|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 32 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Preach: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State |
Posted by
Domkitten on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 12:03 AM PST
I am probably not the only person here who spent a great deal of time as a teenager being emotionally unstable, with wild tastes and interests, and a penchant for reading the biographies, or autobiographies of serial killers. If it were not for the American teenager true crime novelists would probably go out of business; and last time I checked CSI was the most popular show in America, which is brutally and violently obsessive. I still have a twinge of fascination about the mass-murdering mind. This was tweaked again by the recent capture of the Green River Killer. What was more fascinating to me however was not so much his capture, but the absorption with his plea bargain to avoid the Death Penalty.
The Death Penalty is probably one of the most interesting law practices in the country, if you don’t count what they are doing to the arrested terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, which is equally extraordinary. The death penalty is murder that is legally sanctioned by many states and the Federal government, generally reserved for the most horrific and brutal crimes against people.
Texas, a state from which our dear president hails, happens to be a state well know for it’s hanging judges, and swinging juries, has put to death 222 since 1982, and our current President was accountable for 131 of those heads that rolled.1
Executions have come a long way, baby, since the days of the guillotine and the Tower of London, with disembowelment before a gathered crowd, or just burning someone alive to make a point. No longer can you go to the town square to see someone drawn and quartered by being pulled apart by horses. Long gone are the days of roasting alive witches on an open fire. For that kind of gruesome violence you have to go to the movies. These days, of course, executions are pretty things, with the convicts rolled in on a hospital bed, and put to sleep with an injection that also carries with it a poison to stop the heart.
In this modern day and age, we like to think of ourselves as more cultured and refined humans, the type of people who would be violently opposed to the reckless slaughter of our enemies, and yet, when it comes to Death, in this country we continue to condone legalized murder.
What is also potentially more disturbing is that the Green River Killer killed between 48 and 60 women, depending on how honest he is being about those he murdered. In his own statement to the court he said "I killed so many women I have a hard time keeping them straight..."2 This murderer will not be put to death, while there are many on death row in states around the country who will die for having murdered only one person.
The questions that lie here are numerous. Most are concerned with justice. What is really just? Is killing a multiple murder just? Is killing a black gang banger just? Is not killing one man for the murders of over a dozen more just than killing another for murdering only one? When it comes to the death penality in America there are certainly numerous incongruities.
Obviously, justice itself in America can be laughable with more than half the convicts in the states being among poor minorities, men and women who could not afford good representation and legal counsel. Men and women of low or average intelligence, men and women with little to live for anyway. One has to question the use of capital punishment in many cases.
During the "Bush the Younger" reign in Texas there were more than a dozen extraordinary miscarriages of justice for those who were executed, including the execution of a mentally incapable man, a man who was convicted on testimony of witnesses who later recanted, and my personal favorite, the man whose legal counsel slept through a better part of the trial.3
Two years ago in Illinois the governor imposed a moratorium on the Death Penalty after increasing evidence that inmates sentenced to death row consistently received poor council, and that in many of the cases convictions were either overturned later, or evidence was brought to light proving the innocence of those sentenced to die.4
Even with all this though, the nature of human beings persists. There are definitely cases in which unthinkable acts of cruelty have been committed upon innocent or unsuspecting victims. Is it fair to say that all those arrested for murder should face death themselves? Are there pros for execution? A short jail time will certainly means less cost to the State, but all that blood on the hands of our justice system, what does that say?
In the end, I'm happy to hear that justice in some small way is being done, a very wicked man is going to jail for a long time for very terrible crimes. Regardless of whether or not his head will roll, the families have been served. The larger issues in the case of capital punishment may never be solved satisfactorily for everyone.
1. Bush KillsThis sites says the actual count is 152, the New York times says 131, and I'm just going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
2. From the 16 page letter read to the court.
3. An article about Bush's miscarriages of justice.
4. The Illinois Moratorium
|
|
| |
|
|
Average Rating : 3.8
Total ratings : 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State | Login/Create an account | 24 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State
by Anya on Nov 29, 2003 - 06:05 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://kirashi.envy.nu
|
The death penalty would be nice only if it wasn't abused. Either way, a nice way of punishing a criminal is through nice torture or the age of being in prison. But torture is illegal, so I guess that marks that out.
I only say the death penalty should be an option because there are certain people out there that are major threats to society. Even if they did not end up having their heads rolling, it's a nice to think that it's a possibility. :)
It sounds callous, but I really do think there's some people out there that're better off dead. Just my humble opinion.
|
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State by Domkitten (saradevil@saradevil.com) on Nov 30, 2003 - 06:52 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.saradevil.com | See, I don't think we should be torturing criminals either. I don't think there is any kind of justification for the kind of sensless acts of brutality that human beings inflict upon others all in the name of justice. Justice should rise above that sort of thing.
And regardless, if you have someone out there who is a major threat to society, the death penalty is not an option, as they have not yet been incarcerated. And once they are, the death penalty is little more than a pacifer because the wrongdoers will never go free.
It's no paradox, it's just wrong. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State by Anya on Dec 01, 2003 - 07:11 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://kirashi.envy.nu | I'm not trying to sound like a big brute, just there's a lot of people out there that're committing crimes over, and over, and over again because they're not allowed to be put to death. For instant, in California there's a three strikes rule, but in New York, there isn't so you have a criminal who's been guilty of a crime eight times on the loose.
Here's an interesting fact, though: Russia is guilty until proven innocent, and we vice versa, but most of the worst criminals between the two nations are from us. (I think last I checked it was 97%, it was on a show.) I guess it's another grain to add to the bucket to explain why I sometimes think it's better. It's inhuman, but as I said, I do not value life as much as I used to.
I'm curious though...why is it better to leave them living? I'm not trying to sound self-righteous or anything, or say that my actions are more justifiable than others, but I honestly do not understand why the convict living is any better. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State by Anya on Dec 01, 2003 - 02:53 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://kirashi.envy.nu | Something to add to this thread: statistics may be different and may not be fully accurate, but I thought the numbers were interesting.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State by Domkitten (saradevil@saradevil.com) on Dec 01, 2003 - 07:49 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.saradevil.com | You haven't yet actually provided any numbers. I don't mean to be dense but I'm not quite sure what the 97% you tossed out up there was supposed to refeer to. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State by Anya on Dec 01, 2003 - 08:28 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://kirashi.envy.nu | The 97% was referred to the American criminals. Then again, the statistics could have been altered...another thing I forgot to consider before making the post. It's old stuff though so things could have been changed since I saw it. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State by Domkitten (saradevil@saradevil.com) on Dec 02, 2003 - 04:35 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.saradevil.com | One, Russia has an enourmously larger land mass than that of the US. Two the population densitiy between the two nations is greatly different. Three, Russia is known to have some of the bloodiest killers and murders around, so much so that the FBI has been known to consult with Russian criminologists on crimes. I don't think there is that much disperity between the two nations as far as crimes go. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Memorilizing Murders by Domkitten (saradevil@saradevil.com) on Dec 02, 2003 - 04:43 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.saradevil.com | And, although you can fault the US for a certian amount of obsession with serial killers, their stories, and a gruesome lust for blood and crime scene photos, the US has yet to erect a statute to a murder. Andrei Chikatilo was the biggest mass murder in Russia in the last century, topping 53 deaths. The mayor of Moscow proposed erecting an 8 foot statue of the murder with a suitcase dripping red water to memoralize him forever.
To quote the mayor "We Russians like fountains, especially children." |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State
by chameleon on Nov 29, 2003 - 11:10 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
One of my favourite phrases of all time is, "a country's status of social progress can be determined by the number of people in it's jails, asylums, and nursing homes." Just a little thought provoking quote to get the mental juices flowing.
We have come a long way since torture on the town(hm, sounds like a concert tour), but in some states public hanging is legal if someone is considered guilty enough to warrant such a reprecussion. Strange, how certain states just do not wish to give up on history...
Personally, I think that capital punishment is a needed faculty, but I question many times whether or not the execution of some new criminal was really the answer. Like you stated Dom, justice is quite the elusive objective.
I agree with Anya, some people do not deserve to live, but those cases are few and far between, and everyone should check out George Carlin's ideas on the death penalty they are hilarious!
|
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State
by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com)
on Nov 30, 2003 - 12:20 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://bettie_x.tripod.com/
|
I"m definitely one of the people on the fence about capitol punnishment, and I'll be honest. My brain says "no" but in some cases my heart SCREAMS "yes". It's a primitive practice, and carried out based on circumstantial evidence (unless there was a witness) most of the time. Then again, there are people who are just murdering scum and shouldn't have been born in the first place. I'm not for turning the other cheek, and my conscious has always carried "eye for an eye", but it always comes out in my brain that capitol punnishment does NOTHING. The threat of death does not deter murderers, it doesn't make them think twice. It's handy as a bargaining chip to get information that would give peace to families left in limbo to the whereabouts of missing and presumably dead loved ones (as in the gary ridgeway "green river killer" case), but what does it DO? It takes a life. A worthless life, but it takes a life, and does nothing to prevent other worthless people from doing the same. And as said, it's very wishywashy, and some serial killers or perps of HORRIBLE crimes get life without parole while a person who kills one person is unanimously sentenced to death. It depends on the jury, their beliefs, and how popular the trial is. I'm sorry but it's impossible to have an "impartial" jury.
Two good movies that illustrate the point against capitol punnishment are "the life of david gale" and "a cry in the dark". David Gale was an anti death penalty advocate and high standing university professor who is convicted of murder of a fellow death penalty detractor and sentenced to die, the premace of the movie being that many people are executed who are actually innocent. I'm not going to ruin it for you so that's all I"m going to say on it. "A cry in the dark" is a true story of an australian couple who's infant daughter is allegedly killed by a dingo on a camping trip, the butchery of a trial and the false and sometimes hypothetical "facts" by specialists called in on the case to testify, as well as assumed physical evidence that was shoddily collected at the crime scene, lost, etc. The mother was sentenced to life in prison, and should she have been given the death penelty, she would have been executed by the state before she was finally redeemed and released 5 years later by the accidental finding of a crucial piece of evidence by park rangers.
Having lived down the street from the green river killer while he was still free (good thing I"m not a hooker), having driven to work daily by two of his last crime scenes, having grown up with him on the prowl and remembering the irrational fear of an unknown predator responsible for the largest killling spree in american history by one person, again my heart screams "kill him" but my brain knows better. Because it won't do anything to keep it from happening again. We'll be disposing of a man who's worst deeds are done, and were done, years ago. I'll pay to keep him in the hole, I have no problem with it, I do it for hundreds on every paycheck I get. I would rather see less comfy prisons and more programs that make them "earn their keep" and keep alive 100 real criminals than know that I supported the death of 1 innocent person.
|
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State by Domkitten (saradevil@saradevil.com) on Nov 30, 2003 - 06:46 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.saradevil.com | Damn skippy, bettie-x. I cannot, regardless of how much I dislike someone or their crimes condone killing them. It's just flat out wrong. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com) on Dec 04, 2003 - 06:15 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://bettie_x.tripod.com/ | Exactly, tho like I said I feel it's not so much "wrong" as it is just pointless and innefective. I wholeheartedly feel that some people just deserve to die, but their death isn't my decision to make, nor a jury of their peers. I would probably feel differently if a loved one of mine was murdered, I'll attest to that.
Another good movie that could deal with the criminal's point of murder/death penalty is "american history x". The main character was jailed for the murder of two black men, and in jail came to understand the wrongness of his mentality, how ugly and pointless and ignorant it was, how it was hurtful not just to himself but to everyone and was able to turn his life around and what CAUSED this mindset to develop (the subtle racism of his father on top of the fact that he felt bullied in a neighborhood mostly inhabitied by other ethnicities, and then his father's death fighting a fire in a black neighborhood, which his father had already pointed out as "useless"). Again, I would rather pay my taxes and see a "good at heart but gone wrong" person turn themselves around, or support a thousand horrible criminals than put one innocent or redeemable person to death.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State by Domkitten (saradevil@saradevil.com) on Dec 04, 2003 - 07:45 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.saradevil.com | In my opinion the best movie ever done on captial punishment is "Monster Ball". Not because it is a movie about a man who is about to be put to death, but because it shows, and very effectively, how inhuman it is to ask a normal, and healthy human being who would never consider commiting an act of murder, to then go and kill his fellow human beings.
I thought that as far as movies go for arguments against capital punishment that was the one that should change peoples minds.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State
by Starlight (elenmea@hotmail.com)
on Dec 01, 2003 - 03:30 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.geocities.com/nony_one/index.html
|
When I was a lot younger, I was opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Then as I learned more about the world, I was able to see where it could have a place somewhere in the legal system. My feelings are still rather mixed in some cases, but I've pretty much come to terms with how I feel about it at this point.
I think that the death penalty should be carried out in cases where the person sentenced to death freely admits they committed the crime they were convicted of. In cases where the person claims they absolutely did not commit the crime, I think they should be given as long as necessary to prove they didn't do it. (Just in the off-chance that they were truly innocent and wrongly convicted.) If this means they end up serving a life sentence rather than being put to death, then so be it.
I have very mixed views on the whole insanity thing. It's possible for someone to have a psychotic break and commit the crime, but I'm inclined to think that would make it possible for it to happen again. In the case of alcohol or drugs being figured into a crime, while they did do the crime, they really weren't rational. There is also the possibility that the person is truly insane for the rest of their life. In those cases, where there are questions of how mentally intact the criminal was, I think a life sentence might be more fitting than a death sentence. I just think that while most people who are very interesting to be around are a bit insane (but it's a good kind of insanity...a fun kind...a weird kind...not a truly psychotic kind where they might snap and kill you kind), those who are criminally insane should not be running amok in society at large.
|
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State by Starlight (elenmea@hotmail.com) on Dec 01, 2003 - 03:42 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.geocities.com/nony_one/index.html | I didn't really finish part of the thought fully in my first post.
I basically believe that a life sentence is better than a death sentence in all cases (when the choice of sentence is only either life or death). The only time I think a death sentence should ever be actually carried out, is if the person who is sentenced to death is actually asking to be put to death all the way til they are actually put to death. In any other circumstance, other than self defense at the time of the crime, I find the thought of a death sentence allows the chance for one innocent person (or partially innocent), out of however many guilty ones, to be wrongfully put to death. That's the main reason for my displeasure at the whole idea. Life in prison (if it's not torturous) at least allows the chance for someone to maybe someday get out if they weren't supposed to be there in the first place. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Kill me Please! by Domkitten (saradevil@saradevil.com) on Dec 01, 2003 - 07:47 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.saradevil.com | Considering this belief don't you think that essentially the state is then enabling the criminals to commit suicide? Suicide, like murder, also being illegal and a crime in this country. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Kill me Please! by Starlight (elenmea@hotmail.com) on Dec 01, 2003 - 11:22 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.geocities.com/nony_one/index.html | In a sense, putting someone to death could be considered assisted suicide if the person is asking to be put to death for his crime. Some criminals do take their own lives in jail. However, it is possible that some convicted criminals could truly feel remorse and feel that death is their just punishment. The following link gives a state by state review of assisted suicide laws (it also addresses suicide and attempted suicide briefly) in the United States. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Bulletcatchers!!!
by Anya on Dec 01, 2003 - 07:02 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://kirashi.envy.nu
|
From what I understand, prisons are also getting full. It would probably be another reason why I'd go with the death penalty (I don't value human life as much as I used to). Another option would be people bulletcatching or serving in wars. Didn't they used to make criminals serve in wars?
|
Re: Bulletcatchers!!! by Domkitten (saradevil@saradevil.com) on Dec 01, 2003 - 07:45 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.saradevil.com | Right, so, the prisons are getting full so we should just kill off a bunch of people to solve that overpopulation problem. We wouldn't want the prisoners to feel bad because their overcroweded. And god forbid that the wholier than though memebers of society should feel even the slightest twinge of remorse by the abused penal justice system.
The prisons are not overflowing because of murders, rapists, and molesters. Many of those who are in prison are there for much milder crimes, that are only crimes because society hasn't gotten around to getting the stick out of it's ass and making them not crimes. For example, I don't think junkies should go to prison, I think they should get sent to rehab instead. Right there you'd save a lot of prison beds. Then, let's re-examine that cases of most of the blacks and hispanics who have been locked up. I have a feeling that proper examination of the facts will probably free a few more beds.
Then, hey, let's examine all the people we have locked up because of the Patriot Act. I'm sure some families would be happy to see their loved ones returned to them instead of being thrown in front of a bullet because the neighbor suspected them of plotting to destory her mailbox.
Really, the whole "kill them all and let god sort them out" mindsight should have been put behind us ages ago. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Bulletcatchers!!! by Anya on Dec 01, 2003 - 08:41 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://kirashi.envy.nu | Hmm...I suppose you're right as far as the majority of the prison. I guess I should have considered how some poor people do a crime, whether minor or not, just so they can go to jail instead of being on the streets.
I somewhat find it still more of a paradox than anything. There's the side that wishes to stop what I'd call "uncivilized acts" then the side that looks back at history and is convinced that it's going to be a vicious cycle until the sun gets old and burns this planet up...
I do feel that we should make the prisoners learn their lesson, but sometimes no one learns.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Please forgive the inadequacy of my English...
by Arthegarn on Dec 01, 2003 - 08:45 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
(Please forgive the use of male pronouns only in this post. No offense intended.)
Hmh. Actually what is happening to the Guantanamo prisioners is an amazing example of how much the Unites States system of justice can be twisted, and to me is by far much more interesting than the Death penalty cases. From the ponit of wiew of the Science of Law it's one of the most beautiful and delicate tapestries ever done by that country. The ice is so thin in several parts... but it doesn't break, it's all arguably perfectly constitutional.
The US system of justice, as always happens with Common Law systems, is subject to potentially endless interpretations of too small and general laws. It happens with the killing methofs you talk about, for instance. The US Constitution states for instance that no man shall be put to "cruel or unusual punishment" or something like that. Well, that was written when an unusual punishment meant being burned on a stake, or the rack. It was written when flogging was NOT an inhuman punishment. But right now it has given room for interpretations that the founding fathers never bore in mind, such as not having a TV in your cell (hey, I'm serious). The methods by which death penalty is executed have to do with this amendment. Wonder what would have Washington thought if he had lost the war and had been denied a firing squad because it was "cruel" and had been poisoned instead...
Well, let's go on. Is it just to do this? Is is ust to do that? Now, I ask you : what is Justice? In Spain we lawyers don't study Law, we don't go to law school. The career is called "Derecho", which has a very bad translation to "Right", as in someone's rights, having the right to do something or doing what is right. It's not just laws, I took two years of Philosophy of the Right, in which I studied what great juridic minds had thought and said about what is Justice, what is Right, from Hammurabi to Kelsen, including the great Romans. And guess what, they don't seem to agree at all. Justice is an end on itself, it's not just a means, it's an End, even Plato saido so. I love Ulpianus's definition "Iustitia est constans at perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendi" which roughly translates as "Justice is the constant and eternal will to give everyone that what is his".
Now, what is a murdeder's? Is it death? Can we naturally or logically conclude that to one who imposes death, death must come? NO, WE CAN'T. There are two basical theories about Penal Law and the purpose of punishment. One is called Retributive Justice, based in the Law of Talion, and holds a retibutive approach. He who hurts must be hurt in the same way with several objectives a) To show him that from ill comes ill b) As a conclusion from the former, to show him that he should not inflict ill on others c) To show others, in the way of example, that from ill comes ill d) As a conclusion from the former, to show others they should not inflict ill on others e) As a way to control and insure the offended's revenge (to some degree). Only in a system of retributive justice can the Death penalty have any place.
And even then, reasons a) through d) of the retributive system are not retaliatory in the end. THEY ARE EDUCATIONAL. Punisment is not inflicted by the sheer pleasure of it, it is inflicted with a purpose: to avoid further injustices. Paraphrasing "The Siege", Justice is not a club, it is a scapel. Now, are we REALLY getting anywhere with the death penalty?
Objective a) seems accomplished by the death penalty. Isn't it? Well, the guy who dies will certainly not go back to crminal activities but did he learn anything? Did he learn that what he did was wrong and why? Given the chance would he do it again? I don't think it's any good to him. he is most likely to believe that the System and the State and the Community are hypocritical as they are condemning him to Death. So that is good for some but bad for others?
Read the rest of this comment...
|
Re: Please forgive the inadequacy of my English... by Anya on Dec 01, 2003 - 03:04 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://kirashi.envy.nu | I been doing a lot of thinking on this article today and I think Arthegarn has brought out some interesting points. Now I can say that I'm a bit more moderate. I still think it should be an option, but I suppose that other punishments should be done first. Eh...too tired to think at the moment. I'll add more input another time.
PS: Arthegarn, you almost could make an article with that post of your's. Well done.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Please forgive the inadequacy of my English... by Domkitten (saradevil@saradevil.com) on Dec 01, 2003 - 08:08 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.saradevil.com | As always, your arguments that you do not grasp the language sound a bit flat as this is beautifully and impeccably written.
You have hit the nail on the head, though and explained an argument I’ve made in much more clear terms. The point behind having a penal justice system is to educate those who are incarcerated, and to provide the rest of society at large a means of understanding the consequences of actions.
Death in general is not much of a deterrent for a criminal about to commit a crime. It is not something that crosses the minds of most criminals. Upon finding out that they will die for most it is the most extreme shock, a realization of the catastrophic nature of the events that have been put in place, and for others it feeds a sense of martyrdom, dying for a cause, or “he is most likely to believe that the System and the State and the Community are hypocritical as they are condemning him to Death.” And lastly, it is simply suicide, like Ted Bundy, who guaranteed himself the death penalty by killing young girls in Florida. He would have killed again anyway, but he wanted to be sure that when he was caught he would be put to death.
Regardless of whether or not just is right (and I know the kind of arguments and the length of discussion that can be involved with those two words) I do think it is wrong to live in a society with laws that is willing to condemn others members of that society to death without taking any steps to try and redeem the criminal. It is the job of the society to educate and care for all of the members of that society. Yes, I would say the government serves as a parent, and as such should not have the choice of putting a bad or misbehaving child to death, but should instead find other means to deal with, and correct the child. (I feel like I’m arguing this with a Socratic bent, but as all my books are in another country I have to work this from my memory, and I may be getting my Plato, Hobbes, and Rousseau confused).
I think that this sums up what I am thinking the most that justice should be “About growing beyond the instinct to destroy what harms us into a spirit of pity and compassion, and second chances.”
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
|
|