Morality, Where art Thou?
arc1978
inconsequential. One should not fight a battle of morality with numbers.
Telling me how expensive it is to keep a convicted felon in prison does very
little to convince me that my tax dollars would be wasted by doing the right
thing (life w/o parole).
This issue should never be considered as a popularity contest. Death and
murder are not topics to be thought of lightly. Nothing is justified by
being popular or convenient. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal.
I pose the question: what goal does one reach by executing a felon?
A. You remove him from society, making everyone feel safer for not having a
murderer in the flock.
B. Revenge
Seems to me that if I were to take criminal John Doe to a maximum security
prison for the rest of his life, not too many people walking the streets
will bump into him anymore, thus nullifying reason A.
As for reason B, seeking revenge is weak. We should all strive to rise
above that urge. Revenge earns us nothing back. No returned victims. Just
one more body.
Everyday, people are murdered. Most of the time it's the bad guys who are
responsible. Sometimes, it's the "good" guys.
Richard Jackson
> All is simply a question of morality. Statistics are really
> inconsequential. One should not fight a battle of morality with numbers.
> Telling me how expensive it is to keep a convicted felon in prison does very
> little to convince me that my tax dollars would be wasted by doing the right
> thing (life w/o parole).
>
> This issue should never be considered as a popularity contest. Death and
> murder are not topics to be thought of lightly. Nothing is justified by
> being popular or convenient. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal.
>
> I pose the question: what goal does one reach by executing a felon?
>
> A. You remove him from society, making everyone feel safer for not having a
> murderer in the flock.
>
> B. Revenge
Executing a murderer is an act of self defense which prevents a proven
killer from ever being able to kill again once the sentence is
properly applied.
>
> Seems to me that if I were to take criminal John Doe to a maximum security
> prison for the rest of his life, not too many people walking the streets
> will bump into him anymore, thus nullifying reason A.
What about the people he is with in prison? Murders *DO* occur in
prison, and sometimes the murders are of completely innocent people.
Murderers sometimes excapt and murder as well, and once in a while
judges issue blamket decrees which legally free murderers.
>
> As for reason B, seeking revenge is weak. We should all strive to rise
> above that urge. Revenge earns us nothing back. No returned victims. Just
> one more body.
>
> Everyday, people are murdered. Most of the time it's the bad guys who are
> responsible. Sometimes, it's the "good" guys.
Your view is too simplistic, and you last statement rates only a .5 on
the a.a.d.p. troll-o-meter at my computer.
--
Richard Jackson
Hugh Neary
>"arc1978" <arc...@home.com> wrote in message news:<hy9C7.123276$Pr1.31...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>...
>> All is simply a question of morality. Statistics are really
>> inconsequential. One should not fight a battle of morality with numbers.
>> Telling me how expensive it is to keep a convicted felon in prison does very
>> little to convince me that my tax dollars would be wasted by doing the right
>> thing (life w/o parole).
>>
>> This issue should never be considered as a popularity contest. Death and
>> murder are not topics to be thought of lightly. Nothing is justified by
>> being popular or convenient. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal.
>>
>> I pose the question: what goal does one reach by executing a felon?
>>
>> A. You remove him from society, making everyone feel safer for not having a
>> murderer in the flock.
>>
>> B. Revenge
>
>Executing a murderer is an act of self defense which prevents a proven
>killer from ever being able to kill again once the sentence is
>properly applied.
>
No it is an act of revenge. Any system so flawed as to admit that they
have so little control over miscreants, that they have to kill them is
an admission of total failiure. As for "properly applied", this term
is a total farce. Salem was a fine example of "properly applied"
wasn't it?
>>
>> Seems to me that if I were to take criminal John Doe to a maximum security
>> prison for the rest of his life, not too many people walking the streets
>> will bump into him anymore, thus nullifying reason A.
>
>What about the people he is with in prison? Murders *DO* occur in
>prison, and sometimes the murders are of completely innocent people.
Oooh dear? Somehow "completetly innocent people" are imprisoned for
other offences, but strangely enough all the murderers are guilty.
Truly defunct "justice" I'd say. You only get a fair trial if the
crime is serios enough?
>Murderers sometimes excapt and murder as well, and once in a while
>judges issue blamket decrees which legally free murderers.
>
The fact that these murderers "excapt" is surely a further pointer to
a basically flawed judicial system. Cann any system allowing its
murderers to "excapt" so readily be trusted to terminate their lives
in a supposedly justifiable fashion? I think not!
As for blanket decrees, if the judges are not accountable, you
have a defunct system of democracy. There again you did get conned
with your choice of president didn't you, so no wonder those in
"authority" can "lead you up the garden path".
>>
>> As for reason B, seeking revenge is weak. We should all strive to rise
>> above that urge. Revenge earns us nothing back. No returned victims. Just
>> one more body.
>>
>> Everyday, people are murdered. Most of the time it's the bad guys who are
>> responsible. Sometimes, it's the "good" guys.
>
>Your view is too simplistic, and you last statement rates only a .5 on
>the a.a.d.p. troll-o-meter at my computer.
A lot of Afghan kiddies might argue that point, had they still the
biological apparatus to do so of course.
Regards
Hugh Neary
[Please remove "crudbuster_" to reply direct]
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht
<8cb86b49.0110...@posting.google.com>...
>"arc1978" <arc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:<hy9C7.123276$Pr1.31...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>...
>> All is simply a question of morality. Statistics are really
>> inconsequential. One should not fight a battle of morality with numbers.
>> Telling me how expensive it is to keep a convicted felon in prison does
very
>> little to convince me that my tax dollars would be wasted by doing the
right
>> thing (life w/o parole).
>>
>> This issue should never be considered as a popularity contest. Death and
>> murder are not topics to be thought of lightly. Nothing is justified by
>> being popular or convenient. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal.
>>
>> I pose the question: what goal does one reach by executing a felon?
>>
>> A. You remove him from society, making everyone feel safer for not
having a
>> murderer in the flock.
>>
>> B. Revenge
>
>Executing a murderer is an act of self defense which prevents a proven
>killer from ever being able to kill again once the sentence is
>properly applied.
>
No it isn't.
(1) The DP statutes contain not even any hint to any 'continuing threat' as
a must
(2) Your own officials stated a multitude of times not to care for any
except Guilt/Innocence.
(I'm fully aware of the recommendments to the **jury** to value 'continuing
threat'. A really good chess-move of the system, Richard. Why the
prosecution is not recommended to do so as a requirement for a DP-plea?)
Jürgen
Sharpjfa
>From: ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson)
>Date: 10/26/01 9:12 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8cb86b49.0110...@posting.google.com>
>
>"arc1978" <arc...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:<hy9C7.123276$Pr1.31...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>...
>> All is simply a question of morality. Statistics are really
>> inconsequential.
Certainly, morality is the bottom line. But statistics show the fairness of
executions, which, within the environment of an anti -death penalty movement
that is quite fraudulent, is important within the public debate.
>One should not fight a battle of morality with numbers.
But, it is necessary to counter the fraud of the anti death penalty folks.
Executions is a morally supportable punishment.
>> Telling me how expensive it is to keep a convicted felon in prison does
>very
>> little to convince me that my tax dollars would be wasted by doing the
>right
>> thing (life w/o parole).
Or executions when deserved.
snip
>>
>> I pose the question: what goal does one reach by executing a felon?
the same a sfor all punishments - it is just for the crime committed and, a
secondary benefit, is that it saves addtional innocent lives, over and above
any lesser punihsments.
>>
>> A. You remove him from society, making everyone feel safer for not having
>a
>> murderer in the flock.
Feeling safer is a result of punishment, not a reason for it.
>>
>> B. Revenge
>
>Executing a murderer is an act of self defense which prevents a proven
>killer from ever being able to kill again once the sentence is
>properly applied.
More importantly, it is a just punishment, which is the moral foundation for
all sanctions.
>> Seems to me that if I were to take criminal John Doe to a maximum security
>> prison for the rest of his life, not too many people walking the streets
>> will bump into him anymore, thus nullifying reason A.
Hardly. Living murderers murder again, in prison, after escape and after
improper relese. Executed murderers do not. And you forget the moral foundation
for execution - it is deserved.
>
>What about the people he is with in prison? Murders *DO* occur in
>prison, and sometimes the murders are of completely innocent people.
>Murderers sometimes excapt and murder as well, and once in a while
>judges issue blamket decrees which legally free murderers.
>
>>
>> As for reason B, seeking revenge is weak. We should all strive to rise
>> above that urge. Revenge earns us nothing back. No returned victims.
>Just
>> one more body.
But, of course, you have no foundation, moral or rational, for calling
executions revenge. You simply don't like it.
snip
sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
A Planet Visitor
> inconsequential. One should not fight a battle of morality with numbers.
> Telling me how expensive it is to keep a convicted felon in prison does very
> little to convince me that my tax dollars would be wasted by doing the right
> thing (life w/o parole).
>
Quite the contrary, I often find the abolitionist complains about the
cost of completing the process of applying the DP compared to a
lifetime of incarceration. The argument is often used by abolitionists
to advance their cause in the name of monetary gain to society.
I neither trust that analysis, nor do I find it has any moral validity
if it is correct. Further, you are making a clear assumption based
on your particular subjective viewpoint that the 'right' thing is L wop.
You have certainly presented no objective evidence that L wop IS
the 'right' thing. So please, come down from the mount. Unless
God has provided you some special insight lost to the rest of us,
that enables you to say L wop is the 'right' thing.
> This issue should never be considered as a popularity contest. Death and
> murder are not topics to be thought of lightly. Nothing is justified by
> being popular or convenient. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal.
>
I do agree with the former, and disagree rather strongly with the
latter. Even had the Confederacy won the war, and we were now
2 nations, I do believe that slavery would not still exist in that
Confederacy. It would have ended at the latest in the early 20th
Century, and a more substantial connection between those 2
nations would have arisen from mutual interests. Naturally, I
believe had the Union lost and we became two nations our
collective separate strengths would have substantially diminished
in comparison to what the synergy of the North and South of
the U.S. has created today. Of course, IMHO. Which has
the same degree of validity that your comment does.
> I pose the question: what goal does one reach by executing a felon?
>
> A. You remove him from society, making everyone feel safer for not having a
> murderer in the flock.
>
> B. Revenge
>
> Seems to me that if I were to take criminal John Doe to a maximum security
> prison for the rest of his life, not too many people walking the streets
> will bump into him anymore, thus nullifying reason A.
>
Of course conveniently ignoring EVERY murderer who has
escaped from such a facility to murder again. And, of course
conveniently ignoring that we are perhaps more immoral by
believing we might cage a human as we do an animal for the
rest of their life. Even with animals we recognized the humane
process of euthanasia, especially of those animals infected
with rabies. Now perhaps YOU would prefer to be caged as
such as animal for the rest of your life, but I would rather die.
Thus it's reasonable for me to support the DP in preference
to L wop. How about you?
> As for reason B, seeking revenge is weak. We should all strive to rise
> above that urge. Revenge earns us nothing back. No returned victims. Just
> one more body.
>
There is no such thing as punishment for ANY crime, which will
return things to as they were before. The belief that we should
not execute because it does not bring the victim back to life, is
as absurd as believing that raping the rapist will restore the rape
victim to as before. WHY do we punish the rapist? Well, it's
because they raped. WHY do we punish the murderer? Well,
it's because they murdered. We do not punish the perpetrator
of the crime by administering the SAME crime to them. But it
is generally recognized that murder is the MOST horrendous crime.
And ONLY that crime is sometimes suitable for the generally
recognized strongest penalty, and the most assurance that the
crime will not be recommitted by the perpetrator. Of course,
THAT penalty is the DP. There is no penalty stronger that is
not immoral (IMHO), and certainly no penalty more certain of
preventing the perpetrator from committing the same crime again.
Unless you believe in Zombies.
> Everyday, people are murdered. Most of the time it's the bad guys who are
> responsible. Sometimes, it's the "good" guys.
>
I've never heard of a 'good' murderer. Perhaps you can enlighten
us as to that 'good' guy who murders. And then we can have a
REALLY lively discussion.
PV
arc1978
own personal beliefs, I'm looking only at the most ideal way of dealing with
the problem. I don't need to hear about how much anything costs, or how
many murderers have escaped to murder again. I don't need to hear about how
so-and-so feels safer because a murderer/rapist is no longer on the planet.
I will not concern myself with anything other than one objective truth:
Killing human beings is wrong.
This applies to every human being and every government and state. Even in
war, taking life is wrong (even if it is acceptable). Even in
self-defense, killing is wrong (although, also not frowned upon).
I can offer you no foolproof solution to dealing with murderers, as that is
not my concern. My concern is simply with the fact that murder is the
single most horrible thing to do to anyone, convicted murderer or innocent
bystander.
Make your own solution for what to do with those convicted of murder/rape.
Just don't let it include killing those convincts in turn.
Richard Jackson
> On 26 Oct 2001 07:12:19 -0700, ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) wrote:
>
> >"arc1978" <arc...@home.com> wrote in message news:<hy9C7.123276$Pr1.31...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>...
> >> All is simply a question of morality. Statistics are really
> >> inconsequential. One should not fight a battle of morality with numbers.
> >> Telling me how expensive it is to keep a convicted felon in prison does very
> >> little to convince me that my tax dollars would be wasted by doing the right
> >> thing (life w/o parole).
> >>
> >> This issue should never be considered as a popularity contest. Death and
> >> murder are not topics to be thought of lightly. Nothing is justified by
> >> being popular or convenient. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal.
> >>
> >> I pose the question: what goal does one reach by executing a felon?
> >>
> >> A. You remove him from society, making everyone feel safer for not having a
> >> murderer in the flock.
> >>
> >> B. Revenge
> >
> >Executing a murderer is an act of self defense which prevents a proven
> >killer from ever being able to kill again once the sentence is
> >properly applied.
> >
> No it is an act of revenge. Any system so flawed as to admit that they
> have so little control over miscreants, that they have to kill them is
> an admission of total failiure. As for "properly applied", this term
> is a total farce. Salem was a fine example of "properly applied"
> wasn't it?
In your mind, Hugh, it is obvious to me you can see nothing else.
That tells me a great deal about you, not our society.
>
> >>
> >> Seems to me that if I were to take criminal John Doe to a maximum security
> >> prison for the rest of his life, not too many people walking the streets
> >> will bump into him anymore, thus nullifying reason A.
> >
> >What about the people he is with in prison? Murders *DO* occur in
> >prison, and sometimes the murders are of completely innocent people.
>
> Oooh dear? Somehow "completetly innocent people" are imprisoned for
> other offences, but strangely enough all the murderers are guilty.
> Truly defunct "justice" I'd say. You only get a fair trial if the
> crime is serios enough?
Again Hugh, you show the limit of your mental processes. Undoubtedly
there might be innocents incarcerated. I, however, was thinking more
of those who earn their living or sometimes volunteer to work with and
serve the prisoners in differing capacities.
>
> >Murderers sometimes excapt and murder as well, and once in a while
> >judges issue blamket decrees which legally free murderers.
> >
> The fact that these murderers "excapt" is surely a further pointer to
> a basically flawed judicial system. Cann any system allowing its
> murderers to "excapt" so readily be trusted to terminate their lives
> in a supposedly justifiable fashion? I think not!
Actually Hugh, excapes do occur, even "excapts". Such things
obviously "cann" occur even in the best prisons. it has nothing to do
with trust Hugh, just the fact that your have human beings, some very
clever, who have nothing to do with their time except figure out ways
to excape if that is their desire. Under those conditions, prisoners
"cann" come up with some very clever ideas and devices to excape. One
common thing is to use thread, or preferably dental floss and
toothpaste to saw through highly tempered steel bars. They "cann"
accomplish this in a twenty four hour period. "Cann" you understand
how that might occur?
>
> As for blanket decrees, if the judges are not accountable, you
> have a defunct system of democracy. There again you did get conned
> with your choice of president didn't you, so no wonder those in
> "authority" can "lead you up the garden path".
Hugh, we can change our President in four years if we don't like what
he does. you, however, will always be a total asshole.
>
>
> >>
> >> As for reason B, seeking revenge is weak. We should all strive to rise
> >> above that urge. Revenge earns us nothing back. No returned victims. Just
> >> one more body.
> >>
> >> Everyday, people are murdered. Most of the time it's the bad guys who are
> >> responsible. Sometimes, it's the "good" guys.
> >
> >Your view is too simplistic, and you last statement rates only a .5 on
> >the a.a.d.p. troll-o-meter at my computer.
>
> A lot of Afghan kiddies might argue that point, had they still the
> biological apparatus to do so of course.
Siding with the terrorist are you Hugh. As I said, we can change our
president, you, however...............
--
Righard Jackson
Richard Jackson
Jürgen, Jürgen, Jürgen, you really must read the instructions to the
jury in the Texas Criminal Code for the penalty phase of a capital
trial. One qualifcation for the jury to assign the death penalty is
that they must find the defendant is a continued threat to society.
if they cannot answer that in the affirmative, they must assign a life
sentence.
> (2) Your own officials stated a multitude of times not to care for any
> except Guilt/Innocence.
Some of our officials have so stated that guilt or innocence is the
primary concern. Would you argue that guilt or innocence is not the
most important factor in any trial, Jürgen?
>
> (I'm fully aware of the recommendments to the **jury** to value 'continuing
> threat'. A really good chess-move of the system, Richard. Why the
> prosecution is not recommended to do so as a requirement for a DP-plea?)
>
> Jürgen
Because it is not part of the qualifcation of a capital case. Capital
murder is the most severe charge which may be levied against an
individual, and has to mee certain legal qualities. There are two
possible punishments for capital murder *IF* the jury returns with a
guilty finding of capital murder. (The jury may find in a lesser
charge, such as felony murder which will cappies lesser penalties)
Those two choices are life in prison and the death penalty. After a
person has been found guilty of capital murder, the jury is given the
task of deciding which of the two penalties is used. At that time the
judge's instructions to the jury include the above qualifcation of
continued threat.
Continued threat may also be introduced into the argument for penalty
findings in lesser crimes. It is not used as a determining factor to
define capital murder because a person can be guilty of capital murder
and not be a continuing threat. That is why we have life
imprisonment. (That ans a SCOTUS ruling that the death penalty without
option was unconstitutional).
Another reason, Jürgen, is that we did not design out Criminal Code
based upon what you like or dislike, but what the legislators and
citizens of the state of Texas wanted. Sorry, perhaps the next time
we rewrite them we will seek advice from liberal German abolitionists.
Hold your breath until that happens and see what occurs.
--
Richard Jackson
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
<0roC7.433651$aZ.84...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
>"arc1978" <arc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:hy9C7.123276$Pr1.31...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>> All is simply a question of morality. Statistics are really
>> inconsequential. One should not fight a battle of morality with numbers.
>> Telling me how expensive it is to keep a convicted felon in prison does
very
>> little to convince me that my tax dollars would be wasted by doing the
right
>> thing (life w/o parole).
>>
>I hardly find that to be the argument of the retentionist in general.
Well, any week pops up any retentionist right here with babble
'lololololololo....on taxpayer's expense.'
JIGSAW1695
Date: 10/27/01 12:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <mTqC7.126732$Pr1.32...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>
===============================
Sure kid, you just go on believing that. And when the wolves come through the
door, share your thoughts with them.
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht
<old snipped>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>> (1) The DP statutes contain not even any hint to any 'continuing threat'
as
>> a must
>
>Jürgen, Jürgen, Jürgen, you really must read the instructions to the
>jury in the Texas Criminal Code for the penalty phase of a capital
>trial. One qualifcation for the jury to assign the death penalty is
>that they must find the defendant is a continued threat to society.
>if they cannot answer that in the affirmative, they must assign a life
>sentence.
Richard, I did study your stuff posted exactly. Lip services. To the jury
NOT ONE parameter is told how factually to do such an evaluation, 12
LAYPERSONS are recommended to examine the 'continuing threat (CT)' basing on
the elaborations of the overpowering prosecution and the pathetic defense.
Consequent were to recommend the PROSECUTION ALSO to plea for the DP
exclusively in cases of aggravated CT, but this is NOT DONE. So the
prosecution is not bound to look for this parameters at all, all they have
to do is to paint a crime emotionally enough to INDIRECTLY convince the
LAYPERSONS as professional rethors of the CT.
>> (2) Your own officials stated a multitude of times not to care for any
>> except Guilt/Innocence.
>
>Some of our officials have so stated that guilt or innocence is the
>primary concern. Would you argue that guilt or innocence is not the
>most important factor in any trial, Jürgen?
>
No, not primary concern, Richard. THE UPMOST ONLY CONCERN, Richard.
Questioned whether they feel an execution necessary for society's protection
they answered: "I do not think about that anyway. My concern does not exceed
the question of G/I anyway, future threat and rehab are unimportant."
Regarding the circumstance of many, many guilties of similar crimes given a
second chance after similar prison terms like any DR-inmate already has
served this attitude appears extremely immoral. Your officials, the
DECIDERS, do not even TRY to uphold the self deceipt anyway, they
explicitely are stating your alleged self defense to be not their motive to
let an execution proceed.
>>
>> (I'm fully aware of the recommendments to the **jury** to value
'continuing
>> threat'. A really good chess-move of the system, Richard. Why the
>> prosecution is not recommended to do so as a requirement for a DP-plea?)
>>
>> Jürgen
>
>Because it is not part of the qualifcation of a capital case. Capital
>murder is the most severe charge which may be levied against an
>individual, and has to mee certain legal qualities. There are two
>possible punishments for capital murder *IF* the jury returns with a
>guilty finding of capital murder. (The jury may find in a lesser
>charge, such as felony murder which will cappies lesser penalties)
>Those two choices are life in prison and the death penalty. After a
>person has been found guilty of capital murder, the jury is given the
>task of deciding which of the two penalties is used. At that time the
>judge's instructions to the jury include the above qualifcation of
>continued threat.
>
>Continued threat may also be introduced into the argument for penalty
>findings in lesser crimes. It is not used as a determining factor to
>define capital murder because a person can be guilty of capital murder
>and not be a continuing threat. That is why we have life
>imprisonment. (That ans a SCOTUS ruling that the death penalty without
>option was unconstitutional).
All fine theoretical stuff, Richard. IIRC Andrea Yates now will be against
your predictions confronted with a DP-plea.
>
>Another reason, Jürgen, is that we did not design out Criminal Code
>based upon what you like or dislike, but what the legislators and
>citizens of the state of Texas wanted. Sorry, perhaps the next time
>we rewrite them we will seek advice from liberal German abolitionists.
> Hold your breath until that happens and see what occurs.
>
[I was about to reply very mean and nasty here, Richard.]
Isolating this your style of argumentation for a moment from the direct
topic I have to establish that the 'argument': "We are doing whatever we
like and if any foreign dog barks - even for good reason - , who the hell
ever cares!" was buried on 9/11. In future you, the US, will have in a civil
attitude to ask MANY, MANY foreign nations for their help. And: For to do
this sucessfully and to obtain the help required you swiftly should start to
learn the lesson. Disrespect and scorn vs foreign opinions and concerns are
not the base for your future policy, Richard.
Jürgen
P.s. Referring to your conversation with 10weels; have a good recreation
time and all the best for your future.
Hugh Neary
I am capable of seeing that in all walks of life people make mistakes.
The one fact that no one can ever be toitally certain that the right
individual is executed for a murder is enough in my mind to prohibit
the use of the DP.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Seems to me that if I were to take criminal John Doe to a maximum security
>> >> prison for the rest of his life, not too many people walking the streets
>> >> will bump into him anymore, thus nullifying reason A.
>> >
>> >What about the people he is with in prison? Murders *DO* occur in
>> >prison, and sometimes the murders are of completely innocent people.
>>
>> Oooh dear? Somehow "completetly innocent people" are imprisoned for
>> other offences, but strangely enough all the murderers are guilty.
>> Truly defunct "justice" I'd say. You only get a fair trial if the
>> crime is serios enough?
>
>Again Hugh, you show the limit of your mental processes. Undoubtedly
>there might be innocents incarcerated. I, however, was thinking more
>of those who earn their living or sometimes volunteer to work with and
>serve the prisoners in differing capacities.
>
I do not have the figures, but certainly in the UK, the only reports I
can remember reading were fatalities amongst inmates. Mind you we do
not dish out guns to all and sundry, so this may have some bearing on
the death rate in prisons?
>>
>> >Murderers sometimes excapt and murder as well, and once in a while
>> >judges issue blamket decrees which legally free murderers.
>> >
>> The fact that these murderers "excapt" is surely a further pointer to
>> a basically flawed judicial system. Cann any system allowing its
>> murderers to "excapt" so readily be trusted to terminate their lives
>> in a supposedly justifiable fashion? I think not!
>
>Actually Hugh, excapes do occur, even "excapts". Such things
>obviously "cann" occur even in the best prisons. it has nothing to do
>with trust Hugh, just the fact that your have human beings, some very
>clever, who have nothing to do with their time except figure out ways
>to excape if that is their desire. Under those conditions, prisoners
>"cann" come up with some very clever ideas and devices to excape. One
>common thing is to use thread, or preferably dental floss and
>toothpaste to saw through highly tempered steel bars. They "cann"
>accomplish this in a twenty four hour period. "Cann" you understand
>how that might occur?
Hmm! If escapes are so common it points to a flawed system. With IR
cameras and other forms of electronic security, it should be virtually
impossible for prisoners to escape. Again though, I suppose if you
saturate the environment outside a prison with weapons, some will
"diffuse in", leading to hostage taking etc.
>
>>
>> As for blanket decrees, if the judges are not accountable, you
>> have a defunct system of democracy. There again you did get conned
>> with your choice of president didn't you, so no wonder those in
>> "authority" can "lead you up the garden path".
>
>Hugh, we can change our President in four years if we don't like what
>he does. you, however, will always be a total asshole.
>
Richard, I'm afraid your unmannerly, boorish prose is beginning to
tire me. I have made allowances before as I had already assumed you
were one of those "Redneck Trailer Trash" type people that one hears
so much about. But these personal insults add nothing to the debate
and are just a waste of bandwidth. Please attempt to behave with a
little decorum Richard. I'm sure somewhere in your ancestry there were
individuals that posessed a few of the social graces. I suppose
standards dropped when they landed in the US and got amongst the
natives though? Anyway Richard, all I'm asking you to do is try to be
a little more civil.
>>
>> >>
>> >> As for reason B, seeking revenge is weak. We should all strive to rise
>> >> above that urge. Revenge earns us nothing back. No returned victims. Just
>> >> one more body.
>> >>
>> >> Everyday, people are murdered. Most of the time it's the bad guys who are
>> >> responsible. Sometimes, it's the "good" guys.
>> >
>> >Your view is too simplistic, and you last statement rates only a .5 on
>> >the a.a.d.p. troll-o-meter at my computer.
>>
>> A lot of Afghan kiddies might argue that point, had they still the
>> biological apparatus to do so of course.
>
>Siding with the terrorist are you Hugh. As I said, we can change our
>president, you, however...............
I do not thing Afghan children are terrorists. Red Cross warehouses
are not training grounds for terrorists either.
A Plenary Verbositor
"A Planet Visitor" wrote:
>
> I've never heard of a 'good' murderer. Perhaps you can enlighten
> us as to that 'good' guy who murders. And then we can have a
> REALLY lively discussion.
>
> PV
>
You are indeed a galaxy-class turkey. Try Rasputin's murderers for
starters. ROTFL!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A Planet Visitor
"arc1978" <arc...@home.com> wrote in message news:mTqC7.126732$Pr1.32...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> There is a very basic reasoning for not condoning the death penalty. In my
> own personal beliefs, I'm looking only at the most ideal way of dealing with
> the problem. I don't need to hear about how much anything costs, or how
> many murderers have escaped to murder again. I don't need to hear about how
> so-and-so feels safer because a murderer/rapist is no longer on the planet.
> I will not concern myself with anything other than one objective truth:
>
bringing it up? And if you don't wish to hear about how many
murderers have escaped to murder again, are you REALLY
concerned with 'killing is wrong,' or are you concerned with
saving murderers lives? For someone willing to freely express
his views here, you seem unwilling to look at facts in the expression
of your views.
> Killing human beings is wrong.
>
There is no question about that. Nor is there a question that
MURDER is the most egregious form of the killing of a human
being. ALL other forms of 'killing human beings,' pale in
comparison to a murderer taking the life of an innocent. One
human unlawfully killing another human. But of course, all
murder is the 'killing of a human being,' BUT all 'killing of a
human being' is NOT murder. Try to separate the two, please.
If one attempts to compare MURDER with lawful execution, one
does not diminish an awareness of the necessity of executing
some of the human trash which does exist. What one does do is
diminish the true hideous nature of murder itself. Is that your
purpose? Are you suggesting that all 'killing of a human being'
is murder? Do you wish to have us believe that MURDER can
be compared to a LAWFUL execution? Are you presuming to
claim that murder may in fact be legal?
> This applies to every human being and every government and state. Even in
> war, taking life is wrong (even if it is acceptable). Even in
> self-defense, killing is wrong (although, also not frowned upon).
>
Might I ask -- if you are presented with the wrong of killing a
human, with the understanding that if you do not act in
such a wrong, you will in fact have permitted more innocent
humans to be killed -- should you commit that wrong act?
In other words... suppose you are a law enforcement member,
and you are confronted with a terrorist with an automatic
weapon who is spraying a crowd of people with that weapon.
Should you take the 'wrong' action of killing that terrorist?
Of course, I recognize and accept subjectively that 'killing
is wrong,' in the selective individual sense. The execution
of a murderer is 'wrong' in a subjective moral sense to me.
NO KILLING OF A HUMAN IS 'RIGHT' in a moral sense to
me. But one cannot look at the microcosm 'wrong' when a
larger macrocosm 'wrong' will result from our acts. In
fact NO decision we make in a macrocosm view does not
contain an element of some microcosm 'wrong.' Killing in
auto accidents is 'wrong,' yet we permit driving motor
vehicles. Killing in war is 'wrong,' but the enslavement of
self and an entire nation is MORE wrong. Killing of a
human is wrong... but permitting the collection of such
humans to murder again, is MORE wrong. We must, of
course, insert our collective judgment into the process,
and not simply execute EVERY murderer BECAUSE we
realize there is an element of 'wrong' to killing a human.
But using that collective judgment we also realize it is a
greater 'right' to protect the larger number from being
killed.
> I can offer you no foolproof solution to dealing with murderers, as that is
> not my concern. My concern is simply with the fact that murder is the
> single most horrible thing to do to anyone, convicted murderer or innocent
> bystander.
>
You are correct on both points. You can offer no solution, thus
you are PART of the problem. And murder is as you describe,
but it is NOT a lawful execution. One prisoner killing a convicted
murderer in prison IS murder. Society effecting its will as a
body in the lawful execution of a proven murderer is NOT
murder, and it never will be. Not even the execution of an
innocent is MURDER. It is the result of an unavoidable accident,
every bit as much as the innocent victim of an auto accident,
which resulted from society permitting the operation of motor
vehicles. Neither are DESIRED elements of things that society
permits, but neither are unanticipated as consequences of the
actions we permit. So if ALL killing is 'wrong,' then killing of
auto accident victims is wrong, and we should perhaps eliminate
motor vehicle operation, if you wish to extend 'killing is wrong'
to all aspects of our life.
> Make your own solution for what to do with those convicted of murder/rape.
> Just don't let it include killing those convincts in turn.
>
Now this is a statement we can really love. "Don't bother me
with SOLVING the problem, just don't use the solution that
I tell you not to use" I can imagine we might extrapolate
your opinion into just about EVERY concept that society
permits, and we would quickly grind to a complete stop. If
you intend to offer advise, please try to keep it constructive,
instead of simply trying to limit the course of action we might
take, while telling us to 'live with it.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
"A Plenary Verbositor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message news:3bdac6a1$1...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
>
>
>
> "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
> >
> > I've never heard of a 'good' murderer. Perhaps you can enlighten
> > us as to that 'good' guy who murders. And then we can have a
> > REALLY lively discussion.
> >
> > PV
> >
> You are indeed a galaxy-class turkey. Try Rasputin's murderers for
> starters. ROTFL!
>
vigilante acts and terrorist acts are 'good?' No wonder you're
universally met with either being ignored as an impotent troll,
or derision in remarking on your ignorance. In any case, you're
certainly a worthless piece of snot as far as I'm concerned, my
feeble sock puppet.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9rdkqo$qr8$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
claims that the cost of execution is greater than the cost
of a lifetime of incarceration.
PV
Hugh Neary
Still sticking to the old chestnuts PV, trying to justify an act of
vengeful barbarity with your interpretation of English.
All killing is wrong full stop.
But some killings "may" be less wrong than others.
Certainly the act of terminating the life of a prisoner is completely
out of order, but have I not already explained this to you PV?
A Planet Visitor
"Hugh Neary" <crudbust...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message news:fanlttk0bojf1eik5...@4ax.com...
point?' Where's that apology to the human race for such
an idiotic statement?
>
> All killing is wrong full stop.
>
> But some killings "may" be less wrong than others.
>
Crap. I've never said that. But certainly two killings are
twice as wrong as one killing.
> Certainly the act of terminating the life of a prisoner is completely
> out of order, but have I not already explained this to you PV?
>
Unless they're Jewish, of course. Then you believe it's okay.
PV
A Plenary Verbositor
"A Planet Visitor" wrote:
>
> "A Plenary Verbositor" wrote:
>
> > "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
> > >
> > > I've never heard of a 'good' murderer. Perhaps you can enlighten
> > > us as to that 'good' guy who murders. And then we can have a
> > > REALLY lively discussion.
> > >
> > > PV
> > >
> > You are indeed a galaxy-class turkey. Try Rasputin's murderers for
> > starters. ROTFL!
> >
> So you believe murderers are 'good.' Perhaps you also believe
> vigilante acts and terrorist acts are 'good?' No wonder you're
> universally met with either being ignored as an impotent troll,
> or derision in remarking on your ignorance. In any case, you're
> certainly a worthless piece of snot as far as I'm concerned, my
> feeble sock puppet.
>
> PV
>
Space Gobbler, rather than trading insults with your own sock puppet, why
aren't you punching yourself in the head? It would save you both public
embarassment and bandwidth. Unless you're already doing that, which would
also explain what you post.
Sharpjfa
>Message-id: <mTqC7.126732$Pr1.32...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>
>
>There is a very basic reasoning for not condoning the death penalty. In my
>own personal beliefs, I'm looking only at the most ideal way of dealing with
>the problem. I don't need to hear about how much anything costs, or how
>many murderers have escaped to murder again. I don't need to hear about how
>so-and-so feels safer because a murderer/rapist is no longer on the planet.
>I will not concern myself with anything other than one objective truth:
>
>Killing human beings is wrong.
No, murder is wrong. TIt is not wrong to kill via just execution, self defense
and in a just war
>
>This applies to every human being and every government and state. Even in
>war, taking life is wrong (even if it is acceptable). Even in
>self-defense, killing is wrong (although, also not frowned upon).
You are wrong on all counts.
>
>I can offer you no foolproof solution to dealing with murderers, as that is
>not my concern. My concern is simply with the fact that murder is the
>single most horrible thing to do to anyone, convicted murderer or innocent
>bystander.
Methinks you confuse murder with all justified and legeal killings. Not only is
that legally incorect, it is morally incorect, as well.
A Planet Visitor
"A Plenary Verbositor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message news:3bdb...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
>
>
>
> "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
> >
> > "A Plenary Verbositor" wrote:
> >
> > > "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've never heard of a 'good' murderer. Perhaps you can enlighten
> > > > us as to that 'good' guy who murders. And then we can have a
> > > > REALLY lively discussion.
> > > >
> > > > PV
> > > >
> > > You are indeed a galaxy-class turkey. Try Rasputin's murderers for
> > > starters. ROTFL!
> > >
> > So you believe murderers are 'good.' Perhaps you also believe
> > vigilante acts and terrorist acts are 'good?' No wonder you're
> > universally met with either being ignored as an impotent troll,
> > or derision in remarking on your ignorance. In any case, you're
> > certainly a worthless piece of snot as far as I'm concerned, my
> > feeble sock puppet.
> >
> > PV
> >
>
> Space Gobbler, rather than trading insults with your own sock puppet, why
> aren't you punching yourself in the head?
Because it's so much more satisfying to deflate your pompous
ass. I always 'go for the gusto.'
> It would save you both public
> embarassment and bandwidth. Unless you're already doing that, which would
> also explain what you post.
Ummm... see my previous post.
PV
A Plenary Verbositor
"Richard Jackson" wrote:
<snipped>
> Siding with the terrorist are you Hugh. As I said, we can change our
> president, you, however...............
>
> --
> Righard Jackson
>
Let us all observe a moment of silence out of respect for that excellent
Freudian slip.
Richard Jackson
Nope. Most deaths in prisons occur from homemade weapons. Firearms
are only found in the guard towers, not on guards within the walls.
>
>
> >>
> >> >Murderers sometimes excapt and murder as well, and once in a while
> >> >judges issue blamket decrees which legally free murderers.
> >> >
> >> The fact that these murderers "excapt" is surely a further pointer to
> >> a basically flawed judicial system. Cann any system allowing its
> >> murderers to "excapt" so readily be trusted to terminate their lives
> >> in a supposedly justifiable fashion? I think not!
> >
> >Actually Hugh, excapes do occur, even "excapts". Such things
> >obviously "cann" occur even in the best prisons. it has nothing to do
> >with trust Hugh, just the fact that your have human beings, some very
> >clever, who have nothing to do with their time except figure out ways
> >to excape if that is their desire. Under those conditions, prisoners
> >"cann" come up with some very clever ideas and devices to excape. One
> >common thing is to use thread, or preferably dental floss and
> >toothpaste to saw through highly tempered steel bars. They "cann"
> >accomplish this in a twenty four hour period. "Cann" you understand
> >how that might occur?
>
> Hmm! If escapes are so common it points to a flawed system. With IR
> cameras and other forms of electronic security, it should be virtually
> impossible for prisoners to escape.
Nope. There are not that many excapes. Those which do occur,
however, do sometimes result in murders outside the prison walls.
Most of the time a convicted felon excapes actually do not occur from
within prisons but from much less secure locations such as holding
cells for courts, hospitals, etc.
Again though, I suppose if you
> saturate the environment outside a prison with weapons, some will
> "diffuse in", leading to hostage taking etc.
No Hugh. Despite you rather overactive imagination leading you to
false conclusions, weapons outside the prison is not the problem. I
can only think of one or two instances this occurred in the US in the
last half century.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> As for blanket decrees, if the judges are not accountable, you
> >> have a defunct system of democracy. There again you did get conned
> >> with your choice of president didn't you, so no wonder those in
> >> "authority" can "lead you up the garden path".
> >
> >Hugh, we can change our President in four years if we don't like what
> >he does. you, however, will always be a total asshole.
> >
> Richard, I'm afraid your unmannerly, boorish prose is beginning to
> tire me. I have made allowances before as I had already assumed you
> were one of those "Redneck Trailer Trash" type people that one hears
> so much about. But these personal insults add nothing to the debate
> and are just a waste of bandwidth. Please attempt to behave with a
> little decorum Richard. I'm sure somewhere in your ancestry there were
> individuals that posessed a few of the social graces.
There were Hugh. The German side of my family were asid to possess
great social skills. unfortunately,they had the misfortune to fall in
love with a few English immigrants which lowered their standards
considerably, and gave them an air of insufferable arrogance.
I suppose
> standards dropped when they landed in the US and got amongst the
> natives though? Anyway Richard, all I'm asking you to do is try to be
> a little more civil.
Et tu Brute'.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> As for reason B, seeking revenge is weak. We should all strive to rise
> >> >> above that urge. Revenge earns us nothing back. No returned victims. Just
> >> >> one more body.
> >> >>
> >> >> Everyday, people are murdered. Most of the time it's the bad guys who are
> >> >> responsible. Sometimes, it's the "good" guys.
> >> >
> >> >Your view is too simplistic, and you last statement rates only a .5 on
> >> >the a.a.d.p. troll-o-meter at my computer.
> >>
> >> A lot of Afghan kiddies might argue that point, had they still the
> >> biological apparatus to do so of course.
> >
> >Siding with the terrorist are you Hugh. As I said, we can change our
> >president, you, however...............
>
> I do not thing Afghan children are terrorists. Red Cross warehouses
> are not training grounds for terrorists either.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Hugh Neary
>
> [Please remove "crudbuster_" to reply direct]
Never been to war, Hugh? It isn't a precision thing all the time.
Civillians always suffer the most in war, and Afganistan is no
exception. If the Taliban had met our terms, we would not be there
now. They chose not to, and we did exactly as we said we would, we
treated those who harbor terrorists as terrorist themselves. They
could still stop the bombing by simply handing over bin Laden and the
al Qa'ida operatives within the borders of their country to us. If
they choose not to do so, we will continue to bomb, and yes, some
civillians will dies as mistakes are made. That's war. If yo want to
blame someone for the deaths of civillians, blame the Taliban. They
chose the road which led to this of their own free will. We set the
conditions, and those conditions are not negotiable any more than the
surrender of Japan was. If you personally do not find that to your
liking, too bad.
--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
> Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht
>
> <old snipped>
>
> >> No it isn't.
> >>
> >> (1) The DP statutes contain not even any hint to any 'continuing threat'
> as
> >> a must
> >
> >Jürgen, Jürgen, Jürgen, you really must read the instructions to the
> >jury in the Texas Criminal Code for the penalty phase of a capital
> >trial. One qualifcation for the jury to assign the death penalty is
> >that they must find the defendant is a continued threat to society.
> >if they cannot answer that in the affirmative, they must assign a life
> >sentence.
>
> Richard, I did study your stuff posted exactly. Lip services. To the jury
> NOT ONE parameter is told how factually to do such an evaluation, 12
> LAYPERSONS are recommended to examine the 'continuing threat (CT)' basing on
> the elaborations of the overpowering prosecution and the pathetic defense.
"elaborations" "pathetic defense"? Why is it, Jürgen, that you
always think the prosecution so good and the defense so inept? It
isn't always that way.
> Consequent were to recommend the PROSECUTION ALSO to plea for the DP
> exclusively in cases of aggravated CT, but this is NOT DONE. So the
> prosecution is not bound to look for this parameters at all, all they have
> to do is to paint a crime emotionally enough to INDIRECTLY convince the
> LAYPERSONS as professional rethors of the CT.
You will have to explain that last statement a bit more Jürgen. I
really got lost on that one a bit.
>
> >> (2) Your own officials stated a multitude of times not to care for any
> >> except Guilt/Innocence.
> >
> >Some of our officials have so stated that guilt or innocence is the
> >primary concern. Would you argue that guilt or innocence is not the
> >most important factor in any trial, Jürgen?
> >
> No, not primary concern, Richard. THE UPMOST ONLY CONCERN, Richard.
Well, there is the truth also.
> Questioned whether they feel an execution necessary for society's protection
> they answered: "I do not think about that anyway. My concern does not exceed
> the question of G/I anyway, future threat and rehab are unimportant."
Well, there you go, Jürgen. They think that finding if a suspect is
guilty or innocent is their job. Imagine that!
> Regarding the circumstance of many, many guilties of similar crimes given a
> second chance after similar prison terms like any DR-inmate already has
> served this attitude appears extremely immoral. Your officials, the
> DECIDERS, do not even TRY to uphold the self deceipt anyway, they
> explicitely are stating your alleged self defense to be not their motive to
> let an execution proceed.
That's their thoughts. MY reason for supporting the death penalty
might be different from theirs. In any case, I'm not concerned with
what others think the justifcation for the death penalty is or is not.
MY reason for supporting it is simple self defense. I believe it is
necessary for that purpose, and if the officials, or some of the
officials of this state seek other reasons according to their beliefs,
they have a perfect right to say so. Would you not agree?
>
> >>
> >> (I'm fully aware of the recommendments to the **jury** to value
> 'continuing
> >> threat'. A really good chess-move of the system, Richard. Why the
> >> prosecution is not recommended to do so as a requirement for a DP-plea?)
> >>
> >> Jürgen
> >
> >Because it is not part of the qualifcation of a capital case. Capital
> >murder is the most severe charge which may be levied against an
> >individual, and has to mee certain legal qualities. There are two
> >possible punishments for capital murder *IF* the jury returns with a
> >guilty finding of capital murder. (The jury may find in a lesser
> >charge, such as felony murder which will cappies lesser penalties)
> >Those two choices are life in prison and the death penalty. After a
> >person has been found guilty of capital murder, the jury is given the
> >task of deciding which of the two penalties is used. At that time the
> >judge's instructions to the jury include the above qualifcation of
> >continued threat.
> >
> >Continued threat may also be introduced into the argument for penalty
> >findings in lesser crimes. It is not used as a determining factor to
> >define capital murder because a person can be guilty of capital murder
> >and not be a continuing threat. That is why we have life
> >imprisonment. (That ans a SCOTUS ruling that the death penalty without
> >option was unconstitutional).
>
> All fine theoretical stuff, Richard. IIRC Andrea Yates now will be against
> your predictions confronted with a DP-plea.
You asked, if you don't like the answer, don't blame me.
>
> >
> >Another reason, Jürgen, is that we did not design out Criminal Code
> >based upon what you like or dislike, but what the legislators and
> >citizens of the state of Texas wanted. Sorry, perhaps the next time
> >we rewrite them we will seek advice from liberal German abolitionists.
> > Hold your breath until that happens and see what occurs.
> >
>
> [I was about to reply very mean and nasty here, Richard.]
>
> Isolating this your style of argumentation for a moment from the direct
> topic I have to establish that the 'argument': "We are doing whatever we
> like and if any foreign dog barks - even for good reason - , who the hell
> ever cares!" was buried on 9/11. In future you, the US, will have in a civil
> attitude to ask MANY, MANY foreign nations for their help. And: For to do
> this sucessfully and to obtain the help required you swiftly should start to
> learn the lesson. Disrespect and scorn vs foreign opinions and concerns are
> not the base for your future policy, Richard.
Why not, Jürgen? We've been receiving a good bit of disrespect and
scorn from liberal Europeans for some time. You shouldn't be
surprised if we return the favor once in a while. As far as helping
us, I wasn't aware there were but two options. Help in the war
against terrorism, or not. Nations are either with us or against us.
Take your pick. The US is no longer sleeping, but fully aroused to
action. We pick who our friends are by those who stand with us.
Believe me when I say it is far better to be our friend right now than
not.
--
Richard Jackson
--
Richard Jackson
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht
<old snipped>
>>
>> Richard, I did study your stuff posted exactly. Lip services. To the jury
>> NOT ONE parameter is told how factually to do such an evaluation, 12
>> LAYPERSONS are recommended to examine the 'continuing threat (CT)' basing
on
>> the elaborations of the overpowering prosecution and the pathetic
defense.
>
>"elaborations" "pathetic defense"? Why is it, Jürgen, that you
>always think the prosecution so good and the defense so inept? It
>isn't always that way.
>
Yep. Not always. Only when/if the DP is the desired outcome. Two interesting
figures in this respect were (1) how many cases with private defense led to
death sentences and (2) how many DP-pleas against private defended charged
had been rosen at all.
<....>
>You will have to explain that last statement a bit more Jürgen. I
>really got lost on that one a bit.
Quite easy. To let a jury of laypersons - legally and psychologically -
decide over CT or not under the given balance prosecution/*PUBLIC* defense
is a comfortable thing for the executioners. Now despite my doubts in any
practical change if the prosecution were *bound* to rationally REASON an
aggravated future risk before the jury this obviously is not even a *direct*
requirement. It theroetically suffices that the prosecution paints the crime
enough emotionally as the law is, thus, even if the prosecutor himself is
estimating the future threat for not especially grave he is allowed to seek
for the DP. Not that a jury necessarily had to be imperceptice, but to
expect from them the psychological background to leave the emotional
parameters aside and to rationally guess a future threat is rather
"optimistic", particularly after having listened to Dr. Death's
"expertises".
>
>>
......Would you argue that guilt or innocence is not the
>> >most important factor in any trial, Jürgen?
>> >
>
>> No, not primary concern, Richard. THE UPMOST ONLY CONCERN, Richard.
>
>Well, there is the truth also.
Of course: Most silly and insensitive people are feeling uplifted in their
"Morality" by playing judges over a human's life.
>
>> Questioned whether they feel an execution necessary for society's
protection
>> they answered: "I do not think about that anyway. My concern does not
exceed
>> the question of G/I anyway, future threat and rehab are unimportant."
>
>Well, there you go, Jürgen. They think that finding if a suspect is
>guilty or innocent is their job. Imagine that!
No, not so easy, Richard. They do much more than their job, they are dealing
nonchalantly with human life. You are claiming SD for the motive to execute
*any* DR-prisoner, they in opposite say reasons making the killing
unnecessary are unimportant. That has zilch to do with guilt or innocence
10-20 years ago, rather with exactly your SD-claim as the distinction DP or
prison. This is straight proof that SD plays no part in reality.
>
<....>
>That's their thoughts. MY reason for supporting the death penalty
>might be different from theirs. In any case, I'm not concerned with
>what others think the justifcation for the death penalty is or is not.
> MY reason for supporting it is simple self defense. I believe it is
>necessary for that purpose, and if the officials, or some of the
>officials of this state seek other reasons according to their beliefs,
>they have a perfect right to say so. Would you not agree?
Nope. SD is *THE ONLY* valid reason for the DP. Pure revenge can not be
accepted as the reason, otherwise you'd have to execute any ten minutes.
Thus, the statement: 'Rehab and evolve of any DR-inmate are meaningless' is
a cynical one and makes out of the DP a killing for low motives to say the
least. You yourself are inherently feeling this quite exactly, PV also, so
you both are supposing SD as the motive against even your own officials'
speach and are bound to self-deceipt for to hold your position at all.
<distinction capital case - juries' instructions for DS snipped>
>> All fine theoretical stuff, Richard. IIRC Andrea Yates now will be
against
>> your predictions confronted with a DP-plea.
>
>You asked, if you don't like the answer, don't blame me.
See, the practice plays the pipe, not the theory. That a decent theoretical
reasoning is necessary for to justify torture is self-understanding. The
OUTCOME is what proves the theory for a blunt lie and your own officials are
silly enough even to back up the hypocrisy.
>> >Another reason, Jürgen, is that we did not design out Criminal Code
>> >based upon what you like or dislike, but what the legislators and
>> >citizens of the state of Texas wanted. Sorry, perhaps the next time
>> >we rewrite them we will seek advice from liberal German abolitionists.
>> > Hold your breath until that happens and see what occurs.
>> >
>>
>> [I was about to reply very mean and nasty here, Richard.]
>>
>> Isolating this your style of argumentation for a moment from the direct
>> topic I have to establish that the 'argument': "We are doing whatever we
>> like and if any foreign dog barks - even for good reason - , who the hell
>> ever cares!" was buried on 9/11. In future you, the US, will have in a
civil
>> attitude to ask MANY, MANY foreign nations for their help. And: For to do
>> this sucessfully and to obtain the help required you swiftly should start
to
>> learn the lesson. Disrespect and scorn vs foreign opinions and concerns
are
>> not the base for your future policy, Richard.
>
>Why not, Jürgen? We've been receiving a good bit of disrespect and
>scorn from liberal Europeans for some time.
Richard, Richard, Richard. I'm a quite moderate man and always am giving my
best whenever raising any critics to use an attitude permitting to reply
calmly and argumentatively. But: At the moment I receive to fairly
argumentative stuff any reply like "We are the great and powerful and
therefore we are right and you are wrong" then it's difficult for me to stay
calm and civil. Now that others are not provided with my skills to swallow
and ignore such stuff and are thus reacting with scorn is well regrettable,
because it leads to nothing and destroys the discussion, the *sentiment*
against such an argumentation's mode however I can understand very well.
Cause and effect, Richard.
You shouldn't be
>surprised if we return the favor once in a while. As far as helping
>us, I wasn't aware there were but two options. Help in the war
>against terrorism, or not. Nations are either with us or against us.
This statement is an ease, Richard, and it is wrong. Even the MEISTER 151++
got at the point to understand slice-by-slice-wise: All gradual support is
thinkable and the grade of support will depend on just your future
attitudes. Lip services 'We support you' about any foreign governments to
become truth will depend on the diplomatic relation's tenor, thus, Bully
will have to slow down and to adopt another attitude towards other nations.
>Take your pick.
I took my pick long before 9/11 in view of Islamists, believe me. All over
the last 20 years I saw the danger growing and had been appalled about the
carelessness of the Western World in view of (1) what the Islamists did and
do in their countries, (2) what they publicly proclamated to aim in theory
and (3) what they were and *ARE* permitted to do in **OUR** countries.
>The US is no longer sleeping, .....
Yes she is. You yet failed to let the special context of this most terrible
assassination aside and to recognize the consequences of the *POSSIBILITY*
of such at all. It may be a mostly bitter medication, but since 9/11 your
bully attitudes are proven inadequate. You have been proven not to be a
stand alone, an island of savety in the sea of violence, your violability
became obvious. "Hahaha, we do what we like in our secure tower and you
outside are depending on our good will" is a destroyed illusion, Richard.
.....but fully aroused to
>action.
By far not. The real, the way exceeding share of the war on terrorism will
happen elsewhere but in Afghanistan. To get rid of this jeopardy will
**FORCE** us all to stand together whether we like or not. If Bin Laden is
captured the next will follow anywhere, they have a world wide and
decentralized organization, not even a clear and hierarchical structure is
visible. The war on T started on the plane of intelligence agencies and
there it will proceed for long, long years with uncertain outcome.
Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden is necessary, but don't think for a
moment a surrender of the Taliban and a dead Bin Laden were the victory in
the war against T.
>We pick who our friends are by those who stand with us.
To stand with you means not to ignore the consequences of this situation
*FOR AMERICA AND US ALL*, Richard.
>Believe me when I say it is far better to be our friend right now than
>not.
>
A real friend, Richard, will be honest with you in the first place. Whenever
a *friend* recognizes that you're about to misunderestimate a problem and to
approach to it in an inadequate/too lenient/too harsh way he will give you
his honest opinion. A friend will prevent you against your will to run in a
fury into an opened knife. Servile and devote friends are none, Richard. The
war on the Taliban is necessary, out of question, but I warn you to see
therein 'opiate for the crowd'-like the solution of the problem and to think
you could continue to act as if you were alone like pre 9/11. Fully
rationally spoken: This times are past, once for all.
Jürgen
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
here with this claim, entirely without having been caused to do so by any
ab-statement.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9rhkmu$vkh$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
active use here in this newsgroup to see who BEGAN to speak
of the 'cost' of the DP. Try the thread you have yourself
contributed to -- 'Re: Is this debate pure symbolism?' See
that Eugene Holman, certainly an abolitionist was the first
to express concern over 'tax dollars' spent to execute
murderers. Try to stay reasonable if you would hope to
call me a liar.
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:vwZC7.490952$8c3.86...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
I'm at a bit of a loss here Jurgen besides the fact that I no longer
receive your posts because I unintentionally wiped you out.
It IS a standard abolitionist claim that because of 'due process'
a right that Americans would be foolish to give up, the cost
of executing a murderer perhaps up to $2,000,000, is higher than
the cost of incarcerating said murderer for the rest of his/her life.
The standard cost for a prisoner is, we have been, told $20,000
a year so a murderer would have to spend more than a hundred
years in prison before incarceration costs exceeded those of
executing him/her. Lets increase those yearly costs to $50,000
and reduce the cost of execution to a mere $1,000,000 and s/he
would still have to spend over 20 years in prison before
exceeding execution costs. It's cheaper to keep 'em alive.
(BTW PV doesn't lie - he may be mistaken now and again
but he is not a liar - silly Jurgen)
Jürgen
John Rennie schrieb in Nachricht ...
PV claimed the **alleged** - against truth, of course - cost-reduction by
executions not to be a retentionist argument. All along, almost weekly now I
see any ret-post claiming this. That's all.
J.
>
Richard Jackson
> Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht
>
> <old snipped>
> >>
> >> Richard, I did study your stuff posted exactly. Lip services. To the jury
> >> NOT ONE parameter is told how factually to do such an evaluation, 12
> >> LAYPERSONS are recommended to examine the 'continuing threat (CT)' basing
> on
> >> the elaborations of the overpowering prosecution and the pathetic
> defense.
> >
> >"elaborations" "pathetic defense"? Why is it, Jürgen, that you
> >always think the prosecution so good and the defense so inept? It
> >isn't always that way.
> >
> Yep. Not always. Only when/if the DP is the desired outcome.
Oh, I see. It is only in death penalty cases that the prosecution is
very good and the defense very poor. Interesting. And this has no
basis at all in your prejudice against the death penalty, eh? :-O
Two interesting
> figures in this respect were (1) how many cases with private defense led to
> death sentences and (2) how many DP-pleas against private defended charged
> had been rosen at all.
I don't know. Do you know Jürgen, or is this a supposition without
supporting data? Remember, it is your charge, it is your burden to
prove the charge.
>
> <....>
>
> >You will have to explain that last statement a bit more Jürgen. I
> >really got lost on that one a bit.
>
> Quite easy. To let a jury of laypersons - legally and psychologically -
> decide over CT or not under the given balance prosecution/*PUBLIC* defense
> is a comfortable thing for the executioners. Now despite my doubts in any
> practical change if the prosecution were *bound* to rationally REASON an
> aggravated future risk before the jury this obviously is not even a *direct*
> requirement.
It is not a direct requirement for the charge of capital murder. it
IS a requirement for a finding of a death penalty in the penalty
phase. This is a question the jury must answer in the affirmative in
order to assign the death penalty. If they cannot, they must assign
life imprisonment.
It theroetically suffices that the prosecution paints the crime
> enough emotionally as the law is, thus, even if the prosecutor himself is
> estimating the future threat for not especially grave he is allowed to seek
> for the DP.
That is correct. The death penalty can be sought without the
prosecutor proving continued danger in the guilt phase of the trial.
In the penalty phase, he must convince the jury there is a continued
danger, and they must agree.
Not that a jury necessarily had to be imperceptice, but to
> expect from them the psychological background to leave the emotional
> parameters aside and to rationally guess a future threat is rather
> "optimistic", particularly after having listened to Dr. Death's
> "expertises".
"Dr. Death" didn't testify in all death penalty cases, and not in a
majority of them Jürgen. To use that as an excuse simply doesn't buy
it.
> >
> >>
> ......Would you argue that guilt or innocence is not the
> >> >most important factor in any trial, Jürgen?
> >> >
>
> >> No, not primary concern, Richard. THE UPMOST ONLY CONCERN, Richard.
> >
> >Well, there is the truth also.
>
> Of course: Most silly and insensitive people are feeling uplifted in their
> "Morality" by playing judges over a human's life.
Not at all Jürgen. It is a duty put on some people that is
reluctantly undertaken. Many are eliminated from serving as jurors
because while they are not necessarily opposed to the death penalty,
they tell the truth in examination and say that they do not believe
they could sentence a person to death. Others are eliminated because
they tell the truth and reveal that regardless of the evidence they
sill not assign a death penalty.
>
> >
> >> Questioned whether they feel an execution necessary for society's
> protection
> >> they answered: "I do not think about that anyway. My concern does not
> exceed
> >> the question of G/I anyway, future threat and rehab are unimportant."
> >
> >Well, there you go, Jürgen. They think that finding if a suspect is
> >guilty or innocent is their job. Imagine that!
>
> No, not so easy, Richard. They do much more than their job, they are dealing
> nonchalantly with human life. You are claiming SD for the motive to execute
> *any* DR-prisoner, they in opposite say reasons making the killing
> unnecessary are unimportant. That has zilch to do with guilt or innocence
> 10-20 years ago, rather with exactly your SD-claim as the distinction DP or
> prison. This is straight proof that SD plays no part in reality.
It is onlyu proof that it plays no part in the reality of those making
such statements, Jürgen. Just as your opposition to the death penalty
is only your reality. Mine and everyone elses varies somewhat as each
human is an individual with individual realities.
> >
> <....>
>
> >That's their thoughts. MY reason for supporting the death penalty
> >might be different from theirs. In any case, I'm not concerned with
> >what others think the justifcation for the death penalty is or is not.
> > MY reason for supporting it is simple self defense. I believe it is
> >necessary for that purpose, and if the officials, or some of the
> >officials of this state seek other reasons according to their beliefs,
> >they have a perfect right to say so. Would you not agree?
>
> Nope. SD is *THE ONLY* valid reason for the DP. Pure revenge can not be
> accepted as the reason, otherwise you'd have to execute any ten minutes.
> Thus, the statement: 'Rehab and evolve of any DR-inmate are meaningless' is
> a cynical one and makes out of the DP a killing for low motives to say the
> least. You yourself are inherently feeling this quite exactly, PV also, so
> you both are supposing SD as the motive against even your own officials'
> speach and are bound to self-deceipt for to hold your position at all.
Not at all. In my case, the end justifies the means, and if some
officials wish to execute because of revenge, it does not bother me,
as long as my goals are served.
>
> <distinction capital case - juries' instructions for DS snipped>
>
>
> >> All fine theoretical stuff, Richard. IIRC Andrea Yates now will be
> against
> >> your predictions confronted with a DP-plea.
> >
> >You asked, if you don't like the answer, don't blame me.
>
> See, the practice plays the pipe, not the theory. That a decent theoretical
> reasoning is necessary for to justify torture is self-understanding. The
> OUTCOME is what proves the theory for a blunt lie and your own officials are
> silly enough even to back up the hypocrisy.
Jürgen, does the Foreign Minister of Germany speak always for all
Germans, or sometimes just for himself? Does the Commander of the
army always speak for the army, the government of Germany, or does he
sometimes express his own opinion? I'm not even suer the official you
speak of in Texas is still in office here. They do have to
periodically run for office and be re-elected.
Officals speak with at least two voices and wear more than one hat.
When they are speaking for the government, they speak in an official
capacity in the name of the government they serve. When they speak
their own opinion, they are speaking for themselves. To me, it
appears you are attempting to make a personal statement of opinion
speak for a whole governmental system. That simply is not the way
things are anywhere wexcept a dictatorship. Whatever else we are in
Texas, we are not an autrocracy.
We understnad that some nations, out of internal weakness or liberal
attitudes may not openly support our play, but contribute in other
ways. Still, the fact remains that everyone needs to lead, follow, or
get the Hell out of the way.
>
> >Take your pick.
>
> I took my pick long before 9/11 in view of Islamists, believe me. All over
> the last 20 years I saw the danger growing and had been appalled about the
> carelessness of the Western World in view of (1) what the Islamists did and
> do in their countries, (2) what they publicly proclamated to aim in theory
> and (3) what they were and *ARE* permitted to do in **OUR** countries.
Personally, I think we messed up when we fought Saddam Hussen. If we
left him alone, he probably would have solved this problem for us, as
he hates the Taliban, and has for some time. We would also probably
only have to deal with one nation now rather than a half dozen.
Since we did not see our way to do that, I have other options.
Personally I think we should detonate one nuclear device on the Indian
side of the Kashmere border and make it look like Pakistan did it. We
could then get out of the way and allow the second largest nation in
the World to take over.
>
> >The US is no longer sleeping, .....
>
> Yes she is. You yet failed to let the special context of this most terrible
> assassination aside and to recognize the consequences of the *POSSIBILITY*
> of such at all. It may be a mostly bitter medication, but since 9/11 your
> bully attitudes are proven inadequate. You have been proven not to be a
> stand alone, an island of savety in the sea of violence, your violability
> became obvious. "Hahaha, we do what we like in our secure tower and you
> outside are depending on our good will" is a destroyed illusion, Richard.
Right. We just started Jürgen. We will either win, or finish the
whole mess off.
>
> .....but fully aroused to
> >action.
>
> By far not. The real, the way exceeding share of the war on terrorism will
> happen elsewhere but in Afghanistan. To get rid of this jeopardy will
> **FORCE** us all to stand together whether we like or not. If Bin Laden is
> captured the next will follow anywhere, they have a world wide and
> decentralized organization, not even a clear and hierarchical structure is
> visible.
Al Qa'ida is already organized that way. We just have to keep killing
them whenever we find them until there are not enough left.
The war on T started on the plane of intelligence agencies and
> there it will proceed for long, long years with uncertain outcome.
> Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden is necessary, but don't think for a
> moment a surrender of the Taliban and a dead Bin Laden were the victory in
> the war against T.
No. It is only the beginning. After al Qa'ida comes others, some in
our own nation and yours as well.
>
> >We pick who our friends are by those who stand with us.
>
> To stand with you means not to ignore the consequences of this situation
> *FOR AMERICA AND US ALL*, Richard.
Best jump on full time, Jürgen. Each nation best look to their own
borders.
>
> >Believe me when I say it is far better to be our friend right now than
> >not.
> >
>
> A real friend, Richard, will be honest with you in the first place. Whenever
> a *friend* recognizes that you're about to misunderestimate a problem and to
> approach to it in an inadequate/too lenient/too harsh way he will give you
> his honest opinion. A friend will prevent you against your will to run in a
> fury into an opened knife. Servile and devote friends are none, Richard. The
> war on the Taliban is necessary, out of question, but I warn you to see
> therein 'opiate for the crowd'-like the solution of the problem and to think
> you could continue to act as if you were alone like pre 9/11. Fully
> rationally spoken: This times are past, once for all.
>
> Jürgen
Jürgen, right now, I personally do not care if we kill hundreds of
millions in the middle east to accomplish our goal. That might not be
rational, in your estimate, but I see this as a pure fight for
survival. There is no place for half measures, this is an all out win
or lose situation. If we lose we die. If they lose, they die.
That might sound simplistic, but that is how I read this problem.
This thing is going to get right down to an old infantryman's level
real quick. War at that level is doing what your have to do to stay
alive. If that means killing women and children because some of them
killed your buddies and you don't want to let any of them close enough
to do the same to you, so be it. If that means killing everyone in an
area because you are unable to tell the good guys for bad, so be it.
The non-combattants need to stand aside, because everyone else has to
die. Either that, or we die.
i didn't come to this conclusion lightly, but after talking to Muslims
both in person and on the Internet since th 11th. I've been studying
the Qur'an for a couple of years, now, and it appears to me we are
about to be engaged in a true jihad in earnest. That type of fight
leaves little room for mercy or sentiments.
--
Richard Jackson
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9rhu5a$atj$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
I get the impression you don't pay much attention to abolitionist
posts not addressed to you specifically, since you have no
argument with them, and hope to concentrate your subjective
views on those in favor of the DP. Thus, it's hardly relevant
for you to claim you never see abolitionist posts that express
how 'money' should drive the abolition of the DP.
PV
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht
....
>> >"elaborations" "pathetic defense"? Why is it, Jürgen, that you
>> >always think the prosecution so good and the defense so inept? It
>> >isn't always that way.
>> >
>> Yep. Not always. Only when/if the DP is the desired outcome.
>
>Oh, I see. It is only in death penalty cases that the prosecution is
>very good and the defense very poor.
No, Richard, not so. I think the set of DP-cases is a subset of the
weak-defense cases' set. Other said, weak defense is necessary condition for
a DP-*plea* but not a sufficient one.
Interesting. And this has no
>basis at all in your prejudice against the death penalty, eh? :-O
See, I didn't care much about the DP for about 38 years. I - despite never a
DP-fan - trusted in the US in view of their careful application of the DP.
LISTENING to what really happens made me concern a little bit more, and the
more I heard the more I found the suspicions affirmed. Aside from single
cases statements like SC-Justice Scaria's, i.e. 'Innocence is no reason for
a new trial', are the stuff underlying to my stance. Such is WAY from
prejudice.
>
>Two interesting
>> figures in this respect were (1) how many cases with private defense led
to
>> death sentences and (2) how many DP-pleas against private defended
charged
>> had been rosen at all.
>
>I don't know. Do you know Jürgen, or is this a supposition without
>supporting data? Remember, it is your charge, it is your burden to
>prove the charge.
No, Richard, my charge has been proven already: <SC, was ca:> 'A sleeping
defense lawyer is not a priori a reason to declare the trial for invalid. It
would depend on whether he slept in an important phase or not.' Translation:
If the defense lawyer slept in the phase not directly concerned with guilt
or innocence, if he slept for instant while the (prosecution's) psychologist
made his statements about future threat, or if he slept instead to point
emphatically at any mitigant circumstances on behalf of his defendant then
this is unimportant.
(1) and (2) above are questions for any serious retentionist *WANTING* a DP
with a real SD-background. Would I guess it for useful in your case to
provide this information I'd do my best, however, after you even do agree
with the DP for the vengeant reason this were wasted time, pearls for pigs.
If your own SC-Justices' statements do not convince you then you'll clearly
will remain in your self-deceipt-state whatever may happen.
>
>>
<....>
>> Quite easy. To let a jury of laypersons - legally and psychologically -
>> decide over CT or not under the given balance prosecution/*PUBLIC*
defense
>> is a comfortable thing for the executioners. Now despite my doubts in any
>> practical change if the prosecution were *bound* to rationally REASON an
>> aggravated future risk before the jury this obviously is not even a
*direct*
>> requirement.
>
>It is not a direct requirement for the charge of capital murder. it
>IS a requirement for a finding of a death penalty in the penalty
>phase. This is a question the jury must answer in the affirmative in
>order to assign the death penalty. If they cannot, they must assign
>life imprisonment.
>
>It theroetically suffices that the prosecution paints the crime
>> enough emotionally as the law is, thus, even if the prosecutor himself is
>> estimating the future threat for not especially grave he is allowed to
seek
>> for the DP.
>
>That is correct. The death penalty can be sought without the
>prosecutor proving continued danger in the guilt phase of the trial.
>In the penalty phase, he must convince the jury there is a continued
>danger, and they must agree.
That's called passing the buck, Richard, IIRC. The prosecution having the
whole complex of experts handy and having experience with crimes all along
is disburdened from the rational decision 'CT or not' as the fundament for a
DP-charge. Means he has not to convince rationally thinking experts but a
bunch of laypersons.
<snip>
>> Of course: Most silly and insensitive people are feeling uplifted in
their
>> "Morality" by playing judges over a human's life.
>
>Not at all Jürgen. It is a duty put on some people that is
>reluctantly undertaken.
Not at all, Richard. We had been at this point for many times. Were *ANY*
reluctance to perceive in the US', particularly in the Texanian DP one
should observe any commutations for obvious reformation of DR-inmates. No
serious effords are made, all are high-graded content and let *ANY*
execution proceed straightforward.
Many are eliminated from serving as jurors
>because while they are not necessarily opposed to the death penalty,
>they tell the truth in examination and say that they do not believe
>they could sentence a person to death. Others are eliminated because
>they tell the truth and reveal that regardless of the evidence they
>sill not assign a death penalty.
Of course....this selection is necessary to fill DRs. It's a DP-inherent
problem that you are bound to exclude an entire philosophy, admittedly
represented by a minority but a rather large one, from *ANY* contribution to
the trial. "Moderate thought? - Keep off!"
....They do much more than their job, they are dealing
>> nonchalantly with human life. ...
>
>It is onlyu proof that it plays no part in the reality of those making
>such statements, Jürgen. Just as your opposition to the death penalty
>is only your reality. Mine and everyone elses varies somewhat as each
>human is an individual with individual realities.
Sorry, this statement wasn't made by FRANK on AADP but by - IIRC - the
Texanian General State Attorney and had been backed up furthermore by
several other *deciders*. That means your *deciders* represent this stance
and *you* are agreeing with. You, voting for the DP, are directly agreeing
with their version and are thus dropping DP=SD. And: It was by far not the
only occasion such speach from high-decorated deciders in view of the DP was
broadcasted.
>> <....>
>>
>> >That's their thoughts. MY reason for supporting the death penalty
>> >might be different from theirs. In any case, I'm not concerned with
>> >what others think the justifcation for the death penalty is or is not.
>> > MY reason for supporting it is simple self defense. I believe it is
>> >necessary for that purpose, and if the officials, or some of the
>> >officials of this state seek other reasons according to their beliefs,
>> >they have a perfect right to say so. Would you not agree?
>>
>> Nope. SD is *THE ONLY* valid reason for the DP. Pure revenge can not be
>> accepted as the reason, otherwise you'd have to execute any ten minutes.
>> Thus, the statement: 'Rehab and evolve of any DR-inmate are meaningless'
is
>> a cynical one and makes out of the DP a killing for low motives to say
the
>> least. You yourself are inherently feeling this quite exactly, PV also,
so
>> you both are supposing SD as the motive against even your own officials'
>> speach and are bound to self-deceipt for to hold your position at all.
>
>Not at all. In my case, the end justifies the means, and if some
>officials wish to execute because of revenge, it does not bother me,
>as long as my goals are served.
Hmmm...'The end justifies the means' you're claiming on the one hand, and on
the other 'The DP is a reluctantly applicated ultimate measure'??
>
>>
>> <distinction capital case - juries' instructions for DS snipped>
>>
>>
>> >> All fine theoretical stuff, Richard. IIRC Andrea Yates now will be
>> against
>> >> your predictions confronted with a DP-plea.
>> >
>> >You asked, if you don't like the answer, don't blame me.
>>
>> See, the practice plays the pipe, not the theory. That a decent
theoretical
>> reasoning is necessary for to justify torture is self-understanding. The
>> OUTCOME is what proves the theory for a blunt lie and your own officials
are
>> silly enough even to back up the hypocrisy.
>
>Jürgen, does the Foreign Minister of Germany speak always for all
>Germans, or sometimes just for himself?
If questioned by the media about particular decisions of professional kind,
yep. If in a talk-show, not necessarily. But: NOT ONE will reveal to you a
gross mismatch of his personal opinion and the policy he represents. What
you are trying to sell me is concentrated guano; the imagination of the same
man expressing his nonchalance about CT and reformation publicly as the
distinctly weighing and only reluctantly deciding to let an execution pass
is ludicrous to say the least.
Does the Commander of the
>army always speak for the army, the government of Germany, or does he
>sometimes express his own opinion? I'm not even suer the official you
>speak of in Texas is still in office here. They do have to
>periodically run for office and be re-elected.
It was by far not only one which spoke such stuff in the camera, Richard.
I'm in regret for not to have taped the TV-report (also not the only one)
afew months ago, but it had become quite obvious that this mindset is pretty
spread among whole the deciders. And: Don't try to tell me that a decider's
personal opinion were switched off anyhow when just this man is confronted
with an actual decision. Also don't try to tell me you wouldn't re-elect him
for that you'd feel this his stance for not justified.
>
>Officals speak with at least two voices and wear more than one hat.
>When they are speaking for the government, they speak in an official
>capacity in the name of the government they serve. When they speak
>their own opinion, they are speaking for themselves.
Ah yes....for how naive do you guess me, Richard? Of course this man as a
decider over life and death will say: "Hmmm...it is my personal opinion that
the condemned XY should die for revenge....nobody even would take note if
I'd let the execution pass by....but my voters believe in the DP as a SD
measure, thus, I will do my best to stop the execution against my
conviction..." Of course, Richard. I regularly can hear the outcry of your
combattants if seeing a guilty DR-inmate pardoned.
And: The question whether 'CT' and 'SD' play any part in view of the
decision to let an execution proceed was quite well raised in view of a
particular case. Thus, outspokenly not a personal statement but rather the
real, actual decision's fundament was the target of the question and the
answer quite well was related to a decision to kill a human, not for SD, not
for CT.
To me, it
>appears you are attempting to make a personal statement of opinion
>speak for a whole governmental system. That simply is not the way
>things are anywhere wexcept a dictatorship. Whatever else we are in
>Texas, we are not an autrocracy.
>
....Why not, Jürgen? We've been receiving a good bit of disrespect
Again you are trying to distinctly locate the problem at Hussein and Iraq.
That is simply nonsense, this spiritual murderers are high graded active in
countries like Germany or Florida and elsewhere. Should the Taliban have
been messed up by Hussein then Bin Laden had searched for another refugium,
it is as simple. Forget the thinking in borders and recognize the
virus-characteristics of the whole.
>
>Since we did not see our way to do that, I have other options.
>Personally I think we should detonate one nuclear device on the Indian
>side of the Kashmere border and make it look like Pakistan did it. We
>could then get out of the way and allow the second largest nation in
>the World to take over.
Jessas Gott....Yeah, now that is the real American Style. Such statements
and ideas, such disrespect for all existences living beyond your shabby
borders are the reason for that 2/3 of the world hate you like the devil.
"American Morality, Where are Thou".
>
>>
>> >The US is no longer sleeping, .....
>>
>> Yes she is. You yet failed to let the special context of this most
terrible
>> assassination aside and to recognize the consequences of the
*POSSIBILITY*
>> of such at all. It may be a mostly bitter medication, but since 9/11 your
>> bully attitudes are proven inadequate. You have been proven not to be a
>> stand alone, an island of savety in the sea of violence, your violability
>> became obvious. "Hahaha, we do what we like in our secure tower and you
>> outside are depending on our good will" is a destroyed illusion, Richard.
>
>Right. We just started Jürgen. We will either win, or finish the
>whole mess off.
....Including yourself. Should the Anthrax-Guys (in YOUR country) see
the Muslimic World being assaulted in the way you are suggesting they well
might proceed to spread high-graded infective stuff. Information is the
weapon against Radicalisms, Richard, and while I agree with military actions
for to meet direct danger I strongly disagree with the idea to fight with
armies against ideologies. That does not work.
>
>>
>> .....but fully aroused to
>> >action.
>>
>> By far not. The real, the way exceeding share of the war on terrorism
will
>> happen elsewhere but in Afghanistan. To get rid of this jeopardy will
>> **FORCE** us all to stand together whether we like or not. If Bin Laden
is
>> captured the next will follow anywhere, they have a world wide and
>> decentralized organization, not even a clear and hierarchical structure
is
>> visible.
>
>Al Qa'ida is already organized that way.
My words.
We just have to keep killing
>them whenever we find them until there are not enough left.
Richard. Don't sell the pig before having it caught. For to kill you have to
*IDENTIFY*.
>
>The war on T started on the plane of intelligence agencies and
>> there it will proceed for long, long years with uncertain outcome.
>> Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden is necessary, but don't think for
a
>> moment a surrender of the Taliban and a dead Bin Laden were the victory
in
>> the war against T.
>
>No. It is only the beginning. After al Qa'ida comes others, some in
>our own nation and yours as well.
>
>>
>> >We pick who our friends are by those who stand with us.
>>
>> To stand with you means not to ignore the consequences of this situation
>> *FOR AMERICA AND US ALL*, Richard.
>
>Best jump on full time, Jürgen. Each nation best look to their own
>borders.
Nope Richard. The isolationistic times just have to be over. Terrorism has
globalized and internationally joined measures will be the antidot. Nations
surely have to maintain their own inner-state-shares of the whole task but
surely not uncoordinated with the others. I barely see any odds for to get
the goal if not a quantum-skip in solidarity and good-will-cooperation will
happen instantly.
>
>>
>> >Believe me when I say it is far better to be our friend right now than
>> >not.
>> >
>>
>> A real friend, Richard, will be honest with you in the first place.
Whenever
>> a *friend* recognizes that you're about to misunderestimate a problem and
to
>> approach to it in an inadequate/too lenient/too harsh way he will give
you
>> his honest opinion. A friend will prevent you against your will to run in
a
>> fury into an opened knife. Servile and devote friends are none, Richard.
The
>> war on the Taliban is necessary, out of question, but I warn you to see
>> therein 'opiate for the crowd'-like the solution of the problem and to
think
>> you could continue to act as if you were alone like pre 9/11. Fully
>> rationally spoken: This times are past, once for all.
>>
>> Jürgen
>
>Jürgen, right now, I personally do not care if we kill hundreds of
>millions in the middle east to accomplish our goal. That might not be
>rational, in your estimate, but I see this as a pure fight for
>survival.
Now, now, Richard. "Angst ist ein schlechter Ratgeber", ca. "_Angst_ is a
bad councellor".
There is no place for half measures, this is an all out win
>or lose situation. If we lose we die. If they lose, they die.
Seeing you swiftly extend 'They' to *all* except 'We' I wonder how far the
American support would have gone if the catastrophy had happened in Paris,
Frankfurt a.M. or London. Pearl Harbor <-> Hiroshima/Nagasaki, second take?
>
>That might sound simplistic, but that is how I read this problem.
>This thing is going to get right down to an old infantryman's level
>real quick.
That would be 'Hart wie Kruppstahl' and 'Dumm wie Bohnenstroh', I suppose?
(ca. 'Hard like (Krupp)-steel' and 'silly like bean-straw', was meant as an
ironic characterization of German WWII-troops by the NAZIS but met the
reality pretty well retrospectively)
War at that level is doing what your have to do to stay
>alive. If that means killing women and children because some of them
>killed your buddies and you don't want to let any of them close enough
>to do the same to you, so be it.
This is plain and simply not the moment for simplicisms, Richard. The
terrorists *ARE* not to allocate in limited territories, your nuclear bombs
are fundamentally inappropriate for a fight against terrorism. You can
destroy as much as you like in this style, you will not prevail this way but
heat the conflict on and on. Period.
If that means killing everyone in an
>area because you are unable to tell the good guys for bad, so be it.
>The non-combattants need to stand aside, because everyone else has to
>die. Either that, or we die.
>
>i didn't come to this conclusion lightly, but after talking to Muslims
>both in person and on the Internet since th 11th.
I dunno your demands, Richard, but should you have entered a discussion like
"Hi, I'm Richard, the Texan, and I demand for your unlimited support right
now. Go out, find and kill the terrorists without trial or so, or I will
kill you" then the outcome of the discussion is pretty clear from the very
begin on.
In common: Just having read an item what Afghan citizens *KNOW* at all about
the WTC and the terrible events, i.e. NULL, it is rather clear to me that
they *CAN* not support you. Same to a lesser degree is valid for many other
Muslimic states with the bigger share radical regimes, news reaching the man
on the street are modest and filtered and America is far, furthermore
violence is the daily bread - what the hell do you expect? Do you really
think they will say: "Good grief - AMERICANS have been killed - that's
totally an other affair than the killing in my country. My personal losses
are neglectable in comparizon with the AMERICANS' thousands of miles away,
thus, I have to take my Kalashnikov and to fight right now for AMERICA."???
I've been studying
>the Qur'an for a couple of years, now, and it appears to me we are
>about to be engaged in a true jihad in earnest. That type of fight
>leaves little room for mercy or sentiments.
>
*All* depends on how you/we will approach to the problem. Let's face the
fact, as depraved the attack on 9/11 had been, 7.000 dead people are viewing
the daily events on earth not necessarily the top of cruelty. You are
sounding like what you are, a wounded animal, disabled of ratio, caught in
your unexpected vulnerability, and you are prepared for suicide like the
Islamists, too. Your speach reveals that you yourself became your worst
enemy, the calculation of the hard-core terrorists was exactly right.
Your proposal to kill zillions outside your holy boundaries is as cynical as
convenient, Sir. Tell me now in this respect, would you then consequently
vote for mass executions of Muslimic American citizens without trial and
charge, too?
Jürgen
Richard Jackson
> Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht
> <8cb86b49.01102...@posting.google.com>...
>
> ....
>
>
> >> >"elaborations" "pathetic defense"? Why is it, Jürgen, that you
> >> >always think the prosecution so good and the defense so inept? It
> >> >isn't always that way.
> >> >
> >> Yep. Not always. Only when/if the DP is the desired outcome.
> >
> >Oh, I see. It is only in death penalty cases that the prosecution is
> >very good and the defense very poor.
>
> No, Richard, not so. I think the set of DP-cases is a subset of the
> weak-defense cases' set. Other said, weak defense is necessary condition for
> a DP-*plea* but not a sufficient one.
That depends on what you call a weak defense. If you are talking
about inept lawyers, then I think you are incorrect assuming a DA
would file for the DP just on that basis. If you are saying that DA's
tend to file capital charges on cases only where they have a strong
case for such, I tend to agree. The latter is only common sense.
Most decent attorneys will argue the strongest, not the weakest, case
they have.
>
> Interesting. And this has no
> >basis at all in your prejudice against the death penalty, eh? :-O
>
> See, I didn't care much about the DP for about 38 years. I - despite never a
> DP-fan - trusted in the US in view of their careful application of the DP.
> LISTENING to what really happens made me concern a little bit more, and the
> more I heard the more I found the suspicions affirmed. Aside from single
> cases statements like SC-Justice Scaria's, i.e. 'Innocence is no reason for
> a new trial', are the stuff underlying to my stance. Such is WAY from
> prejudice.
Prejudice is simply the notion that something is bad or good despite
what one is told about it because of a preconceived notion of one type
or another. I believe you tend to display that about all death
penalty cases despite the evidence in any single case because you feel
as you do. That doesn't make you wrong, necesarily, or a bad person,
just prejudiced in this case because of your beliefs. Hell, Jürgen,
we all have prejudices of one type or another. Admitting that we have
them is sometimes difficult to face, but they are there non-the-less.
>
> >
> >Two interesting
> >> figures in this respect were (1) how many cases with private defense led
> to
> >> death sentences and (2) how many DP-pleas against private defended
> charged
> >> had been rosen at all.
> >
> >I don't know. Do you know Jürgen, or is this a supposition without
> >supporting data? Remember, it is your charge, it is your burden to
> >prove the charge.
>
> No, Richard, my charge has been proven already: <SC, was ca:> 'A sleeping
> defense lawyer is not a priori a reason to declare the trial for invalid. It
> would depend on whether he slept in an important phase or not.' Translation:
> If the defense lawyer slept in the phase not directly concerned with guilt
> or innocence, if he slept for instant while the (prosecution's) psychologist
> made his statements about future threat, or if he slept instead to point
> emphatically at any mitigant circumstances on behalf of his defendant then
> this is unimportant.
You translate what others say rather than ask them. To me his
statement simply means that each case is different, and the act of
sleeping, by a defense attorney, while undesirable and poor
professionalism, may or may not in and of itself, influence the
trueness of a trial's outcome.
A question here. Had the prosecutor dozed and his client won, would
you yess traversty of justice as loud for the prosecution's sake?
Nope, it eliminates prejudiced jurors from keeping the whole jury from
determining which punishment is most appropriate. Personally, Ithink
the two phases of capital trials should have two levels of burden of
proof. I think the guilt phase should be unamious, and the penalty
phase a majority, say nine out of twelve jurors agreeing on a
punishment. In this way, the requirement for asking potential jurors
about their belief of the use of the death pnealty could be
eliminated, and everyone could serve on a capital trial as long as
they state they can find a fair verdict based upon presented evidence.
This would also be close to allowing the same ratio of abolitionists
to serve on such a jury as is in the general population, without
creating a totally prejudiced finding based upon personal beliefs.
just a thought.
>
> ....They do much more than their job, they are dealing
>
> >> nonchalantly with human life. ...
> >
> >It is onlyu proof that it plays no part in the reality of those making
> >such statements, Jürgen. Just as your opposition to the death penalty
> >is only your reality. Mine and everyone elses varies somewhat as each
> >human is an individual with individual realities.
>
> Sorry, this statement wasn't made by FRANK on AADP but by - IIRC - the
> Texanian General State Attorney and had been backed up furthermore by
> several other *deciders*. That means your *deciders* represent this stance
> and *you* are agreeing with. You, voting for the DP, are directly agreeing
> with their version and are thus dropping DP=SD. And: It was by far not the
> only occasion such speach from high-decorated deciders in view of the DP was
> broadcasted.
NO, and it probably will not be the last. Again, I have my reality
and my values, everyone esle has their own view on things.
>
> >> <....>
> >>
> >> >That's their thoughts. MY reason for supporting the death penalty
> >> >might be different from theirs. In any case, I'm not concerned with
> >> >what others think the justifcation for the death penalty is or is not.
> >> > MY reason for supporting it is simple self defense. I believe it is
> >> >necessary for that purpose, and if the officials, or some of the
> >> >officials of this state seek other reasons according to their beliefs,
> >> >they have a perfect right to say so. Would you not agree?
> >>
> >> Nope. SD is *THE ONLY* valid reason for the DP. Pure revenge can not be
> >> accepted as the reason, otherwise you'd have to execute any ten minutes.
> >> Thus, the statement: 'Rehab and evolve of any DR-inmate are meaningless'
> is
> >> a cynical one and makes out of the DP a killing for low motives to say
> the
> >> least. You yourself are inherently feeling this quite exactly, PV also,
> so
> >> you both are supposing SD as the motive against even your own officials'
> >> speach and are bound to self-deceipt for to hold your position at all.
> >
> >Not at all. In my case, the end justifies the means, and if some
> >officials wish to execute because of revenge, it does not bother me,
> >as long as my goals are served.
>
> Hmmm...'The end justifies the means' you're claiming on the one hand, and on
> the other 'The DP is a reluctantly applicated ultimate measure'??
Yep. Because the death penalty should be reluctantly applied. That
does not mean it is not necessary, and if someone else feels we need
to do this for revenge, it does not change my reason for supporting
it. That is their thought, not mine. We both just happen to have the
same ultimate goal, to see qualifying murderers executed.
>
> >
> >>
> >> <distinction capital case - juries' instructions for DS snipped>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> All fine theoretical stuff, Richard. IIRC Andrea Yates now will be
> against
> >> >> your predictions confronted with a DP-plea.
> >> >
> >> >You asked, if you don't like the answer, don't blame me.
> >>
> >> See, the practice plays the pipe, not the theory. That a decent
> theoretical
> >> reasoning is necessary for to justify torture is self-understanding. The
> >> OUTCOME is what proves the theory for a blunt lie and your own officials
> are
> >> silly enough even to back up the hypocrisy.
> >
> >Jürgen, does the Foreign Minister of Germany speak always for all
> >Germans, or sometimes just for himself?
>
> If questioned by the media about particular decisions of professional kind,
> yep. If in a talk-show, not necessarily. But: NOT ONE will reveal to you a
> gross mismatch of his personal opinion and the policy he represents. What
> you are trying to sell me is concentrated guano; the imagination of the same
> man expressing his nonchalance about CT and reformation publicly as the
> distinctly weighing and only reluctantly deciding to let an execution pass
> is ludicrous to say the least.
Nope, I am saying that the professional politician and the personal
man are two different things. The politician, speaking in a
professional capacity, SHOULD voice official policy. That should
happen, but sometimes doesn't. Our politicians are usually very
careful to make it plain when they are speaking for the government and
when they are not. Perhaps they feel more comfortably speaking freely
than your politicians.
>
> Does the Commander of the
> >army always speak for the army, the government of Germany, or does he
> >sometimes express his own opinion? I'm not even suer the official you
> >speak of in Texas is still in office here. They do have to
> >periodically run for office and be re-elected.
>
> It was by far not only one which spoke such stuff in the camera, Richard.
> I'm in regret for not to have taped the TV-report (also not the only one)
> afew months ago, but it had become quite obvious that this mindset is pretty
> spread among whole the deciders. And: Don't try to tell me that a decider's
> personal opinion were switched off anyhow when just this man is confronted
> with an actual decision. Also don't try to tell me you wouldn't re-elect him
> for that you'd feel this his stance for not justified.
If I felt someone's personal stance was not in the same interest I
had, I would not vote for him. If I felt he supported the things I
did, regardless of the reasons, I might vote for him if there wasn't a
better candidate supporting the same things. All things being equal,
I vote for the candidate who has the best support people to help him.
That is what I did in our last Presidental election. I believe the
present situation after Sept. 11th has supported my choice.
>
> >
> >Officals speak with at least two voices and wear more than one hat.
> >When they are speaking for the government, they speak in an official
> >capacity in the name of the government they serve. When they speak
> >their own opinion, they are speaking for themselves.
>
> Ah yes....for how naive do you guess me, Richard? Of course this man as a
> decider over life and death will say: "Hmmm...it is my personal opinion that
> the condemned XY should die for revenge....nobody even would take note if
> I'd let the execution pass by....but my voters believe in the DP as a SD
> measure, thus, I will do my best to stop the execution against my
> conviction..." Of course, Richard. I regularly can hear the outcry of your
> combattants if seeing a guilty DR-inmate pardoned.
If someone was pardoned and undoubtedly guilty, heads should roll. If
his sentence was commutted to life with no possibility of parole,
perhaps not. I took little note of Henry Lucas' commutation, other
than to note that Henry Lee described at least one murder I am aware
of in detail which he could not have possibly known unless he was
there.
>
> And: The question whether 'CT' and 'SD' play any part in view of the
> decision to let an execution proceed was quite well raised in view of a
> particular case. Thus, outspokenly not a personal statement but rather the
> real, actual decision's fundament was the target of the question and the
> answer quite well was related to a decision to kill a human, not for SD, not
> for CT.
>
<snip>
> >
> >Personally, I think we messed up when we fought Saddam Hussen. If we
> >left him alone, he probably would have solved this problem for us, as
> >he hates the Taliban, and has for some time. We would also probably
> >only have to deal with one nation now rather than a half dozen.
>
> Again you are trying to distinctly locate the problem at Hussein and Iraq.
> That is simply nonsense, this spiritual murderers are high graded active in
> countries like Germany or Florida and elsewhere. Should the Taliban have
> been messed up by Hussein then Bin Laden had searched for another refugium,
> it is as simple. Forget the thinking in borders and recognize the
> virus-characteristics of the whole.
I do, and we need to kill them exactly the way the body kills virus,
one at a time as we get the chance.
>
> >
> >Since we did not see our way to do that, I have other options.
> >Personally I think we should detonate one nuclear device on the Indian
> >side of the Kashmere border and make it look like Pakistan did it. We
> >could then get out of the way and allow the second largest nation in
> >the World to take over.
>
> Jessas Gott....Yeah, now that is the real American Style. Such statements
> and ideas, such disrespect for all existences living beyond your shabby
> borders are the reason for that 2/3 of the world hate you like the devil.
> "American Morality, Where are Thou".
Yes, Jürgen, they hate us. They hate our power and our arrogance.
They also come here ot the tune of half a million student visas per
year alone, and another 6 million temporary visas. This does not even
include the missions of permament visas otherwise for differing
reasons.
<snip>
> >
> >Right. We just started Jürgen. We will either win, or finish the
> >whole mess off.
>
> ....Including yourself. Should the Anthrax-Guys (in YOUR country) see
> the Muslimic World being assaulted in the way you are suggesting they well
> might proceed to spread high-graded infective stuff. Information is the
> weapon against Radicalisms, Richard, and while I agree with military actions
> for to meet direct danger I strongly disagree with the idea to fight with
> armies against ideologies. That does not work.
Armies destroy. That's their purpose. More changes are wrought,
however, by the application of force and violence than all the
diplomats in the world.
<snip>
> >
> >Al Qa'ida is already organized that way.
>
> My words.
>
> We just have to keep killing
> >them whenever we find them until there are not enough left.
>
> Richard. Don't sell the pig before having it caught. For to kill you have to
> *IDENTIFY*.
So we kill those we have just a good suspicion of. Some innocents
die, but how mnany innocents die if we allow any of al Qa'ida to live?
>
> >
> >The war on T started on the plane of intelligence agencies and
> >> there it will proceed for long, long years with uncertain outcome.
> >> Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden is necessary, but don't think for
> a
> >> moment a surrender of the Taliban and a dead Bin Laden were the victory
> in
> >> the war against T.
> >
> >No. It is only the beginning. After al Qa'ida comes others, some in
> >our own nation and yours as well.
> >
> >>
> >> >We pick who our friends are by those who stand with us.
> >>
> >> To stand with you means not to ignore the consequences of this situation
> >> *FOR AMERICA AND US ALL*, Richard.
> >
> >Best jump on full time, Jürgen. Each nation best look to their own
> >borders.
>
> Nope Richard. The isolationistic times just have to be over. Terrorism has
> globalized and internationally joined measures will be the antidot. Nations
> surely have to maintain their own inner-state-shares of the whole task but
> surely not uncoordinated with the others. I barely see any odds for to get
> the goal if not a quantum-skip in solidarity and good-will-cooperation will
> happen instantly.
Yo misunderstood, Jürgen. I meant that we can no longer have nations
where these terrorist can live in peace regardless of their records
and actions within the nation. It is becoming more and more certain
that Germany was one of the safe countries for the people who
organized and carried out the WTC bombings, as well as other
terrorists. German law enforcement is now on the ball with this, but
the effort must keep up within each nation as well as having
international cooperation. cooperation while allow groups to organize
in peace as has happened in Germany with these creeps cannot happen
any longer. Liberalism and personal rights might suffer, but that is
the way it is.
We will never know for sure, but we have given our blood when called
before. We will be even more likely to stand firmly besides those who
are our friends now when they have needs in the future. For example,
I strongly suspect if England gets attacked, the attackers will
immediately face US retrobution as quickly as British. They have
proven what type of allies they are, and when they call in the favor,
we will gladly return it.
>
> >
> >That might sound simplistic, but that is how I read this problem.
> >This thing is going to get right down to an old infantryman's level
> >real quick.
>
> That would be 'Hart wie Kruppstahl' and 'Dumm wie Bohnenstroh', I suppose?
> (ca. 'Hard like (Krupp)-steel' and 'silly like bean-straw', was meant as an
> ironic characterization of German WWII-troops by the NAZIS but met the
> reality pretty well retrospectively)
It wasn't the troops who lost the war for Germany. They did their job
magnificently. Had Hitler allow his commanders to do their job and
not interfered, Europe might well be one German nation today.
From all I studied, Jürgen, German troops were second to none.
Critical strategic decisions at the highest levels wasted men and
critical material, and prevented the armed forces from receiving the
weapons they needed in order to stay successful. The men, especially
the Waffen SS, were some of the best trained troops in the world. It
was politicians who caused the deaths of so many of them, not their
efforts, intelligence, or courage.
>
> War at that level is doing what your have to do to stay
> >alive. If that means killing women and children because some of them
> >killed your buddies and you don't want to let any of them close enough
> >to do the same to you, so be it.
>
> This is plain and simply not the moment for simplicisms, Richard. The
> terrorists *ARE* not to allocate in limited territories, your nuclear bombs
> are fundamentally inappropriate for a fight against terrorism. You can
> destroy as much as you like in this style, you will not prevail this way but
> heat the conflict on and on. Period.
The conflict will continue anyway. We can, if need be, deny much of
the support they get from the Arab world.
>
> If that means killing everyone in an
> >area because you are unable to tell the good guys for bad, so be it.
> >The non-combattants need to stand aside, because everyone else has to
> >die. Either that, or we die.
> >
> >i didn't come to this conclusion lightly, but after talking to Muslims
> >both in person and on the Internet since th 11th.
>
> I dunno your demands, Richard, but should you have entered a discussion like
> "Hi, I'm Richard, the Texan, and I demand for your unlimited support right
> now. Go out, find and kill the terrorists without trial or so, or I will
> kill you" then the outcome of the discussion is pretty clear from the very
> begin on.
>
> In common: Just having read an item what Afghan citizens *KNOW* at all about
> the WTC and the terrible events, i.e. NULL, it is rather clear to me that
> they *CAN* not support you. Same to a lesser degree is valid for many other
> Muslimic states with the bigger share radical regimes, news reaching the man
> on the street are modest and filtered and America is far, furthermore
> violence is the daily bread - what the hell do you expect? Do you really
> think they will say: "Good grief - AMERICANS have been killed - that's
> totally an other affair than the killing in my country. My personal losses
> are neglectable in comparizon with the AMERICANS' thousands of miles away,
> thus, I have to take my Kalashnikov and to fight right now for AMERICA."???
At this point, I could care less, Jürgen. I am an old warrior. I no
longer thirst for blood as once I did, but to be left alone. These
terrorists have come into my nation and attacked us. I take that
personally. I am not angry as a young man gets angry. I am very
angry is a very cold way. I have tried to reason with these folks in
every manner I can think of. There is no reasoning with them. Where
there can be no discussion, there is nothing left but to leave or
fight. We have no other place to go, so we must fight. I fight to
win, Jürgen. It is all or nothing with me because it is now obvious
to me it is all or nothing to them. Before I see the US subjigated to
anyone, I would personally push the button to end it all.
>
>
>
> I've been studying
> >the Qur'an for a couple of years, now, and it appears to me we are
> >about to be engaged in a true jihad in earnest. That type of fight
> >leaves little room for mercy or sentiments.
> >
>
> *All* depends on how you/we will approach to the problem. Let's face the
> fact, as depraved the attack on 9/11 had been, 7.000 dead people are viewing
> the daily events on earth not necessarily the top of cruelty. You are
> sounding like what you are, a wounded animal, disabled of ratio, caught in
> your unexpected vulnerability, and you are prepared for suicide like the
> Islamists, too. Your speach reveals that you yourself became your worst
> enemy, the calculation of the hard-core terrorists was exactly right.
> Your proposal to kill zillions outside your holy boundaries is as cynical as
> convenient, Sir.
Have you ever fought for your very life, Jürgen? I have. A fight for
survival has to be fought with everything you have. You hold nothing
back. You do whatever it takes to survive, because to lose the fight
is to die. That's what I believe we are in now. It's time to suck it
up and do what we have to. Nations with supporters of bin Laden and
al Qa'ida need to take care of the problem themselves. If they need
help, we need to help them. The time of giving lip service to
supporting our cause while helping the terrorist under thaetable as
the Saudis do is over.
Tell me now in this respect, would you then consequently
> vote for mass executions of Muslimic American citizens without trial and
> charge, too?
>
> Jürgen
If that was needed, Jürgen. If it became apparent that they were
directly involved in attempting the destruction of this nation, their
lives are forfet as well. Personally, though, I think a far better
punishment *in that situation* (please note the qualifcation) is to
deny to them forever, the citizenship and rights of our nation.
Provide transport for them and theirs to a Muslim nation of their
choice and leave them there. They would, if supporting terrorism, be
denied reentry in the US upon pain of immediate execution.
If the things I say seem hard, perhaps it is because i've been in hard
times and places before. I literally fought for my life on more than
one occasion, and in more than one way. Such things require a
hardening of the heart to survive. The terrorist know this, and have
methods for doing this in their terrorism manuals provided by al
Qa'ida. We have to be just as hard or harder. When it is just you
and someone trying to kill you, there is no grey area. It is pretty
black and white. That seems simplistic, but it is also reality.
Don't take my word for it, there are still plenty of German WWII
veterans who fought in the lines. Ask them about this type of fight.
If they talk to you, and are willing to remember, they will tell you
the same.
--
Richard Jackson
SASSYWITCH26
A: We spend way to much of our hard earned money paying taxes to keep
creatins like that in prison locked up for life, it is cheaper and easier to
execute them.
B: The bible says an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.
"arc1978" <arc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:hy9C7.123276$Pr1.31...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> All is simply a question of morality. Statistics are really
> inconsequential. One should not fight a battle of morality with numbers.
> Telling me how expensive it is to keep a convicted felon in prison does
very
> little to convince me that my tax dollars would be wasted by doing the
right
> thing (life w/o parole).
>
> This issue should never be considered as a popularity contest. Death and
> murder are not topics to be thought of lightly. Nothing is justified by
> being popular or convenient. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal.
>
> I pose the question: what goal does one reach by executing a felon?
>
> A. You remove him from society, making everyone feel safer for not having
a
> murderer in the flock.
>
> B. Revenge
>
> Seems to me that if I were to take criminal John Doe to a maximum security
> prison for the rest of his life, not too many people walking the streets
> will bump into him anymore, thus nullifying reason A.
>
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
"SASSYWITCH26" <sassyw...@passthebowl.com> wrote:
> You are correct to a point but think of this.
>
> A: We spend way to much of our hard earned money paying taxes to keep
> creatins like that in prison locked up for life, it is cheaper and easier
> to
> execute them.
Which is, of course, complete bullshit. It has been demonstrated to be
so time and time again.
Money has nothing to do with this issue. It's about either society's
safety or justice depending on your perspective.
> B: The bible says an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.
I don't give a foetid rat's arse about what the sodding Bible says. The
Bible also, IIRC, says that adulterers and homosexuals should be
executed by stoning. On that basis alone, it is sufficient to regard
said tome as baloney.
In a state where church and state are supposedly separate, it seems
rather odd to use the Bible as a basis of the justice system. I trust
that your views are simply uninformed and that most of the laws of the
USA are not based on the Bible.
Mr Q. Z. D. ((o))
---- ((O))
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"And when I'm dead
If you could tell them this;
What was wood became alive." - Suzanne Vega, Kaspar Hauser's Song.
Jürgen
SASSYWITCH26 schrieb in Nachricht ...
>You are correct to a point but think of this.
>
>A: We spend way to much of our hard earned money paying taxes to keep
>creatins like that in prison locked up for life, it is cheaper and easier
to
>execute them.
>
>
>B: The bible says an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.
>
Now, A PLANET VISITOR???
How long I had to wait for this argument? One, Two or Three Days?
J.
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht ..
<....>
>> >
>> >Oh, I see. It is only in death penalty cases that the prosecution is
>> >very good and the defense very poor.
>>
>> No, Richard, not so. I think the set of DP-cases is a subset of the
>> weak-defense cases' set. Other said, weak defense is necessary condition
for
>> a DP-*plea* but not a sufficient one.
>
>That depends on what you call a weak defense. If you are talking
>about inept lawyers, then I think you are incorrect assuming a DA
>would file for the DP just on that basis. If you are saying that DA's
>tend to file capital charges on cases only where they have a strong
>case for such, I tend to agree. The latter is only common sense.
>Most decent attorneys will argue the strongest, not the weakest, case
>they have.
Well, I think two parameters have to be given for a DP-plea. For to view
them bear in mind always the EXTREME effords about the prosecution to
PREPARE any DP-plea at all. Then the prosecutor will think over to take the
burden and to make the exhausting and expensive effords in view of his odds
to *MAKE THE CASE*, and if he feels the odds for bad then he will *NOT*
prepare a DP-plea, not even if he'd feel it for appropriate. Thus, two
things will be necessary for his decision to go for a death-sentence,
TOTALLY independent from the factual severity of the crime:
(1) The crime must be fit to cause fervent emotions (crime-scene or the
quality of the victim)
(2) The defense should not range on a too advanced level.
This are the ONLY requirements to check by any prosecutor for to select
DP-cases sucessfully. Whether the accused actually imagines any CT or not or
whether the crime happened in any most exceptional mental state of the
offender - questions that actually *SHOULD* import - ,such is totally
meaningless just in view whether the prosecutor can make his terrible race
or not. Thus, not the style of criminals you want to see on DR are there but
a selection under (1) and (2); no prosecutor ever will make the effords to
head for the DP if he feels his case for lost a priori.
Don't get me wrong, the people accused have in common committed horrible
crimes, but the mode of selection is inappropriate for to make a reasonable
selection of the worst of the worst out of the guilties' set. Thus, the
"strongest cases" has another means than supposed by you.
>>...Such is WAY from prejudice.
>
>Prejudice is simply the notion that something is bad or good despite
>what one is told about it because of a preconceived notion of one type
>or another. I believe you tend to display that about all death
>penalty cases despite the evidence in any single case because you feel
>as you do.
That is not true. Should you have followed my argumentation you'd know that
I often promised to shut up when/if to *ANY* comdemned actually can be
assigned a continuing threat, not by simply calling his effords to learn and
improve on DR for liarish in a terrible generalizing way but by making a
serious consideration whether a 10-20 years old prediction of 12 laypersons
still can be upheld today.
That doesn't make you wrong, necesarily, or a bad person,
>just prejudiced in this case because of your beliefs. Hell, Jürgen,
>we all have prejudices of one type or another. Admitting that we have
>them is sometimes difficult to face, but they are there non-the-less.
I dunno whether you read the recent discussion with PV when he tried to sell
me the existence of absolutely 'objective' views (implicitely claiming this
for himself by trying to devaluate my perceptions in comparizon to his, of
course). Such *DOES NOT* exist and the *only* way to speak in a relative way
from any stance's 'objectivity' is after viewing - as a single person - the
issue from as many perspectives as possible and to gather a multitude of
other opinions. I think I did so pretty well over my presence here and
before, and the outcome of my fervent standpoint against the DP is a
convergence of all the points For AND Against. You quite well can present to
me a couple of cases which don't cause me to feel any compassion for the
criminal, but the mostly overwhelming number will be cases eliciting my
comment: 'He is guilty but does in comparizon with other guilties not
deserve to die, especially after having served a time in prison for his
crime that comes close to the ENTIRE penalty in most other cases of no
lesser guilt.'
......If the defense lawyer slept in the phase not directly concerned
with
guilt
>> or innocence, if he slept for instant while the (prosecution's)
psychologist
>> made his statements about future threat, or if he slept instead to point
>> emphatically at any mitigant circumstances on behalf of his defendant
then
>> this is unimportant.
>
>You translate what others say rather than ask them. To me his
>statement simply means that each case is different, and the act of
>sleeping, by a defense attorney, while undesirable and poor
>professionalism, may or may not in and of itself, influence the
>trueness of a trial's outcome.
Oh, I see. This means the SC in their clairvoyance know the outcome of the
trial under the assumed conditions of a defense awake and skilly all along
the trial, too, do they?
I "translated" under the general observation that there *ARE* no
"unimportant" phases of any trial. Either there are witnessess reporting or
substantial evidence is examined or psychologists are testifying or
attorneys are pleading. Name me any phase that you'd regard for unimportant,
Richard. As long as this "unimportant" phases are not determined I will
guess them to be just the phases when the crucial questions about
culpability and mitigant circumstances are discussed, means the sentencing
phase.
>
>A question here. Had the prosecutor dozed and his client won, would
>you yess traversty of justice as loud for the prosecution's sake?
This situation, means a prosecutor generally trying to gain political
publicity-points with DP-cases snoring while the trial, is so far fetched
that I never wasted a thought on, to be honest.
....It's a DP-inherent
>> problem that you are bound to exclude an entire philosophy, admittedly
>> represented by a minority but a rather large one, from *ANY* contribution
to
>> the trial. "Moderate thought? - Keep off!"
>
>Nope, it eliminates prejudiced jurors from keeping the whole jury from
>determining which punishment is most appropriate.
Well, let's view any hypothetical case from two perspectives.
(1) The perspective of the victim and his related; parents have lost a
beloved son/daughter for the intentional act of an individual, a human being
has been frauded his life and luck. A murder has happened, the most terrible
crime to an individual and his relatives.
(2) The perspective of the offender; despite undoubted guilt there are in
common several points beyond his responsibility permitting to get sight of
a) why he ended up as a murderer and therefore b) the existence of mitigant
circumstances despite the irreversibility of his act.
Very, very often now one can observe the total drop of (2) by people
agreeing for principle with the DP. They even are literally appalled and
become aggressive if (2) comes into play, they regard an even *rational*
evaluation of the culpability of the offender for an assault to (1), a
devaluation of the victim, while the real intention is a totally other one.
They are disabled by (1) to view (2) because they fear to get a murderer's
lover instantly with viewing (2), just *because* view (2) *requires* to
leave view (1) mentally *for an instant*.
Thus, many, many "death-qualified" jurors will not be able to distinct
rationally between cases of full vs reduced culpability because the
*FORBIDDEN* view (2) is essential for to do so.
This is the most difficult problem regarding DP-jury-selection, by far more
problematic than to exclude abolitionists, and it is well known, however,
unsolved. Referring to the folks right here I think PV were the only one
gradually enabled at least to attempt to weigh (1) and (2).
Personally, Ithink
>the two phases of capital trials should have two levels of burden of
>proof. I think the guilt phase should be unamious, and the penalty
>phase a majority, say nine out of twelve jurors agreeing on a
>punishment. In this way, the requirement for asking potential jurors
>about their belief of the use of the death pnealty could be
>eliminated, ...
sorry to interrupt, but radical DP-jurors are at least as unwanted as
abolitionists, see above. The jury selection will remain as difficult as
now.
...and everyone could serve on a capital trial as long as
>they state they can find a fair verdict based upon presented evidence.
> This would also be close to allowing the same ratio of abolitionists
>to serve on such a jury as is in the general population, without
>creating a totally prejudiced finding based upon personal beliefs.
>just a thought.
So then in the sentencing phase of the jurors' discussion the three
abolitionists probably are sitting aside playing poker while the nine are
discussing the penalty...their taking part in the discussion would lead
instantly to heavy controverses about principle standpoints.
<snip>
>> >Not at all. In my case, the end justifies the means, and if some
>> >officials wish to execute because of revenge, it does not bother me,
>> >as long as my goals are served.
>>
>> Hmmm...'The end justifies the means' you're claiming on the one hand, and
on
>> the other 'The DP is a reluctantly applicated ultimate measure'??
>
>Yep. Because the death penalty should be reluctantly applied.
The DP **IS NOT** reluctantly applied. THAT your officials *dare* speaking
of a 15 years old guilt and the DP as the prize to pay for it *regardless*
remorse and reformation, *means* nothing other than that they feel in good
company with the general public, Richard. Not at all reluctantly, a
demonstration of harshness for community but surely not the ultimate measure
after a distinct check of possible less violent and gruesome measures.
That
>does not mean it is not necessary, and if someone else feels we need
>to do this for revenge, it does not change my reason for supporting
>it.
You should start to see the difference here. If someone - the deciders -
feel revenge for sufficient to execute then they simply will not execute the
set of offenders addressed by your reasons.
That is their thought, not mine. We both just happen to have the
>same ultimate goal, to see qualifying murderers executed.
Well, **ANY** murderer "qualifies" for revenge, so at the moment you agree
for convenient reasons with your officials by joining in into the choir
devaluating a human's insight in his guilt and his attempts to do better you
factually are dropping the SD-claim. Either you want the DP for SD, then a
*reasonable* continuing threat should be the cause for to execute anyone, or
you are indifferent enough to agree with a careless application of the DP.
Any claim like: "My officials say they don't care for CT but only for G/I
but I chose to see all the executions promoted by just them for SD because
it makes the argument on AADP easier" means to lean back in your seat quite
comfortable. In this respect I yet am missing a statement to the officials'
agreement with Andrea Yates having to face a DP-plea (recall in this case
the requirements (1) and (2) above: emotion and weak defense).
<political discussion snipped, standpoints sufficiently clear, I think>
Jürgen
Richard Jackson
> In article <oAqD7.33185$IR4.19...@news1.denver1.co.home.com>,
> "SASSYWITCH26" <sassyw...@passthebowl.com> wrote:
>
> > You are correct to a point but think of this.
> >
> > A: We spend way to much of our hard earned money paying taxes to keep
> > creatins like that in prison locked up for life, it is cheaper and easier
> > to
> > execute them.
>
> Which is, of course, complete bullshit. It has been demonstrated to be
> so time and time again.
It is, indeed, more expensive on the whole to execute a criminal in
the US, mainly because of the extensive reviews in the US court
system. If the original poster is willing to do away with
Constitutional protection, executions could be quick and cheap.
Fortunately, most people are not willing to do that.
>
> Money has nothing to do with this issue. It's about either society's
> safety or justice depending on your perspective.
Or even revenge. I agree, however, the issue is definitely not money.
>
> > B: The bible says an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.
>
> I don't give a foetid rat's arse about what the sodding Bible says. The
> Bible also, IIRC, says that adulterers and homosexuals should be
> executed by stoning. On that basis alone, it is sufficient to regard
> said tome as baloney.
Now wait a minute. Someone else might feel those are totally just
punishments for what they see as sin. This is a personal issue of
morality more than a legal issue. I would ask "Sassywitch26" the
following question: It is true the Bible says to take an eye for an
eye. In the Gospel, we are told to love our enemy as ourselves, and
to "Turn the other cheek" That the WORD if you are Christian, so how
can you say one part of the Bible wants revenge while a later, more
direct part, says forgiveness and love is the way? You just can't use
one part of the Bible and not use the whole of its teachings.
>
> In a state where church and state are supposedly separate, it seems
> rather odd to use the Bible as a basis of the justice system. I trust
> that your views are simply uninformed and that most of the laws of the
> USA are not based on the Bible.
>
> Mr Q. Z. D. ((o))
> ---- ((O))
> Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
> "And when I'm dead
> If you could tell them this;
> What was wood became alive." - Suzanne Vega, Kaspar Hauser's Song.
I would say that the concepts of Christianity are embodied in the laws
of the US, but then so are the concepts of Islam, the Jewish faith,
and other great faiths. There are common values which I believe
people of good character always find worthwhile. These values have
developed among mankind because they have beneficial effects within
society which helps society and mankind prosper. These common values
are found in most faiths and will, of necessity, be reflected in the
laws of a nation if that nation is free.
-
Richard Jackson
John Rennie
John Rennie
news:<diablo-EA3F67....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > In article <oAqD7.33185$IR4.19...@news1.denver1.co.home.com>,
> > "SASSYWITCH26" <sassyw...@passthebowl.com> wrote:
snipped everything I agree with
> >
> > > B: The bible says an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.
> >
> > I don't give a foetid rat's arse about what the sodding Bible says. The
> > Bible also, IIRC, says that adulterers and homosexuals should be
> > executed by stoning. On that basis alone, it is sufficient to regard
> > said tome as baloney.
>
> Now wait a minute. Someone else might feel those are totally just
> punishments for what they see as sin. This is a personal issue of
> morality more than a legal issue. I would ask "Sassywitch26" the
> following question: It is true the Bible says to take an eye for an
> eye. In the Gospel, we are told to love our enemy as ourselves, and
> to "Turn the other cheek" That the WORD if you are Christian, so how
> can you say one part of the Bible wants revenge while a later, more
> direct part, says forgiveness and love is the way? You just can't use
> one part of the Bible and not use the whole of its teachings.
The trouble is Richard that the Old and New testaments are at variance
with each other on many points. Quite frankly the God of the Old
Testament is a jealous vindictive and agressive old sod who has
as about as much in common with that of the New Testament as FRANK
has with you. The testaments might be in one book but that is their only
similarity.
>
> >
> > In a state where church and state are supposedly separate, it seems
> > rather odd to use the Bible as a basis of the justice system. I trust
> > that your views are simply uninformed and that most of the laws of the
> > USA are not based on the Bible.
> >
> > Mr Q. Z. D. ((o))
> > ---- ((O))
> > Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round
bastard.
> > "And when I'm dead
> > If you could tell them this;
> > What was wood became alive." - Suzanne Vega, Kaspar Hauser's Song.
>
> I would say that the concepts of Christianity are embodied in the laws
> of the US, but then so are the concepts of Islam, the Jewish faith,
> and other great faiths. There are common values which I believe
> people of good character always find worthwhile. These values have
> developed among mankind because they have beneficial effects within
> society which helps society and mankind prosper. These common values
> are found in most faiths and will, of necessity, be reflected in the
> laws of a nation if that nation is free.
>
> -
> Richard Jackson
Your declaration of independence, constitution, bill of rights etc
were not thought out and written by Christians. Jefferson, Madison
etc took pride in the fact that they were not Christians which is the
reason that the president-elect need not swear an oath when taking
office, he can affirm. (Just in case Mark tells me off, I am aware that
the treasonous Americans knicked our bill of rights).
Richard Jackson
> "Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
> news:8cb86b49.01103...@posting.google.com...
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:<diablo-EA3F67....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > > In article <oAqD7.33185$IR4.19...@news1.denver1.co.home.com>,
> > > "SASSYWITCH26" <sassyw...@passthebowl.com> wrote:
>
> snipped everything I agree with
>
> > >
> > > > B: The bible says an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.
> > >
> > > I don't give a foetid rat's arse about what the sodding Bible says. The
> > > Bible also, IIRC, says that adulterers and homosexuals should be
> > > executed by stoning. On that basis alone, it is sufficient to regard
> > > said tome as baloney.
> >
> > Now wait a minute. Someone else might feel those are totally just
> > punishments for what they see as sin. This is a personal issue of
> > morality more than a legal issue. I would ask "Sassywitch26" the
> > following question: It is true the Bible says to take an eye for an
> > eye. In the Gospel, we are told to love our enemy as ourselves, and
> > to "Turn the other cheek" That the WORD if you are Christian, so how
> > can you say one part of the Bible wants revenge while a later, more
> > direct part, says forgiveness and love is the way? You just can't use
> > one part of the Bible and not use the whole of its teachings.
>
> The trouble is Richard that the Old and New testaments are at variance
> with each other on many points.
Not really. Just as the Prophet Muhammed is thought to have brought
new definition ot the old faith of Arbaham, so do Christians feel
Jesus fullfilled and clarified the faith.
Quite frankly the God of the Old
> Testament is a jealous vindictive and agressive old sod who has
> as about as much in common with that of the New Testament as FRANK
> has with you. The testaments might be in one book but that is their only
> similarity.
I agree. The Old Testiment basically chronicles the history of and
religious laws of the Jews. Those laws were changed by Jesus (if you
are a believer) who fullfilled the legends of the Messiah, and he
defined them. Not really at odds, just different viewpoints.
In any case, your point appears the same as mine. In the end,
attempting to use the Bible to argue a point is difficult at best,
impossible most times. If a person attempts to take one or two
passages out of context to justify a particular cause, they are doomed
to failure.
--
Richard Jackson
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>>
>>
>> PV claimed the **alleged** - against truth, of course - cost-reduction
by
>> executions not to be a retentionist argument. All along, almost weekly
now I
>> see any ret-post claiming this. That's all.
>>
>> J.
>
>I get the impression you don't pay much attention to abolitionist
>posts not addressed to you specifically, since you have no
>argument with them, and hope to concentrate your subjective
>views on those in favor of the DP. Thus, it's hardly relevant
>for you to claim you never see abolitionist posts that express
>how 'money' should drive the abolition of the DP.
>
>PV
Comment, s'il vous plaīt? *I* claimed?? No, Sir *you* claimed: Money hardly
to be a retentionist argument. Now one day later; Sassywitch26:
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9rp7pv$qf2$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
> >>
> >>
> >> PV claimed the **alleged** - against truth, of course - cost-reduction
> by
> >> executions not to be a retentionist argument. All along, almost weekly
> now I
> >> see any ret-post claiming this. That's all.
> >>
> >> J.
> >
> >I get the impression you don't pay much attention to abolitionist
> >posts not addressed to you specifically, since you have no
> >argument with them, and hope to concentrate your subjective
> >views on those in favor of the DP. Thus, it's hardly relevant
> >for you to claim you never see abolitionist posts that express
> >how 'money' should drive the abolition of the DP.
> >
> >PV
>
> to be a retentionist argument. Now one day later; Sassywitch26:
>
> "A: We spend way to much of our hard earned money paying taxes to keep
> creatins like that in prison locked up for life, it is cheaper and easier to
> execute them."
>
read!! Jun, 2001.
"How much is usually spent *per victim killed* on securing the
guilty??"
Shall we begin trading examples??
PV
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
hardly
>> to be a retentionist argument. Now one day later; Sassywitch26:
>>
>> "A: We spend way to much of our hard earned money paying taxes to keep
>> creatins like that in prison locked up for life, it is cheaper and easier
to
>> execute them."
>>
>From Brian Sandle, an abolitionist in thread - "Blatant troll - do not
>read!! Jun, 2001.
>
>"How much is usually spent *per victim killed* on securing the
>guilty??"
>
>Shall we begin trading examples??
>
occasionally. You however well claimed the cost argument for not existent on
the ret. side except if rosen by ab. first. This is untrue and you know it,
ret. often do argue with executions as allegedly to be 'cheaper'.
"Win at all costs" can quite well flip into ludicrosity: Your claim was and
is wrong. Dead Line.
J.
A Plenary Verbositor
"A Planet Visitor" wrote:
>
> "Jürgen" wrote:
> >
> > A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> PV claimed the **alleged** - against truth, of course -
cost-reduction
> > by
> > >> executions not to be a retentionist argument. All along, almost
weekly
> > now I
> > >> see any ret-post claiming this. That's all.
> > >>
> > >> J.
> > >
> > >I get the impression you don't pay much attention to abolitionist
> > >posts not addressed to you specifically, since you have no
> > >argument with them, and hope to concentrate your subjective
> > >views on those in favor of the DP. Thus, it's hardly relevant
> > >for you to claim you never see abolitionist posts that express
> > >how 'money' should drive the abolition of the DP.
> > >
> > >PV
> >
> > Comment, s'il vous plaīt? *I* claimed?? No, Sir *you* claimed: Money
hardly
> > to be a retentionist argument. Now one day later; Sassywitch26:
> >
> > "A: We spend way to much of our hard earned money paying taxes to keep
> > creatins like that in prison locked up for life, it is cheaper and
easier to
> > execute them."
Only cretins believe "creatin" is a word.
> >
> From Brian Sandle, an abolitionist in thread - "Blatant troll - do not
> read!! Jun, 2001.
>
> "How much is usually spent *per victim killed* on securing the
> guilty??"
>
> Shall we begin trading examples??
>
> PV
>
Reviving a hopelessly ambiguous question posed by another poster four
months ago is obsessively asinine, since it is by its nature incapable of
meaningful answer. With no clear explication of its subject, "trading" even
_instances_ of what it might have been is a time trap for fools.
An _example_ of something is a particular instance of it, presented to
render its general characteristics more readily understood. Thus, while the
WTC is an _instance_ of multiple murder which qualifies for the death
penalty, it is not by any reasonable measure an _example_ of one.
There can be more than one example presented to aid in explaining the
general characteristics of its subject matter. But all true examples _must_
have those same characteristics. To be useful, general characteristics
must be relevant, i.e., having a tendency in reason to prove or disprove a
matter in dispute.
His Flatulency "Planet Visitor" has only disputed logic and rationality
here, albeit on multiple levels. Thus, his invitation to Jürgen to "trade
examples" of unconnected factoids ad nauseum only marks him once again as a
time vampire, and left Jürgen's points totally unrebutted.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9rpuub$iep$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> hardly
> >> to be a retentionist argument. Now one day later; Sassywitch26:
> >>
> >> "A: We spend way to much of our hard earned money paying taxes to keep
> >> creatins like that in prison locked up for life, it is cheaper and easier
> to
> >> execute them."
> >>
> >From Brian Sandle, an abolitionist in thread - "Blatant troll - do not
> >read!! Jun, 2001.
> >
> >"How much is usually spent *per victim killed* on securing the
> >guilty??"
> >
> >Shall we begin trading examples??
> >
> See... I NEVER claimed the cost argument for not to be raised by ab.
> occasionally. You however well claimed the cost argument for not existent on
> the ret. side except if rosen by ab. first. This is untrue and you know it,
> ret. often do argue with executions as allegedly to be 'cheaper'.
>
Well, YOU are simply not true. I NEVER claimed the cost argument
was 'non-existent' on the retentionist side. My EXACT words were --
"I hardly find that to be the argument of the retentionist in general.
Quite the contrary, I often find the abolitionist complains about the
cost of completing the process of applying the DP compared to a
lifetime of incarceration. The argument is often used by abolitionists
to advance their cause in the name of monetary gain to society."
Now if you can find a meaning of 'non-existent' in those words, you
understand less English than I've given you credit for.
The original post in THIS thread began with an abolitionist
complaining about the cost of execution, saying "Telling me how
expensive it is to keep a convicted felon in prison does very little
to convince me that my tax dollars would be wasted by doing
the right thing (life w/o parole)."
I questioned this, as above. You then referred to another
poster, a retentionist, sassywitch26, as proving the inaccuracy
of my claim.
Yet, you simply providing one example in the face of another
clear example in the thread I was responding to, is hardly
evidence that my statement was NOT TRUE. And I provided
another example to demonstrate that arc1978 was not the ONLY
abolitionist who ever complained about the cost of execution.
> "Win at all costs" can quite well flip into ludicrosity: Your claim was and
> is wrong. Dead Line.
My claim is certainly not wrong, since I never claimed
posts from retentionists concerning the cost of incarceration
were 'non-existent.' That was YOUR word. You'll not find
it in MY posts. I find a certain example of 'win at all costs'
in YOUR arguments to my posts with you often distorting the
points I clearly make, as you've done here. You've
demonstrated here one of the flaws you have in your
posting style. You do tend to EXAGGERATE, and distort.
Since 'in general' and 'often' -- words that I used --- do not
imply 'non-existent' by ANY stretch of the imagination. And
this is the reason why I believe I can show two posts from
abolitionists who would institute arguments over the cost of
execution for every one retentionist who would institute
arguments to the contrary. You see, IN GENERAL I feel
some abolitionists really BELIEVE that cost has some relevance
to our argument here, because of the literature which tends to
support this argument, while retentionists GENERALLY DO
NOT CARE about the cost. Of course, I recognize that
sassywitch26 seems to care about money, proving only that
not all retentionists are as altruistic as I would like them to be.
Nor do I consider her/him to be representative of a reasonable
retentionist, since I simple refuse to believe one can find reason
in claiming an execution of a human, ANY HUMAN, is 'easier.'
PV
>
> J.
A Planet Visitor
"A Plenary Verbositor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message news:3be0...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
>
>
>
> "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jürgen" wrote:
>
> > >
> > > A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> PV claimed the **alleged** - against truth, of course -
> cost-reduction
> > > by
> > > >> executions not to be a retentionist argument. All along, almost
> weekly
> > > now I
> > > >> see any ret-post claiming this. That's all.
> > > >>
> > > >> J.
> > > >
> > > >I get the impression you don't pay much attention to abolitionist
> > > >posts not addressed to you specifically, since you have no
> > > >argument with them, and hope to concentrate your subjective
> > > >views on those in favor of the DP. Thus, it's hardly relevant
> > > >for you to claim you never see abolitionist posts that express
> > > >how 'money' should drive the abolition of the DP.
> > > >
> > > >PV
> > >
> hardly
> > > to be a retentionist argument. Now one day later; Sassywitch26:
> > >
> > > "A: We spend way to much of our hard earned money paying taxes to keep
> > > creatins like that in prison locked up for life, it is cheaper and
> easier to
> > > execute them."
>
> Only cretins believe "creatin" is a word.
>
> > >
> > From Brian Sandle, an abolitionist in thread - "Blatant troll - do not
> > read!! Jun, 2001.
> >
> > "How much is usually spent *per victim killed* on securing the
> > guilty??"
> >
> > Shall we begin trading examples??
> >
> > PV
> >
> Reviving a hopelessly ambiguous question posed by another poster four
> months ago is obsessively asinine
Responding in a 'sock puppet' mode to another poster is also
obsessively asinine.
<rest of 'sock puppet's' obsessive asininity clipped>
PV
John Rennie
snipped
>
>
> "I hardly find that to be the argument of the retentionist in general.
> Quite the contrary, I often find the abolitionist complains about the
> cost of completing the process of applying the DP compared to a
> lifetime of incarceration. The argument is often used by abolitionists
> to advance their cause in the name of monetary gain to society."
>
Try to be fair PV. It is the retentionists who frequently complain
about the cost of keeping murderers alive and giving them three
square meals a day for the rest of their lives. The cost argument is
only raised as a response to this nonsense, I know of no abolitionist
who is an abolitionist because it is the cheaper option.
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:Dy5E7.586575$8c3.91...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
There you go again - determine to counter the insults
but ignoring the excellent arguments - sad.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:29aE7.40183$GA.61...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
money is mentioned as a consideration in the DP, it is GENERALLY
the abolitionist who FIRST brings up the subject. They do this
because there is extensive data that would SUPPORT such a
belief. And they do this because they hold a strong feeling that
more money is invested in prosecution than is available to the
defense. Meanwhile, the retentionist usually has to rely on the fact
that they do not CARE about the money issue. I have myself
responded to many arguments from abolitionists who bring up
the cost factor and I have ALWAYS argued that we SHOULD
insure equality toward the cost involved in prosecution and
defense, while in respect to the cost of execution in comparison
to L wop... "I do not care." IMHO, money should not be an object
in the examination of the concept of the DP. And it is ironic
that YOU at one point, brought up the cost of execution in a
past post of your own, the first part of May 01, in the thread
"Re: Who wants to execute a millionaire?' Let me quote you --
"The facts that it is also a wasteful procedure that costs the
US taxpayer far more than life imprisonment is a secondary
consideration but still important."
PV
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:EcaE7.40194$GA.61...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
a clear example of what I referred to, and it met with a
claim from my 'sock puppet' that I was being 'obsessively
asinine' for DOING SO? How does one defend what one
says unless permitted to provide examples of what was
meant? If anyone feels the quote I provided was ambiguous,
a link was provided to search the entire thread in goggle.
I certainly am not here to provide EVERY word that went
into that thread. If it can be refuted by a PREVIOUS
comment in that thread, I'm certainly open to discussing
that. But it's disingenuous of both 'Plumbing Vomit' and
yourself to simply call it 'obsessively asinine,' for me to
defend what I've said through providing an example.
PV
John Rennie
Yes that's right - it is a secondary consideration not a primary
one. I think your little quote has adequately proved my point.
However the rest of your response does rather substantiate
something the rest of us know only too well. You see only
what you want to see not what is actually fact. Time and time
again retentionists shout out about the cost of keeping
murderers alive and yet you state "it is GENERALLY
the abolitionist who FIRST brings up the subject." No it
isn't but a flat denial wont cut any ice with you. In some
matters you are, as the theologians say, invincibly ignorant.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:2xgE7.43744$GA.65...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
this thread. And your comment was not repeated by me to
argue such a point, since I believe it is neither secondary or
primary... but is in fact inconsequential. The argument here
is as my FIRST post in this thread mentioned, which is still
shown at the beginning of this particular post. Now, I have
provided three examples - the originator of this thread, a Brian
Sandle, and yourself... ALL abolitionists... and all having brought
up the cost of execution without any prompting from a retentionist.
Now if that doesn't show the GENERALITY of what I claimed,
how many examples would you like? Whether cost is or
isn't greater in execution is NOT a subject I will discuss as
I mentioned in my FIRST post in this thread... because it is
immoral in my view to place a monetary value on a human life.
And what is 'invincibly ignorant' is to be confronted with absolute
proof that you have been guilty of EXACTLY what I refer to,
yet would try to deny it. Mentioning that it is 'secondary' does
not make it any more 'clean' then mentioning it at all. Of course,
IMHO.
PV
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
Well, your standpoint of money as not of import if a human's life would
depend upon doubtlessly honors you. Nevertheless all along retentionist
statements like 'kill the DR-inmates and save my tax-$' clearly are to read
right here, and these are in no way provoked by abolitionists anyway.
Now better informed retentionists will either avoid the cost argument
entirely (the best they can do) or express their agreement with the much
higher expenses.
Abolitionists have a very good reason to raise the cost issue, however.
Wasting one $ million on each state-killing means not to spend this money on
issues like crime-prevention or rehab. Thus, probably many more lives could
be saved without the DP.
*Despite* the cost argument as supporting abolition I see it raised at least
as frequently by retentionists (misinformed or cynical) as by abolitionists.
You accused me not to read abolitionist posts, I however rather have the
feeling that you aren't reading *your* fellow's posts.
J.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9rsfg3$ur3$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
I HAVE NO STANDPOINT on money. I have entered this thread
as an argument AGAINST any discussion of money in respect to
the DP. If YOU feel money is relevant to the DP argument, then
YOU are placing a monetary value on human life.
> Nevertheless all along retentionist
> statements like 'kill the DR-inmates and save my tax-$' clearly are to read
> right here, and these are in no way provoked by abolitionists anyway.
>
Jesus... sometimes you can be VERY stupid!
> Now better informed retentionists will either avoid the cost argument
> entirely (the best they can do) or express their agreement with the much
> higher expenses.
No... avoiding the cost argument entirely is thoroughly appropriate
in a moral view of human life. Expressing 'agreement' to a comment
directed to the cost of execution is hardly relevant to my argument,
WHOEVER does so. I will argue neither FOR nor AGAINST such
obviously inappropriate valuing of human life. I will ONLY argue that
it is inappropriate to argue the subject entirely, which is what I always
say when the subject is broached. Recognize that was what I said
in the FIRST response of mine in this thread where I wrote --
"nor do I find it (the cost argument of the DP) has any moral validity
if it is correct."
Apparently there are some abolitionists here who refuse to let
the subject go. What does that tell you?
> Abolitionists have a very good reason to raise the cost issue, however.
> Wasting one $ million on each state-killing means not to spend this money on
> issues like crime-prevention or rehab. Thus, probably many more lives could
> be saved without the DP.
>
Crap... total unmitigated crap. You are of course, by your own
admission now attempting to PLACE a dollar value on human life.
Regardless of what you say costs more or less, you MUST
realize that's what you're now trying to say.
> *Despite* the cost argument as supporting abolition I see it raised at least
> as frequently by retentionists (misinformed or cynical) as by abolitionists.
> You accused me not to read abolitionist posts, I however rather have the
> feeling that you aren't reading *your* fellow's posts.
>
No you don't, Jürgen. And you well know that as a fact. You
simply don't pay that much attention to posts from abolitionists,
because they have your agenda. You should look at ALL of your
posts to recognize that you almost always respond ONLY to
abolitionists. I do the same in a contrary position. But I ADMIT
it. You, however, are living in la la delusion land. I've found
lately that your arguments are becoming more and more directed
toward believing that ALL retentionists are 'evil' as Earl attempts
to do. Certainly you've expressed the view that all members of
P&P boards are 'evil,' because they do not consider 'pity' in examining
the possibility of returning murderers to society. You should
understand that the reasons some retentionists support the DP
are because they RECOGNIZE 'evil' and are profoundly affected
emotionally by that 'evil.' I know that is behind MY support for
the DP. You sometimes forget that fact, and would try to portray
all retentionists as 'evil' for being affected in that way.
PV
> J.
>
>
>
A Plenary Verbositor
"Jürgen" wrote
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
<snipped>
> Well, your standpoint of money as not of import if a human's life would
> depend upon doubtlessly honors you. Nevertheless all along retentionist
> statements like 'kill the DR-inmates and save my tax-$' clearly are to
read
> right here, and these are in no way provoked by abolitionists anyway.
>
> Now better informed retentionists will either avoid the cost argument
> entirely (the best they can do) or express their agreement with the much
> higher expenses.
> Abolitionists have a very good reason to raise the cost issue, however.
> Wasting one $ million on each state-killing means not to spend this money
on
> issues like crime-prevention or rehab. Thus, probably many more lives
could
> be saved without the DP.
>
> *Despite* the cost argument as supporting abolition I see it raised at
least
> as frequently by retentionists (misinformed or cynical) as by
abolitionists.
> You accused me not to read abolitionist posts, I however rather have the
> feeling that you aren't reading *your* fellow's posts.
>
Jürgen, "Planet Visitor" is not human, s/he/it posts from a planet whose
atmosphere is obviously lethal to the human brain. Debating that creature
is a waste of precious time. Unless, of course, you want to live in its
world, where every day is Halloween.
A Planet Visitor
"A Plenary Verbositor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message news:3be1...@post.usenet.com...
Ho hum. 'Plenary Verbositor' is simply 'Desmond Coughlan' without
the pizzazz. How perfectly trite.
PV
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
<snip>
>> >
>>
>> Well, your standpoint of money as not of import if a human's life would
>> depend upon doubtlessly honors you.
>
>I HAVE NO STANDPOINT on money. I have entered this thread
>as an argument AGAINST any discussion of money in respect to
>the DP. If YOU feel money is relevant to the DP argument, then
>YOU are placing a monetary value on human life.
Sell that to whom you want but not to me. At the very moment a society - or
better state - agrees with spending more money on killing an individual than
to lock him up just SOCIETY and STATE *ARE* the very cause of any discussion
about resources and nobody else.
>
>> Nevertheless all along retentionist
>> statements like 'kill the DR-inmates and save my tax-$' clearly are to
read
>> right here, and these are in no way provoked by abolitionists anyway.
>>
>
>Jesus... sometimes you can be VERY stupid!
Yeah, I'm actually impressed you were right here anyway. I really can't
explain why I'm pointing at obvious untruths and flaws in your argument
despite my knowledge of your argumentation's mode whenever this happens.
Thus, it speaks not for my intelligence to continue to do so, I'm afraid.
>
>> Now better informed retentionists will either avoid the cost argument
>> entirely (the best they can do) or express their agreement with the much
>> higher expenses.
>
>No... avoiding the cost argument entirely is thoroughly appropriate
>in a moral view of human life.
No it isn't. Resources *are* limited, particularly in low-tax-states like
the US. Thus, there *ARE* practical limits *COERCING* into a valuation for
what concrete measures the money were better spent on. It is the *DAILY
BREAD* of deciders to drop any projects on behalf of others seen for more
urgent despite both would be desirable for principle, like it or not.
Expressing 'agreement' to a comment
>directed to the cost of execution is hardly relevant to my argument,
>WHOEVER does so. I will argue neither FOR nor AGAINST such
>obviously inappropriate valuing of human life. I will ONLY argue that
>it is inappropriate to argue the subject entirely, which is what I always
>say when the subject is broached. Recognize that was what I said
>in the FIRST response of mine in this thread where I wrote --
>
>"nor do I find it (the cost argument of the DP) has any moral validity
>if it is correct."
>
>Apparently there are some abolitionists here who refuse to let
>the subject go. What does that tell you?
That tells me:
It is under a *PRACTICAL* view - limited and precious resources - logical
and consequent to point at the MUCH HIGHER costs to execute than to keep the
condemned in a sufficiently secure prison. Particularly viewing the
ludicrous share of about 5% of the total executive expenses spent for rehab
you are the very last permitted to drop the cost argument for allegedly
moral reasons, Sir. Such you perhaps could try under the supposed condition
of plenty resources available and huge effords made for crime prevention and
rehab.
But that tells me *NOT*....
...that ABOLITIONISTS are doing what you are insinuating, i.e. to put a
monetary value on life. Especially *YOU*, always claiming to save more
innocent lives by supporting the sickening and sickened DP, *YOU* should
look for the best way to spend the modest resources for the greatest benefit
of the greatest number of human beings.
Not what Abolitionists are writing is of importance first hand but what
*HAPPENS*, i.e. *THAT* the DP-system *IS* wasting money over money on the DP
while anti-drug, crime-preventive and rehabilitation-programs merely have
the extent of an alibi-function.
>
>> Abolitionists have a very good reason to raise the cost issue, however.
>> Wasting one $ million on each state-killing means not to spend this money
on
>> issues like crime-prevention or rehab. Thus, probably many more lives
could
>> be saved without the DP.
>>
>
>Crap... total unmitigated crap.
..And should any argument stir up the whole
Seek distincly whether the loop has a hole:
Beware of the trap
Shout fervently "Crap!",
And claim it were playing no role.
You are of course, by your own
>admission now attempting to PLACE a dollar value on human life.
NOT AT ALL, Sir, NOT AT ALL. It is a plain fact that humans as material
existences and dissipative systems *ARE* depending upon given and limited
resources, again: Like it or not. I do have to bow my head before this FACT
just like all states have to by having to decide how to spend *ANY* of their
resources. I may not be comfortable with this recognition but it's a simple
given. Now your pathetic attempts to make abolitionists responsible for this
*naturally given* fact while spreading any as unctuous as distorting
lip-services like 'A human life *!!should!!* not depend on money' are deeply
dishonest to say the very least. *ALL* programs _do_depend_ on money and the
extensive monetary support of the death-machine prevents the support of
other institutions with clearly much greater expectances for a greater
number of (innocent) humans' benefit. I provided a multitude of arguments
anti, BUT: The *MONEY ALONE* already makes your *ENTIRE* artefactum "The DP
saves more innocents than Abolition" crush to Ground Zero.
>Regardless of what you say costs more or less, you MUST
>realize that's what you're now trying to say.
No, no, no. The very *ROOT* is not my observation but the *FACT* *THAT*
limited resources are given and *THAT* the DP factually costs alot of money
urgently needed for other projects.
>
>> *Despite* the cost argument as supporting abolition I see it raised at
least
>> as frequently by retentionists (misinformed or cynical) as by
abolitionists.
>> You accused me not to read abolitionist posts, I however rather have the
>> feeling that you aren't reading *your* fellow's posts.
>>
>No you don't, Jürgen. And you well know that as a fact. You
>simply don't pay that much attention to posts from abolitionists,
>because they have your agenda.
I wonder how you could know any about my attention and readage as passive
fullfillments. There are *MANY* abolitionists worth to discuss with them,
however, I'm not retired and have not the time at hand to do so. Thus, I by
nature concentrate on the opponents when writing...plain logical. How you
dare anyway to conclude to my passive concern with abolitionist posts is
mysterious and elusive.
You should look at ALL of your
>posts to recognize that you almost always respond ONLY to
>abolitionists. I do the same in a contrary position. But I ADMIT
>it.
What nonsense. **Of course** I do reply most overwhelmingly to
retentionists. There *IS* nothing to "admit"....I'm a principle
abolitionist - so should I for that go into large discussions with people
being ab. for the mere reason of the possibility of innocents executed and
therefore lack the time to reply to the *OPPONENTS*???
>You, however, are living in la la delusion land.
In a delusion-land lives the one that self-illusionarily and
self-deceptively clutches on an idea outspokenly not the aim of his
representants and combattants, neither in theory nor in practice.
I've found
>lately that your arguments are becoming more and more directed
>toward believing that ALL retentionists are 'evil' as Earl attempts
>to do.
You can't leave your self-introduced term 'evil' aside whenever you try to
speak from my standpoint, can't you?
Certainly you've expressed the view that all members of
>P&P boards are 'evil,' because they do not consider 'pity' in examining
>the possibility of returning murderers to society.
No, Sir.....they do consider absolutely *NOTHING*. No 'continuing threat',
no 'self-defense', no 'rehabilitation', no 'remorse', no 'evolve', no
'mercy', no 'commutation'. No 'thing'. Well-paid co-pipers of the
death-chant, devotely confirming and applauding to any decision made by
twelve laypersons 10-20 years ago.
You know what were a bit more consequent? The JURORS should have the chance
to think over their decision again and to revise their verdict. The (wo)men
once having spoken the DS should have the opportunity to re-examine whether
their guesses about 'continuing threat' and 'deserve' still can be upheld
any longer by themselves. That would give any of them the chance to correct
a sentence that quite well can cause (and has caused not too seldom) inner
disruptions and calamities after the enormous time having passed,
particularly if an obviously perceivable change of the condemned allows a
re-consideration. The co-pipers have no responsibility, they are
deliberately disburdened from (--passing the buck--). The JURORS have to
bear it, THEY have to live with their decision once, so THEY should have the
chance to say today: 'My estimation under the givens once was appropriate
and responsible, but today other circumstances allow me to revise it'.
You should
>understand that the reasons some retentionists support the DP
>are because they RECOGNIZE 'evil' and are profoundly affected
>emotionally by that 'evil.' I know that is behind MY support for
>the DP. You sometimes forget that fact, and would try to portray
>all retentionists as 'evil' for being affected in that way.
>
Nope. For to get straight what exactly I do regard for 'evil': That were a
certain kind of stubborness. Not the hard headed, consequent pursuing of any
desirable aim with sound argumentations is meant with but rather the sort of
stubborness *causing* the distortion of proper arguments, *causing* an
absolutely unilateral viewpoint and *causing* the intentional ignorance of
multiple obvious facts speaking against this viewpoint.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9ru94t$9rr$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, your standpoint of money as not of import if a human's life would
> >> depend upon doubtlessly honors you.
> >
> >I HAVE NO STANDPOINT on money. I have entered this thread
> >as an argument AGAINST any discussion of money in respect to
> >the DP. If YOU feel money is relevant to the DP argument, then
> >YOU are placing a monetary value on human life.
>
> Sell that to whom you want but not to me. At the very moment a society - or
> better state - agrees with spending more money on killing an individual than
> to lock him up just SOCIETY and STATE *ARE* the very cause of any discussion
> about resources and nobody else.
>
to 'sell' the idea that we can place a monetary value on 'life.' If that's
the case, how much monetary value is the life of the victim?
> >
> >> Nevertheless all along retentionist
> >> statements like 'kill the DR-inmates and save my tax-$' clearly are to
> read
> >> right here, and these are in no way provoked by abolitionists anyway.
> >>
> >
> >Jesus... sometimes you can be VERY stupid!
>
> Yeah, I'm actually impressed you were right here anyway. I really can't
> explain why I'm pointing at obvious untruths and flaws in your argument
> despite my knowledge of your argumentation's mode whenever this happens.
> Thus, it speaks not for my intelligence to continue to do so, I'm afraid.
>
I can't explain it either. Apparently it results from that 'hard-headed'
gene factors.
> >
> >> Now better informed retentionists will either avoid the cost argument
> >> entirely (the best they can do) or express their agreement with the much
> >> higher expenses.
> >
> >No... avoiding the cost argument entirely is thoroughly appropriate
> >in a moral view of human life.
>
> No it isn't. Resources *are* limited, particularly in low-tax-states like
> the US. Thus, there *ARE* practical limits *COERCING* into a valuation for
> what concrete measures the money were better spent on. It is the *DAILY
> BREAD* of deciders to drop any projects on behalf of others seen for more
> urgent despite both would be desirable for principle, like it or not.
>
Yes it is. We're speaking of the 'cost' of incarcerating a murderer
for life as opposed to executing that murderer. It has NO moral
significance. As such, it is BEYOND discussion. Were I to try
and ARGUE with you as to whether it is a true or false claim would
only result in my lowering myself to the same level as those who
find it quite reasonable to discuss the 'cost' of executing a murderer.
You cannot 'clean' yourself from that argument by claiming it is
a fact. I will not argue it with you. Which only substantiates that
I will not argue it with you, and does not make what you say a
fact.
> >Expressing 'agreement' to a comment
> >directed to the cost of execution is hardly relevant to my argument,
> >WHOEVER does so. I will argue neither FOR nor AGAINST such
> >obviously inappropriate valuing of human life. I will ONLY argue that
> >it is inappropriate to argue the subject entirely, which is what I always
> >say when the subject is broached. Recognize that was what I said
> >in the FIRST response of mine in this thread where I wrote --
> >
> >"nor do I find it (the cost argument of the DP) has any moral validity
> >if it is correct."
> >
> >Apparently there are some abolitionists here who refuse to let
> >the subject go. What does that tell you?
>
> That tells me:
>
> It is under a *PRACTICAL* view - limited and precious resources - logical
> and consequent to point at the MUCH HIGHER costs to execute than to keep the
> condemned in a sufficiently secure prison. Particularly viewing the
> ludicrous share of about 5% of the total executive expenses spent for rehab
> you are the very last permitted to drop the cost argument for allegedly
> moral reasons, Sir. Such you perhaps could try under the supposed condition
> of plenty resources available and huge effords made for crime prevention and
> rehab.
>
So you would reduce the execution of a human to 'practical' terms.
How very humane of you.
> But that tells me *NOT*....
>
> ...that ABOLITIONISTS are doing what you are insinuating, i.e. to put a
> monetary value on life. Especially *YOU*, always claiming to save more
> innocent lives by supporting the sickening and sickened DP, *YOU* should
> look for the best way to spend the modest resources for the greatest benefit
> of the greatest number of human beings.
>
But of COURSE it saves more innocent lives. One would have to
be totally delusional to not expect that the number of new murders
we prevent through execution does not greatly exceed any possible
number of innocents we might have executed post-Furman. THAT
is my objective... with COST having no meaning in such an argument.
> Not what Abolitionists are writing is of importance first hand but what
> *HAPPENS*, i.e. *THAT* the DP-system *IS* wasting money over money on the DP
> while anti-drug, crime-preventive and rehabilitation-programs merely have
> the extent of an alibi-function.
>
Argggg... You idiot!
> >
> >> Abolitionists have a very good reason to raise the cost issue, however.
> >> Wasting one $ million on each state-killing means not to spend this money
> on
> >> issues like crime-prevention or rehab. Thus, probably many more lives
> could
> >> be saved without the DP.
> >>
> >
> >Crap... total unmitigated crap.
>
> ..And should any argument stir up the whole
> Seek distincly whether the loop has a hole:
> Beware of the trap
> Shout fervently "Crap!",
> And claim it were playing no role.
>
Simply bad rhyming expressing additional 'crapola.'
>
> You are of course, by your own
> >admission now attempting to PLACE a dollar value on human life.
>
> NOT AT ALL, Sir, NOT AT ALL. It is a plain fact that humans as material
> existences and dissipative systems *ARE* depending upon given and limited
> resources, again: Like it or not. I do have to bow my head before this FACT
> just like all states have to by having to decide how to spend *ANY* of their
> resources. I may not be comfortable with this recognition but it's a simple
> given. Now your pathetic attempts to make abolitionists responsible for this
> *naturally given* fact while spreading any as unctuous as distorting
> lip-services like 'A human life *!!should!!* not depend on money' are deeply
> dishonest to say the very least. *ALL* programs _do_depend_ on money and the
> extensive monetary support of the death-machine prevents the support of
> other institutions with clearly much greater expectances for a greater
> number of (innocent) humans' benefit. I provided a multitude of arguments
> anti, BUT: The *MONEY ALONE* already makes your *ENTIRE* artefactum "The DP
> saves more innocents than Abolition" crush to Ground Zero.
>
You really are intent on delving once again into hysteria. I
WILL NOT place a dollar value on a human life. How clear
must I make that? You may do so all you wish, but that
doesn't make YOU very 'clean' by trying to do so.
> >Regardless of what you say costs more or less, you MUST
> >realize that's what you're now trying to say.
>
> No, no, no. The very *ROOT* is not my observation but the *FACT* *THAT*
> limited resources are given and *THAT* the DP factually costs alot of money
> urgently needed for other projects.
>
Crapola. Obviously attempting to 'sanitize' your examination of
placing a value on human life. You should look BEYOND your
words and recognize the NATURE of your argument.
> >
> >> *Despite* the cost argument as supporting abolition I see it raised at
> least
> >> as frequently by retentionists (misinformed or cynical) as by
> abolitionists.
> >> You accused me not to read abolitionist posts, I however rather have the
> >> feeling that you aren't reading *your* fellow's posts.
> >>
> >No you don't, Jürgen. And you well know that as a fact. You
> >simply don't pay that much attention to posts from abolitionists,
> >because they have your agenda.
>
> I wonder how you could know any about my attention and readage as passive
> fullfillments. There are *MANY* abolitionists worth to discuss with them,
> however, I'm not retired and have not the time at hand to do so. Thus, I by
> nature concentrate on the opponents when writing...plain logical. How you
> dare anyway to conclude to my passive concern with abolitionist posts is
> mysterious and elusive.
>
There are a lot of things that are 'mysterious and elusive' to you,
old friend. One of them is the fact that placing any value on
human life is generally not considered to be moral.
> You should look at ALL of your
> >posts to recognize that you almost always respond ONLY to
> >abolitionists. I do the same in a contrary position. But I ADMIT
> >it.
>
> What nonsense. **Of course** I do reply most overwhelmingly to
> retentionists. There *IS* nothing to "admit"....I'm a principle
> abolitionist - so should I for that go into large discussions with people
> being ab. for the mere reason of the possibility of innocents executed and
> therefore lack the time to reply to the *OPPONENTS*???
>
'Principled abolitionist??' I think not. And I think you're
demonstrating your lack of moral principles right here and
now, by hoping to pursue an argument which you fully
realize I do not intend to discuss. It is obvious that it is
providing you the liberty to make any outrageous claim
you might imagine, knowing full well that I WILL NOT
argue ANY point in respect to the COST of the DP. And
you are eating up that opportunity. To recognize your
behavior in that respect, return above to my response
of argggg. My assertion that I will not comment in any
regard to this subject, provided you the opportunity to
make the most absurd conclusions, knowing that I will
not respond.
> >You, however, are living in la la delusion land.
>
> In a delusion-land lives the one that self-illusionarily and
> self-deceptively clutches on an idea outspokenly not the aim of his
> representants and combattants, neither in theory nor in practice.
>
No... living in la la delusion land is living in a land that does
not experience the 'cause' of what reasonable people would
recognize needs an appropriate 'effect' as a result of that
'cause.'
> I've found
> >lately that your arguments are becoming more and more directed
> >toward believing that ALL retentionists are 'evil' as Earl attempts
> >to do.
>
> You can't leave your self-introduced term 'evil' aside whenever you try to
> speak from my standpoint, can't you?
>
Are you claiming that you DON'T see members of P&P boards
as generally 'evil'?
> >Certainly you've expressed the view that all members of
> >P&P boards are 'evil,' because they do not consider 'pity' in examining
> >the possibility of returning murderers to society.
>
> No, Sir.....they do consider absolutely *NOTHING*. No 'continuing threat',
> no 'self-defense', no 'rehabilitation', no 'remorse', no 'evolve', no
> 'mercy', no 'commutation'. No 'thing'. Well-paid co-pipers of the
> death-chant, devotely confirming and applauding to any decision made by
> twelve laypersons 10-20 years ago.
Of course what you're obviously SAYING is "they are evil." One
can certainly not look at it any other way.
> You know what were a bit more consequent? The JURORS should have the chance
> to think over their decision again and to revise their verdict. The (wo)men
> once having spoken the DS should have the opportunity to re-examine whether
> their guesses about 'continuing threat' and 'deserve' still can be upheld
> any longer by themselves.
Oh, yeah.... a 'trial' AFTER the 'trial.' And I would suppose you
wish a subsequent 'trial' every year a murderer is kept awaiting
execution.
> That would give any of them the chance to correct
> a sentence that quite well can cause (and has caused not too seldom) inner
> disruptions and calamities after the enormous time having passed,
> particularly if an obviously perceivable change of the condemned allows a
> re-consideration. The co-pipers have no responsibility, they are
> deliberately disburdened from (--passing the buck--). The JURORS have to
> bear it, THEY have to live with their decision once, so THEY should have the
> chance to say today: 'My estimation under the givens once was appropriate
> and responsible, but today other circumstances allow me to revise it'.
>
They ALREADY had their say. How many times would you feel
it necessary to repeat that say? Of course, you believe it should
be repeated until it is repudiated. But NO Justice System works
that way. Certainly even YOUR country's Justice System doesn't
use a jury over and over to confirm sentencing after already having
been sentenced.
> >You should
> >understand that the reasons some retentionists support the DP
> >are because they RECOGNIZE 'evil' and are profoundly affected
> >emotionally by that 'evil.' I know that is behind MY support for
> >the DP. You sometimes forget that fact, and would try to portray
> >all retentionists as 'evil' for being affected in that way.
> >
> Nope. For to get straight what exactly I do regard for 'evil': That were a
> certain kind of stubborness. Not the hard headed, consequent pursuing of any
> desirable aim with sound argumentations is meant with but rather the sort of
> stubborness *causing* the distortion of proper arguments, *causing* an
> absolutely unilateral viewpoint and *causing* the intentional ignorance of
> multiple obvious facts speaking against this viewpoint.
>
You really have the nerve to use the word 'stubbornness'? You
DEFINE the term. You should read again the words you've just
written and place them into the context of your comments in this
particular post, and a huge number of your past posts to recognize
you are describing YOURSELF, and not others.
PV
> Jürgen
>
>
>
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>> and consequent to point at the MUCH HIGHER costs to execute than to keep
the
>> condemned in a sufficiently secure prison. Particularly viewing the
>> ludicrous share of about 5% of the total executive expenses spent for
rehab
>> you are the very last permitted to drop the cost argument for allegedly
>> moral reasons, Sir. Such you perhaps could try under the supposed
condition
>> of plenty resources available and huge effords made for crime prevention
and
>> rehab.
>>
>So you would reduce the execution of a human to 'practical' terms.
>How very humane of you.
>
No, Sir. Costs are the very lowest argument in a list of at least 8. I am
reducing NOT ONE of this arguments by mentioning the cost-argument. The
costs merely are already sufficient to see beyond a reasonable doubt that
the DP does not save more innocent lifes than could be saved without DP.
J.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9rup2c$k2t$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
Introducing cost as an argument in any discussion of the DP
only reduces my belief that any of the supposed seven other
arguments you have can be supported in moral terms.
PV
> J.
>
>
>
John Rennie
snipped for brevity
I have found six examples of DP versus costs all instigated
by retentionists and I could have produced many, many more.
It is notable that most of the following contributors have made
only brief visits to this news group and it is this type of
retentionist who is particularly stirred by the cost argument.
After reading several views of LWOP, I have one thing to say and that is
simply,it is not a deterrent. All it allows is the taxpayer(Yes,You and
me) to have to feed, clothe and house these pieces of shit until they
decide to die. That is not a good thing to force on decent people who try
to abide by the laws. In a way we should look at the Chinese meathods of
riminal population control. It works...
Geert Zandman- 1st April 1999
LWOP,what a crock,it is your and my money that goes to house,clothe and
provide food and shelter for these low lifes. On the average it takes
$20,000.00 per inmate a year,how many people reading this make that much
money a year. If you don't make that much,why spend it on free loaders,
that should be eliminated.
Now take 2890 and times that by $20,000.00 that is $59,600,000.00 in
our money wasted on scum, just times that by 40 years or more. That money
could go for much better things don't you think?
Wolf 25th April, 1998
All,
I for one, like most Pro DPers I guess am tired of hearing all of the
misrepresentations and out right lies that the Anti crowd likes to post.
But one in particular, the fallacy that LWOP is "Cheaper" than Death is
the most ridiculous. In every case where there have been studies posted,
they compare the average cost ofkeeping someone in jail for twenty to
twenty five years, as compared to the death PENALTY (not Deterrent).
HELLO???IS ANYONE HOME?????? Twenty or Twenty five years IS NOT
LIFE!!!!!! Does anyone out there think that it is?
Todays Criminals are getting younger and younger, and when you compare
the average cost of taking a man in his late twenties or early thirties,
(A median age of most killers) and licking him up for fifty to sixty
years, (which would cover the average life span into the eighties, LWOP
SUDDENLY Becomes three to four times more expensive than the Death
Penalty. But you also have to consider, how many murderers actuallly die
in prison? How many people actually serve Life? MOST do not. They are
long since paroled, pardoned, sentences commuted, etc. etc. etc. The
Anti Crowd says NOTHING of THIS INJUSTICE.
Gerald Burgess 18th May 1996
I live in a Capital Punishment state. In this state, according to
figures released from the John Howard society and various other
studies including the state, have arrived at the following figures:
snipped bollocks
the ratio is one officer to every THREE prisoners. This cost is also
figured WITHOUT the cost of each appeal factored in.
So let's use the above figures for arguments:
Snipped bollocks
APPEALS $54,000 x 4 = $208,000
INPRISONMENT $40,000 x 4 = $160,000
SALARY OF EXECUTIONER 500
BURIAL 200
COST OF CHEMICALS 5
TOTAL FOR SHORTENED
APPEALS PROCESS $378,755
LWOP $1,647,500
DEATH 378,755
-----------
Total Taxpayer Savings $1,268,745
The above figure applies to one prisoner
If a state has to pay an average of 3.2 Million ( like Florida) to
execute a prisoner it is due to the appeals and litigation processes,
as well as the incarceration cost of said prisoner.
just an opinion of a sentient human being
riker
Commander Riker 16th March 1996.
Well I guess that depends on what you mean by best, is it the most
plesant way we can punnish them?? No. Is it the cheapest way to
punnish them, well despite all the cost arguments I would say the DP
is pretty cheap where most people loose site on this argument is they
speak of the cost of the trial as being part of the punnishment when
in actualaity it is not if we take out the cost involved with the
trial and appeals and only focus on the cost of punnishment the DP is
cheaper then LWOP. Or perhaps by best you mean the most fair manner in
which we can punnish them, on this one I would say yes it is fair you
kill you die, very fair and even trade.
Dvaughn 18th January 1998
Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so
expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without
parole ("LWOP") at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these
pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will
cost
$1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases.
One of many by Sharp (only he could work out that 1.2. is 3.6 more)
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:9rup2c$k2t$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> >How very humane of you.
>> >
>> The only phrase requiring an answer:
>>
>> No, Sir. Costs are the very lowest argument in a list of at least 8. I am
>> reducing NOT ONE of this arguments by mentioning the cost-argument. The
>> costs merely are already sufficient to see beyond a reasonable doubt that
>> the DP does not save more innocent lifes than could be saved without DP.
>>
>
>Introducing cost as an argument in any discussion of the DP
>only reduces my belief that any of the supposed seven other
>arguments you have can be supported in moral terms.
>
Well, let's talk tacheles, Sir. The US are a hard core capitalism, unwilling
to raise afew tax-$ for medical care or social aid of all kinds. On the
other hand, when it comes to the killing of a guilty human in a sudden
plenty of resources are available. Isn't it amazing? For *ANY* KILLING 1 or
2 millions more than LWOP-costs? No problem.....For rehab or prevention, for
the LIFE? Sorry, nothing available.
Clearly you would look awful if going into a cost argument, Sir, thus,
utilitarianism better only if it suits you fine....Quite understandable.
But now after you for good reasons are refusing to discuss the cost argument
only a little hint: Don't discuss costs AND don't reason why not. Your
conservative stance and the US-wide political landscape doesn't support your
moral reasoning ANYWAY, furthermore it would stand good to you to be
ABSOLUTELY quiet about who is putting monetary value on human life. Whole
the US are doing this, and the amount gives no reason for especial pride.
Not meant inflammatory anyway, only a hint on your behalf for to keep your
credibility as a serious retentionist.
J.
P.s. Regarding the cost argument in a more extended frame you should fight
for all other than the DP. This cruelty is the very last making any moral
sense, regarding what else is going on in the US.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:agEE7.1979$sD3.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
regards 'cost' of the DP. Let me only point out that I found three
examples from abolitionists (including yourself) having only to go back
to May of this year, while you needed to go back two and a half years
to find the FIRST example you've provided.
PV
A Planet Visitor
PV
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9rv4l5$ibs$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
John Rennie
>
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:agEE7.1979$sD3.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> > news:WBhE7.903$6G5.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
snipped (snipping is an art form that PV is not interested in)
> >
> I will not go down this road, and this is my last post to this thread if
it
> regards 'cost' of the DP. Let me only point out that I found three
> examples from abolitionists (including yourself) having only to go back
> to May of this year, while you needed to go back two and a half years
> to find the FIRST example you've provided.
>
> PV
I didn't need to go back 2 and and half years - I merely
used the half dozen examples that goggle gave me
when I entered 'DP and cost'. There has however
been a reduction in this type of entry in the last year
or so because the fact that the DP costs more than
LWOP is more widely accepted. Even Sharp no longer
uses the cost argument.
Hugh Neary
>Hugh Neary <crudbust...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message news:<g48lttcnv9ghivu62...@4ax.com>...
>> On 26 Oct 2001 22:28:59 -0700, ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) wrote:
>>
>> >Hugh Neary <crudbust...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message news:<6lcjttc3he2h49erk...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 26 Oct 2001 07:12:19 -0700, ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"arc1978" <arc...@home.com> wrote in message news:<hy9C7.123276$Pr1.31...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>...
>> >> >> All is simply a question of morality. Statistics are really
>> >> >> inconsequential. One should not fight a battle of morality with numbers.
>> >> >> Telling me how expensive it is to keep a convicted felon in prison does very
>> >> >> little to convince me that my tax dollars would be wasted by doing the right
>> >> >> thing (life w/o parole).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This issue should never be considered as a popularity contest. Death and
>> >> >> murder are not topics to be thought of lightly. Nothing is justified by
>> >> >> being popular or convenient. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I pose the question: what goal does one reach by executing a felon?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A. You remove him from society, making everyone feel safer for not having a
>> >> >> murderer in the flock.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> B. Revenge
>> >> >
>> >> >Executing a murderer is an act of self defense which prevents a proven
>> >> >killer from ever being able to kill again once the sentence is
>> >> >properly applied.
>> >> >
>>
>> >> No it is an act of revenge. Any system so flawed as to admit that they
>> >> have so little control over miscreants, that they have to kill them is
>> >> an admission of total failiure. As for "properly applied", this term
>> >> is a total farce. Salem was a fine example of "properly applied"
>> >> wasn't it?
>> >
>> >
>> >In your mind, Hugh, it is obvious to me you can see nothing else.
>> >That tells me a great deal about you, not our society.
>> >
>> I am capable of seeing that in all walks of life people make mistakes.
>> The one fact that no one can ever be toitally certain that the right
>> individual is executed for a murder is enough in my mind to prohibit
>> the use of the DP.
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Seems to me that if I were to take criminal John Doe to a maximum security
>> >> >> prison for the rest of his life, not too many people walking the streets
>> >> >> will bump into him anymore, thus nullifying reason A.
>> >> >
>> >> >What about the people he is with in prison? Murders *DO* occur in
>> >> >prison, and sometimes the murders are of completely innocent people.
>> >>
>> >> Oooh dear? Somehow "completetly innocent people" are imprisoned for
>> >> other offences, but strangely enough all the murderers are guilty.
>> >> Truly defunct "justice" I'd say. You only get a fair trial if the
>> >> crime is serios enough?
>> >
>> >Again Hugh, you show the limit of your mental processes. Undoubtedly
>> >there might be innocents incarcerated. I, however, was thinking more
>> >of those who earn their living or sometimes volunteer to work with and
>> >serve the prisoners in differing capacities.
>> >
>> I do not have the figures, but certainly in the UK, the only reports I
>> can remember reading were fatalities amongst inmates. Mind you we do
>> not dish out guns to all and sundry, so this may have some bearing on
>> the death rate in prisons?
>
>Nope. Most deaths in prisons occur from homemade weapons. Firearms
>are only found in the guard towers, not on guards within the walls.
>
Well that appears to be your problem. We have few killings in the UK.
Most deaths in custody are suicides on this side of the "pond",
How many killings in prison in the US have been by death row inmates?
Prisoners with nothing to lose would be a greater risk.
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >Murderers sometimes excapt and murder as well, and once in a while
>> >> >judges issue blamket decrees which legally free murderers.
>> >> >
>> >> The fact that these murderers "excapt" is surely a further pointer to
>> >> a basically flawed judicial system. Cann any system allowing its
>> >> murderers to "excapt" so readily be trusted to terminate their lives
>> >> in a supposedly justifiable fashion? I think not!
>> >
>> >Actually Hugh, excapes do occur, even "excapts". Such things
>> >obviously "cann" occur even in the best prisons. it has nothing to do
>> >with trust Hugh, just the fact that your have human beings, some very
>> >clever, who have nothing to do with their time except figure out ways
>> >to excape if that is their desire. Under those conditions, prisoners
>> >"cann" come up with some very clever ideas and devices to excape. One
>> >common thing is to use thread, or preferably dental floss and
>> >toothpaste to saw through highly tempered steel bars. They "cann"
>> >accomplish this in a twenty four hour period. "Cann" you understand
>> >how that might occur?
>>
>> Hmm! If escapes are so common it points to a flawed system. With IR
>> cameras and other forms of electronic security, it should be virtually
>> impossible for prisoners to escape.
>
>Nope. There are not that many excapes. Those which do occur,
>however, do sometimes result in murders outside the prison walls.
>Most of the time a convicted felon excapes actually do not occur from
>within prisons but from much less secure locations such as holding
>cells for courts, hospitals, etc.
>
Spend a few dollars more on staff, chains and the like.
>
>Again though, I suppose if you
>> saturate the environment outside a prison with weapons, some will
>> "diffuse in", leading to hostage taking etc.
>
>No Hugh. Despite you rather overactive imagination leading you to
>false conclusions, weapons outside the prison is not the problem. I
>can only think of one or two instances this occurred in the US in the
>last half century.
Well if it isn't the overabundance of weapons, then as I stated
earlier is appears to be a fundamentally flawed justice system you
have if you let all the inmated go free ten minutes after conviction.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> As for blanket decrees, if the judges are not accountable, you
>> >> have a defunct system of democracy. There again you did get conned
>> >> with your choice of president didn't you, so no wonder those in
>> >> "authority" can "lead you up the garden path".
>> >
>> >Hugh, we can change our President in four years if we don't like what
>> >he does. you, however, will always be a total asshole.
>> >
>> Richard, I'm afraid your unmannerly, boorish prose is beginning to
>> tire me. I have made allowances before as I had already assumed you
>> were one of those "Redneck Trailer Trash" type people that one hears
>> so much about. But these personal insults add nothing to the debate
>> and are just a waste of bandwidth. Please attempt to behave with a
>> little decorum Richard. I'm sure somewhere in your ancestry there were
>> individuals that posessed a few of the social graces.
>
>There were Hugh. The German side of my family were asid to possess
>great social skills. unfortunately,they had the misfortune to fall in
>love with a few English immigrants which lowered their standards
>considerably, and gave them an air of insufferable arrogance.
>
I wouldn't worry too much about this Richard. Take a few Prozac. It
might not do too much for the DNA, but it could help cover your lack
of social graces.
>I suppose
>> standards dropped when they landed in the US and got amongst the
>> natives though? Anyway Richard, all I'm asking you to do is try to be
>> a little more civil.
>
>Et tu Brute'.
>
??????
Ambitious are we not? Isn't latin a little rich for a member of a
nation not able to spell the word colour properly?
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As for reason B, seeking revenge is weak. We should all strive to rise
>> >> >> above that urge. Revenge earns us nothing back. No returned victims. Just
>> >> >> one more body.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Everyday, people are murdered. Most of the time it's the bad guys who are
>> >> >> responsible. Sometimes, it's the "good" guys.
>> >> >
>> >> >Your view is too simplistic, and you last statement rates only a .5 on
>> >> >the a.a.d.p. troll-o-meter at my computer.
>> >>
>> >> A lot of Afghan kiddies might argue that point, had they still the
>> >> biological apparatus to do so of course.
>> >
>> >Siding with the terrorist are you Hugh. As I said, we can change our
>> >president, you, however...............
>>
>> I do not thing Afghan children are terrorists. Red Cross warehouses
>> are not training grounds for terrorists either.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Hugh Neary
>>
>> [Please remove "crudbuster_" to reply direct]
>
>Never been to war, Hugh? It isn't a precision thing all the time.
>Civillians always suffer the most in war, and Afganistan is no
>exception.
"Civilians always suffer". Of course they do you pompous prat. If you
continue to drop bombs on them they will continue to bleed, burn and
fall to bits. The fact that they have "always suffered" is no
justification for glibly wiping them out.
> If the Taliban had met our terms, we would not be there
>now. They chose not to, and we did exactly as we said we would, we
>treated those who harbor terrorists as terrorist themselves. They
>could still stop the bombing by simply handing over bin Laden and the
>al Qa'ida operatives within the borders of their country to us.
How can any country be expected to extradite someone when no evidence
is offered? I'm not sure what goes for normal in the US, but in
Britain we have extradition hearings.
> If
>they choose not to do so, we will continue to bomb, and yes, some
>civillians will dies as mistakes are made. That's war. If yo want to
>blame someone for the deaths of civillians, blame the Taliban.
So Lets bomb New York to get a murderer eh? That would make sense too,
wouldn't it? All we have to do is plonk responsibility on his head
and everyones happy.
I think not somehow!
> They
>chose the road which led to this of their own free will. We set the
>conditions, and those conditions are not negotiable any more than the
>surrender of Japan was. If you personally do not find that to your
>liking, too bad.
September 11 should at least have warned the US that saying "too bad"
to certain members of the planet was not the right way to go.
However many enemies you had before that date, you can be
dammned sure that you have more now. Even from an "infidels"
veiwpoint, I find it increasingly difficult to differentiate between
the terrorism acted on the WTC and the terrorism being acted out in
Afghanistan.
Jürgen
Jürgen schrieb in Nachricht <9rv4l5$ibs$01$1...@news.t-online.com>...
[PV accused Jürgen to be immoral, therefore:]
Any decision about to spent an amount available for the greater benefit of
the greater number is not immoral. Neither does this decision place a
monetary value on a human being nor is this NECESSARY decision morally
critical anyway, it merely is UNAVOIDABLE in the face of limited resources
given and plenty use- and meaningful options to spend them.
The Death Penalty now in view of the costs exorbitantly exceeding LWOP *IS*
deeply immoral. Not for the greater benefit of the greater number the money
is spent but for the killing of an already highest graded incapacitated
prisoner.
The claim: 'The DP saves more innocent lives than it costs' is DEAD WRONG in
regard to the resources wasted on.
J.
A Planet Visitor
who has presented this analysis which you should address
to him. What is unfortunate is that you, rather than accept
the fact that cost bears no relevance to a person's life, have
tried to state as fact some proof through proclamation.
While realizing that I simply don't feel it's appropriate to
discuss cost in relation to the DP. Regardless of my feelings
in this respect you have continued to state unsubstantiated
claims related to cost, anticipating they will remain unanswered
by me, and thus appear to come from the mount via you. I
will say this --- If you would eliminate the DP, then EVERY
person sentenced to L wop, instead of the DP, would receive
LESS due process. Certainly that can have NO OTHER
effect than to increase the number of innocents sentenced to
L wop. If you believe that is a fruitful cost consideration than
it might well be acceptable. I do not. Perhaps you can tell us
the percentage of the number of cases of the DP sentence that
were overturned, compared against the number of cases of
L wop (or Life) that were overturned for the crime of murder?
If there is a difference you can well expect that difference to
be translated into a reduction of those DP sentences currently
overturned which would become L wop sentences instead. I
will tell you what due process in the case of the DP IS --
Appeals. In many states the first appeal is to an intermediate
state court of appeals. Constitutionally, an appeal to the state
supreme court then follows. After that, another appeal to the
U.S. district court. Then another appeal to the U.S. court of
appeals. Then another appeal to the U.S. supreme court. And
often the cycle is repeated. Would that same due process
exist in L wop? And if so, where does THAT money come
from?
Understand that 70% of death sentences are overturned, and
that a much higher percentage continue to make the rounds of
various appellate courts. A typical case might go from trial,
to state supreme, to U.S. district, to U.S. court of appeals
which remands to U.S.district, who rehears the case, and
sends it back to U.S. appeals, then to U.S. supreme which
sends it back down to state supreme on a different issue, the
state supreme corrects some minor error after which the
case goes back to U.S. district, and finally to U.S. appeals
which affirms (and U.S. supreme hears a request for appeal
but denies). Then the sentence is carried out. Which part of
this would you deny those who are no longer sentenced to
the DP, but now receive L wop? And how much EASIER
would it be for a jury to now sentence someone to L wop,
thinking to themselves that it's not 'actually' taking a life, thus
now believing 'perhaps' the evidence does meet the criteria
of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
Take a look at each step, and ask yourself -- what happens
to an innocent under a NEW system? What happens to
the 70% overturn rate? Suppose by eliminating the DP,
we now have reduced it to a 15% overturn rate. Does
that mean that 55% of those we overturned before were
really guilty? And only the cost of excessive due process
was finding them innocent, although they were really guilty?
Or have those 55% now fallen through the cracks of Justice?
Does an overturn rate of 0% indicate perfection? Of course
it does. But perfection for whom? If L wop reduces costs
so drastically, why is that? Lawyer fees for the extra
expenditures in capital cases above and beyond expenses
for L wop cases of course... but is that good or bad for the
innocent? Costs and fees for defense and prosecution
investigative and administrative work associated with the
death phase of course... but is THAT good or bad for the
innocent? If we have an innocent man, but the evidence
against him is overwhelming, will L wop provide better
justice, or simply easier conviction and sentencing?
What is further unfortunate is that you have forced me to
qualify my remarks by referring to a retentionist whose
methods I sometimes find hard to swallow.
PV
THE COST OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE VS THE
DEATH PENALTY
Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the
death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?),
that we must choose life without parole ("LWOP") at a cost
of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements
may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will
cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death
penalty cases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Life Without Parole: Cases
Equivalent To Death Penalty Cases Cost of Death Penalty Cases
1. $34,200/year (1) for 50 years (2), $60,000/year (1) for 6 years (5),
at a 2% (3) annual cost increase at a 2% (3) annual cost increase,
plus $75,000 (4) for trial & appeals plus $1.5 million (4) for trial &
= $3.01 million appeals = $1.88 million
2. Same, except 3% (3) = $4.04 Same, except 3% (3) = $1.89
million million.
3. Same, except 4% (3) = $5.53 Same, except 4% (3) = $1.91
million million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are
significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears
to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much
more expensive - from $1.2 to $3.6 million - than death penalty cases.
Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time,
3-10 times more than LWOP. (1) The $34,200 is conservative, if TIME
Magazine's (2/7/94) research is accurate. TIME found that, nationwide,
the average cell cost is $24,000/yr. and the maximum security cell
cost is $75,000/yr. (as of 12/95). Opponents claim that LWOP should
replace the DP. Therefore, any cost calculations should be based
specifically on cell costs for criminals who have committed the exact
same category of offense - in other words, cost comparisons are valid
only if you compare the costs of DP-equivalent LWOP cases to the
cost of DP cases. The $34,200/yr. cell cost assumes that only 20%
of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in maximum security cost
cells and that 80% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in
average cost cells. A very conservative estimate. The $60,000/yr., for
those on death row, assumes that such cells will average a cost equal
to 80% of the $75,000/yr. for the most expensive maximum security
cells. A very high estimate. Even though we are calculating a 75% greater
cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP
cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their
DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the
cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent
LWOP cases are relevant.
(2) U.S. Vital Statistics Abstract, 1994 and Capital Punishment 1995,
BJS 1996.
(3) Annual cost increases are based upon: 1) historical increases
in prison costs, including judicial decisions regarding prison conditions,
and the national inflation rate; 2) medical costs, including the immense
cost of geriatric care, associated with real LWOP sentences; 3) injury
or death to the inmate by violence; 4) injury or death to others caused
by the inmate (3 and 4 anticipate no DP and that prisoners, not fearing
additional punishment, other than loss of privileges, may increase the
likelihood of violence. One could make the same assumptions regarding
those on death row. The difference is that death row inmates will average
6 years incarceration vs. 50 years projected for LWOP); 5) the risk and
the perceived risk of escape; and 6) the justifiable lack of confidence by
the populace in our legislators, governors, parole boards and judges,
i.e. a violent inmate will be released upon society.
(4) $75,000 for trial and appeals cost, for DP-equivalent LWOP cases,
assumes that the DP is not an option. We believe this cost estimate is
very low. We have over-estimated that DP cases will cost twenty times
more, on average, or $1.5 million. Our exaggerated estimate states that
the DP will have twenty times more investigation cost, defense and
prosecution cost, including voir dire, court time, guilt/innocence stage,
sentencing stage and appellate review time and cost than DP equivalent
LWOP cases. Even though we have greatly exaggerated the cost of DP
cases, DP cases still prove to be significantly less expensive, over time,
than the DP equivalent LWOP cases.
(5) 6 years on death row, prior to execution, reflects the new habeas
corpus reform laws, at both the state and federal levels. Some anti-death
penalty groups speculate that such time may actually become only 4
years. If so, then DP cases would cost even that much less than the
DP equivalent LWOP cases. However, the average time on death row,
for those executed from 1973-1994, was 8 years (Capital Punishment
1994, BJS, 1995). Therefore, 6 years seems more likely. Even using
the 8 year average, the DP equivalent LWOP cases are still $1 million
more expensive than their DP counterparts ($2 million @ 2% annual
increase).
One of the USA’s largest death rows is in Texas, with 442 inmates, of
which 229, or 52%, have been on death row over 6 years - 44, or
10%, have been on for over 15 years, 8 for over 20 years. 60 inmates,
nationwide, have been on death row over 18 years. (as of 12/96).
NOTE - 10/19/00 - We received a post which located a flaw within
our cost evaluation. The reader stated that we should "present value"
all the costs of both a life sentence and the death penalty and that, if
we do so, a life sentence is cheaper than a death sentence. Using the
numbers in our analysis, such is a good point.
It should be noted that we were intentionally generous in minimizing
life costs within our analysis. Please review we have not included
1)the recent studies on geriatric care at about $70,000/year/prisoner
in today's dollars , or
2) the recent explosion of Hepatitis C and AIDS within the prison
system, or
3) the cost savings to jurisdictions based on plea bargains to maximum
life sentences, which can only occur due solely to the presence of the
death penalty. Such should accrue as a cost benefit of the death penalty,
and
4) none of the above have been included in our cost analysis. All of
which either increase the cost of a life sentence or accrue as a cost
credit to the death penalty, and
5) And we have been extremely generous to the anti death penalty
position with our numbers to begin with. I suspect that an average
life without parole sentence costs closer to $150,000-$300,000, for
all pre-trial, trial and appeals, as opposed to the $75,000 used in
our study.
Those omissions should not be considered a balancing, because
accuracy is paramount. There is no cost study which fully evaluates
all of those issues. We hope to update the data at some point with
a more thorough review.
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:pAOE7.4230$sD3.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
A Planet Visitor
donating a 'Theory Unrelated to Reality Description' (TURD).
the fact evident in a TURD is that only the donor
understands the description fully, so no one is able to
analyze all the meaningless aspects, less criticize it
in any manner.
Having donated his TURD, Jürgen finds that I have
often shown, what to him appears to be, fiendishly clever
ways to make one doubt his TURD. Of course he sees
this only as an intent to place doubt in the minds of others
as to the quality of his TURD. But being the master that
he is of donating TURDs, he would never think of modifying
his TURD to suit pedantic rules like grammar, logic, common
sense or physical/human existing laws.
So, rather than respond to Jürgen's latest TURD, I would
ask him to simply read my post to John Rennie on this
subject, since I certainly can't honor yet again another
TURD from him, without someone unfamiliar with the
descriptions he provides perhaps believing they contain
some sense. It would only add some validity to the TURD
in question.
PV
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9s0qrm$m7$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> Introducing cost as an argument in any discussion of the DP
> only reduces my belief that any of the supposed seven other
> arguments you have can be supported in moral terms.
Cost is, of course, irrelevant. You forget, however, that you're
spoiled in this forum, PV. My experience of IRL discussions of the DP
with retentionists (or, as it is in Oz, "reintroductionists") is that
cost is quickly brought up as a reason for reintroduction. After the
facts are presented, a shortened appeals process is quickly proposed and
damn the possibility of executing innocents.
<Yoda> Lucky indeed we are that HI1k and Frankie are pretty much the
lowest ebb that this newsgroup sees. </Yoda>
I'm all for discounting cost in arguments regarding the DP but when
misinformation is offered regarding costs, I'm very much inclined to
correct it.
Mr Q. Z. D. ((o))
---- ((O))
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"And when I'm dead
If you could tell them this;
What was wood became alive." - Suzanne Vega, Kaspar Hauser's Song.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>donating a 'Theory Unrelated to Reality Description' (TURD).
>
Sir. Calm down, grab a beer and think over YOUR words: "The DP saves more
innocent lives than Abolition".
This phrase is simply not true. Even most appalling, the value of a human's
*death* is it what the DP-costs describe. States' investments for the *life*
in comparizon are modest to null.
J.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>who has presented this analysis which you should address
>to him. What is unfortunate is that you, rather than accept
>the fact that cost bears no relevance to a person's life,
To what person's life you'd like to assign the $2-3 Millions DP-costs?
You fail to recognize what the appeals are really good for. The appeals are
outspokenly *NOT* an instrument aiming the exoneration of innocents (Justice
Scaria, ca: 'Innocence is no reason for a new trial'). The appeals *STRICTLY
ARE SUPPOSING AND RELYING ON THE ACCURACY OF THE ORIGINAL TRIAL*, see the
switch of the burden of proof, see the VAST difficulties to *INTRODUCE* new
evidence at all in *ANY* appeal.
The appeals' outcome of 97 plain exonerated merely is a quite UNWANTED
BY-PRODUCT of the procedere.
The official main task of the appeals now is a distinct check whether any
particular *DEATH-SENTENCE* would be in accordance to the procedures and the
constitutionally dictated conditions limiting the use of the DEATH PENALTY.
This now are not hard points ANYWAY, therein lies a huge deal of pure
subjective INTERPRETATION. And: Any commutation now quite well can mean a
*REDUCTION* of the DS to 2 times LWOP 40 subsequently to serve: FACTUALLY
LWOP as a *REDUCTION* of a DS, nota bene.
This points at what the appeals really are in the psychological sense: A
share of the immense responsibility for the DS; as many people as possible
shall confirm the DS, so Judges, Jurors, State-Attorneys are partially
disburdened from the *responsibility* that a DS poses on the deciding
partitioners: "The appeals have confirmed my decision, thus, I was/am
right."
You already have LWOP in some states IIRC and others allow sentences
equating to LWOP in practice. So answer me right now: DOES your systems
RIGHT NOW provide this prisoners with similar due-process like in DP-cases
or not?
Should the answer be 'no' then my analysis was right. LWOP as the permanent
removal of a dangerous guy - but still a MEMBER of SOCIETY!! - from
COMMUNITY is regarded BY FAR more comfortable than the decision to EXCLUDE a
human for the remainder of his life from society, to OUTLAW him and to KILL
him finally. (The perspective of the inmates themselves, i.e. their begging
for their life in prison furthermore is backing up this estimation.)
The plain *co-existence* of LWOP and DP and the *already given* correlated
extent of due process *sets the measure* how *society* values the two
penalties *herself*. Your attempt to make the appeals - TOTALLY UNWILLING to
admit to any flawed original trial, see Dieter Riechmann - shine like
serious atempts to get the things straight *on behalf of the CONDEMNED*
misses the reality entirely. The appeals are a self-exonerating Masturbation
of the SYSTEM, a direct outcome of the spiritual problems of *ALL*
partitioners in the *PRINCIPLE*, the *CONCEPT* DP.
>
>What is further unfortunate is that you have forced me to
>qualify my remarks by referring to a retentionist whose
>methods I sometimes find hard to swallow.
>
<sharp-nonsense snipped, a statement to this will follow soon. A most
surfacial look at this stuff bearing in mind economical calculation-basics,
means how to compare costs (Money =f(time)) spread over huge timepaces
already suffices to place this Deceptor-Dud's Opus right in the line of all
his other works.>
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9s37to$q9f$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >I will let another set of data do my talking in regard to Sharp
> >who has presented this analysis which you should address
> >to him. What is unfortunate is that you, rather than accept
> >the fact that cost bears no relevance to a person's life,
>
> To what person's life you'd like to assign the $2-3 Millions DP-costs?
>
value on a human life, then assign it to EVERY ONE of those
who were sentenced to the DP, but through the due process
available above that given to those sentenced to L wop, had
their sentences overturned. But perhaps you feel that money
could be better spent, and we should just accept the fact that
we can more easily sentence the innocent to L wop, and save
a buck in the process as well.
Another TURD (Theory Unrelated to Reality Description) which
Jürgen would hope to pass off on an unsuspecting reader.
Apparently he believes that 'accuracy' in a trial is not essential,
and if the DP is abolished it can just be lowered to the 'accuracy'
now demonstrated in sentencing to alternate penalties.
> The appeals' outcome of 97 plain exonerated merely is a quite UNWANTED
> BY-PRODUCT of the procedere.
>
TURD. If 97 'plain exonerated' was an 'unwanted by-product'
of the procedure, what will happen to those 97 if this 'unwanted
by-product' no longer exists, as a result of the lessening of
due process?
> The official main task of the appeals now is a distinct check whether any
> particular *DEATH-SENTENCE* would be in accordance to the procedures and the
> constitutionally dictated conditions limiting the use of the DEATH PENALTY.
> This now are not hard points ANYWAY, therein lies a huge deal of pure
> subjective INTERPRETATION. And: Any commutation now quite well can mean a
> *REDUCTION* of the DS to 2 times LWOP 40 subsequently to serve: FACTUALLY
> LWOP as a *REDUCTION* of a DS, nota bene.
>
TURD. And I mean this is a totally incomprehensible and yet
somehow very stinky TURD.
> This points at what the appeals really are in the psychological sense: A
> share of the immense responsibility for the DS; as many people as possible
> shall confirm the DS, so Judges, Jurors, State-Attorneys are partially
> disburdened from the *responsibility* that a DS poses on the deciding
> partitioners: "The appeals have confirmed my decision, thus, I was/am
> right."
>
Big TURD. Again claiming all of those involved in the administration
of the DP are 'EVIL.' Can't you see how you have let your
emotions override any judgment you might expect others to
believe you have?
> You already have LWOP in some states IIRC and others allow sentences
> equating to LWOP in practice. So answer me right now: DOES your systems
> RIGHT NOW provide this prisoners with similar due-process like in DP-cases
> or not?
>
No they do not... And neither are they OVERTURNED by the
same percentage. Do you expect ANYONE to believe that the
difference in the overturn rate is a result of those sentenced to
L wop ACTUALLY being guilty, as opposed to all those overturned
as innocent who were sentenced to the DP? The fact is L wop
DOES NOT provide the same degree of due process that IS
built into the DP. And the further fact is if the DP were to be
abolished, a lower degree of due process would then exist in
ALL sentences now afforded the higher degree established by
the DP sentence. If not --- if you would expect this same
degree to now be translated into those sentenced to L wop ---
your entire argument regarding cost would be turned on its
silly head.
> Should the answer be 'no' then my analysis was right. LWOP as the permanent
> removal of a dangerous guy - but still a MEMBER of SOCIETY!! - from
> COMMUNITY is regarded BY FAR more comfortable than the decision to EXCLUDE a
> human for the remainder of his life from society, to OUTLAW him and to KILL
> him finally. (The perspective of the inmates themselves, i.e. their begging
> for their life in prison furthermore is backing up this estimation.)
>
Huge TURD. I wonder what you would think if you could hear their
VICTIMS begging for their life before they were murdered? In fact,
a TRUE murderer who begs for his life is one rather pathetic example
of a human. I find very little in the way of contrition on the part of
a murderer who would do so. It is certainly more appropriate to
act as Karla Faye did, who accepted her responsibility and was
contrite over the acts she freely admitted, and did not 'beg' for her
life, but only asked for a degree of 'mercy' from society. I certainly
see 'begging' as more like asking society to 'forget' what they did,
rather then saying they were 'sorry' for what they did.
> The plain *co-existence* of LWOP and DP and the *already given* correlated
> extent of due process *sets the measure* how *society* values the two
> penalties *herself*. Your attempt to make the appeals - TOTALLY UNWILLING to
> admit to any flawed original trial, see Dieter Riechmann - shine like
> serious atempts to get the things straight *on behalf of the CONDEMNED*
> misses the reality entirely. The appeals are a self-exonerating Masturbation
> of the SYSTEM, a direct outcome of the spiritual problems of *ALL*
> partitioners in the *PRINCIPLE*, the *CONCEPT* DP.
Speaking of 'masturbation'.....
> >
> >What is further unfortunate is that you have forced me to
> >qualify my remarks by referring to a retentionist whose
> >methods I sometimes find hard to swallow.
> >
> <sharp-nonsense snipped, a statement to this will follow soon. A most
> surfacial look at this stuff bearing in mind economical calculation-basics,
> means how to compare costs (Money =f(time)) spread over huge timepaces
> already suffices to place this Deceptor-Dud's Opus right in the line of all
> his other works.>
>
Ah yes... a final giant TURD from Jürgen. I would hope that you
direct your comment to Sharp... as I am tired of discussing
facts with you, while you only emit TURDs.
PV
> Jürgen
>
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9s2sdt$4fo$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >Jürgen has once again proved himself to be a master in
> >donating a 'Theory Unrelated to Reality Description' (TURD).
> >
>
> Sir. Calm down, grab a beer and think over YOUR words: "The DP saves more
> innocent lives than Abolition".
>
how you've been trying to place a monetary value on human
life.
> This phrase is simply not true. Even most appalling, the value of a human's
> *death* is it what the DP-costs describe. States' investments for the *life*
> in comparizon are modest to null.
>
Another TURD (Theory Unrelated to Reality Description) from
you. Hardly comprehensible but about as stinky as they come.
'The DP saves more innocent lives than Abolition,' is hardly
debatable by any THINKING person. Given the execution of
730 proven murderers, only ONE of them would have to be
considered a Randy Greenawalt. And if one were to be such,
we would have needed to execute 4 innocents in those 730
(a truly absurd and totally irrational conclusion, given the fact
that 70% of DP's are even now overturned) to ONLY
achieve EQUALITY in 'saving' more innocent lives than
'taking' in our use of the DP. You need to take out the word
'innocent' if you expect ANYONE to believe you have a
rational subjective view of the DP.
PV
> J.
>
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
Well, after my perceptions seemingly are all TURD you surely will explain in
a brilliant way right now what happens in the Dieter Riechmann case.
Distinctly and stringently you will support your TURD claims by explaining
why Dieter and his supporters are since years not allowed to PRESENT the
exonerating evidence in the frame of the appeals. You will explain how
innocence can be proven without the POSSIBILITY to introduce the exonerating
stuff. Appeal for appeal you will show up that not the buck is passed all
along but serious work is done to clear up the situation and the case. You
will show what consequences are the outcome of the appeals in view of a
prosecution having coerced a PO to false testimony. Furthermore you will
provide in what way the appeals system is evaluating the anonymous testimony
of the real murderer. Finally you will explain why the examination of clear
defense-claims endures more than 14 years.
Jürgen
P.s. Of course you will provide the future appeal that is dedicated to view
the evidence in the Riechmann case and to make tabula rasa.
YOUR TURN!!!!! GoGoGoGoGoGoGo!!! Good Luck On Your Mission.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9s47jj$2j6$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
Riechmann does not affect my view of the DP. And an anonymous
confession doesn't impress me very much. The point is you can
provide NO specific singular example of an execution that would
cause me to change my mind regarding the CONCEPT of the DP.
You may believe he is innocent... I do not. Whether he DESERVES
the DP is somewhat similar to the opinion I held regarding the
execution of Gary Graham. Riechmann is NOT one of the 100 I
would have selected if he was among the 730 we have executed.
But he is probably guilty, although not meeting the level of guilt I
would support as justifying the DP. That, as the Challenger disaster
in my support of our space program, doesn't do much to sway my
opinion that the DP has moral significance and social advantages
as a concept. It would be necessary for me to believe that we have
executed MORE innocents than we have SAVED from future
murders by executing those ~730 proven murderers. I have listed
before, a VERY LARGE number of those who WERE guilty but
somehow gained an opportunity to murder again. You have found
it necessary to IGNORE that list... but who is responsible for those
new murders? In fact, I find you ALWAYS quite willing to discuss
those executions which I myself do not support, but also unwilling
to accept the reality of those others who fully deserved to be
executed, and represented 'society self-defense' in administering
such an execution.
Now let's consider the possibility that he is innocent? Would you
feel that this singular instance of the execution of an innocent is
sufficient to totally abolish executions of proven murderers? Of
course you would. But let me point out a similar example that I just
read of yesterday. Jamie Petron, was suspected of murdering a
store clerk during a robbery. When police tried to arrest him, he
exchanged gunfire with the police and critically wounded an officer.
He fled to a private home and began holding six people hostage in
a 51-hour standoff with police. During the standoff a police
sharpshooter mistakenly killed one of the hostages as he aimed
for Petron. Is this sufficient reason to disarm the entire law
enforcement arm of our Justice System? You see, my friend...
we do the best we can, recognizing that we can NEVER be perfect.
PV
Richard Jackson
> Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht ..
>
>
<snip>
> >That depends on what you call a weak defense. If you are talking
> >about inept lawyers, then I think you are incorrect assuming a DA
> >would file for the DP just on that basis. If you are saying that DA's
> >tend to file capital charges on cases only where they have a strong
> >case for such, I tend to agree. The latter is only common sense.
> >Most decent attorneys will argue the strongest, not the weakest, case
> >they have.
>
> Well, I think two parameters have to be given for a DP-plea. For to view
> them bear in mind always the EXTREME effords about the prosecution to
> PREPARE any DP-plea at all. Then the prosecutor will think over to take the
> burden and to make the exhausting and expensive effords in view of his odds
> to *MAKE THE CASE*, and if he feels the odds for bad then he will *NOT*
> prepare a DP-plea, not even if he'd feel it for appropriate. Thus, two
> things will be necessary for his decision to go for a death-sentence,
> TOTALLY independent from the factual severity of the crime:
> (1) The crime must be fit to cause fervent emotions (crime-scene or the
> quality of the victim)
> (2) The defense should not range on a too advanced level.
> This are the ONLY requirements to check by any prosecutor for to select
> DP-cases sucessfully. Whether the accused actually imagines any CT or not or
> whether the crime happened in any most exceptional mental state of the
> offender - questions that actually *SHOULD* import - ,such is totally
> meaningless just in view whether the prosecutor can make his terrible race
> or not. Thus, not the style of criminals you want to see on DR are there but
> a selection under (1) and (2); no prosecutor ever will make the effords to
> head for the DP if he feels his case for lost a priori.
> Don't get me wrong, the people accused have in common committed horrible
> crimes, but the mode of selection is inappropriate for to make a reasonable
> selection of the worst of the worst out of the guilties' set. Thus, the
> "strongest cases" has another means than supposed by you.
So it is not fair that a prosecutor should seek to try cases he can
win? he shoudl try all cases regardless of his chances of success?
>
> >>...Such is WAY from prejudice.
> >
> >Prejudice is simply the notion that something is bad or good despite
> >what one is told about it because of a preconceived notion of one type
> >or another. I believe you tend to display that about all death
> >penalty cases despite the evidence in any single case because you feel
> >as you do.
>
> That is not true. Should you have followed my argumentation you'd know that
> I often promised to shut up when/if to *ANY* comdemned actually can be
> assigned a continuing threat, not by simply calling his effords to learn and
> improve on DR for liarish in a terrible generalizing way but by making a
> serious consideration whether a 10-20 years old prediction of 12 laypersons
> still can be upheld today.
You would set aside the findings of a legal trial process? In other
words, Juergen, we should, in your opinion, have two trials. One to
determine guilt and set the punishment, and then another 15 years or
so later to determine if the threat of the death penalty and 15 or so
years in confinement has changed the person in any way?
I have a question for you Juergen. How many time in Germany do you
find defendants who get such consideration unless there is new
evidence discovered or a proceedural error in the original trial?
>
> That doesn't make you wrong, necesarily, or a bad person,
> >just prejudiced in this case because of your beliefs. Hell, Jürgen,
> >we all have prejudices of one type or another. Admitting that we have
> >them is sometimes difficult to face, but they are there non-the-less.
>
> I dunno whether you read the recent discussion with PV when he tried to sell
> me the existence of absolutely 'objective' views (implicitely claiming this
> for himself by trying to devaluate my perceptions in comparizon to his, of
> course). Such *DOES NOT* exist and the *only* way to speak in a relative way
> from any stance's 'objectivity' is after viewing - as a single person - the
> issue from as many perspectives as possible and to gather a multitude of
> other opinions. I think I did so pretty well over my presence here and
> before, and the outcome of my fervent standpoint against the DP is a
> convergence of all the points For AND Against. You quite well can present to
> me a couple of cases which don't cause me to feel any compassion for the
> criminal, but the mostly overwhelming number will be cases eliciting my
> comment: 'He is guilty but does in comparizon with other guilties not
> deserve to die, especially after having served a time in prison for his
> crime that comes close to the ENTIRE penalty in most other cases of no
> lesser guilt.'
>
> ......If the defense lawyer slept in the phase not directly concerned
> with
> guilt
> >> or innocence, if he slept for instant while the (prosecution's)
> psychologist
> >> made his statements about future threat, or if he slept instead to point
> >> emphatically at any mitigant circumstances on behalf of his defendant
> then
> >> this is unimportant.
> >
> >You translate what others say rather than ask them. To me his
> >statement simply means that each case is different, and the act of
> >sleeping, by a defense attorney, while undesirable and poor
> >professionalism, may or may not in and of itself, influence the
> >trueness of a trial's outcome.
>
> Oh, I see. This means the SC in their clairvoyance know the outcome of the
> trial under the assumed conditions of a defense awake and skilly all along
> the trial, too, do they?
>
> I "translated" under the general observation that there *ARE* no
> "unimportant" phases of any trial. Either there are witnessess reporting or
> substantial evidence is examined or psychologists are testifying or
> attorneys are pleading. Name me any phase that you'd regard for unimportant,
> Richard. As long as this "unimportant" phases are not determined I will
> guess them to be just the phases when the crucial questions about
> culpability and mitigant circumstances are discussed, means the sentencing
> phase.
>
> >
> >A question here. Had the prosecutor dozed and his client won, would
> >you yess traversty of justice as loud for the prosecution's sake?
>
> This situation, means a prosecutor generally trying to gain political
> publicity-points with DP-cases snoring while the trial, is so far fetched
> that I never wasted a thought on, to be honest.
Perhaps you should, Juergen. What is good for one side whould carry
equal weight for the other, shouldn't it?
>
> ....It's a DP-inherent
>
> >> problem that you are bound to exclude an entire philosophy, admittedly
> >> represented by a minority but a rather large one, from *ANY* contribution
> to
> >> the trial. "Moderate thought? - Keep off!"
> >
> >Nope, it eliminates prejudiced jurors from keeping the whole jury from
> >determining which punishment is most appropriate.
>
> Well, let's view any hypothetical case from two perspectives.
> (1) The perspective of the victim and his related; parents have lost a
> beloved son/daughter for the intentional act of an individual, a human being
> has been frauded his life and luck. A murder has happened, the most terrible
> crime to an individual and his relatives.
> (2) The perspective of the offender; despite undoubted guilt there are in
> common several points beyond his responsibility permitting to get sight of
> a) why he ended up as a murderer and therefore b) the existence of mitigant
> circumstances despite the irreversibility of his act.
> Very, very often now one can observe the total drop of (2) by people
> agreeing for principle with the DP. They even are literally appalled and
> become aggressive if (2) comes into play, they regard an even *rational*
> evaluation of the culpability of the offender for an assault to (1), a
> devaluation of the victim, while the real intention is a totally other one.
> They are disabled by (1) to view (2) because they fear to get a murderer's
> lover instantly with viewing (2), just *because* view (2) *requires* to
> leave view (1) mentally *for an instant*.
> Thus, many, many "death-qualified" jurors will not be able to distinct
> rationally between cases of full vs reduced culpability because the
> *FORBIDDEN* view (2) is essential for to do so.
And I cannot see where you would think someone who is diametrically
opposed to assigning a death sentence could fairly judge in a case
where that is one of the punishments to be selected if a guilty
verdict is reached.
>
> This is the most difficult problem regarding DP-jury-selection, by far more
> problematic than to exclude abolitionists, and it is well known, however,
> unsolved. Referring to the folks right here I think PV were the only one
> gradually enabled at least to attempt to weigh (1) and (2).
>
> Personally, Ithink
> >the two phases of capital trials should have two levels of burden of
> >proof. I think the guilt phase should be unamious, and the penalty
> >phase a majority, say nine out of twelve jurors agreeing on a
> >punishment. In this way, the requirement for asking potential jurors
> >about their belief of the use of the death pnealty could be
> >eliminated, ...
>
> sorry to interrupt, but radical DP-jurors are at least as unwanted as
> abolitionists, see above. The jury selection will remain as difficult as
> now.
It would, but there are limited numbers of challenges allowed and if
we took away the need for death qualified juries, we could still
include abolitionists in the selection. Radicals could be eliminated
under grounds of prejudice just as they are now.
>
>
> ...and everyone could serve on a capital trial as long as
>
> >they state they can find a fair verdict based upon presented evidence.
> > This would also be close to allowing the same ratio of abolitionists
> >to serve on such a jury as is in the general population, without
> >creating a totally prejudiced finding based upon personal beliefs.
> >just a thought.
>
> So then in the sentencing phase of the jurors' discussion the three
> abolitionists probably are sitting aside playing poker while the nine are
> discussing the penalty...their taking part in the discussion would lead
> instantly to heavy controverses about principle standpoints.
Or perhaps there are six abolitionist or none. Who would know if that
was not a question allowed in examination. If you think there is not
heavy conversation in any death penalty trial, you have a different
thought about this than I do. People have conflicting opinions in any
jury room, death penalty or not. I once served as chairman of a jury
trying a speeding ticket when one member voted innocent regardless of
the evidence. He was not going to move from his stance despite what
the other jury members said. I finaly had to stop the discussion to
prevent a fight in the jury room, and declare a hung jury. If
emotions got this hot over a traffic ticket, think how strained they
can get in deliberation over someone's life.
You do a disservice to those who thus serve to think all would not
participate.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >Not at all. In my case, the end justifies the means, and if some
> >> >officials wish to execute because of revenge, it does not bother me,
> >> >as long as my goals are served.
> >>
> >> Hmmm...'The end justifies the means' you're claiming on the one hand, and
> on
> >> the other 'The DP is a reluctantly applicated ultimate measure'??
> >
> >Yep. Because the death penalty should be reluctantly applied.
>
> The DP **IS NOT** reluctantly applied. THAT your officials *dare* speaking
> of a 15 years old guilt and the DP as the prize to pay for it *regardless*
> remorse and reformation, *means* nothing other than that they feel in good
> company with the general public, Richard. Not at all reluctantly, a
> demonstration of harshness for community but surely not the ultimate measure
> after a distinct check of possible less violent and gruesome measures.
I was speaking for myself, Juergen, and a trial jury. Once the
penalty is applied, it should run the course of legal examination and
be legally applied.
>
> That
> >does not mean it is not necessary, and if someone else feels we need
> >to do this for revenge, it does not change my reason for supporting
> >it.
>
> You should start to see the difference here. If someone - the deciders -
> feel revenge for sufficient to execute then they simply will not execute the
> set of offenders addressed by your reasons.
If their reasoning and mine result in the same end, I care little what
they get out of it. In other words, if a murderer is guilty and a
threat in the future, I feel that cause to execute them. If someone
else, examing the same case feel they need to die to avenge the
victims, that is their cause.
>
> That is their thought, not mine. We both just happen to have the
> >same ultimate goal, to see qualifying murderers executed.
>
> Well, **ANY** murderer "qualifies" for revenge
Not necessarily, Juergen. I seldom make all inclusive statements, for
there is always the exception.
, so at the moment you agree
> for convenient reasons with your officials by joining in into the choir
> devaluating a human's insight in his guilt and his attempts to do better you
> factually are dropping the SD-claim. Either you want the DP for SD, then a
> *reasonable* continuing threat should be the cause for to execute anyone, or
> you are indifferent enough to agree with a careless application of the DP.
> Any claim like: "My officials say they don't care for CT but only for G/I
> but I chose to see all the executions promoted by just them for SD because
> it makes the argument on AADP easier" means to lean back in your seat quite
> comfortable. In this respect I yet am missing a statement to the officials'
> agreement with Andrea Yates having to face a DP-plea (recall in this case
> the requirements (1) and (2) above: emotion and weak defense).
>
> <political discussion snipped, standpoints sufficiently clear, I think>
>
> Jürgen
As usual, we are at opposite ends of a balance beam.
--
Richard Jackson
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
<old snipped>
>> >> <sharp-nonsense snipped, a statement to this will follow soon. A most
>> >> surfacial look at this stuff bearing in mind economical
>> calculation-basics,
>> >> means how to compare costs (Money =f(time)) spread over huge timepaces
>> >> already suffices to place this Deceptor-Dud's Opus right in the line
of
>> all
>> >> his other works.>
>> >>
>> >Ah yes... a final giant TURD from Jürgen. I would hope that you
>> >direct your comment to Sharp...
I decided other. I'll not go any deeper into this. The circumstance that you
not only dare repeating DD's Opus but even are completely agreeing with this
complete nonsense speaks volumes by itself and requires no further comment.
Ooooops - a tactical switching to the CONCEPT. May I lead you back on our
topic right here: The real means of the APPEALS. I claim them to be a
horribly expensive rot-of-pavian's-palaver for to *confirm* a death sentence
AND NOT ANY MORE. Exonerations do happen exclusively under *PRESSURE* and
are thus *TOTALLY UNWANTED*, commutations happen as a regulative of the
executions's number. You claim TURD in view of my opinion. So come on and
put up the work of the more than 14 years' appeals in the Riechmann-case for
to prove me wrong. Otherwise TURD is yours, simply.
>You may believe he is innocent... I do not.
Whether you or I *believe* in Dieter's innocence/guilt is *TOTALLY* out of
interest at this point.
The PO once having testified against Dieter Riechmann stated afterwards
publicly straight into the TV-camera that the prosecutor urged him into a
false testimony about circumstantial evidence. Thus:
(1) Is this PO's statement of importance and means anyway?
(2) If '(1)=yes', what an instance of the appeal system exactly were in due
to concern?
(3) Has *any* of the appeals, according to you staged on behalf of the
inmate, yet concerned with this PO's statement?
(4) Was en detaille cleared up by any interrogation of the prosecutor what
happened once in the phase of investigation?
(5) If '(2)-(4)=no', why it endures 14 years until the appellate system does
concern seriously with *KNOWN* and *VAST* irregularities?
Answer the questions and *THEN* *PERHAPS*, should your answers be meaningful
and stringent, you can put 'TURD' or such in your mouth. As long as you can
not explain what exactly happens while your allegedly important safeguards
over 14 years my statement stands: Appeals exist *NOT* for to put facts on
the desk but for to seek confirming claqueurs for the Death Sentence. NOT
ANY of a *WILLFULL* safeguard-function or intent; having it's very *CAUSE*
in the *SEVERITY* of the DS itself the appeals are merely self-serving and
self-exonerating Masturbation, as told.
<snip stuff not touching the means of the appeals anyway, thus, not
supporting your TURD-accusation>
....In fact, I find you ALWAYS quite willing to discuss
>those executions which I myself do not support,....
Nope. I want to know what happened in 14 years running appeals in the face
of some hard and obvious facts in this the Riechmann-case. And seeing you
unable to explain by this case the function of all your listed appeals
(->Masturbation) I see you unable to prove the means of **ALL** the appeals
in **ANY** Floridian case, particularly because the same deciders are
concerned. That's called well reasoned extrapolation, I by all means can't
see why they should be any better in another case.
<snipped more stuff already long-term broadly discussed and in no way
delivering any of the here in the thread's context requested proof for any
meaning of the appeals exceeding the DP-system's self-exonerating and
self-serving Masturbation-Characteristic anyway>
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9s6gto$c9q$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
appeal goes on, the MORE truth it assumes? The opposite
is quite the reality, old boy.
>
> >You may believe he is innocent... I do not.
>
> Whether you or I *believe* in Dieter's innocence/guilt is *TOTALLY* out of
> interest at this point.
>
What????
> The PO once having testified against Dieter Riechmann stated afterwards
> publicly straight into the TV-camera that the prosecutor urged him into a
> false testimony about circumstantial evidence. Thus:
>
> (1) Is this PO's statement of importance and means anyway?
> (2) If '(1)=yes', what an instance of the appeal system exactly were in due
> to concern?
> (3) Has *any* of the appeals, according to you staged on behalf of the
> inmate, yet concerned with this PO's statement?
> (4) Was en detaille cleared up by any interrogation of the prosecutor what
> happened once in the phase of investigation?
> (5) If '(2)-(4)=no', why it endures 14 years until the appellate system does
> concern seriously with *KNOWN* and *VAST* irregularities?
>
> Answer the questions and *THEN* *PERHAPS*, should your answers be meaningful
> and stringent, you can put 'TURD' or such in your mouth. As long as you can
> not explain what exactly happens while your allegedly important safeguards
> over 14 years my statement stands: Appeals exist *NOT* for to put facts on
> the desk but for to seek confirming claqueurs for the Death Sentence. NOT
> ANY of a *WILLFULL* safeguard-function or intent; having it's very *CAUSE*
> in the *SEVERITY* of the DS itself the appeals are merely self-serving and
> self-exonerating Masturbation, as told.
>
That is all just so much German Liberal press crap. Try reading
and listening to the appeals (yes the appeals are on-line in
streaming video). Go to --
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc89564/sc89564.html
> <snip stuff not touching the means of the appeals anyway, thus, not
> supporting your TURD-accusation>
>
> ....In fact, I find you ALWAYS quite willing to discuss
>
> >those executions which I myself do not support,....
>
> Nope. I want to know what happened in 14 years running appeals in the face
> of some hard and obvious facts in this the Riechmann-case. And seeing you
> unable to explain by this case the function of all your listed appeals
> (->Masturbation) I see you unable to prove the means of **ALL** the appeals
> in **ANY** Floridian case, particularly because the same deciders are
> concerned. That's called well reasoned extrapolation, I by all means can't
> see why they should be any better in another case.
>
> <snipped more stuff already long-term broadly discussed and in no way
> delivering any of the here in the thread's context requested proof for any
> meaning of the appeals exceeding the DP-system's self-exonerating and
> self-serving Masturbation-Characteristic anyway>
>
> Jürgen
Now after hearing those appeals go to these documents to see
what the Supreme Court of the State of Florida had to say
regarding those appeals.
http://www.flcourts.org/sct/clerk/disposition/2001/1/89564reh.pdf
http://www.flcourts.org/sct/clerk/disposition/2001/1/93236reh.pdf
Now follow closely as I explain about Parole Boards.
I do not claim they are perfect. But I certainly do not claim
they err only on the side of the prosecution. The case in
point is --
Melvin Geary served 13 years of a life sentence for the stabbing
death of a Las Vegas woman in 1973, with a boning knife. He
was freed after the state Parole Board commuted his sentence
from L wop to life with parole. (How a 'Parole' Board may
commute a sentence of 'without parole,' remains a mystery).
Nevertheless, it happened, thus categorically providing proof
that L wop DOES NOT mean L wop in EVERY instance, even
when one is guilty. Geary after his release, was subsequently
convicted of murdering 71-year-old Edward Colvin of Sparks,
again with a boning knife after Colvin took him in.
Now please do not speak to me of individual cases, German
or otherwise, since I have an extensive list of proven murderers
that were ALLOWED by society to murder again. In point of
fact, you have picked a very poor choice to claim him as a
martyr for your cause.
PV
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht...
<snip>
......Don't get me wrong, the people accused have in common committed
horrible
>> crimes, but the mode of selection is inappropriate for to make a
reasonable
>> selection of the worst of the worst out of the guilties' set. Thus, the
>> "strongest cases" has another means than supposed by you.
>
>So it is not fair that a prosecutor should seek to try cases he can
>win?
Not under the conditions mentioned. A weak defense and/or an emotionally
loaded charge for to impress a jury of laypersons are absolutely not the
appropriate measurement to determine the worst of the worst for to try them
for the DP.
>he shoudl try all cases regardless of his chances of success?
Huh? I was already on point, so this strange question is really
amazing....It had been not too difficult to conclude to my suggestions:
(1) Put some essential parts of the jury-addressed recommendments demanding
from the jurors the establishment of a future and continuing threat as the
base for a DS DIRECTLY in the DP-statutes and in a sudden the whole gets at
least theoretically honest
(2) Give your prosecutors precedent-cases for DP-pleas and precedent-cases
for non-DP-pleas at hand and force them to make a clear and transparent
decision including a reasoning why exactly any particular case should be
tried for the DP in their opinion, let them lay open the parameters and
circumstances founding their decision by pointing out the CT, the whole well
in comparizon to the precedent-cases. Let them exactly explain why they do
guess any arrested for especially dangerous not only in a moment of furious
rage or depression but *in general*, this explanation not based on the
victim's quality or the horrible crime-scene but on the offender's motives
and history. Then the whole perhaps will start to work out even practically
for dimensions better than right now.
But you don't WANT to get the DP fair. After analyzing the procedere it
seems to me to be the outspoken aim to let all options open to sentence
*ANY* guilty to death. The people unfamiliar with the horrible spectrum of
crimes and thus most impressible by the emotional aspects have the most
difficult task and the prosecution is not even morally bound to make a
proper pre-selection of DP-cases.
>
>>
......
>> That is not true. Should you have followed my argumentation you'd know
that
>> I often promised to shut up when/if to *ANY* comdemned actually can be
>> assigned a continuing threat, not by simply calling his effords to learn
and
>> improve on DR for liarish in a terrible generalizing way but by making a
>> serious consideration whether a 10-20 years old prediction of 12
laypersons
>> still can be upheld today.
>
>You would set aside the findings of a legal trial process?
Just like you are doing any times when granting parole in case of any lesser
sentences than the DP. Or were parole after 18 years of a 20-years-sentence
*ANY* other than setting aside the findings of a legal trial process?
In other
>words, Juergen, we should, in your opinion, have two trials. One to
>determine guilt and set the punishment, and then another 15 years or
>so later to determine if the threat of the death penalty and 15 or so
>years in confinement has changed the person in any way?
Such is not a trial. Such is what Sharp aka Deceptor-Dud *CLAIMS* to be a
point separating the DP from Revenge: A consideration of clemency. In
difference to DD's however a serious one with clemency as a true possibility
for the outcome.
>
>I have a question for you Juergen. How many time in Germany do you
>find defendants who get such consideration unless there is new
>evidence discovered or a proceedural error in the original trial?
Geeezzz Richard. Is this a serious question or are you kidding? This is done
in Germany in **ANY** case, and in Texas/US in the *overwhelming* share of
cases. Almost any prisoner is allowed to hope for clemency, means for parole
as a reduction of his original sentence. (The possibility of parole after 15
years for life terms in Germany has led to the nonsensial imagination of all
murderers being set free here after this time. The law means just that a
CONSIDERATION of lenience is permitted after this time, if parole however
deems to be risky or inappropriate then will be granted none. It's a
useful option, because many actually can be released, but BY FAR not all
are,
particularly not such deemed for dangerous.)
This your question reveals a terrible understanding basing on an equally
terrible property of the DP. The DP is not to integrate in the continuum of
penalties, the difference between imprisonment and death is not a quantity
but a QUALITY. This property - a reason to abolish the DP per se, besides -
now leads instantly and frequently to the (retentionist) conclusion of
pardoning a DR-inmate equating to a drop of the ENTIRE penalty, because the
DP as the process of killing is not divisible or reducible. Many years
incarceration are counting nothing in comparizon with the DP in the
retentionist view ("He has been sentenced to the DP, not to DR - this is
only an unwanted effect of the running appeals") while this years factually
are already an awfully harsh penalty.
If however anyone would like to integrate the DP in the line of penalties
best possibly then he had to seek for a solution for to grant a DR-inmate
the same what is granted to *ALL* other prisoners: A real *OPTION* for a
reduction of the penalty. It is inconclusive that any penalty can be reduced
if it seems appropriate except the DP. Thus, the DP-included really awful
time on DR should consequently be regarded as a part of the penalty, too,
and allow to consider a commutation to a prison term, for the reason that to
all other prisoners an option of mercy is left in general.
>
<snip>
>> This situation, means a prosecutor generally trying to gain political
>> publicity-points with DP-cases snoring while the trial, is so far fetched
>> that I never wasted a thought on, to be honest.
>
>Perhaps you should, Juergen. What is good for one side whould carry
>equal weight for the other, shouldn't it?
No Richard. There is ZILCH equalization between prosecutor and
public-defender. The first has to do a hard work (what often led and leads
to improper methods, besides) and has to gain alot in a DP-trial while the
second is provided with poor resources and will gain null by "winning" the
trial, i.e. by achieving a prison term instead of the DP for his defendant.
.....Thus, many, many "death-qualified" jurors will not be able to
distinct
>> rationally between cases of full vs reduced culpability because the
>> *FORBIDDEN* view (2) is essential for to do so.
>
>And I cannot see where you would think someone who is diametrically
>opposed to assigning a death sentence could fairly judge in a case
>where that is one of the punishments to be selected if a guilty
>verdict is reached.
Well, clearly you have two problems in view of DQ-jury selection. One is the
trivial one, means to exclude abolitionists for their principled opposition
to the DP, the other is the really difficulty. Abolitionists are relatively
swiftly excluded while I see little options to come to a DQ-jury of a really
rational kind, means 12 Jurors *ABLE* each to view (1) AND (2) as
quasi-contradictory standpoints.
Slipping for an instant in the part of a DQ-juror I see my situation as a
real dilemma. On the one side there is the pro-DP side, the standpoint of
the victim, on the other side I see a course of life of the guilty not
permitting his proper evolution. Now my mind becomes a flip-flop; thinking
"victim" associating "DP", thinking "What pathetic conditions for this
guilty's moral evolve" associating "mitigant circumstances, let him live". I
can't find out there anyway, the switch switches ad infinitum, a clear
self-satisfying decision is out of sight for principle.
Now making my flip-state-decision depending upon what I heard from
prosecutor and public defender I know the outcome.
>
>>
>> This is the most difficult problem regarding DP-jury-selection, by far
more
>> problematic than to exclude abolitionists, and it is well known, however,
>> unsolved. Referring to the folks right here I think PV were the only one
>> gradually enabled at least to attempt to weigh (1) and (2).
>>
>> Personally, Ithink
>> >the two phases of capital trials should have two levels of burden of
>> >proof. I think the guilt phase should be unamious, and the penalty
>> >phase a majority, say nine out of twelve jurors agreeing on a
>> >punishment. In this way, the requirement for asking potential jurors
>> >about their belief of the use of the death pnealty could be
>> >eliminated, ...
>>
>> sorry to interrupt, but radical DP-jurors are at least as unwanted as
>> abolitionists, see above. The jury selection will remain as difficult as
>> now.
>
>It would, but there are limited numbers of challenges allowed and if
>we took away the need for death qualified juries, we could still
>include abolitionists in the selection. Radicals could be eliminated
>under grounds of prejudice just as they are now.
>
Waivering the demand of an unanimous Jury's sentence were totally inane.
Then a simple count would substitute the necessary discussion.
.......their taking part in the discussion would lead
>> instantly to heavy controverses about principle standpoints.
>
>Or perhaps there are six abolitionist or none. Who would know if that
>was not a question allowed in examination. If you think there is not
>heavy conversation in any death penalty trial, you have a different
>thought about this than I do. People have conflicting opinions in any
>jury room, death penalty or not. I once served as chairman of a jury
>trying a speeding ticket when one member voted innocent regardless of
>the evidence. He was not going to move from his stance despite what
>the other jury members said. I finaly had to stop the discussion to
>prevent a fight in the jury room, and declare a hung jury. If
>emotions got this hot over a traffic ticket, think how strained they
>can get in deliberation over someone's life.
>
>You do a disservice to those who thus serve to think all would not
>participate.
Now Richard. As the situation *is* this is quite clear, the Jury has to come
to an unanimous verdict. You proposed to drop the requirement of
unanimousity and just then the quarrelling about the decision would stop. Or
do you really think if 9 jurors vote for the DP and 3 against a large
discussion would happen if this result were acceptable by the court as the
Jury's DP-vote?
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >Not at all. In my case, the end justifies the means, and if some
>> >> >officials wish to execute because of revenge, it does not bother me,
>> >> >as long as my goals are served.
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm...'The end justifies the means' you're claiming on the one hand,
and
>> on
>> >> the other 'The DP is a reluctantly applicated ultimate measure'??
>> >
>> >Yep. Because the death penalty should be reluctantly applied.
>>
>> The DP **IS NOT** reluctantly applied. THAT your officials *dare*
speaking
>> of a 15 years old guilt and the DP as the prize to pay for it
*regardless*
>> remorse and reformation, *means* nothing other than that they feel in
good
>> company with the general public, Richard. Not at all reluctantly, a
>> demonstration of harshness for community but surely not the ultimate
measure
>> after a distinct check of possible less violent and gruesome measures.
>
>I was speaking for myself, Juergen, and a trial jury. Once the
>penalty is applied, it should run the course of legal examination and
>be legally applied.
>
See above.
>>
>> That
>> >does not mean it is not necessary, and if someone else feels we need
>> >to do this for revenge, it does not change my reason for supporting
>> >it.
>>
>> You should start to see the difference here. If someone - the deciders -
>> feel revenge for sufficient to execute then they simply will not execute
the
>> set of offenders addressed by your reasons.
>
>If their reasoning and mine result in the same end, I care little what
>they get out of it. In other words, if a murderer is guilty and a
>threat in the future, I feel that cause to execute them. If someone
>else, examing the same case feel they need to die to avenge the
>victims, that is their cause.
Well, the prosecutor is not even recommended by law to select cases for
DP-pleas exclusively under the condition of an aggravated continuing threat
in his *own* opinion as an expert in criminal matters. He is in a certain
way allowed to lie insofar that he is quite enabled to point out an alleged
CT at trial against his own conviction. Thus, if he were stating directly
after the trial any like: 'Oh, I don't believe in an especial CT from him
but the Jury did so, for just my plea.' then this were in full accordance to
the law. And just this circumstance permits to send Andrea Yates on DR. I
dunno whether such makes you content anyway, I for my part am regarding it
for mostly unfair. By such a fundament you will not get the spectrum on DR
that would make me shut up.
Briefly: Is the prosecutor a critical mind then things will work out, he
will chose the cases for a DP-plea carefully and under the SD-condition, is
he however (1) a careerist using any options for publicity and (2) regarding
revenge for sufficient to make him comfortable with a DP-plea he will
present a well-staged dehumanizement-show.
The statements of your officials short of executing a prisoner not to care
for CT just come from people often having also prosecuted DP-cases
themselves. So after SD plays no part in their considerations they will not
only execute whomever's appeals run off but they HAVE already put on DR
anyone they could get there, both entirely independent of CT and SD. I can
not see stringent reason for the congruence that you'd like to build up; you
are claiming the set of condemned to be despite different FUNDAMENTAL
sentencing-motives (yours<->officials) exactly the by you aimed election of
the all-times-threateners.
Maybe this doesn't bother you anyway, I see therein a deeply damaged justice
system and an equally damaged sense for fairness vs doubtlessly guilty
people (or even vs innocents).
>
>>
>> That is their thought, not mine. We both just happen to have the
>> >same ultimate goal, to see qualifying murderers executed.
>>
>> Well, **ANY** murderer "qualifies" for revenge
>
>Not necessarily, Juergen. I seldom make all inclusive statements, for
>there is always the exception.
What kind of a real murderer, having killed a human for a low motive, should
not qualify for revenge IYO, then? Mitigant circumstances like a chanceless
childhood/youth do according to yourself not suffice for to drop revenge,
also not obvious huge effords of any death-sentenced to educate himself. So
give me any criteria permitting me to view the set of murderers not
"qualifying" for revenge IYO.
>
>, so at the moment you agree
>> for convenient reasons with your officials by joining in into the choir
>> devaluating a human's insight in his guilt and his attempts to do better
you
>> factually are dropping the SD-claim. Either you want the DP for SD, then
a
>> *reasonable* continuing threat should be the cause for to execute anyone,
or
>> you are indifferent enough to agree with a careless application of the
DP.
>> Any claim like: "My officials say they don't care for CT but only for G/I
>> but I chose to see all the executions promoted by just them for SD
because
>> it makes the argument on AADP easier" means to lean back in your seat
quite
>> comfortable. In this respect I yet am missing a statement to the
officials'
>> agreement with Andrea Yates having to face a DP-plea (recall in this case
>> the requirements (1) and (2) above: emotion and weak defense).
>>
>> <political discussion snipped, standpoints sufficiently clear, I think>
>>
>> Jürgen
>
>As usual, we are at opposite ends of a balance beam.
>
(-: Well, nothing is any more boresome than a discussion of folks agreeing
on the topic... :-)
Jürgen
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht <6yJF7.24241$y%.
<snip>
>>
>> >You may believe he is innocent... I do not.
>>
>> Whether you or I *believe* in Dieter's innocence/guilt is *TOTALLY* out
of
>> interest at this point.
>>
>What????
Yup. May be unbelievable to you, but actually there are afew questions more
than Guilt/Innocence. For instant what it means for the ENTIRE trial if the
prosecution coerces even one false testimony.
Well, I like it whenever you come on point, Sir. Such remarks are a great
help.
Your links I will check step by step. This will endure, 'cause I have to do
alot of other readage, too. In the meantime start with Q(1):
(1) Is this PO's statement of importance and means anyway?
Jürgen
<rest snipped>
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9s9fh9$si2$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht <6yJF7.24241$y%.
> <snip>
> >>
> >> >You may believe he is innocent... I do not.
> >>
> >> Whether you or I *believe* in Dieter's innocence/guilt is *TOTALLY* out
> of
> >> interest at this point.
> >>
> >What????
>
> Yup. May be unbelievable to you, but actually there are afew questions more
> than Guilt/Innocence. For instant what it means for the ENTIRE trial if the
> prosecution coerces even one false testimony.
>
guilt/innocence. Such issues are addressed at trial. If it is shown
that false testimony was coerced by the prosecution, such is a
proper basis for appeal. But it must be PROVEN. What is NOT
related to guilt/innocence is 'how good a boy he was' testimonials.
They go only to sentencing, unless relevant to the crime itself.
How am I to judge that??? Do I have access to all the background
available to those in the appeals process? You should understand
that the appeals process was rather extensive, as the link I provided
you showed. With over 30 minutes of video testimony presented in
that process. If you wish to second-guess those learned justices,
you may do so. But you are obviously expressing a subjective view
when you do. It's the problem that you and I ALWAYS get bogged down
in discussing. You would suggest that YOU can better interpret
guilt/innocence than those who are intimately involved in the process,
because you've read some obviously biased argument that suggests
innocent. Regardless of how little is ACTUALLY known of the facts.
PV
> Jürgen
>
> <rest snipped>
>
>
>
>
Richard Jackson
> Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht...
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> ......Don't get me wrong, the people accused have in common committed
> horrible
> >> crimes, but the mode of selection is inappropriate for to make a
> reasonable
> >> selection of the worst of the worst out of the guilties' set. Thus, the
> >> "strongest cases" has another means than supposed by you.
> >
> >So it is not fair that a prosecutor should seek to try cases he can
> >win?
>
> Not under the conditions mentioned. A weak defense and/or an emotionally
> loaded charge for to impress a jury of laypersons are absolutely not the
> appropriate measurement to determine the worst of the worst for to try them
> for the DP.
A weak defense case can be caused by other reasons than an incompetent
lawyer, Jürgen. The defense might have a weak case because the
evidence overwhelmingly indites the defendant. Prosecutors tend to
prosecute a case in the charge which they have the best chance of
winning except in some specific locals.
In Harris County, Texas, (Houston) for example, the DA's office has a
long standing policy of prosecuting *EVERY* murder case possible to
prosecute as a capital murder case. This lead to Harris County having
the highest number of successful capital murder cases in Texas, but it
also lead to a couple of other things which were not so desirable.
Harris County also has a very high rate of overturned penalty verdicts
where convicted capital murderers have their sentences reduced to
lesser types of murder with lesser penalties. Probably the highest
rate of any county in Texas in this issue.
This despite the fact that Harris county was the first county in Texas
to recognize that steps needed to be taken to insure better defense
attorneys in murder cases and increased local standards fo attorneys
who want to practice murder defense.
You cannot have it both ways, Jürgen. We can either, as does Harris
County, prosecute every conceivable murder case as capital, or we can
choose those which surely fit the bill and have a strong chance of
successful prosecution. Since retentionists get hammered by
abolitionists regardless of which way we choose, what difference does
it really make?
>
> >he shoudl try all cases regardless of his chances of success?
>
> Huh? I was already on point, so this strange question is really
> amazing....It had been not too difficult to conclude to my suggestions:
>
> (1) Put some essential parts of the jury-addressed recommendments demanding
> from the jurors the establishment of a future and continuing threat as the
> base for a DS DIRECTLY in the DP-statutes and in a sudden the whole gets at
> least theoretically honest
> (2) Give your prosecutors precedent-cases for DP-pleas and precedent-cases
> for non-DP-pleas at hand and force them to make a clear and transparent
> decision including a reasoning why exactly any particular case should be
> tried for the DP in their opinion, let them lay open the parameters and
> circumstances founding their decision by pointing out the CT, the whole well
> in comparizon to the precedent-cases. Let them exactly explain why they do
> guess any arrested for especially dangerous not only in a moment of furious
> rage or depression but *in general*, this explanation not based on the
> victim's quality or the horrible crime-scene but on the offender's motives
> and history. Then the whole perhaps will start to work out even practically
> for dimensions better than right now.
Jürgen, as I have tried to explain before, the continuing threat is
part of the penalty phase of the capital trial, not part of the guilt
phase. It is clearly spelled out in the required instructions to the
jury once a guilty verdict is found, and is NOT part of the definition
of what constitutes capital murder in the law, but IS requirred before
a death sentence may be found. You want to add yet another
qualifcation to what constitutes capital murder which is now pretty
narrowly defined. It appears a continuation of the piecemeal attack
of abolitionists. As such, I oppose this, feeling we already have
narrowed the definition enough.
>
> But you don't WANT to get the DP fair. After analyzing the procedere it
> seems to me to be the outspoken aim to let all options open to sentence
> *ANY* guilty to death. The people unfamiliar with the horrible spectrum of
> crimes and thus most impressible by the emotional aspects have the most
> difficult task and the prosecution is not even morally bound to make a
> proper pre-selection of DP-cases.
>
Murder isn't fair. How many murder victims get a panel of twelve
jurors who must decide with no wavering that they should die? Where
did the criminal who killed them give them due process? Do you think
murder victims are read their rights? They get no protection of the
law. Murderers get all of these things. Even then, only a small part
of those who commit murder are actually charged with capital murder
due to the narrowness of the qualifcations for that crime under the
law. I would say that for the very large majority of murders and a
large majority of capital murderers, the DP is more than fairly
applied considering the other side of the coin.
<snip>
> >
> >You would set aside the findings of a legal trial process?
>
> Just like you are doing any times when granting parole in case of any lesser
> sentences than the DP. Or were parole after 18 years of a 20-years-sentence
> *ANY* other than setting aside the findings of a legal trial process?
It is not a setting aside of the process, but a change in location of
sentence. A paroled prisoner is paroled, not released from charges.
They still have restrictions when they are released and do not have
all of the rights of normal free men. Violations of those
restrictions can mean they will return to prison to serve the rest of
their time, even if they break no new law. Perhaps in Germany this is
different?
>
> In other
> >words, Juergen, we should, in your opinion, have two trials. One to
> >determine guilt and set the punishment, and then another 15 years or
> >so later to determine if the threat of the death penalty and 15 or so
> >years in confinement has changed the person in any way?
>
> Such is not a trial. Such is what Sharp aka Deceptor-Dud *CLAIMS* to be a
> point separating the DP from Revenge: A consideration of clemency. In
> difference to DD's however a serious one with clemency as a true possibility
> for the outcome.
And yet, with your proposal that those on death row be examined for
change and spared the DP, You do seek a second trial. Call it
whatever, you would have us set aside a legal finding of a court based
upon examination of the prisoner's character. This would require a
legal proceeding, attorneys, presented evidence, etc. To quote the
Bard, "A rose by any other name...."
>
> >
> >I have a question for you Juergen. How many time in Germany do you
> >find defendants who get such consideration unless there is new
> >evidence discovered or a proceedural error in the original trial?
>
> Geeezzz Richard. Is this a serious question or are you kidding? This is done
> in Germany in **ANY** case, and in Texas/US in the *overwhelming* share of
> cases.
I speak of a new trial, based on nothing else other than to examine
change in the prisoner, not parole.
Almost any prisoner is allowed to hope for clemency, means for parole
> as a reduction of his original sentence. (The possibility of parole after 15
> years for life terms in Germany has led to the nonsensial imagination of all
> murderers being set free here after this time. The law means just that a
> CONSIDERATION of lenience is permitted after this time, if parole however
> deems to be risky or inappropriate then will be granted none. It's a
> useful option, because many actually can be released, but BY FAR not all
> are,
> particularly not such deemed for dangerous.)
>
> This your question reveals a terrible understanding basing on an equally
> terrible property of the DP. The DP is not to integrate in the continuum of
> penalties, the difference between imprisonment and death is not a quantity
> but a QUALITY. This property - a reason to abolish the DP per se, besides -
> now leads instantly and frequently to the (retentionist) conclusion of
> pardoning a DR-inmate equating to a drop of the ENTIRE penalty, because the
> DP as the process of killing is not divisible or reducible. Many years
> incarceration are counting nothing in comparizon with the DP in the
> retentionist view ("He has been sentenced to the DP, not to DR - this is
> only an unwanted effect of the running appeals") while this years factually
> are already an awfully harsh penalty.
How harsh is murder, Jürgen?
>
> If however anyone would like to integrate the DP in the line of penalties
> best possibly then he had to seek for a solution for to grant a DR-inmate
> the same what is granted to *ALL* other prisoners: A real *OPTION* for a
> reduction of the penalty. It is inconclusive that any penalty can be reduced
> if it seems appropriate except the DP. Thus, the DP-included really awful
> time on DR should consequently be regarded as a part of the penalty, too,
> and allow to consider a commutation to a prison term, for the reason that to
> all other prisoners an option of mercy is left in general.
Well, if we ever perfect suspended antimation by freezing, we could
just freeze them until all the appeals processes are over, then thaw
them out and execute them with lethal injection, I guess. That way,
the waiting would not be "torture" would it? Carrying that reasoning
a bit futher, If we used the electric chair, we could both thaw and
execute them at the same time! Efficient!
>
> >
> <snip>
>
> >> This situation, means a prosecutor generally trying to gain political
> >> publicity-points with DP-cases snoring while the trial, is so far fetched
> >> that I never wasted a thought on, to be honest.
> >
> >Perhaps you should, Juergen. What is good for one side whould carry
> >equal weight for the other, shouldn't it?
>
> No Richard. There is ZILCH equalization between prosecutor and
> public-defender. The first has to do a hard work (what often led and leads
> to improper methods, besides) and has to gain alot in a DP-trial while the
> second is provided with poor resources and will gain null by "winning" the
> trial, i.e. by achieving a prison term instead of the DP for his defendant.
Not necessarily true, Jürgen. There is a good deal of effort to
equalize things, and the lawyers who prosecute are not usually well
paid, nor are they particularly the best lawyers around. Most DA's
offices in large cities rely on young, inexperienced lawyers for a
great deal of the work because they can hire them cheaply. At that,
they usually have to take what is left after the large and rich law
partnerships bid for and get the best and brightest out of law school.
In many small towns, the DA is usually a local lawyer who runs for,
or is appointed to office from among a limited number of lawyers.
After serving a term or two, he or she may well go back to private
practice, defending clients as a court appointed attorney, and one of
the previous court appointed defense attorneys will take his or her
place as the DA. Tha's prety equal opportunity indeed.
There is a great deal said about the inequality of money spent
investigating a crime and defending it. In reality, would you rather
the amounts really be equal? I want the law enforcement agencies to
carry out a thorough and careful investigation of the evidence to
assign blame for a crime correctly. This does cost money. Remember,
the burden of proof in any criminal trial is upon the shoulders of the
prosecution, and must be total. All the defense has to do is cast one
doubt, one suspicion in the minds of the jury with the evidence
presented, and they win the case, which means the defendant may NEVER
be tried for that particular crime again regardless of evidence found
afterward. For example, if O.J. Simpson right now went on national
television and proclaimed, "Yes! I killed my wife and her lover, so
what?" there is nothing legally that could be done for a new murder
trial.
>
> .....Thus, many, many "death-qualified" jurors will not be able to
> distinct
> >> rationally between cases of full vs reduced culpability because the
> >> *FORBIDDEN* view (2) is essential for to do so.
> >
> >And I cannot see where you would think someone who is diametrically
> >opposed to assigning a death sentence could fairly judge in a case
> >where that is one of the punishments to be selected if a guilty
> >verdict is reached.
>
> Well, clearly you have two problems in view of DQ-jury selection. One is the
> trivial one, means to exclude abolitionists for their principled opposition
> to the DP, the other is the really difficulty. Abolitionists are relatively
> swiftly excluded while I see little options to come to a DQ-jury of a really
> rational kind, means 12 Jurors *ABLE* each to view (1) AND (2) as
> quasi-contradictory standpoints.
>
> Slipping for an instant in the part of a DQ-juror I see my situation as a
> real dilemma. On the one side there is the pro-DP side, the standpoint of
> the victim, on the other side I see a course of life of the guilty not
> permitting his proper evolution. Now my mind becomes a flip-flop; thinking
> "victim" associating "DP", thinking "What pathetic conditions for this
> guilty's moral evolve" associating "mitigant circumstances, let him live". I
> can't find out there anyway, the switch switches ad infinitum, a clear
> self-satisfying decision is out of sight for principle.
>
> Now making my flip-state-decision depending upon what I heard from
> prosecutor and public defender I know the outcome.
It is difficult. What is sought are jurors who are able to judge the
case on the testimony and evidence presented them and who are able to
make a decision based upon that, and that alone. Both sides attempt
to deny jury access to anyone prejudiced for either side of the case,
and such prejudice is reason for not serving if discovered of a
potential jury member in examination. For example, a judge is as
quick to dismiss a person who states, "I think all murderers must be
executed." as he is one who states they cannot vote for a death
penalty under any circumstances.
> >
> >>
> >> This is the most difficult problem regarding DP-jury-selection, by far
> more
> >> problematic than to exclude abolitionists, and it is well known, however,
> >> unsolved. Referring to the folks right here I think PV were the only one
> >> gradually enabled at least to attempt to weigh (1) and (2).
> >>
> >> Personally, Ithink
> >> >the two phases of capital trials should have two levels of burden of
> >> >proof. I think the guilt phase should be unamious, and the penalty
> >> >phase a majority, say nine out of twelve jurors agreeing on a
> >> >punishment. In this way, the requirement for asking potential jurors
> >> >about their belief of the use of the death pnealty could be
> >> >eliminated, ...
> >>
> >> sorry to interrupt, but radical DP-jurors are at least as unwanted as
> >> abolitionists, see above. The jury selection will remain as difficult as
> >> now.
> >
> >It would, but there are limited numbers of challenges allowed and if
> >we took away the need for death qualified juries, we could still
> >include abolitionists in the selection. Radicals could be eliminated
> >under grounds of prejudice just as they are now.
> >
> Waivering the demand of an unanimous Jury's sentence were totally inane.
> Then a simple count would substitute the necessary discussion.
I've sat in juries where the first thing done is a vote for guilt to
see if everyone has already reached a decision. There was always
discussion regardless of the outcome of this vote. A weighing of
evidence and conclusions. It allowed the jury to divide into opposite
sides and attempt to present their reasoning wile swaying the other
side to their viewpoint.
>
> .......their taking part in the discussion would lead
> >> instantly to heavy controverses about principle standpoints.
> >
> >Or perhaps there are six abolitionist or none. Who would know if that
> >was not a question allowed in examination. If you think there is not
> >heavy conversation in any death penalty trial, you have a different
> >thought about this than I do. People have conflicting opinions in any
> >jury room, death penalty or not. I once served as chairman of a jury
> >trying a speeding ticket when one member voted innocent regardless of
> >the evidence. He was not going to move from his stance despite what
> >the other jury members said. I finaly had to stop the discussion to
> >prevent a fight in the jury room, and declare a hung jury. If
> >emotions got this hot over a traffic ticket, think how strained they
> >can get in deliberation over someone's life.
> >
> >You do a disservice to those who thus serve to think all would not
> >participate.
>
> Now Richard. As the situation *is* this is quite clear, the Jury has to come
> to an unanimous verdict. You proposed to drop the requirement of
> unanimousity and just then the quarrelling about the decision would stop. Or
> do you really think if 9 jurors vote for the DP and 3 against a large
> discussion would happen if this result were acceptable by the court as the
> Jury's DP-vote?
I think it possible, especially if the requirement for death qualified
jury members was dropped. Majority jury decisions are not unknown
around the World.
NO, he is not required by law to select capital cases under those
conditions. In Texas, the jury IS required by law to reach this
conclusion, so the prosecutor has to take that fact into consideration
if he wants a death penalty conclusion. it is only the difference
between de jure, and de facto.
We all have a right to our thoughts and belief, Jürgen.
>
> >
> >>
> >> That is their thought, not mine. We both just happen to have the
> >> >same ultimate goal, to see qualifying murderers executed.
> >>
> >> Well, **ANY** murderer "qualifies" for revenge
> >
> >Not necessarily, Juergen. I seldom make all inclusive statements, for
> >there is always the exception.
>
> What kind of a real murderer, having killed a human for a low motive, should
> not qualify for revenge IYO, then? Mitigant circumstances like a chanceless
> childhood/youth do according to yourself not suffice for to drop revenge,
> also not obvious huge effords of any death-sentenced to educate himself. So
> give me any criteria permitting me to view the set of murderers not
> "qualifying" for revenge IYO.
No these things are not necessarily a reason to drop the death
penalty. I do not consider the DP a revenge, so the above statement
does not apply to me, except int he case of Johb Paul Penry. That one
qualifies as revenge for me for I personally know the family of the
victim.
Is that not the truth? Would it not be boring indeed if all in this
group were abolitionists or all retentionists? What would you guys
here do without us?
;-)
--
Richard Jackson
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>> >> >You may believe he is innocent... I do not.
>> >>
>> >> Whether you or I *believe* in Dieter's innocence/guilt is *TOTALLY*
out
>> of
>> >> interest at this point.
>> >>
>> >What????
>>
>> Yup. May be unbelievable to you, but actually there are afew questions
more
>> than Guilt/Innocence. For instant what it means for the ENTIRE trial if
the
>> prosecution coerces even one false testimony.
>>
>I refuse to go there, Jürgen.
Yes I know. You refuse to go *ANYWHERE*. No nonesense is too shabby for you
if seemingly "supporting" your cause, not even DD's Opus, and no reason is
enough for to even cause any of a reflective thought.
<snip>
>>
>> (1) Is this PO's statement of importance and means anyway?
>>
>How am I to judge that???
Switch on your thinking processes and ponder over what it means if a PO
states publicly to have lied under order of the prosecution. Much better
stuff for to judge you will not find. There are two most easy possibilities,
either the PO spoke the truth or he lied into the camera. Why for God's sake
he should do the latter and incriminate himself of perjury without cause
were yours to explain.
Do I have access to all the background
>available to those in the appeals process?
No. But I chose the example just *BECAUSE* in such a glaring case not too
much background knowledge is necessary for to recognize what happens. PO
admits to perjury and since 14 years no new trial date has been set:
"<possible> innocence is no reason for a new trial."
Now wait a moment.... just getting aware what we're DISCUSSING at all, no,
*THAT* we are discussing *THIS* at all, I tell you what, Sir. The public
confession of a witness, even a PO, to have twisted facts in his testimony
in a DP-trial on prosecutoral behalf and recommendment is *OVERWHELMING*
reason to rule *INSTANTLY* for a new trial without a *SCINTILLA* of a
discussion. This is not any less than scandalous. And besides: The General
State Attorney *OBTAINS* the option to declare a trial for invalid and to
rule a new trial or even to drop the charge.
Furthermore a bone-hard examination of the prosecutoral habits and
operating-practice has to be made on behalf of all citizens bound to trust
in this instrument.
The plain *FACT THAT* the appeals have to concern with such is the ABSOLUTE
MORAL GROUND ZERO per se.
And you? After your agreement and defense of this attitudes you really have
no reason to blow the moral trumpet anyway. Dare accusing me of immorality
for to regard the options what to do else with the millions wasted on
meaningless masturbation-appeals merely trying to discuss away a fact. Not
you, Sir, not after *discussing* about what is a matter of course after ten
minutes TV-report for anyone being fitted with a moral minimum.
You should understand
>that the appeals process was rather extensive, as the link I provided
>you showed.
Oh well... That much of a balooney happens on taxpayer's expense is not too
surprising in the face of $Million-costs. What really were however were if
the defense's filings had been not rejected a priori and a serious
examination of the strange prosecutoral procedere had happened. I'll check
by a fly-over, but I doubt it fundamentally. The introduction of evidence
questioning the credibility of officials is almost impossible. Such would
make an Interruptus of the Masturbation. "Publicly known prosecutoral
misconduct is no reason for a new trial." Oh, oh well...
With over 30 minutes of video testimony presented in
>that process. If you wish to second-guess those learned justices,
>you may do so. But you are obviously expressing a subjective view
>when you do.
No I don't. I pointed at a perceivable and verifiable FACT that ANYONE can
experience and value himself. I asked you by question (1) to value the
fact - you refuse to do so. I saw and heard this man admit to perjury, now
to devaluate this pure perceiving process of mine by calling it subjective
means that you had/have heard this man speaking other words and phrases
while your watching of exactly the same TV-report. Put subjectivity where it
belongs. (Ah, BTW: Any progresses in school?)
It's the problem that you and I ALWAYS get bogged down
>in discussing. You would suggest that YOU can better interpret
>guilt/innocence than those who are intimately involved in the process,...
Oh, oh well... I recall not too long ago your fervent argument claiming
society (= the citizens) as the originator of the Theoretic Law. My
observation of the TL as the outcome of an elite of experts while society's
impact is very limited and indirect actually you declared for wrong. Now on
the level of a single case in a sudden an elite makes according to you
decisions beyond the understanding-capacity of a layperson. Quite the
contrary is true: A layperson barely can view the consequences laying in the
TL but can very well guess the grade of fairness in a particular legal
decision. Agendal Hypocrisy, elitism if it suits? Oh well, oh well...
>...because you've read some obviously biased argument that suggests
>innocent.
ROTFLMAO. The old story of the wise men's decisions for that's understanding
Jürgen lacks the intelligence.
No, Sir. This times are passé once for all. This sort of respect I lost
forever, no one ever will sell me human decisions for being beyond my
capability to understand them. A court's rule has to be understandable for a
layperson if (s)he puts effords in. Should this not be given then radicalism
already is at work. So seeing as a layperson that the appeals do not manage
it within 14 years to deal with the *FACT* but merely discuss whether they
*SHOULD* deal with the fact I clearly come to the conclusion: As long as the
appeals masturbate instead of to have fruitful intercourse they will not
make the child called Justitia.
>Regardless of how little is ACTUALLY known of the facts.
(From above, PV: >> >> >You may believe he is innocent... I do not)
>
Well then: What *CAN BE* a fact at all speaking against a proper
investigation of the happenings on the prosecutoral side in the face of a
PO-witness admitting to prosecution-caused perjury in the original trial?!!?
Name me at least *ONE* *POSSIBLE* *PLAUSIBLE* reason for not to pursue this
public confession of a PO *instantly* and *unconditionally*.
"Where smoke there fire", I showed up the smoke in the shape of a clear
fact, I already did the mine. The yours now is to show up your allegedly
busy Appeals-firefighters' clear measures to go for the fire. 14 years have
passed by, the smoke is there all along. Where is your due process? Can't
see any through all that smoke.......
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9sbkvr$gvv$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
> >> >> >You may believe he is innocent... I do not.
> >> >>
> >> >> Whether you or I *believe* in Dieter's innocence/guilt is *TOTALLY*
> out
> >> of
> >> >> interest at this point.
> >> >>
> >> >What????
> >>
> >> Yup. May be unbelievable to you, but actually there are afew questions
> more
> >> than Guilt/Innocence. For instant what it means for the ENTIRE trial if
> the
> >> prosecution coerces even one false testimony.
> >>
> >I refuse to go there, Jürgen.
>
> Yes I know. You refuse to go *ANYWHERE*. No nonesense is too shabby for you
> if seemingly "supporting" your cause, not even DD's Opus, and no reason is
> enough for to even cause any of a reflective thought.
Because I refuse to second-guess a jury and ALL due process
which has been provided that represents nonsense to you? What
IS nonsense is that YOU expect to know MORE than they do, given
your limited knowledge of the facts. You would expect to try the
case OVER and OVER... until finally it reaches the conclusion that
your agenda demands. How silly is that?
>
> <snip>
> >>
> >> (1) Is this PO's statement of importance and means anyway?
> >>
> >How am I to judge that???
>
> Switch on your thinking processes and ponder over what it means if a PO
> states publicly to have lied under order of the prosecution. Much better
> stuff for to judge you will not find. There are two most easy possibilities,
> either the PO spoke the truth or he lied into the camera. Why for God's sake
> he should do the latter and incriminate himself of perjury without cause
> were yours to explain.
>
Where exactly have you obtained the information you are
providing? From the home page of the murderer perhaps?
> Do I have access to all the background
> >available to those in the appeals process?
>
> No. But I chose the example just *BECAUSE* in such a glaring case not too
> much background knowledge is necessary for to recognize what happens. PO
> admits to perjury and since 14 years no new trial date has been set:
> "<possible> innocence is no reason for a new trial."
>
No... and you KNOW that's not the case. You chose it BECAUSE
it was a German National being threatened with the DP. For NO
OTHER REASON.
> Now wait a moment.... just getting aware what we're DISCUSSING at all, no,
> *THAT* we are discussing *THIS* at all, I tell you what, Sir. The public
> confession of a witness, even a PO, to have twisted facts in his testimony
> in a DP-trial on prosecutoral behalf and recommendment is *OVERWHELMING*
> reason to rule *INSTANTLY* for a new trial without a *SCINTILLA* of a
> discussion. This is not any less than scandalous. And besides: The General
> State Attorney *OBTAINS* the option to declare a trial for invalid and to
> rule a new trial or even to drop the charge.
> Furthermore a bone-hard examination of the prosecutoral habits and
> operating-practice has to be made on behalf of all citizens bound to trust
> in this instrument.
>
Ummm.... Still providing TRUD's I see.
> The plain *FACT THAT* the appeals have to concern with such is the ABSOLUTE
> MORAL GROUND ZERO per se.
>
> And you? After your agreement and defense of this attitudes you really have
> no reason to blow the moral trumpet anyway. Dare accusing me of immorality
> for to regard the options what to do else with the millions wasted on
> meaningless masturbation-appeals merely trying to discuss away a fact. Not
> you, Sir, not after *discussing* about what is a matter of course after ten
> minutes TV-report for anyone being fitted with a moral minimum.
>
Do you REALLY have anything to say here? If you intend to
argue you need to provide more content, and less rant. Certainly
your entire argument in the Riechmann case rests on some rather
mysterious information that you claim to possess which others do
not. And after 14 years, those 'evil' forces, you continually refer
to, have managed to KEEP that mysterious information from the
public eye.
> You should understand
> >that the appeals process was rather extensive, as the link I provided
> >you showed.
>
> Oh well... That much of a balooney happens on taxpayer's expense is not too
> surprising in the face of $Million-costs.
Yeah... the old 'cost' routine again.
> What really were however were if
> the defense's filings had been not rejected a priori and a serious
> examination of the strange prosecutoral procedere had happened. I'll check
> by a fly-over, but I doubt it fundamentally. The introduction of evidence
> questioning the credibility of officials is almost impossible. Such would
> make an Interruptus of the Masturbation. "Publicly known prosecutoral
> misconduct is no reason for a new trial." Oh, oh well...
>
> With over 30 minutes of video testimony presented in
> >that process. If you wish to second-guess those learned justices,
> >you may do so. But you are obviously expressing a subjective view
> >when you do.
>
> No I don't.
Yes you do. What are you talking about? So many individuals
have ruled against your argument here, and then you would have
the nerve to claim your view is NOT subjective????
> I pointed at a perceivable and verifiable FACT that ANYONE can
> experience and value himself. I asked you by question (1) to value the
> fact - you refuse to do so. I saw and heard this man admit to perjury, now
> to devaluate this pure perceiving process of mine by calling it subjective
> means that you had/have heard this man speaking other words and phrases
> while your watching of exactly the same TV-report. Put subjectivity where it
> belongs. (Ah, BTW: Any progresses in school?)
>
You saw and heard???? When and where was this?
> It's the problem that you and I ALWAYS get bogged down
> >in discussing. You would suggest that YOU can better interpret
> >guilt/innocence than those who are intimately involved in the process,...
>
> Oh, oh well... I recall not too long ago your fervent argument claiming
> society (= the citizens) as the originator of the Theoretic Law. My
> observation of the TL as the outcome of an elite of experts while society's
> impact is very limited and indirect actually you declared for wrong. Now on
> the level of a single case in a sudden an elite makes according to you
> decisions beyond the understanding-capacity of a layperson.
Actually a jury CONSISTS of laypersons. And it was THOSE
laypersons who first sentenced Riechmann to the DP.
> Quite the
> contrary is true: A layperson barely can view the consequences laying in the
> TL but can very well guess the grade of fairness in a particular legal
> decision. Agendal Hypocrisy, elitism if it suits? Oh well, oh well...
>
> >...because you've read some obviously biased argument that suggests
> >innocent.
>
> ROTFLMAO. The old story of the wise men's decisions for that's understanding
> Jürgen lacks the intelligence.
I don't think you lack the intelligence. I just think you're blind to
the realities of murder and the process undertaken by the Justice
System. You believe what you WANT to believe, regardless of
any consideration of the facts. Police, prosecutors, juries, judges,
justices, parole and pardon boards... You think ALL are in on some
diabolic scheme to only execute the innocent. You think This 'coven
of evil' is RESPONSIBLE for the violence in the U.S. Not the
murderers themselves. They are only being persecuted in your
mind.
> No, Sir. This times are passé once for all. This sort of respect I lost
> forever, no one ever will sell me human decisions for being beyond my
> capability to understand them. A court's rule has to be understandable for a
> layperson if (s)he puts effords in. Should this not be given then radicalism
> already is at work. So seeing as a layperson that the appeals do not manage
> it within 14 years to deal with the *FACT* but merely discuss whether they
> *SHOULD* deal with the fact I clearly come to the conclusion: As long as the
> appeals masturbate instead of to have fruitful intercourse they will not
> make the child called Justitia.
>
You seem to have become enamored of the term 'masturbation.'
>
> >Regardless of how little is ACTUALLY known of the facts.
>
> (From above, PV: >> >> >You may believe he is innocent... I do not)
> >
> Well then: What *CAN BE* a fact at all speaking against a proper
> investigation of the happenings on the prosecutoral side in the face of a
> PO-witness admitting to prosecution-caused perjury in the original trial?!!?
> Name me at least *ONE* *POSSIBLE* *PLAUSIBLE* reason for not to pursue this
> public confession of a PO *instantly* and *unconditionally*.
>
Ummmm... that COULD be because he was judged guilty.
> "Where smoke there fire", I showed up the smoke in the shape of a clear
> fact, I already did the mine. The yours now is to show up your allegedly
> busy Appeals-firefighters' clear measures to go for the fire. 14 years have
> passed by, the smoke is there all along. Where is your due process? Can't
> see any through all that smoke.......
>
The due process is contained within that 14 years. Had it not
been there, Riechmann would be a long gone memory. Do you
REALLY believe he is innocent? Be honest with yourself. Do
you REALLY believe he is innocent? Now I've said that the level
of proof of both deserving it and probability of recidivism (which
is probably non-existent during his stay in the U.S., as he would
undoubtedly be deported immediately) for me does not justify
the DP, but do you REALLY believe he is innocent?
PV
> Jürgen
>
>
>
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
.... There are two most easy possibilities,
>> either the PO spoke the truth or he lied into the camera. Why for God's
sake
>> he should do the latter and incriminate himself of perjury without cause
>> were yours to explain.
>>
>Where exactly have you obtained the information you are
>providing? From the home page of the murderer perhaps?
>
The interview I'm referring to was broadcasted by one of the two
public-funded TV-stations in Germany. This TV-stations are providing the
most reliable news and reports to obtain here at all, proper research and
verification is a matter of course for them.
Questioning the acuratesse of the interview would mean to accuse a public
institution to have hired any guy for to make up the whole. Mostly absurd.
>> Do I have access to all the background
>> >available to those in the appeals process?
>>
>> No. But I chose the example just *BECAUSE* in such a glaring case not too
>> much background knowledge is necessary for to recognize what happens. PO
>> admits to perjury and since 14 years no new trial date has been set:
>> "<possible> innocence is no reason for a new trial."
>>
>No... and you KNOW that's not the case. You chose it BECAUSE
>it was a German National being threatened with the DP. For NO
>OTHER REASON.
That broadcasting about Germans in Germany is more in- and extensive is out
of question. So it is easier for me to gain info aside from private webpages
by regarding a German's case. Another fine case were Jimmy Dennis in
Pennsylvania, however, in this case I'm not able to rely on our public TV
stations' infos. So I made my choice quite well in view of the info-quality
achievable for me.
<snip>
Not
>> you, Sir, not after *discussing* about what is a matter of course after
ten
>> minutes TV-report for anyone being fitted with a moral minimum.
>>
>Do you REALLY have anything to say here? If you intend to
>argue you need to provide more content, and less rant.
(1) I saw and heard a man in US-police-uniform report to have investigated
and testified in the Dieter Riechmann-case and to have been recommended by
the prosecutor to testify other than his actual observations at the crime
scene had been. He reported in follow to have testified according to the
prosecutor's demands.
(2) The TV-report including this interview was broadcasted not by AI, ACLU
or ECADP/CCADP but by one of the most serious Radio/TV-stations in Germany,
a public-funded institution strictly legally bound to verify news and
reports distinctly and having to lose a very good reputation by *ANY*
inaccurate broadcast.
(3) I doubt after (1) and (2) that this information were inaccurate and I
doubt that the German TV knows more than the Floridian officials.
(4) I guess it for a matter of course that in such a case a serious General
State Attorney (GSA) *INSTANTLY* rules for a new trial, *SELF-MOTIVATED*,
*WITHOUT ANY APPEAL'S DECISION ENFORCING*.
(5) I do not see happening *ANYTHING* for to even merely *CLEAR UP* this
vast accusation while !!14!! years lasting appeals, not to speak of any
activity from the GSA's side.
(6) I see you after a *TOTALLY INVALID* trial defend a lethargic appeals
system and a paralyzed GSA while (1)-(3) should make a new trial to a matter
of course *INSTANTLY* for any halfway morally touched existence.
This is what I really have to say here.
Certainly
>your entire argument in the Riechmann case rests on some rather
>mysterious information that you claim to possess which others do
>not. And after 14 years, those 'evil' forces, you continually refer
>to, have managed to KEEP that mysterious information from the
>public eye.
Ah...the "public eye". That would be around 70% retentionists. Most of them
do not even care *ANYWAY* for flaws in the justice system, and the *only*
retentionist trying to modify the DP at least in THEORY at all - PV - is
unable or unwilling to grasp the situation, too. I'd guess the mentioned
interview was broadcasted in Florida also, the question is who cared to
watch and to listen. The "public eye" sees what it wants to see.
>
>> You should understand
>> >that the appeals process was rather extensive, as the link I provided
>> >you showed.
>>
>> Oh well... That much of a balooney happens on taxpayer's expense is not
too
>> surprising in the face of $Million-costs.
>
>Yeah... the old 'cost' routine again.
Well, of course...that's the topic right here. Masturbation-appeals
requiring immense amounts of money.
>
>> What really were however were if
>> the defense's filings had been not rejected a priori and a serious
>> examination of the strange prosecutoral procedere had happened. I'll
check
>> by a fly-over, but I doubt it fundamentally. The introduction of evidence
>> questioning the credibility of officials is almost impossible. Such would
>> make an Interruptus of the Masturbation. "Publicly known prosecutoral
>> misconduct is no reason for a new trial." Oh, oh well...
>>
>> With over 30 minutes of video testimony presented in
>> >that process. If you wish to second-guess those learned justices,
>> >you may do so. But you are obviously expressing a subjective view
>> >when you do.
>>
>> No I don't.
>
>Yes you do. What are you talking about? So many individuals
>have ruled against your argument here, and then you would have
>the nerve to claim your view is NOT subjective????
No, they have not ruled against the *ARGUMENT*. They refuse to *VIEW* the
argument. Big Diff.
>
>> I pointed at a perceivable and verifiable FACT that ANYONE can
>> experience and value himself. I asked you by question (1) to value the
>> fact - you refuse to do so. I saw and heard this man admit to perjury,
now
>> to devaluate this pure perceiving process of mine by calling it
subjective
>> means that you had/have heard this man speaking other words and phrases
>> while your watching of exactly the same TV-report. Put subjectivity where
it
>> belongs. (Ah, BTW: Any progresses in school?)
>>
>
>You saw and heard???? When and where was this?
See above.
>
>> It's the problem that you and I ALWAYS get bogged down
>> >in discussing. You would suggest that YOU can better interpret
>> >guilt/innocence than those who are intimately involved in the
process,...
>>
>> Oh, oh well... I recall not too long ago your fervent argument claiming
>> society (= the citizens) as the originator of the Theoretic Law. My
>> observation of the TL as the outcome of an elite of experts while
society's
>> impact is very limited and indirect actually you declared for wrong. Now
on
>> the level of a single case in a sudden an elite makes according to you
>> decisions beyond the understanding-capacity of a layperson.
>
>Actually a jury CONSISTS of laypersons. And it was THOSE
>laypersons who first sentenced Riechmann to the DP.
You're unable to concentrate on any argument, are you? The jury of
laypersons has been intentionally and premediatedly misinformed and we are
discussing the *SAFEGUARDS*, the *APPEALS*. No jury while the appeals, you
know. And I questioned why this experts do not make consequences of a vast
mistake in the trial, you are claiming there to be any superior explanation
for this hidden in the jungle of legal proceedings. I now bluntly claim for
such a situation only one consequent option to be available, that were a new
trial including this witnesses corrected testimony.
>
>> Quite the
>> contrary is true: A layperson barely can view the consequences laying in
the
>> TL but can very well guess the grade of fairness in a particular legal
>> decision. Agendal Hypocrisy, elitism if it suits? Oh well, oh well...
>>
>> >...because you've read some obviously biased argument that suggests
>> >innocent.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO. The old story of the wise men's decisions for that's
understanding
>> Jürgen lacks the intelligence.
>
>I don't think you lack the intelligence. I just think you're blind to
>the realities of murder and the process undertaken by the Justice
>System.
Ach was. "Blind to the realities of murder"...I'm discussing sense or
nonsense of the DP, not sense or nonsense of necessary measures for to keep
dangerous people away from general society. And I clearly see that the DP
systems don't care much about innocents on DR: If exonerations despite known
facts endure more than ten years then the whole stinks bestialically.
You believe what you WANT to believe, regardless of
>any consideration of the facts.
Ah...facts. Fact is for example that even you regard 85% of executions for
"unnecessary". I make conclusions of such facts. Of such and many, many more
already broadly presented to you. I conclude from numbers, situations and
perceptions to theories. That may be stringent or likely or wrong. You
however are presenting as the ONLY fact a list of recidivism cases. Yes,
recidivism exists. In analytical sight however you are neither challenging
ANY of my conclusive chains nor are you analyzing yourself ANYWAY.
Police, prosecutors, juries, judges,
>justices, parole and pardon boards... You think ALL are in on some
>diabolic scheme to only execute the innocent.
No, just this I do not think. I however do think that the DP has led into a
trap. I do think that it's no more the LAW determining who is on DR and who
in the end is put to death but the worst human arbitrariness. I guess about
80-90% of the partitioners are willing to do their best for justice, but I
think the remaining 10-20% are *ENABLED* by lacking or flawed *LAWS* to
introduce and uphold insane tendencies poisoning the *WHOLE* in the end. So
if for instant only *ONE* out of ten prosecutors is a bad guy and uses the
interpretative bandwith of the DP-statutes for DP-pleas against guilty
offenders not fitting into a CT-claim by all reasonability then this one
will already do large damage to the system. Also such a foul guy will cling
to stick heads together with *ONE* foul pendant in the Sheriff's office and
look for to make any case watertight which isn't by the evidence obtainable.
(The P&P-boards now are another cup of tea. Any staunch DP-supporting Gov
will look for staunch DP-advocates in the P&P, and if he wants to see the DP
administered then he will appoint fundamentally merciless people
exclusively.)
You think This 'coven
>of evil' is RESPONSIBLE for the violence in the U.S. Not the
>murderers themselves. They are only being persecuted in your
>mind.
I think the DP is an expression of a fundamental agreement with violence.
And I think the continued and vastly raising application of the DP is in no
way appropriate to make your society any less violent. For to get sight of
this thought's fundament we had to go into an extensive cost argument. Your
all-times demand to the weak of society to stop murdering by themselves (->
first murder rate down, then abolition) and your statement THEN perhaps to
stand for abolition yourself means demanding the impossible. Murder rates
are the outcome of societal parameters and as long as you are not changing
them the murder rate will be high, independent from the DP.
>
>> No, Sir. This times are passé once for all. This sort of respect I lost
>> forever, no one ever will sell me human decisions for being beyond my
>> capability to understand them. A court's rule has to be understandable
for a
>> layperson if (s)he puts effords in. Should this not be given then
radicalism
>> already is at work. So seeing as a layperson that the appeals do not
manage
>> it within 14 years to deal with the *FACT* but merely discuss whether
they
>> *SHOULD* deal with the fact I clearly come to the conclusion: As long as
the
>> appeals masturbate instead of to have fruitful intercourse they will not
>> make the child called Justitia.
>>
>You seem to have become enamored of the term 'masturbation.'
Welllll, the term matches *EXCELLENTLY* to the nature of the appeals.
>>
>> >Regardless of how little is ACTUALLY known of the facts.
>>
>> (From above, PV: >> >> >You may believe he is innocent... I do not)
>> >
>> Well then: What *CAN BE* a fact at all speaking against a proper
>> investigation of the happenings on the prosecutoral side in the face of a
>> PO-witness admitting to prosecution-caused perjury in the original
trial?!!?
>> Name me at least *ONE* *POSSIBLE* *PLAUSIBLE* reason for not to pursue
this
>> public confession of a PO *instantly* and *unconditionally*.
>>
>Ummmm... that COULD be because he was judged guilty.
Ah, I see. He was judged guilty. Based on a false testimony. And the reason
for now not to challenge the trial's outcome is that he was judged guilty in
this trial. Look, if you are seeking for an idiot than do this elsewhere.
>
>> "Where smoke there fire", I showed up the smoke in the shape of a clear
>> fact, I already did the mine. The yours now is to show up your allegedly
>> busy Appeals-firefighters' clear measures to go for the fire. 14 years
have
>> passed by, the smoke is there all along. Where is your due process? Can't
>> see any through all that smoke.......
>>
>The due process is contained within that 14 years. Had it not
>been there, Riechmann would be a long gone memory. Do you
>REALLY believe he is innocent? Be honest with yourself. Do
>you REALLY believe he is innocent? Now I've said that the level
>of proof of both deserving it and probability of recidivism (which
>is probably non-existent during his stay in the U.S., as he would
>undoubtedly be deported immediately) for me does not justify
>the DP, but do you REALLY believe he is innocent?
Yes I do. (NOTE: BELIEVE!) I do so aside from particular, case-related
points for the reason that a big number of DR-inmates' exonerations in
various US-justice-systems required more than ten years lasting appeals. Now
to believe that in all this cases new evidence popped up after 10 or more
years is the top of naivity. Such may if at all occure in one or two very
exceptional cases within 25 years. The fact that there are *ALOT* of cases
in which the *appeals-system* shifted, shifted and shifted the decision from
year to year and court to court *despite* all evidence already known
long-term *proves* that this is *likely* in the Riechmann-case, too. That
for the deductive part of my BELIEF'S fundament.
But the *real* matter - of means exceeding my mere beliefs by far - is that
the trial as the fundament of *YOUR* belief obviously was *NOT* appropriate
to constate guilt BARD. Not if a PO states publicly to have testified the
untruth before the jury.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor
you subjectively see 'innocence' and I subjectively see
'guilt.' We could of course argue this to eternity. You have
certainly presented only YOUR side of such an argument,
and perhaps I have only presented mine. But you have totally
ignored a very extensive link I provided which covers the appeals
process in great depth. Now your contention seems to be
that some evidence was not considered in the appeals process.
But if that's ACTUALLY the case, what significance does that
have to the CONCEPT of the DP? And further, WHO is
responsible for addressing that perceived failure to the appeals
process? It would seem that if it was presented in the appeals
process, but was considered irrelevant, that certainly means
that it was at the least looked at and determined to be irrelevant.
And those who DID look at it, would appear to me to be more
knowledgeable of the FACTS, then any German media, that has
a rather obvious agenda of trying to make the guilty look innocent.
Understand that if it becomes non-newsworthy, the media views
it as hardly worth bothering with or reporting on. All of that has
NOTHING to do with the DP, but with your BELIEF that the appeals
process failed, because of what you've read and heard in the
media. Therefore, I am clipping and you may make of it what
you will, since it is my belief that Riechmann is guilty, yet should
not have been sentenced to the DP. This of course has NOTHING
to do with the FUNDAMENTAL understanding that ANY human
process contains an element with which we will always be unable
to obtain an absolute totality of agreement.
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9se3hd$62a$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
.
> >Where exactly have you obtained the information you are
> >providing? From the home page of the murderer perhaps?
> >
>
> The interview I'm referring to was broadcasted by one of the two
> public-funded TV-stations in Germany.
Can you hear yourself??
> >No... and you KNOW that's not the case. You chose it BECAUSE
> >it was a German National being threatened with the DP. For NO
> >OTHER REASON.
>
> That broadcasting about Germans in Germany is more in- and extensive is out
> of question.
Can you hear yourself?
> <snip>
>
> (1) I saw and heard a man in US-police-uniform report to have investigated
> and testified in the Dieter Riechmann-case and to have been recommended by
> the prosecutor to testify other than his actual observations at the crime
> scene had been. He reported in follow to have testified according to the
> prosecutor's demands.
Ridiculous.
> (2) The TV-report including this interview was broadcasted not by AI, ACLU
> or ECADP/CCADP but by one of the most serious Radio/TV-stations in Germany,
> a public-funded institution strictly legally bound to verify news and
> reports distinctly and having to lose a very good reputation by *ANY*
> inaccurate broadcast.
There is no such thing as 'legally bound' to verify news and reports.
Do you really believe a news agency would be prosecuted for
providing an inaccurate report?
> (3) I doubt after (1) and (2) that this information were inaccurate and I
> doubt that the German TV knows more than the Floridian officials.
Yes, I too doubt that German TV knows more than the Florida
officials.
<clipped>
> >Actually a jury CONSISTS of laypersons. And it was THOSE
> >laypersons who first sentenced Riechmann to the DP.
>
> You're unable to concentrate on any argument, are you? The jury of
> laypersons has been intentionally and premediatedly misinformed and we are
> discussing the *SAFEGUARDS*, the *APPEALS*.
I'm unable to concentrate on any argument??? You move around
like a Mexican jumping bean from one vent to another. Alternating
between providing opinion you claim as fact, to hysterical rants
hoping to base your arguments on emotional gibberish.
> >I don't think you lack the intelligence. I just think you're blind to
> >the realities of murder and the process undertaken by the Justice
> >System.
>
> Ach was. "Blind to the realities of murder"...I'm discussing sense or
> nonsense of the DP, not sense or nonsense of necessary measures for to keep
> dangerous people away from general society. And I clearly see that the DP
> systems don't care much about innocents on DR: If exonerations despite known
> facts endure more than ten years then the whole stinks bestialically.
>
Of course you're not discussing the DP. You are discussing flaws
in the Justice System, as you perceive them. And again you've
become hysterical in the process.
> You believe what you WANT to believe, regardless of
> >any consideration of the facts.
>
> Ah...facts. Fact is for example that even you regard 85% of executions for
> "unnecessary". I make conclusions of such facts. Of such and many, many more
> already broadly presented to you. I conclude from numbers, situations and
> perceptions to theories. That may be stringent or likely or wrong. You
> however are presenting as the ONLY fact a list of recidivism cases. Yes,
> recidivism exists. In analytical sight however you are neither challenging
> ANY of my conclusive chains nor are you analyzing yourself ANYWAY.
>
My list is of course one more fact than YOU'VE ever presented.
> Police, prosecutors, juries, judges,
> >justices, parole and pardon boards... You think ALL are in on some
> >diabolic scheme to only execute the innocent.
>
> No, just this I do not think. I however do think that the DP has led into a
> trap. I do think that it's no more the LAW determining who is on DR and who
> in the end is put to death but the worst human arbitrariness. I guess about
> 80-90% of the partitioners are willing to do their best for justice, but I
> think the remaining 10-20% are *ENABLED* by lacking or flawed *LAWS* to
> introduce and uphold insane tendencies poisoning the *WHOLE* in the end. So
> if for instant only *ONE* out of ten prosecutors is a bad guy and uses the
> interpretative bandwith of the DP-statutes for DP-pleas against guilty
> offenders not fitting into a CT-claim by all reasonability then this one
> will already do large damage to the system. Also such a foul guy will cling
> to stick heads together with *ONE* foul pendant in the Sheriff's office and
> look for to make any case watertight which isn't by the evidence obtainable.
> (The P&P-boards now are another cup of tea. Any staunch DP-supporting Gov
> will look for staunch DP-advocates in the P&P, and if he wants to see the DP
> administered then he will appoint fundamentally merciless people
> exclusively.)
Un huh... and then you have the nerve to claim that you haven't
said they were 'evil,' when you go right ahead here and pronounce
10-20% of them 'evil' and ALL of the P&P board to be 'merciless
people.' Which of course equates to 'evil.'
>
> You think This 'coven
> >of evil' is RESPONSIBLE for the violence in the U.S. Not the
> >murderers themselves. They are only being persecuted in your
> >mind.
>
> I think the DP is an expression of a fundamental agreement with violence.
If you believe that, you must then agree that the entire
Justice System is an agreement with violence. But that's
obviously a false conclusion since the Justice System is
established to respond to violence. The entire supposition
that responding to violence is itself violence cannot be
supported by any stretch of the imagination. Simply because
we realize that without the violence and crime as the cause
there would be no need for a Criminal Justice System at all.
> And I think the continued and vastly raising application of the DP is in no
> way appropriate to make your society any less violent. For to get sight of
> this thought's fundament we had to go into an extensive cost argument. Your
> all-times demand to the weak of society to stop murdering by themselves (->
> first murder rate down, then abolition) and your statement THEN perhaps to
> stand for abolition yourself means demanding the impossible.
Claiming that it is impossible to reduce violence, and murder,
is a ridiculous conclusion on your part. What is necessary
to reduce violence is a different mind-set regarding how society,
and we as individuals, treat those who are disenfranchised.
That is why societies that have lesser levels of disenfranchisement
often find it possible to abolish the DP. But eliminating the DP is
certainly not an aspect of this violent bent of those who are
disenfranchised. And taking money away from the due process
the U.S. affords to those sentenced to the DP, will in no way go
toward eliminating this mind-set we have. In fact, in my opinion,
it will STENGTHEN that mind-set. The Criminal Justice System
is expressly established to deal with violence to person in a
general sense. As I recall in the German Justice System it is
a crime to TOUCH someone when involved in a verbal
confrontation. That strikes me as a rather strong way
to deal with violence using the Justice System. But I agree
with it, because that is the PURPOSE of a Justice System.
In the U.S. such confrontations are usually ignored unless
serious bodily damage results. But it does seem strange to me
that your Justice System would consider it a crime to touch
someone in a verbal confrontation, but expect to sentence
someone who murders to minimum security for a relatively
short time. And eliminating the DP will certainly not eliminate
that OTHER unique element of humanity -- those who respond
to no other stimuli but their own aberrant needs. Those who
murder, not even for greed, or because of a feeling of
frustration brought about by society, but only for some
deviant PLEASURE for themselves. Now if you believe that
eliminating the DP will remove THAT particular element from
the human species, you ARE living in la la land. Because
Germany has that particular element of humanity as well.
> Murder rates
> are the outcome of societal parameters and as long as you are not changing
> them the murder rate will be high, independent from the DP.
>
Then you agree that the DP is NOT responsible for a higher
murder rate.
> >Ummmm... that COULD be because he was judged guilty.
>
> Ah, I see. He was judged guilty. Based on a false testimony.
Well, you've certainly come to a conclusion based on your
SUBJECTIVE view.
> And the reason
> for now not to challenge the trial's outcome is that he was judged guilty in
> this trial. Look, if you are seeking for an idiot than do this elsewhere.
>
I find them where they are. I do not seek them, they simply
show themselves to be. In fact, I sometimes think they seek
ME out, perhaps believing they have found an 'easy' mark.
<clipped>
PV
> Jürgen
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
>I'm totally disgusted in arguing with you about a case where
>you subjectively see 'innocence' and I subjectively see
>'guilt.'
Öha...you are "disgusted"...what a pity. The situation in the Riechmann-case
is that either Dieter is guilty or his claim him and his girlfriend to have
been robbed is correct. While the trial *OBVIOUSLY* the testimony of the
investigating PO was incorrect, for to describe moderately.
Except a general and most easy pointing at the *happening* of a trial (a
flawed one) you provided *NO* reasoning for your belief in Dieter's guilt.
We could of course argue this to eternity. You have
>certainly presented only YOUR side of such an argument,
>and perhaps I have only presented mine. But you have totally
>ignored a very extensive link I provided which covers the appeals
>process in great depth.
Let us get abundantly clear on this one: THAT after an obviously false
testimony, furthermore a PREMEDIATEDLY PROSECUTORALLY PREPARED false
testimony of the investigating PO is DISCUSSED at all whether a new trial
SHOULD be GRANTED (what cynism...) is a scandal. I will for my interest in
the case step by step check your stuff, but it is in the face of the blunt
HAPPENING of any of a discussion in this case AT ALL neither necessary nor
even OPPORTUNE to introduce right here this attempts to discuss this
mentioned fact away.
Now your contention seems to be
>that some evidence was not considered in the appeals process.
>But if that's ACTUALLY the case, what significance does that
>have to the CONCEPT of the DP?
Let us get abundantly clear on that one, too: A single case quite well *CAN*
reveal the concept underlying to the DP. "Oh, faults are normal in a human
made system" as an explanation for the total wronggoing of a single case is
in the face of the resources spent and the apparatus concerned with just
this single case a complete irrelevant non-argument: With full concentration
the DP-system *IS* focusing on this case. Thus, I am absolutely legitimized
to point at this single case for to view the *INTENT* of the DP. If there
are other *INTENTS* visible in a single case than you *ALLEGE* to be the
general ones then your claim is dead-wrong, just for this single case.
And further, WHO is
>responsible for addressing that perceived failure to the appeals
>process? It would seem that if it was presented in the appeals
>process, but was considered irrelevant, that certainly means
>that it was at the least looked at and determined to be irrelevant.
Yup. Irrelevant for 14 years and then in a sudden an exoneration for just
this reason. Has already happened in a multitude of cases. "Innocence is no
reason for a new trial."
>And those who DID look at it, would appear to me to be more
>knowledgeable of the FACTS, then any German media, that has
>a rather obvious agenda of trying to make the guilty look innocent.
The German media quite well do have an agenda: German citizens. And when
German citizens are screwed by foreign "justice"-systems then this will be
freely and fairly reported. I find it rather smartassed from your side to
spout such claims about our most reliable media, to be honest.
>Understand that if it becomes non-newsworthy, the media views
>it as hardly worth bothering with or reporting on. All of that has
>NOTHING to do with the DP, but with your BELIEF that the appeals
>process failed, because of what you've read and heard in the
>media. Therefore, I am clipping and you may make of it what
>you will, since it is my belief that Riechmann is guilty, yet should
>not have been sentenced to the DP. This of course has NOTHING
>to do with the FUNDAMENTAL understanding that ANY human
>process contains an element with which we will always be unable
>to obtain an absolute totality of agreement.
After a *MULTITUDE* of cases, the *MOST OVERWHELMING SHARE* of total, each
of them distinctly in the outspoken *FOCUS*, the *LIMELIGHT* of the justice
system actually *ARE* diametrically opposed in their very existence and
essence to your DP-conceptional claims this argument is absolutely flawed.
The claim the general intent of the DP-system were an other and the multiple
cases were unintended outcomes you could raise if not *ANY* of this cases
were distinctly and most intensively and extensively examined. As the
situation is your entire approach to the issue has a thoroughly Kafka-esque
characteristic; you created an image and make the reality match mentally and
not in reverse.
>
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:9se3hd$62a$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
>.
>> >Where exactly have you obtained the information you are
>> >providing? From the home page of the murderer perhaps?
>> >
>>
>> The interview I'm referring to was broadcasted by one of the two
>> public-funded TV-stations in Germany.
>
>Can you hear yourself??
LOL. Yup, I can hear. My source belongs to the most reliable sources
available to me. What I however can't hear is a sound explanation why a
twisted testimony not leads to an investigation and a new trial for an
obviously screwed prisoner AUTOMATICALLY. This should not even be a case for
the DEFENSE to file or motion anyway, this were the task of the PROSECUTION,
the GENERAL STATE ATTORNEY to demand for.
>
>> >No... and you KNOW that's not the case. You chose it BECAUSE
>> >it was a German National being threatened with the DP. For NO
>> >OTHER REASON.
>>
>> That broadcasting about Germans in Germany is more in- and extensive is
out
>> of question.
>
>Can you hear yourself?
Oh well, I can hear. The Riechmann-case is a domestic to you and in a
certain way a domestic to me...a quite good base to discuss for both of us.
I can "hear" (1) your unwillingness to open your eyes, Sir, and (2) you
making silly attacks questioning any common sense. Should our most serious
broadcasting institutions be questionable IYO then justify why *ANY*
American or else one should be better. Are you reading NP's, listening to
radio-reports or watching TV? If yep, then why, if even the best stations
are broadcasting pure BS?
>
>> <snip>
>>
>
>> (1) I saw and heard a man in US-police-uniform report to have
investigated
>> and testified in the Dieter Riechmann-case and to have been recommended
by
>> the prosecutor to testify other than his actual observations at the crime
>> scene had been. He reported in follow to have testified according to the
>> prosecutor's demands.
>
>Ridiculous.
Yep. "Ridiculous" is Ridiculous as an answer here.
...
>There is no such thing as 'legally bound' to verify news and reports.
>Do you really believe a news agency would be prosecuted for
>providing an inaccurate report?
Not necessarily prosecuted. But: Should the by public funds-supported
TV-stations broadcast make-up-news then consequences would happen. Should
they not keep the high standard they would lose alongside to their
reputation the financial support, too. This is the ultimate statement to
your foul attacks aiming to call the best researching German
broadcast-institutions liars.
<snip>
>
>
>> >Actually a jury CONSISTS of laypersons. And it was THOSE
>> >laypersons who first sentenced Riechmann to the DP.
>>
>> You're unable to concentrate on any argument, are you? The jury of
>> laypersons has been intentionally and premediatedly misinformed and we
are
>> discussing the *SAFEGUARDS*, the *APPEALS*.
>
>I'm unable to concentrate on any argument??? You move around
>like a Mexican jumping bean from one vent to another. Alternating
>between providing opinion you claim as fact, to hysterical rants
>hoping to base your arguments on emotional gibberish.
Yup. You are unable to concentrate on any argument. Besides: Do you really
want to give "The Unemotional Moralist (TUM)"?? LOL.
.....I conclude from numbers, situations and
>> perceptions to theories. That may be stringent or likely or wrong. You
>> however are presenting as the ONLY fact a list of recidivism cases. Yes,
>> recidivism exists. In analytical sight however you are neither
challenging
>> ANY of my conclusive chains nor are you analyzing yourself ANYWAY.
>>
>My list is of course one more fact than YOU'VE ever presented.
Oh, I see. 97 exonerated, 85% even according to you "unnecessarily"
death-sentenced and much, much more are no facts. You are becoming
unbearable in your biasm.
Would you in the end claim that Commander 151++ appointed a good deal of
people as members of the TX-BoPP opposed to his own known extreme stance on
the topic DP? Or would you claim any prosecutor/PO to be holy by
declaration? Submit greetings from me to the Cloud-Cuckoo..
>>
>> You think This 'coven
>> >of evil' is RESPONSIBLE for the violence in the U.S. Not the
>> >murderers themselves. They are only being persecuted in your
>> >mind.
>>
>> I think the DP is an expression of a fundamental agreement with violence.
>
>If you believe that, you must then agree that the entire
>Justice System is an agreement with violence.
Nope. To kill a human is an entirely other quality than *ANY* prison term.
Often explained.
But that's
>obviously a false conclusion since the Justice System is
>established to respond to violence. The entire supposition
>that responding to violence is itself violence cannot be
>supported by any stretch of the imagination.
That now is the top, Sir. No further comment, either you get aware yourself
what you are babbling here or not.
My proposal to you to attend school for to learn for instant how far
objectivity can be achieved at all by human beings was not meant to enroll
at Deceptor-Dud's Twister-Academy as you obviously did. Commonly:
Your definitions are bluntly dangerous, Sir. With what you presented all
along, Self-Defense, Mercy and now Violence for to mention afew can be
justified **ALL**. WHATEVER ANY NATION DOES/DID/WILL DO. Get real.
Simply because
>we realize that without the violence and crime as the cause
>there would be no need for a Criminal Justice System at all.
What a source of wisdom.
>
>> And I think the continued and vastly raising application of the DP is in
no
>> way appropriate to make your society any less violent. For to get sight
of
>> this thought's fundament we had to go into an extensive cost argument.
Your
>> all-times demand to the weak of society to stop murdering by themselves
(->
>> first murder rate down, then abolition) and your statement THEN perhaps
to
>> stand for abolition yourself means demanding the impossible.
>
>Claiming that it is impossible to reduce violence, and murder,
>is a ridiculous conclusion on your part.
Nor did I. -> Costs.
What is necessary
>to reduce violence is a different mind-set regarding how society,
>and we as individuals, treat those who are disenfranchised.
Exactly. -> Cost argument.
>That is why societies that have lesser levels of disenfranchisement
>often find it possible to abolish the DP. But eliminating the DP is
>certainly not an aspect of this violent bent of those who are
>disenfranchised. And taking money away from the due process
>the U.S. affords to those sentenced to the DP, will in no way go
>toward eliminating this mind-set we have.
Objection. More available resources could be used for crime prevention and
rehab-projects.
In fact, in my opinion,
>it will STENGTHEN that mind-set.
??????????????????????????????
The Criminal Justice System
>is expressly established to deal with violence to person in a
>general sense. As I recall in the German Justice System it is
>a crime to TOUCH someone when involved in a verbal
>confrontation. That strikes me as a rather strong way
>to deal with violence using the Justice System. But I agree
>with it, because that is the PURPOSE of a Justice System.
>In the U.S. such confrontations are usually ignored unless
>serious bodily damage results.
Should anyone merely have *touched* you while a quarrel you (1) have to be
an idiot for to sue. (2) you will have to find an idiot-lawyer for to
represent you. (3) You found an idiot-lawyer? Then the Judge will drop the
"case" for nullity.
The State Attorney were the very last to pursue such self-motivated. It may
joue une rôle if the touching led to violence in follow, surely not as a
stand-alone.
But it does seem strange to me
>that your Justice System would consider it a crime to touch
>someone in a verbal confrontation, but expect to sentence
>someone who murders to minimum security for a relatively
>short time.
Our murderers are mostly longer imprisoned than the gros of yours. And I
could bet our prisons are as secure as yours despite our non-humiliative
attitude to prisoners. Probably just *FOR* this our attitude, a prisoner
here is not a piece of shit but still a human.
And eliminating the DP will certainly not eliminate
>that OTHER unique element of humanity -- those who respond
>to no other stimuli but their own aberrant needs. Those who
>murder, not even for greed, or because of a feeling of
>frustration brought about by society, but only for some
>deviant PLEASURE for themselves. Now if you believe that
>eliminating the DP will remove THAT particular element from
>the human species, you ARE living in la la land. Because
>Germany has that particular element of humanity as well.
Oh mei oh mei oh mei. (Bavarian) Or: Weia!!! (Northern German).
The claim is: The DP CONTRIBUTES to and UPHOLDS a violent fundamental
stance. (Observable in multiple DR-inmate's or victim's message-boards).
The claim is not: All violence will solve into a puff with abolition.
>
>> Murder rates
>> are the outcome of societal parameters and as long as you are not
changing
>> them the murder rate will be high, independent from the DP.
>>
>Then you agree that the DP is NOT responsible for a higher
>murder rate.
>
>> >Ummmm... that COULD be because he was judged guilty.
>>
>> Ah, I see. He was judged guilty. Based on a false testimony.
>
>Well, you've certainly come to a conclusion based on your
>SUBJECTIVE view.
You presented an extremely obvious circular argument and now you're
exclamating: 'Noli turbare circulos meos'. Your only refugium is to
challenge the accuracy of my source - upmost unlikely, that. A high-gradedly
well-reputated broadcast-company should bluntly lie through their teeth and
introduce a straw-man as the police-officer having testified in the
Riechmann-case, for most primitive agitation? Absurdissimo, Sir.
>
>> And the reason
>> for now not to challenge the trial's outcome is that he was judged guilty
in
>> this trial.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9sgsq9$ac1$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
> <7vHG7.21750$Yb.39...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
>
> >I'm totally disgusted in arguing with you about a case where
> >you subjectively see 'innocence' and I subjectively see
> >'guilt.'
>
> Öha...you are "disgusted"...what a pity. The situation in the Riechmann-case
> is that either Dieter is guilty or his claim him and his girlfriend to have
> been robbed is correct. While the trial *OBVIOUSLY* the testimony of the
> investigating PO was incorrect, for to describe moderately.
> Except a general and most easy pointing at the *happening* of a trial (a
> flawed one) you provided *NO* reasoning for your belief in Dieter's guilt.
>
however, would ignore the implication of such a 'reason.'
> We could of course argue this to eternity. You have
> >certainly presented only YOUR side of such an argument,
> >and perhaps I have only presented mine. But you have totally
> >ignored a very extensive link I provided which covers the appeals
> >process in great depth.
>
> Let us get abundantly clear on this one: THAT after an obviously false
> testimony,
NOTHING IS OBVIOUS. All must be PROVEN 'Beyond a reasonable
doubt.' Guilt was established using this criteria. You would suppose
another criteria is more appropriate... the media performing the trial.
> furthermore a PREMEDIATEDLY PROSECUTORALLY PREPARED false
> testimony of the investigating PO is DISCUSSED at all whether a new trial
> SHOULD be GRANTED (what cynism...) is a scandal. I will for my interest in
> the case step by step check your stuff, but it is in the face of the blunt
> HAPPENING of any of a discussion in this case AT ALL neither necessary nor
> even OPPORTUNE to introduce right here this attempts to discuss this
> mentioned fact away.
>
> Now your contention seems to be
> >that some evidence was not considered in the appeals process.
> >But if that's ACTUALLY the case, what significance does that
> >have to the CONCEPT of the DP?
>
> Let us get abundantly clear on that one, too: A single case quite well *CAN*
> reveal the concept underlying to the DP. "Oh, faults are normal in a human
> made system" as an explanation for the total wronggoing of a single case is
> in the face of the resources spent and the apparatus concerned with just
> this single case a complete irrelevant non-argument: With full concentration
> the DP-system *IS* focusing on this case. Thus, I am absolutely legitimized
> to point at this single case for to view the *INTENT* of the DP. If there
> are other *INTENTS* visible in a single case than you *ALLEGE* to be the
> general ones then your claim is dead-wrong, just for this single case.
>
If a single case can quite well reveal the concept underlying to
the DP, then perhaps you should examine my extensive list of
those who were NOT given the DP, but managed to murder a
large number of innocent humans again, after being convicted
and NOT sentenced to the DP. Your contention that a proven
and convicted murderer is 'unproven' is a singular example of
your OPINION. My examples provide PROOF, through factual
examples of those convicted of murder, who were NOT sentenced
to the DP, yet managed to murder again and again and again.
<clipped>
> >And those who DID look at it, would appear to me to be more
> >knowledgeable of the FACTS, then any German media, that has
> >a rather obvious agenda of trying to make the guilty look innocent.
>
> The German media quite well do have an agenda: German citizens. And when
> German citizens are screwed by foreign "justice"-systems then this will be
> freely and fairly reported. I find it rather smartassed from your side to
> spout such claims about our most reliable media, to be honest.
>
What a joke -- 'Our most reliable media' What planet are you from?
> >Understand that if it becomes non-newsworthy, the media views
> >it as hardly worth bothering with or reporting on. All of that has
> >NOTHING to do with the DP, but with your BELIEF that the appeals
> >process failed, because of what you've read and heard in the
> >media. Therefore, I am clipping and you may make of it what
> >you will, since it is my belief that Riechmann is guilty, yet should
> >not have been sentenced to the DP. This of course has NOTHING
> >to do with the FUNDAMENTAL understanding that ANY human
> >process contains an element with which we will always be unable
> >to obtain an absolute totality of agreement.
>
<clipped>
> >
> >"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:9se3hd$62a$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
<Clipped>
>
> >
> >> >No... and you KNOW that's not the case. You chose it BECAUSE
> >> >it was a German National being threatened with the DP. For NO
> >> >OTHER REASON.
> >>
> >> That broadcasting about Germans in Germany is more in- and extensive is
> out
> >> of question.
> >
> >Can you hear yourself?
>
> Oh well, I can hear. The Riechmann-case is a domestic to you and in a
> certain way a domestic to me...a quite good base to discuss for both of us.
> I can "hear" (1) your unwillingness to open your eyes, Sir, and (2) you
> making silly attacks questioning any common sense. Should our most serious
> broadcasting institutions be questionable IYO then justify why *ANY*
> American or else one should be better. Are you reading NP's, listening to
> radio-reports or watching TV? If yep, then why, if even the best stations
> are broadcasting pure BS?
>
Because I QUESTION, and do not accept at face value things
about which I am sure I do not possess adequate knowledge.
<snip>
> >There is no such thing as 'legally bound' to verify news and reports.
> >Do you really believe a news agency would be prosecuted for
> >providing an inaccurate report?
>
> Not necessarily prosecuted. But: Should the by public funds-supported
> TV-stations broadcast make-up-news then consequences would happen. Should
> they not keep the high standard they would lose alongside to their
> reputation the financial support, too. This is the ultimate statement to
> your foul attacks aiming to call the best researching German
> broadcast-institutions liars.
>
No... I do not call them liars... I call you naive.
> >I'm unable to concentrate on any argument??? You move around
> >like a Mexican jumping bean from one vent to another. Alternating
> >between providing opinion you claim as fact, to hysterical rants
> >hoping to base your arguments on emotional gibberish.
>
> Yup. You are unable to concentrate on any argument. Besides: Do you really
> want to give "The Unemotional Moralist (TUM)"?? LOL.
>
TURD.
Rest is just more TURDs... clipped.
PV
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
>
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:9sgsq9$ac1$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
>> <7vHG7.21750$Yb.39...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
>>
>>
>> >I'm totally disgusted in arguing with you about a case where
>> >you subjectively see 'innocence' and I subjectively see
>> >'guilt.'
>>
>> Öha...you are "disgusted"...what a pity. The situation in the
Riechmann-case
>> is that either Dieter is guilty or his claim him and his girlfriend to
have
>> been robbed is correct. While the trial *OBVIOUSLY* the testimony of the
>> investigating PO was incorrect, for to describe moderately.
>> Except a general and most easy pointing at the *happening* of a trial (a
>> flawed one) you provided *NO* reasoning for your belief in Dieter's
guilt.
>>
>Of course I have a 'reasoning.' It's called a VERDICT. You,
>however, would ignore the implication of such a 'reason.'
Exactly. Yours:
"Why Dieter is guilty?"
"Because there's a verdict."
"Why there's a verdict?"
"Because he's guilty."
is too poor, Sir. Against 97 people there had been a verdict upheld for
many, many years. According to your "Argumentation" all this people *still*
are guilty despite exoneration just because the verdict of once still *IS* a
*FACT*.
Your "belief" in Dieter's guilt founds on *unlimited trust* in the verdict.
My argument *challenges* the *premises having led* to the verdict. So your
"Argument" misses the point totally.
<snip>
......Thus, I am absolutely legitimized
>> to point at this single case for to view the *INTENT* of the DP. If there
>> are other *INTENTS* visible in a single case than you *ALLEGE* to be the
>> general ones then your claim is dead-wrong, just for this single case.
>>
>If a single case can quite well reveal the concept underlying to
>the DP, then perhaps you should examine my extensive list of
>those who were NOT given the DP, but managed to murder a
>large number of innocent humans again, after being convicted
>and NOT sentenced to the DP.
What should this have to do with obvious vs alleged *INTENTS* of the DP?
Read the argument, Sir. The existence of recidivism proves the existence of
recidivism and not any more. Actually your list doesn't even prove an
especially high recidivism rate: One surely can assume that any set of
offenders released will be not better than the general society, thus a
recidivism rate in the dimension of the general murder rate were not too
amazing.
Any attempt now to prove the DP as going EXCLUSIVELY for probable
recidivists fails on WHOLE THE LINE. Neither theory (DP-statutes) nor
practice even give a mere HINT to your claim as often pointed out. For to
verify whether you are right with 'DP-intent = SelfDefense' it (1) is
opportune and (2) even unconditionally necessary to examine single cases.
Strictly spoken: Should even ONE particular case not be in accordance to
your claim then the claim is simply false, BECAUSE the case HAS been
examined most closely by the justice system.
But truth is much worse: The VAST MAJORITY of executed's cases do not
support your claim.
Should you trust so little in yourself and your own estimations that 85%
error rate subjectively felt by you play no part at all?
Your contention that a proven
>and convicted murderer is 'unproven' is a singular example of
>your OPINION. My examples provide PROOF, through factual
>examples of those convicted of murder, who were NOT sentenced
>to the DP, yet managed to murder again and again and again.
>
Well, you refuse to analyze as stated. 'There are some cases of recidivism,
thus we need the DP' is way too easy.
><clipped>
>
>> >And those who DID look at it, would appear to me to be more
>> >knowledgeable of the FACTS, then any German media, that has
>> >a rather obvious agenda of trying to make the guilty look innocent.
>>
>> The German media quite well do have an agenda: German citizens. And when
>> German citizens are screwed by foreign "justice"-systems then this will
be
>> freely and fairly reported. I find it rather smartassed from your side to
>> spout such claims about our most reliable media, to be honest.
>>
>What a joke -- 'Our most reliable media' What planet are you from?
On my planet it is not appropriate and usual to allege first the source of
an info introduced in a discussion to be the "murderer's home page" and
second in follow to accuse the real source - a reputated one - for to fake
an interview for propagandistic reasons.
......Are you reading NP's, listening to
>> radio-reports or watching TV? If yep, then why, if even the best stations
>> are broadcasting pure BS?
>>
>Because I QUESTION, and do not accept at face value things
>about which I am sure I do not possess adequate knowledge.
Well, let's see whether Jürgen questioned.
(1) Having watched the interview Jürgen established the outspoken binary
nature of the issue right in this case: Either the interview was TOTALLY
accurate or it was a TOTAL lie; any in-betweens are not thinkable. This
circumstance is quite precious, because propagandistic shiftings or
distortions fairly can be excluded. (Actually this circumstance has caused
Jürgen at all to introduce the Riechmann-case, besides)
(2) What now had to be given for to make the interview a total lie?
-Either the PO was a total fake, our TV-station then were out to pay a
straw-man and to lie impudently through their teeth, making up a report in a
scandalous way. Jürgen excludes this for the reputation of ARD.
-Or the man actually was the PO investigating in the Riechmann-case and lied
himself through his teeth while the interview. After he can't gain any but
calamities by doing so Jürgen excludes this.
(3) What were the consequences in the case of the interview's truth?
Then the appeals system would refuse to deal in an appropriate way with the
issue of a trial known to have been vastly inaccurate. This admittedly
sounds unlikely first, therefore Jürgen views whether he can find any
support for the thesis.
Now regarding the fact that similar *HAS* already happened not seldom -
people *HAD* been on DR for more than ten years *DESPITE* long-term known
doubts in their guilt - Jürgen starts to be very, very sceptical vs the
appeals. Moreover Jürgen can't explain why in such a case the DEFENSE were
REQUIRED at all for to clear up this affair.
Jürgen questioned.
>
><snip>
>
>> >There is no such thing as 'legally bound' to verify news and reports.
>> >Do you really believe a news agency would be prosecuted for
>> >providing an inaccurate report?
>>
>> Not necessarily prosecuted. But: Should the by public funds-supported
>> TV-stations broadcast make-up-news then consequences would happen. Should
>> they not keep the high standard they would lose alongside to their
>> reputation the financial support, too. This is the ultimate statement to
>> your foul attacks aiming to call the best researching German
>> broadcast-institutions liars.
>>
>No... I do not call them liars... I call you naive.
Well, now let's see the depth of YOUR query in view of broadcasts alleged
above.
In opposition to your claim my portion of naivity actually is not even *fit*
to defend your position anyway. The broadcast might be wrong and just then
my belief in it were naive. Are now our media no liars then my naivity plays
no part at all in this case, the report were true regardless of my personal
properties.
In view of this even illogical answer the only question you apparently are
posing ever is whether any news item fits into your stance or not and this
is your only and single criterion.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9sjiak$ocv$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
> >
> >"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:9sgsq9$ac1$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >>
> >> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
> >> <7vHG7.21750$Yb.39...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
> >>
> >>
> >> >I'm totally disgusted in arguing with you about a case where
> >> >you subjectively see 'innocence' and I subjectively see
> >> >'guilt.'
> >>
> >> Öha...you are "disgusted"...what a pity. The situation in the
> Riechmann-case
> >> is that either Dieter is guilty or his claim him and his girlfriend to
> have
> >> been robbed is correct. While the trial *OBVIOUSLY* the testimony of the
> >> investigating PO was incorrect, for to describe moderately.
> >> Except a general and most easy pointing at the *happening* of a trial (a
> >> flawed one) you provided *NO* reasoning for your belief in Dieter's
> guilt.
> >>
> >Of course I have a 'reasoning.' It's called a VERDICT. You,
> >however, would ignore the implication of such a 'reason.'
>
> Exactly. Yours:
>
> "Why Dieter is guilty?"
> "Because there's a verdict."
> "Why there's a verdict?"
> "Because he's guilty."
>
of course, absurd. The only correct assumption is --
"Why is Dieter guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?"
"Because there was a verdict attesting to that guilty using
that criteria."
"Why was such a verdict reached?"
"Because the evidence presented at trial provided
the proof necessary for a jury to reach that conclusion."
> is too poor, Sir. Against 97 people there had been a verdict upheld for
> many, many years. According to your "Argumentation" all this people *still*
> are guilty despite exoneration just because the verdict of once still *IS* a
> *FACT*.
>
No... once exonerated, the guilt 'beyond a reasonable
doubt' no longer exists. One can hardly say it NEVER
existed, or that supposition would mean that guilt could
NEVER be obtained at the level we have established.
You still fail to see that the Justice System is based on
a human falliable realization. Because a person has
been found guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' that does
not make it an ABSOLUTE truth. Nothing in the justice
system finding of guilt/innocence is based on any
ABSOLUTE criteria. Being so, the perception of such
guilt is ALWAYS subject to change. Even now, many
abolitionists would wish to reexamine cases of those who
have been executed, hoping to show their innocence.
> Your "belief" in Dieter's guilt founds on *unlimited trust* in the verdict.
> My argument *challenges* the *premises having led* to the verdict. So your
> "Argument" misses the point totally.
>
No... it's founded on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' It's your
argument that misses the point totally. You are expressing
'unlimited mistrust' of a system which is based on NOTHING
which is 'unlimited' in character.
> <snip>
>
> ......Thus, I am absolutely legitimized
> >> to point at this single case for to view the *INTENT* of the DP. If there
> >> are other *INTENTS* visible in a single case than you *ALLEGE* to be the
> >> general ones then your claim is dead-wrong, just for this single case.
> >>
> >If a single case can quite well reveal the concept underlying to
> >the DP, then perhaps you should examine my extensive list of
> >those who were NOT given the DP, but managed to murder a
> >large number of innocent humans again, after being convicted
> >and NOT sentenced to the DP.
>
> What should this have to do with obvious vs alleged *INTENTS* of the DP?
> Read the argument, Sir. The existence of recidivism proves the existence of
> recidivism and not any more.
Not true. Using your comparison, then the existence of exoneration
proves only the existence of exoneration and nothing more. But
certainly you have used such existence to extrapolate it into a
belief that there are failures BEYOND the exonerations shown.
I can certainly extrapolate as well the belief that recidivism of
murderers who were NOT executed, to a conclusion that murderers
who were executed would have murdered again, had they NOT
been executed.
> Actually your list doesn't even prove an
> especially high recidivism rate: One surely can assume that any set of
> offenders released will be not better than the general society, thus a
> recidivism rate in the dimension of the general murder rate were not too
> amazing.
>
Since my list is NOT meant to provide EVERY example of
proven murderers who have murdered again, it was not
meant to prove a high recidivism rate, only that such failures
EXIST.
> Any attempt now to prove the DP as going EXCLUSIVELY for probable
> recidivists fails on WHOLE THE LINE. Neither theory (DP-statutes) nor
> practice even give a mere HINT to your claim as often pointed out. For to
> verify whether you are right with 'DP-intent = SelfDefense' it (1) is
> opportune and (2) even unconditionally necessary to examine single cases.
> Strictly spoken: Should even ONE particular case not be in accordance to
> your claim then the claim is simply false, BECAUSE the case HAS been
> examined most closely by the justice system.
> But truth is much worse: The VAST MAJORITY of executed's cases do not
> support your claim.
>
That hardly matters. Does your heart bleed for that VAST
MAJORITY? I oppose their execution, as I believe we should
express a degree of mercy toward some murderers... but MY
HEART doesn't bleed for them. My point has ALWAYS been
that we should structure our Justice System DP laws more in
line with only executing those who are more 'deserved' and
more 'certainly recidivist.' By a factor of even 10 to 1,
compared to our present execution rate. But in no way, have
I ever believed that executing PROVEN murderers somehow
provides proof that we should abolish the DP.
> Should you trust so little in yourself and your own estimations that 85%
> error rate subjectively felt by you play no part at all?
>
Not really. I would be more concerned if we abolished the
DP, and suddenly that 85% error rate became a 15% error
rate. Since I would see 70% now being screwed, where
before the system had detected weaknesses within itself.
> >Your contention that a proven
> >and convicted murderer is 'unproven' is a singular example of
> >your OPINION. My examples provide PROOF, through factual
> >examples of those convicted of murder, who were NOT sentenced
> >to the DP, yet managed to murder again and again and again.
> >
>
> Well, you refuse to analyze as stated. 'There are some cases of recidivism,
> thus we need the DP' is way too easy.
>
No.. what is easy is for you to DENY a conclusion based
on fact. I do not deny that there are grevious flaws in our
Justice System (and not just with the DP). You would
deny a conclusion that recidivism does not result in the
new MURDERS of innocents.
> ><clipped>
> >
> >> >And those who DID look at it, would appear to me to be more
> >> >knowledgeable of the FACTS, then any German media, that has
> >> >a rather obvious agenda of trying to make the guilty look innocent.
> >>
> >> The German media quite well do have an agenda: German citizens. And when
> >> German citizens are screwed by foreign "justice"-systems then this will
> be
> >> freely and fairly reported. I find it rather smartassed from your side to
> >> spout such claims about our most reliable media, to be honest.
> >>
> >What a joke -- 'Our most reliable media' What planet are you from?
>
> On my planet it is not appropriate and usual to allege first the source of
> an info introduced in a discussion to be the "murderer's home page" and
> second in follow to accuse the real source - a reputated one - for to fake
> an interview for propagandistic reasons.
>
It's not propaganda, as such. It's simply pandering to the
interests of the audience. If there was ABSOLUTELY no
reason to doubt that Riechmann was not guilty 'beyond a
reasonable doubt,' the story would have never even been
marketed. And it WAS 'marketed.' In fact, there are avenues
where one can CONTRIBUTE money to his defense, and
his web site has been removed, because (I believe) it was
being abused to obtain such funding, using lies and deception.
It's all about YOU... isn't it?