Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ohio execution stayed while state weighs allowing organ donation
KFGO ^ | 11/13/13 | Kim Palmer

Posted on 11/13/2013 3:56:31 PM PST by Libloather

CLEVELAND (Reuters) - Ohio Governor John Kasich on Wednesday stayed the execution of convicted killer Ronald Phillips to assess whether Phillips's non-vital organs or tissues can be donated to his mother or possibly others.

Phillips, 40, was scheduled to be executed Thursday for the 1993 murder of 3-year-old Sheila Marie Evans. But Kasich granted a stay until July 2 to allow medical experts to assess whether Phillips's non-vital organs or tissues can be donated to his mother or others.

(Excerpt) Read more at kfgo.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: deathrow; donation; execution; ohio; organ
Phillips's mother needs a kidney, according to his attorney Timothy Sweeney.

Take it out before inserting the needle.

1 posted on 11/13/2013 3:56:31 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Solution: use rope, lead, or electricity instead.


2 posted on 11/13/2013 4:00:31 PM PST by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Not that I intend to die at the hands of the State for crimes, I would ask to be hung or somehow killed so all my organs could be donated.

I mean, at least do SOMETHING useful.


3 posted on 11/13/2013 4:00:37 PM PST by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

I would think electricity would ruin the organs.


4 posted on 11/13/2013 4:00:58 PM PST by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Nothing about what the condemned prisoner has to say about it.

The death penalty is barbarous. Even if it "served a useful purpose" which it does not, it is wrong on so many levels for the state to be allowed to take another life deliberately and willfully after that person is confined and not an imminent danger to another.

Of course, the state & the police have the right and duty to protect its citizens from the threat of great bodily harm by using deadly force. But after arrest and containment, no such right or duty exists, IMO. The only duty is to further protect its citizens by keeping dangerous criminals confined if not varifiably rehabilitated.

Of course, the prison system could do a lot more to rehabilitate the prisoners and make them productive while they are confined. We are living in the dark ages in our penal system concepts IMO.

5 posted on 11/13/2013 4:18:08 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I would question the general health and viability of anyone’s body organs if that person has been incarcerated for the last 20 years. The prison diet and the stress on that life style would likely be hard on the liver, pancreas and bile ducts. There may be undiagnosed cancers, patiently waiting to metastasize. Prison doctors can only be so diligent. A resident of death row would not be my first choice.


6 posted on 11/13/2013 4:24:54 PM PST by lee martell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

No, no, and…no. Bad business, bad idea. Too much like China.


7 posted on 11/13/2013 4:36:16 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Am I the only one thinking of Larry Niven’s Known Space series?


8 posted on 11/13/2013 4:39:32 PM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have Ingsoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

The death penalty is not about prevention..it’s about punishment. Punishment for certain crimes, so heinous that you have forfeited your right to continue.

Not knowing anything about the case at hand, it certainly sounds as though this is one of those persons who have forfeited his right to continue. My only reservation is that the certainty of the states’ case against him. If he’s the guy, and the prosecutor can prove without question that he did it....time for him to die.


9 posted on 11/13/2013 4:40:38 PM PST by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Except when the government decides to commute the death penalty to life meaning those inmates who have severed the time for life are relased back out onto the streets and end up killing again. Naw, like that would ever happen, right? But it did.


10 posted on 11/13/2013 4:50:04 PM PST by bgill (This reply was mined before it was posted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Is this an execution lasting more than 4 hours?


11 posted on 11/13/2013 4:53:03 PM PST by Scrambler Bob ( Concerning bo -- that refers to the president. If I capitalize it, I mean the dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
He BEAT and anally RAPED a three year old girl over a period of time. On the day she died, she had over 120 fresh bruises on her body and evidence of anal penile penetration. She had intestines that turned gangrenous after the rape and beating. She died from those massive injuries. Her "mommy" turned a blind eye. He was 19 at the time and confessed. He claimed he did not want to go to jail because he feared getting "blanked" in the butt - even though that was EXACTLY what HE did to a THREE YEAR OLD BABY!!!

Now...you were saying WHAT about "rehabilitation"? Sorry. Some people just need killin'. He's already lived 20 years too long. Put him down.

12 posted on 11/13/2013 5:01:12 PM PST by informavoracious (Root for Obamacare and healthcare.gov failure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Is this a current news item? It is now mid-November, and they need until July to figure this out? JULY? The SOB has been in jail how long and they need seven and a half more months to “evaluate” this?

What a bunch of Bull.


13 posted on 11/13/2013 5:11:12 PM PST by GadareneDemoniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

A lot of people on both sides of the death penalty overemphasise deterrence as a factor for or against execution. It is undeniable however, that the death penalty has a flawless 0% recidivism rate, which is more than can be said for any other punishment ever given out by any judge in any legal system in the world.

Here in Britain, there have been many instances of murderers released on parole from life sentences who have gone on to kill again. Even in America, where life often means life without possibility for parole, some lifers have gone on to murder prison guards and other inmates, and the most they can do is send them to the hole for a few months. The death penalty is if nothing else, the most practical way of removing a dangerous offender from society permanently.


14 posted on 11/13/2013 5:23:03 PM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Porn, kittens and organ sales.

That's why God built us the world wide web.

15 posted on 11/13/2013 5:24:32 PM PST by billorites (freepo ergo sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

I agree. Though the death penalty seems barbaric, ask, if you only could, the victim about the mercy they experienced at the hands of the murderer. We should never transfer compassion for the absent one who will not draw breath again to the criminal who is still alive and present.

If a person takes an innocent life in a truly cruel and calculated fashion and the guilt can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt in a court of law then, through that monstrous act, they’ve forfeited their own right to live. The punishment fits the crime. All that is left is for society to have the courage to carry out the sentence.

Kenneth McDuff is a perfect example of how the prison system failed and compassion for the criminal cost the lives of future victims. Several young women would be alive today if McDuff had died in the electric chair when he was scheduled to instead of receiving 2 stays of execution and eventually being released. The State’s lack of courage is directly responsible for those broken young lives.


16 posted on 11/13/2013 5:39:19 PM PST by mom of young patriots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Rather than execute him, just sign him up for ObamaCare and he'll be gone in no time!
17 posted on 11/13/2013 6:54:34 PM PST by Hamilcar_Barca (Keep the main thing, the main thing - defeat Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk
Problems include:

1) Makes you and I judges of who should live and who should die.

2) It bolsters a culture of vengeance and death.

3) And what if five years later (as sometimes happens) new evidence shows up that someone else was the guilty party? Too late - can't fix it.

4) "Punishment" is a useless exercise. It doesn't solve anything, it doesn't fix anything and it absolutely heals nothing or no one. Vengeance is clearly not a healer. Only forgiveness heals.

Does that mean the guy should go free? As long as he remains dangerous, no - it is government's job to protect society from threats to life & liberty from both outside or within the country.

Dare I put out the Shakespearean quote? It's worth repeating here I think:

The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'T is mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown:
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.

The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene I [The quality of mercy is not strained] by William Shakespeare

18 posted on 11/13/2013 8:41:34 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bgill

Right, but that doesn’t justify killing them. It justifies fixing a broken penal system.


19 posted on 11/13/2013 8:42:42 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious
But for God's grace go you and I. We dare not allow ourselves to think of what horrors we are capable of. But we easily condemn those who for reasons we don't know have gone down the slippery slope we ourselves are also capable of sliding down.

Does that justify his actions? No, but there is One who has taken all of our and his condemnation. What we and he get in return is grace and mercy.

Does that mean he should go free? Not if he's dangerous to society becasue protecting the citizens is the government's #1 job.

20 posted on 11/13/2013 8:50:52 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
There are way to keep dangerous criminals from hurting others including isolation if need be. Contrast that with the often repeated scenario of new evidence later showing the executed man as innocent. Oh well...

My post # 18 lists some other reasons the death penalty does more harm than good.

21 posted on 11/13/2013 8:57:05 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

He raped a baby to death. Millstone around the neck.


22 posted on 11/13/2013 11:16:02 PM PST by informavoracious (Root for Obamacare and healthcare.gov failure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Oh, and the why? The baby was not wearing panties when he was beating her and throwing her around the room and it sexually aroused him.


23 posted on 11/13/2013 11:18:15 PM PST by informavoracious (Root for Obamacare and healthcare.gov failure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

The risk of executing an innocent person is the number one argument against the death penalty, and as a practical matter it is one I can appreciate. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the death penalty is good in principle.
In any case, losing 20 years of your life for a crime you didn’t do sucks too, and you will never get those years left. Should we just not punish people on the basis that there is a tiny chance that they were wrongly convicted?

I notice in another post that you imply that ‘vengeance’ doesn’t bring closure. You may be right about that, but again as a practical matter, the death penalty brings closure to the victim’s family. Kelsey Grammar, the guy who played ‘Frasier’ frequently has to go through the ordeal of persuading a parole board not to release his sister’s murderer. He wouldn’t have to put up with this if the state had just executed him as they should have done, instead the past keeps being dredged up just so that this worthless scumbag can get an ill-deserved chance of freedom every now and again.


24 posted on 11/14/2013 1:57:27 AM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Aggravated Murder, Felonious Sexual Penetration,
Rape on a three year old....he was 19 years old at the time.

He has forfeited his right to continue.


25 posted on 11/14/2013 6:04:10 AM PST by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious
Do you not consider that except for God's grace, there go you and I? "Oh I could never do something so horrific." Really? Under the right circumstances, man is capable of just about anything. You might answer, "If I did that, then I deserve to die." You're right. But in God's eyes if you've sinned at all, you are guilty of breaking every law and deserve death. We all deserve to be put to death. But as I said, Jesus took all of the condemnation and death we deserve upon himself, so all that is left for us is mercy and grace. There is no more condemnation for us or this guy because as far as God is concerned we are all in the same boat. Jesus blood was shed for this guy as much as for you and I.

So this guy's heinous and horrific acts were already judged, condemned, and punished on the body of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Our punishing him again is unrighteous and unjust becasue the same act is now being judged twice.

Our business is not to look backward to punish an act that has already been punished but to look forward by maintaining a safe and life-affirming society, not a culture of death. As I've said, because the government's #1 job is to protect its citizens from attack upon their lives and liberties, this guy should be kept confined as long as he is verifiably dangerous to others.

26 posted on 11/14/2013 8:09:25 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
Well, your points are what keep the death penalty active but let's take a closer look.

the death penalty is good in principle

The death penalty is actually an unjust and unrighteous act because it punishes and condemns a man for an act that has already been judged and condemned. This guy's heinous and horrific acts were already judged, condemned, and punished on the body of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Our punishing him again is unrighteous and unjust becasue the same act is now being judged twice.

the death penalty brings closure to the victim’s family...so that this worthless scumbag can['t] get an ill-deserved chance of freedom

A penal system that does not protect society from dangerous criminals does not justify killing those criminals. The broken penal system needs to be fixed.

27 posted on 11/14/2013 8:25:55 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk
He has forfeited his right to continue.

OK, but what about you and I? At what point have we "forfeited" our right to continue? Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." (John 8:7). "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10). In God's eyes, you and I are lawbreakers and are just as guilty as this guy. God does not categorize sin. In God's eyes, all sin is heinous and deserving of death, therefore, we've all "forfeited our right to continue."

What makes the death penalty unrighteous and unjust is all of these acts (whether WE judge them small or heinous) have already been judged on the body of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Our punishing him again is unrighteous and unjust because the same act is now being judged twice.

28 posted on 11/14/2013 8:42:54 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
The fact that you think someone who has done something so horrific should ever be free again is frightening. How would you like it on your conscience if he did it again? How about three or four more times? Or would that be ok too, being as he's washed clean by the blood of Christ? Salvation of the soul does not negate the need for bodily temporal punishment.

And I would absolutely kill MYSELF before doing a thing like that. If my hand offends me, cut it off. Don't reply anymore, I won't respond.

29 posted on 11/14/2013 12:08:32 PM PST by informavoracious (Root for Obamacare and healthcare.gov failure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious
Bodily temporal punishment that has already been executed for the same act is unjust and unrighteous.

I didn't say this guy should be let free. But I do believe that the broken penal system is in the dark ages and needs to get with rehabilitation (for those capable and willing to be rehabilitated). A side note to our backwards penal system is those in prison should be put to productive work at least helping to pay for their room and board.

30 posted on 11/14/2013 1:14:39 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Sorry mate, but operating a penal system on the basis that criminals will find Jesus and repent their sins is impractical and open to abuse. Some people need to be able to appreciate the consequence of their actions in the here and now, not just the hereafter. And whilst forgiveness by God is one thing, it doesn’t negate the need for people to be punished for their crimes in this world. Anything less is a recipe for anarchy if nothing else, and anyone who is truly repentant would accept the earthly consequences of their actions with good grace, rather than simply arrogantly assume that everyone else should just let it go because they claim to have found religion.


31 posted on 11/14/2013 4:41:05 PM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
Did I say anything about the criminal repenting of their sins and finding Jesus? The proper approach of a penal system has nothing to do with salvation as a requirement (although a well run penal system will bring about many finding Jesus as their Savior).

You are confusing what God has done and what man does. God, the definer of righteousness and justice, gave the world a blank check when His Son died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Killing someone for an act that has already been judged and punished in the death of Jesus Christ is double jeopardy and, thus, unjust and unrighteous. The death of Christ 2000 years ago is a fact. Believing in Him or rejecting Him does not change that fact. So whether or not someone receives eternal life through Christ doesn't change the fact that his sins along with those of the whole world were already judged 2000 years ago.

So as far as any third party including the state is concerned, that man's sin's have already been judged and punished. Therefore, punishment is an invalid and unjust activity of the penal system because it is double jeopardy. That doesn't mean there aren't valid consequences. Valid consequences for an act and punishment are two different things even though the death penalty merges the two. Valid consequences enacted by the state and the penal system are incarceration of the criminal to protect citizens from the danger he represents to others. There are also other valid activities the penal system should engage in like attempting to rehabilitate who they can and making the incarcerated responsible and productive as much as possible to at least pay for their room and board.

Personal salvation and eternal life, however, is another issue and is STRICTLY between a man and God. No third party is involved. As far as personal salvation goes, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor 5:19). God has done all the heavy lifting. God himself took care of the sin issue because it was too big for man to deal with. Sin is now no longer the issue. The issue is now Christ. What a man does with Christ determines that man's eternity. All it takes to be saved is cry out to God "that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21). But even though it is easy to be saved, many refuse and don't receive Him. So even though Jesus died for my sins, I still must accept Christ as my savior to have eternal life.

So the state must deal with a man's acts but never with a man's beliefs. But the people of that state must realize the legal and judicial fact that God has already punished that man's sins on the body of Jesus 2000 years ago regardless of what that man believes (1 John 2:2). This proscribes punishment but not the duty to attach valid consequences to his actions.

Likewise, only God, not the state, can deal with a man's beliefs toward Christ. The state has nothing to do with eternal life of an individual. That is strictly between a man and God.

32 posted on 11/14/2013 7:45:26 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

‘Double Jeopardy’ is a human concept, not a divine one, and it was conceived by the English in the Middle Ages to protect against abuses by fallible human governments, so bringing that concept into a religious debate is fallacious.

It is madness to refuse to punish anyone for anything they ever do on the grounds that Jesus died for their sins, because those that believe that tend not to be criminals anyway, and don’t need the fear of earthly consequences to hold them in check. Criminals respond more to temporal factors, and they need to fear earthly punishment, and others need to see the visible consequences of wrongdoing, rather than an abstract spiritual one.


33 posted on 11/15/2013 7:52:05 AM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

You argue that there is a biblical support for your position, yet I too can quote scripture,

Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed. Gen. 9:6.

And will you profane Me among My people...killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live...?” Ezek. 13:19

As I said previously, it is not about prevention, but punishment meted out by society to advance the liberty of all.

We can agree to disagree, and I believe you are wrong. There are persons who by the heinous nature of their crimes have forfeited their rights. Most importantly their right to life, since they thought it acceptable to deprive another of their right to life. We as adults view the sexual abuse of children to be a heinous crime against those who have not the ability to defend themselves from such.

You sexually assault a 3 year old, and then bludgeon her to death indicates that there was an understanding that the first act was wrong and criminal and that the second act of murder was the acknowledgement in an attempt to hide that crime or make the witness against him unavailable to secure your continued freedom without having to face your fellow citizens for your actions.

I am willing to risk wrongful execution(s) for the innocent to claim some level of justice for the victim, and to help secure the liberty of all.


34 posted on 11/15/2013 3:03:11 PM PST by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk
Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed. Gen. 9:6.

Yes and Jesus fulfilled the law (Matt 5:17) and that specific requirement by himself being condemned and punished on the cross FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD (John 1:29, 1 John 2:2).

Jesus has already been punished and has paid the full price for this man's heinous sins. If you don't believe that, then your argument is with Jesus and the Word of God, not with me.

35 posted on 11/15/2013 8:53:19 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Jesus died to save a man’s soul, not his body.

You believe that your position, based on the scripture as you understand it is proper, and that is fine.

As was pointed out in a previous post, about one Kenneth McDuff, who was sentenced to death, had his sentence commuted to life, and was subsequently released from custody. He then proceeded to kill again. Were the women he killed after his release less important then hMcDuff’s life? You are appearing to give credence to that thought.

You argue that he should never be released from custody. How can one be so sure that another like minded individual to the judge who ordered McDuff’s release would not release others who then go on to kill again. His death as punishment for his crime(s) would prevent this.

As I have said and will say again, the death penalty is about punishment and the security of the liberty of all society. Yet you seem to not want to discuss the security of the liberty of others. Only this idea that the death penalty is immoral. I say that your position is immoral because you fail to punish evil doers, and have no regard for the safety of liberty for others. Your craven deference to the lives of these killers is immoral.

My argument is not with Jesus, it is with you. Jesus saved his soul...his body remains an earthly item and should be disposed of properly.


36 posted on 11/16/2013 4:52:52 AM PST by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk
OK, so we move our discussion from 1) punishment to 2) protection of the citizens as justification for the death penalty. The issue is whether it is right to kill a prisoner out of fear of his killing again becasue a broken penal system doesn't keep him separated from society. The answer is a broken government-run penal system doesn't justify killing its prisoners.

I've argued several times on this thread that the #1 role of government and the penal system is to protect its citizens from those who would harm their life and liberty. I don't know of any state where it is thought the penal system isn't broken. But IMO, beginning at the state level, it is up to the people of the state to take action against such failure and initiate proposals and amend state constitutions that demand safety from convicted criminals that cannot be thwarted by wrong-headed judges. A call for a complete overhaul of the barbaric and medieval penal system would be in order. How about holding judges accountable for irresponsible decisions allowing unverified/obviously dangerous criminal back into society? MAKE POLITICIANS AND JUDGES ACCOUNTABLE.

Tough job? Yes. Tougher that just killing the criminal instead? Yes. Guaranteed perfection? No, nothing is, but you would have a great deal more of both safety and justice than you do now.

Putting the inherent unjustness and unrighteousness of the death penalty aside, has the death penalty proven to create a safer society where dangerous criminals are not loosed upon society? Hardly. In fact I believe that advancing and holding to the misguided notion that society will be safer if we kill dangerous criminals has contributed to delaying the very reforms needed in the penal system. Its easier to kill the guy than to reform the governmental system. Not an unheard-of government solution.

The #1 job and goal of government is to keep others from wrongfully interefering with an individual's life and liberties. The job of implementing need reforms in the penal system to meet that goal is a tough jobs. But failure to do so does not justify killing it prisoners however more expedient it would be.

Practically speaking, do I think this can happen? Maybe in some cases in certain states where its citizenry and leadership are vitally engaged. But overall, I think seeing these things actually proposed and implemented would be fairly miraculous. The bottom line here is it is up to the American people and the citizens of each state - they run the show. Morality will RARELY come from politicians - only from the citizenry. If our citizenry is unwilling to take on these difficult tasks and needed reforms, you may decide it is better to kill the prisoner, but that is a solution of convenience not justice.

Nevertheless, sooner or later, justice and righteous will prevail on the earth. If not now, then when Jesus Christ Himself rules the world for 1000 years from Jerusalem. I believe we'll see these very types of things implemented. What about in the meantime? Whatever is done, a convenient solution is not necessarily a just solution. And practically speaking, leaving the issue of justice aside, I believe overall, the death penalty does more harm than good and does NOT create nor has it created a safer society.

37 posted on 11/16/2013 9:33:52 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

In the end taking out the “trash” is a good first step towards a more civil society.

Swift and certain punishment for those evil-doers, affirms that justice for the victims is dispensed. To me there is a difference between a crime of passion and one where the perpetrator understands the heinous nature of what they have done and actively works to conceal their culpability to escape justice.

It would be nice if we had a perfect system where those who have chosen to defy morality could be sent to live out their days in isolation. But we are constrained by the bleeding heart types who think that there is the possibility of rehabilitation for these offenders. That life in the prison system is too harsh, that they must be provided with three hots (and culturally appropriate to boot) and a cot, cable tv, physical activity with no other purpose than the building of an even larger criminal, libraries and higher education.

None of which is afforded the victims of these crimes that landed such individual in the custody of their fellow citizens.

If we are not to execute them, then how should they make amends for their acts. What un-cruel and non-unusual punishment should be meted out to them to atone for their crimes to those whom they have trespassed against.

The penal system is broken because we cannot punish those trespassers in a manner consistent with the severity of the act and therein lies the problem.

There is no manner to hold a judge accountable of being wrong. What are you going to do with such a judge, have another judge sit in judgement who in his mind could be next on the opposite side of the bench?

Executions removes this possibility for those who are demonstrably guilty and there is no ambiguity of their guilt.

We will have to agree to disagree, and that is fine. I will continue to advocate executions and can hope that I will be able to persuade more to my side that you will be able to persuade to yours.


38 posted on 11/18/2013 4:20:16 PM PST by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

The actual true gospel Christian way is to eliminate trash by turning it into treasure.


39 posted on 11/18/2013 4:23:51 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk
In the end taking out the “trash” is a good first step towards a more civil society.

The value of every person is measured by God’s standard of his own Son, Jesus Christ, more valuable than anything in the universe. The one you call “trash” is the very one Jesus died for, no matter how depraved. Calling one “trash” who God values higher than anything else in the universe is itself not only a perversion but moves society AWAY from civility and towards baseness and a culture of death.

If we are not to execute them, then how should they make amends for their acts.

Back to punishment as justification for the death penalty. Been over that. Jesus has already taken his punishment making the death penalty double jeopardy and, therefore, patently unjust and unrighteous.

The penal system is broken because we cannot punish those trespassers in a manner consistent with the severity of the act and therein lies the problem.

Again, Jesus has already done that. Trying to do so now is trying to do the wrong thing. There’s no right way to do the wrong thing.

There is no manner to hold a judge accountable of being wrong. What are you going to do with such a judge, have another judge sit in judgment who in his mind could be next on the opposite side of the bench?

Nothing is perfect but passing laws and holding politicians and judges accountable for their actions would go a long way towards better outcomes.

Executions removes this possibility for those who are demonstrably guilty and there is no ambiguity of their guilt.

Aside from what else is wrong with the death penalty, rarely is there “no ambiguity of their guilt.” That’s another can of worms.

Again, the death penalty is unjust, does more harm than good, and does not create nor has it created a safer society.

40 posted on 11/20/2013 11:02:27 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson