Monday, January 07, 2008

Time to Kill the Death Penalty?

I believe that the reasons to revoke the death penalty have reached a critical mass, and that it is time for the citizens of Missouri to demand of their legislators that we end the Death Penalty.

The reasons for such action are multitude. Any one of these reasons ought to suffice to put an end to the practice - and I have trouble imagining that any voter can refute these reasons or argue that they do not justify change. I'm listing them in no particular order, and I welcome commenters' input as to additional reasons, or questions as to the validity of the reasons listed.

1. The Death Penalty is a luxury we should not pay for. Millions upon millions of dollars are taken from other taxpayer priorities to support the death penalty. Money that could have been spent on schools, or on medical insurance, or even on police. In Kansas, an audit revealed that death penalty cases were costing the state $1.26 million - more than 70% more than life incarceration. A million here, a million there, and you're talking about a lot of money invested in killing people.

2. Innocent people are getting the death penalty. Since 1973, 126 people have been released from death row. In other words, they went through the complete trial process and were awaiting death before they were pardoned upon new evidence or their conviction was overturned. Fact is, mistakes get made. Jurors get inflamed. Prosecutors outgun defense lawyers. Crime victims' families make more sympathetic witnesses than death penalty defendants. All of this means that innocent people get put onto death row. Think about that - think about your tax dollars, and your moral authority, putting an innocent person to death. Doesn't that horrify you?

3. Evidence for and against the deterrent effect of the Death Penalty is unreliable. If we want to go down this path, I can find studies that "prove" that the death penalty does not deter crime, and death penalty proponents (what an odd passion!) can find studies that "prove" it does. I've looked at both with an open mind, and neither side makes an airtight case. My gut tells me that Life Without Possibility of Parole, together with proper warden techniques, ought to prevent repeat offenders, and that not a whole lot of first time murderers bother to read up on the current status of death penalty jurisprudence before committing their crimes. While I acknowledge I may be mistaken in my gut feeling, the fact remains that deterrence is highly questionable, and an awfully slender justification for employing the state's power to deprive someone of their life.

4. The Death Penalty is immoral. Well, there goes my fair and even-handed approach to the issue, but it needs to be stated. Most churches oppose the Death Penalty. Jesus intervened to prevent the Death Penalty. People killing people, as a general rule, is a pretty bad thing. The Death Penalty takes my tax dollars and uses it to inject poison into people's bloodstreams in my name. I want it to stop.

5. The Death Penalty is Cruel. It's tough to work up a whole lot of sympathy for someone found guilty of capital murder, but President Bush continues to assure us that the United States does not condone torture. Fact is, the way it is currently administered, the death penalty is often a form of torture. Even death penalty proponents should acknowledge that torture is wrong, and the death penalty should be applied humanely.

6. The Death Penalty executes people. Reading through this compilation of last words from death row reinforces the fact that these are real people, with hopes, dreams, loved ones and, often, regrets. It bothers me that we feel so free about extinguishing those lives.



Anonymous travelingal said...

I'm in agreement. Number 1 is enough for me. The rest of your points are debatable, but the bottom line is it costs more and there are innocents.

Will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on the pending case.

1/07/2008 8:09 AM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

Correction: I meant Nos. 1 AND 2 are enough for me.

1/07/2008 8:10 AM  
Blogger Spyder said...

#2 & #4 !!!

1/07/2008 10:22 AM  
Blogger KC Sponge said...

I have never understood the death penalty - it just shows people that killing is okay . . . as long as the person has done enough wrong, killing them is okay.

What kind of deterrant is that? It seems to me to be more of a screaming endorsement.

1/07/2008 12:19 PM  
Blogger Sky Girl said...

I agree with all of your points, but it's #2 that makes me wonder how any official can feel comfortable sending someone to their death. I've long been opposed to the death penalty.

1/07/2008 12:41 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

OK..who kidnapped Dan?

Dan’s comments from Dec. 19th post entitled
AG Candidate Donnelly Loses Case & Presumption of Legal Skill?

“How did Koster do as a prosecutor? Isn't he the one that failed to get the death penalty for Robinson, and got played for a fool by the mass-murderer?”

“Did he try a capital murder case against the grisly murderer, John Robinson?”

“How's that death penalty thing working out in Kansas? Everyone knows Missouri would have flipped the switch much quicker.

You raise a fair point, though. I DO oppose the death penalty. But it's the law of the land, and I expect my AG to use the law of the land effectively.

Are you claiming that Koster saved Robinson's life because he's an anti-death penalty Republican?? Now that is truly shocking.

You're wrong, though. Koster isn't really against the death penalty. He's just incompetent. Robinson is alive today because Koster was incompetent, not principled.”

If Koster doesn’t go for the death penalty, you blast him for it. 20 days later, you no longer want the death penalty. Why the sudden change of heart? Do you have new information that was not available 20 days ago?

If you are against the death penalty, how can you call another incompetent for not seeking it? Is winning politically more important than life?

1/07/2008 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Geez, didn't you even read what you quoted?? Let me narrow it down for you - "I DO oppose the death penalty. But it's the law of the land, and I expect my AG to use the law of the land effectively."

So, Dan's being straightforward and going about this in the right way - asking for a legislative end to the Death Penalty, instead of relying on incompetent prosecutors like Koster to waive it in plea deals. What is wrong with that?

No need to wonder who kidnapped your logic - this is your usual level of incomprehension of the legal system.

1/07/2008 3:11 PM  
Anonymous Cheney's Hunting Partner said...

I'm against shooting farmed pheasants, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of shooting old white lawyers instead . . .

1/07/2008 3:17 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

Too bad Dan can't defend his own statements. Maybe he would like to if given a chance.

I didn't quote Dan in order to attack him. I quoted him to demonstrate how winning the battle can cause you to lose the war.

If you truly are against the death penalty, you're not just against it when it supports your political agenda.

If you are morally opposed to the death penalty, it doesn't help your cause to consider the prosecutor to be “incompetent” for not seeking it.

1/07/2008 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

I think Dan's one of those poor saps who has to work for a living during the day.

Logically, you're wrong. It's a prosecutor's job to enforce the law, especially against creeps like Robinson. I expected Koster to do his job competently. Personally, I'm opposed to drug laws, but I'd call him incompetent if he didn't enforce them, too.

It appears that Dan shares my respect for process. If you don't like a law, get it changed. Don't rely on prosecutors to be as incompetent as Koster was.

Koster didn't fail to go for the death penalty because he shares our belief that it's wrong to kill people. Koster failed because he's incompetent, and a coward.

Either way, though, the Death Penalty is wrong. Do you agree?

1/07/2008 4:22 PM  
Anonymous Conundrum said...


Can we assume that you believe: The death penalty kills people convicted of heinous crimes, but it nevertheless kills people, therefore the death penalty is bad. It is especially bad, because some of those convicted are innocent.

Abortion kills babies, but it is OK even though none of the babies have been accused of or done anything more heinous than wanting to be born.

Can I suggest that we kill the death penalty AND abortion? That would be consistent and humane. Admittedly, we'd have to spend some money on adoption services, but innocent ones would no longer be killed with the blessing of the state due to either the death penalty or abortion.

1/07/2008 5:22 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

I agree that under our current flawed system of justice the death penalty should not be permitted.

I don't think it works as a deterrent.

I don't have a problem with killing someone who I believe will kill again if given they are provided with the opportunity.

Like most of us, the prosecutor is considered to have failed if he doesn't get a death penalty conviction. He has an incentive to win. He has an incentive to avoid exculpatory evidence. He's not supposed to do that, but it happens.

When trying to appease crime victims, “I don’t know” is not an answer they like to hear. They want someone held accountable. Holding the right person accountable is, at times, not as important as just holding someone accountable.

In a perfect system, where guilt is absolute, I have no problem with it. In fact, I would want it to be at least as painful as that which the victim endured. I'm not the guy that wants to be nice to the poor murdering criminal.

Unfortunately, too many factors are involved to ensure that those convicted are absolutely the one that did it. So as it stands, I am against the death penalty as a form of punishment and as a method of deterrence.

1/07/2008 5:32 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Whistleblowme -

Thanks for your comments - you read my mind. Whistleblower seems to confuse incompetence with compassion, and sees inconsistency where there is only rigorous logic.

Conundrum - your zealousness on behalf of life is admirable and consistent. I'm going to focus on the death penalty for now. Frankly, neither issue profits politically from tying itself to the other.

1/07/2008 5:32 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Whistleblower -

We may disagree on a few details concerning the death penalty, but I'm glad we are more closely aligned on this one than many others.

Are you backing Koster?

1/07/2008 5:34 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

Koster = Not only no, but hell no!

A Dem will definitely get my vote for AG.

After Koster's statement in The New Republic (sorry couldn't find the link to the story) that he thought Pro-Life meant agreeing with the SC's decision in Roe v. Wade, he is either a complete idiot or a blatant liar.

I don't think the AG should be a position attained by partisan election. I think it should be by gubernatorial appointment. That's the way it is in the U.S., and the way it was in Missouri until the framers of our current constitution seem to have forgotten about it. Isn’t it strange that a position of such importance, that used to exist in the Constitution, is now statutory?

While there is plenty of room for partisan debate in the creation of law, I think the AG and SOS should be supporting the governor instead of increasing the size of the battlefield. It doesn't matter if the Gov. is a "D" or an "R".

(a little off topic, but nonetheless responsive)

1/07/2008 6:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reasonable, honorable persons can differ about the merits of the death penalty: I happen to believe, the taking of human life is immoral ... but at times justifiable, to preserve human life. I am a veteran. I recognize and respect contrary opinions, although, I must admit, I do not understand them. We can all agree, our justice system has flaws: just a quick review of the news will show persons, incarcerated, who have later been proven innocent. So how many innocent persons have been executed? ... and share with me ... do you really believe even one is acceptable? I thought the most basic tenant of our system of justice, with all it's procedural and due process safeguards is: it is better for one guilty person to go free, (unpunished), than to have an innocent person incarcerated, (punished)? You can not undo an execution. There is no opportunity to make it right.
If you believe we are all created in HIS image, that we all have a Divine spark, (although, I'll be the first to admit -- it glows brighter in some than others!!), share with me the right we have to snuff that spark, absent justification? In my mind, that justification could only be the defense/preservation of another spark. Life in prison, with no possibility of parole ... vs. ... execution, has no moral cost, (should a mistake be made), and 1/3rd the financial cost. Isn't it time to join the rest of the civilized world in abolishing capital punishment?
Huggers, Dan -- What's right is right.

1/07/2008 6:18 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Thanks for indulging my question, Whistleblower. I agree it was off topic, but I was curious.

1/07/2008 6:40 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...


Are the lives of those we send to prison worth less than the lives of those on the outside?

If we sentence someone to life in prison that has a known propensity to murder, and he murders a fellow prisoner, is that a more acceptable loss?

If the murderer convicted for life shanks a guard, do we give him the opportunity to shank another?

If the answers were easy the questions would not exist.

1/07/2008 6:49 PM  
Anonymous Conundrum said...

I agree Dan, it would not be politically expedient for you to discuss both those issues at the same time. It saves money, time and mess to eliminate the death penalty, but might cost money, time and be messy to end abortion.

1/07/2008 8:50 PM  
Anonymous Dr. Sausage Fingers said...

Dan's logic on the death penalty does not make. Under Kansas law, the death penalty is NOT required. It is only an OPTION.

Nothing in the statute says the death penalty is mandatory.

Whistleblower seems to confuse incompetence with compassion, and sees inconsistency where there is only rigorous logic.

There is nothing illegal or illogical for a prosecutor to not ask for the death penalty. It is perfectly legal what he did. Don't like it? Then vote for someone else or have the law changed to make the death sentence mandatory.

If you are against the death penalty, then you should ask the prosecutor to FOLLOW the law and NOT use his option of asking for the death penalty.

But it's the law of the land
Yep, the law of the land says the prosecutor is not required to ask for the death penalty. Don't like the law of the land, then change it.

1/07/2008 8:55 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Doc -

What does a mandatory death penalty have to do with the increased cost of the death penalty? Absolutely nothing.

The truth remains that Koster failed to go after the death penalty because he was incompetent, not because he opposes the death penalty. Are you seriously claiming that he didn't seek the death penalty because he deferred to my moral position?

1/07/2008 9:16 PM  
Anonymous Dr. Sausage Fingers said...

Are you seriously claiming that he didn't seek the death penalty because he deferred to my moral position?

I don't care why he didn't. The point is he didn't have to. He was well within the law to not ask for it. If you are opposed to the death penalty then why did you harsh on Koster for following the law and not asking for it.

You basically wanted Koster to ask for the death penalty because Missouri would have flipped the switch much quicker, not because of any legal obligation. You wanted Koster to ask for death because of your own personal feelings, not because of any legal obligation Koster had.

If the law had required the death penalty it would be different. But here the prosecutor had a choice. You are mad because he did not choose death. You argued that a prosecutor should have chosen death even though he was not legally required to.

How can you ask that prosecutors choose death when it is not required, but still be against the death penalty?

If you are against the death penalty, then you should ask prosecutors to FOLLOW the law and not use the death penalty. Your positions make no sense?

1/07/2008 9:57 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Doc - Now I see your confusion. I am sorry, I had no idea you were being that dense.

As I stated clearly, I do oppose the Death Penalty. But I disrespect Koster's failure to seek it because he did so not out of principle, but because he was incompetent. It's that simple.

I oppose the use of the nuclear bomb. But if the reason Bush did not sue it against Iran yesterday was only because he was so stoned on cocaine that he couldn't find the switch, I disrespect his failure, and think it would justify impeachment.

It's a subtle variation of the ends not justifying the means. It might be beyond your comprehension.

1/07/2008 10:05 PM  
Blogger craig said...

Two problems;
1. The web site you linked to is a little wrong. Some of the people that it claims to be "factually innocent" really were let go on technicallities. Jeremy Sheets is one example. Another example is a person (forgot his name) that had his sentence commuted from death to life without parole for having too low of an IQ, but was then assigned to general population. I have worked with numerous mental health professionals and none of them have been able to tell me how a person can be mentally unable to be executed but capable of survival in a maximum security prison yard.
2. Dennis Fritz, who John Grisham chronicled in the book "The Innocent Man" would still be in prison if it wasn't for the death penalty. His co-defendant was sentenced to death, and the only reason that his case was reopened was because a Federal Judge (and his staff) did their jobs. So in one respect the system of checks and balances works.
BTW, I am in favor of the death penalty but feel that any time a dendant requests DNA evidence that the prosecutor should not be given the opportunity to appeal, and it should be at the states expense.

1/07/2008 10:12 PM  
Anonymous Dr. Sausage Fingers said...

I oppose the use of the nuclear bomb. But if the reason Bush did not sue it against Iran yesterday was only because he was so stoned on cocaine that he couldn't find the switch,

Good one. So Bush is stoned on cocaine and God tells him to start Armageddon. Bush says ok God, let me push the button and nuke Iran. But Bush can't push the button because he falls down in a cocaine induced stupor.

You would be angry at Bush for not bombing Iran.

1/07/2008 10:21 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

No problems, Craig. Technicalities don't exist. The fact that someone is intellectually incapable of forming the intent to murder is not guilty of capital murder.

I do agree that the system usually works. Usually, though, isn't good enough for me.

1/07/2008 10:30 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Doc, I think I'll start ignoring your posts - they're not making points worthy of answering. But, for one last hurrah, no, I would not be angry at Bush for not bombing Iran. I would be angry at him for being too stoned to do it. At the same time, I would be angry with him for attempting to start a nuclear (or nucular) war. Get it? Means and ends are not binary. I can dislike both.

Kind of like Koster being too incompetent to obtain the death penalty against Robinson. I don't think the death penalty should be applied to Robinson, so I'm okay with the result, but if he failed to do so because he was stoned on coke (NO - I AM NOT CLAIMING KOSTER DOES COKE - THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL), I don't think anyone would think he's a good AG candidate.

1/07/2008 10:44 PM  
Blogger craig said...

"Technicalities don't exist."
So you are saying that everyone that has been found "not guilty" is innocent? Or are you saying that if a police officer fails to follow procedure that the defendent should still be convicted?
"The fact that someone is intellectually incapable of forming the intent to murder is not guilty of capital murder."
If a person is incapable of forming the intent to murder should be held in a mental hospital, not in a maximum securtiy prison, no in between on that one.

1/07/2008 10:57 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Craig -

If the state fails to produce legitimate evidence sufficient to prove a case, it's not a technicality. It's a failure to prove a case.

Intellectual incapacity is not a mental disease, and need not be treated in a mental hospital.

Why do you care about where the guy is held?

1/07/2008 11:05 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...


What do you think Koster should have done in the Robinson case?

For you, would that action be both morally satisfying and a display of competence?

Many of us might be getting the wrong idea, but it seems as though Koster, in the Robinson case, from your perspective, would be damned if he did seek the death penalty, and damned if he did not. -(remember, I don't care for Koster, so I'm not trying to support him)

As an analogy- You despise smokers, but love the smell of smoke.

1/07/2008 11:06 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Whistleblower -

Honestly, I'd have absolutely no problem with him if he had gone for the Death Penalty. It was his job. I don't resent Jay Nixon for representing the state in such cases, and I expect Jeff Harris to do his job when he wins. Until the voters of Missouri succeed in changing the law, I expect people to follow it.

1/07/2008 11:12 PM  
Anonymous Dr. Sausage Fingers said...

It's a subtle variation of the ends not justifying the means.

If you are against the death penalty what difference does it make if Koster is competent or not? Would you have been happier if an incompetent Koster asked for the death penalty and won?

Saying that Koster is incompetent is fine and probably right. But saying that because Koster is incompetent, that he must ALWAYS ask for the death penalty. That makes no sense, but that is your argument.

It is possible to be angry at Koster for being incompetent, but still be glad that he didn't ask for the death penalty. Like they say, two wrongs don't make a right. But you seem to be angry at Koster for two reasons: 1) he is incompetent, 2) he didn't ask for the death penalty.

If you think the death penalty is wrong, then why don't you stand up and ask prosecutors to use their legal discretion and not request it?

1/07/2008 11:21 PM  
Anonymous Dr. Sausage Fingers said...

Until the voters of Missouri succeed in changing the law, I expect people to follow it.

You seem to be forgetting, that he DID FOLLOW the law. The law DOES NOT require a mandatory death penalty. Aren't you a lawyer? Don't you know the difference between mandatory and optional?

I expect people to follow it.

Exactly what law did he not follow?

1/07/2008 11:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Life in Prison is good for me.

I always found it to be an easy way out for the one who committed the murdering act.

Usually the inmates will murder certain inmates. For instance, Jeffrey Dahmer.

1/08/2008 12:46 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Doc -

Koster is incompetent, and the fact he didn't go for te death penalty is evidence of his incompetence.

1/08/2008 5:49 AM  
Anonymous Koster Can't Pull the Switch said...

OK, Dan -

I have reservations about the death penalty.

I think Koster is a self-serving opportunist. I would compare him to Hillary Clinton, but he is not her intellectual equal and therefore he is less dangerous.

Nevertheless, your linkage of Koster's incompetence to your discussion of the death penalty is weak. Don't get me wrong here. I suspect that Koster didn't seek the death penalty because it was too much work, or he wasn't smart enough, etc. It's just that he was not required to seek death. Therefore, you will have much better luck making a case for his incompetence by pointing to any number of other stupid things he has done.

1/08/2008 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Koster Flipped His Party, but not the Swith said...

Dan didn't drag Koster into this discussion. That was Whistleblower. They're two separate issues that Whistleblower got confused.

1/08/2008 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan said prosecutors should go for the death penalty even when other options are legally available.

Cheer leading for the death penalty when life in prison is a valid legal option, seems pretty pro death penalty to me.

nothing but net!

1/08/2008 11:53 AM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Did he say that? I can't find it anywhere. I think you're lying.

1/08/2008 1:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, he never said that. I confused his expectation that Koster was competent to use the law with support for the law, even though he clearly said he opposes the Death Penalty. My mistake.

1/08/2008 1:18 PM  
Anonymous dr. Sausage fingers said...

I DO oppose the death penalty. But it's the law of the land, and I expect my AG to use the law of the land effectively

The law of the land says that the death penalty is the maximum punishment. The law of the land says that the death penalty is not required.

Dan argued that at least in this case, Koster should have pushed for the maximum sentence even when life in prison was a legal and valid option. I don't know if Dan thinks prosecutors should always push for the maximum, but in the Robison case Dan chastised Koster for not pushing the legal maximum.

I don't support the death penalty. I think Koster made the right choice. Even if he made the right choice for the wrong reasons. Dan disagrees and argues that the maximum sentence should have been used.

Remember patients, the law does not require the death penalty. The law does allow lower punishments. Koster did follow the law. Its really pretty simple stuff. Saying that Koster didn't follow the law is flat wrong.

If you are against the death penalty, then Koster made the right choice. If you believe that criminals should be executed, then Koster made the wrong choice.

1/08/2008 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

This thread isn't about Koster. Dan, you've adequately demonstrated that Koster did the right thing for the wrong reason, and did so because of incompetence. Your opinions on the Death Penalty are clear. Your opinions on Koster are clear. I agree with you on both. You have been consistent.

Doc is an idiot looking for a fight. Ignore him. I will from here on out.

1/08/2008 4:11 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...


It appears that you are the only one looking for a fight.

You bastardized my username with clear intent. You call Doc an idiot, when his debate is both civil and rational.

We can point fingers all day, but why bother?

I’LL STOP THERE. – I hope you will too.

All of us seem to agree that the death penalty is neither an effective deterrent, nor an acceptable punishment given the defects in our system. I think even those that are pro-death penalty will agree.

Why don't we put our heads together and make effective use of our resources to remove capital punishment from Missouri law? Who knows who? If we all made contact with the lawmakers we know, at the same time, we may pick up enough steam to get something done. Together, we can get something accomplished.

Solving a problem is much more gratifying than bitching about it.

Where do we start?

1/08/2008 6:24 PM  
Anonymous Dr. Sausage Fingers said...

Solving a problem is much more gratifying than bitching about it.

Yay, but that takes actual work. Its much easier just to sit here in my basement and bitch ;)

Plus it's a lot more fun to just give Dan a hard time.

1/08/2008 7:23 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Whistleblowme -

Thanks for the sage advice on dealing with Doc. I'll follow it.

Whistleblower -

Your name-imitator chose his words carefully and, I think, accurately, though perhaps he chose his name harshly. Regardless of all that, I'm on board with you. I think we can make a difference, by raising these issues in our legislative races. I intend to, and I intend to work seriously to change our laws. It can be done, and I hope your call to action was serious on your part.

1/08/2008 8:26 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Whistleblower -

Sorry if my name choice causes you pain. On other occasions, though, you've really earned it.

Also, I ask you to reconsider your support of the bad doctor. His arguments show no evidence of good faith, and every indication that he is nothing but a shit-disturber. As you point out, this is a post about the death penalty, and you had to bring Koster in. And then the Dr. has been doing nothing but imagining arguments that our host hasn't made. You've at least refocused, while Doc has admitted his bad intent.

But I'm with you and Dan on this. I promise to work to change the law. Seriously. It's time to change it, and I hope we can make a difference.

1/08/2008 8:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Dan! You have caused folks to think. The death penalty is immoral, (as is the taking of any human life), absent the justification of preserving human life. The death penalty is not a deterrent. It costs 3 times as much as life in prison with NO possibility of parole. It is irreversible, should innocence be proven. It is time to abolish it in Missouri. You carry the flag well. As always ...
A Warm Brotherly Hug

1/08/2008 10:48 PM  
Blogger Lee said...

it would cost the tax payer more money to keep them in jail and feed them, than to just be done with it and kill them.

2/07/2010 12:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home