BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,marthabees
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 09:41 PM

Some points we've missed as we've thoroughly wandered to and fro......

1. Paul Hill honestly believed that he was instructed by God to do the deed.

2. When he shot the two men, one didn't quite die, so Paul pumped 5 more shots into him till it was clear the man was stone dead.

3. He honestly believed that he was going to a better place and seemed genuinely pleased to be going to see his home in Glory.

4. He was by his own admission not repentent. He encouraged other persons to follow in his example.

All of the above adds fuel for thought to this so-difficult moral conundrum.

A comment: I heard a leader once referring to capital punishment as "cancelling their vote." Interesting euphemism.....

And tangentially:
I had the distinct non-privilege of being in Tallahassee during Ted Bundy's murders, watching the press scurry as it was awakened early in the morning to go to the Chi Omega house to see the crime scenc which contained the bodies of the chewed up coeds, seeing police photos of the bite marks, and seeing him in the police cars nearly every morning on his way to court.

I traveled to work on the same roads from the same part of town (my house was near the jail) to the destination (his, the courthouse - mine, my place of work) and more than once we made eye contact as our cars passed one another. I can even now as I type feel the awful 'vibe' he exuded as he made eye contact with me. It was nasty, dirty, evil. Call me over-reacting or call me accurate. Not sure, but it was truly creepy and it certainly qualified as the "evil eye" to me.

I didn't have any trouble at all with the state cancelling his vote. Other persons I am not so certain about though... it's a tough call.

Martha

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 09:38 PM

Quote:
"'I think that executing one innocent person is too many'

"Yer not alone... and I'm not saying you're wrong... I just don't agree... "
__

You mean you wouldn't mind being executed as long as they got some murderers too?

How many innocent people *would* be too many to execute?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 08:08 PM

Okay, if you don't like the word "moral," how about "ethical?"

When one says "moral," most people think one is talking about religion or sex because that's the context within which they usually hear the word. And most people seem to feel that morality is a strictly personal thing.

But it's not that limited. I was using the term in the more formal philosophical sense. It falls within the field of Ethics, and in that context, it is not subjective, or "yours is yours and mine is mine." It's a matter of determining standards of behavior to guide the actions of an entire society and all of its members. It is the philosophical basis of Law. It is also the basis of political principles—which seems to be an oxymoron these days. You hear a lot of talk about it, but see damned little of it in action, and when you do, it is applied relatively (it's immoral for Clinton to lie about his sexual activities, which was a private, domestic issue that affect a very small number of people emotionally, but physically harmed no one; however, it's okay for Bush to lie about the reasons he wanted to go to war, which is continuing to result in the violent deaths of a yet to be determined number of people).

Moral (ethical) question: is lying per se immoral? One test of many: what if everybody did it whenever they felt like it? How would this affect a well-ordered society?

Moral principles, once determined and agreed upon, apply to everyone. That's Philosophy 101.

If it's wrong for me as an individual member of society to kill someone, it is equally wrong for the society as a whole to do so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raedwulf
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 07:35 PM

Alan - I would never mock your sentiment. I'm not quite old enough to remember the 4 or 6 first-hand (I was alive, just not old enough to notice!).

Again, though, I would say that they prove my point. The 4 & 6 were convicted on the kind of fitted up evidence that wouldn't stand for two minutes in court these days. I don't necessarily blame the police for that - they were under enormous pressure to convict *someone*. My guess would be that 9 out of 10 were guilty of *something*, & maybe one or two were guilty of what they were charged with. Nevertheless, in the current climate, the evidence that was available *then* wouldn't result in a prosecution *now*.

And that's the point - the world has changed. It is far more transparent, & far more demanding. You are undoubtedly right - CP will not make a comeback in the UK. Not because it is inherently right or wrong, but because the government that legalised it would lose too many votes (&, cynically, that's all they care about!). If it did, though, I am sure it really would be the ultimate sanction - rarely applied & only then when beyond all doubt. I firmly believe that a James Hanratty could not occur in the modern world.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 07:22 PM

As far as whinging about the cost of keeping them in prison and the money being better spent somewhere else...that can be said about almost anything the government spends money on, i.e. funding for so-called wars, pillaging of natural resoruces, etc...so much more has been spent/lost by incompetents/criminal politicians that comparisons fail. And the pity of it is, most of them never do any time or even go to trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: alanabit
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 06:52 PM

Raedwulf, I agree that justice is not rigorous enough. You are also quite right to say that positing deterrence against justice is bollocks. In fact, efficient efficient law enforcement and a thorough justice system are much better deterrents.
CP will never return to Britain. After the experience of the seventies - when bomb explosions were followed by arrests of hapless Irishmen - most of us know that justice can effectively quickly be surrendered to a lynch mob mentality. It took me a long time to realise that the Maguires were innocent, that the Guilford Four were innocent and that the Birmingham Six were innocent. I am not proud of that. Thank God we didn't top them.
Justice is always administered by fallible people. There always have been mistakes and I can't see that changing. In the USA, student lawyers and journalists have freed people from Death Row whom the professionals failed to save. I would oppose the death penalty anyway - even if the system did not make mistakes. It does though.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 06:29 PM

"beyond reasonable doubt" is not the standard in a capital case. The standard is much higher. Plus 10-15 years of appeals? 99%+ of these people are guilty and 99%+ of their victims are innocent. The fact that Hill killed a doctor who did abortions has nothing to do with anything, as far as his conviction or punishment go.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raedwulf
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 06:23 PM

Alan - funnily enough, that was the bit of the argument I edited out...

CP is no deterrent. This is not an argument against it. It merely proves the point that any argument that tries to posit "deterrence" in relation to "justice" is utter bollocks.

Criminals broadly fall into two categories. 1) They commit crimes on the spur of the moment - In which case they're not thinking about potential punishment. 2) They plan their crimes in advance - In which case they don't plan on being caught.

Either way, the deterrent effect of any possible sentence is zero.

As to your remarks about practitioners & abolitionists, I refer you to my previous post - "What does that prove? That your system is f***ed, nothing more, nothing less. Sort your system out..." Their systems are suspect & need to be reviewed. Nothing from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China or Kuwait tells me that CP is wrong, only that the concept of 'justice' is not as rigorous as you or I would want...

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: alanabit
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 06:23 PM

Gareth, I am ashamed of myself for laughing at that... but I did...

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Gareth
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 06:14 PM

Actually - I missed it on my last reading but Raptor has it dead on,

Name the Clinics for Paul Hill - It's beutifull (SP)!!!!

Mmmmm ! In exream cynical mood tonite

"I dreamt I saw Paul Hill last night ....."

"From Florida to far L A, in clinic, home or ill,
Where women have the right to choose,
Paul Hill's name lives on still,
Paul Hill's name lives on still"

Gareth

<

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: alanabit
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 06:02 PM

Raedwulf, who is more likely to escape the gallows do you think? Is it the rash, impetuous, maybe mentally ill killer who kills because he is either mentally ill or loses control for a minute? Or is it the clever, devious, calculating criminal, who plans carefully and leaves a minimum of evidence? Now the really unfair question: Which of those more deserves to go to the gallows?
   I don't have much sympathy for most executed criminals on a personal basis. However, my opposition to capital punishment (which is implacable) has nothing to do with sentiment. It is a travesty of justice and can only diminish respect for law and order.
   For the record, some of the states which currently practice capital punishment include Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China and Kuwait. Countries which have abolished it in recent years - or imposed a moratorium - include South Africa (after the fall of Apartheid), East Germany (shortly before the Berlin Wall fell) and Russia (after the fall of Communism). I know what sort of a country I would prefer to live in!

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raedwulf
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 05:48 PM

but it puts that society on the same moral plain as the murderer

As to the worst of arguments, I will say, to all those who have tried the "moral" argument, only this - Your morals are not my morals. If you don't moralize over me, I won't moralize over you. If the only argument you can manufacture is morality, your argument is built on quicksand because you cannot logically justify your position. The only way you can defend "morality" is if someone sees the world the same way you do, & that is an entirely emotional point-of-view.

Now try to tell me why your emotions are better than mine. You will fail, & this is why Paul Hill is dead!

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raedwulf
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 05:38 PM

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!

As a rule, I laugh & applaud your posts in equal measure, Hawk. Occasionally I want to spit, & this is one of those moments... No, I don't value money more than life. I also don't live in Utopia, where money is in endless supply. I do not believe that the likelihood of mis-convicting a Ted Bundy, a Peter Sutcliffe, a Dr. Crippen, a Jack The Ripper, is worth the expense of keeping these scumbags in prison for life.

There are many debatable convictions on Death Row in America. But when the conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt", as Rapaire says, what do you do with them? Do you think that any salutary lesson is set by keeping them in prison? Because I don't!! So it's wasted money that could be better spent on something more useful... Making the world a better place so that people don't turn out this way... Spending it on healthcare so that people *don't* die, or have a better quality of life... Etcetera...

In times past (& times current, if American legal proceedings are anything to go by), Justice is observed more in breach than practice. What did I say earlier? ..."justice" is slow & expensive, and (as Gareth says) usually belongs to the bloke wot has the most money!

So your system is f***ed? What does that prove? That your system is f***ed, nothing more, nothing less. Sort your system out... When the evidence is incontrovertible (& modern standards are many times more exacting than even 25 years ago), then execute. If there might be the slightest shred of doubt, then hold off & look for more evidence. Nothing I see here argues against CP, but only illuminates the weakness in the application of the system as it exists now.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 04:53 PM

"ass-deep in gazelles"

That is, without a doubt, the funniest thing I've EVER read on Mudcat!

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 04:38 PM

Well . . . here's one way of looking at it. From watching nature programs on PBS, one learns that all species on earth have other species that act as population controls. For example, if it weren't for lions and cheetahs and such, we'd be ass-deep in gazelles. Being the very apex of the chain of evolution and superior to all the other species on this planet (or so we are told), there is nothing out there to control our population.

So we have to do it ourselves. Perhaps that's the natural order of things. . . .    :-/

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 04:27 PM

Yeah, troll, sure I'd kill to protect my family...or someone else's...if it was (or appeared to be) the only feasible response to the situation. Executing people who are already safely behind bars is not the only feasible response to that situation.

You see, there is no moral behavioral law that you can set down in stone (at least I don't think there is) which will infallibly cover ALL given situations.

Such laws are general guidelines, that's all. You still have to measure each circumstance according to its own merits and use your own intelligence to decide what to do about it. Lazy people don't want to be bothered thinking, so they just get someone else to do their thinking for them, write down a law for them to follow, and then they obey it like robots. That's what you generally see happening in both civil law and organized religion.

Ted - People are worried about murderers because murder is unusual and makes a spectacular news story. People habitually worry about dramatic stuff that will probably never happen to them, while ignoring the ordinary boring stuff that they ruin their health with every day. It's one of the humorous aspects of human psychology.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 04:11 PM

MT is right... more people have been killed in car accidents than were killed in all the wars of the 20th century... and 98% of all car accidents are driver error...

So let all the murders out, and send them to Drivers Ed... so they can come back and teach people how to be better drivers...

:-)

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

I don't know why everyone is so worried about murderers--at least in the US, most people aren't killed by murderers--many more are killed by freaking idiots who are driving drunk, by incompetent caregivers who gave them the wrong medicine, by clods who were talking on cellphones, by idiots who came to work with influenza, and perhaps the most of all are killed by their own bad habits--Is it worse to be killed by a murderer than by someone who is just an idiot?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 03:25 PM

"I think that executing one innocent person is too many"

Yer not alone... and I'm not saying you're wrong... I just don't agree...

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 03:18 PM

Don, in my view, we have the right to take the life of another if we do so to protect our own life or the lives of our families.

Troll, if you read my post of 04 Sep 03 - 08:41 PM, you will see that this is exactly what I said. I furthermore mentioned certain stipulations which pin this down a bit more tightly.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 02:37 PM

I'm willing to kill someone who is trying to kill me or my family. You can tell who it is, it's the one shooting at you or hitting at you with the hatchet.

But the courts can't always tell who committed a murder in the past, and innocent people have been convicted and executed, and the guilty man goes free.

And much as I hate to disagree with anyone named Clinton, I think that executing one innocent person is too many.

If it's not too many, I hope that one person executed is your child.

That sounds cruel, doesn't it? But it's going to be somebody's child, might as well be the child of somebody that approves of it.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Troll
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 02:06 PM

Lh, several years ago, I believe that you would kill to protect your family. Have you changed your mind?
Don, in my view, we have the right to take the life of another if we do so to protect our own life or the lives of our families. This has been discussed before with much hair-splitting about how a non-lethal way should be found. Some people simply cannot conceive of a situation where the death of a predator is the onlyway to prevent further predation.
Be that as it may.
The state acts as a proxy for the citizens that it is protecting. When it executes a murderer, it does so to protect those citizens from further murders.
This is the ONLY way that protection can be guaranteed.
Prisoners escape. Appeals judges with rocks in their heads let them go. (I'll get heat for that one).
We, as citizens, are not allowed to execute those who have harmed us except at the moment of the commision of the violent act. After that, it is up to the State to mete out punishment. In the case of violent murder, the only way to guarantee that the murderer does not escape to do violent murder again, is to execute him/her.
If you know of another, foolproof way for the State to protect it's citizens from murderers like Paul Hill, speak out.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 12:30 PM

Well, Wolfgang, I am generally in support of forgiveness, negotiation, and accomodation between parties who disagree on a given subject. I have no fear of getting a firsthand experience of my beliefs, none whatsoever.

As to cutting stone unnecessarily...it's all a matter of degree. People who wantonly devastate nature or property (animate or inanimate) are in fact committing a type of immorality, what I would term a crime, against the general community and against the planet. Whether you call it murder or not is entirely up to the individual, I suppose. I don't know that I necessarily would call it that, but I would call it a crime.

I was simply making a statement to suggest the notion that it is not just human life that is sacred, but all life. Humans are usually egotistical enough to think otherwise.

On the other hand, I'm not suggesting that it is possible to survive without taking some life (plant or animal, depending) in the process. It's the unnecessary and inappropriate taking of life that I object to.

Spiritual philosophy is a real pain to you, isn't it, Wolfgang? (presumably because you believe it to be based on fiction?)

- LH

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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