|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2010 20:42:35 GMT -5
I wonder how much time I'll have sitting in airports tomorrow so I can fully answer . . . I have a few where "religion" comes into the picture . . . and I especially look forward to HA's lob ball! I don't know, buds. I mean ... religion and law in the same discussion? Can we be objective about it? Cheers. hey, if we can talk Habs and Leafs in the same discussion, why not? ;D seriously, since many of our laws have a religious basis, why not? and since it has already been mentioned, again, why not? I think [as always] that if we can be civil it can be a great part of the discussion. if we can be civil . . . |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 20, 2010 20:50:00 GMT -5
I wonder how much time I'll have sitting in airports tomorrow so I can fully answer . . . I have a few where "religion" comes into the picture . . . and I especially look forward to HA's lob ball! I don't know, buds. I mean ... religion and law in the same discussion? Can we be objective about it? Cheers. I won't be joining in such a debate, because I don't think it fits in a case like this. Religion might be used to comfort the victims' families, if they so choose. There really is no objectivity about religion. If you believe, you're going to defend. If you don't, you're going to argue why you think it's bogus. Totally subjective. Unless one is open-minded and willing to discuss, listen, agree to disagree.....religion-talk gets very messy. That's it for me on this tangent here. I'd rather discuss religion face-to-face. Too much gets misconstrued in print. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 20, 2010 21:57:41 GMT -5
Good post, BC. There's only one handgrenade you left smoking out there. I'd like to ask you, how is locking up an inmate for life cheaper in the long run? Dis, see here: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/Of course you could shorten or tighten up the appeal process... but then if you do that aren't you increasing the risk that you execute an innocent person? Thanks BC. A good read. What I think jumped out at me the most was "the Hangin' Judge" doing a 180-degree shift based not so much on humanity, but on economic costs. I'm not sure if the figures would be the same in Canada, so I Googled, "how much does it cost to keep a prisoner in Canada." I went through a few sites before I came across this one. It's dated January, 2006, so I'm not sure what contemporary figures are: The Cost (link)
But there is a substantial difference in the cost of incarceration versus house arrest. In Ontario, it costs the provincial government approximately $1,600 a year to supervise an inmate under house arrest, double that if the inmate is being monitored electronically. That same inmate in a provincial jail would cost about $52,000 a year. The Conservative proposal to eliminate conditional sentencing for drug offences and those involving violence could put an additional 6,000 offenders every year behind bars. If they stayed there for a year, it would cost an extra $300 million just to incarcerate them.
The Conservative plan to increase mandatory minimum sentences by as much as six years will also add to significant increases in the cost of administering the federal criminal justice system. It costs Corrections Canada $110,223 to keep a male inmate in a maximum-security institution for a year ($150,867 for a woman). Medium- and minimum-security inmates cost more than $70,000 a year.
But that is not where the money stops. Federal and provincial institutions are already filled to capacity. The Conservative proposals would inevitably spark a wave of new prison construction, and prisons are not cheap to build. The last provincial jail built in Ontario was a "no-frills" superjail in Lindsay that cost almost $79 million in 2002, and is designed to house about 1,100 inmates. Constructing new jails just for the 6,000 inmates who would have previously been out under house arrest would cost Canadian taxpayers about $400 million. Would that investment make our communities safer? Most of the evidence indicates that the answer to that question is no. I'd like to add a bit more, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. Just bagged right now. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 20, 2010 23:27:56 GMT -5
I don't know, buds. I mean ... religion and law in the same discussion? Can we be objective about it? Cheers. I won't be joining in such a debate, because I don't think it fits in a case like this. Religion might be used to comfort the victims' families, if they so choose. There really is no objectivity about religion. If you believe, you're going to defend. If you don't, you're going to argue why you think it's bogus. Totally subjective. Unless one is open-minded and willing to discuss, listen, agree to disagree.....religion-talk gets very messy. That's it for me on this tangent here. I'd rather discuss religion face-to-face. Too much gets misconstrued in print. Who brought religion into the discussion? I brought morality into it which has nothing to do with religion other then it's lofty claims of sole purveyors. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 21, 2010 6:03:04 GMT -5
Just about all religions preach an eye for an eye, I've always believed that is the case!! Every religion also believes in "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I've always had problems with "proof texting", that is, a person selecting the religious texts s/he can find to back up preconceived notions, ideas, and beliefs. It grates me most in Christianity [which I, obviously, am closest to], where "an eye for an eye" is quoted as a reason -- the reason -- to hold to the death penalty. Forgotten [or more likely conveniently ignored] is the New Testament/Jesus teaching "You have heard it said . . .but I say . . . ". We aren't that radical as to turn the other cheek to someone like Williams [nor should we], but using religious writings as a basis for law merely turns us into a theocracy. Besides, whose holy book should we use? [there, that wasn't so bad, was it? ;D and CH -- I agree wholeheartedly!] |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 21, 2010 8:16:44 GMT -5
Good post, BC. There's only one handgrenade you left smoking out there. I'd like to ask you, how is locking up an inmate for life cheaper in the long run? Dis, see here: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/Of course you could shorten or tighten up the appeal process... but then if you do that aren't you increasing the risk that you execute an innocent person? Morning BC, Again, I'm tight on time, but I wanted to drop you another reply on this. I can see why there's a huge cost to executing an inmate in Texas. It has the longest appeals process in the USA. An average of 20 years, conviction to execution. I don't have the time (what's new) to look up similarities to other states, but I did think of looking up Timothy McVeigh. He wasn't under any one state jurisdiction on this one. He was the first inmate to be executed by the federal government since 1963. According to Wikipedia, the federal process took less than six years. Like I was saying, I'm not sure what processes are in place in other states, but I'm not so sure the costs of the process in Texas actually reflects that of other states. If it costs $4.2 million per execution then tally this up. It's a list of inmates awaiting execution in Texas. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Oct 21, 2010 9:24:42 GMT -5
Aside from being a moral or even a practical issue, the death penalty is really a political issue at least in the US.
The 8th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment, with cruel generally accepted to mean excessively painful or brutal (i.e torture) and unusual meaning arbitrary or inconsistent with the offense. Capital punishment itself is not prohibited by the Constitution, and I don't think it's prohibited in Canada either.
So if capital punishment itself does not violate the constitution, it becomes a matter for state legislatures and voters to decide as long as the 5th Amendment right to due process of law is upheld. I think this is where capital punishment has run aground in the US - not so much that it is wrong, but that the application has been flawed and people that have been killed did not get adequate legal protections.
I'm not sure how much the Canadian charters differ, but this is one of those issues where the will of the legislature and voters in each state/province should prevail.
There is no death penalty in the state of Massachusetts and I would not support it if it came up on the ballot, for both moral and practical reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 21, 2010 10:36:51 GMT -5
Morning BC, I don't have the time (what's new) to look up similarities to other states, but I did think of looking up Timothy McVeigh. He wasn't under any one state jurisdiction on this one. He was the first inmate to be executed by the federal government since 1963. According to Wikipedia, the federal process took less than six years. Hi Dis, It did take "only" six years to execute McVeigh, but it should be noted that McVeigh himself dropped his appeals to expediate the process. He could have kept the legal process going for god knows how many years, but he saw himself as a martyr and wanted to get it over with. December 10 - 16; McVeigh Drops Appeals By Jo Thomas Published: December 17, 2000 Timothy J. McVeigh, who is on death row for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, has, over his lawyers objections, asked Judge Richard P. Matsch of Federal District Court in Denver to have him executed within four months. Mr. McVeigh, 32, was convicted in 1997 of setting off a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds in the worst terrorist act on American soil. www.nytimes.com/2000/12/17/weekinreview/december-10-16-mcveigh-drops-appeals.html |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 21, 2010 11:14:11 GMT -5
Aside from being a moral or even a practical issue, the death penalty is really a political issue at least in the US. The 8th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment, with cruel generally accepted to mean excessively painful or brutal (i.e torture) and unusual meaning arbitrary or inconsistent with the offense. Capital punishment itself is not prohibited by the Constitution, and I don't think it's prohibited in Canada either. So if capital punishment itself does not violate the constitution, it becomes a matter for state legislatures and voters to decide as long as the 5th Amendment right to due process of law is upheld. I think this is where capital punishment has run aground in the US - not so much that it is wrong, but that the application has been flawed and people that have been killed did not get adequate legal protections. ... and in some cases it's used for personal political gain. In this case, Ricky Ray Rector did not understand the charges brought against him, or the death penalty itself. But then Arkansas Governor, Bill Clinton, upheld the execution to show his electorate that the Democrats were not soft on crime. Depending on which side of the fence you're on, this could be construed as cruel and unusual treatment, more so when "according to Arkansas state and Federal law, a seriously mentally impaired inmate cannot be executed." (Find Bill Clinton on Wikipedia for this reference). To me, anyway, it's another scenario that supports the "no" vote. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 21, 2010 11:25:18 GMT -5
Morning BC, I don't have the time (what's new) to look up similarities to other states, but I did think of looking up Timothy McVeigh. He wasn't under any one state jurisdiction on this one. He was the first inmate to be executed by the federal government since 1963. According to Wikipedia, the federal process took less than six years. Hi Dis, It did take "only" six years to execute McVeigh, but it should be noted that McVeigh himself dropped his appeals to expediate the process. He could have kept the legal process going for god knows how many years, but he saw himself as a martyr and wanted to get it over with. December 10 - 16; McVeigh Drops Appeals By Jo Thomas Published: December 17, 2000 Timothy J. McVeigh, who is on death row for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, has, over his lawyers objections, asked Judge Richard P. Matsch of Federal District Court in Denver to have him executed within four months. Mr. McVeigh, 32, was convicted in 1997 of setting off a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds in the worst terrorist act on American soil. www.nytimes.com/2000/12/17/weekinreview/december-10-16-mcveigh-drops-appeals.htmlThanks BC. While that prortion of the original article doesn't provide the timelines we're talking about, it might be reasonable to assume that each state has their own, drawn-out process in place. I can't see them being too different from each other, but then again there's Texas. I don't know if that's a viable benchmark or not, but when I get some time I'll check it out more thoroughly. Interesting approach to the subject for sure. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 21, 2010 11:36:25 GMT -5
I think if you offered the choice of a cage or a coffin, most humans would choose the cage. Not true. Given a chance of life in a cage with no parole, a lot would chose coffins. Not so sure about that : slightly a propos is this article: remember that Smith pled guilty and knew the death penalty was a distinct probability, but when it came down to it he changed his mind. Mind you, there are some like Mcveigh who want to be martyrs, but the known on earth trumps the great unknown for most.
Simply from my philosophy of living on this earth: we don’t kill someone just because we think he deserves to die. We don’t play God [oops . . . I used that word].
Means we are no different from them.
Most moral would be total forgiveness and allowing him continued freedom. But we could never do that, retributive people that we are. We need to see the person punished, and punished harshly. So least moral would be allowing him to live on bread and water in solitary confinement with the exception of occasional-to-often beatings [and more] at the hands of other prisoners. Keeping him well-tended in a cage and putting him to death are in the middle somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 21, 2010 11:36:50 GMT -5
It is society's duty to absorb that cost to give some semblence of peace of mind to the victim's family, IMO. Does it really give peace of mind? I’d say HA’s death penalty would give more peace of mind. In 25 years the man will be hauled before the parole board . . . and even though it is unlikely he’ll get it the family will have to live through the trauma again. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 21, 2010 11:37:35 GMT -5
I'm anti capital punishment but pro-abortion. Interesting . . . you’re just as inconsistent as the rest of us ;D Even if there is irrefutable evidence and an unforced confession? This is the most-often-used argument against abortion . . . but the instance of pregnancy after rape is rare [though portrayed as if it is common occurrence]. You didn’t talk about children with what are termed defects but this is another argument for termination of pregnancy. BC’s slippery slope argument comes in here [as well as in elderly people] -- where to draw the line? When does “right to terminate” become “responsible to terminate”? But that’s another moral argument/dilemma for another day. Some would suggest that there are equal or greater psychological scars from abortion, but I don’t know . . . And that is what most abortions are used for. My statements are all from the perspective, of course, that life begins at conception. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 21, 2010 17:53:01 GMT -5
I had some time to look up the amount of prisoners on death row in the USA as of January 1st, 2010. The total amount is 3,261. Source Death Row USACalifornia 697, S. Carolina 63 Connecticut 10 Florida 398 Mississippi 61 Kansas 10 Texas 337 Missouri 61 Utah 10 Penn. 222 U.S. Gov't 59 Washington 9 Alabama 201 Arkansas 42 U.S. Military 8 Ohio 168 Kentucky 35 Maryland 5 N. Carolina 167 Oregon 32 South Dakota 3 Arizona 135 Delaware 19 Colorado 3 Georgia 106 Idaho 17 Montana 2 Tennessee 90 Indiana 15 New Mexico 2 Louisiana 85 Virginia 15 Wyoming 1 Oklahoma 84 Illinois 15 New Hampshire 1 Nevada 77 Nebraska 11 Using Texas as a benchmark (not accurate by any means but $4.2 million), the cost to execute 3,261 prisoners would be, $13,696,200,000. I'm also reading varying statements on how much it would cost to keep a prisoner behind bars for one year. In Florida it's $20,108 (2009) a year. Multiplied by 3,261 it equals $65,572,188; however, that number balloons if inmates are in for life. Source Cost of Imprisonment in FloridaAnd we're not dealing with just condemned inmates, solely. How about the lifers and inmates who are in for extended periods? When put altogether the costs are enormous and I can see why people would naturally think, "just execute them ... it's cheaper." I was going to into the super jail concept, but the game beckons. All I'll say is that they're expensive to build and maintain, but it usually means that several other institutions will close because of them. So, I assume they're built to save money by closing down other facilities. Have to look that up later though. Game time. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 21, 2010 18:48:51 GMT -5
Most moral would be total forgiveness and allowing him continued freedom. But we could never do that, retributive people that we are. We need to see the person punished, and punished harshly. So least moral would be allowing him to live on bread and water in solitary confinement with the exception of occasional-to-often beatings [and more] at the hands of other prisoners. Keeping him well-tended in a cage and putting him to death are in the middle somewhere.If you accept that "well tended" and death are in the middle "somewhere" then there is nothing to disagree on. I don't accept that it's less "moral" to execute someone then keeping him in jail with no chance of parole. If you base it on size, society is keeping man in jails that are SMALLER then hamster cages. How is that "more" humane or moral then death? Further... Given that man value life based on their freedom, we devalued their lives to nothing but futile existence. And that is more "moral"? We deny them any right to end their lives and escape the futility of their existence. And that is more moral? To whom? If anything, we are torturing them by forcing then to exist in a state of utter worthlessness. Claims of "progressive", "advanced" and "moral" are at best, excuses society uses to justify not to use the death penalty and in the end, it's no better then the choice they prefer. I want to see the death sentence re-instated in extreme cases that there is no shadow of doubt about their guilt AND in cases where the prisoner requests to end his misery through death. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 21, 2010 18:53:45 GMT -5
It is society's duty to absorb that cost to give some semblence of peace of mind to the victim's family, IMO. Does it really give peace of mind? I’d say HA’s death penalty would give more peace of mind. In 25 years the man will be hauled before the parole board . . . and even though it is unlikely he’ll get it the family will have to live through the trauma again. Let's not even talk about the utter nightmare for the family if that prisoner escapes. I don't know if the family of the girls Bernardo killed had sisters. If they did and Bernardo escaped, can you imagine what that family would feel like? On the other hand, I don't think they would be bothered by Bernardo's ghost. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 21, 2010 21:01:43 GMT -5
Onm the other hand, I don't think they would be bothered by Bernardo's ghost. no do I |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 21, 2010 22:38:10 GMT -5
My statements are all from the perspective, of course, that life begins at conception. Maybe life begins at attachment, in terms of nature. Many fertilized eggs are flushed out because they do not attach to the uterus. One sourceOnce the egg and sperm hook-up, the fertilized egg still has to travel down to the uterus, which takes about a week. Often, the fertilized egg just keeps going and gets flushed out of your system with your menstrual cycle. It's not until the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus that you are officially pregnant. That's when your body starts making new hormones and responding. Laboratory fertilization techniques are a different story, perhaps. But still, they implant several fertilized eggs....and some don’t “take”. I’m talking science here, not religion. (like I promised  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 22, 2010 0:00:26 GMT -5
It is society's duty to absorb that cost to give some semblence of peace of mind to the victim's family, IMO. Does it really give peace of mind? I’d say HA’s death penalty would give more peace of mind. In 25 years the man will be hauled before the parole board . . . and even though it is unlikely he’ll get it the family will have to live through the trauma again. The death penalty should be reserved for truly heinous crimes: Trading Roy Trading Chelios for Savard Drafting Fisher or anybody from a Minnesota high school In all seriousness though, from a pragmatic standpoint, when a case is solved beyond a reasonable doubt and the perpetrator is truly a bad guy; why spend millions of dollars on trials, appeals, encarceration and futile attempted rehabilitation of a killer. Sorry but having a low IQ or bipolar personality is not a license to kill. Don't care. Waste him/her and spend the money saved more wisely on those that are more deserving. When the government has to cut back on schools, hospitals, roads and policeing, wasting money on the worst criminals in society doesn't make sense. I volunteer to attach the noose and throw the lever for a lot less than 1% of what the lawyers and courts would cost. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Oct 22, 2010 9:40:20 GMT -5
Absolutely not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 22, 2010 10:54:48 GMT -5
It is society's duty to absorb that cost to give some semblence of peace of mind to the victim's family, IMO. Does it really give peace of mind? I’d say HA’s death penalty would give more peace of mind. In 25 years the man will be hauled before the parole board . . . and even though it is unlikely he’ll get it the family will have to live through the trauma again. I qualified it as "some semblence" ... nothing, not even the death penalty would give the family peace of mind. I also said life in prison with no parole. Yes I know a life sentence is generally regarded as 25 years, but we can (or can legislate, since the death penalty would also have to be legislated) incarcerate them for the rest of their lives on earth. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 22, 2010 11:27:11 GMT -5
Does it really give peace of mind? I’d say HA’s death penalty would give more peace of mind. In 25 years the man will be hauled before the parole board . . . and even though it is unlikely he’ll get it the family will have to live through the trauma again. Let's not even talk about the utter nightmare for the family if that prisoner escapes. I don't know if the family of the girls Bernardo killed had sisters. If they did and Bernardo escaped, can you imagine what that family would feel like? On the other hand, I don't think they would be bothered by Bernardo's ghost. Has an inmate in a maximum security prison, serving a life sentence for murder, ever escaped a Canadian jail? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 22, 2010 11:31:57 GMT -5
Let's not even talk about the utter nightmare for the family if that prisoner escapes. I don't know if the family of the girls Bernardo killed had sisters. If they did and Bernardo escaped, can you imagine what that family would feel like? On the other hand, I don't think they would be bothered by Bernardo's ghost. Has an inmate in a maximum security prison, serving a life sentence for murder, ever escaped a Canadian jail? Do victims of rape and murder feel safer if their assailant is alive or dead? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 22, 2010 11:48:12 GMT -5
Let's not even talk about the utter nightmare for the family if that prisoner escapes. I don't know if the family of the girls Bernardo killed had sisters. If they did and Bernardo escaped, can you imagine what that family would feel like? On the other hand, I don't think they would be bothered by Bernardo's ghost. Has an inmate in a maximum security prison, serving a life sentence for murder, ever escaped a Canadian jail? Kingston has had 26 escapes, although only 1 since 1958 (in 1999 a bank robber named Tyn Conn went over the wall). I can't find anything else about any other facilities right now, but I would imagine that if Mr. Conn (who had a history of escape) was able to escape from Kingston (considered to be the most secure facility in Canada) then your average run of the mill murderer could also do it at another high security site. Not a Bernardo or an Olsen mind you - they are probably more closely monitored due to their notoriety, but not everyone is quite as notorious as that. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 22, 2010 11:50:14 GMT -5
This is the most-often-used argument against abortion . . . but the instance of pregnancy after rape is rare [though portrayed as if it is common occurrence]. You didn’t talk about children with what are termed defects but this is another argument for termination of pregnancy. BC’s slippery slope argument comes in here [as well as in elderly people] -- where to draw the line? When does “right to terminate” become “responsible to terminate”? But that’s another moral argument/dilemma for another day. Some would suggest that there are equal or greater psychological scars from abortion, but I don’t know . . . My morals are on both matters are based on the the same principle ... one innocent death through capital punishment is too much ; one forced full-term pregnancy as a result of rape is too much. If the law can not handle all the shades of grey in between ... then I have no choice but to be against all capital punishments (even if there are confessions); and for all abortions. I have yet to read a proposal/legislation to handle the matter fully. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 22, 2010 12:04:00 GMT -5
Has an inmate in a maximum security prison, serving a life sentence for murder, ever escaped a Canadian jail? Kingston has had 26 escapes, although only 1 since 1958 (in 1999 a bank robber named Tyn Conn went over the wall). I can't find anything else about any other facilities right now, but I would imagine that if Mr. Conn (who had a history of escape) was able to escape from Kingston (considered to be the most secure facility in Canada) then your average run of the mill murderer could also do it at another high security site. Not a Bernardo or an Olsen mind you - they are probably more closely monitored due to their notoriety, but not everyone is quite as notorious as that. Cavalry to the rescue! I have it on good authority that nobody has escaped a pine box. Mind you, there is a story floating around about coming back from the dead a few thousand years ago, but I'm still waiting for independent confirmation. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 22, 2010 12:40:08 GMT -5
My statements are all from the perspective, of course, that life begins at conception. Maybe life begins at attachment, in terms of nature. Many fertilized eggs are flushed out because they do not attach to the uterus. One sourceOnce the egg and sperm hook-up, the fertilized egg still has to travel down to the uterus, which takes about a week. Often, the fertilized egg just keeps going and gets flushed out of your system with your menstrual cycle. It's not until the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus that you are officially pregnant. That's when your body starts making new hormones and responding. Laboratory fertilization techniques are a different story, perhaps. But still, they implant several fertilized eggs....and some don’t “take”. I’m talking science here, not religion. (like I promised ) I'm talking personal philosophy, not religion ;D I can go with the attachment theory . . . and I also accept that even some "attachments" do not come to full term. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 22, 2010 12:41:43 GMT -5
I have it on good authority that nobody has escaped a pine box. Mind you, there is a story floating around about coming back from the dead a few thousand years ago, but I'm still waiting for independent confirmation. you may or may not receive confirmation sometime in the years to come [I lean to the may side, of course ;D ] |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 22, 2010 12:47:07 GMT -5
Kingston has had 26 escapes, although only 1 since 1958 (in 1999 a bank robber named Tyn Conn went over the wall). I can't find anything else about any other facilities right now, but I would imagine that if Mr. Conn (who had a history of escape) was able to escape from Kingston (considered to be the most secure facility in Canada) then your average run of the mill murderer could also do it at another high security site. Not a Bernardo or an Olsen mind you - they are probably more closely monitored due to their notoriety, but not everyone is quite as notorious as that. Cavalry to the rescue! I have it on good authority that nobody has escaped a pine box. Mind you, there is a story floating around about coming back from the dead a few thousand years ago, but I'm still waiting for independent confirmation. The way I hear it he wasn't in a pine box, just wrapped in linen, thrown in a cave which then had a stone rolled in front of it. So your pine box statistic is still probably good. Of course my question is what good is done by executing these prisoners? I've been thinking about this from a utilitarian point of view - I have some ideas on the topic, but can't type them up effectively on my iPhone. Expect some more on this later. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 22, 2010 12:56:19 GMT -5
I have it on good authority that nobody has escaped a pine box. Mind you, there is a story floating around about coming back from the dead a few thousand years ago, but I'm still waiting for independent confirmation. you may or may not receive confirmation sometime in the years to come [I lean to the may side, of course ;D ] Clap on.....clap off. That's all she wrote!  |
|
)
