Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Death (Penalty) Be Not Proud

I have to hand it to Shrub, he knows how to pick his topics and thus continues to challenge me and Billy D.

This week's Roundtable Wednesday tackles the death penalty. And with it comes the Seventh Sign. It appeareth that The Boys and I actually agree.

First, here's my take:

My husband and I were watching the news the night last year when it was announced that the body of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford was found buried within sight of the Florida home from which she’d been abducted.

A month later her killer, John Evander Couey, would admit to burying Jessica alive as she clutched a stuffed animal to her chest. It was one of those stories so horrible - so incomprehensible - that it sears itself into your memory and sickens you every time it’s recalled.
As the details came out, I remember my husband saying, “If someone hurt you or the kids I don’t even want to think of where I’d go, it would be such a dark place.”

I understood. Part of me was already there. In Jessica Lunsford I could see my own children. In Couey, I saw a man who deserved not just death, but a horrible one. If such a man broke into my home with the intention of harming my family, I can assure you he would not walk out alive.

I am in favor of killing in self-defense, and I could hardly blame a person whose rage led them to take the life of their child’s murderer. If Jessica Lunsford’s father had gotten hold of Couey before the police did and ripped the man limb from limb, the actions of such grief and rage would be fully understandable. What parent wouldn’t want to avenge the death of a beloved child? I know I would.

The concept of revenge satisfies some hunger in us. Movies are full of it and we cheer when the bad guy finally gets his. Revenge supposed to bring “closure,” a relatively new and ridiculous concept that somehow implies getting even sets everything to rights.

But real life is different. The victim won’t be brought back to life when the killer takes his last breath. The victim’s family may feel a moment’s satisfaction as the man on the gurney draws his last breath, but such should hardly be the basis for public policy.

That’s just one of the reasons I oppose the death penalty.

As much as some people deserve it, the prison system’s job is to keep bad people off the streets. It has no business killing people on behalf of crime victims.

This stance makes people indignant. “If the murderer is put to death he won’t do it again,” they say. But the same thing can be achieved by keeping him behind bars. If Couey, a career criminal with a 30-year record, hadn’t been turned back out, Jessica Lunsford would still be alive.

And let’s not forget that while Couey admitted his guilt, some death row inmates maintain their innocence.

“Oh, they all do,” you may say. But some are, indeed, wrongly convicted. Here in North Carolina, death row inmate Alan Gell was released in 2004 after it was revealed that prosecutors withheld key evidence at his trial, including an audiotape of one of the witnesses saying she’d “made everything up.”

Gell is far from alone. I won’t bore you with statistics, but go here for an eye-opening look at just how flawed the system is.

It seems especially egregious to put people to death when exoneration is so readily available to those who can afford it. Look at O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake. Both men are likely guilty, but were lawyered up enough to walk away with their freedom. Escaping the ultimate penalty shouldn’t depend on one’s wealth or celebrity.

A system that can’t adequately dispense justice has no place putting people to death. The system should work to determine guilt or innocence. If true guilt is found, the killer should be put away to await the Hand of God.

The death penalty involves years of expensive appeals followed by a death far more gentle that monsters like Couey deserve. This is a man who raped a little girl and buried her alive. The hard part of me objects to his slipping off into a state-ordered permanent sleep. The hard part of me wants to think of this man as an 80-year-old, staring at the walls of his prison cell, choking on his own phlegm or wracked by the slow, painful spread of a cancer. Perhaps as he lies there, he tries to recall the feeling of the sun on his face. It's been so long, after all.... But each time he tries the fleeting memory is replaced by the cold hopelessness that has haunted him throughout his lengthy confinement.

There are some penalties worse, and more fitting, than an easy death.

Behold, the Wisdom of Shrub:

As the years have passed my political ideology has morphed and evolved. My penance in law school was invaluable as I came to recognize the ominous specter of big and intrusive government. In a word my personal political philosophy is becoming decidedly more myopic, and dare say, more protectionist. But my views on what will ultimately serve these United States and protect her from harm is also nearly the polar opposite of my beliefs circa 1990-’95.

Thus, my stance on the death penalty has done a 180. I was once a “kill ‘em all” zealot. No punishment was too harsh for those who chose to snuff out the life of another or serially molest, rape, and torture. These individuals were pond scum and deserving of the most finite and dastardly punishment available and I would’ve been more than happy to flip the switch.

Times will change as do perspectives. No longer do I view the death penalty as the ultimate panacea that will cure all murder and heinous crime. Let me tell you why…

The government should in no way, shape, or form be given even the slightest discretion to kill its own citizens. It is the height of folly to assume the government will act with restraint when they’re given the opportunity to execute their citizenry.

In every state that employs the death penalty it costs nearly twice as much to execute the average death row inmate than keeping them behind bars for life. Why? Because death penalty cases are 3-5 times longer than other murder trials, the appeals process is lengthy and expensive, and court costs abound throughout the process. The only way to reduce these hidden costs is to limit the appeals process.

But this rationale is a double-edged sword. The appellate mechanism was devised as a measure to police the government’s actions in its prosecution of crime & punishment. When doling out the most severe punishment imaginable the public must be assured that the government acted properly and within the scope of its legislative mandate. And the police and prosecutors are nothing more than arms of the government bestowed with nearly limitless resources all in the name of upholding and enforcing the laws. As such they must abide by and follow the exact letter of the law or our criminal justice system looses all credibility and legitimacy. After all, if the government actors don’t follow the law why should the general public.

If the appeals process is limited you remove any meaningful impediment to rampant illegal criminal prosecutions, an especially foolish move when the punishment is death.

When the government is trying to execute one of its own citizens they should have to jump through an infinite series of litigious hoops. The one sure way to reduce the enormous cost of the average execution is to abolish the death penalty. It’s sure, cost effective, and removes the ability of our states to kill their people.

Currently in the U.S. 38 states sanction capital punishment. Since 1976, 1,023 inmates have been executed in the U.S., and 3,373 currently sit on death row. The U.S. executes on a greater scale than every nation on earth, save Russia and China. A 2005 Gallup poll revealed that 56% of the American public favored the death penalty while 36% favored life imprisonment. Nearly every year between 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court, and 1995 the murder rate went up. Since ’95 the rates have declined a bit; in fact since ’99 the per capita murder rate dipped to 5.5, the lowest such level since 1965.

These numbers suggest a couple things. First, the government, when given the opportunity, will kill its citizens with fervent zeal. Second, the death penalty seems to have little to no relation to overall murder rates. Lastly, the American public has actually been duped into believing that the death penalty works.

Does capital punishment serve as an effective deterrent? According the most studies and statistical analysis the answer is a resounding no. Is the death penalty cost effective? Hell no. Is it moral for our government to divvy out death sentences at its whim? Once again, no. You must be able to answer yes to all these questions if you feel the death penalty is a legitimate governmental exercise.

Now the government would be all too happy to keep this train of death rolling. They’re in the game to expand power and placate the masses. Their very DNA dictates a willingness to throw John Q Public under the proverbial bus. The death penalty is a tool and serves a fickle and amoral master.

Since attending law school I’ve become genuinely fearful of expansive government. The thought that my country and state can execute me and have the majority of Americans condone such practices doubly scares me.

And finally, everyone's favorite guy in a bunny suit, Billy D.

Ah…the death penalty. The sound of "Old Sparky" as a few thousand watts course through it’s metal veins. The smell of crispy-fried man-flesh wafting through the air.

Kidding. It may surprise some of you to know, I am not a proponent of the death penalty, with very, very few exceptions.

See, first of all, to put one to death for some heinous crime, is to give them an easy out, and sometimes, exactly what they want. No, we can do much, much better.

For starters, even though many states still carry that penalty on their books, they’ve not used it in decades, and won’t for many more. So what’s the point? As a deterrent? No, it’s entirely useless for that. It stops no-one from carrying out whatever madness it is they seek.

Let’s say, for capital crimes, instead of placing an inmate on death-row for the next thirty years while appeal after appeal moves through the system until said inmate dies in prison, we get a bit creative with the punishments.

First, we set up a few special facilities made just for these folks. Super-prisons like the one in Colorado. Say a few in Northern Alaska, and maybe two or three in Death Valley. So if one were to escape, it’s a slow suicide at the hands of the sun or a polar bear.

Now, 23.5 hours a day you sit in your cell. You get fifteen minutes a day for recreation, which takes place in a concrete room, maybe ten feet by ten feet. The other fifteen minutes out of the cell is for a shower.

The only item allowed to you in your cell is a Bible or Koran, or whichever Holy book you choose. But that’s it. No TV, no radio, magazines, whatever. Nothing.

Oh, and no phone calls, letters, no type of communication with the outside world whatsoever. For all intents and purposes, you are dead to the outside world.

Cruel and unusual? You’re there for a reason. Not for robbing a bank or for rape or embezzlement (As an aside, for those type of sexual crimes, either life in prison with no parole, or 25 years and physical castration should do the trick) but because you committed a capital offense.

Then again, instead of wasting all that free labor, maybe we start work farms where these type of lowlifes work day in and day out for the rest of their natural lives doing some horribly repetitive and useless task like breaking rocks with a hammer or whatever.

See, I don’t think there’s anything to be gained from the application of the death penalty except vengeance for vengeance’s sake. While I do understand that, as if it were me who had lost someone to a heinous act I’d want my revenge too, but the state has to be the overseer in it all, and at times the voice of reason.

Now, I did say "with a few exceptions". Any offense involving children in any way, including murder and/or sexual violation automatically warrants the death penalty, which is then carried out swiftly. The defendant is limited to one appeal, which is reviewed by a three judge panel within thirty days. If it’s turned down, on day thirty one the offender is publicly executed by being drawn and quartered. This, I think, actually would be a deterrent to some. But it would have to be public, maybe pay per view or something. Whatever it took to get the word out.
But as far as killers go, half the time they’re ready and wanting to die anyway, they’re just begging for someone to do it for them, so why reward them with a granted wish. Make the punishment last a lifetime, and make it harsh.

32 comments:

prettylady said...

Controversy, stalled. I happen to agree with all three of you, too. But none of you mentioned the terrible burden the death penalty places on the civil service employee whose job it is to pull the trigger, insert the needle, clean the electric chair. Yet another pointless waste of life.

I would like to see a debate on prison conditions, and the fact that if you pile people on top of each other in that sort of environment, it brings out the worst in nearly all of them, including the guards.

How's this--'Prisons--Instruments of Vengeance or Opportunities for Reclamation?'

Terrymum said...

Hi Morgan:

I am Mitzibell's mother-in-law, a lawyer (for the govt. no less) and a big friend/fan of ElBorak et al. Ran across you today trying to re-bookmark due to a crashed computer. Good stuff.

This article caught my eye for two reasons: I have memorized Dunne's poem "Death be Not Proud" and want it read at any burial ceremony held on my behalf (Mitzi says she intends to turn me into a diamond she can wear and pass along - fine by me). And I have always been anti-death penalty, and never been shy to admit it (working for an office that routinely seeks that penalty has been a tad awkard at times). I came to my personal conclusions long before long school; basing them on my belief that no human should harm others, unless personally attacked (self-defense is always allowable) and the fact that being locked up and/or otherwise punished for the rest of your natural days is far worse punishment then going to your maker (or turning into worm food if you believe in no after life possibilities).

So welcome to my world. I will be back!

Terrymum said...

Sigh....My editing needs editing...

Long before law school....

And Pretty lady, you are THE BOMB!

Morgan said...

"I would like to see a debate on prison conditions, and the fact that if you pile people on top of each other in that sort of environment, it brings out the worst in nearly all of them, including the guards."


Pretty Lady, that is an excellent suggestion. It was hard for me to day not to go off on a tangent regarding that very point, especially when I considered that the prison system likely contributed to the monstrosity that Couey became.

terrymum, I am honored by your presence. I think so highly of mitzibel; it's nice to meet you.

I used to be pro-death penalty, but as I evolved I could not justify it. I think more and more people are beginning to feel that way. As Shrub pointed out in his excellent analysis, it certainly doesn't seem to be much of a detriment.

thimscool said...

Congratulations! Everyone agrees! Even me.

Well put, panelists.

If only more people could see so clearly.

Billy D said...

One thing I forgot to mention, in just about every state with TDP, killing a cop is automatically a capital crime. Akin to a "hate crime" I guess, in that it's aggrivated just because of who the victim is. Why is a cops life more valuable than mine or yours?

JohnR said...

BillyD: Your creative punishments are more cruel than the death penalty. Create meaningless work for them, the Soviets and Nazis used to do that to prisoners to break their spirit and drive them insane.

Lcoking them in their cells and basically taking away any rights they may have, "they don't exist."

Why not just kill them then?

Are you arguing torture as a state policy?

Oh, and why is a child's life more valuable than mine. If you have any death penalty it would have to be applied equally.

JohnR
terrymum says life in prison worse than standing before God in judgment (arguing as a Christian here), sorry not even close. Eternal damnation easier than life in prison.

JohnR said...

shrub says the govt should have no discretion to kill anyone.

How does the govt maintain any type of police force?

DEA, FBI, ATF, all have discretion to kill people. Think Ruby Ridge, Waco, any poor fool who moves wrongly during a botched drug raid.

Those people were all tried, convicted, and murdered by the State.

The soldier in combat is acting as an agent of a State and kills in the name of the State.

A #10 can of worms has been opened up.

JohnR

Shrubbery said...

DEA, FBI, ATF, all have discretion to kill people. Think Ruby Ridge, Waco, any poor fool who moves wrongly during a botched drug raid.

Those people were all tried, convicted, and murdered by the State.

The soldier in combat is acting as an agent of a State and kills in the name of the State.

A #10 can of worms has been opened up.--JohnR


No can has been opened. Law enforcement has as an ancilary casualty people as does public transportation, utilities, and health care. All employ state employees, and as with law eforcement, all are working for the public welfare. Not so with the actors in death penalty cases. Due to the ineffectiveness of capital punishment to accomplish anything except naked retribution it's a completely useless practice.

As for your military analogy the paralel is laughable. Soldiers are there to protect our national sovereignty from foreign aggression. Hence, those who choose to take up arms against the US shall be on the recieving end of really fast projectiles. Civilian casualties are tragic but inevitable.

How does the death penalty protect our sovereignty? What does capital punishment accomplish that other, more efficient and cost effective methods of punishment not accomplish?

JohnR said...

Shrub: when was the last time someone invaded the United States?

What national sovereignty is being protected in Iraq, Afghanistan, The Balkans?

Was Saddam planning an invasion of the East Coast?

If law enforcement is acting in the public welfare, how do you decide the death penalty is retribution?

Aren't they acting in the public welfare by dispensing justice as decided by a jury?

What public welfare was served by the govt setting up Randy Weaver and then killing his wife and son?

When was the last time a utility company killed someone in the name of the public welfare?

JohnR

Morgan said...

"What public welfare was served by the govt setting up Randy Weaver and then killing his wife and son?"

JohnR, I hardly think that Shrub or any of the rest of us approve of what happened at Ruby Ridge or at Waco. That was just as distasteful as the death penalty.

JohnR said...

SMorgan: Read the first paragraph in Shrub's response. My question is perfectly legitimate. He states the govt is acting in the public welfare. So what how was the public welfare served in this case? I don't think he supports what the govt did.

My point was that the govt has various means of killing without the existance of the death penalty and Shrub doesn't have a problem with some of the govt other methods.

He seems to have no sympathy for the victim of the wrong-apartment, no-knock drug raid who was killed while sitting up in bed to see what was happening.

That is just collateral damage to him.

By the way, would you support the death penalty if the guilty party was locked in a room with the family of the murder victim.

I read that from your section of the debate. That innocent man would have been killed if the family had gotten ahold of him.

I agree that this is a difficult subject and it is a can of worms. There can be no perfect application of justice whether the case is death penalty or not.

JohnR

Morgan said...

JohnR, the government is supposed to act in public welfare, but indeed that is not always the case. Ruby Ridge is a perfect example of why the government isn't in position to determine who lives and who dies.
Again, I don't think Shrub is defending Ruby Ridge, and what happened was the subject of an inquiry, if I recall things correctly.

"By the way, would you support the death penalty if the guilty party was locked in a room with the family of the murder victim. I read that from your section of the debate. That innocent man would have been killed if the family had gotten ahold of him."

It would be more accurate to say you read that *into* my comments. Go back and read again. My point was that anyone could reasonably understand an enraged parent killing their child's murderer before the police got to him. Killing the murderer after the fact is morally debatable and wouldn't bring the child back, but the reaction is understandable.

I know if someone killed one of my children the depth of my rage would be such that my first inclination would be to kill such a monster. I'm sure the brutal death of a loved one could easily send someone to that kind of place.

But the state's responsibility is to keep the person from harming anyone else, not to carry out my need for revenge.

JohnR said...

Well, we all read things into each others posts:)

Regarding your last paragraph about the killer missing the sun on his face.

I don't think Charles Manson really feels like he missed too much. He was institutionalized from a young age. I think any lifer has become that way by the time they reach 80. The state can also release them so the prisoner doesn't die on their dime.

And yes, there was an inquiry after Ruby Ridge. Lon Horiuchi, the FBI shooter was given a pass for killing Weaver's wife and 14-year-old son. The boy was shot in the back and the wife was standing behind the door. The shooter was aiming at a shadow, I believe.

If the govt shouldn't have that decision, then why are they given any power to make that decision.

JohnR

Shrubbery said...

JohnR

Reading comprehension is a beautiful thing. No where did I condone Ruby Ridge or Waco. If you can't see the difference between the public utility of the military & police vs. the death penalty then the debate ends here. If, however, you acknowledge that there is a starck difference between the usefulness of miltary power & police power and the death penalty then we can continue the conversation. It is foolish to assume, without proof, that the death penalty serves as high a purpose as our armed forces and police. Also, when did I ever support the war in Iraq and Afganistan? Once again, reading comprehension is a beautiful thing.

Morgan said...

"I don't think Charles Manson really feels like he missed too much. He was institutionalized from a young age. I think any lifer has become that way by the time they reach 80. The state can also release them so the prisoner doesn't die on their dime."

A psychopath won't feel anything for himself or anyone else, JohnR, but I doubt that Manson is a happy person. He still looks plenty tortured to me but at least he's locked away where the only person he can torture is himself.
As frustrating as it may to think of him *not* suffering, it's no justification to kill him.
He'd likely apporach death - whether it be by lethal injection or natural causes - with the same snarling defiance with which he's approached life. He's a madman through and through. Once again, what you want is *revenge*, which belongs to God.

"And yes, there was an inquiry after Ruby Ridge. Lon Horiuchi, the FBI shooter was given a pass for killing Weaver's wife and 14-year-old son."

I didn't like the outcome of the inquiry any more than you did. The Weaver's got a true governmental shaft. (For more information, read "Every Knee Shall Bow.") But one governmental wrong doesn't make a right. The Ruby Ridge massacre doesn't justify the death penalty any more than imminent domain justifies high taxes.

eaglewood said...

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Genisis 9:6

This is my conundrum, Biblicaly speaking I am pro-death peanalty because that is part of the Noahnic Covenant(if you want to read the whole thing read Genisis 8: 18 through Genisis 9: 17). God is stil holding up His end of that covenant so we ought to as well. My problem is I do not trust our government.

So while I do belive that if a man murders another man he SHOULD be put to death, I do not know if our current government shoud have the authority to carry it out. At one time I would have had no problem with it, but our government has gotten to big for it’s own good and is starting to trample on our rights.

Billy D said...

Seems like sometimes people forget, prison is for PUNISHMENT, not rehabilitation or any other such nonsense.
If a person chooses to better themselves while there, hey, that's great. If they don't, instead choosing to join a gang and get even more violent and screwed up (which the vast majority do), well, no-ones really surprised, are they?
Why a harsher punishment for crimes involving children? Dude, are you really even asking that question? Maybe because children are the ultimate innocent victims, maybe because they haven't lived their lives even a bit yet...seems like Jesus had some special hatred for those who would harm the children too. Something about a millstone.
Sorry dude, just because I don't support TDP doesn't mean I'm soft on criminals committing what would be capital crimes.
No cable, no library, no weightlifting, no interaction with other criminals, etc. Three squares and a bed. You know dude, maybe if prison was a bad place to be, more folks might opt to stay out of them. Crazy as it sounds, it just might work!

Billy D said...

*And BTW, yes, if someone molested or hurt my children or my wife, and I got to him before the police did, you can bet your ass they'd never see a courtroom. There'd be absolutely no way I could stop myself. That's the ID.

thimscool said...

Seeing as there isn't much controversy here, I'll throw my hat in the ring and say that Rocky, the beligerant JRT, needs to die!

Who's with me? Get your pitchforks.

JohnR said...

Shrub: Yes reading comprehension is a beautiful thing. Show me where I said you condoned RR or Waco. You'll have a hard time because I never said you did.


By the way, show me where I support the death penalty? I am just arguing against your argument. Like you said, reading comprehension is a beautiful thing.


The comments on my comments are being cherry-picked. BillyD comments on the value of children over adults but ignores anything I said about the Soviets and Nazis using hard labor to destroy prisoners.

Morgan: Your right Manson is a psychopath. Don't you think most people who do those things are?

There is no perfect justice system.

I suppose I could make an argument against prisons because innocent people are sent to them all the time and spend years in them before, if ever, being exonerated.

Maybe you should pick subjects with less agreement for more stimulating arguments.

JohnR

Morgan said...

"Morgan: Your right Manson is a psychopath. Don't you think most people who do those things are?"

No, I don't.
I think all kinds of people kill, for all kinds of reasons. Kids get caught up in bad crowds and kill. People strung out on drugs kill. People kill in the heat of the moment. People sometimes accidentally kill people.

I covered a trial years ago in which a 22-year-old horseplaying around with a gun shot a 12-year-old boy in the chest. It was one of the most heart-wrenching story I've ever worked on, but it illustrated that these things aren't always black and white.

No, Billy D, all killers are not psychopaths.

Morgan said...

"I suppose I could make an argument against prisons because innocent people are sent to them all the time and spend years in them before, if ever, being exonerated."

That's apples and oranges. The thing carrying out the death penalty is, if you were wrong about the guy's innocence he's dead. At least a wrongly convicted man in prison can be released and receive restitution, unless you live in NC and your dumb-ass governor won't pardon a man he he put away as a prosecutor even though the guy's since been exonerated and released from prison.
Prisons are necessary, but the system needs to be fixed. The death penalty is unnecessary and I've not seen a single argument here that rationally supports it.

"Maybe you should pick subjects with less agreement for more stimulating arguments."

Well we can't win 'em all, can we. Actually, I kind of like agreeing. It makes for a shorter thread, but so what?

Morgan said...

"Seeing as there isn't much controversy here, I'll throw my hat in the ring and say that Rocky, the beligerant JRT, needs to die!"

I don't know if Rocky deserves to die; part of me can't blame him for being what he was bred to be. He deserves to have the stuffing shook out of him for his nefarious cat-eating ways, but should he ever find his way inside my fence and go after one of my animals I'll return him to his owner all nice and taxidermied.

Really, though, I blame his owner more than him. All the rest of us keep our dogs fenced; Rocky's owner can't be bothered to confine him although the coyote threat has started to force the issue.

Shrubbery said...

JohnR

Quick question (all sniping aside)...

Does capital punishment have as much practical benefit for America as the military and law enforcement?

Billy D said...

A couple things:

"No, Billy D, all killers are not psychopaths."
That wasn't me who said that.

"Sorry dude, just because I don't support TDP doesn't mean I'm soft on criminals committing what would be capital crimes.
No cable, no library, no weightlifting, no interaction with other criminals, etc. Three squares and a bed."

JohnR - The above was directed toward the nazi thing. PUNISHMENT, not rehabilitation. (They're never coming out, no point to rehab. All about crime and punishment)

Morgan said...

Sorry BillyD. I meant to address that to JohnR. I must have you in the back of my mind. It's that damn bunny suit.

JohnR said...

Shrub: No.

Morgan: So a little cash to make up for all the lost years; parent dying, children growing up, divorce by spouse because you were in for life, dying in prison because of poor medical care, or being murdered by another prisoner?

No it doesn't.

Mind you, I am ambivalent about capital punishment. I don't think there is a practical solution.

BillyD: how would you handle the prisoner who refused to do the mindless work?

Once they're in, you can't do much except solitary and you can only withhold food for so long. You can't let the state get into the job of killing people that way either.

JohnR

JohnR said...

Morgan: that bunny suit is freaky gay isn't it?

Morgan said...

"Morgan: So a little cash to make up for all the lost years; parent dying, children growing up, divorce by spouse because you were in for life, dying in prison because of poor medical care, or being murdered by another prisoner?"

Restitution absolutely does *not* make up for it years lost to unjust incarceration. But unlike the death penalty, the inmate still has a chance to enjoy some freedom.

"Morgan: that bunny suit is freaky gay isn't it?"

Actually, Billy D's bunny suit excites me in ways I can't fully comprehend. Gay? I don't think so.

Billy D said...

"Morgan: that bunny suit is freaky gay isn't it?"

No need to be catty JohnR. It's unbecoming anyone, but especially a man.

I would tell that prisoner who refused, "Look. This is at least outside time. If you refuse, you can stay in your cell all damned day then".

JohnR said...

BillyD: Don't take yourself so seriously.

It was a joke.

Lighten up, Francis.

JohnR