The update in the previous post could have sufficed, but I decided to provide information about Scott Peterson’s death sentence in a separate entry. I figure a lot of people will be doing searches on “Scott Peterson death,” “Scott Peterson verdict,” and variations on the theme all week, and I may as well lure them to my blog.
Scott Peterson gets DEATH. See my post annoucing his guilty verdict last month.
Also see Yahoo! full coverage.
Addendum: For reasons I can’t remember, a post about the Republican majority making it easier for health care providers to refuse to do “elective” child killing turned into a death penalty discussion. It may be of interest to new readers and commenters.
Other links: CourtTV blog, Baldilocks, Command Post, Polipundit
Update (12/14): Some of you may have noticed that your comments have not gone through. I’ve lost patience today with people accusing me or anyone else on this blog of “cheering” because Peterson got the death penalty and/or quoting the Bible out of context or anything else I can think of that I don’t like. One of the great things about having a blog is that it’s a platform for my views, not yours.
{ 40 comments }
La Shawn,
I am probably one of very few conservatives who is not “comfortable” with the death penalty. I use the word “comfortable” because I’m honestly not positive how God wants me to feel about it. Have you written on this topic? Or would you like to share your Biblical perspective on the death penalty?
I believe capital punishment is biblical. At the very least, it isn’t prohibited. I reference the OT and passages in the NT, particularly Romans regarding the government’s function to protect the people against evil. I also reference this site:
http://www.str.org/free/studies/capipuni.htm
See the Addendum to this post, too.
The jury got it right. If it causes him to repent and ask forgiveness for murdering his wife and son, then the death penalty could end up being the best thing that ever happened to him.
It seems only fitting that he will be sitting in San Quentin, right on the same San Francisco bay where he dumped Laci’s body. Hope they give him a room with a view.
No kidding about San Quentin? The irony…
I’m just not comfortable with a death penalty in a totally circumstantial case.
LaShawn,
If it’s any help, the Christian tradition’s been pretty consistent in reading the passages you cite as pro-capital punishment warrants. I’d say classical Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, and Orthodox theologies are pretty unanimous on that point.
Still, it would be interesting to hear counter-arguments from people who think the death penalty is wrong. What are the best Biblical/philosophical arguments against the death penalty?
Adrian
Thank goodness justice doesn’t depend on our individual levels of comfort.
I actually would like to hear a biblical, rather than philosophical, argument against the death penalty from a bible-believing Christian.
*Get’s out the bag of feathers and pulls out a handful*
Here Chickie, chickie. Here Chickie! Baaaak! Baaak! Here Chickie!
ROTFLOL, Oh Kiki.
Seriously, I’d like to hear Bibilical arguments as well.
La Shawn and Andy:
I third the motion for Biblical arguments.
I do think that it’s important to think about the issue in terms of political philosophy, too, but, since it’s not my blog . . .
Cordially,
Adrian
I’m comfortable with the death penalty in the with the present system which includes an automatic appeal. If it does cost more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life, I’m comfortable with that too. There are some crimes that deserve death. If society is going to execute someone, then the money spent to make sure that taking that person’s life is as just as our system can make it, is money well spent.
Adrian,
For a Christian, the only opinion on a matter IS the Word of God (Prov 3:5).
I also refer to James 1:5 – If anyone lacks wisdom let him ask of God . . .
Christians are further instructed to not be double-minded (James 1:8) – Either Trust GOD’s Word or “philosophical” (wordly) opinions.
Congratulations on your Weblog awards finish…
and
The jury said:
“Kill your family and we will kill you back”
NARAL has already said:
“We believe it is a deceptive and callous attempt to undermine the right to choose,” — Evelyn Becker, spokesPERSON for NARAL Pro-Choice America, formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action League.
Because Connor was just an abortion right? In spite of Lacie’s choice?
The Judiciary and appeals process will of course say:
‘We will get around to executing you’… the long way around…
So Peterson will die of old age…
California has 629 murderers on death row and more are added every week. Of course, to get the death penalty in CA the first place, you have to be the worst of the worst. Only 10 have been executed in the last 25 years. You do the math.
The only thing the addition of a death penalty does is guarantee some one sentenced to one, two, three, etc. life’s in prison, is actually expected to spent just one there.
Richard Allen Davis, the one who took 12 year old Poly Klaas from her bedroom and murderer her, was sentenced to death in CA 10 years ago. He has just recently been assigned a lawyer for his first appeal of that penalty.
Coral Eugene Watts, who led police to three bodies, confessed to 13 murders, and believed to be responsible for 80, was sentenced to 60 years in TX prison on a plea bargain 24 years ago. Due to a ‘good behavior’ law in effect then, he was due to be back on the streets this year.
The TX Attorney General was so convinced this guy would start killing again, they had to actually try him again on another murder, not included in the original plea, in order to keep him in prison. Thank God for many more young women, TX won the case.
We could go on and on here, but the point is in our disfunctional penal system, death doen’t mean death and life doesn’t mean life.
Regarding Ramrod’s point on a case made up almost entirely of circumstantial evidence, Numbers 35:30 states that there
must be a MINIMUM of TWO witnesses to the crime for the death penalty to apply. From what I have read, that is usually interpreted as two EYE-WITNESSES… but I guess that is open to debate.
ZIPLA:
The Bible is God’s Word, and that gives it the highest authority. No question about that. But there’s such a thing as theology: thinking about what Scripture reveals in order to try to understand what it means.
My point is not that we should call into question what God says about the death penalty, but that we should try to understand, as best as possible, WHY he says it. But that effort is going to involve some overlap with political philosophy, for example, with the difference between ancient and modern conceptions of the state.
But, as I say, this is La Shawn’s blog. . .
Cordially,
Adrian
I was sitting in a hospice last night with my brother, and a young orderly named Shelton. Shelton is as sweet-natured, soft-spoken a Christian gentleman as you could meet, and when we heard the verdict he nodded his head in approval. He said “you have to send a message when someone’s done something that bad.”
I agree with him on one hand…but I also struggle with the death penalty, on the other. The more I come to understand just how true it is that life is sacred, and the more I come to see the workings of grace, I don’t know anymore how I feel about it all.
What he did was evil. He’s going to need to get his soul right with God.
You want a biblical argument? Here’s a biblical argument:
- Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13)
- He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone . . . (John 8:7)
- Love your neighbor as yourself.(Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31 and Leviticus 19:18)
–
Lisa
Exegete those those passages for us, Lisa. What is the context, who is being spoken to, who’s doing the speaking, how do they relate, if at all, to capital punishment, etc.
By the way, the original language renders the commandment, “Thou shalt not murder.” What distinction do you see, if any, between “kill” and “murder?”
La Shawn,
Your response to Lisa identifies one of the central questions at issue here: is there a difference between killing and murder, between justly and unjustly taking a life/causing death?
Not to sound like a broken record, but this illustrates what I meant by there being a certain overlap between the Bible and the questions typical of philosophy. In order to exegete properly the Biblical passages Lisa cites, one automatically touches on, and so has to think about, the distinction between killing and murder, and so about the question of whether or not the state may take life in certain circumstances, e.g., to punish certain crimes.
Cordially,
Adrian
Hmm. Exegete. OK. God is speaking in each of those passages and He’s speaking to us, meaning all people.
Those passages are so clear, how can you add or take away from any of it?
We can debate the use of the words ‘kill’ vs. ‘murder’ here if we like. But the fact remains, causing the death of another person, based on God’s word, is wrong.
Very enlightening, Lisa. For examples of how to exegete Scripture rather than merely citing passages that appear to support your point of view, see the “Faith” category of this blog.
How can I add or take away from it?
1.) – He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone . . . (John 8:7)
So from this who can make NO laws! Or for that matter what is wrong? Because I have sin in my heart, then I cannot tell someone not to rape, commit incest or steal?
2.) The first passage is taken from the Old Testament that also gives a punishment for those who kill (death)
3.) The second two are given for personal behavior. I should not steal because I do not want anyone to steal from me. And because someone has stolen, I should not take it upon MYSELF to punish the man.
But that does not mean that the laws of the country should reflect anarchy and chaos. The problem I think many Christians have is that (unlike the times of the Bible) WE are allowed to make the rules and laws of this land. But that does not mean we should be permissive.
Frankly….Scott Petersen got off lightly…California will not execute him, their process is too slow. If he had been granted life without parole and been tossed in general population, THAT would have been true punishment.
As a Christian I have trouble with the death penalty also (and I live in TEXAS!) But not for the same reason. I believe it is a waste of a life to take it when there are jobs we can use them for. They should be required to work off their debt and EVERYTHING they make be paid to their victims and victim’s families. But I’m sure that would be considered cruel and unusual. Perhaps if they worked in the fields for farmers, farmers wouldn’t be driven to use illegal aliens (a joke!)
Adrian, in the Bible you are *required* to execute the murderer, or your land is polluted (we can substitute society for land if it helps to make sense). I apologize if this all looks weird, I don’t have my HTML reference guide with me.
See Numbers Chapter 35, verses 9-33:
‘If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 17 Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 18 Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 19 The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. 20 If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies 21 or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
22 ” ‘But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally 23 or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, 24 the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. 25 The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled…
26 ” ‘But if the accused ever goes outside the limits of the city of refuge to which he has fled 27 and the avenger of blood finds him outside the city, the avenger of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder.
…
29 ” ‘These are to be legal requirements for you throughout the generations to come, wherever you live.
30 ” ‘Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.
…
33 ” ‘Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it. 34 Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell, for I, the LORD , dwell among the Israelites.’ ”
Notice the complete lack of “well you’re no better than the murderer!” relativity in the above verses (although I don’t think you were going there, this is just for general observation). It does not specify who the avenger has to be, but it is clear that killings can’t be motivated by malice, which gets called murder. A distinction is made between vengeance for justice, and killing for spite. In Deut. 19, places of refuge are to be set aside for people who unintentionally kill, so they can be protected in the event that:
6Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer while his [mind and] heart are hot with anger and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him even though the slayer was not worthy of death, since he had not been at enmity with him previously.
In Romans 13 (I think LB mentioned Romans in general above) it says what the role of the government (specifically the government) is in all of this:
1LET EVERY person be loyally subject to the governing (civil) authorities. For there is no authority except from God [by His permission, His sanction], and those that exist do so by God’s appointment.
2Therefore he who resists and sets himself up against the authorities resists what God has appointed and arranged [in divine order]. And those who resist will bring down judgment upon themselves [receiving the penalty due them].
3For civil authorities are not a terror to [people of] good conduct, but to [those of] bad behavior. Would you have no dread of him who is in authority? Then do what is right and you will receive his approval and commendation.
4For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, [you should dread him and] be afraid, for he does not bear and wear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant to execute His wrath (punishment, vengeance) on the wrongdoer.
5Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath and escape punishment, but also as a matter of principle and for the sake of conscience.
To sum up…the state has the *right* and the *duty* to execute Scott. Biblically speaking, chapter and verse. Philosophically speaking, can’t help you, don’t do philosophy. I hope this helps.
P.S., the [] brackets are from the translation, not from me. See Biblegateway.com, AMP translation if you wish to see for yourself.
Andrea:
I like point one. Often people who interpret the Bible as teaching against the death penalty, just war, etc. also interpret the Bible as teaching against political authority, too. Thus, part of the importance of the discussion about issues like the death penalty is that it gives us an opportunity to get clear about the Christian attitude toward political authority in general. Now, taking Scripture as a whole, I don’t find anything in it that would justify a sort of “Christian anarchy.”
Even Jesus, in John’s Gospel, recognizes that Pilate has political authority—including the authority to put men to death—even as he makes it clear that political authority is part of the Providential order of things (which, of course, does not mean that any particular regime is good or chosen by God).
Cordially,
Adrian
Not to be more of a prick than usual, but exegete is a noun. There is no verb derivative or equivalent.
Elucidate or interpret are the correct terms.
As for selective quoting of the Bible… using the same methods you could make Mein Kampf look like the Bilble and vice versa if you pick and choose verses without any context.
I agree with Lisa and Jamie C, and that’s not as paradoxical as is seems. Before I get to the bilical, let me just say my standard response if people ask my death penalty stance: A state should not execute its own people. I back up that statement with reasons that are both Lisa’s and Jamie’s. When I hear Christians say ‘good, he got what he deserves: the death penalty.’ I feel a bit sorry for them and I hope they continue to find their path to the Lord as I also try to overcome my failings. After all, Peterson won’t just spontaneously combust because of the verdict: there is going to be someone who does the deed. What of that person’s soul? Somehow someway there will be a person who had nothing to do with this crime with blood on his hands. Which leads me to my support of Jamie’s position: ‘Adrian, in the Bible you are *required* to execute the murderer’. True enough. The operative word is ‘you’ – not the State, and so I part ways with Jamie there. If Lacy is my sister, I find Scott and make him dead. I have no problem answering to God for that sin. It’s repeated in Jamie’s post – the avenger of blood. The state is not blood and therefore cannot be the proper avenger of it. You either forgive (somehow) or do it yourself. To do otherwise is to shirk your biblical ‘command’ onto the state and the rest of the population.
You’re correct about “exegete” being a noun, but just like other such nouns, it’s being used more frequently as a verb, at least in Reformed circles.
It’s the English teacher in me…. the right word for the right job!
And a mixed metaphor in every pot.
Dear Jamie C:
I’d like to make it clear that I am not trying to substitute human reasoning for God’s Word. And I’m not disputing that the Bible authorizes capital punishment.
That said, let me make two remarks about your post.
First, Paul doesn’t say in Romans 13 that the civil authorities are bound to enact the Mosaic penal code.
Second, I stand by my statement. The state MAY put to death. What do I mean by that? “May” doesn’t mean “can but shouldn’t.” It means “doesn’t always have to.” In other words: the state generally has the duty to put to death those who have committed capital crimes—but this does not automatically rule out clemency in this or that case.
Dear SCSI:
Got me.
Adrian
Is it just me or do the media reports of this story seem really aggressive in their frequent references to “Laci Peterson and her fetust seems to me that Laci’s child, her baby was clearly wanted, and was very likely viable outside the womb.
Isn’t there something inherently hypocritical in being supposedly “pro-choice” and yet choosing to use the clinical term “fetus” in the description of the tragic death of Laci’s very real CHOICE? My heart breaks for Laci’s family, and the loss of their daughter and grandson. Continuing to refer to him as a “fetus” and not the baby she obviously felt he was, strikes me as borderline hostile.
I really needed to get that off my chest.
And I’ll never let you go… dahling.
Scott Peterson got what the law allows, in this case he got the maximum. That said, in this liberal touchy feely feelgoodism, he will be around for another generation before there is any consideration as far as an execution.
He would have been dealt a more severe blow had they sentenced him to Life without parole, however with people like Gerry Brown, that is not necessarirly carved in stone. But what really gets me is the press, and there comments, ‘ Well, he didnt show any emotion’ , I say So what, what does emotion show after what he did, as if that would make it all better had he showed some emotion, it doesnt change the fact that he Murdered his wife and his son, he slaughtered them as if they were so much meat and then discarded them like they were nothing more than garbage.
No Peterson is getting what he deserves.
Mark
Keep 5 Yards
Hi Mike @ work (I guess that makes two of us @ work):
The avenger of blood is avenger of blood shed: not someone who is related to you. Think about it, should the murder of an orphan go unavenged? If it’s your family who murders you (see Connor and Lacy), do they get off? Do I understand you right, or am I off track here?
Is there a special reason the state shouldn’t be executing its own people? It should execute foreigners, but let those among them who murder their own people go unpunished? It should execute no one, thus contradicting the law (if we’re still talking about Biblical requirements)I don’t follow you. For myself personally, if you are a criminal, you are no longer one of society, you’re one of the wolves preying on society, but I don’t want to get cute here.
As far as the “you” vs. “the state,” in America the people are the state. It’s a “for the, by the, of the people” deal. We are not excused from doing what’s right simply by hiding behind “the government.” We are the government, good or ill.
The soul of the executioner is not in any spiritual danger (if that’s what you’re getting at). How can there be, he’s doing what he’s supposed to be doing? I guess there could be an emotional problem if he thought he was wrong to be an executioner, but in that case, you have to wonder about a person who does that job but thinks it’s immoral–it doesn’t speak highly of their sanity.
Second, with respect to the penal code, Adrian I think it is clear in that Romans chapter I quoted that “the sword” is not “carried for nothing,” the state is the servant to carry out the wrath, etc. I’m literal-minded sometimes, so I think of a sword as a killing weapon (not being sarcastic) He didn’t say ” cloth-covered baton,” (for an example); Paul did have an unfortunate acquaintence with whips, yet he still chose a sword for that example.
Forgive me, but I have no recall of Jesus saying that the 10 commandments (Mosaic code) are null and void, so I fail to see how saying that this was a code from the time of Moses makes it null and void per se. I may be misunderstanding you here, it’s been a long day. At any rate, supposing that it isn’t Mosaic code in particular he’s endorsing, you are still left with the fact that capital punishment is endorsed and required, not condemned and told to put aside in favor of something else.
Anyway, as far as “may” versus “should,” the rest of Numbers (the chapter in the above post) answers that. While you say it doesn’t rule out clemency, I don’t see where it is permitted, either (in fact, it’s clear that not avenging the death is not permitted). The point is justice to the victim. I know that our justice system skews the other way, though. At any rate, I can’t think of any situations where murderers in the Bible, or the New Testament in particular, received clemency and furthermore had that clemency judged pleasing to God. If you can, then that would make things clearer to me about where you might be coming from with this.
Now I have a question of my own: on the subject of forgiveness, is there somewhere in the Bible where it says to forgive is to relieve a person of punishment due to him? Is it Biblically unlawful to punish a person *and* forgive him? It must be one or the other? I ask because of the priest sex abuse scandals (sorry to go OT), and it struck me that a key problem the Catholic church had was that it seemed to think if the priests were forgiven, they need not go to prison. That makes no sense at all to me, and as I said, I’ve never seen a Biblical support for it.
Anyway, this has been fun. Regards,
Jamie C.
(sorry – resubmitting because I made a mistake with the formatting:)
Is it just me or do the media reports of this story seem really aggressive in their frequent references to “Laci Peterson and her fetus”?
It seems to me that Laci’s child, her baby Conner, was clearly wanted, and was very likely viable outside the womb.
Isn’t there something inherently hypocritical in being supposedly “pro-choice” and yet choosing to use the clinical term “fetus” in the description of the tragic death of Laci’s very real CHOICE? My heart breaks for Laci’s family, and the loss of their daughter and grandson. Continuing to refer to him as a “fetus” and not the baby she obviously felt he was, strikes me as borderline hostile.
(end/rant) I really needed to get that off my chest.
Jamie C:
Didn’t I say that I think capital punishment is Biblical? Well, let me repeat it here: I agree with your exegesis of Romans 13. The sword means the sword.
Rereading your post, I see that the remark I made about the Mosaic penal code doesn’t quite fit. I hadn’t noticed that you cite only passages that prescribe capital punishment for murder. But the larger point I made still stands.
In other words: in the new covenant, many things in the old covenant no longer remain in effect. For example, Christians don’t have to circumcise their children, etc.
Of course, the 10 commandments carry over. But we can’t automatically assume that all the legal penalties the O.T. prescribes for breaking them automatically carry over, unless the N.T. says otherwise. Part of the reason is that the N.T. recognizes the possibility of a political authority that’s not coincident with the Church. This distinction does not yet exist in the O.T., for obvious reasons.
This is why, when Paul talks about the civil authorities in Romans 13, the context is pretty different from the context of the passages you cite from Numbers.
Now, all Romans 13 does is give the state an unspecified mandate to punish capitally. It does not specify which crimes are capital crimes. And it doesn’t say that the state is obliged to enforce the entire Mosaic penal code to the letter. Thus, it doesn’t say anything about the state having to put to death a man who lies with a beast or who strikes his parents.
It seems, then, that Paul leaves a certain latitude to political authority. It’s within that latitude that I see occasional clemency as a possibility.
One example of a murderer being granted clemency in the O.T. is David, whom God not only forgives, but allows to continue living even after David had contrived Uriah’s death. Another example is Cain. Another example, although it’s a bit more complicated, is Paul. There are probably other examples. Note, too, that Jesus effectively grants clemency to the woman taken in adultery, even though the Mosaic penal code would mandate her stoning.
None of this means that the Bible says that the state can’t punish, or even punish capitally. It just means that you don’t prove your point by citing the passages from Numbers. More needs to be said.
Cordially,
Adrian
Adrian,
Sorry if I didn’t make this clear (or just never said), but I didn’t think that you were *denying* the Biblical codes, and I quite get that you are wondering if clemency is possible, or Biblically impossible.
As far as David goes, he didn’t directly kill Uriah, but I do recall the baby got it (a death for a death). Cain and Paul might be a better fit for what you’re asking about, though, although Cain predates the law, and I’ll get to Saul in a minute. Anyway…I don’t see it as necessary to rely on Numbers alone,(I hope we’re not talking past each other), but what I was getting at is that where you say that it doesn’t automatically carry over, I say it isn’t automatically rejected, unless, as in the case of circumcision you cite, there were NT passages that did away with that requirement. So while adultery isn’t a capital offense anymore, I saw no official sanction of saying that murder isn’t.
What is interesting about Paul (I agree that he’s complicated)is that he more or less said that Saul is dead, when he repented that part of him died and he’s not that man anymore, and not guilty anymore–that applies to his standing with God. Jesus made that possible. However, I don’t think Paul could have used that defense if some government authorities brought him up on charges of murder, that is, I don’t think he could rightfully protest, and I don’t think they would be guilty, if they did execute him. I hope I’m making sense. What I mean is, if that is the law, then they would have been wrong in God’s eyes not to carry it out (since that law would be congruent with His). That’s partly why I asked about forgiveness vs. punishment. Can they go together, or is it either/or?
I am aware of the woman who didn’t get stoned for adultery, but I think part of the reason she did not, was because her accusers were in on it (this is a suspicion, based mainly on the witness requirement and the character of the crowd in general. Makes me appreciate an impartial jury system. You don’t have to take my theory seriously, it’s just a suspicion I had).
You mention that what is a capital offense is not specified in the NT…If I haven’t totally misread you, then I can see where you might say that this lack of specification is a way out, if a government wished to no longer have cap. pun.?
Arrgh, I’m feeling dense today, forgive me if I read that way, too. I hate it when I ask a question and the person repeatedly gives non-sequiters and fails to answer, I’m sorry if I’m doing that to you. I may be late in replying in the next round, as I’m at work.
Jamie
A very interesting debate; I’m glad I’ve checked back – but then the debates are always interesting, here.
That said…I’m still see-sawing.
My opposition to capital punishment is neither biblical nor philosophical, but rather pragmatic. There is no possibility for the remedy of error when it takes place. And make no mistake, errors will be made (as if they haven’t already occurred in the course of human history) as we are not gods, but fallible humans given to envy, pride, and lust.
Nobody Important,
I agree totally with what you said. Humans by nature are fallible. The fact is we HAVE executed innocent people. And, that is reason enough for me to be against the death penalty 100%.
I belong to a group called Pacem in Terris Delaware and we had a guest speaker last month. It was a woman from Texas. Both she and her husband were convicted of murder 30 years ago and placed on death row. They were both eventually exonerated because they got a raw deal in court. They didn’t commit the murder. Unfortunately, her husband was put to death several years earlier.
I have the link if anyone’s interested. Per the rules, I’m not posting it here.
This is reason enough to not support the death penatly.
I guess I’m a hypocrite, though. I would certainly love to see bin Laden blown to smithereens. Not by lethal injection. Literally blown to smithereens with a pound of C4 explosives? Anyone up for that?
Comments on this entry are closed.