TEXAS DEATH PENALTY DEMO
Pa...@sgi.net
Fryanryan wrote:
> NON VIOLENT DEMO/VIGIL in DALLAS, TEXAS
>
> On Friday Sept. 10, 6:30pm, at the Kenndey Memorial in Dallas, TX. We will
> remeber Willis Barnes, the 100th human being to be executed under George W.
> Bush's reign in TX. We will send a message to our government that the death
> penalty must stop, as we move into a new millenium commited to peace, justice,
> and human rights for all!!
>
> FOR MORE INFO: as...@myworldmail.com
> Association of Student Activists for Peace (ASAP) --a SPAN affiliate
Fryanryan
Richard Jackson
In my opinion, a murderer who commits first degree murder forfets his
rights when he takes the life of another. Obviously a majority of
Texans and others in many other states feel the same way.
I suggest that if you don't appreciate living in a Democracy that you
should go try living in Lybia or Iraq for a while. you might have a
different opinion of Texas, or the whole US for that matter, when you
return.
--
Richard Jackson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
John G. Spragge
> In my opinion, a murderer who commits first degree murder forfets his
> rights when he takes the life of another. Obviously a majority of
> Texans and others in many other states feel the same way.
Glad you could get that off your chest. Perhaps if someday you
consider it worthwhile to come up with some objective facts, and
want to address the question of effective ways of protecting those
who haven't "forfeited" their right to live, you'll share that with us as
well.
> I suggest that if you don't appreciate living in a Democracy that you
> should go try living in Lybia or Iraq for a while. you might have a
> different opinion of Texas, or the whole US for that matter, when you
> return.
Felt good to get that out, did it?
However, until you manage to change it, the US constitution (which
you seem so hot to defend against those darn foreigners) explicitly
includes "the right of the people to freely assemble and petition for
redress of grievances", which means that having a demonstration
against capital punishment, even in Texas, accords fully with the
laws and constitution of the United States. Indeed, those who frown
on demonstrations against government policy express a view pretty
much in accord with the leaders and citizens of some other countries,
including Libya and Iraq.
--
J. G. Spragge ------------------------ standard disclaimers apply
For essays on crime and punishment, politics, and network issues:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spragge
John G. Spragge
> Time for the famous "Texas Rangers" to muster.
I believe the Texas Rangers have a tradition of upholding the law.
The following law pretty clearly governs this situation, (quote
provided for education and edification).
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.
For the entire bill of rights, see http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/bor.html
Mitchell Holman
}
}In my opinion, a murderer who commits first degree murder forfets his
}rights when he takes the life of another. Obviously a majority of
}Texans and others in many other states feel the same way.
}
}I suggest that if you don't appreciate living in a Democracy that you
}should go try living in Lybia or Iraq for a while. you might have a
}different opinion of Texas
Of course, the "majority of Texans" also favored
slavery, segregation, the Vietnam war and the election
of Richard Nixon. Is the majority always right?
Wbsmms
> slavery, segregation, the Vietnam war and the election
> of Richard Nixon. Is the majority always right?
Well, they were right about Nixon. I just read Remini's life of Henry Clay,
and Tricky Dick would have blanched at a lot of the stuff Clay did.
Richard Jackson
"John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu> wrote:
> Richard Jackson wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, a murderer who commits first degree murder forfets
his
> > rights when he takes the life of another. Obviously a majority of
> > Texans and others in many other states feel the same way.
>
> consider it worthwhile to come up with some objective facts, and
> want to address the question of effective ways of protecting those
> who haven't "forfeited" their right to live, you'll share that with us
as
> well.
>
An opinion is an opinion, just that. In a democracy, majority rule is
the law. The fact that the dp is still used in Texas is a defacto
proof that a majority of the people here are in favor of it. When a
majority do not support it, (or when the Supreme Court of the US rules
against it) will be ample proof that it is no longer supported by a
majority of the people.
> > I suggest that if you don't appreciate living in a Democracy that
you
> > should go try living in Lybia or Iraq for a while. you might have a
> > different opinion of Texas, or the whole US for that matter, when
you
> > return.
>
> Felt good to get that out, did it?
>
Not necessarily. Just a suggestion. I have seen other places in the
World and would not care to stay in some of them for extended periods
of time.
> However, until you manage to change it, the US constitution (which
> you seem so hot to defend against those darn foreigners) explicitly
> includes "the right of the people to freely assemble and petition for
> redress of grievances", which means that having a demonstration
> against capital punishment, even in Texas, accords fully with the
> laws and constitution of the United States. Indeed, those who frown
> on demonstrations against government policy express a view pretty
> much in accord with the leaders and citizens of some other countries,
> including Libya and Iraq.
>
> --
> J. G. Spragge ------------------------ standard disclaimers apply
> For essays on crime and punishment, politics, and network issues:
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spragge
>
>
J.G., I never said US citizens didn't have the right to assemble
peacefully. What I did say was that if you will attend one of the
protests in Huntsville (or I suspect any other dp state) when an
execution is scheduled, you will find the anti-dp protesters badly
outnumbered by pro-dp supporters. My suggestion is that if a person can
not stand living in a democracy where the majority's wishes are the
rule, that person should try living in lybia, Iraq, and a few other
dictatorships or communist countries around the World. You might change
your mind about how bad a place the US is.
Peter Morris
Richard Jackson wrote in message <7r8a50$9lo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>J.G., I never said US citizens didn't have the right to assemble
>peacefully. What I did say was that if you will attend one of the
>protests in Huntsville (or I suspect any other dp state) when an
>execution is scheduled, you will find the anti-dp protesters badly
>outnumbered by pro-dp supporters.
No, R.J. What you said was in effect 'you disagree with me, so get
out of my country'
> My suggestion is that if a person can
>not stand living in a democracy where the majority's wishes are the
>rule, that person should try living in lybia, Iraq, and a few other
>dictatorships or communist countries around the World. You might change
>your mind about how bad a place the US is.
In a democracy, people are entitled to hold their own opinions, even if
they disagree with the majority. People are entitled to try to change
other people's minds through peaceful protest and rational discussion.
You are the one who objects to having your ideas challenged. If you wish
to live in a country where people are forbidden to disagree with the rules
laid down by government, then maybe its you who should emigrate to Iraq.
If , however, you wish to live in the world's greatest democracy,
where people are entitled to speak their mind without without fear, then
you should consider emigrating to the UK ;-)
.
Richard Jackson
"Peter Morris" <pmo...@cromwellmedia.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Richard Jackson wrote in message <7r8a50$9lo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> >J.G., I never said US citizens didn't have the right to assemble
> >peacefully. What I did say was that if you will attend one of the
> >protests in Huntsville (or I suspect any other dp state) when an
> >execution is scheduled, you will find the anti-dp protesters badly
> >outnumbered by pro-dp supporters.
>
> No, R.J. What you said was in effect 'you disagree with me, so get
> out of my country'
>
> > My suggestion is that if a person can
> >not stand living in a democracy where the majority's wishes are the
> >rule, that person should try living in lybia, Iraq, and a few other
> >dictatorships or communist countries around the World. You might
change
> >your mind about how bad a place the US is.
>
> In a democracy, people are entitled to hold their own opinions, even
if
> they disagree with the majority. People are entitled to try to change
> other people's minds through peaceful protest and rational
discussion.
Of course.
> You are the one who objects to having your ideas challenged. If you
wish
> to live in a country where people are forbidden to disagree with the
rules
> laid down by government, then maybe its you who should emigrate to
Iraq.
>
I object to those who have never lived here attempting to tell me how
to live, yes.
> If , however, you wish to live in the world's greatest democracy,
> where people are entitled to speak their mind without without fear,
then
> you should consider emigrating to the UK ;-)
>
> .
>
>
I wouldn't mind, except for the weather. Texans are used to five or
six months of 100 defree F. weather a year. The climate of the UK is a
bit too cold and damp for me. I would mildew! Besides, they ride
funny little saddles there. :-O
WhaleOilBeefHooked
news:7r9kd4$b7o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I object to those who have never lived here attempting to tell me how
> to live, yes.
Perhaps you should tell your congressman to apply the same standards to your
country, as most of your government officials have never lived in other
countries, yet have no compunction in telling them how they should live.
> I wouldn't mind, except for the weather. Texans are used to five or
> six months of 100 defree F. weather a year. The climate of the UK is a
> bit too cold and damp for me. I would mildew! Besides, they ride
> funny little saddles there. :-O
Come to Australia then.
DaveP
Mitchell Holman
}
}> you should consider emigrating to the UK ;-)
}>
}> .
}>
}>
}
}six months of 100 defree F. weather a year. The climate of the UK is a
}bit too cold and damp for me. I would mildew! Besides, they ride
}funny little saddles there.
Aye, but the UK has *much* better beer than Texas.
And isn't that what really matters?
Mitchell Holman
"You can't be a Real Country unless you have a BEER and an
airline - it helps if you have some kind of a football team or
some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a BEER."
-- Frank Zappa --
Richard Jackson
"WhaleOilBeefHooked" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
> Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7r9kd4$b7o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > I object to those who have never lived here attempting to tell me
how
> > to live, yes.
>
> Perhaps you should tell your congressman to apply the same standards
to your
> country, as most of your government officials have never lived in
other
> countries, yet have no compunction in telling them how they should
live.
>
Actually, I agree with you on this point. We, nor any country has the
right to tell others how they should live. Upholding mutual defense or
mutual aid treaties is another subject, however.
> > I wouldn't mind, except for the weather. Texans are used to five or
> > six months of 100 defree F. weather a year. The climate of the UK
is a
> > bit too cold and damp for me. I would mildew! Besides, they ride
> > funny little saddles there. :-O
>
> Come to Australia then.
>
> DaveP
>
>
I'd love to. New Zealand, as well. I have always felt Australians and
Texans have much in common. Both have large diverse lands, are
individualists, and a bit rough hewn but good people. At least that
has been my experiendce with the aussies I've met.
Richard Jackson
<991B3977A09B67EC.CF8D39E1...@lp.airnews.net>,
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> In article <7r9kd4$b7o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Richard Jackson <richj@my-
> }six months of 100 defree F. weather a year. The climate of the UK
is a
> }bit too cold and damp for me. I would mildew! Besides, they ride
> }funny little saddles there.
>
> And isn't that what really matters?
>
> Mitchell Holman
>
> "You can't be a Real Country unless you have a BEER and an
> airline - it helps if you have some kind of a football team or
> some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a BEER."
> -- Frank Zappa --
>
>
Excellent beer! Served a bit warm, but that's OK. It is brewed to
serve so. Really, though, I prefer stout or whiskey. For the best
whiskey you really need a good single malt from the highlands of
Scotland.
WhaleOilBeefHooked
news:991B3977A09B67EC.CF8D39E1...@lp.airnews.net...
> Aye, but the UK has *much* better beer than Texas.
> And isn't that what really matters?
Except they drink it warm. Come to Australia, where we will REALLY teach you
how to drink beer - DECENT beer too.
DaveP
DedNdogYrs
law. The fact that the dp is still used in Texas is a defacto
proof that a majority of the people here are in favor of it. >
And it has jumped out and bitten some of them in the ass, like the Routier
family.
Dogs & children first.
Richard Jackson
Sadly, I don't need practice drinking beer. I can put a pint of
Foster's away with the best of them. I agree, Aussies have good beer
too.
You guys should try Shiner Bock, from the small town of Shiner, Texas.
It might make you ochange your mind about Texas beer!
Richard Jackson
Very seldom. More often it eventually ends the life of murderers,
thus forever ending their threat to society.
I know, I know! Murderers rarely murder again, according to antis.
Even if only one out of a thousand murders again, that is too many.
I, and a reat deal of my fellow Texans prefer a permament solution.
The only way to prevent a murderer from ever being able to murder
again is to use the dp. As long as he or she lives and breath, they
have the abillity to repeat their offense and take another life.
Mitchell Holman
}Mitchell Holman <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote in message
}news:991B3977A09B67EC.CF8D39E1...@lp.airnews.net...
}
}> Aye, but the UK has *much* better beer than Texas.
}> And isn't that what really matters?
}
}Except they drink it warm. Come to Australia, where we will REALLY teach you
}how to drink beer - DECENT beer too.
}
Hmmm.... Fosters versus Newcastle Brown Ale.
Uhm, no thanks, I think I will stick with UK when it
comes to beer. However, when it comes to women,
*now* we are talking about clear Australian win.
Not even a contest.
Mitchell Holman
"Sex without love is an empty experience - but as empty
experiences go, it's one of the best."
-- Woody Allen --
WhaleOilBeefHooked
> Hmmm.... Fosters versus Newcastle Brown Ale.
> Uhm, no thanks, I think I will stick with UK when it
> comes to beer. However, when it comes to women,
> *now* we are talking about clear Australian win.
> Not even a contest.
Fosters is cats pi....urine. I was referring to decent beer, like Crown
Lager, Hahn Premium, etc.
DaveP
Mitchell Holman
Haven't tried those. In fact, I haven't even seen them.
However, there are some *excellent* beers coming out
of the current US explosion in mircro breweries. I prefer
"Arrogant Bastard Ale" in San Diego, for starters. (See
(http://www.stonebrew.com/arrogant/index2.html)
Sharpjfa
>From: dednd...@aol.com (DedNdogYrs)
>Date: Fri, 10 September 1999 03:32 AM EDT
>Message-id: <19990910033249...@ng-fe1.aol.com>
>
><An opinion is an opinion, just that. In a democracy, majority rule is the
>law. The fact that the dp is still used in Texas is a defacto
>proof that a majority of the people here are in favor of it. >
>
>And it has jumped out and bitten some of them in the ass, like the Routier
>family.
Well, yes, mothers who murder their children do not appreciate being sentenced
to death. The totally selfish and self serving nature of capital murderers
makes them believe that they should be praised for their efforts and allowed to
live free and happy lives while being praised and supported by thousnads of
websites around the world.
sharpjfa
>Dogs & children first.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sharpjfa
>Date: Thu, 09 September 1999 09:45 PM EDT
>Message-id:
><991B3977A09B67EC.CF8D39E1...@lp.airnews.net>
>
>In article <7r9kd4$b7o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>}
>}> you should consider emigrating to the UK ;-)
>}>
>}> .
>}>
>}>
>}
>}I wouldn't mind, except for the weather. Texans are used to five or
>}six months of 100 defree F. weather a year. The climate of the UK is a
>}bit too cold and damp for me. I would mildew! Besides, they ride
>}funny little saddles there.
>
>
> And isn't that what really matters?
>
>
> "You can't be a Real Country unless you have a BEER and an
> airline - it helps if you have some kind of a football team or
> some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a BEER."
> -- Frank Zappa --
Finally, Holman makes meaningful and truthful statements.
sharpjfa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sharpjfa
>Message-id:
><F983D8D01BFEFAB2.E9EE570C...@lp.airnews.net>
>
>In article <7ra5ag$mca$1...@news1.mpx.com.au>, "WhaleOilBeefHooked">}news:991B3977A09B67EC.CF8D39E1...@lp.airnews.net...
>}
>}> Aye, but the UK has *much* better beer than Texas.
>}> And isn't that what really matters?
>}
>}how to drink beer - DECENT beer too.
>}
>
> Uhm, no thanks, I think I will stick with UK when it
> comes to beer.
You are correct. It's not even a race.
sharpjfa
However, when it comes to women,
> *now* we are talking about clear Australian win.
> Not even a contest.
>
>
Quijibo
> I know, I know! Murderers rarely murder again, according to antis.
> Even if only one out of a thousand murders again, that is too many.
... and even if only one out of a thousand citizens executed is
innocent, that is too many ...
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
Mitchell Holman
}>Subject: Re: TEXAS DEATH PENALTY DEMO
}
}Well, yes, mothers who murder their children do not appreciate being sentenced
}to death.
Of course, since women who murder their children are
rarely even prosecuted as capital cases (much less executed),
this is hardly a concern. Most get only a few years in prison,
if that much.
Richard Jackson
Ah, the old anti "We execute innocent people" war cry!
I will bet you that if the data is gathered comparing the numbers of
people murdered by criminals who have murdered previously to the
numbers of men or women who have been executed then positively proven
innocent, you will find the first group to be in the majority by a
hundred, or even a thousand fold.
There are extreem safeguards in place in dp states to prevent the
execution of an innocent person. The whole criminal legal system of
the US is based upon the primis that it is better to let ten guilty men
go free than to find one innocent man guilty. I sincerely doubt that
many have been proven to be innocent after their execution.
--
Richard Jackson
Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that
society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand
atonement or grant forgiveness; it is the one crime in which society
has a direct interest.
W. H. Auden (1907-73), Anglo-American poet.
DedNdogYrs
makes them believe that they should be praised for their efforts and allowed to
live free and happy lives while being praised and supported by thousnads of
websites around the world. sharpjfa>
And there are a lot of people who don't like to see innocent young mothers
sentenced to death. That's why she has all those websites; it's because she
was sentenced on circumstantial evidence that may also be ambiguous.
>Dogs & children first.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dogs & children first.
Rev. Don Kool
DedNdogYrs wrote:
>
> <Well, yes, mothers who murder their children do not appreciate being sentenced
> to death. The totally selfish and self serving nature of capital murderers
> makes them believe that they should be praised for their efforts and allowed to
> live free and happy lives while being praised and supported by thousnads of
> websites around the world. sharpjfa>
> * * *
> And there are a lot of people who don't like to see innocent young mothers
> sentenced to death.
Happily that has never happened in the United States (the greatest
country on the face of the Earth, BTW). Here, there has not been
even a single case of an "innocent" man being mistakenly executed in
the United States (the greatest country on the face of the earth,
BTW) since reintroduction of the just Death Penalty in the late
1970s.
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
Sharpjfa
>Date: Fri, 10 September 1999 07:29 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7rc485$55r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <6zcC3.7661$LL2....@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> "Quijibo" <958...@knotes.kodak.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I know, I know! Murderers rarely murder again, according to antis.
>> > Even if only one out of a thousand murders again, that is too many.
>>
>> ... and even if only one out of a thousand citizens executed is
>> innocent, that is too many ...
>>
>> --
>> Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
>> Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
>>
>>
>
>Ah, the old anti "We execute innocent people" war cry!
>
>I will bet you that if the data is gathered comparing the numbers of
>people murdered by criminals who have murdered previously to the
>numbers of men or women who have been executed then positively proven
>innocent, you will find the first group to be in the majority by a
>hundred, or even a thousand fold.
You would be wrong.
There is no evidence of an innocent executed since 1900. At least 10,000
murderers have murdered again since 1960.
Sharpjfa
JUSTICE FOR ALL websites
http://www.jfa.net
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://www.murdervictims.com
Sharpjfa
>Date: Fri, 10 September 1999 03:33 PM EDT
>Message-id:
><29432F41E08C312B.3E8F9283...@lp.airnews.net>
>
>}
>sentenced
>}to death.
>
> rarely even prosecuted as capital cases (much less executed),
> this is hardly a concern. Most get only a few years in prison,
> if that much.
Unfortunately, just like most murderers. Again, we see that the criminal
justice system overwhelmingly benefits criminals and further dishonors victims
and aids in the creation of more victims.
The expected punishment for murder was only 1.5 years in 1985 and rose to only
2.7 years in 1995! (THE REYNOLD担 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?
sharpjfa
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > Come to Australia then.
> I'd love to. New Zealand, as well. I have always felt Australians and
> Texans have much in common.
How dare you insult David that way?
> Both have large diverse lands, are individualists, and a bit rough
> hewn but good people.
Except that in Australia, they abolished the death penalty in 1985,
and ... well slappamathigh ! Their crime rates are *still* falling !
Ain't that just somethin' ..?!
[snip]
--
Desmond Coughlan |Restez Zen ... UNIX peut le faire
des...@cybercable.fr
http://212.198.69.179/ [under construction]
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> Excellent beer! Served a bit warm, but that's OK. It is brewed to
> serve so. Really, though, I prefer stout or whiskey. For the best
> whiskey you really need a good single malt from the highlands of
> Scotland.
You could try Highland Cream, from the Orkney Islands.
Desmond Coughlan
> }Except they drink it warm. Come to Australia, where we will REALLY teach you
> }how to drink beer - DECENT beer too.
> Hmmm.... Fosters versus Newcastle Brown Ale.
> Uhm, no thanks, I think I will stick with UK when it
> comes to beer. However, when it comes to women,
> *now* we are talking about clear Australian win.
> Not even a contest.
Or you could come to Paris, where the women are universally
acknowledged as the classiest, loveliest in the world ...
Richard Jackson
admin.service.talkway.com>,
> > "Quijibo" <958...@knotes.kodak.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > I know, I know! Murderers rarely murder again, according to
antis.
> >> > Even if only one out of a thousand murders again, that is too
many.
> >>
> >> ... and even if only one out of a thousand citizens executed is
> >> innocent, that is too many ...
> >>
> >> --
> >> Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
> >> Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Ah, the old anti "We execute innocent people" war cry!
> >
> >I will bet you that if the data is gathered comparing the numbers of
> >people murdered by criminals who have murdered previously to the
> >numbers of men or women who have been executed then positively proven
> >innocent, you will find the first group to be in the majority by a
> >hundred, or even a thousand fold.
>
> You would be wrong.
>
> There is no evidence of an innocent executed since 1900. At least
10,000
> murderers have murdered again since 1960.
>
> Sharpjfa
>
> JUSTICE FOR ALL websites
>
I guess I should have said murderers who kill again would outnumber
innocents by over 10,000 to one! Mea culpa!--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
"Suzanne Burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
> Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> > I know, I know! Murderers rarely murder again, according to antis.
>
>
> 98% NEVER murder again.
>
> [ See reply to "Pappy"... ]
>
> -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---
-------
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the
World!
> ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries
Servers ==-----
>
Suzanne,
When you say the facts indicate that 98% of murderers never murder
again, I would like more clarifcation.
A couple of questions please:
Does the 2% repeat rate among muderers include just those murderers
convicted of first degree murder, or all homocides? I mean are we
talking about manslaughter (murder 2nd Degree, vehicular homocide, etc)
figured into the equasion?
If all murder convictions are used to compute this stat, then what
percentage of convicted first degree murderers repeat their offense if
released into the free world? What percent of them murder again while
in prison?
Even if 98% of first degree murderers never murdered again, what
comfort is that if one of the released murderers moves next door to
you? How will you be sure you aren't one of the victims of that 2%?
St.George
"Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> DedNdogYrs wrote:
> >
> > <Well, yes, mothers who murder their children do not appreciate
being sentenced
murderers
> > makes them believe that they should be praised for their efforts
and allowed to
> > live free and happy lives while being praised and supported by
thousnads of
> > websites around the world. sharpjfa>
> > * * *
> > And there are a lot of people who don't like to see innocent young
mothers
> > sentenced to death.
>
> Happily that has never happened in the United States (the
greatest
> country on the face of the Earth, BTW). Here, there has not been
> even a single case of an "innocent" man being mistakenly executed in
> the United States (the greatest country on the face of the earth,
> BTW) since reintroduction of the just Death Penalty in the late
> 1970s.
More food for thought from Don, I see.
Unfortunately, however, I'm still not quite certain. Perhaps you could
help me out by continuing to regularly post this identical paragraph.
When I've seen it a further twenty or thirty times, I shall almost
certainly be convinced, and I'm sure Desmond and co. will follow
shortly.
And should anyone say something like:
"Will you stop printing the exact same crap time after time, you
bandwidth-wasting fool"
then just ignore them, because this is EXACTLY what your fellow Usenet
users want to see in their newsgroups.
--
St.George
Sharpjfa
>Date: Sun, 12 September 1999 12:18 PM EDT
>Message-id: <01befd32$6af3b060$0d94...@eburrows.ucc.su.oz.au>
>
>Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote
>
>> I know, I know! Murderers rarely murder again, according to antis.
>
>No Richard, not "according to antis". According to the facts.
>
>98% NEVER murder again.
>
The 2% is my figure, which appears very low, unfortunately. Some have posted
figures as high as 6.6%. Both are incredibly high rates.
sharpjfa
JUSTICE FOR ALL websites
http://www.jfa.net
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://www.murdervictims.com
>
Suzanne Burrows
> I know, I know! Murderers rarely murder again, according to antis.
No Richard, not "according to antis". According to the facts.
98% NEVER murder again.
Rev. Don Kool
No problem. I will continue to post the truth until it changes.
Hope this helps,
Richard Jackson
"Suzanne Burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
> Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "Suzanne Burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
> >> Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote
> >>
> >>> I know, I know! Murderers rarely murder again, according to
antis.
> >>
> >> No Richard, not "according to antis". According to the facts.
> >>
> >> 98% NEVER murder again.
> >>
> >> [ See reply to "Pappy"... ]
> >
> > When you say the facts indicate that 98% of murderers never murder
> > again, I would like more clarifcation.
>
> murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted
> of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous
> murder convictions." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153)
>
> That's a recidivism rate of just over 1.5%. If we take into
account the
> clearup-rate for homicide (the number of murders that go unsolved)
> the figure goes up to 2%.
>
> So 98% of American murderers NEVER kill again.
>
Actually, according to another abolitionist on the ng, the repeat rate
for murderers is closer to 7% in the US.
> > Even if 98% of first degree murderers never murdered again, what
> > comfort is that if one of the released murderers moves next door to
> > you?
>
> Ah, this old chestnut.
>
> I live in a non-DP jurisdiction, so I'm not just "talking the talk",
I'm
> "walking the walk".
>
> We release our murderers after they've served their time, and yes, my
> next-door neighbour could, in fact, be a released murderer, and I
> wouldn't even know.
>
> How do I feel about that? Just fine.
>
I'm glad you are comfortable with that fact. I would not be.
Richard Jackson
Natsam
Richard Jackson wrote:
> In article <01befdfc$973e9700$9994...@eburrows.ucc.su.oz.au>,
> "Suzanne Burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
> > So 98% of American murderers NEVER kill again.
> >
>
> Actually, according to another abolitionist on the ng, the repeat rate
> for murderers is closer to 7% in the US.
Don't waste your time pointing this out.
I've already done so, and I've pointed
her to the BOJ website that contains the
report showing a 6.6% recidivism rate
for murderers. Funny how she doesn't
take issue with John Spragge for using
the 6.6% figure. I wonder why?
It's kind of comical, actually - on one hand,
some anti's use the US recidivism rate in their
arguments saying it is too *high*, and on
the other hand other anti's point out that
it is acceptably *low*. Of course, even
if we accept the ridiculously low 2% figure,
that still comes out to a 2,000/100,000
murder rate.
<rest snipped>
Regards,
Ed
Suzanne Burrows
> "Suzanne Burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
>> Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote
>>
>>> I know, I know! Murderers rarely murder again, according to antis.
>>
>> No Richard, not "according to antis". According to the facts.
>>
>> 98% NEVER murder again.
>>
>> [ See reply to "Pappy"... ]
>
> Suzanne,
> When you say the facts indicate that 98% of murderers never murder
> again, I would like more clarifcation.
"Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for
murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted
of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous
murder convictions." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153)
That's a recidivism rate of just over 1.5%. If we take into account the
clearup-rate for homicide (the number of murders that go unsolved)
the figure goes up to 2%.
So 98% of American murderers NEVER kill again.
> Even if 98% of first degree murderers never murdered again, what
> comfort is that if one of the released murderers moves next door to
> you?
Ah, this old chestnut.
I live in a non-DP jurisdiction, so I'm not just "talking the talk", I'm
"walking the walk".
We release our murderers after they've served their time, and yes, my
next-door neighbour could, in fact, be a released murderer, and I
wouldn't even know.
How do I feel about that? Just fine.
CBofGDALE
yes, my next-door neighbour could, in fact, be a released murderer, and I
Why? Are you suicidal?
Richard Jackson
nats...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>
> Richard Jackson wrote:
>
> > In article <01befdfc$973e9700$9994...@eburrows.ucc.su.oz.au>,
> > "Suzanne Burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > >
> >
rate
> > for murderers is closer to 7% in the US.
>
> Don't waste your time pointing this out.
> I've already done so, and I've pointed
> her to the BOJ website that contains the
> report showing a 6.6% recidivism rate
> for murderers. Funny how she doesn't
> take issue with John Spragge for using
> the 6.6% figure. I wonder why?
>
> It's kind of comical, actually - on one hand,
> some anti's use the US recidivism rate in their
> arguments saying it is too *high*, and on
> the other hand other anti's point out that
> it is acceptably *low*. Of course, even
> if we accept the ridiculously low 2% figure,
> that still comes out to a 2,000/100,000
> murder rate.
>
> <rest snipped>
>
> Regards,
> Ed
>
>
I know. The really crazy thing is that my whole argument for the dp
is the fact that it is the only way to be sure a murderer will not
murder again once he is executed. That there are any repeat murder
offenders at all is the best support for this argument that I know of.
That 6.6 or 6.7 percent of murderers murder again after having been
released from prison just tells me we need to abolish life sentences
and go straight dp for first degree murder.
The length of time it takes to perform the dp after sentencing tells
me we need to streamline the appeals process and limit the types and
numbers of appeals.
--
Sharpjfa
>Date: Mon, 13 September 1999 09:25 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37DDA413...@worldnet.att.net>
>
>
>
>Richard Jackson wrote:
>
>> In article <01befdfc$973e9700$9994...@eburrows.ucc.su.oz.au>,
>> "Suzanne Burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> >
>> > So 98% of American murderers NEVER kill again.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, according to another abolitionist on the ng, the repeat rate
>> for murderers is closer to 7% in the US.
>
>Don't waste your time pointing this out.
>I've already done so, and I've pointed
>her to the BOJ website that contains the
>report showing a 6.6% recidivism rate
>for murderers. Funny how she doesn't
>take issue with John Spragge for using
>the 6.6% figure. I wonder why?
snip
I have missed that citation, Can you please repost or e-mail.
Thanks
Sharpjfa
Daniel F. Hogg
<7rlgna$frv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > > In article <01befdfc$973e9700$9994...@eburrows.ucc.su.oz.au>,
> > > "Suzanne Burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
> > > > So 98% of American murderers NEVER kill again.
> > >
> > > Actually, according to another abolitionist on the ng, the repeat
> rate
> > > for murderers is closer to 7% in the US.
> >
> > Don't waste your time pointing this out.
> > I've already done so, and I've pointed
> > her to the BOJ website that contains the
> > report showing a 6.6% recidivism rate
> > for murderers. Funny how she doesn't
> > take issue with John Spragge for using
> > the 6.6% figure. I wonder why?
Considering how frequently pro-dp'ers complain that antis misrepresent
data, one would think pros would be very careful about tossing stats about.
Alas, this is not the case, and now Richard appears to be accepting
misinformation as factual without bothering the check it out. (We're used
to Ed doing this, but have higher expectations of newer posters until they
prove otherwise.)
So what's wrong with Ed's claim? Well, the stat he quotes is not about
recidivism, but about rearrest. Why is this important? Basically because
an arrest is meaningless without a conviction. That released murderers are
early suspects is no surprise given society's belief about the propensity
to reoffend. The document Ed pretends to quote from makes it clear to
anyone who can distinguish between reincarceration and rearrest that the
6.6% number is for a new arrest for murder.
What is the actual rate of reincarceration? According to BJS, 3.1% of the
offenders studied (releasees) were convicted murderers. These offenders
were reincarcerated at a rate of 20.8%. Simple arithmetic shows: 0.031 *
0.208 = 0.0064 = 0.64%, a very low recidivism rate. See:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf.
One of the things you'll find when reviewing this site is that the data are
from 1983, which is another problem. Elsewhere on the DOJ site can be
found more recent references to homicide recidivism which consistently
point to a rate of 1-3% (variability observed between years accounts for
the range).
> > It's kind of comical, actually - on one hand,
> > some anti's use the US recidivism rate in their
> > arguments saying it is too *high*, and on
> > the other hand other anti's point out that
> > it is acceptably *low*. Of course, even
> > if we accept the ridiculously low 2% figure,
> > that still comes out to a 2,000/100,000
> > murder rate.
Yet another misrepresentation. The murder rate is given in the form of
"x/100,000 of population", so it appears from the 2000/100000 datum that
the number bears some resemblance to the data provided by DOJ, however,
this is untrue. The "2,000/100,000 murder rate" Ed tries to foist on us is
actually the *recidivism rate". Armed with this knowledge, let's
understand what Ed is really telling us: The most recent murder rate which
the DOJ acknowledges is about 7/100,000 of population. The vast majority
of murders are single victim incidents. So, the 2,000 murderers who
reoffend require a population of 28,500,000 million potential victims to
find the 2000 victims. [ (2000/7)*100000 ] Obviously this is a far cry
from the fear-ridden anxiety Ed is trying to induce. One wonders just why
he chooses to post such misleading material, developed incidentally, by
another poster who has admitted not knowing the difference between the mean
and the median (after being exposed on another ignorant post).
> > <rest snipped>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ed
>
> I know.
Uh oh. How do you know? Is it because Ed says so?
The really crazy thing is that my whole argument for the dp
> is the fact that it is the only way to be sure a murderer will not
> murder again once he is executed.
This is an "argument" that can be made wrt *any* crime. If you start when
the kid spits out his pacifier, pretty much *all* crime can be eliminated.
A modest proposal.
That there are any repeat murder
> offenders at all is the best support for this argument that I know of.
> That 6.6 or 6.7 percent of murderers murder again after having been
> released from prison just tells me we need to abolish life sentences
> and go straight dp for first degree murder.
Do you still hold this position after having learned it has no basis in
fact?
> The length of time it takes to perform the dp after sentencing tells
> me we need to streamline the appeals process and limit the types and
> numbers of appeals.
Does the number of individuals identified as factually innocent after 18+
years on death row tell you anything to the contrary? If not, why not?
Quijibo
> > Richard Jackson wrote:
> The length of time it takes to perform the dp after sentencing tells
> me we need to streamline the appeals process and limit the types and
> numbers of appeals.
Richard,
To me this is probably the most disturbing argument associated with
support of the death penalty ... in essence: Not only must we execute
people, but we must do it more quickly and with less certainty or
opportunity to prove one's innocence.
Given how many proven innocents were released after many years on death
row, how much time would you allow for the appeals process?
"Streamling" is a pleasant term, but do you have an actual concept of
how this would be done or what it would mean? Would you support a
gallow out behind the courthouse or a bullet delivered by the bailiff
at the conclusion of the trial? I bring up these examples not to
unfairly paint you as bloodthirsty, but because I have heard them
seriously suggested, and it is where your line of thinking leads.
One of the problems with the death penalty is that humans are not
perfect, and consequently such a severe policy leads to equally severe
mistakes. Giving imperfect humans less time and mandatory limits would
obviously lead to more mistakes that I hope we as a society are not
willing to live with.
As it is said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". I hope
there remain enough people who continue to see that when freedom and
rights are taken from any of us individually, it threatens the freedom
and rights of everybody. Perhaps the idea of a criminal rotting in
jail instead of strung up doesn't satisfy your need for "justice" quite
enough, but is it really so important to see these people killed that
you would be willing to restrict rights for all the rest of us
"innocent until proven guilty" people ... including yourself?
Quijibo
(actually spelled kwyjibo ...)
Richard Jackson
"Quijibo" <958...@knotes.kodak.com> wrote:
>
> > > Richard Jackson wrote:
>
> > The length of time it takes to perform the dp after sentencing tells
> > me we need to streamline the appeals process and limit the types and
> > numbers of appeals.
>
> Richard,
>
> To me this is probably the most disturbing argument associated with
> support of the death penalty ... in essence: Not only must we execute
> people, but we must do it more quickly and with less certainty or
> opportunity to prove one's innocence.
>
> Given how many proven innocents were released after many years on
death
> row, how much time would you allow for the appeals process?
> "Streamling" is a pleasant term, but do you have an actual concept of
> how this would be done or what it would mean? Would you support a
> gallow out behind the courthouse or a bullet delivered by the bailiff
> at the conclusion of the trial? I bring up these examples not to
> unfairly paint you as bloodthirsty, but because I have heard them
> seriously suggested, and it is where your line of thinking leads.
>
No, I think the dp should be carried out as painlessly as possible.
> One of the problems with the death penalty is that humans are not
> perfect, and consequently such a severe policy leads to equally severe
> mistakes. Giving imperfect humans less time and mandatory limits
would
> obviously lead to more mistakes that I hope we as a society are not
> willing to live with.
>
> As it is said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". I hope
> there remain enough people who continue to see that when freedom and
> rights are taken from any of us individually, it threatens the freedom
> and rights of everybody. Perhaps the idea of a criminal rotting in
> jail instead of strung up doesn't satisfy your need for "justice"
quite
> enough, but is it really so important to see these people killed that
> you would be willing to restrict rights for all the rest of us
> "innocent until proven guilty" people ... including yourself?
>
> Quijibo
> (actually spelled kwyjibo ...)
> --
> Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
> Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
>
>
I too believe safeguards have to be present. There should be some
limit to the way inmates can use the system, however. Twenty years is
too much time to take on appeals. I believe there should be a special
branch of the judicial system to examine appeals, and that they should
be given priority within that system. I think we could stremline the
appeals process and shorten the time to execution of the dp (no pun
intended) without giving up the legal safeguards necessary to protect
the innocence of truely innocent people.
Natsam
Daniel F. Hogg wrote:
While you make a decent point, it is clouded byyour surrounding dishonesty. Technically speaking,
what you are referring to is not the recidivism rate
either, but the re-incarceration rate.
> Why is this important? Basically because
> an arrest is meaningless without a conviction.
Not being convicted doesn't necessarily meanthe arrestee didn't commit the crime. Then again,
you knew that, right? And of course you also
know that a large percentage of murders are
unsolved, but that doesn't fit neatly into your
pro-criminal view of the world. And of course
you also know the study only tracked criminals
for *3* years, which, imo, certainly makes the
recidivism (or rearrest or reincarceration) rate
a minimum number.
> That released murderers are
> early suspects is no surprise given society's belief about the propensity
> to reoffend. The document Ed pretends to quote from makes it clear to
> anyone who can distinguish between reincarceration and rearrest that the
> 6.6% number is for a new arrest for murder.
>
> What is the actual rate of reincarceration? According to BJS, 3.1% of the
> offenders studied (releasees) were convicted murderers. These offenders
> were reincarcerated at a rate of 20.8%. Simple arithmetic shows: 0.031 *
> 0.208 = 0.0064 = 0.64%, a very low recidivism rate. See:
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf.
Huh? So you're saying murderers have 20.8%recidivism (or is it re-incarceration?) rate?
I don't think this really helps your argument, Dan.
Of the 20.8% that were reincarcerated, how many
(or what percentage) were reincarcerated for
violent crime?
Lumping murderers along with ALL criminals
is pretty dishonest, since the discussion is
obviously about those eligible for the DP (ie,
murderers.)
>
>
> One of the things you'll find when reviewing this site is that the data are
> from 1983, which is another problem.
I agree. See my other post in this thread formore information.
> Elsewhere on the DOJ site can be
> found more recent references to homicide recidivism which consistently
> point to a rate of 1-3% (variability observed between years accounts for
> the range).
Citation please. Even using a 1% figure, consideringthe large amount of murderers in the US, this
1% rate still results in hundreds more innocents
murdered by recidivists than the number of
innocents proven to be executed (ie, zero.)
And again you conveniently ignore that
many murders go unsolved and being
arrested but not convicted doesn't
necessarily mean the arrestee didn't
commit the crime.
>
>
> > > It's kind of comical, actually - on one hand,
> > > some anti's use the US recidivism rate in their
> > > arguments saying it is too *high*, and on
> > > the other hand other anti's point out that
> > > it is acceptably *low*. Of course, even
> > > if we accept the ridiculously low 2% figure,
> > > that still comes out to a 2,000/100,000
> > > murder rate.
>
> Yet another misrepresentation. The murder rate is given in the form of
> "x/100,000 of population", so it appears from the 2000/100000 datum that
> the number bears some resemblance to the data provided by DOJ, however,
> this is untrue. The "2,000/100,000 murder rate" Ed tries to foist on us is
> actually the *recidivism rate". Armed with this knowledge, let's
> understand what Ed is really telling us: The most recent murder rate which
> the DOJ acknowledges is about 7/100,000 of population. The vast majority
> of murders are single victim incidents.
> So, the 2,000 murderers who
> reoffend require a population of 28,500,000 million potential victims to
> find the 2000 victims. [ (2000/7)*100000 ]
So Dan, please tell the ng how manyinnocents die per year because of
recidivist murderers.
> Obviously this is a far cry
> from the fear-ridden anxiety Ed is trying to induce.
ROTFLMAO! Coming from someone who "infers" and accusesothers of racism even though he can't prove it, as well
as someone who desperately tries to convince the ng
that guilty, executed murderers were innocent, I find this
statement fascinating.
> One wonders just why
> he chooses to post such misleading material, developed incidentally, by
> another poster who has admitted not knowing the difference between the mean
> and the median (after being exposed on another ignorant post).
So Dan, please tell the ng how manyinnocents die per year because ofrecidivist murderers.
>
>
> > > <rest snipped>
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ed
> >
> > I know.
>
> Uh oh. How do you know? Is it because Ed says so?
>
> The really crazy thing is that my whole argument for the dp
> > is the fact that it is the only way to be sure a murderer will not
> > murder again once he is executed.
>
> This is an "argument" that can be made wrt *any* crime. If you start when
> the kid spits out his pacifier, pretty much *all* crime can be eliminated.
> A modest proposal.
Predictable flawed response. He was talkingabout *murderers*, obviously (ie, those who have
already proven that they have no regard for
innocent human life.)
>
>
> That there are any repeat murder
> > offenders at all is the best support for this argument that I know of.
> > That 6.6 or 6.7 percent of murderers murder again after having been
> > released from prison just tells me we need to abolish life sentences
> > and go straight dp for first degree murder.
>
> Do you still hold this position after having learned it has no basis in
> fact?
So Dan, tell the ng how many innocentsdie at the hands of recidivist murderers.
<rest snipped>
Natsam
> In article <37DDA413...@worldnet.att.net>,
> nats...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > Richard Jackson wrote:
> >
> > > In article <01befdfc$973e9700$9994...@eburrows.ucc.su.oz.au>,
> > > "Suzanne Burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > So 98% of American murderers NEVER kill again.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, according to another abolitionist on the ng, the repeat
> rate
> > > for murderers is closer to 7% in the US.
> >
> > Don't waste your time pointing this out.
> > I've already done so, and I've pointed
> > her to the BOJ website that contains the
> > report showing a 6.6% recidivism rate
> > for murderers. Funny how she doesn't
> > take issue with John Spragge for using
> > the 6.6% figure. I wonder why?
> >
> > It's kind of comical, actually - on one hand,
> > some anti's use the US recidivism rate in their
> > arguments saying it is too *high*, and on
> > the other hand other anti's point out that
> > it is acceptably *low*. Of course, even
> > if we accept the ridiculously low 2% figure,
> > that still comes out to a 2,000/100,000
> > murder rate.
> >
> > <rest snipped>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ed
> >
> >
>
> I know. The really crazy thing is that my whole argument for the dp
> is the fact that it is the only way to be sure a murderer will not
> murder again once he is executed. That there are any repeat murder
> offenders at all is the best support for this argument that I know of.
> That 6.6 or 6.7 percent of murderers murder again after having been
> released from prison just tells me we need to abolish life sentences
> and go straight dp for first degree murder.
Also, keep in mind the 6.6/6/7% figure might evenbe low, considering:
1) Many murders go unsolved, and
2) The recidivism report only tracked released
prisoner for 3 years.
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf )
And for anyone who (like me) was wondering
if any more current recidivism statistics
were available:
"With funding from the OJP Corrections Program
Office and the FBI, BJS will conduct the first
national followup study of prisoners in 16 years.
The study will develop a sample of State
prison releases with oversampling of violent offenders,
particularly those offenders convicted of sexual
assault crimes and crimes against children. Followups
would be carried out through State and Federal
criminal history records for 3 years.
The most recent national study of post-prison
recidivism conducted by BJS followed for 3 years
a sample of offenders drawn to represent 109,000
prisoners discharged from prisons in
11 States in 1983. Two areas where recent recidivism
data are particularly needed are for sex offenders
and those who victimize children. Methods to be used
for carrying out the proposed 1998 recidivism study
will be far superior to those employed in the 1983
study due to the substantial improvements
that have been made in the criminal history records
infrastructure under the National Criminal History
Improvement Program (NCHIP) and other Federal
initiatives. The sample will be supplemented with
arrestees who are not imprisoned, so that
comparative recidivism statistics can be generated
at a future time. To the maximum extent possible,
automated records will be utilized to track the
national sample and will facilitate analyses of
post-prison mobility across States as well as
provide much more complete knowledge of the
adjudication of new arrest offenses."
This was from the BOJ website:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/bjsfy98.txt
Regards,
Ed
>
>
> The length of time it takes to perform the dp after sentencing tells
> me we need to streamline the appeals process and limit the types and
> numbers of appeals.
>
Daniel Hogg
news:37DF0F37...@worldnet.att.net...
Translation: Ed can't admit he's misused the data so he looks in his bag of
tricks and finds ad hominem at the head of the list.
Technically speaking,
> what you are referring to is not the recidivism rate
> either, but the re-incarceration rate.
"Technically speaking"? Let's ask a basic question here Ed: since when did
being arrested count as evidence of guilt? We like to try to incarcerate
those who've been convicted first.
> > Why is this important? Basically because
> > an arrest is meaningless without a conviction.
>
> Not being convicted doesn't necessarily meanthe arrestee didn't commit the
crime.
With the murder conviction rate of 67%, you don't seriously plan to argue
that the police and prosecutors are so bad at their jobs that they manage to
let loose thousands of suspects in murder cases that they know are guilty.
This is so patently indefensible, I'm embarassed for you, Ed.
[...]
> > That released murderers are
> > early suspects is no surprise given society's belief about the
propensity
> > to reoffend. The document Ed pretends to quote from makes it clear to
> > anyone who can distinguish between reincarceration and rearrest that the
> > 6.6% number is for a new arrest for murder.
> >
> > What is the actual rate of reincarceration? According to BJS, 3.1% of
the
> > offenders studied (releasees) were convicted murderers. These offenders
> > were reincarcerated at a rate of 20.8%. Simple arithmetic shows: 0.031
*
> > 0.208 = 0.0064 = 0.64%, a very low recidivism rate. See:
> > http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf.
>
> Huh? So you're saying murderers have 20.8%recidivism (or is it
re-incarceration?) rate?
Sigh. Ed - we don't reincarcerate without first going through a trial. It
seems to me that the reincarceration rate is tantamount to defining
recidivism. Help us understand why you see it differently.
> I don't think this really helps your argument, Dan.
> Of the 20.8% that were reincarcerated, how many
> (or what percentage) were reincarcerated for
> violent crime?
> Lumping murderers along with ALL criminals
> is pretty dishonest, since the discussion is
> obviously about those eligible for the DP (ie,
> murderers.)
This shows how uninformed you are about the study you're pretending to quote
from. The text and charts included in the url I gave indicate that of the
3.1% of murderers who were being tracked by the study, 20.8% were
subsequently reincarcerated for murder. I didn't think it was necessary to
tell you that since we are discussing execution, which is used almost
exclusively for murder charges.
Tell you what, Ed - I'm in a good mood - let's suppose that you're right and
bumbling keystone kops investigate every case of a released murderer who is
a suspect in another murder and all those people get off. Guess what - the
same source you're using says that the rearrest rate is about 42%, so let's
double the 0.64% reincarceration rate to equal the arrest rate - that's
still ~1.3% - a recidivism rate right in line with the claims of those
without an axe to grind.
[...]
> > Yet another misrepresentation. The murder rate is given in the form of
> > "x/100,000 of population", so it appears from the 2000/100000 datum that
> > the number bears some resemblance to the data provided by DOJ, however,
> > this is untrue. The "2,000/100,000 murder rate" Ed tries to foist on us
is
> > actually the *recidivism rate". Armed with this knowledge, let's
> > understand what Ed is really telling us: The most recent murder rate
which
> > the DOJ acknowledges is about 7/100,000 of population. The vast
majority
> > of murders are single victim incidents.
>
> > So, the 2,000 murderers who
> > reoffend require a population of 28,500,000 million potential victims to
> > find the 2000 victims. [ (2000/7)*100000 ]
>
> So Dan, please tell the ng how manyinnocents die per year because of
> recidivist murderers.
Nice reply there, Ed. You really know how to explain yourself after having
been exposed as passing off myth as information.
[...]
Suzanne Burrows
>>From: "Suzanne Burrows" suz...@moving.target.au
>>>
>>> I know, I know! Murderers rarely murder again, according to antis.
>>
>>No Richard, not "according to antis". According to the facts.
>>
>>98% NEVER murder again.
>
You find a low rate of recidivism "unfortunate" ? Would you prefer
the number of murderers who re-offend to be *higher* ?
I think you should be counting your blessings that 98% of murderers
realize their mistake and never repeat it.
> Some have posted figures as high as 6.6%.
Yes, you've also posted this figure from the BOJ. What you strangely
ommitted to mention is that this higher figure only applied
to "young adults", not murderers of all ages.
Why did you fail to mention that....?
6% of young adults paroled in 1978 after having been convicted of
murder were arrested for murder again within 6 years of release.
("Recidivism of Young Parolees," 4, 1987, BJS).
> Both are incredibly high rates.
Compared to other abolitonist countries, yes.
Suzanne Burrows
>>
>> Actually, according to another abolitionist on the ng, the repeat rate
>> for murderers is closer to 7% in the US.
>
> Don't waste your time pointing this out.
> I've already done so,
And it's already been answered countless times.
This higher figure only applies to young adults, not all murderers.
The lower figure from the Stanford Law Review applied to all
murderers reguardless of age.
6% of young adults paroled in 1978 after having been convicted of
murder were arrested for murder again within 6 years of release.
("Recidivism of Young Parolees," 4, 1987, BJS).
[...]
> It's kind of comical, actually - on one hand, some anti's use the
> US recidivism rate in their arguments saying it is too *high*, and
> on the other hand other anti's point out that it is acceptably *low*.
Ed, everything is relative.
Both figures show that the vast majority of murderers NEVER kill
again. 98% of all murderers, and 94% if we look at the subset of
young adults who murdered. Both show the mantra used by
some pro-DPers that most murderers will kill, kill and kill again to
be an absolute falsehood.
On the other hand, your recidivism rate is high when compared
to other abolitionist jurisdictions, thus showing that the notion
that the DP "protects society", gets the killers "off the street", is
a "necessity", shows that you're "tough on crime", etc, etc is a
complete myth.
> Of course, even if we accept the ridiculously low 2% figure,
> that still comes out to a 2,000/100,000 murder rate.
Wrong, it does nothing of the sort. A murder rate and a
recidivism rate are completely *different* things.
Ed, I normally criticise you, but this question is straight
down the line.
Do you genuinely not understand the difference between
a recidivism rate and a homicde rate?
Quijibo
wrote:
> I too believe safeguards have to be present. There should be some
> limit to the way inmates can use the system, however. Twenty years is
> too much time to take on appeals. I believe there should be a special
> branch of the judicial system to examine appeals, and that they should
> be given priority within that system. I think we could stremline the
> appeals process and shorten the time to execution of the dp (no pun
> intended) without giving up the legal safeguards necessary to protect
> the innocence of truely innocent people.
>
> --
> Richard Jackson
Richard,
Thank you for your reply. Of course, again, I must take issue with
this dangerous line of thinking. Pleasing terms such as "streamling"
and "legal safeguards" only serve to cover up, and in fact exacerbate
an inevitable and irreversable flaw of the death penalty. Not that we
have all the answers here (far from it) but how would it be possible to
limit and streamline appeals (safeguards) while at the same time offer
the same safeguards? It seems to be a fairly obvious and direct
contradiction to me ...
To put it another way ... (I've asked this question before, and I'd be
interested to hear your take on it). In order to support the death
penalty, a person must believe one of the following: 1) Somehow humans,
when deliberating death penalty decisions, are infallible and have
never and/or will never make a mistake resulting in an erroneous
execution, *or* 2) The cases of innocent citizens being executed by the
government (read: people) can be limited enough as to be an acceptable
and necessary sacrafice for the overall benifits one believes are
provided by the death penalty.
Which do you accept?
As I've said before, I reject both statements - the first as untrue,
and the second as unnecessary and untrue. However, getting back to our
original discussion, you must admit, despite your frustration over an
admitedly wasteful and impotent justice system, that *any* further
limits on the appeals process or opportunities to prove factual
innocence would in some way increase the chances of innocents being
executed. So given your views on "streamling" appeals, I ask again,
which statement do you support?
As an opponent of the current death penalty, I certainly understand
feelings of frustration towards our (can I assume you live in the
U.S.?) criminal justice system. But how do we begin to correct the
problems? Not, IMO, by placing further restrictions on freedom through
a severe and hurried death penalty. Furthermore, the fact that (in
many peoples' opinion) the death penalty would require such
restrictions to be effective at all clearly points to its inherent
failure. Certainly we've seen the death penalty used "effectively" in
Chile under Pinochet and in Russia under Stalin, but at what price?
When does this unnecessary policy become no longer worth the cost?
IMO, long before it could ever become "effective".
Cheers,
Quijibo
(actually spelled kwyjibo)
Richard Jackson
I do not believe so in our situation in Texas. There are cases of
first degree murder where the direct (not circumstancial) evidence
still take decades to execute. Why? The evidence in such cases is
conclusive, yet the legal system is so complicated, and the appeals
process takes so long that come criminals spend twenty years on death
row prior to their execution. I do not think the dp should be taken
lightly, but where there is incontrovertable proof such as a video of
the criminal committing the act, why should it take decades to carry
out what is a true finding?
Part of the problem is the number of appeals which at times overload
the courts. I propose an appeals system just for capital murder
cases. It should be large enough so there are minimal delays in the
appeals process. This is the type of streamlining I propose, not a
reduction of the right to appeal, but adding enough judicary to handle
the cases in a speedy manner.
> To put it another way ... (I've asked this question before, and I'd be
> interested to hear your take on it). In order to support the death
> penalty, a person must believe one of the following: 1) Somehow
humans,
> when deliberating death penalty decisions, are infallible and have
> never and/or will never make a mistake resulting in an erroneous
> execution, *or* 2) The cases of innocent citizens being executed by
the
To be fallable is a human characteristic. If it were not so, none of
us would ever make a mistake.
> government (read: people) can be limited enough as to be an acceptable
> and necessary sacrafice for the overall benifits one believes are
> provided by the death penalty.
>
> Which do you accept?
>
Trial by jury is an amazingly complex and painstaking process for the
jurors. No trial is as tense as a murder trial. In Texas, there are
two phases to a capital murder trial. Guilt or innocence is determined
in the first phase. If found guilty, the convicted criminal then
undergoes the second phase, sentencing. The jury decides to apply the
death sentence or life imprisonment. I can think of nothing on this
earth which is more gutr wrenching than to sit on a jury which has to
decide between the two choices once a guilty murder one vercict is
reached. It only takes one juror to stop the dp. It only takes one to
cause a hung jury in the guilt phase. The burden of proof is heavy.
the accused must be found guilty by all twelve juriors beyond all
reasonable doubt. Even then, it is possible for a man who is innocent
of the accused crime to be convicted. That is why we have such an
extensive system of appeals.
As I've said, I do not wish to do away with the appeals process. I
only would like to provide enough courts so there is the least possible
delay in hearing those appeals. One tactic used by death row injates
is to continue to appeal time and time again. the appeals are used as
a delaying tactic because criminals and their lawyers both know if they
can find one technicality to cause a retrial, the longer between the
commission of the crime and the retrial, the harder it is to retry.
Witnesses die, evidence is lost in storage, and notes of retired
investigators disappear.
> As I've said before, I reject both statements - the first as untrue,
> and the second as unnecessary and untrue. However, getting back to
our
> original discussion, you must admit, despite your frustration over an
> admitedly wasteful and impotent justice system, that *any* further
> limits on the appeals process or opportunities to prove factual
> innocence would in some way increase the chances of innocents being
> executed. So given your views on "streamling" appeals, I ask again,
> which statement do you support?
>
Really I support neither, but I guess if I have to support one, it
would be the second with qualifcations. The trial system used here,
along with the appeals system eliminate as much error as humanly
possible.
> As an opponent of the current death penalty, I certainly understand
> feelings of frustration towards our (can I assume you live in the
> U.S.?) criminal justice system. But how do we begin to correct the
> problems? Not, IMO, by placing further restrictions on freedom
through
> a severe and hurried death penalty. Furthermore, the fact that (in
> many peoples' opinion) the death penalty would require such
> restrictions to be effective at all clearly points to its inherent
> failure. Certainly we've seen the death penalty used "effectively" in
> Chile under Pinochet and in Russia under Stalin, but at what price?
> When does this unnecessary policy become no longer worth the cost?
> IMO, long before it could ever become "effective".
>
> Cheers,
> Quijibo
> (actually spelled kwyjibo)
> --
> Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
> Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
>
>
I could accept if first degree murder was universally punished not by
LWOP, but by life at hard labor until death. I still believe the only
sure protection against having a murderer murder again is to end his or
her life, but such sentences with murderers locked in super secure
institutions until their death is the next best thing, and acceptable
by most dp opponents.
A modern Alcatraz would work as far as I am concerned. Put nothing but
murderers inside, never to be released with fatal elecrtic fences, dead
lines, anti-personel land minds, and guards ordered to shoot to kill on
any excape attempt. No warnings, if the convicts attempt to climb a
wall, they are dead. fill the inside with large granit blocks, give
the convicts ten pound hammers, and let them make gravel for the rest
of their lives.
What do you think of that?
Sharpjfa
>Date: Wed, 15 September 1999 12:59 PM EDT
>Message-id: <wfQD3.10614$LL2.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>
>
>On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:56:25 GMT Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I too believe safeguards have to be present. There should be some
>> limit to the way inmates can use the system, however. Twenty years is
>> too much time to take on appeals. I believe there should be a special
>> branch of the judicial system to examine appeals, and that they should
>> be given priority within that system. I think we could stremline the
>> appeals process and shorten the time to execution of the dp (no pun
>> intended) without giving up the legal safeguards necessary to protect
>> the innocence of truely innocent people.
>>
>> --
>> Richard Jackson
>
>
>
>Richard,
>
>Thank you for your reply. Of course, again, I must take issue with
>this dangerous line of thinking. Pleasing terms such as "streamling"
>and "legal safeguards" only serve to cover up, and in fact exacerbate
>an inevitable and irreversable flaw of the death penalty. Not that we
>have all the answers here (far from it) but how would it be possible to
>limit and streamline appeals (safeguards) while at the same time offer
>the same safeguards? It seems to be a fairly obvious and direct
>contradiction to me ...
It isn't.
snip
Quijibo
Et tu Sharpjfa? I have to admit, it's a bit dissapointing to receive
such an uniformative and uninspired two word jab from one of the few
opposing viewpoints who in the past would actually engage in a
meaningful discussion ...
Oh well ... to each his own.
Quijibo
wrote:
Richard,
Thank you once again for your thoughts. I must admit that your idea of
more resources for additional judges and hearings to handle appeals
sounds much more thought out and plausible than simply replacing
appeals with a bullet.
However (you knew it wouldn't be that easy, didn't you?) I think we may
have reached a fundamental difference of opinion here. I will concede
that a carefully managed system of appeals could severely limit the
cases of innocents executed, but this does not convince me that the
death penalty, even managed in such a way, is in any way necessary or
benificial. Without going into each of the myriad arguments on this
board against the death penalty, it would remain, even at its best
possible execution, a fundamentally flawed policy. Furthermore, a well
executed LWOP policy accomplishes the same goals, with fewer and less
severe negative consequences.
Which brings me to your hypothetical prison/work camp. My opposition
to the death penalty has never stemmed from sympathy for murderers - my
attention and thought is primarily focused on what is best for society
as a whole. Therefore, I'm fairly indifferent to what murderers are
doing in jail, as long as they are separated from the rest of society.
However, I do think it benifits all of us to live in a humane and
rational society ... so my question would be: what is the purpose and
specific circumstances of the work? If the goal is simply to torture
prisoners into an early grave than I would have to disagree with such
cruel and unusual punishment. However, if the idea is that prisoners
should, at least in some small way, pay society back for their crime
through useful work, than I would have no problem with it.
In other words, I don't believe in punishment simply for the sake of
punishment. I believe that all punishments should be handed down
because they serve a purpose (which most do). But simply making prison
life worse for the sake of watching criminals suffer is simply
unnecessary and cruel. Furthermore, from the point of view of the
guards and faculty working in these maxmum security facilities,
creating a dangerous and explosive prison environment just for the sake
of punishment would be unwise (in fact, that's why Alcatraz had
relatively plush treatment for it's prisoners).
Cheers,
Quijibo
(actually spelled "kwyjibo")
Hooked-on-quack's
About the same time a juries verdict became compelling argument they
are innocent.
Richard Jackson
"Quijibo" <958...@knotes.kodak.com> wrote:
[prior posts snipped to reduce length]
>
> Richard,
>
> Thank you once again for your thoughts. I must admit that your idea
of
> more resources for additional judges and hearings to handle appeals
> sounds much more thought out and plausible than simply replacing
> appeals with a bullet.
>
Such was never my intent. I believe that both the accused and the
public are due the full protection of the law. I just believe that our
legal system is often overloaded. For our most serious crime, I think
we should add enough resources to spped the process as much as
possible.
> However (you knew it wouldn't be that easy, didn't you?)
Indeed
>I think we
may
> have reached a fundamental difference of opinion here. I will concede
> that a carefully managed system of appeals could severely limit the
> cases of innocents executed, but this does not convince me that the
> death penalty, even managed in such a way, is in any way necessary or
> benificial. Without going into each of the myriad arguments on this
> board against the death penalty, it would remain, even at its best
> possible execution, a fundamentally flawed policy.
I agree. We have a fundamental difference of opinion about
the use of the dp. We are at an impasse. That is OK, no
one ever said we had to agree, did they?
>Furthermore, a
well
> executed LWOP policy accomplishes the same goals, with fewer and less
> severe negative consequences.
>
> Which brings me to your hypothetical prison/work camp. My opposition
> to the death penalty has never stemmed from sympathy for murderers -
my
> attention and thought is primarily focused on what is best for society
> as a whole. Therefore, I'm fairly indifferent to what murderers are
> doing in jail, as long as they are separated from the rest of society.
> However, I do think it benifits all of us to live in a humane and
> rational society ... so my question would be: what is the purpose and
> specific circumstances of the work? If the goal is simply to torture
> prisoners into an early grave than I would have to disagree with such
> cruel and unusual punishment. However, if the idea is that prisoners
> should, at least in some small way, pay society back for their crime
> through useful work, than I would have no problem with it.
>
Labor in a maximum security prison filled only with LWOP murderers
would serve several purposes:
1. Since few people have ever done hard menial labor, the six day work
week would be punishment for many murderers.
2. Hard work reduces energy levels and relieves emotional
stress. I can tell you from personal experience that working at hard
labor for eight hours leaves me with little desire to do anything at
the end of the day but get a little peace and quiet, food, and rest. I
believe it would help the prisoners work off some energy, releive
frustrations, and lower the level of violence in prison.
3. The worst punishment for anyone is not hard labor, but keeping them
isolated in a cell twenty-three hours per day. A job, no matter how
physically demanding is a priviledge that can be lost. It becomes a
disciplinary tool.
4. Income from the products of the labor (even if it was the sale of
gravel producedl by pounding rocks) could be used for inmates to buy
little things. Inmates might receive credit in the prison commisary
with which to purchase a favorite tooth paste, or perhaps a favorite
brand of soap. Inmates who choose not to work would not only spend
their time in their cell, but would have no income. They could use
prison provided necessities like scentless soap and non-flavored
toothpaste. If it was no problem, inmates might be allowed to work
toward purchasing radios for their cells, etc. Such little things as
you and I take for granted are luxuries when all freedom is
lost. This too is a tool to maintain order.
5. Work could also be required in order to have other priviledges.
Inmates who do not work would go into administrative segregation. Once
there, they would be allowed no contact with other inmates, no books, no
radio, nothing. Only those inmates who worked at a job would have more
than the basic necessities of life.
> In other words, I don't believe in punishment simply for the sake of
> punishment. I believe that all punishments should be handed down
> because they serve a purpose (which most do). But simply making
prison
> life worse for the sake of watching criminals suffer is simply
> unnecessary and cruel. Furthermore, from the point of view of the
> guards and faculty working in these maxmum security facilities,
> creating a dangerous and explosive prison environment just for the
sake
> of punishment would be unwise (in fact, that's why Alcatraz had
> relatively plush treatment for it's prisoners).
>
> Cheers,
> Quijibo
> (actually spelled "kwyjibo")
> --
> Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
> Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
>
>
Don't misunderstant me. I do not want murderers to die young if they
are in LWOP such as I describe. I want them to live to be old men
knowing a few things. At the same time, I want any potential
murderers to know the outcome if they are caught and convicted.
I want these guys to spend the rest of their days on earth knowing that
the only people they will ever associate with are other killers and
prison employees. I want them to know that every day until their
death they will awaken at the same time seeing bars. I want them to
know that six days a seek, they will do hard work until they are
unable to contine because of illness or age. I want them to know that
the only time they will see their families is through plexiglass, that
they will never hold their loved ones again, that their children will
only see them in prison clothes because of the crime they committed. I
want them to know that they will never again breath a moment of free
air, drive a car, or make love to a woman. If murderers do not pay
for their crime by losing their physical life, I believe they should
lose their worldly one.
If punishment is a deterrent to crime, then LWOP should be nasty
enough to make anyone give pause and think about the risk they take to
commit this crime.
At the same time, I believe prisoners should receive preventative and
necessary medical care. I believe they whould room in individual
cells. Their clothing should be adequate to protect them from the
weather. Their food should be healthy, but plain. I would limit
their work day to ten hours with two twenty minute rest breaks and a
one-half lunch break (not including travel time to and from the mess
hall if necessary) during the day for those at hard labor.
I do not believe in torture, but in making the life of these criminals
as hard as possible. Prison for first degree murderers should be
punative, not rof reclamation. These places would not be for the
purpose of producing citizens capable fo returning to the world again,
but punishment for the rest of a murderer's natural life for what he
did. I propose "dead lines", lethal fences with mine fields, sniper
trained and armed guards in the towers with orders to shoot to kill
without warning any prisoner attempting to excape.
Suzanne Burrows
As here we have a murder rate that is only a quarter of yours, perhaps I
should be the one asking *you*: "Are *you* suicidal?"
I mean, after all, you choose to live with such a system that fails
to curb such a huge murder-rate....
Suzanne Burrows
[...]
>> Of course, even if we accept the ridiculously low 2% figure,
>> that still comes out to a 2,000/100,000 murder rate.
>
> Wrong, it does nothing of the sort. A murder rate and a
> recidivism rate are completely *different* things.
>
> Ed, I normally criticise you, but this question is straight
> down the line.
>
> Do you genuinely not understand the difference between
> a recidivism rate and a homicde rate?
Well, Ed?
Sharpjfa
>Message-id: <kEUD3.10806$LL2.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>
>
>On 15 Sep 1999 21:17:30 GMT shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>> >Subject: Re: TEXAS DEATH PENALTY DEMO
>> >From: "Quijibo" 958...@knotes.kodak.com
>> >Date: Wed, 15 September 1999 12:59 PM EDT
>> >Message-id: <wfQD3.10614$LL2.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>
>> >
>> >wrote:
snip
>> >
>> >Thank you for your reply. Of course, again, I must take issue with
>> >this dangerous line of thinking. Pleasing terms such as "streamling"
>> >and "legal safeguards" only serve to cover up, and in fact exacerbate
>> >an inevitable and irreversable flaw of the death penalty. Not that we
>> >have all the answers here (far from it) but how would it be possible to
>> >limit and streamline appeals (safeguards) while at the same time offer
>> >the same safeguards? It seems to be a fairly obvious and direct
>> >contradiction to me ...
>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>> sharpjfa
>>
>
>such an uniformative and uninspired two word jab from one of the few
>opposing viewpoints who in the past would actually engage in a
>meaningful discussion ...
>
>Oh well ... to each his own.
>
>Cheers,
>Quijibo
OK
Here is a description of the process with the addition of habeas corpus reform
at the state and federal levels.
Actual imposition of the death penalty in the U.S. is extraordinarily rare.
Since 1967, there has been
one execution for every 10000 murders, or 0.1%. There have been approximately
600,000
murders and 550 executions from 1967-1999 [FBI's Uniform Crime Report(UCR) &
Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS)]. If convicted and sentenced to death, the
inmate may then begin an appeals process that could extend through 24 years, 60
appeals and over 200 individual judicial and executive reviews of the inmates
claims. Approximately 6500 persons have been sentenced to death and 550
executed (from 1973-99). An average of 0.3% of those were executed every
year during that time. The average time on death row for those executed from
1977-1997 was nearly 9 years. For the 56 executed in 1995, the average time on
death row was 11 years, 2 months - a new record of longevity, surpassing the
old record of 10 years, 2 months, set in 1994.
(Capital Punishment 1995 &1997, BJS 1996 and 1998). 60 death row inmates have
been on death row for over 18 years. Eventually, because of the backlog of long
serving death row inmates, new longevity records of from 12-17 years could be
set.
Opponents claim that with the new federal guidelines for appeals in capital
cases, that nothing is left to protect the rights of the death row inmate.
Predictably, such hysteria is unwarranted and untrue. The new federal appeals
law, The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which affects
the writ of habeas corpus, was upheld unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court in
1996.
Opponents complain that AEDPA dramatically reduces the inmates
ability to present their appellate issues. Let's look at those complaints. With
these
new federal standards, there are still at least 16 levels of post conviction
review
available to the death row inmate; 7 state and 9 federal, comprised of 2 direct
appeals, one at the state level and one at the federal level; 11 habeas corpus
appeals, four at the state level and seven at the federal level; 4 of those
habeas
appeals are for compelling post conviction claims of innocence, which are
subject to a formal hearing, two at the state level and two at the federal
level; and
the 14th, 15th and 16th levels of review provide that the inmate’s claims are
subject to review for executive clemency or commutation, at either the state or
federal level, and sometimes both. There is no limit to the number of appellate
issues which the inmate may raise on appeal. Similar appellate issues are often
heard at every appellate level. There is, however, a limitation to repeating a
presentation of the same appellate issues and time limitations for presenting
claims. Provisions which benefit inmates with valid claims.
Victim survivors have no right to appeal. Although, on the state level,
this section deals specifically with Texas, the procedures are similar in all
death penalty states and at the federal and military levels.
In addition, This law established, nationally, higher minimum standards for
defense counsel in capital cases and requires said counsel for all indigent
capital defendants.
The post conviction protections for death row inmates are so generous that
inmates are six times more likely to get off death row by appeals or by
commutation than by
execution. 34% of all death row inmates are released by appeal or commutation.
146 death row inmates have been spared by commutation from 1973-96. This
represents 41% of the total of those executed during that time - a remarkable
record of care, consideration and mercy. Of all death row cases which have
reached final disposition (via appeal, commutation or execution), 86% were
resolved by appeal or commutation, only 14% were executed ("Capital
Punishment 1996", p 13, BJS 1997). Additional due process would result in no
executions, the clear intention of opponents.
Many of those cases were overturned based on post conviction new
laws, established by legislative or judicial decisions in other cases. In other
words, many of the cases were overturned by laws that didn't exist at the time
of
the trial. The defendants were tried, convicted and sentenced properly under
the laws that existed at the time of trial. New laws, which were subsequently
passed to benefit defendants were applied retroactively to prior cases, thereby
facilitating additional releases of our worst human rights violators.
It is hard to imagine a legal system which could be more generous to its worst
human rights violators - capital murderers. There is a reason that former US
Supreme Court Justice Powell called it "super" due process.
Many seem to be unaware of the true meaning of the habeas corpus
process. They may not know that the intent of the "Great Writ", established in
pre-Magna Carta England, is to quickly facilitate the release of the innocent
or
those otherwise wrongfully held or convicted - a process that may finally be
honored with these reforms. This is a very positive development, except for the
guilty and for those who wish to abuse the habeas corpus process by delaying
justice with frivolous, repetitive and prolonged appeals. It is a bitter irony
that it
was just such intentional delays of justice that the "Great Writ" was created
to
abolish.
It was just such abuses that caused many of the states and the federal
government to enact new habeas corpus reforms. Indeed, it was opponents of the
death penalty who finally guaranteed passage of these long delayed reforms.
Opponents had begun to challenge the long stays on death row as
unconstitutional, claiming that such delays were, by themselves, "cruel and
unusual punishment", a violation of the eighth amendment. However, neither
inmates nor their attorneys appeared to be rushing their appeals. Although all
such cynical and humorous claims were rejected by U.S. courts, such claims did
provide the final push necessary to finally pass these reforms through the U.S.
Congress, thus respecting the claims of opponents, inmates and their attorneys
through legislation.
For those who find themselves hysterical over these habeas corpus
reform efforts, who believe that speeding up the appeals process will threaten
the
lives of those convicted and innocent, please contemplate the following
question:
What innocent or otherwise improperly convicted inmate would wish to linger a
bit longer on death row as their attorney, snail-like, labored to prolong
their
wrongful stay on death row with a series of delayed and frivolous appeals?
sharpjfa
JUSTICE FOR ALL websites
Natsam
Suzanne Burrows wrote:
> Suzanne Burrows <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote
> > Natsam <nats...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> Richard Jackson wrote:
> >>> "Suzanne Burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >> Of course, even if we accept the ridiculously low 2% figure,
> >> that still comes out to a 2,000/100,000 murder rate.
> >
> > Wrong, it does nothing of the sort. A murder rate and a
> > recidivism rate are completely *different* things.
> >
> > Ed, I normally criticise you, but this question is straight
> > down the line.
> >
> > Do you genuinely not understand the difference between
> > a recidivism rate and a homicde rate?
>
> Well, Ed?
>
>
Boy, you guys really nailed me on this one. Okay,I should've said "murderER rate." Now please
compare the "murderER" rate of those previously
convicted of murder to the "murderER" rate of the
general population.
Peter Morris
>
>reform efforts, who believe that speeding up the appeals process will threaten
>the lives of those convicted and innocent, please contemplate the following question:
>What innocent or otherwise improperly convicted inmate would wish to linger a
>bit longer on death row as their attorney, snail-like, labored to prolong their
>wrongful stay on death row with a series of delayed and frivolous appeals?
>
>sharpjfa
>
Mitchell Holman
}>What innocent or otherwise improperly convicted inmate
}>would wish to linger a bit longer on death row as their attorney,
}>snail-like, labored to prolong their wrongful stay on death row
}>with a series of delayed and frivolous appeals?
}>
}>sharpjfa
}>
}
}
}What a strange question. The obvious answer is that any
}"innocent or otherwise improperly convicted" person would
}fight for their life, and delay their death as longm as possible.
}Sharpie seems to imagine that an innocent person ought to
}prefer a quick death, rather than "linger a bit longer on death row".
}He also states that an appeal made by an innocent person is 'frivolous'.
}
}The implication appears to be that any appeal against a death sentence
}is per se an absolute proof of guilt.
}
}Now that is a really frightening thought.
We get a lot of frightening thoughts from Sharpie. The above
seems to be reflection of his notion that everyone accused is
forever guilty. Here, if they appeal, they are guilty. If they
don't appeal, they are guilty. If they are released they are still
guilty. If they are not released they are guilty. Seems Sharp is
riding quite a guilt trip, no?
Natsam
Suzanne Burrows wrote:
> Natsam <nats...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Richard Jackson wrote:
> >> "Suzanne Burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> So 98% of American murderers NEVER kill again.
> >>
> >> Actually, according to another abolitionist on the ng, the repeat rate
> >> for murderers is closer to 7% in the US.
> >
> > Don't waste your time pointing this out.
> > I've already done so,
>
> And it's already been answered countless times.
Maybe you can cite some of your stingingreplies (or even Dan Hogg's reply(ies)
making "Misinformation" accusations in the
subject header) to any of Mr. Spragge's
numerous posts using the 6.6% recidivism
figure. I must have missed them.
>
>
> This higher figure only applies to young adults, not all murderers.
> The lower figure from the Stanford Law Review applied to all
> murderers reguardless of age.
>
> 6% of young adults paroled in 1978 after having been convicted of
> murder were arrested for murder again within 6 years of release.
> ("Recidivism of Young Parolees," 4, 1987, BJS).
>
Wrong. The 6.6% figure comes from a recidivismstudy:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf
> [...]
> > It's kind of comical, actually - on one hand, some anti's use the
> > US recidivism rate in their arguments saying it is too *high*, and
> > on the other hand other anti's point out that it is acceptably *low*.
>
> Ed, everything is relative.
Funny you should say this, sinceyou keep saying that murderers "rarely"
murder again, that "only" 2% murder
again, etc. "Rarely" and "only"
relative to what???? Certainly not
relative to the murder rate of the
general population. Assuming there
are about 15,000 murders in the US, and
taking a (probably low) guess of 75,000,000
for the number of non-elderly adults, that's
still only about a 20/100,000 murderER rate.
About two orders of magnitude LESS than your
beloved "low" recidivism rate of 2%. (Yes, this is an
over-simplification, but the point is still valid.)
>
>
> Both figures show that the vast majority of murderers NEVER kill
> again.
Sigh. I never said the majority "killagain," did I.
> 98% of all murderers, and 94% if we look at the subset of
> young adults who murdered. Both show the mantra used by
> some pro-DPers that most murderers will kill, kill and kill again to
> be an absolute falsehood.
Whose "mantra" is that? Are youmaking up strawmen again?
>
>
> On the other hand, your recidivism rate
Which one? And again, can you point to yourposts that correct Mr. Spragge's frequent spreading
of misinformation (ie, the 6.6% figure)?
Surely you've seen his numerous posts using
that figure.
> is high when compared
> to other abolitionist jurisdictions, thus showing that the notion
> that the DP "protects society", gets the killers "off the street", is
> a "necessity", shows that you're "tough on crime", etc, etc is a
> complete myth.
Ridiculous rhetoric. Of course havingthe DP is being "tough on crime."
You don't think execution is a tough
punishment for a criminal??? And you don't
believe that an executed criminal
is taken "off the street??" And please
explain how a corpse can be released from
prison so that it might murder again.
<rest already addressed>
John G. Spragge
>Maybe you can cite some of your stingingreplies (or even Dan Hogg's
reply(ies)
>making "Misinformation" accusations in the
>subject header) to any of Mr. Spragge's
>numerous posts using the 6.6% recidivism
>figure.
I know that some people don't consider a post
"real" around here unless it includes a personal
attack, but the fact remains that, while I did misread
the DOJ chart, I corrected my mistake. Look up the
post entitled "erratum". The fact Dan declined to
make a public personal attack hardly detracts
from the process.
>Which one? And again, can you point to yourposts that correct Mr.
Spragge's frequent spreading
>of misinformation (ie, the 6.6% figure)?
Certainly. Dan posted the correct figure, and I
rechecked my source and acknowledged my
error. You can find all that if you look; you just
won't find a personal attack.
J. G. Spragge ---------- standard disclaimers apply
Essays on capital punishment and network ethics at
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spragge
CBofGDALE
perhaps I should be the one asking *you*: "Are *you* suicidal?" End of
snip.>
Huh??
<Snip 'n paste: I mean, after all, you choose to live with such a system that
fails to curb such a huge murder-rate....End of snip.>
When the United States had Europe's system of almost non-punishment the crime
rate was through the roof. Remember, this country has been importing the whole
world's dysfunctionals for over 100 years which makes the crime situation
different here. We even have a sign on the Statue of Liberty that invites the
world's riff-raff and retards to "c'mon on in". Unfortunately, there's not as
much need for strong backs and hands anymore.
Daniel Hogg
[...]
> Funny you should say this, sinceyou keep saying that murderers "rarely"
> murder again, that "only" 2% murder
> again, etc. "Rarely" and "only"
> relative to what???? Certainly not
> relative to the murder rate of the
> general population. Assuming there
> are about 15,000 murders in the US, and
> taking a (probably low) guess of 75,000,000
> for the number of non-elderly adults, that's
> still only about a 20/100,000 murderER rate.
> About two orders of magnitude LESS than your
> beloved "low" recidivism rate of 2%. (Yes, this is an
> over-simplification, but the point is still valid.)
Aside from the garbled math, you have a valid point, (2 orders or magnitude
would be 100x, not 20x) but then the fact that inmates who have already
murdered show a higher propensity for reoffending than those who haven't
murdered isn't in dispute. Recall this thread began with your own
misrepresentation of data.
In the past, you've asked me under what conditions I'd support the dp, and I
answered pretty frankly - serial and contract murderers only. Consider the
following: I think there is general agreement that the number of repeat
murderers is few in number and proportion. Further, I think we can probably
agree that the categories of serial and contract murderers a priori account
for the bulk of those who would reoffend. Given these facts, and assuming
you to be a reasonable person who does not want excesses in the judicial
process any more than the average anti, why isn't it reasonable to limit the
dp solely to those who've demonstrably and objectively shown their continued
dangerousness to the community and lengthy/LWOP prison terms for the rest?
[...]
Natsam
John G. Spragge wrote:
> Natsam wrote in message <37E2C492...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
> >Maybe you can cite some of your stingingreplies (or even Dan Hogg's
> reply(ies)
> >making "Misinformation" accusations in the
> >subject header) to any of Mr. Spragge's
> >numerous posts using the 6.6% recidivism
> >figure.
>
> I know that some people don't consider a post
> "real" around here unless it includes a personal
> attack, but the fact remains that, while I did misread
> the DOJ chart, I corrected my mistake. Look up the
> post entitled "erratum". The fact Dan declined to
> make a public personal attack hardly detracts
> from the process.
But it certainly shows inconsistency.
>
>
> >Which one? And again, can you point to yourposts that correct Mr.
> Spragge's frequent spreading
> >of misinformation (ie, the 6.6% figure)?
>
> Certainly. Dan posted the correct figure, and I
> rechecked my source and acknowledged my
> error. You can find all that if you look; you just
> won't find a personal attack.
I already looked, John. But refusing to acknowledgethat:
1) using reincarceration (as opposed to rearrest), and
2) the relatively short tracking period (3 years)
almost certainly leads to an underestimate of recidivism
(as you pointed out) is disingenuous. Pretending that
everyone who is arrested but not convicted did not
actually commit the crime is ludicrous.
Natsam
Daniel Hogg wrote:
Isn't one of antis' favorite sayings, "It's better to let 10 (or 100) guilty go freethan to convict one innocent?" Dan, pretending that every person
who is arrested but not convicted is factually innocent is
ridiculous. Here's a yes or no question: Do you
think OJ did not kill Nicole and Ron?
It's funny, people like you lobby for laws (Miranda,
defendant's not having to testify, rules of evidence) that
make it increasingly difficult to convict the bad guys, and
then you claim that since convicted murderers were
arrested but not convicted they did not commit the
crime for which they were arrested. Again, you want
it both ways.
>
>
> > > Why is this important? Basically because
> > > an arrest is meaningless without a conviction.
> >
> > Not being convicted doesn't necessarily meanthe arrestee didn't commit the
> crime.
>
> With the murder conviction rate of 67%, you don't seriously plan to argue
> that the police and prosecutors are so bad at their jobs that they manage to
> let loose thousands of suspects in murder cases that they know are guilty.
> This is so patently indefensible, I'm embarassed for you, Ed.
Don't put words in my mouth. People like you have madethe criminal justice system so complex and pro-criminal
that in many cases police aren't even sure what the correct
procedure is. Heck, the Supreme Court can't
even agree on many issues.
And you're changing the point, which is recidivism, not
police/prosecutorial behavior.
>
>
> [...]
>
> > > That released murderers are
> > > early suspects is no surprise given society's belief about the
> propensity
> > > to reoffend. The document Ed pretends to quote from makes it clear to
> > > anyone who can distinguish between reincarceration and rearrest that the
> > > 6.6% number is for a new arrest for murder.
> > >
> > > What is the actual rate of reincarceration? According to BJS, 3.1% of
> the
> > > offenders studied (releasees) were convicted murderers. These offenders
> > > were reincarcerated at a rate of 20.8%. Simple arithmetic shows: 0.031
> *
> > > 0.208 = 0.0064 = 0.64%, a very low recidivism rate. See:
> > > http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf.
> >
> > Huh? So you're saying murderers have 20.8%recidivism (or is it
> re-incarceration?) rate?
>
> Sigh. Ed - we don't reincarcerate without first going through a trial. It
> seems to me that the reincarceration rate is tantamount to defining
> recidivism. Help us understand why you see it differently.
Because it is not that simple, and you know it.Pretending that every person who is arrested but
not convicted is factually innocent is just as
dishonest and illiterate as what you accuse me
of. And not factoring in the number of murders
for which there was no arrest is sloppy.
And of course, the length of the time period
used to track released prisoners also needs
to be considered.
>
>
> > I don't think this really helps your argument, Dan.
> > Of the 20.8% that were reincarcerated, how many
> > (or what percentage) were reincarcerated for
> > violent crime?
> > Lumping murderers along with ALL criminals
> > is pretty dishonest, since the discussion is
> > obviously about those eligible for the DP (ie,
> > murderers.)
>
> This shows how uninformed you are about the study you're pretending to quote
> from. The text and charts included in the url I gave indicate that of the
> 3.1% of murderers who were being tracked by the study, 20.8% were
> subsequently reincarcerated for murder.
I don't see it that way. It looks to me like the3.1% is the percentage of all released prisoners.
Dan, if only 6.6% of murderers were re-arrested for murder,
how can 20.8% have been reincarcerated for murder???
What are you saying here, Dan, that 6.6% of released
murderers are rearrested but only .64% are reincarcerated???
Is the recidivism rate 2% or .64%???
Please explain.
> I didn't think it was necessary to
> tell you that since we are discussing execution, which is used almost
> exclusively for murder charges.
>
> Tell you what, Ed - I'm in a good mood - let's suppose that you're right and
> bumbling keystone kops investigate every case of a released murderer who is
> a suspect in another murder and all those people get off. Guess what - the
> same source you're using says that the rearrest rate is about 42%, so let's
> double the 0.64% reincarceration rate to equal the arrest rate - that's
> still ~1.3% - a recidivism rate right in line with the claims of those
> without an axe to grind.
Until you explain your voodoo above,this is not meaningful.
>
>
> [...]
>
> > > Yet another misrepresentation. The murder rate is given in the form of
> > > "x/100,000 of population", so it appears from the 2000/100000 datum that
> > > the number bears some resemblance to the data provided by DOJ, however,
> > > this is untrue. The "2,000/100,000 murder rate" Ed tries to foist on us
> is
> > > actually the *recidivism rate". Armed with this knowledge, let's
> > > understand what Ed is really telling us: The most recent murder rate
> which
> > > the DOJ acknowledges is about 7/100,000 of population. The vast
> majority
> > > of murders are single victim incidents.
> >
> > > So, the 2,000 murderers who
> > > reoffend require a population of 28,500,000 million potential victims to
> > > find the 2000 victims. [ (2000/7)*100000 ]
> >
> > So Dan, please tell the ng how manyinnocents die per year because of
> > recidivist murderers.
>
> Nice reply there, Ed. You really know how to explain yourself after having
> been exposed as passing off myth as information.
Using only incarceration as a measure of
recidivism has its obvious flaws as well,
but be sure not to acknowledge them,
Dan.
Anyway, since you like to crunch numbers,
here's an exercise for you
and Suzanne, who seem to play down
the recidivism issue. Please calculate
the murderER rate for the general
population, and compare it to
YOUR murderER rate for released murderers (ie, 2%).
How many orders of magnitude more likely
are released murderers going to murder than
average joe population off the street?
>
>
> [...]
John G. Spragge
[ on Dan's not subjecting me to a personal attack ]
>But it certainly shows inconsistency.
More information, please. What do you consider
Dan would have done "consistently" if he had made
a personal attack against me?
>I already looked, John. But refusing to acknowledgethat:
> 1) using reincarceration (as opposed to rearrest), and
Making this a solid argument would take more information
that you have so far provided. Mike Cullinan provided a
detailed argument in favour of rearrest as a measure of
recidivism, but I've never seen any proof of his assumptions.
Dan Hogg explicitly made the opposite assumption. I do
not know which, if either, has it right.
> 2) the relatively short tracking period (3 years)
Granted we would prefer better data; if you have it, please
post your data and your source. In the meantime, making
assumptions about how the admitted problems affect the
numbers doesn't make much sense to me.
>almost certainly leads to an underestimate of recidivism
>(as you pointed out) is disingenuous. Pretending that
>everyone who is arrested but not convicted did not
>actually commit the crime is ludicrous.
Disagreeing with Mr. Hogg's conclusions and assumptions
doesn't make them ludicrous. Given Mr. Hogg's assumptions
about the data, his conclusions reflect as good an estimate
of recidivist homicide as we can expect. In reality, we can't
hope for much better than a reasonable range of estimates.
Given that, my 6.7% figure almost certainly overstates the
then rate of recidivist homicide, and Dan's figure possibly
understates it.
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> Ah, the old anti "We execute innocent people" war cry!
>
> I will bet you that if the data is gathered comparing the numbers of
> people murdered by criminals who have murdered previously to the
> numbers of men or women who have been executed then positively proven
> innocent, you will find the first group to be in the majority by a
> hundred, or even a thousand fold.
One innocent executed is worse than a thousand murder victims.
[snip]
--
Desmond Coughlan |Restez Zen ... UNIX peut le faire
des...@cybercable.fr
http://212.198.67.111/ [under construction]
Natsam
John G. Spragge wrote:
> Natsam wrote in message <37E438D7...@worldnet.att.net>...
> [ on Dan's not subjecting me to a personal attack ]
>
> >But it certainly shows inconsistency.
>
> More information, please. What do you consider
> Dan would have done "consistently" if he had made
> a personal attack against me?
I'm not talking about "personal attacks."I'm talking about *not* pointing out that
you were disseminating "misinformation",
while at the same time pointing out that
"Horlick and other pros" are doing so,
when we were pointing to the exact
same data. And I'll bet money that
you cited it many more times than I
did.
>
>
> >I already looked, John. But refusing to acknowledgethat:
> > 1) using reincarceration (as opposed to rearrest), and
>
> Making this a solid argument would take more information
> that you have so far provided. Mike Cullinan provided a
> detailed argument in favour of rearrest as a measure of
> recidivism, but I've never seen any proof of his assumptions.
> Dan Hogg explicitly made the opposite assumption. I do
> not know which, if either, has it right.
Neither has it exactly "right." All I'm saying is
that to assume everyone who was arrested
but not convicted is not factually (not legally, facutally)
guilty is ludicrous. Do you really think police
just randomly pick people off the streets to
arrest and charge for murder (or any other
crime, for that matter)? Being arrested
certainly is evidence of factual guilt. (If you
have any evidence that police arrest the wrong
guy in most cases, please present it.)
Legal guilt in a court of law is another issue.
>
>
> > 2) the relatively short tracking period (3 years)
>
> Granted we would prefer better data; if you have it, please
> post your data and your source. In the meantime, making
> assumptions about how the admitted problems affect the
> numbers doesn't make much sense to me.
Illogical. If no such studies exist (or I don'tknow about them), then
I can't post them. But that doesn't mean there aren't
flaws in the existing studies we are looking at.
>
>
> >almost certainly leads to an underestimate of recidivism
> >(as you pointed out) is disingenuous. Pretending that
> >everyone who is arrested but not convicted did not
> >actually commit the crime is ludicrous.
>
> Disagreeing with Mr. Hogg's conclusions and assumptions
> doesn't make them ludicrous.
My position is that assuming everyone who is arrestedbut not convicted did not commit the crime for which
they were arrested is ludicrous, whether you, Mr. Hogg,
Sharpjfa, Necro, or Santa Claus makes the assumption.
> Given Mr. Hogg's assumptions
> about the data, his conclusions reflect as good an estimate
> of recidivist homicide as we can expect. In reality, we can't
> hope for much better than a reasonable range of estimates.
> Given that, my 6.7% figure almost certainly
> overstates the
> then rate of recidivist homicide, and Dan's figure possibly
> understates it.
What do you mean "possibly?" Are you saying that
it is possible that every person arrested but not
convicted did not commit the crime?
IMO, that is ludicrous.
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan <des...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> writes:
> [snip]
>
> > Ah, the old anti "We execute innocent people" war cry!
> >
> > I will bet you that if the data is gathered comparing the numbers of
> > people murdered by criminals who have murdered previously to the
> > numbers of men or women who have been executed then positively proven
> > innocent, you will find the first group to be in the majority by a
> > hundred, or even a thousand fold.
> One innocent executed is worse than a thousand murder victims.
Poor Desi, drunk again... :-(
Sorry to have reality intrude upon your naive and smelly little
world, my fatherless and unwashed european friend but "one innocent
executed" is by no means "worse than a thousand murder victims".
Only your youthful idealism would cause you to say such a ludicrous
thing. That and your penchant for trolling. When you grow up,
you'll realize that the realities of life tend to put a monkey
wrench into utopian dreams of how things 'should be'.
As great a feat of civil engineering as the Hoover Dam is and no
matter how much growth, investment, prosperity, clean electricity
and better standard of living it has provided for tens of millions
of people, no one would have stood up at the groundbreaking and said
that it was worth the life of a single worker. The reality is that
anyone with any real knowledge of a project like that knew that
lives would be lost in construction and in fact eight were. That's
how real life works. Happily we in the United States (the greatest
country on the face of the Earth, BTW) can proudly point out that
there has not been even a single case of an "innocent" man being
mistakenly executed since reintroduction of the just Death Penalty
in the late 1970s. There may be one day as there perhaps was a
century ago in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti. It is highly
doubtful, but it could happen. If it ever does, everyone posting
here today certainly will be long dead by that time.
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
Daniel F. Hogg
<37E44A26...@worldnet.att.net>...
> Daniel Hogg wrote:
> > Natsam <nats...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:37DF0F37...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > Daniel F. Hogg wrote:
> > > > Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
> > > > <7rlgna$frv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > > > > In article <37DDA413...@worldnet.att.net>,
> > > > > nats...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
[...]
> > Technically speaking,
> > > what you are referring to is not the recidivism rate
> > > either, but the re-incarceration rate.
> >
> > "Technically speaking"? Let's ask a basic question here Ed: since when
did
> > being arrested count as evidence of guilt? We like to try to
incarcerate
> > those who've been convicted first.
>
> Isn't one of antis' favorite sayings, "It's better to let 10 (or 100)
guilty go freethan to convict one innocent?" Dan, pretending that every
person
> who is arrested but not convicted is factually innocent is
> ridiculous. Here's a yes or no question: Do you
> think OJ did not kill Nicole and Ron?
Even assuming that all those rearrested for murder actually committed the
deed and even assuming that police manage to not arrest anyone in the 1/3
of cases that are unsolved and that those cases were all recidivist murder,
the number still would be about 2%. Why don't you try to stop squirming
about and just admit that the most independent knowledgeable source for
information on this - DOJ - supports this number?
> It's funny, people like you lobby for laws (Miranda,
> defendant's not having to testify, rules of evidence) that
> make it increasingly difficult to convict the bad guys, and
> then you claim that since convicted murderers were
> arrested but not convicted they did not commit the
> crime for which they were arrested. Again, you want
> it both ways.
I'm really embarassed for you Ed. Rules of evidence have been around for
several millennia, the 5th amendment has been around for 210 years, Miranda
for 35 years. When are you going to grow a little civility and understand
that those safety measures are in place to protect the innocent. That they
also protect an occasional guilty person is happenstance. Without such
rules, there would be nothing to prevent the government from making
citizenship, or even life, contingent on its version of truth.
But consider the merit of the argument you're making: that anyone who is a
suspect in a case should never be exonerated. If that's not what you're
saying, then necessarily, the recidivism rate is further distanced from
your data.
> > > > Why is this important? Basically because
> > > > an arrest is meaningless without a conviction.
> > >
> > > Not being convicted doesn't necessarily meanthe arrestee didn't
commit the
> > crime.
> >
> > With the murder conviction rate of 67%, you don't seriously plan to
argue
> > that the police and prosecutors are so bad at their jobs that they
manage to
> > let loose thousands of suspects in murder cases that they know are
guilty.
> > This is so patently indefensible, I'm embarassed for you, Ed.
>
> Don't put words in my mouth. People like you have madethe criminal
justice system so complex and pro-criminal
> that in many cases police aren't even sure what the correct
> procedure is. Heck, the Supreme Court can't
> even agree on many issues.
Ed, I'm reluctant to say this, but you've finally convinced me you are full
of it.
> And you're changing the point, which is recidivism, not
> police/prosecutorial behavior.
I didn't want to debate it - in fact, I expected you to snip this segment
and move on to a more productive, defensible and intelligent argument.
Your data on "recidivism" is only marginally indicative of the rate, a
virtually worst case scenario that doesn't happen in real life.
Yes it is. Arrest, like indictment, is not proof of guilt - stop
pretending it is. We incarcerate only after a public judicial proceeding,
not upon arrest or indictment.
> Pretending that every person who is arrested but
> not convicted is factually innocent is just as
> dishonest and illiterate as what you accuse me
> of. And not factoring in the number of murders
> for which there was no arrest is sloppy.
> And of course, the length of the time period
> used to track released prisoners also needs
> to be considered.
Even accounting for these "factors", as I did above, yields a recidivism
rate of 2%, nothing like the 6.6% you were using to try to mislead poor
Richard Jackson. Give it up, Ed - just admit you misread the data and
you'll gain respect instead of what you're presently earning.
> > > I don't think this really helps your argument, Dan.
> > > Of the 20.8% that were reincarcerated, how many
> > > (or what percentage) were reincarcerated for
> > > violent crime?
> > > Lumping murderers along with ALL criminals
> > > is pretty dishonest, since the discussion is
> > > obviously about those eligible for the DP (ie,
> > > murderers.)
> >
> > This shows how uninformed you are about the study you're pretending to
quote
> > from. The text and charts included in the url I gave indicate that of
the
> > 3.1% of murderers who were being tracked by the study, 20.8% were
> > subsequently reincarcerated for murder.
>
> I don't see it that way. It looks to me like the3.1% is the percentage
of all released prisoners.
>
> Dan, if only 6.6% of murderers were re-arrested for murder,
> how can 20.8% have been reincarcerated for murder???
> What are you saying here, Dan, that 6.6% of released
> murderers are rearrested but only .64% are reincarcerated???
> Is the recidivism rate 2% or .64%???
> Please explain.
Ed, I know you aren't this dense, so I wonder why you're trying to convince
everyone otherwise. 3.1% of the study of released prisoners were murderers
and 20.8% were subsequently reincarcerated for murder. A simple glance at
Table 8 in the report will tell you that.
The 6.6% number that you keep bandying about is from Table 9, which is
clearly labled "Rearrest rates..." I surmise you keep repeating this in an
effort to confound understanding of the data, or that you yourself are so
confounded. What Table 9 is saying is that 6.6% of the homicide arrests
were of those who previously had a murder conviction (which includes
negligent manslaughter, not ordinarily considered as murder).
[...]
> > Nice reply there, Ed. You really know how to explain yourself after
having
> > been exposed as passing off myth as information.
>
> Using only incarceration as a measure of
> recidivism has its obvious flaws as well,
> but be sure not to acknowledge them,
> Dan.
Nonsense. You're competing for the "Most Drivel Posted in a Week" Award.
[...]
Daniel F. Hogg
> John G. Spragge wrote:
> > Natsam wrote in message <37E438D7...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > [ on Dan's not subjecting me to a personal attack ]
> >
> > >But it certainly shows inconsistency.
> >
> > More information, please. What do you consider
> > Dan would have done "consistently" if he had made
> > a personal attack against me?
>
> I'm not talking about "personal attacks."I'm talking about *not* pointing
out that
> you were disseminating "misinformation",
> while at the same time pointing out that
> "Horlick and other pros" are doing so,
> when we were pointing to the exact
> same data. And I'll bet money that
> you cited it many more times than I
> did.
It's evident to me - and probably most others - that antis tend to read
pros' posts and vice versa (it isn't much of a debate otherwise) so I can
tell you I didn't notice John's post until it was the subject of this
thread. If it makes Ed feel any better, "Bad John!" :-)
> > >I already looked, John. But refusing to acknowledgethat:
> > > 1) using reincarceration (as opposed to rearrest), and
> >
> > Making this a solid argument would take more information
> > that you have so far provided. Mike Cullinan provided a
> > detailed argument in favour of rearrest as a measure of
> > recidivism, but I've never seen any proof of his assumptions.
> > Dan Hogg explicitly made the opposite assumption. I do
> > not know which, if either, has it right.
>
> Neither has it exactly "right." All I'm saying is
> that to assume everyone who was arrested
> but not convicted is not factually (not legally, facutally)
> guilty is ludicrous.
And I even gave you that point, saying that even using the rearrest data
instead of reincarceration yielded a "recidivism rate" of 1.3% or so, and
even suggested if we add in the number of non-arrests, would still only
bring the recidivism rate to 2%, which is right in line with what I've been
arguing all along.
Do you really think police
> just randomly pick people off the streets to
> arrest and charge for murder (or any other
> crime, for that matter)?
Well, while not frequent, it does happen. The other day there was a news
report about a fellow who'd been convicted of assault/attempted murder on
police officers. Turns out the truth (as testified to by one of the
officers after was caught stealing drugs from evidence lockers) is that the
officers handcuffed the suspect, shot him and planted the weapon on him in
order to gain a conviction. Granted such cases are rare, they are not
unknown.
Being arrested
> certainly is evidence of factual guilt. (If you
> have any evidence that police arrest the wrong
> guy in most cases, please present it.)
> Legal guilt in a court of law is another issue.
Arrest is most definitely *not* evidence of guilt, Ed. We do know that
police make errors and that's why our form of government calls for
independent evidence of guilt.
> > > 2) the relatively short tracking period (3 years)
> >
> > Granted we would prefer better data; if you have it, please
> > post your data and your source. In the meantime, making
> > assumptions about how the admitted problems affect the
> > numbers doesn't make much sense to me.
>
> Illogical. If no such studies exist (or I don'tknow about them), then
> I can't post them. But that doesn't mean there aren't
> flaws in the existing studies we are looking at.
It isn't reasonable to invalidate a study because one doesn't like its
conclusions. Skepticism is healthy but the "flaws" Ed points out are
limitations not reasons to reject all the findings.
> > >almost certainly leads to an underestimate of recidivism
> > >(as you pointed out) is disingenuous. Pretending that
> > >everyone who is arrested but not convicted did not
> > >actually commit the crime is ludicrous.
> >
> > Disagreeing with Mr. Hogg's conclusions and assumptions
> > doesn't make them ludicrous.
>
> My position is that assuming everyone who is arrestedbut not convicted
did not commit the crime for which
> they were arrested is ludicrous, whether you, Mr. Hogg,
> Sharpjfa, Necro, or Santa Claus makes the assumption.
But obviously, such is a stronger position than saying everyone arrested is
guilty regardless of the court's findings.
> > Given Mr. Hogg's assumptions
> > about the data, his conclusions reflect as good an estimate
> > of recidivist homicide as we can expect. In reality, we can't
> > hope for much better than a reasonable range of estimates.
> > Given that, my 6.7% figure almost certainly
>
> > overstates the
> > then rate of recidivist homicide, and Dan's figure possibly
> > understates it.
>
> What do you mean "possibly?" Are you saying that
> it is possible that every person arrested but not
> convicted did not commit the crime?
> IMO, that is ludicrous.
Which is why a 2% recidivism rate has been an acknowledged historical
average. The data in the study indicated 0.64%, which I indicated was a
priori too low, given the limits of the study. I even used the rearrest
rate and factored in the clearance rate and we still get back to 2%. I
have yet to see Ed post anything that draws this into question.
Natsam
Daniel F. Hogg wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> Yes it is. Arrest, like indictment, is not proof of guilt - stop
> pretending it is. We incarcerate only after a public judicial proceeding,
> not upon arrest or indictment.
Legal guilt and factual guilt are two different
concepts. I'm not talking about legal guilt,
as determined in a court of law. BTW,
do you think OJ did not kill Nicole and Ron?
<snip>
Where does it say that Table 8 shows
reincarceration for murder? It looks like
it is rearrest, reconviction and reincarceration
for any/all offenses. If what you
are saying is true, doesn't that make the
recidivism rate for murderers 20.8%? And
please explain why you are multiplying by 3.1%
in your calculations. Seems to me since we are
only concerned with the 3.1% (ie, murderers),
doing so is a flaw in your reasoning.
<rest snipped>
Natsam
about recidivism, I would like to apologize
to the newsgroup for my end of it, as
well as for any sloppy presentation and/or incomplete
information I posted.
There are actually three measures of
recidivism in the report I cited -
rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration.
It's obviously a pretty controversial
issue regarding which one is the best
measure.
For released murderers, the report shows:
42.1% were rearrested
25.2% were reconvicted
20.8% were reincarcerated
for any offense. (Although Dan has disputed
this, claiming these figures are for murder only.
If anyone is actually interested, see
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf
Maybe we could get some more opinions. )
Also, the report shows that 6.6% of released murderers
were rearrested for homicide. Unfortunately, there is no table showing
the percentage that were reconvicted and/or reincarcerated.
(Why, I don't know???)
So this leads to even more ambiguity and assuming. So extrapolating
from the numbers above, about 60% (25.2/42.1) of those rearrested
are reconvicted. So using that assumption, the reconviction
rate for 1983-released murderers is about 4% (6.6 * .6).
This 4%, imo, is a minumum number,
considering:
1) Surely *some* of those rearrested but not convicted
did actually commit the crime.
2) The (imo) limitiation of a short (3 year) tracking period
3) There are murders for which no arrest is made at all.
Since released murderers are orders of magnitude more
likely than the average joe public to commite murder, it is
reasonable to assume that at least some of these no-arrest murders
are commited by released murderers.
Anyway, out of curiosity, does it really matter to
anyone whether the recidivism rate is 2%, 4%, 6%
or 8% wrt their stance on the DP?
Hooked-on-quack's
<nats...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Since there has been a lot of arguing/posturing
>about recidivism, I would like to apologize
>to the newsgroup for my end of it, as
>well as for any sloppy presentation and/or incomplete
>information I posted.
Fuck it. You gotta start somewhere.
Compared to the bullshit that the Spraggoshevitz and Hoggowitz Law
firm post, your doing great. I realize that doesn't say much,
but....you gotta start somewhere.
>
>There are actually three measures of
>recidivism in the report I cited -
>rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration.
>It's obviously a pretty controversial
>issue regarding which one is the best
>measure.
Pulse, respiration and body temperature are generally acceptable
methods of predicting recidivism. If the bastards still breathing, you
are still at risk.
No. It's about justice, not about money or whether or not they will
re-offend.
>
>
>
Snag
><des...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
>> One innocent executed is worse than a thousand murder victims.
That says quite a lot about you, Desi.
<P align=center>"I hereby fine you $50 for disturbing the peace ... and the
rest for lying around"<P align=center>~ Judge Roy Bean fining a dead man ~
Desmond Coughlan
> >> One innocent executed is worse than a thousand murder victims.
> That says quite a lot about you, Desi.
Thank you.
FRZRDR
> sn...@aol.comcom (Snag) writes:
> > >> One innocent executed is worse than a thousand murder victims.
> > That says quite a lot about you, Desi.
>
> Thank you.
Desi,
Is it safe to assume that you also believe it could be 1,001, or
1,002...??? How about 1,000,000 : 1??
At what point is an error rate acceptable?
Don't get me wrong -- I too am very concerned about innocents being
executed, but I'm confused by your position here. Are you saying it's
just a matter of numbers? Do you think the dp acts as a deterrant?
freshly washed yet still smelly american,
bill
______________________________________________________
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more
freedom and democracy. But that could change."
--Dan Quayle
Rev. Don Kool
FRZRDR wrote:
> Desi Coughlan <des...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> > sn...@aol.comcom (Snag) writes:
> > > >> One innocent executed is worse than a thousand murder victims.
> > > That says quite a lot about you, Desi.
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> Desi,
>
> Is it safe to assume that you also believe it could be 1,001, or
> 1,002...??? How about 1,000,000 : 1??
>
> At what point is an error rate acceptable?
>
> Don't get me wrong -- I too am very concerned about innocents being
> executed, but I'm confused by your position here. Are you saying it's
> just a matter of numbers? Do you think the dp acts as a deterrant?
He's parroting the typical anti Death Penalty stance that victims
mean nothing and only the life of the murderer matters. It's
sickening but all too common among the supporters of murderers.
Hope this helps,
Natsam
Hooked-on-quack's wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:24:48 -0400, Natsam
> <nats...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Since there has been a lot of arguing/posturing
> >about recidivism, I would like to apologize
> >to the newsgroup for my end of it, as
> >well as for any sloppy presentation and/or incomplete
> >information I posted.
>
> Fuck it. You gotta start somewhere.
>
> Compared to the bullshit that the Spraggoshevitz and Hoggowitz Law
> firm post, your doing great. I realize that doesn't say much,
> but....you gotta start somewhere.
Hopefully, after Dan comes down , he might realize
(after I tried to point it out several times) that
he is misreading one of the tables (Table 8) in
the recidivism report. But I guess I'm the
dense one.
I agree. The reason I get involved in these
discussions is that I get tired of hearing
how the DP is a risk to innocents, as if
there is no risk to innocents if we don't
execute.
> >
> >
> >
Mitchell Holman
}Sharpjfa <shar...@aol.com> wrote
}
}[...]
}
}> For those who find themselves hysterical over these habeas corpus
}> reform efforts, who believe that speeding up the appeals process will
}> threaten the lives of those convicted and innocent, please contemplate
}> the following question:
}> What innocent or otherwise improperly convicted inmate would
}> wish to linger a bit longer on death row as their attorney, snail-like,
}> labored to prolong their wrongful stay on death row with a series
}> of delayed and frivolous appeals?
}
}ever seen Sharp pursue.
}
It's a knee-slapper, all right. Ranks right up there with:
"Pro death penalty folks are much more concerned about
innocents sent to death and executed than anti-dpers ever
could be."
Sharp, 8/16/99
Suzanne Burrows
[...]
> For those who find themselves hysterical over these habeas corpus
> reform efforts, who believe that speeding up the appeals process will
> threaten the lives of those convicted and innocent, please contemplate
> the following question:
> What innocent or otherwise improperly convicted inmate would
> wish to linger a bit longer on death row as their attorney, snail-like,
> labored to prolong their wrongful stay on death row with a series
> of delayed and frivolous appeals?
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous lines of argument I have
ever seen Sharp pursue.
In answer to that bizarre question, Sharp: the vast majority.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Suzanne Burrows
> <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
>> CBofGDALE <cbof...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We release our murderers after they've served their time,
>>>> and yes, my next-door neighbour could, in fact, be a released
>>>> murderer, and I wouldn't even know. How do I feel about
>>>> that? Just fine.
>>>
>>> Why? Are you suicidal?
>>
>> As here we have a murder rate that is only a quarter of
>> "Are *YOU* suicidal?"
>
> Huh??
I mean, after all, you choose to live with such a system
that fails to curb such a huge murder-rate....
> When the United States had Europe's system of almost
> non-punishment the crime rate was through the roof.
And when would that be. Your homicide rate was huge (well, even
*more* huge..) less than a decade ago, and I don't ever recall hearing
about America (circa 1990) having a "system of almost
non-punishment".
> Remember,
> this country has been importing the whole world's dysfunctionals
> for over 100 years which makes the crime situation different here.
> We even have a sign on the Statue of Liberty that invites the
> world's riff-raff and retards to "c'mon on in".
It wouldn't be a CBofGDALE post without a few
xenophobic comments...
Suzanne Burrows
>>
>> [...]
>>>> Of course, even if we accept the ridiculously low 2% figure,
>>>> that still comes out to a 2,000/100,000 murder rate.
>>>
>>> Wrong, it does nothing of the sort. A murder rate and a
>>> recidivism rate are completely *different* things.
>>>
>>> Ed, I normally criticise you, but this question is straight
>>> down the line.
>>>
>>> Do you genuinely not understand the difference between
>>> a recidivism rate and a homicde rate?
>>
>> Well, Ed?
>
>
> Boy, you guys really nailed me on this one.
Actually Ed, on this one issue I think you deserve
a break. You're not the first person to have been
duped by Sharp and JFA's dishonest, misleading articles.
And unfortunately, you won't be the last.
> Okay,I should've said "murderER rate."
No Ed, you should *not* have said "murderER rate". That is
just contrived Sharp-speak for a "recidivism rate". Nobody but
him uses this contrived terminology. He does it to scaremonger
people who mistakenly think he is referring to the homicide rate.
It's wasn't a 2-character typo, Ed. It's a matter of comparing
2 completely different sets of statistics - homicide rates and
recidivism rates - and then making dishonest, misleading
conclusions which Sharp does repeatedly.
> Now please compare the "murderER" rate of those
> previously convicted of murder to the "murderER" rate
> of the general population.
Okay, you want to compare the comparitve proportions of
the 2 populations that choose to murder. Fine. And what
conclusions did you make, Ed?
Suzanne Burrows
> Suzanne Burrows wrote:
[...]
>> This higher figure only applies to young adults, not all murderers.
>> The lower figure from the Stanford Law Review applied to all
>> murderers reguardless of age.
>>
>> 6% of young adults paroled in 1978 after having been convicted of
>> murder were arrested for murder again within 6 years of release.
>> ("Recidivism of Young Parolees," 4, 1987, BJS).
>
> Wrong. The 6.6% figure comes from a recidivismstudy:
>
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf
Um Ed...they are 2 SEPERATE figures...from different studies...
Now I realize they both have the number "6" in them, but even
so, I'm sure you'll be able to distinguish between them!!
Suzanne Burrows
>>> Richard Jackson wrote:
>>>> "Suzanne Burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> It's kind of comical, actually - on one hand, some anti's use the
>>> US recidivism rate in their arguments saying it is too *high*, and
>>> on the other hand other anti's point out that it is acceptably *low*.
>>
>> Ed, everything is relative.
>
> Funny you should say this, since you keep saying that
> murderers "rarely" murder again, that "only" 2% murder
> again, etc. "Rarely" and "only" relative to what???? Certainly
> not relative to the murder rate of the general population.
You are comparing a homicide rate and a recidivism rate
again. Sharp's misleading has had more of an effect than
I first thought.
> Assuming there
> are about 15,000 murders in the US, and
> taking a (probably low) guess of 75,000,000
> for the number of non-elderly adults, that's
> still only about a 20/100,000 murderER rate.
> About two orders of magnitude LESS than your
> beloved "low" recidivism rate of 2%. (Yes, this is an
> over-simplification, but the point is still valid.)
Despite the mixed-up math, I know what you're trying to say:
Murderers are more likely to kill than, say, you or me. True,
but I don't see anybody arguing against that in the first place.
A tiny proportion of the population kills. And a tiny (though
larger) proportion of released murderers will go on to kill.
>> Both figures show that the vast majority of murderers NEVER kill
>> again. 98% of all murderers, and 94% if we look at the subset of
>> young adults who murdered. Both show the mantra used by
>> some pro-DPers that most murderers will kill, kill and kill again to
>> be an absolute falsehood.
>>
>> On the other hand, your recidivism rate is high when compared
>> to other abolitionist jurisdictions, thus showing that the notion
>> that the DP "protects society", gets the killers "off the street", is
>> a "necessity", shows that you're "tough on crime", etc, etc is a
>> complete myth.
>
> Ridiculous rhetoric. Of course havingthe DP is being "tough on
> crime." You don't think execution is a tough punishment for a
> criminal???
It certainly isn't "tough" on the crime-RATE.
ie. "crime", not the "criminal".
> And you don't believe that an executed criminal
> is taken "off the street??
No more so than a killer whose locked in a cell, and certainly
not enough for anyone to think that the streets are 'free of killers'.
> And please explain how a corpse can be released from
> prison so that it might murder again.
Please explain why you are asking (for the n-th time) such a
silly question as 'how can a corpse murder' ?
I always assume the bringing up such strawmen is a sign
of desperation.
> <rest already addressed>
Not really. You admitted to being "nailed" for comparing unlike
statistics. Fine, "say no more about it", etc, etc.
But then go on to do exactly the same thing
in *this* following post. Oh well.
>> Of course, even if we accept the ridiculously low 2% figure,
>> that still comes out to a 2,000/100,000 murder rate.
>
> Wrong, it does nothing of the sort. A murder rate and a
> recidivism rate are completely *different* things.
>
> Ed, I normally criticise you, but this question is straight
> down the line.
>
> Do you genuinely not understand the difference between
> a recidivism rate and a homicde rate?
CBofGDALE
even *more* huge..) less than a decade ago, and I don't ever recall hearing
snip.>
In the 1960's and 70's. Some murderers who committed heinous offenses like
rape/murder, robbery/murder, murder for insurance money, attempted murder W
severe lifelong disability to the victim, etc., back then are now free and
running around after being in prison for only 7-18 years. Today these same
people could not hope to ever see the outside of a prison except maybe to go to
a nursing home.
Desmond Coughlan
> > > >> One innocent executed is worse than a thousand murder victims.
> > > That says quite a lot about you, Desi.
> > Thank you.
> Desi,
Who's 'Desi'?
> Is it safe to assume that you also believe it could be 1,001, or
> 1,002...??? How about 1,000,000 : 1??
Hundreds of millions. I would rather see the extinction of the human
race, than allow one innocent to be put to death by the state.
> At what point is an error rate acceptable?
No error rate is 'acceptable'. Unless you can come up with some proof
that human beings don't make mistakes in criminal trials, then there
will always - inevitably - be mistakes.
> Don't get me wrong -- I too am very concerned about innocents being
> executed, but I'm confused by your position here. Are you saying it's
> just a matter of numbers? Do you think the dp acts as a deterrant?
It has been shown again, and again, that the death penalty is not a
deterrent.
[snip]
Quijibo
> OK
>
> Here is a description of the process with the addition of habeas corpus reform
> at the state and federal levels.
>
> Actual imposition of the death penalty in the U.S. is extraordinarily rare.
> Since 1967, there has been
> one execution for every 10000 murders, or 0.1%. There have been approximately
> 600,000
> murders and 550 executions from 1967-1999 [FBI's Uniform Crime Report(UCR) &
> Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS)]. If convicted and sentenced to death, the
> inmate may then begin an appeals process that could extend through 24 years, 60
> appeals and over 200 individual judicial and executive reviews of the inmates
> claims. Approximately 6500 persons have been sentenced to death and 550
> executed (from 1973-99). An average of 0.3% of those were executed every
> year during that time. The average time on death row for those executed from
> 1977-1997 was nearly 9 years. For the 56 executed in 1995, the average time on
> death row was 11 years, 2 months - a new record of longevity, surpassing the
> old record of 10 years, 2 months, set in 1994.
> (Capital Punishment 1995 &1997, BJS 1996 and 1998). 60 death row inmates have
> been on death row for over 18 years. Eventually, because of the backlog of long
> serving death row inmates, new longevity records of from 12-17 years could be
> set.
>
> Opponents claim that with the new federal guidelines for appeals in capital
> cases, that nothing is left to protect the rights of the death row inmate.
> Predictably, such hysteria is unwarranted and untrue. The new federal appeals
> law, The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which affects
> the writ of habeas corpus, was upheld unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court in
> 1996.
> Opponents complain that AEDPA dramatically reduces the inmates
> ability to present their appellate issues. Let's look at those complaints. With
> these
> new federal standards, there are still at least 16 levels of post conviction
> review
> available to the death row inmate; 7 state and 9 federal, comprised of 2 direct
>
> appeals, one at the state level and one at the federal level; 11 habeas corpus
> appeals, four at the state level and seven at the federal level; 4 of those
> habeas
> appeals are for compelling post conviction claims of innocence, which are
> subject to a formal hearing, two at the state level and two at the federal
> level; and
> the 14th, 15th and 16th levels of review provide that the inmate’s claims are
> subject to review for executive clemency or commutation, at either the state or
>
> federal level, and sometimes both. There is no limit to the number of appellate
>
> issues which the inmate may raise on appeal. Similar appellate issues are often
>
> heard at every appellate level. There is, however, a limitation to repeating a
> presentation of the same appellate issues and time limitations for presenting
> claims. Provisions which benefit inmates with valid claims.
> Victim survivors have no right to appeal. Although, on the state level,
> this section deals specifically with Texas, the procedures are similar in all
> death penalty states and at the federal and military levels.
>
> In addition, This law established, nationally, higher minimum standards for
> defense counsel in capital cases and requires said counsel for all indigent
> capital defendants.
> The post conviction protections for death row inmates are so generous that
> inmates are six times more likely to get off death row by appeals or by
> commutation than by
> execution. 34% of all death row inmates are released by appeal or commutation.
> 146 death row inmates have been spared by commutation from 1973-96. This
> represents 41% of the total of those executed during that time - a remarkable
> record of care, consideration and mercy. Of all death row cases which have
> reached final disposition (via appeal, commutation or execution), 86% were
> resolved by appeal or commutation, only 14% were executed ("Capital
> Punishment 1996", p 13, BJS 1997). Additional due process would result in no
> executions, the clear intention of opponents.
> Many of those cases were overturned based on post conviction new
> laws, established by legislative or judicial decisions in other cases. In other
>
> words, many of the cases were overturned by laws that didn't exist at the time
> of
> the trial. The defendants were tried, convicted and sentenced properly under
> the laws that existed at the time of trial. New laws, which were subsequently
> passed to benefit defendants were applied retroactively to prior cases, thereby
>
> facilitating additional releases of our worst human rights violators.
>
> It is hard to imagine a legal system which could be more generous to its worst
> human rights violators - capital murderers. There is a reason that former US
> Supreme Court Justice Powell called it "super" due process.
> Many seem to be unaware of the true meaning of the habeas corpus
> process. They may not know that the intent of the "Great Writ", established in
> pre-Magna Carta England, is to quickly facilitate the release of the innocent
> or
> those otherwise wrongfully held or convicted - a process that may finally be
> honored with these reforms. This is a very positive development, except for the
>
> guilty and for those who wish to abuse the habeas corpus process by delaying
> justice with frivolous, repetitive and prolonged appeals. It is a bitter irony
> that it
> was just such intentional delays of justice that the "Great Writ" was created
> to
> abolish.
>
> It was just such abuses that caused many of the states and the federal
> government to enact new habeas corpus reforms. Indeed, it was opponents of the
> death penalty who finally guaranteed passage of these long delayed reforms.
> Opponents had begun to challenge the long stays on death row as
> unconstitutional, claiming that such delays were, by themselves, "cruel and
> unusual punishment", a violation of the eighth amendment. However, neither
> inmates nor their attorneys appeared to be rushing their appeals. Although all
> such cynical and humorous claims were rejected by U.S. courts, such claims did
> provide the final push necessary to finally pass these reforms through the U.S.
>
> Congress, thus respecting the claims of opponents, inmates and their attorneys
> through legislation.
> For those who find themselves hysterical over these habeas corpus
> reform efforts, who believe that speeding up the appeals process will threaten
> the
> lives of those convicted and innocent, please contemplate the following
> question:
> What innocent or otherwise improperly convicted inmate would wish to linger a
> bit longer on death row as their attorney, snail-like, labored to prolong
> their
> wrongful stay on death row with a series of delayed and frivolous appeals?
>
>
> JUSTICE FOR ALL websites
Now that's the Sharpjfa I know!
Let me first thank you for the info ... I'm sure this was no small time
consumption to type out.
And let me also say that the point is well taken. I'm willing to admit
that you have proven the death penalty in the U.S. to be hopelessly
inefficient and slow to the point of usless. I've never countered, and
will concede now that the current death penalty is generally considered
by those on both sides of the issue to be a perverse disaster. So the
question then becomes, how do we correct the current situation? Does
the terrible state of the current system lead us necessarily to the
conclusion that further "streamlining" and *more* executions is the
logical next step?
While there is a failure of the death penalty to achieve any of its
intended goals, this does not contradict or disprove my original point.
While you may argue that it the current system errs too far on the
side of protecting innocents, you cannot reasonably argue, that
eliminating and/or speeding appeals would not increase the *chance*
that more innocent lives would slip through the cracks.
As many pro-dpers have pointed out, given the existence of a death
penalty, the current system is set up to try to minimize the chances of
allowing an innocent person to be executed. And as you've now also
pointed out, this leaves the death penalty impotent to achieve any
tangible results. (sidebar: So in a sense, if you are one of the many
pro-dpers who argues the need for these types of reforms, it is
meaningless to discuss the chances of executing innocents under the
current system. If one feels that we currently give too many
allowances to protect innocents, than we would need to address this
possibility under an "effective" death penalty system.) Perhaps you
believe there is some delicate balance in which innocents will be
protected enough and the death penalty will achieve results (forgetting
for the moment the moral arguments or that those same results could be
achieved in other, less precarious ways). But don't argue the
impossible point that we can speed the process and allow fewer checks
and still be as accurate. This contradicts basic human tendencies.
So I suppose it all depends on where one would place such a balance.
Obviously this is a balance which I think is both impossible to achieve
and unecessary to attempt. Throughout history, people have shown that
systems like this will not only make errors, but will be abused -
particularly as the society surrounding it becomes increasingly blood
thirsty and mob oriented. These patterns have been repeated endlessly
and have shown that violent systems like the death penalty only serve
to exascerbate the unavoidable and inherent fallibility of humans.
Cheers,
Quijibo
(actually spelled "kwyjibo")
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
St.George
news:87wvtkf...@lievre.coughlan.fr...
> FRZRDR <frz...@i-2000.com> writes:
>
> > > > >> One innocent executed is worse than a thousand murder
victims.
>
> > > > That says quite a lot about you, Desi.
>
> > > Thank you.
>
> > Desi,
>
> Who's 'Desi'?
>
> > Is it safe to assume that you also believe it could be 1,001, or
> > 1,002...??? How about 1,000,000 : 1??
>
> Hundreds of millions. I would rather see the extinction of the human
> race, than allow one innocent to be put to death by the state.
Desmond, this statement is, quite literally, the most idiotic I have
EVER read on this or indeed any other newsgroup.
Congratulations. In one sentence you have surpassed the wildest dreams
of ridiculousness of 'Don' and his cronies. His equivalent statement
would have to be:
'I would rather see every person on earth executed than have one
murderer go unpunished'
PLEASE tell me you were being ironic. If not, you cannot expect any
statement of yours to be taken seriously ever again...
--
St.George
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Quijibo
As I was out of town, I realized that this response came a bit late and
was lost from the thread. Just in case you missed it the first time
... (I wouldn't want you to think I was backing away from an honest
fight!)
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:14:49 GMT "Quijibo" <958...@knotes.kodak.com>
wrote:
Daniel Hogg
news:_mcG3.16367$LL2.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com...
> Sharpjfa
>
> As I was out of town, I realized that this response came a bit late and
> was lost from the thread. Just in case you missed it the first time
> ... (I wouldn't want you to think I was backing away from an honest
> fight!)
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:14:49 GMT "Quijibo" <958...@knotes.kodak.com>
> wrote:
> > On 16 Sep 1999 17:56:04 GMT shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote
[Oft posted and tiresomely repetitive drivel deleted.]
> > Now that's the Sharpjfa I know!
As I point out above, known by his rhetoric.
> > Let me first thank you for the info ... I'm sure this was no small time
> > consumption to type out.
Actually, you can probably find this and most of Sharp's other postings at
the JFA site since that is where most of this uninformed and misinterpreted
junk is stored so he can readily cut and paste. Reliable reports have it
that Sharp has actually spent 0.02 milliseconds being intellectually
productive. Other reports suggest his postings are actually collages taken
from the nearby daycare center.
> > And let me also say that the point is well taken. I'm willing to admit
> > that you have proven the death penalty in the U.S. to be hopelessly
> > inefficient and slow to the point of usless. I've never countered, and
> > will concede now that the current death penalty is generally considered
> > by those on both sides of the issue to be a perverse disaster.
As Sharp's favorite pro-dp'er, let me say that such a conclusion is
basically only possible from an extremist pov. Absolutists on both sides of
the issue seem to me to be unable to grasp a simple point - that there are a
very few people who may merit the dp.
Quijibo
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:47:28 -0400 "Daniel Hogg" wrote:
> Quijibo wrote in message
> > > And let me also say that the point is well taken. I'm willing to admit
> > > that you have proven the death penalty in the U.S. to be hopelessly
> > > inefficient and slow to the point of usless. I've never countered, and
> > > will concede now that the current death penalty is generally considered
> > > by those on both sides of the issue to be a perverse disaster.
>
> As Sharp's favorite pro-dp'er, let me say that such a conclusion is
> basically only possible from an extremist pov. Absolutists on both sides of
> the issue seem to me to be unable to grasp a simple point - that there are a
> very few people who may merit the dp.
I'm afraid you're losing me here a bit. "As Sharp's favotite
pro-dp'er"? Is that you? I thought you were arguing against
Sharpjfa's pro-dp stance ...
And I'm not sure why "such a conclusion is basically only possible from
an extremist pov." To clarify: in my experience, the feeling is
widespread on both sides of the debate that the current U.S. death
penalty is unsatisfactory to say the least. Obviously not everyone
feels this way, but certainly it is not an extreme viewpoint. From the
pro-dp side, many seem to feel that inconsistent, infrequent, and
delayed executions leave the system ineffetive. And of course, from
those of us who oppose the dp entirely, the system - while preferable
to a more extreme dp campaign - is still a terrible alternative to a
more rational and humane policy.
Of course there are people to fill all opinions, and perhaps we have
just encountered different voices. However, I hardly think it is an
extreme viewpoint in and of itself that the current U.S. system is a
failure. Certainly the system many more I do believe that it is
basically another attampt by many politicians to ride the middle road
and avoid taking a stance - and that as usual when the main concern is
re-election and maintaining power instead of drafting effective and
benificial policy, that the resulting system is a half-assed and
"perverse disaster". Am I an extremist? (Eh ... maybe ...)