The death penalty is not always applied against the guilty. Don't tell me that America does not, as we have done, make mistakes in finding the innocent guilty. So, whatever the argument distinguishing the innocent baby from the hardened criminal, unless there is absolute certainty of guilt, the death penalty takes the appalling risk of being just as wrong as killing the baby.

I am also appalled to see that during the very long periods between conviction and execution, there can be deep and lasting changes in those awaiting death. (See the thread on the subject McGrath posted today with the link to the Guardian.) Where it can be shown that even in a state where no effort is put into rehabilitation. lives can be turned around to good, it seems hopelessly wrong to kill someone who is quite clearly not the same person who committed the crime.

I learned something new yesterday, preparing a sheet on Athens and Sparta. It seems that Sparta declared war on its slaves every year, so that the judicial executions by the secret police (krypteia?) of those who seemed to be likely to upset their nice little system would not be murder.

Being asked not to pray would be as offensive to me as being forbidden, perhaps more so, because it would use social pressures designed to be difficult to resist. So I can imagine that being asked to pray, when one didn't want to, for whatever reason, would be offensive. There are messages being given about belonging and not belonging which are inappropriate, and in the case of the USA, seen as being so at its founding.

Penny (signing off before rant)