Ethics of DP
Kwag7693
Beyond any concerns with the feasibility of effecting a capital punishment,
does anyone find fault with the concept of a morally justified killing of a
convicted criminal?
Kevin
Kwag7693
Date: 1/3/03 11:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
>It is patently obvious to anyone who can't count his IQ on his fingers and
>toes (thus excluding about 99.99% of deathie pigshit on this group) that
>the right to life is universal and absolute.
Universal and absolutely what? You think killing in self-defense isn't morally
justified? The editorial mumbo-jumbo dropped, that is a pretty strong and
patently false assertion; it is not clear at all that killing someone is always
an imprudent act. In fact, your usage makes me suspect your claim isn't a
factual one at all, but simply an article of personal faith.
Kevin
Jürgen
Kwag7693 schrieb in Nachricht
<20030103113239...@mb-md.aol.com>...
Yes I do. I consider it morally unjustified to kill an imprisoned offender
or a defeated enemy, after the jeopardy for the lives of others is no more
given. Such is an act wich is not driven by any necessity but rather by an
attitude of grandeur which does stand not any good to a secular judge.
Jürgen
Kwag7693
Date: 1/3/03 11:59 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Yes I do. I consider it morally unjustified to kill an imprisoned offender
>or a defeated enemy, after the jeopardy for the lives of others is no more
>given.
So how do you propose to ensure that no more jeopardy to other lives is
presented by the given criminal? They apparently feel no such compunction.
Complete isolation for each murderer?
>Such is an act wich is not driven by any necessity but rather by an
>attitude of grandeur which does stand not any good to a secular judge.
Nothing is particularly grand about having to decide what to do with a killer.
Necessity is what brings one to have to decide what to do. One needn't even
bother to defend oneself; most people think it is a good idea though.
Kevin
Jürgen
Kwag7693 schrieb in Nachricht
<20030103125917...@mb-cg.aol.com>...
Everything is particularly grand about sending a guilty human on an
automatic routine to death whilst other options are at hand.
Jürgen
ikke
"Kwag7693" <kwag...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030103113239...@mb-md.aol.com...
First of all, I would argue that the death penalty is not, as you describe
it, the "morally justified killing of a convicted criminal".
I think you'll find that many abolitionists, myself included, object to
capital punishment on_moral_grounds.
Even if I were to approve in principle (God forbid), I imagine I would still
oppose it due to the flaws inherent in its application. I know a couple of
abolitionists here fit into this category.
Cheers
John
JIGSAW1695
From: kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693)
Date: 1/3/2003 11:32 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <20030103113239...@mb-md.aol.com>
Kevin
===============================
No!
It is logical and moraly correct to punish some for the commission of a serious
crime.
Jigsaw
Hugh Neary
Some???
What some? Blacks, poor, demented?
It's not logical at all to punish some. Logic would dictate that all
within a certain group performing a particular crime would be punished
equally.
Even if there were any moral or sensible argument for maintaining the
DP, to select a miniscule proportion of those convicted for
punishment, makes a sick joke out of any pretence that is is an
appropriate response to killing.
Whatever you were on over the holiday hasn't wore off yet Jigsaw. You
were so much better at the cut & paste bit!
HN
John Rennie
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030103170101...@mb-ft.aol.com...
> ===============================
> No!
> It is logical and moraly correct to punish some for the commission of a
serious
> crime.
>
> Jigsaw
Jiggy think ethics are those little rooms one
keeps the lumber in.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) wrote:
Yes. How can one "morally justify" the killing of a convicted murderer
without recourse to some absolute standard of morality?
If you believe in an absolute standard of morality then from where does
it come?
I don't believe in God and, therefore, believe that there is no absolute
standard of morality. Therefore, unless a compelling practical argument
can be put forward for using capital punishment (and I don't believe
that one _has_), I cannot morally support the execution of a convicted
murderer.
Moreover, I find the notion of strapping down a human being and killing
them in cold blood an absolutely horrifying notion.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:n6e4va...@lievre.voute.net...
> le 03 Jan 2003 16:32:39 GMT, dans l'article <20030103113239...@mb-md.aol.com>, Kwag7693 <kwag...@aol.com>
a dit ...
> toes (thus excluding about 99.99% of deathie pigshit on this group) that
> the right to life is universal and absolute.
ROTFLMAO... tell that to the starving child in Africa, or the person born
with an illness that means he/she will not live past their teens, about their
'absolute' right to life. As with your stupid 'the dead cannot be honored,' it
is joined with your equally stupid 'eternal, timeless and universal right to life.'
You just keep getting creamed in any argument in this respect, and for
some reason your ego forces you to return to this insanity... time and time
again. Nature (or God, if you presume) provides NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER
to anyone or anything. Only man provides these 'rights' which are artificially
constructed and have nothing timeless or universal about them at all. Of
course, this excludes the presumption which you hold that YOU ARE GOD!!!!
PV
>
> --
> Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
|Spiritual Leader of the Universal
|Right to Life Church. (umm... get
|away from me -- you filthy black
|starving child in Africa) 'My church'
|isn't for you.
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan wrote:
> Kwag7693 <kwag...@aol.com> wrote ...
> It is patently obvious to anyone who can't count his IQ on his fingers and
> toes (thus excluding about 99.99% of deathie pigshit on this group) that
> the right to life is universal and absolute.
That's why the just execution of proven murderers is a moral
imperative, Desi.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
*************************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald, SCNA * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
*************************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
Fred
Some of the one-on-one crimes which are committed are so utterly
repellent and grotesquely violent that I could contemplate personally
garrotting the malefactors. However, for a number of reasons I find I
have to stand on the anti side. One of these reasons is the
incomprehensible way in which, when people are killed for profit,
there is absolutely no moral outrage expressed by more than a very
few citizens.
For example, vehicles of faulty design or construction may kill
numerous people, including children, and it is considered socially
acceptable to simply pay off the victims by charging a slightly
higher price to the customers of the guilty company. The executives
feel no pain at all. In fact, they happily accept the yearly bonuses
that result from these practices, and go on their way to their
churches etc. with no sign of remorse or regret.
When a poorly maintained or operated aeroplane kills the entire
complement of souls on board, it is no surprise to see the
responsible company, some time later, ask the government, i.e. the
citizens, to subsidise the company to keep it in business, even
though the payout to the survivors has already been severely limited
by laws created by special pleading from lobbyists coupled with
'contributions' to the appropriate congressmen or senators.
It seems to me that those selected for the death penalty are really
whipping boys for public sentiment and that, as a society, the USA
uses them to accept its' feelings of revenge, in a not dissimilar way
to the Roman circuses' displays of public savagery.
A very dubious system indeed.
Add to that the sloppy, lazy, careless way the US administers and
operates it's criminal legal system and it is no wonder that you see
countless provably innocent persons being convicted and sentenced to
death. The criminal systems of all countries have made mistakes, but
no-one does it bigger or better than the US does, while it's citizens
are heard constantly chanting the mantra, "We have the best legal
system in the world", an obviously false statement.
F
JIGSAW1695
From: "Fred" no-...@nowhere.nohow
Date: 1/12/2003 6:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <E0nU9.140078$k13.6...@news0.telusplanet.net>
"Kwag7693" <kwag...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030103113239...@mb-md.aol.com...
> Does anyone here object to the death penalty on strictly
ideological grounds?
> Beyond any concerns with the feasibility of effecting a capital
punishment,
> does anyone find fault with the concept of a morally justified
killing of a
> convicted criminal?
>
> Kevin
Some of the one-on-one crimes which are committed are so utterly
repellent and grotesquely violent that I could contemplate personally
garrotting the malefactors. However, for a number of reasons I find I
have to stand on the anti side. One of these reasons is the
incomprehensible way in which, when people are killed for profit,
there is absolutely no moral outrage expressed by more than a very
few citizens.
For example, vehicles of faulty design or construction may kill
numerous people, including children, and it is considered socially
acceptable to simply pay off the victims by charging a slightly
higher price to the customers of the guilty company. The executives
feel no pain at all. In fact, they happily accept the yearly bonuses
that result from these practices, and go on their way to their
churches etc. with no sign of remorse or regret.
===============================
Nice try Fred!
You are confusing a civil suit with a criminal case. The two are different.
It is easier to sue an entity such a Renault for producing a faulty car then
finding the person who committed a criminal act that resulted in a crash and
the death of an individual.
The standards of proof are different for one thing. The nature of the act that
led to the deed are not the same.
The two cannot be compared using rational logic. However, it is very eassy for
a troll to do.
Jigsaw
Fred
....
>
> Nice try Fred!
>
> You are confusing a civil suit with a criminal case. The two are
different.
>
> It is easier to sue an entity such a Renault for producing a faulty
car then
> finding the person who committed a criminal act that resulted in a
crash and
> the death of an individual.
>
> The standards of proof are different for one thing. The nature of
the act that
> led to the deed are not the same.
>
> The two cannot be compared using rational logic. However, it is
very eassy for
> a troll to do.
>
> Jigsaw
If you're dead, you're dead. What is it about being dead that you
have so much trouble understanding? Or do you figure that corporate
killers are 'nicer' somehow than muggers? They both want your money,
and it seems neither has much of a conscience about how they get it.
If your child dies because she's abducted by some demented loser or
by eating toxic hamburger, she still suffers and dies. You should try
thinking before writing.
F
JIGSAW1695
From: "Fred" no-...@nowhere.nohow
Message-id: <KupU9.141576$k13.6...@news0.telusplanet.net>
F
===============================
As stated Fred, there is a difference between a civil suit and a criminal case.
Do a little research you bloody little man. If you dont, people will confuse
with Dezi.
Kwag7693
Date: 1/12/03 6:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
>One of these reasons is the
>incomprehensible way in which, when people are killed for profit,
>there is absolutely no moral outrage expressed by more than a very
>few citizens.
>For example, vehicles of faulty design or construction may kill
>numerous people, including children, and it is considered socially
>acceptable to simply pay off the victims by charging a slightly
>higher price to the customers of the guilty company.
I think the difference in intention and in the means of the persons demise is
one factor, another being that while most people probably are outraged, the
news media doesn't have the means to accurately portray the opinions of any but
a small and vocal minority.
>It seems to me that those selected for the death penalty are really
>whipping boys for public sentiment and that, as a society, the USA
>uses them to accept its' feelings of revenge, in a not dissimilar way
>to the Roman circuses' displays of public savagery.
I am not sure but it looks like you are simply saying we should ignore the
appropriate response to murder because we ignore the appropriate response to
negligent homicide, which even if the latter were true, wouldn't imply the
former.
>The criminal systems of all countries have made mistakes, but
>no-one does it bigger or better than the US does, while it's citizens
>are heard constantly chanting the mantra, "We have the best legal
>system in the world", an obviously false statement.
I don't think many other countries are burdened with the sheer amount of crime
that exists in the US.
Kevin
John Rennie
> From: "Fred" no-...@nowhere.nohow
> Date: 1/12/03 6:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
snip
>
> I don't think many other countries are burdened with the sheer amount of
crime
> that exists in the US.
>
> Kevin
Crimes against property are relatively low whilst crimes against the
person i.e. rape and murder are high. Americans really care about
property.
Fred
Far from it. Sentence a few vice presidents to prison and the quality
of products would make a remarkable improvement. Further, if the DP
were eliminated, perhaps other aspects of the criminal system would
get repaired.
> >The criminal systems of all countries have made mistakes, but
> >no-one does it bigger or better than the US does, while it's
citizens
> >are heard constantly chanting the mantra, "We have the best legal
> >system in the world", an obviously false statement.
>
> I don't think many other countries are burdened with the sheer
amount of crime
> that exists in the US.
Then it seems that the DP is not the panacea that it's proponents
claim. I have heard that in terms of it's population the US is under
policed. Maybe this is just a cheap way to make people feel good,
without the pain of paying for an effective system.
F
Kwag7693
Date: 1/13/03 9:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> I don't think many other countries are burdened with the sheer amount of
>crime
>> that exists in the US.
>>
>> Kevin
>
>Crimes against property are relatively low whilst crimes against the
>person i.e. rape and murder are high. Americans really care about
>property.
Apparently not, if crimes involving property are low. Apparently the Americans
who commit crimes care about hurting people, if your claim is true.
Kevin
Kwag7693
Date: 1/13/03 9:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Far from it. Sentence a few vice presidents to prison and the quality
>of products would make a remarkable improvement. Further, if the DP
>were eliminated, perhaps other aspects of the criminal system would
>get repaired.
So you are claiming that by strengthening the deterrent to putting forth
potentially lethal products we would lessen the occurrence of it, but by
weakening the deterrent to murder it would strengthen some aspect of the
criminal system? I don't see a connection.
>> I don't think many other countries are burdened with the sheer
>amount of crime
>> that exists in the US.
>
>Then it seems that the DP is not the panacea that it's proponents
>claim.
This is a non-sequitur. What would the murder rate be if not for the DP? As
far as I know, the murder rate has only fallen in the US since the DP was
reinstated.
>I have heard that in terms of it's population the US is under
>policed. Maybe this is just a cheap way to make people feel good,
>without the pain of paying for an effective system.
That may be the case. I would certainly be much more pleased with a larger
percentage of my tax dollars going to policing and making the judicial system
more efficient than to a number of things it now does.
Kevin
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) wrote:
[snip]
> This is a non-sequitur. What would the murder rate be if not for the DP?
> As
> far as I know, the murder rate has only fallen in the US since the DP was
> reinstated.
It has fallen in jurisdictions that do not have the DP as well as
jurisdictions that have the DP. Go figure.
Kwag7693
Date: 1/13/03 11:41 PM Eastern Standard Time
>It has fallen in jurisdictions that do not have the DP as well as
>jurisdictions that have the DP. Go figure.
>
>Mr Q. Z. D.
Which goes to prove my point. There is not any apparent causal connection
between the DP and the murder rate being higher in the US than elsewhere.
Kevin
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) wrote:
> From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks
> Date: 1/13/03 11:41 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >It has fallen in jurisdictions that do not have the DP as well as
> >jurisdictions that have the DP. Go figure.
> Which goes to prove my point. There is not any apparent causal connection
> between the DP and the murder rate being higher in the US than elsewhere.
So why have the DP if it has no effect on the murder rate? I have made
precisely that point to you more than once.
Kwag7693
>> Which goes to prove my point. There is not any apparent causal connection
>> between the DP and the murder rate being higher in the US than elsewhere.
>
>So why have the DP if it has no effect on the murder rate? I have made
>precisely that point to you more than once.
I didn't say it had no effect on the murder rate; I think it is a deterrent. I
said there was no causal connection between the DP and some place's murder rate
and between the murder rate in, for instance, some other country or some other
US state without the DP. I am unsure if statistical analysis is every going to
be particularly fruitful for this issue, due to its complexity, though I am
positive that the data Desmond is fond of proves nothing at all, as he has
presented it.
I have mentioned previously my very clear intuition that most people fear death
more than imprisonment. Your, IMO, unsound response was that we cannot infer
that murderers reason as other humans do. OTOH, I don't think that concluding
murder is a potential benefit logically or naturally entails the conclusion
that death and imprisonment have no difference in value, and so think my
reasoning and the reasoning of people I have questioned proves my judgement
adequately, without the need to know any of us are also murderers.
Kevin
Reilly
> From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"
>>> As far as I know, the murder rate has only
>>> fallen in the US since the DP was reinstated.
Incorrect. America first reinstated the DP in the late 1970s. Your murder
rates did not simply fall from that point. They actually hit their last big
peak in the early 1990s (1993 IIRC) before steadily declining. It had more
to do with a healthy economy than anything else.
>>It has fallen in jurisdictions that do not have the DP as well as
>>jurisdictions that have the DP. Go figure.
>>Mr Q. Z. D.
>
> Which goes to prove my point.
And virtually every abolitionist's point...
> There is not any apparent causal connection between
> the DP and the murder rate being higher in the US
> than elsewhere.
It's the guns, not the DP, that causes your high murder rate.
Earl Evleth
lift@horizon wrote on 14/01/03 13:14:
> It's the guns, not the DP, that causes your high murder rate.
Aha, but guns don't kill people, only bullets to that!
Kidding aside, homicide rates in the US were in step with
hand gun sales for the same period. And so are violent crimes.
To coin a phrase: MORE GUNS MORE VIOLENT CRIMES AND MURDERS
Earl
***
The homicide rates peaked three times in the post-Furman period
in 1974 at 10.1, in 1980 at 10.7 and finally in 1991 at 10.5
Homicide is one of the violent crimes which has high handgun use
as well as robbery and aggravated (wounding) assault.
From data taken from the following sources
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm
http://www.shootingindustry.com/02pages/SpecRep4.html#Anchor-PISTOL-23240
http://www.shootingindustry.com/02pages/SpecRep5.html#Anchor-REVOLVER-3800
Year total UStotal handgun
violent crimes Manufactured homicide rates
1981 396,197 2,537,000 10,3
1982 372,477 2,628,000 9.6
1983 330,419 1,967,000 8.6
1984 329,232** 1,580,000 8.4 **
1985 340,942 1,550,000 8.4 **
1986 376,064 1,428,000 ** 9.0
1987 365,709 1,659,000 8.7
1988 385,934 1,746,000 9.0
1989 410,039 2,031,000 9.3
1990 492,671 1,839,000 10.0
1991 548,667 1,838,266 10.5 *
1992 565,575 1,524,218 10.0
1993 581,697* 2,655,000* 10.1
1994 542,529 2,582,000 9.6
1995 504,421 1,723,000 8.7
1996 458,458 1,484,477 7.9
1997 414,530 1,407,000 7.4
1998 364,776 1,185,000 6.8
1999 338,535 1,331,000 6.2
2000 341,831 1,282,000 6.1
* peak year for both violent crimes and revolver
+ pistol manufacturering in the USA
** minimum years
Kwag7693
Date: 1/14/03 7:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
>> There is not any apparent causal connection between
>> the DP and the murder rate being higher in the US
>> than elsewhere.
>
>It's the guns, not the DP, that causes your high murder rate.
That might be a necessary component but it certainly isn't sufficient.
And as counter-evidence I can mention the study that indicated concealed-carry
laws force violent crime down.
Kevin
Kevin
Richard J
One reason, and only one reason, Diablo. Once properly applied, the
death penalty removes the possibility of a murderer ever murdering again
more effectively than any other means.
Teflon
Richard J
> in article 3e23fe68$0$27992$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, Reilly at
> lift@horizon wrote on 14/01/03 13:14:
>
>
>>It's the guns, not the DP, that causes your high murder rate.
>
>
>
> Aha, but guns don't kill people, only bullets to that!
>
> Kidding aside, homicide rates in the US were in step with
> hand gun sales for the same period. And so are violent crimes.
>
> To coin a phrase: MORE GUNS MORE VIOLENT CRIMES AND MURDERS
>
> Earl
Either that, or people react to higher crime rates by buying more
firearms to protect themselves, Earl. This is a common occurrence.
When there is civil unrest in one place, such as the riots that followed
the first police brutality trial of Rodney King's assailants, firearms
purchases soar elsewhere.
As an academic, you are well aware that such a one to one comparison is
far too simplistic and fails to consider other factors to be an accurate
assessment! Shame on you for using propaganda tactics!
Teflon
Fred
"Reilly" <lift@horizon> wrote in message
news:3e23fe68$0$27992$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
...
>
> It's the guns, not the DP, that causes your high murder rate.
But surely Michael Moore (quoting the NRA) has it right, "It's not
guns that kill people, it's Americans that kill people".
F
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
> > So why have the DP if it has no effect on the murder rate? I have made
> > precisely that point to you more than once.
> One reason, and only one reason, Diablo. Once properly applied, the
> death penalty removes the possibility of a murderer ever murdering again
> more effectively than any other means.
Hush, Richard. We've all been through this one and I _know_ your
answer. I'm interested in Kevin's (him being a comparative newbie and
all that).
We've got to challenge them a little so that they can get up to speed.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) wrote:
> From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks
> Date: 1/14/03 12:53 AM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >> Which goes to prove my point. There is not any apparent causal
> >> connection
> >> between the DP and the murder rate being higher in the US than
> >> elsewhere.
> >
> >So why have the DP if it has no effect on the murder rate? I have made
> >precisely that point to you more than once.
>
> I didn't say it had no effect on the murder rate; I think it is a
> deterrent.
But you write (and it is quoted above):
"There is not any apparent causal connection between the DP and the
murder rate being higher in the US than elsewhere."
How can it be deterring if there is no causal connection between the DP
and the murder rate?
> I
> said there was no causal connection between the DP and some place's
> murder rate
> and between the murder rate in, for instance, some other country or some
> other
> US state without the DP.
If the DP does not affect the murder rate then it does not affect the
murder rate. End of story. If the DP does not affect the murder rate
then how can it possibly be a deterrent? A deterrent is that which
dissuades people from carrying out an action, in this case murder. If
the murder rate is not affected by the DP then people are not dissuaded
from murdering by the DP so there can be _no_ deterrent effect.
I am aware that the above is pleonastic but I felt that the point was so
important that it was worth mentioning several times.
> I am unsure if statistical analysis is every
> going to
> be particularly fruitful for this issue, due to its complexity, though I
> am
> positive that the data Desmond is fond of proves nothing at all, as he
> has
> presented it.
It shows that the DP appears to have no effect on the murder rate or the
change in the murder rate.
> I have mentioned previously my very clear intuition that most people fear
> death
> more than imprisonment. Your, IMO, unsound response was that we cannot
> infer
> that murderers reason as other humans do.
That was not quite what I said. The category of murderers for whom the
DP exists (i.e. the worst of the worst - those who are likely to prove
an on-going danger to society according to the application of a set of
arbitrary standards) is a subgroup that is _extremely_ unlikely to
reason (vis a vis punishment) the way that the overwhelming majority of
citizens do.
> OTOH, I don't think that
> concluding
> murder is a potential benefit logically or naturally entails the
> conclusion
> that death and imprisonment have no difference in value, and so think my
> reasoning and the reasoning of people I have questioned proves my
> judgement
> adequately, without the need to know any of us are also murderers.
Uh...I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Fred
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks>
news:jonathan-887583...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
....
>
> That was not quite what I said. The category of murderers for whom
the
> DP exists (i.e. the worst of the worst - those who are likely to
prove
> an on-going danger to society according to the application of a set
of
> arbitrary standards) is a subgroup that is _extremely_ unlikely to
> reason (vis a vis punishment) the way that the overwhelming
majority of
> citizens do.
In a recent case, a man was kidnapped. The kidnappers used his credit
card to order a pizza. The FBI delivered the pizza.
F
Richard J
Best you give him a shot of nitrous if you want him to speed.
Teflon
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Ethics of DP
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:09:43 +0000
>
>le 14 Jan 2003 16:13:39 GMT, dans l'article
><20030114111339...@mb-fc.aol.com>, Kwag7693 <kwag...@aol.com> a
>dit ...
>
>>>> There is not any apparent causal connection between
>>>> the DP and the murder rate being higher in the US
>>>> than elsewhere.
>
>>>It's the guns, not the DP, that causes your high murder rate.
>
>> That might be a necessary component but it certainly isn't sufficient.
>>
>> And as counter-evidence I can mention the study that indicated
>concealed-carry
>> laws force violent crime down.
>
>Oh dear ... another one who thinks that the Lott study is good for anything
>other than 'emergency' toilet paper ... :-(
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR
!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Ethics of DP
>Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:09:43 +0000
>Lines: 21
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <n8g10b...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3e23fe68$0$27992$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>
><20030114111339...@mb-fc.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042564377 21303501 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy's-Moped:
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction
in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived in Google. Please feel
free to use it to your advantage.
Kwag7693
I wrote:
>There is not any apparent causal
>> >> connection
>> >> between the DP and the murder rate being higher in the US than
>> >> elsewhere.
QZD wrote:
>How can it be deterring if there is no causal connection between the DP
>and the murder rate?
Check it out. I said there is no apparent connection between killing prisoners
in the US and the murder rate in the US *relative* to some other country with a
lower murder rate; I did not say that there is no apparent connection between
killing prisoners in the US and the US murder rate. IOW, showing that the US
has a high relative MR and that Canada has a low relative MR and that the US
has the death penalty and that Canada doesn't proves nothing. More is needed.
As for whether or not the DP prevents murders in the US, I have already said
why I think it prevents at least some.
>I am aware that the above is pleonastic
"pleonastic"?
Perhaps I phrased my intentions poorly, if so it should be clear above.
>> I am unsure if statistical analysis is every
>> going to
>> be particularly fruitful for this issue, due to its complexity, though I
>> am
>> positive that the data Desmond is fond of proves nothing at all, as he
>> has
>> presented it.
>
>It shows that the DP appears to have no effect on the murder rate or the
>change in the murder rate.
It doesn't even show that. I am not able to do the regression analysis
necessary to prove what the relationship is even if he had presented all the
information one would need to conclude that, but I at least know what data he'd
need.
>That was not quite what I said. The category of murderers for whom the
>DP exists (i.e. the worst of the worst - those who are likely to prove
>an on-going danger to society according to the application of a set of
>arbitrary standards) is a subgroup that is _extremely_ unlikely to
>reason (vis a vis punishment) the way that the overwhelming majority of
>citizens do.
I disagree. PV mentioned a pair of guys who, looking for cash, lured folks off
the road to kill them. If they had a clear understanding that death was a very
likely result if they were caught, and that getting caught was fairly likely, I
don't think they'd have been so carefree in simply slaughtering so many people.
They just thought it was a good idea to kill folks for cash. I don't see why
we can conclude from that premise that they don't think death is to be more
feared than imprisonment.
>Uh...I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Ok, what I said was the two sentences above coupled with: everyone I speak with
thinks the DP is to be more feared than imprisonment. Put the three together
and I think you have a prima facie case for the DP being a deterrent.
Kevin
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) wrote:
> From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks
> Date: 1/14/03 4:58 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> I wrote:
>
> >There is not any apparent causal
> >> >> connection
> >> >> between the DP and the murder rate being higher in the US than
> >> >> elsewhere.
>
> QZD wrote:
>
> >How can it be deterring if there is no causal connection between the DP
> >and the murder rate?
>
> Check it out. I said there is no apparent connection between killing
> prisoners
> in the US and the murder rate in the US *relative* to some other country
> with a
> lower murder rate;
i.e. there is no connection at all. That's what I'm seeing here.
Whether you are looking at absolutes or relative values, the statistical
data seems to show (quite clearly) that the DP has nothing to do with
the murder rate.
> >I am aware that the above is pleonastic
>
> "pleonastic"?
Using more words than required.
> Perhaps I phrased my intentions poorly, if so it should be clear above.
>
> >> I am unsure if statistical analysis is every
> >> going to
> >> be particularly fruitful for this issue, due to its complexity, though
> >> I
> >> am
> >> positive that the data Desmond is fond of proves nothing at all, as he
> >> has
> >> presented it.
> >
> >It shows that the DP appears to have no effect on the murder rate or the
> >change in the murder rate.
>
> It doesn't even show that. I am not able to do the regression analysis
> necessary to prove what the relationship is even if he had presented all
> the
> information one would need to conclude that, but I at least know what
> data he'd
> need.
No regression required. We're not matching curves with data points.
We're looking at the simple fact that the murder rate dropped in non-DP
jurisdictions as well as DP jurisdictions post Gregg. That illustrates
that there is _no_ correlation between the use of the DP and the murder
rate.
> >That was not quite what I said. The category of murderers for whom the
> >DP exists (i.e. the worst of the worst - those who are likely to prove
> >an on-going danger to society according to the application of a set of
> >arbitrary standards) is a subgroup that is _extremely_ unlikely to
> >reason (vis a vis punishment) the way that the overwhelming majority of
> >citizens do.
>
> I disagree. PV mentioned a pair of guys who, looking for cash, lured
> folks off
> the road to kill them. If they had a clear understanding that death was
> a very
> likely result if they were caught, and that getting caught was fairly
> likely, I
> don't think they'd have been so carefree in simply slaughtering so many
> people.
I contend that if they had a clear understanding that gaol was a very
likely result and that getting caught was fairly likely they wouldn't
have been so carefree, either.
> They just thought it was a good idea to kill folks for cash. I don't
> see why
> we can conclude from that premise that they don't think death is to be
> more
> feared than imprisonment.
We can't possibly know what they were thinking.
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:n8g10b...@lievre.voute.net...
> le 14 Jan 2003 16:13:39 GMT, dans l'article <20030114111339...@mb-fc.aol.com>, Kwag7693 <kwag...@aol.com>
a dit ...
>
> >>> the DP and the murder rate being higher in the US
> >>> than elsewhere.
>
> >>It's the guns, not the DP, that causes your high murder rate.
>
> > That might be a necessary component but it certainly isn't sufficient.
> >
> > And as counter-evidence I can mention the study that indicated concealed-carry
> > laws force violent crime down.
>
> other than 'emergency' toilet paper ... :-(
Since the 'study' is not one of the three books in your 'extensive
library,' how would you know?
PV
>
> --
> Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
|Spiritual Leader of the Universal
|Right to Life Church. (umm... get
|away from me -- you filthy black
|starving child in Africa) 'My church'
|isn't for you.
Reilly
> "Reilly" <lift@horizon> wrote in message
> >
> > It's the guns, not the DP, that causes your high murder rate.
>
> But surely Michael Moore (quoting the NRA) has it right, "It's not
> guns that kill people, it's Americans that kill people".
> F
I remember Moore did an episode of "The Awful Truth" on famous killers, such
as the Unabomber, and noted he lived in a one-room shack in Montana. But he
cautioned us not to pre-judge: "One Room Shacks don't kill people. It's
people who live in one-room shacks that kill people."
Reilly
> From: "Reilly" lift@horizon
>
> >> There is not any apparent causal connection between
> >> the DP and the murder rate being higher in the US
> >> than elsewhere.
> >
> >It's the guns, not the DP, that causes your high murder rate.
>
> That might be a necessary component but it certainly isn't sufficient.
It is the most glaringly obvious component.
> And as counter-evidence I can mention the study that indicated
concealed-carry
> laws force violent crime down.
Kevin, let me take an absolutely wild, utterly random stab in the dark - you
were about to refer to "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott, right?
That study has been largely discredited and criticised in the peer-review
literature. It isn't really taken seriously. Lott has conservative
libertarian views. He didn't just do the study and make his mind up. His
mind was already made up, and then he did a study that supported it.
On this newsgroup, Earl did a comprehesive demolition job on this topic, in
the "The Armed American ....." threads a week or so ago, if you wanted to
review.
Now I realize maybe your first instinct may be to dismiss things on this
topic written by Earl, myself, or other people you consider 'bleeding
hearts', but I would ask that you check out the many sources posted. One
you might like is an article in reason.com . It's a essay-style debate
between Lott, and a guy called Ehrich (off the top of my head, not sure of
spelling). As I understand it, Ehlrich is a conservative, an outspoken
capitalist, and a gun-owner. (ie. NOT a 'bleeding heart liberal' or
leftist). I only mention that as he may be someone whose opinion you are
more likely to respect. I'll try and dig up the link.
Personally, I found Ehlrich's argument more convincing than Lott's, but you
can judge for yourself.
Mary Rosh
> "Kwag7693" <kwag...@aol.com> wrote
> > From: "Reilly" lift@horizon
> >
> > >> There is not any apparent causal connection between
> > >> the DP and the murder rate being higher in the US
> > >> than elsewhere.
> > >
> > >It's the guns, not the DP, that causes your high murder rate.
> >
> > That might be a necessary component but it certainly isn't sufficient.
>
> It is the most glaringly obvious component.
>
> > And as counter-evidence I can mention the study that indicated
> concealed-carry
> > laws force violent crime down.
>
> Kevin, let me take an absolutely wild, utterly random stab in the dark - you
> were about to refer to "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott, right?
>
> That study has been largely discredited and criticised in the peer-review
> literature. It isn't really taken seriously.
Well there are plenty of academics who take it very seriously. The
October 2001 Journal of Law and Economics, a very prestigious journal,
has seven papers that re-examine concealed handgun laws and that all
support the claim that shall issue laws reduce violent crime.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE/journal/contents/v44nS2.html
> Lott has conservative
> libertarian views. He didn't just do the study and make his mind up. His
> mind was already made up, and then he did a study that supported it.
>
Prove it. I had Lott as a professor at Wharton during the early 1990s
and he was very balanced and challenged students on both sides of an
issue.
John Rennie
"Mary Rosh" <mary...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:23fa92fe.0301...@posting.google.com...
> >
snip
>
> Prove it. I had Lott as a professor at Wharton during the early 1990s
> and he was very balanced
I suppose that means he dribbled from both sides of his mouth?
JIGSAW1695
Date: 1/16/2003 2:43 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <JjEV9.1579$ql2.6...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
===============================
Nothing like personal insults to make your point, ehy Johnnie?
Kwag7693
>i.e. there is no connection at all. That's what I'm seeing here.
>Whether you are looking at absolutes or relative values, the statistical
>data seems to show (quite clearly) that the DP has nothing to do with
>the murder rate.
Perhaps I am phrasing this poorly. The kinds of knowledge about motive needed
to even know if the murder rate in the US and some other country are dependent
or not certainly haven't been presented by anybody on this NG and they would be
needed to know if the murder rates of the two countries were in any way
correlated.
>No regression required. We're not matching curves with data points.
>We're looking at the simple fact that the murder rate dropped in non-DP
>jurisdictions as well as DP jurisdictions post Gregg. That illustrates
>that there is _no_ correlation between the use of the DP and the murder
>rate.
Did it drop by a consistent amount?
More importantly, how do you know how long it takes for it a change in policy
to affect the murder rate? I still don't think you can determine if the DP
deters crime, given its inconsistent application, and the baffling profundity
of factors with determine human behavior, by a statistical analysis. I still
think it is fairly easy to find out if it is a deterrent by some simple
investigation of attitudes that people have towards death or being imprisoned.
>I contend that if they had a clear understanding that gaol was a very
>likely result and that getting caught was fairly likely they wouldn't
>have been so carefree, either.
Seeing that there are recidivists who spend their entire lives going in and out
of jail getting caught again and again, I don't believe this is so likely. If
the person involved cannot be expected to be able to find some means of feeding
oneself better than killing people on a roadside, in all likelihood they don't
find the prospect of a structured life with all necessities guaranteed to be
horribly onerous. Death might actually deter them, but promising them food,
shelter and health care doesn't seem like it does.
>> They just thought it was a good idea to kill folks for cash. I don't
>> see why
>> we can conclude from that premise that they don't think death is to be
>> more
>> feared than imprisonment.
>
>We can't possibly know what they were thinking.
Okay. My point, however, was that there is no apparent connection between
deciding killing people is a good idea and not fearing your own death, not that
I had some special insight into the consciousness of these two particular
fiends.
Kevin
Kwag7693
Date: 1/15/03 8:37 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >It's the guns, not the DP, that causes your high murder rate.
>>
>> That might be a necessary component but it certainly isn't sufficient.
>
>It is the most glaringly obvious component.
I disagree entirely. I think the most glaringly obvious component is that more
Americans think that killing people for money is a good idea than is the case
elsewhere. People have to *get* guns to use, meaning they intend to kill other
people, and when they intend to use the guns to kill people for money, or
conversely don't care if they have to kill people to get money, then the
problem should be glaringly obvous and it isn't the accessibility of weaponry.
>That study has been largely discredited and criticised in the peer-review
>literature. It isn't really taken seriously. Lott has conservative
>libertarian views. He didn't just do the study and make his mind up. His
>mind was already made up, and then he did a study that supported it.
I have seen the kinds of "studies" that pass peer-review and I think it is
precipitous to claim that his study was invalid based on the fact that his
"peers" (whomever in particular panned his study) didn't like it.
>Now I realize maybe your first instinct may be to dismiss things on this
>topic written by Earl, myself, or other people you consider 'bleeding
>hearts',
My first impulse to ignore Earl is that he took the ludicrous position that the
problems with racism derive from some Marxist analysis of power he offered. I
know that won't necessarily mean anything he utters is nonsense, but it gives
me a clue that I can spend my time in better ways.
>but I would ask that you check out the many sources posted. One
>you might like is an article in reason.com . It's a essay-style debate
>between Lott, and a guy called Ehrich (off the top of my head, not sure of
>spelling). As I understand it, Ehlrich is a conservative, an outspoken
>capitalist, and a gun-owner. (ie. NOT a 'bleeding heart liberal' or
>leftist). I only mention that as he may be someone whose opinion you are
>more likely to respect. I'll try and dig up the link.
I found it, and I will investigate the other sources Earl provided. I honestly
don't have the background in statistics to evaluate the debate. The best means
I can invent to test Lott's theory is to find an analogous situation that is
uncontroversial, present it to a number of statisticians and see what the
majority result was. Not being a statistician I can't think of a way to do
that, but perhaps you or someone else can. I am sure posting it to a
mathematically oriented NG would produce some fruitful results.
>Personally, I found Ehlrich's argument more convincing than Lott's, but you
>can judge for yourself.
No clue, honestly. They each made points I couldn't evaluate independently,
though I liked Erlich's style better.
Kevin
A Planet Visitor
"Kwag7693" <kwag...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030116210729...@mb-bd.aol.com...
> From: "Reilly" lift@horizon
> Date: 1/15/03 8:37 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >Now I realize maybe your first instinct may be to dismiss things on this
> >topic written by Earl, myself, or other people you consider 'bleeding
> >hearts',
>
> My first impulse to ignore Earl is that he took the ludicrous position that the
> problems with racism derive from some Marxist analysis of power he offered. I
> know that won't necessarily mean anything he utters is nonsense, but it gives
> me a clue that I can spend my time in better ways.
>
One of the most insightful sentences ever provided to Usenet. It's
not often that one recognizes Earl for what he is, so quickly. Kudos
to Kevin.
<rest clipped>
PV
> Kevin
>
Earl Evleth
Actually, as just divulged on the talk.politics.guns NG, Mary Rosh
and John Lott are one in the same person. I doubted it for
a long time since "Mary" was not very argumentative
and seemed dumbed down. Some people traced
"Mary"'s email and sure enough it came from the
American Entreprise Institute where Lott is currently.
Finally, a person who knows Lott says Lott admits it
and regrets he ever got to messing around with the news
groups.
Those interested in this can go over to the news group
and check out the postings. Lott has near icon-status
with gun lovers, "even" PV has been taken in by his
work. So the revelation that he is Mary was a shock to
some. Others don`t think it important.
It once again demonstrates that not being up front
and using one`s real name can lead to problems.
In Lott`s case, since his real name is known, it
was a form of disinformation leading one to suspect
that it might not stop just there.
PV, are you reading me?
Earl