http://www.npr.org/templates
May 19, 2008 | Fresh Air from WHYY | 39 min 19 sec
Legal Affairs
Chaplain Discusses 'Death House' Ministry
Reverend Carroll Pickett was the death-house chaplain at the Walls prison unit
in Huntsville, Texas for 13 years. During his tenure, he ministered to 95
inmates executed by lethal injection.
Because he was employed by the state, Pickett was unable to voice his
disapproval of capitol punishment while performing his ministry. But he has
become an opponent of the death penalty since leaving the prison system.
Pickett co-authored a memoir with Carlton Stowers, titled Within These Walls.
He is now the subject of a new documentary, At the Death House Door.
12 comments:
We are to take arguments like: "Reply: Ridiculous. Obviously untrue." are fact based disputes?
There is a difference between "strictly innocent" and innocent of the crime they are being executed for . . .none of us are "strictly innocent" and he may have known their lifestyles were not "strictly innocent."
Couldn't the family of the executed man have found out after the execution, that the execution didn't bring closure? That there is never closure to any loss of a loved one . . .and they were driven/pressured to believe their love for their lost family member could only be recognized if the went along with what they were 'told' would bring them closure? Afterwards, they found out how wrong they were?
Why the need for this long diatribe to discredit a man who performed a very meaningful/puposeful service to vicitm's loved ones and broken men?
You sound very angry and afraid of something . . .yourself perhaps?
In the words of Ghandi, "be the change you want to see in others" and stop using violence to promote non-violence. State sponsored murder only makes us more like those we choose to condemn.
Does standing in condemnation of others make us better? I commend Reverend Pickett for doing a very difficult job and for having the courage to speak about his life lessons.
Christine asks: Why the need for this long diatribe to discredit a man who performed a very meaningful/puposeful service to vicitm's loved ones and broken men?
Answer: It goes to credibility and truth. If you don't understand, I can't explain it to you.
Christine writes: You sound very angry and afraid of something . . .yourself perhaps?
answer: Please, don't be juvenile. BS bothers me, so I uncover it.
Christine writes:
In the words of Ghandi, "be the change you want to see in others" and stop using violence to promote non-violence. State sponsored murder only makes us more like those we choose to condemn.
Answer: No. Morally, crime and punishment are very different.
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” – Herbert Spencer (1820-1903).
Christine asks: Does standing in condemnation of others make us better? I commend Reverend Pickett for doing a very difficult job and for having the courage to speak about his life lessons
Answer: Don't you want him to be credible, too? Maybe not.
on closure:
CLOSURE and EXECUTION
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
The concept of "closure" via execution is , primarily, a fantasy made up by those in the anti death penalty movement, just so they can denounce it, as in: "Those supporting capital punishment claim that closure is a major reason to support the death penalty - but there is no closure."
I consider this one of the many obvious deceptions of the anti death penalty movement.
Closure to what?
I know of no victim survivor who believes that the execution of the guilty murderer(s) brings closure to the emotional and/or psychological suffering of that victim survivor for the loss of their innocent, murdered loved one(s). How could it?
I have never encountered such a person, in the many years I have been involved with murder victim survivors. Has anyone?
There are many victims survivors who claim they did find closure with the execution, although without important clarification.
Further inquiry would reveal the obvious: it is closure the the legal process, whereby execution is the most just sanction available for the crime and they are relieved that the murderer is dead and can no longer harm another innocent - a very big deal.
Those are the real meanings of any closure expression.
Murder victim "Mary Bounds' daughter, Jena Watson, who watched the execution, said Berry's action deprived the family of a mother, a grandmother and a friend, and that pain will never go away."
" "We feel that we have received justice," she said Wednesday after the execution. "There's never an end to the hurt from a violent crime. There can never fully be closure. You have to learn to do the best you can. Tonight brings finality to a lot of emotional issues." "
copyright 2008 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
Often, the death penalty dialogue gravitates to the subject of innocents at risk of execution. Seldom is a more common problem reviewed. That is, how innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.
Living murderers, in prison, after release or escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.
This is a truism.
No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.
Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
That is. logically, conclusive.
16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.
A surprise? No.
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don't. Studies which don't find for deterrence don't say no one is deterred, but that they couldn't measure those deterred.
What prospect of a negative outcome doesn't deter some? There isn't one . . . although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one.
However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Yet, the evidence is compelling and un refuted that death is feared more than life.
"This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death." (1)
" . . . a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, (capital) punishment." (1)
"Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many as eighteen or more murders for each execution." (1)
Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it's a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.
Reality paints a very different picture.
What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
Furthermore, history tells us that "lifers" have many ways to get out: Pardon, commutation, escape, clerical error, change in the law, etc.
In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.
--------
Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have all been released upon post conviction review. The anti death penalty claims, that the numbers are significantly higher, are a fraud, easily discoverable by fact checking.
6 inmates have been released from death row because of DNA evidence. An additional 9 were released from prison, because of DNA exclusion, who had previously been sentenced to death.
The innocents deception of death penalty opponents has been getting exposure for many years. Even the behemoth of anti death penalty newspapers -- The New York Times -- has recognized that deception.
"To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . ". ' (2) This when death penalty opponents were claiming the release of 119 "innocents" from death row. Death penalty opponents never required actual innocence in order for cases to be added to their "exonerated" or "innocents" list. They simply invented their own definitions for exonerated and innocent and deceptively shoe horned large numbers of inmates into those definitions - something easily discovered with fact checking.
There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
If we accept that the best predictor of future performance is past performance, we can reasonable conclude that the DNA cases will be excluded prior to trial, and that for the next 8000 death sentences, that we will experience a 99.8% accuracy rate in actual guilt convictions. This improved accuracy rate does not include the many additional safeguards that have been added to the system, over and above DNA testing.
Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?
Unlikely.
-----------------------
Full report - All Innocence Issues: The Death Penalty, upon request.
Full report - The Death Penalty as a Deterrent, upon request
(1) From the Executive Summary of
Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs, March 2005
Prof. Cass R. Sunstein, Cass_Sunstein(AT)law.uchicago.edu
Prof. Adrian Vermeule , avermeule(AT)law.harvard.edu
Full report http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1131
(2) "The Death of Innocents': A Reasonable Doubt",
New York Times Book Review, p 29, 1/23/05, Adam Liptak,
national legal correspondent for The NY Times
-----------------------------
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
I'm not into arguing, but I do know right from wrong. Killing is wrong, and cannot be justified by someone else's committing the same crime. To reason otherwise doesn't even approach common sense. We can virtually eliminate all danger of a killer repeating the offense . . .and the majority of those sent to prison never ever attempt to commit another homicide . . ., by sentencing defendants to death in prison. There is no reason to become like them. If you can't be morally outraged at the thought of state sponsored murder, be financially outraged. It is insane what we pay to keep up this barbaric practice when Level Four/High Security prisons more than do the job. We should be spending those billions on preventative justice . . .schools, after-school programs, breakfasts in school (you can't study if you are hungry), neighborhood centers, health care, etc. Spending billions to get revenge doesn't approach common sense either.
Christine writes: "Killing is wrong, and cannot be justified by someone else's committing the same crime. To reason otherwise doesn't even approach common sense."
You equate all killings, such as murder and execution.
Therefore you would equate the rape/torture/murder of a little child to the execution of the person committing that crime.
If you view all killings as the same, you are amoral.
The crime of murder, whereby the perpetrator murders an innocent is very different than the execution of that murderer for committing that crime.
There are strong moral differences between crime and punishment, between the guilty murderer and the innocent victim.
You seem to. morally, equate all killings, as if there is not any difference.
Recall the executions of the Nazis for the murders of 6 million innocent Jews and 6 million additonal innocents?
Do you equate illegal kidnapping and legal incarceration? After all, they are both holding of people against their will.
Do you equate illegal robbery and legal fines? After all, both are taking money away from folks.
Do you equate rape and love making? After all, they are both sexual intercourse.
I hope you answered no to all questions. But to be consistent with your killing reasoning, you must say yes.
Christine writes: We can virtually eliminate all danger of a killer repeating the offense . . .and the majority of those sent to prison never ever attempt to commit another homicide . . ., by sentencing defendants to death in prison.
Sharp's reply: You can't come close to elimination all danger from living murderers.
At least 142 of those on death row committed their murders while incarcerated or after escaping incarceration.
At least 8% of those on death row had committed at least one murder prior to committing the murder(s) that put them on death row.
Table 8, page 8
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp05.pdf
Also read "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents", above.
Christine writes: If you can't be morally outraged at the thought of state sponsored murder, be financially outraged. It is insane what we pay to keep up this barbaric practice when Level Four/High Security prisons more than do the job.
Sharp's response:
You may wish to re-evaluate:
Cost Comparisons: Death Penalty Cases Vs Equivalent Life Sentence Cases
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
In comparing the cost of death penalty cases to other sentences, the studies are woefully incomplete.
Generally, such studies have one or more of the following problems.
1) Most studies exclude the cost of geriatric care, recently found to be $60,000-$80,000/inmate/yr. A significant omission from life sentence costs.
2) All studies exclude the cost savings of the death penalty, which is the ONLY sentence which allows for a plea bargain to a maximum life sentence. Such plea bargains accrue as a cost benefit to the death penalty, such benefit being the cost of trials and appeals for every such plea bargain. The cost savings would be for trial and appeals, estimated at $500,000 to $1 million, which would accrue as a cost benefit/credit to the death penalty.
Depending upon jurisdiction, this MIGHT result in a minimal cost differential between the two sanctions or an actual net cost benefit to the death penalty, depending upon how many LWOP cases are plea bargained and how many death penalty cases result in a death sentence.
3) FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds that executions result in a huge cost benefit to society. "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal." The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington D.C.). (1)
That is a cost benefit of $70 million per execution. 15 additional recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, support the deterrent effect.
No cost study has included such calculations.
Although we find it inappropriate to put a dollar value on life, evidently this is not uncommon for economists, insurers, etc.
We know that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers. There is no doubt that executions do save innocent lives. What value do you put on the lives saved? Certainly not less than $5 million.
4) a) Some studies compare the cost of a death penalty case, including pre trial, trial, appeals and incarceration, to only the cost of incarceration for 40 years, excluding all trial costs and appeals, for a life sentence. The much cited Texas "study" does this. Hardly an apples to apples cost comparison.
b) The pure deception in some cost "studies" is overt. It has been claimed that it costs $3.2 million/execution in Florida. That "study" decided to add the cost of the entire death penalty system in Florida ($57 million), which included all of the death penalty cases and dividing that number by only the number of executions (18). One could just have easily stated that the cost of the estimated 200 death row inmates was $285,000 per case.
5) There is no reason for death penalty appeals to take longer than 7 years. All death penalty appeals, direct and writ, should travel through the process concurrently, thereby giving every appellate issue 7 years of consideration through both state and federal courts. There is no need for endless repetition and delay. This would result in a reduction in both adjudication and incarceration costs.
Judges may be the most serious roadblock in timely resolution. They can and do hold up cases, inexcusably, for long periods of time. Texas, which leads the nation in executions, by far, takes over 10 years, on average, to execute murderers. However, the state and federal courts, for that jurisdiction, handle many cases. Texas has the second lowest rate of the courts overturning death penalty cases. Could every other jurisdiction process appeals in 7-10 years. Of course, if the justices would allow it.
Justice
6) The main reason sentences are given is because jurors find that it is the most just punishment available. No state, concerned with justice, will base a decision on cost alone. If they did, all cases would be plea bargained and every crime would have a probation option.
1). "State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder", Paul R. Zimmerman (zimmy@att.net), March 3. 2003, Social Science Research Network, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID354680_code021216500.pdf?abstractid=354680
copyright 2003-2008 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Christine, the death penalty is the least vengeful of all US sanctions, unless you find all sanctions to be vengeance.
The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
Death penalty opponents say that the death penalty has a foundation in hatred and revenge.
Such is a false claim.
A death sentence requires pre existing statutes, trial and appeals, considerations of guilt and due process, to name but a few. Revenge requires none of these and, in fact, does not even require guilt or a crime.
The criminal justice system goes out of its way to take hatred and revenge out of the process. That is why we have a system of pre existing laws and legal procedures that offer extreme protections to defendants and those convicted and which limit punishments and prosecutions to specific crimes.
It is also why those directly affected by the murder are not allowed to be fact finders in the case.
The reality is that the pre trial, trial. appellate and executive clemency/commutation processes offer much much greater time, money and human resources to capital cases than they do to any other cases, meaning that the facts tell us that defendants and convicted murderers, subject to the death penalty, receive much greater care and concern than those not facing the death penalty - the opposite of a system marked with vengeance.
Calling executions a product of hatred and revenge is simply a way in which some death penalty opponents attempt to establish a sense of moral superiority.
It can also be a transparent insult which results in additional hurt to those victim survivors who have already suffered so much and who believe that execution is the appropriate punishment for those who murdered their loved one(s).
Far from moral superiority, those who call capital punishment an expression of hatred and revenge are often exhibiting their contempt for those who believe differently than they do.
The pro death penalty position is based upon those who find that punishment just and appropriate under specific circumstances.
Those opposed to execution cannot prove a foundation of hatred and revenge for the death penalty any more than they can for any other punishment sought within a system such as that observed within the US - unless such opponents find all punishments a product of hatred and revenge - an unreasonable, unfounded position
Far from hatred and revenge, the death penalty represents our greatest condemnation for a crime of unequaled horror and consequence. Lesser punishments may suffice under some circumstances. A death sentence for certain heinous crimes is given in those special circumstances when a jury finds such is more just than a lesser sentence.
Less justice is not what we need.
A thorough review of the criminal justice system will often beg this question: Why have we chosen to be so generous to murderers and so contemptuous of the human rights and suffering of the victims and future victims?
The punishment of death is, in no way, a balancing between harm and punishment, because the victim did not deserve or earn their punishment, whereas the murderer has earned their own, deserved punishment by the free will action of violating societies laws and an individuals life and, thereby, voluntarily subjecting themselves to that jurisdictions judgment.
copyright 2001-2008 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
dudleysharp's thinks: "The crime of murder, whereby the perpetrator murders an innocent is very different than the execution of that murderer for committing that crime."
"There are strong moral differences between crime and punishment, between the guilty murderer and the innocent victim."
I 'strongly' disagree . . .and none of your comparisons are relevant . . .especially not love making v. rape where in lovemaking both are willing participants . . .
Calling me names for my beliefs: i.e. "amoral" is not helpful.
I realize public safety is a priority, and hopefully something we can agree on. How we get there, it seems we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think we 'earn' punishment. I'd like to live in a world that teaches by example, and believes in mercy and redemption. When we kill someone guilty of a crime, there can be no redemption, or benefit of forgivness. And forgiveness is the gift we also give ourselves. Giving forgiveness is the realization that we give up all hope of ever changing the past. It's done, it's over. But we can change the future and choose to be better and teach better principles, lifestyles, values, etc.
I realize you have a lot invested in your position. I can only wish for you, to find a kinder philosophy. Thank you for all your thoughts, though ..
If given a choice who to have be my judge when I make a mistake, I would choose Reverend Pickett over you, Mr. Sharp. All of us have times we need a little redemption and mercy (unmerited favor). I'd like to give that opportunity to others too. After viewing this documentary, my daughter called me very emotional . . .it motivated her to sign up for a program with Big Brothers and Sisters that specifically works with children of incarcerated parents, and today to sign up on www.21stcenturyteaparty.us I'm guessing that was the intent of this documentary . . .to encourage viewers we can find a better way. Again, I applaud Reverend Pickett, and I'm incredibly proud of my daughter for choosing to give back instead of the path of revenge. I think her mom raised her right *smile*.
Christine 'strongly' disagrees that
1) "The crime of murder, whereby the perpetrator murders an innocent is very different than the execution of that murderer for committing that crime."
and
2)"There are strong moral differences between crime and punishment, between the guilty murderer and the innocent victim."
Sharp: That is why I called Christine amoral.
sharp: I am not calling you names, but I am identifying the foundation for your position, which you have, now, reinforced and firmly established.
Christine states: ". . .and none of your comparisons are relevant . . .especially not love making v. rape where in lovemaking both are willing participants . . ."
sharp: All are relevant because all you have done is amorally equate all acts of "killing" no matter the context.
sharp: I have simply listed equivalent acts, with no moral context, just as you have done - amoral equivalent acts.
sharp: Now, you are rightly considering morality - love making concerns the actions of two consenting partners, I agree. You are no longer only considering acts, but the context of those acts, as you should.
sharp: You wrongly, amorally consider all acts of killing as the same. Now you must consider context, if you are to venture away from amorality.
Christine writes: "I don't think we 'earn' punishment. I'd like to live in a world that teaches by example, and believes in mercy and redemption. When we kill someone guilty of a crime, there can be no redemption, or benefit of forgivness. And forgiveness is the gift we also give ourselves. Giving forgiveness is the realization that we give up all hope of ever changing the past. It's done, it's over. But we can change the future and choose to be better and teach better principles, lifestyles, values, etc."
sharp replies: Mercy and redemption mean nothing if a punishment is not deserved. Generally, mercy means sparing from a just sanction, legal of otherwise. The concept of mercy does not exist unless one is spared from a just harm. Just, in this context, means earned, deserved, etc.
sharp: One can redeem themselves with or without sanction. That is quite clear. The foundation for redemption comes from within, within ones heart as well as their actions, so the external factor of sanction or no sanction is not relevant to ones redemption.
sharp: forgiveness can be both sought and given. The seeking and giving of it are not relevant to just sanction. People seek and receive forgiveness all the time, as you well know. That doesn't release them from a just sanction. Although religious context isn't needed, there is the example of the good thief executed with Christ. According to the biblical text, he was justly punished, but both redemption and forgiveness landed him in heaven.
I wish you and your daughter a continuation of blessings.
Thank you, Mr. Sharp, and I wish you the same.
Post a Comment