death row prisoners

Often if people talk long enough their real character comes out. I observed that manipulation and being manipulated are the order of the day in correctional institutions. Fringe characters (family, putative friends, even some volunteer helpers) certainly do their fair share. Bo79's intemperate response reveals not only that Bo79 is "jaded", but that his/her motives are indeed open to serious question.

I can recall having to weed out volunteer helpers in the chaplaincy office who clearly got a sexual kick out of playing lady bountiful--or even just strutting their stuff--in front of inmates. Would-be madonnas and would-be cockteases are nothing but trouble.

The emotional voltage of a correctional institution is very high. Some are shocked to encounter that, and some are just looking for cheap jolts with the frisson of playing the bad girl/bad boy or of associating with genuine bad people. This is why corrections staff never give the benefit of the doubt to "helper" outsiders: a wise choice. Trust has to be earned, and corrections staff are very good at spotting folks with hidden agendas or emotional contraband.

 

Just out of curiosity don't you suspect the letters you will be receiving from your prospective prison pen pals will contain appeals for sympathy as they portray themselves as victims?

This is just a question, nothing contentious or belligerant intended.

 

Even behind prison walls, convicts can see the sun rise in the morning. See their loved ones. Take a breath.

Their victims had those options removed by the criminal.

 

If you dislike people portraying themselves as victims....wait until you start getting letters from death-row inmates.

 

===


"Depart from Me you cursed into the eternal fire" , (Jesus, Matthew 25)

Since you appeal to what Jesus would do for your argument, reason from the greater to the lesser: If Jesus would condone spiritual death as a judgement , why would He disapprove of physical death as a judgement?

In fact, even physical death may be a judgement in the New Testament: Possibly, "There is a sin that leads to death" (I John 5) and Certainly, in the case of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 4) and Herod (Acts 12).

So, it cannot be said that the New Testament does not portray God as effecting judgement in the form of physical death! Therefore to imply that Jesus would not cause the physical death of someone seems to be a position unsupported by these data. Of course, if one wishes to ignore NT examples, then why raise the issue of what Jesus would do at all?

This same Peter who was in Acts 4 involved in the judgement of death to two, elsewhere says, I think, that civil authorities can be a tool to effect God's punishment ( 1 Peter 2). What an opportune time it would have been there for Peter in his letter to exclude the death penalty from being in God's will. But he did not, even though such was practiced in his own day and even practiced on his own Lord as well.

IMO, ethics based on Jesus' teachings should be derived from what Jesus explicitly said, not on an assumption of what He could have said. He certainly spoke specifically on hundreds of things. But I know of nowhere that He in particular condemned a death penalty.

I really have no axe to grind here, I can be happy on this subject if I'm shown wrong. But when I see the topic "What would Jesus do?" it becomes important to me that a sound hermeneutic is employed to answer that question.

Too often in the Church guesswork substitutes for Scriptural exegetics and feelings for Christian Theology.

 

Does he guide the hand of the executioner of the innocent? How about executioners in other countries? Our is this a role that Jesus has reserved for the good ole U.S. of A.?

 

Re: Re: Execution costs far more than life

Of course, Bruce, if you dramatically slashed the number of appeals, most of the 143 innocent people exonerated by the innocence project would be dead now. I guess that would be just fine, right. I guess we just have to kill some innocent people if we are really going to clearly demonstrate the point that it is wrong to kill innocent people.

 

Bill, I am not going to carry this on like we did the Trinity issue.

I will say this, however. The most blatant example of Jesus being confronted with the issue of capital punishment was the lady caught in adultery.

Adultery was punishable by death (the death penalty). Jesus did not allow this ultimate sentence to be carried out. It's plain and simple, Bill, Jesus did not support the death penalty.

Yes, Bill, I know there are some scholars who state this passage of Scripture was not in the original manuscripts.

But, the early Christian church did not support the death penalty and they were closer to Jesus and His teachings than modern-day scholars.

The early Christians were instructed not to execute a criminal.

Listen to what Lactantius wrote in "Introduction to True Religion," and "The Divine Institutes":

"When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men. Thus it is not lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself. Nor is it [lawful] to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred creature."

Dr. Myron Augsburger, Mennonite scholar, and Dr. John Howard Yoder, another Mennonite scholar, have both addressed this subject in their various writings.

While taking a class in ethics at ESR, I had to read Yoder's works. Both he and Augsburger engaged in Biblical exegesis to support their views.

You are a scholar, they are scholars. Whom do I believe? I study the Scriptures and go with the scholars who believe Jesus was a man of peace and opposed to the death penalty.

If you really want sound exegesis, Bill, read Death Penalty Debate: Two Opposing Views of Capital Punishment. Issues of Christian Conscience, by Yoder and Wayne House.

 

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12882

Hi Bill: Check here for more of what gets learned in a Quaker ethics class, apparently.

 

Can I give you my two? Don't do it. Stop, think and listen. From personal experience, nearly all death row inmates are harden convicts. There are very very few first time offenders. Most are master manipulators who are good at getting what they want and setting people up the the meantime. You are better off not getting involved.

People, especially ones with low self-esteem (both men and women) are duped by these masters. Even some hardened and trained Correctional Officers are manipulated at times.

Take my advice, if you want to help out or want to know some inside information, help out a drug offender or go to a drug treatment facitlity to volunteer. Beleive me, you will learn more and get more out of it without having to deal with someone whose only mission in life is to get what they want (even at the cost of your life)

 

Re: Re: Execution costs far more than life

By the way, don't police officers have a tremendous vested interest here? If someone who is convicted is later exonerated by DNA evidence, not only does it mean that the police arrested the wrong person, it might that the real perpetrator went free.

I can certainly understand why police would want to limit appeals.

 

I never imagined that I would say this - and if he ever quotes me, I'll deny everything - but I have to admit that the most eloquent arguments I have read in this thread are those that have been posed by Jimmy Clifton. Damn, I'm actually starting to like the dude.

As for Bo - since I was the one who originally brought up the notion, all in humor, that this was a sexual thing - I wouldn't worry, folks . . . Chances are that he would never have in-person, let alone physical, contact with a death row inmate. If, by chance, an inmate with whom he or she (I assume Bo is a guy, but that has never been established either) is ever exonerated by DNA evidence, then they can live hapily ever after in a rose-covered cottage with a white picket fence.

With regard to Bruce - with whom I disagree on the capital punishment issue, but who is a hell of a nice guy that I like immensely - readers should keep in mind that he is a law enforcement professional by trade. Thus, Bruce's position is almost presumptive (or, for the theologian wannabes here, presuppositional). I disagree with him, but find that he presents his argument in as sound a manner as anyone.

Fortunately, having lived out my activist inclinations in my younger years and paid my dues for social justice, past that point, I don't give a rat's ass.

 

Re: Re: death row prisoners

It's true that nearly all death row inmates are harden criminals. But not all. There are a few people who made earlier mistakes, and tried to turn their lives around. But because of those earlier mistakes, they are convicted of capital murder and sentenced to die. Although I'm sure that many people believe that based on a person's past (often in combination with the color of their skin) it really doesn't matter if we kill them, even if they did not commit the crime for which they were convicted.

But, having said that, I agree that most death row inmates are guilty and are are master manipulators. There was a story a few years ago in Texas Monthly about a prison guard whose road to ruin began by giving a friendly inmate a cigarette. Their friendship had formed over months, but at that moment, it changed. Giving the inmate the cigarette was against the rules. The inmate threatened to turn him in if he did not perform other "favors." He ended up smuggling drugs in for this inmate. He was caught and convicted, and sent to prison. I can't imagine what life is like for a former prison guard who is in prison. But it all started with an act of "kindness."

 

Very few death row convicts are first offenders. The first offenders might be worth some redeemption. However, they are definitely the small minority.

At San Quentin, there are a lot of hard core Russian mafia and other groups that would kill you for a cigarette. (I am not joking). My entire point was to caution against getting involved with these types to start with. There a lot of people in need of assistance and compassion (drug offenders, etc). Death row convicts, in my opinion, are not worthy of this.

 

FOR BILL GROVER

Bill,

I forgot to tell you that I received notice my Trinity DRS courses are on the way.

The first set of course I will be taken are

Inquiry and Research of Major World Religions

Axiology and Traditional Christian Ethics

Conflict Intervention: Critical Survery of Legal Considerations

Principles and Practices of Christian Mediation

They sound very interesting.

Thanks again for your good wishes on this new venture.

 

For the first time in five years of being on DL forums, I'm speechless.

 

Truman Capote stated it well "In Cold Blood". These two fellows murdered a family in cold blood and went on a crime spree. It was terrible and disgusting. They were eventually put to death. Executions are generally done in even a colder way.

I can't agree with the death penalty in modern society. In a tribal society there probably wouldn't be any other choice, the guilty party would just not return after a "hunting accident". We can do better by locking criminals in prison. I don't consider the question a matter of right or wrong. For me, it is more of an issue of personal opinion and personal vision in what would be best for society as a whole.

 

Don't let it go to your head, Jimmy, even Steve can sometimes be wrong.

 

Re: Re: Re: Execution costs far more than life

We would like to limit them because we're sick & tired of seeing people like Mumia Abu-Jamal, who killed a Philadelphia Police Officer and whose guilt is beyond doubt, work the system to the point of absurdity. Read the story here

Jeff....name one innocent person that has been put to death in the United States.

 

As a police officer in another country that doesn't have the death penalty, I have noticed that our murder rate is not excessive because of its removal in comparison to other countries, nor has its removal made us any safer. People are now trying to wind back life sentences.

The system in western democracies is heavily weighted against the prosecution. There are so many checks and balances that prosecution is only successful in significantly less cases than the public believe. Most offenders are screened out for the lack of admissible evidence before the trial process. They only get to trial when the evidence is really outstanding, particularly for very serious offences.

Where the system is centred on retribution then the barriers to conviction rise dramatically. I have also noticed that when the sentences are reduced then the barriers don't come down and remain high as if every offender is going to the rope.

I think the certainty of conviction and some consequences for the action, if only rehabilitative is better than little certainty of conviction and high consequences for the convicted. Getting an early kick in the bum for a minor offence might be better than waiting until the evidence is overwhelming and then killing him/her, although most well and truly deserve it.

Maybe there can be a scaled system, where different standards are applied depending on the severity of the crime. We might have fewer in the prisons for lengthy periods or like the US awaiting death. The system would not be a joke.

On another note, my father who was also a police officer and I once pondered if we had ever met a murderer who was actually sorry for the crime. After several minutes, we had to admit we had only met murderers who were sorry they got caught, not for the crime. I know I will be painted by others, not with actual kowledge of the area, as biaised. So be it.