Cost of DP versus Life in Prison
CplPunishment
exactly what was used to tally these numbers.
These stats are found at
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm#cost
As I said in a earlier post, I do not beleive that Dnarsh statistics of life
versus death penalty is correct. So here are some stats to at least show why
the Death Penalty is not too expensive to use instead of babysitting inmates
who are no use to society at all. Enjoy, and I can not wait to hear the
responses
:P
Cost of Life Without Parole: Cases
1. $34,200/year (1) for 50 years (2), at
a 2% (3) annual cost increase, plus
$75,000 (4) for trial & appeals = $3.01 million
2. Same, except 3% (3) = $4.04 million
3. Same, except 4% (3) = $5.53 million
Cost of Death Penalty Cases
1.$60,000/year (1) for 6 years (5), at
a 2% (3) annual cost increase, plus
$1.5 million (4) for trial & appeals = $1.88 million
2.Same, except 3% (3) = $1.89 million
3.Same, except 4% (3) = $1.91 million
There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are
significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to
be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more
expensive - from $1.2 to $3.6 million - than death penalty cases. Opponents
ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more
than LWOP.
(1) The $34,200 is conservative, if TIME Magazine's (2/7/94) research is
accurate. TIME found that, nationwide, the average cell cost is $24,000/yr.
and the maximum security cell cost is $75,000/yr. (as of 12/95). Opponents
claim that LWOP should replace the DP. Therefore, any cost calculations
should be based specifically on cell costs for criminals who have committed
the exact same category of offense - in other words, cost comparisons are
valid only if you compare the costs of DP-equivalent LWOP cases to the cost
of DP cases. The $34,200/yr. cell cost assumes that only 20% of the
DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in maximum security cost cells and that
80% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in average cost cells. A very
conservative estimate. The $60,000/yr., for those on death row, assumes that
such cells will average a cost equal to 80% of the $75,000/yr. for the most
expensive maximum security cells. A very high estimate. Even though we are
calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP
cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over
time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly
compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent
LWOP cases are relevant.
(2) U.S. Vital Statistics Abstract, 1994 and Capital Punishment 1995, BJS
1996.
(3) Annual cost increases are based upon: 1) historical increases in prison
costs, including judicial decisions regarding prison conditions, and the
national inflation rate; 2) medical costs, including the immense cost of
geriatric care, associated with real LWOP sentences; 3) injury or death to
the inmate by violence; 4) injury or death to others caused by the inmate (3
and 4 anticipate no DP and that prisoners, not fearing additional
punishment, other than loss of privileges, may increase the likelihood of
violence. One could make the same assumptions regarding those on death row.
The difference is that death row inmates will average 6 years incarceration
vs. 50 years projected for LWOP); 5) the risk and the perceived risk of
escape; and 6) the justifiable lack of confidence by the populace in our
legislators, governors, parole boards and judges, i.e. a violent inmate will
be released upon society.
(4) $75,000 for trial and appeals cost, for DP-equivalent LWOP cases,
assumes that the DP is not an option. We believe this cost estimate is very
low. We have over-estimated that DP cases will cost twenty times more, on
average, or $1.5 million. Our exaggerated estimate states that the DP will
have twenty times more investigation cost, defense and prosecution cost,
including voir dire, court time, guilt/innocence stage, sentencing stage and
appellate review time and cost than DP equivalent LWOP cases. Even though we
have greatly exaggerated the cost of DP cases, DP cases still prove to be
significantly less expensive, over time, than the DP equivalent LWOP cases.
(5) 6 years on death row, prior to execution, reflects the new habeas corpus
reform laws, at both the state and federal levels. Some anti-death penalty
groups speculate that such time may actually become only 4 years. If so,
then DP cases would cost even that much less than the DP equivalent LWOP
cases. However, the average time on death row, for those executed from
1973-1994, was 8 years (Capital Punishment 1994, BJS, 1995). Therefore, 6
years seems more likely. Even using the 8 year average, the DP equivalent
LWOP cases are still $1 million more expensive than their DP counterparts
($2 million @ 2% annual increase).
One of the USA’s largest death rows is in Texas, with 442 inmates, of which
229, or 52%, have been on death row over 6 years - 44, or 10%, have been on
for over 15 years, 8 for over 20 years. 60 inmates, nationwide, have been on
death row over 18 years. (as of 12/96).
NOTE - 10/19/00 - We received a post which located a flaw within our cost
evaluation. The reader stated that we should "present value" all the costs
of both a life sentence and the death penalty and that, if we do so, a life
sentence is cheaper than a death sentence. Using the numbers in our
analysis, such is a good point.
It should be noted that we were intentionally generous in minimizing life
costs within our analysis. Please review we have not included
1)the recent studies on geriatric care at about $70,000/year/prisoner in
today's dollars , or
2) the recent explosion of Hepatitis C and AIDS within the prison system, or
3) the cost savings to jurisdictions based on plea bargains to maximum life
sentences, which can only occur due solely to the presence of the death
penalty. Such should accrue as a cost benefit of the death penalty, and
4) none of the above have been included in our cost analysis. All of which
either increase the cost of a life sentence or accrue as a cost credit to
the death penalty, and
5) And we have been extremely generous to the anti death penalty position
with our numbers to begin with. I suspect that an average life without
parole sentence costs closer to $150,000-$300,000, for all pre-trial, trial
and appeals, as opposed to the $75,000 used in our study.
Those omissions should not be considered a balancing, because accuracy is
paramount. There is no cost study which fully evaluates all of those issues.
We hope to update the data at some point with a more thorough review.
dnarshMAX
the figures I quoted are also quoted and deriled there as well.
So, I will simply go along with this DA and allow it cost a lot of money either
way.
The DA's largest tool in his bag is the hammer of the threat of calling for
death on conviction which they use all the time to exact plea bargains saving
enormous cost and time.
A DA would be politically foolish to give up such a time saving weapon even if
it may be at the expense of finding of fact.
I fall back on my solution.
If found guilty of a crime in which the State has asked for the death penalty,
if found guilty shoot them to death in court on that day.
Quickly the wheels of justice will begin to grind in the area of finding of
fact and truth within that court room as it should be.
No rationalizing on anbody's part, witness, defence cousel, DA, jury, victims,
etc.
That's it.
Neat and quick and the point of justice is swift and sure.
this will enable efforts be made on the "sure" side quickly after a few are
shot down in the court room.
Either that, or the DP will be taken from the DAs bag of tools and they will
have to go back to work.
I concede to any amount of money anybody want to claim it costs to house a
convict in any jurisdiction and any amount of money any jurisdiction or trial
may have expended on trial, investigations, testimony, appeals, housing on DR
etc. for the execution.
As we have all learned here, things change with jurisdictions and moods and MOs
allo over the map.
Glad to see the extent that this has brought out the cost of incarceration to
the forefront, at least, FINALLY. <GRIN>
Response from
MAX
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>From: "CplPunishment" epl...@icharter.net
When born,you cried & the world rejoiced, live life in a way that when you die,
the world cries, you rejoice!! Don't be a stranger in your own life. Don't be
walked upon, walk away. Theres no excuse for abuse.
MAX
Ravage
I sometimes wonder if SOME people think they are spilling their yarn to a group
of people who don't realize the reality of life incarceration.
Just remember - you've only accounted for the "hard costs" as well.
No telling how much our poor, misunderstood little miscreant is going to cost
the taxpayers when he (1)sues over the brand of aspirin he's given, or (2) sues
cuz some CO hurt his widdle feelings.
"CplPunishment" <epl...@icharter.net> wrote in message
news:tidholi...@corp.supernews.com...
Omnivore
Cool.
Then the DP against time incarcerated should be decided on which costs
the least?
What is a life worth? What is yours worth?
The swift death penalty that many folks call for would have killed a
number of folks who were released in last few years due to DNA and other
evidence proving their lack of guilt. - Do you believe that to be the lot of
them? Do you figure that some innocents killed are justifiable collateral
damage?
--
Unless you're in the majority, your position is pointless.
[Ravage]
CplPunishment
not deserve it. Why do I say this? Because the majority of people in jail
DESERVE to be there. I must also say that it is not about being colateral
damage, it is about serving the proper sentence for the crime you have been
found guilty of commiting. We forget that these men who were on death row
and were released PROVES that the system does work. It does not prove that
the system is bad. And in fact I personally beleive that not ONE innocent
man has been executed by the legal system since the 1960's. Can you prove
that there was one? No, because if the system were as bad as it claims to be
by some proponents of no death penalty, everyone would never get out of the
death row.Further down, you will see why.
The only problem with your thinking is that the question dealt with which is
more expensive. Thus the answer was answered by my last post.
Now onto your reasoning.
How many people do you give a sandwich to when you go by a corner filled
with homeless?
How many times have you personally taken in a person who is lying on a park
bench in the dead of winter?
If you stand beside a man or woman who has the stinch of not having a bath
in months and smells of urine, how many do you ignore and walk away from. Or
do you take them to your house and clean them up?
I ask these questions because it appears that we have a double standard
here. You say how much is a life worth? I say that before we start trying to
dismantle the institution that holds a MAJOR, MAJOR majority of GUILTY
individuals to be given the benefit of the doubt, we should first work half
as hard at taking care of those who are in real need for survival, the
homeless. Why do the pro-ponents of inmate special treatment care more about
a man or woman who has been convicted of a crime deserving death than the
person who has been convicted in the world of nature for being homeless?
Do you consider them a coladeral damage?
But let us look at what an inmate must be given, before a execution may take
place.
There are at least 28 procedures necessary in reaching a death sentence.
They are: (1) The crime must be one listed as a capital crime in the penal
code; (2) a suspect must be identified and arrested; (3) Beginning with the
Bill of Rights, the Miranda warnings and the exclusionary rules, U.S.
criminal defendants and those convicted have, by far, the most extensive
protections ever devised and implemented; (4) in Harris County (Houston),
Texas a panel of district attorneys determines if the case merits the death
penalty as prescribed by the Penal Code (See 12-19); (5) a grand jury must
indict the suspect for capital murder; (6) the suspect is presumed innocent;
(7) the prosecution must prove to the judge that the evidence, upon which
the prosecution will rely, is admissible; (8) the defendant is assigned two
attorneys. County funds are provided to defense counsel for investigation
and trial; (9) it takes 3-12 weeks to select a jury; (10) trial is
conducted; (11) the burden of proof is on the state; (12) all 12 jury
members must find for guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. In most cases, the
jury knows nothing of the defendant's previous criminal acts, at this stage.
If found guilty, then, the punishment phase of the trial begins; (13) the
prosecution presents additional damning evidence against the murderer, i.e.,
other crimes, victims, victims' or survivors' testimony, police reports,
etc; (14) In order to find for death, the issues to be resolved by the jury
are {a}(14) did the defendant not only act willfully in causing the death,
but act deliberately, as well, {b}(15) does the evidence show, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that there is a likelihood that the defendant will be
dangerous in the future, {c}(16) if there was provocation on the part of the
victim, were the defendant's actions unreasonable in response to the
provocations and {d}(17) is there something about the defendant that
diminishes moral responsibility or in some way mitigates against the
imposition of death for the defendant in this case, whereby, (18) the
defense presents all mitigating circumstance, which may lesson the
probability of the jury imposing death , i.e., family problems, substance
abuse, age, no prior criminal record, mental disability, parental abuse,
poverty, etc. Witnesses, such as family, friends, co-workers, etc., are
presented to speak and offer the positive qualities of the defendant; (19)
the jury must take into consideration those mitigating circumstances (Penry
decision) and, if only 1 juror believes that the perpetrator deserves
leniency because of any mitigating circumstances, then the jury cannot
impose the death penalty; and (20) when the death sentence is imposed, the
perpetrator receives an automatic appeal. (21& 22) the death row inmate is
provided an attorney, or attorneys, to handle the direct appeal, at county
expense, through both the state and federal courts; (23 & 24) the state pays
attorneys for the inmate's habeas corpus appeals, at both the state and
federal level; (25 & 26) death row inmates may be granted a hearing, in both
state and federal court, to present post conviction claims of innocence.
The burden of proof for these claims of innocence mirrors that used by the
Federal courts; and (27 & 28) Convictions and sentences are subject to
pardon or sentence reduction through the executive branch of government, at
both the state level (Governor) and federal level (President).
These 28 procedures represent the broad categories of defendant and inmate
protections. Within these 28 procedures, there are hundreds, if not
thousands, of additional procedures and protections.
In some jurisdictions, the defense must prove mitigating circumstances by a
preponderance of the evidence and the prosecution must prove aggravating
circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a huge advantage for the
defendant and a major disadvantage for the prosecution.
To punish with death, each one of the 12 jurors must agree with the
prosecution in each of five specific areas ( 12, 14, (a)14, (b)15, (c)16,
and (d)17 (with 18 & 19). A death sentence requires that the prosecution
must prevail in 60 out of those 60 considerations, or 100%. To avoid death,
the defendant must prevail in only 1 out of those 60 considerations, or
1.67%. If convicted and sentenced to death, the inmate may then begin an
appeals process that could extend through 23 years, 60 appeals and over 200
individual judicial and executive reviews of the inmates claims. The average
time on death row for those executed from 1977-1995 was 9 years. For the 56
executed in 1995, the average time on death row was 11 years, 2 months - a
new record of longevity, surpassing the old record of 10 years, 2 months,
set in 1994. 60 death row inmates have been on death row for over 18 years.
(Capital Punishment 1994 & 1995, BJS 1995 & 1996). Could new longevity
records of from 12-18 years on death row be set for those executed from
1996-2002, respectively? Yes. Even with the new federal and state laws?
Easily.
HABEAS CORPUS - Opponents claim that with the new federal guidelines for
appeals in capital cases, that nothing is left to protect the rights of the
death row inmate. Predictably, such hysteria is unwarranted and untrue. The
new federal appeals law, which affects the writ of habeas corpus, was upheld
unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996. This law established,
nationally, higher minimum standards for defense counsel in capital cases
and requires said counsel for all indigent capital defendants. Furthermore,
with these new federal standards, there are still at least 17 levels of post
conviction review available to the death row inmate; 6 state and 11 federal,
comprised of 5 direct appeals, one at the state level and four at the
federal level; 10 habeas corpus appeals, four at the state level and six at
the federal level; 2 of those habeas appeals are for compelling post
conviction claims of innocence, which are subject to a formal hearing, one
at the state level and one at the federal level; and the 16th and 17th
levels of appeal provide that the inmate's claims are subject to review for
executive clemency or commutation, at either the state or federal level, and
sometimes both. Similar appellate issues are often heard at every appellate
level. There is no limit to the number of appellate issues which the inmate
may raise on appeal. Generally, prosecutors and victim survivors have no
right to appeal. Although this section deals specifically with Texas, the
procedures are similar in all death penalty states and at the federal and
military levels. The due process protections in capital cases are so
overwhelming that inmates are six times more likely to get off death row by
appeals than by execution. 37% of all death row cases are overturned on
appeal. The American death penalty continues to have, by far, the greatest
due process protections of any criminal sanction in the world.
Many seem to be unaware of the true meaning of the habeas corpus process.
They may not know that the intent of the "Great Writ", established in
pre-Magna Carta England, is to quickly facilitate the release of the
innocent or those otherwise wrongfully held or convicted - a process that
will finally be honored with these reforms. This is a very positive
development, except for the guilty and for those who wish to abuse the
habeas corpus process by delaying justice with frivolous, repetitive and
prolonged appeals. It is a bitter irony that it was just such intentional
delays of justice that the "Great Writ" was created to abolish. It was just
such abuses that caused many of the states and the federal government to
enact new habeas corpus reforms. Indeed, it was opponents of the death
penalty who finally guaranteed passage of these long delayed reforms.
Opponents had begun to challenge the long stays on death row as
unconstitutional, claiming that such delays were, by themselves, "cruel and
unusual punishment", a violation of the eighth amendment. Although all such
cynical and humorous claims were rejected by U.S. courts - there was
overwhelming evidence that inmates and their attorneys were responsible for
such delays - such claims did provide the final push necessary to finally
pass these reforms through the U.S. Congress, thus respecting the claims of
opponents, inmates and their attorneys through legislation.
For those who find themselves hysterical over these habeas corpus reform
efforts, who believe that speeding up the appeals process will threaten the
lives of those convicted and innocent, please contemplate the following
question: What innocent or otherwise improperly convicted inmate would wish
to linger a bit longer on death row as their attorney, snail-like, labored
to prolong their wrongful stay on death row with a series of delayed and
frivolous appeals?
Omnivore
> The harsh reality is that in the real world, things happen to those that
do
> not deserve it. Why do I say this? Because the majority of people in jail
> DESERVE to be there.
OK - Maybe so.
I dunnow what anyone deserves. While I am not a Chistian as folks
generally seem to think of Christian - It seems to me the admonition to not
judge was especially aimed at determining what someone might deserve. - Take
that in relation to the folks who were hired for long time against the ones
hired later and all getting the same pay.
I'd think that to not apply so much to whether one believes someone to
have comitted an act, but it applies to making judgement on what someone
might deserve.
I have noticed that much effort has been done after executions to hamper
any attempt to further study if one has been innocent of what they were
found guilty.
>I must also say that it is not about being colateral
> damage, it is about serving the proper sentence for the crime you have
been
> found guilty of commiting.
Well, some time back you seemed to discount anything I had to say for
sake of my admission of some unlawful acts and my having been found legally
guilty.
Maybe I should not even bother to continue with this response in view of
your past expressed prejudice. ??
Whatever - I have intimately seen that in the criminal justice system is
very more concerned with process and not with truth.
>We forget that these men who were on death row
> and were released PROVES that the system does work.
It proves that some folks were unjustly convicted and some of them were
exonerated.
Shouting "PROVES" does not make it proof at all. It just demonstrates
that the working of the system can convict some innocent along with the
guilty.
>It does not prove that
> the system is bad. And in fact I personally beleive that not ONE innocent
> man has been executed by the legal system since the 1960's. Can you prove
> that there was one? No, because if the system were as bad as it claims to
be
> by some proponents of no death penalty, everyone would never get out of
the
> death row.Further down, you will see why.
Is further down any of your own words? - If you could you give cite and
credit for whoever wrtote them?
No, I cannot prove anything and more than you can prove what you claim
to believe.
My positon would stand more chance to be provable than yours. In fact
yours stands no chance of being proven at all. Just figuring the odds in
that light and in light of the nature of some who have been proven innocent
it would weigh in favor of probablities that innocents have been legally
killed and the actual guilty have gone about their business.
>
> The only problem with your thinking is that the question dealt with which
is
> more expensive. Thus the answer was answered by my last post.
One of the problems with your thinking is stuff like what you say just
above.
>
> Now onto your reasoning.
No, you reasoning.
>
> How many people do you give a sandwich to when you go by a corner filled
> with homeless?
What relevance?
>
> How many times have you personally taken in a person who is lying on a
park
> bench in the dead of winter?
What relevance?
>
> If you stand beside a man or woman who has the stinch of not having a bath
> in months and smells of urine, how many do you ignore and walk away from.
Or
> do you take them to your house and clean them up?
What relevance?
>
>
> I ask these questions because it appears that we have a double standard
> here.
You seem to be attempting to make some kind of point by making
assumptions of how I may have acted in relation to some of the sort of
conditions you lay out above.
I've certainly doen the Samaritan thing in relation to some folks you
have expressed to be undeserving. Myself sees someone in a bad way I do not
give much of a thought to how deserving they might be.
>You say how much is a life worth? I say that before we start trying to
> dismantle the institution that holds a MAJOR, MAJOR majority of GUILTY
> individuals to be given the benefit of the doubt, we should first work
half
> as hard at taking care of those who are in real need for survival, the
> homeless. Why do the pro-ponents of inmate special treatment care more
about
> a man or woman who has been convicted of a crime deserving death than the
> person who has been convicted in the world of nature for being homeless?
The non action of not helping someone is something you would compare to
the hostile action of killing them or supporting of the killing of them?
You keep being on that deserving kick.
Do you continue to hate the rabid dog after he has been caged and no
longer a danger to you? - Considering the nature of rabies would you then
kill for sake of what the dog deserves or as an act of mercy?
>
> Do you consider them a coladeral damage?
I see nothing about your examples to justify the killing of someone.
Some of those you wish to kill for their killing may have thought themselves
to have as reasonable cause for the killing as you do for the killing you
would support.
I asked you if you were willing to justify such as 'collateral damage'
in relation to some who may be innocent. - Don't try to turn that around on
me with some bullshit you say about some other folks who you say would be
proponents of special treatement.
>
> But let us look at what an inmate must be given, before a execution may
take
> place.
Yea - Is that below quoted or your own words?
Impresses me as a litany in any case.
Without the luck of some new DNA tests and the luck of DNA samples being
available all that crap you state below does not mean a thing. There were
folks doing long prison time and folks who went through that whole process
to death row. That process did not work for them. Had the death penalty been
carried out as quiclky as some would wish some of them folks would have been
dead and the issue closed and DNA and evidence would have been disposed
of. - Well, I gather that there is some fight in court going on right now
where the authorities are fighting against study of some DNA evidence that
may prove some convicted person to be innocent or guilty.
snip
Someone can go back to your post if they want to read that long line
f - stuff. That process led a number of folks to death row who did not
belong there. A few of them had the luck of some new technology coming along
in time to do them some good. You say the system worked. Your faith would
have to be that there was no one killed with the DP before DNA testing came
along. Your faith would have to extend over lot of folks convicted that DNA
had nothing to do with their conviction and a lot of cases where the
evidence has been disposed of.
You had something in there about victims rights. That does not mean shit
if the wrong person has been convicted. They are not that persons victims
then.
You seem to equate moral with legal. The process seems to mean more to
you than truth and that justice has something to do with the forms being
filled out right. You impress me as one hating those you consider guilty
with such a hate that you fear them not getting what you think they deserve.
You seem so incenced over some getting less than you think they deserve that
you are quite willing to seek any justification to exact the worst of
punishements on all and hold yourself to an irrational faith that you are
only advocating the punishement of the guilty.
Why is your faith that no one has been wrongfully executed since 1960?
Is there someone around that time who you think may not have deserved it?
Ravage
Excellent!
When are these guys going to give up on you <grin>?
"CplPunishment" <epl...@icharter.net> wrote in message
news:tig578m...@corp.supernews.com...
CplPunishment
> I dunnow what anyone deserves. While I am not a Chistian as folks
> generally seem to think of Christian - It seems to me the admonition to
not
> judge was especially aimed at determining what someone might deserve. -
Take
> that in relation to the folks who were hired for long time against the
ones
> hired later and all getting the same pay.
> I'd think that to not apply so much to whether one believes someone to
> have comitted an act, but it applies to making judgement on what someone
> might deserve.
> I have noticed that much effort has been done after executions to
hamper
> any attempt to further study if one has been innocent of what they were
> found guilty.
I do beleive you are being sincere with your posts. I will say that.
Explain your hampering comment. This is something I have never heard before.
> Well, some time back you seemed to discount anything I had to say for
> sake of my admission of some unlawful acts and my having been found
legally
> guilty.
In the past, there were many who badgeredme for the sake of badgering me.
When I first came on, I was much more aggressive.
No, you did your time. That is fair. But you are one whoi appears to have
adjusted your lifestyle and not went back into the system. So I do not look
at yourpast incarceration. It is like that one poster who enjoys promoting
the fact that he is a drug dealer. Now him.... It is a totally different
story.
> Maybe I should not even bother to continue with this response in view
of
> your past expressed prejudice. ??
No. I read things at face value many times. In our post's here. Thus far,
everything has been stayed as a debate and not a personal assault. I
actually like this kind of topic. I say, continue to show your intelligence
on the subject.
> Whatever - I have intimately seen that in the criminal justice system
is
> very more concerned with process and not with truth.
The process does bring out the truth. There is where the clash begins. You
see. The law is very simple. When it comes to death row inmates. It is only
the ones who have exhausted their legal opportunities that the state and
federal govt provide, that is when they are executed. It is when the process
is not fully sed. That is when it becomes flawed.
>
> It proves that some folks were unjustly convicted and some of them
were
> exonerated.
> Shouting "PROVES" does not make it proof at all. It just demonstrates
> that the working of the system can convict some innocent along with the
> guilty.
The process worked out to vindicate those that you speak of. It was the
process that saved them, nothing else. just think what would happen if after
you are found guilty, the death penalty was immediate? Now then there would
be justification of saying how the system is messed up. But being on death
row in itself, shows that these men and women are given chance after chance
to prove themselves to be innocent.
>
>
> Is further down any of your own words? - If you could you give cite
and
> credit for whoever wrtote them?
I have given the sites address on the last two or three posts. Where I
outlined the cost of DP to LW is the same link. It is a very good site.
> No, I cannot prove anything and more than you can prove what you claim
> to believe.
There is where you are wrong. My question was sort of a set up. You see, the
law is the judge of whether you committed the crime or not. It is the law
that placesyou in prison. So if you are convicted of a crime, then I have
the law backing my veiw. I was throwing it out there to see if you were
listening I guess. The law is my proof, you couldn't have answered it any
other way. :)
> My positon would stand more chance to be provable than yours. In fact
> yours stands no chance of being proven at all. Just figuring the odds in
> that light and in light of the nature of some who have been proven
innocent
> it would weigh in favor of probablities that innocents have been legally
> killed and the actual guilty have gone about their business.
No, you have no basis. My position is that they are guilty. Yoursis that
there is hope that one or two is innocent. My point is defending the way the
system stands for death row, and your is to attempt to prove that it is not
fair, so mine is already been proven, and yours has not.
>
> >
> > The only problem with your thinking is that the question dealt with
which
> is
> > more expensive. Thus the answer was answered by my last post.
>
> One of the problems with your thinking is stuff like what you say just
> above.
That answer was a simple one. Dnarsh had placed the cost of an execution vs
a life without inmate. I gave statistical numbers to my veiw. That was all.
>
> >
> > Now onto your reasoning.
>
> No, you reasoning.
Good one :P
> > How many people do you give a sandwich to when you go by a corner filled
> > with homeless?
>
> What relevance?
>
> >
> > How many times have you personally taken in a person who is lying on a
> park
> > bench in the dead of winter?
>
> What relevance?
> >
> > If you stand beside a man or woman who has the stinch of not having a
bath
> > in months and smells of urine, how many do you ignore and walk away
from.
> Or
> > do you take them to your house and clean them up?
>
> What relevance?
The relevance was the double standard of the value of life. I asked those
questions to simply show that many people including myself, want to focus on
things such as proving innocence to those that have been found guilty in the
courts. We rally behind them and back them. We encourage them, and fight for
them. But then when the truly needy are seen, we turn our heads. I man
sitting on a bench smelling of urine is forgotten. If we are asked to give a
dollar, we say no and tell them to get theri life together. But an inmate,
is put up on a pedistal. And that is what I was getting at. To me it is a
double standard. Why help one andneglect the other? That was my point.
.
>
> You seem to be attempting to make some kind of point by making
> assumptions of how I may have acted in relation to some of the sort of
> conditions you lay out above.
> I've certainly doen the Samaritan thing in relation to some folks you
> have expressed to be undeserving. Myself sees someone in a bad way I do
not
> give much of a thought to how deserving they might be.
I was not trying to be personal. I was simply showing how society can place
emphasis on one thing while they do the very thing they are against to
another.
>
> The non action of not helping someone is something you would compare
to
> the hostile action of killing them or supporting of the killing of them?
> You keep being on that deserving kick.
> Do you continue to hate the rabid dog after he has been caged and no
> longer a danger to you? - Considering the nature of rabies would you then
> kill for sake of what the dog deserves or as an act of mercy?
Yes. After a dog is rabid. It is put to sleep first off. They do not allow
it to just sit in the cage except to monitor it. But after they have
monitored it, they destroy the animal and analize tissue from it's brain.
They kill it. But the rabid dog is not a good example because a rabid dog
has a disease. And then we start getting into executing mentally ill, not
brutal inmates who deserve death. But if that dog ever bites your family,
will you go and see it every day and attempt to get it freed to harm
another? No, I can not see you doing that.
>
> I see nothing about your examples to justify the killing of someone.
> Some of those you wish to kill for their killing may have thought
themselves
> to have as reasonable cause for the killing as you do for the killing you
> would support.
> I asked you if you were willing to justify such as 'collateral damage'
> in relation to some who may be innocent. - Don't try to turn that around
on
> me with some bullshit you say about some other folks who you say would be
> proponents of special treatement.
If you can not prove your innocence, than you are guilty as charged. If you
are executed after the hundreds upon thousands of legal opportunities you
receive to prove that you are not worthy of an execution then you are not
innocent. Read the legal tape involved in an execution. And it is during
these chances where these men are proving their innocence. There is no
COLLATERAL damage in the death penalty. You have no proof that men and women
have been executed unjustly.
>
> Yea - Is that below quoted or your own words?
> Impresses me as a litany in any case.
> Without the luck of some new DNA tests and the luck of DNA samples
being
> available all that crap you state below does not mean a thing. There were
> folks doing long prison time and folks who went through that whole process
> to death row. That process did not work for them. Had the death penalty
been
> carried out as quiclky as some would wish some of them folks would have
been
> dead and the issue closed and DNA and evidence would have been disposed
> of. - Well, I gather that there is some fight in court going on right now
> where the authorities are fighting against study of some DNA evidence that
> may prove some convicted person to be innocent or guilty.
>
>
You have proven my point exactly. The system will not allow quick executions
because some would wish. They must be given every opportunity possible to
attempt to prove that they did not deserve the death penalty for their
crime.
What authorities are trting to destroy DNA? Where is your source, or is this
just an opinion that you have?
> Someone can go back to your post if they want to read that long line
> f - stuff. That process led a number of folks to death row who did not
> belong there. A few of them had the luck of some new technology coming
along
> in time to do them some good. You say the system worked. Your faith would
> have to be that there was no one killed with the DP before DNA testing
came
> along. Your faith would have to extend over lot of folks convicted that
DNA
> had nothing to do with their conviction and a lot of cases where the
> evidence has been disposed of.
By law, they were found guilty. End of story.
>
> You had something in there about victims rights. That does not mean
shit
> if the wrong person has been convicted. They are not that persons victims
> then.
Who has been executed and then it was found out that someone else did it?
> You seem to equate moral with legal. The process seems to mean more to
> you than truth and that justice has something to do with the forms being
> filled out right. You impress me as one hating those you consider guilty
> with such a hate that you fear them not getting what you think they
deserve.
> You seem so incenced over some getting less than you think they deserve
that
> you are quite willing to seek any justification to exact the worst of
> punishements on all and hold yourself to an irrational faith that you are
> only advocating the punishement of the guilty.
> Why is your faith that no one has been wrongfully executed since 1960?
> Is there someone around that time who you think may not have deserved it?
I wondered how long it would be before you began calling me a hater of those
that are guilty, when you are the one who shows hostility to those people
that cherish the law. There is nothing moral about law. What makes morality
work with the letter of the law is obeying the law.
Thhey deserve everything they get. They get executed, they deserve it. If
they get exhonorated, they deserve it. If they go to jail and have to be
treated loike animals, they deserve it. I do not care whether they are in
jail or out.
I feel that before afro americans were given true freedom, that the system
was possibly very unfavorable to justice. Blacks have been mistreated in the
past, and for that one reason, I would have to give in to the notion that
the system was not fair because of hate of color and race. I used the 60's
as a time where things began to even out.
As for anyone in particular, not really. But to see the racial tension then,
I am sure there were some. But today, the system can not do it that way any
more. Again, todays system has so many eyes on them and restrictions, there
is no way that an inmate can go all the way to execution and be innocent. I
just will not beleive that without being prove that an innocent man was
executed in todays time. You show me one that was found to be innocent after
death and after 1960, and I will say that you are right, and I am wrong.
>
>
>
>
CplPunishment
TA DAAAAAA! One for the HACKS I guess
"Ravage" <ron...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:dH3W6.241$b6.7...@news.uswest.net...
dnarshMAX
on the game, maybe even victims, i.e. "collateral damage" or of "friendly fire"
or simply "some have to die, that other's may live" or even "better to have 100
guilty go free, than one innocent sent to prison" ya da ya da ya da
What I look for and cherish are original thinking and fresh ideas. Especially
when we are dealing with such an obvious and ancient failing system
I try my best not to simply act a mimic or mime for another....
I noticed when I was at work in the rat race my luck in moving up and one came
from my lack of fear in making a fool of myself..that hasn't changed. It is
betterto try and fail than not try at all.
>From: "CplPunishment" epl...@icharter.net
>
>I amaze myself sometimes!
>
>TA DAAAAAA! One for the HACKS I guess
Omnivore
snip
> Explain your hampering comment. This is something I have never heard
before.
I'd have to so some search for some things I read of recent and I dunno
where to find of some special that was on TV special awhile back.
The 'authorities' - DA's and cops and governors have been very resistant
to allow some of the DNA testing or other restudy of evidence. - Especially
after someone has been executed.
And they resist with arguments of procedure. Then comes shit like
McVeigh. Procedure went to shit with that and what did they do? Did the
court declare it "harmless error" to go ahead and kill the bugger?
I can't say I give a shit about anything for McVeigh's sake. Even some
of the investigators seemed to be pretty bugged about the manner of the
whole investigation and various improprieties that somewhat perverted the
rule of law and procedure and some other complaints them fellows had.
If they can pull that shit on some high publicity case I think of what
kid of crap they might pull on somebody who was railroaded and little heard
of.
Even back to my own case - I won't argue what I may have deserved for
whatever stuff I had done. If this is to be a nation of laws I should have
been convicted of stuff I did and not railroaded for stuff I didn't do.
LOL - Anyone with my unique view of the other side of the issue is
easily discounted by bigots. I'd probably have a better story were I to lie
and claim I'd never done a thing illegal.
But I have seen the system at work. I've seen it enough that I'd not
take the word of a cop were I not pretty well exempt from ever being on a
jury. I've seen enough that I would be pretty suspicious of any evidence. -
Perhaps on a jury for such as McVeigh or for that Richard Allen Davis I
could vote for death. But for the most part I'd figure that if there was a
mistake it could be somewhat rectified if the person was not killed and
could be at least released. - And I might want him compensated at whatever
is considered to be average yearly income.
>
> > Well, some time back you seemed to discount anything I had to say
for
> > sake of my admission of some unlawful acts and my having been found
> legally
> > guilty.
>
> In the past, there were many who badgeredme for the sake of badgering me.
> When I first came on, I was much more aggressive.
LOL - That was funny.
Bru and Ravage usually like to team gang someone. That is what gave me
some incentive to troll in this group. - Walty is just sport on the side.
;-)
I gave you benefit of the doubt on some things for sake of your hitting
it off such as you did with Bru - and I am a give benefit of the doubt sort
of guy. Soon as you started at me with the invective and such I am happy to
go right to the bottom with it. You actually caught me at a time I was
getting rather bored with the whole affair.
>
> No, you did your time. That is fair. But you are one whoi appears to have
> adjusted your lifestyle and not went back into the system. So I do not
look
> at yourpast incarceration. It is like that one poster who enjoys promoting
> the fact that he is a drug dealer. Now him.... It is a totally different
> story.
Moralistic stuff did likely have some influence on my decision to get
out of that crank dealing business. - so did some ideas of duty and honor -
maybe that comes under heading of moral. ??
Anyway, when I ran my illegal business I ran it honest. For that I was
held in contempt by many of my "peers" - and in some similar fashion as you
expressed some time ago. Contempt anyway.
I don't hold against anyone for dealing now. If they run a dishonest
business I'd think as highly of them as I did some straight job bosses I
have had. You express hatred for some for sake of them being a drug dealer
and not knowing or caring beyond that I'd have to figure your judgment
covers myself as well. - Actually it would have to cover a lot that you
would deny and exempt folks if you were going to be consistent. Myself, long
ago, decided that all that blame and justification and making exceptions for
this and excusing that was a lot of bullshit. In my dealing and in prison
and in just life in general I have seen lots of folks going through all that
complex shit that it takes to condemn one person for something and make
excuses for a friend or peer or for self for doing the same thing.
Even once there was a friend down on his self and condemning his self
for something he'd done he thought to have been cowardly and bad and so on.
As he kept going on about it and explaining I was asking him to not insult
me so in my own house. - After some carrying on I suggested to him that I'd
not done as he'd done though I'd done stuff similar enough. If I'd not done
to such an extreme it was just a matter of degrees and it still came to if
he was going to call his self a coward and bad person then he'd necessarily
have to consider me as much.
Well, I figure the hatred one has reflects. It is one thing to dislike
something. What it is that is hatred is much of what one hates in self
projected onto others anyway. My buddy was just at some crisis point of
turning it back on his self.
>
>
> > Maybe I should not even bother to continue with this response in
view
> of
> > your past expressed prejudice. ??
>
>
> No. I read things at face value many times. In our post's here. Thus far,
> everything has been stayed as a debate and not a personal assault. I
> actually like this kind of topic. I say, continue to show your
intelligence
> on the subject.
Yea - You did give a response one time that I thought a bit of
commendable. - Or unusual for the way things usually carry on with folks.
>
>
>
> > Whatever - I have intimately seen that in the criminal justice
system
> is
> > very more concerned with process and not with truth.
>
> The process does bring out the truth.
Eh?
>There is where the clash begins. You
> see. The law is very simple. When it comes to death row inmates. It is
only
> the ones who have exhausted their legal opportunities that the state and
> federal govt provide, that is when they are executed. It is when the
process
> is not fully sed. That is when it becomes flawed.
That is the process. It has nothing to do with truth.
At some stages of the process one might have the truth just fine, but
there is no way to enter it into the process.
> >
> > It proves that some folks were unjustly convicted and some of them
> were
> > exonerated.
> > Shouting "PROVES" does not make it proof at all. It just
demonstrates
> > that the working of the system can convict some innocent along with the
> > guilty.
>
> The process worked out to vindicate those that you speak of. It was the
> process that saved them, nothing else. just think what would happen if
after
> you are found guilty, the death penalty was immediate? Now then there
would
> be justification of saying how the system is messed up. But being on death
> row in itself, shows that these men and women are given chance after
chance
> to prove themselves to be innocent.
And you have faith that the ones vindicated by some hard working
dedicated folks who would fight the system by working within it have managed
now to free all or even most of the imprisoned folks who are actually
innocent of what they were convicted?
Before they were exonerated did you hold to the same belief then?
If another is found tomorrow, and just under the wire before execution,
are you going to still have as much faith and figure that is the last one?
>
> >
> >
> > Is further down any of your own words? - If you could you give cite
> and
> > credit for whoever wrtote them?
>
> I have given the sites address on the last two or three posts. Where I
> outlined the cost of DP to LW is the same link. It is a very good site.
I looked up the author of one of your posts.
I did that to someone who was trying to pretend to be actual author of
some stuff once. After that I think they changed the wording of some of the
key phrases. It probably would not help a plagiarist much unless they were
to change a bit of every sentence that may be relatively unique.
This group is not populated by many folks who would actually be into
debate on stuff. Hell, I am even happy to go for the exchange of invective
and insult.
Posting stuff without cites is sure way to get much bitched at -
especially if it be quote that is obviously cut and pasted from a source.
I see that woman in another post of yours even has quite a right wing
fan club. I'd not discount what she say merely on her being so much to the
"right" on everything that my cursory look at her showed me.
>
> > No, I cannot prove anything and more than you can prove what you
claim
> > to believe.
>
> There is where you are wrong. My question was sort of a set up. You see,
the
> law is the judge of whether you committed the crime or not. It is the law
> that placesyou in prison. So if you are convicted of a crime, then I have
> the law backing my veiw. I was throwing it out there to see if you were
> listening I guess. The law is my proof, you couldn't have answered it any
> other way. :)
Then you believe truth is decided by what is the law and what it is at
the moment?
Brings to mind of some folks who seemed to think it was treason to even
disagree with a law and wish to change it.
Being guilty under law and what is reality are completely separate. They
should diverge the least possible and all sides of the issue ought be
seeking truth rather than convictions or otherwise.
The adversarial system has its focus too much misdirected.
>
> > My positon would stand more chance to be provable than yours. In
fact
> > yours stands no chance of being proven at all. Just figuring the odds in
> > that light and in light of the nature of some who have been proven
> innocent
> > it would weigh in favor of probablities that innocents have been legally
> > killed and the actual guilty have gone about their business.
>
>
> No, you have no basis. My position is that they are guilty. Yoursis that
> there is hope that one or two is innocent. My point is defending the way
the
> system stands for death row, and your is to attempt to prove that it is
not
> fair, so mine is already been proven, and yours has not.
Not hope. I don't hope anyone in particular is innocent or guilty.
Your position is that they are legally guilty. Mine is that there are
some extremly high probablity that I would even say certainty that are not
guilty in fact.
And you may say few in relation to the number who are actually guilty.
I'd say many in just the number.
Or one might say that McVeigh only killed a realtive few folks in
relation to how many folks there are.
>
> >
> > >
> > > The only problem with your thinking is that the question dealt with
> which
> > is
> > > more expensive. Thus the answer was answered by my last post.
> >
> > One of the problems with your thinking is stuff like what you say
just
> > above.
>
> That answer was a simple one. Dnarsh had placed the cost of an execution
vs
> a life without inmate. I gave statistical numbers to my veiw. That was
all.
Yea - I never thought much of that issue in relation to cost.
Make me emperor and I'd put some caps on lawyer incomes that would make
it likely to attract a few more honest folks.
There would be more room in prisons to keep a lot more of the more
violent folks out of societies hair for longer periods of time too.
I guess I have already mentioned enough that I'd give CO's more say of
policy than the assholes who currently set it. - Might even let inmates get
a word in. - I heard story of that going on somewhere. As the story went,
the inmates would have set some more repressive policies than the guards
would have.
Okay. I have gone both ways I suppose.
When I had nothing of substance to give I've usually been one to lend a
hand. Even when I was heavily dealing there were them "peers" who seemed to
fancy themselves looking out for my welfare. (Shit, I knew that I was more
of a resource to be exploited and jealously guarded from exploitation by
others.)
Well folks bitched. I was too generous and honest to a fault. - And so
on.
I did some counting and calculating once. It seemed to come to my
generosity and giving coming to about a "tithe". I thought that pretty cool.
Anyway - there are a lot of folks who would not do shit for anyone
without calculating what might be in it for themselves. I've had the
impression that many of them do not even have the capacity to conceive of
their being any other way. They cannot even conceive that others might be
other than that. The generous to them are just bleeding hearts and suckers.
I'd only say that there might be a larger percentage of that sort imprisoned
than of the population at large. The folks who hate "criminals" with a
passion impress me as much as some of them criminals who hate the molesters
with a passion - or hate a race or some such. Some folks really need to look
hard for someone to look down on.
Anyway, it is not my mission in life to save every downtrodden person
there is. I'll take care of my mom best I can and when she is gone I'll
consider other things.
>
> .
> >
> > You seem to be attempting to make some kind of point by making
> > assumptions of how I may have acted in relation to some of the sort of
> > conditions you lay out above.
> > I've certainly doen the Samaritan thing in relation to some folks
you
> > have expressed to be undeserving. Myself sees someone in a bad way I do
> not
> > give much of a thought to how deserving they might be.
>
>
> I was not trying to be personal. I was simply showing how society can
place
> emphasis on one thing while they do the very thing they are against to
> another.
Yea - like their own 'groups' lives are worth more than that of some
foreign. One school vs another school. Folks from one state hat those from
another state. It goes country to country and police to civilians and
military to police and vice verca. Hell, even one and another police agency
may harbor quite the contempt for another police agency.
In jump school it was much instilled by the cadre that Airborne folks
were greatly superior to the "straight legs".
But okay. I guess I tend to throw in stuff about some generalities about
authoritarians (my "authoritarian" may more or less coincide with what folks
generally call right wing or conservative - but plenty of the so called
liberals are just for a different sort of authoritarianism. - to me they are
still right wingers even if they do vote Democrap.)
>
> >
> > The non action of not helping someone is something you would compare
> to
> > the hostile action of killing them or supporting of the killing of them?
> > You keep being on that deserving kick.
> > Do you continue to hate the rabid dog after he has been caged and no
> > longer a danger to you? - Considering the nature of rabies would you
then
> > kill for sake of what the dog deserves or as an act of mercy?
>
> Yes. After a dog is rabid. It is put to sleep first off. They do not allow
> it to just sit in the cage except to monitor it. But after they have
> monitored it, they destroy the animal and analize tissue from it's brain.
> They kill it. But the rabid dog is not a good example because a rabid dog
> has a disease. And then we start getting into executing mentally ill, not
> brutal inmates who deserve death. But if that dog ever bites your family,
> will you go and see it every day and attempt to get it freed to harm
> another? No, I can not see you doing that.
Yea - Like most metaphor's it don't hold up to some degree of
comparison.
It is pretty easy to be certain if the dog has rabies. I guess the means
of finding out is the death of the animal. - Well, I gather that they study
the brain tissue.
I've thought that a death penalty should only be administered when the
verdict might be beyond all doubt. But I've refrained from fucking someone
up for sake of my not being more than very sure that they were the one who
did such and such.
Prison forever seems to me to be appropriate for beyond a reasonable
doubt in relation to some crimes. - And I'd be for just as long for
attempted murder as for someone more competent at it. One would seem to me
to be as much a danger as the other. The incompetent would-be killer might
even generally be the more dangerous to society at large.
If mistake was made then amends could be made. And I think that
society/the state ought to be well liable for its mistakes.
And I think them prosecutors ought to be very more liable for
improprieties than the are. Lying and meddling with evidence to convict
someone in a capital case would seem to me as attempted murder, with less
excuse, than someone hiring someone to kill someone they hate or they think
to be some threat.
Well, some of that might follow with your stuff about folks in the
gutter who stink and folks perspectives about the whole affair.
>
> >
> > I see nothing about your examples to justify the killing of someone.
> > Some of those you wish to kill for their killing may have thought
> themselves
> > to have as reasonable cause for the killing as you do for the killing
you
> > would support.
> > I asked you if you were willing to justify such as 'collateral
damage'
> > in relation to some who may be innocent. - Don't try to turn that around
> on
> > me with some bullshit you say about some other folks who you say would
be
> > proponents of special treatement.
>
>
> If you can not prove your innocence, than you are guilty as charged.
I'm sure you mean after conviction and being found legally guilty.
Okay. Hell, even when some cops would say some crap about "what you did"
I would point out that I didn't do it. I'd also pointed out to a couple that
didn't mean shit and my actual guilt or innocence could not enter into our
CO and convict relationship. - I just didn't need to hear that shit about
what I did when even some California cop spokesperson argued with a liberal
bitching person and their main contention was whether it was likely that it
was fifteen percent or twenty five percent of convicted folks had not done
what they were convicted. (at the time I'd have put my bets on less than the
fifteen the cop favored. - Now I just figure that maybe more than twenty
five percent don't need to be there. It is not best serving them or society.
Even at that it would better serve them and society if there was useful
work for more of them - but I digress.....
LOL - Just thought of a "casting on the water" that chance led to my
getting one of the better jobs at Folsom over a year later. - Some tier
tender went to the wrong cell to ask for some tobacco for some old bugger.
Surprised the shit out of him to get a handful from someone he never met. -
After a year ar Folsom I was sent to the minimum camp where that fellow was
a clerk and well liked by the cops he worked for. Since I could type I
quickly got to be a clerk. And since I could figure out a really antique
computer - well, sort of more than merely a word processor.
Anyway - my being such a fine fellow got me recommended by a fellow to
work outside the gate to take over his job when he got out. - So hey! Great
!! - I got so spend most of my days away from my idiot peers.
>If you
> are executed after the hundreds upon thousands of legal opportunities you
> receive to prove that you are not worthy of an execution then you are not
> innocent.
Merely by law.
>Read the legal tape involved in an execution. And it is during
> these chances where these men are proving their innocence. There is no
> COLLATERAL damage in the death penalty. You have no proof that men and
women
> have been executed unjustly.
No. I don't.
Merely a lot to indicate the high probability that some have.
And it is odd to me that there are many claim to be Christians who would
make such judgments of what is just. I could see such folks not arguing with
government edicts and the like. I don't understand how they resolve what
Jesus said about making judgment. - but then Jesus said to not make oaths.
Makes fine sense to me, but even in the back of one bible I got someone
wrote of the opinion that it seemed to not apply to judicial oaths. I dunno
how he came to that. What was written of what Jesus said seemed pretty
adamant "...swear not at all...." - For myself I figure I haven't the
wisdom.
An absurdity is that I have found that I much more keep to what word I
do give than generally do the folks who make great oaths and promises.
I'm pretty much to not trust a professing Christian.
>
> >
> > Yea - Is that below quoted or your own words?
> > Impresses me as a litany in any case.
> > Without the luck of some new DNA tests and the luck of DNA samples
> being
> > available all that crap you state below does not mean a thing. There
were
> > folks doing long prison time and folks who went through that whole
process
> > to death row. That process did not work for them. Had the death penalty
> been
> > carried out as quiclky as some would wish some of them folks would have
> been
> > dead and the issue closed and DNA and evidence would have been disposed
> > of. - Well, I gather that there is some fight in court going on right
now
> > where the authorities are fighting against study of some DNA evidence
that
> > may prove some convicted person to be innocent or guilty.
> >
> >
> You have proven my point exactly. The system will not allow quick
executions
> because some would wish. They must be given every opportunity possible to
> attempt to prove that they did not deserve the death penalty for their
> crime.
Yea. I'd figure all possibilities are complete after they die of old
age. - Though someone may go to the bother of proving something later yet. -
I thought it long decided that Napoleon was murdered with arsenic. I saw the
other day that they are hashing over that again.
>
> What authorities are trting to destroy DNA? Where is your source, or is
this
> just an opinion that you have?
I'll post some if I can find it. A TV special on some of them folks
helped out by that Innocence Project and some various readings spoke of some
of that - of prosecutors resisting to the end to have anything looked at
again.
Lot of evidence went missing.
Haven't you seen of that chemist woman that the prosecutors liked so
much because she was getting them lots of convictions? - Well, that was her
or her office. She was disclaiming the disposal of evidence before it was
supposed to be disposed.
But no. It is not just my opinion that evidence has been discarded and
that there has been resistance to allowing it to be brought out for further
study.
I'll try to give some look through stuff I got saved or try to think of
wording to do search for that in particular.
(I've got a registry thing to get rid of that advertisement in Copernic.
Have to use it again after ever time there are engine updates though.)
>
> > Someone can go back to your post if they want to read that long line
> > f - stuff. That process led a number of folks to death row who did not
> > belong there. A few of them had the luck of some new technology coming
> along
> > in time to do them some good. You say the system worked. Your faith
would
> > have to be that there was no one killed with the DP before DNA testing
> came
> > along. Your faith would have to extend over lot of folks convicted that
> DNA
> > had nothing to do with their conviction and a lot of cases where the
> > evidence has been disposed of.
>
> By law, they were found guilty. End of story.
Hmmmm - I got to look up something that Thoreau said about having over
respect for the law.
The law was made to serve man, not man made to serve it.
Brings to mind of a fellow, DataRat. He is a cop in Arizona I think. He
is very fundie Xian and law worshipper. He even responded to me that if he
were one of the cops at Jesus hanging he would have driven in the nails if
it were his job.
Well, he impressed many folks as quite the Nazi image of duty and using
something that Paul said for justification.
>
>
> >
> > You had something in there about victims rights. That does not mean
> shit
> > if the wrong person has been convicted. They are not that persons
victims
> > then.
>
> Who has been executed and then it was found out that someone else did it?
Since 1960? None I know of.
Evidence has been discarded and it has been resisted and disallowed to
study out the evidence anymore.
When a case becomes closed it would seem that it would take an authority
higher than god to open it again. And the state, the politicians, do not
want to admit to mistake. - No votes in it. Might even loose some.
>
> > You seem to equate moral with legal. The process seems to mean more
to
> > you than truth and that justice has something to do with the forms being
> > filled out right. You impress me as one hating those you consider guilty
> > with such a hate that you fear them not getting what you think they
> deserve.
> > You seem so incenced over some getting less than you think they deserve
> that
> > you are quite willing to seek any justification to exact the worst of
> > punishements on all and hold yourself to an irrational faith that you
are
> > only advocating the punishement of the guilty.
> > Why is your faith that no one has been wrongfully executed since
1960?
> > Is there someone around that time who you think may not have deserved
it?
>
>
> I wondered how long it would be before you began calling me a hater of
those
> that are guilty, when you are the one who shows hostility to those people
> that cherish the law. There is nothing moral about law. What makes
morality
> work with the letter of the law is obeying the law.
Ha - I am pretty big on law.
Not just law written on paper but a higher law. - And I am not even
religious in the sense of some doting guy in the sky who made everything and
claims to love.
Honor, honesty and fair dealing is my law.
I will respect the gamesmanship of the law you claim to respect and was
made by folks with agendas. If I play the game and you catch me out of
bounds does that release you from the rules of the game? to me if you
violate the rules of your own game then there is no law at all in relation
to that which you respect.
To me your law seems to be based on it is the law and you worship that
above all. The folks who I have confronted who put me to prison violated
their own rules to do it. They did not abide by honor honesty and fair
dealing and they did not abide by the law of the state either.
>
> Thhey deserve everything they get. They get executed, they deserve it. If
> they get exhonorated, they deserve it. If they go to jail and have to be
> treated loike animals, they deserve it. I do not care whether they are in
> jail or out.
Then the ones who were found guilty and later exonerated deserved
everything they got in the meantime?
They deserve to be treated like animals? What do you think of folks who
mistreat animals? Just how does one properly treat animals? How do animals
deserve to be treated?
I guess at the shelter they are killed if no one claims them in three
days or a week or so. It is illegal to mistreat animals though.
Maybe that animal metaphor is not such a good one.
You got all them criminals as being much the same. That is much the same
sort of justifications for the times and places of keeping them niggers in
line. Some folks still are determined that they are animals.
But then are not we all? We are just mammals with big brains. Things got
too crowded and there is not much place for the dissocial folks to go
anymore.
You want to punish and kill people on the probablity that they did what
they were convicted.
Hell, I would be much for locking away the truly harmful folks for the
general safety of the rest. When the mad dog is a threat it is certainly no
time for compassion. The bugger got to be dealt with and locked away. After
it is caged it is no longer a threat and continued hate, which is much an
expression of fear, is a sickness in the hater.
If the present system of killing and locking people away and treating
them bad works, then how come the US has the greatest number of its
population locked away?
>
> I feel that before afro americans were given true freedom, that the system
> was possibly very unfavorable to justice. Blacks have been mistreated in
the
> past, and for that one reason, I would have to give in to the notion that
> the system was not fair because of hate of color and race. I used the 60's
> as a time where things began to even out.
It was a time of change. There are lot of them though. Most of it is
superficial. Given half a chance the peasant crowds would still be at the
gates of the castle calling to murder the baron of Dr Frankenstein or
whatever.
The hate may have quelled some as an institution. Much has just become
more subtle. The effects of a few hundred years are not likely to just
evaporate in a couple generations.
Go tell that shit to the Jews and the Palistinians - or the folks in
them Serbian places that US recently bombed the shit out of - or the Hindus
and Moslems - or the Irish - etc....
>
> As for anyone in particular, not really. But to see the racial tension
then,
> I am sure there were some. But today, the system can not do it that way
any
> more. Again, todays system has so many eyes on them and restrictions,
there
> is no way that an inmate can go all the way to execution and be innocent.
I
> just will not beleive that without being prove that an innocent man was
> executed in todays time. You show me one that was found to be innocent
after
> death and after 1960, and I will say that you are right, and I am wrong.
Well, we will just have to wait and see.
You seem to think you are making intellectual choice when you say, "I
just will not believe ...." ??
I dunno. You seem pretty determined to believe what you believe. It
seems to me that the belief comes before the justification.
Not much use in arguing with that sort of determination. I know when I'd
believed somewhat that sort of way there would have been no arguing me out
of it.
Omnivore
> I amaze myself sometimes!
>
> TA DAAAAAA! One for the HACKS I guess
Cocky with a little pet and approval from Ravage.
You really think it a "slam-dunk" then?
You are like Ravage and playing to score - to win by any means?
I suppose you would feel winner then if your fancied opponent got bored
and went somewhere else?
Ravage has impressed me as one who would come out from under the porch
and chase and bark after cars. Then he would return to his hole feeling all
self satisfied that he ran them off.
--
"I didn't come to win, I just came to play."
CplPunishment
"Omnivore" <sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9gbvc8$g1a$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...