Mercy for Whom — The Guilty, or the Innocent? The United States has, for all practical purposes, legalized murder of men by women. All a woman has to do is claim that a man abused her, and she automatically gains the legal right to blast his brains out, hack him to death, or otherwise dispose of him. And it doesn't matter what the woman does after that. She can call the cops and brag about liberating herself from torment, or take the kids and run across several state lines. At end, any woman has the right to kill any man as long as she claims that he abused her.
+
That is the message of the Tennessee murder of a PREACHER by his wife. She CLAIMED he abused her. She MURDERED him and RAN, with the children. She was caught. She was tried, and convicted. And then she was given PROBATION for murder.
+
The jury that found her guilty of anything less than murder should be rounded up and beheaded, then chopped up for parts for people waiting for organ transplants. The judge who said that the time that murderess had already served in prison, a mere few months, was enuf punishment for the poor dear, should be wrapped in a noose and dropped thru a trap-door gallows from so high that his head rips off; and then his body should be chopped up for parts for decent people. The legislators of the State of Tennessee who wrote laws that permitted such an outrage against justice, and the Governor who signed them, should be rounded up and slaughtered, and their bodies chopped up for parts for decent people desperately waiting for organ donations.
+
We now have a positive incentive to kill off the evil who fill this planet to overflowing with wickedness. We can now chop them up for parts for decent people. Seize them; tissue-type them; chop, rip, or slice off their evil, empty heads; and distribute various pieces of their bodies to save the lives and improve the quality of life of decent people who would never do the terrible things we have become inured to: the murders, the heartless predation, the monstrous inhumanity of the subhuman scum who fill the prisons and courtrooms of this infantile and craven Nation, which refuses to fite back with all the force needed to end the crimes against us, because it's "not nice" to kill criminals. Yes it is, and especially if we chop them up for parts.
+
There are, at any given time, some 97,000 people in the United States alone waiting for organ transplants without which they will die. My friend Joe's father died while he was waiting for a heart transplant.

Experts suggest that each of us could save or help as many as 50 people by being an organ and tissue donor.

We have hundreds of thousands of 'people' in prisons all across the country for monstrous crimes they did, without question, commit.

There are more than 1.5 million inmates in the nation's state and federal prisons [for all offenses, trivial and horrendous], a number that is projected to grow to more than 1.7 million by the end of 2011, a 13 percent increase. The nation's population, by comparison, is projected to grow by 4.5 percent in that time.

States are projected to spend up to $27.5 billion on the new inmates, including $12.5 billion in construction costs, according to the study.

Cadavers don't need housing, only dismemberment for transplant into decent people of what is usable and cremation of what is not usable in transplantation. The ashes can be dumped in national or state forests, as fertilizer.

About 3,400 of these 1.5 million inmates are on death row. There are many, many more 'people' who doubtless committed crimes that, in a just society, would result in their execution but who, for whatever reason, were not condemned to die for their crimes. Sometimes, a jury of cowards just would not accept responsibility for condemning someone to death, even tho they knew that it was their legal and moral obligation to do that. Sometimes a prosecutor whose case was less than ironclad dared not even try to get a jury to convict on a capital charge, but sought a conviction only on a lesser charge, hoping a jury of useless cowards would nonetheless rise to the minimal courage to consign a clearly-guilty defendant to many years in prison — altho s/he actually deserved to die.
+
For the moment (only), let's stick only with those already on death row. Let us also, for this purpose, eliminate, say, 10% of those already on death row out of concern that there might conceivably be some reasonable doubt of their utter guilt (even tho a jury did not find any reason to doubt their guilt). That would still leave 3,060 prisoners on death row who, without question, did commit the monstrous crimes for which society condemned them to death.
+
3,060 prisoners times 50 people the organs from each criminal's body might keep alive or make life better = 153,000 people waiting for organ or tissue transplants who could be helped by killing the people already on death row and chopping them up for parts for decent people. That is a bedrock minimum for the number of people whom our criminals could help rather than harm.
+
How do we derive a figure of 50 people who could be helped from the death of a single 'person' (criminal)? Think about it: 1 heart, 2 kidneys, 3 lobes of a liver = 6 decent people saved from tragic, premature death by the postmature death of a beast that looks human but isn't. Heart, kidney, and liver-lobe transplants are now fairly commonplace. Other organs, and tissues (an organ is a group of tissues that function together), can also be transplanted to good effect in many cases. For instance, each involuntary subhuman donor could contribute two human lungs, one each for two different people. (Of course, no smoker should receive a lung transplant. It has now been 44 years since the Surgeon General warned people that tobacco kills. No one who ignored that warning deserves a lung transplant. Let smokers die from their folly, and thus warn others away from such self-destructive behavior by putting them on notice that society won't lift a finger to save smokers from their own stupidity after they've been warned that smoking could kill them. Lung and other transplants should be given only to people whose grave health problems were beyond their control.
+
Two corneas in each involuntary donor could give two people partial vision or one person full vision.
+
What other organs might we transplant? Colons for people who lost their own colon to ulcerative colitis. Spleen? Gall bladder?
+
And what of tissues less than organs? I had two knee/leg surgeries in which I received cadaverous tendon tissue. (My own tendons from kneecap to shin had burst.) There are many types of tendon and muscle tissue, skin, bone, marrow, and other body parts that could be transplanted into many recipients without causing rejection problems.
+
Altho transplants of many kinds of tissues could help 50 people per cadaver, the number of people whose life could be saved is much smaller. Vital organs would then be the determinant: heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, and not much else. Perhaps 8 lives per criminal chopped up for parts.
+
We should be so eager to use cadavers in transplants of many kinds that criminals should be scared sh*tless that we are looking for an excuse to kill them and chop them up for parts. They should be afraid that we want them dead even if they didn't commit the particular crime of which they are accused, and suspect that we will gladly kill anyone even remotely credible as the guilty party, just so we can chop them up for parts. Criminals should be scared of US, not the other way around.
+
What we must not do, however, is trivialize murder by giving probation to a woman who shot her husband dead, then ran across several state lines to elude arrest. We should kill the bitch, chop her up for parts, and be PROUD to be ABLE to execute her for her crime and turn her evil body into good parts. We dishonor humanity by being merciful to murderers. We honor innocent life by transforming evil 'people' into good parts.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 3,519 — for Israel.)

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 11:59 PM