MB> But it is not my opinion that will win arguments, or convince "the
 MB> masses" to follow suit.  I scarcely expect anyone to accept my
 MB> "solution" on the surface.  But other opinions will vary, and this is
 MB> not at all without value.  Because when all opinions are voiced, and all
 MB> voices have been duly regarded, all of us will understand the other
 MB> issues involved; and I am ready - no, _anxious_ to amend my "solution"
 MB> in deference to "a better way".  But, in all regards, I don't see the
 MB> point in debate about "how to execute" someone who is going to be
 MB> executed, deserves to be executed, etc - to me, this is a pointless
 MB> exercise which will only come to conclude that all of us have a
 MB> difference of opinion as to what is "humane" and/or "just". What is
 MB> humane, AND just, is to get rid of them, and the sooner the better, and
 MB> better still to make it cheap Cheap CHEAP on society's wallet.
 MB> (Pragmatic to the last.)  Because the point is not to punish the
 MB> murderer, other than to take his or her life, as it were; (for actually
 MB> they really don't deserve the gift to their ego) rather, the most
 MB> important effect of justice applied in capital cases is society's relief
 MB> from their presence, and thus the method of execution is moot, in my
 MB> opinion.
   I think, Mark, that you still have not honed in on the problem about the
death penality that was my original subject.  If one is going to focus on the
means of execution from a standpoint of advance in technique one must recall
that the guillotine was viewed as a great advance in its time because of it's
relative humaneness.  
   Remember that I initally raised the question under the aspect of justice 
s
to why Carla Faye Tucker as an example over Kaczynsky (sp).  The latter will
live out HIS live as somewhat close to what he evidently wants to be - a
hermit - but in prison.  I don't think the reason for that is that there is
some calculus by which HIS murders were more "humane" than hers although 
aybe
they were in some ways - I don't know. 
   I know that the opinions you and I have or not likely to figure into any
"solution" of the problem.  But, you are arguing, if I understand you that 
he
"method of execution" has nothing to do with justice and that's rather
difficult for me to see as you have, so far, only presented a kind of
emotional reaction which adds up to "swat the fly with whatever is ready to
hand."  The problem is that we talk of "justice" and "retribution" and such
but when we come to the actual crime and punishment we seem to think that 
eye
for an eye" only means that somebody kills, one or two hundred people and so
we will JUSTLY take HIS or HER life to balance the scales and HOW the
miscreant dies is not, according to your reasoning relevant.  
   I have pointed out that many of us in the natural course of things will
suffer a death agony at the end that is surely FAR worse than the physical
experience of the person who has the final needle applied.  
   I will not torture the subject but just want to call attention to the fact
that you and I are really talking on two different tracks.  You seem not even
to care much if people who may be innocent are executed as though they were
guilty.  But, this latter point goes only to a calculus and is probably not 
s
important in my eyes as the former ones.  In foreign countries the death
penality is dished out routinely in some places to political prisoners.  
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------