BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:27 AM

Coveting is not good for anyone. But I believe it was meant to apply to more than just donkeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:01 AM

>>>it seems presumptuous to place this judgement in the hands of a group of human beings, especially in light of the governing Commandments.<<<

What "Commandments", Amos? Those of Moses, do you mean? Why, the book of Deuteronomy goes into enormous detail as to the crimes which warrant death, what particular form the death sentence should take for each particular offence, & so on. If you mean the "Shalt not kill" commandment of the boring old original 10; that surely means, in the context of the time, that, if you do, you will cop the like in your turn.

Anyhow, when didst thou last fret about coveting thy neighbour's ass, eh?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 10:47 AM

The jury's decision is fixed within the framework of law and the instructions from the judge.

But I see your point.

As to the Manichean determination that a human being should be put to death, I would offer the observation that such black-and-white judgements do not relate to the whole situation of a human life, but only to one part of it; they do not account for the consequences of his subtraction but wash their hands of the matter as soon as his corpse leaves the building. Most important they do not account for the consequences of presuming to have the authority to end a life at a time when it is no longer a threat. It is an entirely different thing to take out a killer who is placing you in mortal danger.

The revenge motive that Lizzy mentions is understandable because of the deep passionate feelings we have for our young and their protection. Whether it should be the basis of our group justice code is an entirely different issue.

Even within the context of a Christian belief system, it seems presumptuous to place this judgement in the hands of a group of human beings, especially in light of the governing Commandments.

But in the more normal secular perspective, I find it very hard to find a rationalization for snuffing someone whose every step is under the control of guards and whose range of motion is limited to a cell, a dining hall, and an exercise yard under armed surveillance.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 09:35 AM

Still sounds pretty wrong to me, Janie.

Our principle here is that the jury decides only the guilt or innocence of the accused, the Judge (who is qualified and experienced in the law and its application) sets the sentence in accordance with the sentencing rules and tarriffs set down in statute. Sounds right to me but, as I said earlier, we all tend to favour the system we're accustomed to over others.

Having said that, the death penalty is, IMHO, barbaric and has no place in any civilised 21st Century society. There's no way back when someone is wrongly found guilty, and one is one too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Janie
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 07:28 AM

In nearly all criminal trials in the US, the judge does decide the sentence, although for some charges (drug charges, I think) they are required to follow mandatory federal guidelines.

It was a ruling made by the US Supreme court that is responsible for the two-phase jury trial in capital murder cases. The first phase is the guilt or innocence phase. If a guilty verdict is rendered, then the case proceeds to the penalty phase and the jury will hear evidence of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. I'm not entirely certain about this, but in at least some states a judge may have the authority to override a jury's imposition of the death penalty under certain limited circumstances. The judge may not override a jury's decision to impose a sentence of life instead of the death penalty.   

Before bringing a murder case to trial the prosecutor must decide and announce if they intend to seek the death penalty. The state where I live specifies the conditions that may be considered aggravating circumstances that warrant a prosecutor seeking the death penalty.

Any potential juror who says they could not consider imposing the death penalty is excused from hearing a capital case.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 05:11 AM

Indeed they are different. Here it is unthinkable that the jury should have any say in the sentencing; the only exception was that, if a jury thought there were mitigating factors when murder was still a capital offence, they could add a "recommendation to mercy" to a Guilty verdict. Even then, the judge was not allowed to take it into account, but required to pass a mandatory sentence of death; but he could bring it to the attention of any Appeal Court, and of the Home Secretary, who was required to confirm any death sentence, and was empowered to recommend a reprieve to the King or Queen ~~ which, notionally, could only be granted by the Sovereign him/herself.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 04:58 AM

Correction - should have said "Over here, the offence is deemed to have been commited by the criminal against, and is prosecuted by, the state".

It's very interesting how two systems which we assume to be very similar have some major differences.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 04:50 AM

Well point 6 shows another big difference between your systems and the UK system, Jack, which I find appalling. Over here, ALL judges are trained, and very experienced, lawyers.

That's not to say that mistakes aren't made in sentencing, they sometimes are, but if I was in the dock and found guilty by a jury, I'd far rather my fate was in the hands of a qualified and, hopefully, dispassionate Judge than in the hands of a group of laymen whose decisions are liable to be hugely influenced by the media coverage of the case, and by their own, possibly wildly intemperate, views.

Also, if I was a juror, I would be horrified if I had to set the sentence. The offence is committed by the criminal against, and is prosecuted by, the state (that's the British meaning of 'state' - i.e. the nation). It's only right, therefore, that the state, personified by a judge appointed by the state, should set the sentence.

Obviously, we are each comfortable with our own systems, but I truly believe ours trumps yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 04:09 AM

>>Sentencing should be solely the responsibility of the Judge. That's what he's trained for, that's what he's paid for.<<

1. I don't know of any Judges' training in this country.
2. Sentences can vary, Judge, to Judge, Enough money, and the right lawyer, or blind luck, can sometimes get you a Judge more favorable to your situation.
3. If the Jury is qualified to find you guilty. I don't see why they can't pick the sentence. Don't you say in for a penny, in for a pound over there?
5. I think the likelihood of bias is far lower for 12 people than one.
6. A lot of judges here are elected. Do you want to entrust sentencing to the lawyer that won a popularity contest?

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 04:05 AM

I am glad to observe the reasonable, and reasoned, tone of recent postings on this thread ~ & thanks Bill for quoting my tentative efforts to come to terms with this all-too-complex controversy. Only too often this is a topic which gives rise to the most intense anmadversions and insults. I think the turn this thread has taken is a great credit to Mudcat & its Catters.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 03:59 AM

If anyone killed my children, I'd kill them.

Call me old-fashioned, or...simply a Mother.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 03:28 AM

Increases, dammit!

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 03:27 AM

Jim Dixon - thanks for the comments about the US Legal Systems. I hadn't taken into account the strange (to a Brit) legal structure over there.

I still believe that it's appalling that juries can, apparently, (and perhaps only in certain states) set sentences. That's very dangerous - it places seriously unfair responsibilities on jurors, and leaves the door open for unjust sentencing based on the personal biases of the jurors. It also increses the likelihood of revenge being taken by the criminal/his associates/family on jurors. It's barbaric.

Sentencing should be solely the responsibility of the Judge. That's what he's trained for, that's what he's paid for.

IMHO. YMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:36 PM

"Richard Speck died in prison..." etc...

I met Richard Speck's nephew...in fact, he tried to hide in my basement with the police chasing him.. *I* found him and showed to cops where he was. 2 years later, he chased my car, throwing bottles at me. Last I heard, nephew was in jail...and that's probably all that kept him from emulating Uncle Richard. He was a thoroughly nasty kid!

I know one can't really generalize from one example, but gee, sometimes it's easy to see the "there are 'living humans' without whose continued existence the world can be a better, safer place" argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: dwditty
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:29 PM

I live in New Haven. The state is providing trauma counselling to the jurors.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:10 PM

Dear Jack,

Your ideas aren't crap - and neither are mine. They are our considered opinions, and they happen to be different.

You rationalise this difficult issue your way and I, in mine.

Capital Punishment:

Your up for it, I'm not. Its simply a matter of differing sensibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:13 PM

>>>1) Because of what it says to our children.

It says don't torture and Rape and kill people or you will end up dead.

>>2)Our society is churning out more and more of these social inadequates - we need to know why. Focus on the problem, rather than some medieval bollocks about good and evil.

Bollocks and Bollocks. There have always been killers in our society and we don't have to know why to remove them.

>>3) Sadism - the desire to voyeuristically enjoy cruelty is deep within all of us.

Speak for yourself. I have no such desire. I am revolted by the crime and just want to know he is gone. I have absolutely no voyeuristic interest in how it is done. In fact, my interest is only in minimizing cruelty.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:47 PM

"I'm torn between my more general feelings about capital punishment and the part of me that asks why something like that should be kept alive."
Why?

1) Because of what it says to our children. Here is a problem you can solve without descending to killing to someone. Adolf Hitler - you have to kill people. Richard Speck - you don't.
If you practice violence in this case - you are doing it from personal preference, rather than necessity.

2)Our society is churning out more and more of these social inadequates - we need to know why. Focus on the problem, rather than some medieval bollocks about good and evil.

3) Sadism - the desire to voyeuristically enjoy cruelty is deep within all of us.
True Crime Porn and public enjoyment of the execution - who hasn't turned to the gory details of Charles the 1st on the scaffold and poor Mary Queen of Scots, and a myriad others and enjoyed the grisly details?
It is a base strand inside the human make up - every manifestation of it should be resisted for the sake of human dignity.

4) I'm not up for it.....

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 04:18 PM

Richard Speck died in prison some years ago now. But after many years in prison, someone taped an interview with him, which I've seen. I can't give precise quotes, but I believe these are legitimate approximations. When asked if he regretted slaughtering a group of young nurses, he replied, "No, why should I". He also said, "If people knew how much fun I have in here, they would be outraged".
I'll freely admit that I'm torn between my more general feelings about capital punishment and the part of me that asks why something like that should be kept alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 04:06 PM

"Is it not at least arguable that there are 'living humans' without whose continued existence the world can be a better, safer place?

That is what I alluded to in my prediction when I said ..." we will see a shift to MORE states allowing capital punishment...and for a wider variety of crimes. "

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 02:47 PM

Looking back at the coverage I have seen in the media. I think in states that allow the death penalty it generally has to be decided upon by a jury.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 02:29 PM

Backwoodsman: There is no such thing as "the US legal system." There is one federal system and 50 state systems. Then there criminal courts, civil courts, family courts, tax courts, military courts (courts-martial), each with their own rules of procedure. I don't even know how to count how many "systems" we've got.

If there is any uniformity at all, it is only because the US constitution sets some limits on what states can do. I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the US constitution that says that juries can't determine sentences. Therefore it is practically inevitable that some juries somewhere do determine sentences.

More than that, I can't tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 01:43 PM

···She had just condemned a living human to death. She had little choice under the legal instructions, but nevertheless, she (I imagine) was not about to stand up and own such a heinous act as sending someone to death.··· Amos

====
Must it always be 'heinous'? Is it not at least arguable that there are 'living humans' without whose continued existence the world can be a better, safer place?

I simply put these questions with no rhetorical suggestion of an answer, as I do not purport to know the answer. It is, as I said before, a matter on which I feel profound ambivalences. But I think these are questions to which the most positive of the denouncers of the death penalty should at least afford some consideration.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 01:22 PM

>>Orwells comment was, even a dog knew what we were doing was wrong.<<

If you accept Orwell's logic, that the dog knew, you would have a very different perspective from mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 01:19 PM

I am quite aware there was no mistake in this case... I also am VERY aware of various guys who have been released after new evidence...often DNA, sometimes confessions.. proved they were not guilty of some crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM

I always think it comes down to sensuality. A bit like sexual orientation.

A guy puts his hand on your knee, and you know whether you're up for it, or not similarly.

You see the rope , the gallows, the elecric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection or whatever ... and you know whether you're up for it....stilling the flesh of another human being.

In George Orwell's famous essay The Hanging, it tells of a time when he was a young policeman in India and he had to aacompany a criminal to the gallows. On the way he watches how the man side steps a puddle, he is still capable of sidestepping the puddle. then a dog runs up to the man and covers the crimnal with licks and joyous larking about. After the hanging, the dog slinks away. Orwells comment was, even a dog knew what we were doing was wrong.

Even a dog...some people will have great reasons from the Bible on and the Koran and the Communist manifesto for using capital punishment. You can always find reasons to justify, or disagree with anything.

In the end though, it comes down to one thing ....are you up for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 01:08 PM

There was no mistake here. The bodies were found burned in the house. The Husband/father identified the two men. The one just sentenced went to the bank with the woman he raped and murdered and was almost certainly videotaped doing so. The men were caught when they ran into a police roadblock in the family car. One was also was witnessed buying gas to burn the children's beds and each of the accused gave statements implicating themselves and the other.

If I was on that jury, given the law of that State, I don't see how a lessor sentence could be justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:55 PM

It's a strange lot of rationalizations we apply to the various circumstances in which ANY taking of a life is involved.

If the victims had had a weapon during the attack and been able to defend themselves by shooting the attackers, there'd be very little debate about the outcome, no matter what the belief system of the almost-victims. If a police officer had saved them by shooting the attackers, same thing. But AFTER the crime, the proper punishment is a 'moral dilemma'. That juror's rationale was awkward and skewed, just as Janie suggests, but millions will agree with her. All that is required is ONE specific interpretation of ONE religious doctrine. I suspect that her interpretation is based on what she wanted to believe, and rationalizing that it would allow"...this man to .... make peace with his Supreme Being..." just eased her conscience.

   Let's be real....the death penalty can be either a subjective judgment or a pragmatic one, and often a mix of the two. It's when we try, as that juror did, to try to 'lay off' the decision to some 'higher principle' that we begin looking ridiculous....at least to those who DO accept responsibility for their own opinions.

I will venture to predict that, as time goes on and we have MORE violence and MORE stress in society and MORE prisons filled with MORE heinous criminals costing MORE millions to maintain and making working conditions MORE dangerous for prison guards, we will see a shift to MORE states allowing capital punishment...and for a wider variety of crimes. That is, I predict more 'pragmatism' and less 'morality' in deciding to allow or impose the death penalty....though the voting may reflect either one.

I am trying not to personally 'favor' ANY decision that involves the death penalty, especially because we know that when it is allowed, mistakes are made in excesses of zeal...often by prosecutors who hate to back down. I have to say though, that when I see depictions of the scope of the problems the prisons and police departments must deal with daily, the pragmatic view has its lure.

*sigh*...it must be easier for those who have some pre-digested absolute standard to help them along...

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:41 PM

That's a good counterpoint to what that lady said. I doubt that she thought her position all the way through.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:33 PM

My father held a very conservative Christian stance. He stated that he couldn't support the death penalty, because it cut short the person's opportunity to repent. That position still might be open to critique, but at least it's an interesting variation.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:24 PM

Was she a philosopher/theologian like yourself? Not everyone has the time or the education to study such things. I am sure that she tried to put herself in the man's shoes and came up with the most comforting answer that she could, after the fact. I don't see what is wrong with that. She followed the instructions and obeyed the law and carried out her responsibilities as best she could. That is all we ask of jurors. That is all we should ask. We can't all be Thomas Jefferson.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 11:42 AM

Well, of COURSE she had to farm out the resaponsibility to God. She had just condemned a living human to death. She had little choice under thelegal instructions, but nevertheless, she (I imagine) was not about to stand up and own such a heinous act as sending someone to death.

It's a sorry state of affairs. But it doesn';t matter what icon or granfaloon she chose to pass the blame on-- "God" or "the march of civilization", "the Machinery of Justice", or "the greater good of Society" or any other mechanism you can name. The point is she had to step back from her own responsibility in the matter and invoke someone or something else to be responsible, because she did not feel up to facing what she was doing. It's a cheap trick, sure, but I expect she felt she had no choice given the context. (She could have chosen to take full responsibility, but was clearly unable to make that choice).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 11:13 AM

No the problem is taking a single religious statement from that lady rationalizing what she and 11 others had done in a civil matter in a secular and using it as an excuse for another little smug Mudcat anti-religious jihad.

The death penalty laws and how they are enforced in Connecticut and that lady's religion are two very separate that happened to cross paths in that interview. In the article several jurors were talking about how the trial of a man who committed that horrible, nasty, evil spree of crimes affected them. One lady gave a religious viewpoint. Big deal. The death penalty is a legitimate reason for debate. How it personally affects one juror, is much less so.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: theleveller
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 04:42 AM

The problem with people who cite the bible as their guidance on matters of this sort is that they are alway selective. I wonder how many would take their son to the edge of the village and stone him to death if he disobeyed them, as Deuterononmy demands.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:40 AM

What I find most shocking about this story is that, if I've understood correctly, under the US legal system, juries can set sentences. Outrageous, and very dangerous.

WTF is the Judge there for?

Someone, FFS please tell me it's not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:00 AM

Christianity has a long tradition of killing and torturing people for the good of their souls.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: andrew e
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 01:47 AM

The idea that if someone kills someone else, that it then makes it OK for another person[state] to then kill is beyond me.
It's still the same again.
If it was wrong the first time .............

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 10:13 PM

I don't think that her statements were the most shocking or horrifying thing about that story. Frankly after dealing with being exposed to that man and his crimes for that long I am surprised non of you are willing to give her some slack. 11 other people came to the same verdict.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Janie
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 09:35 PM

I guess I just did not expect to hear that kind of rationale come out of the mouth of some one living in Connecticut in the 21st century.

Been trying to really nail down why I was so utterly shocked and appalled by her statements.   I think it is because her rationale, at least as I understand what she was saying, absolves her of all responsibility for her own choices.    "This is God's call, not mine."    For myself, I can not conceive of holding some one else responsible for their choices while completely disowning responsibility for my own.

However, I want to reiterate that my reaction to her statements does not stem from my own opposition to the death penalty. Maybe I am mistaken or misguided, but I don't think most proponents of the death penalty in our culture, in this age, who are people of faith assert that God demands the death penalty, nor do they justify sentencing some one to death primarily as a last ditch effort for that person to find salvation. They may believe their religious teachings allow for the death penalty as appropriate justice or appropriate social retribution, but I think the vast majority of death penalty proponents, religious or otherwise, accept personal responsibility for their position. "Free will" is a central idea in Christianity. My impression is that death penalty proponents who are Christian not only tend to hold the criminal responsible for "free will," they also accept personal responsibility for having arrived at their own position via "free will."   ( I also reiterate that I have not read anything that identifies the religion to which the juror in question may subscribe.) I imagine that some proponents of the death penalty are entirely comfortable with their position and find it completely consistent with their values and notions of justice, revenge or retribution, and some are not so comfortable, but opine the vast majority of them take ownership of their position.

Should also say I do not think that all proponents of the death penalty are people of faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 07:51 PM

Amongst all of the condemnation it is a little hard to figure out what is being said here?

So are you all saying that Christians shouldn't be on juries because they might put a spiritual spin on the result or because no one should be convicted of murder.

And would all who you who have condemned this woman please say whether or not you know the details of the crime as presented in the article?

Here is another account if you need it.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/05/chesire.connecticut.murders/index.html?iref=obinsite

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 07:45 PM

"I know that this is... God's plan, and... I'm honored to be a part of that."

I'm sure a number of insane murderers have expressed similar sentiments just before pulling the trigger.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 06:50 PM

Yet throughout history, even when traitors were drawn and quartered, it has always been customary, as far as I know, to allow the condemned the opportunity to meet with a priest, confess, pray, take communion, etc. Why?

I would call it self-righteous "compassion"...it made them look superior and on "god's side" to all who attended. After all they really did want to "save souls" didn't they, just as this juror has cited?:-<

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 06:32 PM

Didn't the man she believes in advise us that we should judge not that you be not judged? So she should not have taken part in a trial in the first place. He also said that in the way you judge others so shall you be judged. So she'll have some explaining to do when she meets him or it might be hellfire and eternal damnation for her.

Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 06:31 PM

Yes, of course, she was appointed by the judge to speak for God among the jurors, Satan's advocate was apparently not as persuasive.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 06:21 PM

The juror's views are about what I expect of organised religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 06:16 PM

I think Crowsister (back here) has a pretty good interpretation of what was probably on the juror's mind.

Hamlet refrained from killing Claudius while the latter was praying, because (he said) killing Claudius then would have sent him to Heaven, whereas Hamlet wanted him to go to hell. (Of course, it is open to interpretation whether this was the real reason or a mere rationalization for Hamlet's inaction.)

I find it strange that we don't use that line of thinking more often. After all, if a criminal dies unrepentant, and his soul goes to hell, that's only because it's God's will, isn't it? If it's God's will, how can it be wrong of us to want that to happen?

Yet throughout history, even when traitors were drawn and quartered, it has always been customary, as far as I know, to allow the condemned the opportunity to meet with a priest, confess, pray, take communion, etc. Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:26 PM

I think she just said that to justify her decision, which given the circumstances, was probably the right one. It seems that under the circumstances, that sentence was what Connecticut law requires.

And Yes I think it is hysterical and hyperbolic. I think she, with 11 other people voted for the sentence as her civic duty and the religious considerations were almost certainly secondary. It is not as if the peril of the killer's soul was the only consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:19 PM

Gee, even Wordsworth bought into this sort of rationalization? I suppose that's possible. I suppose you could say that Wordsworth was a very theological poet, but some of his theology was just plain wacky.

As stated above, this idea of killing your evil enemy so he had the opportunity to make amends with his Maker, is an idea that goes way back. Seems to me, it's been a crazy idea from the very beginning.

It's amazing how hard humans work to rationalize whatever it is they want to do.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:15 PM

Jack: Now I'm really confused. I knew you were talking about the thread title. And I meant to say that your characterizing the thread title as "hyperbolic hysteria" was unjustified. Am I still misunderstanding you somehow? Or did you misunderstand me?

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:03 PM

Hmmmm sorry, you were talking about the thread title.

I have that opinion without reading Wordsworth and in spite of the other arguments you put forth.