05-16-2005, 09:55 AM | #41 (permalink) | ||||
Insane
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Futhermore, your quote of "Thou shalt not kill" was addressed be me two days ago, on 05-14-2005, 08:59 PM. You did not think through "What is done to the least among you is done to me," because if you will look at Genesis 9:6 (quoted in my above posts) you will see that it says the same thing but goes on to specify the punishment and who would deal it out. Yep, the punishment is death and man will do it. RTFT! |
||||
05-16-2005, 10:20 AM | #42 (permalink) |
Addict
|
No-one can deny that mistakes are made and the trial system of the western world is not perfect.
What about (in the case of the US) taking the responsibility for the death penalty out of the hands of the state. It becomes an executive decision. People of a state (state govt) can request it, but the case has to meet certain requirements. Absolute proof: Multiple witnesses, confession. Multiple homicide: Events like the Dalmer case. IMO, there would be a lot less and most people would be quite convinced of the guilt in those cases. It would also take the local pressure off the state to execute those people. It becomes a more objective case at a national level. Problem is, what do with all those folks who are probably guilty but don't meet the requirements. Well, what is the death penalty really? It's a society's declaration of its unwillingness to have certain individuals within its scope. We try hiding them in prisons, but sometimes the crimes are so vile that the aftermath still reminds us of that persons presence in our system. It's like having a large, bright, noxious weed in the yard that, even though it's covered up by other bushes, it still affects us in the nearby house. So to take it to an objective rational level, do we 'weed' out and burn those individuals or do we just toss them on a rubbish heap somewhere where they might stay around for a bit, but as it's a dump, no-one minds them taking root there. Or do we accept that even weeds have a role and need and place or use them somewhere that they become useful? I say use them to make insulin or organ donation. j/k |
05-16-2005, 10:35 AM | #43 (permalink) |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Phage, your reading of Romans is... Yeah. There is nothing is that passage that implies a death penalty. It implies that outside of God, there is death. In God, there is life and the light of the world.
While i find Imago Dei theology important, i do not follow it in justifying a death penaly. The whole system of sacrificial/substitutionary violence is undone in the Cross. In this case, the revelation of Christ supercedes previous understandings. I never said go out and break shit, either. I am a law abiding citizen, and i'm in favor of reasoned law enforcement. I believe in community policing, beat cops who know the nieghborhood and who make a difference. i beleive in laws that keep order and promote the public good, and do not uneccesarily imprison folks for private choices. i believe in responsible alligience to my goverment...that i owe it my loyalty, and my loyal dissent when i am in disagreement. None of those passages authoritatively creates a basis for a Christian endorsement of the death penalty.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
05-16-2005, 10:56 AM | #44 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
Quote:
I don't know about you, but that seems pretty clear to me. Life imprisonment is not usually represented by a sword. In any case, that is not my point. My point is that it might be well and good for you to justify your opposition to the death penalty by citing your religion, but you are not going to convince anyone else because your position boils down to "Because I don't like it." I think the readers of TFP deserve more. |
|
05-16-2005, 11:33 AM | #45 (permalink) | |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Phage, you misquote me. The quoted material is my response to your first selection from Romans 6 by stating that you are not reading that from the passage, but into it.
I respond to your reading of Romans 13 by stating my relationship to the government. Your latest quote, focusing on the "sword" is equally unconvincing. Paul is writing in the midst of a hostile empire. While he is telling people to keep their heads down, he is not writing to descibe the ideal state. The US is a democracy, and a majority Christian nation. from a Christian viewpoint, there's no reason we need to be in the moral slums with the Roman Empire. Your last line is both insulting and ill-informed. My argument begins with my assumptions (my confession of faith) and procedes from there, like any other argument ought to. The readers of TFP deserve more? That's a snide and snotty thing to say when you aren't even responding to the content of my postings. Quote:
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
|
05-16-2005, 01:36 PM | #46 (permalink) | ||||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
05-16-2005, 03:04 PM | #47 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: France
|
Quote:
I'm sorry, I just can't believe you're advocating the capital punishment because you believe it'll make you pay less.. You'd rather save up that little bit of money(tax)...at the risk of killing an innocent person? I think if you were wrongly accused of a crime you'd change your mind. That tax you pay is in some sort, something you need to give in order to live in society...isn't it better that your money is actually used to keep those potentially dangerous isolated from the rest of society? |
|
05-16-2005, 04:35 PM | #48 (permalink) | ||
Insane
|
Quote:
Quote:
In any case, we are moving far off the focus of the thread. My argument against your stance is that not only do I not agree with your line of reasoning after your assumptions, but that your assumptions are not always valid. |
||
05-16-2005, 04:46 PM | #49 (permalink) | ||
Insane
|
Quote:
Quote:
Another thing to consider is if the worst you can do to someone is life imprisonment it puts anyone who has been convicted of such a crime into a very dangerous position. Once a person had committed such a crime once they would have absolutely no reason not to kill again; what more are you going to do to them? |
||
05-16-2005, 05:53 PM | #50 (permalink) | |
Minion of the scaléd ones
Location: Northeast Jesusland
|
Quote:
I submit that is intolerable.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life. |
|
05-17-2005, 06:40 AM | #51 (permalink) | ||
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
Read beyond the single passage in Romans 6. This is cosmic, not particular. This is not about execution. There is no indication that idea is even remotely being addressed here. Paul is explaining that outside of salvation in Christ, that there is no life. I understand you have this particular reading in your head, but it's an isogesis not an exegesis. You take a principle, and read it in to the text. You are not starting with Paul's words, but a commitment to the death penalty. Paul was executed by state authorities, for what it's worth. According to Acts, he repents of his participation in one (that of Timothy, the first Christian marytr). How you get a death penalty advocate out of Romans is to torture your reading of the text. Quote:
We're all carrying in assumptions about punishment, crime, justice, etc. Few are provable. Few are universal. We're stating assumptions, and the conclusions we draw. And that's not limited to religious perspectives.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 Last edited by martinguerre; 05-17-2005 at 06:43 AM.. |
||
05-17-2005, 07:50 AM | #52 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Central Wisconsin
|
The argument has been made that the dath penalty may not be a deterrent, and there are also multiple studies that show most people who commit a murder will never commit another. Consider those like Jefferey Dahmer, could he ever have been a productive member of society again? Or all the serial sexual offenders who are released "despite reservations from prison officials" (I'd like to puke every time I see that in a story about a violent crime). I firmly beleive that some people cannot be rehabilitated, and don't see the point in allowing them to live.
If there is clear and convincing evidence, supported by criminal intent and a violent personal history, I beleive this is why we have a judicial system in place. I find it very curious that those who oppose the death penalty for premeditated crimes, support the killing of unborn, who do not yet have rational or criminal thought. More than this, I can accept the legality of abortion, but then how can people be charged for the murder of an unborn child as in the recent Scott Peterson case?
__________________
If you've ever felt there was a reason to be afraid of the dark, you were right. |
05-17-2005, 07:58 AM | #53 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
and scott peterson was charged with two counts of murder for two reasons. one was that there had been the intention by laci to carry the child to term (a weak argument in my opinion) and because pro-life advocates had managed to get a law on the books making a fetus to be conisidered as a second victim in a crime against a pregnant woman as a means to chip away roe.
__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer |
|
05-17-2005, 09:54 AM | #54 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Colorado
|
In my personal belief, I support the death penalty if it's not an abuse of power. If you've killed someone, then you should die. If you've raped someone, then you should die. Other than those two things that I can think of off the top of my head right now, should you be killed for.
If we don't, we'll just spend more tax dollars on opening new prison systems around the country. |
05-17-2005, 11:34 AM | #55 (permalink) |
Upright
|
A hundred years from now we'll look back, scratch our heads and wonder what the hell we were thinking! As we evolve as a society, we'll begin to understand that putting people to death reflects who we are, and we're not going to like what we see. At one point we thought that burning witches at the stake was the right thing to do as well.
MoJo |
05-17-2005, 12:12 PM | #56 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
Quote:
What exactly do you mean by "putting people to death reflects who we are"? I don't see how your prediction of future popular opinion really addresses the underlying question of morality. |
|
05-17-2005, 07:46 PM | #57 (permalink) |
Heliotrope
Location: A warm room
|
I think that if we worked a bit harder, then the death penalty could be something I would vouch for. As is, I do not think it is a either useful deterent, or just. The continual assignment of innocents to the death penalty is reason enough to stop.
I think that the death penalty should not be assigned until after a couple of years (ie. 5-10) in prison. I believe that if the criminal still exhibits vicious or malevolent behaviour and intent while incarcerated, and also shows no signs of rehabilitation, then perhaps it would be best if they were put on death row. I realize that this is much more effort, and relies much upon psychology and sociology, but I believe that it would be a better method than what is currently used. I also think that the religious arguments ought not be used in a debate of such matter. I think that there are much better arguments from both sides that don't rely on ancient texts. (I'm not saying that religious views shouldn't be expressed, I'm just saying that "The Bible says it's okay" wouldn't really hold up in real philosophy) |
05-22-2005, 01:15 PM | #58 (permalink) |
Browncoat
Location: California
|
I have no moral objection to executing people who are guilty of heinous crimes. But personally, I think people convicted of crimes that would warrant capital punishment should be given a choice: They can choose to be executed, or they can choose to spend the rest of their lives in prison doing hard labor.
The anti-death penalty advocates will have scored a victory in the sense that criminals are no longer being put to death against their will. And we can use the prison labor to perform tasks at a much lower cost than hiring regular employees.
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
05-22-2005, 01:27 PM | #59 (permalink) | |
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
|
05-22-2005, 02:41 PM | #60 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Pardon me while I think thats nuts. I don't want murderers turned into slaves of the state, I want revenge and justice, and to me an eye for an eye works out nicely for murder.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
05-22-2005, 06:04 PM | #61 (permalink) | |
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
|
05-22-2005, 07:03 PM | #62 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
We have plenty of good old fashioned criminals to work in the chain gangs.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
05-22-2005, 07:48 PM | #63 (permalink) | |
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
|
05-22-2005, 08:50 PM | #64 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Its punishment and as such, a great many of us think that the punishment for murder should be death.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
05-23-2005, 03:25 AM | #65 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Location, Location!
|
Is this really so complicated an argument?
1. Society in general holds that "killing is wrong". Can we all agree on that? Seems a bit ironic that this is both the rationale for and against the death penalty! Also note that this is a prerequisite to administering the death penalty; that the perpetrator know (or more accurately accept society's opinion) that killing is wrong. 2. Assuming 1 is true, then the death penalty can be looked to as serving one or two broad purposes: A. As a deterrent by threatening to take the life of someone who kills indiscriminately; based on the assumption that the perpetrator must value his life and therefore the fear of loosing it (if caught) outweighs the desire to kill. B. Provides for "just punishment" and retribution of said crime committed. This could be both vengeful and also serve as a social purification process - i.e. if society holds that killing is wrong, then eliminating those who do not accept this maintains order and discipline. The problem of course is accepting the judgment of society as authoritative in carrying out the sentence of death. It becomes nearly impossible (and distasteful) to accept this responsibility, therefore we (society) revert to religion for an answer; seeking out a divine arbitrator to decide for us so we don't have to. It's logically quite simple, I'd think. Removing religion from the equation you're forced to rely on society's determination that "killing is wrong" and should not have any issue accepting society's means to enforcing the rule. There are countless other "wrong" things mentioned in Christianity, which seems to be the general focus of the thread - yet none of these seem to be nearly as debated as the death penalty. I've yet to see a thread about the legal ramifications of not "Honoring thy Mother and Father"...it’s this dichotomy of enforcing religious rules that to me, renders the religious factor nearly invalid – merely an attempt to escape accepting responsibility as a society. Consider this: A person who admittedly kills indiscriminately, professing that they know full well that society holds that this is "wrong". In other words, this person is mentally capable of accepting social norms and otherwise belonging to our society, but actively chooses not to. At this point we (society) have one of two broad choices to make. They are: 1. Ignore this person and allow them to kill indiscriminately at will. 2. Remove them from society. No one seems to have an issue with choosing number 2, yet it's number 2 that causes so much confusion. Here we have two more broad choices: 1. Lock the person up indefinitely, thereby effectively removing them from society until they fully accept the social norm that "killing is wrong". By the way, we'll pay lots of money for this... 2. Kill them and be done with it. If you accept that this decision is ultimately based on the enforcement of a social (not religious) rule and is intended to serve for the betterment of society in general, then I’d say that the choice is clear. You decide.
__________________
My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers. Last edited by tiberry; 05-23-2005 at 03:29 AM.. |
05-23-2005, 06:35 AM | #66 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
Quote:
The thread title might be misleading because it asks if the death penalty is "Right or Wrong". Defining morality in my view requires using religion, and I think it is obvious that even if a majority hold a religious view we should not implement it as law unless it also fills a valid social need independent of religion. However, the first post also is "looking for some really good, concrete reasoning for either side," which the pro-death penalty side has provided in deterrent, punishment, simple removal of a problem, and revenge. I have not seen any religion-independent well-reasoned arguments against the death penalty yet, so I am starting to think that there is not one. |
|
05-23-2005, 07:43 AM | #67 (permalink) |
Guest
|
I'm going to try and make a (I hope) well reasoned, non religious argument against the death penalty, or at least against the way it is imposed at the moment.
I think it's fair to say that the arguments for the penalty seem reasonable: 1) It's cheaper than locking someone up for the rest of their life 2) It provides a sense of closure and retaliation for the victim's loved ones And while I might argue for rehabilitation, and believe that everyone has the ability to change, and become better people, I accept the fact that there will be those that it would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming to rehabilitate to a safe degree. I bow to those who point out the dangers of an inaccurate system, and further, the ease with which a state can shift the seriousness of the crime that warrants the penalty if that penalty already exists (the thin wedge argument) However, the thing that really makes me feel that the death penalty is wrong is the way it is carried out by the state. If the primary reason is to remove someone from society because of the harm they may have done to a victim's family, is it right to ask a government employee to perform the act of execution? In firing squads, they used to mix a blank bullet in amongst the live ones, so that soldiers could take solace in the notion that their bullet was a harmless one. But what does the executioner have to soften his conscience? He must occasionally have a dread that just maybe he got the wrong man, or some other guilty feelings. Perhaps not, but I think it's a tough state that asks one of its citizens to perform these duties. Should the victim's families get the opportunity to press the button? It kind of makes sense, there are those who feel that vengeance is something required, and for those people, perhaps they would feel better pulling a trigger, or performing the final injection. In some societies, the use of stoning allowed for a community to share the responsibility of execution among themselves collectively. While in some sharia law jurisdictions, those closest to the victim are asked to commit a retributive act in keeping with the original offense. This means that a husband may be asked to stab the killer of his wife the same number of times the killer did in the the original murder. In some ways this makes sense, and allows the victims families to choose how to punish or forgive those that trespassed against them - but it makes me feel uneasy somehow. And yet, perhaps this is the best way to deal with the hurt - it does at least leave room for forgiveness. My overall point is that I feel it is unfair for the state to perform our acts of vengeance for us - If we wish for revenge, we have the freewill to act it out for ourselves - Yes we may be punished for it, because society doesn't function on a system of revenge and vendetta. If the need remains, then perhaps it should be controlled rather than exaggerated, and it should remain personal, rather than something doled out vicariously and anonymously by the state. |
05-23-2005, 08:00 AM | #68 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
Quote:
|
|
05-23-2005, 08:15 AM | #69 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
|
Quote:
Quote:
both life without parole and death penalty remove them from society and punish them. and how is revenge something that the justice system is supposed to deliver? does that mean we should start making the punishment for rape be rape? especially considering innocent people have and will be put to death, i have yet to see a valid argument from the pro-death penalty side.
__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer |
||
05-23-2005, 09:47 AM | #70 (permalink) | |||
Insane
|
Quote:
Quote:
For instance, if both kidnapping and murder have the penalty of life imprisonment then what reason is there for a kidnapper to ever let a victim go? Quote:
|
|||
05-23-2005, 12:23 PM | #71 (permalink) | |||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
05-23-2005, 12:33 PM | #72 (permalink) |
Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It!
Location: Southern England
|
Very interesting points on both side.
My own belief comes down to a point made several times - the death as a punishment is wrong. My reasoning is that if it is wrong for an individual to kill, it must be MORE wrong for the state (with so many more resources, and so much more chance to think its actions through) to kill. The state doesn't need to kill in self defence - it just needs to remove anyone with murderous intent from society. That said - touch my daughter, you die.
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝ |
05-23-2005, 10:10 PM | #73 (permalink) | ||||||||||
Junkie
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
now for some other info on it being a deterrence (which is probalby one of the most important aspects in deciding if the DP is right or wrong)... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
i looked at the information at www.prodeathpenalty.com. and not surprisingly, they have some abstracts to articles posted that say there is a deterrent effect. based on what i've read on both sites, i have to say that i don't think there is a deterrent effect. the pro-death site mentioned that: Quote:
__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer |
||||||||||
05-24-2005, 10:00 AM | #74 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
A big problem with the death penalty is that as a deterant, I'm not so sure it works. I used to think thatwas because the process was so long and dragged out that it kind of loses its potency. But then, I look at societies that have immediate executions (Saudi Arabia, China), it does not appear that capital punishment is effective (I don't have any hard sources guys, bear with me).
In China, it is carried out immediately upon sentencing (Texas could learn a thing or two from the chinese). It is really cheap - a bullet to the back of the head, billed to the family. Murders, rapist, govt. official who are corrupt - I really like this one. Can you imagine cleaning house in the US? If it were punishable by death then all the Ken Lays etc. Maybe the US would really be good). But still, crime is not so low there. What about Japan? Isn't their crime rate low? do they have death penalty? Saudi Arabia - man, I would be scared to visit there let alone live there or comit a crime they are so oppressive. but yet, they have a whole bunch of crazies doing crazy things all the time - rape, murder etc. Capital punishment still doesn't seem to work. As far as satisfying revenge? I don't know, it doesn't bring your loved one back. Because, I would want the death penalty for drunk drivers, the one who kills my pregnant wife. And I;m not sure I would be any less grieved. Whether it was cold-calculated murder or a stupid, stupid negligent "murder", I would want that guy to be punished too, in theory. So if death penalty for Scott Peterson, then death penalty for the drunk driver or stupid teenage girl on the cell phone driving an SUV without a license who runs over my pregnant wife. And that gets really tricky. Personally, I think the death penalty is too easy. Some of those a-holes want to be executed!! F that man,! I say 50 years hard labor in the mines at $.50 hour. Then every week he has to mail a check for half or two-third his earnings to the family as restitution. Something like that, you get the point. |
05-25-2005, 02:18 AM | #75 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Location, Location!
|
Well Harry, I'll have to say that you're pretty thorough in presenting evidence supporting other's acceptance of your beliefs. Let me ask you:
Are your beliefs influenced by the apparent preponderance of evidence showing that others share your beliefs or are you firm in your beliefs regardless of what a skilled (and determined) researcher/debator can assemble? I'm willing to postulate that if I or someone else were determined enough, we could produce just as much evidence supporting the DP as you've presented against it - thereby reducing it to a function of determination and debating prowess. I don't mean to be confrontational - I respect your thoroghness and to make decisions in the absence of fact would be silly. Just wondering what your "gut feeling" tells you.
__________________
My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers. |
05-25-2005, 08:47 AM | #76 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
my beliefs are my beliefs. that others happen to share them is irrelevant. in my gut, i think it's wrong for the state to execute prisoners. it makes us no better than them. if you want to live in a society with one foot in the past, that's your decision, but one i don't support. innocents have been exonerated after the execution has been carried throuhg. the money spent on prosecuting those cases could be put to better uses. the deterrent effect doesn't seem work. i have looked at the studies that say it does and i find myself unconvinced. (i don't feel the need to post the pro-death side, this isn't an essay after all). i don't see a reason to support the death penatly other than for revenge, and that's far from a compelling reason.
__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer |
|
05-26-2005, 06:05 PM | #77 (permalink) | |
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
|
05-26-2005, 06:26 PM | #78 (permalink) |
Alien Anthropologist
Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana
|
Perhaps if we take away all the TVs, VCRs, books, computers, ball games, book deals and such in prison, then far less real crimminals would be willing to do a crime that gets them life in prison. IMHO there are way too many prisons that are a guarenteed "3 square meals a day" and time to relax in a cell that has all the accoutrements of most people's living room! The stats state that most hardened criminals DO return to prison...even after they do the time and act like the have been rehabilitated. As for adeath penalty....only if the criminal is proven guilty without a speck of doubt....that's the hard one for the courts & juries these days. Proof vs. a mighty good lawyer.
__________________
"I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB |
05-26-2005, 07:52 PM | #79 (permalink) |
Upright
Location: Edge of the civilized world
|
It seems most of you are saying an eye for an eye... let the punishment fit the crime.
There has also been some talk about the $ cost $ of the criminal in relation to the punishment. I say it CAN BE and SHOULD BE that simple... there should be no doubt (in the prosecution), no hesitation (in carrying out the sentence), and no second chances. Lastly, don't over think the issues. That's how mediocrity creeps in. Cheers,
__________________
The Happy Pirate - AARRGGHH!! |
Tags |
death, penalty, wrong |
|
|