Alright, delete the word ‘murder’ from my post, and substitute, “…that the state also feels justified in taking a life in the name of a higher morality”.
My point is that the “…machinery of the state…” uses the same justification for executing offenders as Hill himself has employed to rationalize his killing of the original victims. The state executed Hill because they believe he murdered some ‘innocent victims’. Hill murdered Dr. Britten and James Barret because he believed that they were responsible for facilitating/actually murdering ‘innocent victims’.
So, who ends up with the upper ethical hand then in this scenario? Sure, the state has legal righteousness on it’s side, but what are the real differences between the mindset of Hill, and the legislative structure that extinguished HIS life?
IMHO, there are no differences. That’s why I believe it is a sad, sad situation all round.
Oops…sorry 'bout the smegged coding. It should be:
Alright, delete the word ‘murder’ from my post, and substitute, “…that the state also feels justified in taking a life in the name of a higher morality”.
um, sorry, for the purposes of this argument, the innocence or otherwise of the percieved victims is purely academic. I ain’t getting into a pro or anti abortion argument here, just pointing out the similarities between the justifications used by Hill and the state for the unlawful/lawful taking of lives. ‘Innocent’ was just meant to be descriptive rather than an absolute declaration of ‘lack of culpability’.
Funny thing is, I’m quite pro-choice. I made a simple point that I believe that only animals are innocent. And also, the unborn humans. Once children are exposed to the world, it all goes downhill-- people learn to hate quickly. Look at Paul Hill as an example.
Kambuckta-- I think we are in agreement on this subject. In fact I posted a boiled down version of what you posted (IMO) about nine hours before you.
Funny thing is, I’m quite pro-choice. I made a simple point that I believe that only animals are innocent. And also, the unborn humans. Once children are exposed to the world, it all goes downhill-- people learn to hate quickly. Look at Paul Hill as an example.
Kambuckta-- I think we are in agreement on this subject. In fact I posted a boiled down version of what you posted (IMO) about nine hours before you.
Funny thing is, I’m quite pro-choice. I made a simple point that I believe that only animals are innocent. And also, the unborn humans. Once children are exposed to the world, it all goes downhill-- people learn to hate quickly. Look at Paul Hill as an example.
Kambuckta-- I think we are in agreement on this subject. In fact I posted a boiled down version of what you posted (IMO) about nine hours before you.
The irony of executing this guy may be lost on some, but not me.
how did i do that? that’s crazy!! i definitely only clicked ONCE on submit… is there some key that i might have mis-hit that is a shortcut for ‘submit’? damn.
Geez, you don’t like to rub my ‘irrelevance’ in much do ya??
Actually, I DID see your post earlier this morning, but by the time I got back here this arvo, it seemed like more of the Gung-Ho crew had arrived. I just wanted to add my own (non-US) perception of the situation…from a purely philosophical rather than a partisan perspective.
Anyway…FTR, I’m a pro-abortion person too. And anti death-penalty for ANY crime.
I’d like to add my own fare-thee-badly to Paul Hill, wanna-be martyr and murderer: May the souls of women who lost their lives or were maimed by botched abortions, all piss on your dishonorable grave.
I disagree. The state didn’t act “In the name of a higher morality”, the state acted upon a principle that is far older than that: Justice. While an individual may be compelled by his religion to turn the other cheek and do his very best to forgive a lunatic like Hill, the State is not, indeed, the compelling requirement upon the state is the protection of all it’s citizens, and that is best served by eliminating an unrepentent, murderous madman like Hill permanently. The underlying principle has been codified in the legal codes of mankind for a very long time: “An eye for an eye”. I say well done.
I’ve always wondered about the people standing outside our clinics waving signs, screaming and terrorizing frightened women as they walk into a very difficult choice. If they’re so concerned about children, why aren’t they adopting the ones warehoused in foster care? Florida has more than 50,000 of them at present and as many of you have read, our Department of Children and Families is having a difficult time keeping up. (As an aside, here in Pensacola, there is such a dearth of willing foster families that DCF employees sometimes sleep with the kids in hotels until they can be placed.)
I worked in marketing at the Pensacola Civic Center when Pearl Jam did a benefit for the families of Paul Hill’s crime. The hate and threats spewed on me by a certain brand of “Christian” was astonishing.
The difference is that the State has the authority to act on behalf of all citizens to put a person to death after full and fair consideration of all the facts. The state has the right to punish an offender by putting him or her to death – not to accomplish the end of preventing further deaths (Hill’s avowed rationale) but as punishment for deaths that already occurred. This happens after arrest, trial, and full appeal, and hopefully only when there is no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. This is not just “legal righteousness,” it is the State exercising, as it often does, its authority to do some act that it does not allow its citizens individually to do. You just want to think it’s “the same thing” because you don’t happen to like it in this case.
The state can lock you up as well, without your consent. Is that in your mind kidnapping? The state can tax your earnings and take a portion without your consent. Is that in your mind theft?
Well as others have suggested, that is not exactly a proven point. I don’t see how creating a martyr for a fringe element “protects” the citizens better than a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
Nor do I see how this serves as a deterrent to folks like Hill who see themselves as martyrs for a cause…
The death penalty is about revenge, it’s not about protecting citizens.
We’re going to get esoteric here, but it’s an argument that I’m quite comfortable with. Executing someone like Hill is preferable to warehousiong him for 50 years in a prison because it relieves the financial burden of caring for him from the citizens of Florida. Why the hell should they pay upwards of $50K/ year if it’s agreed he will never see the light of day again? He’s abrogated his responsibility to live within the tennents of civilized society, why does society still have the responsibility to care for him?
Where did I say or imply that I have walked in your shoes? I was not addressing the issue of wishing death on the recently executed murderer. I was, rather, addressing the issue of wishing torture on the man. That was my point about religion to the two people whose comments I quoted.
Now are you clear on my very clear already posting?
