Death Penalty

On 1998-02-03 thesc...@hotmail.com said:
>Newsgroups: nz.general
>So, this chick in Texas condemned to die by lethal injection has
>discovered religion. To me this is another reason to kill her. If
>she is so dedicated to her faith perhaps she'll be able to hammer
>that last nail in... Crucify the bitch and any legal system which
>allows pardons for religious conversions.
>--
>The Scourge thesc...@hotmail.com.nospam
>When I die I will no longer be subject to either your grammar
>or the anthropocentric arrogance of a species that has
>fashioned a creator in its own image.
>(Morecock)

CHEER UP AND SMILE.
BABYMASH.

PRYDE RECORDING STUDIOS LIMITED,152-156 THE SQUARE PALMERSTON NORTH
(pr...@canglobal.co.nz) (06) 355-0965.

Net-Tamer V 1.10 Beta - Test Drive

You really do talk utter crap sometimes. Someone having religious
beliefs is reason to kill them? You're a complete twit.

On the topic which should be discussed, I don't feel there should be
religious pardon because it could be abused. How do we know they're
not just lying? Then again a pardon and absolute life in prison isn't
a huge amount better than death, esp. if they spend their life in
facilities like death row.

I'm reminded of dogs that can attack someone and be fine for years
afterwards but then suddenly without provocation attack again.
Comparing dogs and humans is, of course, not consistent but I'm
focusing on whether it might be in a person's nature. She murdered
someone and was sentenced to death and I feel it would be an injustice
to the family of the murdered woman should she be given religious
pardon.

As for people saying she should be executed because she is a woman -
utter crap, the fact she is female doesn't make her crime any less
execrable.

I also don't think the Pope should make any statements wrt this case.
I'm curious where in the bible such systems as the death penalty are
clearly opposed? I don't recall Jesus ever declaring Old Testament
Earthly law as invalid. Perhaps someone could elaborate on that for
me?

Justin

>I can't say I have much sympathy for someone that does round killing
>people with a pick axe either.
>
>She doesn't even look particularly remorseful. It's like - 'Oh, I've
>found religion, three cheers for me!'

Well you can't blame her for trying, it's expected, but I agree with
your point of view. The US media are beginning to portray her as a
person of great hardship, someone that deserves sympathy, which is
wrong.

She does seem remorseful to me but that is completely besides the
point.

Justin

>I dont think the death penalty serves any real good purpose apart from
>revenge, why not get the person who deserves it to live and work as a
>slave (so to speak) serving the people they wronged for the rest of
>their life?

Giving someone the sentence of death is not based on revenge because
the victims have very limited input in the legal sentence. The
victims are also unlikely to want to have anything to do with the
criminal in any way afterwards.

However, whether the death penalty serves any purpose is a good
question. Is there any point killing someone for killing someone?
AFAIK people on death row get one hour outside of the compound and
spend the rest of day in their cells. I wonder whether this could be
a life worse than death?

Justin

>"Old Testament Law" decreed the death penalty for a host of activities,
>including child delinquency and wearing garments made of threads of mixed
>materials.

Yes, well, I was referring to laws which God supposedly commanded.

>"New Testament Law" gave a positive affirmation to the death penalty when
>God killed Ananias and Saphira when they sold a property and only gave half
>of the value to the Christian church.

Hehe, you sure know how to make a point and stir at the same time
don't you ;-)

>What interests me in the case of the 'converted' woman, is that I would have
>thought that belief in a heavenly reward would have meant that everyone
>would have rejoiced that she had the opportunity to 'receive her heavenly
>reward' while in her 'state of grace' and could involuntarily depart from
>this world that 'lies in the power of the wicked one', and which is
>apparently only a probationary trial for the ultimate heavenly life.

This is where I feel the confusion of what is God's judgement comes
in... she murdered someone, she is now a believer which means she will
be judged but, I assume, will also have eternal life. Now, looking
for clarity here which in the Christian world is so hard to find
(obvious why), are all sins judged equally? Will she not be judged
for her murdering the woman because she has asked for forgiveness? I
assume all our sins are judged, but if we are a 'believer' and have
asked for forgiveness does that make her sin okay? Then what would be
the point of any judgement? If true believers who strive to be like
Christ and read the bible and pray and spread the word and ask for
forgiveness are guaranteed stairway to heaven then surely that would
make God's fearful judgement pointless or is the point to strive to
avoid the bad end of the judgement?

All said with assumptions of course.

Justin

>Justin wrote:

>Not completely. I think there will be few who would disagree with the
>proposition that the death penalty can be applied to people who
>expound their religious (and that includes atheistic, BrianT) beliefs
>at length on nz.general.

And how does that apply to what was said? I was reflecting on the
comment that the fact a person has religious beliefs is alone a good
reason to kill them.

>Not utterly. I think there will be few who would disagree with the
>proposition that the death penalty can be applied to people who
>expound their feminist (and that includes misogynist, PeterZ) beliefs
>at length on nz.general.

What's your point? Anyone can at length try to justify their
opinion... what are you trying to say?

What's your opinion? What do *you* think wrt people saying she
shouldn't be executed solely because she is female?

Justin

Sometimes I marvel at how "backwards" we are for a civilisation that
claims to be so advanced. It appears that some states in the US have
a "justice" (misnomer) system that is based on the premise "do as we
say, not as we do - it is bad to take a human life".

Sad, really sad!

---- email me: bruce at aardvark ddot co ddot nz

Read how Bill Gates could control the Net!
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/weekly/

I Think you've got your sums slightly wrong there Frank.. With all the
appeals, re-appeals & so on, & taking into account the 13yr wait (I Think
thats the average time), I reckon it would work out to be a bloody
expensive process to kill someone on death row (of course you also have to
allow $10 for bullets, electricity, gas whatever :)

Cheers
Wayne

>Crucify the bitch

<plonk!>

--
Brian Harmer
"Our luck is even better than I expected Don Qixote exclaimed ... I'm going to
attack those mighty giants and slay them in their tracks" - Cervantes
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~bharmer/

*bzzzzzzztttt.

you lose-thanks for playing

Rob
--
puf...@ihug.co.nzzz
remove zz from end of address to send email

I can't say I have much sympathy for someone that does round killing

Paul

Seems fair to me.

Gabriel

"Old Testament Law" decreed the death penalty for a host of activities,

What interests me in the case of the 'converted' woman, is that I would have

Brian Tozer

Not completely. I think there will be few who would disagree with the

> As for people saying she should be executed because she is a woman -

Frank.

Yeah Paul, kill 'em all.

Makes you feel like a real man, huh?

Your story would be different if it was you.

>On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:55:24 +1300, Frank van der Hulst
><fra...@pec.co.nz> wrote:

My $0.02: she should not be pardoned on the basis that she is now converted
and remorseful, or because she is female, or for any other reason than that
sheis a human being. She should be pardoned on the basis that killing
people is brutal and barbaric, and intelligent life should be able to come
to a more constructive way of sorting these situations out.

Absense of intelligent life in Texas may very well be why they support the
notion of a death penalty.

Misguided rednecks are all for the death penalty until it is them or
somebody close to them who is actually in the firing line (intended).

Then they change their mind very fast.

Anish

>On the topic which should be discussed, I don't feel there should be

>not just lying?....

True enough. "There's no such thing as an athiest on death row."

Yes. She freely admitted that she got a "sexual kick" from pick axing her
victims to death. Something that seems to be loosing it's weight in the
gloss of her conversion.

>clearly opposed? I don't recall Jesus ever declaring Old Testament

>Justin

A commentator from CNN made an interesting point about her conversion to
Christianity: "Would there be the same fuss if she had converted to
Buddhism?" Food for thought.

Hoppy

bzzzzzzt.

...and next week on sale of the century...

] On Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:54:03 +1300, "Brian Tozer" <bria...@ihug.co.nz>
] wrote:
]
] >"Old Testament Law" decreed the death penalty for a host of activities,

]
] Yes, well, I was referring to laws which God supposedly commanded.
]
] >"New Testament Law" gave a positive affirmation to the death penalty when

]
] Hehe, you sure know how to make a point and stir at the same time
] don't you ;-)
]

he he he

] This is where I feel the confusion of what is God's judgement comes

Yes, I don't quite understand if she really is a Christian, why she is
making such a big deal about not being executed. IIRC this is the
first case in years where a converted killer has made a big noise
about getting off because they have "seen the light". Because most
Christians I know are glad to be leaving this life for the next when
that time comes.

I had friends who worked in dangerous occupations, dealing with gang
members and the like, one was threatened with a knife one day, she
says to the guy "Go on then, get on with it". Her attidude is "What
the heck, if they kill you, you go to heaven".

] Now, looking

If she was not a Christian at the time she committed the offences and
became one later then she could receive forgiveness from God.

On the other hand, a Christian committing these offences knowing they
were wrong could be judged more harshly as the Bible makes clear.

All will be judged but the person who in this life made a serious
commitment to Jesus Christ is "covered by the blood of Jesus".

] Then what would be

The fearful judgement is still there for non-believers.

---
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford
To e-mail me, replace spammers.go.away
with xtra.co.nz in my address

] Justin wrote in message <34d98275...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
]
] >I don't recall Jesus ever declaring Old Testament

You forgot the woman who was about to be stoned to death in John ch.8

God is not subject to our laws.

God is the giver and taker of life. Using your analogy it could be
argued that God kills everyone who dies a natural death. In a certain
sense that is true. We don't treat that as the same as the death
penalty, why should we?

I have heard the figures sometime but can't remember them but the gist
was that it's more expensive to kill someone on death row then to jail
them for life. I have a feeling it was in the 10-20% range.

M.
--
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/4526

Apparently her dissolution has begun, to what it will go to.

I have placed some of last century activism on newsgroup
alt.activism.death-penalty under `The anguished inhabiting soul'.

Robert Mayer writes of multiple personality in `Satan's Children'. The
alters inhabiting are apparently different to the extent that a drug
dose non-lethal to one is lethal to another.

White Robbit. Dodo Dolphin

]
] I don't actually see the point of keeping someone locked up for the

Yes, and let's have the death penalty back in NZ, and compulsory
euthanasia at 65 :-)

Bush reported that he had prayed.

He said that judgments about the heart and soul of a person on death row
are best left to a higher authority.

White Robbit. Dodo Dolphin

Justin <ara...@remove.ihug.co.nz> wrote in article
<34e09104...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...

> Justin
>

Gabriel Ataya <gab...@ncs.co.nz> wrote in article
<34D790...@ncs.co.nz>...

Huh! Duh! Grunt! Grunt!

Actually, I am not so sure. If I killed two people with a pick axe, I
doubt very much whether I would ever be able to live with myself. At
least that would be my hope.

Paul

And indeed it is. She has been executed ... and in my view the State of
Texas is the poorer for it ... she killed, they killed. Both are barbaric
acts not worthy of a civilised society

Brian Harmer
(his own view only)

Oops... I had assumed (God knows why... there's been little enough
evidence in the past), obviously erroneously, a reasonable level of
intelligence and discernment amongst the denizens of nz.general, and
felt that including smileys would have telegraphed the irony of my
post, thus robbing it of some of its impact.

It doesn't. Why does it have to?

And indeed, I was reflecting that having religious beliefs is fine, so
long as you keep them to yourself. Some are born martyrs, some achieve
martyrdom, but there are many who have had martyrdom thrust upon them
as a result of the inability to keep their goddamn traps shut for 5
minutes.

That not only religious nuts deserve to liberated from this mortal
toil.

Say what you want and then shut up. Don't go on and bloody on about
it. Even when someone disagrees with you.

> What's your opinion?

It's a reflection of my beliefs about the world. But I guess you
already knew that.

I think they're nuts.

Frank.

PS: For the differently-sentient, sprinkle these liberally through my
posts. When you run out, email me and I'll send you some more.

:-) :-) :-) ;-) ;-) :-} :-} ;-] ;-]

>Justin wrote:

eh? ;-)

You wrote things following quotes of my text, thus I assumed you were
referring to them, which is what quoting is all about.

Yes.. very interesting... all completely off topic and nothing to do
with me despite the fact quoting suggested it was but yes... very
interesting...

:-)

Nope. If I was one of the people you refer to in this bracket I would
not pay any attention to you and do what I liked. :P

Woohoo! hehe, jk.

You post very strangely Frank ;-)

Justin

>I support Justice Harry Blackmun of the US Supreme Court who came out
>regularly against the death penalty as a matter of policy when he said
>that he was no longer prepared to be involved in the machinery of
>death. But it would seem that a majority of Americans support it as a
>sentencing option

On what grounds?

Brian Tozer

What nation has adopted pacifism as part of their constitution?

Brian Tozer

What! The media asking an intelligent question!

Brian Tozer

Aren't you lucky that you were not born in Pakistan?
Too bad about all those that were.

Brian Tozer

You are the only person that I have heard refer to compulsory euthanasia.

Brian Tozer

No, the incident is irrelevant to the discussion.

We were discussing what His laws are.

The Bible account makes it perfectly clear that these were not 'normal'
deaths, but direct destruction by God.
You are just trying to confuse the situation with irelevancies.

>We don't treat that as the same as the death penalty, why should we?

I cannot understand what you are getting at.
Surely we understand God's laws and nature by his words and actions.
I see his action as indicating His attitude to certain types of behaviour.
Should we have the same attitude?

Brian Tozer

Patrick Dunford wrote in message <34d7ba06...@news.caverock.net.nz>...

>] > However, whether the death penalty serves any purpose is a good

>]

Sounds really good to me Patrick .... When are you 65 (and I'm not smiling)

Well Rob, you're not in Texas. Presumably some intelligence resides in
you. What is your kinder, gentler way of dealing with someone who has
helped pick-axe two people to death?

Whilst I agree that legalised killing of a person *is* brutal and
barbaric, I think that incarcerating them in jail for the rest of
their lives is equally barbaric.

Frank.

...I've always thought the wearing of polyester should be a capital
offense...

A statement often made by proponents of the death penalty. In my view
perhaps a belief that is taken to appease the conscience of the person
justifying the death penalty.

If minimising barbarism is truly the issue, perhaps the right people
to be asking would be those facing either life in prison, or the death
penalty.

I am sure that there would be some who would agree with you, but I
suggest the majority would not.

I have recently had the honour of meeting Kriseya Labastida, an
innocent woman serving cumulative sentences of life, and twenty years.
Kriseya faced the prospect of the death penalty for some time.
(Information on her case is at http://www.philsmith.com/kriseya)
Kriseya is bright and cheerful, and loves life.

Sometimes one has to look beyond four walls to understand the *true*
meaning of freedom; which in my opinion is more closely bound up with
St Paul's concepts of faith, hope, and love.

Brian

"I know that most men, including those at ease
with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious
truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have
delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they
have proudly taught to others, and which they
have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of
their lives"
--- Tolstoy

My estimate of $40,000 per year per prisoner is one I remembered from
NZ's Prison Service. I may have misremembered, I guess. The $500 comes
from http://www.doc.state.nc.us/DOP/deathpenalty/executio.htm

COST OF EXECUTION SUPPLIES

Lethal Gas

Potassium cyanide-one pound 31.75
Sulfuric acid-five pints 14.00
Blue litmus paper 6.45
Pure ammonia gas-300 pounds 318.83
TOTAL $371.03
Lethal Injection
12 each 60cc syringe@.40 each 4.80
6 each 10cc syringe@.12 each .72
3 each 1000 ml saline@.71 each 2.13
3 each I-V tubing set@.63 each 1.89
3 each I-V set (needle)@6.87 each 20.61
12 each I-V stop...@1.23 each 14.76
4 each Thiopental sodium 5 gm.
100 m...@37.24 148.96
12 each Pavulon 5 m...@12.72 152.64
TOTAL $346.51

Appeals, re-appeals, etc have nothing to do with the cost of the death
penalty. If life imprisonment was the ultimate penalty, then anyone
sentenced to that would appeal and re-appeal. For the rest of their
lives.

And how does 13 years compare with the rest of the criminal's life?
Karla Faye Tucker was (yes, it's official) 32 IIRC, having spent some
14 years in jail. So, assuming life expectancy in jail is about the
same as outside, she'd be supported for a *further* 42 years or so.

If you want some lurid graphics and hysteria, you could check out
<http://www.lifeway.org/karla/karla.htm>, although the point is kinda
moot now.

Frank.

] Patrick Dunford wrote in message <34d7ba06...@news.caverock.net.nz>...
]
] >Yes, and let's have the death penalty back in NZ, and compulsory
] >euthanasia at 65 :-)
]
] You are the only person that I have heard refer to compulsory euthanasia.

I'm surprised no-one else has by now. Anyway it's tongue in cheek :-)

This guy's argument is based on cost, and saving money. Now I heard on
the radio today that super is a huge drain on the Government which is
having to find savings of $400 million in the next two years.

With suggestions like we should shoot criminals because it costs too
much to keep them locked up, I would not be surprised if the next
suggestion was that old people are a drain on the state...

The Government obviously sees them as that, as they are talking about
raising the age of eligibility of National Super (yet again - what a
joke...) and of course they already targeted the elderly for extra
health charges and what-have-you.

It looks like Winston will give with one hand and take away with the
other. He kept an election promise to give back the surcharge, now he
will have to find some way of getting back the hundreds of millions
that the Government is worse off by.

] Yeah, & don't forget...a little shot in the arm and it's all over....a hell

Are you being nasty and retributive, or what?

Would you rather they were hung, drawn and quartered?

Execution is the ultimate form of depriving a person of their liberty.

As someone else pointed out there appears to be a large element of
retribution in the process in the US.

] Patrick Dunford wrote in message <34d7a57b...@news.caverock.net.nz>...

They still have a chance...

There has been underground revival in China after all.

] Patrick Dunford wrote in message <34d7a4c1...@news.caverock.net.nz>...
] >Whereas "Brian Tozer" <bria...@ihug.co.nz> verily didst write on Wed,
]
]
] >] "Old Testament Law" decreed the death penalty for a host of activities,

] >] materials.

No it isn't. Explain why it is.

]
] >God is not subject to our laws.

His laws for us.

]
] >God is the giver and taker of life. Using your analogy it could be

I'm not confused. Are you :-)

] > We don't treat that as the same as the death penalty, why should we?

My comment above reproduced here:

] Surely we understand God's laws and nature by his words and actions.

The people who were stoned under Jewish law, they were not struck down
by God were they?

My Bible does not say He struck down Ananias, it says that Ananias
fell down and died. King James Version is the same.

It is understood that God was in some way responsible for their
deaths, how can this be different from a person dying a natural death
?

The obvious difference with the death penalty is that a person
administers a lethal dose, but even this is not guaranteed since Paul
was bitten by a poisonous snake and yet lived.

] And indeed, I was reflecting that having religious beliefs is fine, so

Dear dear dear. Whatever happened to free speech?

>The bible says "an eye for an eye". Let it be so!

It also says "turn the other cheek" and someone said "to err is human,
to forgive is divine".

All of this is nothing more than rhetoric.

Capital punishment is the ultimate in hypocrasy. Mind you, I guess if
fills out the state's portfolio quite well:

Tax - legalised theft
Capital punishment - legalised murder

Go figure!

---- email me: bruce at aardvark ddot co ddot nz

Read how Bill Gates could control the Net!
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/weekly/

That may be a little extreme... I don't think the death penalty is
the right response to Zohrab and friends... perhaps amputation
of the modem?

On a different tack... what is it with the given name and initials
Greg D.? Two different news groups I read are under attack
by two different Greg D.s... in fact the nz.general Greg D. is
comparatively benign :-(

Regards

Dave Joll

Well, how else would you describe judicial murder, then?

Regards

Dave Joll

The bible also says "thou shalt not kill". Just another
of the internal contradictions of a 3000-year old
Palestinian myth.

Regards

Dave Joll

>So, this chick in Texas condemned to die by lethal injection has discovered
>religion. To me this is another reason to kill her. If she is so dedicated
>to her faith perhaps she'll be able to hammer that last nail in...
>
>Crucify the bitch and any legal system which allows pardons for religious
>conversions.

I think it is very sad myself. I don't believe that killing people is
good criminal justice. Sure it helps with the need for revenge, but I
believe it to be brutal and unecessary.

Yes, if nasty death befell anyone in my family I would be angry, and I
would feel like killing them. Does that make it right?

Kerry

Easier

But right?

Brutalises people , and the society that sees hundreds of people
cheering when a 38 year old woman dying by lethal injection.

There is something quite sick about it

Kerry

And being on death row is easy?

--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz

An arguement would not go on for so long if the fault only lay on one side.

Revenge = closure.

Whether or not the killer is alive makes no differece, they killed.
The victims families need to accept this, killing someone else will
no bring back the victim.

>
>Gabriel Ataya <gab...@ncs.co.nz> wrote in article
><34D790...@ncs.co.nz>...
>> I dont think the death penalty serves any real good purpose apart from
>> revenge, why not get the person who deserves it to live and work as a
>> slave (so to speak) serving the people they wronged for the rest of
>> their life?
>>
>> Seems fair to me.
>>
>> Gabriel
>>
>

--

>Whereas ara...@remove.ihug.co.nz (Justin) verily didst write on Tue,
>03 Feb 1998 22:23:49 GMT...
>
>] This is where I feel the confusion of what is God's judgement comes
>] in... she murdered someone, she is now a believer which means she will
>] be judged but, I assume, will also have eternal life.
>
>Yes, I don't quite understand if she really is a Christian, why she is
>making such a big deal about not being executed.

So you regularly throw yourself under buses, so as to speed the day
you met your maker Patrick? In happiness and rejoicing of course....

>first case in years where a converted killer has made a big noise
>about getting off because they have "seen the light". Because most
>Christians I know are glad to be leaving this life for the next when
>that time comes.

How do you know it is the first case where religious conversion and
rehabilitiation has not been used as a grounds for appeal of a death
sentence?

You don't

Most Christians I know try very hard to stay around as long as
possible, as they have things to do

>
>I had friends who worked in dangerous occupations, dealing with gang
>members and the like, one was threatened with a knife one day, she
>says to the guy "Go on then, get on with it". Her attidude is "What
>the heck, if they kill you, you go to heaven".

God aren't Christians just perfect?

We have to the power to remove life on earth and some people still
think this is the way to go.

The tide is starting to turn, at last more and more people are
realising that it is time to get civilised.

This means that the State of Texas must now be killed. Anyone wish to
take on this task?

At some point the killing has to stop, someone has to say no more.

>In article <34e29b1b...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
>ara...@remove.ihug.co.nz (Justin) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:55:24 +1300, Frank van der Hulst
>><fra...@pec.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Justin wrote:
>>
>>>Not completely. I think there will be few who would disagree with the

>>>expound their religious (and that includes atheistic, BrianT) beliefs
>>>at length on nz.general.
>>
>>And how does that apply to what was said? I was reflecting on the
>>comment that the fact a person has religious beliefs is alone a good
>>reason to kill them.
>>
>>>> As for people saying she should be executed because she is a woman -
>>>> utter crap, the fact she is female doesn't make her crime any less
>>>> execrable.

>>What's your point? Anyone can at length try to justify their
>>opinion... what are you trying to say?
>>
>>What's your opinion? What do *you* think wrt people saying she
>>shouldn't be executed solely because she is female?
>>
>>Justin
>
>My $0.02: she should not be pardoned on the basis that she is now converted
>and remorseful, or because she is female, or for any other reason than that
>sheis a human being. She should be pardoned on the basis that killing

At risk of being another "And me!" post...

Heartily agreed and well said Rob

Kerry

>Yes. She freely admitted that she got a "sexual kick" from pick axing her
>victims to death. Something that seems to be loosing it's weight in the
>gloss of her conversion.

She was a 23 year old drug addict, permanently stoned and after the
next fix. She isn't anymore.....time passes

>A commentator from CNN made an interesting point about her conversion to
>Christianity: "Would there be the same fuss if she had converted to
>Buddhism?" Food for thought.

The fuss started because she was a woman, and the first woman to be
executed in Texas for some time. She has a vocal and commited group
of lobbyists, and she got into the media. They probably did react
differently because she was a woman, that is how life is.

She deserved punishment for her crimes. She didn't deserve to be
murdered by the state

Kerry

oh gawd pleaseeeeeeeee give us a break..................

Tricia

reply rabbot - xtra

-----

What would a chair look like, if your knees bent the other way?

ICQ 1378028

On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 20:59:10 GMT, ara...@remove.ihug.co.nz (Justin) wrote
in message [<34d98275...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>]:

Thats not what he said.

>On the topic which should be discussed, I don't feel there should be
>religious pardon because it could be abused. How do we know they're

There should nto be one even if they are not faking it. Why should a
christian - ro anyone - get out of jail just because they belive in a god ?

And what god is that ? Perhaps they belive I am a god - therefore, they get
out of jail ? After all, why should the chritian god be any more
authoritive than Me ? Where's the proof ? You are dealing with serious
matters - you can't just let vauge terms like faith and belife into it. It
has to be all hard fact.

So, if one pile of poppycock gets you off, why not another ?

Do people who find Bhudda get off ? How about Brahma ?

It's bloody disgusting. Faking it is only one thing - they shouldn't get
off even if they are not faking it. Religion is sure as hell not any
gurantee whatsoever you will not commit crimes (infact, you could argue it
is the exact opposite).

So, I say pardon's for religious reasons are immoral, and inconsistant.

Avatar

--
"It is possible to pay another man's debts on his behalf, but it is not
possible to make a guilty man innocent by suffering in his place."
[Carl Lofmark, _What is the Bible?_]

Join the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email - http://www.cauce.org

Apparently according to Texas Law to receive the death penalty two
requirements must both be met:
1) The crime was premeditated
2) The criminal is a continuing threat to society

Karla Tucker did not meet either of those requirements, if her
evidence documenting the unpremeditated nature of the murders is
accurate. She certainly didn't look much like a continuing threat
to society.

So why was she killed?

Maybe its because there has never been a successful appeal against a
death sentence in Texas. That says much more about that society than
the need for state funded retribution for crime.

Isn't the death penalty the most premeditated of murders?

Kerry

(The key prosecution witness was the 3rd accomplice, who recanted and
said he lied as part of a deal with the DAs office.
When he did say he had lied, he was judged to be an unreliable
witness. )

Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in article < >

I agree with your views Brian... .where there is life there is hope....

I also will always remember the case of Arthur Alan Thomas here in
NZ...stitched up for a crime he did not commit..and while it has been said
a thousand times before...imagine if the death penalty had applied to
him...

I wonder how many totally innocent people are sent to the death chamber
even today...

Emotional terminology.

Brian Tozer

Why should a person of sound mind be accorded rights that they deny to
someone else?

Brian Tozer

When a man breaks into the home of an elderly woman and rapes her, I would
happily volunteer to be the executioner.
I believe that certain antisocial actions forfeit an individuals rights to
life in our society.

Brian Tozer

>rob <nob...@no.spam> wrote:
>
>> >I can't say I have much sympathy for someone that does round killing
>> >people with a pick axe either.
>> >
>> >She doesn't even look particularly remorseful. It's like - 'Oh, I've
>> >found religion, three cheers for me!'
>> >
>> >Paul
>>
>> Yeah Paul, kill 'em all.
>>
>> Makes you feel like a real man, huh?
>
>Huh! Duh! Grunt! Grunt!
>
>>
>> Your story would be different if it was you.
>
>Actually, I am not so sure. If I killed two people with a pick axe, I
>doubt very much whether I would ever be able to live with myself. At
>least that would be my hope.
>
>Paul

Speculation.

Of course, I speculate also, but my speculation is about the very basic
human instinct when faced with death.

Now, what if you we innocent, and you had been found guilty and comdemned
to die? In this case, there would be people who actually believed you had
done it making comments like your one above...

Rob
--
puf...@ihug.co.nzzz
remove zz from end of address to send email

>> Absense of intelligent life in Texas may very well be why they support the
>> notion of a death penalty.
>
>Well Rob, you're not in Texas.

No, and save a quick visit to check that it is as I think it is, I intend
to never be found there.

> Presumably some intelligence resides in
>you. What is your kinder, gentler way of dealing with someone who has
>helped pick-axe two people to death?

Actually the key word here is 'constructive'. People such as the woman who
was executed today do have something to offer in terms of our understanding
of how they came to do whatever they did, and could contribute to the
formulation of understanding such situations and possible ways to tackle
things before they happen.

Trouble is, the yanks have this belief that such crimes are the result of
people being inherently 'bad' (individual 'bad'-not due to society), and
therefore the way to deal with this 'badness' is to execute the individual.
They are simply not into understanding (or even conceiving of) the notion
that society plays a role in the 'why' of these crimes.

They simply cannot see the forest for the trees. They apply their
understanding of their own restraint to everybody, and expect that everyone
has the same control as they do. This is a simplictic view of things
indeed.

>Whilst I agree that legalised killing of a person *is* brutal and
>barbaric, I think that incarcerating them in jail for the rest of
>their lives is equally barbaric.

Generally I agree with you here, but it depends on the conditions and what
they are doing (see above).

>Frank.

Actually (from memory), research has shown that it just makes things worse
for the victim also.

>Kerry

>Kerry Thornbury wrote in message <34d82095...@news.wgtn.ihug.co.nz>...

Because things change, and things can become better as a result of their
contributions.

Besides, if you've ever seen somebody who is smacked up regularly Brian,
I'm not so sure you would beleive them to be of sound mind.

Now, the executioner...are they of sound mind?

Not in my opinion.

I'll be happy to say no more, as soon asTexas is gone, and Patrick, and that
little snot who gave me so much trouble at school, and . . .

Paul Wilkins

] On 3 Feb 1998 23:47:16 GMT, Antony Foote <no...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
]
] >The bible says "an eye for an eye". Let it be so!
]
] someone said "to err is human, ] to forgive is divine".

To err is human, to forgive, divine.

Alexander Pope (1688-1744) British poet. An Essay on Criticism

© 1994 by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. All rights reserved.
---
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford
To e-mail me, replace spammers.go.away
with xtra.co.nz in my address

] Perhaps they belive I am a god - therefore, they get out of jail ?

No, of course they should not get out :-)

If the H* man had been caught would you have wanted him executed or
sentenced to life imprisionment?
(name hidden so as not to invoke Goodwin's Law ;-> )(and noting that
you typed criminal justice.)

In the general I don't support executing murderers but I would support
executing the H* man. But then it leaves me in quandry as how far along
the scale of evilness from the H* man to the Texas women do you go
before you swap from the decision to execute to the decision not to
execute.

Or is the H* man more worthy of being executed because it was war time?

M.
--
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/4526

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:06:14 +1300, in nz.general you wrote:

<snip on premeditation>
>We were not privy to the hearing of evidence or court proceedings though. A
>jury was and decided otherwise.

I did some research on the 'net about it for a friend and it seems she
was high on drugs at the time. - still an awful thing to do but the
premeditation doesn't seem to be there.

>She probably had the same sweet smile on her face right up to the moment she
>pick axed her victims. They obviously didn't realise the threat either.

*All* people have the potential to do terrible things under the right
(wrong) conditions. Her background as a drug taking prostitute (and
all the life stress and disturbance that envisages) hardly set her up
to be acting 'normal' when she chopped up the couple.

It was politics pure and simple. If the governer let her live the
strong capital punishment supporters would be up in arms, and there
was no political milage from the christian side to gain from the
action.

Also it would show the farce of the law when you can easily excecute
black males and no one blinks, but a white female gets of because 'in
the eyes of the public' of her race, gender and religion.

>I spose you'll be surprised to hear I'm *not* a proponent of the death
>penalty, and I actually think it's a sad day, but I also haven't forgotten
>that she pick axed people to death.

Yeah, me to, its great she became a christian, I gather she died
happy, but the law is the law. Now if she was in NZ she would be out
in society by now.......

NZ, a great place to make a killing :-)

>>Kerry
>
>Hoppy

Gary

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary
"This space to rent"
ICQ-4037866

] Patrick Dunford wrote in message <34d846ae...@news.caverock.net.nz>...
]
] >To err is human, to forgive, divine.
]
] It is a pity that the divine forgiveness did not extend to Adam, but instead
] all of mankind, and the entire biological system was punished.
] Not a good example for childrearing and training.
] Divine forgiveness?

Adam lived to 900 years or something. How old was Ananias ? :-)

We were not privy to the hearing of evidence or court proceedings though. A

>She certainly didn't look much like a continuing threat
>to society.

She probably had the same sweet smile on her face right up to the moment she