaginations.
David
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
This link Samatha's Mother has the following and more:
"Samantha had been taught to run from strangers. "She had been through the Sheriff's Department's program through the schools. ... Kick, bite, scream. She knew it all. She did everything right. She just didn't have a shot. ... And she even had the composure to tell Sarah to 'Go tell my Grandma' as he is carrying her. And she's a very strong kid."
Can you imagine a little girl...being carried away saying "Go tell Grandma".
I am sorry...I have to take another break from these stories. I get so upset. I can not understand why people continue to let these people go free.
BTW, Samatha's mother blames the jurors for SETTING HIM FREE.
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
Maybe the fault lies with the prosecution for not putting a convincing case.
Probably the fault lies with an adversarial system of justice were there are attempts to put two forms of truth to a jury. A European as opposed British\ American form of inquisitional trial may actually be better at getting to the truth and justice.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
It's happened again.
I have to wonder if there is not an element of copycatting involved. If so, then I hope that justice will be done so swiftly and surely that there will be a deterrant effect.
scot
Posted by madgeo (# 2939) on
:
I have mixed emotions on executions much of the time. Especially in the light of how many people are being released on new/old DNA evidence.
However, I can point to a solid case where an execution would have directly saved lives. Robert Lee Massie was sentenced to be executed and had the execution overturned when the California Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom overturned all death sentences (including the notorious Charles Manson) circa 1972.
Then the REAL stupidity began, the same leftist idiots PAROLED him (Massie). And he promptly killed again, and was again sentenced to death which was done (THANK GOODNESS) on 12:20 a.m., March 27, 2001.
So, the bottom line is that there are idiots whose hearts are abnormally sensitive to the killer instead of the victim, and these idiots parole and release the freaks occasionally!
I am not a big fan of the way the Death Penalty is implemented but it seems pretty simple when it comes to Child Molesters/Killers:
1. If there is good DNA evidence proving they did it, and
2. A jury of their peers convicts, then
3. Bullet to the brain, the sooner the better so the bastards do not get out to mess with children.
If I was king for a day, I would be happy to cease all other executions to implement this simple solution to save children from those evil bastards.
Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbird:
and yes, i was very depressed the morning mcveigh was executed. i was upset that he looked so innocent and was so evil. i was upset at the images that don't leave one's mind of people blown to bits.
It came as a surprise to me; I knew it was happening that week, but I didn't know the day. So I just woke up one morning to hear Sky News announce he was dead.
I just got a dull thud at the pit of my stomach and thought, "Well, there's one more family just lost their son out of all that carnage."
Doesn't excuse what he did. But out of that carnage, we just make more. That's our response.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
And they found the body of that little girl in St. Louis.
Christ Almighty.
Posted by Hoosiernan (# 91) on
:
The official stance of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (www.elca.org) is anti-death penalty. But I do think that the death penalty is at times justified.
Hurting children is never justified.
Two child advocacy sites for your information:
Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education
The Natural Child Project
[Gave your url a link.]
[ 28 July 2002, 19:55: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
Posted by blackbird (# 1387) on
:
texas veggie...yes, i know what you mean. it is carnage. nothing pretty or admirable about it. but i'll take the carnage on my own soul for supporting the death penalty and offer condolences to the families of the murderers rather than watch this keep happening around me.
being in favor of the death penalty doesn't mean i think i don't need prayers for my own soul and forgiveness and mercy from God for maintaining that stance.
cm....i find the idea of decapitation and firing sqaud horrendous. i just want them stopped. i have no impulse or desire for them to burn for eternity, either.
Posted by Unkl Davey (# 2777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by madgeo:
I have mixed emotions on executions much of the time. Especially in the light of how many people are being released on new/old DNA evidence.
However, ... If I was king for a day, I would be happy to cease all other executions to implement this simple solution to save children from those evil bastards.
I didn't want to quote the whole thing to save length, but there's not a word I could disagree with on that post, Madgeo.
That being said, when reading your link about Massie, at the very end, it says something about spending the day with spiritual advisors.
If he indeed did confess his sins to God and accepted Jesus, we can expect to see him in Heaven.
Maybe I'm some kind of freakish hybrid, but I see nothing wrong with OT justice and consequences being meted out for the sins and crimes one might commit in this life, yet a NT grace and forgiveness by ANYONE who repents before the needle is injected.
The thief on the cross was forgiven, but not saved from death for his sins. And even the NT says that we should fear and obey the state because it carries the sword for a reason ... and is allowed to do so by God’s own will.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
And they found the body of that little girl in St. Louis.
Christ Almighty.
....just about 15 miles from my house.
There was a heartbreaking photo of the man who found her on the front page of the paper this morning. He looked absolutely shattered by it.
And I was late to a morning appointment because I had to sit and reassure my little girl that she is safe and that no one will hurt her....but she should still be careful, not talk to strangers, and so on. How do you keep your children safe without destroying their trust and friendliness?
They caught the man who murdered the little girl in Valley Park almost immediately; from the look of him, he'll get off by pleading retardation. It sickens me.
Rossweisse // thinking justice might be a mercy
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
I am aghast - with horror and grief over this one:
Rape of 8 month old baby.
It's a magnitude of atrocity that's difficult to grasp. The judge who sentenced the last rapist of a baby (9 months old) in RSA described it as the most gruesome violation of a human rights he'd come across. The question 'What's worse?' becomes meaningless in these cases.
There are a large number of crimes against children occurring in RSA because it is believed that sex with a virgin will protect from AIDS.
[Week old baby rape allegations were false according to police in South Africa. So I replaced your link with another child rape story]
[ 01 August 2002, 16:21: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
Posted by Hoosiernan (# 91) on
:
Two passages from _The Bean Trees_ by Barbara Kingsolver:
(Background: A woman has been handed a little child and asked to take care of it. In the first scene, she takes the child with her and stays the night at a motel. She is giving the child a bath. In the second scene, she has been functioning as the child's mother for several months.)
"All of the baby's clothes were way too big, with sleeves rolled up and shirt tails wrapped around, and everything wet as mud boots and as hard to get off. There was a bruise twice the size of my thumb on its inner arm. . . . When I pulled off the pants and the diapers there were more bruises.
"Bruises and worse.
"The Indiana child was a girl. A girl, poor thing. That fact had already burdened her short life with a kind of misery I could not imagine. I thought I knew about every ugly thing that one person does to another, but I had never even thought about such things being done to a baby girl. She sat quietly in the bathtub watching me, and I just prayed she had enough backbone not to fall over and drown, because I had to let her go. I doubled up on the floor at the base of the toilet and tried not to throw up."
At the doctor's office, months later:
"He laid some of the x-rays against the window. Dr. Pelinowsky's office window looked out onto a garden full of round stones and cactus. In the dark negatives I could see Turtle's thin white bones and her skull, and it gave me the same chill Lou Ann must have felt to see her living mother's name carved on a gravestone. I shivered inside my skin.
" "These are healed fractures, some of them compound," he said, pointing with his silver pen. . . . .
"He put up more of the x-rays in the window, saying things like "spiral fibular fracture here" and "excellent healing" and "some contraindications for psychomotor development." I couldn't really listen. I looked through the bones to the garden on the other side. There was a cactus with bushy arms and a coat of yellow spines as thick as fur. A bird had built her nest in it. In and out she flew among the horrible spiny branches, never once hesitating. You just couldn't imagine how she'd made a home in there."
Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison. Kyris eleison.
Posted by blackbird (# 1387) on
:
hoosiernan...that book takes my breath away at times. i gave a copy of it to my daughter who is leaving for college next month. i feel like i need to make a last ditch effort to prepare her for the real world. and it's a horrible feeling.
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on
:
I suspect that Jesus was more radical in his hatred of evil than YOU want to believe, tomb & mousethief –
quote:
“Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin – so watch yourselves”. Luke 17:2-3
Jesus doesn’t specify “better than what”, but a very plausible reading would be, “better than to go on living”.
By the way, Chastmastr, I like your CS Lewis quote which tells us not to think it is our place to forgive another for a sin that has been committed against someone ELSE. That is for the victim – to enable them to find peace.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracia:
By the way, Chastmastr, I like your CS Lewis quote which tells us not to think it is our place to forgive another for a sin that has been committed against someone ELSE. That is for the victim – to enable them to find peace.
Well -- I don't want that quote to be taken out of context -- what it says is, and remember this is from The Screwtape Letters, i.e., letters from one devil to another on the art of temptation,
quote:
Hatred we can manage. . . . If conscience resists, muddle him. Let him say that he feels hatred not on his own behalf but on that of the women and children, and that a Christian is told to forgive his own, not other people's enemies. In other words let him consider himself sufficiently identified with the women and children to feel hatred on their behalf, but not sufficiently identified to regard their enemies as his own and therefore proper objects of forgiveness.
Please remember that everything Screwtape says is like a spiritual photographic negative; his advice here is on how to get "the patient" to hate and not to forgive, with an aim toward the "patient's" final damnation. If we are sufficiently identified with the victims to feel hatred on their behalf, then we are identified enough to make the attempt to forgive, as best we can (even if we are to punish them in any number of ways). (And, it could be argued, we are all part of civil society -- and as such, in a sense, we are, though not directly, "victims" when someone commits such an atrocity.)
I'm also not quite sure about the main purpose (though I think it can be a good side-effect -- and you didn't say that it was the main purpose) of forgiveness being for the victim to find peace; I think the main purpose, at least for Christians, is that we are told to forgive by the One who forgave us.
I was pretty disturbed by the hype surrounding the McVeigh execution, not because I don't believe it was right for him to be executed for murdering all those people, but by the way people kept talking about how doing this would "bring closure." Screw "closure." We could sacrifice an innocent person, and if people thought he was guilty, it would "bring closure." I believe McVeigh should have been executed on the grounds that he deserved it, as a matter of justice. (And I believe he was, at least in this case.)
Sigh, nattering on again, and as a matter of justice/obedience in my own life I need to get back to work...
David
Posted by Karl (# 76) on
:
What Tomb said.
And, (ducking), it strikes me that the heart of this is one person seeing another person as merely an object with which to satisfy our desires - for perverted gratification, for power, for hatred, for revenge, for whatever.
And Jesus told us where that began, IIRC. Am I innocent? If only. And Jesus also, IMHO, told us who should cast the first stone.
Lock 'em up, obviously. Sink to their level? Never.
Posted by blackbird (# 1387) on
:
if you want to use the "am i innocent?" argument, why lock them up at all? why draw the line there? many of these people are on parole when they commit their crimes because jurors want to give them a second chance. most of us want to believe their is hope. many criminals are banking on our thinking that way.
as a parent, i use that argument when my kids do something stupid but not injureous to someone else. i recognize they are young and we all make mistakes. but when it comes to using that argument for people who torture and rape children, i think it's sticking one's head in the sand.
the murderers are the one's who have satisfied their perverted appetites. for us to sink to their level, we would have to choose a citizen randomly and butcher them for someone else's crime. that's not what is being suggested here.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I'm curious... how is throwing someone in jail for the rest of his or her life the humane alternative?
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
There's nothing "humane" about it. It's probably one of most grave punishments anybody could come up with.
It does admit the possibility of repentance, however. Until the "natural" end of the person's life.
Posted by Karl (# 76) on
:
The point of the "am I innocent?" argument is that there seems to be a sort of division here - my sins are forgivable, and I'm still a valued child of God, bought by Christ etc. etc., but particular people are merely scum who should be done away with.
I cannot reconcile that view with how I understand God.
Do we think the doctrine of imago Dei only applies to people whose sins we put in the "forgivable" bucket? I wonder, had Our Lord been preaching in Sheffield Peace Gardens today, who would have been the Tax Collector in the Temple in His parable.
I think we would have all been offended.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Karl, who's talking about sins? We're talking about crimes. No one here is denying that these people may very well find forgiveness from Jesus. What we're trying to figure out is what is the appropriate EARTHLY punishment for such horrific crimes.
Posted by Hoosiernan (# 91) on
:
This is a true story.
When I worked at a certain mental health center, a married couple came in wanting help with their teenage daughter who was "rebellious and running away." They couldn't understand it, as they had always been such a "Christian family."
Indeed, there was no history of child abuse or alcoholism of the parents or any of a number of things that initiate a lot of trouble in a child's behavior. I didn't understand it myself, until the teenager told me in a private session with her, "Ask my father about Brian Smith." (I made up the name just now.)
So, I requested a private session with the father. I asked him about Brian Smith. It seems that Brian had picked up this 16-year-old girl when her car broke down by the side of the road. He took her to a secluded place and raped her, then dropped her off at in a public place, where she called first the police and then her parents. The police arrested Brian. Brian used his one phone call from jail to call the father of the girl he had raped! Brian then persuaded the father to visit him at the jail. Brian cried and said he was sorry, and would this man forgive him for what he had done? The father, who considered it his Christian duty to forgive (after all, Brian had just reminded him of this, in so many words), did forgive him. Also told the police that his family was dropping the charges. Therefore, Brian gets out of jail free--doesn't even have to post bail.
The daughter, who has been at home crying, after having a rape kit done at the local hospital, finds out when Daddy gets back that Brian is free as a bird. That there will be no punishment for the rape. That it is the Christian duty of the whole family to forgive him. In the next several days, Brian brags to his friends in the community how he raped a girl and got out of jail, by making the father of the girl do his Christian duty.
The daughter begins rebelling against any family rules and begins running away.
Can you blame her? After all, the biological parent is the natural guardian of the child; in this case, the father failed in his duty to protect her.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
HmmmmmThis sounds very much like the 'Myra Hindley has become a Christian therefore she should be set free' argument. Now if I became a Christian whilst in jail I would be full of remorse and feel it was the least I could do to serve out a full sentence for the crime I had committed. True Christianity gives you a heightened sense of justice not the urge to seek a cop-out.
That Brian guy sounds pretty manipulative to me......
Posted by blackbird (# 1387) on
:
there does seem to be a definite difference for people on this thread on how to classify sin and crime in a christian light, as erin pointed out in her last post.
it sucks pulling for the death penalty, but here goes. it doesn't seem to me that Jesus intended that we free criminals in our attempt to prove our christianity. in the parable of the vinedressers he relates that the wicked vinedressers were destroyed for their evil. that does not imply they should not pay for their crimes.
in acts (25), paul says "if i am wrong and have committed something for which i deserve to die, i am not trying to escape death." though paul was an oddball, so perhaps he was just having a suck-up to authority kind of day on that one.
in romans (13), "for rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. do you wish to have no fear of the authority? then do what is good. but if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! it is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer." while i generally don't like to bow to all authority blindly, i think this certainly affords a tweak of justification for capital punishment...at least in these beyond the pale, heinous crimes.
i'm sure aquinas pointed out that criminals sentenced to die are actually being afforded mercy by being allowed to know the date of their death and prepare for death, including asking for forgiveness and seeing a priest, in a way they did not allow their victims. i can't put my finger on where that comes from though.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Beating the dead horse again, I agree with Erin's last post. I believe that, on the one hand, Jesus can forgive any sin except that of refusing to be forgiven (which is what I believe the Sin Against The Holy Ghost to be -- permanent unrepentance). On the other hand, I also believe that we may, indeed should (apart from rare cases of legal mercy), practise civil justice in this world as best we can (which in a case like this would involve the death penalty, in my view). I don't see the two as mutually exclusive at all. At the same time, I believe as Christians we really are forbidden to hate other people -- that however hard it is, in the long run, we must try to forgive as best we can, try to be reconciled if we can, at least hold the attitude that if a person genuinely repents, to be willing, as human beings, not necessarily in a legal capacity, to extend the hand of forgiveness -- perhaps only to meet again in the afterlife. Lewis' book The Great Divorce gives an example of a repentant murderer who is, in Heaven, reconciled with his victim. But Lewis himself also argues, I think persuasively, in favour of the death penalty, and even says that if he himself murdered someone, "the right Christian thing to do would be to turn myself in and be hanged."
David
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
the woman taken in adultry was condemned to death. thats what stoning was, a particularly nasty form of execution.
jesus said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone." when no one was willing to claim being sinless, he let her go.
what clearer biblical condemnation of capital punishment could we have?
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
Hefting thread on hostly toasting fork
Ok, posts now are basically rehashing the same arguments over and over. And it's getting boring. So this thread is promptly moving to the great knackers yard in the sky, otherwise known as Dead Horses.
Remember the way back to hell - wouldn't want y'all to get lost in the knackers yard, would I now?
Viki
Posted by blackbird (# 1387) on
:
i thought the repetition was giving it a nice hellish ambience .
from one old nag to another, nicole, i think your post combined with mine adds to the murkiness of the issue and outlines nicely how unwise it is to back up a stance for or against the death penalty based strictly on scripture. maybe Jesus knew his audiences and what they needed to hear better than we do. the words "how much more must i put up with you?" springs to mind. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by CENSORED (# 2940) on
:
.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0