Any witnesses?
Larry Smith
I have seen the aspects of death, and they are heavy.
They are not to be undertaken lightly, but they are sometimes
necessary.
"Rush Wickes" <ru...@rush-w.com> wrote in message
news:ptb0ss0f52nk3olmk...@4ax.com...
> Has anyone on this newsgroup actually witnessed a judicial execution?
> Seems to me that there are a lot of supporters of the DP who have
> stated their disinterest in actually seeing one carried out before
> their own eyes.
>
> --
>
>
> Rush Wickes
> Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
> remove the '-' to reply via e-mail
Dan Cutrer
> >"Rush Wickes" <ru...@rush-w.com> wrote in message
> >news:ptb0ss0f52nk3olmk...@4ax.com...
> >> Has anyone on this newsgroup actually witnessed a judicial execution?
I noted in a private email to Rush, "Reminds me of a Molly Ivins column
about a state legislator who announced at an Austin cocktail party she'd
just flown back from Huntsville, having flown over to witness an
execution there. "What does the Well Dressed Republican Matron WEAR to
an execution?" "Are white shoes necessary?" "Pearls, perhaps?" "Would
you be overly-dressed with a hat?"
Incidentally, Molly survived the chemotherapy and initial treatment for
breast cancer ... she's down about 50 pounds, but still raising Hell.
For a great read on the State of Texas, or the State Texas is In, read
her book Shrub. Only Molly would dare print what's known in Austin as a
"drive-by ass-chewing."
Dave Proctor
news:ptb0ss0f52nk3olmk...@4ax.com...
> Has anyone on this newsgroup actually witnessed a judicial execution?
> stated their disinterest in actually seeing one carried out before
> their own eyes.
Just on this (but slightly off topic) I remember reading the autobiography
of a former Governor of California (late fifties, early sixties) who was
invited, whilst an Assistant Ditrtict Attorney, to witness the execution of
an offender he had prosecuted. He was advised by a friend who was a cop to
not do it, as he would never again be able to press for a death sentence.
Not sure if it was the actual execution, or the fact that it was lethal gas
(a particularly horrendous way to go) that was behind this.
Dave
Tailgunner
certainly an eye opener and made me a believer in not breaking any laws while
stationed there!
Rush Wickes wrote:
> Must have been Edmund 'Pat' Brown, who served as governor in that time
> frame. He commuted the death sentences of 23 inmates, while allowing
> 36 others to go on to the gas chamber. The biggest case he handled
> was that of Caryl Chessman in 1960, on whom he refused to grant
> clemency as he felt Chessman was guilty and a generally 'nasty'
> criminal, although he did have difficulty with it being a death
> sentence for kidnapping under the state's Little Lindbergh Law.
Larry Smith
"Tailgunner" <tailg...@go.com> wrote in message
news:39C187A7...@go.com...
> I once watched a triple header in Chop Chop square while TDY in Saudi. It
was
> certainly an eye opener and made me a believer in not breaking any laws
while
> stationed there!
>
How would you say public beheading compares with the American lethal
injection behind prison walls in relationship
to crime rate?
Tailgunner
Larry Smith wrote:
> "Tailgunner" <tailg...@go.com> wrote in message
> news:39C187A7...@go.com...
> > I once watched a triple header in Chop Chop square while TDY in Saudi. It
> was
> > certainly an eye opener and made me a believer in not breaking any laws
> while
> > stationed there!
> >
Desmond Coughlan
> > I once watched a triple header in Chop Chop square while TDY in Saudi. It
> was
> > certainly an eye opener and made me a believer in not breaking any laws
> while
> > stationed there!
> And could anyone argue the deterrent effect?
>
> How would you say public beheading compares with the American lethal
> injection behind prison walls in relationship
> to crime rate?
Whether or not public beheading serves to 'deter' murder, Larry, is
a moot point in Saudi Arabia; a people afraid to even criticise their
government for fear of being 'disappeared', tortured, and extrajudicially
executed, is hardly a barometer on which we should base our appraisal of
a criminal justice system's usefulness.
--
**********************************************************************
* Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris *
* dcou...@vdp.fr http://www.forumdesimages.net/ (01) 44.76.62.29 *
* PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr *
**********************************************************************
Richard Jackson
Rush Wickes <ru...@rush-w.com> wrote:
> Has anyone on this newsgroup actually witnessed a judicial execution?
> Seems to me that there are a lot of supporters of the DP who have
> stated their disinterest in actually seeing one carried out before
> their own eyes.
>
>
> Rush Wickes
> Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
> remove the '-' to reply via e-mail
>
And there are a lot of abolitionists which the same can be said for. In
fact, seeing a death penalty carried out in Texas and other states where
lethal injection is used would be little different from seeing someone
die in a hospital from a fatal disease.
You really should ask how many have ever been with anyone at the moment
of death. While I have not witnessed a death penalty, I have been with
several people when they died. Some, as my Mother, peacefully passing
away while my father and I held her hands. Others more violently, much
more violently than any murderer ever gets now days, and more violently
than most people can ever imagine or would wish to imagine.
Death is never cause to celebrate, but I can assure you I am familiar
with it on several levels. The death of a murderer would not bother me
nearly as much as the death of his or her victims, especially if those
victims were children.
Richard Jackson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
DedNdogYrs
about the first man to die in an electric chair and it sounded just horrible.
They kept them in there for a total of about six or seven minutes and they had
to let him lay in the room for several hours to cool down. It sounded like
they think he was horribly tortured to death. How so many states could use
this horrible method of killing people for so long is a mystery to me. And
those states included were liberal, usually humane welfare states like New York
and New Jersey and Massachusettes.
Dogs & children first.
Dave Proctor
news:20000917071943...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> I saw this documentary on cable TV (possibly Learning or Discovery
Channel)
> about the first man to die in an electric chair and it sounded just
horrible.
> They kept them in there for a total of about six or seven minutes and they
had
> to let him lay in the room for several hours to cool down.
Sounds like a load of crap to me.
> It sounded like
> they think he was horribly tortured to death.
Sounds like a load of crap to me.
> How so many states could use
> this horrible method of killing people for so long is a mystery to me.
And
> those states included were liberal, usually humane welfare states like New
York
> and New Jersey and Massachusettes.
Electrocution, DONE PROPERLY (my emphasis) is extremely humane - the problem
is that the human body is so variable that it is difficult to do it
properly.
Dave
DedNdogYrs
Channel) about the first man to die in an electric chair and it sounded just
horrible. They kept them in there for a total of about six or seven minutes and
they had to let him lay in the room for several hours to cool down.>>
<Sounds like a load of crap to me.>
It's what the show said. The next time it's on I could post the web site for
the network and maybe you can read about it.
Dogs & children first.
DedNdogYrs
is that the human body is so variable that it is difficult to do it
properly.>
Meaning some people are tortured to death? Or most?
Dogs & children first.
Richard Jackson
dednd...@aol.com (DedNdogYrs) wrote:
> I saw this documentary on cable TV (possibly Learning or Discovery
Channel)
> about the first man to die in an electric chair and it sounded just
horrible.
> They kept them in there for a total of about six or seven minutes and
they had
like
> they think he was horribly tortured to death. How so many states
could use
> this horrible method of killing people for so long is a mystery to me.
And
> those states included were liberal, usually humane welfare states like
New York
> and New Jersey and Massachusettes.
>
The six or seven minutes is about what it takes to get a prisoner
straped in and prepared for execution in an electric chair. I believe
the six or seven hours ot cool down is documentary bull crap. I've
handled people who were accidentally electrocuted by more electricity
than executions, and can confirm that it did not take several hours for
their bodies to cool off.
One thing you must realize is that it is doubtful an executed prisoner
feels anything in the electric chair past that first millisecond of
electricity which passes through his body. I suppose an electrocution
is not a very pleasant thing to watch, but it shouldn't be extrodinarily
painful.
--
Dave Proctor
No - the problem is where does the pain barrier (as opposed to the death
barrier) lie - electrocution (done properly) should not (notice the use of
the word "should") not produce pain - the problem lis with those
jurisdictions who are too far backwards to resort to a more humane method
(lethal injection) - if they do not wish to resort to a better method, why
should they bother to alter their time proven systems of torture
(electrocution)?
Dave
Desmond Coughlan
> > <Electrocution, DONE PROPERLY (my emphasis) is extremely humane - the
> problem
> > is that the human body is so variable that it is difficult to do it
> > properly.>
> > Meaning some people are tortured to death? Or most?
> No - the problem is where does the pain barrier (as opposed to the death
> barrier) lie - electrocution (done properly) should not (notice the use of
> the word "should") not produce pain - the problem lis with those
> jurisdictions who are too far backwards to resort to a more humane method
> (lethal injection) - if they do not wish to resort to a better method, why
> should they bother to alter their time proven systems of torture
> (electrocution)?
Neither of us is a doctor, David, so we should both refrain from lecturing
on which method is painful, and which isn't, and rely on expert medical
opinion, and physics. Considering the latter, the skull is an _extremely_
poor conductor of electricity, and thus there is no reason to believe that
the current from the skull electrode does anything other than travel down
the torso, into the pelvis, and out of the leg electrode. I'm sure that
we can both understand that such an event will cause incredible pain.
Which is why some people still support the electric chair.
As a matter of fact, as I've stated here before, I believe that the actual
moment of execution is largely irrelevant, even if it does last ten, even
fifteen minutes. What is the _real_ torture, is the waiting on death
row for year upon year, safe in the knowledge that one day, they will come
for you, and nothing you can do will change that. The human being on
death row is a thing; an object whose destiny is no longer in its own
hands. A lump of dead matter waiting to be created. Its life depends
on the will of others. Which, our retentionist friends will tell us,
is exactly what _they_ did, to get put onto death row in the first place.
Quite correct, but is that any reason for us, society, and the state, to
do to them what they did to others ?
It's been said here, and in the world at large: the death penalty in the
United States, and around the world, is on borrowed time. The movement
towards abolition is unstoppable. One day, in the not too distant future,
people will look back on the 20th century with horror at the evils that
human beings inflicted on their own kind. The civilised world will be
forgiven, for when we executed criminals, it was because in many ways,
we didn't know any better; didn't consider that there could be an
alternative. The United States, however, will know no such kindness,
for the evidence of innocents executed is there; the evidence of the costs
(both human and financial) is there; the evidence of brutalisation is
there ... and they, in their godless, idiotic, materialistic madness,
refuse to see it.
They truly are an accursed people. :-(
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan <des...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > <Electrocution, DONE PROPERLY (my emphasis) is extremely humane
> > > - the problem is that the human body is so variable that it is
> > > difficult to do it properly.>
> > > Meaning some people are tortured to death? Or most?
> > No - the problem is where does the pain barrier (as opposed to the death
> > barrier) lie - electrocution (done properly) should not (notice the use of
> > the word "should") not produce pain - the problem lis with those
> > jurisdictions who are too far backwards to resort to a more humane method
> > (lethal injection) - if they do not wish to resort to a better method, why
> > should they bother to alter their time proven systems of torture
> > (electrocution)?
> Neither of us is a doctor, David, so we should both refrain from lecturing
> on which method is painful, and which isn't, and rely on expert medical
> opinion, and physics. Considering the latter, the skull is an _extremely_
> poor conductor of electricity, and thus there is no reason to believe that
> the current from the skull electrode does anything other than travel down
> the torso, into the pelvis, and out of the leg electrode. I'm sure that
> we can both understand that such an event will cause incredible pain.
For part of one millisecond until brain death occurs. Getting a
flu shot causes much more "incredible pain", my son.
> Which is why some people still support the electric chair.
>
> As a matter of fact, as I've stated here before, I believe that the actual
> moment of execution is largely irrelevant, even if it does last ten, even
> fifteen minutes. What is the _real_ torture, is the waiting on death
> row for year upon year, safe in the knowledge that one day, they will come
> for you, and nothing you can do will change that.
Amen to that. No bleeding heart judge or naive parole board can
let the proven murderer lose to murder again.
> The human being on death row is a thing;
That "thing" being a proven murderer.
> an object whose destiny is no longer in its own hands.
An incarcerated proven murderer.
> A lump of dead matter waiting to be created.
More like waiting to be un-created, Desi.
> Its life depends on the will of others.
The murderer's life depended on his own free will. He willingly
chose to forfeit his life when he willingly chose to murder.
> Which, our retentionist friends will tell us,
> is exactly what _they_ did, to get put onto death row in the first place.
Yes, we supporters of Justice are quite comfortable with the facts,
my child.
> Quite correct, but is that any reason for us, society,
> and the state, to do to them what they did to others ?
Here in the United States (the greatest country on the face of the
Earth, BTW), we don't "do to them what they did to others". Here we
justly punish them for "what they did to others".
[...typical murderer lover wishful thinking snipped...]
Yours in Christ,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
St.George
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8sa2so....@lievre.voute.net...
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:49:07 +1100, Dave Proctor
<dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > <Electrocution, DONE PROPERLY (my emphasis) is extremely humane - the
> > problem
> > > is that the human body is so variable that it is difficult to do it
> > > properly.>
>
> > > Meaning some people are tortured to death? Or most?
>
> > No - the problem is where does the pain barrier (as opposed to the death
> > barrier) lie - electrocution (done properly) should not (notice the use
of
> > the word "should") not produce pain - the problem lis with those
> > jurisdictions who are too far backwards to resort to a more humane
method
> > (lethal injection) - if they do not wish to resort to a better method,
why
> > should they bother to alter their time proven systems of torture
> > (electrocution)?
>
> Neither of us is a doctor, David, so we should both refrain from lecturing
> on which method is painful, and which isn't, and rely on expert medical
> opinion, and physics. Considering the latter, the skull is an _extremely_
> poor conductor of electricity, and thus there is no reason to believe that
> the current from the skull electrode does anything other than travel down
> the torso, into the pelvis, and out of the leg electrode. I'm sure that
> we can both understand that such an event will cause incredible pain.
>
>
> As a matter of fact, as I've stated here before, I believe that the actual
> moment of execution is largely irrelevant, even if it does last ten, even
> fifteen minutes. What is the _real_ torture, is the waiting on death
> row for year upon year, safe in the knowledge that one day, they will come
> for you, and nothing you can do will change that
Dunno, Desmond, for me, at least, those waiting years would _definitely_ be
much worse if I felt I faced being cooked to death at the end of it, as
opposed to the notion of just going to sleep.
While you are correct that the pre-execution terror would be worse than the
actual act, the _level_ of pre-execution terror would be manifestly affected
by the perception of the horrendousness of the punishment.
Peter Morris
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8q2dn4$boa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The six or seven minutes is about what it takes to get a prisoner
> straped in and prepared for execution in an electric chair. I believe
> the six or seven hours ot cool down is documentary bull crap. I've
> handled people who were accidentally electrocuted by more electricity
> than executions, and can confirm that it did not take several hours for
> their bodies to cool off.
>
> One thing you must realize is that it is doubtful an executed prisoner
> feels anything in the electric chair past that first millisecond of
> electricity which passes through his body.
On what grounds do you make this statement, Richard?
Richard Jackson
"Peter Morris" <morr...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> "Richard Jackson" <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8q2dn4$boa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <20000917071943...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
> > dednd...@aol.com (DedNdogYrs) wrote:
>
> > The six or seven minutes is about what it takes to get a prisoner
> > straped in and prepared for execution in an electric chair. I
believe
> > the six or seven hours ot cool down is documentary bull crap. I've
> > handled people who were accidentally electrocuted by more
electricity
> > than executions, and can confirm that it did not take several hours
for
> > their bodies to cool off.
> >
> > One thing you must realize is that it is doubtful an executed
prisoner
> > feels anything in the electric chair past that first millisecond of
> > electricity which passes through his body.
>
> On what grounds do you make this statement, Richard?
>
Reading studies about electrocutions as well as stlking to the
survivors of some very bad electrical accidents. I've known several
linement who were electrocuted while working for power companies and
survived. All said the same thing. They did not feel pain until they
regained consiousness in the hospital. Even then, the worst pain was
not where the flesh was killed, but where the current burned them in
the second degree.
Sharpjfa
electrocuted, but because of what the viewer of the electrocution sees.
sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Richard Jackson
I agree. It appears that the real moral dilemma for most people is that
they want to have sanitary executions where they do not have to see what
happens. If they do think about it, they want to think it is all done
without any problem or possible pain. Death is death to me. It doesn't
matter if it comes in the form of a lethal injection or public hanging.
I have never understood those people who wish to sanitize what the
proceedure. What's the difference if a man is killed by 7000 volts of
electric ity flowing through his body, a lethal injection, or a bullet
smashing the base of the brain. He is dead in any event. The only
difference is in what someone who is still alive observes.
Peter Morris
> > > One thing you must realize is that it is doubtful an executed
> prisoner
> > > feels anything in the electric chair past that first millisecond of
> > > electricity which passes through his body.
> >
> > On what grounds do you make this statement, Richard?
> >
>
> Reading studies about electrocutions as well as stlking to the
> survivors of some very bad electrical accidents. I've known several
> linement who were electrocuted while working for power companies and
> survived. All said the same thing. They did not feel pain until they
> regained consiousness in the hospital. Even then, the worst pain was
> not where the flesh was killed, but where the current burned them in
> the second degree.
I'm not sure that proves anything, Richard. I'm no great expert,
but I understand that amnesia is quite common in cases of
severe trauma. Just for example, Princess Diana's bodyguard,
the sole survivor of the car crash has no memory of the
actual crash. This is not to say that he didn't suffer during the
crash, just that his mind has blocked it out.
As far as I know, an electric shock will cause muscles to contract
suddenly, causing the subjects body to be thrown hard against his
restraints. Otherwise, he is paralysed, and possibly consious and in
pain but unable to scream. I have seen nothing that convinces me that
he is either instantly dead or instantly unconsious.
Richard Jackson
"Peter Morris" <morr...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> "Richard Jackson" <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8q5eds$nbg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > One thing you must realize is that it is doubtful an executed
> > prisoner
> > > > feels anything in the electric chair past that first millisecond
of
> > > > electricity which passes through his body.
> > >
> > > On what grounds do you make this statement, Richard?
> > >
> >
> > Reading studies about electrocutions as well as stlking to the
> > survivors of some very bad electrical accidents. I've known several
> > linement who were electrocuted while working for power companies and
> > survived. All said the same thing. They did not feel pain until
they
> > regained consiousness in the hospital. Even then, the worst pain
was
> > not where the flesh was killed, but where the current burned them in
> > the second degree.
>
> I'm not sure that proves anything, Richard. I'm no great expert,
All we can go on is what the experts tell us and survivors such as I
speak of.
> but I understand that amnesia is quite common in cases of
> severe trauma. Just for example, Princess Diana's bodyguard,
> the sole survivor of the car crash has no memory of the
> actual crash. This is not to say that he didn't suffer during the
> crash, just that his mind has blocked it out.
>
And that is not to say he did. Perhaps he was knocked unconsious so
quickly he really had no time to feel any pain.
> As far as I know, an electric shock will cause muscles to contract
> suddenly, causing the subjects body to be thrown hard against his
> restraints.
That is true.
Otherwise, he is paralysed, and possibly consious and in
> pain but unable to scream. I have seen nothing that convinces me that
> he is either instantly dead or instantly unconsious.
>
>
I just have the word of survivors and doctors that electricity, moving
at the speeed of light, caused unconsiouness so quickly that there was
not time for pain to be felt. If the survivors of accidental
electrocutions, where the circuit is not nearly as well established as
in an execution chamber did not feel anything, I think it unlikely that
an wxecuted prisoner does.
It seems to me that the problem you really have is what most people
have, the visual image of someone with sparks, steam, and smoke coming
from his tensed body, muscles contracted, quivering in an electrical
chair. This revulsion is one that is common. In truth, we feel for
ourselves more than the prisoner. He is just as dead this way as if he
had a fatal injection, it is just a bit messieer. Messier still would
be a high velocity rifle bullet tearing through the base of the brain.
It would also be the quickest, most humain methiod of execution I know
of, but so messy most people couldn't stomach it.
DedNdogYrs
shelters were euthanized this way (electrocution)? You know what. There would
be an outcry from the general public like nothing else.
Dogs & children first.
Rev. Don Kool
Have you looked into practices in the fur industry. There is no
significant "outcry from the general public".
Hope this helps,
S Moir
> Lets consider this: What do you think would happen if dogs and cats in
animal
> shelters were euthanized this way (electrocution)? You know what. There
would
> be an outcry from the general public like nothing else.
================================
A lot of things go on concerning the welfare of animals which causes no
major outcry from the humans. We rely on the media to bring things to our
attention most of the time, and if something is succesfully kept quiet by
those involved then there is no outcry.
Dogs, in some places, were actually electrocuted. The electrodes would be
attached to the ears before the current was applied. I don't know how long
this method was used and how succesful or painless it was, but it is
something I would never want to witness.
Generally,animal euthanasia is done in the quickest way possible for the
animal, rather than the best way for witnesses to watch, which brings us
back round to something Richard has said on many occasions- the quickest way
for a human to die is with an accurate bullet- it isn't done that way
because of the witnesses.
Shona
Desmond Coughlan
> > Lets consider this: What do you think would happen if dogs and cats in
> animal
> > shelters were euthanized this way (electrocution)? You know what. There
> would
> > be an outcry from the general public like nothing else.
> A lot of things go on concerning the welfare of animals which causes no
> major outcry from the humans. We rely on the media to bring things to our
> attention most of the time, and if something is succesfully kept quiet by
> those involved then there is no outcry.
Dedndogyears has a point, Shona. I remember the IRA bombed a British
Army barracks a while back, and one or more horses were killed. If my
memory serves me correctly, there was more of an outcry concerning that,
than the soldiers who were killed. In some ways, understandable, as
the horses didn't decide to get caught up in man's petty little squabbles,
but nonetheless, we accept treatment of humans (cf. the gas chamber, the
electric chair) that would disgust us if it were applied to animals.
[snip]
Mitchell Holman
}
}"DedNdogYrs" <dednd...@aol.com> wrote in message
}news:20000920043523...@ng-co1.aol.com...
}animal
}> shelters were euthanized this way (electrocution)? You know what. There
}would
}> be an outcry from the general public like nothing else.
}================================
}
}major outcry from the humans. We rely on the media to bring things to our
}attention most of the time, and if something is succesfully kept quiet by
}those involved then there is no outcry.
}attached to the ears before the current was applied. I don't know how long
}this method was used and how succesful or painless it was, but it is
}something I would never want to witness.
}Generally,animal euthanasia is done in the quickest way possible for the
}animal, rather than the best way for witnesses to watch, which brings us
}back round to something Richard has said on many occasions- the quickest way
}for a human to die is with an accurate bullet- it isn't done that way
}because of the witnesses.
Utah and Oklahoma still have firing squads, if the
prisoner wants them.
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> }Generally,animal euthanasia is done in the quickest way possible for the
> }animal, rather than the best way for witnesses to watch, which brings us
> }back round to something Richard has said on many occasions- the quickest way
> }for a human to die is with an accurate bullet- it isn't done that way
> }because of the witnesses.
> Utah and Oklahoma still have firing squads, if the
> prisoner wants them.
Yes, but the bullets are aimed at the heart, not the base of the brain,
as Richard suggested. A UK Royal Commission on capital punishment in
(I believe) 1953, rejected the firing squad, as it does not satisfy the
most important criterion, that of 'instantaneous death'.
S Moir
in
> > animal
> > > shelters were euthanized this way (electrocution)? You know what.
There
> > would
> > > be an outcry from the general public like nothing else.
>
> > major outcry from the humans. We rely on the media to bring things to
our
> > attention most of the time, and if something is succesfully kept quiet
by
> > those involved then there is no outcry.
>
> Army barracks a while back, and one or more horses were killed. If my
> memory serves me correctly, there was more of an outcry concerning that,
> than the soldiers who were killed. In some ways, understandable, as
> the horses didn't decide to get caught up in man's petty little squabbles,
> but nonetheless, we accept treatment of humans (cf. the gas chamber, the
> electric chair) that would disgust us if it were applied to animals.
>
> [snip]
>
> --
Oh yes, I'm not doubting that he has a very good point, I just thought he
might find it interesting to know that animals have actually been
electrocuted- it just isn't a commonly known fact therefore there was never
an outcry.
I vividly remember the bombing you mention, and remember the angst over the
horses. I think you hit the nail right on the head when you pointed out that
the horses didn't choose to be put in danger, whereas the soldiers did. I
think that might be why people have a higher tolerance about methods of
human execution than they would have about animal euthanasia- the animal is
innocent, whereas the human isn't.
Whether that is right or wrong is another issue- it's just human nature.
Shona
S Moir
"Rush Wickes" <ru...@rush-w.com> wrote in message
news:vvlhsso6eadl2ufm5...@4ax.com...
> On 20 Sep 2000 13:40:15 GMT, des...@lievre.voute.net (Desmond
> >> major outcry from the humans. We rely on the media to bring things to
our
> >> attention most of the time, and if something is succesfully kept quiet
by
> >> those involved then there is no outcry.
> >
> >Dedndogyears has a point, Shona. I remember the IRA bombed a British
> >Army barracks a while back, and one or more horses were killed. If my
> >memory serves me correctly, there was more of an outcry concerning that,
> >than the soldiers who were killed.
>
> quite a lot more in annual donations than the equivalent of the Anti
> Child Abuse Society.
>
> --
>
>
> Rush Wickes
=========================================
You learn something new every day Rush- i didn't realise that.
I did know that donations to the RSPCA have been climbing for a while now-
once again this is due in part to the media.
For the past few years the BBC have been airing a "docusoap" which is filmed
in RSPCA animal hospitals, raising public awareness of their work and animal
welfare in general. I wonder if this may be part of the reason for the
inequality of donations?
Did you know that it was actually some of the members of the RSPCA who
founded the Society for the Protection of Children?
Shona
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > In England, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals gets
> > quite a lot more in annual donations than the equivalent of the Anti
> > Child Abuse Society.
[snip]
> For the past few years the BBC have been airing a "docusoap" which is filmed
> in RSPCA animal hospitals,
Oh Gawd ... is that the Rolf Harris thingy, where he talks in a perputual
'reverential whisper' ..?
[snip]
S Moir
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:27:23 +0100, S Moir <smsc...@cableinet.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > In England, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals gets
> > > quite a lot more in annual donations than the equivalent of the Anti
> > > Child Abuse Society.
>
> [snip]
>
> > For the past few years the BBC have been airing a "docusoap" which is
filmed
> > in RSPCA animal hospitals,
>
> Oh Gawd ... is that the Rolf Harris thingy, where he talks in a perputual
> 'reverential whisper' ..?
>
> [snip]
>
> --
It is....has it's reputation reached as far as France?
Riveting viewing.
I watched it for a couple of episodes in the vain hope that Rolf would whip
out his wobble board or paint a picture, but sadly it wasn't to be. I had to
give up watching because there is a particularly irritating co-presenter on
it who only seems to have been programmed to say "Aw, isn't it cute". When I
found myself fervently hoping that the furry little creatures she was
cuddling would display their instincts and bite her I had to switch off to
avoid TV rage.
Unfortunately everyone second person I deal with assumes that I watch it and
insists on giving me regular updates..she still hasn't been eaten yet.
Shona
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > > For the past few years the BBC have been airing a "docusoap" which is
> filmed
> > > in RSPCA animal hospitals,
> > Oh Gawd ... is that the Rolf Harris thingy, where he talks in a perputual
> > 'reverential whisper' ..?
> It is....has it's reputation reached as far as France?
No, no. I used to live in Scotland, and my mother still never misses an
episode.
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan <des...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> S Moir <smsc...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Lets consider this: What do you think would happen if dogs and cats in
> > animal
> > > shelters were euthanized this way (electrocution)? You know what. There
> > would
> > > be an outcry from the general public like nothing else.
>
> > A lot of things go on concerning the welfare of animals which causes no
> > major outcry from the humans. We rely on the media to bring things to our
> > attention most of the time, and if something is succesfully kept quiet by
> > those involved then there is no outcry.
>
> Dedndogyears has a point, Shona. I remember the IRA bombed a British
> Army barracks a while back, and one or more horses were killed. If my
> memory serves me correctly, there was more of an outcry concerning that,
> than the soldiers who were killed. In some ways, understandable, as
> the horses didn't decide to get caught up in man's petty little squabbles,
> but nonetheless, we accept treatment of humans (cf. the gas chamber, the
> electric chair) that would disgust us if it were applied to animals.
The proven murderers of course certainly did decide to put
themselves in the just execution chamber. They deserve the same
apathy your country shows towards its soldiers.
Anarchy, The Return of Nemesis
<smsc...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message, while momentarily not a ward of the state.....
>>
>> Oh Gawd ... is that the Rolf Harris thingy, where he talks in a perputual
>> 'reverential whisper' ..?
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> --
>=======================================
>
>It is....has it's reputation reached as far as France?
It faced tough competition from third generation re-runs of Jerry
Lewis movies.
>Riveting viewing.
Almost as good as the late Benny Hill?
>I watched it for a couple of episodes in the vain hope that Rolf would whip
>out his wobble board or paint a picture, but sadly it wasn't to be.
Sad, what generation upon generation of war in Britain has done to the
entertainment business.
>I had to
>give up watching because there is a particularly irritating co-presenter on
>it who only seems to have been programmed to say "Aw, isn't it cute". When I
>found myself fervently hoping that the furry little creatures she was
>cuddling would display their instincts and bite her I had to switch off to
>avoid TV rage.
>Unfortunately everyone second person I deal with assumes that I watch it and
>insists on giving me regular updates..she still hasn't been eaten yet.
Maybe she's hanging out with the wrong crowd?
>
>Shona
>
>
Anarchy, The Return of Nemesis
wrote:
>
>In England, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals gets
>quite a lot more in annual donations than the equivalent of the Anti
>Child Abuse Society.
>
>--
>
>
>Rush Wickes
>Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
That isn't very suprising.
anarchy
DedNdogYrs
Yes there is. My tenant went up to a woman at the race track and said "What's
it like, wearing dead animals?" The woman snottily said "Well I have five more
at home." Then my tenant said "Well then I guess you are a Cruella DeVille."
Dogs & children first.
DedNdogYrs
quite a lot more in annual donations than the equivalent of the Anti
Child Abuse Society.>
In the U.S. I understand had laws against abusing animals before they had laws
against abusing children. The animal law was used to save an abused child in a
first-of-its-kind case when apparently there was no other way.
Dogs & children first.
DedNdogYrs
Some humans are, that's what bothers me about the DP.
Dogs & children first.
S Moir
> <...the animal is innocent, whereas the human isn't.>
>
> Some humans are, that's what bothers me about the DP.
> Dogs & children first.
Another good point, and if you had included the next sentence
"whether that's right or wrong is another issue- it's just human nature"
you would have seen that this was not a statement of anything other than the
way the average human perceives such things. That's all.
Shona
A Planet Visitor
a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
to be an abolitionist!! Perhaps there is some validity
]to the claim that there are those who have a rather
macabre attraction to the actual process of the DP and
the attendant sufferings. They seem to be engrossed
(a play on words) in the subject.
Voyeurism at its finest.
A PV
"DedNdogYrs" <dednd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000917081641...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> <Electrocution, DONE PROPERLY (my emphasis) is extremely humane - the
problem
> is that the human body is so variable that it is difficult to do it
> properly.>
>
> Meaning some people are tortured to death? Or most?
>
> Dogs & children first.
>
S Moir
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:cAWy5.14431$nk3.6...@newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> The surprising thing about this thread is that almost to
> a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
> to be an abolitionist!! Perhaps there is some validity
> ]to the claim that there are those who have a rather
> macabre attraction to the actual process of the DP and
> the attendant sufferings. They seem to be engrossed
> (a play on words) in the subject.
> Voyeurism at its finest.
>
>
> A PV
>
Interesting observation PV.
Perhaps there could also be some truth in the rumour that some (notice I
said some) retentionists don't want to know too much about the process of
execution in case it changes their mind?
Shona
Rev. Don Kool
S Moir wrote:
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote...
> > The surprising thing about this thread is that almost to
> > a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
> > to be an abolitionist!! Perhaps there is some validity
> > ]to the claim that there are those who have a rather
> > macabre attraction to the actual process of the DP and
> > the attendant sufferings. They seem to be engrossed
> > (a play on words) in the subject.
> > Voyeurism at its finest.
> >
> >
> > A PV
> >
> ====================================
>
> Interesting observation PV.
> Perhaps there could also be some truth in the rumour that some (notice I
> said some) retentionists don't want to know too much about the process of
> execution in case it changes their mind?
Those who support just punishment of proven murderers already are
familiar with the painless and humane methods of just execution. It
is those who support proven murderers who feel the need to revel in
myth and misinformation, Hon.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb:
> The surprising thing about this thread is that almost to
> a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
> to be an abolitionist!! Perhaps there is some validity
> ]to the claim that there are those who have a rather
> macabre attraction to the actual process of the DP and
> the attendant sufferings.
I think the reverse is valid. Just as NO ONE Retentionist wants to see the
gruesome practice of DeathRow, NO ONE wants to see the torturing attitude
of any execution too. Not the Abolishionists gather around this subject,
the Retentionists are avoiding it, IMHO. And: Yes, to be an abolishionist
means to have gotten any imagination what it may mean to die at a scheduled
day and even in an extreme painful way. Actually, for those assuming to
kill merely for public's security this topics are not very comfortable,
they are pointing exactly to nothing other than State's Revenge, or ?
And Really Macabre I find retentionist's indifference towards human's
suffering, the willingly closing of their eyes in view of the real
conditions and purposes of DR and DP today. It's a fundamental inhonesty to
know about and to tolerate this issues and to wait unobstrusive until the
embarrassing thread expires.
(BTW, this is Abolishionist Jürgen's first contribution to this thread.)
> They seem to be engrossed
> (a play on words) in the subject.
> Voyeurism at its finest.
No, Avoidance at it's finest.
>
>
> A PV
>
> "DedNdogYrs" <dednd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000917081641...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> > <Electrocution, DONE PROPERLY (my emphasis) is extremely humane - the
> problem
> > is that the human body is so variable that it is difficult to do it
> > properly.>
Excuse me: What a babble. Nerves are our SENSORS and based on current and
voltage. What than maximal pain does anyone expect by E ?
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:39CCC726...@t-online.de...
>
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb:
>
> > The surprising thing about this thread is that almost to
> > a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
> > to be an abolitionist!! Perhaps there is some validity
> > ]to the claim that there are those who have a rather
> > macabre attraction to the actual process of the DP and
> > the attendant sufferings.
>
the
> gruesome practice of DeathRow, NO ONE wants to see the torturing
attitude
> of any execution too. Not the Abolishionists gather around this
subject,
> the Retentionists are avoiding it, IMHO. And: Yes, to be an
abolishionist
> means to have gotten any imagination what it may mean to die at a
scheduled
> day and even in an extreme painful way. Actually, for those assuming
to
> kill merely for public's security this topics are not very
comfortable,
> they are pointing exactly to nothing other than State's Revenge, or ?
> And Really Macabre I find retentionist's indifference towards human's
> suffering, the willingly closing of their eyes in view of the real
> conditions and purposes of DR and DP today. It's a fundamental
inhonesty to
> know about and to tolerate this issues and to wait unobstrusive until
the
> embarrassing thread expires.
>
> (BTW, this is Abolishionist Jürgen's first contribution to this
thread.)
>
> > (a play on words) in the subject.
> > Voyeurism at its finest.
>
>
> >
> >
> > A PV
My, my. It was a simple observation which could be seen
by merely counting names attached to the thread.
Methinks, thou doth protest too much, my friend.
I find both murder and executions revolting... One
unnecessary and the other necessary. But I do not
spend my time in curious descriptions of either of these
two events.
A PV
> >
> > "DedNdogYrs" <dednd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000917081641...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> > > <Electrocution, DONE PROPERLY (my emphasis) is extremely humane -
the
> > problem
> > > is that the human body is so variable that it is difficult to do
it
> > > properly.>
>
> Excuse me: What a babble. Nerves are our SENSORS and based on current
and
> voltage. What than maximal pain does anyone expect by E ?
>
> >
> > >
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb:
> "Jürgen" <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:39CCC726...@t-online.de...
> >
> >
> > A Planet Visitor schrieb:
> >
> > > The surprising thing about this thread is that almost to
> > > a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
> > > to be an abolitionist!! Perhaps there is some validity
> > > ]to the claim that there are those who have a rather
> > > macabre attraction to the actual process of the DP and
> > > the attendant sufferings.
> >
> > I think the reverse is valid. Just as NO ONE Retentionist wants to see
> the
> > gruesome practice of DeathRow, NO ONE wants to see the torturing
> attitude
> > of any execution too. Not the Abolishionists gather around this
> subject,
> > the Retentionists are avoiding it, IMHO. And: Yes, to be an
> abolishionist
> > means to have gotten any imagination what it may mean to die at a
> scheduled
> > day and even in an extreme painful way. Actually, for those assuming
> to
> > kill merely for public's security this topics are not very
> comfortable,
> > they are pointing exactly to nothing other than State's Revenge, or ?
> > And Really Macabre I find retentionist's indifference towards human's
> > suffering, the willingly closing of their eyes in view of the real
> > conditions and purposes of DR and DP today. It's a fundamental
> inhonesty to
> > know about and to tolerate this issues and to wait unobstrusive until
> the
> > embarrassing thread expires.
> >
> > (BTW, this is Abolishionist Jürgen's first contribution to this
> thread.)
> >
> > > They seem to be engrossed
> > > (a play on words) in the subject.
> > > Voyeurism at its finest.
> >
> > No, Avoidance at it's finest.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > A PV
>
> My, my. It was a simple observation which could be seen
> by merely counting names attached to the thread.
> Methinks, thou doth protest too much, my friend.
Excusez, but this observation included a rather bad taste supposition....
>
> I find both murder and executions revolting... One
> unnecessary and the other necessary.
....One unavoidable, perhaps long term reducable, the other avoidable.
> But I do not
> spend my time in curious descriptions of either of these
> two events.
The abolishionists already did recognize what's going on. The retentionists
- claiming humanity for their side - are the ones in need to get aware what
is happening in their names...
J.
>
>
> A PV
>
> > >
> > > "DedNdogYrs" <dednd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20000917081641...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> > > > <Electrocution, DONE PROPERLY (my emphasis) is extremely humane -
> the
> > > problem
> > > > is that the human body is so variable that it is difficult to do
> it
> > > > properly.>
> >
> > Excuse me: What a babble. Nerves are our SENSORS and based on current
> and
> > voltage. What than maximal pain does anyone expect by E ?
> >
> > >
> > > >
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb:
> "Jürgen" <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:39CCC726...@t-online.de...
> >
> >
> > A Planet Visitor schrieb:
> >
> > > The surprising thing about this thread is that almost to
> > > a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
> > > to be an abolitionist!! Perhaps there is some validity
> > > ]to the claim that there are those who have a rather
> > > macabre attraction to the actual process of the DP and
> > > the attendant sufferings.
> >
> > I think the reverse is valid. Just as NO ONE Retentionist wants to see
> the
> > gruesome practice of DeathRow, NO ONE wants to see the torturing
> attitude
> > of any execution too. Not the Abolishionists gather around this
> subject,
> > the Retentionists are avoiding it, IMHO. And: Yes, to be an
> abolishionist
> > means to have gotten any imagination what it may mean to die at a
> scheduled
> > day and even in an extreme painful way. Actually, for those assuming
> to
> > kill merely for public's security this topics are not very
> comfortable,
> > they are pointing exactly to nothing other than State's Revenge, or ?
> > And Really Macabre I find retentionist's indifference towards human's
> > suffering, the willingly closing of their eyes in view of the real
> > conditions and purposes of DR and DP today. It's a fundamental
> inhonesty to
> > know about and to tolerate this issues and to wait unobstrusive until
> the
> > embarrassing thread expires.
> >
> > (BTW, this is Abolishionist Jürgen's first contribution to this
> thread.)
> >
> > > They seem to be engrossed
> > > (a play on words) in the subject.
> > > Voyeurism at its finest.
> >
> > No, Avoidance at it's finest.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > A PV
>
> My, my. It was a simple observation which could be seen
> by merely counting names attached to the thread.
> Methinks, thou doth protest too much, my friend.
Sorry, this observation included a supposition of a very bad taste...
>
> I find both murder and executions revolting... One
> unnecessary and the other necessary.
...one unavoidable, but perhaps long term reducable, the other avoidable.
> But I do not
> spend my time in curious descriptions of either of these
> two events.
I don't think such is useful for an abolishionist, that already likes to see
DP go away. But I believe the retentionists - that like to claim humanity
for their side - should open eyes and ears to recognize what is happening in
their name.
J.
>
>
> A PV
>
> > >
> > > "DedNdogYrs" <dednd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20000917081641...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> > > > <Electrocution, DONE PROPERLY (my emphasis) is extremely humane -
> the
> > > problem
> > > > is that the human body is so variable that it is difficult to do
> it
> > > > properly.>
> >
> > Excuse me: What a babble. Nerves are our SENSORS and based on current
> and
> > voltage. What than maximal pain does anyone expect by E ?
> >
> > >
> > > >
Cynical Type
S Moir <smsc...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8qaboq$f35t7$1...@ID-50327.news.cis.dfn.de...> news:20000920043523...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> > Lets consider this: What do you think would happen if dogs and cats in
> animal
> > shelters were euthanized this way (electrocution)? You know what.
There
> would
> > Dogs & children first.
> ================================
>
> major outcry from the humans. We rely on the media to bring things to our
> attention most of the time, and if something is succesfully kept quiet by
> those involved then there is no outcry.
> attached to the ears before the current was applied. I don't know how long
> this method was used and how succesful or painless it was, but it is
> something I would never want to witness.
> animal, rather than the best way for witnesses to watch, which brings us
> back round to something Richard has said on many occasions- the quickest
way
> for a human to die is with an accurate bullet- it isn't done that way
> because of the witnesses.
A quicker way would be with a kilo of TNT detonated on the chest.
Cynical
>
> Shona
>
>
A Planet Visitor
>
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb:
>
> > "Jürgen" <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> > news:39CCC726...@t-online.de...
> > >
> > >
> > > A Planet Visitor schrieb:
> > >
> > > > a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
> > > > to be an abolitionist!! Perhaps there is some validity
> > > > ]to the claim that there are those who have a rather
> > > > macabre attraction to the actual process of the DP and
> > > > the attendant sufferings.
> > >
> > > > (a play on words) in the subject.
> > > > Voyeurism at its finest.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A PV
> >
> > My, my. It was a simple observation which could be seen
> > by merely counting names attached to the thread.
> > Methinks, thou doth protest too much, my friend.
>
> Sorry, this observation included a supposition of a very bad taste...
>
NO conclusion from it, as you would do. Read my post,
and you will see that the conclusions to be made from the
observation were left to the reader. You apparently
assumed the CONCLUSION you derived from the
observation, not I. But I notice in your first reply that
YOU felt it necessary to disclaim any interest in the
subject, by noting it was your first contribution after
entering a rather lengthy discription of your own. I see you
used words such as "gruesome practice of DeathRow,"
"torturing attitude of any execution," "imagination what it
may mean to die at a scheduled day and even in an
you say that your comment served to extend this thread
rather than end it? Funny that there is no "user's
manual," to describe the methods which were employed
by the murderer when the murder was committed. I'm
sure many would get a kick out of that too.
> >
> > I find both murder and executions revolting... One
> > unnecessary and the other necessary.
>
> ...one unavoidable, but perhaps long term reducable, the other
avoidable.
>
The "perhaps" being the truism that executed murderers do
NOT murder again. That can serve to reduce what you
would claim is unavoidable. Regardless of how you paint
it, if we avoid the necessary, we cannot reduce the
unavoidable consequences of recidivism. We may claim
that it has not increased, through our use of "true" L wop
(a dubious claim in my mind), but we can never REDUCE
recidivism by eliminating the DP. In fact, the DP is an
irreducible solution to recidivism.
> > But I do not
> > spend my time in curious descriptions of either of these
> > two events.
>
> I don't think such is useful for an abolishionist, that already likes
to see
> DP go away. But I believe the retentionists - that like to claim
humanity
> for their side - should open eyes and ears to recognize what is
happening in
> their name.
>
I would suggest abolishinists should do likewise, and consider
the consequences of their perhaps permitting future murders,
through the self-righteous apparatus of claiming "human
rights," of convicted murderers as being of more interest and
benefit to society than the murder of innocent victims. What
about their "human rights?"
A PV
> J.
>
> >
> >
> > A PV
> >
> > > >
> > > > "DedNdogYrs" <dednd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:20000917081641...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> > > > > <Electrocution, DONE PROPERLY (my emphasis) is extremely
humane -
> > the
> > > > problem
> > > > > is that the human body is so variable that it is difficult to
do
> > it
> > > > > properly.>
> > >
> > > Excuse me: What a babble. Nerves are our SENSORS and based on
current
> > and
> > > voltage. What than maximal pain does anyone expect by E ?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
S Moir
raise a couple of little points, since I was one of the abolitionists who
had contributed to the conversation in question. Apologies for chopping
posts to bits, but I thought I should just leave the bits I'm referring to
for space and clarity.
<argument which came out of nowhere snipped for bandwidth>
PV-
>Funny that there is no "user's
> manual," to describe the methods which were employed
> by the murderer when the murder was committed. I'm
> sure many would get a kick out of that too.
But there are many PV- they are the various "True Crime" magazines, books,
crime shows etc which feed off the misery of victim's families to make a
quick buck. Many must get a kick out of these, as plenty of people seem to
make a living making and selling them.
> > >
> > > I find both murder and executions revolting... One
> > > unnecessary and the other necessary.
> >
Yes, they are, but not knowing about or discussing them doesn't make them go
away. I would agree that some people may have an interest purely for macabre
reasons, but not everyone.
For some this is (hopefully) the nearest they will get to dealing with
violent death, and that seems to hold an odd fascination for them- in many
societies death is the last big taboo.
For others (and this is where I fit in) it is an interest in man's
inhumanity to his fellow man. It is not a fascination in blood and guts- I
get quite enough of that at work and don't get a kick out of it.
Don't take the above statement the wrong way- I can hear all the
retentionists getting ready to get all indignant on me- when I say man's
inhumanity to his fellow man I mean the problem of murderers as much as I do
the problem of how to deal with them.
>
> > > But I do not
> > > spend my time in curious descriptions of either of these
> > > two events.
> >
It's nothing vicarious or voyeuristic. IMHO it's simply a conversation
between people who have read a lot about executions, prompted by an interest
in the subject. If some do get a kick out of the misery of others, then
that's their problem. I don't see why it should stop others from exchanging
information on the subject.
>
> A PV
>
Dave Ayotte
>For some this is (hopefully) the nearest
>they will get to dealing with violent death,
>and that seems to hold an odd fascination
>for them- in many societies death is the
>last big taboo.
Death is the end of life . . . or not . . .
and THAT is why death holds such a
morbid fascination to so many.
It is the single most dramatic point in
anyone's life . . . even more dramatic
than your birth.
Is it pretty? No it's not. Sometimes you
are in agonizing pain for hours on end.
The mental torture must be horrendous.
But when you do leave this mortal coil,
you sometimes only have a few seconds
to make your peace with/ and or relay
a key clue to who murdered you.
What do you say?
Can you sum up your whole life in a few
words?
Can you name your killer?
Will you have the time to name your killer?
What do you do?
And, how do you do it?
And, how do you decide what to do or say?
Those last few seconds of thinking
fascinate me, because it is the ultimate
test of how a person acts under pressure.
I'm a ghoul, and I admit it, but anyone else
here who doesn't want to admit they don't
also wonder about how they'll spend those
last few seconds of life . . . is just kidding
themselves.
Dave<AmySt...@uswest.net>
>>>>>AmyStrange.com<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>come join the adventure
S Moir wrote in message <8qj8jo$fgt1a$1...@ID-50327.news.cis.dfn.de>...
>At risk of getting involved in this little storm needlessly, I felt I
should
>raise a couple of little points, since I was one of the abolitionists who
>had contributed to the conversation in question. Apologies for chopping
>posts to bits, but I thought I should just leave the bits I'm referring to
>for space and clarity.
>
> <argument which came out of nowhere snipped for bandwidth>
>
>PV-
>>Funny that there is no "user's
>> manual," to describe the methods which were employed
>> by the murderer when the murder was committed. I'm
>> sure many would get a kick out of that too.
>
>But there are many PV- they are the various "True Crime" magazines, books,
>crime shows etc which feed off the misery of victim's families to make a
>quick buck. Many must get a kick out of these, as plenty of people seem to
>make a living making and selling them.
>
>> > >
>> > > I find both murder and executions revolting... One
>> > > unnecessary and the other necessary.
>> >
>
>Yes, they are, but not knowing about or discussing them doesn't make them
go
>away. I would agree that some people may have an interest purely for
macabre
>reasons, but not everyone.
>For some this is (hopefully) the nearest they will get to dealing with
>violent death, and that seems to hold an odd fascination for them- in many
>societies death is the last big taboo.
>For others (and this is where I fit in) it is an interest in man's
>inhumanity to his fellow man. It is not a fascination in blood and guts- I
>get quite enough of that at work and don't get a kick out of it.
>Don't take the above statement the wrong way- I can hear all the
>retentionists getting ready to get all indignant on me- when I say man's
>inhumanity to his fellow man I mean the problem of murderers as much as I
do
>the problem of how to deal with them.
>
>>
>> > > But I do not
>> > > spend my time in curious descriptions of either of these
>> > > two events.
>> >
Bebbyc
>For others (and this is where I fit in) it is an interest in man's
>inhumanity to his fellow man. It is not a fascination in blood and guts- I
>get quite enough of that at work and don't get a kick out of it.
>Don't take the above statement the wrong way- I can hear all the
>retentionists getting ready to get all indignant on me- when I say man's
>inhumanity to his fellow man I mean the problem of murderers as much as I do
>the problem of how to deal with them.
>
understand the other side and you have my respect.
Beverly
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dontb...@mail.any> wrote:
> S Moir <smsc...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > Generally,animal euthanasia is done in the quickest way possible for
> > the
> > animal, rather than the best way for witnesses to watch, which brings
> > us
> > back round to something Richard has said on many occasions- the
> > quickest
> way
> > for a human to die is with an accurate bullet- it isn't done that way
> > because of the witnesses.
>
> A quicker way would be with a kilo of TNT detonated on the chest.
Impractical but definitely humane. Insamuch as the DP can be humane, in
any case.
Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"Hey now, hey nonny-nonny, singest thou to me this corrosion."
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb:
> > > > No, Avoidance at it's finest.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A PV
> > >
> > > My, my. It was a simple observation which could be seen
> > > by merely counting names attached to the thread.
> > > Methinks, thou doth protest too much, my friend.
> >
> > Sorry, this observation included a supposition of a very bad taste...
> >
> That is YOUR supposition. I made an observation, and drew
> NO conclusion from it, as you would do. Read my post,
> and you will see that the conclusions to be made from the
> observation were left to the reader. You apparently
> assumed the CONCLUSION you derived from the
> observation, not I.
As I recall, you talked about 'Macabre attraction' and 'Voyeurism...'. I
can't see any observative elements therein.
> But I notice in your first reply that
> YOU felt it necessary to disclaim any interest in the
> subject, by noting it was your first contribution after
> entering a rather lengthy discription of your own. I see you
> used words such as "gruesome practice of DeathRow,"
> "torturing attitude of any execution," "imagination what it
> may mean to die at a scheduled day and even in an
> extreme painful way," and "human's suffering." Wouldn't
> you say that your comment served to extend this thread
> rather than end it?
I had made this your observation, i.e. just your first sentence until
'.....abolishionist !!' too. Immediately I ended up at the supposition I
described, means the retentionists are avoiding to reflect over their
agreement with methods beyond humanity. I kept quiet about this, but your
supposition
> > > > They seem to be engrossed
> > > > (a play on words) in the subject.
> > > > Voyeurism at its finest.
caused me in the end yet to write it down.
> Funny that there is no "user's
> manual," to describe the methods which were employed
> by the murderer when the murder was committed. I'm
> sure many would get a kick out of that too.
>
> > >
> > > I find both murder and executions revolting... One
> > > unnecessary and the other necessary.
> >
> > ...one unavoidable, but perhaps long term reducable, the other
> avoidable.
> >
>
> The "perhaps" being the truism that executed murderers do
> NOT murder again. That can serve to reduce what you
> would claim is unavoidable. Regardless of how you paint
> it, if we avoid the necessary, we cannot reduce the
> unavoidable consequences of recidivism.
No one is interested to lower recidivism. Otherwise the enormous amounts
spent for DP would be used to reform prisons. You are housing ten thousands
of murderers in jail, and 666 in 25 years had been executed. Everyone can
see that the millions of $ afforded for their death could have saved many
more lifes if spent for for instant humane prisons, where inmates are not
assigned the status 'rabid animals'.
> We may claim
> that it has not increased, through our use of "true" L wop
> (a dubious claim in my mind), but we can never REDUCE
> recidivism by eliminating the DP. In fact, the DP is an
> irreducible solution to recidivism.
Your (US) problem IS not recidivism. It is the yearly happening of a
terrible high number of murders committed by 'Newcomer'-murderers, and this
is the direction one should start to think. It's - IMHO - among other the
general stance to the value of life that pushes the murderous attitude too.
>
>
> > > But I do not
> > > spend my time in curious descriptions of either of these
> > > two events.
> >
> > I don't think such is useful for an abolishionist, that already likes
> to see
> > DP go away. But I believe the retentionists - that like to claim
> humanity
> > for their side - should open eyes and ears to recognize what is
> happening in
> > their name.
> >
> I would suggest abolishinists should do likewise, and consider
> the consequences of their perhaps permitting future murders,
> through the self-righteous apparatus of claiming "human
> rights," of convicted murderers as being of more interest and
> benefit to society than the murder of innocent victims. What
> about their "human rights?"
It's again a Bart Simpson writing penalty part. It's quite unlikely that
recidivism happens if the dangerous are kept imprisoned and the conditions
of imprisonment are fit to let the prisoner the status 'human'. No one has
to live in fear to become his next victim if such conditions are given.
J.
DedNdogYrs
familiar with the painless and humane methods of just execution.>
This wasn't so until almost the 21st century and I think that really sucks,
Your Holiness.
Dogs & children first.
DedNdogYrs
morbid fascination to so many.>
I would imagine it isn't since I live in a haunted house.
Dogs & children first.
Desmond Coughlan
> <Death is the end of life . . . or not . . .and THAT is why death holds such a
> morbid fascination to so many.>
> I would imagine it isn't since I live in a haunted house.
Really ..? Where ..?
Sharpjfa
sensibilities of the observer and not the sufferring of the condemned.
sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
> I strongly suspect that any opposition to electrocution has to do with
> the
> sensibilities of the observer and not the sufferring of the condemned.
As is usually the case (but not so, I suspect, with the chair). The
quickest methods of execution, to my mind, are also the most gruesome.
Retentionists flinch from them for that reason.
A truly "humane" execution would appear barbaric. Mainly because any
execution is barbaric, whether "humane" and painless or painful but
easier to watch.
St.George
> <Death is the end of life . . . or not . . .and THAT is why death holds
such a
> morbid fascination to so many.>
>
> I would imagine it isn't since I live in a haunted house.
Heh. It's rare that the content of a post here is totally unexpected, but
this is such an occasion!
Do tell more (but pretend that the ghosts are of executed murderers,
condemned to wander in limbo for all eternity, to satisfy the netcops :-)
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8ss5fl....@lievre.voute.net...
holds such a
> > morbid fascination to so many.>
>
> > I would imagine it isn't since I live in a haunted house.
>
>
Anything to drift off-topic. In fact off-topic of off-topic.
A PV
A Planet Visitor
I "observed" this thread consisted of a preponderance
of abolitionist contributors. I "observed" that "perhaps,"
there exist humans (neither abolitionists nor retentionists,
per se) who have a rather macabre attraction
to the actual process of the DP and the attendant
sufferings. I "observed" that those humans (neither
abolitionists nor retentionists, per se) seem to be
engrossed (a play on words) in the subject. I "observed"
that this was, IMHO, voyeurism at its finest.
The connection of abolitionist contributors to holding
this view was made by you, not I. I am only an
observer, you may draw your own conclusions, and
I would ask you not to claim that I draw them for
you, as I only presented four facts I "observed."
> > But I notice in your first reply that
> > YOU felt it necessary to disclaim any interest in the
> > subject, by noting it was your first contribution after
> > entering a rather lengthy description of your own. I see you
> > used words such as "gruesome practice of DeathRow,"
> > "torturing attitude of any execution," "imagination what it
> > may mean to die at a scheduled day and even in an
> > extreme painful way," and "human's suffering." Wouldn't
> > you say that your comment served to extend this thread
> > rather than end it?
>
> I had made this your observation, i.e. just your first sentence until
> '.....abolishionist !!' too. Immediately I ended up at the supposition
I
> described, means the retentionists are avoiding to reflect over their
> agreement with methods beyond humanity. I kept quiet about this, but
your
> supposition
Once more, in my next post I presented another
"observation," I saw within your reply, and posed
a question. Certainly, no conclusion! Now, you
may believe that any of my "observations," tried to
force a supposition upon you, or force you to make a
conclusion, but you did that to yourself. You can lead
a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. And
if you wish to refute the "observations," you're welcome
to do so. But do so based on your OWN conclusions,
not what you would claim MY conclusions are.
>
> > > > > They seem to be engrossed
> > > > > (a play on words) in the subject.
> > > > > Voyeurism at its finest.
>
> caused me in the end yet to write it down.
>
"They," being "those who have a rather macabre attraction
to the actual process of the DP and the attendant sufferings."
Would you disagree that those having this attraction are
not voyeuristic in nature, to some degree?
> > Funny that there is no "user's
> > manual," to describe the methods which were employed
> > by the murderer when the murder was committed. I'm
> > sure many would get a kick out of that too.
> >
> > > >
> > > > I find both murder and executions revolting... One
> > > > unnecessary and the other necessary.
> > >
> > > ...one unavoidable, but perhaps long term reducable, the other
> > avoidable.
> > >
> >
> > The "perhaps" being the truism that executed murderers do
> > NOT murder again. That can serve to reduce what you
> > would claim is unavoidable. Regardless of how you paint
> > it, if we avoid the necessary, we cannot reduce the
> > unavoidable consequences of recidivism.
>
> No one is interested to lower recidivism. Otherwise the enormous
amounts
> spent for DP would be used to reform prisons. You are housing ten
thousands
> of murderers in jail, and 666 in 25 years had been executed. Everyone
can
> see that the millions of $ afforded for their death could have saved
many
> more lifes if spent for for instant humane prisons, where inmates are
not
> assigned the status 'rabid animals'.
>
Now you see what you've done? YOU draw a conclusion,
rather than an observation. "No one is interested to
lower recidivism." Certainly, I am interested in lower
recidivism. It's my sole purpose in supporting the DP
(well, 95% of the purpose). So your conclusion is
FALSE. And for someone who has claimed that I
presented suppositions and conclusions rather than
observations, I think you need to rethink the paragraph
you posted above, because it seems to contain a
large number of conclusions you have independently
drawn based on your limited observations.
> > We may claim
> > that it has not increased, through our use of "true" L wop
> > (a dubious claim in my mind), but we can never REDUCE
> > recidivism by eliminating the DP. In fact, the DP is an
> > irreducible solution to recidivism.
>
> Your (US) problem IS not recidivism. It is the yearly happening of a
> terrible high number of murders committed by 'Newcomer'-murderers, and
this
> is the direction one should start to think. It's - IMHO - among other
the
> general stance to the value of life that pushes the murderous attitude
too.
>
Another conclusion on your part. Murders are committed by
"newcomers." Well, everyone has to start somewhere. And
I don't think I need to go with you again, as to WHO I believe
should receive the DP and who should not.
"Quite unlikely???" I like it. But not enough to reject the
"absolutely
unlikely," use of the DP.
A PV
> J.
>
A Planet Visitor
"Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:C4Kz5.47471$XT1.7...@news5.giganews.com...
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:cAWy5.14431$nk3.6...@newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
> > to be an abolitionist!!
>
the
> death penalty, I just don't believe in the capability of the system to
get
> it right. Perhaps I am a..... a ..... dunno, what would you call me?
If I
> could be convinced the system got it right all the time, every time, I
would
> be back on the side of supporting the DP.
>
> Dave
>
>
Of course, you're not a strict abolitionist, and there is nothing
wrong with your thinking, IMHO. You and I just disagree as to
the degree that society MUST get it right all the time, every
time. This will never happen, even in my mind, as a much more
dedicated retentionist. We live in an imperfect world, and
the mistake of allowing someone who has committed CERTAIN
crimes, with CERTAIN recidivist tendencies attached, to remain
breathing the same air that others do, is every bit as big a
mistake as the execution of someone who, while guilty of the
murder in question, we BELIEVE should not be executed.
Certainly, a true innocent executed is a terrible thing to imagine,
but so is murder. But the execution of someone we believe
should not be executed, in the face of 100 who believe they
should be executed, cannot be strictly called "getting it wrong."
It's simply our view of the penalty required, differing from the
views of others. I personally, feel that many, many who are
executed, even though guilty of the crime in question, should
not be executed, but I certainly feel that there are those who's
actions demand that we execute them. Thus, in spite of the
flaws in our Justice System, the DP remains a necessity in
my mind, and all efforts should be directed to correcting
those flaws in our Justice System, without destroying the
capacity to eliminate those truly deserving of the DP.
A PV
Desmond Coughlan
> > The surprising thing about this thread is that almost to
> > a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
> > to be an abolitionist!!
> Not everyone. I don't class myself as an abolitionist - I believe in the
> death penalty, I just don't believe in the capability of the system to get
> it right. Perhaps I am a..... a ..... dunno, what would you call me? If I
> could be convinced the system got it right all the time, every time, I would
> be back on the side of supporting the DP.
This is a level of naďveté that I find stunning. Quite simply stunning.
No offence, David, but when I laugh when I read lines like the above, 'If I
could be convinced ... all the time, every time ...'
Do you seriously believe that the government (or any other institution
created by us so imperfect humans) has ever got it right 'all the time, every
time', for _anything_ ?
Your response may be that this is why you are 'against' the death penalty,
but your opposition is a recent development. I don't recall your telling
us how old you are. Late twenties, early thirties ? That means that for
most of your life, you believed in the ability of your government (or the
government of the United States) to get it right 'all the time, every time'.
Don't get me wrong; I'm glad you're on our side, moreso as I consider you
one of our more powerful debaters, and it's a pleasure to read you (grovel
over, back to business ...). Frankly, however, I find it _terrifying_
that a man of your obvious intelligence can spend the first quarter of a
century of his life, in the firm belief that his government is so infallible
that they can decide with 100% accuracy, who should live, and who should die.
That sort of idiocy, one expects from the nation of fat, uncultured navel-
gazing halfwits that is the United States, but I credited you with a bit
more savvy.
A Planet Visitor
> > > a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
> > > to be an abolitionist!!
>
I rest my case!!!!
A PV
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb:
Actually, this is moving in a ludicrous direction. Humans do link together
sentences written in any context, just as they are doing on the level of
single words to sentences. The whole reminds me on a little frivolous joking
paper, one sentence written on it, the other on it‘s backside:
1) Day by day the number of persons invited to kiss my ass is increasing.
(Please turn)
2) I’m pleased to have met you, too.
See what brains are making of this two pseudo-independent statements ? Thus,
it’s common sense if you speak of any group of people, and one sentence
later you’re continuing to talk about a group without pointing out this to
be ANOTHER group to assume their identity, and in reverse it’s common sense
to write in your style if it’s intended to assign some properties to ONE
group.
What are you, a Lawyer ?
<snip>
> You are housing ten
> thousands
> > of murderers in jail, and 666 in 25 years had been executed. Everyone
> can
> > see that the millions of $ afforded for their death could have saved
> many
> > more lifes if spent for for instant humane prisons, where inmates are
> not
> > assigned the status 'rabid animals'.
> >
> Now you see what you've done? YOU draw a conclusion,
> rather than an observation. "No one is interested to
> lower recidivism." Certainly, I am interested in lower
> recidivism. It's my sole purpose in supporting the DP
> (well, 95% of the purpose). So your conclusion is
> FALSE. And for someone who has claimed that I
> presented suppositions and conclusions rather than
> observations, I think you need to rethink the paragraph
> you posted above, because it seems to contain a
> large number of conclusions you have independently
> drawn based on your limited observations.
I never stated other then to be conclusive. I’m actually concluding day and
night......And, yes, even my limited observations 7.000 miles away are
enough to recognize the state of DP in the US, it’s purpose, it’s way to
undermine every developement of society, to undermine the justice system, to
detract from real problems and to give a comforting substitute to a by
horrible murder rates terrified society.
>
>
> > > We may claim
> > > that it has not increased, through our use of "true" L wop
> > > (a dubious claim in my mind), but we can never REDUCE
> > > recidivism by eliminating the DP. In fact, the DP is an
> > > irreducible solution to recidivism.
> >
> > Your (US) problem IS not recidivism. It is the yearly happening of a
> > terrible high number of murders committed by 'Newcomer'-murderers, and
> this
> > is the direction one should start to think. It's - IMHO - among other
> the
> > general stance to the value of life that pushes the murderous attitude
> too.
> >
> Another conclusion on your part. Murders are committed by
> "newcomers." Well, everyone has to start somewhere. And
> I don't think I need to go with you again, as to WHO I believe
> should receive the DP and who should not.
Think we agree as far as opponents can, on the theoretical level.
As your ‚Money talks, Bullshit walks‘-System is operating, the probability
of innocents on DR may well be 10 times that of recidivism. Did you read
Liebmann’s statements to the appeal system and it’s function ? Really, a
fine practice has DP made of the US-law system. Actually THE WHOLE is
rotten, from the arresting police to the mistreating and executing DOC with
ALL betweens and ALL parties.
How you’d like to instate your reformed DP ? I think to be successful
against the political interests you had to pause at least 50 years. And if
this once should have happened, majority would no more like to have DP back.
J.
Odagnop
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
> <snip>
> That sort of idiocy, one expects from the nation of fat, uncultured navel-
> gazing halfwits that is the United States, but I credited you with a bit
> more savvy.
That's right, Desmond. Use Dave Proctor as an excuse to rattle cages, and then pretend
you don't know that it will bring out the usual gang of monkeys to engage in their
ritualized flame worship of you.
It must be flattering, but when will it ever get old for you? At least you can try to
rattle more imaginatively, unless that's part of the sacred liturgy too. Here's a site that
might help:
Odagnop
http://www.insults.net/
A Planet Visitor
"Odagnop" <wate...@payit.com> wrote in message
news:39CFBA80...@payit.com...
Damn you, Odagnop. You purposely posted this
web page to divert my attention from this newsgroup.
Now my posting will have to be reduced drastically as
I become addicted to the site you provided.
Damn you, again, Odagnop. It's a great site, and
I'm taking voluminous notes, for future use.
A PV
S Moir
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8svbie....@lievre.voute.net...
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:19:52 +1100, Dave Proctor
<dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
> > > to be an abolitionist!!
>
> gazing halfwits that is the United States, but I credited you with a bit
> more savvy.
>
============================
Oh no- not again Desmond.
Are you trying to start a flame war?
Dave doesn't view DP from the same angle as you. Truth is, even although
there are only two ways to go with DP (for or against), there are a myriad
of different ways of looking at it and reaching a viewpoint on it.
Some think it is wrong whether the inmate is guilty or innocent.
Some think it is wrong because the inmate may be innocent.
Some think it is right and that a chance of possible innocence is an
acceptable risk.
Some think it is right but that possible innocence is not an acceptable
risk.
Those are just four ways of looking at it. Neither is more or less valid
than any other.
We are all human, we are all different.
Don't make the mistake of assuming someone has "less savvy" because they
differ from you.
As for the comment about fat, uncultured navel-gazing halfwits, I shake my
head in despair and disbelief.
What is your problem with Americans?
Shona
Dave Proctor
news:cAWy5.14431$nk3.6...@newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> a person every contributor to "Electric Chair," happens
> to be an abolitionist!!
Not everyone. I don't class myself as an abolitionist - I believe in the
death penalty, I just don't believe in the capability of the system to get
it right. Perhaps I am a..... a ..... dunno, what would you call me? If I
could be convinced the system got it right all the time, every time, I would
be back on the side of supporting the DP.
Dave
St.George
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8svbie....@lievre.voute.net...
<snip>
Frankly, however, I find it _terrifying_
> that a man of your obvious intelligence can spend the first quarter of a
> century of his life, in the firm belief that his government is so
infallible
> that they can decide with 100% accuracy, who should live, and who should
die.
On a related note, our old friend Sharp seemingly also had a comparitively
recent change of heart.
IIRC, he has only been a retentionist for five years or so, having always
been anti prior. I do not share your condemnation of Dave, BTW, as his
abolitionism is a pragmatic one, and one must always be willing to react to
changing circumstances.
Sharp, however, is a different kettle of fish, suddenly changing as he
apparently did from _principled_ anti to principled pro!
As I have asked him (to date without response!), why should someone who
admits to having got it wrong for the first 90% or so of his life be
believed when he claims to have got it right now??
> That sort of idiocy, one expects from the nation of fat, uncultured navel-
> gazing halfwits that is the United States
Oh Desmond, Desmond, Desmond....
This is the sort of thing that gets you into trouble, you know!
Odagnop
A Planet Visitor wrote:
Now that I have Planet Visitor hooked on his equivalent of crack
cocaine, it's only a matter of time before he's burglarizing, mugging,
and holding up liquor stores to feed his "habit." And I've only
introduced him to verbal vitriol that's been "stepped on" (diluted) at
least four times! The first "taste" is *always* a freebie, but from now
on PV will have to come up with cold hard "scratch." I shall refer him
to my insult retailer who hangs out at the intersection of Heart Attack
and Vine. BWAHAHA!
A Planet Visitor
>
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb:
Please note that only the invitation to turn was presented.
Only when someone accepts the OBSERVATION, is the
conclusion formed in their own mind. I forced no conclusion,
nor did I claim that there was a conclusion, even after you
turned to the backside with YOUR conclusion.
> See what brains are making of this two pseudo-independent statements ?
Thus,
> it's common sense if you speak of any group of people, and one
sentence
> later you're continuing to talk about a group without pointing out
this to
> be ANOTHER group to assume their identity, and in reverse it's common
sense
> to write in your style if it's intended to assign some properties to
ONE
> group.
>
> What are you, a Lawyer ?
A lawyer???? I'd rather be an abolitionist, than a lawyer!!
>
>
> >
> > Once more, in my next post I presented another
> > "observation," I saw within your reply, and posed
> > a question. Certainly, no conclusion! Now, you
> > may believe that any of my "observations," tried to
> > force a supposition upon you, or force you to make a
> > conclusion, but you did that to yourself. You can lead
> > a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. And
> > if you wish to refute the "observations," you're welcome
> > to do so. But do so based on your OWN conclusions,
> > not what you would claim MY conclusions are.
> > You are housing ten
That's the difference between an activist and a zealot.
> As your ,Money talks, Bullshit walks'-System is operating, the
probability
> of innocents on DR may well be 10 times that of recidivism. Did you
read
> Liebmann's statements to the appeal system and it's function ? Really,
a
> fine practice has DP made of the US-law system. Actually THE WHOLE is
> rotten, from the arresting police to the mistreating and executing DOC
with
> ALL betweens and ALL parties.
>
> How you'd like to instate your reformed DP ? I think to be successful
> against the political interests you had to pause at least 50 years.
And if
> this once should have happened, majority would no more like to have DP
back.
>
Not sure I understand much of this raving, Jürgen, but you're
losing the thread of rationality and reverting to simply accusations
that are meant to inflame. Again, just a bunch of words melded
together to rail against the system, without any foundation. "The
WHOLE is rotten," implies that we should just eliminate the Justice
System?? Perhaps let all criminals go? Perhaps establish as
Finland does, as reported by Eugene Holman, a while back - a
maximum of 15 years in prison for all crimes - including the most
horrendous recidivist pedophile murderer. Yes, I looked it up
in Deja, so let me repeat it in part for you: Eugene Holman
wrote:
"The worst crime in recent memory committed in Finland was
by a sweet-looking elderly Finnish gentleman. He enticed two
schoolgirls - aged around 10 - into his car - killed them, had
sex with them (afterwards), barbecued them, ate the tender
parts, and then drove around for a few weeks with what was
left of the bodies in the trunk of his car. This was not his first
offense of this type. Still there was no talk of a death penalty
and he is due to be released soon after serving his fifteen year
sentence, the maximum given in this country."
Now, since this thread has been discussing the horrific methods
of how we executed scum like this, perhaps it's appropriate
to also mention the horrific methods employed by some
murderers. And you'll notice that I draw no conclusions from
what I say, I simply make OBSERVATIONS. So perhaps you
can tell me if 15 years incarceration is suitable for a recidivist
pedophile murderer. I think Eugene Holman later reported
that the man was now in his 70's, so was certainly "cured."
A PV
> J.
>
>
Desmond Coughlan
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:15:54 +0100, S Moir <smsc...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > Don't get me wrong; I'm glad you're on our side, moreso as I consider you
> > one of our more powerful debaters, and it's a pleasure to read you (grovel
> > over, back to business ...). Frankly, however, I find it _terrifying_
> > that a man of your obvious intelligence can spend the first quarter of a
> > century of his life, in the firm belief that his government is so
> infallible
> > that they can decide with 100% accuracy, who should live, and who should
> die.
> >
> > That sort of idiocy, one expects from the nation of fat, uncultured navel-
> > gazing halfwits that is the United States, but I credited you with a bit
> > more savvy.
> Oh no- not again Desmond.
> Are you trying to start a flame war?
I'm expressing an opinion, Shona. I was under the impression that such
was my right. In any case, of what I wrote, you can only (reasonably) take
issue with the 'halfwit' part. 54% of Americans are overweight; the vast
majority of them think that 'culture' is what you get in yoghurt ... and as
for 'navel-gazing', well ... just look at American daytime television.
> Dave doesn't view DP from the same angle as you. Truth is, even although
> there are only two ways to go with DP (for or against), there are a myriad
> of different ways of looking at it and reaching a viewpoint on it.
> Some think it is wrong whether the inmate is guilty or innocent.
> Some think it is wrong because the inmate may be innocent.
> Some think it is right and that a chance of possible innocence is an
> acceptable risk.
> Some think it is right but that possible innocence is not an acceptable
> risk.
> Those are just four ways of looking at it. Neither is more or less valid
> than any other.
> We are all human, we are all different.
> Don't make the mistake of assuming someone has "less savvy" because they
> differ from you.
I had a discussion with a Buddhist friend of mine, concerning this. He is
of the opinion (and I agree) that those who support the death penalty are
lower down in the evolutionary scale than those who are against it. It's
something that Buddhists call 'the animal state', or words to that effect
(I'm not an expert, but can ask him for more details, if you'd like). One
can demonstrate the futility of the death penalty, both in human terms,
and in scientific, statistical terms, and they're still there, looking you
straight in the eye, and saying, 'I'm for it'. It's like racists. Here
in France, we have a tosser by the name of Jean-Marie le Pen, who is
convinced that blacks and Jews are inferior to whites. Really, whatever
evidence you present, he will always look at it, nod his head, say 'Uh-huh;
very interesting, but blacks are skum anyway.' Which brings me to your
question :
[snip]
> What is your problem with Americans?
As people; I have no problem with them. They're kind, polite, eager to
help, etc. etc. etc. However, there is a wealth of evidence that the
death penalty is not the way forward for a civilised society, and yet they
still claim (upwards of 65% of them, anyway) that they support it. I'm
sorry, Shona, but people like that can only be described in one manner:
idiots.
I consider all human beings equal on a _human_ scale, i.e., right to life,
dignity of person and so on. However, if we're talking about the soul,
the spirit, call it what you will, we are not all equal. I dissociate
myself from the 'classic' Judeo-Christian (I don't know if that's the
correct word in English; I translated it from the French, and can't be
bothered checking it. If I'm wrong, mea culpa) idea of 'spirituality',
and consider the soul, as distinct from any organised religion. By this
criterion, then Americans are as far from 'God', as any nation I've yet
seen. By 'far from God', many consider going to mass on a Sunday to
constitute 'Godliness'. By that criterion, the IRA murderer who guns down
a British soldier on Saturday night, and attends mass on a Sunday, is 'close
to God'.
A theme to which I've referred in the past, is that retentionists are
the soul brothers of the murderers they condemn. The only difference
between their acts (or the acts that they support) is that one is 'legal',
and the other is 'illegal'. As notions of 'legal' and 'illegal' are
wholly invented by man, and thus can only be 'justified' by making weak
and spurious reference to an immense work of fiction written over twenty
centuries ago, I fail to see how notions of 'justice' can be tied up with
notions of spirituality.
So to sum up, and (I hope) answer your question: I like American people,
for the reasons I outlined above, but I consider the majority of them to
be lower down the evolutionary scale than Europeans, or (especially)
those from India, Nepal, or China [1].
My reference to Americans as a nation of 'fat, uncultured, navel-gazing
halfwits' may have been immoderate. If so, I do apologise. It wasn't
to flame, it wasn't a troll; it was an opinion. Of course, my stalkers,
Drewl, Planet Visitor, and Grüber (criminal alias, Grosvenor) won't
see it that way, but that's their problem. After all, we're all here to
express an opinion. Mine might offend some people, but the answer to that
is for them to killfile me. If they continue to read my posts, just so
that they can be offended, and flame me; well that speaks volumes about
their point of view concerning freedom of speech, and freedom not to read
opinions that offend.
It is (to me) no coincidence that the majority of those who have sought to
stalk me (spamming my employer, posting private details concerning me and
my family to the Internet ...) are on the same evolutionary level as
murderers.
I hope I've answered your question.
[1] Yes, these countries have the death penalty, the difference being
that the United States is the only country where the _people_
overwhelmingly support state murder.
DedNdogYrs
a morbid fascination to so many.>>>
<<I would imagine it isn't since I live in a haunted house.>>
<Really ..? Where ..?>
Glendale, CA. It's an old, drafty two story house that kids on Halloween say
looks haunted.
Dogs & children first.
DedNdogYrs
Death isn't off topic here. In fact, the existence of ghosts could shed a
whole different light on the DP debate.
Dogs & children first.
DedNdogYrs
condemned to wander in limbo for all eternity, to satisfy the netcops :-)>
It's kind of a long story. I'll tell all about it when I have a little more
time.
Dogs & children first.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb:
:-))))) So you, as nearly all US-citizens, are disgusted about the job -
and essence - of the US-lawyers ? Then, why all choose to trust this bunch
of frauds ? Why lawyers are ranging on the lowest level, while their
results, and be it such causing the ruling over a human’s life, are praised
by all and particularly by retentionists ?
>
<snip>
>
> > > >
> > > Now you see what you've done? YOU draw a conclusion,
> > > rather than an observation. "No one is interested to
> > > lower recidivism." Certainly, I am interested in lower
> > > recidivism. It's my sole purpose in supporting the DP
> > > (well, 95% of the purpose). So your conclusion is
> > > FALSE. And for someone who has claimed that I
> > > presented suppositions and conclusions rather than
> > > observations, I think you need to rethink the paragraph
> > > you posted above, because it seems to contain a
> > > large number of conclusions you have independently
> > > drawn based on your limited observations.
> >
> > I never stated other then to be conclusive. I'm actually concluding
> day and
> > night......And, yes, even my limited observations 7.000 miles away are
> > enough to recognize the state of DP in the US, it's purpose, it's way
> to
> > undermine every developement of society, to undermine the justice
> system, to
> > detract from real problems and to give a comforting substitute to a by
> > horrible murder rates terrified society.
> >
> >
>
> That's the difference between an activist and a zealot.
-Properly done conclusions are, if the input was correct, as good as facts.
-Further I doubt you’re for a cent more activist and less zealot than I,
actually. Otherwise you’d at least tried to provide AADP with any
information HOW you’d like to improve the – as stated by yourself –
insufficient state of DP, means any proposal for the future way to get the -
in your eyes – deserving people on DR, and to avoid executions of people not
deserving DP, as felt by yourself. THAT DP and the law system IS in a
terrible state are starting to recognize and acknowledge even retentionists,
and you stated already similar. If you were an activist, you’d concentrate
on the first necessary step to achieve your wanted reforms of DP, and would
not post miles-long essays about any dream-DP-status.
I already wrote in a former post, if offenders like the sweet-looking
elderly finnish gentleman after their max. prison time are still a threat,
then they have to be and are placed in the high security section of any
asylum.
So I am raving ? OK, I asked at least 5 times for any retentionist
explanation, why DR
inmates are deliberately mistreated by complete sense- and useless
procedures like try-outs of executions or like letting them listen to weekly
tests of the electric chair for years. (And there’s much more to tell.)
If you are able to explain this attitudes other than I did - that is:
Premediated psychic torture - , then post any right here. Actually you kept
posting OT, posting detracting stuff or non-replying whenever I asked this.
J.
A Planet Visitor
> [Cc: sent to Shona to 'intimidate' her]
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:15:54 +0100, S Moir <smsc...@cableinet.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Don't get me wrong; I'm glad you're on our side, moreso as I
consider you
> > > one of our more powerful debaters, and it's a pleasure to read you
(grovel
> > > over, back to business ...). Frankly, however, I find it
_terrifying_
> > > that a man of your obvious intelligence can spend the first
quarter of a
> > > century of his life, in the firm belief that his government is so
> > infallible
> > > that they can decide with 100% accuracy, who should live, and who
should
> > die.
> > >
> > > That sort of idiocy, one expects from the nation of fat,
uncultured navel-
> > > gazing halfwits that is the United States, but I credited you with
a bit
> > > more savvy.
>
> > Oh no- not again Desmond.
> > Are you trying to start a flame war?
Of course, he is. He always is. He claims a government is
fallible in the application of the DP, but would somehow become
infallible in the prevention of recidivism, without the DP.
>
> I'm expressing an opinion, Shona. I was under the impression that
such
> was my right. In any case, of what I wrote, you can only (reasonably)
take
> issue with the 'halfwit' part. 54% of Americans are overweight; the
vast
> majority of them think that 'culture' is what you get in yoghurt ...
and as
> for 'navel-gazing', well ... just look at American daytime television.
>
Do not be beguiled by this "nitwit." (Somewhat less than a "halfwit").
He hasn't the slightest idea of America. He not only hate the US, he
is Anglophobic. He expresses admiration only for France, a country
that harbors convicted US citizen murderers. And the French only
tolerate him because he expresses this admiration. In truth, they
spit on the ground when he turns his back.
An obvious attempt to convince you that he "has" a friend, when
in truth, even the French spit on the ground behind his back (or
did I already mention that?). Read his words carefully. Do not
back away. Understand the intense hate behind each word, and
the fear he has for his own existence, and the petty pretense he
makes of once again, injecting racism into the conversation, as
a psychological fulcrum he uses to show his own lack of bigotry,
after demonstrating that bigotry, in the words he uses
immediately prior. "Animal state." "Down the evolutionary scale."
"Those who support the death penalty are lower down in the
evolutionary scale." Read the hypocrisy behind those words,
as he immediately denounces one who's methods he really
idolizes. How can anyone fail to realize what a sick piece of
humanity we are dealing with here?
>
> [snip]
>
> > What is your problem with Americans?
>
> As people; I have no problem with them. They're kind, polite, eager
to
> help, etc. etc. etc. However, there is a wealth of evidence that the
> death penalty is not the way forward for a civilised society, and yet
they
> still claim (upwards of 65% of them, anyway) that they support it.
I'm
> sorry, Shona, but people like that can only be described in one
manner:
> idiots.
He has no problem with Americans as people!!! Then uses words
that one uses to describe a pet animal! Then he claims that they
can only be described as idiots. Should we really have any problem
seeing who the racist idiot is? Good grief, he has even expressed
an intense dislike for Scotland and England in some past posts.
What can we say about a person that disowns their own country?
What can we say about a person that disowns their own kith and
kin? What can we say, other than that this is a person who is
devoid of character, completely and totally immoral, yet piously
proclaiming himself to be filled with self-righteous thunder against
those "Untermensch." he sees as inhabiting the US. We are now
examining one very sick puppy.
>
> I consider all human beings equal on a _human_ scale, i.e., right to
life,
> dignity of person and so on. However, if we're talking about the
soul,
> the spirit, call it what you will, we are not all equal. I dissociate
> myself from the 'classic' Judeo-Christian (I don't know if that's the
> correct word in English; I translated it from the French, and can't be
> bothered checking it. If I'm wrong, mea culpa) idea of
'spirituality',
> and consider the soul, as distinct from any organised religion. By
this
> criterion, then Americans are as far from 'God', as any nation I've
yet
> seen. By 'far from God', many consider going to mass on a Sunday to
> constitute 'Godliness'. By that criterion, the IRA murderer who guns
down
> a British soldier on Saturday night, and attends mass on a Sunday, is
'close
> to God'.
More racist claptrap. Now Americans are Godless Heathens.
This from someone who has already expressed his own
Godlessness, in previous posts. But you see how he has
injected his pseudo-religious words, conveying absolutely no
meaning, in an attempt to portray himself as pious, and
spiritual, while in the same breath portraying others as
"far from God." Where does he stand with God?? I know
where I stand. I know that ripping a third-trimester fetus
from a womb, is an abomination, while he sees it as the
right of every woman to do just such on her whim. I know
that executing a depraved murderer, who will certainly
kill again, is more "god-fearing," than saving the murderer
for their next victim. But of course, our inept justice system
will never let that happen if you eliminate the DP. All of a
sudden the system will function perfectly (unless you are
the next victim).
> A theme to which I've referred in the past, is that retentionists are
> the soul brothers of the murderers they condemn. The only difference
> between their acts (or the acts that they support) is that one is
'legal',
> and the other is 'illegal'. As notions of 'legal' and 'illegal' are
> wholly invented by man, and thus can only be 'justified' by making
weak
> and spurious reference to an immense work of fiction written over
twenty
> centuries ago, I fail to see how notions of 'justice' can be tied up
with
> notions of spirituality.
>
What a turn of the screw! "Retentionists are the soul brothers of
the murderers they condemn." I find that 3 out of 4 who reference
the Bible in this newsgroup, refer to the New Testament almost
exclusively, and are ardent abolitionists. Thus his notion that
justice is tied to spirituality, finds 3 out of 4 being soul brothers of
the murderers, not the 1 out of 4 who feel that justice is
"rendered unto Caesar," and spirituality is "rendered onto God."
If we disavow "Free Will," as a concept of our existence than
God causes murder, which we must reject as illogical. If we
accept "free will," then murder is caused by murderers, and
executions are caused by the actions of citizens in the defense
against those murders, using temporal means of punishment.
Justice is a secular term applied to our existence on this
planet. Spirituality is a non-secular term applied to our
existence on another plane. To deny that we can effect
Justice, in any form our society deems necessary, is to
deny that we can take ANY protective action for the greater
good of the whole of society in our temporal existence.
> So to sum up, and (I hope) answer your question: I like American
people,
> for the reasons I outlined above, but I consider the majority of them
to
> be lower down the evolutionary scale than Europeans, or (especially)
> those from India, Nepal, or China [1].
What reasons would those be??? They make great pets?
But read the words closely. Is Desi a racist? Is Desi a bigot?
Is Desi an asshole?
>
> My reference to Americans as a nation of 'fat, uncultured,
navel-gazing
> halfwits' may have been immoderate. If so, I do apologise. It wasn't
> to flame, it wasn't a troll; it was an opinion. Of course, my
stalkers,
> Drewl, Planet Visitor, and Grüber (criminal alias, Grosvenor) won't
> see it that way, but that's their problem. After all, we're all here
to
> express an opinion. Mine might offend some people, but the answer to
that
> is for them to killfile me. If they continue to read my posts, just
so
> that they can be offended, and flame me; well that speaks volumes
about
> their point of view concerning freedom of speech, and freedom not to
read
> opinions that offend.
Of course, Desi would love for me to killfile him. Not a
chance. You do not cure VD, by wearing a jockstrap,
or cure cancer, through prayer. If you hide the problem
it will fester and grow completely out of control. Desi
is just such a problem. He is this newsgroup's Venereal
Disease, and I will not cover it up with a killfile
jockstrap.
>
> It is (to me) no coincidence that the majority of those who have
sought to
> stalk me (spamming my employer, posting private details concerning me
and
> my family to the Internet ...) are on the same evolutionary level as
> murderers.
Don't forget the imaginary firebombing of his flat, by
those anarchist retentionists!! And although I did introduce
Desi to Dolly, I take no credit for the love that bloomed
independent of my introduction. He was on his own after
their eyes met, and the "Baa, Baa" emerged from her
lips.
>
> I hope I've answered your question.
Yes, Shona, I hope you have read his answers closely.
If you do, you should see a different part of Desi then
he would like others to believe he has.
>
> [1] Yes, these countries have the death penalty, the difference being
> that the United States is the only country where the _people_
> overwhelmingly support state murder.
Meaning????
Sorry if this seems long, but Desi is a task. It's hard to
believe that he can cram so much hatred into
this subject of the DP. Nothing rational from him, nothing
of substance from him, nothing but hate from him.
A PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
I'm with Mark on this one. Desmond seems to have you about as het up as
idiot-boy gets many of the abolitionists.
Difference is, I think that Desmond is misguided and foolish. He takes
the abolitionists' position to its logical extreme and has somehow
managed to get under your skin by ignoring what you have to say, calling
you a troll and shouting abuse at you all the while.
Who cares? Desmond believes in his cause, sees you as one who would
mock it, puts his hands over his ears and shouts at you. No big deal,
PV, really.
DedNdogYrs
What case?
Dogs & children first.
DedNdogYrs
elderly Finnish gentleman. He enticed two schoolgirls - aged around 10 - into
his car - killed them, had sex with them (afterwards), barbecued them, ate the
tender parts, and then drove around for a few weeks with what was left of the
bodies in the trunk of his car. This was not his first
offense of this type. Still there was no talk of a death penalty and he is due
to be released soon after serving his fifteen year sentence, the maximum given
in this country.">
It might be kind of dumb of me but I thought the reason Finland had such light
punishments was because they didn't have crimes like this. Is there no way
they can keep someone like this locked up?
Dogs & children first.
JIGSAW1695
From: dednd...@aol.com (DedNdogYrs)
Date: 9/27/00 3:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20000927031217...@ng-bg1.aol.com>
===============================
Im just a little on the professionaly curious side...what are considered "the
tender parts".
Jigsaw
Larry Smith
> <The worst crime in recent memory committed in Finland was by a
sweet-looking
> elderly Finnish gentleman. He enticed two schoolgirls - aged around 10 -
into
> his car - killed them, had sex with them (afterwards), barbecued them, ate
the
> tender parts, and then drove around for a few weeks with what was left of
the
> bodies in the trunk of his car. This was not his first
> offense of this type. Still there was no talk of a death penalty and he
is due
> to be released soon after serving his fifteen year sentence, the maximum
given
> in this country.">
>
light
> punishments was because they didn't have crimes like this. Is there no
way
> they can keep someone like this locked up?
> Dogs & children first.
Crimes like this ARE rare within the Nordic countries, but there
sick devils everywhere.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:39D0D670...@t-online.de...
>
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb:
>
> > "Jürgen" <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> > news:39CFA4A9...@t-online.de...
> > > What are you, a Lawyer ?
> >
> > A lawyer???? I'd rather be an abolitionist, than a lawyer!!
>
> :-))))) So you, as nearly all US-citizens, are disgusted about the
job -
> and essence - of the US-lawyers ? Then, why all choose to trust this
bunch
> of frauds ? Why lawyers are ranging on the lowest level, while their
> results, and be it such causing the ruling over a human's life, are
praised
> by all and particularly by retentionists ?
>
It's a curse that every civilized nation must endure. Who
would you claim should do the job? I do not praise lawyers,
nor the Justice System, nor even the DP. Perhaps we
should follow the teachings of Plato in "The Republic," and
choose our leaders and guardians from the earliest of age,
and offer them tests and trials to prove their worth, during
their early years. But we do not -- so the question is moot.
I support, but do not praise the DP, as a necessary tool
we MUST use to protect society. If we have no murders
that meet my criteria of viciousness, depravity and recidivism,
I would oppose the DP. Who would praise that which
destroys a human? But who would oppose that which
saves a greater number of humans -- truly innocent
humans?
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > That's the difference between an activist and a zealot.
>
> -Properly done conclusions are, if the input was correct, as good as
facts.
>
> -Further I doubt you're for a cent more activist and less zealot than
I,
> actually. Otherwise you'd at least tried to provide AADP with any
> information HOW you'd like to improve the - as stated by yourself -
> insufficient state of DP, means any proposal for the future way to get
the -
> in your eyes - deserving people on DR, and to avoid executions of
people not
> deserving DP, as felt by yourself. THAT DP and the law system IS in a
> terrible state are starting to recognize and acknowledge even
retentionists,
> and you stated already similar. If you were an activist, you'd
concentrate
> on the first necessary step to achieve your wanted reforms of DP, and
would
> not post miles-long essays about any dream-DP-status.
>
You really don't know what I've done in the pursuit of what
I believe is right, and the efforts I have exerted in that respect.
Nor have I asked you what you have done other than to note
that you provide web pages for murderers and post to this
newsgroup, sometimes quite hysterically. I am not the zealot
who would stand outside of the prison every time they have
an execution, either for or against. I write letters to the papers,
and to my representatives when the feeling moves me and
I believe it necessary to do so, but I do not bombard them
with mail. My feelings against abortion run much higher
than my feelings supporting the DP, yet it is inconceivable to
me that I carry a sign outside of an abortion clinic as long as
it is the law. I believe in the law. I do not believe zealots
are reasonable men, and I do not believe the efforts zealots
exert actually do any good, other than exciting emotions to
perhaps incite anarchy, which destroys the law.
> > "The worst crime in recent memory committed in Finland was
> > by a sweet-looking elderly Finnish gentleman. He enticed two
> > schoolgirls - aged around 10 - into his car - killed them, had
> > sex with them (afterwards), barbecued them, ate the tender
> > parts, and then drove around for a few weeks with what was
> > left of the bodies in the trunk of his car. This was not his first
> > offense of this type. Still there was no talk of a death penalty
> > and he is due to be released soon after serving his fifteen year
> > sentence, the maximum given in this country."
> >
> > Now, since this thread has been discussing the horrific methods
> > of how we executed scum like this, perhaps it's appropriate
> > to also mention the horrific methods employed by some
> > murderers. And you'll notice that I draw no conclusions from
> > what I say, I simply make OBSERVATIONS. So perhaps you
> > can tell me if 15 years incarceration is suitable for a recidivist
> > pedophile murderer. I think Eugene Holman later reported
> > that the man was now in his 70's, so was certainly "cured."
> >
>
> I already wrote in a former post, if offenders like the sweet-looking
> elderly finnish gentleman after their max. prison time are still a
threat,
> then they have to be and are placed in the high security section of
any
> asylum.
>
To be released when a "human," makes the determination
that they are no longer a threat. That "human," represents
the same system that lawyers do. Both make mistakes, and
their mistakes cost lives.
>
> So I am raving ? OK, I asked at least 5 times for any retentionist
> explanation, why DR
> inmates are deliberately mistreated by complete sense- and useless
> procedures like try-outs of executions or like letting them listen to
weekly
> tests of the electric chair for years. (And there's much more to
tell.)
> If you are able to explain this attitudes other than I did - that is:
> Premediated psychic torture - , then post any right here. Actually you
kept
> posting OT, posting detracting stuff or non-replying whenever I asked
this.
>
Exactly where do you stand in relation to taking a passive
or active part in the DP? Let me pose this question to you:
A murderer is guilty and is convicted. If sentenced to the
DP, the murderer will spend 10 years awaiting execution,
while all appeals are pursued. "You," are Cassandra-like
(which I sometimes feel myself to be -- spitting into the
wind in futility). "You," have the ability to see into the
future, but no one believes "you." "You," know that if this
murderer is not executed he/she WILL be released through
some method or another, and will eventually murder an
innocent or even two innocents at some future date. No
other course is possible except execution or the future
release. Don't try to wiggle out with L wop, or some other
excuse. If you claim the DP is imperfect, then it must
be accepted that NO system is perfect. Just "yes," or "no."
Would "you," desire that this murderer be executed after
ten years or not executed, knowing full well that 1 or 2
innocents will be lost in the process? I wonder what your
answer is?? As for me, yes, I abhor the DP, but I also
abhor MORE the possible negative effect of NO DP. The
possibility of a murderer murdering again. It's simply
"risk," and "reward" measures society takes to protect
itself. And if the "risk," of having the DP in certain instances,
IN MY MIND, results in the "reward" of the prevention of
the future murder of an innocent, then I must support the
DP in those instances. Thus, for me it's the DP all the
way down, regardless of its current Justice System flaws.
We do not throw away a $100 dollar shirt, because it has
lost a button. Obviously, if one believes that the "risks"
do not support the "rewards," then it is fairly obvious they
oppose the DP. But consideration of our need to respect
murderers and protect their "human rights," the "brutality
factor," the claim that the DP lowers us to the level of the
murderer, and other obstacles you often provide to our
use of the DP, have very little importance when
evaluating life against life (IMHO). Those who have
murdered have renounced all claim to any special
treatment other than what the law provides. In fact,
I would invite any abolitionist to answer this question, in
their own mind, if they care to do so. In their own mind,
is the life of a murderer more important than the life of
a future victim, without any excuses, such as L wop, or
the inability to know the fact of the future recidivism?
The life of one versus the life of the other! Which one
is more valuable.
A PV
> J.
>
DedNdogYrs
Well, for about two years now we, from time to time, have had the following
happen: dresser drawers opening and closing by themselves, doors slamming (not
from the wind) including ones with rusty hinges that are hard to close, a
frying pan flying onto the floor from the counter, a cup lifting up slightly
and falling, my fiancee called an idiot by nobody in the room, his bed being
shook every few minutes between about 4:00 a.m. and dawn, and a painting that
had to be taken down because its eyes seemed to follow people as they passed by
it and gave them the creeps. Most of these have been witnessed by more than one
person. Also, in 1990, about 6 weeks before my father died, an appiration
appeared by his bedside that looked like a mass of electrical energy and scared
his private duty nurse half to death and she ran downstairs screaming. Then on
the night after his funeral his bedroom door slammed hard at 2:45 in the
morning. I checked it the next day and there was no way any wind could have
closed it. All the windows were closed. I'm thinking that the present
haunting may be my father coming back for the 21st century or because of my
boyfriend and that he doesn't like my boyfriend and would like him to leave the
house. This is understandable because he has a substance abuse problem and has
trashed the house and yard and is always trying to panhandle money off of
people including me. I finally told him to shape up or ship out and he's
trying and the haunting has let up for the time being. So one might ask about
the death penalty-are they really dead?
Dogs & children first.
A Planet Visitor
> <I rest my case!!!!>
>
> What case?
My case that Desi is a racially inspired bigoted idiot, with
larger mental problems that any of us can deal with.
> Dogs & children first.
>
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb:
> Parts clipped.
>
> "Jürgen" <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:39D0D670...@t-online.de...
> >
> >
> > A Planet Visitor schrieb:
> >
> > > "Jürgen" <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> > > news:39CFA4A9...@t-online.de...
>
> > > > What are you, a Lawyer ?
> > >
> > > A lawyer???? I'd rather be an abolitionist, than a lawyer!!
> >
> > :-))))) So you, as nearly all US-citizens, are disgusted about the
> job -
> > and essence - of the US-lawyers ? Then, why all choose to trust this
> bunch
> > of frauds ? Why lawyers are ranging on the lowest level, while their
> > results, and be it such causing the ruling over a human's life, are
> praised
> > by all and particularly by retentionists ?
> >
>
> It's a curse that every civilized nation must endure. Who
> would you claim should do the job? I do not praise lawyers,
> nor the Justice System, nor even the DP.
Our german lawyers are much more accepted than the US’s. Why ?
> Perhaps we
> should follow the teachings of Plato in "The Republic," and
> choose our leaders and guardians from the earliest of age,
> and offer them tests and trials to prove their worth, during
> their early years. But we do not -- so the question is moot.
At least you could change the system, i.e. no more to elect sherriffs,
judges and prosecutors. IMHO, people forced to make their decisions by
orientating on the public OPINION are not able to produce the thing called
JUSTICE. If JUSTICE vs PUBLICITY lead to any conflict of interests, guess
what side will win ???
>
> I support, but do not praise the DP, as a necessary tool
> we MUST use to protect society. If we have no murders
> that meet my criteria of viciousness, depravity and recidivism,
> I would oppose the DP. Who would praise that which
> destroys a human? But who would oppose that which
> saves a greater number of humans -- truly innocent
> humans
How many murders do you guess have been prevented by the 667 executions ?
What about the deathly fear of 87 innocents, exonerated after 10-20 years ?
They are intimidated and psychic hurted FOR THEIR LIFES. 87*15=1305 not only
stolen, but really awful years, years done to innocent that IMHO not even
the guilty deserve. Retentionists are ALWAYS reducing DP to the 8 minutes of
sleeping away. That IS NOT DP. DP is the super slow motion death, lasting
often over one decade.
I find it extremely naive to believe in no innocents executed, regarding the
quality of original trials, that lead to 2/3 unconstitutional sentences and
to the conviction of AT LEAST 87 innocents, and regarding the necessities to
win any appeal. After your conviction YOU have to evidence your innocence !!
What if you can’t ?? Not all true things are provable, remember ? If you
can’t prove any flaw in accuracy, you’re LOST, innocent or not. If 13 of 25
Illinois DR-inmates may well be innocent, do you really believe yet not one
innocent had been executed already ?
Pure assumption: I’d like to bet the officials are pissing in their pants
for fear thinking of the possibility the real dimensions of severely wrong
DP sentences could become public.
As the situation is, the origin trial is both the perhaps only chance for
any accused to get the outcome: "Innocent", and at the same time the very
weakest point. $2.500 defense fund stand against the prosecutor’s resources,
what do you expect ?
Yes, right, hysterically. Nothing other is the normal reaction if a system
CONTINUES to execute people despite serious doubts in the ‚right‘
consistence of DR, in regard to guilty not deserving DP as well as to
innocents on DR, and not too few, IMHO.
And I wonder how you’d like to raise public interest in the case of any
related of yours had ended up on DR. There’s a nice Pennsylvanian case,
Jimmy Dennis, that’s father had accompained him to the bus just at the time
when some miles away happened the murder Jimmy has been later convicted for.
His father had not been accepted as an exonerating witness, of course, he’s
biased, or ?
What, PV, would you do in Jimmy’s father’s place, not being wealthy enough
for to hire any private defense team ? Would you give up your son or would
you try to raise public interest, with all available methods ?
> I am not the zealot
> who would stand outside of the prison every time they have
> an execution, either for or against. I write letters to the papers,
> and to my representatives when the feeling moves me and
> I believe it necessary to do so, but I do not bombard them
> with mail. My feelings against abortion run much higher
> than my feelings supporting the DP, yet it is inconceivable to
> me that I carry a sign outside of an abortion clinic as long as
> it is the law. I believe in the law. I do not believe zealots
> are reasonable men, and I do not believe the efforts zealots
> exert actually do any good, other than exciting emotions to
> perhaps incite anarchy, which destroys the law.
You don’t need particular zealots to emotionalize the topic DP or to destroy
the law. Both has already happened, DP IS absolutely NOT used in any
rational based manner, but as a cruel symbol, not more. That’s the reason
your letters to the officials will be dust in the wind. The whole complex is
riddled with political, electoral interests, and while the contemporary
state of DP will not directly jeopardize any political carreers, while the
desinterested average citizen will little care of DP, NOTHING will change.
The law ? May be ok as a theoretic paperwork, but: What counts is the actual
result, and that is terrible.
To answer to your hypothetical game my belief in any anyway fixed, prestaged
future would be required. But future IMHO IS INDETERMINED, the whole
scenario is based on a wrong condition.
Let’s do as if, nevertheless: If I KNEW the future happening of a murder
committed by any DR-inmate, execution were actually self-defense. But if I
knew this, I could prevent the murder other than killing the offender too.
Fact is: Executioners and judges DON’T know the future, and DON’T EVEN care
whether any ESPECIAL threat from the condemned (ESPECIAL means bigger than
from an average citizen) still is existent at the execution date.
Such games are without any meaning. Similar I could make up by: ‚You know
for sure of ONE innocent on DR, but you don’t know who it is, and you know
no proof exists to exonerate. Stop ALL executions ?‘
> Don't try to wiggle out with L wop, or some other
> excuse. If you claim the DP is imperfect, then it must
> be accepted that NO system is perfect. Just "yes," or "no."
> Would "you," desire that this murderer be executed after
> ten years or not executed, knowing full well that 1 or 2
> innocents will be lost in the process? I wonder what your
> answer is?? As for me, yes, I abhor the DP, but I also
> abhor MORE the possible negative effect of NO DP. The
> possibility of a murderer murdering again. It's simply
> "risk," and "reward" measures society takes to protect
> itself. And if the "risk," of having the DP in certain instances,
> IN MY MIND, results in the "reward" of the prevention of
> the future murder of an innocent, then I must support the
> DP in those instances.
Still I don't see how you want to get out of the TODAY'S STATE of DP.
Contemporary the whole system is out of control, as not only stranger Jürgen
feels.
> Thus, for me it's the DP all the
> way down, regardless of its current Justice System flaws.
> We do not throw away a $100 dollar shirt, because it has
> lost a button.
So the killing of people not deserving to die, let it be guilty ones, is
nothing but a lost button ? Occures to me more like a scissors's cut in the
$100-shirt, possibly mendable, but the worth is irreversible gone: Humans
not deserving DP are dead. (Add IMHO wherever you feel it should be written,
ALL is IMHO)
> Obviously, if one believes that the "risks"
> do not support the "rewards," then it is fairly obvious they
> oppose the DP. But consideration of our need to respect
> murderers and protect their "human rights," the "brutality
> factor," the claim that the DP lowers us to the level of the
> murderer, and other obstacles you often provide to our
> use of the DP, have very little importance when
> evaluating life against life (IMHO). Those who have
> murdered have renounced all claim to any special
> treatment other than what the law provides. In fact,
> I would invite any abolitionist to answer this question, in
> their own mind, if they care to do so. In their own mind,
> is the life of a murderer more important than the life of
> a future victim,
I'm very carefully with statements concerning the principle importance of
lifes. That decision IS not left to me, IMHO. If on the other hand innocents
are threatened here and now, I'll kill for defense. But never for
prophylaxis, as does DP !!! You are confronting murderer's life with an
innocent's life, but you don't know whether this life IS actually at stack.
By an execution you will take a life,100%, for any REMOTE possibility of
recidivism, and you CAN lower this recidivism rate until it's zero by common
sense. (Again, humane prisons HAVE NO murder rate !)
> without any excuses, such as L wop, or
> the inability to know the fact of the future recidivism?
> The life of one versus the life of the other! Which one
> is more valuable.
Look, in common you CAN accuse just if any crime HAS happened. You can't
accuse for any possibility, and just this you are doing.
I gave you the answer indirectly by my agreement to kill for defense. But
with DP this has to do : ZILCH.
Jürgen
P.s. The answer to my question, why DR inmates are deliberately hold in fear
I searced as usual in vain........here again:
A Planet Visitor
>
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb:
>
> > Parts clipped.
> >
> > "Jürgen" <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> > news:39D0D670...@t-online.de...
> > >
> > >
> > > A Planet Visitor schrieb:
> > >
> > > > "Jürgen" <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> > > > news:39CFA4A9...@t-online.de...
> > would you claim should do the job? I do not praise lawyers,
> > nor the Justice System, nor even the DP.
>
> Our german lawyers are much more accepted than the US's. Why ?
>
Perhaps because the German is more acceptant of social
structures and believes in authority more than their
American counterpart. Regardless of any belief you
might have otherwise, I can assure you that the
American does not easily accept what others would
praise.
> > Perhaps we
> > should follow the teachings of Plato in "The Republic," and
> > choose our leaders and guardians from the earliest of age,
> > and offer them tests and trials to prove their worth, during
> > their early years. But we do not -- so the question is moot.
>
> At least you could change the system, i.e. no more to elect sherriffs,
> judges and prosecutors. IMHO, people forced to make their decisions by
> orientating on the public OPINION are not able to produce the thing
called
> JUSTICE. If JUSTICE vs PUBLICITY lead to any conflict of interests,
guess
> what side will win ???
>
But the entire concept of a democratic society is the
opinion and vote of its members. Given that EVERY
justice system has faults... grievous faults, what are
the alternatives to selecting those individuals you
mention by means other than an election. Selection
by a minority of those in power, perhaps?? But
isn't that a dictatorship???
> >
> > I support, but do not praise the DP, as a necessary tool
> > we MUST use to protect society. If we have no murders
> > that meet my criteria of viciousness, depravity and recidivism,
> > I would oppose the DP. Who would praise that which
> > destroys a human? But who would oppose that which
> > saves a greater number of humans -- truly innocent
> > humans
>
> How many murders do you guess have been prevented by the 667
executions ?
> What about the deathly fear of 87 innocents, exonerated after 10-20
years ?
> They are intimidated and psychic hurted FOR THEIR LIFES. 87*15=1305
not only
> stolen, but really awful years, years done to innocent that IMHO not
even
> the guilty deserve. Retentionists are ALWAYS reducing DP to the 8
minutes of
> sleeping away. That IS NOT DP. DP is the super slow motion death,
lasting
> often over one decade.
>
I find IMHO that the execution of 667 murderers has prevented
the future murders of far more innocents than could possible
have occurred through the execution of any innocent. Anything
else that you would suppose has merit against this argument,
just doesn't wash. With no DP every one of the 87 exonerated (??)
would have been incarcerated for every bit as long as with the
DP. Thus your 1305 years stolen would have occurred in any
case. IMHO you place too much emphasis on what you see
as the "brutalization," factor associated with the difference
between incarceration under the threat of L wop and incarceration
under the threat of the DP. I don't care, IMHO, how much you
assign to this "brutalization," factor... it doesn't equal the
value of one innocent life.
> I find it extremely naive to believe in no innocents executed,
regarding the
> quality of original trials, that lead to 2/3 unconstitutional
sentences and
> to the conviction of AT LEAST 87 innocents, and regarding the
necessities to
> win any appeal. After your conviction YOU have to evidence your
innocence !!
> What if you can't ?? Not all true things are provable, remember ? If
you
> can't prove any flaw in accuracy, you're LOST, innocent or not. If 13
of 25
> Illinois DR-inmates may well be innocent, do you really believe yet
not one
> innocent had been executed already ?
> Pure assumption: I'd like to bet the officials are pissing in their
pants
> for fear thinking of the possibility the real dimensions of severely
wrong
> DP sentences could become public.
>
Let's turn your argument around, and look at those who were
guilty but were found innocent. Not all true things are provable
you say, and that's true. What about the flaw in that accuracy?
If you are so concerned about the errors you say we make in
convicting those who are subsequently exonerated (??), what
about those who we free because of flaws in our accuracy??
Do you really believe that not one innocent has been murdered
by those we have freed because of a LACK of evidence or
accuracy? I don't care, IMHO, if 1087 innocents were
exonerated (??). They did NOT get executed. They would
have served the same amount of time under ANY sentence.
This is a fault of the Justice System, not the DP, because they
were NOT executed. Possibly innocents get murdered through
the release of murderers, and possibly innocents get executed.
Those are the ONLY values we should examine in our mind.
Regardless of errors in our (and your) Justice System, the
only thing that matters is actual termination of life, totally and
completely. In your Justice System, you do not execute the
innocent as a truism, simply because you do not execute
anyone. Yet, to claim that EVERY murderer, guilty and
convicted, has never murdered again, is beyond being naive,
its being blind. In our Justice System it is a truism that an
executed murderer will not murder again.
<snip>
> > You really don't know what I've done in the pursuit of what
> > I believe is right, and the efforts I have exerted in that respect.
> > Nor have I asked you what you have done other than to note
> > that you provide web pages for murderers and post to this
> > newsgroup, sometimes quite hysterically.
>
> Yes, right, hysterically. Nothing other is the normal reaction if a
system
> CONTINUES to execute people despite serious doubts in the ,right'
> consistence of DR, in regard to guilty not deserving DP as well as to
> innocents on DR, and not too few, IMHO.
>
> And I wonder how you'd like to raise public interest in the case of
any
> related of yours had ended up on DR. There's a nice Pennsylvanian
case,
> Jimmy Dennis, that's father had accompained him to the bus just at the
time
> when some miles away happened the murder Jimmy has been later
convicted for.
> His father had not been accepted as an exonerating witness, of course,
he's
> biased, or ?
> What, PV, would you do in Jimmy's father's place, not being wealthy
enough
> for to hire any private defense team ? Would you give up your son or
would
> you try to raise public interest, with all available methods ?
>
>
That father is no more a zealot, than one who lays down his life
for his family, or a greater number of his comrades in war. That
is principle, with a direct personal involvement. A zealot would
claim not just Jimmy, but all are innocent or all should not be
executed. Isn't that what you propose?? I propose a more
reasonable approach to the DP, without the knee-jerk
hysteria of claiming a vast conspiracy is underway, or we
are executing innocents more than guilty. There are THOSE
who I feel MUST be executed to preserve our society,
simply to maintain our "self-respect," and regard for "human
rights," just as those who oppose the DP feel that doing so
does the job better. I disagree.
Well, what can I say. Sounds like a zealot to me.
I'm not here to defend any aspect of the DP, except that IMHO
it saves innocent lives. Every part of the DP that can be
improved upon should be, except the total exclusion of the
ability to find it necessary. Instead of constant rhetoric as to
the "brutality," and "premeditated psychic torture," can't you
simply say that we execute more innocents than we would
allow to be murdered in the future by not executing murderers?
If you believe that, I can understand your position. But
everything else just seems like hysterical outbursts on your
part, railing against, not the DP, but the supposed torture
associated with building up to the DP. And if that's the case,
then in fact you support the DP, you just don't like the way
it is carried out.
> Such games are without any meaning. Similar I could make up by: ,You
know
> for sure of ONE innocent on DR, but you don't know who it is, and you
know
> no proof exists to exonerate. Stop ALL executions ?'
>
I thought so... You really have no answer. Just what you
would call "Games." But it's not a game... it's a judgment
each of us make in our minds as to the worth of the DP.
We don't know how many innocents we execute, nor do
we know how many innocents would be murdered if we
did not execute. Most abolitionists (and retentionists)
on this newsgroup, would tell you that THEY KNOW,
and we should believe them. But I tell you, everyone
should answer this question in their own heart and mind,
and follow that heart and mind in their support or
rejection of the DP. I know the way that I feel, but I
don't feel I have the right to tell others how to feel.
> > Don't try to wiggle out with L wop, or some other
> > excuse. If you claim the DP is imperfect, then it must
> > be accepted that NO system is perfect. Just "yes," or "no."
> > Would "you," desire that this murderer be executed after
> > ten years or not executed, knowing full well that 1 or 2
> > innocents will be lost in the process? I wonder what your
> > answer is?? As for me, yes, I abhor the DP, but I also
> > abhor MORE the possible negative effect of NO DP. The
> > possibility of a murderer murdering again. It's simply
> > "risk," and "reward" measures society takes to protect
> > itself. And if the "risk," of having the DP in certain instances,
> > IN MY MIND, results in the "reward" of the prevention of
> > the future murder of an innocent, then I must support the
> > DP in those instances.
<clip>
> > Thus, for me it's the DP all the
> > way down, regardless of its current Justice System flaws.
> > We do not throw away a $100 dollar shirt, because it has
> > lost a button.
>
> So the killing of people not deserving to die, let it be guilty ones,
is
> nothing but a lost button ? Occures to me more like a scissors's cut
in the
> $100-shirt, possibly mendable, but the worth is irreversible gone:
Humans
> not deserving DP are dead. (Add IMHO wherever you feel it should be
written,
> ALL is IMHO)
>
Humans not deserving the DP are dead, you say??? Does
this refer to INNOCENTS executed, or to those YOU see
as not deserving the DP, but actually being guilt of murder?
You see, only the first case is truly NOT deserving of the
DP. Those guilty of murder, but in YOUR mind not deserving
of the DP, are actually your subjective viewpoint rather
than a fact. The fact is that 12 people, a slew of appeals
processes, and many, many members of our society feel
that they should be executed. How can you place your
viewpoint as superior to theirs? Now, I do agree with you
that many IMHO, who are executed should not be, but
that is IMHO, and how can I claim to speak for others,
who have an equal voice?
Don't put me into any of your neat little slots of what you
believe those who support the DP believe. A "prophylaxis,"
is a defensive or protective measure, a "defense" is a
resistance against attack, a protection. Both terms
imply protection, which is the way I view the DP. As
a self-defense measure society takes to prevent the
imminent danger represented by those individuals I
see (emphasis on "I see") as totally capable of
murdering again. Why should we afford them the
opportunity to do so??? What part of "human rights,"
do we violate when we eliminate this greater threat
to our society??
> > without any excuses, such as L wop, or
> > the inability to know the fact of the future recidivism?
> > The life of one versus the life of the other! Which one
> > is more valuable.
>
> Look, in common you CAN accuse just if any crime HAS happened. You
can't
> accuse for any possibility, and just this you are doing.
That's what you say. But if a murder has been committed,
and I see more innocents murdered in the future, the fact
that the first murder has been committed provides the
basis for the penalty imposed by the first act. Every
crime and every Justice System considers the possibility
of recidivism as a qualifying factor in sentencing.
>
> I gave you the answer indirectly by my agreement to kill for defense.
But
> with DP this has to do : ZILCH.
>
> Jürgen
>
> P.s. The answer to my question, why DR inmates are deliberately hold
in fear
> I searced as usual in vain........here again:
>
> I asked at least 5 times for any retentionist explanation, why DR
inmates
> are deliberately mistreated by complete sense- and useless procedures
like
> try-outs of executions or like letting them listen to weekly tests of
the
> electric chair for years. (And there's much more to tell.)
> If you are able to explain this attitudes other than I did - that is:
> Premediated psychic torture - , then post any right here.
>
Because they have been convicted of murder. And I say
this largely in truth. Why do you concentrate on what you
see as "brutality," and "premeditated physic torture," when
they have murdered? Didn't they murder?? Did they
consider the consequences when they did so?? You
always insert these emotional issues as to the horrible
treatment we provide to murderers, in your opinion. But
what of the Finnish man and the emotion associated with
the murders he committed? Yet, you say that after 15
years if he SEEMS Okay, let him go, and if not, then
lock him in an asylum, where he certainly will have a
better life within, and be afforded the greater possibility
of escape or release in the future.
A PV
Lucas Stults
> Well, for about two years now we, from time to time, have had the following
> happen: dresser drawers opening and closing by themselves, doors slamming (not
> from the wind) including ones with rusty hinges that are hard to close, a
> frying pan flying onto the floor from the counter, a cup lifting up slightly
> and falling, my fiancee called an idiot by nobody in the room,
I had that problem too until I stopped lacing my Crack with Drano.
DedNdogYrs
happen: dresser drawers opening and closing by themselves, doors slamming (not
from the wind) including ones with rusty hinges that are hard to close, a
frying pan flying onto the floor from the counter, a cup lifting up slightly
<I had that problem too until I stopped lacing my Crack with Drano.>
There are witnesses though who don't smoke crack.
Dogs & children first.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb:
<snip>
> >
> > Our german lawyers are much more accepted than the US's. Why ?
> >
>
> Perhaps because the German is more acceptant of social
> structures and believes in authority more than their
> American counterpart. Regardless of any belief you
> might have otherwise, I can assure you that the
> American does not easily accept what others would
> praise.
>
> > > Perhaps we
> > > should follow the teachings of Plato in "The Republic," and
> > > choose our leaders and guardians from the earliest of age,
> > > and offer them tests and trials to prove their worth, during
> > > their early years. But we do not -- so the question is moot.
> >
> > At least you could change the system, i.e. no more to elect sherriffs,
> > judges and prosecutors. IMHO, people forced to make their decisions by
> > orientating on the public OPINION are not able to produce the thing
> called
> > JUSTICE. If JUSTICE vs PUBLICITY lead to any conflict of interests,
> guess
> > what side will win ???
> >
> But the entire concept of a democratic society is the
> opinion and vote of its members. Given that EVERY
> justice system has faults... grievous faults, what are
> the alternatives to selecting those individuals you
> mention by means other than an election.
Our government and parliament are MUCH MORE directly elected than the US of
A's, BTW. Indeed, the US-system (dunno 'Wahlmänner') is rather dubious, IMO.
Democracy is EVER limited, otherwise ALL SINGLE decisions would require the
vote of ALL citizens, not practicable. Thus important issues ARE EVER left
to the representants, the government, and here (in Germany) it's the task
of the government to fill the vacancies of the legal system, as state
attorneys and judges. And there ARE of course also safeguards to get rid of
such doing a miserable job.
> Selection
> by a minority of those in power, perhaps?? But
> isn't that a dictatorship???
See above. No absolute democracy possible.
Here any judge CAN rule as he feels it to be just, according with the laws,
of course. He can do so without regard to issues like vox populi etc, he's
not bound to do respect to political forces or to media's presentences and
the thereout resulting public opinion. He CAN concentrate on facts and come
to a sentence based on them. There MAY be afew bad, but the principle
conditions at least ALLOW to do a good job.
If, however, one eye and ear of the prosecutor, sherriff and judge anytimes
is reserved for publicity and policy, then the result CAN'T be made purely
out of the conscience and the facts, as it should be. There is EVER an
influence aside from justice in any conviction and sentence, any eligible
EVER has to be aware of the pending Damokles's sword called public opinion.
What exonerated DR inmates are reporting is pointing at a helluva difference
between DR and wrongful prison time not on DR.
> I don't care, IMHO, how much you
> assign to this "brutalization," factor... it doesn't equal the
> value of one innocent life.
No, the brutalization COSTS innocent lifes, IMHO. The question of a child: '
Mom, we're teaching killing to be wrong. So if anyone had been wrong and
killed, why we're killing him then ?' This stringent words of a human still
uncorrupted from law-and-faith-twisters (perhaps introduce 'Sharpism' ?) are
containing EXACTLY the flaw of DP that leads in the end to brutalization.
This child still has the clear logic to see: 'The brutality of anyone
doesn't justify my own.' Loose this law, and you ARE agreeing with the
principle of killing as a valid method to deal with human life. The
subconscious 'knowledge' of this ultimate 'solution' as an option has, IMHO,
a worse affect on society and innocent life than recidivism (under the
condition of humane prisons).
What is you intent here ? We should agree with 'Beyond any reasonable doubt'
as the condition for any sentence, or ? I can't see ANY solution to avoid
any murder committed by any by this standard non-convictable murderer.
> I don't care, IMHO, if 1087 innocents were
> exonerated (??). They did NOT get executed. They would
> have served the same amount of time under ANY sentence.
> This is a fault of the Justice System, not the DP,
You really should consider the state of anyone after 10 years DR. Again you
want to reduce DP to the 10 min. of dying. US-DP is the years lasting,
premediatedly amplified threat of death.
And you think Jimmy and his family don't need any external help from people
NOT directly concerned ?
> That
> is principle, with a direct personal involvement. A zealot would
> claim not just Jimmy, but all are innocent
Nonsense. No reasonable person claims such.
> or all should not be
> executed.
See above. I believe in more bad than good effects of DP in general. On the
other hand, the philosophical and ethical reasons ALONE wouldn't cause my
posting here. If the US would applicate DP for the worst of the worst - and
as we fixed already in previous discussions - I'd shut up instantly.
Again: The instation of a TRUE pardon board, that can and does show MERCY to
GUILTY after any positive evolve within one decade on DR would be the -
morally - most important step, IMHO.
I know some zealots. They have complete different ideologies and agendae,
but all have in common a characteristic speach, and all are inable to even
make a minimalistic step towards objectivity or dialectics. I leave it to my
readers to decide about me.
What can you say ? You can for instant agree with or deny the statement:
'Contemporary US-DP is a cruel symbol. The composition of DR, the number of
executions, the willing to spend horrendous amounts on DP combined with the
desinterest in any reform of the prisons's conditions make evident the
proportions of prevention and vengeance as the possible motives for DP.'
Are you denying this aspects at all ? Or are you admitting to their
existence?
> can't you
> simply say that we execute more innocents than we would
> allow to be murdered in the future by not executing murderers?
No, that would mean to miss a very important parameter. The CIRCUMSTANCES of
US-DP lead to it's REAL AIM and INTENTION. That's a conclusion you're
consequently avoiding, indeed, you know instinctively about the jeopardy for
the retentionist position and are refusing even to regard the REALITY how
the endless waiting for the death is - deliberately - designed, i.e. NOT the
prevention, but Sir Sharp's 'Just Punishment' (synonyme for state sanctioned
and organized revenge) is the motor for US-executions.
>
> If you believe that, I can understand your position. But
> everything else just seems like hysterical outbursts on your
> part, railing against, not the DP, but the supposed torture
> associated with building up to the DP. And if that's the case,
> then in fact you support the DP, you just don't like the way
> it is carried out.
I never will support DP. See above.
I'm absolutely appalled regarding particularly the US of A, how they use DP,
how they use the years of waiting to destroy the existence and essence of
any human, how they regulary developed methods to increase the fear and
mental pain.
I can understand that this part is not comfortable for a serious
retentionist, that wants to have this penalty used exclusively for to avoid
more damage, but this IS NOT the state, pure and simple.
Nope. It's a prestaged retentionist-made situation that compels into the
retentionist direction without doing respect to elementar and real
conditions. You're making the assumption that I KNOW the future murderer and
could selectively agree with the execution of just this one.
The reality would require other: My agreement with executing a tremendous
number of murderers, much higher than 667, if I would like to prevent
recidivism big style.
You actually can make the next step: Kill for lesser offenses than murder
too. If life is precious ONLY under the condition of innocence, then I don't
see any obstacle against.
>
> We don't know how many innocents we execute, nor do
> we know how many innocents would be murdered if we
> did not execute. Most abolitionists (and retentionists)
> on this newsgroup, would tell you that THEY KNOW,
> and we should believe them. But I tell you, everyone
> should answer this question in their own heart and mind,
> and follow that heart and mind in their support or
> rejection of the DP. I know the way that I feel, but I
> don't feel I have the right to tell others how to feel.
(I don't know whether you've read my last response to you concerning this
point (-> PV's mall visitors).)
I didn't lie by writing: Add IMHO to all my statements. Yep, subjective
viewpoint is absolutely correct. I can't other than to stand for my opinion,
moral, sensitiveness etc. And, as written before, NO ONE is FORCED to join
or even read my stance.
> The fact is that 12 people, a slew of appeals
> processes, and many, many members of our society feel
> that they should be executed.
I wonder how many of the 12 peers still would have held on their decision if
asked to refresh it at the timepoint some executions came near.
> How can you place your
> viewpoint as superior to theirs? Now, I do agree with you
> that many IMHO, who are executed should not be, but
> that is IMHO, and how can I claim to speak for others,
> who have an equal voice?
Why do you are claiming to speak for others at all ? I don't.....
Did I ??
> A "prophylaxis,"
> is a defensive or protective measure, a "defense" is a
> resistance against attack, a protection. Both terms
> imply protection, which is the way I view the DP.
Do you view TODAY'S DP this way ??? And the terms 'Defense' and
'Prophylaxis' ARE not putting you in any scheme but are describing EXACTLY
the difference between to kill for to save instantly any innocent life and
to eliminate any (rather unlikely) possible, not predictable threat.
Does this answer my question other than: 'We are making them suffer for
their act. We are making them pay by inflicting on them similar than they
did to their victim. Short: We are taking revenge.' ??
> Did they
> consider the consequences when they did so?? You
> always insert these emotional issues as to the horrible
> treatment we provide to murderers, in your opinion.
Sorry, I can't see attitudes like to raise weekly the mortal dread of
condemned by measures without any other sense than just to torture them
other than emotional. The treatment IS horrible, and you should know this.
There IS no reason than 'Just Punishment = Revenge', and you know it.
> But
> what of the Finnish man and the emotion associated with
> the murders he committed? Yet, you say that after 15
> years if he SEEMS Okay, let him go, and if not, then
> lock him in an asylum, where he certainly will have a
> better life within, and be afforded the greater possibility
> of escape or release in the future.
Many asylums are not lesser sure than high security prisons. And there you
can perhaps gain any knowledge how such horrible aberrations are caused.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:39D7380C...@t-online.de...
>
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb:
> <snip>
> > But the entire concept of a democratic society is the
> > opinion and vote of its members. Given that EVERY
> > justice system has faults... grievous faults, what are
> > the alternatives to selecting those individuals you
> > mention by means other than an election.
>
> Our government and parliament are MUCH MORE directly elected than the
US of
> A's, BTW. Indeed, the US-system (dunno 'Wahlmänner') is rather
dubious, IMO.
>
> Democracy is EVER limited, otherwise ALL SINGLE decisions would
require the
> vote of ALL citizens, not practicable. Thus important issues ARE EVER
left
> to the representants, the government, and here (in Germany) it's the
task
> of the government to fill the vacancies of the legal system, as state
> attorneys and judges. And there ARE of course also safeguards to get
rid of
> such doing a miserable job.
>
Leaving it to the "Government," can lead to the government
slowly (or even rapidly) strangling the democratic process.
Trust in your government is the byword of Socialism...
the American has very little trust in his/her government, and
thankfully, tend to voice this distrust. I find that almost
all comments from the Continent, seem to imply that trust
in the government they are under, is perfectly normal.
And their underlying resentment of having to believe that,
is exhibited by denouncing the U.S. government and its
policies.
> > Selection
> > by a minority of those in power, perhaps?? But
> > isn't that a dictatorship???
>
> See above. No absolute democracy possible.
>
> Here any judge CAN rule as he feels it to be just, according with the
laws,
> of course. He can do so without regard to issues like vox populi etc,
he's
> not bound to do respect to political forces or to media's presentences
and
> the thereout resulting public opinion. He CAN concentrate on facts and
come
> to a sentence based on them. There MAY be afew bad, but the principle
> conditions at least ALLOW to do a good job.
> If, however, one eye and ear of the prosecutor, sherriff and judge
anytimes
> is reserved for publicity and policy, then the result CAN'T be made
purely
> out of the conscience and the facts, as it should be. There is EVER an
> influence aside from justice in any conviction and sentence, any
eligible
> EVER has to be aware of the pending Damokles's sword called public
opinion.
>
Everyone is responsible to those who control their activities.
Do you really believe those who sit in judgment act independent
of those who have appointed them?? They would not last long
if they continually disagreed with the political powers in place.
Removing the "invisible hand," of control further from the power
invested in the "people," is a step backwards, not a step
forward.
<clip>
> > With no DP every one of the 87 exonerated (??)
> > would have been incarcerated for every bit as long as with the
> > DP. Thus your 1305 years stolen would have occurred in any
> > case. IMHO you place too much emphasis on what you see
> > as the "brutalization," factor associated with the difference
> > between incarceration under the threat of L wop and incarceration
> > under the threat of the DP.
>
> What exonerated DR inmates are reporting is pointing at a helluva
difference
> between DR and wrongful prison time not on DR.
>
Time is time. What DR inmates report serves their purpose.
I view incarcerated time in TRUE L wop and the DP, as both
being finalization actions; and the "brutalization" factor you
seem to enjoy describing, a mirage, set in place by those
who have murdered, and now wish to claim the factor as
some sort of mitigation for the murder they committed.
> > I don't care, IMHO, how much you
> > assign to this "brutalization," factor... it doesn't equal the
> > value of one innocent life.
>
> No, the brutalization COSTS innocent lifes, IMHO. The question of a ch
ild: '
> Mom, we're teaching killing to be wrong. So if anyone had been wrong
and
> killed, why we're killing him then ?' This stringent words of a human
still
> uncorrupted from law-and-faith-twisters (perhaps introduce 'Sharpism'
?) are
> containing EXACTLY the flaw of DP that leads in the end to
brutalization.
> This child still has the clear logic to see: 'The brutality of anyone
> doesn't justify my own.' Loose this law, and you ARE agreeing with the
> principle of killing as a valid method to deal with human life. The
> subconscious 'knowledge' of this ultimate 'solution' as an option has,
IMHO,
> a worse affect on society and innocent life than recidivism (under the
> condition of humane prisons).
>
Clearly the cart before the horse. You say brutalization leads to
'The brutality of anyone doesn't justify my own,' in the clear
logic of a child. I see the brutality of the cause of the effect of
your perceived "brutalization" factor... the murder.... as providing
the clearer logic of responsibility for one's own actions, and not
the actions we take as a society. YOU are agreeing with the
principle of MURDER as a valid method to deal with human life
that is an obstacle to OUR objectives. If a child sees that
events have lesser consequences then what would be expected,
then the child finds it MORE easy to commit to those events
(murder).
<clip>
> > > After your conviction YOU have to evidence your
> > > innocence !!
> > > What if you can't ?? Not all true things are provable, remember ?
If
> > you
> > > can't prove any flaw in accuracy, you're LOST, innocent or not
> >
> > Let's turn your argument around, and look at those who were
> > guilty but were found innocent. Not all true things are provable
> > you say, and that's true. What about the flaw in that accuracy?
> > If you are so concerned about the errors you say we make in
> > convicting those who are subsequently exonerated (??), what
> > about those who we free because of flaws in our accuracy??
> > Do you really believe that not one innocent has been murdered
> > by those we have freed because of a LACK of evidence or
> > accuracy?
>
> What is you intent here ? We should agree with 'Beyond any reasonable
doubt'
> as the condition for any sentence, or ? I can't see ANY solution to
avoid
> any murder committed by any by this standard non-convictable murderer.
>
>
My intent was to show that "Not all true things are provable,"
as you say, has greater consequences in other extremes. If
"beyond a reasonable doubt," has meaning to you, then the
fact that it has been shown to be so, must be accepted,
until proven otherwise, just as it had to be shown upon
trial, which certainly, to any reasonable person, has allowed
those truly GUILTY to go free. And certainly to a magnitude
of a few orders greater than those INNOCENT being
convicted.
> > I don't care, IMHO, if 1087 innocents were
> > exonerated (??). They did NOT get executed. They would
> > have served the same amount of time under ANY sentence.
>
> > This is a fault of the Justice System, not the DP,
>
> You really should consider the state of anyone after 10 years DR.
Again you
> want to reduce DP to the 10 min. of dying. US-DP is the years lasting,
> premediatedly amplified threat of death.
>
We all die... we don't all murder. If we reduced the DP to
the 10 minutes of dying, we would have no appeals process.
Is that what you propose??
> > <snip>
> > There's a nice Pennsylvanian
> > case,
> > > Jimmy Dennis, that's father had accompained him to the bus just at
the
> > time
> > > when some miles away happened the murder Jimmy has been later
> > convicted for.
> > > His father had not been accepted as an exonerating witness, of
course,
> > he's
> > > biased, or ?
> > > What, PV, would you do in Jimmy's father's place, not being
wealthy
> > enough
> > > for to hire any private defense team ? Would you give up your son
or
> > would
> > > you try to raise public interest, with all available methods ?
> > >
> > >
> > That father is no more a zealot, than one who lays down his life
> > for his family, or a greater number of his comrades in war.
>
> And you think Jimmy and his family don't need any external help from
people
> NOT directly concerned ?
>
That was not your question. I do not oppose those who would
claim to help "Jimmy," if they care to do so. You asked what
the father should do, and if I considered him a zealot. I
responded that I did not consider him a zealot, but I would
consider those who would help EVERY DP inmate, regardless
of knowing of their guilt in their own mind, as a zealot. For
example, those who would claim that "Brutalization," of
murderers is the reason we should abolish the DP.
> > That
> > is principle, with a direct personal involvement. A zealot would
> > claim not just Jimmy, but all are innocent
>
> Nonsense. No reasonable person claims such.
Zealots are reasonable?? But you should notice I have
an "or" following where you clip.
>
> > or all should not be
> > executed.
>
Isn't that what YOU believe???
> See above. I believe in more bad than good effects of DP in general.
On the
> other hand, the philosophical and ethical reasons ALONE wouldn't cause
my
> posting here. If the US would applicate DP for the worst of the
worst - and
> as we fixed already in previous discussions - I'd shut up instantly.
>
> Again: The instation of a TRUE pardon board, that can and does show
MERCY to
> GUILTY after any positive evolve within one decade on DR would be
the -
> morally - most important step, IMHO.
>
Remember that you now state: "If the US would applicate DP
for the worst of the worst - and as we fixed already in previous
discussions - I'd shut up instantly." Because I refer to it below,
in a different comment you make.
> I know some zealots. They have complete different ideologies and
agendae,
> but all have in common a characteristic speach, and all are inable to
even
> make a minimalistic step towards objectivity or dialectics. I leave it
to my
> readers to decide about me.
>
> What can you say ? You can for instant agree with or deny the
statement:
> 'Contemporary US-DP is a cruel symbol. The composition of DR, the
number of
> executions, the willing to spend horrendous amounts on DP combined
with the
> desinterest in any reform of the prisons's conditions make evident
the
> proportions of prevention and vengeance as the possible motives for
DP.'
>
Of course the Contemporary U.S. DP is a cruel symbol. Death
is cruel, even those involving natural causes at advanced age.
Everyone misses someone. But murder is crueler still, and
the possibility of allowing murders to be committed that we
have in our power to prevent, is abominable to the human
spirit.
> >
> >
> > I'm not here to defend any aspect of the DP, except that IMHO
> > it saves innocent lives. Every part of the DP that can be
> > improved upon should be, except the total exclusion of the
> > ability to find it necessary. Instead of constant rhetoric as to
> > the "brutality," and "premeditated psychic torture,"
>
> Are you denying this aspects at all ? Or are you admitting to their
> existence?
>
I'm saying that it's a "straw dog." Innocent lives must be
judged against innocent lives. Would you deny that there
was a "brutalization," process in the commission of the
murder?? What you see as "brutalization," of convicted
murderers, I see as the process which insures we do not
execute the innocent. "Brutalization," is the downside of
this process, but a greater injustice would be done if we
either refused to execute anyone, or eliminated or
shortened the "Brutalization" process you love to examine,
by eliminating safeguards in place to insure no innocent
is executed.
> > can't you
> > simply say that we execute more innocents than we would
> > allow to be murdered in the future by not executing murderers?
>
> No, that would mean to miss a very important parameter. The
CIRCUMSTANCES of
> US-DP lead to it's REAL AIM and INTENTION. That's a conclusion you're
> consequently avoiding, indeed, you know instinctively about the
jeopardy for
> the retentionist position and are refusing even to regard the REALITY
how
> the endless waiting for the death is - deliberately - designed, i.e.
NOT the
> prevention, but Sir Sharp's 'Just Punishment' (synonyme for state
sanctioned
> and organized revenge) is the motor for US-executions.
>
The REAL AIM and INTENTION of the DP, is to eliminate
someone who has been proven to be a threat to our
society, totally and finally. If you claim that the DP
itself is not immoral, only the attendant "brutalization,"
in its application, then you favor summary execution,
for those you believe executing would NOT be immoral.
> >
> > If you believe that, I can understand your position. But
> > everything else just seems like hysterical outbursts on your
> > part, railing against, not the DP, but the supposed torture
> > associated with building up to the DP. And if that's the case,
> > then in fact you support the DP, you just don't like the way
> > it is carried out.
>
> I never will support DP. See above.
> I'm absolutely appalled regarding particularly the US of A, how they
use DP,
> how they use the years of waiting to destroy the existence and essence
of
> any human, how they regulary developed methods to increase the fear
and
> mental pain.
This is the point I refer to above. Do you mean by saying
"you would shut up," if we only used the DP for the "worst
of the worst," that you do NOT oppose execution of the
"worst of the worst," or that you do not support the DP,
under any conditions, including execution of the "worst of
the worst?"
>
> I can understand that this part is not comfortable for a serious
> retentionist, that wants to have this penalty used exclusively for to
avoid
> more damage, but this IS NOT the state, pure and simple.
>
But the alternative is NO DP at all, which I see as a greater
threat than what we have. You see NO DP is an absolute.
And in general, I do not believe in absolutes. We must always
have the flexibility to adapt to the methods we employ by
degrees rather than absolutes. We have to find a way to
improve the use of the DP, without its elimination.
<clip>
> >
> > I thought so... You really have no answer. Just what you
> > would call "Games." But it's not a game... it's a judgment
> > each of us make in our minds as to the worth of the DP.
>
> Nope. It's a prestaged retentionist-made situation that compels into
the
> retentionist direction without doing respect to elementar and real
> conditions. You're making the assumption that I KNOW the future
murderer and
> could selectively agree with the execution of just this one.
> The reality would require other: My agreement with executing a
tremendous
> number of murderers, much higher than 667, if I would like to prevent
> recidivism big style.
> You actually can make the next step: Kill for lesser offenses than
murder
> too. If life is precious ONLY under the condition of innocence, then I
don't
> see any obstacle against.
>
No, you cannot take the next step! In any evaluation of the
DP it is the value of an innocent life against the value of
another innocent life. Any attempt to cloud the issue of this
fact, such as "Brutalization," or a claim that execution for
lesser offenses would serve the same purpose is just
hogwash. Perhaps I can explain it thusly. A father pours
gasoline on his son, ignites it, but the son lives, though
totally and completely disfigured for life. IMHO, the
father should go to prison for L wop. No life was lost,
thus no life can be taken. Now, if the son dies, a life
has been taken, and the Father is fully eligible for the
DP if his peers, through the process of justice, determine
that it would be in the interest of society to do so. This
does not mean I (emphasis on I) would favor the DP
in this particular case, only that I would not oppose it
if it were to be applied.
> >
> > We don't know how many innocents we execute, nor do
> > we know how many innocents would be murdered if we
> > did not execute. Most abolitionists (and retentionists)
> > on this newsgroup, would tell you that THEY KNOW,
> > and we should believe them. But I tell you, everyone
> > should answer this question in their own heart and mind,
> > and follow that heart and mind in their support or
> > rejection of the DP. I know the way that I feel, but I
> > don't feel I have the right to tell others how to feel.
>
> (I don't know whether you've read my last response to you concerning
this
> point (-> PV's mall visitors).)
>
I read all your points... a few I don't understand... but I
plod on. I agree with very few... but I plod on. I try to
answer with my beliefs... and I plod on.
<clip>
> >
> > Humans not deserving the DP are dead, you say??? Does
> > this refer to INNOCENTS executed, or to those YOU see
> > as not deserving the DP, but actually being guilt of murder?
> > You see, only the first case is truly NOT deserving of the
> > DP. Those guilty of murder, but in YOUR mind not deserving
> > of the DP, are actually your subjective viewpoint rather
> > than a fact.
>
> I didn't lie by writing: Add IMHO to all my statements. Yep,
subjective
> viewpoint is absolutely correct. I can't other than to stand for my
opinion,
> moral, sensitiveness etc. And, as written before, NO ONE is FORCED to
join
> or even read my stance.
>
Nor mine.
> > The fact is that 12 people, a slew of appeals
> > processes, and many, many members of our society feel
> > that they should be executed.
>
> I wonder how many of the 12 peers still would have held on their
decision if
> asked to refresh it at the timepoint some executions came near.
>
> > How can you place your
> > viewpoint as superior to theirs? Now, I do agree with you
> > that many IMHO, who are executed should not be, but
> > that is IMHO, and how can I claim to speak for others,
> > who have an equal voice?
>
> Why do you are claiming to speak for others at all ? I don't.....
>
If you would read my comment... neither do I. Which is
what I say. But let me ask you -- Do you feel your viewpoint
is superior to mine, or anyone else who supports the DP?
<clip>
> > A "prophylaxis,"
> > is a defensive or protective measure, a "defense" is a
> > resistance against attack, a protection. Both terms
> > imply protection, which is the way I view the DP.
>
> Do you view TODAY'S DP this way ??? And the terms 'Defense' and
> 'Prophylaxis' ARE not putting you in any scheme but are describing
EXACTLY
> the difference between to kill for to save instantly any innocent life
and
> to eliminate any (rather unlikely) possible, not predictable threat.
>
Think about this. Your family is being threated with possible
murder -- do you act after the murder is committed on
your family, or do you possibly kill in self-defense before
the murder is committed? It's all a matter of perception.
Consider a police sniper and a hostage-taker. The police
sniper is given authority (the DP) by his superiors (our
society) to take-out the hostage-taker, BEFORE a murder
occurs, because the hostage-taker is a KNOWN murderer.
Would you object to that?? In both cases, NO murder
has occurred, and none may occur, but action is justified
by almost all. I view the DP in the same light. A threat
is a threat, and "immediate" loses meaning when looking
at the DP, since we cannot be around to stop the future
murder at the immediate moment it will next occur.
> > That's what you say. But if a murder has been committed,
> > and I see more innocents murdered in the future, the fact
> > that the first murder has been committed provides the
> > basis for the penalty imposed by the first act. Every
> > crime and every Justice System considers the possibility
> > of recidivism as a qualifying factor in sentencing.
> >
> >
> > Because they have been convicted of murder. And I say
> > this largely in truth. Why do you concentrate on what you
> > see as "brutality," and "premeditated physic torture," when
> > they have murdered? Didn't they murder??
>
> Does this answer my question other than: 'We are making them suffer
for
> their act. We are making them pay by inflicting on them similar than
they
> did to their victim. Short: We are taking revenge.' ??
No, this is the justice process in our use of the DP. And
if we shorten the process, which you refer to as "Brutalization,"
then in effect we lessen the guarantee that we will not
execute an innocent. It's simply a trade-off we have to
make to insure no mistakes, insofar as is humanly possible.
Would you prefer that we let them go free while we
guarantee those rights they have???
>
> > Did they
> > consider the consequences when they did so?? You
> > always insert these emotional issues as to the horrible
> > treatment we provide to murderers, in your opinion.
>
> Sorry, I can't see attitudes like to raise weekly the mortal dread of
> condemned by measures without any other sense than just to torture
them
> other than emotional. The treatment IS horrible, and you should know
this.
> There IS no reason than 'Just Punishment = Revenge', and you know it.
>
No Just Punishment = due process = overturn of DP or
application of DP. Your proposal is Just Punishment =
NO DP.
> > But
> > what of the Finnish man and the emotion associated with
> > the murders he committed? Yet, you say that after 15
> > years if he SEEMS Okay, let him go, and if not, then
> > lock him in an asylum, where he certainly will have a
> > better life within, and be afforded the greater possibility
> > of escape or release in the future.
>
> Many asylums are not lesser sure than high security prisons. And there
you
> can perhaps gain any knowledge how such horrible aberrations are
caused.
Please, Jürgen, do not end this thread on a sour note.
You must know how silly that sounds when you consider
the case I mentioned. Now you would propose that we
should perhaps experiment on the person in question, in
the asylum, maybe use probes and such, to try and
extract the reason (???) behind his depravity. Letting
this person LIVE, is less humane and less moral and less
aware of "human rights," then putting him to death.
A PV
>
> Jürgen
>