FM> other in what happens in the various jurisdictions.  I doubt that
 FM> anybody would argue that this final penalty is evenly enforced.
 DB> That may be, but that does not prove that death is worse than life in
 DB> prison Frank. FWIW, many killers are, in fact, mad. Terminally so, and
 DB> that the mental condition is so painful that they will be irrational at
 DB> a moment's notice, anytime, and may, as many have, kill someone *while
 DB> serving life*.
   The most refreshing thing about a reply from you, Day, as opposed to the
nutty little personal attackers is that you take the subject matter and the
thinker seriously.
   I agree with everything you say above and, in fact, should I be in the
unfortunate position of having to choose, I might well choose the needle
rather than life imprisonment.  Of course, you and I both know that the
mentalities of some of these people is such that they would choose the
imprisonment without hesitation, hoping that something might happen to 
everse
their situation.  That is why I tend to think that IF society has to choose
for a criminal and chooses the path of life imprisonment then life
imprisonment certainly should be enforced.  I understand, however, what I
judge to be your preference for the maintenance in jurisprudence of the death
penality.  That is why I left room for sincerely held points of view.  
   My limited experience tells me that it depends a lot of the circumstances
as to the behavior of a murderer while serving a prison term.  I toured our
local parish prison with some civic group a number of years ago and recall
that the warden told us that he liked personally MOST of the murderers better
than any of the other population and had virtually no trouble with them.  
hey
had killed once in a fit of passion and were not calculated EVER to do it
again.  THAT line of reasoning indicates treating each case on its merits but
then that brings us right back to the "Unabomber" case vs that of the Texas
woman who may or may not be executed tonight. 
 DB> The psychological data suggests that not only does the murderer not
 DB> value your life, he don't value his *either*.  This is why a large
 DB> percentage of them are drug abuseers; many of them find the
 DB> stupefacation to be the only release from existence they can find the
 DB> will to use, although many do commit suicide as well. I would argue that
 DB> capital punishment, were it carried out quickly, is a lot more like
 DB> euthanasia than revenge.
   And I would heartily agree with much of this with the caveat that I
mentioned in the previous paragraph.  If the judgement were swiftly executed
one might want to weigh the matter in the calculus of humanity and conclude
that the tortue of waiting and not knowing for ten or fifteen years before 
he
ax might finally fall could be deemed "cruel and unusual punishment" in SOME
cases far exceeding in cruelty to crime committed by the criminal.  What DOES
seem to be unfair is that all of the statistics I'ver read indicate that the
impoverished and stupid criminals (stupidity MIGHT define "criminal," I don't
know) are far more likely to get death than the smarter and better-healed
ones.   I can understand the views of some, NOT ALL, of the families of the
victims when the death penalty is NOT exacted.
 DB> If you would be humane, at least you would recommend that lifers be
 DB> given free use of stupifying drugs to ease the pain of a life they do
 DB> not want to lead.
   You and I are VERY MUCH in sync on that!!  I have a semi-invalid wife who
has suffered untold agony with pains in back and legs and taken tons of drugs
to no avail until mercifully she has recently obtained a treatment in a 
odern
Hospital pain control center which worked an absolute miracle as far as we're
concerned and it's lasted now for two or three months.  Now, don't get me
wrong.  I was in a chicken shack the other night when some man, obviously on
something, was stumbling, falling against trash cans, etc., trying to make it
out of the place after leaning against the counter and arguing brainlessly
with the help.  I do think there IS a place for drugs and would tend to be
quite liberal in permitting them under conditions that offer relief to the
person without causing harm in society.  It seems to me that it would even
cost less to keep them in opium dens until they die if that is what they want
and that's possible.  You can tell (grin) that I read Saxe (sp?) 
ohmer's(sp?)
books when I was a teen ager.  I never tried anything, however, except corn
silk, crossvine and finally tobacco (having been introduced to it mainly by a
medicinal menthol cigarette sold at that time in pharmacies to both children
and adults.  That is why KOOLs became my cigarette of choice for fifty years
until I quit in 1987.
 DB> As for the Ancients, at least they had a world seen as having some kind
 DB> of place suitable for banishment. today, wherever you put the people
 DB> like this, they threaten the well being of those who are already there.
   When we were on the Canal Zone in the early fiftes, Panama was extending
her justice system over the San Blas Islanders but it was my impression that
they still operated under their "kings" and used the smaller, uninhabited
islands for places of ostracism.  They no longer killed their "white" 
hildren
(albinos) but did keep them segregated and evidently attributed some special
powers to them.  
   I see evidence on television that we're re-introducing into our society 
he
kind of piercings of various places on the body that once was not customary -
at least where I grew up.  
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------