: : Not explicit -- as I said, I've pondered this passage both as a death penalty foe and as a pro-albeit-reticent death penalty advocate. It is more "barbaric" to allow violent offenders out onto the street where they attack and maim and even kill again and again. The person murdered also cannot be brought back and has no ultimate appeal. Where is the compassion for them? Where is the dignity and worth of the victim?

: : We have a case here close to my house where a little boy camping with his mom went from his tent into the bathroom. When he took too long, his mom went in to find him *brutally* murdered. The killer was caught, tried, and has been sentenced to death -- per the killer's own recommendation. I watched this young man testify via TV, and he has *ZERO* remorse. He says that it is his mission in life to destroy this society in any way possible, and that if he is not executed he will kill again and again. Per his own words, he is our enemy, and the only sensible thing for us to do is sentence him to death.

: : What made me switch? I don't know, but as of last month I now have a guess. I've practiced Kung Fu for six years now, and sometimes we get into discussions about the rare situations when violence is appropriate. One evening the discussion turned to the Death Penalty. One of the black belts made the statement that conservatives were former liberals who had been attacked and brutalized. His words hit me in the gut harder than any blow of a fist I've ever taken. And he's very right. There's nothing like a little reality to put your ideals into perspective.

: : After all, why else would I be studying Kung Fu for six years? Because the next person who attacks me will be lucky to see the inside of a court room. It's not that I want to cause unecessary harm -- I don't have a need for revenge. But it ain't gonna happen again, and depending on the nature of an attack, i.e. if it involved a gun or some other life threatening situation, I would not hesitate in that moment to be judge, jury, ... and executioner.

: : Does that strike you as barbaric?

: : I see it as simply and sadly necessary.

: : Blessings,

: : Galadriel
: : Who hopes she will never, ever be forced into such a situation

: The very idea that you can eliminate dangerous people as if they were weeds by just zapping them away in a frenzy of genetic cleansing, is in my opinion not only barbaric but also hypocrit and facist. Remember Jesus said "let he who is without sin throw the first stone". I believe it is wrong to use any more violence than is necessaty for your self-defence. The real problems of crime must be addressed by rebuilding society, education, good examples etc. and not meeting violence by more senseless violence and so giving the violent-minded the impression that violence is okay and even good. My reading of Tolkien supports me in these views. Among the free peoples, punishment was always compassionate. One exception was the imprisonment of Eomer, but that was under the influence of Grima, and reflects very much the modern justice system, devoid of compassion and clinging to the letter of the law.

What Galadriel and I have said is a far cry from 'zapping weeds', and we certainly never advocated 'genetic cleansing'! Please understand that I totally agree with you that it is wrong to use more violence than is necessary: it should be used with compassion (as I said before), restraint, and as a last resort. It should not be done for vengence but for justice, and if there is any doubt as to the motives or guilt certainly execution should be stayed. I take no pleasure in the thought of seeing the guilty 'zapped'. It is a great sadness to me. You have raised several other issues that I disagree with, but this is not the proper forum, as we are straying from the intent of the White Council. I will however, address what Jesus said about casting the first stone. The crowd he was addressing was completely devoid of the mercy & compassion Galdriel and I have been advocating. They wanted to trap Jesus between the Jewish law and the Roman law and didn't care if the woman died as a byproduct. He did not explicitly do away with the government's use of capital punishment. A brief answer to a complex issue. I don't want to further pursue this on the White Council because it is getting so far from the intent of the board. Feel free to disagree with my views. Just please don't try to characterize what I said as something it isn't.

Respectfully,
-Steve S.