U.S. Death Penalty Errors

Gary Smith

unread,

Feb 12, 2002, 10:14:46 PM2/12/02

to

U.S. Death Penalty Errors
By Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Innocent people are more likely to be sentenced to
die in America in areas that zealously use the death penalty, have higher
black populations and where judges face political pressure, according to a
study released Monday.

Taking a range of risk factors into consideration, Florida, Georgia, Texas
and Alabama are among the most likely states to make serious mistakes in
capital cases while Connecticut and Colorado are low risk, said Colombia Law
School Professor James Liebman, the study's lead researcher.

While race, politics and an overburdened legal system play a strong role,
Liebman said areas that relied heavily on the death penalty as punishment,
even in weaker cases, were most likely to impose a flawed capital sentence.

``What our study shows is that aggressive death sentencing is a magnet for
serious error,'' Liebman told Reuters.

The study, which looks at why mistakes occur in capital cases, follows a
report by Liebman in 2000 which found that 68 percent of all death verdicts
reviewed from 1973-1995 were reversed by courts due to serious error.

Of those reversals, 82 percent ended in less harsh sentences, and 9 percent
of those people were found not guilty and eventually freed.

Since the death penalty was reintroduced in America in 1973, 99 death row
inmates have been exonerated, raising questions about its validity and
leading to mounting pressure among opponents for it to be scrapped or at
least suspended.

``If you have a scattershot death penalty policy, you are going to miss most
of the time,'' said Liebman, a strong opponent of the death penalty.''

EXECUTION ONLY FOR ``WORST OF WORST'' CASES

The researchers found broad differences from one area to another within the
same state. For example, in Lexington County in South Carolina, the death
sentence was imposed in 93 per 1,000 homicides. In Richland County, just a
couple of miles away, the rate was 9 per 1,000 homicides.

What the study showed said Liebman, was that the death penalty should be
reserved only for the ``very worst of the worst'' cases.

The study estimated when death sentences increased from a quarter of the
national average to the highest rate, the predicted increase in reversal
rates was sixfold to about 80 percent.

The more aggravating circumstances found in a case -- such as multiple
victims, a defendant who has a long history of prior violent behavior or
physical torture -- the less likely a mistake would be made.

``As you add those aggravating circumstances, the likelihood of reversal
goes way down,'' said Liebman.

Looking at particular cases, researchers identified three key errors that
often led to reversals -- incompetent legal counsel, police or prosecutors
who suppressed evidence and judges who gave jurors the wrong instructions.

High capital reversal rates were also more likely in densely populated
states and in areas where the risk of homicide was higher for whites and in
those areas with a weak record of catching and imprisoning serious
criminals.

Another trend was that the more often state trial judges were subject to
election and the more partisan those elections, the higher the error rate.

The report suggested 10 reforms, including proof beyond any doubt that a
defendant committed a capital crime, barring the death penalty for
defendants with obvious extenuating circumstances such as for juveniles and
the mentally ill.

Other suggestions included making life imprisonment without parole an
alternative to death, making all police and prosecution evidence available
to the jury, insulating sentencing judges from political pressures and the
appointment of competent defense counsel.

For the most part, Liebman said little if any compensation was given to
people wrongly sentenced to death.

``In all of these cases, it's a case of wasted lives, time and money,'' he
said.

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 13, 2002, 1:33:46 AM2/13/02

to

This raises an interesting question. What constitutes "the worst of
the worst" cases of crimes that deserve the death penalty? What about
"almost the worst of the worst"? or "pretty darn near the worst of the
worst"? How about just merely "the worst"?
Dennis

"Gary Smith" <smit...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:GSka8.1380$Nf3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

PQ Rada

unread,

Feb 13, 2002, 9:36:51 AM2/13/02

to

I want to know why we should be in the business of taking life, as they may
have done? How can that prove that taking life is wrong. ? Love Patty Q.

Susan L. Nielsen

unread,

Feb 14, 2002, 12:48:16 PM2/14/02

to

On 13 Feb 2002, PQ Rada wrote:

> I want to know why we should be in the business of taking life, as they may
> have done? How can that prove that taking life is wrong. ? Love Patty Q.

It doesn't. It provides an exercise in revenge, that is usually
called "closure" these days. Whether it's right really enters very
little into most people's thinking, except as they say they have
a "right" to closure.

Revenge is a harsh word, and we go to some lengths to get around it:
capital sentence, final option, deterrent, payback, last relief... all
those are delicate ways of expressing the State's method of exacting revenge.
The State acts as the sword of the individual, who is not permitted to take
vengence personally.

Susan
--
Susan Nielsen |It is dangerous to be right
snie...@orednet.org |when the government is wrong.
| -Voltaire

PQ Rada

unread,

Feb 15, 2002, 10:35:00 AM2/15/02

to

Yes but executions do not give closure, as the daughter of a murder victim I
can tell you that it is only time that can ease the pain. Any death is hard but
those of us taken are especially difficult. Your very reasonable reply does not
answer the question of why taking life in the name of any cause.to teach that
taking life is wrong. Love Patty Q.

Susan L. Nielsen

unread,

Feb 15, 2002, 12:25:18 PM2/15/02

to

I'm so sorry you've had to experience that. But, Patty, the purpose of
the death penalty is not to teach. Despite what some may try to argue,
that is simply not what it's about, and I do think we would make more
progress in overcoming the death penalty if we (the big we: society at
large) would face the matter squarely.

As to teaching that it's wrong to kill another, that has to happen in
different place. You have to have it in the faith of the heart to
understand that it's wrong, and to be unequivocal about it.

After all, the State only mirrors the moral standards of its people.
If we want the State to take a better stand, we have to have the better
people shoving it into place.

PQ Rada

unread,

Feb 16, 2002, 10:19:14 AM2/16/02

to

Yes, Susan but I get awfully annoyed with the endless intellectualizing of most
posters here, and lest we forget these are human lives we are taking all the
time. Much less the other beings we kill. Love Patty Q.

Russell Nelson

unread,

Feb 19, 2002, 2:26:44 PM2/19/02

to

pqr...@aol.com (PQ Rada) writes:

> I want to know why we should be in the business of taking life, as they may
> have done? How can that prove that taking life is wrong. ? Love Patty Q.

I've argued and argued with death penalty proponents, and they don't
use this argument. Their argument is not that killing is wrong (of
course it is), but instead that the death penalty is just (you kill,
you get killed), efficient (why should society pay a killer to live
out his natural life?), and effective (he's never going to kill
again).

Seems to me that one of the bigger weaknesses in the death penalty
argument is that 1) many people who kill also kill themselves, and 2)
it's a way for a coward to die without having to kill himself.

Timothy Travis

unread,

Feb 20, 2002, 12:43:34 AM2/20/02

to

On 20 Feb 2002 00:56:18 GMT, Guy Macon <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote:

>The first argument is hard to debate with logic. The second is just
>plain wrong - it costs a lot more to execute someone than to keep them
>in prison for life, and will remain so until we as a society decide
>to pay guards more or pay lawyers/judges less.

how much do you suppose is paid to judges and the (mostly court
appointed) attorneys who represent those accused of murder?

peace

Timothy M. Travis
Bridge City Preparative Meeting
Portland, Oregon

Love your enemies, do good to them
Luke 16;35

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 20, 2002, 2:37:10 AM2/20/02

to

"Timothy Travis" <tt...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:dod67u0vvsuh2ls0t...@4ax.com...

Who'd be willing to bet that the more an accused felon can spend on his/her
defense the higher chance of being found innocent? I know I would.
Dennis

Timothy Travis

unread,

Feb 20, 2002, 8:23:59 AM2/20/02

to

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:37:10 GMT, "Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com>
wrote:

>
>> >The first argument is hard to debate with logic. The second is just
>> >plain wrong - it costs a lot more to execute someone than to keep them
>> >in prison for life, and will remain so until we as a society decide
>> >to pay guards more or pay lawyers/judges less.
>>
>> how much do you suppose is paid to judges and the (mostly court
>> appointed) attorneys who represent those accused of murder?
>>
>> peace
>>
>> Timothy M. Travis
>> Bridge City Preparative Meeting
>> Portland, Oregon
>>
>>
>> Love your enemies, do good to them
>> Luke 16;35
>
>Who'd be willing to bet that the more an accused felon can spend on his/her
>defense the higher chance of being found innocent? I know I would.
>Dennis
>

so would I, but that is not what Friend Macon was writing about. His
point was that it cost more to put someone to death than house them
forever because lawyers and judges made so much money out of the
current system. I would like to know how much he thinks that judges
and court appointed lawyers (who defend the vast majority of murder
defendants and do the appeals) makes.

Russell Nelson

unread,

Feb 20, 2002, 1:26:57 PM2/20/02

to

Guy Macon <guym...@deltanet.com> writes:

> Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote:
> >
> >I've argued and argued with death penalty proponents, and they don't
> >use this argument. Their argument is not that killing is wrong (of
> >course it is), but instead that the death penalty is just (you kill,
> >you get killed), efficient (why should society pay a killer to live
> >out his natural life?), and effective (he's never going to kill
> >again).
>

> The first argument is hard to debate with logic. The second is just
> plain wrong - it costs a lot more to execute someone than to keep them
> in prison for life, and will remain so until we as a society decide
> to pay guards more or pay lawyers/judges less.

Or kill people faster -- which is also a goal of death penalty
advocates. They say that we can't use the cost argument when it's
*us* who is causing the high cost.

> The third is valid.

Yes, but I think it's countered by:

> Dead convicted killers can't [be freed if found innocent].

> >Seems to me that one of the bigger weaknesses in the death penalty
> >argument is that 1) many people who kill also kill themselves, and 2)
> >it's a way for a coward to die without having to kill himself.
>

> To me the strongest logical argument (as opposed to moral arguments)
> is that it is wrong to allow a group of people to do something that
> would be illegal for any individual member of that group to do.

That's an argument from a principle which many people do not accept,
much to their loss.

Wakefield

unread,

Feb 20, 2002, 4:22:20 PM2/20/02

to

The Chinese supposedly would sometimes offer the condemned the chance to
hang themselves or take opium rather than be executed by another.
--

-- L Wakefield, owner and operator of the beastly truck heretik, that
refuses to stay between the lines when parking --
"Russell Nelson" <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote in message
news:m23czx6...@desk.crynwr.com...

Timothy Travis

unread,

Feb 20, 2002, 4:14:21 PM2/20/02

to

On 20 Feb 2002 08:01:58 GMT, Guy Macon <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote:

>Timothy Travis <tt...@qwest.net> wrote:

>>
>>On 20 Feb 2002 00:56:18 GMT, --snip-- wrote:
>>
>>>The first argument is hard to debate with logic. The second is just
>>>plain wrong - it costs a lot more to execute someone than to keep them
>>>in prison for life, and will remain so until we as a society decide
>>>to pay guards more or pay lawyers/judges less.
>>
>>how much do you suppose is paid to judges and the (mostly court
>>appointed) attorneys who represent those accused of murder?
>

>I have no idea, but I have seen many claims by those who oppose the
>death penalty that the total cost of an execution is greater than the
>total cost of a life sentence, and I have never heard of a death
>penalty proponent disputing this.

I have, but I have never heard either side cite any evidence.
Unanswered assertions are not truth, although sometimes they can
amount to such. It is also true that sometimes people do not bother
to answer assertions for various reasons and then the unanswered
person gleefully claims that this means that they are correct.

More significant, in this situation, is that one who admits that he
doesn't know how much the lawyers and judges cost in death penalty
cases is willing to state as a fact that they are the reason that it
costs more to house someone permanently than to execute them--not
even, as he also admits, knowing whether that statement is true.

> If someone has figures on this,
>I would love to see them - I am tired of being the one who always
>does the research whenever a question with a numeric answer comes up.

People who make claims without evidence should really look up the
evidence themselves, in my opinion. I think that the burden is on
them.

People who want to blame lawyers (or anyone, for that matter) for the
high cost of death penalty cases (or anything) should not merely
repeat what they have heard someone else say (uncontroverted or
not)--no matter how much "sense" it seems to make in the context of
whatever folklore (what some people call "common sense" or what
others would call a "philosophy") or ideology speaks to their
condition.

Often, as here, this results in evil (untruth, misleading others), the
product of a sinful state of mind (pride, envy), serving an an
ideology and a domineering ego rather than forwarding clear
understanding of a situation. If one is only able to to contribute,
in admitted ignorance, hearsay to a discussion, pandering to negative
stereotypes about a group about which there is a pre disposition to
scapegoat, one's words should be fewer...rather, none. (some people
who are a part of the scapegoated group, or associated with it, might
consider such behavior to be the kind of "personal attack" of which
some here so often see themselves the victim.)

It is good, however, that, caught making assertions for which he has
no evidence, this individual admits it.

Daniel Grubbs

unread,

Feb 20, 2002, 9:59:31 PM2/20/02

to

Wakefield wrote...

> The Chinese supposedly would sometimes offer the condemned the chance to
> hang themselves or take opium rather than be executed by another.

I thought it was the Chinese who would charge the cost of the bullet used in the
execution to the family of the murderer. Of course, this now sounds like an
"urban legend" to me and I wonder if it was ever true.

Dan Grubbs

Gary Smith

unread,

Feb 20, 2002, 10:41:02 PM2/20/02

to

Daniel Grubbs <clo...@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:a51nr7$nci$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

Wouldn't put it past them. The article below was in this Philadelphia
Inquire this morning.

He fights from afar for the faithful in China

By Jennifer Lin
Inquirer Staff Writer

A week ago, Bob Fu placed a call from his home in Glenside, Montgomery
County, to a mountain town in central China, where a roomful of people
waited anxiously by a cell phone.
Only five years earlier, Fu, now 34 and a local divinity student, had
escaped religious persecution in China. Now he was checking on the families
of five Chinese Christian leaders sentenced to death in secret trials in
December.

The relatives were frightened and worried. They did not know where the
church leaders were imprisoned, or even if all of them were still alive.

"The only thing I could tell them," Fu said, "was that I was calling on
people for help."

And on one person in particular: George W. Bush.

Tomorrow, President Bush holds his first summit in Beijing with Chinese
President Jiang Zemin. Although the leaders will discuss such issues of
common concern as trade and combating terrorism, Bush is under pressure from
U.S. lawmakers and human-rights activists to confront Jiang on China's
intensifying crackdown on religious groups that operate outside government
control.

Human-rights groups have presented Bush with fresh evidence that China's
secret police are targeting underground Christian groups - evidence supplied
by Fu.

Fu and his colleague Li Shixiong, 50, a New York-based political exile, have
launched a two-man effort to draw attention to the worsening state of
religious freedom in China.

In the last week, they have released translations of internal police
documents, smuggled out of China, that spell out plans to suppress
unauthorized church groups. Fu and Li also have sent Bush a list of 123
imprisoned Christian leaders.

Among them is Gong Shengliang, one of the five church leaders whose
relatives Fu called last week. Gong is an evangelical Christian and founder
of the South China Church, now branded a cult by Chinese police.

In a document dated Aug. 9, 2001, which was translated by Fu, the Beijing
security police called for "the complete smashing" of Gong's group.

A Chinese court sentenced Gong to death for running a cult and for criminal
offenses including arson, beatings and rape. His niece Li Ying, 36, editor
of a church group magazine, received the death penalty with a two-year
reprieve. Such sentences are usually commuted to life in prison.

Fu said the criminal charges were bogus. He released testimony from women
who said police tortured them to obtain false allegations of rape.

Fu said that rather than running a cult, Gong practiced a brand of
Christianity that would be familiar to Christians here.

"They are mainstream evangelicals and should be regarded as following the
faith of Billy Graham," Fu said.

China allows religious freedom in its constitution, but only for
state-approved churches or, in the case of Catholics, for churches that
agree not to take direction from the Vatican. Many Catholics and Protestants
prefer to practice religion at independent "house churches."

In many parts of China, police look the other way at house churches. But the
climate for unofficial groups turned decidedly worse in 1999, after
followers of a fast-growing spiritual movement called Falun Gong staged a
massive demonstration in Beijing to protest government treatment. Alarmed,
China's leaders vowed to eradicate all "evil cults."

Since then, more than 100 Falun Gong followers have died in police
detention, according to the U.S. State Department. And now, as the documents
released by Fu suggest, the crackdown has spread to underground Christian
groups.

"Authorities have found that it's expedient and useful to brand increasing
numbers of house-church groups as cults," said Robin Munro, a British
human-rights researcher.

Munro and several well-known scholars have reviewed Fu's material and view
it as genuine. The documents identify 14 groups targeted as cults and
portray the covert efforts by secret police to infiltrate underground
groups.

"It's been courageous work," said Nina Shea, director of the Center for
Religious Freedom in Washington.

Fu, a divinity student at Westminster Theological Seminary in Glenside, had
to flee China after run-ins with police over his unauthorized church work.

In 1996, he was working for the Beijing government's Chinese Communist Party
training school. His students by day were the future elite of the Communist
regime. But his students at night were Christians, including party members
who attended secretly.

Fu and his wife, Cai Bochun, also started a Bible school for intensive
training, operating out of a shuttered factory. When police discovered it,
they detained the couple for two months.

After their release, they lived under constant surveillance. "We had to
report every visitor, every call, every letter," he said. Finally they fled
to the United States.

To shed light on conditions in China, Fu has teamed with Li Shixiong, who
spent 21 years in China's notorious labor camps and gained U.S. asylum in
1997. They started the New York-based Committee for Investigation of
Persecution of Religion in China.

Fu said half the documents in their possession were given to them by a
Chinese secret police agent who has gone into hiding.

The Chinese government, Fu said, is terrified that spiritual movements such
as Falun Gong or underground churches will draw in the ranks of the
disaffected, challenging the Communist Party's authority. Officially, there
are 15 million Chinese Christians, but the number of people practicing
underground could easily double that sum.

"If they allow the explosion of religion," Fu said, "they are afraid they
cannot handle it."

Timothy Travis

unread,

Feb 21, 2002, 9:06:11 AM2/21/02

to

On 21 Feb 2002 09:42:04 GMT, Guy < @ . > wrote:

>
>
>Yes, I did say that it costs more to house someone permanently than
>to execute them. (I am quite satisfied with the evidence suporting
>that assertion, and I am not one to base a conclusion on poor
>evidence.) For the third time, I ask you to please speak plainly and
>say whether you do or do not dispute the assertion.

this is why it is so tiresome to deal with you.

first, you are changing the subject on me. I did not write to dispute
or not your claim about whether it costs more. I wrote to ask if you
had any idea what lawyers and judges cost.

second, you did say that you had no evidence, that you had heard it
said and not controverted. Then you said that someone else should
look up the numbers.

here are your words...

>>I have seen many claims by those who oppose the
>>death penalty that the total cost of an execution is greater than the
>>total cost of a life sentence, and I have never heard of a death

>>penalty proponent disputing this.... If someone has figures on this,

>>I would love to see them - I am tired of being the one who always
>>does the research whenever a question with a numeric answer comes up.

>
>I did *NOT* say that the cost of lawyers and judges is "the reason"
>why it costs more to house someone permanently than to execute them.
>I wouldn't surprise me if that turned out to be the case, but I never
>made such a claim.

you said that it costs more to house someone than execute them and
that this would be the case until guards made more or lawyers and
judges made less.

again, your words

>>The second is just
>>plain wrong - it costs a lot more to execute someone than to keep them
>>in prison for life, and will remain so until we as a society decide
>>to pay guards more or pay lawyers/judges less.

> If we are about to go into another round of you
>saying that you know what is going on in my mind,

If I were dumb enough to take this bait it would be the first such
round because I never said that and no matter how many times you
repeat it, nor how hot the vitriol that accompanies it, that will
never be what I said. I said I made deductions from what you said,
which I did. (you responded with a personal attack that I could not
deduce my way out of a paper bag, or words to that effect) You are
still just repeating your "line" over and over, staying on message to
avoid the fact that you were caught.

Did you think that just because I stopped responding to your
repetition of your propaganda that this made it true? The unanswered
assertion is "evidence" to you?

>> I will withdraw from
>this conversation now

What conversation are you talking about?

>before you get to the point of once again falsely
>accusing me of being a liar about what my own thought are.

I never accused you of being a liar about what your own thoughts are,
and you know it. I accused you of telling an untruth about the fact
that you asked me a rhetorical question to try to trap me. I can
tell the truth as easily as you repeat your face saving message. I
just won't do it as often as you do.

>the other hand, you wish to brush that chip off your shoulder

when I say something about Libertarians you sulk and whine and are
outraged all at once. I call you when make unfair remarks about
lawyers and judges and I have a chip on my shoulder.

I can see where, having said so many gratuitous and down right nasty
things to and about me, it is psychologically necessary for you to
characterize me as having a chip my shoulder.

> and have
>a conversation without the personal comments,

(who called who a "prick?" and "vomit?")

> I would be glad to have
>such a conversation.

Not even if you took the advice of one poster, here, and deleted your
insult file.

I have no intention of having what you call a "conversation" with you.
"Equity does not require futile acts." I only intended to, once
again, throw the penalty flag on one of your cheap shot personal
fouls. There is no point in my having a conversation with you about
anything.

You not only change the history of what you have said with no
compunction whatsoever (see above), you have a world view/ideology
that you are trying to advance, here, and everything that you say
serves that goal. You will accept any "evidence" that furthers your
advocacy of that view. If facts do not "fit into" your view of things
you either distort them until, to your satisfaction, they appear to or
you will attempt to dismiss them (and the people who present them)
with ridicule and any other rhetorical trick in the book that works
to your satisfactions (The Logic and Rhetoric of Exposition by Martin,
Ohmann and Wheatley, my old college text, is as good as any for
listing and explaining them. But I am sure you have one that you
particularly like, as well. Ah, the joys of a classical education!)

Insulting? perhaps. Personal remarks? yes. True? yes.

I do read what you write because, as I have many times said, you are a
very smart person and I often learn things from you. But I will not
"dialog" with you, anymore. I will, however, on occasion, continue to
point out and comment when you are so far off of the farm that you can
no longer hear the rooster. I do so for the benefit of others who may
be misled by you--especially by those who may think that your
"Calvinism," Libertarianism, contrarianism, and strictly individualist
Quakerism/ranterism (beyond the hold the meeting community/GOOF/Gospel
Order) is representative of the Society. People who are reading our
group to find out about Quakers, especially, need to understand that
such beliefs are idiosyncratic to you or, at best, the views a tiny
minority of Friends.

TTFN. Once again I give you the last word. But that doesn't make the
last word true.

Timothy Travis

unread,

Feb 21, 2002, 8:08:33 PM2/21/02

to

I was invited by Multnomah Monthly Meeting to be on a panel for the
regular Wednesday night program, a short two week series on "Fostering
Spirituality in Our Children." The first session was last night and,
after those of us who supposedly had something to say on the subject
(ie, religious education/spiritual development in the home) were done
it became a general sharing of experiences in this regard, including a
lot of talking about how we have tried to do it and how it was done to
us as children. It was a very rich session that included things like
answering "the questions" ("is hell down there and heaven up there",
"what started God" -- you know "the questions"), orientation toward
the Bible, Quakerism and Christianity, Bible stories and young
children, teaching/modeling prayer and worship.

We are meeting again next week and I am wondering if anyone in this
group has any thing they would like to share about how spirituality is
fostered in children or how it was (correctly or incorrectly) fostered
in them. Our discussion included home, Meeting/church, youth groups,
camps, etc.

I would really appreciate hearing, especially if you have an
experience that you think might be helpful to parents who are trying
to do a good job of stewardship in regard to their children at the
present time. If you would so note in a reply, I would appreciate
permission to share these anything you send me with people next
Wedesday night. No names attributed, of course.

Thanks.

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 21, 2002, 10:07:16 PM2/21/02

to

What does the cost have to do with this argument? It is cheaper to kill
children than raise them.
Dennis

"Guy" < @ . > wrote in message news:a52fdc$7...@dispatch.concentric.net...

> Timothy Travis <tt...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >
> >More significant, in this situation, is that one who admits that he
> >doesn't know how much the lawyers and judges cost in death penalty
> >cases is willing to state as a fact that they are the reason that it
> >costs more to house someone permanently than to execute them--not
> >even, as he also admits, knowing whether that statement is true.
>

> I never made such a statement. Stop arguing so hard that you lose
> the ability to listen.
>
> Yes, I did say that it costs more to house someone permanently than

> to execute them. (I am quite satisfied with the evidence suporting
> that assertion, and I am not one to base a conclusion on poor
> evidence.) For the third time, I ask you to please speak plainly and
> say whether you do or do not dispute the assertion.
>

> I did *NOT* say that the cost of lawyers and judges is "the reason"
> why it costs more to house someone permanently than to execute them.
> I wouldn't surprise me if that turned out to be the case, but I never

> made such a claim. If we are about to go into another round of you
> saying that you know what is going on in my mind, I will withdraw from
> this conversation now before you get to the point of once again falsely
> accusing me of being a liar about what my own thought are. If, on
> the other hand, you wish to brush that chip off your shoulder and have
> a conversation without the personal comments, I would be glad to have
> such a conversation.
>
>
>

Russell Nelson

unread,

Feb 22, 2002, 1:24:41 AM2/22/02

to

Timothy Travis <tt...@qwest.net> writes:

> On 20 Feb 2002 08:01:58 GMT, Guy Macon <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote:
> >I have no idea, but I have seen many claims by those who oppose the
> >death penalty that the total cost of an execution is greater than the
> >total cost of a life sentence, and I have never heard of a death
> >penalty proponent disputing this.
>
> I have, but I have never heard either side cite any evidence.
> Unanswered assertions are not truth, although sometimes they can
> amount to such. It is also true that sometimes people do not bother
> to answer assertions for various reasons and then the unanswered
> person gleefully claims that this means that they are correct.

If you two are done beating each other up, may I point out that the
death penalty proponents feel that it is *wrong* for the death penalty
to be more expensive than a life sentence. They feel that that
victimizes society. They want fewer appeals, less time, and less
money spent on sentencing convicted killers to death.

So, the truth of the assertion really doesn't matter, since neither
side can use the point against the other.

Russell Nelson

unread,

Feb 22, 2002, 1:31:39 AM2/22/02

to

Guy < @ . > writes:

> I did *NOT* say that the cost of lawyers and judges is "the reason"

> why it costs more to house someone permanently than to execute them.

You said:

"it costs a lot more to execute someone than to keep them
in prison for life, and will remain so until we as a society decide
to pay guards more or pay lawyers/judges less."

It sure sounds to me like you're putting the cost of the death penalty
on the money paid to lawyers and judges, and the only other cause you
allowed for was the cost of guards. I think Timothy has his own
problems with telling the truth, being quick to take offense, and
saying things to inflame the conversation rather than seek peace, but
in this instance I think he is correct.

Wakefield

unread,

Feb 22, 2002, 8:22:07 AM2/22/02

to

You make a very, very good point. But I will also try to untangle the
logical thread that brings this up.

1. The death penalty is considered by some parts of society as a 'viable'
alternative (sorry, that sounds very much like the *wrong* way to put
that..). The initial motivation had been to STOP the condemned person, at
all costs, from doing whatever things they had been doing- say in the case
of Tim McVeigh- mass murder.

2. If, then, the death of the condemned has already been considered and
accepted as one possible 'final solution'- then- and only then- does the
consideration of cost also enter into it. If it were not acceptable, then no
matter how economical, it would still be unacceptable.

It is 2 different arguments. It is pointless to use data from argument 2-
price- to try to settle argument 1- acceptability of the death penalty.

Whatever the outcome of argument 1, economy and efficiency should be
considered. The cost to society and individuals therein of the actual
initial crime is high enough. The cost of any proposed solution needs to be
weighed- in all dimensions, not only in $.

I like the idea of making the condemned repair the damage they have done.
It may not be exactly possible or equivalent, but I would have had no
compunction at all putting McVeigh to work helping victims of violent acts.
I wonder if he still could have spoken of collateral damage if he personally
had held those dead children and had to speak with their parents. He had
callous words to speak from the distance of his prison cell- but do you
think that would have withstood close contact with the pain of others? The
word is that he was partly driven by anger at the deaths in Waco. (I know we
couldn't ever have done this- but I feel that it is a direction that would
have opened his heart back up to repentance.)

And while it is not equivalent, if I were running the 'chain gang' in
Afghanistan, the ones having done the damage would be the ones rebuilding
the ruins, reclaiming the fields (somehow) from the land mines- making right
what has been made wrong.

Come to think about it, that would be a pretty international chain gang,
wouldn't it?
--

-- L Wakefield, owner and operator of the beastly truck heretik, that
refuses to stay between the lines when parking --

"Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:DBid8.3387$tJ2....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...

ECrownfiel

unread,

Feb 22, 2002, 10:22:58 AM2/22/02

to

In article <a52fla$7...@dispatch.concentric.net>, Guy Macon
<guym...@deltanet.com> writes:

>BTW, Timothy, your habit of changing the subject line so that it contains
>an inapropriate personal comment is getting anoying. Please stop it.

I'm definitely with Guy on this one (though not the rest of the same post).

For that matter, I wish people wouldn't change subject lines in general unless
there's a good reason. My newsreader threads posts by title and I prefer not
to have 5 or 6 different folders full of the same sort of stuff.

BTW, please no lectures on using AOL. I have other e-mail addresses but prefer
to maintain both. (My ex pays for it because he and his kids have addresses on
the same account.)

Elizabeth

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 22, 2002, 2:13:44 PM2/22/02

to

I'd just like to add some comments rather than argue points.

"Wakefield" <her...@loa.com> wrote in message
news:3c764...@news.cybertours.com...

> You make a very, very good point. But I will also try to untangle the
> logical thread that brings this up.
>
> 1. The death penalty is considered by some parts of society as a
'viable'
> alternative (sorry, that sounds very much like the *wrong* way to put
> that..). The initial motivation had been to STOP the condemned person, at
> all costs, from doing whatever things they had been doing- say in the case
> of Tim McVeigh- mass murder.

It is my belief that no matter how this argument is framed, it is REVENGE
that is the motivation behingd the death penalty.

>
> 2. If, then, the death of the condemned has already been considered and
> accepted as one possible 'final solution'- then- and only then- does the
> consideration of cost also enter into it. If it were not acceptable, then
no
> matter how economical, it would still be unacceptable.

As I said before, it is cheaper to kill children than raise them. Economics
should have absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

>
> It is 2 different arguments. It is pointless to use data from argument
2-
> price- to try to settle argument 1- acceptability of the death penalty.
>
> Whatever the outcome of argument 1, economy and efficiency should be
> considered. The cost to society and individuals therein of the actual
> initial crime is high enough. The cost of any proposed solution needs to
be
> weighed- in all dimensions, not only in $.
>
> I like the idea of making the condemned repair the damage they have
done.
> It may not be exactly possible or equivalent, but I would have had no
> compunction at all putting McVeigh to work helping victims of violent
acts.

I think that restorative justice can be useful. However if I were a victim
of a violent act, Tim McVeigh would have been one of the last people I would
have wanted to help me. My feelings for his horrific act would make his
help seem more like a punishment!

> I wonder if he still could have spoken of collateral damage if he
personally
> had held those dead children and had to speak with their parents. He had
> callous words to speak from the distance of his prison cell- but do you
> think that would have withstood close contact with the pain of others?

Yes, I do. Mr. McVeigh was one of the worst types of sociopaths
imaginable...an idealogue. I believe he still would have believed the
deaths of many were the price to be paid to achieve his goals.

The
> word is that he was partly driven by anger

Anger? No. REVENGE

at the deaths in Waco. (I know we
> couldn't ever have done this- but I feel that it is a direction that would
> have opened his heart back up to repentance.)
>
> And while it is not equivalent, if I were running the 'chain gang' in
> Afghanistan, the ones having done the damage would be the ones rebuilding
> the ruins, reclaiming the fields (somehow) from the land mines- making
right
> what has been made wrong.

Would that chain-gang include the common foot soldier who did what was asked
of him/her? Would it include the citizen/soldier that sought to protect
him/herself his/herselves life, children and property and country? Again, I
believe you are speaking of revenge.

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 22, 2002, 2:29:29 PM2/22/02

to

I still wonder if the court-appointed attorneys that represent a sizable
chunk of accused felons (possibly a majority of those accused of capitol
crimes?) are sucking the system dry of financial resources. Lawyers may be
notorious for their fees, but those in Public Defense are undoubtedly paid
much, much, much less than those who act in corporate, entertainment,
business, advisorial, research and family law. I know that Judicial
salaries vary wildly, depending upon locale, and level, but I still can't
imagine them being responsible for taking an untoward amount....at least in
proportion to death penalty cases. Personally, I am against the government
murdering citizens, and as long as it continues to do so, I hope it pays and
pays and pays and pays if it means convincing the most blood-thirsty,
vengeful and misguided individual that the whole thing is a waste of human
and financial resourses.
Dennis

"Guy" < @ . > wrote in message news:u7bvmm4...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote:
> >
> >Guy < @ . > writes:
> >
> >> I did *NOT* say that the cost of lawyers and judges is "the reason"
> >> why it costs more to house someone permanently than to execute them.
> >
> >You said:
> >
> >"it costs a lot more to execute someone than to keep them
> >in prison for life, and will remain so until we as a society decide
> >to pay guards more or pay lawyers/judges less."
> >
> >It sure sounds to me like you're putting the cost of the death penalty
> >on the money paid to lawyers and judges, and the only other cause you
> >allowed for was the cost of guards. I think Timothy has his own
> >problems with telling the truth, being quick to take offense, and
> >saying things to inflame the conversation rather than seek peace, but
> >in this instance I think he is correct.
>

> I will admit to saying that it is *a* reason, but I have no knowledge
> that would support saying that it is *the* reason. Offhand, I can
> think of a bunch more. Clerks get paid. Bailiffs get paid.
> Courthouses are often in the center of town where land costs a lot.
> Prisons are often out in the sticks where land costs are cheap.
> The higher standard of proof that juries demand before applying the
> death penalty causes higher law enforcement costs. And those are
> just the costs I came up with off the top of my head.
>
> That being said, I wouldn't be surprised to find that lawyer fees and
> judges salaries are a large portion of the reason why it costs more
> to execute than to imprison. Up until the point where I killfiled
> him, Timothy never once disputed this, despite repeated requests that
> he speak plainly on the issue. It doesn't matter now; I am unwilling
> to listen to Timothy's "problems with telling the truth, being quick

> to take offense, and saying things to inflame the conversation rather

> than seek peace." As far as I can tell from reading this newsgroup,
> he no longer exists. That's the beauty of killfiles - I am not tempted
> to respond to his nastiness with nastiness of my own, because I don't
> see it anymore.
>

Guy Macon

unread,

Feb 22, 2002, 8:50:25 PM2/22/02

to

Wakefield <her...@loa.com> wrote:
>
> You make a very, very good point. But I will also try to untangle the
>logical thread that brings this up.
>
> 1. The death penalty is considered by some parts of society as a 'viable'
>alternative (sorry, that sounds very much like the *wrong* way to put
>that..). The initial motivation had been to STOP the condemned person, at
>all costs, from doing whatever things they had been doing- say in the case
>of Tim McVeigh- mass murder.
>
> 2. If, then, the death of the condemned has already been considered and
>accepted as one possible 'final solution'- then- and only then- does the
>consideration of cost also enter into it. If it were not acceptable, then no
>matter how economical, it would still be unacceptable.
>
> It is 2 different arguments. It is pointless to use data from argument 2-
>price- to try to settle argument 1- acceptability of the death penalty.

Point well taken. I retract my previous line of argument. I am still
anti death penalty, but I see that this argument against it is flawed.

Guy Macon

unread,

Feb 22, 2002, 9:05:51 PM2/22/02

to

Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>I'd just like to add some comments rather than argue points.

*************************************************************

The Cast (in order of appearance.)

M= Man looking for an argument
R= Receptionist
Q= Abuser
A= Arguer
C= Complainer
H= Head Hitter

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.

R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?

M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.

R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or
were you thinking of taking a course?

M: Well, what is the cost?

R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight
pounds for a course of ten.

M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with
just the one and then see how it goes.

R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.

(Pause)

R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.

M: Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

M: Well, I was told outside that...

Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!

M: What?

Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke,
you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!

M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!

Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.

M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.

Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.

Q: Not at all.

M: Thank You. (Under his breath) Stupid git!!

(Walks down the corridor)

M: (Knock)

A: Come in.

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?

A: I told you once.

M: No you haven't.

A: Yes I have.

M: When?

A: Just now.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't

A: I did!

M: You didn't!

A: I'm telling you I did!

M: You did not!!

A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument

or the full half hour?

M: Oh, just the five minutes.

A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not.

A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.

M: No you did not.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't.

A: Did.

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

A: Yes it is.

M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

A: No it isn't.

M: It is!

A: It is not.

M: Look, you just contradicted me.

A: I did not.

M: Oh you did!!

A: No, no, no.

M: You did just then.

A: Nonsense!

M: Oh, this is futile!

A: No it isn't.

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements
intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(Short pause)

A: No it isn't.

M: It is.

A: Not at all.

M: Now look.

A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.

M: What?

A: That's it. Good morning.

M: I was just getting interested.

A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes!

A: I'm afraid it was.

M: It wasn't.

(Pause)

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.

M: What?!

A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another
five minutes.

M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!

A: (Hums)

M: Look, this is ridiculous.

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

M: Oh, all right. (pays money)

A: Thank you.

(Short pause)

M: Well?

A: Well what?

M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.

A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

M: I just paid!

A: No you didn't.

M: I DID!

A: No you didn't.

M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.

A: Well, you didn't pay.

M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!

A: No you haven't.

M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.

A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

M: Oh I've had enough of this.

A: No you haven't.

M: Oh Shut up.

(Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)

M: I want to complain.

C: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I've only had them three
weeks and the heels are worn right through.

M: No, I want to complain about...

C: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.

M: Oh!

C: Oh my back hurts, it's not a very fine day and I'm sick and tired
of this office.

(Slams door. walks down corridor, opens next door.)

M: Hello, I want to... Ooooh!

H: No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah. Try it again.

M: uuuwwhh!!

H: Better, Better, but Waah, Waah! Put your hand there.

M: No.

H: Now..

M: Waaaaah!!!

H: Good, Good! That's it.

M: Stop hitting me!!

H: What?

M: Stop hitting me!!

H: Stop hitting you?

M: Yes!

H: Why did you come in here then?

M: I wanted to complain.

H: Oh no, that's next door. It's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here.

M: What a stupid concept.

Source: Monty Python's Argument Clinic

Message has been deleted

Bill Samuel

unread,

Feb 22, 2002, 9:58:31 PM2/22/02

to

In article <au5b7uculmr61aesf...@4ax.com>, Timothy Travis <tt...@qwest.net> wrote:
>I was invited by Multnomah Monthly Meeting to be on a panel for the
>regular Wednesday night program, a short two week series on "Fostering
>Spirituality in Our Children." The first session was last night and,
>after those of us who supposedly had something to say on the subject
>(ie, religious education/spiritual development in the home) were done
>it became a general sharing of experiences in this regard, including a
>lot of talking about how we have tried to do it and how it was done to
>us as children. It was a very rich session that included things like
>answering "the questions" ("is hell down there and heaven up there",
>"what started God" -- you know "the questions"), orientation toward
>the Bible, Quakerism and Christianity, Bible stories and young
>children, teaching/modeling prayer and worship.

Asking about and affirming their own spiritual experiences could be an
important part of that. One RE teacher told me of an experience she'd had
with a class of small children. In response to something that had been
presented (I forget what), one child noted that God spoke to her. The
co-teacher immediately tried to interpret that as a sense of God's presence
rather than God actually speaking words to the child. The child corrected
this teacher, reporting that it was actual words. Most of the other children
in the class reported having the same type of experience.

Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA wsa...@mail.com
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wsamuel/ http://www.quakerinfo.com/
Leadership Group, Friends in Christ, http://www.friendsinchrist.net/
Member, Adelphi MM, BYM; Affiliate, Rockingham MM, Ohio YM
"There is one, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to thy condition."

Russell Nelson

unread,

Feb 22, 2002, 10:13:08 PM2/22/02

to

Guy < @ . > writes:

> I will admit to saying that it is *a* reason, but I have no knowledge
> that would support saying that it is *the* reason.

It sounded to me like you said that "it...will remain so unless A or
B". There was no C, or D, or E, etc. Now, I *know* that Timothy
didn't speak plainly, and was obviously trying to annoy you. That
doesn't mean that you have to *be* trolled. You could have simply
said "Oh, you probably know better than I how much lawyers and judges
are paid, but y'know, the death penalty advocates think we're spending
too much anyway." Instead, you had to feed into Timothy's trolling.
Plonking him is feeding him.

> That being said, I wouldn't be surprised to find that lawyer fees and

> judges salaries are a large portion of the reason why it costs more
> to execute than to imprison.

Almost certainly. The largest cost for nearly anything these days is
people's time. The only commodity which has consistently gone up in
price over the last four hundred years has been people's time.
Everything else has gotten cheaper.

> I am not tempted to respond to his nastiness with nastiness of my
> own, because I don't see it anymore.

Temptation to sin is everywhere. Just because he gives in is no
reason or excuse for you to.

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 23, 2002, 1:50:26 AM2/23/02

to

I fear Guy is being too optimistic here. So many times I hear
Americans ready to say "Off with his head!" without taking into account
legal niceties and the immorality of state execution. I am particularly
disturbed by the recent outcry for revenge on the young Mr. John Walker
Lindh. I was saddened that when the widow of the killed CIA agent Mike
Spann spoke out in favor of Mr. Lindh's execution (without Lindh having
actually committed a crime under US law, as far as I can tell....nevermind
his misguided intent) the media, op-eds and letters I came across seemed to
indicate that we should honor this woman's wishes and "show respect" for
the victims of 9-11 by inventing a way to make Mr. Walker Lindh responsible
for the death of Spann and those in the Twin Towers, in PA and in DC. This
is how the system of state sponsored murder can be shaped and manipulated to
take the life of anyone that might be merely unpopular.
Mr. Walker was little more than a convinced convert to Islam who became
caught up in the exercise of an international conflict that has been decades
in the making.....but what a perfect scapegoat he seems to be. A certain
radio host I heard recently implied that Mr. Walker would never have 'gone
over' to Islam had not his father been too interested in pursuing a gay
lifestyle, and his mother not staying at home with him...this from a radio
personality that usually rails on about how Americans need to be responsible
for their own action, and not blame it on mommy and daddy. AS I said, I
fear Guy is being to optimistic about how careful Americans want their legal
system to be. When America wants revenge it will find a way to get it.
Dennis

"Guy Macon" <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:u7bui8...@corp.supernews.com...
> Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote:
>
> >[...], may I point out that the

> >death penalty proponents feel that it is *wrong* for the death penalty
> >to be more expensive than a life sentence. They feel that that
> >victimizes society. They want fewer appeals, less time, and less
> >money spent on sentencing convicted killers to death.
>

> I find this to be a hollow argument, in that they have not proposed
> a plan that would acomplish the major changes in our society and
> legal system that this would require. I think that is is safe to
> say that most americans feel that the legal system should be very,
> very careful that it has the right person before executing someone.
> Unless there are major changes in our legal system, that takes a lot
> of money.
>
>
>
>

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 23, 2002, 2:12:49 AM2/23/02

to

Is it possible to make comments that may be contrary to others beliefs
without getting bitchy or being mocked? I certainly wasn't looking to argue
with Louise. Some of us are not, in fact, looking to get into a rumble on
every point. Anyway, this object lesson is far too long, and much funnier
when seen performed.
Dennis
P. S.
Isn't reciting entire Monty Python sketches kind of dweeby? I know that
when I used to be a college kid (a long time ago!) all the other nerdy guys
and me would recite them and think we were funny, but it didn't seem to
impress anyone else (g)

"Guy Macon" <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message

news:u7du3n1...@corp.supernews.com...

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 23, 2002, 2:17:25 AM2/23/02

to

"Guy Macon" <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message

news:u7duon2...@corp.supernews.com...

> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >I still wonder if the court-appointed attorneys that represent a sizable
> >chunk of accused felons (possibly a majority of those accused of capitol
> >crimes?) are sucking the system dry of financial resources. Lawyers may
be
> >notorious for their fees, but those in Public Defense are undoubtedly
paid
> >much, much, much less than those who act in corporate, entertainment,
> >business, advisorial, research and family law.
>

> Agreed, but those other lawyers are usually not being paid by taxpayers,
> and so would not contribute to how much it costs the government to
> try someone.

Yes. It is a moot point, of course. I just wanted to point out that Public
Defenders are the ones who usually get these cases, while being paid
pitifully.

>
> >I know that Judicial salaries vary wildly, depending upon locale,
> >and level, but I still can't imagine them being responsible for
> >taking an untoward amount....at least in proportion to death penalty
> >cases.
>

> Please don't confuse "high" with "untoward". I don't think anyone
> here has hinted that judges, prosecutors and public defenders are
> being paid an untoward amount. I certainly never made such a claim.
> They are all "highly paid" in comparison to prison guards, but that's
> normal considering the amount of skills and education each job
> requires. (Am I offending the socialists here? I didn't mean to.)

I realize you didn't make the claim...but I bet there*are* plenty of judges
who make as pitiful an amount as Public Defenders.

>
> >Personally, I am against the government
> >murdering citizens, and as long as it continues to do so, I hope it pays
and
> >pays and pays and pays if it means convincing the most blood-thirsty,
> >vengeful and misguided individual that the whole thing is a waste of
human
> >and financial resourses.
>

> I agree that the government shouldn't kill the people. I have seen
> very little evidence that the government is likely to stop doing
> something because it is expensive or even because it doesn't work.

Absolutely!!!!
>
>

unread,

Feb 23, 2002, 9:39:45 AM2/23/02

to

Uh Oh!
I almost forgot that FST came along before the Pythons. At least for
us Yanks. I'm a big fan of the later, and much underappreciated "Everything
You Know is Wrong..."
'Dogs flew Spaceships! The Aztecs invented the Vacation!...' oops. Sorry.
Dennis

"Daniel Grubbs" <clo...@javanet.com> wrote in message

news:a57o6a$ona$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

Gary Smith

unread,

Feb 23, 2002, 11:57:20 AM2/23/02

to

Guy Macon <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:u7duon2...@corp.supernews.com...
> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >

> >I still wonder if the court-appointed attorneys that represent a sizable
> >chunk of accused felons (possibly a majority of those accused of capitol
> >crimes?) are sucking the system dry of financial resources. Lawyers may
be
> >notorious for their fees, but those in Public Defense are undoubtedly
paid
> >much, much, much less than those who act in corporate, entertainment,
> >business, advisorial, research and family law.
>

Dennis, Guy, et al:

I'm not sure that lawyers fees are the main problem with lawyers in the
justice system. I believe that the ethnic mix (or lack of) among lawyers,
legislators and judiciary are the real reason for the exploding prison and
death row population, at least here in New Jersey.

I volunteer one night a week at South Woods State Prison in New Jersey,
where I advise inmates on substance abuse recovery programs. In the time
that I have been there, I have noticed that blacks and Latino's make up a
greater percentage of the inmate population than in the population at large.
I have also noticed that there are few blacks and Latinos among the lawyers,
judges and state legislators responsible for conceiving and implementing the
laws of our state.

I believe this discrepancy in ethnic representation is responsible for the
disproportionate numbers of minorities imprisoned in New Jersey. I have met
inmates serving sentences for the same offenses which white offenders whom I
have known have received only probation, or were not even prosecuted. I
suspect that white lawyers are less concerned about the welfare of their
minority clients. I also suspect that prosecutors and judges are less
sympathetic to black and Latin offenders than white ones and either
prosecute their cases with more fervor or hand down stiffer sentences than
they would white offenders.

I believe there is a similar relationship between the percentages of
minorities on death row and the general population as there is in the prison
system in general and largely for the same reasons. If so, then punishment
for similar crimes would vary among offenders based on race and would
therefore violate the equal protection under law guarantees of the US
Constitution.

Gary

Please note that the above conclusions are based only on my own observations
and not on any statistical analysis.

Gary Smith

unread,

Feb 23, 2002, 12:13:54 PM2/23/02

to

Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:RhHd8.11503$%

> Isn't reciting entire Monty Python sketches kind of dweeby? I know that
> when I used to be a college kid (a long time ago!) all the other nerdy
guys
> and me would recite them and think we were funny, but it didn't seem to
> impress anyone else (g)
>
>

Then I'm a dweeb and proud of it. If you will recall, I previously
interjected Monty Python's arguement sketch into a tedious exchange between
two SRQ posters.

I think one reason there is so much arguement on SRQ is that we don't know
how to handle philosophical differences. Therefore, the question begs
itself: How would Monty Python handle differenes in philosophy?

The answer is below. (Incidentally, my girlfreind Susanna is from
Australia. This sketch never fails to crack her up!)

Bruces

Bruce#1: Goodday, Bruce!

Bruce#2: Oh, Hello Bruce!

Bruce#3: How are you Bruce?

Bruce#1: A bit crooked, Bruce.

Bruce#2: Where's Bruce?

Bruce#3: He's not 'ere, Bruce.

Bruce#1: Blimey, it's hot in here, Bruce.

Bruce#2: Hot as a monkey's bum!

Bruce#3: That's a strange expression, Bruce.

Bruce#2: Well Bruce, I heard the Prime Minister use it. "It's hot enough
to boil a monkey's bum in here, your Majesty," he said and she smiled
quietly to herself.

Bruce#3: She's a good Sheila, Bruce, and not at all stuck up.

Bruce#1: Here! Here's the boss-fellow now!

Bruce#4: 'Ow are you, Bruce?

Bruce#2: Goodday Bruce!

Bruce#4: Bruce.

Bruce#2: Hello Bruce.

Bruce#4: Bruce.

Bruce#3: How are you, Bruce?

Bruce#4: Goodday Bruce.

Bruce#1: Gentleman, I'd like to introduce a chap from Pommey Land who is
joinin' us this year in the philosophy department at the University of
Wallamalloo.

(Everyone) Goodday!

Micheal: Hello.

Bruce#1: Michael Baldwin, Bruce. Michael Baldwin, Bruce. Michael Baldwin,
Bruce.

Bruce#2: Is your name not Bruce?

Micheal: No, it's Michael.

Bruce#3: That's going to cause a little confusion.

Bruce#4: Mind if we call you "Bruce" to keep it clear?

Bruce#1: Gentlemen, I think we better start the faculty meeting, before
we start, though, I'd like to ask the padre for a prayer.

Bruce#2: Oh Lord, we beseech Thee, Amen!!

All: Amen!

Bruce#1: Crack a tube! (Bottles opening)

Bruce#1: Now I call upon Bruce to officially welcome Mr. Baldwin to the
philosophy faculty.

Bruce#3: I'd like to welcome the pommey bastard to God's own Earth! And
remind him that we don't like stuck-up sticky-beaks here.

All: Hear, hear! Well spoken, Bruce!

Bruce#1: Bruce here teaches classical philosophy, Bruce there teaches
Haegelian philosophy, and Bruce here teaches logical positivism. And is also
in charge of the sheep dip.

Bruce#2: What's New-Bruce going to teach?

Bruce#1: New Bruce will be teaching political science, Machiavelli,
Benton, Lockholm, Sackly, Millbo, Hasset, and Bernerd.

Bruce#3: Those are all cricketers!

Bruce#4: Aww, spit!

Bruce#1: Hails of derisive laughter, Bruce!

(Everyone) 'Straylya, 'Straylia, 'Straylia, 'Straylya, we love you! Amen!!

Bruce#1: Another tube! (Bottles opening)

Bruce#1: Any questions?

Bruce#2: New-Bruce, are you a Pooftah?

Bruce#1: Are you a Pooftah?

Micheal: No!

Bruce#1: No. Right, I just want to remind you of the faculty rules:

Rule One! (Everyone) No Pooftahs!

Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to mal-treat the abo's in any way at
all.. if there's anybody watching.

Rule Three? (Everyone) No Pooftahs!!

Rule Four, now this term, I don't want to catch anybody... not drinking.

Rule Five, (Everyone) No Pooftahs!

Rule Six, there is NO.... Rule Six.

Rule Seven, (Everyone) No Pooftahs!!

Right, that concludes the readin' of the rules, Bruce.

Bruce#2: This here's the wattle, the emblem of our land. You can stick it
in a bottle, you can hold it in your hand.

(Everyone): Amen!

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.

Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could

think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume Schoppenhauer and Hegel.

And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya

'bout the raising of the wrist.

Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stewart Mill, of his own free will

On half a pint of chianty was particularly ill.

Plato they say could stick it away,

Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,

And Hoppes was fond of his dram.

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart.

"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;

A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

Wakefield

unread,

Feb 23, 2002, 7:40:09 PM2/23/02

to

I hear exactly what you are saying, and I felt the same qualms even as I
was typing it. Somehow I feel that in the example of Charles Manson, there
is no hope. But there was something about McVeigh that made me weep at the
waste and the loss. I don't understand it and can offer no concrete evidence
as to what makes me believe they were different- but there it is.I hear you
though. It could never be done. But somehow I would have given a lot to have
saved him- not from the penalty so much, but from the waste of what he could
have been. He started out good- I am sure of it.
--

-- L Wakefield, owner and operator of the beastly truck heretik, that
refuses to stay between the lines when parking --

"Franklin Cacciutto" <shad...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C77991E...@earthlink.net...

unread,

Feb 23, 2002, 9:05:28 PM2/23/02

to

I agree.
Dennis

"Guy" < @ . > wrote in message news:a590e7$m...@dispatch.concentric.net...

> Franklin Cacciutto <shad...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >I personally am furthermore very skeptical that anyone capable of
> >the Oklahoma City bombing could have felt the suffering of Waco
> >in any way.
>

> I don't think that Waco (and, more importantly, Ruby Ridge)
> generated much sympathy in McVeigh, but rather a strong desire
> to extract revenge. Just as we should at the same time never
> excuse or condone the trade center attack yet still seek to
> address any actions the U.S has done that anger people in other
> countries, so should we at the same time never excuse or condone
> domestic terrorism yet still seek to address what happened at
> Ruby Ridge. The Oklahoma city bombing was evil. So was what
> our own government did at Ruby Ridge. The difference is that
> McViegh was tried and executed, while those responsible for Ruby
> Ridge were rewarded for their evil actions. I think that it was
> not only evil but stupid to respond by killing a bunch of innocent
> office workers and children in a day-care center.
>

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 23, 2002, 9:12:37 PM2/23/02

to

"Gary Smith" <smit...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:QRPd8.8543$Im1.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> Guy Macon <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
> news:u7duon2...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >I still wonder if the court-appointed attorneys that represent a
sizable
> > >chunk of accused felons (possibly a majority of those accused of
capitol
> > >crimes?) are sucking the system dry of financial resources. Lawyers
may
> be
> > >notorious for their fees, but those in Public Defense are undoubtedly
> paid
> > >much, much, much less than those who act in corporate, entertainment,
> > >business, advisorial, research and family law.
> >
>
> Dennis, Guy, et al:
>
> I'm not sure that lawyers fees are the main problem with lawyers in the
> justice system. I believe that the ethnic mix (or lack of) among lawyers,
> legislators and judiciary are the real reason for the exploding prison and
> death row population, at least here in New Jersey.

I understand your point, but justice is supposed to be blind. The thought
of more Black lawyers and judges keeping more Black accused criminals out of
prison seems like moving in the wrong direction!

>
> I volunteer one night a week at South Woods State Prison in New Jersey,
> where I advise inmates on substance abuse recovery programs. In the time
> that I have been there, I have noticed that blacks and Latino's make up a
> greater percentage of the inmate population than in the population at
large.
> I have also noticed that there are few blacks and Latinos among the
lawyers,
> judges and state legislators responsible for conceiving and implementing
the
> laws of our state.
>
> I believe this discrepancy in ethnic representation is responsible for the
> disproportionate numbers of minorities imprisoned in New Jersey. I have
met
> inmates serving sentences for the same offenses which white offenders whom
I
> have known have received only probation, or were not even prosecuted. I
> suspect that white lawyers are less concerned about the welfare of their
> minority clients. I also suspect that prosecutors and judges are less
> sympathetic to black and Latin offenders than white ones and either
> prosecute their cases with more fervor or hand down stiffer sentences than
> they would white offenders.

I would be careful to accuse white lawyers and defenders of caring less
about their minority clients. I think that the reason more minorities even
come to trial is that there is a disproportionate amount of *enforcement* by
police in minority neighborhoods, and among minority citizens.

>
> I believe there is a similar relationship between the percentages of
> minorities on death row and the general population as there is in the
prison
> system in general and largely for the same reasons. If so, then
punishment
> for similar crimes would vary among offenders based on race and would
> therefore violate the equal protection under law guarantees of the US
> Constitution.
>
> Gary
>
> Please note that the above conclusions are based only on my own
observations
> and not on any statistical analysis.
>

I want to add that I admire you very much for taking time to volunteer in a
Prison...especially in an area that I too am interested in helping others
with; namely substance abuse...I have more to say on that later, though.
Dennis
>
>
>

Russell Nelson

unread,

Feb 24, 2002, 9:53:33 AM2/24/02

to

"Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com> writes:

> Isn't reciting entire Monty Python sketches kind of dweeby?

No more than quoting a 325-line message and adding 17 lines to make it
a 342-line message. It wouldn't annoying if you did it only once, but
you do it EVERY TIME. How about trimming the article to which you are
replying??

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 24, 2002, 5:50:00 PM2/24/02

to

Oh Guy!!!!
How soon you forget! Nerdiness fit neatly between the now fashionable
Geeks, and the earlier, not so fashionable Dweebs. Nerds were
"transitional".
Dennis

"Guy Macon" <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message

news:a5aeq4$m...@dispatch.concentric.net...

> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > You may now be a geek, but remember- dweebs predate geeks, and if I'm
> >not mistaken we are about the same age. Most geekdom in folks our age is
> >bound to be precursed by dweebdom.
>

> <chuckle>
>
> And where do nerds fit into this chronology? :)
>
>
>

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 24, 2002, 5:51:35 PM2/24/02

to

This is not my intention. Perhaps it is my newsreader.
Dennis

"Russell Nelson" <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote in message
news:m27kp35...@desk.crynwr.com...

Timothy Travis

unread,

Feb 24, 2002, 6:59:28 PM2/24/02

to

On 24 Feb 2002 20:38:03 GMT, Guy Macon <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote:

>Posting hints
>
>Here are some references for those who are interested
>in improving the quality of their posts to this newsgroup:

There are many ways the quality of posts here could be improved that
have nothing to do with the creeds cited below...

Love your enemies, do good to them
Luke 16;35

Wakefield

unread,

Feb 24, 2002, 9:39:48 PM2/24/02

to

they are the alpha and the omega- have always been and will always be.
--

-- L Wakefield, owner and operator of the beastly truck heretik, that
refuses to stay between the lines when parking --

"Guy Macon" <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message

news:a5aeq4$m...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>

> > You may now be a geek, but remember- dweebs predate geeks, and if I'm
> >not mistaken we are about the same age. Most geekdom in folks our age is
> >bound to be precursed by dweebdom.
>

Russell Nelson

unread,

Feb 25, 2002, 12:19:28 AM2/25/02

to

"Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com> writes:

> This is not my intention. Perhaps it is my newsreader.

LOL! Maybe that's why you do it so consistently?? You have software
"assistance". Is it showing you the text of the message to which you
are replying? If so, see if you can delete it, or some of it.

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 25, 2002, 12:45:07 AM2/25/02

to

Russell,
Thankyou for pointing it out, and offering some advice. I have a buddy
(yes...he's a geek) who I'll ask to help me sort it out. I usually delete
much of the message, or all of it....I think I just need to adjust my
newsreader preferences. I probably have it set to reply with the original
message, and it sends the entire post despite what I'd intended...or
something like that.
Dennis

"Russell Nelson" <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote in message

news:m2ofiey...@desk.crynwr.com...

Sharpjfa

unread,

Feb 25, 2002, 9:39:23 AM2/25/02

to

Liebman/Columbia U "Error Study" Full of Errors

for a full review go to:

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Liebman/Liebman.htm

here's one article

Prefece to Latze and Cauthen article by
Ronald Eisenberg
Deputy District Attorney
Philadelphia

When the so-called Liebman study was released last year, claiming that more
than two thirds of all death penalties are overturned as a result of appellate
review, the press reported it with great fanfare and as established fact.
There has been little or no media effort to explore the flaws and exaggerations
in Liebman’s assertions.

The following article by Professors Latzer and Cauthen opens a more objective
examination of the Liebman study. Upon examining Liebman’s statistics, the
authors conclude that he actually overstated his death penalty reversal rate by
25 percentage points – a huge discrepancy that dramatically alters the terms
of the public debate Liebman hoped to generate.

It is important to note that Latzer and Cauthen discovered this statistical
error even while assuming the accuracy of Liebman’s basic data: that is,
whether he accurately counted the number of reversals -- not just the
percentage, but the raw numbers. Indeed the authors point out that they could
not have checked Liebman's numbers, because he refused to give them the
underlying data. But we now have specific reason to doubt that Liebman counted
accurately. Reports from Florida and Utah prove that he mislabeled cases as
reversals when they were not, and anecdotal evidence from other states suggests
additional problems. Thus, the factual basis for the Liebman study is suspect,
not just in the manner in which he analyzed the data, but in the manner in
which he collected it.

The refusal to share underlying data with researchers is particularly troubling
in light of the media misrepresentation of Liebman as a neutral professor
heading a Columbia University study. In truth, Liebman maintains an active
criminal defense practice, and has been litigating against the death penalty
since long before he became a professor. His study was funded in large part by
a grant from the anti-capital punishment Soros Foundation, with the stated
purpose of "find[ing] effective ways to curb the [death] penalty's use."

Even aside from these other problems, however, the analysis by Professors
Latzer and Cauthen is of great significance. Working with Liebman’s own
numbers, they calculate a death penalty reversal rate of 43% rather than
Liebman’s 68%. While the new figure is still higher than the reversal rate
for non-capital cases, the number is unsurprising given the consideration shown
by courts to capital appellants.

That special attention comes in two forms. First, every capital case is really
two full trials in one: one trial to determine guilt or non-guilt, and a
separate trial to decide on a death sentence or a life sentence. This dual
procedure is unique to capital litigation, and it automatically doubles the
universe of potential legal claims that can be raised on appeal. Indeed,
Latzer and Cauthen observe that most of the errors counted by Liebman concerned
sentencing issues, not guilt and innocence.

Second, even when the same claims are raised by murder defendants who received
the death penalty and murder defendants who did not – that is, guilt-phase
claims -- it appears that the death penalty defendants are more successful on
appeal. But potential capital murder cases are tried by the same prosecutors
and defense lawyers and judges whether they ultimately wind up with a capital
verdict or not. It’s only at the end that we find out from the jury what the
sentence will be. So if capital convictions are reversed at a higher rate, it
is not because they have more errors; it is because judges are more willing to
reverse in death penalty cases.

If the Liebman study means anything, then, it means this: that the courts are
already quite sensitive to appeals by capital murderers. For years we have
been hearing from capital punishment opponents that judges were politically
motivated to ignore death penalty errors, and that restrictions on habeas
corpus would eliminate any chance for successful appeals. The Liebman study is
actually an indication that those claims were untrue.

sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/

Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.

Sharpjfa

unread,

Feb 25, 2002, 9:45:35 AM2/25/02

to

there seems to be many misconceptions, here, reagrding the death penalty.

The Death Penalty in the United States: A Review
Dudley Sharp, Justice For All (contact info below)
NOTE: Detailed review of any of the below topics is avaiable upon request

In this brief format, I will present the reality of the death penalty in the
United States, with the hope that the media, public policy makers and others
will make a more responsible effort to present a balanced view on this
sanction.

Innocence Issues

Death Penalty opponents have proclaimed that 95 (now 99) innocent people have
been sentenced to death in the US since the modern death penalty era began,
post Furman v Georgia (1972).

That number is a total fraud. Those opponents have intentionally included both
the factually innocent (the "I truly had nothing to do with the murder" cases)
and the legally innocent (the "I got off because of legal errors" cases). Big
difference.

As the innocence issue is only about the factually innocent, a review of
opponents claims finds that possibly about 30 cases, or 0.4% of the 7000 so
sentenced, may have been factually innocent.
Even those 30 cases have no all been verified by independent sources. And
opponents have admitted including "innocents" on their lists which were never
sentenced to death and which were later convicted in the subject murders.

It is often claimed that 23 innocents have been executed in the US since 1900.
Nonsense. Even the authors of that "23 innocents executed" study proclaimed
"We agree with our critics, we never proved those (23) executed to be innocent;
we never claimed that we had." While no one would claim that an innocent has
never been executed, there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at
least since 1900.

No one disputes that innocents are found guilty, within all countries.
However, when scrutinizing death penalty opponents claims, we find that when
reviewing the accuracy of verdicts and the post conviction thoroughness of
discovering those factually innocent incarcerated, that the US death penalty
process may be the most accurate criminal justice sanction in the world. Under
every debated scenario, not executing murderers will always put many more
innocents at risk, than will ever be put at risk of execution.

(NOTE: The Professor Liebman/Columbia U. report finding a 68% error rate in
death penalty cases has many errors of its own. Please review
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Liebman/Liebman.htm)

Racial issues

White murderers are twice as likely to be executed in the US as are black
murderers and are executed, on average, 12 months more quickly than are black
death row inmates.

It is often stated that it is the race of the victim which decides who is
prosecuted in death penalty cases. Although blacks and whites make up about an
equal number of murder victims, capital cases are 6 times more likely to
involve white victim murders than black victim murders. This, so the logic
goes, is proof that the US only cares about white victims.

Hardly. Only capital murders, not all murders, are subject to a capital
indictment. Generally, a capital murder is limited to murders plus secondary
aggravating factors, such as murders involving robbery, burglary, carjacking,
rape, and additional murders, such as police murders, serial and multiple
murders. White victims are, overwhelmingly, the victims under those
circumstances, in ratios nearly identical to that found on death row.

Any other racial combinations of defendants and/or their victims in death
penalty cases, is a reflection of the crimes committed and not any racial bias
within the system, as confirmed by studies from the Rand Corporation (1991),
Smith College (1994), and by a view of criminal justice statistics, within a
framework of the secondary aggravating factors necessary for capital
indictments.

Poverty issues

No one disputes that wealthier defendants can hire better lawyers and,
therefore, should have a legal advantage over their poorer counterparts. The
US has executed 0.15% of all murderers since new death penalty statutes were
enacted in 1973. There is no evidence that wealthier capital murderers are
less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based on the proportion of
capital murders committed by wealthier criminals.

Arbitrary and capricious

I estimate that about 12% of all murders within the US might qualify for a
death penalty eligible trial. That would be about 60,000 murders since 1973.
We have sentenced 7,000 murderers to death since then, or 12% of those
eligible. I doubt that there is any other crime which receives a higher
percentage of maximum sentences, when mandatory sentences are not available.
Based upon that, as well as pre trial, trial, appellate and
clemency/commutation realities, the US death penalty is likely one of the least
arbitrary and capricious criminal sanctions in the world.

Deterrence Issues

All the studies which have not found a deterrent effect of the death penalty
have refused to say that it does not deter some. The studies finding for
deterrence state such. Confusion arises when people think that a simple
comparison of murder rates and executions, or the lack thereof, can tell the
tale of deterrence. It cannot. Both high and low murder rates are found
within death penalty and non death
penalty jurisdictions, be it Rwanda, South Africa, Sweden or Japan, or the US
states of Michigan and Delaware. Many factors are involved in such
evaluations. Reason and common sense tell us that it would be remarkable to
find that the most severe criminal sanction -- execution -- deterred none. No
one is foolish enough to suggest that the potential for negative consequences
does not deter the behavior of some. Therefore, regardless of jurisdiction,
having the death penalty will always be an added deterrent to murders, over and
above any lesser punishments.

Christianity and the death penalty

The most well known anti death penalty personality in the US is Sister Helen
Prejean, author of Dead Man Walking, which was turned into a movie of the same
name. Although no biblical scholar, it is interesting to hear what she says,
from her book: "It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a
capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one
is hard pressed to find a biblical 'proof text' in either the Hebrew Testament
or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus' admonition
'Let him without sin cast the first stone,' when He was asked the appropriate
punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) -- the Mosaic Law prescribed death --
should be read in its proper context. This passage is an 'entrapment' story,
which sought to show Jesus' wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an
ethical pronouncement about capital punishment." This is consistent with most
scholarship. This simple review even demonstrates how fallacious the Pope's
current position is.

Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, a fair accounting of how
it is applied should be demanded.

ECrownfiel

unread,

Feb 25, 2002, 1:26:50 PM2/25/02

to

In article <m28z9k6...@desk.crynwr.com>, Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com>
writes:

>Temptation to sin is everywhere. Just because he gives in is no
>reason or excuse for you to.
>

Don't faint, but this Friend speaks my mind.

:-),
Elizabeth

Message has been deleted

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 25, 2002, 5:35:12 PM2/25/02

to

Non, mon ami!
Cyberpunks were on a parallel plane. They were an outcrop formed by the
melding of '70's street fashion and hipness, with the video and otherwise
media savvy predilections of British technoids. It's all in my upcoming
book, "The Medea Is The Message: A Modern Tragedy in Three Acts".
Dennis

"Guy Macon" <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message

news:u7l0ohh...@corp.supernews.com...

> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >Oh Guy!!!!
> > How soon you forget! Nerdiness fit neatly between the now
fashionable
> >Geeks, and the earlier, not so fashionable Dweebs. Nerds were
> >"transitional".
>

> Got it. Beatniks -> Dweebs -> Nerds -> Geeks -> Cyberpunks
>
>
>

Daniel Grubbs

unread,

Feb 25, 2002, 8:24:08 PM2/25/02

to

Guy Macon wrote...

>
> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >It's odd....I feel more pity and sadness for Manson. It seems Charlie is so
> >tortured and full of emotional turmoil. I believe with all my heart that he
> >is a man suffering from extreme mental illness. I feel sad for McVeigh,
> >too, but I feel he was far more in control of his destiny.
>

> I feel that way too. That's why I feel that Manson can get better.
> It's easy to assume that mental illness is forever, but doing evil
> on purpose can be temporary. It seems to me that the opposite is
> closer to the truth.

Perhaps I misinterpret your agreement. I wasn't aware that you, as a Calvinist,
allowed that anyone was in any way in control of their destiny.

Daniel Grubbs

unread,

Feb 26, 2002, 3:45:45 AM2/26/02

to

Guy Macon wrote...

> Dennis White wrote:
>
> >I would be careful to accuse white lawyers and defenders of caring less
> >about their minority clients. I think that the reason more minorities even
> >come to trial is that there is a disproportionate amount of *enforcement* by
> >police in minority neighborhoods, and among minority citizens.
>

> I have in the past done a fair amount of volunteer work in prisons,
> and I observed the following:
>
> [1] More minorities than you would expect given how many minorities
> commit crimes.
>
> [2] More poor and uneducated than you would expect given how many
> poor and uneducated commit crimes.
>
> [3] More well-educated minorities and fewer well-educated whites
> than you would expect.
>
> I conclude that there is a bias against minorities and a bias
> against the poor in our criminal justice system.
>
> That's bad enough as it stands, but when you allow the same biased
> system to kill people, that's especially unacceptable.

I find it odd how many people will see the discrimination against minorities yet
fail to notice the much more egregious discrimination against men in our system.
Consider...

A man convicted of murder is twenty times more likely than a woman convicted of
murder to receive the death penalty.

* women account for about 1 in 8 (13%) murder arrests;
* women account for only 1 in 52 (1.9%) death sentences imposed at the trial
level;
* women account for only 1 in 72 (1.4%) persons presently on death row; and
* women account for only 5 of the 683 (0.7%) persons actually executed since
Furman (as of 12/31/00).

*************************************************
From the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/scscf96.htm

Table 2.12. Mean length of State felony sentences to
incarceration by gender and race of felons, 1996

Mean sentence length (in months)
for persons who were:
-----------------------------------
Most serious White Black
conviction offense Male Female Male Female
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sentenced to incarceration
All offenses 37 mo 21 mo 44 mo 26 mo

Violent offenses 75 mo 42 mo 90 mo 47 mo
Murder (a) 270 161 246 152
Sexual assault (b) 97 70 107 57
Robbery 79 43 90 48
Aggravated assault 37 22 54 31
Other violent (c) 33 21 42 25

Corry

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"A free society trusts its citizens."
-- George W. Bush in China

Sharpjfa

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 11:09:22 AM2/27/02

to

Patty Q:

Many more people will die in your name without the death penalty. maning, that
having a policy of no death penalty will result in many more innocents harmed.

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors
>From: pqr...@aol.com (PQ Rada)
>Date: 2/26/02 8:31 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020226093136...@mb-mj.aol.com>

>
>I just think we should stop killing each other, and I do not want people
>being
>killed in my name in peace ior war. Love Patty Q.

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 12:17:23 PM2/27/02

to

<vpol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r42q7us474jqne2a5...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:10:53 GMT, "Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm aware of the latest tour and the latest CD's, but they'll never be
like
> >the classic to me.
> >Dennis
>
>

> Yes we've all stopped doing drugs since then.
>

This may indeed be the key!
Dennis

> _______________
> "The poor have sometimes objected to being governed
> badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
> G.K. Chesterton

Dennis White

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 12:29:13 PM2/27/02

to

Is it comforting to know that over 2000 people died in Patty's name on
9/11/01and that the perps were made to pay the penalty by the US court
system? Of course not! For they chose to take their own lives, death
penalty or not. Sharp seems to be more concerned about revenge than
justice. And I'd like to add this: How dare you say such a callous,
unthinking thing to Patty without knowing of her personal experience? Or
perhaps you do know her story, and prefer to hurt her. I am indignant.
Dennis

"Sharpjfa" <shar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020227110922...@mb-cn.aol.com...

Brian Westley

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 1:12:03 PM2/27/02

to

Hey, go to http://www.firesigntheatre.com/xmradio/show1/index.html
and check out the Golden Hind, where Bob Hind and the Crumbhungers
look at slides from Art Bell's house.

---
Merlyn LeRoy

Russell Nelson

unread,

Feb 28, 2002, 12:53:18 AM2/28/02

to

ecrow...@aol.com (ECrownfiel) writes:

Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :-)

Charley Earp

unread,

Feb 28, 2002, 2:47:04 AM2/28/02

to

Sharpjfa is trolling this group for his pro-death penalty viewpoint. It
is obvious that he is invested in his opinion and cannot be expected to
examine this issue with sensitivity to Quaker concerns.

I am not calling Sharpjfa a "troll". I think that is unhelpful and not
in keeping with addressing that of God in persons. I know this flies in
the face of usenet precedent, but I like to think that SRQ can rise
above the norm.

===
Charley Earp
Northside Friends Meeting, Chicago
[All statements and opinions are my own and not the responsibility of
NFM]

http://community.webtv.net/Charley63/

"Where divine love takes place in the hearts of any people, and they
steadily act on a principle of universal righteousness, there the true
intent of the Law is fulfilled, though their outward modes of proceeding
may be distinguishable from one another."

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 1:12:08 AM3/1/02

to

I wrote:
>>Sharpjfa is trolling this group for his
>>pro-death penalty viewpoint. It is
>>obvious that he is invested in his
>>opinion and cannot be expected to
>>examine this issue with sensitivity to
>>Quaker concerns.

Russ writes:
>I'm sure you feel the same way about
>your socialism. Should I cease to try to
>convince you that freedom is good?

Apples and oranges.

The argument over capitalism versus socialism is an argument between
Quakers who recognize the other as sincere and in good standing in the
Society of Friends. Sharpjfa is not a Quaker but is simply here to
convert Quakers to a viewpoint that flies in the face of our settled
conviction.

Paul Davis supports the death penalty, but he recognizes that his
position is unlikely to persuade Quakers, so he does not argue the issue
at length. Paul is sincerely interested in Quakerism. Sharpjfa is not
sincerely interested in discussing Quakerism, hence his postings are
trolls.

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 6:19:27 PM3/1/02

to

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors

>From: "Dennis White" denn...@attbi.com
>Date: 2/27/02 11:29 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <JH8f8.12152$TB2....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>

>
>Is it comforting to know that over 2000 people died in Patty's name on
>9/11/01and that the perps were made to pay the penalty by the US court
>system? Of course not! For they chose to take their own lives, death
>penalty or not.

Well, yes. Hardly relevant.

Sharp seems to be more concerned about revenge than
>justice.

No. The death penalty is not revenge, nor can you show that it is and I can
certainly show that it is not.

And I'd like to add this: How dare you say such a callous,
>unthinking thing to Patty without knowing of her personal experience?

Huh? I said that many more innocents would be killed, without the death penalty
and that would be the policy that she would accept. It is true. that is how
dare I say it. Her personal experience does not alter that fact.

Or
>perhaps you do know her story, and prefer to hurt her.

I have no idea what you are talkinf about.

> I am indignant.

so.

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 6:23:20 PM3/1/02

to

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors

>From: Char...@webtv.net (Charley Earp)
>Date: 2/28/02 1:47 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <251-3C7D...@storefull-295.iap.bryant.webtv.net>

>
>Sharpjfa is trolling this group for his pro-death penalty viewpoint. It
>is obvious that he is invested in his opinion and cannot be expected to
>examine this issue with sensitivity to Quaker concerns.

Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey wrote a landmark essay on the
death penalty entitled "A Bible Study". Here is a synopsis of his analysis: " .
. . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated
from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis
8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited
for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any
opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the
Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with
Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely
instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as
God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . .
. it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and
against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect." (p. 111-113)
Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy
to the wrongdoer: ". . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to
appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to
repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on
which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a
special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his
crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not
grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine
justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy." (p. 116). Essays on the
Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.
Dr. Carey was a biblical scholar, Professor of Bible and past President of
George Fox College, the major Quaker college in the US.

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 6:26:09 PM3/1/02

to

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors

>From: pqr...@aol.com (PQ Rada)
>Date: 2/28/02 9:43 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020228104319...@mb-fy.aol.com>

I know of no one that thinks that the death penalty is the only answer for
Yates. I am certain that there are many answers for Yates, depending on the
question. Some believe that Yates deserves punishment, some help, some
understanding, some likley believes that she deserves all three.

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 6:30:16 PM3/1/02

to

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors

>From: Char...@webtv.net (Charley Earp)
>Date: 3/1/02 12:12 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <494-3C7...@storefull-294.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
snip

. Sharpjfa is not a Quaker but is simply here to
>convert Quakers to a viewpoint that flies in the face of our settled
>conviction.

I am not here to convert anyone. Any position in opposition to the death
penalty is fine by me. Some positions are poorly developed and have little to
no foundation. That is no different with Qukers than anyone else.

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 6:33:53 PM3/1/02

to

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors

>From: Joe Pfeiffer jesu...@neo.rr.com
>Date: 2/28/02 3:56 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <3C7ED027...@neo.rr.com>

>
>
>
>Sharpjfa wrote:
>
>> Patty Q:
>>
>> Many more people will die in your name without the death penalty. maning,
>that
>> having a policy of no death penalty will result in many more innocents
>harmed.
>
> Though one might *think* that the death penalty would be a deterent, most
>experts
>agree that it really hasn't a profound affect.

First, it doesn't need to have a profound effect, just some. And even without
deterrence executions of murderers will alwasys save many more innocent lives
than will ever be put at risk of execution

If people were afraid of
>punishment, I surmise that they should be most afraid of life in prison.

But reality tells us that criminals are much more afraid of execution. That is
why they seek life and not death in the punishment phase of their trals and why
very few waive appeals to speed up their executions.

snip

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 6:42:40 PM3/1/02

to

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors

>From: Russell Nelson nel...@crynwr.com
>Date: 2/28/02 10:01 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <m2elj59...@desk.crynwr.com>

>
>shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) writes:
>
>> Many more people will die in your name without the death penalty. maning,
>that
>> having a policy of no death penalty will result in many more innocents
>harmed.
>
>Are you claiming that the death penalty has a deterrent effect? What
>about the people who kill themselves after killing someone. Obviously
>they were not deterred. What about the insane, who kill, call 911,
>and confess to the arriving police? Obviously they were not deterred.
>What about the mentally retarded, who do not appreciate that the
>existance of the death penalty means that *they* will be killed when
>caught? Obviously they are not deterred. So who is, then?

Deterrence is not an everyone thing. It just needs to ba a sometime thing. No
one disputes that the potential for negative cosequences deters behavior. It
would be quite remarkable to find that the most severe sanction deters none.
Reason, common, and the weight of the studies support deterrence. But,
incapacitation of murders, by itself, will protect more innocents. More living
murderers simply means more innocents dying.

Are you
>deterred by the death penalty? I doubt that is the only thing that
>keeps you from killing me.

No, I am deterrered by morality, which I consider the most powerful deterrent.

Dennis White

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 10:20:49 PM3/1/02

to

Uh Oh!!!!!
Last time G. A. Carey was brought up by Sharp we found that Carey's
influence as a scholar was somewhat overstated. This time Carey's essay has
become "landmark". Landmark or not, Carey's view is decidedly in the
minority among Quakers and the essay mentioned has little influence upon
Quaker testimony regarding this issue.
Dennis

"Sharpjfa" <shar...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20020301182320...@mb-dd.aol.com...

Dennis White

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 10:22:37 PM3/1/02

to

"Sharpjfa" <shar...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20020301181927...@mb-dd.aol.com...

I have no idea what you are talkinf about.

Of course you don't.
Dennis

Franklin Cacciutto

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 10:45:30 PM3/1/02

to

The death penalty ia not a simple "negative consequence." The statistical
experience of European countries that have switched back and forth from having the
death penalty is that the murder rate goes up when the death penalty is in effect
and goes down when it is abolished. This apparent contadiction, which flies in the
face of commonsense, is caused by the special nature of violence. The death
penalty creates a climate of violence. It is the state answering violence with
violence. Violence begets violence. Blood will have blood. Lex talionis. Law of
the claw.

Read Albert Camus' Reflections on the Guillotine in Resistance, Rebellion, and
Death.

Franklin Cacciutto

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 10:45:58 PM3/1/02

to

The death penalty ia not a simple "negative consequence." The statistical
experience of European countries that have switched back and forth from having the
death penalty is that the murder rate goes up when the death penalty is in effect
and goes down when it is abolished. This apparent contadiction, which flies in the
face of commonsense, is caused by the special nature of violence. The death
penalty creates a climate of violence. It is the state answering violence with
violence. Violence begets violence. Blood will have blood. Lex talionis. Law of
the claw.

Read Albert Camus' Reflections on the Guillotine in Resistance, Rebellion, and
Death.

> No one disputes that the potential for negative cosequences deters behavior. It

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 11:01:24 PM3/1/02

to

shadtree writes:
The death penalty ia not a simple "negative consequence."

sharp: Well, we disagree. I consider being sentenced to death a negative
consequence, as do most on death row.

shadtree: The statistical experience of European countries that have switched

back and forth from having the
death penalty is that the murder rate goes up when the death penalty is in
effect
and goes down when it is abolished. This apparent contadiction, which flies in
the
face of commonsense, is caused by the special nature of violence. The death
penalty creates a climate of violence. It is the state answering violence with
violence. Violence begets violence. Blood will have blood. Lex talionis. Law of
the claw.

sharp: Nonsense. The most active death penalty jurisdiction in the US has had a
72% drop in the murder rate. And there are studies showing a rise in the murder
rates in Europe since abolition.

sharp go to http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

sharp: And the US murder rate has dropped dramatically as executions have
become more numerous.

shadtree: Read Albert Camus' Reflections on the Guillotine in Resistance,
Rebellion, and
Death.

sharp: I have.

sharp: The New York Times: Deception and Deterrence
by Dudley Sharp, Justice For All (contact info, below)

In their story, "States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates", The
New York Times did their best to illustrate that the death penalty was not a
deterrent, by showing that the average murder rate in death penalty states was
higher than the average rate in non death penalty states and, it is. (11)

What the Times failed to observe is that their own study confirmed that you
can't simply compare those averages to make that determination regarding
deterrence.

As one observer stated: "The Times story does nothing more than repeat the
dumbest of all dumb mistakes taking the murder rate in a traditionally
high-homicide state with capital punishment (like Texas) and comparing it to a
traditionally low-homicide state with no death penalty (like North Dakota) and
concluding that the death penalty doesn't work at all. Even this comparison
doesn't work so well. The Times own graph shows Texas, where murder rates were
40 percent above Michigan's in 1991, has now fallen below Michigan . . .". (12)

Within the Times article, Michigan Governor John Engler states, "I think
Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," referring to the state's
abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that
we don't have the death penalty."(13)

Even though easily observed on the Times' own graphics, they failed to mention
the obvious. Michigan's murder rate is near or above that of 31 of the US's 38
death penalty states. And then, it should be recognized that Washington, DC
(not found within the Times study) and Detroit, Michigan, two non death penalty
jurisdictions, have been perennial leaders in murder and violent crime rates
for the past 30 years. Delaware, a jurisdiction similar in size to them, leads
the nation in executions per murder, but has significantly lower rates of
murders and violent crime than do either DC or Detroit, during that same
period.

Obviously, the Times study and any other simple comparison of jurisdictions
with and without the death penalty, means little, with regard to deterrence.

Also revealed within the Times study, but not pointed out by them,: "One-third
of the nation's executions take place in Texas and the steepest decline in
homicides has occurred in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, which
together account for nearly half the nation's executions." (14)

And, the Times also failed to mention that the major US jurisdiction with the
most executions is Harris County (Houston, Texas), which has seen a 73%
decrease in murder rates since resuming executions in 1982 -- possibly the
largest reduction for a major metropolitan area since that time.

Also omitted from the Times review, although they had the data, is that during
a virtual cessation of executions, from 1966-1980, that murders more than
doubled in the US. Any other rise and fall in murders, after that time, has
been only a fraction of that change, indicating a strong and direct correlation
between the lack of executions and the dramatic increase in murders, if that is
specifically what you are looking for.

If deterrence was measured by direct correlation's between execution, or the
lack thereof, and murder rates, as implied by the Times article, and as wrongly
assumed by those blindly accepting that model, then there would be no debate,
only more confusion. Which may have been the Times goal.

Let's take a look at the science.

Some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as South Africa and Mexico lead the
world in murder and violent crime rates. But then some non death penalty
jurisdictions, such as Sweden, have quite low rates. Then there are such death
penalty jurisdictions as Japan and Singapore which have low rates of such
crime. But then other death penalty jurisdictions, such as Rwanda and
Louisiana, that have high rates.

To which an astute observer will respond: But socially, culturally,
geographically, legally, historically and many other ways, all of those
jurisdictions are very different. Exactly, a simple comparison of only
execution rates and murder rates cannot tell the tale of deterrence. And
within the US, between states, there exist many variables which will effect the
rates of homicides.

And, as so well illustrated by the Times graphics, a non death penalty state,
such as Michigan has high murder rates and another non death penalty state,
such as North Dakota, has low murder rates and then there are death penalty
states, such as Louisiana, with high murder rates and death penalty states,
such South Dakota, with low rates. Apparently, unbeknownst to the Times, but
quite obvious to any neutral observer, there are other factors at play here,
not just the presence or absence of the death penalty. Most thinking folks
already knew that.

As Economics Professor Ehrlich stated in the Times piece and, as accepted by
all knowledgeable parties, there are many factors involved in such evaluations.
That is why there is a wide variation of crime rates both within and between
some death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, and small variations
within and between others. Any direct comparison of only execution rates and
only murder rates, to determine deterrence, would reflect either ignorance or
deception.

Ehrlich called the Times study "a throwback to the vintage 1960s statistical
analyses done by criminologists who compared murder rates in neighboring states
where capital punishment was either legal or illegal." "The statistics
involved in such comparisons have long been recognized as devoid of scientific
merit." He called the Times story a "one sided affair" devoid of merit. Most
interesting is that Ehrlich was interviewed by the Time's writer, Fessenden,
who asked Ehrlich to comment on the results before the story was published.
Somehow Ehrlich overwhelming criticisms were left out of the article.

Ehrlich also referred Fessenden to some professors who produced the recently
released Emory study. Emory Economics department head, Prof. Deshbakhsh "says
he was contacted by Fessenden, and he indicated to the Times reporter that the
study suggested a very strong deterrent effect of capital punishment."
Somehow, Fessenden's left that out of the Times story, as well. (15).

There is a constant within all jurisdictions -- negative consequences will
always have an effect on behavior.

11) "States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates", The New
York Times 9/22/00located at
www.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/national/22STUD.html and
www.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/national/22DEAT.html
12) Don't Know Much About Calculus: The (New York) Times flunks high-school
math in death-penalty piece", William Tucker, National Review, 9/22/00, located
at www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment092200c.shtml
13) ibid, see footnote 11
14) "The Death Penalty Saves Lives", AIM Report, August 2000, located at
www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2000/08a.html
15) "NEW YORK TIMES UNDER FIRE AGAIN", Accuracy in Media, 10/16/00, go to
www.aim.org/

Russell Nelson

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 12:15:33 AM3/2/02

to

shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) writes:

> Deterrence is not an everyone thing. It just needs to ba a sometime thing. No
> one disputes that the potential for negative cosequences deters behavior. It
> would be quite remarkable to find that the most severe sanction deters none.

That's one half of the coin. How many people are attracted to killing
by the existance of the death penalty? I can easily imagine someone
who wishes to die but too cowardly to kill themselves. So, suicide by
death penalty.

> Reason, common sense, and the weight of the studies support deterrence.

No, it supports *some* deterrence. Are there any people who are
encouraged by the death penalty? If you don't have an answer to that
question, you can't use the deterrence argument, because you don't
know if it's offset by other factors.

> But, incapacitation of murders, by itself, will protect more
> innocents. More living murderers simply means more innocents dying.

You are assuming that if a person kills once, they will kill again.
Why is this not true for soldiers?

Further, you are assuming that if even one murderer will kill again,
you are justified in killing all murderers. What if you could know,
with the same level of proof as the conviction of the murderer, that
the murderer would never kill again? Would you still be justified in
killing the murderer?

> >Are you deterred by the death penalty? I doubt that is the only
> >thing that keeps you from killing me.
>
> No, I am deterrered by morality, which I consider the most powerful deterrent.

Why are you not, then, deterred from using the death penalty?
Why is it moral for "us" to kill when neither you nor I can kill?
How many people's assent is necessary for killing to become moral?
Could a small community morally use the death penalty?
How small?
How have you derived this number?

Obviously at some community size (two), the death penalty becomes
immoral. I can't morally kill you. Same for three. You and I can't
morally kill him. How does it become moral simply through counting to
a larger number? What if the larger number decides that it's moral to
kill people who support the death penalty? I expect you would
disagree -- and if you do, then why are they then wrong when earlier
they were right?

Daniel Grubbs

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 12:28:23 AM3/2/02

to

Sharpjfa wrote...
> >From: Russell Nelson

> > Are you
> >deterred by the death penalty? I doubt that is the only thing that
> >keeps you from killing me.
>

> No, I am deterred by morality, which I consider the most powerful deterrent.

Exactly. Similarly your arguments about efficacy and deterrence value, Biblical
references and cost efficiency are completely beside the point to arguments
concerning state sponsored murder. It is wrong and immoral. We should have no
part of it.

I think that you would profit from some thoughtful internal inspection
(preferably in a quiet room surrounded by good friends.) Perhaps you could ask
yourself why this particular concern seems so important to you?

Dan Grubbs

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 7:21:51 AM3/2/02

to

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors

>From: "Dennis White" denn...@attbi.com
>Date: 3/1/02 9:22 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <1AXf8.28214$mG.103531@rwcrnsc54>

This is the type of nonsensical response and avoidance of issues that is common
to this debate, from people like Dennis.

Dennis gave an emotion laden response, mentioning things outside the subject,
to which I had no knowledge.

Who is the troll?

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 7:24:24 AM3/2/02

to

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors

>From: "Dennis White" denn...@attbi.com
>Date: 3/1/02 9:20 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <lyXf8.59399$vP.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>

>
>Uh Oh!!!!!
> Last time G. A. Carey was brought up by Sharp we found that Carey's
>influence as a scholar was somewhat overstated. This time Carey's essay has
>become "landmark". Landmark or not, Carey's view is decidedly in the
>minority among Quakers and the essay mentioned has little influence upon
>Quaker testimony regarding this issue.
>Dennis

I spoke to a student of Carey's who said that Carey was quite a scholar. Not
all scholars create dogma. That does not negate their scholarship.

More importanlty, his essay is very thoughtful and well reasoned. But you did
not comment on that posted issue.

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 7:26:08 AM3/2/02

to

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors

>From: Guy Macon guym...@deltanet.com
>Date: 3/2/02 2:10 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a5q1dd$a...@dispatch.concentric.net>
>
>
>See what happens when you feed the Troll?

He provides a reasoned and thoughtful reply, on topic.

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 7:31:12 AM3/2/02

to

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors

>From: Franklin Cacciutto shad...@earthlink.net
>Date: 3/1/02 9:45 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <3C804C5F...@earthlink.net>

>
>The death penalty ia not a simple "negative consequence."

hmm. thought i just answered this. But, it is certainly a neative consequence.

The statistical
>experience of European countries that have switched back and forth from
>having the
>death penalty is that the murder rate goes up when the death penalty is in
>effect
>and goes down when it is abolished

Contrary to reality in some cases. It is not just a matter of execution rates
and murder rates to determine deterrence, as I fully answered earlier.

This apparent contadiction, which flies
>in the
>face of commonsense, is caused by the special nature of violence. The death
>penalty creates a climate of violence. It is the state answering violence
>with
>violence. Violence begets violence. Blood will have blood. Lex talionis. Law
>of
>the claw.

From 1966-1980, a period which included our last national moratorium on
executions (1967-1976), murders in the United States more than doubled from
11,040 to 23,400. The murder rate also nearly doubled, from 5.6 to
10.2/100,000. During that 1966-1980 period, the US averaged less than 1
execution every 4 years, with a maximum of two executions in only one year.
From 1995-2000 executions averaged 71 per year, a 28,000% increase over the
1966-1980 period. The US murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2/100,000 in
1980 to 5.7/100,000 in 1999 -- a 44% reduction. The US murder rate is now at
its lowest level since 1966 (10).

The Texas example -- The murder rate in Harris County (Houston), Texas has
fallen 73% since executions resumed in 1982, through 2000, from 31/100,000 to
8.5/100,000 (11). Harris County is, by far, the most active death penalty
sentencing and execution jurisdiction in the US. The Harris County murder rate
dropped nearly 70% more than did the national murder rate, during similar
periods.

Potential murderers may have been affected by the example of the state of Texas
but, likely, not in a manner consistent with brutalization.

And "(t)he biggest decline in murder rates has occurred in states that
aggressively use capital punishment." (12)

>
>Read Albert Camus' Reflections on the Guillotine in Resistance, Rebellion,
>and
>Death.

I have.

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 7:55:05 AM3/2/02

to

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors

>From: Russell Nelson nel...@crynwr.com
>Date: 3/1/02 11:15 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <m2bse7a...@desk.crynwr.com>

>
>shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) writes:
>
>> Deterrence is not an everyone thing. It just needs to ba a sometime thing.
>No
>> one disputes that the potential for negative cosequences deters behavior.
>It
>> would be quite remarkable to find that the most severe sanction deters
>none.
>
>That's one half of the coin. How many people are attracted to killing
>by the existance of the death penalty?

very few, evidently.

I can easily imagine someone
>who wishes to die but too cowardly to kill themselves. So, suicide by
>death penalty.

It appears that over ((% of murder defendants prefer ife over death. So, by
your theory, the evidence is overwhlming that the death penalty is a deterrent.

>
>> Reason, common sense, and the weight of the studies support deterrence.
>
>No, it supports *some* deterrence.

fine.

Are there any people who are
>encouraged by the death penalty?

I have yet to find any murderer that murdered becasue they were encouraged by
the death penalty. There area a number of cases were it has been found that the
death penalty did deter.

Negative consequences tend to restrict behavior.

If you don't have an answer to that
>question, you can't use the deterrence argument, because you don't
>know if it's offset by other factors.

actually that has been studied.

After a thorough review of deterrence studies, Professor Samuel Cameron
observed, "The brutalization idea is not one the economists have given any
credence." "We must conclude that the deterrence effect dominates the opposing
brutalization effect." (13)

I can provide the citation if you would like to read the article.

>> But, incapacitation of murders, by itself, will protect more
>> innocents. More living murderers simply means more innocents dying.
>
>You are assuming that if a person kills once, they will kill again.
>Why is this not true for soldiers?

Murderers and soldiers are quite different. ANd, I assume nothing. We all know
that living murderers are infinitely more likely to murder again than are
executed murderers. Furthermore, more than 8% of those on death row had commit
murders prior to that murder or murders that put them on death row. And one
study showed that 6.6% of murders murder again.

Even without deterrence, letting more murderers live will alwasy cause more
innocents to be murdered, at number way higher than an possible risk of
executing an innocent. Death penalty opponents can not provide proof of an
innocent executed in the US since 1900.

>
>Further, you are assuming that if even one murderer will kill again,
>you are justified in killing all murderers.

No, I am not. I support executions because it is deserved. I was responsing to
a post that discussed t the innocent put at risk of execution.

What if you could know,
>with the same level of proof as the conviction of the murderer, that
>the murderer would never kill again? Would you still be justified in
>killing the murderer?

Yes, because that is not my foundation for supporting any punishment.

>
>> >Are you deterred by the death penalty? I doubt that is the only
>> >thing that keeps you from killing me.
>>
>> No, I am deterrered by morality, which I consider the most powerful
>deterrent.
>
>Why are you not, then, deterred from using the death penalty?

Because it is a just, therefore, a moral punishment.

>Why is it moral for "us" to kill when neither you nor I can kill?

Executions, self defense and in a just war can all be morally supportable.
Murder cannot be.
.

>How many people's assent is necessary for killing to become moral?

I don't think assent is a factor. But I may be misunderstanding you.

>Could a small community morally use the death penalty?
>How small?
>How have you derived this number?

There is no number. It is a matter of a just and deserved punishment. You and I
will differ on our foundations for that considerations. And that is fine by me.

>Obviously at some community size (two), the death penalty becomes
>immoral.

It does not become immoral because of size. One might assume that the community
was size 5 but became size two because of the murder of the three others. Size
does not establish morality.

> I can't morally kill you.

that may be a dogma of you faith, which you accept without question. Therefore
we cannot disagree on that topic.

Same for three. You and I can't
>morally kill him.

You may not be able to, because of your unquestioning belief. If i was the
lawgiver in that community and we had capital punishment for murder and she had
murdered the other 5 members of the community, then I would have the legal and
moral authority to execute.

How does it become moral simply through counting to
>a larger number?

It doesn't, nor have I ever suggested that it does.

What if the larger number decides that it's moral to
>kill people who support the death penalty? I expect you would
>disagree -- and if you do, then why are they then wrong when earlier
>they were right?

Because numbers do not establish morality. There has to be a foundation for
morality. That is where the discussion begins.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful inquiry.

Sharpjfa

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 8:01:55 AM3/2/02

to

>Subject: Re: U.S. Death Penalty Errors

>From: "Daniel Grubbs" clo...@javanet.com
>Date: 3/1/02 11:28 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a5pnui$283$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>

>
>Sharpjfa wrote...
>> >From: Russell Nelson
>> > Are you
>> >deterred by the death penalty? I doubt that is the only thing that
>> >keeps you from killing me.
>>
>> No, I am deterred by morality, which I consider the most powerful
>deterrent.
>
>Exactly. Similarly your arguments about efficacy and deterrence value,
>Biblical
>references and cost efficiency are completely beside the point to arguments
>concerning state sponsored murder.

I wold remind you that I was responding to a specific post where the concern
for innocents being executed was the specific topic. I respond on point. The
Biblical reference was a specific reply to a Quaker belief.post. Again,
specifically on topic. And I don't remember writing about cost, but if I did it
was a specific response to a sepcific post.

Furthermore, execution cannot, by definition, be murder. It is unlikley that
you call incarceration state sponsored kidnapping. But, maybe you do.

It is wrong and immoral. We should have
>no
>part of it.

I see it as correct and moral, although very, very difficult.

>
>I think that you would profit from some thoughtful internal inspection
>(preferably in a quiet room surrounded by good friends.) Perhaps you could
>ask
>yourself why this particular concern seems so important to you?

I was opposed to capital punishment and after much thought and study and
contemplation, I switched positions.

I think examination of beliefs and the foundations for them is important.

Wakefield

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 9:15:40 AM3/2/02

to

'While what you say may be true..'- I dunno...when my son was an early
teen I dug out 'The Giant Rat of Sumatra' and played it. I am still laughing
my tail off, even after all these years, and he's looking at me like there's
no DOUBT in his mind that I'm a looney tune myself..I had no clue they were
still around. That is great news!
--

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 1:53:10 PM3/2/02

to

"Guy Macon" <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:a5q1dd$a...@dispatch.concentric.net...

>
> See what happens when you feed the Troll?
>

> Maybe next time you folks will heed my warning.

Well, of course feeding Trolls is wrong...but I suspect Sharp will react the
way he did last time he came fishing here. After awhile he will get
discouraged, and move on to waters in which he may find at least one or two
like-minded souls in order to get a *really* heated, inflamatory bon-fire
roaring. I know you don't support feeding Trolls, but I think that the
really serious ones (as opposed to the less dogmatically driven ones)
deserve to hear a bit of what truths we have to share. I know that you may
not share that view, and I respect it.
Dennis