Deterrent effect of the Death Penalty
Fred
Francisco skyscraper and opened fire in a law office with two
TEC-DC9s and a revolver, killing eight people and wounding six before
killing himself."
Exactly how did the DP help in this case - or any similar ones?
F
Kwag7693
Date: 1/20/03 10:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
Is reasoning of the form "this X is not Y, therefore no X is Y" valid? I think
that is what you are leading up to.
Kevin
Fred
"Kwag7693" <kwag...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030120220901...@mb-fe.aol.com...
The DP is supposed to deter murders. This doesn't seem to be true in
all cases.
F
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) wrote:
What he is saying is that you might be able to think of a couple of
individuals who have been deterred by the DP but we can come up with
15000 such people _every_single_year_ in the USA alone who were
evidently _not_ deterred.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Kwag7693
Date: 1/20/03 10:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
>The DP is supposed to deter murders. This doesn't seem to be true in
>all cases.
Almost nothing in the world, excepting tautologies, are true in all cases. For
me, that the DP would deter some murders is a point in its favor.
Kevin
Kwag7693
Date: 1/20/03 10:17 PM Eastern Standard Time
>What he is saying is that you might be able to think of a couple of
>individuals who have been deterred by the DP but we can come up with
>15000 such people _every_single_year_ in the USA alone who were
>evidently _not_ deterred.
Okay. So it is reasonable to assume it deters some people, not all.
Kevin
Benny Deeni
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
message news:jonathan-E54E5E...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <20030120220901...@mb-fe.aol.com>,
> kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) wrote:
>
> > From: "Fred" no-...@nowhere.nohow
> > Date: 1/20/03 10:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >
> > >"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri entered a San
> > >Francisco skyscraper and opened fire in a law office with two
> > >TEC-DC9s and a revolver, killing eight people and wounding six before
> > >killing himself."
> > >
> > >Exactly how did the DP help in this case - or any similar ones?
> >
> > Is reasoning of the form "this X is not Y, therefore no X is Y" valid?
I
> > think
> > that is what you are leading up to.
>
> What he is saying is that you might be able to think of a couple of
> individuals who have been deterred by the DP
And if this is true, isn't this a good thing? Anti's are supposedly so
concerned about innocent life, with many even going the the extreme of
objecting to the DP based only on the theoretical chance (as opposed to
even one actual case) of an innocent being executed. If "a couple"
murderers
are deterred that means *at least* two innocent victims are alive instead
of being killed by brutal murderers. Isn't that a positive?
> but we can come up with
> 15000 such people _every_single_year_ in the USA alone who were
> evidently _not_ deterred.
>
Okay, so those who were not deterred by the DP (or any
other punishment) were not deterred. So what?
JIGSAW1695
From: "Fred" no-...@nowhere.nohow
Date: 1/20/2003 10:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <hW2X9.28270$536.1...@news2.telusplanet.net>
F
===============================
That the DP deters murders was at one time embrassed by those who support the
death penalty.
The theory has fallen out of favor with all but a few advocates.
Now, the only ones who totally embrace it are those who against the DP, and the
only reason they embrace is to reject it.
Kwag7693
Date: 1/20/03 10:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> Okay. So it is reasonable to assume it deters some people, not all.
>
>Except that we cannot measure deterrence; it is unknown and unknoweable.
Unknown doesn't entail unknowable. While definitely hard for me to quantify, I
know that were speeding made a capital crime, I would speed almost never, which
certainly implies there is some deterrent effect to a death threat.
>Basing a criminal justice system on unknown values, and unproven negatives,
>especially when the goal of that justice system is to take life, cannot be
>said to be civilised.
OTOH, basing the freeing of a murderer on the literally unprovable, until they
die or commit a murder, claim he is rehabilitated, especially when the goal of
ANY justice system is to protect innocent life, fits yours objection nicely.
That the DP *is* a deterrent is a reason to use it. The murderer has already
consciously surrendered any claims to a right to co-exist with other humans, so
at that point, whatever we want to do is fair game. I have invited you
previously to justify the claim that the right to life is unconditional, and to
explain what an absolute right to life means, but I still anxiously await your
response.
Kevin
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<natsa...@excite.com> wrote:
> Okay, so those who were not deterred by the DP (or any
> other punishment) were not deterred. So what?
Statistically, the population is not deterred by the DP. It is a fact.
Live with it. The DP does not deter. It is a nonsensical piece of
propaganda thrown about by DP advocates that is almost universally
regarded as nonsense.
Leave deterrence out of it and I'll leave "brutalisation" out of it.
Deal? They're both a load of old bollocks.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) wrote:
It does not deter a sufficient number of people to reduce the USA's
pathetically high murder rate. Therefore, it is useless as a deterrent.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> That the DP deters murders was at one time embrassed by those who support
> the
> death penalty.
>
> The theory has fallen out of favor with all but a few advocates.
>
> Now, the only ones who totally embrace it are those who against the DP,
> and the
> only reason they embrace is to reject it.
Have you been reading this thread, Jiggy? Benny (I hope that he can
live with my calling him that) and Kevin have both argued that the DP
deters. Last I saw, they both supported the DP.
Care to retract your silly proclamation?
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <jonathan-CA2472...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
In article <20030120225433...@mb-cj.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> That the DP deters murders was at one time embrassed by those who support
> the
> death penalty.
>
> The theory has fallen out of favor with all but a few advocates.
>
> Now, the only ones who totally embrace it are those who against the DP,
> and the
> only reason they embrace is to reject it.
Have you been reading this thread, Jiggy? Benny (I hope that he can
live with my calling him that) and Kevin have both argued that the DP
deters. Last I saw, they both supported the DP.
Care to retract your silly proclamation?
Mr Q. Z. D.
===============================
I took them into account by saying
"The theory has fallen out of favor with all but a few advocates."
Jigsaw
A Planet Visitor
"Fred" <no-...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message news:%K2X9.28260$536.1...@news2.telusplanet.net...
Huh???? What are you babbling about, Fred? How did the entire
Justice System 'help' in this case? Or in similar cases where
the perpetrator commits suicide before the Justice System even
has a crack at him? Clearly if there were no justice system whatsoever,
we would have had the same number of deaths.
PV
>
> F
>
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
PV
> Kevin
>
A Planet Visitor
"Fred" <no-...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message news:hW2X9.28270$536.1...@news2.telusplanet.net...
the act. The perpetrator in your 'example' (sic) could not have
been 'deterred' by ANYTHING, other than precognition by the
Justice System, such as that silly 'Minority Report' science-fiction.
But that brings up a 'technical' and 'moral' form of argument. Suppose
we HAD precognition of his act, and the ONLY way to prevent it
was to EXECUTE him prior to his act. Would THAT justify the
DP to you? Understand I am given you NO alternatives to
apprehension and incarceration to prevent his acts. Is the DP
justified in that case?
And even a bit more complex. Since he murdered eight people.
Presume we had 'limited precognition' and KNEW that one of three
potential perpetrators was going to commit those murders. If we
could ONLY execute all three or execute none and know the
eight people would be subsequently murdered... Would
the DP for ALL three (knowing two were innocent - but eight
innocent lives would be saved) be justified to you?
Just a little exercise into your personal view of how valuable lives
are. And what society's responsibility to those lives is.
PV
> F
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:2mfi0b....@lievre.voute.net...
> le 21 Jan 2003 03:33:18 GMT, dans l'article <20030120223318...@mb-fe.aol.com>, Kwag7693 <kwag...@aol.com>
a dit ...
>
> >>What he is saying is that you might be able to think of a couple of
> >>individuals who have been deterred by the DP but we can come up with
> >>15000 such people _every_single_year_ in the USA alone who were
> >>evidently _not_ deterred.
>
> > Okay. So it is reasonable to assume it deters some people, not all.
>
ROTFLMAO... that coming from the illiterate who claimed that abolitionists
do not need to 'prove' the DP does not deter... it does so, because
retentionists cannot prove it does deter.
> Basing a criminal justice system on unknown values, and unproven negatives,
> especially when the goal of that justice system is to take life, cannot be
> said to be civilised.
Horseshit... total unmitigated opinionated horseshit. The goal of the
justice system is to save INNOCENT lives. You can state that you
do not 'believe' it saves innocent lives, but you certainly cannot find
ANY criminal justice statute or law which presume the 'goal' of
a justice system is to take innocent life. And by leaving off
'innocent' you have deceptively attempted to make your opinion
become an axiom (look it up... desi). The 'goal' of the justice
system is to deal with conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably
causes or threatens harm to individual. Essentially to 'insure
the public safety.' The justice system does not presume a
'goal' of taking life. That's the 'goal' of murderers. Those you
pray make it to Mexico when they escape from prison, even
if they murder as they make their way... such as your prayer
for those escaped Texas murderers who DID murder again.
PV
>
> --
> Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
> |Spiritual Leader of the Universal
> |Right to Life Church. (umm... get
> |away from me -- you filthy black
> |starving child in Africa) 'My church'
> |isn't for you.
> http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
Am I obsessed with fighting 'evil'? Damn... I'm 'Superman' when
it comes to fighting desi's 'forces of evil.' References to a post which
insightfully pronounced of desi --
"'Cancerous' is almost a compliment when one views most of
desi's comments -- other forms spring more easily to mind --
it is a parasitic diarrhea of the brain... it is crazy chick disease
transferred to our thinking process -- it is a swarm of latrine flies
settling on our ability to process information --- it is maggots
feasting on the bodies of numberless victims of murder. It is
madness. utter madness. It is Desmond Coughlan."
Every evil, vile thought that has ever swept across this group from
desi's pen, as Genghis Kahn (or Attila the Hun, if you prefer) swept
his broad scythe of rape, death and destruction, in long, broad,
excruciating strokes across Europe, stand as stark images of his
perverse character. And we stand witness to that depravity.
Earl Evleth
no-...@nowhere.nohow wrote on 21/01/03 4:02:
There is also the phenomena of "police assisted suicide".
But one might observed that the climate of violence created by the
death penalty, the use of killing to resolve a conflict, can
brutalize, generate a killing where none has occurred before.
A truly strong societal taboo against killing will effect all the people
except the insane. However, violent societies will have the death penalty.
Guns are the "tools of death" and unless under strict societal control
they will naturally lead to murder, quick and efficient.
Earl
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <jonathan-E54E5E...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, "Mr Q.
Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a écrit :
> In article <20030120220901...@mb-fe.aol.com>,
> kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) wrote:
>
>> From: "Fred" no-...@nowhere.nohow
>> Date: 1/20/03 10:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>
>> >"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri entered a San
>> >Francisco skyscraper and opened fire in a law office with two
>> >TEC-DC9s and a revolver, killing eight people and wounding six before
>> >killing himself."
>> >
>> >Exactly how did the DP help in this case - or any similar ones?
>>
>> Is reasoning of the form "this X is not Y, therefore no X is Y" valid? I
>> think
>> that is what you are leading up to.
>
> What he is saying is that you might be able to think of a couple of
> individuals who have been deterred by the DP but we can come up with
> 15000 such people _every_single_year_ in the USA alone who were
> evidently _not_ deterred.
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
There is one very frightening group of murderers that is certainly not
deterred by the death penalty. I refer to the Islamist suicide commandos.
I have my own idea about a deterrent for them, but it is so politically
incorrect that I shall not mention it in public.
Donna Evleth
Peter Morris
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
> In article <Ph3X9.51422$Jm2....@news.bellsouth.net>, "Benny Deeni"
> <natsa...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay, so those who were not deterred by the DP (or any
> > other punishment) were not deterred. So what?
>
> Statistically, the population is not deterred by the DP. It is a fact.
> Live with it. The DP does not deter.
Lets be precice about this. The DP _does_ deter. Life imprisonment is
an equally good deterrent. The DP does not deter _more_than_ alternative
measures.
Benny Deeni
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030121014007...@mb-ms.aol.com...
Whoa, whoa! QZD is the one who mentioned earlier in the thread
that "a couple" murderers might be deterred. I have stated many times
I could not care less about deterrence, since it is a non issue. The reason
I discuss it at all is because anti's oppose the DP because "it does not
deter." So what if it doesn't deter? If it does great, if it does not, so
what?
That it does not is no reason to lessen the severity of the punishment (ie,
abolish the DP.)
I can't prove that Joe Blow was deterred from committing murder by the DP
(it's obviously difficult to prove something did not happen), but
it sure makes more sense that some may be deterred by a more severe
punishment
than "brutalized" by that punishment. But again, it's irrelevant to my
position on
the DP.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:f47X9.113999$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
A typically silly question from PV.
Well, okay, lets suppose we had PRECOGNITION of his
act, as you say, and also we know that the oracle is a reliable
prognosticator. Go read a little bit of Greek tragedy. If a man
tries to evade the destiny that has ben foretold, his very actions
bring that destiny about, and he incurs the wrath of the gods
in the process.
> And even a bit more complex. Since he murdered eight people.
> Presume we had 'limited precognition' and KNEW that one of three
> potential perpetrators was going to commit those murders. If we
> could ONLY execute all three or execute none and know the
> eight people would be subsequently murdered... Would
> the DP for ALL three (knowing two were innocent - but eight
> innocent lives would be saved) be justified to you?
Hmmm, kill a small number of innocent people in order to save
a larger number of innocent people. Here's an article that explains
in detail why that would NOT be morally or legally acceptable.
As a counter example, suppose 8 people were dying from organ
failure, and you could provide them with life saving transplants if
you kill two innocent people and steal their organs. Would you do
that?
JIGSAW1695
Date: 1/21/2003 9:39 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <b0jm2e$72h$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
===============================
And if the same eight people were in the same situation only they would receive
the same life giving organs from convicted, confessed murderers, what would you
do?
danh
> From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@zeouane.org
> Date: 1/20/03 10:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >> Okay. So it is reasonable to assume it deters some people, not all.
> >
> >Except that we cannot measure deterrence; it is unknown and unknoweable.
>
> Unknown doesn't entail unknowable.
Perhaps not, but unflawed studies and definitive proof remain elusive.
While definitely hard for me to quantify, I
> know that were speeding made a capital crime, I would speed almost never,
which
> certainly implies there is some deterrent effect to a death threat.
Deterrence might be a meaningful concept to you, but you cannot extend that
to infer that it's a meaningful concept to others. If your life is
surrounded by poverty, by lack of opportunity, by little respite save the
cloud of drugs (which you can't obtain without committing a crime), then
prison doesn't look so bad. The tiny risk of being executed some time in
the next 2 decades means little to those accustomed to living life in the
"now" timeframe.
> >Basing a criminal justice system on unknown values, and unproven
negatives,
> >especially when the goal of that justice system is to take life, cannot
be
> >said to be civilised.
>
> OTOH, basing the freeing of a murderer on the literally unprovable, until
they
> die or commit a murder, claim he is rehabilitated, especially when the
goal of
> ANY justice system is to protect innocent life, fits yours objection
nicely.
Not sure what this means.
> That the DP *is* a deterrent is a reason to use it.
Your assetion, even your emphatic assertion, means nothing compared to the
facts. The facts are that the dp has not been shown to deter.
The murderer has already
> consciously surrendered any claims to a right to co-exist with other
humans, so
> at that point, whatever we want to do is fair game. I have invited you
> previously to justify the claim that the right to life is unconditional,
and to
> explain what an absolute right to life means, but I still anxiously await
your
> response.
Murderers do not consciously (or unconsciously) surrender their claim to
life. It is not now, nor has it ever been part of the social contract that
a life is taken for each life taken. You, in the guise of society, cannot
do "whatever we want to do".
A couple of years ago, when I still thought there was some meaningful dialog
occurring here, I suggested that since the Constitution didn't ban torture
and branding, dp advocates should take up trying to pass laws calling for
such judicial action. No one has ever taken the idea seriously. The dp is
no different - it is an antiquated relic from the past, imposed in ever more
mysterious and sinister ways - under the illusion of being a social
imperative.
Kwag7693
Date: 1/21/03 10:27 AM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Except that we cannot measure deterrence; it is unknown and unknoweable.
>>
>> Unknown doesn't entail unknowable.
>
>Perhaps not, but unflawed studies and definitive proof remain elusive.
Definitive proof of almost everything remains elusive. I will settle for
accepting the fairly obvious.
>Deterrence might be a meaningful concept to you, but you cannot extend that
>to infer that it's a meaningful concept to others.
Assuming it is a meaningful concept to anyone who thinks similarly is enough
for me to conclude it will deter at least some murders.
>If your life is
>surrounded by poverty, by lack of opportunity, by little respite save the
>cloud of drugs (which you can't obtain without committing a crime), then
>prison doesn't look so bad. The tiny risk of being executed some time in
>the next 2 decades means little to those accustomed to living life in the
>"now" timeframe.
So it won't deter some murderers. How does this prove the death penalty is not
a deterrent?
>> OTOH, basing the freeing of a murderer on the literally unprovable, until
>they
>> die or commit a murder, claim he is rehabilitated, especially when the
>goal of
>> ANY justice system is to protect innocent life, fits yours objection
>nicely.
>
>Not sure what this means.
It is just some conjoined sentences. The goal of every justice system is to
protect innocent lives. The conclusion that a stay in prison has made a
murderer into a person that will not commit murders, especially given your
supposition that murderers from poor neighborhoods won't find prison very bad,
is hypothetical and in my estimate not very likely to be true. Until they are
dead or commit a murder, no one will know if they are rehabilitated. So
Desmond pointing to the hypothetical possibility of executing an innocent
person is counter-balanced by the hypothetical possibility of releasing a
murderer or even allowing them to continue living and posing a threat to fellow
inmates and prison guards.
>> That the DP *is* a deterrent is a reason to use it.
>
>Your assetion, even your emphatic assertion, means nothing compared to the
>facts. The facts are that the dp has not been shown to deter.
Look here, I stated why I know it is a deterrent. Whatever facts you are
referencing, if you would be deterred from an illegal act you currently engage
in if it were made a capital crime, you can be certain it is a deterrent. I
think the interpretation of the facts is highly suspect because they lead you
to conclude that contrary to what is almost certainly your personal experience,
death threats don't influence human behavior.
>Murderers do not consciously (or unconsciously) surrender their claim to
>life. It is not now, nor has it ever been part of the social contract that
>a life is taken for each life taken. You, in the guise of society, cannot
>do "whatever we want to do".
I see your assertion and that you've brought in a very problematic construct to
prop it up, i.e. an imaginary social contract. A murderer treats other people
as if their lives are of no worth. On what grounds shall he press the claim
that his own life is to be treated otherwise? If I can understand a prudent
reason for living in a society and for refusing to initiate violence against
non-violent people, I also happen to understand an excellent reason both to
retaliate against people who don't feel the same and for ensuring that they can
pose no further threat to anyone else.
>A couple of years ago, when I still thought there was some meaningful dialog
>occurring here, I suggested that since the Constitution didn't ban torture
>and branding, dp advocates should take up trying to pass laws calling for
>such judicial action.
But the Constitution does ban cruel and unusual punishment, and I am not sure
what you would hope to achieve through torture and branding.
>No one has ever taken the idea seriously. The dp is
>no different - it is an antiquated relic from the past, imposed in ever more
>mysterious and sinister ways - under the illusion of being a social
>imperative.
Why wouldn't I take the idea seriously? You aren't even asipiring to ethical
debate. Either an action is grounded in prudent reasons or it is not, much
like every action one would think to undertake. If there was some excellent
reason to brand criminals and torture them, why wouldn't we? I happen to think
there is not any sound reason for doing so, but simply relying on some feeling
that both torture and execution make one uncomfortable falls short of sound
ethical argumentation.
Kevin
Kwag7693
>> >What he is saying is that you might be able to think of a couple of
>> >individuals who have been deterred by the DP but we can come up with
>> >15000 such people _every_single_year_ in the USA alone who were
>> >evidently _not_ deterred.
>>
>> Okay. So it is reasonable to assume it deters some people, not all.
>
>It does not deter a sufficient number of people to reduce the USA's
>pathetically high murder rate. Therefore, it is useless as a deterrent.
>
That is a non-sequitur. You know what the US murder rate would be absent the
DP? More hypothetically and more importantly, what would it with a death
penalty that actually occurred in reasonable timeframe so that the populace
understood a fairly direct connection between committing a murder and being
executed? I am more concerned with deciding if a death penalty could be just,
than if it currently is. As it stands, it is kind of odd to assert a death
penalty is no deterrent to crime while simultaneously pressing for moratoria
upon it for independent ethical reasons. I would think deterrence would be the
last arena of debate, the first should be deciding if killing murderers is even
morally permissible. If it isn't, the rest of the debate is moot.
Kevin
Kwag7693
Date: 1/21/03 7:19 AM Eastern Standard Time
>There is one very frightening group of murderers that is certainly not
>deterred by the death penalty. I refer to the Islamist suicide commandos.
>I have my own idea about a deterrent for them, but it is so politically
>incorrect that I shall not mention it in public.
I read some Israeli commentator who suggested wrapping their remains in a
pigskin shroud before burial. I wonder if the mullahs would improvise some
kind of new law that allowed pork wearing martyrs into paradise?
Kevin
JIGSAW1695
Date: 1/21/2003 10:27 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <b0jotu$ncn$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
===============================
Thank you for your "interesting" comment.
Jigsaw
PS: This is from an anti DP'er who seems to advocate torture.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 1/21/2003 12:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <20030121124916...@mb-fi.aol.com>
Kevin
===============================
Such a punishment was suggest by Rudyard Kipling in one of his tales of the
Mutiny in India. As I recall, it was entitled "Soldiers Three".
Earl Evleth
kwag...@aol.com wrote on 21/01/03 18:45:
> You know what the US murder rate would be absent the
> DP? More hypothetically and more importantly, what would it with a death
> penalty that actually occurred in reasonable timeframe so that the populace
> understood a fairly direct connection between committing a murder and being
> executed?
That won't happen, the judicial pathway via appeals will not be
significantly reduced. More over if innocent keep coming up and released
from death row that proves more innocent are still there. It is an ongoing
process.
So your hope to speed up the execution process by cutting delays can`t be
realized. In some states like California virtually no executions are
occurring. Their over 600 are currently being executed at about 1 a year.
Next, potential murderers are not like you and me. They have a poor concept
of the future, they are now people, with poor emotional control. Even the
Emory study refers to non-deterable murders, some people can`t be gotten
to with threats unless they are now or certainly within the very near
future.
> I am more concerned with deciding if a death penalty could be just,
> than if it currently is.
One might think of practicability also.
> As it stands, it is kind of odd to assert a death penalty is no deterrent to
> crime while simultaneously pressing for moratoria upon it for independent
> ethical reasons. I would think deterrence would be
> the last arena of debate, the first should be deciding if killing murderers is
> even > morally permissible. If it isn't, the rest of the debate is moot.
From what I have read, the morality issue does not touch public opinion with
regard to doing away with the DP. If it does with maintaining it, it is a
form of self-deception. Just justifying something they want deep in their
hearts. That wanting to kill is in conflict with the anti-killing taboo and
effectively compromises it being a moral absolute.
What will make or break the DP revolves around the issue of the horror of
some innocents being executed, Joe Blow can identify with that. The
morality around that is simple, it is wrong since "except for
the grave of God go I".
Some libertarians actually take the few that since Government will screw
things up it will certainly screw up something as important as the DP.
Those interested in wasteful taxpayer expenditures will wonder how
cost-effective the DP is, morality is in the pocketbook.
The fact that a fool proof system has not been developed is bothersome.
The issue that a fool proof system CAN NOT be developed has to now be
discussed. Ryan effectively did face that and it why he acted. He knew that
most of the people he let out of death row were guilty but not all, and
it was that not all that grabbed him.
Therefore we are fools to expect a fool proof system. Speeding up
executions will not do that, certainly other than to cut off
innocent people from showing up. The public will not be fooled by
that.
Basically, the DP is impractical. It hasn`t worked yet and it will never
work, so stop tinkering with the machinery of death.
Earl
Fred
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:f47X9.113999$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> The DP cannot deter shoplifting, if the shoplifter kills himself in
> the act. The perpetrator in your 'example' (sic) could not have
> been 'deterred' by ANYTHING, other than precognition by the
> Justice System, such as that silly 'Minority Report'
science-fiction.
>
> But that brings up a 'technical' and 'moral' form of argument.
Suppose
> we HAD precognition of his act, and the ONLY way to prevent it
> was to EXECUTE him prior to his act. Would THAT justify the
> DP to you? Understand I am given you NO alternatives to
> apprehension and incarceration to prevent his acts. Is the DP
> justified in that case?
False hypothesis. If the only way to save YOUR life was to destroy
the earth, and everyone on it, would you do it?
If the only way to save your child's life was to torture a guilty
man, would you do it?
> And even a bit more complex. Since he murdered eight people.
> Presume we had 'limited precognition' and KNEW that one of three
> potential perpetrators was going to commit those murders. If we
> could ONLY execute all three or execute none and know the
> eight people would be subsequently murdered... Would
> the DP for ALL three (knowing two were innocent - but eight
> innocent lives would be saved) be justified to you?
Another silly hypothesis. These are 'Oprah' hypotheses.
F
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <20030121124916...@mb-fi.aol.com>,
kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) a écrit :
Actually I was thinking of a product of the pig, rather than a part of it,
as the shroud.
Donna Evleth
Richard J
As my former students would say, "That's COLD!" Not to mention making
them even smellier than they are, what with the hot climate and no
embalming. Fitting, however.
Teflon
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
John Rennie
"Fred" <no-...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:f47X9.113999$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> ...
> > The DP cannot deter shoplifting, if the shoplifter kills himself in
> > the act. The perpetrator in your 'example' (sic) could not have
> > been 'deterred' by ANYTHING, other than precognition by the
> > Justice System, such as that silly 'Minority Report'
> science-fiction.
> >
> > But that brings up a 'technical' and 'moral' form of argument.
> Suppose
> > we HAD precognition of his act, and the ONLY way to prevent it
> > was to EXECUTE him prior to his act. Would THAT justify the
> > DP to you? Understand I am given you NO alternatives to
> > apprehension and incarceration to prevent his acts. Is the DP
> > justified in that case?
>
> False hypothesis. If the only way to save YOUR life was to destroy
> the earth, and everyone on it, would you do it?
'Ere! How can I save my life if I destroyed everyone on earth?
>
> If the only way to save your child's life was to torture a guilty
> man, would you do it?
I'd torture an innocent man to save my child's life
John Rennie
Imagine that you are an Arab, that you are unemployed, that the land that
would have been yours by birthright was stolen from your grandparents
by European settlers, that you will never be married or have children
because your economic prospects are nil. Then imagine the thought
of a hero's death, your name to be remembered amongst your fellows
and your father and mother venerated. Unless you make an effort
to understand the other fellow's point of view you cant possibly
appreciate what motivates him and what can be done to change his
attitude. A post like the above is merely playing to the crowd - I
thought better of you.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks
> Date: 1/20/03 11:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >> >What he is saying is that you might be able to think of a couple of
> >> >individuals who have been deterred by the DP but we can come up with
> >> >15000 such people _every_single_year_ in the USA alone who were
> >> >evidently _not_ deterred.
> >>
> >> Okay. So it is reasonable to assume it deters some people, not all.
> >
> >It does not deter a sufficient number of people to reduce the USA's
> >pathetically high murder rate. Therefore, it is useless as a deterrent.
> >
>
> That is a non-sequitur. You know what the US murder rate would be absent
> the
> DP?
If you want the full story, I'd say that it would be almost exactly the
same. Note that the murder rate is actually _less_ in non-DP
jurisdictions within the USA. This is not to say that the DP causes the
murder rate to increase but rather that its absence does nothing to
_decrease_ it.
> More hypothetically and more importantly, what would it with a death
> penalty that actually occurred in reasonable timeframe so that the
> populace
> understood a fairly direct connection between committing a murder and
> being
> executed?
Unlikely, unless the DP was enacted for _every_ (or almost every) murder
that was committed.
The "reasonable" timeframe to which you refer is, of course, utter
nonsense. Of those who ahve been exonerated or freed from DR, very few
have had this happen within as little as five years. You would be
guaranteeing hideous miscarriages of justice if you were to enact
executions as late as 12 months after sentencing. Of that we can all be
sure.
> I am more concerned with deciding if a death penalty could be
> just,
> than if it currently is.
A DP _could_ be just in a perfect world. We don't live in a perfect
world. Live with it.
> As it stands, it is kind of odd to assert a
> death
> penalty is no deterrent to crime while simultaneously pressing for
> moratoria
> upon it for independent ethical reasons.
That would be because it is not enacted as a deterrent by the
legislatures that use it.
> I would think deterrence would
> be the
> last arena of debate,
It isn't here. Several retentionists argue constantly that it deters
just as several abolitionists will swear black and blue that it
brutalises. Both assertions are, IMHO, absolute and utter bollocks.
> the first should be deciding if killing murderers
> is even
> morally permissible. If it isn't, the rest of the debate is moot.
As far as _I_ am concerned, killing murderers (by executing them) is
_far_ from morally permissible. I don't expect others to share my moral
standpoint, though.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b0jddh$ovd$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
> message news:jonathan-30FE52...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > In article <Ph3X9.51422$Jm2....@news.bellsouth.net>, "Benny Deeni"
> > <natsa...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, so those who were not deterred by the DP (or any
> > > other punishment) were not deterred. So what?
> >
> > Statistically, the population is not deterred by the DP. It is a fact.
> > Live with it. The DP does not deter.
>
> Lets be precice about this. The DP _does_ deter. Life imprisonment is
> an equally good deterrent. The DP does not deter _more_than_ alternative
> measures.
>
A bit more precise, would be that you have no idea what you are
talking about. [1}
Trying again to translate your 'opinion,' into presuming it represents 'fact.'
PV
> > It is a nonsensical piece of
> > propaganda thrown about by DP advocates that is almost universally
> > regarded as nonsense.
> >
> > Leave deterrence out of it and I'll leave "brutalisation" out of it.
> > Deal? They're both a load of old bollocks.
>
>
>
[1] as usual.
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:BA52CBCD.9DD3%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
toot...toot...toot...toot... here comes Earl's train... whooo...whooo...whooo..
All thinking people... run for cover.
___|___
|
^
PV
> Earl
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
news:b0jddh$ovd$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks>
wrote in
> > message news:jonathan-30FE52...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > > In article <Ph3X9.51422$Jm2....@news.bellsouth.net>, "Benny Deeni"
> > > <natsa...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay, so those who were not deterred by the DP (or any
> > > > other punishment) were not deterred. So what?
> > >
> > > Statistically, the population is not deterred by the DP. It is a
fact.
> > > Live with it. The DP does not deter.
> >
> > Lets be precice about this. The DP _does_ deter. Life imprisonment is
> > an equally good deterrent. The DP does not deter _more_than_ alternative
> > measures.
> >
>
> A bit more precise, would be that you have no idea what you are
> talking about. [1}
Do you have specific reasons for disagreeing with me?
Or is it merely your usual obsessive hatred?
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Deterrent effect of the Death Penalty
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 03:44:01 +0000
>
>le 21 Jan 2003 03:33:18 GMT, dans l'article
><20030120223318...@mb-fe.aol.com>, Kwag7693 <kwag...@aol.com> a
>dit ...
>
>>>What he is saying is that you might be able to think of a couple of
>>>individuals who have been deterred by the DP but we can come up with
>>>15000 such people _every_single_year_ in the USA alone who were
>>>evidently _not_ deterred.
>
>> Okay. So it is reasonable to assume it deters some people, not all.
>
>Except that we cannot measure deterrence; it is unknown and unknoweable.
>Basing a criminal justice system on unknown values, and unproven negatives,
>especially when the goal of that justice system is to take life, cannot be
>said to be civilised.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!fr.clara.net!heighliner.f
r.clara.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin
.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Deterrent effect of the Death Penalty
>Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 03:44:01 +0000
>Lines: 19
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <2mfi0b....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <jonathan-E54E5E...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><20030120223318...@mb-fe.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1043120838 26573121 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy's-Moped:
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
Poor Desi, drunk again! The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond
Coughlan lacks conviction in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived
in Google. Please feel free to use it to your advantage.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b0jm2e$72h$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
Peter refuses to address the question... big surprise. NOT!
> Well, okay, lets suppose we had PRECOGNITION of his
> act, as you say, and also we know that the oracle is a reliable
> prognosticator. Go read a little bit of Greek tragedy. If a man
> tries to evade the destiny that has ben foretold, his very actions
> bring that destiny about, and he incurs the wrath of the gods
> in the process.
>
Hummm... It is a question designed to elicit the personal feeling of
another. No more... no less... Of course, that concept is more than
you are equipped to deal with. In fact, the justice system IS
predicated on a presumption of 'limited precognition.' Since
it punishes in the hope that it can prevent another act in the
interest of 'public safety.' Public Safety, of course, is the primary
function of the Justice System. Even though it incorporates
punishment, it is meant to prevent further violations from that
individual through such punishment. Regardless of how flawed
anyone sees that to be... that IS the stated and presumed
PURPOSE. And I am more concerned with the 'wrath' of
murderers and their wrathful murders, than any presumed wrath
from God for executing some murderers. Permitting my
society to execute some of those wrathful murderers with the
expectation that doing so will save innocent lives, is acceptable
to me, so long as I see it does save innocent lives. Innocent
lives that presumably would have been taken by those murderers
in subsequent acts were they not to be executed. Of course,
it goes without saying, that the process is much too extensive
as it is, IMHO. We need a better selection process that more
narrowly defines those we are almost certain would murder again
if given the slightest opportunity. But the idea that we execute
NO murderer is totally repugnant to me, given the facts, and the
circumstances of some murders.
> > And even a bit more complex. Since he murdered eight people.
> > Presume we had 'limited precognition' and KNEW that one of three
> > potential perpetrators was going to commit those murders. If we
> > could ONLY execute all three or execute none and know the
> > eight people would be subsequently murdered... Would
> > the DP for ALL three (knowing two were innocent - but eight
> > innocent lives would be saved) be justified to you?
>
> Hmmm, kill a small number of innocent people in order to save
> a larger number of innocent people. Here's an article that explains
> in detail why that would NOT be morally or legally acceptable.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4p8p
LOL... desi Jr.... IMHO, we've already determined that you are morally
derelict, and hold no principles. I asked the question of another, since
there is no question in my mind which course you would choose. A
cowardly inability to make a decision that would save innocent lives,
because you are petrified at the thought of 'legal implications.' And
I just love a particular sentence in your URL, which is --- "The Model
Penal Code is categorical in declaring that all lives are equal."
It seems that you've NEVER believed that, and have gone so far as
to state "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
murders were criminals. The report does not specify what their
crimes were, but it is a reasonable speculation that they were also
Furman-commuted criminals." If all lives are equal... why would you
presume "it has to be said..." that 'some victims' are 'different,' rather
than 'equal'? You are obviously arguing that they are NOT equal.
In fact, my question was posed more in the form of the recent
"Minority Report" Science-Fiction production, which presumes the
respondent who answers my question is functioning under the rules
which 'legally' permit the choice. I am not addressing individual
vigilante precognition (a form of precognition I believe no one would
accept), but a legal 'perfect precognition.' You will notice I used the
word 'we' in posing ALL my argument... presuming 'we' is society. A
theoretical argument.. nothing more. Speaking only to the 'moral'
choice of the respondent. Not any 'individual' act he might take
independent of the legal function of society. What he would 'vote'
society do, rather than what he himself would personally do. Your
pathetic URL speaks only to individual acts, and has no meaning
to the questions posed, which represent how one would agree to
SOCIETY taking such actions. Even your absurd URL clearly states
"Whatever legal or moral privilege public authorities may have to decide
who shall live and who shall die when they respond to natural disasters
or in prosecuting a war, one is reluctant to grant this power to private
citizens." You have tried to translate this into giving this precognition
to 'private citizens,' while I've referred to giving it only to 'we' -- the
body of society. And given that you lack morality... I don't care to
hear your answer... which could not possibly contain something I
believe you do not possess. Of course... IMHO.
Finally, unless one presumes the entire justice system is 'immoral,'
you, or anyone cannot justify that doing damage to a small number
of innocent people in order to save a larger number of innocent people
is 'wrong.' Society creates a justice system with the clear
understanding that it is POSSIBLE that damage to innocents will
result. It does so because it recognizes that unless it accepts that
flaw in human perception, it can never do damage to the guilty as
well. Lacking that 'perfect perception,' all the guilty would necessarily
be presumed innocent, since damage to an innocent would not be
permissible. Thus, those guilty will do a greater damage to a greater
number of innocents. Society would DO no damage, but would PERMIT
unlimited damage by individuals. That is not why society was created.
In point of fact, the DP does not presume it CANNOT execute an
innocent. It presumes (and rightly so, IMHO) that a greater number
of innocents will be saved through the execution of those already guilty
of having committed murder.
> As a counter example, suppose 8 people were dying from organ
> failure, and you could provide them with life saving transplants if
> you kill two innocent people and steal their organs. Would you do
> that?
>
You silly boy... dying from organ failures is not being murdered.
We've been down this road before. The moral choice, IMHO, would
be to kill no one, and allow nature to take its course. Harvesting
whatever organs we could from those others who die naturally. Which
is what we presently do. It is quite different from preventing a human
act intending to murder a number of people. The murderer is NOT GOD.
He only presumes himself to be. Those dying from organ failure are not
in danger of being murdered by the man who presumes he is GOD.
And you are again trying to presume I was speaking of 'individual' acts,
when it was 'we' as a society, that was contained in all my questions.
But in a hostage situation, where the hostage-taker is holding eight
people hostage with an intent to murder them, every reasonable
person knows that the sniper who kills that hostage-taker is not
committing an illegal act, since society provides for his act.
While of course, everyone has their own opinion, as to the 'morality'
of that sniper doing so.
In that situation, I believe we've already determined that you'd hem
and haw a bit, and then you would sagely pronounce... "It has to be
said that maybe some of the victims taken hostage were criminals,
so they don't count, and thus, the hostage-taker can go ahead and
murder those 'criminal' hostages. Because society can never make
a 'decision' which would take a human life."
PV
Kwag7693
Date: 1/21/03 5:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Imagine that you are an Arab, that you are unemployed, that the land that
>would have been yours by birthright was stolen from your grandparents
>by European settlers, that you will never be married or have children
>because your economic prospects are nil.
Why would I imagine that? I don't think it is even close to the case among
suicide bombers who seem to mostly be hotheaded kids with their eyes full of
paradise. I don't think these are people sitting calmly and rationally
deciding that life itself is too unpleasant to continue.
Then imagine the thought
>of a hero's death, your name to be remembered amongst your fellows
>and your father and mother venerated.
Unless you make an effort
>to understand the other fellow's point of view you cant possibly
>appreciate what motivates him and what can be done to change his
>attitude.
I understand at least some of the radical Islamic point of view. It is
terrifically wrong and I have no idea how to change it. It starts off being
wrong with the whole God thing, and goes downhill from there. Knowing that
they think by blowing up anyone they don't care for and anyone who happens to
be nearby they attain *everlasting* paradise, the best I can hope for is
someone to use their screwball belief system against them. The monumental task
of teaching them to found their beliefs in reality is nothing I can hope to
figure out.
>A post like the above is merely playing to the crowd - I
>thought better of you.
What crowd? I was playing to Donna, if anything. Sorry to disappoint though.
Kevin
Kwag7693
>> the
>> DP?
>
>If you want the full story, I'd say that it would be almost exactly the
>same. Note that the murder rate is actually _less_ in non-DP
>jurisdictions within the USA. This is not to say that the DP causes the
>murder rate to increase but rather that its absence does nothing to
>_decrease_ it.
I can certainly see what appears to be a logical flaw here, you tell me since
you are better at statistics. I don't think you are comparing the same sample
groups, so I don't think you can draw the inference you are claiming.
>Unlikely, unless the DP was enacted for _every_ (or almost every) murder
>that was committed.
I don't think that is necessary. It takes a lot less than constant
reinforcement to establish a negative SR response.
>The "reasonable" timeframe to which you refer is, of course, utter
>nonsense. Of those who ahve been exonerated or freed from DR, very few
>have had this happen within as little as five years. You would be
>guaranteeing hideous miscarriages of justice if you were to enact
>executions as late as 12 months after sentencing. Of that we can all be
>sure.
I think I would want to fiat a bit more than simply reforming the ludicrous
waits. Professional juries would help cut down on the error rate.
>> the first should be deciding if killing murderers
>> is even
>> morally permissible. If it isn't, the rest of the debate is moot.
>
>As far as _I_ am concerned, killing murderers (by executing them) is
>_far_ from morally permissible. I don't expect others to share my moral
>standpoint, though.
What is morally impermissible about it?
Kevin
Fred
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:oFjX9.364$Uc7...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
...
>
> Imagine that you are an Arab, that you are unemployed, that the
land that
> would have been yours by birthright was stolen from your
grandparents
> by European settlers, that you will never be married or have
children
> because your economic prospects are nil. Then imagine the
thought
> of a hero's death, your name to be remembered amongst your fellows
> and your father and mother venerated. Unless you make an effort
> to understand the other fellow's point of view you cant possibly
> appreciate what motivates him and what can be done to change his
> attitude. A post like the above is merely playing to the crowd -
I
> thought better of you.
Perhaps the US should offer all law abiding Israelis the opportunity
to migrate to the USA. After all, there are fewer of them in Israel
than in New York (and they could be encouraged to settle in Utah)!
Not only would the US save billions in direct and indirect support to
Israel, they would have another bump in the tax base, some of the
finest technology companies in the world, and excellent Jewish food.
They would also have won the support of the Muslim populations, and
cut the legs out from under bin Laden and others.
"Wait a minute David, I think the Great Salt Lake IS the Promised
Land".
F
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) wrote:
> >> That is a non-sequitur. You know what the US murder rate would be
> >> absent
> >> the
> >> DP?
> >
> >If you want the full story, I'd say that it would be almost exactly the
> >same. Note that the murder rate is actually _less_ in non-DP
> >jurisdictions within the USA. This is not to say that the DP causes the
> >murder rate to increase but rather that its absence does nothing to
> >_decrease_ it.
>
> I can certainly see what appears to be a logical flaw here, you tell me
> since
> you are better at statistics. I don't think you are comparing the same
> sample
> groups,
No. There is no meaning in comparing the same sample groups here,
though. I am comparing groups that are as similar as possible (US
states) and demonstrating that the DP is not a significant factor in the
murder rate in various jurisdictions.
> so I don't think you can draw the inference you are claiming.
Seems self-evident to me. The USA executes about 0.4 per cent of its
murderers. This, as the statistics indicate, is not nearly enough to
deter. If deterrence is the aim (which it isn't), then a much greater
proportion of murderers would have to be executed. This would
inevitably lead to a large number of miscarriages of justice.
> >Unlikely, unless the DP was enacted for _every_ (or almost every) murder
> >that was committed.
>
> I don't think that is necessary. It takes a lot less than constant
> reinforcement to establish a negative SR response.
The DP has been a deterrent when and only when it has been applied
_extremely_ ruthlessly. When this has happened, it is undoubtedly true
that many people were executed in error. I don't think that it's worth
it.
> >The "reasonable" timeframe to which you refer is, of course, utter
> >nonsense. Of those who ahve been exonerated or freed from DR, very few
> >have had this happen within as little as five years. You would be
> >guaranteeing hideous miscarriages of justice if you were to enact
> >executions as late as 12 months after sentencing. Of that we can all be
> >sure.
>
> I think I would want to fiat a bit more than simply reforming the
> ludicrous
> waits. Professional juries would help cut down on the error rate.
Possibly.
> >> the first should be deciding if killing murderers
> >> is even
> >> morally permissible. If it isn't, the rest of the debate is moot.
> >
> >As far as _I_ am concerned, killing murderers (by executing them) is
> >_far_ from morally permissible. I don't expect others to share my moral
> >standpoint, though.
>
> What is morally impermissible about it?
I don't feel that it is right to kill people except when one is
immediately and directly threatened and all other avenues have been
explored.
There are exceptions to that rule but the DP doesn't constitute
sufficient reason for an exception.
It's my moral code, though, and I don't feel that I have to justify it
to anyone and nor do I feel that anyone is required to adopt it.
A Planet Visitor
"danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message news:b0jotu$ncn$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> "Kwag7693" <kwag...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030120230625...@mb-fe.aol.com...
> > From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@zeouane.org
> > Date: 1/20/03 10:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >
> > >> Okay. So it is reasonable to assume it deters some people, not all.
> > >
> > >Except that we cannot measure deterrence; it is unknown and unknoweable.
> >
> > Unknown doesn't entail unknowable.
>
> Perhaps not, but unflawed studies and definitive proof remain elusive.
>
> While definitely hard for me to quantify, I
> > know that were speeding made a capital crime, I would speed almost never,
> which
> > certainly implies there is some deterrent effect to a death threat.
>
> Deterrence might be a meaningful concept to you, but you cannot extend that
> to infer that it's a meaningful concept to others. If your life is
> surrounded by poverty, by lack of opportunity, by little respite save the
> cloud of drugs (which you can't obtain without committing a crime), then
> prison doesn't look so bad. The tiny risk of being executed some time in
> the next 2 decades means little to those accustomed to living life in the
> "now" timeframe.
>
Cheee.... We certainly do not fix the problem, by 'excusing' murder.
Of course... IMHO.
Sorry to butt in --- but....
Do not try to change 'right' into 'claim.' No one surrenders their 'claim' to
life, unless they commit suicide. Kevin was speaking of their 'right to life.'
Which is an entirely different matter. Unless I have missed something
in this dialog. I (or anyone) can 'claim' anything we wish. It is an internal
process. I can lay 'claim' to Jennifer Lopez, but not having the 'right' to do
so, will earn me some heavy action from Ben Affleck. A 'right' is something
earned or granted. That is not the same as a claim.
Now, a 'claim to life,' is a biological urge that tells you to do whatever you
feel necessary to 'stay alive.' I can 'claim' I may murder someone,
for whatever reason I deduce internally. But I clearly do not have a 'right'
to do so. A 'right to life,' is that granted by a particular society through
the laws or constitution providing such a 'right' to its members.
Obviously, there is no prohibition to society taking away what it
has granted in the first place, if the agreement society expected from
the one given such a 'right' by that society, is violated. When a citizen,
granted such a 'right to life,' voluntarily murders another, society
CAN (not must) clearly say 'you have voluntarily given up the right to
life we have given you, because you have taken the life of another who
also had such a right.' The murderer can 'claim' all he wishes in respect to
anything, but it is a hollow claim, if he presumes society cannot
take away what it has given regardless of what acts he commit.
At that point, upon conviction and sentencing for such a crime which
pronounces such a finding, those convicted HAVE NO RIGHTS.
At that point, society determines what rights it will reestablish with
those having committed such crimes, if any. Our society presumes
that the 'right' to trial, and to 'due process' cannot be taken away.
But it says nothing about any 'right to life' being irrevocable. And
even if it did, it would STILL remain something that man (society)
provided, and not something from nature or God... neither of whom
actually give a shit about any 'right to life' for anything. From the
smallest amoeba to our grand existence as an entire species. Nature
is uncaring and unforgiving. Presuming a God, presumes He might
be forgiving in spiritual terms. But it is rather obvious, simply by
looking about us, at others, that God does not concern Himself
with some individual fantasy of a 'Universal right to life.' We should
recognize the 'right to life' is an artificial construct, created by man... for
man. Embodied in the principle of 'The Golden Rule' created by man
as he emerged from the cave and began social intercourse in tribes.
The ethic of reciprocity, in which one man extends his hand and
grants 'rights' to another, in expectation that he will receives the
same 'rights' from that man... and it extends into the concept of the
'right to life,' with the presumption that 'if I agree not to murder you,' you
agree that 'you won't murder me.' And when that rule is broken within
society... the 'right to life' can be quickly extinguished, should society
decide to do so.
<rest of argument with Kevin clipped>
PV
>
>
>
Fred
Pork chops for the final meal?
F
Kwag7693
Date: 1/21/03 10:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
>No. There is no meaning in comparing the same sample groups here,
>though. I am comparing groups that are as similar as possible (US
>states) and demonstrating that the DP is not a significant factor in the
>murder rate in various jurisdictions.
How is that as similar as possible? You know that the factors you'd care to
control for in whatever states you are referencing are the same? Education,
criminal record, economic and social status, and whatever else we think will
influence whether or not someone will be likely to commit a murder (including
hard to quantify things like personal ideology) are equivalent between these
states? I don't think you know too much about the US if you are going to claim
Minnesota, Arkansas and New York are roughly equivalent, or close enough that
we can draw inferences about the US DP between them.
>> so I don't think you can draw the inference you are claiming.
>
>Seems self-evident to me. The USA executes about 0.4 per cent of its
>murderers. This, as the statistics indicate, is not nearly enough to
>deter.
That it would deter at least some is a unique benefit over imprisonment.
>The DP has been a deterrent when and only when it has been applied
>_extremely_ ruthlessly.
This claim is based on what?
When this has happened, it is undoubtedly true
>that many people were executed in error. I don't think that it's worth
>it.
I wouldn't either. I don't think your claim comes close to the case, though.
>I don't feel that it is right to kill people except when one is
>immediately and directly threatened and all other avenues have been
>explored.
In extremis, I think it is laughable to start "exploring avenues." If someone
is attacking me, I am not going to try and subdue him him if I think I can
increase my chances of survival by killing him.
By the same token, I think it is permissible to kill someone if it presents
some advantages over not killing him, if and only if, we can be sure that he is
a killer. By deciding to use force against someone else, he really places
himself outside the typical prudential consideration that weighs against
killing other people.
>It's my moral code, though, and I don't feel that I have to justify it
>to anyone and nor do I feel that anyone is required to adopt it.
Well since you are using your moral code to justify your political outlook it
certainly becomes a topic for discussion, doesn't it? Further, wouldn't we
want anyone's ethics to pertain not only to them but also to anyone in a
sufficiently similar situation?
Kevin
Lexham
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
------------------------------------------snip
> > Basing a criminal justice system on unknown values, and unproven
negatives,
> > especially when the goal of that justice system is to take life, cannot
be
> > said to be civilised.
>
> Horseshit... total unmitigated opinionated horseshit. The goal of the
> justice system is to save INNOCENT lives. You can state that you
> do not 'believe' it saves innocent lives, but you certainly cannot find
> ANY criminal justice statute or law which presume the 'goal' of
> a justice system is to take innocent life. And by leaving off
> 'innocent' you have deceptively attempted to make your opinion
> become an axiom (look it up... desi). The 'goal' of the justice
> system is to deal with conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably
> causes or threatens harm to individual. Essentially to 'insure
> the public safety.' The justice system does not presume a
> 'goal' of taking life. That's the 'goal' of murderers. Those you
> pray make it to Mexico when they escape from prison, even
> if they murder as they make their way... such as your prayer
> for those escaped Texas murderers who DID murder again.
---------------------------------------snip
Ah, yes, talking about the Texas escapees, do you remember this little
exchange, circa December 2000?
"If, however, they _have_ been sentenced to death, then yes, I hope
that they make it to the Mexican border. Love murderers ? No, I
don't. At least not anymore than I do any other human being. Do
I care for victims ? Yes, I do. Future victims, and all the
statistical evidence we have (note that statistical evidence does not
include your belief that executing will save lives. No empirical
evidence exists to support your belief, and thus intellectually, we
_must_ discount it), suggests that the death penalty has had no
deterrent effect whatsoever."
"One final point: you use the oft-repeated retentionist strawman, 'Would
_you_ like to meet these people on their way to Mexico ?' Well no, I
wouldn't, but that is my human trait called fear. Statistically, I
am in less danger from these people (I say 'am, although I mean 'would
be' ... I'm sure you understand) than I am from someone who has not yet
killed. If I met them, I might be 'scared', but being scared, and being
in danger, are not necessarily the same thing. "
That second paragraph is important, Desmond's claim that the escaped
murderers were less dangerous than someone who never killed before. They
killed someone right after that.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) wrote:
> From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks
> Date: 1/21/03 10:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >No. There is no meaning in comparing the same sample groups here,
> >though. I am comparing groups that are as similar as possible (US
> >states) and demonstrating that the DP is not a significant factor in the
> >murder rate in various jurisdictions.
>
> How is that as similar as possible? You know that the factors you'd care
> to
> control for in whatever states you are referencing are the same?
> Education,
> criminal record, economic and social status, and whatever else we think
> will
> influence whether or not someone will be likely to commit a murder
> (including
> hard to quantify things like personal ideology) are equivalent between
> these
> states?
We cannot possibly to hope to control all variables. That would be a
ridiculous assertion. Comparing US states is, for example, much more
useful to us than comparing a US state with an English county or a
province in Uzbekistan.
Statistics can't really _prove_ anything but they can indicate things
alarmingly accurately.
> I don't think you know too much about the US if you are going to
> claim
> Minnesota, Arkansas and New York are roughly equivalent, or close enough
> that
> we can draw inferences about the US DP between them.
Most US citizens live within urban areas. They share the same language,
same culture and roughly the same spread of socioeconomic benefits or
woes. It's a fact. Live with it.
> >> so I don't think you can draw the inference you are claiming.
> >
> >Seems self-evident to me. The USA executes about 0.4 per cent of its
> >murderers. This, as the statistics indicate, is not nearly enough to
> >deter.
>
> That it would deter at least some is a unique benefit over imprisonment.
You have thus far failed to demonstrate or even indicate strongly that
it deters more than imprisonment in any significant fashion.
> >The DP has been a deterrent when and only when it has been applied
> >_extremely_ ruthlessly.
>
> This claim is based on what?
History. Look at the way that the UK exercised capital punishment in
the past - extremely ruthlessly. Some would say viciously. It was a
response to a terrible, terrible murder rate. Seems to have worked.
> When this has happened, it is undoubtedly true
> >that many people were executed in error. I don't think that it's worth
> >it.
>
> I wouldn't either. I don't think your claim comes close to the case,
> though.
We will have to agree to differ there, perhaps.
> >I don't feel that it is right to kill people except when one is
> >immediately and directly threatened and all other avenues have been
> >explored.
>
> In extremis, I think it is laughable to start "exploring avenues."
Depends on how quickly you think.
> If
> someone
> is attacking me, I am not going to try and subdue him him if I think I
> can
> increase my chances of survival by killing him.
Let's guess who's more likely to end up in gaol as a result of their
behaviour - you or me?
> By the same token, I think it is permissible to kill someone if it
> presents
> some advantages over not killing him, if and only if, we can be sure that
> he is
> a killer. By deciding to use force against someone else, he really
> places
> himself outside the typical prudential consideration that weighs against
> killing other people.
Would you say that of someone who started a bar brawl? That's what the
above paragraph seems to indicate.
> >It's my moral code, though, and I don't feel that I have to justify it
> >to anyone and nor do I feel that anyone is required to adopt it.
>
> Well since you are using your moral code to justify your political
> outlook
Bollocks to that. My moral take on the DP is just one of the dozens of
reasons that I think it's wrong.
> it
> certainly becomes a topic for discussion, doesn't it? Further, wouldn't
> we
> want anyone's ethics to pertain not only to them but also to anyone in a
> sufficiently similar situation?
Nope.
Fred
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks>
news:jonathan-DEDAD1...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
...
>
> History. Look at the way that the UK exercised capital punishment
in
> the past - extremely ruthlessly. Some would say viciously. It was
a
> response to a terrible, terrible murder rate. Seems to have
worked.
In what sense? While attending the hanging of a pickpocket, you were
likely to have your pocket picked.
Great example.
F
JIGSAW1695
Date: 1/22/2003 12:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <85qX9.35772$536.1...@news2.telusplanet.net>
Great example.
F
===============================
Who said life was fair?
A Planet Visitor
"Fred" <no-...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message news:t2hX9.30950$536.1...@news2.telusplanet.net...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:f47X9.113999$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> ...
> > The DP cannot deter shoplifting, if the shoplifter kills himself in
> > the act. The perpetrator in your 'example' (sic) could not have
> > been 'deterred' by ANYTHING, other than precognition by the
> > Justice System, such as that silly 'Minority Report'
> science-fiction.
> >
> > But that brings up a 'technical' and 'moral' form of argument.
> Suppose
> > we HAD precognition of his act, and the ONLY way to prevent it
> > was to EXECUTE him prior to his act. Would THAT justify the
> > DP to you? Understand I am given you NO alternatives to
> > apprehension and incarceration to prevent his acts. Is the DP
> > justified in that case?
>
> False hypothesis. If the only way to save YOUR life was to destroy
> the earth, and everyone on it, would you do it?
>
precognition of acts of murder. And the question as to whether
one would support society using the DP having that precognition.
It has no meaning in respect to an individual's act. Obviously,
you are another one who puts something different into the dialog than
is there. Whether you do so purposely or innocently is still an
unknown. 'we' implies society. I did not say 'you have precognition.'
And I spoke of the DP as the action taken... not you going out
to destroy the world. Nor is 'your life' even involved in the decision
process to the question as posed. I have not stated that YOU
were one of the potential victims. You are the citizen who 'votes'
and thus 'justifies' or does 'not justify' the act society takes.
> If the only way to save your child's life was to torture a guilty
> man, would you do it?
>
Again.. READ the hypothesis. You have ONLY to provide an
'opinion' as to whether an act society would take is JUSTIFIED.
Would you 'support' it? Just as the question is asked in respect
to support for the DP. Not that YOU, or any INDIVIDUAL goes
out and can legally execute someone.
Obviously, you do not intend to actually address the question as
posed. That's fine with me.. just don't try to make it become what
it is not. It is not a question framed in the form of what you would
DO in a personal act... but what you would SUPPORT society
doing.
> > And even a bit more complex. Since he murdered eight people.
> > Presume we had 'limited precognition' and KNEW that one of three
> > potential perpetrators was going to commit those murders. If we
> > could ONLY execute all three or execute none and know the
> > eight people would be subsequently murdered... Would
> > the DP for ALL three (knowing two were innocent - but eight
> > innocent lives would be saved) be justified to you?
>
> Another silly hypothesis. These are 'Oprah' hypotheses.
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And yours are 'Jerry Springer' answers.
PV
> F
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Lexham" <lex...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:hPpX9.82089$kH3.14860@sccrnsc03...
conservative of estimates, convicted murderers released are at
least 1.2% recidivist for murder. That's AT LEAST 1.2 out of
every 100. While the U.S. homicide rate hovers around 6/100,000.
That would mean if we had 100,000 previously convicted murderers,
that 1.2% recidivist rate would mean they commit 1200 new murders.
Thus, a previously convicted murderer is TWO HUNDRED times
as likely to murder as the 'ordinary citizen' committing his first
murder. And I would certainly not be unreasonable to presume
that an escaped murderer is many times more likely to murder
while free, than a convicted murderer who has been legally released.
And I well remember that thread... where he offered a prayer for
the escaped murderers to make it to Mexico.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b0koj1$orr$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:nZkX9.27800$o8.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> news:b0jddh$ovd$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks>
> wrote in
> > > message news:jonathan-30FE52...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > > > In article <Ph3X9.51422$Jm2....@news.bellsouth.net>, "Benny Deeni"
> > > > <natsa...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Okay, so those who were not deterred by the DP (or any
> > > > > other punishment) were not deterred. So what?
> > > >
> > > > Statistically, the population is not deterred by the DP. It is a
> fact.
> > > > Live with it. The DP does not deter.
> > >
> > > Lets be precice about this. The DP _does_ deter. Life imprisonment is
> > > an equally good deterrent. The DP does not deter _more_than_ alternative
> > > measures.
> > >
> >
> > A bit more precise, would be that you have no idea what you are
> > talking about. [1}
>
> Do you have specific reasons for disagreeing with me?
> Or is it merely your usual obsessive hatred?
>
do not however, and this was the point I was trying to make...usually
present those opinions are presumed FACT. Which, IMHO, was
exactly what YOU tried to do.
How can you possibly make such bold statements, without the
slightest bit of foundation offered, and expect anyone to presume
they are TRUE? But that was your intent. You need to PROVE
bold statements such as you provided here. In fact, one of our
more astute abolitionists here, Professor Emeritus of Everything
Earl Evleth, has pronounced the Emory study as showing some
deterrence to the DP post-Furman. Who am I to disagree with
such an illustrious figure? And who are you to also do so?
PV
John Rennie
"Fred" <no-...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message
However it's the best example around. Death sentences
carried out quickly together with transportation turned
Britain into a recognisably civilised country by the end
of the 19th century.
John Rennie
> From: "John Rennie" j.re...@ntlworld.com
> Date: 1/21/03 5:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >Imagine that you are an Arab, that you are unemployed, that the land that
> >would have been yours by birthright was stolen from your grandparents
> >by European settlers, that you will never be married or have children
> >because your economic prospects are nil.
>
> Why would I imagine that? I don't think it is even close to the case
among
> suicide bombers who seem to mostly be hotheaded kids with their eyes full
of
> paradise. I don't think these are people sitting calmly and rationally
> deciding that life itself is too unpleasant to continue.
If life is a crock of shit then life is cheap.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > Lets be precice about this. The DP _does_ deter. Life imprisonment
is
> > > > an equally good deterrent. The DP does not deter _more_than_
alternative
> > > > measures.
> > > >
> > >
> > > A bit more precise, would be that you have no idea what you are
> > > talking about. [1}
> >
> > Do you have specific reasons for disagreeing with me?
> > Or is it merely your usual obsessive hatred?
> >
> I disagree with you, Peter... because I hold a contrary opinion.
But you fail to produce any basis for this, you simply present your
opinion as FACT, without any counter-argument at all. Which is
what you accuse me of doing.
> I
> do not however, and this was the point I was trying to make...usually
> present those opinions are presumed FACT. Which, IMHO, was
> exactly what YOU tried to do.
PV's hypocrisy at work again. You present your opinion as FACT,
without any argument at all to back it up, then immediately claim
that you never do that.
> How can you possibly make such bold statements, without the
> slightest bit of foundation offered, and expect anyone to presume
> they are TRUE? But that was your intent. You need to PROVE
> bold statements such as you provided here.
PV's hypocrisy at work again. You claim that I need to PROVE
bold statements, yet you feel that you make the bold statment that
"you have no idea what you aretalking about." and provide no
proof.
> In fact, one of our
> more astute abolitionists here, Professor Emeritus of Everything
> Earl Evleth, has pronounced the Emory study as showing some
> deterrence to the DP post-Furman. Who am I to disagree with
> such an illustrious figure? And who are you to also do so?
Cite, please. What PRECISELY did he say?
I know you of old, PV, and given your habit of altering quotes,
he most likely said :
The Emory study purports to show deterrence post-Furman, but is
seriously flawed for the following reasons ... (long discussion of why
its wrong)
Earl Evleth
wrote on 22/01/03 16:24:
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:lUrX9.28024$o8.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets be precice about this. The DP _does_ deter. Life imprisonment
> is
>>>>> an equally good deterrent. The DP does not deter _more_than_
> alternative
>>>>> measures.
>> In fact, one of our
>> more astute abolitionists here, Professor Emeritus of Everything
>> Earl Evleth, has pronounced the Emory study as showing some
>> deterrence to the DP post-Furman. Who am I to disagree with
>> such an illustrious figure? And who are you to also do so?
>
> Cite, please. What PRECISELY did he say?
>
> I know you of old, PV, and given your habit of altering quotes,
> he most likely said :
>
> The Emory study purports to show deterrence post-Furman, but is
> seriously flawed for the following reasons ... (long discussion of why
> its wrong)
PV did not read my critique and if he read it he did not understand it.
I thought the issue pretty simple, they Emory study did not cover the
1900-1960 period (or 1970-1970). The title of their study was "post Furman"
and I can imagine the discussions with the referees. The cop out is that
they said they were only studying the post Furman period, claiming nothing
for most of the 20th century. Their justification might have been that
the data for a complex econometric model was not available and a referee
has to accept that.
So it gets published. I guess it got published, the
stuff we are seeing is nearly two years old. However I checked
their University CVs on Emory`s web site and could find no
mention of the paper. indeed if it did not get published, shit hit the fan,
major problems arose with their paper perhaps of the type I mention.
These are good researchers so I am not knocking the paper
itself but the time period covered.
I can understand PV getting mad at me, but actually modeling of this
type is not far from my own work.
Earl
danh
> From: "danh" da...@lexisnexis.com
> Date: 1/21/03 10:27 AM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >> >Except that we cannot measure deterrence; it is unknown and
unknoweable.
> >>
> >> Unknown doesn't entail unknowable.
> >
> >Perhaps not, but unflawed studies and definitive proof remain elusive.
>
> accepting the fairly obvious.
Unfortunately, the "fairly obvious" is subjective. The fact is that general
deterrence has not been shown to be real any more than brutalization has.
Given that it cannot be shown (and there have been many who've tried) it
devolves to a mere article of faith. We don't predicate policy on articles
of faith. Usually.
> >Deterrence might be a meaningful concept to you, but you cannot extend
that
> >to infer that it's a meaningful concept to others.
>
> Assuming it is a meaningful concept to anyone who thinks similarly is
enough
> for me to conclude it will deter at least some murders.
If general deterrence were a valid concept, it would be borne out by the
data. It has not been borne out and thus cannot be valid except as an
article of faith, making it a circular argument. An article of faith is not
an axiom.
> >If your life is
> >surrounded by poverty, by lack of opportunity, by little respite save the
> >cloud of drugs (which you can't obtain without committing a crime), then
> >prison doesn't look so bad. The tiny risk of being executed some time in
> >the next 2 decades means little to those accustomed to living life in the
> >"now" timeframe.
>
> So it won't deter some murderers. How does this prove the death penalty
is not
> a deterrent?
Uh, because it doesn't deter and no data can/has been adduced to confirm it.
The argument you're making is essentially that since it's obvious to you,
it's real. That's the same argument used by murderers - that their victims
merited death, so they gave it to them, and that should be okay. Beliefs
that are not confirmed by data are beliefs, not facts.
> >> OTOH, basing the freeing of a murderer on the literally unprovable,
until
> >they
> >> die or commit a murder, claim he is rehabilitated, especially when the
> >goal of
> >> ANY justice system is to protect innocent life, fits yours objection
> >nicely.
> >
> >Not sure what this means.
>
> It is just some conjoined sentences. The goal of every justice system is
to
> protect innocent lives.
Nonsense. The goal of justice systems is to apprehend and punish the guilty
with appropriate sanctions. If doing so protects innocents, great, but that
isn't the goal.
The conclusion that a stay in prison has made a
> murderer into a person that will not commit murders, especially given your
> supposition that murderers from poor neighborhoods won't find prison very
bad,
> is hypothetical and in my estimate not very likely to be true. Until they
are
> dead or commit a murder, no one will know if they are rehabilitated.
I think it's safe to conclude that one who has not reoffended after some
period of time, given the opportunity to reoffend, can be considered
rehabilitated. We needn't wait until death to make that assessment.
So
> Desmond pointing to the hypothetical possibility of executing an innocent
> person is counter-balanced by the hypothetical possibility of releasing a
> murderer or even allowing them to continue living and posing a threat to
fellow
> inmates and prison guards.
Sure. So what? I think it a fair supposition that the likelihood of
reoffending diminishes over time and that one who offended as a youth, is
less dangerous than one recently paroled. There is even data to support
that perspective though I don't have it at hand.
> >> That the DP *is* a deterrent is a reason to use it.
> >
> >Your assetion, even your emphatic assertion, means nothing compared to
the
> >facts. The facts are that the dp has not been shown to deter.
>
> Look here, I stated why I know it is a deterrent.
No. You stated why you *think* it's a deterrent. An article of faith is
only good within the circle of believers.
Whatever facts you are
> referencing, if you would be deterred from an illegal act you currently
engage
> in if it were made a capital crime, you can be certain it is a deterrent.
I
> think the interpretation of the facts is highly suspect because they lead
you
> to conclude that contrary to what is almost certainly your personal
experience,
> death threats don't influence human behavior.
I think you need to distinguish between general deterrence and specific
deterrence. The argument for dp deterrence is one favoring general
deterrence while the argument you've made above is specific deterrence.
Apples and carrots.
> >Murderers do not consciously (or unconsciously) surrender their claim to
> >life. It is not now, nor has it ever been part of the social contract
that
> >a life is taken for each life taken. You, in the guise of society,
cannot
> >do "whatever we want to do".
>
> I see your assertion and that you've brought in a very problematic
construct to
> prop it up, i.e. an imaginary social contract.
Imaginary? The social contract is real and lived by all.
A murderer treats other people
> as if their lives are of no worth. On what grounds shall he press the
claim
> that his own life is to be treated otherwise? If I can understand a
prudent
> reason for living in a society and for refusing to initiate violence
against
> non-violent people, I also happen to understand an excellent reason both
to
> retaliate against people who don't feel the same and for ensuring that
they can
> pose no further threat to anyone else.
Aha! The operative word finally entered the thread: retaliation.
Retaliation is what the dp is about, in a nutshell. There are those such as
yourself who are honest enough to admit it and the majority of dp supporters
who are not.
> >A couple of years ago, when I still thought there was some meaningful
dialog
> >occurring here, I suggested that since the Constitution didn't ban
torture
> >and branding, dp advocates should take up trying to pass laws calling for
> >such judicial action.
>
> But the Constitution does ban cruel and unusual punishment, and I am not
sure
> what you would hope to achieve through torture and branding.
I made that suggestion in response to the pro-dp claim that the dp isn't
cruel and unusual. Given the tiny proportion of murderers who are sentenced
to death, and the freakish way in which it's applied, the punishment itself
meets the definition of cruel and unusual. Why do we make an exception for
torture and branding, when these were common practices in the US' early
days?
> >No one has ever taken the idea seriously. The dp is
> >no different - it is an antiquated relic from the past, imposed in ever
more
> >mysterious and sinister ways - under the illusion of being a social
> >imperative.
>
> Why wouldn't I take the idea seriously?
Equivocation? Avoidance of the issue? Sheer arrogance? Lack of wit?
There could be lots of reasons. <g>
You aren't even asipiring to ethical
> debate. Either an action is grounded in prudent reasons or it is not,
much
> like every action one would think to undertake. If there was some
excellent
> reason to brand criminals and torture them, why wouldn't we? I happen to
think
> there is not any sound reason for doing so, but simply relying on some
feeling
> that both torture and execution make one uncomfortable falls short of
sound
> ethical argumentation.
Thanks for your views on ethical debate. They're irrelevant. Read my two
'graphs above for the reason I reintroduced the subject.
danh
news:20030121125750...@mb-fw.aol.com...
[...]
> ===============================
> Thank you for your "interesting" comment.
>
> Jigsaw
>
> PS: This is from an anti DP'er who seems to advocate torture.
Screw you Jiggy. You know I don't advocate torture - I just think you're a
hypocrite for not doing so - after all, it was common practice when the
Constitution was written, just like the dp.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 1/22/2003 2:17 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <b0mqod$cs6$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
[...]
===============================
You are correct. The British overlords who controlled in the American colonies
did indeed use harsh methods against American prisoners who had few or rights.
That is why the Constitution was written.
Jigsaw
Peter Morris
> in article b0md3d$b1g$1...@venus.btinternet.com, Peter Morris at
no...@m.please
> wrote on 22/01/03 16:24:
>
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > news:lUrX9.28024$o8.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lets be precice about this. The DP _does_ deter. Life imprisonment
> > is
> >>>>> an equally good deterrent. The DP does not deter _more_than_
> > alternative
> >>>>> measures.
>
>
> >> In fact, one of our
> >> more astute abolitionists here, Professor Emeritus of Everything
> >> Earl Evleth, has pronounced the Emory study as showing some
> >> deterrence to the DP post-Furman. Who am I to disagree with
> >> such an illustrious figure? And who are you to also do so?
> >
> > Cite, please. What PRECISELY did he say?
> >
> > I know you of old, PV, and given your habit of altering quotes,
> > he most likely said :
> >
> > The Emory study purports to show deterrence post-Furman, but is
> > seriously flawed for the following reasons ... (long discussion of why
> > its wrong)
>
>
> PV did not read my critique and if he read it he did not understand it.
>
> I thought the issue pretty simple, they Emory study did not cover the
> 1900-1960 period (or 1970-1970).
Is that a misprint?
> The title of their study was "post Furman"
> and I can imagine the discussions with the referees. The cop out is that
> they said they were only studying the post Furman period, claiming nothing
> for most of the 20th century. Their justification might have been that
> the data for a complex econometric model was not available and a referee
> has to accept that.
I don't pretend to understand the mathematics involved, but from
what I hear, most criminologists reject the econometric model itself
as inapplicable to the deterrence model, and that a stochastic
model should be used instead.
I'm basing this on this paper, summarizing some notable research on the
subject (section 7).
http://tigger.uic.edu/~mikem/Poisson.PDF
From this, it seems that the theories of Earlich have been rejected
by the peer review, and the Emory study is based on Earlich's
model..
yours_most_truly
> > This claim is based on what?
> History. Look at the way that the UK exercised capital punishment in
> the past - extremely ruthlessly. Some would say viciously. It was a
> response to a terrible, terrible murder rate. Seems to have worked.
Q.Z., if you in fact posted that, it was incredibly stupid and you
know it. So why did you do it? Either you were on a troll, or you
were very tired....
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
asc...@zdnetonebox.com (yours_most_truly) wrote:
I couldn't explain it terribly well. I was essentially agreeing with a
postulate that Mr Rennie once put forward.
John Rennie
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
message news:jonathan-5B5CBC...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <d9253152.03012...@posting.google.com>,
> asc...@zdnetonebox.com (yours_most_truly) wrote:
>
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > This claim is based on what?
> > > History. Look at the way that the UK exercised capital punishment in
> > > the past - extremely ruthlessly. Some would say viciously. It was a
> > > response to a terrible, terrible murder rate. Seems to have worked.
> >
> > Q.Z., if you in fact posted that, it was incredibly stupid and you
> > know it. So why did you do it? Either you were on a troll, or you
> > were very tired....
>
> I couldn't explain it terribly well. I was essentially agreeing with a
> postulate that Mr Rennie once put forward.
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
> --
I'm at a bit of a loss here, JPB. What exactly do you disagree
with.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> And as all of desi's output... it's total horseshit. By the most
> conservative of estimates, convicted murderers released are at
> least 1.2% recidivist for murder. That's AT LEAST 1.2 out of
> every 100. While the U.S. homicide rate hovers around 6/100,000.
> That would mean if we had 100,000 previously convicted murderers,
> that 1.2% recidivist rate would mean they commit 1200 new murders.
> Thus, a previously convicted murderer is TWO HUNDRED times
> as likely to murder as the 'ordinary citizen' committing his first
> murder.
A nonsensical peice of calculation, for several reasons.
1) The 1.2% is an estimate of recidivism during a LIFETIME,
following release , wheras the 6/100,000 figure is the estimate
for a SINGLE YEAR.
Obviously, the lifetime total will be much higher than the single
year figure.
2) The 1.2% figure refers to the number of PERPETRATORS,
the 6/100,000 is the number of VICTIMS. The two are not directly
comparable. Often, several murderers are jointly guilty of a
single death. There are always more murderers than victims.
So, really what you are comparing is the number of people who
commit murder in a 50 year period, to the number of victims
in a single year. Hardly surprising theres a big difference between
the two, is it?
3) You talk about the "ordinary citizen". Comparing to the
"ordinary citizen" is meaningless. There is no such thing.
Consider, for example, sex. The hypothetical 'ordinary
citizen' is half way between a man and a woman. Now, it
is a fact that most murders are committed by men. Only
about 1 in 20 murders are committed by women. That
means that ANY man is more likely than the "average
citizen" to commit murder. Planet Visitor personally
is more likely than the "ordinary citizen" to commit murder.
Any man is about twice as likely as likely as the "ordinary
citizen" to commit murder.
And it is also true that most people rel;eased from prison
are in fact men. Comparing their danger to the "average
citizen" is meaningless. It is only meaningful when you
compare them to other men.
Note this works both ways round. A woman is far less likely
than an "average citizen" to commit murder. It is quite possible
that a paroled murderess is statistically less dangerous than
the hypothetical "average citizen". It is only meaningful when
compared to other women.
Similar argument goes for other demographic divisions,
eg age, economic status, educational background.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Deterrent effect of the Death Penalty
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:41:26 +0000
>
>le Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:39:16 -0000, dans l'article
><wFtX9.109$W97....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, John Rennie
><j.re...@ntlworld.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> However it's the best example around. Death sentences
>> carried out quickly together with transportation turned
>> Britain into a recognisably civilised country by the end
>> of the 19th century.
>
>Ha, ha, ha !!!!!!!
>
>Jesus, John, that one almost cost me a new monitor, as a mouthful of Earl
>Grey went spraying over this one !!
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu!news.cse.sc.edu!news.sprintnetops.net!newsfeed.mo
untaincable.net!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp21
2-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-ma
>il
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Deterrent effect of the Death Penalty
>Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:41:26 +0000
>Lines: 19
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <mlvm0b....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <jonathan-602BBE...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><20030121235349...@mb-ba.aol.com>
><jonathan-DEDAD1...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><85qX9.35772$536.1...@news2.telusplanet.net>
><wFtX9.109$W97....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1043268428 28760375 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy's-Moped:
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
Poor Desi, drunk again! The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond
Coughlan lacks conviction in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived
in Google. Please feel free to use it to your advantage.
Peter Morris
> From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks
> Date: 1/20/03 11:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >> >What he is saying is that you might be able to think of a couple of
> >> >individuals who have been deterred by the DP but we can come up with
> >> >15000 such people _every_single_year_ in the USA alone who were
> >> >evidently _not_ deterred.
> >>
> >> Okay. So it is reasonable to assume it deters some people, not all.
> >
> >pathetically high murder rate. Therefore, it is useless as a deterrent.
> >
>
> That is a non-sequitur. You know what the US murder rate would be absent
the
> penalty that actually occurred in reasonable timeframe
given the number of innocents that keep turning up on death row
after 10, 15 or 20 years, reducing the timeframe would certainly
result in executing innocents, probably far more than you would save.
> so that the populace
> understood a fairly direct connection between committing a murder and
being
> executed? I am more concerned with deciding if a death penalty could be
just,
> than if it currently is. As it stands, it is kind of odd to assert a
death
> penalty is no deterrent to crime while simultaneously pressing for
moratoria
> upon it for independent ethical reasons. I would think deterrence would
be the
> last arena of debate, the first should be deciding if killing murderers is
even
> morally permissible. If it isn't, the rest of the debate is moot.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
Kwag7693
Date: 1/22/03 9:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
>given the number of innocents that keep turning up on death row
>after 10, 15 or 20 years, reducing the timeframe would certainly
>result in executing innocents, probably far more than you would save.
Well how about a death penalty along with some jury reform then? No one wants
innocent people executed.
Kevin
JIGSAW1695
Date: 1/22/2003 10:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <20030122220518...@mb-dh.aol.com>
Kevin
===============================
What kind of "jury reform" do you propose? Give us some examples of what
changes should be made to achieve the goal you desire.
Jigsaw
Earl Evleth
wrote on 22/01/03 23:22:
>> I thought the issue pretty simple, they Emory study did not cover the
>> 1900-1960 period (or 1970-1970).
>
> Is that a misprint?
should read
1900-1970
>> The title of their study was "post Furman"
>> and I can imagine the discussions with the referees. The cop out is that
>> they said they were only studying the post Furman period, claiming nothing
>> for most of the 20th century. Their justification might have been that
>> the data for a complex econometric model was not available and a referee
>> has to accept that.
>
> I don't pretend to understand the mathematics involved, but from
> what I hear, most criminologists reject the econometric model itself
> as inapplicable to the deterrence model, and that a stochastic
> model should be used instead.
You may know more than I do since all I have read about are
the econometric modeling. This is just complex "curve" fitting
of the least square's type. The latter is normally linear but
any set of data can be also attempted to fit non-linear models.
I worked with a different type of modeling, optimizations, finding
the critical points on a mathematically well defined hypersurface, including
the first and second derivatives at those points. This required
searching a hypersurface until the critical points were found. The search
methods were essentially refined steepest descent or ascent.
From what I read the econometric modeling fell into disrepute
among criminologists until resurfacing in the 90s again. They have
a problem with the data bases economists don't. I also get the impression
that mostly economists (like Lott) used the technique on crossing over
into the criminology area. I only fully understand something if I feel
"yes, I can program that" but still I find the papers difficult to follow
in their final mathematical form, which seem written to confuse the educated
non-expert who does have the background to follow a well written paper.
>
> I'm basing this on this paper, summarizing some notable research on the
> subject (section 7).
> http://tigger.uic.edu/~mikem/Poisson.PDF
>
> From this, it seems that the theories of Earlich have been rejected
> by the peer review, and the Emory study is based on Earlich's
> model..
The web site having the Emory paper is dated 2001, the paper itself has
an January 2002 date. Submission and publication of a paper can take
easily a year.
The Ehrlich study also was knocked for leaving out a portion of the earlier
data base. Later work showed that there was no deterrence using an expanded
data base.
Nobody here discusses "brutalization" studies of the past. Some of these
indicated a significant effect. One can come up with the same kinds of
arguments which support deterrence, that is that the execution serves
as a lesson to others. In brutalization the lesson learned is that it
is alright to settle scores by killing. Executions add to the climate
of violence. Both deterrence and brutalization effects can be discounted
by saying that in effect there are too few executions to serve as an
example.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b0md3d$b1g$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:lUrX9.28024$o8.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > > > >
> > > > > Lets be precice about this. The DP _does_ deter. Life imprisonment
> is
> > > > > an equally good deterrent. The DP does not deter _more_than_
> alternative
> > > > > measures.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > A bit more precise, would be that you have no idea what you are
> > > > talking about. [1}
> > >
> > > Do you have specific reasons for disagreeing with me?
> > > Or is it merely your usual obsessive hatred?
> > >
> > I disagree with you, Peter... because I hold a contrary opinion.
>
> But you fail to produce any basis for this, you simply present your
> opinion as FACT, without any counter-argument at all. Which is
> what you accuse me of doing.
>
proof. Yours does. If YOU STATE that 'The DP does not deter
_more_than_alternative_measures, 'you must be prepared to
PROVE that statement. I make no claim that the contrary argument
is PROVEN, so I need to prove nothing... the only presumption
that can be stated without requiring proof is 'I don't know.' And
that is my claim... 'I don't know if it does or does not.' But I
can say I disagree with your CONCLUSION that you KNOW your
argument is proven. Because it is not... you've just claimed it..
and claimed it as being precise!!
If you assert something you must PROVE it. This is called semper
praesumitur pro negante.. the presumption is ALWAYS in the
negative to any proposition offered by a propounder. You have
propounded that 'The DP does not deter _more_than_alternative_
measures.' Without proof, the presumption of your statement is
in the negative. Proof, please. I don't have to prove that I do not
know one way or the other if it does or does not.
>
> > I
> > do not however, and this was the point I was trying to make...usually
> > present those opinions are presumed FACT. Which, IMHO, was
> > exactly what YOU tried to do.
>
> PV's hypocrisy at work again. You present your opinion as FACT,
> without any argument at all to back it up, then immediately claim
> that you never do that.
>
My opinion in this respect IS fact. You certainly have not proved
your proposition, while I make NONE of my own, other than I
hold the opinion that you have not proved that proposition. If you
have proved it... I'd be interested in seeing that 'proof.' ho ho ho.
It would be the first time you've ever 'proved' one of your
'propositions' (sic).
> > How can you possibly make such bold statements, without the
> > slightest bit of foundation offered, and expect anyone to presume
> > they are TRUE? But that was your intent. You need to PROVE
> > bold statements such as you provided here.
>
> PV's hypocrisy at work again. You claim that I need to PROVE
> bold statements, yet you feel that you make the bold statment that
> "you have no idea what you aretalking about." and provide no
> proof.
>
But you DON'T have 'any idea what you are talking about,' if you
believe you can propound "The DP does not deter _more_than_alternative
_measures" and not provide proof of what you've presumed is a FACT.
And not only that, you stated you were being 'precise.'
Jesus... what's precise about making a clumsy unproven statement?
>
> > In fact, one of our
> > more astute abolitionists here, Professor Emeritus of Everything
> > Earl Evleth, has pronounced the Emory study as showing some
> > deterrence to the DP post-Furman. Who am I to disagree with
> > such an illustrious figure? And who are you to also do so?
>
> Cite, please. What PRECISELY did he say?
>
His words -- "I have studied that paper and the key problem is
only dealing with the 1977 to 1996 statistics. This gives the
appearance of deterrence." My posting of his words is certainly
more 'precise,' than anything you've ever offered... one has
only to look at your 'precise' proposition that contains no factually
proven information whatsoever to see that.
or will I be your lackey... look his words up for yourself, since the
post of his is still in the active newsreader.
> I know you of old, PV, and given your habit of altering quotes,
> he most likely said :
>
> The Emory study purports to show deterrence post-Furman, but is
> seriously flawed for the following reasons ... (long discussion of why
> its wrong)
Nah... actually, he tried to discredit it using 60 year old data,
but admitted that post-Gregg, "gives the appearance of deterrence."
Not 'purports,' but what HE finds from the study.. 'the appearance
of deterrence.' You do understand English... do you not? If not --
Appearance -- 1. "The action of coming forward into view or becoming
visible." That's what it 'gives' Earl. See --
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20appearance_files/OED%20Online%20-%20appearance.htm
But you're stretching it a bit... from claiming I take you 'out of context,'
when it's clear that you don't 'care' if murderers murder prisoners
in prison, to now claiming I use your habits of altering quotes, as
you did by presuming you could interpret one of my comments
as including the word 'murder' (it did not), and rewriting the dictionary
in defining the word 'might.'
Naughty..naughty.. Peter... the mirror... adjust it for a full-frontal view
and recognize yourself for what you are... A rather pitiful believer
that society cannot execute murderers, but murderers can murder
in prison (Presumably because their victims are 'not innocent' as you
wrote the words ""Secondly, they are not 'innocent' PV's theory of
how it is OK to kill 'guilty' people to save 'innocent' ones doesn't work
here" When speaking of those prisoners murdered by Furman-commuted
murderers. Apparently you do not believe in self-defense acts which
kill, as well.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b0njbt$a4m$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:lUrX9.28025$o8.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > And as all of desi's output... it's total horseshit. By the most
> > conservative of estimates, convicted murderers released are at
> > least 1.2% recidivist for murder. That's AT LEAST 1.2 out of
> > every 100. While the U.S. homicide rate hovers around 6/100,000.
> > That would mean if we had 100,000 previously convicted murderers,
> > that 1.2% recidivist rate would mean they commit 1200 new murders.
> > Thus, a previously convicted murderer is TWO HUNDRED times
> > as likely to murder as the 'ordinary citizen' committing his first
> > murder.
>
> A nonsensical peice of calculation, for several reasons.
>
> 1) The 1.2% is an estimate of recidivism during a LIFETIME,
> following release , wheras the 6/100,000 figure is the estimate
> for a SINGLE YEAR.
>
> Obviously, the lifetime total will be much higher than the single
> year figure.
>
What are you talking about? The convicted murderers released
in 1983 had a recidivist rate of 6.6%. See --
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf
The convicted murderers release in 1994 had a recidivist rate of 1.2%
See --
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
Every year convicted murderers are released. And every year
THEY have that certain recidivist rate. We don't release ALL
murderers at one time. And wait until they die to count the
recidivism rate. Those murderers released in 1983, will be
replaced by those murderers released in 1984... etc...etc...etc.
Good grief!!! If we release 100 murderers in 1999, and they
are 1% recidivist, WHENEVER... that is one new murder.
If we release ANOTHER 100 murderers in 2000, and THEY
are 1% recidivist, WHENEVER... that is ANOTHER new murder.
Thus EVERY year, the total of all recidivist murders is 1%.
2 murders/200 released murderers. It's not 0.5% because
2 years have passed. Take it out to 20 years, if it takes
that long for all of them to be recidivist, and you simply have
20 murders/2000 released murderers. Thus EVERY YEAR
a 1% recidivist rate.
> 2) The 1.2% figure refers to the number of PERPETRATORS,
> the 6/100,000 is the number of VICTIMS. The two are not directly
> comparable. Often, several murderers are jointly guilty of a
> single death. There are always more murderers than victims.
>
What??? Have you gone mad? In the McVeigh murders... Exactly
how many murderers were there... and how many victims? Your
statement is so CRUDE and FALSE that it bears witness to
much of your other ravings. "ALWAYS more murderers than victims."
Are you on the sauce??? In point of fact, there are 'generally'
more VICTIMS than murderers, because of serial murderers. See --
http://web.cis.smu.edu/~deathpen/
You count the murderers and then the victims.
> So, really what you are comparing is the number of people who
> commit murder in a 50 year period, to the number of victims
> in a single year. Hardly surprising theres a big difference between
> the two, is it?
>
No, sport... it you wish to go out to a 50 year period, then you
need to consider EVERY released murderer in that group, who
each have a 1.2% recidivism rate. That's 50 times the annual
release rate, and thus is a 1.2% 'annual' recidivism rate.
>
> 3) You talk about the "ordinary citizen". Comparing to the
> "ordinary citizen" is meaningless. There is no such thing.
>
Obviously, you're not one.
> Consider, for example, sex. The hypothetical 'ordinary
> citizen' is half way between a man and a woman. Now, it
> is a fact that most murders are committed by men. Only
> about 1 in 20 murders are committed by women. That
> means that ANY man is more likely than the "average
> citizen" to commit murder. Planet Visitor personally
> is more likely than the "ordinary citizen" to commit murder.
> Any man is about twice as likely as likely as the "ordinary
> citizen" to commit murder.
>
I speak in respect to the entire body of citizens who have
not murdered before. In any case, the 6/100,000 is drawn
from both those who murdered before and those who have
not, without regard to sex. Even if the rate is higher for
men, than for women, the RATE is the combined number
per 100,000. If women murder less (and I have no doubt
they do). Then the men murder more, since the rate is
for BOTH SEXES. The indication is clear.
> And it is also true that most people rel;eased from prison
> are in fact men. Comparing their danger to the "average
> citizen" is meaningless. It is only meaningful when you
> compare them to other men.
>
Since the 6/100,000 is drawn from BOTH sexes, it is quite
proper to take the recidivism rate from BOTH sexes. If
more released murderers are men, and more murders are
committed by men, the ratios of 1.2% recidivism for BOTH
sexes, and the 6/100,000 for BOTH sexes, makes perfect
sense.
> Note this works both ways round. A woman is far less likely
> than an "average citizen" to commit murder. It is quite possible
> that a paroled murderess is statistically less dangerous than
> the hypothetical "average citizen". It is only meaningful when
> compared to other women.
>
A totally worthless 'contribution' to the argument.
> Similar argument goes for other demographic divisions,
> eg age, economic status, educational background.
>
Given the fact that you have so confused the recidivism rates
by factors as great as 50, considering an annual recidivism
rate to be a 'lifetime' recidivism rate. And given the fact that
you stated "There are ALWAYS more murderers than victims."
And given the fact that you have confused the separation of the
sexes which translate into BOTH recidivism and the murder
rate. We can clearly see what you can do with the rest of your
absolutely hilarious 'argument.'
Presuming that the next person you meet on the street, if
not a released murderer, is as dangerous as the next man
you meet on the street, if he is a released murderer, demonstrates
how flawed EVERY argument you present here is. You are an
obsessive fruitcake, intent on trying to prove the unprovable,
and distorting all manner of meaning to any logic or rational
appraisal of this argument of the DP.
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> > > >
> > > I disagree with you, Peter... because I hold a contrary opinion.
Yes, that's the usual reason why one disagrees
with another. (PV must hold a degree in the bleeding
obvious.)
> >
> >
> Once again, sport. My opinion offers no argument which requires
> proof. Yours does. If YOU STATE that 'The DP does not deter
> _more_than_alternative_measures, 'you must be prepared to
> PROVE that statement.
John Spragge has so proved it with his comparison
of the deterrent systems of the US and Canada. Of
course, he hasn't proven it to your satisfaction only
to ours.
danh
Jig, you're such an idiot. Torture and branding continued in the new US for
years after the Constitution was written. You shouldn't have slept through
history classes. Or the remedial reading classes.
Peter Morris
Peter's lackey <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:K6OX9.116479$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> But you DON'T have 'any idea what you are talking about,' if you
> believe you can propound "The DP does not deter _more_than_alternative
> _measures" and not provide proof of what you've presumed is a FACT.
> And not only that, you stated you were being 'precise.'
Prove it.
> >
> > > In fact, one of our
> > > more astute abolitionists here, Professor Emeritus of Everything
> > > Earl Evleth, has pronounced the Emory study as showing some
> > > deterrence to the DP post-Furman. Who am I to disagree with
> > > such an illustrious figure? And who are you to also do so?
> >
> > Cite, please. What PRECISELY did he say?
> >
> His words -- "I have studied that paper and the key problem is
> only dealing with the 1977 to 1996 statistics. This gives the
> appearance of deterrence." My posting of his words is certainly
> more 'precise,' than anything you've ever offered... one has
> only to look at your 'precise' proposition that contains no factually
> proven information whatsoever to see that.
>
> or will I be your lackey... look his words up for yourself, since the
> post of his is still in the active newsreader.
.
Try and read it. He said that there is a PROBLEM with the data.
The INCOMPLETE data gives the APPEARENCE of deterrence,
but studying the full data shows NO deterrence.
That is what he actually said. Right, Earl?
You follow your usual habit of cutting out important parts,
which totally change the meaning. You quote the part where he
says that it "gives the appearence of deterrence" and deliberately
miss the part where he talks about what the "key problem" is.
This makes it seem like he's saying the precise opposite of
what he really said.
You are now my lackey
Earl Evleth
wrote on 23/01/03 15:03:
> Try and read it. He said that there is a PROBLEM with the data.
>
> The INCOMPLETE data gives the APPEARENCE of deterrence,
> but studying the full data shows NO deterrence.
>
> That is what he actually said. Right, Earl?
That is what I am saying, the first 70 years showed in effect
an opposite effect.
I actually believe that there is not relationship between the
DP and homicide rates. Homicide rate do their own thing.
As has often been said how can executing 1% of the murderers
have an effect on murder rates? It is not even plausible.
PV brags about his common sense and then he does not use it.
If murderers were dragged out and draw and quartered, like in the
good old days, right after the murder (why even convict them, if
you execute an innocent or guilty person, the example is the same)
that might act as a deterrent. Unfortunately econometric modeling
was at a low ebb in 1400 or 1500.
One does notice that with burning of witches that there are no witches
around any more.
The death penalty did not work well against vampires although a supply
of stakes did have an effect. The most effective weapon in Europe
against vampires has been garlic. France is a vampire free zone and I have
not come across one in years.
Anyway, you will not convince PV, that voodoo studies of deterrence
are valid.
Earl
Peter Morris
I agree. Well said.
Peter Morris
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:sc7p0b....@lievre.voute.net...
> le Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:02:26 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
<b0p771$1re$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit
...
>
> { snip }
>
> >> What kind of "jury reform" do you propose? Give us some examples of
what
> >> changes should be made to achieve the goal you desire.
>
> > I agree. Well said.
>
respond
> with a long list of well thought out reforms which could contribute to
> reducing the shameful number of death sentences handed down to innocent
men
> and women, and which would possibly streamling justice so that only the
> guilty go to prison.
>
> Jigsaw, after mouthing the longer words, like 'the', and 'and', will give
> up tracing his finger along under the lines on his screen, say, 'Aw,
> fuckit!', and respond with, 'Thanks for your input'.
Don't be so quick to insult him, when he has dared to question
the opinion of one of his own side.
Peter Morris
> le Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:48:48 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
<b0p9tv$8gm$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Jigsaw, after mouthing the longer words, like 'the', and 'and', will
give
> >> up tracing his finger along under the lines on his screen, say, 'Aw,
> >> fuckit!', and respond with, 'Thanks for your input'.
>
> > Don't be so quick to insult him, when he has dared to question
> > the opinion of one of his own side.
>
> start now.
>
> Jigsaw is so fucking dense,
You just did.
Peter Morris
> le Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:16:15 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
<b0pbhe$7h1$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit
...
>
> { snip }
>
> >> I've never insulted anyone on this newsgroup, Peter, nor do I intend to
> >> start now.
> >>
> >> Jigsaw is so fucking dense,
>
> > You just did.
>
Not correct.
> Peter, neither can it be an insult.
>
It certainly was an unwarranted insult.
Quite often, the stuff Jigsaw produces is silly, but this wasn't
such an occasion.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:5HPX9.394$yq2....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
validity by his own admission, since it represent 'dud'
argument 19). Nor do 'we' accept any of the silly conclusions
drawn from his 'statistics' which would cause even Earl to
blanch, if asked to justify their significance. See --
http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/argument1a.htm
Which I believe (???) is the site that was created by Spragge
or his associates at MSU ( I accept that this might not be the case,
it is only my belief), to offer argument and counter-argument
to the DP. You will find the counter-argument to any presumed
'deterrence' not in the DP, at that URL. It is absurd when so many
respected criminologists accept that deterrence in the DP is neither proved
or disproved, for anyone to say "oh... but I can 'prove' it.' In EITHER
respect. Because they cannot. IMHO, it's not actually conducive to
argument, since the 'other side' begins offering ITS 'proof.'
And in any case, John Spragge, although a very eloquent poster,
is one of the most rabid opponents of the DP this group has. From
almost day one of its creation. And I doubt seriously if he would
support the DP even if it COULD be proven it deters. Of course...IMHO.
PV
Earl Evleth
Visitor at abc...@zbqytr.ykq wrote on 23/01/03 11:27:
> The convicted murderers release in 1994 had a recidivist rate of 1.2%
> See --
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
And what is the murder rate of released Car Thieves from this data base?
Answer: 2.4%.
So a released car thief who has never murdered before is twice as likely
to murder than a released murderer who has.
Worse yet, there are many more released car thieves that released murderers.
Have you ever taken that data base on figured out where nearly all the
new murders are coming from? Guess.
Now PV, what to you proposed to do to reduce the number of people killed
by released criminals?
Earl
Rev. Don Kool
Fred wrote:
> "SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri entered a San
> Francisco skyscraper and opened fire in a law office with two
> TEC-DC9s and a revolver, killing eight people and wounding six before
> killing himself."
>
> Exactly how did the DP help in this case - or any similar ones?
The just Death Penalty is not a panacea, my young friend.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Don
--
*************************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald, SCNA * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
*************************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
Kwag7693
>We cannot possibly to hope to control all variables. That would be a
>ridiculous assertion. Comparing US states is, for example, much more
>useful to us than comparing a US state with an English county or a
>province in Uzbekistan.
>
I think that is poor reasoning. Because Minnesota is a better fit to Arkansas
than Uzbekistan is no reason to infer that the relationship between Minnesota
and Arkansas is truth-preserving. And if we can't possibly know all the
variables then perhaps statistics isn't the way to make this argument. I don't
like arguing about floating abstractions though. Are you referring to some
particular study I could examine?
>Most US citizens live within urban areas. They share the same language,
>same culture and roughly the same spread of socioeconomic benefits or
>woes. It's a fact. Live with it.
>
How does that indicate no correlation between various state murder rates and
the sanction of the DP? simply saying that most US citizens live within urban
areas and the murder rates between DP and non-DP jurisdictions fall by similar
amounts doesn't look like it adds up to something conclusive to me.
>> That it would deter at least some is a unique benefit over imprisonment.
>
>You have thus far failed to demonstrate or even indicate strongly that
>it deters more than imprisonment in any significant fashion.
You won't accept that since some people would risk prison before death that the
DP is a greater deterrent. I don't know how else to make the argument. If
telling someone you'll lock them up for 20 years produces a different effect
than telling them you'll kill them, then I am right. I expect that is true for
me, though I am not often credibly threatened with death. I'll concede I
haven't sampled the population in any documented fashion. I find enough people
thinking I am an idiot to even ask if they'd prefer a 20-25 year stretch to
dying that I personally don't find weighting the outcomes differently
problematic.
>> In extremis, I think it is laughable to start "exploring avenues."
>
>Depends on how quickly you think.
I don't want to die if someone attacks me, given that my thinking is going to
be fairly simple, "stop this person." Perhaps given twenty minutes and a hot
cup of coffee I could retroactively analyze the situation until I thought of a
non-lethal response that would be as effective as a lethal one, but let's be
serious.
>> If
>> someone
>> is attacking me, I am not going to try and subdue him him if I think I
>> can
>> increase my chances of survival by killing him.
>
>Let's guess who's more likely to end up in gaol as a result of their
>behaviour - you or me?
As you've yet to believe, I would prefer to be jailed than dead. If I were
imprisoned on a trumped up murder charge for defending myself, I would at least
be able to pursue some value, as opposed to lying very quitely on the ground.
>Would you say that of someone who started a bar brawl? That's what the
>above paragraph seems to indicate.
Bar brawls in America are mean. People die fairly often during them by being
cut, shot, beaten to death or otherwise seriously injured. OTOH, a friend of
mine who lived in Britain reported an interesting incident where a group of
people approached the group he was with and invited them to fight, after which
they'd have a beer. In a fight in the US I wouldn't assume it was a friendly
fight at all, perhaps I might if friendly bar brawls were a cultural norm. If
someone simply attacked me, I would defend myself with whatever means were
available, the less I knew them the more certain I would want to be I would
win.
>> Well since you are using your moral code to justify your political
>> outlook
>
>Bollocks to that. My moral take on the DP is just one of the dozens of
>reasons that I think it's wrong.
On the contrary, I don't separate the prudential from the moral. If it doesn't
work, it is immoral.
>Further, wouldn't
>> we
>> want anyone's ethics to pertain not only to them but also to anyone in a
>> sufficiently similar situation?
>
>Nope.
That's an odd view of ethics then. I don't view ethics as different than any
other science in principle, whereas an idiosyncratic ethics clearly would be.
Kevin
Kwag7693
Date: 1/23/03 4:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> The convicted murderers release in 1994 had a recidivist rate of 1.2%
>> See --
>> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
>
>
>And what is the murder rate of released Car Thieves from this data base?
>
>Answer: 2.4%.
>
So apparently we are doing very little to rehabiliate thieves. How does this
excuse the deaths that are caused by releasing murderers?
>Now PV, what to you proposed to do to reduce the number of people killed
>by released criminals?
>
Don't let them out.
Kevin
Kwag7693
Date: 1/22/03 4:52 AM Eastern Standard Time
>> Why would I imagine that? I don't think it is even close to the case
>among
>> suicide bombers who seem to mostly be hotheaded kids with their eyes full
>of
>> paradise. I don't think these are people sitting calmly and rationally
>> deciding that life itself is too unpleasant to continue.
>
>If life is a crock of shit then life is cheap.
I agree. I read a bit about the inducements to piracy and that certainly seems
to be what drove people to mutiny in the face of almost certain capture and
death. I can't think life is quite as bad among the suicide bombers as it was
on the HMS Press Gang, though. Most of the Israeli excesses are the direct
result of general support for terrorism among the Palestinian community.
Kevin
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
You have that knack, now and again, of picking the wrong word
to describe another's motivations.
OED
Rabid
c. Of persons: Having some quality, feeling, view, etc., in a violent
degree.
John Spragge is a dedicated or enthusiastic anti DP advocate;
in no way could his views be described as 'rabid'.
John Rennie
Some of them are, some of them are not. The interfada (sp) began
nearly two years ago. Then most of the killings were of stone
throwing Palestinian youths by trigger happy Israeli soldiers.
You don't have to shoot stone throwers. Police in Northern
Ireland and in Japan, two diverse examples, have been bombarded
with petrol bombs and had flaming vehicles driven at them
without having to use guns. In the first six months or so
many hundred of Palestinians were killed compared with
perhaps scores of Israelis. In the eyes of the Palestinian
community the suicide bombers brought some sort of
dreadful parity.
Reilly
> From: Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
> >> The convicted murderers release in 1994 had a
> >> recidivist rate of 1.2%
> >> See --
> >> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
> >
> >
> >And what is the murder rate of released Car Thieves from this data base?
> >
> >Answer: 2.4%.
>
> So apparently we are doing very little to rehabiliate thieves. How does
this
> excuse the deaths that are caused by releasing murderers?
>
> >Now PV, what to you proposed to do to reduce the number of people killed
> >by released criminals?
>
> Don't let them out.
Are you seriously suggest LWOP for car thieves, Kevin????
I've just read Richard's plan for subterranean prisons and '4 year stints in
isolation' and now this - did everyone in America get out of the angry side
of the bed today or what?
Peter Morris
> le Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:32:09 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
<b0pfvo$cef$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
> >> >> I've never insulted anyone on this newsgroup, Peter, nor do I intend
to
> >> >> start now.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jigsaw is so fucking dense,
>
> >> > You just did.
>
> >> Just as the truth cannot be libel,
>
> > Not correct.
>
> defence. A libel is, therefore, a narrower notion than a defamatory
> statement. Truth (justification) is a complete defence in defamation.
> It follows that a defamatory statement which is proved to be true is
> not a libel. It can remain defamatory.' [1]
>
> 'It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the
> defamatory imputation is substantially true' [2]
Wrong. A true statement can still be grounds for a libel action.
One example of such is Newstead Vs London Express 1940. A newspaper
carried a report of the criminal conviction of one Harold Newstead age 30
of Camberwell. The account was true and accurate in every detail. But there
was an entirely different Harold Newstead of Camberwell also aged 30
who sued the paper and won.
A statement may be literally true, but omit facts, which alters the
apparent
meaning. The statement may be ambiguously phrased, to make an
alternative interpretation possible. A true statement, in conjunction
with extra facts known to the reader, may convey a defamatory meaning.
A newspaper that denies a false rumour may commit libel if the article
repeats the original rumour. It may be held for libel if it accurately
quotes untrue statements made by a third party, even if it disputes those
statements.
A true statement may be libellous if it is remotely capable of
alternative
interpretation with an untrue meaning. The author does not have to
intend this meaning, or be aware that such meaning is possible. The
plaintiff does not need to demonstrate that anyone actually interpreted
the statment in this way, only that such interpretation is possible.
See for example http://tinyurl.com/4tl7, or http://tinyurl.com/4tm2
or for full details read Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort 15th edition pp 390-461
I hope that the above has serverd (sic) to clear up your confusion.
> >> Peter, neither can it be an insult.
>
> > It certainly was an unwarranted insult. Quite often, the stuff Jigsaw
> > produces is silly, but this wasn't such an occasion.
>
> As I have said, Peter, if I call FuckWit a drooling, uneducated, classless
> idiot, it is the truth. It is therefore not an insult. If I called him a
> rapist, or a murderer, then it would (by not being the truth [3]) be an
> insult. That is why I call him a fuckwit (the proof being in the
> semi-retarded 'prose' that he inflicts upon the group), and not a rapist.
>
> I hope that the above has serverd to clear up your confusion.
>
>
> [1] url:http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/defTrueLibel.html
> [2]
url:http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-right-of-free-expr
ession/defamation---libel-and-slander/defences.shtml
> [3] as far as we know
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b0osna$m4s$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
>
> Peter's lackey <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:K6OX9.116479$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > >
> > But you DON'T have 'any idea what you are talking about,' if you
> > believe you can propound "The DP does not deter _more_than_alternative
> > _measures" and not provide proof of what you've presumed is a FACT.
> > And not only that, you stated you were being 'precise.'
>
> Prove it.
>
What a blithering idiot you can be. I offer NO proposition that
it does or does not deter. YOU DO!!! You MUST PROVE IT.
Thus... prove it.
>
> > >
> > > > In fact, one of our
> > > > more astute abolitionists here, Professor Emeritus of Everything
> > > > Earl Evleth, has pronounced the Emory study as showing some
> > > > deterrence to the DP post-Furman. Who am I to disagree with
> > > > such an illustrious figure? And who are you to also do so?
> > >
> > > Cite, please. What PRECISELY did he say?
> > >
> > His words -- "I have studied that paper and the key problem is
> > only dealing with the 1977 to 1996 statistics. This gives the
> > appearance of deterrence." My posting of his words is certainly
> > more 'precise,' than anything you've ever offered... one has
> > only to look at your 'precise' proposition that contains no factually
> > proven information whatsoever to see that.
> >
> > or will I be your lackey... look his words up for yourself, since the
> > post of his is still in the active newsreader.
> .
>
> Try and read it. He said that there is a PROBLEM with the data.
>
instead providing hysterical rambling, and making statements that
you believe are proven simply by you stating them, and asserting
that someone must 'prove that you have to prove them') ==
"I have studied that paper and the key problem is only dealing with
the 1977 to 1996 statistics. This gives the appearance of deterrence."
'Appearance' means he has SEEN it post-Gregg, but intends to try
to persuade though examining dates that it has no significance.
He STATES it is there. Of course, he intends to argue AFTER
seeing this statistic that we need to assume otherwise. This is
ALWAYS his method. Telling others what to MAKE of the data,
after he admits it exists. The same problem you have. The
fact that either you of he presume there is a 'problem' with the
statistics means that you do not DENY the statistic exists, but
would hope to persuade others that your opinion of what to MAKE
of the data is YOUR responsibility, rather than those who would
examine the statistic itself. There is FACT... and there is OPINION.
Earl has stated FACTUALLY (or presumed to state factually) that
the 1977 to 1996 statistics GIVE 'the appearance of deterrence.'
FULL STOP!!! Don't now tell us WHAT THAT MEANS. It's a
statistic... if it is a true statistic, it is OURS to determine what
it means. And in fact, what Earl defines as a 'key problem,' is
that it doesn't fit his agenda, so he will now try to explain it away.
Yet, he admits it is a FACT (as far as he has examined the
statistics).
What did you think I meant? That he would argue FOR the statistics
he had found. That he would argue FOR deterrence in today's DP?
Don't be silly. No... he FOUND the statistic... reported it as having
appeared as a statistical FACT in his view. And THEN....... argued
that we should ignore what is there. Read my words again, which
are perfectly accurate --- "Earl Evleth, has pronounced the Emory
study as showing some deterrence to the DP post-Furman" 'Showing
some deterrence in the DP post-Furman.' I did not say he CONCLUDED
the present day DP deterred. In his reading of the study, he concluded
that it has appeared in the time frame of 1977 to 1996 (which IS
post-Gregg) in his view. He will now expound on why we should
IGNORE what he has admitted IS THERE, in his view. Did you expect
him to do otherwise? I certainly did not intend, nor did I state that
Earl BELIEVES the present day DP deters. But the DATA is what
is for each to decide for himself, NOT Earl's conclusions as to what
it MEANS. IF it appears there, then IMHO, everyone should decide
for themselves. While you might believe that Earl can report his
FINDINGS, but then demand that others accept his INTERPRETATION
of those findings. 'Interpreting' statistics is the fine art of deception.
Each should decide for themselves what the statistic means to
THEM. Earl can decide for himself.. you can decide for yourself.
But NEITHER of you can decide for others, as to what to MAKE
of that statistic.
> The INCOMPLETE data gives the APPEARENCE of deterrence,
> but studying the full data shows NO deterrence.
>
Once again, you would presume to 'rewrite the sentence.' Since the
word 'incomplete,' is not contained in his entire post. Nor does the
word "Appearance" imply is 'doesn't exist.' It implies it DOES exist. See --
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20appearance_files/OED%20Online%20-%20appearance.htm
Notice that 'appearance' is DEFINED in the OED as
"The action of coming forward into view or becoming visible."
"Occurrence so as to meet the eye in a document."
"The action of appearing conspicuously"
"Clear manifestation to the sight or understanding; disclosure, detection."
"so far as appears to anyone."
"Semblance of truth or certainty; likelihood, probability; verisimilitude"
etc...etc...etc...
Please do not try to reinterpret the English language, as you've tried to
do so often in the past. Earl did not say 'seems to appear.' He made
a clear statement that it 'gives appearance.'
> That is what he actually said. Right, Earl?
>
You many ask Earl all you wish. But his words are there, in his
post "Re:deterrence proven" He will probably go on to 'tell us'
what to make of what he found. But his admission of 'finding it,'
is clear to me. Each of us should decide what to make of it.
> You follow your usual habit of cutting out important parts,
> which totally change the meaning. You quote the part where he
> says that it "gives the appearence of deterrence" and deliberately
> miss the part where he talks about what the "key problem" is.
> This makes it seem like he's saying the precise opposite of
> what he really said.
>
No, I don't. In fact I'm rather precise in my providing EXACT words,
while you fly off into flights of fantasy, presuming that precision doesn't
count when you or those with your agenda pontificate. While I am required
to be absolutely precise, and can never speak in the pejorative, which
you do it routinely. If such precision is expect in my words... then it
is simply fair that I expect the same from others holding a different
agenda. There is no question that Earl has stated deterrence appeared
in the 1977-1996 statistics. Further than that, I don't care what his
OPINION provides as to what anyone should MAKE of that fact. It appeared...
he admits it appears in his view. Each should make of it what they will.
END OF STORY.
> You are now my lackey
>
How very original... have you figured out yet, that a 1.2% recidivism for
each murderer in their lifetime, translates into an annual 1.2% recidivism
rate for all convicted and released murderers, since we release them
every year? If so, I can explain it again. Since your silly conclusion
leads to your belief that we release a batch, and then release no others
until that first batch all die. Or how there were more than 168 murderers
for the 168 victims of McVeigh? You are so easy, Peter... if it were
not for your essential need of lies and distortions... you'd be laughed
out of the newsgroup. But you are proof that people's memory are
often short, and your lies and distortions help to cover up your past.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:BA55C224.A476%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> in article b0osna$m4s$1...@venus.btinternet.com, Peter Morris at no...@m.please
> wrote on 23/01/03 15:03:
>
> > Try and read it. He said that there is a PROBLEM with the data.
> >
> > The INCOMPLETE data gives the APPEARENCE of deterrence,
> > but studying the full data shows NO deterrence.
> >
> > That is what he actually said. Right, Earl?
>
> That is what I am saying, the first 70 years showed in effect
> an opposite effect.
>
Exactly... you ADMIT that the data post-Gregg shows such
an effect. But argue that pre-Furman data showed another.
That certainly does not mean we can DISMISS the data
post-Gregg, but perhaps should recognize that DIFFERENCES
in the application and use, constructed through Furman,
changed that deterrence. But you 'contend' it can be DISMISSED
by data you see existing pre-Furman. In other words, you admit the
data indicates such deterrence post-Gregg, but you will now TELL
us why we should IGNORE that particular finding of yours.
You wish to AVOID the data which you admit DOES exist,
by whatever means possible. Which is why I spoke of you
using 'pre-Revolutionary War' data. You're in the 'denial' business,
Earl. But your background would not permit you to DENY that the
data post-Gregg as offered in the study shows deterrence to
you, after your 'expert' examination. You needed to now EXPLAIN
that away, presuming that others must ACCEPT your explanation
for a fact you have admitted you saw within the data.
The scrambling by some abolitionists here, hoping to change
what you have clearly stated exists -- "I have studied that paper
and the key problem is only dealing with the 1977 to 1996 statistics.
This gives the appearance of deterrence," is positively frightening
in deception. Let me ask you DIRECTLY == disregarding ALL
other past 'deterrence' effects pre-Furman, did you not ADMIT
that the study post-Gregg "gives the appearance of deterrence"?
If you deny it, then you are denying your own words.
> I actually believe that there is not relationship between the
> DP and homicide rates. Homicide rate do their own thing.
>
That's not the point. Anyone can believe what they wish in
respect to the data. We are speaking of the data that you
saw as FACTUAL, from your 'expert' examination. The FACT
that it gives the appearance of deterrence post-Gregg. Everything
else, is simply your presumption that you will now INTERPRET
that data for the rest of us.
> As has often been said how can executing 1% of the murderers
> have an effect on murder rates? It is not even plausible.
> PV brags about his common sense and then he does not use it.
>
Yeah, yeah.. just your 'opinion,' again. And apparently it had
an effect on recidivism judging from the rates in the DOJ recidivism
reports of 1983 and 1994, which showed recidivism dropped rather
dramatically from 6.6% in 1983 (when the DP had hardly begun
to ramp up), to 1.2% in 1994, when the DP was much more
broadly being used. Murderers released, were now seeing that
there was the CERTAINTY of the DP, if they were to recommit
those murders, as second-offender murderers. Other criminal
non-murderers were not that convinced that they would be executed
if they murdered for the first time, thus they appear not to have
been affected by the DP. Of course... unlike you... I state that as
opinion... and not a deduced FACT, different from you always
presuming to expect others to find fact from your opinion.
> If murderers were dragged out and draw and quartered, like in the
> good old days, right after the murder (why even convict them, if
> you execute an innocent or guilty person, the example is the same)
> that might act as a deterrent. Unfortunately econometric modeling
> was at a low ebb in 1400 or 1500.
>
I have no argument with that opinion. It seems rather plausible.
> One does notice that with burning of witches that there are no witches
> around any more.
>
But... hardly relevant to the current day U.S. DP.
> The death penalty did not work well against vampires although a supply
> of stakes did have an effect. The most effective weapon in Europe
> against vampires has been garlic. France is a vampire free zone and I have
> not come across one in years.
>
What are you saying? That it did not work when draconian methods
were used to sentence to the DP? That would seem to demonstrate
that pre-Furman DP applications WERE less effective in deterrence,
than the present day humane application. Hummmm... maybe THAT'S
the reason it works now... but didn't work in the 60 year period
pre-Furman that you offer as proof of it not working now. Maybe THAT
shows deterrence works better NOW, as you contend the statistics
give acceptance to greater deterrence now.
> Anyway, you will not convince PV, that voodoo studies of deterrence
> are valid.
You will not convince me that the Emory study 'proves' deterrence.
But you seem to be trying.
PV
>
>
> Earl
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:BA548C6C.A1FB%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> in article b0md3d$b1g$1...@venus.btinternet.com, Peter Morris at no...@m.please
> wrote on 22/01/03 16:24:
>
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > news:lUrX9.28024$o8.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lets be precice about this. The DP _does_ deter. Life imprisonment
> > is
> > alternative
> >>>>> measures.
>
>
> >> In fact, one of our
> >> more astute abolitionists here, Professor Emeritus of Everything
> >> Earl Evleth, has pronounced the Emory study as showing some
> >> deterrence to the DP post-Furman. Who am I to disagree with
> >> such an illustrious figure? And who are you to also do so?
> >
> > Cite, please. What PRECISELY did he say?
> >
> > he most likely said :
> >
> > The Emory study purports to show deterrence post-Furman, but is
> > seriously flawed for the following reasons ... (long discussion of why
> > its wrong)
>
>
>
> I thought the issue pretty simple, they Emory study did not cover the
> and I can imagine the discussions with the referees. The cop out is that
> they said they were only studying the post Furman period, claiming nothing
> for most of the 20th century. Their justification might have been that
> the data for a complex econometric model was not available and a referee
> has to accept that.
>
> stuff we are seeing is nearly two years old. However I checked
> their University CVs on Emory`s web site and could find no
> mention of the paper. indeed if it did not get published, shit hit the fan,
> major problems arose with their paper perhaps of the type I mention.
> These are good researchers so I am not knocking the paper
> itself but the time period covered.
>
> I can understand PV getting mad at me, but actually modeling of this
> type is not far from my own work.
>
LOL... All that 'Bozo Bayou' mumbo-jumbo, to admit that the
study showed deterrence post-Gregg in your opinion, after looking
at it. And then doing the 'dance' we've become so familiar with...
telling us what to make of a fact.
I'm not mad, sport. The last time you made me mad, was when you
claimed being arrested was enough to make you a criminal in NY City,
ignoring something called a 'trial and conviction.' Prior to that, it was
your suggestion that we blackmail Islam by threatening to Nuke Mecca,
if they nuke us.
PV
> Earl
>
>
>
>
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:4z%X9.120513$Sa3.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:BA55C224.A476%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> > in article b0osna$m4s$1...@venus.btinternet.com, Peter Morris at
no...@m.please
> > wrote on 23/01/03 15:03:
> >
> > > Try and read it. He said that there is a PROBLEM with the data.
> > >
> > > The INCOMPLETE data gives the APPEARENCE of deterrence,
> > > but studying the full data shows NO deterrence.
> > >
> > > That is what he actually said. Right, Earl?
> >
> > That is what I am saying, the first 70 years showed in effect
> > an opposite effect.
> >
>
> Exactly... you ADMIT that the data post-Gregg shows such
> an effect. But argue that pre-Furman data showed another.
Can you see why quoting him on the first, and either deliberately
or else intentionally leaving out the second might be construed as
dishonest?
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:4z%X9.120513$Sa3.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> Yeah, yeah.. just your 'opinion,' again. And apparently it had
> an effect on recidivism judging from the rates in the DOJ recidivism
> reports of 1983 and 1994, which showed recidivism dropped rather
> dramatically from 6.6% in 1983
As has been pointed out many, many times, the arrest rate is
not the same as the recidivism rate. Check out Maltz's book,
listed in the footnote, and you will see that it is merely raw
data that requires complex mathematical analysis to draw
meaningful interpretation from it.
In addition to that, the report is wrong. Maltz does not
advocate the use of arrest data, he advocates the use of arrests
that proceed to trial. The report has missed this essential fact,
and uses pure arrest data.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
kwag...@aol.com (Kwag7693) wrote:
> From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks
> Date: 1/22/03 12:25 AM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >We cannot possibly to hope to control all variables. That would be a
> >ridiculous assertion. Comparing US states is, for example, much more
> >useful to us than comparing a US state with an English county or a
> >province in Uzbekistan.
> >
>
> I think that is poor reasoning.
Your thinking is flawed, then.
> Because Minnesota is a better fit to
> Arkansas
> than Uzbekistan is no reason to infer that the relationship between
> Minnesota
> and Arkansas is truth-preserving.
When comparing sample spaces, Kevin, it is necessary to ensure that the
similarities between those sample spaces are as many as possible.
Ideally, they should be identical in all but one area - the one that you
wish to compare. Since that is impossible in this case, we must compare
communities that are as similar as possible to one another.
> And if we can't possibly know all the
> variables then perhaps statistics isn't the way to make this argument.
It is and nothing that you say can change that. Your entire argument is
that "some" people "might" be deterred by the DP. Not good enough. You
have to demonstrate that the DP reduces the murder rate _overall_ by
virtue of its deterrent effect or you have proven precisely nothing.
> I
> don't
> like arguing about floating abstractions though. Are you referring to
> some
> particular study I could examine?
The simple fact that jurisdictions without the DP in the United States
usually (if not actually _always_) have lower murder rates than those
_with_ the DP is good enough for me. You can do a quick web search to
verify that one.
> >Most US citizens live within urban areas. They share the same language,
> >same culture and roughly the same spread of socioeconomic benefits or
> >woes. It's a fact. Live with it.
> How does that indicate no correlation between various state murder rates
> and
> the sanction of the DP? simply saying that most US citizens live within
> urban
> areas and the murder rates between DP and non-DP jurisdictions fall by
> similar
> amounts doesn't look like it adds up to something conclusive to me.
You are picking on one variable. They are all significant. I will
spell out the similarities:
- similar geographical placement (i.e. urban)
- same language
- same culture (_very_ important)
- same spread of economic benefits or woes (also _very_ important)
> >> That it would deter at least some is a unique benefit over
> >> imprisonment.
> >
> >You have thus far failed to demonstrate or even indicate strongly that
> >it deters more than imprisonment in any significant fashion.
>
> You won't accept that since some people would risk prison before death
> that the
> DP is a greater deterrent.
Who's "some people"? It's all conjecture - nothing more. I want to see
_facts_ - not evidence that "some people" are deterred. I want to see
that the DP deters and, as a result, the murder rate drops. This is
clearly not the case.
> I don't know how else to make the argument.
> If
> telling someone you'll lock them up for 20 years produces a different
> effect
> than telling them you'll kill them, then I am right.
Over the population of murderers, it doesn't and you're wrong. I'm
starting to lose patience with your argument which is based entirely on
the notion that anecdotal evidence is somehow _real_ evidence. It
isn't, it has never been and never will be.
> I expect that is
> true for
> me, though I am not often credibly threatened with death. I'll concede I
> haven't sampled the population in any documented fashion. I find enough
> people
> thinking I am an idiot to even ask if they'd prefer a 20-25 year stretch
> to
> dying that I personally don't find weighting the outcomes differently
> problematic.
I can't say. I haven't ever considered killing anyone. I avoid
physically harming people. In short, I _don't_ think like a murderer so
how the yellow, rubbery fuck would _I_ know whether the DP would deter
me from murder?
> >> In extremis, I think it is laughable to start "exploring avenues."
> >
> >Depends on how quickly you think.
>
> I don't want to die if someone attacks me, given that my thinking is
> going to
> be fairly simple, "stop this person." Perhaps given twenty minutes and a
> hot
> cup of coffee I could retroactively analyze the situation until I thought
> of a
> non-lethal response that would be as effective as a lethal one, but let's
> be
> serious.
Yes, let's. The best defence is a 20 yard start. If you cannot escape
then a hard blow to the genitals of a male attacker is usually
incapacitating. Failing that, there are numerous easy ways to break an
assailant's arm or leg that will disable them completely. If they are
armed and you can't run then you're fucked anyway.
[snip]
> >Would you say that of someone who started a bar brawl? That's what the
> >above paragraph seems to indicate.
>
> Bar brawls in America are mean. People die fairly often during them by
> being
> cut, shot, beaten to death or otherwise seriously injured.
Does the DP deter those involved in bar brawls from exercising lethal
force on their opponents if what you allege is true? Think very
carefully before you answer.
[snip]
> norm. If
> someone simply attacked me, I would defend myself with whatever means
> were
> available, the less I knew them the more certain I would want to be I
> would
> win.
So you're saying (and you have done so in this thread) that you would
exercise lethal force upon an assailant. Remember that it is not self
defence to do so if that force is considered excessive. You would be
charged with murder if the force that you exercised was considered
excessive. Has the DP deterred you from doing so? I think not.
> >> Well since you are using your moral code to justify your political
> >> outlook
> >
> >Bollocks to that. My moral take on the DP is just one of the dozens of
> >reasons that I think it's wrong.
>
> On the contrary, I don't separate the prudential from the moral. If it
> doesn't
> work, it is immoral.
That's fine. More importantly, I don't think that it can be
demonstrated to work so it follows that it's immoral, if that's the way
you want to look at it.
> >Further, wouldn't
> >> we
> >> want anyone's ethics to pertain not only to them but also to anyone in
> >> a
> >> sufficiently similar situation?
> >
> >Nope.
>
> That's an odd view of ethics then. I don't view ethics as different than
> any
> other science in principle, whereas an idiosyncratic ethics clearly would
> be.
I don't believe in God. Full stop. I don't believe that it is in any
way wrong for others to do so. I think that it is _wrong_ to believe in
a higher power. I also believe that it is _wrong_ for me to foist that
on those who _do_ believe.
Seems perfectly simple to me.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:4z%X9.120514$Sa3.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > But you DON'T have 'any idea what you are talking about,' if you
> > > believe you can propound "The DP does not deter _more_than_alternative
> > > _measures" and not provide proof of what you've presumed is a FACT.
> > > And not only that, you stated you were being 'precise.'
> >
> > Prove it.
> >
> Prove WHAT??? That you have not proven YOUR proposition?
> What a blithering idiot you can be. I offer NO proposition that
> it does or does not deter. YOU DO!!! You MUST PROVE IT.
> Thus... prove it.
Since you now deny that you disagreed with me, case proven, QED.
Even easier than usual.