August 28 ALABAMA: A mother's rage----A year after her daughter was murdered, Rolande Dean seeks justice Brandy Bachelder was killed at her home last August. It has been more than a year, but the rage Rolande Dean felt that muggy morning in August of 2005 lives on. If anything, it is stronger. She never went a day without talking to her daughter. They were supposed to get together to play games on Aug. 9 of last year, a Tuesday. When her daughter, Brandy Bachelder, didn't return calls all day Tuesday, Dean worried. When she didn't show up for work the next morning, she panicked. Dean said she left work and drove to her daughter's mobile home at Cayman Bay off Napier Field Road. She had called ahead, asking the park manager to knock on her daughter's door. She drove up before that happened and said she was getting out of her car when a police vehicle pulled up. She said she looked toward her daughter's mobile home and saw a bloody handprint on the front door. Officers found a gory scene in the living room. Bachelder, 27, had been beaten, stabbed, suffocated and sexually molested. Dean said she sought to have an open casket at her daughter's funeral, but the violence of the murder made it impossible. Dean said her daughter had been seeing 36-year-old Heath Lavon McCray for a little more than a year before trying to break off the relationship just a week before the murder. When McCray learned police were looking for him, he turned himself in. He agreed to take a polygraph, and police said the results showed he was being deceptive. After a lengthy interrogation, McCray was arrested and charged with capital murder. His trial is set for October, but Dean says she doesn't need a trial to determine who killed her daughter. "I knew immediately," she said. Dean said she believes McCray killed Bachelder because she tried to end their relationship. Dean said that when someone told Bachelder that McCray had been violent to women in the past, she broke the relationship off immediately. Court records indicate McCray has prior convictions for domestic violence, sexual misconduct and failure to register as a sex offender. Dean said Bachelder was frightened enough to position her large leather couch in front of the door to keep McCray out the night she broke off the relationship, less than a week before she was killed. Dean said Bachelder changed the locks on her doors the next day. Dean believes McCray broke into her daughter's home Monday, Aug. 8 and waited for her to return home from work, then attacked her as she entered her home. Now, Dean said she shakes with anger when she thinks about McCray. "He still gets three meals a day. He still gets to watch TV, to visit his children," Dean said. "Brandy was my only child. No parent should ever have to bury their only child. No parent should have to go into her daughter's trailer and clean up the blood." She worries about stereotypes. She wants people to know her daughter wasn't what some in the South call "white trash." She doesn't want people to judge her because she lived in a mobile home park and had an interracial relationship. "I want people to know she loved everybody. And she was a hard worker, worked constantly," Dean said. "She didn't take any type of government assistance." McCray denies killing Bachelder. During the police interrogation, he admits to being in her home the night she was killed, but said that when he left that evening "everything was fine." Dean doesn't believe it. She said she knows a conviction and execution won't bring her daughter back, but it might let her sleep at night. "Would I be satisfied the least little bit with life in prison without parole? No. Not one little bit," she said. "I have to live with this every day when I close my eyes at night. He shouldn't be allowed to live." (source: Dothan Eagle) OHIO: Richey will never be free even if he is released Do you agree that the death penalty is barbaric, or does it act as a deterrent? IMAGINE if your life had been frozen in time when you were 22 years old. All your emotions, all your knowledge, all your memories. Now imagine how you would cope with being marooned in solitary confinement for the next 20 years. Knowing that at any time a man may come knocking on your door to escort you to an electric chair so you could be put to death. What would you sound like? What would form your opinions? For Kenny Richey all of this is a reality every day. He was sentenced to death in 1987 in Ohio for the murder of 2-year-old Cynthia Collins, after he was found guilty of setting fire to an apartment where the little girl was sleeping. Today, he spoke out for the 1st time in many years on my radio show on Talk 107 in Edinburgh. His conversation, conducted by telephone with me from the Mansfield Correctional Institute, was peppered with a series of different attitudes. Anger, resignation, bitterness, humour and not a little irony. He is clearly an intelligent man. He speaks with a trace of the Edinburgh accent of his youth. And he insists, and has insisted for the past 20 years, that he is innocent. And yet, the United States authorities continue to hold him on death row - a place reserved for the worst offenders in the nation. A place from where few ever emerge free men. All right-thinking Scots, and Richey includes himself in this group, abhor the death penalty. It is a shameful practice carried out only by the most oppressive regimes in secretive states around the world. The United States is alone in being the only so-called civilised nation in the world still practising this barbaric form of state-sponsored revenge. And with George W Bush running the place, there is little chance of any change in that policy. In his heart Richey believes he will never be allowed out. He does not think the Ohio authorities will be big enough to admit that they made a mistake. His lawyers, however, tell him a different story. They believe that a final roll of the dice in the next few weeks could see the Ohio Supreme Court paving the way for his release. It would be an astonishing set of circumstances if it came to pass. But the reality is that Kenny Richey could be free before Christmas to return to Edinburgh, the city he has not seen since 1981. Throughout the interview Kenny revealed every side of his personality. He laughed as he remembered his only taste of the real world last month when he was rushed to hospital after suffering a heart attack. The irony of lying on his back in an ambulance with tubes sticking out of him was not lost on him. At other times his anger at the system that has confined him to the human abattoir of justice was also hard to disguise. But perhaps the most revealing part of the interview was his barely concealed wonderment at the sight of a plasma TV screen at his hospital bedside. He admitted he had never seen anything like it. And no wonder. In 1987 Kylie Minogue had just had her first chart hit. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were running the world from the White House and 10 Downing Street. And tennis superstar Andy Murray had just been born. There were no iPods, no laptop computers, no asylum seekers, no Scottish Premierleague. There wasn't even a Scottish Parliament - one place where he now wants people to lobby for his freedom. No wonder that Richey's impressions of the world he lives in are so stuck in the past. If he is released he says he will come back to Edinburgh to live with his ex-wife Wendy. He recently got back together with the woman he divorced in 1986 after just 2 years of marriage. He chose Wendy over Karen Torley, the woman from Cambuslang who wrote to him on death row and later became his fiance. Their engagement ended before they had even exchanged a kiss amid accusations that she had failed to properly manage funds collected on his behalf for a campaign. Kenny Richey's life has been something of a tragic soap opera - played out largely in front of a curious public. He has become a prisoner of the celebrity machine that he needs to continually feed in order to keep his plight high enough up on the public's radar system. Even before his conviction for the murder of a child, his life had been less than ordinary. He was held in Saughton Prison on remand for 2 weeks before he left to live in the US with his American serviceman father. He never really settled in Ohio and much of his life seems to have been punctuated by episodes of drunkenness. The real tragedy for him is that whatever happens in the next few weeks he will remain a prisoner for the rest of his life. For even if he is released by the Ohio authorities, he can never really be free. (source: Edinburgh Evening News) USA: What Forgiveness Isn't----6 myths that may be keeping you from letting go. I listened quietly as my friend Jamie told me the frank details of the sexual abuse she'd suffered as a child. "I hate my father!" she blurted out. "He abused me for more than a decade!" Jamie cried. "But my pastor said if I want to heal from my childhood pain, I have to forgive." "What did you tell your pastor?" I asked. "I told him I could never forgive my father, that I didn't want to forgive him, that no one-not even God-would expect me to forgive him!" Jamie told me all the reasons that kept her from forgiving her abusive father. I'd heard many of them before. In fact, I'd used some of them 2 years earlier, when a friend I'd trusted to keep a confidence told several women in my Sunday school class about a painful circumstance I was going through. I felt betrayed by my friend-as I should have. But forgive her? That was the last thing I wanted to do! I dropped out of the Sunday school class and avoided her at church. But a year later, when I reread what the apostle Paul said about forgiveness, his familiar words touched my heart in a special way: "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you" (Ephesians 4:32, my emphasis). As I meditated on that verse, I knew I'd been forgiven much. I needed to forgive my friend, even if I didn't feel like it. I decided to do so. Later, when I met her and told her I'd forgiven her, she apologized, and we both cried. I wish I could say she and I became good friends again-but I can't. Her betrayal deeply hurt our friendship, and I was careful never to share another confidence with her. But God's Word and my decision to forgive set me free from bitterness. Facing the Challenge Jamie and I are just 2 of a legion of Christian women who've struggled with forgiveness because it's difficult-almost impossible-to do. Yet in Luke 6:37, Jesus says, "Forgive, and you will be forgiven." He elaborates in Matthew 6:14-15: "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." The apostle Paul repeats Jesus' command: "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you" (Colossians 3:13). Surely Paul's "whatever grievances" covers any kind of hurt, betrayal, or injury another person could inflict! In talking with hundreds of women about forgiveness, I've discovered 6 myths that keep us from the healing and freedom God desires for you and me. Myth 1: Forgiving means the offender didn't really hurt you. Jamie thought if she forgave her father, it lessened the severity of his abuse. Yet Jamie's forgiveness doesn't deny her father hurt her. In fact, it clearly recognizes the enormity of his evil-if Jamie's dad hadn't deliberately caused her pain, she'd have no reason to forgive him. "Forgiveness is a redemptive response to having been wronged and wounded," wrote author Lewis B. Smedes. "Only those who have wronged and wounded us are candidates for forgiveness. If they injure us accidentally, we excuse them. We only forgive the ones we blame." Choosing to forgive her father acknowledges the pain Jamie endured at his hands. It also begins her healing. Myth 2: Forgiving means you excuse the offender's hurtful act. When I chose to forgive my friend, I didn't condone her cruel behavior. Forgiveness, I've discovered, is a response that seeks to redeem the hurt, not brush it off. An accidental "slip of the tongue" needs no forgiveness because it isn't deliberately caused. Intentional hurts-like my friend's betrayal-need forgiveness. When I forgave my friend, my forgiveness didn't lessen the impact of her painful action. But forgiveness unlocked my own "prison" of bitterness. Myth 3: Before forgiving, you must first understand why the offender hurt you. On December 1, 1997, Missy Jenkins, a sophomore at Heath High School in Paducah, Kentucky, stood with her classmates and prayed before school started. Before they said their final "amen," 14-year-old Michael Carneal pulled out a pistol and fired 11 shots into the student prayer group. One bullet severely damaged Missy's spinal cord. Paralyzed from the waist down, Missy will spend her life in a wheelchair. Missy doesn't know the reason her classmate deliberately hurt her. Michael may not understand his reasons. But that didn't keep Missy from choosing to forgive him. "I believe hating him is wasted emotion," Missy says. "Hating Michael won't make me walk again. Besides, I know it isn't what Jesus would do." Our human mind yearns to make all the confusing puzzle pieces fit together neatly before we forgive. However, the truth is we can forgive an offender even if we never discover the reasons for the inflicted pain. Author Philip Yancey writes in What's So Amazing About Grace, "Not to forgive imprisons me in the past and locks out all potential for change. I thus yield control to another, my enemy, and doom myself to suffer the consequences of the wrong." Myth 4: Before forgiving the offender, you must feel forgiving. Forgiveness has nothing to do with how you feel. You can feel hurt, betrayed, and angry, and still completely forgive the one who wounded you. Biblical forgiveness is an act of the will. It's a choice you make. Can you still feel angry after you forgive? Yes! Anger means you're in touch with reality-it's part of being human. But be careful to aim that anger at what your offender did, not at the offender herself. Then let your anger push you toward justice. Myth 5: Forgiving means the offender will face no consequences. When we choose to forgive someone, our forgiveness doesn't "let him off the hook." Forgiveness also doesn't mean justice shouldn't be served. In December 1983, Pope John Paul II visited a prisoner, Mehmet Ali Agca, at the Rebibbia prison in Rome. In May 1981, Agca had aimed a pistol at the pope and shot him in the chest. After much pain and agony, John Paul recovered, and now he looked Agca in the eye, extended his hand, and said, "I forgive you." Even though the pope forgave him, Agca still faced the consequences of his crime. He served a lengthy prison sentence until he finally was released last January. Myth 6: When your offender is punished, you'll find closure. On June 13, 1990, Linda Purnhagen saw her two daughters, Gracie, 16, and Tiffany, 9, for the last time. Dennis Dowthitt, a dangerously sick psychopath, strangled Tiffany to death, then raped Gracie and slit her throat. When authorities discovered the girls' bodies, they arrested and convicted Dowthitt, and scheduled his execution. A decade later, as executioners strapped him to his death gurney, Dowthitt apologized for the savage killings. But not even his confession, apology, and execution brought closure for Linda. She was disappointed after the execution, not relieved. We think we can more easily forgive others if they confess the crime and apologize for the pain they caused. But don't look to justice, imprisonment, or execution to bring needed closure and healing. Only forgiveness will do that. The Choice to Forgive The decision to forgive an offender is probably the hardest choice we can ever make. Some crimes seem too horrible to forgive. Our instincts tell us to avenge the person who caused us pain, not to release him from the debt he owes us. But as Christians, we can't afford to have unforgiving hearts, for we have been greatly forgiven by God in Christ (Ephesians 4:32). Only forgiveness can release us from a life of hatred and bitterness. "Forgiving is a journey, sometimes a long one," wrote Lewis B. Smedes in Shame and Grace. "We may need some time before we get to the station of complete healing, but the nice thing is that we are being healed en route. When we genuinely forgive, we set a prisoner free and then discover the prisoner we set free was us." Denise George, www.authordenisegeorge.com, is the author of 20 books, including Cultivating a Forgiving Heart-Forgiveness Frees You to Flourish (Zondervan). Forgiveness ABCs Acknowledge the hurt. When someone deliberately hurts you, don't try to diminish the pain and its effect on you. Acknowledge your suffering-and express it aloud to God. Scripture promises: "The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit" (Psalm 34:18), and "He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds" (Psalm 147:3). Blame the offender. If a person hurts you by mistake, she didn't mean to inflict pain, so she needs no forgiveness. But if a person intentionally hurts you, then the pain she caused was deliberate. Say aloud: "I personally blame you, (name of offender), because you hurt me on purpose." Correctly placing the blame readies you to begin the forgiveness process. Cancel the debt. You've acknowledged the hurt and rightly blamed the offender. Now you're ready to make the willful decision to "cancel the debt" your offender owes you. Find a quiet place to be alone and ask the Lord's help in forgiving the person who hurt you. You might pray the "Lord's Prayer" (Matthew 6:9-13) and meditate on verse 12: "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." After you've prayed and while you're still alone, speak aloud your decision to forgive: "(Name of offender), I've chosen to forgive you for hurting me; I've decided to cancel the debt you owe me." You've now embarked on the process of forgiving the person who hurt you. (source: Today's Christian Woman-July/August 2006, Vol. 28, No. 4) ******************** The Court-Ordered Internet Auction of the Unabomber's "Murderabilia": Why, Though It May Be Tasteless, It's Perfectly Legal You soon may be able to log on to the Internet and bid on items formerly owned by the "Unabomber," Theodore Kaczynski. Currently imprisoned, Kaczynski killed three people, and wounded many others, with his letter-bombs. Though his first bomb was sent in 1978, he was not arrested until 1996. He avoided the death penalty by pleading guilty to his crimes. On August 11, a federal district court judge ordered that Kaczynski's personal belongings, including his journal and other papers relating to his murderous plots, should be sold via a public Internet auction. The proceeds of the sale are to be used to compensate his victims and their heirs, who have procured a $15 million restitution order against Kaczyinski. Some have expressed dismay at this auction. And surely, it is a bit creepy to sell a criminal's possessions. While some buyers may be interested solely in the items' historic significance, many may use their purchases to glorify Kaczynski's murders - viewing them as macabre souvenirs. "Murderabilia" is nothing new: Criminals, including killers, have sold off their belongings before. But the specter of the belongings put online for all to see is, of course, an Internet-era innovation. In this column, I will explain the nature of the auction, and explain why - despite a few state laws banning "notoriety for profit," in the form of sales of criminals' stories and crime-related possessions, the court-sponsored auction remains perfectly legal. The Details of the Court-ordered Auction Earlier, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had told the federal government that it could not hold on to Kaczynski's personal belongings indefinitely. Instead, the property either had to be sold, and the proceeds applied toward fulfilling the restitution order, or had to be returned to Kaczynski. (Kaczyksnki wanted to donate his writings to the University of Michigan, of which he is an alumnus, and which houses an extensive collection of protest and anarchist literature.) On August 10 of this year, U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell Jr. ruled that Kaczynski's belongings should be sold at a "reasonably advertised Internet auction." There are approximately one hundred items the government considers to be bomb-making materials, such as writings that contain diagrams and "recipes" for bombs. These items will be excluded from the auction. (Separately, and somewhat oddly, Burrell ordered that 5 guns taken from the cabin be sold directly to victims for $300, which will be deducted from the restitution.) The U.S. Marshals' Service will enter into a contract for the sale with a private Internet auctioneer, who will bear the cost of the sale. The auctioneer is to receive no more than 10 % of the proceeds. The revenues from the sale, less the auctioneer's commission, will be applied to the restitution order, which will benefit Kaczynski's victims and/or their families. Among the personal items to be auctioned are tools, among them files, saws, hatchets, knives, axes and scissors; clothing; 3 typewriters; Kaczynski's University of Michigan diploma (housed in a suitcase); 2 checkbooks; and a library of titles ranging including from "Finnish Grammar" to "Zapata and the Mexican Revolution." Among the clothing up for auction are the Unabomber's hooded jackets, which he may have worn when posting his mail bombs. Kaczynski's writings--which include several versions of his Unabomber "Manifesto"--are also for sale. They are estimated to cover 40,000 handwritten pages. They detail his urges to kill and reportedly include a detailed recitation of the events of his 17-year bombing campaign. However, the names of all the victims and their families, and all recognizable descriptions of the victims and their injuries, and the names of intended victims, will be redacted, per the court's order. Is it Legal for the Court to Sell Murderabilia? Is this court-sponsored Internet auction legal? The answer is definitely "Yes." Indeed, Kaczynski might have been able to sell his own belongings, had the court not seized them first. In most states, "murderabilia" sales remain legal. And web sites such as supernaught.com are in the business of auctioning or selling such "murderabilia" - and selling artwork by criminals, as well. There are, however, a number of states in which "murderabilia" sales are illegal, on the ground that they allow criminals to profit from their crimes. These laws also prohibit criminals from profiting on books, movies and interviews about their crimes - but to that extent, depending on the way they are framed, these laws may be contrary to the First Amendment. New York was the 1st state to enact a notoriety-for-profit law, in 1977, after reports that "Son of Sam" serial killer David Berkowitz was hoping to make a great deal of money by selling his story to a publisher. Although "Son of Sam" laws across the country are fairly similar, the specific wording of such laws varies from state to state. In most states, the victim must sue the offender in civil court and obtain a judgment for damages before being allowed to make a claim against a criminal's profits. In other states, claims are made through a state victims' compensation program. The laws generally apply to convicted offenders, including those who plead guilty, as well as to those who are acquitted on the grounds of insanity. In 1991, in Simon & Schuster v. New York Crime Victims' Board, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York's "Son of Sam" law as unconstitutional, on the ground that it violated the First Amendment. In 2002, California's Son of Sam law suffered a similar fate, before the California Supreme Court in Keenan v. Superior Court. In Simon and Schuster, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, among other points, that the New York law was overbroad because it applied not only to convicted offenders, but also to those simply accused of crimes. It also noted the social value of some memoirs recounting the author's crimes - such as the classic Autobiography of Malcolm X. In addition, the Court noted that the Son of Sam law was suspect in that it specially targeted First-Amendment-protected speech, as opposed to the many other ways criminals might profit from their crimes. Some states have amended their laws to respond to the constitutional challenges - addressing the Court's concern about speech-targeting by expanding their statutes to cover any profit received, directly or indirectly, from crimes. For instance, Iowa targets "fruits of the crime." These are defined as "any profit which, were it not for the commission of the felony, would not have been realized." Oklahoma's amended law covers "any proceeds or profits from any source, as a direct or indirect result of the crime or sentence, or the notoriety which the crime or sentence has conferred upon the defendant." Tennessee's law is broader and targets "all income, from whatever source derived, which is owing to the defendant, or representative or assignee of the defendant, after the date of the crime." Other states, such as California, have taken a different approach: They've passed legislation that allows the families of murder victims to bring civil tort lawsuits (for wrongful death and for civil assault and battery, for instance) against convicted killers, for longer periods of time (in California, ten years). While such suits are not brought under laws that specifically target crime proceeds, or notoriety proceeds, such proceeds are among the sources of money that could be used to satisfy the judgments. Some states have also amended their laws, or enacted new legislation, to specifically address "murderabilia." For example, California expanded the state's "notoriety for profit" law to also impose an involuntary trust upon the profits from any felony-crime-related memorabilia. Also in 2001, Texas added to its "forfeiture of profits" statute a new category, profits from the sale of tangible property, the value of which is increased by a convicted person's notoriety. Victims are entitled under Texas law to bring lawsuits to claim such property. None of these state laws, however, targets a court-ordered auction for the benefit of victims - which was just ordered in the Kaczynski case. In other words, there is no state law that says that murderabilia cannot be sold even if a court so orders, and even if the money goes to the victims, not the culprit. Moreover, even if some state laws did say this, that wouldn't stop the auction - it would only stop a sale at the auction to residents of that state, or perhaps a sale by a company situated there. Who will Auction the Memorabilia and Who Will Buy it? Even if the sales are legal, which auctioneer will be willing to sell the Unabomber's belongings? EBay, the world's largest Internet auction site has changed its policy - in response to public pressure - to ban the sale of murderabilia on its Website. Perhaps a site like supernaught.com will step in - though it may be somewhat unseemly for the government to be paying commission to such a site! As for who will bid on the items, we will have to see. Kaczynski's journals seem best suited in a government archive - where researchers can pore over his writings, or government agents can spend time trying to predict the behavior of a serial killer. A purchase by such an archive might be the best solution. (source: FindLaw -- Anita Ramasastry is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle and a Director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce & Technology. She has previously written on business law, cyberlaw, computer data security issues, and other legal issues for this site, which contains an archive of her columns) ************ AT LARGE----Literalism blocks Bible's big picture First Baptist Church of Watertown, N.Y., fired Mary Lambert for being a woman. They say the Bible told them to do it. Nothing against women, says the Rev. Timothy LaBouf. The church is just trying to obey 1 Timothy 2:11-14, which says, in part, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.'' So, after 54 years as a Sunday school teacher at First Baptist, Lambert was given the heave-ho a couple weeks ago. She and others have said the firing probably had as much to do with church politics as with scriptural injunctions, but let's stick with the stated reason as given in her letter of dismissal: The Bible forbids women taking positions of authority. There is, for the record, a similar injunction in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which warns that it is ''disgraceful'' for a woman to speak in the church. So the church is scripturally right. It's just not right right. INTRIGUING The Lambert case intrigues me because it illustrates a point I've made on many occasions when people bring out Bibles to explain why gay folk deserve no civil rights. Maybe now, without the reflexive emotionalism that gay brings to cloud their view, a few more people will see the obvious: Bible literalism is impractical and impossible. Or maybe they won't see. Allow me to share by way of example an e-mail I received last week from a gentleman named Al who took exception to a column I wrote condemning capital punishment. Said Al, ``When one criticizes the death penalty one criticizes God's judgment in the matter, as scripture ordains death for numerous crimes. It is not wise to criticize God.'' I shot back a note pointing out that among the crimes for which scripture ordains death are cursing your parents (Lev. 20:9) or committing adultery (Lev. 20:10). Did Al really believe those misdeeds should be treated as capital offenses? ''Only if one wishes to accomplish God's will in the matter,'' said Al. I don't mind telling you, people like him scare me. A GOOD CHANGE As it happens, one of America's greatest churchmen recently weighed in on the question of Bible literalism. In a twilight-of-life interview with Newsweek, Billy Graham spoke of the way age and perspective led him to reject the absolutism of the left and right and to make his peace with the notion of God as a loving mystery. People of faith, he said, can ''absolutely'' disagree about the details of theology. ''I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle [of the Bible] is from the Lord,'' he said. "This is a little difference in my thinking through the years.'' It is a difference people like Al would do well to emulate. Or has no one else noticed how literally some Christians interpret those Scriptures that give them license to condemn, yet how elastic and liberal their readings are when dealing with Scriptures that convict their personal behaviors? Meaning that it's always a little more difficult to catch people being literal about turn the other cheek, do not store up treasures on earth, do not turn away the borrower, love your enemy. Yet, you can't go to the store without tripping over someone who wants you to know the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. MOST IMPORTANT THEMES People obsess on the fine print, yet miss the big picture, the overarching themes of sacrifice, redemption, love. In their selectivity, they are reminiscent of the Islamic fanatics who bomb and behead, citing some passage of the Koran as justification, yet conveniently ignoring a dozen other passages commanding mercy and love. People are much less apt to be selective in the direction of mercy and love. I'll close by observing that Exodus 35:2 requires death for those who work on the Sabbath. Were I a member of First Baptist, I might wonder where the church leaders stand on that one. Of course, I'd be scared to ask. (source: Leonard Pitts Jr., Column, Miami Herald) MISSISSIPPI: Former Deputy of Harrison County, Mississippi Sheriff's Department Charged in Death of Inmate Ryan Michael Teel, a former deputy of the Harrison County, Miss. Sheriff's Department, was indicted on charges relating to the circumstances surrounding the death of an inmate, Jessie Lee Williams Jr., who died as a result of injuries sustained at the Harrison County Adult Detention Center on February 4, 2006. The 2-count criminal indictment was announced today by Wan J. Kim, assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division and Dunn Lampton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi. Count one of the indictment alleges that Teel assaulted Williams, thereby depriving him of his constitutionally-protected civil rights. It is further alleged that Teel's conduct involved an attempt to kill Williams, resulting in his bodily injury and death. The 2nd count alleges that Teel obstructed justice by falsifying an official report with intent to obstruct an investigation into the assault on Williams. If convicted, Teel faces a maximum penalty of life in prison on count 1 of the indictment, and a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 on count 2. A criminal indictment represents an accusation only, and that all criminal defendants in every criminal case are entitled to the presumption of innocence unless or until otherwise proven guilty. Assistant Attorney General Kim and U.S. Attorney Lampton commended the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation for spearheading and devoting significant resources to this investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Lacey, and Special Litigation Counsel Lisa Krigsten and Trial Attorney John Richmond from the Civil Rights Division are prosecuting this case for the government. (source: U.S. Newswire) PENNSYLVANIA: Jury selection begins in death penalty case Jury selection in the death penalty trial of Joseph Gacha begins this morning before Luzerne County Judge Joseph Augello. Gacha, 28 of Edwardsville, is charged with killing 20-year-old Carrie Martin inside her Larksville home in May 2004. Police say Gacha and Daniel Kukucka went to the home in search of drugs and money. Martin was stabbed to death after she confronted the men. They then fled the home with a locked box. Kukucka later killed himself in prison. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Gacha, saying the homicide was perpetrated during the commission of another crime, robbery. (source: Times Leader)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ALA., OHIO, USA, MISS. PENN.
Rick Halperin Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:40:40 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
