Abolitionist's Dctionary (revised edition)
Lur...@webtv.net
posted earlier with a few revisions. This is a dictionary that you can
use to understand the meaning of the terms as they perceive them.
INNOCENT PERSON - Anyone on death row.
DEATH PENALTY - Premediated murder of an innocent person by the state.
PRO - Someone who advocates the wholesale slaughter of the innocent
people who have been wrongly convicted and are incarcerated unfairly on
death row.
GOVERNOR BUSH - The Antichrist
TEXAS - Hell on earth
AMERICA - The killing ground
EUROPE - The place of enlightenment
HANNIBAL LECHTER - Troubled and misunderstood citizen who needs
psychological counseling and rehab at taxpayer expense for the rest of
his natural life.
LWOP (Life Without Parole) - The absolute best possible way to spend
taxpayer funds by keeping the wrongly accused stocked up in groceries.
RACIAL INEQUITY - The sole reason that blacks and latinos can be found
on death row.
NAZI - Anyone who favors the DP for murderers.
KKK MEMBER - (see above)
MURDER VICTIMS - Faceless, insignificant statistics to be trivialized
and ignored.
REPEAT OFFENCES - More faceless, insigniicant statistics to be hated and
reviled because they demonstrate just how dangerous it is to keep their
precious-wecious murderers alive.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Dave Ayotte
Lur...@webtv.net wrote in message...
<the rest snipped and placed at the end>
>Here are some of the terms antis frequently
>use on this board that were posted earlier
>with a few revisions. This is a dictionary that
>you can use to understand the meaning of
>the terms as they perceive them.
Here's my definition of the above poster:
someone who believes all anti-DPers fit
in one convenient category and don't care
one wit about them as individuals and
what their real beliefs.
I certainly don't think all pro-DPers think
that way. I know the pro-DP side of me
doesn't . . .
>>>Dave>>>amyst...@uswest.net<<<<<
>>>>www.AmyStrange.com/forensics.html<<
> join Amy Strange in her journey
> into the world of the Unexplained:
>>>>>>>>>www.AmyStrange.com<<<<<<<<<<
P.S. at no cost and advertisement free
Lur...@webtv.net wrote in message
<17462-39...@storefull-105.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
JIGSAW1695
From: Lur...@webtv.net
Date: 8/29/00 11:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <17462-39...@storefull-105.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
===============================
You seem to have hit the nail squarely on the head.
Rev. Don Kool
Concise, accurate and very damning to the murderer lovers' cause.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
Mitchell Holman
}Here are some of the terms antis frequently use on this board that were
}posted earlier with a few revisions. This is a dictionary that you can
}use to understand the meaning of the terms as they perceive them.
}
Translation: Rather than post anything of substance, you prefer
to make a childish swipe at everyone who dares to disagree with you.
Well, it least it is in character for you.
Richard Jackson
<49F63BA3E552FED5.1B16957F...@lp.airnews.net>,
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> In article <17462-39...@storefull-105.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Lur...@webtv.net wrote:
> }Here are some of the terms antis frequently use on this board that
were
> }posted earlier with a few revisions. This is a dictionary that you
can
> }use to understand the meaning of the terms as they perceive them.
> }
>
> Translation: Rather than post anything of substance, you
prefer
> to make a childish swipe at everyone who dares to disagree with
you.
> Well, it least it is in character for you.
>
Lighten up, Mitchell! You can get pretty self-righteous at times too.
Besides, it is pretty funny, and with a little thought, you could do a
retentionists' dictionary equally as funny.
Even you should be able to admit there are those who go overboard on
both sides of this argument whom some of these definitions fit.
Here, I'll start a Retentionists' Dictionary and others can add ot it as
well.
Texas--Mecca for DP proponents.
George W. Bush---Modern day prophet
etc. etc.
--
Richard Jackson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jürgen
Lur...@webtv.net plus Jürgen wrote:
> Here are some of the terms antis frequently use on this board that were
> posted earlier with a few revisions. This is a dictionary that you can
> use to understand the meaning of the terms as they perceive them.
>
> INNOCENT PERSON - Retentionist
>
> DEATH PENALTY - Russian Roulette
>
> PRO's - Heartful people, that advocate solely for inevitable executions of
> real monsters. Never they mind to do to the condemned any additional pain,
> like execution try outs or years long lasting isolation.
>
> WLADIMIR BUSH = GEORGE W. PUTIN = The concrete heart
>
> TEXAS - Terriblest EXecuting American State
>
> AMERICA - The pride
>
> EUROPE - The pity
>
> HANNIBAL LECHTER - Seldom to find on DR
>
> LWOP (Life Without Parole) - The absolute best possible way to spend
> taxpayer funds by keeping the wrongly accused stocked up in groceries.
> (BETTER SPEND DP-costs, DP-costs, DP-costs, DP............)
>
> RACIAL INEQUITY - The sole reason that blacks and latinos can be found
> on death row. (Quite clear: Look in the face to see who's the black and
> who's the white. Couldn't be better...........)
>
> MURDER VICTIMS - Are obviously reanimated by executions. Really, I can
> hear them re-breathe with lethal injections start to affect.........
>
> REPEAT OFFENCES - Are prevented by taking out of 15.000 murderers 50 to
> torture them to death without looking one time at their evolve on DR.
>
> Wesley Lowe & Jürgen Hartwig
>
John Rennie
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000830023501...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
Jiggy will you please, please think up some other
phrase other than "You seem to have hit the nail squarely on the head". I
feel your needle has stuck in a dreadful groove.
Lur...@webtv.net
who's the white. Couldn't be better...........)
Never mind that all on DR had been convicted of terrible and heinous
crimes that only an abolitionist can shrug their shoulders at. Indeed,
only a racist like many abolitionists are can take note of one's race
above the horror of one's crime. Besides, whites are sentenced to death
in greater proportion than blacks are. Indeed, most of those on DW are
white and also are executed more frequently and sooner.
====================================== MURDER VICTIMS - Are obviously
reanimated by executions. Really, I can hear them re-breathe with lethal
injections start to affect.........
======================================
Of course. Murder victims are far more likely to come back from the
dead if the murderer is sent to prison at taxpayers expense. How silly
of me! God! The sophistry of that argument never fails to astound me.
======================================
REPEAT OFFENCES - Are prevented by taking out of 15.000 murderers 50 to
torture them to death without looking one time at their evolve on DR.
=====================================
So you are willing to sacrifice the lives of more innocents for the sake
of your precious murderers, huh? It is gullibility such as yours that
contribute to repeat offences, you know. Not that you care.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Bebbyc
>Date: 8/30/00 3:32 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20164-39...@storefull-102.iap.bryant.webtv.n
For a minute there I thought I was reading Jurgen. I don't know what part you
are saying and what part you are answering, please clarify.
Beverly
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
message news:diablo-3108...@theevilone.its.utas.edu.au...
Rest clipped.
> There seems to be a correlation between being pro-DP and posting with
a
> complete disregard for netiquette...
> Mr Q. Z. D.
> Drunk, general know-it-all.
There seems to be a correlation between being anti-DP and posting with a
complete disregard for the victims of murder as well.
A PV
Lur...@webtv.net
to make a childish swipe at everyone who dares to
disagree with you. Well, it least it is in character for you.
So help me, Bitch....I mean, Mitch. This is exactly how pro murderer
anti DP fanatics use these terms! The kind of posts you see here
demonstrate exactly what I mean.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
(Bebbyc) wrote:
[snip]
> For a minute there I thought I was reading Jurgen. I don't know what part you
> are saying and what part you are answering, please clarify.
There seems to be a correlation between being pro-DP and posting with a
complete disregard for netiquette, especially as concerns the quotation of
material and the correct use of snippage.
</gratuitous ad hominem>
Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"Hey now, hey nonny-nonny, singest thou to me this corrosion."
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> There seems to be a correlation between being anti-DP and posting with a
> complete disregard for the victims of murder as well.
[hatchet job on my .sig noted - *snigger*]
Dearie, dearie me. Many retentionists (yourself included) appear to
believe that abolitionists don't think about the victims of those who
choose to murder (to borrow a catchphrase from Mr McDonald).
This is generally untrue [1]. It saddens me that people are killed with
malice aforethought by others. Those perpetrating the crime of murder
should be removed permanently from society so that they will not murder
again. This does not necessarily require that they are executed. LWOP
seems a reasonable way of achieving the removal of proven murderers from
society - it's cheaper than executing murderers and allows the state to
rectify any errors that were made during judicial process.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
[1] - I can't claim to speak for other anti-DP folks and thus made the
generalisation found in the original post.
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
message news:diablo-3108...@theevilone.its.utas.edu.au...
> Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Part clipped.
> Dearie, dearie me. Many retentionists (yourself included) appear to
> believe that abolitionists don't think about the victims of those who
> choose to murder (to borrow a catchphrase from Mr McDonald).
Thank you for THINKING about them. Is that similar to Desmond's
feeling of THINKING about them, but unable to quite understand what
the fuss is really all about?
> This is generally untrue [1]. It saddens me that people are killed
with
> malice aforethought by others. Those perpetrating the crime of murder
> should be removed permanently from society so that they will not
murder
> again. This does not necessarily require that they are executed.
LWOP
> seems a reasonable way of achieving the removal of proven murderers
from
> society - it's cheaper than executing murderers and allows the state
to
> rectify any errors that were made during judicial process.
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
> ----
> Self-examination clipped.
I've followed your comments since you joined this group,
so if it's all the same to you, let's reasonably look at
five key points that you must admit concern the
abolitionist/retentionist view, shall we? Perhaps you
might wish to think about these points, and form a
reply for those retentionists who are wondering
exactly where you stand on these points.
Point one: You say you're saddened by the fact that
victims exist as a result of murder, but I seem to see
you actually wish to marginalize each and every past
murder victim, by saying to their survivors, "how sorry you
are for their pain --- BUT --- let's not forget that revenge
is highly inappropriate as a justification for the DP." In
effect, you thereby claim that the victim's life has no
meaning and should not enter into the equation of the DP.
In other words, you feel for them, but you can't quite
reach them, so they should just get over it, and move on.
In point of fact, I, and I would hope many other retentionists,
believe that Vengeance, or Closure, is not, and should not
be, a motivation of society in their use of the DP. But, that
does not mean the victim's murder was without ANY
meaning to our society, and that therefore the murder
should not be factored into the DP equation. Every murder
demonstrates the need for the DP... every murder victim
forces us to recognize that individuals DO exist with instincts
more haywire and base than most laypersons can imagine...
every murder victim must almost scream out from the grave,
asking us to NOT think of Vengeance, or Closure, but to think
of the LESSON we must learn from their murder, and
"REMEMBER," to each and every member of our society --
remember -- so that the murder will have served SOME
purpose, other than a random aberration of an anomalous
murder, committed by a typically unusual murderer. There
should be no such thing as a meaningless murder, nor
should there be such a thing as a meaningless execution
of a murderer. Each and every murder and DP execution
MUST force us to think, and we can no more eliminate the
DP than we can the murder which causes our society to
implement that tool.
Point two: You would maximize the WORTH of each and
every convicted murderer who has been sentenced to the
DP. You would trivialize the ACTIONS which have been
taken by the murderer, in their own "free will," which
ended with the DP result. In your crusade to protect the
guilty, you lose sight of one of the most crucial objectives
of all societies, namely the protection of the maximum
number of members of that society. You harp on how
immoral and barbaric the practice is, how much more
cost-effective, efficient, and practical L wop is, and then
generally attack the integrity of all who would defend the
practice - those who believe it is not only moral, and
humane, but also justified, and essential. Keep in mind
that I claim none of these characteristics are intrinsic
parts of the DP by definition; only that many believe them
to be so, at the present time, in the present place, as
responsible members of their societies. But you would
set yourself above those with opinions other than your own.
You characterize those who support the DP, as perhaps
less than adequately informed, perhaps not in full control
of all their faculties, and perhaps sheep which should be
guided in the true path of enlightenment. You insult the
intelligence and integrity of every member of this
newsgroup who does support the DP. A free society
erects laws to address violations of any behavior which
that society considers essential, and necessary, for the
good of that society, from jaywalking to Capital Murder.
A convicted murderer deserves no more and no less
consideration than any other person within that society.
I personally, refuse to feel any more pity for that convicted
murderer than I do for their past or possibly future victims.
Point Three: You would ignore the possibility of recidivism,
or at the very least, claim that supporters of the DP are
simply "crying wolf," about any possibility of L wop or a
long prison term, not effectively eliminating this scenario
totally. Let me quote Julius Caesar, who noted, "men
worry more about what they can't see, then about
what they can." Anyway, I do... and I think many others
do. The possibilities of recidivism are uppermost in many
minds, when discussing the DP. And past victims speak
to us here also. They remind us that we are all possible
victims, yet only a few are possible of being accused of
murder, much less convicted and executed. In any event,
Retentionists don't provide the basis for the DP...
murderers do. Think about it, the next time you attack
a retentionist for his or her support of the DP as a tool
of our society.
Point Four: Now, all that being said, IMHO, the DP is simply
beyond punishment, it is beyond vengeance, it is beyond
closure. It is the same act that individuals use when they
or their loved ones are threatened by imminent danger
and fear for the loss of their own or their loved ones lives.
It's called self-defense. And it's every bit a right of society
as a whole as it is an individual right. Does L wop work?
Don't be ridiculous. L wop is a disgraceful attempt to
simply fail to face the issue that there are those who
NEED to be and MUST be executed. L wop has its
place, IF one wishes to believe that L wop is a lesser
PENALTY than the DP. I, IMHO, think TRUE L wop,
confined to a cage for 40-50 years, without the slightest
chance of release is a greater insult and more torturous
that any DP, and the only reason a convicted murderer
would personally prefer such a sentence is because they
REFUSE to believe it is TRUE L wop, and spend the next
40-50 years scheming to get released one way or
another. In any case, I have the distinct impression that
a certain number of abolitionists support L wop as an
alternative to the DP, simply to have a self-righteous touchy-
feely feeling about their own respect for "human life," trying
to strut the appearance of showing how humane THEY are
in comparison to "those barbarians" who favor the DP. Now
you or other abolitionists may rise up in righteous indignation
over my claim, but I can only say that "if the shoe fits," wear
it, and if not, good for you, and I accept your claim to not
holding this viewpoint. But to claim that this viewpoint NEVER
exists within ANY abolitionist, is to ignore the fact that it
certainly has been exhibited here, at one isolated time or
another.
Point Five: Simply, a murderer is either capable of being
rehabilitated or not. If yes, then certainly, every effort
should be made to achieve that rehabilitation, and L wop
has no purpose in this rehabilitation, since why even
try to rehabilitate a murderer to return to society when that
return is impossible, by the definition of L wop. I favor
FAITH wop (For An Indeterminate Time Hoping wop),
where parole may NEVER be achieved, but always remains
within the realm of possibility. Do I believe the DP is for
EVERY murderer? That is the farthest thing from my mind.
Do I believe a stone-cold serial killer, a pedophile killer, a
professional terrorist killer, a killer of 5 teenagers in a tastee-
freeze just to leave no witnesses, or a hired professional
assassin, deserves the DP? Generally, yes. Do I
believe ANY other murderers deserve the DP? Generally, no.
Murder in passion, rage, spousal abuse, family quarrel... other
murders where the murderer is quite clearly not reasonably
assured of recidivism? Absolutely not. Simply, there DO
exist on this planet, certain individuals who have proven by
past actions that they are almost absolutely certain to be
recidivist, and have also shown by these past actions that they
have no right to breathe the same air as any other member of
mankind. Do we need to constantly refine and examine our
Justice System to insure those FEW individuals are accurately
identified? Of course. Should we throw out the baby with the
bathwater? Of course not.
(Some parts of this I have previously posted to this newsgroup
before you arrived on the scene, but I welcome your reply.
And in all cases and points above, all of them remain IMHO)
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
message news:diablo-3108...@theevilone.its.utas.edu.au...
Forgot... or just blitzed again???
A PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> Point one: You say you're saddened by the fact that
> victims exist as a result of murder, but I seem to see
> you actually wish to marginalize each and every past
> murder victim, by saying to their survivors, "how sorry you
> are for their pain --- BUT --- let's not forget that revenge
> is highly inappropriate as a justification for the DP."
Correct. The state has no business seeking revenge. The state's job is
to govern - this includes punishing wrongdoers for their crimes but not
seeking "revenge". How we punish boils down to two basic viewpoints:
1. A utilitarian model whereby punishment is intended to
a. reform the offender
b. deter others from perpetrating similar crimes
c. remove the offender from society so that they may not harm others
2. A model whereby punishment is meted out according to the notion of
"desert". That is, crimes are punished and punishment is its own aim.
I favour a utilitarian model. From that point of view I hold the
following views:
1. Even if a "capital" murderer can be reformed, the danger of
recidivism is small but present. We must minimise the risk of that person
murdering again and, therefore, cannot allow them to rejoin society.
This, I believe, addresses points 5 and 3 (to a degree but I will
elaborate further)
2. If you favour the notion of punishing those who deserve it then you
cannot advocate punishing innocent people. Nor can you advocate risking
the aforementioned.
3. If your point of view is utilitarian then it must be imbued with a
notion of justice. That is, you should not punish innocent people.
4. If you mistakenly punish innocent people, you should be able to
make some kind of amends for so doing. The DP removes the state's ability
to do this.
> In
> effect, you thereby claim that the victim's life has no
> meaning and should not enter into the equation of the DP.
This is probably true. The administration of justice should not depend
upon the victim. If this were to be considered appropriate then value
judgements affecting the sentencing of a murderer would have to be made
based on the perceived "worth" of their victim. A ludicrous claim,
surely?
The victim's life has meaning and it is tragic that an innocent life was
taken by a murderer. By not killing the murderer you are not devaluing
this life.
> In other words, you feel for them, but you can't quite
> reach them, so they should just get over it, and move on.
That is correct. I doubt that the execution of a murderer would
necessarily "reach" them, either.
> In point of fact, I, and I would hope many other retentionists,
> believe that Vengeance, or Closure, is not, and should not
> be, a motivation of society in their use of the DP. But, that
> does not mean the victim's murder was without ANY
> meaning to our society, and that therefore the murder
> should not be factored into the DP equation. Every murder
> demonstrates the need for the DP... every murder victim
> forces us to recognize that individuals DO exist with instincts
> more haywire and base than most laypersons can imagine...
True.
> every murder victim must almost scream out from the grave,
> asking us to NOT think of Vengeance, or Closure, but to think
> of the LESSON we must learn from their murder, and
> "REMEMBER," to each and every member of our society --
> remember -- so that the murder will have served SOME
> purpose, other than a random aberration of an anomalous
> murder, committed by a typically unusual murderer. There
> should be no such thing as a meaningless murder, nor
> should there be such a thing as a meaningless execution
> of a murderer. Each and every murder and DP execution
> MUST force us to think, and we can no more eliminate the
> DP than we can the murder which causes our society to
> implement that tool.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. We learn nothing from the
execution of a murderer apart from the fact that if you kill the murderer
of n people you end up with n+1 dead people. I do not regard this as
being in any way constructive, especially when you consider that the state
may have erred in the execution of the murderer.
> Point two: You would maximize the WORTH of each and
> every convicted murderer who has been sentenced to the
> DP.
But, APV, you claim later on that I am, by advocating LWOP, also
advocating a punishment more severe than the DP, viz:
[APV]
> I, IMHO, think TRUE L wop,
> confined to a cage for 40-50 years, without the slightest
> chance of release is a greater insult and more torturous
> that any DP
I am not maximising the worth of a convicted murderer. I am emphasising
the worth of human life, especially innocent human life. My POV is based
on the idea that we should not punish innocent people and no justice
system can be guaranteed of only convicting guilty people.
[snip]
> guilty, you lose sight of one of the most crucial objectives
> of all societies, namely the protection of the maximum
> number of members of that society.
And I believe that the DP fails to achieve that end. The execution of an
innocent person (if it occurs) ensures the death of 1 innocent. LWOP,
even if correctly administered, carries the chance of causing the deaths
of innocent people
> You harp on how
> immoral and barbaric the practice is,
I have not used either of the words that you mention here. I have, in
fact, quite deliberately avoided such emotive terminology. Do a deja
search on my posting history if you don't believe me.
> how much more
> cost-effective, efficient, and practical L wop is,
It is more cost-effective if we are to minimise the possibility of
innocents being executed in error. Same goes for efficiency and
practicality now that you mention it.
> and then
> generally attack the integrity of all who would defend the
> practice
Incorrect. I have not personally attacked anyone save Mr McDonald and, in
his case, I am only responding in kind. I do not doubt your integrity,
just the correctness of your position. I have generally avoided the use
of overly emotive language (although the DP is an issue that tends towards
bringing out fairly emotional responses) and tried to argue the point
where possible.
Don't put words in my mouth, please. I've checked deja and the worst I've
done is criticise the posting style of retentionists as a group (_and_ I
acknowledged that it was a gratuitous ad hominem).
[snip]
> responsible members of their societies. But you would
> set yourself above those with opinions other than your own.
No. I simply disagree with them.
> You characterize those who support the DP, as perhaps
> less than adequately informed,
With the exception of Mr McDonald, can you cite even _one_ example of my
doing this?
> perhaps not in full control
> of all their faculties,
You've got access to deja - quote from a posting where I have done this
(Mr McDonald, once again, notwithstanding) and I'll treat that claim with
more than a grain of salt.
> and perhaps sheep which should be
> guided in the true path of enlightenment.
See above.
> You insult the
> intelligence and integrity of every member of this
> newsgroup who does support the DP.
See above.
> A free society
> erects laws to address violations of any behavior which
> that society considers essential, and necessary, for the
> good of that society, from jaywalking to Capital Murder.
> A convicted murderer deserves no more and no less
> consideration than any other person within that society.
> I personally, refuse to feel any more pity for that convicted
> murderer than I do for their past or possibly future victims.
I believe that "capital" murderers should be permanently removed from
society. If further believe that LWOP is the best, least fallible way of
achieving this. This does not mean that I feel more pity for a murderer
than their victim(s).
> Point Three: You would ignore the possibility of recidivism,
> or at the very least, claim that supporters of the DP are
> simply "crying wolf," about any possibility of L wop or a
> long prison term, not effectively eliminating this scenario
> totally.
I do not doubt that there is a small risk of recidivism in the case of
those given LWOP but I also guess that the number of lives lost due to
this recidivism would word out to be less than those _innocent_ lives lost
when people are executed in error.
[snip]
> Point Four: Now, all that being said, IMHO, the DP is simply
> beyond punishment, it is beyond vengeance, it is beyond
> closure. It is the same act that individuals use when they
> or their loved ones are threatened by imminent danger
> and fear for the loss of their own or their loved ones lives.
> It's called self-defense.
Actually, the DP is not self-defence in the sense that the victim is
already dead and, hence, cannot defend themselves or be defended any more
than I can walk on water. If you mean that the DP is society's method of
defending itself and its members from murderers then, as indicated above,
I believe that LWOP is the way to go.
> And it's every bit a right of society
> as a whole as it is an individual right. Does L wop work?
> Don't be ridiculous. L wop is a disgraceful attempt to
> simply fail to face the issue that there are those who
> NEED to be and MUST be executed. L wop has its
> place, IF one wishes to believe that L wop is a lesser
> PENALTY than the DP.
I don't necessarily believe this. I believe that LWOP is a good means of
avoiding judicial mistakes.
> I, IMHO, think TRUE L wop,
> confined to a cage for 40-50 years, without the slightest
> chance of release is a greater insult and more torturous
> that any DP, and the only reason a convicted murderer
> would personally prefer such a sentence is because they
> REFUSE to believe it is TRUE L wop, and spend the next
> 40-50 years scheming to get released one way or
> another.
...Or they are innocent.
> In any case, I have the distinct impression that
> a certain number of abolitionists support L wop as an
> alternative to the DP, simply to have a self-righteous touchy-
> feely feeling about their own respect for "human life," trying
> to strut the appearance of showing how humane THEY are
> in comparison to "those barbarians" who favor the DP. Now
> you or other abolitionists may rise up in righteous indignation
> over my claim,
...Which is completely unfounded in reality. If somebody is offered LWOP
or the death penalty then I have no objection the the carrying out of the
latter (i.e. the murderer has _chosen_ death and we will see no frivolous
appeals). LWOP should also, IMHO, be offered to a convicted murderer as
_an_alternative_to_ the DP and should be available to the felon at any
time after conviction. That is, if you choose to murder, you get to
decide how you are permanently removed from society. The terms of appeal
for persons serving LWOP should be the same as currently apply to those on
death row, BTW.
Touchy-feely? No. Practical, yes.
> but I can only say that "if the shoe fits," wear
> it, and if not, good for you, and I accept your claim to not
> holding this viewpoint. But to claim that this viewpoint NEVER
> exists within ANY abolitionist, is to ignore the fact that it
> certainly has been exhibited here, at one isolated time or
> another.
Will you please cease and desist from your stream of argumentum ad
hominem. I don't really care what other abolitionists think. I have my
own opinions and will express them independently of David, Desmond et al
and I'm sure that they will continue to express their opinions quite
independently of me.
> Point Five: Simply, a murderer is either capable of being
> rehabilitated or not.
I agree.
> Do I believe the DP is for
> EVERY murderer? That is the farthest thing from my mind.
> Do I believe a stone-cold serial killer, a pedophile killer, a
> professional terrorist killer, a killer of 5 teenagers in a tastee-
> freeze just to leave no witnesses, or a hired professional
> assassin, deserves the DP? Generally, yes. Do I
> believe ANY other murderers deserve the DP? Generally, no.
> Murder in passion, rage, spousal abuse, family quarrel... other
> murders where the murderer is quite clearly not reasonably
> assured of recidivism? Absolutely not.
A reasonable viewpoint. One which I am not in agreement with but
reasonable nonetheless. Our argument seems to extend only to the lengths
which society should go to remove "capital" murderers from its ranks. In
that respect, I believe that you are wrong.
> Simply, there DO
> exist on this planet, certain individuals who have proven by
> past actions that they are almost absolutely certain to be
> recidivist, and have also shown by these past actions that they
> have no right to breathe the same air as any other member of
> mankind. Do we need to constantly refine and examine our
> Justice System to insure those FEW individuals are accurately
> identified? Of course. Should we throw out the baby with the
> bathwater? Of course not.
>
> (Some parts of this I have previously posted to this newsgroup
> before you arrived on the scene, but I welcome your reply.
> And in all cases and points above, all of them remain IMHO)
Well, there you go.
Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
I will remain civil as long as you do likewise. Agreed?
Jürgen
Lur...@webtv.net schrieb:
> RACIAL INEQUITY - The sole reason that blacks and latinos can be found
> on death row. (Quite clear: Look in the face to see who's the black and
> who's the white. Couldn't be better...........)
> =====================================
> Never mind that all on DR had been convicted of terrible and heinous
> crimes that only an abolitionist can shrug their shoulders at.
Mr. Lowe, you’re trying to discredit and pervert all abolishionist
statements with an unanimous, broad brush. NOBODY shrugs his shoulders at
any murder, and if anti’s plea for to put dangerous offenders for their
lifes behind the bars then this is also a hard and crime-preventing penalty.
The only is, it avoids to bring a human at his wits end, to cause once again
the fear of death, and therefore it satisfies admittedly not any – perhaps
subconscious – thirst of vengeance.
> Indeed,
> only a racist like many abolitionists are can take note of one's race
> above the horror of one's crime. Besides, whites are sentenced to death
> in greater proportion than blacks are. Indeed, most of those on DW are
> white and also are executed more frequently and sooner.
How many Blacks are sentenced to die for killing a White ? How many Whites
are sentenced to die for killing a Black ? 12% black population to 35%
blacks on DR means ca. 3 times, or ?
>
>
> ====================================== MURDER VICTIMS - Are obviously
> reanimated by executions. Really, I can hear them re-breathe with lethal
> injections start to affect.........
> ======================================
> Of course. Murder victims are far more likely to come back from the
> dead if the murderer is sent to prison at taxpayers expense. How silly
> of me! God! The sophistry of that argument never fails to astound me.
Mr. Lowe, Sir, as usual for a retentionist you’re missing the point of this
statement. If nothing can bring back the victim, why take revenge ? What
other than vengeance are expressing the stat‘s: ‚Think of the victim‘ or
‚Antis are evaluating the murderer’s life above the victim’s‘ or, if antis
point at the suffering of DR inmates: ‚Think of the innocent’s deathly fear,
and the pain of his related !‘ Retentionists prefer the term ‚just
punishment‘ when bringing up this statements, I can’t see other than
REVENGE, a life for a life and so forth.
And spare me the boring discussion about the taxpayer’s expenses, please. I
gave you the hint to comparize DP/LWOP-costs and now your statement does
imply again the claim of cheap executions. EVERYONE here knows and admits
the MUCH HIGHER DP-COSTS.
>
>
> ======================================
> REPEAT OFFENCES - Are prevented by taking out of 15.000 murderers 50 to
> torture them to death without looking one time at their evolve on DR.
> =====================================
> So you are willing to sacrifice the lives of more innocents for the sake
> of your precious murderers, huh? It is gullibility such as yours that
> contribute to repeat offences, you know.
I pointed at the ridiculous number of executions and claimed another purpose
for them than the prevention of recidivism. Indeed it’s for anyone taking an
objective position hard to believe in DP as preventing even one single
repeat offense if he takes in account, that 50 persons are executed per
year, 10 years or more after their crimes, (regardless of their often
happened reformation, BS), and remaining estimated 14.950 murderers p.a. are
sentenced to lesser penalties for often equal heinous crimes.
> Not that you care.
So, you care so much for any victims ? Then perhaps gather some info how the
87 released from DR described their ‚experiences‘ in often more than 10
years worst imprisonement, riddled with many extras to make them suffer in
THE EVILEST way, Sir. Really fine stories, containing elements CLEARLY
PROVING the purpose and intention of DP and the 10-20 years DR. There are
happenings going on, that put the US of A directly in the company of Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Iraque, etc.
And the best is, you fine company even refuse to pay them for 10 years
psycho torture any compensation. Congratulations, Mr. Lowe. That’s real
JUSTICE. Very quickly in sentencing, very slowly in acknowledging any fault,
and totally reluctant to stand for the consequences.
Sir, I’m tired of the lies presented here. I’m tired of the superior, holy
Do-gooders that are making daily claims of the necessity of DP without any
reasonable backup, not for any theoretical DP, how it should be, but for the
real existing today’s US-DP, a torturing penalty for a few out of the guilty
arbitrarily selected humans. Two chances: Open your eyes and recognize the
state and the conditions of US-DP, or leave them closed and continue
believing in all the advocates for torture in the disguise of justice.
Good luck, with respect
Jürgen
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > Never mind that all on DR had been convicted of terrible and heinous
> > crimes that only an abolitionist can shrug their shoulders at.
> Mr. Lowe, you’re trying to discredit and pervert all abolishionist
> statements with an unanimous, broad brush.
'discredit' ?
'statement' ?
'unanimous' ?
Er, Jürgen ... are you trying to confuse Wesley ..?
[snip]
--
**********************************************************************
* Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris *
* dcou...@vdp.fr http://www.forumdesimages.net/ (01) 44.76.62.29 *
* PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr *
**********************************************************************
Sharpjfa
>From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= k.j.h...@t-online.de
>Date: 8/31/00 10:58 AM EST
>Message-id: <39AE808F...@t-online.de>
snip
>How many Blacks are sentenced to die for killing a White ? How many Whites
>are sentenced to die for killing a Black ?
likely not as many as should be on both counts.
12% black population to 35%
>blacks on DR means ca. 3 times, or ?
Why would we sentence any group to any punishment based on populations counts,
as opposed to punishing people for the crimes they commit. White murderers have
been twice as likely to have been executed as black murderers and have been
executed 15 months more quickly than their black ilk.
If nothing can bring back the victim, why take revenge ? What
>other than vengeance are expressing the stat‘s:
no revenge, it is justice. here are some writings on this from another
correspondence.
I don't find any factual or philosophical
foundation within your writing
that establishes that the death penalty is
revenge. You speak of your
desires and the occasional uproar with
specific cases. Community outrage
at heinous crimes is welcome. Such will
exist without the death penalty
or any other punishment. In fact your
guidelines and descriptions could
logically and factually apply to almost
any crime and punishment
scenario based on your feelings and
perceptions alone.
The law is a system of preexisting
consequences which exist prior to the
crime even being committed. Based on a
set of certain crime
circumstances we have absolute
limitations within the system as to what
may or may not be exacted as
punishment, regardless of how we feel.
This
is the opposite of revenge. Revenge has
no contraints, no guidelines and
is decided upon after the crime.
Revenge doesn't even require a crime or
guilt or innocence or even
culpability. Revenge is not measured or
limited by statute and
procedure. Revenge does not exclude
involved parties as fact finders and
as administrators of punishment. In fact,
it does the opposite.
There is no evidence that the criminal
justice system or individuals are
promoting hate or revenge in a manner to
advance the death penalty.
Lynne simply made it up as a way to
convince herself that her way of
thinking is morally superior and that, as
such, she finds that pro death
penalty folks must be morally inferior.
Lynne cannot prove a foundation of
hatred and revenge for the death
penalty any more than for any other
punishment sought within a system
such as that observed within the US. It is
enough for her and many other
antis just to say the words and to thereby
make it true.
The criminal justice system goes out of
its way to take hatred and
revenge out of the criminal justice
system. That is why we have a system
of laws and procedures in place that
limit punishments and prosecutions
to specific actions in response to
specific rules of evidence and
procedure.
It is beyond Lynne's world that pro death
penalty people have the
pursuit of justice as a foundation for
their support of capital
punishmwent.
If Lynne wishes to use reality as a guide,
we find that the overwhelming
evidence is that murder victims are
disrespected by the system and their
suffering is reduced to bureaucratic ink
on paper. And that murderers
far from receiving the a wrath of hatred
and revenge are served with a
mercy that is more from indiffernce than
compassion.
For example:
The expected punishment for murder
was only 1.5 years in 1985 and rose
to only 2.7 years in 1995! (THE
REYNOLD’S REPORT, "Crime and
Punishment
in the U.S.", National Center for Policy
Analysis, 1997). Expected
punishment is calculated by measuring
the probability of being caught,
incarcerated, and time served. Why have
we chosen to be so generous to
murderers and so contemptuous of the
human rights and suffering of the
victims and future victims?
Far from hatred and revenge, the death
penalty represents that rare
occurrence when something close to
justice is achieved, holding the
murderer responsible for their willful act
of murder. Certainly, lesser
punishments may suffice under some
circumstances, but the reservation of
a death sentence for certain heinous
crimes is reserved as an option of
the jury and is given in those special
circumstances when a jury finds
such is more just than a lesser sentence.
The punishment of death can in no way
be a balancing between harm and
punishment, because the victim did not
deserve or arn their punishment,
whereas the murderer has voluntatily
earned their own, deserved
punishment by the free will action of
violating societies laws and an
individuals life and thereby voluntarily
subjecting themselves to that
juristictions judgement.
Calling executions a product of hatred
and revenge is simply a way in
which antis attempt to establih a false
sense of moral superiority, it
is also a transparent insult by antis
which results in additional hurt
to those victim survivors who have
already sufferred so much and who
believe that execution is the appropriate
punishment for those who
murdered their loved one(s).
Far from moral superiority, antis are
simply exhibiting their total
contempt for those who believe
differently than they do, and in the
process create more harm against victim
survivors.
Lynne cannot prove a foundation of
hatred and revenge for the death
penalty any more than for any other
punishment sought within a system
such as that observed within the US. It is
enough for her and many other
antis just to say the words and to thereby
make it true and therefore,
satisfy their need for self gratification.
The reality is that hatred and revenge are
not and cannot be the
foundation of the death penalty . Antis
profess an illusion based on
fraud, hoping that gullible saps will
accept such with no critical
thinking and that antis can use such fals
claims to bask in their own
illusion of moral superiority.
Certainly there are those where hatred
and revenge may be a motivator
for supporting executions. But that, in no
way, establishes those
feelings as a foundation for that
sanction.
The foundation is and will always be
that execution is considered an
appropriate sanction for certain criminal
acts, just as fines,
probation, community service and prison
time are.
I have no doubt but that some antis
believe that all punishment is wrong
and that criminals just need counseling
and rehabilitation and that
their wronglful acts are a result of social
problems which relieve the
misguided offender of any responsibility
for their own actions. But such
cannot and will not be the foundation of
opposition to executions. I
also believe that such is a minority view
and that antis have a
heartfelt moral opposition to the death
penalty which is based primarily
on emotion not reason.
snip
>So, you care so much for any victims ? Then perhaps gather some info how the
>87 released from DR described their ‚experiences‘ in often more than 10
>years worst imprisonement, riddled with many extras to make them suffer in
>THE EVILEST way, Sir.
actually, the number is most likely in the 20-40 range and they were all
released.
Really fine stories, containing elements CLEARLY
>PROVING the purpose and intention of DP and the 10-20 years DR. There are
>happenings going on, that put the US of A directly in the company of Saudi
>Arabia, Iran, Iraque, etc.
no, quite different.
>And the best is, you fine company even refuse to pay them for 10 years
>psycho torture any compensation. Congratulations, Mr. Lowe. That’s real
>JUSTICE. Very quickly in sentencing, very slowly in acknowledging any fault,
>and totally reluctant to stand for the consequences.
>
>Sir, I’m tired of the lies presented here. I’m tired of the superior, holy
>Do-gooders that are making daily claims of the necessity of DP without any
>reasonable backup,
much backup, but only a just peunishment needed.
not for any theoretical DP, how it should be, but for the
>real existing today’s US-DP, a torturing penalty for a few out of the guilty
>arbitrarily selected humans.
no more arbitrary than any other punishment.
Two chances: Open your eyes and recognize the
>state and the conditions of US-DP, or leave them closed and continue
>believing in all the advocates for torture in the disguise of justice.
eyes wide open, it is yours that are shut
sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Richard Jackson
=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>
> Lur...@webtv.net schrieb:
>
> > RACIAL INEQUITY - The sole reason that blacks and latinos can be
found
> > on death row. (Quite clear: Look in the face to see who's the black
and
> > who's the white. Couldn't be better...........)
> > =====================================
> > Never mind that all on DR had been convicted of terrible and heinous
> > crimes that only an abolitionist can shrug their shoulders at.
>
> Mr. Lowe, you’re trying to discredit and pervert all abolishionist
> statements with an unanimous, broad brush. NOBODY shrugs his shoulders
at
> any murder, and if anti’s plea for to put dangerous offenders for
their
> lifes behind the bars then this is also a hard and crime-preventing
penalty.
> The only is, it avoids to bring a human at his wits end, to cause once
again
> the fear of death, and therefore it satisfies admittedly not any –
perhaps
> subconscious – thirst of vengeance.
>
A Question Jurgen. If a man murderers someone, is found guilty, and
sentenced to death,m whose fault is it that he is in that position in
the first place?
> > Indeed,
> > only a racist like many abolitionists are can take note of one's
race
> > above the horror of one's crime. Besides, whites are sentenced to
death
> > in greater proportion than blacks are. Indeed, most of those on DW
are
> > white and also are executed more frequently and sooner.
>
> How many Blacks are sentenced to die for killing a White ? How many
Whites
> are sentenced to die for killing a Black ? 12% black population to 35%
> blacks on DR means ca. 3 times, or ?
>
What percentage of murders are committed by blacks? Incidentally, most
black murder victims are black, and most white murder victims are
white.
There is another motive for many. Many feel it is just that someone
who kills another human being without just cause should pay for doing
so by losing his or her life. For many people, that is justice. Not
revenge, or hate, just a simple life for a life.
That idea is a very ancient one which can be traced back to Hammurabi's
Code and Justinian's Code.
> >
> >
> > ======================================
> > REPEAT OFFENCES - Are prevented by taking out of 15.000 murderers 50
to
> > torture them to death without looking one time at their evolve on
DR.
> > =====================================
> > So you are willing to sacrifice the lives of more innocents for the
sake
> > of your precious murderers, huh? It is gullibility such as yours
that
> > contribute to repeat offences, you know.
>
> I pointed at the ridiculous number of executions and claimed another
purpose
> for them than the prevention of recidivism. Indeed it’s for anyone
taking an
> objective position hard to believe in DP as preventing even one single
> repeat offense if he takes in account, that 50 persons are executed
per
> year, 10 years or more after their crimes, (regardless of their often
> happened reformation, BS), and remaining estimated 14.950 murderers
p.a. are
> sentenced to lesser penalties for often equal heinous crimes.
>
The difference between capital punishment is often in the circumstances
surrounding the crime. Capital crimes must fit into a prety narrow set
of circumstances in most instances. A person who commits an axe murder
when he loses his or her head, just kills only one person and commits no
other crime could most often not be charged with capital crime although
te act is identical to the person who killes two people in an axe
murder. The difference is that by comitting two murders the second
felon would qualify for capital punishment.
> > Not that you care.
>
> So, you care so much for any victims ? Then perhaps gather some info
how the
> 87 released from DR described their ‚experiences‘ in often more than
10
> years worst imprisonement, riddled with many extras to make them
suffer in
> THE EVILEST way, Sir. Really fine stories, containing elements CLEARLY
> PROVING the purpose and intention of DP and the 10-20 years DR. There
are
> happenings going on, that put the US of A directly in the company of
Saudi
> Arabia, Iran, Iraque, etc.
> And the best is, you fine company even refuse to pay them for 10 years
> psycho torture any compensation. Congratulations, Mr. Lowe. That’s
real
> JUSTICE. Very quickly in sentencing, very slowly in acknowledging any
fault,
> and totally reluctant to stand for the consequences.
>
And the four thousand murderers not released since 1976 because their
sentence is correct. What about their thousands of victims and their
families, where is the justice for them? Sure we make mistakes, and
the mistakes are unfair. That's why we have a justice system and that
system has appeals processes. We are human. We make mistakes, and
mistakes can only be corrected, not undone. That's life.
> Sir, I’m tired of the lies presented here. I’m tired of the superior,
holy
> Do-gooders that are making daily claims of the necessity of DP without
any
> reasonable backup, not for any theoretical DP, how it should be, but
for the
> real existing today’s US-DP, a torturing penalty for a few out of the
guilty
> arbitrarily selected humans. Two chances: Open your eyes and recognize
the
> state and the conditions of US-DP, or leave them closed and continue
> believing in all the advocates for torture in the disguise of justice.
>
> Good luck, with respect
>
> Jürgen
>
>
Jurgen, I know you are not one of these, but at times abolitionists'
arguments do make it seem that they care nothing for the pain and
suffering that victims' families *FOREVER* suffer at the loss of their
loved ones. Yes, I have no doubt that murderers suffer awaiting the
death penalty. So what? At least their suffering ends much quicker
than that of their victims' families. When a murderer dies from
execution, all the waiting and suffering is over. The families of
victims must suffer for as long as they are able to remember their loved
ones. Not just one or even two decades, but for sometimes several
decades. Next to that, what is the suffering of a murderer on death
row?
Sorry, Jurgen. I don't really care that murderers suffer on death row
because they know they are going to die. They earned the suffereing by
murderering someone. The victim's families didn't ask for the suffering
they have, and did nothing to cause it. Screw the murderers.
Now I know the next argument is that the murderer's family suffers too.
This is undoubtedly true. They need, however, to blame the one who
caused that suffering and shame, however. Their loved one is the one
who killed, If he or she had not, they wouldn't suffer awaiting for him
or her to die. Neither would they have the additional burder of knowing
that they raised a murderer who took someone else's life.
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:8Dkr5.9877$K4.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mr Diablo has answered you fully - both you and he
entered excellent posts. I am just putting in my
twopence worth regarding your point No 4. If I
had to choose I would choose LWOP. Is this because
I am a coward i.e. frightened of dying or because
I am a hero i.e. not frightened of spending the rest
of my life in prison or, probably the truth, an optimist?
Rev. Don Kool
Richard Jackson wrote:
> <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > Lur...@webtv.net wrote:
[...snip...]
> A Question Jurgen. If a man murderers someone, is found guilty, and
> sentenced to death,m whose fault is it that he is in that position in
> the first place?
Now Richard you already know the murderer lovers' answer to that
question. It is "the system's" fault, or society's fault or the
fault of a broken home, drugs, alcohol, low I.Q., etc... In short,
everyone's fault except the one who chose to commit the murder.
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb:
A question back: Has your question anything to do with shrugging shoulders
of antis at heinous crimes ?
They don't like to call it revenge, simply. Revenge is a word burdened with
injustice, and 'just punishment' is sound and allows to safe the own
dogoodership while calling exactly for the same as revenge.
>
>
> That idea is a very ancient one which can be traced back to Hammurabi's
> Code and Justinian's Code.
Of course. The first attempts to put timid rules on the former uncontrolled
vengeance. The more you look in the past, the more justice systems tend to
revenge.
The double murder plea I don't understand until today, BS.
>
>
> > > Not that you care.
> >
> > So, you care so much for any victims ? Then perhaps gather some info
> how the
> > 87 released from DR described their ‚experiences‘ in often more than
> 10
> > years worst imprisonement, riddled with many extras to make them
> suffer in
> > THE EVILEST way, Sir. Really fine stories, containing elements CLEARLY
> > PROVING the purpose and intention of DP and the 10-20 years DR. There
> are
> > happenings going on, that put the US of A directly in the company of
> Saudi
> > Arabia, Iran, Iraque, etc.
> > And the best is, you fine company even refuse to pay them for 10 years
> > psycho torture any compensation. Congratulations, Mr. Lowe. That’s
> real
> > JUSTICE. Very quickly in sentencing, very slowly in acknowledging any
> fault,
> > and totally reluctant to stand for the consequences.
> >
>
> And the four thousand murderers not released since 1976 because their
> sentence is correct. What about their thousands of victims and their
> families, where is the justice for them?
There will be none. Not with, not without DP. DP changes nothing.
> Sure we make mistakes, and
> the mistakes are unfair. That's why we have a justice system and that
> system has appeals processes. We are human. We make mistakes, and
> mistakes can only be corrected,
The mistakes ARE not corrected. Exonerated have even to sign their waiver to
sue for compensation, to get free at all.
> not undone. That's life.
>
> > Sir, I’m tired of the lies presented here. I’m tired of the superior,
> holy
> > Do-gooders that are making daily claims of the necessity of DP without
> any
> > reasonable backup, not for any theoretical DP, how it should be, but
> for the
> > real existing today’s US-DP, a torturing penalty for a few out of the
> guilty
> > arbitrarily selected humans. Two chances: Open your eyes and recognize
> the
> > state and the conditions of US-DP, or leave them closed and continue
> > believing in all the advocates for torture in the disguise of justice.
> >
> > Good luck, with respect
> >
> > Jürgen
> >
> >
>
> Jurgen, I know you are not one of these, but at times abolitionists'
> arguments do make it seem that they care nothing for the pain and
> suffering that victims' families *FOREVER* suffer at the loss of their
> loved ones.
Our brain is graceful. The loss of a loved is never forgotten, of course,
and a certain pain will resist the whole life long, but the pain lowers with
time. About five or six years endures the fervent grief to have lost any
loved, then slowly a state is reached when it's possible to talk about the
loss without immediately getting to tears.
DR isn't graceful.
> Yes, I have no doubt that murderers suffer awaiting the
> death penalty. So what? At least their suffering ends much quicker
> than that of their victims' families.
So you think if execution is carried out the executed's family goes
whistling to BurgerKing to erase in a few minutes the awful event ?
> When a murderer dies from
> execution, all the waiting and suffering is over. The families of
> victims must suffer for as long as they are able to remember their loved
> ones. Not just one or even two decades, but for sometimes several
> decades. Next to that, what is the suffering of a murderer on death
> row?
You told, you don't care. You told, you'd even agree with mutilations. So I
can't expect of you to inform what goes on on DR. Nice things, nothing to
prevent any crimes or so. The other hand you proved by your statements your
absolute insensitiveness. I'll shut that topic down, it has no purpose to
talk if anyone agrees official with torture.
>
>
> Sorry, Jurgen. I don't really care that murderers suffer on death row
> because they know they are going to die. They earned the suffereing by
> murderering someone. The victim's families didn't ask for the suffering
> they have, and did nothing to cause it. Screw the murderers.
OK. Leave finally the talk of prevention etc and stay exactly on this level.
You want revenge, like Don Kool and some millions other really nice guys.
>
>
> Now I know the next argument is that the murderer's family suffers too.
> This is undoubtedly true. They need, however, to blame the one who
> caused that suffering and shame, however. Their loved one is the one
> who killed, If he or she had not, they wouldn't suffer awaiting for him
> or her to die. Neither would they have the additional burder of knowing
> that they raised a murderer who took someone else's life.
That all to satisfy your 'screw the murderers', no other purpose to see.
Jürgen
David Lentz
Jürgen wrote:
<sip>
> How many Blacks are sentenced to die for killing a White ? How many Whites
> are sentenced to die for killing a Black ? 12% black population to 35%
> blacks on DR means ca. 3 times, or ?
Black constitute about thirteen percent of the population, and
about fifty percent of all murderers, and murder victims. So how
is thirty-five percent over representative? If anything, it
would be the reverse.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Lur...@webtv.net
from society so that they will not murder again. This does not
necessarily require that they are executed. LWOP seems a reasonable way
of achieving the removal of proven murderers from society -
The flaw here is that you don't seem to know the difference between
something working in theory, and something working in practice. The
myth of LWOP has dissapointed us too many times to have much faith in
it. And the fact that abolitionists absolutely refuse to commit any
time and effort to establish and maintain these alternitives that they
propose because they rather focus on keeping murderers alive rather than
keeping them in jail gives us less reason to have any confidence in it.
You can read more about the folly and sham that is LWOP on my pro DP
webpage.
=====================================
it's cheaper than executing murderers and allows the state to rectify
any errors that were made during judicial process.
====================================
Saying that keeping murderers in jail is "cheaper" is yet another myth
that abolitionists have brainwashed you with. Death penalty costs
reside mainly in appeals costs. Life without parole prisoners get the
same appeals and should be considered to bear the same costs. And if
the death penalty is abolished, abolitionists will turn to eliminate
life without parole as well and will drive the appeals costs higher than
death penalty appeals since there is no execution to end the process of
a life without parole prisoner.
Also, abolitionists keep talking about the risks of a wrongful execution
in the death penalty's use. Well, being moral and just individuals, we
will not avoid taking issue with that risk. However, the risks involving
capital punishment is not nearly as dangerous or as insensitive to those
it puts at risk as those that are associated with abolitionist
standards. Indeed, under the liberal influences in our criminal justice
system, the murder rate skyrocketed along with the number of repeat
offences. But those who endorse these liberal standards never
demonstrate the morality or the responsibility to take issue with these
lethal flaws. That is probably why the vast majority of people around
the world favor capital punishment, because the death penalty never
treats even the most hypothetical and highly unlikely of risks involved
in its use with nearly as much contempt and disregard as abolitionists
habitually treat countless of real life incidents as a consequence of
their standards. This is what confirms capital punishment's superior
level of responsibility and morality.
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
Lur...@webtv.net
statements with an unanimous, broad brush. NOBODY shrugs his shoulders
at any murder,
Liar! That's exactly what you do when you weep and wail over the
suffering of your precieous murderers on DR while completely ignoring
the suffering they had inflicted that had got them there in the first
place.
=====================================
and if anti's plea for to put dangerous offenders for their lifes
behind the bars then this is also a hard and crime-preventing penalty.
======================================
Untill they reoffend in prison or are released on parole or on furlough
etc etc..
======================================
The only is, it avoids to bring a human at his wits end, to cause once
again the fear of death, and therefore it satisfies admittedly not any
– perhaps subconscious – thirst of vengeance.
=====================================
Vengeance is only a propoganda term used in order to trivialize the
severity of the crime commited and rationalize your insensitivity to
anybody who isn't evil and barbarous to be worthy of your regard and
protection.
=====================================
How many Blacks are sentenced to die for killing a White ? How many
Whites are sentenced to die for killing a Black ? 12% black population
to 35% blacks on DR means ca. 3 times, or ?
=====================================
I can see that your statistics are as faulty as your English. Here are
some well documented facts:
(1) the majority of those on death row are white (NAACP LDF, 1996);
(2) the majority of those executed are white (C.2);
(3) since 1929, white murderers have been more likely to have been
executed than black murderers (C.10);
(4) "...white murderers, no matter who they kill, are more likely to get
the death penalty than black murderers (11.1% to 7.3%). Furthermore,
whites who kill whites are slightly more likely to be on death row than
blacks who kill whites. Finally, whites who kill blacks are slightly
more likely to be on death row than blacks who kill whites." (Jared
Taylor, Paved With Good Intentions, 40-41,Carroll & Graf Pub.,1992;
(5) whites are executed 15 months quicker than blacks ("Capital
Punishment, 1995", BJS 1996);
(6) Whites are executed at rates nearly 50% above their involvement in
murder. Blacks are executed at rates 20% below their involvement in
murder. (C.2); and finally,
(7) Murderers are put to death, not based on the race or economic status
of the victim or the murderer, but based upon death penalty statutes,
the aggravated nature of and all specific circumstances of the crime,
the criminal background of the murderer, and the other specific factors
mandated by Supreme Court decisions. Since 1973, there is absolutely no
credible evidence to support any other conclusion. Despicably, you
keep crying "RACISM!" to further your pro murderer agenda, knowing,
full well, that such claims are false.
=====================================
as usual for a retentionist you're missing the point of this statement.
If nothing can bring back the victim, why take revenge ?
====================================
If that's the case, why put the murderer in jail at all if such an act
cannot bring back the victim either? If such an act cannot bring back
the dead, isn't prison just another form of revenge? If we were to
apply some consistency to your reasoning, that would certianly be the
case, but then, you pro murderers were never famous for your
consistancy, Hypocrite!
=====================================
What other than vengeance are expressing the stat's: ‚Think of the
victim' or ‚Antis are evaluating the murderer's life above the
victim's' or, if antis point at the suffering of DR inmates: ‚Think of
the innocent's deathly fear, and the pain of his related !'
Retentionists prefer the term ‚just punishment' when bringing up this
statements, I can't see other than REVENGE, a life for a life and so
forth.
=====================================
You use the term "revenge" instead of the appropriate term of just
punishment because that is your way of trivializing the murder that was
commited that has provoked the punishment. All of your arguments are
motivated by your sick love for murderers and your indifference for
their innocent victims.
======================================
And spare me the boring discussion about the taxpayer's expenses,
please. I gave you the hint to comparize DP/LWOP-costs and now your
statement does imply again the claim of cheap executions. EVERYONE here
knows and admits the MUCH HIGHER DP-COSTS.
=====================================
That's because most retentionists have been brainwashed right along with
the antis by the constant lies and myths that pro murderers constantly
hammer down.
Death penalty costs reside mainly in appeals costs. Life without parole
prisoners get the same appeals and should be considered to bear the same
costs. And if the death penalty is abolished, abolitionists will turn
to eliminate life without parole as well and will drive the appeals
costs higher than death penalty appeals since there is no execution to
end the process of a life without parole prisoner.
======================================
I pointed at the ridiculous number of executions and claimed another
purpose for them than the prevention of recidivism. Indeed it's for
anyone taking an objective position hard to believe in DP as preventing
even one single repeat offense
====================================
Name me one, just ONE murderer hat has EVER murdered again after his
execution! No? Then don't hand me the bull crap that exeutions don't
prevent murderers from murdering again.
=====================================
if he takes in account, that 50 persons are executed per year, 10 years
or more after their crimes, (regardless of their often happened
reformation, BS),
=====================================
BS is right, as in BULL SHIT! Those are the two words that accurately
sum up the sincerity of a murderers reformation. Indeed, only one who
passionately loves murderers as much as you do can be so quick to
believe such an act.
=====================================
and remaining estimated 14.950 murderers p.a. are sentenced to lesser
penalties for often equal heinous crimes.
=====================================
I know. That just burns me. They should be sentenced to death too.
=====================================
So, you care so much for any victims ? Then perhaps gather some info how
the 87 released from DR described their ‚experiences' in often more
than 10 years worst imprisonement, riddled with many extras to make them
suffer in THE EVILEST way, Sir.
======================================
First of all, most of those 87 were released from DR because of
technicalities, sir. Not because they were proven innocent like many
abolitionists lie. Secondly, perhaps you would send all of your
precious, beloved murderers to a Turkish prison instead. Hell, I'd take
languishing in a prision cell with a TV, books and magazines complete
with free meals and endless appeals any day over that.
=====================================
Really fine stories, containing elements CLEARLY PROVING the purpose
and intention of DP and the 10-20 years DR.
======================================
The delays of 10-20 years are to get all of their appeals in to ensure
that their constitutional rights were met, as you well know, unless you
are incredibly stupid, a possibility I have definitely not ruled out.
As for the DP, its purpose is to ensure a just punishent for the worst
crime their is: Murder! Especially if rape and torture is involved.
And their executions are far more benevolent than the murders these
criminals have commited. But your love for murderers is so
overwealming, that the suffering that the murderer's victim had gone
through is simply not a factor to you.
=====================================
There are happenings going on, that put the US of A directly in the
company of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraque, etc.
====================================
What about Japan and Singapore? Any particular reason why they weren't
part of that list? This is just more of your murderer loving
propoganda. As if some vague similarity is any basis for comparision.
=====================================
And the best is, you fine company even refuse to pay them for 10 years
psycho torture any compensation.
====================================
You have just added to the abolitionist's dictionary:
PSYCHO TORTURE - Being provided with room and board for a decade or more
with television and reading privilages as the murderer is granted
countless appeals to ensure his guilt and that his rights as defined
under the US Constitution were met.
======================================
Congratulations, Mr. Lowe. That's real JUSTICE.
======================================
I know. Thank you.
=====================================
Very quickly in sentencing, very slowly in acknowledging any fault, and
totally reluctant to stand for the consequences.
=====================================
I am more than willing to discuss whatever faults are in the standards I
support. BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL OF THE MORE DANGEROUS FAULTS
THAT ARE EVIDENT IN ABOLITIONIST STANDARDS!!! I will NOT argue under
the sociopathic premise that you are as perfect as God and that you have
the right to condemn anyone who isn't as flawless as you!
=====================================
Sir, I'm tired of the lies presented here.
=====================================
So am I.
(the rest of Jurgen's pro murderer, victim apathy rantings and ravings
and lying propoganda are snipped.)
Wesley Lowe
http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html
St.George
<Lur...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3887-39A...@storefull-101.private.bryant.webtv.net...
<snip>
> So help me, Bitch....I mean, Mitch.
Gee, Wesley, that's the height of good taste and decency. And you wonder
why you're a laughing stock...
Richard Jackson
=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>
> Richard Jackson schrieb:
>
> > In article <39AE808F...@t-online.de>,
> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > A Question Jurgen. If a man murderers someone, is found guilty, and
> > sentenced to death,m whose fault is it that he is in that position
in
> > the first place?
>
> A question back: Has your question anything to do with shrugging
shoulders
> of antis at heinous crimes ?
>
Nope. My question has to do with who is at fault here. Who committs
the crime which sets this whole thing in motion. I'm just wanting to
know if you acknowledge that the murderer is the one breaking the law
in the first place.
> >
> >
> >
> > What percentage of murders are committed by blacks? Incidentally,
most
> > black murder victims are black, and most white murder victims are
> > white.
> >
> > There is another motive for many. Many feel it is just that someone
> > who kills another human being without just cause should pay for
doing
> > so by losing his or her life. For many people, that is justice.
Not
> > revenge, or hate, just a simple life for a life.
>
> They don't like to call it revenge, simply. Revenge is a word burdened
with
> injustice, and 'just punishment' is sound and allows to safe the own
> dogoodership while calling exactly for the same as revenge.
>
Revenge is OK with me if one wants that, but revenge is something
personal. I don't know the murderers personally, so how could I want to
reap revenge on them?
> >
> >
> > That idea is a very ancient one which can be traced back to
Hammurabi's
> > Code and Justinian's Code.
>
> Of course. The first attempts to put timid rules on the former
uncontrolled
> vengeance. The more you look in the past, the more justice systems
tend to
> revenge.
>
Revenge is, in the English language, defined as:
1. The act of taking vengeance for injuries or wrongs; retaliation.
2. Something done in vengeance; a retaliatory measure.
3. A desire for revenge; spite or vindictiveness.
4. An opportunity to retaliate, as by a return sports match after a
defeat.
Retaliation indicates a personal injury or wrong. If someone injures
me or mine and I injur them back, I am reaping revenge. If they injure
someone I don't know, and I don't know them, the call for them to pay a
penalty for their crime is not revenge. Unless you wish to call all
forms of criminal punishment revenge.
> >
> >
> >
> > The difference between capital punishment is often in the
circumstances
> > surrounding the crime. Capital crimes must fit into a prety narrow
set
> > of circumstances in most instances. A person who commits an axe
murder
> > when he loses his or her head, just kills only one person and
commits no
> > other crime could most often not be charged with capital crime
although
> > te act is identical to the person who killes two people in an axe
> > murder. The difference is that by comitting two murders the second
> > felon would qualify for capital punishment.
>
> The double murder plea I don't understand until today, BS.
>
Than understand this. What follows are the required elements for
a murder to be charged as a capital murder in the State of Texas.
Murder of a public safety officer or firefighter; murder during the
commission of kidnapping, or retaliation); murder for remuneration;
murder during prison escape; murder of a correctional employee; murder
by a state prison inmate who is serving a life sentence of any of five
offenses (murder, capital murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated
sexual assault, or aggravated robbery); multiple murders; murder of an
individual under six years of age.
Without some of these elements, no murder can be charged as capital or
the murderer given the death penalty. Even if those elements are
present, the jury still has to vote for life rather than the DP if they
cannot determine the individual is a continuing danger to society.
<snip>
<snip>
> > And the four thousand murderers not released since 1976 because
their
> > sentence is correct. What about their thousands of victims and
their
> > families, where is the justice for them?
>
> There will be none. Not with, not without DP. DP changes nothing.
>
It sure changes the life status of the murderers. That is enough
justice for most of us.
> > Sure we make mistakes, and
> > the mistakes are unfair. That's why we have a justice system and
that
> > system has appeals processes. We are human. We make mistakes, and
> > mistakes can only be corrected,
>
> The mistakes ARE not corrected. Exonerated have even to sign their
waiver to
> sue for compensation, to get free at all.
>
You cannot undo any mistake. You can only correct the sentence and
release the person, and that is done. If it were not, abolitionists
(you included) wouldn't have the eighty or so examples of released
death row inmates to point to, would you?
> > not undone. That's life.
> >
<snip>
> >
> > Jurgen, I know you are not one of these, but at times abolitionists'
> > arguments do make it seem that they care nothing for the pain and
> > suffering that victims' families *FOREVER* suffer at the loss of
their
> > loved ones.
>
> Our brain is graceful. The loss of a loved is never forgotten, of
course,
> and a certain pain will resist the whole life long, but the pain
lowers with
> time. About five or six years endures the fervent grief to have lost
any
> loved, then slowly a state is reached when it's possible to talk about
the
> loss without immediately getting to tears.
> DR isn't graceful.
>
Have you ever lost a loved one to violent crime, Jurgen? I know the
grief process as well as anyone, having both lost close loved ones and
worked in the Funeral business for some years earlier in life. I can
tell you that the grief and bitterness experienced by those who lose
their loved ones to murder causes the normal grieving process to pail
by comparison.
> > Yes, I have no doubt that murderers suffer awaiting the
> > death penalty. So what? At least their suffering ends much quicker
> > than that of their victims' families.
>
> So you think if execution is carried out the executed's family goes
> whistling to BurgerKing to erase in a few minutes the awful event ?
>
No, I don't. Their pain, like that of the victim's family, is caused by
what their loved one did. Their anger and grief should be directed at
the murderer.
> > When a murderer dies from
> > execution, all the waiting and suffering is over. The families of
> > victims must suffer for as long as they are able to remember their
loved
> > ones. Not just one or even two decades, but for sometimes several
> > decades. Next to that, what is the suffering of a murderer on death
> > row?
>
> You told, you don't care. You told, you'd even agree with mutilations.
So I
> can't expect of you to inform what goes on on DR. Nice things, nothing
to
> prevent any crimes or so. The other hand you proved by your statements
your
> absolute insensitiveness. I'll shut that topic down, it has no purpose
to
> talk if anyone agrees official with torture.
>
Jurgen. I can tell you that a stay on death row would be lovely
compared to what I personally would do to someone who murdered one of
my sons if I caught him first. His life would be shorter, but
infintely more painful. THAT would be revenge, BTW.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, Jurgen. I don't really care that murderers suffer on death
row
> > because they know they are going to die. They earned the suffereing
by
> > murderering someone. The victim's families didn't ask for the
suffering
> > they have, and did nothing to cause it. Screw the murderers.
>
> OK. Leave finally the talk of prevention etc and stay exactly on this
level.
> You want revenge, like Don Kool and some millions other really nice
guys.
>
Nope. I just cannot feel compassion for murderers. They brought their
fate on themsleves the moment they killed someone who was truely
innocent.
> >
> >
> > Now I know the next argument is that the murderer's family suffers
too.
> > This is undoubtedly true. They need, however, to blame the one who
> > caused that suffering and shame, however. Their loved one is the
one
> > who killed, If he or she had not, they wouldn't suffer awaiting for
him
> > or her to die. Neither would they have the additional burder of
knowing
> > that they raised a murderer who took someone else's life.
>
> That all to satisfy your 'screw the murderers', no other purpose to
see.
>
> Jürgen
>
>
Jurgen, that is the way I feel. If you can't accept that, that's your
problem, not mine. I have no compassion for a murderer, a rapist, or a
pedophile. I've seen the results of their crimes enough to know what
they are. If you want to continue to make this assessment, you need to
come to the US and spend some serious time in inner city environments
with the homocide units, criminal investigators, emergency rooms like
Ben Taub in Houston, and in the county morgue. You need to push a
fourteen year old's lungs back in and hold them while a mortitian sews
up the wounds that killed him from a shotgun. You need to hold a good
friend who has half his head shot away by a crackhead. You need to see
the way these animals are when they aren't locked up in a prison and
then make up your mind if you still take the same stance.
It is real easy to sit half a world away and make lofty judgements,
Jurgen. Get in the place where it is happening and live a while. Let's
see how liberal you are when someone you love is murdered.
Pardon me, but until you spend subtancial time in those shoes, you
really don't have any idea what the hell you are talking about.
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
message news:diablo-3108...@theevilone.its.utas.edu.au...
> In article <8Dkr5.9877$K4.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "A
> Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> > Point one: You say you're saddened by the fact that
> > victims exist as a result of murder, but I seem to see
> > you actually wish to marginalize each and every past
> > murder victim, by saying to their survivors, "how sorry you
> > are for their pain --- BUT --- let's not forget that revenge
> > is highly inappropriate as a justification for the DP."
>
> Correct. The state has no business seeking revenge.
I beg your pardon, but the "STATE" has EVERY business
seeking revenge. Consult a dictionary (Webster's
Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language, 2,256 pages in length, Gramercy Press), as I
do, and you will note that the VERY FIRST definition of
"Revenge" is: "1. To exact punishment or expiation for a
wrong on behalf of...." Now, it is certainly no business of
the victim, the victim's associates, or any other bodies
(vigilante's - mobs - etc.) to pursue that "Revenge," but
society has the right, through establishment of its laws
and its use of its Justice System created for that sole
purpose, to claim "Revenge" for violations to the rights of
its members, for the good of the whole of the society.
Regardless of what sanitized name (Punishment, Penalty,
Justice, Jail, Fine, Parole, Probation, Prison, L wop, or
Execution) you, or I or anyone may wish to give it - it is
"Revenge" for violations of the rules of a civilized society.
The entire structure of "Penalty for violations of the laws
of Society,' rests on the principle of SOCIETY taking
"Revenge" for those violations. As I point out later, I do
not believe "Revenge," in the meaning attached to
providing the capacity to " do penance", "right the wrong,"
or closure for the victim's family, serves any purpose in
the use of the DEATH PENALTY, but "Revenge," is a
societal aspect of all violations of the laws of the society.
IMHO, the DP is unique from L wop, in a large degree
because of the "Revenge," aspect of the crime of murder.
Punishment, as a form of "Revenge," of society, loses
its meaning, when viewed as someone "paying" with
that punishment for the taking of another life. If you
rob or steal possessions - if you rape - if you beat
someone senseless but they recover - if you cheat or
swindle someone of their life savings - even if you are
a non-killing pedophile -- these all have an identifiable
(perhaps not easily identifiable), value of insult to the
laws of the society. But what value do we assign
to the taking of another life?? True and absolute
"Revenge," by society would seem to say, equal
punishment for an equal offense, requires the execution
of the offender. But we clearly realize that is neither
moral, just, logical or appropriate in hardly ANY case.
So we judge the crime in question as to not only the
aspect of "Revenge," but the aspect of the future
safety of our society. If society feels that the actions
connected with the murder are so reprehensible, feels
it is further gravely threatened by actions of the murderer
foreseeable in the future, and sees no possibility of
rehabilitation, then certain actions to prevent such
occurrences represent a "self-defense," measure of
society, not to past events, but to future threats, every
bit the same as an individual views a future threat to their
safety, as constituting "self-defense." And if our society
recognizes those features of the murder(s) and the
murderer, threaten us to such a degree (as I point out
in my examples, of what I feel are appropriate crimes
of murder possibly justifying the DP), that incarceration
WILL NOT provide the necessary degree of self-defense
needed to ABSOLUTELY insure the future safety of our
society, then our society not only has the right, but the
imperative responsibility to insure it CANNOT and MUST
NOT happen. IMHO, ONLY the DP provides this level of
assurance, regardless of your protestations to the
contrary.
I've left your comments in but as you can see, they have no
real value in my view of the use of the DP.
> > In
> > effect, you thereby claim that the victim's life has no
> > meaning and should not enter into the equation of the DP.
>
> This is probably true. The administration of justice should not
depend
> upon the victim. If this were to be considered appropriate then value
> judgements affecting the sentencing of a murderer would have to be
made
> based on the perceived "worth" of their victim. A ludicrous claim,
> surely?
> The victim's life has meaning and it is tragic that an innocent life
was
> taken by a murderer. By not killing the murderer you are not
devaluing
> this life.
Every victim has meaning. And the administration of justice should
depend upon the method employed in the murder(s), the facts
surrounding the murder(s), the number of murders committed by
the murderer in question. There are many other factors, but
nevertheless, every one of those factors SHOULD enter into the
"equation of the DP." In my post I mention "value," not at all, and
mention "worth," only once in terms of how you would maximize
the "worth," of the murderer. I only claim that victim's lives have
"meaning," and we need to examine that meaning in the broader
context of "murder," and the use of the DP. Of course, not using
the DP does not devalue the life of the victim... why would you
claim I would think that? What not using the DP does do, is
devalue the fact that there exists those murderers who certainly
DO deserve the DP, by claiming that NO ONE is that responsible
for their actions, regardless of how horrendous. We thus set
an arbitrary lower limit on depravity, and I believe such a lower
limit always seems to get lower and lower. See my reply to point
two, further below.
>
> > In other words, you feel for them, but you can't quite
> > reach them, so they should just get over it, and move on.
>
> That is correct. I doubt that the execution of a murderer would
> necessarily "reach" them, either.
>
For some, I believe that closure is "reaching," out to them. The
point is, who are we to claim what the effect of the DP will have
on others, especially the families of victims? Being external to
this effect it's quite easy to say, "get over it." But if you are
internal to this effect, your response may be quite different.
Now some may claim that those internal to this effect have NO
more right to judge what we should do with murderers, than
any of us. It that a valid claim? I don't have the answer, I
only ask the question. For example, we have two different
posters here, bobbyc and denise, both victims of family murders,
and if you were to examine some of their past posts you would
realize that different people respond to tragedy in different
ways... yet the effect is profound in every respect. I do not
believe closure serves a purpose, but I am external to the
effect, so I only point out as I did in my past post...
> > ... I would hope many other retentionists,
Come on... here we go with the execution of an innocent. What
we learn from the DP is the abstract idea that PERHAPS we
are preventing future murders by using this tool, AND the
abstract idea that PERHAPS we are executing an innocent.
We also learn from the DP that using this tool is not as easy
as we would perhaps wish it would be, because many
meaningful moral and humane obstacles exist, which cause
us to question our ability to put someone to death, regardless
of how deserved we feel that death to be. The DP also
forces us to call into question exactly what you point out as a
possibility - the execution of an innocent - and hopefully we
learn from this possibility, regardless of how remote we might
believe it to be, and use the lessons we learn from those
instances where ANY degree of doubt is encountered (such
as Gary Graham), to insure we have a system in place
which is constantly being scrutinized and modified to be as
fair as humanly possible. And perhaps our attempts to
insure this more fair system will wash over into making our
ENTIRE Justice System more fair in the process.
>
> > Point two: You would maximize the WORTH of each and
> > every convicted murderer who has been sentenced to the
> > DP.
>
> But, APV, you claim later on that I am, by advocating LWOP, also
> advocating a punishment more severe than the DP, viz:
>
In my view!!! Read the first three words, "I, IMHO, think..."
I make no claim that YOU view L wop as more severe.
Only that "I" view L wop as more severe. You may
well advocate L wop because you view it as LESS severe
than the DP. I have no idea what your view is in this
regard, only that you seem to me to be trying to place the
convicted murderer on some higher level of WORTH by
claiming that they are WORTH more than the DP they
have been sentenced to. I seem to sense (correct me
if I'm wrong) that your true opposition to the DP is that
you emphasize the worth of human life (especially
innocent human life). If this is the case, then read further
on, as I discuss a comparison of "innocent human lives."
> [APV]
> > I, IMHO, think TRUE L wop,
> > confined to a cage for 40-50 years, without the slightest
> > chance of release is a greater insult and more torturous
> > that any DP
>
> I am not maximising the worth of a convicted murderer. I am
emphasising
> the worth of human life, especially innocent human life. My POV is
based
> on the idea that we should not punish innocent people and no justice
> system can be guaranteed of only convicting guilty people.
I wish you'd take a look at a post I made a few days ago, concerning
the philosophical examination of what is called "The Trolley Problem,"
because it's long, its been repeated, it's never been refuted, and I
see no point in going through it all again. You say, "no Justice System
can be guaranteed of only convicting guilt people." I agree. You say
prior to that statement "...we should not punish innocent people." Now
if we cannot guarantee EVERYONE is guilty, then we can punish NO
ONE, for ANY CRIME or violation of ANY LAW. You need to be more
careful in your statements if you only wish to address the DP, and not
use the word "punish," since ALL sentences are "Punishment," even
fines and probation. Nor can we guarantee that if NO DP exists,
someone who would have been administered the DP, will not be, and
at some point in the future will murder again.
>
> [snip]
>
> > guilty, you lose sight of one of the most crucial objectives
> > of all societies, namely the protection of the maximum
> > number of members of that society.
>
> And I believe that the DP fails to achieve that end. The execution of
an
> innocent person (if it occurs) ensures the death of 1 innocent. LWOP,
> even if correctly administered, carries the chance of causing the
deaths
> of innocent people
And if incorrectly administered, or a murderer escapes (perhaps you
would claim this can be avoided by keeping them in more confinement
than a cage could possibly provide), subsequent murders of innocents
can be committed by those same murderers. Even Hannibal Lechter,
managed to escape, and lest you think it's only fairy tales, instances
have
happened of L wop's reentering society, and no "proof" exists that they
have NOT been recidivist. In fact, quite a bit more "proof" exists
showing
that they have been recidivist to a higher degree than the general
population.
>
> > You harp on how
> > immoral and barbaric the practice is,
>
> I have not used either of the words that you mention here. I have, in
> fact, quite deliberately avoided such emotive terminology. Do a deja
> search on my posting history if you don't believe me.
>
tangential, oblique, thinly veiled.
> > how much more
> > cost-effective, efficient, and practical L wop is,
>
> It is more cost-effective if we are to minimise the possibility of
> innocents being executed in error. Same goes for efficiency and
> practicality now that you mention it.
>
Cost effective? Exactly what value would you assign to life? I usually
will not discuss cost effectiveness, because that's how we value
cattle, and hogs, and chickens, and sheep - but lets talk about cost
effectiveness in terms of human life. What value is the murder victim?
I assign him/her a value of zero. We cannot bring him/her back, so
other than the value he/she has to relatives and friends (which cannot
be assigned a value to them, because this value is beyond computation
to those inside that inner ring), society HAS to view the victim as Desi
would say... without value, they are dead. What value is the murderer?
Once again, I assign him/her a value of zero. You take a life, if you
are
caught by society, you have willingly served up your life on a platter
to
the justice which society must determine and administer, whether it is
L wop, a slap on the butt, or the DP (once again the murderer's value
to relatives and friends cannot be determined because we are outside
of that inner ring). Society must assign ITS value to the murderer.
He/She has NO intrinsic value other than what society wishes to afford
Him/Her. What value can be assigned to this convicted murderer if they
are innocent, but wrongly found guilty? Why, simply a value of one
life. No more, no less than any other member of our society. And
society is responsible for this life, because he/she is in fact
innocent.
Society is responsible regardless of the degree of justice given.
If the DP is given, society is totally responsible for the death of one
life. Now, suppose we conjecture, as the whole of society, the
possibility of eliminating the guilty murderer because they represent a
threat to our society, over and above any reasonable assurance that
we can hold them captive for the rest of their life. If "a reasonable
doubt," does not exist of innocence, they are convicted, and, as I
said, if innocent, we are responsible as a society. But if they are
guilty, no matter what we as society decide, we cannot be held
responsible for that guilt, since they are in fact guilty. Now those
guilty are sentenced, depending upon the degree of the murder
committed as determined in the sentencing phase. If they are
executed, their value was zero, which they had assigned to
themselves through the act of murder, as is their victim(s), who
are dead. Now assuming we have NO DP, every murderer who
would have been sentenced to the DP, is now sentenced to an
alternative punishment. You claim that in all cases this should
be L wop. Given this fact, you admit that L wop is not as
infallible as the DP, and recidivism is possible. What is the
worth of every victim of recidivism of a murderer who would
have been executed under a DP law? Obviously, one life, no
more and no less than any other member of society. So the
question is which approach MUST society use to insure the
LEAST number of innocent lives are lost? So -- every recidivist
murder by a murderer who would have been executed but
was not -- is compared against every innocent who was
executed, and the smaller value determines which view to
take. Obviously, this is an objective value and everyone will
see different values which they believe apply. I see IMHO,
quite clearly that more recidivist murders will occur than
innocents will be executed. It's not a question of society
should not take a life, because we need to "show"
we are more aware of "human rights," "humane," or "moral,"
as some who oppose the DP would claim. It is a question
of "cost effectiveness" in terms of innocent human life.
Of course, everyone agrees that no perfect Justice System
exists. Lacking this we must strive to make it as failure free
as humanly possible. But failures of the Justice System
occur in both directions, the guilty are acquitted, the innocent
are convicted, the guilty are released, the innocent remain
incarcerated. I tend to believe a lot of these values cancel
out, even at the 10 to 1 value of guilt to innocence most would
insist we prove beyond some shadow of a doubt. But none
of this should have any bearing on the values we assign to
those lives in question, the innocents executed and the
innocents murdered by recidivist murderers, when examining
the DP. Each are of equal value. It only proves the
inadequacies and failures of the Justice System -- in both
directions. Failures to prevent future murders, and failures
to identify those truly deserving of the DP are both
responsible for the deaths of innocents. I have heard many
meaningful arguments in this newsgroup, that the failures
of the Justice System must force us to either eliminate or
place a moratorium on the DP, and these arguments have
often served to give me pause that perhaps we need to
step back and examine the process, such as occurred
pre-Furman, before we go further. However, I have never
found a persuasive argument to my satisfaction that would
cause me to say "STOP, and NEVER again reinstitute the
DP." And I have never found a persuasive argument to my
satisfaction that claims "human rights," "morality," or "being
humane," which has convinced me to say STOP, because
human rights, morality and being humane cuts both ways.
Both the theoretical "innocent" executed by our society and
the theoretical "innocent," murdered by a recidivist who would
and should have been executed, but was not. This is what I
mean when I say, "Do not throw out the baby with the
bathwater."
> > and then
> > generally attack the integrity of all who would defend the
> > practice
>
> Incorrect. I have not personally attacked anyone save Mr McDonald
and, in
> his case, I am only responding in kind. I do not doubt your
integrity,
> just the correctness of your position. I have generally avoided the
use
> of overly emotive language (although the DP is an issue that tends
towards
> bringing out fairly emotional responses) and tried to argue the point
> where possible.
You first claim "incorrect," and then provide a counterexample
to the claim of "incorrect." So it's never.... well, hardly ever.
You'll find that I make no claim of such, if you've read my posts
of the past few days. I often argue the DP in emotional
responses, because I do not view it in abstract terms. I see
it clearly in my mind as both necessary and essential. Where
I see grave failures is in the Justice System application of this
penalty. I can see how some would find it riddled with
inaccuracies, failures to be administered fairly, and often
prejudicial to those convicted. But, what I am convinced of is
the fact that there have been no innocents executed post-Furman.
And, what I am also convinced of, is the fact that many who
were executed, although guilty of the crime in question, did
NOT deserve the DP, IN MY VIEW and IMHO. I am only
convinced that to have the DP can be a far less grievous
fault of our society that it would be to NOT have it.
>
> Don't put words in my mouth, please. I've checked deja and the worst
I've
> done is criticise the posting style of retentionists as a group (_and_
I
> acknowledged that it was a gratuitous ad hominem).
>
> [snip]
>
> > responsible members of their societies. But you would
> > set yourself above those with opinions other than your own.
>
> No. I simply disagree with them.
>
> > You characterize those who support the DP, as perhaps
> > less than adequately informed,
>
> With the exception of Mr McDonald, can you cite even _one_ example of
my
> doing this?
>
I always believed one was enough to prove a point. Rather
like saying -- "Gee, I only killed one person, and they're
calling me a murderer."
> > perhaps not in full control
> > of all their faculties,
>
> You've got access to deja - quote from a posting where I have done
this
> (Mr McDonald, once again, notwithstanding) and I'll treat that claim
with
> more than a grain of salt.
See above.
> > and perhaps sheep which should be
> > guided in the true path of enlightenment.
>
> See above.
See above.
> > You insult the
> > intelligence and integrity of every member of this
> > newsgroup who does support the DP.
>
> See above.
See above.
> > A free society
> > erects laws to address violations of any behavior which
> > that society considers essential, and necessary, for the
> > good of that society, from jaywalking to Capital Murder.
> > A convicted murderer deserves no more and no less
> > consideration than any other person within that society.
> > I personally, refuse to feel any more pity for that convicted
> > murderer than I do for their past or possibly future victims.
>
> I believe that "capital" murderers should be permanently removed from
> society. If further believe that LWOP is the best, least fallible way
of
> achieving this. This does not mean that I feel more pity for a
murderer
> than their victim(s).
L wop is less fallible than the DP??? How many dead murderers
have you seen who killed again??? You may certainly have the
view that it is the best. That's an opinion based observation, and
I can accept that as you viewpoint. But to call it the "least
fallible,"
flies in the face of the ABSOLUTE infallibility of the DP, IMHO.
> > Point Three: You would ignore the possibility of recidivism,
> > or at the very least, claim that supporters of the DP are
> > simply "crying wolf," about any possibility of L wop or a
> > long prison term, not effectively eliminating this scenario
> > totally.
>
> I do not doubt that there is a small risk of recidivism in the case of
> those given LWOP but I also guess that the number of lives lost due to
> this recidivism would word out to be less than those _innocent_ lives
lost
> when people are executed in error.
That's the crux of our problem. I see the values switched
completely. And you now acknowledge the small risk of
recidivism, which is non-existent in the use of the DP, thus
L wop is certainly more fallible. Whether this fallibility
causes more deaths than the innocents executed is in
my mind, a no-brain choice. The average years a convicted
homicide offender spends in prison is 7 years. The average
recidivist rate for homicide offenders is 6%. The average
years a murderer sent to the DP spends after execution is
forever. The average recidivist rate for murderers justly
executed is 0%. Now I know how to twist figures as well
as the next person, and I know homicides are not murders,
and 7 years is not typical for a capital murder. The point
is, that the lower we set the standard for murder, the lower
go all the standards for all crimes. Get tough on crime,
along with other factors, has just been shown to have
reduced violent crime 10% in the US last year, as seen on
CNN and reported by the DOJ. Some would find satisfaction
that this proves the value of the DP, but I do not. I only
point it out to make the small point that L wop is not as
effective a self-defense measure of society as is the DP.
> [snip]
>
> > Point Four: Now, all that being said, IMHO, the DP is simply
> > beyond punishment, it is beyond vengeance, it is beyond
> > closure. It is the same act that individuals use when they
> > or their loved ones are threatened by imminent danger
> > and fear for the loss of their own or their loved ones lives.
> > It's called self-defense.
>
> Actually, the DP is not self-defence in the sense that the victim is
> already dead and, hence, cannot defend themselves or be defended any
more
> than I can walk on water. If you mean that the DP is society's method
of
> defending itself and its members from murderers then, as indicated
above,
> I believe that LWOP is the way to go.
Covered above.
> > And it's every bit a right of society
> > as a whole as it is an individual right. Does L wop work?
> > Don't be ridiculous. L wop is a disgraceful attempt to
> > simply fail to face the issue that there are those who
> > NEED to be and MUST be executed. L wop has its
> > place, IF one wishes to believe that L wop is a lesser
> > PENALTY than the DP.
>
> I don't necessarily believe this. I believe that LWOP is a good means
of
> avoiding judicial mistakes.
I believe that L wop is a good means to insure the possibility
of a murderer having been given the opportunity to murder
again, if presented with the right circumstances.
> > I, IMHO, think TRUE L wop,
> > confined to a cage for 40-50 years, without the slightest
> > chance of release is a greater insult and more torturous
> > that any DP, and the only reason a convicted murderer
> > would personally prefer such a sentence is because they
> > REFUSE to believe it is TRUE L wop, and spend the next
> > 40-50 years scheming to get released one way or
> > another.
>
> ...Or they are innocent.
And spending the rest of their life in prison, being innocent, is
more attractive than being executed while innocent? I feel it
would be more torturous than execution to spend 40-50 years
knowing you were innocent and having to put one foot in front
of the other with no possibility of release. You seem to
have watched too many "Fugitive," episodes. Exactly how
many innocent but convicted of murder, sentenced to L wop,
and having been sentenced to that term pre-Furman, do you
believe there are? Just for me to have a handle on how deep
you feel your imagined Justice System failures are. But, in
any event, either way, the DP or L wop, it's a wash of a life,
if TRUE L wop is weighed against the DP, and not imitation
L wop, which seems to be the prevailing case, in the US
anyway.
>
> > In any case, I have the distinct impression that
> > a certain number of abolitionists support L wop as an
> > alternative to the DP, simply to have a self-righteous touchy-
> > feely feeling about their own respect for "human life," trying
> > to strut the appearance of showing how humane THEY are
> > in comparison to "those barbarians" who favor the DP. Now
> > you or other abolitionists may rise up in righteous indignation
> > over my claim,
>
> ...Which is completely unfounded in reality. If somebody is offered
LWOP
> or the death penalty then I have no objection the the carrying out of
the
> latter (i.e. the murderer has _chosen_ death and we will see no
frivolous
> appeals). LWOP should also, IMHO, be offered to a convicted murderer
as
> _an_alternative_to_ the DP and should be available to the felon at any
> time after conviction. That is, if you choose to murder, you get to
> decide how you are permanently removed from society. The terms of
appeal
> for persons serving LWOP should be the same as currently apply to
those on
> death row, BTW.
>
> Touchy-feely? No. Practical, yes.
>
Now that's a unique concept. Give the convicted murderer the
choice!!! Next we can give the thief the choice of prison or
probation. Let's be clear on this -- Convicted have no choice!!!
The choice is the State's. Convicted can't pick their sentence,
where they will serve their sentence, or the color of their
prison uniform. It's called "punishment," and if the DP is the
law, the convicted have absolutely nothing to say about it,
because it is the RIGHT of society, not the convicted. You
may, and it is your right, advocate L wop, or a slap on the
butt, in substitution for the DP, as your choice of justice to
be administered for the crime of murder. But you CANNOT
ABDICATE this RESPONSIBILITY to the convicted. It belongs
to society, and it MUST remain with society, or we have now
placed the animals in charge of the zoo.
> > but I can only say that "if the shoe fits," wear
> > it, and if not, good for you, and I accept your claim to not
> > holding this viewpoint. But to claim that this viewpoint NEVER
> > exists within ANY abolitionist, is to ignore the fact that it
> > certainly has been exhibited here, at one isolated time or
> > another.
>
> Will you please cease and desist from your stream of argumentum ad
> hominem. I don't really care what other abolitionists think. I have
my
> own opinions and will express them independently of David, Desmond et
al
> and I'm sure that they will continue to express their opinions quite
> independently of me.
>
But you see, I accept your claim to not holding this viewpoint.
But you seem to name others who YOU feel I might be talking
about, and I only said that such behavior has been exhibited here,
at one isolated time or another. Understand that you will find me
argumentative. I accept argument back, just like two buds sitting
at a bar, speaking our minds. What else would you have us do??
If I see it in NAMELESS others, and you PERHAPS seem to see
it in others that you name, we've both made our views known.
A PV
The dream alone is of interest. What is life, without a dream?
Edmond Rostand
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie.2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:8ombdj$7kb$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
I think most everyone is an optimist when it comes to
hoping they'll live through whatever hardship. It's the
survival instinct which often is the only thing keeping us
going. Think of those with terminal illnesses who almost
never give up hope, even onto the final day. Anyway,
John, if you hadn't picked L wop, it would be inconsistent
with your view that the DP is worse than L wop, IMHO.
It would mean that you'd pick a worse penalty for others
then you would for yourself, which would seem to me
to be an immoral choice of penalties for murder. I,
myself would choose the DP quite readily, because I
personally view L wop, TRUE L wop, as quite a bit
more torturous, in the extreme, rather than a few
seconds to end it.
A PV
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
message news:diablo-3108...@theevilone.its.utas.edu.au...
> In article <1Mkr5.9900$K4.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "A
> Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
> > message news:diablo-3108...@theevilone.its.utas.edu.au...
> > > Oops. Forgot the footnote.
> > >
> > > [1] - I can't claim to speak for other anti-DP folks and thus made
the
> > > generalisation found in the original post.
> > >
> > > Mr Q. Z. D.
> > > ----
> > > Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and
all-round
> > bastard.
> > > "Hey now, hey nonny-nonny, singest thou to me this corrosion."
> >
> > Forgot... or just blitzed again???
> >
> > A PV
>
> I will remain civil as long as you do likewise. Agreed?
>
Hey, if we can't laugh at ourselves, what does that say
about us??? Anyway, QZD, you have to admit that the
whole two line description you keep repeating without
any changes ever, certainly gives one pause to wonder
exactly what you're trying to say. After you've been
here awhile you'll see that none of us get much respect,
especially me.
Jürgen
Lur...@webtv.net schrieb:
> Mr. Lowe, you're trying to discredit and pervert all abolishionist
> statements with an unanimous, broad brush. NOBODY shrugs his shoulders
> at any murder,
> ======================================
> Liar!
Dear Mr Lowe, Sir.
Take our conversation as a little 'ad hominem' test.
The test is finished.
Goodbye
J.
Jürgen
Sharpjfa schrieb:
> >Subject: Re: Abolitionist's Dctionary (revised edition)
> >From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= k.j.h...@t-online.de
> >Date: 8/31/00 10:58 AM EST
> >Message-id: <39AE808F...@t-online.de>
>
> snip
>
> >How many Blacks are sentenced to die for killing a White ? How many Whites
> >are sentenced to die for killing a Black ?
>
> likely not as many as should be on both counts.
>
> 12% black population to 35%
> >blacks on DR means ca. 3 times, or ?
>
> Why would we sentence any group to any punishment based on populations counts,
> as opposed to punishing people for the crimes they commit. White murderers have
> been twice as likely to have been executed as black murderers and have been
> executed 15 months more quickly than their black ilk.
>
> If nothing can bring back the victim, why take revenge ? What
> >other than vengeance are expressing the stat‘s:
>
> no revenge, it is justice.
I promise you a more detailed item concerning that. Maybe next week ? Title: 'Just
Vengenishment' ? Let's see........
> here are some writings on this from another
> correspondence.
>
> I don't find any factual or philosophical
> foundation within your writing
> that establishes that the death penalty is
> revenge. You speak of your
> desires and the occasional uproar with
> specific cases. Community outrage
> at heinous crimes is welcome. Such will
> exist without the death penalty
> or any other punishment. In fact your
> guidelines and descriptions could
> logically and factually apply to almost
> any crime and punishment
> scenario based on your feelings and
> perceptions alone.
In reverse I don't find any factual or philosohical reasoning that DP is other than
revenge. The substitution of the TERM Revenge by the TERM Just Punishment is
nothing but an attempt to leave a with negative emotions burdened EXPRESSION. The
background to do harm for previous done harm remains.
>
> The law is a system of preexisting
> consequences which exist prior to the
> crime even being committed. Based on a
> set of certain crime
> circumstances we have absolute
> limitations within the system as to what
> may or may not be exacted as
> punishment, regardless of how we feel.
As long as you will not proceed to any other definition of punishment, the whole
will merely point at any other than the INSTITUTIONALIZATION of revenge. Your
coverage of revenge with some laws is a nice flourish, fit to avoid the qualms of
the goodie-goodie's watching humans die.
>
> This
> is the opposite of revenge.
No, it isn't. This is a JUSTIFICATION of revenge.
> Revenge has
> no contraints, no guidelines and
> is decided upon after the crime.
> Revenge doesn't even require a crime or
> guilt or innocence or even
> culpability. Revenge is not measured or
> limited by statute and
> procedure. Revenge does not exclude
> involved parties as fact finders and
> as administrators of punishment. In fact,
> it does the opposite.
No, not at all.
>
>
> There is no evidence that the criminal
> justice system or individuals are
> promoting hate or revenge in a manner to
> advance the death penalty.
??????? I'm wondering what motivates Mr. Dudley Sharps appearances at Huntsville to
demonstrate for executions. Half the evidence you're presenting by yourself, Sir.
>
> Lynne simply made it up as a way to
> convince herself that her way of
> thinking is morally superior and that, as
> such, she finds that pro death
> penalty folks must be morally inferior.
The contrary is correct. Pro's by evaluating their own goodness as so perfect,
their moral stance as so infallible, their own innocence as well as the condemned's
blame as so absolute that they feel permitted to speak a deathly sentence, that
pro's are the ones evaluating themselves implicite as morally superior. (LABEL1)
>
> Lynne cannot prove a foundation of
> hatred and revenge for the death
> penalty any more than for any other
> punishment sought within a system
> such as that observed within the US. It is
> enough for her and many other
> antis just to say the words and to thereby
> make it true.
I'd suggest you to comparize the broadcasting of any US murder with DP sentence and
that concerning a similar german crime. I don't know M(r)s. Lynne, but there she
has not much to prove, an objective look suffits.
>
> The criminal justice system goes out of
> its way to take hatred and
> revenge out of the criminal justice
> system. That is why we have a system
> of laws and procedures in place that
> limit punishments and prosecutions
> to specific actions in response to
> specific rules of evidence and
> procedure.
Yup. You decorated revenge with formalisms and made it this way presentable. In
fact, the institutionalization had further consequences, at that I pointed in my
introducing post 03/14/00 and to that I will come back soon.
>
> It is beyond Lynne's world that pro death
> penalty people have the
> pursuit of justice as a foundation for
> their support of capital
> punishmwent.
Justice as just pay back with the same coin. Punishment with no other purpose as to
cause pain, fear and suffering. I call that REVENGE.
>
> If Lynne wishes to use reality as a guide,
> we find that the overwhelming
> evidence is that murder victims are
> disrespected by the system and their
> suffering is reduced to bureaucratic ink
> on paper. And that murderers
> far from receiving the a wrath of hatred
> and revenge are served with a
> mercy that is more from indiffernce than
> compassion.
To quote you, Sir: 'Nonesense'
>
> For example:
> The expected punishment for murder
> was only 1.5 years in 1985 and rose
> to only 2.7 years in 1995! (THE
> REYNOLD’S REPORT, "Crime and
> Punishment
> in the U.S.", National Center for Policy
> Analysis, 1997). Expected
> punishment is calculated by measuring
> the probability of being caught,
> incarcerated, and time served. Why have
> we chosen to be so generous to
> murderers and so contemptuous of the
> human rights and suffering of the
> victims and future victims?
So if the Law system's of the US of A are so idiotic to send murderers after a
ludicrous time back on the streets, let's at least point some others out to torture
them to death ?
>
> Far from hatred and revenge, the death
> penalty represents that rare
> occurrence when something close to
> justice is achieved, holding the
> murderer responsible for their willful act
> of murder. Certainly, lesser
> punishments may suffice under some
> circumstances, but the reservation of
> a death sentence for certain heinous
> crimes is reserved as an option of
> the jury and is given in those special
> circumstances when a jury finds
> such is more just than a lesser sentence.
> The punishment of death can in no way
> be a balancing between harm and
> punishment, because the victim did not
> deserve or arn their punishment,
> whereas the murderer has voluntatily
> earned their own, deserved
> punishment by the free will action of
> violating societies laws and an
> individuals life and thereby voluntarily
> subjecting themselves to that
> juristictions judgement.
Common sense: Any wrongdoing causes any reaction. Every punishment requires a
previous done offense. No offense, no punishment.
You want really to punish again for that punishment is ONLY punishment ? And
because ALL what you propose to do with any guilty human being is ONLY punishment
you are justified to do whatever you want ?
That is real SUPERIOR MORAL, Sir.
> Calling executions a product of hatred
> and revenge is simply a way in
> which antis attempt to establih a false
> sense of moral superiority,
defined so by you. See above at (LABEL1)
> it
> is also a transparent insult by antis
> which results in additional hurt
> to those victim survivors who have
> already sufferred so much and who
> believe that execution is the appropriate
> punishment for those who
> murdered their loved one(s).
In other words: I, as an anti, are insulting victim's related by advocating for a
punishment deserving to be called humane. If victim's related demand for DP, then
they demand for REVENGE, there you can write a thousand pages and it will not
change to Just Punishment.Period.
>
> Far from moral superiority, antis are
> simply exhibiting their total
> contempt for those who believe
> differently than they do, and in the
> process create more harm against victim
> survivors.
To quote you, Sir: 'Nonesense'.
>
> Lynne cannot prove a foundation of
> hatred and revenge for the death
> penalty any more than for any other
> punishment sought within a system
> such as that observed within the US. It is
> enough for her and many other
> antis just to say the words and to thereby
> make it true and therefore,
> satisfy their need for self gratification.
The longer I read, the more often I read just the same. Please, my time is limited,
spare repetitions, if possible.
>
>
> The reality is that hatred and revenge are
> not and cannot be the
> foundation of the death penalty . Antis
> profess an illusion based on
> fraud, hoping that gullible saps will
> accept such with no critical
> thinking and that antis can use such fals
> claims to bask in their own
> illusion of moral superiority.
Again a not founded repetition of stuff already mentioned above. Sir, repeating
statements doesn't make them any more true.
>
> Certainly there are those where hatred
> and revenge may be a motivator
> for supporting executions. But that, in no
> way, establishes those
> feelings as a foundation for that
> sanction.
> The foundation is and will always be
> that execution is considered an
> appropriate sanction for certain criminal
> acts, just as fines,
> probation, community service and prison
> time are.
> I have no doubt but that some antis
> believe that all punishment is wrong
> and that criminals just need counseling
> and rehabilitation and that
> their wronglful acts are a result of social
> problems which relieve the
> misguided offender of any responsibility
> for their own actions. But such
> cannot and will not be the foundation of
> opposition to executions.
Just that will be. Any human's deeds are EVER actions AND RE-actions. I doubt that
there exists ONE act being a PURE ACT, not partial caused by environmental affects
(or DNA-faults).
> I
> also believe that such is a minority view
> and that antis have a
> heartfelt moral opposition to the death
> penalty which is based primarily
> on emotion not reason.
Be careful, Sir.
Your so called Reason is pretty weak. Analyzing your writing it remains NOTHING but
Revanchism. You want Punishment not to change or to educate, you want suffering.
That I call Emotion.
My so-called Emotion favourizes Justice as a sentence to protect society, to avoid
more damage. That I call Reason.
And don't dare putting Emotions down. Emotions make humans out of us, emotions can
have more power, depth, life, 'Saft' than anything else.
>
>
> snip
>
> >So, you care so much for any victims ? Then perhaps gather some info how the
> >87 released from DR described their ‚experiences‘ in often more than 10
> >years worst imprisonement, riddled with many extras to make them suffer in
> >THE EVILEST way, Sir.
>
> actually, the number is most likely in the 20-40 range and they were all
> released.
The number is 87, and I'm stunned about this nonchalance to shrug the shoulders and
to utter: 'Oops, bad luck. You're free to go, sorry, a misunderstanding. 10 years
deathly fear ? Take a good advice: Get over it quickly, much of your time has run
away. And good luck finding any job....'
>
>
> Really fine stories, containing elements CLEARLY
> >PROVING the purpose and intention of DP and the 10-20 years DR. There are
> >happenings going on, that put the US of A directly in the company of Saudi
> >Arabia, Iran, Iraque, etc.
>
> no, quite different.
Often US are worse, right.
>
>
> >And the best is, you fine company even refuse to pay them for 10 years
> >psycho torture any compensation. Congratulations, Mr. Lowe. That’s real
> >JUSTICE. Very quickly in sentencing, very slowly in acknowledging any fault,
> >and totally reluctant to stand for the consequences.
> >
> >Sir, I’m tired of the lies presented here. I’m tired of the superior, holy
> >Do-gooders that are making daily claims of the necessity of DP without any
> >reasonable backup,
>
> much backup, but only a just peunishment needed.
No reasonable backup, and the last is Just Punishment, See above.
>
>
> not for any theoretical DP, how it should be, but for the
> >real existing today’s US-DP, a torturing penalty for a few out of the guilty
> >arbitrarily selected humans.
>
> no more arbitrary than any other punishment.
Much more arbitrary. At the moment DP is sought, all objectivity disappears.
>
>
> Two chances: Open your eyes and recognize the
> >state and the conditions of US-DP, or leave them closed and continue
> >believing in all the advocates for torture in the disguise of justice.
>
> eyes wide open, it is yours that are shut
You see what you want to see. To suppress your inhumanity you're limiting your
sight to PARTS of the whole problem, and are making your consequences just out of
this part.
Regards
Jürgen
John Rennie
Jurgen Schrieb
Does the term Justice mean anything to you? Is there a difference between
Justice and Revenge? You know I am an anti-dper so the questions are
genuine.
Pete Morris
Ah, hello there, P.V. I see you've decided to rejoin
this forum, and still posting from Uranus, as usual.
If you were intending to return, then what were all
those goodbyes for? I suppose you could call it much
adieu about nothing . . .
Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll be serious from now on,
honest. Peace, OK?
You have made a number of interesting points that
I would like to reply to. I cannot speak for Mr Diablo
or anyone else, these relpies are entirely my own POV
> Point one: You say you're saddened by the fact that
> victims exist as a result of murder, but I seem to see
> you actually wish to marginalize each and every past
> murder victim, by saying to their survivors, "how sorry you
> are for their pain --- BUT --- let's not forget that revenge
> is highly inappropriate as a justification for the DP."
I think thats a fair assessment of most anti's position,
mine included. But how do you make out that this 'maginalises'
the victim?
> In
> effect, you thereby claim that the victim's life has no
> meaning
Huh? in what way does this follow? In what way do the two
sentences equate?
> and should not enter into the equation of the DP.
> In other words, you feel for them, but you can't quite
> reach them ...
Thats true enough. I have never lost a loved one to
murder. All I can do is offer my sympathies without
pretending that I understand how it feels.
> ... so they should just get over it, and move on.
But that part is complete invention. I don't say that, I
doubt that even Desmond would be tactless enough to say
that.
> In point of fact, I, and I would hope many other retentionists,
> believe that Vengeance, or Closure, is not, and should not
> be, a motivation of society in their use of the DP.
Actually I think that for a great many, this is precisely
why they support the DP. Read some of Wesley "I'm a simple
guy" Lowe's posts and you'll see what I mean.
> But, that
> does not mean the victim's murder was without ANY
> meaning to our society, and that therefore the murder
> should not be factored into the DP equation. Every murder
> demonstrates the need for the DP..
Does it ? Why then dont you support the DP for *every* murder.
>. every murder victim
> forces us to recognize that individuals DO exist with instincts
> more haywire and base than most laypersons can imagine...
> every murder victim must almost scream out from the grave,
> asking us to NOT think of Vengeance, or Closure, but to think
> of the LESSON we must learn from their murder, and
> "REMEMBER," to each and every member of our society --
> remember -- so that the murder will have served SOME
> purpose, other than a random aberration of an anomalous
> murder, committed by a typically unusual murderer. There
> should be no such thing as a meaningless murder, nor
> should there be such a thing as a meaningless execution
> of a murderer. Each and every murder and DP execution
> MUST force us to think,
And that is just pure nonsense. You want every murder to
have a meaning, a lesson, a purpose. Well, sorry to have
to break it to you, but the world just doesn't work that
way. I simply don't follow your thinking here. You think
that a murder is purposerless and meaningless if the
perpetrator is in prison, but the instant he is executed,
suddenly the murder aquires some sort of benifit to
society? I just dont see that happening.
> and we can no more eliminate the
> DP than we can the murder which causes our society to
> implement that tool.
It seems to me that quite a few contries in fact *have*
eliminated the DP. The UK, Canada, Australia and France
have achieved what you believe to be impossible. Howabout
that?
> Point two: You would maximize the WORTH of each and
> every convicted murderer who has been sentenced to the
> DP.
Personaly speaking, no I dont. I find this is a point that
confuses many pros. It is not *their* worth that concerns me,
it is *my* worth. And if I were to participate in, or give
my support to, the cold-blooded killing of a human being
then that would reduce *my* worth. I refuse to do this.
By your support of the DP you have reduced *your* worth.
I do not claimj that you are "as bad as the murderers"
just that you are closer to them than I am.
"He who would fight monsters must take care not to
become a monster"
> You would trivialize the ACTIONS which have been
> taken by the murderer, in their own "free will," which
> ended with the DP result.
No
> In your crusade to protect the guilty,
bullshit
> you lose sight of one of the most crucial objectives
> of all societies, namely the protection of the maximum
> number of members of that society.
No. I actually believe the DP threatens more
innocent lives than it protects.
> You harp on how
> immoral and barbaric the practice is, how much more
> cost-effective, efficient, and practical L wop is, and then
> generally attack the integrity of all who would defend the
> practice - those who believe it is not only moral, and
> humane, but also justified, and essential. Keep in mind
> that I claim none of these characteristics are intrinsic
> parts of the DP by definition; only that many believe them
> to be so, at the present time, in the present place, as
> responsible members of their societies. But you would
> set yourself above those with opinions other than your own.
You have to earn respect on this newsgroup, it is not given
automatically. Richard Jackson has earned the respect of most
of the anties. You have not earned my respect so far. Dudley
Sharp has repeatedly earned my utter contempt and disgust.
> You characterize those who support the DP, as perhaps
> less than adequately informed, perhaps not in full control
> of all their faculties, and perhaps sheep which should be
> guided in the true path of enlightenment.
I think this is a perfectly good decription of some of
the more absurd pros. Take Wesley Lowe for instance.
He believe everything that Dudley Sharp tells him,
and most of his arguments consist of dogmatic recitation
of propaganda taken from the JFA website. Then, when
someone disagrees with him, he simply insults them. Even
his insults are second hand, being mainly copied from
Don Kool. Virtually everything he says is an exact copy
of something he heard someone else say. He is not exactly
unique, is he?
> You insult the
> intelligence and integrity of every member of this
> newsgroup who does support the DP.
Only those who have shown themselves to lack intelligence
and integrity.
> A free society
> erects laws to address violations of any behavior which
> that society considers essential, and necessary, for the
> good of that society, from jaywalking to Capital Murder.
> A convicted murderer deserves no more and no less
> consideration than any other person within that society.
> I personally, refuse to feel any more pity for that convicted
> murderer than I do for their past or possibly future victims.
Do you think I do?
> Point Three: You would ignore the possibility of recidivism,
> or at the very least, claim that supporters of the DP are
> simply "crying wolf," about any possibility of L wop or a
> long prison term, not effectively eliminating this scenario
> totally. Let me quote Julius Caesar, who noted, "men
> worry more about what they can't see, then about
> what they can." Anyway, I do... and I think many others
> do. The possibilities of recidivism are uppermost in many
> minds, when discussing the DP.
I am not sure about that. Most support the DP "because it
is just punishment" with prevention of recidivism as "a
bonus." Even if LWOP were shown to eliminate 100% of
recidivism, these people would continue to support
the DP, for the sake of punishment. The fact is, a great
many pros give top priority to punishment for past crimes,
with prevention of future crime being a secondary consideration.
With some on this newsgroup it seems to be a shallow and
hypocritical justification, which they don't really care
very much about.
> And past victims speak
> to us here also. They remind us that we are all possible
> victims, yet only a few are possible of being accused of
> murder, much less convicted and executed. In any event,
> Retentionists don't provide the basis for the DP...
> murderers do. Think about it, the next time you attack
> a retentionist for his or her support of the DP as a tool
> of our society.
Except for one thing. It is only quite recently in history
that the DP is restricted to murder. In fact there are still
capital statutes for kidnapping, rape and wounding a prison
guard, although capital trials for these offences are now rare.
If it were not for the work of abolitionists, you would still
be hanging horse theives. And then you would say "Retentionists
don't provide the basis for the DP... Horse theives do" Think
about that next time you defend the DP as a tool of society.
> Point Four: Now, all that being said, IMHO, the DP is simply
> beyond punishment, it is beyond vengeance, it is beyond
> closure. It is the same act that individuals use when they
> or their loved ones are threatened by imminent danger
> and fear for the loss of their own or their loved ones lives.
> It's called self-defense.
Actually, no. Self-defence only applies when someone is
posing a direct and immediate threat. If you kill someone
because you think that they might possibly pose a threat
at somee unspecified time in the future, you cant claim
self defence.
> And it's every bit a right of society
> as a whole as it is an individual right. Does L wop work?
> Don't be ridiculous. L wop is a disgraceful attempt to
> simply fail to face the issue that there are those who
> NEED to be and MUST be executed. L wop has its
> place, IF one wishes to believe that L wop is a lesser
> PENALTY than the DP. I, IMHO, think TRUE L wop,
> confined to a cage for 40-50 years, without the slightest
> chance of release is a greater insult and more torturous
> that any DP, and the only reason a convicted murderer
> would personally prefer such a sentence is because they
> REFUSE to believe it is TRUE L wop, and spend the next
> 40-50 years scheming to get released one way or
> another.
So lets get this straight ... You are advocating the
DP on the grounds that it is more_merciful_than LWOP?
Because its kinder to kill them than to let them live
in a cage? Youre just doing it out of kindness? Hoo
boy, what a murderer-lover you are. I say we should
leave them there to rot.
> In any case, I have the distinct impression that
> a certain number of abolitionists support L wop as an
> alternative to the DP, simply to have a self-righteous touchy-
> feely feeling about their own respect for "human life," trying
> to strut the appearance of showing how humane THEY are
> in comparison to "those barbarians" who favor the DP.
Yes. And you think thats bad, because . . . ?
> Now
> you or other abolitionists may rise up in righteous indignation
> over my claim, but I can only say that "if the shoe fits," wear
> it, and if not, good for you, and I accept your claim to not
> holding this viewpoint. But to claim that this viewpoint NEVER
> exists within ANY abolitionist, is to ignore the fact that it
> certainly has been exhibited here, at one isolated time or
> another.
Yes. And you think thats bad, because . . . ?
> Point Five: Simply, a murderer is either capable of being
> rehabilitated or not. If yes, then certainly, every effort
> should be made to achieve that rehabilitation, and L wop
> has no purpose in this rehabilitation, since why even
> try to rehabilitate a murderer to return to society when that
> return is impossible, by the definition of L wop.
Because it will make it safer for the guards and the other
prisonners.
> I favor
> FAITH wop (For An Indeterminate Time Hoping wop),
> where parole may NEVER be achieved, but always remains
> within the realm of possibility. Do I believe the DP is for
> EVERY murderer? That is the farthest thing from my mind.
> Do I believe a stone-cold serial killer, a pedophile killer, a
> professional terrorist killer, a killer of 5 teenagers in a tastee-
> freeze just to leave no witnesses, or a hired professional
> assassin, deserves the DP? Generally, yes.
I dont dispute that plenty of people *deserve* to be killed.
Only that if we give them "what they deserve" then we become
evil ourselves in the process.
> Do I
> believe ANY other murderers deserve the DP? Generally, no.
> Murder in passion, rage, spousal abuse, family quarrel... other
> murders where the murderer is quite clearly not reasonably
> assured of recidivism? Absolutely not.
Actually, I think you have it the wrong way around. It is the
ones that you wouldn't execute that are more dangerous. This
type of killer serves a short sentence, and is then released
to do it again. On the other hand, the serial killer, the
terrorist, the hitman, serving 40 years- LWOP have much less
opportunity to kill again. I dont say that the risk is zero,
just that it is smaller than the "ordinary" killer Personally,
I favour increaseing the lengths of all sentences for murder,
with an absolute minimum of 10 years for all types. This would
have a far greater impact on the recidivism rate than a few
executions would.
> Simply, there DO
> exist on this planet, certain individuals who have proven by
> past actions that they are almost absolutely certain to be
> recidivist, and have also shown by these past actions that they
> have no right to breathe the same air as any other member of
> mankind. Do we need to constantly refine and examine our
> Justice System to insure those FEW individuals are accurately
> identified? Of course.
So you plan to restrict the DP to those who you can be 100%
certain *will* kill again. OK, I can live with that. I dont
like it, but I can live with it. Now, please tell us your plan
for acheiving this.
> Should we throw out the baby with the
> bathwater? Of course not.
We dont use that cliché in England. I don't even know what it means.
Pete Morris
A Planet Visitor wrote:
A very long message from PV, and only one paragraph that I
want to reply to right now.
>
> I wish you'd take a look at a post I made a few days ago, concerning
> the philosophical examination of what is called "The Trolley Problem,"
> because it's long, its been repeated, it's never been refuted, and I
> see no point in going through it all again.
This claim is not correct. I was the one that told P.V. about
the Trolly Problem, and about its refutation. Those interested
may see a description of the problem - and its refutation -
in the following article. The relevent part is the second
section, dealing with the intentional killing of one person
in order to save a larger number.
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?48+Duke+L.+J.+975
It would appear that P.V. has actually misunderstood the article.
Certainly, those reading the article will find little to
support P.V.s position, and much to oppose it.
> You say, "no Justice System
> can be guaranteed of only convicting guilt people." I agree. You say
> prior to that statement "...we should not punish innocent people." Now
> if we cannot guarantee EVERYONE is guilty, then we can punish NO
> ONE, for ANY CRIME or violation of ANY LAW. You need to be more
> careful in your statements if you only wish to address the DP, and not
> use the word "punish," since ALL sentences are "Punishment," even
> fines and probation. Nor can we guarantee that if NO DP exists,
> someone who would have been administered the DP, will not be, and
> at some point in the future will murder again.
This point has been answered countless times before, I don't
suppose one more will make any difference, but here goes anyway.
Yes, if you imprison people for murder, then there is a chance
that you will imprison the wrong man. But if evidence later
emerges proving innocence, he can be released, and compensated
for the years he lost. If you fine someone for theft, there
ixs a chance that you will fine the wrong person. But a fine
can always be repaid, with interest, plus compensation. Death
is different. After you execute someone, theres no going back.
And of course, the Death Penalty has an inherrent time limit
for detecting errors.
Pete Morris
Lur...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Saying that keeping murderers in jail is "cheaper" is yet another myth
> that abolitionists have brainwashed you with. Death penalty costs
> reside mainly in appeals costs. Life without parole prisoners get the
> same appeals and should be considered to bear the same costs. And if
> the death penalty is abolished, abolitionists will turn to eliminate
> life without parole as well and will drive the appeals costs higher than
> death penalty appeals since there is no execution to end the process of
> a life without parole prisoner.
Wesley is, as usual, completely wrong. Death penalty costs do
not reside "mainly in appeals costs" The highest proportion
of the costs reside in the initial trial. And the largest
proportion of those lie in the penalty phase. By eliminating the
DP you would eliminate the highly expensive penalty phase.
Life without parole prisoners do *not* "get the same appeals".
In a death penalty case, most of the appeals are against the
sentence, not the verdict. The largest part of the expense
is the attempt to have the death sentence commuted to life
imprisonment. For those that were sentenced to prison in the
first place, there simply would be no need for these appeals.
Also note this. About 80% of prisonners sentenced to death
will eventually have the sentence commuted to life imprisonment.
Thus, in most cases, the state has to pay the very expensive
death penalty costs, and then has to pay for LWOP costs as well.
This far outways any theoretical cost savings from the small
number of cases that proceed to execution.
Jürgen
John Rennie schrieb:
Hi John,
I promised to write a detailed view short term. Hyper short version: Justice
adds to Revenge something called Mercy.
-> See ca. next week: 'Just Vengenishment'.
So long
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor
"Pete Morris" <morr...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:39B0FDF5...@lineone.net...
>
>
> A Planet Visitor wrote:
>
> A very long message from PV, and only one paragraph that I
> want to reply to right now.
>
> >
> > I wish you'd take a look at a post I made a few days ago, concerning
> > the philosophical examination of what is called "The Trolley
Problem,"
> > because it's long, its been repeated, it's never been refuted, and I
> > see no point in going through it all again.
>
> This claim is not correct. I was the one that told P.V. about
> the Trolly Problem, and about its refutation. Those interested
> may see a description of the problem - and its refutation -
> in the following article. The relevent part is the second
> section, dealing with the intentional killing of one person
> in order to save a larger number.
>
> http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?48+Duke+L.+J.+975
>
> It would appear that P.V. has actually misunderstood the article.
> Certainly, those reading the article will find little to
> support P.V.s position, and much to oppose it.
Well, look who's back. I understood the problem quite well,
and when I questioned YOU as to exactly what number of
innocents YOU would consider suitable before YOU threw the
switch, silence emerged from you. Further, I conclusively
proved that your analogy of harvesting organs from innocents
was ridiculous in the extreme, and thoroughly immoral in
any application or comparison when deciding the perception
each of us has as to the morality of the DP. You seem to
believe that time causes us to forget the stupidity and illogical
comments you have made in the past, such as those concerning
the Trolley Problem, your inane analogy, and your post to
Richard, where you said. "So lets see if I have this straight,
Richard. If you were to even for the briefest moment to
consider commiting (sic) murder, then LWOP would be a greater
deterrent than death, is that correct?" because he would
choose the DP for himself, and supported the DP for others;
without your realizing that the implication of his choosing L wop
for himself and the DP for others would be inconsistent in both
logic and morality.
Perhaps you can now divulge exactly how many innocents
YOU would feel must be on the unswitched track before YOU
select to switch the trolley? Don't make me run through the
mathematics of the problem again. Regardless, one merely
has to return to Deja. com, and see my post of 5/25/00 at
10:11 PM to realize the stupidity of your claim, and to see
that you NEVER responded. Of course, I'll put it here again
if you insist. I personally archive a lot of my longer posts.
Further, I never did receive that apology for YOUR unfounded
claim that I stated the DP was MORAL by definition, which I
have never made, or claimed to be true, and you have never
shown through any example as you promised to do, and
then conveniently disappeared.
>
>
> > You say, "no Justice System
> > can be guaranteed of only convicting guilt people." I agree. You
say
> > prior to that statement "...we should not punish innocent people."
Now
> > if we cannot guarantee EVERYONE is guilty, then we can punish NO
> > ONE, for ANY CRIME or violation of ANY LAW. You need to be more
> > careful in your statements if you only wish to address the DP, and
not
> > use the word "punish," since ALL sentences are "Punishment," even
> > fines and probation. Nor can we guarantee that if NO DP exists,
> > someone who would have been administered the DP, will not be, and
> > at some point in the future will murder again.
>
> This point has been answered countless times before, I don't
> suppose one more will make any difference, but here goes anyway.
> Yes, if you imprison people for murder, then there is a chance
> that you will imprison the wrong man. But if evidence later
> emerges proving innocence, he can be released, and compensated
> for the years he lost. If you fine someone for theft, there
> ixs a chance that you will fine the wrong person. But a fine
> can always be repaid, with interest, plus compensation. Death
> is different. After you execute someone, theres no going back.
> And of course, the Death Penalty has an inherrent time limit
> for detecting errors.
You MUST have a reading comprehension problem. The claim was
made and refuted by me, that "we should not PUNISH innocent
people," and you have extrapolated that statement to mean
that "we should not EXECUTE innocent people." One is NOT the
same as the other. Given no justice system is perfect, which we
apparently all agree upon, does that mean we must have NO
justice system.. no PUNISHMENT? Of course not, and that was
what I pointed out. Apparently you wish to cloud the issue of
PUNISHMENT, with your silly claims of the DP. It serves no
purpose in the context of PUNISHMENT, and since errors are
evidently unavoidable in the context of ALL PUNISHMENT,
where do we draw the line? Where do we say "Society has a
responsibility, to not only insure the INNOCENT are not convicted,
but also that society has exacted "Revenge," through PUNISHMENT
of the guilty, and has further insured that the LEAST possibility
of any further INNOCENT victims are claimed?" Now in lesser
crimes than murder, I see 10 to 1, guilty to innocent, as even
less moral than what we should hope for in our Justice System.
I believe a somewhat higher standard should be set in crimes
which do not involve loss of life. One other anti-DP recently
suggested 100 to 1, which IMHO is less responsible at the other
extreme, and I responded that sooner or later, the ratio will imply
that we have NO JUSTICE SYSTEM, because no justice system
is PERFECT. But we encounter a different value system when
murder and the DP are examined. We can judge usually morally,
how much "Revenge," society must exact through its laws for all
crimes less than murder, and we try to do so. But how do you
set a value on a loss of LIFE (which would be obscene to apply
such a value to)? Well, the only sure way is to call a life equal to
a life. A murderer has taken a life, thus their life has been
forfeited to the LAWS of our society. Not necessarily to the DP,
but to the laws. And if our society determines that the DP is
appropriate, and the law exists, than that is what must be applied,
as a self-protection RIGHT of that society. Those who would
usurp this authority are called anarchists if they do so through
violent means, and are called protestors if they do so through
non-violent means. Which are you??? And if you are only a
protestor, then try to stay logical, and quit trying to prove what
cannot be proven through logic, namely that the DP is moral or
immoral by definition, which you seem to be trying to do, not me.
A PV
A Planet Visitor
>
> Ah, hello there, P.V. I see you've decided to rejoin
> this forum, and still posting from Uranus, as usual.
> If you were intending to return, then what were all
> those goodbyes for? I suppose you could call it much
> adieu about nothing . . .
Actually, I fixed the problem and returned. But you
seem to have disappeared for quite some time.
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll be serious from now on,
> honest. Peace, OK?
>
> You have made a number of interesting points that
> I would like to reply to. I cannot speak for Mr Diablo
> or anyone else, these relpies are entirely my own POV
>
>
> > Point one: You say you're saddened by the fact that
> > victims exist as a result of murder, but I seem to see
> > you actually wish to marginalize each and every past
> > murder victim, by saying to their survivors, "how sorry you
> > are for their pain --- BUT --- let's not forget that revenge
> > is highly inappropriate as a justification for the DP."
>
> I think thats a fair assessment of most anti's position,
> mine included. But how do you make out that this 'maginalises'
> the victim?
>
Simply because the STATE taking "Revenge" is appropriate as
a justification for the DP. See my post to QZ Diablo, 8/31/00,
11:42 PM, because I can't keep repeating these things over
and over when nothing new is added by comments to my posts,
other than what I have already provided.
> > In
> > effect, you thereby claim that the victim's life has no
> > meaning
>
> Huh? in what way does this follow? In what way do the two
> sentences equate?
>
It's a simple equation. See Desmond's comments a few days
back. The victim is DEAD. Thus at the moment of death, the
life of the victim is of NO consequence according to a world
famous judge of the barbaric use of the DP (Desmond). This
is the mantra of many anti-DP who would claim that since the
victim cannot be brought back to life, the death has NO meaning
in respect to the punishment to be given to the murderer.
> > and should not enter into the equation of the DP.
> > In other words, you feel for them, but you can't quite
> > reach them ...
>
> Thats true enough. I have never lost a loved one to
> murder. All I can do is offer my sympathies without
> pretending that I understand how it feels.
>
Bravo!!! But you see no reason that we have to learn
anything from the murder. You feel, we, as a society,
must put the murder out of our mind, and evaluate the
punishment WITHOUT the possible consequences of
the murderer perhaps being not worth rehabilitation,
or even worth breathing the same air we breathe.
> > ... so they should just get over it, and move on.
>
> But that part is complete invention. I don't say that, I
> doubt that even Desmond would be tactless enough to say
> that.
>
I beg your pardon, but that is EXACTLY what Desmond
said, only a few days ago. Quote: The young girl has no
rights. She is dead. The dead cannot be protected,
honoured, or have their rights protected. Unquote. Ask
anyone. A direct quote.
> > In point of fact, I, and I would hope many other retentionists,
> > believe that Vengeance, or Closure, is not, and should not
> > be, a motivation of society in their use of the DP.
>
> Actually I think that for a great many, this is precisely
> why they support the DP. Read some of Wesley "I'm a simple
> guy" Lowe's posts and you'll see what I mean.
>
I speak for myself, and what I would hope for, and none other.
And have you considered the reasons why some oppose
the DP? Tell me, what is your reason? Do you get a good
feeling that you are protective of your fellow man, and
somehow righteous in your pursuit of "human rights?"
Exactly what is YOUR reason for opposing the DP? Too
many innocents executed? What about the innocents
possibly murdered by your hope of eliminating the DP?
> > But, that
> > does not mean the victim's murder was without ANY
> > meaning to our society, and that therefore the murder
> > should not be factored into the DP equation. Every murder
> > demonstrates the need for the DP..
>
> Does it ? Why then dont you support the DP for *every* murder.
>
Because demonstrating the NEED for the use, and
NEEDING to use it every time it happens is not logical
or moral (IMHO), because every murder is different,
yet every murder is the same. Different circumstances
require different degrees of action, but every murder
is the loss of a life, and demonstrates the need to
possess the possibility. Every time it's overcast and
you see a few drops of rain, it may demonstrate the
need to take an umbrella, but once outside you may
never open that umbrella, unless it starts to pour down.
Do you think you can grasp the logical connection to
this point?
> >. every murder victim
> > forces us to recognize that individuals DO exist with instincts
> > more haywire and base than most laypersons can imagine...
> > every murder victim must almost scream out from the grave,
> > asking us to NOT think of Vengeance, or Closure, but to think
> > of the LESSON we must learn from their murder, and
> > "REMEMBER," to each and every member of our society --
> > remember -- so that the murder will have served SOME
> > purpose, other than a random aberration of an anomalous
> > murder, committed by a typically unusual murderer. There
> > should be no such thing as a meaningless murder, nor
> > should there be such a thing as a meaningless execution
> > of a murderer. Each and every murder and DP execution
> > MUST force us to think,
>
> And that is just pure nonsense. You want every murder to
> have a meaning, a lesson, a purpose. Well, sorry to have
> to break it to you, but the world just doesn't work that
> way. I simply don't follow your thinking here. You think
> that a murder is purposerless and meaningless if the
> perpetrator is in prison, but the instant he is executed,
> suddenly the murder aquires some sort of benifit to
> society? I just dont see that happening.
So murders and murderers are actually just meaningless
to you. Perhaps pieces we move around a chess board
to amuse ourselves. I think a murder is purposeless and
meaningless IF the perpetrator does not receive the
correct application of justice, whether that justice is
probation or the DP. Certain murders are not
even classified as murders (self-defense, involuntary
homicide, war), yet many who oppose the DP continue
to call the DP "State Sponsored Murder," and other
simply untrue comparisons. I believe if you REMOVE
the DP from the OPTIONS available as POSSIBLE to
be given in CERTAIN MURDERS, to be determined
by the circumstances surrounding the murder(s), and
the possibility of recidivism, then you have done all that
I've said above. You have marginalized the victim,
made the murder purposeless and meaningless,
ignored what the victim has asked us to remember,
lowered the standard we can apply to those who
are certainly beyond redemption in this world,
ignored the possibility of recidivism, and just about
decided that the murderer can call the shots. In
fact, one recent poster recommended that murderers
be allowed to CHOOSE between L wop and the DP.
So perhaps we will soon allow all criminals to choose
the degree of justice society should provide.
>
> > and we can no more eliminate the
> > DP than we can the murder which causes our society to
> > implement that tool.
>
> It seems to me that quite a few contries in fact *have*
> eliminated the DP. The UK, Canada, Australia and France
> have achieved what you believe to be impossible. Howabout
> that?
>
And when they have the rate of murders which currently
exists in the US today, I wonder what their feeling will be?
Greater dangers call for sterner measures. If you travel
a road with no curves, it's fairly easy to cruise along. But
when the road is winding, it's dangerous to assume you
may do the same.
> > Point two: You would maximize the WORTH of each and
> > every convicted murderer who has been sentenced to the
> > DP.
>
> Personaly speaking, no I dont. I find this is a point that
> confuses many pros. It is not *their* worth that concerns me,
> it is *my* worth. And if I were to participate in, or give
> my support to, the cold-blooded killing of a human being
> then that would reduce *my* worth. I refuse to do this.
> By your support of the DP you have reduced *your* worth.
> I do not claimj that you are "as bad as the murderers"
> just that you are closer to them than I am.
>
> "He who would fight monsters must take care not to
> become a monster"
>
Ah ha... One of those self-adulating types, who believe
they are more aware of "human rights," than others. It
really wears thin to see those who claim to be against
the DP because THEY see those "human rights" more
clearly than others. Perhaps when you're done slapping
yourself on the back in self-congratulation on being so
humane and morale, you might take a look at how many
recidivist homicides there are, how many serial killers
there are, how many pedophile killers there are, who
live to kill again. But of course, I guess that's their
"human right." And in any case, "he who would fight
monsters, does so to insure others are not consumed
by that monster." And he who would let monsters
live perhaps does not recognize the threat they
represent.
> > You would trivialize the ACTIONS which have been
> > taken by the murderer, in their own "free will," which
> > ended with the DP result.
>
> No
>
Yes. Certainly. If you claim NO MURDERER is base
enough to justify the DP, then the ACTIONS they have
taken, are more trivial to you, than as seen through the
eyes of those who would claim they NEED to be
executed.
> > In your crusade to protect the guilty,
>
> bullshit
>
Easy to say. Impossible to deny.
> > you lose sight of one of the most crucial objectives
> > of all societies, namely the protection of the maximum
> > number of members of that society.
>
> No. I actually believe the DP threatens more
> innocent lives than it protects.
>
No, you actually feature yourself as some sort of
savior of lost souls. No murderer is so bad that they
must be executed. All can be salvaged, and if not,
then all can be given L wop, which is certainly more
sure to prevent recidivism than the DP, and is
certainly more soothing to your belief in your own
humane and moral perspective. Exactly who are
those "innocent lives" you believe are threatened?
The convicted murderers?
> > You harp on how
> > immoral and barbaric the practice is, how much more
> > cost-effective, efficient, and practical L wop is, and then
> > generally attack the integrity of all who would defend the
> > practice - those who believe it is not only moral, and
> > humane, but also justified, and essential. Keep in mind
> > that I claim none of these characteristics are intrinsic
> > parts of the DP by definition; only that many believe them
> > to be so, at the present time, in the present place, as
> > responsible members of their societies. But you would
> > set yourself above those with opinions other than your own.
>
> You have to earn respect on this newsgroup, it is not given
> automatically. Richard Jackson has earned the respect of most
> of the anties. You have not earned my respect so far. Dudley
> Sharp has repeatedly earned my utter contempt and disgust.
>
Peter, let me make this as clear as I possibly can. I do NOT
want or need your respect. Neither do you have mine at
present. Anyone who would claim that harvesting organs is
the same principle as the DP, or who claims that no matter
how many innocents are on the unswitched track it would be
immoral to throw the switch, or who claims that there is
something wrong with declaring that you would prefer the DP
yourself, if you support the DP for others, is not someone
who's respect I want or need. Please treat me with the most
disrespect you can possibly muster, because I will do the
same with you, if I feel the need. Pity poor Dudley... I'm sure
he must be devastated by your contempt.
> > You characterize those who support the DP, as perhaps
> > less than adequately informed, perhaps not in full control
> > of all their faculties, and perhaps sheep which should be
> > guided in the true path of enlightenment.
>
> I think this is a perfectly good decription of some of
> the more absurd pros. Take Wesley Lowe for instance.
> He believe everything that Dudley Sharp tells him,
> and most of his arguments consist of dogmatic recitation
> of propaganda taken from the JFA website. Then, when
> someone disagrees with him, he simply insults them. Even
> his insults are second hand, being mainly copied from
> Don Kool. Virtually everything he says is an exact copy
> of something he heard someone else say. He is not exactly
> unique, is he?
>
I don't speak for anyone other than myself. But I seem to
find you having to lean on others when trying to express
your logic or morality or whatever. Remember the Duke
URL?? Apparently you had trouble putting this logic into
your own words and found it necessary to fall back on
someone else's. Try saying things as you see them,
expressing ideas as you see them, and not as you think
others see them. Of course, that has gotten you into
trouble in the past, but that's no reason to not keep hoping.
> > You insult the
> > intelligence and integrity of every member of this
> > newsgroup who does support the DP.
>
> Only those who have shown themselves to lack intelligence
> and integrity.
>
No, actually. All of them. Because your arguments lack
substance and fire, and rely on hackneyed banalities, best
left unsaid, instead of sound logic and moral principles.
> > A free society
> > erects laws to address violations of any behavior which
> > that society considers essential, and necessary, for the
> > good of that society, from jaywalking to Capital Murder.
> > A convicted murderer deserves no more and no less
> > consideration than any other person within that society.
> > I personally, refuse to feel any more pity for that convicted
> > murderer than I do for their past or possibly future victims.
>
> Do you think I do?
>
Just a minute. I believe CERTAIN murderers deserve the DP.
You believe NO murderer deserves the DP. I see that as you
feeling more pity than I do for their past or possibly future
victims. If not, can you explain why I shouldn't think that?
> > Point Three: You would ignore the possibility of recidivism,
> > or at the very least, claim that supporters of the DP are
> > simply "crying wolf," about any possibility of L wop or a
> > long prison term, not effectively eliminating this scenario
> > totally. Let me quote Julius Caesar, who noted, "men
> > worry more about what they can't see, then about
> > what they can." Anyway, I do... and I think many others
> > do. The possibilities of recidivism are uppermost in many
> > minds, when discussing the DP.
>
>
> I am not sure about that. Most support the DP "because it
> is just punishment" with prevention of recidivism as "a
> bonus." Even if LWOP were shown to eliminate 100% of
> recidivism, these people would continue to support
> the DP, for the sake of punishment. The fact is, a great
> many pros give top priority to punishment for past crimes,
> with prevention of future crime being a secondary consideration.
> With some on this newsgroup it seems to be a shallow and
> hypocritical justification, which they don't really care
> very much about.
>
And all abolitionists have the same reasons for being so??? I
think all of us have various reasons for being where we are
on this issue. It's always been "the eye of the beholder," in
my view, which has often caused some nervous comments from
others. But those comments, for some reason, never have some
substance which might refute this view. If we don't all see the
DP through our own eyes, then whose eyes do we use to
evaluate what our mind processes? Or have we let someone
else determine what we should believe??
>
> > And past victims speak
> > to us here also. They remind us that we are all possible
> > victims, yet only a few are possible of being accused of
> > murder, much less convicted and executed. In any event,
> > Retentionists don't provide the basis for the DP...
> > murderers do. Think about it, the next time you attack
> > a retentionist for his or her support of the DP as a tool
> > of our society.
>
> Except for one thing. It is only quite recently in history
> that the DP is restricted to murder. In fact there are still
> capital statutes for kidnapping, rape and wounding a prison
> guard, although capital trials for these offences are now rare.
> If it were not for the work of abolitionists, you would still
> be hanging horse theives. And then you would say "Retentionists
> don't provide the basis for the DP... Horse theives do" Think
> about that next time you defend the DP as a tool of society.
>
>
Don't take all the credit for yourself, dear boy. Retentionists
have often supported the fact that murder is the only crime for
which the DP should be applicable. I've always expressed that
opinion from my FIRST post to this newsgroup as an axiom of
logic which MUST be employed in the use of the DP. I have no
ability to have anything other than a voice, as you have, in
expressing my opinion in this respect. The fact is, I believe the
DP should be reserved for only the most egregious murders,
those quite simply almost without a doubt to be recidivist in
nature. Even treason, sedition, espionage and other crimes
(except in time of war) of this most serious nature, in my
view, do not justify the DP.
> > Point Four: Now, all that being said, IMHO, the DP is simply
> > beyond punishment, it is beyond vengeance, it is beyond
> > closure. It is the same act that individuals use when they
> > or their loved ones are threatened by imminent danger
> > and fear for the loss of their own or their loved ones lives.
> > It's called self-defense.
>
> Actually, no. Self-defence only applies when someone is
> posing a direct and immediate threat. If you kill someone
> because you think that they might possibly pose a threat
> at somee unspecified time in the future, you cant claim
> self defence.
>
>
Society should be able to do whatever it wants, if it serves
the purpose of the "general will" of the members of that
society. If not self-defense, then WHO is responsible for
the innocent who is murdered after a convicted murderer
is returned to society? Society's view of self-defense and
the individuals view of self-defense are obviously not the
same. Laws are established by our society for the purpose
of self-defense in many cases. Speed limits are established
for the self-defense of the members of the society to cite
a mundane example, yet those speed limits are imposed
for threats at some unspecified time in the future, and not
simply on the occasion of an immediate threat. For
EVERY convicted murderer you can CLAIM was innocent
and executed by society as its mistake, a vast number of
murders are committed by recidivists. Every one of those
murders were a mistake of that same society. You
cannot claim the mistakes in only one direction, since
mistakes, are mistakes, are mistakes. Homicides: The
average convicted homicide offender spends 7 years in
prison, the average convicted homicide offender has a
6% recidivist rate. How many of those homicides
offenders are murderers? How many of those recidivist
homicides are murders? How many of those murders
COULD have been prevented if society had NOT made
the MISTAKE of releasing the recidivist? Every time
we do NOT make the right choice as society, that is
a MISTAKE. Whether we execute an innocent, or
allow a previously identified murderer to go free and
murder again, they are both mistakes.
> > And it's every bit a right of society
> > as a whole as it is an individual right. Does L wop work?
> > Don't be ridiculous. L wop is a disgraceful attempt to
> > simply fail to face the issue that there are those who
> > NEED to be and MUST be executed. L wop has its
> > place, IF one wishes to believe that L wop is a lesser
> > PENALTY than the DP. I, IMHO, think TRUE L wop,
> > confined to a cage for 40-50 years, without the slightest
> > chance of release is a greater insult and more torturous
> > that any DP, and the only reason a convicted murderer
> > would personally prefer such a sentence is because they
> > REFUSE to believe it is TRUE L wop, and spend the next
> > 40-50 years scheming to get released one way or
> > another.
>
> So lets get this straight ... You are advocating the
> DP on the grounds that it is more_merciful_than LWOP?
> Because its kinder to kill them than to let them live
> in a cage? Youre just doing it out of kindness? Hoo
> boy, what a murderer-lover you are. I say we should
> leave them there to rot.
>
>
If, you too, feel that L wop is less merciful than the DP, then
logically and morally, you are supporting a system which
employs a level of torture, over and above that considered
adequate to both punish and assure the impossibility of
reoffending. It implies that if YOU were forced to choose
between the DP and L wop for yourself as the punishment
for the crime, you would select the DP, because you find
that more merciful and kind, but you feel that OTHERS
deserve L wop. The basic principle of the Justice System
is the penalty to fit the crime and NO MORE. What we
would wish for ourselves, cannot be less than what we
would wish for others convicted of the same crime. To
do so is to acknowledge a punishment "cruel and unusual,"
obviously a form of torture above that fitting the crime,
for others, but not for ourselves, and obviously immoral.
> > In any case, I have the distinct impression that
> > a certain number of abolitionists support L wop as an
> > alternative to the DP, simply to have a self-righteous touchy-
> > feely feeling about their own respect for "human life," trying
> > to strut the appearance of showing how humane THEY are
> > in comparison to "those barbarians" who favor the DP.
>
> Yes. And you think thats bad, because . . . ?
Because it's hypocritical???
>
> > Now
> > you or other abolitionists may rise up in righteous indignation
> > over my claim, but I can only say that "if the shoe fits," wear
> > it, and if not, good for you, and I accept your claim to not
> > holding this viewpoint. But to claim that this viewpoint NEVER
> > exists within ANY abolitionist, is to ignore the fact that it
> > certainly has been exhibited here, at one isolated time or
> > another.
>
> Yes. And you think thats bad, because . . . ?
Because it's hypocritical??? You see it makes the claim
that you are BETTER than everyone else who holds a
different view. It's just a claim without substance... it's
only looking in the mirror, and admiring how noble and
proud and moral and humane you are, while ignoring any
arguments against your claim. It's narcissist and almost
funny in appearance. Strutting and preening yourself in
front of your audience to show how superior you are.
What a joke! Better to argue with substance, not claims
of the grandeur of your view, because generally those
with "delusions of grandeur," have very little of
substantive value to offer. When you get done praising
yourself, perhaps you can talk "issues," and not "how great
thou art."
> > Point Five: Simply, a murderer is either capable of being
> > rehabilitated or not. If yes, then certainly, every effort
> > should be made to achieve that rehabilitation, and L wop
> > has no purpose in this rehabilitation, since why even
> > try to rehabilitate a murderer to return to society when that
> > return is impossible, by the definition of L wop.
>
> Because it will make it safer for the guards and the other
> prisonners.
That's not rehabilitation, that's pacification, and it can be
accomplished with a frontal lobotomy, if that is your desire.
>
> > I favor
> > FAITH wop (For An Indeterminate Time Hoping wop),
> > where parole may NEVER be achieved, but always remains
> > within the realm of possibility. Do I believe the DP is for
> > EVERY murderer? That is the farthest thing from my mind.
> > Do I believe a stone-cold serial killer, a pedophile killer, a
> > professional terrorist killer, a killer of 5 teenagers in a tastee-
> > freeze just to leave no witnesses, or a hired professional
> > assassin, deserves the DP? Generally, yes.
>
> I dont dispute that plenty of people *deserve* to be killed.
> Only that if we give them "what they deserve" then we become
> evil ourselves in the process.
>
I refute this 100%. Exactly how is it NOT possible to prove
we are better than those who I would wish executed? Even
if we were to have them drawn and quartered, we would be
more humane than the ones I'm talking about. It takes no
stretch of the imagination at all to envision ourselves as
positively Saints compared to those I feel should be executed.
We become evil when we say "NO MURDERER is depraved,
or worthless enough to justify execution." The fact that we
LET them live, in those cases, is EVIL personified on OUR
part, and needs to be shown to be so. We do no evil when
we eliminate the evil that I talk about, we do ourselves and
our society the greatest of favors, and that needs to be
recognized.
> > Do I
> > believe ANY other murderers deserve the DP? Generally, no.
> > Murder in passion, rage, spousal abuse, family quarrel... other
> > murders where the murderer is quite clearly not reasonably
> > assured of recidivism? Absolutely not.
>
> Actually, I think you have it the wrong way around. It is the
> ones that you wouldn't execute that are more dangerous. This
> type of killer serves a short sentence, and is then released
> to do it again. On the other hand, the serial killer, the
> terrorist, the hitman, serving 40 years- LWOP have much less
> opportunity to kill again. I dont say that the risk is zero,
> just that it is smaller than the "ordinary" killer Personally,
> I favour increaseing the lengths of all sentences for murder,
> with an absolute minimum of 10 years for all types. This would
> have a far greater impact on the recidivism rate than a few
> executions would.
>
Actually, I have it the right way around. NO POSSIBILITY of
recidivism for those most likely to do so. Punishment to fit
the crime for others. You're just supporting a "tough on
crime" approach without the aspect of the DP considered.
Do I believe in "tough on crime." You bet your life. Do I
believe in the DP for those DESERVING of the DP and
almost certain to be recidivist. You bet your life. Do I feel
that circumstances surrounding the murder ALWAYS
justify 10 years in prison. Absolutely NOT. All murders
have different aspects of circumstances, and capital
murder is often quite different from other forms of murder.
Capital murder probably always has a minimum of 10
years already (legalists may prove me wrong, so thanks
in advance), but the problem is sometimes that the
sentences are drastically shortened. And I agree this
should only occur in the most extreme circumstances.
It's difficult to criticize the judicial process in individual
cases because the information they possess is far
more extensive than what we are privy to. What is
glaring, is when they make mistakes. And when they
do, it should be clear that someone has to pay for
those mistakes, usually with the loss of the position
they hold, as puny as that punishment might be for
the consequences of those mistakes. Unfortunately,
far more often, the political process covers up the
mistakes, rather than corrects them in future cases.
> > Simply, there DO
> > exist on this planet, certain individuals who have proven by
> > past actions that they are almost absolutely certain to be
> > recidivist, and have also shown by these past actions that they
> > have no right to breathe the same air as any other member of
> > mankind. Do we need to constantly refine and examine our
> > Justice System to insure those FEW individuals are accurately
> > identified? Of course.
>
> So you plan to restrict the DP to those who you can be 100%
> certain *will* kill again. OK, I can live with that. I dont
> like it, but I can live with it. Now, please tell us your plan
> for acheiving this.
So YOUR plan is to insure that 100% will be given L wop, and
will NEVER kill again. Now, please tell us your plan for
achieving this. But I indicated my PLAN, if you would read
the sentence. Quote: Do we need to constantly refine and
examine our Justice System to insure those FEW individuals
are accurately identified? Of course. Unquote. By doing
so we will work TOWARD achieving this, as much as
humanly possible in an admittedly imperfect human Justice
System.
> > Should we throw out the baby with the
> > bathwater? Of course not.
>
> We dont use that cliché in England. I don't even know what it means.
Perhaps because the post was not directed to you. In
any case, it means what it should obviously indicate. If
you clean up the Justice System, which you quite
obviously should try to do constantly, be sure you do
not throw out the baby (the DP), with the dirty water
(the defects you wish to correct with the Justice System)
you are discarding.
A PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
> message news:diablo-3108...@theevilone.its.utas.edu.au...
> > I will remain civil as long as you do likewise. Agreed?
> Hey, if we can't laugh at ourselves, what does that say
> about us???
Oh. It was a well-intentioned _joke_. Silly me. I'm sorry, you just
didn't seem the type to have anything resembling a sense of humour.
> Anyway, QZD, you have to admit that the
> whole two line description you keep repeating without
> any changes ever, certainly gives one pause to wonder
> exactly what you're trying to say.
It's my signature file. You'll probably have heard of them. Or not.
Come now, PV, I'm not trying to say anything in my .sig file. It's a
description of my character and/or an expression of my sense of humour,
that's all. You figure it out.
> After you've been
> here awhile you'll see that none of us get much respect,
> especially me.
There's a difference between respect and civility. You don't get my
respect but I am prepared to consider being civil.
A Planet Visitor
>
> FIRST POINT
> -----------
>
> Oh dear. I was hoping that we might be able to have a civilised
> discussion. Sadly, it seems that you are just as immature and
> aggresive as you ever were, and for some reason you are
> obsessing over a debate we had more than three months ago.
>
> Now, I'm not one to brood over past arguments, and would
> prefer to move on to new subjects rather than ressurect
> such an old debate, but in this case you have made a false
> and possibly damaging accusation against me, so I will answer it
> just in case anyone believes your libel.
>
> Your claim is : " when I questioned YOU as to exactly what number of
> innocents YOU would consider suitable before YOU threw the
> has to return to Deja. com, and see my post of 5/25/00 at
> 10:11 PM to realize the stupidity of your claim, and to see
> that you NEVER responded. "
>
> did what you suggested, and looked in Deja. And you know what,
> buddy, after spending some time re-reading the thread, I cannot
> find any record of you asking this question of me. In the relevent
> thread you posted three messages addressed to me on 5/25/00.
> (Deja doesnt show thetime of posting) If you asked this question,
> (or any other), it is well hidden among the insults, the trolling
> the filibuster and the claims that you had won the argument (LOL).
>
> For anyone that can be bothered to look for themselves, here is a
deja
> link to the thread. Check PVs three messages posted on 5/25/00 and
> see if you can see any place where he asked this question.
>
> http://www.deja.com/viewthread.xp?AN=624575025&search=thread
>
>
I guess your knowledge just lost or overlooked this one. It was
the 3rd message, posted at 10:11 my time, thus the last one
in your search.
----- Original Message -----
From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Visi Coughplan makes a foolish promise.
Rather than jump all other the place, with your "unreasonable
replies," where I see you trying to squirm out of the claim
that I said "the DP law is moral," and your further claim that
1) and 2) are equivalent....
In your Trolley example... How many would have to be on one
track before the decision would be moral to change the switch?
A hundred? a thousand? Ten thousand? A million? 6 million?
Everyone but 1? Where does morality end in insanity and the
practicality of existence begin? Is there no limit to the number
which must be on the track, before the switch is morally closed?
And with your Doctor example, which is close to the Terrorist
analogy, regardless of any claim you may make otherwise,
the same applies. How many would need organs before it
would be moral? You see, your example is self-limiting... Only
so many organs are available for transplant in each innocent.
Thus if 100 organs are needed, certainly more than
1 innocent will be needed. But the trolley example is not
limited. In a moral framework, with your claim that the
Trolley Switch example is always immoral, can we compare
an infinite number of innocents against one, and say
we can't turn the switch because it's immoral? If the problems
are of the same moral dimension, as you would claim, then
regardless of the number of innocents on the track, it
remains as immoral as your Doctor example. They are not
the same, by that simple analogy. Regardless of any learned
URL, which I still regard as only having proved my conclusion
that the situations are not the same. Can you still claim they
are morally the same? Your example, using the innocent for
organ harvesting provides a limiting factor which quickly proves
its immorality. The trolley example certainly MUST reach a
limiting value, else we could say the sum total of all of humanity
on one track has no more value than one innocent on the other.
If you can find a Philosopher who would agree with that
statement, we need to take away his license to Philosophize
this instant.
Your appeals to my being in desperation are quite unfounded.
I await your answer. When does the trolley example become
moral, if ever? ....
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now I did not ask as to exactly what number of innocents
YOU would consider suitable before YOU threw the switch,
but the question at the end, remained unanswered by
you. So if you feel like that wasn't exactly the same question,
and think you can thus claim I didn't ask the exact question,
perhaps you can answer the question I did pose at the end,
which in any case, you NEVER answered.
> So to the best of my knowledge, you have never asked me this question
> before. Your accusation that I failed to answer your question is
false,
> and the implication that you made worthwhile points that I was unable
to
> answer is false and your claim that I "convieniently disappeared"
> with the implication of cowardice is likewise untrue. If you were
> honourable man, I would request an apology. But you aint, so I wont.
>
> And now, since you have asked me the question, I will answer it.
>
> My answer is in two parts. The first part addresses the issue
> in terms of law and morality. Now the law is clear on this. If
> someone kills another person, in order to save a larger number,
> then he is legallly guilty of murder.
Quite untrue, since we are being precise now, to "kill" is not to
murder in many, many cases, and is often justifiable. I would
hope that I need not elaborate on this fact.
> It does not matter if
> he saves two lives, or two million. Legally, it is murder.
I thought we were discussing moral issues 3 months ago?
And once again it is not always murder, even legally.
> But while the lives saved do not give a valid legal justification,
> they do provide some form of mitigation. Thus each life saved might
> reduce the sentence (or it might not), but no amount of lives saved
> would eliminate the crime. Morally, the situation is the same. To
> deliberately kill someone is an immoral act. If it saves lives, it
> reduces the extent of the immorality, but no amount of lives saved
> would turn it into a moral act.
What a bunch of crap. Of course, all of humanity selected for
death by not throwing the switch, regardless of who throws the
switch, is, regardless of those you believe possess some godlike
power to judge morality, about the most foul concept I, and I'm
sure EVERYONE other than you, can imagine. We are not talking
about what your view of kill, or execution, or legally committing
murder is, we are talking about MORALITY. And you would judge
the death (kill, execution, murder) of all of humanity to save one
innocent is still MORAL. Well, we'll just leave that for others to
judge. IMHO kill is valid as a self-defense measure of an individual,
execution is valid as a self-defense measure of society, and murder
is the commission of a violation of the law of murder as established
by society.
>
> The second part of my answer is about what I personally would do.
> Well, I cant give you an exact answer. I cant say anything like
> "I would do it to save six, but not for five:" that would be absurd.
> Given that I would have to bear the moral responsibility for my
> actions, as well as being willing to face the legal consequeses,
> then I would start to consider doing so to save FOUR people. I cant
> say that I *would* do it, only that I would consider doing it.
>
Don't you think your principles as to the value of human life
should cause you more concern than "you would consider what
to do" only when faced with the problem? Don't you think any
self-examination of your moral principles is necessary as you
go through life, rather then feel that you can just wing it, when the
situation arises? And I see that you now claim that moral
responsibility is connected to the number of innocents on the
unswitched track, as well it should be.
> Now that I have given my answer, it is only fair that you give
> your answer to the same question. How many people would have to
> be on the line before *you* would throw that switch. Bear in mind
> that you might be executed for doing so, however many lives you save
> in the process. In fact I would expect you to volenteer for execution
> given your opinion that "the implication of his choosing L wop
> for himself and the DP for others would be inconsistent in both
> logic and morality. "
It's quite easy for me to judge, with my PERSONAL value
system. I would switch if there were two innocents on the
unswitch track and one on the switch track. Others may
find their value system (you see it is an individual moral
value system, not some quantifiable product which can be
assigned that everyone must view similarly) demands other
values, but at some point every SANE person MUST realize
that not throwing the switch is immoral, regardless of any
consequences of the law you feel might demand us to do
otherwise. You see I value each life as having the same value.
No life is worth more than ANY other two lives, including my
own and yours, in my view. We are not God, but neither are
we not of "free will." And to not exercise the judgment that
God has given us (irrespective of what you and your
learned idiots would suggest), that 2 is greater than 1, is an
insult to our Creator. And I would rather insult you and all
the pseudo- philosophers in the world, rather than insult what
God has provided me - "Free will," and the capacity to judge
the value of a life, which should simply be the same value as
another life. Which is essentially part of the core value I use
to evaluate the DP in my own mind, as to how I view the DP
morality (not an absolute, but my view).
>
>
>
> SECOND POINT
> -------------
>
> You say "I understand the problem quite well" As a matter of fact, you
> did not, and still do not understand the point. When I first showed
you
> the article you read it, and thought it was speaking *in favour* of
> throwing that switch. I had to direct you to the conclusion, which
> explicitly speaks *against* throwing that switch.
>
> Even after I have explained the point to you several times, your
> understanding of the problem is still twisted. Lets examine the post
> ypou made a few days ago shall we. You said
>
>
> This morality problem can be proved to not hold moral nor
> logical sense, at all values. Briefly, a trolley, which
> cannot be stopped, but only switched in the tracks it follows,
> is operated only by a switching system inside the trolley, only
> controlled by the operator. The trolley approaches a switch where
> "x" number of innocents are on the unswitch side and 1 on the
> switch side, and the question is asked, "Is it moral for the operator
> to throw the switch to save "x" number of innocents, but kill 1?"
> This moral question MUST have a rather paradoxical non-answer, since
> at SOME point, the question of throwing the switch becomes a non
> sequitur. If it becomes 100 to 1, if it becomes 1000 to 1, if it
> becomes 6 million to 1, or if it becomes all of mankind to 1, sooner
> or later what was viewed as the immorality of throwing the switch
> becomes moral, logical and absolutely imperative. The exact
> number of innocents killed by NOT throwing the switch, remains
> fundamentally a problem of WHO is behind the switching system, what
> THEIR core morality concept is, and what their emotional or biological
> relationship is to the growing mass of innocents on the unswitch side.
> Everything else is philosophical claptrap.
>
> well, you are wrong on two counts.
>
> First of all, in the description of the problem, the lever is
> not pulled by the *operator*, it is pulled by another man on the
> sidings. This is not a trivial distinction.
Morally it is a trivial distinction. Both operator and siding operator
are unaffected personally by the result of their switch action. The
only effect to either of them is the decision process they make. The
switch being in the hand of the trolley operator or the siding operator
is a decision process made morally.
>It makes the situation
> radically different. In *your* version, the operator makes a decision
> which track he should steer down, track A or track B. i.e. it is a
> choice between two different actions. If another man on the sidings
> pulls a lever, then it is a choice between performing an action,
> or doing nothing. These two situations are completely different,
> with different moral and legal consequences. In the first case,
> the choice between two actions, then the driver has a legal and
> moral obligation to take the least harmful of the two options. In
> the second case, the chouice between acting or doing nothing, the
> man has the legal and moral responsibility to do nothing. This point
> is addressed in the article, if you read it.
Acting or doing nothing is different from a choice between two actions?
You said it, not me. Doing nothing is a passive action, since when in
control, the decision as to changing a course or staying a course are
decisional actions, active and passive, every bit the same as the
operator
whose two actions are the same - changing the course or staying the
course. Acting or doing nothing. I'm sorry, but it makes no difference
in an examination of the MORALITY of the decisions, if the siding
operator has control of the switch. Nor even in the legal choice he
makes, IMHO, but I will not argue this point with you since it can be
judged as opinion based. But his decisions have the same validity as
the operator of the trolley, since the trolley can make NO decisions if
the control resides at the siding. We entered this discussion if you
remember, with your claim of harvesting organs from innocents, and
the morality of such an action. We need to stay on the track of the
MORALITY of the action. In any case, if the siding operator has
sole control of the switch he would just as well then have the moral
and LEGAL responsibility of deciding the morality of throwing the
switch. With control goes responsibility, with responsibility goes
accountability. This is a philosophic examination, not the fact of
who has control of the switch, because either one can throw it,
depending upon who has the control. What if there was a warning
signal, such as a light for either track, and the signal was red for
going straight ahead and killing x number, and green for switching
to kill 1, but the switching was still manually controlled. Now I
would suppose you would claim the siding operator can now
switch with impunity to kill one, because the light has absolved
him/her of the responsibility. Yet in the absence of the light, if
he/she switched he/she would be guilty of murder. So who is
guilty of murder with the light installed? Shall we hang the light?
The manufacturer of the light?
>
> The second thing you got wrong is your claim that "it MUST have
> a rather paradoxical non-answer" This is absolutely not so.
> Thomson, who originally proposed the Trolley Problem thought it
> absolutely moral for even a small value of x. Christie, who wrote
> the article, believes that it remains immoral irrespective of the
> value of x. The law quite clearly makes it illegal, irrespective
> of the value of x. You, and you alone think that "at SOME point...
> the question becomes a non-sequitor" Nobody agrees with you.
>
Even those two can't agree... but it's not a paradox. In fact
it is a paradox, because everyone at one point or another,
whoever has control of the switch, as you say, MUST decide that
the throw of the switch is MORAL. There is no exact answer
which satisfies for all cases. Each answer is an individual
moral choice. Let me ask you this question: Do you believe
that morality is an absolute, definable quality? Do you believe
that all examples of actions which humans take can be examined
and defined precisely as either moral or immoral?? You once
claimed I had said that for the DP, which was untrue. So let
me ask you directly for your answer. For example, even in the
trivial extreme of only 5, what if one of the 5 is a family member?
Could a case be made for self-defense of an immediate danger
to the family? MORALLY, quite certainly. LEGALLY, not as
certain, but also quite debatable, as to having thrown the
switch constituting LEGAL murder.
> Even in your twisted version of the Trolley Problem, the moral
> and legal position is absolutely clear. The conclusions you
> draw are not supported in law, in logic or in morality.
Perhaps you somehow avoided this post 5 days later, which
conclusively showed my point. Rather than just rattle on and
on perhaps you would like to explain how your doctor harvesting
organs was similar in morality to the more closely connected
to the Trolley problem stated by Natsum. You somehow
avoided this post also, but maybe you'd care to answer it
now.
From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
Subject: Re: Which would YOU prefer?
Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 3:12 PM
You may derive any anagram that your little heart
desires, but it's your logic we need to address:
Once again:
Have you and your learned friends at Duke discussed the
dilemma encountered by their claim of a moral equivalency
between Natsum's 1) and your 2)?
The Trolley example just didn't seem to provide the certainty
which you previously asserted, did it?
Let me repeat: Morality is a perception in the individual mind
of everyone. What may be PERCEIVED as moral by one,
or immoral by another does not imply that the ABSOLUTE
value of morality can be determined.
I presented somewhat the same philosophy to David,
yesterday, which he already understood before I said
it, so follow closely now because this only represents a
process perhaps beyond your keen intellect:
In the Trolley example, clearly at some point we MUST
claim that to throw the switch is moral, merely because
a vast preponderance of observers recognize that not to
do so, is more destructive than doing so, most especially
if one making the observation is now on the unswitch track.
There may even exist a single person, who still does not
believe doing so would be moral, but that is clearly irrational
and the weight of those who claim it is now moral, would
prove overwhelming. Such would be the case of those with
an unreasoned opposition to the DP, on solely THEIR
PERCEPTION of morality. As to the DP in relationship to
the trolley, the morality of moving the switch is an
INDIVIDUAL viewpoint, and is dependent upon what each
individual PERCEIVES to be the point at which it becomes
moral to throw the switch, never in absolute terms. For
example, with zero persons on the track with no switching
implied, and one on the track with switching implied, it is
a no-brain decision, it is clearly immoral, but once again
there may be those individuals who would still regard
turning the switch as moral, for example, bigots and others,
who irrationally PERCEIVE that murdering that one,
because that one represents a SYMBOL they oppose,
would be moral. And as we observe this, we can quantify
the trolley example by mathematically considering the limit
of 1/x, as x approaches zero, which is defined mathematically
as infinity. Thus, regardless of those bigots, with no one on
the unswitched track and 1 on the switched track, the
immorality of switching the trolley is infinity, and could also
somewhat be compared to the commission of a murder,
which is evident as the fact of murder, without an
accompanying socially acceptable moral reason (war, clear
self-defense, whatever), is considered completely immoral.
This represents the degree of immorality PERCEIVED. Now
as the values to be determined become 1/1, with one on each
track, we have reached a level of neutrality of our
PERCEPTION of morality. Thus a neutral level would be a
value of 1, and a preponderance of observers would probably
still view switching to be immoral, but again that is only their
PERCEPTION. Now with 2 innocents on the unswitch track
and still 1 on the other track, we now have a value of ½ as
our PERCEPTION of immorality, and I sense a perceptible
swing in this perception beginning to occur. To cut to the chase,
the factor of immorality in the trolley switch example can be
mathematically stated as (the limit of 1/x as x approaches
infinity, with x > 0), since 1/0 is undefined. This is simply
your most basic logarithmic function. And this value is by
mathematical definition zero. Thus on this logarithmic curve,
the number of persons on the unswitched track increases with
no increase on the switched track, and the level of
immorality to switch descends from infinity to zero.
Now at what point does this value change from immorality
to morality? That's simply in "the eye of the beholder"
Each beholder has to make his own moral determination of that
value, as an individual perception, based on an examination of
what they consider to be pertinent to that examination. I can
pretty well assure you that when "the eye of the beholder,"
becomes one of the innocents on that unswitch track, their
PERCEPTION will change in a hurry, regardless of any
dogmatic assertion of immorality.
Now quite a different mathematical principle is apparent in
your analogy. And without getting to far astray represents
the mathematical term: NOI/NOI*NOOH, where NOI=Number
of innocents, and NOOH=Number of possible organs to harvest
in each individual). When considering 1 innocent, we have the
mathematical statement NOI/NOI*NOOH = 1/1*NOOH, or
simply 1/NOOH. Thus immorality can be PERCEIVED as
1/1*100 -- 2/2*100 -- 3/3*100. and so forth. assuming that
100 organs can be harvested from each innocent. And
no matter what anyone claims is possible to harvest from
each individual, there MUST be a physical limit to this value,
quite different from that maximum value which can be arrived
at from Natsum's example, and the trolley example. Assuming
that 100 organs can be harvested (pick any actual real integer),
and we then can once again proceed from 1/1*NOOH, where
NOOH now MUST represent a constant, constrained by the
maximum number of organs which can be harvested from one
individual. Once again, every individual PERCEIVES the
morality or immorality of this process, and proceeding from
that point we start from 1/1*1 if only one organ can be
harvested from each individual, and we increment NOOH until we
reach its maximum value. At this point, we must increment the
number of innocents and we have 2/2*NOOH, which returns us
to the original evaluation. In other words, it's immorality
determination never becomes higher than a certain value,
1/1*NOOH. I've put this in terms I hope are clear to you, but
mathematically the terms represent x/x*NOOH, as limit x
approaches infinity (Every possible innocent donor), and this
value can never exceed 1/NOOH. The constant NOOH is our
limiting factor of the number of organs possible to harvest from
one innocent. I really don't know how to make this clearer, so
if you don't understand, or you disagree (???), please explain,
otherwise, I expect an apology, and a further apology for the
claim that I ever said the implementation of the DP was Prima
Facie proof of its morality.
---------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, I Never did get the apology for that libelous
accusation that I said the implementation of the DP was
proof of its morality, either.
>
>
> THIRD POINT
> -----------
>
> Hoo boy, you really have a high opinion of yourself don't you. I can
> honestly say that I have never met anyone who is so proud, yet has
> so little to be proud of. Let us examine your claim that "Further, I
> conclusively proved that your analogy of harvesting organs from
> innocents was ridiculous in the extreme" Well, buddy, heres a good
> rule of thumb for usenet discusions - whoever declares themself to be
> the winner has lost. And, buddy, your debating tactic consisted of
> putting words in my mouth, then attacking what I never said. then
> after a load of insults, you finally declared your future intentions
>
There's the post above of 5/30/00. Unanswered and still hanging
there. If I receive no answer I can only assume YOU have retired,
because I have answered every one of your posts with a reply,
while you stated before that you felt "I really sense you're now
trying to extract yourself from an untenable logical situation."
And then quickly disappeared from the scene for over 3 months.
And I do not lean on others for my logical and moral analysis as
you would seem to do. The article in question which you
continually refer to makes clear disclaimers of the views and
opinions using the words, "I would submit..." "opinion of the
article's author..." "the proposition that it is permissible... is
highly suspect..." "I have tried to show that such a proposition is
without legal foundation and I have also tried to show why the
proposition also lacks an adequate moral foundation." Every
word in the article is opinion based, and additionally does not
support your morality premise. Try using your own words and
not falling back on the crutch of others, who can lead you
astray.
>
> AS for your belief that my recent abcence from this newsgroup is
> anything to do with you, that is absolutely ridiculous. Not that
> it's any of your business but I've been working on a major project
> at work and simply have not had time to waste on trivia. Generally
> I only post here when I have nothing better to do, which isn't
> very often. AADP may be a major part of your life, but not mine.
>
I sense you really have no life.
> A PM
> -----
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <morr...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8p0mi0$k1t$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:%%Fs5.18870$K4.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
PM Wrote:
FIRST POINT -----------
Well, buddy, I do not recall you asking me any such question. So I
did what you suggested, and looked in Deja. And you know what,
buddy, after spending some time re-reading the thread, I cannot
find any record of you asking this question of me.
PV Wrote:
Your appeals to my being in desperation are quite unfounded.
I await your answer. When does the trolley example become
moral, if ever? ....
Now I did not ask as to exactly what number of innocents
YOU would consider suitable before YOU threw the switch,
PM writes:
Precisely. You asked an entirely different question. So the
acusation you made against me was wrong. I see that you
attempt to excuse yourself, rather than admit you got it
wrong. Like I said, you dont
PV wrote:
but the question at the end, remained unanswered by
you.
PM writes:
So what? Look, your posts are always long and rambling.
If I were to answer every single point in every single post
I'd be here till doomsday. Also, when you become abusive, I
stop reading. Just because I failed to answer one little remark
in one post doesn't prove anything at all.
PV writes:
You really failed to address ANY of the points I raised in my
post, except the fact that I didn't ask exactly the question as
posed, so you felt that was sufficient to wiggle out of answering
the question at all. Point of fact - you now admit that you didn't
answer the question directly, with your reply now of "So What?"
And then in the next breath you say "bullshit," that you have
answered it several times already. Which is it? My posts are
long because I have to keep repeating the points to you, so
OTHERS will understand how hypocritical your understanding
of the morality of the Trolley Problem is. I don't really care if
YOU understand - just that others see it for what it is. You've
already said that you have not had time to waste on trivia,
so this newsgroup represents trivia to you. And you generally
only post here when you have nothing better to do, which you
claim isn't very often. And AADP may be a major part of my life,
but not your. It obviously just a hobby with you, and you have
no real interest in the subject, with little time to address the
subject. Consequently, you're the troll. And a disruptive little
troll at that, with no real humor or logic to sustain you. You go
for 3 months, come back and claim that every response to
your hysterically humorous logic was mysteriously overlooked,
from 25 May on. But you seem to have noticed my farewell
note on 6 June well enough to mention it in your first note when
you returned to post. And it's now obvious to me, that you
pick and choose points where you THINK you have some wiggle
room, while ignoring all other obvious proofs of the ridiculous
concepts you hold regarding the Trolley Problem and the
inherent morality issues attendant with the problem.
PV wrote:
So if you feel like that wasn't exactly the same question,
and think you can thus claim I didn't ask the exact question,
perhaps you can answer the question I did pose at the end,
which in any case, you NEVER answered.
PM writes:
Bullshit. Its been answered several times already. In my opinion,
it NEVER becomes moral, and under the law it NEVER becomes
legal to throw that switch. Get the point yet?
PV writes:
Of course, first it was "So What," and now it's "Bullshit." What a
jerk. Anyway, now we know! If 6 million innocents were on the
unswitch track and Hitler was on the switch track, you'd choose
to stand idly by, and passively take no action, because you believe
it would "NEVER become MORAL," and you are certainly afraid
that it would "NEVER become LEGAL." Welcome to the Third
Reich. I believe the Germans of that time had a saying -- "Es
ist nicht meine schuld." This should satisfy YOUR moral
responsibility to those 6 million. It means "It's not my fault."
And since it NEVER becomes moral or legal, ALL of mankind
can go down the tube for all you care, as long as your Morality
is satisfied, and you no longer need to fear breaking a law.
And you seem to be falling back more and more on the claim
that legality should be more important that morality. Is every
law moral? Trick question (the DP??), so take your time.
IMHO, morality cannot be absolutely quantified as an equally
consistent value of every member of mankind. Do you
believe it can? IMHO, morality is what WE believe that morality
to be, and we can make no claim to having any better ability to
determine that morality than any other. It's absolute arrogance
to claim otherwise, in my opinion. And that's one of the reasons
I hold your honorable Duke philosophers in such disgust. Who
are they to have the supreme arrogance to claim they have the
knowledge to tell all of mankind what constitutes morality? Is
the Muslim moral because they hack off the hand of a thief?
Do we have the right to say they are not?
Now, should we obey a law that is immoral in our mind, which
will result in events which we see as being immoral by our
"passive" or "active" response, considering ONLY the legal
consequences of our actions?? Doesn't doing so make us
immoral ourselves??? Lots of questions here, and lots to
follow, but you can always claim you didn't see them, or that
you don't have time to read and reply. But answers to 1
out of 10 might be nice. I, on the other hand, welcome your
questions and will provide my answers in the form of my
opinions (since, unlike you, that's all I have to offer) if
requested.
PM wrote:
My answer is in two parts. The first part addresses the issue
in terms of law and morality. Now the law is clear on this. If
someone kills another person, in order to save a larger number,
then he is legallly guilty of murder.
PV wrote:
Quite untrue, since we are being precise now, to "kill" is not to
murder in many, many cases, and is often justifiable. I would
hope that I need not elaborate on this fact.
PM writes:
Maybe you should go and read that artyicle again. It is an
article about a point of LAW, written by a LAWYER and
published in a LAW journal. It discusses specific LEGAL
precedents, real life cases of people who killed one
person to save a larger number. In every single case they
were held to be guilty of murder. Some were even
sentenced to death.
PV writes:
I guess I do need to elaborate, since you just don't seem
to get it. There are the words "Kill," "Execute," and
"Murder." Read what you wrote above, since you
seem to demand precision or else can claim you don't
need to answer. You wrote "...KILLED (emphasis
mine) one person....in EVERY SINGLE CASE (emphasis
mine again) they were held to be guilty of MURDER.
Have you ever really read what YOU wrote? Have you
ever heard of self-defense? Have you ever heard of
a person who defended their self and their family with
deadly force in response to imminent, and certain
danger?? Is that MURDER???
IMHO: "Kill" is valid as a self-defense measure of an
individual, an action by a police member in a clear
case of saving innocent lives (for example a sniper
killing a hostage taker), in wartime military actions
and other similar cases. "Execution" is valid as a
self-defense measure of society. And "murder" is
valid as the commission of a violation of the law of
murder as established by society. Can you try and
use the words correctly or explain what you believe
the definitions of those three words are, please?
PM writes:
maybe it isn't immoral, according to your own personal concept
of morality. Thats your opinion, and your right to think that. But
when you declare that its not murder, you really are talking
through your arse.
PV writes:
I declare that "killing" in self-defense is not MURDER.
You've just said otherwise. I leave it for others to judge who is
talking through their "arse."
And you just made my point for me. You say morality is a
personal concept. Thus the morality of the Trolley Problem
is a personal concept of how many innocents constitute the
view of the problem as changing from moral to immoral, by
"passive" action to the switch. Your personal concept is
that it never becomes moral, as you stated some time above,
right after your use of the word "bullshit." Rather appropriate
I think. But, you certainly can't claim that to be an absolute
answer to the morality question, by everyone, since you just
stated it to be a personal concept. Just the fact that I do
not believe an absolute answer to the morality of the Trolley
Problem exists, disproves the claim that everyone does.
So, all that being said, let me ask you these two questions
in the most simple terms I can muster: (1) Do you believe that
morality is an absolute, definable quality? (2) Do you believe
that all examples of actions which humans take can be examined
and defined precisely as either moral or immoral?? You once
claimed I had said that for the DP, which was untrue. So let
me ask you directly for your answer. Just leave this
paragraph in and simply answer "yes," or "no" to the two
questions, either with or without any explanation you might
care to offer behind your answers. I really wanted to make
these choices as easy as possible for you, because I realize
you're operating under time constraints with your other
hobbies.
PM wrote:
Now that I have given my answer, it is only fair that you give
your answer to the same question. How many people would have to
be on the line before *you* would throw that switch.
PV wrote:
It's quite easy for me to judge, with my PERSONAL value
system. I would switch if there were two innocents on the
unswitch track and one on the switch track.
PM writes:
So you would be willing to sacrifice one person to save two.
Thats clear enough. But of course, you would be sacrificing
yourself too, since you would be guilty of murder. So in
actual fact you would be sacrificing two to save two.
PV writes:
The threat to two is immediate and deadly. The threat to
myself is not a moral threat, but the legal threat you would
presuppose I would place myself in should I make the choice,
which to me is quite obviously moral. It all cases I would
choose to save 2 for 1, and do all in my power to evade the
possibility of the legal threat to myself. Thus the moral
choice is 2 for 1, and the legal choice is 2 greater than or
equal to limit "x" as "x" approaches 2. My moral choice of
switching can NEVER create a greater loss of life than not
switching. It may be equal in the most extreme case,
where I am EVENTUALLY caught, tried, convicted,
sentenced to the DP, and executed. But in the immediate
instance it is certainly true that 2 > 1. This belief
(naturally IMHO), does not follow from the principles I
believe for the commission of any crime OTHER than
murder. I firmly believe in the concept of 10 guilty free
to prevent 1 innocent found guilty. But I cannot weigh
innocents against anything other than other innocents,
and they all have the same weight in my moral beliefs.
PM writes:
BTW, you are willing to kill one to save two in the
trolley example, but not in the organ donor example.
Why not? Whats the difference?
PV writes:
The difference is that God has determined the need
for organs by those afflicted with His rules of our
existence. When we place "x" number of innocents
on a track and "y" number of innocents on another
track, we examine the morality of the "passive"
or "active" response we must take to avoid immediate
and deadly danger to the larger number of innocents,
if possible. The need for organs is the same as if
God had placed the innocents on the track after the
trolley had already passed the switch, taking the
decision out of the hands of the operator. When
God determines that organs are necessary for survival,
that is not a moral decision we can make to "actively"
execute an innocent to save some number of innocents.
Further, the threat to those needing organ transplants is
not immediate and deadly, nor was the need created by
man himself. The placement on the tracks in whatever
arrangement you might conceive was the act of
someone placing them there, other than God. Certainly,
the "passive" harvesting of organs is moral, but even then,
legally, without the consent of the deceased, barriers
are raised to harvesting those organs without permission.
Now you may hope to grasp the "passive" and "active"
words I use here to claim they are the same with the
switch, but this is not the case. Death of those needing
organs is not immediate. Health professionals work
to provide other solutions to the problems attendant
to organ needs. The "organ need" problem can be
compared to the Trolley Problem, only if we say that the
trolley is some distance from the switch, and we still
have the opportunity to warn the innocents of the
approaching trolley, just as with the need for organs
perhaps being solved through other means. And
obviously in this case, the "passive" response of NOT
trying to notify the innocents would be immoral,
rather than the morality you would claim is attached
to all "passive" responses to the switching problem.
In addition, the organ transplant problem has the
most grievous fault in that it has an obvious limiting
factor of immorality built into it. That is that the
number of organs which can be harvested from any
one innocent is a finite number, while the trolley
problem does not have this mathematical limitation and
can range from 0 innocents to infinite innocents on
the unswitched track, a different morality problem
completely. Let me ask you another question now -
Do you still believe that Natsum's Analogy and your
Analogy were the same?? That's the part you clipped
from my post, which you failed to address, and which
I showed was false. Do you still claim they were
equivalent in morality, which in fact is the thrust of
this argument? Let me also say, that IF an infinite
number of organs could be harvested from 1
innocent, I've lived enough to guarantee you, that
I would be first in line to offer my infinite number of
organs to save those infinite number of innocents
needing organs. And I am an on-record organ donor
already.
PV Continues:
PM's SECOND AND THIRD POINTS ---------------
Conveniently missing.
PV ends:
Gentle Readers: Be not afraid. Peter will never have
sufficient intelligence to ever be placed in a position
where he has control of any switch having anything
more to do than turn off a light. We are secure in
our beds with this knowledge. Good night, and
Sleep tight.
A PV
Peter Morris
have raised. Only the bullshit has been cut out.
A Planet Visitor
> I hereby include a response every single intelligent point you
> have raised. Only the bullshit has been cut out.
>
>
of how you feel your response constitutes any form of
victory on your part, no response other than what you
now provide, would seem to prove otherwise. As usual, your
logic stinks even in your few short words. Perhaps you
should consider another 3 month sabbatical.
A PV
Peter Morris
>
> "Peter Morris" <morr...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:8p2e8g$qr3$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...
> > I hereby include a response every single intelligent point you
> > have raised. Only the bullshit has been cut out.
> >
> >
> As I've said before, that is for others to decide.
Actually, what you have said before is "I have conclusively
proved" yadda yadda yadda.
Traditional usenet wisdom suggests that people who declare
themselves to be the winner have lost.
> Regardless
> of how you feel your response constitutes any form of
> victory on your part, no response other than what you
> now provide, would seem to prove otherwise.
I see no point at all in reponding to your abuse. I didn't
even read beyond the point where you compared me
to a Nazi.
>As usual, your
> logic stinks even in your few short words.
And there you go again, breaking your own rule.
as you said just a few words before "that is for
others to decide."
Oh no, here comes another of your long posts
where you try to explain that what you wrote
doesn't mean what it actually says.
> Perhaps you
> should consider another 3 month sabbatical.
>
> A PV
Just so you know, I'm thinking of taking a holiday
soon. I''m thinking, maybe Las Vegas, or
possibly India. After that, I'll probably be back
at work, with several major new contracts on the
horizon. So if I'm not here, you needn't go telling
everyone you're responsible for my absence,
like you did last time.
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> Just so you know, I'm thinking of taking a holiday
> soon. I''m thinking, maybe Las Vegas, or
> possibly India.
Go for India. Definitely. Without doubt. The food is awesome. The
people are wonderful (the women aren't bad either ... oops, here comes
the missus ...). Only the heat and the mosquitoes spoil things.
> After that, I'll probably be back
> at work, with several major new contracts on the
> horizon. So if I'm not here, you needn't go telling
> everyone you're responsible for my absence,
> like you did last time.
LOL ... he did that ? Now ... who else does that remind me of ..?
--
**********************************************************************
* Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris *
* dcou...@vdp.fr http://www.forumdesimages.net/ (01) 44.76.62.29 *
* PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr *
**********************************************************************
A Planet Visitor
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:Qe8t5.25824$C42.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Peter Morris" <morr...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > news:8p2e8g$qr3$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...
> > > I hereby include a response every single intelligent point you
> > > have raised. Only the bullshit has been cut out.
> > >
> > >
> > As I've said before, that is for others to decide.
>
> Actually, what you have said before is "I have conclusively
> proved" yadda yadda yadda.
>
And actually what you have said before is a repeat of what
you believe represents profound thoughts of others, without
an ORIGINAL thought emerging from your brain.
IMHO, every word you have written has been refuted by me
and unanswered by you. So there... wou wee widdle baby,
wou!!! If you can't stand the heat of confrontational argument
than stay out of the kitchen, is my advise.
> Traditional usenet wisdom suggests that people who declare
> themselves to be the winner have lost.
Traditional wisdom of any kind suggests that people who
claim they don't have time to respond, or consider the
response unnecessary, do, in fact, not HAVE a response.
If you can't "convince" them, then "confuse," or even
better, "ignore" them, and claim that because they have
won, they have actually lost. You see two simple "yes"
or "no" answers concerning two key elements of our
argument remain unanswered by you. To repeat: (1) Do
you believe that morality is an absolute, definable quality?
(2) Do you believe that all examples of actions which
humans take can be examined and defined precisely as
either moral or immoral?? Now, you've said that morality
is what you and your infamous URL say they are, but on
the other hand you've said this morality remains a "personal
concept." If you can't see the hypocrisy and the paradox of
those conflicting statements, each of which you have
expressed as VALID, then I'm not angry with you, I
pity you for your lack of understanding of the entire
MEANING of morality.
>
>
> > Regardless
> > of how you feel your response constitutes any form of
> > victory on your part, no response other than what you
> > now provide, would seem to prove otherwise.
>
> I see no point at all in reponding to your abuse. I didn't
> even read beyond the point where you compared me
> to a Nazi.
>
In truth, the comparison was kind, since you would not
only trade 6 million to maintain your view of morality,
and insure that you violated no law, whether moral
or immoral. You would trade ALL of mankind, save
yourself, to avoid making a decision, and in effect,
just stand by and watch it happen. I believe "In my
opinion, it NEVER becomes moral," were the words
YOU used to describe YOUR opinion. Is this a true
or false claim on my part? Do you deny making that
statement?
> >As usual, your
> > logic stinks even in your few short words.
>
> And there you go again, breaking your own rule.
> as you said just a few words before "that is for
> others to decide."
>
You're right. One of the few times I neglected to
say IMHO, in the entire post, and you managed to
extract that from the post, without answering one
other point. Okay... Sorry.... I apologize...
In issuing my correction let me restate my view
as: "IMHO, as usual your logic stinks, and yes, the
truth of that statement is for others to decide."
Happy, now??? Of course, IMHO, your
morality also has a distinctive odor.
> Oh no, here comes another of your long posts
> where you try to explain that what you wrote
> doesn't mean what it actually says.
>
>
You've said the Trolley Problem NEVER becomes
moral. Say it again, please. I know you have already
said it, but I really need to hear it again, because I
find it incredulous to the point of humor, for anyone
to claim that, and I've almost quit laughing from the
first time you said it. Now this is a quite short and
quite reasonable request, IMHO, since you have
already made the statement.
> > Perhaps you
> > should consider another 3 month sabbatical.
> >
> > A PV
>
> Just so you know, I'm thinking of taking a holiday
> soon. I''m thinking, maybe Las Vegas, or
> possibly India. After that, I'll probably be back
> at work, with several major new contracts on the
> horizon. So if I'm not here, you needn't go telling
> everyone you're responsible for my absence,
> like you did last time.
>
So... I'm claiming responsibility for your disappearance
again. Prove otherwise... since you claim that a visit to
a URL provides proof of your morality, without any
further justification or thought on your part... I can
claim responsibility for your departure.
Perhaps, you should do us all a big favor, and just
disappear completely. It would probably be for the
best, unless you have something more substantial
than the claim that a "passive" action is moral for
ALL values of innocent lives which would be
extinguished, for the sake of 1 innocent life saved,
rather than the "active," and to your mind, immoral
decision to extinguish only the life of that one
innocent, to save the lives of any number of
innocents we can imagine. But, Gee... isn't
that the decision we make every time we
administer vaccines? Don't we KNOW that
a certain mortality rate is a factual occurrence,
but accept that rate for the greater good the
vaccine accomplishes? So perhaps the
physician who administered the vaccine which
caused a fatal reaction to anyone, should be
punished for the crime of murder, and maybe
receive the DP??
Gentle readers: Thank you for your time and
perseverance in this most difficult period of the
reappearance of Peter Morris. He has assured us
that his departure is imminent, so once again, we
may all rest easy in the thought that he IS NOT in
control of the trolley switch, nor any other switch
of consequence to our survival.
A PV
Who is angry and sarcastic as usual, over hypocrisy,
and not the fact that someone opposes the DP, which
certainly can represent a true moral decision, if one
feels so inclined through their own "personal
concept," (as Peter for once, observed rightly),
and NOT as a result of a hypocritical argument
from lawyers turned pseudo-philosophers who,
by definition, have very little understanding of the
term morality, while thinking they do, simply by
virtue of their having passed the bar exam <please!
just a lame joke, and said with a large grin to all
lawyers present, and still here in this thread>.
John Rennie
>
> "Peter Morris" <morr...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:8p36gb$t66$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...
I think you are both off your er. . .trolley!
Stop trying to get in the last word, both of you.
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8ragvc....@lievre.voute.net...
snip, snip..
> people are wonderful (the women aren't bad either ... oops, here comes
> the missus ...).
Are those hooves I hear in the distance?
> > at work, with several major new contracts on the
> > horizon. So if I'm not here, you needn't go telling
> > everyone you're responsible for my absence,
> > like you did last time.
>
> LOL ... he did that ? Now ... who else does that remind me of ..?
>
Well, gentle readers, see... he started it!!
A PV
A Planet Visitor
allow all kinds of patter between you and Dave Proctor and
St. George and some others (you know who you are), talking
about coxsmen (a quite different meaning in US English), and
batsmen (also different), and bowlers (also different), and
warm beer (also different), and how sweet and dimpled that
Queen looks (also different), etc. without making a fuss.
I'm just having fun with Peter, because he is so easy to disprove.
Why deny an old man a little pleasure in life??
A PV
Richard Jackson
=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>
> Richard Jackson schrieb:
>
> > In article <39AECE84...@t-online.de>,
> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard Jackson schrieb:
> > >
> > > > In article <39AE808F...@t-online.de>,
> > > > =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > A Question Jurgen. If a man murderers someone, is found guilty,
and
> > > > sentenced to death,m whose fault is it that he is in that
position
> > in
> > > > the first place?
> > >
> > > A question back: Has your question anything to do with shrugging
> > shoulders
> > > of antis at heinous crimes ?
> > >
> >
> > Nope. My question has to do with who is at fault here. Who
committs
> > the crime which sets this whole thing in motion. I'm just wanting
to
> > know if you acknowledge that the murderer is the one breaking the
law
> > in the first place.
> >
>
offender,
> so this question is without meaning. No crime, no punishment. We’re
talking
> on AADP about the KIND of punishment, the SENSE of punishment, about
Faith,
> Fairness, Humanity, Justice, Revenge, Gut Feelings, Pity, Pardon,
Grace,
> Remorse, Forgiveness, about what is our right to inflict as a penalty,
all
> that AS THE CONSEQUENCE of any crime.
> The claim implying in your question: ‚The murderer has to bear also
the
> consequence of his family’s grief and pain, ‘cause he induced the
whole
> process‘ therefore misses the aim and essence of whole the argument.
Crimes
> happen and will ever, humans become and will become guilty, and
partial of
> terriblest crimes. The society has at best indirect impact on the
crimes
> (gun control etc.), but it has direct impact on the penalties.
> I find it extreme to hide behind human made and changeable laws by
this your
> question. You try to sell me you hadn’t any choice or responsibility
of/for
> the DP and the therefore caused suffering. This is again a
> pilatean-hand-washing. It comes down to your (voter’s) choice to vote
for a
> humane punishment, avoiding murderer’s families’s pain and fulfilling
> nevertheless the purpose to protect society.
> Yep, the murderer is the one breaking the law. He’s responsible for
actions
> vs him therefore. He’s NOT responsible for the general humanity of
criminal
> law, i.e. for for instant LWOP instead of the DP. That are you (the
voter),
> and that are you in THE FIRST PLACE.
>
> Jürgen
>
> <snip>
>
The criminal is responsible for his general humanity or lack thereof.
Had he not committed the crime, he wouldn't be in the fix he is in to
begin with. Besides, death penalty or not, how do you think the family
of a murderer feel about him killing someone? What do you think it
would be like to have a Dahmler for a son, or a John Wayne Gacey?
> >
> >
> > Jurgen, that is the way I feel. If you can't accept that, that's
your
> > problem, not mine. I have no compassion for a murderer, a rapist,
or a
> > pedophile. I've seen the results of their crimes enough to know
what
> > they are. If you want to continue to make this assessment, you need
to
> > come to the US and spend some serious time in inner city
environments
> > with the homocide units, criminal investigators, emergency rooms
like
> > Ben Taub in Houston, and in the county morgue. You need to push a
> > fourteen year old's lungs back in and hold them while a mortitian
sews
> > up the wounds that killed him from a shotgun. You need to hold a
good
> > friend who has half his head shot away by a crackhead. You need to
see
> > the way these animals are when they aren't locked up in a prison and
> > then make up your mind if you still take the same stance.
>
> You shouldn't assume Germany to be the paradise. Here are happening as
> appalling crimes as in the US, however, a lesser number.
>
Yes, a much lesser number. You need to seee for yourself the type o
fproblem we are facing and why we react to it as we do.
> >
> >
> > It is real easy to sit half a world away and make lofty judgements,
> > Jurgen. Get in the place where it is happening and live a while.
Let's
> > see how liberal you are when someone you love is murdered.
>
> I don't know whether you've read my and Beverly's conversation. There
I
> wrote clearly that if you're direct involved - for instant as a
victim's
> related - your stance almost even CAN'T be a neutral one.
>
> Jürgen
>
>
And neither should it be.
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <1Xbt5.26139$C42.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
A PV
====================================================
You are all a bunch of bloody...... <Jigsaw checks his notes, past messages and
searchs his memory>..... yankers....er....bankers.....ah...
.... clankers.....no...wait...I got it.. <beaming proudly at his command of
the English language > ...wankers.... yea..you are all wankers.
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb:
>
<snip>
> > <snip>
> >
>
> The criminal is responsible for his general humanity or lack thereof.
> Had he not committed the crime, he wouldn't be in the fix he is in to
> begin with.
Yep, the criminal is responsible for just his own loss of humanity. But like
the criminal anyone else is responsible for his personal humanity, and the
conclusion: ‚This human has lost his humanity and therefore disburdened me
of my personal one vs him‘ I will never make and never agree with.
> Besides, death penalty or not, how do you think the family
> of a murderer feel about him killing someone? What do you think it
> would be like to have a Dahmler for a son, or a John Wayne Gacey?
It would be awful. If my son had murdered, I’d be ashamed for my life and I
have no clue whether I had the guts to face victim’s family and to do
whatever to apologize or whether I would hide and try silently to forget. If
actually I had to recognize my child as a beast I would wish his life-long
stay in prison, I’d make my visits and would try to find out what happened,
not the trial recorded facts but within the soul of my child.
OK, you have a large number of murders. How many ARE acts of recidivism,
actually ? Obviously deterrence doesn’t work, thus you could avoid only the
recidivism murders by DP, and I believe the repeat offenses as a ludicrous
number. If the high murder rates – and I believe so – are created by high
and out of society’s pool regenerating murderer rates then DP is useless.
The origin problems lie in society’s structures, and the solution(s) to
proceed to a lesser murderous community are far different from killing 50
persons per year.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > It is real easy to sit half a world away and make lofty judgements,
> > > Jurgen. Get in the place where it is happening and live a while.
> Let's
> > > see how liberal you are when someone you love is murdered.
> >
> > I don't know whether you've read my and Beverly's conversation. There
> I
> > wrote clearly that if you're direct involved - for instant as a
> victim's
> > related - your stance almost even CAN'T be a neutral one.
> >
> > Jürgen
> >
> >
>
> And neither should it be.
Hm. It does exist no love without the implying possibility of hate, no black
without the implying possibility of white, ... <continue> ... of course. As
I wrote in a recent (not answered) post to Sir Dudley Sharp, emotions make
humans different from robots, and I will hold the mine tight and do respect
to them. Note: Therefore I’m not a hypocrite. My personal gut feelings may
disagree with my brain, my heart with my consciousness occasionally, and I’m
aware of the dark side of the moon. But the stance how to deal with any
peer, and be it the worst one, is clear. I’m not the one deciding over his
life and his deathly fear. I’m not his judge.
Regards
Jürgen
Peter Morris
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie.2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:8p3ga8$tne$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
Aw, Sir, he started it, Sir.
Richard Jackson
What?
> > Besides, death penalty or not, how do you think the family
> > of a murderer feel about him killing someone? What do you think it
> > would be like to have a Dahmler for a son, or a John Wayne Gacey?
>
> It would be awful. If my son had murdered, I’d be ashamed for my life
and I
> have no clue whether I had the guts to face victim’s family and to do
> whatever to apologize or whether I would hide and try silently to
forget. If
> actually I had to recognize my child as a beast I would wish his
life-long
> stay in prison, I’d make my visits and would try to find out what
happened,
> not the trial recorded facts but within the soul of my child.
>
I don't know if that would do any good. As a perent, I can tell you
that we all can only do the best we know how. After one has done
something so wrong, it is too late to correct it. Besides, sometimes
despite the best efforts of a parent, children do things horribly
wrong.
I have been fortunate to have two fine sons who would be horrified to
break the law, more expecially kill someone in cold blood. It could
just as easily been otherwise.
Not as many as you would suppose since most murderers are at
least sent to long terms. In cases where they have not been
incarcerated for longer terms or have been released earlier,
the recividity rate runs from 1% to 3% by some measurement and
as high as 6% by others. One innocent person dying is too
many, either in the death chamber or at the hands of a released
murderer.
Obviously deterrence doesn’t work, thus you could avoid
only the
> recidivism murders by DP, and I believe the repeat offenses as a
ludicrous
> number.
Since I do not promote the use of the death penalty as a deterrent to
prevent crime (deterrence means to me that it would stop someone from
murdereing who otherwise would) the above has little meaning for me
either. I believe in the use of the dp to prevent a murderer from
killing again, and because I believ it it right that a murderer should
pay for taking another's life with his or her own life.
If the high murder rates – and I believe so – are created by
high
> and out of society’s pool regenerating murderer rates then DP is
useless.
> The origin problems lie in society’s structures, and the solution(s)
to
> proceed to a lesser murderous community are far different from killing
50
> persons per year.
>
I agree that the major problem lays within societal and environmental
causes. (environment such as the persons personal home environment).
If we can address the needs of people, we can do much to lessen the
crime rate. If we meet people's needs, then the only ones who would
commit crimes are the ones who are incorrigible. Them, I would have no
mercy on what-so-ever.
By that statement, I just meant that someone personally touched by crime
should have feelings about it. We are human, after all, and do feel.
In the case of some here, the feelings they have toward murderers are
natural and understandable. That is neither a judgment if such feelings
are right or wrong, just that they should feel something.
Odagnop
Richard Jackson wrote:
<snip>
> Since I do not promote the use of the death penalty as a deterrent to
> prevent crime (deterrence means to me that it would stop someone from
> murdereing who otherwise would) the above has little meaning for me
> either. I believe in the use of the dp to prevent a murderer from
> killing again, and because I believ it it right that a murderer should
> pay for taking another's life with his or her own life.
Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that Jackson's beliefs have
nothing to do with all the statistical data, which indicates that "death
penalty qualified" defendants who for one reason or another escape execution
are far *less* likely to kill in the future than those, for example, who are
imprisoned for nonhomicidal violent crimes.
But even being that generous, it is still "there he goes again!"
If Jackson *truly* believes that all murderers should pay with their own
lives, then logically he asserts anyone convicted of second-degree murder
should be likewise executed, since that is after all *still* murder. This,
of course, eliminates both the distinction between first-degree murder with
"special circumstances" and the overwhelming majority of all other first and
second-degree murders in the US, thereby rolling back the clock about two
hundred years here.
Indeed. Would Jackson entertain the "literacy exception" that Great
Britain recognized for so many of its death penalty offenses in its
bloodthirsty heyday? Or conversely, let's assume arguendo that allegations
against the Firestone Corporation are true, i.e., that it continued to
manufacture tires long after it had reasonable notice that they were killing
and injuring people. Should the responsibles be executed *because* they are
literate? Quo vadis, Jacksonus? Because Jackson *has* to go one way or the
other on that, otherwise what he believes doesn't even get out of
rationality's starting blocks, and what he professes is of no relevance
whatsoever to the world everyone else shares. If what he believes was
implemented, it would make the US seem as to the "People's Paradise" of
China what Texas is now to Florida in the rate of government serial
killings. Just because Texas prides itself on being "number one" in the US
in this regard doesn't mean the US should be globally "number one."
Get with it, Jackson!
webCOMBO - America's Free Internet Access Provider
http://www.webcombo.net
Richard Jackson
Odagnop <wate...@payit.com> wrote:
>
>
> Richard Jackson wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Since I do not promote the use of the death penalty as a deterrent
to
> > prevent crime (deterrence means to me that it would stop someone
from
> > murdereing who otherwise would) the above has little meaning for me
> > either. I believe in the use of the dp to prevent a murderer from
> > killing again, and because I believ it it right that a murderer
should
> > pay for taking another's life with his or her own life.
>
> Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that Jackson's beliefs have
> nothing to do with all the statistical data, which indicates that
"death
> penalty qualified" defendants who for one reason or another escape
execution
> are far *less* likely to kill in the future than those, for example,
who are
> imprisoned for nonhomicidal violent crimes.
So? I simply believe what I wrote. Of course, what I wrote about
applied to capital murders, not manslaughter, etc. But then,
typically,, you wish to twist that.
No one forces you to read or respond to my posts if you don't like the
message Odie.
BTW. My given name is Richard. My friends call me Richard or Dick.
You can continue to call me Jackson.
Mitchell Holman
}<snip>
}
}> Since I do not promote the use of the death penalty as a deterrent to
}> prevent crime (deterrence means to me that it would stop someone from
}> murdereing who otherwise would) the above has little meaning for me
}> either. I believe in the use of the dp to prevent a murderer from
}> killing again, and because I believ it it right that a murderer should
}> pay for taking another's life with his or her own life.
}
} Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that Jackson's beliefs have
}nothing to do with all the statistical data, which indicates that "death
}penalty qualified" defendants who for one reason or another escape execution
}are far *less* likely to kill in the future than those, for example, who are
}imprisoned for nonhomicidal violent crimes.
This is just the problem I have with Jackson's posts: He
maintains a position that directly contrary to all published
proof on it, and explains the contradiction with "well, that is
my opinion". It is like trying to argue biology with a creationist -
no amount of proof is going to change their opinion.
} But even being that generous, it is still "there he goes again!"
} If Jackson *truly* believes that all murderers should pay with their own
}lives, then logically he asserts anyone convicted of second-degree murder
}should be likewise executed, since that is after all *still* murder. This,
}of course, eliminates both the distinction between first-degree murder with
}"special circumstances" and the overwhelming majority of all other first and
}second-degree murders in the US, thereby rolling back the clock about two
}hundred years here.
Even Sharp - when you can pin him down on it - will admit
that not all murderers deserve to be executed. Of course, he then
resumes lumping them all together in his tirade about "executed
murderers do no harm". Perhaps Jackson could be more specific
about which murderers he wants executed and why.
John Rennie
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p6kvq$r95$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> BTW. My given name is Richard. My friends call me Richard or Dick.
> You can continue to call me Jackson.
>
> --
> Richard Jackson
>
>
>
one's surname.
Dave Ayotte
Hi Rev,
when exactly are you going explain your
flawed idea that anti-DPers are murder
lovers?
Considering that many anti-DPers believe
that executioners are murderers . . . don't
you that many anti-DPers would love
executioners?
>>>Dave>>>amyst...@uswest.net<<<<<
>>>>www.AmyStrange.com/forensics.html<<
> join Amy Strange in her journey
> into the world of the Unexplained:
>>>>>>>>>www.AmyStrange.com<<<<<<<<<<
P.S. at no cost and advertisement free
Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <39B3DE95...@home.com>...
>
>
>Jürgen wrote:
>> Richard Jackson wrote:
>> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> > > Richard Jackson wrote:
>> > > > =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= <k.j.h...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> > > > A Question Jurgen. If a man murderers someone, is found guilty,
and
>> > > > sentenced to death,m whose fault is it that he is in that position
>> > in
>> > > > the first place?
>> > >
>> > > A question back: Has your question anything to do with shrugging
>> > shoulders
>> > > of antis at heinous crimes ?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Nope. My question has to do with who is at fault here. Who committs
>> > the crime which sets this whole thing in motion. I'm just wanting to
>> > know if you acknowledge that the murderer is the one breaking the law
>> > in the first place.
>> >
>>
> No Jurgen, it is the proven murderer who is responsible for all
>that follows from his choice to murder. Any suffering that his
>family goes through is throughly on his head.
>
> Happy to have cleared things up for you,
> Don
>
>
>--
>********************** You a bounty hunter?
>* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
>* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
>********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
>http://members.home.net/oldno7
Richard Jackson
<828B381674F0F77A.B4E1564A...@lp.airnews.net>,
Damn, Mitchell. I think you are finally starting to realize a truth
here. When you are speaking of root values, it is doggone hard to get
someone to change.
> } But even being that generous, it is still "there he goes again!"
> } If Jackson *truly* believes that all murderers should pay with
their own
> }lives, then logically he asserts anyone convicted of second-degree
murder
> }should be likewise executed, since that is after all *still* murder.
This,
> }of course, eliminates both the distinction between first-degree
murder with
> }"special circumstances" and the overwhelming majority of all other
first and
> }second-degree murders in the US, thereby rolling back the clock about
two
> }hundred years here.
>
> Even Sharp - when you can pin him down on it - will admit
> that not all murderers deserve to be executed. Of course, he then
> resumes lumping them all together in his tirade about "executed
> murderers do no harm". Perhaps Jackson could be more specific
> about which murderers he wants executed and why.
>
>
You are correct, Holman. I should have ben more specific in indicating
that I was speaking of murders which fit within the general paramaters
of first degree murder. I would not fit vehicular homocide,
manslaughter, etc. into the same category.
Of course, I am pretty sure both you and Odie know this, but he saw an
opportunity to attack something and took it. That's OK, it gives him
something to do and keeps him from molesting something or someone else.
Richard Jackson
Intimates here usually call each other by their given name or nickname.
Calling someone by their surname is considered a mark of disrespect
unless it is preceeded by a courtesy title, in which event it is a
matter of great respect. I have former students whose children I teach
today still addressing me as Mr. Jackson despite my best efforts
otherwise.
Odie, though, can continue to call me just plain Jackson. Suits the
hell out of me.
Rev. Don Kool
Dave Ayotte wrote:
> Hi Rev,
>
> when exactly are you going explain your
> flawed idea that anti-DPers are murder
> lovers?
When exactly are you going to explain your dishonest misquoting of
others, my credibility challenged friend?
> Considering that many anti-DPers believe
> that executioners are murderers . . . don't
> you that many anti-DPers would love
> executioners?
"don't you that..." You need to brush up on your English literacy,
my child.
[...Dave's newbie include of long sections without comment
snipped...]
Yours in Christ,
Dave Ayotte
Rev. Don Kool wrote in message...
<the rest snipped and placed at end>
>When exactly are you going to explain
>your dishonest misquoting of others, my
>credibility challenged friend?
When you explain your flawed idea that
anti-DPers are murderer lovers, because
then I won't need to explain it.
Especially considering that many
anti-DPers believe that executioners are
murderers . . . don't you think that many
anti-DPers would love executioners?
>>>Dave>>>amyst...@uswest.net<<<<<
>>>>www.AmyStrange.com/forensics.html<<
> join Amy Strange in her journey
> into the world of the Unexplained:
>>>>>>>>>www.AmyStrange.com<<<<<<<<<<
P.S. at no cost and advertisement free
Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <39B784A9...@home.com>...
Mitchell Holman
}>
}>
}
}You are correct, Holman. I should have ben more specific in indicating
}that I was speaking of murders which fit within the general paramaters
}of first degree murder. I would not fit vehicular homocide,
}manslaughter, etc. into the same category.
}
}Of course, I am pretty sure both you and Odie know this, but he saw an
}opportunity to attack something and took it.
"Odie"?
Richard Jackson
John Rennie
Fensterwald Odagnop III
Richard Jackson wrote:
> In article <39B6C824...@payit.com>,
> Odagnop <wate...@payit.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Richard Jackson wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Since I do not promote the use of the death penalty as a deterrent
> to
> > > prevent crime (deterrence means to me that it would stop someone
> from
> > > murdereing who otherwise would) the above has little meaning for
me
> > > either. I believe in the use of the dp to prevent a murderer from
> > > killing again, and because I believ it it right that a murderer
> should
> > > pay for taking another's life with his or her own life.
> >
> > Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that Jackson's beliefs
have
> > nothing to do with all the statistical data, which indicates that
> "death
> > penalty qualified" defendants who for one reason or another escape
> execution
> > are far *less* likely to kill in the future than those, for example,
> who are
> > imprisoned for nonhomicidal violent crimes.
>
> So? I simply believe what I wrote. Of course, what I wrote about
> applied to capital murders, not manslaughter, etc. But then,
> typically,, you wish to twist that.
>
> > But even being that generous, it is still "there he goes again!"
> > If Jackson *truly* believes that all murderers should pay with
their
> own
> > lives, then logically he asserts anyone convicted of second-degree
> murder
> > should be likewise executed, since that is after all *still* murder.
> This,
> > of course, eliminates both the distinction between first-degree
murder
> with
> > "special circumstances" and the overwhelming majority of all other
> first and
> > second-degree murders in the US, thereby rolling back the clock
about
> two
> > hundred years here.
> message Odie.
>
> BTW. My given name is Richard. My friends call me Richard or Dick.
> You can continue to call me Jackson.
>
Jackson pretends to be peeved because I did not refer to him as
"Mister"
when I responded to his post.
Since my post was *not* addressed to him personally, I referred to him
as
"Richard Jackson"-- which is how he refers to himself-- and since I was
only
referring to one Jackson, thereafter *as* "Jackson." In other words, I
used
a perfectly acceptable language convention when referring to someone,
which
differs from that of addressing someone. If Jackson *really* believes
doing
that connotes disrespect, I can only assume he's not much of a reader.
He feigns offense also because I treated his assertions as based on an
ignorance of, or an unwillingness to accept, the differences between
voluntary manslaughter, second-degree murder, first-degree murder, and
murders which are "death penalty qualified." If my assumption is
faulty,
Jackson has hardly discouraged it. He has posted on this thread his
reliance on homicide recidivism studies which do not distinguish between
what *kinds* of homicides they were. He went on to assert his belief
that
"murderer(s) should pay for taking another's life" and to "prevent
(them)
from killing again." On another thread recently, Jackson repeats his
belief
that rapists and pedophiles should be executed too. Why he thinks it is
*not* eminently reasonable to conclude that he advocates a drastic
expansion
of the death penalty from that-- or why the distinction between "death
penalty qualified" murders and other kinds of homicide-- should effect
his
"isms" at all, is enigmatic.
My response to his post was quite to the point. That Jackson chose to
respond by conjuring up faulty irrelevancies, apparently disingenuously,
is
telling.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Odagnop
John Rennie wrote:
John Rennie, FYI "dick" is also an American slang word for penis, so one has
to use it very carefully even when you are addressing a "Richard." Also,
addressing someone by his or her last name can also be a term of familiarity [
See, e.g., http://www.dnaco.net/~mobrien/holmes/termsadd.html ],
whereas addressing someone by his or her first name only could be interpreted
as patronizing. But since I was *referring* to Richard Jackson, rather than
*addressing* him, I followed the usual conventions. I seem to recall Jackson
had a problem once before when someone enclosed his name in quotation marks.
Richard Jackson
Fensterwald Odagnop III <wate...@payit.com> wrote:
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> Richard Jackson wrote:
>
> > In article <39B6C824...@payit.com>,
> > Odagnop <wate...@payit.com> wrote:
As you wish Odie.
There are two different things at play here when I wrote of my beliefs
about the death penalty. First, I expressed a personal opinion which
comes from my root beliefs. I believe murderers (meaning first degree
murderers, not manslaughter or other lesser crimes) should pay with
their lives. That is a personal opinion. Without doubt, murderers who
are successfully executed cannot murder again. That is, in my opinion,
the only reason other than personal views of what constitutes justice,
for the use of the death penalty. The recividity rate is immaterial to
me in the end. If one capital murderer lives ot be released and kills
again after being released, that is one too many additional victims for
me.
I would, without doubt, include serial rapists murderers and pedophile
murderers in capital crimes. Neither of these two stalwart groups of
people are curable of their tastes and continue to be a threat for as
long as they live should they ever have the chance to commit their
crimes again. That isn't my opinion, but the opinion of several of the
better known abnormal psychologists around. Should you wish, I will be
glad to dredge up the research supporting that. Since many serial
rapists who eventually murder and pedophiles who murder could often fit
into the same category as serial killers if left loose, perhaps
assigning them the dp is not needed. Why, however, take the chance?
Inclusion of such people would not, as you assert, drastically expand
the death penalty. These same people already fit into the qualifcation
for the death penalty in Texas.
I have little love for rapists or pedophiles who do not kill. On a
personal level, I would not be displeased if their crimes were capital
crimes, especially in the case of violent offenders who exibit serial
rape behavior. Perhaps this would expand the use of the death penalty
somewhat, but what do you expect, I am a retentionists after all.
It might surprise you that in some instances, I would support boundaries
which would prevent some death sentences. In instances where there is
only one verifyable eye witness to make identifcation of a murderer with
no collaborating evidence, I would prohibit the use of the dp. Yes,
that's right. Gary Graham would not have been executed had what I
propose been law. He might have spent the rest of his natural life in
prison, but he would have lived unless some other convict killed him.
So as I said before. If you don't like what I say, too bad. You can
either respond to it, or ignore it. If you don't wish to have me
respond to you, do the same for me. Otherwise, let the games begin.
Rev. Don Kool
Dave Ayotte wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool wrote in message...
> <the rest snipped and placed at end>
[...Davy's newbie include of text he doesn't respond to snipped...]
> >When exactly are you going to explain
> >your dishonest misquoting of others, my
> >credibility challenged friend?
> When you explain your flawed idea that
> anti-DPers are murderer lovers, because
> then I won't need to explain it.
I already explained your non sequitur to you, my obtuse young
friend. Now it is time for you to flail around and try to
rationalize your dishonesty. Face it, Davy-boy, your credibility
is shot.
Hope this helps,
Richard Jackson
Personal respect, regardless of differences of belief, is not a joking
matter with me. I've been known to get rowdy real fast over personal
disrespect and have put more than one knot on a head for such behavior
in person. It is part of the Texas thing, I guess. Friendly, but
proud. A Texan will smile with you over a joke on him, but insult him,
his wife, or his state, and he will likely invite you to step outside
with him even if he can't fight worth a darn.
Dave Ayotte
Rev. Don Kool wrote in message...
>I already explained your non sequitur to
>you, my obtuse young friend.
Translation: I have no explanation, so I'm
not even going to try. I'm going to keep
saying non sequitur and hope you go
away.
>>>Dave>>>amyst...@uswest.net<<<<<
>>>>www.AmyStrange.com/forensics.html<<
> join Amy Strange in her journey
> into the world of the Unexplained:
>>>>>>>>>www.AmyStrange.com<<<<<<<<<<
P.S. at no cost and advertisement free
Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <39B82E24...@home.com>...
Richard Jackson
Tha's because, unlike many on the Internet, I find the habit of using a
"nick" childish. In the case of someone who uses a nick and never
their real name, I find the practice cowardly as well.
It all goes back to root values. I was taught to be a man who used
his real name and didn't do something where I would have to hide
my identity behind an alias. My real name is Richard Jackson.
Mitchell Holman
}>
}
}Tha's because, unlike many on the Internet, I find the habit of using a
}"nick" childish. In the case of someone who uses a nick and never
}their real name, I find the practice cowardly as well.
}
}It all goes back to root values. I was taught to be a man who used
}his real name and didn't do something where I would have to hide
}my identity behind an alias. My real name is Richard Jackson.
}
Personally I admire Richard on this score. Dealing with
twits that hide behind aliases is a chore. He posts his own
name, and I wish more would do the same.
Peter Morris
"Odagnop" <wate...@payit.com> wrote in message
news:39B83A23...@payit.com...
> John Rennie, FYI "dick" is also an American slang word for penis, so one
has
> to use it very carefully even when you are addressing a "Richard." Also,
> addressing someone by his or her last name can also be a term of
familiarity [
> See, e.g., http://www.dnaco.net/~mobrien/holmes/termsadd.html ],
> whereas addressing someone by his or her first name only could be
interpreted
> as patronizing. But since I was *referring* to Richard Jackson, rather
than
> *addressing* him, I followed the usual conventions. I seem to recall
Jackson
> had a problem once before when someone enclosed his name in quotation
marks.
Of course, Richard is an ex-soldier. So I guess he must once have been a
Private Dick.
Peter Morris
> In article
> > >
> > "Odie"?
> Think about it.
>
The stupid dog in the Garfield cartoons ?
Rev. Don Kool
Dave Ayotte wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool wrote in message...
> <the rest snipped and placed at the end>
[...Dave's newbie include snipped for bandwidth...]
> >I already explained your non sequitur to
> >you, my obtuse young friend.
> Translation: I have no explanation, so I'm
> not even going to try. I'm going to keep
> saying non sequitur and hope you go
> away.
translation: Dave is going to ignore the fact that he deliberately
misquoted others and hope people forget about it. You had precious
little credibility here to start with, my son. Now you have none.
:-(
Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
Richard Jackson
<70C4900A82A8DD64.9078F0CC...@lp.airnews.net>,
Thanks Mitchell. Do you think perhaps this is a value we learned as part
of our Texas heritage, or do you feel it is more a family value?
Richard Jackson
Good one! LOL
Of course you assume that I wasn't an officer, or a Private Big Dick!
But then, some rankers think all officers are dicks.
No, I can't lie, I was not an officer.
Mitchell Holman
In this political climate, I cringe from everything related to that
tired refrain of "Family Values". Too much baggage with that term,
courtesy of Jerry Falwell and Donald Wildmon and other moralistic
egotists.
Personally I grew in the "man is as good as his word" and "square
deal" days....
Mitchell Holman
"Never ask a man if he is a Texan: if he is, you will know soon
enough, and if he isn't, there is no point in embarrassing him"
-- Sam Rayburn --
Rev. Don Kool
Little Mitchie Holman wrote:
> Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> } ta2...@airmail.net (Little Mitchie Holman) wrote:
> }> Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[...snip...]
> In this political climate, I cringe from everything related to that
> tired refrain of "Family Values". Too much baggage with that term,
> courtesy of Jerry Falwell and Donald Wildmon and other moralistic
> egotists.
>
> Personally I grew in the "man is as good as his word" and "square
> deal" days....
Little Mitchie, you "grew up in" the 1980s, my young Gen-X friend.
As you are too young to remember those formative years, that was
called the "Greed Decade".
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb:
Clearly, who does hide behind any pseudonyme conveys the impression of his
inability to sign up his own statements. (No common validity, of course,
other reasons are existent also. The combination of speach, style and
pseudonyme often is interesting... )
J.
Dave Ayotte
Rev. Don Kool wrote in message...
<the rest snipped and placed at the end>
>fact that he deliberately misquoted others
>and hope people forget about it.
Translation: I have no explanation and your
misquote was omniscient of what I'm
thinking right now and was thinking then.
Plus, murderer lovers is an oxymoron, but
I'll never admit that to Dave
>>>Dave>>>amyst...@uswest.net<<<<<
>>>>www.AmyStrange.com/forensics.html<<
> join Amy Strange in her journey
> into the world of the Unexplained:
>>>>>>>>>www.AmyStrange.com<<<<<<<<<<
P.S. at no cost and advertisement free
Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <39B8D380...@home.com>...
>
>
>Dave Ayotte wrote:
>> Rev. Don Kool wrote in message...
>
>> <the rest snipped and placed at the end>
>
>[...Dave's newbie include snipped for bandwidth...]
>
>> >I already explained your non sequitur to
>> >you, my obtuse young friend.
>
>> Translation: I have no explanation, so I'm
>> not even going to try. I'm going to keep
>> saying non sequitur and hope you go
>> away.
>
> translation: Dave is going to ignore the fact that he deliberately
>misquoted others and hope people forget about it. You had precious
>little credibility here to start with, my son. Now you have none.
>:-(
>
> Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
> Don
>
>
>--
>********************** You a bounty hunter?
>* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
>ffff* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
Richard Jackson
Very interesting, Jurgen.
I often look at some of the nicks these folks use and wonder if they are
not attempting to cover up their self perceived inadequacy as a human
being by adopting a name they feel is macho or bold.
--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
<9C88E76634763A3F.55784A63...@lp.airnews.net>,
I don't mind the term, even if Falwell does cause it to have some sour
tastes. My father dealt on the square with everyone and I was taught to
do so. Since then, other lessons in life taught me to square my actions
toward others as well.
As far as a man's word, that should be golden. As my father always
said, "You can trust someone as far as he is willing to trust you. If a
man doesn't trust you, best you don't trust him."
Of course, he also claims he's been cheated in business dealings by
preachers more than any other group. Guess what he things about Falwell
and his ilk!
Richard Jackson
When he grew up has little to do with the values he learned from his
family, Don. Texans tend to be a bit more conservative and were even
in the 80's.
John Rennie
either their full name or first name - it appears to be an American (not
Texan) habit to assume nom-de-plumes. They must all have something to
hide.
Odagnop
John Rennie wrote:
In reality, publishing one's views using a pseudonym, especially on political
issues, has been a tradition in both Britain and America ever since printing
presses were adopted. The reason for this is probably that it enhances robust
discussion and keeps the focus on issues rather than personalities. There is no
moral issue *per se* to it, unless luminaries like Alexander Hamilton, James
Madison, etc., etc. must now be regarded as cowardly trolls. In other words, a
usenet "nic" is like having a telephone with an unlisted number. It depends on
how you use it (although usenet anonymity is much more illusory).
Of course, there are many ways to misuse a nic. IMO, sporging someone else's
name or nic to a post is *never* acceptable, whatever the provocation, nor is
engaging in character defamation. True, there are those who are so wedded to
their beliefs on a particular issue that they regard any criticism of them as a
personal attack on themselves. But these are the few who, euphemistically put,
have simply lost perspective. If they had their way there could be no
discussion at all, just "proclamation" postings. One practice I find more
annoying than most do is posting *testimonials* using a nic. For examples, a
poster using a nic asserting s/he's a "lawyer," or posting some cock-and-bull
story as a "personal experience." Who trusts such assertions from anyone who
refuses to tell you who s/he is? A poster doing that might just as well simply
post instead that s/he thinks everyone who reads his or her post is a fool, when
actually it's quite the opposite. If you want to post personal testimonials,
identify yourself or *don't post them*, doing otherwise gratuitously insults
everyone else's intelligence.
I too find the use of "power nics" amusing, but given the usual content of the
posts attached to them, it seems mostly a conceit of young adolescents. On the
other hand, there are probably "nics" being used that seem like *real* names
too. I can think of no honorable reason for that, so IMO a nic should be
*obviously* a nic.
There are abusive posters who use their real names in this NG, others who use
nics. I have been unable to discern any pattern to it. Both groups are
probably making usenet the whipping boy for problems in their real lives. I
speculate the ones who use their real names are so far gone they have no idea
what their posts reveal about *them* (not their targets), while the ones using
nics only show what they do when they mistakenly think no one can find out who
they are.
I suppose in the end it's not what a poster chooses to call him or herself,
but whether a poster believes in self-restraint and adherence to the "Golden
Rule." The latter will (and should) strike hard blows in the course of robust
discussion, but never foul ones.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <morr...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8pajff$skl$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...
who extract Dubya, from George W. (Dubya) Bush's name, I'm
guessing.
A PV
Warnock
news:2659-39B...@storefull-101.private.bryant.webtv.net...
>Pete Morris, is, as usual, completely wrong in saying that the DP is
more expensive tha LWOP. His presumption is based on guesswork and
myth. Not on statistics like I have here below:
We have seen extensive figures to prove that LWOP is far cheaper than the
Death Penalty - however we are discussing human life here, and money should
not be the first cause!
>There's a claim that it is more expensive for the state to execute a
criminal than to incarcerate him for life. Many opponents present, as
fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2
million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ("LWOP") at
a cost of $1 million for 50 years.
The cost of death penalty cases often runs to well over $ 2 million
per case, the average cost of LWOP is $ 200 000. Further, not many LWOP
prisoners stay for 50 years - they tend to die before that long.
>Predictably, these pronouncements may
be entirely false. JFA(Justice for All) estimates that LWOP cases will
cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty
cases.
And life without parole prisoners face, on average, 30 or 40 years in
prison while the annual cost of incarceration is $40,000 to $50,000 a
year for each prisoner or more!
If you catch them murdering at 20 years old, they might stay 40 years in
prison - but most not likely.
$ 50 000 per year to hold prisoners is ridiculous. You could stay in quite a
nice hotel with three meals a day for that. Where I live prisoners are held
at about the equivalent of $ 3 000 per year!
Richard Jackson
I agree. It does appear to be a mainly American thing.
More than likely their situation was aptly described by a countryman of
yours, David Niven when a "streaker" ran across the stage while he was
speaking several years ago at the Academy Awards. Without baing the
least shaken, Mr. Niven said "Some people will go to any lengths to show
off their shortcomings." It brought the house down.
David Niven was, by all accounts, a class act.
A Planet Visitor
Damn it, Odagnop.. I just can't stand it when you're reasonable. Please
revert to form, so I can see a return to some harmony and dependability
in the graceful flow of our universe. You're upsetting the cosmos.
A PV
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
The maximum security of death row or ad. seg. in Texas costs $49.54 per
day per prisoner. That's a cost of $18082.10 per year per prisoner US.
The general population cost somewhat less than that, but most of the
prisoners on death row would be high risk prisoners even on LWOP. This
high risk would require administrative segregation such as Henry Lee
Lucas is already in for his own protection. You see, many regular
convicts will kill serial kilers and rapists out of hand if they can,
Even in gen pop, the costs of $3,000 seems a bit low to me. Of course,
perhaps you live where prisoners do not have all of the rights that they
are afforded here.
John Rennie
> In article <39B82F72...@payit.com>,
> Fensterwald Odagnop III <wate...@payit.com> wrote:
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> > Richard Jackson wrote:
> >
> > > In article <39B6C824...@payit.com>,
> > > Odagnop <wate...@payit.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > No one forces you to read or respond to my posts if you don't like
> the
> >
> > > message Odie.
> > >
> > > BTW. My given name is Richard. My friends call me Richard or Dick.
> > > You can continue to call me Jackson.
> > >
> >
> > "Mister"
> > when I responded to his post.
> > Since my post was *not* addressed to him personally, I referred to him
> > as
> > "Richard Jackson"-- which is how he refers to himself-- and since I
> was
> > only
> > referring to one Jackson, thereafter *as* "Jackson." In other words,
> I
> > used
> > a perfectly acceptable language convention when referring to someone,
> > which
> > differs from that of addressing someone. If Jackson *really* believes
> > doing
> > that connotes disrespect, I can only assume he's not much of a reader.
> > He feigns offense also because I treated his assertions as based on
> an
> >
> > ignorance of, or an unwillingness to accept, the differences between
> > voluntary manslaughter, second-degree murder, first-degree murder, and
> > murders which are "death penalty qualified." If my assumption is
> > faulty,
> > Jackson has hardly discouraged it. He has posted on this thread his
> > reliance on homicide recidivism studies which do not distinguish
> between
> >
> > what *kinds* of homicides they were. He went on to assert his belief
> > that
> > "murderer(s) should pay for taking another's life" and to "prevent
> > (them)
> > from killing again." On another thread recently, Jackson repeats his
> > belief
> > that rapists and pedophiles should be executed too. Why he thinks it
> is
> >
> > *not* eminently reasonable to conclude that he advocates a drastic
> > expansion
> > of the death penalty from that-- or why the distinction between "death
> > penalty qualified" murders and other kinds of homicide-- should effect
> > his
> > "isms" at all, is enigmatic.
> > My response to his post was quite to the point. That Jackson chose
> to
> >
> > respond by conjuring up faulty irrelevancies, apparently
> disingenuously,
> > is
> > telling.
> >
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
> > http://www.usenet.com
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >
>
>
> As you wish Odie.
>
> There are two different things at play here when I wrote of my beliefs
> about the death penalty. First, I expressed a personal opinion which
> comes from my root beliefs. I believe murderers (meaning first degree
> murderers, not manslaughter or other lesser crimes) should pay with
> their lives. That is a personal opinion. Without doubt, murderers who
> are successfully executed cannot murder again. That is, in my opinion,
> the only reason other than personal views of what constitutes justice,
> for the use of the death penalty. The recividity rate is immaterial to
> me in the end. If one capital murderer lives ot be released and kills
> again after being released, that is one too many additional victims for
> me.
>
> I would, without doubt, include serial rapists murderers and pedophile
> murderers in capital crimes. Neither of these two stalwart groups of
> people are curable of their tastes and continue to be a threat for as
> long as they live should they ever have the chance to commit their
> crimes again. That isn't my opinion, but the opinion of several of the
> better known abnormal psychologists around. Should you wish, I will be
> glad to dredge up the research supporting that. Since many serial
> rapists who eventually murder and pedophiles who murder could often fit
> into the same category as serial killers if left loose, perhaps
> assigning them the dp is not needed. Why, however, take the chance?
>
> Inclusion of such people would not, as you assert, drastically expand
> the death penalty. These same people already fit into the qualifcation
> for the death penalty in Texas.
>
> I have little love for rapists or pedophiles who do not kill. On a
> personal level, I would not be displeased if their crimes were capital
> crimes, especially in the case of violent offenders who exibit serial
> rape behavior. Perhaps this would expand the use of the death penalty
> somewhat, but what do you expect, I am a retentionists after all.
>
> It might surprise you that in some instances, I would support boundaries
> which would prevent some death sentences. In instances where there is
> only one verifyable eye witness to make identifcation of a murderer with
> no collaborating evidence, I would prohibit the use of the dp. Yes,
> that's right. Gary Graham would not have been executed had what I
> propose been law. He might have spent the rest of his natural life in
> prison, but he would have lived unless some other convict killed him.
>
> So as I said before. If you don't like what I say, too bad. You can
> either respond to it, or ignore it. If you don't wish to have me
> respond to you, do the same for me. Otherwise, let the games begin.
>
> --
> Richard Jackson
>
>
Sometimes Richard I think the divide between you and I, which means between
reasonable retentionists and pragmatic abolitionists hardly exists. I
suppose it is the question of proof that is the final barrier.