Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Reprinted (with permission) from the June 1991 issue of "Active for
    Justice":

      Colorado Springs religious leaders condemn capital punishment

    Colorado Springs Bishop Richard Hanifen, Pueblo Bishop Arthur Tafoya
    and twenty religious leaders from the area representing the American
    Baptist church, the Mennonite community, the United Church of Christ
    and the Catholic Church, at a press conference May 9, took a public
    stand against the Death Penalty.  Unfortunately, for the people of this
    city, the event was ignored by the Gazette Telegraph.  Active for
    Justice commends the stand taken that day by people of conscience and
    is proud to publish the following statement:

        As religious leaders in the community, we call upon our people and
        all interested to reconsider the application of the death penalty
        in our state of Colorado.

        We understand well the opposition many of our brothers and sisters
        in faith will have for this position.  We also understand that
        morality is not determined by majority vote or opinion.  At times
        we must speak out in conformity with our belief as teachers
        representing the spirit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

        "You have heard the commandment 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a
        tooth.'  But I say to you:  Offer no resistance to injury...You
        have heard the commandment, 'You shall love your countryman but
        hate your enemy.'  But I say to you:  Love your enemies, pray for
        your persecutors" (Matthew 5:38-39; 43-44).

        Even if the death penalty were a true deterrent to capital crimes,
        which is not established, and even if our judicial system were
        infallible, which it isn't, we would still be called upon by the
        spirit of the Gospel to oppose capital punishment.  As the only
        Western democracy that still countenances such punishment, we stand
        along as a Christian democratic nation in violation of the mandate
        to forgive capital offenders.

        The terrible suffering their actions have inflicted only makes it
        more evident that the act of forgiveness call for is heroic.

        We call upon our brothers and sisters in faith to examine their own
        attitudes about capital punishment and its impact on society.  We
        pray for the courage among us all to act heroically in compassion
        for those who had no compassion for their victims.  The miracle of
        God's forgiving grace in our lives can bestow on us the courage to
        forgive others.

        As it now stands in our state, we citizens have concluded that we
        should allow, in our names, premeditated killing through the
        infliction of the death penalty.

        We ask: Let this decision be reviewed in terms of the commandment
        to forgive and the danger of irreversibly inflicting death unjustly
        in the name of the state.

Indeed, the letter and spirit of God's Law require capital punishment (IMO) -
although not necessarily the way the U.S. does it.

Collis

    In my opinion, God is not a barbarian, and Christians (and other people
    of conscience) are called to oppose the barbarity of capital
    punishment. Unfortunately, American culture seems to have an inherent
    fascination and even love for violence, and this characteristic
    manifests itself in the popularity of capital punishment.  While the
    rest of Western society has advanced to a more civilized and humane
    course, the United States continues to wallow in this exercise in
    bloodthirsty vengeance.  

    Remember all the jokes about Ted Bundy frying?  Americans really seem
    to get a great deal of sadistic pleasure from the cold blooded killing
    of a human being, as long as that person has been categorized as
    "evil".  The urge for blood lust needs justification, after all, so it
    is important that the person killed be designated as less than human. 
    Though incompatible with the principles of Christian love, this
    pleasure in the death of another person is certainly enjoyable to many
    people.  After all, one can only watch so many Rambo and Terminator
    movies, and the thrill of watching artificially staged killings on the
    Big Screen is nothing compared to the fun of knowing that a real live
    villain has been cold bloodedly killed with the help of one's own tax
    dollars.

    Even the more enlightened states (including my new home state,
    Massachusetts) are under pressure from political quarters. 
    Massachusetts Governor Weld recognizes all too well the political
    benefits of taking the moral low road by pushing for the death
    penalty.  Thus it is probably only a matter of time before
    Massachusetts joins most of the rest of the Union, and caters to this
    basest of human instincts.  Then we, too, can proudly say that we have
    rewritten the words from the Sermon on the Mount to read:

    	You have heard it said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a
    	tooth".  But I say to you, if someone strikes you on the cheek,
    	kill the bastard.

    -- Mike

    Re:  271.3
    
    Mike,
    
    	Your 271.3 reminded me of the ironic humor of 98.9.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

There is, to me, little difference between executions and exterminations.
Capital punishment is a way of disposing of undesireables.

Capital punishment addresses the result and not the cause.

Capital punishment is form of vengeance.  In it is no element of reparation.

Capital punishment is not corrective.  In it is no hope of correction.

If you're wealthy and white there's an outstanding possibility you'll
never face capital punishment, no matter what your crime. Therefore,
capital punishment is racist and discriminates against the poor.

Peace,
Richard

"If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"

			-Overheard in an adult church school class
			 discussing capital punishment.

Peace,
Richard

re: Note 271.3 by Mike "Post note ergo propter note" 

>    Though incompatible with the principles of Christian love, this
>    pleasure in the death of another person is certainly enjoyable to many
>    people.  After all, one can only watch so many Rambo and Terminator
>    movies, and the thrill of watching artificially staged killings on the
>    Big Screen is nothing compared to the fun of knowing that a real live
>    villain has been cold bloodedly killed with the help of one's own tax
>    dollars.

I just saw _Terminator 2_ "Judgement Day" last night.  Also a special on the 
making of T2.  I've not seen any Rambo movies, but _Terminator 2_ had a lot to 
say about the above points, and perhaps from a surprising point of view.

(no real spoilers follow, but just in case you're the type who 
wants to know *nothing* about a movie before seeing it, hit next unseen...)

Peace,

Jim



An interesting story through the movie was the emotional and spiritual 
development of the Terminator.  In the beginning, he is a cold blooded killer, 
who when confronted with the statement "you just can't go around killing 
people" replies "why not?".

When the young hero sees two children "playing", shooting at each other with 
toy guns, he realizes that as a race, humans may well be doomed, he 
understands how the murdering of each other has permeated even children's 
pastimes.

He keeps pointing out to the Terminator how important it is to not kill 
people. 

By the end of the movie, the Terminator understands why people cry, an 
allegory for the human condition of living with pain, joy, and loss.

        It appears that the God of the New Testament believes in
        capital punishment. He used it twice that I could find in
        a few minutes in the book of Acts. Chapter 5 verses 1-10
        where both Ananias and Sapphira are killed for lying to the
        Holy Spirit. Next in chapter 12 vers 23 
        
        "And immediatly an angel of the Loard smote him.  because he gave
        not God the glory; and he was eaten of worms, and died."
        
                                Alfred
        

    It appears that we've confused several issues in the above notes. 
    Whether or not captial punishment is philosophically defensible is not
    the same as whether or not it is Biblically defensible. And both differ
    from the question of whether or not God may justly employ it, and at
    the same time restrict or permit man to do so.
    None of these address the horrible manner in which capital punishment
    is administered in the U.S.A. - with an endless appeals process that
    leaves victims families crually frustrated and those condemned to die
    inhumanely tortured by the length of their stay on death row.
    
    Personally I believe that capital punishment can be demonstrated to be
    both philosophically and Biblically just, as well as a responsibility
    relegated to mankind by God.
    
    Philosophically, society has a duty to see criminals punished in a
    manner befitting the nature and overall societal impact of their
    crime(s), and to see that those who are victimized are allowed to have
    a sense of "closure" regarding the disposition of the crime as a whole. 
    Additionally, society must secure with it's most reasonable efforts,
    the safety of individuals when the crimes committed threaten the public
    safety.
    
    As such, one guilty of assault would not be required to suffer the same
    as one who murders since the severity of the result can be demonstrated
    to be less. A murder leaves it's immediate victim with no chance of any
    recovery whatsoever, and displaying in it's perpetrator a total
    disregard for human life demands that any punishment be complete,
    irreversible and equal to the loss sustained.
    
    As to Biblical justification, we have several arguments.
    1-The Old Testament commandments as given by God demanding death for
    certain crimes.
    2-Jesus' silence in condemning the very process by which he would give
    his life a ransom for fallen men. In fact affirming it by aknowledging
    that his innocent death was his assuming of the just penalty for our
    sins.
    3-The Pauline epistle to the Romans - Chap.13:1-5.
    Here the apostle asserts that God grants to secular governments, the
    right to "bear the sword" (i.e. execute ) those who practice evil.
    This becomes a part of his argument regarding the Christian's response
    to secular authority.
    
    One parting thought concerning capital punishment not being a
    deterrent: 
    with no attempt at being "cute", the reality is that no one executed
    was ever found to be a threat to society again. Thus in a most real
    sense capital punishment is in fact the ultimate deterrent.
    
    Till next time - Lisa
    

    I don't believe in biblical inerrancy, nor do I believe that the Bible
    that the Bible is a single coherent whole.  Thus the question of the
    Bible's posture towards capital punishment, even if there is indeed a
    single identifiable stance to be found there, is somewhat irrelevant
    from my perspective.  As I mentioned earlier, I agree with Jesus's
    views, not because Jesus said them, but because I believe they are
    morally right to begin with.

    Even if I accepted the literal truth of mythological stories of
    supernaturually induced deaths (which I don't, although some others
    do), the fact remains that we humans exist in the natural world, in the
    here and now.  Capital punishment is an act of a human system of
    justice in the natural world.  I don't believe that human court
    verdicts are in any way comparable to angels of death carrying out the
    direct will of God; for one thing, history has shown us far too many
    examples of faulty verdicts, including people who were falsely
    sentenced to death.  What remains in the face of our human uncertainty
    is the love and compassion that Jesus taught us to emulate, and from
    that principle it is clear that capital punishment is an abomination.

    Jesus's teachings of love for our enemies mandate that we treat other
    human beings with respect, compassion, and forgiveness.  This must be
    true even when we render unto Caesar, and when Caesar conflicts with
    God, we must choose God.  There are many philosophical theories of
    punishment, including retributive, rehabilitative, and utilitarian. 
    Those philosophical justifications may, to varying degrees, be
    consistent with Christian ethics, or with Caesar's ends, or both.  But
    our pursuit of Caesar's should not, I believe, overrule the loving
    means that Jesus taught.

    Some means in pursuit of Caesar's aims may very well accomplish the
    desired utilitarian or retributive goals, but also violate the
    Christian sense of what is proper and moral.  Torture or mutilation may
    accomplish several important goals of the state, for example; the
    apologists for such methods may argue that they have a strong deterrent
    effect, but that is irrelevant to those who abhor their practice on
    fundamental moral grounds.  To torture, mutilate, or (I believe) to
    kill another human being is not consistent with Christian love for that
    person, which translates into a fundamental respect for the value and
    integrity of that person's existence.

    Protecting society, fostering moral growth (rehabilitation), deterring
    evil, and revenge are all examples of justifications for punishments by
    society of certain of its constituents.  In my view, any doctrine of
    revenge is inconsistent with the principles of reconciliation, love,
    and forgiveness that Jesus taught on the Sermon on the Mount.  It
    amounts to a mean-spirited and vindictive posture, and is not something
    that I believe that society should be a servant to.  Perhaps some
    individuals feel that they can kill another human being that they love
    against that person's will.  Perhaps those people could flip the switch
    and watch another feeling, breathing living person electrify, and not
    feel a sense of revulsion deep within their souls.  But I, for one, do
    not normally kill people as an expression of my love for them.  And I
    don't believe that society should deliberately cater to the basest
    of human instincts by doing so either.

    -- Mike

    RE .10  Mike,
    
                   I respect your opinion of the Bible, Mike, though I do
    wonder where, in the Bible, you read about "Angels of Death".  The
    death angel is a myth created by movie makers and nowhere, in the
    Bible, do I read about such a creature from God.
    
                  If you are thinking about the "first born of Egypt", that
    was the angel of the lord.
    
    
    
    Dave

    Hi Dave,
    
    I was referring to the passage in Acts 12:23, which says that an "angel
    of the Lord" struck a man down.
    
    -- Mike

    Don't try to compare the judgment of God with the judgment of man.

    God's judgment is perfect, man's is far from being even near perfect.

    I oppose capital punishment, not only because I believe it is against
    the will of God, and is not at all a deterrent, but because our
    court system, although it's probably the best system in the
    world, nevertheless is so screwed up, that it should not have the power to
    take human life. 

    Peace
    Jim

re Note 271.9 by USRCV1::FERGUSONL:

>     Philosophically, society has a duty to see criminals punished in a
>     manner befitting the nature and overall societal impact of their
>     crime(s), and to see that those who are victimized are allowed to have
>     a sense of "closure" regarding the disposition of the crime as a whole. 
>     Additionally, society must secure with it's most reasonable efforts,
>     the safety of individuals when the crimes committed threaten the public
>     safety.
  
        I have no doubt that victims, and society as a whole, derive
        satisfaction from seeing criminals "pay" for their crimes,
        and suffer proportionately to how they made others suffer.

        I also know that human society is fallen, both the criminals
        and the victims.  Thus I don't give much weight to society's
        "desire" to see criminals "pay" -- there are a lot of things
        that society desires that may in no way be moral or just. 
        But I will acknowledge that such desires exist.


>     2-Jesus' silence in condemning the very process by which he would give
>     his life a ransom for fallen men. In fact affirming it by aknowledging
>     that his innocent death was his assuming of the just penalty for our
>     sins.
  
        If the penalty was death, and Jesus assumed the penalty of
        all by his death, then there is no more just death penalty --
        if you REALLY believe it's been paid (perhaps with the
        condition that the sinner "accept" the salvation resulting
        from Jesus' death).

        If fact, a Christian who believes that we all deserve death
        due to our sins, and that Jesus accepted that punishment in
        full payment of our debt, and then supports capital
        punishment is denying Jesus' saving act.

        Unfortunately, as the bumper sticker says "Christians aren't
        perfect...."

        Bob

    For those who do believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, what about
    "Thou shalt not kill"? Isn't that crystal clear?
    
    And RE:.6
    
    Who said capital punishment was "good enough" for the Son of God?
    I don't think it was, nor do I think he thought it was.
    
    Eileen 

re Note 271.15 by MLTVAX::DUNNE:

>     For those who do believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, what about
>     "Thou shalt not kill"? Isn't that crystal clear?
  
        But that old bugaboo "interpretation" comes up:  most
        interpret the original language of this commandment to mean
        "Thou shalt not murder."  And what is murder?  That's right,
        it's unlawful killing!

        So this law from God is reduced to "Thou shalt not kill
        unlawfully"!  God needed to tell us THAT!?

        Bob

Note 271.15

>    And RE:.6
    
>    Who said capital punishment was "good enough" for the Son of God?
>    I don't think it was, nor do I think he thought it was.
    
Eileen,

	I think you're right.  A strange look came over his face when
he realized what he had said, and a hush fell over the entire class.

	Still, capital punishment was good enough for Stephen, wasn't it?
Or, as tradition has it, Paul and Peter?

	After all, it does rid us of undesirables, doesn't it?  And it
is just, isn't it?

Peace,
Richard

    re Note 271.14 by Xanadu::Fleischer.
    
    Bob,
          Forgive me if in any way, my use of the term "closure" somehow
    implied to you that victims and society derive satisfaction in the
    sense of deriving any perverted pleasure from seeing criminals pay
    justly for their crimes. That was certainly not my intent. In fact, I
    believe that one of the natural by-products of capital punishment (PC
    for simpler use here) is to produce in society as a whole a revulsion
    for the consequences of commiting certain acts.
          Perhaps my meaning could be better understood by the example of
    funerals. No family member or friend of one recently deceased derives
    pleasure from seeing a loved one laid to rest. (Well maybe some but
    they're the topic for another conference) Nevertheless, we go through the
    process and are greatly aided in bringing our grief to an end by
    experiencing the finality of the good-bye. The relative of anyone who
    has been listed as an MIA during time of war can attest to the near
    torture of never having a resolve to their final disposition.
    Certainly, knowing that a loved one is dead is no comfort compared to
    having them back. But even that is preferable to never knowing. No one
    delights in either and yet one is worse yet.
         So it is in my understanding of CP. Just look at the response of
    the family in Wayne county who were hurt when Arthur Shawcross was not
    tried for the murder of their daughter because of his multiple
    convictions in Monroe county. One more conviction wouldn't have
    mattered in terms of his punishment one whit, and yet the family felt
    (I believe rightly so) that the death of their daughter didn't matter,
    because the legal system robbed them of justice even if the perpetrator
    was already behind bars.
         As to your second round of comments, I think you may be confusing
    Christ's atoning death to reconcile lost sinners to God with abrogation
    of earthly punishment for crimes. His death only substituted for the
    punishment one would face before God for their sins, provided Christ is
    Lord of their life. This in no way invites a less active role by human
    courts in the prosecution of the guilty and the exoneration of the
    innocent. 
         Human justice will at all times remain imperfect since it is
    carried out by imperfect agents. Yet we must not abandon what we can
    and should do simply because we will fail at doing it perfectly.        
    If that logic were employed in medicine; i.e." no treatment of
    the critically ill because we can only save a few", precious little
    would be done, there or in any field. Yes, our court systems will fail
    at times - so lets work to make them less fallible rather than abandon
    them to the throes of anarchy.
    
         I look forward to talking some more,
    Lisa

re Note 271.18 by USRCV1::FERGUSONL:

>                 -< "I did not come to destroy the law" -JESUS >-

        Indeed, Jesus did say that in Matt 5:17.  Jesus goes on to
        say, however, that he came to fulfill the law, and that the
        law would not pass away until it was fulfilled (Matt 5:18).

        This passage seems clear enough (to me, at least) to be
        saying that Jesus did not come to terminate the law by simply
        destroying, wiping out, or superseding it, but by FULFILLING
        it.  The law is terminated by Jesus, not destroyed, but
        fulfilled.

        Since Jesus has fulfilled the law, we should not go about
        trying to fulfill it ourselves -- it was always futile, and
        now is unnecessary!


>          So it is in my understanding of CP. Just look at the response of
>     the family in Wayne county who were hurt when Arthur Shawcross was not
>     tried for the murder of their daughter because of his multiple
>     convictions in Monroe county. One more conviction wouldn't have
>     mattered in terms of his punishment one whit, and yet the family felt
>     (I believe rightly so) that the death of their daughter didn't matter,
>     because the legal system robbed them of justice even if the perpetrator
>     was already behind bars.

        You clearly illustrate an important distinction:  the
        difference between recognizing the horror of a "capital"
        crime by due process, and the punishment.  The individual
        above apparently could not be punished (legally) any more
        than his current sentence will punish him (be it life without
        parole, or execution), and so there is no possibility of his
        being punished additionally for yet another crime.  Yet the
        possibility exists for this crime to be acknowledged in a
        criminal court.  It is only the latter which the family is
        being denied, apparently.  In this case, does "justice" mean
        acknowledgment, or punishment?

        (The above is parallel to a Christian's obligation to
        recognize their sinfulness vs. the freedom from the penalty
        of that sinfulness, since Jesus paid that!)


>          As to your second round of comments, I think you may be confusing
>     Christ's atoning death to reconcile lost sinners to God with abrogation
>     of earthly punishment for crimes. 

        Lisa,

        YOU were the one who offered Christ's "death penalty" as some
        sort of justification of capital punishment, not me.  All I
        was saying was that if Christ's atoning death had any
        relevance to the death penalty, it argues against the
        imposition of the death penalty, not for it!

        The more I think of it, the comparison is apt.  It is
        inappropriate for Christians at once to say that God
        remembers the sin no more (in the case of a repentant
        criminal) yet still say that God demands punishment.  There
        is no logic in that, although it sure is convenient to
        secular thinkers and those whose security rests not in the
        Lord but in the worldly mechanisms of law and order!


>     His death only substituted for the
>     punishment one would face before God for their sins, provided Christ is
>     Lord of their life. This in no way invites a less active role by human
>     courts in the prosecution of the guilty and the exoneration of the
>     innocent.  Human justice will at all times remain imperfect since it is
>     carried out by imperfect agents. 
  
        But you seem to be saying that God's justice is somehow
        incomplete -- I can't accept that!

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    I really enjoyed your reply and had written a minor tome in response
    when the system jazzed out on me and I lost it - if I can't recover it
    I'll reconstitute it later.
    
    Till then,
    Lisa
    

    re:Note 271.19 by Xanadu::Fleischer
    
    <Hopefully time has bred brevity in my responses>
    
    > Since Jesus has fulfilled the law, we should not go about trying to
    > fulfill it ourselves -- it was always futile, and now is un-
    > necessary!
    
    ALSO
    
    >But you seem to be saying that God's justice is somehow incomplete --
    >I can't accept that!
    
    Bob,
        I think your point here proves too much. It appears to argue for
    the abolition of ALL law, and I don't think you really mean that. 
    If when stating that the law is now unnecessary, and is a futile
    pursuit - you are referring to human attempts at achieving God's favor
    and salvation as a result-- AMEN !
    But that the law is still necessary to the safe and orderly government
    of society is a point that needs no defending. This is especially true
    when examining the Biblical reasons for the law's existance. 
    
    I find at least 4 (I'll spare you my exegesis and just give refs.)
    1 -  To restrain and punish the ungodly. I Timothy 1:8-11 (The law
    would truly be unnecessary if all men were godly, but alas we all
    suffer from the presence of sin)
    2 - To convice and convict the ungodly of their sinful condition, bring
    them to repentence and enable them to find forgiveness in Christ.        
    Galatians 3:24
    3 - To preserve society until Christ comes. Galatians 3:23
    4 - In it's purest form, to communicate to us God's standard of
    righteousness. Romans 7:7-11
    
    This brings up another point. That society is divided up into two basic
    groups, those transformed by a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and
    those not. i.e. the godly and the ungodly. But even if society were
    entirely comprised of the saved: though we may presently be saved from
    the penalty of sin, and in sanctification are being delivered from the
    power of indwelling sin, it is not until death or Christ's physical
    return that we shall be saved from the presence of sin. Thus we all still
    fall at times and still require the law.
    
    Here another distinction must be made - while all sins against man are
    also sins against God, not all sins against God are necessarily sins
    against man and so justice must take place on two planes
    simultaneously. This is clearly addressed by Jesus in Matt. 5:23-26,
    where he shows that God refuses the worship of one who has not dealt
    with sin against his brother.                                            
    If I were to punch you in the nose, I must not only ask God for
    forgivenes of my transgression, you're the one I hit and so the whole
    of my duty isn't discharged until I've  sought your forgiveness as well.
    It isn't that God's forgiveness isn't
    complete, it's that when other men are involved in the transgression
    they must be addressed too. Modern law often fails in this point when
    making the "state" the only offended party, and not regarding the
    victims. Although there's even an element of this to be found in
    punitive awards, and judges requiring restitution. The O.T. law always
    sought restitution where possible except in certain cases like murder
    where forfeiture is the nearest analog and considered the just
    punishment.
    
    This again answers my use of Christ's "death penalty". His sacrifice
    dealt with satisfying God's just nature for the believer, but it did
    nothing in regard to discharging civil and criminal law among men.
    This is displayed by the response of the thief crucified with Christ
    who rebuking the other one said " Do you not even fear God, since you
    are under the same sentence of condemnation? And WE INDEED JUSTLY, FOR
    WE ARE RECEIVING WHAT WE DESERVE FOR OUR DEEDS..."
    The law having done its work in him, he applies to Christ and isn't
    delivered from his punishment, but receives the promise of eternal
    life. The other one remaining unchanged receives his just reward from
    both courts, earth's and heaven's.
    
    >In this case, does "justice" mean acknowledgment, or punishment?
    Maybe an element of both?
    
    One last note - While I believe that God grants the right for
    governments to exercise CP, I don't believe that He REQUIRES society to
    make use of it. Though life in prison to me seems much more cruel than
    CP.
    
    Later,
    Lisa 
    

    
    
    Sorry this seemed a little disjointed, I got really frustrated when I
    lost the original text.
    
    Lisa

re Note 271.21 by USRCV1::FERGUSONL:

>     > Since Jesus has fulfilled the law, we should not go about trying to
>     > fulfill it ourselves -- it was always futile, and now is un-
>     > necessary!
>     
>     ALSO
>     
>     >But you seem to be saying that God's justice is somehow incomplete --
>     >I can't accept that!
>     
>     Bob,
>         I think your point here proves too much. It appears to argue for
>     the abolition of ALL law, and I don't think you really mean that. 

        No -- it argues against any application of the law, and
        specifically penalties, as an attempt to deal merited
        punishment to the offender.  Jesus has taken the merited
        punishment for all -- there cannot be any "left over"
        merited punishment which he didn't take upon himself.

        I am not simply saying that the function of the law regarding
        salvation is over (although that is true too), rather it is
        the function of law in giving offenders "what they deserve"
        that is ALSO over.


>     But that the law is still necessary to the safe and orderly government
>     of society is a point that needs no defending. 

        I agree -- but it is a VERY rare instance in which it is
        necessary to kill a person to achieve this objective, no
        matter how heinous the offense.  In fact, the past offense is
        irrelevant -- what is relevant, possibly, is the potential
        for future harm.


>     I find at least 4 (I'll spare you my exegesis and just give refs.)
>     1 -  To restrain and punish the ungodly. I Timothy 1:8-11 (The law
>     would truly be unnecessary if all men were godly, but alas we all
>     suffer from the presence of sin)
>     2 - To convice and convict the ungodly of their sinful condition, bring
>     them to repentence and enable them to find forgiveness in Christ.        
>     Galatians 3:24
>     3 - To preserve society until Christ comes. Galatians 3:23
>     4 - In it's purest form, to communicate to us God's standard of
>     righteousness. Romans 7:7-11
  
        Again, NONE of these require killing a person (with possible
        RARE exceptions for #3).  In fact, if you really want to
        "convice [sic] and convict the ungodly of their sinful condition,
        bring them to repentence [sic] and enable them to find forgiveness
        in Christ" then the LAST thing you would want to do is kill
        them!!!!! This would be the Spanish Inquisition in
        miniature!

        (One might also add that advocacy of capital punishment
        interferes with the communication of God's standard of
        righteousness.  For one thing, Jesus is God's standard of
        righteousness, not the electric chair!  Do you really believe
        that the electric chair and gas chamber communicate
        "Jesus"???!!!  In addition, it fatally dilutes the
        anti-abortion stance of many so-called "pro-life" people.)

          
>     Thus we all still
>     fall at times and still require the law.
  
        Again -- I am not arguing against "the law."  I am arguing
        against an retributive application of the law -- the
        retribution has been exacted, it is paid, it is finished! 
        Don't deny what Jesus has done!

          
>     This is clearly addressed by Jesus in Matt. 5:23-26,
>     where he shows that God refuses the worship of one who has not dealt
>     with sin against his brother.                                            
>     If I were to punch you in the nose, I must not only ask God for
>     forgivenes of my transgression, you're the one I hit and so the whole
>     of my duty isn't discharged until I've  sought your forgiveness as well.

        But it is also clear from this application that such getting
        right with someone you offended is a voluntary act of a
        contrite heart, not in any way satisfied by a punishment
        under the force of law.  It is incredible to me that you
        think this could be a justification for capital punishment!


>     The O.T. law always
>     sought restitution where possible except in certain cases like murder
>     where forfeiture is the nearest analog and considered the just
>     punishment.
  
        Death is in no way an analog to restitution, although it
        might have appeared to be so in a primitive culture where
        women, children, and slaves were all considered to be more or
        less property of the heads of families.

          
>     " Do you not even fear God, since you
>     are under the same sentence of condemnation? And WE INDEED JUSTLY, FOR
>     WE ARE RECEIVING WHAT WE DESERVE FOR OUR DEEDS..."

        Two points:

        What the thief is saying is correct absent the work of Jesus,
        which was not yet consummated.

        Secondly, looking ahead, the thief isn't totally
        theologically correct -- if he is a lowly thief, and if the
        Bible is accurately recording his words, then it is very
        possible that his quoted words are the correct quote of an
        incorrect or at least limited idea.


>     Though life in prison to me seems much more cruel than CP.
    
        Then give them a choice! :-)

        Bob

    re: Note 271.23 by XANADU::FLEISCHER
    
    Bob,
    
    I'll have some more comments tomorrow, but would you be kind enough to
    help me better understand how you draw the conclusion that what Christ
    did on the cross negates the need to meet out punishment or penalties
    for crimes committed against society? Somewhere I've missed a link in
    your logic and would deeply appreciate some clarification.
    
    Secondly, if you find no objection to the law per se, yet find no place
    for it's enforcement or penalties due for infractions, then what
    possible purpose can there be for having any law whatsoever?
    Again, I don't mean this negatively, but I'm finding it difficult to
    follow the logic of it in my pea brain.
    
    Thanx,
    Lisa

re Note 271.24 by USRCV1::FERGUSONL:

>     I'll have some more comments tomorrow, but would you be kind enough to
>     help me better understand how you draw the conclusion that what Christ
>     did on the cross negates the need to meet out punishment or penalties
>     for crimes committed against society? Somewhere I've missed a link in
>     your logic and would deeply appreciate some clarification.
  
        It negates the justification from the point of view of
        RIGHTEOUSNESS -- Christ IS our righteousness, there can be no
        other, no additional act of righteousness, or Christ is
        denied.

        Thus any argument for capital punishment (the topic of this
        discussion) based upon a need for a righteous punishment,
        i.e., some crimes "deserve" death, is now null and void --
        Christ took the death penalty that we -- ALL of us, you, me,
        Hitler, Saddam, etc. -- deserve.  We can't be Christian (in
        my opinion) and claim that, in spite of Christ's work, SOME
        of us still deserve the death penalty for righteousness'
        sake.

        I was willing to admit that in certain very special cases
        death might be necessary to protect society -- but in such
        cases it would be imposed not as a punishment or penalty but
        rather as a form of defense or protection.

        In all cases, restitution, if at all possible, and
        reconciliation with the victim is demanded by God.  But
        neither of these is advanced by death;  in fact, death
        eliminates further possibilities for these!

        And, of course, penalties of less-than-death may be imposed
        to protect society and to deter others  -- but in no way is
        righteousness the reason, Christ is the only necessary and
        sufficient righteousness!

        We might even consider rehabilitation as a rationale for
        incarceration, but modern day U.S. society seems to be giving
        up on the notion of helping people improve.
  
>     Secondly, if you find no objection to the law per se, yet find no place
>     for it's enforcement or penalties due for infractions, then what
>     possible purpose can there be for having any law whatsoever?
  
        My only objection is to arguments from RIGHTEOUSNESS, i.e.,
        "righteousness demands a punishment comparable to the crime". 
        Christ IS our righteousness, and that debt is paid in full. 
        The strongest so-called "Christian" argument in support of
        capital punishment is that God demands death for certain
        acts because righteousness requires it.   Christ has
        satisfied that demand;  from now on, society must choose its
        penalties on other grounds, and those grounds do not justify
        a general application of the death penalty.

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    Thanks for bearing with me in 271.24, it was much help. Unfortunately
    it doesn't bring our opinions any closer together, but that's one of
    the things that makes this kind of conference profitable. Contrary
    views seeking dialogue that leads to understanding if not
    reconciliation.
    
    Since we're hitting on more and more issues, I'll try to restrain
    myself to the more salient points of the last several notes.
    
    >No--it argues against any application of the law, and specifically
   > penalties, as an attempt to deal merited punishment to the offender.
   > Jesus has taken the merited punishment for all--there cannot be any
  > " left over" merited punishment which he didn't take upon himself.
    >I am not simply saying that the function of the law regarding
    salvation is over (although that is true too), rather it is the
    function of the law in giving offenders "what they deserve" that is
    ALSO over.
    
    While I'll defend to the Nth degree your right to the above opinion, I
    must also aknowledge that these sentiments appear to run contrary to
    the uniform testimony of the scriptures.
    If your assertion were accurate, then the N.T. would be devoid of any
    references to future punishment(s) yet to be meted out by God or man as
    "giving offenders what they deserve". But not only are these references
    numerous, they are abundant. And most interestingly these references
    are not relegated to the apostolic epistles only, they are very
    frequently to be found in Jesus' words. I would especially direct your
    attention to Matt. 7:21-23, 10:14,15 and 13:40-42, all of which were
    found on a very quick perusal, and all of which undeniably demonstrate
    the reality of future judgements in the eschatological economy of God.
    
    Obviously our discussion has by necessity brushed on wider themes than
    CP alone since no topic can be discussed honestly in a vacuum. It is
    because of this that I believe you may have misconstrued my meaning in
    271.23: Paragraph ending>It is incredible to me that you think this
   >could be justification for CP"
    My intention in using this example was to point out the fact that sins
    against man require rectification on two levels - it was merely a point
    of principle, not specific to CP. Forgive me if I did't make that
    distinction clear. I suppose that greater precision in my language when
    dealing with such a weighty subject is called for.
    
    Your rebuttal of my my citing the words of the thief on the cross I
    fear is untenable. Jesus response to the thief indicates a verification
    of the thief's assertions. Nothing in the text indicates otherwise. To
    say that Jesus' work at this point in time was "not yet consummated"
    and thus tempered his response is a hyper-dispensationalist argument
    and extremely thin at best.
    
    Again, I find myself compelled to side with the apostle Paul on this
    issue as he defined it in Romans 13:1-5. This is certainly AFTER the
    work of Christ was consummated, allows for present and future
    governmental punishments of criminals and includes capital punishment
    incontrovertibly. Then Paul's teaching here is nearly indentically
    echoed by Peter, in I Peter 2:13,14. It is apparent that the apostles
    saw no contradiction with Jesus' position and their's.
    
    I close today with these words from Peter:
    "and many will follow their sensuality...and their destruction is not
    asleep...He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah...having made
    them AN EXAMPLE TO THOSE WHO WOULD LIVE UNGODLY THERE AFTER...the Lord
    knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to KEEP THE
    UNRIGHTEOUS UNDER PUNISHMENT FOR THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT...suffering wrong
    as THE WAGES FOR doing wrong". 
    If words mean anything, Peter is clearly warning his readers of
    judgement yet to come. And if there is a judgement to come, not ALL
    punishment is ended in Christ for the ungodly. This, coupled with Paul's
    comments makes CP a reasonable (dare I say it) merited punishment for
    certain crimes, sanctioned by God for modern society. 
    
    Till later,
    
    Lisa.
    

re Note 271.26 by USRCV1::FERGUSONL:

>     must also aknowledge that these sentiments appear to run contrary to
>     the uniform testimony of the scriptures.
>     If your assertion were accurate, then the N.T. would be devoid of any
>     references to future punishment(s) yet to be meted out by God or man as
>     "giving offenders what they deserve". But not only are these references
>     numerous, they are abundant. 

        But is that REALLY the testimony of Scripture?

        For one thing, a prediction that evil will come to evil is,
        in itself, in no way a statement that Christ's sacrifice is
        insufficient to pay all debt incurred by that evil.  There
        very well may be other reasons why evil comes to evil besides
        "God's justice demands it"!

        Secondly, I suspect that you will find, in almost every
        case, that the evil befalls those who do not choose to be
        covered by Christ's sacrifice.

        (You are responding to me as if I was claiming "universal
        salvation" -- I am not.  But I am claiming that if even the
        worst offender come to Christ, then we dare not execute them
        claiming that "God demands this person pay for his evil with
        death". That is a false claim that denies Christ.  In our
        secular society we must not impose a religious test such as
        this, so we must not have any death penalty lest we deny
        Christ.)

>     And most interestingly these references
>     are not relegated to the apostolic epistles only, they are very
>     frequently to be found in Jesus' words. I would especially direct your
>     attention to Matt. 7:21-23, 10:14,15 and 13:40-42, all of which were
>     found on a very quick perusal, and all of which undeniably demonstrate
>     the reality of future judgements in the eschatological economy of God.
  
        Most interestingly, and most telling, NONE of these apply to
        those who rely on the work of Jesus -- none of them!
          

>     and thus tempered his response is a hyper-dispensationalist argument
>     and extremely thin at best.
  
        Hey, you got me beat with that word "hyper-dispensationalist"
        -- I haven't the foggiest notion what you're getting at.  All
        I meant was that the thief would clearly have been coming
        from an old-testament understanding of righteousness, and not
        a new-testament, and that in fact Jesus had not yet at that
        point paid the price for all our sin.

          
>     Again, I find myself compelled to side with the apostle Paul on this
>     issue as he defined it in Romans 13:1-5. 

        One CANNOT accept Romans 13:1-5 without qualification unless
        one accepts the full legitimacy of the actions of Hitler's
        government and, more recently, Saddam Hussein's.  I don't,
        and I can't.  Even the most conservative fundamentalists
        qualify "subjection to governmental authority" with "unless
        it violates God's will."

>     And if there is a judgement to come, not ALL
>     punishment is ended in Christ for the ungodly. 

        Again -- this was not my argument.  My argument was that
        accepting Christ's sacrifice covers any demand of
        righteousness for that punishment -- which doesn't mean that
        no evil happens as a result of evil, but only that we mustn't
        claim, because God renounces the claim, that God demands
        punishment nevertheless.

        For the "saved", all punishment for righteousness' sake IS
        ended.

>     This, coupled with Paul's
>     comments makes CP a reasonable (dare I say it) merited punishment for
>     certain crimes, sanctioned by God for modern society. 
    
        No it isn't -- not at least in any modern society I know of. 
        We have no provision, nor can there be any provision in a
        secular state, for acknowledging in the case of a "saved"
        "offender", that Jesus took all punishment demanded by
        righteousness upon himself.  By demanding or allowing a
        state acting in your name to execute certain criminals
        without regard to whether they personally need to pay the
        price demanded by righteousness, you are denying Jesus.

        The new testament does not advocate or even condone capital
        punishment.  It certainly doesn't REQUIRE it!

        Lisa, you and I have been having a two-person exchange here
        for quite a while.  I will refrain from further replies
        unless and until some third persons enter the discussion.

        Bob

Bob,

I'll throw in a quick comment.  As I peruse what you said (I no longer
read notes much less reply to them :-) ), I am struck that you
believe that because Christ has paid the ultimate price for our
salvation, you seem to be arguing that we are no longer responsible
for the consequences of our actions here on earth.  I strongly
disagree with this and believe that this is contrary to the
teaching of the Bible (although I have no time to refute it here).

Punishment by society for the good of all (and submission to this
punishment) is a constant in Scripture both in the Old and New Testaments.
We are no longer under condemnation by God for our sins; however we
are still responsible for the consequences and can appropriately be
punished for our wicked actions.  Indeed, this is part of the way
(an ESSENTIAL part) that righteousness is learned!

Collis

re Note 271.28 by OVER::JACKSON:

> I am struck that you
> believe that because Christ has paid the ultimate price for our
> salvation, 

        Actually, Christ has paid the ultimate price for our
        transgressions, our wickedness, our crimes.  The result is
        salvation, i.e., God regards us as if we had no price to pay
        for any transgressions, wickedness, or crimes.


> you seem to be arguing that we are no longer responsible
> for the consequences of our actions here on earth.  I strongly
> disagree with this 

        You should strongly disagree with this, as this was not what
        I was saying, and I took pains to say that!

        Let me illustrate:

        Suppose you foolishly agree to take a ride with a drunken
        driver after a party.  Such an action could result in your
        death.  Suppose it does -- does death constitute the just
        demand of righteousness for the (admittedly foolish) act of
        taking the ride?  In no way, but it is a consequence
        nevertheless.

        Should society decree that taking a ride with a drunken
        driver is a capital offense -- obviously its consequence is
        often death?  Of course not!  It would not be just to do so.


> Punishment by society for the good of all (and submission to this
> punishment) is a constant in Scripture both in the Old and New Testaments.

        No argument here -- and I gave no such argument above.  The
        argument I gave was that we could no longer say that God's
        righteousness demanded a particular penalty, in this case,
        death.


> We are no longer under condemnation by God for our sins; however we
> are still responsible for the consequences and can appropriately be
> punished for our wicked actions.    Indeed, this is part of the way
> (an ESSENTIAL part) that righteousness is learned!

        Our righteousness is ONLY established by the saving act of
        Jesus.  You cannot effectively teach that, while at the same
        time claiming that killing criminals teaches righteousness!
        Don't teach a lie!

        We kill others for their sins because Jesus died for our
        sins?  Hogwash!  Heresy!

        But it is very convenient.

        Bob

Re:  271.29

     >> We are no longer under condemnation by God for our sins; however we
     >> are still responsible for the consequences and can appropriately be
     >> punished for our wicked actions.    Indeed, this is part of the way
     >> (an ESSENTIAL part) that righteousness is learned!

  >Our righteousness is ONLY established by the saving act of
  >Jesus.  You cannot effectively teach that, while at the same
  >time claiming that killing criminals teaches righteousness!
  >Don't teach a lie!

I stand corrected.  It is not righteousness that is learned, but
rather sanctification that is accomplished.  I was using the term
righteousness in a very loose sense and not in a theological sense.

  >We kill others for their sins because Jesus died for our
  >sins?  Hogwash!  Heresy!

No, the punishment on earth of some is a response (or should be a
response) to their actions.  Bob, where do you draw the line in
associating punishment with actions?  Obviously capital punishment.
But what about other punishment.  I believe that the principle you
are espousing if led to its logical conclusion would always deny that
punishment is appropriate.  If not, what am I not understanding?

Collis

re Note 271.30 by OVER::JACKSON:

> Bob, where do you draw the line in
> associating punishment with actions?  Obviously capital punishment.
> But what about other punishment.  I believe that the principle you
> are espousing if led to its logical conclusion would always deny that
> punishment is appropriate.  If not, what am I not understanding?

        Collis,

        I said, over and over and over again in my exchanges with
        Lisa, that there are plenty of other possible reasons for
        punishments -- deterrence, separation of dangerous individuals
        from society, rehabilitation (including conversion),
        restitution.  None of these, except perhaps in really extreme
        examples, require capital punishment.  Some of them are
        PREVENTED by capital punishment.

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    I understand Collis' confusion over your exact point because it still
    mystifies me as well. In your last note you said:
    >I said, over and over and over again in my exchanges with Lisa, that
    >there are plenty of other possible reasons for punishments -- deter-
    >rence, separation of dangerous individuals from society,
    >rehabilitation  (including conversion), restitution. None of these,
    >except perhaps in really extreme examples, require capital punishment.
    >Some of them are PREVENTED by capital punishment.
    
    But in note 271.23 you said:
    >No -- it argues against ANY APPLICATION OF THE LAW, and specifically
    >penalties, as an attempt to deal merited punishment to the offender.
    >Jesus has taken the merited punishment for all -- there cannot be any
    >"left over" merited punishment which he didn't take upon himself.
    >I am not simply saying that the function of the law regarding
    >salvation is over (although that is true too),rather it is the
    >function of the law in giving offenders "what they deserve" that is 
    >ALSO over.    (Emphasis in the first line mine)
    
    Pardon me if it seems as though these two statements are contradictory,
    but I fail to see any way in which to reconcile them. 
    
    If no punishment is what anyone deserves, then any punishment
    whatsoever is undeserved and consequently unjust. Therefore your
    reasoning leaves no place for the law to function period.
    
    However, on to other things. The position I believe is the most
    Biblical, and which therefore holds the greatest authority over the
    formulation of the "Christian" opinion, is that laid out in Paul's
    letter to the church at Rome, Chap.13, vss.1-7.
    
    >Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is
    >no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are
    >appointed by God.
    
      Concerning your comment that this is modified when governments
    operate contrary to the will of God is answered by two things.
    1-We are permitted civil disobedience (really the subject for
    another conference), on Biblical grounds in only two circumstances.
     A-When man requires by law that which God expressly forbids.
     B-When man forbids by law that which God expressly commands.
    
    2-In the case of CP, it cannot be demonstrated that either of the above
    conditions exist. In fact, two examples prove the case for this stance.
    
     a-Jesus' response to Pilot, that Pilot could have no power to execute
    Christ "unless it had been given you from above." 
    
     b-Paul's response to Festus in Acts 25, where he says, "Or if I have
    committed anything worthy of death, I do not object to dying;".
    His appeal is NOT, "Christ has paid for all my crimes so I refuse to be
    judged by earthly courts", but rather, "I stand at Caesar's judgement
    seat", while dealing with offences of which he was accused.
    
    >Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God,
    >and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 
    >For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil...
    >For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be
    >afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's
    >minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
    
    Note: There is no differentiation in the above passage making the
    Christian in any way exempt from applying this to himself.
    
    And secondly; bearing the sword is an incontrovertable reference to the
    governments relegated power to execute criminals as an "avenger to
    execute wrath on him who practices evil"  If this isn't merited
    punishment, then words have no meaning at all.
    
    
    Well, that's all for now,
    
    
    Lisa
    
    

        See Note 6.337 by Coretta Scott King and Andrei Sakharov.

    In June, 1973, Marietta Jaegar's daughter was kidnaped, abused, and
    murdered during a camping trip in Montana.  Marietta Jaegar is a
    Christian.  An interview with her appears in the Nov.-Dec. 1991 issue
    of _The_Other_Side_.  Here is an excerpt:

    WHY DO YOU OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY?

    The death penalty was in effect when Susie's life was taken.  It did
    not deter David from killing Susie or any of the other children he
    killed.

    As the mother of a victim, I can tell you that no number of retaliatory
    deaths will compensate me for the loss of my daughter.  Her value to me
    is inestimable; it cannot be offset by the death of any other person. 
    I have met hundreds of people who have lost loved ones to violence, and
    I see the deleterious effects of unforgiveness.  Legislating the animal
    desire for revenge that I see in these people would have the same
    effects on society.

    Susie's life was a gift of beauty and sweetness and goodness.  I would
    violate and even profane that gift by condoning the killing of someone
    in her name.  I honor her life and memorialize her far better by
    insisting that all life is sacred and worthy of preservation.

    If you believe God is a killer, you will doubtless favor the death
    penalty. Of course most christians believe God gave immortality to us
    so He could perpetually torture the disobedient. If a judge sentenced
    someone to 50 years for stealing a nickel we would unanimously declare
    him to be unjustly cruel. There is no need to judge God by a different
    standard. God's law is in harmony with His character. He who told us
    not to kill doesn't reserve to Himself that privilege. Death is a natural
     result of disobedience to God's Laws. God sustains sinners, giving them a
     chance to repent, by preventing what would be the instantaneous result of
     sin. Ananias and Sapphira weren't killed by God, but by their own sin
    against the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this appears to be merely semantic
    distinction, but I believe that it is crucial to a correct
    understanding of the character of God.
    	 God takes responsibility for what He allows. He takes people where
    they are and works to bring them into a closer understanding of Him. In
    the Jewish economy, capitol punishment was allowed as the lesser evil. 
    Imagine for a moment a preacher who is a vegetarian, who raises his son
    to treat animals with kindness. The surrounding influences are of a
    different character and the son becomes interested in going hunting
    with his friends. The father tries to disuade him,  but the son
    finally purchases a gun and announces his intention to go hunting. The
    father realizes that it is too late to prevent his son from going
    against his wishes and changes his tactics. He takes his son out and
    shows him how to use the gun properly, even where to aim to cause the
    least suffering. Has the father changed his principles? no.
    	 God told the Israelites that He would fight for them and would
    drive out their enemies before them. When the Egyptians approached they
    were completely defenseless, depending upon God. In their next
    encounter( with the Amalekites) they suddenly have weapons. Even though
    God has said He will fight for them, they don't get it. Apparently they
    have stripped weapons from the dead egyptians along the shore and are
    now armed. God doesn't reject them for their faithlessness but works
    with them where they are.
    	Jesus said "If you have seen me you have seen the Father". Can you
    imagine Jesus imposing capitol punishment? He said to his enemies "Your
    house is left unto you desolate" In spite of Satan's effort to sustain
    the rebels, 40 years later, the temple was totally destoryed.
    	As Christians we are faced with a dilemma in dealing with the
    requirements of law. As members of a heavenly kingdom we live under
    higher principles, but the conflicting conditions of the secular
    kingdoms make it difficult. Are we to waste precious resources
    sustaining the vilest criminals in jail while innocent children go
    without the basics for life? In other words should we spend $20-50,000
    a year to house a person who can't ever safely be let out for the rest
    of his life? While a christian would extend mrcy to the criminal as he
    realizes that in God's eyes he is deserving of the same fate, should he
    continue to waste time and resources on individuals who will only
    squander them? Some will become repentent when they realize that they
    can't escape their penalty. If facing death does'nt lead a person to
    make things right between themselves and God will life in prison be any
    better?
    	Perhaps a solution might be adapted from the old testament
    principle of the cities of refuge. If we removed the protection of the
    law from those convicted of capitol crimes, tattooing their status on
    their faces, they would beg for the protection of prison. Imagine Ted
    Bundy being turned out with Ted bundy, serial killer tattooed on his
    cheeks.
    
    
    john
    
    john 

Re:  271.35

  >If a judge sentenced someone to 50 years for stealing a nickel we 
  >would unanimously declare him to be unjustly cruel. There is no need 
  >to judge God by a different standard. 

We should *not* judge God by our standards.  (Actually, we should not
judge God at all.)  But, if God is going to be judged, He should be
judged by His own standards.

  >God's law is in harmony with His character. He who told us not to kill 
  >doesn't reserve to Himself that privilege. 

Are you claiming that God said that nothing should ever kill anything?

Are you claiming that God said no one should ever kill anything?

Are you claiming that God said no one should ever kill anyone else?

If so, please cite how this understanding is reached.  If it is
reached by the text of Exodus 20, let it be known that a better
interpretation than "You shall not kill" is "You shall not
unjustifiably kill another person."

  >Death is a natural result of disobedience to God's Laws. 

Please define "natural".  If by this you mean "God decreed",
I agree.  If you mean simply that it occurs without God's express
will, we are in violent disagreement.  There is NOTHING "natural"
which God does not have control over.  God created nature and
"natural" law.  Without God, there is no natural law.

  >Ananias and Sapphira weren't killed by God...

Yes they were!

  >...but by their own sin against the Holy Spirit.  

Agreed.

  >Perhaps this appears to be merely semantic distinction, but I believe 
  >that it is crucial to a correct understanding of the character of God.

God *clearly* intervened into not only this situation, but hundreds
of others well documented situations.  You are quite correct in saying
that death is the result of sin.  Who decried that death is the 
consequence of sin?  God.  Who enforces it?  God.  It appears we agree
that God requi

  >In the Jewish economy, capitol punishment was allowed as the lesser evil. 

Please justify this.  On the other side, God had clearly set up procedures
that *required* capital punishment.  How do you draw an inference from
God's actions that He was opposed to capital punishment when He Himself
mandated it - and criticized his people for NOT obeying the laws that
required it?

  >Has the father changed his principles? 

Has the father mandated the killing?  The analogy fails.

  >Jesus said "If you have seen me you have seen the Father". Can you
  >imagine Jesus imposing capitol punishment? 

Yes.  Since the Bible talks in Matthew, Luke, John, Revelation, Daniel
and probably a few other books about Jesus not only condoning capital
punishment but enforcing it as well, it's hard to understand who Jesus 
is without seeing, as one of the pictures, Jesus holding a winnowing
fork.  Some refuse to believe that Jesus is like this.  I prefer to
take Jesus at His Word.

Collis

    I read the other day that Massachusetts Governor Weld, who wants to
    reinstate capital punishment, wants to give convicts the choice of
    execution by either lethal injection or the firing squad.  Perhaps this
    is intended to be an exercise in compassion, by giving those who Weld
    seeks to eradicate a choice in how they will be slain.  :-(

    Given the very real possibility that Weld will succeed in this whole
    bloody endeavor, the question arises as to how Christians and other
    people of conscience can work to oppose this effort.  I see in the
    latest bulletin of the Worcester Friends Meeting that the Massachusetts
    Friends on Public Policy is involved in this issue.  The Worcester
    meeting will be approving a letter to be sent to the MFPP, and to be
    sent to the local newspaper.  I am sure that there are other
    organizations involved in this issue as well (Amnesty International
    comes to mind).  

    -- Mike

          "Dismembering Death: The psychic numbing on Death Row"
                            by Colman McCarthy
           from the November-December issue of _The_Other_Side_

    Some Californians are disappointed.  Earlier this year, they were to
    have packed the spectators' room at San Quentin State Prison's gas
    chamber for the execution of Robert Alton Harris.  But the murderer or
    two teenagers won a stay, denying California's twelve-member execution
    team its first performance since 1967.  Fifty onlookers had signed up. 
    Scads more wanted to be there, but a fire marshal said they'd be a
    safety hazard.

    Harris's execution engaged national attention because California is a
    state with no lynch-mob heritage.  Most of the nation's 121 killings
    since 1976 have occurred in Dixie.  San Quentin's gas chamber hasn't
    been used since 1967 when a man was put to death yelling at the top of
    his voice that he was Jesus Christ.  But in the 1980s, when prospects
    for executions brightened, the warden said anyone wishing to watch
    should phone the prison and get on the list.  Death voyeurs flooded the
    switchboard.

    With 273 people on California's death row--the nation's third
    largest--the next San Quentin execution is expected to commence a
    killing spree.  Should traffic get heavy, San Quentin is ready.  It can
    put away two people at one sitting, in Chair A and Chair B.

    Much of the world is going the other way.  Earlier this year, South
    Africa suspended the death penalty.  Romania's new government said no,
    as did Haiti's in 1987, West Germany's in 1949, and Britain's in 1973. 
    In 1984, Argentina, Cyprus, and El Salvador stopped officially
    executing its citizens.  France abolished it in 1981--after being asked
    to sell one of its guillotines to a Texas millionaire for his game
    room. 

    But in the United States, politicians border on the ghoulish in their
    pro-death fervor.  Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox, boasting of
    supervising thirty lethal injections, ran for governor in the
    Democratic primary runoff on a slogan affirming that he was "Texas
    Tough."  In California, Diane Feinstein revived her gubernatorial hopes
    by hyping herself as pro-death penalty.

    While careerist politicians move in for the kill, prison guards who
    dispatch the condemned have a decidely lessened lust for legalized
    death.  James Park, a former assistant warden at San Quentin, a witness
    at the 1967 execution, and now a death-penalty opponent, spoke of his
    work in the book, "A Punishment in Search of a Crime".

    A mental curtain, he says, is put up to hide the implications of
    executions: "How task-oriented you become!  I wasn't concerned with
    taking [a person's] life.  I was concerned with, 'Was that phone on the
    wall going to ring?  Was I going to have to answer some judge's or
    governor's question?'  I was totally focused on the task--not on the
    fact that a man was being killed."

    Prison execution teams are rigorously trained to perform one task, and
    one task only.  In the rite of death, they resemble priests in a
    liturgy.  In "Death Work: A Study of the Modern Execution Process",
    Robert Johnson, a professor at American University, spent time on a
    Southern death row getting to know the guards.  He discovered a
    division of labor at execution time that allows each guard not to see
    himself as a hired killer but "a specialist" in one task.  "My
    assignment is the leg piece, right leg," one guard said of his duties. 
    "I've got all the moves down pat.  We train from different posts.  I
    can do any of them.  But that's my main post."

    Another guard is assigned the left arm: "I strap his arms, and another
    man straps his legs, and another one puts his head in the cap.  But my
    job is strapping his left arm in.  I was trained in those straps.  The
    way those straps is on the chair, see, I have to know, you know,
    exactly where each thing is."

    Johnson reports that efficiency is enhanced by execution rehearsals,
    with guards taking turns in the chair: "Team members [are] case as
    recalcitrant surrogate prisoners, or 'dummies,' so that the team can
    anticipate problems an practice the restrained use of force."

    Clockwork, not guesswork, is the goal.  At this prison, Johnson writes,
    "Executions take place with increasing efficiency.  'The first one was
    grisly,' a team member told me.  He explained that a certain amount of
    fumbling made the execution seem interminable.  There were technical
    problems as well:  the generator was set so high that the body was
    mutilated.  The execution chamber stank of burnt flesh, described as
    having a greasy odor reminiscent of fatty pork.  Air fresheners were
    subsequently installed throughout the death house."

    Should the courts do to Harris what the majority of Californians
    want--to kill him--no gash chamber snafus are expected.  The twelve
    executioners have been practicing since 1985.

Article 1696 of misc.activism.progressive:
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
From: harelb@mssun7.msi.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: ALERT: Pending Executions
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 06:50:01 GMT

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 30        Execution Alert 11/25/91 
abolition       execution.aler   8:59 am  Nov 25, 1991 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty 
                    For more information, contact: Pamela Rutter, NCADP 
                   1325 G St. NW LL-B, Washington DC 20005 (202)347-2411 

Peacenet Access Code--ABOLITION//Non-Business Hours Alert Answering
Machine 202-347-2415 Partial Funding for the Alert Network is provided
by the J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation, the A.J. Muste Memorial
Institute, the Boehm Foundation and the Unitarian Universalist
Foundation.

ALERT 91-6                        UPDATE: November 25, 1991 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
**EXECUTION ALERT**EXECUTION ALERT**EXECUTION ALERT**EXECUTION ALERT** 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OKLAHOMA                        6 DECEMBER 1991               LETHAL INJECTION 
ROBYN LEROY PARKS, (Black), age 37 has been on death row since October 1978.  

He was convicted of the murder of a gas station attendant.  The
Oklahoma Parole Board has set a hearing date of December 2, 1991.  The
Parole Board has not heard a clemency petition for a death row
prisoner since 1966.  TAKE ACTION, CONTACT:

Gov. David Walters OK
Pardon & Parole Board
State Capitol                  4040 N Lincoln Blvd. Ste 219 
Oklahoma City OK          Oklahoma City OK 73105 
73105                          (405) 427-8601 
(405) 521-2342          FAX (405) 427-6648 
FAX (405) 521-3353 

OK Pardon Board: Ms. Jari Askins, Chair, PO Box 391, Duncan  OK 73534 

Mr. Marzee Douglass, Vice-Chair, PO Box 2297, Ardmore OK 73402 
Ms. Carolyn Crump, PO Box 50043, Tulsa OK 74150-0043 
Mr. Farrell Hatch, PO Box 1099, Durant OK  74702 
Mr. Carl Hamm, PO Box 122, Perry  OK 73077                 

################################################################## 

TEXAS                          26 NOVEMBER, 1991            LETHAL INJECTION 

JUSTIN LEE MAY, (white), age 44, was convicted of rhe murder of a
white female during a robbery in 1978.  New evidence submitted in the
clemency petition suggests May might not be guilty of the crime.  May
suffers from brain damage and mental impairments stemming from
physical abuse suffered as a child.

TAKE ACTION, CONTACT:        Texas Board of Pardons & Parole 
                                8610 Shoal Creek Blvd. 
                                P.O. Box 13401, Capitol Station 
                                Austin, TX 78711 
                                512-459-2782 

##################################################################

ARIZONA                        3 JANUARY 1992                  GAS
CHAMBER

DONALD EUGENE HARDING, (White), age 42 has been on death row since
January 1982.  He was convicted of the robbery/kidnapping/murder of
two white males.  Harding represented himself at trial at his public
defender's advice, no mitigation was introduced.  Harding suffers from
organic brain damage.(AZ has judge sentencing only) Arizona has not
had an execution since March 1963.  TAKE ACTION, CONTACT: Gov. Fife
Symington
                                1700 W. Washington  
                                Phoenix  AZ 85007 
                                (602) 542-4331 

##################################################################


VIRGINIA                      23 JANUARY 1992                   ELECTROCUTION 
HERBERT R. BASSETTE, (Black), age 46 has been on death row since November 1980.  

He was convicted of the robbery/murder of a black 16-year-old male gas
station attendant.  There is no physical evidence that links Bassette
to this murder.  The 3 co-defendants who charge that Bassette was the
triggerman received suspended sentences or no sentence.  Bassette did
have witnesses that testified he was with them at the time of the
murder.  TAKE ACTION, CONTACT: Gov. Doug Wilder
                                State Capitol                  (804) 786-2211 
                                Richmond  VA  23219        FAX (804) 786-3985 
  
====================================================================== 
UPDATES-        James Russell, Texas, was executed September 19, 1991. 
                Warren McCleskey, Georgia, was executed September 25, 1991. 
                Michael Van McDougall, North Carolina, was executed
				October 18 1991. 
                
		G.W. Green, Texas, was executed November 12, 1991.
                Leo Alexander Jones, Florida, received an indefinite
                stay from the Florida Supreme Court Robert Wayne
                Sawyer, Louisiana, received a stay from the U.S.
                Supreme Court.
====================================================================== 

There have been 157 executions in the United States since the
reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976.

##################################################################
National Execution Alert Network 
c/o NCADP 
1325 G St. NW LL-B 
Washington DC 20005 
##################################################################
abolition@igc.org

    The following item appeared in today's Boston Globe:

        An ecumenical coalition has begun gathering signatures on a
        petition opposing Gov. Weld's proposal to reinstate the death
        penalty.  The Strategy and Action Committee of the Massachusetts
        Council of Churches and the Ecumenical Task Force Against the Death
        Penalty said last week they will circulate the petition in
        Massachusetts churches and present the results to legislators early
        in their 1992 session.

    RE: .40 I trust that people with the traditional liberal view
    of religious involvement will protest this "intrusion" on the
    separation of church and state. Certainly any group or person
    who protested church protests of abortion will similarly protest
    this. Or lose all pretense of logical consistency.

    		Alfred

    Alfred, I have never been opposed to opposed people of faith being
    involved in political issues.  On the contrary, I am a strong believer
    that religion and moral conviction are irrevocably tied to politics,
    and that politics is an inherently value-laden enterprise.  You have
    presumably identified me as a "liberal", and then stereotyped me
    according to your notion of what you think liberals "must" believe.  I
    would appreciate it if you refrained from making prejudgments about
    what I do and do not believe.
    
    -- Mike

    Would these same people oppose God for making us subject to death?
    

I expect that they would simply desire to limit capital
punishment to God's own and take it out of the hand of
sinful men.  Certainly it would be nice if humans didn't
have to address these issues.  But we do, and God has
indicated with painful regularity that there are times
when capital punishment by humans is appropriate.  Whether
that is true in this day and age by this society is
another question.

Collis

    I am reminded of the lyrics from a song by the Smiths, in which a
    killer justifies his crime by saying that the victim was old and
    would have died anyway.  I guess that is one way of looking at it--we
    all die eventually, so what's wrong with killing people whenever we
    want to?

    In any case, I am glad to know that Christians and other people of
    conscience are taking an active role in opposing capital punishment in
    Massachusetts.  It remains to be seen if they will be successful or
    not.

    -- Mike

    RE: .42 I just asked I did not accuse you. And that was in the
    title. The body of the note asked a general to the world sort of
    question. Hopefully the people in here who were against groups
    opposed to abortion will answer for themselves.

    	~	Alfred

| I expect that they would simply desire to limit capital
| punishment to God's own and take it out of the hand of
| sinful men.  Certainly it would be nice if humans didn't
| have to address these issues.  But we do, and God has
| indicated with painful regularity that there are times
| when capital punishment by humans is appropriate.  

	Collis, would this then support the part of Scripture that cites how if
someone sins with their eye, it is better to throw it away than to end up in
hell, and the same happening with the hand? (I wish I remembered the exact part
of Scripture)




Glen

Glen,

I prefer not to get very involved in your misunderstandings
of Scripture.  Not that this misunderstanding deals with
"Christianity and Capital Punishment".  I doubt that me
giving you an answer to this question (which you have
asked regularly over the past year and have had answered
regularly over the past year) will be fruitful for either
of us.

In obvious frustration,

Collis

Re: .44

> But we do, and God has
> indicated with painful regularity that there are times
> when capital punishment by humans is appropriate.  

If you're counting the sins worthy of being put to death as listed in the OT,
I'm certain some of us (like me) wouldn't be here now.  I have been married
twice.  To my present knowledge, my first wife is still alive.  Leviticus
20:10 would mandate my death and the death of my present wife.

Fortunately, God in Christ put a whole new spin on the Law and the way we
treat people.

Peace,
Richard

    Alfred,
    
    I agree with Mike that religious people are compelled to witness to
    their beliefs in the social and political arena.
    
    I believe that those who protest abortion on the basis of their
    religious beliefs are right to do so.  I strongly object to many of
    the methods of Operation Rescue; I certainly do not object to those
    who sign petitions, pray across the street from a clinic without
    accosting patients, etc.
    
    I also object to *some* of the methods that liberal protestors use in
    various causes.  I believe I am consistent in this regard.
    
    I also believe you are inaccurate in assuming that "people with the
    traditiona liberal view of religious involvement [should] protest this
    'intrusion' on the separation of church and state."  This, in my
    opinion, does not reflect what liberals are about at all.
    
    Liberal Christians have long been involved in all kinds of social and
    political protests!!  While I abohor much about the anti-abortion
    movement, I have always had to note that many of their tactics
    originated (in my lifetime, though perhaps not in history) with
    the work of Christian liberals in the 60's.
    
    Nancy

Article: 1949
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.news.law,clari.news.religion
Subject: Bishops want stay of execution for man who killed nun
Date: 4 Jan 92 03:06:55 GMT
 
 
	SAN ANGELO, Texas (UPI) -- A group of Roman Catholic bishops Friday
called for a stay of execution for Johnny Frank Garrett, who is set to
die by lethal injection Tuesday for the 1981 killing of an Amarillo nun.
	``While we abhor the brutal murder of Sister Tadea, we continue to be
opposed to the death penalty,'' Region Ten Bishops said in a statement
issued from a retreat.
	Garrett has been sentenced to die for the slaying of Sister Tadea
Benz, a Franciscian nun, in Amarillo on Oct. 31, 1981. He was 17 at the
time of the murder.
	The bishops asked the courts to consider that Garrett was not only a
juvenile when the crime was committed, but had suffered brain damage,
was abused as a child and was a drug addict. They also said Garrett has
now been diagnosed as chronically psychotic.
	``Our concern is raised to a new level in this case because, if
executed, Garrett will be the third individual suffering the death
penalty in Texas for a crime committed while a juvenile,'' the statement
said.
	The bishops asked federal Judge Mary Lou Robinson of Amarillo to
grant Garrett a new trial so evidence of Garrett's brain damage, abuse
and drug addiction could be used in his defense. Such evidence was not
admitted in previous court proceedings.
	They also appealed to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to
commute Garrett's death sentence to life imprisonment without parole. In
addition, the bishops said they are seeking support from Gov. Ann
Richards.
	``We, as religious leaders, are gravely concerned about the increase
of violence in our state,'' the bishops said. ``Violence seems to
(beget) more violence. At the same time, there is no compelling evidence
that the death penalty is deterring murder in Texas or anywhere.''
	Region Ten of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops includes
Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma.
	Amnesty International also issued a statement Friday decrying the
planned execution of Garrett and said the United States is one of seven
countries worldwide known to have executed juvenile offenders in the
last decade.

Article: 1966
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.news.law,clari.news.religion,clari.news.law.crime.sex
Subject: Nun's slayer, reprieved by governor, gets new execution date
Date: 9 Jan 92 22:00:25 GMT
 
 
	AMARILLO, Texas (UPI) -- State District Judge Sam Kiser Thursday set a
Feb. 11 execution date for death-row inmate Johnny Frank Garrett, who
was granted a 30-day reprieve by Gov. Ann Richards earlier this week.
	Garrett was moved from a Huntsville prison to the Potter County Jail
in Amarillo Wednesday so he could be in court for the new sentencing
date.
	He was to have been put to death by injection early Tuesday, but
Richards granted him a reprieve less than three hours before he was to
be executed.
	Garrett faces the death sentence for the rape and slaying of Sister
Tadea Benz, 76, at the St. Francis Convent in Amarillo on Halloween
1981.
	Pope John Paul II and bishops across Texas had asked Richards to halt
the exeuction and commute the sentence. Amnesty International also has
asked that Garrett's sentence be commuted to life in prison.
	Under state law, the governor can only commute a sentence based upon
the recommendation of the parole board. Richards was the first Texas
governor to block an execution since Gov. John Connally halted an
electrocution in the 1960s.
	Defense attoney Warren Clark said he will ask the Supreme Court to
review Garrett's case to determine whether the prisoner is insane and
therefore ineligible for the death penalty.
	Clark also plans to will ask the Board of Pardons and Parole to
recommend a commutation to a sentence of life in prison.
	At the time of the crime, Garrett was 17 years old. Clark said
Garrett was a victim of child abuse and has brain damage, so that
imposing the death penalty on him would be cruel and unusual punishment,
Clark argued.
	Assistant Attorney General Bill Zapalac said if the Supreme Court
agrees to review the insanity issue, the execution would be postponed,
possibly for a year.

Note 23.48

>I always thought it rather ironic that Paul so eloquently justified his own
>execution!

This is not the first time I've mentioned this. (See Note 151.6)

I've noticed that in each instance the remark has met with silence.  I might
interpret the silence as unspoken agreement.  But what concerns me is the
possibility that either:

	a. nobody understands the observation
	
			or

	b. nobody attaches any real importance to the observation.

Peace,
Richard

Article 4301 of misc.activism.progressive:
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
From: Greg Wilson <FEARNLCJ%DUVM.bitnet@UMCVMB.missouri.edu>
Subject:      Death Penalty: Warren McClesky (II)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 19:10:01 GMT

----------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted with permission from Sojourners, Box 29272, Washington,
DC, 20017. January 1992.

Sojourners is a network of faith and action that is committed to
keeping faith, doing justice, and building community.  It
publishes a magazine of the same name that contains articles on
faith, politics, and culture.  Membership, including the magazine
subscription, is $30/yr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

A Gift of Dignity:
The story of Warren McCleskey
by Joyce Hollyday

     He found Jesus in a Georgia jail. His death-row friend,
Billy Neal Moore, first opened up the good news of the gospel to
him. And from then on, he was known as a peacemaker. He
intervened when arguments heated toward violence, and he was the
one everybody came to when they needed a calming word. Even the
prison staff were grateful to him, because they knew their own
lives were a lot safer because of the way Warren McCleskey lived.
     "His faith meant everything in life," says Murphy Davis,
Georgia director of the Southern Prison Ministry and a member of
the Open Door Community in Atlanta, who knew McCleskey for 10
years while he was on death row. "He came out of a life in chaos
and ordered everything around his commitment to faith."
     That chaos included a mother who sold bootleg corn liquor to
help support her seven children, and an abusing stepfather who
operated an illegal gambling casino in their home in the "Skid
Row" area of Marietta, Georgia. In 1963--a year before Warren
graduated from high school--his mother shot his stepfather; the
killing was ruled an act of self-defense.
     Fifteen years later, on the morning of May 13, 1978, Warren
McCleskey, Ben Wright Jr., Bernard Dupree, and David Burney
robbed the Dixie Furniture Store in Atlanta. Atlanta police
officer Frank Schlatt responded to a silent alarm. Evidence
suggests that two bullets from the gun of Ben Wright killed
Schlatt.
     Wright left behind a leather jacket with a laundry ticket
stapled inside one sleeve, which led to his arrest. Wright's
girlfriend told police the names of the other three men.
McCleskey and Burney both confessed to robbing the furniture
store but denied killing Schlatt.  Wright, assuming from his
arrest that the others had told on him, devised statements
against his three accomplices and told police that Warren
McCleskey was the "triggerman." Offie Evans, a prisoner in the
cell next to McCleskey in the Fulton County Jail, testified that
McCleskey had confessed to him that he killed Schlatt.
     David Burney and Bernard Dupree are serving life prison
sentences. Ben Wright was released from prison in 1987; he
committed several more crimes and was subsequently sentenced to
life plus 20 years. Warren McCleskey was sentenced to death on
October 12, 1978.
APPEALS OF McCLESKEY'S CASE in the 13 years since his sentencing
included two hearings before the U.S. Supreme Court. The first,
in 1987, came in the wake of studies showing overwhelming
evidence of racial bias in the imposition of the death penalty.
     The most well-known study, by Prof. David Baldus of the
University of Iowa Law School, concluded that a Georgia
defendant's odds of receiving a death sentence were 4.3 times
greater if his victim was white than if the victim was black.
Other studies confirmed that black defendants are more likely to
receive the death penalty than white defendants. (Officer Schlatt
was white, McCleskey black).
     The evidence of racial discrimination presented by
McCleskey's attorneys was clear; the response of the Supreme
Court justices was stunning. They accepted the evidence as valid,
but nonetheless ruled, 5 to 4, against McCleskey. Writing for the
majority, Justice Lewis Powell stated, "Apparent disparities in
sentencing are an inevitable part of our criminal justice
system."
     The second appeal to the Supreme Court, in April 1991, was
based on the revelation of new and shocking evidence in
McCleskey's case. Five days before his scheduled execution date,
while poring over prosecution documents made available to them
for the first time, McCLeskey's attorneys uncovered evidence that
the prosecution had made a deal with Offie Evans. Evans had, in
fact, been used as an informant in other cases tagged "difficult
to get a conviction." The prosecution's notes revealed that Evans
had been placed intentionally in the cell next to McCleskey's,
that he had been coached in his testimony, and that he was
offered leniency in his own case in exchange for that testimony.
     In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that McCleskey
should have raised his claim during his first habeas corpus
petition. It was too late, said the court, for justice to be
done.
     Two jurors in McCleskey's trial said unequivocally that they
would not have assented to the death penalty had they known that
Evans was an informant. Just 24 hours before the rescheduled
execution, the two appeared before the Georgia Board of Pardons
and Parole, adding their voices to the chorus pleading for the
life of Warren McCleskey. But it was all in vain. Racism and
official misconduct sent Warren McCleskey to the chair.

AT 3:13 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1991, more than the life of one man
was snuffed out. Warren McCleskey's case was seen by many as an
indicator of the times--and the times are clamoring for death.
     Those who dwell in the halls of Congress, mirroring the
harshness of the Bush administration and the right-wing swing of
the court, are elbowing one another in the race to be "tough on
crime." Defendants and the Constitution are being trampled in the
process.
     A month after Warren McCleskey's execution, the U.S. House
of Representatives put teeth into the harshness by overwhelmingly
passing an "anti-crime" bill. Among its provisions are the
addition of more than 50 crimes to the list of those punishable
by death; expansion of the use of evidence illegally seized by
police if the police acted "in good faith"; and a drastic
curtailment of rights of appeal for death-row prisoners. Most
crushing for civil rights groups was the defeat of the "Fairness
in Sentencing Act," a provision that would have allowed death-
sentence appeals on the basis of racial bias. The Senate version
of the anti-crime bill is even more severe, limiting death-
penalty defendants to a single habeas corpus petition.
     The execution of Warren McCleskey was itself a tragic parody
of a process gone awry. McCleskey was scheduled for execution at
7:00 p.m. on September 24. In the next eight hours, he was
granted several stays of execution. At one point he was strapped
into the electric chair, then released, and strapped back in
again. In the words of his attorney, Jack Boger, "His case from
beginning to end illustrates the fallibility of the death penalty
system."
     Warren McCleskey was a man who prayed every day for the
family of Officer Frank Schlatt. He and Billy Neal Moore set up
what they called a "poor fund" with the $20 and two books of
stamps that arrived each month from the Open Door Community,
modeling themselves after the early Christian community they read
about in their Bibles, making sure everyone on their cellblock
shared in their modest bonanza.
     McCleskey lived with the agonizing torture of death
pronounced and then revoked several times over the years.   "But
right up to the second he died," says Murphy Davis, "he knew that
death had no power over him. He learned to hold life lightly, to
know that his was in God's hands." He had experienced a
conversion to Jesus in his early years on death row so profound
that 13 years later he faced his death without bitterness or
agitation.
     "The gift that Warren gave all of us was his dignity and
inner peace," says Davis. "He taught me about a level of faith
that I have not seen anywhere else." Speaking of his death, she
added, "I've never gone through this simultaneous experience of a
broken heart and deep encouragement. Warren was very clear that
he didn't want to die. But he had a conviction that if he had to
die, some good would come of it--that his death would contribute
to ending the death penalty. That hope gave him a lot of
sustenance in his last days."
     Glimpses of his hope were realized in the outpouring of
anti-death penalty sentiment following his execution. In his
dissent from the first Supreme Court ruling on McCleskey's case,
then-Justice William Brennan wrote, "It is tempting to pretend
that minorities on death row share a fate in no way connected to
our own, that our treatment of them sounds no echoes beyond the
chambers in which they die....[But] the reverberations of
injustice are not so easily confined....The way in which we
choose those who will die reveals the depth of moral commitment
among the living." Those reverberations became shock waves when
Warren McCleskey was put to death.
     Among those who grieved hardest was Billy Neal Moore. But
his story has a different ending. In August 1990, a day before he
was scheduled to be electrocuted in the same chair that killed
Warren McCleskey, Moore was granted clemency. The mercy came in
large part due to the efforts of his victim's family, who
accepted his remorse, trusted his Christian conversion, and knew
that killing another man would not bring theirs back. Just six
weeks after his friend's execution, beyond anyone's wildest
hopes, Billy Neal Moore walked out of prison on November 8, 1991.
     His friend was not so lucky. But, in Warren McCleskey's own
last words, he viewed death as "just a threshold which one must
cross in order to reach over to eternal blessing." We can trust
that Warren McCleskey's soul is at rest. He found Jesus in a
Georgia jail.

Article 4300 of misc.activism.progressive:
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
From: Greg Wilson <FEARNLCJ%DUVM.bitnet@UMCVMB.missouri.edu>
Subject:      Death Penalty: Warren McClesky (I)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 19:09:54 GMT

---------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted with permission from Sojourners, Box 29272, Washington,
DC, 20017. January 1992.

Sojourners is a network of faith and action that is committed to
keeping faith, doing justice, and building community.  It
publishes a magazine of the same name that contains articles on
faith, politics, and culture.  Membership, including the magazine
subscription, is $30/yr.
---------------------------------------------------------------

The Peace that Passes Understanding

     The following is the final statement of Warren McCleskey,
offered in the moments before he was executed. Walter Zant is
warden at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, site
of Georgia's death row and electric chair.

Warren McCleskey: First of all, I would like to say to the
Schlatt family, I am deeply sorry and repentant for the
suffering, hurt, and pain that you have endured over the
years....I pray that you would find in your heart to forgive me
for the participation in crime that caused the loss of your loved
one. I realize that the words that I am sharing with you now
offer very little comfort; nevertheless, I want you to know that
I have asked God to forgive me and pray in my heart that you will
forgive me....
     Also I would like to say to all my attorneys and the defense
team, thank you for a job well done. Do not believe in your heart
that you did not give your best efforts. You are all champions;
you are all victors. I am deeply grateful for all that you have
done to try to save my life. I pray that you will continue on and
struggle to try to fight against the death penalty and injustice
which we have incurred in the recent days....
     Also, I want to say to my family--be strong, courageous, and
remember the things I share with you today. Do not hold any
bitterness toward anyone....This is my request for you, that you
be forgiving to all. And I pray that you will go on with your
lives, and that you will keep God at the center....
     And to all the fellow men and brothers whom I leave behind,
I pray that you will...not forsake the faith for what is about to
occur to me....Focus in God's Word and on God. Continue to fight
and keep your hope alive and know that this is not the end for
me. This is only the beginning to all blessed hope for eternal
life. To all my brothers, take care, I love you all.

Walter Zant: ...Are all the witnesses present?....Be advised that
the condemned is being escorted to the execution chamber; he
entered without any resistance, he sat down in the chair;
execution team members are now in the process of securing
restraint.
     [To McCleskey] Do you want to add anything to your final
statement?

McCleskey: Yes, I do. I would like to say to the Schlatt
family....I pray that they will find in their hearts to forgive
me not so much for me, but that they should be free--free of the
spiritual weight of unforgiveness that continues to hold their
lives in bondage [and] keeps destroying the happiness and peace
that they desire....
     I want to thank God for mercy, love, and grace extending to
me....

Zant: Mr. McCleskey, let me interrupt you. I have been advised
that there has been a stay entered for 15 minutes. [To execution
team] Remove him from the chair at this time. [McCleskey was
removed and then restrapped into the chair after the expiration
of the stay.] You may continue with your final statement.

McCleskey: Again, I would like to address the Schlatt family....I
pray that you will come to know the Lord Jesus Christ and receive
the peace that passes all understanding. I know that is the peace
that you are looking for, I know that is the peace you desire. I
wish that this execution could give it to you, but I know it
won't. It will give you temporary satisfaction, but...the only
peace you will forever have, that is lasting, that will never
depart, is standing in the light of God with Jesus Christ....
     I pray that one day this country, supposedly a civilized
society, would...abolish barbaric acts such as the death
penalty....

Minister: Let us pray now. Eternal and gracious God, we thank you
for the testimony of this life. We pray...that this child of
yours, this servant of yours, has prophesied his own destiny. We
come together to say amen and bid him farewell in the name of
Jesus Christ our Lord.

Zant: [Reading the court order] "Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia vs. Warren McCLeskey, the court having sentenced
the defendant Warren McCleskey on the 12th day of October 1978 to
be executed by the Department of Corrections at such penal
institution as may be designated by said Department in accordance
with the laws of Georgia--it is ordered, considered, and adjudged
by this court that within a time period, commencing at noon on
the 24th day of September 1991 and ending seven days later at
noon on the first day of October 1991, the defendant Warren
McCleskey shall be executed....

[At 3:13 a.m. on September 25, 1991, Warren McCleskey was
electrocuted.]

        We are a nation that prides itself on the barbaric use of
        lethal power in order to solve problems.

        Yet the same people who take the most pride in dealing death
        cover themselves with the "big lie" that they are "pro life."

        Come Lord, come!

        Bob

>        Yet the same people who take the most pride in dealing death
>        cover themselves with the "big lie" that they are "pro life."

	And the people who deny the unborn the choice to live or die call
	themselves "pro choice." Give me a break. There is no way I'll
	accept criticism of capital punishment from anyone who supports
	legal abortion.

			Alfred

    By the way, for people in Massachusetts, the fight is still on for
    Christians and other people of conscience to oppose Governor Weld's
    attempts at reinstating capital punishment.
    
    -- Mike

re Note 271.57 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>         There is no way I'll
> 	accept criticism of capital punishment from anyone who supports
> 	legal abortion.
  
        Alfred,

        If you will only accept criticism from those who are without
        sin, then I would guess that you just don't accept criticism,
        period.

        Bob

Article 4311 of misc.activism.progressive:
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
From: Hilary Naylor <hnaylor@igc.org>
Subject: "urge to kill" in CA - AI deplores
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 19:26:57 GMT

For immediate release
Wednesday April 22, 1992

Contact:  Lynn Nottage 212-633-4208


AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL DEPLORES "URGE TO KILL" IN CALIFORNIA

Amnesty International said today it deplored the "desperate urge to kill"
shown by the United States Supreme Court and California authorities who
yesterday rushed to send Robert Alton Harris to the gas chamber.

The execution - the first in that state in 25 years - took place yesterday
after a flurry of court actions to grant or overturn stays of execution.
In an unprecedented move, the US Supreme Court actually barred any other
federal court from stopping the e xecution.

"The determination of the state authorities to gas their prisoner to death
as soon as they possibly could, with the backing of the US Supreme Court,
ended in a sick battle against the clock," Amnesty International said.
"Everything in this case confirmed our conviction - and the convictions of
an increasing number of governments worldwide - that the death penalty is a
cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment which must be abolished."

 Amnesty International believes the death penalty contravenes the Eighth
Amendment to the American Constitution, which forbids cruel, inhuman and
unusual punishment.

* Robert Harris' death brings the total number of executions in the US this
year to 12.  By comparison, in the whole of 1991 14 people were executed in
the US.

* At the beginning of 1992 there were 2547 people on death row in the US.
1306 were white, 986 were black, 181 Hispanic, 47 native American and 27
other or not known.

* In the US, according to the government's own studies, killers of white
victims are far more likely to receive the death penalty.

* Robert Harris, like many American victims of the death penalty, suffered
from serious mental health problems.  In many cases, Amnesty International
has found that mitigating evidence such as brain damage has not even been
taken into account in capita l cases.

* The US is one of only six countries to execute juvenile offenders -
people who were under 18 when they committed the crime.  The other
countries are Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Bangladesh.  In some
states, offenders as young as 15 can be sentenc ed to death.

* The last juvenile offender to be executed in the US was Johnny Frank
Garrett, who was killed by lethal injection in Texas on 11 February 1992.

* Many countries in the Americas are abolitionist - Colombia, Costa Rica,
Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela have no
death penalty.  Venezuela has been abolitionist since 1863.  Argentina,
Brazil, El Salvador, Mexico and Peru retain the death penalty only for
exceptional crimes such as during wartime.

* So far this year, four states have resumed executions after a gap of at
least a quarter of a century: California and Wyoming after 25 years,
Arizona after 29 years and Delaware after 46 years.

* Other countries known to have carried out executions this year include
China, Cuba, Iran, India and Pakistan.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1992

>>         There is no way I'll
>> 	accept criticism of capital punishment from anyone who supports
>> 	legal abortion.
>  
>        Alfred,
>
>        If you will only accept criticism from those who are without
>        sin, then I would guess that you just don't accept criticism,
>        period.

    Bob,
    	You miss my whole point. The point is that someone who supports
    the killing of innocent unborn children for reasons of personal
    convenience and yet opposes the taking of a life proven to be be
    a treat to society and individuals has taken a position so inherently
    contradictory and hypocritical as to make their arguments valueless
    in the debate over capital punishment. It has nothing to do with sin.
    It has to do with consistency.
    
    			Alfred

    Alfred, why don't you try evaluating the issue of capital punishment on
    its own terms?  Pro-choice people who oppose capital punishment may be
    inconsistent as you claim, but that doesn't make their arguments
    concerning capital punishment invalid, and I am sure you recognize the
    fallacy in suggesting that it does.  Accusing someone of hypocrisy is
    an ad hominem argument, and ignores the actual content of the issue in
    question.

    Since you do identify yourself as pro-life, and since you value
    consistency so much and detest its absence in others, I am glad to see
    that you will be joining people of conscience in opposing the
    reimposition of the death penalty in Massachusetts.  I appreciate your
    support in fighting against this immoral action by the state.

    -- Mike

>    Since you do identify yourself as pro-life, and since you value
>    consistency so much and detest its absence in others, I am glad to see

    Actually I identify myself as "anti abortion". As for consistency I
    do support abortion to save the live of the mother as it is self
    defense. That's the same reason I support capital punishment. I see
    no inconsistency in that position. It would however seem to be
    inconsistent to support abortion to protect a mother and not support
    capital punishment to protect society and the individuals that make
    it up.

    		Alfred

    The main problem with capital punishment is not in how it relates to
    abortion, but in the fact that it is immoral and barbaric.  
    
    -- Mike

    I fine that I keep going back and forth on Capital Punishment.  When I
    read about the people that commit these awful crimes...I find that I 
    view them not as people, but rather as animals. How else could they
    commit these acts?
    
    As animals, I have no problem with having them killed. The electric
    chair seems the best...in my opinion.
    
    When I read the Bible though and listen to sermons, I find that I'm
    not so sure about killing them.
    
    Just sitting on the fence right now.
    
    Marc H.

   Capital punishment, execution,  I generally have mixed feelings with.
   one part of me recoils at the electric chair and poison gas which
   like hanging are terrible ways to die.  Lethal injection seems less
   like torture, I've been through it with animals.

   The application of capital punishment has troubled me over the years
   While I am not against it totally, I do think very restricted cases
   should permit it.  The limiting element is that the criminal must have
   made a willful choice to cause the ending someones life(s) and there
   is no question of the events.  By no question I mean witnessed, or
   taped (bank camaras and the like), where the guilt (did this person
   commit this act?) is not in question.  If there is any doubt the death
   sentence must me withheld, and the sentence of life imprisonment
   instituted.  

   Allison

Re: .63 Alfred

I'm pro-choice and against capital punishment, and I don't think my position
is inconsistent.

>    It would however seem to be
>    inconsistent to support abortion to protect a mother and not support
>    capital punishment to protect society and the individuals that make
>    it up.

If I thought that capital punishment actually did protect society and would
substantially reduce the murder rate, I'd be in favor of it.  However, the
evidence just isn't there.  The major disadvantages of capital punishment,
as I see it, are that the risk is too great of executing innocent people,
capital punishment is applied in a way that discriminates against people
based on their race, and there is too great a risk that capital punishment
will be used against political enemies of the government, not just against
people who commit violent crimes.  Today we're talking about executing "drug
kingpins".  What will it be tomorrow: abortion kingpins?  Draft resistance
kingpins?  Gay rights kingpins?

At least with prison, once new evidence is found or a new government takes
power you can release the people who were unjustly sentenced.

				-- Bob

    When people do things that we find utterly despicable, our anger
    against them is justified.  And it is certainly understandable that our
    legitimate moral outrage should translate into a characterization of
    those who do terrible things as animals.

    The reality is, though, that those who kill are not animals, as
    much as we may despise what they did; they are still human beings.  It
    becomes much more uncomfortable killing someone once you think of them
    as human.  I don't believe that anyone with a modicum of human
    compassion could help but feel touched by the articles on Robert Alton
    Harris that were posted in earlier replies to this note.  Once you hear
    the words of death row inmates, once you hear them express their
    feelings, their fears, their experiences, it suddenly doesn't become as
    easy to kill them any more.  It is probably better that we shut our
    ears against such words, lest it introduce some cognitive dissonance
    into our tidy, neat world, which we have divided into black and white
    divisions of good guys and bad guys.

    From a Christian perspective, all of us sin.  Can we really be so
    smugly confident that *we* are incapable of taking a human life?  How
    can we be so sure that, given a different set of life experiences and
    circumstances, we might not made the wrong choices?  I defy anyone to
    claim that they are so immune from doing terrible things themselves.  

    I have heard it said that once someone kills, they have defied
    society's rules and thus are entitled to no rights as human beings.
    Apparently, so the logic goes, it becomes open season on them.  I am
    surprised that this isn't used to justify judicial torture; after all,
    if the murderer has no right to complain about us killing them, then
    they have no right to complain about being tortured either.  I shudder
    to think that this kind of thinking is where our society is headed.

    The world is full of people confident of their own moral fortitude. 
    Forget about those psychological experiments where people willingly
    subjected experimental subjects to painful electric shocks even as the
    other protested loudly.  That wouldn't happen to *me*; I would have
    stopped administering those shocks as soon as someone started
    protesting.  And at My Lai, had *I* been there that day, I would have
    bravely refused to participate in the killing.  That's what we all
    would like to believe about ourselves, anyway.

    If we are not so perfect ourselves, then perhaps the reverse side of
    the coin is also true--perhaps there is that of God in even the
    lowliest death row inmate.  But who needs ambiguity and complexity when
    it is so much easier to view people in black and white terms? So we can
    then decide who we treat as human beings and who we do not.  Torture,
    execution, and all forms of cruel and unusual punishment are perfectly
    acceptable actions against people who made the wrong choices in life. 
    When a person feels pain when we torture them, that doesn't matter
    because they have forfeited the right to be treated as a human being;
    any empathy we might feel for that person is in fact *dangerous*,
    because it might inspire us to treat them as a human being, to prevent
    us from doing something  to them because we then perceived them as a
    human being.

    Unfortunately, the American justice system is replete with examples of
    people who were wrongly convicted of murder.  When Randall Adams came
    within days of execution in the state of Texas, he knew first hand what
    the death penalty means; he was one of the lucky ones, though--he was
    eventually released.  You can't give back an innocent man the years you
    took away from him, but at least you can give him what's left of his
    life when you finally determine he is innocent.  You can't do that to a
    dead man.

    In this all so important measure of how civilized a society can be, the
    United States has been taking major steps backwards in the last few
    years.  The judicial killing continues to escalate in a feeding frenzy
    of prosecutorial blood lust that only seems to get worse. 

    The Christian virtue of love for enemies means recognizing that of God
    in *every* one; it means treating them in a civilized manner, even if
    you abhor what they do.  Taking a human life out of vengeance, because
    you didn't like what they did is not an expression of love.  No one is 
    talking about not about protecting society here--that is a meaningless
    canard.  The issue is not the existence of laws on the books against
    murder, which everyone supports, but in *how* we treat someone once we
    have convicted them of murder; do we do so in a humane fashion, or do
    we succumb to the despair of violence and barbarism?  I opt for being
    humane myself.

    -- Mike

re Note 271.61 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     It has nothing to do with sin.
>     It has to do with consistency.
  
        OK -- I might accept that.

        But I think you'll find that perfectly consistent people are
        about as rare as perfectly sinless people.

        Bob

re Note 271.63 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     It would however seem to be
>     inconsistent to support abortion to protect a mother and not support
>     capital punishment to protect society and the individuals that make
>     it up.
  
        As a matter of fact I DO support society's right to use
        capital punishment in cases where society cannot be protected
        from great harm in any other way.  However, I believe that
        the number of cases of killers so vile that they will
        continue to be able to kill even in maximum security prison
        is exceedingly small. In the vast majority of cases, high
        security imprisonment is sufficient to protect society and
        even the prison personnel.

        I believe that the same day that Robert Harris' death was
        accomplished, Charles Manson's most recent request for parole
        was denied for, I believe, the eighth time.  Society is well
        equipped to protect itself from brutal killers without resort
        to becoming a killer itself.

        Bob

re: Note 271.66 by Allison "The girl in the mirror"

>                            -< troubling topic... >-

Indeed.

>              ...The limiting element is that the criminal must have
>   made a willful choice to cause the ending someones life(s) and there
>   is no question of the events.  By no question I mean witnessed, or
>   taped (bank camaras and the like), where the guilt (did this person
>   commit this act?) is not in question.  

I'm not disagreeing with this here, but pondering how the recent aqquital of 
the 4 policemen who beat Rodney King might affect this outlook.  The beating 
was on videotape, and from what I saw I would say the police were guilty.  
Yet the verdict was returned not guilty.

Fortunately Mr. King did not loose his life, however the quality of many lives
has since been affected for the worse.  (And loss of life HAS occured as a
result of the violent reaction to the verdict.) 

Yes, film and video evidence can be very powerful, but it can still be faked, 
altered, and misinterpreted, and eye witnesses can be mistaken.

Praying for the people of Los Angeles, the city of Angels...

Jim

   Jim,

   Your right.  I was trying to point out there must be no doubt with
   respect to guilt. 

   The example you picked was if anything an example of despite
   overwhelming evidence the other extreme was served.  Is a camara
   overwhelming evidence, no.  If it's supported by three dead bodies
   and 3 live witnesses, guilt is not the question, only motavation
   and the resulting penalty.

   Like I said I'm troubled by the use of death penalty, and maybe my
   own reasons for why is does fit in limited cases.

   Allison

     If capitol punishment can be justified for  murder,  it  can  also  be
     justified  for  a  host  of  other crimes since there are crimes, IMO,
     *much worse* than killing if you look at them from the victim's  point
     of view.  Any crime that leaves a psychological "wound" (less trusting
     or more fearful of  others,  for  example)  ends  up  inflicting  more
     long-term  damage  than  the victim of a killing experiences.  And the
     families and friends of the victims of these other crimes are hurt  as
     well.

     Fortunately our law-makers aren't this sophisticated, although they're
     certainly  beginning  to think this way when they pass laws with death
     sentences for "drug-kings".

     If there were guarantees that prevented even one innocent person  from
     being  put  to  death  by  the state, those guarantees would be loudly
     hailed as yet another reason to justify expanding the number of  kinds
     of crimes that would result in capitol punishment.

     But we will never stop finding crimes that don't inflict some kind  of
     damage.   And  we  will  never be able to guarantee that some innocent
     person won't be the victim of mistaken identity and  receive  a  death
     sentence.   And  even if capitol punishment was *proved undeniably* to
     be a deterrent (which it never will be), even  that  wouldn't  address
     the real question - what *causes* crime?  Answer that question and act
     on the answers and we'd all be much, much better off!

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

Alvin,

The victim of a "killing experience" is *DEAD*, right?  I don't know about you,
but I'd rather be "less trusting or more fearful of others" than to be dead.
I agree with the rest of your note, though.

				-- Bob

     RE: .74

> .....................................................  I don't know about you,
> but I'd rather be "less trusting or more fearful of others" than to be dead.

     Given a choice, Bob, me too!  :^D

     The observation came from an experience a friend of mine had.   Living
     in  an apartment once, he trustingly opened his door to a stranger and
     ended up being robbed at knife point.  On thinking to  myself,  "he'll
     never  open his door to a stranger again", it occurred to me that that
     frightening experience is one that will live with him for the rest  of
     his days, and it cost him the trust that he used to have in strangers.
     Now someone may say, "he was a fool to open  the  door  in  the  first
     place  and  got  what  he  deserved", but I say this is a poorer world
     because people can't/don't trust strangers - after all, we *all* start
     out as strangers to each other!

     So as far as the victim is concerned, robbery  is  much  more  violent
     crime than murder.  Can you even imagine how much more violent a crime
     rape is?  And, yes, given a choice, I'd rather live.   But  if  I  was
     killed, at least the pain would be over sooner.

     Peace,

     Alvin

Alvin,

If you were killed, yes, the pain would soon be over, but your future happiness
would be over as well.  Are you saying that your friend who was robbed wishes
that he had been killed instead?

Yes, robbery is a violent crime and should be punished, but murder is worse.
Anyway, I don't think it's worth spending much more time on this tangent.

				-- Bob

     
      In most cases in this country the justice system is part and
     parcel of your local politics. Judges and DA'a are often elected
     officials or appointed by politicians. Police chiefs and members
     of police commissions are often political appointees. Sadly, I have
     little or no faith in these people to act intelligently of fairly in
     carrying out law enforcement or judicial duties. Having to deal
     with these people frightens me as much as having a run in with a criminal.
      The former DA in my county is being investigated by a Federal Grand
     Jury on a list of charges ranging from racketeering to conspiracy to
     obstruct justice. About 3 years ago about 20 Springfield Mass. cops
     were caught selling drugs. In my home town (Chicopee Mass.) two cops
     beat a local restaurant owner to a pulp in front of a whole restaurant
     full of people. This cost the city a couple of million bucks in an out
     of court settlement. 
       I have to ask myself can these people be trusted to properly
     investigate and prepare a case that could result in someone being
     executed ?  Hell no !  I have no trouble believing that such people
     would falsify evidence or lie under oath in order to get a conviction.
       Very recently a young white woman who was a Sunday school teacher
     was murdered in a nearby town. When she was first reported missing
     no effort or expense was spared to try and find her. Police divers
     combed rivers and ponds. State police helicopters were brought in
     The DA asked for special funds to pay for an even more exhaustive
     search. There were special reports on the local TV channels every
     few hours while the search was going on.
        While this was going on I thought back to this last Christmas 
     when the body of Black teenage woman was found in a local park and
     it was noted she had been reported missing several days before. 
     I keep wondering why no helicopters were called out for her ?
     Why no special reports on the news for her ? Why no divers searching
     river bottoms for her ? Just one short news story - Body of murdered
     Black teenage girl found in park.  The politics of racism is the only
     answer I keep coming up with. I guess the local DA figures that there
     was no political capital to be gained from the death of a Black teenager.
     But I guess there was some to be made when a local Sunday school
     teacher turns up missing and foul play is suspected. I fear that if
     someone is arrested for this crime that they will get railroaded 
     because of the way the case has been sensationalized. In this case
     I think evidence and testimony would be manufactured to get a 
     conviction do to the public outcry surrounding this case. I don't
     know what would happen in the other case a plea bargain to a charge
     of 2nd degree murder ? That is if they ever arrest anyone and no one
     looking very hard. 
         Justice is a wonderful idea, but what we have is politics. Does
     anyone think politicians and their appointees can trusted with cases
     involving life and death ? Our jury trial system offers, some, but
     in my mind, inadequate protection from corrupt and self-serving DA's
     and police.

                                                               Mike         
         
     

       

     RE: .76

> ......................  Are you saying that your friend who was robbed wishes
> that he had been killed instead?

     No, of course not, Bob.  No one in their right mind would choose death
     over living unless living became unbearably painful.

> Yes, robbery is a violent crime and should be punished, but murder is worse.

     I wasn't trying to argue that robbery was worse  than  murder,  I  was
     only using robbery to illustrate a point.

     Our laws are, for the most part, based on empathy.  If I do you wrong,
     the  law  says  I  must pay a price.  How big the price depends on the
     amount of damage you've received relative to other kinds of damage you
     could  have  received.   Did I slap you?  (Remember, now, I'm speaking
     illustratively.  I have *absolutely no intention* of doing anything to
     you!   :^D)  I'll probably get a fine.  Did I attack you with a knife?
     I may have to do some community work.  Did I actually cut you with the
     knife?   I'll  have  to spend some time in prison.  Can it be proved I
     really intended to murder you with no cause?  I'll have to spend  much
     more  time in prison.  In all of these cases you sustained injury, but
     the punishment was meted out based on a scale measuring the amount  of
     pain you experienced.

     It's easy to see that something that causes long-term physical  damage
     (the  knife  wound)  is worse on this scale than something that caused
     momentary discomfort (the slap in  the  face).   But  this  is  simple
     surface  thinking.   What  if one takes a deeper look at the effects a
     crime has?  If one did, one would begin to determine  that  there  are
     other  levels of suffering that are just as important as the physical.
     At *those* levels, robbery, rape,  and  selling  drugs  do  much  more
     long-term  damage  than  murder, which makes them worse.  This doesn't
     make murder less heinous (it is), it only views it  from  a  different
     perspective.  See?

     Peace,

     Alvin

    It is interesting to note that one of the jurors who acquitted the LA
    police in the Rodney King case sited the long police chase that
    preceded the event as a justification for what they did.  Of course,
    most of us recognize that is absolutely no justification whatsoever for
    the systematic and brutal beating that we saw on the video tape.  But
    some people don't really see it that way, and it is a classic way of
    blaming the victim.

    Once Rodney King had shown his defiance for the authority of the
    police, did he then forfeit all right to complain about being assaulted
    by them?  Does the woman who dresses "provocatively" have no right to
    complain when she is raped?  Does the convicted killer have no right to
    complain when he is subsequently sentenced to death?

    Some people believe that in these and other situations, prior actions
    on the part of people can forfeit their subsequent right to be treated
    in a humane or civilized manner. 

    One problem with this kind of reasoning is that there is no end to it. 
    The logic of retaliation is that it consumes itself.  Did the jurors
    who acquitted the defendants in the Rodney King case demonstrate their
    lack of sensitivity to justice and racism?  What do *they* deserve for
    that?  As someone said (was it Gandhi?), the problem with "an eye for
    an eye" is that everyone goes blind.

    I am reminded of an old Star Trek episode, about a planet of people who
    were white on one side and black on the other.  When the two key
    opponents from the planet in that story (each from their respective
    race) flee the Enterprise for their home planet, they found that it was
    consumed in flames and the civilization destroyed.  Hatred and
    retaliation, once unleashed, is very hard to cork again.  For that
    reason, as a matter of fact, it has been argued that the "eye for an
    eye" principle was used not to justify retaliation, but to restrict it,
    and that Jesus's teachings against retaliation were simply taking this
    principle to its logical conclusion.

    The principle of treating people in a civilized and humane fashion
    means living our lives in a mature manner; it means not lowering
    ourselves to the essentially childish level of retaliation and
    vengeance.  It means treating people the way we know to be right, even
    if the other person's moral development isn't as high as we like to
    believe ours is.  This was the morality that Jesus espoused in his
    Sermon on the Mount, and that is why, perhaps more than anything else,
    why I consider Christianity so much a part of my own spirituality.  It
    is worth noting that Jesus gave great importance not just to our
    actions, but to our *feelings* toward others.  That is important,
    because retaliation and vengeance should not be replaced with a vacuum;
    what is necessary is an attitude that will promote healing and
    reconciliation.

    And if our feelings are important, consider the fact that capital
    punishment is often justified as a form of prevention against what the
    convicted person *might* do in the future.  Of course, this transforms
    criminal justice from an issue of individual responsibility to a domain
    more at home for the oddsmaker.  Some convicted killers may turn
    themselves around and become productive and contribute to society in
    some way, while others might turn around and kill someone else again. 
    (Which of the two will get the media attention?) Individual
    responsibility for past actions, and a just response to each individual
    is thus replaced with a "win some, lose some" philosophy with an eye
    towards overall future probabilities.  But if feelings are important
    from a Christian perspective, then it would seem that someone who tried
    but failed to kill another would be just as deserving as someone who
    succeeded; after all, that person *also* has demonstrated that they had
    been willing to take a human life in at least one instance.  Why should
    incompetence matter?  Maybe they will learn from their mistakes and do
    a more effective job of killing the next time.

    And why stop there?  Suppose we could come up with a set of measurable
    personality or genetic traits that would predict with a fair degree of
    accuracy who is the most likely to kill another person.  If the theory
    is that past killing makes one more statistically likely to kill in the
    future, and if we are making statistics on what people *might* do the
    basis of justice, with the possibility of incorrect predictions in
    specific individual instances irrelevant to us, then such a profile
    would provide an excellent means of making society "safe" by simply
    killing such people off.

    The death penalty, in my view, is fundamentally and morally wrong. 
    Unfortunately, it appears it will be a long time before the U.S. as a
    society should emulate what the rest of the civilized world has
    realized, and abolish it.

    -- Mike

>    Once Rodney King had shown his defiance for the authority of the
>    police, did he then forfeit all right to complain about being assaulted
>    by them? 

	So what you are saying is that if someone attacks the Police they
	have no right to try and stop them?

			Alfred

    No, that is not what I am saying at all, and I don't know how you drew
    that inference.

    My point was that once he was subdued, the fact that he had done
    something earlier, leading to the arrest, that had defied police
    authority--this did not give the police license to do with him as they
    pleased.  In other words, the fact that others have done something we
    dislike does not grant us unlimited open season on other people.  The
    police dealt with the immediate situation--they subdued him.  But then
    what?  Was the fact that he had fled prior to being subdued a
    justification for beating this person to a pulp once they were subdued?
    Could the police simply say that Rodney King had no right to complain
    about being beaten, since he had shown already, by prior behavior, that
    he had no respect for the law?

    I would say that the answer is no.  Once they subdued Rodney King, the
    police had no moral right to continue beating him, and certainly not to
    justify such behavior by saying that he got what he deserved. 
    Unfortunately, this is the same kind of amorality that is often used to
    justify capital punishment, the argument being that, even though we
    have subdued the capital offender already and have put them away in
    prison, that person is not entitled to due consideration as a human
    being, and we then can declare open season upon them, and thus kill
    them.

    -- Mike

    RE: .81 Once Rodney King was subdued the beating stopped. At least 
    that is how it appears on the tape I saw repeatedly.
    
    		Alfred

    Depends on what you mean by "subdued".  If you mean "nearly dead", then
    I agree.  Otherwise, you must have seen a different tape than I did.
    
    By my standards, and by the standards of a lot of other people, the
    beating of Rodney King was completely immoral and unjustified. 
    Unfortunately, the jurors who acquitted the police officers felt, as
    one stated explicitly on national television, that Rodney King was
    responsible for his own beating.  This is the same sort of
    victim-blaming that is used to exhonerate rapists because the woman was
    wearing provocative clothing.  
    
    -- Mike

    By subdued I mean "had stopped resisting, stopped trying to get away, or
    at least was willing to follow instructions." He had already hit
    several of the officers and appeared to be interested in doing so
    again. You apparently feel that the only moral thing would have
    been for the Police to let him get up and hit them again until
    either they were "nearly dead" or he wore himself out.

    		Alfred

        We mustn't forget that there is a bigger issue here than
        whether the jury reached the correct decision -- I don't
        know, but I hope that they did.

        On the other hand, the ensuing riots are a sure sign that
        something is wrong.  What will be our response to them? 
        Nearly a generation ago, our nation was faced with similar
        unrest among the urban poor.  How did we respond then?  How
        shall we respond now?

        Bob

    Alfred, Rodney King was being beaten to a pulp after he was clearly no
    threat to the cops.  Even one of the cops who witnessed the event said
    that they were out of control, not to mention several police officers
    from other police departments (such as one from Newark, who stated on
    television that the cops who beat Rodney King used way too much force
    and used it after it was necessary.)

    Your understanding of what I think the only moral thing for the police
    to do is therefore incorrect.  I feel that the only moral thing for the
    police to have done was to not beat the man nearly to death when he was
    clearly no threat to them. Unfortunately, the jurors thought the same
    way you did, and pronounced the cops not guilty.  This probably
    demonstrates that the juror decision was not some freak event, but in
    fact expresses a set of attitudes not uncommon in American society, and
    demonstrates one of its more serious problems.

    -- Mike

    I'm not sure I heard this correctly, but I heard something to the
    effect that the police altered their report of the events surrounding
    Rodney King's arrest.  Maybe someone else can confirm this.  If that 
    is so, it suggests to me that the police suspected/acknowledged 
    wrong-doing for their part in this.
    
    Bob, you raise a good point about the riots.  What has changed among
    these neighborhoods in the last 25 years?  Has there been any
    betterment of conditions?  
    
    Kb 

Further discussion of the Rodney King case belongs in another topic;  I would
suggest "Justice" (topic 396).

Bob

    Well, injustice was served again, this time in Virginia.  A man who may
    very well be innocent of the crime he was convicted for has been
    executed.  And his blood stains the hands of Governor Wilder, who could
    have stayed the execution, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Will this ceaseless exercise in blood lust ever cease?  Maybe Coleman
    was guilty after all; then again, maybe he was innocent.  But if we
    later find out that he was innocent, we can never return his life to
    him.  If anyone believes that innocent people don't get sent to death
    row, think again--it does happen (just ask Randall Adams.)  And the
    judicially sanctioned killing just continues, on and on.  Is there any
    hope for America?

    This is a sad day for Christians and other people of conscience
    everywhere.  Let us mourn this killing, and pray for America that it
    will enter the rest of the civilized world and abolish the abomination
    of capital punishment once and for all.

    -- Mike

    Are you saying that people who support capital punishment are without
    conscience?
    
    Mike

>    Are you saying that people who support capital punishment are without
>    conscience?

	That's how it reads to me too.

			Alfred

    I'm saying that opposition to capital punishment is a matter of
    conscience.
    
    -- Mike

    Okay, thank you.  That is a much different thing.  
    
    I would say that support for capital punishment is also a matter of
    conscience.  Do you agree?
    
    Mike

re Note 271.89 by JURAN::VALENZA:

>     Well, injustice was served again, this time in Virginia.  A man who may
>     very well be innocent of the crime he was convicted for has been
>     executed.  

        It certainly would be a great tragedy if this latest
        execution were of a man who was indeed innocent, but that is
        not the major issue.

        The major issue is whether capital punishment is an
        acceptable punishment even for the guilty.  This man was
        clearly no threat to anyone once he was incarcerated.  He was
        killed purely out of blood lust, out of a desire for
        vengeance.

        Bob

    I dunno.  It seems that capital punishment is a very Christian thing to
    do, being as how the Bible supports it.
    
    Mike

re Note 271.95 by SOLVIT::MSMITH:

>     I dunno.  It seems that capital punishment is a very Christian thing to
>     do, being as how the Bible supports it.

        Citations, please.

    
    It certainly would seem to me that if capital punishment was indeed
    wrong that the Bible would speak out strongly against it being that 
    God's Son was put to death.  Certainly the cross was more cruel
    than even the electric chair, the gas chamber, or anything else
    we have in the U.S.   Christ was indeed innocent of the crimes
    leveled against him, yet the Bible doesn't go on and on about 
    abolishing the system because it was bad or was abused by the 
    day's leaders.  Sometimes innocent people suffer great injustice
    in this world.  
    
    The Bible does talk about there being consequences for our actions 
    and I'm afraid that in some cases that even includes death.  As
    God's creation we were given the ability to choose.  Society seems
    to always want to lessen the punishment for choosing unwisely.
    Maybe that's one way we try to run from our sins, their consequences,
    and in the end from God.
    
    Jill

    re: .96

    Well, I'm not a Biblical scholar, and in fact don't even own a Bible.
    However, if memory serves, the Bible does make reference to capital
    punishment from time to time, at least in the OT, and never said it
    shouldn't be done.  Besides, even the 10 commandments didn't prohibit
    such forms of killing.  All they prohibited was murder.

    When you come to think of it, an act of capital punishment is at the
    very core of Christianity; Christ dieing on the cross.
        
    Mike

    Can individuals who support capital punishment believe that it is
    consistent with their consciences?  Sure.  Does conscience enter into
    the equation in the first place?  Is conscience the *basis* for the
    belief in capital punishment?  The considerations in favor of the death
    penalty are either largely attempts at pragmatism, with moral issues
    not really entering into it, and they are typically predicated on an
    essentially base human emotion (vengeance, or blood lust), rather than
    higher moral considerations.  The justification is merely the cold
    logic of coldly taking another human life.  Of course, despite the
    amoral justification in the first plpace, people are free to say that
    torture, capital punishment, or other atrocities are perfectly
    consistent with their consciences, if they so wish.  But I identify
    those who oppose the commission of atrocities as people of conscience
    precisely because conscience is the overriding justification for this
    opposition.

    In any case, I do agree that the Old Testament contains support for
    capital punishment, along with taking other positions that I do not
    agree with.  This reflects the degree of moral understanding of the
    time; the idea was that "an eye for an eye" was to put restrictions on
    retaliation.  If you reject a blind biblical literalism, then you may
    consider the Bible to be a record of humans developing a greater
    religious understanding.  Jesus put the finishing touches on this by
    fundamentally rejecting the logic behind retaliation altogether, by
    teaching that retaliation is morally wrong, and that we should love our
    enemies.

    Now if someone wants to claim that killing Roger Coleman was an
    expression of love for him, I would be interested in hearing about it. 
    But I usually don't express my love for another person by killing them. 
    Capital punishment clearly contradicts the teachings of Jesus.  Its
    barbarism is something that most of the world has progressed beyond;
    unfortunately, the moral development of the U.S. in this area has moved
    in the opposite direction as of late.

    -- Mike

re Note 271.97 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     The Bible does talk about there being consequences for our actions 
>     and I'm afraid that in some cases that even includes death.  

        Oh, certainly, absolutely!

        The Bible, in fact, says that "the wages of sin are death"
        (Romans 6:23).  The wages of all sin -- any sin.  Were it not
        for the saving act of Christ, you and I both would be
        condemned criminals under a death sentence.  How convenient
        (for us) that it's somebody else that our society has chosen
        to kill!

>     Society seems
>     to always want to lessen the punishment for choosing unwisely.

        True, but it's not just society that desires this.  God
        desires this for us.  This is part of the central Christian
        message:  Jesus came and died to lessen the punishment for
        our unwise choices!

        This is true Christianity that you proclaim, but don't deny
        the power while proclaiming the form!

        Bob

re Note 271.98 by SOLVIT::MSMITH:

>     When you come to think of it, an act of capital punishment is at the
>     very core of Christianity; Christ dieing on the cross.
  
        Yes -- an unquestionably UNJUST act of capital punishment --
        of a totally innocent victim!

        Bob

    
    Mike V. and Bob, I find your assumptions very interesting indeed!
    
    Mike-
    I know almost zilch about Roger Coleman except for a sentence or two 
    from the news last night.  I wouldn't venture to say whether he's 
    guilty or innocent.  Nor am I willing to debate that since I no 
    little of the case.  The law found him guilty.   It is not out 
    of some misguided sense of love that I feel or out of vengance or 
    blood lust that I support his life being ended.  While I agree with 
    your statement that Jesus said not to seek revenge but to turn the 
    other cheek, I believe there is a difference between personal revenge 
    and justice outlined by the law.  I believe that loving Roger Coleman 
    as a creature of God and believing that the consequences for his 
    actions are death are not exclusive of each other.  I hope he made 
    his peace with God because in the end that is all that matters for
    any of us.  If indeed I am not following my conscience (the Holy
    Spirit), I'm sure He'll be pointing that out to me.
    
    I don't agree with the idea of picking and choosing what parts
    of the Bible we like or agree with.  I believe you'll find that
    the Bible talks about this.   Being of follower of Christ is
    not some kind of social club where what's right in God's eyes
    can change with the times.   
    
    
    Bob, 
    I believe Romans 6 has nothing to do with capital punishment and
    you are using the scripture out of context.  I love the second
    part of your note so much though that I have to include it here:
    
    > True, but it's not just society that desire this.  God desires this
    > for us.  This is part of the central Christian message:  Jesus came
    > and died to lessen the punishment for our unwise choices!  This is
    > true Christianity that you proclaim, but don't deny the power while
    > proclaiming the form!
    
    God does desire us to be reconciled to him, and by doing such we will
    have everlasting life with Him.  Does the system by punishing Robert
    Coleman or anyone else with death for the crime of murder exclude them 
    from this privilege if they choose to invite God into their hearts.  
    I think not.  While Christ was guiltless of the crimes leveled against 
    him, he was paying the price for our sins so we could have everlasting 
    life (not life here on this earth).  Could He have waved His hand 
    and said all is forgiven and spared His Son the excruciating pain 
    which was the consequences for our sins.  Not according to what the 
    Bible teaches us.  Jesus even asked if there was any other way and 
    God said no.  There are consequences that go along with everything.   
    Whether you say you are sorry is a side issue. 
    
    Jill

    Jill,

    I look at the issue this way, by asking myself some rhetorical
    questions.  If the law defines justice in a way that is immoral, are we
    not called to oppose it?  Are we to wash our hands of what the state
    does, merely because it claims to do something in the name of
    "justice"? 

    I believe that governments are not absolved of moral responsibility for
    what they do.  When a government commits a war crime, genocide, or
    other atrocity, we express our revulsion at what it does.  And where
    does this moral objection come from?  Does it not come from God?  Does
    God not share in our opposition to atrocities by the State?  Or are the
    actions of governments completely value neutral, and free of our moral
    considerations?

    Government policies can also be compassionate.  Certainly the U.S.
    constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment comes
    from a view that cruelty is not just an act of personal immorality, but
    also state immorality as well.  And where does this objection to
    cruelty by the state come from?  Does it not come from that morality we
    as a society supposedly share that says that all human beings, no
    matter what terrible thing they have done, have done, are entitled to
    the right to be treated as human beings?  We as citizens have a
    responsibility to influence public policy in a way that we think is
    moral.  And where does our morality come from, if we are people of
    faith?  Do we not believe that all morality comes from God?  It seems
    that the state *is* morally responsible for its actions.

    If we feel love for a person, then we are compelled as a matter not
    only of personal morality, but also public morality, to treat that
    person as a human being.  Our consciences, as people of faith, demands
    that public policy reflect our deepest held values, and to speak out
    when it does not.  For a state to treat human beings in a cruel or
    barbaric manner is to offend our morality *precisely* because we, as
    people of faith, believe deeply that all people are children of God,
    and therefore we wish for the government to behave in a responsibly
    moral fashion.

    If we are to take seriously what Jesus taught on the Sermon on the
    Mount, if we believe what he said, then we are called to oppose the
    death penalty.  Note that Jesus specifically cited the "eye for an eye"
    principle in his rejection of revenge; and it was just this "eye for an
    eye" principle that was cited in the Old Testament as a basis for set
    of *public* procedures in justice.  Thus we aren't just talking about
    personal morality here.  By superseding this principle with a stronger
    policy that not only sought to curtail revenge, but end it altogether,
    he was undercutting the principle behind capital punishment.

    If we love a person as a child of God, then we wish for public policy
    to treat that person with respect and dignity.  That means rejecting
    vengeance, blood lust, and retaliation as the basis for justice; it
    means, as a matter of fact, that justice is explicitly *not* equated
    with revenge.  There are many possible reasons for laws: deterrence,
    rehabilitation, separating dangerous people from society, *and*
    revenge.  Eliminating revenge as a definition of justice does not
    eliminate justice, and it is incorrect to equate justice exclusively
    with revenge; revenge is only one possible concept of justice among
    many.  It is a Christian principle that revenge is morally wrong, and
    that therefore society should not use that as a basis for its
    implementation of justice.

    -- Mike

Re:  271.99

  >Capital punishment clearly contradicts the teachings of Jesus.  

Just as clearly (if we are to accept prophesy), Jesus will come back
and lead in the killing of people.  Not exactly capital punshiment,
agreed, but essentially the same thing.

BTW, capital punishment is consistent with the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus rarely spoke about the responsibilities of government (but
when He did, He supported their authority).  Capital punishment by
individuals is what clearly contradicts the teachings of Jesus.

Collis

    I already addressed the alleged distinction between private morality
    and State morality in this case.  Are we claiming here that everything
    governments do are value neutral?  That governments cannot pursue
    legitimate aims in an illegitimate fashion?  That governments cannot
    act immorally or unethically?

    The question here is not that Jesus supported government authority.  I
    also support government authority, but that doesn't mean that I believe
    myself powerless to shape government policy.  To abdicate our moral
    responsibility to influence and shape public policy would be a morally
    bankrupt posture.  We as citizens of a democracy are not slaves to some
    abstract "justice" that the government decides to impose upon us; as
    free, thinking individuals, with a conscience, we have the power and the
    duty to help *shape* that definition of justice according to what we
    believe to be the correct thing to do.

    So the issue is that while Jesus supported government authority, as I
    suspect everyone here does, he also proclaimed a set of values and
    ethics.  And when a government behaves unethically or cruelly, we as
    citizens have a moral duty to object to that--that doesn't mean we
    don't accept the right of governments to rule, it simply means that we
    are acting as responsible citizens in evaluating *how* the government
    rules.  Not everything a government does in the name of "justice" is
    necessarily just.  Our government's constitutional provision against
    cruel and unusual punishment is an expression of a civilized moral code
    that says that things like torture are immoral.  Not many people would
    claim that torture is acceptable behavior--and why would that be?  Our
    morality tells us that there is something inherently revolting about
    doing something like that to another person.  And where does this
    revulsion come from?  For a person of faith, it comes from a love for
    all human beings, a love that guides us and defines what we consider
    acceptable treatment of human beings.

    -- Mike

    Quakers have traditionally had a great deal of interest in the
    treatment of prisoners.  During the 19th century they actively pursued
    the goal of treating prisoners in a more humane fashion, and currently
    this practice continues in several ways.  One recent Quaker-initiated
    program, the Alternatives to Violence project, has been a volunteer
    program in prisons that has had some success in turning many prisoner's
    lives around.

    Those nineteenth- and twentieth-century pioneers did this out of a
    compassion for those who are in prison.  These individuals did not wash
    their hands of what the government did.  When they showed their concern
    for the prisoners, they did not simply say, "I love you, but whatever
    the government does to you is out of justice and not my concern."  Part
    of that love necessarily resulted in understanding that the State's
    actions toward people, especially if it was "cruel and unusual", could
    be wrong, and that translated into seeking to change the government's
    policies so that what it did was just, fair, and compassionate.

    Similarly, it makes no sense to say to a death-row inmate, "I love you,
    but whatever the government does to you is no concern of mine."  That
    is not an expression of love for that person, and it is *certainly* not
    an expression of love to say, "I love you, and I want my government to
    kill you."  If we lived in a government that cut off the hands of
    thieves, or castrated rapists, or otherwise mutilated and tortured
    prisoners, would we say, "I love you, but whatever the government does
    to you is no concern of mine"?  The love and the ethics that Jesus
    taught demands that we not sit on our hands and ignore atrocities
    committed by the State.  And the ethics that he taught clearly oppose
    capital punishment.

    -- Mike

     It seems to me some of the last few notes  have  implied  that  Jesus'
     death  can  be  used  as  some  kind  of  "justification"  for capitol
     punishment, something along the lines of,  "if  there  wasn't  capitol
     punishment,  Jesus  could not have saved humanity." A couple of things
     come to mind:

      o  This thinking certainly limits to power of God.  If  there  wasn't
         capitol  punishment,  God surely would have figured out some other
         way to save humanity.  Argue that, "the  Bible  shows  that  Jesus
         *had*  to  die",  fine, but we don't know but that the Bible might
         have been written differently if there wasn't capitol punishment.

      o  When I was a practicing Catholic we sang a hymn who's chorus went,
         "Whatsoever  you  do to the least of My brothers, that you do unto
         Me".  Now if a condemned person isn't the least of people, I don't
         know  who  is.   In  that  context, I don't know how any Christian
         could endorse the death penalty for any reason.


     Also...

.105>   >Capital punishment clearly contradicts the teachings of Jesus.  
.105>
.105> Just as clearly (if we are to accept prophesy), Jesus will come back
.105> and lead in the killing of people.  Not exactly capital punshiment,
.105> agreed, but essentially the same thing.

     No, not the same thing at all.  Christians believe Jesus is  God.   If
     God  calls  the spirit out of the body, it looks like death to us, but
     it certainly can't look like death to God.  And the end of this  world
     may  look  like a tragedy to us, but to God I'll bet it looks like the
     beginning of something else.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

    Mike .98,
    
    	I have heard this justification before.  See note 271.6.  It worries
    me a great deal, because to me it falls short of understanding who Jesus
    was and the meaning of Jesus' life.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Note 271.105

>Just as clearly (if we are to accept prophesy), Jesus will come back
>and lead in the killing of people.  Not exactly capital punshiment,
>agreed, but essentially the same thing.

What is being referred to here is that nighmarish apocalyptic volume
known as the Revelation (of St. John the Divine).  Even most literalists
recognize the allegorical nature and complex symbolism of this most
bizarre book in the New Testament.

>BTW, capital punishment is consistent with the teachings of Jesus.
>Jesus rarely spoke about the responsibilities of government (but
>when He did, He supported their authority).  Capital punishment by
>individuals is what clearly contradicts the teachings of Jesus.

This is a distinction of covenience.  Underlying what seems to be a reasonable
observation is a mindset that says individuals have no moral responsibility for
what their government does, without actually coming out and saying it.  That
way when it becomes convenient to the conservative agenda, such as supporting
a governmental ban of legal abortions, a polar opposite stance can be advocated.

Richard

    RE: my thoughts.....
    
                        I sometimes wonder how anyone can  believe in
    capital punishment and be against abortion.  Seems there is some
    connection there....at least in my mind.  Of course the same confusion
    exists should the original statement of mine be reversed. 
    
    
    Dave 

    RE: .111 Read my .63 in this topic for one persons answer.
    
    		Alfred

    Sorry it took so long to get back in here...I was only here half a day
    on Friday and was quite busy.
    
    Thanks for the welcome Richard.  No, I'm not a literalist.  Perhaps I 
    misunderstood Mike's intentions.  Here's an example of what I thought
    Mike meant because I've heard many people say this....that abstinence 
    for single people is no longer a viable option and certainly the 
    Bible only applied to those times, not to today.  This is that social
    club mentality I talked about.  I don't agree with it.  Since Mike 
    didn't give specifics, I assumed his comment on the broadest of terms.
    It's probably a misunderstanding on my part.  I do think you need to
    look at the whole of what the Bible says on a given subject and not
    just the Old or New Testaments.
    
    While I certainly don't agree with divorce, our laws in no way cover 
    every moral issue.  In cases like that it's up to an individual to
    make a choice...do they still have to deal with consequences of their
    actions.  Yes, they do.  Here as well of on judgement day when they 
    like everyone else will answer to God for their actions.  Do we do 
    nothing about any wrong because they will in the end answer to God?  
    If so, the Bible wouldn't need to talk about punishment at all.   
    What would you have us do since the law does not cover every moral 
    issue?   Should we ignore it since it's obviously inaccurate with 
    Scripture?  Certainly, we have the right to speak out against the law, 
    Jesus did on many occasions.  I'm not saying this to be fictitious,
    I just don't remember...Does anyone remember any occasion where 
    Jesus spoke out against Capital Punishment?  

    All these notes still come down to the basic question of is Capital
    Punishment immoral or not.  Does government (ie..the people) have
    the right to set a limit on what one human can do to another human
    and set and execute a punishment associated with breaking that limit?
    Does this not give each individual/governments a choice?  All things 
    are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable.  God gave each 
    of us free will and we can do anything (even murder) if we choose, but 
    there are consequences to all actions, and it may not be wise of us 
    to do some things...indeed it may be quite costly.
    
    I'm sorry if you misunderstood my last sentence in .102, it was poorly
    written.  Did God have the POWER to do it differently, YES absolutely!
    Let's not go back and say well IF capital punishment didn't exist..
    blah, blah, blah.  Let's take history the way it was and say with what
    God wanted to teach us about sin having consequences and that the only
    way to salvation was through believing in our Lord Jesus Christ...if He
    let Jesus of the hook for the sins that He was paying for (not his, ours),
    would we have learned that lesson?  Perhaps in another way, but Jesus 
    lead by example...I believe His death was another example to us.  God 
    let Jesus suffer that injustice for the greater good of mankind.  God 
    chose to do it that way...he was in no way limited by it.
    
    To the least of these...yes, we should be showing kindness to even
    them...Jesus did even in His last hours to the men condemned to die
    with Him...but did He do this by stopping the consequences for what
    they had done??  I am not responsible for the consequences of another's
    actions, they choose them by choosing their actions.  I can offer them
    forgiveness if they sin against me, I can offer them consolation and
    comfort, but can I absolve their sin and the consequences of them?
    Hmmmm....
    
    I'm glad Dave brought up the issue of supporting Capital Punishment
    while opposing Abortion.  How do I justify it?  Capital Punishment is
    the consequence for choosing to murder.  What is the child's action 
    that brought this consequence on them?   I'd like to hear the 
    justification for the reverse...how can anyone say Capital Punishment 
    is wrong, yet agree with killing an innocent child?  

    Jill
    

Re:  271.106

I essentially agree with what you say, Mike.  However, I continue
to agree with what I say as well.  I don't seem them as mutually
exclusive.

Collis

Re:  271.110

     >>Just as clearly (if we are to accept prophesy), Jesus will come back
     >>and lead in the killing of people.  Not exactly capital punshiment,
     >>agreed, but essentially the same thing.

  >What is being referred to here is that nighmarish apocalyptic volume
  >known as the Revelation (of St. John the Divine).  Even most literalists
  >recognize the allegorical nature and complex symbolism of this most
  >bizarre book in the New Testament.

Ah, Richard, you simplify this much too much.  Revelation is not the
only book that talks about Jesus' second coming and the consequences
thereof.  And the issue is not the vast amount of symbolism and allegory
in Revelation (which I view simply as a red herring).

    >>Capital punishment by individuals is what clearly contradicts the 
    >>teachings of Jesus.

  >This is a distinction of covenience.  

Perhaps some make this distinction because of convenience.  Personally,
I do not.  I make it because it is clear to me that the Bible makes it.
BTW, the Bible is not alone.  Most every society on earth makes the
same distinction.  But then, society (and the Bible, despite your
protests!) also seems to be able to make a distinction between garments 
made of two different materials and incest, a distinction that you seem 
unwilling to make.

  >Underlying what seems to be a reasonable observation is a mindset that 
  >says individuals have no moral responsibility for what their government 
  >does, without actually coming out and saying it.

Perhaps this is what underlies some who argue this position.  It certainly
is not what underlies my belief.  Individuals CLEARLY have a Biblical
responsibility before God for the actions of their country.  Just as
Isaiah called himself a man of unclean lips among a people of unclean
lips, I say the same.  I pray to God for forgiveness for the actions of
my country as well as myself.

No, the issue is not one of personal irresponsibility.

It seems clear to me that you, Richard, have chosen to ignore the Biblical
reasoning (that I have presented several times in this conference on this
issue) and instead imply (or perhaps state) that the problem is with my
motivation.  Well, I have addressed the motivation issue.  (In case you
didn't notice, your accusations were unfounded and false.)  Would you care
to address the Biblical reasoning? 

Collis

re: Note 271.113 by Jill "it's just a wheen o' blethers" 

>    Does anyone remember any occasion where 
>    Jesus spoke out against Capital Punishment?  

Hi Jill,

"He who is without fault, let him cast the first stone"  
(paraphrase from memory)

Jesus speaking to a crowd of people intent on performing a capital punishment.

"Go, and sin no more."

Jesus' advice to a woman whom I believe had committed a "capital" crime 
(adultry) according to the Law.  

Jesus certainly had ample opportunity to not just speak about, but to put into 
action his stand on capital punishment.

Peace,

Jim

re Note 271.113 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     Do we do 
>     nothing about any wrong because they will in the end answer to God?  

        Please be reasonable!  Nobody who has spoken against capital
        punishment here (or in any other forum that I've heard) is
        against punishments in general or against the law.  They are
        simply against killing as a punishment, just as you no doubt
        are against torture as a punishment.  For both you and us
        there remain many acceptable methods of punishment and many
        occasions in which punishment is properly used.

>     All these notes still come down to the basic question of is Capital
>     Punishment immoral or not.  Does government (ie..the people) have
>     the right to set a limit on what one human can do to another human
>     and set and execute a punishment associated with breaking that limit?
  
        Your second question is worded so that one can answer to the
        first "capital punishment is immoral" and yet answer a
        resounding "yes" to the second -- did you intend this?  Of
        course governments have the right to set limits and execute
        punishments!  But does this therefore allow government to set
        absolutely any limit or to exact absolutely any punishment? 
        Of course not.

>     To the least of these...yes, we should be showing kindness to even
>     them...Jesus did even in His last hours to the men condemned to die
>     with Him...but did He do this by stopping the consequences for what
>     they had done??  I am not responsible for the consequences of another's
>     actions, they choose them by choosing their actions.  

        I don't really think we should read too much into what Jesus
        did or didn't do incidentally while hanging on the cross --
        it is sufficient for me that he took upon himself the burden
        of my transgression.

        (Hey, if we really want to grasp at straws, note that
        salvation was bought at the "cost" of NOT executing Barabbas,
        "Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder,
        was cast into prison." -- Luke 23:19)

>     I can offer them
>     forgiveness if they sin against me, I can offer them consolation and
>     comfort, but can I absolve their sin and the consequences of them?

        You may not be able to "absolve their sin and the
        consequences of them" but that is certainly what God can do
        and precisely what Jesus has done.  Jesus has done nothing if
        not that.  Salvation would be a sick joke if that were not
        true.

>     I'm glad Dave brought up the issue of supporting Capital Punishment
>     while opposing Abortion.  How do I justify it?  Capital Punishment is
>     the consequence for choosing to murder.  What is the child's action 
>     that brought this consequence on them?   I'd like to hear the 
>     justification for the reverse...how can anyone say Capital Punishment 
>     is wrong, yet agree with killing an innocent child?  
  
        Well, since you seem to believe that governments have the
        unlimited right to set limits and assign punishments, I
        assume that a government could declare that an unwanted
        unborn child is guilty of an offense and that the punishment
        for that offense is death.  I don't believe that, and as a
        consequence I oppose abortion.

        Bob

    Collis .115,
    
    	Thank you.  I believe that that is what you believe.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    Hi Jim,
    
    While I'm familiar with the scriptures you quoted, it's highly
    questionably whether an angry mob intent on a vigilante act can
    be considered the same as punishment under the law.  I will however 
    study these passages and others.
    
    Hi Bob,
    
    Please don't misunderstand me.  I wasn't trying to be unreasonable.
    Sarcastic perhaps, but unreasonable no.  Okay, let's do this your
    way.  What would be an accepted punishment for murder barring
    execution?  
    
    As for your comment about "maybe you or I can't absolve them of their
    sins but God can and has" was exactly what I was getting at.  
    
    Jill

    Jill .119,
    
    I believe Jim (.116) is refering to the Gospel of John 8.1-11,
    in which verse 5 tends to reinforce the Old Testament death penalty
    for adultery.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    I understand the context.  My point is that I don't believe an
    angry mob taking justice into it's own hands is lawful regardless
    of their reasonings.  Was Jesus' words directed toward an angry
    mob about to commit a vigilante act or was it meant in a broader
    sense and to be applied to the government as well???  I don't
    know.   I think any guess on that would be pure speculation.
    Although, I'll reread it.
    
    Jill

Jill .113,

	While Mike has a pretty good grasp of the Bible, I would hasten to add
that Mike makes no claim of being a Christian.

Peace,
Richard

.119>    While I'm familiar with the scriptures you quoted, it's highly
.119>    questionably whether an angry mob intent on a vigilante act can
.119>    be considered the same as punishment under the law.  .............. 

     Whenever I remember being taught about this incident,  it  was  always
     presented  by  saying  that  in  those days stoning was the normal and
     accepted means of putting to death one who was caught in  the  act  of
     adultery.   No one *ever* suggested that this was "an angry mob intent
     on a vigilante act".  Which  is  not  to  say  that  the  group  Jesus
     confronted  wasn't;  just  that,  even  if  they  were, that was never
     pointed out as being an important distinction.  Angry  mob,  or  sober
     group  of law-abiding citizens, Jesus does not challenge them on their
     demeanor.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

    
    Well Alvin, I'm not sure why I can't get back to your note, but I
    guess I do take some offense.  I came into this file stating my
    view and sincerely believing that if Capital Punishment was immoral,
    the Bible would clearly state that.  I don't believe it does.  
    I asked if anyone had any scripture that they felt supported 
    the immorality of Capital Punishment.  
    
    I did not bring up that incident, it was brought up in response
    to my question.  Your point about how that was taught is well 
    taken and I'll study the passage again.   Although I don't know 
    if I'll find proof that these groups carried out their brutality 
    under the law...I feel that they might be similar to the pograms 
    in Russia during Czar's reign...while they were against the
    law, the Czar simply did nothing to stop them because he held 
    similar views as these vigilantes.
    
    I did use Jesus as a point of reference on paying consequences
    for our actions.  I don't believe I ever said anything like Jesus 
    said "blah, blah, blah" and therefore I'm right.  I don't know that 
    I've found any scripture to really sway me away from my view and
    I guess it's been years since I settled on this view, so maybe 
    it's time I looked at the why's again.
    
    Jill
    

    
    Boy, do I know how to bring a file to a grinding halt or what.
    Alvin, sorry if I came down on you too hard.  I realize that
    communicating in notes isn't always a good tool for understanding
    what someone is really saying.  I realize now you modified your 
    note because it didn't really say what you wanted it to. 
    
    Jill

re Note 271.125 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>                              -< No harm done!?!? >-
> 
>     
>     Boy, do I know how to bring a file to a grinding halt or what.

        Please don't let occasions of well-intentioned
        mis-communication get you down -- it is one of the standard
        hazards of human communications in general and Notes in
        particular!

        Bob

.124>    Well Alvin, I'm not sure why I can't get back to your note, but I
.124>    guess I do take some offense.  .................................

     That's because, Jill, you must have read version 1 almost as soon as I
     entered  it.   Then  I re-read it and even I was offended, so I almost
     immediately deleted it and entered version 2, which is what  is  there
     now.  Sorry, anyway, you took offense.  I apologize.

     Peace,

     Alvin

    
    Alvin,
    
    Well unfortunately as both Bob and I "noted" this communication 
    method is extremely subject to misunderstandings.  Ahhh...timing...
    what an amazing thing.  Had I happened to get in here say 30 seconds 
    later...I wouldn't have caught version 1 at all.  Oh well, we'll
    just chalk that up to an off week.
    
    Shalom Alvin!  ;^)
    
    Jill

    The following is an excerpt from the article "The Unquiet Death of
    Robert Harris", published in the July 6 issue of _The_Nation_.  The
    article was written by Michael Kroll, who attended Robert Harris's
    execution:

    
        When they brought Robert in, he was grim-faced, tired and ashen. 
        Beyond the horror of having stood at the brink of the abyss just
        two and a half hours before, he had been up for several days and
        nights.  He was under horrific pressure.  Again, he nodded to
        acquaintances.  He did not smile.  He faced to his right and said
        "I'm sorry" to the father of the victim Michael Baker, the one
        family member he recognized from his endless rounds of television
        appearances.  He craned his neck left once more and nodded quickly
        toward us.  "It's all right," he reassured us. After about two
        minutes, he sniffed the air, then breathed deeply several times.

        His head began to roll and his eyes closed, then opened again.  His
        head dropped, then came up with an abrupt jerk, and rolled some
        more.  It was grotesque and hideous, and I looked away.  When I
        looked back, his head came up again and I covered my mouth.  Randy
        was whimpering in pain next to me, and we clutched each other.  The
        lawyer, sobbing audibly, put her arms around us and tried to
        comfort us.  I could not stop shivering. Reverend Harris, Robert's
        second cousin and spiritual adviser, who had been with Robert in
        the holding cell almost until the moment they took him away,
        whispered, "He's ready.  He was tired.  It's all right.  His
        punishment is over."

        He writhed for seven minutes, his head falling on his chest, saliva
        drooling from his open mouth.  He lifted his head again and again.
        Seven minutes.  A lifetime.  Nine more minutes passed with his head
        slumped on his chest.  His heart, a survivor's heart, kept pumping
        for nine more minutes, while we held each other.  Some of the
        witnesses laughed.  I thought of the label "Laughing Killer,"
        affixed to Robert by the media, and knew they would never describe
        these good people as laughing killers.

        We were in the middle of something indescribably ugly.  Not just
        the fact of the cold-blooded killing of a human being, and not even
        the fact that we happened to love him--but the ritual of it, the
        participation of us, the witnesses, the witnessing itself of this
        most private and personal act.  It was nakedly barbaric.   Nobody
        could say this had anything to do with justice, I thought.  Yet
        this medieval torture chamber is what a large majority of my fellow
        Californians, including most in this room with me, believe in.  The
        implications of this filled me with fear--fear for myself and for
        all of us, a fear I am ashamed to confess--while my friend was
        being strangled slowly to death in front of me.

    A description of the killings committed by the murderer would be 
    worse.
    
    I quess that I'm in favor of capital punishment.
    
    Marc H.

    The situation is not symetrical, since no one here that I know of would
    approve of the killings committed by the murderer.  If someone were to
    describe the killings committed by a murderer, the proper and expected
    response by people of feeling and compassion would be horror and
    revulsion.  Similarly, a description of the cold blooded killing of a
    death row prisoner also brings on horror and revulsion among people of
    feeling and compassion.
    
    -- Mike

    Re: .131
    
    I guess that we will have to agree to disagree Mike and this point.
    
    
    Marc H.

> Similarly, a description of the cold blooded killing of a
>    death row prisoner also brings on horror and revulsion among people of
>    feeling and compassion.

	An abortion also brings on horror and revulsion among people of feeling
	and compassion.

			Alfred

    Fair enough, Marc.
    
    -- Mike

    I didn't realize that this was the abortion topic.
    
    -- Mike

The death penalty.  I read a horrific statement the other evening.  It said
that there have been over 400 *innocent* persons who were ritually murdered by
the state in the name of the twin gods, Get Tough and Get Even.  And this
staggering numbers only represent the number of cases where the state has
admitted its error.

Richard

    That statement has been refuted.

    What happened was that a law professor examined the trial record of
    some of the capital cases and applied 1992 rules of excluding
    evidence and testimony and jurors, and made the untested claim that
    there would be grounds in these cases for a mitigation of sentence or
    a second trial.
    
    This is far from a conclusive finding of innocence.
    
    

Patrick .137,

I suspect you are refering to a different report than I am.  I'll try to
post what I can find of the details tomorrow.

Peace,
Richard

	"Sociologist Michael Radelet of the University of Florida and
Hugo Bedau of Tufts University have documented, thus far, 420 death-penalty
convictions of innocent people.  They only count those cases in which the
state eventually admits its error."

The Other Side magazine
July-August 1992 issue
p 19

    420 people starting at what date?  1792?  This century?  Since the end
    of WWII?
    
    Mike

re Note 271.140 by SOLVIT::MSMITH:

>     420 people starting at what date?  1792?  This century?  Since the end
>     of WWII?
  
        Would it matter which of the above answers was closest to the
        "correct" one?

        Bob

I wondered the same thing, Mike, .140.  Frankly, the article doesn't provide
more detail.

Then, Bob's question came to my mind and suddenly 420 irretrievably dead
people, wrongfully dead people, didn't seem to fit a time scale.

Peace,
Richard

    For the innocents who were executed, there is no difference.
    
    However, from society's perspective, it matters in terms of the numbers
    of mistakes per year, when they happened during this time frame, and so
    forth.  For instance, if there were 420 wrongful executions in this
    century, but the vast majority of them happened in the first half of
    the 1990's, then it does make a difference.  The difference is that we
    have done much better in preventing innocent people from being executed
    with the legal processes we now have in place.  As you all know, the
    legal system we have in place now is far more supportive of the rights
    of the accused than it was prior to the 1960's, for instance. 
    
    On the other hand, if statistics show that the number of wrongfully
    executed people are fairly evenly distributed over time, then the case
    to abolish capital punishment is much stronger.  It shows that, even
    with the relatively recent rights that the accused have, and despite
    allowing extensive legal appeals for the condemned, there are still
    significant numbers of innocent people being executed.
    
    So, in my mind, it makes a great deal of difference in what the
    statistics really show.   
    
    Mike

	Those who knew Rickey Ray Rector say he had the mental capacity
of a three or four year old.

	Rickey had been convicted of killing two people, including a police
officer.  And the courts of Arkansas set the punishment as death.

	Until the end, Rickey's lawyer pleaded for clemancy.  Rickey had no
understanding of his trial.  He refused to believe the people he killed were
not still alive.  He had zero comprehension of the sentence the state of
Arkansas planned to impose.

	Numerous appeals were made for Rickey's life.  But Governor Bill
Clinton was unmoved.

	Rickey's last meal was delivered January 24, 1992.  Shortly thereafter,
Rickey was shot so full of poison that all vestiges of life were extinguished.

	Throughout his stay in prison, Rickey had a habit of not eating any
dessert with his meals.  He always saved it to enjoy later.

	After his death, when the guards went to clean out Rickey's cell,
they found there, carefully set aside, a slice of pecan pie.

re Note 271.144 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> 	After his death, when the guards went to clean out Rickey's cell,
> they found there, carefully set aside, a slice of pecan pie.
  
        I know one thing, it isn't God's sense of justice that
        demanded this.

        Bob

Warren McCleskey was executed on September 25, 1991.  He was convicted of
participating in an armed robbery in which Frank Schlatt of the Atlanta
Police Department was killed.  Minutes before he was electrocuted, Warren
spoke these words:
===============================================================================
	I would like to say to the Schlatt family that I am deeply sorry and
repentant for the suffering, hurt and pain you have endured over the years.
I wish there was something I could do or say that would give comfort to your
lives and bring peace to you.  I pray you would find it in your heart to
forgive me for my participation in the crime that caused the loss of your
loved one.  I want you to know I have asked God to forgive me and pray in
my heart you will forgive me.

	I pray you will come to know the Lord, Jesus Christ, and receive his
peace that passes all understanding.  I know that is the peace you are looking
for.  I know that is the peace you desire.  I wish that this execution
would give it to you, but I know it won't.  It will give you temporary
satisfaction.  The only peace you will forever have, that is lasting, that
will never depart, is found in the light of God with Jesus Christ.

	Also, I would like to say to all my attorneys and the defense team,
thank you for a job well done.  Do not believe in you heart that you did not
give your best efforts.  You are all the victors.  I am deeply grateful for
all you have done to try to save my life.  I pray that you will continue on
and struggle to fight against the death penalty and injustice.  I also pray
you will remain strong in your faith and not allow what is about to occur to
weaken your faith in God.  Do not allow it to alter your lifestyle in any way.

	I want to say to my family, be strong, courageous, and remember the
things I shared with you today.  Do not hold any bitterness toward anyone.  Do
not have any resentment toward anyone.  This is my request to all of you, that
you be forgiving to all.  I pray that you will go on with your lives and that
you will keep God at the center so God can direct your paths.

	To all the brothers I leave behind, I pray you will remain strong in
faith, and I pray you will not forsake the faith because of what's about to
occur to me.  Stay strong.  Focus on God and God's words.  Continue to fight
and keep your hope alive and know this is not the end for me.  This is only the
beginning of all blessed hope for eternal life.  To all my brothers, take
care.  I love you all.

	The thirteen years I have been on death row have been very productive
years - years in which God has moved in my life and has inspired me to touch
other lives.  That is the service that will never be forgotten; that is
something that will always live on.

	I know many people have been longing and waiting for this moment
in which the McCleskey case will end, but I would like to say to you that the
McCleskey case will never end.

					- Warren McCleskey
================================================================================

PS  Yes, Warren McCleskey is/was Black.

    "Peace" and "Forgiveness" doesn't require us to commute a just death
    sentence.

    Do we pardon the articulate murderers and condemn the incoherent?

>    Do we pardon the articulate murderers and condemn the incoherent?
    
    I suspect that happens quite often!

re Note 271.147 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     "Peace" and "Forgiveness" doesn't require us to commute a just death
>     sentence.
  
        Then what, pray tell, would the word "Forgiveness" mean?

        Bob

re Note 271.148 by LJOHUB::NSMITH:

> >    Do we pardon the articulate murderers and condemn the incoherent?
>     
>     I suspect that happens quite often!

        Or the rich ones (who can hire articulateness) or the white ones
        or ....

        Bob

I'm so glad that he became a follower of Jesus before
his death.  Although hardly anyone really wants to
die, what awaits him is much better than the prison
cell he was in here (which is not to be taken as a
statement regarding capital punishment, please, but
just a relevant observation).

Collis

    For his sake, I hope you are right, Collis.
    
    -- Mike

    Forgiveness is the restoration of the state that existed prior to the
    offense.  It means that you're not holding a grudge.

    Forgiveness is giving up the resentment not the punishment.

    I view forgiveness as something more than just restoration of a prior
    state.  I see is as a creative act, a building of something newer and
    better between two parties than had existed before.  That is the beauty
    of reconciliation--when both parties take something away that makes
    both of them better for it.  And the mode of punishment can be either
    consistent or inconsistent with building a reconciliation.  Punishment
    that is vindictive, vengeful, or intended to inflict permanent harm
    does nothing to advance this aim.  Parents can discipline their
    children out of love; they can also abuse their children out of anger
    to the point of broken bones and black eyes.  The former is an example
    of how punishment can be conducted out of love for the punished one;
    the latter is an example of how it can unloving (no matter how much the
    parent may convince themselves of otherwise.)

    Reconciliation is often a difficult road to pursue, and it is not
    always something that we can accomplish.  But it is a beautiful thing
    to shoot for.  That is what I always liked about the stories of Joseph
    and his brothers, or Jacob and Esau, in the book of  Genesis.  If
    Hollywood ever does a portrayal of the story of Joseph, it would
    probably be updated for modern movie viewing tastes.  It would probably
    be called Jewish Terminator: The Beginning, and would start Arnold
    Schwarzenegger as the wronged brother Joseph who plots revenge against
    them all his life.  When they come to Egypt, he tells them to "Make His
    Day", they tell him to do something obscene with a camel, and he ends
    up blowing them away with an Uzi.  The audience cheers this tale of
    revenge, with everyone especially liking the bloodbath at the end. 

    But of course, that isn't how Genesis portrays it at all.  Isn't there
    something really beautiful about the way the brothers in conflict
    finally reconcile themselves after so long? Those stories are timeless
    precisely because of how moving is the portrayal of reconciliation between
    them.  And it is not only because they are brothers, but because they
    are human beings.
    
    -- Mike

I would like to include an excerpt and reference to Note 525.74 by Laura
Steinhart:

>     When these penalties were the law of the land during times of Jewish
>     sovereignty (such as before the Roman period), they were used extremely
>     rarely.  The teaching is that the court which hands down such a verdict
>     is considered to have blood on its hands and is like a murderer itself.
>     This implies great shame for the judges.   Justice tempered with mercy
>     is the guideline.
  
I suggest reading Laura's entire note.

Bob

/* Written 10:33 pm  Dec  9, 1992 by hnaylor@igc.apc.org in igc:ai.general */
/* ---------- "USA: Execution on Human Rights Day" ---------- */
Amnesty International
International Secretariat
1 Easton Street
London WC1X 8DJ
United Kingdom
 
DATE: 10 DECEMBER 1992
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: PRISONER SCHEDULED TO BE EXECUTED IN VIRGINIA ON
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
 
The execution of Timothy Bunch, scheduled to take place in Virginia on
International Human Rights Day - 10 December 1992 - would add yet another grim
statistic to the US practice of killing prisoners, which has reached a record
number this year. 
 
      Timothy Bunch was sentenced to death in November 1982 for the murder of
a woman, Su Cha Thomas, in January 1982. He received poor legal representation
at his trial: the two court-appointed lawyers assigned to his case had never
handled a capital case before.
 
      Twenty-nine prisoners have been executed in the USA so far this year,
more than in any one year since US states reinstated the death penalty in the
mid 1970s.  Over 2600 prisoners are under sentence of death in 36 states, a
record number in US history.  Four states, including California, carried out
their first executions in a quarter century or more, and the trend is set to
increase, with the courts - guided by the US Supreme Court - placing ever more
restrictions on the right of appeal in capital cases.
 
      Among those executed this year was Johnny Garrett, a juvenile offender
put to death in Texas in violation of international standards which prohibit
the imposition of the death penalty on people aged under 18 at the time of the
crime.  Convicted of murdering an elderly nun when he was 17, Garrett had been
severely sexually and physically abused as a child.  He was described by a
psychiatrist as "one of the most psychiatrically impaired inmates" she had
ever examined, and by a psychologist as having "one of the most virulent
histories of abuse and neglect...I have encountered in over 28 years of
practice".  
 
      At least six prisoners suffering from mental illness, brain damage or
mental retardation have been executed in 1992, flying in the face of United
Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) guidelines which provide that the
death penalty should not be carried out on people who are mentally impaired. 
One of these was Nollie Martin, executed in Florida in May, who suffered from
severe mental impairment as a result of several serious head injuries in
childhood.  He had a history of psychosis, suicidal depression and self-
mutilation, and had been physically and sexually abused from infancy.
 
      Evidence indicates that many of the prisoners executed so far in 1992
received inadequate legal representation at their trials, with court-
appointed lawyers failing, for example, to present crucial mitigating evidence
to the sentencing hearing, including a history of mental illness or abuse.  
 
      The execution of Roger Coleman in Virginia in May went ahead despite
doubts which had been raised about his guilt.  He had been represented at
trial by lawyers who had never handled a murder or rape case before, and who
failed to investigate many points of evidence.  His appeal lawyers were
unfamiliar with Virginia law, and inadvertently filed an appeal to the state
court one day too late, resulting in its dismissal on procedural grounds.  The
US Supreme Court dismissed his appeal by six votes to three in June 1991,
stating that "Coleman must bear the risk of attorney error that results in a
procedural default."
 
      Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases, as a
violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel,
inhuman or degrading punishment, as declared in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.    In the United States, Amnesty International has found that
the death penalty is both arbitrary and discriminatory in its application: 
studies have consistently shown that those convicted of murdering white
victims are far more likely to be sentenced to death than other offenders.  It
is common for black defendants accused of capital crimes in some states to be
to be convicted by all-white juries from which prosecutors have deliberately
excluded black prospective jurors.
 
      The US is out of line with current world trends towards abolition of the
death penalty in law or practice, a trend which is particularly marked in both
western and eastern Europe.  Countries which have abolished the death penalty
for all offences since 1989 include the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic,
Rumania, Hungary, New Zealand, Cambodia, Ireland, Mozambique, and Namibia.  In
1990 Nepal abolished the death penalty for murder and Bulgaria announced a
moratorium on executions pending consideration of the country's capital
punishment laws.  In July 1991, the then Soviet Union reduced the number of
crimes punishable by death from 18 to five.  South Africa has suspended all
executions since February 1990.  In June 1992, Paraguay abolished the death
penalty for ordinary crimes.
 
      Amnesty International is calling on Governor Wilder of Virginia to
commute the death sentence of Timothy Bunch, and is urging Virginia and all
other states to abolish this punishment which is not in keeping with the
standards and values of a civilized society.

    The argument against capital punishment would hold more water if only
    these anti-Cap people paid as much attention to the murdered as they
    did to the murderers. 
    
    Mike

    The last time I checked, there is no public debate on whether or not
    murder by individual citizens should be a crime or not.  I think there
    is a broad national consensus on this question, the last time I
    checked.  :-)  Obviously, then, opponents of capital punishment have
    focused their attention on the prisoners being killed by the state
    because that *is* where the debate lies.

    If and when politicians start calling for the legalization of murder by
    individual citizens, then rest assured that "these anti-Cap people"
    will focus their attention on the victims of murder in their pleas
    against its legalization. :-)

    -- Mike

From:	CRL::"QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU" "Quaker concerns re community, consensus process, spirituality, etc..." 11-DEC-1992 16:37:30.40
To:	Multiple recipients of list QUAKER-L <QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
CC:	
Subj:	T.Bunch - Death & Life

/* Written 10:56 am  Dec 11, 1992 by dfinke@igc.apc.org in igc:gen.quaker */
/* ---------- "T.Bunch - Death & Life" ---------- */
                    Reflections on Tim Bunch's Death
                                                           12/11/92

When I awakened this morning, the radio news had the information which I had
dreaded to hear and had avoiding trying to learn last night before I turned
in: Indeed, at 11pm EST on International Human Rights Day, the State of
Virginia deliberately, methodically, irrevocably, and violently extinguished
the life of this Convinced Friend.

I say the "State of Virginia," and blush that I thereby perpetuate the deadly
myth that governments have minds and wills.  In fact, it was prison guards
and officers, ordinary employees, human beings like myself with feelings and
families, who were commanded to put Tim into the instrument of death and let
loose the energy that killed him.  One of the lies and horrors of capital
punishment, as with war, is that it tries to legitimate the passing of the
buck --somehow it's always someone *else* who is responsible, in this
conscious act of prematurely ending the life of a sister or brother.  Surely
Gov. Wilder must have consoled himself that it wasn't HIS decision --he just
was letting the courts' due process be fulfilled.  Everybody, up and down the
line, was just "doing what they had to do," "just following orders".  What
terrible things must be conjured up as being let loose if compassionate human
emotion, empathy, sympathy, forgiveness, or mercy were allowed to interfere
with the mechanical grinding on of the social "order"!

I realize, somewhat to my embarrassment, that I had tried hard in the
previous two days not to obsess on the fact of Tim's impending doom.  At some
level, both conscious and unconscious, I was trying to honor him and me and
our shared tradition by "getting on with life."  The partial irony is that
since Tuesday, I have been involved in another person's death and thereby her
life: I had been on the road with my Dad to an out-of-state funeral of his
last surviving aunt, a woman of 88 years who had been exceptionally good and
kind to each of us.  Only a dozen people were present at her memorial (almost
all somewhat distant relatives).  There would have been no pall-bearers other
than the undertakers had Dad and I not offered to carry her to the grave,
lower her down, and toss in a few cold clods with our blessings and
thanksgiving to her.  And then we strolled around the little snowy hillside
hunting up the names of ancestors of ours dating well into the last century,
and feeling very connected to them and to each other: somehow feeling both
sober and fulfillled.

Once more I was deeply convinced that death becomes a lens that puts life
into focus, that makes us consider what our days are about, that forces us to
acknowledge that we have a finite span of consciousness upon our good earth.
And then the Life-Death continuum asks, "What will you do with this?"

On our drive back Wed. and Thurs., I felt a tangible sense of the meaning and
direction and purposes of our lives, and the debt that generations owe each
other in constant learning as well as support.  By yesterday morning, with
just the two of us, my father and I experienced a breakthrough in the ability
to talk about deep and hard and puzzling things having to do with family
relationships, more than once speaking the unspeakable and laying aside the
myths and taboos, in a common pursuit of Truth, letting Reality speak to and
through us.  These were the kinds of conversations and mutual searching that
become possible between a person of 51 and one of 83, that we longed for but
couldn't approach when I was a teenager and young adult.  And I am convinced
it was in large measure potentiated because we were more aware of our own
mortality --the limitedness of life.  We had been in the presence of Death.
And we knew that we didn't have unlimited more years in which to talk
together.

Does it seem that I have wandered from reflecting on the recent death of Tim
Bunch?  Of course; but it is all of a piece.  For one thing, I (as I believe
was the case for Tim) find a comfort and a renewal in trying to put things
into words.  Sometimes we're not entirely sure what we're thinking or feeling
until we write it out and share it into the public space.  I was especially
pleased that in the national news bulletin of two sentences, they saw fit to
say that before dying he gave a six-minute speech about how society treats
the poor and the dispossessed and the imprisoned.  With his life, he bought a
platform on which to bear witness to Truth.  Though we may hear more
specifics later, at this point I am envisioning that in that grim and ghastly
chamber of death there was for a few moments a Meeting for Worship in which
even the most reluctant had to hear the preaching of The Word.  And my Quaker
faith asserts that "That of God" in the executioners was reached to and
perhaps touched.

I spoke earlier of a sense of embarrassment.  This goes beyond the statement
of "chagrin" with which I introduced my public messages of clemency appeal;
that had to do with the unseemly nature of Quakers appealing for the life of
a fellow-Quaker, but being too silent too often for the lives of others not
personally known to us.  The embarrassment emotion goes back many years.  I
remember when the State of Illinois had last executed a prisoner in about
1961, and I fervently prayed at that time that when I had children, I
wouldn't have to acknowledge that our government killed people "in the name
of the people of the State of Illinois."  For many years thereafter, there
were sentences but no executions in capital cases in my state (yet true until
this last year.)

But I was still not spared the personal pain of involvement in this atrocity
of the death penalty: I vividly recall the sinking feeling when my daughter,
around 2nd or 3rd grade, asked me if it were really true that there were such
things as electric chairs (as an older playmate had graphically described to
her.)  I was deeply ashamed of my society that I had to acknowledge in the
affirmative.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if I could have said that it was like
slavery or child sacrifice or drawing-&-quartering -- abominations that were
true in the past but which we had, gratefully, outgrown and rejected as
humanity became more civilized.  Having to admit to this dark side in our
organized life was somewhat similar to having to explain to her, years
earlier, that one of her grandfathers had been killed in a war.  How does one
make the violently irrational fit into the reasonable presumptions of Life?!
I warn those contemplating parenthood that there are some burdens we would
much rather not bear, and we must ask the forgiveness of a newer generation
for what is laid upon them.

I regret that (away from a computer & modem for several days) I had not
extended my heart in open sympathy and support to our Friend Mike, who spent
these last days and hours with Tim.  As always, I think there are dimensions
of suffering for those surviving death that are not experienced by those who
are resigned to the fact that their own life is ending.  For Mike, we must
acknowledge that the State of Virginia has tortured him, perhaps even more
than Tim's biological family:  To walk with a person to their place of death
and have to witness the gruesomeness of such heartless cruelty must make
terrible scars on the soul.  I have had Mike on my mind in a special way, and
earnestly pray that our Lord may give him peace and solace, may help him
transcend the bitterness or possible sense of personal failure which may
unjustly tempt him.  Mike was, heroically, standing there for all of us who
claimed to care, and he has borne a suffering I hope none of the rest of us
will have to endure.  Thank you, Mike, and may you experience The Comforter
in the depth of your being.

In my own attempt to make sense of the senseless, I reach for some vision of
the possible redemptive nature of suffering.  I want to believe that this
ordeal will give some new life within our Society of Friends to a concern for
those on death row, will re-vivify our historic testimony against the taking
of life by the state, will sensitize us to those appeals which may come from
committed groups like Amnesty International: to be our Brothers' and Sisters'
keepers.  It is a fact that the death of 4 Quakers in the Massachussetts over
300 years ago turned the tide of public opinion against the Puritan theocracy
and its determination to enforce with death its view of the Truth.

I regret that there may be hundreds more executed in our country, in a
mistaken pursuit of security,  before we leave the shameful ranks of those
countries which still kill their own citizens in the name of justice: China,
Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, (and we used to say South Africa, until
they suspended further hangings.)  We are a long ways from obliterating
organized violence and death in our world, but we must resolutely demand that
our democratic governments cease forever the killing of our fellow citizens
in our name.  When we speak of the abomination of war, let us not lose the
opportunity to speak of the war against those without resources in our own
midst, who are paying with their lives for the iniquities of an entire unjust
social order which glorifies and commercializes violence.

I have said enough here, for now.  The end of life is irreversible, and must
be faced by each of us if we are honest.  That is a given fact.  We have in
our hand no control over our mortality, but we can indeed make choices about
the quality of our lives and that of those around us, while we live.  I
believe that in these recent years, Tim Bunch gave us a lesson in taking
charge of the direction of one's life, seeking to minister to others, seeking
to ameliorate to some extent the mistakes every one of us makes.  His life,
for all its imperfections, was a witness.  May we get on with letting our
Light also shine.

                                                           -D. Finke






===========

I am also sharing this with f/Friends on the larger "quaker-l", and folks
are free to use it further in any way they may find helpful. I hope we
continue the discussion to good effect.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA16161; Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:37:02 -0500
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA18071; Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:36:59 -0500
% Message-Id: <9212112136.AA18071@crl.dec.com>
% Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 4107; Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:24:56 EST
% Received: from PUCC.BITNET by PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 4482; Fri, 11 Dec 92 14:01:18 EST
% Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 10:59:16 PST
% Reply-To: "Quaker concerns re community, consensus process, spirituality,              etc..." <QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
% Sender: "Quaker concerns re community, consensus process, spirituality,              etc..." <QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
% From: David Finke <dfinke@IGC.APC.ORG>
% Subject:      T.Bunch - Death & Life
% To: Multiple recipients of list QUAKER-L <QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>

From:	CRL::"QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU" "Quaker concerns re community, consensus process, spirituality, etc..." 13-DEC-1992 12:21:09.80
To:	Multiple recipients of list QUAKER-L <QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
CC:	
Subj:	letter to the WASHINGTON POST

>
>To the Editor of the Washington Post:
>
>       I read with horror Bill Miller's article about the December 10 execution
>of Timothy Dale Bunch in Virginia's electric chair, entitled "Execution
>Witnesses Are Surprised at What They Don't See" (Metro, December 13), and
>focused on the reactions of the six state-selected witnesses.  My horror is
>not that these people witnessed the execution; indeed, Mr. Bunch requested
>that it be videotaped and that his electrocution be conducted without the
>usual leather mask covering his face.  Both requests were denied by state
>officials interested in concealing a full view of the effects of electrocution
>and in hiding it entirely from the general public.  Rather, I am horrified at
>the account of the witnesses--all hand-picked supporters of capital
>punishment--as motivated by lurid curiosity, and also the encouragement by the
>article of the point of view that electrocution is not grisly and that it
>serves as a deterrent.  Capital punishment has been amply shown not to be an
>effective deterrent, especially against crimes of passion such as the one Mr.
>Bunch himself committed.
>
>       The real missing story here, though, is that the state of Virginia once
>again acted as murderer itself, and that in the end Mr. Bunch, like all other
>victims of capital punishment, was murdered by the state.  His conviction
>would have been thrown out of court if it had occurred after changes in the
>law prohibiting the extraction of confessions previous to the arrival of legal
>counsel.  In his case, the family of his victim asked for clemency, writing
>that his death would only add to their sorrow.
>
>     During his decade in prison, Timothy Bunch--who grew up as the son of an
>alcoholic, abusive father, and learned in the Marines about what he could do
>with a gun--underwent a thorough conversion, repenting his crime and becoming
>a member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).  My good friend and
>fellow Quaker, Mike Conner, got to know Tim very well over a period of more
>than eight years of correspondence and visitation.   I feel revulsion over the
>remark by one of the witnesses, who never met Mr. Bunch, that "I'm sure that
>if the governor commuted his sentence, he would have lost God immediately."
>
>       We all lose a part of God when anyone is killed, especially when
>deliberately murdered by the state with our silent consent.  As my mother-in-
>law remarked the other day, Jesus Christ wouldn't do that.  During an autumn
>and winter when the issue of capital punishment has received virtually no
>national attention because all of the major presidential candidates quietly
>supported it, we need to examine our consciences about our own complicity in
>the case of state-sanctioned and state-conducted executions.
>
>                                                               Sincerely,

Jim Cahalan, English Department         BITNET: JCAHALAN@IUP
110B Leonard Hall,                      Internet: jcahalan@grove.iup.edu
Indiana University of Pennsylvania      FAX: 412-357-6213
Indiana, PA 15705-1094                  Tel: (412) 357-2262

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA05040; Sun, 13 Dec 92 12:20:36 -0500
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA09090; Sun, 13 Dec 92 12:20:33 -0500
% Message-Id: <9212131720.AA09090@crl.dec.com>
% Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 0179; Sun, 13 Dec 92 12:20:40 EST
% Received: from PUCC.BITNET by PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 9682; Sun, 13 Dec 92 12:20:40 EST
% Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 12:18:00 EST
% Reply-To: "Quaker concerns re community, consensus process, spirituality,              etc..." <QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
% Sender: "Quaker concerns re community, consensus process, spirituality,              etc..." <QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
% From: Jim_Cahalan <JCAHALAN%IUP.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
% Subject:      letter to the WASHINGTON POST
% To: Multiple recipients of list QUAKER-L <QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>

From:	CRL::"QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU" "Quaker concerns re community, consensus process, spirituality, etc..." 21-DEC-1992 09:45:51.22
To:	Multiple recipients of list QUAKER-L <QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
CC:	
Subj:	Tim Bunch funeral fund

Just a note to report that Friends Meeting at Indiana, PA is sending a
contribution to help defray the costs of Tim Bunch's funeral to the address
that Howard Fullerton posted from Baltimore Yearly Meeting (17100 Quaker Lane,
Sandy Spring, MD 20860), and we've brought it to the attention of the clerk of
Pittsburgh Meeting, who will be putting an announcement in their bulletin.  We
assume that other meetings have taken similar steps.

Jim Cahalan, English Department         BITNET: JCAHALAN@IUP
110B Leonard Hall,                      Internet: jcahalan@grove.iup.edu
Indiana University of Pennsylvania      FAX: 412-357-6213
Indiana, PA 15705-1094                  Tel: (412) 357-2262

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA26207; Mon, 21 Dec 92 09:45:51 -0500
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA17926; Mon, 21 Dec 92 09:45:46 -0500
% Message-Id: <9212211445.AA17926@crl.dec.com>
% Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 3308; Mon, 21 Dec 92 09:41:40 EST
% Received: from PUCC.BITNET by PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 1513; Mon, 21 Dec 92 09:25:09 EST
% Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:21:00 EST
% Reply-To: "Quaker concerns re community, consensus process, spirituality,              etc..." <QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
% Sender: "Quaker concerns re community, consensus process, spirituality,              etc..." <QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
% From: Jim_Cahalan <JCAHALAN%IUP.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
% Subject:      Tim Bunch funeral fund
% To: Multiple recipients of list QUAKER-L <QUAKER-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>

From:	CRL::"QUAKER-P@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu" "Quaker concerns related to peace and social justice issues" 10-MAR-1993 14:25:45.29
To:	Multiple recipients of list QUAKER-P <QUAKER-P@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
CC:	
Subj:	Capital Punishment in R.I.

/* Written  6:51 pm  Mar  9, 1993 by rfrechette@igc.apc.org in igc:gen.quaker */
/* ---------- "Capital Punishment in R.I." ---------- */
        CAPITAL PUNISHMENT LEGISLATION IN RHODE ISLAND

Rhode Island remains one of the few states in the U.S. that does
not currently allow capital punishment, but this distinction is
seriously threatened in the current year.

In the early days of the state, capital punishment was allowed,
but the execution of an innocent person in the mid 1800s, coupled
with a strong Quaker and other peace group movement brought the
end of the death penalty.  Capital punishment was allowed on the
books in 1973, but declared unconstitutional because of the
legislation's lack of humane controls.  Since that time,
legislation for death penalty has been introduced almost yearly,
but has never to date surfaced beyond the judiciary committee
level.

In Rhode Island's 1993 legislative session, three bills have been
introduced which relate to capital punishment. 93-S-103
(introduced by Sen. Harold Miller) and 93-H-5-76 (introduced by
Reps. Pires, Faria, Kilmartin, Coelho and Rose) are almost
matching bills.  Both would provide for the option of death
penalty in Murder I convictions, following a review by the jury of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances.  The punishment would be
by lethal injection.

93-S-105 (also introduced by Sen. Miller) calls for a non-binding
referendum in November, 1994, on the question "shall the general
assembly pass a bill imposing the death penalty for persons
convicted of murder in the first degree?"

These bills are similar to ones introduced last year.  What may be
very different this year is the legislative climate.  Last year
(and for the last several years), the chairs of both the House and
Senate judiciary committees were strongly opposed to capital
punishment, and they used their power to kill the bills in
committee.  This year, however, both new chairpersons have
expressed an openness on the subject.  Additionally, new
regulations in both houses allow for bills to reach the floor for
vote in spite of committee opposition.

There seems to be a widespread sense that, if these bills reach
the floor, there is a reasonable likelihood of passage.  More than
likely, legislators will want to pass the issue to the general
public (i.e. the referendum bill) to see if there is overwhelming
popular support.

Rhode Island opposers of the death penalty are urged to take
several steps: (1) Write to your own senator and representative
urging his/her rejection of capital punishment; (2) Write to the
House and Senate Judiciary committee (State House, Providence, RI
02903) within the next few weeks urging rejection; (3) better yet,
plan to attend the hearing(s)  when scheduled (they are not yet
scheduled, but I will post the schedules when available; (4) hold
legislators in the Light.  Last, If the referendum bill passes,
there will be a need for a public education campaign on the issue
of capital punishment.  This will demand much of us all in the way
of time and effort.

Non Rhode Islanders are urged to join in prayer for a Rhode Island
clearness in this matter

This from the Smithfield Monthly Meeting of Friends in RHode
Island:  "...Smithfield Meeting will oppose any legislation that
would reinstitute the death penalty in Rhode Island.  This stems
from our belief that there is that of God in all people."  (Minute
92.16: February 23, 1992)

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA09429; Wed, 10 Mar 93 14:27:46 -0500
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA17642; Wed, 10 Mar 93 14:27:44 -0500
% Message-Id: <9303101927.AA17642@crl.dec.com>
% Received: from VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU by vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 4618; Wed, 10 Mar 93 13:28:47 CST
% Received: from VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UIUCVMD) by VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5989; Wed, 10 Mar 1993 13:28:46 -0600
% Date:         Wed, 10 Mar 1993 11:25:23 PST
% Reply-To: Quaker concerns related to peace and social justice issues              <QUAKER-P@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
% Sender: Quaker concerns related to peace and social justice issues              <QUAKER-P@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
% From: Joel Sax <jsax@IGC.APC.ORG>
% Subject:      Capital Punishment in R.I.
% To: Multiple recipients of list QUAKER-P <QUAKER-P@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>

Article: 6456
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.news.law.crime.trial,clari.news.goodnews,clari.news.group.women,clari.news.top
Subject: Convicted murderer and rapist goes free
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 93 9:28:06 PDT
 
	TOWSON, Md. (UPI) -- Marine veteran Kirk Bloodsworth, a former death
row inmate twice convicted of raping and murdering a 9-year-old girl,
walked out of prison a free man Monday because DNA test results cleared
him of the 1984 crime.
	Baltimore County State's Attorney Sandra A. O'Connor dropped the
charges against Bloodsworth, a 32-year-old former waterman who was
convicted twice of murdering Dawn Hamilton in a woods outside of
Baltimore.
	Dawn had been beaten with a rock, sexually molested and strangled.
	Bloodsworth was convicted in 1985 and sentenced to death, but the
Maryland Court of Appeals ordered a second trial because police had not
told Bloodsworth's lawyers that another suspect existed -- a newspaper
deliveryman who was found in the woods shortly before Dawn's body was
found and who was wearing a shirt spotted with what looked like blood.
	Bloodsworth was convicted again in 1987 and sentenced to life in
prison.
	``It was a long shot that paid off,'' Robert E. Morin, Bloodsworth's
attorney, said of the testing. ``This man spent nine years in prison in
a hellhole. I would hope the state of Maryalnd would offer compensation
for him.''
	But O'Connor said there ``is nothing for the state to apologize for.
This is a very sad case. A sad case because Dawn Hamilton was murdered
in a very brutal way. But in this case, everyone along the way -- the
state's attorney's office -- has done the correct thing.''
	The DNA testing that cleared Bloodsworth was not available at the
time he was convicted, although technicians later recovered a spot of
semen, less than 1/16th inch wide, on the girl's underpants.
	Bloodsworth consistently maintained his innocence and last year a
Batimore County judge, at the request of both prosecution and defense,
ordered Dawn's panties, shirt and other evidence sent to a California
lab for testing.
	Forensic Science Associates in California concluded that Bloodsworth
has ``been eliminated as a potential source of the sperm from the
panties.''
	Morin said the FBI confirmed the California test results by telephone
last Friday.
	At the time of his sentencing, Bloodsworth told the judge, ``I never
in my history (committed) a violent act, especially on a child.''
	This weekend, Bloodsworth told his attorney, ``I have been saying for
nine years that I was innocent, that I did not kill the little girl. Now
we have proved it. I feel sorry for the child's family. My hope is that
the real killer can be found and give them and me some peace.''
	O'Connor said the investigation into the murder will continue.

It is precisely cases like this that make me completely oppose the death
penalty in cases where the guilt has not been proven beyond a shadow of
a doubt (not just reasonable doubt, as is required by law).

I still oppose it, but grudgingly accept it, in notorious cases where
there is no doubt whatsoever of guilt.

I oppose it because even when we are sure we have the perpetrator, we can
never be completely sure of culpability, nor can we be sure that the condemned
would not provide some benefit to humanity, even if locked in prison for life.

/john

    Re: .164
    
    What would you do with Damier?
    
    Marc H.

Article: 174
Newsgroups: dc.general,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal,alt.prisons
From: ae446@Freenet.carleton.ca (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Former Death Row Inmates to Testify
Sender: news@freenet.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: The National Capital Freenet, Ottawa
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 08:53:30 GMT
 
 
[Please read this in its entirety before you reply. Please note that
follow-ups are set to alt.activism.death-penalty.]
 
Here is a press release from the Death Penalty Information Center.
I downloaded the press release from the PR On-Line BBS in Maryland at
410-363-0834.
 
 Former Death Row Inmate, Freed by DNA Test, to Testify With Three
Others Who Once Faced Execution
 To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor
 Contact: Peter L. Kelley of the Death Penalty Information Center,
          202-745-0707
 
   WASHINGTON, July 22  -- Kirk Bloodsworth, the Cambridge, Md., 
man who spent two years on death row but was freed
from a Maryland prison June 28 by a DNA test which established his
innocence, will join three other former death row inmates from
Alabama, Texas and Florida before a House panel at 9:30 a.m. this
Friday, July 23, in Rayburn 2226.
   The four will testify before the House Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, chaired by Rep.
Don Edwards (D-Calif.)   All were released from prison after
the courts found errors in either the factual or the procedural
case which brought them to death row.  They are:
 
 
   --  Kirk Bloodsworth, freed June 28 after a newly available and
more sophisticated DNA test showed that it couldn't have been his
semen on the underwear of a nine-year-old girl raped and murdered
in 1984 in Baltimore County.
 
-- Walter McMillian, released in March 1993 from death row in
Alabama after serving six years for a crime he should never have
been charged with.  No physical evidence linked him to the murder
and the three witnesses who testified against him all received
favors for their testimony and later recanted their accusations.
McMillian has sued the state of Alabama for $14 million, charging
racial bias and other improprieties.
 
   --  Federico Macias, released in December 1992 following a
federal writ of habeas corpus.  The U.S. Court of Appeals
commented, "The state (of Texas) paid defense counsel $11.84 per
hour.  Unfortunately, the justice system got only what it paid
for." In June 1993, a Texas grand jury refused to re-indict him
and all charges were dropped.
 
   -- Shabaka Waglini (Joseph Green Brown), released in 1987 from
death row in Florida after the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled his
conviction was based on suppression of exculpatory evidence by the
prosecutor.  Brown came within 15 hours of his execution and spent
13 years in prison before the chief witness against him changed
his story.
 
   For more information, including studies on 23 innocent people
executed this century, and judicial system abuses of the death
penalty, contact Peter L. Kelley of the Death Penalty Information
Center at Fenton Communications, 202-745-0707.
 
 -30-
 
 
 
-- 
Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada  ae446@freenet.carleton.ca

Note 9.840

>It is not an individual's decision and should never be.  It
>is God's decision and, in some instances, the decision of
>God's instituted authorities.

Collis,

	Care to name names on who is and who isn't God's instituted
authorities?  Reagan?  Bush?  Clinton?  The Governor of Louisiana?
Stalin?  Hitler?  Nero?  Caligula?  Pinochet?  Noriega?  Christiani?
Castro?

Richard

  >Care to name names on who is and who isn't God's instituted
  >authorities? 

I'll be pleased to provide a reference:  Romans 13.

I expect that even you and I will agree on the meaning of
this passage.

Collis

    I know the references.
    
    I take it you are not willing to admit that like the issue of women
    covering their heads, the author was addressing something that was
    more directly applicable to the time and culture in which it was written?
    
    Call it what you wish.  When I do it, it gets called "picking and
    choosing."
    
    Richard
    

Richard,

    >Call it what you wish.  When I do it, it gets called "picking and
    >choosing."

Do you accept the authority of what is written?  Do you intend
to understand and apply what it says, not neglecting it?  If
you can answer yes to both of those questions, then I don't
believe you are picking and choosing.

Re:  applicability

I hardly think that the Jews (or Gentiles) of that time thought
that they had entered Nirvana under the current government.
Not only that, but Paul *explicitly* says that *all* authorities
are established by God.  He didn't exclude Bill Clinton.  Neither
did he exclude Hitler.  (No, I'm not making a comparison.  :-) 
Think of it as a contrast.)

We are to obey authority.  There is a time when we are to obey
a higher authority rather than a lower authority.  When it comes
to worship, for example, we must obey God.  Exactly when to choose
what has been a discussion often entered into down through the
ages.

Collis

    re: .164
    
>    I oppose it because even when we are sure we have the perpetrator, we can
> never be completely sure of culpability, nor can we be sure that the condemned
> would not provide some benefit to humanity, even if locked in prison for life.
    
    I read today in a magazine of just such a case. A man in Scotland is
    currently doing a life sentence for murder. He admits his guilt and
    accepts his punishment.
    During his time in prison, he has achieved qualification as an
    architect. Some time ago, he read about a little girl who is allergic
    to sunlight. She cannot go out unless she is completely protected from
    the sun by a special costume. I believe she even has to have the 
    brightness of the television turned down. For the last three years, the 
    prisoner in Scotland has been using his new skills to design a home for 
    this little girl, who is now 9, so that she can have a little more freedom 
    than she has done to date. 
    The magazine is trying to raise enough money to have the house built.
    When it is built, it will belong to the charity which supports
    sufferers of this particular rare condition.

Camus said about Christians:

	"The unbeliever cannot keep from thinking that men who have set
at the center of their faith the staggering victim of judicial error
ought at least to hesitate before committing legal murder.  Believers
might also be reminded of Emperor Julian, before his conversion, did not
want to give official offices to Christians because they systematically
refused to pronounce death sentences or to have anything to do with them.
For five centuries Christians therefore believed that the strict moral
teaching of their master forbade killing."

(Note 398.80 MORALES_NA)

>    The death penalty was instituted by God.  If you believe in God, you
>    must believe in the death penalty... right?  No, it's not that simpleis
>    it.

You must be refering to Levitical law to which Christians are not bound
(which assumes it is better to follow Jesus than Mosaic Law), or when the
Israelites were wandering in the desert with no jails, no way to enforce
life imprisonment without parole.

'Course, if the death penalty was good enough for Jesus....

Richard

        In Massachusetts it's that awful time again when a series of
        police officers have been killed in the line of duty and the
        death-penalty advocates exploit the misery of the victim's
        families and the the anger of the populace to further their
        legislative agenda. 

        The Massachusetts legislature recently rejected a death
        penalty proposal.  The governor calls for "sober"
        reconsideration of the death penalty (again exploiting the
        current frenzy of emotion -- anything but sober).

        The same people who oppose giving the legislature the power
        to set graduated tax rates (because they don't trust the
        government!) now want the legislature to authorize
        executions.  The same people who so often question the
        judgment of juries and judges want to give those same juries
        and judges the power to impose death.

        The irony is heightened by the fact that no current or recent
        death penalty legislation would have kept the most recent
        killer from being able to perform his deed.  And even under
        current law, if convicted he will never be released to kill
        again.  And it is unlikely that the threat of death would
        have deterred the felon from firing at an armed police
        officer, who nearly succeeded in killing the accused with
        returned fire -- after all, the threat of death is already
        inherent in such a situation.

        Whenever I see the public rise up in emotion to get revenge
        on some despised class, I realize that anything is possible,
        even here.

        Bob

          >>  And it is unlikely that the threat of death would
          >>  have deterred the felon from firing at an armed police
          >>  officer, who nearly succeeded in killing the accused with
          >>  returned fire -- after all, the threat of death is already
          >>  inherent in such a situation.
    
         I'd like to try it anyway.  I believe the current appeal system is
    	what is flawed in our justice system.  I believe the Constitutional
    	right to a fair and speedy trial applies to the victim also, not 
    	just the accused.  I believe justice needs to be meted out alot 
    	more swiftly than as current.  
    
    >>        Whenever I see the public rise up in emotion to get revenge
    >>        on some despised class, I realize that anything is possible,
    >>        even here.
    
    Despised class?  You strike me as an intelligent individual so I hope
    you aren't just spewing out thoughtless rhetoric.  Most, I repeat,
    MOST citizens who favor the death penalty do not care what class the 
    individual is from.  If 300 murderers are tried and found guilty, and
    299 of them are white, then most people could care less that 99.997%
    of them are white.  We Want Justice...Period!
    
    -Jack

re: Note 271.175 by Jack

>     Despised class?  You strike me as an intelligent individual so I hope
>    you aren't just spewing out thoughtless rhetoric.  

I read Bob's note to mean that *murderers* are a despised class.

Peace,

Jim

    Oh, Ok.  I thought you were referring to racial quotas for Capital
    punishment.  Yes, they are despised and I believe that a 1st degree
    murderer should forfeit their life if they take another!  I think 
    coddling murderers is equally haenous (sp?) to the murder itself!
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.177 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Oh, Ok.  I thought you were referring to racial quotas for Capital
>     punishment.  Yes, they are despised and I believe that a 1st degree
>     murderer should forfeit their life if they take another!  I think 
>     coddling murderers is equally haenous (sp?) to the murder itself!
  
        So you accept the principle that persons from despised
        classes should be exterminated?

        Bob

    >     Oh, Ok.  I thought you were referring to racial quotas for Capital
    >     punishment.  Yes, they are despised and I believe that a 1st degree
    >     murderer should forfeit their life if they take another!  I think
    >     coddling murderers is equally haenous (sp?) to the murder itself!
    
     >>       So you accept the principle that persons from despised
     >>       classes should be exterminated?
    
    This is a very broad question.   The short answer is obviously not.  
    Everybody is despised by somebody, particularly the church.  Therefore
    your question needs to be a little more specific.
    
    I do believe however, that first degree murderers are not a class of
    individuals.  First degree murderers are individuals of society who
    act on their own volition to end the life of a second party.  Such a
    person in my mind forfeits all human and constitutional rights.  
    Mr. Fleischer, there is a cute little riddle going around that goes 
    something like this.
    
    Q: What's the best way to turn a democrat into a republican?
    A: Allow him to get robbed.
    
    The same can be said about capital punishment.  I sincerely hope you 
    never have to deal with a situation but quite frankly, I believe the 
    best judges of a legality of Cap. Punishment should be the victims 
    families.  I am not a victim but I do reserve the right to state that
    1st degree murderers should be hanged...sentence to be carried out
    after 1 appeal!  Just my non-humble opinion!
    
    -Jack

    I see your point about the victims Bob.  As a non victim however, I
    firmly believe the death penalty is warranted...and I don't believe
    there is anything Godless about this philosophy!
    
    -Jack

While there might be cases where the death penalty seems justified, I just
have a real hard time squaring it with the Gospel.

While "turn the other cheek" doesn't mean we are to be total wimps or to
ignore all crimes and never punish a criminal, execution seems to be a
finality that is not consistent with God's desire to see everyone repent
and be saved.

Life in prison without the possibility of parole (really implemented as
such) does make it possible for a criminal to repent, to accept Christ,
and to possibly even make a positive contribution to society in some way
from behind the prison walls.

I want to leave the control over life and death up to God, and not take
it into my own hands.

/john

    Death penalty and war - they seem to go hand in hand.
    
    Abraham Lincoln was a gentle man (and a gentleman), yet he gave orders
    that sent over 100,000 of his fellow countrymen to there graves...
    at the hands of their own brothers.  Brutality and finality were his
    goals in the campaigns between the states.
    
    There are indeed times when death is a necessary evil.  The
    commandment, "Thou shalt not murder" again applies to those who kill
    in a premeditated state.  Scripturally, the murderer committed the
    victims death, and his own.  "...His blood is on his own hands."
    This is indeed a biblical principle.  
    
    Bob, with all due respect, I do not value the diversity of a murderers
    differences with mine.  Callous as it sounds, I don't want their
    contribution to society.  I want justice and fairness.  Our current
    system make a mockery of justice.
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.183 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Bob, with all due respect, I do not value the diversity of a murderers
>     differences with mine.  Callous as it sounds, I don't want their
>     contribution to society.  I want justice and fairness.  Our current
>     system make a mockery of justice.
  
        It is one thing to say "I don't want their contribution to
        society" and quite another to say "they should be
        exterminated."

        Nobody is asking you to "value" murder or murderers.  God
        values them, and has been known to protect them from the
        vengeance that their fellow fallen humanity would deal to
        them.

        It is certainly true that "our current system make a mockery
        of justice" -- but this has always been true and will always
        be true in a fallible system run by fallible people. 
        Executing some murderers because others were convicted of
        lesser charges and were released for reasons having nothing
        to do with capital punishment policy per se *also* mocks
        justice.

        The question remains:  are you so angry with the mockery made
        by others that you too will mock justice?

        Bob

>        Nobody is asking you to "value" murder or murderers.  God
>        values them, and has been known to protect them from the
>        vengeance that their fellow fallen humanity would deal to
>        them.

Yes.  The "cities of refuge" concept is very interesting.  It would seem
to only apply to what we now usually call "second degree" murders, but
it is a clear form of protection.

Does it still exist in modern-day Israel?

/john

re Note 271.185 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Yes.  The "cities of refuge" concept is very interesting.  It would seem
> to only apply to what we now usually call "second degree" murders, but
> it is a clear form of protection.
> 
> Does it still exist in modern-day Israel?
  
        I was more particularly thinking of the mark God placed on
        Cain (the murderer) specifically to prevent Cain from being
        killed (although in no way protecting Cain from other
        life-long punishment).

        Bob

    John:
    
    The Cities of Refuge in Joshua 12 I believe protected those who
    committed manslaughter.  If two work in the field and the ax head 
    flies off and kills the other person, then accused could flee to the
    city of refuge to escape vengeance...notice this...UNTIL HE WAS FOUND
    INNOCENT.  If found guilty, he was sentenced to death under the Mosaic
    law (1st degree murder that is).  It is a clear form of protection just
    as we are innocent until proven guilty.
    
    -Jack

  Capital punishment is a difficult issue.

  In Acts 15 the apostles debate the issue concerning the keeping of
  the mosaic commandments and decide against it. They do however 
  give a few guidleines, no idols, blood, fornication, etc.
  These seem to indicate that the Noahide covenant (given in Gen 9) is
  still in effect for the gentile nations. The death penalty is approved
  of by the Noahide covenant (which stands while there are rainbows in the
  sky) stating that those who shed man's blood must have their blood shed
  by man.

  With the added precepts of the New Covenant "love thine enemy" we could
  probably agree that our Heavenly Father approves of a *real* life sentence
  for murderers, giving ((as someone has already suggested) a chance for
  repentance (remember David, Manassah)) and the possiblity of release if
  the person is found innocent later on.

  Hank D

I saw some clips on the news about the new discusion of the death penalty.
Definitely not "sober".  People are out for vengence.  I don't blame them, 
they are in terrible pain, but I wouldn't want to base any laws on that.

*sigh*,

Jim

re Note 271.189 by TFH::KIRK:

> I don't blame them, 
> they are in terrible pain, but I wouldn't want to base any laws on that.
  
        There are definitely serious problems that must be addressed
        in the administration of justice.  Probably the biggest
        problem is early release (whether due to parole or light
        sentences) of those prone to violent crimes.  I have no
        argument with a greater application of life with no parole.

        However, I am convinced that substantial progress can be made
        only if root causes of crime are addressed.

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    If we don't have the death penalty, then I am certainly open to
    permanent exile in some God forsaken wasteland.  Somewhat similar to
    Siberia.  I think I speak for alot of the public when I say that I have
    no interest in "Mr Convict...now how does that make you feel?"  
    
    Exile them!!
    
    -Jack

re: Note 271.191 by -Jack

I agree.  "Life imprisonment" should mean exactly that.  And I don't think it 
should be in a country club. As far as appeals go, I believe they are
necessary, otherwise a wrongly imprisoned person would have no recourse, but I
think they are currently grossly overused.  I'm not sure what would be a fair
situation there. 

Peace,

Jim

| <<< Note 271.183 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


| Abraham Lincoln was a gentle man (and a gentleman), yet he gave orders that 
| sent over 100,000 of his fellow countrymen to there graves... at the hands of 
| their own brothers. Brutality and finality were his goals in the campaigns 
| between the states.

	Jack, this way of thinking has so many flaws with it. Should you be
patterning yourself after another human? I don't think so. If a human does
something, no matter how great they were, does that mean that it's always going
to be ok to do the same in God's eyes? You should be looking at it from His
perspective, shouldn't you? And not base it on what other humans have done?




Glen

    And the South to this day has not completely recovered from the War
    between the States.
    
    Some speculate that had there been just 5 John Woolmans, war might have
    been averted.
    
    (The next question?  Who is John Woolman, right?)
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I chose Abraham Lincoln as an example because he is a highly revered
    president, for the most part in our American history.  I was responding
    to this comment.
    
   >> I want to leave the control over life and death up to God, and not take
   >> it into my own hands.
    
    While I certainly see the validity in this point, I also saw Abraham 
    Lincolns reasoning as valid...trickery..brutality..finality...in order
    to right the wrongs of society...in order to lay the foundation of 
    civil rights in this country.  
    
    There are times when war and capital punishment can be justified.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, no matter how you look at it, Abraham Lincoln is a human being.
Regardless of how many people looked up to him does not matter, as he can make
mistakes and be wrong like any human. Take everything you've said the past few
notes, place Jesus in place of Abraham Lincoln, and see if it works. If it
doesn't, then it ain't a good example as we are supposed to be following Him,
not him.


Glen

   > Take everything you've said the past few
   > notes, place Jesus in place of Abraham Lincoln, and see if it works. If
   > it doesn't, then it ain't a good example as we are supposed to be
   > following Him, not him.
    
    I see the validity in this, the point is that sometimes we hold great
    men of history in high honor when in fact they acted the very way we
    despise.  
    
    Maybe I'll put my conviction down a notch.  I am indifferent to Capital 
    Punishment.  I don't feel sorry for the person getting the chair while
    at the same time recognize that Jesus had compassion on the adulterer.
    Then again I don't recall Jesus rejecting the death of the two theives
    to the Roman government.  In fact, he acknowledged their sentence and
    gave them one final chance to receive the Son of God.  One did and the
    other didn't yet he could easily have spoken against Roman execution
    practices.
    
    -Jack

Abe was once asked, refering to the War Between the States, "was God 
on our side?".  His reply was to question "were we on God's side?".
I don't think war came easily to the man.

Peace,

Jim

    I have heard that quote before, I agree with you.  I'm sure he ached
    over that one.  
    
    -Jack

        (I had a further comment on this -- I hope it's OK to revisit
        a point. :-)

re Note 271.179 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     The same can be said about capital punishment.  I sincerely hope you 
>     never have to deal with a situation but quite frankly, I believe the 
>     best judges of a legality of Cap. Punishment should be the victims 
>     families.  

        Jack,

        It is interesting that some of the people who cry "the
        victims and their families demand it" when it comes to
        capital punishment are also supporters of limitations on the
        right to sue and on awards to other classes of victims.

        The point is that in some cases of injustice a victim could
        never be properly compensated.

        Trying to achieve the unachievable (adequate compensation)
        may in itself be wrong.

        Bob

    If you are referring to tort reform, then I have to be honest and say I
    fall within that bunch.  
    
    Case in point.  A robber breaks into a home at 2:00 A.M. and while in
    process, trips over a skateboard and breaks his leg.  Robber sues for
    compensatory damages and wins!!  Unbelievable.
    
    Tort reform is desparately needed in this country.  If this isn't what
    you are referring to, could you please be more specific.  Thanks.
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.201 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Case in point.  A robber breaks into a home at 2:00 A.M. and while in
>     process, trips over a skateboard and breaks his leg.  Robber sues for
>     compensatory damages and wins!!  Unbelievable.
>     
>     Tort reform is desparately needed in this country.  If this isn't what
>     you are referring to, could you please be more specific.  Thanks.
  
        No, I was thinking more along the lines of a doctor who
        through carelessness neglects a common test and his patient
        dies who could have been saved if the test were performed. 
        He is sued for $5M by the the victim's family.

        This would also come under the rubric of "tort reform".

        We have a person whose actions led to death, and the victim's
        family seeking compensation.

        Bob

re Note 91.4324 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     If Jack murders
>     another individual and receives the death penalty, then Jack will stand
>     before God with two transgressions, that being his victims life...and
>     his very own life, just as if he committed suicide.  I believe in this
>     case the state is absolved of all blood guilt in the death penalty.
    
        So the state would just be in the position of, say, a Dr.
        Kevorkian?

        Bob

	A group in Brooklyn, New York, called Cherish Life Circle is
encouraging opponents of the death penalty to sign a "Declaration of
Life" to insure no one is ever executed for their sake.  The two-page
statements, which are signed under penalty of perjury and require
notarization, read:  "Should I die as a result of a violent crime,
I request the person found guilty of my killing not be subject to
the death penalty under any circumstances."

	Although the statement would legally bind neither prosecutor,
judge, nor jury in a criminal trial, they could be influential in
preventing someone convicted of murder from being sentenced to death.

	For a copy of the declaration send a business-size self-addressed,
stamped envelope to:

		Declaration of Life
		Convent of Mercy
		273 Willoughby Ave.
		Brooklyn, NY 11205

    Believe it or not, this used to be done in the Persian culture.  The
    book of Daniel portrays a ghastly scene of the guilty men, their wives
    and children were thrown into the lions den and were all devoured
    before they hit the bottom.
    
    It says that the sins of the fathers will not be imputed on the sons
    nor likewise the sins of the sons will not be imputed on the fathers.
    
    Capital Punishment is questionable to me.  I have no sympathy for the
    perpetrator.  What I am for though is complete disbarring of all rights
    granted under our society and the person is to be exiled.  Exiled to a
    miserable place.  How does that sound?
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.205 by CAPNET::ROSCH:

>     The idea of consequences for one's actions should guide one's actions.
>     
>     If there is no material or physical consequence for evil then there's
>     no distinguishing between good and evil. 

        Who has proposed *no* punishment for crimes and, in
        particular, evil?

        Bob

        >>    Who has proposed *no* punishment for crimes and, in
        >>    particular, evil?
    
    Bob:
    
    Our current system coddles prisoners.
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.208 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Our current system coddles prisoners.
  
        I can't imagine any degree of "coddling" that would make up
        for the loss of personal freedom of being a prisoner. 

        Besides, I think you'd have to be pretty poor and desperate
        before you might think that being in a prison was upward
        mobility!

        Bob

    Prisoners can get college degrees...prisoners get three squares a
    day...prisoners have guarenteed medical coverage...prisoners get early
    parole....prisoners have a guarenteed roof over their heads.
    
    Prisoners are coddled.
    
    -Jack

    .205
    
    Friend Rosch,
    
    	Does thee claim to be a Christian?  A follower of Christ?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

        re 271.210  by AIMHI::JMARTIN 

    > Prisoners can get college degrees...prisoners get three squares a
    > day...prisoners have guarenteed medical coverage...prisoners get early
    > parole....prisoners have a guarenteed roof over their heads.

    You would rather prisoners be kept ignorant... starved... denied
    medical attention when ill or injured... or sheltered from the
    elements?

    Is our system perfect? No. But to say we coddle prisoners destroys your
    credibility on this issue. I've been in these places... as a visitor I
    assure you. Prison life has got to be one of the most dehumanizing
    experiences I can imagine. You see the bizzare excesses on 20/20 or 60
    minutes and think it is the norm.

    I think your citations on how we accommodate prisoners of the state
    speaks more toward how our society devalues people in the general
    public than to how our system "coddles" prisoners. No one in this
    country should be denied an educated, go to bed hungry, lack adequate
    health care, or shelter from the elements.

    Eric

    After Jeffrey Dahmer was killed yesterday, didn't his prison warden
    say the place was a "country club"?

    Yeah, people are murdered in country clubs all the time.  It
    usually happens on the 17th green.
    
    Richard
    

Re: Note 271.212 
APACHE::MYERS                                   

>>>    You would rather prisoners be kept ignorant... 

Yes, especially if it costs me money!

>>>  starved... 

Eating is a privelage, not a right...I'm all for that!

>>>  denied medical attention when ill or injured... or sheltered from the
     elements?

Medical attention should be a ministry of the local church, volunteer services,
etc.  Shelter should be bare essentials, as miserable as possible!

>>    Is our system perfect? No. But to say we coddle prisoners destroys your
>>    credibility on this issue. I've been in these places... as a visitor I
>>    assure you. Prison life has got to be one of the most dehumanizing
>>    experiences I can imagine. You see the bizzare excesses on 20/20 or 60
>>    minutes and think it is the norm.

Eric, I've brought this up before.  It is a greater incentive for the repeat 
offender to remain in jail rather than try to make it on their own.  Most
violent crime is done by repeat offenders and the current system IS NOT a
deterrent to criminal action.  Incidently,take a look at the latest crime bill
to pass congress.  No Eric, I'm not getting my data from 20/20.

>>    I think your citations on how we accommodate prisoners of the state
>>    speaks more toward how our society devalues people in the general
>>    public than to how our system "coddles" prisoners. No one in this
>>    country should be denied an educated, go to bed hungry, lack adequate
>>    health care, or shelter from the elements.

Use the semantics any way you'd like.  I believe prison can be one of the 
greatest ministries there is, and I don't devalue anybody.  But Eric, I firmly
believe in the need for rehabilitation and I don't see the ACLU sacred cows 
that keep prisoners in such good shape mentally and physically as a deterrent
of rehabilitating to the dependent individual in jail.  It needs to be taught 
that prison is a place that absolutely nobody would want to return to again.

Eric, our system isn't only imperfect...it downright stinks.  I would challenge 
you to take the statistics of two regions with similar population sizes...Los 
Angeles and Singapore.  You will find a far greater respect for the individual
in...yes...Singapore than in LA.  LA is a war zone...a monument of the great
society.  It is ghastly Eric...ghastly ghastly ghastly.  Always avoid the area
when I go to California.  Sorry but that's the way it is.  

-Jack

    This stance is in keeping with the teachings and spirit of Christ?
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    I'm trying to explain this.  Johnny serves a a quarter of his sentence. 
    Johnny is released...Johnny violates parole, breaks into your house,
    cleans you out...perhaps gets violent with you.  
    
    Richard, Jesus never really focused on teaching the proper methods of
    rehabilitation.  I can only go by the facts and the facts are that that
    the status quo is failing miserably.  It is a liberal, un-Christlike
    method of rehabilitation and does absolutely nothing but promote
    dependence on the state.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    How many times should you forgive the offendor?
    
                                         Patricia

 Forgiving the offender does not mean that there are no consequences for
 the deed committed.  While I don't necessarily agree with Jack's view,
 I do feel that those convicted of crimes should be punished, and that 
 they should not expect the rights and priveleges afforded to those who 
 manage to live their lives in obedience to the laws of the land.  However,
 I stop short of advocating that they be treated as less than human.

 I heard last night of a man who was convicted of murder and sentenced to
 death.  While in prison he asked Jesus Christ to save him and he became
 a Christian.  He asked that all appeals on his behalf stop, that he was 
 prepared to die and in fact felt it was just punishment for his crime. God
 had forgiven him, no doubt, but he knew the consequences must be faced.



Jim

        re: Note 271.215 by AIMHI::JMARTIN


    I don't know whether I'm angered or saddened by your note...

    You see things in such extremes: either we coddle prisoner or we
    dehumanize them. There is no middle ground, no moderation, for you is
    there. It's either black or white... for us or agin' us. Ironically, I
    see this same limited expression of thought in the minds of the
    criminals you wish to exterminate (or at least treat as unhuman). 

    Eric

>    How many times should you forgive the offendor?

If he repents, seventy times seven (an expression which evaluates to infinity).

If he doesn't repent, not even once.

/john

    >If he repents, seventy times seven (an expression which evaluates to infinity).
    
    Not to create another rathole, but there is a clear division of
    490-year periods in Israel's history - especially in the cases where
    they were punished for disobedience toward God.
    
    Mike

re Note 271.223 by CAPNET::ROSCH:

>     If Jesus condemed capital punishment He could not have allowed Himself
>     to be crucified because He would be allowing Himself to submit to an
>     evil - which He couldn't do because of His nature.
  
        In your rambling attempt to justify capital punishment,
        you've just destroyed the very foundation of orthodox
        Christian salvation!  In addition, by implying that Jesus'
        crucifixion was not an evil, you leave the only alternative,
        namely, that he deserved it!

>     For the sake
>     of the soul wouldn't it be better to execute the murderer and save the
>     murderer's soul? 

        I know of no Christian theology which would support your
        implication that a murderer's own death can in any way earn
        or accomplish the murderer's salvation.

        Bob

Note 410.27

>    Antiochus Epiphanes declared anyone caught studying the Torah would be
>    executed.

On the positive side, they didn't have many repeat offenders.

Richard

re .223

	Sorry, didn't catch your name. I agree that Jesus agreed with
	God's Law that included capital punishment for certain crimes.
	But also agree with Bob that your reasoning is flawed. There
	was evil intent behind Jesus' execution, he was an innocent
	victim the charges were false and yet he was executed as a
	common criminal. He was charged with blasphemy against the
	one he loved most in the universe (including himself), how
	much anguish he must have gone through knowing that he would
	be executed for this charge of blasphemy. But he submitted 
	to doing God's will and not that he submitted to this false 
	evil charge of the Sanhedrin.

	Personally, I find it amazing that professing Christians put
	so much emphasise on the cross or torture stake using it as
	a symbol for their faith. For this is supposedly the implement 
	that was used to kill Jesus and there was evil behind this act. 
	Surely, it is best to focus on Jesus' example and not the 
	implement of his death. For the primary person behind Jesus' 
	death was Satan himself (compare John 8:40;44).

	I also find the title "Good Thief" to be an oxymoron, Jesus
	could see that this one had repented in his heart of his
	previous life course and was no longer inclined to be a
	thief. But he had to pay the price, under the judicial system,
	for his crimes. Romans 6:23 RSV tells us the "wages of sin is
	death", therefore having paid the price through his death Jesus
	could promise him life in a paradise in which he will not be
	known as a thief or the "Good Thief". Those who have repented
	don't need to be constantly reminded of their previous life
	course. Just a nit pick of mine, but you can imagine how ridiculous
	it would be that persons could be known as the "Good Mass Murderer".

	Phil.
	 

       <<< Note 271.219 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Dig a little deeper" >>>
    
 >>   While I don't necessarily agree with Jack's view...
    
    Okay, obviously I'm getting some disagreement from people here.  Eric,
    why you can't at least understand where I am coming from is beyond me.  
    Patricia, what would you recommend as a change to the current system to
    stop repeat offenders?  
    
    My analogy of LA and Singapore is very accurate.  They are both similar
    in size and population.  Civility is quite the norm in Singapore and
    Los Angelas is a bastian (on?) of crime, fear, and a complete disregard 
    for human life.  I see the liberal approach as a dismal failure.  I
    don't see how you are going to reach the desired goal through the
    current course.  If people are repeat offenders, then prison must not
    be bad enough.   So what is the point of disagreement here?  I most
    definitely have the stats on my side?  Jesus NEVER addressed the issue
    of Judicial law in Rome.  Otherwise, the mere thieves at his side would
    not be up there on the cross with Him.
    
    -Jack
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

 >>    For the primary person behind Jesus' death was Satan himself 
 >>   (compare John 8:40;44).
    
    I understand your position but I disagree based on Matthew 16.  Jesus
    stated that he would be brought forth to the rulers and would be put to
    death.  Peter said, "Oh Lord, may this never be".  Jesus replied, "Get
    thee behind me Satan, for thou art a rock of offense to me."  
    
    Yes, we know that Satan entered Judas but I believe the primary person 
    behind Jesus' death was actually Jesus himself.  He only used Satan to 
    accomplish His purpose.
    
    -Jack
    

re Note 271.228 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     My analogy of LA and Singapore is very accurate.  They are both similar
>     in size and population.  Civility is quite the norm in Singapore and
>     Los Angelas is a bastian (on?) of crime, fear, and a complete disregard 
>     for human life.  I see the liberal approach as a dismal failure.  

        Is it the liberal approach?  Or the Christian approach? 
        Could it be the European heritage?  Could it be the American
        philosophy of personal freedom?  Might it be America's
        wealth?  Might it be American hubris?  Perhaps it's the NRA
        and the second amendment?

        My point is that there are *dozens* of major differences
        between society in Singapore and society in the U.S. (and Los
        Angeles in particular).


>     If people are repeat offenders, then prison must not
>     be bad enough.   

        Come on, Jack, you're smart enough to think of at least
        several alternative possibilities:

        - life on the outside is so hopeless that it's
        indistinguishable from prison (or worse!),

        - punishment does not deter crime,

        - gathering criminals together in prisons establishes schools
        for crime (which mitigates any net deterrent effect),

        - released convicts have few alternatives (that they can
        see),

        - if a moral foundation is lacking, then crime is rampant
        regardless of what else society may do about it.

        Bob

    Jack,
    
    On a theological issue you are asking about the question of evil in our
    lifes and how to bring about the Reign of the Divine hear and now.
    
    Theologically, is the Kingdom here and now or is it only a future
    event?  Is the Kingdom a possibility for everyone or only for a chosen
    group.
    
    Since I believe the Kingdom is a possibility for each of us in the
    here and now, and that it is a possibility for everyone, then the
    question is how do people get turned away from God and toward evil, and
    how to turn ourselves and help turn others back toward God when they go
    astray.
    
    If we believe in the possibility of turning people back toward God then
    how do we do that?  That is the equivalent of the secular
    rehabilitation rather than punishment. 
    
    I will even push my"liberal agenda" one step further and ask, how do we
    prevent people from turning to evil in the first place?  I saw an
    article in the Globe last week that talked about how much more
    effective police/youth recreational programs in the inner cities were
    than strict Capital Punishment laws.  
    
    Patricia

    One of the earlier replies here brought up a question.  

    In the recounting of Jesus being on trial, I recall a claim that that
    the Jews had no law to put a man to death.  Yet stoning would lead to
    death.  Am I missing something?

    > Eric, why you can't at least understand where I am coming from is
    > beyond me.
    
    Oh, I've got a pretty good idea where you're coming from... 
    
    	Eric

    Then Eric (and Patricia), please explain why Singapore is a civilized
    region and Los Angelas is the opposite.
    
    Debby, the Jews under the thumb of Rome could not put somebody to
    death.  It had to be approved by Rome..or Pontious Pilate in this case.
    Yes, under the Mosaic law, the Jews could execute.  Under Rome, they
    could not.  The Pharisees had to appeal to Rome.
    
    -Jack

re .229

	Jack,

;Yes, we know that Satan entered Judas but I believe the primary person 
;behind Jesus' death was actually Jesus himself.  He only used Satan to 
;accomplish His purpose.

	Sorry but you have lost me, Jesus wanted to be killed? or was
	willing to sacrifice his own life even in the face of death so 
	as to accomplish God's will? (Hebrews 10:5-10). There is a 
	difference.

	Phil.

	Following Jack's thoughts in .234 at Jesus' trial the chief 
	priests said "We have no king but Caesar." John 19:16 RSV

	Phil.
	

    Patricia..et al:
    
    Okay, a verified authority on the civility of Singapore.  Now can you
    see how your liberal policies have made the major city a zoo...and
    better yet, Singapore obviously has a higher regard for the rights and
    protection of women than we do over here.
    
    You are confusing coddling with compassion.  You may think I'm
    heartless...you may think I'm un Christlike.  That my friend is your
    perogative.  If you really believe, after this 40 year experiment, that
    the rapist, the pedophile, the thug have rights in prison, then I would
    suggest you carry a good supply of mace in your pocketbook.  The
    current system apparently cares not for you.
    
    -Jack

    Phil, it goes without saying.  Jesus did not relish the thought of what
    he had to go through; however, Jesus rebuked Peter becuase Jesus was
    willing to pay the ransom for sin and Peter's admonishment was not in
    accordance with God's plan.  
    
    I still maintain that Satan was behind alot of this but the whole thing
    was controlled by God the Father and God the Son!
    
    -Jack

    Perhaps what it really shows is that Budhism is more effective than
    Christianity.
    
                                Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    That is an equivocal reply and is fallacious.  Religion and the
    Judicial system are mutually exclusive.  That's like saying my wife and
    I throw better parties because we dress our boys in blue.
    
    -Jack

re .239

 Jack,

 Sorry, but I still don't get it.....

;I still maintain that Satan was behind alot of this but the whole thing
;was controlled by God the Father and God the Son!

 Knowing how someone will react, is not the same as controlling how someone
 will react (Genesis 3:15). Additionally, does God control the persecution 
 of Jesus' followers? I think not. John 15:20 NWT reads "Bear in mind the 
 word I said to you, A slave is not greater than his master. If they have 
 persecuted me, they will persecute you also." Therefore, why should one 
 believe God was the one who manipulated the persecution of Jesus and his 
 eventual death? for the logic would follow that those involved in 
 controlling Jesus' persecution and eventual death are also the ones 
 persecuting his slaves. Jesus knew his followers would be persecuted but
 he is not the one controlling this persecution.

 Jack, perhaps you can help me but I can't resolve what you are saying. 
 Saying the whole thing was controlled by God is implying to me that God 
 was the one ultimately responsible for his son's death. As Jesus showed 
 when talking to the Pharisees in John 8:40,44 it was Satan's and their 
 desire that Jesus was to be killed and not God's. Otherwise, the Pharisees 
 would have been following the desires of God and Jesus. Satan therefore 
 would not have been identified as their father but God would have been.

 You mention Jesus rebuking Peter, but Peter was saying to Jesus "take
 the easy way out". Jesus rebuked him, because it was God's will that
 he went through with the sacrifice of his life thus providing the
 ransom. He was not indicating that he was the one controlling his own
 execution, but that he was not going to avoid the events that were about
 to take place eventhough he had the power to do so.

 Phil.

Re: .243 CAPNET::Rosch

>    You have a cancer leison on your hand.  You can:
    
    	c) Move to Singapore, where they will cane you and then execute you.

				-- Bob

    Mr. Messenger:
    
    Your remark communicates to me that you believe, like cancer, criminals 
    are born with a predisposition to violence and that it is not learned.
    Hence the criminal or the "cancer" in this analogy is being victimized
    by society.  I simply find this a ghastly way of looking at the world.
    You are just breeding more dependent thought in this country!!
    
    -Jack

    re .242
    
    Jack,  my reply may be a knee jerk reply but it is not fallacious.
    
    I would hope that religion had more impact on influencing behavoir than
    our judicial system.
    
    It is no more simplistic to say that Singapore has less crime than the
    U.S. because they are harsher in their punishment of criminals than to
    say they have less crime because they are a predominantly budhist
    country.  Both in fact may be totally irrelevent for the diverse
    sociological behavoir in the two counrtries.
    
                                     Patricia
    

    I do see your point.  Japan for example, is one of the most polite
    cultures to live in.  If somebody over there finds $100.00 on the
    ground in the park, they will sit themselves on a bench and wait for
    somebody to come looking for it.
    
    This is not a Christian country Patricia.  It is a secular humanist
    society.  That is one of the premiere reasons we are so animalistic.
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.240 by CAPNET::ROSCH:

>     She has been unable to understand why we don't put the criminals in
>     jail, why we don't imprison the drug dealers, why we are so concerned
>     about the criminals 'rights'.
>     
>     Telling her that imprisonment doesn't work is contradicted by her
>     knowledge of Singapore's methods and our own. She certainly knows
>     enough about US history to remember when we did impose sentences. 

        You must mean something other than "United States" when you
        write "US"!

        We do impose sentences, we do imprison criminals -- in fact
        the US does it at a higher rate than any other major nation!

        If throwing people in prison were all there is to it we would
        have one of the least criminal nations on earth -- but it
        isn't!  If executing murderers were effective, then murder
        would be s stranger in L.A.

        Bob

    Jack,
    
    So then are you lamenting the failure of Christianity in the United
    States?  What is the reason for this failure?
    
                                    Patricia

  >>      So then are you lamenting the failure of Christianity in the United
  >>      States?  What is the reason for this failure?
    
    Amazingly enough, God entrusted sinners to spread the gospel of Christ.
    To call Christianity a failure would be wrong.  It is not a failure in
    this country.  There are many who profess Christ in this country and
    souls are getting saved from eternal separation from God every minute.
    
    However, I do feel that secular humanism has peaked in this country.  
    The reason for this is that the church has become lukewarm.  It has
    allowed false doctrine, gnosticism, apathy into it's presence.  It has
    relinquished alot of its responsibility to a humanistic government and
    has made the Bill of Rights its first love over the message of
    freedom...freedom from sin and separation from a Holy God.  And yes, I
    myself get caught up into this.  
    
    The local church has become lukewarm even though God chooses to use it. 
    Christianity in it's purest form will never fail.  The message of the
    cross still stands and will always stand.  The church living a christ
    centered life is the "failure" we are seeing in this country.  The
    church is flirting with the world.  Like ancient Israel, who flirted
    with the godless nations surrounding it, America has become decrepid.
    
    -Jack
     

Re: .247 Jack

>    Your remark communicates to me that you believe, like cancer, criminals 
>    are born with a predisposition to violence and that it is not learned.
>    Hence the criminal or the "cancer" in this analogy is being victimized
>    by society.

Excuse me?  Please show me where I've said this - I must have missed it.
If you want to know what I really think about how criminals should be
treated, see note 958.3.

				-- Bob

    Jack,
    
    So are we in agreement then that the church should not  relinquish its 
    responsable for turning people toward God and promoting ethical living
    by relying on the Government and its secular punishment systems to
    enforce righteous behavoir?

>>    Re: .243 CAPNET::Rosch
    
>>    >    You have a cancer leison on your hand.  You can:
    
>>            c) Move to Singapore, where they will cane you and then execute
>>    you.
    
    Bob, this is where I got your communication.  The flaw with the cancer
    analogy is that cancer cannot necessarily be helped.  Avoiding prison 
    CAN be helped.  I don't know, it just sounded above like you were
    painting the perpetrator as the victim.
    
    -Jack

>>    So are we in agreement then that the church should not  relinquish
>>    its responsable for turning people toward God and promoting ethical
>>    living by relying on the Government and its secular punishment systems to
>>    enforce righteous behavoir?
    
    I believe it is the responsibility of the local church to promote the
    idea that we are subject to authority...be it government or the family,
    i.e. children obeying their parents, etc.  I believe that as believers,
    we are subject to the civil laws of the land.  I firmly believe that
    without the law, there can be no freedom.  This is why our country is
    in bondage today.
    
    I am somewhat surprised Patricia.  I don't know exactly what you have
    been exposed to in life but I do recall you mentioning you were brought
    up in Dorchester.  I know the city has its good spots and bad spots but
    South Boston today is a mecca of fear.  You will find very few people 
    walking outside after dark.  I would think you of all people would be a
    proponent of justice, considering that violence against women runneth
    amuck in the urban areas of the country!!
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.258 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     This is why our country is
>     in bondage today.
  
        Speak for yourself -- for me, living in a society like
        Singapore would be bondage.

        As someone else's personal name says so well:  "Trade freedom
        for security -- lose both."

        Bob

Re: .257 Jack

>    The flaw with the cancer
>    analogy is that cancer cannot necessarily be helped.  Avoiding prison 
>    CAN be helped.  I don't know, it just sounded above like you were
>    painting the perpetrator as the victim.
    
You shouldn't take my .245 too literally; it was just a joke.  I was *not*
saying that criminals are just as blameless as someone who has cancer,
although innocent people have in fact been executed.  Yes, criminals need
to be punished, but I don't think capital punishment is the right way to
go.  Instead we need to do a better job of convicting violent criminals,
sending them to prison and keeping them there, where they won't be a danger
to society.   They should know that if they commit an act of violence they
*will* be caught and *will* do serious time in prison. Non-violent criminals
can be punished in other ways, such as fines and community service.

				-- Bob

    I've had a change of heart. I now realize that human rights have no
    place in a civilized society. Ignorance, starvation, infestation,
    physical abuse and exposure to the elements will most certainly
    rehabilitate the most ardent criminal - from murderer to litter bug. 

    Oh, how I long for the days of Dickens....*sniff*... excuse me, I'm
    getting nostalgically sentimental... anyone got a tissue?

    Eric

    Bob:
    
    I'm sorry.  You need to put a smiley face on the note to make it idiot
    proof for me! :-)
    
    As I mentioned a few replies back, I'm not 100% sure as to where I am
    on Capital Punishment.  I don't lament when it happens.  As far as
    Eric's somewhat humerous remarks, I think I need to communicate
    something important.  I am a big proponent of justice.  My heart goes
    to the victim and the victims family.  When it comes to murder, the
    word rehabilitation doesn't exist in my vocabulary.  The perpetrator
    is to spend his/her life in prison and they should be without any
    luxury.  No school, no rights...nada!
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.263 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     When it comes to murder, the
>     word rehabilitation doesn't exist in my vocabulary.  The perpetrator
>     is to spend his/her life in prison and they should be without any
>     luxury.  No school, no rights...nada!
  
        I certainly agree that *no* prisoner should have any luxury. 
        Yet certainly humane treatment requires that prisoners in a
        country such as the U.S. (or Singapore, for that matter)
        receive necessities of life which truly would be luxuries in
        some of the more unfortunate places on this planet (e.g.,
        Rwanda or Somalia).

        I would also suggest that even for a "lifer", rehabilitation
        can make a lot of sense even if they spend the rest of their
        lives in prison.  A prisoner can still contribute to the
        stability of the prison population, can still encourage
        others to rehabilitate themselves, can still produce some
        things and do some services of value to repay their debt to
        society.  Obviously this won't work with every prisoner, or
        perhaps even most, but for some a degree of training and
        (internal) work opportunities would be most appropriate.

        I also take strong exception to the "no rights" notion.  "No
        rights" means that a guard or fellow prisoner can simply
        torture or dispatch you at whim.  Even the convict of the
        worst of crimes must have some minimal rights, if only
        because *we* are not barbarians.

        Bob

        P.S.  You'd make a good politician -- it takes far more words
        to respond to you thoughtfully than you used in the first
        place!

        
    >    I also take strong exception to the "no rights" notion.  "No
    >    rights" means that a guard or fellow prisoner can simply
    >    torture or dispatch you at whim.  Even the convict of the
    >    worst of crimes must have some minimal rights, if only
    >    because *we* are not barbarians.

    It's this sort of bizarre secular-humanist thinking that is destroying
    the fabric of this once great country. I suppose you think *welfare
    queens* have rights too.
    
    Eric

re Note 271.265 by APACHE::MYERS:

>     It's this sort of bizarre secular-humanist thinking that is destroying
>     the fabric of this once great country. I suppose you think *welfare
>     queens* have rights too.
  
        I don't care if the queer, er, queens are on welfare or not!

        Bob

    Come on guys,
    
    This is not the forum to compete for the Mike Valenza award.
    
    
                                              Patricia

        > This is not the forum to compete for the Mike Valenza award.

    Actually, Patricia, Jack isn't being sarcastic... he's serious.
    	
    	Eric
    
    

    Where was I sarcastic and deserving of the Mike Valenza Award!?

     > Where was I sarcastic and deserving of the Mike Valenza Award!?
    
    Jack,
    
    Relax... I was kidding. Patricia was obviously referring to myself and
    perhaps Bob. You don't have to worry about deserving any awards.
    
    Eric

    Oh no...I want the awards!  I was just wondering if there was a glimmer
    of hope!!  :-)
    
    -Jack

    Justice does not equate to retribution or vengeful punishment.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    One whose spouse or child was bludgened to death with a knife might
    disagree.
    
    -Jack

Bludgeoned to death with a knife??

				-- Bob

>>>    Bludgeoned to death with a knife??
    
    Yeah...It was an extremely dull knife!! :-)

    .273  I'll agree with that.  Perhaps that's why a family member of the
    victim is not to supposed to serve as judge or jury of the accused.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Note 271.275

>    That's true. So...? Justice is the administration of the law.

Justice is not the administration of the law.  Are you unaware of unjust laws?
The purpose of law is to serve justice.  When justice is not served, the law is
being misappropriated and abused.

>    Schmaltz!

"Schmaltz!"?  A term roughly meaning overly sentimental?

Shalom,
Richard

    .279
    
    You're welcome to keep your dictionary definition, Schmaltz!
    
    My dictionary defines justice as "1) the quality of being righteous."
    
    Laws have been used throughout history to invoke and support all
    kinds of injustice.  It would take very little knowledge of the past
    for one to cite multiple examples of this.
    
    I've not studied Plato, but I wouldn't dismiss his teachings on the
    grounds he was an atheist.
    
    Richard
    

    Paul Hill was today sentenced to death.  So the state will carry
    out an act of violence it condemned in Hill.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

        Actually, Plato thought of laws as the embodiment of Justice. Sure
    justice was a virtue, but laws reflect those virtues. In Plato's
    *Republic*, to violate a law is by definition unjust. Our system of
    justice is quite Platonic. 

    Schmuck!

            re .-1 

    Thanks. You have no idea how you note brightened my afternoon!

    Schlep!

    .282
    
    I wonder if you understand the teachings of Jesus as well as you
    seem to think you understand the teachings of Plato, Mr. Rosch.
    
    You seem to think it's okay if the state murders as long as there are
    laws by which to justify it.  I'd be willing to guess that that line
    of thinking is actually much older than Plato.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .287
    
    You're off the mark, but I doubt you'd care to learn by how much.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

(I *must* be a fool!!)

Note 271.287

Dear Raymond P. Rosch,

>    Murder is the unjustified taking of a life.

You draw a line between murder and killing.  I maintain that such a line
is an imaginary one and a product of human rationalization.

>    Christians have never condemned the justified taking of a life - an
>    action which was legal within the secular and Church laws.

You would do well to do some deeper study into Christian history before
making such sweeping and superficial remarks.

>    I suspect that your belief is that according to the Bible and the
>    teachings of Jesus the taking of a life is never justified.

My walk of faith is based even more centrally in the example of Jesus and
in the direct promptings of the Living Christ.

>    I further
>    suspect that you believe that if one believes that execution by the
>    state is ever justified then that belief is un-Christian.

I do not believe such a belief is deliberately and defiantly un-Christian.

>    And finally
>    I suspect that you put yourself into the position of deciding who is
>    and who is not a Christian according to your litmus test of your in-
>    terpretation of the teachings of Jesus.

I realize that I am not perfect.  Indeed, many claim I am the one skewing
the teachings of Jesus. (See 960.2, for example)  They're praying for me,
so I'm told.  Who knows?  Maybe they're right.

>    I'd be willing to guess that that line of thinking is very recent -
>    probably no later than the late nineteenth century fundamental re-
>    vivalism within Protestant sects of the industrial Northeast.

It's downright weird after all I've said in this file over the years that
I'm connected with Fundamentalism!!

I believe my line of thinking goes back to about 3 or 4 BC.  However, as
I've said before, I'm a bit of a Quaker at heart.  So you could go back
to as recently as the mid-1600's, I suppose.

Shalom,
Richard

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 271.211           Christianity and Capital Punishment            211 of 290
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Okeley-dokeley, Neighbor!"         9 lines  29-NOV-1994 13:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .205
    
    Friend Rosch,
    
    	Does thee claim to be a Christian?  A follower of Christ?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>>    You seem to think it's okay if the state murders as long as there
>>    are laws by which to justify it.  I'd be willing to guess that that
>>    line of thinking is actually much older than Plato.
    
    Richard, if this is the case then how come the Mosaic law states that
    the blood of the accused (the killer) will be on his own hands?  
    Sounds to me like God is exonorating the actions of the executioner.
    
    -Jack

Note 271.295

>    Richard, if this is the case then how come the Mosaic law states that
>    the blood of the accused (the killer) will be on his own hands?

Please provide the specific reference on this.  I take it it's somewhere in
the Torah since you say it's Mosaic Law.  I know there are several portions
of the Hebrew Bible which seem pretty bloody or vengeful.

Shalom,
Richard

re Note 271.295 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Richard, if this is the case then how come the Mosaic law states that
>     the blood of the accused (the killer) will be on his own hands?  
>     Sounds to me like God is exonorating the actions of the executioner.
  
        Then it would sound like an assisted suicide.

        Bob

    I will have to look it up.  Far from an assisted suicide.  It is saying
    that if you take the life of another then your life will be taken. 
    Your blood shall be on your own hands.  The executioner bears no guilt
    for the death of the perpetrator.
    
    -Jack

    A few who received the death penalty:
    
    	John the Baptist
    	Jesus
    	Stephen
    	Paul (according to tradition)
    	Peter (according to tradition)
    
    A few who killed, but who did not receive the death penalty:
    
    	Cain
    	Moses
    	David
    	Solomon
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>                            -< What up with this? >-
    
    Sovereignty of God.
    
    Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" is highly recommended reading on this subject
    in the Bible.

>    	Jesus
    
    Had to die.  It was His Will.
    
>    	Stephen
    
    Look at all of those that were saved after this event.  They killed
    Stephen to try and scare the apostles, but it resulted in a spiritual
    revival that saw thousands saved.
    
>    	Paul (according to tradition)
    
    was beheaded after spreading the Gospel all over Asia and the Middle
    East.
    
>    	Peter (according to tradition)
    
    crucified upside down because he said he wasn't worthy to die as his
    Lord.
    
    Mike

    Also it is important to point out that many laws were broken at Jesus'
    trial as were also at Stephens death.  In fact, he was lynched by a
    mob and John the baptist was also an illegal killing as it there was no 
    crime for the punishment and there were not two witnesses to
    corroberate any crime.  In conclusion:
    
    1. Stephen was lynched by a mob.
    2. Jesus' trial was not in accord with the Torah and hence was illegal.
    3. John the Baptist was illegally murdered.
    
    I believe the justice system must be followed in order for sentencing
    to be carried out.  Also, a justice system must be under tight
    scrutiny.  This is why we have an appeals process.
    
    -Jack

    Amazing how clear an absence of due process becomes in hindsight.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Yes but you notice I didn't give Moses and David right for the
    atrocities they committed!
    
    -Jack

    .303
    
    	They didn't live under a Constitution with 10 Amendments.  Hard
    to imagine, I know, but theirs was a time that those who wielded the
    power were pretty much the ones who decided the rules.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Interestingly enough on Davids account, he suffered greatly at the hand
    of God because of what he did!
    
    -Jack

    Yeah, lots of folks suffer who've never done what David did, either.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Yes.  I myself don't understand why it was that way.  Especially since
    it says that children will not be held accountable for the sin of the
    fathers.
    
    -Jack

.307 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

From what I've seen (and discussed) Christianity is all about suffering for the
sins of others, from Adam & Eve and original sin right on down the line.

Steve

>From what I've seen (and discussed) Christianity is all about suffering for the
>sins of others, from Adam & Eve and original sin right on down the line.

People suffering for the sins of others is a fact of living in a sinful
world.

Christianity is about God extending an offer to forgive _your_ sins.

-Steve

    .309
    
    I can't agree.  I know that that's the teaching in some circles, but
    Christianity is a whole lot more than the issue of personal salvation.
    
    Richard
    

    Also see Topic 64 "Original Sin" (Especially 64.3)
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Christianity encompasses alot more than personal salvation; however,
    the root of christianity is Jesus and his mission, ...to seek and to
    save that which was lost.
    
    -Jack

Note 271.312

>   ...to seek and to
>   save that which was lost.

Which to me means humanity.

Shalom,
Richard

    Jesus wouldn't need to die a sacrificial death to bring back our
    humanity.  It would have to be something else.
    
    -Jack

    .314  You've misread me, Jack.  Perhaps I should have used 'humankind'
    rather than 'humanity.'
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

A few of the more inspired reasons for society to impose the death penalty:


Leviticus 20:9  For every one that curseth his father or his mother
shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his
mother; his blood [shall be] upon him.

Leviticus 20:11  And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath
uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be
put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Leviticus 20:12  And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them
shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion;
their blood [shall be] upon them.

Leviticus 20:13  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Leviticus 20:16  And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down
thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Leviticus 20:27  A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or
that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall
stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them.

Shalom,
Richard

.312 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

    Christianity encompasses alot more than personal salvation; however,
    the root of christianity is Jesus and his mission, ...to seek and to
    save that which was lost.

It wasn't lost, it was taken away.

Steve

re Note 271.316 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

        Richard,

        Your point?

        Or are you trying to contrast the secular humanists' approach
        to population control (you know, contraception and abortion)
        to the Biblical method (e.g., enforce the Levitical law)?

        Bob

.318

I personally do not advocate the adoption of the penalties prescribed
under Levitical law.

Shalom,
Richard

Note 271.204

>	A group in Brooklyn, New York, called Cherish Life Circle is
>encouraging opponents of the death penalty to sign a "Declaration of
>Life"....

	I'm in possession of a copy of the "Declaration of Life" document.
I anticipate having it signed and notarized sometime this coming week.

	I do have an extra I'm willing to give away, but permit me to add
that a copy may be acquired free of charge by writing the address listed
in Note 271.204.

Shalom,
Richard

    Richard:
    
    I am indeed pleased to hear that you are prolife!!!
    
    -Jack

On the three hour CBS television special "In the Killing Fields of America,"
the warden of the prison at Angola declared that state of Louisiana has the
toughest criminal sentences in the nation.  He also emphasized that Louisiana
is acknowledged as the most dangerous state in the union in which to live.

The so-called "get tough on crime" policies so popularly espoused in
election years -- more prisons, stiffer sentences, the death penalty
-- are fraught with failure and provide little, if any, deterrence.

Shalom,
Richard

    Yes but they mete out justice and that's a big thing the public is
    looking for!
    
    -Jack

    Justice is not the same thing as revenge.
    Justice is not the same thing as revenge.
    Justice is not the same thing as revenge.
    Justice is not the same thing as revenge.
    Justice is not the same thing as revenge.
    Justice is not the same thing as revenge.
    Justice is not the same thing as revenge.
    Justice is not the same thing as revenge!!
    
    I realize that mere repetition doesn't make something true, but it's
    extremely frustrating that so many remain so happily ignorant of the
    difference!
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    Don't get mad at me!  Society do see justice and revenge as hand in
    hand.  In fact, under the Mosaic law, if somebody was slain, the next
    of kin had every right to avenge the victims blood.  This is why God
    set up the cities of refuge discussed in Joshua 20 or 21 I believe.  
    These were set up for the manslayer who accidently killed somebody. 
    They could dwell there to avoid the avenging of blood by the next of
    kin.  
    
    So from a biblical perspective, your repetition is questionable.
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

Note 271.325

>    Don't get mad at me!  Society do see justice and revenge as hand in
>    hand.

A dismal condition, one in which I see few attempting to alter.

>   In fact, under the Mosaic law, if somebody was slain, the next
>   of kin had every right to avenge the victims blood.  This is why God
>   set up the cities of refuge discussed in Joshua 20 or 21 I believe...

We do not live under Mosaic law.  Mosaic law put a ceiling on vengeance.
Jesus (who we seem to forget in favor of Hebrew texts when such matters
come under consideration) set our example regarding vengeance.

>    So from a biblical perspective, your repetition is questionable.
    
So from *your* biblical perspective, my repetition is questionable.  The
Bible itself is laden with echoes and redundancies.

Shalom,
Richard

    Some would have had Jesus pay for the nails.
    
    Richard
    

    Yes, to those who don't believe in justice, they probably would.
    During the trial of Jesus, many laws of justice were broken.  Jesus was
    falsely accused and sentenced to a death he didn't deserve.  
    
    -Jack

	And I thank Him for that.

    It would be nothing less than naive to believe that everyone
    ever executed was actually guilty of the crime they were accused.
    
    But what the hell!  So a few innocents slip through!  Them's the breaks.
    
    Richard
    

    > Some would have had Jesus pay for the nails.
    
    	Well, they made Him carry the cross!

>    	Well, they made Him carry the cross!

How very Christian of them.

    It was the Jews of that time that made up the mob!
    
    -Jack

    Yes, so?
    
    Many of the so-called Christians of our time are not so very different.
    
    Richard
    

    To sentence to death an innocent man?
    
    -Jack

    To send his family a bill for the electricity...
    
    -Eric

>    To send his family a bill for the electricity...

is that what is happening?
    

andreas.

    In Iraq, they make the victims family pay for the bullets.
    
    -Jack

if in the USA the family is sent the electricity bill for the execution of
their family member then this practice shows that the US is no more civilised
then the iraq.


andreas.

    It isn't the case.   Don't believe it!
    
    -Jack

    No. In the US we don't bill the family for the cost of execution...
    yet. We consider it a sign of our moral superiority that we, as a
    society, cover the cost of killing undesirables. So we're more in
    league with Pakistan than nasty old Iraq.

    All kidding aside, it has been mentioned by some of the "tough on
    crime" types that criminals should be held fiscally responsible for
    their incarceration. How far away can we be from sending out electric
    bills?

    	Eric


    PS. If we had a national health care system, would lethal injections be
        covered?

    True story.  A child once asked, "How come when they stick the needle
    in your arm for a lethal injection they first swab the area with alcohol?"
    

The best book I've ever read on the subject of Christianity and capital
punishment is:                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^

	Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty
	in the United States

	by Helen Prejean, CSJ (member of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Medaille)

	ISBN 0-679-40358-2
	$21 (278 pages, hardcover)

	The book is being made into a motion picture.  I understand the film is
presently in production and will star Susan Saradon and Tim Robbins.

Shalom,
Richard

o  40% of death row inmates are black even though blacks are only 12%
   of the nation's population.

o  Criminal justice studies over the past 30 years have shown that the
   death penalty does not deter violent crime.

o  Research has shown that legal executions may actually stimulate violent
   crime.

    The first bullet is fact and can't be denied.  This data would tell me
    that...
    
    -Blacks are more prone to violence.
             or
    -Blacks live in conditions that propogate crime...simply a matter of
     survival.
    
    I would say the second would be the case.  I believe the act of crime
    is inherent equally upon all lines.  However, I hold to the belief that 
    government entitlements create dependency.  Dependency can be an
    element of propogating crime.  Notice I said can be.  There needs to be
    a balance in there.
    
ZZ    o  Criminal justice studies over the past 30 years have shown that the
ZZ       death penalty does not deter violent crime.
    
    The death penalty I believe would deter crime if the criminal knew they
    were going to be executed within a month.  I don't actually have a
    passion one way or the other on this issue, however, I do believe the
    ten year battle of litany and appeals is absolutely counterproductive.
    And the criminals are well aware of this.
    
ZZ    o  Research has shown that legal executions may actually stimulate
ZZ    violent crime.
    
    Yes...and persecution of the church stimulated more evangelism...this
    may be correct.  Executions may stimulate a desire for vengeance.
    
    -Jack

o  Before he retired in 1994 from the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Harry A.
   Blackmun cited intractable racial disparities as one of the reasons
   he turned against the death penalty.

    Well, I have to disagree on that one...and Blackmun isn't in my mind a
    real friend to justice...but that isn't germane to the issue.
    
    Disparity surely does happen...mainly because there are more blacks
    proportionately than whites by percentage.  The numbers would
    automatically default to disparity...there's no escaping it.
    
    Bottom line is...payment for crime...period.  I 50 inmates are on death
    row and 49 are white, then 49 white men are executed by law.  Race
    shouldn't even be considered.
    
    -Jack

          <<< Note 271.344 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Unquenchable fire" >>>

>o  40% of death row inmates are black even though blacks are only 12%
>   of the nation's population.
    
    	What percentage of prison imates in general are black?

>o  Criminal justice studies over the past 30 years have shown that the
>   death penalty does not deter violent crime.
    
    	The "death penalty" over the last 30 years has been too thin
    	to be of much effect at all.  Perhaps the dearth of the use
    	of capital punishment is the reason that violent crime has
    	not been deterred.  (I don't hold that position.  I'm just
    	throwing it out for consideration.)
    
>o  Research has shown that legal executions may actually stimulate violent
>   crime.
    
    	"Has shown."  How?

>>o  40% of death row inmates are black even though blacks are only 12%
>>   of the nation's population.
>    
>    	What percentage of prison imates in general are black?

    
    	I found a partial answer to this in the next note I came to:
    
>================================================================================
>Note 176.47                 Christianity and prisons                    47 of 48
>CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Unquenchable fire"                 8 lines  24-APR-1995 17:21
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>o  Blacks are imprisoned at 7 times the rate of whites.
    
    
    	One MIGHT be able to make a case based on these two facts that
    	whites are disproportionately represented on death row when
    	compared to prison demographics!

Note 271.347

>    Bottom line is...payment for crime...period.  I 50 inmates are on death
>    row and 49 are white, then 49 white men are executed by law.  Race
>    shouldn't even be considered.
    
Funny you should allude to the bottom line.  Because $$$ does make a
difference in tipping the scales of "justice".

Race shouldn't be a factor.  But it is.  Turning a blind eye to the situation
tacitly endorses the perpetuation of racism.

Richard

    Good point on the money issue.  So being that the case, should we
    weaken capitol retribution further so that there is fairness in the
    number of executions?  Putting the pro/anti death penalty argument
    aside for a minute..I would find using a quota system for capitol crime 
    very unfair to the victims of a crime...and even the inmates
    themselves.  Would it be determined that every fifth black convict
    would get the chair while the others lived?  This sounds like the
    lottery they used in Treblinka where they would read a number every
    morning and if you had the number tattood to your arm, you were hanged.
    I don't see the logic in this.
    
    Assuming the majority really wanted the death penalty, I believe the
    retribution should match the crime...period.  If the poor white man
    kills somebody for a drug fix, execute.  If OJ Simpson or the Menendez
    brothers are proven guilty, execute.  But don't mess with quotas.  This
    is an inequitable way of doing it...at least the inmate you gets the
    chair would think so.
    
    Warmest Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.351 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     This sounds like the
>     lottery they used in Treblinka where they would read a number every
>     morning and if you had the number tattood to your arm, you were hanged.
>     I don't see the logic in this.
  
        I think that I'd shy away from a comparison of the
        slaughtering of innocents and the execution of the convicted.

        Bob

    Agreed...but the point is that both of the recipients of death...be it
    innocent or guilty, would be killed based on a lottery!
    
    -Jack

Facts cited in notes:

	271.344

	271.346

	176.47

	176.49

	176.50

are from articles in 1994 and 1995 issues of Jet Magazine, the Washington
Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, and _With the Power of Justice
in Our Eyes_ (Rosenblatt, 1994) and _The War Against Children_ (Breggin, 1994).

Caution: Materials available in the public library may cure some degree of
ignorance.

Shalom,
Richard

    Very good sources.  I think they're being questioned because they are
    incomplete.  
    
    For example, if the ratio is higher for blacks in prison...
    
    -Demographics...is there more blacks from the south since there is more
    poverty in the south.  If more are from the north, then why?
    
    -How many blacks committed heinous crimes verses whites?  
    
    -How many blacks finished school or are from broken homes?
    
    -Etc.
    
    This type of data skews the results and can answer alot of questions
    that apparently these sources did not.
    
    Ignorance happens when data is incomplete also.
    
    -Jack

    Attitudes can be skewed even in the light of truth.
    
    Question to your heart's content.  Research to your heart's content.
    
    Richard
    

    Of course they can...but isn't the public still entitled to the
    complete picture?
    
    -Jack

    Are you telling me you think you have the complete picture?
    
    What was the last thing you did to research this topic?

    Richard
    

    No...not at all.  But what I am pointing out is that Ebony et al are
    giving an incomplete picture!  
    
    I have been told even here in this forum that statistics don't always
    give the true picture.
    
    -Jack

    So, Jack, what kind of research have you done?  My guess is that
    it is minimal beyond listening to talk radio or the like.
    
    Mine indicates that it is against the poor, the less educated, and
    those of minority race that the death penalty is more likely (though
    admittedly, not exclusively) to be sought.
    
    It is naive to think the death penalty is sought uniformly.  It is
    not.  There are too many variables for me to enumerate.

    It is naive to believe that an innocent person has never been convicted
    of a crime.  As much as we'd like it to be so, the system is hardly
    flawless.

    My resources are at a loss to pinpoint why there's a spike in the
    rate of violent crime after an execution.  Some think it is a kind
    of societal "acting out."  Others say it's because the state is saying
    through its action that a violent solution is an acceptable solution.

    Shalom,
    Richard

 ZZ      It is naive to think the death penalty is sought uniformly.  It is
 ZZ       not.  There are too many variables for me to enumerate.
    
    First of all, you guessed right on the research issue.  If I didn't
    have kids I'd probably spend more time at the library! ;-)  As far as
    the death penalty being sought uniformly, you are absolutely correct on
    that one as well.  What I was making the point on was if the United
    States really wants capitol punishment for specific crimes, then be
    sure the death penalty is sought for ALL ooffenders of said
    crime...regardless of their wealth or stature.  Don't do it the other
    way around which is to randomly execute a smaller percentage of
    minorities and not others guilty of the same heinous crime.  This is
    injustice to the criminal and unfair as well.  Instead of being unfair
    to the criminal, be fair to the judicial system and to society. 
    
    -Jack

	"In 1950, I was tried and convicted with Ethel and Julius Rosenberg
for conspiracy charges whipped up by the cold war anti-communist hysteria.
Three years later, from the depths of Alcatraz, I watched the U.S. government
put Ethel and Julius to death.  After I served 19 long years in prison, FBI
documents obtained obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed
to the world that those prosecuting and judging the case -- including members
of the Supreme Court -- had conspired to insure our wrongful convictions and
Ethel's and Julius' death...."

				from a letter by Morton Sobell

.361

>   If I didn't
>   have kids I'd probably spend more time at the library! ;-)

My son (15) is the very reason for my most recent research.  He was required
to do research in preparation for a speech on a social issue of his choice.
He was required to argue one side of the issue.

>   What I was making the point on was if the United
>   States really wants capitol punishment for specific crimes, then be
>   sure the death penalty is sought for ALL ooffenders of said
>   crime...regardless of their wealth or stature.

This can't be done pan-U.S. without usurping States rights, something most
conservatives are not willing to give up.  More than this, pursuing the
death penalty varies from DA to DA, from county to county.  Pursuing the
death penalty also depends on whether or not it's an election year, you
may be surprised to learn.

>   Don't do it the other
>   way around which is to randomly execute a smaller percentage of
>   minorities and not others guilty of the same heinous crime.

It is obtuse at best to even consider manipulating the mix in state-sanctioned
murders.

Shalom,
Richard

    I was amazed to learn yesterday that Louisiana is the only state in the
    union that uses a presumption of guilt.  Apparently this is in the
    state constitution.  It confuses me as I thought innocence until proven
    guilty was a constitutional precept.
    
    I agree with you on the election year thing as well as the state to
    state issue.  I do however firmly believe the rights of the states are
    not to be superceded by the federals...I believe it would be
    unconstitutional.
    
    -Jack

The author of the non-fiction Pulitzer prize nominated book, _Dead Man
Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United States_,
(see 271.343) Sister Helen Prejean, lives and works in Louisiana.  Ever
heard of Angola?

I would love to be able to send you a copy of her book, Jack.  The price
prohibits me.  I'm certain the public library would have a copy.

I had the privilege and honor of meeting Sister Helen last year.

Shalom,
Richard

(from 369.355)

>    Since the Mosaic law required the death penalty for many of the
>    transgressions, i.e. working on the Sabbath,...

Now *there's* a good reason to snuff someone out!

re Note 271.366 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> (from 369.355)
> 
> >    Since the Mosaic law required the death penalty for many of the
> >    transgressions, i.e. working on the Sabbath,...
> 
> Now *there's* a good reason to snuff someone out!
  
        That's one of the reasons I'm convinced that the Bible is
        inspired but the writings of humans -- God as depicted in
        certain parts of the Bible can only be considered "good" if
        the meaning of the word "good" is totally perverted.

        Bob

    Well then, let's begin with the obvious question.
    
    Who are we to use our standards as a measurement to preclude God's
    Holiness and sovereignty?  I was under the impression we were supposed
    to let God be God in this conference...and afterall, the Mosaic law was
    in fact spoken to Moses by God Himself.
    
    -Jack

.368

>    Who are we to use our standards as a measurement to preclude God's
>    Holiness and sovereignty?  I was under the impression we were supposed
>    to let God be God in this conference...and afterall, the Mosaic law was
>    in fact spoken to Moses by God Himself.

Who are we?  We're created in God's image, blessed with reason and the
capacity beyond measure for love and mercy.  We are the privileged friends
of Christ.  We are the branches of the vine.

I do not buy that the individual called Moses was the only human responsible
for the entire contents of the Torah.  I take it you do.  I take it that
since you believe God said it, you would have few qualms with having it
enforced (provided you could define work and determine which 24 hour period
was the seventh) as prescribed --

    Exodus 31:15  Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the
    sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work
    in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Richard

re Note 271.368 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Well then, let's begin with the obvious question.
>     
>     Who are we to use our standards as a measurement to preclude God's
>     Holiness and sovereignty?  I was under the impression we were supposed
>     to let God be God in this conference...and afterall, the Mosaic law was
>     in fact spoken to Moses by God Himself.
  
        Well, for one thing, we have to judge whether statements like
        the one you make above are true, and how they apply to us. 
        We can't escape this.

        One of the tools we humans have in judging whether something
        is "of God" is whether that something exhibits what we would
        expect of the character of God.  We can't escape doing this
        (other than by delegating this judgment to some other human
        being, or letting a chance happening make the decision for
        us).

        So basically the alternatives we have to decide what is "of
        God" are these:  we use our standards, we use some other
        human being's judgment, or we use no standards and judgment
        at all.

        When you say that the "Mosaic law was in fact spoken to Moses
        by God Himself", you have decided using one of the above. 
        You can't escape it.

        (In this particular case you are also judging that what we
        have is an accurate recording of such an event.)

        Bob

>    Exodus 31:15  Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the
>    sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work
>    in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

    	My question is, "put to death by whom?"  This scripture doesn't
    	say "the penalty for working on the Sabbath is death" or "if
    	you catch a man working on the Sabbath [you should] put him
    	to death."  There are other Mosaic scriptures that are perfectly
    	clear in this regard.  This one is not.
    
    	Perhaps this Exodus quote is realling saying that working seven
    	days a week instead of six will result in an early death through
    	exhaustion.

re Note 271.371 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

> >    Exodus 31:15  Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the
> >    sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work
> >    in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
> 
>     	My question is, "put to death by whom?"  
...
>     	Perhaps this Exodus quote is realling saying that working seven
>     	days a week instead of six will result in an early death through
>     	exhaustion.
  
        That was actually my reaction to this Scripture.  In fact in
        Genesis we read that death is the penalty for any and all
        sin.  The only thing accomplished by capital punishment is
        the involvement of more people.

        Bob

    Hi All;
    
    There is an incident in the Pentatuch where a man was in deed put to
    death by stoning for working on the Sabbath.  It seems this man was
    gathering branches in a field and was defiant toward the will of a Holy
    God.
    
    Considering I personally would have been stoned numerous times in my
    own life, I make no judgement here.  As Jesus said, the Sabbath was
    made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath.  What I was challanging
    initially was Richards obvious cynicism toward the whole content of the
    Mosaic law...that being the death penalty was in fact instituted under
    the Mosaic law and that in fact the very hand of God struck down people
    who transgressed the law.  It is undeniable and in light of scriptures
    cannot be avoided...Richard!
    
    -Jack

    
    There was an interesting piece on NPR's "All Things Considered"
    yesterday. It seems that a group of Ursuline nuns in New York decided
    to take a unique and personal approach to opposing the death penalty.
    Rather than simply profess their opposition, they signed a statement,
    much like an organ donor statement, which states that if they are
    killed through the violent act of another they do not want the
    individual(s) to be sentenced to death. This statement has been
    formalized, with the help of some lawyers, and they are encouraging
    those who share their views to sign the pledge as well. The statement
    requests the courts to admit their wishes into the record as a sort of
    posthumous victim's statement.

    One noted person who did sign the pledge, is the recently maligned
    Mario Cuomo. He admits that his visceral instinct if a loved one were
    murdered would be that he'd probably want to kill the person. But, he
    said, the best we can do should not be to act on our worst instincts.
    
    The thought of signing such a statement kind of hits you right in the
    face. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but am I capable of the
    ultimate turn of the cheek? I pray that I am.
    
    Eric

    I honor Mario Cuomo for his convictions.  The only thing I have against
    Mario is when a convicted murderer wanted to be sent to Texas to pay
    for his crime by lethal injection...a penalty the criminal of sound
    mind asked for, Mario wouldn't extradite him.  
    
    -Jack

    
    > a convicted murderer wanted to be sent to Texas to pay for his crime
    > by lethal injection...a penalty the criminal of sound mind asked for

    So you support doctor assisted suicide... :^)

    	Eric

    Ahhh...I was waiting for that.  Thanks for the smiley face though!
    
    I oppose assisted suicide because it goes against the hypocratic oath.
    I also believe the hypocratic oath should remain as is.  Medicine is a
    ministry more than a profession in my opinion.
    
    Death penalty and justice are not in the same category.  The law states
    that reparation needs to be made for the loss of another persons life.
    Therefore, the perpetrator commited suicide on himself when he chose to
    kill his victim.
    
    -Jack

why, do you as a christian, support the death penalty, jack?

    Actually Andreas, I am indifferent to the death penalty.  Since I have
    little compassion for the perpetrator, and yet since I also believe
    everybody can be redeemed, I don't really know what to think.
    
    Not sure if you are familiar with the Manson Family.  In the late 60's
    Charles Manson had a group of kids in their late teens brutally murder
    two families.  I saw an interview with teo of the women as they are
    still serving life sentences.  From the sounds and looks of them, they
    appear as two women who had woken up into reality and realized what
    they had done...and that every morning they will have to wake up and
    remember what they had done.  They are in their mid 40's now.  My first
    thought was to write them each a letter and remind them that Paul the
    Apostle was a persecutor of the church and no doubt killed many people;
    and yet once converted he was used as a vessel for God's purposes.
    Even Paul stated that his stoning of the martyr Steven haunted him the
    rest of his life; yet at the same time, Paul was redeemed, he was a
    servant of God, and he recognized that he was a new creation.
    
    At the same time Andreas, 80% of crime in the United States is
    committed by repeat offenders.  Our legal system is inundated with
    unqualified social workers who are clueless as to the nature of
    mankind.  Killers are released from prison and more death and violence
    occurs.  There comes a time when justice and accountability must take
    prescedence.  The liberal way doesn't work effectively.  Even in the
    death penalty, deterrance doesn't happen because the appeals process
    takes so long.  Most people in this country who murder literally get
    away with it.
    
    If you don't believe me, then compare the statistics of Singapore and
    Los Angeles, California.  They are about the same in population.  There
    is a wide disparity.
    
    -Jack

.377

>    I oppose assisted suicide because it goes against the hypocratic oath.

Interesting foundation for opposition; standing four-square on an oath
other people take.

Richard

    No, I just happen to be a staunch believer in that particular oath. 
    And I scorn people who betray that oath...be it doctors, ministers,
    politicians, whatever.
    
    -Jack

    .374
    
    I have signed the document and sent a copy to the executor of my will.
    
    If you'd like a copy, the address is posted elsewhere in this string.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Is it possible that this can be implemented?  That what one writes in a
    will can supercede the law of the land?  
    
    Say I put it in my will that if I am murdered by a family member, I
    forgive him and he need not go to prison.  Seems like my scenario would
    carry the same weight as yours.
    
    -Jack

it's possible that if a large number of people eventually follow the example 
of the ursuline nuns, that the death penalty would then lack public support.



andreas.

Who was this Hippocrates guy anyway?  I didn't vote for him...

				-- Bob

    He was one of those pro lifers!

    .383
    
    You obviously are unfamiliar with the document.
    
    It states that the signer does not necessarily intend the murderer(s)
    to go unpunished.

    It further recognizes that the courts have the power to deny the
    victim's wishes.

    Christ said as he hung from the tree, "Forgive them, Father.  They
    know not what they do."  Are we to do less?
    
    Richard
    

    ZZ    You obviously are unfamiliar with the document.
    
    That's why I'm asking the question.  If I was familiar with the
    document then why would I be inquizative?  Or was the statement above
    simply a ploy to make me look like I'm uninformed and stupid.
    
    -Jack

    
    You know how the courts sometimes allow the victims of a crime to make
    a statement to the court at the sentencing hearing of a convicted
    criminal? Well this statement of life is supposed to be the same thing.
    Only given posthumously.

    Eric

    .388
    
    Oops!  Sorry it came across that way.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    I am also sorry that I reacted that way.  I know that you are a good
    man and hope you feel the same way of me!  
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

.385

>Who was this Hippocrates guy anyway?  I didn't vote for him...

He ran as a Hippublican, not a Hippocrat.

:-}

                                 
    Interesting mention on a talk show recently about a few serial child and
    women killers.  Because "life imprisonment" here does not technically
    always mean that a person will spend the rest of their days in jail,
    there's one case where a sentence was commuted for good behavior, and
    he went out and murdered 11 more women before being caught again.
    
    Although I have been staunchly against the death penalty, this one
    really made me think about it, especially when the host said the
    obvious, which was that if the man had been executed the first time,
    then there would be 11 women alive today.  And with another man, he
    tortured and killed many children after the same thing happened with him.
    
    Ideally I don't support it, but with legal loopholes in the poor system
    that we have that allows this to happen...I just don't know...maybe
    capital punishment is in imperfect solution for an imperfect justice 
    system, sad and as abhorrant as it may be to me and some others here.
    
    Cindy

    
    The real problem is that it is easier to kill the criminal than fix the
    loopholes in the judicial/penal system. When faced with complex
    problems we Americans always seem to go with the one dimensional,
    sound-bite fix. 

    Eric

    One word...
    
    
    
    
    Exile!

    re .395
    
    As I said, when faced with complex problems we Americans always seem to
    go with the one dimensional, sound-bite fix. :^)
    
    Eric
                                                           

    True...but exile is the perfect solution.  I as a taxpayer am exempt
    from supporting such persons and said person still has the right to
    breathe.
    
    -Jack

    
    Re: a sound-bite fix...
    
    If .394 was aimed at me, Eric, it isn't true at all.  Typically my
    thought processes on tough issues such as these - along with my 
    responses - are so complex that they can never fit into pro/anti
    categories, and as such it usually ends up that both 'sides' take 
    umbrage at what I say.                           
    
    Cindy 

    
    Well, I wouldn't say that my comments were aimed at *you*, but I was
    addressing, albeit obliquely, the sentiments expressing your note. The
    problem you stated was that despicable, vile, evil-incarnate people
    slip thorough the cracks in our judicial/penal system. It seems to me
    that there are at least two solutions: fix the cracks, or execute the
    criminal. I find it troubling that the latter solution is easier,
    politically, to accomplish.

    The comment about Americans' appetite for sound bite solutions in
    general was just a sweeping observation of politics of the day, not
    particularly addressed to you. 

    Eric 

    Capital Snarf!

    
     > Capital Snarf!
    
    Was it something I said?
    
    	Eric

    
    Re.399
    
    Eric,
    
    >The problem you stated was that despicable, vile, evil-incarnate 
    >people slip thorough the cracks in our judicial/penal system.
    
    Well, I didn't *quite* use those same words.
    
    >I find it troubling that the latter solution is easier,
    >politically, to accomplish.
    
    So do I.
    
    It's also scary that the term 'life imprisonment without parole' is
    basically a meaningless statement, if not an outright lie in many
    cases.  Until watching the show, I did not realize this was the case. 
    
    So, if you have any solutions you can think of to fix this gaping hole
    that allows serial killers to go free even if they're sentenced to
    'life imprisonment without parole', please do share them.  At this
    moment in time, I have no idea where to even begin to tackle this
    problem.
    
    At least there are some inroads being made on other, similiar fronts
    though.  I know that some neighborhoods are being alerted when a 
    formerly convicted child molester is moving into the area.  
    
    Cindy
         

.402 Cindy,

	In what state is this going on?  I mean, I've seen men who were
convicted in their 20s and 30s still in prison in their 60s, 70s, and
80s -- most of whom would be of little threat to a fly, let alone to
society.

	There just aren't a whole lot of men in their senior years
stimulated to violence and crime.

Richard

    
    Re.403
    
    I don't know, Richard.  Sorry.
          
    Cindy

    1211.17
    
    Well, this will come as no surprise.  I disagree.
    
    Yes, Cain killing Abel was wrong.  However, I don't believe Cain wasn't
    murdered in turn on the grounds that he predated Mosaic Law.
    
    Richard
    

     Z   However, I don't believe Cain wasn't
     Z   murdered in turn on the grounds that he predated Mosaic Law.
    
    While he would have earned that penalty under the Mosaic law, he was in
    fact condemned by God to be a wanderer and a vagabond for the rest of
    his life.  He would always fear such a penalty but God put a mark upon
    Cain so that he would be protected.  What that mark was we don't know!
    
    -Jack

    It seems Adonai may not be as vindictive as these creatures called
    "human beings."
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re Note 271.407 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     It seems Adonai may not be as vindictive as these creatures called
>     "human beings."
  
        Yes, Adonai takes action to protect a murderer against the
        creatures who would kill the murderer;  yet others of those
        creatures claim that the same book in which Adonai protects a
        murderer shows that Adonai demands that the murderer be
        destroyed (and that Adonai doesn't change!).

        I guess that, if you really believe, you can indeed have it
        both ways.

        Bob

    
    From CNN....
    
         Pedro Medina, who was among nearly 125,000 Cubans who
         came to the United States during the 1980 Mariel
         boatlift, was executed at Florida State Prison in the
         north Florida town of Starke for stabbing his former
         teacher in Orlando in 1982.
    
         Witnesses and prison officials said a 6-inch flame arose
         from the right side of Medina's black leather face mask
         during the execution, flickering for several seconds and
         filling the room with smoke and the smell of burning
         flesh.
          .
          .
          . 
         
         However, Attorney General Bob Butterworth said the
         inmate's gruesome end would deter other criminals. 
    
         "People who wish to commit murder, they better not do it
         in the state of Florida, because we may have a problem
         with our electric chair," Butterworth said. 
     
    

    The flame is obviously a sobering thing as it is visual and can be seen
    be an observer.
    
    If you consider however, the amount of voltage going through a person's
    body, the flame is really a moot point!!
    
    -Jack

    The death penalty does not curb violent, criminal behavior.
    
    Richard
    

    There's a self-apparent irony in simultaneously being "pro-life" and
    "pro-death" penalty.
    
    Well, the death penalty was good enough for Jesus, I guess.
    
    Richard
    

    
    > The death penalty does not curb violent, criminal behavior.

    Yeah, but who cares. It gives you a nice feeling inside when you
    intentionally strap someone to a chair and cook them alive! The fact
    that the corps is mutilated is merely the icing on the cake. I mean
    their scum, right? Who the hell cares. God is fill with joy at the
    justice of it all. :^(

 ZZ    The death penalty does not curb violent, criminal behavior.
    
    Richard...just for the sake of discussion....
    
    Your statement above is unprovable...since it has not been given the
    proper litmus test.  Criminals rarely fear a system perpetrated on
    society that is for all intents and purposes...a joke.  Death row is a
    symbol...and since there is very little chance of being killed by the
    elements...or an accident on death row, then death row is actually a
    far safer place to be than say....downtown Boston in the evening...or
    even in one's own neighborhood.  Death row is a sanctuary for the
    criminally deviant.  It is a sham perpetrated upon the masses.  
    
    Now...having said that, I believe the death penalty is misused for the
    purposes of political expediency.  
    
    As far as being a deterrant, deterancy is secondary and far less
    important than the original intent.  That being a tool of justice.  
    
    My feeling...every minute one is alive gives them that much more time
    to repent and turn to Christ.  Or it is all a part of God's plan to
    save these individuals as one escaping through the flames.  On the
    other hand, it is fully understandable considering the families cry for
    justice.  As far as the pro life argument...I will once again
    reiterate.  A criminal's blood is upon his own hands.  Society takes no
    onus before God.  This is the concept God brought forth in the Mosaic
    law.  His blood shall be upon his own head.
    
    -Jack

 Z   Yeah, but who cares. It gives you a nice feeling inside when you
 Z   intentionally strap someone to a chair and cook them alive! The fact
 Z   that the corps is mutilated is merely the icing on the cake. I mean
 Z   their scum, right? Who the hell cares. God is fill with joy at the
 Z   justice of it all. :^(
    
    And what of the poor little girl whose small frail body was hog tied,
    abused beyond compare, and drown in the local lake?  
    
    Not to resort to hysteria but nobody seems to include this part of the
    equation.
    
    -Jack

.417
    
>    Your statement above is unprovable...since it has not been given the
>    proper litmus test.

Oh?  It's been shown that violence actually increases slightly in the area
(state and neighboring states) where an execution has taken place.

Consider this.  Some prosecutors are more aggressive about pursuing the death
penalty.  Some will hardly ever pursue it.  And, of course, there are many
who fall somewhere between the two.  It's not hard to find out local policy.

Tell me, why aren't criminals more likely to commit an offense in counties where
the death penalty isn't typically pursued?

>    A criminal's blood is upon his own hands.  Society takes no
>    onus before God.  This is the concept God brought forth in the Mosaic
>    law.  His blood shall be upon his own head.
    
Including Jesus, Paul, and many others.

Richard

It may be that a man deserves to die.  But there's another question.
Do we deserve to kill him?

Richard

| <<< Note 271.418 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| And what of the poor little girl whose small frail body was hog tied,
| abused beyond compare, and drown in the local lake?

	Jack, you are talking about 2 different cases. The act of the little
girl being hog tied was wrong. The person getting fried in the "chair" was also
wrong. 

| Not to resort to hysteria but nobody seems to include this part of the
| equation.

	I don't see what you said was hysteria. But I do see it as two seperate
situations, both being wrong.

    Also, could somebody explain to me why Charles Manson has access to the
    internet so he can make a web page??!
    
    Baffled!

    In England some time ago, just about everything was a capital
    crime.  This only had the effect of causing criminals to do
    *everything* possible not to get caught, including killing 
    police.

    We are called upon as Christians to forgive.  Not once but
    "seven times seventy" times.

    But, as a government with a need to maintain order, we have to
    enforce our laws.

    My nature tells me that at times it is right and proper to
    execute someone for hidious deeds.  But, Jesus implores us
    to rise above our "natures".

    Jesus was never in a position to condemn anyone to death.  If
    Jesus ran the judiciary, what would He have done?
    
    Tom

    Tom:
    
    Stating now that this is an unpassioned discussion so to speak...
    
  Z      We are called upon as Christians to forgive.  Not once but
  Z      "seven times seventy" times.
    
    The problem in this case is that America is NOT a Christian nation.  It
    is a nation built upon Judeo Christian principles.  Taking this to the
    letter, there were many cases in the Mosaic law where God instituted
    the death penalty through the law.  God also caused many a plight
    throughout ancient history causing multiple deaths.
    
    
 Z       My nature tells me that at times it is right and proper to
 Z       execute someone for hidious deeds.  But, Jesus implores us
 Z       to rise above our "natures".
    
    Yes, this is true.  It seems Jesus would also avoid interfering with
    the inevitable.  For example, the only conversation Jesus made on the
    road to Golgotha was, "Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and
    your children."  He took time out of own plight to warn these wonderful
    of their inevitable demise some 70 years later.  And as he implied,
    Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome in a hideous fashion.
    
 Z       Jesus was never in a position to condemn anyone to death.  If
 Z       Jesus ran the judiciary, what would He have done?
    
    He would have said, go away and sin no more...here on earth.  There
    will come a day however when he will open the books and judge the
    people according to their works...and they will be found deficient.  A
    dreaded day to say the least!!
    
    -Jack

.424
    
>    The problem in this case is that America is NOT a Christian nation.

True or not, this is not an excuse to throw in the towel and not stand for
something, as you well know.

>    It
>    is a nation built upon Judeo Christian principles.

Are you speaking of those wondrously principled Christians, the Puritans?
Or perhaps the white land-owning men who engineered the Constitution?

>    Taking this to the
>    letter, there were many cases in the Mosaic law where God instituted
>    the death penalty through the law.  God also caused many a plight
>    throughout ancient history causing multiple deaths.

The letter killeth, so it is attributed to Paul.  (Apparently literally.)

Let God do the killing then.
    
Richard

    Question:  Does your life amount to no more than the worst thing
    you've ever done?
    

    >  Question:  Does your life amount to no more than the worst thing
    > you've ever done?
    
    ...as judged by your community?

    >  Question:  Does your life amount to no more than the worst thing
    > you've ever done?

    How about: Does the reputation of the white man amount to no more 
    than the worst thing we've ever done?

    This does not excuse what we've done and we should be aware of
    that.  However, I won't spend the rest of my life in self-flagelation
    for things my ancestors did.

    Nonetheless, I will remember their mistakes and try not to repeat them.

    Tom

    Tom said it quite well!
    
    The death penalty has been instituted countless years before whitey
    ever showed up on this continent.  It is grossly a case of historical
    revisionism to continually attibute something like the death penalty to
    the white man...or in this case, the Judeo Christian ethic being a sham
    because the puritans and landowners architected the Constitution.
    
    Let God do the killing....does this mean the ancient Israelites are
    accountable for murder when God commanded them to go into the land of
    Jericho?  
    
    -Jack

>    Let God do the killing....does this mean the ancient Israelites are
>    accountable for murder when God commanded them to go into the land of
>    Jericho?  

    Or how about when "God" told the Jamestown people to drink grape
    Kool-Aid?

    "God" seems like a convenient justification for a lot of things.
    It doesn't matter where you came from.

    
    Tom

    Tom:
    
    Yes, God has certainly been the convenient excuse for atrocities in the
    past.  But let's do a little comparison.
    
    In Jonestown, we have a self proclaimed deity who commands his
    followers to kill themselves.  Okay...nothing unusual, there were
    thirty self proclaimed messiah's roaming Jerusalem at the time of
    Christ.   
    
    Outside of Jericho, we have two senior citizens, Joshua and Caleb,
    leading a band of vagabonds through the desert heading toward a city
    with a wall thick enough to put three mac trucks side by side ranging
    in miles of diameter.  Within these walls are giant soldiers who are
    well experienced in the art of battle and ruthless to boot.  Now you
    tell me, can your comparison of the Jonestown incident commensurate
    with the battle of Jericho?
    
    -Jack

    History is written by the victors.

    What prophet *isn't* self proclaimed?

    some of the polls by local news stations show people still 4:1 in favor
    of capital punishment despite the malfunction.

Z    History is written by the victors.
    
Z    What prophet *isn't* self proclaimed?
    
    Tom, The Book of Joshua is an historical account and if anything would
    completely contradict the typical practice of self proclaimed victors. 
    There was actually more death of the Israelites by their pagan
    counterparts than there were victories.  The reason being was their
    lack of faith.  
    
    We as a people need to stop ridiculing these Hebrew documents.  The
    Hebrew people of today take them quite seriously.
    
    -Jack

    |    We as a people need to stop ridiculing these Hebrew documents.  The
|    Hebrew people of today take them quite seriously.

    The Torah codes have caused quite a revival even among the Jewish
    skeptics.  They are returning to their synagogues en masse!

.429

>    Let God do the killing....does this mean the ancient Israelites are
>    accountable for murder when God commanded them to go into the land of
>    Jericho?  

I don't know what it means for the ancients.  I'm not too concerned for
them.  Personally, I don't see much difference between the campaigns of
Joshua and it's American counterpart: Manifest Destiny.  I realize you
aren't likely to see it in the same light.

I do know that there's very little difference between execution and
extermination.  I do know that the execution has been used to eliminate
troublemakers and nuisances.  Jesus and Paul come to mind, as do the
Rosenbergs.  Paul may have deserved some sort of punishment for being
a willing accessory in the capital punishment of Stephen.

I do know that the conditions were very different during the times of
the nomadic Semites and the present.

Richard

.433

>    some of the polls by local news stations show people still 4:1 in favor
>    of capital punishment despite the malfunction.

Ah, what's good and right as determined by majority rule.  What a concept.

Richard

>    some of the polls by local news stations show people still 4:1 in favor
>    of capital punishment despite the malfunction.

    You're the one who keeps complaining about how sick our society is.

    And, does it matter so much that people are returning to the
    synagoges "en masse"?  They haven't accepted Jesus' resurrection
    and so can't possibly be saved.  That is, according to you.

    So, are the Jews right or are they wrong?  'Cause right now it
    seems you're playing both sides.

    Tom

|    And, does it matter so much that people are returning to the
|    synagoges "en masse"?  They haven't accepted Jesus' resurrection
|    and so can't possibly be saved.  That is, according to you.
    
    I guess you haven't been following the Jewish revivals in Israel and
    Russian.  
    
|    So, are the Jews right or are they wrong?  'Cause right now it
|    seems you're playing both sides.
    
    It takes time to shed centuries of spiritual blindness.  The revivals
    overseas will reach here eventually.
    

    Tom and Richard:
    
    As I've mentioned, I see this discussion in a neutral light.  The Son
    of Sams and the Charlie Mansons of the world put themselves in these
    positions....not society.  One thing I am convinced of, regardless of
    the rights and wrongs of capital punishment, I still believe society,
    like ancient Israel, is blameless in the case of executing a murderer.
    
    

Does that excuse genocide?

God told me that all people with green eyes are of the devil.

What should I do?

Tom

|God told me that all people with green eyes are of the devil.
|
|What should I do?
    
    test it against His Word and pray for more confirmation.

 ZZ   Does that excuse genocide?
    
    What, the fact that a nation of vagabonds were to become the instrument
    of God's wrath against an elite civilization?  I find most if not all
    excuses don't measure up to scriptural precepts.  I do happen to
    believe, as you have mentioned, that our God is big...real big.  And
    the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob actually lead the nation of Israel
    into battle.  Israel could never have done the exploits they did unless
    it was under the power of God himself.  This is where genuine faith
    comes in.
    
 ZZ   God told me that all people with green eyes are of the devil.
    
    This, like left handed people is a hypothesis.  The proof of the
    pudding is in the taste.  You will find most self proclaimed messiahs
    will ultimately fall.  Alas ancient Israel who chose to defer true
    worship of a true God to serving the baals.
    
    -Jack

.440
    
>    As I've mentioned, I see this discussion in a neutral light.  The Son
>    of Sams and the Charlie Mansons of the world put themselves in these
>    positions....not society.  One thing I am convinced of, regardless of
>    the rights and wrongs of capital punishment, I still believe society,
>    like ancient Israel, is blameless in the case of executing a murderer.
    
Well, the Son of Sam killer (David Berkowitz or something like that) was,
I believe, a convicted serial killer.  Manson may have been the captain
behind the killings, but I don't think he was even at the site of the
killings when they occurred.  I don't know what the sentence was for
either of them.  I don't think it was the death sentence for Manson anyway.

I'm really not so naive as to believe you'd have a change of heart on the
matter.

By your measuring stick, society would be blameless for executing a
lot of people who aren't murderers also, such as people who work on the
Sabbath.

Richard

        Actually, my position has always been the same.
    
        I'm don't have the conviction to stand outside and protest an execution
        because I still maintain the position that society provides the
        vehicle for one's demise.  Since we are all held by the same standard, 
        my sympathy meter is non existant as I too am suseptible to the chair.
    
    Z    By your measuring stick, society would be blameless for executing a
    Z    lot of people who aren't murderers also, such as people who work on 
    Z    the Sabbath.
    
        Good point.  Needless to say by our standards it is extremely out 
        of the ordinary to execute somebody for working on the Sabbath.  It 
        just goes to show how Holy God is and how we can't measure up!!
    
        The bottom line with me is...if they are going to have capital
    punishment, then make it uniform throughout the country and make
    absolute sure it isn't used as a political tool.  Justice must be meted
    out evenly...regardless of gender or race.  If capital punishment is to
    disappear, then set up the system where prisons are either self
    sufficient or operated under the guise of the military.  No gyms...no
    computers...no web sites (like Manson has).  By the way, Manson was
    convicted and would have died in the chamber but California overturned
    the death penalty.  Like Goebbels, Goering, Himler, and other notorious
    criminals, people are held culpable for insighting death...just as
    Manson did.
    
    -Jack 
    

Hi Jack,

I was with you until:

>        The bottom line with me is...if they are going to have capital
>    punishment, then make it uniform throughout the country and make
>    absolute sure it isn't used as a political tool.  Justice must be meted

What may be appropriate for one area of the country/world may
not be appropriate for another area of the country/world.

Rights must be upheld throughout the country.  Punishments
should have more local control.

Tom

    .445
    
    Funny.  Moving from anti-federalist to federalist when it means
    imposing death.
    
    I'll probably get back to you on the rest later.
    
    Richard
    

    In the area of our judicial system...yes.  In regard to 1st degree
    murder, it seems the height of injustice on both ends to be accountable
    with your own life in Delaware while right over the Delaware Memorial
    Bridge somebody else gets life in prison with all the benefits thereof.
    I do see however the point about local control because judicial
    jurisprudence is a state right verses a federal right.  
    
    I am still a proponent of Alcatraz and Devil's Island justice.  Why
    should the local taxpayer incur the cost of incarceration?  This seems
    like a punitive measure upon society.
    
    -Jack

    
    > ...no web sites (like Manson has)

    This is the second time you mentioned this and I think you've been
    misinformed. I believe Manson said at his parole review that he's glad
    he's not being released because he's too busy, like developing a web
    page. I believe you have taken the ravings of a lunatic and have drawn
    incorrect conclusions. If I'm wrong, please post his URL.

    There may be wacko pro-Manson sites out there, but I don't think the
    penal system is footing the bill.

    Thanks,

    Eric

    Eric:
    
    You are correct on this matter...apparently I did misunderstand. 
    However, would it be fair to state that there are unbelievable perks
    going on in prison that even the ordinary citizen doesn't have??!
    
    Free everything for starters!!
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.448 by ASGMKA::MARTIN:

>     Bridge somebody else gets life in prison with all the benefits thereof.
  
        Yeah, sure -- if I'm ever laid off from Digital, I'll do
        something to get life in prison with all those wonderful
        benefits.

        Bob

    
    > However, would it be fair to state that there are unbelievable perks
    > going on in prison that even the ordinary citizen doesn't have??!

    Generally speaking, no, it is not a fair assessment. However, if by
    perk you mean medical attention when injured, or remedial education,
    job training, and counseling for violent behavior or substance abuse,
    then indeed some inmates receive "perks" not available to ordinary
    citizens. But this speaks more to how poorly we treat our citizenry
    than it does to how well we treat our incarcerated.

    But back to the issue of capital punishment. I see no justice in the
    irreversible extermination of criminals. It seems to me that it keeps
    both perpetrator and victim from experiencing, and expressing,
    Christian values.


    Eric

    Well, I can appreciate your position.  It seems to me then that it
    would be up to the one who suffered greatest loss as to what might be
    appropriate justice.
    
    -Jack

    .453
    
    Justice?  Closer to retaliation or vengeance.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    Well yeah, that would be accurate.  Doesn't justice and vengeance go
    hand in hand.  After all, Jesus himself was a propitiation for our sin. 
    He satisfied the wrath of a Holy God.
    
    -Jack

.455

>    Well yeah, that would be accurate.  Doesn't justice and vengeance go
>    hand in hand.  After all, Jesus himself was a propitiation for our sin. 
>    He satisfied the wrath of a Holy God.

It was good of people to have imposed the death penalty on this Jesus whom we
call Lord, then, I guess.

Richard

>It was good of people to have imposed the death penalty on this Jesus whom we
>call Lord, then, I guess.

Why do you think we call it "Good Friday"?

In that time and in that place, the death penalty may well have been
appropriate.  In modern society, with secure prisons, it's no longer
needed in almost any conceivable case.

/john

Z    It was good of people to have imposed the death penalty on this Jesus
Z    whom we call Lord, then, I guess.
    
    Richard, the nature of the act itself is horrible.  I don't think
    there's any dispute there...particularly when Christ died under false
    pretenses from the High Priests and Pharisees.  Needless to say the act
    was good in that it was done willingly and in that Jesus was also in
    full control of the situation.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Obviously you know nothing about the prison/jail system, or you have a
    different system.
    
    
    You have as a prisoner:
    
    1.  Free access to three over-salted wholly inadequate and nutritionally
    deficient meals a day, served at the pleasure and timing of a sadistic
    staff.  If you want enough food to sustain something regarding
    nutrition and an average weight, you had best pray you have family or
    friends that will put money in the commissary fund in your name.  Then
    you can buy overpriced cup o noodles, peanuts, and cookies.  
    
    2.  Free access to emergency dental care.  You will not get your teeth
    cleaned or filled, or root canalled, when one abcesses the dentist will
    pull it and give you antibiotics.
    
    3.  ditto medical care.  They will treat emergency illnesses and
    injuries.  Good luck if you are in and have a chronic, or
    life-threatening illness that requires ewxpensive care.  If you have a
    crippling, but repairable injury, they will do the minimum.  No major
    repair work, no physical therapy, no arthoscopic surgery for rotator
    cuff, knee or other injuries.  the arm, leg, ankle, kneww, whatever can
    just remain frozen.  
    
    4.  Free TV?  Dream on.  Yes there is a color TV in the day room where
    the noise level is so high you can't hear the programming and the
    guards control the clicker, so you have no choice.  In SOME
    medium-minimum security facilities, IF you have friends or family you
    can use some of that commisary fund to buy a 10 " B&W TV at a cost of
    only about $250.
    
    5.  Free room and board?  If you call life in a cell meant to hold one
    person, but now holding three, two of whom don't like you free rent,
    you really have a different idea of what life is supposed to be like.  
    
    6.  Free counseling?  Right.  Counseling by people who believe you are
    scum.  You get minimal counseling, just enough to keep you quiet.  Same
    with psychotropic drugs, which are liberally dispensed as another form
    of chemical restraint.  
    
    7.  Free clothing?  You get the outer uniform and shoes.  If you want
    underwear, socks, shampoo, soap, shavers, deoderant, you need money in
    that commisary account or find someway to trade out with another
    inmate.  
    
    8.  No free phone calls or access to phone calls.  You have to call
    collect through a company that gouges your family to the tune of 1-3
    dollars/minute.  You call is monitored, and if more than one person
    tries to be on the phone, you get disconnected and get to start over
    again.  800 numbers and a phone card aren't accepted.
    
    9.  You do have the freedom if you are female and pregnant to have
    "free" substandard prenatal care and nutrition, and a 40% chance of a
    c-section.  After recovery time in the hospital you have the freedom to
    see your child placed in a foster home for free, with the chance you
    will never see her again.  
    
    Still think everything is free?

|    c-section.  After recovery time in the hospital you have the freedom to
|    see your child placed in a foster home for free, with the chance you
|    will never see her again.  
    
    What if the mother has a boy?  Will she see it again?
    
|    Still think everything is free?
    
    I guess that's why they call it prison - it's a punishment.  Maybe your 
    9 items should be taught to everyone to discourage anyone about wanting 
    to go there.  

    With the exception of a few people who seem to think prison is a place
    where you can get everything for free (and I don't see them
    volunteering) I don't know of anyone in prison who wanted to go there
    in the first place.  
    
    Really jack, if it is that great you could get there easily.  You can
    get 11 years without doing anything violent to another person easily.  

    
    > Doesn't justice and vengeance go hand in hand.

    Of course not. Justice is rooted in fairness, fact and reasoned
    deliberation. Vengeance is an emotional lashing out, based on anger and
    self pity. Justice is not a lynch mob.

    Even though you advocate vengeance, I sincerely hope you acknowledge
    some boundaries beyond which certain vengeful actions are unacceptable.
    Although there are some people out there who advocate physical
    mutilation of violent offenders, I hope you are not among them. Is
    there some crime for which you would advocate amputating a hand?
    removal of an eye? forced harvesting of a kidney? Why then (and I'm
    assuming you've answered 'no' to the preceding questions) would you
    advocate cooking a man alive, or chemically burning his lungs?

    With no malice intended,

    Eric

Hi Eric:
    
Z    Of course not. Justice is rooted in fairness, fact and reasoned
Z    deliberation. Vengeance is an emotional lashing out, based on anger and
Z    self pity. Justice is not a lynch mob.

Then what does the verse "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord" mean?  I believe 
vengeance has a place in the justice system.  If you look at the Charlie Manson
trial, you saw a man who was arrested based on probable cause, indicted based 
on reasonable evidence, and convicted based on a jury of his peers.  Whether
or not he lived in a garbage dump all his life is not sufficient for him to
lack culpability in the eyes of society.  Based on the evidence and the 
testimony of a fair trial, Manson was found guilty and subjected to the 
wrath if you will, of society.  This was not a lynch mob, but a man who was
put through an expensive and thorough process which brought about his
judgement by a civilized society.  But remember, CHARLIE DID IT TO HIMSELF 
    ....I cannot stress this enough! 

Z    Even though you advocate vengeance, I sincerely hope you acknowledge
Z    some boundaries beyond which certain vengeful actions are unacceptable.

Absolutely.  As I said, our judicial system is a farce on many an occasion and 
is exploited by politicians and bureaucrats.  I think it's shameless.

Z    Although there are some people out there who advocate physical
Z    mutilation of violent offenders, I hope you are not among them. Is
Z    there some crime for which you would advocate amputating a hand?
Z    removal of an eye? 

No I am not although I will say it was quite an effective mode of stymieing
aggression in previous cultures and from what I understand is also effective in
the middle east.  What are the capital crime rates in Saudi Arabia...
particularly rape cases which are completely out of control here in the US?!

ZZ   forced harvesting of a kidney? Why then (and I'm
ZZ   assuming you've answered 'no' to the preceding questions) would you
ZZ   advocate cooking a man alive, or chemically burning his lungs?

Personally, no.  I can understand the intent of making the criminal go through 
the same anguish as the poor victim did....Polly Klaas for example.

The hingepin of the whole thing with me is the criminal did it to him/herself.

-Jack

                             

    Meg:
    
    I believe there are alot of people incarcerated for silly
    reasons...this is our bloated liberal government at work.  I am a
    libertarian on many things.  
    
    As far as murderers go, I believe they should be on a chain gang in the
    Sudan or some othe ghastly country we can lease space from.
    
    -Jack

.463

>Then what does the verse "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord" mean?

It means it's not *yours*.  Or any of God's people's.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I thought we learned this in Christianity 101.

Richard

Z    It means it's not *yours*.  Or any of God's people's.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Z    I thought we learned this in Christianity 101.
    
    
    Yyyyes...I already understood that.  I was asking Eric if God is
    capable of acting in the manner he defined vengeance toward society.
    I don't see God acting in an unreasonable mob like manner.  I do see
    from an historical point that God gave nations the power of being the
    instrument of his wrath...Rome, Babylon, etc.
    
    -Jack

.466

>    Yyyyes...I already understood that.  I was asking Eric if God is
>    capable of acting in the manner he defined vengeance toward society.
>    I don't see God acting in an unreasonable mob like manner.  I do see
>    from an historical point that God gave nations the power of being the
>    instrument of his wrath...Rome, Babylon, etc.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And Nazi Germany and...well, I'm sure you can think of a few on your own.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Richard

    
    > Then what does the verse "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord" mean? 
    
    It means that it has no place in the US Judicial system.
    
    Eric

    
    > What are the capital crime rates in Saudi Arabia...particularly rape
    > cases which are completely out of control here in the US?!

    You mean the Saudi Arabia that outlaws and puts to death Christian
    missionaries, that's your model of a Christ filled legal system! I can
    think of lots of ways to decrease the instances of rapes, like kill all
    men, but that doesn't mean they should be held as examples of what
    Christ would do.

    You keep using the Manson case as an example of why we need capital
    punishment. You realize, of course, he wasn't convicted of committing
    murder, but you say "first degree murderers" should be killed.

    > I can understand the intent of making the criminal go through the same
    > anguish as the poor victim did....Polly Klaas for example.

    And I can understand your desire to torture this man, but the goal of
    our system of justice isn't to provide for the blood thirsty vengeance
    of a grief crazed victim, nor the barbaric fantasies of the righteously
    indignant. I am advocating nothing other than the prohibition of
    physical mutilation of criminals, including the extinguishing of their
    life.

        Well that's fine...as long as they are carted off to a far away land
        where we don't have to fund their existence.  This would be a good
        compromise for me.  Any time a 1st degree murderer is convicted in
        Massachusetts, they become a ward of the state and are upkept
        through taxpayer extortion.  I can think of much better ways to do 
        this...such as my idea for putting the prison system under the 
        defense department and deporting murderers and the like to ghastly 
        places where we can lease land cheap and they can live out their
        existance.  Ya never know...look what happened to Australia!!
    
    
Z    You mean the Saudi Arabia that outlaws and puts to death Christian
Z    missionaries, that's your model of a Christ filled legal system! I can
Z    think of lots of ways to decrease the instances of rapes, like kill
Z    all men, but that doesn't mean they should be held as examples of what
Z    Christ would do.
    
    Wooa Woa...I wasn't talking about a misuse of the justice system such
    as the Nazi's used or the Arabs to kill off Christians...I was
    referring to people who are executed for 1st degree murder. 
    Question...is not the murder rate and even the crime rate alot lower in
    Singapore and other countries due to their stringent legal system?  I'm
    not advocating or condemning...just asking if this is a factor in the
    safety of living in a crime free country.  
    
Z    You keep using the Manson case as an example of why we need capital
Z    punishment. You realize, of course, he wasn't convicted of
Z    committing murder, but you say "first degree murderers" should be killed.
    
    Manson was guilty of inciting murder...much like many of the Nuremburg 
    defendants were guilty of and were executed to the approval of the
    world.  I bring up Manson mainly to point out that while society
    provides the vehicle, Manson did it to himself.  Since we are all under
    the same law, I fail to understand why people don't see this...since we
    are all subject to the same penalties.
    
    -Jack

Note 271.457

>Why do you think we call it "Good Friday"?

Good question. ;-)
^^^^
I've always thought of it as a variation of "God Friday," much like "Goodbye"
being a variation on "God be (with you)."

Richard

For the Eastern Orthodox, the day is not just "Good Friday", but "Great Friday."

    Jack,
    
    We pay a price for living in Civilization, and one is paying the upkeep
    of people in the prison system.  don't like it, move to some place
    where there are no laws to be broken.  Even that fine model of the
    Sudan has prison systems which are paid for by public funding.
    
    meg

    
    > I was referring to people who are executed for 1st degree murder.

    Not according to what you wrote. What you said was...

    >     What are the capital crime rates in Saudi Arabia...
    >     PARTICULARLY RAPE CASES which are completely out of
    >     control here in the US?!

    You seem to wander in your notes; form 1st degree murder, to rape,
    to prison life in general, to those who encourage others to murder
    (Manson). I'm not able to understand your philosophy in any greater
    detail other than: prisoners are scum; killing murderers, rapists,
    and those complicit in murder is a desirable thing. It's hard for me
    to reply when your point keeps shifting, even within the same
    paragraph.

    These are some other messages I've read from the "tough on crime"
    noters (not necessarily you, Jack. But if the shoe fits...:^) ) 

         The concept of 'human rights' for criminals is a contemptible
         'liberal' idea. 

         The concept the dignity of human life is conditional, based on
         the actions of that human. 

         To act with pity for the prisoner is to be soft on crime. 

         To oppose the killing of a murderer, or to even show mercy for
         the convicted, is tantamount to dismissing the victim as
         unimportant. 

         Some how America can justify killing prisoners as being
         divinely directed because the ancient Israelites killed people.


    Eric

    Okay Eric...I admit I'm a channel surfer!  Sorry about that.  :-)
    
    Sticking with 1st degree murderers only....
    
    Paul the Apostle was a 1st degree murderer most likely, yet God used
    him mightily and he called himself the chief of all sinners.  Moses was
    a 2nd degree murderer or a manslayer...depending on the difference.  So
    I do understand that vengeance is not always Gods intent for
    murderers...or other forms of sinning for that matter.  
    
    What I am asking is...regardless of the form of government a Singapore
    or Saudi Arabia may have...is capital punishment a deterrent over
    there.  The incidence of murder in Singapore is, from what I've heard
    (Glen), alot lower than in a city of comparable size and scope...Los
    Angeles for example.  There are of course other factors such as
    Singapore being more monolithic.
    
    -Jack

  Z   We pay a price for living in Civilization, and one is paying the upkeep
  Z   of people in the prison system.  don't like it, move to some place
  Z   where there are no laws to be broken.  Even that fine model of the
  Z   Sudan has prison systems which are paid for by public funding.
    
    Granted....all I'm saying is there are smarter and more convenient ways 
    to do it.  We complain very much of the defense budget being bloated.  
    Since capital criminals are a domestic enemy to the stability of the
    country...murderers in this case, why would jailing life prisoners be
    better funded locally when we could allocate defense monies paid for
    $80.00 toilet seats toward incarderation.  You lease 200 acres of land
    in the middle of Zaire...where there is no communities and I can
    guarantee you that escape would be futile and incarceration would be on
    the cheap.
    
    -Jack

.473

>    We pay a price for living in Civilization, and one is paying the upkeep
>    of people in the prison system.  don't like it, move to some place
>    where there are no laws to be broken.  Even that fine model of the
>    Sudan has prison systems which are paid for by public funding.

*And* well over half the people who are in prison are there for drug offenses.
In other words, not for murder, not for rape, not for crimes of violence
or of deadly force.  We Americans are very good at warehousing.

Richard

    richard,
    
    Of that I am painfully aware.  What a waste of jail space, court time,
    money and policepower.  this is why car thefts aren't investigated,
    according to one polce officer.  they are too overloaded trying to
    arrest druggies instead.  
    
    meg

Z    *And* well over half the people who are in prison are there for drug
Z    offenses.
Z    In other words, not for murder, not for rape, not for crimes of
Z    violence or of deadly force.  We Americans are very good at warehousing.
    
    Meg/Richard:
    
    I'm in complete agreement with you there.  I believe people who are
    imprisoned for smoking pot or whatever should be pardoned.  I do
    believe however in public safety and druggies need to respect other
    citizens rights...just like the most casual of drinkers.
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    If someone punnches you, it doesn't matter to me if they were drunk,
    stopned or sober and just plain p***ed.  the punching is the crime.  
    
    meg

    rep
    
    Oh, and you would be compounding the crime to punch back, beyond self
    defense.
    
    meg

    In anger, I would have to say yes.
    
    We are admonished in scripture not to return evil for evil.  This
    brings us to yet another plateau.  Is a criminal justice system of any
    kind good or evil?  And what determines what kind of justice is good or
    evil?

Note 271.458

>    Richard, the nature of the act itself is horrible.  I don't think
>    there's any dispute there...particularly when Christ died under false
>    pretenses from the High Priests and Pharisees.  Needless to say the act
>    was good in that it was done willingly and in that Jesus was also in
>    full control of the situation.

Well, if you think that only the guilty go to prison or suffer execution in
America, you are mistaken.

And I'm not so certain Jesus was in "full control" of the situation.
I don't believe God is in full control of the free will of God's
persecutors.

Richard

re Note 271.483 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> Well, if you think that only the guilty go to prison or suffer execution in
> America, you are mistaken.
  
        Protection of the innocent is certainly a concern for the
        Christian, but it is not the only concern. It's clear to me
        that our treatment and attitude towards the *guilty* is also
        very important.

        I believe that we often pronounce our own condemnation when
        we pray the Lord's Prayer: "And forgive us our debts, As we
        also have forgiven our debtors" (alternate: "Forgive us our
        sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us").

        In today's America the ones who are most at the ready to cast
        the first stone often seem to be Christians.

        Bob

Z    Well, if you think that only the guilty go to prison or suffer
Z    execution in America, you are mistaken.
    
    Oh I realize this Richard...but this is not the subject at hand, which
    you seem to keep defaulting to.  You tend to try and throw the baby out
    with the bathwater because of the injustice that takes place within the
    penal system.  I'm talking about executing justice on people who have
    been arrested, indicted, convicted, and sentenced.  The only reason I
    may appear to lack compassion at times is because I am a citizen, and
    as such am opened to the same potential injustices as all the killers
    on death row.  I weight the risk and I believe it is worth it.  
    
Z    And I'm not so certain Jesus was in "full control" of the situation.
Z    I don't believe God is in full control of the free will of God's
Z    persecutors.
    
    I am a firm believer that everything which has happened in our history
    was done by God's design.  When Isaiah gave his prophecies of Jesus as
    a sin offering, he did so under the direction of the Holy Spirit. 
    Remember, there was a leion of angels ready and Jesus held them off so
    that he could deliver the ransom he had promised.
    
    -Jack

  Z   In today's America the ones who are most at the ready to cast
  Z   the first stone often seem to be Christians.
    
    Well Bob, were you in the position to explain to Polly Klaas' father
    how justice was to be meted out, what would you tell him?
    
    -Jack

    The point I believe Richard is making is that even if someone
    is tried and convicted by a jury, it is *still* possible the
    accused is not guilty.

Z    And I'm not so certain Jesus was in "full control" of the situation.
Z    I don't believe God is in full control of the free will of God's
Z    persecutors.

    I have no doubt that Jesus was *very* powerful.  He was *so* powerful
    that he didn't feel he had to use his power.

    Tom

    Z    The point I believe Richard is making is that even if someone
    Z    is tried and convicted by a jury, it is *still* possible the
    Z    accused is not guilty.
    
     And I agree with this.  Obviously our system has flaws that allow
    these things to happen...which is a considerable inconvenience to the
    accused and to their families.  
    
    Problem is everybody is crying wolf and appeals processes take a long
    time and cost a pretty penny.  I would be interested in how one of you
    would suggest reforming the system.  Not to a tee but some main ideas
    which would appease the public to whom the system belongs.  Not the
    church mind you but the public.
    
    -Jack

 Z   I have no doubt that Jesus was *very* powerful.  He was *so* powerful
 Z   that he didn't feel he had to use his power.
    
    Powerful enough to create the universe....yet also powerful enough to
    restrain himself and his holiness against arrogant man.  Now that's
    power!!  
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.486 by ASGMKA::MARTIN:

>   Z   In today's America the ones who are most at the ready to cast
>   Z   the first stone often seem to be Christians.
>     
>     Well Bob, were you in the position to explain to Polly Klaas' father
>     how justice was to be meted out, what would you tell him?

        Well, first I would minister to his pain and sorrow.

        If he brought up the subject of meting out justice, I'm not
        sure what I would say first.  But I know that part of what I
        would want to say is that God will take care of all the need
        for vengeance.  (Obviously it will depend upon whether he
        views Scripture as representative of God or not.)  I know
        that it would be hard for him to hear this -- it would be
        hard for me to hear it if I were in his shoes, I'm sure. 
        But just because something is "hard to hear" it doesn't mean
        that it's wrong to hear.

        It will be hard for a person in his position to trust God --
        after all, in many ways it will seem that God (or at least
        God's goodness) has "failed" in the very fact of the loss of
        his daughter -- so why trust God now?

        I am quite convinced that people in his position, including,
        for example, Ron Goldman's father, are ultimately more
        consumed by their drive for vengeance than their initial
        loss.  Woe to the politicians and the people in the media
        that goad them on!

        Bob

    
    > Oh I realize this Richard...but this is not the subject at hand, which   
    > you seem to keep defaulting to.

    And neither is appeasing the lowest visceral common denominator in
    American popular society, I society that is derided by the pious
    Christians for its broken moral fiber, but for some reason is seen as
    getting it right when it comes to their attitude on capital punishment.
    No, the subject at hand is *Christianity* and capital punishment, not
    Charles Manson and capital punishment, not Richard Allen Davis and
    capital punishment, and not a grief-maddened survivor and capitol
    punishment.

    The gospels are *filled* with admonitions to forgive and love. And to
    forgive and love not only our friends, but our enemies. It is this that
    separates us (Christians) from "tax collectors" and "pagans."

    Eric
    

    
    Bob,
    
    Amen.

    Okay...point well taken.  So do you advocate a lifetime in prison,
    which by the way is a ghastly notion as it is against human nature to
    want to be incarcerated?  If we were to carry this to the extreme,
    Jesus was was well versed with the Mosaic law told the adulteress to go
    and sin no more.  Should we as a church be advocating this in our
    multifaceted society?
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.493 by ASGMKA::MARTIN:

>     Jesus was was well versed with the Mosaic law told the adulteress to go
>     and sin no more.  Should we as a church be advocating this in our
>     multifaceted society?
  
        I can't conceive of Christian churches *not* telling the
        world to "sin no more" (of course, we must follow our own
        advice!).

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    That's all well and good as an application of Christian living.  What
    I'm asking is by what merit do we teach this to a non christian country
    such as the United States...who do not understand nor believe the
    precepts of not returning evil for evil?
    
    -Jack

re Note 271.495 by ASGMKA::MARTIN:

>     That's all well and good as an application of Christian living.  What
>     I'm asking is by what merit do we teach this to a non christian country
>     such as the United States...who do not understand nor believe the
>     precepts of not returning evil for evil?
  
        That's exactly what we (as Christians) must teach them -- not
        returning evil for evil.  We certainly don't teach them
        something other than Christian principles just because they
        are not Christian.  The only alternative is silence.

        Bob

    Jack,
    
    there are many nonchristians who also don't believe in returning evil
    for evil, it is Her job to deal with those who violate her teachings. 
    this does not mean I have to live with some people in the society, but
    I also don't have the choice of state-sanctioned murder to get them out
    of my way.  Better to keep them locked away from the rest of us and
    also work on teaching them to behave better.
    
    meg

    It may appeal more to your sense on vindictiveness to think of a life
    sentence with no hope of release as a punishment worse than death,
    Jack.
    
    Who knows?  If you're dead, maybe you no longer have to deal with
    things.
    
    Richard
    

Z    this does not mean I have to live with some people in the society, but
Z    I also don't have the choice of state-sanctioned murder to get them
Z    out of my way. 
    
    Meg, let's be honest with ourselves.  Our society lives in a perpetual
    state of situation ethics both in our personal lives and by law. 
    Without going into the rathole, you can justify state sanctioned murder
    as a right with the same vigor I can sanction state sanctioned murder
    as a form of justice.
    
    -Jack

    I'd be shocked if Meg sanctioned any kind of murder at all.

    Even in the ninth month???

Note 271.485

>Z    Well, if you think that only the guilty go to prison or suffer
>Z    execution in America, you are mistaken.
    
>    Oh I realize this Richard...but this is not the subject at hand, which
>    you seem to keep defaulting to.  You tend to try and throw the baby out
>    with the bathwater because of the injustice that takes place within the
>    penal system.  I'm talking about executing justice on people who have
>    been arrested, indicted, convicted, and sentenced.

It's not NOT the subject either, Jack.  I don't favor capital punishment of
even the guilty.  But you apparently think the U.S. judicial system is
good at filtering out the innocent ones.  The truth is that the U.S. judicial
system is good at filtering out the wealthy ones (among others).

>    The only reason I
>    may appear to lack compassion at times is because I am a citizen, and
>    as such am opened to the same potential injustices as all the killers
>    on death row.  I weight the risk and I believe it is worth it.

It's easier to be nonchalant when speaking from a distant and philosophical
vantage point.  Have you ever been in jail yourself?  Have you ever even
visited someone in jail (let alone on death row)?

Do you remember what Jesus said about visiting someone in jail?  And
how do you feel about that?
    
>Z    And I'm not so certain Jesus was in "full control" of the situation.
>Z    I don't believe God is in full control of the free will of God's
>Z    persecutors.
    
>    I am a firm believer that everything which has happened in our history
>    was done by God's design.

Including the Holocaust?  How about more recent stabs at ethnic cleansing?
How about the Trail of Tears?  The Bataan Death March?

I would not be as quick as you to say "*everything*."

Richard

    I believe God allowed everything to happen as it did.  He could have
    stopped it at anytime...just as he could have stopped the crucifixion.  
    
    As far as visiting, years ago I was involved in a prison ministry. 
    Mostly 18 to 25 year olds doing time for burglary, robbery, that sort
    of thing.  We used to take a bus from the college and go play cards
    with them.  Maaan they cheated to the core, but I didn't care, and we
    had alot of fun with them.  
    
    And yes, you are correct that the rich get off...e.g. OJ Simpson!  Like
    I said, judicial reform is badly needed in this country.  Where there
    is no law, sin is not imputed!  Get rid of the stupid gun laws and drug
    laws that are needlessly crowding prisons.  Send the rapists and
    murderers either to death row or to some sort of hard labor camp that
    will learn them what happens when they don't respect their fellow man!
    
    -Jack

This:

>    I am a firm believer that everything which has happened in our history
>    was done by God's design.

is a bit different than this:

>    I believe God allowed everything to happen as it did.  He could have
>    stopped it at anytime...just as he could have stopped the crucifixion.  
    
Perhaps it's all the same to you.

We definitely do not agree on the issue of the death penalty from a Christian
perspective, just as we don't agree on most other topics.

Pray for me and I'll pray for you.

Richard

Z    We definitely do not agree on the issue of the death penalty from a
Z    Christian perspective, just as we don't agree on most other topics.
    
    I think the only difference in our outlooks on the death penalty is
    that it is not a passionate issue with me as it is with you.  We both
    believe it is politically exploited, but I also believe the perpetrator
    who dies on the chair is ultimately accountable for putting himself
    there in the first place.  You don't see it that way huh??
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    One innocent person being executed is one too many for me, and theree
    are documented cases of this happening right now in the US.  (Sorry
    about this it's procedure, even if you are innocent)  This to me is as
    much a murder as a Mafia Don's ordered hit to keep someone from
    talking.  

 Z   One innocent person being executed is one too many for me, and theree
 Z   are documented cases of this happening right now in the US.  (Sorry
 Z   about this it's procedure, even if you are innocent)  This to me is as
 Z   much a murder as a Mafia Don's ordered hit to keep someone from
 Z   talking. 
    
    Couldn't agree more Meg.  Therefore, we take the discussion to the next
    plateau.  That being...if Joe Smith the convicted killer being put to
    death will save the life of five inmates at a maximum security
    prison...or due to our panty waist judicial system save ten people from
    being killed on the street due to early parole, am I as Jack Citizen
    willing to take the slim chance that I will be executed as an innocent
    person?  I say yes.
    
    -Jack

	The death penalty is really dumb. It puts humans in the position of
when a life is going to be taken. It should be God's job to decide that.


Glen

    
    > I think the only difference in our outlooks on the death penalty is   
    > that it is not a passionate issue with me as it is with you.

    Your vocabulary and use of fringe examples, makes be believe you are
    vary passionate about the use of the death penalty. The only difference
    seems to be that you feel it's your God-given duty to exterminate those
    who are judged to be a threat to society if left to their unrestrained
    desires, and I believe it is our God-given duty *not* to.

    > ...but I also believe the perpetrator who dies on the chair is
    > ultimately accountable for putting himself there in the first place.

    The criminal is responsible for putting himself before the judgment of
    his peers. He is accountable for his crime, but *we* are accountable
    for his punishment.

    Eric

.505
    
>    I think the only difference in our outlooks on the death penalty is
>    that it is not a passionate issue with me as it is with you.

What you seem to be saying is that you think you're being objective and
dispassionate, and that I am more emotionally attached than you.  I think
it's condescending, but I've been putting up with it for the sake of the
dialogue.

>    We both
>    believe it is politically exploited, but I also believe the perpetrator
>    who dies on the chair is ultimately accountable for putting himself
>    there in the first place.  You don't see it that way huh??

No, I don't see it that way.

Richard

    Sorry...don't mean to be condescending.  I simply don't care as I see
    benefits to both.  
    
    I see the subsidizing of lengthy judicial penalties as a draining to
    the taxpayer and local governments.  I see far more benefit to exiling
    a murderer and paying for a new computer environment for a school than
    subsidizing a murderers existence.  
    
    -Jack

 Z   The death penalty is really dumb. It puts humans in the position of
 Z   when a life is going to be taken. It should be God's job to decide
 Z   that.
    
    Glen, so does war and the spread of deadly diseases.  What's the point?

.512

>    I see the subsidizing of lengthy judicial penalties as a draining to
>    the taxpayer and local governments.  I see far more benefit to exiling
>    a murderer and paying for a new computer environment for a school than
>    subsidizing a murderers existence.  

Most people think more with their checkbook than with the Good Book.  Many
people want cheap, expeditious, and fairly invisible vehicles to purge the
undesirables from society.

Every death sentence represents a failure, one that very few care to deal
with in a way other than cursory.

Richard

    Richard, 
    
    Of course we're thinking with our pocketbook.  This would only make
    sense..since the perpetrator has already indicted himself to a life in
    prison without parole.  
    
    It would seem to me preventative measures in deterring future crime
    would be education...not all but some nonetheless.  
    
    -Jack

    What's going on? 

    Jack?  Do you believe capital punishment is right?

    I've already said I'm not certain, one way or another.

    You seem to say the same thing, yet you keep arguing.

    I don't understand.

    Tom

    Tom:
    
    To keep it simple....I'm not certain one way or the other myself.  What
    I am trying to do is empathize with both sides.
    
    -Jack

>    To keep it simple....I'm not certain one way or the other myself.  What
>    I am trying to do is empathize with both sides.

    Well, you're drawing fire.

    If that's alright with you, then have at it.  :-)

    Tom

    Perhaps as I get on in years, I too will for-go my childish ways!! :-)

| <<< Note 271.511 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| I see the subsidizing of lengthy judicial penalties as a draining to
| the taxpayer and local governments.  

	Gee, one would have thought that being a Christian and all that doing
God's Will would have been the number one thing. But instead it is your
pocketbook. Simply amazing.



Glen

    Well, there you have it Glen...surprise surprise!!  Too bad you are
    obviously talking out of your ear.  I'd be interested in your biblical
    perspective as to what God's will is regarding incarceration.  I'm not
    aware of any passages addressing the issue of capital offenders but by
    all means...enlighten us.  I'm sure you won't though!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 271.512 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| Glen, so does war 

	Wars can be caused by a country attacking another. The death penalty is
based on laws we have made up as a country. 

| and the spread of deadly diseases.  What's the point?

	I like how you ended the above as I have to wonder.... what was your
point with the disease thing?

	Thou shall not kill


it says it all

    Glen,
    
    War is a choice of humankind.  It isn't a choice that is made easily
    but it is a choice nonetheless.  It is propogated by another entity
    that impedes on the national interests of another country.  Capital
    Punishment is a vehicle for executing justice carried out by the will
    of the citizenry.  As gruesome as you may see it, it would not be
    necessary were it not for the stupidity and self centeredness of
    people...correct?  
    
    Glen, I thought you might query me on the spread of disease thing...and
    yes, AIDS is certainly an appropriate example.  Sorry if I step on
    anybody's sensitivities here.  Glen, I believe ignorance is a choice. 
    People choose their own actions...they choose to become educated or
    uneducated on what reactions are caused by what actions.  Whether or
    not you like it, there you have it! 
    
    -Jack

Z      Thou shall not kill
    
    
Z    it says it all
    
    Gosh...well I'll be!!!  I've never seen this twist before.  Guess I'll
    have to check it out!!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 271.523 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>


| War is a choice of humankind.  It isn't a choice that is made easily
| but it is a choice nonetheless.  

	War can be started by any country. The country they may start the war
against may not want to go to war. They end up fighting, or die.

	Capital punishment is set before a crime has happened. It is not the
same.

| Glen, I thought you might query me on the spread of disease thing...and
| yes, AIDS is certainly an appropriate example.  

	Oh.... so you are talking about diseases that one can avoid in most
cases, and not things like the plague. On this we would agree. Smoking is one
where this comes into play. 2nd hand smoke is not, though. AIDS is one if one
KNEW what could get them the disease and they went ahead and did the things
anyway. 


Glen

| <<< Note 271.524 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>


| Gosh...well I'll be!!!  I've never seen this twist before.  Guess I'll
| have to check it out!!

	You asked, I answered. How about a real response?

    Glen:
    
    I wasn't picking on AIDS per sae.  Smoking and drinking amongst other
    vices are forms of self destruction.  The problem is Glen that our
    choices don't necessarily defile the person but everybody else as well.
    No man is an Island unto himself.
    
    As far as the commandment...it's been discussed and disagreed upon. 
    Though shalt not murder is the accurate translation...especially since
    God used Israel to execute his judgement against idolatrous nations. 
    Of course most here believe Israel used God as an excuse to kill the
    poor 6'7" professional warriors.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 271.527 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| I wasn't picking on AIDS per sae.  

	Yes, I fully understood that. Can ya believe it? :-)

| As far as the commandment...it's been discussed and disagreed upon.

	If you take the life of another, why is it not murder?


Glen

.527
    
>    As far as the commandment...it's been discussed and disagreed upon. 
>    Though shalt not murder is the accurate translation...especially since
>    God used Israel to execute his judgement against idolatrous nations. 
>    Of course most here believe Israel used God as an excuse to kill the
>    poor 6'7" professional warriors.

Actually, it hasn't been agreed upon.

Moreover, the commandment was understood by the Hebrews as "Thou shalt not
kill one of your own," the covenant people.  People outside the covenant were
okay to kill.
    
It really isn't as universal as we've been led to believe.

Richard

 ZZ    If you take the life of another, why is it not murder?
    
    Glen, there are of course varying degrees of circumstance that were
    recognized by God in the Old Testament as well as in society today.
    Hebron, which is one of the hotbeds in the world today, was in its
    inception set up as a City of Refuge...one of about 7 throughout
    Israel.  If you and I were chopping wood in the forest and the axe head
    of yours fell off and hit me, then this was classified as involuntary
    manslaughter.  Now under the Mosaic law, my next on kin, which would of
    course be my annoying irritating brother, would have the right to
    avenge my blood.  In this case, you would have the ability to go to the
    city of refuge and escape imminent danger.  
    
    The avenging of my blood was a right under God's law.  Therefore, it
    was not murder, it was retribution.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 271.530 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>


| Glen, there are of course varying degrees of circumstance that were
| recognized by God in the Old Testament as well as in society today.

	Jack..... why would society be playing a part in something that i
supposed to be based on God?

>Moreover, the commandment was understood by the Hebrews as "Thou shalt not
>kill one of your own," the covenant people.  People outside the covenant were
>okay to kill.
    
Richard, where on earth did you come up with this? I do not think that kind of
distinction was made at all. Murder, whether of a fellow Jew, a non-Jew living
in Israel, or anyone at all has always been against Torah. What constitutes 
murder is another question. It likely did not include enemy casualties in war 
or capital punishment, but if aa traveling peddler who was not a Jew was killed
by a Jew in an attempted robbery - that certainly would be murder.

Leslie 

    Varying degrees?!  A far cry from the absolutism we're used to hearing
    preached, my friend!
    
    Richard
    

>    The avenging of my blood was a right under God's law.  Therefore, it
>    was not murder, it was retribution.  
    
     I don't think this is true either. I will have to go back and read 
     though. I am pretty sure however that retribution was not anyone's
     right. Judgement was made in a court of law - not the hands of an
     individual.

     Leslie

.532
        
>Richard, where on earth did you come up with this? I do not think that kind of
>distinction was made at all. Murder, whether of a fellow Jew, a non-Jew living
>in Israel, or anyone at all has always been against Torah. What constitutes 
>murder is another question. It likely did not include enemy casualties in war 
>or capital punishment, but if aa traveling peddler who was not a Jew was killed
>by a Jew in an attempted robbery - that certainly would be murder.

It sounded strange to me at first too, Leslie.  And frankly, it's been
a while.  But as I recall the thrust of it is this:  The commandments,
including the one about killing, were given to primarily adult Hebrew
males as God's requirements for their internal conduct.  It's unlikely
Moses, Joshua and the gang ever encountered a travelling peddler.

On the other hand, it's recorded that God emphasized kindly treatment toward
strangers, reminding the covenant people of when they were strangers in
Egypt.

Is not robbing a people of their land by slaughtering every living thing
in sight at least murder?

I'll bring it up in BAGELS and see what they say.

Richard

               <<< TAVENG::L81ENG:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BAGELS.NOTE;1 >>>
                -< BAGELS and other things of Jewish interest >-
================================================================================
Note 1519.0                    Thou shalt not kill                    No replies
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Spigot of pithiness"              12 lines  15-APR-1997 21:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my relatively recent understanding that the commandment "Thou shalt not
kill" would have been understood by the receiving Hebrew people as "Thou shalt
not kill one of your own people."  Killing someone outside the covenant would
not been considered quite the same thing, and the commandment really isn't as
universal as we've been led to believe.

What is the concensus here about how the ancients would have understood it?

And yes, I am trying to get clarification for a topic in another conference.

Richard

    Thanks Richard.  I am also interested in what they have to say...since
    my position is based on heresay.  I admit I am not fully familiar with
    the original Hebrew.
    
    The cities of refuge are found in Joshua 20.  I just read through the
    chapter and it ends by saying, "These were the cities appointed for all
    the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among
    them, that whosoever killeth any person unawares might flee unto it,
    and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he stood before
    the congregation".
    
    The way I interpret this is as follows.  Leslie is correct, the
    avenger, which would be the next of kin, has the right to bring the
    perpetrator to trial and judgement (execution), should the high priests
    and leaders determine that the killing was a hate crime...premeditated. 
    The avenger of blood does NOT have the God given right to be on a
    vigilante chase.  
    
    Interesting though.  In scripture, it shows that the avenger of blood
    is the next of kin, not the congregation.  In other words, in ancient
    Israel, God uses the congregation as his instrument of justice but the 
    culpability or the avenger of blood is the the one who is
    accusing...that being the next of kin.  Be we under the law or not
    under the law, we cannot escape the historical fact that capital
    punishment was an integral part of the Mosaic law, and was instituted
    under the guise of Moses who was God's lawgiver.  
    
    -Jack

 Z   Jack..... why would society be playing a part in something that i
 Z   supposed to be based on God?
    
    Glen, the same way much of our actions we take part in are based upon
    the principles God gave us.  Communion, Church discipline, celebrations
    and observances and commanded by God to Israel or the local
    church....just as was King Saul when he was told by the prophet Samuel
    to go in the pagan nation and kill all living things.  Saul disobeyed
    and the Holy Spirit was taken from him for this crime.
    
    -Jack

	So God taught us to take the life of another. Interesting.

    Yes Glen, learn the meaning of Old Testament history then maybe you'll
    learn some hard facts as to how God executed justice and holiness.  I
    know it's hard to believe but try!
    
    -Jack

.529

>Moreover, the commandment was understood by the Hebrews as "Thou shalt not
>kill one of your own," the covenant people.  People outside the covenant were
>okay to kill.

I am retracting the above assertion made in .529 until such time as I
can substantiate it.

Richard

RE:         <<< Note 271.535 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Spigot of pithiness" >>>

>It's unlikely Moses, Joshua and the gang ever encountered a travelling peddler.

In a later note, Jack mentions that Joshua 20 explains the city of refuge as
being set up both for the Israelite, and the strangers dwelling among them.
Surely this is an indicator there were gentiles amongst the Jewish communities
in the land, and that the Law was applicable to them as well as to the Jew. If
they could flee to a city of refuge, do you not think they also were included 
amongst those whom one should not murder? 

There are other Biblical references which indicate that the people Moses and 
Joshua led were not a perfectly homogeneous a group.

Exodus 12:37 speaks of 600,000 Israelite men, plus women and children, plus
*many other people* leaving Egypt together in the Exodus. NIV Bible notes say 
the "many others" were other semites and Egyptians, in other words, non-Jews, 
who went with the Israelites. 

Detueronomy 31:12 says the Law was to be read out loud for all the people in
their communities to hear - including the aliens who lived among them. 

Joshua 8:35 also refers to the aliens who lived among them. 

Another example of gentile interaction with the Israelites is Rahab who aided 
the Israelites, and in turn was given refuge, married into them, and is in the
ancestral line leading to the Messiah. A later example is Ruth somewhere in 
the time of the judges.

Leslie 

PS:

Interestingly enough, I heard something on the news just recently about how 
scholars are now thinking there was a lot more intercourse (I am talking 
non-sexual!) amongst ancient peoples than we may have previously thought. 
People and news traveled, and groups of people were not as isolated as was 
thought.

Leslie,

I've retracted my assertion until I can substantiate it.  The notion of the
original Law as contained on the tablets given at Sinai being essentially
'for internal use' may not be an accurate one.  If it were, however, it
would explain much the brutal and senseless slaughter found in pages of
the Hebrew Testament.  As I said, it's been awhile.  And, well, they say
the memory is the second thing to go as one gets older.

I confess I'm having a little trouble with the word "murder," which is, as I
understand it any unlawful homocide.  The problem is obvious.  Any lawful
homocide is neither a crime nor a sin.

Divine law doesn't seem to be much higher than ordinary civil law.

Richard

| <<< Note 271.540 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| learn some hard facts as to how God executed justice and holiness.  

	I think the key words are, "how God executed justice". He, and only He
can know what is in the hearts of others. He, and only He can ever pass the
correct judgement 100% of the time. So leave it up to Him.

 Z   I think the key words are, "how God executed justice". He, and only He
 Z   can know what is in the hearts of others. He, and only He can ever pass
 Z   the correct judgement 100% of the time. So leave it up to Him.
    
    Glen, judicial justice even back in the days of Moses was not based on
    the hearts of men but based on their actions.  Were it to be based on
    the hearts of men then humanity would have been wiped out millenia
    ago.  
    
    Justice was then and is today not based upon sin but upon
    transgression.  In order for transgression to happen, there has to be a
    deviation from a law...which is what the judicial system is all about.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, I will ask you again. Should your views be based on mans law, or
His Law? You keep mentioning man's law like it takes precidence over
everything.

    Precedence by the way....and you're asking an ambiguous question.  Are
    you speaking of God's laws...as in the Mosaic law or are you speaking
    of Jesus proclamation of the two greatest commandments?  If it is the
    latter, then I would ask you how you portray love to those who seek
    justice and equity in a society.  By the way, my views should be based
    on the two greatest commandments but I also believe spanking my child
    when necessary is summed up in loving God with heart, soul and
    mind...so there you have it...an ambiguous answer to an ambiguous
    question.
    
    -Jack

    I never spanked my children.  I couldn't if I wanted to.  Forced to use
    other consequences.  Maybe that's why they are the way they are.
    
    In case it needs to be said:
    
    Nobody's saying there shouldn't be *any* consequences for wrongful
    behavior or conduct.  Nobody's saying there shouldn't be *any*
    punishment for criminal activity.
    
    Richard
    

    Licensed Daycare homes cannot legally hit children.  They do get
    classes on non-violent consequences.  I learned a lot from Carries
    daycare mom on how to handle an out-of-control toddler without smacking
    them.  Carrie is no worse and no better than children who are hit.  She
    knows that some actions have serious consequences.
    
    IMO murdering a person, even if you are sure he or she did something
    that might justify this sort of revenge is not godly.  Isolate them
    from society and continue on from there.  
    
    having had part of my family nearly wiped out physically and wiped out
    mentally, I can say I understand the human desire for revenge.  However
    that is not my place.  I have lifted my ex DIL up to Her and leave it
    there.
    
    meg
    
    meg

    Well, it sounded like Glen was saying that there shouldn't be
    consequences.  As far as spanking, I was careful to infer that I spank
    MY kids.  And by the way, Gregory (8) and Andrew (5) have not been
    spanked in probably three years.  If done properly you can wean them
    off of that kind of response by the age of three.
    
    -Jack

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 09:17:04 -0400
From: Sean Engelson <engelson@cs.uchicago.edu>
Subject: R.Ts.`H (the 6th commandment)

Regarding the proper translation of the sixth commandment, I think that
the best translation for the shoresh (word root) R.Ts.`H (as in
"rotsea`h") would be "to kill a human being".  This is contrasted with
H.R.G ("laharog") which more generally means to kill.  First, it seems
that, in the Torah at least, the latter is used as a default, with the
first used either when the specificity is needed (as in the commandment)
or for stylistic reasons ("yirtsa`h et harotsea`h").  According to this,
the commandment prohibits killing people period.  However, in those
cases where we have a separate mandate to kill someone (eg, beth din, or
rodeph) we can apply the principle of `aseh do`heh lo' ta`aseh (a
positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition) to show that the 6th
commandment doesn't apply.  Kakh nir'eh li.

	-Shlomo-

Z    However, in those cases where we have a separate mandate to kill someone 
Z    (eg, beth din, or
Z    rodeph) we can apply the principle of `aseh do`heh lo' ta`aseh (a
Z    positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition) to show that the 6th
Z    commandment doesn't apply.  Kakh nir'eh li.
    
    This would seem to have been the case in cases of Capital crimes and
    war, correct?  So we can surmize from this that the word "murder" does
    not play a part in the sixth commandment...but that the prohibition
    toward the executing of another is lifted in certain cases.
    
    -Jack

Something I found interesting about the statement John posted is that
apparently a prohibition (Thou shalt not....) can be nullified or
countermanded by a mandate (Thou shalt...).

As Johnny Carson used to say, I did not know that!

Richard

       <<< LGP30::RJF$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 420.12       Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism - SRO          12 of 13
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Peace: the Final Frontier"        16 lines  14-MAY-1992 20:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	I wanted to share a couple learnings I personally found of interest
while reading "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism."

	o  The identity of persons in the Old Testament was inseparably
	   interwoven with the identity of the clan or group.

------> o  The commandments were for internal purposes only.  That is to
	   say, the laws regarding killing, stealing, and coveting, etc.,
	   were understood to be intra-community.  Originally, there existed
	   no such standards toward the ethical treatment of foreigners
	   and other outsiders.  It was not considered a serious offense
	   to kill an non-member of the community, or to wipe out whole
	   communities of outsiders, for that matter.

Peace,
Richard

Any information obtained from John Spong is suspect.

To counter Spong's spurious claim, see "A Philosophy of Mizvot"
by Gersion Appel, pp 124-127, for the rabbinic view on divine
laws which are accessible to reason and therefore binding on
all nations.

/john

re Note 271.555 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Any information obtained from John Spong is suspect.

        As is all information.

        Bob

>         <<< Note 271.553 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Spigot of pithiness" >>>
>
>Something I found interesting about the statement John posted is that
>apparently a prohibition (Thou shalt not....) can be nullified or
>countermanded by a mandate (Thou shalt...).
>
>As Johnny Carson used to say, I did not know that!
>

Richard, a positive command always outweighs a negative command, for example,
the preserving of a human being outweighs the prohibition against doing "work"
on the shabbat. In fact, this is what Yeshua was pointing out when he was 
questioned about healing someone's withered hand on the shabbat.

Leslie

.557

>Richard, a positive command always outweighs a negative command, for example,
>the preserving of a human being outweighs the prohibition against doing "work"
>on the shabbat. In fact, this is what Yeshua was pointing out when he was 
>questioned about healing someone's withered hand on the shabbat.

And so it may be.  However, as I recall, observance of the shabbat is one of
only two in the decalogue presented in the positive.

Nevertheless, Yeshua pointed out that the shabbat was made for humans and
not the other way around.

Richard

>>.557

>>Richard, a positive command always outweighs a negative command, for example,
>>the preserving of a human being outweighs the prohibition against doing "work"
>>on the shabbat. In fact, this is what Yeshua was pointing out when he was 
>>questioned about healing someone's withered hand on the shabbat.
>
>And so it may be.  However, as I recall, observance of the shabbat is one of
>only two in the decalogue presented in the positive.

"A postive command outweighs a negative command," does not mean there are more
positive commandments than negative commandments. It means that in a situation
where two commandments are seemingly at odds with one another - following one
causes you to break another - the positive command takes precedence over
the negative.

Leslie