Conservative anti-death penalty (they do exist)
The Captain
What the anti-death penalty whiners don't tell you is that capital
punishment is not used capriciously, or for "shits and grins", as much as
they might want you to think so.
If someone here in Texas (or anywhere else in the US, for that matter) is
put to death, it is because they have been convicted of ONLY the most
heinous forms of murder. And on top of that, spend anywhere from 10 to 20
YEARS as their cases are appealed over, and over. Examined over and over.
Again and again. All the way to the US Supreme Court.
No, boys and girls. If someone gets the death penalty, it is only after
repeated, exhaustive examinations of the case, and if it still stands,
he/she is gently and painlessly put to death; a far, far better death than
their victim(s) experienced, of that you can be sure.
Given all this, it makes one wonder what the REAL motivations of these
anti-death penalty types really are...
"James Simpson" <js...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:ZE5g6.789$pA1....@news.flash.net...
> VIRGINIA:
>
> Frank Hargrove Sr. doesn't want anyone to think he has turned into a
> pacifist. He wants liberals to know that, with 19 years in Virginia's
House
> of Delegates under his belt, he remains a true, firm conservative.
(deleted for brevity by DrivelPurge<tm>)
James Simpson
news:95ri8r$ghe$1...@news.news-service.com...
> Which only goes to show that even conservatives can reach their
dotage...:)
>
> What the anti-death penalty whiners don't tell you is that capital
> punishment is not used capriciously, or for "shits and grins", as much as
> they might want you to think so.
>
> If someone here in Texas (or anywhere else in the US, for that matter) is
> put to death, it is because they have been convicted of ONLY the most
> heinous forms of murder. And on top of that, spend anywhere from 10 to 20
> YEARS as their cases are appealed over, and over. Examined over and over.
> Again and again. All the way to the US Supreme Court.
>
> No, boys and girls. If someone gets the death penalty, it is only after
> repeated, exhaustive examinations of the case
Oh please, have you not been watching the news the past several years? Did
you miss the Frontline episode on abuses of the death penalty? I don't have
time to go over all the evidence that prosecutors use the number of death
penalty convictions they get for political gain, that "jailhouse snitches"
of extremely questionable reliability are used to obtain convictions, etc.
etc. Look at these links and then tell us that "if someone gets the death
penalty, it is only after repeated, exhaustive examinations of the case".
What a sad joke.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/814496
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/813700
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/813783
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/814478
http://209.70.38.3/DEATH/crinfo.htm
http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html
http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html
http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html
http://209.70.38.3/public.nsf/championarticles/99jul01?opendocument
http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/AMR510101998
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/failure/index.html
http://209.70.38.3/public.nsf/championarticles/99jul01?opendocument
http://www.cuadp.org/bush.html
http://members.nbci.com/ccadp/serialpresident.htm
Mitchell Holman
}Which only goes to show that even conservatives can reach their dotage...:)
}
}What the anti-death penalty whiners don't tell you is that capital
}punishment is not used capriciously, or for "shits and grins", as much as
}they might want you to think so.
}
}If someone here in Texas (or anywhere else in the US, for that matter) is
}put to death, it is because they have been convicted of ONLY the most
}heinous forms of murder. And on top of that, spend anywhere from 10 to 20
}YEARS as their cases are appealed over, and over. Examined over and over.
}Again and again. All the way to the US Supreme Court.
}
And those appeals are rubberstamps for the prosecution.
Lawyer slept thru the trial? Hey, no problem, that is still a fair
trial the way we see it. Witnesses have recanted their story?
Opps, too late. Get the gurney ready. New evidence shows
he is innocent? Sorry, pardons are the governors job. We can't
be troubled with ordering new hearings.
Great system of appeals you've got there..........
}No, boys and girls. If someone gets the death penalty, it is only after
}repeated, exhaustive examinations of the case, and if it still stands,
}he/she is gently and painlessly put to death; a far, far better death than
}their victim(s) experienced, of that you can be sure.
}
}Given all this, it makes one wonder what the REAL motivations of these
}anti-death penalty types really are...
The issue is what the is motivations of those
demanding executions. It is not about public
safety, as states that don't execute are safer than
those that do. It is not about about victims and
their wishes, as the state routinely executes men
despite the wishes of victims families. It is not
about saving money, as executions cost far more
money than the alternative. It is not about justice,
as the prosecution tries to block all attempts to hold
hearings on new evidence showing innocence.
Perhaps it is about the US joining the ranks of
such paragons of justice as Iran, Cuba, Botswana
and Afganistan in seeing who can execute the
most prisoners. Meanwhile the rest of the civilized
world has left this barbarism behind.
Mitchell Holman
"Capital punishment is our way of demonstrating the
sanctity of life"
Republican Senator Orin Hatch
Ashland Henderson
news:95ri8r$ghe$1...@news.news-service.com...
dotage...:)
>
> What the anti-death penalty whiners don't tell you is that capital
> punishment is not used capriciously, or for "shits and grins", as much as
> they might want you to think so.
What they do tell you, however, is that mistakes still happen. And have
happened. And will happen.
> If someone here in Texas (or anywhere else in the US, for that matter) is
> put to death, it is because they have been convicted of ONLY the most
> heinous forms of murder. And on top of that, spend anywhere from 10 to 20
> YEARS as their cases are appealed over, and over. Examined over and over.
> Again and again. All the way to the US Supreme Court.
Shouting doesn't help your point. Does killing convicted murderers
make you feel good? Does it make you feel good that innocent
people have been killed by your government due to mistakes,
corrupt police and prosecuters, inept defense attornies, and uncaring
politicians. I don't know about you, but it bothers me.
> No, boys and girls. If someone gets the death penalty, it is only after
> repeated, exhaustive examinations of the case, and if it still stands,
> he/she is gently and painlessly put to death; a far, far better death than
> their victim(s) experienced, of that you can be sure.
And mistakes still happen.
> Given all this, it makes one wonder what the REAL motivations of these
> anti-death penalty types really are...
The real motivations are exactly as stated. Only someone who
truely believes in vast conspiracy theories thinks otherwise.
Mitchell Holman
}> Given all this, it makes one wonder what the REAL motivations of these
}> anti-death penalty types really are...
}
}The real motivations are exactly as stated. Only someone who
}truely believes in vast conspiracy theories thinks otherwise.
}
Don't you find it odd that the same people who don't
trust the government to deliver the mail or educate their
children will entrust that same government with deciding
who should live and who should die?
Mitchell Holman
"Evidence of innocence is irrelevant."
The appeals attorney for the state of Virgina, arguing that
Roger Coleman should be executed despite new evidence
showing his innocence. He was executed later the same year.
Ashland Henderson
news:48FECD76192C29FB.FCC47D4F...@lp.airnews.net...
> In article <53dg6.7966$iM6.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Ashland Henderson" <macea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> }> Given all this, it makes one wonder what the REAL motivations of these
> }> anti-death penalty types really are...
> }
> }The real motivations are exactly as stated. Only someone who
> }truely believes in vast conspiracy theories thinks otherwise.
> }
>
> Don't you find it odd that the same people who don't
> trust the government to deliver the mail or educate their
> children will entrust that same government with deciding
> who should live and who should die?
I find it very odd indeed. Likewise I find it odd that the
staunchist proponents of the death penalty are the
fundamentalist christians of the religious right. My own
youthful christian training always seemed to try and
stress forgiveness and mercy. Oh well, times change.
And of course there are those who want to get
government out of our lives but into our bedrooms.
Ashland Henderson
Great quote. I sometimes wonder if a course in logic
would help some of these people.
Mitchell Holman
}"Mitchell Holman" <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote in message
}news:48FECD76192C29FB.FCC47D4F...@lp.airnews.net...
}> In article <53dg6.7966$iM6.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
}"Ashland Henderson" <macea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
}>
}> }> Given all this, it makes one wonder what the REAL motivations of these
}> }> anti-death penalty types really are...
}> }
}> }The real motivations are exactly as stated. Only someone who
}> }truely believes in vast conspiracy theories thinks otherwise.
}> }
}>
}> Don't you find it odd that the same people who don't
}> trust the government to deliver the mail or educate their
}> children will entrust that same government with deciding
}> who should live and who should die?
}
}I find it very odd indeed. Likewise I find it odd that the
}staunchist proponents of the death penalty are the
}fundamentalist christians of the religious right.
Funny that Jesus halted one execution, died in
another, but the born-agains think he suppported
capital punishment. Odd.
Mitchell Holman
"Government is the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex."
-- Frank Zappa --
rlwalsh
ultra-Christians to wrap their minds around the fact
that the Ten Commandments say explicitly that:
"Thou Shalt Not Kill."
The Bible does not say that "Citizens shalt not kill,
but it's Ok for the government for one reason or
another."
Nor is it written that "Thou shalt not kill fetuses, but it's
ok to kill more or less grown people who have
committed crimes.
Think about the inconsistency in the moral values (aka
hypocrisy). Either it is the sanctity of life or it is not.
Taking the life of a murderer does in no way redeem
the life of the murderee. There is no real satisfaction
(who said "Revenge is faint solace?") in an execution
for the victim(s)' families, and it has been demonstrated
again and again that the death penalty does not deter
murders or any other crimes.
Oh, and as many others have pointed out, too many
innocent persons are put to death. It's true, it's real,
admit it.
It is irrational to say Ok to the death penalty and No to
abortion. Think about it. Either say no to both or yes
to both.
-----------------------------------------
The Captain <cap...@texasSpamNo.net> wrote in article
<95ri8r$ghe$1...@news.news-service.com>...
James Simpson
news:3A8104CA...@mitre.org...
> James Simpson wrote:
> > . . . .
> > As Hargrove walks toward the Capitol, Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax)
> > hurries to catch him: "You know, I think I may be joining your cause."
> > Howell has been a death penalty supporter, but Hargrove has her thinking
> > harder. "We almost executed an innocent man," she says. "A lot of us are
> > wrestling with the death penalty. I'm wondering if we can ever make it
fair
> > enough."
>
> Perhaps if it turns out we executed an innocent man, he can be cloned.
Or we could just fix the system, but I guess it's just a matter of
priorities, what's important and what's not. Can we ensure that no innocent
person is ever executed, or can we just ignore the problem? I think our
justice system has chosen the latter, it's easier. So what if only a few
innocent people are executed, there are always "acceptable losses", right?
Yeah, right,
James
Some Useless Information
<48FECD76192C29FB.FCC47D4F...@lp.airnews.net>,
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>In article <53dg6.7966$iM6.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Ashland Henderson" <macea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>}> Given all this, it makes one wonder what the REAL motivations of these
>}> anti-death penalty types really are...
>}
>}The real motivations are exactly as stated. Only someone who
>}truely believes in vast conspiracy theories thinks otherwise.
>}
>
> Don't you find it odd that the same people who don't
> trust the government to deliver the mail or educate their
> children will entrust that same government with deciding
> who should live and who should die?
>
It has always made me laugh. These are the same people who will
argue day and night that they need guns to defend them from
government tyranny. But if you want to take away one of the
government's most potent tools of tyranny, you're pro-criminal.
Some Useless Information
<74DC942E31851CDC.55915187...@lp.airnews.net>,
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>
> Funny that Jesus halted one execution, died in
>another, but the born-agains think he suppported
>capital punishment. Odd.
>
so against the taking of human life that they would not raise a hand, even
to defend themselves from violent attack, and considered it a sin to do so.
To thus die without defending oneself, for Christ's sake, was martyrdom
that ensured eternal salvation.
But that is just one of many ways in which modern so-called Christians
have twisted Christ's teaching, so that by observing their behavior and
their teaching, you would gain an impression of Jesus that is the exact
opposite of what the Bible documents.
Some Useless Information
<js...@flash.net> wrote:
What makes you think only a few innocent people are executed? All we can
say is that based on the number of people who were *almost* exected who
we *know* were innocent, it's probable that at least a similar proportion
of those executed were also innocent.
James Simpson
news:icant-ya02408000...@news.axs4u.net...
Or worse yet, that, considering that probably only a fraction of all cases
of innocence are re-investigated and overturned before execution, there are
probably an even much higher number of innocent people whose case is never
re-investigated and are executed. The number may be very high. This series
in the Houston Chronicle exposes the fraud and injustice of the death
penalty, which is dealt with in an incredibly unjust manner in Texas, a
veritable assembly line of death used by prosecutors and judges for their
election campaigns:
Ashland Henderson
news:icant-ya02408000...@news.axs4u.net...
Theology has never been a strong point of fundamentalism.
David Maynard
You'd fail probability and statistics class on that one.
Some Useless Information
<js...@flash.net> wrote:
It goes with the system. In Texas, judges are elected in partisan
elections. Their campaigns attract contributions mainly from trial
lawyers who practice in their court or from companies and individuals
who have business before the court. Lawyers feel that judges are
sometimes influenced by these contributions, so they feel compelled
to contribute -- to both sides. You wouldn't want to appear in court
before a judge to whose campaign you did not contribute.
With that system, how can you say anyone in Texas has received a fair
trial?
Some Useless Information
<mayNO...@flash.net> wrote:
It's not purely statistical reasoning. For all of the persons on death row,
there is substantial reason to think that they are actually guilty of the
crimes for which they are there, which is why they were convicted in the first
place. However, a certain fraction of them have been able to *prove*
subsequently (most recently with the aid of new DNA evidence) that they were
not guilty. Those are the lucky ones. I figure that the chances of that
happening, for those who happen to be innocent, are pretty slim. So the
majority of those who actually did not do the crimes of which they were
accused were eventually unsuccessful in their defenses and were executed.
Figure like this.
P1 = people who did not commit the crimes / total receiving death sentence.
P2 = probability that a convicted innocent person proves innocence before being
executed
N = Number of people sentenced to die.
The number of people who are actually innocent is
N x P1
The number of people exonerated (before execution) equals
N x P1 x P2
and the number of people executed equals
N x (1-P1) x (1-P2)
What I argued was that N x P1 x (1-P2) > N x P1 x P2, which is the same
as saying (1-P2) > P2. In other words, if a person is convicted of a
capital crime and receives the death sentence, there is less than a 50%
chance that, if innocent, he can prove it. This seems reasonable, since
we are talking about people who for one reason or another failed to raise
reasonable doubt in their first trial.
James Simpson
news:3A8485E6...@flash.net...
> nothing but a mathematically postulated 'opinion'. The first being the
> presumption of the probabilities themselves.
Whether it's "sounds" "scientific" or not, it's common sense. What he
states is pure logic: That since it is extremely difficult for a person to
"prove" their innocence after being sentenced to die, the likelihood is
higher that as many or more innocent people are executed than are freed. As
he said "if a person is convicted of a capital crime and receives the death
sentence, there is less than a 50% chance that, if innocent, he can prove
it." It's well known that the courts are loathe to overturn a death
sentence, for a number of reasons, including the fact that many judges and
prosecutors run their election campaigns based on the number of death
sentences they win. And it would reflect badly on them if a death sentence
were overturned. If you read the links I provided, you would find that the
"justice" system in regard to the death penalty is fraught with error,
incompetence, and outright fraud, with defense lawyers falling asleep at
trial, use of unreliable "jailhouse snitches" who are basically bribed for
their testimony (and thus have incentive to lie), and prosecutors and judges
who run a regular "death mill" to get more notches in their death penalty
belt to appear "tough on crime" for their election campaigns. This was made
very clear in the Frontline episode in their profile of Roy Criner, who
spent more than a year behind bars in Texas after two DNA tests proved he
could not have committed the crime. Texas Supreme Court Justice, Sharon
Keller, was asked why the TSC denied a new trial for Roy Criner in light of
DNA evidence proving his DNA was excluded, and that there was DNA present
from a person who was neither Criner nor the victim, she replied "I don't
really know, if you're talking about from the point of view of actual
innocence ... Oh. I suppose that that is a possibility. But he certainly
hasn't established it ... He has to establish unquestionably that he is
innocent and he hasn't done it." Guilty until proven innocent.
Then there was the Christopher Ochoa case (also in Texas, coincidentally).
Ochoa was recently freed after 12 years on death row, and the only reason
Ochoa's case was re-investigated at all was that a group of law students
from the "Innocence Project" took up his case. Ochoa was coerced to confess
to a murder he didn't commit by police who told him if he confessed he
wouldn't get a "lethal need in the arm". In 1998, Achim Josef Marino, who
is serving a life sentence for an unrelated offense, sent a letter to
Governor George W. Bush confessing to the crime, but Bush never turned it
over to law enforcement authorities! Why would Bush withhold that letter?
I can only guess that his reasons are political, again an overriding need to
appear "tough on crime", even if an innocent person might be executed. DNA
tests now point to Marino as the perpetrator. Of this, Bryan Case,
assistant district attorney for Travis County, Texas, said "It's a bad
feeling knowing the system failed". So the proof *is* there that innocent
people are wrongly convicted and sent to death row all the time. But I do
realize there always be those who deny or repress the possibility that
innocent people are executed. These same people seem to take the attitude
that there are "acceptable losses", and if an innocent person is executed
it's just a sacrifice that must be made. Since 1973, 89 prisoners have been
freed from death row. So if there are, conservatively, 1.5 innocent inmates
who are executed for every 1 guilty person, that would make about 132
innocent people executed since 1973. Of course there's no way to know
exactly how many innocent people have been put to death, but the number
could be very high.
For the reasons above and many others, it's very difficult for death row
inmates to prove their innocence. In many cases, the courts refuse to allow
a new trial in death penalty cases, even after DNA evidence has conclusively
excluded the defendant (as in Criner's case). The Texas Supreme Court
actually affirmed a death sentence in which the defendant's lawyer slept
through much of the trial! They ruled that "incompetence of counsel is not
sufficient" to order a new trial! Now, given that kind of system, do you
really think that the number of innocent defendant's who are freed is less
than the number of innocent persons who are executed wrongly? I think it's
quite obvious that the number of innocent people whose case is never
re-opened and end up being executed is probably significantly higher than
the number who manage to obtain a new trial (a major hurdle in Texas) and
are freed. Also, remember almost every state has the "21 Day Rule" that
disallows the introduction of new evidence in capital cases 21 days after
conviction. In this system, it's "guilty until proven innocent", or as TX
Supreme Court Justice Sharon Keller put it, the inmate must "establish
unquestionably that he is innocent". With that criteria, it's nearly
impossible for a death row inmate to get a new trial in Texas! So,
considering all these factors, it is *much* more likely that the number of
innocent people who end up being executed is higher than the number of
innocent who are freed.
James
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/814496
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/813700
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/813783
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/814478
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocothers.html#executed
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoccases.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/263981_ochoa_17tex.AR.html
http://www.txcn.com/video/2001_0116_dna2.ram
David Maynard
Sounds real 'scientific'. Except it's fraught with assumptions and is
Mitchell Holman
}>
}> Figure like this.
}>
}> P1 = people who did not commit the crimes / total receiving death sentence.
}>
}> P2 = probability that a convicted innocent person proves innocence before
} being
}> executed
}>
}> N = Number of people sentenced to die.
}>
}> The number of people who are actually innocent is
}>
}> N x P1
}>
}> The number of people exonerated (before execution) equals
}>
}> N x P1 x P2
}>
}> and the number of people executed equals
}>
}> N x (1-P1) x (1-P2)
}>
}> What I argued was that N x P1 x (1-P2) > N x P1 x P2, which is the same
}> as saying (1-P2) > P2. In other words, if a person is convicted of a
}> capital crime and receives the death sentence, there is less than a 50%
}> chance that, if innocent, he can prove it. This seems reasonable, since
}> we are talking about people who for one reason or another failed to raise
}> reasonable doubt in their first trial.
}
}Sounds real 'scientific'. Except it's fraught with assumptions and is
}nothing but a mathematically postulated 'opinion'.
As opposed to what - the assumption that everyone on
death row is guilty, that juries never made mistakes, that
the government is always right?
James Simpson
> Since 1973, 89 prisoners have been freed from death row. So if there are,
> conservatively, 1.5 innocent inmates who are executed for every 1 guilty
person,
> that would make about 132 innocent people executed since 1973.
Oops. What I meant to say here was if there are 1.5 innocent inmates who
are executed for every 1 innocent person that is exonerated and freed, that
would make about 132 innocent people executed since 1973. I was a little
tired when I wrote that.
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
wrote:
>"James Simpson" <js...@flash.net> wrote in message
>news:u75h6.3271$y03.2...@news.flash.net...
>> Since 1973, 89 prisoners have been freed from death row. So if there are,
>> conservatively, 1.5 innocent inmates who are executed for every 1 guilty
>person,
>> that would make about 132 innocent people executed since 1973.
>
>Oops. What I meant to say here was if there are 1.5 innocent inmates who
>are executed for every 1 innocent person that is exonerated and freed, that
>would make about 132 innocent people executed since 1973. I was a little
>tired when I wrote that.
(Chuckle)
Being a regular visitor to typoland myself.....
/E
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/
James Simpson
news:3a85ca23.18977206@news-server...
Wow, Eric. You can be an alright guy sometimes. Sorry I criticized you for
your rather blunt expression of your views. Guess I need to pay more
attention to what Jesus said: "He who is without sin among you, let him cast
the first stone". Ah, I'm gettin' to be an old softie!
James
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
wrote:
>> (Chuckle)
>> Being a regular visitor to typoland myself.....
>
>Wow, Eric. You can be an alright guy sometimes. Sorry I criticized you for
>your rather blunt expression of your views. Guess I need to pay more
>attention to what Jesus said: "He who is without sin among you, let him cast
>the first stone". Ah, I'm gettin' to be an old softie!
(Shrug)
Hey, being honest. I mean, you HAVE seen my typing, right? LOL!
Look I make no apologies for my views, and I will not deny I
occasionally do rub people's faces in their own droppings. But I would
be less than honest if I didn't take an 'excriment occurrs' attitude
as regards things like this. Also, it does tend to help keep the
discussion moving.
Some Useless Information
<mayNO...@flash.net> wrote:
Unlike most of the arguments you see in this group, my assumptions are
explicitly stated. They are reasonable and realistic. The only questions
are as to the probabilities. If you think my assumptions about those
probabilities are incorrect, please say how and why you think so.
Some Useless Information
<js...@flash.net> wrote:
>"James Simpson" <js...@flash.net> wrote in message
>news:u75h6.3271$y03.2...@news.flash.net...
>> Since 1973, 89 prisoners have been freed from death row. So if there are,
>> conservatively, 1.5 innocent inmates who are executed for every 1 guilty
>person,
>> that would make about 132 innocent people executed since 1973.
>
>Oops. What I meant to say here was if there are 1.5 innocent inmates who
>are executed for every 1 innocent person that is exonerated and freed, that
>would make about 132 innocent people executed since 1973. I was a little
>tired when I wrote that.
>James
So you're assuming that an innocent person who has been sentenced to death
has a 40% chance of being exonerated before death? I think that estimate
is very optimistic. I would put it at 20%, making the number of executed
innocent persons roughly 320.
James Simpson
news:icant-ya02408000...@news.axs4u.net...
I was consciously being very conservative, noting that it's got to be at
least 40% because the justice system is so corrupt that very few are
innocent people are exonerated and freed . Now that I think about it, 40%
is overly optimistic, it's probably more like 10-20%. But there's no way
we'll ever know the true number.
James
James Simpson
--
Help stop right-wing ignorance.
Neuter a conservative today.
"Some Useless Information" <ic...@get.no.satisfaction.com> wrote in message
news:icant-ya02408000...@news.axs4u.net...
James Simpson
news:icant-ya02408000...@news.axs4u.net...
Unfortunately, no matter how logically-stated an argument you present, some
conservatives will deny the logic, no matter how powerful. These
conservatives seems to be generally intelligent, but I've noticed that
otherwise intelligent people will often refuse to acknowledge realities that
run counter to long-held beliefs. I posted research studies on the death
penalty which showed conclusively that non-death penalty states have the
same or lower murder rates than death penalty states (see below), and
David's reply was to call these research studies "suppositions". Excuse me?
These are studies with indisputable statistics comparing murder rates in
states with and without the death penalty, and in every case, murder rates
were the same or lower in abolition states. There's nothing subjective
about these statistics. If the death penalty were a deterrent, the murder
rates would be lower in death penalty states, and that clearly is not the
case. These are not mere "suppositions", they are hard statistics that are
not in dispute. The numbers don't lie: Since it's inception, the murder
rate has been lower in non-death penalty states. A "brutalizing effect" was
even noted in some states, in that the murder rate would actually *increase*
in the weeks following a highly publicized execution, resulting in a general
desensitization toward violence and murder, and suggesting that "the state
tragically leads by example", legitimizing the killing of those who offend
us. Some studies have even shown that murder rates of police officers is
much higher in death penalty states:
From http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html:
"According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions
of the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for
police officers. Police are most in danger in the south, which accounts for
80% of all executions (90% in 2000). From 1989-1998, 292 law enforcement
officers were feloniously killed in the south, 125 in the west, 121 in the
midwest, and 80 in the northeast, the region with the fewest execution -
less than 1%. The three leading states where law enforcement officers were
feloniously killed in 1998 were California, the state with the highest death
row population (7); Texas, the state with the most executions since 1976
(5); and Florida, the state that is third highest in executions and in
death row population (5). (FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement
Officers Killed and Assaulted, 1998)."
What I've realized from debating conservatives is that some will deny, or
completely repress from their own awareness, negative facts that contradict
long-held beliefs, as though their world would crash if the truth were
revealed. I provided about 20 links to articles on prisoners that have been
exonerated and freed from death row by DNA and other evidence, and none of
the conservatives that responded acknowledged the possibility that even
*one* innocent person has ever been executed. It defies logic, it defies
reason. A *reasonable* person, who is not afraid to see the truth even if
contradicts their most deeply held beliefs, would acknowledge that one or
more innocent person has been executed, and that innocent people will
continue to be executed considering the imperfections and outright fraud in
our justice system. In order to ensure that no innocent person is ever
executed, the system would have to be perfect, but that is obviously not the
case. Only a seriously repressed person could deny the reality of this.
James
http://209.70.38.3/DEATH/crinfo.htm
http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html
http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocothers.html
http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/AMR510101998
http://209.70.38.3/public.nsf/championarticles/99jul01?opendocument
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html
James Simpson
anything. Guess I'm so used to using MS Word at work and saving every few
minutes it's become a habit to click where the "save" button is on Word,
which is in the same place as the "send" button.
James
James Simpson
news:icant-ya02408000...@news.axs4u.net...
> In article <3A8485E6...@flash.net>, David Maynard
According to
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?61+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+105+(Autumn+1
998)
"If we are to study how often innocent people are convicted of murder,
sentenced to death, and/or executed, special care must be taken in
determining when a given convicted defendant can and cannot be judged to be
innocent. Previous work on this problem touches what is probably only the
tip of an iceberg. Undoubtedly, there are many more cases in which innocent
persons have been convicted of homicide that have yet to be thoroughly
documented and acknowledged by government officials, much less publicized in
a way that will allow those who care to learn lessons from them ... To be
sure, in some ninety percent of the cases described in our previous
publications, there is some acknowledgement by public officials in one or
more branches of government that the trial court's judgment of guilt was
incorrect. But our investigations failed to disclose a single case in the
twentieth century where a government official in this country admitted that
an execution carried out under his authority, or to his knowledge in his
jurisdiction, took the life of an innocent defendant. By itself, however,
that is hardly reason to believe that innocent defendants have not been
executed.
There are at least three kinds of evidence that we believe ought to convince
any reasonable person that innocent defendants have been executed: close
calls, calculation of the odds, and the role of 'Lady Luck.
A. Close Calls
Between 1972 and the end of 1996, sixty-eight death row inmates in the
nation were released because of doubts about their guilt.52 These releases
do not prove that the system works, as some defenders of the death penalty
would argue. Representative Bill McCollum, for example, one of our
executioners' best friends in Congress, was "encouraged" by the findings,
claiming that the sixty-eight errors in twenty-five years "shows that the
system is working quite well."53 Contrary to such political spin, however,
our research indicates that if "the system worked," the defendants would be
dead. In virtually all of these cases, the defendants were released only
after an expensive and exhausting uphill struggle, unsupported by public
funds or public officials, and almost always fiercely resisted by the
prosecution and ignored by those with the power to commute a death sentence.
Some of these prisoners, now free, came within a few days of being executed.
Randall Adams, sentenced to death in Texas in 1977 and exonerated in 1989,
came to within one week of his execution. Andrew Mitchell, sentenced to
death in Texas in 1981, came within five days of death by lethal injection
before being vindicated in 1993.55 Two half-brothers in Florida, William
Jent and Ernest Miller, came within sixteen hours of being executed before
they were released from prison in 1988.56 More such cases have been cited
elsewhere.
Today, there are more than three thousand prisoners on America's death rows.
As things stand, it would be preposterous to believe that all the innocent
death row defendants have been identified and exonerated. If the history of
the last twenty years is any guide to the future, an average of three death
row inmates per year will continue to be vindicated and released. How many
equally innocent death row inmates will be unsuccessful in obtaining relief
is impossible to know, but the number most certainly is not zero.
B. Calculation of the Odds
Assume we execute two death row inmates, each of whom we believe is guilty
"beyond a reasonable doubt" on the evidence. Let belief in guilt "beyond a
reasonable doubt" mean that we are ninety percent confident of guilt, and
that our belief in both these cases is correct. Nevertheless we are not (and
rarely could be) 100% certain, and so, on these assumptions, we are
implicitly accepting a ten percent error rate even when we are ninety
percent confident. However, because the odds of error are multiplicative,
the probability that any two death row prisoners chosen at random are guilty
is not ninety percent (0.9), but only eighty-one percent (0.9 x 0.9). Thus,
the probability that all 3,000 death row inmates today are guilty, even if
we are ninety percent confident of guilt in each case, is minuscule.
To put this another way, if we executed 100 inmates and we were ninety-five
percent certain of guilt in each case, we would be implicitly accepting a
five percent error rate; in being willing to execute all 100, we are in
effect willing to execute five out of the hundred who might be innocent
(even though, of course, we do not know which five are innocent, or whether
more or any are). If our perceptions on the odds of error are accurate
reflections of the real occurrences of error, the number of innocent persons
legally executed is quite high -- and much higher than our admittedly
selective and incomplete research into identifiable cases suggests.
C. The Role of "Lady Luck"
In the heat of their attack on our claim that some two dozen of the several
hundred cases we studied involved the execution of the innocent, the Justice
Department simply ignored the vast majority of cases where we claim an
innocent person was convicted of a capital offense but was not executed. In
effect, their silence tacitly concedes that our judgment is correct in more
than ninety percent of all the cases and wrong in fewer than ten percent.
Why these critics think that small percent matters they have yet to explain.
What they conveniently overlook are scores of cases in which they do not --
and could not reasonably -- dispute our claims, namely, that innocent
persons have been convicted and sentenced to death, and that innocent
prisoners who were not executed would have been, or might have been,
executed except for extraordinary good fortune.
Consider some of the ways good fortune smiled on the innocent death row
prisoner. Some of the cases we cite involve a defendant whose release was
owing to the timely discovery of a hitherto unknown eyewitness (for example,
the case of Jerry Banks). What if that witness had not stepped forward? In
other cases we cite, the true culprit confessed in time to save the innocent
prisoner (for example, the case of James Foster). What if the true culprit
had kept silent about his involvement? In still other cases, vindication
depended on a dedicated journalist who took up the cause and established
that the convicted defendant is really innocent (for example, the case of
Freddie Pitts and Wilbert Lee). What if no journalist had developed a timely
interest in the case? In 1993, Kirk Bloodsworth was freed from death row in
Maryland when technology not widely available at the time of his trial (DNA
testing) proved his innocence. What if this technology had not been
developed for another decade, or semen on the body of the victim had not
been preserved, or the victim had not been raped as well as murdered? Under
any of these conditions, Bloodsworth would not have been exonerated.
In one way or another, virtually every case in which death row inmates are
able to prove their innocence is a story of exceptional luck. Only when we
realize how lucky the exonerated death row defendants have been can we
realize how easy it is for fatal mistakes to go undetected. The more such
cases are discovered the greater the likelihood there are other cases so far
undetected -- and that some of these cases involve the execution of the
innocent. Just because boats filled with illegal drugs are regularly
intercepted by the police near our shores, it does not follow that all boats
carrying such drugs have been intercepted."
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
wrote:
>Oops, again I realized I accidentally hit the return button before typing
I am in IT support, tending a flock of around 400 desktops.... And
yours is not the first time I've heard that scenario mentioned.
bill
<js...@flash.net> wrote:
> > Unlike most of the arguments you see in this group, my assumptions are
> > explicitly stated. They are reasonable and realistic. The only questions
> > are as to the probabilities. If you think my assumptions about those
> > probabilities are incorrect, please say how and why you think so.
>
> Unfortunately, no matter how logically-stated an argument you present, some
> conservatives will deny the logic, no matter how powerful. These
> conservatives seems to be generally intelligent, but I've noticed that
> otherwise intelligent people will often refuse to acknowledge realities that
> run counter to long-held beliefs.
snip
Only a seriously repressed person could deny the reality of this.
> James
Ok, You are at a gas station and see 2 men walk up to the attendant, pull a
gun and proceed to beat the attendant to a bloody mess.
Rob the place, cash and goods and proceed to walk off. They go about 50
feet turn around come back and both take turns pumping bullets into the
attendant, killing him. They walk out and are apprehended by the police.
You saw it all.
The court finds them guilty without your testifying. The closed circuit
camera got it all.
Would you be opposed to executing these two?
If not why not.
> http://209.70.38.3/DEATH/crinfo.htm -Slanted
> http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html A private
non-profit organization whose mission is to reduce society's reliance on
the use of incarceration as a solution to social problems.
> http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
The American Civil Liberties Union believes the death penalty inherently
violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual
punishment and the guarantees of due process of law and of equal protection
under the law. Furthermore, we hold that the state should not
arrogate unto itself the right to kill human beings especially when it
kills with premeditation and ceremony, in the name of the law or in
the name of its people, or when it does so in an arbitrary and
discriminatory fashion.
Capital punishment is an intolerable denial of civil liberties, and is
inconsistent with the fundamental values of our democratic system.
Therefore, through litigation, legislation, commutation and by helping to
foster a renewed public outcry against this barbarous and
brutalizing institution, we strive to prevent executions and seek the
abolition of capital punishment.
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocothers.html This page has some merit.
> http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/AMR510101998 However, the
organization is unconditionally opposed to the death penalty as a violation
of the most fundamental human right: the right to life.
> http://209.70.38.3/public.nsf/championarticles/99jul01?opendocument I
agree with this article but the oraganization is slanted. Some of thier
other articles
Heart of the Deal: Ten Suggestions for Plea Bargaining
Some Useless Information
<js...@flash.net> wrote:
That's true, but I wouldn't identify corruption as the main cause of this.
I would say that it would be rare to find someone on death row on whose
behalf you could make a strong case, much less meet the legal standard to
exonerate.
James Simpson
news:tsurber-ya02408000R1202011910350001@news-server...
> "James Simpson" <js...@flash.net> wrote:
> <ic...@get.no.satisfaction.com> wrote
A scenario such as you described, in which the killers were actually
videotaped doing the killing, would leave no doubt they were guilty. Not
just "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is not good enough, in my view, to
execute, but *no* doubt. In that case, I would have less of a problem with
the death penalty, because at least there would be *no* doubt about their
guilt, we wouldn't be executing someone who might be innocent. However, I
still think it's blatant hypocrisy to attempt to show it's wrong to kill
people by killing people. I would also still have a problem with the fact
that the death penalty is pre-meditated, that it is vengeance and not
justice. The death penalty would continue to distort the justice system, in
that prosecutors and judges often use the number of death penalty
convictions they win in order to appear "tough on crime" for their election
campaigns. Also, jurors who are anti-death penalty are eliminated from the
jury pool in cases in which the death penalty is an option, resulting in a
jury that is much more likely to assess the death penalty. Lastly, though
they may be the minority, there are prisoners who are actually
rehabilitated, who evidence a real change in their behavior and take full
responsibility for the crime, and thus deserve to have their life spared.
Karla Faye Tucker was one such case in my view, as she was seen by many,
including the Pope and Billy Graham, among many others, as having undergone
a true religious conversion, and she was known to have had a positive effect
on other prisoners through a ministry she formed. I think Tucker should
have been spared based on her apparently genuine transformation. But I
guess the main reason I would continue to oppose the death penalty is that
murder is murder, whether or not it's "legal". According to
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: "MURDER specifically implies stealth and
motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility." The
death penalty is motivated by hate, it's completely pre-meditated, and there
is a moral responsibility for those such as Bush who abdicate any
responsibility to even ensure that only guilty people are executed. Bush's
record on the death penalty in Texas is horrendous, as when he mocked the
execution of Karla Faye Tucker ("'Please', Bush whimpered, his lips pursed
in mock desperation, 'don't kill me'"). I go back to what Coretta Scott
King, wife of Martin Luther King, said: "As one whose husband and
mother-in-law have died the victims of assassination and murder, I stand
firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of
capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of
retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life.
Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder."
James
bill
<js...@flash.net> wrote:
I see your point.
But I think some of the murders committed require putting the murderer down
like a rapid dog.
People that vicious need to be gone. Having a supreme penalty of death does
discourge killing.
The thing about people convicted who are not guilty worries me because I
know the justice system is screwed up. I'd be willing to ban executions
except where there is no doubt. None present.
If someone murdered a family member I'd want justice. My family member
isn't coming back. I can't see the killer being allowed to breathe air past
his execution date.
The killer's sorry don't cut it.
The killers death is harsh, so was his actions. So was the victims death.
People should be allowed to watch the execution. That is where the deterant
would be. McViegh wants it and NBC, CBS and ABC would be glad to broadcast
it.
Locking them up just doesn't seem sufficient punishment for a killer.
David Maynard
The fact that I don't blindly accept a particular set of assumptions
doesn't mean I am blindly holding to a different set of assumptions.
Not to mention that, even if I were, it wouldn't increase the
possibility of the other set being valid either.
David Maynard
> Whether it's "sounds" "scientific" or not, it's common sense. <snip>
You folks can post 'feelings' and 'opinions' and 'suppositions' all day
long but that doesn't make any of them valid. They still are what they
were: guesses based on opinions.
As one point alone, I dispute your 'obvious' analysis of the possibility
that it's nearly impossible for an innocent person to prove their
innocence after ... which conviction? The first, or the appeal (which is
automatic), or the second appeal, or ?
It would equally qualify as "common sense" to ponder that the rarity of
an "innocent" person being discovered at the last stage of the game
because it's so rare for an innocent person to GET to the last stage of
the game, as opposed to your assumption that the system is littered with
them.
David Maynard
An equation is fine but, even in the most rigorous construction, if the
variables are unknown then it's useless.
You're the one posing the theory so it's up to you to support the
assumptions. And, so far, they're just pure speculation which appear to
be based on the conclusion you're trying to prove.
I.E. You speculate a lot of innocents being executed because you figure
there's a lot who don't get found innocent, which is a pretty dern
obvious consequence of the former derived from the later. But you
'support' that by claiming it's hard to get found innocent because it's
rare that they do and you've posulated there's a lot of them. It's a
circular argument.
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
wrote:
>A scenario such as you described, in which the killers were actually
>videotaped doing the killing, would leave no doubt they were guilty.
No, it wouldn't.
Tape alteration leaps to mind.
James Simpson
> > > Some Useless Information wrote:
> > > > What I argued was that N x P1 x (1-P2) > N x P1 x P2, which is the
same
> > > > as saying (1-P2) > P2. In other words, if a person is convicted of
a
> > > > capital crime and receives the death sentence, there is less than a
50%
> > > > chance that, if innocent, he can prove it. This seems reasonable,
since
> > > > we are talking about people who for one reason or another failed to
> > > > raise reasonable doubt in their first trial.
> > >
> > > Sounds real 'scientific'. Except it's fraught with assumptions and is
> > > nothing but a mathematically postulated 'opinion'. The first being the
> > > presumption of the probabilities themselves.
> >
> > Whether it's "sounds" "scientific" or not, it's common sense. <snip>
>
> You folks can post 'feelings' and 'opinions' and 'suppositions' all day
> long but that doesn't make any of them valid. They still are what they
> were: guesses based on opinions.
"Feelings", "opinions", "suppositions"? Since when were *scientific*
studies "guesses based on opinions"?
What are the "suppositions" in the following scientific studies I posted
that compared the murder rates in death penalty and non-death penalty
states? I mean, these are very straight forward studies that simply
compared murder rates (over many years) in states that do and do not use the
death penalty:
http://209.70.38.3/DEATH/crinfo.htm "During the early 1970's, death-penalty
states averaged an annual rate of 7.9 criminal homicides per 100,000
population; abolitionist states averaged a rate of 5.1."
http://www.ncadp.org/fact5.html "The average murder rate per 100,000 people
in U.S. states with capital punishment is about 8%, while it is only 4.4% in
abolitionist states ... In California, between 1952 and 1967 there was an
average of one execution every two months. From 1968 until 1991 there were
no executions. The homocide rate of California was twice as high in the
earlier period than it was in the latter ... In New York, between 1907 and
1964, 692 executions were carried out. On average, over this 57 year period,
one or more executions in a given month added a net increase of two
homocides to the total committed in the next month."
http://www.dnai.com/mwood/deathpen.html "Death-penalty states as a group do
not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states.
During the 1980s, death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5
criminal homicides per 100,000 of population; abolition states averaged a
rate of 7.4".
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html: "The Bureau of Justice
Statistics reports that the South repeatedly has the highest murder rate. In
1999, it was the only region with a murder rate above the national rate. The
South accounts for 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1%
of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest murder rate. When comparisons
are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the
majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death
penalty states. The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999
among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates
among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.
According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions of
the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for police
officers. Police are most in danger in the south, which accounts for 80% of
all executions (90% in 2000). From 1989-1998, 292 law enforcement officers
were feloniously killed in the south, 125 in the west, 121 in the midwest,
and 80 in the northeast, the region with the fewest execution - less than
1%. The three leading states where law enforcement officers were feloniously
killed in 1998 were California, the state with the highest death row
population (7); Texas, the state with the most executions since 1976 (5);
and Florida, the state that is third highest in executions and in death row
population (5). (FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Officers Killed
and Assaulted, 1998). Research reported in Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2,
May 1997, indicates that executions may actually increase the number of
murders, rather than deter murders. Prof. Ernie Thomson at Arizona State
University reported a brutalizing effect from an execution in Arizona,
consistent with the results of a similar study in Oklahoma."
http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html : "For the 15 year
period in which California carried out an execution every other month (1952
to 1967), murder rates increase 10% annually, on average. Between 1967 and
1991, when there were no executions in California, the murder rate increased
4.8% annually. The study also found that, in the four months preceding
Harris' death, the average monthly number of homicides in California was
306. In the four months following his highly publicized execution, an
average of 333 persons fell victim to homicides, an astonishing 9% increase.
'This data mirrors research from other states which has shown that, contrary
to deterring murders, state-sanctioned killing may actually have a
'brutalizing effect', wherein the state legitimizes the act of taking
another's life,' stated Michael Godfrey, report co-author, 'in that sense,
the state may tragically be leading by example'."
Also, in the following article from Duke University School of Law
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?61+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+105+(Autumn+1
998)
which parts are "feelings", "opinions", or "suppositions"? (first noting
that this is solid scientific research conducted by law professors at one of
the most respected law schools in the country ):
"If we are to study how often innocent people are convicted of murder,
sentenced to death, and/or executed, special care must be taken in
determining when a given convicted defendant can and cannot be judged to be
innocent. Previous work on this problem touches what is probably only the
tip of an iceberg. Undoubtedly, there are many more cases in which innocent
persons have been convicted of homicide that have yet to be thoroughly
documented and acknowledged by government officials, much less publicized in
a way that will allow those who care to learn lessons from them ... To be
sure, in some ninety percent of the cases described in our previous
publications, there is some acknowledgement by public officials in one or
more branches of government that the trial court's judgment of guilt was
incorrect. But our investigations failed to disclose a single case in the
twentieth century where a government official in this country admitted that
an execution carried out under his authority, or to his knowledge in his
jurisdiction, took the life of an innocent defendant. By itself, however,
that is hardly reason to believe that innocent defendants have not been
executed.
There are at least three kinds of evidence that we believe ought to convince
any reasonable person that innocent defendants have been executed: close
calls, calculation of the odds, and the role of 'Lady Luck.
A. Close Calls
Between 1972 and the end of 1996, sixty-eight death row inmates in the
nation were released because of doubts about their guilt. These releases do
not prove that the system works, as some defenders of the death penalty
would argue. Representative Bill McCollum, for example, one of our
executioners' best friends in Congress, was 'encouraged' by the findings,
claiming that the sixty-eight errors in twenty-five years "shows that the
system is working quite well." Contrary to such political spin, however, our
It's beyond me how you can use the term "suppositions" to describe the above
scientific studies which simply compare indisputable murder rate statistics
in death penalty and non-death penalty states. The links below provide more
scientific studies and reports on the death penalty and what actually occurs
in our courts. I'd recommend watching the Frontline episode on the death
penalty if it is re-run again (see first link below). It was after watching
Frontline's expose on the rampant abuses of the (in)justice system that I
began my research on this topic.
James
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/failure/index.html
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/00/06/lawStudy.html
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/814496
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/813700
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1555531970/103-6519486-7775066
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/813783
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/814478
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocothers.html#executed
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoccases.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/263981_ochoa_17tex.AR.html
http://www.txcn.com/video/2001_0116_dna2.ram
http://209.70.38.3/DEATH/crinfo.htm
http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html
http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html
http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html
http://209.70.38.3/public.nsf/championarticles/99jul01?opendocument
http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/AMR510101998
Some Useless Information
tsu...@columbus.rr.com (bill) wrote:
>I see your point.
>But I think some of the murders committed require putting the murderer down
>like a rapid dog.
No matter how heinous the crime, we are not talking about rabid dogs. We are
considering human beings, albeit sometimes twisted and evil ones. When
you use such similes, you fuzz your own thinking.
>People that vicious need to be gone.
Prison is not "gone" enough?
>Having a supreme penalty of death does
>discourge killing.
If there is any validity in that, it should be statistically demonstrable.
Comparison of states that have the death penalty to those that do not
suggests that the death penalty does not discourage killing.
>The thing about people convicted who are not guilty worries me because I
>know the justice system is screwed up. I'd be willing to ban executions
>except where there is no doubt.
It's not possible to establish guilt beyond all doubt. Even those who
confess to murder sometimes turn out to be lying.
>None present.
>If someone murdered a family member I'd want justice. My family member
>isn't coming back. I can't see the killer being allowed to breathe air past
>his execution date.
What you're describing is not justice, it's revenge.
>The killer's sorry don't cut it.
No, it doesn't. It is still necessary to punish those guilty of
serious crimes, but there should be room in our justice system for
mercy, even to those we do not feel deserve it, because there is no
way of knowing which individuals may eventually be reformed. Some are,
others aren't. But for those who are, a much better justice is achieved
than could ever be brought about by execution.
>The killers death is harsh, so was his actions. So was the victims death.
>People should be allowed to watch the execution. That is where the deterant
>would be. McViegh wants it and NBC, CBS and ABC would be glad to broadcast
>it.
Taking us back to the 19th century? Public executions were _intended_ for
deterrence, but they seem to have had little real effect on crime.
Crime rates were higher in those days.
>Locking them up just doesn't seem sufficient punishment for a killer.
It's the most we ought to do to anybody, though.
Some Useless Information
<mayNO...@flash.net> wrote:
It isn't. My assumption is that juries are not *TOTALLY* incompetent.
Most of those convicted were convicted because there was a substantial
case against them. Given that this is so, you can reason that even for
that minority of convicted persons who are innocent of the crimes, it would
be difficult for them to then get a reversal. It is of course impossible
to know what the real number of innocents is, but it is _likely_ that it
is considerably greater than the number of persons we know are innocent.
James Simpson
> As one point alone, I dispute your 'obvious' analysis of the possibility
> that it's nearly impossible for an innocent person to prove their
> innocence after ... which conviction? The first, or the appeal (which is
> automatic), or the second appeal, or ?
Oh, maybe I say "obvious" because of the Christopher Ochoa case, in which
the true murderer wrote a letter confessing to the crime to then governor GW
Bush, and Bush failed to forward the letter to law enforcement officials,
showing that government officials are not beyond suppressing evidence which
might prove the innocence of a person on death row. The James Liebman study
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/00/06/lawStudy.html found that 19% of all
cases in which a person on death row *was* able to prove their innocence was
accounted for by prosecutorial misconduct, involving "prosecutors
withholding evidence that shows that the defendant is innocent or didn't
deserve the death penalty."
Maybe I say "obvious" because of the Roy Criner case, in which, although 2
separate DNA tests proved he could not have been the murderer, Texas Supreme
Court Justice Sharon Keller stated that, in order to warrant a new trial "he
has to establish unquestionably that he is innocent and he hasn't done it."
The way the system is slanted, after being convicted and sent to death row,
one must "establish unquestionably that he is innocent"! I'd say that's a
pretty high hurdle to proving innocence!
Maybe I said "obvious" because jurors who are anti-death penalty are
eliminated from the jury pool in cases in which the death penalty is an
option, resulting in a jury that is much more likely to assess the death
penalty, and much less likely to overturn a death penalty.
Maybe I said "obvious" because of the use of unreliable "jailhouse snitches"
who are basically bribed for their testimony (and thus have incentive to
lie).
Maybe I said "obvious" because of police who coerce confessions from
innocent defendants, like Ochoa. Once a confession is made, it's extremely
difficult to prove innocence.
Maybe I said "obvious" because of the "21-Day Rule" in most states, in which
new evidence can not be presented more than 21 days after sentencing. In
the case of Earl Washington, the proof that he was completely innocent,
which came only when a DNA test was done years later, could not be used
under Virginia rule to overturn his death sentence.
Maybe I said "obvious" because, of the 3,600 people sentenced to death, it's
estimated that 10 percent are mentally retarded. People with mental
retardation sometimes confess to crimes because they are anxious to please
authorities, as happened in the case of Earl Washington.
Maybe I said "obvious" because the Texas Supreme Court refused to order a
new trial in a death penalty case in which the defendant's attorney slept
through much of the trial. Evidence of "incompetent counsel" is not even
sufficient, in some states, to overturn a death penalty verdict and order a
new trial!
Maybe I also said "obvious" because affluent defendants (remember O.J.?)
have a distinct advantage in obtaining competent counsel, while the poor
must make do with incompetent court-appointed lawyers who have been reported
to fall asleep during the trial! It's even been reported that prosecutors
are less likely to seek the death penalty if the defendant has a
high-powered lawyer they know will put on a competent case!
> It would equally qualify as "common sense" to ponder that the rarity of
> an "innocent" person being discovered at the last stage of the game
> because it's so rare for an innocent person to GET to the last stage of
> the game, as opposed to your assumption that the system is littered with
> them.
No, that wouldn't "equally qualify as 'common sense'", and I think you know
it. When you have a justice system in which judges and prosecutors use the
number of death penalty convictions they win in order to appear "tough on
crime" in election campaigns (and thus are loathe to overturn death
sentences), when governors like Bush fail to turn over to law enforcement
officials evidence of the innocence of a death row inmate, when a ridiculous
"21-Day Rule" does not allow new evidence which would exonerate a defendant
to be considered, no matter how powerful the evidence (such as DNA
evidence), when state Supreme Courts refuse to order new trials for
defendants whose lawyers slept through the trial (as happened in Texas),
when potential jurors are eliminated for being against the death penalty
(stacking the jury with people who are much more likely to assess the death
penalty, and less likely to overturn a death penalty verdict), and when
state Supreme Court justices make statements like "he has to establish
unquestionably that he is innocent" - then I say it's "obvious" that it is
nearly impossible for an innocent person on death row to be exonerated and
freed. The system is broken.
This study
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?61+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+105+(Autumn+1
998)
summarized it best:
"Previous work on this problem touches what is probably only the tip of an
iceberg. Undoubtedly, there are many more cases in which innocent persons
have been convicted of homicide that have yet to be thoroughly documented
and acknowledged by government officials, much less publicized in a way that
will allow those who care to learn lessons from them ... Between 1972 and
the end of 1996, sixty-eight death row inmates in the nation were released
because of doubts about their guilt ... In virtually all of these cases, the
defendants were released only after an expensive and exhausting uphill
struggle, unsupported by public funds or public officials, and almost always
fiercely resisted by the prosecution and ignored by those with the power to
commute a death sentence."
This study concludes:
"We close on an ironic note. One of the amazing things that has happened in
the decade since our research was first released to the public is that those
who defend the death penalty now concede the inevitability of executing the
innocent, even though they challenge individual cases that we and others
have identified as probably involving the execution of an innocent person.
It is a major concession. We know of no defender of the death penalty who,
prior to 1985, was willing to make such a public concession. Moreover, this
concession has the effect of forcing responsible defenders of capital
punishment to rethink their argument in two important respects. First, as
retributivists, they must acknowledge that convicting and executing the
innocent -- those who do not deserve to die -- is a terrible wrong, and
avoiding it is no less important on retributive grounds than convicting and
punishing the guilty. Second, they must explain in convincing detail how a
cost/benefit argument, on which they rely, shows that the benefits from the
death penalty outweigh the admitted cost of executing the innocent.
Elsewhere, we have shown why we believe these arguments must fail. We are
left to ponder how future generations, when they look back, will evaluate
America's current love for the executioner."
In other words, as I said before, there are people on the pro-death penalty
side who think in terms of "acceptable losses". So what if a few innocent
people are executed, the end justifies the means, right?
James
"No matter how careful courts are, the possibility of perjured testimony,
mistaken honest testimony, and human error remain all too real. We have no
way of judging how many innocent persons have been executed, but we can be
certain that there were some." - Thurgood Marshall
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
(Some Useless Information) wrote:
>In article <tsurber-ya02408000R1302010143160001@news-server>,
>tsu...@columbus.rr.com (bill) wrote:
>
>
>>I see your point.
>>But I think some of the murders committed require putting the murderer down
>>like a rapid dog.
>
>No matter how heinous the crime, we are not talking about rabid dogs. We are
>considering human beings, albeit sometimes twisted and evil ones. When
>you use such similes, you fuzz your own thinking.
Let's talk about McVeigh. Funny thing; he's not come up in this
conversation.
>
>>People that vicious need to be gone.
>
>Prison is not "gone" enough?
No. Because so long as there is life in them, they can come out.
And do.
Ashland Henderson
There is no evidence I know of that shows the death penalty to have any
effect whatever on discouraging killing.
> The thing about people convicted who are not guilty worries me because I
> know the justice system is screwed up. I'd be willing to ban executions
> except where there is no doubt. None present.
I wouldn't argue with that. I don't know of any way at this time that it is
possible to show that there is no doubt. Even if there were, I don't
think I would be willing to entrust such a way to prosecutors eager
to make a name for themselves by a conviction.
> If someone murdered a family member I'd want justice. My family member
> isn't coming back. I can't see the killer being allowed to breathe air
past
> his execution date.
I too would want justice. I would want to be absolutely sure the right
person was caught, however, before demanding it.
> The killer's sorry don't cut it.
> The killers death is harsh, so was his actions. So was the victims death.
> People should be allowed to watch the execution. That is where the
deterant
> would be. McViegh wants it and NBC, CBS and ABC would be glad to broadcast
> it.
> Locking them up just doesn't seem sufficient punishment for a killer.
I agree, but killing the wrong person seems even worse to me.
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
<macea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>There is no evidence I know of that shows the death penalty to have any
>effect whatever on discouraging killing.
Well, yes, thta's true... if you ignore the murder rate dropping
several fold in every state a death penalty has been instituted.
James Simpson
news:3a89c3a7.152598416@news-server...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:07:35 GMT, "Ashland Henderson"
> <macea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >There is no evidence I know of that shows the death penalty to have any
> >effect whatever on discouraging killing.
>
> Well, yes, thta's true... if you ignore the murder rate dropping
> several fold in every state a death penalty has been instituted.
Now, c'mon Eric, I can't let that pass. I've already posted the studies
which prove that, since 1976 when the death penalty was reinstated, the
murder rate in non-death penalty states is the same or even lower than in
states with the death penalty. One more time, here's the studies showing
the death penalty is not a deterrent, and may even increase the murder rate,
especially the murder rate of police officers:
http://209.70.38.3/DEATH/crinfo.htm "During the early 1970's, death-penalty
states averaged an annual rate of 7.9 criminal homicides per 100,000
population; abolitionist states averaged a rate of 5.1."
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html: "The Bureau of Justice
Statistics reports that the South repeatedly has the highest murder rate. In
1999, it was the only region with a murder rate above the national rate. The
South accounts for 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1%
of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest murder rate. When comparisons
are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the
majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death
penalty states. The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999
among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates
among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.
According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions of
the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for police
officers. Police are most in danger in the south, which accounts for 80% of
all executions (90% in 2000). From 1989-1998, 292 law enforcement officers
were feloniously killed in the south, 125 in the west, 121 in the midwest,
and 80 in the northeast, the region with the fewest execution - less than
1%. The three leading states where law enforcement officers were feloniously
killed in 1998 were California, the state with the highest death row
population (7); Texas, the state with the most executions since 1976 (5);
and Florida, the state that is third highest in executions and in death row
population (5). (FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Officers Killed
and Assaulted, 1998). Research reported in Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2,
May 1997, indicates that executions may actually increase the number of
murders, rather than deter murders. Prof. Ernie Thomson at Arizona State
University reported a brutalizing effect from an execution in Arizona,
consistent with the results of a similar study in Oklahoma."
http://www.ncadp.org/fact5.html "The average murder rate per 100,000 people
in U.S. states with capital punishment is about 8%, while it is only 4.4% in
abolitionist states ... In California, between 1952 and 1967 there was an
average of one execution every two months. From 1968 until 1991 there were
no executions. The homocide rate of California was twice as high in the
earlier period than it was in the latter ... In New York, between 1907 and
1964, 692 executions were carried out. On average, over this 57 year period,
one or more executions in a given month added a net increase of two
homocides to the total committed in the next month."
http://www.dnai.com/mwood/deathpen.html "Death-penalty states as a group do
not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states.
During the 1980s, death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5
criminal homicides per 100,000 of population; abolition states averaged a
rate of 7.4".
http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html : "For the 15 year
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
wrote:
><eflo...@KILLSPAMMERSrochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:3a89c3a7.152598416@news-server...
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:07:35 GMT, "Ashland Henderson"
>> <macea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >There is no evidence I know of that shows the death penalty to have any
>> >effect whatever on discouraging killing.
>>
>> Well, yes, thta's true... if you ignore the murder rate dropping
>> several fold in every state a death penalty has been instituted.
>
>Now, c'mon Eric, I can't let that pass. I've already posted the studies
>which prove that, since 1976 when the death penalty was reinstated, the
>murder rate in non-death penalty states is the same or even lower than in
>states with the death penalty. One more time, here's the studies showing
>the death penalty is not a deterrent, and may even increase the murder rate,
>especially the murder rate of police officers:
I've seen your posts. Look at the data in them... your theory only
works if you allow 20 years or so for the test. That;s not a clean
test, however; other factors mess things up.
Mitchell Holman
Please explain:
1) Why the national murder rate went UP after executions
resumed in 1977.
2) Why states that execute continue to have higher murder
rates than those that do not.
3) Why no criminologist maintains that executions deter
crime.
James Simpson
news:3a89dedc.159564766@news-server...
Eric, if you read the studies, you'd notice that many cover a far longer
period than the past 20 years, like these:
http://209.70.38.3/DEATH/crinfo.htm "During the early 1970's, death-penalty
states averaged an annual rate of 7.9 criminal homicides per 100,000
population; abolitionist states averaged a rate of 5.1."
http://www.ncadp.org/fact5.html "In California, between 1952 and 1967 there
was an average of one execution every two months. From 1968 until 1991 there
were no executions. The homocide rate of California was twice as high in the
earlier period than it was in the latter ... In New York, between 1907 and
1964, 692 executions were carried out. On average, over this 57 year period,
one or more executions in a given month added a net increase of two
homocides to the total committed in the next month."
http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html : "For the 15 year
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
wrote:
>> I've seen your posts. Look at the data in them... your theory only
>> works if you allow 20 years or so for the test. That;s not a clean
>> test, however; other factors mess things up.
>
>Eric, if you read the studies, you'd notice that many cover a far longer
>period than the past 20 years, like these:
You further my point, not lessen it.
When viewed over a longer period of time, the action reaction
relationship becomes less clear. Look at the first three to 5 years
after implimentation and get back to me.
Some Useless Information
eflo...@KILLSPAMMERSrochester.rr.com wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:16:57 -0600, ic...@get.no.satisfaction.com
>(Some Useless Information) wrote:
>
>>In article <tsurber-ya02408000R1302010143160001@news-server>,
>>tsu...@columbus.rr.com (bill) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I see your point.
>>>But I think some of the murders committed require putting the murderer down
>>>like a rapid dog.
>>
>>No matter how heinous the crime, we are not talking about rabid dogs. We are
>>considering human beings, albeit sometimes twisted and evil ones. When
>>you use such similes, you fuzz your own thinking.
>
>Let's talk about McVeigh. Funny thing; he's not come up in this
>conversation.
He's no more interesting than any other person on death row. What did
you want to say about him?
>>
>>>People that vicious need to be gone.
>>
>>Prison is not "gone" enough?
>
>No. Because so long as there is life in them, they can come out.
>And do.
Not if proper care is taken.
Some Useless Information
eflo...@KILLSPAMMERSrochester.rr.com wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:07:35 GMT, "Ashland Henderson"
><macea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>There is no evidence I know of that shows the death penalty to have any
>>effect whatever on discouraging killing.
>
>Well, yes, thta's true... if you ignore the murder rate dropping
>several fold in every state a death penalty has been instituted.
And every other state besides?
Some Useless Information
eflo...@KILLSPAMMERSrochester.rr.com wrote:
Then you admit there is no evidence of deterrence.
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
(Some Useless Information) wrote:
>>I've seen your posts. Look at the data in them... your theory only
>>works if you allow 20 years or so for the test. That;s not a clean
>>test, however; other factors mess things up.
>
>Then you admit there is no evidence of deterrence.
Not in the least; Again I say, look at the fiures for the first five
years after implimentation and get back to me. In every case, they
drop.
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
No. In the case of Texas, for example, the murder rates in the
surrounding states stood pat.
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
(Some Useless Information) wrote:
>>>No matter how heinous the crime, we are not talking about rabid dogs. We are
>>>considering human beings, albeit sometimes twisted and evil ones. When
>>>you use such similes, you fuzz your own thinking.
>>
>>Let's talk about McVeigh. Funny thing; he's not come up in this
>>conversation.
>
>He's no more interesting than any other person on death row. What did
>you want to say about him?
LOL!
Liberals don't want to touch the subject of HIS execution. He attacked
a Government installation, one of the Holy relecs of the liberal. Do I
see any liberals fighting for HIS life? No?
Hypocrasy! Fraud!
>>No. Because so long as there is life in them, they can come out.
>>And do.
>
>Not if proper care is taken.
Proper care means not having liberals on parole boards.
James Simpson
news:3a8a0667.169688601@news-server...
Eric, now you're just being silly, and I think you know it. Longitudinal
studies (those that cover many years) are known to be the most accurate form
of study. ALL the studies show the death penalty has no effect on murder
rates or even increases murder rates in the years following it's
reinstatement, and this has been so from the beginning until the present.
"The first three to 5 years after implimentation"? Now you're just making
shit up. None of the studies shows decreases in murder rates in the first 3
to 5 years after the death penalty was reinstated. In fact, they all show
the opposite, with increases in the murder rate in many cases. I guess you
think you know more than all the criminologists who have been studying this
for the past 50 years, who have concluded no deterrent effect whatsoever.
Quit making shit up, because you just make yourself look silly.
James
Ashland Henderson
news:3a89c3a7.152598416@news-server...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:07:35 GMT, "Ashland Henderson"
> <macea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >There is no evidence I know of that shows the death penalty to have any
> >effect whatever on discouraging killing.
>
> Well, yes, thta's true... if you ignore the murder rate dropping
> several fold in every state a death penalty has been instituted.
As I recall, the murder rate has dropped several fold in every state
whether a death penalty has been instituted or not. It's called
population demographics.
Ashland Henderson
news:3a8a0667.169688601@news-server...
Translation: I have no good arguments against your data so
I'm waving my hands in the air and hoping you will go away.
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
wrote:
><eflo...@KILLSPAMMERSrochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:3a8a0667.169688601@news-server...
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:31:11 GMT, "James Simpson" <js...@flash.net>
>> wrote:
>> >Eric, if you read the studies, you'd notice that many cover a far longer
>> >period than the past 20 years, like these:
>>
>> You further my point, not lessen it.
>> When viewed over a longer period of time, the action reaction
>> relationship becomes less clear. Look at the first three to 5 years
>> after implimentation and get back to me.
>
>Eric, now you're just being silly, and I think you know it.
Not in the least.
Longitudinal
>studies (those that cover many years) are known to be the most accurate form
>of study.
So explain the drop offs in the murder rate in the first 5 yuears
following the law being instituted. the drop is enough to give rise to
the logical question: Would the murder rate be higher, 20 years out,
had execution have been kept in place?
> None of the studies shows decreases in murder rates in the first 3
>to 5 years after the death penalty was reinstated. In fact, they all show
>the opposite, with increases in the murder rate in many cases.
NOW, who's making shit up.... (Shake of the head)
Some Useless Information
eflo...@KILLSPAMMERSrochester.rr.com wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:48:45 -0600, ic...@get.no.satisfaction.com
>(Some Useless Information) wrote:
>
>>>>No matter how heinous the crime, we are not talking about rabid dogs.
We are
>>>>considering human beings, albeit sometimes twisted and evil ones. When
>>>>you use such similes, you fuzz your own thinking.
>>>
>>>Let's talk about McVeigh. Funny thing; he's not come up in this
>>>conversation.
>>
>>He's no more interesting than any other person on death row. What did
>>you want to say about him?
>
>LOL!
>Liberals don't want to touch the subject of HIS execution. He attacked
>a Government installation, one of the Holy relecs of the liberal. Do I
>see any liberals fighting for HIS life? No?
>
>Hypocrasy! Fraud!
What hypocracy? YOU'RE the one who thinks he should be a special
case. Certainly, what he did was hideous, but no more or less hideous
than many other murders.
I have no special animus against him. I would not like to see him die.
I believe it is a mistake to think that killing him will bring good to
anyone. In the minds of the sort of lunatics he represents, he is a
martyr. That's not going to change, whether he lives or dies. But we
will have made a statement those like him would agree with: that killing
is justified, if it serves a political end.
>>>No. Because so long as there is life in them, they can come out.
>>>And do.
>>
>>Not if proper care is taken.
>
>Proper care means not having liberals on parole boards.
For heinous crimes, it would be reasonable to sentence offenders
to life without the possibility of parole. Some states do not
allow this, but their laws should be changed.
James Simpson
news:3a8b17c2.68205058@news-server...
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:47:55 GMT, "James Simpson" <js...@flash.net>
> wrote:
> > Longitudinal studies (those that cover many years) are known to be the
most
> > accurate form of study.
>
> So explain the drop offs in the murder rate in the first 5 yuears
> following the law being instituted.
Eric, you're like the guy who keeps claiming he sees a pink elephant, but
there's no pink elephant, he's just drunk! Not that you're drunk, you just
act like it. Seriously, I really think you're making this stuff up
purposely, just for the fun of it, that you know what you say is bullshit
and illogical, but it's fun just to see what people's responses will be. I
believe this is so because, as always, you provided no proof, no studies, no
nothing, and we're supposed to believe you just because you say "because I
said it's so". Sorry, that's not sufficient. Provide some real proof, some
real support for your views, and then people might take you seriously, but
you never do, and so people don't. You said that if you look at the data in
the studies I posted it would show increases in the murder rates 3 to 5
years following reinstatement of the DP. You know the studies conclude
exactly the opposite, that either the murder rate increases or there's no
difference. Unlike you, I can provide carefully controlled scientific
studies showing the opposite of what you claim, that the murder rate
*increases* in the months immediately following the death penalty being
reinstated, and that murder rates in death penalty states are higher or the
same as in non-death penalty states:
http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html : "For the 15 year
period in which California carried out an execution every other month (1952
to 1967), murder rates increase 10% annually, on average. Between 1967 and
1991, when there were no executions in California, the murder rate increased
4.8% annually. The study also found that, in the four months preceding
Harris' death [marking the reinstatement of the death penalty], the average
monthly number of homicides in California was 306. In the four months
following his highly publicized execution, an average of 333 persons fell
victim to homicides, an astonishing 9% increase. 'This data mirrors research
from other states which has shown that, contrary to deterring murders,
state-sanctioned killing may actually have a 'brutalizing effect', wherein
the state legitimizes the act of taking another's life,' stated Michael
Godfrey, report co-author, 'in that sense, the state may tragically be
leading by example'."
http://www.ncadp.org/fact5.html "In California, between 1952 and 1967 there
was an average of one execution every two months. From 1968 until 1991 there
were no executions. The homocide rate of California was twice as high in the
earlier period than it was in the latter ... In New York, between 1907 and
1964, 692 executions were carried out. On average, over this 57 year period,
one or more executions in a given month added a net increase of two
homocides to the total committed in the next month."
http://www.newsherald.com/archive/religion/mc010398.htm "The murder rate in
states with the death penalty is more than double the homicide rate of
states without capital punishment. The murder rate of the 38 states with a
death penalty is 7.4 murders per 100,000 people vs. only 3.1 for the 12
states that do not execute: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
States that legally execute killers have more of their own citizens executed
by killers.
This year, Texas executed 37 prisoners and, since 1977, has put 144
killers to death, the nation's record. If death sentencing worked, Texas
should be the safest state in which to live. Yet the murder rate of Texas is
three times that of
Massachusetts with no death penalty. State-sanctioned killing promotes an
atmosphere of violence.
According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, serious crime went up in the
South last year though it went down in the rest of the country. Yet 80
percent of executions have occurred in the South, says Richard Dieter,
director of the Death Penalty Information Center (202 293-6970).
By contrast, the murder rate is plunging in cities where no murderers are
on death row, such as New York City, which saw a 20 percent drop in the
murder rate last year. Washington D.C. recorded 301 murders in 1997 compared
to 397 last year, a
24 percent drop. No place is more amazing than New York. As recently as 1992
there were 2,262 homicides but only 755 in 1997. New York's two-thirds
decline in the murder rate should be studied by those states which think the
death penalty is the answer.
In five years, New York added 5,000 more police officers. They are more
visible on the streets and have new initiatives such as arresting people for
minor offenses, and frisking them for weapons, which, if found, result in
stiffer sentences. So fewer
are carrying guns.
http://209.70.38.3/DEATH/crinfo.htm "During the early 1970's, death-penalty
states averaged an annual rate of 7.9 criminal homicides per 100,000
population; abolitionist states averaged a rate of 5.1."
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html: "The Bureau of Justice
Statistics reports that the South repeatedly has the highest murder rate. In
1999, it was the only region with a murder rate above the national rate. The
South accounts for 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1%
of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest murder rate. When comparisons
aee made between states with the death penalty and states without, the
majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death
penalty states. The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999
among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates
among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.
According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions of
the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for police
officers. Police are most in danger in the south, which accounts for 80% of
all executions (90% in 2000). From 1989-1998, 292 law enforcement officers
were feloniously killed in the south, 125 in the west, 121 in the midwest,
and 80 in the northeast, the region with the fewest execution - less than
1%. The three leading states where law enforcement officers were feloniously
killed in 1998 were California, the state with the highest death row
population (7); Texas, the state with the most executions since 1976 (5);
and Florida, the state that is third highest in executions and in death row
population (5). (FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Officers Killed
and Assaulted, 1998). Research reported in Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2,
May 1997, indicates that executions may actually increase the number of
murders, rather than deter murders. Prof. Ernie Thomson at Arizona State
University reported a brutalizing effect from an execution in Arizona,
consistent with the results of a similar study in Oklahoma."
http://www.ncadp.org/fact5.html "The average murder rate per 100,000 people
in U.S. states with capital punishment is about 8%, while it is only 4.4% in
abolitionist states."
http://www.dnai.com/mwood/deathpen.html "Death-penalty states as a group do
not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states.
During the 1980s, death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5
criminal homicides per 100,000 of population; abolition states averaged a
rate of 7.4".
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." - Gandhi
James Simpson
news:tCwi6.1183$sn5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
ROTFLMFAO! I think Eric has taken the role of "village idiot" in order to
entertain us. I really think he says these irrational, stupid things just
for the fun of it, to see how we respond. At least I hope that's the reason
he makes these ridiculously illogical comments. God, I hope so.
James
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
(Some Useless Information) wrote:
>>LOL!
>>Liberals don't want to touch the subject of HIS execution. He attacked
>>a Government installation, one of the Holy relecs of the liberal. Do I
>>see any liberals fighting for HIS life? No?
>>
>>Hypocrasy! Fraud!
>
>What hypocracy? YOU'RE the one who thinks he should be a special
>case. Certainly, what he did was hideous, but no more or less hideous
>than many other murders.
I'm not suggesting he should be a special case. But the anti-death
penalty idiots silece on this one, for the most part, is deafening...
and telling.
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
wrote:
> I
>believe this is so because, as always, you provided no proof, no studies, no
>nothing, and we're supposed to believe you just because you say "because I
>said it's so". Sorry, that's not sufficient.
I'll tell you why, James; it's really quite simple. I've been at this
game for around 20 years. I've done talkraio, I've run a BBS, and have
been on the internet since it's inception.
In all that time, I have never seen one occasion... not one, where a
liberal has ever been swayed by facts. Not once. THey keep screaming
for proof, but accept none. Frankly, and with all respect, I've seen
nothing in any of your writings, to me or anyone else in the net, that
makes me think you will be any different than the rest.
(Deja is a nice tool.... or was... I wonder what Google's gonna do
with it?)
Some Useless Information
eflo...@KILLSPAMMERSrochester.rr.com wrote:
As his execution date approaches, there will doubtless be some sort of
demonstration. However, you can't expect people to get as worked up
about him as some others. The government's case against him was about
as solid as they often get, and he had a fair trial, and he was obviously
competent.
Some Useless Information
eflo...@KILLSPAMMERSrochester.rr.com wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:53:09 GMT, "James Simpson" <js...@flash.net>
>wrote:
>
>> I
>>believe this is so because, as always, you provided no proof, no studies, no
>>nothing, and we're supposed to believe you just because you say "because I
>>said it's so". Sorry, that's not sufficient.
>
>
>I'll tell you why, James; it's really quite simple. I've been at this
>game for around 20 years. I've done talkraio, I've run a BBS, and have
>been on the internet since it's inception.
>
>In all that time, I have never seen one occasion... not one, where a
>liberal has ever been swayed by facts. Not once. THey keep screaming
>for proof, but accept none. Frankly, and with all respect, I've seen
>nothing in any of your writings, to me or anyone else in the net, that
>makes me think you will be any different than the rest.
>
Okay, what makes YOU think we should accept his conclusions without facts
to back them up?
James Simpson
news:3a8c8b50.79491660@news-server...
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:53:09 GMT, "James Simpson" <js...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I
> >believe this is so because, as always, you provided no proof, no studies,
no
> >nothing, and we're supposed to believe you just because you say "because
I
> >said it's so". Sorry, that's not sufficient.
>
> I'll tell you why, James; it's really quite simple. I've been at this
> game for around 20 years. I've done talkraio, I've run a BBS, and have
> been on the internet since it's inception.
>
> In all that time, I have never seen one occasion... not one, where a
> liberal has ever been swayed by facts. Not once.
Whoa! That could be just as easily, I dare say more easily, said about
conservatives. Rigidity, inflexibility of thought, refusal to see the other
viewpoint - those are more conservative traits, while liberals are
criticized for being too easily swayed and not sure enough in their
convictions to stand their ground on an issue.
> THey keep screaming for proof, but accept none. Frankly, and with all
> respect, I've seen nothing in any of your writings, to me or anyone else
in
> the net, that makes me think you will be any different than the rest.
Eric, all I asked was for you to be truthful and not make up "facts" that
you know have no other basis, other than you think it's so and it supports
your argument. I mean, you made up out of thin air the notion that there
were increases in the murder rates 3 to 5 years following reinstatement of
the DP. No research shows that. And then you tried to claim that the
studies on the DP that I had posted showed a decrease in the murder rate 3
to 5 years after it's reinstatement! I read over those studies again, and
again, and every one concluded the opposite of what you said, that the
murder rate either increased or was the same after the DP. So, why lie? I
have no problem accepting evidence for a contrary view, but you haven't even
tried to present proof. And I happen to have researched the death penalty
very carefully, and there is absolutely no proof the DP deters murderers,
none whatsoever, so when you tried to claim there was an increase in murders
3 to 5 years after the DP was brought back, I knew you had to be playing a
game, a game where you say outrageous, illogical things that fly in the face
of all the evidence, just to get a rise out of people. I don't think you're
stupid, to work in the computer field like you do takes some smarts, so I
don't understand why you make these baseless, stupid comments that
contradict what all the research shows, that the DP is not a deterrent at
all, and may even increase murders, including the murder of police officers.
Read over the studies again, and point out *exactly* where it concludes any
decrease in the murder rate after reinstating the DP, because I see the
opposite, an increased murder rate in death penalty states.
James
http://209.70.38.3/DEATH/crinfo.htm "During the early 1970's, death-penalty
states averaged an annual rate of 7.9 criminal homicides per 100,000
population; abolitionist states averaged a rate of 5.1."
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html: "The Bureau of Justice
Statistics reports that the South repeatedly has the highest murder rate. In
1999, it was the only region with a murder rate above the national rate. The
South accounts for 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1%
of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest murder rate. When comparisons
are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the
majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death
penalty states. The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999
among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates
among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.
According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions of
the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for police
officers. Police are most in danger in the south, which accounts for 80% of
all executions (90% in 2000). From 1989-1998, 292 law enforcement officers
were feloniously killed in the south, 125 in the west, 121 in the midwest,
and 80 in the northeast, the region with the fewest execution - less than
1%. The three leading states where law enforcement officers were feloniously
killed in 1998 were California, the state with the highest death row
population (7); Texas, the state with the most executions since 1976 (5);
and Florida, the state that is third highest in executions and in death row
population (5). (FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Officers Killed
and Assaulted, 1998). Research reported in Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2,
May 1997, indicates that executions may actually increase the number of
murders, rather than deter murders. Prof. Ernie Thomson at Arizona State
University reported a brutalizing effect from an execution in Arizona,
consistent with the results of a similar study in Oklahoma."
http://www.ncadp.org/fact5.html "The average murder rate per 100,000 people
in U.S. states with capital punishment is about 8%, while it is only 4.4% in
abolitionist states ... In California, between 1952 and 1967 there was an
average of one execution every two months. From 1968 until 1991 there were
no executions. The homocide rate of California was twice as high in the
earlier period than it was in the latter ... In New York, between 1907 and
1964, 692 executions were carried out. On average, over this 57 year period,
one or more executions in a given month added a net increase of two
homocides to the total committed in the next month."
http://www.dnai.com/mwood/deathpen.html "Death-penalty states as a group do
not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states.
During the 1980s, death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5
criminal homicides per 100,000 of population; abolition states averaged a
rate of 7.4".
http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html : "For the 15 year
period in which California carried out an execution every other month (1952
to 1967), murder rates increase 10% annually, on average. Between 1967 and
1991, when there were no executions in California, the murder rate increased
4.8% annually. The study also found that, in the four months preceding
Harris' death, the average monthly number of homicides in California was
Ashland Henderson
news:3a8c8b50.79491660@news-server...
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:53:09 GMT, "James Simpson" <js...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I
> >believe this is so because, as always, you provided no proof, no studies,
no
> >nothing, and we're supposed to believe you just because you say "because
I
> >said it's so". Sorry, that's not sufficient.
>
>
> I'll tell you why, James; it's really quite simple. I've been at this
> game for around 20 years. I've done talkraio, I've run a BBS, and have
> been on the internet since it's inception.
>
> In all that time, I have never seen one occasion... not one, where a
> liberal has ever been swayed by facts. Not once. THey keep screaming
> for proof, but accept none. Frankly, and with all respect, I've seen
> nothing in any of your writings, to me or anyone else in the net, that
> makes me think you will be any different than the rest.
Interesting. I've never seen a conservative swayed by facts either
past a certain age. I did once have a long ardent conversation with
a conservative over a wide range of topics on-line. It was quite
informative and he was a very bright guy. It finally ended when we
discovered that he had been brought up as a liberal and I had been
brought up as a conservative, both of us feeling that we had grown
out of our childhood beliefs.
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
(Some Useless Information) wrote:
>In article <3a8c8ad1.79364845@news-server>,
>eflo...@KILLSPAMMERSrochester.rr.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:23:54 -0600, ic...@get.no.satisfaction.com
>>(Some Useless Information) wrote:
>>
>>>>LOL!
>>>>Liberals don't want to touch the subject of HIS execution. He attacked
>>>>a Government installation, one of the Holy relecs of the liberal. Do I
>>>>see any liberals fighting for HIS life? No?
>>>>
>>>>Hypocrasy! Fraud!
>>>
>>>What hypocracy? YOU'RE the one who thinks he should be a special
>>>case. Certainly, what he did was hideous, but no more or less hideous
>>>than many other murders.
>>
>>I'm not suggesting he should be a special case. But the anti-death
>>penalty idiots silece on this one, for the most part, is deafening...
>>and telling.
>
>As his execution date approaches, there will doubtless be some sort of
>demonstration. However, you can't expect people to get as worked up
>about him as some others. The government's case against him was about
>as solid as they often get, and he had a fair trial, and he was obviously
>competent.
Funny; as if on cue, that libidiot Cohenfired off a note protesting
his impending death today. Someone's reading this NG, one could almost
think. (Chuckle)
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
(Some Useless Information) wrote:
>>In all that time, I have never seen one occasion... not one, where a
>>liberal has ever been swayed by facts. Not once. THey keep screaming
>>for proof, but accept none. Frankly, and with all respect, I've seen
>>nothing in any of your writings, to me or anyone else in the net, that
>>makes me think you will be any different than the rest.
>>
>Okay, what makes YOU think we should accept his conclusions without facts
>to back them up?
I think you may have the context on this one a bit twisted...
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
wrote:
>> In all that time, I have never seen one occasion... not one, where a
>> liberal has ever been swayed by facts. Not once.
>
>Whoa! That could be just as easily, I dare say more easily, said about
>conservatives. Rigidity, inflexibility of thought, refusal to see the other
>viewpoint - those are more conservative traits, while liberals are
>criticized for being too easily swayed and not sure enough in their
>convictions to stand their ground on an issue.
That IS the usual sales pitch. But then I never beleived the
salesmen, anyway. Perhaps the lesson here is, conservatives aren't the
tight-assed ones?
>
>> THey keep screaming for proof, but accept none. Frankly, and with all
>> respect, I've seen nothing in any of your writings, to me or anyone else
>in
>> the net, that makes me think you will be any different than the rest.
>
>Eric, all I asked was for you to be truthful and not make up "facts" that
>you know have no other basis, other than you think it's so and it supports
>your argument. I mean, you made up out of thin air the notion that there
>were increases in the murder rates 3 to 5 years following reinstatement of
>the DP. No research shows that.
No research you're willing to admit to.
James Simpson
is it that when confronted with indisuptable facts that contradict their
view on an issue they believe in strongly (like the death penalty),
conservatives suddenly disappear? As I said before, a *reasonable* person,
who is not afraid to see the truth even if contradicts their most deeply
held beliefs, would acknowledge that innocent people have been executed, and
that innocent people will continue to be executed, considering the
imperfections and outright fraud in our justice system. In order to ensure
that no innocent person is ever executed, the system would have to be
perfect, but that is obviously not the case. As the late USSC Justice
Thurgood Marshall once stated, "No matter how careful courts are, the
possibility of perjured testimony, mistaken honest testimony, and human
error remain all too real. We have no way of judging how many innocent
persons have been executed, but we can be certain that there were some."
"David Maynard" <mayNO...@flash.net> wrote
> As one point alone, I dispute your 'obvious' analysis of the possibility
> that it's nearly impossible for an innocent person to prove their
> innocence after ... which conviction? The first, or the appeal (which is
> automatic), or the second appeal, or ?
"James Simpson" <js...@flash.net> wrote:
Oh, maybe I say "obvious" because of the Christopher Ochoa case
(http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/263981_ochoa_17tex.AR.html ), in
which the true murderer wrote a letter confessing to the crime to then
governor GW Bush, and Bush failed to forward the letter to law enforcement
officials, showing that government officials are not beyond suppressing
evidence which might prove the innocence of a person on death row. The James
Liebman study http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/00/06/lawStudy.html found that
19% of all cases in which a person on death row *was* able to prove their
innocence was accounted for by prosecutorial misconduct, involving
"prosecutors withholding evidence that shows that the defendant is innocent
or didn't deserve the death penalty."
Maybe I say "obvious" because of the Roy Criner case, in which, although 2
separate DNA tests proved he could not have been the murderer, Texas Supreme
Court Justice Sharon Keller stated that, in order to warrant a new trial "he
has to establish unquestionably that he is innocent and he hasn't done it."
The way the system is slanted, after being convicted and sent to death row,
one must "establish unquestionably that he is innocent"! I'd say that's a
pretty high hurdle to proving innocence!
Maybe I said "obvious" because jurors who are anti-death penalty are
eliminated from the jury pool in cases in which the death penalty is an
option, resulting in a jury that is much more likely to assess the death
penalty, and much less likely to overturn a death penalty.
Maybe I said "obvious" because of the use of unreliable "jailhouse snitches"
who are basically bribed for their testimony (and thus have incentive to
lie).
Maybe I said "obvious" because of police who coerce confessions from
innocent defendants, like Ochoa. Once a confession is made, it's extremely
difficult to prove innocence.
Maybe I said "obvious" because of the "21-Day Rule" in most states, in which
new evidence can not be presented more than 21 days after sentencing. In the
case of Earl Washington, the proof that he was completely innocent, which
came only when a DNA test was done years later, could not be used under
Virginia rule to overturn his death sentence.
Maybe I said "obvious" because, of the 3,600 people sentenced to death, it's
estimated that 10 percent are mentally retarded. People with mental
retardation sometimes confess to crimes because they are anxious to please
authorities, as happened in the case of Earl Washington.
Maybe I said "obvious" because the Texas Supreme Court refused to order a
new trial in a death penalty case in which the defendant's attorney slept
through much of the trial. Evidence of "incompetent counsel" is not even
sufficient, in some states, to overturn a death penalty verdict and order a
new trial!
Maybe I also said "obvious" because affluent defendants (remember O.J.?)
have a distinct advantage in obtaining competent counsel, while the poor
must make do with incompetent court-appointed lawyers who have been reported
to fall asleep during the trial! It's even been reported that prosecutors
are less likely to seek the death penalty if the defendant has a
high-powered lawyer they know will put on a competent case!
> It would equally qualify as "common sense" to ponder that the rarity of
> an "innocent" person being discovered at the last stage of the game
> because it's so rare for an innocent person to GET to the last stage of
> the game, as opposed to your assumption that the system is littered with
> them.
No, that wouldn't "equally qualify as 'common sense'", and I think you know
it. When you have a justice system in which judges and prosecutors use the
number of death penalty convictions they win in order to appear "tough on
crime" in election campaigns (and thus are loathe to overturn death
sentences), when governors like Bush fail to turn over to law enforcement
officials evidence of the innocence of a death row inmate, when a ridiculous
"21-Day Rule" does not allow new evidence which would exonerate a defendant
to be considered, no matter how powerful the evidence (such as DNA
evidence), when state Supreme Courts refuse to order new trials for
defendants whose lawyers slept through the trial (as happened in Texas),
when potential jurors are eliminated for being against the death penalty
(stacking the jury with people who are much more likely to assess the death
penalty, and less likely to overturn a death penalty verdict), and when
state Supreme Court justices make statements like "he has to establish
unquestionably that he is innocent" - then I say it's "obvious" that it is
nearly impossible for an innocent person on death row to be exonerated and
freed. The system is broken.
This study
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?61+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+105+(Autumn+1
998)
summarized it best:
"Previous work on this problem touches what is probably only the tip of an
iceberg. Undoubtedly, there are many more cases in which innocent persons
have been convicted of homicide that have yet to be thoroughly documented
and acknowledged by government officials, much less publicized in a way that
will allow those who care to learn lessons from them ... Between 1972 and
the end of 1996, sixty-eight death row inmates in the nation were released
because of doubts about their guilt ... In virtually all of these cases, the
defendants were released only after an expensive and exhausting uphill
struggle, unsupported by public funds or public officials, and almost always
fiercely resisted by the prosecution and ignored by those with the power to
commute a death sentence."
This study concludes:
"We close on an ironic note. One of the amazing things that has happened in
the decade since our research was first released to the public is that those
who defend the death penalty now concede the inevitability of executing the
innocent, even though they challenge individual cases that we and others
have identified as probably involving the execution of an innocent person.
It is a major concession. We know of no defender of the death penalty who,
prior to 1985, was willing to make such a public concession. Moreover, this
concession has the effect of forcing responsible defenders of capital
punishment to rethink their argument in two important respects. First, as
retributivists, they must acknowledge that convicting and executing the
innocent -- those who do not deserve to die -- is a terrible wrong, and
avoiding it is no less important on retributive grounds than convicting and
punishing the guilty. Second, they must explain in convincing detail how a
cost/benefit argument, on which they rely, shows that the benefits from the
death penalty outweigh the admitted cost of executing the innocent.
Elsewhere, we have shown why we believe these arguments must fail. We are
left to ponder how future generations, when they look back, will evaluate
America's current love for the executioner."
In other words, as I said before, there are people on the pro-death penalty
side who think in terms of "acceptable losses". So what if a few innocent
people are executed, the end justifies the means, right?
James
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/failure/index.html
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/00/06/lawStudy.html
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/814496
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/813700
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1555531970/103-6519486-7775066
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/813783
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/814478
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocothers.html#executed
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocothers.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoccases.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/263981_ochoa_17tex.AR.html
http://www.txcn.com/video/2001_0116_dna2.ram
http://209.70.38.3/DEATH/crinfo.htm
http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html
http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html
http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html
http://209.70.38.3/public.nsf/championarticles/99jul01?opendocument
http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/AMR510101998
http://209.70.38.3/public.nsf/championarticles/99jul01?opendocument
http://www.cuadp.org/bush.html
http://members.nbci.com/ccadp/serialpresident.htm
Paul
for fear of the mob. The Black vote will be the razor that cuts the
demoncratic party a new ass hole when more of them realize what demoncratic
policies have done to them! Be very afraid!
"James Simpson" <js...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:ALmk6.415$8n6.34...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
phil the pill
that there probably have been innocent people who have died by execution.
Phil
"James Simpson" <js...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:ALmk6.415$8n6.34...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Docky Wocky
careful courts are, the possibility of perjured testimony, mistaken honest
testimony, and human error remain all too real. We have no way of judging
certain, since we added that sampling stuff from the Census Bureau, that the
ones who were smoked by mistake were all good Democrats."
Some Useless Information
Simpson" <js...@flash.net> wrote:
>Maybe I said "obvious" because of the use of unreliable "jailhouse snitches"
>who are basically bribed for their testimony (and thus have incentive to
>lie).
It's much worse than that. Jailhouse snitches are not bribed. They are
blackmailed into providing the testimony that the prosecutor wants. If
I were on a jury, and a jailhouse informant testified, I would disregard
his testimony, and I would try to convince other jurors that his testimony
was dubious.
James Simpson
news:t94an52...@corp.supernews.com...
> Many intelligent Blacks voted for Bush. They keep it quiet and say
otherwise
> for fear of the mob. The Black vote will be the razor that cuts the
> demoncratic party a new ass hole when more of them realize what
demoncratic
> policies have done to them! Be very afraid!
Hahahaha! I'll give you this much, Paul, you have a sense of humor!
James Simpson
news:3a8dbb85.157384270@news-server...
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:45:48 GMT, "James Simpson" <js...@flash.net>
> wrote:
> >Eric, all I asked was for you to be truthful and not make up "facts" that
> >you know have no other basis, other than you think it's so and it
supports
> >your argument. I mean, you made up out of thin air the notion that there
of
> >the DP. No research shows that.
>
> No research you're willing to admit to.
What research?? You haven't provided *any* research to support your view.
That would be because there is no research showing a decreased murder rate
in states with the death penalty. I've provided studies which simply
compare murder rates in death penalty and non-death penalty states over many
years, and show conclusively that states with the death penalty have the
same or higher murder rates than states with no death penalty. These are
not subjective studies, they simply compare indisputable murder rates in
states with and without the death penalty . You have yet to provide any
research to disprove the studies I've posted. I see where Ernie DiMicco has
said the exact same thing I've been saying, that you are "as credible as a
book labeled 'fantasy' on the front. You have repeatedly in other threads
shown your propensity to lie, cheat, be dishonest, make up 'facts'"... So
several people are telling you the same thing -- don't make up "facts",
provide support for your views, or you lose credibility. You do the right
wing no favors by debating in this way (making up "facts"). I ask you again
to point out *exactly* where in the studies below you discern a decrease in
the murder rate 3 to 5 years following the reinstatement of the death
penalty. You can't? Maybe that's because, as the first study below states,
there was "an astonishing 9% increase" in murders in the four months
following the reinstatement of the death penalty in California.
James
James Simpson
"many" appeals afforded defendants in death row cases, but the truth is
there is ONE automatic appeal, not two or three, or whatever ridiculous
number they try to imply. And even though there is one automatic appeal, the
fact is that an indigent defendant could receive 10 appeals, and would still
be at a great disadvantage when compared to an affluent defendant who can
hire *competent* counsel. The quality of court-appointed attorneys has been
much criticized, with confirmed reports of court-appointed attorneys falling
ASLEEP during trial - just gross incompetence. In spite of this, the Texas
Supreme Court recently ruled that incompetence of counsel is not sufficient
to order a new trial in a death penalty case.
Also, in the Earl Washington case, Governor Wilder of Virginia received DNA
test results which exonerated Washington as a suspect, and yet he did not
turn over these tests results to defense attorneys, and then he did not
commute Washington's sentence from death to Life without parole until his
very last day in office, 2 years after receiving the DNA results. Bush did
the exact same thing in Texas in the Christopher Ochoa case, when Bush
received a confession letter from the true murderer and yet failed to turn
this over to justice authorities.
Why would governors like Bush and Wilder suppress evidence that would
exonerate a death row inmate? Because it is considered a "political death
sentence" (no pun intended) to admit that the state has sentenced an
innocent person to death and imprisoned them for 10 or 20 years. With
public support for the death penalty at greater than 50%, no politician will
come out against the death penalty, because they know they won't be
re-elected if they do. I mean, what's more important, a political career or
an innocent man's life being thrown away, imprisoned for a crime he didn't
commit. I guess for Bush and Wilder it's the former rather than the latter.
Does anyone still have complete faith in the judiciary as fair and
impartial? Conservatives love to say "there's not one confirmed case of an
innocent person being executed", even though since the reinstatemen of the
death penalty in 1976, 89 death row inmates have been exonerated and found
to be innocent (through DNA evidence, the true killer being found or
confessing, etc.), and at least one was within hours of being executed.
With a justice system that's fraught with error, incompetence, and outright
fraud, how can we not conclude that at least one innocent person has been
executed in the last 25 years. Surely, knowing the (to say the least)
imperfections in the justice system, the number of innocent executed is much
greater than one. It's incomprehensible to me how anyone can rationalize
the risk of executing the innocent as "acceptable losses". The following
series of articles explain perfectly just how corrupt the justice system has
become in regard to the death penalty:
http://www.chicago.tribune.com/news/metro/chicago/ws/0,1246,37842,00.html
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/814496
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/813783
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/814478
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/813659
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/penalty/813700
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/w111599a.html
"James Simpson" <js...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:ALmk6.415$8n6.34...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Tom Abbott
eliminating the death penalty. Life without parole is
sufficient, although I would like to see spies executed as
an example to other fourteen-year-old boys who read books
that inspire them to turn on their own country. And
considering the ramifications of having our secrets exposed,
I don't think the death penalty is too harsh in this case.
TA
Some Useless Information
<tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
Execution is too glamourous, thus appealing to the would-be
spy. The threat should be a very long, very boring and unpleasant
time in prison.