Death Penalty:a raging debate
mke...@hotmail.com
> >
> > That's because those who are opposed to a death penalty under
> > any conditions are a small MINORITY in this country. They
> > don't have a leg to stand on.
>
> Wrong. We have a position based on the moral philosophy that the DP is
morally
> indefensible. That this may not be a popular position makes it no less valid.
>
> Chris Owens
I don't understand why keeping someone in a cell for the remaining
portion of their life is better than executing them. On a side note, do
you think it is logical for someone to argue against the death penalty on
moral grounds and on the other hand to support abortion? --- Mark
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Terry Hallinan
mke...@hotmail.com wrote:
>I don't understand why keeping someone in a cell for the remaining
>portion of their life is better than executing them.
To clear things up for you, Mark, the innocent can be freed from the
cell. So far we aren't very good at bringing the innocent back to
life.
>On a side note, do
>you think it is logical for someone to argue against the death penalty on
>moral grounds and on the other hand to support abortion? --- Mark
Absolututely logical. A fetus is not a feeling, thinking, rational
human being. Neither is an infant, of course, but we recognize the
attributes of a human being in an infant.
What is totally illogical is to support the death penalty and to
oppose abortion. But those who favor the death-penalty can use no
logical argument. It is the argument of the mob which needs no
reason, only feeling.
I am hardly disturbed when a true monster like Richard Harris, who
killed Polly Klaas, faces death. I would hope it would bring some
peace to the Klaas' but it really cannot. Closure is only for soap
operas and talk shows. The problem with the death penalty is the
action of the mob which is celebrating the pending execution of Tim
McVeigh which has long been foreordained. (He has only been found
guilty at this writing.) The evidence that McVeigh is even guilty is
not extensive though it is quite surprising a small number of papers
mentioned it while the bonfires are being lit. Proof of McVeigh's
innocence would be denied by our pro-dp'ers if it became overwhelming.
They will take the head and worry about rest later.
Best, Terry
"Christian - One who believes the New Testament is a divinely
inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his
neighbor" - The Devil's Dictionary
Mike Jinks
What a complete MORON!!
What a perverse stance to think it right and just to let a murderer live
without qualm only to sanction the killing of an innocent, unborn child.
He would have us preserve the life of one who has not only screwed up his
own life but also killed and thereby malevolently affected the lives of
many more; and yet, he feigns moral certitude on killing the indefensible
unborn, somebody indeed, who has great unforefilled potential. Further in
the selfsame hypocrisy, he pontificates the rule of law and its due process
is no more than mob action. What amazing hypebole. What obtuse
platitudes. What waton, callous disregard for the value of human life.
What a moron.
mcj
Terry Hallinan <hall...@borg.com> wrote in article
<5nhndh$8...@ns2.borg.com>...
Bjarne Carlsen
>
> >I don't understand why keeping someone in a cell for the remaining
> >portion of their life is better than executing them.
Neither do I. Caging up someone for the rest of his life seems to me to be
a very cruel, if not unusual punishment.
> To clear things up for you, Mark, the innocent can be freed from the
> cell. So far we aren't very good at bringing the innocent back to
> life.
Nor would you be any good at restoring to your innocent the many years
spent behind bars. You would let him out alive, yes; but the psycological
scars, and the lost years of his life, you cannot restore.
> >On a side note, do
> >you think it is logical for someone to argue against the death penalty
on
> >moral grounds and on the other hand to support abortion? --- Mark
>
> Absolututely logical. A fetus is not a feeling, thinking, rational
> human being. Neither is an infant, of course, but we recognize the
> attributes of a human being in an infant.
Meaning that you, Terry, is perfectly willing to kill somebody in whom you
do not recognize the attributes of a human being... (severely retarded
persons, et al). Seems to me that executing a proven hazard to society is
more morally correct than that.
> What is totally illogical is to support the death penalty and to
> oppose abortion. But those who favor the death-penalty can use no
> logical argument. It is the argument of the mob which needs no
> reason, only feeling.
Where is the logical fallacy in that - the fetus has not proven itself to
be a threat to society.
BTW, I, for one, try to argue my points from a non-emotional point of view
- please do not credit all pro-dp'ers with lack of reasoning powers or
membership of som obscure cabal.
> I am hardly disturbed when a true monster like Richard Harris, who
> killed Polly Klaas, faces death. I would hope it would bring some
> peace to the Klaas' but it really cannot. Closure is only for soap
> operas and talk shows.
Proof, please - have you spoken to anybody from the Klaas family?
> The problem with the death penalty is the
> action of the mob which is celebrating the pending execution of Tim
> McVeigh which has long been foreordained. (He has only been found
> guilty at this writing.) The evidence that McVeigh is even guilty is
> not extensive though it is quite surprising a small number of papers
> mentioned it while the bonfires are being lit. Proof of McVeigh's
> innocence would be denied by our pro-dp'ers if it became overwhelming.
> They will take the head and worry about rest later.
I, for one, would not deny a proof of innocence _beyond any reasonable
doubt_, which, barring legal technicalities, is what it would take to
nullify the guilty verdict.
Since you so obviously believe that McVeigh is condemned on too frail a
basis, I challenge you to prove McVeigh's innocence as conclusively as the
prosecution has proven him guilty.. It should not be too hard a task
considering your own words about the foreordained execution and the
evidence in the case.
>
>
>
> Best, Terry
>
> "Christian - One who believes the New Testament is a divinely
> inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his
> neighbor" - The Devil's Dictionary
>
>
>
--
Bjarne Carlsen
Fakse, Denmark
----- Law without force is impotent. ----- PASCAL
Terry Hallinan
"Bjarne Carlsen" <b...@nethotel.dk> wrote:
>Terry Hallinan <hall...@borg.com> wrote:
>> mke...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >I don't understand why keeping someone in a cell for the remaining
>> >portion of their life is better than executing them.
>Neither do I. Caging up someone for the rest of his life seems to me to be
>a very cruel, if not unusual punishment.
>> To clear things up for you, Mark, the innocent can be freed from the
>> cell. So far we aren't very good at bringing the innocent back to
>> life.
>Nor would you be any good at restoring to your innocent the many years
>spent behind bars. You would let him out alive, yes; but the psycological
>scars, and the lost years of his life, you cannot restore.
Today after 17 years in prison for the murders of his entire family
and the attempted murder of himself, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald continues
to study for his medical boards when he is finally exonerated. Such
faith is beyond my comprehension.
No one can make a logical argument any longer against MacDonald's
innocence. The most they can do is doubt the blood evidence which is
derived from the government's own files and was suppressed by the
prosecution. There is an obvious reason the prosecution fears a full
evidentiary hearing. That is what has been asked for now going on two
decades.
It may be your opinion that it would have been best that such a man
had simply been executed rather than mess up our fine system but it is
not mine.
>> >On a side note, do
>> >you think it is logical for someone to argue against the death penalty
>> >on moral grounds and on the other hand to support abortion? --- Mark
>> Absolututely logical. A fetus is not a feeling, thinking, rational
>> human being. Neither is an infant, of course, but we recognize the
>> attributes of a human being in an infant.
>Meaning that you, Terry, is perfectly willing to kill somebody in whom you
>do not recognize the attributes of a human being... (severely retarded
>persons, et al).
I "is" not willing to kill "severely retarded pesons, et al."
Those who make an argument that a fetus is a full human being might as
well argue a zygote is. What about a living sperm? What is this
incredible belief in the sanctity of the fetus while the woman that
carries the fetus is a husk to be discarded at will?
>Seems to me that executing a proven hazard to society is
>more morally correct than that.
Uh-huh.
>> What is totally illogical is to support the death penalty and to
>> oppose abortion. But those who favor the death-penalty can use no
>> logical argument. It is the argument of the mob which needs no
>> reason, only feeling.
>Where is the logical fallacy in that - the fetus has not proven itself to
>be a threat to society.
>BTW, I, for one, try to argue my points from a non-emotional point of view
>- please do not credit all pro-dp'ers with lack of reasoning powers or
>membership of som obscure cabal.
You found some logic in claiming that I had proposed murdering the
retarded? Your rigorous logic escapes me.
>> I am hardly disturbed when a true monster like Richard Harris, who
>> killed Polly Klaas, faces death. I would hope it would bring some
>> peace to the Klaas' but it really cannot. Closure is only for soap
>> operas and talk shows.
>Proof, please - have you spoken to anybody from the Klaas family?
When you have dealt with the death of your own infant, with the
murders of friends and family get back to me and we can talk about
such things.
>I, for one, would not deny a proof of innocence _beyond any reasonable
>doubt_, which, barring legal technicalities, is what it would take to
>nullify the guilty verdict.
>Since you so obviously believe that McVeigh is condemned on too frail a
>basis, I challenge you to prove McVeigh's innocence as conclusively as the
>prosecution has proven him guilty.
Do you not see the fallacy of your argument? A weak case will almost
certainly achieve a death penalty and an eventual execution based on
sympathy for the victims in a horrendous crime and a rightful hatred
of McVeigh's ideas. There is evidence that McVeigh was not at the
scene of the crime but it hardly rises to the level of proof. I have
made it plain I believe he was probably guilty. But there is reason
to have doubt. The prosecution did not prove conclusively that
McVeigh was guilty IMO though he probably is.
>It should not be too hard a task
>considering your own words about the foreordained execution and the
>evidence in the case.
Impossible I would guess. :-}
Mark Allen Framness
In message <5nhndh$8...@ns2.borg.com> - hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan)
writes:
:>
:>
:>Absolututely logical. A fetus is not a feeling, thinking, rational
:>human being. Neither is an infant, of course, but we recognize the
:>attributes of a human being in an infant.
:>
:>What is totally illogical is to support the death penalty and to
:>oppose abortion. But those who favor the death-penalty can use no
:>logical argument. It is the argument of the mob which needs no
:>reason, only feeling.
I would not say that it is illogical to support the dp & oppose abortion. How
many people did that baby kill, how many women did it rape-slay?
:>not extensive though it is quite surprising a small number of papers
:>mentioned it while the bonfires are being lit. Proof of McVeigh's
:>innocence would be denied by our pro-dp'ers if it became overwhelming.
:>They will take the head and worry about rest later.
:>
You see the court system is set up so that evidence is presented and then a
jury decides if the man is innocent or guilty. After that guilt or innocence
determination is done. But we all know it isn't over as this will be appealed
for years
I think a reasonable application of the DP would be for criminals who have a
proven violent past and then kill. I.e. if a man is found guilty of murder
and has a long record involving assault, armed robberies, rape etc then give
him the long needle. If a man comes into court for bumping off his wifes
lover (while caught in the act) but has maybe a speeding ticket or two then
lock him up for a lifetime.
Take Care!
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
Spam booby trap!!!
FROM: Mark Allen Framness
HOME: framness@.NO_SPAM.EMIRATES.NET.AE
WORK: m477@NO_SPAM.ugru.uaeu.ac.ae
HTTP: http://netnet.net/~farmer/index.html
To reply via e-mail, delete the given reply to address and delete the NO_SPAM
from the above addresses.
&
All standard disclaimers apply. Anyone who says likewise is itching for a
fight.
Terry Hallinan
postmaster@[127.0.0.1] (Mark Allen Framness) writes:
>In message <5nhndh$8...@ns2.borg.com> - hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan)
>writes:
>:>Absolututely logical. A fetus is not a feeling, thinking, rational
>:>human being. Neither is an infant, of course, but we recognize the
>:>attributes of a human being in an infant.
>:>What is totally illogical is to support the death penalty and to
>:>oppose abortion. But those who favor the death-penalty can use no
>:>logical argument. It is the argument of the mob which needs no
>:>reason, only feeling.
>I would not say that it is illogical to support the dp & oppose abortion.
The only reason for imposing your will on a pregnant woman, Mark, is
your claim about the sacredness of the life of the fetus which
transcends even the life of the woman carrying the fetus. It is
abhorrent to many of us who believe in freedom, free will and reason.
It is doubly abhorrent when the same people are willing to sacrifice
innocent people in the effort to punish wrongdoers.
>How many people did that baby kill, how many women did it
>rape-slay?
I had never heard Jesus Christ was guilty of a rape-slaying?
>:>not extensive though it is quite surprising a small number of papers
>:>mentioned it while the bonfires are being lit. Proof of McVeigh's
>:>innocence would be denied by our pro-dp'ers if it became overwhelming.
>:>They will take the head and worry about rest later.
>You see the court system is set up so that evidence is presented and then a
>jury decides if the man is innocent or guilty.
You see the court system is set up so that jurors are selected for
their ignorance and pliability and are protected from hearing much
evidence which might prejudice them into seeing the truth.
>After that guilt or innocence
>determination is done. But we all know it isn't over as this will be appealed
>for years
But evidence of innocence is generally exculuded from appeals under
due diligence doctrine so as not to confuse anyone with the truth.
>I think a reasonable application of the DP would be for criminals who have a
>proven violent past and then kill. I.e. if a man is found guilty of murder
>and has a long record involving assault, armed robberies, rape etc then give
>him the long needle. If a man comes into court for bumping off his wifes
>lover (while caught in the act) but has maybe a speeding ticket or two then
>lock him up for a lifetime.
>
>Take Care!
You do the same, Mark.
Bjarne Carlsen
Terry Hallinan <hall...@borg.com> skrev i artiklen
<5njqku$e...@ns2.borg.com>...
seventeen years of freedom and productive life, which neither you nor
anyone else can give him back...
> >> >On a side note, do
> >> >you think it is logical for someone to argue against the death
penalty
> >> >on moral grounds and on the other hand to support abortion? --- Mark
>
> >> Absolututely logical. A fetus is not a feeling, thinking, rational
> >> human being. Neither is an infant, of course, but we recognize the
> >> attributes of a human being in an infant.
>
> >Meaning that you, Terry, is perfectly willing to kill somebody in whom
you
> >do not recognize the attributes of a human being... (severely retarded
> >persons, et al).
>
> I "is" not willing to kill "severely retarded pesons, et al."
Hey, bear with me, after all I am posting in a foreign language...
I remember now: I am, you are, he/she/it is...
> Those who make an argument that a fetus is a full human being might as
> well argue a zygote is. What about a living sperm? What is this
> incredible belief in the sanctity of the fetus while the woman that
> carries the fetus is a husk to be discarded at will?
Actually, my belief is, that it is the woman who has the right of decision.
I never argued that the fetus is a full human being, but _your_ argument
was, that it is "absolututely" logical to be against the dp on moral
grounds while supporting abortion, with the criterion for letting somone
live being, that one should be able to "recognize the attributes of a human
being" in the person. From this follows, that no more consideration should
be given to those not displaying said attributes, than is given to the
fetus in the abortion clinic. The next sentence still applies.-->
> >Seems to me that executing a proven hazard to society is
> >more morally correct than that.
>
> Uh-huh.
>
> >> What is totally illogical is to support the death penalty and to
> >> oppose abortion. But those who favor the death-penalty can use no
> >> logical argument. It is the argument of the mob which needs no
> >> reason, only feeling.
>
> >Where is the logical fallacy in that - the fetus has not proven itself
to
> >be a threat to society.
> >BTW, I, for one, try to argue my points from a non-emotional point of
view
> >- please do not credit all pro-dp'ers with lack of reasoning powers or
> >membership of som obscure cabal.
>
> You found some logic in claiming that I had proposed murdering the
> retarded? Your rigorous logic escapes me.
And your point here totally escapes me. You have not answered my argument -
I must presume that you have not understood my point, so here is an
elaboration:
You claim that it is totally illogical to support dp and oppose abortion. I
say that there is nothing illogical about that - a fetus has not, and can
not prove itself a threat to society, whereas a proven murderer has, by his
deed done exactly that. You do not need to approve of abortions in order to
approve of the permanent removal of a threat to society.
>
> >> I am hardly disturbed when a true monster like Richard Harris, who
> >> killed Polly Klaas, faces death. I would hope it would bring some
> >> peace to the Klaas' but it really cannot. Closure is only for soap
> >> operas and talk shows.
>
> >Proof, please - have you spoken to anybody from the Klaas family?
>
> When you have dealt with the death of your own infant, with the
> murders of friends and family get back to me and we can talk about
> such things.
Terry, I _have_ lost a child; I _have_ seen a good friend rather brutally
killed, and finally my family, like most, have had its share of death by
natural causes. Don't believe that you are the only person, who have lost
loved ones.
> >I, for one, would not deny a proof of innocence _beyond any reasonable
> >doubt_, which, barring legal technicalities, is what it would take to
> >nullify the guilty verdict.
>
> >Since you so obviously believe that McVeigh is condemned on too frail a
> >basis, I challenge you to prove McVeigh's innocence as conclusively as
the
> >prosecution has proven him guilty.
>
> Do you not see the fallacy of your argument? A weak case will almost
> certainly achieve a death penalty and an eventual execution based on
> sympathy for the victims in a horrendous crime and a rightful hatred
> of McVeigh's ideas. There is evidence that McVeigh was not at the
> scene of the crime but it hardly rises to the level of proof. I have
> made it plain I believe he was probably guilty. But there is reason
> to have doubt. The prosecution did not prove conclusively that
> McVeigh was guilty IMO though he probably is.
I fail to see the fallacy of my argument. Since the jurors of the case have
found McVeigh guilty, they must have done so based on the available
evidence, pro et contra. What you imply in your answer is, that the
judicial system of the US is in fact not working. While this may be so, it
still leaves us with the fact that the jury in the McVeigh case has found
his guilt proven, not beyond any doubt, but beyond any _reasonable_ doubt,
thus rendering moot your point about a weak case.
Secondly, I do not believe that an execution is carried out, based on
sympathy for the victims or out of sheer hatred of political ideas. This
implies a sort of conspiracy, which I think the FBI would be very
interested in..
> >It should not be too hard a task
> >considering your own words about the foreordained execution and the
> >evidence in the case.
>
> Impossible I would guess. :-}
And by that statement you in fact concede point ;-)
>
> Best, Terry
>
> "Christian - One who believes the New Testament is a divinely
> inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his
> neighbor" - The Devil's Dictionary
Terry Hallinan
"Bjarne Carlsen" <b...@nethotel.dk> wrote:
>Terry Hallinan <hall...@borg.com> skrev i artiklen
><5njqku$e...@ns2.borg.com>...
-
>> >Meaning that you, Terry, is perfectly willing to kill somebody in whom
>> >you do not recognize the attributes of a human being... (severely
>> >retarded persons, et al).
>> I "is" not willing to kill "severely retarded pesons, et al."
>Hey, bear with me, after all I am posting in a foreign language...
>I remember now: I am, you are, he/she/it is...
I apologize. I should have restrained myself from making fun of
grammatical errors. I make numerous errors myself as do most of us in
our unedited postings. Your language facility is far superior to most
of those for whom English is a native language.
But I repeat I have not hinted in any way that I am in favor of
murdering the retarded. It is a very strained interpretation of
anything I have written.
>> Those who make an argument that a fetus is a full human being might as
>> well argue a zygote is. What about a living sperm? What is this
>> incredible belief in the sanctity of the fetus while the woman that
>> carries the fetus is a husk to be discarded at will?
>Actually, my belief is, that it is the woman who has the right of decision.
Then it is hard to imagine what we are arguing about. That is
precisely my position.
>I never argued that the fetus is a full human being, but _your_ argument
>was, that it is "absolututely" logical to be against the dp on moral
>grounds while supporting abortion, with the criterion for letting somone
>live being, that one should be able to "recognize the attributes of a human
>being" in the person. From this follows, that no more consideration should
>be given to those not displaying said attributes, than is given to the
>fetus in the abortion clinic. The next sentence still applies.-->
>> >Seems to me that executing a proven hazard to society is
>> >more morally correct than that.
Let's assume that there is some necessary correlation between a
verdict of guilty and actual guilt. There is not. But let us assume
there is. It remains illogical to connect the extinguishment of life
from a living, feeling, thinking human being with that of a fetus
which has no more consciousness than a carrot. Even the most severely
retarded have feelings. Some would equate the autonomous reactions of
fetuses to rational thought but they obviously are not.
[-]
>> You found some logic in claiming that I had proposed murdering the
>> retarded? Your rigorous logic escapes me.
>And your point here totally escapes me. You have not answered my argument -
>I must presume that you have not understood my point, so here is an
>elaboration:
>You claim that it is totally illogical to support dp and oppose abortion. I
>say that there is nothing illogical about that - a fetus has not, and can
>not prove itself a threat to society, whereas a proven murderer has, by his
>deed done exactly that. You do not need to approve of abortions in order to
>approve of the permanent removal of a threat to society.
Every human being is a threat to society. Our trials prove nothing as
to even the guilt of the accused. They are little better than the
medieval practice of seeing if a witch would sink. If she did and
therefore drowned the corpse could be buried in sacred ground.
>> >> I am hardly disturbed when a true monster like Richard Harris, who
>> >> killed Polly Klaas, faces death. I would hope it would bring some
>> >> peace to the Klaas' but it really cannot. Closure is only for soap
>> >> operas and talk shows.
>> >Proof, please - have you spoken to anybody from the Klaas family?
>> When you have dealt with the death of your own infant, with the
>> murders of friends and family get back to me and we can talk about
>> such things.
>Terry, I _have_ lost a child; I _have_ seen a good friend rather brutally
>killed, and finally my family, like most, have had its share of death by
>natural causes. Don't believe that you are the only person, who have lost
>loved ones.
Then it is beyond my understanding why you would think I would need to
talk to the Klaas's about "closure" - surely the most gross media
invention possible. All that is possible for any of us is periods of
forgetfulness which grow longer with time.
>> >I, for one, would not deny a proof of innocence _beyond any reasonable
>> >doubt_, which, barring legal technicalities, is what it would take to
>> >nullify the guilty verdict.
>> >Since you so obviously believe that McVeigh is condemned on too frail a
>> >basis, I challenge you to prove McVeigh's innocence as conclusively as
>> >the prosecution has proven him guilty.
>> Do you not see the fallacy of your argument? A weak case will almost
>> certainly achieve a death penalty and an eventual execution based on
>> sympathy for the victims in a horrendous crime and a rightful hatred
>> of McVeigh's ideas. There is evidence that McVeigh was not at the
>> scene of the crime but it hardly rises to the level of proof. I have
>> made it plain I believe he was probably guilty. But there is reason
>> to have doubt. The prosecution did not prove conclusively that
>> McVeigh was guilty IMO though he probably is.
>I fail to see the fallacy of my argument. Since the jurors of the case have
>found McVeigh guilty, they must have done so based on the available
>evidence, pro et contra. What you imply in your answer is, that the
>judicial system of the US is in fact not working. While this may be so, it
>still leaves us with the fact that the jury in the McVeigh case has found
>his guilt proven, not beyond any doubt, but beyond any _reasonable_ doubt,
>thus rendering moot your point about a weak case.
And why is that? It has been proven over and over that juries make
fallacious decisions even when shown the facts. But then again they
are restrained from seeing even all the available evidence, both for
and against guilt. They are even selected based on the lawyers' best
estimate of their prejudice and pliability from a pool. Not a single
member of the OJ criminal trial jury could give a coherent reason for
their decision let alone a rational one.
I am not arguing against juries. They are the worst of all possible
systems except for all the others. :-}
Trials in this country, and I would guess in yours though I do not
know, are theater. They are not any "search for truth" in the
memorable, and laughable, phrase of Johnnie Cochran who has nothing
but contempt for the truth.
>Secondly, I do not believe that an execution is carried out, based on
>sympathy for the victims or out of sheer hatred of political ideas. This
>implies a sort of conspiracy, which I think the FBI would be very
>interested in..
It is interesting that you mention that on the very day that a man,
Geronimo Pratt, was freed after 25 years in prison because of a proven
conspiracy by the FBI because of his leadership of an organization
targeted by the FBI. The government has made it plain they will still
attempt to reincarcerate him through the appeal process though they
will not retry him should that fail. The government always had
evidence Pratt was not at the scene of the crime and suppressed it.
That the higher courts may choose not to consider that should go
without saying. Facts are not important things in our courts.
>> >It should not be too hard a task
>> >It should not be too hard a task
>> >considering your own words about the foreordained execution and the
>> >evidence in the case.
>> Impossible I would guess. :-}
>And by that statement you in fact concede point ;-)
Not in the slightest. I have always made it plain that I think it is
quite probable that McVeigh is guilty. The most damning evidence is
inadmissable and the jury is instructed to disregard it, i.e.
McVeigh's silence. That hardly means that he is proven beyond all
doubt, even beyond all reasonable doubt which only lawyers and other
soothsayers can measure.
Avital Pilpel
Bjarne Carlsen wrote:
> Nor would you be any good at restoring to your innocent the many years
> spent behind bars. You would let him out alive, yes; but the psycological
> scars, and the lost years of his life, you cannot restore.
>
All true; nevertheless, despite the similarity that both are severe
punishments, is still a totally different _kind_ of punishment. Fining somone
1,000,000$ is also severe punishment that causes (to the non-Bill Gates of us)
scars and problems you cannot heal. But still, it too is different in kind.
It says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property"
without due process for a reason.
> Meaning that you, Terry, is perfectly willing to kill somebody in whom you
> do not recognize the attributes of a human being... (severely retarded
> persons, et al). Seems to me that executing a proven hazard to society is
> more morally correct than that.
>
He obviously didn't mean that. I think that what he meant to say that a fetus
is not considered a human being (up to a certain point), while a baby - or for
that matter, a person who is in a permanent coma - _are_ considered human.
>
> > I am hardly disturbed when a true monster like Richard Harris, who
> > killed Polly Klaas, faces death. I would hope it would bring some
> > peace to the Klaas' but it really cannot. Closure is only for soap
> > operas and talk shows.
>
> Proof, please - have you spoken to anybody from the Klaas family?
>
TIME magazine today features an article that claims that the DP does not bring
closure to the family (in most cases), since real closure - if there is such a
thing for people who lost loved ones like that - comes from eventually
accepting the loss, while fighting for the execution of the criminal turns the
family's attention on revenge instead of acceptance.
Note two things here:
1. I am quoting TIME magazine, which is not a professional magazine.
However, such articles are always based on professional studies; asking TIME
for the sources might lead one to them.
2. I am in no way making any claim here about how a family "should" behave,
or that they are "stupid" or "wrong" for asking for the execution. Most of
all, I am not making a moral point about the families' behavior, that they
are "vindictive" or "revengeful" (or that they have no right to be so, if
they are). I am merely making a empirical point.
> --
> Bjarne Carlsen
>
--
Avital Pilpel.
=====================================
The majority is never right.
-Lazarus Long
=====================================
Veighn
> > human being.
Of course, you're not either, so I guess if somebody offed you the court
would find them innocent... =)
Terry, get help, you dumbfuck idiot. Just when I was beginning to think
all the psychos had left a.a.d.p., you have to come around sliming up the
neighborhood. Why is it that we can't have even one month without some
nut case ruining it for sentient mammals?
Terry Hallinan
nos...@spammenot.com (Veighn) wrote:
I bet a clinic could get you some rabies shots, Veighn.
Please try not to bite anyone.
Bjarne Carlsen
> "Bjarne Carlsen" <b...@nethotel.dk> wrote:
>
> >Terry Hallinan <hall...@borg.com> wrote in article
> ><5njqku$e...@ns2.borg.com>...
>
> -
> >> >Meaning that you, Terry, is perfectly willing to kill somebody in
whom
> >> >you do not recognize the attributes of a human being... (severely
> >> >retarded persons, et al).
>
> >> I "is" not willing to kill "severely retarded pesons, et al."
>
> >Hey, bear with me, after all I am posting in a foreign language...
> >I remember now: I am, you are, he/she/it is...
>
> I apologize. I should have restrained myself from making fun of
> grammatical errors. I make numerous errors myself as do most of us in
> our unedited postings. Your language facility is far superior to most
> of those for whom English is a native language.
Thanks. Apology freely accepted. :-)
> But I repeat I have not hinted in any way that I am in favor of
> murdering the retarded. It is a very strained interpretation of
> anything I have written.
No, I know very well that you did not hint at anything just remotely in
that direction. You must admit, though, that your argument, when boiled all
the way down, was: In order to have the right to be kept alive, one must
display the outward qualities, that we, (society), expect to find in a
human being.
I simply struck out at that, because it implies the right to decide who is
human and who is not, not based on membership of the species Homo Sapiens,
but rather on behavioral grounds.
> >> Those who make an argument that a fetus is a full human being might as
> >> well argue a zygote is. What about a living sperm? What is this
> >> incredible belief in the sanctity of the fetus while the woman that
> >> carries the fetus is a husk to be discarded at will?
>
> >Actually, my belief is, that it is the woman who has the right of
decision.
>
> Then it is hard to imagine what we are arguing about. That is
> precisely my position.
OK, abortion debate is hereby closed...
>
> >I never argued that the fetus is a full human being, but _your_ argument
> >was, that it is "absolututely" logical to be against the dp on moral
> >grounds while supporting abortion, with the criterion for letting somone
> >live being, that one should be able to "recognize the attributes of a
human
> >being" in the person. From this follows, that no more consideration
should
> >be given to those not displaying said attributes, than is given to the
> >fetus in the abortion clinic. The next sentence still applies.-->
> >> >Seems to me that executing a proven hazard to society is
> >> >more morally correct than that.
>
> Let's assume that there is some necessary correlation between a
> verdict of guilty and actual guilt. There is not. But let us assume
> there is. It remains illogical to connect the extinguishment of life
> from a living, feeling, thinking human being with that of a fetus
> which has no more consciousness than a carrot. Even the most severely
> retarded have feelings. Some would equate the autonomous reactions of
> fetuses to rational thought but they obviously are not.
Sigh. And I who thought that we had closed the abortion debate :-)
I see no logical error in discussing the morality of abortion vs. the
morality of the dp.
In both cases, a life is taken. I agree, though, that we could as well be
discussing the morality of hunting or cutting down a tree vs. the morality
of the dp since in all cases a living being, sentient or not, is being
deprived of life.
>
> [-]
> >> You found some logic in claiming that I had proposed murdering the
> >> retarded? Your rigorous logic escapes me.
>
> >And your point here totally escapes me. You have not answered my
argument -
> >I must presume that you have not understood my point, so here is an
> >elaboration:
>
> >You claim that it is totally illogical to support dp and oppose
abortion. I
> >say that there is nothing illogical about that - a fetus has not, and
can
> >not prove itself a threat to society, whereas a proven murderer has, by
his
> >deed done exactly that. You do not need to approve of abortions in order
to
> >approve of the permanent removal of a threat to society.
>
> Every human being is a threat to society.
Based on what ?
> Our trials prove nothing as
> to even the guilt of the accused. They are little better than the
> medieval practice of seeing if a witch would sink. If she did and
> therefore drowned the corpse could be buried in sacred ground.
By this you are really saying nothing more than that you have no faith in
the judicial system, under which you live. Where is your anti-dp argument
here? Is it the possible execution of innocents? If so, then a) please say
so, and b) why not work to change the system, maybe even to the point where
it works?
>
> >> >> I am hardly disturbed when a true monster like Richard Harris, who
> >> >> killed Polly Klaas, faces death. I would hope it would bring some
> >> >> peace to the Klaas' but it really cannot. Closure is only for soap
> >> >> operas and talk shows.
>
> >> >Proof, please - have you spoken to anybody from the Klaas family?
>
> >> When you have dealt with the death of your own infant, with the
> >> murders of friends and family get back to me and we can talk about
> >> such things.
>
> >Terry, I _have_ lost a child; I _have_ seen a good friend rather
brutally
> >killed, and finally my family, like most, have had its share of death by
> >natural causes. Don't believe that you are the only person, who have
lost
> >loved ones.
>
> Then it is beyond my understanding why you would think I would need to
> talk to the Klaas's about "closure" - surely the most gross media
> invention possible. All that is possible for any of us is periods of
> forgetfulness which grow longer with time.
What I felt, when the South African court pronounced the death sentence on
my friend's murderer, was relief. What I felt when he ended his days in a
rope, actually was a sense of closure. It was over - I could still mourn
for my friend, but at least the score balanced. Now don't take this as an
argument for "an eye for an eye" justice. Such were, and are to this day,
my _personal_ feelings on that particular subject.
OK, OK - let us try boiling this down a bit. In effect you are, (again),
stating your mistrust in the American judicial system.
In that I can only agree, though I am not living under it, even to the
point that I would advocate a stay of executions in the USA, pending a
complete restructuring of the judicial system. Note, however, that I do not
propose an abolishment of the death penalty.
As for my own country, where you presume conditions are as bad as in the
States, trials here seem to find the truth in most, if not all, cases.
Very rarely, (2 times in this century, if memory serves), a convict has
been released due to proven innocence, in both cases after less than 10
years spent behind bars.
Another reason that the system works in Denmark, may be that we seldom try
by jury, except in the more extreme cases, and that it is not an industry
in this country to sue your neighbor, (courts here would dismiss out of
hand most civil lawsuits brought in the USA).
As to legal counsel, any lawyer may be appointed public defender, and a
prisoner may ask that a specific lawyer is appointed to his case. A Danish
lawyer may only refuse appointment on legal grounds, for instance conflict
of interest, never on economic grounds.
You should try it in the US - it might work...
>
> >Secondly, I do not believe that an execution is carried out, based on
> >sympathy for the victims or out of sheer hatred of political ideas. This
> >implies a sort of conspiracy, which I think the FBI would be very
> >interested in..
>
> It is interesting that you mention that on the very day that a man,
> Geronimo Pratt, was freed after 25 years in prison because of a proven
> conspiracy by the FBI because of his leadership of an organization
> targeted by the FBI. The government has made it plain they will still
> attempt to reincarcerate him through the appeal process though they
> will not retry him should that fail. The government always had
> evidence Pratt was not at the scene of the crime and suppressed it.
> That the higher courts may choose not to consider that should go
> without saying. Facts are not important things in our courts.
>
Yes, it was on the news shortly after I posted my response to you. I
thought you would throw that one at me... Ouch, it hurt! :-)
The Pratt case may be a study in how not to run a judicial system, and it
may contain proof that the FBI is not the clean-cut police agency that the
World sees, but is hardly an argument against the death penalty itself.
> >> >It should not be too hard a task
> >> >considering your own words about the foreordained execution and the
> >> >evidence in the case.
>
> >> Impossible I would guess. :-}
>
> >And by that statement you in fact concede point ;-)
>
> Not in the slightest. I have always made it plain that I think it is
> quite probable that McVeigh is guilty. The most damning evidence is
> inadmissable and the jury is instructed to disregard it, i.e.
> McVeigh's silence. That hardly means that he is proven beyond all
> doubt, even beyond all reasonable doubt which only lawyers and other
> soothsayers can measure.
The whole point of the jury system, both in your country and in mine is to
define "reasonable", through good old fashioned common sense. It works
here, but then we select jurors differently from you.
Herman Rouge Willett
In article <01bc7726$6bed2ee0$3297efc2@fk-195>, "Bjarne Carlsen" (b...@nethotel.dk) writes:
>Narhi <nar...@diebold.com> skrev i artiklen <339EE9...@diebold.com>...>> > <5njqku$e...@ns2.borg.com>...
>> > > "Bjarne Carlsen" <b...@nethotel.dk> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Terry Hallinan <hall...@borg.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >> mke...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >> >I don't understand why keeping someone in a cell for the
>remaining
>> > > >> >portion of their life is better than executing them.
>> > >
>> > > >Neither do I. Caging up someone for the rest of his life seems to me
>to
>> > be a very cruel, if not unusual punishment.
>> > >
>> > > >> To clear things up for you, Mark, the innocent can be freed from
>the
>> > > >> cell. So far we aren't very good at bringing the innocent back to
>> > > >> life.
>> > >
>years
>> > >spent behind bars. You would let him out alive, yes; but the
>> > psycological scars, and the lost years of his life, you cannot restore.
>>
>>
>> So by your statement above it is better that this innocent man have been
>> executed?
>
>No, I am in effect saying that LWOP and the death penalty ends up with
>exactly the same net result - the condemned leaves the prison in a coffin.
>I am also claiming that no matter what you do, you cannot restore the lost
>years of life to a released prisoner.
>I am combining these two points with the point, that I am not in favor of
>cruel or unusual punishment.
>While Terry, and presumably you, believe that you can nullify the effects
>of long term imprisonment, I certainly do not.
>\
You can not nullify the scars left by long term
imprisonment:
Not being able to be part of their family...
Not being able to watch their kids grow and mature...
Not being able to provide for their welfare...
etc, etc, etc.
To make it some what fairer, the falsly convicted and
imprisoned person should be paid 1.5 times the current
average middle class wage for each year of
imprisonment, and should have the equivelent retirement
benifits. And on top of that, the income and
retirement benifits should be tax free by law. Also,
the government should have a group insurance policy for
these inocents, including life insurance.
After all, it was the system that caused these people
not to have these, and so is responsible for providing
these now that they have been exonerated.
>> Is that what you really believe?
>
>My own statement above? Yes, or I would not have written it. What you do is
>just twist my words a tiny little bit and so load the sentence negatively.
>The way you put it, no I do not believe in executing innocents, but then I
>also do not believe in the much vaunted American judicial system..
>
>> This makes no sense
>> logically.
>
>Then please prove the fallacy of my logic, sir.
>
>> I can agree that a lifetime in prison is a strong sentence
>> but to imply in any way that death would have been better, well, perhaps
>> you should just speak for yourself.
>
>But I am speaking for myself - who else can I speak for?
>See another thread for what I think about the number of appeals, just to
>keep alive vs. a system where LWOP means that you literally only leave the
>prison in a box.
>
>>
>> W. Narhi
>>
>--
>Bjarne Carlsen
>
>Fakse, Denmark
>
>----- Law without force is impotent. ----- PASCAL
>
>
>
---
Herman R. Willett
Information Systems Technology Specialist
hrwillet@dynasoft_.win.net
http://www.win.net/~dynasoft_
Herman -- KA5NHE -- Beaumont, Tx
16 years of business software development and 18 years
of industrial control and data aquisition software
development. 23 years experience in the computer field
developing hardware and software. 20++ years telcom and
networking experience.
********************************************************
* Those with high self-discipline usualy get ridiculed *
********************************************************
Bjarne Carlsen
> > <5njqku$e...@ns2.borg.com>...
> > > "Bjarne Carlsen" <b...@nethotel.dk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Terry Hallinan <hall...@borg.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> mke...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >> >I don't understand why keeping someone in a cell for the
remaining
> > > >> >portion of their life is better than executing them.
> > >
> > > >Neither do I. Caging up someone for the rest of his life seems to me
to
> > be a very cruel, if not unusual punishment.
> > >
> > > >> To clear things up for you, Mark, the innocent can be freed from
the
> > > >> cell. So far we aren't very good at bringing the innocent back to
> > > >> life.
> > >
> > >Nor would you be any good at restoring to your innocent the many
years
> > >spent behind bars. You would let him out alive, yes; but the
> > psycological scars, and the lost years of his life, you cannot restore.
>
>
> So by your statement above it is better that this innocent man have been
> executed?
No, I am in effect saying that LWOP and the death penalty ends up with
exactly the same net result - the condemned leaves the prison in a coffin.
I am also claiming that no matter what you do, you cannot restore the lost
years of life to a released prisoner.
I am combining these two points with the point, that I am not in favor of
cruel or unusual punishment.
While Terry, and presumably you, believe that you can nullify the effects
of long term imprisonment, I certainly do not.
> Is that what you really believe?
My own statement above? Yes, or I would not have written it. What you do is
just twist my words a tiny little bit and so load the sentence negatively.
The way you put it, no I do not believe in executing innocents, but then I
also do not believe in the much vaunted American judicial system..
> This makes no sense
> logically.
Then please prove the fallacy of my logic, sir.
> I can agree that a lifetime in prison is a strong sentence
> but to imply in any way that death would have been better, well, perhaps
> you should just speak for yourself.
But I am speaking for myself - who else can I speak for?
See another thread for what I think about the number of appeals, just to
keep alive vs. a system where LWOP means that you literally only leave the
prison in a box.
>
> W. Narhi
>
Bjarne Carlsen
Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote in article
<339F5D...@columbia.edu>...
> Bjarne Carlsen wrote:
>
> > Nor would you be any good at restoring to your innocent the many years
> > spent behind bars. You would let him out alive, yes; but the
psycological
> > scars, and the lost years of his life, you cannot restore.
> >
>
> punishments, is still a totally different _kind_ of punishment. Fining
somone
> 1,000,000$ is also severe punishment that causes (to the non-Bill Gates
of us)
> scars and problems you cannot heal. But still, it too is different in
kind.
> It says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property"
> without due process for a reason.
In effect putting the death penalty, incarceration, and fines at the same
level, namely the level set by "due process".
>
> > Meaning that you, Terry, is perfectly willing to kill somebody in whom
you
> > do not recognize the attributes of a human being... (severely retarded
> > persons, et al). Seems to me that executing a proven hazard to society
is
> > more morally correct than that.
> >
>
> He obviously didn't mean that. I think that what he meant to say that a
fetus
> is not considered a human being (up to a certain point), while a baby -
or for
> that matter, a person who is in a permanent coma - _are_ considered
human.
I am well aware of that, but the argument of abortion vs. death penalty
could as well be death penalty vs. hunting. The abortion argument implies
the right to kill, based on behavioral attributes not membership of the
human species.
>
> >
> > > I am hardly disturbed when a true monster like Richard Harris, who
> > > killed Polly Klaas, faces death. I would hope it would bring some
> > > peace to the Klaas' but it really cannot. Closure is only for soap
> > > operas and talk shows.
> >
> > Proof, please - have you spoken to anybody from the Klaas family?
> >
>
> TIME magazine today features an article that claims that the DP does not
bring
> closure to the family (in most cases), since real closure - if there is
such a
> thing for people who lost loved ones like that - comes from eventually
> accepting the loss, while fighting for the execution of the criminal
turns the
> family's attention on revenge instead of acceptance.
>
> Note two things here:
>
> 1. I am quoting TIME magazine, which is not a professional magazine.
> However, such articles are always based on professional studies; asking
TIME
> for the sources might lead one to them.
>
> 2. I am in no way making any claim here about how a family "should"
behave,
> or that they are "stupid" or "wrong" for asking for the execution. Most
of
> all, I am not making a moral point about the families' behavior, that
they
> are "vindictive" or "revengeful" (or that they have no right to be so, if
> they are). I am merely making a empirical point.
See my earlier post in this thread - i do not advocate fighting for an
execution, but in my case at least, there was a sense of closure when it
was all over.
> --
> Avital Pilpel.
>
> =====================================
> The majority is never right.
> > -Lazarus Long
> =====================================
>
--
Bjarne Carlsen
Herman Rouge Willett <hrwillet@dynasoft_.win.net> wrote in article
<952@dynasoft_.win.net>...
[snip..]
> You can not nullify the scars left by long term
> imprisonment:
>
> Not being able to be part of their family...
> Not being able to watch their kids grow and mature...
> Not being able to provide for their welfare...
> etc, etc, etc.
>
> To make it some what fairer, the falsly convicted and
> imprisoned person should be paid 1.5 times the current
> average middle class wage for each year of
> imprisonment, and should have the equivelent retirement
> benifits. And on top of that, the income and
> retirement benifits should be tax free by law. Also,
> the government should have a group insurance policy for
> these inocents, including life insurance.
>
> After all, it was the system that caused these people
> not to have these, and so is responsible for providing
> these now that they have been exonerated.
>
Agreed, although I would let courts and insurance companies set the rates.
Dussault Denis
U.S.A equals violence ,death and thruth.
--
SLTG
Grice
> >Terry, get help, you dumbfuck idiot. Just when I was beginning to think
> >all the psychos had left a.a.d.p., you have to come around sliming up
the
> >neighborhood. Why is it that we can't have even one month without some
> >nut case ruining it for sentient mammals?
>
> I bet a clinic could get you some rabies shots, Veighn.
>
> Please try not to bite anyone.
>
> Best, Terry
Jesus, listen to you two!
Veighn: You checked me for not checking Terry, and then I scroll up and
you're calling him a "dumbfuck idiot!" Practice what you preach! If you
think Terry is "psycho," a "nut case," and "sliming up the neighborhood,"
then ignore him.
Terry: Same to you.
To paraphrase a well known slogan:
"You can't insult people to show them that insulting people is wrong."
Cease fire!
Grice
PS--Abortion is not relevant to the DP. Put it on another NG please.
Terry Hallinan
"Grice" <ce...@sg.osa.pdx.edu> writes:
>PS--Abortion is not relevant to the DP. Put it on another NG please.
Oh?
No less a person than Fred Barnes, an ubiquitous conservative pundit,
made a principled switch from being in favor of the death penalty to
opposing it solely because of his opposition to abortion and his
ability to see the dissonance in then supporting the death penalty.
If one opposes abortion because of the sacredness of life - I know of
no other - then it is illogical to claim the right to kill others.
The opposition to abortion is not often so highminded but few care
argue that subservience of women is a worthy goal.
If the argument against the death penalty is based on the same
reasoning there is the precise same flaw if one accepts abortion as a
moral decision though it is perhaps still possible to argue that the
rights of the pregnant woman to her decision, however immoral, exceed
the rights of the fetus to survive. It is the position of some
theologians that the right of the fetus to life exceeds that of the
woman.
I was not much on marching in lockstep even in the Army. My
opposition to the death penalty is based on the inherent injustice in
a judicial system based on theater rather than truth without even
considering epistemological arguments. In that case there is no
inconsistency whatever in my positions. The killing of innocents
because of the disapproval of their ideas, which is often the reason
for the death penalty, is an abomination by almost anyone's standards.
When the jury deciding whether Mumia Abu-Jamal should live or die his
quotes from people like Mao Tse Tung were read to the jury while he
was given no chance to reply in full because, according to the judge's
rulings, it would take too much time. Laying aside the real question
of Mumia's guilt, can any American excuse killing people for what is
proposed as their belief? Many do.
Bjarne Carlsen
Christine A. Owens <cao...@vivanet.com> wrote in article
<33A160...@vivanet.com>...
> Bjarne Carlsen wrote:
> Tell me, which would YOU prefer: To be wrongly convicted of a crime,
executed, later
> found innocent, and have the State lay flowers on your grave with a card
saying, 'Oops';
> or be wrongly convicted of a crime, imprisoned, later found innocent, and
have the State
> make monetary compensation?
I have enough faith in the jucidiary system under which I live, to believe
that the possibility of me being wrongly accused for any crime at all, is
negligible.
That said, I'd prefer being alive provided that I had not spend more than
at the most a couple of years in prison.
>
> >
> > > >On a side note, do
> > > >you think it is logical for someone to argue against the death
penalty
> > on
> > > >moral grounds and on the other hand to support abortion? --- Mark
> > >
> > > Absolututely logical. A fetus is not a feeling, thinking, rational
> > > human being. Neither is an infant, of course, but we recognize the
> > > attributes of a human being in an infant.
> >
> > Meaning that you, Terry, is perfectly willing to kill somebody in whom
you
> > do not recognize the attributes of a human being... (severely retarded
> > persons, et al).
>
> Who says that a severely retarded person doesn't have the attributes of
an human
> being? . . . Those being human, born, and alive.
Comparison: Foetus - not feeling, not thinking, not rational. Severely
retarded - not feeling, not thinking, not rational.
Those were the attributes Terry recognized as human.
>
> > Seems to me that executing a proven hazard to society is
> > more morally correct than that.
>
> Ahh, but your 'proven hazard' may not be. Were you aware that, since the
resumption of
> the DP in the US, 63 persons have been released from death row because it
was
> conclusively demonstrated that they were innocent of the crime for which
they had been
> convicted? That hardly constitutes a proven hazard.
But they were not executed before their release, or were they? ;-)
Seriously, that number is just a proof that your system works, (most
times).
Desmond Coughlan
On 12 Jun 1997 06:46:05 GMT, nos...@spammenot.com (Veighn) wrote:
[snip]
>Terry, get help, you dumbfuck idiot. Just when I was beginning to think
>all the psychos had left a.a.d.p.,
Don Kool has left the newsgroup??!!??
>you have to come around sliming up the
>neighborhood. Why is it that we can't have even one month without some
>nut case ruining it for sentient mammals?
Yeah, but what can you do? Even pro-death penalty posters have the
right to post .....
-----
Desmond Coughlan |"If you could stand behind my eyes
nospam_...@pratique.fr |For just one day,
|Could you see my heart beside you?"
|Nanci Griffith
Christine A. Owens
Bjarne Carlsen wrote:
> > Tell me, which would YOU prefer: To be wrongly convicted of a crime,
> executed, later
> > found innocent, and have the State lay flowers on your grave with a card
> saying, 'Oops';
> > or be wrongly convicted of a crime, imprisoned, later found innocent, and
> have the State
> > make monetary compensation?
>
> I have enough faith in the jucidiary system under which I live, to believe
> that the possibility of me being wrongly accused for any crime at all, is
> negligible.
>
> That said, I'd prefer being alive provided that I had not spend more than
> at the most a couple of years in prison.
So, if you were faced with spending a decade in prison, you would rather
be wrongly executed?
> > > > >On a side note, do
> > > > >you think it is logical for someone to argue against the death
> penalty
> > > on
> > > > >moral grounds and on the other hand to support abortion? --- Mark
> > > >
> > > > Absolututely logical. A fetus is not a feeling, thinking, rational
> > > > human being. Neither is an infant, of course, but we recognize the
> > > > attributes of a human being in an infant.
> > >
> > > Meaning that you, Terry, is perfectly willing to kill somebody in whom
> you
> > > do not recognize the attributes of a human being... (severely retarded
> > > persons, et al).
> >
> > Who says that a severely retarded person doesn't have the attributes of
> an human
> > being? . . . Those being human, born, and alive.
>
> Comparison: Foetus - not feeling, not thinking, not rational. Severely
> retarded - not feeling, not thinking, not rational.
You haven't spent much time around retarded persons have you? Well, they
do indeed think and feel; and, whilst not usually being able to under the
structure of logic, they are most certainly capable of constructing a
logical arguement as to why they should/should not do something, if one
has the patience to address them at their intellectual level.
> > > Seems to me that executing a proven hazard to society is
> > > more morally correct than that.
> >
> > Ahh, but your 'proven hazard' may not be. Were you aware that, since the
> resumption of
> > the DP in the US, 63 persons have been released from death row because it
> was
> > conclusively demonstrated that they were innocent of the crime for which
> they had been
> > convicted? That hardly constitutes a proven hazard.
>
> But they were not executed before their release, or were they? ;-)
> Seriously, that number is just a proof that your system works, (most
> times).
The probability is, given the numbers involved, that we have executed at
least one innocent person before his/her innocence could be demonstrated.
Chris Owens
Desmond Coughlan
On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:08:06 -0700, "Christine A. Owens"
<cao...@vivanet.com> wrote:
[snip]
>You haven't spent much time around retarded persons have you?
[snip]
Well he can't know Don McDonald all that well ...
<ahem>
Sorry: that was inappropriate. I just couldn't resist it !!!!
-----
Desmond Coughlan |"Il y tomba comme un automne
nospam_...@pratique.fr |La boucle de mon souvenir
|Et notre destin qui t'étonne
|Se joint au jour qui va finir"
Stuart A. Creque
In Article<33A572...@vivanet.com>, <cao...@vivanet.com> writes:
> So, if you were faced with spending a decade in prison, you would rather
> be wrongly executed?
If I were wrongly accused of capital murder, I would much rather be sentenced
to death than to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. A Death
Row inmate receives the attention of the entire anti-death penalty political
movement, including its legal apparatus. The likelihood that someone would
dig up evidence of my innocence would be greater if I were a Death Row inmate
than if I were in the general population.
-- Stuart Creque
Don Kool
> [snip]
> >Terry, get help, you dumbfuck idiot. Just when I was beginning to
> >think all the psychos had left a.a.d.p.,
> Don Kool has left the newsgroup??!!??
Actually, Desi, it's not surprising but the one post
that was actually about you went right over your pointy little
head.
Hope this helps,
Don
********************** My juice is sweet like Georgia peaches
* Rev. Don McDonald * Women suck it up like leeches
* Baltimore, MD * ---- FREAKNASTY
********************** "Da' Dip"
http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
Julian
I see most of you morons who oppose the death penalty are suffering what
I like to call the 'Dukakis Syndrome'...you might remember..when Dukakis
ran against then Pres. Bush and was asked during a debate if he would
wish the death-penalty upon the murderer and rapist of his wife, he said
no. What a lying twit. Hypocrites all. Like I said. Morons.
One other thing...just because perhaps your countries have done away
with the death penalty, does not mean that the U.S. should follow suit.
Your countries should be doing their best to follow where the U.S.
leads. Maybe then you'll be as important a nation as the U.S. is.
Hypocrites.
Julian
Desmond Coughlan
On Mon, 16 Jun 97 18:47:36, "Stuart A. Creque" <stu...@wesco.com>
wrote:
>> So, if you were faced with spending a decade in prison, you would rather
>> be wrongly executed?
>
>If I were wrongly accused of capital murder, I would much rather be sentenced
>to death than to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. A Death
>Row inmate receives the attention of the entire anti-death penalty political
>movement, including its legal apparatus. The likelihood that someone would
>dig up evidence of my innocence would be greater if I were a Death Row inmate
>than if I were in the general population.
Tell that to the twenty-odd who have been wrongly (a misnomer, as no
one can be "justly" executed) put down this century.
Desmond Coughlan
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 07:43:27 -0400, Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
>> >Terry, get help, you dumbfuck idiot. Just when I was beginning to
>> >think all the psychos had left a.a.d.p.,
>
>> Don Kool has left the newsgroup??!!??
>
> Actually, Desi, it's not surprising but the one post
>that was actually about you went right over your pointy little
>head.
>
Talking of pointy hats, Don: lynched any "niggers" lately?
[Don's newbie eight-line sig snipped]
jim miller
two out of three ain't bad....
U.S.A. equals violence, death and LIES.
Herman Rouge Willett
In article <01bc79b4$85839ac0$2c97efc2@fk-195>, "Bjarne Carlsen" (b...@nethotel.dk) writes:
>Christine A. Owens <cao...@vivanet.com> wrote in article
><33A160...@vivanet.com>...
>> Bjarne Carlsen wrote:
>> Tell me, which would YOU prefer: To be wrongly convicted of a crime,
>executed, later
>> found innocent, and have the State lay flowers on your grave with a card
>saying, 'Oops';
>> or be wrongly convicted of a crime, imprisoned, later found innocent, and
>have the State
>> make monetary compensation?
>
>I have enough faith in the jucidiary system under which I live, to believe
>that the possibility of me being wrongly accused for any crime at all, is
>negligible.
>
>That said, I'd prefer being alive provided that I had not spend more than
>at the most a couple of years in prison.
>
>>
>> >
>> > > >you think it is logical for someone to argue against the death
>penalty
>> > on
>> > > >moral grounds and on the other hand to support abortion? --- Mark
>> > >
>> > > Absolututely logical. A fetus is not a feeling, thinking, rational
>> > > human being. Neither is an infant, of course, but we recognize the
>> > > attributes of a human being in an infant.
>> >
A baby in the womb _CAN_ and _DOES_ feel pain. It is a
medical fact. Just check any medical texts, or
med-school lit.
>> > Meaning that you, Terry, is perfectly willing to kill somebody in whom
>you
>> > do not recognize the attributes of a human being... (severely retarded
>> > persons, et al).
>>
>> Who says that a severely retarded person doesn't have the attributes of
>an human
>> being? . . . Those being human, born, and alive.
>
>Comparison: Foetus - not feeling, not thinking, not rational. Severely
>retarded - not feeling, not thinking, not rational.
>Those were the attributes Terry recognized as human.
>
>>
>> > Seems to me that executing a proven hazard to society is
>> > more morally correct than that.
>>
>> Ahh, but your 'proven hazard' may not be. Were you aware that, since the
>resumption of
>> the DP in the US, 63 persons have been released from death row because it
>was
>> conclusively demonstrated that they were innocent of the crime for which
>they had been
>> convicted? That hardly constitutes a proven hazard.
>
>But they were not executed before their release, or were they? ;-)
>Seriously, that number is just a proof that your system works, (most
>times).
>--
>Bjarne Carlsen
>
>Fakse, Denmark
>
>----- Law without force is impotent. ----- PASCAL
>
>
>
>
>
---
Phil Oliver
>
>In article <01bc79b4$85839ac0$2c97efc2@fk-195>, "Bjarne Carlsen" (b...@nethotel.dk) writes:
>>Christine A. Owens <cao...@vivanet.com> wrote in article
>><33A160...@vivanet.com>...
>>> Bjarne Carlsen wrote:
>>> > > >On a side note, do
>>> > > >you think it is logical for someone to argue against the death
>>penalty
>>> > on
>>> > > >moral grounds and on the other hand to support abortion? --- Mark
>>> > >
>>> > > Absolututely logical. A fetus is not a feeling, thinking, rational
>>> > > human being. Neither is an infant, of course, but we recognize the
>>> > > attributes of a human being in an infant.
>>> >
>
>A baby in the womb _CAN_ and _DOES_ feel pain. It is a
>medical fact.
No, it's a bonehead's misdefinition. A "baby in the womb" can feel
pain, but an embryo can't necessarily feel pain.
>Just check any medical texts, or med-school lit.
You might want to check the sections on what an "embryo" is compared
to a "fetus". Since the nervous system isn't developed until 10-12
weeks, how could a being before that age feel pain? It doesn't even
have the necessary body parts to do so.
-Phil Oliver
-----
"I'm mean if you going to be hypocrite like the rest of us
just admit you posturing potser." - Ruwan Jayatilleke, in
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970616...@hejira.hunter.cuny.edu>
Bobby Tendinitis
*Yawn* Removing this abortion blather from a.a.d-p.
Just as I suspected, Phil Oliver said:
>
>On Sun, 22 Jun 1997 20:51:35 GMT, hrwillet@dynasoft_.win.net (Herman
>Rouge Willett) wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <01bc79b4$85839ac0$2c97efc2@fk-195>, "Bjarne Carlsen"
(bca@nethote
--
Bobby Tendinitis
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9309
"Mutilation, actual or verbal, is usually
taken as an earnest of sincere interest in
another person." -- Donald Barthleme
Desmond Coughlan
In a typical redneck outburst, which makes our job considerably
easier, "Julian" frothed the following:
>I see most of you morons who oppose the death penalty are suffering what
>I like to call the 'Dukakis Syndrome'...you might remember..when Dukakis
>ran against then Pres. Bush and was asked during a debate if he would
>wish the death-penalty upon the murderer and rapist of his wife, he said
>no. What a lying twit. Hypocrites all. Like I said. Morons.
>
What about those people who really _have_ lost a loved one during a
violent crime, and yet who speak out against the death penalty,
identifying it for what it really is: a disgusting, vengeance-based
remnant of a shameful past?
Don't their opinions matter?
>One other thing...just because perhaps your countries have done away
>with the death penalty, does not mean that the U.S. should follow suit.
>Your countries should be doing their best to follow where the U.S.
>leads.
As has been shown time and time again on this group, the United States
is a sick joke, being flushed down the tubes by the combined might of
the European Community.
>Maybe then you'll be as important a nation as the U.S. is.
>
Shit, do we want to let things get _that_ bad ... ?
>Hypocrites.
>
Yep, you are, aren't you? Still, you're American: what more can one
expect?
barry henderson
Another Bullshit Frog remark spewed forth from that pearl Desi calls a
brain:
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
> In a typical redneck outburst, which makes our job considerably
> easier, "Julian" frothed the following:
>
Just curious Desi, Why is everyone with a different opinion than yours
labeled a "REDNECK"?
> >I see most of you morons who oppose the death penalty are suffering what
> >I like to call the 'Dukakis Syndrome'...you might remember..when Dukakis
> >ran against then Pres. Bush and was asked during a debate if he would
> >wish the death-penalty upon the murderer and rapist of his wife, he said
> >no. What a lying twit. Hypocrites all. Like I said. Morons.
> >
>
> What about those people who really _have_ lost a loved one during a
> violent crime, and yet who speak out against the death penalty,
> identifying it for what it really is: a disgusting, vengeance-based
> remnant of a shameful past?
>
> Don't their opinions matter?
>
Heres one right back at you. What about those people who have lost a
loved one during a violent crime, and yet wish to have the death penalty
imposed. Doesn't there opinion count? You cannot go both ways on this
one. I can guarantee Desi, that if it were left up to recommendations of
the families, there would be alot more people on Death Row, and
considerably more that would have been executed. This is why the State
makes the decisions and recommendations.
> >One other thing...just because perhaps your countries have done away
> >with the death penalty, does not mean that the U.S. should follow suit.
> >Your countries should be doing their best to follow where the U.S.
> >leads.
>
> As has been shown time and time again on this group, the United States
> is a sick joke, being flushed down the tubes by the combined might of
> the European Community.
>
Shown by whom? You? A worthless troll without a bridge to live under
because nobody wants him in their country? Hate to tell you this Desi,
but your opinion means shit. Speaking of being flushed, atleast we have
a decent sewer system to flush with. Your sewers must still be clogged
by all the cowards that tried to flee when that little austrian house
painter tried to take over that chunk of land, which you like to imagine
is some great world power, called France.
> >Maybe then you'll be as important a nation as the U.S. is.
> >
>
> Shit, do we want to let things get _that_ bad ... ?
>
You wish you had it so good Desi. Someday you'll grow up and good ole
Lady Freedom will welcome you with open arms.
> >Hypocrites.
> >
>
This next line reminds me of the fabeled: "I know you are but what am I
complex". But still, he's a lames ass fucking troll: what more can one
expect?
> Yep, you are, aren't you? Still, you're American: what more can one
> expect?
> ----
Barry Henderson "Does anyone here hate
no_spam...@globalbiz.net the French as much as
I do?"
Al Bundy
Phil Oliver
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:56:37 GMT, nospam_...@pratique.fr (Desmond
Coughlan) wrote:
<attributions were snipped somewhere along the line>
>>I see most of you morons who oppose the death penalty are suffering what
>>I like to call the 'Dukakis Syndrome'...you might remember..when Dukakis
>>ran against then Pres. Bush and was asked during a debate if he would
>>wish the death-penalty upon the murderer and rapist of his wife, he said
>>no. What a lying twit. Hypocrites all. Like I said. Morons.
They're not on the same "moron" level as someone who can't write a
complete English sentence, but thanks for playing.
>What about those people who really _have_ lost a loved one during a
>violent crime, and yet who speak out against the death penalty,
>identifying it for what it really is: a disgusting, vengeance-based
>remnant of a shameful past?
>
>Don't their opinions matter?
More importantly, if the victim's family doesn't want the perpetrator
executed but he/she is executed anyway, the death penalty has
infringed upon the victim's family's civil rights (assuming US law).
>>One other thing...just because perhaps your countries have done away
>>with the death penalty, does not mean that the U.S. should follow suit.
>>Your countries should be doing their best to follow where the U.S.
>>leads.
Yes, other first-world nations should follow along with our
educational system and literacy rates, we'd greatly benefit from a
level playing field.
Phil Oliver
On 27 Jun 1997 23:46:28 GMT, "Thomas Arena"
<YYZM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>There is one big flaw in all of this. THERE IS NO RAGING DEBATE OVER THE
>DEATH PENALTY, IT IS TOO ONE SIDED IN FAVOR OF IT FOR THERE TO BE
>MUCH OF A DEBATE.
And in the 1700s, the debate on slavery was "too one sided", so I
suppose there was no debate there. Considering that the DP was not
permitted in the US until 20 years ago, that many states don't have
the DP, and that many foreign countries don't have it either (if I
recall correctly, the US is the only first-world nation with the DP),
I'd say it's not very one-sided.
>Poll after poll confirms this to be true.
>A rescent poll right here on AT&T worldnet had a whopping 81% in favor of
>DP. This was not some tiny sample either. Over 20,000 people responded.
What exactly is a "rescent poll", I've studied statistics for a while
and haven't heard of that one before. Regardless, anyone who
considers a "yes or no" poll to be any sort of an indicator of opinion
on a political issue would be better served debating which cola is
really the best than debating the death penalty.
Come on guys, which is it? Coke, or Pepsi?
>It is hard to find a poll that has less than 70% in favor of DP.
Thanks for sharing. It's also hard for me to find suits that fit me
(i'm a 42 extra-long), could someone help me with that?
>I can't think of any other issue with such overwhelming agreement.
If that's the case, then why do so many states and countries not have
the DP? Hmm, could the answer be that such issues aren't determined
by referendums? (or direct majority rule)? That, although you get to
pick who you want to play on the All-Star team, you don't get to pick
what the Supreme Court's going to uphold as allowable or not? It
sucks, doesn't it. I think Gillette should sponsor a ballot on the
important political issues of our day, where people can punch out the
little bubbles that best correspond to their political views.
>What we have are too many whining liberals who have nothing better to
>do than feel sorry for a bunch of killers.
No, what we have are too many buffoons with no functional knowledge of
the US legal system deciding that it's time to get "tough on crime".
I thank the good Lord every day that we don't have more referendums,
which is rather strange seeing as I'm an atheist, but hey, what can ya
do.
I propose that all felons be executed, and I get the idea that most of
your polls would report a consensus that my idea is a bad one. Damn
whining liberals with nothing better to do than feel sorry for a bunch
of criminals.
Bobby Tendinitis
Just as I suspected, Phil Oliver said:
>
>educational system and literacy rates, we'd greatly benefit from a
>level playing field.
Oh for Christ's sake, you *like* this country? And don't start
with the "well if you don't like it you can leave" because I can
guarantee you I will once it's possible for me to do so.
America. Sheesh.
Thomas Arena
There is one big flaw in all of this. THERE IS NO RAGING DEBATE OVER THE
DEATH PENALTY, IT IS TOO
confirms this to be true.
A rescent poll right here on AT&T worldnet had a whopping 81% in favor of
DP. This was not some tiny sample
less than 70% in favor of DP. I can't think
of any other issue with such overwhelming agreement. What we have are too
many whining liberals who have nothing better to do than feel sorry for a
bunch of killers.
esmond Coughlan <nospam_...@pratique.fr> wrote in article
<33b2e8d6...@news.pratique.fr>...
> In a typical redneck outburst, which makes our job considerably
> easier, "Julian" frothed the following:
>
Desmond Coughlan
>Another Bullshit Frog remark spewed forth from that pearl Desi calls a
>brain:
>
Tip for newbie: try to understand that because someone is posting from
a French e-mail address, does not make him French.
Oh, and you might like to drop the racist "Frog" bullshit: people over
here just laugh at Americans who call them that. It's because of the
French fondness for frog's legs (or "cuisses de grenouille", as they
call them here) you see, but when one considers the cholesterol-laden
crap that Americans shovel into their distended bellies day after day
... well, there's an old saying about people who live in glass houses
... :-)
>> In a typical redneck outburst, which makes our job considerably
>> easier, "Julian" frothed the following:
>>
>Just curious Desi, Why is everyone with a different opinion than yours
>labeled a "REDNECK"?
>
Tsk, tsk, not at all. Being in disagreement with me doesn't make
anyone a redneck (no need for capitalisation, it just makes you look
like a clueless newbie). There are a few pro-death penalty posters
here for whom I have the utmost respect, and even a few with whom I
enjoy regular e-mail correspondence.
The difference is that when someone posts a message like "Julian's",
one can imagine him sitting in front of his daddy's PC, trying on his
daddy's white pointy hat, and dreaming of those burning crosses at
night, and one hand is on the keyboard, and the other is down on his
.. <ahem> ... well, the other hand isn't on the keyboard.
Then one reads the content of what he writes, and it's simply hot air.
Rhetoric. He has no arguments of his own, and indeed, he has no
arguments, period. He simply calls everyone who disagrees with him a
"moron", or a "twit", or whatever. He completely ignores (or is
incapable of comprehending) that the death penalty is Wrong, and that
no one (not the state, not the electorate, not his Holiness the Pope,
not the King of Norway ...) has the right to take a defenceless human
being and subject him to the modern-day equivalent of burning at the
stake, in the name of "justice".
The death penalty is Wrong, and will be abolished.
Get used to it, because when that day comes (and it will), people like
you, standing on the fringes, ranting, "Murderers must die!! Kill 'em
all!!", will be regarded the same way most of us now regard those in
favour of slavery, or anti-Semitism, or subjugation of women.
You belong in the past, and very soon, you will be relegated there.
>> >One other thing...just because perhaps your countries have done away
>> >with the death penalty, does not mean that the U.S. should follow suit.
>> >Your countries should be doing their best to follow where the U.S.
>> >leads.
>>
>> As has been shown time and time again on this group, the United States
>> is a sick joke, being flushed down the tubes by the combined might of
>> the European Community.
>>
>
>Shown by whom? You? A worthless troll without a bridge to live under
>because nobody wants him in their country?
Well if you stick around this newsgroup long enough to stop being
considered a newbie (and unless your "arguments" get a bit more
sophisticated, I doubt that anyone will want you to), you'll hear some
people referring to the above as "ad hominem". Never having studied
Latin, however, I prefer to call it "pathetic shite". It seems much
more appropriate, dontcha think ..? :-))
As for not having a bridge to live under ... hmm ... getting me
confused with someone else? I can assure you that I'm quite
comfortably ensconced in my little flat in the east of Paris. I also
have unrestricted right of entry into another dozen or so countries in
Europe, and even the United States is open to me for 90 days without a
visa.
Hardly what I'd call "not being wanted", is it, newbie?
>Hate to tell you this Desi,
Oh go on, I insist ... :-)
>but your opinion means shit.
I agree wholeheartedly. So why are you expending so much energy on
demonising me ... ? :-)
>Speaking of being flushed, atleast we have
>a decent sewer system to flush with.
I should certainly hope so, what with the shit that you all talk.
>Your sewers must still be clogged
>by all the cowards that tried to flee when that little austrian house
>painter tried to take over that chunk of land, which you like to imagine
>is some great world power, called France.
>
Well it's a funny thing that, because from what I've heard, those
"cowards" were fleeing because they had heard the Americans were
coming.
What with the Americans' innate ability to kill more of their own
side, than the enemy, I think _I_ would have been in the sewers as
well ...
>> >Maybe then you'll be as important a nation as the U.S. is.
>> >
>>
>> Shit, do we want to let things get _that_ bad ... ?
>>
>You wish you had it so good Desi. Someday you'll grow up and good ole
>Lady Freedom will welcome you with open arms.
>
She already has. Europe knew more about liberty even before your
fledgling country even got rid of the Natives.
>"Does anyone here hate the French as much as
>I do?"
Jealousy is a terrible affliction ...
----
Desmond Coughlan |Anyone flaming me in response to one
nospam_...@pratique.fr |of my posts, should be prepared to see
|his flame posted to the newsgroup
|within an hour of my reading it.
Thomas Arena
Phil Oliver <fel...@AZISPAMBLOCKbiosys.net> wrote in article
<33c4326f...@news.enter.net>...
> On 27 Jun 1997 23:46:28 GMT, "Thomas Arena"
> <YYZM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >There is one big flaw in all of this. THERE IS NO RAGING DEBATE OVER
THE
> >DEATH PENALTY, IT IS TOO ONE SIDED IN FAVOR OF IT FOR THERE TO BE
> >MUCH OF A DEBATE.
> And in the 1700s, the debate on slavery was "too one sided", so I
> suppose there was no debate there. Considering that the DP was not
> permitted in the US until 20 years ago, that many states don't have
> the DP, and that many foreign countries don't have it either (if I
> recall correctly, the US is the only first-world nation with the DP),
> I'd say it's not very one-sided.
I am not too suprised that you missed my point. You can debate this issue
all you want, but your opinion
is clearly in the minority. I'm sure yourself and others feel very
strongly about your belief, but you do not
represent the vast majority of this country. I am not one to say the
majority is always right. My beliefs are
only an opinion, as are yours. Lets face it, in this country we measure
opinions with polls. They are not
always acurate and can vary from poll to poll, week by week. But this
issue is different. There just is not
much of a change with the results. How can so many polls be so far off
with the results? The odds are
against it.
> What exactly is a "rescent poll", I've studied statistics for a while
> and haven't heard of that one before. Regardless, anyone who
> considers a "yes or no" poll to be any sort of an indicator of opinion
> on a political issue would be better served debating which cola is
> really the best than debating the death penalty.
The poll I refer to was on AT&T worldnet about 2 weeks ago. There were 3
choices, YES, NO, and YES but
only in extreme cases. A question can not get any more to the point than
that. Maybe we just disagree
on the validity of polls. I don't usually trust polls too much unless the
results are consistant over time. This
is my whole point.
.
> >I can't think of any other issue with such overwhelming agreement.
> If that's the case, then why do so many states and countries not have
> the DP? Hmm, could the answer be that such issues aren't determined
> by referendums? (or direct majority rule)? That, although you get to
> pick who you want to play on the All-Star team, you don't get to pick
> what the Supreme Court's going to uphold as allowable or not? It
> sucks, doesn't it. I think Gillette should sponsor a ballot on the
> important political issues of our day, where people can punch out the
> little bubbles that best correspond to their political views.
I am only referring to to the United States. In case you have not noticed,
the Supreme Court has upheld
the DP, so unless they change their mind, your point is moot. There are
only a handful of states that do
not have some kind of DP law, and even if they don't, we have federal DP
laws for certain crimes. We
may not have a referendum vote on DP, but we do vote in our state
legislature, they write the bill, and the
Govenor signs it into law. We get to pick who represents us in the only
poll that counts, our vote.
Until 3 years ago, New York had no DP law. It was one of the key issues
that got Govenor Pataki
elected, even in such a liberal state as NY. It may take quite a while to
actually execute someone
there because most prosecuters will not even seek it. Also, it only takes
1 juror who is against DP
to prevent it. Here in NJ, we have the same problem. Our DP law has been
on the books for almost
15 years and no executions. About a dozen or so convicted murderers wait
on death row. The only
real argument here is if we never use the DP, why do we even have the law.
I think most of us are
very frustrated. We even have a killer who wants to die, and is fighting
with his attorneys to stop the appeal
process. This may change soon with the Jesse Timmendequas verdict. There
is such a huge public
outcry for the execution of this man, that the state feels pressured to
push the appeal process through
quickly. They have limited influence, but influence none the less. Only
time will tell if I am right about this,
but such high profile cases have a habit of being influenced by public
opinion. This may not be what our
founding fathers intended, but it is often true.
> >What we have are too many whining liberals who have nothing better to
> >do than feel sorry for a bunch of killers.
>
> No, what we have are too many buffoons with no functional knowledge of
> the US legal system deciding that it's time to get "tough on crime".
> I thank the good Lord every day that we don't have more referendums,
> which is rather strange seeing as I'm an atheist, but hey, what can ya
> do.
Am I a buffoon for wanting a punishment to fit the crime? Our prison
system is in total chaos. There is
something wrong with a system that provides a murderer with the best
medical care, cable tv, workout rooms,
librairies etc., all free of charge. Do you call that punishment? I want
to take away all luxuries away
from criminals, and I want all murderers to die. If that makes me a
buffoon, so be it. I don't want every
issue decided by a referendum, but it scares me to think that public
opinion shouldn't count for
anything. If that is the case, then maybe we should eliminate the right to
vote. Rediculous, don't you agree?
Austin W. Spencer
On 30 Jun 1997 01:58:37 GMT, "Thomas Arena"
<YYZM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Phil Oliver <fel...@AZISPAMBLOCKbiosys.net> wrote in article
><33c4326f...@news.enter.net>...
>> On 27 Jun 1997 23:46:28 GMT, "Thomas Arena"
>> <YYZM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>The poll I refer to was on AT&T worldnet about 2 weeks ago. There were 3
>choices, YES, NO, and YES but
>only in extreme cases. A question can not get any more to the point than
>that. Maybe we just disagree
>on the validity of polls. I don't usually trust polls too much unless the
>results are consistant over time. This
>is my whole point.
And opinions on slavery in portions of the United States were
consistent over 250 years. If consistency over time is all you look
for, then slavery was perfectly acceptable for its time, as the DP is
for its. In this frame of mind, it may never occur to you that perhaps
slavery or DP can *not* be acceptable for *any* time.
[snip]
>> >What we have are too many whining liberals who have nothing better to
>> >do than feel sorry for a bunch of killers.
>>
>> No, what we have are too many buffoons with no functional knowledge of
>> the US legal system deciding that it's time to get "tough on crime".
>> I thank the good Lord every day that we don't have more referendums,
>> which is rather strange seeing as I'm an atheist, but hey, what can ya
>> do.
>
>Am I a buffoon for wanting a punishment to fit the crime? Our prison
>system is in total chaos. There is
>something wrong with a system that provides a murderer with the best
>medical care, cable tv, workout rooms,
>librairies etc., all free of charge. Do you call that punishment? I want
>to take away all luxuries away
>from criminals, and I want all murderers to die.
They are going to die whether you intervene or not. What's the point
in hastening the inevitable? For the purpose of making "a punishment
to fit the crime"? Personally, I find life imprisonment more fitting
than DP. If the criminal has any decency at all, LWOP will reveal it
more reliably than DP. I would hope that "the best" overstates the
quality of the medical care, but prisoners become the state's
responsibility from the moment they enter the prison; health care
falls into this category.I agree that cable TV is frivolous (I've
managed to do without it myself), but some of the libraries are also
mandated by the Supreme Court -- the law libraries. For the rest,
anything we can do to expand a person's consciousness is okay in my
book.
> If that makes me a buffoon, so be it.
This is an encouraging sign: You can accept that you are a buffoon.
;-)
>I don't want every
>issue decided by a referendum, but it scares me to think that public
>opinion shouldn't count for
>anything. If that is the case, then maybe we should eliminate the right to
>vote. Rediculous, don't you agree?
DP has never been put to a vote against alternatives, and neither was
slavery. Slavery was ended by war, political and economic devastation,
and executive and legislative action. Before the controversy, it was a
practice that had weathered thousands of years. Today, the same is
true of DP. I agree that it is a bad idea to entirely discount the
public voice, but PUBLIC APPROVAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENSURE MORAL
LEGITIMACY. Furthermore, the existence of a democratic system does not
necessarily ensure that decisions will be made democratically. In a
way, that is *my* whole point.
Austin W. Spencer
Dan Hogg
In article <01bc84f8$75013320$9e7074cf@default>, "Thomas Arena" <YYZM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
|>
|>
|> Phil Oliver <fel...@AZISPAMBLOCKbiosys.net> wrote in article
|> <33c4326f...@news.enter.net>...
|> > On 27 Jun 1997 23:46:28 GMT, "Thomas Arena"
|> > <YYZM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
|> >
|> > What exactly is a "rescent poll", I've studied statistics for a while
|> > and haven't heard of that one before. Regardless, anyone who
|> > considers a "yes or no" poll to be any sort of an indicator of opinion
|> > on a political issue would be better served debating which cola is
|> > really the best than debating the death penalty.
|>
|> The poll I refer to was on AT&T worldnet about 2 weeks ago. There were 3
|> choices, YES, NO, and YES but
|> only in extreme cases. A question can not get any more to the point than
|> that.
Actually these choices leave much to be desired and do not provide the
respondent with any real choices or the pollster with any useful information.
For example, what's an "extreme case"? I suspect your extreme case and mine
don't match. Further, the real problem is the lack of alternatives to the
responses. In each poll which has included the option of punishing with LWOP,
support for the dp has fallen to the ~40% level.
|> Maybe we just disagree
|> on the validity of polls. I don't usually trust polls too much unless the
|> results are consistant over time. This
|> is my whole point.
You should continue your mistrust of polling - it isn't in the results, but in
the methodology used, the form of the questions and availability of options.
[...]
|> > >What we have are too many whining liberals who have nothing better to
|> > >do than feel sorry for a bunch of killers.
|> >
|> > No, what we have are too many buffoons with no functional knowledge of
|> > the US legal system deciding that it's time to get "tough on crime".
|> > I thank the good Lord every day that we don't have more referendums,
|> > which is rather strange seeing as I'm an atheist, but hey, what can ya
|> > do.
|>
|> Am I a buffoon for wanting a punishment to fit the crime? Our prison
|> system is in total chaos.
Could you substantiate that with some, er, facts? For that matter, can you
substantiate factually ANY of your claims.
|> There is
|> something wrong with a system that provides a murderer with the best
|> medical care, cable tv, workout rooms,
|> librairies etc., all free of charge. Do you call that punishment?
The punishment part is confinement away from their homes and loss of civil
rights. "Best medical care"? - most prison medical care is like their dental
care: have a toothache? Yank it out! Libraries? Afraid prisoners will learn
to read? The illiteracy rate in prisons is about 2/3. We need to be doing all
we can to promote literacy if for no other reason than to reduce crime. Cable
TV? Few prisoners have personal TVs and if it wasn't for cable (since most
prisons are in rural areas) there would be little way to stay informed, or
entertained. Workout rooms? Like TV, prison official promote these opportu-
nities for diversion from boredom. Beats endless fighting and fucking. Better
to keep the proles sonambulent than informed and angry.
|> I want
|> to take away all luxuries away
|> from criminals,
Too late - they don't have any.
|> and I want all murderers to die.
Too bad - many courts have ruled repeatedly that such action would be
unconstitutional, not to mention the gap between a hired killer, a drunk driver
and an elderly man who kills his painfully cancer-ridden wife of 60 years.
|> If that makes me a
|> buffoon, so be it. I don't want every
|> issue decided by a referendum, but it scares me to think that public
|> opinion shouldn't count for
|> anything.
If it wasn't for public opinion and the desire of politicians to get reelected
plus the desire for prosecutors to advance their careers, there wouldn't BE a
death penalty. Here's a clue: tyranny by the majority is WORSE than other
tyrannies. Given how poorly informed the public is on so many issues, if every
issue were put to a vote, we'd have a much different country - and one in which
neither of us would be welcome. If you don't believe that, try this. Last
year, a bill came up for a vote in Congress and was overwhelmingly defeated.
The text of the bill was identical to 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
|> If that is the case, then maybe we should eliminate the right to
|> vote. Rediculous, don't you agree?
Don't need to do that - Americans are abdicating their voting right in droves.
--
==========================================================================
Daniel Hogg | da...@lexis-nexis.com
LEXIS-NEXIS | dh...@erinet.com
Dayton, OH 45342 |
==========================================================================
There is no need to think outside the box...
if you don't build a box to begin with.
Thomas Arena
Dan Hogg <da...@lexis-nexis.com> wrote in article
<5p8ol8$n...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>...
> In article <01bc84f8$75013320$9e7074cf@default>, "Thomas Arena"
<YYZM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> |> The poll I refer to was on AT&T worldnet about 2 weeks ago. There
were 3
> |> choices, YES, NO, and YES but
> |> only in extreme cases. A question can not get any more to the point
than
> |> that.
> Actually these choices leave much to be desired and do not provide the
> respondent with any real choices or the pollster with any useful
information.
> For example, what's an "extreme case"? I suspect your extreme case and
mine
> don't match. Further, the real problem is the lack of alternatives to
the
> responses. In each poll which has included the option of punishing with
LWOP,
> support for the dp has fallen to the ~40% level.
> You should continue your mistrust of polling - it isn't in the results,
but in
> the methodology used, the form of the questions and availability of
options.
You may be correct about what an "extreme case" could mean. To me, any
murder is extreme. But I am sure
it is possible for a case to be extreme enough for even you to want the DP.
You are only human, and are as
emotional as I am, I presume. If a family member of yours was murdered,
who knows how you might
react. I am not saying you would change your opinion, but with so much
grief you can never tell. I do hope you
never face something like this. I still think the poll question was clear
enough. I assume most people expect
LWOP to be the option if they answer no. LWOP as an option only confuses
the question more. A direct question
will get a much more direct and honest answer. If you really feel polls do
not and should not dictate the direction
of this country, then take a look at our current president. On issue after
issue, Clinton follows the polls to decide
how he feels that particular day. We have seen him many times end up
taking both sides of many issues,
probably due to changing poll data. I know, now you want facts and quotes
to back myself up. But come on
now, the Clinton record speaks for itself. They don't call him "slick
willie" for nothing. How else do we
explain a "good liberal" such as Clinton supporting the federal DP so
strongly. If he felt a strong majority of
Americans were opposed to DP, you know he would steer clear of this issue.
> |> > >What we have are too many whining liberals who have nothing better
to
> |> > >do than feel sorry for a bunch of killers.
> |> Am I a buffoon for wanting a punishment to fit the crime? Our prison
> |> system is in total chaos.
> Could you substantiate that with some, er, facts? For that matter, can
you
> substantiate factually ANY of your claims.
First of all, I have a life. Second, this is just a newsgroup. I don't
have time for serious research when all we are
doing is expressing opinions. I'm sure I could find plenty of facts to back
myself up if I were unemployed. I mentioned
one particular Poll and it's results. What other "crazy" claims have I
made? The number of states with DP laws is on
the rise, as are the number of executions. I don't have statistical facts
to back this up, but we can assume it is
true. Besides, even if I had facts and figures, I could be just making
them up, or taking them from the "World Weekly
News" or some other tabloid. The bottom line is this; We could go on and
on making all sorts of claims and still
not change each others opinion. I think someone sick enough to end
anothers life deserves to be executed. You
do not. With this behind us lets move on.
> |> There is
> |> something wrong with a system that provides a murderer with the best
> |> medical care, cable tv, workout rooms,
> |> librairies etc., all free of charge. Do you call that punishment?
>
> The punishment part is confinement away from their homes and loss of
civil
> rights. "Best medical care"? - most prison medical care is like their
dental
> care: have a toothache? Yank it out! Libraries? Afraid prisoners will
learn
> to read? The illiteracy rate in prisons is about 2/3. We need to be
doing all
> we can to promote literacy if for no other reason than to reduce crime.
Cable
> TV? Few prisoners have personal TVs and if it wasn't for cable (since
most
> prisons are in rural areas) there would be little way to stay informed,
or
> entertained. Workout rooms? Like TV, prison official promote these
opportu-
> nities for diversion from boredom. Beats endless fighting and fucking.
Better
> to keep the proles sonambulent than informed and angry.
Sonambulent? Must be an SAT word that I got wrong. God forbid we make
them angry. I see how all
of rehabilitation is working. The best prison is one an inmate never wants
to go back to. Prison is supposed to
be punishment. If the medical care is as as bad as you say, they would run
off to the ACLU. They do it enough
as it is. We already know rehab does not work. A bad person person is a
bad person, no matter what
education level they reach. I know, you think they are not bad people, its
society that caused them to
go bad. Why do they need TV at all? I thought that was supposed to rot
your brain. Entertainment??!!! This
is prison, not vacation. Personally, I want them to just stare at the
walls and think about what they did.
There is already a move in some parts of the country to remove workout
rooms. I don't want some rapist or
any violent criminal getting all pumped up. Just what we need, stronger,
healthier criminals after they get out.
> |> I want
> |> to take away all luxuries away
> |> from criminals,
>
> Too late - they don't have any.
Let me give you an example of the kind of prison we should have. In
Maricopa County, Arizona, sorry I don't know
the official name of the prison, they have a Sherrif by the name, Joe
Arpaio. At his prison, many of the inmates live
in tents. They have very strict rules here. No smoking, no coffee, no
pornographic magazines, no TV other than conservative
political news- not too much obviously. They can also watch the Weather
Channel and Disney cartoons. A judge
ordered that they must have tv, but not what the programming should be.
They also have chain gangs. Other than
picking up garbage, the chain gangs also work at a local cemetary digging
graves. Wouldn't it be ironic if they
were the graves of executed inmates? Wishfull thinking. The prison had a
problem with inmates stealing underwear.
All was made equal by the good sherrif. All underwear worn by the inmates
was dyed pink. How dare he try
to humiliate the scum of the earth. Guess what, problem solved. When the
Super Bowl was played in Arizona
a couple years ago, the sherrif put up a big neon sign. It read "vacancy"
The sign could be seen for quite a distance.
It did not cost tax-payers anything. The money came from the sale of
souvenir pink underwear. Pretty wacked,
I know, but funny. You might ask if any of this is legal. Absolutely. He
has been sued many times,
by your friends at the ACLU of course, but he keeps winning. Thank God
for that. This man is a true hero of mine.
There is no guarantee that these methods will have a big impact on crime,
but it just might cause a few criminals to think
twice when they are in Arizona. If we could try this throughout the
country we might see some real results.
> |> and I want all murderers to die.
>
> Too bad - many courts have ruled repeatedly that such action would be
> unconstitutional, not to mention the gap between a hired killer, a drunk
driver
> and an elderly man who kills his painfully cancer-ridden wife of 60
years.
We are talking about murder, not manslaughter. Don't insult me, you know
what I am referring to when I say murderer.
> |> If that makes me a
> |> buffoon, so be it. I don't want every
> |> issue decided by a referendum, but it scares me to think that public
> |> opinion shouldn't count for
> |> anything.
>
> If it wasn't for public opinion and the desire of politicians to get
reelected
> plus the desire for prosecutors to advance their careers, there wouldn't
BE a
> death penalty. Here's a clue: tyranny by the majority is WORSE than
other
> tyrannies. Given how poorly informed the public is on so many issues, if
every
> issue were put to a vote, we'd have a much different country - and one in
which
> neither of us would be welcome. If you don't believe that, try this.
Last
> year, a bill came up for a vote in Congress and was overwhelmingly
defeated.
> The text of the bill was identical to 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
If we did not have so many murderers, we might not need the DP. Of course
I would want those few
executed anyway. And guess what, you just won the argument for me. You
just admitted that public opinion
is indeed in favor of DP. That was the whole purpose of my original
posting 2 days ago. I wanted to make that
1 point. I had no intention of actually debating the issue. See what
happens when I get sidetracked
> |> If that is the case, then maybe we should eliminate the right to
> |> vote. Rediculous, don't you agree?
>
> Don't need to do that - Americans are abdicating their voting right in
droves.
Too many Americans are apathetic when it comes to voting, which is a shame.
But that does not mean
there are not strongly felt opinions. I do not support majority rule as a
sole means of deciding issues, but
public opinion can not and should not be ignored. It can't always be
right, but it is certainly not always wrong.
A simple statement maybe, but true.
Austin W. Spencer
On 1 Jul 1997 03:41:47 GMT, "Thomas Arena" <YYZM...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>
>
>Dan Hogg <da...@lexis-nexis.com> wrote in article
><5p8ol8$n...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>...
>> In article <01bc84f8$75013320$9e7074cf@default>, "Thomas Arena"
><YYZM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
[extracted]
>> |> I want
>> |> to take away all luxuries away
>> |> from criminals,
>>
>> Too late - they don't have any.
>
>Let me give you an example of the kind of prison we should have. In
>Maricopa County, Arizona, sorry I don't know
>the official name of the prison,
The prison is simply called the Tent City Jail. I understand that some
months ago -- a year, perhaps -- there was actually a riot there. I
believe it had something to do with the guards, probably that there
were too few of them (three for about 500 inmates). Anyway, tent city
is not, and never was AFAIK, the only prison in Maricopa County. The
county contains the city of Phoenix, which has a downtown detention
facility -- the Madison Street Jail. So not even the county
universally applies its own solution.
Austin W. Spencer
Mike Cullinan
In Article<5p8ol8$n...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>, <da...@lexis-nexis.com> write:
> Path: >
> In article <01bc84f8$75013320$9e7074cf@default>, "Thomas Arena"
<YYZM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> |>
------------------------snip (opinion polls of DP)
>
> Actually these choices leave much to be desired and do not provide the
> respondent with any real choices or the pollster with any useful
information.
> For example, what's an "extreme case"? I suspect your extreme case and mine
> don't match. Further, the real problem is the lack of alternatives to the
> responses. In each poll which has included the option of punishing with
LWOP,
> support for the dp has fallen to the ~40% level.
As Mr. Spragge has said, the only poll that counts is the voting booth.
Let me direct your attention to New York state, where former governor Mario
Cuomo vetoed legislation to reinstate DP numerous times. DP was _the_ issue
in that election, and Cuomo lost by a landslide. This is one of your
northeastern states which is more liberal than most. How do you reconcile
that poll?
>
> |> Maybe we just disagree
> |> on the validity of polls. I don't usually trust polls too much unless
the
> |> results are consistant over time. This
> |> is my whole point.
>
> You should continue your mistrust of polling - it isn't in the results, but
in
> the methodology used, the form of the questions and availability of options.
I believe the poll you refer to presented LWOP + restitution as alternatives.
If any one thought about it, they would probably figure out that "restitution"
is really not an option.
--------------------------------snip---------------------------
Mike Cullinan
mgcu...@connect.net
Austin W. Spencer
On 1 Jul 1997 03:41:47 GMT, "Thomas Arena" <YYZM...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>Dan Hogg <da...@lexis-nexis.com> wrote in article
><5p8ol8$n...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>...
>> In article <01bc84f8$75013320$9e7074cf@default>, "Thomas Arena"
><YYZM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
[extracted]
>> |> I want
>> |> to take away all luxuries away
>> |> from criminals,
>>
>> Too late - they don't have any.
>
>Let me give you an example of the kind of prison we should have. In
>Maricopa County, Arizona, sorry I don't know
>the official name of the prison, they have a Sherrif by the name, Joe
>Arpaio. At his prison, many of the inmates live
>in tents.
The jail is known, simply, as Tent City Jail. I understand that there
was a riot in there, perhaps a year ago. I think it had something to
do with the guards, probably that there were too few of them (three
for about 500 inmates). Anyway, Tent City is not and AFAIK never was
the only penal facility in Maricopa County, which had 2.1 million
residents in 1990, nearly half of whom lived in Phoenix alone. There
is also a jail downtown, an indoor facility named the Madison Street
Jail. So not even Maricopa County fully applies its own model.
Austin W. Spencer
Jesse J Handy
My basic problem with the death penalty is this. Let's say some space case
disembowels me with a Swiss Army Knife and feeds me to his cat. Truly he's
a sicko and shouldn't be on the street. Is killing this SOB going to
somehow resurrect me? If not then what's the point!? Here in Texas you
sneeze wrong and some D.A. who really wants to be governor someday asks to
have you fried just to make his resume look impressive. #%@! that! I say
we adopt a prison system modeled on some 3rd world nation where the
prisons such so much that there are very few "career" criminals.
Terry Hallinan
Something like this, Jesse:
From "The Nation:"
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Beat The Devil" column by Alexander Cockburn
The Torture of Susan McDougal
[extracted]
"So, since Judge Wright sent her off to jail on September 9, Susan
McDougal has experienced the following sactions. I take the history
from the motion filed by Michael Kennedy, her attorney in the civil
contempt matter.
"First, three months in the Faulkner Country Detention Center in
Arkansas, in a unit built for ten and holding twice that number. One
visit for Susan per week, through glass. No contact visits, on the
insistence of Starr's office. There's a men's unit directly above.
Susan can hear youths being gang-raped, with one poor soul screaming,
'No, please God, no, no,no.' The unit swelters in the late summer
heat. McDougal's legs swell up from fever blisters and lack of water.
Each time she goest to court or to the doctor or dentist she's
shackled hand and foot. The federal marshal won't remove
the shackles for Susan to pee at a gas station. She has to hop up the
steps of the courthouse and falls down in front of the press.
"McDougal's next jail is in Carswell Federal Medical Center in Fort
Worth, Texas, where she's soon consigned to the maximum security
section, with hard women serving thirty-to-forty-year sentences on
drug charges. And then the largest women's jail in the world, the
Sybil Brand Institute. She's on K-10 status, which means isolation
from all other inmates. Anytime she needs to to use the shower or
phone or even walk on the concrete in front of her 5-by-9-foot cell
everyone else must be locked down. McDougal gets out of
her cell for two and a half hours a day at most.
"She has to wear red, the color for informants and baby killers, and
the inmates scream insults at her. Maybe three hours a week she gets
to sit in a cage on the roof of Sybil Brand and see the sky. She has
every meal in her cell, dead cold. At night she can't sleep because
there's a flashlight shone in her face every twenty minutes. When she
goes to court she's put in a cage inside a bus with her hands cuffed
to a waist chain. The male prisoners in the bus masturbate in front
of her. Back from court she's strip-searched, told to 'bend and
spread.' Once, totally nude, she has her period while being searched,
blood streams down her legs after a guard takes out her tampon. She's
not allowed to clean up, has to wait a day to shower."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
After she is released from contempt of court Susan can start her
prison term.
Great to have friends in high places, huh?
Best, Terry
"Christian - One who believes the New Testament is a divinely
inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his
neighbor" - The Devil's Dictionary
Michael S Payer Jr
Jesse J Handy <jha...@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote in article
<Pine.OSF.3.95q.97070...@Bayou.UH.EDU>...
> My basic problem with the death penalty is this. Let's say some space
case
> disembowels me with a Swiss Army Knife and feeds me to his cat. Truly
he's
> a sicko and shouldn't be on the street. Is killing this SOB going to
> somehow resurrect me? If not then what's the point!?
Is putting him in jail going to resurrect you ?
If not then what's the point ?????
Your move :-)
--
MSP
|||_________________________
@###|||_________________________/
||| Some Times The Dragon Wins
Mitchell Holman
Could this be the same "country club" prison system that
conservatives think need to be made tougher?
Until one of their own, like Liddy or Keating or Helmsley draws
a long stretch in "Club Fed", that is...........
Jeffrey D. Iverson
On Wed, 2 Jul 1997 23:22:12 -0500, Jesse J Handy <jha...@Bayou.UH.EDU>
wrote:
>My basic problem with the death penalty is this. Let's say some space case
>disembowels me with a Swiss Army Knife and feeds me to his cat. Truly he's
>a sicko and shouldn't be on the street. Is killing this SOB going to
>somehow resurrect me? If not then what's the point!? Here in Texas you
>sneeze wrong and some D.A. who really wants to be governor someday asks to
>have you fried just to make his resume look impressive. #%@! that! I say
>we adopt a prison system modeled on some 3rd world nation where the
>prisons such so much that there are very few "career" criminals.
Killing the murderer doesn't bring you back to life, but it does
prevent someone who's proven their willingness to take another's life
from doing it to anyone else ever again.
Jeffrey D. Iverson | j5r...@iversonsoftware.com
Iverson Software Co. | http://www.iversonsoftware.com/
| http://freedomstarr.com/?IV6257355
Free Web Business | http://www.netopp.com ID: JI7755
Terry Hallinan
j5r...@prairie.lakes.com (Jeffrey D. Iverson) wrote:
>Killing the murderer doesn't bring you back to life, but it does
>prevent someone who's proven their willingness to take another's life
>from doing it to anyone else ever again.
> Jeffrey D. Iverson | j5r...@iversonsoftware.com
Didn't Jeffrey D. Iverson just announce he is willing to take
another's life?
Herman Rouge Willett
In article <5pgh7o$g...@ns2.borg.com>, Terry Hallinan (hall...@borg.com) writes:
>Jesse J Handy <jha...@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote:
>
>>My basic problem with the death penalty is this. Let's say some space case
>>disembowels me with a Swiss Army Knife and feeds me to his cat. Truly he's
>>a sicko and shouldn't be on the street. Is killing this SOB going to
>>somehow resurrect me? If not then what's the point!? Here in Texas you
>>sneeze wrong and some D.A. who really wants to be governor someday asks to
>>have you fried just to make his resume look impressive. #%@! that! I say
>>we adopt a prison system modeled on some 3rd world nation where the
>>prisons such so much that there are very few "career" criminals.
>
From above wisdome to imagination below.
>Something like this, Jesse:
>
>From "The Nation:"
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>"Beat The Devil" column by Alexander Cockburn
>The Torture of Susan McDougal
>
>[extracted]
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>After she is released from contempt of court Susan can start her
>prison term.
>
>Great to have friends in high places, huh?
>
>
>Best, Terry
>
>"Christian - One who believes the New Testament is a divinely
>inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his
>neighbor" - The Devil's Dictionary
>
>
>
---
Herman Rouge Willett
In article <33c3e236...@news.ic.mankato.mn.us>, Jeffrey D. Iverson (j5r...@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
>On Wed, 2 Jul 1997 23:22:12 -0500, Jesse J Handy <jha...@Bayou.UH.EDU>
>wrote:
>
>>My basic problem with the death penalty is this. Let's say some space case
>>disembowels me with a Swiss Army Knife and feeds me to his cat. Truly he's
>>a sicko and shouldn't be on the street. Is killing this SOB going to
>>somehow resurrect me? If not then what's the point!? Here in Texas you
>>sneeze wrong and some D.A. who really wants to be governor someday asks to
>>have you fried just to make his resume look impressive. #%@! that! I say
>>we adopt a prison system modeled on some 3rd world nation where the
>>prisons such so much that there are very few "career" criminals.
>
>prevent someone who's proven their willingness to take another's life
>from doing it to anyone else ever again.
>
So, if I get robbed, and he is found guilty of robbing
me, he should then be sentenced to be robbed by me?
So not I'm a robber to.
> Jeffrey D. Iverson | j5r...@iversonsoftware.com
> Iverson Software Co. | http://www.iversonsoftware.com/
> | http://freedomstarr.com/?IV6257355
> Free Web Business | http://www.netopp.com ID: JI7755
>
---
Don Kool
> >Killing the murderer doesn't bring you back to life, but it does
> >prevent someone who's proven their willingness to take another's life
> >from doing it to anyone else ever again.
> Didn't Jeffrey D. Iverson just announce he is willing to take
> another's life?
No. He announced his quite justified willingness to take
a proven murderer's life.
Hope this helps,
Don
********************** My juice is sweet like Georgia peaches
* Rev. Don McDonald * Women suck it up like leeches
* Baltimore, MD * ---- FREAKNASTY
********************** "Da' Dip"
http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
Desmond Coughlan
On Tue, 01 Jul 97 21:09:11 PDT, Mike Cullinan <mgcu...@connect.net>
wrote:
[snip]
>As Mr. Spragge has said, the only poll that counts is the voting booth.
>Let me direct your attention to New York state, where former governor Mario
>Cuomo vetoed legislation to reinstate DP numerous times. DP was _the_ issue
>in that election, and Cuomo lost by a landslide. This is one of your
>northeastern states which is more liberal than most. How do you reconcile
>that poll?
I'd be interested in seeing what his (the new Governor's) election
campaign was like, regarding the death penalty. If it promised the
voters that he would get "tough on crime" by sanctioning the death
penalty, or that killing murderers would prevent even one single
murder, then the good people of New York State have been lied to.
Just like the citizens of every other retentionist state in the Union.
>I believe the poll you refer to presented LWOP + restitution as alternatives.
>If any one thought about it, they would probably figure out that "restitution"
>is really not an option.
Why not? Do you mean because those convicted have no money? Is it
simply a matter of dollars? Isn't the fact that the person concerned
will be spending the rest of his life behind bars, working and that
most of the pittance he earns there will be given to the family of the
deceased?
Desmond Coughlan
>>My basic problem with the death penalty is this. Let's say some space case
>>disembowels me with a Swiss Army Knife and feeds me to his cat. Truly he's
>>a sicko and shouldn't be on the street. Is killing this SOB going to
>>somehow resurrect me? If not then what's the point!? Here in Texas you
>>sneeze wrong and some D.A. who really wants to be governor someday asks to
>>have you fried just to make his resume look impressive. #%@! that! I say
>>we adopt a prison system modeled on some 3rd world nation where the
>>prisons such so much that there are very few "career" criminals.
>Killing the murderer doesn't bring you back to life, but it does
>prevent someone who's proven their willingness to take another's life
>from doing it to anyone else ever again.
... and as the vast majority of murderers never reoffend anyway, it is
grossly excessive.
----
Desmond Coughlan |"In Britain, people who wander around at
Remove "nospam_" |night drunk, waving shotguns and shooting
from e-mail address |chickens are called pyschopaths. In the
|United States, they're called citizens."
|"FHM" Magazine, August 1997
Mike Cullinan
>On Tue, 01 Jul 97 21:09:11 PDT, Mike Cullinan <mgcu...@connect.net>
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
-----------snip (Ptrataki's victory over Cuomo for NY state governor)
>I'd be interested in seeing what his (the new Governor's) election
>campaign was like, regarding the death penalty. If it promised the
>voters that he would get "tough on crime" by sanctioning the death
>penalty, or that killing murderers would prevent even one single
>murder, then the good people of New York State have been lied to.
>Just like the citizens of every other retentionist state in the Union.
You've got it wrong. You and Parsons have promoted the idea that
politicians dupe the citizenry into supporting the death penalty.
Actually, politicians who want to win find out what the people think
and conform their campaign to that. Prataki won because most people
in NY wanted DP, not because he convinced them that they needed it.
I have lived here a few years, and there has _never_ been a campaign
put on by politicians to convince voters that they must enact DP laws.
>>I believe the poll you refer to presented LWOP + restitution as alternatives.
>>If any one thought about it, they would probably figure out that "restitution"
>>is really not an option.
>
>Why not? Do you mean because those convicted have no money?
Some murderers have made money by writing about their crimes in jail
cells and getting a book published. Laws have been put in place to
prevent them from profiting from their murders by mandating that
proceeds from sales of these books be turned over to families of the
vicitms. The vast majority, though, have little or nothing to offer
in the way of restitution.
> Is it
>simply a matter of dollars? Isn't the fact that the person concerned
>will be spending the rest of his life behind bars, working and that
>most of the pittance he earns there will be given to the family of the
>deceased?
Not most of the pittance, Desmond, but only a small fraction of it, if
any. To me, a little pocket change being offered for the life of a
loved one is a rank insult.
Edward J. Epileptic
The point is if a criminal is put to death he can't possibly escape and
commit more heinous crimes. And besides, they have it coming and it
makes folks feel good.
Desmond Coughlan
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 02:23:14 GMT, mgcu...@connect.net (Mike Cullinan)
wrote:
>-----------snip (Ptrataki's victory over Cuomo for NY state governor)
>>I'd be interested in seeing what his (the new Governor's) election
>>campaign was like, regarding the death penalty. If it promised the
>>voters that he would get "tough on crime" by sanctioning the death
>>penalty, or that killing murderers would prevent even one single
>>murder, then the good people of New York State have been lied to.
>>Just like the citizens of every other retentionist state in the Union.
>You've got it wrong. You and Parsons have promoted the idea that
>politicians dupe the citizenry into supporting the death penalty.
>Actually, politicians who want to win find out what the people think
>and conform their campaign to that. Prataki won because most people
>in NY wanted DP, not because he convinced them that they needed it.
So why is it that in those polls where other options are provided,
support for the death penalty falls to around 40%?
----
Desmond Coughlan |"Why can't women be trusted?
nospam_...@pratique.fr |Would _you_ trust something that
|bled for three days and didn't die?"
|Anon.
Terry Hallinan
nospam_...@pratique.fr (Desmond Coughlan) wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 02:23:14 GMT, mgcu...@connect.net (Mike Cullinan)
>wrote:
>>-----------snip (Ptrataki's victory over Cuomo for NY state governor)
>>>I'd be interested in seeing what his (the new Governor's) election
>>>campaign was like, regarding the death penalty. If it promised the
>>>voters that he would get "tough on crime" by sanctioning the death
>>>penalty, or that killing murderers would prevent even one single
>>>murder, then the good people of New York State have been lied to.
>>>Just like the citizens of every other retentionist state in the Union.
>>You've got it wrong. You and Parsons have promoted the idea that
>>politicians dupe the citizenry into supporting the death penalty.
>>Actually, politicians who want to win find out what the people think
>>and conform their campaign to that. Prataki won because most people
>>in NY wanted DP, not because he convinced them that they needed it.
>So why is it that in those polls where other options are provided,
>support for the death penalty falls to around 40%?
Cuomo won numerous elections making his opposition to the death
penalty well known. It is a bit silly to claim now that his
opposition to the death penalty cost him the governorship. Cuomo's
opposition to the death penalty went to extremes - even refusing in
one case to allow a killer to be extradicted to another state with a
death penalty. He remained in New York's custody.
Pataki is today very unpopular in the state.
The death penalty, as usual, has little effect on crime or much of
anything else. It only prevents redress of miscarriages of justice.
Mike Cullinan
On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 21:46:17 GMT, nospam_...@pratique.fr (Desmond
Coughlan) wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 02:23:14 GMT, mgcu...@connect.net (Mike Cullinan)
>wrote:
>
>>-----------snip (Ptrataki's victory over Cuomo for NY state governor)
--------------------snip
>>You've got it wrong. You and Parsons have promoted the idea that
>>politicians dupe the citizenry into supporting the death penalty.
>>Actually, politicians who want to win find out what the people think
>>and conform their campaign to that. Prataki won because most people
>>in NY wanted DP, not because he convinced them that they needed it.
>
>So why is it that in those polls where other options are provided,
>support for the death penalty falls to around 40%?
This is getting to be a circular argument with you, Desmond. The fact
is, Cuomo vetoed legislation for reinstatement of DP about 14 times.
As politicians do, Prataki sensed that DP was what the people wanted
and alligned his campaign accordingly. In a way, Cuomo handed Prataki
the election.
But if you think that most New Yorkers were against DP until Prataki
convinced them they needed it, then ran on a pro-DP plank, then let me
ask you this: Why would a politician waste money and effort trying to
convince people they needed something, then run that? Politicians,
bless their hearts, always capitalize and conform their campaigns
based on the issues at hand.
As far as that poll conducted by Amnesty International in the 1980s,
I would say that had about as much to do with what New Yorkers were
actually thinking when they went to the polls in 1993 as the man in
the moon.
Mike Cullinan
mgcu...@connect.net
Mike Cullinan
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 02:40:24 GMT, hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan)
wrote:
>nospam_...@pratique.fr (Desmond Coughlan) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 02:23:14 GMT, mgcu...@connect.net (Mike Cullinan)
>>wrote:
>
>>>-----------snip (Ptrataki's victory over Cuomo for NY state governor)
>
---------------------------------snip
>>So why is it that in those polls where other options are provided,
>>support for the death penalty falls to around 40%?
>
>Cuomo won numerous elections making his opposition to the death
>penalty well known. It is a bit silly to claim now that his
>opposition to the death penalty cost him the governorship.
Did Cuomo run on an abolitionist platform all those years? Or could
it be that DP was not an issue until this election?
> Cuomo's
>opposition to the death penalty went to extremes - even refusing in
>one case to allow a killer to be extradicted to another state with a
>death penalty. He remained in New York's custody.
That's just the kind of nonsense that did Cuomo in, I believe.
>
>Pataki is today very unpopular in the state.
I don't live in New York, so I wouldn't know about Pataki's
popularity. But it looks like Cuomo is on his way to becoming the
biggest has-been of this century.
>The death penalty, as usual, has little effect on crime or much of
>anything else. It only prevents redress of miscarriages of justice.
<shrug> If abolition ever does come about, you'll be saying the same
thing about LWOP, or whatever else might be imposed in place of DP.
A case was just wrapped up here recently in which 3 men were convicted
of a carjacking in which they killed someone because they wanted the
gold rims on his Mustang. They got life sentences in a capital murder
case, which means they will serve 40 years before they can even start
thinking about parole.
The mother of one of the convicted killers said in an interview that
"sentencing her son to life in prison would not bring [murder victim]
Mr. Rodriguez back."
Where have I heard that one before?
Mike Cullinan
mgcu...@connect.net
Terry Hallinan
mgcu...@connect.net (Mike Cullinan) wrote:
-
>>Cuomo won numerous elections making his opposition to the death
>>penalty well known. It is a bit silly to claim now that his
>>opposition to the death penalty cost him the governorship.
>Did Cuomo run on an abolitionist platform all those years?
Yes.
It was not an "abolitionist platform" since the death penalty was not
in effect when Cuomo took office.
Numerous people told me through the years they voted against Cuomo
because of his stand on the death penalty. I doubted them frankly.
It was unlikely the same people would have voted for Cuomo IAC. But
it was always a liability.
>Or could it be that DP was not an issue until this election?
It was an issue in every campaign except possibly the first one.
>> Cuomo's
>>opposition to the death penalty went to extremes - even refusing in
>>one case to allow a killer to be extradicted to another state with a
>>death penalty. He remained in New York's custody.
>That's just the kind of nonsense that did Cuomo in, I believe.
Again it should have done him in much earlier if it had been uppermost
on people's minds. Cuomo's main contribution to the New York's
welfare was to build prisons like no one ever had before. Prison
space more than doubled under Cuomo while population was declining.
>>Pataki is today very unpopular in the state.
>I don't live in New York, so I wouldn't know about Pataki's
>popularity. But it looks like Cuomo is on his way to becoming the
>biggest has-been of this century.
Well deserved but unlikely. Cuomo was a very conservative governor
despite rumors to the contrary.
>>The death penalty, as usual, has little effect on crime or much of
>>anything else. It only prevents redress of miscarriages of justice.
><shrug> If abolition ever does come about, you'll be saying the same
>thing about LWOP, or whatever else might be imposed in place of DP.
I have made it plain that I think LWOP is a bad joke. Truly violent
and dangerous criminals like a Charles Manson should be kept out of
circulation no doubt but turning prisons into nursing homes from some
misguided zeal is a farce.
The real problem is training and then paroling violent criminals while
filling prisons to overflowing with those who have offended someone's
sense of morality is the problem. Even more generic is the poor
record of identifying and prosecuting criminals. Our court system has
a lousy record as witness OJ walking free and Jeffrey MacDonald still
in prison.
The death penalty in particular is worthless for correcting any of
this. It is a shield behind which politicians hide from doing what is
necessary.
>A case was just wrapped up here recently in which 3 men were convicted
>of a carjacking in which they killed someone because they wanted the
>gold rims on his Mustang. They got life sentences in a capital murder
>case, which means they will serve 40 years before they can even start
>thinking about parole.
>The mother of one of the convicted killers said in an interview that
>"sentencing her son to life in prison would not bring [murder victim]
>Mr. Rodriguez back."
>Where have I heard that one before?
>Mike Cullinan
>mgcu...@connect.net
Mothers are not always unbiased observers.
mgcu...@connect.net
In article <5qatt6$a...@ns2.borg.com>,
hall...@borg.com wrote:
>
> mgcu...@connect.net (Mike Cullinan) wrote:
>
> -
> >>Cuomo won numerous elections making his opposition to the death
> >>penalty well known. It is a bit silly to claim now that his
> >>opposition to the death penalty cost him the governorship.
>
> >Did Cuomo run on an abolitionist platform all those years?
>
> Yes.
>
> It was not an "abolitionist platform" since the death penalty was not
> in effect when Cuomo took office.
What I meant, was, his campaign all about keeping DP out of New York?
> Numerous people told me through the years they voted against Cuomo
> because of his stand on the death penalty. I doubted them frankly.
> It was unlikely the same people would have voted for Cuomo IAC. But
> it was always a liability.
>
> >Or could it be that DP was not an issue until this election?
>
> It was an issue in every campaign except possibly the first one.
Was it _THE_ issue?
>
> >> Cuomo's
> >>opposition to the death penalty went to extremes - even refusing in
> >>one case to allow a killer to be extradicted to another state with a
> >>death penalty. He remained in New York's custody.
>
> >That's just the kind of nonsense that did Cuomo in, I believe.
>
> Again it should have done him in much earlier if it had been uppermost
> on people's minds.
If he had done something like that earlier, I'm sure it would have cost
him an election much earlier. Voters were no doubt aware of Cuomo's
stance, but when he started using his governor's office as a platform
for abolition activism, when the legislature was repeatedly passing
DP reinstatement for him to veto, well, I believe that did him in. It's
called being out of touch with your constituents.
> Cuomo's main contribution to the New York's
> welfare was to build prisons like no one ever had before. Prison
> space more than doubled under Cuomo while population was declining.
There was probably a need for it.
---------snip
> >>The death penalty, as usual, has little effect on crime or much of
> >>anything else. It only prevents redress of miscarriages of justice.
>
> ><shrug> If abolition ever does come about, you'll be saying the same
> >thing about LWOP, or whatever else might be imposed in place of DP.
>
> I have made it plain that I think LWOP is a bad joke. Truly violent
> and dangerous criminals like a Charles Manson should be kept out of
> circulation no doubt but turning prisons into nursing homes from some
> misguided zeal is a farce.
So what do you want then? LUA -- Life Until Alzheimer's? Just how long
do you think someone who committed a horrific crime should stay in prison
before you consider him/her sufficiently incapacitated?
> The real problem is training and then paroling violent criminals while
> filling prisons to overflowing with those who have offended someone's
> sense of morality is the problem.
If you're talking about the mandatory minimums for drugs, I would have to
agree with you. Last week on HBO I saw a documentary on the subject.
They had a housewife who had done 9 years of a 15 year term for
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. It seemed she was
hard up for funds and someone suggested she get involved in this drug
deal. So there she was, doing hard time for a first time offense. This
was someone who is completely harmless. I think Congress gave us a
bum rap. Federal judges are even rebelling against the incredibly harsh
penalties, at the risk of arousing the ire of those who appointed them.
> Even more generic is the poor
> record of identifying and prosecuting criminals. Our court system has
> a lousy record as witness OJ walking free and Jeffrey MacDonald still
> in prison.
As I understand it, about 1/3 of homicide cases go unsolved.
> The death penalty in particular is worthless for correcting any of
> this. It is a shield behind which politicians hide from doing what is
> necessary.
And just what is it that is necessary, that will make a difference? I
have heard that abolition will make the murder rate plummet, but am
highly sceptical, given the history.
Now antis are suggesting that abolition alone is not enough, that we need
to implement "societal structures." Without being told what that is,
I assume that it is some form of European-style socialism, with the
government managing our lives for us
Mike Cullinan
mgcu...@connect.net
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Desmond Coughlan
On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 11:40:40 GMT, mgcu...@connect.net (Mike Cullinan)
wrote:
[snip]
>>The death penalty, as usual, has little effect on crime or much of
>>anything else. It only prevents redress of miscarriages of justice.
><shrug> If abolition ever does come about, you'll be saying the same
>thing about LWOP, or whatever else might be imposed in place of DP.
>A case was just wrapped up here recently in which 3 men were convicted
>of a carjacking in which they killed someone because they wanted the
>gold rims on his Mustang. They got life sentences in a capital murder
>case, which means they will serve 40 years before they can even start
>thinking about parole.
>
>The mother of one of the convicted killers said in an interview that
>"sentencing her son to life in prison would not bring [murder victim]
>Mr. Rodriguez back."
>
Yes, Mike, and mothers everywhere would say that about their sons.
I remember a little anecdote my father told me, from his time in the
police. A youth had just robbed a woman, and my father had been at
the other end of the street when it happened. He chased the youth,
all the way across a housing estate, up three flights of stairs, and
just as he got to the house, the boy slammed the door. My father
knocked on the door, and the boy's mother answered. "No, no, officer:
my son hasn't left the house all day ..." she said.
Needless to say, he went in and arrested him, but it's for that reason
that the mothers of criminals shouldn't be believed. No mother
deserves to lose her son to a state-sponsored ritual, carried out by a
group of barbarians who should know better, but when it's life in
gaol, at least she can still visit.
The fact is that these three men will spend the next forty years in
jail. Imagine: they will not be free until _at least_ 2037. Justice
has been done.
----
Desmond Coughlan |"We got loud guitars, and big suspicions,
Remove "nospam_" from |Great big guns and small ambitions,
e-mail address. |And we still argue over who is God."
|"It's hard to make a stand" Sheryl Crow.
Terry Hallinan
mgcu...@connect.net writes:
> hall...@borg.com wrote:
>> mgcu...@connect.net (Mike Cullinan) wrote:
>> >>Cuomo won numerous elections making his opposition to the death
>> >>penalty well known. It is a bit silly to claim now that his
>> >>opposition to the death penalty cost him the governorship.
>> >Did Cuomo run on an abolitionist platform all those years?
>> Yes.
>> It was not an "abolitionist platform" since the death penalty was not
>> in effect when Cuomo took office.
>What I meant, was, his campaign all about keeping DP out of New York?
No.
Cuomo campaigned on many issues like most any other politician for a
major office. Politicians usually avoid as much as possible taking a
strong stand on any controversial issue because single issue voters
will find reason to vote against while others will not usually vote
for on a single issue. The death penalty was a liability in every one
of Cuomo's campaigns and he always made plain his opposition. It was
never the deciding issue including the last when he was defeated IMO.
I believe that is also the opinion of pollsters.
>> Numerous people told me through the years they voted against Cuomo
>> because of his stand on the death penalty. I doubted them frankly.
>> It was unlikely the same people would have voted for Cuomo IAC. But
>> it was always a liability.
>> >Or could it be that DP was not an issue until this election?
>> It was an issue in every campaign except possibly the first one.
>Was it _THE_ issue?
Of course not. Not in any campaign.
>> >> Cuomo's
>> >>opposition to the death penalty went to extremes - even refusing in
>> >>one case to allow a killer to be extradicted to another state with a
>> >>death penalty. He remained in New York's custody.
>> >That's just the kind of nonsense that did Cuomo in, I believe.
>>
>> Again it should have done him in much earlier if it had been uppermost
>> on people's minds.
>If he had done something like that earlier, I'm sure it would have cost
>him an election much earlier. Voters were no doubt aware of Cuomo's
>stance, but when he started using his governor's office as a platform
>for abolition activism, when the legislature was repeatedly passing
>DP reinstatement for him to veto, well, I believe that did him in. It's
>called being out of touch with your constituents.
You can believe what you wish. Cuomo vetoed the death penalty
continually throughout his governorship.
>> Cuomo's main contribution to the New York's
>> welfare was to build prisons like no one ever had before. Prison
>> space more than doubled under Cuomo while population was declining.
>There was probably a need for it.
Yeah, right. A vast prison industry has grown up in this country
giving us the world's largest penal colony along with a horrendous
crime rate in spite of a recent drop. The main culprit is the War on
Drugs (or better War on Some Drugs as the Libertarians like to say).
>> >>The death penalty, as usual, has little effect on crime or much of
>> >>anything else. It only prevents redress of miscarriages of justice.
>> ><shrug> If abolition ever does come about, you'll be saying the same
>> >thing about LWOP, or whatever else might be imposed in place of DP.
>> I have made it plain that I think LWOP is a bad joke. Truly violent
>> and dangerous criminals like a Charles Manson should be kept out of
>> circulation no doubt but turning prisons into nursing homes from some
>> misguided zeal is a farce.
>So what do you want then? LUA -- Life Until Alzheimer's?
<VBG>
>Just how long do you think someone who committed a horrific crime should
>stay in prison before you consider him/her sufficiently incapacitated?
Until he is incapable of committing another.
Note "horrific crime" has many different definitions but I think we
can agree the death of Richard Speck in prison was just fine or that
of Jeffrey Dahmer though he was rushed a bit. I can remember when the
parole of Pretty Boy Floyd caused some tremors where I was living (he
had been sentenced to life and a day - supposedly his casket would
remain in the prison after his death). He had promised to kill the
judge, witnesses, jurors, just about everybody imaginable. Apparently
he was no longer capable but some were very unhappy.
>> The real problem is training and then paroling violent criminals while
>> filling prisons to overflowing with those who have offended someone's
>> sense of morality is the problem.
>If you're talking about the mandatory minimums for drugs, I would have to
>agree with you. Last week on HBO I saw a documentary on the subject.
>They had a housewife who had done 9 years of a 15 year term for
>possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. It seemed she was
>hard up for funds and someone suggested she get involved in this drug
>deal. So there she was, doing hard time for a first time offense. This
>was someone who is completely harmless. I think Congress gave us a
>bum rap. Federal judges are even rebelling against the incredibly harsh
>penalties, at the risk of arousing the ire of those who appointed them.
We agree.
I have not used illegal drugs nor do I recommend anybody use them but
the War on Drugs has had the same effect as Prohibition IMO.
>> Even more generic is the poor
>> record of identifying and prosecuting criminals. Our court system has
>> a lousy record as witness OJ walking free and Jeffrey MacDonald still
>> in prison.
>As I understand it, about 1/3 of homicide cases go unsolved.
Like OJ's? :-}
That is a terrible number.
People should note the ability of authorities in Florida to track down
the killers of tourists when that industry was threatened. Native
Floridians who were killed were of much less concern.
>> The death penalty in particular is worthless for correcting any of
>> this. It is a shield behind which politicians hide from doing what is
>> necessary.
>And just what is it that is necessary, that will make a difference? I
>have heard that abolition will make the murder rate plummet, but am
>highly sceptical, given the history.
That's ridiculous. Abolishing the death penalty will most likely have
no discernible effect on the murder rate any more than its
utilization.
>Now antis are suggesting that abolition alone is not enough, that we need
>to implement "societal structures." Without being told what that is,
>I assume that it is some form of European-style socialism, with the
>government managing our lives for us
>Mike Cullinan
>mgcu...@connect.net
As a businessman I do not much hanker after socialism.