Dec 26, 2009 -- 2:48PM, Beautiful_Dreamer wrote:

Dec 21, 2009 -- 1:58PM, Christianlib wrote:

Sorry, appy, I can't join you in that blood lust.

I'm all for locking someone up forever.  Killing is simply uncivilized vengenance.  It is in no way "justice."

I'm just playing devil's advocate here...

I'm not for capital punishment either. I'm in the boat with CLib when she quoted Sister Perjean when she said that it's not a question of whether or not someone deserves to die as much as whether we deserve to be able to kill them. However, a class of mine in college once toured the state prison in NC...the stories the guards told and seeing the weapons they had confiscated from prisoners, well let's just say I didn't want to eat afterward.  The prison population tended to react even more strongly to people who were in for killing or raping children...either the person would be put in protective custody or solitary confinement, either way they'd spend the vast majority of the time alone. 

That IMO is another point for why keeping someone locked up can be more of a punishment than executing them.  Sometimes I wonder if that might actually be the more *merciful* thing to do, given how inmates can treat each other.

I agree with the others who've mentioned death being a choice offered to a prisoner who would otherwise be in prison for life, especially if they were in solitary confinement. That could be an example of possibly being merciful.*

I've read both books by Sister Helen Prejean and donated DEATH OF INNOCENTS to my former parish library. Loved the discussion in the second book in which she engages Justice Scalia, who hunts and fishes with her brother. Sister Helen is from Louisiana as is Scalia. That state is one of the top four in executions; Texas leads the list, followed by Louisiana, Virginia and Georgia. I live in Georgia now. For those who don't remember Susan Sarandon played Sister Helen in the movie of her first book DEAD MAN WALKING.**

I know more about Federal penitentiaries than I bargained for. We lived on the grounds of two then Federal pens: Lewisburg and five years at Leavenworth, where my husband was the Chief of Classification and Parole. Anyone interested might want to read HOT HOUSE, LIFE INSIDE LEAVENWORTH by Pete Earley for a real picture of what goes on. It backs up the story told here.

*Timothy McVeigh chose execution. My husband and I worried about the warden at Terre Haute because he was a protogee of my husband.

In the end I think a second try at executing the prisoner in Ohio is more than barbaric. It is cruel and unusual punishment, prohibited by law.

**THE GREEN MILE, starring Tom Hanks is also very powerful.

Dec 27, 2009 -- 1:06AM, rangerken wrote:

Bad analogy MM...with Bundy. You're comparing a lawful government with a psychopath.

That's what makes it such an apt analogy... but it wasn't me that made the analogy, it was someone else that wanted to kill people with the same lack of remorse and ease as Bundy did.

We should always regret  taking anyone's life no matter how necessary it may be.

We should never take anyone's life. It's wrong. Every time they do, the whole society becomes closer to being a Bundy.

Sometimes it is, in my opinion, necessary. Whether or not it is ever necessary for a level of government to take life through a judicial process is debatable. Ibelieve it may be justified. but it is never a good thing and even if the circumstances are such that it is clearly justified (for those who are willing to ever justify it...like me) it should always be done with regret that it is necessary at all. You understand, I trust MM, that when I talk about taking life I am not being the least bit hypothetical. It is never a good thing, no matter how 'legal' etc.

There is never a good reason for a government to kill one of it's own citizens. I've seen absolutely not one bit of regret from the majority of those that support the death penalty. Some show glee. The government never shows any remorse and some in that government use it for their political gain.

MM is right.

Howdy MM

Dec 22, 2009 -- 6:01PM, mountain_man wrote:

Dec 22, 2009 -- 4:45PM, IDBC wrote:

I will decide wheter the words I put in quotes "need" to be put in quotes.  No they do not "need" to be put in quotes.

Then don't put them in quotes.

I will continue to put them in "quotes"  beause I like to do it for "emphasis".   It is a matter of "style" rather than "neccessaity".  

_____________________________________________________________________________

The authority for the state to use capital punishment has been in practice for the vast majority of human history.  In the Holy(?)Scripture both tand very ancient there numerous stories of capital punishment.   

It is the responsibilty of "the state" to protect socieity from criminals.   In the past the way to do it was to impose capital punishment.   I do not think there is a "neccesarity"  to impose it   now.  

Have A Thinking Day And My Reason Guide You

Dec 27, 2009 -- 9:39PM, mountain_man wrote:

Dec 27, 2009 -- 9:04PM, IDBC wrote:

Howdy MM

Dec 22, 2009 -- 6:01PM, mountain_man wrote:

Dec 22, 2009 -- 4:45PM, IDBC wrote:

I will decide wheter the words I put in quotes "need" to be put in quotes.  No they do not "need" to be put in quotes.

Then don't put them in quotes.

I will continue to put them in "quotes"  beause I like to do it for "emphasis".   It is a matter of "style" rather than "neccessaity". 

That's fine. Do what you want. It's just that I do not need someone to help me to read by pointing out certain words. It's an irritating style that "assumes" I, and others, are not bright enough to figure things out for ourselves.

*chuckle*....there are a few assumptions made in the above quote...