This account captures why I can't support the death penalty, although were I family member of a slain victim, who knows what it would be like to live with such a conflicted feeling; however, what I'm left with is the need to allow somebody to suffer their crime for the chance of recovering, in prison, a sense of conscience, which this man apparently didn't express in his last moments. Very sad:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178536,00.html

W.C.

It seems in our world there are never any easy answers. I have conflicting feelings about it as well. I support life in mostly any circumstances. How should I feel about someone like �Tookie� who obviously didn't support life when he killed those people?

Another problem is that most of these people are executed years after they committed their crime. I am willing to bet that many are not even the same person anymore. Should the executions be handled swiftly then or not at all?

In the end I really have no answers. I am just left with a feeling that the whole thing is barbaric. From crime to punishment.

Tookie Williams was a big phony. The type of phony that did not warrant all the attention he got. He founded a gang that has killed probably upwards of tens of thousands of people if not hundreds of thousands of people. Innocent people. That is Tookies real legacy. Not his children's books. The code of his gang is you never leave. If you do leave or think you are going to leave you are as good as dead. Most especially for the leadership. Tookie was never murdered so my speculation is he never left the gang or it's leadership.

Almost every story I read in the past weeks about this case only focused on his children's books and his nobel peace prize nominations. None ever talked beyond what he was convicted of doing. Non of the stories ever gave an account of why a jury found him guilty of murdering four people. As though that part of the story were only secondary and not news worthy. Tookie killed three family members at once for a scant $100. Tookie himself never admitted guilt for his crimes. Tookie thought he was above the law committing the murders. He also thought right up until the end he was going to be above the law and not be executed.

Right or wrong the death penalty is the law.

The East Coast Tookie story is Mamia Abu Jamal. He received a stay of execution in Pennsylvania only weeks after the O.J. Simpson trial ended. Mamia has a whole cottage industry around him fighting for his release. Mamia murdered a cop. Paris made Mamia an honorary citizen.

Rico:

Nobody is disputing this guy's history, or even claiming he had a reformed conscience. There are other prisoners on death row that may, as Eric pointed out, have come to grips with the pain they've caused, and that is where a Christian conscience might find itself ambivalent about the death penalty.

The article below helps differentiate what people may mean when advocating or denouncing the death penalty. Leftists that seek the abolition of the death penalty would be more credible if they were as vigilant about keeping those convicts in prison without parole. As for the death penalty being a deterrant, this does nothing to address the concern over the inmate's opportunity to develop a sense of conscience. Certainly there are those whose conscience is denuded and perhaps beyond reach, but most are probably afflicted with some pain over their lives. Allowing them to live and grow in that affliction isn't just another form of punishment, but a way of serving the soul in those Jesus said would be His very self. And so it is possible to hold this as a conservative view of the issue without ignoring the data in the article.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar...Article.asp?ID=20541

w.c. I understand the dilema. But as a nation we are not governed by a christian conscience. We are govenerned by laws. Under a christian conscience there should not even be prisons where people are held.

It is amazing how the facts from your link contradict how people argue against capital punishment from the left. The story about Jack Henry Abbott for example just blows the mind. Susan Sarandon named her new born son Jack Henry after the trial of his conviction for murder in 1982.

The death penalty is the one place the left and right come together side by side. But as you pointed out they differ on the idea that the left does not just want some one like Mumia Abu Jamal not be executed but demand he be released altogether. Then again the left are for on demand termination of life in the womens womb but embraces murderers like Abbott Williams and Jamal.

Yes. I'm simply musing over the ethical dilemma one has as a Christian. But I wouldn't agree with you re: the place of prisons in society. Keeping society safe by separating those who intend it harm can be done humanely. With all my concerns about the Left on this and many issues, it would still be effective, and principled, to create prison environments that support reform among those inmates that are not known to be hardened criminals. We don't do ourselves any service by brutalizing those who are eventually going to re-enter our communities. Even pragmatists could agree with that. And from a moral and spiritual point of view, providing some humanizing elements (not luxurious accomodations as the Left might demand) among those serving life wouldn't be overly generous either, imo.

We don't do ourselves any service by brutalizing those who are eventually going to re-enter our communities.

Bravo. Well said. Very nicely nutshelled, WC.

Is our justice system about revenge or rehabilitation?

If someone commits a brutal crime I guess rehabilitation is out of the question. At least to the point where that person would ever be reintroduced to society. What about rehabilitation of the soul or conscience?

Letting someone spend his life in jail serves a few purposes. The convict has a chance to understand what it is that they have actually done to get there. It keeps that person out of society. Which makes us all FEEL safer. Some think that a person rotting in jail is a better form of punishment than death (Death being the easy way out).

As for it being a deterrent I would have to questionably laugh at that. Most criminals know that they can tie up the system for years with appeals.

There was a time when we would ask God to have mercy on the condemned soul before execution. Even trying to help him along in his spiritual salvation. Now we ask that they go to hell. We should show mercy and forgiveness to those who even refused to show it towards others.

That doesn't mean they should not be punished here for there earthly crimes. They committed the ultimate transgression here. Justice must be served. But let it remain here on Earth. Let the soul pay his debt here and pass on safely. We should never wish anyone to hell.

When we forgive it doesn�t erase the transgression but it does allow everyone to heal.

quote:

Keeping society safe by separating those who intend it harm can be done humanely.

This is understood and for a large part exists in our society. Shouldn't prison itself be enough to reform the individual? There are all levels of crime and all levels of prisons to accommodate. Some are good and some are not good. It certainly changes from state to state. The level of humane incarceration.

The Jack Henry Abbott story is a good example of how in the end it is ultimately up to the individual. Abbott was being handed circumstances beyond humane. He was being set free even though he had killed another inmate. On his way to a New York City literary career. 6 weeks after being paroled Abbott killed an innocent waiter with a single stab wound in front of eyewitnesses. All the advantages in the world didn't stop Abbott from murdering again.

quote:

We don't do ourselves any service by brutalizing those who are eventually going to re-enter our communities.

This makes total sense without question. I don't however think the intent of the penal system in the United States is to brutalize. Again state by state the humane level and attempt at rehabilitation will vary. That is the nature of our republic.