Innocent Killers
Gumby1618
>It seems that every killer on Death Row is in fact innocent... according
>to the anti-dpers.
Jig, I am an anti-dper, and I do not beleive that every person on the row
is innocent.
There are some cases where innocent people are on the row, that fact can
not be denied. The court system is not perfect, and I hope that one day you
will not be the unfortunate one to find that out.
Before I will defend a person on death row who claims they are innocent, I
do a lot of research. I read tons of paperwork from court transcripts, to
witness statements, to professional statements, and every item there is to
read that passes through the court system. I will not stand and say a
person is innocent until each and every paper is read and re-read again.
So when you say that according to the anti-dpers are concerned, maybe you
should limit that to a small some of the anti-dpers.
That would be like me saying that all pro-dpers are nothing but blood
suckers, just waiting to cheer when blood is spilled. And trust me you
would take offense that those words. But I don't say things like that,
because I know that not all pro-dprs are like that, just a small few of them.
Anthony Cranford
JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> It seems that every killer on Death Row is in fact innocent... according
> to the anti-dpers.
Either you haven't been paying attention or your grasp on reality is
faulty.
{more rhetoric snipped}
--
Anthony Cranford
acranfor<at>dialnet<dot>net
--
JIGSAW1695
It seems that every killer on Death Row is in fact innocent... according
to the anti-dpers.
I don think there is one person awaiting his Big Day who hasnt claimed
that he was innocent.
What is wrong with this picture? Is the jury system including the police,
prosecutors and judges so bad that innocent muderers are convicted?
Are defense attorneys so incompotent that they cant defend an innocent man?
Are anti-Dpers so dogmatic that they see every killer as being framed?
Jigsaw
Norman F. Birnberg
Jigsaw and Rev. Kool would concur
that what is central to the anti-DPers
worldview is absolving killers of
responsibility for the crimes that
they've committed.
It is difficult to rally public support
for commuting a capital murderer's
death sentence or even freeing him
if he acknowledged that he indeed
did deliberately take away his victim's
life.
Jigsaw, Rev. Kool, and myself note
that the term "innocent killer" is just
the sort of oxymoronic irony to which
the anti-DP crowd appears oblivious.
And if a murderer killed an innocent
person, the death penalty is an ap-
propriate punishment that fits the
crime.
Come to think about it, in order to
deny that the death penalty is just
and deserved when murderers are
subject to it under the law, it is not
by chance that the anti-DPers are
never found alongside the families
of the victims. It would as Jigsaw
and Rev. Kool are also all too aware,
draw attention to the morality of the
death penalty.
'Course the anti-DPers must bring
themselves to believe murderers
are innocents done in by the system
to avoid having to address that issue.
Denial in the 90's is alive and well.
Norman
Norman F. Birnberg
Austin W. Spencer
For goodness sake man, type in lines of more than 20 characters! You’ll be
easier to read, and to post. For *my* posting convenience (my ISP has this
rule about submitting posts with more quotes than original material), I
have done so myself . . .
Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<5ulr0d$jgt$1...@newsd-5.alma.webtv.net>...
> Jigsaw and Rev. Kool would concur that what is central to the anti-DPers
> worldview is absolving killers of responsibility for the crimes that
> they've committed.
No one is *absolving* anyone of anything. We are all well aware of the
circumstances of many cases (some pros make it a point to fill the rest of
us in), and we mostly acknowledge that decisions of guilt were made in a
court of law and therefore carry the force of law. Antis simply disagree
with the death penalty, with some posters more or less impatient with the
process by which guilt is determined.
> It is difficult to rally public support for commuting a capital
murderer's
> death sentence or even freeing him if he acknowledged that he indeed
> did deliberately take away his victim's life.
> Jigsaw, Rev. Kool, and myself note that the term "innocent killer" is
just
> the sort of oxymoronic irony to which the anti-DP crowd appears
oblivious.
It *is* an oxymoron, but one that “the anti-DP crowd” never uses. It is
more likely to use “dead man walking.” But there is a world of difference
between them. I have rarely, if ever, seen a serious pro use your
combination of words.
> And if a murderer killed an innocent person, the death penalty is an ap-
> propriate punishment that fits the crime.
> Come to think about it, in order to deny that the death penalty is just
> and deserved when murderers are subject to it under the law, it is not
> by chance that the anti-DPers are never found alongside the families
> of the victims. It would as Jigsaw and Rev. Kool are also all too aware,
> draw attention to the morality of the death penalty.
Executions are closed ceremonies. Of course anti-DPers aren't found
alongside the families of the victims -- neither are most pros. And are you
saying that you *want* to be thrown in with Don Kool and Jigsaw1695? Even
among the pros on this newsgroup, that is hardly an honor.
> 'Course the anti-DPers must bring themselves to believe murderers
> are innocents done in by the system to avoid having to address that
issue.
> Denial in the 90's is alive and well.
> Norman
No less among hardcore pros than among antis IMHO.
> Norman F. Birnberg
>
Kent Anderson
It is true that the argument against the death penalty in an individual
case is stronger if there is evidence that the person is innocent and was
therefore wrongly convicted. That is because most, although not all,
people who favor the death penalty are still against murdering an innocent
man.
However, most people who oppose the death penalty are not stupid enough to
make a claim of innocence in every case. They realize that would be
absurd. In fact, in most cases there is no argument about factual guilt.
The argument usually centers on such things: as whether the person was
legally guilty (i.e. had the requisite mental state to make the killing a
crime), mitigating evidence that a jury did not hear, selective
prosecution, the arbitrary imposition of the death penalty, religious
convictions, and other factors.
The fact is that most of us who oppose the death penalty do it regardless
of the guilt or innocence of the person who is scheduled to be murdered by
the state. We believe that it is immoral. We believe that only God has
the right to decide who lives or dies. That does not mean that we claim
all convicted murderers are innocent; though some surely are.
We sympathize with both the victims of the condemned man (the actual
victim and the surviving friends and family) and the victims which the
state will create by murdering him. We simply feel that two wrongs do not
make a right.
I think most of us would favor the death penalty if it would bring back
the original victims. Unfortunately, it does not.
The only reason people opposed to the death penalty are not often seen
with the families of the original victims is because those families who
support the death penalty usually do not want us there. They fail to see
how we can be against the murder which the state plans to commit without
condoning the first murderer's actions.
It is also wrong to assume that all family members of murder victims are
in favor of the death penalty. Many are not. That is why organizations
such as Murder Victims' Families for Reconcialiation exist. Yet, often
prosecutors, the media, and others try to make family members who oppose
the death penalty feel as if they are bad people.
Unfortunately, many of these families do not get much press coverage. For
some reason, it does not seem to be quite as sensational a story when a
family's idea of justice does not include simple vengeance.
I will also note that the first murderer was not sentenced to death. God
did not kill Cain after he slew his brother Abel. Yet, few would argue
that God condoned Cain's action.
My Lord taught me to hate the sin, but love the sinner. That is not
always easy, but it is what I must strive for.
Kent Anderson
Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<5ulr0d$jgt$1...@newsd-5.alma.webtv.net>...
> Jigsaw and Rev. Kool would concur that what is central to the anti-DPers
> worldview is absolving killers of responsibility for the crimes that
they've committed. It is difficult to rally public support for commuting a
capital murderer's
> death sentence or even freeing him if he acknowledged that he indeed
> did deliberately take away his victim's life.
<snip>
> it is not by chance that the anti-DPers are never found alongside the
families
> of the victims. It would as Jigsaw and Rev. Kool are also all too aware,
> draw attention to the morality of the death penalty. 'Course the
anti-DPers must bring themselves to believe murderers are innocents done
in by the system to avoid having to address that issue.
>
> Norman F. Birnberg
>
Norman F. Birnberg
With due regard to Kent Anderson's
response to my post:
First, no innocent person has been
executed in this country in modern
times. The slight chance that an
innocent person might be executed
is not sufficient reason to drop the
death penalty, in view of the large
numbers of persons who have mur-
dered and would no doubt murder
again if they were ever released to
the outside, either by commutation
of their sentence, a bureaucratic
mistake in handling their prison
records, or escape either through
weakness in the prison security
system or the murder of a prison
guard. With the DP, recidivism on
the part of a capital murder is eli-
minated through execution of his
sentence.
Second, the judgment of the trial
jury that heard a DP case is usually
sound and in the absence of evi-
dence supporting a claim of factual
innocence where the defendant is
concerned, the appellate court's
duty is to uphold the decision made
by the trial jury.
Third, both the Jewish and Christian
religious tradition sanction the DP
as a punishment for murder. Gen.
9:6 in the former instructs man to
execute the murderer, as though
it foresaw the argument that only
God could take a human life and
stated no, this is man's responsi-
bility to see to it that the murderer,
having desecrated the image of
God by having murdered another
human being, thereby loses his
life.
In the latter, Paul in Romans 13
vests in the state the power to
wield the sword to "punish him
who doeth evil." Since murder
is the ultimate evil, Christian
religious thought has sanctioned
the morality of the DP as a
divinely-ordained punishment
for murder.
Fourth, it is wrong to allow the
murderer to continue to live out
his life after he has deliberately
taken another's life. The state
in ordaining the execution of
the murderer, is invoking the
grounds of justice in that the
life of a murdered person can
only be affirmed by punishing
the murderer to the fullest
possible extent, which is the
DP.
Finally, there is a moral dif-
ference in death in terms of
the murderer's conduct and
the state's conduct. The
murderer's conduct is against
the laws of God and man
like. The state's conduct is
in accordance with both in
putting the murderer to death.
Understanding this qualitative
difference is essential to
appreciating the moral charac-
ter of the DP and why most
victims' families support it.
Anderson invokes the Cain
story as an argument against
the DP. Upon closer examina-
tion, it does not hold water.
The reason Cain's life was
spared was that he didn't
intentionally murder his own
brother.
Had that intention been made
clear to God, the conclusion
of the tale would in all likeli-
hood have had a very different
ending.
I support the DP not because
human life isn't important to
me, but rather because every
innocent human life is very
precious and the only way to
give it meaning is to see to it
a murderer will not be allowed
to enjoy the very gift of life
that he stole from his victim.
Thus, if people refrained from
murdering innocent people in
cold blood, no one would ever
have to face being sentenced
to death. That is the only way
one can contemplate nullifica-
tion of the DP in the world in
which we live.
Norman
Norman F. Birnberg
Norman F. Birnberg
If Austin Spencer is right that anti-
DPers aren't absolving capital
murderers of anything, then why
are they looking for every means
in the book to prevent the state
from carrying out a sentence
after all, had been imposed in
accordance with due process of
law?
Murdered victims are already
"dead people buried." OTOH,
in this country, murderers wait
a long strech of time before
being executed. Hardly the
"dead man walking" scenario
Spencer paints.
Oh, I believe if executions were
publicly televised, it would have
a big effect on the murder rate.
Look at Saudi Arabia - public
executions, and virtual absence
of murders. No, this country
will never have a murder rate
as low as Saudi Arabia does,
but if executions were instaneous
and publicly broadcast, it would
be dramatically lower than the
bloodbath that is engulfing Ameri-
ca today.
Jigsaw 1695, Rev. Kool and myself
aren't in a date of denial as Spencer
has insinuated. We are aware that
murderers have taken an innocent
life and thus there is absolutely no
question in our minds that their fate
is deserved.
Happy to Clear Up Matters For You,
Norman
Norman F. Birnberg
Lord Clane
In article <19970903232...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
gumb...@aol.com (Gumby1618), in a dialog with jigsaw, writes:
Jigsaw
>>It seems that every killer on Death Row is in fact innocent... according
>>to the anti-dpers.
Gumby
Indeed, if gumby only works on behalf of death row clients he truly
believes to be innocent, that he is a hero, as far as I am concerned,
working to serve the highest ends of the law. I think that most death
penalty supporters would agree. The ones who generally deserve and receive
contempt are those who that believe that an injustice has occurred merely
because a factually guilty person has somehow lost out on some procedural
opportunity to beat the rap which a high priced defense team might have used.
Kent Anderson
> If Austin Spencer is right that anti-DPers aren't absolving capital
murderers of anything, then why are they looking for every means in the
book to prevent the state
> from carrying out a sentence after all, had been imposed in accordance
with due process of law?
Because we believe the sentence was wrong.
> <snip>
> Oh, I believe if executions were publicly televised, it would have a big
effect on the murder rate. Look at Saudi Arabia - public executions, and
virtual absence of murders. No, this country will never have a murder rate
as low as Saudi Arabia does,
> but if executions were instaneous and publicly broadcast, it would be
dramatically lower than the bloodbath that is engulfing America today.
I am not against televising executions. It might help to desanitize the
process. However, I question your assumptions about the effect on the
crime rate.
Pickpockets were very active among the crowds at publich hangings in
England. This was in spite of the fact that the pickpockets would suffer
the same fate as the condemned man if they were caught. The absence of due
process, in many cases, did not seem to have any effect either.
Therefore, I suspect that the lower homicide rate in Saudi Arabia is due
to other cultural factors.
<snip>
> Norman F. Birnberg
>
Kent Anderson
P.S. Do you deliberately shove everything in your posts to the left side of
the page? It makes you look ridiculous and tempts one not to bother
reading what you have to say.
kdi...@erols.com
On Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:07:37 -0700, Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman
F. Birnberg) wrote:
Norman, please increase to line length in your posting preferances
to 60-70 charactors. When your lines are so short, they are hard to
read. A space between paragraphs would also be nice. I have edited
your post in this way in order to make it easier to read.
>With due regard to Kent Anderson'sresponse to my post:
>First, no innocent person has been executed in this country in modern
>times. The slight chance that an innocent person might be executed
>is not sufficient reason to drop the death penalty, in view of the large
>numbers of persons who have murdered and would no doubt murder
>again if they were ever released to the outside, either by commutation
>of their sentence, a bureaucratic mistake in handling their prison
>records, or escape either through weakness in the prison security
>system or the murder of a prison guard. With the DP, recidivism on
>the part of a capital murder is eliminated through execution of his
>sentence.
>Second, the judgment of the trial jury that heard a DP case is usually
>sound and in the absence of evidence supporting a claim of factual
>innocence where the defendant is concerned, the appellate court's
>duty is to uphold the decision made by the trial jury.
>Third, both the Jewish and Christian religious tradition sanction the DP
>as a punishment for murder. Gen. 9:6 in the former instructs man to
>execute the murderer, as though it foresaw the argument that only
>God could take a human life and stated no, this is man's responsi-
>bility to see to it that the murderer, having desecrated the image of
>God by having murdered another human being, thereby loses his
>life.
While Genesis 9:6 does support the DP, remember that the rest of
Genesis 9 condems animals that have killed man and the eating of flesh
that still contains blood. Also remember that the Lex Talonis (the
other place in the OT that would seem to support the DP) was given in
order to limit revenge. The OT also has many other limits on the DP
including cities of refuge, number of eyewitnesses required in order
to support a sentance of death and the fact that if a person repented
his crime, he was not to be put to death. Also consider
Proverbs 24:11-12 (NASB)
"Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
And those who are staggering to slaughter,
Oh hold them back.
"If you say, "See, we did not know this,"
Does He not considar it who weighs the hearts?
And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
And will He not render unto man according to his work?
>In the latter, Paul in Romans 13 vests in the state the power to
>wield the sword to "punish him who doeth evil." Since murder
>is the ultimate evil, Christian religious thought has sanctioned
>the morality of the DP as a divinely-ordained punishment
>for murder.
The sword that you mention in Romans 13:4 is a symbol of
magisterial office, kind of like a judges gavel. Not a weapon in the
sense that you are using it. Contextually Romans 13 also does not
really support the DP. Shortly before that verse is:
Romans 12:19-21 (NASB)(the end of the previous chapter)
"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath
of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the
Lord.
"BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE
HIM A DRINK, FOR IN DOING SO YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
This section certainly does not support the DP.
Following 13:4 there is an injunction to pay your taxes and obey the
rulers of the place in which you live. The beginning of 13 really
seems to be more about that rather then support of the DP
Also consider that nearly every major Protestant Christian
organization as well as the Roman Catholic Church have condemned the
death penalty. The Christian tradition that you have pointed to
really does not seem to be there.
>Fourth, it is wrong to allow the murderer to continue to live out
>his life after he has deliberately taken another's life. The state
>in ordaining the execution of the murderer, is invoking the
>grounds of justice in that the life of a murdered person can
>only be affirmed by punishing the murderer to the fullest
>possible extent, which is the DP.
>Finally, there is a moral difference in death in terms of
>the murderer's conduct and the state's conduct. The
>murderer's conduct is against the laws of God and man
>like. The state's conduct is in accordance with both in
>putting the murderer to death. Understanding this qualitative
>difference is essential to appreciating the moral charac-
>ter of the DP and why most victims' families support it.
In this case, so is the states. In every instance in scripture
where the DP could be applied where God had a direct word the persons
life was spared. The only exception would be the execution by
crucifixion of Jesus. He asked for forgiveness for his executors. If
they had been carrying out a proper action, would they need to be
forgiven for doing it? He also condemed Pilate for his actions.
Jesus really does not seem to be in favor of the DP here. If the
actions of the state were just then He would not have done those
things.
>Anderson invokes the Cain story as an argument against
>the DP. Upon closer examination, it does not hold water.
>The reason Cain's life was spared was that he didn't
>intentionally murder his own brother.
Genesis 4:8(NASB)
"Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in
the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.
Where in this passage do you see a lack of intent? Cain was
clearly angry in 5-7 and in 9 he reacts defiantly attempts to hide
whaqt he has done. Cain's life was spared because the Lord did not
wish to kill him, not because Abel's death was accidental.
>Had that intention been made clear to God, the conclusion
>of the tale would in all likelihood have had a very different
>ending.
God knows all mens intentions. I really do not think that you
intended to write this.
>I support the DP not because human life isn't important to
>me, but rather because every innocent human life is very
>precious and the only way to give it meaning is to see to it
>a murderer will not be allowed to enjoy the very gift of life
>that he stole from his victim. Thus, if people refrained from
>murdering innocent people in cold blood, no one would ever
>have to face being sentenced to death. That is the only way
>one can contemplate nullification of the DP in the world in
>which we live.
>
>Norman
>
>Norman F. Birnberg
Lastly Norman, I left the parts of your post that I have not
responded to unsnipped because others may wish to respond and I do not
want to put them throught the hassle of editing your post for
readibility. In the future, the parts of your post that I do not
respond to, I will snip in order to save bandwidth.
No Jesus, No Peace
Know Jesus, Know Peace
Kevin Dickover
<)))><
Kent Anderson
> With due regard to Kent Anderson's response to my post: First, no
innocent person has been executed in this country in modern times.
If you limit modern times to the last couple of years, you may be right.
However, Bedau and Radelet (Execution of Innocence) have detailed over 300
cases in which innocent people were convicted of capital crimes since 1900.
23 of those men were executed. More cases are detailed in the recent post
by Mitchell Holman.
Another case which he did not mention is that of Roger Coleman. There was
strong evidence that another person committed the crime which he was
convicted of. However, he was executed because his attorneys filed a state
habeas petition three days late. The Hererra case has also shown us that
at least some Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court consider innoncence to be
irrelevant.
The slight chance that an innocent person might be executed is not
sufficient reason to drop the death penalty, in view of the large numbers
of persons who have mur-
dered and would no doubt murder again if they were ever released to the
outside, either by commutation of their sentence, a bureaucratic mistake in
handling their prison records, or escape either through weakness in the
prison security system or the murder of a prison guard.
First, many people would disagree with you. However, there is nothing I
can say which will change the mind of someone who condones the
execution/murder of innocent people. This is the same mindset that says
better that 100 innocent people are convicted than that one guilty person
goes free.
Second, murderers have a lower rate of recidivism than all other
criminals. Very few murderers ever commit another crime. Part of this is
no doubt due to the unique circumstances of their crime, in some cases,
which are unlikely to recur. Part of it is also due to the changes which
are often seen after long term incarceration. Some people do not change.
However, most men are not the same person ten or more years later that they
were when they went to prison or when they committed their crime.
With the DP, recidivism on the part of a capital murder is eliminated
through execution of his sentence.
Stating the obvious. However, support for the death penalty drops
dramatically when people are asked to compare it to life without parole.
> Second, the judgment of the trial jury that heard a DP case is usually
sound and in the absence of evidence supporting a claim of factual
innocence where the defendant is concerned, the appellate court's duty is
to uphold the decision made by the trial jury.
The problem is the system is not perfect. Juries do not always hear all
of the evidence or they hear false, or otherwise improper, evidence. (In
addition, it has been shown that death qualified juries are more likely to
convict.) Some appellate court's consider it their duty to uphold a trial
court's decision, in spite of evidence of innocence.
> Third, both the Jewish and Christian religious tradition sanction the DP
> as a punishment for murder. Gen. 9:6 in the former instructs man to
> execute the murderer, as though it foresaw the argument that only
> God could take a human life and stated no, this is man's responsibility
to see to it that the murderer, having desecrated the image of God by
having murdered another
> human being, thereby loses his life. In the latter, Paul in Romans 13
vests in the state the power to wield the sword to "punish him who doeth
evil." Since murder
> is the ultimate evil, Christian religious thought has sanctioned the
morality of the DP as a divinely-ordained punishment for murder.
The first statement is not universally true. Many Christian
denominations, including the Catholic, Episcopalian, and Evangelical
Lutheran Churches, oppose the death penalty. Modern Jewish theologians
have also interpreted the death penalty as being either unjustified or only
justified in extremely rare circumstances, such as Adolf Eichmann. Israel
does not have the death penalty for most murderers. Demanjuk was not even
sentenced to death.
Paul states, "avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for
it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans
12:19; see also Deutoronomy 32:35.)
Jesus teaches us to hate the sin, but love the sinner. It may be
impossible for any human power to change a person for the better. But,
with God all things are possible. It may be that God still has a plan for
that person. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness
of God is stronger than men." (1 Cor. 1:25.)
> Fourth, it is wrong to allow the murderer to continue to live out his
life after he has deliberately taken another's life. The state in ordaining
the execution of the murderer, is invoking the grounds of justice in that
the life of a murdered person can only be affirmed by punishing the
murderer to the fullest possible extent, which is the DP.
See above. In addition, murdering the murder gives the message that human
life is cheap; not that it is precious. All human life is sacred.
> Finally, there is a moral difference in death in terms of the murderer's
conduct and
> the state's conduct. The murderer's conduct is against the laws of God
and man
> like. The state's conduct is in accordance with both in putting the
murderer to death.
That is a matter of opinion. I believe that both the original murderer's
and the state's conduct is against the will of God. Many people share this
view.
> Understanding this qualitative difference is essential to appreciating
the moral character of the DP and why most victims' families support it.
I understand the very human desire for vengeance. I also understand that
it is difficult to get past that desire and be able to forgive. Our
society even seems to say that forgiveness is wrong. However, that does
not mean that we should not strive to overcome our more base instincts and
feelings.
> Anderson invokes the Cain story as an argument against the DP. Upon
closer examination, it does not hold water. The reason Cain's life was
spared was that he didn't intentionally murder his own brother. Had that
intention been made clear to God, the conclusion of the tale would in all
likelihood have had a very different ending.
ROFL. That is a unique interpretation of the story of Cain and Abel.
However, I will offer additional examples. The first one is a man who
ordered a man to be killed so that he could marry the man's wife.
The second example, is a man who hunted and persecuted people because of
their religion. This man once stood by and took responsibility when others
stoned a man to death. He later tried to ensure that others who professed
the same religion would also be put to death.
Most people would say that both of these people deserved to be executed.
However, God had other plans for them. The first man was King David. The
second man was Saint Paul.
> I support the DP not because human life isn't important to me, but rather
because every innocent human life is very precious and the only way to give
it meaning is to see to it a murderer will not be allowed to enjoy the very
gift of life that he stole from his victim.
Is that why you stated that you condone the execution of innocent people?
> Thus, if people refrained from murdering innocent people in cold blood,
no one would ever have to face being sentenced to death. That is the only
way one can contemplate nullification of the DP in the world in which we
live.
> Norman F. Birnberg
>
It would be wonderful if there were no murders. Obviously, I disagree
with the rest.
Kent Anderson
wa...@av3.enet.dec.com
In article <01bcbcf6$196ecdc0$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson" <Kent_Anderson@
2xtreme.net> writes:
|>Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote in article
[Big snip]
|>
|>The slight chance that an innocent person might be executed is not
|>sufficient reason to drop the death penalty, in view of the large numbers
|>of persons who have mur-
|>dered and would no doubt murder again if they were ever released to the
|>outside, either by commutation of their sentence, a bureaucratic mistake in
|>handling their prison records, or escape either through weakness in the
|>prison security system or the murder of a prison guard.
|>
|> First, many people would disagree with you. However, there is nothing I
|>can say which will change the mind of someone who condones the
|>execution/murder of innocent people. This is the same mindset that says
|>better that 100 innocent people are convicted than that one guilty person
|>goes free.
|>
Rubbish, or rather, useless hyperbole. No one would accept such a false
conviction rate, if for no other reason than it would result in all of us
being convicted of something. However no justice system will ever be perfect,
so unless you advocate abandoning any attempt to punish criminals you must
agree with the statement "better m innocent people convicted than n guilty
people go free" for some value of m:n. Of course the values of m and n might
well vary depending on the crime and and the punishment. For 2 year sentences
handed out for, say, burglary, I would guess that most people would say that
1:1 is too high, but 1:1,000 would be a price that the individuals who make
up society should pay. For LWOP sentences handed out for serial murderers
both the cost to society if a guilty man is freed and the magnitude of the
tragedy if an innocent man is imprisoned increase, so it is not obvious what
happens to the acceptable false conviction rate. You would presumably argue
that no value of m:n is acceptable if the punishment is death, i.e., that no
benefit to society accrues as a result of capital punishment that is worth
risking a single life for (as opposed to, say, commercial air travel, where
we are willing to accept the deaths of thousands of innocent people per year
to avoid having to walk). Cogent arguments could be made in that direction,
why don't you try to make them rather the waste bandwidth on idiocy like that
quoted above. I think that Mr. Birnberg is arguing (as Lord Clane has often
argued) that no prison system is perfect, and that heinous murderers who are
spared execution will occasionally escape and commit further murders, may be
released in error and do the same, and in any case can still kill others
within the prison in which they are housed. He argues that society would
then be wise, even ignoring any other postulated benefits of the death
penalty, to accept a false conviction rate such that the number of innocents
executed each year is less than the number who would have been killed by the
murderers in the absence of capital punishment. I find this argument
interesting. You seem to think it is flawed. What exactly do you think is
wrong with it? If you have a cogent argument to make then make it, if you
don't, then spare us this nonsense about how anyone who makes it automatically
argues that any false conviction rate is acceptable.
Dave Wark
P.S. Sorry about the tone, I guess I am feeling pedantic today and am getting
tired of having to wade through so many meaningless verbal fireworks to try
to find a real point. This is one of the most crucial points in the capital
punishment debate and deserves serious discussion.
mgcu...@connect.net
In article <01bcbcf7$563e51c0$LocalHost@kenta>,
"Kent Anderson" <Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
-----------------snip (Saudi Arabia & public executions)
> I am not against televising executions. It might help to desanitize the
> process. However, I question your assumptions about the effect on the
> crime rate.
>
> Pickpockets were very active among the crowds at publich hangings in
> England. This was in spite of the fact that the pickpockets would suffer
> the same fate as the condemned man if they were caught. The absence of due
> process, in many cases, did not seem to have any effect either.
>
> Therefore, I suspect that the lower homicide rate in Saudi Arabia is due
> to other cultural factors.
One of the cultural factors offered for Saudi Arabia's low murder rate is
homogeniety of religion; almost everyone is devoutly Muslim. Italy is
one of the most abolitionist of countries and also has homogeniety of
religion; almost everyone is Roman Catholic. Yet Italy's homicide rate
has been creeping steadily upwards over the last few decades or so. Last
I checked, it had reached about 7.6 per hundred thousand and was still
climbing. At that rate, they will soon overtake and pass the US.
Mike Cullinan
mgcu...@connect.net
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
AMason
Bryan Phinney <bphi...@atl.mindspring.com> wrote in article
(sniped lots of stuff I agree with)
> > LWOP with restitution. I still don't understand where the restitution
comes
> in, were they suggested forced labor? I might favor LWOP where forced
hard
> labor is applied involuntarily to the inmate in question, that forced
labor is
> unconstitutional rules this possibility out.
Have to correct you here, actualy forced or "slave" labor is allowed by the
constitution and I quote:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR A
CRIME(emphasis added) whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction." Article XIII US Constitution."
So you see forced labor is allowed by the constitution, however the problem
is that should you attempt to put forth such a punnishment the same
bleeding heart lib's who fight the dp ect (and I dont want to cover all
anti dper's with this only the ones to whom it applies) would have a fit !
However I would also support the droping of the dp under this condition
(and a few others).
Doug.
Norman F. Birnberg
Kent Anderson attributes the lower mur-
der rate in Saudi Arabia to cultural
factors.
I think he has overlooked that the fre-
quency of executions might have had
an effect.
I think publicly televising regular exe-
cutions of murderers would have an
appreciable effect upon the murder
rate.
The story that pickpockets witnessing
hanging in London didn't affect their
own behavior is interesting, but also
irrelevant to the discussion. Theft is
not the same as murder. What you
would be interested in finding out is
if the DP would deter someone who
planned to commit a murder.
And when murderers are executed,
it be logical to assume there would
be a drop in the murder rate: the
caveat being how frequent the exe-
cutions were.
Norman
Norman F. Birnberg
Norman F. Birnberg
Re Kent Anderson's response to my
last post:
No person sentenced to death in
modern times has ever been exe-
cuted after having demonstrated
a evidence of factual innocence.
And Roger Coleman did not prov-
ide evidence of factual innocence
that would have found weight with
either the prosecution or the courts.
In this country, we have due pro-
cess of law. It is highly unlikely
an innocent person would wind
up on Death Row. The danger
of prosecutorial misconduct or
judicial abuse of power can be
remedied by the presence of
procedural safeguards. All this
make retention of the DP justi-
fiable.
Some people change in prison,
some do not. Some murderers,
due to the inherent antisocial
nature of their personality, e.g,
serial killers, obviously cannot
be rehabilitated. These are the
prime candidates for the DP
and these are the poster children
for the DP itself.
If a Death Row inmate could
provide factual evidence of
innocence, an appellate court
would have a duty to reverse
the trial jury's decision. How-
ever, just claiming innocence,
which is what most persons
sentenced to death do, is not
the same as factual evidence
of innocence. Saying something
does not make it true.
There was once widespread
sanction for the DP, particularly
in the writings of the Church
Fathers. However, both modern
Christian and Jewish theologians
do not say the DP is immoral.
They just hold that it should be
imposed only in very rare circum-
stances.
The bloodbath of innocent people
in America today, OTOH, makes
the universal use of the DP man-
datory.
Executing a murderer is only justly
depriving him of what he deprived
his victim of: his life and it is a
punishment more than any other
we have, that as the maxim puts
it, "fits the crime."
Speaking of vengeance and forgive-
ness: on the grounds of justice alone,
leaving aside all other considerations,
why should a murderer be allowed
to retain his life after having deli-
berately taken his victim's life away.
Most people can see the unfairness
in allowing the murderer to continue
living and enjoying his life while his
victim can do none of those things.
So compassion too, is an argument
for the DP.
Your examples about King David and
Paul actually prove the point I made
about Cain: none of them intentionally
murdered another person. The point
in the Bible, if one reads it carefully,
is that the DP is reserved for those
who deliberately murder another human
being. Simple and straight.
The only point I agree with Anderson
upon is that it would be wonderful if
there were no murders. As long as
innocent people continue to be mur-
dered, we must have the DP to
protect ourselves from those who
have murdered.
I trust I've been clear where I stand.
Norman
Norman F. Birnberg
Norman F. Birnberg
Kevin Dickover's argument that the DP
was invalidated by the coming of the
NT, is not supported by the historical
record. Up to modern times, the Church
and the Christian world believed that
the DP was a morally legitimate punish-
ment to be inflicted upon evildoers.
I'm not all all on weak scriptural ground.
When the Bible insists that murderers
are to be punished with death, there
is no room for extra interpretation. It
is ironic Kevin chided me for allegedly
going beyond the meaning of a number
of OT and NT passages that I cited.
I was trying to give a reasonable read-
ing of what those passages meant. I'm
not a theologian and I suppose others
like Kevin see them differently, which
they are entitled to do, but I believe
all the same, that my interpretation is
as valid as theirs.
Again, Kevin missed the point of the
Cain saga, that he did not intention-
ally murder his own brother, which
is the reason he was spared the
death penalty. Gen 9:6 may be read
as a directive in cases in which one
human being murdered another human
being deliberately, and having as it
were, foreseen the argument that only
God could take life, emphatically re-
jected that argument. To the contrary,
the Bible teaches that it is man who
is to punish murderers.
A lot of Christians, BTW, do believe
in and support capital punishment
and they believe with good reason,
that it is given warrant by the Bible.
I suspect that, at least in this country,
with all due respect to Kevin Dickover,
his view is still very much a minority
opinion.
As long as innocent blood continues to
flow in rivers down the streets of Ameri-
ca, as I stated in my previous reply,
retaining the DP is a moral imperative.
Norman
Norman F. Birnberg
kdi...@erols.com
On Tue, 9 Sep 1997 19:51:07 -0700, Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman
F. Birnberg) wrote:
>Your examples about King David and
>Paul actually prove the point I made
>about Cain: none of them intentionally
>murdered another person. The point
>in the Bible, if one reads it carefully,
>is that the DP is reserved for those
>who deliberately murder another human
>being. Simple and straight.
>
Acts 7:56 and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of
Man standing on the right hand of God.
Acts 7:57 But they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their
ears, and rushed upon him with one accord;
Acts 7:58 and they cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the
witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named
Saul.
Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [the Lord], and
saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Acts 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay
not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell
asleep.
Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And there arose on
that day a great persecution against the church which was in
Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions
of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Acts 8:2 And devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation
over him.
Acts 8:3 But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house,
and dragging men and women committed them to prison.
...
Do the actions of Paul, then known as Saul seem unintentional here?
He was not the only killer but he did participate in a mass execution,
he did take the credit for that execxution as well.
mgcu...@connect.net
In article <01bcbcf6$196ecdc0$LocalHost@kenta>,
"Kent Anderson" <Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>
> Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote in article
> <5uro39$sps$1...@newsd-5.alma.webtv.net>...
> > With due regard to Kent Anderson's response to my post: First, no
> innocent person has been executed in this country in modern times.
>
> If you limit modern times to the last couple of years, you may be right.
> However, Bedau and Radelet (Execution of Innocence) have detailed over 300
> cases in which innocent people were convicted of capital crimes since 1900.
> 23 of those men were executed.
They researched some 300 executions, not 300 cases of wrongful
convictions. As far as the "23 innocents executed" it simply does not
have the weight of authenticity. B&R relied heavily on innuendo and
hearsay, and avoided evidence presented in trials, for example, this is
the gist of one case:
Grzechowiak, Stephen, and Max Rybarczyk (both white). 1929.
New York. Grzechowiak and Rybarczyk were both convicted of
felony murder and sentenced to death. Co-defendant Alexander
Bogdanoff insisted that neither Grzechowiak nor Rybarczyk had
been involved in the crime, and that each had been mistakenly
identified by the eyewitnesses. He refused, however, to reveal
the names of his true accomplices. Grzechowiak and Rybarczyk
executed in 1930, after their convictions were affirmed on
appeal. In their final words, they maintained their innocence,
and Bogdanoff again declared that the two were innocent.
So the sum total of evidence B&R present is that the defendants
proclaimed their innocence, and a co-defendant said they were
innocent--but he doesn't want to say who his "real" accomplices were--big
surprise!
B&R also claim that Bruno Hauptmann, the kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby,
was wrongfully executed. As they state,
"There is no doubt that the conviction rested in part
on corrupt prosecutorial practices, suppression of evidence,
intimidation of witnesses, perjured testimony, and Hauptmann's
prior record."
B&R just want us to take it on faith that those things they say about
the prosecution are true; they have nothing to support these statements.
> Another case which he did not mention is that of Roger Coleman. There was
> strong evidence that another person committed the crime which he was
> convicted of. However, he was executed because his attorneys filed a state
> habeas petition three days late. The Hererra case has also shown us that
> at least some Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court consider innoncence to be
> irrelevant.
The Hererra case is the biggest joke that the antis have tried to
incorporate into their propoganda. Actually, the truth is 180 degrees
opposite of that. Here, read for yourself instead of swallowing the crap
that is thrown out for the gullible:
" Consequently, the issue before [**50] us is not whether a State can
execute the innocent" (Hererra vs Collins, page 22).
Simply put, executive clemency would have been the proper avenue to
pursue if Hererra had any strong showing of innocence. What Hererra had
was a piece of garbage hearsay, a "deathbed confession" that was
remembered 8 years after the fact, conveniently, in the 11th hour of
appeals. On the basis of that garbage testimony, Hererra wanted a
conviction that was tight as a drum thrown out. It just doesn't work
that way.
Mike Cullinan
mgcu...@connect.net
-------------snip
kdi...@erols.com
On Tue, 9 Sep 1997 23:16:38 -0700, Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman
F. Birnberg) wrote:
< I'm not going to bother with editing his posts, we'll all have to
suffer>
>
>Kevin Dickover's argument that the DP
>was invalidated by the coming of the
>NT, is not supported by the historical
>record. Up to modern times, the Church
>and the Christian world believed that
>the DP was a morally legitimate punish-
>ment to be inflicted upon evildoers.
>
The Church and the Christian world also believed that women were
not to speak in church, slavery was an acceptable practice and that
black people were condemned by their skin color. All of these views
have been proved to be Scripturally inconsistant. An appeal to church
history and tradition is not the same as backing your views up with
Scripture. Please do so.
>I'm not all all on weak scriptural ground.
>When the Bible insists that murderers
>are to be punished with death, there
>is no room for extra interpretation. It
>is ironic Kevin chided me for allegedly
>going beyond the meaning of a number
>of OT and NT passages that I cited.
>I was trying to give a reasonable read-
>ing of what those passages meant. I'm
>not a theologian and I suppose others
>like Kevin see them differently, which
>they are entitled to do, but I believe
>all the same, that my interpretation is
>as valid as theirs.
>
I asked you to explain your thinking using Scripture to back it
up. You have not done so. Please do so.
>Again, Kevin missed the point of the
>Cain saga, that he did not intention-
>ally murder his own brother, which
>is the reason he was spared the
>death penalty. Gen 9:6 may be read
>as a directive in cases in which one
>human being murdered another human
>being deliberately, and having as it
>were, foreseen the argument that only
>God could take life, emphatically re-
>jected that argument. To the contrary,
>the Bible teaches that it is man who
>is to punish murderers.
>
How many times do you need to hear "Vengence is mine, I will
repay" before it sticks? Do I need to write it on a blackboard 100
times? 1000? And WHERE do you see Cain not intendidg to harm Abel?
Please explain your thinking here. Use Scripture to back it up.
>A lot of Christians, BTW, do believe
>in and support capital punishment
>and they believe with good reason,
>that it is given warrant by the Bible.
>I suspect that, at least in this country,
>with all due respect to Kevin Dickover,
>his view is still very much a minority
>opinion.
>
150 years ago my views of slavery would have been a minority
opinion. That does not change the correctness of them. Or does might
make right?
Rodney C. Fisher
On 7 Sep 1997 20:13:21 GMT, lord...@aol.com (Lord Clane) wrote:
>Indeed, if gumby only works on behalf of death row clients he truly
>believes to be innocent, that he is a hero, as far as I am concerned,
>working to serve the highest ends of the law. I think that most death
>penalty supporters would agree. The ones who generally deserve and receive
>contempt are those who that believe that an injustice has occurred merely
>because a factually guilty person has somehow lost out on some procedural
>opportunity to beat the rap which a high priced defense team might have used.
>
OK, this is my first post in this newsgroup, so I have my flame
retarding monitor on...
First, I am pro-DP. But I do have to disagree with part of your above
post. I guess it is really a definition of terms. If you mean to say
that someone is released because a motion is misfiled, or paperwork is
dated incorrectly...I am fully with you. If you meant to say that
someone (even a serial murder) is released because the police
illegally seized his property for evidence is a travesty of justice,
then I have to disagree. Or if you meant to say that it is
permissable for a prosecutor to deliberately withhold evidence that
could appear mitigating or even cast reasonable doubt, then I have to
disagree. I am glad Bundy met his maker earlier than he wished. I am
glad that McVeigh (after years of appeals...) will never be able to
hurt another human being. But I can not condone ANY misconduct of the
government...especially in a capital case. The constitutional rights
of the whole population far outweighs any justly deserved execution.
So I guess I would need to say that I respect not only the attorneys
who fight to save an innocent man, but also the attorneys who protect
our rights...no matter how despicable the client. I hate defending
the ACLU...they can really do some weird things...but I would sure
want them on my side if the government had violated my rights.
Rodney
wa...@av3.enet.dec.com
In article <01bcbe63$32be3fe0$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson" <Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> writes:
|>wa...@av3.enet.dec.com wrote in article <5v41a3$ige$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
[start of discussion snipped to save space]
|> I think that Mr. Birnberg is arguing (as Lord Clane has
|>often
|>> argued) that no prison system is perfect, and that heinous murderers who
|>are
|>> spared execution will occasionally escape and commit further murders, may
|>be
|>> released in error and do the same, and in any case can still kill others
|>> within the prison in which they are housed. He argues that society would
|>> then be wise, even ignoring any other postulated benefits of the death
|>> penalty, to accept a false conviction rate such that the number of
|>innocents
|>> executed each year is less than the number who would have been killed by
|>the
|>> murderers in the absence of capital punishment. I find this argument
|>> interesting. You seem to think it is flawed. What exactly do you think
|>is
|>> wrong with it? If you have a cogent argument to make then make it, if
|>you
|>> don't, then spare us this nonsense about how anyone who makes it
|>automatically
|>> argues that any false conviction rate is acceptable.
|>>
|>> Dave Wark
|>
|> You are right, I did use hyperbole or satire. I have heard some radicals
|>say that such an error rate would be okay. However, I know that most
|>people would not accept it. I was simply reversing the common statement
|>that it is better that ten or 100 (depending on the source) guilty people
|>go free than that one innocent person is convicted. I did this as a
|>literary device; not a statement of literal truth.
|>
|> The biggest problem with their arguments, as stated above, is that when
|>the state commits murder, the form of the death penalty it is doing it on
|>behalf of all citizens. Therefore, a state which supposed to uphold and
|>protect life is forcing all of its citizens to play a part in eliminating
|>life.
|>
|> A murder by an individual or group of individuals is just as wrong.
|>However, it is solely the responsibility of those who planned and carried
|>out the act.
|>>
|>> <snip>
|>Kent Anderson
|>Illegitimi non carborundum
|>
|>
There is an interesting ancillary point here about the extent to which a
citizen of a democracy can really be held responsible for all the actions of
his or her government, but I want to try to keep to the point I was trying to
get at originally. Your new argument is simply stating that capital
punishment is morally wrong, and that a government has no right to take the
life of a criminal once he is safely in custody. Obviously a majority of
the citizens in most American states disagree, or this discussion would not
be necessary. I personally find it very hard to feel that it was morally
wrong to hang Adolf Eichmann, but that is a separate discussion (which I would
be happy to have separately), because it is also not the point I was trying to
address. I was trying to consider the question of the execution of the
factually innocent. The inevitability of this in any real-world justice
system that permits capital punishment is often used as one of the strongest
arguments against the death penalty. A counter-argument has been offered
that since innocents will be killed in either case (because in the absence of
capital punishment the unexecuted killers will, at some small rate, kill
again), it is best to operate so as to minimize the number of dead innocents
and execute killers who are guilty beyond a rational doubt (note that I do not
claim that this is what happens now, only that it is what proponents would
claim the system should be designed to achieve). I thought you were claiming
that this argument is flawed. I agree that it cannot, by itself, make an
immoral act into a moral one. However the argument that "We should not have
capital punishment because an innocent person may be killed" does not claim
that capital punishment is immoral, it claims that it is imprudent, and this
argument addresses that claim. In what way is it flawed?
Dave Wark
Kent Anderson
>
> <snip>
> |> ... there is nothing I can say which will change the mind of
someone who condones the execution/murder of innocent people. This is the
same mindset that says better that 100 innocent people are convicted than
that one guilty person
goes free.
> |>
Kent Anderson
> In article <01bcbcf6$196ecdc0$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson"
<snip>
>> The Hererra case has also shown us that
> >at least some Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court consider innoncence to
be
> >irrelevant.
>
> Again, this is false, the Supreme Court specifically addressed this
issue:
>
> "(d) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that, in a capital case, a
truly
> persuasive post-trial demonstration of "actual innocence" would render a
> defendant's execution unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief
if
> there were no state avenue open to process such a claim, Herrera's
showing of
> innocence falls far short of the threshold showing which would have to be
made
> in order to trigger relief."
>
> Herrera v. Collins
>
> While they stated that proving one's innocence would not automatically
trigger
> relief, they explicitly stated that the evidence presented would not
qualify
> to trigger relief in any case. That is because it was questionable
evidence
> at best.
You are wrong, although, the selective passages which you quoted seem to
support your position.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist strongly suggested that a
claim of innocence, without more, would never be a ground for federal
habeas relief. He stated that, "the existence merely of newly discovered
evidence relevant to the guilt of a state prisoner is not a ground for
relief on federal habeas corpus." (Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400
(1993).) He further stated that, "this body of our habeas jurisprudence
makes clear that a claim of `actual innocence' is not itself a
constiutional claim." (Id. at 404.) The court merely assumed, for the
sake of argument that it might be unconsitutional to execute an innocent
person so that it could address the merits of Herrera's claim of innocence.
(Id. at 417.)
Justices Scalia and Thomas flatly stated that a state could execute an
innocent person without violating the Constitution. (Id. at 427-429,
Scalia, J., concurring.)
Therefore, some justices certainly did state that it would not be
unconstitutional for a state to knowingly execute an innocent person.
>
<snip>
> > Second, murderers have a lower rate of recidivism than all other
> >criminals. Very few murderers ever commit another crime.
>
> Very few murderers qualify for the DP, in fact only about 1% of them end
up on
> Death Row. It is to be assumed that these are the very worst, thus the
rate
> of recidivism in these particular cases might be quite a bit higher.
Since
> serial killers would probably fall into this category, along with violent
> sexual predators, and career criminals, I suspect that the rate would be
much
> higher.
On the contrary, most first degree murderers qualify for the death
penalty. There are so many special circumstances, now, that a prosecutor
can seek the death penalty in almost all first degree murder cases. (This
is especially true in California where any first degree murder would fall
under the lying in wait special circumstance, as it has been interpreted by
the California Supreme Court.)
There are no major differences between "most" murderers on death row and
most other murderers, especially those that also had special circumstances
found true, but were sentenced to LWOP. It is often something akin to luck
of the draw whether someone gets the death penalty.
In many cases, different prosecutors would disagree about which cases
merit the death penalty. The variance is even more pronounced from county
to county. The identity of the victim will also make a difference. For
example, the state is more likely to seek the death penalty for the murder
of a prominent businessman than for the murder of a prostitute or gang
member. The race of the defendant and the victim also play a role in who
gets the death penalty.
The makeup of the jury is also important.
>
> > Part of this is
> >no doubt due to the unique circumstances of their crime, in some cases,
> >which are unlikely to recur. Part of it is also due to the changes
which
> >are often seen after long term incarceration. Some people do not
change.
> >However, most men are not the same person ten or more years later that
they
> >were when they went to prison or when they committed their crime.
>
> Some are worse.
Of course. There are exceptions to almost every rule. Such people would
merely be confined to their cell and solitary time in the exercise yard
until, if and when, they chose to conform to prison regulations. We do
that now with people who are not on death row.
>
> >With the DP, recidivism on the part of a capital murder is eliminated
> >through execution of his sentence.
> >
> > Stating the obvious. However, support for the death penalty
drops
> >dramatically when people are asked to compare it to life without parole.
>
> LWOP with restitution. I still don't understand where the restitution
comes
> in, were they suggested forced labor? I might favor LWOP where forced
hard
> labor is applied involuntarily to the inmate in question, that forced
labor is
> unconstitutional rules this possibility out.
I did not say anything about restitution in my previous post. However, in
most cases restitution would come from prison wages.
It is an open question whether forced labor is unconstitional, in all
circumstances. However, most inmates want to work because it gives them
something to do. They can also earn additional privileges by working. The
problem is usually that there are not enough jobs for all the inmates.
That is why there are always waiting lists for jobs and educational
opportunities in prison.
>
> >
> >> Second, the judgment of the trial jury that heard a DP case is usually
> >sound and in the absence of evidence supporting a claim of factual
> >innocence where the defendant is concerned, the appellate court's duty
is
> >to uphold the decision made by the trial jury.
> >
> > The problem is the system is not perfect. Juries do not always
hear
> > all
> >of the evidence or they hear false, or otherwise improper, evidence.
(In
> >addition, it has been shown that death qualified juries are more likely
to
> >convict.) Some appellate court's consider it their duty to uphold a
trial
> >court's decision, in spite of evidence of innocence.
>
> Of course, juries also fail to hear some of the evidence due to
protections
> due the defendant. So at least some of the evidence which might render a
more
> truthful verdict can be kept out because it favors the defendant. Why do
you
> not rail against this circumstance also? Is a guilty verdict against a
guilty
> defendant not as important as an acquittal for an innocent one?
>
> Lastly, some "evidence of innocence" is questionable at best, downright
false
> at worst and presented as gospel by the inmate in question. We are led
to
> believe (by the anti-DP machine) that all of this evidence is "proof of
> innocence" even though in many cases, if the full story were known, there
> would be no outrage (except perhaps for those that were duped) or support
> for the inmate in these cases. I can name at least 4 or 5 of these
off-hand
> so please explain what kind of evidence the appellate courts are
overlooking.
>
I was thinking, in particular, of the Lucas court's habit of labeling
everything harmless error. This led the California Supreme Court to have
the highest death penalty affirmance rate in the nation. We suddenly went
from a 100% reversal rate, under the Bird Court, to an almost 100%
affirmance rate under the Lucas court. Even states in the Deep South did
not have affirmance rates anywhere near as high as this.
With respect to evidence of innocence that was not presented at trial,
appellate courts often use procedural rules to avoid having to address this
evidence.
On the other hand, some appellate courts do the best job they are capable
of, with often inadequate resources.
> <...>
> Religious discussions snipped as immaterial
Perhaps, they are immaterial to you. However, they are not immaterial to
everyone. Justice can not operate as a machine. If it did, there would be
no justice.
>
> >> Understanding this qualitative difference is essential to appreciating
> >the moral character of the DP and why most victims' families support
it.
> >
> > I understand the very human desire for vengeance. I also
understand
> > that
> >it is difficult to get past that desire and be able to forgive. Our
> >society even seems to say that forgiveness is wrong. However, that does
> >not mean that we should not strive to overcome our more base instincts
and
> >feelings.
>
> Forgiveness does not equate to trust. Once you have committed an act
that
> violates the trust, even if you have paid a debt for such an act, you are
not
> automatically entitled to be trusted again. You must earn the trust of
> society. For some, this violation is of such an aggrieved nature that no
> amount of action will restore that trust. For such a person, it must be
> insured that he never has the chance to violate that trust again. We
have far
> too many examples where persons have been able to do so, even though they
> faced incarceration as a punishment. For such persons, the DP is the
only
> answer. Vengence has nothing to do with it, it is simply protecting
those
> that will face the actions of this person that has shown an inability to
> control his own actions.
>
I never said anything about trust. I certainly woud not immediately trust
someone who I thought was guilty of murder. I would have to be convinced
that the person had changed and was therefore now worthy of trust.
However, I do not believe imprisoning someone for the rest of his or her
natural life is an indication of trust.
The death penalty can not be separated from a desire for vengeance. It is
the ultimate weapon of vengeance. One can argue (wrongfully I believe)
that such vengeance is just. However, you can not separate the act from
the prime motive behind it.
> >
> > Most people would say that both of these people deserved to be
> > executed.
> >However, God had other plans for them. The first man was King David.
The
> >second man was Saint Paul.
>
> The bible is a story, nothing more. I rather doubt that Ted Bundy was on
his
> way to sainthood, even should he have avoided the DP. At any rate, would
you
> be so eager to help someone avoid the DP if I told you that you would be
held
> responsible for any acts that they managed to commit later in life? Even
if
> that person were to remain in prison, what if you would be held
responsible if
> that person attacked a guard or another inmate? Would you really be so
> anxious to stand up and vouch for his worth?
>
The Bible is an account of the history of the Jewish people. For many of
us, it also a divinely inspired account of the relationship between man and
God.
I too doubt that Ted Bundy was on his way to sainthood. However, only God
could have known that. I have never met anyone who could predict the
future with one hundred percent accuracy or say that actions we take today
might not change that future. In addition, Bundy is an extreme example.
He is not typical of most men who are sentenced to death.
The answer to your other question is yes. You could not make me believe
that I was responsible for the acts of another person unless I directed
those acts. However, if that was society's idea of a just trade, then I
would have to be willing to offer my life. It would not be an easy choice.
However, my Lord did no less when he died on the cross for me and all
sinners. Therefore, I must be willing to follow his example. In addition,
I do not know if I could live with myself if I was given the opportunity to
save a life and I refused. I can only pray that I would have the strength
to do the right thing if the situation ever arose.
>
> Bryan Phinney
> To fight Spam, Join CAUCE - http:\\www.cauce.org
> I report all fraud to IRS, FTC, NFIC, and USPS where appropriate.
> "The views expressed herein are the personal views and opinions of the
current user and are not made on behalf of his or her current employer."
Kent Anderson
wa...@av3.enet.dec.com wrote in article <5v8c73$drd$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
>
>
>
> In article <01bcbe63$32be3fe0$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson"
<Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> writes:
>
>
> There is an interesting ancillary point here about the extent to which
a
> citizen of a democracy can really be held responsible for all the actions
of
> his or her government, but I want to try to keep to the point I was
trying to
> get at originally. Your new argument is simply stating that capital
> punishment is morally wrong, and that a government has no right to take
the
> life of a criminal once he is safely in custody. Obviously a majority of
> the citizens in most American states disagree, or this discussion would
not
> be necessary. I personally find it very hard to feel that it was morally
> wrong to hang Adolf Eichmann, but that is a separate discussion (which I
would
> be happy to have separately), because it is also not the point I was
trying to
> address. I was trying to consider the question of the execution of the
> factually innocent. The inevitability of this in any real-world justice
> system that permits capital punishment is often used as one of the
strongest
> arguments against the death penalty. A counter-argument has been offered
> that since innocents will be killed in either case (because in the
absence of
> capital punishment the unexecuted killers will, at some small rate, kill
> again), it is best to operate so as to minimize the number of dead
innocents
> and execute killers who are guilty beyond a rational doubt (note that I
do not
> claim that this is what happens now, only that it is what proponents
would
> claim the system should be designed to achieve). I thought you were
claiming
> that this argument is flawed. I agree that it cannot, by itself, make an
> immoral act into a moral one. However the argument that "We should not
have
> capital punishment because an innocent person may be killed" does not
claim
> that capital punishment is immoral, it claims that it is imprudent, and
this
> argument addresses that claim. In what way is it flawed?
>
> Dave Wark
>
One problem with the argument which you are citing is that there is
nothing to back it up. Very few murderers commit another murder while in
prison. This number can be reduced even further by adequate security
measures (i.e. don't put known enemies together, separate those whose
history suggests the likelihood of violence in prison from the general
population, etc.).
We do not know the numbers of innocent people who have been or will be
executed any more than we know which few convicted murderers will kill
someone in prison. Therefore, such an argument can only rely on
speculation.
It would be equally speculative to try to predict how many murderers would
commit another murder if they are ever released. In fact, the idea that a
person sentenced to LWOP will ever be released or escape is nothing more
than speculation. This is a very rare occurence.
Therefore, an argument centered around how many convicted murderers will
commit another murder, if they are not murdered by the state, versus how
many innocent people will be wrongfully convicted and executed, so long as
we retain the death penalty is not centered on logic. Instead, it is
centered on speculation and unprovable theories, on either side. The only
certainties are that some convicted murderers will find a way to kill again
and some innocent people will be executed. There is no evidence to support
any statements of percentages or total numbers. Such evidence will always
be limited to the situations we know about.
Kent Anderson
Austin W. Spencer
brevity...
> Kevin Dickover's argument that the DP was invalidated by the coming of the
> NT, is not supported by the historical record. Up to modern times, the Church
> and the Christian world believed that the DP was a morally legitimate punish-
> ment to be inflicted upon evildoers.
That was the opinion of the Church. It was not EXACTLY what the Bible said on
the matter, but rather an interpretation that might or might not have been
wrong (and also produced such querulous parochial disputes as how many angels
could dance on the head of a pin, just to lend a little more perspective).
[snip]
> Again, Kevin missed the point of the Cain saga, that he did not intention-
> ally murder his own brother, which is the reason he was spared the
> death penalty. Gen 9:6 may be read as a directive in cases in which one
> human being murdered another human being deliberately, and having as it
> were, foreseen the argument that only God could take life, emphatically re-
> jected that argument. To the contrary, the Bible teaches that it is man who
> is to punish murderers.
There are a few technical problems with this interpretation. For one thing, God
never “recommended,” much less enacted, DP for Cain. The Cain story also
attaches a motive to Cain. I also find it quite telling that Abel slew Cain in
Gen. 4:8 and was punished in Gen. 4:9-15, but DP as such is not even mentioned
until Gen. 9:6. In addition, it is ONLY Gen. 9:6 (and the few others you cite,
as far as I -- being no Bible scholar -- know) that support DP. All of your
quotes but Romans is OT, and even the Romans quote is taken out of context, as
was shown before you started posting (I don’t remember exactly how and by
whom).
> A lot of Christians, BTW, do believe in and support capital punishment
> and they believe with good reason, that it is given warrant by the Bible.
> I suspect that, at least in this country, with all due respect to Kevin
Dickover,
> his view is still very much a minority opinion.
Not that this necessarily has anything to do with independent thought, personal
religious study, evaluation of one’s own beliefs, or simple capitulation to the
majority opinion.
> As long as innocent blood continues to flow in rivers down the streets of
Ameri-
> ca, as I stated in my previous reply, retaining the DP is a moral imperative.
Could this get any more rhetorical? “As long as innocent blood continues to
flow in rivers down the streets of America.” Here’s a hint: while it is true
that murder is more pervasive in the United States than a lot of other places,
hyperbole gets you nowhere. As for your argument of moral imperative, you seem
to be arguing in favor of CHRISTIAN imperative more than MORAL imperative. In
which case, what bearing does any of this have on the actual building of U.S.
policy?
> Norman
>
> Norman F. Birnberg
>
--
Austin W. Spencer
http://www.public.asu.edu/~anselmos
wa...@av3.enet.dec.com
In article <01bcbf14$4f467540$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson" <Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> writes:
|>wa...@av3.enet.dec.com wrote in article <5v8c73$drd$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
|>>
[start of discussion snipped to save space]
|>> A counter-argument has been offered
I would not use the word "speculation", because that carries a connotation
of wild guesswork, I would prefer "estimation". One could, of course, work
just from those numbers which are certain, i.e., the number of individuals
executed who were later shown to be undeniably innocent vs. the number of
individuals sentenced to LWOP who later were shown beyond a rational doubt to
have subsequently committed another murder. I believe that these numbers are,
at least since the mid-70's, zero against zero. If you wish to completely
avoid what you call "speculation" that is all we have to work with and we have
to pronounce the whole argument a red herring. However society routinely uses
estimates when considering issues of life and death (for instance the number
of people who will likely be saved by a new aircraft safety device is compared
to the number who will likely be killed by its malfunctions). Why should this
situation be different? One would have to try to make a defensible estimate
of the rate of execution of innocents and compare it to the a defensible
estimate of the rate at which LWOP convicts will commit murder. I don't argue
that such estimates would be easy to produce, but there is nothing unique
about capital punishment in that respect.
|>
|> It would be equally speculative to try to predict how many murderers would
|>commit another murder if they are ever released. In fact, the idea that a
|>person sentenced to LWOP will ever be released or escape is nothing more
|>than speculation. This is a very rare occurence.
|>
|> Therefore, an argument centered around how many convicted murderers will
|>commit another murder, if they are not murdered by the state, versus how
|>many innocent people will be wrongfully convicted and executed, so long as
|>we retain the death penalty is not centered on logic.
Nonsense. An idea does not become illogical just because one cannot precisely
quantify its consequences. We know that cigarettes cause fatal diseases.
Just because I cannot name exactly who has been killed (and who will be
killed) by smoking does not make it illogical to assert that reducing smoking
will save lives.
|>Instead, it is
|>centered on speculation and unprovable theories, on either side. The only
|>certainties are that some convicted murderers will find a way to kill again
|>and some innocent people will be executed. There is no evidence to support
|>any statements of percentages or total numbers. Such evidence will always
|>be limited to the situations we know about.
|>
|>Kent Anderson
|>
As I said above one would have to (as in many situations) work from defensible
estimates of the relative frequencies. However let us assume you are correct
and there is no way to make any defensible estimate of the relative numbers.
If this invalidates the argument that we should execute killers to protect
their future victims why does it not equally invalidate the argument that we
should execute no one for fear of executing an innocent?
Dave Wark
Rev. Don Kool
Kent Anderson wrote:
> Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> ...
> > With due regard to Kent Anderson's response to my post: First, no
> innocent person has been executed in this country in modern times.
> If you limit modern times to the last couple of years, you may be right.
> However, Bedau and Radelet (Execution of Innocence)
[...fantasy snipped...]
"Bedau and Radelet"??? Thanks for the laugh! Their fatally
flawed "study" was even ridiculed by Bedau himself. In his own words,
"We didn't prove anything". All they presented were silly opinions
and much too much wishful thinking. If you want a through breakdown
as to where B&R's "study" meandered into straight comedy, simpy pick
up another copy of the same journal from a year later. Despite B&R's
sophmoric attempt at revisionist history, the fact remains that there
has not been even a single case of an "innocent man" being mistakenly
executed since the reintroduction of the just Death Penalty in the
late 1970's (i.e., in the modern Death Penalty era).
> The slight chance that an innocent person might be executed is not
> sufficient reason to drop the death penalty, in view of the large numbers
> of persons who have murdered and would no doubt murder again if they were
> ever released to the outside, either by commutation of their sentence, a
> bureaucratic mistake in handling their prison records, or escape either
> through weakness in the prison security system or the murder of a prison
> guard.
> First, many people would disagree with you.
Just as "many people" also hold the romantic and wishful notion
that Elvis is still alive.
> However, there is nothing I can say which will change the mind of
> someone who condones the execution/murder of innocent people.
Please let me know when you find such a person as the original
poster said no such thing. He merely stated that he accepted the
miniscule possibility that an accident could conceivably happen sometime
in the far off future.
> This is the same mindset that says better that 100 innocent people
> are convicted than that one guilty person goes free.
Sorry to disappoint you but no, it's not. It is the "same
mindset" that realizes an honest mistake is a vanishingly small though
still finite possibility. Nice try at building a strawman though.
> Second, murderers have a lower rate of recidivism than all other
> criminals.
You mean they only murder a *few* more people. How comforting.
> Very few murderers ever commit another crime. Part of this is
> no doubt due to the unique circumstances of their crime, in some cases,
> which are unlikely to recur. Part of it is also due to the changes which
> are often seen after long term incarceration. Some people do not change.
> However, most men are not the same person ten or more years later that they
> were when they went to prison or when they committed their crime.
> With the DP, recidivism on the part of a capital murder is eliminated
> through execution of his sentence.
>
> Stating the obvious. However, support for the death penalty drops
> dramatically when people are asked to compare it to life without parole.
Yes, too bad that, in reality, there is no such thing. A murderer
can always get out through any combination of executive privledge,
escape
or any number of other avenues.
> > Second, the judgment of the trial jury that heard a DP case is usually
> sound and in the absence of evidence supporting a claim of factual
> innocence where the defendant is concerned, the appellate court's duty is
> to uphold the decision made by the trial jury.
> The problem is the system is not perfect. Juries do not always hear all
> of the evidence or they hear false, or otherwise improper, evidence. (In
> addition, it has been shown that death qualified juries are more likely to
> convict.) Some appellate court's consider it their duty to uphold a trial
> court's decision, in spite of evidence of innocence.
Must be why so many Death Penalty cases are overturned on appeal.
[...lay attempts at theology snipped...]
> > Fourth, it is wrong to allow the murderer to continue to live out his
> life after he has deliberately taken another's life. The state in ordaining
> the execution of the murderer, is invoking the grounds of justice in that
> the life of a murdered person can only be affirmed by punishing the
> murderer to the fullest possible extent, which is the DP.
> See above. In addition, murdering the murder gives the message that human
> life is cheap; not that it is precious. All human life is sacred.
Since when was anyone promoting "murdering the murder [sic]"?
You should stop trying to put words into other people's mouths.
Desperate
grade school debating tactics like that merely point out the inherent
weakness of your own position. The convicted murderer receives a just
execution (generally after far too long of a delay).
> > Finally, there is a moral difference in death in terms of the murderer's
> conduct and
> > the state's conduct. The murderer's conduct is against the laws of God
> and man
> > like. The state's conduct is in accordance with both in putting the
> murderer to death.
>
> That is a matter of opinion. I believe that both the original murderer's
> and the state's conduct is against the will of God. Many people share this
> view.
A many people still believe that the Earth is flat. In both
cases those "people" are greviously in error.
> > Understanding this qualitative difference is essential to appreciating
> the moral character of the DP and why most victims' families support it.
> I understand the very human desire for vengeance. I also understand that
> it is difficult to get past that desire and be able to forgive. Our
> society even seems to say that forgiveness is wrong. However, that does
> not mean that we should not strive to overcome our more base instincts and
> feelings.
Where do you get "vengeance"? The just Death Penalty provides
Justice, not "vengeance". Do you consider life supposedly without
parole
to be "vengeance" as well?
[...lay theology snipped...]
> > I support the DP not because human life isn't important to me, but rather
> because every innocent human life is very precious and the only way to give
> it meaning is to see to it a murderer will not be allowed to enjoy the very
> gift of life that he stole from his victim.
> Is that why you stated that you condone the execution of innocent people?
More than likely it's probably why he *never* stated that.
Hope this helps,
Don
********************** My juice is sweet like Georgia peaches
* Rev. Don McDonald * Women suck it up like leeches
* Baltimore, MD * ---- FREAKNASTY
********************** "Da' Dip"
http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
Douglas McDonald
[...lay theology snipped...]
> How many times do you need to hear "Vengence is mine, I will
> repay" before it sticks? Do I need to write it on a blackboard 100
> times? 1000? And WHERE do you see Cain not intendidg to harm Abel?
> Please explain your thinking here. Use Scripture to back it up.
Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
from the very soil where it spilt. Jesus Fucking Christ; do you need
a house to fall on your or what?
Hope this helps,
Don
[...signature unavailable on foreign host...]
Douglas McDonald
> OK, this is my first post in this newsgroup, so I have my flame
> retarding monitor on...
>
> First, I am pro-DP.
[...snip...]
Welcome to the group. All sane voices are welcome here.
Be prepared to ignore those whose overinflated egos compell them
to fancy themselves 'wild eyed ancharists'. After all, this is
USENET. A forum where all the repressed geeks and nerds of the
world can sound off and posture without fear of the proverbial
sand being kicked in their faces.
Douglas McDonald
Kent Anderson wrote:
> Norman F. Birnberg <Birnber...@webtv.net> wrote...
> > If Austin Spencer is right that anti-DPers aren't absolving capital
> > murderers of anything, then why are they looking for every means in the
> > book to prevent the state from carrying out a sentence after all, had
> > been imposed in accordance with due process of law?
> Because we believe the sentence was wrong.
Just as many of your brethren believed that the comet Hale-Bopp
was their vehicle to the stars. Your "beliefs", however bizarre, have
little bearing on the objective facts. Clearly the just Death Penalty
is the only appropriate and morally right sentence for the crime of
murder.
> > <snip>
> > Oh, I believe if executions were publicly televised, it would have a big
> effect on the murder rate. Look at Saudi Arabia - public executions, and
> virtual absence of murders. No, this country will never have a murder rate
> as low as Saudi Arabia does,
> > but if executions were instaneous and publicly broadcast, it would be
> dramatically lower than the bloodbath that is engulfing America today.
> I am not against televising executions. It might help to desanitize the
> process. However, I question your assumptions about the effect on the
> crime rate.
[...trite 'urban legend' snipped (the naiveté of the 'antis' never
ceases to amaze)...]
> Therefore, I suspect that the lower homicide rate in Saudi Arabia is due
> to other cultural factors.
Yes; "other cultural factors" like taking responsibility for your
actions
and paying for your crimes. How awful !!!
`[...pedantic, newbie style flames snipped...]
Hope this helps,
Don
[...sig unavailable on foreign host computer...]
kdi...@erols.com
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>> Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman F. Birnberg) wrote:
>
> [...lay theology snipped...]
>
>> How many times do you need to hear "Vengence is mine, I will
>> repay" before it sticks? Do I need to write it on a blackboard 100
>> times? 1000? And WHERE do you see Cain not intending to harm Abel?
>> Please explain your thinking here. Use Scripture to back it up.
>
> Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
>wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
>from the very soil where it spilt.
And your point here is?.....
> Jesus Fucking Christ;
Yet another "unusual"phrase for a "ordained minister and everything"
to say. Alex, I'd like "Thing that you would never hear a real
minister say" for $100
>do you need
>a house to fall on your or what?
>
Don, perhaps you did not read my post. I cannot find a suggestion
in that passage that Cain *unintentionally* killed Abel. It seems to
me that the act of killing Abel was a deliberate and premeditated
murder. Norman repeatedly has said that the killing of Abel was an
accident. I have asked him to back this up with Scripture. He has
not. Neither have you. Please do so or admit that Cain is a
murderer. Then explain why God did not execute Cain for his actions.
John Spragge
On 11 Sep 1997 09:04:35 GMT, wa...@av3.enet.dec.com () wrote:
> A counter-argument has been offered
>that since innocents will be killed in either case (because in the absence of
>capital punishment the unexecuted killers will, at some small rate, kill
>again), it is best to operate so as to minimize the number of dead innocents
>and execute killers who are guilty beyond a rational doubt (note that I do not
>claim that this is what happens now, only that it is what proponents would
>claim the system should be designed to achieve). I thought you were claiming
>that this argument is flawed. I agree that it cannot, by itself, make an
>immoral act into a moral one. However the argument that "We should not have
>capital punishment because an innocent person may be killed" does not claim
>that capital punishment is immoral, it claims that it is imprudent, and this
>argument addresses that claim. In what way is it flawed?
It assumes that capital punishment influences the murder rate
(particularly the recidivist murder rate) only by eliminating some
proportion of murderers, and therefore the net effect of capital
punishment must reduce the murder rate (or at least the recidivist
murder rate) slightly. This doesn't work, because not all murderers
get executed, and indeed the US Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory
death sentences would violate the constitution. So in practise, in the
US., a few murderers (less than 1%)get executed, while all the rest
serve an average of 6 years. This leads to a recifivist murder rate
between 5% and 9% for the US.. In Canada, with no capital punishment
but mandatory long term incarceration for murder (a minimum of 25
years before regular parole for pre-meditated murder), we keep the
recidivist murder rate between 0% and 2%. In the US., with capital
punishment, one article estimates murderers on parole present more
than 100 times more danger to the public than the general population
(see Atlantic Monthly, Sept. 1997, page 75). In Canada, murderers on
parole actually commit fewer offences, on average, then members of the
general population.
It seems obvious, given these statistics, that capital punishment, as
practised in the US., has no good effect on the recidivist murder
rate.
J. G. Spragge ----------------------- standard disclaimers apply
Peace and long life ------ Live long and prosper
Dan Hogg
In article <5vbcn9$p...@camel4.mindspring.com>, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan Phinney) writes:
|> In article <01bcbf14$4f467540$LocalHost@kenta>, "Kent Anderson" <Kent_A...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
|>
|> > One problem with the argument which you are citing is that there is
|> >nothing to back it up. Very few murderers commit another murder while in
|> >prison. This number can be reduced even further by adequate security
|> >measures (i.e. don't put known enemies together, separate those whose
|> >history suggests the likelihood of violence in prison from the general
|> >population, etc.).
|>
|> there is always the chance that a guard will be hurt or killed, or that
|> another inmate will be hurt or killed. In return, what reason is there to
|> keep this particular inmate alive to serve the rest of his life in prison. I
|> submit that considering that he/she will never be allowed to return to society
|> or even to offer any positive value to society dictates that he/she be
|> executed.
Phinney appears to be using the identical logic as those who object to the dp
on the basis of executing innocents. Ironic, since he regularly repudiates
such thinking...except when it's useful for his own argument.
The second question Phinney poses is a very slippery slope indeed. There are
many serving lifelong sentences who will have little opportunity to contribute
to society, but that is hardly a reason to execute them. Now that I think of
it, there are many people living in freedom who do not contribute to society
either. Hmm, let's skip over that one. Phinney, like most dp advocates look
only at the present. How about looking at the later lives of those who're on
life sentences. Look at the Manson girls - both who are still imprisoned have
gone on to help other inmates get on the right path. Both have helped inmates
learn to read. Within the strictures of their lives, both these women have
contributed more to the improvement of society than, say, many who post here. I
know of one former TX inmate who now works as a legal researcher. He was
illiterate when he received his life sentence, yet he taught himself to read
and taught himself the law. I'm aware of over 25 inmates who've had their
sentences overturned through his help. He was involved in the writs filed some
~30 years ago which resulted in TX employees having control over the institu-
tions rather than the inmate "building tenders" (aka prison dictators).
Deciding the worth of an individual to live or die on the sole basis of a
single act is the same "reasoning" used by abusive parents who shake a baby to
death because he wouldn't be quiet.
[...]
--
==========================================================================
Daniel Hogg | da...@lexis-nexis.com
LEXIS-NEXIS | dh...@erinet.com
Dayton, OH 45342 |
==========================================================================
There is no need to think outside the box...
when you don't build a box to begin with.
JIGSAW1695
Dan Hogg, or whatever his name is wrote:
>know of one former TX inmate who now works as a legal >researcher. He
was illiterate when he received his life sentence, >yet he taught himself
to read >and taught himself the law. I'm >aware of over 25 inmates who've
had their >sentences >overturned through his help. He was involved in the
writs filed >some 30 years ago which resulted in TX employees having
>control over the institutions rather than the inmate "building >enders"
(aka prison dictators).
First question: What was his name? we can look it up in a legal data base
and find out exactly what he did.
First Point. this guy got life so he probably killed someone and pled out
for life rather than face the possibility of the DP.
If he killed someone, no matter what he does, no matter how many people he
helps, no matter how many people he helped get out of prison, he can Never
repay society for the life he stolen from his victim
Jigsaw.
Douglas McDonald
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> Douglas McDonald <brow...@annapolis.net> wrote:
> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> >> Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman F. Birnberg) wrote:
> > [...lay theology snipped...]
> >> How many times do you need to hear "Vengence is mine, I will
> >> repay" before it sticks? Do I need to write it on a blackboard 100
> >> times? 1000? And WHERE do you see Cain not intending to harm Abel?
> >> Please explain your thinking here. Use Scripture to back it up.
> > Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
> >wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
> >from the very soil where it spilt.
> And your point here is?.....
Is that the victims' blood cries out from the soil for Justice.
> > Jesus Fucking Christ;
> Yet another "unusual"phrase for a "ordained minister and everything"
> to say. Alex, I'd like "Thing that you would never hear a real
> minister say" for $100
Actually that's just about how much money I just won betting
that you would be silly and off-topic enough to specifically address
that phrase.
> >do you need a house to fall on you or what?
> Don, perhaps you did not read my post. I cannot find a suggestion
> in that passage that Cain *unintentionally* killed Abel. It seems to
> me that the act of killing Abel was a deliberate and premeditated
> murder. Norman repeatedly has said that the killing of Abel was an
> accident. I have asked him to back this up with Scripture. He has
> not. Neither have you. Please do so or admit that Cain is a
> murderer. Then explain why God did not execute Cain for his actions.
This is not a forum for the discussion of theology. It is
a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
United States. If your intent is to engage in religious discussions,
then proper netequitte demands that you do it in newgroups dedicated
to those types of discussions.
wa...@av3.enet.dec.com
All of this may be true (although I assume that the 6 year figure must
include manslaughter and therefore would not apply to a discussion of
capital murder in any case) but it is not relevant to the point I was trying
to discuss. I think most proponents of the death penalty would agree that all
murderers should be given a stiff sentence, the question is what to do with
the very worst. So the comparison would be between a system where the worst,
say, 10% (or whatever percentage met the standards of heinousness set by the
community) of the murderers were given LWOP and a different system where the
same were executed. The above argument would claim that one could operate
the latter system so that the number of innocents executed would be less than
the number of innocents killed by the unexecuted in the former system.
|>
|>It seems obvious, given these statistics, that capital punishment, as
|>practised in the US., has no good effect on the recidivist murder
|>rate.
I don't see how you can say that given that you claim yourself that the
principle difference between the systems is the length of the sentence for
the average murderer. In any case I was making no specific claim about
the current system in the U.S., which I would agree looks like a total mess.
One problem with discussions on these newsgroups is that they ramble around
from point to point without ever addressing anything in adequate depth. I
can think of a number of good arguments against capital punishment in
practice, but such arguments are normally harder to demonstrate than arguments
in principle. If one has a good argument in principle one doesn't need to
worry about arguments in practice. So I persist. Is the principle "If we
have capital punishments innocents will be executed, in order to avoid the
death of innocents we should therefore abolish capital punishment." not
invalidated by the above argument? If not, why not? If it is, then perhaps
we should move on to another point.
Dave Wark
ed horlick
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
<big snip>
> All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God.
> The death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
> outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly
If you want to keep God in the discussion, maybe you can explain why
He allows 20,000+ innocent people to be butchered by murderers every
year, and that's just in the US. If His moral guidance prevented that
from happening, we would not even have to discuss the DP since there
would be no need for it.
Ed H.
ImNot911
When Cain killed Abel there were no human laws. God made up the laws as
he went along, sort of and OJT situation. Put yourself in God's shoes for
a moment. If he killed Cain who would take up the slack? There weren't
any extra humans at that time, and God had already lost Abel. Breeding
stock was low on earth. God knew he'd have eternity to punish Cain's sin,
so why kill him?
kdi...@erols.com
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:56:53 -0400, Douglas McDonald
<brow...@annapolis.net> wrote:
>
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>> Douglas McDonald <brow...@annapolis.net> wrote:
>> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>> >> Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman F. Birnberg) wrote:
>
>> > [...lay theology snipped...]
>
>> >> How many times do you need to hear "Vengence is mine, I will
>> >> repay" before it sticks? Do I need to write it on a blackboard 100
>> >> times? 1000? And WHERE do you see Cain not intending to harm Abel?
>> >> Please explain your thinking here. Use Scripture to back it up.
>
>> > Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
>> >wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
>> >from the very soil where it spilt.
>
>> And your point here is?.....
>
> Is that the victims' blood cries out from the soil for Justice.
>
And you consider the punishment that God leveled upon Cain to be
unjust? Think very carefully here Don.
<snip discussion of Don's foul language>
>> >do you need a house to fall on you or what?
>
>> Don, perhaps you did not read my post. I cannot find a suggestion
>> in that passage that Cain *unintentionally* killed Abel. It seems to
>> me that the act of killing Abel was a deliberate and premeditated
>> murder. Norman repeatedly has said that the killing of Abel was an
>> accident. I have asked him to back this up with Scripture. He has
>> not. Neither have you. Please do so or admit that Cain is a
>> murderer. Then explain why God did not execute Cain for his actions.
>
> This is not a forum for the discussion of theology. It is
>a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
>United States.
First,
You responded to the theological part of the post with a
Scriptural referance. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
Second,
This is alt.activism.death-penalty, not
alt.activism.pro-death-penalty. Do you know of a FAQ that says "It is
a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
United States." If not, please stop saying so.
>If your intent is to engage in religious discussions,
>then proper netequitte demands that you do it in newgroups dedicated
>to those types of discussions.
>
All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God. The
death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly
kdi...@erols.com
I seriously doubt that the loss of "breeding stock" would be a
problem to great for God to overcome. Could a better reason for the
continuing of Cain's life be, God loves us and forgives us? That
would seem to be better supported by Scripture.
John Spragge
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:18:57 GMT, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan
Phinney) wrote:
>The only obvious thing about these statistics is that yet again someone has
>quoted statistical evidence as "proof" of the ineffectiveness of the DP
>without showing any causality between the DP and the difference in crime
>statistics.
The word "proof" nowhere appears in my posting. In fact, if you can
come up with any post, period, where I claimed to offer proof that
capital punishment has no effect, I will repudiate it and apologise
for it. I don't think I ever have made such a claim.
> Is it your contention that the only difference between Canada and
>the US is that the US has capital punishment? If not, then you have failed
>to address all of the other reasons that the recidivist rate for murderers in
>the US might be higher than the rate in Canada.
My posting mentions differences in the American and Canadian judicial
systems other than capital punishment. And I certainly don't claim
that our societies have no other differences. But if factors other
than the judicial system have more effect on the recidivist murder
rate, then I'd call that pretty strong evidence of a judicial system
with severe problems. Given the recidivist murder rate quoted here and
in other places (including the sources I quoted in my original), I'd
say at least some US justice systems appear to have those problems.
Which if any of these problems stem from capital punishment, I don't
know; but if capital punishment does make a positive differerence, no
evidence I have seen so far shows it.
I don't have to address any of these questions to make my point,
namely: the argument that capital punishment opponents must take moral
responsibility for those individuals we assume capital punishment
might have "saved" founders on the evidence (not proof) that capital
punishment does not, in fact, save lives, whether from first offenders
or from repeat offenders.
[ more on the possible existence of other factors that might affect ]
[ the recidivist murder rate snipped. ]
> If not, then you are guilty of quoting the
>same type of misleading and false statistics that we have seen so often in
>this forum.
Before you call my statistics "false", kindly come up with a scintilla
of counter-evidence. As for misleading: for the clear and limited
purpose for which I used them, my use of statistics does not mislead.
[ patronising nonsense snipped ]
ImNot911
I've found very little logic in arguments concerning God's love and
forgiveness. Consider IIKings,chap.2,verses 23-25. God sent two she-bears
out of the woods to tear apart 42 children for making fun of Elisha's bald
head. Who says
our laws must be dictated by anyone's interpretation of any religion's
sacred writings?
It's not reasonable for you to isolate and interpret one little
segment of the Bible as representative of God's word on the death penalty.
Bad debating tactic.
Douglas McDonald
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> >> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> >> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> >> >> Birnber...@webtv.net (Norman F. Birnberg) wrote:
> >> > [...lay theology snipped...]
> >> >> How many times do you need to hear "Vengence is mine, I will
> >> >> repay" before it sticks? Do I need to write it on a blackboard 100
> >> >> times? 1000? And WHERE do you see Cain not intending to harm Abel?
> >> >> Please explain your thinking here. Use Scripture to back it up.
> >> > Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
> >> >wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
> >> >from the very soil where it spilt.
> >> And your point here is?.....
> > Is that the victims' blood cries out from the soil for Justice.
> And you consider the punishment that God leveled upon Cain to be
> unjust? Think very carefully here Don.
I consider it an interesting allegory.
> <snip discussion of Don's foul language>
> >> >do you need a house to fall on you or what?
> >> Don, perhaps you did not read my post. I cannot find a suggestion
> >> in that passage that Cain *unintentionally* killed Abel. It seems to
> >> me that the act of killing Abel was a deliberate and premeditated
> >> murder. Norman repeatedly has said that the killing of Abel was an
> >> accident. I have asked him to back this up with Scripture. He has
> >> not. Neither have you. Please do so or admit that Cain is a
> >> murderer. Then explain why God did not execute Cain for his actions.
> > This is not a forum for the discussion of theology. It is
> >a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
> >United States.
> First,
> You responded to the theological part of the post with a
> Scriptural referance. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
I responded to the anti Death Penalty cabal's continued
illiteracy concerning the definition of the term "murder".
> Second,
> This is alt.activism.death-penalty, not
> alt.activism.pro-death-penalty. Do you know of a FAQ that says "It is
> a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
> United States." If not, please stop saying so.
This group is devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in
the United States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW).
> >If your intent is to engage in religious discussions,
> >then proper netequitte demands that you do it in newgroups dedicated
> >to those types of discussions.
> All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God. The
> death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
> outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly
To bring God into a discussion of proper penal policy
is what is "silly". The definition of "Justice" does not invoke
the Lord.
Douglas McDonald
Actually God is a fairly long lived individual (especially
in comparison to us mere mortals). He can afford to wait to
dispense his justice, we cannot. Justice delayed is Justice
denied.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
mgcu...@connect.net
In article <341ddd4d...@news.erols.com>,
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Sep 1997 15:19:51 GMT, imno...@aol.com (ImNot911) wrote:
>
> >
> >When Cain killed Abel there were no human laws. God made up the laws as
> >he went along, sort of and OJT situation. Put yourself in God's shoes for
> >a moment. If he killed Cain who would take up the slack? There weren't
> >any extra humans at that time, and God had already lost Abel. Breeding
> >stock was low on earth. God knew he'd have eternity to punish Cain's sin,
> >so why kill him?
>
> I seriously doubt that the loss of "breeding stock" would be a
> problem to great for God to overcome. Could a better reason for the
> continuing of Cain's life be, God loves us and forgives us?
There's not much rhyme or reason to Genesis. Until the murder of Abel,
no reference is made to any other humans but the two brothers and their
parents. Yet when Cain is banished to wander the earth, he complains
that "anyone" who meets him could kill him. Until then, there were only
supposed to be 4 people on the planet. Then Cain goes to the land of
Nod, finds a wife, and builds a city. Suddenly, there are people all
over the place!
> That
> would seem to be better supported by Scripture.
If the story of Cain and Abel is supposed to be a lesson in forgiveness
and leniency for murderers, then how do you account for the imposition of
the death penalty in Mosaic Law?
Mike Cullinan
mgcu...@connect.net
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Desmond Coughlan
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 22:11:19 -0600, mgcu...@connect.net wrote:
>> I am not against televising executions. It might help to desanitize the
>> process. However, I question your assumptions about the effect on the
>> crime rate.
>>
>> Pickpockets were very active among the crowds at publich hangings in
>> England. This was in spite of the fact that the pickpockets would suffer
>> the same fate as the condemned man if they were caught. The absence of due
>> process, in many cases, did not seem to have any effect either.
>>
>> Therefore, I suspect that the lower homicide rate in Saudi Arabia is due
>> to other cultural factors.
>One of the cultural factors offered for Saudi Arabia's low murder rate is
>homogeniety of religion; almost everyone is devoutly Muslim. Italy is
>one of the most abolitionist of countries and also has homogeniety of
>religion; almost everyone is Roman Catholic. Yet Italy's homicide rate
>has been creeping steadily upwards over the last few decades or so. Last
>I checked, it had reached about 7.6 per hundred thousand and was still
>climbing. At that rate, they will soon overtake and pass the US.
Part of that are the mafia killings, Mike.
Look at Ireland, which is also Roman Catholic, abolitionist, and has a
very low murder rate.
----
Desmond Coughlan |"We got loud guitars and big suspicions,
Remove "nospam_" from |Great big guns and small ambitions,
e-mail address. |And we still argue over who is God."
*******************************************
http://www.pratique.fr/~dcoughla/
kdi...@erols.com
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:20:44 -0700, ed horlick
<edho...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
><big snip>
>
>> All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God.
>> The death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
>> outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly
>
>If you want to keep God in the discussion, maybe you can explain why
>He allows 20,000+ innocent people to be butchered by murderers every
>year, and that's just in the US. If His moral guidance prevented that
>from happening, we would not even have to discuss the DP since there
>would be no need for it.
>
>Ed H.
Moral guidence would be different from direct intervention in human
affairs. Honestly, The Problem of Pain has been delt with many times
and in many places, do you really wish to go through it here?
kdi...@erols.com
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:40:56 -0400, Douglas McDonald
<brow...@annapolis.net> wrote:
>
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
>> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>> >> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
>> >> > Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
>> >> >wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
>> >> >from the very soil where it spilt.
>
>> >> And your point here is?.....
>
>> > Is that the victims' blood cries out from the soil for Justice.
>
>> And you consider the punishment that God leveled upon Cain to be
>> unjust? Think very carefully here Don.
>
> I consider it an interesting allegory.
>
and so your point is?...
>> >> >do you need a house to fall on you or what?
>
>> >> Don, perhaps you did not read my post. I cannot find a suggestion
>> >> in that passage that Cain *unintentionally* killed Abel. It seems to
>> >> me that the act of killing Abel was a deliberate and premeditated
>> >> murder. Norman repeatedly has said that the killing of Abel was an
>> >> accident. I have asked him to back this up with Scripture. He has
>> >> not. Neither have you. Please do so or admit that Cain is a
>> >> murderer. Then explain why God did not execute Cain for his actions.
>
>> > This is not a forum for the discussion of theology. It is
>> >a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
>> >United States.
>
>> First,
>> You responded to the theological part of the post with a
>> Scriptural referance. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
>
> I responded to the anti Death Penalty cabal's continued
>illiteracy concerning the definition of the term "murder".
>
So you are saying that Cain did not murder Abel? What did Cain do
to Abel then?
>> Second,
>> This is alt.activism.death-penalty, not
>> alt.activism.pro-death-penalty. Do you know of a FAQ that says "It is
>> a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
>> United States." If not, please stop saying so.
>
> This group is devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in
>the United States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW).
>
Oh, I did not know that you were moderating this group, or is this
an example of "if I say it often enough, it's true"
>> >If your intent is to engage in religious discussions,
>> >then proper netequitte demands that you do it in newgroups dedicated
>> >to those types of discussions.
>
>> All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God. The
>> death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
>> outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly
>
> To bring God into a discussion of proper penal policy
>is what is "silly". The definition of "Justice" does not invoke
>the Lord.
>
"Alex, I'd like "Things that you would never hear a real minister
say for $200"
kdi...@erols.com
On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 06:20:25 GMT, m...@guesswho.net (Donald) wrote:
>You are trying to apply logic while arguing with the single biggest
>asshole ever to grace the newsgroups.
>He will either ignore your argument or lie about it.
>I am sure you know this.
>Why continue?
>
first off I am not sure He deserves that honor even in this ng.
Desi has been surging ahead lately. The "rev" Steve Winter has
effectively ended alt.org.promisekeepers as a newsgroup. This one
manages to continue. Why do I continue? I do not know. Perhaps I
hope that he will one day get it. Or maybe I will shell out $30 for
agent and then he will be gone forever....
kdi...@erols.com
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:43:20 -0400, Douglas McDonald
<brow...@annapolis.net> wrote:
>
> Actually God is a fairly long lived individual (especially
>in comparison to us mere mortals). He can afford to wait to
>dispense his justice, we cannot. Justice delayed is Justice
>denied.
>
Lets try this again,
Romans 12:19 (NASB)
"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath
of God, for it is written, "VENGENCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the
Lord."
What part of this do you not understand?
kdi...@erols.com
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:21:52 -0600, mgcu...@connect.net wrote:
<snip>
>If the story of Cain and Abel is supposed to be a lesson in forgiveness
>and leniency for murderers, then how do you account for the imposition of
>the death penalty in Mosaic Law?
>
The Lex Talonis was instituted in order to temper human desire for
revenge. People were taking vastly unequal revenge. Consider;
Genesis 4:22-23(NASB)
"Lamach said to his wives,
"Adah and Zillah,
Listen to my voice,
You wives of Lamach,
Give heed to my speach,
For I have killed a man
for wounding me;
And a boy for striking me;
"If Cain is avenged
sevenfold,
Then Lamach
seventy-sevenfold."
Donald
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:33:59 GMT, kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>> This is not a forum for the discussion of theology. It is
>>a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
>>United States.
>
> First,
> You responded to the theological part of the post with a
>Scriptural referance. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
> Second,
> This is alt.activism.death-penalty, not
>alt.activism.pro-death-penalty. Do you know of a FAQ that says "It is
>a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
>United States." If not, please stop saying so.
>
>>If your intent is to engage in religious discussions,
>>then proper netequitte demands that you do it in newgroups dedicated
>>to those types of discussions.
>>
> All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God. The
>death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
>outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly
>
>
>
>
> No Jesus, No Peace
> Know Jesus, Know Peace
> Kevin Dickover
> <)))><
You are trying to apply logic while arguing with the single biggest
John Spragge
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:29:57 GMT, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan
Phinney) wrote:
>While you may not have claimed those statistics were "proof", the statement
>that it is "obvious" that capital punishment has no good effect on the
>recidivist murder rate meets my criteria for claiming such.
Well, you can use whatever "criteria" you want. The data do exist, and
the do point to a conclusion, and when a jurisdiction with capital
punishment has a recidivist murder rate at least twice as high, and
possibly higher, than one without, the word "obvious" for that
conclusion does not seem too strong.
The statistics exist: you can look up at least some of the references.
They indicate that Canada without capital punishment, has a lower
recidivist homicide rate than the US.. In other words, the US justice
system can't even prevent people it has already identified as
murderers from murdering again as well as the Canadian system. The
cultural factors you suggest have little to do with the case; if
"cultural" factors induce murderers to reoffend, the state has the
option of keeping them locked up for longer, perhaps even their whole
lives. To date, the US. justice system appears to have proven either
unable or unwilling to do this, and that difference appears to have
had a baneful effect on the recidivist murder rate that capital
punishment has not offset.
>The judicial system has limited effect in some areas, I would point to the
>effect of prohibition in the US in the 20's.
Excuse me, but the justice system has a great deal of "effect" when it
comes to letting convicted murderers out of jail. Do you claim the
jail gates just opened by themselves? You can't hold the justice
system responsible for the ills of society, but you can hold it
responsible for keeping the murderers it has safe in custody locked up
until they no longer pose a threat to the community.
>Might be, however, that hardly has any statement at all to make about the DP.
Nonsense. The current problems with the US justice system strongly
suggest the conclusion about capital punishment that capital
punishment has less effect on the recidivism rates than other
measures, such as uniformly long sentences. Since the US justice
system now practices capital punishment in rare cases combined with
extreme leniancy in the vast majority of cases, our experience
strongly suggests that the current judicial practise of capital
punishment in the US. has accomplished less to reduce the recidivist
murder rate than the alternatives.
And that conclusion (one very hard to escape) invalidates any claim
that opponents of capital punishment must take the blame for
recidivist murder. The evidence we have simply does not point to
capital punishment as a way to prevent recidivist homicides; indeed,
it points the other way.
>Also, I might point out that in many countries with relatively strict judicial
>systems, the crime rates, including murder rates and recidivism rates are much
>lower.
By most criteria, Canada has a "relatively strict" judicial system, at
least relative to the US. I have no quarrel with a "strict" system. I
think you can have a strict, effective justice system without capital
punishment; and indeed, the evidence from most countries (including
the US) convinces me that you can't have a consistently strict justice
system except by getting rid of capital punishment.
> For us to expect the judicial system to be a panacea for all
>that is wrong with our country or all that contributes to the crime rate is
>ridiculous.
Again, you seem not to grasp that the recidivist homicide rate refers
exclusively to people the justice system had safely behind stone
walls, and that someone chose to release. The leap of logic between
"panacea" and the simple ability to keep someone behind bars would
take you across the Grand Canyon and the Rio Grande in the same bound.
>I refer again to the lighthouse argument. We never hear about the ships that
>the lighthouse has saved, only those that have sunk in spite of it. Such
>measurements are very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify.
Nonsense. To use your analogy, if the port which uses a lighthouse has
100 ships visit it, and has 8 shipwrecks a year, and the port that has
no lighthouse but a loran system has 100 ships visit and 2 shipwrecks
a year, which port do you want your Mercedes shipped to? The
statistics do show how many people the justice system saves, as well
as how many it fails to save.
I would point out in passing the difference between criticising a
particular method of data or analysis, or pointing out that one set of
data contradicts another, and the general, muddy claim that no data
has any real meaning or authority. The first process adds at least
some light to the discussion, while the second simply threatens to
reduce it to a dreary, interminable volley of "is/is not". The
statistics reflect our experience, and the safety (or otherwise) of
our streets. Because these things matter, so does the data that
describes them. By all means, if you have information, post it. If you
have references, post them too.
>Again, the fact that there is no immutable statistical proof of this does not
>mean that it does not happen.
The FBI gets calls from people who claim that murders happen in which
the forces of darkness get rid of the bodies. Can't prove (or
disprove) that one, either. The statistics do not support the theory
that capital punishment prevents crime. They don't even support the
idea that capital punishment, as practised in the US., prevents
recidivist murder. Those facts have meaning.
> Just because there is
>no statistical evidence to prove an effect of the DP does not mean that there
>is no effect.
No, it doesn't. It just means that capital punishment has no positive
effect we can determine. Other possible law enforcement strategies, on
the other hand, do have a discernable effect. Whether or not you
choose to use such strategies, or stick with capital punishment,
remains a question for the voters in the jurisdictions involved.
John Spragge
On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:00:51 GMT, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan
Phinney) wrote:
>The data do exist, however, in light of the fact that you have not explained
>away all other possible causes for different data only shows that a
>"conclusion" is impossible to draw.
No, the data point towards a straightforward conclusion. Judicial
practise does, after all, have a straightforward connection to
recidivism; or it does if the justice system works. If you want to
refute that, please identify a specific cultural factor, and show how
that factor overcomes all the efforts of the justice system.
> You, yourself admitted as much when you criticised the
>studies that I put forward.
Before you tell me what I "admitted", perhaps you could tell me what
you think I said, and possibly even point to the post in which I said
it. I have certainly criticised certain studies, and I will do so
again. But I doubt you can find a quote from me where I said that data
per se have no meaning, or that they don't constitute evidence for one
conclusion or another.
Absent evidence, we end up arguing on the basis of people's general
assumptions about what "might" or what "must" happen.
>We have been through this comparison before, unless you want to claim that the
>US and Canada are equivalent in all things except capital punishment, such
>comparisons are misleading, false and pointless.
At a minimum, it suggests pretty strongly that some "other factors"
have more to do with preventing murders than capital punishment. That
alone undermines the argument of those who talk with assurance about
the victims capital punishment "could have" saved.
> It proves nothing except that you are
>willing to use misleading statistics to try to prove your point to those who
>might be taken in by such theatrics.
You have provided absolutely no reason to doubt the information I have
posted except that (rather obviously) it points at conclusions you
find uncongenial.
> As for where to place the blame for
>lesser sentences on those convicted of murder, I really rather doubt that the
>"bloodthirsty" pro-DP'ers are campaigning for the parole boards to release
>murderers early.
First of all, this issue concern facts, not blame. The fact exists
that the US. system releases murderers after they serve an average of
six years, and executes only a tiny fraction of all murderers. The
fact also exists that Canada, which imprisons all murderers for at
least ten years, and most pre-meditated murderers for 25, has a much
lower recidivism rate. I do not care in the slightest whom you "blame"
for these facts; they exist.
> Are you claiming that countries
>that have a DP automatically must release other convicted murderers early?
Certainly Canada's experience suggests that the the financial
resources and the political will that goes into capital punishment
makes keeping all murderers locked up for long periods difficult if
not impossible. I know the US has a different political culture, but
where politicians use capital punishment as an index of their
"toughness" on crime, the will to address the sentence served by the
average murderer appears oddly lacking. Plenty of people know that
murderers only serve an average of six years, and nobody I know really
considers six (or four) years served an appropriate punishment for
taking a life, except possibly the offenders involved. But when it
comes time to make laws or campaign for change, legislators seem to
fasten on capital punishment for a very few, rather than keeping the
garden-variety murderer locked up.
Canada only bit the bullet and brought in the 25 year minimum for all
premediated murder when we abolished capital punishment. We've had a
very good experience with that. Whether it could work for the US, I
don't know.
>You and I can have a debate all day long about how long criminals should be
>locked up in prison, the fact is that Canada doesn't have the same
>incarceration rate as the US, they don't have the same crime rate as the US
>and they definitely don't have the same violent crime rate as the US. If they
>did, Canada might have the same problems as the US currently does. One
>more difference in our two countries that effects the methods of dealing
>with crime.
Circular argument. If our methods of dealing with crime worked as
badly as yours, we might have different methods of dealing with crime.
Right.
You have the recidivist murder rates you do. You lock up murderers for
an average of six years. We have much lower recidivism rates, and we
lock murderers up for much longer. Would it not make sense to try to
lock people up for a little more time? Push the average up to ten
years? I don't know why you don't do this, but I do notice the
attention paid to the culture of capital punishment: the treatment of
the exceptional murderer, rather than the "ordinary decent murderers"
that serve their six years or their four years.
What else (besides having the attention of your politicians focussed
on the tiny minority of killers who get the gurney) makes it hard for
you to simply keep the prison gates closed longer?
>The alternatives that you mention are not prohibited by the use of capital
>punishment.
No, but in a western democratic society, they seem to have evolved
effectively into an either-or.
>In a word, false. Your conclusion is based on your own assertions and not on
>any valid evidence, therefore it is rejected outright.
In a word, nonsense. I base my conclusion on the history of capital
punishment in Canada, the statistcs quoted by Atlantic Monthly and
other sources. If you want to reject my conclusions, fine. Pick
another factor which could influence the crime rate, and show us how
it renders the effects of capital punishment (or the lack thereof)
irrelevant. But don't just lie back and say other factors might
influence things (agreed), therefore these statistics can't prove
anything (agreed) therefore thay have no meaning (nonsense).
> Since there is no
>reason that capital punishment can not be enacted along with any other type of
>sentence reform that you want to espouse, you have failed to prove anything
>about capital punishment but have merely railed against the current state of
>Truth in sentencing in this country, a point that I would have agreed with
>otherwise.
No physical reason, no. The history of this issue, on both sides of
the border, seems to point rather strongly to some political reasons
you can only expect uniformly long sentences if you get your
politicians to bite the bullet and abandon capital punishment for more
effective correctional policies.
> And since Singapore also has one of the lowest crime
>rates and certainly one of the lowest recidivism rates, where is this proof
>coming from? Are we relegated to socialist, european countries to draw our
>conclusions, simply because it suits your purposes?
Nope. You can "look" all you want at Singapore. I will point out that
American and Canadian courts would rule that much of that "strict
judicial system" violates both our countries' constitutional
guarantees.
>Again you seem not to grasp that there are many other factors that contribute
>to the release of criminals in our justice system besides the fact that we
>have capital punishment.
The evidence (and logic) seems to indicate that your use of capital
punishment does have a pretty strong relationship with your general
leniency to average murderers. It only takes one "factor" to keep
murderers in Canada behind bars for ten or twenty-five years: the
criminal code of Canada. It took only one "factor" to pass the laws:
Parliament. And they made a simple decision: capital punishment for a
tiny minority of the worst offenders, or long sentences for all
murderers.
Your political culture differs profoundly from ours, but in Canada,
the legislature made the choice that way.
>The analogy is correct, however, according to your example, both ports have
>100 ships visit a year. Are you honestly trying to compare the crime rates in
>Canada and the US as being equivalent? Ridiculous. As well as not accounting
>for one port which might be smaller and more crowded or have rougher waters
>than the other.
Fine. Then refute what I say. Come up with another contributing
factor, and show us how it has more effect on the recidivist murder
rate than having a big stone wall between the offender and the rest of
us for about six or seven more years (on average).
> Again, you ignore all other contributing factors and purport
>the result as proof.
For the third time, these statistics do not constitute proof of
anything, only that they cosntitute evidence. When put all together,
the history and politics of the issue adds up to a strong argument,
strongly supported, that capital punishment does not play an effective
role in preventing recidivist murder, but it remains that, an
argument. I have never called it proof, and I fail to see why you
can't avoid injecting that word that word into the discussion. It
doesn't apply.
>I have already pointed out the fallacies in the evidence that you posted. If
>by your words above you mean that if the only available evidence is known to
>be bad, it must be used anyway, simply because it is all that is available, I
>would reject your point.
You've produced not a single fallacy in this thread. The word fallacy,
like the word proof, has a specific meaning. I haven't claimed to
prove anything, and you haven't produced any fallacies. Nor have you
produced any counter-evidence, contenting yourself with assuring
everyone that since counter-evidence might just possibly exist, that
by itself refutes my argument. Sorry, no sale. It takes more work than
that. Try to find out which factors might influence the American and
Canadian murder rates, in a manner completely independent of capital
punishment. Then show us how this "other factor" explains the
variations in murder rates. Then you will have made a strong case.
> If the evidence that you have is known to be tainted
>or faulty for the purposes that you wish to use it, you can not just use it
>anyway simply because there is no better evidence.
You have yet to show anything tainted or faulty about the evidence I
have posted. Your sole point seems to come down to the idea that some
other evidence might exist, which might refute my points. Fine. I'd
love to see it. But you have to argue using evidence which does exist,
not against evidence which might exist.
>Since the statistics that you speak of are at best conflicting and at worst
>outright lies by those with an agenda, they prove nothing except that someone
>can compile numbers in an attempt to support their position.
I have no doubt Atlantic Monthly, one of the most respected opinion
journals in your country, would find your characterisation of them as
liars with an agenda interesting. What other "lies" and "liars" have
you identified, and on what grounds?
> It does not
>follow that statistical evidence must exist showing that capital punishment
>reduces crime for it to be an accepted punishment.
Absolutely right. I merely follows that if you want to hold the
opponents of capital punishment responsible for the deaths of people
capital punishment might otherwise have saved, you have to deal with
the evidence that it doesn't save anyone.
>Mr. Spragge, on the day that you can get the legislature to enact my own (and
>it seems your) stated initiatives in place of capital punishment, I will
>support your move to abolish it.
I haven't the slightest intention, now or ever, of trying to influence
an American legislature. The legislature I have any concern about has
already enacted laws that provide an effective minimum period of
incarceration for all murderers, and I and my compatriots have had
good results from those laws. Whether Americans think you can
duplicate our results, I don't know, and I have no reason to much
concern myself with what most state legislatures do.
mgcu...@connect.net
In article <341f5693...@news.erols.com>,
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > Actually God is a fairly long lived individual (especially
> >in comparison to us mere mortals). He can afford to wait to
> >dispense his justice, we cannot. Justice delayed is Justice
> >denied.
> >
> Lets try this again,
>
> Romans 12:19 (NASB)
> "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath
> of God, for it is written, "VENGENCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the
> Lord."
>
> What part of this do you not understand?
>
This is advice to Christians, followers of the man who said "My kingdom
is not of this world." Governments collect taxes, enforce laws, and wage
wars. Since when is a secular government supposed to model itself after
an ascetic religious teaching?
mgcu...@connect.net
In article <341f5a54...@news.erols.com>,
of one Genesis character and say that all men behaved in the same way?
Also, please explain to me your rationale for connecting the scriptures
in Exodus to the scriptures in Genesis. Did God refer to Lamach when he
prescribed Moses the lex talionis? Did God say that DP for murder was to
prevent people from getting out of hand in seeking to avenge the murder
of relatives? Or was it simply put in place for the same reason other
nations had it, an appropriate judicial response for the crime of
wantonly taking someone's life?
Dan Hogg
In article <5v41a3$ige$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, wa...@av3.enet.dec.com () writes:
|>
[...]
He argues that society would
|> then be wise, even ignoring any other postulated benefits of the death
|> penalty, to accept a false conviction rate such that the number of innocents
|> executed each year is less than the number who would have been killed by the
|> murderers in the absence of capital punishment. I find this argument
|> interesting. You seem to think it is flawed. What exactly do you think is
|> wrong with it? If you have a cogent argument to make then make it, if you
|> don't, then spare us this nonsense about how anyone who makes it automatically
|> argues that any false conviction rate is acceptable.
The problem with this "argument" is that it equates the actions of individual
citizens (murderers) with the actions of the government. The former is not
bound by any societal rules or necessity to ensure due process and represents
no one but himself. The government, OTOH, cannot mirror the behavior of the
murderer lest it become itself, the immoral dispenser of horror. This "logic",
which uses auto accidents as metaphors for murders together with an accountant
mentality ignores the basic fact of all dp prosecutions: individual behavior
is not comparable to governmental behavior.
Spare us the rhetoric which treats people as numbers in a ledger whereby we
merely add up the number of victims and pretend they are connected via a
judicial socket. History is replete with examples of abuses of governmental
power and it's no surprise that the targets of such abuses are virtually all
some combination of poor, minorities, mentally handicapped and poorly
represented while the government has the tyranny of the majority, plenty of
capital, access to all sorts of scientific and investigative resources and,
usually, a team of experienced prosecutors.
wa...@av3.enet.dec.com
In article <5voh5s$f...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>, da...@lexis-nexis.com (Dan Hogg) writes:
|>In article <5v41a3$ige$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, wa...@av3.enet.dec.com () writes:
|>|>
|>
|>[...]
|>
|> He argues that society would
|>|> then be wise, even ignoring any other postulated benefits of the death
|>|> penalty, to accept a false conviction rate such that the number of innocents
|>|> executed each year is less than the number who would have been killed by the
|>|> murderers in the absence of capital punishment. I find this argument
|>|> interesting. You seem to think it is flawed. What exactly do you think is
|>|> wrong with it? If you have a cogent argument to make then make it, if you
|>|> don't, then spare us this nonsense about how anyone who makes it automatically
|>|> argues that any false conviction rate is acceptable.
|>
|>The problem with this "argument" is that it equates the actions of individual
|>citizens (murderers) with the actions of the government. The former is not
|>bound by any societal rules or necessity to ensure due process and represents
|>no one but himself. The government, OTOH, cannot mirror the behavior of the
|>murderer lest it become itself, the immoral dispenser of horror.
This is very old ground. As has been pointed out here many times, in the
opinion of supporters of the death penalty capital punishment does not mirror
the behavior of murderers in any sense which is useful for determining its
moral fitness. If you think that it does then fine, produce an argument to
that effect, but just claiming it over and over again is not going to convince
anyone.
|>This "logic",
|>which uses auto accidents as metaphors for murders together with an accountant
|>mentality ignores the basic fact of all dp prosecutions: individual behavior
|>is not comparable to governmental behavior.
Precisely. That is why governments are given powers that individuals are
not, and governments must observe decision-making procedures that individuals
are not bound by. That is also why murder and the death penalty are considered
by supporters of the latter to fall in different categories.
|>
|>Spare us the rhetoric which treats people as numbers in a ledger whereby we
|>merely add up the number of victims and pretend they are connected via a
|>judicial socket.
Fine. I will spare the readers of this newsgroup rational arguments, and
you can spare them the bombastic polemic. Then I won't have anything to
say, and judging from what I have read, neither will you. If you wish to
dispense with rational argument you can continue to trot out your "Poor abused
victim of society" argument (although, looking at those who are executed, it
looks like casting is letting you down). They will continue to trot out their
"Look at this picture of my 18 year old daughter that this scuz bucket killed,
now he is sitting in prison using up enough money to send my other child to
Harvard while watching porno on prison TV" argument, and we can see who wins.
Hint: That is what is going on now, and you are losing. Badly. Perhaps a
little rational consideration of the arguments wouldn't be a bad idea?
|>History is replete with examples of abuses of governmental
|>power and it's no surprise that the targets of such abuses are virtually all
|>some combination of poor, minorities, mentally handicapped and poorly
|>represented while the government has the tyranny of the majority, plenty of
|>capital, access to all sorts of scientific and investigative resources and,
|>usually, a team of experienced prosecutors.
Well, I won't argue with your history because it would lead this even
further astray. Personally I find it hard to believe that prosecutors would
make better decisions if given fewer resources, but then I cling to the
belief that most of them are trying to find and prosecute criminals rather
than oppress the masses. In any case I don't see how this argument applies
specifically to capital punishment. Given the oft-expressed claim around
here that the death penalty has no stronger deterrent value than LWOP would
the evil government conspiracy not be able to crush the downtrodden just as
effectively (and much more quietly, without all that noisy press intrusion
giving the game away) without the death penalty?
|>
|>[...]
|>--
|>==========================================================================
|>Daniel Hogg | da...@lexis-nexis.com
|>LEXIS-NEXIS | dh...@erinet.com
|>Dayton, OH 45342 |
|>==========================================================================
|> There is no need to think outside the box...
|> when you don't build a box to begin with.
|>
I would like to briefly try to get back to my tyrant-abetting, cold-hearted
accountant's argument. I will break cover and admit that while I find it
interesting, I do not find it convincing, although I can't really say why.
It smacks of the utilitarian arguments which are the favorite whipping boy
of Moral Philosophy 101 teachers. Every time I try to phrase an objection
to it along those lines, however, I founder at the point of discussing the
government's intention. The usual examples of such arguments have someone
purposefully harming an innocent to the greater benefit of other innocents.
As long as the government is always acting in a good-faith attempt to execute
only the guilty (and I think everyone agrees that they always should so act)
then it seems that the usual objections are answered. I was hoping that
someone here would shed more light on the point, but so far I have been
disappointed.
Dave Wark
Dan Hogg
In article <5vjuvc$i...@camel1.mindspring.com>, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan Phinney) writes:
|> In article <5vjniv$4...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>, da...@lexis-nexis.com (Dan Hogg) wrote:
[...]
|> >The second question Phinney poses is a very slippery slope indeed. There are
|> >many serving lifelong sentences who will have little opportunity to contribute
|> >to society, but that is hardly a reason to execute them. Now that I think of
|> >it, there are many people living in freedom who do not contribute to society
|> >either. Hmm, let's skip over that one. Phinney, like most dp advocates look
|> >only at the present. How about looking at the later lives of those who're on
|> >life sentences. Look at the Manson girls - both who are still imprisoned have
|> >gone on to help other inmates get on the right path. Both have helped inmates
|>
|> How many have gone on to have a negative influence on others, Charles
|> Manson for instance. Or would you argue that his creation of a drug smuggling
|> ring while in prison is a contribution of increasing entrepreneurship of
|> inmates?
Well, here's one way to look at it: McDuff is cited with monotonous regularity
as an example of one who should have been executed since he subsequently was
paroled and killed more people. He is an example of why the dp is appropriate
in certain cases. However, what I've never seen acknowledged by a pro-dp'er is
the fact that of the ~250 former death row inmates whose sentences were
commuted to life and were eventually paroled, McDuff was the only one who
re-offended. You seem to think it okay to totally destroy any possibility of a
reconstructed life for everyone on the basis of the behavior of one man. Why
not argue that cars should be banned on the basis of the woman in Las Vegas (I
think it was Las Vegas) who killed several people at a bus stop - it makes as
much sense.
|>
|> >learn to read. Within the strictures of their lives, both these women have
|> >contributed more to the improvement of society than, say, many who post here. I
|>
|> Depends on how what you consider to be a contribution. I would argue that
|> your contribution has to always be taken in light with your negative actions.
|> You have to do an awful lot of literacy training to atone for the brutal
|> slaying of a pregnant woman (not to mention the others).
The fundamental reason for criminality is the inability to earn a living. Some
2/3 of prison inmates are functionally illiterate. If some of those whom she's
helped do not re-offend and go on to live productive lives, I consider that to
be a contribution which mitigates somewhat her behavior as a very young and
impressionable girl. Note, we aren't talking about releasing her or others
with similar past acts, but simply not killing them and updating our database
with current information to recognize that the adult is often not just the
child grown older.
|>
|> >know of one former TX inmate who now works as a legal researcher. He was
|> >illiterate when he received his life sentence, yet he taught himself to read
|> >and taught himself the law. I'm aware of over 25 inmates who've had their
|> >sentences overturned through his help. He was involved in the writs filed some
|> >~30 years ago which resulted in TX employees having control over the institu-
|> >tions rather than the inmate "building tenders" (aka prison dictators).
|>
|> How many meaningless lawsuits has he filed? I am aware of many "jail house
|> lawyers" whose only contribution to society is to increase the cost of
|> imprisonment through the filing of multiple frivolous lawsuits. While your
|> particular friend may have chosen a more egalitarian pursuit, how many do not?
|> Considering the figures of 97% of the lawsuits in the prison system are ruled
|> as frivolous, it seems there might be more of those kind than the ones you
|> point out.
You really need to get over this obsession with frivolous lawsuits. First, I'd
like to see the source for your 97% claim - I flatly don't believe it. Second,
access to the civil judicial system is a right of all people, citizens or not,
felons or not. This right is fundamental and IMO should not be abridged. But
if that right is abused, the courts have the ability (duty?) to label the
abuser as such - there's a phrase like "noxious litigant" or some such. When a
person is so labeled, s/he requires leave of the court to pursue and further
litigation.
BTW, I don't consider filing repeated lawsuits for civil rights abuses by the
prisons to be frivolous. Given that the information alledged by those writs
turned out to be true, I think this shows courage and integrity. Perhaps not
what you might expect from a person with his background.
|>
|> >Deciding the worth of an individual to live or die on the sole basis of a
|> >single act is the same "reasoning" used by abusive parents who shake a baby to
|> >death because he wouldn't be quiet.
|>
|> There are a lot of historical precedents for making decision about the
|> relative value of one life over another. However, even ignoring those for the
|> instance, I would argue that the punishment is merited for the actual crime,
|> irregardless of considerations for future actions. If we rule out the
|> considerations of negative future actions, then we also have to rule out the
|> considerations for postive future actions. Then, our decision is left to the
|> one act in question, namely the crime. Since no one can predict accurately,
|> the negative or positive actions that will be done in the future by any
|> individual, such arguments are misleading and speculative at best.
It is just that speculation which is crucial to the finding that an individual
presents a "future danger" and thus merits the dp. If, as you say, "no one can
predict accurately", it's far better to segregate the (usually young) person
until he is no longer a threat. Certainly it is less speculative to infer
future dangerousness from a serial killer than from a juvenile who was a
passenger during a robbery in which another killed the clerk. The problem is
that we force juries to speculate on future dangerousness solely on the basis
of very limited data.
John Spragge
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:11:29 GMT, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan
Phinney) wrote:
[ on various differences between Canada and the US. ]
>The availability of guns in the US, the availability and extent of the drug
>trade in the US, I could go on and on, the fact remains that this country was
>more violent that Canada, even during the years when the DP was abolished. In
>point of fact, 13 states in this country now have no DP on the books, however,
>at least some of them are in fact more violent than Canada and the recidivism
>rate is higher than that of Canada.
To answer in order:
1) guns: if the availability of guns in the US has some bearing on the
problem (I don't disagree here) maybe you could post some figures
which show how; the difference between the availability of guns in
Canada and the US, and the difference between Canadian and American
rates of armed crime.
It doesn't do to just identify a factor; you have to show the actual
extent (ie., the actual average sentence lengths).
2) Drugs: I see no evidence Canada has less of a problem with illegal
drugs then the US. Indeed, repeated biker shoot-outs over the crank
trade regularly plague Montreal.
3) violence: granted, but if you look at the statistics, you'll see
the murder rate keeled right over after Canada abolished capital
punishment, where the US rate continued to climb after the end of the
"moratorium" in 1976.
4) In no part of the US does capital punishment not apply for a good
many crimes, thanks to the federal laws. In any case, the effect of
capital punishment on American political culture extends to the
states that do not have state laws mandating capital punishment.
Consider New York, for example: for years, Mario Cuomo begged the
legislature for a life without parole law, which conservative
lawmakers refused to enact out of a fear it would spike the pressure
for capital punishment. New York juries now have the potential ability
to hand down death sentences, and if the present governor Pataki gets
elected for another term, he may actually get to see a jury do so; if
he gets elected for a term after that, he may actually manage to sign
a death warrant. Meanwhile, a gang of drug dealers who shot a cop
during the roaring years of the '80s will come up for parole.
>If we want to agree that there is not enough evidence to support conclusions
>either way, fine. If however, you are arguing that there is enough evidence
>based upon Canada's experience to form conclusions about what will happen in
>the US, then we will have to disagree.
I never said that. I said, and you will note this both from the
statements I made and the context in which I made them, that we can
reach only one "strong conclusion": that the evidence does not support
the belief that capital punishment saves lives. This whole argument
keeps coming back to that: someone brings up the dangers capital
punishment poses to innocent people through false conviction, and
someone who supports capital punishment always asks about the lives
capital punishment saves. And we then have to go through the evidence,
which says that we can't conclude capital punishment does save any
lives.
>Perhaps, if your argument is that capital punishment is preventing crime by
>deterrance, however if your argument is that capital punishment is a specific
>deterrance to the particular criminal, I think that argument is pretty safe
>and so far as I have seen, undisputed by any evidence.
Only if you assume that executions have no side effects; only if you
assume that the effect of capital punishment on your political culture
has nothing to do with the leniancy of the average sentence given to
murderers. As I have pointed out with numerous examples, the American
experience with capital punishment tends to contradict that
assumption.
Yes, if you execute a murderer, that person can't kill again. But that
gets you nowhere if the side effects of capital punishment entail a
higher recidivist murder rate: you (maybe) save one person, but five
or six more people die. And enough evidence exists for the idea of a
connection between factors that promote a high recidivism rate and
capital punishment to fatally weaken any case for capital punishment
that uses the prevention of recidivism as a premise.
>So, according to your argument above, the 13 states in the US that have
>abolished the DP should be incarcerating first-time murderers for periods
>closer to those in Canada, right? But, they are not. Hmmmmm, perhaps your
>argument is not quite as obvious as you have led us to believe.
You show me a US state in which federal laws do not apply, and I'll
show you a state without capital punishment. In any case, as I have
said, capital punishment has an effect on American political culture
that reaches the states that do not have (state) laws providing for
it. See my New York example.
>Yet, you are very anxious to tout this as an "obvious conclusion" for the US
>crime problem. Now you say you don't know. Which is it?
Please show me where I claimed anything of the kind. For the umpteenth
time, the "obvious conclusion", in context, amounted to the following:
you cannot base an argument for capital punishment on the premise it
saves lives, because the evidence does not consistently suggest it
does so.
> The fact remains that even
>prior to implementing your current abolishment of the DP, your countries crime
>rate was lower than mine. It does not follow, therefore, that by mirroring
>your current system, we will suddenly have similiar crime statistics.
Again, please post the place where I claimed anything of the kind.
I said, and I maintain, that you can't claim as a general rule that
systems with capital punishment will have lower recidivst murder rate
than those without it, and therefore, you can't claim capital
punishment protects people from recidivist murderers. That doesn't
mean the US murder rate would drop faster if you abolished capital
punishment, although I will note that the current drop in the murder
rate coincides with the willingness of various US governments to keep
people locked up for longer periods.
>Since less than 1% of the murderers in the US face the DP and since some of
>those have their sentences commuted, appealed or are released, please
>enlighten me to exactly how much statistical effect we can expect to see from
>capital punishment. Also, since we have purposefully, through the auspices of
>the Supreme Court, relegated the DP to such a small percentage of the actual
>murders, how much of an effect are we expecting to see?
Very good question. What statistics do people expect to see? If you
agree that we shouldn't expect capital punishment to save innocent
lives, then we agree. If you support it anyway, fine. As a citizen of
a sovereign democracy, you have that perfect right.
>See above, gun availability.
One more time: start with the actual availability of guns to criminals
in Canada, then relate that to the percentage of crime carried out
with guns, then tell me what proportion of the difference in our crime
rates that accounts for.
>The same argument can be extended to the people that hold proponents of one
>penalty responsible for mistakes of the judical system. Since death is not
>caused only by execution when looking at these mistakes, then the logic is
>faulty. I agree, however, I hold both arguments to be faulty and not just the
>one above.
Quite right. The "mistake" of releasing a murderer can result in the
deaths of innocent people. But capital punishment plays no effective
role in preventing such mistakes, as we have seen, while capital
punishment can directly cause the daths of innocent people wrongly
convicted.
>Funny, in your previous posts, I thought that you were claiming the exact
>opposite. That our results would be the same if we abolished capital
>punishment in the same fashion as Canada. I must be wrong, please excuse my
>arguing to the contrary, it appears we are in agreement about the lack of a
>conclusion that can be drawn by your evidence.
If you thought I wanted anyone to conclude from my evidence that the
US would certainly see murder and recidivist murder rates drop to
Canadian levels if you adopted the Canadian system, then we may well
agree, since I never said that; although, of course, I devoutly wish
your country had a lower murder rate.
ed horlick
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:20:44 -0700, ed horlick
> <edho...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:<big snip>
> >> The death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
> >> outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly
> >If you want to keep God in the discussion, maybe you can explain why
> >He allows 20,000+ innocent people to be butchered by murderers every
> >year, and that's just in the US. If His moral guidance prevented that
> >from happening, we would not even have to discuss the DP since there
> >would be no need for it.
> >
> >Ed H.
> Moral guidence would be different from direct intervention in human
> affairs. Honestly, The Problem of Pain has been delt with many times
> and in many places, do you really wish to go through it here?
No, not really. Actually, if you want to have a discussion based on
logic and reason, you need to first PROVE that God even exists. Since
I doubt you'll be able to do that, your biblical interpretations don't
mean much to me. I would agree with Don that such religious discussions
are better off in a theological newsgroup.
Ed H.
kdi...@erols.com
On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:12:23 -0600, mgcu...@connect.net wrote:
>
>In article <341f5693...@news.erols.com>,
> kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>> > Actually God is a fairly long lived individual (especially
>> >in comparison to us mere mortals). He can afford to wait to
>> >dispense his justice, we cannot. Justice delayed is Justice
>> >denied.
>> >
>> Lets try this again,
>>
>> Romans 12:19 (NASB)
>> "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath
>> of God, for it is written, "VENGENCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the
>> Lord."
>>
>> What part of this do you not understand?
>>
>
>This is advice to Christians, followers of the man who said "My kingdom
>is not of this world." Governments collect taxes, enforce laws, and wage
>wars. Since when is a secular government supposed to model itself after
>an ascetic religious teaching?
>
>
This arguement is from a moral, not a legal viewpoint. As a
Christian, and a US citizen, I do think I have a responsibility to
vote the way I think. If this "ascetic religious teaching" as you
would have it says that the death penalty is immoral-and it does-then
it is my responsibility to stand in opposition to it. Morality does
not only happen at church. As a Christian I am to live the moraity of
God's word every day of my life. That is the point of giving your
life to Jesus.
Douglas McDonald
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> > Actually God is a fairly long lived individual (especially
> >in comparison to us mere mortals). He can afford to wait to
> >dispense his justice, we cannot. Justice delayed is Justice
> >denied.
> Lets try this again,
>
> Romans 12:19 (NASB)
> "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath
> of God, for it is written, "VENGENCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the
> Lord."
> What part of this do you not understand?
Why someone would continue to stubbornly attempt
to steer discussions of the just Death Penalty into
discussions of theology when the newsgroup is devoted
to discussions of the just Death Penalty in the United
States. Another thing I'll never understand is why
someone who ostensibly has read the Bible would attempt
to justify anything based on out of context quotes.
It is a well known fact that you can both defend and
attack anything by picking random quotes from the Bible
so what's the point execpt to highlight your own
ignorance?
Hope this helps,
mgcu...@connect.net
In article <3421d9d3...@news.erols.com>,----------snip
> >> Romans 12:19 (NASB)
> >> "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath
> >> of God, for it is written, "VENGENCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the
> >> Lord."
> >>
> >> What part of this do you not understand?
> >>
> >
> >This is advice to Christians, followers of the man who said "My kingdom
> >is not of this world." Governments collect taxes, enforce laws, and
> >wage wars. Since when is a secular government supposed to model itself after
> >an ascetic religious teaching?
> >
> >
> This arguement is from a moral, not a legal viewpoint. As a
> Christian, and a US citizen, I do think I have a responsibility to
> vote the way I think.
And so do I.
> If this "ascetic religious teaching" as you
> would have it says that the death penalty is immoral-and it does-then
Oh, really, what about that other verse there in Romans--13:1-6 I believe
-- the one that Intphase often quotes ". . .it is not for nothing that
they hold the power of the sword, for they are God's agents of
punishment, for retribution on the offender." Also, remember Christ's
admonition to Peter when he tried to kill one of the soldiers who came to
arrest him in the garden--"Those who live by the sword die by the sword."
I find it hard to imagine the first Christians out burning candles
to protest the executions of proven murderers.
> it is my responsibility to stand in opposition to it. Morality does
> not only happen at church. As a Christian I am to live the moraity of
> God's word every day of my life. That is the point of giving your
> life to Jesus.
And why is it so important to keep a murderer alive? Why should that have
so much priority in a Christian's life?
Douglas McDonald
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> >> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> >> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> >> >> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> >> >> > Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
> >> >> >wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
> >> >> >from the very soil where it spilt.
> >> >> And your point here is?.....
> >> > Is that the victims' blood cries out from the soil for Justice.
> >> And you consider the punishment that God leveled upon Cain to be
> >> unjust? Think very carefully here Don.
> > I consider it an interesting allegory.
> and so your point is?...
Is that it is an interesting allegory.
> >> >> >do you need a house to fall on you or what?
> >> >> Don, perhaps you did not read my post. I cannot find a suggestion
> >> >> in that passage that Cain *unintentionally* killed Abel. It seems to
> >> >> me that the act of killing Abel was a deliberate and premeditated
> >> >> murder. Norman repeatedly has said that the killing of Abel was an
> >> >> accident. I have asked him to back this up with Scripture. He has
> >> >> not. Neither have you. Please do so or admit that Cain is a
> >> >> murderer. Then explain why God did not execute Cain for his actions.
> >> > This is not a forum for the discussion of theology. It is
> >> >a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
> >> >United States.
> >> First,
> >> You responded to the theological part of the post with a
> >> Scriptural referance. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
> > I responded to the anti Death Penalty cabal's continued
> >illiteracy concerning the definition of the term "murder".
> So you are saying that Cain did not murder Abel? What did Cain do
> to Abel then?
I'll take "Remedial Bible Studies" for $1000, Alex. Cain
killed his brother Abel. Even a lay person such as yourself should
know that.
> >> Second,
> >> This is alt.activism.death-penalty, not
> >> alt.activism.pro-death-penalty. Do you know of a FAQ that says "It is
> >> a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
> >> United States." If not, please stop saying so.
> > This group is devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in
> >the United States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW).
> Oh, I did not know that you were moderating this group, or is this
> an example of "if I say it often enough, it's true"
No, just the simple, unvarnished truth.
> >> >If your intent is to engage in religious discussions,
> >> >then proper netequitte demands that you do it in newgroups dedicated
> >> >to those types of discussions.
> >> All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God. The
> >> death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
> >> outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly
> > To bring God into a discussion of proper penal policy
> >is what is "silly". The definition of "Justice" does not invoke
> >the Lord.
> "Alex, I'd like "Things that you would never hear a real minister
> say for $200"
Actually "real minister(s)", like myself, say truthful
things all the time. Sadly they often fall on deaf ears. Oh
well, you can lead a horse to water...
Here, have a drink from the dictionary;
justice; 1. Moral rightness; equity. 2. The quality of being just,
fair, or in conformity with what is right or legal: 'recognized
the justice of our cause'. 3. Good reason: 'He's very angry, and
with justice'. 4. Fair handling; due reward or treatment. 5. The
administration and procedure of law.
Perhaps youll notice that the Lord isn't mentioned in the
definition of "Justice".
kdi...@erols.com
The Old Testament is written in a eastern literary style. Part of
the eastern literary style is to be concerned with the totality of an
experiance and use that experiance to show a truth. In the case of
Lamach, the taking of inequal revenge. Remember also that historicly
in the same time period Hammurabi's code was written for the same
reason.
>Also, please explain to me your rationale for connecting the scriptures
>in Exodus to the scriptures in Genesis. Did God refer to Lamach when he
>prescribed Moses the lex talionis? Did God say that DP for murder was to
>prevent people from getting out of hand in seeking to avenge the murder
>of relatives? Or was it simply put in place for the same reason other
>nations had it, an appropriate judicial response for the crime of
>wantonly taking someone's life?
>
I was connecting Genesis 4 to Genesis 9, if you look up thread you
will see that.
mgcu...@connect.net
In article <5vrmfr$2...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>,
da...@lexis-nexis.com (Dan Hogg) wrote:
>
> In article <5vjuvc$i...@camel1.mindspring.com>, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com
(Bryan Phinney) writes:
> |> In article <5vjniv$4...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>, da...@lexis-nexis.com (Dan
Hogg) wrote:
>
-------------snip (potential of condemned inmates to contribute to
society)
> Well, here's one way to look at it: McDuff is cited with monotonous
>regularity
> as an example of one who should have been executed since he subsequently was
> paroled and killed more people. He is an example of why the dp is appropriate
> in certain cases. However, what I've never seen acknowledged by a pro-dp'er
is
> the fact that of the ~250 former death row inmates whose sentences were
> commuted to life and were eventually paroled, McDuff was the only one who
> re-offended.
Have you got anything to back that up, Dan? My information tells me that
at the time of the Furman ruling in 1972, there were 633 on death row
whose sentences had to be commuted to either life or a term of years. I
don't know how many were released, or how many remain in prison (or have
since died there).
While McDuff is often quoted because it is the single most outrageous
example of a recidivist killer, probability says that the ~250 released
death row inmates would claim another ~17 victims within 3 years of their
release
------------------------snip
JIGSAW1695
I read the below the post and would like to add a comment.
A poll determined that the majority of Canadians want the Death Penalty
reinstated. Certain elite members of the government are opposed. It follows
than, that the governemnt is not responsive to the will of the people.
Jigsaw
- - - - -
Subject: Re: Innocent Killers
From: spr...@umich.edu (John Spragge)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:25:10 GMT
Message-id: <3424f2d8...@news.itd.umich.edu>
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:58:05 GMT, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan
Phinney) wrote:
>I agree, however, I think that you don't go far enough. Identifying factors
>serves to suggest a speculative conclusion, but not to state an obvious one.
Yes, but identifying the extent of a factor at least provides some
counter-evidence to a proposition. Keep in mind, I have never claimed
that if you adopt Canada's system, your recidivist murder rate will go
down. I do say that if you want to claim that executions will reduce
the recidivist murder rate, you have to prove the difference between
the Canadian recidivist murder rate and the American has nothing to do
with the difference in our judicial systems, principally the lack of
capital punishment.
>A little misleading, while the rate might have dropped in Canada after
>abolition, it is possible that other factors affected this drop besides the
>abolition of capital punishment, including longer sentences for violent
>offenders, so we might conclude that if longer sentences had been implemented
>while not abolishing capital punishment, we might have seen a similiar drop
>in the crime rate. However, we did not see a corresponding drop in the US
>during the moratorium and you failed to note that little fact.
Again, you keep putting the burden of proof in the wrong place here.
I'll concede the "possibility" of anything, but the fact remains that
a general comparison of the American and Canadian experience makes for
pretty strong evidence against the proposition that capital punishment
saves innocent people from murderers in general, and especially strong
evidence against the proposition that capital punishment protects
innocent people from recidivist crime.
If you want to make the positive claim (remember, you want to make the
case, not I), you have to show how cultural differences account for
the difference. You make the claim, you explain away the conflicting
evidence.
>As to this mythical effect of DP policy extending to states that don't
>practice it, your "evidence" did not support any such conclusions and it
seems
>to me that you are bringing this up in a vain attempt to salvage your
>argument.
Again, I have no argument to salvage here, just evidence that calls
the argument that capital punishment prevents recidivist murder into
serious question.
>And since you can not name any proven cases in which an innocent has been
>executed in the modern DP era, then I can claim that neither conclusion is
>supported either way. As I see it, that means that statistical evidence
>supports neither argument while anecdotal evidence might support either one.
The foundation of statistics, namely probability, states that when you
repeat an event with a non-zero probability of a certain outcome
infinitely, the probability of that outcome rises to one, or absolute
certainty. You can't prove much about capital punishment with
statistics, but you can state this with certainty: unless you either
reduce the possibility of executing an innocent to zero, or you set a
timetable for abolishing capital punishment, you will execute an
innocent person.
> You have failed to conclusively show in any way that
>capital punishment causes more lenient average sentences for murderers.
Again, I don't have to "conclusively show" anything. Someone advanced
the argument that capital punishment, on average, saves innocent lives
by reducing recidivist murder. I pointed out that the advocates of
capital punishment on this forum have repeatedly quoted a recidivist
murder rate for your country of between 5 and 9%, while mine, without
capital punishment, has a rate between 0 and 1%.
You claimed I couldn't prove a claim based on that evidence. Indeed
not, and I never said I wanted to. I don't have to prove anything. If
you want to explain the evidence away, please do so; provide some
evidence that other, "cultural" factors account for the differernce in
recidivism rates.
> However, please explain California, which has a DP on the books
>and imposes it and also has and has had a LWOP statute for the last 25
years.
[ example of Georgia deleted for brevity ]
If these states have such long sentences, why has the time served by
murderers in the US on average stayed stuck under ten years? I grant,
the states you cite have severe statutes for some murderers; but an
average of six years served for murder means most murderers must get
out considerably earlier, after about four years.
Ten years that everyone gets seems to me to control recidivism better
than natural life (or death) which only the unlucky few ever get.
>Too bad that you have failed to provide this mythical evidence of a side
>effect and there are plenty of examples to refute such a side effect.
Your examples miss the point, unless you can establish that courts in
the jurisdictions you refer to apply the laws you cite to all
murderers.
> I agree that there is not
>evidence to support a conclusion that capital punishment lowers the
recidivist
>murder rate, however, that is not the goal of capital punishment in my mind.
>It is to protect people from specific murderers and it does that very well.
Why on Earth would that matter? Do you seriously suggest that any of
the more than 18000 odd murder victims last year breathed their last
with a feeling of relief that at least they hadn't died at the hands
of Ted Bundy?
> While admittedly, I don't have
statistical
>evidence to support this assertion, I submit that no one has statistical
>evidence to refute it and barring believable statistical evidence, we must go
>with anecdotal evidence.)
You can't assert something and demand the rest of us affirmatively
prove the opposite. If you say it, you provide compelling evidence for
it, and you deal with the counter-evidence. For starters, maybe you
could show some evidence the abolitionist states don't, on average,
lock murderers up for longer periods. Then you might go on to explain
Canada's experience with long sentences away by referring to the
actual effect of cultural factors: for example, given your own
evidence about firearms in crime, if you deduct the difference in
Canadian and American firearms homicide rates, you get a 14%
difference, which would reduce the US homicide rate from about 8 per
100,000 to about 6.5. Canada, on the other hand, has had a rate that
hovers just over 2 for over a decade, so that leaves you big
difference to account for some other way.
John Spragge
On 21 Sep 1997 15:34:09 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>A poll determined that the majority of Canadians want the Death Penalty
>reinstated. Certain elite members of the government are opposed. It follows
>than, that the governemnt is not responsive to the will of the people.
The Canadian people elected the Canadian government. The people have
had the opportunity to elect a government in favour of capital
punishment many times since abolition. In the last election, while
electing (once more) the party that originally abolished capital
punishment, most Canadians voted in favour of parties which oppose
capital punishment.
Your assessment of the polls does not appear to correctly reflect the
actual will of the Canadian people.
John Spragge
On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:06:46 GMT, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan
Phinney) wrote:
> Your argument was that anti's can not be responsible for
>any additional deaths because you provided evidence to support the fact that
>there are not any additional deaths due to executions that don't take place.
No, I provided evidence to counter the claim that such deaths happen.
In any case, the question of responsibility in this matter does not
follow "party" lines. Every citizen shares the responsibility for the
execution of an innocent person, since the state acts in the name of
the people. When a murderer, even a recidivist murderer, kills, they
alone bear the blame.
>Fine. McDuff. Need I say more. In at least his case, additional murders
>occurred because he was not executed the first time that he was sentenced to
>death.
The McDuff case constitutes a failure of capital punishment, not an
argument in favour of it. It shows that even a death sentence won't
necessarily prevent a criminal from re-offending. The laws at issue
merely provide capital punishment as an option for the courts. As
written, even the laws on capital punishment have proven unable to
prevent recidivism.
> We have also discussed the fact that the majority of
>these murderers are being released on parole or as part of early release
>programs, rather than being released due to having served their sentence.
While I agree that people on parole still serve their "time", it seems
to me that the mandatory incarceration for murder should reflect the
seriousness of that crime (we should, for example, lock up people
longer for murder than we do for daling marijuana). Maybe Canada's
25-year time to ordinary full parole overdoes things, but I insist
that a system which puts murderers back on the street
>In the same vein, I can make the argument that one serial killer that kills
>four victims each year does not make the murder rate in this country rise
>above random variance.
You can make the case that releasing murderers after an average of six
years served makes no difference, also, but both the statistical
evidence and what we know about the behaviour of criminals makes that
a very questionable assumption.
>What I said above was not that you prove me wrong but that in the absence of
>statistical evidence we must rely on anecdotal evidence.
The statistical evidence exists: it says clearly that as the laws,
courts, and juries in the United States practise capital punishment,
it has no discernable effect on the murder rate. The anecdotal
evidence says that even a death sentence will not necessarily prvent
recidivism, since even a sentence of death does not always guarantee
the offender will stay off the street.
>The fact that I provided at least one factor that has more effect than capital
>punishment is proof enough that there are other factors that have more effect
>than that one.
Excuse me, but you haven't proven that the availability guns has more
effect on the murder rate than capital punishment. Au contraire, your
evidence suggests that it accounts for only about 14% of the
difference. That leaves you an awful lot of murders to explain.
JIGSAW1695
This is getting confusing as to who said what and sent what where and to
who. Lets try to be a little more definitive to avoid confusion.
I will reply to the message dated 9/22/97 from Dan Hogg, not knowing who
wrote portions of this post.
<<portions snipped>>
Subject: Re: Innocent Killers
From: da...@lexis-nexis.com (Dan Hogg)
Date: 22 Sep 1997 15:50:38 GMT
Message-id: <60644e$3...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>
In article <19970915195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) writes:
|> Dan Hogg, or whatever his name is wrote:
|>
|> First Point. this guy got life so he probably killed someone and pled
out for life rather than face the possibility of the DP.
..................................
There you go again, making assumptions. This wasn't the case at all - he
was one of two perpetrators of a robbery. His partner killed the victim
with a pipe.
..........................
So he stood by while his friend murdered somone in cold blood. He did
nothing. Did he share in the fruits of the crime? If the state statutes
where he was convicted make accomplices equally as guilty, then he was as
guilty of murder as his partner
..........................
|> If he killed someone, no matter what he does, no matter how many people
he |> helps, no matter how many people he helped get out of prison, he can
Never > repay society for the life he stolen from his victim
.........................
Since he didn't actually kill anyone, you don't have any solid ground on
which to stand, Jig. But even assuming you had a clue, who appointed you
the arbiter of justice? I don't recall reading anywhere that Big Jig
decides whether or not a prisoner has satisfied society's penalty. Your
arrogance exceeds your
capacity. Even people who've committed far more facinorous crimes have
rehabilitated themselves.
....................
Once again, as an accomplice, he carried equal guilt. As a human, he
failed to prevent a death.
As for deciding whether or not a prisoner has satisfied socities penelty,
and who appointed me arbitrator, the answer is simple.
I appointed myself just as you appointed yourself the sole judge of
a killers rehabilitation.
Jigsaw
Dan Hogg
In article <19970915195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) writes:
|> Dan Hogg, or whatever his name is wrote:
This from one who hides behind a pseudonym.
|>
|> >know of one former TX inmate who now works as a legal >researcher. He
|> was illiterate when he received his life sentence, >yet he taught himself
|> to read >and taught himself the law. I'm >aware of over 25 inmates who've
|> had their >sentences >overturned through his help. He was involved in the
|> writs filed >some 30 years ago which resulted in TX employees having
|> >control over the institutions rather than the inmate "building >enders"
|> (aka prison dictators).
|>
|> First question: What was his name? we can look it up in a legal data base
|> and find out exactly what he did.
His name is Howard King and he was convicted of robbery and murder in 1958, in
Waco, TX.
|>
|> First Point. this guy got life so he probably killed someone and pled out
|> for life rather than face the possibility of the DP.
There you go again, making assumptions. This wasn't the case at all - he was
one of two perpetrators of a robbery. His partner killed the victim with a
pipe.
|>
|> If he killed someone, no matter what he does, no matter how many people he
|> helps, no matter how many people he helped get out of prison, he can Never
|> repay society for the life he stolen from his victim
Since he didn't actually kill anyone, you don't have any solid ground on which
to stand, Jig. But even assuming you had a clue, who appointed you the arbiter
of justice? I don't recall reading anywhere that Big Jig decides whether or
not a prisoner has satisfied society's penalty. Your arrogance exceeds your
capacity. Even people who've committed far more facinorous crimes have
rehabilitated themselves.
Jig exhibits the behavior which fans the flames of victims and keeps them from
being able to accept their loss and, while continuing to mourn, get on with
their lives. This is precisely the same traits sociologists identify with
criminals: the inability to meaningfully project their actions into the future.
This constant harping on how a survivor cannot get over their loss (ironically,
pro-dp'ers seem to believe this lasts only until an execution) is helping to
create a permanent victim class.
Dan Hogg
In article <5vs61b$r...@camel1.mindspring.com>, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan Phinney) writes:
|> In article <5vrmfr$2...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>, da...@lexis-nexis.com (Dan Hogg) wrote:
|> >In article <5vjuvc$i...@camel1.mindspring.com>, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com
|> > (Bryan Phinney) writes:
|> >|> In article <5vjniv$4...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>, da...@lexis-nexis.com (Dan
|> > Hogg) wrote:
[...]
|> >|> How many have gone on to have a negative influence on others, Charles
|> >|> Manson for instance. Or would you argue that his creation of a drug
|> > smuggling
|> >|> ring while in prison is a contribution of increasing entrepreneurship of
|> >|> inmates?
|> >
|> >Well, here's one way to look at it: McDuff is cited with monotonous regularity
|> >as an example of one who should have been executed since he subsequently was
|> >paroled and killed more people. He is an example of why the dp is appropriate
|> >in certain cases. However, what I've never seen acknowledged by a pro-dp'er is
|> >the fact that of the ~250 former death row inmates whose sentences were
|> >commuted to life and were eventually paroled, McDuff was the only one who
|> >re-offended. You seem to think it okay to totally destroy any possibility of a
|> >reconstructed life for everyone on the basis of the behavior of one man. Why
|> >not argue that cars should be banned on the basis of the woman in Las Vegas (I
|> >think it was Las Vegas) who killed several people at a bus stop - it makes as
|> >much sense.
|>
|> Your are absolutely certain that he is the only one that ever reoffended.
Don't take my word for it - check out the Marquart and Sorenson study,
published in the Loyola Law Review circa 1989. They studies the subsequent
behavior of the death row inmates who were released following Furman. A little
less than half were paroled and McDuff was the ONLY ONE who reoffended of those
released.
|> Since 10% of the murderers on death row today have previous convictions for a
|> homicide, I find this figure to be questionable.
Question all you want - but check the factual data if you want to be informed.
McDuff might be a widely
|> publicized case, however, he is certainly not the only one that has gone on to
|> reoffend.
Yes, he is - of those on death row prior to Furman who were released.
Although I can't recall the name off-hand, an inmate escaped from
|> the Fulton County Jail in Atlanta a year before I worked there, he traveled to
|> Texas and killed a man there and attempted to assume his identity. He was
|> recently executed in that State. He was also to be tried for a murder in
|> Georgia and would have qualified for the DP, however, he escaped before he
|> could be convicted. This fell very short of qualifying as one other case.
|> Hell, for that matter, Joseph O'Dell was a career criminal and had killed at
|> least once before his execution.
Please try to be relevant.
If your argument is that because so few
|> people tried and given death penalties, who somehow manage to escape that
|> sentence go on to reoffend, that we should abolish the penalty for all of
|> them, I am not buying it. I don't think that the character of those that have
|> been sentenced to death somehow becomes sterling in nature just because they
|> find a way to escape execution. That and the fact that those that have their
|> sentence commuted probably are not of the same character as those that don't,
|> thus the ones that get executed might be more apt to reoffend.
The result from Furman was non-specific: all death row inmates' sentences were
commuted to life. The fact that 248 were released and only McDuff reoffended
suggests that your insight into those inmates' personalities is not "sterling"
and that those who regularly cite McDuff as proof that the dp should be a
readily available punishment also ignore the fact that McDuff did not resemble
many of his fellow death row inmates.
|>
|> Either way, there are appropriate avenues open to inmates that want to receive
|> clemency, if they are so wonderfully deserving, I am sure that it will not be
|> too difficult to convince the appropriate persons of their nature.
You mean like TX Gov. Bush refusing to pardon a man whose DNA tests show
conclusively that he did not rape the young woman who accused him. This after
the inmate spent 12 years in prison. If you think clemency is "not too
difficult" to achieve, you aren't living in the real world.
|>
|> >
|> >|>
|> >|> >learn to read. Within the strictures of their lives, both these women have
|> >|> >contributed more to the improvement of society than, say, many who post
|> > here. I
|> >|>
|> >|> Depends on how what you consider to be a contribution. I would argue that
|> >|> your contribution has to always be taken in light with your negative
|> > actions.
|> >|> You have to do an awful lot of literacy training to atone for the brutal
|> >|> slaying of a pregnant woman (not to mention the others).
|> >
|> >The fundamental reason for criminality is the inability to earn a living. Some
|>
|> Rapists don't rape to earn a living. Murder is not necessary (except for the
|> mob) to earn a living. There are many other offenses that have nothing to do
|> with earning a living including aggravated assaults, etc. In fact, I find
|> very few reasons to assume that violence is necessary to earn a living even if
|> you are a criminal.
This is just goofy. Aside from sexual crimes, the vast majority of inmates
resort to crime in order to live. Burglary and robbery are often the result of
drug addiction. Drug addiction itself is often the result of despair and lack
of alternatives. Violence and murder are sometimes by-products of robberies or
burglaries. Teach a person to read and you'll have addressed the fundamental
reason why people break the law.
[...]
|> >|> >know of one former TX inmate who now works as a legal researcher. He was
|> >|> >illiterate when he received his life sentence, yet he taught himself to
|> > read
|> >|> >and taught himself the law. I'm aware of over 25 inmates who've had their
|> >|> >sentences overturned through his help. He was involved in the writs filed
|> > some
|> >|> >~30 years ago which resulted in TX employees having control over the
|> > institu-
|> >|> >tions rather than the inmate "building tenders" (aka prison dictators).
|> >|>
|> >|> How many meaningless lawsuits has he filed? I am aware of many "jail house
|> >|> lawyers" whose only contribution to society is to increase the cost of
|> >|> imprisonment through the filing of multiple frivolous lawsuits. While your
|> >|> particular friend may have chosen a more egalitarian pursuit, how many do
|> > not?
|> >|> Considering the figures of 97% of the lawsuits in the prison system are
|> > ruled
|> >|> as frivolous, it seems there might be more of those kind than the ones you
|> >|> point out.
|> >
|> >You really need to get over this obsession with frivolous lawsuits. First, I'd
|> >like to see the source for your 97% claim - I flatly don't believe it. Second,
|>
|> It was a documentary on A&E, can't recall the name of the program, but the
|> representative of the federal government specifically said that 97% of the
|> lawsuits filed in the Federal prison system are eventually ruled to be without
|> merit.
Like I said - I don't believe your claim. You'll need more than 'someone said
something on some TV show sometime'.
|>
|> >access to the civil judicial system is a right of all people, citizens or not,
|> >felons or not. This right is fundamental and IMO should not be abridged. But
|> >if that right is abused, the courts have the ability (duty?) to label the
|> >abuser as such - there's a phrase like "noxious litigant" or some such. When a
|> >person is so labeled, s/he requires leave of the court to pursue and further
|> >litigation.
|>
|> So, the stated examples of inmates that sued because their ice cream wasn't
|> cold enough, or because the comissary delivered the wrong brand of peanut
|> butter, or even the inmate that sued to have livestock provided so he could
|> conduct satanic rituals isn't enough to convince you. Each of these lawsuits
|> required an attorney to defend against and cost taxpayers money. It is
|> another fact of incarceration that such suits occur.
Anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal. It doesn't prove anything. I
don't get excited about the many investigations carried on with my tax dollars.
It's curious that while Congressional investigations waste millions on
political pursuits, pro-dp'ers get excited about a few dollars spent to ensure
civil rights. Actually, it isn't curious - it speaks volumes about priorities.
[...]
|> >|> one act in question, namely the crime. Since no one can predict accurately,
|> >
|> >|> the negative or positive actions that will be done in the future by any
|> >|> individual, such arguments are misleading and speculative at best.
|> >
|> >It is just that speculation which is crucial to the finding that an individual
|> >presents a "future danger" and thus merits the dp. If, as you say, "no one can
|> >predict accurately", it's far better to segregate the (usually young) person
|> >until he is no longer a threat. Certainly it is less speculative to infer
|> >future dangerousness from a serial killer than from a juvenile who was a
|> >passenger during a robbery in which another killed the clerk. The problem is
|> >that we force juries to speculate on future dangerousness solely on the basis
|> >of very limited data.
|>
|> Yet, you are one of the ones that argue for the exclusionary rule and other
|> legal procedure that keeps valuable information out of the courtroom.
No, you're mixing apples and pigs. The question of future dangerousness is
relevant to the the punishment phase, not the guilt phase of the trial. The
exclusionary rule is not pertinent in this context.
I am
|> not arguing that a juries decision is always right and proper, however, it is
|> the best that we have to rely on and as such, I defer to it. Who am I to hold
|> myself above the rest of society and claim that I am a better judge than
|> twelve peers of the accused?
Well, if you were better informed, you might have a basis for a different
opinion. :-)
You have already stated your opinion that this
|> particular part of the system is faulty, fine, however, until you have a
|> better alternative that presupposes to know better to suggest, then we must
|> stick with the system that we have.
I've already made that proposal. Why do you continue to support a system which
is fatally flawed when there are already better alternatives available?
Charles Trew
John Spragge (spr...@umich.edu) writes:
>>A poll determined that the majority of Canadians want the Death Penalty
>>reinstated. Certain elite members of the government are opposed. It follows
>>than, that the governemnt is not responsive to the will of the people.
> The Canadian people elected the Canadian government. The people have
> had the opportunity to elect a government in favour of capital
> punishment many times since abolition. In the last election, while
> electing (once more) the party that originally abolished capital
> punishment, most Canadians voted in favour of parties which oppose
> capital punishment.
>
> Your assessment of the polls does not appear to correctly reflect the
> actual will of the Canadian people.
You know very well what he is saying can reflect properly. You also
know that very few people ever vote for a candidate or politcal party over
a single issue. For the vast majority capital punishment is not going to
be even remotely close to the top of their list for what they cast their
votes for. Money and tax issues usually dominant. Special issues, such as
Quebec sovreignty, dominate even more in Canada.
Thus, even though many people may support it, other issues are what
they vote on. Let's see what would happen if a national referendum were
taken. I bet it would pass.
John Spragge
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:50:46 GMT, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan
Phinney) wrote:
> As such,
>government is not supposed to do the "right" thing all of the time, it is only
>supposed to represent the best interests of society which are not always
>"right" depending on your pov.
That doen't change the nature of right or wrong or guilt. It also
doesn't change the basic fact that the citizens of a democracy do bear
some moral responsibility for the acts of their representatives.
> I am no more responsible
>for the mistakes and misdeeds of my government, individually, than I am for
>mistakes and misdeeds of nature.
Neither Thomas Jefferson nor the members of the Nuremburg tribunal
would agree with you.
>No, the McDuff case constitutes a failure of the justice system because a
>minority were allowed to change the law to suit their own purposes.
To which minority do you refer? The justices of the Supreme court? The
authors of the 8th ammendment?
> Capital
>punishment was not in effect for McDuff because his sentence was commuted due
>to a mandate by the Supreme Court.
The state could not execute McDuff because the Supreme court found the
law under which it sentenced him violated the strictures of the US
constitution.
> To hold that a commutation of a death penalty is a failure of
>capital punishment is ridiculous and basically just means that you are arguing
>that no matter what the circumstances, it proves you right.
To say that something "would have" worked if it hadn't failed amounts
to a tautology. The quarterback's 50 yard pass "would have" worked if
someone from the other team hadn't caught it. McDuff's death sentence
"would have" worked if the supreme court had not found the law
constitutionally defective.
> Thus, if a
>capital offender never reoffends, he would have been served just as well with
>imprisonment, and if he does reoffend, it is a failure of capital punishment.
Well, if a capital offender does re-offend, do you consider that a
success? The deciding evidence would ordinarily come from statistics,
which either show capital punishment reducing the rate of recidivism.
Such statistical evidence does exist; it tends to back the position
that capital punishment does not reduce the incidence of recidivist
murder.
>This is a circular argument that basically means that you are right no matter
>what the situation.
No, it merely means that the evidence that would, in theory, prove you
right can't come from anecdotes, since every case of recidivism means
capital punishment failed: either the jury failed to impose it, or the
appeal courts found a defect in the sentence.
> Since it is impossible to prove what would have happened,
>it is impossible, under these circumstances to prove that capital punishment
>is necessary or would have saved any lives.
Absolute nonsense. I suspect I've debunked this about a hundred times
now. Look, if jurisdictions that imposed capital punishment had no
recidivism, while those which did not had many recidivist murders,
that would constitute evidence that capital punishment prevents
recidivist murder. But the evidence doesn't say that.
>Now, we can apply this same argument the other way and state if you never
>execute another criminal the probability that one of them will escape and
>reoffend at some point rises to one or absolute certainty.
Except that such evidence as we have strongly suggests that will
actually happen more often in capital punishment jurisdictions than in
some jurisdictions without capital punishment.
>Again, much of the justice system is out of control of the citizens, early
>release mandates are out of bounds and can not be addressed in any real way.
Whether or not you can control your system, it effects remain a matter
of record.
>The fact that there is statistical evidence to support making that case
>illustrates my cynicism when it comes to that particular kind of evidence.
Locking murders up for ten to twenty-five years discourages them more
effectively than locking them up from four to six years. What part of
that idea do you find difficult to believe?
>We are back to this again. Unless you can show me where the effect of capital
>punishment should be expected to rise above normal random variance, then we
>would expect to see no discernible statistical effect of capital punishment.
That depends on how you look at it. If, indeed, the often quoted
statistic that the rate of recidivist murder in the United States may
rise as high as 9%, whereas the recidivist murder rate in Canada comes
in (at most) at under 2%, I'd say that amounts to a pretty noticable
effect.
>We see none, therefore both of us could be correct.
More correctly, we don't agree about the interpretation of the
statistics we do see.
> The whole point here is
>that capital punishment is not intended to provide a statistical effect, there
>is nothing in the statute to support the assumption that it is.
Just for clarity, "not providing a statistical effect" means not
preventing the rape and murder of children, random drug shootings in
the streets, and so on. That capital punishment has no statistical
effect means the same number of parents have to order coffins for
their children.
> In point of
>fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that discretion must be used in the
>application of the DP in order for it to serve its intended purpose of
>addressing specific cases and not murder in general.
The moment you stop postulating cases of people's lives capital
punishment "might" have saved, I will stop quoting the figures that
show that if capital punishment does save innocent lives, the evidence
doesn't show it.
> Your failure to
>acknowledge this seems to signal to me that you have made up your own mind
>about what would constitute an effective use of capital punishment and refuse
>to allow for any other alternatives to your definition.
I don't consider retribution by itself justifies the danger capital
punishment presents to innocent people, nor do I believe retribution
as a goal by itself justifies the expense of capital punishment. But I
can only make that judgement for my own country. You have a different
view, and your country has different practises. Good luck to you.
> I will continue to speak about
>capital punishment in light of its expected and proper use, to address
>specific cases of murder where aggravating circumstances exist and you will
>continue to demand statistical proof of a reduction in the murder rate when
>that is clearly not the intended purpose.
I only "demand" proof for the assertions people make. If someone says
they consider their idea of an appropriate retribution for a heinous
crime justifies the risk to the lives of innocent people capital
punishment entails, then I have no quarrel with their facts. I just
disagree with them. I live in a jurisdiction where, judging by the
election results, most people can quite happily get along without
capital punishment, so I have no quarrel with voters who choose
capital punishment where they live.
But it you say that capital punishment saves lives, whatever your
evidence, then I will reply with the evidence that it doesn't.
mgcu...@connect.net
In article <342746f6...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
spr...@umich.edu (John Spragge) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:50:46 GMT, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan
> Phinney) wrote:
>
--------------------snip (citizens responsible for their governments'
acts)
>
> >No, the McDuff case constitutes a failure of the justice system because a
> >minority were allowed to change the law to suit their own purposes.
>
> To which minority do you refer? The justices of the Supreme court? The
> authors of the 8th ammendment?
Let me take the liberty of answering for Mr. Phinney here. I think the
minority he refers to is Anthony Amsterdam and other lawyers of the Legal
Defense Fund. They were the crusading attorneys in the 60s and early
70s who sought to overturn the death penalty by having it declared
unconstitutional by the guys in the ivory tower, the Supreme Court.
They tried to do an end run around the voters, to take government out of
the hands of the people and have the Supreme Court legislate from the
bench. Though Amsterdam must have thought that he scored a great victory
with his 5-4 decision that day, he did not hear the thunder of the storm
that he caused, a backlash of public opinion that had DP back on the books
in most states before the year was out.
In the meantime, though, everyone condemned under the old laws, 633 of
them, had to be dealt with in some way, an administrative nightmare for
the states.
As Meltsner said of the Court's decision in _Cruel and Unusual_ "Although
the majority opinions limited the scope of the result and left potential
avenues open for the political process to explore, reverence for life--
even life stunted, twisted, violent, or vexed--illuminated them all"
(316).
Unfortunately, one of those 633 lives who was stunted, twisted, violent,
and vexed--for whom Meltsner had such reverence--managed to slip through
the cracks of the Texas penal system as that state tried to make
adjustments. It went on to claim a number of other lives. Its name, as
you probably have guessed by now, was MacDuff. MacDuff's additional
murders was just one result coming from Amsterdam's temporary victory in
the Supreme Court.
For MacDuff's 9 or so additional victims, abducted from car washes and
other places, terrorized, raped, tortured and killed while suffering
unimaginable mental anguish, it would have been much better if Amsterdam
had lost.
That was the failure of the justice system of which Brian speaks, in which
a minority tried to change the law having the Supreme Court mandate
abolition, rather than letting people decide this important issue for
themselves.
Mitchell Holman
}
} Why someone would continue to stubbornly attempt
}to steer discussions of the just Death Penalty into
}discussions of theology when the newsgroup is devoted
}to discussions of the just Death Penalty in the United
}States. Another thing I'll never understand is why
}someone who ostensibly has read the Bible would attempt
}to justify anything based on out of context quotes.
}It is a well known fact that you can both defend and
}attack anything by picking random quotes from the Bible
}so what's the point execpt to highlight your own
}ignorance?
}
} Hope this helps,
} Don
}
} [...signature unavailable on foreign host...]
Hmmm....
"Don" is posing as "Doug" again? Or is it the other
way around? So hard to keep the multiple personalties
of the "Rev. Don Kool" straight.....
John Spragge
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:21:10 GMT, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan
Phinney) wrote:
> McDuff's death sentence would have worked if the Supreme
>Court hadn't extended constitutional protections beyond what was previously
>accepted and thus "changed the rules mid-game."
Again the "would have". McDuff's imprisonment "would have" worked if
the parole board had refused to release him.
>Again, I reiterate that capital punishment as put into practice in the US is
>not meant to reduce the rate of recidivism, it is meant to address specific
>cases.
Except that people keep postulating, without evidence, that capital
punishment does reduce the rate of recidivism. If you don't consider
the prevention of recidivism relevant, then why can't you simply
abandon the argument?
>Either way, this is becoming quite tiresome. You will keep posting your
>statistics about Canada's wonderful use of abolition as a tool to reduce the
>recidivist crime rate and every time, I will post a rebuttal to show that
>particular experience is not valid for such uses.
Nonsense. Your "rebuttals" have invoked social factors (guns, drugs,
and gangs). Guns, drugs, and gangs may well account for the higher
rate of murders in the US. than Canada, but in the context of
recidivist murder, they amount only to feeble excuses. If "social"
factors affect the rate of recidivism, then the criminal justice
system has failed.
Once the courts have identified an individual as a murderer, the
correctional system (including the sentencing judge or jury) has the
responsibility to see to it they don't do it again. If guns have to do
with the offence, the system has the power, and the obligation, to
keep the offender away from guns. If drugs have to do with the
offence, then the system can keep the offender away from the malign
influence of drugs. If gangs cause the problem, then the system can
keep the offender locked up until gangs no longer have any appeal. If
that means keeping a murderer locked up for life, then the system
ought to have the legal tools to do so. Once someone convicted of
murder walks through the prison gates, the government can keep them
from re-offending. The success of the Canadian system shows that.
Guns, drugs, and gangs have no relevance; whatever the differences
between our two countries, every human society will have a few people
whom only stone walls will keep us safe from. And Canada manages to
keep almost all those people from getting out to do it again, whereas
the US system does not. This suggests (to put it mildly) that a system
which has capital punishment available will have no better success at
the prevention of recidivism than one which does not; therefore, you
can't argue that capital punishment has any certain value in
preventing recidivst murder.
Lord Clane
In article <3424f2d8...@news.itd.umich.edu>, spr...@umich.edu (John
Spragge), in a dialog with Phinney, writes:
Spragge
>You can't assert something and demand the rest of us affirmatively
>prove the opposite. If you say it, you provide compelling evidence for
>it, and you deal with the counter-evidence. For starters, maybe you
>could show some evidence the abolitionist states don't, on average,
>lock murderers up for longer periods. Then you might go on to explain
>Canada's experience with long sentences away by referring to the
>actual effect of cultural factors: for example, given your own
>evidence about firearms in crime, if you deduct the difference in
>Canadian and American firearms homicide rates, you get a 14%
>difference, which would reduce the US homicide rate from about 8 per
>100,000 to about 6.5. Canada, on the other hand, has had a rate that
>hovers just over 2 for over a decade, so that leaves you big
>difference to account for some other way.
This thread led to an assumption which persisted in a lot of dialog thereafter
to the effect that, somehow, firearms account for 14% of the US homicide
rate and that, somehow, if firearms were removed, homicides would fall by
14%. The statistics "prove" no such thing and believing such is yet
another example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The fact that
firearms were used to commit some homicides proves only that. It may
reflect nothing more than their convenient availability. Even given no
firearms available at all, the homicides might well have been conducted by
other means. One simply cannot tell from the statistics offerred.
David E. Wallace
In article <3420608b...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
John Spragge <spr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>First of all, this issue concern facts, not blame. The fact exists
>that the US. system releases murderers after they serve an average of
>six years, and executes only a tiny fraction of all murderers. The
>fact also exists that Canada, which imprisons all murderers for at
>least ten years, and most pre-meditated murderers for 25, has a much
>lower recidivism rate. I do not care in the slightest whom you "blame"
>for these facts; they exist.
Do you have a citable source for that "US system releases murderers
after they serve an average of six years"? Without further qualification
(as to what exactly is being measured there), I tend to doubt that
as a fact, based on my examination of official California data back in
the early 1990s (part of some private research I did for my own education
when prison bonds were a big election issue here). The statistic I remember
(don't have the actual data handy right now) was that those convicted of
murder *who were released* served an average of over 12 years before first
release (which does not count any time served if the person is subsequently
re-imprisioned for parole violations, etc.).
Please note the qualification here: this average only applied to those
who were deemed a sufficiently low risk by the parole board to actually
*be* released (or who had served the full balance of their sentences).
It does *not* include those who remain in prison until they die.
Charlie Manson and Sirhan Sirhan, both of whom have served over 25 years
at last count, are never likely to be included in that average, because
they are never likely to be released. The same applies to others who
are technically eligible for parole but never likely to get it,
those who might be paroled at some future time but die in prison first,
those who are serving life-without-parole sentences, and of course, those
few who are actually executed. Certainly the fraction of murderers
actually being released was small compared with the number remaining
in prison - I don't remember the exact ratio, but it was much less than
1/12th.
Another source of bias in the data is that given when I was looking
(around 1990-92), most of the people who were included would have begun
their sentences in the early 80s or earlier. Thus they would have been
sentenced under the relatively more lenient laws of the late 70s/early 80s,
and not under the harsher laws of the mid 80s and beyond. Thus it would
not reflect the presumably longer time that would be served by those
convicted of murder today.
Yet with all these biases that tend to pull the average down, California
still had an average time before first release more than double what
John claims as an average for the US as a whole. I know that California
is not completely typical of the US, but I don't think we are *that*
atypical. With around 20% of the US population, California data is
going to be a significant component of the overall US average.
Certainly other crime/prison data from California tended to track
the overall US averages in general terms, though not exactly (e.g.,
the California prison population increased by around 4x from 1976-1990,
while the overall US prison population went up by slightly over 3x,
if I recall correctly).
So what's going on here? Without knowing what qualifications John's
original source attached to the data, it's hard to be sure, but
one possibility is that they were including convictions for manslaughter
(and maybe even "involuntary manslaughter" - typically deaths from
accidents caused by reckless or drunk driving) into the total.
Since there are a lot more manslaughter convictions than murder convictions,
and the prison terms are significantly shorter than those for murder,
what you would get in that case would mostly reflect the average term
served for manslaughter, with a little bit of the average term for murder
mixed in. (And yes, I know that some of those manslaughter convictions
may have been plea-bargained down from initial murder charges,
but that is hardly relevant to a discussion of the relative penalty
for a murder conviction.)
This is why it is important to understand what the original source of the
data is and what qualifications that source (if reliable) may have attached
to it, before claiming it as a fact and trying to compare it to other data
that may appear superficially similar. John, do you have this information?
--
Dave Wallace (wal...@netcom.com)
It is quite humbling to realize that the storage occupied by the longest
line from a typical Usenet posting is sufficient to provide a state space
so vast that all the computation power in the world can not conquer it.
Rev. Don Kool
John Spragge wrote:
> bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan Phinney) wrote:
[...snip...]
> Except that people keep postulating, without evidence, that capital
> punishment does reduce the rate of recidivism. If you don't consider
> the prevention of recidivism relevant, then why can't you simply
> abandon the argument?
What evidence do *you* have that a justly executed murderer has
gone on to commit further crimes? While we all know that what passes
for your "arguments" is more smoke and mirrors than substance, we
thought
that you at least considered murderers to be more corporeal.
[...off-topic foreign examples snipped...]
Hope this helps,
Don
********************** My juice is sweet like Georgia peaches
* Rev. Don McDonald * Women suck it up like leeches
* Baltimore, MD * ---- FREAKNASTY
********************** "Da' Dip"
http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
John Spragge
>Do you have a citable source for that "US system releases murderers
>after they serve an average of six years"?
Atlantic Monthly, Spetember 1997, Page 75
John Spragge
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:06:43 GMT, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan
Phinney) wrote:
>However, your contention that the money saved from abolishing capital
>punishment would be used to keep first time offenders in prison for longer is
>refuted by the statistics.
Right. Abolishing fewer than 100 executions per year in the US would
certainly not save enough money to keep, at least 10,000 murderers
locked up an average of four years longer.
However, a system that can't afford (for whatever reason) to keep all
murderers locked up for extended periods of time certainly can't
afford to execute them all, either.
[ on the effective lengths of sentences ]
> However, that has absolutely nothing to do with capital punishment and
>the abolition of that penalty would not make any difference in the time that
>is served for sentences.
I can't speak for the voters or legislators of the US states that now
use capital punishment. Canada had a very different experience. The
numbers in the US suggest that your situation might benefit from a
shift in focus from executing a tiny fraction of murderers to keeping
all murderers locked up; but that decision rests with you.
D TRENT3
>And why is it so important to keep a murderer alive? Why >should that
You don't know much about Christianity, do you?
JIGSAW1695
Subject: Re: Innocent Killers
From: dtr...@aol.com (D TRENT3)
Date: 27 Sep 1997 02:21:35 GMT
Message-id: <19970927022...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>Capital punishment exists as a penalty to deal with those criminals >that
have committed offenses that have been deemed especially >heinous by
society. It also exists to deal with criminals that have >been judged by
society to represent a continued risk, even in >the face of incarceration.
May we take by your above statement that you
see no problem with death sentences passed on
"enemies of Islam" (Salmon Rushdie),
You are applying Standards in the US against standards of another country
with its own customs and laws. I diagree with the Death sentence on
rashied but there is no history of Fredom of The Press or Right to Free
Expression. What is illegal in one country is acceptable in another.
"..... but freely cite an asian dictatorship like Singapore as adequete
proof. In short, your mind is made up, and will not accept any proof that
shows it to be wrong.
LOL... Singapore is a democracy.. It is hardly a dictatorship. though the
power now rests with one man who has appointed family members in positions
of control. The majority of people in Singapore accept this begrudgeingly
because of the economic gains they have made. Their concern is not the
present governemnt, but what happens when the current governemtn is
replaced by younger men who seek power for themselves. That is when the
true color of the democratic movement in Singapore will show itself.
Jigsaw
My soon-to-be Daughter-in law in Singapore got a laugh out of this one and
commented on American Ignorence about Asia . I reluctantly agreed with her
on this one.
Jigsaw
mgcu...@connect.net
In article <19970925140...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
visiting my parents, and regard the fanciful tales as mythology.
Nevertheless, I can probably quote scriptures and expound on them as
well as you can.
As far as what I know about Christianity, it has a history of
unparalleled butchery. Thus, as Nietzsche said, the one and only true
Christian who ever lived died on the cross.
D TRENT3
>Capital punishment exists as a penalty to deal with those criminals >that
have committed offenses that have been deemed especially >heinous by
society. It also exists to deal with criminals that have >been judged by
society to represent a continued risk, even in >the face of incarceration.
May we take by your above statement that you
see no problem with death sentences passed on
"enemies of Islam" (Salmon Rushdie), teenagers
caught with drugs in Singapore, and those convicted
of "counter-revolutionary activities" in Cuba and China?
Are there ANY executions you are not ready to justify?
>I don't have to justify anything beyond this statement.
Your lack of justification is quite obvious.
>If you want to put forward the opinion that capital punishment >does not
serve its stated purpose, it is up to you to prove it, and >not by
comparing the US to a country that is not the same.
What is the point? If confronted with the example of Canada,
you dismiss it as too different from the US, but freely cite an
D TRENT3
>Just because there is no statistical evidence to prove an effect of >the
DP does not mean that there is no effect.
What a completely asinine statement. Hard to believe a
literate adult even made it. What other unverified beliefs
does he believe in, despite a similar lack of evidence?
Human sacrifice? Astrology? Voodoo?
If this is the best justification he can come up with in
favor of the death penalty, he is lost already.
AMason
John Spragge <spr...@umich.edu> wrote in article
<342746f6...@news.itd.umich.edu>...
> On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:50:46 GMT, bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan
> Phinney) wrote:
>
>
> That doen't change the nature of right or wrong or guilt. It also
> doesn't change the basic fact that the citizens of a democracy do bear
> some moral responsibility for the acts of their representatives.
I will remember that when America becomes a democracy, but as long as we
are a representative republic....
Rember a democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for
dinner.
Doug.
Terry Hallinan
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
dtr...@aol.com (D TRENT3) wrote [I guess]:
>"...[you] freely cite an asian dictatorship like Singapore as adequete
>proof. In short, your mind is made up, and will not accept any proof that
>shows it to be wrong.
>LOL... Singapore is a democracy.. It is hardly a dictatorship. though the
>power now rests with one man who has appointed family members in positions
>of control.
ROTFLMAO!!
Singapore is a monstrous dictatorship. The people live in terror of
being found to have uttered a single word of criticism of the kindly
ruler. The punishment for the slightest deviation from the rule of
this abominable dictator is severe indeed. Those who lovingly fondle
the mantle of power of these beasts must have their eyes on the
heavens because they certainly cannot be looking at the ground where
all the bodies are buried.
>The majority of people in Singapore accept this begrudgeingly
>because of the economic gains they have made.
Lord, thank You for this moment of pure joy but my sides are starting
to hurt from laughing.
>Their concern is not the
>present governemnt, but what happens when the current governemtn is
>replaced by younger men who seek power for themselves. That is when the
>true color of the democratic movement in Singapore will show itself.
>Jigsaw
>My soon-to-be Daughter-in law in Singapore got a laugh out of this one and
>commented on American Ignorence about Asia . I reluctantly agreed with her
>on this one.
>Jigsaw
She sure has a right to comment on about American ignorance.
Best, Terry
"Christian - One who believes the New Testament is a divinely
inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his
neighbor" - The Devil's Dictionary
Dan Hogg
Bryan Phinney <bphi...@atl.mindspring.com> wrote in article
<608f44$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>...
> In article <606838$8...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>, da...@lexis-nexis.com
(Dan Hogg) wrote:
> <...>
> >|> Your are absolutely certain that he is the only one that ever
reoffended.
> >
> >Don't take my word for it - check out the Marquart and Sorenson study,
> >published in the Loyola Law Review circa 1989. They studies the
subsequent
> >behavior of the death row inmates who were released following Furman. A
little
> >less than half were paroled and McDuff was the ONLY ONE who reoffended
of those
> >released.
>
your
> facts for the time being. Even if this is the case, even you have to
admit
> that this would fall outside the accepted and (provided by you)
statistics of
> a 6% reoffense rate for murder.
I haven't posted a 6% reoffense rate. From the information I've seen, the
reoffense rate is 1-3%. An additional statistic from M&S is that of the
remaining ~315 who were released from death row and committed another
murder while still incarcerated, 8 reoffended. While I think the prison
environment might be more conducive to violence, the net reoffense rate is
1.8% (9/558=.018) which is in line with the overall reoffense rate data
I've seen.
[...]
> Also, not having the study in front of me, I would have to ask also, what
the
> time scale was for this study. How many years did they follow these
inmates?
> Even granting your facts on these particular inmates, the fact that 7% of
the
> inmates on Death Row have multiple death sentences belies the fact that
for at
> least some of these inmates, even a death sentence is not a deterrant to
> reoffense until it has been carried out.
The study was published in 1989 and Furman was a 1973 decision. I'm not
aware that there has been a follow up study, but given that crime is
generally a young man's pursuit, nearly 25 years after their commutation,
they are a small statistical risk. I even think you might agree on that.
>
> >The result from Furman was non-specific: all death row inmates'
sentences
> were
> >commuted to life. The fact that 248 were released and only McDuff
reoffended
> >suggests that your insight into those inmates' personalities is not
"sterling"
> >and that those who regularly cite McDuff as proof that the dp should be
a
> >readily available punishment also ignore the fact that McDuff did not
resemble
> >many of his fellow death row inmates.
>
> Current statistics regarding death row inmates is all of the
justification
> that I need concerning the need for the Death Penalty. Your own belief
in a
> DP for contract killers and serial killers belies this same belief about
at
> least some of these inmates. If a Ted Bundy or some other person been
among
> those who were paroled, what do you think the circumstances might have
been.
> Would you have held that the results from the study would nessesitate
that Ted
> would have just lived a quiet life as a family man.
You pretty much make my point re serial killers. According to DOJ stats,
about 9% of those on death row have previous convictions for murder. I
agree there is more justification for the dp in those cases but that
simply means you're improperly differentiating among the population of
murderers - and that was the basis for the Furman decision in the first
place.
Also, we have not even
> begun to address the fact that about 30% of all murders go unsolved which
> leaves a lot of room for reoffense that might not be present in your
quoted
> study. Or the fact that any offenses committed in prison might not have
been
> included as they often are not in such studies.
>
> My interest is piqued however, and I will continue to try to find this
study
> because it sounds very interesting to me. Considering the numbers of
inmates
> on death row that have managed to reoffend while not having been
sentenced to
> death the first time, it strikes me as incredibly odd that none from the
> pre-Furman time managed to do so.
As I indicated above, that "huge" number you refer to is ~280 of a
population of 3100.
[...]
> >This is just goofy. Aside from sexual crimes, the vast majority of
inmates
> >resort to crime in order to live. Burglary and robbery are often the
result of
> >drug addiction. Drug addiction itself is often the result of despair
and lack
> >of alternatives. Violence and murder are sometimes by-products of
robberies or
> >burglaries. Teach a person to read and you'll have addressed the
fundamental
> >reason why people break the law.
>
> Robbery is a crime of profit, killing witnesses is not necessary and in
fact
> will result in longer sentences for the offender. Thus, if this is a
part of
> the robbery, we have moved beyond a profit motive and into something much
> darker. Killing police officers to avoid capture is also not part of a
profit
> motive, while it may be part of the motive to remain free. However, such
> activity presents a danger to all citizens and is quite beyond the "If he
knew
> how to read, he wouldn't have done it" excuse. Not to mention the fact
that
> there are many illiterate persons that manage to go through their whole
lives
> without killing anyone. Lastly, blaming your actions on drug addiction
is the
> very reason that I don't support current attempts at drug legalization
which
> you have supported. As long as people are allowed to use their own weak
wills
> in an attempt to excuse their actions, I will continue to oppose any
attempt
> that might result in greater numbers of addicts, all blaming their
behavior on
> drugs.
Even the Soviet Union crumbled when the system failed to work. Our drug
laws are utterly wasteful. If drugs were available to adults at modest
prices, taxed like alcohol and tobacco, people wouldn't have to resort to
crime to support their habits. We could release half the prison population
who are there for sales and possession and are non-violent. Prohibition
was worse than alcohohlism; the same is true for the war on drugs.
>
> >|> >|> Considering the figures of 97% of the lawsuits in the prison
system are
> >|> > ruled
> >|> >|> as frivolous, it seems there might be more of those kind than the
ones
> > you
> >|> >|> point out.
> >|> >
> >|> >You really need to get over this obsession with frivolous lawsuits.
First,
> > I'd
> >|> >like to see the source for your 97% claim - I flatly don't believe
it.
> <...>
> >Like I said - I don't believe your claim. You'll need more than
'someone
> said
> >something on some TV show sometime'.
>
> Okay, you asked for it and now you have it. The Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
> "Challenging the Conditions of Prisons and Jails. A Report on Section
1983
> Litigation"
>
> "Manner of disposition n=4483
> Court dismissal 74%
> Dismissal on defendant's motion 20%
> Stipulated dismissal 4%
> Trial verdict 2%
> Total 100%
>
> While the remaining two percent of the issues result in trial verdicts,
less
> than half of them (i.e., less than one half of one percent of the issues)
> result in a favorable verdict for the prisoner."
>
> While my quoted statistics are not quite on the button, considering that
I was
> doing this from memory, I think that I hit rather close to the mark. The
> above would mean that at least 94% are dismissed without prejudice toward
the
> state. We have no way of knowing how many of those stipulated dismissals
> might be won by the state at trial since most of those proceedings are
not
> made part of the record. However, my quoted figure was at least much
closer
> than the one that you had in mind.
You have your number okay, but your interpretation of the data is driven by
your fervent belief. That verdicts are not favorable to the prisoner does
not mean that the suits were frivolous. Are you suggesting that every
losing party to a suit is frivolous? Frivolous lawsuits are less a problem
than you want to believe.
[...]
> >|> Yet, you are one of the ones that argue for the exclusionary rule and
other
> >|> legal procedure that keeps valuable information out of the courtroom.
> >
> >No, you're mixing apples and pigs. The question of future dangerousness
is
> >relevant to the the punishment phase, not the guilt phase of the trial.
The
> >exclusionary rule is not pertinent in this context.
>
> So, in your view there is a difference between holding evidence out
during the
> trial portion and withholding it during the guilt portion.
No, but the exclusionary rule applies to the guilt phase of the trial, not
the penalty phase.
My argument would
> be that any and all evidence should be used during both portions, as long
as
> that evidence is reliable.
I expect that Marv Albert would concur with you.
That means that as long as I can not prove that it
> was planted or false, it should be used, because it bears on the facts of
the
> case.
Does the phrase innocent until proven guilty ring a bell? Why should a
defendant be saddled with having the absolutely prove evidence was
falsified when the evidence is tainted to begin with? Fear of your trust
in the government is exactly why protections were written into the Bill of
Rights.
As far as the penalty phase, California is one of the few states that I
> know of that disallow defense attorneys from telling the jury that if
they
> choose to not vote for death, the defendant will be sentenced to LWOP. I
> understand the reasons for this, I don't necessarily agree with it.
However,
> as you may be aware, I don't agree with a lot of things about the justice
> system, I am stuck with the bad as well as the good.
CA isn't alone. Practically no states allow the jury to know of
alternatives to punishment as part of the decision making process. Since
many jurors are under the impression that a life sentence really means 6-7
years, and they find that insufficient for the crime, their only option is
the dp. In states which have the option of LWOP, not informing jurors of
this is tantamount to a death sentence.
[...]
Desmond Coughlan
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 00:11:18 -0600, mgcu...@connect.net wrote:
>> > And why is it so important to keep a murderer alive? Why >should that
>> > haveso much priority in a Christian's life?
>> You don't know much about Christianity, do you?
>I was raised on the Bible. Though I don't go to church, except when
>visiting my parents, and regard the fanciful tales as mythology.
>Nevertheless, I can probably quote scriptures and expound on them as
>well as you can.
>
>As far as what I know about Christianity, it has a history of
>unparalleled butchery. Thus, as Nietzsche said, the one and only true
>Christian who ever lived died on the cross.
Let's not forget the fact that world Jewry has known much of its
suffering, under the shadow of the cross.
Little wonder, then, that American Christians have little difficulty
in sanctioning the state-sponsored savagery that constitutes the death
penalty.
----
Desmond Coughlan |"We got loud guitars and big suspicions,
Remove "nospam_" from |Great big guns and small ambitions,
e-mail address. |And we still argue over who is God."
*******************************************
http://www.pratique.fr/~dcoughla/
D TRENT3
>From: bphi...@atl.mindspring.com (Bryan Phinney)
>>
>> May we take by your above statement that you
>> see no problem with death sentences passed on
>> "enemies of Islam" (Salmon Rushdie), teenagers
>> caught with drugs in Singapore, and those convicted
>> of "counter-revolutionary activities" in Cuba and China?
>> Are there ANY executions you are not ready to justify?
>
>You need to take that up with those citizens and not myself.
Wrong. You have defended the death penalty as
an appropiate societal response to legal infractions.
Are you saying it is OK for western democracies, but
not for third world countries? OK for murder, but not
for blasphemy? Where do YOU draw the line on YOUR
support for the death penalty?
> Of course, since you are not really interested in the facts but instead,
your own brand of moronic rhetoric,
Since you have ignored and/or dismissed every
study and survey showing the uselessness and
futility of the death penalty, you are hardly in a
position to preach about "facts".
> It must really annoy you to know that there are some people
>that have ideas and thoughts that are different from yours that
>can not be slovenly categorized as "bloodthirsty rednecks" and >simply
dismissed. However, since you are one of those that sinks >to rhetorical
arguments,
By all means, point out where I have ever used the term
"bloodthirsty rednecks". Is this the way you defend your
positions - to make up strawmen about the opinions of others
and then run away?
Rev. Don Kool
kdi...@erols.com naively wrote:
> mgcu...@connect.net wrote:
> > kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> >> mgcu...@connect.net wrote:
> >----------snip
> >> >> Romans 12:19 (NASB)
> >> >> "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath
> >> >> of God, for it is written, "VENGENCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the
> >> >> Lord."
> >> >>
> >> >> What part of this do you not understand?
> >> >This is advice to Christians, followers of the man who said "My kingdom
> >> >is not of this world." Governments collect taxes, enforce laws, and
> >> >wage wars. Since when is a secular government supposed to model itself after
> >> >an ascetic religious teaching?
> >> This arguement is from a moral, not a legal viewpoint. As a
> >> Christian, and a US citizen, I do think I have a responsibility to
> >> vote the way I think.
> >And so do I.
> >> If this "ascetic religious teaching" as you
> >> would have it says that the death penalty is immoral-and it does-then
> >Oh, really, what about that other verse there in Romans--13:1-6 I believe
> >-- the one that Intphase often quotes ". . .it is not for nothing that
> >they hold the power of the sword, for they are God's agents of
> >punishment, for retribution on the offender." Also, remember Christ's
> >admonition to Peter when he tried to kill one of the soldiers who came to
> >arrest him in the garden--"Those who live by the sword die by the sword."
> Actually the reason that I post Romans 12:19 is part of an
> excplaination as to why that particular passage does not support the
> death penalty . Another part of that explaination would be that the
> sword mentioned in that passage is a symbol of judicial office, kind
> of like a judges gavel rather then a weapon. As far as those who live
> by the sword, that was spoken as a reproach to his disciples who were
> taking matters into their own hands and using violence to solve their
> problems. Hardly a ringing endrosement of the death penalty. Jesus
> always councilled against the use of violence to solve problems. In
> the two instances that we have of Him speaking of the death penalty He
> came out against it ( those instances were the women accused of
> adultery in John 8:1-12 and His crucifixion)
An interesting, though uninformed, interpretation.
> Do you feel that you can love your brother as yourself and still
> execute him?
Depends on what he did to earn it.
> >I find it hard to imagine the first Christians out burning candles
> >to protest the executions of proven murderers.
> I find the opposite hard to imagine.
No surprise there; a grasp of justice and appropriate
punishment is regularly missing from your postings.
> >> it is my responsibility to stand in opposition to it. Morality does
> >> not only happen at church. As a Christian I am to live the moraity of
> >> God's word every day of my life. That is the point of giving your
> >> life to Jesus.
> >And why is it so important to keep a murderer alive? Why should that have
> >so much priority in a Christian's life?
> What you do to the least of My children, you also do to Me. When we
> execute, we kill Jesus all over again. This is not to compare these
> murderers lives to Jesus', just to remind you that our inaction has
> repercussions.
As shown in the Bible, the victims' blood cries out for
Justice from the soil where it was spilt. The just Death Penalty
is the only appropriate and morally right punishment for the crime
of murder.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
Rev. Don Kool
Karlkeys wrote:
> kdi...@erols.com writes:
> > I also give context when I post Don, something that you have yet to
> >do when responding to one of my posts. "so what's the point execpt to
> >highlight your own ignorance?"
> >
> > Lastly Don, what exactly do you think being a Christian means? God
> >is not just for sundays in church. You are to try to live according
> >to His will at all times. That would include using the Bible as a
> >moral guide. If an action is not just in the eyes of God, how can it
> >be just in the eyes of a Christian?
> For some free advice about Rev. Don, buy a good filter for your newsgroups
> (or just ignore his posting) and pray for him
Once again "free" advice proves itself to be worth every penny.
kdi...@erols.com
>Little wonder, then, that American Christians have little difficulty
>in sanctioning the state-sponsored savagery that constitutes the death
>penalty.
>----
>
Just as a aside. The Roman Catholic Church and nearly every major
Protestant body has come out against the death penalty. Do not assume
American Christians as a whole support the DP just beacause some
people on this ng do.
No Jesus, No Peace
Know Jesus, Know Peace
Kevin Dickover
<)))><
mgcu...@connect.net
In article <342cfdf9...@news.pratique.fr>,
>
> >> You don't know much about Christianity, do you?
>
> >I was raised on the Bible. Though I don't go to church, except when
> >visiting my parents, and regard the fanciful tales as mythology.
> >Nevertheless, I can probably quote scriptures and expound on them as
> >well as you can.
> >
> >As far as what I know about Christianity, it has a history of
> >unparalleled butchery. Thus, as Nietzsche said, the one and only true
> >Christian who ever lived died on the cross.
>
> Let's not forget the fact that world Jewry has known much of its
> suffering, under the shadow of the cross.
>
> in sanctioning the state-sponsored savagery that constitutes the death
> penalty.
Don't put too much stock in my follow-up post. I was busy being an
asshole and a bad netizen at the time. Don't ask me why, it just felt
good. :-)
But to get back on topic: I don't think support or objection to DP
necessarily follows along religious/political lines. Several mainstream
churhes oppose DP in their charters. Many Jews support DP, and I have
listened to conservative commentators who were against it, and liberal
commentators who were for it. BTW, thanks for the web postcard.
Mike Cullinan
mgcu...@connect.net
> ----
> Desmond Coughlan |"We got loud guitars and big suspicions,
> Remove "nospam_" from |Great big guns and small ambitions,
> e-mail address. |And we still argue over who is God."
> *******************************************
> http://www.pratique.fr/~dcoughla/
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Rev. Don Kool
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> >> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> >> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> >> >> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> >> >> >kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> >> >> >> Rev. Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Only being an ordained minister and everything, I could be
> >> >> >> >wrong; but, as I recall, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord for Justice
> >> >> >> >from the very soil where it spilt.
> >> >> >> And your point here is?.....
> >> >> > Is that the victims' blood cries out from the soil for Justice.
> >> >> And you consider the punishment that God leveled upon Cain to be
> >> >> unjust? Think very carefully here Don.
> >> > I consider it an interesting allegory.
> >> and so your point is?...
> > Is that it is an interesting allegory.
> So you have no point.
It is and interesting allegory.
> >> >> >> >do you need a house to fall on you or what?
> >> >> >> Don, perhaps you did not read my post. I cannot find a suggestion
> >> >> >> in that passage that Cain *unintentionally* killed Abel. It seems to
> >> >> >> me that the act of killing Abel was a deliberate and premeditated
> >> >> >> murder. Norman repeatedly has said that the killing of Abel was an
> >> >> >> accident. I have asked him to back this up with Scripture. He has
> >> >> >> not. Neither have you. Please do so or admit that Cain is a
> >> >> >> murderer. Then explain why God did not execute Cain for his actions.
> >> >> > This is not a forum for the discussion of theology. It is
> >> >> >a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
> >> >> >United States.
> >> >> First,
> >> >> You responded to the theological part of the post with a
> >> >> Scriptural referance. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
> >> > I responded to the anti Death Penalty cabal's continued
> >> >illiteracy concerning the definition of the term "murder".
> >> So you are saying that Cain did not murder Abel? What did Cain do
> >> to Abel then?
> > I'll take "Remedial Bible Studies" for $1000, Alex. Cain
> >killed his brother Abel. Even a lay person such as yourself should
> >know that.
> Did Cain *intentionally* kill Abel? If he did, why did God let him
> live?
> >> >> Second,
> >> >> This is alt.activism.death-penalty, not
> >> >> alt.activism.pro-death-penalty. Do you know of a FAQ that says "It is
> >> >> a newsgroup devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in the
> >> >> United States." If not, please stop saying so.
> >> > This group is devoted to support of the just Death Penalty in
> >> >the United States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW).
>
> >> Oh, I did not know that you were moderating this group, or is this
> >> an example of "if I say it often enough, it's true"
> > No, just the simple, unvarnished truth.
> "if I say it often enough, it's true"
Now I understand why you keep repeating yourself. Thanks for
sharing your philosophy of USENET posting.
> >> >> >If your intent is to engage in religious discussions,
> >> >> >then proper netequitte demands that you do it in newgroups dedicated
> >> >> >to those types of discussions.
> >> >> All human knowledge of morality comes from knowledge of God. The
> >> >> death penalty in this group is argued as a moral necessity/moral
> >> >> outrage. To leave God out of the question is silly
> >> > To bring God into a discussion of proper penal policy
> >> >is what is "silly". The definition of "Justice" does not invoke
> >> >the Lord.
> >> "Alex, I'd like "Things that you would never hear a real minister
> >> say for $200"
> > Actually "real minister(s)", like myself, say truthful
> >things all the time. Sadly they often fall on deaf ears. Oh
> >well, you can lead a horse to water...
> >
> > Here, have a drink from the dictionary;
> >
> > justice; 1. Moral rightness; equity. 2. The quality of being just,
> > fair, or in conformity with what is right or legal: 'recognized
> > the justice of our cause'. 3. Good reason: 'He's very angry, and
> > with justice'. 4. Fair handling; due reward or treatment. 5. The
> > administration and procedure of law.
> >
> > Perhaps youll notice that the Lord isn't mentioned in the
> >definition of "Justice".
> Does anyone find it as sad as I do to hear someone who says that he
> is a minister find God absent in the concepts of justice and morality?
> Don, there is no justice except for God's justice, there is no
> morality that does not come from knowledge of God. Try to remember
> that.
Yes, I will remember to add you to the long list of anti Death
Penalty posters who are functionally illiterate. Despite your strawman
above, God's name remains absent from the definition of Justice. Of
course attentive readers will realize that I never mentioned "the
concepts of justice and morality". I merely pointed out to you to well
known fact that the definition of Justice doesn't include the Lord's
name.
Like they say, 'you can lead a horse to water...'. Perhaps you should
do like "karlkeys" and emulate the mighty ostrich. Stick your virtual
head in the sand and ignore the truth since it seems to cause you so
much distress.