Texas jailbreak gang member sentenced to death
EndlsRayne
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/01/28/crime.jailbreak.reut/index.html
DALLAS, Texas (Reuters) -- The second member of a Texas jailbreak gang to go on
trial for killing a policeman was sentenced Monday to die by lethal injection
for gunning down a suburban Dallas officer during a robbery on Christmas Eve
2000.
Donald Newbury, 39, showed no reaction as the jury rendered the sentence after
about two hours of deliberations. The same jury convicted Newbury on January 18
of capital murder.
The jury could also have sentenced Newbury to life in prison for firing his gun
at policeman Aubrey Hawkins. Hawkins walked into a hail of bullets and was hit
11 times as the gang fled a sporting goods store in Irving, Texas, after
robbing it.
Prosecutors argued that Newbury's history of convictions for armed robberies in
the 1980s and 1990s proved he would continue to pose a danger to society if
allowed to live.
Spot
>Date: 1/29/2002 11:00 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020129120017...@mb-mh.aol.com>
There were five gang members, all of whom are facing capital charges for
this one murder. Two have already been sentenced to die, with every expectation
that all the others will meet the same fate. With death sentences costing
something like several million dollars to carry out - each - that means
avenging this one murder will cost the taxpayers between 10 and 15 million
dollars.
Good thing money grows on trees in Texas.
EndlsRayne
> There were five gang members, all of whom are facing capital charges for
>this one murder.
Actually there were 7 but 1 committed suicide when they were caught.
> Two have already been sentenced to die, with every
>expectation
>that all the others will meet the same fate.
good.
>With death sentences costing
>something like several million dollars to carry out - each - that means
>avenging this one murder will cost the taxpayers between 10 and 15 million
>dollars.
>
Would you rather they give it to Enron? Government throws money away all the
time, at least there will be some benefit to the public from this. I think the
fact that they escaped is going to fry them all, and rightfully so. People like
this are what the DP is for.
Benny Deeni
Many DP opponents, and "liberals" in general, only seem to care about
money when it is being used for something with which they oppose in theory.
Besides, it is certainly not as clear as DP opponents claim that the DP
is "more expensive" than LWOP. And if it is more expensive, then why
is it more expensive? Why can't we cut down the costs? If it needs to
be as expensive as it is, does that mean those sentenced to LWOP are getting
shortchanged (ie, that many more "innocents" are being convicted and/or not
getting the same amount of appeals)?
And besides, like you said, so what if it costs a little more to put
a vicious murderer to sleep?
Spot
>Date: 1/30/2002 1:46 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <75a18ce5.02013...@posting.google.com>
>
>endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) wrote in message
>news:<20020130091549...@mb-fv.aol.com>...
>> dalmatio...@aol.com (Spot) writes:
>>
>> > There were five gang members, all of whom are facing capital charges for
>> >this one murder.
>>
>> Actually there were 7 but 1 committed suicide when they were caught.
>>
>> > Two have already been sentenced to die, with every
>> >expectation
>> >that all the others will meet the same fate.
>>
>> good.
>>
>> >With death sentences costing
>> >something like several million dollars to carry out - each - that means
>> >avenging this one murder will cost the taxpayers between 10 and 15 million
>> >dollars.
>> >
>>
>> Would you rather they give it to Enron? Government throws money away all
>the
>> time, at least there will be some benefit to the public from this. I think
>the
>> fact that they escaped is going to fry them all, and rightfully so. People
>like
>> this are what the DP is for.
>
>
>Many DP opponents, and "liberals" in general, only seem to care about
>money when it is being used for something with which they oppose in theory.
How very different from conservatives, who always scream "WASTE!" when it
comes to financing health care for the poor or early reading programs, but when
it comes to killing people no expense is too great.
>Besides, it is certainly not as clear as DP opponents claim that the DP
>is "more expensive" than LWOP. And if it is more expensive, then why
>is it more expensive? Why can't we cut down the costs? If it needs to
>be as expensive as it is, does that mean those sentenced to LWOP are getting
>shortchanged (ie, that many more "innocents" are being convicted and/or not
>getting the same amount of appeals)?
Another conservative paradox: they champion the appeals system as the
cure for innocents getting convicted even as they complain about "frivilous"
appeals and the "bureaucratic" court system.
>
>And besides, like you said, so what if it costs a little more to put
>a vicious murderer to sleep?
Whatever you say, Benny.
Benny Deeni
"Spot" <dalmatio...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020130201156...@mb-ch.aol.com...
Sigh. I should've realized throwing in that "liberal" reference would
result
in someone such as yourself focusing on that instead of addressing my
questions.
First of all, DP supporters don't support "killing people"; they support
executing
convicted murderers who have been through due process. Secondly, you didn't
even make an attempt to prove that the DP is even more of an "expense" than
LWOP.
>
>
> >Besides, it is certainly not as clear as DP opponents claim that the DP
> >is "more expensive" than LWOP. And if it is more expensive, then why
> >is it more expensive? Why can't we cut down the costs? If it needs to
> >be as expensive as it is, does that mean those sentenced to LWOP are
getting
> >shortchanged (ie, that many more "innocents" are being convicted and/or
not
> >getting the same amount of appeals)?
>
>
> Another conservative paradox: they champion the appeals system as
the
> cure for innocents getting convicted even as they complain about
"frivilous"
> appeals and the "bureaucratic" court system.
>
Again, you avoid addressing the issue. Besides, what you're saying is
not really logical anyway. The appeals system could be rooting out
"innocents" convicted and at the same time have a lot of frivolous
appeals and unecessary bereaucracy. Feel free to give the newsgroup
your thoughts on this rather than one-line "zingers."
> >
> >And besides, like you said, so what if it costs a little more to put
> >a vicious murderer to sleep?
>
>
> Whatever you say, Benny.
>
Glad you agree with me!
Richard Jackson
A good thing we do not measure justice like beancounters. Cost never
has and will not continue to be the consideration. The main thing in
Texas is the ability to extinguish the threat of a person judged
dangerous to society.
--
Richard Jackson
Spot
>Date: 1/30/2002 8:10 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <WH168.502$E4.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>
You make this a liberal vs conservative issue, and act appalled when
someone responds in kind? Pretty naive position if you ask me.
>First of all, DP supporters don't support "killing people"; they support
>executing
>convicted murderers who have been through due process. Secondly, you didn't
>
>even make an attempt to prove that the DP is even more of an "expense" than
>LWOP.
Anyone who has done the basest amount of research on the topic knows this
stuff. Why don't you?
jr...@usa.net
Dave Proctor
>The major costs associated with any criminal case are the fees charged by the "ATTORNEY'S".
And court appointed "ATTORNEY'S" are paid the set rate determined by
the court.
Youa re surely not suggesting that the huge cost of capital cases is a
result of the legal representation provided to the defendants, and
that eliminating this cost would be a way of reducing the cost of
death sentences, are you? Surely you are not suggesting this?
Dave
LMac
I agree with the sentiment. We must find a way to reduce the cost of these
executions. (Note: a .45 round costs about 25 cents).
"Spot" <dalmatio...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020130084006...@mb-dh.aol.com...
Dave Proctor
>"Good thing money grows on trees in Texas"
>
>I agree with the sentiment. We must find a way to reduce the cost of these
>executions. (Note: a .45 round costs about 25 cents).
The cost is related purely to the appeals process.
If you wish to reduce the cost, then you need to eliminate some of the
appeals, and since a lot of the appeals actually succeed, particularly
in cases of actual innocence (as opposed to technicalities) then you
would be eliminating successful appeals from factually innocent
people.
Of course, if the whole system was looked at in the big picture (i.e.,
defence attorney's did not try and get guilty defendants off,
prosecutors did not try and rack up death sentences, judges did not
have to make themselves popular so that they were re-elected) - you
know, all the parties to a case - judge, prosecution, defence - all
were out to see that justice was done - then we would all be better
off. Nobody could argue that that if everyone received the sentence
they were entitled to, regardless of politics, we would live in a
better society. What that sentence is is a matter of debate.
Whilst I am dreaming, I wonder what that pig is that is flying across
in front of me.........
Dave
LMac
related to its swiftness and surety. By eliminating much of the delay in
implementing punishment we might acutally see some of the deterrent
benefits.
I know, I'm dreaming too.
Mac
"Dave Proctor" <da...@spambait.proctor.net> wrote in message
news:2csi5uglugfs0evnq...@4ax.com...
Dave Proctor
>Another point is that successful punishment (as a deterrent) is directly
>related to its swiftness and surety. By eliminating much of the delay in
>implementing punishment we might acutally see some of the deterrent
>benefits.
>
>I know, I'm dreaming too.
I agree, you are. As someone who thinks that the DP is a good thing,
but the current criminal justice system is too unreliable to be able
to use it, I cannot see a place for the DP. I think it has its place,
but the chance of getting the wrong person is too great.
This not only means that the wrong person is dead (something that none
of us want) but it also means that "the system" - which so wants to
deny that it has made a mistake (hence the constant refusal to revisit
appeals after executions) will not admit that it may have got the
wrong result, and that the *REAL* murderer may still be out there.
Whilst I have a big beef with executing innocents (and some pro-s
think that an occasional innocent execution is a martyr for the cause)
one thing that I have not seen them address is the fact that for every
innocent executed there is a guilty killer allowed to run free and
murder again.
I am not prepared to risk it. By all means, execute those convicted,
but do not close the doors on future appeals *just* beacuase an
execution has occurred.
Dave
enigmacat
wrote:
What costs the estimated 8 million dollars per execution is the
appeals process. Most inmates who don't waive most of their appeals
will file up to ten of these documents in order to try to prevail or,
at best, buy them more time to live. i've heard that there's a lot of
talk about lessening the number of appeals and thus cutting down the
cost of the executions.
>
>
>>
>> > Good thing money grows on trees in Texas.
>> >
Hey, maybe "everything is bigger in Texas" but unless you're into oil,
there isn't a lot of money to be had in that state---my aunt and uncle
aren't exactly rolling in wealth and they work damned hard.
>
Oh, you were probably being sarcastic---you got me.
>> >
>
sincerely,
jane
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
John Rennie
"enigmacat" <nothg...@wwdc.com> wrote in message
news:3c59a32b....@news.lon.imag.net...
When you have a good case it isn't necessary to exaggerate.
The last I heard the average cost of an execution was 2
million dollars, high enough surely?
Benny Deeni
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:08:47 -0600, "LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> >Another point is that successful punishment (as a deterrent) is directly
> >related to its swiftness and surety. By eliminating much of the delay in
> >implementing punishment we might acutally see some of the deterrent
> >benefits.
> >
> >I know, I'm dreaming too.
>
> I agree, you are. As someone who thinks that the DP is a good thing,
> but the current criminal justice system is too unreliable to be able
> to use it, I cannot see a place for the DP. I think it has its place,
> but the chance of getting the wrong person is too great.
On what are you basing this opinion? How many truly innocent (ie, had
nothing to do with the crime) people do you think have been executed?
And how does this number compare to the risk of NOT executing brutal
murderers (ie, those serving life sentences who go on to murder
again?)
>
> This not only means that the wrong person is dead (something that none
> of us want) but it also means that "the system" - which so wants to
> deny that it has made a mistake (hence the constant refusal to revisit
> appeals after executions) will not admit that it may have got the
> wrong result, and that the *REAL* murderer may still be out there.
At some point, the process has to stop. What would be your suggestion
to improve the appeals process? And somehow I doubt that if evidence
arises (after an execution) that another person perpetrated the crime,
that
the state would ignore it.
>
> Whilst I have a big beef with executing innocents (and some pro-s
> think that an occasional innocent execution is a martyr for the cause)
> one thing that I have not seen them address is the fact that for every
> innocent executed there is a guilty killer allowed to run free and
> murder again.
Again, how often do you think this happens, and on what do you base
your
answer? The fact is that a small percentage of convicted murderers
who
are NOT executed will go on to murder again. How does that factor
into
your position on the DP. And one thing to keep in mind is that aside
from
the nymber of innocents executed vs. the number of innocents murdered
by convicted murderers who were not executed is that if an innocent
person
is mistakenly executed, it will in all likelihood be a scumbag with a
criminal record. (Please don't accuse me of condoning the execution
of
innocents, that's not what I am saying.) Murderers who are not
executed
can victimize upstanding citizens.
>
> I am not prepared to risk it.
But once again, what about the risk presented by not executing
brutal murderers?
> By all means, execute those convicted,
> but do not close the doors on future appeals *just* beacuase an
> execution has occurred.
>
Are you saying that the state will not re-open an investigation if
new and credible evidence implicating another perpetrator arises
post-execution? I'm no lawyer, but I find that hard to believe.
> Dave
Spot
>Date: 1/31/2002 9:03 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <3C595CD3...@USA.net>
>
>The major costs associated with any criminal case are the fees charged by the
>"ATTORNEY'S".
Actually, most of the attorneys involved in death penalty work do not
charge fees. They are either on state salary (prosecutors, public defenders,
court appointed lawyers, judges, briefing clerks) or they are volunteers.
Benny Deeni
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:27:43 -0600, "LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> >"Good thing money grows on trees in Texas"
> >
> >I agree with the sentiment. We must find a way to reduce the cost of these
> >executions. (Note: a .45 round costs about 25 cents).
>
> The cost is related purely to the appeals process.
>
<rest of article based on this claim snipped>
On what do you base this claim? According to
at least one well-respected DP opponent, most
of the cost is due to the added expenses of capital
trials.
Rev. Don Kool
It's not a question of money. It's a question of Justice. In Texas,
Justice will be served.
Yours in Christ,
Don
--
*********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
*********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
Benny Deeni
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna5l7l4.c5u.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le 31 Jan 2002 14:08:50 -0800, Benny Deeni <natsa...@excite.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> I agree, you are. As someone who thinks that the DP is a good thing,
> >> but the current criminal justice system is too unreliable to be able
> >> to use it, I cannot see a place for the DP. I think it has its place,
> >> but the chance of getting the wrong person is too great.
>
> > On what are you basing this opinion? How many truly innocent (ie, had
> > nothing to do with the crime) people do you think have been executed?
>
>
How many undoubtedly innocent victims murdered by those sentenced to life
imprisonment does it take?
EndlsRayne
>As to date, no person sentenced to life imprisonment without the
>possibility of parole (LWOP) has yet been released to kill again, I'd
>hazard a guess that you don't have a point.
But they can escape.
John Rennie
"EndlsRayne" <endls...@aol.combustion> wrote in message
news:20020202064218...@mb-ci.aol.com...
But in the UK they don't.
Richard Jackson
I'm happy for you John. The truth is that here they sometimes do.
That may be due to the fact that we have poore security measures, or
it might be because our prisons are in some way less restrictive thus
affording prisoners the opportunity to excape more often. It can also
be that we have far more criminals than you leading to a larger prison
population with more opportunity to excape. Most times when it
happens here, it is because a prisoner or prisoners have earned
additional priviledges which allow them a bit more freedom to plan and
execute excapes. In other words, they are being rewarded for good
behaviior and take advantage of the situation. This is exactly what
happened with the famous "Texas Seven". Any ideas?
After all, we are not talking about the UK are we. If there is never
an excape, there is no possibility a murderer will excape and murder.
There IS stil the possibility of murderers killing others wile they
reside in prison.
--
Richard Jackson
--
Richard Jackson
John Spragge
news:75a18ce5.02013...@posting.google.com...
> Besides, it is certainly not as clear as DP opponents claim that the DP
> is "more expensive" than LWOP.
To put it mildly, I've heard this refrain before. Benny/natsam has
frequently made the same argument, that somehow the argument for the higher
cost of capital punishment lacks "clarity", despite the multitudes of
published studies, all of which reach the same conclusion: it costs more to
execute an offender than it does to lock them up for life.
Since I've already answered (and answered, and answered, and answered...)
this one, I'll take the liberty of reposting a previous comment which
addressed this exact issue.
-- start of repost --
The lowest estimates for the cost of a capital trial available, published in
Georgia, place the cost of an "average" capital trial at $120,000, $50,000
more than the cost of a "life" trial. Obviously, this average does not cover
the entire United States; California just spent $11 million convicting
Charles Ng. To average a $50,000 incremental cost with just one $11 million
capital trial, the government would have to get 200 capital trials free.
Taking the estimate published in the recent Atlantic Monthly article "The
Wrong Man", that juries only
impose a death sentences in one out of eight cases where they have it as an
option, each death sentence
would require eight capital trials, pushing the cost to $400,000 for a death
sentence.
But the higher courts allow only about 20% of death sentences to proceed to
an execution, so the total
incremental cost of an execution (not including death row housing and
appellate costs) rises to $2 million.
Assuming interest costs of 5%, amortised over a forty period of
imprisonment, the payments on just the up front trial costs of a single
execution come to $116,556 per year. The 1996 estimates for the average
costs of imprisonment in a state prison come to $20,100 per year Please see
the bureau of justice statistics report:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe96.pdf.
So even allowing the lowest possible estimates for the cost of capital
trials, the actual cost of capital punishment exceeds the cost of
imprisonment when we allow for the added expense of spending the large cost
of a capital trial "up front".
-- end of repost --
> And if it is more expensive, then why is it more expensive?
For exactly the same reason that an alternator for an airplane costs $300
(US), where the same alternator for a car costs < $100. When a failure will
cost a person's life, the system has to make sure the people responsible get
it right.
> Why can't we cut down the costs?
See above.
> If it needs to be as expensive as it is, does that mean those
> sentenced to LWOP are getting shortchanged (ie, that many
> more "innocents" are being convicted and/or not getting the
> same amount of appeals)?
When did you ever hear of someone sentenced to life litigating over a "stay"
of imprisonment (in the US.) Capital punishment simply involves areas of
expensive litigation (the super-due-process required by Furman and Gregg,
the separate "penalty phase", etc), which life sentences (with or without
parole) do not.
> And besides, like you said, so what if it costs a little more to put
> a vicious murderer to sleep?
Fine. Concede the point, and have done with it. But if you consider capital
trials and appeals a good use of money whatever they cost, why continue to
raise empty objections to the evidence that they do, indeed, cost more?
John Rennie
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
news:8cb86b49.02020...@posting.google.com...
receive when they commit a murder that would be regarded as a capital
offence in America. It is perfectly reasonable to cite UK experience
on this ng as it deals with the experience of the DP worldwide unlike
Kooli's perennial contention that it only deals with the DP in the USA.
Murderers not serving LWOP in the UK DO escape and have committed
further murders when have escaped - they then serve LWOP. As
499 murderers out of 500 avoid the DP in America and as many of these
avoid LWOP and the extra restrictions that come with LWOP, there
will always be escaped murderers and murders committed by them.
In passing may I ask you Richard whether you consider that there
should be more executions in America or whether you think sentences
for murderers in general should be longer than they are with more
LWOP sentences?
Benny Deeni
> Le Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:12:40 -0500, Benny Deeni <natsa...@excite.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> >> I agree, you are. As someone who thinks that the DP is a good thing,
> >> >> but the current criminal justice system is too unreliable to be able
> >> >> to use it, I cannot see a place for the DP. I think it has its
place,
> >> >> but the chance of getting the wrong person is too great.
>
> >> > On what are you basing this opinion? How many truly innocent (ie,
had
> >> > nothing to do with the crime) people do you think have been executed?
>
> >> How many does it take ?
>
> > How many undoubtedly innocent victims murdered by those sentenced to
life
> > imprisonment does it take?
>
> possibility of parole (LWOP) has yet been released to kill again, I'd
> hazard a guess that you don't have a point.
>
Typically dishonest response. I didn't specify LWOP. But now that
you brought it up, maybe you can tell the ng (since you are an expert)
how many LWOP sentences have been handed out in the US. I asked
your buddy Pat Crotty, another LWOP expert, and he had absolutely
no idea.
John Rennie
> Le Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:52:25 -0500, Benny Deeni <natsa...@excite.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> As to date, no person sentenced to life imprisonment without the
> >> possibility of parole (LWOP) has yet been released to kill again, I'd
> >> hazard a guess that you don't have a point.
>
> > Typically dishonest response.
>
>
> > I didn't specify LWOP.
>
> kill again, the obvious answer is to make the sentence life imprisonment
> without the possibility of parole.
>
> > But now that
> > you brought it up, maybe you can tell the ng (since you are an expert)
> > how many LWOP sentences have been handed out in the US. I asked
> > your buddy Pat Crotty, another LWOP expert, and he had absolutely
> > no idea.
>
>
> I do not know how many such sentences have been imposed. What I do know
> is that no one sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of
> parole, has been released.
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
There an argument here a few months back between Mark and PV about a
murderer sentenced to LWOP
who because Californians can't read English was in fact given parole and, of
course, murdered again. To
PV this of course demonstrated that compared to the DP, LWOP didn't work.
Mark effectively IMHO
argued that immediately the Californian twits gave the prisoner parole, the
LWOP sentence was cancelled
to mere life imprisonment. PV continued arguing until he disappeared up
his back passage where
he often ends up.
Benny Deeni
> Le Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:52:25 -0500, Benny Deeni <natsa...@excite.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> As to date, no person sentenced to life imprisonment without the
> >> possibility of parole (LWOP) has yet been released to kill again, I'd
> >> hazard a guess that you don't have a point.
>
> > Typically dishonest response.
>
>
>
> without the possibility of parole.
>
No, the "obvious answer" is the DP.
> > But now that
> > you brought it up, maybe you can tell the ng (since you are an expert)
> > how many LWOP sentences have been handed out in the US. I asked
> > your buddy Pat Crotty, another LWOP expert, and he had absolutely
> > no idea.
>
> Where did I claim to be an expert ?
For someone who is such a big proponent of LWOP, I would've thought
you were an expert. Seems like you are admitting your ignorance.
>
> I do not know how many such sentences have been imposed. What I do know
> is that no one sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of
> parole, has been released.
>
Sigh. No murderer sentenced to 50 years of standing on his head has gone
on to murder again either.
And murderers don't have to be released to murder again. Then again, you
don't seem to care about that.
John Rennie
Non Americans are not really experts on the American judicial system,
they merely appear to be so compared with the majority of
American posters. I can only cite the UK experience regarding
permanent life sentences. No one serving such a sentence has
escaped and no one serving such a sentence has murdered again
i.e. has murdered a fellow inmate. We don't have anything like
the amount of murders that America has but that is not because
we are a more placid people, it is because we don't have the
easy access to guns that the average America has.
EndlsRayne
>But in the UK they don't.
No one ever escapes from Stalag 13.
EndlsRayne
>This is exactly what
>happened with the famous "Texas Seven". Any ideas?
Exactly what happened. One of them (Michael Rodrigez) was serving a life
sentence for murder when they escaped ,and then they show up later killing a
cop.
Benny Deeni
"John Spragge" <john.s...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9wR68.40857$9y2.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Benny Deeni" <natsa...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:75a18ce5.02013...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Besides, it is certainly not as clear as DP opponents claim that the DP
> > is "more expensive" than LWOP.
>
> To put it mildly, I've heard this refrain before. Benny/natsam has
> frequently made the same argument, that somehow the argument for the
higher
> cost of capital punishment lacks "clarity", despite the multitudes of
> published studies, all of which reach the same conclusion: it costs more
to
> execute an offender than it does to lock them up for life.
This is silly. Your response actually backs up my point about the confusion
wrt the DP vs. LWOP cost issue.
>
> Since I've already answered (and answered, and answered, and answered...)
> this one, I'll take the liberty of reposting a previous comment which
> addressed this exact issue.
Illogical rhetoric. Repeating faulty reasoning (over and over and over...)
doesn't make it any less faulty.
>
> -- start of repost --
>
> The lowest estimates for the cost of a capital trial available, published
in
> Georgia, place the cost of an "average" capital trial at $120,000, $50,000
> more than the cost of a "life" trial.
Sounds like you are saying the DP, in Georgia, is a whole lot cheaper than
"life"!!!!
Fifty thousand dollars is probably about what it costs to support a murderer
in a high security prison, so I'm not sure why the heck you are using this
as an
example.
> Obviously, this average does not cover
> the entire United States; California just spent $11 million convicting
> Charles Ng. To average a $50,000 incremental cost with just one $11
million
> capital trial, the government would have to get 200 capital trials free.
More dishonesty. Using one very extreme case is bullshit, and you know it.
Surely if you do enough research you can come up with a "life" trial that
was extreme and cost a whole lot more than the average.
>
> Taking the estimate published in the recent Atlantic Monthly article "The
> Wrong Man", that juries only
> impose a death sentences in one out of eight cases where they have it as
an
> option, each death sentence
> would require eight capital trials, pushing the cost to $400,000 for a
death
> sentence.
>
I disgree with this reasoning. Giving a jury a choice between two
punishments, but
then attributing the cost to only one of the punihsments is nonsense. You
can just
as easily attribute the cost to life sentences. Simply put, if life
sentences were abolished,
this "extra cost" would not exist either.
> But the higher courts allow only about 20% of death sentences to proceed
to
> an execution, so the total
> incremental cost of an execution (not including death row housing and
> appellate costs) rises to $2 million.
>
> Assuming interest costs of 5%, amortised over a forty period of
> imprisonment, the payments on just the up front trial costs of a single
> execution come to $116,556 per year. The 1996 estimates for the average
> costs of imprisonment in a state prison come to $20,100 per year Please
see
> the bureau of justice statistics report:
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe96.pdf.
Now wait a second. We are talking about vicious murderers who require
maximum security. Doesn't that document only show the average imprisonment
cost of ALL criminals? If that's the case, you are either being dishonest
or sloppy?
And what about inflation? And what about trial costs saved due to plea
bargains
(ie, prisoners pleading guilty to avoid a death sentence?)
>
> So even allowing the lowest possible estimates for the cost of capital
> trials, the actual cost of capital punishment exceeds the cost of
> imprisonment when we allow for the added expense of spending the large
cost
> of a capital trial "up front".
>
> -- end of repost --
>
> > And if it is more expensive, then why is it more expensive?
>
> For exactly the same reason that an alternator for an airplane costs $300
> (US), where the same alternator for a car costs < $100. When a failure
will
> cost a person's life, the system has to make sure the people responsible
get
> it right.
>
So what you are saying is that there must be a higher percentage of those
sentenced to LWOP that are innocent. Does that not bother you? Surely
many of those innocents will die in prison.
> > Why can't we cut down the costs?
>
> See above.
>
> > If it needs to be as expensive as it is, does that mean those
> > sentenced to LWOP are getting shortchanged (ie, that many
> > more "innocents" are being convicted and/or not getting the
> > same amount of appeals)?
>
> When did you ever hear of someone sentenced to life litigating over a
"stay"
> of imprisonment (in the US.) Capital punishment simply involves areas of
> expensive litigation (the super-due-process required by Furman and Gregg,
> the separate "penalty phase", etc), which life sentences (with or without
> parole) do not.
>
> > And besides, like you said, so what if it costs a little more to put
> > a vicious murderer to sleep?
>
> Fine. Concede the point, and have done with it. But if you consider
capital
> trials and appeals a good use of money whatever they cost, why continue to
> raise empty objections to the evidence that they do, indeed, cost more?
Because my objections are valid. I will not concede anything until those
who
claim the DP costs more make a valid and honest attempt to prove it. You
have not done so.
>
>
Benny Deeni
Well, if you (abolitionists) are going to tell us how to change our judicial
system, I
would suggest you become experts. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.
> they merely appear to be so compared with the majority of
> American posters. I can only cite the UK experience regarding
> permanent life sentences. No one serving such a sentence has
> escaped and no one serving such a sentence has murdered again
> i.e. has murdered a fellow inmate.
That's great, I am sincerely happy about that. But again you are hedging
around the issue. When you say "such a sentence", what does that mean?
How many "such" sentences have been handed out? How many murderers
do you have over there?
Then again, maybe none have murdered again because your judicial system
is corrupt and incompetent, and thus convicts innocent people and never
corrects the mistakes via appeal. (Yes, I am being sarcastic, but to prove
a point.)
> We don't have anything like
> the amount of murders that America has
Well, I guess you just answered my last question. We have more murderers
(for whatever reason), so comparisons to other countries are not very
useful.
> but that is not because
> we are a more placid people, it is because we don't have the
> easy access to guns that the average America has.
>
Well, this could be debated til the cows come home. I disagree with you,
but this is not a gun control forum...
John Spragge
> Sounds like you are saying the DP, in Georgia, is a whole lot cheaper than
> "life"!!!!
No. Pay attention.
> Fifty thousand dollars is probably about what it costs to support a
murderer
> in a high security prison, so I'm not sure why the heck you are using this
> as an example.
Because a capital trial does not mean an execution. It takes eight capital
trials to get one death sentence, and five death sentences to get one
execution. That means it takes forty capital trials, at an incremental cost
of $50,000 over and above a standard murder trail with a life sentence, to
execute just one offender. That puts the cost of all the trials required for
that one execution at $2,000,000.
> Using one very extreme case is bullshit...
Possibly, but citing one extreme case to show that the average cost has to
run higher makes prefect sense. Right now, California has about 600 inmates
on death row. If just one cost California $11,000,000 to put there, then the
average cost would run over 68,000, even if all the other capital trials
cost no more than the Georgia figure.
> Surely if you do enough research you can come up with a "life" trial that
> was extreme and cost a whole lot more than the average.
Go ahead. Do the research. If you think you can come up with a cogent
argument backed by solid facts and research, feel free. Just don't try to
pick silly holes in the very solid evidence that, no matter how you slice
it, capital punishment costs far more than imprisonment, then convince
yourself you've muddied the waters enough to render the whole issue
"unclear". You haven't.
> I disgree with this reasoning. Giving a jury a choice between two
> punishments, but then attributing the cost to only one of the
> punihsments is nonsense.
A capital trial costs more than a trial for murder where the defendant can
only get life. The additional costs arises from a whole slew of procedures
mandated by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions. In a capital trial,
the process reuires additional (expensive) safeguards. In a capital trial,
you need a separate "sentencing trial", or penalty phase. Death sentences,
and only death sentences, require this kind of super-due-process.
[ on the cost of housing for murderers ]
> Now wait a second. We are talking about vicious murderers who require
> maximum security. Doesn't that document only show the average
imprisonment
> cost of ALL criminals?
It does. And for much of their imprisonment, lifers don't require much
heavier security than other offenders. If they do, it only boosts the costs
to $40,000 or at most $50,000 per year; a far cry from the $2,000,000 an
execution will set you back.
> And what about inflation? And what about trial costs saved due to plea
> bargains (ie, prisoners pleading guilty to avoid a death sentence?)
Inflation has no relevance, since interest rates (and investment yields, and
taxes) simply go up with inflation. As for the supposed savings raised by
plea bargains; again, you have't provided a scintilla of evidence. Come up
with the number of plea bargains that required the threat of a death
sentence, or even a credible estimate, and we'll have something to talk
about.
> So what you are saying is that there must be a higher percentage of those
> sentenced to LWOP that are innocent.
Experience doesn't reflect that. Some of the highest recorded rates of error
in the justice system involve capital cases.
John Rennie
snipped.
>
> > but that is not because
> > we are a more placid people, it is because we don't have the
> > easy access to guns that the average America has.
> >
>
> Well, this could be debated til the cows come home. I disagree with you,
> but this is not a gun control forum...
I am not that certain as to which clause in my sentence you disagree with.
That we are not a more placid people or we don't have easy access to guns.
Perhaps you think we DO have easy access to guns or maybe you think that the
fact that some fifty murders a day in America compared with two a day in the
UK (a ratio of 6 to 1 per capita) has nothing to do with guns. But surely
you cannot be that silly! This may not be a gun forum but many
retentionists believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to
murder. A much more effective deterrent would be far stricter controls on
hand guns.
Dave Proctor
<pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:
>I don't recall that argument, not surprisingly as I wasn't subscribed to
>this newsgroup a couple of months ago, but I do recall something similar,
>before February 2001. I believe if was Dave Proctor (if I'm mistaken, I'm
>sure he'll forgive me), who argued that 'LWOP' does not, in fact exist,
>because some murderers have their sentences 'changed' to simple life
>imprisonment.
Nope, not me. Your penalty for assuming that I would make such a huge
error of logic is to buy me a beer next week.
I said that LWOP does not mean that someone will not be released,
since a decision may be made by the executive to commute the sentence.
This cannot happen where I live, since the law providing for life
imprisonment requires a referendum (and we have compulsory voting) in
order to change it - so anyone sentenced to "life" under the new law
will leave custody in a pine box.
This is a better safeguard than exists in the United States and other
jurisdictions, where those sentenced to LWOP *may* be released in the
future. It hasn't happened yet, but who knows what may happen to
someone aged in their eighties sentenced to LWOP as an 18yo?
>I argued (effectively IMHO ;-)) that by the same logic, the death penalty
>does not exist, because some condemned prisoners are pardoned or have
>their sentences commuted ...
See above.
Dave
Dave Proctor
<pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:
>Le Sat, 2 Feb 2002 14:38:11 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> And murderers don't have to be released to murder again. Then again, you
>>> don't seem to care about that.
>
>> Non Americans are not really experts on the American judicial system,
>> they merely appear to be so compared with the majority of
>> American posters.
>
>Heh ...
>
>> I can only cite the UK experience regarding
>> permanent life sentences. No one serving such a sentence has
>> escaped and no one serving such a sentence has murdered again
>> i.e. has murdered a fellow inmate. We don't have anything like
>> the amount of murders that America has but that is not because
>> we are a more placid people, it is because we don't have the
>> easy access to guns that the average America has.
>
>It is the same here in France. Escapes make the news because a) they're
>so daring (some bloke managed to hijack a helicopter and pluck his friend
>from the exercise yard, but AFAIK, he wasn't in gaol for murder. Earl
>and/or Donna will be able to confirm this when they get back), and b) so
>rare.
Are you sure that was in France? We had an identical one at a remand
centre in Sydney.
Dave
Richard Jackson
Stop right there. First of all, LWOP murderers in the state which use
LWOP simply are in maximum security prisons. Unless a prisoner is in
the ultramaximum security of ad seg his life in max security will be
pretty much the same as other prisoners in the same prison for lesser
charges.
Your statement that murderers DO excape and murder again in the UK
only supports my reason for the death penalty for those who are judged
a danger to murder again. Why should a murderer who is a danger to do
this ever have the chance to begin with. What you are saying is that
you only put them away for life after the kill yet ANOTHER innocent
victim or victims. If I lost a loved one killed by someone released
or excaped from a previous murder, i would be not only looking for the
murderer's hide, but those who made it possible for him to kill again.
> In passing may I ask you Richard whether you consider that there
> should be more executions in America or whether you think sentences
> for murderers in general should be longer than they are with more
> LWOP sentences?
I've never made it secret that I not only support the death penalty
for some murderers, but for serial rapists and serial child molestors
as well. I have no problem with commuting all capital murderers to
LWOP as long as the death penalty is kept for those who are legally
proven to murder a second time either excaping or while in prison. As
far as the "lesser" charges of felony murder, manslaughter, etc., I
have no problems with the laws as they stand.
I do think, however, that we need to do a better job fo re-educating,
counseling, and training those in prison, and a much better job of
screening those we seek to parole to determine if they truely have
been rehabilitated or will likely continue their criminal careers.
Dave Proctor
>Your statement that murderers DO excape and murder again in the UK
>only supports my reason for the death penalty for those who are judged
>a danger to murder again.
No it doesn't. John clearly said that those sentenced to life - with a
life tariff (i.e. never to be released) for crimes which would be
capital offences in the US - have not escaped and killed again.
Those who have escaped and killed again have committed crimes which
would not have attracted a death or LWOP sentence if committed in DP
jurisdictions in the US.
So there is really no difference there. The DP - if introduced in the
UK and practiced as it is in the US - would not have made any
difference at all.
Dave
John Rennie
Totally concur with the above. Richard is not dim enough
not to have understood what I said and what was meant -
perhaps bias blinded him on this occasion?
JIGSAW1695
From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@noos.fr
Date: 2/2/02 1:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <slrna5oca7.2u2.p...@tortue.voute.net>
Le Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:26:28 -0500, Benny Deeni <natsa...@excite.com> a écrit
:
{ snip }
> Then again, maybe none have murdered again because your judicial system
> is corrupt and incompetent, and thus convicts innocent people and never
> corrects the mistakes via appeal. (Yes, I am being sarcastic, but to prove
> a point.)
No you're not; you're being silly, and if you had the brains you were born
with, you'd have realised that you're way out of your depth in this
newsgroup. Did you bother to lurk before posting ? You're up against
people who have been debating this issue for many long years, who have
heard it all before, and who have made a habit of chewing people like you
up for breakfast, and spitting out the bones.
If you stay in this newsgroup, you'd better improve your debating
techniques, or you're going to ger hurt.
{ snip }
--
===============================
"ger hurt"???? Spelling Patrolman Rennie, Do your duty.
Benny Deeni
> Le Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:26:28 -0500, Benny Deeni <natsa...@excite.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Then again, maybe none have murdered again because your judicial system
> > is corrupt and incompetent, and thus convicts innocent people and never
> > corrects the mistakes via appeal. (Yes, I am being sarcastic, but to
prove
> > a point.)
>
> with, you'd have realised that you're way out of your depth in this
> newsgroup. Did you bother to lurk before posting ? You're up against
> people who have been debating this issue for many long years, who have
> heard it all before, and who have made a habit of chewing people like you
> up for breakfast, and spitting out the bones.
>
> If you stay in this newsgroup, you'd better improve your debating
> techniques, or you're going to ger hurt.
>
You're an idiot Desmond, just like you were years ago when I "chewed" up and
spit out your nonsense. You don't even have enough brains to figure out
that
I used to regularly participate in this newsgroup. The fact is that most
retentionists
quit posting here because they grow tired of your constant illogic,
hypocrisy and
avoidance of issues/questions presented to you. It's more interesting to
debate with
a wall.
Benny Deeni
> Le Sat, 02 Feb 2002 18:41:02 GMT, Dave Proctor
<da...@spambait.proctor.net> a écrit :
>
> >>I don't recall that argument, not surprisingly as I wasn't subscribed to
> >>this newsgroup a couple of months ago, but I do recall something
similar,
> >>before February 2001. I believe if was Dave Proctor (if I'm mistaken,
I'm
> >>sure he'll forgive me), who argued that 'LWOP' does not, in fact exist,
> >>because some murderers have their sentences 'changed' to simple life
> >>imprisonment.
>
> > Nope, not me.
>
Is this proof of your supposed newsgroup savvy?
JIGSAW1695
From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@noos.fr
Message-id: <slrna5ok64.3dn.p...@tortue.voute.net>
Le 02 Feb 2002 19:57:38 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
{ snip }
> If you stay in this newsgroup, you'd better improve your debating
> techniques, or you're going to ger hurt.
>-- jigsaw's invisible post goes here --<
John's not a 'typo cop' (or whatever the term was), Jigsaw ...
===============================
Still suffering from short-term memory loss Desi?
A Planet Visitor
"Spot" <dalmatio...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020130201156...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> >From: natsa...@excite.com (Benny Deeni)
> >Date: 1/30/2002 1:46 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <75a18ce5.02013...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) wrote in message
> >news:<20020130091549...@mb-fv.aol.com>...
> >> dalmatio...@aol.com (Spot) writes:
> >>
> >> > There were five gang members, all of whom are facing capital charges for
> >> >this one murder.
> >>
> >> Actually there were 7 but 1 committed suicide when they were caught.
> >>
> >> > Two have already been sentenced to die, with every
> >> >expectation
> >> >that all the others will meet the same fate.
> >>
> >> good.
> >>
> >> >With death sentences costing
> >> >something like several million dollars to carry out - each - that means
> >> >avenging this one murder will cost the taxpayers between 10 and 15 million
> >> >dollars.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Would you rather they give it to Enron? Government throws money away all
> >the
> >> time, at least there will be some benefit to the public from this. I think
> >the
> >> fact that they escaped is going to fry them all, and rightfully so. People
> >like
> >> this are what the DP is for.
> >
> >
> >Many DP opponents, and "liberals" in general, only seem to care about
> >money when it is being used for something with which they oppose in theory.
>
>
> How very different from conservatives, who always scream "WASTE!" when it
> comes to financing health care for the poor or early reading programs, but
when
> it comes to killing people no expense is too great.
>
Aren't there ANY 'left-wingers' in the liberal ranks? Is every liberal,
in the 'main stream'? Isn't Jesse Jackson, and a large contingent of
Congress 'left-wing'? Isn't NOW 'left-wing'? Why is it that 'liberals'
believe everything that is GOOD is liberal, and everything that is BAD
is conservative? Doesn't that, in itself, speak to an agenda which is
badly flawed and biased? I certainly don't think the 'liberals' are
involved in a great conspiracy, but most liberals certainly think that
of conservative principles. It seems to me, that avoids the issues.
Clearly, the DP cannot BE about money, if we wish to attach a
morality to the issue (which I certainly do). But I am continually
amazed at liberals who believe that giving MORE of their money to
the government, will somehow make their life better. How can they
BE so stupid?
>
> >Besides, it is certainly not as clear as DP opponents claim that the DP
> >is it more expensive? Why can't we cut down the costs? If it needs to
> >be as expensive as it is, does that mean those sentenced to LWOP are getting
> >shortchanged (ie, that many more "innocents" are being convicted and/or not
> >getting the same amount of appeals)?
>
>
> cure for innocents getting convicted even as they complain about "frivilous"
> appeals and the "bureaucratic" court system.
>
Whatever are you talking about? There is no paradox to the idea that
IF it is more expensive, it comes at the expense of an elevated due
process. If YOU wish to save money, by eliminating the DP, it is
due process that MUST suffer. He was simply pointing out this very
simple observation, which you somehow missed.
> >
> >And besides, like you said, so what if it costs a little more to put
> >a vicious murderer to sleep?
>
>
> Whatever you say, Benny.
>
You'll not get any disagreement from me, that you cannot put a price
on morality, even though you seem to believe we can.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> > Le 31 Jan 2002 14:08:50 -0800, Benny Deeni <natsa...@excite.com> a
> écrit :
> >
> > { snip }
> >
> > >> I agree, you are. As someone who thinks that the DP is a good thing,
> > >> but the current criminal justice system is too unreliable to be able
> > >> to use it, I cannot see a place for the DP. I think it has its place,
> > >> but the chance of getting the wrong person is too great.
> >
> > > On what are you basing this opinion? How many truly innocent (ie, had
> > > nothing to do with the crime) people do you think have been executed?
> >
> > How many does it take ?
> >
>
> How many undoubtedly innocent victims murdered by those sentenced to life
> imprisonment does it take?
>
use of the DP, according to Desmond. "The dead cannot
be honored," I believe were his words. If every murderer
sentenced to L wop committed 10 new murders each, he
would NEVER agree that ANY of them should now be
executed. He would, strangely enough, blame in on 'society.'
And a decadent U.S. justice system that sentenced them to
L wop which caused them sufficient anguish that they simply
rose up in 'rightous' rebellion against that society.
Right, Desmond???
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le 30 Jan 2002 14:15:49 GMT, EndlsRayne <endls...@aol.combustion> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Would you rather they give it to Enron? Government throws money away all the
> > time, at least there will be some benefit to the public from this.
>
> brownie point, if you manage to avoid the use of the word, 'deserves' (or
> any of its related conjugations), if you stick to empirical evidence, and
> if you keep your monitor dry, and free from semen ...
>
Why should one be required to not use the word 'deserves' when
speaking of a murderer? Clearly you invoked 'God' to protect them
on their way to Mexico after having escaped from prison. You should
stay away from any thread that addresses this issue, Desmond,
having proven yourself to request a deity to protect an already proven
murderer, it would be reasonable for Don to return and refer to you as
a "ML."
PV
> { snip }
>
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
> Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
>
A Planet Visitor
> >From: endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne)
> >Date: 1/29/2002 11:00 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <20020129120017...@mb-mh.aol.com>
> >
> >good riddance, assuming they actually carry the sentence out .....
> >
> >http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/01/28/crime.jailbreak.reut/index.html
> >
> >DALLAS, Texas (Reuters) -- The second member of a Texas jailbreak gang to go
> >on
> >trial for killing a policeman was sentenced Monday to die by lethal injection
> >for gunning down a suburban Dallas officer during a robbery on Christmas Eve
> >2000.
> >
> >Donald Newbury, 39, showed no reaction as the jury rendered the sentence
> >after
> >about two hours of deliberations. The same jury convicted Newbury on January
> >18
> >of capital murder.
> >
> >The jury could also have sentenced Newbury to life in prison for firing his
> >gun
> >at policeman Aubrey Hawkins. Hawkins walked into a hail of bullets and was
> >hit
> >11 times as the gang fled a sporting goods store in Irving, Texas, after
> >robbing it.
> >
> >Prosecutors argued that Newbury's history of convictions for armed robberies
> >in
> >the 1980s and 1990s proved he would continue to pose a danger to society if
> >allowed to live.
>
>
> There were five gang members, all of whom are facing capital charges for
expectation
> that all the others will meet the same fate. With death sentences costing
> something like several million dollars to carry out - each - that means
> avenging this one murder will cost the taxpayers between 10 and 15 million
> dollars.
>
>
When it comes to morality... money is no object. Unless you
believe one CAN put a price on morality.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le 02 Feb 2002 11:42:18 GMT, EndlsRayne <endls...@aol.combustion> a écrit :
>
> >>As to date, no person sentenced to life imprisonment without the
> >>possibility of parole (LWOP) has yet been released to kill again, I'd
> >>hazard a guess that you don't have a point.
>
> > But they can escape.
>
>
But execution IS 'adequate security measures.' What's your
problem aside from 'adequate security measures'?
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:12:40 -0500, Benny Deeni <natsa...@excite.com> a
écrit :
>
>> As to date, no person sentenced to life imprisonment without the
> possibility of parole (LWOP) has yet been released to kill again, I'd
> hazard a guess that you don't have a point.
>
A Planet Visitor
SENTENCED to L wop. It means a 'parole board' in a case
where a sentence was 'without parole,' decided to CHANGE
that sentence to WITH parole. And then he WAS paroled.
And immediately murdered again. Do not tell me that this
was NOT a FAILURE of L wop, because it was. You know
it, I know it, and Mark knew it. It disgusts me, that on such
a trivial point -- one man -- one time -- I find deception in
every word you utter. And accompanied by some rather
personal unflattering commentary, hoping to bolster your
argument, since you recognize it has very weak underpins.
Clearly, if you returned to the thread, you'd see that
arguments contrary to FACT, such as presented by Mark
in that PARTICULAR case, are ALWAYS insubstantial.
I presented FACT.
What is with the current mindset of most abolitionists here,
in their inability to admit even ONE flaw. Shit -- I admit
we can execute an innocent -- whatever is the MATTER with
you people lately??? You've all gone bananas since 911.
Clearly it's the perception that liberals are losing their grip,
and need to depend on claiming FLAWLESS approaches,
which we ALL realize is just so much baloney. Fess up
to the possibilities, as I do. Apparently, you believe your
arguments are no longer seen as doable, unless you can
claim they are also flawless in the doing. Argue the merits
without depending on a presumed 'virgin birth' having to
accompany your every view.
PV
EndlsRayne
>If my memory serves me correctly, the alternative to a death sentence in
>Texas, is a maximum of 40 years in gaol. Texas does not have 'LWOP', and
>so the 'Texas Seven' could not have been sentenced to life imprisonment
>without the possibility of parole. Your 'point' thus fails.
Why would someone having 'without parole' added to their sentence suddenly
keep them from trying, or being able to escape? Maybe the Judge's name is
Merlin and he hangs a goatskull on their cell door?
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:aJ478.196477$_w.31...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
I am typing this slowly etc. etc. A sentence of LWOP
is a sentence where the prisoner so sentenced dies
in prison. If he is paroled then he did not serve a
LWOP sentence. It takes Americans to fuck up
a perfectly understandable sentence. Only they
could do it and only you could still contend that
he still served an LWOP sentence. You didn't make
sense when you argued with Mark and you don't
make sense now.
John Rennie
> Le Sun, 03 Feb 2002 01:28:30 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> How many undoubtedly innocent victims murdered by those sentenced to
life
> >> imprisonment does it take?
>
> > Please... 'victims' are no longer part of the equation, in the
> > use of the DP, according to Desmond. "The dead cannot
> > be honored," I believe were his words. If every murderer
> > sentenced to L wop committed 10 new murders each, he
> > would NEVER agree that ANY of them should now be
> > executed. He would, strangely enough, blame in on 'society.'
> > And a decadent U.S. justice system that sentenced them to
> > L wop which caused them sufficient anguish that they simply
> > rose up in 'rightous' rebellion against that society.
> >
> > Right, Desmond???
>
> as a 'stick' with which to beat me, you're wasting your virtual 'breath'.
> I stand by my statement. Given the choice between having a vicious
> murderer locked away in a cell, or free, I plump for the cell every time.
> However, if the choice is between execution, and freedom ... well, no
> contest, I'm afraid.
>
> PS You forgot to mention my 'side of beef' post.
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
Don't be annoyed but you have taken me by surprise.
John Rennie
Perhaps Kenneth Lay could answer that question?
John Rennie
> Le Sun, 3 Feb 2002 14:58:08 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> If by continuously rehashing this one, PV, you're somehow hoping to use
it
> >> as a 'stick' with which to beat me, you're wasting your virtual
'breath'.
> >> I stand by my statement. Given the choice between having a vicious
> >> murderer locked away in a cell, or free, I plump for the cell every
time.
> >> However, if the choice is between execution, and freedom ... well, no
> >> contest, I'm afraid.
> >>
> >> PS You forgot to mention my 'side of beef' post.
>
>
> an unpleasant one ..?
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
I had assumed from the infamous remark you made
about the Texas escapees, that given the choice of
giving freedom to a vicious murderer and executing
him you would have let him go free. I am I right
that you still feel this way or does the above mean
you have changed your mind?
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 2 Feb 2002 14:26:36 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > There an argument here a few months back between Mark and PV about a
> > murderer sentenced to LWOP
> > who because Californians can't read English was in fact given parole and, of
> > course, murdered again. To
> > PV this of course demonstrated that compared to the DP, LWOP didn't work.
> > Mark effectively IMHO
> > argued that immediately the Californian twits gave the prisoner parole, the
> > LWOP sentence was cancelled
> > to mere life imprisonment. PV continued arguing until he disappeared up
> > his back passage where
> > he often ends up.
>
> this newsgroup a couple of months ago, but I do recall something similar,
> before February 2001. I believe if was Dave Proctor (if I'm mistaken, I'm
> sure he'll forgive me), who argued that 'LWOP' does not, in fact exist,
> because some murderers have their sentences 'changed' to simple life
> imprisonment.
>
> does not exist, because some condemned prisoners are pardoned or have
> their sentences commuted ...
>
exist as well, because some never contract it. Cheee.... the
logic here has become appalling.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Feb 2002 01:28:30 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> imprisonment does it take?
>
> > Please... 'victims' are no longer part of the equation, in the
> > use of the DP, according to Desmond. "The dead cannot
> > be honored," I believe were his words. If every murderer
> > sentenced to L wop committed 10 new murders each, he
> > would NEVER agree that ANY of them should now be
> > executed. He would, strangely enough, blame in on 'society.'
> > And a decadent U.S. justice system that sentenced them to
> > L wop which caused them sufficient anguish that they simply
> > rose up in 'rightous' rebellion against that society.
> >
> > Right, Desmond???
>
> as a 'stick' with which to beat me, you're wasting your virtual 'breath'.
> I stand by my statement. Given the choice between having a vicious
> murderer locked away in a cell, or free, I plump for the cell every time.
> However, if the choice is between execution, and freedom ... well, no
> contest, I'm afraid.
>
"I Stand by my statement," doesn't make you look more
clever, Desmond. You could well deny the existence of
tombstones, but they are THERE. They rather PROVE that
'the dead CAN be honored.' Which is a direct contradiction
to your claim. It would be much more simple and even more
'clever' on your part, to simply say you misspoke, and move
on, so no one could use it as a 'stick' to beat you. Having
not done so, I find it a VERY convenient 'stick' to use, while
you simply make that 'stick' a bit larger, when you say "I
stand by my statement." You continually harp on Jigsaw's
claim concerning some silly county name, yet you now
admit to the same practice yourself.
PV
> PS You forgot to mention my 'side of beef' post.
>
> --
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Feb 2002 05:57:25 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> >>> As to date, no person sentenced to life imprisonment without the
> >> possibility of parole (LWOP) has yet been released to kill again, I'd
> >> hazard a guess that you don't have a point.
>
> > Ummmm.... Melvin Geary!!!!
>
> your part, is going to change that.
>
No amount of 'denial' will change FACTS, Desmond. As
much as those who claim a 'virgin birth' exists in L wop.
The FLAW was there. That oh-so-tiny crack that causes
consternation among L wop advocates. And it amazes me
(well, actually - nothing amazes me concerning many of
the current crop of abolitionists) that this almost insignificant
flaw, can result in lies, and distortion of the truth by
abolitionists obsessed with their presumed 'purity' of L wop.
If someone is SENTENCED to L wop, (and Geary CERTAINLY
WAS), but is somehow RELEASED, through ANY means,
isn't that a flaw in the system which APPLIES such a
sentence? But of course it is... you just wish it wasn't,
and you will even engage in one-line insults to claim it wasn't.
L wop, as a CONCEPT, assuming it achieves perfection, is
every bit as successful as the DP. The point is that the
CONCEPT is not possessed of the finality which the DP
enjoys. ONCE executed, there can BE no change of
sentence. L wop supporters see this as a FLAW in the
DP, because they continually harp on the slim possibility
of an innocent executed -- because that's ALL they have to
go on. I see it rather as a FLAW in L wop (in addition to the
morality aspects which are fairly obvious to those wishing
to open their morality eyes). A sentence of L wop will
ALWAYS permit the possibility of the release of a GUILTY
murderer as well... to possibly murder again. Melvin
Geary was one such case.
A Planet Visitor
with morality in our criminal justice system, and the
'monetary cost' of execution of a proven murderer? Certainly,
if Kenneth Lay broke the law, and I believe he most
certainly did, regardless of his being 'innocent' in LAW
unless convicted -- HE put a price on his own morality. He
believed one COULD put such a price. So do all those
who commit crimes of ANY sort. In effect, they are placing
a price on their own morality.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> a perfectly understandable sentence. Only they
> could do it and only you could still contend that
> he still served an LWOP sentence. You didn't make
> sense when you argued with Mark and you don't
> make sense now.
>
A sentence of the DP is where the murderer is
executed and dies... period. If he does not, he did
not serve a DP sentence. Therefore, ANY presumed
flaw, which permits a murderer sentenced to the DP,
to NOT be executed, is not a flaw in the DP.
But wait...
isn't that counter to the argument of John Spragge,
in respect to Mcduff, that you claimed was so concise
on his part? Which point are you taking today???
Because it seems as if your arguments fluctuate
in logic from moment to moment in comparing the DP to
L wop.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Feb 2002 06:25:10 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > What does all that mean??
>
> of your arse, whilst your head forces its way further and further up your
> rectum. As usual.
>
Translation -- "I have no responsible means to answer your
argument... so I'll take my cue from dirt, and simply respond
with a meaningless driveling insult which has no connection
whatsoever to anything except my own stupidity"
PV
> { snip }
>
>
> --
John Rennie
> Le Sun, 3 Feb 2002 16:18:59 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > Don't be annoyed but you have taken me by surprise.
>
> >> If I'm likely to be annoyed, then I can only assume that the surprise
was
> >> an unpleasant one ..?
>
> > about the Texas escapees, that given the choice of
> > giving freedom to a vicious murderer and executing
> > him you would have let him go free. I am I right
> > that you still feel this way or does the above mean
> > you have changed your mind?
>
> cannot, and never will agree to his execution. If the _only_ choice is
> death, or freedom, then it has to be freedom.
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
I'll give you one more chance. Theodore Frank is about
to be executed - you can set him free. Do you?
John Rennie
> Le Sun, 03 Feb 2002 17:11:54 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> If by continuously rehashing this one, PV, you're somehow hoping to use
it
> >> as a 'stick' with which to beat me, you're wasting your virtual
'breath'.
> >> I stand by my statement. Given the choice between having a vicious
> >> murderer locked away in a cell, or free, I plump for the cell every
time.
> >> However, if the choice is between execution, and freedom ... well, no
> >> contest, I'm afraid.
>
> > "I Stand by my statement," doesn't make you look more
> > clever, Desmond. You could well deny the existence of
> > tombstones, but they are THERE. They rather PROVE that
> > 'the dead CAN be honored.' Which is a direct contradiction
> > to your claim. It would be much more simple and even more
> > 'clever' on your part, to simply say you misspoke, and move
> > on, so no one could use it as a 'stick' to beat you.
>
> change that, PV.
>
> > Having
> > not done so, I find it a VERY convenient 'stick' to use,
>
>
> > while
> > you simply make that 'stick' a bit larger, when you say "I
> > stand by my statement." You continually harp on Jigsaw's
> > claim concerning some silly county name, yet you now
> > admit to the same practice yourself.
>
> you can't see that, then I'm hardly surprised that Earl and Donna took
> such pleasure from tormenting you, and watching you squirm. Oh that's
> right: you 'spanked' them, as well, didn't you ? ROTFLMAO !!!
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
They didn't do any such thing. Donna kept out of the fray,
she is too sensible to do otherwise. Earl was IMHO
humiliated a couple of times by PV. I wish that it was
not so but it was.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 3 Feb 2002 16:18:59 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > Don't be annoyed but you have taken me by surprise.
>
> >> If I'm likely to be annoyed, then I can only assume that the surprise was
> >> an unpleasant one ..?
>
> > about the Texas escapees, that given the choice of
> > giving freedom to a vicious murderer and executing
> > him you would have let him go free. I am I right
> > that you still feel this way or does the above mean
> > you have changed your mind?
>
> cannot, and never will agree to his execution. If the _only_ choice is
> death, or freedom, then it has to be freedom.
>
Need I mention how helpful you are to the cause of the DP?
It would take an absolute fruitcake to agree with you.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Feb 2002 17:01:58 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> I argued (effectively IMHO ;-)) that by the same logic, the death penalty
> >> does not exist, because some condemned prisoners are pardoned or have
> >> their sentences commuted ...
>
> > One could presume from your 'argument,' that cancer doesn't
> > exist as well, because some never contract it.
>
> you just following Jigsaw's example, and taking sufficient drugs, to
> render your reading comprehension skills practically non-existent ?
>
Huh??? You said you argued (effectively???) that the DP does
not exist It seems you claimed that 'anything' that didn't exist
to be the DP, as your argument.
> > Cheee.... the logic here has become appalling.
>
> What a pity that you don't appreciate the delicious irony of your own
> words.
>
Don't be absurd, Desmond... you've been caught with your
pants down, and you've been spank...spank...spanked by me,
quite thoroughly... give it up.
PV
> --
A Planet Visitor
off that last sentence, since it demonstrates some small
degree of bias in your view of the arguments between
Earl and my good self. :-)
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Feb 2002 17:11:54 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> If by continuously rehashing this one, PV, you're somehow hoping to use it
> >> as a 'stick' with which to beat me, you're wasting your virtual 'breath'.
> >> I stand by my statement. Given the choice between having a vicious
> >> murderer locked away in a cell, or free, I plump for the cell every time.
> >> However, if the choice is between execution, and freedom ... well, no
> >> contest, I'm afraid.
>
> > "I Stand by my statement," doesn't make you look more
> > clever, Desmond. You could well deny the existence of
> > tombstones, but they are THERE. They rather PROVE that
> > 'the dead CAN be honored.' Which is a direct contradiction
> > to your claim. It would be much more simple and even more
> > 'clever' on your part, to simply say you misspoke, and move
> > on, so no one could use it as a 'stick' to beat you.
>
> change that, PV.
>
> > Having
> > not done so, I find it a VERY convenient 'stick' to use,
>
> You wouldn't know how.
>
Seems it brought welts to YOUR backside.
> > while
> > you simply make that 'stick' a bit larger, when you say "I
> > stand by my statement." You continually harp on Jigsaw's
> > claim concerning some silly county name, yet you now
> > admit to the same practice yourself.
>
> The difference being that Jigsaw lied, whilst I have Right on my side. If
> you can't see that, then I'm hardly surprised that Earl and Donna took
> such pleasure from tormenting you, and watching you squirm. Oh that's
> right: you 'spanked' them, as well, didn't you ? ROTFLMAO !!!
>
You have 'RIGHT' on your side??? Don't be absurd. Your
'right' disagrees with EVERYONE'S perception of how they
'honor' THEIR dead. Just to be sure we are speaking of
your EXACT words, they were -- "The dead cannot be protected,
honoured, or have their rights protected." Now, ANY thinking
person realizes the absurdity of this phrasing. Do you think
a son spits on his Mother's grave (well, dirt might when that
happens)? They, and we, 'honor' the dead by eulogy and visits
to the cemetery and remembrances at anniversaries. We
hold ceremonies on certain days, and fly the flag at half-staff
in their HONOR when certain personages die. We award
posthumous medals for HONOR in bravery at war. We weep
at the passing of friends and relatives, honoring their previous
existence. And whether you care to believe it or not (since
it's entirely immaterial to me) we HONOR the victim of murder
in some respect, by pursuing their murderer, and punishing
them for their act if we find them. We expect our society to
HONOR us the same way as well, if we become a victim.
You've truly lost it here, Desmond. Your standing by your
statement, demonstrates you have your hand behind
your back, and your finger up your ass when you do.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Feb 2002 17:27:09 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> His sentence wasn't 'LWOP', and no amount of whingeing, and 10MB posts on
> >> your part, is going to change that.
>
> > No amount of 'denial' will change FACTS, Desmond.
>
> imprisonment without parole ('LWOP'). His sentence was subsequently
> changed to 'simple' life imprisonment. It is thus logically and
> linguistically nonsensical (and you'd know all about nonsense, posting it
> as frequently as you do) to claim that he 'served a "LWOP" sentence'. He
> didn't, and you can stamp your feet and refuse to accept correction from
> those of us fortunate enough to have learned British English. You're
> wrong now, and you always will be wrong.
>
Where did I ever say he 'served' L wop? I've said, and it
is accurate, he was 'sentenced' to L wop. In fact, look
at your words above, to see you AGREE with me.
Obviously, if someone 'served' L wop they are DEAD.
It is past tense. In that fine linguistically correct English
language that you seem to be unfamiliar with. Just as
someone 'served' the DP is dead as well. But EVERY
person now incarcerated under a 'penalty' of L wop, is
'serving' that sentence, and until they die we cannot
claim they have 'served' it. Just as we cannot say
someone sentenced to the DP has been administered
that penalty until it is CONCLUDED. Note the -ed
ending. So Geary NEVER 'served' L wop, but he certainly
was 'sentenced' to L wop (again, note the -ed ending -- it
was CONCLUDED as a SENTENCE, but not SERVED to
completion of that sentence), and had his sentence
CHANGED (again, note the -ed ending -- it was changed
AFTER the sentence but before the sentence was
served to completion) by a parole board to an alternate
sentence WHILE serving that sentence. It seems you and your
partners are beginning to stumble over your words, some
claiming he WAS 'sentenced' to L wop, and others claiming
he was not.
> { remainder of PV 'spanking' me snipped ... *snigger* ... }
>
I am reminded of someone trying to snatch defeat from
the jaws of defeat. You've done an excellent job.
PV
> --
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Feb 2002 18:09:30 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> > What does all that mean??
>
> >> It means that once again, your feet are the only parts left dangling out
> >> of your arse, whilst your head forces its way further and further up your
> >> rectum. As usual.
>
> > Translation --
>
> head forces its way further and further up your rectum.
Let me repeat my recognition of another example of what I
call the 'dirt syndrome' contained within your current post. I would
be less than candid to deny that dirt has often taken some good
shots, and has come across as having at the least made points.
But when lacking the ability to make such points, he generally falls
back on one or two line personal insults, usually in respect to the
poster's Mother in a sexual context. The problem is that other's
see that he has sometimes made his point, and try to connect
with that, not by taking a good shot at the argument, but
simply by insult, having no ability to take a good shot at the
argument. This is clearly demonstrated in your current post.
You have no answer, you have no rational argument, and you
have no point... thus, the necessity for you to employ 'the dirt
syndrome.' And even worse for you... dirt can be quite effective
at using his own syndrome, that is why he is often copied.
You however, have a deplorable lack of his instinct.
John Rennie
He was sentenced to LWOP, but he didn't serve it.
Does that satisfy you? And the reason that he
didn't serve it was down to human stupidity. There is
the remotest possibility that he could have been
sentenced to death. If John Spragge's figures
are right, it would have been a 500 to 1 chance.
You happen to agree that the DP should be used
even more sparingly than it is, so you have to agree
to even more LWOP sentences. It is up to you
and your fellow citizens to ensure that parole
are not concerned with these cases. Oh yes and
stop using my phraseology - you have quite enough
of your own :-)
John Rennie
seeing folks humiliated. (Unless I do it to them,
of course :-))
EndlsRayne
> A sentence of LWOP
>is a sentence where the prisoner so sentenced dies
>in prison. If he is paroled then he did not serve a
>LWOP sentence.
or he WAS SERVING a LWOP sentence , and an admisitrative error allowed him to
slip through the system.
John Rennie
> Le Sun, 3 Feb 2002 20:10:39 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> >> > Don't be annoyed but you have taken me by surprise.
>
> >> >> If I'm likely to be annoyed, then I can only assume that the
surprise
> > was
> >> >> an unpleasant one ..?
>
> >> > I had assumed from the infamous remark you made
> >> > about the Texas escapees, that given the choice of
> >> > giving freedom to a vicious murderer and executing
> >> > him you would have let him go free. I am I right
> >> > that you still feel this way or does the above mean
> >> > you have changed your mind?
>
> >> No. Setting a murderer free would give me no pleasure whatsoever, but
I
> >> cannot, and never will agree to his execution. If the _only_ choice is
> >> death, or freedom, then it has to be freedom.
>
> > to be executed - you can set him free. Do you?
>
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
You set him free to continue to horribly mutilate,
sexually defile and then kill small children?
You don't have children of your own, do you
Desmond? Not that you need to have children
not to know that your above answer places
you in an unsound position. But if you
had them, you wouldn't think twice. You
would pull the switch, use the syringe, operate
the trap door, fire the gun; you would do
whatever it would need to rid the society of
Theodore Frank.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 3 Feb 2002 20:10:39 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> >> > Don't be annoyed but you have taken me by surprise.
>
> >> >> If I'm likely to be annoyed, then I can only assume that the surprise
> > was
> >> >> an unpleasant one ..?
>
> >> > I had assumed from the infamous remark you made
> >> > about the Texas escapees, that given the choice of
> >> > giving freedom to a vicious murderer and executing
> >> > him you would have let him go free. I am I right
> >> > that you still feel this way or does the above mean
> >> > you have changed your mind?
>
> >> No. Setting a murderer free would give me no pleasure whatsoever, but I
> >> cannot, and never will agree to his execution. If the _only_ choice is
> >> death, or freedom, then it has to be freedom.
>
> > to be executed - you can set him free. Do you?
>
>
Theodore Frank - Abducted 24-MONTH-old Amy Sue Seitz,
http://www.wtv-zone.com/LadyMaggie/AmySueStory.html
The story has been repeated so often, and is so sordid, I'll
simply ask you to look for yourself.
I remind everyone that sometimes our obsessions in
holding to unhealthy agendas (such as the execution of NO
murderer) cloud what must be seen as, not only
common sense, but respect for our own dignity, morality
and not least of all, safety. In doing so, Desmond has again
boxed himself into a corner which demonstrates that his view
on morality, and the purpose of society in general (which is
formed to achieve a synergy which offers greater protection
to the general body rather than the specific body), is certainly
unreasonable, if not perverted.
One wonders how Desmond would feel if HIS personal
embodiment WERE society, rather than the structure we
have erected. Let us presume that Frank had raped and
murdered Desmond's 23 month-old daughter, and Desmond
had Frank in his hands. And Desmond, rather than HAVING
a society, was society itself, as it was before such a thing
as society even existed. Can we imagine that Desmond,
in his benevolent feeling toward the murderer of his daughter,
would say 'Go, and sin no more,' if his ONLY choices, as
John presented, were to release or kill Frank? I think not.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Feb 2002 22:32:57 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> No. Setting a murderer free would give me no pleasure whatsoever, but I
> >> cannot, and never will agree to his execution. If the _only_ choice is
> >> death, or freedom, then it has to be freedom.
>
> > Ouch.... striking a blow for execution, Desmond... Good show!!!
>
Oh... that stunning riposte! How brilliant.
>
> > Need I mention how helpful you are to the cause of the DP?
>
> Yes, remind me again.
Okay... you're helpful to the cause of the DP.
John Rennie
> Le Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:15:39 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > I'll give you one more chance. Theodore Frank is about
> >> > to be executed - you can set him free. Do you?
>
> >> Yes.
>
> > sexually defile and then kill small children?
>
> is much, _much_ lower than that among those convicted of other offences.
> If you _really_ want to protect 'small children', then I suggest you
> start petitionning the government to introduce the death penalty for
> _all_ offenders, because small children are in much greater danger from
> bag snatchers, burglars, and rapists, than they are from murderers.
>
> > You don't have children of your own, do you
> > Desmond?
>
> they're no more willing to 'push the button' than I ...
>
> http://www.mvfr.org/
>
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
Selective snipping does not help your argument. The URL
to which you directed me is a worthy organisation
concerned with reconciling victims and murderers.
I am reasonably certain that if given the choice between
setting FREE (I've capitalised in case you have forgotten
the nub of my question) the murderer of their loved one
and extinguishing them, they would, albeit reluctantly,
choose the second alternative. It's all right being
a 'principled' abolitionist, Desmond, but there's no
point in being a bloody fool.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Got to agree there. I'm certainly a principled abolitionist but I
couldn't just let a Theodore Frank free.
Fortunately, the question is completely silly as no remotely sane
society would let such a monster out and my conscience remains
untroubled.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
John Rennie
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:diablo-D5302C....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
Yes it appears to be an insane question but it did arise from the
silly post that Desmond made when the Texas jailbreak
occurred.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Mon, 04 Feb 2002 21:40:27 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Got to agree there. I'm certainly a principled abolitionist but I
> > couldn't just let a Theodore Frank free.
>
> Then with respect, Mr D., you cannot be a 'principled abolitionist'. You
> are a 'selective abolitionist', or (as the latter prefer to refer to
> themselves) a 'pragmatic abolitionist'. A principled abolitionist (such
> as I am) would never accept a legal execution, irrespective of the
> circumstances.
Balls, PV. Balls. I would have him locked up for life - not executed.
If it came down to a choice of having him executed or simply let free,
then I'd prefer the former. I believe in abolition of executions,
though, not abolition of _punishment_. Sheesh.
> > Fortunately, the question is completely silly as no remotely sane
> > society would let such a monster out and my conscience remains
> > untroubled.
>
> Yes, that is fortunate for all concerned.
Quite.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:48:55 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip PV's handwaving, pontification, and assuming to 'know' what I
> would do, in different situations }
>
> > I think not.
>
> Well at least you got _that_ right.
>
I think I get the point that you don't wish to address my
comment. And I predict, as with some other of your
comments, your comment will return to haunt you. (I
will probably remind you from time to time - trust me).
It was not the recidivism rates that your pathetic response
to John Rennie used in attempting to explain your point.
There is NO question that Frank would be recidivist... he is
not the 6% recidivist we speak of as a rate. This was
a person 100% CERTAIN of being recidivist... And you
presumed that you would free him to be such a recidivist
OF A CERTAINTY, rather than execute him and prevent
that with a CERTAINTY. I can well understand a
REASONABLE resolve to oppose the execution of anyone.
But this??? Poor, deluded fool.
PV
> --
A Planet Visitor
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 04 Feb 2002 21:40:27 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > couldn't just let a Theodore Frank free.
>
> are a 'selective abolitionist', or (as the latter prefer to refer to
> themselves) a 'pragmatic abolitionist'. A principled abolitionist (such
> as I am) would never accept a legal execution, irrespective of the
> circumstances.
No, you silly fool... YOU cannot be a 'selective' abolitionist! An
abolitionist cannot BE selective. Selecting even one makes them
no longer an abolitionist. What someone is, who presumes
that even as little as ONE murderer should be executed, is a 'selective'
retentionist. All abolitionists are 'principled.' Whether such a
principle is right or wrong is what we argue here. Their PRINCIPLE
is that 'NO ONE' should be state-sponsor executed. 'NO ONE'
implies a selection is not possible.
PV
<rest of nonsense clipped>
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:diablo-67E2FE....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <slrna5ucf9.1vp.p...@tortue.voute.net>,
> pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
>
> > Le Mon, 04 Feb 2002 21:40:27 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> > <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
> >
> > { snip }
> >
> > > Got to agree there. I'm certainly a principled abolitionist but I
> > > couldn't just let a Theodore Frank free.
> >
> > Then with respect, Mr D., you cannot be a 'principled abolitionist'. You
> > are a 'selective abolitionist', or (as the latter prefer to refer to
> > themselves) a 'pragmatic abolitionist'. A principled abolitionist (such
> > as I am) would never accept a legal execution, irrespective of the
> > circumstances.
>
> Balls, PV. Balls. I would have him locked up for life - not executed.
> If it came down to a choice of having him executed or simply let free,
> then I'd prefer the former. I believe in abolition of executions,
> though, not abolition of _punishment_. Sheesh.
>
Ummm... that wasn't ME, Mr. D. You were responding to Desmond,
who again has his head in the nether regions. I would never claim
ANYONE could POSSIBLY be a 'selective' abolitionist. The phrase
makes absolutely no logical sense.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 05 Feb 2002 02:00:33 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > I think not.
>
> >> Well at least you got _that_ right.
>
> > I think I get the point that you don't wish to address my
> > comment.
>
> and well ... she was right. PV, you are spot-on the mark, matey. I
> don't wish to address your comment.
>
> Wanna know why ?
>
> I don't wish to address your comment, because it's not worth the time it
> would take me to type (especially as I'm still struggling to get to grips
> with the smaller keys on my laptop). It's (like virtually everything you
> post) the same tired old rhetoric, patronising claptrap, and unspoken
> assumptions of superiority.
>
> Put another way, I'd rather have a dump, than waste time on it.
>
> In forty years, when I'm coming up for seventy-five, I shall think of
> this evening, and I shall think of you. I shall remember the fifteen
> seconds that I saved by not responding to your post. I shall remember
> the eight and a half hours that I save each time that I don't read one
> of your posts. And I shall raise a glass to your health, PV. By that
> time, you may be sure that the death penalty will be a very, very distant
> memory. A blot on the collective history of your fair country.
>
> You're a pompous, sanctimonious old cunt, PV, but I don't doubt that your
> heart is in the right place.
Well..well...well... look at the time! All the time you spent
constructing that pile of shit, that caused my shit-detector
to begin beeping furiously. All that time, but no time to
construct anything of intelligence... just vitriol... and dare I
say... shit. Your use of St. George seminal observation (1)
strikes a familiar chord... when at loss for a reply, provide
an insult, and then a flame.
PV
>
> { snip }
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
s/PV/Des/
Oops. A rather egregious misattribution on my part. So sorry.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 05 Feb 2002 03:04:30 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> > Got to agree there. I'm certainly a principled abolitionist but I
> >> > couldn't just let a Theodore Frank free.
>
> >> Then with respect, Mr D., you cannot be a 'principled abolitionist'. You
> >> are a 'selective abolitionist', or (as the latter prefer to refer to
> >> themselves) a 'pragmatic abolitionist'. A principled abolitionist (such
> >> as I am) would never accept a legal execution, irrespective of the
> >> circumstances.
>
> > No, you silly fool... YOU cannot be a 'selective' abolitionist! An
> > abolitionist cannot BE selective.
>
> consistent with British English grammar).
>
What the hell are you talking about?? That was certainly
NOT your point. Quite the opposite was your feeble
attempt at a point. You said he wasn't a 'principled' abolitionist,
but he WAS a 'selective' abolitionist. But that is IMPOSSIBLE.
To BE an abolitionist is by definition to be 'principled,'
whether that 'principle' is right or wrong. Your 'principle'
is state-sponsored execution of NO ONE. But one CANNOT
be a 'selective' abolitionist (which is what you claimed he
WAS), because once you make even ONE selection, you
are no longer an abolitionist. You can ONLY be a
'selective' retentionist. You DO know the difference between
an abolitionist and a retentionist, don't you? I mean you've
been here awhile, so I'm sure the difference has become
apparent to you.
> <sigh and snip>
You better believe it... I've been sighing over your stupidity
all day long. You've reached new heights today, and if ANYONE
needs to take a break, it's your good self. To gather up your
nonsense, examine it carefully, and then come back and
apologize to one and all for your total lack of comprehension.
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Tue, 05 Feb 2002 01:25:43 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > Got to agree there. I'm certainly a principled abolitionist but I
> >> > couldn't just let a Theodore Frank free.
>
> >> Then with respect, Mr D., you cannot be a 'principled abolitionist'.
> >> You
> >> are a 'selective abolitionist', or (as the latter prefer to refer to
> >> themselves) a 'pragmatic abolitionist'. A principled abolitionist
> >> (such
> >> as I am) would never accept a legal execution, irrespective of the
> >> circumstances.
>
> > Balls, PV.
>
> Now you're insulting me !! ;-)
I repeat the word "balls," in your general direction, then. :P
The hypothetical situation offered was a ludicrous one. If it comes
down to a choice between a guilty party of the nature of Frank (not
Frankie) walking or being executed then I'd see the latter.
Fortunately for all, the hypothetical situation falls down because no
sane society would allow anyone to be faced with such a choice.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Tue, 05 Feb 2002 04:05:14 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > Balls, PV.
>
> >> Now you're insulting me !! ;-)
>
> > I repeat the word "balls," in your general direction, then. :P
> >
> > The hypothetical situation offered was a ludicrous one. If it comes
> > down to a choice between a guilty party of the nature of Frank (not
> > Frankie) walking or being executed then I'd see the latter.
>
> Why, for reasons of 'punishment', or for reasons of 'recidivism' ? If
> it's because it would gall you to see a murderer get off scot-free (as it
> would me), then fine. If it's because you fear that a murderer thus
> released, would kill again, then by that logic, you must execute all
> offenders, irrespective of their crime, for bag-snatchers, rapists and
> burglars are more likely to commit murder, than are escaped or paroled
> murderers.
We're not talking about an "escaped" or "paroled" murderer. We're
talking about letting a monster free without imprisonment.
If we imprison even the most heinous offender with a chance of parole,
at least the state can attempt rehabilitation. If that offender walks
free without imprisonment, they are receiving a very clear message that
they did nothing wrong and should feel free to do so again if they
desire.
Given a choice between a Bundy or a Gacy being executed or simply turned
out onto the streets, I would reluctantly regard the former choice as
the only morally acceptable one. Pragmatism must override principle in
extreme cases.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:56:54 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > The hypothetical situation offered was a ludicrous one. If it comes
> >> > down to a choice between a guilty party of the nature of Frank (not
> >> > Frankie) walking or being executed then I'd see the latter.
>
> >> Why, for reasons of 'punishment', or for reasons of 'recidivism' ? If
> >> it's because it would gall you to see a murderer get off scot-free (as
> >> it
> >> would me), then fine. If it's because you fear that a murderer thus
> >> released, would kill again, then by that logic, you must execute all
> >> offenders, irrespective of their crime, for bag-snatchers, rapists and
> >> burglars are more likely to commit murder, than are escaped or paroled
> >> murderers.
>
> > We're not talking about an "escaped" or "paroled" murderer. We're
> > talking about letting a monster free without imprisonment.
>
> Oh please, Mr D., let's stick to reasonble vocabulary. Your name's not
> PV, and you don't (I assume) spend hours biting the altar rails because
> you looked at your sister-in-law's ankles. We're not talking about
> 'monsters', but human beings. Cruel, sadistic human beings, but human
> beings nonetheless.
It's a loaded, emotive term, I'll grant you, but my use of it is quite
correct in terms of the language. My trusty Concise Oxford gives the
following:
monster n. 1 an imaginary creature, usu. large and frightening,
compounded of incongruous elements. 2 an inhumanly cruel or wicked
person.
[rest removed]
> { snip }
>
> We shall have to agree to disagree.
I am, perhaps, more of a pragmatist than your good self.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 05 Feb 2002 04:04:29 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > No, you silly fool... YOU cannot be a 'selective' abolitionist! An
> >> > abolitionist cannot BE selective.
>
> >> Which was my point, PV (my use of quotation marks is correct and
> >> consistent with British English grammar).
>
> > What the hell are you talking about?? That was certainly
> > NOT your point.
>
> are in no position to tell me what my intentions were, when writing a
> post. Your posts leave most people with the intention that you like
> people to laugh at you, but do I assume that that is your intention ? No,
> so please don't be such an arrogant cunt. Oh, all right: don't be even
> more of an arrogant cunt.
>
> { piffle snipped }
>
Just another post to remember to recall to you when you
make another foolish mistake. It doesn't matter what your
INTENTIONS were, you fool. It matters what you DID say.
You said that Mr. D. had become a 'selective' abolitionist.
That is a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. You do know what
that is don't you? Once ANY 'selection' is made, one is
no long an abolitionist, because a 'selection' is NOT
possibly, even if that selection is Hitler in 1935, Stalin,
pre-purge days, or Judas Iscariot pre-crucifixion.
PV
> --
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 05 Feb 2002 03:54:06 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> { snip }
>
> >> You're a pompous, sanctimonious old cunt, PV, but I don't doubt that your
> >> heart is in the right place.
>
> > Well..well...well... look at the time! All the time you spent
> > constructing that pile of shit, that caused my shit-detector
> > to begin beeping furiously. All that time, but no time to
> > construct anything of intelligence... just vitriol... and dare I
> > say... shit.
>
>
> > Your use of St. George seminal observation (1)
> > strikes a familiar chord... when at loss for a reply, provide
> > an insult, and then a flame.
>
>
He's claimed he's been hired by the CIA. And that is not
a troll, and can be verified by looking at his last posts.
And I don't doubt it for an instant... knowing those twits.
He's probably in Afghanistan about now.
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Best place for the mad bugger if you ask me. =)