Seb = Lazy Mofo

Since Seb’s still being a lazy mofo (and since I can’t resist shameless self-promotion), I thought I’d update y’all on the latest from Kaye Grogan, cross-posted at my place.

This week, Kaye’s written another show-stopper, arguing that the death penalty shouldn’t be used as a deterrent, since the best reason to execute criminals is revenge:

Above: The sssssssassy Kaye Grogan.

The death penalty is a punishment . . . not a deterrent

Kaye Grogan

March 14, 2005

The death penalty opponents don’t have a leg to stand on when they argue the death penalty is not a deterrent for committing murders. The death penalty is a self-defense action taken by pro-death penalty states, who are acting on behalf of the victim/victims who have already been killed ? who didn’t have any self-defense against their slayers.

So we have to kill criminals in self-defense to stop them from murdering our states- hey, I can’t argue with that.

In other words, the death penalty is the ultimate punishment for those who have already been tried and convicted of a murder/murders.

Though that’s not as cruel as making them read a column/columns by Kaye Grogan.

It would be wonderful if the death penalty proved to be a deterrent for those contemplating murder, but statistics prove otherwise. The crime rate may be down, but only because the population has grown to epidemic proportions in comparison with the population 35 years ago.

Right, except the crime rate is, you know, a rate that measures the number of crimes per population, regardless of its size.  But keep talking.  I’m interested to hear your theory of a donut-shaped universe.

One statistical report has recorded around 767 people have been put to death since 1976 for their crimes. How did these people convicted of murder and put to death ? view life?

And who taught, Kaye how – to write and why… do they, still have- a job?

If life had been precious to them, they would not have robbed someone else of their right to live. Evidently, granting mercy to their victim/victims meant nothing to them, so why should their lives have been spared?

Well, according to this liberal pinko commie:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery. Having set her in the midst, they told him, "Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act.  Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What then do you say about her?"  They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with his finger.  But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her."

But remember, we should only listen to Jesus when he trashes gay people (even though he never actually does) and ignore him when he admonishes the death penalty.

In the last few weeks the U.S. Supreme Court (in my opinion) ? set a dangerous precedence for murderers under the age of 18. If we’re going to have a civilized society, we’re going to have to take the high road and punish the criminals to fit the crime, no matter what their ages are.

I never realized that executing minors was part of "taking the high road" in a "civilized society," but I guess that’s why Kaye has a high-paying gig at Renew America, and I’m just a lowly blogger.

I concur that children under the age of 15, the death penalty may be too harsh, but a 16-year-old and up, knows right from wrong, and if they take a life ? again the punishment should fit the crime.  What are the anti-death penalty crowds doing to deter murders?

"Yeah, what’re they gonna use to stop the criminals?!!  SPITBALLS?!!!!?!!"

Folks we have an epidemic here in America concerning murder. And the epidemic is just as fatal as any life-threatening disease, even more so, given the fact the people who were murdered were denied the right to die with dignity.

Because if you don’t die with dignity, your death becomes even more fatal.

Now you should understand why law-abiding citizens should never give up their right to own guns. The criminals are going to get guns and you can’t defend yourselves against an armed intruder with a feather duster.

"And besides, a toilet brush is far more effective."

We hear how the death penalty kills innocents. This is a rarity and used to the extreme by anti-death penalty advocates.

Right, which is why Illinois stopped all its executions five years ago after learning that 13 people on death row had been wrongly convicted, including one guy who was within two days of being executed before students at Northwestern found evidence exonerating him.

If the death penalty is not a deterrent to potential murderers . . . think how much less a deterrent it will be – to not have the death penalty in place period.

So even though the death penalty is not a deterrent for murders, it will become less of a non-deterrent if abolished.

Innocent victims that were murdered – deserve to have their self-defense carried out by the states. Then and only then . . . will justice prevail.

Unless we execute necrophiliacs, I don’t know how the death penalty saves people who are already dead.  Nor do I know how someone can defend themselves if they’re relying on the states to do it for them.

But whatever- nice column, Kaye.


Comments: 18


I’ve never heard of this woman before. I know it’s a cheap shot…but she looks like a bad copy of Loretta Lynn.

Does she do that whole Evangelical thing…? If so…she’s got some ‘splaining to do when the Rapture rolls around.


So many epidemics, so little time…
“we have an epidemic here in America concerning murder…just as fatal as any life-threatening disease”

Is she in favor of condemning life-threatening diseases to death too? Let’s see some consistency.

– Die disease you deathly dying deathbag disease! Your doings don’t deter devout doctors – despite dastardly disruptions . . . denoting decline dubbed as death – and ditto to dangerous damages from disease! Don’t deny donuts disprove DNA, dat’s doubtful.


“If the death penalty is not a deterrent to potential murderers . . . think how much less a deterrent it will be – to not have the death penalty in place period.”

Let see – one – half…of !!! zero – is = duh ? + wtf




Braaiiinns! Braaainnns! Priiivate accoooounts!


The State has rights to killing some of it’s citizens on behalf of other of it’s citizens.
aiee! I bet she is quite bald under that wig. How could she not be writing stuff like that…?! I also suspect a metal skeletal frame with plastic ‘skin’ to enable her to appear human.


If the death penalty is not a deterrent to potential murderers . . . think how much less a deterrent it will be – to not have the death penalty in place period.

She keeps using that word. I don’t think it means what she think it means.


And just think what a deterrent . . . the death penalty would not be, against those whom (in my opinion) – are murdering the English Language.


That’s nutty – I reckon you made the original article up. It’s just too stupid to imagine someone writing something like that and expecting to be taken seriously.

(Reads letters page of local newspaper)

Ah, forget what I just said.


This woman said that the “American population has grown to epidemic proportions”. That is, that the American people are a disease, and one spreading dangerously.

Sounds suspiciously like treachery to me. Shouldn’t she be shipped to Syria in chains to learn about freedom?


“We hear how the death penalty kills innocents. This is a rarity…”

Thanks, Kaye, that makes me feel SO much better.


What are the anti-death penalty crowds doing to deter murders?

Um, by your own admission, Kaye, we’re doing at least as much as the death penalty does to deter murders . . . since you’ve conceded that it’s not actually a deterrent.


So the death penalty is a self-defense for the already murdered innocents who couldn’t defend themselves, and we need to be able to carry around guns to defend ourselves from murderers. I think she should pick one self-defense mechanism and stick with that. Either we have guns or we have the death penalty. Because if we have guns, then we don’t need the death penalty to defend us, but if we have the death penalty to defend us, then we don’t need guns.

And which is the worse epidemic, the one concerning murders, or the population epidemic? I think the first one is the natural way to solve the second one.


the “American population has grown to epidemic proportions”

You wouldn’t believe the percentage of the population that’s now affected by population. It’s gotta be close to 100%!


Bloodlust is the new black.


I’ve always wondered about that picture:

Is Kaye wearing a fur collar, or is that a she-mullet?


I have never given this TOO much thought, but when I consider the state acting in ex post facto self-defense for the murdered, I end up thinking about what people ACTUALLY do to defend themselves from iminnent death. They do things like: scream, run, kick, punch slap, bite, bargain, curse, and so forth MUCH more often than they kill a would-be murderer. This may mean that rather than follow Kaye’s Old Testament revenge fantasy the State should BITE a murderer in its capacity as victim-proxy.

Or, if “deterrence” in the sense of preventing future crime by the same perp is the goal (not Kaye’s goal, of course–she prefers her perps roasted an ignores the reams of studies showing that a good roast does not deter the next perp), why not cut off his/her arms rather than put him/her to death? Pretty tough to kill again. Not that I am advocating mutilation, but rather pointing out that we are not facing a choice between the ultimate penalty and release unharmed.


She’s absolutely correct. I was being attacked by a murderer, so I strapped him to a chair and injected him with a lethal dosage of drugs and killed him. Makes sense to me.

But here’s what bothers me: if population has become an epidemic, shouldn’t we encourage murderers? It seems like she’s trying to put an end to a perfectly good cure for a troublesome epidemic.

Okay, that’s enough. It’s like clubbing baby seals in a barrel.


Back in the heyday of alt.tasteless a big fat shit was refered to as a “Grogan”.

Now I know why.


Kaye has become my favorite wingnut. At first, her knack for random comma placement drove me crazy, but now I look forward to them. And she has added the inexplicable dash to the mix! One question for Kaye: she admits that executing those “under 15” (i.e., 14 and under) would be a “little harsh”, but those 16 and up need to go. Thus the 15-year olds are in limbo! Kaye, what to do with the 15-year olds?


(comments are closed)