>
>Frank Masingill wrote to Mark Bloss about Death Penalty
 MB> The method of execution is very unimportant.  Getting the murderer out
 MB> of the way is the important thing, and to do so in the most fiscally
 MB> responsible way possible.  A rope around the neck is pretty cheap, but
 MB> its no problem to use a few thousand volts of electricity either.
 MB> Possibly, it is cheaper nowadays to blast them into space on the
 MB> shuttle, and eject them into the cold void without protection, than to
 MB> spend millions of court costs in appeals.
 FM> The main thrust of my message was a discussion of justice.  Under
 FM> THAT aspect, I fail to see how you can consider the method unimportant.
 FM> 
 Well - be that as it may - I do not consider the method important according
 to the Just principle, in any case.  For one, because the person when dead
 will feel nothing anymore, their pain will have ceased; and another - they
 will be justifiably eliminated from society, never to cost us another
 life, nor another cent - in which case justice is served regardless of how
 it is performed.  They as well may be flayed, or drawn and quartered,
 or skinned alive, or dropped in boiling oil.  It matters not one bit.
 After they are gone, they will no longer feel anything.  The only reason
 modern human societies feel that feeding to lions or burning on a stake 
 is "inhumane" is simply a rather long-lived "fad".  Cultural changes in
 our distant future may find lethal injection too tame, or even too
 severe - but the Just principle itself remains the same: "eliminate 
 them" as just so much shit in the intestines of society.  When one is
 constipated, the method to relieve oneself is not as important as the
 relieving itself; for after the deed has been done - whether by gentle
 bran cereal, or severly by mineral oil - we care not.  We are comfortable
 again and able and willing to get on with our activities.  Certainly we
 are happy to get along with bran cereal, if possible.  And I shall
 not _stretch_ this ANALogy (groan) any further whatsoever, and you're 
 welcome of course. 
 
 Furthermore, I am certainly NOT in favor of wholesale slaughter of
 death-row inmates just yet, however.  My view is qualified by several 
 extenuating and as yet hypothetical possibilities.  Has the guilt been
 established beyond any resonable doubt? ... for example.  Has there 
 been an observance of the applicable rights of the accused in the 
 case, without prejudice?  These are only two, and there are some others
 I won't go into detail about here; yet my point of view regarding the 
 sensibility of capital punishment remains as stated above.  It serves
 the whole of society - to get the reprobate - not hidden away 
 somewhere, where we have to take care of their physical needs, with our 
 tax dollars - rather they are duly and justly eliminated entirely; as 
 though they were a cancer.  In my opinion, they aren't particularly 
 worth my tax dollars, thank you.
 
 I realize my language is strong; and I am also open - really - to
 alternatives, such as realized rehabilitation.  Have we succeeded
 yet?  Is it particularly worth the trouble to attempt rehabilitation
 of someone who, perhaps, is a serial killer?  Why can't we prevent
 all murders before they happen?  This would be _easier_ than 
 rehabilitation after having tasted blood, so to speak.  If we think
 we are smart enough to rehabilitate someone; surely we are mistaken -
 we don't know how to prevent murders yet!  This ought to be where
 we start, in any case.  This may appear to be a moral issue; I suppose
 that it is, actually.  Yet this is just an opinion, so I suppose I have
 no obligation to remain objective in this matter.
 
 But it is not my opinion that will win arguments, or convince 
 "the masses" to follow suit.  I scarcely expect anyone to accept
 my "solution" on the surface.  But other opinions will vary, and this
 is not at all without value.  Because when all opinions are voiced,
 and all voices have been duly regarded, all of us will understand
 the other issues involved; and I am ready - no, _anxious_ to amend my 
 "solution" in deference to "a better way".  But, in all regards, I
 don't see the point in debate about "how to execute" someone who is
 going to be executed, deserves to be executed, etc - to me, this is
 a pointless exercise which will only come to conclude that all of us
 have a difference of opinion as to what is "humane" and/or "just".  
 What is humane, AND just, is to get rid of them, and the sooner the 
 better, and better still to make it cheap Cheap CHEAP on society's 
 wallet.  (Pragmatic to the last.)  Because the point is not to punish 
 the murderer, other than to take his or her life, as it were; (for
 actually they really don't deserve the gift to their ego) rather,
 the most important effect of justice applied in capital cases is 
 society's relief from their presence, and thus the method of 
 execution is moot, in my opinion.
 
 
 
 
 
... Free reply time will be extended to those of opposing viewpoints
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------