Death Sentences
Michael Ejercito
Death sentences
Some
more murderers may escape the death penalty as a
result of the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court, declaring it unconstitutional to execute those
who are "mentally retarded." The larger question,
however, is whether a death sentence is being
pronounced on the Constitution of the United
States. Are the justices killing it by inches with their
ever more clever twisting of its words and evasions
of its substance?
The Constitution's prohibition against "cruel and
unusual punishment" is the ostensible basis for the
6-to-3 majority's overturning a death sentence on
Daryl Atkins for his participation in a brutal
robbery-murder -- the latest in a string of brutal
crimes by Atkins. After being captured, he was
given an IQ test on which he scored 59, which is
considered to be in the "mentally retarded" range.
Therefore, the Supreme Court declared, it would
be a violation of the Constitution to execute him.
There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that it
was the particular people to who
m a punishment was applied that made it cruel or
unusual. This is the kind of stretching and twisting of
words that turns the Constitution into a blanket
grant of power to judges to impose their personal
beliefs as the law of the land.
Most of the Court's decision, delivered by Justice
John Paul Stevens, is about all sorts of things other
than the Constitution. Rather than relying on what
was meant "when the Bill of Rights was adopted,"
he relies on "the evolving standards" of today. In
other words, judges can re-write the Constitution to
their own taste.
Even as policy, the High Court's decision is
arbitrary and unsubstantiated. Just because Atkins
scored 59 on an IQ test after being arrested does
not mean that he could not have scored higher if he
had any incentive to do so. Even if he were
genuinely below average in intelligence, you don't need to know that E
equals MC squared to know what firing eight bullets into someone is
likely to do.
Nobody wants to execute a man who doesn't know what he is doing or
who can't tell right from wrong. These standards have existed for
centuries in Anglo-American law. What is new within the past
half-century are attempts to go beyond these factors and treat the
speculations of shrinks as if they were science.
The great problem with both insanity defenses and defenses based on
below-average mental capacity is that this is not science but subjective
judgments, dressed up in the language of science. It is one thing for trial
courts to make such judgments. It is something else for appellate courts
to set in concrete the notions of shrinks.
Justice Stevens admits that mentally retarded persons "frequently know
the difference between right and wrong and are competent to stand trial."
At one time, that would have been the end of that discussion. But now,
he brings in "consensus" among various groups, including foreign
governments, as if the Supreme Court were the Gallup Poll.
Too many people judge Supreme Court decisions by whether or not they
like the policy. Thus those who oppose the death penalty are pleased
with this decision and those who support the death penalty are
displeased. But if that is all there is to it, why do we have a Constitution
or a Supreme Court? Elected officials can carry out what the public
wants. We don't need a third House of Congress, made up of nine
people.
Behind much of the opposition to the death penalty is the widespread
assumption that executions do not deter murderers. This notion became
liberal dogma long ago, based on an unbelievably crude study which
measured capital punishment by words in the statute books, rather than
by actual executions. A later and more sophisticated statistical study, by
Isaac Ehrlich of the University of Chicago, found several murders
deterred per execution.
The whole liberal establishment in academia came down on Professor
Ehrlich's study, applying standards that they never applied to the previous
study which told them what they wanted to hear. Just recently, in the June
21st issue of The Wall Street Journal, William Tucker presents new data
showing a dramatic correlation between executions and the deterrence of
murder.
But neither facts nor the Constitution are likely to carry much weight
among those wedded to fashionable dogmas. Unfortunately, that includes
members of the Supreme Court.
Jürgen
Michael Ejercito schrieb in Nachricht ...
<snip>
>Most of the Court's decision, delivered by Justice
>John Paul Stevens, is about all sorts of things other
>than the Constitution. Rather than relying on what
>was meant "when the Bill of Rights was adopted,"
>he relies on "the evolving standards" of today. In
>other words, judges can re-write the Constitution to
>their own taste.
Why not, after the same judges can appoint the US-President?
morgan mair fheal
> unusual. This is the kind of stretching and twisting of
> words that turns the Constitution into a blanket
do you know what -unusual- means?
Richard Jackson
Mainly because the action of the Supreme Court WAS within their
Constitutional authority. Making law is not.
Damn Jürgen! How many times must I tell you, its about the Court
interpreting the law, not making it. At least it's supposed to be.
--
Teflon
no
>Mainly because the action of the Supreme Court WAS within their
>Constitutional authority. Making law is not.
so they can never make decisions which make new versions of laws?
>its about the Court
>interpreting the law, not making it. At least it's supposed to be.
don't the interpretations 'make' the laws what they are?
anyway
only the uncivilized indulge in killing rather than address
the real causes of crime
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht <3D2184AE...@lcc.net>...
"Jürgen" wrote:
>
> Michael Ejercito schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
> <snip>
>
> >Most of the Court's decision, delivered by Justice
> >John Paul Stevens, is about all sorts of things other
> >than the Constitution. Rather than relying on what
> >was meant "when the Bill of Rights was adopted,"
> >he relies on "the evolving standards" of today. In
> >other words, judges can re-write the Constitution to
> >their own taste.
>
> Why not, after the same judges can appoint the US-President?
R.:
Mainly because the action of the Supreme Court WAS within their
Constitutional authority. Making law is not.
Damn Jürgen! How many times must I tell you, its about the Court
interpreting the law, not making it. At least it's supposed to be.
J.:
The Death Penalty is
(1) cruel, for that instinctive fear is abused for punishing purposes, and
(2) unusual, because to the overwhelming number of similarly guilty people
are given much lesser punishments.
This is an interpretation, Richard. An interpretation of the VIII Amendment.
It is *NOT* making a new law. So the SC is well allowed to rule the DP out,
IMHO.
I am much more unsure, however, whether the appointment of a President was
constitutional. IMHO: The only proper way to deal with a deadlocked election
is to repeat it. Clinton had to stay interim-president and a new election
had to be scheduled asap.
Jürgen
Richard Jackson
HoHum. Another temporary aberration. Tell me, you without name, did
any of your mother's children live?
--
Teflon
Richard Jackson
That would have been best, but there is no vehicle in the Constitution
to determine an election in such a manner. What did occur is
Constitutional.
--
Teflon
Roger Schlafly
> The Death Penalty is
> (1) cruel, for that instinctive fear is abused for punishing purposes, and
> (2) unusual, because to the overwhelming number of similarly guilty people
> are given much lesser punishments.
> This is an interpretation, Richard. An interpretation of the VIII
Amendment.
> It is *NOT* making a new law. So the SC is well allowed to rule the DP
out,
> IMHO.
Since you are posting from Germany, I'll assume that you are not
familiar with US law. The US Constitution acknowledges the death
penalty in several places. Your interpretation of "cruel and unusual"
is not what is meant.
> I am much more unsure, however, whether the appointment of a President was
> constitutional. IMHO: The only proper way to deal with a deadlocked
election
> is to repeat it. Clinton had to stay interim-president and a new election
> had to be scheduled asap.
No President was appointed, and no election was deadlocked. The
US Constitution has better procedures than to let some president stay
in office just because the election for his replacement was close.
The count that made Bush the winner was completed a few days after
the election. Except for a narrow majority on one particular Florida
court, nearly everyone agreed that the count correctly made Bush
the winner. Even the journalists who spent a year recounting all the
ballots over and over agree. No fraud or similar irregularity was ever
found.
Jeff Strickland
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:afrjd2$dd8$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
Keynes
Then why couldn't the SCOTUS defend their position
on constitutional grounds? They made a one-time
ruling that they even disavowed themselves.
Not everything the SCOTUS does is constitutional
although technically it does become 'legal'.
Legal is not enough. I demand 'constitutional'.
Keynes
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try and blame Bill Clinton."
( CONs - men at work greasing the "Axles of Evil". )
If we give up on the constitution, the terrorists win.
You be afraid of the boogyman. I'm afraid of a lawless government.
Keynes
wrote:
Absolutely false! The counts by journalists were done on
several different criteria and Bush did not win all of them.
Furthermore there was fraud in the absentee ballots and
the felon purge, and out and out obstruction at the polling
places. The DOJ investigated only THREE cases and
those only involved lack of interpreters. NOTHING ELSE
was investigated by the DOJ. However there are lawsuits
in progress, and we shall see what we shall see.
Roger knows all this, but he hopes that nobody else does.
Michael Ejercito
So then you are implying that the American soldiers who killed
Japanese and German soliders who were committing war crimes during the
1940's were uncivilized.
Your idea of civilization has the words "Arbeit Macht Frei" hanging
over the gate.
Michael
Roger Schlafly
> >No President was appointed, and no election was deadlocked. The
> >US Constitution has better procedures than to let some president stay
> >in office just because the election for his replacement was close.
> >The count that made Bush the winner was completed a few days after
> >the election. Except for a narrow majority on one particular Florida
> >court, nearly everyone agreed that the count correctly made Bush
> >the winner. Even the journalists who spent a year recounting all the
> >ballots over and over agree. No fraud or similar irregularity was ever
> >found.
> Absolutely false! The counts by journalists were done on
> several different criteria and Bush did not win all of them.
It was a close election. If different criteria are used, then the
totals will be different. That is true about any close election.
With pre-election criteria, Bush won the count.
> Furthermore there was fraud in the absentee ballots and
> the felon purge, and out and out obstruction at the polling
> places. ...
Those arguments were made, and rejected by the courts at
every level. Gore didn't even believe in those arguments
himself, and focused on other arguments.
>... However there are lawsuits
> in progress, and we shall see what we shall see.
Maybe after 3 years of litigation, some minor election
irregularity will turn up. It might be amusing for historians
to play what-if games.
Roger Schlafly
> >That would have been best, but there is no vehicle in the Constitution
> >to determine an election in such a manner. What did occur is
> >Constitutional.
> Then why couldn't the SCOTUS defend their position
> on constitutional grounds?
It did. A plurality said that the Florida count was correct under Florida
law, and a majority said that the judicially-ordered partial manual
recount violated equal protection guarantees in the Constitution.
A Planet Visitor
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7ln4iuo5g1m2aenmb...@4ax.com...
Of course, let's turn the elections over to the media.
ROTFLMAO.
>
> Furthermore there was fraud in the absentee ballots and
> the felon purge, and out and out obstruction at the polling
> places. The DOJ investigated only THREE cases and
> those only involved lack of interpreters. NOTHING ELSE
> was investigated by the DOJ. However there are lawsuits
> in progress, and we shall see what we shall see.
>
Yeah, we certainly shall... you moron. The only place you'll
see anything is in the next election. This one is over and done
with, and was done Constitutionally. The only problem was that
it was so close in Constitutional terms.
> Roger knows all this, but he hopes that nobody else does.
>
Yeah.. the truth will set you free. :-)
PV
> Keynes
>
A Planet Visitor
"Roger Schlafly" <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:f0nU8.1423$eN3.54...@twister2.starband.net...
> "Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote
> > The Death Penalty is
> > (1) cruel, for that instinctive fear is abused for punishing purposes, and
> > (2) unusual, because to the overwhelming number of similarly guilty people
> > are given much lesser punishments.
> > This is an interpretation, Richard. An interpretation of the VIII
> Amendment.
> > It is *NOT* making a new law. So the SC is well allowed to rule the DP
> out,
> > IMHO.
>
> Since you are posting from Germany, I'll assume that you are not
> familiar with US law. The US Constitution acknowledges the death
> penalty in several places. Your interpretation of "cruel and unusual"
> is not what is meant.
>
You will find that Jürgen will claim anything, if it serves his agenda,
which is opposition to the DP, and a hope to cast discredit on the U.S.
in general. If he can make the election and the Constitutional process
look bad, he can then imply that the DP is 'cruel and unusual.'
> > I am much more unsure, however, whether the appointment of a President was
> > constitutional. IMHO: The only proper way to deal with a deadlocked
> election
> > is to repeat it. Clinton had to stay interim-president and a new election
> > had to be scheduled asap.
>
> No President was appointed, and no election was deadlocked. The
> US Constitution has better procedures than to let some president stay
> in office just because the election for his replacement was close.
>
Quite true... I would like to see where Jürgen finds a place in the U.S.
Constitution where anyone APPOINTS a President. The electors
are appointed, but they ELECT a President. As does the Senate in
the worst case scenerio. The words 'appoint' or 'appointment' do not
exist in the Constitution when it speaks of the President.
> The count that made Bush the winner was completed a few days after
> the election. Except for a narrow majority on one particular Florida
> court, nearly everyone agreed that the count correctly made Bush
> the winner. Even the journalists who spent a year recounting all the
> ballots over and over agree. No fraud or similar irregularity was ever
> found.
>
The issue was resolved well before inauguration day, thus the argument
that the sitting President remain in office, strikes me as 'dictator-style'
politics. Trust me, Jürgen's problem lies mainly in his personal hatred
for Bush, since Bush was the Governor of Texas when Karla Faye Tucker
was executed, and Jürgen was in love. In these situations it is best to
totally ignore Jürgen, since he will begin a long diatribe, which few can
comprehend, and which lead nowhere, except into his hysterical and
emotional claims that
1) murderers are 'brutalized,'
2) the U.S. is uncivilized for using the DP,
3) all members of pardon and parole boards are evil men,
4) we should have pity on murderers,
5) and we should never execute since it might upset the delicate
stomachs of the murderer's family and friends.
PV
Jeff Strickland
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7ln4iuo5g1m2aenmb...@4ax.com...
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<CRWL...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> Your guy lost. Get over it.
You top post. Get over it.
[snip entire article cluelessly included]
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))
Polar
<CRWL...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>Judges appoint the Prez.? When did that happen?
Surely you jest!
--
Polar
Jürgen
Roger Schlafly schrieb in Nachricht ...
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote
>> The Death Penalty is
>> (1) cruel, for that instinctive fear is abused for punishing purposes,
and
>> (2) unusual, because to the overwhelming number of similarly guilty
people
>> are given much lesser punishments.
>> This is an interpretation, Richard. An interpretation of the VIII
>Amendment.
>> It is *NOT* making a new law. So the SC is well allowed to rule the DP
>out,
>> IMHO.
>
>Since you are posting from Germany, I'll assume that you are not
>familiar with US law. The US Constitution acknowledges the death
>penalty in several places. Your interpretation of "cruel and unusual"
>is not what is meant.
(a) At least "cruel" is well-defined. A penalty making the mortal dread
unavoidable, and using this instinctive feeling for purposes of punishment
clearly falls in the realm of "cruel".
(b) The most conclusive interpretations of "unusual" see the term in the
context of 'Equity before the law' and the resulting condition of a special
sentence's comparability with the "usual", speak, the average sentence for
similar crimes and degrees of culpability. The ordination of the death
penalty in the scale of severity of other viable punishments for similar
crimes is not possible.
That other passages of the US-constitution are expecting the existence of
the death penalty leads to a clear contradiction. Either keep the death
penalty, then the VIII Amendment is worthless and cruel and unusual
punishment is and remains part of the US-jurisprudence, or eliminate the DP,
then the passages implying the option 'death penalty' have necessarily to be
rewritten. Right now you simply want to have it both ways.
>
>> I am much more unsure, however, whether the appointment of a President
was
>> constitutional. IMHO: The only proper way to deal with a deadlocked
>election
>> is to repeat it. Clinton had to stay interim-president and a new election
>> had to be scheduled asap.
>
>No President was appointed, and no election was deadlocked. The
>US Constitution has better procedures than to let some president stay
>in office just because the election for his replacement was close.
>
>The count that made Bush the winner was completed a few days after
>the election. Except for a narrow majority on one particular Florida
>court, nearly everyone agreed that the count correctly made Bush
>the winner. Even the journalists who spent a year recounting all the
>ballots over and over agree. No fraud or similar irregularity was ever
>found.
>
Well, I did not expect so.
I merely found the result of 5 Justices known for conservative tendings
voting for Bushes instant Presidentship, and 4 Justices known for a more
liberal standpoint voting for a more detailed examination of the election's
result a pure farce. I - with another poster's help, after I made a
mistake - calculated the probability for this distribution to occur by
chance, i.e. under supposition of the irrelevance of the Justices' political
orientation, to 1/512. Too low for an accidental outcome, I'm afraid.
Jürgen
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:ievU8.144993$db.21...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> Cross-posting stripped.
What is the point of stripping the cross posting and then
attacking 'Keynes' who is obviously a member of one of the cross posted
groups. I know you enjoy easy targets PV (just look at how many times you
bothered with Zoey etc) but this is truly pointless.
Keynes
wrote:
>"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote
I'm sorry. Invoking the equal protection clause in a count
or a recount invalidates ALL BALLOTING ANYWHERE
ANYTIME. Seeing this, the reich-wing cabal declared
that this decision sets no precedents and is valid only
this one time in Florida. They are scum. Are you?
Keynes
wrote:
>"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote
Roger you are either ignorant or a shill.
Got no time for either of you.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>cross-posting stripped.
>
Allow me to refresh my promise, Sir.
Regardless the level you might descend to, your inkognito in the www will be
kept.
With kindest regards
Jürgen
Richard Jackson
Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> no <none> wrote in message news:<7053iuc6dmta2pfjc...@4ax.com>...
> > Richard Jackson <ri...@lcc.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Mainly because the action of the Supreme Court WAS within their
> > >Constitutional authority. Making law is not.
> >
> > so they can never make decisions which make new versions of laws?
> >
> > >its about the Court
> > >interpreting the law, not making it. At least it's supposed to be.
> >
> > don't the interpretations 'make' the laws what they are?
> >
> > anyway
> >
> > only the uncivilized indulge in killing rather than address
> > the real causes of crime
>
> So then you are implying that the American soldiers who killed
> Japanese and German soliders who were committing war crimes during the
> 1940's were uncivilized.
That was not my statement, but I will reply this to the question. War
is not civilized. War is survival and destruction. Survival on your
part, and destruction of the enemy. The war crimes trials following
W.W.II would have been held by the Axis Powers had they won.
Richard Jackson
Democrat are you?
--
Teflon
Richard Jackson
"Jürgen" wrote:
>
> Roger Schlafly schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote
> >> The Death Penalty is
> >> (1) cruel, for that instinctive fear is abused for punishing purposes,
> and
> >> (2) unusual, because to the overwhelming number of similarly guilty
> people
> >> are given much lesser punishments.
> >> This is an interpretation, Richard. An interpretation of the VIII
> >Amendment.
> >> It is *NOT* making a new law. So the SC is well allowed to rule the DP
> >out,
> >> IMHO.
> >
> >Since you are posting from Germany, I'll assume that you are not
> >familiar with US law. The US Constitution acknowledges the death
> >penalty in several places. Your interpretation of "cruel and unusual"
> >is not what is meant.
>
> (a) At least "cruel" is well-defined. A penalty making the mortal dread
> unavoidable, and using this instinctive feeling for purposes of punishment
> clearly falls in the realm of "cruel".
There are those who argue that a person might have the same or more
moral dread about LWOP. Is that the next target for abolitionist? What
is cruel is a judgment, subjective not objective in nature. The
continuing efforts to make the method of death in executions as quick
and painless as possible are aimed precisely at eliminating this
argument. An argument which you sidestep by attempting to focus on the
supposed mental anguish of the condemned in the average nine year wait
for execution due, mostly, to the efforts of the defense attorneys
working through all the appeals processes.
> (b) The most conclusive interpretations of "unusual" see the term in the
> context of 'Equity before the law' and the resulting condition of a special
> sentence's comparability with the "usual", speak, the average sentence for
> similar crimes and degrees of culpability. The ordination of the death
> penalty in the scale of severity of other viable punishments for similar
> crimes is not possible.
That is one interpretation. Another would be a punishment not
ordinarily applied or accepted as usual. Using that criteria, the death
penalty is not unusual.
>
> That other passages of the US-constitution are expecting the existence of
> the death penalty leads to a clear contradiction. Either keep the death
> penalty, then the VIII Amendment is worthless and cruel and unusual
> punishment is and remains part of the US-jurisprudence, or eliminate the DP,
> then the passages implying the option 'death penalty' have necessarily to be
> rewritten. Right now you simply want to have it both ways.
IYO, Jürgen, IYO. Your interpretations of cruel and unusual are
limited, and not the only interpretations around.
>
> >
> >> I am much more unsure, however, whether the appointment of a President
> was
> >> constitutional. IMHO: The only proper way to deal with a deadlocked
> >election
> >> is to repeat it. Clinton had to stay interim-president and a new election
> >> had to be scheduled asap.
> >
> >No President was appointed, and no election was deadlocked. The
> >US Constitution has better procedures than to let some president stay
> >in office just because the election for his replacement was close.
> >
> >The count that made Bush the winner was completed a few days after
> >the election. Except for a narrow majority on one particular Florida
> >court, nearly everyone agreed that the count correctly made Bush
> >the winner. Even the journalists who spent a year recounting all the
> >ballots over and over agree. No fraud or similar irregularity was ever
> >found.
> >
>
> Well, I did not expect so.
>
> I merely found the result of 5 Justices known for conservative tendings
> voting for Bushes instant Presidentship, and 4 Justices known for a more
> liberal standpoint voting for a more detailed examination of the election's
> result a pure farce. I - with another poster's help, after I made a
> mistake - calculated the probability for this distribution to occur by
> chance, i.e. under supposition of the irrelevance of the Justices' political
> orientation, to 1/512. Too low for an accidental outcome, I'm afraid.
>
> Jürgen
Jürgen, you do acknowledge that all of those justices were appointed by
other presidents prior to the election, and approved by all the Senate,
both Democrats and Republicans, don't you? That being the case, why
don't you blame the Democrats who approved the liberals' appointments as
well?
--
Teflon
A Planet Visitor
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >cross-posting stripped.
> >
>
> Allow me to refresh my promise, Sir.
>
> Regardless the level you might descend to, your inkognito in the www will be
> kept.
>
times.
It is NOTHING 'personal.' It is simply that I believe you have allowed your
argument against the DP to lead you toward finding faults with things American,
because you have projected your emotion onto the entity you think responsible
through a transference process. And you have often let your emotions take over
from your intellect. It is not that I question your honor, but that I question
your
judgment in respect to a subject in which you have let emotion cloud that
judgment.
It is when you imply that we must 'pity' murderers, and that all those in the
process of executing proven murderers are somehow 'evil' people that I feel you
cross the line emotionally. Further, you know quite well that I am not in favor
of executing many of those we presently execute, while still supporting the DP.
But you often try to display examples of those we BOTH agree should not have
been executed, although most certainly guilty, to presumably show that my
support for the DP fails BECAUSE of those executions. When quite clearly,
those executions which fail to meet MY PERSONAL criteria as to who we
should execute, have NOTHING to do with my opposition to a total ban on
executions. If only ONE murderer meets my personal criteria (and it is
certainly more than one who does), I have no moral choice but to support
that execution, unless I see that we have executed those truly innocent in
a greater number than I see we have prevented new murders of innocents.
Only when the CONCEPT is shown to me to be MORE damaging to the
INNOCENTS, could I be convinced my support should be withdrawn. Given
the facts as I see them, this is not likely to happen.
PV
> With kindest regards
>
> Jürgen
>
>
>
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>news:afuqs6$csg$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>> >cross-posting stripped.
>> >
>>
>> Allow me to refresh my promise, Sir.
>>
>> Regardless the level you might descend to, your inkognito in the www will
be
>> kept.
>>
>I never expected less of you, Jürgen. You totally misread our argument at
>times.
>It is NOTHING 'personal.'
<snip>
Sorry, at the moment you claim me in love with Karla Tucker for to make up a
case not against my argument, but against ME, then I take this personally.
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht <3D230715...@lcc.net>...
"Jürgen" wrote:
>
> Roger Schlafly schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote
> >> The Death Penalty is
> >> (1) cruel, for that instinctive fear is abused for punishing purposes,
> and
> >> (2) unusual, because to the overwhelming number of similarly guilty
> people
> >> are given much lesser punishments.
> >> This is an interpretation, Richard. An interpretation of the VIII
> >Amendment.
> >> It is *NOT* making a new law. So the SC is well allowed to rule the DP
> >out,
> >> IMHO.
> >
> >Since you are posting from Germany, I'll assume that you are not
> >familiar with US law. The US Constitution acknowledges the death
> >penalty in several places. Your interpretation of "cruel and unusual"
> >is not what is meant.
>
> (a) At least "cruel" is well-defined. A penalty making the mortal dread
> unavoidable, and using this instinctive feeling for purposes of punishment
> clearly falls in the realm of "cruel".
There are those who argue that a person might have the same or more
moral dread about LWOP. Is that the next target for abolitionist? What
is cruel is a judgment, subjective not objective in nature.
J.: There is a very clear, objective boundary that separates OBVIOUSLY cruel
penalties from the others. Imprisonment is harsh and can surely be designed
to be cruel also, but the death penalty is EVER, NECESSARILY and UNAVOIDABLY
cruel.
The
continuing efforts to make the method of death in executions as quick
and painless as possible are aimed precisely at eliminating this
argument. An argument which you sidestep by attempting to focus on the
supposed mental anguish of the condemned in the average nine year wait
for execution due, mostly, to the efforts of the defense attorneys
working through all the appeals processes.
> (b) The most conclusive interpretations of "unusual" see the term in the
> context of 'Equity before the law' and the resulting condition of a
special
> sentence's comparability with the "usual", speak, the average sentence for
> similar crimes and degrees of culpability. The ordination of the death
> penalty in the scale of severity of other viable punishments for similar
> crimes is not possible.
That is one interpretation. Another would be a punishment not
ordinarily applied or accepted as usual. Using that criteria, the death
penalty is not unusual.
J.: Admittedly TX makes all effords to get the DP usual.
>
> That other passages of the US-constitution are expecting the existence of
> the death penalty leads to a clear contradiction. Either keep the death
> penalty, then the VIII Amendment is worthless and cruel and unusual
> punishment is and remains part of the US-jurisprudence, or eliminate the
DP,
> then the passages implying the option 'death penalty' have necessarily to
be
> rewritten. Right now you simply want to have it both ways.
IYO, Jürgen, IYO. Your interpretations of cruel and unusual are
limited, and not the only interpretations around.
J.:
I yet read no convincing one from the retentionist side. Even the dissenters
in Furman vs Georgia emphasized in a far going way on merely formal reasons
by declaring the legislation for the right path to abolish the DP, not the
SC. Really good stuff why the DP should remain a viable penalty in the sense
of being not cruel I missed totally.
<...>
> >
>
> Well, I did not expect so.
>
> I merely found the result of 5 Justices known for conservative tendings
> voting for Bushes instant Presidentship, and 4 Justices known for a more
> liberal standpoint voting for a more detailed examination of the
election's
> result a pure farce. I - with another poster's help, after I made a
> mistake - calculated the probability for this distribution to occur by
> chance, i.e. under supposition of the irrelevance of the Justices'
political
> orientation, to 1/512. Too low for an accidental outcome, I'm afraid.
>
> Jürgen
Jürgen, you do acknowledge that all of those justices were appointed by
other presidents prior to the election, and approved by all the Senate,
both Democrats and Republicans, don't you? That being the case, why
don't you blame the Democrats who approved the liberals' appointments as
well?
J.:
Hell, I blame nobody. I establish that 9 ideologically burdened people made
a decision, totally depending upon their personal standpoints and entirely
independent from any constitutional givens. Had even one democratic Justice
voted for Bushes instant Presidentship, one could claim a certain amount of
consideration and weighing in the decision, but as the result was, has Bush
actually been appointed by politically partial people.
Jürgen
Roger Schlafly
> >> Then why couldn't the SCOTUS defend their position
> >> on constitutional grounds?
> >It did. A plurality said that the Florida count was correct under Florida
> >law, and a majority said that the judicially-ordered partial manual
> >recount violated equal protection guarantees in the Constitution.
> I'm sorry. Invoking the equal protection clause in a count
> or a recount invalidates ALL BALLOTING ANYWHERE
> ANYTIME.
No. The 2000 election was extremely unusual in that the Florida
appellate court unilaterally changed the rules for counting ballots
after the election. That had never happened before.
The courts are not supposed to intervene in elections. The US
Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a court-ordered partial recount
must meet minimal equal protection guarantees, and the proposed
Florida partial manual recount did not.
Other counts and recounts that follow statutory rules can be
presumed to offer equal protection.
John Rennie
your prepositions, Jurgen.
Roger Schlafly
> (a) At least "cruel" is well-defined. A penalty making the mortal dread
> unavoidable, and using this instinctive feeling for purposes of punishment
> clearly falls in the realm of "cruel".
> (b) The most conclusive interpretations of "unusual" see the term in the
> context of 'Equity before the law' and the resulting condition of a
special
English is not your native language. Trust me, the people who wrote
those words favored capital punishment.
> >The count that made Bush the winner was completed a few days after
> >the election. Except for a narrow majority on one particular Florida
> >court, nearly everyone agreed that the count correctly made Bush
> >the winner. Even the journalists who spent a year recounting all the
> >ballots over and over agree. No fraud or similar irregularity was ever
> >found.
> Well, I did not expect so.
> I merely found the result of 5 Justices known for conservative tendings
> voting for Bushes instant Presidentship, and 4 Justices known for a more
> liberal standpoint voting for a more detailed examination of the
election's
> result a pure farce. ...
I think all 9 thought that the Florida supreme court was unlawful and
irresponsible. The first US Supreme Court reversal of the Florida
court was unanimous. In the 5-4 decsion, the dissenters had their own
pet theories about how a recount might be done. Yes, those 4 seemed
to be swayed by ideology.
JIGSAW1695
From: "John Rennie" j.re...@ntlworld.com
Date: 7/3/2002 1:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <XRGU8.3541$rV3.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
===============================
Throw mama from the train, a kiss?
Richard Jackson
It fits the crime which is usually much crueler.
>
> The
> continuing efforts to make the method of death in executions as quick
> and painless as possible are aimed precisely at eliminating this
> argument. An argument which you sidestep by attempting to focus on the
> supposed mental anguish of the condemned in the average nine year wait
> for execution due, mostly, to the efforts of the defense attorneys
> working through all the appeals processes.
>
> > (b) The most conclusive interpretations of "unusual" see the term in the
> > context of 'Equity before the law' and the resulting condition of a
> special
> > sentence's comparability with the "usual", speak, the average sentence for
> > similar crimes and degrees of culpability. The ordination of the death
> > penalty in the scale of severity of other viable punishments for similar
> > crimes is not possible.
>
> That is one interpretation. Another would be a punishment not
> ordinarily applied or accepted as usual. Using that criteria, the death
> penalty is not unusual.
>
> J.: Admittedly TX makes all effords to get the DP usual.
Really, Texas if relatively conservative in the use of the death penalty
considering how many more trials could be for capital murder than are
prosecuted as such. At that, many capital murder trials are not
prosecuted for the death penalty. Texas doesn't even have the highest
execution rate per capita. Of course, you never see abolitionist
mention that fact because the President is from Texas and that makes a
better statement supporting abolitionist agendas.
>
> >
> > That other passages of the US-constitution are expecting the existence of
> > the death penalty leads to a clear contradiction. Either keep the death
> > penalty, then the VIII Amendment is worthless and cruel and unusual
> > punishment is and remains part of the US-jurisprudence, or eliminate the
> DP,
> > then the passages implying the option 'death penalty' have necessarily to
> be
> > rewritten. Right now you simply want to have it both ways.
>
> IYO, Jürgen, IYO. Your interpretations of cruel and unusual are
> limited, and not the only interpretations around.
>
> J.:
> I yet read no convincing one from the retentionist side. Even the dissenters
> in Furman vs Georgia emphasized in a far going way on merely formal reasons
> by declaring the legislation for the right path to abolish the DP, not the
> SC. Really good stuff why the DP should remain a viable penalty in the sense
> of being not cruel I missed totally.
I am not surprised.
Of course, the flip side of that argument is that despite the evidence,
the Democratic justices voted only for THEIR party's interests. Thus,
it can also be argued that THEY, not the majority were unduly influenced
by political concerns.
--
Teflon
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:5CyU8.904$rV3....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
group, since it had a slight, almost miniscule connection to the DP, as
it bore on Constitutional issues. I have no interest in adding to the fuel
which creates such a stink in those other groups. BTW -- that would
seem to be my prerogative.
Why I 'bother' with zoey is the same reason I 'bother' with desi, dirt
and Earl. It would be a very docile newsgroup, were I not to do so.
Now tell me why YOU 'bother' with reporting 'Wales beat England at
CRICKET?'
PV
Jürgen
Roger Schlafly schrieb in Nachricht
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote
>> (a) At least "cruel" is well-defined. A penalty making the mortal dread
>> unavoidable, and using this instinctive feeling for purposes of
punishment
>> clearly falls in the realm of "cruel".
>> (b) The most conclusive interpretations of "unusual" see the term in the
>> context of 'Equity before the law' and the resulting condition of a
>special
>> sentence's comparability with the "usual", speak, ...
>
>English is not your native language. Trust me, the people who wrote
>those words favored capital punishment.
Yes they did, in 1689 as well as in 1791. But they and their successors did
some more. They pointed explicitely out the dynamic characteristic of the
"C&U"-clause, and there are precedent US-cases that directly link the extent
of the VIII Amendment with society's maturity. In other words, your legal
experts see the death penalty as a future anachronism, and they see you, the
society, as yet too immatured for an instant abolition. Grow up.
Jürgen
<OK, then perhaps: Bush won the election with 5 votes to 4?>
A Planet Visitor
however. I certainly only speak my mind. As you do.
PV
Polar
<ri...@lcc.net> wrote:
>
>
>Keynes wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 04:33:32 GMT, "Roger Schlafly" <rog...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
[...]
>> If we give up on the constitution, the terrorists win.
>> You be afraid of the boogyman. I'm afraid of a lawless government.
>
>Democrat are you?
I usually try not to make rude personal comments, but the above
has to be the silliest observation ever.
You think *real* Republicans -- as distinguished from the Newt
Gingrich maniacs -- aren't afraid of a lawless government?
--
Polar
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
Because that is REAL news.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote:
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >cross-posting stripped.
> >
>
> Allow me to refresh my promise, Sir.
>
> Regardless the level you might descend to, your inkognito
Delightfully Teutonic spelling of "incognito", Jürgen. ;)
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:afv9im$2v1$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
[snippage]
> Up with this I cannot put. You must do something about the placement of
> your prepositions, Jurgen.
A long way he has to travel before a Jedi he can become, John.
A Planet Visitor
Okay... I have to say thanks for adding some laughter to an old man's life.
:-)
PV
Jeff Strickland
There is nothing to to discuss later.
Jeff Strickland
Richard Jackson
Like assholes, everyone has an opinion. Perhaps if you hadn't done a
snip job, or had enough intelligence to read the whole string to which I
replied, you would realize what the reply was referring to. Now the
next time you wish to show your asshole, I mean opinion, why don't you
take your two functioning brain cells, stop masturbating thinking of
your momma and go somewhere else. Your ineptness is worthy of no more
rejoin.
--
Teflon
morgan mair fheal
> presumed to offer equal protection.
hahahaha hahahaha haha hahaha
thats a great line
if we could presume laws offer equal protection
we wouldnt need a fourteenth amendment
Keynes
Do you really think they'd bother with the formality of trials?
>>
>> Your idea of civilization has the words "Arbeit Macht Frei" hanging
>> over the gate.
>>
>> Michael
Keynes
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try and blame Bill Clinton."
( CONs - men at work greasing the "Axles of Evil". )
If we give up on the constitution, the terrorists win.
Keynes
wrote:
>"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote
Fairy tales. Where and when has this ever happened before?
And according to the SCOTUS it can never happen again.
Roger Schlafly
> >No. The 2000 election was extremely unusual in that the Florida
> >appellate court unilaterally changed the rules for counting ballots
> >after the election. That had never happened before.
> >The courts are not supposed to intervene in elections. The US
> >Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a court-ordered partial recount
> >must meet minimal equal protection guarantees, and the proposed
> >Florida partial manual recount did not.
> >Other counts and recounts that follow statutory rules can be
> >presumed to offer equal protection.
> Fairy tales. Where and when has this ever happened before?
Nowhere.
> And according to the SCOTUS it can never happen again.
Let's hope not. Al Gore and the FL SC have created an
embarrassing chapter in US history.
As someone else said: Your guy lost. Get over it.
John Rennie
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
news:3D23AA7D...@lcc.net...
This is not the Richard we all love.
Richard Jackson
Keynes wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 10:00:13 -0400, Richard Jackson <ri...@lcc.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Michael Ejercito wrote:
> >>
> >> no <none> wrote in message news:<7053iuc6dmta2pfjc...@4ax.com>...
> >> > Richard Jackson <ri...@lcc.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Mainly because the action of the Supreme Court WAS within their
> >> > >Constitutional authority. Making law is not.
> >> >
> >> > so they can never make decisions which make new versions of laws?
> >> >
> >> > >its about the Court
> >> > >interpreting the law, not making it. At least it's supposed to be.
> >> >
> >> > don't the interpretations 'make' the laws what they are?
> >> >
> >> > anyway
> >> >
> >> > only the uncivilized indulge in killing rather than address
> >> > the real causes of crime
> >>
> >> So then you are implying that the American soldiers who killed
> >> Japanese and German soliders who were committing war crimes during the
> >> 1940's were uncivilized.
> >
> >That was not my statement, but I will reply this to the question. War
> >is not civilized. War is survival and destruction. Survival on your
> >part, and destruction of the enemy. The war crimes trials following
> >W.W.II would have been held by the Axis Powers had they won.
> >
>
> Do you really think they'd bother with the formality of trials?
The Japanese, no. The Germans, yes. The trials would have been shams,
but the Germans would have had them so they could tell themselves they
were fair later on.
Richard Jackson
I did not mean it to be. Guys who do snip jobs to comment on something
out of context, I have little patience with. It could have been worse.
--
Teflon
John Rennie
That reminds of the picture of those poor old Generals holding up
their trousers (their braces having been removed along with the laces
of their shoes) whilst being harangued by dreadful judges in the
aftermath of the failed July assassination plot. The Germans/Nazis
would have had trials all right but what trials.
St.George
Germans have the right to anywhere their prepositions or verbs put, John
Jürgen
Mr Q. Z. Diablo schrieb in Nachricht ...
>In article <afuqs6$csg$00$1...@news.t-online.com>, "Jürgen"
><K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>> >cross-posting stripped.
>> >
>>
>> Allow me to refresh my promise, Sir.
>>
>> Regardless the level you might descend to, your inkognito
>
>Delightfully Teutonic spelling of "incognito", Jürgen. ;)
>
LOL..Indeed. Habit's slave.
:-))
JIGSAW1695
From: "St.George" ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com
Date: 7/5/2002 11:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <ag4cgi$mka$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
==============================
Spelling and Grammar Czar is John. His word is law including prepositions,
verbs, nouns, adverbs, adjectives and stuff, all the rest of.
Roger Schlafly
> >English is not your native language. Trust me, the people who wrote
> >those words favored capital punishment.
> Yes they did, in 1689 as well as in 1791. But they and their successors
did
> some more. They pointed explicitely out the dynamic characteristic of the
> "C&U"-clause, and there are precedent US-cases that directly link the
extent
It is possible that someday there will be an American consensus that
capital punishment is cruel and unusual. But currently, polls show that
the overwhelming majority of Americans think that it is reasonable in
many cases.
> <OK, then perhaps: Bush won the election with 5 votes to 4?>
No. The vote was 271-266 in favor of Bush in the Electoral College.
All courts were unanimous in rejecting Gore's proposed partial
manual recount.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> wrote:
> Germans have the right to anywhere their prepositions or verbs put, John
Comes of speaking a language that declines its nouns, I believe.
Jürgen
Roger Schlafly schrieb in Nachricht ...
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote
>> >English is not your native language. Trust me, the people who wrote
>> >those words favored capital punishment.
>> Yes they did, in 1689 as well as in 1791. But they and their successors
>did
>> some more. They pointed explicitely out the dynamic characteristic of the
>> "C&U"-clause, and there are precedent US-cases that directly link the
>extent
>> of the VIII Amendment with society's maturity. ...
>
>It is possible that someday there will be an American consensus that
>capital punishment is cruel and unusual. But currently, polls show that
>the overwhelming majority of Americans think that it is reasonable in
>many cases.
>
Yup. And therefore: Grow up.
J.
nbarker1
> >It is possible that someday there will be an American consensus that
> >capital punishment is cruel and unusual. But currently, polls show that
> >the overwhelming majority of Americans think that it is reasonable in
> >many cases.
> >
>
> Yup. And therefore: Grow up.
>
> J.
>
When will you stupid Americans learn that when grown men rape and torture
and murder a 4 year old girl, they need to be treated well and given 3 meals
a day and medical care for the rest of their lives.
Jürgen
nbarker1 schrieb in Nachricht ...
While you'd like to leave the impression of exclusively the worst of the
worst on death row reality speaks a totally other language. The overwhelming
lot of people on death row are not a scintilla guiltier than the 98% having
committed similar crimes, while spared the death penalty.
What about three meals and medical care: (1) Both are most miserable and (2)
is your death machine close to an order of magnitude more expensive than to
house a prisoner until his end.
J.
nbarker1
>
> nbarker1 schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >
> >"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> >news:ag7163$t0p$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >
> >> >It is possible that someday there will be an American consensus that
> >> >capital punishment is cruel and unusual. But currently, polls show
that
> >> >the overwhelming majority of Americans think that it is reasonable in
> >> >many cases.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yup. And therefore: Grow up.
> >>
> >> J.
> >>
> >When will you stupid Americans learn that when grown men rape and torture
> >and murder a 4 year old girl, they need to be treated well and given 3
> meals
> >a day and medical care for the rest of their lives.
> >
>
> While you'd like to leave the impression of exclusively the worst of the
> worst on death row reality speaks a totally other language. The
overwhelming
> lot of people on death row are not a scintilla guiltier than the 98%
having
> committed similar crimes, while spared the death penalty.
So you are saying those who commit similar crimes should have gotten the
death penalty. Ok. (I'm sure that's not what you really meant, but it can
go both ways)
>
> What about three meals and medical care: (1) Both are most miserable
Better than the homeless or the very poor. I don't think a brutal murderer
should live better than a homeless person.
>(2)
> is your death machine close to an order of magnitude more expensive than
to
> house a prisoner until his end.
>
> J.
So it comes down to putting a price tag on life? I can respect someone
being morally against taking a life with the death penalty, but have little
for those who weigh the financial pros and cons as one of the major factors
in making their decision on whether or not to take lives.
Najena
news:ag7rvj$d7p$06$1...@news.t-online.com:
>
> While you'd like to leave the impression of exclusively the worst of
> the worst on death row reality speaks a totally other language. The
> overwhelming lot of people on death row are not a scintilla guiltier
> than the 98% having committed similar crimes, while spared the death
> penalty.
>
> What about three meals and medical care: (1) Both are most miserable
> and (2) is your death machine close to an order of magnitude more
> expensive than to house a prisoner until his end.
I can say that the cost of the average inmate in a PA state prison is $26k
per year. That's all inmates, young and old, well and ill, death row and
general pop. Once an inmate reaches the age of 65 however, he costs an
average of $60k per year.
Meals are pretty much miserable, from what I can see. I can't speak about
medical care. The inmate gets seen upon request, and there are frequent
trips to community hospitals, but I have no medical professional training,
so I can't really tell if the care is up to 'standards'.
The extra cost of a death row inmate, as far as I can tell, is trips to and
from the execution facility, and expenses involved in the execution itself.
The inmate doesn't generate any extra cost merely by sitting on death row.
From what I've observed, he doesn't travel to court more often than the
average inmate. He does generate higher costs in transit though, due to
the state's personnel requirements for transporting a captial case inmate.
Jürgen
nbarker1 schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>> >When will you stupid Americans learn that when grown men rape and
torture
>> >and murder a 4 year old girl, they need to be treated well and given 3
>> meals
>> >a day and medical care for the rest of their lives.
>> >
>>
>> While you'd like to leave the impression of exclusively the worst of the
>> worst on death row reality speaks a totally other language. The
>overwhelming
>> lot of people on death row are not a scintilla guiltier than the 98%
>having
>> committed similar crimes, while spared the death penalty.
>
>So you are saying those who commit similar crimes should have gotten the
>death penalty. Ok. (I'm sure that's not what you really meant, but it can
>go both ways)
>
You guys are most predictable, actually. Anybody knows that the death
penalty is the exception and a prison term is the normal penalty for
homicide. You however would like to elevate the exception to the rule.
>>
>> What about three meals and medical care: (1) Both are most miserable
>
>Better than the homeless or the very poor. I don't think a brutal murderer
>should live better than a homeless person.
Would you agree with that the homeless and poor are a thoroughly unwanted
product of any society? If 'yes' then I don't think this state should be the
measurement of how a prisoner should be treated.
>
>>(2)
>> is your death machine close to an order of magnitude more expensive than
>to
>> house a prisoner until his end.
>>
>> J.
>
>So it comes down to putting a price tag on life?
It is your own argument 'Why should med care and food be granted to any
guilty of murder, rather than to kill him?' that leads straight to the cost
argument.
I can respect someone
>being morally against taking a life with the death penalty, but have little
>for those who weigh the financial pros and cons as one of the major factors
>in making their decision on whether or not to take lives.
>
Well, my main argument anti death penalty is the non-integrability of
capital punishment in the set of all other viable penalties. The death
penalty does and will anytimes necessarily lead to a disproportion in
sentencing, because minimalistic differences in the crimes may cause a vast
difference in the sentence. A clear borderline what should warrant the death
penalty and what indicates a lesser punishment is totally missing, and
exactly so is the composition of US-death rows: Most on death row are
neither guiltier nor any more dangerous than the lot of offenders sentenced
to life in prison.
The consideration of the much higher costs of capital punishment is a mere
by-product, introduced and catalyzed by the *PRO-DP*-side. So it is your
choice whether we consider the cost-argument or not, and should you argument
with med care and food to afford for a prisoner then I will point out that
US-citizens are willing to spend more money for the death than for the life.
Jürgen
JIGSAW1695
From: "Jürgen" K.J.H...@t-online.de
Date: 7/6/2002 6:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <ag7rvj$d7p$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
J.
===============================
Cost versus the aministration of justice? Somethings just dont have a price,
Jurgen.
Jürgen
JIGSAW1695 schrieb in Nachricht
<20020707042616...@mb-cn.aol.com>...
I like it whenever the avenge-angels attempt to justify their cruel symbol
of unlimited power by calling it "justice", while for 98% of the offenders a
prison term is obviously sufficient for to meet the term.
Jürgen
Desmond Coughlan schrieb in Nachricht ...
>Le Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:35:32 +0200, Jürgen <K.J.H...@t-online.de> a
écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> I like it whenever the avenge-angels attempt to justify their cruel
symbol
>> of unlimited power by calling it "justice", while for 98% of the
offenders a
>> prison term is obviously sufficient for to meet the term.
>
>
Of course it is. "98% obviously" represents the US-status quo, surely not my
standpoint.
The allegedly distinctive criteria which would "warrant" to sentence 2% out
of the offenders' entirety to death and to finally execute around 0.5% are
in the face of death rows' consistence as worth- as meaningless, and
particularly Jigsaw's "deserves" or "justice"-argument gets totally moot in
view of this figures. Not one, including him, can explain why the one victim
would demand for another kind of "justice" than the lot of others. Thus the
DP is necessarily out of any proportion, and there is no way to integrate
capital punishment properly in a justice system based on another philosophy
than the Scaria Law.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnaigchh.222e....@lievre.voute.net...
> > of unlimited power by calling it "justice", while for 98% of the offenders a
> > prison term is obviously sufficient for to meet the term.
>
>
from desi. Let me merely say that, as usual, he has neglected to add
'IMHO.'
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |PV MADE HIS KILL FILE
|PV MADE HIS KILL FILE
|GOD'S IN HIS HEAVEN
|ALL'S RIGHT WITH THE WORLD
nbarker1
No it doesn't, it leads to the quality of life argument. You may disagree,
but I've seen people of lesser incomes live a better quality of life than
people of higher incomes, so it isn't necessarily all about money.
Steve Kramer
> capital punishment is cruel and unusual. But currently, polls show that
> the overwhelming majority of Americans think that it is reasonable in
> many cases.
It doesn't matter what a consensus of Americans think. It requires an
amendment and ratification to take "life or limb" out of the Constitution.
John Rennie
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnaigchh.222e....@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:35:32 +0200, Jürgen <K.J.H...@t-online.de> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
symbol
> > of unlimited power by calling it "justice", while for 98% of the
offenders a
> > prison term is obviously sufficient for to meet the term.
>
>
> Desmond Coughlan
No. A very few can be released immediately and, in this
country anyway, are. There is such a thing a justifiable
homicide.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnaigchh.222e....@lievre.voute.net...
> > Le Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:35:32 +0200, Jürgen <K.J.H...@t-online.de> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > { snip }
> >
> > > I like it whenever the avenge-angels attempt to justify their cruel
> > > symbol
> > > of unlimited power by calling it "justice", while for 98% of the
> > > offenders a
> > > prison term is obviously sufficient for to meet the term.
> >
> > Prison is sufficient for 100% of convicted murderers, Jürgen.
> >
> Rather than repeat my list, which refutes totally this absurd statement
> from desi. Let me merely say that, as usual, he has neglected to add
> 'IMHO.'
Your list of murderers, IIRC, consists almost exclusively of people who
were _never_ sentenced to death and, so, the DP hasn't achieved anything
with respect to those people, has it?
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Death Sentences
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:21:05 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:35:32 +0200, Jürgen <K.J.H...@t-online.de> a écrit
>:
>
>{ snip }
>
>> I like it whenever the avenge-angels attempt to justify their cruel symbol
>> of unlimited power by calling it "justice", while for 98% of the offenders
>a
>> prison term is obviously sufficient for to meet the term.
>
>Prison is sufficient for 100% of convicted murderers, Jürgen.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.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: Death Sentences
>Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:21:05 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 15
>Message-ID: <slrnaigchh.222e....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <ag7rvj$d7p$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
><20020707042616...@mb-cn.aol.com>
><ag950h$gos$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1026044729 20902763 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: !nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
Desi is afraid of his own words! He can be reached at des...@noos.fr or
des...@zeouane.org.
As everyone knows, only COWARDS forge posts yet don't allow their own to be
archived!
Now Desi, Tell us about the Baltimore County police.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Death Sentences
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:15:41 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 7 Jul 2002 16:20:51 +0200, Jürgen <K.J.H...@t-online.de> a écrit
>:
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>Prison is sufficient for 100% of convicted murderers, Jürgen.
>
>> Of course it is. "98% obviously" represents the US-status quo, surely not
>my
>> standpoint.
>
>I stand corrected. :-)
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR
!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Death Sentences
>Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:15:41 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 18
>Message-ID: <slrnaigj8d.28ai....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <ag7rvj$d7p$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
><20020707042616...@mb-cn.aol.com>
><ag950h$gos$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
><slrnaigchh.222e....@lievre.voute.net>
><ag9i6u$tvf$03$1...@news.t-online.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1026051380 20736608 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in message
news:jonathan-B86171...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <33ZV8.203222$db.28...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
> Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> > "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
> > news:slrnaigchh.222e....@lievre.voute.net...
> > > Le Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:35:32 +0200, Jürgen <K.J.H...@t-online.de> a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > { snip }
> > >
> > > > I like it whenever the avenge-angels attempt to justify their cruel
> > > > symbol
> > > > of unlimited power by calling it "justice", while for 98% of the
> > > > offenders a
> > > > prison term is obviously sufficient for to meet the term.
> > >
> > > Prison is sufficient for 100% of convicted murderers, Jürgen.
> > >
> > Rather than repeat my list, which refutes totally this absurd statement
> > from desi. Let me merely say that, as usual, he has neglected to add
> > 'IMHO.'
>
> Your list of murderers, IIRC, consists almost exclusively of people who
> were _never_ sentenced to death and, so, the DP hasn't achieved anything
> with respect to those people, has it?
>
APPLIED to those on my list before they committed their new murders. You
can hardly say that a penalty which is never used can achieve anything
in preventing new murders. In fact you can hardly say that a penalty which
is never used can prevent any crime. The achievement is in the use, not the
non-use.
And if desi's plan were followed, it would simply mean that the POTENTIAL
additions to my list would increase with the addition of those having been
convicted of murder, and NOT executed now having the possibility to gain
access to my list. Obviously an executed murderer is sorely limited in
joining my life, since they are dead.
Clearly, IMHO, there exist those on my list who should NEVER have been
given a opportunity to commit those new murders. The evidence that they
WOULD murder again if afforded ANY possibility was just too strong.
While it is also my opinion that many we DO execute are clearly not
as great a risk as some of those we do not execute. The drive should
be toward restructuring our SELECTION process and seriously weeding
out those who should not be executed, while still insuring we better
identify those who should be executed. IMHO. Desi's plan (and yours)
envisions no necessity for providing such weeding out. I can't help but
believe that is a mistake. One only needs to look at the posts today,
in respect to 'Tiny' Davis, to gain a glimpse of what I mean.
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
[snippage]
> Clearly, IMHO, there exist those on my list who should NEVER have been
> given a opportunity to commit those new murders. The evidence that they
> WOULD murder again if afforded ANY possibility was just too strong.
> While it is also my opinion that many we DO execute are clearly not
> as great a risk as some of those we do not execute.
Quite so. Clearly, the US justice system needs a careful examination of
how it deals with very serious crime (especially murder). However,
might I suggest that there are other jurisdictions that manage to put
such people away in prison such that they don't get released or escape
to murder again. The risk is, admittedly not zero in these
jurisdictions but, in some, it is as near as damnit.
> The drive should
> be toward restructuring our SELECTION process and seriously weeding
> out those who should not be executed, while still insuring we better
> identify those who should be executed. IMHO. Desi's plan (and yours)
> envisions no necessity for providing such weeding out. I can't help but
> believe that is a mistake. One only needs to look at the posts today,
> in respect to 'Tiny' Davis, to gain a glimpse of what I mean.
I will say that Davis would not have been executed in the UK or
Australia (to pick two examples). In neither of those countries would
he have walked free at any stage. IMHO, he was a horrible man but I
still don't think that we had the right to kill him.
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:ML8W8.209397$db.29...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
snip
Let's see now. The people on your list are the ones that should have
been executed (well at least some of them) but there are those who
shouldn't have been executed. We should 'restructure', weed out
and thereby 'insure' we 'better identify' those that should be
executed. You know PV you get away with an awful lot on
this news group merely because you bury your totally nonsensical
ideas in a mass of verbiage. What you suggest cannot be done.
No one can 'insure' that one that has already murdered (outside
his family) will never murder again if let free. If your ideas, loose
as they are, were put into practice, the net result would be a huge
increase in the number of executions which, I feel, is not your
intention. You would have placed public servants into an appalling
position where their only way of protecting themselves would
be to terminate rather than let live.
Richard Jackson
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
> Le Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:57:55 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> The drive should
> >> be toward restructuring our SELECTION process and seriously weeding
> >> out those who should not be executed, while still insuring we better
> >> identify those who should be executed. IMHO. Desi's plan (and yours)
> >> envisions no necessity for providing such weeding out. I can't help but
> >> believe that is a mistake. One only needs to look at the posts today,
> >> in respect to 'Tiny' Davis, to gain a glimpse of what I mean.
>
> > I will say that Davis would not have been executed in the UK or
> > Australia (to pick two examples). In neither of those countries would
> > he have walked free at any stage. IMHO, he was a horrible man but I
> > still don't think that we had the right to kill him.
>
> Tiny Davis would not have been executed in France, either, of course. He
> would have been sentenced to life imprisonment, with a 'peine de sûreté'
> of 22 years, as dictated by law. This means that he would not have been
> able to apply for probation until he had served 22 years. Even then, there
> is no guarantee that he would have been granted it.
Neither, Desmond, is there guarantee he would not. That bothers me
personally, for some people should, IMO, NEVER have any chance of
release, however slight.
--
Teflon
JIGSAW1695
From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks
Date: 7/8/2002 12:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <jonathan-F29EF9...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
[snippage]
Mr Q. Z. D.
===============================
An interesting use of words. Q! is correct. As individuals we do not have the
right to kill him, however, as a society we do have that right to execute him
if judged guilty of certain crimes committed in a certain manner.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:D4dW8.44793$MM5.3...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Actually, in hindsight, they ALL should have been executed. But,
unfortunately, we are not omniscient.
> We should 'restructure', weed out
> and thereby 'insure' we 'better identify' those that should be
> executed. You know PV you get away with an awful lot on
> this news group merely because you bury your totally nonsensical
> ideas in a mass of verbiage.
ROTFLMAO... I will not embarrass you by repeating a nonsensical
remark you recently made. Nonetheless, because I respect many
of your views, although agreeing with hardly any of them, (while
you seem intent on only providing some measure of disrespect
toward most of my views), let me devote a little time to this argument.
it is obvious that if we had perfection in 'weeding out,' then in theory
we would execute no murderer who would commit another murder,
while we would execute every murderer who would. We do not
possess such an ability to see our future fate, thus it is reasonable
to presume we should try to weed out through our best effort.
We not only do that with the DP, but with the entire Justice System
as well. Always trying to improve that process, with the understanding
that lacking perfection we will often execute those who would not have
murdered again, and will often fail to execute those who do murder
again (my list and more). But always with an eye toward improving
that 'weeding out' process, while recognizing that we simply cannot
ignore some of those 'weeds.'
> What you suggest cannot be done.
Not in absolute terms. Of course not. But nothing in human
nature is absolute. Certainly we do not even find guilt in absolute
terms, and we recognize that fact. But to claim the process
cannot be improved is absurd. Since if it flawed to any degree
that presumes, since we have recognized those flaws, that we
are also a species with enough intelligence to reduce the degree
or number of those flaws. The first step is always in the perception
of flaws. Only then is it possible to institute corrective adjustments
intended to reduce them. Certainly the SCOTUS has just
'perceived' two 'flaws' that I agree are flaws, although others may
not. It is simply a perception.
> No one can 'insure' that one that has already murdered (outside
> his family) will never murder again if let free.
Please... we can be certain to the most humanly possible degree
that Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Kenneth McDuff, and Theodore
Frank, to name just four, would most certainly murder if let free.
There is no question of that in the minds of everyone but the most
delusional.
> If your ideas, loose
> as they are, were put into practice, the net result would be a huge
> increase in the number of executions which, I feel, is not your
> intention.
Hardly. Look at http://web.cis.smu.edu/~deathpen/victims.html
You will find a great number of murderers who I believe should not
have been executed. Clearly, you will also find a number of them
where you would have great difficulty justifying keeping them alive.
Making the most cursory examination of this list, we can see that
there is a number beginning with execution number 57 and ending
with execution number 87 that one might presume none of them
should have been executed. That's possibly 31 consecutive
murderers right there. And THEN we come across number 88,
Beauford White. Hardly any question about him since he positively
murdered six people execution style, intended and planned to
execute them, and was almost certainly going to murder again
given even the slightest possibility. Had he not been executed,
there is a grave possibility his name would now be on 'my list.'
In any case, presumably what is YOUR reason to keep murderers
alive? Since you disavow morality as an instinct there, I'd be
interested. You've claimed it is simply pragmatic. But what exactly
is pragmatic about keeping a murderer alive? Can you look at
that URL and 'pragmatically' claim that we should keep anyone
alive there who has been proven to murder more than three
people? Four people? Five people? 33 people? Exactly what
is your benchmark on the number of humans who have had their
life snuffed out by one person before you claim that person no
longer deserves to breath the same air that living humans do?
And then examine the circumstances connected with some of
those murders and murderers. Is it necessary to keep ALL of
them alive for 'pragmatic' reasons?
>You would have placed public servants into an appalling
> position where their only way of protecting themselves would
> be to terminate rather than let live.
>
Whatever are you talking about? We already place them in the
position to determine life or death. My only intention is to mold
the LAWS more effectively in determining those murderers most
possible of murdering again, and those who are not. Almost
everyone realizes that Roger Coleman, Christina Riggs, Karla
Faye Tucker, Walter LeGrand, Napoleon Beazley, Odell Barnes,
Jesse Tafero, Gary Graham, and Willie Darden most probably
should not have been executed. Not that they were innocent,
but for various reasons that demonstrate we should be more
selective in who we execute. Can you say the same about
Bundy, Gacy, Frank, McDuff or Beauford White? The fact that
the SCOTUS is narrowing our perception of who we might
execute, and under what circumstances we might judge that
penalty are only those moves I agree with. Eventually, it is my
hope that we will arrive at a position which has provided a better
process of 'weeding out' that I speak of. As I said before, I would
be pleased if the SCOTUS also ruled that we could not execute
unless conclusive evidence was found that there was a certain
intent to commit that murder some time BEFORE the actual
commission of the murder itself. There should be a PLANNING
circumstance necessary to permit the DP, eliminating all manner
of murders which might occur on the spur of the moment from
the DP. This would certainly make it much more difficult to
prove the need for execution, while taking nothing away from
proving that murder itself was committed.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:38:41 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > You know PV you get away with an awful lot on
> > this news group merely because you bury your totally nonsensical
> > ideas in a mass of verbiage.
>
>
But you'll always have dirt and Earl, my dear.
PV
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |PV'S OUT OF HIS KILL FILE
|PV'S OUT OF HIS KILL FILE
|GOD'S SHAKING HIS HEAD
|THE WORLD SUCKS
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:57:55 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> The drive should
> >> be toward restructuring our SELECTION process and seriously weeding
> >> out those who should not be executed, while still insuring we better
> >> identify those who should be executed. IMHO. Desi's plan (and yours)
> >> envisions no necessity for providing such weeding out. I can't help but
> >> believe that is a mistake. One only needs to look at the posts today,
> >> in respect to 'Tiny' Davis, to gain a glimpse of what I mean.
>
> > I will say that Davis would not have been executed in the UK or
> > Australia (to pick two examples). In neither of those countries would
> > he have walked free at any stage. IMHO, he was a horrible man but I
> > still don't think that we had the right to kill him.
>
> would have been sentenced to life imprisonment, with a 'peine de sûreté'
> of 22 years, as dictated by law. This means that he would not have been
> able to apply for probation until he had served 22 years. Even then, there
> is no guarantee that he would have been granted it.
>
How 'humane.' Did you possibly read the acts he committed?
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in message
'right' of society to do what it feels appropriate. But you should realize
others may well hold a contrary opinion, and may well hold an opinion
that they 'don't think' that we (as a society or any society) have a 'right'
to keep those such as Davis ALIVE. Personally, I don't care what OTHER
societies would do with those such as Davis. But I certainly care what
the society I live in does with those such as Davis. And I cannot see
my way clear to finding even a hint of morality in not executing him, or
the lack of a 'right' by society to execute him.
PV
JIGSAW1695
From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@zeouane.org
Date: 7/8/2002 2:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <slrnaijl39.ma.p...@lievre.voute.net>
Le 08 Jul 2002 13:44:12 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
{ snip }
>> he have walked free at any stage. IMHO, he was a horrible man but I
>> still don't think that we had the right to kill him.
> An interesting use of words. Q! is correct. As individuals we do not have
the
> right to kill him, however, as a society we do have that right to execute him
> if judged guilty of certain crimes committed in a certain manner.
Another interesting use of words. If by 'right' you mean the power to
kill without the risk of sanction, then yes, the state has the 'right' to
kill. After all, who is going to 'punish' the state, as it is at the very
top of the 'pyramid' ? However, your use of the word 'right' in this context
is a misnomer; what you are referring to is 'power'.
The moral 'right' to kill a person who is not posing a clear and immediate
threat, does not, and cannot exist, whether for each of us as individuals,
or for the state.
--
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
===============================
In which case you deny society the right and obligation to punish wrongdoers.
John Rennie
> Le Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:38:41 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > this news group merely because you bury your totally nonsensical
> > ideas in a mass of verbiage.
>
>
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
And because Mr D and I suck up to him.
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:D4dW8.44793$MM5.3...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > news:ML8W8.209397$db.29...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
snip
>
> ROTFLMAO... I will not embarrass you by repeating a nonsensical
> remark you recently made.
I will embarrass me by repeating it and repeating again and again
whenever you so wish. The 'people' are not fit to govern themselves
which is why they elect representatives to do it for them and
why America and the UK are NOT democracies. Only when
every issue that effects them is voted on by all i.e. continual
referendums can one say that the 'people' govern.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote
> in message
> > I will say that Davis would not have been executed in the UK or
> > Australia (to pick two examples). In neither of those countries would
> > he have walked free at any stage. IMHO, he was a horrible man but I
> > still don't think that we had the right to kill him.
> >
> You may hold an opinion (by expressing what you 'think') regarding a
> 'right' of society to do what it feels appropriate. But you should
> realize
> others may well hold a contrary opinion, and may well hold an opinion
> that they 'don't think' that we (as a society or any society) have a
> 'right'
> to keep those such as Davis ALIVE. Personally, I don't care what OTHER
> societies would do with those such as Davis. But I certainly care what
> the society I live in does with those such as Davis. And I cannot see
> my way clear to finding even a hint of morality in not executing him, or
> the lack of a 'right' by society to execute him.
The simple fact that societies that don't execute murderers have
considerably lower murder rates than the USA indicates that the morality
of executing murderers, even in utilitarian terms, doesn't stand up to
any sort of close scrutiny.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:43:24 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Obviously an executed murderer is sorely limited in
> > joining my life, since they are dead.
>
>
Oops... 'list' not life. However, even the typo applies. Those executed
or even those dead cannot join my life. The most that can be said is
they may be honored. I honor the dead victim. Desmond honours the
dead murderer.
A Planet Visitor
> >> threat, does not, and cannot exist, whether for each of us as individuals,
> >> or for the state.
>
> > wrongdoers.
>
>
Actually, you can't 'deny' society anything. It's just that huge ego of yours
at work again thinking you can. You don't see me running around claiming
I can 'demand' it the power to take a life. And you certainly can't 'deny'
a society of which you are not even a member, the 'power' to do anything
that the members of that society determine is in their best interests.
Just keep on rambling about what you 'wish' could or would happen, we
all understand that. But do not presume you can 'deny' ANY society
anything... even your own. If the members decided through the political
process in effect in your society to do what it might decide to do, even
to the point of resuming executions, you would only have the choices
of acceptance or departure. And in SOME societies even the latter
avenue is not available.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:TspW8.1047$oZ2....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
similar to that you now offer ---
Arrrrrrrrgggggggggg!!!!!!!
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 08 Jul 2002 19:14:53 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> >> The drive should
> >> >> be toward restructuring our SELECTION process and seriously weeding
> >> >> out those who should not be executed, while still insuring we better
> >> >> identify those who should be executed. IMHO. Desi's plan (and yours)
> >> >> envisions no necessity for providing such weeding out. I can't help but
> >> >> believe that is a mistake. One only needs to look at the posts today,
> >> >> in respect to 'Tiny' Davis, to gain a glimpse of what I mean.
>
> >> > I will say that Davis would not have been executed in the UK or
> >> > Australia (to pick two examples). In neither of those countries would
> >> > he have walked free at any stage. IMHO, he was a horrible man but I
> >> > still don't think that we had the right to kill him.
>
> >> Tiny Davis would not have been executed in France, either, of course. He
> >> would have been sentenced to life imprisonment, with a 'peine de sûreté'
> >> of 22 years, as dictated by law. This means that he would not have been
> >> able to apply for probation until he had served 22 years. Even then, there
> >> is no guarantee that he would have been granted it.
>
> > How 'humane.' Did you possibly read the acts he committed?
>
>
Then...
[extreme irony on] How very... very 'humane' of you. [extreme irony off]
PV
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Death Sentences
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:17:52 +0000
>
>Le 08 Jul 2002 19:40:10 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> The moral 'right' to kill a person who is not posing a clear and immediate
>>> threat, does not, and cannot exist, whether for each of us as individuals,
>>> or for the state.
>
>> In which case you deny society the right and obligation to punish
>> wrongdoers.
>
>No. I 'deny' it the power to take life.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!fu-be
rlin.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: Death Sentences
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:17:52 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 18
>Message-ID: <slrnaik7d0.2aq.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaijl39.ma.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><20020708154010...@mb-mp.aol.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1026170344 21360503 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Death Sentences
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 18:18:02 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:43:24 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Obviously an executed murderer is sorely limited in
>> joining my life, since they are dead.
>
>*snort*
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!pln-w!extra.newsguy.com!l
otsanews.com!opentransit.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-6
8.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Death Sentences
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 18:18:02 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <slrnaijlqq.p1.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <ag7rvj$d7p$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
><20020707042616...@mb-cn.aol.com>
><ag950h$gos$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
><slrnaigchh.222e....@lievre.voute.net>
><33ZV8.203222$db.28...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><jonathan-B86171...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><ML8W8.209397$db.29...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1026152329 21586998 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Death Sentences
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:49:38 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:38:41 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> You know PV you get away with an awful lot on
>> this news group merely because you bury your totally nonsensical
>> ideas in a mass of verbiage.
>
>... and because you and QZD suck up to him.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!howland.erols.net!fu-berl
in.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Death Sentences
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:49:38 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 17
>Message-ID: <slrnaiiri2.ii1.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <ag7rvj$d7p$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
><20020707042616...@mb-cn.aol.com>
><ag950h$gos$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
><slrnaigchh.222e....@lievre.voute.net>
><33ZV8.203222$db.28...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><jonathan-B86171...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><ML8W8.209397$db.29...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><D4dW8.44793$MM5.3...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1026125423 21653760 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Death Sentences
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 18:05:29 +0000
>
>Le 08 Jul 2002 13:44:12 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> he have walked free at any stage. IMHO, he was a horrible man but I
>>> still don't think that we had the right to kill him.
>
>> An interesting use of words. Q! is correct. As individuals we do not have
>the
>> right to kill him, however, as a society we do have that right to execute
>him
>> if judged guilty of certain crimes committed in a certain manner.
>
>Another interesting use of words. If by 'right' you mean the power to
>kill without the risk of sanction, then yes, the state has the 'right' to
>kill. After all, who is going to 'punish' the state, as it is at the very
>top of the 'pyramid' ? However, your use of the word 'right' in this context
>is a misnomer; what you are referring to is 'power'.
>
>The moral 'right' to kill a person who is not posing a clear and immediate
>threat, does not, and cannot exist, whether for each of us as individuals,
>or for the state.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!newsxfer.visi.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.ma
xwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!opentransit.net!fu-berl
in.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dh
>cp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Death Sentences
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 18:05:29 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 26
>Message-ID: <slrnaijl39.ma.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <jonathan-F29EF9...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><20020708094412...@mb-fn.aol.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1026151651 21734610 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Death Sentences
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:47:44 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:57:55 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
><jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> The drive should
>>> be toward restructuring our SELECTION process and seriously weeding
>>> out those who should not be executed, while still insuring we better
>>> identify those who should be executed. IMHO. Desi's plan (and yours)
>>> envisions no necessity for providing such weeding out. I can't help but
>>> believe that is a mistake. One only needs to look at the posts today,
>>> in respect to 'Tiny' Davis, to gain a glimpse of what I mean.
>
>> I will say that Davis would not have been executed in the UK or
>> Australia (to pick two examples). In neither of those countries would
>> he have walked free at any stage. IMHO, he was a horrible man but I
>> still don't think that we had the right to kill him.
>
>Tiny Davis would not have been executed in France, either, of course. He
>would have been sentenced to life imprisonment, with a 'peine de sûreté'
>of 22 years, as dictated by law. This means that he would not have been
>able to apply for probation until he had served 22 years. Even then, there
>is no guarantee that he would have been granted it.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!opentransit.net!f
u-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: Death Sentences
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:47:44 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 28
>Message-ID: <slrnaiireg.ig0.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <ag7rvj$d7p$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
><20020707042616...@mb-cn.aol.com>
><ag950h$gos$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
><slrnaigchh.222e....@lievre.voute.net>
><33ZV8.203222$db.28...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><jonathan-B86171...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><ML8W8.209397$db.29...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><jonathan-F29EF9...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1026125337 21225635 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Death Sentences
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:31:36 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 08 Jul 2002 19:14:53 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>>> >> The drive should
>>> >> be toward restructuring our SELECTION process and seriously weeding
>>> >> out those who should not be executed, while still insuring we better
>>> >> identify those who should be executed. IMHO. Desi's plan (and yours)
>>> >> envisions no necessity for providing such weeding out. I can't help
>but
>>> >> believe that is a mistake. One only needs to look at the posts today,
>>> >> in respect to 'Tiny' Davis, to gain a glimpse of what I mean.
>
>>> > I will say that Davis would not have been executed in the UK or
>>> > Australia (to pick two examples). In neither of those countries would
>>> > he have walked free at any stage. IMHO, he was a horrible man but I
>>> > still don't think that we had the right to kill him.
>
>>> Tiny Davis would not have been executed in France, either, of course. He
>>> would have been sentenced to life imprisonment, with a 'peine de sûreté'
>>> of 22 years, as dictated by law. This means that he would not have been
>>> able to apply for probation until he had served 22 years. Even then,
>there
>>> is no guarantee that he would have been granted it.
>
>> How 'humane.' Did you possibly read the acts he committed?
>
>Yes.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!pln-w!extra.newsguy.com!l
otsanews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.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: Death Sentences
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:31:36 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 30
>Message-ID: <slrnaik86o.2e5.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <ag7rvj$d7p$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
><20020707042616...@mb-cn.aol.com>
><ag950h$gos$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
><slrnaigchh.222e....@lievre.voute.net>
><33ZV8.203222$db.28...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><jonathan-B86171...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><ML8W8.209397$db.29...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><jonathan-F29EF9...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><slrnaiireg.ig0.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><NwlW8.213549$db.30...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1026171335 22100048 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in message
> In article <NwlW8.213551$db.30...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
> Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote
> > in message
>
> > > I will say that Davis would not have been executed in the UK or
> > > Australia (to pick two examples). In neither of those countries would
> > > he have walked free at any stage. IMHO, he was a horrible man but I
> > > still don't think that we had the right to kill him.
> > >
> > You may hold an opinion (by expressing what you 'think') regarding a
> > 'right' of society to do what it feels appropriate. But you should
> > realize
> > others may well hold a contrary opinion, and may well hold an opinion
> > that they 'don't think' that we (as a society or any society) have a
> > 'right'
> > to keep those such as Davis ALIVE. Personally, I don't care what OTHER
> > societies would do with those such as Davis. But I certainly care what
> > the society I live in does with those such as Davis. And I cannot see
> > my way clear to finding even a hint of morality in not executing him, or
> > the lack of a 'right' by society to execute him.
>
> The simple fact that societies that don't execute murderers have
> considerably lower murder rates than the USA indicates that the morality
> of executing murderers, even in utilitarian terms, doesn't stand up to
> any sort of close scrutiny.
I'll let this slide, but rest assured it is simply your opinion. I find that
those societies with lower murder rates don't need the DP, but it speaks
nothing to the morality of executing murderers. One who feels it is
moral to execute some murderers may argue that THOSE society have
LESS morality. We can look at morality as close as we wish, and all
we do is get squint eyed, since in all cases we are simply examining
the perception that WE see of morality.
PV