Death Penalty is NOT racist, people are!
Joaquim Amado Lopes
Greetings.
Some people presented us with numbers that "prove" that DP is racist.
Is it written in the law books that race is a requirement to get
executed?
Even if only 1% of the criminals were black and all the executions
were of black people, the law wouldn't be racist.
The police, lawyers and courts, maybe. The law, no!
If you don't trust your courts, than the problem is not DP. It is the
judicial system, were judges and juries can't be trusted.
When someone says that DP is racist, he/she is saying that the people
who defend DP are racist. I defend DP and I am NOT a racist!
If there was DP in Portugal and only non-whites got executed I
wouldn't trust our courts and would be against the aplication of DP,
but that would be a different problem.
That is the difference between defending the principle of DP and
defending that DP is being used with justice.
Take care,
Joaquim Amado Lopes
jal...@mail.telepac.pt
JSSExpo
jal...@mail.telepac.pt (Joaquim Amado Lopes) writes:
>If there was DP in Portugal and only non-whites got executed I
>wouldn't trust our courts and would be against the aplication of DP,
>but that would be a different problem.
>That is the difference between defending the principle of DP and
>defending that DP is being used with justice.
Exactly right. The death penalty in the USA is administered in a racially
biased way. The laws do not have racism writen into them, they are just
applied in a racially biased way. So, given that the DP is a final
punishment, and given that there are problem with our ability as humans to
make good and fair determinations of who should live and who should die,
we should abolish the dp. You are just splitting hairs. There are, in
fact many issues surrounding the dp. Some deal with application and some
deal with the concept (principle) of the dp. Abolitionists will argue both
that it is immoral on principle and that in application it is bad public
policy. Anti-dper will argue that it is both moral and good public
policy. learn to distinguish the two arguments, and get used to the fact
that both sides will interchange them as it suits them.
Jennifer
"What if the Hokey Pokey is what its all about?"
Mike Cullinan
In Article<19970114164...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<jss...@aol.com> write:
> Path:
> Exactly right. The death penalty in the USA is administered in a
racially
> biased way. The laws do not have racism writer into them, they are
just
> applied in a racially biased way.
That is absolutely not true. Mr. John Louis Phillipe, or whatever that
French fellow is, posted some of his victim based statistics in
here. The truth is, less than half the whites are responsible for
the crimes of non-negligent homicide, but more than half the
whites receive the DP, and more than half the whites are executed.
So, given that the DP is a final
> punishment, and given that there are problem with our ability as humans
to
> make good and fair determinations of who should live and who should
die,
> we should abolish the dp. You are just splitting hairs.
No, the abolition camp is the one that splits hairs minutely. Consider
the sleight-of-hand they pulled with the victim-based statistics. Also,
think about this. To believe in victim-based statistics, you have to
accept that only whites participate in the judicial process, and that
only whites are members of the jury. The fact is, blacks are often
jurors in capital murder cases. They often participate in the decisions
that result in either black or white defendants receiving the DP. But
John Louis wants us to think that juries in the US are exclusively
white, as are all judges and prosecutors.
A DA here in Texas (who happens to be black, BTW) was recently expressing
his disgust with the abolitionist faction and their willingness to
use any fraudulent and deceptive means to thwart the imposition of
DP. To them, of course, a murderer escaping his execution is the
only thing that matters, and victims be damned.
There are, in
> fact many issues surrounding the dp. Some deal with application and
some
> deal with the concept (principle) of the dp. Abolitionists will argue
both
> that it is immoral on principle and that in application it is bad
public
> policy.
So of course, they will use any means at their disposal, since the
end they seek will always justify the means. To them the
DP is the ultimate evil in the universe which they attack with
the fanaticism of a True Believer.
Anti-dper will argue that it is both moral and good public
> policy. learn to distinguish the two arguments, and get used to the
fact
> that both sides will interchange them as it suits them.
>
Abolitionist? Anti-dper? Maybe you can explain this to me a little
better.
JSSExpo
Mike Cullinan <mgcu...@connect.net>writes:
<jss...@aol.com> write:
>> biased way. The laws do not have racism writer into them, they are
>just
>> applied in a racially biased way.
>
>That is absolutely not true. Mr. John Louis Phillipe, or whatever that
>French fellow is, posted some of his victim based statistics in
>here. The truth is, less than half the whites are responsible for
>the crimes of non-negligent homicide, but more than half the
>whites receive the DP, and more than half the whites are executed.
Here you go again. Only posting some of the info, specifically that info
which suits you. The fact of the matter is that we execute people who
kill, and do not execute people who kill blacks. This was true when we
had dp for rape and it is true for dp for murder. We as a society simply
value white life more than we value black life.
>> There are, in
>> fact many issues surrounding the dp. Some deal with application and
>>some
>> deal with the concept (principle) of the dp. Abolitionists will argue
>>both
> >that it is immoral on principle and that in application it is bad
>>public
> >policy.
>
>So of course, they will use any means at their disposal, since the
>end they seek will always justify the means. To them the
>DP is the ultimate evil in the universe which they attack with
>the fanaticism of a True Believer.
You know I really hate it when you assume so much about what I believe or
how I spend my time. Unlike you, I actually have a life. But we
discussed this already. ;-) didn't we. The dp is not the ultimate evil
in the universe. It is extremely bad public policy and, as i happen to
feel, immoral. feel free to disagree, but stick with the post and don't
assume to know my, or any other persons state of mind.
>> Anti-dper will argue that it is both moral and good public
> >policy. <snip>
>Abolitionist? Anti-dper? Maybe you can explain this to me a little
>better.
Oops, that was suposed to read, pro-dper. I got all discombobulated there
(if that is a word at all) ;-)
Anthony Cranford
Mike Cullinan <mgcu...@connect.net> wrote in article
<NEWTNews.8532957...@mgcullin.connect.net>...
{snip}
> A DA here in Texas (who happens to be black, BTW) was recently expressing
> his disgust with the abolitionist faction and their willingness to
> use any fraudulent and deceptive means to thwart the imposition of
> DP. To them, of course, a murderer escaping his execution is the
> only thing that matters, and victims be damned.
>
> There are, in
> > fact many issues surrounding the dp. Some deal with application and
> some
> > deal with the concept (principle) of the dp. Abolitionists will argue
> both
> > that it is immoral on principle and that in application it is bad
> public
> > policy.
>
> So of course, they will use any means at their disposal, since the
> end they seek will always justify the means. To them the
> DP is the ultimate evil in the universe which they attack with
> the fanaticism of a True Believer.
The only person who sounds like a fanatic at the moment is you. With the
above two statements about abolitionists' views on crime victims and the
death penalty, neither of which have *any* basis in fact, you are engaging
in mindless propaganda. It is easily dismissed as such, unless you can
re-post some article in which an abolitionist says "damn the victims," "the
ends justify the means," or give an example of abolitionists using "any
means necessary at their disposal" to stop an execution. Let's see it.
--
Anthony Cranford
acra...@dialnet.net
______________
Stuart A. Creque
In Article<19970115124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, <jss...@aol.com>
writes:
> Here you go again. Only posting some of the info, specifically that info
> which suits you. The fact of the matter is that we execute people who
> kill, and do not execute people who kill blacks. This was true when we
> had dp for rape and it is true for dp for murder. We as a society simply
> value white life more than we value black life.
Whites are disproportionately represented among Death Row inmates with respect
to their rate of commission of homicide. The killers of non-whites are
*underrepresented* on Death Row. The proper solution is to advocate more
strongly for the death penalty for killers of non-whites, to demonstrate
decisively that murder victims of all races are equally valued.
-- Stuart Creque
David Parsons
In article <NEWTNews.853439...@mkt1.wesco.com>,
stu...@wesco.com says...
>Whites are disproportionately represented among Death Row inmates with
>respect to their rate of commission of homicide. The killers of
>non-whites are *underrepresented* on Death Row. The proper solution is
>to advocate more strongly for the death penalty for killers of
>non-whites, to demonstrate decisively that murder victims of all races
>are equally valued.
Or, in the alternative, recognise that human beings sentence murderers
and cannot be expected to put aside their innate prejudices in that
manner. In Georgia, the home of the celebrated McCleskey case, the
problem was not the lack of advocacy of the death penalty but the
charging policies of the politically sensitive DAs and the habits of the
white trash juror pool.
Stop tinkering and realise that the death penalty can never be fairly
imposed.
Mike Cullinan
In Article<01bc036a$e68f50e0$LocalHost@default>, <acra...@dialnet.net>
write:
>
>
> Mike Cullinan <mgcu...@connect.net> wrote in article
> <NEWTNews.8532957...@mgcullin.connect.net>...
> >
> > So of course, they will use any means at their disposal, since the
> > end they seek will always justify the means. To them the
> > DP is the ultimate evil in the universe which they attack with
> > the fanaticism of a True Believer.
>
> The only person who sounds like a fanatic at the moment is you. With
the
> above two statements about abolitionists' views on crime victims and
the
> death penalty, neither of which have *any* basis in fact, you are
engaging
> in mindless propaganda.
The callous disregard towards victims is something I have often observed
in abolitionist rhetoric. I have often read impassioned diatribes
against DP, where a brutal killer is depicted as being "slaughtered."
Noticeably absent is any reference whatsoever to the victims. This
kind of rhetoric was most noticeable in Oklahoma in 1990 during the
few days before and after the execution of Coleman, the first
execution in that state since the resumption of DP. In the Daily
Oklahoman, abolitionists sent in many letters expressing great
bitterness about the execution, but nary a word about the two elderly
people that this man killed with two blasts from a shotgun.
It is easily dismissed as such, unless you can
> re-post some article in which an abolitionist says "damn the victims,"
See the above. While no abolitionist has overtly said "damn the
victims" it quite evident in the strange attitude of indifference
I have seen in some of them.
For example, I was once posting to and debating with an anti-dp
woman while I was in Norman. "DP is murder!." was her constant
refrain. One day I related to her the story of McDuff, the
infamous two-time death row inmate. I told her about the two to
nine victims McDuff claimed after his first stay on death row. This
was her response: "Shit happens."
"the
> ends justify the means," or give an example of abolitionists using "any
> means necessary at their disposal" to stop an execution. Let's see it.
The tacky legal methods used by some abolitionists to stop executions is
well known. In the last few days before an execution, when a lawyer
realizes his client is not going to beat the rap, the standard
method is to repeatedly file one appeal after another in machine-like
fashion. They are appeals that are meaningless and empty of content,
but which still cost money and for which the attorney will still get
paid (so there is a two-fold interest for the attorney).
Mitchell Holman
In article <NEWTNews.8532957...@mgcullin.connect.net>, Mike Cullinan <mgcu...@connect.net> wrote:
}
}So of course, they will use any means at their disposal, since the
}end they seek will always justify the means. To them the
}DP is the ultimate evil in the universe which they attack with
}the fanaticism of a True Believer.
}
Come now, you can make a better argument than that.
This sort of overbroad and baseless generalization has
no place in an educated discussion. One might as well
claim that all DP supporters are bloodthirsty sadists who
will only be satisfied when they personally get to execute
someone. Let's try to stick with facts and not attack the
opposition with such silly generalizations again, OK?
Mitchell Holman
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access
to the mainstream of society." -Rush Limbaugh, "See, I Told You So"
Anthony Cranford
Mike Cullinan <mgcu...@connect.net> wrote in article
<NEWTNews.8534767...@mgcullin.connect.net>...
>
> In Article<01bc036a$e68f50e0$LocalHost@default>, <acra...@dialnet.net>
> write:
> >
> >
> > Mike Cullinan <mgcu...@connect.net> wrote in article
>
> > <NEWTNews.8532957...@mgcullin.connect.net>...
> > >
> > > So of course, they will use any means at their disposal, since the
> > > end they seek will always justify the means. To them the
> > > DP is the ultimate evil in the universe which they attack with
> > > the fanaticism of a True Believer.
> >
> > The only person who sounds like a fanatic at the moment is you. With
> the
> > above two statements about abolitionists' views on crime victims and
> the
> > death penalty, neither of which have *any* basis in fact, you are
> engaging
> > in mindless propaganda.
>
> The callous disregard towards victims is something I have often observed
> in abolitionist rhetoric. I have often read impassioned diatribes
> against DP, where a brutal killer is depicted as being "slaughtered."
> Noticeably absent is any reference whatsoever to the victims. This
> kind of rhetoric was most noticeable in Oklahoma in 1990 during the
> few days before and after the execution of Coleman, the first
> execution in that state since the resumption of DP. In the Daily
> Oklahoman, abolitionists sent in many letters expressing great
> bitterness about the execution, but nary a word about the two elderly
> people that this man killed with two blasts from a shotgun.
In your mind, then, it is not *possible* to oppose the governmental
practice of execution while having concern and sympathy for those who are
affected by murder?
It is not possible to discuss this governmental practice without discussing
the crime? And by not discussing the crime, we are insensitive to the
crime victim? Get real.
> It is easily dismissed as such, unless you can
> > re-post some article in which an abolitionist says "damn the victims,"
>
> See the above. While no abolitionist has overtly said "damn the
> victims" it quite evident in the strange attitude of indifference
> I have seen in some of them.
I think, perhaps, this is a result of interpretation. You're seeing things
which are not there. Some of us find indifference towards killing another
human being, even one who has committed crimes, strange. And this is
something which is shown *daily* by some, or most, on the pro side.
>
> For example, I was once posting to and debating with an anti-dp
> woman while I was in Norman. "DP is murder!." was her constant
> refrain. One day I related to her the story of McDuff, the
> infamous two-time death row inmate. I told her about the two to
> nine victims McDuff claimed after his first stay on death row. This
> was her response: "Shit happens."
I suppose if we are now allowed to classify the opposition en mass
according to *one* of its members views, I shall classify you with
Grosvenor, and believe that Grosvenor's words are representative of the
attitudes and opinions of the pro side. Sound acceptable to you?
> "the
> > ends justify the means," or give an example of abolitionists using "any
> > means necessary at their disposal" to stop an execution. Let's see it.
>
> The tacky legal methods used by some abolitionists to stop executions is
> well known. In the last few days before an execution, when a lawyer
> realizes his client is not going to beat the rap, the standard
> method is to repeatedly file one appeal after another in machine-like
> fashion. They are appeals that are meaningless and empty of content,
> but which still cost money and for which the attorney will still get
> paid (so there is a two-fold interest for the attorney).
I wonder, on average, how much an attorney gets paid at the end stages of a
death penalty appeal process? Seeing as the condemned probably has little
or no money I can't imagine they would be getting rich. Besides, aren't a
good number of these cases handled by advocacy groups? Oh, and unless you
consider the Constitution of The United Sates of America a "tacky" legal
doctrine, it is hard to call activities protected by the Constitution
"tacky."
Mitchell Holman
}
}The callous disregard towards victims is something I have often observed
}in abolitionist rhetoric. I have often read impassioned diatribes
}against DP, where a brutal killer is depicted as being "slaughtered."
}Noticeably absent is any reference whatsoever to the victims. This
}kind of rhetoric was most noticeable in Oklahoma in 1990 during the
}few days before and after the execution of Coleman, the first
}execution in that state since the resumption of DP. In the Daily
}Oklahoman, abolitionists sent in many letters expressing great
}bitterness about the execution, but nary a word about the two elderly
}people that this man killed with two blasts from a shotgun.
Carrying on about the victims, and feeling that every post
that fails to mention them is proof of "callous disregard" is
really beside the point. There is nothing about the DP that
can benefit the victims in any way. Adding to the death toll
has never brought a victim back to life, so the "what about
the victims" complaint is quite pointless.
}The tacky legal methods used by some abolitionists to stop executions is
}well known. In the last few days before an execution, when a lawyer
}realizes his client is not going to beat the rap, the standard
}method is to repeatedly file one appeal after another in machine-like
}fashion. They are appeals that are meaningless and empty of content,
}but which still cost money and for which the attorney will still get
}paid (so there is a two-fold interest for the attorney).
This sort of sop shows a wealth of ignorance of the DP
process. For one thing, many death penalty attorneys are
volunteers, so the issue of money is irrelevant. Secondly,
if said attorney *is* an salaried public defender, they no
more file appeals "just for the money" than an ambulance
paramedic only saves lives "just for the money". They are
entrusted with doing all they can to save the lives entrusted
to them, and if money was their sole motivation they would
both be in different lines of work.
Mitchell Holman
"If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people--I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds
of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do--let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."
Rush Limbaugh (Radio show, quoted in FRQFall/93)
Dan Hogg
In article <NEWTNews.853439...@mkt1.wesco.com>, "Stuart A. Creque" <stu...@wesco.com> writes:
|>
|> In Article<19970115124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, <jss...@aol.com>
|> writes:
|>
|> > which suits you. The fact of the matter is that we execute people who
|> > kill, and do not execute people who kill blacks. This was true when we
|> > had dp for rape and it is true for dp for murder. We as a society simply
|> > value white life more than we value black life.
|>
|> to their rate of commission of homicide. The killers of non-whites are
|> *underrepresented* on Death Row. The proper solution is to advocate more
|> strongly for the death penalty for killers of non-whites, to demonstrate
|> decisively that murder victims of all races are equally valued.
Nice to see you back, Stuart. You make a good debating point, but do a reality
check. What you're suggesting will never happen. I'd bet you couldn't even
get agreement in principle, let alone with a concrete proposal among a random
sample of 100 people. So, since pragmatically, your suggestion won't work, it
really serves simply as a sop to people who are uneasy with discarding the dp
while ensuring the capricious, unfair, unforgiving of errors and error-prone
dp continues unabated. If you have a suggestion to "fix" the system, at least
make it one with a chance of actually happening.
--
==========================================================================
Daniel Hogg | da...@lexis-nexis.com
LEXIS-NEXIS | dh...@erinet.com
Dayton, OH 45342 | This space intentionally left blank.
==========================================================================
Reckless levity and ideological nonconformity
Mike Cullinan
In Article<5bogkd$154$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, <hol...@cyberramp.net>
write:
> In article <NEWTNews.8534767...@mgcullin.connect.net>,
Mike Cullinan <mgcu...@connect.net> wrote:
>
----------------------snip
>
> Carrying on about the victims, and feeling that every post
> that fails to mention them is proof of "callous disregard" is
> really beside the point. There is nothing about the DP that
> can benefit the victims in any way.
Victims have said that witnessing the execution of someone who has
caused them so much pain and rage that it helps it abate, gives them a
sense of closure.
> Adding to the death toll
Many people put a negative value on the life of a murderer, and
do not consider his execution as adding to the toll.
> has never brought a victim back to life, so the "what about
> the victims" complaint is quite pointless.
IMO, the victims are what it is all about. You can't have an execution
without a murderer, and you can't have a murderer without a victim.
The victims are an integral part of the equation, and they should
not be forgotten. They did not ask to be victims, but those who
made them victims certainly had a choice to refrain from doing
so. That is just one of the differences between a dead victim
and someone on death row, contemplating the date and time of
his execution.
-------------snip
> }fashion. They are appeals that are meaningless and empty of content,
> }but which still cost money and for which the attorney will still get
> }paid (so there is a two-fold interest for the attorney).
>
>
> This sort of sop shows a wealth of ignorance of the DP
> process. For one thing, many death penalty attorneys are
> volunteers, so the issue of money is irrelevant.
For the most part that seems to be the case, and I know that.
Sometimes I wax passionate on this subject, so I do rant every
now and then. I usually try to qualify what I say by saying "some
abolitionists" or "some attorneys" rather than speaking in absolutes.
There is in fact one attorney, Stephen Jones (Timothy McVeigh's
attorney in the OK City bombing case) who profited from handling
the appeals for Roger Dale Stafford.
Mitchell Holman
}> Carrying on about the victims, and feeling that every post
}> that fails to mention them is proof of "callous disregard" is
}> really beside the point. There is nothing about the DP that
}> can benefit the victims in any way.
}
}Victims have said that witnessing the execution of someone who has
}caused them so much pain and rage that it helps it abate, gives them a
}sense of closure.
Victims of capital murderers are dead. There is nothing an
execution can do for them. As for the families wanting "closure"
or revenge, or whatever, their wants should not govern how
we structure our justice. Many rape victims would like to see
the defendants castrated, but we do not tailor our justice system
to suit their needs either.
}> has never brought a victim back to life, so the "what about
}> the victims" complaint is quite pointless.
}
}IMO, the victims are what it is all about. You can't have an execution
}without a murderer, and you can't have a murderer without a victim.
}The victims are an integral part of the equation, and they should
}not be forgotten. They did not ask to be victims, but those who
}made them victims certainly had a choice to refrain from doing
}so. That is just one of the differences between a dead victim
}and someone on death row, contemplating the date and time of
}his execution.
}
None of what you posted shows how killing a prisoner
will benefit a murder victim. Secondly, why do you presume
that a murder victim would even *want* their killer executed?
Among murder victims are plenty of people opposed to the
death penalty. If they would not have wanted their killer executed,
why do you?
}-------------snip
}> }fashion. They are appeals that are meaningless and empty of content,
}> }but which still cost money and for which the attorney will still get
}> }paid (so there is a two-fold interest for the attorney).
}>
}>
}> This sort of sop shows a wealth of ignorance of the DP
}> process. For one thing, many death penalty attorneys are
}> volunteers, so the issue of money is irrelevant.
}
}For the most part that seems to be the case, and I know that.
}Sometimes I wax passionate on this subject, so I do rant every
}now and then. I usually try to qualify what I say by saying "some
}abolitionists" or "some attorneys" rather than speaking in absolutes.
}There is in fact one attorney, Stephen Jones (Timothy McVeigh's
}attorney in the OK City bombing case) who profited from handling
}the appeals for Roger Dale Stafford.
}
If there is any money to be made from handling death
penalty appeals, let me know what it is. Texas is now
appointing (i.e. drafting) lawyers to represent death row
cases, after the legislature eliminated the public defender
office. Needless to say, there cannot be anyone getting
rich off this work if people have to *forced* into doing it...
Mitchell Holman
"The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe"
Rush Limbaugh, displaying his status as a world traveler, Spring '93
Charles Trew
Mitchell Holman (hol...@cyberramp.net) writes:
> Carrying on about the victims, and feeling that every post
> that fails to mention them is proof of "callous disregard" is
> really beside the point. There is nothing about the DP that
> can benefit the victims in any way. Adding to the death toll
> has never brought a victim back to life, so the "what about
> the victims" complaint is quite pointless.
Putting the killer in prison doessn't bring back the victim, either. Of course,
that's not the reason for execution or imprisonment is it?
So the "it doesn't bring back the victim argument" is pointless, isn't it?
Kensington Kidz
Stuart A. Creque (stu...@wesco.com) wrote:
: In Article<19970115124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, <jss...@aol.com>
: writes:
:
: > Here you go again. Only posting some of the info, specifically that info
: > which suits you. The fact of the matter is that we execute people who
: > kill, and do not execute people who kill blacks. This was true when we
: > had dp for rape and it is true for dp for murder. We as a society simply
: > value white life more than we value black life.
: Whites are disproportionately represented among Death Row inmates with respect
: to their rate of commission of homicide. The killers of non-whites are
: *underrepresented* on Death Row. The proper solution is to advocate more
: strongly for the death penalty for killers of non-whites, to demonstrate
: decisively that murder victims of all races are equally valued.
Affirmative action for the DP? I hardly think one could characterize
that as a "solution." The solution is to demand that we execute without
regard for race (of defendant or victim), or not at all. Since the former
isn't going to happen any time soon, I think the only ethical thing to do
is the latter.
Mitchell Holman
Not really. The thrust of the original post was that DP
opponents are showing "callous disregard" for the victims -
for whom no "regard" is going to help them anyway. It is the
notion that every post about the DP that omits the obligatory
reference to the victim is displaying "callous disregard" that
is pointless.
Mitchell Holman
"I don't like talking about myself - it's something I'm very uncomfortable with.."
Rush Limbaugh, May 30, 1996
Stuart A. Creque
I'm heartened to see that you'd support the death penalty if it were only
administered in a *color-blind* fashion. That is more feasible than you might
think, and I would be happy to work with you to craft legislation to that end.
-- Stuart Creque
David Parsons
In article <NEWTNews.853811...@mkt1.wesco.com>,
stu...@wesco.com says...
>I'm heartened to see that you'd support the death penalty if it were
>only administered in a *color-blind* fashion. That is more feasible
>than you might think, and I would be happy to work with you to craft
>legislation to that end.
I contend that it is impossible as long as people are involved in the
process. It is a fact beyond arguement that if you are a black man in
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al and you murder a white man or woman
you are many times more likely to be sentenced to death than if you are a
white man who kills a black.
The whole legal system in this country is tainted. It has to be allowed,
with strict controls, to operate in normal cases of imprisonment and
lesser penalties but where it involves taking a life it goes beyond that.
For pity's sake, the most biased observer must recognise that it is nigh
on impossible for the death penalty to be applied in a color blind
fashion.
For that reason alone, I concurr that it must be abondoned. If you can
prove otherwise, I would be absoluely staggered.
Kensington Kidz
Stuart A. Creque (stu...@wesco.com) wrote:
: In Article<5bv9hb$o...@ordeal.cts.com>, <sab...@cts.com> writes:
: > Stuart A. Creque (stu...@wesco.com) wrote:
: : Whites are disproportionately represented among Death Row inmates with
: : respect to their rate of commission of homicide. The killers of non-whites
: : are *underrepresented* on Death Row. The proper solution is to advocate
: : more strongly for the death penalty for killers of non-whites, to
: : demonstrate decisively that murder victims of all races are equally valued.
:
: > Affirmative action for the DP? I hardly think one could characterize
: > that as a "solution." The solution is to demand that we execute without
: > regard for race (of defendant or victim), or not at all. Since the former
: > isn't going to happen any time soon, I think the only ethical thing to do
: > is the latter.
: I'm heartened to see that you'd support the death penalty if it were only
: administered in a *color-blind* fashion. That is more feasible than you might
: think, and I would be happy to work with you to craft legislation to that end.
The legislation is already in place. The problem is human nature,
something we can't legislate, but something we can't ignore either.
Mike Cullinan
In Article<5c36ov$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, <big_...@mail.utexas.edu>
write:
> >I'm heartened to see that you'd support the death penalty if it were
> >only administered in a *color-blind* fashion. That is more feasible
> >than you might think, and I would be happy to work with you to craft
> >legislation to that end.
>
> I contend that it is impossible as long as people are involved in the
> process. It is a fact beyond arguement that if you are a black man in
> Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al and you murder a white man or woman
> you are many times more likely to be sentenced to death than if you are
a
> white man who kills a black.
You are probably basing your statements on victim-based statistics.
Here are a few more statistics for you:
Non-negligent Murders Committed in 1986 & 1987
Number Percent
white, non hispanic 6,585 30.0%
black 10,717 48.8%
white, hispanic 2,551 11.6%
other white ethnic 2,120 9.6%
Total 21,973
US Justice Source Book, 1986, Table 3.87, page 266
US Justice Source Book, 1987, Table 3.111, page 341
Prisoners on Death Row as of March 1, 1989
white, non hispanic 1,132 53.0%
black 871 40.8%
white, hispanic 131 6.1%
Total 2,134
Executions,1976 to March 1, 1986
white, non hispanic 59 55.7%
black 41 38.7%
white, hispanic 6 5.7%
Total 106
> The whole legal system in this country is tainted. It has to be
allowed,
> with strict controls, to operate in normal cases of imprisonment and
> lesser penalties but where it involves taking a life it goes beyond
that.
> For pity's sake, the most biased observer must recognise that it is
nigh
> on impossible for the death penalty to be applied in a color blind
> fashion.
This means of course, that you must believe that we are still an
overtly racist society that excludes blacks from the judicial
process. You must also believe that DP is handed down only by
all-white juries, and almost always against black defendants.
The fact is that many juries in capital cases are comprised of
people who are both white and black. We also have black judges
who preside over criminal trials and black prosecuting attorneys
(Christopher Darden is one famous example, who is pro-dp).
I think that your statements above may be based on some
western European stereotype of the US. I have seen this same
thing out of that French fellow who cross posts in here from
alt.nuke.the.usa.
>
> For that reason alone, I concur that it must be abandoned. If you can
> prove otherwise, I would be absolutely staggered.
>
You might concur that, but the current concurrence of public opinion
is that it must not be abandoned.
TWIFTS
On January 21, David Parsons writes:
>> It is a fact beyond arguement that if you are a black man in
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al and you murder a white man or woman
you are many times more likely to be sentenced to death than if you are a
white man who kills a black.
>>>david, you may not be aware that blacks are 8 times more likely to
commit violent crimes against whites, than whites are against blacks - an
8:1 ratio. In addition, blacks are 3 times more likely to murder whites,
as whites are to murder blacks, or a 3:1 ratio. Annual Crime Victimization
Study, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993. Also referrence Sourcebook
1994, BJS 1995. Therefore, in those circumstances of murder, where an
additional aggravating factor(violent crime) is present, blacks are 24
times more likely to murder whites than whites are to murder blacks (8:1 X
3:1 = 24:1). These are those crimes most likely to receive the dp.The
actual ratio will be even higher, because murders are included within the
violent crime category. For accuracy the murders at 3:1 should be
seperated from the other violent crimes, thereby raising the 8:1 ratio of
all violent crimes.
David continues,
>For pity's sake, the most biased observer must recognise that it is nigh
on impossible for the death penalty to be applied in a color blind
fashion.
>>Let's look at the crime most common on death row, robbery/murder. For
robbery with injury cases, blacks are 21 times likely to victimize whites
under such circumstances as whites are to victimise blacks.( Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 1977-84 data). During this time period, blacks were
twice as likely to murder whites as whites were to murder blacks, or 2:1.
Therefore, blacks were 42 times more likely to murder whites during a
robbery as whites were to murder blacks(21:1 X 2:1 = 42:1). The actual
ratio is, again, probably even higher, because murders are included in
robbery with injury, therefore if they were properly seperated, the 21:1
ratio would grow, revealing higher ratios when combing robbery and murder.
The data set is stopped at 1984 because that is the last year relevant to
the execution statistics.
>>Furthermore, since 1976, whites represent 55% of those executed and
blacks 38%(Capital Punishment 1995, BJS 1996). Yet, blacks have committed
47% of murders and whites 38%(special run of 1980-84 Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 1/14/97). The 1984 date has been explained above. All
percentages are for non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites. 1980 is
the earliest year that the Bureau of Justice Statistics seperates race and
ethnicity. The ideal time frames would be from 1973-1984, because those
are the relevent years for those executed from 1976-1995. From 1990-94,
blacks have committed 54% of all murders, whites 34%.
>> indeed, since 1929 white murderers have been more likely to be executed
than black murdereres(Gary Kleck, "Racial Discrimination in Criminal
Sentencing: A Critical Evaluation of the Evidence with Additional Evidence
on the Death Penalty", American Sociological Review, 12/81. Obviously,
this trend continues today.
>>whites are executed 15 months quicker than blacks. (BJS 1996, Capital
Punishment 1995).
>>>David, evidently, both you and Creque are unaware of the reasons why
white victim murders dominate death row. You improperly jump to the
conclusion that racism must be involved. Hardly. As you might be aware,
murders and capital murders are completely different categories. Capital
murders are, overwhelmingly, murders combines with special circumstances,
most commonly robberies and rapes. Let's look at the circumstances most
common in capital crimes and lok at the ratio of white to black victims in
those cases.
>>>cicumstances and ratio of white to black victims in those circumstances
1) all violent crimes 5:1
2) robbery 4:1
3) rape/sexual assault 5:1
4) all property crimes 7:1
5) police victim murders 7:1
6) multiple/swerial murders 7:1
7) stranger murders 6:1
>>>In additon, the level of aggravation of the crime, the criminal
background of the perpetrator are absolutely crucial in capital cases.
Indeed, when those two items are evaluated, the effect of race completely
evaporates. ("Execution By Quota", The Public Interest, Summer, 1994. Many
additional studies concur). But, even without considerations of
aggravation and prior record, the high number of white victims in capital
case is easily predictable, because whites are, overwhelmingly, the
dominate victim group for all violent and property crimes, not surprising,
considering whites make up 74% of the population, blacks 12%.
>For that reason alone, I concurr that it must be abandoned. If you can
prove otherwise, I would be absoluely staggered.
>>>David, if you aren't staggerring, have a few more drinks, you should
be. Another anti-death penalty fraud bites the dust.
TWIFTS
TWIFTS
Kensinton Kid wrote:
.> The solution is to demand that we execute without
regard for race (of defendant or victim), or not at all. Since the former
isn't going to happen any time soon, I think the only ethical thing to do
is the latter.
>>there is no evidence that we do execute with regard to race, with the
exception that whites murderers have been more likely to have been
executed than black murderers since 1929.
twifts
JSSExpo
Mike Cullinan writes:
>This means of course, that you must believe that we are still an
>overtly racist society that excludes blacks from the judicial
>process. You must also believe that DP is handed down only by
>all-white juries, and almost always against black defendants.
>The fact is that many juries in capital cases are comprised of
>people who are both white and black. We also have black judges
>who preside over criminal trials and black prosecuting attorneys
>(Christopher Darden is one famous example, who is pro-dp).
There you go again, assuming all sorts of stuff without merit. Because
someone posts that the evidence shows the dp is administered in a racially
biased way, you assume that they mean like in your post above. The racial
bias shows itself in the race of the victim. You stated that 48% of
murders have black victims, yet, if you were to show the numbers of people
given the dp for killing black people, it comes to less than 20%. We kill
people in this country for killing white people. That is why it is
biased.
I do not know where you live in this country, but I now live in the south
and let me tell you, racism in overt forms is alive and well. Blacks are
still being hindered in their ability to utilize the judicial system.
Economic segregation is very apparent in most communities. I grew up in
LA and I was aware of racism, but it wasn't until I moved to the south
that I became aware of just how much work this country has left to do on
this issue. The recent riots in St. Petersburg would not have happened if
the police were not routinely harrassing members of the community based on
skin color alone. In my own local community, three of our county
commissioners have been censured by their party for electing a black women
to the vice chair position on the commission. (The party did not say it in
those terms, of course, they claim it is because they voted for a member
of the other party. These commission members and others routinely vote
out of party and there has never been an outcry, this time there is and it
is probably due to the skin color of the person nominated.)
Americans need to recognize that we still have a problem with race and
that we still have work to do. The bigotry in the country does effect the
outcome of cases and as someone else pointed out in this thread, we can
accept its effects are mitigated by the need for society to protect
itself, but the dp oversteps the limits of acceptability.
David Parsons
In article <NEWTNews.8541661...@mgcullin.connect.net>,
mgcu...@connect.net says...
>I think that your statements above may be based on some
>western European stereotype of the US. I have seen this same
>thing out of that French fellow who cross posts in here from
>alt.nuke.the.usa.
I live in the United States and I am studying a postgraduate course in
Criminal and Human Rights law. I think that I can speak from more factual
basis than a western European Stereotype of the US.
Try reading the Baldus study, the dissent in McCleskey and the
publications on the subject by the NAACP to get some further info.
David Parsons
In article <19970126073...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
twi...@aol.com says...
>David, if you aren't staggerring, have a few more drinks, you should
>be. Another anti-death penalty fraud bites the dust.
Ever heard of the phrase, 'there are lies, damned lies and statistics' ?
You can string together enough figure to prove any point but you cannot
change the hearts and minds of ignorant and prejudiced people.
john bales
A real deterant would to match the death penalty with the crime ie;
If you kill with a firearm, you will be shot; if you beat a person to
death you will be beaten to death etc:
TWIFTS
In article <19970126073...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Daid Parsons responds, sort of:
twi...@aol.com says...
>David, if you aren't staggerring, have a few more drinks, you should
>be. Another anti-death penalty fraud bites the dust.
>>Ever heard of the phrase, 'there are lies, damned lies and statistics' ?
Yes, David, I've heard of it. I have also heard of children who pout when
they don't get what they want.
>>You can string together enough figure to prove any point but you cannot
change the hearts and minds of ignorant and prejudiced people.
David, you challenged the newsgroup to prove otherwise. Remember? Well,
challenge accepted and your arguement fails. And what do you do. You act
like a child. Good show! We are all prood of you. David, I don't expect to
change the hearts and minds of ignorant, predjudiced people such as
yourself. Your immature response is quite revealing to the newsgroup.
twifts
TWIFTS
David Parsons writes:
David, I think you ought to read Prof. Joseph Katz's destruction of the
Baldus study in the McCleskey case. Baldus didn't even have McCleskey's
murder in the right category of aggravation! And that is only one of many
incredible errors and oversights by Baldus, et al. All Federal courts
ruled against McCleskey. Federal Judge Owen Forester, who did the most
extensive review of the Baldus data, found that "the best models which
(McCleskey advocate) Baldus was able to devise...produce no statistically
significant evidence that race(of the defendant or the victim) plays a
part in either (the prosecution's or the jury's capital decisions)" (580
Federal Supplement 338, pg. 368, 2/1/94)
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 9-3 vote, stated "Viewed broadly,
it would seem that the statistical evidence presented here, assuming its
validity, confirms rather than condemns (the Georgia death penalty)
system".
Happy reading, David. You may also wish to review Prof. Katz's "Statement
to the Senate Subcommittee on the Judiciary Concerning the Relationship
Between Race and the Death Penalty". 10/2/89.
twifts
David Parsons
In article <19970128063...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
twi...@aol.com says...
>Happy reading, David. You may also wish to review Prof. Katz's
>"Statement to the Senate Subcommittee on the Judiciary Concerning the
>Relationship Between Race and the Death Penalty". 10/2/89.
I certainly will, statto, as part of my studies of death penalty
jurisprudence. I fear they will simply prove the maxim that I already
know o be true:
If you laid all the expert opinions end to end, they still wouldn't reach
a conclusion.
In other words, there are as many opinions on the subject as there are
people to hold opinions.
David Parsons
In article <32ECC9...@indyweb.net>, joh...@indyweb.net says...
>
>A real deterant would to match the death penalty with the crime ie;
>If you kill with a firearm, you will be shot; if you beat a person to
>death you will be beaten to death etc:
Oh really. That is just marvellous. So the murder who rapes, sodomizes,
tortures and then horribly murders his victim should have that visited
upon him in the name of society then ? Even the more rabid of our posters
here don't normally go to those lengths.
Perhaps we could take your arguement to it's logical conclusion. Burglars
should have their houses burgled - not imprisoned. Someone who cut off
another person's arm with a chainsaw should have his own improtpu
amputation rather than imprisonment.
Hello, is anyone home ? I think it should be pointed out that we live in
the civilsed west and on the cusp of the 21st century, not in Iran or in
the missle ages.
Don Kool
> >David, if you aren't staggerring, have a few more drinks, you should
> >be. Another anti-death penalty fraud bites the dust.
> Ever heard of the phrase, 'there are lies, damned lies and statistics' ?
Yes, a quote from the great American author Mark Twain.
> You can string together enough figure to prove any point but you cannot
> change the hearts and minds of ignorant and prejudiced people.
Of that you are proof positive.
Hope this helps,
Don
****************** Get your stinking paws off me,
* Don McDonald * You damned, dirty ape !
* Baltimore, MD * ---- Charlton Heston
****************** "Planet of the Apes"
http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
David Parsons
In article <19970128065...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
statto (twi...@aol.com) says...
>Yes, David, I've heard of it. I have also heard of children who pout
when they don't get what they want.
Now, now my dear statto. Don't get touchy because I make a nasty comment
about your beloved figures.
>David, you challenged the newsgroup to prove otherwise. Remember? Well,
>challenge accepted and your arguement fails. And what do you do. You act
>like a child. Good show! We are all prood of you. David, I don't expect
>to change the hearts and minds of ignorant, predjudiced people such as
>yourself. Your immature response is quite revealing to the newsgroup.
Your challenge proves nothing but your rather clever and obviously
accomplished mastery of statistics. You can string together any old bunch
of figure to prove any point you wish. The day the world is to end has
even been mathematically calculated (dozens of times and we're all still
here).
The plain and simple truth is, whenyou get out into the wilds of
mississippi and the deep south and into areas where the old racism still
holds, it is impossible for a colored person to receive a fair trial for
killing a white. I will leave it to you to post some meaningless
statistics to 'prove' me wrong.
TWIFTS
David Pasons presents :
>The plain and simple truth is, whenyou get out into the wilds of
mississippi and the deep south and into areas where the old racism still
holds, it is impossible for a colored person to receive a fair trial for
killing a white. I will leave it to you to post some meaningless
statistics to 'prove' me wrong.
Since the statistics prove you wrong, and since you already know it, I
won't post them. As you know, the statistics, if the database is large
enough, often can show important trends. You made a false statement that
the death penalty was racist. The statistical data indicates that you are
wrong. You would have us accept your feelings and opinions, which have
nothing but your ignorance and resulting predjudice to support them. In
other words, you have become one of those posters you are often so quick
to criticise. Nice job.
twifts
Don Kool
Actually, young Davy, Iran is also "on the cusp of the 21st century"
and we've been living "in the missle ages" for about half a century now.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Mark F. Joyce
In article <19970128065...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
twi...@aol.com (TWIFTS) wrote:
>In article <19970126073...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>Daid Parsons responds, sort of:
>
>
>>David, if you aren't staggerring, have a few more drinks, you should
>>be. Another anti-death penalty fraud bites the dust.
>
>>>Ever heard of the phrase, 'there are lies, damned lies and statistics' ?
>
>they don't get what they want.
>
>change the hearts and minds of ignorant and prejudiced people.
>
>David, you challenged the newsgroup to prove otherwise. Remember? Well,
>challenge accepted and your arguement fails. And what do you do. You act
>like a child. Good show! We are all prood of you. David, I don't expect to
>change the hearts and minds of ignorant, predjudiced people such as
>yourself. Your immature response is quite revealing to the newsgroup.
>
I read this whole exchange after reading Dave's threat to leave the NG if the
level of discourse didn't improve a bit. My first reaction to his threat was
along the line of "Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out". But,
I have to admit, I held my tongue just a little in a couple of subsequent
posts. Now, after reading the discussion between Dave and Twifts, I see that
he was just smarting from the "ass-whuppin'" he received at the hands of
Twifts and was whining publicly about it (like some disciplined child). Can't
even act like a man and acknowledge it, eh Dave?
David Parsons
In article <32EFC4...@clark.net>, old...@clark.net says...
>> Hello, is anyone home ? I think it should be pointed out that we live
>>in the civilsed west and on the cusp of the 21st century, not in Iran
>>or in the missle ages.
>
> Actually, young Davy, Iran is also "on the cusp of the 21st
>century" and we've been living "in the missle ages" for about half a
>century now.
Iran and the 'middle' ages are in the alternative, Donald. Because in
Iran they have much the same attitudes to punishment that the rest of the
world had in the middle ages. Not such a hard concept to grasp, is it ?
Also, nice typo you spotted. I assume you will no longer criticise others
who occasionally mention spelling mistakes in their posts. You wouldn't
want to appear a hypocrite now, would you ?
Oh sorry, too late on that one.
David Parsons
In article <5cohbn$9...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, mf...@cornell.edu
says...
>I read this whole exchange after reading Dave's threat to leave the NG
>if the level of discourse didn't improve a bit. My first reaction to his
>threat was along the line of "Don't let the door hit you on the ass on
>the way out". But, I have to admit, I held my tongue just a little in a
>couple of subsequent posts.
Yeah, that would work, wouldn't it. Drive all the opposition away and you
can all get along nicely. Well, the discussion has improved a little and
I've decided to stay a while longer.
>Now, after reading the discussion between Dave and Twifts, I see that he
>was just smarting from the "ass-whuppin'" he received at the hands of
>Twifts and was whining publicly about it (like some disciplined child).
>Can't even act like a man and acknowledge it, eh Dave?
If someone proves me wrong with incontrovertible and tested evidence then
I will admit it and publicly acknowledge the fact. However, a group of
mismatched figures prove nothing more than a clever statistician has been
to work.
Here, publicly, I applaud the first rate maneuverings of Twifts who is
very obviously a gifted statistician. Were I to have the time to
thoroughly corroborate his theory then I might accept it.
However, the use of statistics to support a viewpoint is very subjective
and most suspect. There are as many studies showing racial discrimination
as there are showing, like Twift's, that there is none. Half of them, at
least, must be quite wrong. Therefore, courts do not rely wholly on
statistics, and they do not. I'm sorry, I remain unconvinced.
I am, however, open to persuasion. Fire away with alternative theories.
There is a lot of empirical and anecdotal evidence, as well as reported
cases, that tend to show that white people are more inclined to sentence
a black person to death for the murder of a white than they are when a
white person murders a black. Especially in the Southern US.
Don Kool
Mark F. Joyce wrote:
>
> In article <19970128065...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> twi...@aol.com (TWIFTS) wrote:
> >In article <19970126073...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> >Daid Parsons responds, sort of:
> >
> >twi...@aol.com says...
> >
> >>David, if you aren't staggerring, have a few more drinks, you should
> >>be. Another anti-death penalty fraud bites the dust.
> >
> >>>Ever heard of the phrase, 'there are lies, damned lies and statistics' ?
> >
> >Yes, David, I've heard of it. I have also heard of children who pout when
> >they don't get what they want.
> >
> >>>You can string together enough figure to prove any point but you cannot
> >change the hearts and minds of ignorant and prejudiced people.
> >
> >David, you challenged the newsgroup to prove otherwise. Remember? Well,
> >challenge accepted and your arguement fails. And what do you do. You act
> >like a child. Good show! We are all prood of you. David, I don't expect to
> >change the hearts and minds of ignorant, predjudiced people such as
> >yourself. Your immature response is quite revealing to the newsgroup.
> >
> >twifts
>
> level of discourse didn't improve a bit. My first reaction to his threat was
> along the line of "Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out". But,
> I have to admit, I held my tongue just a little in a couple of subsequent
> he was just smarting from the "ass-whuppin'" he received at the hands of
> Twifts and was whining publicly about it (like some disciplined child). Can't
> even act like a man and acknowledge it, eh Dave?
You have to remember that he is ostensibly a Brit after all.
They've never been big on taking personal responsibility.
Hope this helps,
Don Kool
Davy Parsons wrote:
> Don Kool, old...@clark.net says...
> >> Hello, is anyone home ? I think it should be pointed out that we live
> >>in the civilsed west and on the cusp of the 21st century, not in Iran
> >>or in the missle ages.
> > Actually, young Davy, Iran is also "on the cusp of the 21st
> >century" and we've been living "in the missle ages" for about half a
> >century now.
> Iran and the 'middle' ages are in the alternative, Donald. Because in
> Iran they have much the same attitudes to punishment that the rest of the
> world had in the middle ages. Not such a hard concept to grasp, is it ?
Not exactly what you posted now was it, Davy?
> Also, nice typo you spotted. I assume you will no longer criticise others
> who occasionally mention spelling mistakes in their posts. You wouldn't
> want to appear a hypocrite now, would you ?
To what "typo" are you referring?
David Parsons
In article <32F28A...@clark.net>, old...@clark.net says...
>> Iran and the 'middle' ages are in the alternative, Donald. Because in
>> Iran they have much the same attitudes to punishment that the rest of
>> the
>> world had in the middle ages. Not such a hard concept to grasp, is it
?
>
> Not exactly what you posted now was it, Davy?
In a word, yes. It would pay you to actually read what I write sometimes.
Who knows, you might learn something.
>> Also, nice typo you spotted. I assume you will no longer criticise
>>others who occasionally mention spelling mistakes in their posts. You
>>wouldn't want to appear a hypocrite now, would you ?
>
> To what "typo" are you referring?
>
You know full well. I typed missle ages instead of middle ages. You can
lie and you can bluster, but the newsgroup knows you as a hypocrite, a
bigot and a humbug.
Charley994
You are right and that is why you have to jjust get yourself a copy of
Mumia-Abu-Jamals new book: "Death Blossoms; Reflections from a
Prisoner of Conscience" with a foreword by Dr. Professor Cornel West
from Harvard University.
The message in this book is just awsome. It is dynamite. the media is so
afraid of it that they are doing all they can so that you will not read
it.
They are doing the same to this book as they did to Rushby's book "The
Satanic Verses." So see for yourself what the media does not want you
to read.
The book is being published by The Plough Publishing House. It costs
you $13.00. You can get it by just phoning l-800-521-8011. So do it
today.
Charles.
Mitchell Holman
}The message in this book is just awsome. It is dynamite. the media is so
}afraid of it that they are doing all they can so that you will not read it.
}They are doing the same to this book as they did to Rushby's book "The
}Satanic Verses." So see for yourself what the media does not want you
}to read.
Say what? The "media" not only played up the controversy over
Rushdie's book, but bookstores scrambled to put it in their front
windows as fast as they could. It stayed in hardcover for over
two years (the benchmark of how well publishers think a book
will sell), and I forget how many literary awards Rushie has since
been, but more than a few.
Indeed: Tell us more about this book that is so awesome that
"the media" doesn't want you to read, and the booksellers that
are passing up a chance to make profit on it. (*That* would be a
first....)
Mitchell Holman
"The book, `The Satanic Verses' is obviously not only offensive
but I would think most of us would say, in bad taste."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle commenting on the book which caused
Salman Rushdie to be placed under a death sentence.
The Vice-President had not read the book. 3/16/89
Dan Cutrer
In article <5d25ov$f0m$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
hol...@cyberramp.net says...
>}They are doing the same to this book as they did to Rushby's book "The
>}Satanic Verses." So see for yourself what the media does not want you
>}to read.
> Say what? The "media" not only played up the controversy over
> Rushdie's book, but bookstores scrambled to put it in their front
> windows as fast as they could. It stayed in hardcover for over
> two years (the benchmark of how well publishers think a book
> will sell), and I forget how many literary awards Rushie has since
> been, but more than a few.
I saw an advance copy of Rushdie's new book in Amsterdam the other day:
they think it may touch off the same kind of furor in a different part of the world
... "Buddah, You Big Fat Pig!"
Don Kool
Davy Parsons wrote:
> Don Kool, old...@clark.net says...
> >> Iran and the 'middle' ages are in the alternative, Donald. Because in
> >> Iran they have much the same attitudes to punishment that the rest of
> >> the
> >> world had in the middle ages. Not such a hard concept to grasp, is it?
> > Not exactly what you posted now was it, Davy?
> In a word, yes. It would pay you to actually read what I write sometimes.
> Who knows, you might learn something.
As I pointed out, your original posting said nothing of the
"middle" ages. It referred to the "missle ages".
> >> Also, nice typo you spotted. I assume you will no longer criticise
> >>others who occasionally mention spelling mistakes in their posts. You
> >>wouldn't want to appear a hypocrite now, would you ?
> > To what "typo" are you referring?
> You know full well. I typed missle ages instead of middle ages. You can
> lie and you can bluster, but the newsgroup knows you as a hypocrite, a
> bigot and a humbug.
While it is typical of the anti Death Penalty cabal to deny
their own postings, it is not surprising given what they post. If
you mean "middle", say "middle". Despite the new-age mysticism and
mind reading that the anti Death Penalty cabal so relys on, the rest
of us aren't blessed with the ability to read minds. We can only go
by what is written.
Dan Cutrer
In article <19970202123...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
charl...@aol.com says...
>You are right and that is why you have to jjust get yourself a copy of
>Mumia-Abu-Jamals new book:
>afraid of it that they are doing all they can so that you will not read
>it.
Sorry. I made it a policy in my Younger Years to never read anything written
by a Murdering Taxi Driver. Especially one named Wesley Cook.
Doubt I've missed much, holding true to that.
Charley994
If you really want to know the truth about the Death Penalty and the
Judicial
System in the United States you should read Mumia Abu-Jamals new book
which the American Media is banning. They dont want you to read it.
the book is called: Mumia Death Blossoms; Reflections from a Prisoner of
Conscience with forword by Professor Dr. Cornel West of Harvard
University.
It is being published by the Plough Publishing House and ytou can obtain
your copy by just phoning l-800-521-8011. The book only costs you $13.00.
It is worth every penny of it.
Henry Louis Gates Jr. from Harvard University calls it a brilliant and
lucid
meditation
Wole Soyinka Nobel Laureate says: "I can only urge the the message of this
potential victim be listened to with great urgency, and with the fullest
commitment to justice.
On a Move
Charles
Mitchell Holman
}
} As I pointed out, your original posting said nothing of the
}"middle" ages. It referred to the "missle ages".
}
}> >> Also, nice typo you spotted. I assume you will no longer criticise
}> >>others who occasionally mention spelling mistakes in their posts. You
}> >>wouldn't want to appear a hypocrite now, would you ?
}
}> > To what "typo" are you referring?
}
}> You know full well. I typed missle ages instead of middle ages. You can
}> lie and you can bluster, but the newsgroup knows you as a hypocrite, a
}> bigot and a humbug.
}
} While it is typical of the anti Death Penalty cabal to deny
}their own postings, it is not surprising given what they post. If
}you mean "middle", say "middle". Despite the new-age mysticism and
}mind reading that the anti Death Penalty cabal so relys on, the rest
}of us aren't blessed with the ability to read minds. We can only go
}by what is written.
Odd that Don, whose posts have made reference to
"Charleton" Heston and Led "Zepplin" should complain
about typos and spelling errors........
Mitchell Holman
"Sam, had a great time this weekend but the golf was lousey ."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle in a handwritten note written to
Sam Snead in the summer of 1991.
(Herald-Times, Bloomington, IN, July 15, 1992)
James Wyman
On 28 Jan 1997 06:32:30 GMT, twi...@aol.com (TWIFTS) wrote:
>David, I think you ought to read Prof. Joseph Katz's destruction of the
>Baldus study in the McCleskey case. Baldus didn't even have McCleskey's
>murder in the right category of aggravation! And that is only one of many
>incredible errors and oversights by Baldus, et al. All Federal courts
>ruled against McCleskey. Federal Judge Owen Forester, who did the most
>extensive review of the Baldus data, found that "the best models which
>(McCleskey advocate) Baldus was able to devise...produce no statistically
>significant evidence that race(of the defendant or the victim) plays a
>part in either (the prosecution's or the jury's capital decisions)" (580
>Federal Supplement 338, pg. 368, 2/1/94)
>The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 9-3 vote, stated "Viewed broadly,
>it would seem that the statistical evidence presented here, assuming its
>validity, confirms rather than condemns (the Georgia death penalty)
>system".
>
>Happy reading, David. You may also wish to review Prof. Katz's "Statement
>to the Senate Subcommittee on the Judiciary Concerning the Relationship
>Between Race and the Death Penalty". 10/2/89.
>
>twifts
Here are a few (perhaps inconvenient) facts regarding the ostensible
"destruction" of the Baldus study. Joseph Katz, a professor of
statistics at the University of Georgia, was the statistician for the
State in the McCleskey case. Prosecution teams do whatever it takes
(legally, at least most of the time) to convict the accused; so of
course they will do what they can to minimize evidence favorable to
the accused. Katz, as a hired gun for the State, did just that. I
would not, however, characterize David Baldus as a hired gun for the
accused. He teaches criminal law, among other things, at the
University of Iowa School of Law. His work is highly respected and,
years after he completed the most famous of his studies, it continues
to be cited regularly by scholars across the country. A recent search
of the law journal database on WESTLAW reveals 424 different articles
citing Baldus; in contrast, there are only two articles with passing
references to Katz. Baldus's study was not done at the behest of
counsel for McCleskey. Katz's "work," insofar as statistics and the
law is concerned, is limited to being a shill for the State of
Georgia. In addition to being the State's expert in the McCleskey
case, he was the State's expert in Miller v. Johnson, 115 S. Ct. 2475
(1995), in which several Georgia residents challenged Georgia's
minority-majority voting districts. My point is that if anyone is to
be accused of trying to make numbers jump through hoops, it should be
Katz, not Baldus.
As to Owen Forrester, he is a U.S. District Court judge appointed to
the bench by President Reagan in1981. Although for many people that
statement speaks for itself, Forrester's prolonged musings on the
Baldus study (his clerk(s) must have had a hell of a time) have been
by and large dismissed. Moreover, they were certainly not "the most
extensive review of the Baldus data." As Harvard Law School Professor
Randall Kennedy (who is a visiting Simon Chair professor at my law
school this semester, and with whom I am taking a seminar), wrote in
an article several years back:
There is much, however, that indicates that the district court was
clearly erroneous. First, the methodology of the Baldus study received
high praise from many of the most distinguished researchers who have
investigated the application of statistics to legal problems.
Professor Richard Berk, a member of the National Academy of Sciences'
Committee on Sentencing Research, testified that the Baldus study has
"very high credibility" and "is far and away the most complete and
thorough analysis of sentencing that [has] ever been done." Similarly,
several leading scholars in the field have collectively affirmed that
the Baldus investigations "are among the best empirical studies on
criminal sentencing ever conducted." Second, the Baldus study is
consistent with conclusions reached by a solid body of prior research.
Moreover, specialists in applied statistics have raised disturbing
questions regarding the basic competence of Judge Forrester's
analysis. But even beyond the technical deficiencies noted by experts,
Judge Forrester displayed a glaringly obvious hostility in his
evaluation of the Baldus study--a hostility detectable simply by the
application of common sense. Nothing better illustrates this point
than Judge Forrester's conclusion that the data base of the Baldus
study was irredeemably flawed because the questionnaires used to
collect information "could not capture every nuance of every case."
First, as Judge Johnson noted in dissent at the court of appeals,
Judge Forrester neglected to specify the significance of the omissions
he deemed so important. Second, and more fundamentally, Judge
Forrester's objection is premised upon a wildly perfectionist standard
that is impossible to satisfy. "By insisting on a standard of
'absolute knowledge' about every single case, [Judge Forrester]
implicitly rejected the value of all applied statistical analysis."
Randall Kennedy, McCleskey v. Kemp: Race, Capital Punishment, and the
Supreme Court, 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1388, 1398-1400 (1988).
Finally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit assumed
for the sake of argument that the Baldus study was valid. Contrary to
what the posting to which I am responding implied, only the trial
court discussed (erroneously) the validity of the Baldus study. What
was key for the court of appeals, however, was that both the
twenty-percent statistical disparity in the mid-range cases of
aggravation (which comprise the majority of all DP cases) and the
six-percent disparity on average were insufficient to establish
discriminatory purpose. This holding was affirmed by a sharply divided
Supreme Court. The Court refused to apply the reasoning underlying its
Title VII employment discrimination and jury venire line of cases to
its death penalty jurisprudence. In the employment discrimination and
jury venire cases, proof of a statistical disparity, or disparate
impact, is sufficient to establish a presumption of discriminatory
intent. However, the McCleskey Court said that a capital defendant
would have to show that a state's death penalty statute was enacted
"*because of* [as opposed to in spite of] an anticipated racially
discriminatory effect." 481 U.S. 279, 298 (1987). The Court also went
on to state that its holding was based in part upon its fear of
similar challenges to other types of criminal penalties (in other
words, a fear, as Justice Brennan pointed out in dissent, of "too much
justice").
The Baldus study is unquestionably valid. The death penalty, at least
as applied in Georgia, does indeed discriminate against black
defendants. This has nothing to do with statistics that show
African-Americans commit more crime than the population on the whole.
What this aspect (and there are many others) of the Baldus study shows
is simply that if McCleskey's victim had been black, the jury more
likely than not would have only sentenced him to life in prison.
Because his victim was white, the jury was more likely than not to
sentence him to death; and it did.
For those of you out there who support capital punishment and rail
against its opponents so vehemently, routinely invoking "justice" as
your rallying cry, I ask you this: Where is the justice for the black
victims of murder here? Why doesn't the State ensure that blacks are
protected from crime on the same terms as it protects whites? Because
the race of a murder victim has been shown to be an accurate predictor
of whether the murderer will be sentenced to death (and for other
reasons that I will not go into here), the death penalty is simply not
adminstered fairly (or with justice for all, if you will). Thus, its
application should be halted until it can be administered fairly.
Which will be never.
lord...@aol.com
In article <5bm3h7$i...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, big_...@mail.utexas.edu
(David Parsons) writes:
>Or, in the alternative, recognise that human beings sentence murderers
>and cannot be expected to put aside their innate prejudices in that
>manner. In Georgia, the home of the celebrated McCleskey case, the
>problem was not the lack of advocacy of the death penalty but the
>charging policies of the politically sensitive DAs and the habits of the
>white trash juror pool.
>
>Stop tinkering and realise that the death penalty can never be fairly
>imposed.
Of course, if the death penalty were abolished, then nearly every murderer
would receive an unjustly mild sentence and, in particular, some really
evil, vicious murderers would benefit from the enormous miscarriage of
justice in meting out to them mere incarceration-- ludicrously mild in
comparison with the enormity of their crimes. Thus, we would move from a
system which is often "unfair" to a system which was totally unfair it its
benevolent treatment of murderers.
lord...@aol.com
In article <5btjbm$abb$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, hol...@cyberramp.net
(Mitchell Holman), in a dialog with Mike Cullinan, writes:
> Victims of capital murderers are dead. There is nothing an
> execution can do for them. As for the families wanting "closure"
> or revenge, or whatever, their wants should not govern how
> we structure our justice. Many rape victims would like to see
> the defendants castrated, but we do not tailor our justice system
> to suit their needs either.
Cullinan
>}IMO, the victims are what it is all about. You can't have an execution
>}without a murderer, and you can't have a murderer without a victim.
>}The victims are an integral part of the equation, and they should
>}not be forgotten. They did not ask to be victims, but those who
>}made them victims certainly had a choice to refrain from doing
>}so. That is just one of the differences between a dead victim
>}and someone on death row, contemplating the date and time of
>}his execution.
Holman
> None of what you posted shows how killing a prisoner
> will benefit a murder victim. Secondly, why do you presume
> that a murder victim would even *want* their killer executed?
> Among murder victims are plenty of people opposed to the
> death penalty. If they would not have wanted their killer executed,
> why do you?
You are forgetting the other "victim" of a murder-- the state. Murder is
a crime against the state. Note that not even deathbed forgiveness by the
victim negates the crime of murder or exonerates the murderer. While the
immediate individual victim is dead, the state lives on and, when adequate
justice is meted out to the criminal, society receives the value for which
it invests so heavily in a criminal justice system.
Lachlan McGilchrist
James Wyman wrote:
>
>For those of you out there who support capital punishment and
>rail against its opponents so vehemently, routinely invoking
>"justice" as your rallying cry, I ask you this: Where is the
>justice for the black victims of murder here? Why doesn't the
>State ensure that blacks are protected from crime on the same
>terms as it protects whites?
I'm heartened to see that you at least are honest enough to admit that
the death penalty represents justice for victims, and that it protects
communities from crime.
>Because the race of a murder victim has been shown to be an
>accurate predictor of whether the murderer will be sentenced to
>death (and for other reasons that I will not go into here), the
>death penalty is simply not adminstered fairly (or with justice
>for all, if you will).
I agree with you so far. But I'm actually surprised to see one whose
opposes the death penalty declaring it "discriminatory" because it is not
imposed upon killers of members of a certain race. If, as many DP
opponents claim, the DP serves no purpose which LWOP doesn't serve, and
is not even of any benefit to the victims or their survivors, then what
difference does it make if there's any disparity in its application? In
other words, if LWOP is just as effective (i.e., qualitatively equal),
then any discrimination in the application of either over the other
should be harmless to the victims and their survivors. It seems to me
that the Baldus study implicitly validates the DP as a superior
punishment.
>Thus, its application should be halted until it can be
>administered fairly. Which will be never.
Well, I don't think *anything* in our justice system is administered
completely fairly. No one claims our system is perfect. If the DP is
desirable, we should strive to improve it. If it is not desirable, I
don't see how a racial disparity with respect to those in whose behalf it
is imposed could make any difference.
LMcG
Mitchell Holman
}I'm heartened to see that you at least are honest enough to admit that
}the death penalty represents justice for victims, and that it protects
}communities from crime.
}
If the DP "protects communities from crime", why do states
that execute continue to have more crime than those that do
not?
Mitchell Holman
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962
Charles Trew
Mitchell Holman (hol...@cyberramp.net) writes:
> }I'm heartened to see that you at least are honest enough to admit that
> }the death penalty represents justice for victims, and that it protects
> }communities from crime.
> If the DP "protects communities from crime", why do states
> that execute continue to have more crime than those that do
> not?
Because there are many other factors besides the death penalty.
The death penalty can be promoted as a protection device just as a
military "pre-emptive strike" can be looked at as a protective or
defensive policy.
Mitchell Holman
At least military strikes have a history of "protection" at least
*some* of the time. The DP, on the other hand........
Mitchell Holman
"The Bill of Rights is absolutely and unequivocally numbered in order of importance".
Don "Kool" McDonald, April 9, 1995
Randy
Mitchell Holman <hol...@cyberramp.net> wrote in article
<5dcl9n$pl7$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
> }the death penalty represents justice for victims, and that it protects
> }communities from crime.
> }
>
> If the DP "protects communities from crime", why do states
> that execute continue to have more crime than those that do
> not?
>
Maybe its the same reason that states that don't execute,
have a murder rate also, in some cases as high as those
states that do!!
--Randy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Pro Death Penalty Page
ranl...@epix.net - http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8169/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Randy
Randy <ranl...@epix.net> wrote in article
<01bc1472$36a8f140$2a42e0c7@ranlerch>...
> Mitchell Holman <hol...@cyberramp.net> wrote in article
> <5dcl9n$pl7$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
> > In article <32F8D1...@gty.com>, Lachlan McGilchrist
<lmg...@gty.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > }I'm heartened to see that you at least are honest enough to admit that
> > }the death penalty represents justice for victims, and that it protects
> > }communities from crime.
> > }
> >
> > If the DP "protects communities from crime", why do states
> > that execute continue to have more crime than those that do
> > not?
> >
>
> Maybe its the same reason that states that don't execute,
> have a murder rate also, in some cases as high as those
> states that do!!
I need to rephrase this a little bit, to if LWOP was such a
wonderful punishment, why do the states that have LWOP
have a murder rate at all?
Are we forgetting the other miscellaneous things like, the weather,
and other things that also attribute to the increase and decrease
of the murder rates? I seem to remember a great decrease in the
murder rate last winter, when we had 30 some inches of snow on
the ground in the northeastern part of the USA.....
Lachlan McGilchrist
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> In article <5dculp$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charles Trew) wrote:
> }
> }Mitchell Holman (hol...@cyberramp.net) writes:
> }
> }
> }> }the death penalty represents justice for victims, and that it protects
> }> }communities from crime.
> }
> }
> }
> }> If the DP "protects communities from crime", why do states
> }> that execute continue to have more crime than those that do
> }> not?
> }
> }
> } The death penalty can be promoted as a protection device just as a
> }military "pre-emptive strike" can be looked at as a protective or
> }defensive policy.
>
> At least military strikes have a history of "protection" at least
> *some* of the time. The DP, on the other hand........
>
I suppose in my original post I should have said *believe* rather than
*admit*. Whether the DP actually protects communities from crime is a
matter for debate, not a proven fact.
But if you believe that the DP does *not* protect communities from crime,
you re-enforce the point I was making before: The racial disparity found
by the Baldus study would be discrimination *only* if the DP has benefits
for victims and their communities which are superior to LWOP. So if the
DP does not protect communities from crime, the fact that there is a
racial disparity with regard to those in whose behalf it is imposed
becomes irrelevant.
Charles Trew
Mitchell Holman (hol...@cyberramp.net) writes:
> } Because there are many other factors besides the death penalty.
> } The death penalty can be promoted as a protection device just as a
> }military "pre-emptive strike" can be looked at as a protective or
> }defensive policy.
> At least military strikes have a history of "protection" at least
> *some* of the time. The DP, on the other hand........
I've already cited plenty of cases where if we had pre-emptively
executed murderers, they could not have killed again.
Two men executed during the last Arkansas triple are the most recent
examples. They were in prison for murder when they broke out and went on a
multi-state killing spree.
JSSExpo
: Lachlan McGilchrist <lmg...@gty.com>writes:
> If, as many DP
>opponents claim, the DP serves no purpose which LWOP doesn't serve, and
>is not even of any benefit to the victims or their survivors, then what
>difference does it make if there's any disparity in its application? In
>other words, if LWOP is just as effective (i.e., qualitatively equal),
>then any discrimination in the application of either over the other
>should be harmless to the victims and their survivors. It seems to me
>that the Baldus study implicitly validates the DP as a superior
>punishment.
Well, there is a major difference between the two punishments, you seem to
be missing. One is irrevocable , the other is not. If the two are indeed
substantively equal, then the harsher sentence should be considered cruel
and unnecessary.
There is never giong to be a punishment that is a benefit to the victim
because the victim is dead. Benefits to victims family members on the
other hand is a good question. I know personnally several people who have
had their children killed. The majority of such people that I know, do
not want the killer killed. I have one friend in CA whose son was killed
and the killer got the dp. Now, he wishes that the prosecutor had not put
him through so much. A life sentence now would have satisfied him,
knowing now what hell it is to go through the dp process on either side.
Jennifer
"What if the Hokey Pokey is what its all about?"
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <01bc14a0$1368f620$3642e0c7@ranlerch>, Randy
<ranl...@epix.net> writes
> Maybe its the same reason that states that don't execute,
>> have a murder rate also, in some cases as high as those
>> states that do!!
>
> I need to rephrase this a little bit, to if LWOP was such a
> wonderful punishment, why do the states that have LWOP
> have a murder rate at all?
>
It's because, as most of us who argue in favour of life without parole
say, nothing will ever stop people killing other people. However, as
has been pointed out many, many times over the past few months, the
death penalty has *never* been shown to have an effect on decreasing the
crime rate, whereas life imprisonment, has.
Life imprisonment also has the *indisputable* advantage of allowing us
to rectify mistakes. The death penalty offers us nothing more than the
chance to dig up the corpse of a wrongly convicted individual, and say,
"Awfully sorry, old chap!! How does a posthumous pardon sound, hmm?"
> Are we forgetting the other miscellaneous things like, the weather,
> and other things that also attribute to the increase and decrease
> of the murder rates? I seem to remember a great decrease in the
> murder rate last winter, when we had 30 some inches of snow on
> the ground in the northeastern part of the USA.....
>
Looking at statistics for the UK and for Canada (to name but two), I can
see something which had an even greater effect on reducing the murder
rate: the abolition of the death penalty.
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
http://www.maudit.demon.co.uk
(Version 5.1a now available)
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <5dff6h$m...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, Charles Trew
<db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
In the case mentioned, Charles, making sure that the two individuals
concerned, didn't break out of prison, would have had the same effect.
Why is it that if criminals break out of jail and subsequently kill
someone, you pro-death penalty folks use it as a (very tenuous) argument
in favour of state-sponsored killing? WHy not use it as an argument in
favour of more secure prisons?
It will be claimed that no one can ensure that prisoners don't escape,
in which case, I would ask that you to remember Devil's Island, as
someone very helpfully reminded me recently. One escapee in 94 years.
Lachlan McGilchrist
JSSExpo wrote:
>
> : Lachlan McGilchrist <lmg...@gty.com>writes:
> > If, as many DP
> >opponents claim, the DP serves no purpose which LWOP doesn't serve, and
> >is not even of any benefit to the victims or their survivors, then what
> >difference does it make if there's any disparity in its application? In
> >other words, if LWOP is just as effective (i.e., qualitatively equal),
> >then any discrimination in the application of either over the other
> >should be harmless to the victims and their survivors. It seems to me
> >that the Baldus study implicitly validates the DP as a superior
> >punishment.
>
> Well, there is a major difference between the two punishments, you seem to
> be missing. One is irrevocable , the other is not. If the two are indeed
> substantively equal, then the harsher sentence should be considered cruel
> and unnecessary.
No, I'm not missing that point. I agree that *if* two punishments
are substantively equal, the less harsh of the the two is the
constitutionally acceptable one. But that rule of law is
irrelevant to the results of the Baldus study, which found a
discriminatory application of the DP based upon the race of
*victims*. My point is that DP opponents, who are the ones
touting the Baldus study as proof of discrimination, are also the
ones who claim there is no superior value to the DP over LWOP. If
the two punishments are substantively equal, it makes no
substantial difference that one is imposed more on killers of
members of Race A than on killers of members of Race B.
So if the two punishments are substantively equal, the Baldus
study is irrelevant. But if the Baldus study *is* valid proof of
discrimination against victims - or, more correctly, their
survivors and communities - that can only mean that the DP is a
preferable punishment, at least as far as the survivors and
communities are concerned.
>
> There is never giong to be a punishment that is a benefit to the victim
> because the victim is dead.
True. When we speak of "benefitting victims of murder," we are of
course referring to the friends and family of the murder victim,
who, after all, are victims, too. Which leads perfectly to your
next point...
> Benefits to victims family members on the
> other hand is a good question. I know personnally several people who have
> had their children killed. The majority of such people that I know, do
> not want the killer killed. I have one friend in CA whose son was killed
> and the killer got the dp. Now, he wishes that the prosecutor had not put
> him through so much. A life sentence now would have satisfied him,
> knowing now what hell it is to go through the dp process on either side.
That is certainly interesting. I, too, have heard of families of
murder victims who did not want the DP for the killer. But I have
also heard of many who did, and who were glad he got it, and who
said afterward that it helped bring them a sense of peace and a
feeling of closure. I think that's one reason I favor the
retention of the DP; grieving survivors should be allowed to make
the choice. It should be an informed choice, however, and the
testimony of others who have been through the process - and who
differ as to whether it's a good or bad thing - should be heard
and considered as part of that choice.
LMcG
John Spragge
> My point is that DP opponents, who are the ones
>touting the Baldus study as proof of discrimination, are also the
>ones who claim there is no superior value to the DP over LWOP.
The Baldus study suggests discrimination exists regardless of the
objective value of capital punishment, since people think of capital
punishment as a harsher sentence. One basic argument behind the cases
that use Baldus claims that juries still feel more indignation when
people kill "whites"; and we ought not to give people a forum to
express such indignation.
> I think that's one reason I favor the
>retention of the DP; grieving survivors should be allowed to make
>the choice.
How about preventing more grieving survivors by keeping more people
safe in the first place? An execution accomplishes nothing; the odds
that someone else will commit the same class of depraved violent acts
against another innocent person remain the same, if not higher. But
the sense that we have "done something" by executing someone (at
staggering expense) creates an illusion that may well make us less
willing to take actions that really work to reduce the murder rate.
J. G. Spragge ========================================================
Mitchell Holman
}That is certainly interesting. I, too, have heard of families of
}murder victims who did not want the DP for the killer. But I have
}also heard of many who did, and who were glad he got it, and who
}said afterward that it helped bring them a sense of peace and a
}feeling of closure. I think that's one reason I favor the
}retention of the DP; grieving survivors should be allowed to make
}the choice.
So the family of a murder victim - not the state, not the
DA, not a jury - should decide whether someone lives or
dies?
What if the said family differs with the expressed views
of the murder victim himself?
It should be an informed choice, however, and the
}testimony of others who have been through the process - and who
}differ as to whether it's a good or bad thing - should be heard
}and considered as part of that choice.
So what you are saying is the family really doesn't have
a choice after all, just input, testimony to be considered along
with the testimony of others. Testimony that could be ignored.
Sounds a lot like the system we already have.
Mitchell Holman
"Capital punishment is our way of demonstrating the
sanctity of life"
Republican Senator Orrin Hatch
Kensington Kidz
Lachlan McGilchrist (lmg...@gty.com) wrote:
: JSSExpo wrote:
: >
: > : Lachlan McGilchrist <lmg...@gty.com>writes:
: > > If, as many DP
: > >opponents claim, the DP serves no purpose which LWOP doesn't serve, and
: > >is not even of any benefit to the victims or their survivors, then what
: > >difference does it make if there's any disparity in its application? In
: > >other words, if LWOP is just as effective (i.e., qualitatively equal),
: > >then any discrimination in the application of either over the other
: > >should be harmless to the victims and their survivors. It seems to me
: > >that the Baldus study implicitly validates the DP as a superior
: > >punishment.
: >
: > Well, there is a major difference between the two punishments, you seem to
: > be missing. One is irrevocable , the other is not. If the two are indeed
: > substantively equal, then the harsher sentence should be considered cruel
: > and unnecessary.
: No, I'm not missing that point. I agree that *if* two punishments
: are substantively equal, the less harsh of the the two is the
: constitutionally acceptable one. But that rule of law is
: irrelevant to the results of the Baldus study, which found a
: discriminatory application of the DP based upon the race of
: *victims*. My point is that DP opponents, who are the ones
: touting the Baldus study as proof of discrimination, are also the
: ones who claim there is no superior value to the DP over LWOP. If
: the two punishments are substantively equal, it makes no
: substantial difference that one is imposed more on killers of
: members of Race A than on killers of members of Race B.
: So if the two punishments are substantively equal, the Baldus
: study is irrelevant. But if the Baldus study *is* valid proof of
: discrimination against victims - or, more correctly, their
: survivors and communities - that can only mean that the DP is a
: preferable punishment, at least as far as the survivors and
: communities are concerned.
A more blatant example of sophistry I have never seen. What the Baldus
study showed was that the DP was imposed in a racially discriminatory
manner. Translated, that means the state is/was killing people based in
part on what color they are and/or what color their victim was. The
injustice and reprehensibility of this result should speak for itself,
and does for most people of conscience.
Now, it is likely that LWOP is ALSO imposed in a discriminatory manner.
But if you believe that two wrongs make a right, or that wrongful
imprisonment is just as bad as wrongful killing (which, BTW, is obviously
not what anti-DPers are arguing), nothing I or anyone say(s) here is going
to enlighten you.
--
"It is well for our vanity that we slay the criminal, for if we suffered
him to live he might show us what we had gained by his crime."
-Oscar Wilde
"Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!"
-Friedrich Nietzsch
Lachlan McGilchrist
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> In article <32FCC1...@gty.com>, Lachlan McGilchrist <lmg...@gty.com> wrote:
>
> }That is certainly interesting. I, too, have heard of families of
> }murder victims who did not want the DP for the killer. But I have
> }also heard of many who did, and who were glad he got it, and who
> }said afterward that it helped bring them a sense of peace and a
> }feeling of closure. I think that's one reason I favor the
> }retention of the DP; grieving survivors should be allowed to make
> }the choice.
>
> So the family of a murder victim - not the state, not the
> DA, not a jury - should decide whether someone lives or
> dies?
>
You're being deliberately obtuse here. I believe the family should have
some input; the "justice" we are seeking is, after all, primarily for
them, and secondarily for society and the state. Of course the decision
to go for the DP is up to the prosecutor, and the decision to impose the
sentence is for the jury.
> What if the said family differs with the expressed views
> of the murder victim himself?
The victim's views should have some consideration, too. But, as Jennifer
noted, there's really nothing more we can do for the victim, who is dead.
It is the family who is grieving, and who wants justice - be that DP or
LWOP.
>
> It should be an informed choice, however, and the
> }testimony of others who have been through the process - and who
> }differ as to whether it's a good or bad thing - should be heard
> }and considered as part of that choice.
>
> So what you are saying is the family really doesn't have
> a choice after all, just input, testimony to be considered along
> with the testimony of others. Testimony that could be ignored.
> Sounds a lot like the system we already have.
>
>
That's not what I said, and I think you know it. The "testimony" I
mentioned is the testimony of others who have *already* gone through the
process. The family hears the testimony to help them decide if the DP
is something they would want.
It *is* sort of like our present system, since the state *does* to some
extent consider the wishes of the victim's family already. I'm just
saying the family should get more information - con as well as pro -
about the death penalty, thus helping to avert the unfortunate situation
which Jennifer described. If families could hear the testimony of those
like Jennifer's friend, they might not be as willing to favor the DP for
their loved one's killer. You don't object to *that*, do you?
LMcG
Mitchell Holman
}
}You're being deliberately obtuse here. I believe the family should have
}some input; the "justice" we are seeking is, after all, primarily for
}them, and secondarily for society and the state. Of course the decision
}to go for the DP is up to the prosecutor, and the decision to impose the
}sentence is for the jury.
And that is exactly the problem we have been dealing
elsewhere. The wide disparity as to who gets tried for a
capital crime is left to the whim of the prosecutor, so that
factors such as race, gender, wealth, publicity, and even
political considerations considered - when they should not
be. No system left to such arbitrary whims can be considered
even fair, much less uniform.
}
}> What if the said family differs with the expressed views
}> of the murder victim himself?
}
}The victim's views should have some consideration, too. But, as Jennifer
}noted, there's really nothing more we can do for the victim, who is dead.
}It is the family who is grieving, and who wants justice - be that DP or
}LWOP.
OK, take the most recent DP case in the country, the
Darlene Routier case. Where the family distinctly does
*not* want the defendant to die. Not that the DA's office
could care, except for calling the family "trailer trash"
on TV, that is.
It is rather like current situation in domestic violence
cases, where the DA is full of political bluster about
"victims rights". Unless the victim wants to drop charges,
that is, in which case the victim is ignored, or harassed
and compelled to come to court and assist in the prosecution
they want no part of. And these are the same DAs that we
trust to decide who should live and who should die?
Mitchell Holman
"Between 1980 and 1989, some 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned
under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. This marks the largest collection of
political wrongdoers in the nation's history."
Elite Deviance - David R. Simon & D. Stanley Eitzen
Randy
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<Wa9ysHAJDH$yE...@maudit.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bc14a0$1368f620$3642e0c7@ranlerch>, Randy
> <ranl...@epix.net> writes
>
> > Maybe its the same reason that states that don't execute,
> >> have a murder rate also, in some cases as high as those
> >> states that do!!
> >
> > I need to rephrase this a little bit, to if LWOP was such a
> > wonderful punishment, why do the states that have LWOP
> > have a murder rate at all?
> >
>
> It's because, as most of us who argue in favour of life without parole
> say, nothing will ever stop people killing other people. However, as
> has been pointed out many, many times over the past few months, the
> death penalty has *never* been shown to have an effect on decreasing the
> crime rate, whereas life imprisonment, has.
There is no such thing as "life" in prison, in the US that is, however,
its been shown that increased jail time for first time offenders, also
decreases the crime rate..... So maybe we need a combo of increased
jail time for first time offenders, as well as the death penalty for those
that
choose to continue their way there....
> Life imprisonment also has the *indisputable* advantage of allowing us
> to rectify mistakes. The death penalty offers us nothing more than the
> chance to dig up the corpse of a wrongly convicted individual, and say,
> "Awfully sorry, old chap!! How does a posthumous pardon sound, hmm?"
>
> > Are we forgetting the other miscellaneous things like, the
weather,
> > and other things that also attribute to the increase and decrease
> > of the murder rates? I seem to remember a great decrease in the
> > murder rate last winter, when we had 30 some inches of snow on
> > the ground in the northeastern part of the USA.....
> >
>
> Looking at statistics for the UK and for Canada (to name but two), I can
> see something which had an even greater effect on reducing the murder
> rate: the abolition of the death penalty.
In the 70's we tried not having a death penalty, guess what, it didn't
work here,
so I would have to believe other things must have been implemented at the
same time or prior to the abolishment of the death penalty,
that articulated the reduction when it was put in place in those
countries.
So what other laws were implemented prior that could account
for a large percentage of decrease in the murder rate??
pur...@erols.com
In article <19970202174...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
charl...@aol.com (Charley994) wrote:
> the book is called: Mumia Death Blossoms; Reflections from a Prisoner of
> Conscience with forword by Professor Dr. Cornel West of Harvard
> University.
> It is being published by the Plough Publishing House and ytou can obtain
> your copy by just phoning l-800-521-8011. The book only costs you $13.00.
> It is worth every penny of it.
>
> On a Move
>
> Charles
Here he is AGAIN! Shamelessly promoting the SALE of Mumia's
book in DIRECT violation of newsgroup posting rules. Why
doesn't "Charley" give his book away to all the death row
inmates as a personal (or should I say, PASTORAL) gift?
After all, "Charl...@aol.com" is aka "Charl...@aol.com"
is aka "Carno...@aol.com" is aka "Joanne Christoph Arnold",
elder of the Bruderhof Communities (guess who owns Plough
Publishing?).
This group sends its members into nursing homes to sell books
to the elderly and dying. ONE last chance to get the
almighty dollar required to keep the leadership in the style
to which they have become accustomed (how about a Gulfstream
jet for little trips to Bermuda, for example?).
In fact, they ask their children to call the homes of
former members to sell their books. That way, the former
member just MIGHT feel that they would once again gain the
"right" to visit loved ones inside the fenced compounds of
the Bruderhof - if they buy the books. Doesn't work - been
there, tried that.
The tragic thing, imho, is that they are right about the
death penalty, just horribly wrong in how they conduct
themselves in such self-serving ways in the eyes of the world.
To deny Mumia's guilt is nonsense; a truly moral and ethical
approach would be to reach out to the VICTIMS of this horrible
crime as well as the perpetrator. There are MANY of the
former and still only ONE of the latter. In doing so, the
Bruderhof could still be against the dealth penalty but the
process would bring them closer to an attempt at healing
than the terrible devisiveness they currently encourage.
Plus, it would REALLY take an effort to assist surviviors;
perpetrators of murder are maintained at public expense.
It is the path more easily trodden that the Bruderhof has
chosen for itself - as usual.
And the question still remains as to why the Elder of the
Bruderhof Communities appears ASHAMED to reveal himself on
this and other newsgroups. Why should that be?
Maybe he needs a little time away to think things through
more clearly. But who am I to suggest that?
Blair Purcell
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Joaquim Amado Lopes
Greetings.
On 7 Feb 1997 20:53:08 GMT, jss...@aol.com (JSSExpo) wrote:
[snip]
>Well, there is a major difference between the two punishments, you seem to
>be missing. One is irrevocable , the other is not. If the two are indeed
>substantively equal, then the harsher sentence should be considered cruel
>and unnecessary.
>
Being the two substantively equal, if one is cruel and unnecessary, so
is the other. The fact is that DP and LWOP are *not* equal and if DP
seems "cruel" to you, maybe you should read more about the crimes that
are commited daily..
The question we have to make is "why crime must be punished"?
Is it:
(A) to compensate the victims
(B) to deter crime as an anti-social behavior
(C) because it is the right thing to do in a society
A - To compensate the victims
Isn't this called "revenge"? I'm not all against it but, if that was
the case, the same crime could have different punishments.
B - To deter crime
Lots of people argue that DP doesn't deter crime because there are no
statistics that say it clearly.
IMO, it is clear that a harsh punishment will always deter crime. The
only reason that statistics don't show it is because the statistics
say that most criminals are never caught, those who are most likely
will get away with it or will be convicted to little time in jail and
the few who face DP are still waiting for the reply for their appeals
years after the trial.
A few months ago, I saw some statistics about crime in Portugal and
the jail sentences were less than 2% of the total number of crimes.
How can a punishment deter anything if most criminals are never
punished?
C - Justice
The punishment has *always* to be at the same level at the crime. Even
harder, if you want it to deter crime (so criminals won't bet on the
odds but really thing on the consequences - to them - of their
crimes).
There are crimes so horrible that the only punishment that could
produce any kind of justice is DP. It is not a matter of putting
someone away to protect the others nor to erase the crime, it's the
only right thing to do.
>There is never giong to be a punishment that is a benefit to the victim
>because the victim is dead.
>
If someone hits you, nothing will erase that, not even a huge amount o
dolars but this wouldn't be that bad, would it?
Even though the victim is dead, he/she will benefit when justice is
done on his/her killer.
>Benefits to victims family members on the other hand is a good question.
>
When someone gets brutally murdered, we *all* are his/her family. The
only reason we don't cry for all the victims is because there are so
many of them.
[snip]
Take care,
Joaquim Amado Lopes
jal...@mail.telepac.pt
Joaquim Amado Lopes
Greetings.
On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 15:32:56 GMT, spr...@umich.edu (John Spragge)
wrote:
[snip]
>The Baldus study suggests discrimination exists regardless of the
>objective value of capital punishment, since people think of capital
>punishment as a harsher sentence. One basic argument behind the cases
>that use Baldus claims that juries still feel more indignation when
>people kill "whites"; and we ought not to give people a forum to
>express such indignation.
>
Does this mean that you don't trust the juries?
>> I think that's one reason I favor the
>>retention of the DP; grieving survivors should be allowed to make
>>the choice.
>
>How about preventing more grieving survivors by keeping more people
>safe in the first place?
>
And how about more education so that the juries are without prejudice?
>An execution accomplishes nothing;
>
That's something we will never agree upon: to me, an execution
acomplishes justice.
>the odds
>that someone else will commit the same class of depraved violent acts
>against another innocent person remain the same, if not higher.
>
"If not higher"? Do you really think that an execution will drive more
people to commit the very same crime that caused that execution? Get
real.
And don't pick those statistics sheets that "prove" that when an
execution happens the crime rates rise. If that happens, maybe it's
because so many people are against the criminals getting what he/she
deserves that the other criminals feel more secure and willing to keep
doing what they do.
>But
>the sense that we have "done something" by executing someone (at
>staggering expense) creates an illusion that may well make us less
>willing to take actions that really work to reduce the murder rate.
>
Just like as when you release a murderer and keep your fingers
crossed, hopping that he/she won't murder again, right?
Joaquim Amado Lopes
Greetings.
On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:56:11 +0000, "Mr Desmond E. Coughlan"
<D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>It will be claimed that no one can ensure that prisoners don't escape,
>
You can *never* ensure that prisoners won't escape but you can take
that risk with a car theaf, not with a serial killer.
>in which case, I would ask that you to remember Devil's Island, as
>someone very helpfully reminded me recently. One escapee in 94 years.
>--
How many Devil's Islands can there be (how many islands with the
adequate characteristics) and how much would cost to send someone to
one?
Also, what do you think extremely violent criminals would do in such a
"prison"? I'm thinking in something like "what would they do to other
prisioners"?
I can't understand how some people keep protecting the criminals right
to live while they forget, not only the fact that they don't respect
that same right to others, but also the right that everyone else has
to be safe.
Lachlan McGilchrist
John Spragge wrote:
>[]
Before I respond, I want to thank you, John, for this lucid and
to-the-point answer. I had just about given up hope that any on
the Anti side were actually going to address the Baldus issue I
had raised, and give me a clear and reasoned answer to it.
Between Mitchell Holman's word-twisting and Kensington Kidz's
abrasive attacks, I was really afraid the discussion was going to
stray quite a distance from my point.
Your answer below, John, is excellent and very thought-provoking.
It also lacks the hostility which is so common in this group
(perhaps it is because you - like my parents - are Canadian, and
therefore of civilized upbringing - sorry, did I just open a can
of worms? <g>)
I think the retributive anger and hostility expressed by many on
the Anti side (such as Kidz) really backfires, for many reasons.
It belies their claim that they oppose retribution. It causes us
(your worthy opponents) to become defensive and hostile in
return, thus undermining the efforts of serious Antis to persuade
us. And it contributes to lowering the level of debate to a bunch
of children in a playpen throwing things at each other. I want to
hear good reasons why I should change my mind about the death
penalty. You won't accomplish that with petty attacks or
deliberate misconstruction of my words.
On to John's post.....
>On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 10:09:19 -0800, Lachlan McGilchrist
><lmg...@gty.com> wrote:
>> My point is that DP opponents, who are the ones
>>touting the Baldus study as proof of discrimination, are also the
>>ones who claim there is no superior value to the DP over LWOP.
>The Baldus study suggests discrimination exists regardless of
>the objective value of capital punishment, since people think of
>capital punishment as a harsher sentence. One basic argument
>behind the cases that use Baldus claims that juries still feel
>more indignation when people kill "whites"; and we ought not to
>give people a forum to express such indignation.
I admit I hadn't thought of that aspect. I agree, the Baldus
study does indeed suggest that capital sentencing deliberations
may be a forum for some jurors, consciously or unconsciously, to
express their racist views of the "value" of some human lives.
Not a pretty picture. Good point.
>> I think that's one reason I favor the
>>retention of the DP; grieving survivors should be allowed to make
>>the choice.
>How about preventing more grieving survivors by keeping more
>people safe in the first place?
I agree. Completely.
>An execution accomplishes nothing;
Not sure I'd go that far. Many feel an execution does accomplish
something: a guaranteed recidivism rate of absolute zero as per
the executed killer; a sense of justice for *some* survivors of
victims; a possible (but by no means certain) deterrent effect;
etc. I'm not necessarily advancing these arguments, just
pointing out that many do believe them, and that they haven't
been disproven to any substantial degree of certainty.
Personally, though, I do believe executions to be appropriate
justice in some circumstances. And I doubt that I'd ever change
my mind about that.
>that someone else will commit the same class of depraved violent
>acts against another innocent person remain the same,
This statement, of course, assumes there's no deterrent effect.
And perhaps there isn't. I agree that it has most certainly never
been definitively proven. The opposite may even be true. See
below.
>if not higher.
Higher if the brutalization theory is valid. I'm very interested
in that theory because, as I mentioned in another thread, if it
is valid I could be persuaded to accept (albeit reluctantly)
abolition of the DP. I would continue to believe in the DP as
appropriate justice in some cases, but preventing future crimes
is far more important than punishing those which have already
been committed and cannot be undone.
Actually, John, your views and mine are really not that
divergent. You have mentioned that you could reluctantly accept
that DP if it were proven to be an effective crime fighting
tool. I can reluctantly accept abolition if it can be shown to be
counterproductive in that regard.
>But the sense that we have "done something" by executing someone
>(at staggering expense) creates an illusion that may well make
>us less willing to take actions that really work to reduce the
>murder rate.
You may well be right. I'd be interested in hearing ideas about
reducing the murder rate. As I mentioned, if abolition is a
necessary step in the accomplishment of this goal, I can accept
that.
Abolitionists speak of the cost of the DP. If those funds are
freed up, let's hear some specifics. Where could we allocate
them to be more effective? Education, perhaps? Increased law
enforcement? Measures to stamp out child abuse or drug abuse?
Improvements in any or all of these areas would probably have a
significant impact on reducing the crime rate. And I can't disagree
that *that* should be our main objective.
LMcG
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32fe3373...@news.telepac.pt>, Joaquim Amado Lopes
<jal...@mail.telepac.pt> writes
>Greetings.
>
Er, yeah. . .hi.
>[snip]
>>It will be claimed that no one can ensure that prisoners don't escape,
>>
>You can *never* ensure that prisoners won't escape but you can take
>that risk with a car theaf, not with a serial killer.
>
You can also never be sure that an executed criminal is in fact
responsible for the crimes for which he is losing his life.
>>in which case, I would ask that you to remember Devil's Island, as
>>someone very helpfully reminded me recently. One escapee in 94 years.
>>--
>How many Devil's Islands can there be (how many islands with the
>adequate characteristics) and how much would cost to send someone to
>one?
>Also, what do you think extremely violent criminals would do in such a
>"prison"? I'm thinking in something like "what would they do to other
>prisioners"?
>
Right, well there is a *gross* contradiction in this argument, which is
something that the pro-death penalty camp often use, not realizing that
they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Or should that be 'feet'. . .? :-)
If you populate a prison wing, or an island, or any other secure place,
with society's lowest and most violent criminals, then why the hell
should you care if they bump each other off?
You can't have it both ways: you either want them alive, in which case
you weep buckets whenever a murderer is killed in prison (and I don't
remember any rednecks around here calling for the 'just execution' of
the guy that killed Jeffrey Dahmer. . .), or you want them dead, in
which case, you should be glad of any plan which might increase the
chances of that happening.
>I can't understand how some people keep protecting the criminals right
>to live while they forget, not only the fact that they don't respect
>that same right to others, but also the right that everyone else has
>to be safe.
>
That last sentence there is correct: we *do* have the right to be safe,
but remember that at *no time* has the death penalty been shown to make
society a safer place in which to live. There have been many studies,
however, which show (irrespective of how many times the rednecks want to
deny it) that there has been, and is, an increase in the homicide rate
after an execution. Capital punishment, therefore, makes society
*less*, safe.
It is possible to make prisons so secure that the chances of escaping
are practically nil, and this would go a long way to protecting the
innocent and the vulnerable, much better than the simple 'quick fix'
that the death penalty has been shown to be.
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
"We got loud guitars and big suspicions, Great big guns and small ambitions.
And we still argue over who is God."
Sheryl Crow.
Don Kool
> >> } Because there are many other factors besides the death penalty.
> >> } The death penalty can be promoted as a protection device just as a
> >> }military "pre-emptive strike" can be looked at as a protective or
> >> }defensive policy.
> >> At least military strikes have a history of "protection" at least
> >> *some* of the time. The DP, on the other hand........
> > I've already cited plenty of cases where if we had pre-emptively
> >executed murderers, they could not have killed again.
> > Two men executed during the last Arkansas triple are the most recent
> >examples. They were in prison for murder when they broke out and went on a
> >multi-state killing spree.
> In the case mentioned, Charles, making sure that the two individuals
> concerned, didn't break out of prison, would have had the same effect.
>
> Why is it that if criminals break out of jail and subsequently kill
> someone, you pro-death penalty folks use it as a (very tenuous) argument
> in favour of state-sponsored killing?
Why is it that if prisoners win an appeal and are subsequently
released from prison, you anti Death Penalty folks use it as a (very
tenuous) argument in favor of abolishing the just Death Penalty?
> WHy not use it as an argument in favour of more secure prisons?
Why not use it as an argument in favor of more careful
trials?
> It will be claimed that no one can ensure that prisoners don't escape,
Not a claim, a fact.
> in which case, I would ask that you to remember Devil's Island, as
> someone very helpfully reminded me recently. One escapee in 94 years.
Yes a draconian prison system that would have you limp wristed,
murderer loving bedwetters crying about how "cruel" it was in two
minutes; and still someone escapped.
Hope this helps,
Don
****************** Get your stinking paws off me,
* Don McDonald * You damned, dirty ape !
* Baltimore, MD * ---- Charlton Heston
****************** "Planet of the Apes"
http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32fe361a...@news.telepac.pt>, Joaquim Amado Lopes
<jal...@mail.telepac.pt> writes
>Being the two substantively equal, if one is cruel and unnecessary, so
>is the other. The fact is that DP and LWOP are *not* equal and if DP
>seems "cruel" to you, maybe you should read more about the crimes that
>are commited daily..
>
>The question we have to make is "why crime must be punished"?
>Is it:
> (A) to compensate the victims
The victim of a murder is dead, and nothing will ever compensate him or
her. If you are referring to the relatives of the victim, then you must
also extend the same consideration to the relatives of the condemned
prisoner, for they are in no way guilty of his crime, but they will have
to endure losing their son at the hands of the state.
> (B) to deter crime as an anti-social behavior
See my other post: the death penalty does not, never has, nor ever will,
deter violent crime.
> (C) because it is the right thing to do in a society
>
What one person considers 'the right thing', is not necessarily what
*is* right. Not that long ago, it was considered 'right' that white
people were somehow superior to blacks.
It was considered 'right' that a man could not be guilty of raping his
wife within marriage.
History is littered with examples of vile and barbaric practices, which
we now look upon with horror, but which were, at the time, 'the right
thing'. The death penalty is one of these practices. It *will* be
abolished one day, and those who presently support it will be regarded,
either as well-meaning but somewhat retarded do-gooders, or else as
bloodthirsty savages.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32fe3373...@news.telepac.pt>, Joaquim Amado Lopes
<jal...@mail.telepac.pt> writes
>I can't understand how some people keep protecting the criminals right
>to live
I missed this first time around. The fact is, Joaquim, that even if
*you* were the criminal, we would still seek to protect *your* rights,
irrespective of what you had done.
We do it because criminals have rights, just like everyone else. We
can't excuse their crimes, but nothing gives us the right to violate the
most basic human right: the right to life.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <01bc1694$7a76ace0$3a42e0c7@ranlerch>, Randy
<ranl...@epix.net> writes
[snip]
>
> In the 70's we tried not having a death penalty, guess what, it didn't
>work here,
> so I would have to believe other things must have been implemented at
>the
> same time or prior to the abolishment of the death penalty,
> that articulated the reduction when it was put in place in those
>countries.
>
> So what other laws were implemented prior that could account
> for a large percentage of decrease in the murder rate??
>
As far as I know, none.
Don Kool
Desi Coughlan blurted out for no apparent reason:
> Joaquim Amado Lopes <jal...@mail.telepac.pt> writes
> >Greetings.
> Er, yeah. . .hi.
> >[snip]
> >>It will be claimed that no one can ensure that prisoners don't escape,
> >You can *never* ensure that prisoners won't escape but you can take
> >that risk with a car theaf, not with a serial killer.
> You can also never be sure that an executed criminal is in fact
> responsible for the crimes for which he is losing his life.
At least as sure as you can be that the criminal sentenced
to die in jail (under LSWOP) is in fact responsible for the crimes
for which he is losing his life.
> >>in which case, I would ask that you to remember Devil's Island, as
> >>someone very helpfully reminded me recently. One escapee in 94 years.
> >How many Devil's Islands can there be (how many islands with the
> >adequate characteristics) and how much would cost to send someone to
> >one?
> >Also, what do you think extremely violent criminals would do in such a
> >"prison"? I'm thinking in something like "what would they do to other
> >prisioners"?
> Right, well there is a *gross* contradiction in this argument,
Only in your mind, Desi.
[...ad hominem snipped...]
> If you populate a prison wing, or an island, or any other secure place,
> with society's lowest and most violent criminals, then why the hell
> should you care if they bump each other off?
Because the pro Death Penalty side supports civility and morality
instead of the bizzare survival of the fittest jungle fantasy that you
occupy your time with. If a murderer is sentenced to a just execution,
that just execution should be carried out in the swiftest and most humane
way possible. If a murderer is let off with incarceration, it is the
state's duty to see to it that he is also treated in a fair and humane
manner. What helpful suggestions are you going to offer next, Desi; that
we should emulate the Romans and have murderers fight it out as gladiators
or something?
> You can't have it both ways: you either want them alive, in which case
> you weep buckets whenever a murderer is killed in prison (and I don't
> remember any rednecks around here calling for the 'just execution' of
> the guy that killed Jeffrey Dahmer. . .), or you want them dead, in
> which case, you should be glad of any plan which might increase the
> chances of that happening.
Non sequitur. The pro Death Penalty side simply wants *JUSTICE*.
Obviously a word with which you are unacquainted. A murderer sentenced
to Death should die, one let off with incarceration should live. In
both cases they should be treated with simple human compassion and
dignity. Your simplemindedd idea would just lead to the brutalization
of society and more violence.
> >I can't understand how some people keep protecting the criminals right
> >to live while they forget, not only the fact that they don't respect
> >that same right to others, but also the right that everyone else has
> >to be safe.
> That last sentence there is correct: we *do* have the right to be safe,
> but remember that at *no time* has the death penalty been shown to make
> society a safer place in which to live.
No justly executed murderer has ever gone on to murder again.
That's pretty fucking safe, Desi.
[...urban legend snipped in favor of facts...]
> It is possible to make prisons so secure that the chances of escaping
> are practically nil, and this would go a long way to protecting the
> innocent and the vulnerable, much better than the simple 'quick fix'
> that the death penalty has been shown to be.
"It is possible", and already accomplished in the United States,
to make the Death Penalty process "so secure that the chances of"
accidently executing the wrong man "are practically nil". As a matter
of fact the United States has managed to never accidently execute an
"innocent man" since the reintroduction of the just Death Penalty over
a fith of a century ago. This goes "a long way to protecting the
innocent and vulnerable, much better than the simple 'quick fix' that"
abolishment was shown to be in the United States 30 years ago.
Don Kool
> >I can't understand how some people keep protecting the criminals right
> >to live
> I missed this first time around. The fact is, Joaquim, that even if
> *you* were the criminal, we would still seek to protect *your* rights,
> irrespective of what you had done.
> We do it because criminals have rights, just like everyone else. We
> can't excuse their crimes, but nothing gives us the right to violate the
> most basic human right: the right to life.
Actually the facts show you to be stupid, but more to the point,
simply wrong again. The United States Constitution gives the state the
right to take life. The only requirement is "due process".
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Don Kool
> >Being the two substantively equal, if one is cruel and unnecessary, so
> >is the other. The fact is that DP and LWOP are *not* equal and if DP
> >seems "cruel" to you, maybe you should read more about the crimes that
> >are commited daily..
> >
> >The question we have to make is "why crime must be punished"?
> >Is it:
> > (A) to compensate the victims
> The victim of a murder is dead, and nothing will ever compensate him or
> her.
More of the anti Death Penalty cabal's typical compassion
for the victims of violent crime. The victim is dead, fuck them.
These heartless bastards cry crocodile tears for vile, unrepentent
murderers yet mock the victims even in death. Sick; just sick.
> If you are referring to the relatives of the victim, then you must
> also extend the same consideration to the relatives of the condemned
> prisoner, for they are in no way guilty of his crime, but they will have
> to endure losing their son at the hands of the state.
Simply another victim of the murderer. Even Desi sees that the
murderer creates more victims then just the ones he actually kills.
> > (B) to deter crime as an anti-social behavior
> See my other post: the death penalty does not, never has, nor ever will,
> deter violent crime.
Yes, it does. Just not to a statistically significant degree.
There are too many variables to accurately measure deterrence however
you can't claim, with any credibility, that it absolutely doesn't exist.
> > (C) because it is the right thing to do in a society
> What one person considers 'the right thing', is not necessarily what
> *is* right. Not that long ago, it was considered 'right' that white
> people were somehow superior to blacks.
What is 'the right thing' is determined by society in the
aggregate. In the United States, at this time, society has rightly
determined that the just Death Penalty is indeed 'the right thing'
for our worst murderers. What's not to like?
> It was considered 'right' that a man could not be guilty of raping his
> wife within marriage.
It is impossible to "rape" you wife. A woman's sacred vow
of marraige is to "love honor and obey".
> History is littered with examples of vile and barbaric practices, which
> we now look upon with horror, but which were, at the time, 'the right
> thing'.
Perfectly true. Just look to the British Isles for plenty
of examples.
> The death penalty is one of these practices.
Your simpleminded and naive opinion only, son, nothing more.
> It *will* be
> abolished one day, and those who presently support it will be regarded,
> either as well-meaning but somewhat retarded do-gooders, or else as
> bloodthirsty savages.
The just Death Penalty was "abolished" for a time in the United
States. Thankfully reason took precedence over the "somewhat retarded
do-gooders" and the just Death Penalty was reinstated. All of America
is better off for it.
Hope this helps,
Charles Trew
"Mr Desmond E. Coughlan" (D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk) writes:
>> I've already cited plenty of cases where if we had pre-emptively
>>executed murderers, they could not have killed again.
>> Two men executed during the last Arkansas triple are the most recent
>>examples. They were in prison for murder when they broke out and went on a
>>multi-state killing spree.
> In the case mentioned, Charles, making sure that the two individuals
> concerned, didn't break out of prison, would have had the same effect.
>
> Why is it that if criminals break out of jail and subsequently kill
> someone, you pro-death penalty folks use it as a (very tenuous) argument
> in favour of state-sponsored killing? WHy not use it as an argument in
> favour of more secure prisons?
Why not use it as an argument to make the system ever more secure so
that the already minscule chance an innocent will be executed is reduced
further?
> It will be claimed that no one can ensure that prisoners don't escape,
> in which case, I would ask that you to remember Devil's Island, as
> someone very helpfully reminded me recently. One escapee in 94 years.
The public outcry over operating such a system today would prevent
that. We already have enough problems keeping supermax systems operatonal.
The Clinton administration is currently trying to haver the program
gutted, if not eliminated.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32FF10...@clark.net>, Don Kool <old...@clark.net> writes
>> We do it because criminals have rights, just like everyone else. We
>> can't excuse their crimes, but nothing gives us the right to violate the
>> most basic human right: the right to life.
>
> Actually the facts show you to be stupid, but more to the point,
>simply wrong again. The United States Constitution gives the state the
>right to take life. The only requirement is "due process".
. . . and as we've pointed out before, bulletbrain, the United States
Constitution isn't the be all and end all of civilization. Of course,
as you've probably never even travelled beyond Baltimore County, it's
not really surprising that your views are so parochial and bigoted.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32FF12...@clark.net>, Don Kool <old...@clark.net> writes
>Desi Coughlan wrote:
>> > (B) to deter crime as an anti-social behavior
>
>> See my other post: the death penalty does not, never has, nor ever will,
>> deter violent crime.
>
Bullshit, McDonald, and you know it. No credible study since records
began has found a shred of evidence for the deterrent theory. So if
you've done your own research into this (God help us!), then why don't
you post the results here. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
> Yes, it does. Just not to a statistically significant degree.
>There are too many variables to accurately measure deterrence however
>you can't claim, with any credibility, that it absolutely doesn't exist.
>
>> > (C) because it is the right thing to do in a society
>
>> What one person considers 'the right thing', is not necessarily what
>> *is* right. Not that long ago, it was considered 'right' that white
>> people were somehow superior to blacks.
>
> What is 'the right thing' is determined by society in the
>aggregate. In the United States, at this time, society has rightly
>determined that the just Death Penalty is indeed 'the right thing'
>for our worst murderers. What's not to like?
>
If someone had asked you in the fifties (but of course, they couldn't.
Despite your frequent references to age, you weren't even born until
1960) what you thought of the civil rights movement, would you have
supported it?
Going by what you write next. . .
> It is impossible to "rape" you wife. A woman's sacred vow
>of marraige is to "love honor and obey".
>
I doubt it. So a woman cannot be raped in "marraige' (sic)? As I say,
every time you open your mouth and let your gut rumble, your credibility
sinks even lower.
By the way, before you make some sort of puerile remark (That is, after
all, the only kind of remark you ever make) about my writing "sic"
above, remember the number of times you do exactly the same.
>> History is littered with examples of vile and barbaric practices, which
>> we now look upon with horror, but which were, at the time, 'the right
>> thing'.
>
> Perfectly true. Just look to the British Isles for plenty
>of examples.
>
Well there's something we agree on, then. The difference is that we got
rid of the vile practice of capital punishment a long time ago, and we
are now enjoying the benefits: one of the least violent countries on the
face of the planet.
>> The death penalty is one of these practices.
>
> Your simpleminded and naive opinion only, son, nothing more.
>
OK, "Dad": whatever you say. . .
>> It *will* be
>> abolished one day, and those who presently support it will be regarded,
>> either as well-meaning but somewhat retarded do-gooders, or else as
>> bloodthirsty savages.
>
> The just Death Penalty was "abolished" for a time in the United
>States. Thankfully reason took precedence over the "somewhat retarded
>do-gooders" and the just Death Penalty was reinstated. All of America
>is better off for it.
>
Of course!! You now have so many murders every year that the equivalent
of a small town gets wiped out every twelve months. God bless America!
(that was satire, halfwit)
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32FF0F...@clark.net>, Don Kool <old...@clark.net> opens
his mouth and lets his gut rumble the following (which, of course, my
news reader picked up on all by itself, thanks to a shining example by
the little man himself):
>> You can also never be sure that an executed criminal is in fact
>> responsible for the crimes for which he is losing his life.
>
> At least as sure as you can be that the criminal sentenced
>to die in jail (under LSWOP) is in fact responsible for the crimes
>for which he is losing his life.
>
The difference which you're too obtuse to see, is that in *your*
example, mistakes don't result in the death of the prisoner before his
time.
>> >>in which case, I would ask that you to remember Devil's Island, as
>> >>someone very helpfully reminded me recently. One escapee in 94 years.
>
>> >How many Devil's Islands can there be (how many islands with the
>> >adequate characteristics) and how much would cost to send someone to
>> >one?
>> >Also, what do you think extremely violent criminals would do in such a
>> >"prison"? I'm thinking in something like "what would they do to other
>> >prisioners"?
>
>> Right, well there is a *gross* contradiction in this argument,
>
> Only in your mind, Desi.
>
> [...ad hominem snipped...]
>
= Truths with which Don can't cope.
>> You can't have it both ways: you either want them alive, in which case
>> you weep buckets whenever a murderer is killed in prison (and I don't
>> remember any rednecks around here calling for the 'just execution' of
>> the guy that killed Jeffrey Dahmer. . .), or you want them dead, in
>> which case, you should be glad of any plan which might increase the
>> chances of that happening.
>
> Non sequitur.
Don posts his second Latin phrase. What happened, McDonald: did Mummy
take the Latin phrasebook away before you got to "Day Three"?
>The pro Death Penalty side simply wants *JUSTICE*.
>Obviously a word with which you are unacquainted. A murderer sentenced
>to Death should die, one let off with incarceration should live.
"Let off" with incarceration? Is it such an easy ride to be in prison
in the United States? Here in Britain, jails are anything but pleasant
places to be.
> In
>both cases they should be treated with simple human compassion and
>dignity. Your simplemindedd idea would just lead to the brutalization
>of society and more violence.
>
Imitation is the highest form of flattery, Mad Dog: thank you.
>> >I can't understand how some people keep protecting the criminals right
>> >to live while they forget, not only the fact that they don't respect
>> >that same right to others, but also the right that everyone else has
>> >to be safe.
>
>> That last sentence there is correct: we *do* have the right to be safe,
>> but remember that at *no time* has the death penalty been shown to make
>> society a safer place in which to live.
>
> No justly executed murderer has ever gone on to murder again.
>That's pretty fucking safe, Desi.
>
Nor has any wrongly executed prisoner ever been released to get on with
his or her life.
> [...urban legend snipped in favor of facts...]
>
= Desmond's facts snipped 'cos they're miles over Mad Dog's head.
>
>> It is possible to make prisons so secure that the chances of escaping
>> are practically nil, and this would go a long way to protecting the
>> innocent and the vulnerable, much better than the simple 'quick fix'
>> that the death penalty has been shown to be.
>
> "It is possible", and already accomplished in the United States,
>to make the Death Penalty process "so secure that the chances of"
>accidently executing the wrong man "are practically nil". As a matter
>of fact the United States has managed to never accidently execute an
>"innocent man" since the reintroduction of the just Death Penalty over
>a fith of a century ago. This goes "a long way to protecting the
>innocent and vulnerable, much better than the simple 'quick fix' that"
>abolishment was shown to be in the United States 30 years ago.
>
Is there an echo in here?
Don Kool
> >> We do it because criminals have rights, just like everyone else. We
> >> can't excuse their crimes, but nothing gives us the right to violate the
> >> most basic human right: the right to life.
> >
> > Actually the facts show you to be stupid, but more to the point,
> >simply wrong again. The United States Constitution gives the state the
> >right to take life. The only requirement is "due process".
> . . . and as we've pointed out before, bulletbrain, the United States
> Constitution isn't the be all and end all of civilization.
However, as the facts can attest, it is as far as the just
Death Penalty in the United States (the greatest country on the
face of the Earth, BTW) is concerned. That is, after all, the topic
of this newsgroup (although one could never tell it by your tedious
stream of unknowing, off-topic postings).
> Of course,
> as you've probably never even travelled beyond Baltimore County, it's
> not really surprising that your views are so parochial and bigoted.
Oh, Desi, you've learned to read a map; how cute. My kids
did that when they were five, but don't worry you'll catch up someday.
BTW, I'll stack my frequent flier miles up against yours anyday, son.
Don Kool
Desi Coughlan stepped on his proverbial dick again with:
> Joaquim Amado Lopes <jal...@mail.telepac.pt> writes
> >>>I can't understand how some people keep protecting the criminals right
> >>>to live
> >>I missed this first time around. The fact is, Joaquim, that even if
> >>*you* were the criminal, we would still seek to protect *your* rights,
> >>irrespective of what you had done.
> >The fact is, Desmond, that if I were a criminal and viciously killed
> >others, I would have the same right to live than everyone else who do
> >that: none!
> The right to life, Joaquim, is a right that the state is not empowered
> to remove, for the simple reason that it is a right which the state did
> not confer in the first place.
Poor Desi, so ill-informed about even the most basic matters.
The United States Constitution allows for the State to deprive citizens
of their right to life with "due process". So you are wrong again, dumbass.
> >After commiting a horrible crime and facing DP, I would be very happy
> >to have someone fighting to keep me alive and not have to face the
> >consequences of my own actions, but it wouldn't be right.
> You see, I and the other anti-death penalty posters have a distinct
> advantage over you pro-death penalty folks: if the worst came to the
> worst, and we were about to be executed, our opinion of the death
> penalty would not change. If you, however, were being dragged kicking
> and screaming to the electric chair, soiling your underpants at the same
> time, then I'm willing to bet that you would change your mind damn
> fucking quick.
In the extreme abstract situtation that you have presented, I
would be guilty of a terrible murder, or string of murders, and would
saunter to the chair like a man as I welcomed the chance to appropriately
pay for my heinous crimes. So you are wrong again, dumbass.
> >>We do it because criminals have rights, just like everyone else. We
> >>can't excuse their crimes, but nothing gives us the right to violate the
> >>most basic human right: the right to life.
> >This is the point we'll never agree upon. If someone does such a
> >terrible thing as taking another person's life without any reason but
> >it's own selfish, demented and unacceptable desires, he/she renounces
> >to his/her right to life.
> Again, Joaquim, one can only "renounce" the right to life by consent.
> So, for example, if I have lung cancer, and I ask you to kill me, then I
> have voluntarily decided that I want to die. Irrespective of my
> actions, however, the state has never had, does not have, nor ever will
> have, the right to deprive me of life. Whatever the United States
> Constitution says, that right is not one which any country can take upon
> itself.
Glad to see you are so into "human rights" that you are
immediately ready to throw away the United States Constitution;
the first, and greatest, document ever created to guarantee basic
human rights. What a "humanitarian" you are, boy.
Don Kool
Desi Coughlan replied to another one that escaped his kill file:
> >> > (B) to deter crime as an anti-social behavior
> >
> >> See my other post: the death penalty does not, never has, nor ever will,
> >> deter violent crime.
> Bullshit, McDonald, and you know it. No credible study since records
> began has found a shred of evidence for the deterrent theory. So if
> you've done your own research into this (God help us!), then why don't
> you post the results here. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Desi, unless you are aware of who wrote which parts of the posting
you are replying to, you should "shut the fuck up". Just the latest in
a long string of examples showing your computer "expertise".
> > Yes, it does. Just not to a statistically significant degree.
> >There are too many variables to accurately measure deterrence however
> >you can't claim, with any credibility, that it absolutely doesn't exist.
> >> > (C) because it is the right thing to do in a society
> >> What one person considers 'the right thing', is not necessarily what
> >> *is* right. Not that long ago, it was considered 'right' that white
> >> people were somehow superior to blacks.
> > What is 'the right thing' is determined by society in the
> >aggregate. In the United States, at this time, society has rightly
> >determined that the just Death Penalty is indeed 'the right thing'
> >for our worst murderers. What's not to like?
> If someone had asked you in the fifties (but of course, they couldn't.
> Despite your frequent references to age, you weren't even born until
> 1960) what you thought of the civil rights movement, would you have
> supported it?
Of course, son. Despite your racist feelings, it was the
right thing to do.
> Going by what you write next. . .
> > It is impossible to "rape" you wife. A woman's sacred vow
> >of marraige is to "love honor and obey".
> I doubt it. So a woman cannot be raped in "marraige' (sic)? As I say,
> every time you open your mouth and let your gut rumble, your credibility
> sinks even lower.
Doubtful, my statement is accurate.
> By the way, before you make some sort of puerile remark (That is, after
> all, the only kind of remark you ever make)
More ad hominem. I almost wish this child *were* capable of
putting together a cogent argument so that we wouldn't have to twinge
with embarrassment for him every time he posts more drivel.
> about my writing "sic"
Well... since you brought it up, your illiteracy would be
a little less obvious if you were to enclose "sic" in square brackets,
as is proper, rather then parenthesis. You might also want to decide
on using either double or single quotes on both sides of the word
and including "[sic]" in the quotation where it belongs instead
of outside where it makes no sense. Other than that; you did *real
good* for your first time, son. (He'll probably hear those same
words after the first time he has sex and they'll be just as
true then).
> above, remember the number of times you do exactly the same.
As I pointed out above, not "exactly" the same, poor,
witless child. I always use the proper square brackets rather
then parenthesis. Don't fret about it though, Desi; it's just
your latest public example of how "superior" your education
really is.
Of course you are right that I've had to use "[sic]"
on many occasions when replying to your postings. Given the
massive holes in your education and your technical computer
ability, it wouldn't be fair to you not to. Judging from
your above paranoid apology, the proper use of the term "[sic]"
is one of the many things that escape you. For your edification,
I'll post the definition below.
sic; adv. thus (added in brackets after a word
or expression in a quotation which looks wrong
or absurd, to show that it has been quoted
correctly) {L.]
As we all know, Desi, "wrong or absurd" just about describes
everything you post. No wonder there is usually a generous
sprinkling of "[sic]" in my replies.
> >> History is littered with examples of vile and barbaric practices, which
> >> we now look upon with horror, but which were, at the time, 'the right
> >> thing'.
> > Perfectly true. Just look to the British Isles for plenty
> >of examples.
> Well there's something we agree on, then. The difference is that we got
> rid of the vile practice of capital punishment a long time ago, and we
> are now enjoying the benefits: one of the least violent countries on the
> face of the planet.
Not counting countries with an aggressive just Death Penalty
like Saudi Arabia, of course. What a xenophobe you are, Desi.
> >> The death penalty is one of these practices.
> > Your simpleminded and naive opinion only, son, nothing more.
> OK, "Dad": whatever you say. . .
Well the first step to learning is admitting your mistakes.
> >> It *will* be
> >> abolished one day, and those who presently support it will be regarded,
> >> either as well-meaning but somewhat retarded do-gooders, or else as
> >> bloodthirsty savages.
> > The just Death Penalty was "abolished" for a time in the United
> >States. Thankfully reason took precedence over the "somewhat retarded
> >do-gooders" and the just Death Penalty was reinstated. All of America
> >is better off for it.
> Of course!! You now have so many murders every year that the equivalent
> of a small town gets wiped out every twelve months. God bless America!
Indeed, and God bless the just Death Penalty! The only proper,
moral and appropriate punishment for murderers! And God bless poor
Desi for he knows not what he does.
Don Kool
Toni Cranford wrote:
> Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> > Desi Coughlan wrote:
> > > Don Kool <old...@clark.net> writes
> {snip}
> > > Going by what you write next. . .
> > > > It is impossible to "rape" you wife. A woman's sacred vow
> > > >of marraige is to "love honor and obey".
> > > I doubt it. So a woman cannot be raped in "marraige' (sic)? As I say,
> > > every time you open your mouth and let your gut rumble, your
> > > credibility sinks even lower.
> > Doubtful, my statement is accurate.
> Given that rape, in this situation, is a legal term,
Actually, given that "this situation" isn't a legal one,
the discussion was about the term "rape" as it is commonly used
not in some twisted, revolting, narrowly defined legal permutation.
> and Don has stated he visits brothels, not law libraries,
A lie, but not surprising coming from Toni. These "antis"
just can't seem to help resorting to lies despite all of their
"strong arguments" against the just Death Penalty. What a bunch
of losers. Their whole premise isn't strong enough to support
one rational, logically sound argument. Instead they have to resort
to ad hominem and eventually even to bold faced lies. Pitiful.
For the record, Don Kool expressed his well placed
contempt for what lawyers do by saying that he would "rather
visit a brothel then a law library". Obviously both would be
equally repulsive to any moral person. Of course that lets
out lawyers.
> I think he can easily be dismissed as an ignorant fool on this matter.
Of course it is the "ignorant fool" who must resort to
ad hominem and outright prevarication. The pro Death Penalty side
merely has the truth to offer.
> If he would spend less time getting drunk
> and playing with his mutt (and hookers), he would know that there are
> indeed marital rape laws.
And we see that Toni hasn't left out the obligatory ad
hominem. Very good, Toni, I see you've been very attentive to the
anti Death Penalty cabal manual.
> {snip, Don discusses [sic], as if anyone really cares.}
Yes; who really cares, that Desi went out of his way to show
his ignorance about a simple thing like "[sic]". Best you do snip it
out since it shows one of your most prolific posters to be an illiterate,
insecure moron.
Dan Cutrer
In article <330112...@clark.net>, old...@clark.net says...
> Glad to see you are so into "human rights" that you are
>immediately ready to throw away the United States Constitution;
>the first, and greatest, document ever created to guarantee basic
>human rights. What a "humanitarian" you are, boy.
Uh, Magna Carta was Definitely First, perhaps even Greatest.
And, as I discovered in my Youth 'twas not wise to say to a Mississippi
Highway Patrolman, "Sir, it's MR. Boy."
Anthony Cranford
Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> Desi Coughlan wrote:
> > Don Kool <old...@clark.net> writes
{snip}
>
> > Going by what you write next. . .
>
> > > It is impossible to "rape" you wife. A woman's sacred vow
> > >of marraige is to "love honor and obey".
>
> > I doubt it. So a woman cannot be raped in "marraige' (sic)? As I say,
> > every time you open your mouth and let your gut rumble, your
credibility
> > sinks even lower.
>
> Doubtful, my statement is accurate.
Given that rape, in this situation, is a legal term, and Don has stated he
visits brothels, not law libraries, I think he can easily be dismissed as
an ignorant fool on this matter. If he would spend less time getting drunk
and playing with his mutt (and hookers), he would know that there are
indeed marital rape laws.
{snip, Don discusses [sic], as if anyone really cares.}
--
Anthony Cranford
acra...@dialnet.net
______________
Christian Mayne
Don Kool, while struggling with his second glass of JD wrote:
> Desi Coughlan blurted out for no apparent reason:
> > with society's lowest and most violent criminals, then why the hell
> > should you care if they bump each other off?
>
> Because the pro Death Penalty side supports civility and morality
> instead of the bizzare survival of the fittest jungle fantasy that you
> occupy your time with.
Like Animal Cruelty and Misogyny (Don), White power ('intphase'), and
anti-Semitism ('Warheit'). Yeah, Don, civility and morality. Two more
words for you to look up, perhaps.
> If a murderer is sentenced to a just execution,
> that just execution should be carried out in the swiftest and most humane
> way possible.
Of course, increasing the chance of an innocent person being executed.
Knowing your concern about innocent victims, I trust you'll be joining
the antis in such a situation.
> No justly executed murderer has ever gone on to murder again.
> That's pretty fucking safe, Desi.
Don's poor deluded mind in action again. The US has consistently been
shown to be anything but 'safe', DP or not.
> "It is possible", and already accomplished in the United States,
> to make the Death Penalty process "so secure that the chances of"
> accidently executing the wrong man "are practically nil". As a matter
> of fact the United States has managed to never accidently execute an
> "innocent man" since the reintroduction of the just Death Penalty over
> a fith of a century ago.
Only in the realms of your unquestioning and unchallenging mind, Don.
In reality there is good documentary evidence pointing at such
miscarriages of justice. Carry on enjoying your fantasy land, Don, the
rest of us here are concerned with reality.
> This goes "a long way to protecting the
> innocent and vulnerable, much better than the simple 'quick fix' that"
> abolishment was shown to be in the United States 30 years ago.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Don
Yeah, yeah, dream on. Can't quite handle that JD, can you Don?
Christian
Anthony Cranford
Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> Anthony Cranford wrote:
> > Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> > > Desi Coughlan wrote:
> > > > Don Kool <old...@clark.net> writes
>
> > {snip}
>
> > > > Going by what you write next. . .
>
> > > > > It is impossible to "rape" you wife. A woman's sacred vow
> > > > >of marraige is to "love honor and obey".
>
> > > > I doubt it. So a woman cannot be raped in "marraige' (sic)? As I
say,
> > > > every time you open your mouth and let your gut rumble, your
> > > > credibility sinks even lower.
>
> > > Doubtful, my statement is accurate.
>
> > Given that rape, in this situation, is a legal term,
>
> Actually, given that "this situation" isn't a legal one,
> the discussion was about the term "rape" as it is commonly used
> not in some twisted, revolting, narrowly defined legal permutation.
I know the law is not your best subject, Don, but rape is a crime, thus the
situation you present is a legal one, no matter how you prefer to couch it.
{snip law libraries v. brothels}
> > I think he can easily be dismissed as an ignorant fool on this matter.
>
> Of course it is the "ignorant fool" who must resort to
> ad hominem and outright prevarication. The pro Death Penalty side
> merely has the truth to offer.
When will we see this side of your argument? Other pro's at least make an
attempt at this.
> > If he would spend less time getting drunk
> > and playing with his mutt (and hookers), he would know that there are
> > indeed marital rape laws.
>
> And we see that Toni hasn't left out the obligatory ad
> hominem. Very good, Toni, I see you've been very attentive to the
> anti Death Penalty cabal manual.
It is the only recourse one has when responding to your posts, given that
you rarely, if ever, say anything of substance. But, to quote you,
"begging the question." Can a woman be raped by her husband, in your
opinion? Yes or no? Since you have said "no" above, let me suggest you
contact someone knowledgeable of the law and ask them if you are correct in
your assumption before you answer.
{snip, Don discusses [sic], as if anyone really cares. Again}
Joaquim Amado Lopes
Greetings.
On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:35:51 +0000, "Mr Desmond E. Coughlan"
<D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <33008098...@news.telepac.pt>, Joaquim Amado Lopes
><jal...@mail.telepac.pt> writes
>
>The right to life, Joaquim, is a right that the state is not empowered
>to remove, for the simple reason that it is a right which the state did
>not confer in the first place.
>
No-one is empowered to kill just as no-one is empowered to inprison or
punish in any way. The fact is that life in society doesn't give us
only rights but duties as well. The most important of these duties is
to respect others and their rights as others have to respect us and
ours. Respecting eachother's lives is a part of it. That is the only
way we can live in society.
When someone murders without any reason whatsoever, he/she renounces
from being a part of society and all the rights society gives him/her.
He/she can no longer claim for any rights.
>>After commiting a horrible crime and facing DP, I would be very happy
>>to have someone fighting to keep me alive and not have to face the
>>consequences of my own actions, but it wouldn't be right.
>>
>
>You see, I and the other anti-death penalty posters have a distinct
>advantage over you pro-death penalty folks: if the worst came to the
>worst, and we were about to be executed, our opinion of the death
>penalty would not change. If you, however, were being dragged kicking
>and screaming to the electric chair, soiling your underpants at the same
>time, then I'm willing to bet that you would change your mind damn
>fucking quick.
>
I'm sorry, but do you know me? Can you bet on such a thing just by
reading my posts?
When you assume that, facing DP, everyone would put their lives above
their principles, in whom are you thinking? By any chance you're
against DP because you may one day have to face it?
Let me tell you that if I ever am sentenced to DP, no matter how much
I kick, scream or beg for my life, it won't make DP wrong for rapists
and vicious murderers.
If I ever do such a thing like rape or viciously murder an innocent
person I *will* deserve DP and I'm sure that, if I ever become such a
sub-human being that I could do such a thing, I *will* put my life
before my principles. But as long as I am a human being, I'll always
be in favour of DP for sub-human scum who destroy lives without even
thinking about it and have no remorse afterwards.
[snip]
>Again, Joaquim, one can only "renounce" the right to life by consent.
>
Wrong! We can also renounce to our rights through our actions.
You have the right not to be hit by anyone else but, when you insult
and provoke others, you're asking for them to hit you. When you hit
others you automatically lose the right not to have your face smashed
in.
[snip]
Mike Cullinan
In Article<J6F1kJArfH$yE...@maudit.demon.co.uk>,
<D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> write:
-------snip
> > Two men executed during the last Arkansas triple are the most recent
> >examples. They were in prison for murder when they broke out and went on a
> >multi-state killing spree.
>
> In the case mentioned, Charles, making sure that the two individuals
> concerned, didn't break out of prison, would have had the same effect.
And how do you propose to ensure that no one breaks out of prison? Do
you have some vision of a futuristic hyper-security facility? Besides,
maybe imposition of DP has prevented some breakouts more effectively
than millions of extra dollars of concrete, steel, and salaries for
guards.
>
> Why is it that if criminals break out of jail and subsequently kill
> someone, you pro-death penalty folks use it as a (very tenuous) argument
> in favour of state-sponsored killing? WHy not use it as an argument in
> favour of more secure prisons?
Have you got a few billion dollars to spare? We keep hearing the
argument in here about the annual cost of DP, which must now be between
$30 and $40 million per year. But the cost of keeping tens of
thousands of LWOP prisoners for life (who would have formerly
gotten DP) would soar into the stratosphere in no time.
> It will be claimed that no one can ensure that prisoners don't escape,
> in which case, I would ask that you to remember Devil's Island, as
> someone very helpfully reminded me recently. One escapee in 94 years.
Great. Have you got any likely sites picked out? We need about 10
or 20 of them to get the kind of security you envision.
Don Kool
Chrissy Mayne fumed:
> Don Kool, while struggling with his second glass of JD wrote:
I've never been known to "struggle" with a glass of
Mr. Jack's finest. Fine Tennessee bourbon is to be treated
with respect, like a fine lady, not to be "struggled" with
like you or Desi trying to unhook some co-ed's bra strap.
> > Desi Coughlan blurted out for no apparent reason:
> > > If you populate a prison wing, or an island, or any other secure place,
> > > with society's lowest and most violent criminals, then why the hell
> > > should you care if they bump each other off?
> > Because the pro Death Penalty side supports civility and morality
> > instead of the bizzare survival of the fittest jungle fantasy that you
> > occupy your time with.
> Like Animal Cruelty and Misogyny (Don),
Apparently it is you who is feeling inebriated, Chrissy.
Either that or you have me confused with someone else.
> White power ('intphase'), and
> anti-Semitism ('Warheit'). Yeah, Don, civility and morality. Two more
> words for you to look up, perhaps.
> > If a murderer is sentenced to a just execution,
> > that just execution should be carried out in the swiftest and most humane
> > way possible.
> Of course, increasing the chance of an innocent person being executed.
> Knowing your concern about innocent victims, I trust you'll be joining
> the antis in such a situation.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a speedy trial
is a bad thing. Actually a speedy trial is guaranteed in the United
States Constitution, son. You ought to read it some time. There's a
wealth of good information in there.
> > No justly executed murderer has ever gone on to murder again.
> > That's pretty fucking safe, Desi.
> Don's poor deluded mind in action again.
Aparently you have been seeing ghosts going out and murdering
then Chrissy. Your problem with inebriation is obviously worse then
it first seemed.
> The US has consistently been
> shown to be anything but 'safe', DP or not.
The majority of the United States (the greatest country on
the face of the Earth, BTW) is very safe.
> > "It is possible", and already accomplished in the United States,
> > to make the Death Penalty process "so secure that the chances of"
> > accidently executing the wrong man "are practically nil". As a matter
> > of fact the United States has managed to never accidently execute an
> > "innocent man" since the reintroduction of the just Death Penalty over
> > a fith of a century ago.
> Only in the realms of your unquestioning and unchallenging mind, Don.
Actually "in the realms" of the legal record, Chrissy.
> In reality there is good documentary evidence pointing at such
> miscarriages of justice. Carry on enjoying your fantasy land, Don, the
> rest of us here are concerned with reality.
"In reality", if there were "good documentary evidence
pointing at such miscarriages of justice", it would be before the
courts and they would be handing out posthumous pardons right and
left. "In reality", there isn't and they aren't.
> > This goes "a long way to protecting the
> > innocent and vulnerable, much better than the simple 'quick fix' that"
> > abolishment was shown to be in the United States 30 years ago.
> > Hope this helps,
> > Don
> Yeah, yeah, dream on. Can't quite handle that JD, can you Don?
Such insightful analysis from one so young and naive. Really
Chrissy; is this the best you can come up with? Sadly enough, it
appears to be.
Whatever happened to the days when the anti Death Penalty
cabal was actually able to field posters at least able to present
a convincing sophistry or at least a self-consistent tautology.
Now all they have are children spewing grade school ad hominem
when they aren't actually posting bald faced lies. Pitiful,
just pitiful.
Brian Keith Wittrup
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Don Kool wrote:
>
> > It was considered 'right' that a man could not be guilty of raping his
> > wife within marriage.
>
> It is impossible to "rape" you wife. A woman's sacred vow
> of marraige is to "love honor and obey".
It is sentiments like this which have allowed the unequal
treatment of women throughout centuries. This is off the subject of the
death penalty, but if I remeber correctly, it is the vow of the man to
love, honor, and cherish his wife also. I don't believe continuing on
with a sexual advance after your wife has said no is an honorable thing to
do.
If you are married sir, I feel sorry for your wife, because she is
living with an oppressive, sexist, criminal (if you have put this belief
into practice). Maybe I will support the death penalty if the started
strapping rapists like you in the chair.
On second thought, it is not important enough to break my ethical
beliefs to suit the remarkable ignorance of your life.
Mike Cullinan
In Article<E7fmEDABQm$yE...@maudit.demon.co.uk>,
<D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> write:
> >[snip]
> >>It will be claimed that no one can ensure that prisoners don't escape,
> >>
> >You can *never* ensure that prisoners won't escape but you can take
> >that risk with a car thief, not with a serial killer.
> >
>
> You can also never be sure that an executed criminal is in fact
> responsible for the crimes for which he is losing his life.
Yes, in fact you can be absolutely certain. One recent example: a
man confesses to abducting and murdering an adolescent girl, and
later leads the police to where he left her body. There are
other cases where the evidence is even more overwhelming than
that. I'll grant that there have been some cases of circumstantial
evidence that would leave some doubt, but you said that we can
_never_ be certain about any case whatsoever, and this is grossly
inaccurate. Never say "never."
>
> >>in which case, I would ask that you to remember Devil's Island, as
> >>someone very helpfully reminded me recently. One escapee in 94 years.
> >>--
> >How many Devil's Islands can there be (how many islands with the
> >adequate characteristics) and how much would cost to send someone to
> >one?
> >Also, what do you think extremely violent criminals would do in such a
> >"prison"? I'm thinking in something like "what would they do to other
> >prisoners"?
> >
>
> Right, well there is a *gross* contradiction in this argument, which is
> something that the pro-death penalty camp often use, not realizing that
> they are shooting themselves in the foot.
>
> Or should that be 'feet'. . .? :-)
>
> If you populate a prison wing, or an island, or any other secure place,
> with society's lowest and most violent criminals, then why the hell
> should you care if they bump each other off?
I have heard lawyers make arguments that LWOP can actually be a much
worse penalty than death, subjecting prisoners to brutal gang rapes
and stabbings. A prison riot in a New Mexico prison in 1980 resulted
in some horrendous tortures and murders of inmates with a butane
torch, a shovel, and some other tools.
So there are two sides to this coin, Desmond, and an equal opportunity
for pro dp'rs to shoot holes in their feet as well. Why would you
want to subject someone to the cruelty of LWOP, a life without hope,
with all its exposure to rape, knifings, and yes, violent death.
> You can't have it both ways: you either want them alive, in which case
> you weep buckets whenever a murderer is killed in prison (and I don't
> remember any rednecks around here calling for the 'just execution' of
> the guy that killed Jeffrey Dahmer. . .),
I don't know if I follow the gist of what you are saying here.
or you want them dead, in
> which case, you should be glad of any plan which might increase the
> chances of that happening.
I still don't understand. Could you possibly rephrase and reiterate?
>
> >I can't understand how some people keep protecting the criminals right
> >to live while they forget, not only the fact that they don't respect
> >that same right to others, but also the right that everyone else has
> >to be safe.
> >
>
> That last sentence there is correct: we *do* have the right to be safe,
> but remember that at *no time* has the death penalty been shown to make
> society a safer place in which to live. There have been many studies,
> however, which show (irrespective of how many times the rednecks want to
> deny it) that there has been, and is, an increase in the homicide rate
> after an execution. Capital punishment, therefore, makes society
> *less*, safe.
I could throw up a whole bunch of numbers that would indicate just the
opposite, and say that abolition means sacrificing the innocent to save
the guilty. The fact is, Desmond, there is no conclusive statistical
evidence _anywhere_ that either abolition or capital punishment
saves more innocents. For every pile of numbers you throw at me
to show that DP brutalizes, I could throw just as many back at you
that show DP deters. Criminologists admit as much.
---snip