 |
name: Mark Spencer
email: cavebear@erols.com
Thursday, 15-Jan-1998 15:49 PST
Deterance, punishment, and the removal of dangerous persons from society are all legitimate reasons for incaration or execution. Parole or pardon should be reserved for those situations where society deems that all three purposes have been satisfied or are no longer required in any particular case. I think that the release of Karla Tucker would send an undesirable signal to other citizens. If Karla Tucker is released, deterence would be weakened. I, for one, do not think that sufficient punishment has yet been provided for the crime Karla Tucker committed.
name: Eric DeArment
email: ejd@efn.org
Thursday, 15-Jan-1998 16:08 PST
While I am, for the most part, against the death penalty, I still believe that there are some crimes out there that are so heinous that the person who committed the crime deserves to lose their life.
Also, I am completely against the notion of making believers and women impervious to the death penalty, since all that will do is make it alright for
theists and women to go out and commit horrible crimes and get away with them. Whether she's female or male, Christian or atheist, I don't think that she should be exempt from the death penalty.
name: Kelly Roach
email: kbroach@daisy.uwaterloo.ca
Thursday, 15-Jan-1998 16:30 PST
If there were any logic to Christianity,
Pat Robertson's ilk should not mind sending
Christians to "Heaven" now instead of later.
Could it be that "Heaven" is not really that
great a place after all compared to Earth?
Maybe "Heaven" is wormy, dark, wet, and smells
a lot like dirt on Earth.
name: Ernest Dickinson
email: edickins@capecod.net
Thursday, 15-Jan-1998 18:33 PST
I strongly oppose capital punishment for anyone under any conditions. What I fear is that your stand against showing favoritism to to Ms Tucker can easily be interpreted as favoring her death. YOU SHOULD PLEAD FOR CLEMENCY FOR HER BUT SPECIFY YOU ARE NOT DOING SO ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. WE SHOULD NOT BE SO PREOCCUPIED WITH OUR OWN ATHEISM THAT WE HELP SEND THIS POOR WOMAN TO HER DEATOR. Then we should fight against state murder of all others.
name: Alice Mitchell
email: amitchell2@earthlink.net
Thursday, 15-Jan-1998 19:13 PST
It's funny that only 25% of those polled so far
show support for the death penalty, and yet 63%
support the death penalty for this particular
person. I hope WE are not considering religious
conversion as a factor in whether or not a person
should be executed! Since 98% say conversion
should not be a factor, I think some of us must be
a little hypocritical.
name: "Fish" (David B. Trout)
email: dtrout@wolfenet.com
Thursday, 15-Jan-1998 20:26 PST
Someone please explain to me how a person can honestly answer "No" to the survey question "Do you support the death penalty?" and "Yes" to "Should Karla Faye Tucker be executed?"
According to the current stats (a/o 8:28pm PST with 126 total votes), a 59% of those who voted *oppose* the death penalty, YET a whopping *62%* **still** feel Karla Faye Tucker should be executed!?!!
That simply does not compute!
Moderator's note: I was listening to a radio talk show
yesterday, and several people said they were opposed to the death penalty,
but in favor of having it applied equally as long as it is the law. This
was not an "atheist" show. Some of the callers with this point of view
specifically identified themselves as Christian. Anyhow, apparently this is a fairly
common sentiment, and not restricted to atheists. Also, isn't it refreshing
to be surprised by poll results? Doesn't it perhaps make you think about
your own position?
name: Richard Larson
email: zenman@mail.ez-sys.net
Friday, 16-Jan-1998 01:50 PST
I do not support the death penalty for anyone. I (personaly) believe that the death penalty is excessive and accomplishes nothing other than satisfying an addiction to violence, revenge, and death. However there are many who feel that killing people is the only way to make society safe from people who kill people. Most of those people are the very same people who now ask that a killer be spared, simple because she has now joined their "Club". The hypocracy of religions is easy to see in the excuses made for "People of Faith" and the accusations toward the "Godless" over the same sins. No doubt many more people will be executed before our bloodlust is quenched. There is no reason that Karla Faye shouldn't be the next victim. If she truely is "BORN Again" she would feel it her duty to die...... wouldn't she? Besides "She should have thought about that before the ax swung".
name: Ian Dorion
email: dorioni@ipa.net
Friday, 16-Jan-1998 07:54 PST
The 'criminal-justice' system is broke ... it just doesn't work. I think it needs a good overhaul but I do not have the time or space to go into it now.
If Karla Faye should be spared, it should be because she has reformed, irrespective of her religious beliefs.
I do not believe any person should be put to death on their first violent conviction. Has Karla Faye been convicted of any other violent crimes?
What we need is a system that will take a person on their first and second offenses and try to rehabilitate them.
name: Andrew Robert Collins
email: acollins@freethinker.org
Friday, 16-Jan-1998 08:28 PST
Life imprisonment meets the same requirements
for punishment that termination does.
Anyone who doubts this has not done thier
research. It is that simple. In order to have
any kind of opinion on a matter a person must
be informed on that issue. To be informed is
not to just to have "been in the situation",
but to have knowledge about other people's
involvement in the matter as well. Every
execution in the United States is stamped with
an "Okay By Me" from every one of its citizens.
It is an indefensible position to suggest that
this is not the case.
name: Shirley Larson
email: laurco@mail.ez-sys.net
Friday, 16-Jan-1998 14:48 PST
I find the death penalty an insane "solution" to any crime. That Pat Robertson, or any other religious person seeking sympathy based on her religious beliefs shows what hypocrites they are. How dare they judge others, often insisting the death penalty be implemented, but then seek clemency for "an attractive petite white born again christian". If anything, they should be demanding her death, just as an example.
name: W. Koch
email: uevolve@lancnews.infi.net
Friday, 16-Jan-1998 17:39 PST
I sure hope that "we" atheists are not giving
hypocritical answers to the questions!
I for one am not sure of the death penalty, though I believe
that it does NOT deter crime. I say allow her to
rot in her own little hell, (oops cell).
name: Barb Reiland-Holcomb
email: bholcom@caverns.com
Friday, 16-Jan-1998 20:17 PST
If every human being has an inherent right to life, then every human being who willfully takes the right of life from another has forfeited his right to life. That may not be diminished by government fiat.
name: Matthew T. Rupert
email: hoagy@netmeg.org
Friday, 16-Jan-1998 23:12 PST
(No comment)
name: Conrad Goeringer
email: cg@atheists.org
Saturday, 17-Jan-1998 07:50 PST
While atheists may differ over the morality of the
death penalty, religionists can't give us a consistent opinion on this issue
based on their "infallible" and "inspired" texts.
So much for Divine Revelation.
It's ironic, too, that in supporting the death penalty in most cases, religionists like Pat Robertson believe that a clump of fetal tissue has more rights than a fully-grown, conscious human being. I oppose the state-sanctioned death penalty; that is an awesome power to give to the government (hey, where are those conservatives who are so resentful of omnipotent government, anyway?). But religious belief should not be a litmus test for clemency, or any other special consideration.
name: Steven
email: 74722.2735@compuserve.com
Saturday, 17-Jan-1998 15:55 PST
I’m an Atheist and I fully support the death penalty.
While some cry that we should not be punishing criminals but, instead,
rehabilitating them, I say rehabilitation is a limited
solution, useful only to the young or for those convicted of "minor"
offenses. Once you murder, however, you are beyond rehabilitation and society
owes you nothing. Additionally, we sentence criminals not just as
punishment/rehabilitation for the individual, but also as a deterrent to
others. The death penalty is the ultimate deterrent
and the number of murders would surely by higher without it.
name: Tom Dougherty
email: tdoughe259@aol.com
Saturday, 17-Jan-1998 16:09 PST
Dear Sir:
I think if Tucker's sentence is commuted it will have more to do with her
gender than her religion. However, I will admit that here in Texas
finding "jesus" can't hurt.
name: Randy Taylor
email: rytaylor@prodigy.net
Saturday, 17-Jan-1998 18:25 PST
The faithful come together for their weakness, their fear of the "great
beyond" and fear of a world that naturally challenges them. They will
only support each other. Their bond is based on the inability to justify
their lives by simply living it. Robertson is doing what anyone would expect
- as blindly as he embraces his belief, he embraces the contradictions that
define his belief. This is the foundation of ignorance and the ability to
believe in the unbelievable. Karla Faye Tucker slayed another human being
without a hint of just cause. She is a liability to society and should be
treated as such. As sad as it is to end a person's singular life, there
comes a point where responsibility dictates that you commit the gravest
justice. Utilitarian principals speak wisdom in this case. Tucker has no
place to selfishly claim her right to life and Robertson is nothing more
than a fool to support her.
name: Ray Davis
email: rdavis@memphisonline.com
Sunday, 18-Jan-1998 05:17 PST
Nearly every prisoner facing death or parole claims conversion in one form
or other. Forgive them all? I don't know anything about the case, but do
believe in the death penalty for any intentional murder by sane adults.
I would however prefer life in prison without possibility of parole,
television, radio, or any other form of entertainment, and limited human
contact over death). Her claimed conversion should have no bearing on her
fate whatsoever.
name: keif
email: keiferji@rocketmail.com
Sunday, 18-Jan-1998 08:23 PST
This is not an issue of Christianity. It is an issue of sexuality.
My own opinion is that her death sentence will be repealed. Does the name
Louise Woodward ring a bell? It's ok, men! The sword of sexism cuts both
ways and we, as males, deserve a few more stitches!!
name: Steven Henderson
email: jlh1942@aol.com
Sunday, 18-Jan-1998 08:31 PST
Man isn't inherently good or evil. Man has free will and he can choose to be
either good or evil. If someone chooses to be evil and committ murder then
they should be executed if found guilty by a jury. One's right to life ends
once they infringe on another's equal right to life and murder them. They
aren't acting like a human being when they murder another human being they
are acting like an animal and therefore don't have any rights like animals.
name: Gregory J. Payne
email: gjpayne@execulink.com
Sunday, 18-Jan-1998 08:45 PST
I am very happy to be Canadian. This would never be an issue in Canada.
We abolished the death penalty in the 1960's. With the exception of the
Reform Party, there is only periodic pressure to bring it back (usually after
the murder of a police officer). Our homicide rate is much lower than that
of the U.S. which negates the deterance argument (okay, so strict gun control
is also a factor). In 1996, David Milgaard and Guy-Paul Morin had murder
convictions overturned by D.N.A. evidence. Both were released after long
stays in prison. Had they been convicted in the some parts of the U.S.
they would been sentenced to die. They would have been long dead before the
new evidence became available. If the death penalty is abolished there would
no longer be a debate about whether it is applied fairly and equally.
name: Robert Mercer
email: wubbie@powernet.net
Sunday, 18-Jan-1998 14:50 PST
As far as Karla Faye Tucker is concerned, the question of whether to impose
the death penalty or not is dependent upon the nature of her crime--about
which I have no details, other than that she committed murder. Since a jury
saw fit to condemn her within the present legal structure and code, it seems
to me that the penalty should be carried out. It isn't what you do after
being told what the punishment is that counts, but what you did to subject
yourself to the punishment.
In regards to the death penalty, it seems to me that there should be a
distinct secularist position on the death penalty that logically arises
from the particular cognitive framework that defines the secular perspective
(given the assumption that a secular viewpoint is logical, scientific and
rational). The key questions here are: what purpose the death penalty serves;
how effect it is in serving that purpose; and the economic, political, and
social ramifications of continuing or stopping the imposition and application
of the death penalty.
name: Jim Heldberg
email: jimhpac@aol.com
Monday, 19-Jan-1998 12:59 PST
She committed a civil crime, and should pay the civil penalty.
If she wants to change her religion while she's alive, that's OK, but
religion can't overrule law.
The state is a necessity for all human progress. Religion is an optional
activity for a few. Their combination is far worse than both of them
separately.
Save "Murderers for Jesus?" No way!
name: BC Taylor
email: bctrog@csranet.com
Tuesday, 20-Jan-1998 08:20 PST
Sauce for the goose;
"Kill them all, for God knows His own."
- Attributed to the Papal legate at the siege of
Beziers during the Albigensian "Crusade,"
when asked if good Christians should be spared.
Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Faith, vol. 4 of
The Story of Civilization
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950) 775
name: Ray Renfrow
email: rrenfrow@vt.edu
Tuesday, 20-Jan-1998 08:41 PST
Really, I think the death penalty is too quick and easy. Let cold-blooded
murderers like Faye rot for life in prison. 50+ years of solitary sound
a lot worse than a quick zap in the chair or a lethal injection. Plus, if
it turns out the imprisoned was actually innocent, you can always let him out.
Ms. Faye's punishment should be carried out according to the laws of the
state of Texas without regard to her religion or lack thereof. She has
unjustly deprived others of life, so she must pay one way or the other,
here and now.
name: Brandon Burt
email: Brandon.Burt@m.cc.utah.edu
Tuesday, 20-Jan-1998 09:39 PST
Pat Robertson is attempting to position Karla Faye Tucker as a christian
martyr. Far from wanting to save her life, the televangelist intends to stir
up controversy in anticipation of Tucker's execution. Then, when she is
inevitably executed, Robertson's followers will have more reason to violently
oppose the so-called "wicked secular-humanist death-culture".
name: Jonathon Popphan
email: jpopphan@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 20-Jan-1998 11:57 PST
This woman has been convicted of a crime under the only law that counts:
the secular law of humankind. This woman was sentenced to death and should
be executed without any regard to her gender, her religious belief (or
non-belief, for that matter), or her behaviour while incarcerated. It is very
easy to become a "good" person while in state custody - perhaps
if she had tried harder while she was a prostitute and drug addict and before
killing someone she would not have put herself in the situation she is in now.
I say execute her *right now*, today, immediately!! Do not allow the facist,
"Religious Right" to use this woman to promote their agenda.
Just because she has deluded herself into believing in "god" does
not mean that she should be exhonorated from her sentence or released into the
public. I do not want this woman, or anyone else in her situation, released
to walk the streets and be given the chance to take another life.
name: Bill
email: billnsue@itouch.net
Tuesday, 20-Jan-1998 12:20 PST
I am 100% for the death penalty. It should also be used to rid society of
agressively violent people. (those who initiate violence against fellow human
beings) We should not have to, as a society, waste precious resources
keeping these scum alive. I would also broadcast these executions and do a
kind of "This is Your Life" program to impress upon people that
violence will not be tolerated.
To do this we MUST MAKE SURE that we execute the right people by modifying
the hell out of our present legal system which is a farce. Also, we have to
legalize gambling, prostitution, drugs, public nudity, and anything else that
is a "learned" crime. If a person takes it upon hiself to be
offended by the above "crimes" thanks to some wacko religious
ideas, TOUGH! But, a person should be able to go anywhere, anytime in this
country and feel safe from personal or property crime. It's time we reverse
the tables and terrorize the criminals in this country.
I realize these views are extreme, especially coming from an atheist. Yes,
it is true that life is precious. That's why I think we should exterminate
(too strong a word? nah, It gets attention quickly!) the scum that has
demonstrated contempt for OUR lives. Life, liberty, and the persuit of
happiness. If someone wants to take ANY of it away I hope the son of a bitch
FRIES!
Moderator's note: son? :)
name: David Shakespeare
email: shaxdave@aol.com
Tuesday, 20-Jan-1998 14:48 PST
The more crowded the world becomes, I think the more "barbaric"
it will be. No one deserves to die, but then again, I've never had any one
close to me tarred n feathered either. - dave -
name: Russell Easy
email: rdeasy@sympatico.ca
Tuesday, 20-Jan-1998 18:41 PST
I have become an atheist through rational and what I believe are very
justified methods.
The notion of Capital Punishment is the antithesis of just or rational.
Why should the act of one individual cause a reciprocation of the same when
it is this very act that they are to be condemned for?
We are atheists because we see religious systems as largely unethical.
To allow capital Punishment we turn our backs on our morals and thus our
sense of what we beleive is rational and ethical.
I cannot and will not support this crime.
name: Anthony Kaminski
email: Tony4ka@aol.com
Tuesday, 20-Jan-1998 19:47 PST
It's really unbelieveable what the republicans can promote and be for!
name: J.R. Ector
email: realist@bellatlantic.net
Wednesday, 21-Jan-1998 07:36 PST
I believe that Robertson and other believers
are making an exception because Tucker is
white, female, semi-attractive and born-again.
She should be treated just like any other person
sentenced to death, no special treatment.
name: Susan Crabb
email: susan.crabb@tac.state.tx.us
Wednesday, 21-Jan-1998 09:54 PST
It would be a dangerous precedent if Gov. Bush grants clemency to this woman.
Not only is it wrong to consider her differently because she is a woman, but
her religious ferver is no cause for discrimination. Many death-row inmates
are "born again", but they are not considered for clemency based
on that fact. Karla Faye Tucker is no different.
name: Eyal Rozenberg
email: veronica@taux01.nsc.com
Wednesday, 21-Jan-1998 14:18 PST
There is no reason to grant someone pardon just
because they've gone mental/discovered religion/
shaved their entire body hair/started speaking
without the consonant "s"/etc.
Plus...
What about born-again atheists? "I thought the
'lord' wanted him killed, but now I know better."
I'd like to see the Xtian reaction to that one!
name: David J. Patterson
email: dpatterson@ffg.com
Wednesday, 21-Jan-1998 15:03 PST
While I am an atheist, I believe your organization places too much emphasis
on religion in society. Tucker may have the sympathies of the 700 Club, I
believe most people, atheist or theist, feel that she should still be
executed (if they support the death penalty). This issue should not be a
basis to seperate atheists further from theists, but to unite us in a common
cause. Theists should be apalled that Tucker is using "god" as a
way out. It's a complete fraud and any person should see that despite their
shroud of belief.
name: Jennifer Kerns
email: jak5@grove.ufl.edu
Wednesday, 21-Jan-1998 19:24 PST
I'm against the death penalty, but to grant clemency to Karla Tucker would be
grossly unfair to others on death row. It doesn't really matter to Pat
Robertson that she changed for the better; what matters is that she changed
because of her conversion to his particular faith. If Tucker had become a
loving person by reading Corliss Lamont's *Philosophy of Humanism* he
wouldn't give a flying fig what happened to her.
name: Susan Kasten
email: susank@efn.org
Thursday, 22-Jan-1998 00:37 PST
I found it difficult to vote on this survey. I am adamantly against the
death penalty and voted that she should not be put to death. However, I do
not feel she, or anyone else should get special treatment. Should she ot be
put to death would that not be a reason to reconsider the death penalty?
Surely it would not be considered constitutional if it is so obviously
applied unevenly, as if it isn't now!
name: Bob Scherago
email: scheragor@compuserve.com
Thursday, 22-Jan-1998 05:52 PST
Ms. Tucker was convicted of heinous crimes and,
rightly, given a harsh sentence. While it is
positive that she is now "reformed," it seems to
me that her conversion to Christianity was
inspired by the Christian myth of heaven and hell,
and thus her conversion was to provide her with a
pass (in her mind) to heaven. I say, let her go
there, and let Pat Robertson and his followers go
to hell!
name: c.a. larure
email: wianac@webtv.net
Thursday, 22-Jan-1998 06:44 PST
i do not support the death penalty & have argued this w/ many people.
it always comes down to them basically supporting it for viseral reasons--it
feels good to hurt someone who hurt a loved one. they even talk about giving
a little more "juice" @ a time to inflict the most pain before
the sentenced persons death and go jome feeling very righteous & christian.
however so long as there is such a penalty, there should be no exemptions
due to religious convictions. besides the (should be) obvious problems with
this--it also seeks to coerce a belief system on others. anyone sentenced to
die who might ive if he/she says he/she is a born again x-tian would be
mighty tempted to say that. it's no different than threat of torture to gain
religious conversions!
name: Fernando Aguilar
email: aguilfer@bmi.net
Thursday, 22-Jan-1998 19:44 PST
My sister was murdered by a man and woman couple in Oregon. They killed
over 20 women while their spree lasted. I still do not believe that more
murder will satisfy my grief or return my sister. Couldn't labotomy serve
a similar deterent while leaving life and still allowing criminals to
perform some tasks. Even life imprisonment can serve the community.
But, death seems too wasteful.
name: Dennis G. Wicks
email: wix@eskimo.com
Thursday, 22-Jan-1998 21:35 PST
I am really saddened that we need a death penalty
but I also realize that some peoples crimes against
their fellows are so terrible that they must not
be allowed to get loose in society again.
But in cases like the woman a few years ago who killed
her children by pushing her car into a lake, they
deserve cruel & unusual punishment: put her in a cell
for the rest of her life and arrange things so that no
matter where she looks, she will see pictures of
the children that she killed.
name: nlm
email: SnkEys@aol.com
Friday, 23-Jan-1998 11:46 PST
I think life without possibility of parole is more of a punishment. The other
reason for not killing someone would be the mistake factor.
I would only think of capital punishment if: there was absloutely NO doubt
of guilt and the death could be as cruel as was inflicted by the perpetrator.
Also studying the mind of a criminal or murderer might be more
beneficial or fascinating rather than killing them 1st.
name: Crag Orsinger
email: corsinger@aol.com
Monday, 26-Jan-1998 01:23 PST
While I believe that a person's beliefs and
attitudes can be changed through religion, there
appears to be little recognition on the part of
the state that people can have a change of heart
for purely secular reasons.
There also appears to be very little scientific
study of religiously-inspired reform among
criminals, so any claims that an individual has
been "saved" by religion need to be taken with
a grain of salt.
name: John Kuenzi
email: JJUSTINK9@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
Monday, 26-Jan-1998 21:03 PST
It all has to do with responsibility,
something which a lot of people don't
seem to be willing to accept.
Karla Tucker is responsible for taking
the life of another human being.
She is guilty. She was convicted.
She has forfeited any right to life.
Gender does not enter into this equation.
Her victims had no recourse whatever.
This woman's life should be terminated.
My overall feeling is simple; if you are
responsible for taking a life, you forfeit
your own. If this were applied evenly
across the board, I think the murder &
manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) rate
would drop dramatically.
John
name: Ian Dorion
email: dorioni@ipa.net
Tuesday, 27-Jan-1998 12:40 PST
Why is Pat Robertson trying to keep Karla Faye from meeting Jesus? I should
think that any good Christian would be more than willing to die for the
privilage.
name: Marie Houck
email: mehouck@netgate.net
Wednesday, 28-Jan-1998 10:59 PST
Since I don't believe the death penalty is ever justifiable, I don't believe
that Karla Faye Tucker should be executed. However, I do find myself
offended by the right wing conservative's argument that HER version of
redemption is somehow more "real" or important than that experienced
by other people who have committed violent crimes and later
"repented" (the religious language seems appropriate here) just
because their redemption/repentance didn't include Jesus.
name: M. Jackson Ellis II
email: NPoorman@aol.com
Wednesday, 28-Jan-1998 12:47 PST
What would be Robertson's position towards Ms. Tucker's survival if her
conversion had been to Buddhism? How is he disposed towards the bombers of
the World Trade Center? This is "special interest" (reads polical
and $$$ clout) blatantly seeking a circumvention of established law.
Enough of Robertson's nakedly power-hungry, putatively "Christian"
meddling in the politics of a nation which is and must remain culturally as
well as religiously diverse!
name: M. Jackson Ellis II
email: NPoorman@aol.com
Wednesday, 28-Jan-1998 12:48 PST
What would be Robertson's position towards Ms. Tucker's survival if her conversion had been to Buddhism? How is he disposed towards the bombers of the World Trade Center? This is "special interest" (reads polical and $$$ clout) blatantly seeking a circumvention of established law. Enough of Robertson's nakedly power-hungry, putatively "Christian" meddling in the politics of a nation which is and must remain culturally as well as religiously diverse!
name: Timothy Kydd
email: borah@coredcs.com
Wednesday, 28-Jan-1998 17:28 PST
Capital punishment is a horrid institution; a remnent of our cruel, barbaric
past. I support absolute, unconditional abolishment of the deathpenalty.
However, if it must exist (as it does in America today); it should be
instituted fairly. No preferences for religion or sex should be made.
I don't want to see Tucker or any other death rowinmate executed. But she
should not be spared above anyone else merely because of a religious
conversion.
name: Earl Kaye
email: reavo@oconee.com
Wednesday, 28-Jan-1998 18:19 PST
Although I am not an atheist, Ms. Tucker's crime and punishment has NOTHING
to do with her "convienient" and sudden religion. If she believes
in God, then she will have no trouble meeting him. I only regret she can't
be put to death twice. Once for each murder she committed.
name: Richard Haggard
email: richardh@cneti.com
Thursday, 29-Jan-1998 03:58 PST
The hypocrites seeking clemency for Ms. Tucker seek special rights for
attractive white female inmates. They ignore most inmates' jailhouse
conversions because even they realize that most are self-serving.
name: Stephanie Heck
email: sheck@marshall.edu
Thursday, 29-Jan-1998 10:21 PST
I feel that the legal issues surrounding Karla Faye
Tucker are being exploited by Pat Robertson and those
who blindly follow him.
The atheist community may wish to take note that the
bible proscribes the death penalty for a murderer.
In giving his overt support of clemency pleas on behalf
of Ms. Tucker, Pat Robertson has undermined the
standards of justice that he alledges are inscribed in
his biblical pseudo-scripture.
He has done an exellent job of contradicting his
alledged creators mandates. I contemplated that I was
the only one opposed to biblical mandates. I was grossly
mistaken.
As long as he continues this crusade on behalf of a
female convicted murderer. He is in the limelight.
He has postured himself in such a manner as to portray
himself as a christian crusader, assisting a damsel in
mortal distress. How romantic and gothicly passe!
A logical secular mind can only reason that Pat
Robertson is deluded in his efforts to bring his
concepts of christian chivilry to death row.
Are we are witnessing a re-run of a gothic plot, where
the knight heroicly attempts to rescue the damsel
from mortal danger? Is chivilry dead..?
Or has Pat Robertson caused chivilry to be "born again"
in the ladie's room on death row? Dont bet on it.
This causes a secular mind to ponder a relevent question.
If christian chivilry is alive and well on death row.
How long will it live?
Stephanie Heck
sheck@marshall.edu
name: Jim Rogers
email: j.rogers@pobox.com
Thursday, 29-Jan-1998 14:44 PST
Religion is irrelevant. There are some crimes so heinous that the
criminal exhibits abject disregard for human life and welfare, and
society shouldn't waste a moment fretting over their deaths. The
pragmatic side is that victims require a sense that justice is
done, and when the system is regularly too lenient, we wind up
with rampant vigilantism. Social quietude thus requires that we
punish such extreme criminals most severely via the safeguards of
the courts, rather than letting it happen on the streets.
name: George Johnston
email: GeeJayatom@aol.com
Thursday, 29-Jan-1998 19:50 PST
Turning to religion, now ,after murdering, sorry, it's too late.
Every murderer is going to be sorry. They are going to use religion as an
excuse to get out of death row. Who wouldn't?
If religionists believe in a hell, then according to their beliefs there must
be a punishment. So punish her.
Mr. Robertson prays and prays on tv. Why doesn't he just pray that she lives
instead of actually trying to contact the governor himself. All he has to
do is pray and see if his "god " saves her. Go ahead Patty boy,
pray... actually he knows it won't work, so he has to play god and take care
of it himself.
If we let her go, they are going to win and spread more ignorance among our
nation. It will spoil them. No, Hang her. Kill this one and save millions.
Truman did. He killed thousands to save millions with those beautiful A-Bombs.
If someone is going to give the injection or pull the switch or open the trap
door. Let the mourner do it. I would rather pull the switch or give the
injection to anyone who would have killed my son or daughter or whomever.
I know it is a horror if one is accused and didn't do it. That is my only
hold back, but when you are sure, and you have to be sure first, then get
rid of them. Robertson is not trying to help prove her innocence, meaning he
knows she is guilty. He would even support the murderers who kill abortion
doctors and blow up centers killing nurses, etc. He contributes to these
murders. And that is what he is doing now.
name: Laura Lansberry
email: gallae@azstarnet.com
Friday, 30-Jan-1998 05:05 PST
Ellen Johnson has written an article against capital punishment ...
her article expresses a dispassionate view of criminals that
dismisses the right of a victim to restitution and to receive
emotional resolution.
The most important reason for the death penalty is to bring peace to
the still living victims. A murderer attacks more than the murdered party,
and their crime is against more than the person they have killed. Discounting
the rights of the victim through some appeal to compassion for the perpetrator
is misplaced justice.
Still, if the death penalty is abolished, there is one good thing if anyone
I love is murdered ... I won't have to fear it for myself.
name: Bryan Hayward
email: bpghayward@juno.com
Friday, 30-Jan-1998 09:18 PST
I am generally not in favor of the death penalty only
because it is not good for the state to decide who lives
and who dies. On the other hand, those people who are
criminally insane, and *will* kill again if given the
chance, must be permanently separated from society. In
these cases, which is more humane, lifetime solitary
confinement, or death? While I'd prefer a permanent exile
instead, such punishments are unlikely, and politically
incorrect.
name: R E Li
email: Li_re@hotmail.com
Friday, 30-Jan-1998 13:18 PST
Nature did not intend this dilemna. Man made it.
It can never be morally correct for
one individual to kill another as part of a prison
sentence. It is okay to feel that you want the
criminal to be tortured for the rest of his life.
But it would be inhuman to do the torturing. There
are many cases of a parent or spouse seeing the
rapist or murderer on the street fifteen or twenty
years later--the criminal has finished serving his
sentence, but the lost loved one has not been
waking up each morning for the past fifteen years.
Good people will always suffer. There is no solution.
People kill in defense of their family,
during war, by accident, through drunk driving.
To purposely kill at the end of imprisonment is
not what our government should encourage. I'm sure
the family and friends of the victim want the
criminal to share the agony he forced on someone
else. If "physical torture every day for the rest
of your life" were the punishment for murder,
rape, kidnapping, abuse, etc., would the crime rate go down??
There is no solution because humans were not meant to dispense such horror
nor to find satisfaction in it. People might be
for the death penalty because even the most
horrible individual locked up has access to books,
color tv, blankets, ice cream, music, exercise,
etc., while the victim of such a criminal is
biodegrading physically or mentally.
name: Scott Holcomb
email: Karmazon@hotmail.com
Friday, 30-Jan-1998 13:19 PST
Capital punishment derives its use as a deterrant, not a punishment.
My fear is that this case would set a precedent, and every member of death
row would be 'finding' gawd. How easy is that? If you take away the goal,
you lose the ambition; If you take away the accountability, you lose the
self-control. Thank you.
View Poll Results.
![[back]](../backarrow.gif) Back
to Top of Forum.
![[top]](/uparrow.gif)
Copyright
© 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.
|
name: Margie Wait