will almost certainly hit the grim total of 400 executions this month, far ahead of any other state, testament to the influence of the state’s conservative evangelical Christians and its cultural mix of Old South and Wild West.
“In Texas you have all the elements lined up. Public support, a governor that supports it and supportive courts,” said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.
“If any of those things are hesitant then the process slows down,” said Dieter. “With all cylinders working as in Texas it produces a lot of executions.”
Texas has executed 398 convicts since it resumed the practice in 1982, six years after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a ban on capital punishment, far exceeding second-place Virginia with 98 executions since the ban was lifted. It has five executions scheduled for August.
We just moved back home to Texas – most of what greets us is so exciting.
This churns my stomach.
Whatever your views on the death penalty (and its effectiveness), this scale of application is way off base. Places this wonderful state in the company of North Korea, China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Uganda and Sudan.
I have a great deal of respect for the way the Roman Catholic Church views a complete culture of life. It holds that capital punishment should be avoided unless it is the only way to defend society from the offender in question, and that with today’s penal system such a situation requiring an execution is either rare or non-existent.
The population of Texas is more than three times that of Virginia.
Correcting for population, Texas is about 25% ahead of Virgina in executions [i]per capita[/i] which is somewhat worthy of note, but certainly not something to get particularly upset about.
We’re talking about an average of about one execution per month. This is nothing remotely similar to Iran — where over 400 people have been executed this month alone, for twice the population of Texas — and Uganda, with a population similar to that of Texas (and until recently an active rebellion) has executed only a few dozen.
Please check your facts and make an effort to understand relative proportions before spouting off.
I’m trying to remember the author of this famous quote: “.Figures don’t lie but liars can figure.” I think it was Mark Twain but I’m not sure.
Beginning this item mid-sentence with “…the grim total of 400 executions this month” makes the reader think there will be 400 executions this month. Not true. This would be the total for 25 years, for a populous state.
#1- Bob, what churns my stomach is the 43,772 murders that occurred in Texas during the time period 1982-2005 (not even counting the most recent 1½ years).
Whatever your views on the death penalty, you should be glad the murder rate has dropped quite steadily since executions were resumed, from 2,466 in 1982 to 1,407 in 2005, while the population has grown significantly.
See http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
Wilfred, be careful suggesting deterrence. Our nation’s use of the death penalty is not improving its standing in the world community when it comes to the deaths of children. In a February 7, 1997 Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (part of U.S Dept. of Health and Human Services), from 1950-1993 child homicide rates in the U. S. tripled. CDC compared the U.S. with 25 other industrialized countries and found that “the United States has the highest rates of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among industrialized countries.” Almost all of these other industrialized countries have stopped using the death penalty.
A Prayer to Abolish the Death Penalty
God of Compassion,
You let your rain fall on the just and the unjust.
Expand and deepen our hearts
so that we may love as You love,
even those among us
who have caused the greatest pain by taking life.
For there is in our land a great cry for vengeance
as we fill up death rows and kill the killers
in the name of justice, in the name of peace.
Jesus, our brother,
you suffered execution at the hands of the state
but you did not let hatred overcome you.
Help us to reach out to victims of violence
so that our enduing love may help them heal.
Holy Spirit of God,
You strengthen us in the struggle for justice.
Help us to work tirelessly
for the abolition of state-sanctioned death
and to renew our society in its very heart
so that violence will be no more. Amen.
–Sister Helen Prejean, C.S.J.
Bob, sorry about this, but could you maybe move back to where you were?
Me, I’m Catholic, but I really LIKE the idea that there are a lot fewer murders than there were back when we were so enlightened and didn’t execute anyone. The sword will be with us until after the second coming; in fact, the kingdom will be established with the deaths of sinners in a military action (Re 20:7-9).
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
we simply do not trust the courts to release these vermin back among our populace. faith is well and good. until that gets someone killed by a perp released by some fool of a judge.
and yes, I do realize how cynical that sounds. has Christ ever stepped in an kept a slimeball behind bars? or stoped a scumbag from raping and murdering an innocent after release from prison?
I think the Lord protects those that protect themselves. I do not trust some agenda-pressing moron in black robes.
sorry dave – i am a 7th generation Texas
****I think the Lord protects those that protect themselves
what type of idol worshipping is this ?
fine – you say your prayers for deliverance when the knife is in your chest.
we’ll be left to make sure that your killer never does that to anyone ever again.
That, bob carlton, would be pelagianism, or, perhaps, semi-pelagianism. It is the worship of the Self, and it is, I think, the American, but not the Christian, religion.
My trouble is that I don’t trust the criminal justice system (in which I work) to administer the death penalty justly.
clay, your comment is very, very sad
prayers to you, for where you are at in your walk with Jesus (a man executed by the state)
Jesus was executed by the state – so you’d stop God’s will then? {rhetorical question}
as to those who don’t trust the judicial system and work in it – please provide your home address to the DoCJ so that they may settle violent parolees in your ‘hood. I don’t want ’em on the same planet, much less in my neighborhood.
I may be “sad”, but after watching the evisceration of a church allowed by God, my faith is, to be charitable, lessened.
Where does one start?
1. Blackstone says the ONLY legitamate reason for punishment by the state is deterence.
2. Capital punishment saves lives.
3. God gives nations the DUTY to punish evil.
We suffer under an inadequate public school system.
Guys, perhaps Bob Carlton isn’t on the same side and isn’t going by the same rule book?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Don Gander, Capital punishment saves lives ?
Honestly, that is just surreal.
And somehow we do this because God says it is our duty ?
The relevant statistics were presented by Wilfred, #4: 43,772 total murders in 1982-2005, and a drop of almost half in the rate of murders from 1982 to 2005, with an increased population.
Lookin’ good, Tejas!
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
dave, what side are you describing ? what rule book are your referring to ?
clay, I hope you can get to a place where you do not blame God for what is happening in the church – the Jesus story reminds us that resurrection comes from death – the story of the church has always been that as threads & groups die, resurrection comes as well
RE: “Guys, perhaps Bob Carlton isn’t on the same side and isn’t going by the same rule book?”
“I hear that, brother!” ; > )
Dave (and Wilfred), I do not mean to stop your glee at my beloved home state leading the country in executions, but….
Texas has the dubious distinction of having the largest prison population in the country (163,190), surpassing the prison population of California (163,067), which has 13 million more citizens than Texas. The Lone Star State has more than 700,000 of its citizens under criminal justice control. If Texas were a country, it would have the highest incarceration rate in the world, easily surpassing the United States and Russia, the next two finishers, and seven times that of the next biggest prison system in China.
Blacks in Texas are incarcerated at seven times the rate of whites, and nearly one in three young African American men in Texas is under some form of criminal justice control. The incarceration rate for Blacks in Texas is 63% higher than the national incarceration rate for blacks
Despite adding more than 100,000 prisoners this decade, Texas’ crime rate has declined more slowly than other large states. Between 1995 and 1998, the percentage drop in the overall number of index crimes in Texas was half the percentage drop in the number of index crimes nationally, and the lowest of the five largest states. The Texas crime rate also experienced a slightly lower percentage decline than the national average, and was the lowest among the five largest states.
I can not imagine a rule book or a side that would somehow consider this…looking good ?
The relevant statistics were presented by Wilfred, #4: 43,772 total murders in 1982-2005, and a drop of almost half in the rate of murders from 1982 to 2005, with an increased population.
Lookin’ good, Tejas!
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
No doubt about it, Texas (and the rest of the country) have a crime problem. But the figures clearly show, the murder rate began to decline once we got serious about punishing murderers.
Bob, try re-writing your sentence like this:
[i] Because [/i] of adding [i] only [/i] 100,000 prisoners this decade, Texas’ crime rate has declined more slowly than other large states…
Clay,
[blockquote] fine – you say your prayers for deliverance when the knife is in your chest.
we’ll be left to make sure that your killer never does that to anyone ever again. [/blockquote]
Jesus prayed for forgiveness for those who killed him while hanging on the cross. I would hope I would do the same.
Dave,
[blockquote] The relevant statistics were presented by Wilfred, #4: 43,772 total murders in 1982-2005, and a drop of almost half in the rate of murders from 1982 to 2005, with an increased population.
Lookin’ good, Tejas! [/blockquote]
What if one of those 398 (soon to be 400) was innocent? It’s happened quite a few times since the resumption of the death penalty. Would killing a few, or even one, innocent person be worth the reduction in murders? Would the ends still justify the means?
I’m with Bob. I’m against the death penalty. I work every day with people convicted of violent crimes, and I’m not naive. I think murderers should serve their time, and life in prison should mean life. Still, I don’t believe we should be putting them to death. Yes, they deserve to die. However, the Bible I read says that we all deserve to die. Let he who is without sin carry out the sentence…
The last time I saw statistics, Texas and Florida, the states most prone to executions, still had the highest murder rates. The rates have decreased in these states over the past few years, but they have decreased more in some states (New York, I think, was one) that don’t use the death penalty, or use it rarely.
just to be clear wilfred, declining more slowly is NOT a good thing
Also:
[blockquote] please provide your home address to the DoCJ so that they may settle violent parolees in your ‘hood. I don’t want ‘em on the same planet, much less in my neighborhood. [/blockquote]
Heck, in Nashville, we have a megachurch pastor who was paroled after serving time for killing a man (don’t know the exact charge he was convicted of). Granted, his theology is bad, but I still think the world is better because he isn’t dead or in prison.
Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t want my daughter spending the night at a “violent parolee’s” house. But I would be happy to invite him or her to church on Sunday, even after what happened in Missouri this weekend.
The article was nearly a parody of liberal bias. Yesterday or the day before an article in the NYTimes or USA Today stated that nearly half of murder victims in the US were black – the same article went on to say that most victims are killed by members of their own race – ergo the relevant pool for black death row inmates is the pool of capital murderers not their percentage of the general polulation. If nearly 1/2 of the capital murderes are black then 41% of death row inmates is not the result of racism.
The author’s corelation to religion was at best anecdotal. There is no reason to blame the governor – it is not his job to systematically second guess the judges, juries, and appellate courts. The governors role is to intervene in the case of an obvious miscarriage of justice not to interject some personal dislike of capital punishment. The author left out the branch of government most responsive to the people which passed the law regarding capital punishment – the legislature (which at the time (1982)was in democratic hands). The law is compatible with the views of most multi generational Texans such as myself. I for one do believe it is a deterence – I want the robber to think If I shoot the clerk they might put me to death, the rapist to think if I kill the victim they might put me to death the same for the kidnapper and the person resisting arrest.
Whatever the cause — or the solution — may be, we’ve got a problem: we incarcerate our citizens at a higher rate than any other country, according to the last stats I saw. (And before anyone jumps down my throat, let me say I offer that as a symptom of a problem, not as the problem itself.) I think we’ve beat Iran, China, and North Korea in terms of per capita incarcerations, and we’re something like seven times as high as the UK.
I’m with bob carlton, Adam from TN, and Words Matter on this one. Can a people so given to crime be counted on reliably to enact absolute justice? I’ll continue to seek _absolute_ justice from one source only.
[blockquote]The author’s corelation to religion was at best anecdotal. …. The law is compatible with the views of most multi generational Texans such as myself.[/blockquote]
You’re right in the substance of what you say, but I couldn’t help noticing the two sentences above. Doesn’t religion have anything to do with the way Texans act, vote, judge and legislate?
[blockquote]I for one do believe it is a deterence – I want the robber to think If I shoot the clerk they might put me to death, the rapist to think if I kill the victim they might put me to death the same for the kidnapper and the person resisting arrest.[/blockquote]
Yes, that may be true — if they’re ready, willing, and able to actually think about the consequences of their actions. ‘Course, that may be a taller order than the average violent criminal is prepared to fill.
Thanks for posting, Adam. Nice to know I’m not the only criminal justice type opposed to the death penalty.
One story and it’s bedtime: I was robbed about 20 years ago by twin brothers and a couple of other guys. One of the twins stuck a gun in my face and another guy stuck one in my back they took my wallet and left, but in those days (in SE Dallas), people were getting killed after being robbed, so it might have gone worse for me. Many years later, they are going to come to my office on parole. Since I don’t work in Dallas, this seemed strange, but it gave me a chance to consider just what crime does do to the victims.
Now, I’m the type who laughed at the irony of those guys coming to my office (and, of course, I stayed away from the cases), but crime really does have an impact on victims (talk to a rape victim sometime!) and how we handle criminals matters a great deal. I am very much in favor of locking people up when they pose a danger to others. Occasionally, victims will call me and want reassurance that the father who raped them (or their daughter), or the man who murdered their father, or whatever, will be kept away from them. These women are truly frightened and angry and they should be.
But more than harsh or stringent punishment, I am in favor of smart punishment, which gives the offender incentive to do better, learn skills, and, in general, rehabilitate himself. Even though I work with the most serious offenders, you would be surprised that most of them want to do well – many intend to do well. And when they don’t we can send them back. All of which is a round-about way of saying that we don’t need to kill people.
[blockquote] I for one do believe it is a deterence – I want the robber to think If I shoot the clerk they might put me to death, the rapist to think if I kill the victim they might put me to death the same for the kidnapper and the person resisting arrest.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Yes, that may be true—if they’re ready, willing, and able to actually think about the consequences of their actions. ‘Course, that may be a taller order than the average violent criminal is prepared to fill. [/blockquote]
Unfortunately, I believe that Laocoon is correct. I don’t believe that most violent criminals think much about the consequences of their actions, and my work with offenders informs that opinion. Frankly, a lifetime locked in a small cell is more deterrence for me than the possibility of being executed, but I realize that is not universal. But the judicial process for execution is not a quick one, even in Texas, so I don’t think the prospect of execution is that effective as a deterrent.
I may be wrong about that, and even if it is an effective deterrent, the ends do not justify the means for me. I believe that the death penalty is applied inequitably, and I’m convinced that innocent people have been executed. How is that anything other than murder?
Yes, it also churns my stomach (as in #4) that people are murdered. I’m certainly not in favor of people being kidnapped, raped, or killed. But I’m not willing to forsake my faith in order to save lives. I respect my brothers and sisters in Christ who don’t believe that capital punishment is wrong, I am firm in my conviction that it is. If my belief were to lead to my death (unlikely, but in response to #11), then God help me if I were willing to forsake my Lord to save my life. I could quote a lot of Scripture here, but I think you get the general idea.
Pax,
Adam
The one thing I don’t see discussed is the fact that some one has to look after the murders in prison. Do you want that job? These men are indeed a part of God’s creation, we do need to and have a duty to protect others from thier evil. Read about a “gentleman”named Peewee Gascan (spelling). He killed three men in prison on seprate occasions. John Gotti was killed by prisoners while in prison as was Dahmer. Prison gangs have rules like bleed in bleed out. You kill to get in to the gang and the only way out is you die. These people do think about the consequances and can help themselves. They do not kill on a busy street in the middle of the day, why? Because they will get cought. Many limit crime evidence because it will get them cought. These people do understand the consequences and to go to lengths to avoid the consequences.
Sister Prejean also bothers me. In the book and movie “Dead Men Walking” she never talked to the victims of this crime spree. The girl whose boy friend was shot and left tied to a tree ( HE IS NOW A “VEGTABLE” DUE TO LOSS OF BLOOD AND EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS) while she was repeatly raped by them over days. The good sister never had the time to “work” with her. It was all about some poor monster who got caught.
The death penalty undermines (destroys, even) any claim from a nation that it is ‘pro-life’. Either all people (from conception to grave) are made in God’s image and their lives are sacred, or they are not. I’m baffled by Christians who claim to be pro-life because they are anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia, yet negate their own beliefs by supporting the state’s deliberate actions to end life either through capital punishment or war.
Capital punishment is unjust. Do we really want the US legal system to be based on ‘an eye for an eye’? If so, then the state should rape rapists, torture torturers, and gouge the eyes out of a criminal who has blinded someone. Yet these things are (rightly) considered outrageous and we all agree that governments should NOT apply ‘eye for eye’ justice in these cases. So why deny that reasoning in murder cases? Doesn’t this logically imply that killing somoene is less of a sin that blinding someone?
I’ve hesitated from joining this conversation, but I believe it is now time.
I admit to being conflicted over the death penalty. I see no theological reason for opposing it (when applied fairly and for the right ends). After all, God posited a “death penalty” in several of the Old Testament laws. While the death penalty may not deter others from committing horrible crimes, it does deter the perpetrator from killing again. The Death Penalty can be seen as pro-life. It protects the lives of those who would be the victims of the criminals who kill repeatedly. This is a social justice issue where criminals should not be free to continue to prey on victims. High crime rates continue poverty because the people with the financial wherewithall to leave do. This leaves a neighborhood in greater economic despair than before. When a person has been convicted of a crime deemed heinous enough by the state to warrant death, that person should be put to death.
As another argument for the death penalty, I can think of few places on earth that are as soul destroying as a maximum security prison. I’ve been visiting prisons for over 10 years and if there is a place that is “hell on earth” it is a maximum security prison. I can feel the hatred and anger dripping from the walls of the prisons I’ve visited.
However, in my years of prison ministry, I have seen even the most hardened criminal turn his life over to God. I’ve seen gang leaders, warlords, rapists, murders, and child molesters confess their sins and turn to Jesus. They have gone from “negative leaders” to “postive leaders” in the prison system and I would be glad to have them work with me on the outside. God’s image is still there in the worst criminals – however marred it may be, it is still there. Jesus died for each one of them. Additionally, the thought of executing an innocent person is horrible to conceive.
I would suggest that we make some changes in how the death penalty is administered. Some foolproof forensic evidence should be required – such as DNA testing – to prove beyond a doubt that the person accused is guilty.
The death penalty is an issue that should be adiaphora. Men and women of good will can come to different conclusions about it. The state’s primary concern in the criminal justice system is the safety of the public. With proper use and safeguards, the death penalty can add to this safety.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Sr. Helen Prejean has done work with victims and their families. She spoke of it here in Fort Worth some years back, saying explicitly that the real hero of Dead Man Walking (which is a dramatization conflating 3 different cases) was the father of the boy who was murdered. That man forgave and prayed for the boy’s killer daily.
If you want to amuse your friends (or perhaps bemuse yourself) on this grim topic, ask them what is the state with the highest per-capita execution rate. The answer is … Delaware. The point is…why single out Texas as some kind of oddity. It is five times as large as most other states and people seem all too willing to forget that while attempting to make a point about traditional values
We welcome vaccines because they save thousands of lives, despite the fact that some individuals have adverse reactions, and sicken or even die because of the vaccine. Likewise, in every other area of life, though we desire it, we do not require perfection. (e.g., If “even one” person will die in an automobile accident, should we allow cars on the road?)
I am convinced that the resumption of the death penalty in the U.S. has saved lives by the thousands, and not just in Texas.
Adam and Lacoon,
You are both right in that many violent criminals do not consider the consequences of their actions – but both of you appear to have conceded that some do. Those that did not kill their victim – those are the lives we have saved through deterence. Tonight brave men and women in uniform will put their lives on the line for us – I want to give them every advantage and safeguard possible.
The problem with imprisoning murderers is that the government taxes the very victims for the arrest, prosecution, legal defense, and room, board and medical care of the perpetrator.
One way to balance the competing moral opinions is to allow those willing to pay for the perpetrator’s upkeep to offer this as blood money to the aggrieved survivors. Failing that, the perpetrator would be declared an outlaw outside the law’s protection of his person.
CStan,
[blockquote]#1, Bob, don’t let your stomach churn. Just don’t commit a murder and you won’t have anything to worry about.[/blockquote]
Unfortunately, that’s not true. While those who don’t commit crimes don’t have much to worry about, there have been cases of innocent people being convicted of crimes, including murder, for which they weren’t at all involved.
chips,
[blockquote]Those that did not kill their victim – those are the lives we have saved through deterence. Tonight brave men and women in uniform will put their lives on the line for us – I want to give them every advantage and safeguard possible.[/blockquote]
I have the utmost respect for most of the brave men and women in uniform; my dad was a police officer when I was a kid. And you make a good point about some deterrence being achieved by the death penalty. But even with those benefits, the ends don’t justify the means for me.
Words matter. A PBS special reporter talked with the women who was raped and the family of the man left to die in the woods. Niether were contacted by Sister Pregean at the time of the documentary and the release of the movie. Both were very angry about it.
#34 – Good point about protecting prisoners. I think we do a lousy job of that, and that’s wrong.
Reactionary,
[blockquote]The problem with imprisoning murderers is that the government taxes the very victims for the arrest, prosecution, legal defense, and room, board and medical care of the perpetrator.[/blockquote]
Executing murderers costs more than imprisoning them, with all the due process involved. So the victims are taxed even more for the execution of the perpetrators. Granted, for some they have the satisfaction of seeing the murderer die, but I think that is a perverse reward. Granted, if someone killed my wife or daughter, I would want to tear him or her apart with my bare hands. But I am called to forgive that person, and I pray God would grant me the strength to do so.
It’s a complicated issue, and one I struggled with for many years. While I disagree with Phil Snyder’s conclusion on the matter, I respect that he has wrestled with the same issues as I have, and I agree that good people of conscience can disagree on the matter.
Pax,
Adam
One more point – having the death penalty also gives prosecutors something to bargain away for a plea bargain. I would be very interested if anyone keeps statistics on how many murderers confessed in order to avoid having a trial in which the death penalty would be sought.
chip on #47 – I agree with that, and considered that factor while composing my last post. As a practical matter, it is helpful for the prosecution.
However, the other side of that is a situation we have in Tennessee. We have a death row inmate right now (whose name escapes me at the moment) who may be a victim of such plea bargaining. Two men were accused of the murder, and the prosecutor offered a plea to whichever one agreed to testify against the other. IIRC, the one who most likely pulled the trigger was the one who took the plea, and the other was convicted and sentenced to death. They both were involved, and there is some dispute as to the actual facts of what went on that night, but we potentially have a situation where the one who actually killed the victim has life imprisonment (I don’t know if there is a possibility of parole or not), and the accomplice is awaiting execution. Is that just? The death penalty in actuality is often applied in a seemingly arbitrary manner.
Dave B –
I thought I remembered Sr. Helen going to see the family in the movie, but maybe it’s something she talked about when she was here. Now I guess I have to go get the movie and watch it again. It’s been a long time.
[blockquote]Executing murderers costs more than imprisoning them, with all the due process involved. [/quote]
It’s expensive not because of due process but because of theoretical rights and procedures dreamed up by creative lawyers and unelected federal judges. There’s also the third-party payor factor: government pays defense counsel to litigate, so litigate they do.
[blockquote]Granted, if someone killed my wife or daughter, I would want to tear him or her apart with my bare hands. But I am called to forgive that person, and I pray God would grant me the strength to do so.[/blockquote]
That is not inconsistent with the penalty of death. You are torturing the concept of forgiveness by extending it to capital punishment but qualifying it for imprisonment. To be consistent, you would have to waive imprisonment for the perpetrator as well.
Don’t bother with the movie read the accounts of what Willie and Sonnier did. The Bourque (sp) family wrote a book about the “joy” of meeting Sister Pregean
The documentery I watched was about the crimes Willie committed
[blockquote]It’s expensive not because of due process but because of theoretical rights and procedures dreamed up by creative lawyers and unelected federal judges. There’s also the third-party payor factor: government pays defense counsel to litigate, so litigate they do.[/blockquote]
That’s due process. Your opinion of it notwithstanding, and I do agree it can get ridiculous sometimes, but the fact remains that, from a practical standpoint, it costs more to execute. And that darn 6th Amendment gives them the right to counsel, so those leftist judges treat it as if it applies to bad people as well as good ones.
[blockquote]You are torturing the concept of forgiveness by extending it to capital punishment but qualifying it for imprisonment. To be consistent, you would have to waive imprisonment for the perpetrator as well.[/blockquote]
My opposition to capital punishment isn’t based upon the command that I forgive those who have trespassed against me. My point in bringing that up is to explain that I don’t find my natural tendency to want revenge to be adverse to my position against the death penalty.
In other words, if someone murdered a loved one of mine, and he or she was later executed for doing so, I would hope that it wouldn’t be satisfactory to me. Never having been in that position, I can’t say how I would feel.
I hope I would be given the grace to forgive. But there are consequences to violently taking a life from someone and the state has decreed that to be death. My view is that the death penalty is only justified when:
there is no reasonable doubt or
the person is a serial killer (most cannot be rehabilitated) or
a child or pregnant woman is the victim.
At any rate, there are 398 people in Texas who will never be repeat offenders.
Adam,
You used the term “forgiveness.” I am trying to figure out why forgiveness translates into a waiver of the penalty for the crime on the one hand but not the other.
The “right to counsel” simply means the right to have a lawyer represent you. It does not mean the right to demand that the taxpayer foot the bill for your legal defense. Justice Warren stitched that one up out of whole cloth in the 1950’s. Likewise, due process means notice and an opportunity to be heard. It does not mean endless habeas reviews.
library jim,
[blockquote]At any rate, there are 398 people in Texas who will never be repeat offenders.[/blockquote]
I’ll make the point I made earlier, which almost everyone has ignored: Are we sure that all of them were offenders? There have been multiple cases of death penalty convictions which were not just overturned on a technicality, but that people were completely exonerated of the crime (see John Grisham’s [italic]The Innocent Man[/italic] for one example). In some cases, DNA evidence has exonerated people whose executions have already been carried out. That makes the citizens of that state morally responsible for murder, in my opinion.
this thread contains a set of comments that indicate an application of reason & faith that I just can not – or more likely choose not – translate to following Jesus .there is not a definition of orthodoxy (or orthopraxy) that equals the use of the death penalty by a nation state
Reactionary,
[blockquote]You used the term “forgiveness.†I am trying to figureout why forgiveness translates into a waiver of the penalty for the crime on the one hand but not the other.[/blockquote]
I’ll say this again, and please understand me this time. My forgiveness [b]does not[/b] translate into the waiver of the penalty. My forgiveness carries no weight with the state. I brought in my duty to forgive to make a completely different point, and rather than try to explain it again and have it result in confusion, just re-read post #46 if you’re still interested. Did you even read my post #53?
[blockquote]The “right to counsel†simply means the right to have a lawyer represent you. It does not mean the right to demand that the taxpayer foot the bill for your legal defense. Justice Warren stitched that one up out of whole cloth in the 1950’s.[/blockquote]
So you were a founding father, and you know exactly what they meant? All sarcasm aside, the right to counsel doesn’t mean much if you can’t afford counsel. Would you really prefer a system where the poor lose by default because they cannot afford a lawyer? Already the wealthy are much less likely to be put to death because they can afford better representation; if the 6th Amendment was interpreted in such a way that there was no help for the indigent, then we might as well throw away any notion of equal treatment under the law.
[blockquote]Likewise, due process means notice and an opportunity to be heard. It does not mean endless habeas reviews.[/blockquote]
On this I tend to agree, though the Constitution is set up so that the courts interpret the Constitution, so technically they’re right even if they’re wrong (unless they’re overturned). Still, with fewer safeguards it would cost less, but there would be even more people put to death wrongly. How much money is an innocent life worth? If you were falsely convicted, how many appeals should you get?
Adam,
Your posts really get muddled but I think you have abandoned your original argument anyway.
The right to life itself is meaningless for people who can’t afford medicine they need. It does not translate into a right to force other people to pay for it. Again, for the first 160+ years of the Constitution, there was no public underwriting of indigent criminal defense. Thus, it is hard to see where Justice Warren found such a right other than out of his own head.
No system of justice can guarantee perfection. I will grant you that there is much wrong with ours. There are too many laws, too many prisons, and too many arcane procedures that require a lawyer to figure out.
Reactionary,
[blockquote]Your posts really get muddled but I think you have abandoned your original argument anyway.[/blockquote]
No, I haven’t. I’m opposed to the death penalty because I believe it is [b]immoral[/b], not because of my duty to forgive those who have wronged me. I can’t make it much clearer than that. You read what you thought I meant into what I was actually saying.
[blockquote]The right to life itself is meaningless for people who can’t afford medicine they need. It does not translate into a right to force other people to pay for it.[/blockquote]
That’s a different argument, simply because you don’t have the state spending its resources trying to make you sick. With the right to counsel, if the state has the resources of the police and the prosecuting attorney’s office to use against you, and you cannot afford an attorney to represent you, there is no justice. Anyone who couldn’t afford their own lawyer would pretty much be guilty by default if they were indicted. If the prosecutor had enough evidence to indict, it would be enough to convict without anyone to challenge it. Still, whether it’s the Constitution or the Supreme Court of the 1950’s that gave us that right, it’s still the law of the land today. Thus, it’s still more expensive to execute than to imprison for life.
[blockquote]No system of justice can guarantee perfection. I will grant you that there is much wrong with ours. [/blockquote]
That’s it? Innocent people are murdered by the state, and that’s all? By your logic (murderers deserve the death penalty), whenever an innocent person is executed (and it has happened) those responsible should be put to death themselves. If “we the people” are the government, then we are murderers every time that happens.
And if “we the people” are the government and imprison an innocent man, then we are kidnappers. And if “we the people” are the government and commit to an illegal war, then “we the people” can no longer claim protection from retaliatory attacks as non-combatants. But I digress. Again, if you want perfection in a system of justice you will need to wait for the Kingdom of God on earth. In the meantime, death is an appropriate penalty for the wanton taking of human life. All human beings are made in the Divine Image. But if a human being wants to reject that Image, and be an animal, and give himself over to animal impulses, then he puts his life in the discretion of the human beings God has made the stewards of His Creation. This is why we put down mad dogs in pity and mindful of our duties to other human beings.
Texas inmate executed for rape-slaying
The Associated Press ^ | Aug. 15, 2007 | MICHAEL GRACZYK
HUNTSVILLE — A condemned prisoner whose threats toward corrections officers restricted his already limited movements on Texas death row was executed Wednesday evening for the rape and fatal shooting of a woman during a break-in at her home nearly 10 years ago.
In a brief final statement, a quiet Kenneth Parr expressed love to his family.
“I just want to tell my family I love y’all, man,” he said. He mentioned two brothers by name and said, “Keep your head up, y’all. I’m ready.”
He never looked at the relatives of his victims, including her parents.
Parr, 27, was barely an adult, just days past his 18th birthday, when he and a younger half brother kicked in the door of the Bay City home of 30-year-old Linda Malek, robbed the place, then raped her and shot her in the head while she was in bed with her two young children.
Reactionary –
Of course, if a person is imprisoned and later found innocent, he can be released. Execution is irreversible. I’m sorry, but “life’s not perfect” is hardly an excuse for not doing better, just as “life’s not fair” is not an excuse for acting unfairly. Surely you believe that justice is a moral imperitive? We may disagree as to whether it’s just to execute a person, but if we don’t agree that God commands justice, we don’t believe in the same god.
“And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.†(Mic 6:8)
Dave B –
Well, I watched Dead Man Walking anyway, plus read a rather longish article on it’s function as propaganda. It really is a well-done movie and highly manipulative.
In the movie she does spend time with the families of the victims. One family accepts her and the other (a fictionized Bourque family?) rejects her when they learn she has “come over to (their) side.” This is consistent with what she said when she was here. I don’t know, and Sr. Helen really isn’t the topic here. I’ve heard she is quite the moderne nun, dissenting from Church teaching in various areas. I happen to agree with her in this one.
Did I say this above? I can’t find it, but those with a sense of the ironic will appreciate the fact that if someone kills me because of my work, it’s capital murder. :cheese:
Words matter. I realize this isn’t about Sister Prejean but Bob Carlton posted a prayer by her. I find Sister Prejean self serving. No body seems to care about the guards that have to look after these people and the problems they face (Tookie Williams was planning to kill some guards and escape). People care about the poor “perpatrator” but the victims often get lost as happened with the victims of Sonnier and Willie.
Dave B.
[blockquote]No body seems to care about the guards that have to look after these people and the problems they face (Tookie Williams was planning to kill some guards and escape). People care about the poor “perpatrator†but the victims often get lost as happened with the victims of Sonnier and Willie.[/blockquote]
I don’t know if that’s fair. Maybe Sister Prejean doesn’t care about the victims’ families; I really doubt it, but I don’t know her. But many of us who are against the death penalty do care about the victims, about the guards, etc. Appeasing the victims’ families is not enough justification to kill someone in my opinion. As far as guards go, we could put to death all violent criminals (not just murderers) and make the guards even safer; I don’t think it’s justification for killing them. I’m glad Tookie Williams didn’t carry out his plan; would he still be a danger if he was alive today? I don’t know. But there are many dangerous criminals not on death row. Do you think they should be put to death? If not, does that mean you don’t care about the guards?
Reactionary,
[blockquote]And if “we the people†are the government and imprison an innocent man, then we are kidnappers.[/blockquote]
When we imprison an innocent person, we are wrong and should make amends. Unfortunately, there are no more amends to be made after putting someone to death.
[blockquote]But if a human being wants to reject that Image, and be an animal, and give himself over to animal impulses, then he puts his life in the discretion of the human beings God has made the stewards of His Creation. This is why we put down mad dogs in pity and mindful of our duties to other human beings.[/blockquote]
Human beings are capable of great evil. But human beings are not animals. The fact that you believe that some human beings are “animals” reflects a theology that I cannot subscribe to. It also, in my mind, reflects an unawareness of your own sinful nature.
God has sovereignty over human life; I do not. No person does. I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree, and I respect your opinion, though I completely disagree with it.
Jim,
Was that #400? I pray for Linda Malek and her family, and I pray for Kenneth Parr and his family. There is nothing good about that story.
Sorry, one more thing hit me:
[blockquote]Again, if you want perfection in a system of justice you will need to wait for the Kingdom of God on earth. [/blockquote]
Jesus said that the Kingdom of God was at hand. That means it’s close by, or even available. I’m not waiting for the Kingdom of God; I’m trying to usher it in. That’s what I’m commanded to do. That means I do what I can to work towards perfect judgment, even if it is only attainable with God’s help. That means carrying out the Great Commission first and foremost, but it is also means helping God’s “will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” This includes areas of justice and peace. One day God will abolish murder (as all sin), but that does not mean that we don’t have our jobs to do in bringing that about. Part of what I do is work with violent offenders to help them stop being violent, so that maybe they won’t become murderers. I’m not satisfied with the status quo, and my faith informs me that I shouldn’t be.
Adam,
Your objections to the death penalty seem to be first, it’s irreversible if it turns out the conviction was wrongful and second, only God has sovereignty over human life. The first point is well taken but again, there is no perfect justice on this Earth. The numbers of perpetrators subsequently cleared of their convictions is extremely small, and at some point a cost-benefit analysis must be performed. We are taxing the victims themselves for the upkeep of savages in fear of the extremely long odds of an innocent man being executed. As to the second point, you are trying to prove too much with it. If only God has sovereignty over human life, one can likewise argue against medical intervention and acts of self defense. And again, why the distinction between imprisonment and the death penalty? Both are a deprivation. I’d also argue that execution amounts to collective self-defense which is clearly allowed under Christian teaching.
I stand by the characterization of certain humans, Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind, as animals. We all have depraved fantasies lurking in our hearts, though I will presume to say that cannibalizing young boys is never something to which I’ve been tempted. Those beasts who act on them are a menace to innocent people and as a result their lives are forfeit.
Reac.,
A friend of mine went to FSU and was a member of the Chi Omega sorority at the time of Ted Bundy. Fortunately for her, she was home for a visit at the time of the killings. I would add Bundy to your list of animals in human form.
HOWEVER, James Dobson reports that Bundy repented and became a Christian before his execution, but never used that as a reason to postpone his own death.
I would hope and pray that more on death row would come to saving faith in Christ.
Adam, I didn’t say sister Prejean doesn’t care about the victims. I know she never talked to the victims of Willie’s crimes. We lose a sense of perportion when we fail to understand the damage, pain, and loss that is inflicted by murders, like the Lakes, Ings, Willies etc. Please read about Pee Wee Gaskin. Society needs to protect people from individuals that have lost thier humanity. I remmember the fellow who wrote in book “In The Belly of The Beast”. Many notable people partitioned for his parole. He was paroled only to turn around and kill a poor waiter. How many of those that were so convinced of his worth are supporting the waiters family? Time Magazine had a fellow on the cover with the title “Virginia is going to kill and inocent man” with an article about Rodger Coleman. Many of his other victims testamony had been ignored and Coleman was the inocent victim. When DNA testing became available Coleman was guilty. Again the victims were lost in the fan fare created for the criminal.
Reactionary – Well, at best your argument is inconsistent. You talk about a cost-benefit analysis and the cost of the “savages'” upkeep, but the actual cost is less than the cost of execution. I know you don’t like the habeas appeals and court-appointed counsel, but they are a reality and they aren’t going anywhere soon. If you’re going to talk about being practical, then the death penalty makes no sense as it costs more than life imprisonment.
[blockquote]I stand by the characterization of certain humans … as animals.[/blockquote]
OK, which ones? Dahmer and Bundy are extremes, but what is your objective criteria for determining when someone isn’t human anymore? And I’m assuming, so correct me if I’m wrong, that if someone is an animal, someone is beyond redemption. I don’t know of any theology that teaches that Jesus died for the sins of animals.
In fact, what crimes are appropriate for the death penalty? Murder only? Because that’s a relatively recent development in history. What about adultery? It would be Biblical to stone someone for adultery. Are those who commit adultery animals who have forfeited their right to live?
libraryjim,
[blockquote]I would add Bundy to your list of animals in human form.
HOWEVER, James Dobson reports that Bundy repented and became a Christian before his execution, but never used that as a reason to postpone his own death.[/blockquote]
If Ted Bundy was an animal, as you say, then how could he become a Christian? Can my cat become a Christian? I know that sounds snarky, but I’m being completely serious.
lost thier humanity
Obscured, perhaps, but not lost. Christ is Lord and no one is beyond redemption. It’s also said that Dahmer became a Christian. I know that Karla Fay Tucker, a woman executed in Texas, had become a leader of Bible Studies in her prison unit and was well-respected as a Christian.
And (again), that justice is imperfect in this present age is a fact, not a goal.
One more…
[blockquote]If only God has sovereignty over human life, one can likewise argue against medical intervention and acts of self defense.[/blockquote]
The medical intervention argument is stretching way beyond what I’m saying, or the idea of God’s sovereignty over life (this is not a term nor concept I invented, and unfortunately I assumed you had heard it mentioned before). The idea is that life is God’s to take, not man’s. We cannot create life (you’re correct that we can extend it or “save” it), and it is not ours to take another’s life (or our own).
As far as self defense goes, some would argue that self defense does not give justification to take the life of another. I know that’s unusual, but I’ve seen that argument before. You say that self defense is clearly allowed under Christian teaching; please cite that. Killing in self defense is legal in the US, and I’m not saying that it’s wrong, but I’m not sure I could make a Biblical argument in favor of it right now. Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” is actually an argument against self defense.
[blockquote]And again, why the distinction between imprisonment and the death penalty? Both are a deprivation.[/blockquote]
You seriously don’t see a difference between imprisonment and execution? You’re right, both are deprivation. One is a deprivation of freedom, which is serious. The other is deprivation of life itself, which is a good deal more serious. There’s a friend of our family who spent 8 months in a federal prison; he’s a born-again Christian, and was before he went to prison. I think he would tell you there’s a definite difference between imprisonment and execution.
If all deprivation was equal, then if I fasted on Good Friday, I might as well commit suicide, right?
Dave,
[blockquote]We lose a sense of perportion when we fail to understand the damage, pain, and loss that is inflicted by murders, like the Lakes, Ings, Willies etc.[/blockquote]
And how does killing the perpetrator help with the damage, pain, and loss inflicted by their crimes? Because it may give the family some sense of closure? Rape is a terrible crime, and causes nearly as much damage, pain, and loss. Should we expand the death penalty to rapists? Maybe killing the murderer and his mother would appease the victims more. Should we do that too? (Sorry, ridiculous, I know. But making someone else feel better is not justification for taking human life).
[blockquote]Please read about Pee Wee Gaskin. Society needs to protect people from individuals that have lost thier humanity.[/blockquote]
I read about Gaskins. Society should be protected from people like him. Was killing him the only way to protect Tyner (the guy he killed in prison)? I mean, he made an explosive device and gave it to Tyner, and tricked Tyner into activating it. Is there nothing else the prison could have done? Like maybe not let him play with explosives and give them to other prisoners? Is that too much to ask of the penal system?
Ironically, Gaskins was executed for the murder of Tyner, who was on death row. Gaskins executed Tyner, which was a capital crime. But the warden (or whoever flips the switch) was supposed to execute Tyner, for which he is paid. Are we blurring the lines a bit here?
[blockquote]remmember the fellow who wrote in book “In The Belly of The Beastâ€. Many notable people partitioned for his parole. He was paroled only to turn around and kill a poor waiter. How many of those that were so convinced of his worth are supporting the waiters family?[/blockquote]
That’s a fair point. If I had petitioned for his parole, I would at least help the family of the waiter. Do you know for a fact that the folks you mentioned aren’t? And what was he in prison for in the first place? If he was paroled, it probably wasn’t something he would have been executed for in the first place.
[blockquote]Time Magazine had a fellow on the cover with the title “Virginia is going to kill and inocent man†with an article about Rodger Coleman. Many of his other victims testamony had been ignored and Coleman was the inocent victim. When DNA testing became available Coleman was guilty. Again the victims were lost in the fan fare created for the criminal.[/blockquote]
So what happened to Coleman?
You’re right, the victims were lost in the fanfare created for the criminal, and it will continue to be that way as long as capital punishment is practiced. Is it right? No. But I care about the victims and their families as well. Should I change my convictions on account of the victims? I can’t do so. I’m not defending murder. I’m not saying killers should get off unpunished. I just don’t believe that killing them, when we could keep them imprisoned for life, is moral.
I work with men who have committed domestic assault. I try to educate and counsel them so that they won’t repeat their crimes. There are some victims’ advocates that don’t like what I do, even though it actually helps these men not re-offend. They often see these men as animals, and as incorrigible.
Perhaps some of them are. I don’t think my work gets through to every one of my clients. I’m not naive. But some get it. We see success. And I learn that these guys aren’t batterers, but men who have committed these acts. Do I excuse what they did to get into the program in the first place? No, not at all. In fact, accountability is a big part of the process. But they are redeemable.
Murderers can be redeemed. That’s why I see them as human, not animals. Some of them will choose against redemption. Now, that doesn’t mean that I think they should be set free. And they can be redeemed on death row too; this is not the genesis of my argument against the death penalty. But this is why I won’t ever say someone is an “animal.” No one is beyond redemption. Dahmer and Bundy are both said to have repented and been born again in prison. Is anyone here going to argue that they weren’t?
Sigh. That’s one problem with the loss of the teachings of mortal and venial sins ([i]”If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.”[/i] — I John 5: 16-17 ESV). There then becomes no sense of degree. Thus, in your rather ludacris example, suicide and fasting are seen as two sides of the same coin of deprevation. Cheating on your taxes and cheating on your wife bear the same consequence.
It goes without saying that murder is a sin that leads to death: both spiritual for the murderer (unless there is true repentance) and physical, both for the victim and — society has decreed — for the murderer.
What [i]we[/i] need to do is pray for the conversion of the murderer, for no matter how much of an animal they have turned into, they still have a soul capable of being reached with the Gospel (there’s your answer, Adam)*. But we also need to realize that some sins have consequences beyond forgiveness. God frees us from the spiritual consequences of sin (the wages of sin is death), but, as Paul also pointed out, we still bear in our bodies the consequences of that sinful nature. We all die physically, eventually.
Well, that’s enough on this subject for now.
Peace
Jim Elliott <>< *I wonder, however, if there are not exceptions to this -- someone with an IQ that shows mental retardation, where they ARE more like animals than humans, acting on instinct and feeling, where no rational thought exists? Of course, there are laws that exempt these people from execution, but life in a mental institution can be far worse than prision or death row.
Jack Abbott wrote “In the Belly of The Beast” He was serving a 20 to 25 year sentence for murdering a fellow inmate when Norman Mailer worked to free him. Once free Abbott got into an altercation with a waiter and killed him. You can not kill for violence but you can eleminate those that have demonstrated horrid deadly violance and prevent them from damaging other innocent people and the innocent peoples loved ones. As domonstrated by Gaskin, Abbott and multiple others, locking some one up does not insure they will not kill again. Leaving these people alive gives them the opportunity to kill again. There is a hugh differance between the state, after due process, extinquishing a life to punish, bring justice, and provide closure to a family and some one like Willie raping a women and then repeatly knifing her while she begs to die for his sexual pleasure. The state has a duty to protect it’s citizens from those who prey on them or else we become a jungle. Prison, as has been demonstrated, does not provide that insurance, death does.
libraryjim – I agree with much of what you say. I still say that anyone, regardless of their sin, is still a human being. If there is still a soul, as you say, then that person is not an animal. I also agree about their being degrees of sin, but it’s not always clear which sins fit into which category. My point with the fasting/suicide example was to refute Reactionary’s point about prison and execution both being deprivation, not really to say that all sin is equal.
Yes, there are earthly consequences for sin. I’m not saying that those are forgiven because God forgives sin. I’m just arguing whether the death penalty is a just earthly consequence for a civilized society to carry out. I don’t think it is. With such an imperfect justice system, I don’t think that the state should be in the business of killing people. This is really less about those who are sentenced to die, but about the society that makes the decision of whom it is ok to kill.
Thanks for the conversation. We do agree on the most important point IMO, which is to pray for the souls of the murderers.
Dave B – in all of the instances you bring up (Abbott, Gaskins, and Willie), the death penalty was in place, and these people still died. If Gaskins could kill a death row inmate during a life imprisonment sentence, then he could have killed him while awaiting execution on death row. BTW, any prison system that allows a man (Gaskins) to poison a prisoner, and after that doesn’t work to assemble a bomb and blow up that same prisoner, is a system that’s not protecting it’s prisoners. There was much more that could have been done to prevent that short of executing Gaskins.
If Abbott was sentenced to 20 to 25 years, then it wasn’t a capital case anyway. If he would have stayed in prison, he wouldn’t have been able to kill the waiter. I’m not advocating that we release murderers back to the streets, but that we don’t kill them.
In Willie’s case, would he have killed again if he was given life in prison instead of death? We’ll never know. But it can be kept from happening. There has to be opportunity.
[blockquote]…the state, after due process, extinquishing a life to punish, bring justice, and provide closure to a family…[/blockquote]
Are any of these moral justifications to kill someone? That’s where we disagree. I agree that you can make a moral argument for capital punishment if that’s the [b]only[/b] way you can prevent more murders; even the Catholic Church believes that. I’m just not convinced that there in no other way. As far as justice goes, what is justice? Some would say torturing the prisoner, if he or she tortured the victim, would be justice. Justice is a hard concept to define. And Jesus often preached mercy overriding justice (e.g., the adulteress who was about to be stoned). Punishment? Life imprisonment is punishment, and I’m not sure punishment itself justifies taking a human life. Closure for the family? It’s important, but does it justify killing? Is that the only way to achieve closure? In cases where the death penalty is not sought or not sentenced, do those families just never get closure?
I hate to try to extend the conversation, but I do have a question, if anyone wants to answer. Would anyone here be willing to carry out the execution? Would you be willing to actually flip the switch?
My point with Abbot is that he killed in prison and on the street. Prison did not prevent him from killing and due to pressure from advocates he was released to kill on the street. I worked with prisoners in my medical profession. A lot of them were sociopaths at best and psychopaths at worst. Coleman went to his death denying he murdered the person he was convicted of killing, lying just before he was to meet his God and creator. I would have no problem flipping the switch on a Lake or an Ing or for that matter Willie. They had a much fairer shake than thier victims.
Dave,
Yes, many prisoners are sociopaths (actually, psychopath and sociopath are synonymous terms, both outdated clinically). Most of them lie. Not sure what the point is here.
[blockquote]I worked with prisoners in my medical profession.[/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]I would have no problem flipping the switch on a Lake or an Ing or for that matter Willie.[/blockquote]
First of all, I’m guessing you aren’t a doctor, because doctor’s don’t perform executions due to the Hippocratic Oath. And I agree that the guys you mentioned had a much fairer shake than their victims. But killing someone, even righteously, changes people. I haven’t done it, but I’ve known people who have killed in the line of duty or self-defense, and it wasn’t pleasant. I’m sorry, but anyone who would have “no problem” with it worries me.
I didn’t say it wouldn’t bother me. If you believe in capital punishment you should have the fortitude to do what you are asking others to do. It is like hunting, people get upset with me becuase I hunt, I tell them Bessie the cow didn’t back into the butchers saw so they could enjoy thier steak.
Well, you said “no problem.” But there’s no sense quibbling over that. I do respect your dedication to your convictions.