Newsflash! Virginia Executed A Guilty Man

[Rank Amateur]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=1499359

The guy was guilty after all.

And here I was on the verge of changing my stance on the death penalty!

Whew!

 

[AGBF]

Thanks for the update. I am glad someone innocent was not executed and sorry that this guilty man was. (You see, for me the guilt or innocence of a person doesn't change my stance on the death penalty which is religiously and morally based.)

The possibility of executing someone innocent should make everyone pause, however, no matter how pro-death penalty he is. This was such a case. (Perry argues very lucidly on that point.)

I also think it is unseemly of you to gloat over a man's death. If you think the world is better without him, that is your right. Having a man's death make you happy makes me sad for you.


Deborah

 

[lmurden]

I think this is a great example of why DNA is so important! We get to find out the truth!

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 1/12/2006 6:33:38 PM
Author: AGBF


I also think it is unseemly of you to gloat over a man''s death. If you think the world is better without him, that is your right. Having a man''s death make you happy makes me sad for you.


Deborah

I find this so totally offensive and with disregard on what someone''s stance is on the death penalty may be. So, anyone who believes in the death penalty is gloating over said person''s death? It''s a sad day when any life is taken. For me, it was a sadder day when some random stranger choose to beat little children senseless and then slit their throats. Someone who may get the chance to commit the same crime once again, since it is quite obvious they have no regard for life. I am glad only to the point that VA has a death penalty reserved for such a henious unforgivable crime.

I only followed this story in regards to the person''s guilt or innocence. I am glad only to the point that this person was INDEED guilty - and an innocent man was not put to death. I don''t know the circumstances of nature & brutality of the crime whether the death penalty was warranted.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/12/2006 6:33:38 PM
Author: AGBF

I also think it is unseemly of you to gloat over a man's death. If you think the world is better without him, that is your right. Having a man's death make you happy makes me sad for you.

Deb, that's a little dramatic even for you. "Gloating over a man's" death? Honestly, I think it's unseemly of you to leap to such an interpretation.

Did you for one minute consider that he's happy that the system worked properly? That he's happy his belief in the way the system works hasn't been compromised?

This type of extremism ("gloating over a man's death) and drama is precisely why folks sometimes have a tough time getting others to take their viewpoints seriously.....because it's SO over-the-top, all-or-nothing with no middle ground and no openmindedness.

He's happy an innocent man wasn't executed, and your interpretation of that is "he's gloating over a man's death"....?!?!?!!?!?!

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 1/13/2006 10:54:37 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 1/12/2006 6:33:38 PM
Author: AGBF

I also think it is unseemly of you to gloat over a man''s death. If you think the world is better without him, that is your right. Having a man''s death make you happy makes me sad for you.

Deb, that''s a little dramatic even for you. ''Gloating over a man''s'' death? Honestly, I think it''s unseemly of you to leap to such an interpretation.

Did you for one minute consider that he''s happy that the system worked properly? That he''s happy his belief in the way the system works hasn''t been compromised?

This type of extremism (''gloating over a man''s death) and drama is precisely why folks sometimes have a tough time getting others to take their viewpoints seriously.....because it''s SO over-the-top, all-or-nothing with no middle ground and no openmindedness.

He''s happy an innocent man wasn''t executed, and your interpretation of that is ''he''s gloating over a man''s death''....?!?!?!!?!?!

Yup, thats quite a stretch Deb. I didn''t get that from his post either.

 

[strmrdr]

im glad the pos is dead and would have gladly pulled the switch myself.
The only bad thing in my opinion was it took 11 years for them to get around to frying him.
Now ya all have something to get upset about, but its the truth.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/13/2006 3:41:07 PM
Author: Strmrdr
im glad the pos is dead and would have gladly pulled the switch myself.
The only bad thing in my opinion was it took 11 years for them to get around to frying him.
Now ya all have something to get upset about, but its the truth.

I''d gather from the above that your Christian leanings are not a full-time endeavor.

 

[hlmr]

Date: 1/13/2006 10:54:37 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 1/12/2006 6:33:38 PM
Author: AGBF

I also think it is unseemly of you to gloat over a man''s death. If you think the world is better without him, that is your right. Having a man''s death make you happy makes me sad for you.

Deb, that''s a little dramatic even for you. ''Gloating over a man''s'' death? Honestly, I think it''s unseemly of you to leap to such an interpretation.

Did you for one minute consider that he''s happy that the system worked properly? That he''s happy his belief in the way the system works hasn''t been compromised?

This type of extremism (''gloating over a man''s death) and drama is precisely why folks sometimes have a tough time getting others to take their viewpoints seriously.....because it''s SO over-the-top, all-or-nothing with no middle ground and no openmindedness.

He''s happy an innocent man wasn''t executed, and your interpretation of that is ''he''s gloating over a man''s death''....?!?!?!!?!?!

I didn''t get this out of his post. I got that he was happy he didn''t have to revisit his views on the death penalty.

Heather

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/13/2006 7:11:31 PM
Author: hlmr

I didn''t get this out of his post. I got that he was happy he didn''t have to revisit his views on the death penalty.

OK.....even then, how does that rise to the level of "gloating over a man''s death"?

He believes in the death penalty.....fine. Is it because he LIKES the thought of killing people just for the sake of it? Unlikely.

I''ve heard ton of reasons why people are in favor of the death penalty. Because they feel it provides a measure of justice. Because they believe in removing the threat of such a person ever being able to harm another. Etc. etc. You may or may not agree with their reasons....fine. But I''ve NEVER to this day heard anyone say "I support the death penalty because I enjoy watching people die."

For goodness'' sake, even families of victims don''t often gloat over it.....some can''t even bring themselves to witness it.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/13/2006 7:11:31 PM
Author: hlmr

Date: 1/13/2006 10:54:37 AM
Author: aljdewey

Deb, that''s a little dramatic even for you. ''Gloating over a man''s'' death? Honestly, I think it''s unseemly of you to leap to such an interpretation.

Did you for one minute consider that he''s happy that the system worked properly? That he''s happy his belief in the way the system works hasn''t been compromised?

This type of extremism (''gloating over a man''s death) and drama is precisely why folks sometimes have a tough time getting others to take their viewpoints seriously.....because it''s SO over-the-top, all-or-nothing with no middle ground and no openmindedness.

He''s happy an innocent man wasn''t executed, and your interpretation of that is ''he''s gloating over a man''s death''....?!?!?!!?!?!

I didn''t get this out of his post. I got that he was happy he didn''t have to revisit his views on the death penalty.

Heather

And truth be told......while I''d allow for the possibility that those could have been his reasons, I don''t really believe that was why.

If I were a betting woman, I''d bet he *was* gloating, but it wasn''t over a man''s death. It was more likely over the fact that extreme-wing, anti-death penalty talking heads always try to hang their hat on the guilt card of ''WHAT IF HE DIDN''T DO IT'', and this time, that tactic failed *miserably*.

I can see where he might get just a smidge of satisfaction in that.

 

[hlmr]

Date: 1/13/2006 8:26:03 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 1/13/2006 7:11:31 PM
Author: hlmr

I didn''t get this out of his post. I got that he was happy he didn''t have to revisit his views on the death penalty.

OK.....even then, how does that rise to the level of ''gloating over a man''s death''?

He believes in the death penalty.....fine. Is it because he LIKES the thought of killing people just for the sake of it? Unlikely.

I''ve heard ton of reasons why people are in favor of the death penalty. Because they feel it provides a measure of justice. Because they believe in removing the threat of such a person ever being able to harm another. Etc. etc. You may or may not agree with their reasons....fine. But I''ve NEVER to this day heard anyone say ''I support the death penalty because I enjoy watching people die.''

For goodness'' sake, even families of victims don''t often gloat over it.....some can''t even bring themselves to witness it.

I''m not disagreeing with you Al. I am just saying that what I got out of his post was that he was glad he did not have to deliberate the pros and cons of the death penalty again (which I think he might have felt it necessary to do if the accused DNA''s testing proved him innocent). I just don''t think he was conveying a relief that an innocent man was not put to death.

Heather

 

[hlmr]

Date: 1/13/2006 8:30:04 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 1/13/2006 7:11:31 PM
Author: hlmr

Date: 1/13/2006 10:54:37 AM
Author: aljdewey

Deb, that''s a little dramatic even for you. ''Gloating over a man''s'' death? Honestly, I think it''s unseemly of you to leap to such an interpretation.

Did you for one minute consider that he''s happy that the system worked properly? That he''s happy his belief in the way the system works hasn''t been compromised?

This type of extremism (''gloating over a man''s death) and drama is precisely why folks sometimes have a tough time getting others to take their viewpoints seriously.....because it''s SO over-the-top, all-or-nothing with no middle ground and no openmindedness.

He''s happy an innocent man wasn''t executed, and your interpretation of that is ''he''s gloating over a man''s death''....?!?!?!!?!?!

I didn''t get this out of his post. I got that he was happy he didn''t have to revisit his views on the death penalty.

Heather

And truth be told......while I''d allow for the possibility that those could have been his reasons, I don''t really believe that was why.

If I were a betting woman, I''d bet he *was* gloating, but it wasn''t over a man''s death. It was more likely over the fact that extreme-wing, anti-death penalty talking heads always try to hang their hat on the guilt card of ''WHAT IF HE DIDN''T DO IT'', and this time, that tactic failed *miserably*.

I can see where he might get just a smidge of satisfaction in that.

Agreed. Never the less, I am not inside his mind therefore I will just deal with the written word.

 

[Momoftwo]

And as a pro-death penalty activist stated, "stop the presses, murderers and rapists lie". As I said in the original thread on this topic, there are a lot of innocent people in prison, just ask them! This was a man who raped and murdered his wife's sister. What a guy! He maintained his "innocence" til the end. One of his biggest supporters was also quoted as being surprised that he was lied to. I'm glad this one was right, because the anti death penalty activists were prepared to use it if it wasn't. The death penalty is usually assigned when there is overwhelming evidence.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 1/13/2006 3:41:07 PM
Author: strmrdr
im glad the pos is dead and would have gladly pulled the switch myself.
The only bad thing in my opinion was it took 11 years for them to get around to frying him.
Now ya all have something to get upset about, but its the truth.

yeah....should of be done 24 yrs ago and save a lot of tax payers money.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/13/2006 10:54:37 AM
Author: aljdewey
Deb, that''s a little dramatic even for you.

You thought that was dramatic? That was my restrained mode!

Deb

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/13/2006 8:26:03 PM
Author: aljdewey
He believes in the death penalty.....fine. Is it because he LIKES the thought of killing people just for the sake of it? Unlikely.

I am not sure why this seems unlikely to you, Al. The title with which he started this thread, "Newsflash! Virginia Executed a Guilty Man" proclaims R/A''s state of mind. He was gloating that those who feel mistakes in the "justice" system can be made and have been made were proven, in this one case, to be wrong. He is saying, "The system works!. The system of death works!"

It seems to me that R/A was, indeed, delighted to learn that no one need raise pesky questions about adequate counsel and wrongful convictions (think Central Park rape case for an entirely different result from DNA analysis). In my opinion, he couldn''t wait to get on stage and proclaim that we who worry about fairness are all a bunch of idiots. He was DELIGHTED to see that one executed man apparently committed the crime for which he was put to death. He was a very happy camper when he started this thread. I stand by the idea that this is unseemly.

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/13/2006 10:19:24 AM
Author: fire&ice
I find this so totally offensive and with disregard on what someone''s stance is on the death penalty may be. So, anyone who believes in the death penalty is gloating over said person''s death?

But I do NOT respect "the stance" that the death penalty is OK!!!

I believe that that stance WRONG and PRIMITIVE.

Why on earth do you think I should respect a pro-death stance that goes against my morals?

On the other hand, not everyone who supports the death penalty gloats over an execution. R/A did, however. See my comments above for evidence of why I believe hew as gloating.

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/13/2006 8:26:03 PM
Author: aljdewey
I''ve NEVER to this day heard anyone say ''I support the death penalty because I enjoy watching people die.''

Then you do not know your history! Watching people be put to death has always been a form of amusement. It was entertainment in Rome to watch Christians be killed by lions and entertainment in England to watch public hangings. Closer to home, there were the crowds partying outside the prison in Huntsville, Texas when Karla Faye Baker was executed .

"Karla Tucker gained international attention both for being the first woman executed in Texas since the Civil War and the first in the United States since 1984. Italian President Oscar Luigi Scalfaro noted in a public speech that spectators outside a Texas prison had cheered when Karla Faye Tucker was executed. ''And we are on the threshold of 2,000 years of Christ!'' he exclaimed. In England, Richard Harries of the Diocese of Oxford reported that a Gospel singer''s Amazing Grace was shouted down by cries Kill the bitch! from the crowd that gathered outside of prison."

Deborah

 

[Momoftwo]

Date: 1/14/2006 5:50:09 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/13/2006 8:26:03 PM
Author: aljdewey
I've NEVER to this day heard anyone say 'I support the death penalty because I enjoy watching people die.'

Then you do not know your history! Watching people be put to death has always been a form of amusement. It was entertainment in Rome to watch Christians be killed by lions and entertainment in England to watch public hangings. Closer to home, there were the crowds partying outside the prison in Huntsville, Texas when Karla Faye Baker was executed .

'Karla Tucker gained international attention both for being the first woman executed in Texas since the Civil War and the first in the United States since 1984. Italian President Oscar Luigi Scalfaro noted in a public speech that spectators outside a Texas prison had cheered when Karla Faye Tucker was executed. 'And we are on the threshold of 2,000 years of Christ!' he exclaimed. In England, Richard Harries of the Diocese of Oxford reported that a Gospel singer's Amazing Grace was shouted down by cries Kill the bitch! from the crowd that gathered outside of prison.'

Deborah

So two thousand years ago it was entertainment. The last thing you mention, Karla Tucker was as usual what gets the most attention, a small vocal group that doesn't represent most people's real feelings on any subject, they're just the loudest and most controversial. The people I know, like myself that do support the death penalty get no joy out of it. We just feel it's just punishment for horrendous, vicious capital crimes. The mention earlier of a rape case is not a capital case and would not result in the death penalty. I think the OP was just making the point, that guess what? The man executed committed a terrible crime and paid for it. The evidence against him without the DNA was already overwhelming and this just confirmed it. I'm not a big Gov Warner fan, but he did what he thought was right when the evidence turned up available in CA.

And what do an Italian and Englishman have to say about our justice system anyway?

There are also plenty of cases where the guilty party has been released for a variety of reasons including poor quality of prosecution and then they've gone on to commit the same crime or worse again. No system is perfect, but this one is the law as it stands and feelings can't be the reason to change laws.

 

[fire&ice]

Nobody knows what R/A was thinking except for him.

Deb, I''m with Al, you are over the top with this one. You don''t have to agree with the stance on the death penalty; but, you ALSO don''t have to lump people who do believe in it into some sort of blood thirsty horde. That''s offensive.

Truth be, a GUILTY man who proclaimed his innocence (surprise surprise) was put to death.

 

[perry]

First; I have already previously said that I support the death penalty in certain cases - with the condition that you must have really good evidence.

How people react to the news and their veiwpoints - is afterall their reaction and viewpoints. Often people do not understand what the person was thinking when they did that. I am not sure that RankAmateur intended to say what others have interpreted - and hope that he steps in and clarifies.

I would also like to point out that there has recently been a major question raised about the accuracy of DNA testing. DNA testing done right is highly accurate. DNA testing done on the cheap and fast can be very wrong as samples and reports can get mixed up - and final review of the data can be hurried and wrong (recently proven in court).

As long as there was good DNA testing I have no reason to doubt the conclusions here. Just be aware of the issue when discussing DNA testing.



A couple of things did pop out of the discussion that I wish to address:


Momoftwo said:

The death penalty is usually assigned when there is overwhelming evidence.

It is interesting reading the above statement and how people react to it. I do have to confess that it is afterall a very good summary of the situation. The world usually is used when more that 50% of the time the statement is true. That actually is probably the case.

I studied this issue over a decade ago in a lot of detail - and while I don''t remember the exact statistics the concept of 50% of the people on death row being there based on good evidence seems about right.

It seems that some people find the just over 50% standard on really good evidence to be acceptable.

I also admit that this may not be exactly what Momoftwo intended to say - so I hope she steps in and clarifies.

So what about the other perhaps 49% of people on death row - the ones where there is not overwhelming evidence - or not even a single piece of physical evidence linking them to the crime. What about them?


What I want is a standard that says: "Almost all people assigned the death penalty have overwhelmeing evidence that they committed that crime" (there is afterall no absolute certainty).

I specifically exclude many forms of eywitness testimony of strangers.

If anyone were to do the research on who often gets sent to death row within the US and how they got there - you will find many instances of people sent their on one conviction that was based almost exclusively on eyewitness testimony of complete strangers (this also applies to non-death row cases). Eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable kind of evidence out there - peoples memories change (well documented), similar people get picked from a lineup, or even "the closest match" gets picked from a police lineup becuause the people feel that they have to pick someone. They then implant in their mind who that person was so that they can point them out in a court room.

I would accept eyewitness testimony of people who are very familiar with the person as they will see details to identify a person that others will not - from a lineup of a dozen almost identical people - they can redily pick out "x" based on minor details, movements, speach and personality traits. However, I would also ensure that these people did not have a grudge against the person charged as well.

To sum up the eyewitness issues (and even some of the lab issues): People lie. People lie for all kinds of reasons. This includes the cops and prosecutors as well. Thus to me there needs to be really good physical evidence.

------

An interesting question that has plagued me: Why is it that the prosecuting and defense lawyers do not have to swear an oath that their purpose in a trial is to determine the truth of a case. I suspect that our conviction rate would go up - but often not for the crime that was charged as the real truth about a situation comes out.

-----


So two thousand years ago it was entertainment.

Actually, "public hangings" were entertainment throught the US as well; It died down on the east coast first but probably did not end untill about 100 years ago in the western US.

In many cases public hangings were anounced well in advance so that people could come to see them; various "huksters" would come and set up their wagons selling various goods and "medicinal" treatments (good for whatever ails you). It was almost a canival atmospher in certain cases; with the lead event being the hangning itself. Free admission as well.

I am quite sure that you could easily fill any modern arena with lots of people to watch a hanging today - people are often interested and entertained by death. If that were not true - then all those lawyer shows and criminal investigation shows on TV would not be focused so much on murder.

I will also point out that the Romans used their own citizens and other foreigners for "death" entertainment before their were Christians; and Christians only made up a minority of those killed in combat - or just killed before an audience of thousands.

----


There are also plenty of cases where the guilty party has been released for a variety of reasons including poor quality of prosecution and then they''ve gone on to commit the same crime or worse again. No system is perfect, but this one is the law as it stands and feelings can''t be the reason to change laws.

I agree with the first part of this; but disagree with the last part of the conclusion:

"feelings can''t be the reason to change laws".

Unfortunatly; "feelings" are the almost always the reasons that modern changes in laws are made. Get someone outraged and the law changes - worse yet: almost always the outraged side gets to write the details of the law which results in extreem items being inacted into law.

If only laws were written from a more factual basis - an awfull lot of things would go well in society. In fact, we would have a different society. Human beings are after all emotional beings.


In the end, and to me the fact that this person was guilty is reassuring only to a point. Dispite my belief that the death penalty is in fact applicable to some cases - I am very cautious about assigning the death penalty.

-----

As far as what other countries do: I find it interesting that there was recently a rape of a tourest in Thiland. The death penalty is a possible outcome for the people who committed this crime. They way to most likely avoid the death penalty in Thiland is to plead guilty and cooperate with the prosecutors. The People charged have pleaded guilty.

I am aware that many of you will react rather strongly to crime of rape - and I do not wish to diminish the crime here. Just one question to ponder. Is rape a crime that should result in the death penalty?


Perry

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/14/2006 3:43:15 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 1/13/2006 3:41:07 PM

Author: strmrdr

im glad the pos is dead and would have gladly pulled the switch myself.

The only bad thing in my opinion was it took 11 years for them to get around to frying him.

Now ya all have something to get upset about, but its the truth.

yeah....should of be done 24 yrs ago and save a lot of tax payers money.

yep and on the town square with all the other prison inmates watching on close circuit TV.
And on live TV.
Then it would be a real deterent.
hey criminals this is what happens to ya..
You ride the lightning for one final ride on the road to roasting in hell.

 

[MINE!!]

Well, I think, (since everyone is interpreting RA thoughts) I think he posting this in response to the last thread about Virginia Murdering an innocent man thread. I also think his comment about rethinking the death penalty was only a fecicious comment. What I fins interesting is that the other thread was based on speculation and this one was based on fact.

I in no way think that RA found death amusing... just justified.

 

[DonaBella]

Date: 1/13/2006 3:21:52 PM
Author: kaleigh

Date: 1/13/2006 10:54:37 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 1/12/2006 6:33:38 PM
Author: AGBF

I also think it is unseemly of you to gloat over a man''s death. If you think the world is better without him, that is your right. Having a man''s death make you happy makes me sad for you.

Deb, that''s a little dramatic even for you. ''Gloating over a man''s'' death? Honestly, I think it''s unseemly of you to leap to such an interpretation.

Did you for one minute consider that he''s happy that the system worked properly? That he''s happy his belief in the way the system works hasn''t been compromised?

This type of extremism (''gloating over a man''s death) and drama is precisely why folks sometimes have a tough time getting others to take their viewpoints seriously.....because it''s SO over-the-top, all-or-nothing with no middle ground and no openmindedness.

He''s happy an innocent man wasn''t executed, and your interpretation of that is ''he''s gloating over a man''s death''....?!?!?!!?!?!

Yup, thats quite a stretch Deb. I didn''t get that from his post either.

Yes...I agree with you on this...its never something to celebrate when someone dies...by choice at the hands of the system or by a perpetrator...It''s always sad to me, even if it is the way it is...and even when all evidence points to why they should...

 

[Momoftwo]

What I meant by my overwhelming evidence statement was just what I said, usually instead of inferring always, which would have gotten all kinds of comments. This is not something that juries or judges take lightly and it is not used randomly. It''s an extreme case issue. There was a time that when a cop was murdered, his killer got the death penalty, not the case anymore and if I remember right, cops are killed at a much higher rate than ever before. Just using basic common sense one could infer that cops are being killed more often because the killers don''t fear the penalty as much. Regardless, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks the death penalty is party time. I personally see the death penalty as the punishment for murder that either involves premeditation or extreme violence especially against children since they are truly innocent. There is some basic belief in an eye for an eye in a lot of people''s minds. No punishment will ever really make any victim''s family feel good about it.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/14/2006 8:13:19 AM
Author: Momoftwo
And what do an Italian and Englishman have to say about our justice system anyway?

An excellent and erudite point, indeed! Why should we be influenced by foreigners like those who created the Renaissance in Italy and those who wrote the Magna Carta (and all the other instruments of English law upon which our legal system is based)? Those foreigners should really mind their own business!

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/14/2006 10:43:49 AM
Author: fire&ice
Deb, I''m with Al, you are over the top with this one. You don''t have to agree with the stance on the death penalty; but, you ALSO don''t have to lump people who do believe in it into some sort of blood thirsty horde.

I "lumped" no one; I was addressing R/A (whom I have known for years) and NO ONE ELSE.

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/14/2006 10:53:45 AM
Author: perry
Actually, ''public hangings'' were entertainment throught the US as well; It died down on the east coast first but probably did not end untill about 100 years ago in the western US.


In many cases public hangings were anounced well in advance so that people could come to see them; various ''huksters'' would come and set up their wagons selling various goods and ''medicinal'' treatments (good for whatever ails you). It was almost a canival atmospher in certain cases; with the lead event being the hangning itself. Free admission as well.


I am quite sure that you could easily fill any modern arena with lots of people to watch a hanging today - people are often interested and entertained by death.

Although we disagree on capital punishment, perry, this posting is as thoughtful as the many others you have made on this topic. We have already agreed to disagree, but I wanted to compliment you once again on the thoroughness with which you approach this subject. I often learn some history from your postings, too, even though my field was history! (This time it was about the pre-Christian victims of the lions in ancient Rome!)

Deborah

 

[perry]

Deb:

Thanks for the complement. Amazing what I have picked up over the years.

Most people in the US only know about the "sacrifice" of Christians in the Colosseum becasue many US Churches teach that without presenting the fact that the Roman "Specitcal of blood" was in fact a long estabilished tradition by the time of Jesus.

Most people also only think of the Roman Colosseum - which was nothing more than the "Suprebowl" arena of various sports and competition - inlcuding the "blood sports."

The fact is that smaller areans esisted in virtually every city throughout the Roman empire: From Britian to Turkey, from the Rhine (now Germany) to North Africa. Note that the Colosseum was build well after Jesus.

Once the Christians appeared - and ran afoul of the Romans - they were just easy to add to the traditional way of dealing with certain prisionors and miscreants.

By the way, I got my first reall clue from the tour of the Coloseum in the late 70''s - and knowing that later researched gladiators and "blood sports" typical of the Colossuem (Although I may have purchased a book at the time). Likewise, I learned about the public spectacle of hangings out west when touring the west (my idea of a vacation is to spend a week in an area just bouncing arround through the towns- museums - and other things that interest me at the time. Spur of the moment items are common - now if I could only find a gal who wanted to do that with me...).

Perry