: : : 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.

: Furthermore, many - if not most - of the people who end up on death row are victims themselves, of poverty, of racism, of poor education, of child abuse, of sexual assault, of police abuse, of neglect by this society. Where are the institutions that are supposed to take care of these people have fallen through the (very large and getting wider) cracks? Axed to budget cuts, that where. I am not saying that if we only give these murderers a hug, then everything will be ok and all nicey-nice and happy. But I am saying that we have a responsibility to end the cycle in which victim become victimisers. That in the end is the only solution, and if Texas is any indication, the death penalty only *increases* violent crime and murder rates.

: We have to think all these things through, and not react reflexively to things that seem (and are!) horrible, without looking deeper. Isn't that also a theme in Tolkien? Sure Tolkien is all about fighting evil, fighting the "enemy", but it's also about knowing who your enemy is. To go back to the murder in Minas Tirith, who was really more a danger to the city and its people: Beregond, who was an admitted murderer? Or Denethor, who was the lord of the city and who had killed no one?

: This is not an easy issue, but surely we all know what hate and vengeance lead to in Tolkien world. The question then is: Can Tolkien teach us anything about our own?

: Yours in thoughtfulness,

: Dave C-Q

: P.S. About the facsist label. I don't like bandying it about freely. Mostly because the situation doesn't call for it. Nazis/facsists are a certain, specific type of right-wing political extremist who need to be confronted and fought (like the KKK, or the National Front in France, or the British National Party). From what I've read here, nobody has indicated they are fascists, and we should sling mud like that; it only polarizes the debate into name-calling. However, just as an FYI. This debate is really only applicable to Americans. Every other advanced country (i.e., not developing countries) has long since consigned the death penalty to the dustbin of history. I don't know where Hugh Toner is from, but his attitude seems very European to me - dismissing the whole thing as barbaric and wondering what the fuss is all about. In those countries, it is usually only fascists that call for a reinstatement of the death penalty, though some mainstream conservatives have done so as well. (Just an FYI for some context.)

Not only "first world countries" have scrapped the Death penalty.
Many African and Asian developing countries do without it aswell. (I am a South African, myself...the death penalty was scrapped here five or six years ago.)