Yalan’s Comments (group member since Mar 19, 2009)

Yalan’s comments from the Gig Harbor AP Language reads Dead Man Walking group.

Just a thought, it doesn't completely relate, but everyone here seems to agree that it doesn't matter that Pat was buried in the nun cemetery. But what about wanting to be buried next to a certain person? Like a husband wanting to be buried next to his wife?

Hm... the fact that the government has to look for a "humane" method of killing someone is enough to prove that the death penalty is inhumane. So like Alex said, there is no humane way to kill someone. Who decides these methods of killing people anyway? They should be exterminated. (jk)

Nice question! Since there is no marker to round up, the government could easily round up the age of a 16 year old, have him face the death penalty, and say that the maturity there wouldn't change, thus making the age restriction pointless. So no, I don't think it should be even a couple days before because if there is any leeway at all, the government would have the right to change the limit whenever they wanted to.

In many of the stories I've heard about revenge, when the person finally receives what they want, they find that they really don't feel any better and are only pressed further into pain. Leblanc has been holding the grief of losing his child, and finds it easiest to find one object to release it on, kind of like someone taking out anger on a punching bag. His scapegoat is Sonnier, which makes sense because Sonnier was the murderer. After the execution, Leblanc still won't have his daughter and he also won't have Sonnier to blame any longer, thus his grief will only increase since he has no punching bag to bang on. I think he'll also realize that asking for revenge didn't solve anything and was therefore irrational, so he'll feel guilty for seeking revenge in the first place.

Honestly, I'd laugh out loud at the irony. "Nun" and "Murderer" both have such conflicting connotations. According to society, a nun is usually considered to be someone who would help others compassionately at the will of God, someone who pretty much has a non-expiring pass to heaven. In contrast, a murderer is someone damned by both society and God who has a one-way ticket to Hell. Both of them seem to be polar opposites on the surface, and this large difference makes people squirm, and like in the book, they complain and argue the murderer as "unworthy" of being buried in such a sacred place. But through burying the murderer there, people will (or should) look beneath that person's name that gives them a bad reputation and look at who the person actually is.

Although I am completely against the death penalty, I know it exists, so in the case of a loved one being put through such a thing, if they asked, I would definitely go. Their asking me to be present is kind of like their final wish, and I believe that the person receives a safe passage after life if they can pass away peacefully. Also, if I were to receive the death sentence, I'd be scared out of my wits, so having someone with me would calm me down.
I can't say I'd be comfortable watching them die nor would I want to, but for the sake of that person's dignity and the love I have for him/her, I would go.

Mykey you communist ha

I hear in the Old Days in China they would strap a person's legs, arms, and head onto a board, similar to the one used for water-boarding and would have a basin of water above their head that releases constant drops of water between the eyes. They tested it on Mythbusters and it definitely works.

Oh and strict places aren't always as great as they seem. I recall last year in Pugh's class we discussed how Singapore enacts a punishment for littering which is: one has to wear a sign that says, "I am a litterer" while picking up garbage while recorded to be placed on that night's news.

Well I definitely went to Singapore over the summer, and it is NOT litter free. Walk anywhere and you'll see garbage surrounding the garbage can which ironically says "Singapore: Litter-free"

Also, when looking at strict governments who give harsh punishments, won't it eventually lead to absolute rebellion from the people and then anarchy?

I'm just gonna cut into this and bring in what I learned in debate when we discussed felon disenfranchisement topic. First off, there are two types of rights, natural and civil. Natural rights consist of life, liberty, and property and are "inalienable" as stated in our vocabulary terms and in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence. Civil rights are those given to people when they choose to take part in society,however are not inalienable and include the right to vote. We aren't born with the right to vote and can only have it if we are of age or a citizen. Addressing the idea that the government's right to strip someone of life: no, they don't have that right since it is a right given to each person at birth and remains until after that person is dead. Second, through justifying the death penalty, society places a greater value in the life of the average citizen and less over a criminal. In the U.S. which calls for diversity, human rights and acceptance, we contradict ourselves through discriminating criminals and stripping them of their human rights. Criminals didn't have the right to decide whether a person should die, therefore neither should society or the government. Practice what you preach.

Secondly, is the purpose of prison. There have been two purposes for imprisonment it used to be retribution, or to punish criminals for their crimes and act as a deterrent to future crimes. The death penalty could fall under this category, however death doesn't guarantee that they "learn" their lesson and according to the Grant McClellan studies, the death penalty didn't provide as a deterrent for future crime, there was actually more of it prior to the executions. Also, murder to usually committed irrationally, when the murderer is overcome with emotion, so they won't think about consequences like the death penalty while they commit their crimes. The other purpose it to rehabilitate the prisoner and return them as a contributor that benefits society, and the death penalty obviously doesn't allow this since they aren't coming back for one, and they aren't given the chance to redeem themselves.
Oh, and protection of society would be the other purpose for prison, and this protection would be provided with life imprisonment as Mykey has stated. When I discussed this topic with my sister she said, "Well, what if they escape from prison?" All I have to say it is the fault of the judicial system for failing to provide a secure means to contain the prisoner, and if he or she escapes, they need to be caught and brought to a more contained environment.

I guess it's pretty obvious that I'm strongly against the death penalty, hope I'm not obstinate when we start discussing in class. :)