BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Grab
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 06:30 AM

"Farewell" is an interesting word. The last thing I'd want to do is wish him a pleasant journey! "Bugger off - the human race is better without you" would be more accurate - mind you, that wouldn't all fit in a Mudcat thread title. ;-)

I'm generally against capital punishment, so a better use of his time would be a life sentence. However, I'm also on the side of kat in that prisons should be self-sufficient (at least in terms of food). Prisoners decide they don't want to work in the fields, the whole prison gets less food. Harvest etc would be done using manual labour rather than mechanical. This would have the additional benefit of helping wildlife by returning to the "traditional" methods of farming.

Of course, there is the problem of how to control prisoners armed with scythes and pitchforks... :-)

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 06:57 AM

Good points from Kendall above particularly the distinction between "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit murder".

Gareth above refers to the period in the UK between 1800 and 1840. Lots of people were sentenced to death by hanging, some for what could be considered fairly minor crimes. Within that period only one in ten were actually executed. The sentences were normally commuted to transportation for life, others transported were sentenced to either seven or fourtenn years depending on the crime. If sentenced to transportation for life, the convict then returned to England, his death sentence would stand and he would face execution (The fictional character Magwitch in Dickens Great Expectations is an example of this). Bernard Cornwell's book "Gallows Thief", has a very good postscipt on the subject. Another facet of the English legal system of that time was that the accused were not allowed to speak in their own defence, that had to be done by what was termed as "the accused's friend". That term still holds good under current UK military justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: kendall
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 08:22 AM

Is this, or is this not a Christian nation? If not, then, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. (Of course, all that leads to is a world full of blind and toothless people)
On the other hand, if we really are a nation founded on Christian beliefs, then supporting the killing of another human being is wrong. How can you condone the legal homicide of the state and still claim to be a Christian? What some of you advocate is not justice, it is revenge. Nothing more than the same mentality that fuels the feud.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raptor
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 10:03 AM

Here is a story about a man who believed in the death penalty but probably changed his mind!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/03/vigilante.killer.ap/index.html


Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raptor
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 10:09 AM

So what would you do if your child came home, told you he was buggered, pointed out someone, and after you did what you thought was right to the perpatraitor your child admitted to making it up?

This was todays news!

Still believe in capital punishment?

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Pooby
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 10:19 AM

Good riddance, Paul Hill. Having said that, I remain firmly anti-capital punishment even in a world where there are so many dirtbag lowlifes that seem to deserve it. When a situation like Hill arises (or others of similar ilk), I find myself thinking of good ol' Clarence Darrow and his observation that "I never wanted to see anybody die, but there are a few obituary notices I have read with pleasure."

So what to do with such unrepentant, unreformable human dregs (even those who think they were acting on orders from the Almighty)? At a campaign forum on crime issues some years ago, during one of his short-lived flirtations with running for President, New York Gov. Mario Cuomo (staunch anti-CP) caught the crowd by surprise when he said something like, "For some criminals, I favor death..." After the pregnant pause, he added, "...by long, slow, hard imprisonment." So, like Katlaughing said, put 'em away for good, deprived of human contact, with only their twisted minds for company. No messy executions, no martyrs. May not be perfect, may not be pretty, but it works for me.

Poobs

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raptor
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 10:33 AM

Why kill this guy?

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Midchuck
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 10:41 AM

I kind of like the Larry Niven approach.

Lock 'em up and let them be (involuntary organ donors until you've cut off so many pieces that it's no longer possible to keep them alive.

That way they do some good for someone, whether they like it or not.

The funny thing is, that many people, including a lot who support plain-vanilla capital punishment, would consider this idea cruel and barbaric.

But I never claimed to understand people.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 11:48 AM

Good point, Nicole!

There must be some reasons behind such anit-social behaviors and we certainly would be wise to make a greater effort in finding those reasons and trying to correct them. We are not doing that. Qutie the opposite in that we lock folks up in a very hostile environmnet and if they weren't anti-social when they go in, you can bet they will be when they come out...

Another good point, troll...

The system certainly does not go far enought to compensate the victims. Heck, the United States goverment spends lots of money to to companies that supply office equipment, paper, automobiles, ect. Why not turn prisons into manufacturing plants thru a public/private partnership? Instead of the private end of the partnership paying the inmate, the money goes to the victim or families of the victim?

Also, back to Nicole's thoughts. What is possible is a prison that makes a concerted effort to take the terror out of incarceration, inject a level of humanity, and work toward an end of *habilitation* or *rehabilitation*... Then when folks are released they come out better prepared to cope with the real world...

Like I've said before, Einstein said that "Insanity is repeating a behavior and expecting different results". What we're seeing now isn't working with the highest incarceration percentage of and industrialized country on Earth...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 11:58 AM

I do not think death is too cruel for a murderer, but even if a murder 'deserves' it, the death penalty is wrong because the court may be mistaken; then we all have killed an innocent person and let a murderer go free.

That's not right.


clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: kendall
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 12:50 PM

Read ISHMAEL by Daniel Quinn.

What about this theory that medical science came up with that says the brains of criminals lack something that is present in non criminal brains? If this is true, they are sick. If they are sick, should they be punished? Would you execute a person for haveing a bad heart? or a diabetic?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 01:07 PM

Ah religious zealots who are happy to die for their beliefs.
That should ring a few bells in Palestine/Iraq/Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. Strange bedfellows indeed.
Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 01:21 PM

"Is this, or is this not a Christian nation?"

I don't see how it CAN be...

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: kendall
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 02:30 PM

It's more like a nation of hypocrites.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 02:35 PM

So you're saying they are Christians then, Kendall?

LOL

(I'm KIDDING!!!!!)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 02:44 PM

Gee are the pro-death crew ignoring my posts?

Suprise!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 03:29 PM

Well Raptor, without ghosting the URLs you posted, I think I get the drift...

No system is 100%, nor will it ever be... mistakes are gonna happen, and I don't agree that one is too many... I suppose it's a matter of acceptable errors...

And well, if you're gonna post such 'reputable' sources as holisticpolitics.com, then I think your posts have already been given more attention than they deserve...

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 03:43 PM

Seems quite a lot of people think that it's a good idea to kill people who kill other human beings. Which is what Paul Hill evidently thought.

There might be some disagreements about important definitions, such as who counts as human beings, but essentially anybody who believes in capital punishment is agreed on the point of principle involved.

Thannk God no country in the European Union can reintroduce the death penalty, and encourage that kind of thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: The Walrus
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 03:49 PM

I'm afraid I'm with Midchuck - Break them for spares!
It costs more to keep two active 'innocents' on dialysis than one (full) 'lifer' in prison (and with more than one prisoner, the costs drop as the machine can be shared).
It should be fairly easy to teach the prisoner to read Braille (especially when he/she is up against a deadline).
That's the kidneys and corneas redestibuted (and such other bits as can be used), this also means that there needn't be a mad rush to match donor and recipeant as the donor won't be going anywhere.
I say make the ba*d pay his/her 'debt to society' with their body.

Walrus (in a militant mood)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 03:51 PM

So most of the poeple we kill will deserve it. And youre o.k. with that Clinton.

Thats Great!

Raptor

(I don't go for holisticpolitics stuff either but a good story)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 04:07 PM

Ya... more or less Raptor...

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 04:09 PM

Oh, I just might have known you'd diss "holisticpolitics.com", Clinton, you heartless swine! :-) You'll get your comeuppance when we come to Windsor and picket your musical performances.

Now, I'm not gonna get myself all worked up over the fate of Paul Hill...one way or the other. I've got better things to do today. But...I will make a few brief observations.

1. All the people who enthusiastically favour capital punishment should get to experience it firsthand themselves (at least once), after spending a few miserable months or years on death row. I figure this would give them a new slant on the subject, and it would also eliminate the more paranoid and vicious segment of the population handily. The sentences could be carried out by other people who also are in favour of capital punishment, on a lottery system. The last one left would then be given a chance to off him/herself, providing he/she was still in favour of the general idea. A refusal to do so would indicate that the subject's opinion of the matter had changed.

2. Those who freely give a government the power to execute people may one day live to bitterly regret it.

3. If you think it's too expensive to imprison people, then I guess you value money more than life. Nice set of values there, Bubba. The mafia is looking for guys just like you, so you'll never be out of work!

4. The concept of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is not a Christian concept. It was a Jewish concept (as expressed in the Old Testament), and may still be, but then Jesus gave his teachings which cast out those very ideas (among many others). For his doing so, the pro-capital-punishment crowd of his time (scribes and pharisees) had him executed. Jesus never physically harmed anyone. That many so-called Christians have ignored Christ's teachings of mercy and forgiveness is obvious, and says much about them but nothing about Jesus.

4. It is always possible to come up with particular stories that appear to support either the pro or anti-capital punishment position. That is because we are highly emotional creatures...and it's also because to every apparently rock-solid rule there are a few particular exceptions!!! And this is what people tend to overlook when they try to establish rock solid rules about life.

What's my solution? Try to come up with a generally workable rule, and apply it generally, but stay flexible at the same time and think creatively in each situation.

So, although I am nominally against capital punishment, and am not inclined to give a political system that authority, I am open to the fact that a situation might arise where I would feel it was necessary or advisable to kill someone. Such situations are rare, but they can and do happen. I try to judge each situation on its own merits rather than relying on some Absolute rule. This makes me (I hope) a thinking creature rather than a robot who lets others do his thinking for him.

Society would much rather have robots who simply follow rules. Thinking people are considered too unpredictable and dangerous...

The reason I am reluctant to give governments the official power of capital punishment is that they are unpredictable and dangerous, and are usually run by the immature and unscrupulous to boot. I trust myself. I don't trust governments, churces, or other such organizations.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 04:18 PM

" I just might have known you'd diss "holisticpolitics.com", Clinton, you heartless swine! :-)"

Anything with the word "Holistic" in it immediately gets written off as New Age clap-trap in my book, and anybody who believes it is automatically suspect of being an idiot!

And that goes double for you LH!

So... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 04:29 PM

I figured you'd see it that way, Clinton. Tell you what, I'll bring all my New Age literature to Windsor when Raptor and I come and we'll throw self-help books, books on rediscovering love, books on chakras, books on soul journeys, books on auras, and other great stuff like that at you until you are driven gibbering off the stage! You "partistic" types deserve no mercy, I say.

We can't do it this weekend, though, cos we're taking a canoe course instead.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Candyman(inactive)
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 04:37 PM

Is this, or is this not a Christian nation?

No, the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation. Many Americans are Christians, others are Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and any number of other religions. Many others athiests and agnostics who do not practice any religion. But the nation itself has no religion. By law, there is a separation of church and state.

I am pro-choice and anti-capital punishment, but I must admit to mixed feelings about this execution. I wouldn't have sentenced him to death, but aving seen Paul Hill's final press conference, I do not care that he's no longer with us.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: M.Ted
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 05:15 PM

I don't care for the death penalty, but will not miss Paul Hill all that much.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 05:34 PM

I tried to post this earlier, but hit a glitch and apparently it didn't take.

Someone posted something earlier which I agree with...make the prisoners work for wages which go directly to their victims as "life" support, and, like child support, be administered legally. That would be a good way to "make them pay" while they do time, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 05:34 PM

" I'll bring all my New Age literature to Windsor when Raptor and I come and we'll throw self-help books, books on rediscovering love, books on chakras, books on soul journeys, books on auras, and other great stuff like that"

Think of the money I'll save on Bog-roll!!!!

LOL

September is a bad month to come see me anyway... see -THIS- thread for more info and PM me if ya want...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 05:56 PM

Good point, Little Hawk. There are way too many so-called Christains that never quite make it into the New Testament. Just doesn't serve their particular biases and opinions. Yeah, Jesus was a mid course correction where the message of forgiveness is the centerpiece and where God loves us and blesses us and we in turn love Him and the Son and try to live as Jesus would have us live. No need to fear this God.... But, no, seems that lots of so-called Christains just don't get it yet they continue to think of themselves as Christains...

But, bottom line, they can say they are men and women of Faith but God knows... Fir sure... Yeah, they can say all they want but God knows... Can't bluff the Big Guy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 06:18 PM

" Can't bluff the Big Guy..."

Some say the "Big Guy" is the biggest bluff of all...

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 06:54 PM

That paragraph of NicoleC's is worth repeating, many times:

Secondly, I don't believe it's a deterrant. Instead, I think it has the opposite effect. By sanctioning killing as a penalty for killing, it blurs the moral issue, particulary for the very young (and impressionable) or those of defective intelligence -- and many murderers are.

Guest Ed, those four words "Thou shalt not kill" were merely repeated in the bible. They were actually written on a lump of stone by God, no less, oh.... way back. Apparently thought worthless at the time, the stone disappeared from view until eventually turning up at a courtroom in Alabama. The state's chief justice drags them round with him to this day.

Pooby, would Clarence Darrow be the guy who was involved as prosecuting attorney in the disgusting conspiracy that stitched up Richard Hauptmann for the murder of the Lindberg baby?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Gareth
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 07:12 PM

As usual Terribus translates my post into usable English - Sorry for any confusion but the years of the "Bloody Code" were marked by a 9 to 1 failure to carry out a death sentance providing that the condemed was either rich, or influential, or had respectable friends to interceed on thier behalf.

Still the gallows loss was Australia's gain.

Hughes book "The Fatel Shore" is an educational read.

Or for it updated, try Heinliens (SP) "The Moon is a Hard Mistress"

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raptor
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 07:26 PM

Clinton

I'm bettin that between your Cheerfull outlook, The fact that youre willing to kill a few innocents to kill more criminals, and your tastless jokes about Battered women You are "Lucky With The Ladies"

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 07:43 PM

It's good to know that those who support capital punishment despite the ever-present liklihood of executing innocents would be willing to take a few thousand volts themselves in favor of the cause, should they themselves be wrongfully convicted.

There are two major theories in justice: Punishment and Rehabilitation.

The problem with punishment alone is that it doesn't solve anything. Victims don't cease being victims and the perpetrators don't stop being criminals when they have lived up to their punishment. The only thing it does is contribute to a sense of vengeance. The death penalty is the supposed ultimate punishment -- but what does it solve? Nothing.

The problem with rehabilitation is that we just haven't figured it out. Some prisoners who work hard and better themselves while is prison DO turn their lives around, but I suspect that we only achieve this with the borderline cases -- criminals of circumstances like poverty and ignorance, not those who are truly bad or sociopathic.

I agree that it's perhaps time that we approach justice from a different standpoint, and I think Restitution might be a better strategy. Those who are victims might receive some small measure in return for their loss, the criminals are "punished" with work, and hard work and getting to know one's victims' point of view could certainly be rehabilitative. Meanwhile, the criminals are still secure from society and prevented from committing more crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Troll
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 07:51 PM

Fionn, "Thou shalt not kill" is a mis-translation. The correct phrase is "Thou shalt not do murder."
Murder was killing one of your own clan or tribe. The proscription did not apply to those outside the tribe.
There are numerous places in the Bible where God commanded the Israelites to kill their enemies.
So if "Thou shalt not kill" is the correct translation, then God is inconsistant.
This is not a good trait in a Diety.
I believe Darrow was dead by that time.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 07:54 PM

"and your tastless(sic.) jokes about Battered women "

Hey! I never said I endorse that behaviour did I??   I warned that it was a tasteless joke, in a thread ABOUT tasteless jokes...

And as far as battered women go, I prefer 'em in beer batter...

(Don't take THAT seriously either!)

"The fact that youre(sic.) willing to kill a few innocents to kill more criminals"

I never said I was willing... I said I'm resigned to the fact that mistakes happen, and will always happen no matter WHAT system is in play... And yes... I think the benefits outweigh the few mistakes that will happen...

I don't expect you to agree... Just be glad that -I'm- not in power eh!

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 08:41 PM

One reason that executing Paul Hill was a mistake is that in the view of his supporters, this makes him a martyr. Another reason is that if he were moldering away in a cell someplace, many of those same supporters would spend some of their time picketing the slammer and/or various government offices, thereby drawing at least some of them away from the women's health clinics.

…mistakes are gonna happen, and I don't agree that one is too many... I suppose it's a matter of acceptable errors...

All well and good, Clinton, but what if strange circumstances conspire and you turn out to be one of the "acceptable errors?" Would that really be "acceptable" to you?

Some random contemplations on what a moral society can do with extreme criminals:—

When a person like Paul Hill does what he does, he gives notice that he is resigning from humanity. He has proved by his actions that he is no longer fit to live among humans. To execute him for his crimes does indeed get rid of him, and it may bring a certain kind of primitive satisfaction, but it puts that society on the same moral plain as the murderer. Murder for murder, an eye for an eye. Subject to irreversible mistakes and subject to all kinds of possible abuse. Not the mark of a moral society. And to a truly moral society, no such errors are "acceptable."

Everyone has the right of self-defense. If someone attacks me, I have the same right as any living creature to do whatever is necessary to defend myself: physically restrain the attacker if that will suffice, or even go so far as to kill the attacker if that's the only way I can protect myself. I also have the obligation as a human being similarly to do all in my power to attempt to protect someone else who is under attack.

[By the way, the same holds true for entire nations. If a nation is attacked, it has the right (indeed the obligation) to defend itself and its people. But—against the immediate attack. And I would say that depending on specific circumstances, it has the right to launch an immediate retaliatory strike, not out of vengeance, but with the object of forestalling further such attacks from that aggressor. This does not include acts of foreign policy fobbed off as defensive actions months or years later, and certainly not against a different country. Pre-emptive war is murder on a national scale. But so much for that! I'm speculating about a hypothetical moral society here.]

In times past, as an alternative to killing the offender (someone who disobeys the mores of the tribe), the offender could be exiled. In a way, transportation was a form of this. Unfortunately, until we can establish a penal colony on Pluto, the only way we can do this is relatively local incarceration. This, I am told, is expensive—an expense to society as a whole that some feel is too high, and can be avoided if we simply off the offender. But in the long run, because of the appeals system, especially in capital cases, this turns out to be even more expensive. Larry Niven's system of using convicts as organ donors has a certain appeal for the vengeance-minded, and one can see the possible medical benefits to those in need, but it does seem somehow rather grotesque—a sort of "piecemeal" execution—and ethicists could argue 'til Sunday breakfast over this question!*

Perhaps our current prison system attempts to be a bit too humane toward unrepentant murderers and those who commit other heinous crimes. My thought still leans to the idea of exile. Let them live, but separate them from the rest of humanity. Maximum security, minimum perks. Spend no money on anything except the upkeep of the physical building, food, sanitary considerations, medical necessities, and the minimal personnel necessary to run such a place. I have visions of a dungeon, or someplace like the Chateau d'If, or Devil's Island, or Alcatraz. Lock them in a cell and, to all intents and purposes, throw away the key. Complete isolation. No books, no television, nothing. No form of human contact except when a silent jailer opens the slot at the bottom of the door and slides in a tray of life-sustaining but bland food. Nothing to occupy their mind accept their own thoughts and whatever mental resources they might have.

Some would go mad. Some would spend the rest of their lives in contemplation and meditation, and possibly become better persons. But no matter. The point is, they would be removed from the rest of society (or any society at all) and could no longer do harm. To all intents and purposes, they no longer exist, but society would not have their blood in its hands.

AND—should new evidence turn up establishing the person's innocence, they are still alive and can be "resurrected" and released. And, under such circumstances, they should be given whatever reparations might be deemed appropriate (not just twenty bucks walking money and a new suit; something fairly lavish; an honest and apologetic attempt to compensate them for the injustice done to them).

Don Firth

P.S:— On the matter of expense, when you consider the huge percentage of prison inmates who are serving ridiculously long sentences for relatively innocuous drug crimes, if we were to embrace the kind of civilized behavior that many European countries do regarding drug laws and such, we could cut costs drastically and at the same time, free up a lot of cell space for some real baddies.

*Footnote: by the way, in Larry Niven's stories of "organlegging," a condemned criminal's organs being parceled out to those in need of transplants was considered capital punishment (death of a thousand cuts, perhaps?). I remember reading one of the Gil "the ARM" Hamilton novels about twenty years ago, entitled The Patchwork Girl, in which a young woman who was convicted was later released—after she'd had some of her body parts "harvested." They had to put her back together, and once reassembled, not all of her parts (her legs, for example) matched. Nice thought, eh? No matter how good the judicial system gets in the future, don't be too sure that mistakes or nobbling will be a thing of the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Cookieless Rapaire
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 09:43 PM

I agreed with Don Firth earlier: put them away, away from all human contact, for all human stimulus (I really like the bland food idea). But I go a step further: they disappear. After the sentencing there is nothing more heard about them, from them, to them. After death they are cremated and the remains used for fertilizer. Only if they are found innocent do they again become "real."

As for those who do less than murder: "do unto others as you would others did unto you." Beat someone, you are beaten in the same way and to the same injuries, and your medical treatment is delayed for the same length of time. Steal, and your property is sold and the value given back to those you stole from (no property? Well, bucko, looks like you're going to do some work for the community, at minimum wage, and THAT will be given directly to the victim after costs of maintaining you are deducted.). Hit and run? -- no problem, you're hit and nobody stops. Rape? -- well, you'll know what a "power crime" is, won't you?

If someone kills, that person is killed. Not by the state, but by the victim's next-of-kin, and in the same manner that the victim died, IF the n/o/k wishes to do it. Otherwise, the killer quietly disappears....

Or go back the Brehon Law and give everyone an "honor price." Kill someone and upon conviction you pay the victim's "honor price" -- or your relatives have to.

Lots of different things can be done....

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 10:21 PM

What Don is describing is the premise of a Heinlein story, "Coventry." Essentially, those who refused to live by society's rules were banished from society to a wasteland where they could form their own society. (Kinda like transport to Australia -- except look at Oz now!)

Not a bad concept; or at least not worse than our current system which clearly does NOT work -- if it did, crime would have essentially died out long ago. Surely we could come up with an empty chunk of Nevada for a trial run?

Online version of the story

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 10:59 PM

Troll - You correctly point out that...

""Thou shalt not kill" is a mis-translation. The correct phrase is "Thou shalt not do murder."
Murder was killing one of your own clan or tribe. The proscription did not apply to those outside the tribe.
There are numerous places in the Bible where 'God' commanded the Israelites to kill their enemies.
So if "Thou shalt not kill" is the correct translation, then 'God' is inconsistant.
This is not a good trait in a Diety."

Right. Now my thoughts about all of that are that it tells us plenty about the ancient Israelites and perhaps less about God (which is why I put the ' ' marks around God). The Israelites were a barbarous lot (much like the other tribes with whom they fought) and felt free to commit mass murder or individual murder on anyone "outside the tribe". Being a barbarous lot, they conceived of a barbarous deity, who sanctioned genocide and was favourable to one miserable little lot of people on this planet and merciless to all the rest. That is not what I call "God", it's what I call some kind of imaginary monster. If the Israelites did indeed receive some communication from God, they twisted it to their own purposes.

Now, Jesus (and Buddha, and Krishna, and numerous other great teachers) conceived of a spiritual order that did not play favourites among human beings, but considered them all of one "tribe", one humanity. All the more enlightened religious philosophies see humans as a single humanity. Given that understanding, the commandment "thou shalt not murder" extends to include all human beings, and possibly some other living beings as well.

It just depends on what you think is murder and what you think is not murder.

I regard unnecessary killing as murder, and I would extend that to the unnecessary killing of various animals and maybe even certain plants (endangered species of trees, for example). Wanton killing, merely for some personal gain...without real need...and killing for pleasure or revenge. Those are murder in my book.

So I've got no problem with "Thou shalt not murder", just with the way the Israelites interpreted it to their own exclusive advantage. It's a sorry tale, and I wonder that anyone can take it seriously.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: LadyJean
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 12:27 AM

The fact is that those states without capital punishment have lower murder rates than those with.
Paul Hill is no great loss to the world, but now the smug bastard is a martyr for some people. Women's clinics all over Florida have had to beef up security, because of the execution.
I would be just as happy if the louse had been obliged to spend his life doing disagreeable jobs, changing adult diapers, cleaning public restrooms, scrubbing garage floors, without any possibility of parole.
I'm a freelance writer. I've been plagarized. I've had pieces rewritten so they weren't my work anymore. I was done serious dirt by a friend who asked me to write the book for her musical. Outside of threatening people with my sister the lawyer, there isn't much I can do. There's a lot I'd like to do, but it's mostly illegal, and rightly so. Revenge just isn't a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 05:34 AM

I find it worrying the way people seem to enjoy fantasising about vengeance.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 05:51 AM

Good post, Little Hawk. LadyJean, I do like your idea of having the malefactor assigned to disagreeable jobs, especially in a social service capacity, as a possible alternative to complete isolation. That way, he gives back something to society and possibly earns his keep, helping to alleviate the "expense" problem.

Rapaire, I'm afraid I can't agree. That's literally back to the "eye for an eye" thing. Pure vengeance. Although it may not seem so beforehand, oftentimes the aftermath of a successful vendetta has some pretty negative psychological effects on the person or persons who so passionately wanted revenge. Unless they have a pretty vicious streak themselves, most people almost always feel further traumatized. It seems to add a sense of guilt to everything else they've felt as a result of the whole incident. Not good.

Have you ever seen film of people who have just watched the execution of someone who murdered one of their loved ones and whom they sorely wanted to see be put to death? From the expressions on their faces, it's obvious that what they thought was going to be the satisfying experience of watching the person who had killed their loved one "get his" has turned out to be pretty hollow. In fact, rather than looking satisfied, they usually look a little sickened by what they have just witnessed.

Many people don't really understand the concept of forgiveness. Those sages who counselled forgiveness way back when had a pretty good grasp of psychology. Forgiveness is not for the benefit of the person who has offended you, forgiveness is for your benefit. Consider: how often has it happened that someone carries a grudge for years over something that was done to them, agonizing every time they think of it, having it eat them up inside and wanting to get even with the person who did it, or at the very least, have the person acknowledge their offense and show the proper amount of remorse for what they have done. Then an opportunity presents itself and they confront the person—only to learn that the person they've held the grudge against all this time doesn't even remember the incident? Was not even aware they had offended someone? Had the offended one let his or her anger go and had forgiven the person, they would have lived a much happier life all that time.

Forgiving someone doesn't mean that you have to forget. You simply take steps to make sure the person doesn't have an opportunity to do it again. Or in the case of crimes of violence, the moral society's primary function is not to punish the felon, it is to take steps, short of yet another act of violence, to prevent the felon from having an opportunity to commit violent crime against anyone else.

Look at the Israel / Palestine situation: each side maintains (and quite probably believes) that it is retaliating for a previous offense. Like and infinite game of leap-frog. When will it ever stop? Never, considering the "eye for an eye" dictum they both seem to be following. In the meantime, innocent people keep dying violently.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: kendall
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 07:52 AM

Sorry L.H. but murder does not and can not apply to animals or plants. It is a specific legal term meaning to deliberatly take the life of another human being. It can not be adjusted to suit anyone's outrage.
That's why we have other words to cover different kinds of killing, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter and murder are not the same thing.Legally, abortion is not murder under our present laws.

We need another word to cover the wanton killing of animals. I agree with you that something should be done to stop our headlong rush toward us being the only animal on the planet.

READ ISHMAEL by Daniel Quinn

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 08:49 AM

Murder has two meanings. It can refer to killing which falls within a legal definition of murder at a particular time and place, which can vary widely. Or it is used to refer to other killings, with the sense that the person using it believes it to be wrongful killing.

Somtimes the two meanings can merge retrospectively - we would have no difficulty in referring to what Hitler or Saddam did as murder even if it turned out that the laws had been adjusted so that it was all nicely legal at the time.

I don't think it's legitimate to try to restrict the use of the term to situations where the law is in line with our understnading of morality.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 08:50 AM

Oh, I don't think the "do unto others" thing is a good idea, but I have heard it suggested. Whatever is done, it cannot be vengance, but either punishment (with the opportunity for the person to rehabilitate) or putting the criminal away from society because they are too evil and are deemed as someone who can never change.

But I have to admit that I'm not at all sorry that Paul Harris, Idi Amin, Heinrich Himmler, Pol Pat, and similar sorts are dead from whatever reason. They're not the sorts I'm missing.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 08:57 AM

Come on, Little Hawk, you can do better than that. Remember the 'UFOs and the Bible' thread, where you did blur the distinction between animate and inanimate matter? He who cuts a stone unnessessarily is a murderer as well!

And why stop at death penalty in your wish that those who support a type of punishment should get a first hand experience of it themselves? She who supports lifelong jail with hard labour for murderers should first experience it herself. Perhaps each one who supports any type of sentence for any crime should first experience it herself. That would have the advantage to make threads as this much shorter.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 08:57 AM

Don, I'd go a step farther and say that those who rejoice in what Hill did have equally resigned from society, as have all fundamentalists, of whatever persuasion, who believe that their crimes against humankind will be rewarded after death.

Near the top of the thread Leo Condie linked to a messageboard that gives a flavour of what I've got in mind. Here it is again as a clicky: Scary. (They're still offering to forward messages to Hill, so they are obviously well connected.) Churches and ministers who brainwash people into this rubbish should be monitored and where necessary prosecuted for incitement.

Now...

HUGE apology to Clarence Darrow. I'd misremembered completely his involvement in the Lindberg case, which was simply to express his views on it. Moreover his view was that the evidence against Hauptmann was feeble if not fabricated and no basis on which to execute someone.Many have taken that view since; not so many spoke out as Darrow did at the time. Sorry to you too, Pooby.

Troll, I'm with you when you advance the cause of relatives/victims. But it makes no sense to use that as an argument for capital punishment, because CP is already there in the system you're criticising. I take your point that "Thou shalt not kill" (but not the narrow construct you put on "murder), but I was quoting Guest Ed. I assume the definitive source is that lump of stone in Alabama....

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raptor
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 09:38 AM

I say we make a Martyr out of Paul Hill! We can name 1 abortion clinic after him in every state and province!

The Paul Hill Abortion Clinic!

That'll Teach the F#*ker

We could Make T-shirts

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Pooby
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 11:29 AM

Fionn:

I was just about to post up and say that the Darrow I cited was the one who defended Scopes in the "Monkey Trial" case and thrill-killers Loeb and Leopold, among others. You beat me to the punch with the clarification, but what the heck, why waste a perfectly good posting?

Raptor:

I LOVE the idea of naming an abortion clinic after Hill. Hopefully it would add to his misery in the afterlife.

On that note, cheers!

Poobs