Stones

[ChristopherSea]

He needs to disassociate.
His claim is that she has
committed adultery.
Before the pit is dug,
stones are gathered.
They are not meant to kill.

Who will cast the first stone,
the father or the brother?
Chosen to take her place,
the young girl is forced to watch,
life’s lessons must be taught.

When they close their eyes
Will the gritty taste of dirt
fill their mouth?
Lying in the dark, will they wonder
whose stone delivered the fatal blow?

Hello Heartafire. I see you already have a lot of feedback to sort through for this one since I first read it. Nonetheless, I think you could strengthen your opening by removing that period and completing the statement. You could try something like:

He needs to dissociate
from his claim that she has
committed adultery
and the consequences
of the accusation.

I beleive that dissociate would be stronger than disassociate both sonically and conotatively. Perhaps you wanted to create some doubt or double meaning, but the poem may have less ambigiuity if you reconcile: 'stones...not meant to kill' and 'the fatal blow'. The same with: 'Chosen to take her place' and
'the young girl is forced to watch,' Which is it, is she forced to watch the stoning of the aldultress or does she arbitrarily have to take her place? If she has to take her place, why? How does that teach the child a lessen if she is dead. Why would it prevent another woman from committing the same act, if the consequence is that another innocent girl will take your place? I would be relieved, if this is the case. Clarification is probably needed. I might put 'Who will cast the first stone,' in quotes or in intallics. Alternatively, you could say it in a new way. I do like the contrasting references to the bliblical stoning that Jesus was supposed to have witnessed and the Shirley Jackson short story, 'The lottery' that you had me rethinking after reading this. I hope something above helps you with your next edit. Cheers/Chris