Skip to comments.Jurors sought for Pa. abortion doc's murder trial
Posted on 03/04/2013 11:12:39 AM PST by don-oEdited on 03/04/2013 11:17:54 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Jury selection is under way in the murder trial of a Philadelphia abortion provider and could prove difficult since both abortion and the death penalty are involved.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
A modern day Josef Mengele. Fry the bastard.
1st Degree Premeditated Murder would be my verdict with a hearty recommendation for the death penalty.
After the trial, I’d do an intervieww with the media that essentially mimics the OJ Jurors’ reasons: The DEFENSE (in this case) just din’t have a believable story....
let me guess, they want to keep pro-lifers off the jury?
Death by Manual Vacuum Aspiration (MVA) or dilatation and suction curettage?
God does not rejoice in the death of a sinner. Neither will I.
I’m inclined to agree with you, my don-o. But I keep thinking of Samuel Johnson’s saying that nothing focuses a man’s mind better than the knowledge that he will be executed in a fortnight.
“Up his nose with a ribber hose!”
Am I becoming more like you - or vice versa?
To me, the primary use of the death penalty is to execute the most dangerous persons in society, to prevent them from killing/harming others in the future.
The most dangerous persons in a society are those who have no internal restraint preventing them from committing gross and heinous crimes, up to and including murder. Persons such as repeat serial and mass murderers are those most likely to have the least internal restraint from killing again.
Abortionists fit this definition to a T.
If our laws were sensible, all repeat abortionists would be mandatorily executed upon conviction for the heinous crime of abortion. I don't rejoice in the necessary death of any sinner, but it is necessary to protect the wider society from the moral enormities that are abortionists.
You don’t have to kill him to assure that he never murders another baby. Perhaps removing his thumbs or even his hands would do the trick.
I have slowly, but surely come to oppose capital punishment on the ground that the governments that are imposing it lack the moral authority to do so since 1973.
You know that movie from 15+ years ago, "Dead Man Walking"? It was about that prison-religious-counselor-nun Sr. Helen Prejean and the murderer she was trying to spiritually aid, unrepentant double-rape-murderer Matthew Poncelet.
It was supposed to be an anti-death-penalty movie, but I swear it just about turned me around the other way. It was vividly portrayed that that man would NOT have faced what he did, honestly confessed his guilt and repented, unless he had had the pressure of his own impending execution weighing upon him.
In fact, the main dramatic tension of the whole movie is the question, "Will he ever face the truth? Will he ever admit it?"
< It really made me think about the self-delusion which can be so deep in a human soul, like a fang of Satan, and the stern and desperate measures needed to draw it out.
But does even the U.S. provide "true" life imprisonment? Or aren't murderers released all the time because of re-sentencing cout orders, overturn of jury verdicts on technicalities, even jailbreaks?
Releasing a known murderer is like the whole damn system being an accessory to murder.
I read somewhere that ther are 500 homicides a year by offenders with a PREVIOUS CONVICTION for homicide --- in California alone!
I understand this upstanding Obama-loving Democrat used scissors to cut the babies' spinal cords.
(Is it logical to call a woman that murders her child a "Mother"?)
Murderers murder. It is what they are, it is what they do. Anyone who would butcher thousands of the most innocent cannot be trusted to continue to breathe oxygen with the rest of us. Such a person is capable of the grossest, greatest crimes, not just against small, unborn babies. Denied the capacity to express their satanic desires through the infamy of killing babies, it is difficult to predict what enormity they might commit.
That's why I talk about “internal restraint.” Prison is a form of external restraint. Chopping off folks’ thumbs (are we now permitted to mutilate - a mortal sin by Catholic reckoning - to avoid that to which the state has a right, execution?) is a form of external restraint.
The goal is to find the needed balance between internal and external restraint to prevent the offender from re-offending, or from committing even more gross crimes. Those with a great deal of internal restraint will need little external restraint to keep from committing more crimes, especially crimes of violence. This is why what has been done with someone like Bernie Madoff is immoral, sending him to a maximum security prison. The likelihood that Mr. Madoff needs the physical restraints inherent in a maximum security prison to keep from re-offending is vanishingly low. Any “club fed” sort of facility would have done the job.
But for folks who commit many murders, their level of internal restraint is small, perhaps non-existent. In fact, many of these human beings actually derive sexual pleasure from committing heinous murder, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that any long-time abortionist has perverted himself in that way. Thus, far from restraint, these humans are driven to murder by their diseased spirits and depraved minds. And the problem is that it isn't ordinarily possible to rely on purely external restraint. Given a person in possession of his physical and mental faculties, if he has no internal restraint whatsoever from committing murder, he'll find a way. Even if it's only another prisoner, or a prison guard or visitor.
I've read about the lengths that hardened murderers go through to commit murder even in the tightest super-max prisons. Also, these sorts of folks are inclined to attempt escapes, and sometimes they succeed. And kill again.
Real-world example: Ted Bundy murdered roughly 50 folks and was sentenced to prison. Even though he had only a short while to serve on his sentence, and even though he was likely to be acquitted of another murder for which he was being tried, he escaped. He killed three more people and mutilated a number of others. Even the promise of likely release and freedom did not keep him from escaping and doing what he did, being what he was - a murderer who murdered.
Then, they caught him and executed him. Since his execution, he has directly brought to physical harm not a single person. He has murdered no other people.
As to the moral authority of the government, sorry, but if St. Paul viewed the Roman government has having the authority of the sword, I don't see where our governments don't. Our society may be degraded and degenerate, but the Romans by the time of St. Paul were pretty bad, too.
Every baby butcher should be executed, for no other reason than to make the world safer for the rest of us guilty of less-bloody, more pedestrian crimes.
“But it does say that in countries which can provide true life imprisonment without possibility of release, life imprisonment should be the penalty.”
It is a prudential judgment that such a sentence can, in reality, actually be provided for and guaranteed. My own reading strongly suggests that such a sentence cannot be provided for and guaranteed.
“But does even the U.S. provide ‘true’ life imprisonment? Or aren't murderers released all the time because of re-sentencing cout orders, overturn of jury verdicts on technicalities, even jailbreaks?”
You make my point very well.
“Releasing a known murderer is like the whole damn system being an accessory to murder.”
“I read somewhere that ther are 500 homicides a year by offenders with a PREVIOUS CONVICTION for homicide -— in California alone!”
I don't know what the precise numbers are, but I have read that more folks are murdered by murderers who were previously eligible for the death sentence than there are murderers who are actually put to death. Somehow, that statistic seems upside down and backwards to me.