Several States Abandon Death Penalty Because Of Cost
Mitchell Holman
Several States Abandon Death Penalty Because Of Cost
March 31, 2009
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Facing huge budget deficits, eight
states are considering repealing the death penalty to
save money. Pennsylvania isn't one of them.
But there hasn't been an execution in Pennsylvania in
nearly a decade, and that has critics questioning the
program's cost.
"This is the first time cost has taken center stage,"
said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death
Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.
Dieter said studies show administering the death penalty
is more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life.
"It's not that the execution costs much, but every step of
a death penalty case is much more expensive than a typical
trial," said Dieter.
"You've got to look at the cost of this," said Dieter. "What
else could this be spent on?"
Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, only 3 convicts
have been executed, but all three waived their rights to appeal.
In more than 30 years, no one in Pennsylvania has been executed
after exhausting their appeals. Every case has been overturned
by a higher court.
"It's not that the execution costs much, but every step of
a death penalty case is much more expensive than a typical
trial," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death
Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C. More
Pennsylvania is the only state in the country that does not
provide any state funding for attorneys of capital defendants
who can't afford one themselves.
That leaves counties with less money no other option but to
appoint less experienced lawyers who are more prone to make
mistakes when handling complex capital cases. "And if you didn't
get it right the first time, it gets overturned on appeal
sometimes years or tens of years later," Epstein said.
More than half of Pennsylvania's death sentence reversals, 117
of 214, have been overturned because of mistakes attorneys made
during trial.
And as the process repeats, the cost to taxpayers continues to rise.
"What you are doing is sentencing people to death, most of the
cases are overturned and the second time around they get a life
sentence," said Dieter. "So you have the revolving door where
the death penalty is meaningless, yet still very expensive."
Many States Repealing Death Penalty Because Of Costs
While Pennsylvania hasn't studied the cost of the death penalty,
other states have.
New Jersey estimates it spent $253 million on the death penalty
without executing anyone for decades, before repealing it in 2007.
Earlier in March, lawmakers in New Mexico also abolished the death
penalty after determining their death penalty cases cost six times
more than murder trials involving life in prison without parole.
As the economy continues to struggle, it is becoming harder for states to
ignore the cost of capital punishment.
Wayne
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9BF24A464AA91...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
>
>
> Several States Abandon Death Penalty Because Of Cost
> March 31, 2009
>
>
> HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Facing huge budget deficits, eight
> states are considering repealing the death penalty to
> save money. Pennsylvania isn't one of them.
>
> But there hasn't been an execution in Pennsylvania in
> nearly a decade, and that has critics questioning the
> program's cost.
>
> "This is the first time cost has taken center stage,"
> said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death
> Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.
>
> Dieter said studies show administering the death penalty
> is more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life.
>
> "It's not that the execution costs much, but every step of
> a death penalty case is much more expensive than a typical
> trial," said Dieter.
>
properly. If someone is caught "dead nuts" doing something that carries a
death penalty, the cost should be very low.
Suggested process......sedate them with that great mixture of verced/vallium
(or whatever that is that they use for elective med procedures) and then
surgically harvest their organs. At some point in the process, they
decease.
Just be sure to avoid all the costly and pointless talking about it, and
just do it.
John Rennie
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gsfgpg$v55$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Is the above your idea of an intelligent contribution to an important
debate?
Wayne
"John Rennie" <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote in message
news:FIKdnZZzAofg1HbU...@giganews.com...
That's the problem. Some people want the protection of the law, but don't
have the balls to enforce it.
necromancer - ECHM
wrote:
>Yep, the only reason that the death penalty is costly is that it is not done
>properly. If someone is caught "dead nuts" doing something that carries a
>death penalty, the cost should be very low.
And I take it that your standard for, "caught 'dead nuts'," is rather
low too? There is a reason that the process is so long and there is
lot of, "talking about," it.
--
"A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella
when the sun is shining, but wants it back the
minute it begins to rain."
-- Mark Twain
Day Brown
> Suggested process......sedate them with that great mixture of verced/vallium
> (or whatever that is that they use for elective med procedures) and then
> surgically harvest their organs. At some point in the process, they
> decease.
>
> Just be sure to avoid all the costly and pointless talking about it, and
> just do it.
employee to decide who getsta be an organ donor if there's a good market
and they're a bit short this month?
There is a fate worse than death Wayne. We have some chemicals and the
brain scan neurology to seriously fuck with minds. Depends on the case,
but in the most extreme example, Ben Ladin, you dont make a martyr, but
dose him with psychotropics that, among other things, make him horny.
Then, have some slut fuck him, and video tape it. Have a dozen sluts
come in, a different one each day and watch them change his attitude.
After all, they wouldnt buy into the bullschitt about fucking 12 year
old virgins in Mohammet's Wholy Whorehouse, if they were getting laid.
Then put the videos on youtube saying whatever the girls thot would be
most useful.
Deadrat
news:gsfrj4$tjq$1...@news.motzarella.org:
> Yes it is.
And it's always a problem when people reading your posts can't decide
whether or not you're a troll.
> The subject just isn't complicated enough for much debate.
What you mean is that your moral and intellectual capacity can't handle
the complications involved. But that's different.
Someday I hope to be as sure about anything as you are about everything.
> That's the problem. Some people want the protection of the law, but
> don't have the balls to enforce it.
And some people have moral qualms about taking human life, even from
those who have themselves taken it.
And some people are more scared of a state empowered to kill its citizens
than they are of individual killers.
And some people want to take a hard look at any system that looks like
China's.
And some people understand that the history of the death penalty shows so
many cases of miscarriage of justice, including unreliable testimony,
official misconduct, and prejudicial application of the law that the
fantasy of easy "dead nuts" cases is just that -- dead nuts.
Of course, if your measure of success is cost, then we have many
historical examples of systems that produce dead bodies at very low unit
cost.
Some of us don't want to live under some systems. YMMV.
Wayne
"necromancer - ECHM" <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote in
message news:d49nu4d6441u63pjd...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:42:38 -0700, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Yep, the only reason that the death penalty is costly is that it is not
>>done
>>properly. If someone is caught "dead nuts" doing something that carries a
>>death penalty, the cost should be very low.
>
> And I take it that your standard for, "caught 'dead nuts'," is rather
> low too? There is a reason that the process is so long and there is
> lot of, "talking about," it.
>
identified by multiple witnesses/victims should meet a rather speedy
trial/conviction. A speedy death penalty is also appropriate in that case.
All the "talking" is done by people who are pussies. You know....people who
enjoy eating steak, but think meat processing plants should be closed. You
sound like one of those.
Deadrat
news:gsi13q$g4j$1...@news.motzarella.org:
>
> "necromancer - ECHM" <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org>
> wrote in message news:d49nu4d6441u63pjd...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:42:38 -0700, "Wayne"
>> <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Yep, the only reason that the death penalty is costly is that it is
>>>not done
>>>properly. If someone is caught "dead nuts" doing something that
>>>carries a death penalty, the cost should be very low.
>>
>> And I take it that your standard for, "caught 'dead nuts'," is rather
>> low too? There is a reason that the process is so long and there is
>> lot of, "talking about," it.
>>
> Yep, the standard is pretty low. A criminal caught in the act and
> identified by multiple witnesses/victims should meet a rather speedy
> trial/conviction.
Perhaps you'd be happier in a country that values state process over
citizens' rights. Say, Saudi Arabia or China.
> A speedy death penalty is also appropriate in that case.
We're more careful here: eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable,
and since you can't take back a death penalty, we like to be careful.
> All the "talking" is done by people who are pussies.
Some of us like to hold the state to strict standards, especially when
the state has the power to kill its citizens.
> You
> know....people who enjoy eating steak, but think meat processing
> plants should be closed.
I'll be you've never met a single person who enjoys eating steak but
thinks meat processing plants should be closed.
Here's a better analogy: a person who enjoys eating steak but thinks
meat processing plants should be carefully regulated to make sure they're
as clean and humane as reasonably possible.
> You sound like one of those.
There are some people whose limited intellectual powers don't allow them
to understand relevant analogies.
1 Proud American
by a bullet. Any pre meditated murder with out a good reason , baby
raping, robbery with murder etc should be death. No waiting around for
10 years of appeals. fuck that.
Video or dna proof....kill em now. right out of the court room and to
the ally wall.
Mike
> "necromancer - ECHM" <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote in
> > wrote:
>
> >>Yep, the only reason that the death penalty is costly is that it is not
> >>done
> >>properly. If someone is caught "dead nuts" doing something that carries a
> >>death penalty, the cost should be very low.
>
> > And I take it that your standard for, "caught 'dead nuts'," is rather
> > low too? There is a reason that the process is so long and there is
> > lot of, "talking about," it.
>
> Yep, the standard is pretty low. A criminal caught in the act and
> identified by multiple witnesses/victims should meet a rather speedy
> trial/conviction. A speedy death penalty is also appropriate in that case.
> All the "talking" is done by people who are pussies. You know....people who
> enjoy eating steak, but think meat processing plants should be closed. You
> sound like one of those.
The reason it's so expensive is the costant legal shenanigans that
follow the crime for the next 20 years. I agree, speedier execution
with compelling evidence.
Mike
Mitchell Holman
news:2ada2077-ea40-471c...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
All the innocent people freed from death row were sent
there because of "compelling evidence".
necromancer - ECHM
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> All the innocent people freed from death row were sent
>there because of "compelling evidence".
I have a proposal for, "Mike," and, "Wayne:" Let's implement their
idea with one provision: if it is ever determined that an innocant
person was executed, they ("they," being Mike and Wayne) are
automatically guilty of that person's murder and are to be given a,
"speedy execution." Should they already be dead, their surviving
spouse/children or other relative takes the needle in their place.
--
"Capital punishment: them without the capital get the punishment."
--John Spenkelink
Mike
<55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:43:55 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>
Well, if a convicted murderer ends up killing another person we can
have you to hold responsible as well.
Got it?
Day Brown
> Any one with absolute proof against them should be immediately executed
> by a bullet. Any pre meditated murder with out a good reason , baby
> raping, robbery with murder etc should be death. No waiting around for
> 10 years of appeals. fuck that.
> Video or dna proof....kill em now. right out of the court room and to
> the ally wall.
deter the crime. And that requires a tailored punishment. In the case of
a nutjob wanting his name in the Guinness book of records, what you do
is declare him insane, and his name and face are never seen or heard
from again, and he's so dosed on Thorazine, he dont even know his own
name. To the nutjob, its a fate worse than death.
With the Jihadist, dose him with psychotropics and manipulate his sex
drive with whatever kind of hooker or fairy it takes, and then record
him in ecstasy damning Mohammet for wanting him to wait for death. After
you've uploaded the video onto the net, drop him off in any Muslim
nation and let them behead him.
But for the ordinary street thug, sure. Euthanize him and save organs.
Deadrat
I suppose few remember John Spenkelink, the second person executed after
the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment, and the first person
executed against his efforts. (Gary Gilmore was the first; he didn't fight
the sentence.)
Spenkelink was a drifter who killed a fellow drifter. Spenkelink claimed
self defense. This was in Florida. Both killer an victim were white, so
there were no racial overtones to the execution and it was thus an easier
test case to get the execution train going.
Since Spenkelink, the state of Florida has executed 66 people and has 392
on death row.
Deadrat
8621f9...@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
No, I don't get it. No one suggests that convicted murderers simply be
released if they can't be executed.
Mike
> Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:008bd5c5-d5a0-44d9-b963-
> 8621f9ce8...@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> - Show quoted text -
What do you think happens when they get locked up? Do you think they
just disappear?
They go on to commit other crimes, yes, even murder.
Mike
> necromancer - ECHM <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote innews:dpupu4p1lvihgodob...@4ax.com:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Remember Ted Bundy? Are you somehow sad that he was executed?
Deadrat
news:c2b4656a-060a-4956...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
Pretty much. Look up Pelican Bay.
> They go on to commit other crimes, yes, even murder.
Sometimes they do, but usually not in supermax prisons. And in any case,
it's the responsibility of the state to prevent it.
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's why we have executions
Mitchell Holman
9db4d6...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
They usually die in prison. Richard Speck, Albert DeSalvo,
Jack Ruby, Henry Lee Lucas, Jeffrey Dahmer.
> Do you think they
> just disappear?
> They go on to commit other crimes, yes, even murder.
Name three people who have been murdered by people
sentenced to Life Without Parole.
Deadrat
news:1fe6ad28-119f-44be...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
No, I glad he's dead. My turn.
Remember Carlos DeLuna? Executed in 1989 for stabbing a convenience store
clerk. Another man, Carlos Hernandez, with a history of similar crimes has
confessed to killing the clerk. But at least they nailed someone with the
right first name.
Remember Robert Cantu? Executed in 1993 for shooting a man during a
robbery. The state's eyewitness has recanted, and the prosecutor and jury
foreman now say they have doubts that Cantu was the killer.
Remember Larry Griffin? Executed in 1995 for the death of man in a drive-
by shooting. A man injured during the drive-by says Griffin wasn't the
shooter, and the first policeman on the scene now contradicts the testimony
of the only witness to identify Griffin as the shooter.
Remember Joseph O'Dell? Executed in 1997 for rape and murder. O'Dell
asked for DNA tests but was refused. Tests performed subsequent to his
death cast doubt on the link between O'Dell and the crime. By the way, the
Supreme Court has ruled that juries must be told about an alternative
sentence of life without parole, but they held that the rule wasn't
retroactive to O'Dell's case.
Remember David Spence? Executed in 1997 for contract killings. The man
who supposedly hired Spence was acquitted, and there was no physical
evidence linking Spence to the crime. His conviction was obtained with
testimony of convicts who got favors in return for their cooperation.
Remember Leo Jones? Executed in 1998 for killing a cop. He claimed his
confession was coerced, and the arresting officer and the detective who
took his confession have been dismissed for misconduct. Witnesses claimed
another man shot the cop.
Remember Gary Graham? Executed in 2000 for a killing during a robbery. He
was convicted on the testimony of one witness who got a brief glance at the
killer from 30 feet away. Two other witnesses who claimed that Graham
wasn't the killer weren't called by Graham's court-appointed lawyer.
Remember Cameron Willingham? Executed in 2004 for the deaths of three
children in a fire. Arson experts say the fire cannot be called anything
but accidental. The only witness against Willingham was a drug addict
convict on psychotropic medication who claimed that Willingham confessed to
him.
Are you somehow not sad that these people were executed?
I can deal with the cognitive dissonance between my feelings of vengenance
toward people like Bundy and my fear of the inevitable capricious
application of the state's power to kill citizens like those listed above.
Of course, YMMV.
Deadrat
news:c00e5a6f-da89-4cb1...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 20, 9:16 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:c2b4656a-060a-4956-b9e1-9db4d6953
> 2...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
Thanks for the nonsequitur, but we don't amputate your arm when you cut
your finger.
Planet Visitor II
Of course you don't get it. There's a reason for that... it's called
"selective thinking" See -
http://skepdic.com/selectiv.html
You don't like to think about the consequences of your viewpoint,
believing that as a result of your objections to the death penalty it
never happens that a convicted murderer will murder again. With
you it's cut and dried that the life of the murderer is all that is
important to you, and your sole objective is to save that life at
ALL COSTS!!! Yet no one can escape the consequences of
his choices. You would save a murderer's life regardless of the
consequences of your choice.
Now face it like a man, and recognize that in supporting abolition
you must also bear the following consequences -- See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
And so many more....
The only consequence that I face, as a supporter of the death
penalty in the extremely small number of the most violent, vicious,
and clearly guilty murderers I support being executed, is the
almost mathematically impossible execution of an innocent.
I accept that consequence... so why are you such a coward
that you cannot accept the consequences of your choice?
Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
“It is only too easy to make suggestions and later try to escape the
consequences of what we say” -- Jawaharlal Nehru
Planet Visitor II
If it is the responsibility of the State to prevent murders then why
are you insisting it is your responsibility to determine what the
State cannot do to prevent murders? Who set you up as greater
than the whole of a particular state that has determined the use of
the death penalty is the more responsible way to prevent murders?
You'll need to do better than what you've been doing, if you expect
to have any influence in this group, my son. We've seen and argued
it all, and the most pitiful of arguments is that of blaming the
state for following the rules that you insist upon. You set the
rules, you assume the blame when the rules result in another
murder.
Planet Visitor II
I wouldn't go so far as to claim that _committing murder_ is like
_cutting your finger_. But different strokes for different folks.
Especially those trying to minimize the broken lives that result from
someone committing murder.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Give us an idea of what you consider to be "compelling evidence". Be
aware that I'm not looking for an example but rather a standard that
could be applied across the board without that standard itself causing
on-going legal argument.
I won't be holding my breath...
--
"...and I got my middle name from somebody who
obviously didn't think I'd ever run for
President." - Barack Obama
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Only if that murderer is freed. You people love the false dilemma,
don't you? You do realise that execute vs release is not a binary
choice upon conviction?
John Rennie
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <sa...@notinnedmeatdodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1iyird3.11dfae9kcwhjtN%sa...@notinnedmeatdodo.com.au...
legal system's greatest triumph which is there to protect them
not just murderers.
Mike
Hey! Progress!
No, it's sad. Same way that I'm sad that OJ Simpson got off.
Our system is not perfect my friend.
>
> I can deal with the cognitive dissonance between my feelings of vengenance
> toward people like Bundy and my fear of the inevitable capricious
> application of the state's power to kill citizens like those listed above.
>
> Of course, YMMV.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's why I reserve the death penalty for the worst of the worst. I
can deal the miniscule possibility that someone wrongly convicted of
murder will get the needle. BTW, here is a quintuple murder that
happened near me.
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080407/NEWS05/80407043
Now at the time I don't remember anyone pontificating these two men's
innocence. The only outcry I remember is that they DIDNT get the
death penalty. Shame.
Mike
Mike
> Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:c2b4656a-060a-4956-b9e1-
> 9db4d6953...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> - Show quoted text -
What does their sentence have to do with it? If they had been
executed in the first place we wouldn't have to worry if they got life
without parole or a commuted sentence.
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hahaha....ok whatever
Deadrat
news:dtlqu4lcua2dhhuai...@4ax.com:
Sure, and while you're at it, look up "projection."
> You don't like to think about the consequences of your viewpoint,
> believing that as a result of your objections to the death penalty it
> never happens that a convicted murderer will murder again.
Please stop telling me what and how I think. I've weighed the
possibility that murderers will kill again against the possibility that
the state will abuse its power and that human error will kill innocents.
I've made my choice based humanity's experience with the state and the
US experience with the death penalty. I'll suggest you can make your
own ethical choices without second guessing mine.
> With
> you it's cut and dried that the life of the murderer is all that is
> important to you, and your sole objective is to save that life at
> ALL COSTS!!!
No, for you it's cut and dried that we can trust human beings to
determine who murderers are and the state not to abuse its power to kill
them.
> Yet no one can escape the consequences of his choices.
People escape the consequences of their choices all the time. What
color is the sky in your world?
> You would save a murderer's life regardless of the consequences of
> your choice.
And your point? You would sacrifice an innocent's life regardless of the
consequences of your own.
> Now face it like a man, and recognize that in supporting abolition
> you must also bear the following consequences -- See --
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
Of course. And your point?
> And so many more....
>
> The only consequence that I face, as a supporter of the death
> penalty in the extremely small number of the most violent, vicious,
> and clearly guilty murderers I support being executed, is the
> almost mathematically impossible execution of an innocent.
You accuse me of selective thinking but you, yourself believe that you can
prove "mathematically" that we don't execute innocents. Did you factor
Texas into your calculations?
> I accept that consequence... so why are you such a coward
> that you cannot accept the consequences of your choice?
If your only argument is that I'm a coward for opposing your point of view,
there's not much rationality to your point of view.
> Planet Visitor II
> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
>
> “It is only too easy to make suggestions and later try to escape the
> consequences of what we say” -- Jawaharlal Nehru
I've given you a list of the executed who almost certainly should have been
found not guilty and who in all probability were innocent. Why not write a
little sermon to their families about your mathematical proof of your
position? Be sure to quote Nehru.
Deadrat
Did you miss the day in high-school civics class where they discussed
American representative democracy? Or did you just sleep through the
entire semester?
> Who set you up as greater
> than the whole of a particular state that has determined the use of
> the death penalty is the more responsible way to prevent murders?
Do you really suppose that I think I'm "greater" than any US government
that has legalized executions? Or do you just figure that I'm exercising
my right as an elector to support those who agree with me?
> You'll need to do better than what you've been doing, if you expect
> to have any influence in this group, my son.
Well, Daddy, I don't really have any expectations that I'll have much
influence over your "group." After all, it's impossible to rationally
argue someone out of a position that he didn't reach rationally.
> We've seen and argued
> it all, and the most pitiful of arguments is that of blaming the
> state for following the rules that you insist upon.
Run to trust your state. Why not? After all, the founders of our
country trusted government implicitly and based our system on that trust.
No, wait. I might have got that wrong.
> You set the
> rules, you assume the blame when the rules result in another
> murder.
Just as we all share the blame when we execute an innocent. What's your
point?
Deadrat
Wow! Not too good with analogies, eh?
You're the mathematical genius, so here: 3 is to 6, as 3000 is to 6000.
Do you see that's true, but that 3000 is still much more than 3?
Oh, never mind.
> But different strokes for different folks.
> Especially those trying to minimize the broken lives that result from
> someone committing murder.
So when we let the state kill murderers, we fix the broken lives of those
near to their victims.
That really is pathetic. Stick with your self-righteous "consequences"
argument. At least it doesn't project your need for vengeance onto the
fmailies of murder victims.
Mike
> Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:iinqu4dmjnsf0p6gd...@4ax.com:> >>Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
And those of the murderers future victims, whatever crime they commit.
Deadrat
news:196001ab-68eb-4344...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 20, 10:25 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:1fe6ad28-119f-44be-a76f-ba433dd9a
> a...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
Good thing that you're an oracle we can all trust. What do we do when
you're not available?
> I
> can deal the miniscule possibility that someone wrongly convicted of
> murder will get the needle.
As long as it isn't you, eh?
Miniscule is fairly large in Texa, by the way. Of course, everything is
larger in Texas.
> BTW, here is a quintuple murder that happened near me.
>
> http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080407/
> NEWS05/80407043
>
> Now at the time I don't remember anyone pontificating these two men's
> innocence. The only outcry I remember is that they DIDNT get the
> death penalty. Shame.
And, of course, public outcry over emotionally wrenching events is the best
way to determine public policy and make ethical decisions.
>
> Mike
>
Deadrat
news:a17b0a3a-9587-46bd...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
If they were confined indefinitely, the chances of their murdering
someone is reduced. Is this really that difficult for you?
> If they had been
> executed in the first place we wouldn't have to worry if they got life
> without parole or a commuted sentence.
And if we just executed everyone under suspicion for a murder, we could
be that much surer. None of the executed could kill.
Deadrat
news:7046dfa2-5e61-4fcb...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 20, 10:27 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:c00e5a6f-da89-4cb1-b374-ee72e9001
> 8...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
Too difficult for you to follow? I can type slower if you'd like.
Deadrat
news:8c6c1cbc-5c2e-4997...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 21, 11:09 am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> innews:iinqu4dmjnsf0p6gdeus
> 8j3u75e...@4ax.com:
Here's your problem, the inability to understand the future subjunctive.
It's "crimes they might commit" when you're talking about future victims,
because you may be talking the empty set. That's what gives rational
people pause when they talk about executions.
Mitchell Holman
news:a17b0a3a-9587-46bd...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
You said they go on to commit murders. So name for
just three people who have killed someone after being
sentenced to LWOP.
> If they had been
> executed in the first place we wouldn't have to worry if they got life
> without parole or a commuted sentence.
So your solution is to execute everyone
convicted on anything because they MIGHT kill
someone in the future?
necromancer - ECHM
And, of course, there is Troy Davis, currently awaiting execution on
Georgia's death row inspite of no evidence against him, and 7 of 9
witnesses having recanted their testimony that out him on death row
and one of the other two is suspected of being the real killer. But
no, Sonny Perdue has to have his bucket of blood....
necromancer - ECHM
<1prouda...@usa.com> wrote:
>Any one with absolute proof against them should be immediately executed
>by a bullet.
And what constitutes that proof? The testimony of some witness who
can't make out the big, "E," on the eyechart?
The accomplice who is seeking to save his own skin?
The police and detectives who are concerned only with their next
promotion?
The prosecutor and/or judge who see putting bodies on gurneys as a way
to seem, "tough on crime," on their way to their next election?
The governors and other politicians doing the same?
Planet Visitor II
You seem to be a person in denial, my son.
>> You don't like to think about the consequences of your viewpoint,
>> believing that as a result of your objections to the death penalty it
>> never happens that a convicted murderer will murder again.
>
>Please stop telling me what and how I think.
Proving my point. You ARE in denial.
> I've weighed the
>possibility that murderers will kill again against the possibility that
>the state will abuse its power and that human error will kill innocents.
>I've made my choice based humanity's experience with the state and the
>US experience with the death penalty. I'll suggest you can make your
>own ethical choices without second guessing mine.
Then why did you bother to second guess Mike's ethical choices?
Or is this another of those "do what I say... not what I do"? In
case you're unfamiliar with this group, it is about the death penalty.
And the purpose is to second guess those having different ethical
views on the death penalty. In this way we hope to gain a better
insight into the use of the death penalty in the U.S. I have a
suspicion that you don't have a clue about ethics in general.
>> With
>> you it's cut and dried that the life of the murderer is all that is
>> important to you, and your sole objective is to save that life at
>> ALL COSTS!!!
>
>No, for you it's cut and dried that we can trust human beings to
>determine who murderers are and the state not to abuse its power to kill
>them.
So you're "second-guessing" me. Chee... and you just insisted
that I stop "second-guessing" you.
And you're denying that the life of the murderer means something to
you, and denying your only objective is to save that life at ALL
COSTS!!! ROTFLMAO.
But let me get this straight... you don't trust human beings to
determine who murderers are. So essentially you don't trust
human beings to determine who criminals are, and thus you support
abolishing the justice system and not punish anyone because you
personally can't "trust human beings."
I don't see how you can say you don't trust human beings
to determine who murderers are, but you do trust human
beings to determine who criminals other than murderers
are. So you must be in favor of abolishing the entire
criminal justice system, because human beings make
mistakes.. we are fallible... and our criminal justice system
is likewise fallible.
Fallible not only with determining the guilt or innocence of
murderers, but determining the guilt or innocent of anyone
brought before the criminal justice system for prosecution.
Having had evidence obtained by human beings we call
"law enforcement." Determined prosecution is appropriate
by human beings we call "prosecutors." Obtained a true bill
of indictment by human beings we call a "grand jury." And
brought to trial to determine guilt or innocence by human beings
we call a "judge and jury."
Personally, in general I do trust human beings when it comes
to the U.S. criminal justice system. I have to trust the criminal
justice system or I am left with only the belief that there should be
no criminal justice system. Oh, Brave New World... packrat
insists we should abolish the entire criminal justice system. That
would certainly save a lot of money up-front... no criminal lawyers,
no judges, no prisons... just a bunch of crazy murderers running
loose. Of course that's the price to pay at the back end... those
crazy murderers.
>> Yet no one can escape the consequences of his choices.
>
>People escape the consequences of their choices all the time. What
>color is the sky in your world?
“It is only too easy to make suggestions and later try to escape the
consequences of what we say” -- Jawaharlal Nehru
Of course you claim you're smarter than he was. Or is it just
that you're duplicitous?
>> You would save a murderer's life regardless of the consequences of
>> your choice.
>
>And your point?
Is English your mother tongue? My point is exactly what I said --
"You would save a murderer's life regardless of the consequences of
your choice." Of course you admit to that, so there is no need for me
to belabor the point.
>You would sacrifice an innocent's life regardless of the
>consequences of your own.
If you support the criminal justice system, so would you. Any
innocent man who dies in prison has had his life sacrificed. Please
don't tell me you've never heard of an innocent man dying in
prison?
Let's cut to the chase. You have no problem with an innocent man
DYING in prison. You just don't want the State to execute anyone...
innocent or guilty. At the least you should be honest with your
motives if you expect any credibility. We don't easily abide fools
or knaves in this group.
>> Now face it like a man, and recognize that in supporting abolition
>> you must also bear the following consequences -- See --
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
>
>Of course. And your point?
My point is that "you must also bear the following consequences."
Since you agreed, using your own words "of course," it's rather
obvious you recognized what my point was. Or do you agree
with whatever happens to pass your mind without grasping WHY
you agree? It seems your stock answer to everything is your admission
that you can't grasp a simple point.
>> And so many more....
>>
>> The only consequence that I face, as a supporter of the death
>> penalty in the extremely small number of the most violent, vicious,
>> and clearly guilty murderers I support being executed, is the
>> almost mathematically impossible execution of an innocent.
>
>You accuse me of selective thinking but you, yourself believe that you can
>prove "mathematically" that we don't execute innocents.
I didn't say that. I said "in the extremely small number of the
violent, vicious, and clearly guilty murderers I support being
executed," it is almost mathematically impossible that an innocent
has been executed.
Follow along now. As an abolitionist. you MUST oppose each
and every execution of any murderer, REGARDLESS of how
_violent, vicious, and clearly guilty_ such a murderer might be. On
the other hand, I need only support hardly any executions of
murderers. All I have to do is support the execution of THOSE
I find absolutely unequivocally guilty, and in my mind deserved of
execution, while having the utmost fear that in not executing them
we face the almost certain possibility that they will murder again
given the slightest opportunity. In other words, I can easily state,
and I do, that I wish we executed ONLY those of that kind.
About one or two out of every five we now execute.
And I do not support the execution of many of those we have
executed. While on the other hand, I clearly support the death
penalty as a "concept" employed in the U.S. criminal justice system.
Whether you understand this or not makes no difference to me,
because I'm sure you've encounter situations where you believe
some "criminals" are guilty and deserve "punishment" other than
the death penalty, and feel others (convicted of crimes other than
capital murder) have been wrongly convicted, aside from the
death penalty as a separate issue.
I find it hard to believe that in spite of believing that some
innocents have been convicted of crimes other than murder
you support abolishing the entire criminal justice system.
In any case, you certainly can't complain that we've executed as
many innocents as we have found _actual murderers_ not
guilty. Because we have a justice system that argues we
should allow 10 guilty to go free rather than convict one
innocent. Or would you rather a justice system that does
NOT have a death penalty, but allows 1 guilty to go free for
every 10 innocents convicted?
> Did you factor
>Texas into your calculations?
I only factor those murderers I feel should be executed into
my calculations. Did you factor Kenneth McDuff into your
calculations? See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Allen_McDuff
So much for your lack of faith in human beings sitting on a jury
determining who deserves to be executed and is positively guilty.
Good ol' Ken McDuff beat the system, after human beings on
the jury sentenced him to death. He still managed to work
his way out of prison and murder about a dozen more victims.
I suppose you feel he got a bum deal the second time, and
still oppose his execution because _he might be innocent_.
>> I accept that consequence... so why are you such a coward
>> that you cannot accept the consequences of your choice?
>
>If your only argument is that I'm a coward for opposing your point of view,
>there's not much rationality to your point of view.
So you do accept the consequences of your view being responsible
for each and every murder committed by a previously convicted
murderer. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
>> Planet Visitor II
>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
>>
>> “It is only too easy to make suggestions and later try to escape the
>> consequences of what we say” -- Jawaharlal Nehru
>
>I've given you a list of the executed who almost certainly should have been
>found not guilty and who in all probability were innocent. Why not write a
>little sermon to their families about your mathematical proof of your
>position? Be sure to quote Nehru.
The fact is that every person on your "list," is a murderer whose
execution I did not support, regardless of my belief that they were
all guilty. To qualify for execution as I see it, a convicted
murderer must go far beyond the bounds of the murders your
"examples" committed.
I certainly support the execution of any murderer who was
previously convicted of a murder, was ultimately released and
yet murdered again. I generally support the execution of serial
murderers. I generally support the execution of pedophile
murderers such as Theodore Frank -- See --
http://www.wtv-zone.com/LadyMaggie/php/AmySueStory.html
I never support the execution of a murderer who has committed
murder in a crime of passion, and has never murdered before.
I never support the execution of a murderer who killed a single
family member or friend during a drunken fight, without any actual
intent behind it. I never support the execution of an abused spouse
if sufficient evidence is present to prove such abuse. I never
support the execution of someone who commits a murder while
under the age of 18. I never support the execution of any
murderer who committed murder without malice aforethought.
I generally don't even support the execution of a murderer who was
robbing a store and the store owner surprised him with a gun
of his own. While in general I do support murderers who rob
a tasty-freeze and execute five or six teenages working there,
doing so to "eliminate witnesses," if the evidence of guilt is
overwhelming.
So my choices are quite narrow in respect to ALL convicted
murderers, while yours encompass saving the life of each and
every murderer regardless of how destructive to "human beings"
you know he is.
The representatives of a state in the U.S. create criminal statutes
because their constituents find it appropriate. If those criminal
statutes incorporate the possible use of the death penalty, you insist
you oppose "government by the majority." While if a U.S. state
does not have the death penalty I fully agree with their decision. The
only state I have a voice in, is my state. And I voice that with my
vote, and my correspondence with my representative if I feel strongly
about any issue. My state is the only state in which I can offer a
view both for the majority and for the minority, because it is MY
view.
So if the EU decides to hold a parade and a weekend with Miss
Europe for each and every murderer in Europe who "promises"
not to do it again, that is their decision. I may laugh at it, but
I have no voice in determining true opposition to it. Of course,
when it comes to states which do not fall within the principles
of liberty and freedom of choice I make my views clear.
I certainly don't support Islamic law such as stoning for
adultery or hanging for being gay. And I certainly don't support
"executions" which are state murder... executions beyond the
concept of human law, such as the degeneracy of the Holocaust.
I don't support any genocide, regardless of an acting government
committing such genocide.
Deadrat
I'll say it again, Daddy. Look up "projection."
>>> You don't like to think about the consequences of your viewpoint,
>>> believing that as a result of your objections to the death penalty
>>> it never happens that a convicted murderer will murder again.
>>
>>Please stop telling me what and how I think.
>
> Proving my point. You ARE in denial.
First, if you have to declare yourself the victor in an argument, you
probably aren't. Secondly, if all you've got for rebuttal is amateur
psychological analysis of your opponent, you definintely aren't.
>> I've weighed the
>>possibility that murderers will kill again against the possibility
>>that the state will abuse its power and that human error will kill
>>innocents. I've made my choice based humanity's experience with the
>>state and the US experience with the death penalty. I'll suggest you
>>can make your own ethical choices without second guessing mine.
>
> Then why did you bother to second guess Mike's ethical choices?
Wow! How clueless can you get? I'll type this reaaaal slowly so you can
follow. I'm not "second guessing" anyone's ethical choices; I'm
disagreeing with them. In other words, I'm not interested in anyone's
motivations for his choices; I'm interested in logic and evidence.
> Or is this another of those "do what I say... not what I do"? In
> case you're unfamiliar with this group, it is about the death penalty.
> And the purpose is to second guess those having different ethical
> views on the death penalty.
Thanks for sharing. You and your "group" can play with yourselves all you
want in analyzing others' psychological makeup. If that's all you've got,
fine: I can accept that.
> In this way we hope to gain a better
> insight into the use of the death penalty in the U.S.
Whatever floats your boat. I prefer logic and evidence to gain insight,
but YMMV.
> I have a suspicion that you don't have a clue about ethics in general.
Of course you do. You're all about the arguer, not the argument. So if I
come to a different ethical position than you, there's no chance that I'm
mistaken or ignorant, there must be something wrong with me. And from
there it's an easy leap from one character fault to another. Whaddya
figure -- I cheat on my taxes and my wife?
>
>>> With
>>> you it's cut and dried that the life of the murderer is all that is
>>> important to you, and your sole objective is to save that life at
>>> ALL COSTS!!!
>>
>>No, for you it's cut and dried that we can trust human beings to
>>determine who murderers are and the state not to abuse its power to
>>kill them.
>
> So you're "second-guessing" me. Chee... and you just insisted
> that I stop "second-guessing" you.
Your *argument* requires that you trust the state enough in its operation
to determine who the murderers are. From there it's possible to examine
evidence about the trustworthiness of the state in this and other
endeavors.
I suppose I've leapt to a conclusion here. It's possible that you're ready
to concede that the state is continually sloppy and negligent, and that
makes no difference to you. If so, I apologize.
>
> And you're denying that the life of the murderer means something to
> you, and denying your only objective is to save that life at ALL
> COSTS!!! ROTFLMAO.
The life of a murderer I don't know doesn't mean very much more to me than
the life of anyone else I don't know. The death of the murderer at the
hands of the state means living in a society I find less attractive and
more dangerous. My objective is not to save a life at all or even ALL
costs, but to prevent a death at the hands of the state. Why that seems
hysterically funny to you is beyond me.
> But let me get this straight... you don't trust human beings to
> determine who murderers are. So essentially you don't trust
> human beings to determine who criminals are, and thus you support
> abolishing the justice system and not punish anyone because you
> personally can't "trust human beings."
My trust in human beings is inversely proportional to the amount of
irrevocable harm they might cause.
But, of course, instead of dealing with the argument that I actually make,
you'd rather argue against a strawman of your own devising.
>
> I don't see how you can say you don't trust human beings
> to determine who murderers are, but you do trust human
> beings to determine who criminals other than murderers
> are.
I'm guessing you see just fine.
> So you must be in favor of abolishing the entire
> criminal justice system, because human beings make
> mistakes.. we are fallible... and our criminal justice system
> is likewise fallible.
Or course, and that's why it's a good thing for fallible beings to reduce
the fatal harm they might cause.
> Fallible not only with determining the guilt or innocence of
> murderers, but determining the guilt or innocent of anyone
> brought before the criminal justice system for prosecution.
> Having had evidence obtained by human beings we call
> "law enforcement." Determined prosecution is appropriate
> by human beings we call "prosecutors." Obtained a true bill
> of indictment by human beings we call a "grand jury." And
> brought to trial to determine guilt or innocence by human beings
> we call a "judge and jury."
Thanks for sharing.
> Personally, in general I do trust human beings when it comes
> to the U.S. criminal justice system. I have to trust the criminal
> justice system or I am left with only the belief that there should be
> no criminal justice system. Oh, Brave New World... packrat
> insists we should abolish the entire criminal justice system. That
> would certainly save a lot of money up-front... no criminal lawyers,
> no judges, no prisons... just a bunch of crazy murderers running
> loose. Of course that's the price to pay at the back end... those
> crazy murderers.
Look up false dichotomy. I've never heard anyone opposed to the death
penalty argue for the abolition of the entire justice system. Even though
human beings are fallible, sometimes they must be trusted. I've trusted
surgeons. The answer isn't yes or no, trust in everything or not at all.
It's how far to trust.
>>> Yet no one can escape the consequences of his choices.
>>
>>People escape the consequences of their choices all the time. What
>>color is the sky in your world?
>
> “It is only too easy to make suggestions and later try to escape the
> consequences of what we say” -- Jawaharlal Nehru
>
> Of course you claim you're smarter than he was. Or is it just
> that you're duplicitous?
Again. My argument stands or falls on its logic and evidence. No matter
how smart I am or how hubristic or how duplicitous. (Although I don't know
how you figure those latter two are antonyms.)
You said that no one can escape the consequences of his choices. In my
experience that happens all the time. Nehru said that people *try* to
escape the consequences of their choices. I fail to see how that
contradicts my claim that they sometimes succeed. Or why this topic is
relevant to the argument.
>
>>> You would save a murderer's life regardless of the consequences of
>>> your choice.
>>
>>And your point?
>
> Is English your mother tongue? My point is exactly what I said --
> "You would save a murderer's life regardless of the consequences of
> your choice." Of course you admit to that, so there is no need for me
> to belabor the point.
And mine is that this point is null. Everyone should realize that they
must accept the logical consequences of their choices. So what?
>
>>You would sacrifice an innocent's life regardless of the
>>consequences of your own.
>
> If you support the criminal justice system, so would you. Any
> innocent man who dies in prison has had his life sacrificed. Please
> don't tell me you've never heard of an innocent man dying in
> prison?
And I've seen them freed. I've never seen an executed man brought back to
life.
> Let's cut to the chase. You have no problem with an innocent man
> DYING in prison.
Ooh! Is DYING worse than dying?
You'd like to impute to me the argument that if we can't trust the state
for perfection, then we can't trust the state to do anything. Because
that's an argument you could actually win. But the equivalent argument is
that as long as we can't trust the state for perfection, we might as well
trust the state in everything.
Try to concentrate. This is about trusting the state to make certain
decisions.
> You just don't want the State to execute anyone... innocent or guilty.
Your argument presumes that the state can reliably determine the
difference.
> At the least you should be honest with your
> motives if you expect any credibility.
From whom? You? You can't put together an argument with analyzing me.
> We don't easily abide fools or knaves in this group.
Bwahahahahahaha! A fool tells me he doesn't easily abide fools.
Priceless.
>
>>> Now face it like a man, and recognize that in supporting abolition
>>> you must also bear the following consequences -- See --
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
>>
>>Of course. And your point?
>
> My point is that "you must also bear the following consequences."
> Since you agreed, using your own words "of course," it's rather
> obvious you recognized what my point was. Or do you agree
> with whatever happens to pass your mind without grasping WHY
> you agree? It seems your stock answer to everything is your admission
> that you can't grasp a simple point.
As irony meters explode everywhere. See above why your point is trivial
and fatuous.
>>> And so many more....
>>>
>>> The only consequence that I face, as a supporter of the death
>>> penalty in the extremely small number of the most violent, vicious,
>>> and clearly guilty murderers I support being executed, is the
>>> almost mathematically impossible execution of an innocent.
>>
>>You accuse me of selective thinking but you, yourself believe that you
>>can prove "mathematically" that we don't execute innocents.
>
> I didn't say that. I said "in the extremely small number of the
> violent, vicious, and clearly guilty murderers I support being
> executed," it is almost mathematically impossible that an innocent
> has been executed.
Could I see the calculations?
> Follow along now. As an abolitionist. you MUST oppose each
> and every execution of any murderer, REGARDLESS of how
> _violent, vicious, and clearly guilty_ such a murderer might be. On
> the other hand, I need only support hardly any executions of
> murderers. All I have to do is support the execution of THOSE
> I find absolutely unequivocally guilty, and in my mind deserved of
> execution, while having the utmost fear that in not executing them
> we face the almost certain possibility that they will murder again
> given the slightest opportunity. In other words, I can easily state,
> and I do, that I wish we executed ONLY those of that kind.
> About one or two out of every five we now execute.
At least we've got an answer now: 10-20 percent. But you didn't show your
work. But I'm sure everyone is glad that we have you to find people
"absolutely unequivocally guilty." What would we do without a mind so
great he knows who is deserving of execution and who will certainly kill
again? You must be very busy.
>
> And I do not support the execution of many of those we have
> executed. While on the other hand, I clearly support the death
> penalty as a "concept" employed in the U.S. criminal justice system.
> Whether you understand this or not makes no difference to me,
And yet here you are. Windmilling away, speculating on my character, if
not my argument.
> because I'm sure you've encounter situations where you believe
> some "criminals" are guilty and deserve "punishment" other than
> the death penalty, and feel others (convicted of crimes other than
> capital murder) have been wrongly convicted, aside from the
> death penalty as a separate issue.
Of course I do. I just understand that I would no more trust my feelings
than I would anyone else's when it comes to killing someone.
>
> I find it hard to believe that in spite of believing that some
> innocents have been convicted of crimes other than murder
> you support abolishing the entire criminal justice system.
And, of course, you should find it hard to believe that. Since it's
entirely a figment of your imagination.
> In any case, you certainly can't complain that we've executed as
> many innocents as we have found _actual murderers_ not
> guilty.
Hard to say. I don't know the conviction rate for murder. You might want
to practice saying the first sentence in this paragraph.
> Because we have a justice system that argues we
> should allow 10 guilty to go free rather than convict one
> innocent. Or would you rather a justice system that does
> NOT have a death penalty, but allows 1 guilty to go free for
> every 10 innocents convicted?
Another figment of your imagination?
>> Did you factor
>>Texas into your calculations?
>
> I only factor those murderers I feel should be executed into
> my calculations. Did you factor Kenneth McDuff into your
> calculations? See --
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Allen_McDuff
> So much for your lack of faith in human beings sitting on a jury
> determining who deserves to be executed and is positively guilty.
> Good ol' Ken McDuff beat the system, after human beings on
> the jury sentenced him to death. He still managed to work
> his way out of prison and murder about a dozen more victims.
> I suppose you feel he got a bum deal the second time, and
> still oppose his execution because _he might be innocent_.
I oppose the death penalty because I think its unjust in its total
operation. I don't think killing McDuff justifies the deaths of the people
I've listed previously.
>>> I accept that consequence... so why are you such a coward
>>> that you cannot accept the consequences of your choice?
>>
>>If your only argument is that I'm a coward for opposing your point of
>>view, there's not much rationality to your point of view.
>
> So you do accept the consequences of your view being responsible
> for each and every murder committed by a previously convicted
> murderer. See --
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
You seem to think this fatuous statement is very telling since you keep
repeating it.
It's not that I think this is entrely irrational. But it's a fool's errand
to create such a system. Although that makes you just the person to
advocate for it, you'll notice it's nowhere in operation. We already have
a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a system of automatic
appeals. We still have what we have.
>
> So my choices are quite narrow in respect to ALL convicted
> murderers, while yours encompass saving the life of each and
> every murderer regardless of how destructive to "human beings"
> you know he is.
>
> The representatives of a state in the U.S. create criminal statutes
> because their constituents find it appropriate. If those criminal
> statutes incorporate the possible use of the death penalty, you insist
> you oppose "government by the majority." While if a U.S. state
> does not have the death penalty I fully agree with their decision. The
> only state I have a voice in, is my state. And I voice that with my
> vote, and my correspondence with my representative if I feel strongly
> about any issue. My state is the only state in which I can offer a
> view both for the majority and for the minority, because it is MY
> view.
I often oppose the "government by the majority." You think this is some
kind of slam?
> So if the EU decides to hold a parade and a weekend with Miss
> Europe for each and every murderer in Europe who "promises"
> not to do it again, that is their decision. I may laugh at it, but
> I have no voice in determining true opposition to it. Of course,
> when it comes to states which do not fall within the principles
> of liberty and freedom of choice I make my views clear.
> I certainly don't support Islamic law such as stoning for
> adultery or hanging for being gay. And I certainly don't support
> "executions" which are state murder... executions beyond the
> concept of human law, such as the degeneracy of the Holocaust.
> I don't support any genocide, regardless of an acting government
> committing such genocide.
Well, you have no idea how relieved I am to hear it. Thanks for sharing.
Mike
Sure LWOP would help. But the liberals are trying to even reduce
LWOP. Here's an example:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070418/ai_n19014956/
So liberals want to keep murderers off death row AND they want to
reduce their sentences.
lovely...
>
> > If they had been
> > executed in the first place we wouldn't have to worry if they got life
> > without parole or a commuted sentence.
>
> So your solution is to execute everyone
> convicted on anything because they MIGHT kill
> someone in the future?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Murder. I didn't say convicted of 'anything' , please try and keep up
with the conversation.
Mike
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nah, your posts are a hoot..keep going.
I'm getting a good laugh out of them.
;>))))
Deadrat
news:df3d2011-d4e4-40c6...@e14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 21, 5:46 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:a17b0a3a-9587-46bd-87d7-9d7cc2a85
> e...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
Oh, it's the "liberals"! Why didn't you say so?
Then, of course, you're right.
(The bill in question requires minors convicted of murder to serve 25
years to life, but they would be eligible for parole after 25 years.
Those damn liberals!)
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:e32ae1e2-5387-4f5c...@q19g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 21, 3:29 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:7046dfa2-5e61-4fcb-a498-090dedcd4
> 0...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
I gather nervous laughter is your ususal response to things you don't
understand.
Just a guess.
necromancer - ECHM
Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>Give us an idea of what you consider to be "compelling evidence". Be
>aware that I'm not looking for an example but rather a standard that
>could be applied across the board without that standard itself causing
>on-going legal argument.
I get the impression that their, "standatd," is, "cops say you did it,
then you are guilty."
necromancer - ECHM
wrote:
>
>What does their sentence have to do with it? If they had been
>executed in the first place we wouldn't have to worry if they got life
>without parole or a commuted sentence.
And if we give them LWOP (with no commutation of sentence) we wouldn't
have to worry about them *and* we won't have to worry about paying
millions of $$$ to the lawyers pursuing the, "its gonna hurt," and
other mindless appeals.
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
....squeaked the deadrat....
HAHAHA
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you agree. The stupid liberals are working hard to keep murderers
alive and back on the streets?
Right DeadRat?
Mike
And you're just a DeadRat, and you're opinion is worth as such.
>
> > I
> > can deal the miniscule possibility that someone wrongly convicted of
> > murder will get the needle.
>
> As long as it isn't you, eh?
>
> Miniscule is fairly large in Texa, by the way. Of course, everything is
> larger in Texas.
>
> > BTW, here is a quintuple murder that happened near me.
>
> >http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080407/
> > NEWS05/80407043
>
> > Now at the time I don't remember anyone pontificating these two men's
> > innocence. The only outcry I remember is that they DIDNT get the
> > death penalty. Shame.
>
> And, of course, public outcry over emotionally wrenching events is the best
> way to determine public policy and make ethical decisions.
And the ethical decision would be to keep these men alive?
Were just born stupid or do you have to continuously work at it?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:03:12 +1000, sa...@notinnedmeatdodo.com.au (Mr
> Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>
> >Give us an idea of what you consider to be "compelling evidence". Be
> >aware that I'm not looking for an example but rather a standard that
> >could be applied across the board without that standard itself causing
> >on-going legal argument.
>
> I get the impression that their, "standatd," is, "cops say you did it,
> then you are guilty."
Note the silence in response to my comparatively straightforward
enquiry, though...It is telling.
The enquiry itself is not a trick question and nor am I being
disingenuous, having implied the difficulty of the response straight out
of the box.
--
"...and I got my middle name from somebody who
obviously didn't think I'd ever run for
President." - Barack Obama
Mitchell Holman
news:316ad3da-e94f-47b3...@k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 22, 5:00 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:df3d2011-d4e4-40c6-b41b-1f53ab1ad
> b...@e14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
That a minor who kills an abusive parent deserves
something other than a speedy execution?
> The stupid liberals are working hard to keep murderers
> alive and back on the streets?
You have never been inside a geriatric prison, I can tell.
Elderly prisoners on walkers, elderly prisoners in wheelchairs,
elderly prisoners with their IV poles - and those are the ones
who are not bedridden. All costing the state a fortune when
their families could be caring for them.
Planet Visitor II
So you're only voicing an opinion and not a FACT when you tried
to present as FACT what "the responsibility of the State" is.
>> Who set you up as greater
>> than the whole of a particular state that has determined the use of
>> the death penalty is the more responsible way to prevent murders?
>
>Do you really suppose that I think I'm "greater" than any US government
>that has legalized executions? Or do you just figure that I'm exercising
>my right as an elector to support those who agree with me?
Then don't try to present your OPINIONS as FACT, my son. It only
makes you look like a fanatical Elmer Gantry Bible-thumper.
There are no FACTS, only opinions, to substantiate any execution of an
innocent in the U.S. post Gregg v. Georgia. I remember the raving
about the "innocence" of Roger Coleman; that is until the DNA came
back showing he was a liar. But there are facts about convicted
murderers still having committed further murders after having been
sentenced to "life" (ha ha) in prison.
>> You'll need to do better than what you've been doing, if you expect
>> to have any influence in this group, my son.
>
>Well, Daddy, I don't really have any expectations that I'll have much
>influence over your "group."
It's not "my" group, sport. But you already seem to admit defeat
because of some low self-esteem on your part. Could it be that you
already realize you have nothing new to offer?
> After all, it's impossible to rationally
>argue someone out of a position that he didn't reach rationally.
Oh... boo hoo hoo... what a humiliation -- another red-neck
abolitionist expects me to be worried about being insulted by him.
>> We've seen and argued
>> it all, and the most pitiful of arguments is that of blaming the
>> state for following the rules that you insist upon.
>
>Run to trust your state. Why not? After all, the founders of our
>country trusted government implicitly and based our system on that trust.
The founders of our country were "human beings." You emphatically
stated you don't trust "human beings." But those same "human beings"
created constitutional guarantees of fairness in the criminal justice
system. It would seem that you're an anarchist at heart, insisting
the U.S. criminal justice system be eliminated because you can't trust
"human beings" to sit on a jury and judge guilt or innocence "beyond
a reasonable doubt." Perhaps you'd rather have guilt or innocence
determined by computers. Hell... that way we might even be able
to have guilt determined before they even commit murder, like in
"Minority Report."
>No, wait. I might have got that wrong.
Good for you... One of the hardest things in this world is to admit
you are wrong. And nothing is more helpful in resolving a situation
than its frank admission (BI).
>> You set the
>> rules, you assume the blame when the rules result in another
>> murder.
>
>Just as we all share the blame when we execute an innocent. What's your
>point?
You seem to use the excuse that my point is too complicated for you,
over and over, my son.
Pardon me, but you don't share any blame in the execution of an
innocent if it were to happen, because you oppose execution of anyone,
including Kenneth McDuff, Ted Bundy, and Theodore Frank. However,
you must accept ALL the blame when a convicted murderer is sentenced
to life in prison, and he is somehow released and murders again.
Because you support life in prison, rather than execution.
As I said at the beginning... if you cannot accept the consequences of
your viewpoint, when those consequences happen... what are you???
Planet Visitor II
>>>>> >> > Well, if a convicted murderer ends up killing another person we
>>>>> >> > can have you to hold responsible as well.
>>>>> >> > Got it?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> No, I don't get it. No one suggests that convicted murderers
>>>>> >> simply be released if they can't be executed.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> >
>>>>> > What do you think happens when they get locked up? Do you think
>>>>> > they just disappear?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty much. Look up Pelican Bay.
>>>>>
>>>>> > They go on to commit other crimes, yes, even murder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes they do, but usually not in supermax prisons. And in any
>>>>> case, it's the responsibility of the state to prevent it.
>>>>
>>>> That's why we have executions
>>>
>>>Thanks for the nonsequitur, but we don't amputate your arm when you cut
>>>your finger.
>>
>> I wouldn't go so far as to claim that _committing murder_ is like
>> _cutting your finger_.
>
>Wow! Not too good with analogies, eh?
>
For it to be an analogy at least one of the premises or conclusions
must be general. A cut on the finger doesn't relate to committing
murder. It certainly doesn't solve any problem when you try to
claim that _cutting your finger_ can be generalized to the crime of
murder. It only shows that you lack the empathy needed to see the
victim of murder as a "human being."
>You're the mathematical genius, so here: 3 is to 6, as 3000 is to 6000.
>Do you see that's true, but that 3000 is still much more than 3?
See above. Apples are not oranges. Apparently you insist the value
of a "human being" victim of murder can be quantified by you, in
relation to a cut on the finger. No wonder the victim seems to be
no part of your support for abolition.
But using your "analogy" (sic) one could also say that the execution
of the murderer can be related to a _cut on the finger_, making the
execution "no big deal." Unless you oppose _cuts on the finger_.
>Oh, never mind.
>
I think you're getting it now.
>> But different strokes for different folks.
>> Especially those trying to minimize the broken lives that result from
>> someone committing murder.
>
>So when we let the state kill murderers, we fix the broken lives of those
>near to their victims.
Non sequitur. Who is arguing that ANYTHING can "fix the broken lives
of those near to those victims"? You seem to be arguing that NOT
letting the state kill murderers will fix the broken lives of those
near to the victims.
>That really is pathetic. Stick with your self-righteous "consequences"
>argument.
Well, I'm glad to see I've gotten through to you, and you've started
to realize the consequences of opposing the death penalty for each
and every murderer, regardless of how brutal, unrepentant, and
totally unable to be rehabilitated that murderer is.
>At least it doesn't project your need for vengeance onto the
>fmailies of murder victims.
I'm not in it for "vengeance," sport. Don't try to pin your
pathetic appeal for murderers onto a claim that I want "vengeance."
My main reason for supporting the death penalty is my belief it
saves innocent lives. That is certainly shown to be true by the
number of convicted murderers who managed to murder again,
using YOUR plan to "keep them in prison."
It is the job of the U.S. State to seek "vengeance" in the name of any
victim of murder, through a prosecutorial process of determining
guilt or innocence, using "human beings" in that determination,
because that victim cannot speak in his/her own behalf, as victims
of other crimes can. It is also the job of the U.S. State to protect
innocent citizens. If it feels it can best accomplish this with the
use of the death penalty for some small number of murderers why
should you object if you are not a citizen of that U.S. State?
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
And you complain about the death penalty being expensive...tsk tsk.
Mitchell Holman
news:e773ca5f-3384-44f8...@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 22, 9:19 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:316ad3da-e94f-47b3-b545-615f5f122
> f...@k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >956 /
>>
>> >> > So liberals want to keep murderers off death row AND they want
>> >> > to reduce their sentences.
>>
>> >> Oh, it's the "liberals"! Why didn't you say so?
>>
>> >> Then, of course, you're right.
>>
>> >> (The bill in question requires minors convicted of murder to serve
>> >> 25 years to life, but they would be eligible for parole after 25
>> >> years. Those damn liberals!)
>>
>> >> <snip/>- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > So you agree.
>>
>> That a minor who kills an abusive parent deserves
>> something other than a speedy execution?
So tell us what YOU want done to a child who
kills an abusive parent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Grant
>>
>> > The stupid liberals are working hard to keep murderers
>> > alive and back on the streets?
>>
>> You have never been inside a geriatric prison, I can tell.
>> Elderly prisoners on walkers, elderly prisoners in wheelchairs,
>> elderly prisoners with their IV poles - and those are the ones
>> who are not bedridden. All costing the state a fortune when
>> their families could be caring for them.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> And you complain about the death penalty being expensive...tsk tsk.
>
Not complaining. Just pointing out the facts that you
seem oblivious to.
John Rennie
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9BF6452635671...@216.196.97.130...
Very few of those old prisoners would have families to care for them. Mitch.
The fact is that most of them have had sentences imposed upon them that were
too long. The sentences appear in American or English eyes for that matter
to be just. 'Just' seems to be confused with revenge in our world. Not
in Finland though:
http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/08/are_prisons_immoral_or_is_it_just_americans.php
Mike
So she claims.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Grant
Was she convicted of first-degree murder? Doesn't look like it.
Therefore she probably wouldn't get the needle.
But I would've definitely given her more than a year in juvie hall.
What a joke. She should be shunned like OJ Simpson.
But how fitting that pinko-liberal Massatwoshits accepted her with
open arms.
>
>
>
> >> > The stupid liberals are working hard to keep murderers
> >> > alive and back on the streets?
>
> >> You have never been inside a geriatric prison, I can tell.
> >> Elderly prisoners on walkers, elderly prisoners in wheelchairs,
> >> elderly prisoners with their IV poles - and those are the ones
> >> who are not bedridden. All costing the state a fortune when
> >> their families could be caring for them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > And you complain about the death penalty being expensive...tsk tsk.
>
> Not complaining. Just pointing out the facts that you
> seem oblivious to.- Hide quoted text -
Quit whining
Mike
necromancer - ECHM
Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>Only if that murderer is freed.
Of course, "Mike," and the rest of the mindless bush-cattle assume
that everyone who is opposed to the DP wants murderers freed...
>You people love the false dilemma, don't you? You do realise
> that execute vs release is not a binary choice upon conviction?
I'm honestly beginning to believe that they don't have enough active
brain cells realise anything - save for step into voting booth and
pull the lever with the elephant next to it...
Deadrat
Are you really arguing that it's *not* a given that when the state
incarcerates someone they take the responsibility for the safety of the
prison population?
>>> Who set you up as greater
>>> than the whole of a particular state that has determined the use of
>>> the death penalty is the more responsible way to prevent murders?
>>
>>Do you really suppose that I think I'm "greater" than any US
>>government that has legalized executions? Or do you just figure that
>>I'm exercising my right as an elector to support those who agree with
>>me?
>
> Then don't try to present your OPINIONS as FACT, my son.
Gee, Daddy, I just didn't think that the state's responsibility for its
prison population would be a topic of contention.
> It only makes you look like a fanatical Elmer Gantry Bible-thumper.
Nothing I've proposed, including the state's bearing the responsibility
for its institutions, is fanatical.
And you think I'm a "Bible-thumper"? Bwahahahahaha.
> There are no FACTS, only opinions, to substantiate any execution of an
> innocent in the U.S. post Gregg v. Georgia.
If that makes you feel any better, keep telling yourself that.
> I remember the raving
> about the "innocence" of Roger Coleman; that is until the DNA came
> back showing he was a liar. But there are facts about convicted
> murderers still having committed further murders after having been
> sentenced to "life" (ha ha) in prison.
>
>>> You'll need to do better than what you've been doing, if you expect
>>> to have any influence in this group, my son.
>>
>>Well, Daddy, I don't really have any expectations that I'll have much
>>influence over your "group."
>
> It's not "my" group, sport. But you already seem to admit defeat
> because of some low self-esteem on your part.
I didn't mean you owned the group, Sparky; just that you participated in
it. And, once again, if you have to declare victory, ....
> Could it be that you already realize you have nothing new to offer?
Of course not. My position isn't novel. What's your point?
>> After all, it's impossible to rationally
>>argue someone out of a position that he didn't reach rationally.
>
> Oh... boo hoo hoo... what a humiliation -- another red-neck
> abolitionist expects me to be worried about being insulted by him.
Red neck. Bwahahahahahaha.
Let's see. So far you've determined that I'm a red-necked Bible thumper
suffering from low self-esteem. As accurate as the rest of your
conclusions, I suppose.
>>> We've seen and argued
>>> it all, and the most pitiful of arguments is that of blaming the
>>> state for following the rules that you insist upon.
>>
>>Run to trust your state. Why not? After all, the founders of our
>>country trusted government implicitly and based our system on that
>>trust.
>
> The founders of our country were "human beings." You emphatically
> stated you don't trust "human beings." But those same "human beings"
> created constitutional guarantees of fairness in the criminal justice
> system.
Sorry, but there are no "guarantees" in the Constitution. Just
mechanisms to help protect the rights of citizens.
> It would seem that you're an anarchist at heart, insisting
> the U.S. criminal justice system be eliminated because you can't trust
> "human beings" to sit on a jury and judge guilt or innocence "beyond
> a reasonable doubt."
You're arguing with yourself, Sparky. I'm not insisting that we abolish
the justice system. That's an argument you impute to me because you can
actually win it. But it's an absurd idea that if you can't trust someone
to do one thing, then you can't trust them to do anything. Several
analogies come to mind, but you seem unable to grasp those.
> Perhaps you'd rather have guilt or innocence
> determined by computers. Hell... that way we might even be able
> to have guilt determined before they even commit murder, like in
> "Minority Report."
>
>>No, wait. I might have got that wrong.
>
> Good for you... One of the hardest things in this world is to admit
> you are wrong. And nothing is more helpful in resolving a situation
> than its frank admission (BI).
Except perhaps recognizing sarcasm when it's directed at you.
>>> You set the
>>> rules, you assume the blame when the rules result in another
>>> murder.
>>
>>Just as we all share the blame when we execute an innocent. What's
>>your point?
>
> You seem to use the excuse that my point is too complicated for you,
> over and over, my son.
>
> Pardon me, but you don't share any blame in the execution of an
> innocent if it were to happen, because you oppose execution of anyone,
> including Kenneth McDuff, Ted Bundy, and Theodore Frank. However,
> you must accept ALL the blame when a convicted murderer is sentenced
> to life in prison, and he is somehow released and murders again.
> Because you support life in prison, rather than execution.
No, I've said your point is fatuous, i.e., far from being too
complicated, it's so simple as to be inapt. Let's assume for the moment
that merely opposing a state's action relieves one of responsibility for
it, and conversely, suporting a state's action burdens one with that
responsibility. In that case, I have no responsibility for the execution
of innocents while I have the responsibiity for the subsequent victims of
convicted murderers. But it also follows that you carry the
responsibility for the deaths of executed innocents, while you're
relieved of the responsibility for subsequent victims of murderers.
In other words, so what? We each carry the responsibility of our
positions.
> As I said at the beginning... if you cannot accept the consequences of
> your viewpoint, when those consequences happen... what are you???
Well, I'm at least someone who can present a logical argument. By your
definition, we each must accept the consequences of our viewpoints.
John Rennie
"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:GS0Il.12669$jZ1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
As a unbiased referee I award this contest to Deadrat.
Deadrat
Wow! Does it hurt to be this clueless? I'll try to explain, although I'll
be accused of running a fool's errand. In a double analogy, there are a
*pair of comparisons*, one (established) comparison that illustrates
another comparison in contention. This is often written
A:B :: C:D
The point is to claim that we know how A relates to B and that same
*relationship* applies to that between C and D.
In my proposal, A is a cut on the finger (a smaller wound) and B,
amputation, is the proposed treatment (a larger wound). Notice that the
apt comparison is between a cut finger and a missing limb -- smaller
problem to draconian solution. The claim is that this comparison
illustrates *another *relationship*, that between isolating murderers
(smaller problem) and executing convicted murderers, some of whom may be
innocent (larger problem).
Of course, simply claiming such a correspondence doesn't make it true, and
one may attack the analogy by saying, for instance, that to a mathematical
certainty it's never the case that innocents are executed, so the execution
of convicted murderers isn't a problem at all and thus can't be a larger
problem than incarcerating potential second-time murderers.
But in no case is it a reasonable to conclude that the lesson is that
murdering someone is like cutting your finger.
>>You're the mathematical genius, so here: 3 is to 6, as 3000 is to
>>6000. Do you see that's true, but that 3000 is still much more than
>>3?
>
> See above. Apples are not oranges. Apparently you insist the value
> of a "human being" victim of murder can be quantified by you, in
> relation to a cut on the finger. No wonder the victim seems to be
> no part of your support for abolition.
And no wonder you've come to such a conclusion. You've failed to
understand the double analogy, and you're eager to impute to me the
argument that murder is the equivalent of a scratch. Because that's an
argument you can actually win. Look up "strawman argument."
>
> But using your "analogy" (sic) one could also say that the execution
> of the murderer can be related to a _cut on the finger_, making the
> execution "no big deal." Unless you oppose _cuts on the finger_.
One could say this, but not if one were thinking clearly. The double
analogy relies on a pair of comparisons, each restricted to a domain. Thus
I claim that a comparison in the domain of bodily injury informs a
comparison in the domain of public policy. I might have a point or I might
not, but in no case does it make sense to seize hold of one half of the
analogy or to mix the domains.
Is this really unclear to you?
>>Oh, never mind.
>>
> I think you're getting it now.
>
>>> But different strokes for different folks.
>>> Especially those trying to minimize the broken lives that result
>>> from someone committing murder.
>>
>>So when we let the state kill murderers, we fix the broken lives of
>>those near to their victims.
>
> Non sequitur. Who is arguing that ANYTHING can "fix the broken lives
> of those near to those victims"?
You. See above? "trying to minimize the broken lives." This doesn't
really make sense -- imagine my surprise -- since the object of "minimize"
is "lives," but I took it to mean "trying to minimize the brokenness in the
lives" of those close to the victim. The more you minimize brokenness, the
more you fix something.
> You seem to be arguing that NOT
> letting the state kill murderers will fix the broken lives of those
> near to the victims.
No, I'm arguing about the implication "if execution then fixed lives."
This is not logically equivalent to "if no execution then fixed lives."
That is
A=>B <=/=> ~A=>B
That you seem to think otherwise is no reflection on my powers of argument.
>>That really is pathetic. Stick with your self-righteous
>>"consequences" argument.
>
> Well, I'm glad to see I've gotten through to you, and you've started
> to realize the consequences of opposing the death penalty for each
> and every murderer, regardless of how brutal, unrepentant, and
> totally unable to be rehabilitated that murderer is.
This little stump speech begs the question. You assume that we have
determined beyond a mathematical certainty that we've correctly identified
the villains. And who wants to argue for the brutal, unrepentant, and
incorrigible?
>>At least it doesn't project your need for vengeance onto the
>>fmailies of murder victims.
>
> I'm not in it for "vengeance," sport. Don't try to pin your
> pathetic appeal for murderers
Again, assuming that I'm worried about murderers and not those wrongly
convicted.
> onto a claim that I want "vengeance."
> My main reason for supporting the death penalty is my belief it
> saves innocent lives.
Sorry for jumping to that conclusion. It's just that your ministry on
behalf of innocent lives rings hollow when you ignore half the problem.
> That is certainly shown to be true by the
> number of convicted murderers who managed to murder again,
> using YOUR plan to "keep them in prison."
And what number is that?
> It is the job of the U.S. State to seek "vengeance" in the name of any
> victim of murder,
It is? Where is that written?
> through a prosecutorial process of determining
> guilt or innocence, using "human beings" in that determination,
> because that victim cannot speak in his/her own behalf, as victims
> of other crimes can.
This betrays a complete misunderstanding of the criminal justice system,
which exists to determine guilt and mete out punishment in place of private
action. Whether victims can speak on their own behalf or not.
> It is also the job of the U.S. State to protect
> innocent citizens. If it feels it can best accomplish this with the
> use of the death penalty for some small number of murderers why
> should you object if you are not a citizen of that U.S. State?
At one time it was the job some US states to protect white people from the
unfortunate consequences of having to associate with black people in the
public arena. If such states felt it was best to accomplish this with Jim
Crow laws applied to a minority of their populations, why should you object
if you lived above the Mason-Dixon line?
Your next assignment: compartmentalization.
Deadrat
news:tI6dndQXUO6EP23U...@giganews.com:
Thank you. And, aside from unbaised, I'm sure you're also wise,
generous, handsome, and a credit to your family.
I hope it's clear that I don't think that Planet Visitor is evil or
stupid. I don't even claim that he's entirely wrong -- there's no a
priori reason to reject the possibility of a system that reduces the
possiblity of executing an innocent person far below the chance that such
a system will allow a murderer to kill again. I think the practical
obstacles huge; the expense, prohibitive; and the political will, absent.
But the defining such a system isn't of any interest to PV. I suppose he
may think the system is already in place, but he's really interested in
seeing the bad people killed to save the good people.
If PV can't do anything else, at least he can serve as a cautionary
example, and PV turns out to be the poster boy for the abolition of the
death penalty. His arguments beg the question. He's fond of the false
dichotomy, especially in setting up strawmen and imputing manufactured
absurdities to others. He serves up argumenta ad hominem et ad populum,
ad nauseam. (Ad hominem in the rhetorical sense, not the vernacular.)
He's sidetracked by analogies and gets the simplest elements of formal
logic wrong. And there's plenty of the fatuous, irrelevant, and
tangential. (Does it really make a difference if I'm smarter than
Nehru?) And all of this he combines with a dead (pun intended) certainty
of righteousness and contempt for any opposition.
As I said, this doesn't make him evil or stupid. Or unusual. In fact,
his name is legion, and one shudders to think of him and those like him
deliberating as members of a capital jury.
John Rennie
Jim (Planet Visitor) is an essential ingredient of this news group. He
tries, sometimes successfully, to argue for the death penalty. Since
another retentionist died a couple of years ago he's the only one left who
makes a reasonable shot at a difficult task.
>
> But the defining such a system isn't of any interest to PV. I suppose he
> may think the system is already in place, but he's really interested in
> seeing the bad people killed to save the good people.
Actually Jim would like to reduce the number executed but he wouldn't tell
you that.
>
> If PV can't do anything else, at least he can serve as a cautionary
> example, and PV turns out to be the poster boy for the abolition of the
> death penalty. His arguments beg the question. He's fond of the false
> dichotomy, especially in setting up strawmen and imputing manufactured
> absurdities to others. He serves up argumenta ad hominem et ad populum,
> ad nauseam. (Ad hominem in the rhetorical sense, not the vernacular.)
> He's sidetracked by analogies and gets the simplest elements of formal
> logic wrong. And there's plenty of the fatuous, irrelevant, and
> tangential. (Does it really make a difference if I'm smarter than
> Nehru?) And all of this he combines with a dead (pun intended) certainty
> of righteousness and contempt for any opposition.
>
> As I said, this doesn't make him evil or stupid. Or unusual. In fact,
> his name is legion, and one shudders to think of him and those like him
> deliberating as members of a capital jury.
>
Don't agree. I rather have Jim on a jury trying me for whatever than many
that contribute to this news group. His language is often wild and overly
abrasive but I find it fun. By the way you use an awful lot of big
words - very disconcerting:-)
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> As a unbiased referee I award this contest to Deadrat.
It's a near thing, though. Jim has a point but he has spoiled it (as
ever) with straw men, false dilemmas and abusive ad hominems.
The weakest part of Mr Rat's argument is the analogy - analogical
arguments are not sound, logical arguments although they often
illustrate a position.
John Rennie
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <sa...@notinnedmeatdodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1iyo10m.rt8zyk1btnbt5N%sa...@notinnedmeatdodo.com.au...
> John Rennie <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
>> As a unbiased referee I award this contest to Deadrat.
>
> It's a near thing, though. Jim has a point but he has spoiled it (as
> ever) with straw men, false dilemmas and abusive ad hominems.
>
> The weakest part of Mr Rat's argument is the analogy - analogical
> arguments are not sound, logical arguments although they often
> illustrate a position.
And it wouldn't do him any harm to have a read of George Orwell's essay on
the English language. Tough lad tho'.
Deadrat
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:wb3Il.12674$jZ1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> "John Rennie" <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote in
>> news:tI6dndQXUO6EP23U...@giganews.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>>> news:GS0Il.12669$jZ1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>> Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>> news:ctuvu4ljed6v3mc6v...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:03:00 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>>>>news:mrmqu45daju6h3s35...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:16:27 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mike <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>news:c2b4656a-060a-4956...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups
>>>>>>>>.c om
Ah. What about L'il Mikey? Does his Mommy know he's on the computer?
>
>>
>> But the defining such a system isn't of any interest to PV. I
>> suppose he may think the system is already in place, but he's really
>> interested in seeing the bad people killed to save the good people.
>
> Actually Jim would like to reduce the number executed but he wouldn't
> tell you that.
No, I get that. He's convinced that we can tell the *really* bad people
from the merely bad.
>> If PV can't do anything else, at least he can serve as a cautionary
>> example, and PV turns out to be the poster boy for the abolition of
>> the death penalty. His arguments beg the question. He's fond of the
>> false dichotomy, especially in setting up strawmen and imputing
>> manufactured absurdities to others. He serves up argumenta ad
>> hominem et ad populum, ad nauseam. (Ad hominem in the rhetorical
>> sense, not the vernacular.) He's sidetracked by analogies and gets
>> the simplest elements of formal logic wrong. And there's plenty of
>> the fatuous, irrelevant, and tangential. (Does it really make a
>> difference if I'm smarter than Nehru?) And all of this he combines
>> with a dead (pun intended) certainty of righteousness and contempt
>> for any opposition.
>>
>> As I said, this doesn't make him evil or stupid. Or unusual. In
>> fact, his name is legion, and one shudders to think of him and those
>> like him deliberating as members of a capital jury.
>>
>
> Don't agree. I rather have Jim on a jury trying me for whatever than
> many that contribute to this news group.
Must be some newsgroup.
> His language is often wild and overly abrasive but I find it fun.
Well, if fun is your benchmark, OK....
> By the way you use an awful
> lot of big words - very disconcerting:-)
Sorry, a legacy of a youth misspent on education. Which words are
bothering you?
Deadrat
news:1iyo10m.rt8zyk1btnbt5N%sa...@notinnedmeatdodo.com.au:
> John Rennie <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
>> As a unbiased referee I award this contest to Deadrat.
>
> It's a near thing, though. Jim has a point but he has spoiled it (as
> ever) with straw men, false dilemmas and abusive ad hominems.
>
> The weakest part of Mr Rat's argument is the analogy - analogical
> arguments are not sound, logical arguments although they often
> illustrate a position.
There's nothing wrong with an analogical argument, as long as the proposer
is prepared to argue the soundness of the comparisons.
Mine was more of a rhetorical device than an argument.
Deadrat
I've read it (and the rest of Mr. Blair's writing.) I highly recommend
_Down and Out in Paris in London_. But I digress.
The essay in question points out how the use of inapt abstractions and
insidious redefinitions of common terms corrupts language, particularly i
the fields of art and politics. How do you find that apt to the
discussion? Perhaps you merely mean I'm verbose and trite.
Oh, well. Can't please everyone.
Tough lad tho'.
Nah. I cry at weddings.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> "John Rennie" <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote in
> news:cpKdnZEJZ9mKUG3U...@giganews.com:
> Ah. What about L'il Mikey? Does his Mommy know he's on the computer?
He's a kneejerk reactionary but we're trying to educate him...
We have two Mikes (here on a.a.d-p.). Both are conservative, one is an
awfully nice chap and the newer one is the one to whom I think you are
referring.
> > Actually Jim would like to reduce the number executed but he wouldn't
> > tell you that.
>
> No, I get that. He's convinced that we can tell the *really* bad people
> from the merely bad.
That's where it all falls down. There has to be some arbitrary measure
of that or otherwise the judicial process becomes capricious by
definition.
> > Don't agree. I rather have Jim on a jury trying me for whatever than
> > many that contribute to this news group.
> Must be some newsgroup.
It's better than some, especially considering the contentious subject
matter that tends to get lobbed around.
> > His language is often wild and overly abrasive but I find it fun.
>
> Well, if fun is your benchmark, OK....
Why else would one post to a political newsgroup? Do you expect to be
changing the world somehow?
> > By the way you use an awful
> > lot of big words - very disconcerting:-)
>
> Sorry, a legacy of a youth misspent on education. Which words are
> bothering you?
I can't say that I share John's view on that one. Your prose is quite
dense but eminently readable.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
But it is a mighty inductive leap to claim that the real world
necessarily follows from one's analogy in most cases.
> Mine was more of a rhetorical device than an argument.
True enough.
Deadrat
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> "John Rennie" <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote in
>> news:cpKdnZEJZ9mKUG3U...@giganews.com:
>
<snip/>
>> > Don't agree. I rather have Jim on a jury trying me for whatever
>> > than many that contribute to this news group.
>
>> Must be some newsgroup.
>
> It's better than some, especially considering the contentious subject
> matter that tends to get lobbed around.
>
>> > His language is often wild and overly abrasive but I find it fun.
>>
>> Well, if fun is your benchmark, OK....
>
> Why else would one post to a political newsgroup?
Sorry, I was talking about being on a capital jury.
> Do you expect to be changing the world somehow?
Would I waste my time posting to misc.legal if I thought I could change the
world?
<snip/>
John Rennie
your good self.
Mitchell Holman
news:f7738e50-f580-42a1...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 23, 7:47 am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:e773ca5f-3384-44f8-973e-1dd16cc0e
> 9...@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >> >014 956 /
>>
>> >> >> > So liberals want to keep murderers off death row AND they
>> >> >> > want to reduce their sentences.
>>
>> >> >> Oh, it's the "liberals"! Why didn't you say so?
>>
>> >> >> Then, of course, you're right.
>>
>> >> >> (The bill in question requires minors convicted of murder to
>> >> >> serve 25 years to life, but they would be eligible for parole
>> >> >> after 25 years. Those damn liberals!)
>>
>> >> >> <snip/>- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > So you agree.
>>
>> >> That a minor who kills an abusive parent deserves
>> >> something other than a speedy execution?
>>
>> So tell us what YOU want done to a child who
>> kills an abusive parent?
>
> So she claims.
ANY minor who kills an abusive parent.
>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Grant
>
> Was she convicted of first-degree murder? Doesn't look like it.
> Therefore she probably wouldn't get the needle.
>
> But I would've definitely given her more than a year in juvie hall.
> What a joke. She should be shunned like OJ Simpson.
>
> But how fitting that pinko-liberal Massatwoshits accepted her with
> open arms.
>
You are the one claiming killers will kill
again. Well, who else did she kill?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > The stupid liberals are working hard to keep murderers
>> >> > alive and back on the streets?
Like James Hamm?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/13/60II/main649084.shtml
Planet Visitor II
>Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>news:l24tu49j7vdk37f40...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:53:39 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>news:dtlqu4lcua2dhhuai...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:41:08 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mike <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:008bd5c5-d5a0-44d9-b963-
>>>>>8621f9...@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 20, 6:49 pm, necromancer - ECHM
>>>>>> <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:43:55 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> > All the innocent people freed from death row were sent
>>>>>>> >there because of "compelling evidence".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a proposal for, "Mike," and, "Wayne:" Let's implement
>>>>>>> their idea with one provision: if it is ever determined that an
>>>>>>> innocant person was executed, they ("they," being Mike and Wayne)
>>>>>>> are automatically guilty of that person's murder and are to be
>>>>>>> given a, "speedy execution." Should they already be dead, their
>>>>>>> surviving spouse/children or other relative takes the needle in
>>>>>>> their place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> "Capital punishment: them without the capital get the
>>>>>>> punishment."
>>>>>> --John Spenkelink
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, if a convicted murderer ends up killing another person we
>>>>>> can have you to hold responsible as well.
>>>>>> Got it?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I don't get it. No one suggests that convicted murderers simply
>>>>>be released if they can't be executed.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you don't get it. There's a reason for that... it's
>>>> called "selective thinking" See -
>>>> http://skepdic.com/selectiv.html
>>>
>>>Sure, and while you're at it, look up "projection."
>>
>> You seem to be a person in denial, my son.
>
>I'll say it again, Daddy. Look up "projection."
Been there... don't project your anger onto me, my son.
>>>> You don't like to think about the consequences of your viewpoint,
>>>> believing that as a result of your objections to the death penalty
>>>> it never happens that a convicted murderer will murder again.
>>>
>>>Please stop telling me what and how I think.
>>
>> Proving my point. You ARE in denial.
>
>First, if you have to declare yourself the victor in an argument, you
>probably aren't.
Spoken like a true loser. Keep in mind that "probably" declaring
me the loser, and thus you the victor, shows you're probably not.
You actually need to win an argument to be the victor. It's not
enough to twist in the wind and claim I'm "probably" the loser.
Let's recap --- you said that "No one suggests that convicted
murderers simply be released if they can't be executed." But
what you might "want" and what you actually "get" is murderers
being released and murdering again. [1] So you are accepting that
murderers will statistically be released and murder again. Proof
by example in my reference [1].
Notice the difference in my argument in which I recognize what
I can possibly "get" in supporting the death penalty as it exists
even with its extensive due process in the U.S. What I can _possibly_
"get" is the execution of an innocent. Why are you incapable
of admitting that what you "get" is not what you "want"?
>Secondly, if all you've got for rebuttal is amateur
>psychological analysis of your opponent, you definintely aren't.
A silly presumption that argues psychology plays no role in
arguments. If someone is behaving abnormally in any ongoing
dialog it is not only fair, but the absolute responsibility of the
other to point out the behavioral, cognitive and sociocultural
perspectives of that person seem to rule out the possibility of any
rational discussion of those differences of opinions. I suspect that
you just don't like confronting your own demons.
Your suggestion that this not be discussed is typical "avoidant
syndrome." More properly termed "Avoidant Personality Disorder."
Of course with only the limited amount of information available
to me, your comments suggest you have only a rather mild form of that
personality disorder. However, this psychological disorder manifests
itself out of fear of rejection. Having as its essential feature a
hypersensitivity to any hint of rejection. You need to be reassured
again and again of your worth. You want to be validated and accepted,
but fear you will not be. Thus you practically fall over backwards
when someone seems to accept your line of reasoning (always another
fanatic abolitionist), and grow very angry when confronted by anyone
who does not accept it. You can be sure that I have no fear of
rejection since I have been practically rejected by all abolitionists
because they cannot handle my arguments, and at one time or
another put into their killfiles, like ostriches because they would
rather not witness my rebuttal. I suspect that some of them are bound
to fall in behind you like neat little soldier marching for murderers.
>>> I've weighed the
>>>possibility that murderers will kill again against the possibility
>>>that the state will abuse its power and that human error will kill
>>>innocents. I've made my choice based humanity's experience with the
>>>state and the US experience with the death penalty. I'll suggest you
>>>can make your own ethical choices without second guessing mine.
>>
>> Then why did you bother to second guess Mike's ethical choices?
>
>Wow! How clueless can you get?
That's actually trying to avoid the question. And suggests exactly
what I have said. That you grow angry and offer childish insults
when confronted by anyone who rejects your arguments.
> I'll type this reaaaal slowly so you can
>follow.
See above.
>I'm not "second guessing" anyone's ethical choices; I'm
>disagreeing with them. In other words, I'm not interested in anyone's
>motivations for his choices; I'm interested in logic and evidence.
There is no logic and evidence behind your "second guessing" of
Mike. There was only your crude dismissal of his logical argument.
Insisting what you "want" while oblivious to the fact of what you
"get" when your agenda is implemented. You may not "want"
murderers to be released to murder again... but that's what happens
in a great number of cases. For example -- [1]
If someone wants to blame retentionists for the extremely remote
possibility that an innocent might be executed, it is fair to argue
that abolitionists should be blamed for the possibility that an
innocent might be murdered by an already convicted murderer
sentenced to what an abolitionist insists is an infallibly _safe and
secure_ sentence to prison for life.
This was Mike's point. And it is a valid point given there is no
_proof_ of an innocent having been executed in the U.S.
post-Gregg v. Georgia (you do know of Gregg v. Georgia,
don't you?).
While there is overwhelming proof of murderers sentenced to
life in prison having murdered AFTER being sentenced to life in prison
post-Gregg v. Georgia [1]. A sentence abolitionists support in the
U.S. criminal justice, just as retentionists support the death penalty
as a concept in the U.S. criminal justice system.
In fact, not even addressing the release of those murderers who
murdered again, there were a total of 116 murders committed in prison
from 1993 until 1999. Given that more than just a few of those
murders must have been committed by already convicted murderers, it
adds up to far more innocents murdered in prison by murderers
sentenced to what abolitionists argue is a _safe alternative sentence_
to the death penalty, then any claims of "innocents" having been
executed.
>> Or is this another of those "do what I say... not what I do"? In
>> case you're unfamiliar with this group, it is about the death penalty.
>> And the purpose is to second guess those having different ethical
>> views on the death penalty.
>
>Thanks for sharing. You and your "group" can play with yourselves all you
>want in analyzing others' psychological makeup. If that's all you've got,
>fine: I can accept that.
>
But all you've got is trying to dismiss your psychological makeup,
while offering nothing in the way of a successful argument. Why is it
not reasonable for me to note that you appear quite overly aggressive,
showing symptoms of anger? Certainly I've noticed in all your
comments that you have no desire to discuss issues but instead need to
vent with anyone who disagrees with your view, plus fawning over
anyone (always a fellow abolitionist) who happens to agree with you
while also ignoring what abolitionists "get" in supporting prison for
life v. the death penalty for convicted murderers.
>> In this way we hope to gain a better
>> insight into the use of the death penalty in the U.S.
>
>Whatever floats your boat. I prefer logic and evidence to gain insight,
>but YMMV.
Saying you "prefer logic and evidence" while not providing any doesn't
really float my boat. While your anger by way of insult is highly
suggestive that you're using that anger to cover up your lack of
"logic and evidence."
>> I have a suspicion that you don't have a clue about ethics in general.
>
>Of course you do. You're all about the arguer, not the argument.
LOL. And your argument has been???? Let me repeat it -- "No one
suggests that convicted murderers simply be released if they can't be
executed." You may not "suggest" it because you're in denial that it
happens. As I said... you may not "want" it or "suggest" it, but
what you "get" is some murderers being released. And murdering
again!!!
> So if I
>come to a different ethical position than you, there's no chance that I'm
>mistaken or ignorant, there must be something wrong with me.
There's something amiss with the methods you use which is indicative
of a lack of ethics and practical rationality. Decisions, reasons,
and rationality are all part of ethical behavior. The kind of
responsiveness you offer in a lack of "logic and evidence" leaves
much to be desired. I doubt whether you're ignorant. But you are a
form of a fanatic, blind to facts, making it impossible for you to see
what you "get" in your agenda. It's easy enough for you to NOW say
that it's all a "different ethical position," now that you find
yourself unable to provide "logic and evidence" which would
substantiate that presumed "ethical position." It's easy to claim you
have the _high road_ in an "ethical position." But "logic and
evidence" are lacking in any practical rationality you might claim is
part of your line of reasoning, given your line of reasoning appears
rather acratic on the face of it, switching from one _objective_ to
another, when one of those objectives is shown to be flawed.
As I see it, rationality has two forms : practical rationality and
belief rationality (there is another form considered as _instrumental
rationality_, but that is more complex and irrelevant to this
comment). The practical form which you avoid is based
upon that _logic and evidence_. While belief rationality is based
more upon subjective opinions which lack proof. That
is the rationality that you practice. There can be a unified
treatment of both if it is recognized that they are different. But
if one side in a polemic ignores the consequences of one, and looks
only at _belief rationality_ that polemic is certain to disintegrate
into insults.
For example... you form your several beliefs in defiance of the
evidence. This is obviously _belief rationality_, based more upon
_faith_ than anything else. Now suppose I recognize this. Is it fair
that I can't mention how you have formed your line of reasoning? To
insist that this is somehow verboten exhibits a bit of irrationality
on your part in retaining your beliefs while denying what they
obviously entail using practical rationality. Defects of this kind
are still defects because it is important to recognize when beliefs
are not being responsive to reason.
You were the one who first presumed you were making "ethical
choices," and I was "second guessing" them. Yet you still seem
unable to show why your choice of saving the lives of each and
every murderer is an "ethical choice." Now if you mean you
-think- it is an "ethical choice," that's another story. If you
dismiss as irrelevant the fact that murderers not executed have
committed murder after murder even after being sentenced to
life in prison, then you can subjectively claim anything you wish,
and not be arguing "logic and evidence." That is _belief
rationality_.
Yet you presume there is an OBJECTIVITY to abolition being
an ethical choice, even though you lack the "logic and evidence"
necessary to prove that. Such _belief rationality_ is always a
subjective choice. I don't claim there is an objectivity to retention
being an "ethical choice." It is MY choice... and in my subjective
belief it is ethical, but that has no objective meaning. However; I
am the one providing "logic and evidence" by way of _practical
rationality_ showing facts of murderers sentenced to life in prison
who have murdered time and time again [1]. While you have
some shaky cases in which I would not have voted for the death
penalty in any case, which you claim "prove" an innocent has been
executed.
>And from
>there it's an easy leap from one character fault to another. Whaddya
>figure -- I cheat on my taxes and my wife?
As I've always said... confession is good for the soul.
>>>> With
>>>> you it's cut and dried that the life of the murderer is all that is
>>>> important to you, and your sole objective is to save that life at
>>>> ALL COSTS!!!
>>>
>>>No, for you it's cut and dried that we can trust human beings to
>>>determine who murderers are and the state not to abuse its power to
>>>kill them.
>>
>> So you're "second-guessing" me. Chee... and you just insisted
>> that I stop "second-guessing" you.
>
>Your *argument* requires that you trust the state enough in its operation
>to determine who the murderers are. From there it's possible to examine
>evidence about the trustworthiness of the state in this and other
>endeavors.
>
The criminal justice system requires that the state be trusted enough
in its operation to determine who ALL criminal are. Murderers in the
sense of the determination of guilt or innocence are not judged any
differently... all convictions for all criminals requires "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt." If you don't trust the state to do that,
then your argument must be to not only abolish the death penalty,
but the entire justice system.
We also know that actual guilt has nothing to do with anything in the
Justice System, since guilt is predicated upon that "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt." Should "actual guilt" be the criteria for
a finding of guilty, we could convict no one, since unfortunately, we
are not omniscient. Nor is that human limited requirement of proof in
any way associated with the death penalty. It is determined totally
outside of the death penalty, using a jury of peers, a sitting judge,
and decades of due process. Only AFTER the determination of
guilt or innocence does the process of assigning punishment for
the guilty begin. So apparently you do trust the human element of
the U.S. criminal justice system to determine guilt or innocence.
Thus your argument about _innocent people being executed_ is
just a smoke screen for your real argument that you don't CARE
about guilt or innocence of a convicted murderer.
The death penalty is a settled issue in the U.S. It is not cruel or
unusual punishment, nor does the constitution prohibit it. These
are not my opinions, but settled facts in both U.S. law and our
constitution. The separate states are tasked with determining
the punishment for crimes committed in violation of the criminal
statutes of those separate states.
>I suppose I've leapt to a conclusion here. It's possible that you're ready
>to concede that the state is continually sloppy and negligent, and that
>makes no difference to you. If so, I apologize.
1) FACT: The death penalty is not responsible for finding guilt or
innocence. FACT: Finding guilt or innocence is part of the "trial
phase." FACT: Determining punishment is part of the "sentencing
phase." Try to learn the difference. FACT: As with all criminal
trials, guilt is presumed, when a jury and due process find it in
"proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
2) FACT: Any sentence of an innocent to prison, even overnight, can
result in an innocent dying in prison. FACT: It happens quite
frequently when an innocent man is convicted and not placed on a
suicide watch during his first few days in prison. Obviously, the
death penalty has nothing to do with that innocent dying in prison,
yet it happens, and obviously happens far more frequently than any
claim, however outrageous, of the presumed number of innocents having
been executed in 30 year. Since you accept the determination of guilt
or innocence in the criminal justice system, it's logical you accept
that this can result in a death at the hands of the state. FACT:
Since the state was responsible for creating the situation which
resulted in that death.
3) The possibility of an innocent being sentenced to a penalty other
than the death penalty and dying of a natural death in prison is far
larger than the possibility of an innocent being executed. Yet no one
suggests abolishing the justice system because of that greater
possibility of convicting an innocent person, and him/her dying in
prison.
4) I find it bizarre to consider closing one small, very small,
possibility, only to keep all true murderers alive, while ignoring
every one of the greater possibilities of an innocent dying in prison.
The argument, like the argument about the cost of the death penalty,
is a strawman.
>> And you're denying that the life of the murderer means something to
>> you, and denying your only objective is to save that life at ALL
>> COSTS!!! ROTFLMAO.
>
>The life of a murderer I don't know doesn't mean very much more to me than
>the life of anyone else I don't know. The death of the murderer at the
>hands of the state means living in a society I find less attractive and
>more dangerous.
So your "ethics" insists you will "sacrifice" the victims of convicted
murderers who murder again, such as Kenneth McDuff, in order to
satisfy you not liking living in such a society. I would think that
your subjective "ethics," would find it more reasonable to relocate
to a State which does not have the death penalty. And stop being
angry at those who find it more attractive and less dangerous to live
in a State which has a death penalty as fair as the U.S. with it's
extensive due process. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/DeathPenalty.html
> My objective is not to save a life at all or even ALL
>costs, but to prevent a death at the hands of the state. Why that seems
>hysterically funny to you is beyond me.
Oh, my. That deserves to be repeated!!! Your "objective" is
"not to save a life at all... but to prevent a death at the
hands of the state." Make a note of your "objective" because
there will be a question and answer period later.
However; it does seem counterproductive to me, when you trade 100
innocent lives for one guilty murderer that you want to prevent
being executed at the hands of the state. Plus it seems you've
changed your argument. Before it was all about the possibility
of the execution of an "innocent," and then your support for
"wanting" a murderer to never murder again, but "getting" quite a
few examples of murderers who murder again [1]. Now you
insist your objective is not to save a life.
Now you don't care if they are guilty as sin... you don't care if they
murder again after being convicted of another murder. You're just
interested in "feeling good about yourself."
So here's my question... in the form of a thought experiment, and I'll
be repeating it until I get an answer, because now we've reached the
heart of your "objective."
Which do you believe is the greater evil???
1) The murder of an innocent victim by a wrongly released murderer
at "the hands of that murderer."
2) The execution of a murderer at "the hands of the state" preventing
that wrong release which led to the murder of an innocent victim.
>> But let me get this straight... you don't trust human beings to
>> determine who murderers are. So essentially you don't trust
>> human beings to determine who criminals are, and thus you support
>> abolishing the justice system and not punish anyone because you
>> personally can't "trust human beings."
>
>My trust in human beings is inversely proportional to the amount of
>irrevocable harm they might cause.
>
As I've said... you're a very angry young man. Almost a sociopath
in the way you argue how much you oppose other humans.
>But, of course, instead of dealing with the argument that I actually make,
>you'd rather argue against a strawman of your own devising.
A very angry young man, having now changed your "argument,"
which still leaves a lot to be desired in what you insist is "logic
and evidence." I certainly don't see how it's "logical," to trade
hundreds of innocent lives to save one murderer. Nor do I see
any real "evidence" that an innocent has EVER been executed
in the U.S. post-Gregg. Instead you've switched your argument
to one of opposing "death at the hands of the State." Yet
the State is responsible for many deaths... not just the exercise
of the death penalty where it is permitted in criminal statutes.
What about law enforcement encountering someone holding
another as hostage during a robbery. I suppose you believe
the police should instead be armed with the Brady bill.
>> I don't see how you can say you don't trust human beings
>> to determine who murderers are, but you do trust human
>> beings to determine who criminals other than murderers
>> are.
>
>I'm guessing you see just fine.
>
As you say.... you're just "guessing." Is that part of your
"logic and evidence" argument?
>> So you must be in favor of abolishing the entire
>> criminal justice system, because human beings make
>> mistakes.. we are fallible... and our criminal justice system
>> is likewise fallible.
>
>Or course, and that's why it's a good thing for fallible beings to reduce
>the fatal harm they might cause.
>
But that is what is happening in the use of the death penalty in
the U.S. I've provided the evidence. All you've done is complain
about how you don't trust your fellow human beings. While
the problem is your argument doesn't actual "reduce the fatal
harm" that murderers can cause if they are not executed. The
trick is to not put EVERY murderer in the same category. What
I believe is that not every murderer should escape suffering the loss
of his own life at the hands of the state, and not every murderer
should suffer the loss of his own life at the hands of the state.
Seems _even-handed_ to me.
>> Fallible not only with determining the guilt or innocence of
>> murderers, but determining the guilt or innocent of anyone
>> brought before the criminal justice system for prosecution.
>> Having had evidence obtained by human beings we call
>> "law enforcement." Determined prosecution is appropriate
>> by human beings we call "prosecutors." Obtained a true bill
>> of indictment by human beings we call a "grand jury." And
>> brought to trial to determine guilt or innocence by human beings
>> we call a "judge and jury."
>
>Thanks for sharing.
>
Is that some of your "logic and evidence" argument??
>> Personally, in general I do trust human beings when it comes
>> to the U.S. criminal justice system. I have to trust the criminal
>> justice system or I am left with only the belief that there should be
>> no criminal justice system. Oh, Brave New World... packrat
>> insists we should abolish the entire criminal justice system. That
>> would certainly save a lot of money up-front... no criminal lawyers,
>> no judges, no prisons... just a bunch of crazy murderers running
>> loose. Of course that's the price to pay at the back end... those
>> crazy murderers.
>
>Look up false dichotomy. I've never heard anyone opposed to the death
>penalty argue for the abolition of the entire justice system.
But you don't trust human beings. How can you possibly support any
part of the criminal justice system, since human beings are
responsible for determining guilt or innocence?
> Even though
>human beings are fallible, sometimes they must be trusted. I've trusted
>surgeons. The answer isn't yes or no, trust in everything or not at all.
>It's how far to trust.
>
You keep shifting the goal posts. Now you want to _trust them just
a little bit_.
Let me repeat --
1) FACT: The death penalty is not responsible for finding guilt or
innocence. FACT: Finding guilt or innocence is part of the "trial
phase." FACT: Determining punishment is part of the "sentencing
phase." Try to learn the difference. FACT: As with all criminal
trials, guilt is presumed, when a jury and due process find it in
"proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
2) FACT: Any sentence of an innocent to prison, even overnight, can
result in an innocent dying in prison. It happens quite frequently
when an innocent man is convicted and not placed on a suicide watch
during his first few days in prison. Obviously, the death penalty has
nothing to do with that innocent dying in prison, yet it happens, and
obviously happens far more frequently than any claim, however
outrageous, of the presumed number of innocents having been executed
in 30 year.
If you trust the criminal justice system _just a little bit_, it's
obvious that you are trusting that system with the life of someone,
since people die in prison. People you presume are innocent.
So why not strip away all the phoniness from your argument, and
go back to what you really mean? -- these were your words, and
this is your objective -- "My objective is not to save a life at all
or even ALL costs, but to prevent a death at the hands of the state."
Life is not important to you in your own words regarding your
objective in this argument. Your objective is only to prevent a
death at the hands of the state. Yet you ignore the thousands
upon thousands of other deaths at the hands of the state.
As it shows, you would trade a hundred lives of innocent victims
to prevent a death at the hands of the state. Yet that hand of the
state causes innumerable deaths in other ways. Innocents dying
in prison. Doctors given licenses by the state and "burying
their mistakes." Law enforcement given permission by the
state to use deadly force on certain occasions. Airline pilots given
licenses to fly hundred of passengers. Operators of motor vehicles
responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year, yet you trust
the state to give permission to human beings to operate motor
vehicles. Apparently you do trust the state when it comes to other
ways they don't bother to prevent deaths at the hands of the state.
If a convicted murderer is released at "the hands of the state," and
murders again how does that prevent deaths? After all, you do
support the State putting murderers in prison, don't you? After all,
you do support the State determining how long any criminal, including
murderers, will stay in prison. Or do you insist you will usurp
the powers of the State yet again, and demand the State NEVER
release any murderer? And NEVER permit the possibility of
a murderer murdering again by demanding ALL murderers stay
in 24/7 solitary confinement for the rest of their lives?
Once again ---
Which do you believe is the greater evil???
1) The murder of an innocent victim by a wrongly released murderer
at "the hands of that murderer."
2) The execution of a murderer at "the hands of the state" preventing
that wrong release which led to the murder of an innocent victim.
>>>> Yet no one can escape the consequences of his choices.
>>>
>>>People escape the consequences of their choices all the time. What
>>>color is the sky in your world?
>>
>> “It is only too easy to make suggestions and later try to escape the
>> consequences of what we say” -- Jawaharlal Nehru
>>
>> Of course you claim you're smarter than he was. Or is it just
>> that you're duplicitous?
>
>Again. My argument stands or falls on its logic and evidence. No matter
>how smart I am or how hubristic or how duplicitous. (Although I don't know
>how you figure those latter two are antonyms.)
>
The terms are not mutually exclusive. A pathologic personality can
have excessive self-confidence while also being duplicitous. We know
of one rather infamous person who suffered from both disorders to
a degree that turned him into a egomaniacal psychopath. Don't
twist this to claiming I'm insisting you have a pathological
personality, I'm only disagreeing with your comment claiming I felt
that hubris and duplicitous were antonyms. They can exist together
or separately in any person, or not exist at all in some people. But
let's not attempt to be pedantic.
>You said that no one can escape the consequences of his choices. In my
>experience that happens all the time. Nehru said that people *try* to
>escape the consequences of their choices. I fail to see how that
>contradicts my claim that they sometimes succeed. Or why this topic is
>relevant to the argument.
It's relevant because I believe you have been using anger to avoid the
consequences of your subjective ethical choice. You continue to
avoid like the plague the "logic and evidence" I have provided
concerning the number of murderers sentenced to life in prison who
have gone on to murder time and time again [1] You stopped arguing
about "innocents," and now are insisting that you don't care about
life at all in your agenda. Only that you don't want to be part of a
state that permits death at the hands of the state. But death is a
natural consequence of all biological life, including human beings.
>>>> You would save a murderer's life regardless of the consequences of
>>>> your choice.
>>>
>>>And your point?
>>
>> Is English your mother tongue? My point is exactly what I said --
>> "You would save a murderer's life regardless of the consequences of
>> your choice." Of course you admit to that, so there is no need for me
>> to belabor the point.
>
>And mine is that this point is null. Everyone should realize that they
>must accept the logical consequences of their choices. So what?
But that's my point. I don't see any "logic" behind saving the
life of a murderer at the expense of 100 innocent victims. It's
only... as you pointed out... your hubris. Let's see... your basic
argument is now that you oppose the death penalty "to prevent
a death at the hands of the state." So is there any point at
which you would support a death at the hands of the state?
How many innocent lives would it take for you to "support a
death at the hands of the state"?
Thus... Once again ---
Which do you believe is the greater evil???
1) The murder of an innocent victim by a wrongly released murderer
at "the hands of that murderer."
2) The execution of a murderer at "the hands of the state" preventing
that wrong release which led to the murder of an innocent victim.
>>>You would sacrifice an innocent's life regardless of the
>>>consequences of your own.
>>
>> If you support the criminal justice system, so would you. Any
>> innocent man who dies in prison has had his life sacrificed. Please
>> don't tell me you've never heard of an innocent man dying in
>> prison?
>
>And I've seen them freed. I've never seen an executed man brought back to
>life.
Ah... and there's the rub. You've also never seen an executed
murderer ever murder again. Nor have you ever seen a victim of
a murderer brought back to life. Death is the final chapter... in
this particular case for both the victim of murder, and the murderer,
if he suffers "death at the hands of the state." But ALWAYS
the final chapter without trial, appeal or due process in the case of
the victim of murder.
>> Let's cut to the chase. You have no problem with an innocent man
>> DYING in prison.
>
>Ooh! Is DYING worse than dying?
A very angry young man. Of course, I believe you do find one dying
worse than another. You find dying at the hands of an individual
is less important than dying "at the hands of the state." Since
you've insisted your agenda is "not to save a life at all... but to
prevent a death at the hands of the state." Carrying your _objective_
to a reductio ad absurdum, it means you'd rather murderers murder
everyone, rather than one murderer suffer "death of the hands of the
state." Since you're not interested in _saving a life_ but in
preventing the _death of a murderer at the hands of the state_.
And it rather conflicts with your original claim that "No one suggests
that convicted murderers simply be released if they can't be
executed." Because given the only two choices between releasing a
murderer to murder again, or executing him at "the hands of the
state," you would choose to release him. Because to you, your
new _objective_ is NOT to "save a life at all... but to prevent a
death at the hands of the state."
>You'd like to impute to me the argument that if we can't trust the state
>for perfection, then we can't trust the state to do anything.
No. Your objective, in your own words is -- "My objective is not to
save a life at all or even ALL costs, but to prevent a death at the
hands of the state." Obviously, while there is no real "proof" of any
execution of an innocent post-Gregg, there is substantial proof of
innocents who die in prison. The state has essentially been
responsible for the death of that innocent. So I fail to see how you
can support the state sending an innocent person to die in prison,
by supporting the criminal justice system at all.
> Because that's an argument you could actually win.
Surprise!!
> But the equivalent argument is
>that as long as we can't trust the state for perfection, we might as well
>trust the state in everything.
Rubbish. If you are robbed, that is sufficient "logic and evidence"
to never trust that person again. While if you are not robbed by
someone, that is no reason to trust that person implicitly with
everything.
>Try to concentrate. This is about trusting the state to make certain
>decisions.
>
Yes... in your words -- "to prevent a death at the hands of the
state." Yet, you are willing to accept the possibility of death at
the hands of the state in certain cases, and reject it in other
cases. While in all of those cases, there is the possibility of death
at the hands of the state.
>> You just don't want the State to execute anyone... innocent or guilty.
>
>Your argument presumes that the state can reliably determine the
>difference.
Your argument concedes that as far as your subjective ethics is
concerned the state can reliably determine the difference between
guilt and innocence in the criminal justice system. So you support
the state possibly sending an innocent man to prison for life, but
oppose the state executing any murderer. Go figure....
>> At the least you should be honest with your
>> motives if you expect any credibility.
>
>From whom? You? You can't put together an argument with analyzing me.
>
A very angry young man.
>> We don't easily abide fools or knaves in this group.
>
>Bwahahahahahaha! A fool tells me he doesn't easily abide fools.
>Priceless.
A very, very angry fool of a young man. And showing signs of
being a knave in changing his argument from sentence to sentence.
Let's stick with your basic definition of your objective -- "My
objective is not to save a life at all or even ALL costs, but to
prevent a death at the hands of the state." So you don't CARE
if innocent lives are lost, but only care about preventing "a death at
the hands of the state."
Thus... Once again ---
Which do you believe is the greater evil???
1) The murder of an innocent victim by a wrongly released murderer
at "the hands of that murderer."
2) The execution of a murderer at "the hands of the state" preventing
that wrong release which led to the murder of an innocent victim.
I defy you to look at your stated _objective_ and pick one.
>>>> Now face it like a man, and recognize that in supporting abolition
>>>> you must also bear the following consequences -- See --
>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
>>>
>>>Of course. And your point?
>>
>> My point is that "you must also bear the following consequences."
>> Since you agreed, using your own words "of course," it's rather
>> obvious you recognized what my point was. Or do you agree
>> with whatever happens to pass your mind without grasping WHY
>> you agree? It seems your stock answer to everything is your admission
>> that you can't grasp a simple point.
>
>As irony meters explode everywhere. See above why your point is trivial
>and fatuous.
>
Oh, my... look at all that anger explode! Now you no longer claim
to be confused about my point, but insist it is trivial and fatuous.
>>>> And so many more....
>>>>
>>>> The only consequence that I face, as a supporter of the death
>>>> penalty in the extremely small number of the most violent, vicious,
>>>> and clearly guilty murderers I support being executed, is the
>>>> almost mathematically impossible execution of an innocent.
>>>
>>>You accuse me of selective thinking but you, yourself believe that you
>>>can prove "mathematically" that we don't execute innocents.
>>
>> I didn't say that. I said "in the extremely small number of the
>> violent, vicious, and clearly guilty murderers I support being
>> executed," it is almost mathematically impossible that an innocent
>> has been executed.
>
>Could I see the calculations?
Read the trial transcripts and the fact there was an open trial and
12 jurors agreed unanimously with the verdict and sentence. That
they might _change their minds now_, is only indicative of media
pressure and insults from anti-DP fruitcakes and organizations such as
DPIC. Keep in mind while they were sequestered and were only
dispassionately viewing the evidence outside of any external
influence, they all agreed.
>> Follow along now. As an abolitionist. you MUST oppose each
>> and every execution of any murderer, REGARDLESS of how
>> _violent, vicious, and clearly guilty_ such a murderer might be. On
>> the other hand, I need only support hardly any executions of
>> murderers. All I have to do is support the execution of THOSE
>> I find absolutely unequivocally guilty, and in my mind deserved of
>> execution, while having the utmost fear that in not executing them
>> we face the almost certain possibility that they will murder again
>> given the slightest opportunity. In other words, I can easily state,
>> and I do, that I wish we executed ONLY those of that kind.
>> About one or two out of every five we now execute.
>
>At least we've got an answer now: 10-20 percent.
I've never claimed otherwise. That you were unaware of my position is
irrelevant, since you oppose ANY "death at the hands of the state."
This is the only controversy in play. You oppose all "death at the
hands of the state," while I only need to support a single "death at
the hands of the state," to place our differences into focus.
> But you didn't show your work.
You really expect me to go down the list of 1,156 convicted murderers
executed since Gregg v. Georgia, and pick out 231 that I support
having been executed? Why not make it easier? Tell me why you
oppose the execution of Kenneth McDuff or John Wayne Gacy or
Ted Bundy or Theodore Frank or Randy Geenawalt or Kevin Michael
Watts or Robert Lee Massie or Jarmarr Arnold or Alvin Andrew Kelly or
Daniel Harold Rolling or Bennie Eddie Demps or Corey Duane Hamilton or
Tomas Grant Ervin or Michael Bruce Ross or Daniel Joe Hittle or Dennis
Wayne Bagwell or Arthur Julius or Charles Wesley Roache or Dawud
Mu'Min or Jessy Carlos San Miguel or Daniel Keith Rich or Arthur Gary
Bishop or William George Bonin or Carroll Cole or Daniel Henry
Gaskins?
Oh, that's right... the lives of their victims are unimportant to you
as long as their death doesn't come at the hands of the state.
> But I'm sure everyone is glad that we have you to find people
>"absolutely unequivocally guilty." What would we do without a mind so
>great he knows who is deserving of execution and who will certainly kill
>again? You must be very busy.
I suppose you believe that is part of your "logic and evidence"
argument. Why are you so angry?
>> And I do not support the execution of many of those we have
>> executed. While on the other hand, I clearly support the death
>> penalty as a "concept" employed in the U.S. criminal justice system.
>> Whether you understand this or not makes no difference to me,
>
>And yet here you are. Windmilling away, speculating on my character, if
>not my argument.
>
Your character is open to question since you admit that your
"objective is not to save a life at all."
>> because I'm sure you've encounter situations where you believe
>> some "criminals" are guilty and deserve "punishment" other than
>> the death penalty, and feel others (convicted of crimes other than
>> capital murder) have been wrongly convicted, aside from the
>> death penalty as a separate issue.
>
>Of course I do. I just understand that I would no more trust my feelings
>than I would anyone else's when it comes to killing someone.
Now it's my turn. What's your point??? Since your _objective_
is "not to save a life."
>> I find it hard to believe that in spite of believing that some
>> innocents have been convicted of crimes other than murder
>> you support abolishing the entire criminal justice system.
>
>And, of course, you should find it hard to believe that. Since it's
>entirely a figment of your imagination.
>
No proof offered. Your claim fails (courtesy of Mr Crowley, an
abolitionist).
>> In any case, you certainly can't complain that we've executed as
>> many innocents as we have found _actual murderers_ not
>> guilty.
>
>Hard to say. I don't know the conviction rate for murder. You might want
>to practice saying the first sentence in this paragraph.
Well, the conviction rate for those accused of murder is 70%. Thus
three out of every ten accused murderers are acquitted. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist to suspect that many of those 3 out of 10 were
acquitted not because they were TRULY innocent, but because
there was insufficient "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." If you're
going to argue the "possibility" of a convicted murderer being
TRULY innocent, you also need to accept the "possibility" of an
acquitted murderer being TRULY guilty. You can't have your
cake and eat it too.
>> Because we have a justice system that argues we
>> should allow 10 guilty to go free rather than convict one
>> innocent. Or would you rather a justice system that does
>> NOT have a death penalty, but allows 1 guilty to go free for
>> every 10 innocents convicted?
>
>Another figment of your imagination?
>
You have this habit of not answering questions. Could that be
part of your attempt to ignore the "consequences" of your
agenda?
>>> Did you factor
>>>Texas into your calculations?
>>
>> I only factor those murderers I feel should be executed into
>> my calculations. Did you factor Kenneth McDuff into your
>> calculations? See --
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Allen_McDuff
>> So much for your lack of faith in human beings sitting on a jury
>> determining who deserves to be executed and is positively guilty.
>> Good ol' Ken McDuff beat the system, after human beings on
>> the jury sentenced him to death. He still managed to work
>> his way out of prison and murder about a dozen more victims.
>> I suppose you feel he got a bum deal the second time, and
>> still oppose his execution because _he might be innocent_.
>
>I oppose the death penalty because I think its unjust in its total
>operation. I don't think killing McDuff justifies the deaths of the people
>I've listed previously.
>
In other words you believe not killing McDuff justifies the deaths
of Colleen Reed, Melissa Ann Northrup, Brenda Thompson, Reginia
Moore, Valencia Kay Joshua, and certainly a few more.
>>>> I accept that consequence... so why are you such a coward
>>>> that you cannot accept the consequences of your choice?
>>>
>>>If your only argument is that I'm a coward for opposing your point of
>>>view, there's not much rationality to your point of view.
>>
>> So you do accept the consequences of your view being responsible
>> for each and every murder committed by a previously convicted
>> murderer. See --
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
>
>You seem to think this fatuous statement is very telling since you keep
>repeating it.
>
That's because my original comment holds true. You refuse to even
look at the "consequences" that arise from your agenda.
>>>> Planet Visitor II
>>>> http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
>>>>
>>>> “It is only too easy to make suggestions and later try to escape the
>>>> consequences of what we say” -- Jawaharlal Nehru
>>>
>>>I've given you a list of the executed who almost certainly should have
>>>been found not guilty and who in all probability were innocent. Why
>>>not write a little sermon to their families about your mathematical
>>>proof of your position? Be sure to quote Nehru.
>>
>> The fact is that every person on your "list," is a murderer whose
>> execution I did not support, regardless of my belief that they were
>> all guilty. To qualify for execution as I see it, a convicted
>> murderer must go far beyond the bounds of the murders your
>> "examples" committed.
>>
>> I certainly support the execution of any murderer who was
>> previously convicted of a murder, was ultimately released and
>> yet murdered again. I generally support the execution of serial
>> murderers. I generally support the execution of pedophile
>> murderers such as Theodore Frank -- See --
>> http://www.wtv-zone.com/LadyMaggie/php/AmySueStory.html
>> I never support the execution of a murderer who has committed
>> murder in a crime of passion, and has never murdered before.
>> I never support the execution of a murderer who killed a single
>> family member or friend during a drunken fight, without any actual
>> intent behind it. I never support the execution of an abused spouse
>> if sufficient evidence is present to prove such abuse. I never
>> support the execution of someone who commits a murder while
>> under the age of 18. I never support the execution of any
>> murderer who committed murder without malice aforethought.
>> I generally don't even support the execution of a murderer who was
>> robbing a store and the store owner surprised him with a gun
>> of his own. While in general I do support murderers who rob
>> a tasty-freeze and execute five or six teenages working there,
>> doing so to "eliminate witnesses," if the evidence of guilt is
>> overwhelming.
>
>It's not that I think this is entrely irrational. But it's a fool's errand
>to create such a system.
Please don't offer such comments as supposed _fact_. They only
represent your opinion and that should always be clarified lest others
begin to think you also have a God-complex.
> Although that makes you just the person to
>advocate for it, you'll notice it's nowhere in operation. We already have
>a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a system of automatic
>appeals. We still have what we have.
Yes, we do. And we always will. Humans are fallible. You expect
they are infallible in determining guilt or innocence if the person is
not accused of murder, but you squeal fortissimo when "death at
the hands of the state" follows that guilt.
>> So my choices are quite narrow in respect to ALL convicted
>> murderers, while yours encompass saving the life of each and
>> every murderer regardless of how destructive to "human beings"
>> you know he is.
>>
>> The representatives of a state in the U.S. create criminal statutes
>> because their constituents find it appropriate. If those criminal
>> statutes incorporate the possible use of the death penalty, you insist
>> you oppose "government by the majority." While if a U.S. state
>> does not have the death penalty I fully agree with their decision. The
>> only state I have a voice in, is my state. And I voice that with my
>> vote, and my correspondence with my representative if I feel strongly
>> about any issue. My state is the only state in which I can offer a
>> view both for the majority and for the minority, because it is MY
>> view.
>
>I often oppose the "government by the majority." You think this is some
>kind of slam?
I only concern myself with the U.S. death penalty. I have already
made this clear noting that I don't care if Europe holds a parade and
offers a week in bed with Miss EU to any murderer who "promises
not to do it again." It's not my problem!! As long as they don't
_punish_ their murderers by sending them to the U.S. Morally (which
is a subjective view of mine - not an absolute) I am left horrified by
Islamic law which punishes adultery with stoning, and homosexuality
with hanging.
So when I speak of the "majority" as a "government by the majority,"
I'm referring to representative democracy in the U.S. and nowhere
else, when it comes to the issue of the death penalty. If you are an
American it stands to reason that you would support the constitution,
which outlines how "government by the majority" is established.
If you don't support the constitution, I personally would consider
you nothing better than a rabble-rousing leftist carrying a sign that
calls for overthrowing the U.S. form of "government by the
majority."
If you argue about other states that are virtual dictatorships or
theocracies, I'm quite uninterested in discussing any idea of
"government by the majority" in those states. Perhaps another
time, in a different thread when considering geopolitical situations.
>> So if the EU decides to hold a parade and a weekend with Miss
>> Europe for each and every murderer in Europe who "promises"
>> not to do it again, that is their decision. I may laugh at it, but
>> I have no voice in determining true opposition to it. Of course,
>> when it comes to states which do not fall within the principles
>> of liberty and freedom of choice I make my views clear.
>> I certainly don't support Islamic law such as stoning for
>> adultery or hanging for being gay. And I certainly don't support
>> "executions" which are state murder... executions beyond the
>> concept of human law, such as the degeneracy of the Holocaust.
>> I don't support any genocide, regardless of an acting government
>> committing such genocide.
>
>Well, you have no idea how relieved I am to hear it. Thanks for sharing.
>
As you once said... "Whatever floats your boat."
[1]
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
Planet Visitor II
>Mike <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:196001ab-68eb-4344...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Apr 20, 10:25 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>> Mike <mikejc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> innews:1fe6ad28-119f-44be-a76f-ba433dd9a
>> a...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Apr 20, 8:38 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>> >> necromancer - ECHM <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org>
>>> >> wrote i
>>> > nnews:dpupu4p1lvihgodob...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> >> > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:43:55 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>> >> > <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> All the innocent people freed from death row were sent
>>> >> >>there because of "compelling evidence".
>>>
>>> >> > I have a proposal for, "Mike," and, "Wayne:" Let's implement
>>> >> > their idea with one provision: if it is ever determined that an
>>> >> > innocant person was executed, they ("they," being Mike and
>>> >> > Wayne) are automatically guilty of that person's murder and are
>>> >> > to be given a, "speedy execution." Should they already be dead,
>>> >> > their surviving spouse/children or other relative takes the
>>> >> > needle in their place.
>>>
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > "Capital punishment: them without the capital get the
>>> >> > punishment."
>>
>>> > --John Spenkelink
>>>
>>> >> I suppose few remember John Spenkelink, the second person executed
>>> >> after the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment, and the
>>> >> first person executed against his efforts. (Gary Gilmore was the
>>> >> first; h
>> e
>>> >> didn't f
>>> > ight
>>> >> the sentence.)
>>>
>>> >> Spenkelink was a drifter who killed a fellow drifter. Spenkelink
>>> >> claim
>>> > ed
>>> >> self defense. This was in Florida. Both killer an victim were wh
>> ite
>>> > , so
>>> >> there were no racial overtones to the execution and it was thus an
>>> >> easier test case to get the execution train going.
>>>
>>> >> Since Spenkelink, the state of Florida has executed 66 people and
>>> >> has 392 on death row.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> > Remember Ted Bundy? Are you somehow sad that he was executed?
>>>
>>> No, I glad he's dead.
>>
>> Hey! Progress!
>>
>>>
>>> Remember Carlos DeLuna? Executed in 1989 for stabbing a convenience
>>> st
>> ore
>>> clerk. Another man, Carlos Hernandez, with a history of similar
>>> crimes
>> has
>>> confessed to killing the clerk. But at least they nailed someone
>>> with
>> the
>>> right first name.
>>>
>>> Remember Robert Cantu? Executed in 1993 for shooting a man during a
>>> robbery. The state's eyewitness has recanted, and the prosecutor and
>>> j
>> ury
>>> foreman now say they have doubts that Cantu was the killer.
>>>
>>> Remember Larry Griffin? Executed in 1995 for the death of man in a
>>> dri
>> ve-
>>> by shooting. A man injured during the drive-by says Griffin wasn't
>>> the shooter, and the first policeman on the scene now contradicts the
>>> testimo
>> ny
>>> of the only witness to identify Griffin as the shooter.
>>>
>>> Remember Joseph O'Dell? Executed in 1997 for rape and murder. O'Del
>> l
>>> asked for DNA tests but was refused. Tests performed subsequent to
>>> his death cast doubt on the link between O'Dell and the crime. By
>>> the way,
>> the
>>> Supreme Court has ruled that juries must be told about an alternative
>>> sentence of life without parole, but they held that the rule wasn't
>>> retroactive to O'Dell's case.
>>>
>>> Remember David Spence? Executed in 1997 for contract killings. The
>> man
>>> who supposedly hired Spence was acquitted, and there was no physical
>>> evidence linking Spence to the crime. His conviction was obtained
>>> with testimony of convicts who got favors in return for their
>>> cooperation.
>>>
>>> Remember Leo Jones? Executed in 1998 for killing a cop. He claimed
>> his
>>> confession was coerced, and the arresting officer and the detective
>>> who took his confession have been dismissed for misconduct.
>>> Witnesses clai
>> med
>>> another man shot the cop.
>>>
>>> Remember Gary Graham? Executed in 2000 for a killing during a
>>> robbery.
>> He
>>> was convicted on the testimony of one witness who got a brief glance
>>> at t
>> he
>>> killer from 30 feet away. Two other witnesses who claimed that
>>> Graham wasn't the killer weren't called by Graham's court-appointed
>>> lawyer.
>>>
>>> Remember Cameron Willingham? Executed in 2004 for the deaths of
>>> three children in a fire. Arson experts say the fire cannot be
>>> called anythi
>> ng
>>> but accidental. The only witness against Willingham was a drug
>>> addict convict on psychotropic medication who claimed that Willingham
>>> confessed
>> to
>>> him.
>>>
>>> Are you somehow not sad that these people were executed?
>>
>> No, it's sad. Same way that I'm sad that OJ Simpson got off.
>>
>> Our system is not perfect my friend.
>>
>>>
>>> I can deal with the cognitive dissonance between my feelings of
>>> vengenanc
>> e
>>> toward people like Bundy and my fear of the inevitable capricious
>>> application of the state's power to kill citizens like those listed
>>> above
>> .
>>>
>>> Of course, YMMV.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> That's why I reserve the death penalty for the worst of the worst.
>
>Good thing that you're an oracle we can all trust. What do we do when
>you're not available?
>
>> I
>> can deal the miniscule possibility that someone wrongly convicted of
>> murder will get the needle.
>
>As long as it isn't you, eh?
>
>Miniscule is fairly large in Texa, by the way. Of course, everything is
>larger in Texas.
>
>> BTW, here is a quintuple murder that happened near me.
>>
>> http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080407/
>> NEWS05/80407043
>>
>> Now at the time I don't remember anyone pontificating these two men's
>> innocence. The only outcry I remember is that they DIDNT get the
>> death penalty. Shame.
>
>And, of course, public outcry over emotionally wrenching events is the best
>way to determine public policy and make ethical decisions.
>
<sarcasm>
Why are you always so angry, deadrat??? It seems your anger is a
symptom of a greater problem... one of being under enormous stress.
We know that anger is a response, and based on extensive research
into psychological responses it has been shown that anger is part of
a general adaptation syndrome, often driven by stress which divides
the body into four successive stages... 1) alarm and mobilization - a
state of rapid, general arousal in which the body's defenses are
mobilized.. 2) Resistance - the state of optimal biological
adaptation to stress demands... 3) exhaustion and disintegration - a
stage reached when the body loses its cognitive ability to cope with
demands brought on stress.. and finally 4) loss of bodily functions
bringing on bed-wetting and involuntary fecal soiling.
Learn to control your anger, and that will help reduce your stress.
Just some friendly advice.
</sarcasm>
HTH
Planet Visitor II
Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> "John Rennie" <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote in
>> news:cpKdnZEJZ9mKUG3U...@giganews.com:
>
>> Ah. What about L'il Mikey? Does his Mommy know he's on the computer?
>
>He's a kneejerk reactionary but we're trying to educate him...
>
>We have two Mikes (here on a.a.d-p.). Both are conservative, one is an
>awfully nice chap and the newer one is the one to whom I think you are
>referring.
>
>> > Actually Jim would like to reduce the number executed but he wouldn't
>> > tell you that.
>>
>> No, I get that. He's convinced that we can tell the *really* bad people
>> from the merely bad.
>
>That's where it all falls down. There has to be some arbitrary measure
>of that or otherwise the judicial process becomes capricious by
>definition.
In fact the criminal justice system does that all the time, with every
crime. No crime carries a statutory fixed punishment, without any
consideration of prior acts, or the facts impacting on the crime
itself. All crimes in the U.S. carry a minimum and a maximum
penalty. If you oppose the death penalty because of a claim it
is arbitrary, you are opposing any punishment for any crime, since
all punishments are arbitrary within the parameters of a minimum
and maximum. Repeating -- ALL punishments in the judicial process
are arbitrary. This does not make them capricious by definition.
You, personally, may disagree with a particular punishment
given to someone for a particular crime that seems unfair to you.
But it didn't seem unfair to jurors who determined that punishment.
>> > Don't agree. I rather have Jim on a jury trying me for whatever than
>> > many that contribute to this news group.
>
>> Must be some newsgroup.
>
>It's better than some, especially considering the contentious subject
>matter that tends to get lobbed around.
>
>> > His language is often wild and overly abrasive but I find it fun.
>>
>> Well, if fun is your benchmark, OK....
>
>Why else would one post to a political newsgroup? Do you expect to be
>changing the world somehow?
>
Usenet itself has no real impact on the "real world." We are here in
my view only to argue different opinions and thus gain an
understanding and insight into the opinions of others, which can
both lead to a better understand of why WE hold the opinions
we do, and perhaps lead to refining or redefining our own opinions.
It is irrational hubris to believe what we discuss or argue here has
any intrinsic effect on the "real world." I know of only one
poster who is so psychologically immature that he believes his
views do have an intrinsic effect on the "real world," because
in truth he lives in his self-contained "imaginary world." I believe
you know of whom I'm speaking.
>> > By the way you use an awful
>> > lot of big words - very disconcerting:-)
>>
>> Sorry, a legacy of a youth misspent on education. Which words are
>> bothering you?
>
>I can't say that I share John's view on that one. Your prose is quite
>dense but eminently readable.
Perhaps purposely so... as I've said... if you can't dazzle them with
brilliance... try to baffle them with bullshit. However, I suspect
we could all profit by following the KISS principle.
Planet Visitor II
<john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
<clipped>
>
>As a unbiased referee I award this contest to Deadrat.
>
You forgot to include <sarcasm> brackets around your "unbiased"
comment, John. :-)
Planet Visitor II
Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>John Rennie <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
>> As a unbiased referee I award this contest to Deadrat.
>
>It's a near thing, though. Jim has a point but he has spoiled it (as
>ever) with straw men, false dilemmas and abusive ad hominems.
>
>The weakest part of Mr Rat's argument is the analogy - analogical
>arguments are not sound, logical arguments although they often
>illustrate a position.
His "analogy" is a load of smelly manure. The definition most widely
used in respect to "analogy" is -- "7. Logic. a. Resemblance of
relations or attributes forming a ground of reasoning. b. The process
of reasoning from parallel cases; presumptive reasoning based upon the
assumption that if things have some similar attributes, their other
attributes will be similar." See --
Other definitions are either obscure, obsolete, mathematical in
nature, or have no relation to the sense of his line of reasoning. See
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/analogy.pdf
In any case, there is the entire definition of "analogy" from the
"supreme arbiter of the English language," the Oxford English
Dictionary. So I'd be interested in what particular definition
Mr Rat was using when comparing a cut finger with the death
of a human being.
Toothache <--> Holocaust.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:59:06 +1000, sa...@notinnedmeatdodo.com.au (Mr
> Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>
> >Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> No, I get that. He's convinced that we can tell the *really* bad people
> >> from the merely bad.
> >
> >That's where it all falls down. There has to be some arbitrary measure
> >of that or otherwise the judicial process becomes capricious by
> >definition.
>
> In fact the criminal justice system does that all the time, with every
> crime. No crime carries a statutory fixed punishment, without any
> consideration of prior acts, or the facts impacting on the crime
> itself. All crimes in the U.S. carry a minimum and a maximum
> penalty. If you oppose the death penalty because of a claim it
> is arbitrary,
I do not. I am simply stating that some arbitrary criterion or criteria
must exist to aid in determining which murderers are subject to capital
punishment or otherwise the system becomes capricious. Therefore you
find yourself in the position of entrusting the state's arbitrary rules
to determine who will be executed and who will not. Deadrat finds that
unacceptable but your own mileage may vary.
Planet Visitor II
Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:59:06 +1000, sa...@notinnedmeatdodo.com.au (Mr
>> Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>>
>> >Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> >> No, I get that. He's convinced that we can tell the *really* bad people
>> >> from the merely bad.
>> >
>> >That's where it all falls down. There has to be some arbitrary measure
>> >of that or otherwise the judicial process becomes capricious by
>> >definition.
>>
>> In fact the criminal justice system does that all the time, with every
>> crime. No crime carries a statutory fixed punishment, without any
>> consideration of prior acts, or the facts impacting on the crime
>> itself. All crimes in the U.S. carry a minimum and a maximum
>> penalty. If you oppose the death penalty because of a claim it
>> is arbitrary,
>
>I do not. I am simply stating that some arbitrary criterion or criteria
>must exist to aid in determining which murderers are subject to capital
>punishment or otherwise the system becomes capricious. Therefore you
>find yourself in the position of entrusting the state's arbitrary rules
>to determine who will be executed and who will not. Deadrat finds that
>unacceptable but your own mileage may vary.
I think Herr Rat made his _objective_ quite clear. He stated "My
objective is not to save a life at all or even ALL costs, but to
prevent a death at the hands of the state." A telling comment that
reveals he is not concerned with saving a life, so he would gladly
trade the life of an innocent victim of murder to keep that murderer
from being put to "death at the hands of the state." Or even trade
100 innocent lives to "prevent a death at the hands of the state."
Given that his _objective_ of preventing a death at the hands of
the state takes precedent over any _save a life at all_.
Planet Visitor II
Suck up... :-)
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
I'm not going to get any further into this. I have put forward my
interpretation which may well be wrong but I do know that it has more
merit than your side of the argument with Deadrat, which appears to be
composed of armchair psychology, character assassination, straw men and
abusive ad hominems. It is hardly a wonder that observers think that he
has won heavily on points, even if they do not agree with his
fundamental position (which I don't).
Deadrat
I know.
> don't project your anger onto me, my son.
Hey, Daddy, that's more classic projection. I'm not angry. I'm having
a good time making fun of you.
There are certainly people who can make me angry. Not one of them posts
on misc.legal et al.
>>>>> You don't like to think about the consequences of your viewpoint,
>>>>> believing that as a result of your objections to the death penalty
>>>>> it never happens that a convicted murderer will murder again.
>>>>
>>>>Please stop telling me what and how I think.
>>>
>>> Proving my point. You ARE in denial.
>>
>>First, if you have to declare yourself the victor in an argument, you
>>probably aren't.
>
> Spoken like a true loser.
As I say, if you have to keep declaring yourself the winner, ....
> Keep in mind that "probably" declaring
> me the loser, and thus you the victor, shows you're probably not.
Hey, just pointing out that those who are winning an argument don't get
all out of breath patting themselves on the back.
> You actually need to win an argument to be the victor. It's not
> enough to twist in the wind and claim I'm "probably" the loser.
All I've pointed out that it's a bad sign if your best evidence is your
own declaration of victory.
> Let's recap --- you said that "No one suggests that convicted
> murderers simply be released if they can't be executed." But
> what you might "want" and what you actually "get" is murderers
> being released and murdering again. [1] So you are accepting that
> murderers will statistically be released and murder again. Proof
> by example in my reference [1].
And what you might want (the execution of only the guilty) and what you
actually "get" is different. My claim is that it's easier to stop
murderers from reoffending than it is to revive the executed.
> Notice the difference in my argument in which I recognize what
> I can possibly "get" in supporting the death penalty as it exists
> even with its extensive due process in the U.S. What I can _possibly_
> "get" is the execution of an innocent. Why are you incapable
> of admitting that what you "get" is not what you "want"?
You're projecting again. Of course it's possible that a convicted
murderer will kill again. What's indisputable is that we've put to
death many people we shouldn't have.
>>Secondly, if all you've got for rebuttal is amateur
>>psychological analysis of your opponent, you definintely aren't.
>
> A silly presumption that argues psychology plays no role in
> arguments. If someone is behaving abnormally in any ongoing
> dialog it is not only fair, but the absolute responsibility of the
> other to point out the behavioral, cognitive and sociocultural
> perspectives of that person seem to rule out the possibility of any
> rational discussion of those differences of opinions. I suspect that
> you just don't like confronting your own demons.
Sorry, but the "sociocultural perspectives" of your opponent are
irrelevant. Mentioning them is called the argumentum ad hominem. Crazy
people may be nuts, but that doesn't make them wrong.
> Your suggestion that this not be discussed is typical "avoidant
> syndrome." More properly termed "Avoidant Personality Disorder."
> Of course with only the limited amount of information available
> to me, your comments suggest you have only a rather mild form of that
> personality disorder. However, this psychological disorder manifests
> itself out of fear of rejection. Having as its essential feature a
> hypersensitivity to any hint of rejection. You need to be reassured
> again and again of your worth. You want to be validated and accepted,
> but fear you will not be. Thus you practically fall over backwards
> when someone seems to accept your line of reasoning (always another
> fanatic abolitionist), and grow very angry when confronted by anyone
> who does not accept it. You can be sure that I have no fear of
> rejection since I have been practically rejected by all abolitionists
> because they cannot handle my arguments, and at one time or
> another put into their killfiles, like ostriches because they would
> rather not witness my rebuttal. I suspect that some of them are bound
> to fall in behind you like neat little soldier marching for murderers.
OK, I'm gonna call troll for this parody. It's pretty good, though.
>>>> I've weighed the
>>>>possibility that murderers will kill again against the possibility
>>>>that the state will abuse its power and that human error will kill
>>>>innocents. I've made my choice based humanity's experience with the
>>>>state and the US experience with the death penalty. I'll suggest
>>>>you can make your own ethical choices without second guessing mine.
>>>
>>> Then why did you bother to second guess Mike's ethical choices?
>>
>>Wow! How clueless can you get?
>
> That's actually trying to avoid the question. And suggests exactly
> what I have said. That you grow angry and offer childish insults
> when confronted by anyone who rejects your arguments.
This from the guy who has prepared a psychoanalytic study of me.
>
>> I'll type this reaaaal slowly so you can follow.
>
> See above.
Not slowly enough, eh?
>>I'm not "second guessing" anyone's ethical choices; I'm
>>disagreeing with them. In other words, I'm not interested in anyone's
>>motivations for his choices; I'm interested in logic and evidence.
>
> There is no logic and evidence behind your "second guessing" of
> Mike. There was only your crude dismissal of his logical argument.
> Insisting what you "want" while oblivious to the fact of what you
> "get" when your agenda is implemented. You may not "want"
> murderers to be released to murder again... but that's what happens
> in a great number of cases. For example -- [1]
Please quantify great.
You can do that while we're waiting for L'il Mikey to call me a
doody-head.
> If someone wants to blame retentionists for the extremely remote
> possibility that an innocent might be executed, it is fair to argue
> that abolitionists should be blamed for the possibility that an
> innocent might be murdered by an already convicted murderer
> sentenced to what an abolitionist insists is an infallibly _safe and
> secure_ sentence to prison for life.
>
> This was Mike's point. And it is a valid point given there is no
> _proof_ of an innocent having been executed in the U.S.
> post-Gregg v. Georgia (you do know of Gregg v. Georgia,
> don't you?).
If you demand mathematical proof, of course. There's plenty of
evidence, though.
> While there is overwhelming proof of murderers sentenced to
> life in prison having murdered AFTER being sentenced to life in prison
> post-Gregg v. Georgia [1]. A sentence abolitionists support in the
> U.S. criminal justice, just as retentionists support the death penalty
> as a concept in the U.S. criminal justice system.
>
> In fact, not even addressing the release of those murderers who
> murdered again, there were a total of 116 murders committed in prison
> from 1993 until 1999. Given that more than just a few of those
> murders must have been committed by already convicted murderers, it
> adds up to far more innocents murdered in prison by murderers
> sentenced to what abolitionists argue is a _safe alternative sentence_
> to the death penalty, then any claims of "innocents" having been
> executed.
There's plenty of evidence of system malfunctions, and enough near
misses and actual improper executions for a civilized society not to
rely on that system. I've listed cases for you, but no matter the
evidence, you'll move the "proof" goalposts.
>>> Or is this another of those "do what I say... not what I do"? In
>>> case you're unfamiliar with this group, it is about the death
>>> penalty. And the purpose is to second guess those having different
>>> ethical views on the death penalty.
>>
>>Thanks for sharing. You and your "group" can play with yourselves all
>>you want in analyzing others' psychological makeup. If that's all
>>you've got, fine: I can accept that.
>>
> But all you've got is trying to dismiss your psychological makeup,
> while offering nothing in the way of a successful argument. Why is it
> not reasonable for me to note that you appear quite overly aggressive,
> showing symptoms of anger?
Couple of reasons. The most important is that it's irrelevant. My
argument doesn't stand or fall on whether I'm angry or not. I can be
absolutely furious at penal system we have or live in a world of
zen-like calm. Max nicht.
But another reason is that you're coversing with someone on a newsgroup.
You haven't got the vaugest idea whether I'm upset or not. I could
even tell you I was upset, and you still wouldn't know: I might simply
be trolling. All you've got is lines of text, and you can try to read
between them, but this will usually reveal more about yourself than
about me.
> Certainly I've noticed
Well, of course that's all you've noticed.
> in all your
> comments that you have no desire to discuss issues but instead need to
> vent
Relax. That sound you're hearing isn't venting. It's just me laughing
at you.
> with anyone who disagrees with your view, plus fawning over
> anyone (always a fellow abolitionist) who happens to agree with you
I'll guess that you're referring to my reply to John Rennie
<quote>
Thank you. And, aside from unbaised, I'm sure you're also wise,
generous, handsome, and a credit to your family.
</quote>
Please tell me that you didn't take that seriously. The "handsome" part
was supposed to be clue to the hyperbole.
> while also ignoring what abolitionists "get" in supporting prison for
> life v. the death penalty for convicted murderers.
Once again, this is a completely fatuous point. Retentionists also
ignore what they "get" in their self-righteousness support of state
killing.
>>> In this way we hope to gain a better
>>> insight into the use of the death penalty in the U.S.
>>
>>Whatever floats your boat. I prefer logic and evidence to gain
>>insight, but YMMV.
>
> Saying you "prefer logic and evidence" while not providing any doesn't
> really float my boat. While your anger by way of insult is highly
> suggestive that you're using that anger to cover up your lack of
> "logic and evidence."
I've given you evidence, but you won't accept it. You require "proof."
>>> I have a suspicion that you don't have a clue about ethics in
>>> general.
>>
>>Of course you do. You're all about the arguer, not the argument.
>
> LOL. And your argument has been???? Let me repeat it -- "No one
> suggests that convicted murderers simply be released if they can't be
> executed." You may not "suggest" it because you're in denial that it
> happens. As I said... you may not "want" it or "suggest" it, but
> what you "get" is some murderers being released. And murdering
> again!!!
OK, let's take murderers in the past twenty years who would have met
your criteria for state killing. How many of them were released? No
2nd degree murderers, now. As I understand it, you wouldn't pull the
switch on them.
>> So if I
>>come to a different ethical position than you, there's no chance that
>>I'm mistaken or ignorant, there must be something wrong with me.
>
> There's something amiss with the methods you use which is indicative
> of a lack of ethics and practical rationality.
Again with the ad hominem. So what? Why are my ethics and rationality
so important to you? They can't have any effect on the correctness of
my argument. So why bring them up? I'll ask again: do you suppose that
I cheat on my taxes or my wife? On what evidence would you base such a
conclusion? Or did you have other ethical lapses in mind? What would
they be?
> Decisions, reasons,
> and rationality are all part of ethical behavior.
Do you suppose that the insane are incapable of ethical behavior?
> The kind of
> responsiveness you offer in a lack of "logic and evidence" leaves
> much to be desired.
If so, you could point that out. Instead you have to accuse me of
unethical behavior. Go figure.
> I doubt whether you're ignorant.
In fact, I am profoundly ignorant. Particularlly when it comes to
deciding who should live or die by my hand. Well, by proxy.
> But you are a form of a fanatic,
The fanatic is one convinced of his own superiority and infallability.
That would be you. You have a stronger argument in accusing me of lack
of fortitude in the face of necessity. Do you see why I mention
projection?
> blind to facts, making it impossible for you to see
> what you "get" in your agenda. It's easy enough for you to NOW say
> that it's all a "different ethical position," now that you find
> yourself unable to provide "logic and evidence" which would
> substantiate that presumed "ethical position." It's easy to claim you
> have the _high road_ in an "ethical position."
You mean it's easy for *you* to claim that I claim to have the "_high
road_. You can't find that anywhere in my posts. I think my position
is better than yours, not that I think I'm morally superior to you.
You're the one accusing me of ethical lapses. So who thinks he's on the
high road?
> But "logic and
> evidence" are lacking in any practical rationality you might claim is
> part of your line of reasoning, given your line of reasoning appears
> rather acratic
acratic?
> on the face of it, switching from one _objective_ to
> another, when one of those objectives is shown to be flawed.
>
> As I see it, rationality has two forms : practical rationality and
> belief rationality (there is another form considered as _instrumental
> rationality_, but that is more complex and irrelevant to this
> comment). The practical form which you avoid is based
> upon that _logic and evidence_. While belief rationality is based
> more upon subjective opinions which lack proof. That
> is the rationality that you practice. There can be a unified
> treatment of both if it is recognized that they are different. But
> if one side in a polemic ignores the consequences of one, and looks
> only at _belief rationality_ that polemic is certain to disintegrate
> into insults.
You're scaring me now, Sparky. That whole paragraph is incoherent
abstraction or abstract incoherence. I can't decide which.
> For example... you form your several beliefs in defiance of the
> evidence. This is obviously _belief rationality_, based more upon
> _faith_ than anything else. Now suppose I recognize this. Is it fair
> that I can't mention how you have formed your line of reasoning?
Fair? What does that mean. You're free to mention it all you want. It
just can have no bearing on whether my position stands or falls.
> To
> insist that this is somehow verboten exhibits a bit of irrationality
> on your part in retaining your beliefs while denying what they
> obviously entail using practical rationality. Defects of this kind
> are still defects because it is important to recognize when beliefs
> are not being responsive to reason.
Even if I believed this blizzard of abstraction had any definite
meaning, it wouldn't have any relevance for this discussion.
> You were the one who first presumed you were making "ethical
> choices," and I was "second guessing" them. Yet you still seem
> unable to show why your choice of saving the lives of each and
> every murderer is an "ethical choice." Now if you mean you
> -think- it is an "ethical choice," that's another story. If you
> dismiss as irrelevant the fact that murderers not executed have
> committed murder after murder even after being sentenced to
> life in prison, then you can subjectively claim anything you wish,
> and not be arguing "logic and evidence." That is _belief
> rationality_.
It is my "ethical choice" to look at the evidence of a system executing
the innocent in my name, and decide that such a system is unjust and
that I oppose it. The consequences will no doubt be that people that I
would have otherwise killed take it upon themselves to kill again. Such
an ethical worldview is not amenable to "proof." It depends on what one
assumes about how responsibility is distributed in society.
What is amenable to evidence is whether the system we have in place is
unjust, starting with the likelihood that it has killed innocents. You
believe that we can have a system that reduces the likelihood of killing
innocents while ridding us of the worst amongst us. This amounts to
positing a time machine which we can use to peer into a killer's future
to determine whether he will find another victim. If we determine that
he will find another victim, we kill him. This rids society of a killer
and has the beneficial side effect of saving his second victim.
Although it leaves us with the conundrum that once we execute the
killer, we've removed the rationale for killing him as he can't possibly
kill again.
Fine. Put on your tin-foil hat and get to work on the time machine.
All I'm asking is that while we're waiting, that we not use the system
we've got to execute people.
>
> Yet you presume there is an OBJECTIVITY to abolition being
> an ethical choice, even though you lack the "logic and evidence"
> necessary to prove that. Such _belief rationality_ is always a
> subjective choice. I don't claim there is an objectivity to retention
> being an "ethical choice." It is MY choice... and in my subjective
> belief it is ethical, but that has no objective meaning. However; I
> am the one providing "logic and evidence" by way of _practical
> rationality_ showing facts of murderers sentenced to life in prison
> who have murdered time and time again [1]. While you have
> some shaky cases in which I would not have voted for the death
> penalty in any case, which you claim "prove" an innocent has been
> executed.
You're the one who demands proof. For me, decisions on life death have
to rely on evidence that is wanting in numerous cases.
>>And from
>>there it's an easy leap from one character fault to another. Whaddya
>>figure -- I cheat on my taxes and my wife?
>
> As I've always said... confession is good for the soul.
That wasn't a confession. It was a question. Care to answer it?
>>>>> With
>>>>> you it's cut and dried that the life of the murderer is all that
>>>>> is important to you, and your sole objective is to save that life
>>>>> at ALL COSTS!!!
>>>>
>>>>No, for you it's cut and dried that we can trust human beings to
>>>>determine who murderers are and the state not to abuse its power to
>>>>kill them.
>>>
>>> So you're "second-guessing" me. Chee... and you just insisted
>>> that I stop "second-guessing" you.
>>
>>Your *argument* requires that you trust the state enough in its
>>operation to determine who the murderers are. From there it's
>>possible to examine evidence about the trustworthiness of the state in
>>this and other endeavors.
>>
> The criminal justice system requires that the state be trusted enough
> in its operation to determine who ALL criminal are. Murderers in the
> sense of the determination of guilt or innocence are not judged any
> differently... all convictions for all criminals requires "proof
> beyond a reasonable doubt." If you don't trust the state to do that,
> then your argument must be to not only abolish the death penalty,
> but the entire justice system.
Once again with the strawman argument. I trust the state to determine
guilt but not to kill people.
> We also know that actual guilt has nothing to do with anything in the
> Justice System, since guilt is predicated upon that "proof beyond a
> reasonable doubt." Should "actual guilt" be the criteria for
> a finding of guilty, we could convict no one, since unfortunately, we
> are not omniscient. Nor is that human limited requirement of proof in
> any way associated with the death penalty. It is determined totally
> outside of the death penalty, using a jury of peers, a sitting judge,
> and decades of due process. Only AFTER the determination of
> guilt or innocence does the process of assigning punishment for
> the guilty begin. So apparently you do trust the human element of
> the U.S. criminal justice system to determine guilt or innocence.
> Thus your argument about _innocent people being executed_ is
> just a smoke screen for your real argument that you don't CARE
> about guilt or innocence of a convicted murderer.
Again with the strawman argument. That I wish to stop a particular
penalty does not mean that I wish to stop all penalties.
>
> The death penalty is a settled issue in the U.S. It is not cruel or
> unusual punishment, nor does the constitution prohibit it. These
> are not my opinions, but settled facts in both U.S. law and our
> constitution. The separate states are tasked with determining
> the punishment for crimes committed in violation of the criminal
> statutes of those separate states.
Thanks for sharing. Do you understand that this is completely irrelvant
to the discussion?
>
>>I suppose I've leapt to a conclusion here. It's possible that you're
>>ready to concede that the state is continually sloppy and negligent,
>>and that makes no difference to you. If so, I apologize.
>
> 1) FACT: The death penalty is not responsible for finding guilt or
> innocence. FACT: Finding guilt or innocence is part of the "trial
> phase." FACT: Determining punishment is part of the "sentencing
> phase." Try to learn the difference. FACT: As with all criminal
> trials, guilt is presumed, when a jury and due process find it in
> "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Completely irrelvant. The problem isn't with determining guilt or
innocence; it's with killing people in my name.
> 2) FACT: Any sentence of an innocent to prison, even overnight, can
> result in an innocent dying in prison. FACT: It happens quite
> frequently when an innocent man is convicted and not placed on a
> suicide watch during his first few days in prison. Obviously, the
> death penalty has nothing to do with that innocent dying in prison,
> yet it happens, and obviously happens far more frequently than any
> claim, however outrageous, of the presumed number of innocents having
> been executed in 30 year. Since you accept the determination of guilt
> or innocence in the criminal justice system, it's logical you accept
> that this can result in a death at the hands of the state. FACT:
> Since the state was responsible for creating the situation which
> resulted in that death.
You're arguing that since we can't prevent all cases of the punishment
of the innocent, we shouldn't bother to prevent the irrevocable
punishment of the innocent.
> 3) The possibility of an innocent being sentenced to a penalty other
> than the death penalty and dying of a natural death in prison is far
> larger than the possibility of an innocent being executed. Yet no one
> suggests abolishing the justice system because of that greater
> possibility of convicting an innocent person, and him/her dying in
> prison.
Show your work.
On second thought, don't bother. It's the same argument that if we
can't prevent all injustice, we can't argue against a particular
injustice.
> 4) I find it bizarre to consider closing one small, very small,
> possibility, only to keep all true murderers alive, while ignoring
> every one of the greater possibilities of an innocent dying in prison.
> The argument, like the argument about the cost of the death penalty,
> is a strawman.
>
>>> And you're denying that the life of the murderer means something to
>>> you, and denying your only objective is to save that life at ALL
>>> COSTS!!! ROTFLMAO.
>>
>>The life of a murderer I don't know doesn't mean very much more to me
>>than the life of anyone else I don't know. The death of the murderer
>>at the hands of the state means living in a society I find less
>>attractive and more dangerous.
>
> So your "ethics" insists you will "sacrifice" the victims of convicted
> murderers who murder again, such as Kenneth McDuff, in order to
> satisfy you not liking living in such a society.
And your ethics insist that you will kill those victims of the justice
system I've listed instead of making sure that people like McDuff are
not released. I believe that I have some responsibility for the society
I live in and that murderers take their responsibility for their own
killing. I have no idea where that falls on your scale of practical and
belief rationality.
> I would think that
> your subjective "ethics," would find it more reasonable to relocate
> to a State which does not have the death penalty. And stop being
> angry at those who find it more attractive and less dangerous to live
> in a State which has a death penalty as fair as the U.S. with it's
> extensive due process. See --
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/DeathPenalty.html
Like most of your claims to "thinking," this one fails.
>> My objective is not to save a life at all or even ALL
>>costs, but to prevent a death at the hands of the state. Why that
>>seems hysterically funny to you is beyond me.
>
> Oh, my. That deserves to be repeated!!! Your "objective" is
> "not to save a life at all... but to prevent a death at the
> hands of the state." Make a note of your "objective" because
> there will be a question and answer period later.
> However; it does seem counterproductive to me, when you trade 100
> innocent lives for one guilty murderer that you want to prevent
> being executed at the hands of the state.
The fanatic speaks. You know the number of innocent lives lost and you
also know the guilt in murder cases.
> Plus it seems you've
> changed your argument. Before it was all about the possibility
> of the execution of an "innocent," and then your support for
> "wanting" a murderer to never murder again, but "getting" quite a
> few examples of murderers who murder again [1]. Now you
> insist your objective is not to save a life.
I don't hold the power in general to save lives. I have some small say
in whether the state kills people.
> Now you don't care if they are guilty as sin... you don't care if they
> murder again after being convicted of another murder. You're just
> interested in "feeling good about yourself."
I'm sorry, but you haven't presented any coherent evidence that people
sentenced today for 1st degree murder kill "again and again." I have
given you evidence of the system killing innocents. If the system
allows murderers to kill again, the solution is stop them without
killing innocents. Not to throw up our hands and shrug about the
collateral damage.
> So here's my question... in the form of a thought experiment, and I'll
> be repeating it until I get an answer, because now we've reached the
> heart of your "objective."
>
> Which do you believe is the greater evil???
>
> 1) The murder of an innocent victim by a wrongly released murderer
> at "the hands of that murderer."
>
> 2) The execution of a murderer at "the hands of the state" preventing
> that wrong release which led to the murder of an innocent victim.
You'll keep repeating it because you think it's somehow important. But
the answer relies on a level of knowing that's not obtainable.
>>> But let me get this straight... you don't trust human beings to
>>> determine who murderers are. So essentially you don't trust
>>> human beings to determine who criminals are, and thus you support
>>> abolishing the justice system and not punish anyone because you
>>> personally can't "trust human beings."
>>
>>My trust in human beings is inversely proportional to the amount of
>>irrevocable harm they might cause.
>>
> As I've said... you're a very angry young man.
How old do you suppose I am?
> Almost a sociopath in the way you argue how much you oppose other
> humans.
Philosophical opposition to others is not a hallmark of sociopaths. But
it wouldn't matter if I were one or not.
>
>>But, of course, instead of dealing with the argument that I actually
>>make, you'd rather argue against a strawman of your own devising.
>
> A very angry young man,
How old do you think I am?
> having now changed your "argument,"
> which still leaves a lot to be desired in what you insist is "logic
> and evidence." I certainly don't see how it's "logical," to trade
> hundreds of innocent lives to save one murderer.
Of course it isn't. It's just that you're just making up those odds.
> Nor do I see
> any real "evidence" that an innocent has EVER been executed
> in the U.S. post-Gregg.
Of course you don't. You're impervious to evidecne.
> Instead you've switched your argument
> to one of opposing "death at the hands of the State." Yet
> the State is responsible for many deaths... not just the exercise
> of the death penalty where it is permitted in criminal statutes.
> What about law enforcement encountering someone holding
> another as hostage during a robbery. I suppose you believe
> the police should instead be armed with the Brady bill.
Again. Some deaths are justifiable; some are not. It's a foolish
argument to lump them together.
>>> I don't see how you can say you don't trust human beings
>>> to determine who murderers are, but you do trust human
>>> beings to determine who criminals other than murderers
>>> are.
>>
>>I'm guessing you see just fine.
>>
> As you say.... you're just "guessing." Is that part of your
> "logic and evidence" argument?
No, I'm just making fun of you. Again. Still.
>>> So you must be in favor of abolishing the entire
>>> criminal justice system, because human beings make
>>> mistakes.. we are fallible... and our criminal justice system
>>> is likewise fallible.
>>
>>Or course, and that's why it's a good thing for fallible beings to
>>reduce the fatal harm they might cause.
>>
> But that is what is happening in the use of the death penalty in
> the U.S. I've provided the evidence.
No, you haven't. All you've said is that murderers kill again and again.
> All you've done is complain
> about how you don't trust your fellow human beings. While
> the problem is your argument doesn't actual "reduce the fatal
> harm" that murderers can cause if they are not executed.
Assuming facts not in evidence. Your whole argument relies on the
established guilt or murderers and their established future actions.
> The
> trick is to not put EVERY murderer in the same category. What
> I believe is that not every murderer should escape suffering the loss
> of his own life at the hands of the state, and not every murderer
> should suffer the loss of his own life at the hands of the state.
> Seems _even-handed_ to me.
And while we're waiting for you to perfect the system, how about we stop
killing people with the system we've got.
>>> Fallible not only with determining the guilt or innocence of
>>> murderers, but determining the guilt or innocent of anyone
>>> brought before the criminal justice system for prosecution.
>>> Having had evidence obtained by human beings we call
>>> "law enforcement." Determined prosecution is appropriate
>>> by human beings we call "prosecutors." Obtained a true bill
>>> of indictment by human beings we call a "grand jury." And
>>> brought to trial to determine guilt or innocence by human beings
>>> we call a "judge and jury."
>>
>>Thanks for sharing.
>>
> Is that some of your "logic and evidence" argument??
No, it's a snide way of pointing out your completely irrelevant rambling.
>>> Personally, in general I do trust human beings when it comes
>>> to the U.S. criminal justice system. I have to trust the criminal
>>> justice system or I am left with only the belief that there should
>>> be no criminal justice system. Oh, Brave New World... packrat
>>> insists we should abolish the entire criminal justice system. That
>>> would certainly save a lot of money up-front... no criminal lawyers,
>>> no judges, no prisons... just a bunch of crazy murderers running
>>> loose. Of course that's the price to pay at the back end... those
>>> crazy murderers.
>>
>>Look up false dichotomy. I've never heard anyone opposed to the death
>>penalty argue for the abolition of the entire justice system.
>
> But you don't trust human beings. How can you possibly support any
> part of the criminal justice system, since human beings are
> responsible for determining guilt or innocence?
Now you're just funnin' me, right? Sometimes we have to trust human
beings in all their fallability. Just because I don't want to trust the
state to kill people doesn't mean I won't trust it to hand out parking
tickets.
>> Even though
>>human beings are fallible, sometimes they must be trusted. I've
>>trusted surgeons. The answer isn't yes or no, trust in everything or
>>not at all. It's how far to trust.
>>
> You keep shifting the goal posts. Now you want to _trust them just
> a little bit_.
I don't want to trust the state to kill its citizens. What does that
have to do with trusting them to do other things, like, say probate
estates.
> Let me repeat --
>
> 1) FACT: The death penalty is not responsible for finding guilt or
> innocence.
Irrelevant.
> FACT: Finding guilt or innocence is part of the "trial
> phase."
Irrelevant.
> FACT: Determining punishment is part of the "sentencing
> phase."
Irrelevant.
> Try to learn the difference. FACT: As with all criminal
> trials, guilt is presumed, when a jury and due process find it in
> "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Irrelevant.
> 2) FACT: Any sentence of an innocent to prison, even overnight, can
> result in an innocent dying in prison.
Irrelevant.
> It happens quite frequently
> when an innocent man is convicted and not placed on a suicide watch
> during his first few days in prison. Obviously, the death penalty has
> nothing to do with that innocent dying in prison, yet it happens, and
> obviously happens far more frequently than any claim, however
> outrageous, of the presumed number of innocents having been executed
> in 30 year.
>
> If you trust the criminal justice system _just a little bit_, it's
> obvious that you are trusting that system with the life of someone,
> since people die in prison.
I'll trust them with the life of someone in prison. Not everybody dies
in prison. All of the executed are dead. Permanently.
> People you presume are innocent.
> So why not strip away all the phoniness from your argument, and
> go back to what you really mean? -- these were your words, and
> this is your objective -- "My objective is not to save a life at all
> or even ALL costs, but to prevent a death at the hands of the state."
That's right. As a miniscule part of the state, I don't want to kill
someone. Especially given the history of the state in this regard. I
understand that this doesn't bother you. So be it. What's so hard to
understand?
>
> Life is not important to you in your own words regarding your
> objective in this argument. Your objective is only to prevent a
> death at the hands of the state.
That's what I can control in some small part.
> Yet you ignore the thousands
> upon thousands of other deaths at the hands of the state.
Unless you're talking about our foreign policy, I don't know what
thousands and thousands you're nattering on about. In any case, your
argument amounts to "we're killing a thousand; why object to one more?"
>
> As it shows, you would trade a hundred lives of innocent victims
> to prevent a death at the hands of the state. Yet that hand of the
> state causes innumerable deaths in other ways. Innocents dying
> in prison. Doctors given licenses by the state and "burying
> their mistakes." Law enforcement given permission by the
> state to use deadly force on certain occasions. Airline pilots given
> licenses to fly hundred of passengers. Operators of motor vehicles
> responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year, yet you trust
> the state to give permission to human beings to operate motor
> vehicles. Apparently you do trust the state when it comes to other
> ways they don't bother to prevent deaths at the hands of the state.
This argument is so absurd I'm almost at a loss for words. But not
quite.
Hey, we give drivers licenses to people who go out and cause deaths on
the highway. So let's not worry about a faulty capital penal system.
Do you wonder why I ridicule you?
> If a convicted murderer is released at "the hands of the state," and
> murders again how does that prevent deaths? After all, you do
> support the State putting murderers in prison, don't you? After all,
> you do support the State determining how long any criminal, including
> murderers, will stay in prison. Or do you insist you will usurp
> the powers of the State yet again, and demand the State NEVER
> release any murderer? And NEVER permit the possibility of
> a murderer murdering again by demanding ALL murderers stay
> in 24/7 solitary confinement for the rest of their lives?
>
> Once again ---
>
> Which do you believe is the greater evil???
>
> 1) The murder of an innocent victim by a wrongly released murderer
> at "the hands of that murderer."
>
> 2) The execution of a murderer at "the hands of the state" preventing
> that wrong release which led to the murder of an innocent victim.
Once again, this choice has no meaning in the real world unless you
produce that time machine. Get to work.
>>>>> Yet no one can escape the consequences of his choices.
>>>>
>>>>People escape the consequences of their choices all the time. What
>>>>color is the sky in your world?
>>>
>>> “It is only too easy to make suggestions and later try to escape the
>>> consequences of what we say” -- Jawaharlal Nehru
>>>
>>> Of course you claim you're smarter than he was. Or is it just
>>> that you're duplicitous?
>>
>>Again. My argument stands or falls on its logic and evidence. No
>>matter how smart I am or how hubristic or how duplicitous. (Although
>>I don't know how you figure those latter two are antonyms.)
>>
> The terms are not mutually exclusive.
And yet you ask whether I'm smarter than Nehru or a liar. Go figure.
> A pathologic personality can
> have excessive self-confidence while also being duplicitous. We know
> of one rather infamous person who suffered from both disorders to
> a degree that turned him into a egomaniacal psychopath. Don't
> twist this to claiming I'm insisting you have a pathological
> personality,
Isn't that exactly what you're claiming, over and over?
> I'm only disagreeing with your comment claiming I felt
> that hubris and duplicitous were antonyms. They can exist together
> or separately in any person, or not exist at all in some people. But
> let's not attempt to be pedantic.
I see you prefer ignorance. OK.
>>You said that no one can escape the consequences of his choices. In
>>my experience that happens all the time. Nehru said that people *try*
>>to escape the consequences of their choices. I fail to see how that
>>contradicts my claim that they sometimes succeed. Or why this topic
>>is relevant to the argument.
>
> It's relevant because I believe you have been using anger to avoid the
> consequences of your subjective ethical choice.
This is entirely in your own head.
> You continue to
> avoid like the plague the "logic and evidence" I have provided
> concerning the number of murderers sentenced to life in prison who
> have gone on to murder time and time again [1] You stopped arguing
> about "innocents," and now are insisting that you don't care about
> life at all in your agenda. Only that you don't want to be part of a
> state that permits death at the hands of the state. But death is a
> natural consequence of all biological life, including human beings.
Sure, so let's kill anyone we think is bad enough. Cause after all,
everone dies sooner or later.
Are you kidding me?
>>>>> You would save a murderer's life regardless of the consequences of
>>>>> your choice.
>>>>
>>>>And your point?
>>>
>>> Is English your mother tongue? My point is exactly what I said --
>>> "You would save a murderer's life regardless of the consequences of
>>> your choice." Of course you admit to that, so there is no need for
>>> me to belabor the point.
>>
>>And mine is that this point is null. Everyone should realize that
>>they must accept the logical consequences of their choices. So what?
>
> But that's my point. I don't see any "logic" behind saving the
> life of a murderer at the expense of 100 innocent victims.
Another figment of your imagination.
> It's
> only... as you pointed out... your hubris. Let's see... your basic
> argument is now that you oppose the death penalty "to prevent
> a death at the hands of the state." So is there any point at
> which you would support a death at the hands of the state?
> How many innocent lives would it take for you to "support a
> death at the hands of the state"?
The death of an innocent?
> Thus... Once again ---
>
> Which do you believe is the greater evil???
>
> 1) The murder of an innocent victim by a wrongly released murderer
> at "the hands of that murderer."
>
> 2) The execution of a murderer at "the hands of the state" preventing
> that wrong release which led to the murder of an innocent victim.
It's pathetic that you think this is some telling argument. When we have
perfect knowledge, ask me again.
>>>>You would sacrifice an innocent's life regardless of the
>>>>consequences of your own.
>>>
>>> If you support the criminal justice system, so would you. Any
>>> innocent man who dies in prison has had his life sacrificed. Please
>>> don't tell me you've never heard of an innocent man dying in
>>> prison?
>>
>>And I've seen them freed. I've never seen an executed man brought
>>back to life.
>
> Ah... and there's the rub. You've also never seen an executed
> murderer ever murder again. Nor have you ever seen a victim of
> a murderer brought back to life. Death is the final chapter... in
> this particular case for both the victim of murder, and the murderer,
> if he suffers "death at the hands of the state." But ALWAYS
> the final chapter without trial, appeal or due process in the case of
> the victim of murder.
>
>>> Let's cut to the chase. You have no problem with an innocent man
>>> DYING in prison.
>>
>>Ooh! Is DYING worse than dying?
>
> A very angry young man.
How old do you think I am?
> Of course, I believe you do find one dying
> worse than another. You find dying at the hands of an individual
> is less important than dying "at the hands of the state."
I have some responsibility for the state's action.
> Since
> you've insisted your agenda is "not to save a life at all... but to
> prevent a death at the hands of the state." Carrying your _objective_
> to a reductio ad absurdum, it means you'd rather murderers murder
> everyone, rather than one murderer suffer "death of the hands of the
> state."
The state is not responsible enough to trust with the determination of
who should die. Sorry that you think it is.
> Since you're not interested in _saving a life_ but in
> preventing the _death of a murderer at the hands of the state_.
That's where my responsibility lies.
> And it rather conflicts with your original claim that "No one suggests
> that convicted murderers simply be released if they can't be
> executed." Because given the only two choices between releasing a
> murderer to murder again, or executing him at "the hands of the
> state," you would choose to release him.
This entirely inside your own head. It must be very noisy in there.
> Because to you, your
> new _objective_ is NOT to "save a life at all... but to prevent a
> death at the hands of the state."
That's where my responsibility lies.
>>You'd like to impute to me the argument that if we can't trust the
>>state for perfection, then we can't trust the state to do anything.
>
> No. Your objective, in your own words is -- "My objective is not to
> save a life at all or even ALL costs, but to prevent a death at the
> hands of the state." Obviously, while there is no real "proof" of any
> execution of an innocent post-Gregg, there is substantial proof of
> innocents who die in prison. The state has essentially been
> responsible for the death of that innocent. So I fail to see how you
> can support the state sending an innocent person to die in prison,
> by supporting the criminal justice system at all.
So because someone might die in prison, we shouldn't inquire into the
injustice of executing innocents. Great argument.
>
>> Because that's an argument you could actually win.
>
> Surprise!!
Not in the least. You're a trove of strawmen.
>
>> But the equivalent argument is
>>that as long as we can't trust the state for perfection, we might as
>>well trust the state in everything.
>
> Rubbish. If you are robbed, that is sufficient "logic and evidence"
> to never trust that person again. While if you are not robbed by
> someone, that is no reason to trust that person implicitly with
> everything.
I can agree that that response is rubbish.
>>Try to concentrate. This is about trusting the state to make certain
>>decisions.
>>
> Yes... in your words -- "to prevent a death at the hands of the
> state." Yet, you are willing to accept the possibility of death at
> the hands of the state in certain cases, and reject it in other
> cases. While in all of those cases, there is the possibility of death
> at the hands of the state.
And your point? That if I can't prevent all deaths, I shouldn't worry
about any of them?
>
>>> You just don't want the State to execute anyone... innocent or
>>> guilty.
>>
>>Your argument presumes that the state can reliably determine the
>>difference.
>
> Your argument concedes that as far as your subjective ethics is
> concerned the state can reliably determine the difference between
> guilt and innocence in the criminal justice system. So you support
> the state possibly sending an innocent man to prison for life, but
> oppose the state executing any murderer. Go figure....
Why go figure? The state can correct its actions when its victim is
alive.
>>> At the least you should be honest with your
>>> motives if you expect any credibility.
>>
>>From whom? You? You can't put together an argument with analyzing
>>me.
>>
> A very angry young man.
How old do you think I am.
>>> We don't easily abide fools or knaves in this group.
>>
>>Bwahahahahahaha! A fool tells me he doesn't easily abide fools.
>>Priceless.
>
> A very, very angry fool of a young man.
How old do you think I am.
> And showing signs of
> being a knave in changing his argument from sentence to sentence.
This is entirely confined to your own head.
> Let's stick with your basic definition of your objective -- "My
> objective is not to save a life at all or even ALL costs, but to
> prevent a death at the hands of the state." So you don't CARE
> if innocent lives are lost, but only care about preventing "a death at
> the hands of the state."
>
> Thus... Once again ---
>
> Which do you believe is the greater evil???
>
> 1) The murder of an innocent victim by a wrongly released murderer
> at "the hands of that murderer."
>
> 2) The execution of a murderer at "the hands of the state" preventing
> that wrong release which led to the murder of an innocent victim.
>
> I defy you to look at your stated _objective_ and pick one.
Another false dichotomy.
If we had this perfect knowledge, the answer would be easy. We don't; it
isn't.
>>>>> Now face it like a man, and recognize that in supporting abolition
>>>>> you must also bear the following consequences -- See --
>>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
>>>>
>>>>Of course. And your point?
>>>
>>> My point is that "you must also bear the following consequences."
>>> Since you agreed, using your own words "of course," it's rather
>>> obvious you recognized what my point was. Or do you agree
>>> with whatever happens to pass your mind without grasping WHY
>>> you agree? It seems your stock answer to everything is your
>>> admission that you can't grasp a simple point.
>>
>>As irony meters explode everywhere. See above why your point is
>>trivial and fatuous.
>>
> Oh, my... look at all that anger explode! Now you no longer claim
> to be confused about my point, but insist it is trivial and fatuous.
I'm confused why anyone would argue something so trivial and fatuous.
Why is it so important that I be angry? There are people who make me
angry. None of them posts to misc.legal et al.
>>>>> And so many more....
>>>>>
>>>>> The only consequence that I face, as a supporter of the death
>>>>> penalty in the extremely small number of the most violent,
>>>>> vicious, and clearly guilty murderers I support being executed, is
>>>>> the almost mathematically impossible execution of an innocent.
>>>>
>>>>You accuse me of selective thinking but you, yourself believe that
>>>>you can prove "mathematically" that we don't execute innocents.
>>>
>>> I didn't say that. I said "in the extremely small number of the
>>> violent, vicious, and clearly guilty murderers I support being
>>> executed," it is almost mathematically impossible that an innocent
>>> has been executed.
>>
>>Could I see the calculations?
>
> Read the trial transcripts and the fact there was an open trial and
> 12 jurors agreed unanimously with the verdict and sentence. That
> they might _change their minds now_, is only indicative of media
> pressure and insults from anti-DP fruitcakes and organizations such as
> DPIC. Keep in mind while they were sequestered and were only
> dispassionately viewing the evidence outside of any external
> influence, they all agreed.
So no calculations then. Just verbiage.
>>> Follow along now. As an abolitionist. you MUST oppose each
>>> and every execution of any murderer, REGARDLESS of how
>>> _violent, vicious, and clearly guilty_ such a murderer might be. On
>>> the other hand, I need only support hardly any executions of
>>> murderers. All I have to do is support the execution of THOSE
>>> I find absolutely unequivocally guilty, and in my mind deserved of
>>> execution, while having the utmost fear that in not executing them
>>> we face the almost certain possibility that they will murder again
>>> given the slightest opportunity. In other words, I can easily
>>> state, and I do, that I wish we executed ONLY those of that kind.
>>> About one or two out of every five we now execute.
>>
>>At least we've got an answer now: 10-20 percent.
>
> I've never claimed otherwise. That you were unaware of my position is
> irrelevant, since you oppose ANY "death at the hands of the state."
> This is the only controversy in play. You oppose all "death at the
> hands of the state," while I only need to support a single "death at
> the hands of the state," to place our differences into focus.
Oh, focus isn't the problem here.
>
>> But you didn't show your work.
>
> You really expect me to go down the list of 1,156 convicted murderers
> executed since Gregg v. Georgia, and pick out 231 that I support
> having been executed? Why not make it easier? Tell me why you
> oppose the execution of Kenneth McDuff or John Wayne Gacy or
> Ted Bundy or Theodore Frank or Randy Geenawalt or Kevin Michael
> Watts or Robert Lee Massie or Jarmarr Arnold or Alvin Andrew Kelly or
> Daniel Harold Rolling or Bennie Eddie Demps or Corey Duane Hamilton or
> Tomas Grant Ervin or Michael Bruce Ross or Daniel Joe Hittle or Dennis
> Wayne Bagwell or Arthur Julius or Charles Wesley Roache or Dawud
> Mu'Min or Jessy Carlos San Miguel or Daniel Keith Rich or Arthur Gary
> Bishop or William George Bonin or Carroll Cole or Daniel Henry
> Gaskins?
I've given you my list. That's why.
> Oh, that's right... the lives of their victims are unimportant to you
> as long as their death doesn't come at the hands of the state.
That's where my responsibility lies.
>> But I'm sure everyone is glad that we have you to find people
>>"absolutely unequivocally guilty." What would we do without a mind so
>>great he knows who is deserving of execution and who will certainly
>>kill again? You must be very busy.
>
> I suppose you believe that is part of your "logic and evidence"
> argument. Why are you so angry?
Why is it so important to you that I be angry? I'm enjoying myself
(perhaps a bit too much) making fun of you.
>>> And I do not support the execution of many of those we have
>>> executed. While on the other hand, I clearly support the death
>>> penalty as a "concept" employed in the U.S. criminal justice system.
>>> Whether you understand this or not makes no difference to me,
>>
>>And yet here you are. Windmilling away, speculating on my character,
>>if not my argument.
>>
> Your character is open to question since you admit that your
> "objective is not to save a life at all."
!
>>> because I'm sure you've encounter situations where you believe
>>> some "criminals" are guilty and deserve "punishment" other than
>>> the death penalty, and feel others (convicted of crimes other than
>>> capital murder) have been wrongly convicted, aside from the
>>> death penalty as a separate issue.
>>
>>Of course I do. I just understand that I would no more trust my
>>feelings than I would anyone else's when it comes to killing someone.
>
> Now it's my turn. What's your point??? Since your _objective_
> is "not to save a life."
My objective is exercise my societal responsibility to stop what I think
is an unjust killing of innocents. I'm sorry you think I'm angry at you
about it.
>>> I find it hard to believe that in spite of believing that some
>>> innocents have been convicted of crimes other than murder
>>> you support abolishing the entire criminal justice system.
>>
>>And, of course, you should find it hard to believe that. Since it's
>>entirely a figment of your imagination.
>>
> No proof offered. Your claim fails (courtesy of Mr Crowley, an
> abolitionist).
There's that little victory dance again.
>>> In any case, you certainly can't complain that we've executed as
>>> many innocents as we have found _actual murderers_ not
>>> guilty.
>>
>>Hard to say. I don't know the conviction rate for murder. You might
>>want to practice saying the first sentence in this paragraph.
>
> Well, the conviction rate for those accused of murder is 70%. Thus
> three out of every ten accused murderers are acquitted. It doesn't
> take a rocket scientist to suspect that many of those 3 out of 10 were
> acquitted not because they were TRULY innocent, but because
> there was insufficient "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." If you're
> going to argue the "possibility" of a convicted murderer being
> TRULY innocent, you also need to accept the "possibility" of an
> acquitted murderer being TRULY guilty. You can't have your
> cake and eat it too.
What makes you think I don't accept that?
>
>>> Because we have a justice system that argues we
>>> should allow 10 guilty to go free rather than convict one
>>> innocent. Or would you rather a justice system that does
>>> NOT have a death penalty, but allows 1 guilty to go free for
>>> every 10 innocents convicted?
>>
>>Another figment of your imagination?
>>
> You have this habit of not answering questions. Could that be
> part of your attempt to ignore the "consequences" of your
> agenda?
No, it's part of ridiculing you for irrelvant observations.
>>>> Did you factor
>>>>Texas into your calculations?
>>>
>>> I only factor those murderers I feel should be executed into
>>> my calculations. Did you factor Kenneth McDuff into your
>>> calculations? See --
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Allen_McDuff
>>> So much for your lack of faith in human beings sitting on a jury
>>> determining who deserves to be executed and is positively guilty.
>>> Good ol' Ken McDuff beat the system, after human beings on
>>> the jury sentenced him to death. He still managed to work
>>> his way out of prison and murder about a dozen more victims.
>>> I suppose you feel he got a bum deal the second time, and
>>> still oppose his execution because _he might be innocent_.
>>
>>I oppose the death penalty because I think its unjust in its total
>>operation. I don't think killing McDuff justifies the deaths of the
>>people I've listed previously.
>>
> In other words you believe not killing McDuff justifies the deaths
> of Colleen Reed, Melissa Ann Northrup, Brenda Thompson, Reginia
> Moore, Valencia Kay Joshua, and certainly a few more.
If we knew the future, this would all be easy. Get to work on that time
machine.
Now I'm a megalomaniac. Says the one who knows who's *really* guilty.
>> Although that makes you just the person to
>>advocate for it, you'll notice it's nowhere in operation. We already
>>have a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a system of
>>automatic appeals. We still have what we have.
>
> Yes, we do. And we always will. Humans are fallible. You expect
> they are infallible in determining guilt or innocence if the person is
> not accused of murder, but you squeal fortissimo when "death at
> the hands of the state" follows that guilt.
You're catching on.
>>> So my choices are quite narrow in respect to ALL convicted
>>> murderers, while yours encompass saving the life of each and
>>> every murderer regardless of how destructive to "human beings"
>>> you know he is.
>>>
>>> The representatives of a state in the U.S. create criminal statutes
>>> because their constituents find it appropriate. If those criminal
>>> statutes incorporate the possible use of the death penalty, you
>>> insist you oppose "government by the majority." While if a U.S.
>>> state does not have the death penalty I fully agree with their
>>> decision. The only state I have a voice in, is my state. And I
>>> voice that with my vote, and my correspondence with my
>>> representative if I feel strongly about any issue. My state is the
>>> only state in which I can offer a view both for the majority and for
>>> the minority, because it is MY view.
>>
>>I often oppose the "government by the majority." You think this is
>>some kind of slam?
>
> I only concern myself with the U.S. death penalty. I have already
> made this clear noting that I don't care if Europe holds a parade and
> offers a week in bed with Miss EU to any murderer who "promises
> not to do it again." It's not my problem!! As long as they don't
> _punish_ their murderers by sending them to the U.S. Morally (which
> is a subjective view of mine - not an absolute) I am left horrified by
> Islamic law which punishes adultery with stoning, and homosexuality
> with hanging.
Imagine my relief.
> So when I speak of the "majority" as a "government by the majority,"
> I'm referring to representative democracy in the U.S. and nowhere
> else, when it comes to the issue of the death penalty. If you are an
> American it stands to reason that you would support the constitution,
> which outlines how "government by the majority" is established.
> If you don't support the constitution, I personally would consider
> you nothing better than a rabble-rousing leftist carrying a sign that
> calls for overthrowing the U.S. form of "government by the
> majority."
I'm not arguing that the death penalty is illegal. That's another
argument confined to your head.
> If you argue about other states that are virtual dictatorships or
> theocracies, I'm quite uninterested in discussing any idea of
> "government by the majority" in those states. Perhaps another
> time, in a different thread when considering geopolitical situations.
I'm not arguing about any state but the US. That's another argument
confined to your head.
Deadrat
But only one is guaranteed irrevocable.
> This does not make them capricious by definition.
No, the capriciousness is built in by operation.
> You, personally, may disagree with a particular punishment
> given to someone for a particular crime that seems unfair to you.
> But it didn't seem unfair to jurors who determined that punishment.
So what?
<snip/>
Deadrat
>>> 7/ NEWS05/80407043
>>>
>>> Now at the time I don't remember anyone pontificating these two
>>> men's innocence. The only outcry I remember is that they DIDNT get
>>> the death penalty. Shame.
>>
>>And, of course, public outcry over emotionally wrenching events is the
>>best way to determine public policy and make ethical decisions.
>>
>
> <sarcasm>
> Why are you always so angry, deadrat??? <snip/>
> Learn to control your anger, and that will help reduce your stress.
> Just some friendly advice.
> </sarcasm>
Ah, so the sarcasm tags mean you don't really think I'm angry?
If so, those tags would have been very helpful in your other posts.
Here's a couple more I suggest you use:
<fallacy type="..."></fallacy>
<irrelevancy></irrelevancy>
Deadrat
news:nls7v45s7vql6664a...@4ax.com:
Once you have the hubris to believe that you can discern guilt and
innocence for both the past and future actions of others, then you're
able to believe that you can make the calculations about the deaths of
the innocent and the guilty.
I don't claim to have that knowledge. I do have knowledge of the
fallability of the state in its capital penal system, and given my sphere
of knowledge, I prefer that the state not kill its citizens. Perhaps
with your loftier view, you can discern the "real" truth, so YMMV. And
evidently does.
John Rennie
"Planet Visitor II" <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:git7v4pl034ed1u7o...@4ax.com...
Run with the hares and hunt with the hounds - that's me all over.
John Rennie
Another win for Deadrat says this 'unbiased' observer.
I reckon, Deadrat, that you are roundabout 55 and that therefore it is quite
legitimate for us mid seventy year olds to call you 'son'.
Deadrat
Well, anyone can play an old fart in cyberspace.
But, not bad.
Planet Visitor II
Rubbish --> an innocent is falsely convicted of rape, and commits
suicide after being gang raped in his prison cell. Tell me that's
"revocable." Tell me he would have been raped without the
"hand of the state" having anything to do with his it. Tell me
that wouldn't expose the "hand of the state" in his "death."
Now tell me you're against the criminal justice system finding
anyone guilty of the crime of rape, and put in prison because
of that conviction.
>> This does not make them capricious by definition.
>
>No, the capriciousness is built in by operation.
>
You don't seem to grasp the meaning of the word "capricious."
Because a conviction for the very same crime carries different
punishments does not make them "capricious." "Capricious"
would be giving exactly the same punishment for each crime.
Ignoring any past evidence of other crimes, and ignoring the
proportionate damage done in one instance of that crime
with another instance of that same crime. It makes a joke
of the idea of proportionality, and abolishes the entire
concept of minimum and maximum punishments in
convictions for the same crime. Do you believe EVERY
conviction for the crime of murder should receive
exactly the same punishment?
In fact, the SCOTUS has already ruled that application
of the death penalty for each and every conviction of
capital murder is _capricious, and unconstitutional_.
In the case of Woodson v. North Carolina. The
wording of that court ruling stating such an application
of the death penalty "departed markedly from contemporary
standards," providing no standards to guide juries in the
exercise of "the power to determine which first-degree
murderers shall live and which shall die." In addition to
ruling that such statutes applying a mandatory death
penalty failed to allow any extenuating circumstances
to be recognized. The court also noted that "the fundamental
respect for humanity" recognized in the 8th Amendment
made such criminal statutes unconstitutional.
The very last vestige of a mandatory death sentence was
struck down with Sumner v. Shuman, in 1987. In this case,
Shuman had already been convicted of first-degree murder
and was serving a life sentence without the possibility of
parole. While in prison Shuman doused a fellow prisoner with
lighter fluid burning him to death after a fight about opening
a window near his cell. The criminal statute at the time in
Nevada required a mandatory death penalty for a murderer
serving L wop who murders again in prison. This was felt
necessary in recognizing that there was nothing further to
punish a murderer serving L wop from murdering in prison
without the death penalty.
This particular criminal statute applied only to a very narrow
group and had never been tested against the ruling in
Woodson v. North Carolina, until 1987. Shuman never
was executed. Which must make you very happy, although
I doubt the prisoner he torched would agree with you.
While it also shows that L wop is not the real answer to
any absolute incapacitation to murder again. See--
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/23/us/court-eliminates-mandatory-death-sentence.html
But then _saving a life at all_ isn't your objective, is it, Mr.
Rat??
>> You, personally, may disagree with a particular punishment
>> given to someone for a particular crime that seems unfair to you.
>> But it didn't seem unfair to jurors who determined that punishment.
>
>So what?
Spoken like a true narcissist egocentric.
Gee whiz... where is all that "logic and evidence" you claim to
have?
><snip/>
Planet Visitor II
Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
I'm not into character assassination, certainly not to the extent that
he has continued to insult my intelligence. But I am interested in
his psychological motivation in believing that prisons are as
capable as the death penalty in preventing further murders by
certainly already convicted murderers.
He keeps referring to "logic and evidence," yet continues to ignore
presenting any. In each example of my _armchair psychology_
it has been driven by a particular insult he has offered. It has
become an _ethical_ question. Since he has insisted that his
view is based upon _ethical choices_. Which presumes it comes
from an objective ethics. There is no question in my mind that he
has an enormous pent-up anger directed at anyone who happens to
question his agenda. I just happen to be the focus of that anger at
this moment. Just as I was the focus of the anger from Peter Morris
in the past. I simply question what is actually behind all that
anger. I have not offered a single angry word in his direction.
When does it become character assassination to be analytical?
But as always, I do value your views even if they hardly ever
are parallel to mine, and even if in this case you seem to attack me
personally, while at the same moment disagreeing with his
fundamental position.
Best regards. BTW -- Still going to Canada???
Planet Visitor II
<john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
>"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>news:gETIl.6132$Lr6...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:ej57v4d44epuprnhh...@4ax.com:
>>
>
>Another win for Deadrat says this 'unbiased' observer.
Well... among any two posters to AADP having a different line
of reasoning you've always rooted for the more heartless, brutal,
barbaric, ruthless and pitiless poster, John. ;o)
>I reckon, Deadrat, that you are roundabout 55 and that therefore it is quite
>legitimate for us mid seventy year olds to call you 'son'.
Deadrat is a very angry young man. It's quite simple to put our
separate views into focus so I'm concerned that there is a deeper
problem that is troubling him.
His objective as he has stated is -- "My objective is not to save a
life at all... but to prevent a death at the hands of the state."
While my objective is -- "My objective is to save a life...
if I believe the death of a murderer at the hands of the state will
achieve that objective."
Of course this objective only applies in the case of the U.S.
death penalty and all its due process safe-guards.
His objective is framed as an absolute... clearly noted without
regard for saving a life. While it makes absolutely no logical
sense because the latter objective conflicts 100% with the
first objective. He states his objective is "not to save a
life at all," and yet his latter objective is to "save a life" from
"death at the hands of the state." Even a bloody idiot can
see the logical fallacy in his stated _objective_ (which makes
it quite easy for me to see it).
Further, it's egotistical, without regard for the
consequences of any loss of life, based only upon his
needy subjective belief that it is _moral_ to have a dozen
innocents murdered to save one murderer from being put
to death at the hands of the state. Clearly it lacks any
human interest qualities, but is essentially self-serving.
There are a thousand better reasons to oppose the death
penalty in the U.S. than one which expresses only a personal
end, while stating emphatically that this personal end does
not concern itself with _saving a life_. He appears to me
like a guy who would not jump in the water to save a drowning
person only because there was a "no swimming" sign posted.
Shades of the _trolley problem_.
Planet Visitor II
<john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
Heh.. but you can't do both, John.
Sooner or later there are hounds that catch the hares, and you're left
with the choice of supporting either victims, or murderers. There
will always be the victim and the victimizer. The weak will always be
vulnerable to exploitation, slavery, cheating, manipulation, being
treated unfairly, and even robbery, rape and murder.
You need to take a position is which you support the weak or
vulnerable victim or support those who victimize the weak and
vulnerable.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:21:21 +1000, sa...@notinnedmeatdodo.com.au (Mr
> Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
> >I'm not going to get any further into this. I have put forward my
> >interpretation which may well be wrong but I do know that it has more
> >merit than your side of the argument with Deadrat, which appears to be
> >composed of armchair psychology, character assassination, straw men and
> >abusive ad hominems. It is hardly a wonder that observers think that he
> >has won heavily on points, even if they do not agree with his
> >fundamental position (which I don't).
>
> I'm not into character assassination,
What rot, Jim. It's your rhetorical stock in trade. If someone posts
something that can even remotely interpreted as representative of some
failure of character, you immediately use it to impute that poster as a
Holocaust denier, a racist, you name it...
> certainly not to the extent that
> he has continued to insult my intelligence.
He has pointed out that your arguments are straw men, abusive ad
hominems and character assassination. He has insulted your arguments
and, to be honest, they deserve to be insulted as they are rubbish. If
anyone has insulted your intelligence then it is _you_, with your
refusal to address your opponent's argument and your apparent insistence
on making personal attacks upon him.
> Since he has insisted that his
> view is based upon _ethical choices_.
Has he? I don't recall his having used that expression or even implied
it but I may be wrong. I thought that his position was largely
connected with how much (or how little) he trusted the state to take the
lives of its citizens.
> Which presumes it comes
> from an objective ethics.
Does it? Do you assume that your own ethical choices come from an
objective morality?
> But as always, I do value your views even if they hardly ever
> are parallel to mine, and even if in this case you seem to attack me
> personally, while at the same moment disagreeing with his
> fundamental position.
I am not attacking you at all, Jim. I am telling you that what you have
posted to this thread has largely been bollocks and it deserves to be
torn down. Deadrat has made a number of howlers in this thread that I
was sorely tempted to pull to pieces but I thought that I might leave it
to you to wake up and play the ball rather than the man. Thus far, no
luck. Here's a hint - his errors were in Death Penalty 101 and any
regular on this group could have pulled him up on them in an instant.
Such a shame, then, that you so often seem determined to portray your
opponents as moral pygmies rather than simply addressing their agruments
on their merits.
> Best regards. BTW -- Still going to Canada???
In time. Ontario has suffered quite badly from the downturn and we are
waiting for things to look just that little bit better before moving.
Being well paid in Australia with no indication of that situation
changing is probably more sensible than rolling the dice in North
America which has, thus far, suffered far more badly than we have in Oz.