About twenty-five years ago a gay man named Ricky Ortega became jealous of a relationship his male lover was having with a seventeen year old girl named Terri Winchell. Ortega decided to do something about it so he enlisted the help of his cousin, Michael Morales. Morales raped, stabbed, and beat the poor girl with a hammer and left her half-naked to die. Your tax dollars have been feeding, clothing, housing and providing medical care for these animals for the last twenty-five years. Just when it looked like the appeals for Morales were running out, concerns are now being raised over whether lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. An attorney for Morales said, “…the state doesn't have its ducks in a row for humanely killing a human being. They haven't figured out how to do it.”
I have a suggestion. When I was in the Air Force I once had to go through flight training which included time in an “altitude chamber.” The altitude chamber is a little air-tight room in which a flight crew sits while the oxygen is removed from the air. This probably sounds like a torture chamber in which people are desperately gasping for air but it’s actually not like that at all. Everyone continues to breath normally—and that's the problem. If you are flying at thirty or forty thousand feet and the plane depressurizes, you have no oxygen—but plenty of air. You breath just fine and, unless you are properly trained to recognize the symptoms (chilled fingers, fuzzy thinking, sleepiness, etc.) you may just die without ever realizing that anything is wrong.
My suggestion is to use a modified version of the altitude chamber for executions. We could even add a nice overstuffed recliner, a comfortable bed, a nice high definition TV with surround sound, and a delicious last meal (sleeping pill optional). We wouldn’t have to wait until the murderer goes to sleep since oxygen deprivation causes sleepiness anyway, but just so the poor guy doesn’t have to experience chilly fingers—we don’t want any cruel and unusual punishment—we could wait until he falls asleep before we remove the oxygen. In either case, he'll never wake up again but he'll feel absolutely no pain or discomfort. Just because Morales raped and beat an innocent girl with a hammer, we wouldn’t want him to be uncomfortable, would we?
My suggestion is to use a modified version of the altitude chamber for executions. We could even add a nice overstuffed recliner, a comfortable bed, a nice high definition TV with surround sound, and a delicious last meal (sleeping pill optional). We wouldn’t have to wait until the murderer goes to sleep since oxygen deprivation causes sleepiness anyway, but just so the poor guy doesn’t have to experience chilly fingers—we don’t want any cruel and unusual punishment—we could wait until he falls asleep before we remove the oxygen. In either case, he'll never wake up again but he'll feel absolutely no pain or discomfort. Just because Morales raped and beat an innocent girl with a hammer, we wouldn’t want him to be uncomfortable, would we?
Personally, I think stoning would be a more fitting punishment but since I don't believe in re-interpreting the Constitution to fit my preferences, I think a modified altitude chamber should help rip the mask off all these challenges to the death penalty--which are really just smoke screens. Death penalty opponents know they can't win by arguing that the death penalty itself is cruel and unusual, so they come up with smoke screen arguments to protect murderers like Morales.
9 comments:
Of course there is always the option of putting this "gentleman" in a room with six fathers, each built like the current gov. of California, of seventeen-year-old daughters...
Here is an interesting Q&A session about the issues raised by this situation (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/13998449.htm).
Obivously the lawyer is using this as a smoke screen to delay his client's execution. The doctors are interesting though... it would be interesting to understand their views on abortion (in cases that are non-life threatening) or medical euthenasia to see if they have a consistant view on the importance of protecting life. I am also interested to know how the principles involved here relate to the debates about individual pharamacists being required to provide morning-after pills. It would seem if you are going to compel pharmacists to ignore their personal moral convictions and provide that product for the benefit of the public, one would also compel doctors to ignore their personal moral decisions (oaths and all) and execute the criminal as is defined by the law, which is defined for the public good.
An excellent post Kevin . . . however logical consistency is of course not the issue. Being able to do whatever I want to do and still use some sort of "logical" argument to support it is. Anything can be rationalized (like abortion) by merely denying the stunning obvious fact that that "fetus" is a baby (this can of course be scientifically tested and proven but the facts are consistently ignored). Unfortunately people don't really care about consistency in their worldview as long as they get to do what they want.
I really don't know how you can call yourself a "Christian" and support the government taking the life of another human being. Your remark that you prefer "stoning" is especially shocking in light of Jesus' words about throwing the first stone. Christians in the past have used the Bible to support slavery, racism and the persecution of Jews but I still find it shocking that in the 21st century someone could claim to follow the teachings of Jesus and write something that seems so antithetical to everything he stands for. Virtually every Christian industrialized country in the world has realized that the government has no business killing its own citizens and when you compare the rates of violence in those countries with ours and all of the other benighted nations that still murder their own citizens it seems obvious to me that the death penalty only perpetuates violence. Read your own post for a case in point. Could you imagine any of the words you wrote coming out of Jesus' mouth? After your post yesterday I thought there might be hope for you after all, but all I see in your post today is hypocrisy.
First, being a Christian has everything to do with genuine sorrow and repentance for ones’ sin, and a turning to Jesus Christ with a heart of deep loving devotion and commitment (the Bible calls this “faith”). Being a Christian has absolutely nothing to do with ones’ position on the death penalty or any other social issue for that matter. One’s understanding and interpretation of the Bible certainly affects how one views these issues, but that is another matter entirely.
Second, as far as my view of the death penalty: It is very clear that the Hebrew Bible (i.e., Jesus’ Bible, the Christian Old Testament) commanded the death penalty for certain crimes. I could be wrong, but I’ve not yet been convinced by any arguments to the effect that Jesus would have thrown out his Hebrew Bible. In fact, Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets [ancient shorthand for the Hebrew Bible]; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” While Jesus disagreed on interpretation of the Sabbath laws, and challenged food purity laws, I see nothing that leads me to think he challenged death penalty laws. Nowhere in the Gospels does he challenge the right of rulers to carry out the death penalty for crimes and nowhere does he condemn the rulers for executing criminals.
Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek was clearly forbidding personal retaliation. It is a big stretch to automatically assume that this command was intended to be applied to the right of government to maintain law and order as required by Jesus’ own Bible. In fact, such application results in absurdity. Do we seriously think Jesus required the police, for example, in the legitimate performance of their duties, to turn the other cheek when confronted with a violent criminal? That would be the end of all law and order! It would result in total anarchy, and it seems pretty clear to me that the Hebrew Bible proclaimed a God who wanted justice to be maintained and innocent people to be defended. So, I don’t see anything in the Gospels that leads me to think Jesus disagreed with his Hebrew Bible on this issue.
My conclusion is strengthened by the fact that St. Paul—who certainly thought he was following Jesus—seemed to support the death penalty. Writing about the legitimate and just use of government authority, St. Paul says, “If you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Bearing the sword is a metaphor for the authority to punish—even to the point of death.
Paul is not the only one, however. The writer of First Peter, tells his readers to submit to [legitimate] government authority because it was instituted by God to punish those who do wrong. In those days, punishments often included the death penalty. If the writer had meant to exclude death penalty, it is inconceivable that he wouldn’t have mentioned the exception.
So, in order to go along with the politically correct anti-death penalty notion of our times, we have to pull Jesus out of the Jewish context that went before him and the Jewish context in which he lived, and we have to assume that Jesus’ followers, St. Paul, (and the writer of First Peter) had somehow misunderstood him—and then we have to make the further assumption that Jesus statement about turning the other cheek was not just meant to exclude personal vengeance, but was intended to apply to police and governments as well (in spite of the fact that this is absurd and would go against the whole theme of justice in the Hebrew Bible). That’s just too many unwarranted assumptions.
I think that failure to do what God commanded in the Old Testament has resulted in the wasting of billions and billions of dollars supporting criminal monsters rather than spending the money on other things, like education, poverty, housing, or treatment programs, or even on letting tax payers keep the money themselves. It has also resulted in probably thousands of other violent crimes when some of these criminals get out on parole and re-offend, or when they assault others in prison and permanently mess up their victim’s lives there too.
I wish our society would be even half as concerned for the victims and their families as the are for murderers! The victim and their families need justice—and justice is a big deal in the Bible.
Your implication that it is the death penalty that is the cause of our high crime rate is simply ridiculous. I know you’re too smart to seriously believe that. By that logic we might also conclude that our high incarceration rate causes crime too. Since the US also has one of the highest incarceration rates, maybe if we just let all the criminals out of prison, the crime rate would drop! I don’t think so, Comrade. Do you seriously think the average thug or gang banger is violent because we have a death penalty?
You wrote that “Virtually every Christian industrialized country in the world has realized that the government has no business killing its own citizens.” First, there are no Christian countries—not even this one. Second, you may get your moral compass from doing polls on what others believe but I don’t. I don’t care if most southerners once thought slavery was OK—it wasn’t! I don’t care if they defended it from the Bible—they were wrong! I don’t care if most Germans once thought the mass roundup and execution of Jews was OK—it wasn’t. And I don’t care what other people or countries think about the death penalty.
I once remember an incident in which a local store was robbed at gunpoint. As the gunman ran way the store owner ran after the guy. The gunman turned to shoot the store owner, but instead, shot an innocent bystander. The gunman got a few years in prison (I think it was only a half dozen or less) and the bystander was seriously wounded—most likely for the rest of her life! The gunman is free and clear in just a few years. The innocent bystander pays for the rest of her life—And somehow our society seems to think this is justice! Someone beats someone to death with a hammer, and our society takes tax money away from innocent taxpayers to pay for his room, board and health care for the rest of his life, and we think that is justice? Most countries throughout history would not only say that our society is absolutely, stark raving insane—they would say that it is thoroughly sick and twisted to take care of violent criminals, but to deny justice to their victims. I agree.
Finally, you have every right to disagree with me, but don’t call me a hypocrite or call my Christianity into question just because I interpret and apply the Bible differently that you do
John 8:2-8 (NAS)
2Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and (B)He sat down and began to teach them.
3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,
4they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.
5"Now in the Law (C)Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"
6They were saying this, (D)testing Him, (E)so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
6They were saying this, (A)testing Him, (B)so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
7But when they persisted in asking Him, (C)He straightened up, and said to them, "(D)He who is without sin among you, let him be the (E)first to throw a stone at her."
8Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
10(A)Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"
11She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "(B)I do not condemn you, either Go From now on (C)sin no more."
1) Yes, the Hebrew Bible did command the death penalty for certain crimes, including pre-marital sex, practicing a different religion, prostitution, homosexual behavior, blasphemy and rebellion by teenagers. Do you also support the death penalty for those crimes? Do you believe Jesus did? Do you believe in following everything God commanded in the Old Testament. How can you say Jesus did not reject Mosaic law on the one hand and then pick and choose which parts of Mosaic law you will uphold?
2) Jesus did challenge the death penalty when he challenged those who would enforce the stoning of an adulterer. If no one can enforce a death penalty how can you have one? This is a very clear and direct challenge to the death penalty and to see it as anything else is absurd. Would Jesus pull the switch? Would you?
3) When Jesus said "turn the other cheek" it was in the context of challenging the law that the death penalty was based on in the Old Testament, "an eye for an eye." The entire quote is "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." I don't see where Jesus says that this applies only to personal retaliation. Why should a state opperate under a different moral code than a person? This is just religious spin. I have also seen people claim that when Jesus says "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" is somehow his giving approval for the death penalty when it is obvious he is actually saying "put away your sword" that violence begets more violence. Only a truly twisted interpretation could see this as justifying execution. But as a teacher once told me, "The Bible is like a mirror. When an ass looks into it you can't expect an angel to look out."
3) The idea that the death penalty begets a culture of violence is not my invention. It is in fact a Christian idea. Here is a statement from the Society of Friends (Quakers) that expresses it more eloquently than I can: "We seek the abolition of the death penalty because it denies the sacredness of human life and violates our belief in the human capacity for change. This irreversible penalty cannot be applied equitably and without error. Use of the death penalty by the state powerfully reinforces the idea that killing can be a proper way of responding to those who have wronged us. We do not believe that reinforcement of that idea can lead to healthier and safer communities."
4) Paul and the writer of first Peter both say that we should submit ourselves to governmental authorities. Does this include Nazi Germany? Saddam Hussein's Iraq? Jim Crow laws? I could go on.
5) Having a death penalty guarantees that at one time or another an innocent life will be taken. Do you support the government's right to take an innocent life?
6) You never answered my fundamental question. Could you see Jesus using the words you did in support of the death penalty? Really?
1) See my comments on #2. It's interesting to note that in your approach you are firmly on the side of the religious leaders who Jesus condemned.
2) Please read the passage I included above, in context. Notice that "They were saying this, (D)testing Him, (E)so that they might have grounds for accusing Him." His response is measured. He does not reject the Mosaic law by decreeing that the death penalty laws are wrong, and he does not support the death penalty openly... and thereby give the leaders grounds to engage the Roman rulers. He dismantles the trap by requesting the religous leaders engage in the act themselves (which they should also support because they follow the Jewish law), and he adds an extra twist in that by walking away they're accepting the fact that they were trying to lay a trap and also showing that they are all sinners. Jesus chose not to play their games.
3)Talk about a twisted interpretation... the verse you cite is Matthew 6:39. Full context:
38"(A)You have heard that it was said, '(B)AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but (C)whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40"If anyone wants to sue you and take your [a]shirt, let him have your [b]coat also.
41"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42"(D)Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
In full context, taking your logic and applying it to the other statements, it becomes clear that your point is idiotic. Jesus' point is that don't let petty or small things result in major escalations of violence. If your slapped, embarrased, insulted... don't escalate, but show compassion. If someone forces you to help them... do so... and go the extra mile. Your logic here is that if anyone does anything to you then you should do nothing about it ever. You would have Jesus' saying... If someone rapes your wife, give your daughter as well. When your teacher made the comment about the Bible being a mirror... do you think maybe he was trying to tell you something?
4) Do you think that is what Paul means? Do you think that there are other passages of scripture that might take precendence over or clarify these statement?
5)Sure, humans make mistakes and with many human actions there can be known risks to innocent life. Having an army, a police force, legalized driving (I could go on) gaurantees that innocent lives will be taken... I guess you've convinced me that I am against all of these things too. In fact the death penalty itself does not gaurantee that innocents will be involuntarily killed, the legal system that prosecutes and approves that penalty does. One might argue that the death penalty should only be reserved for individuals who confess to murder... meaning, knowing full well the consequences of that action... they would be put to death. I wouldn't go that far... but the point is that the application of the death penalty is what needs to be controlled, not so much the penalty itself (in the context of ensuring that now involuntary innocent person is executed).
6) See my comments above. Oh and the answer is 'yes'.
Post a Comment