The Real Story of Ricky McGinn
Art Gould
life of a convicted, blood-thirsty, cold-blooded child rapist of the
sort Ricky McGinn. Lawyers, and others against the death penalty,
will try anything to save the life of their worthless client and dear
Mr. McGinn is one of those worthless beasts.
To those of you opposed to the "legal murder", of Mr. McGinn, can you
answer a few questions?
1. Do you still believe Mr. McGinn is innocent and, if so, on what
evidence do you base your position of innocence?
2. Is the world a better place with Mr. McGinn dead? If not, how do
you arrive at you idea that it wouldn't be?
Just so others will know what kind of "man" our dear sweet Ricky is
here is some information about him, the man, his crime and the
evidence against him.
Ricky McGinn was sentenced to die for the rape and murder of his
12-year-old step-daughter, Stephanie Rae Flanary. On the morning of
May 22, 1993, Janet McGinn, Ricky Nolen McGinn's wife, left her home
in Brownwood, Texas for a trip to Arlington. She left her 12-year-old
daughter, Stephanie Flanary, in the care of McGinn. McGinn and
Stephanie spent the day alone together. Stephanie was sexually
assaulted by McGinn and then beaten in the head with the blunt side of
an ax. She died of multiple head injuries and a fractured skull. Her
battered body was found three days later in a culvert along a
farm-to-market road near McGinn's residence in Brown County.
Investigators found blood in the trunk of McGinn's car and a bloody ax
under the seat of a broken truck in his yard. McGinn claimed that he
spent the day working on his truck and fishing in the tank behind his
house. McGinn said Stephanie also swam in the tank, fished, and
watched McGinn work on his truck. McGinn said while he worked on the
truck, he and Stephanie drank beer together - enough beer to make
Stephanie sick. McGinn claims that Stephanie then took a nap induced
by drinking, woke up, and then left on a walk from which she never
returned. According to McGinn, after realizing that Stephanie was
missing late that afternoon, he notified a friend but failed to notify
the police until 9:30 p.m. When the authorities arrived at McGinn's
house, the authorities, along with volunteers, searched the premises.
The next day members of the sheriff's department returned with several
dogs trained for searches. One dog, trained to find cadavers, barked
at the back of McGinn's hatchback. The police discovered numerous
blood splatters in McGinn's car which he said were splatters of blood
from the fish he had caught the day before. Testing identified blood
splatters throughout the car as human blood. Blood found in the spare
tire well matched Stephanie's blood type, type A. And tests run on a
blood stain on the back of the drivers seat scientifically excluded
McGinn's blood, matched Stephanie's, and excluded 96.4 percent of the
population as possible donors. Similarly, blood found on the metal
frame of the trunk scientifically excluded 99.59 percent of possible
donors. Blood found on the plastic liner of the back seat and on the
rear bumper guard scientifically excluded 99.56 percent of all
possible donors. And blood found on the metal frame of the vehicle
scientifically excluded 99.99 percent of all possible donors. Hair
sticking to a blood stain in McGinn's car matched Stephanie's. The
Department of Public Safety analyzed the blood discovered on an ax
found under the seat of McGinn's pickup truck, the truck McGinn had
worked on the day of the murder, and determined through enzyme testing
that the sample matched Stephanie's blood and excluded 93.1 percent of
possible donors. PCR DNA analysis also matched the blood on the ax to
Stephanie's blood and excluded 99.99 percent of possible donors.
Reverse paternity DNA testing confirmed that the blood on the ax
matched Stephanie's blood and excluded 99.9999999 percent of possible
donors. In addition, hair found in the blood on the ax matched
Stephanie's. Furthermore, McGinn's right tennis shoe, which he was
wearing on the day of Stephanie's murder and at the time investigators
arrived at his house, had blood stains identified as human blood. The
stain on his left tennis shoe matched Stephanie's blood type.
Underwear worn by McGinn when the police took him into custody had a
stain containing human blood, and shorts he had been wearing when the
sheriff's officers first arrived on the scene revealed a type A blood
stain. McGinn changed into blue jeans during the course of the evening
of the initial investigation. These jeans had blood stains,
established by DNA evidence as matching Stephanie's blood and
excluding all but one in 900,000 other possible donors. Semen was
found on the victim's shorts. A pubic hair recovered during the
autopsy of Stephanie Flanary matched McGinn's. Evidence was
introduced at trial that, on Aug. 1, 1986, McGinn threatened a woman
with a knife and forced her to remove her clothes and undress him. He
then forced her into sex acts with him. Evidence was also produced to
show that in Apr. of 1985, McGinn assaulted another girl, a sophomore
at Abilene Christian University, when she refused to have sex with
him. McGinn punched her several times in the head with his fists, and
subsequently raped her. McGinn's daughter testified that she was
sexually assaulted by McGinn in 1987, when she was three or four years
old. McGinn threatened to kill his daughter and her mother if the
child ever told anyone. As a result of this incident, she began
bleeding whenever she went to the bathroom. A couple of years later,
when the child's mother attempted to prevent McGinn from visiting with
the child alone, McGinn threatened to beat the mother to death with a
stick he brought with him, and threatened to break the door down. On
Thanksgiving Day in 1992, McGinn murdered Christi Jo Egger. DNA
evidence proved this to a certainty of 1 in 5.5 BILLION. McGinn was
never tried for this murder because he received the death sentence in
Stephanie's murder. McGinn is also the prime suspect in the murder of
12-year-old Sherri Newman, who was raped, beaten and dumped in a ditch
in Brownwood in 1986. A hair was found at McGinn's residence that was
later determined to belong to Sherri. McGinn received a stay of
execution in June to allow for further DNA testing which did not
exonerate him.
September 27, 2000 is the day innocent Ricky will be put down like the
animal he is.
Rev. Don Kool
Art Gould wrote:
[...snip...]
> September 27, 2000 is the day innocent Ricky will be put down like the
> animal he is.
Amen to that. He and his murderer loving supporters have wasted
enough of the taxpayer's money on frivilous appeals.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
Dave Proctor
news:e37brssnp4f4srri7...@4ax.com...
> To those of you opposed to the "legal murder", of Mr. McGinn, can you
> answer a few questions?
A good way to start the ball rolling.
> 1. Do you still believe Mr. McGinn is innocent and, if so, on what
> evidence do you base your position of innocence?
No, I do not believe he is innocent, and I believe that his guilt has now
been confirmed. But why did the state leave it until the last minute to run
the tests, when if they had conducted them well prior to his (original)
execution date, it would have saved itself a stack of money, as well as not
delaying the execution.
> 2. Is the world a better place with Mr. McGinn dead? If not, how do
> you arrive at you idea that it wouldn't be?
Playing to emotions here.
> Just so others will know what kind of "man" our dear sweet Ricky is
> here is some information about him, the man, his crime and the
> evidence against him.
<snipped>
Most of the people who opposed the original execution date for McGinn did so
on the basis that new tests were available which would prove or disprove
McGinn's guilt, and that for some reason, the state was opposing conducting
those tests. The costs of the tests were far less than the amount expended
by the state in fighting it, and if they had been conducted when they were
first requested, woudl not have delayed the execution.
Based on all of this, a lot of people thought that the state had something
to hide, this suspicion has since been proven to be unfounded.
So a question for you: What possible motive could the state have for
refusing to conduct an easily available and cheap test, one which would not
delay the execution if it was found to prove guilt, and instead spend far
more than the cost of the test in fighting it in the courts, thereby
delaying the execution?
Dave
St.George
> life of a convicted, blood-thirsty, cold-blooded child rapist of the
> sort Ricky McGinn. Lawyers, and others against the death penalty,
> will try anything to save the life of their worthless client and dear
> Mr. McGinn is one of those worthless beasts.
>
> To those of you opposed to the "legal murder", of Mr. McGinn, can you
> answer a few questions?
>
> 1. Do you still believe Mr. McGinn is innocent and, if so, on what
> evidence do you base your position of innocence?
No, as guilty as sin.
> 2. Is the world a better place with Mr. McGinn dead? If not, how do
> you arrive at you idea that it wouldn't be?
Yep, on average a slightly better place
There you go - sorry if I didn't fit the stereotype of a murderer-loving
tree-hugger from your rabid, slavering fantasies...
Sharpjfa
>From: "Dave Proctor" dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au
>Date: 9/5/00 9:43 PM EST
>Message-id: <jkit5.579932$MB.87...@news6.giganews.com>
>
>"Art Gould" <xxx...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:e37brssnp4f4srri7...@4ax.com...
>
>> To those of you opposed to the "legal murder", of Mr. McGinn, can you
>> answer a few questions?
>
>A good way to start the ball rolling.
>
>> 1. Do you still believe Mr. McGinn is innocent and, if so, on what
>> evidence do you base your position of innocence?
>
>No, I do not believe he is innocent, and I believe that his guilt has now
>been confirmed. But why did the state leave it until the last minute to run
>the tests, when if they had conducted them well prior to his (original)
>execution date, it would have saved itself a stack of money, as well as not
>delaying the execution.
All of the tests, except for the sperm on the shorts and the public hair were
done earlier. It was my understanding that none of the courts thought that the
additional tests were necessary to prove his guilt and that the Governor was
just being generous.
Doing the tests earlier would n't have saved any money. It actually would have
cost more, because they would have repeated the tests later with the better
technology.
>
>> 2. Is the world a better place with Mr. McGinn dead? If not, how do
>> you arrive at you idea that it wouldn't be?
>
>Playing to emotions here.
I think the question goes to is the world better off with less evil people or
more?
>
>> Just so others will know what kind of "man" our dear sweet Ricky is
>> here is some information about him, the man, his crime and the
>> evidence against him.
>
><snipped>
>
>Most of the people who opposed the original execution date for McGinn did so
>on the basis that new tests were available which would prove or disprove
>McGinn's guilt, and that for some reason, the state was opposing conducting
>those tests.
the opposition was based on it isn't necessary.
The costs of the tests were far less than the amount expended
>by the state in fighting it,
it was an issue of it won't do a thing, I believe.
and if they had been conducted when they were
>first requested, woudl not have delayed the execution.
nope. The would have asked for retesting based on newer, better tests
>
>Based on all of this, a lot of people thought that the state had something
>to hide, this suspicion has since been proven to be unfounded.
exactly, they had nothing to hide. It was a matter of the courts not seeing the
necessity for the tests.
>
>So a question for you: What possible motive could the state have for
>refusing to conduct an easily available and cheap test, one which would not
>delay the execution if it was found to prove guilt, and instead spend far
>more than the cost of the test in fighting it in the courts, thereby
>delaying the execution?
as you can see, your asumptions are wrong.
sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Rev. Don Kool
Dave Proctor wrote:
> "Art Gould" <xxx...@nospam.com> wrote...
[...snip...]
> Most of the people who opposed the original execution date for McGinn did so
> on the basis that new tests were available which would prove or disprove
> McGinn's guilt, and that for some reason, the state was opposing conducting
> those tests.
The reason being of course that his guilt was not in question.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Ron Bargoot
is overwhelming evidence of the accused person's guilt, and the crime is
so heinous, how can people object to ending this guy's life? What
possible reason could there be to allow this man to draw another breath?
Please, one of you abolitionists, explain this to me. Not in broad,
general arguments. Just this ONE specific case. Why should this man
not be put to death?
This is not a sarcastic post, I'm serious.
Ron Bargoot
http://rbargoot.50megs.com
Dave Proctor
news:20000906064714...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
Not if they had done them 2 months before the original execution date. Then
he would be dead already and rotting in his grave. Fighting the tests is
what kept him alive, and the state of Texas is responsible for that.
> >> 2. Is the world a better place with Mr. McGinn dead? If not, how do
> >> you arrive at you idea that it wouldn't be?
> >
> >Playing to emotions here.
>
> I think the question goes to is the world better off with less evil people
or
> more?
> >
> >> Just so others will know what kind of "man" our dear sweet Ricky is
> >> here is some information about him, the man, his crime and the
> >> evidence against him.
> >
> ><snipped>
> >
> >Most of the people who opposed the original execution date for McGinn did
so
> >on the basis that new tests were available which would prove or disprove
> >McGinn's guilt, and that for some reason, the state was opposing
conducting
> >those tests.
>
> the opposition was based on it isn't necessary.
And they spent more money to fight it than the tests would cost, thereby
delaying the execution.
> The costs of the tests were far less than the amount expended
> >by the state in fighting it,
>
> it was an issue of it won't do a thing, I believe.
So why fight it? Not doing it kept McGinn alive for an extra two months.
> and if they had been conducted when they were
> >first requested, woudl not have delayed the execution.
>
> nope. The would have asked for retesting based on newer, better tests
Wrong. There have been no "newer, better tests" developped since these tests
were originally requested. Heck, they could have done these same tests last
year, and it all would have been settled.
> >Based on all of this, a lot of people thought that the state had
something
> >to hide, this suspicion has since been proven to be unfounded.
>
> exactly, they had nothing to hide. It was a matter of the courts not
seeing the
> necessity for the tests.
But why did the state fight it? Conducting a simple test would have been
much cheaper than what actually happened, as well as being quicker. Since
justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done, having the state
oppose conducting a newly developped test, a test which the condemned claims
can prove his innocence, gives the impression that the state is scared of
the result, particularly when opposing the test costs far more than
conducting the test would have. This is not the way to ensure that justice
is seen to be done.
> >So a question for you: What possible motive could the state have for
> >refusing to conduct an easily available and cheap test, one which would
not
> >delay the execution if it was found to prove guilt, and instead spend far
> >more than the cost of the test in fighting it in the courts, thereby
> >delaying the execution?
>
> as you can see, your asumptions are wrong.
All I can see is Sharp making pronouncements from on high, and expecting
everyone to take them as fact. It doesn't work that way Dudley (except in
your own little world).
Dave
Rev. Don Kool
It is because they love murderers and achieve a vicarious thrill
through reading of their exploits.
Hope this helps,
Dave Ayotte
Hi Rev,
when exactly are you going explain your
flawed idea that anti-DPers are murder
lovers?
Considering that many anti-DPers believe
that executioners are murderers . . . don't
you think that many anti-DPers would love
executioners?
>>>Dave>>>amyst...@uswest.net<<<<<
>>>>www.AmyStrange.com/forensics.html<<
> join Amy Strange in her journey
> into the world of the Unexplained:
>>>>>>>>>www.AmyStrange.com<<<<<<<<<<
P.S. at no cost and advertisement free
Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <39B5A876...@home.com>...
Dave Ayotte
Hi Rev,
when exactly are you going explain your
flawed idea that anti-DPers are murder
lovers?
Considering that many anti-DPers believe
that executioners are murderers . . . don't
you think that many anti-DPers would love
executioners?
>>>Dave>>>amyst...@uswest.net<<<<<
>>>>www.AmyStrange.com/forensics.html<<
> join Amy Strange in her journey
> into the world of the Unexplained:
>>>>>>>>>www.AmyStrange.com<<<<<<<<<<
P.S. at no cost and advertisement free
Rev. Don Kool wrote in message <39B6DEE2...@home.com>...
Peter Morris
> answer a few questions?
>
> 1. Do you still believe Mr. McGinn is innocent and, if so, on what
> evidence do you base your position of innocence?
No
> 2. Is the world a better place with Mr. McGinn dead? If not, how do
> you arrive at you idea that it wouldn't be?
It would depend on how he died. If he died from a heart attack
or suicide, then the world would be a better place.
If *we* decide to kill him, then *we* become tainted in the
process, and the world is a worse place.
Natsam
"Peter Morris" <morr...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> "Ron Bargoot" <ronald....@tufts.edu> wrote in message
> news:39B68285...@tufts.edu...
> into killers.
But it is possible to *execute* him without turning ourselves
into *murderers*.
> We would become tainted in the process.
How so?
> It would be a permanent stain on our immortal souls.
How so?
> It would
> *not* "make us as bad as McGinn" but it would take us one
> small step in his direction.
A crime and a punishment for a crime are two different things.
Does imprisoning a kidnapper "taint" us or "stain ... our
immortal souls?" If not, why not?
How does it "stain" my soul, Peter, when
a vicious murderer is executed? Please explain in more
detail how I am "tainted" when this multiple murderer is
put to sleep?
>
> This is not a sarcastic post either. I'm serious too.
I'm being serious, too. Seems like whenever all the digressions and
strawmen are put aside, and anti's are directly asked why
we should allow brutal murderers like McGinn to live, they start
telling me how I (and others and "society") am/are negatively affected.
Maybe you can clear things up, Peter, and all of us DP supporters
are negatively affected by the death of a brutal murderer.
>
> To help you understand the way I feel, consider the following
> situation. Just suppose an armed robber hits the local
> Kwick-E-Mart, and shoots a customer dead. It is later
> discovered that the dead customer is a criminal, a serial
> rapist, a drug dealer, a paedophile or whatever. Probably
> the world is better off without him. But that does not change
> the fact that the killer has committed a terrible act of murder.
> Doubtless, many people would be appalled and disgusted by
> the murder, but have absolutely no sympathy for the victim.
> And this is exactly the way I feel about the execution of
> Ricky McGinn.
>
You analogy fails because the "killer" committed murder (ie, a crime.)
Execution is a punishment for a crime.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Natsam
Natsam <nat...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> I'm being serious, too. Seems like whenever all the digressions and
> strawmen are put aside, and anti's are directly asked why
> we should allow brutal murderers like McGinn to live, they start
> telling me how I (and others and "society") am/are negatively
affected.
> Maybe you can clear things up, Peter, and
....explain how.... (sorry for the typo)
> all of us DP supporters
> are negatively affected by the death of a brutal murderer.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ron Bargoot
seems abrupt, it's just the way I think, nothing personal.
Peter Morris wrote:
> Because it is impossible to kill him without turning ourselves
> into killers.
Do you believe all killing is wrong? Such as killing animals for food?
Would you kill someone to defend your own life, or that of a family member?
>We would become tainted in the process. It
> would be a permanent stain on our immortal souls.
What religion are you that considers a lawfully applied death sentence a
sin? I'm assuming this is what you mean by "stain on our immortal
souls". Are you a devout Christian?
>It would
> *not* "make us as bad as McGinn" but it would take us one
> small step in his direction.
This I just don't understand. I don't understand how ending the life of
someone like this man, would bring us "one step in his direction" I
supppose that, if you believe all killing is wrong, then this is the way
you would feel. Maybe this is the big difference between us. I believe
that, in certain circumstances, there is such a thing as "Justifiable
Homicide". I am also not opposed to the killing of animals for food. I
guess this is why I support a women's right to choose an abortion.
Though I personally don't agree with the practice of abortion (for a lot
of reasons), I would never presume to have the right to force my belief
on anyone else. Maybe this is because I understand that at times, there
is such a thing as a "justifiable homicide". Not being a woman, and
having no idea of what it must be like to be in a situation like a lot
of women who have abortions find themselves in, I don't think it's my
place to tell women they can't have one.
>
> This is not a sarcastic post either. I'm serious too.
>
> To help you understand the way I feel, consider the following
> situation. Just suppose an armed robber hits the local
> Kwick-E-Mart, and shoots a customer dead. It is later
> discovered that the dead customer is a criminal, a serial
> rapist, a drug dealer, a paedophile or whatever. Probably
> the world is better off without him. But that does not change
> the fact that the killer has committed a terrible act of murder.
And probably deserves to be executed for it...
> Doubtless, many people would be appalled and disgusted by
> the murder, but have absolutely no sympathy for the victim.
> And this is exactly the way I feel about the execution of
> Ricky McGinn.
Even given the horrendous nature of the crime? Do you not feel any
sympathy for little girl he raped and beat to death? I'm curious, do
you have any children of your own? I know how I felt when, here in
Massachusetts a few years ago, a 10 year old boy was kidnapped. It
turns out that he was suffocated with a gasoline soaked rag, then his
body was sexually abused by two men, who later put his body into a
plastic storage tub, filled it with cement, and dumped it into a river.
My son, at the time, was 10 years old. The day the boy was first
missing, I was sitting in my kitchen watching the news, waiting for my
son to come home from the park right around the corner from my house.
He was late, and when he got home, I freaked out. I didn't know whether
to smack him or hug him. I mad him watch the news that night, so he
could see the story about the boy (at the time, he was just missing).
As the story developed, and more details emerged, my son was horrified.
He asked me how could someone do something like that to a little kid? I
told him that there are just some people out there who are capable of
anything, worse than any monsters in any book. Two men were arrested,
and convicted (after one confessed).
We don't have the death penalty here in Massachusetts, though it almost
passed (lost by one vote) the last time around. Honestly, given the
chance, I would probably take these two guys out myself. If they needed
someone to throw the switch, I'd volunteer. And you would consider me
an immoral murderer?
Why are you not more disgusted with the actions of criminals, than with
a state that would want them put to death?
--
Ron Bargoot
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > Because it is impossible to kill him without turning ourselves
> > into killers.
> But it is possible to *execute* him without turning ourselves
> into *murderers*.
I'm just dying (no pun intended) to know how one can execute someone
without killing him ...
[snip]
--
**********************************************************************
* Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris *
* dcou...@vdp.fr http://www.forumdesimages.net/ (01) 44.76.62.29 *
* PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr *
**********************************************************************
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan <des...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> Natsam <nat...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Because it is impossible to kill him without turning ourselves
> > > into killers.
>
> > But it is possible to *execute* him without turning ourselves
> > into *murderers*.
>
> I'm just dying (no pun intended) to know how one can execute someone
> without killing him ...
The just execution does kill the proven murderer, my child. That
is the point. Death is the only appropriate and morally right
punishment for those who choose to murder.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Natsam
des...@coughlan.net,dcou...@vdp.fr wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 14:55:53 GMT, Natsam <nat...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Because it is impossible to kill him without turning ourselves
> > > into killers.
>
> > But it is possible to *execute* him without turning ourselves
> > into *murderers*.
>
> I'm just dying (no pun intended) to know how one can execute someone
> without killing him ...
>
???
Please consult your nearest dictionary, maybe that will
clear things up for you.
St.George
"Peter Morris" <morr...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8p7uur$hvt$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...
> would be a permanent stain on our immortal souls. It would
> *not* "make us as bad as McGinn" but it would take us one
> small step in his direction.
>
>
> To help you understand the way I feel, consider the following
> situation. Just suppose an armed robber hits the local
> Kwick-E-Mart, and shoots a customer dead. It is later
> discovered that the dead customer is a criminal, a serial
> rapist, a drug dealer, a paedophile or whatever. Probably
> the world is better off without him. But that does not change
> the fact that the killer has committed a terrible act of murder.
> the murder, but have absolutely no sympathy for the victim.
> And this is exactly the way I feel about the execution of
> Ricky McGinn.
Nice post, Peter.
One can earnestly believe that a particular individual thoroughly deserves
to be executed, WITHOUT believing that the state should carry it out!
Peter Morris
"Natsam" <nat...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p8a9c$n6p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Because it is impossible to kill him without turning ourselves
> > into killers.
>
> But it is possible to *execute* him without turning ourselves
> into *murderers*.
But it is impossible to *kill* him without turning ourselves
into *killers*.
> > We would become tainted in the process.
>
> How so?
>
> > It would be a permanent stain on our immortal souls.
>
> How so?
read the Bible and see.
> > It would
> > *not* "make us as bad as McGinn" but it would take us one
> > small step in his direction.
>
>
> A crime and a punishment for a crime are two different things.
> Does imprisoning a kidnapper "taint" us or "stain ... our
> immortal souls?" If not, why not?
Oh good grief, what a tired cliche. There is no realistic
comparison between kidnapping and imprisonment.
In order to make imprisoning a criminal truely resemble
kidnapping we would have to ...
- not tell his family where he is held
- not allow him to communicate with the outside world
- not give him adequate food
- give no facilities for exercise or recreation
- keep him blindfolded so he cant see his guards
- release him upon payment of a certain sum of money.
So the resmblance between the two is slight at best. Also,
imprisonmentn is a standard punishment used for a wide
variety of offences. The fact that it bears a superficial
similarity to one particular crime is merely a coincidence.
The death penalty for murder is the only punishment where
there is a deliberate attempt to make the punishment fit
the crime, which is a really immature concept anyway.
> How does it "stain" my soul, Peter, when
> a vicious murderer is executed? Please explain in more
> detail how I am "tainted" when this multiple murderer is
> put to sleep?
For an example, look at Don Kool.
>
> >
> > This is not a sarcastic post either. I'm serious too.
>
> I'm being serious, too. Seems like whenever all the digressions and
> strawmen are put aside, and anti's are directly asked why
> we should allow brutal murderers like McGinn to live, they start
> telling me how I (and others and "society") am/are negatively affected.
> Maybe you can clear things up, Peter, and all of us DP supporters
> are negatively affected by the death of a brutal murderer.
>
>
> >
> > To help you understand the way I feel, consider the following
> > situation. Just suppose an armed robber hits the local
> > Kwick-E-Mart, and shoots a customer dead. It is later
> > discovered that the dead customer is a criminal, a serial
> > rapist, a drug dealer, a paedophile or whatever. Probably
> > the world is better off without him. But that does not change
> > the fact that the killer has committed a terrible act of murder.
> > Doubtless, many people would be appalled and disgusted by
> > the murder, but have absolutely no sympathy for the victim.
> > And this is exactly the way I feel about the execution of
> > Ricky McGinn.
> >
>
> You analogy fails because the "killer" committed murder (ie, a crime.)
> Execution is a punishment for a crime.
My analogy does not fail. What if the victim were a a drug
dealer whose customers have died from overdoses, a rapist-killer,
a paedophile killer, or other murderer. (I suppose I should
have specified akiller in my previous post) Then your objection
would be meaningless.
The analogy still stands - disgust at the action, but no sympathy
for the victim. You have not shown anything wrong with this.
Peter Morris
> OK, I'm going to go over this. I will not be sarcastic, if my tone
> seems abrupt, it's just the way I think, nothing personal.
That's fiine by me, and its pretty much what I did in my post.
>
> Peter Morris wrote:
>
> > Because it is impossible to kill him without turning ourselves
> > into killers.
>
> Do you believe all killing is wrong? Such as killing animals for food?
> Would you kill someone to defend your own life, or that of a family
member?
There is a pretty big difference between killing to ensure
immediate survival, and killing for the sake of making someone
dead.
> >We would become tainted in the process. It
> > would be a permanent stain on our immortal souls.
>
> What religion are you that considers a lawfully applied death sentence a
> sin? I'm assuming this is what you mean by "stain on our immortal
> souls". Are you a devout Christian?
I was raised a Christian, and devoted a lot of time to
studying it as a child and as a young man. As I grew older
I began to question whether Christianity is the one true
religeon out of all the religeons in the world. Currently,
I'm agnostic. I still believe in God, but I dont know which
God. I still believe that we have souls, and every evil act
marks our souls. As a matter of moral philosophy I greatly
respect the teachings of Jesus Christ, and try to follow them,
and they still provide the basis for my personal concept of
whats right and whats wrong. And I find the teachings of
Jesus Christ to be incompatible with a killing that serves no
purpose other than punishment.
> >It would
> > *not* "make us as bad as McGinn" but it would take us one
> > small step in his direction.
>
> This I just don't understand. I don't understand how ending the life of
> someone like this man, would bring us "one step in his direction" I
> supppose that, if you believe all killing is wrong, then this is the way
> you would feel. Maybe this is the big difference between us.
Agreed
> I believe
> that, in certain circumstances, there is such a thing as "Justifiable
> Homicide". I am also not opposed to the killing of animals for food.
Nor am I.
> I guess this is why I support a women's right to choose an abortion.
> Though I personally don't agree with the practice of abortion (for a lot
> of reasons), I would never presume to have the right to force my belief
> on anyone else. Maybe this is because I understand that at times, there
> is such a thing as a "justifiable homicide". Not being a woman, and
> having no idea of what it must be like to be in a situation like a lot
> of women who have abortions find themselves in, I don't think it's my
> place to tell women they can't have one.
Noted and respected.
>
> >
> > This is not a sarcastic post either. I'm serious too.
> >
> > To help you understand the way I feel, consider the following
> > situation. Just suppose an armed robber hits the local
> > Kwick-E-Mart, and shoots a customer dead. It is later
> > discovered that the dead customer is a criminal, a serial
> > rapist, a drug dealer, a paedophile or whatever. Probably
> > the world is better off without him. But that does not change
> > the fact that the killer has committed a terrible act of murder.
>
> And probably deserves to be executed for it...
Probably he does. But if we kill him then ... (you know the rest)
> > Doubtless, many people would be appalled and disgusted by
> > the murder, but have absolutely no sympathy for the victim.
> > And this is exactly the way I feel about the execution of
> > Ricky McGinn.
>
> Even given the horrendous nature of the crime? Do you not feel any
> sympathy for little girl he raped and beat to death?
Of course I do. Please do not put words in my mouth.
> I'm curious, do
> you have any children of your own? I know how I felt when, here in
> Massachusetts a few years ago, a 10 year old boy was kidnapped. It
> turns out that he was suffocated with a gasoline soaked rag, then his
> body was sexually abused by two men, who later put his body into a
> plastic storage tub, filled it with cement, and dumped it into a river.
> My son, at the time, was 10 years old. The day the boy was first
> missing, I was sitting in my kitchen watching the news, waiting for my
> son to come home from the park right around the corner from my house.
> He was late, and when he got home, I freaked out. I didn't know whether
> to smack him or hug him. I mad him watch the news that night, so he
> could see the story about the boy (at the time, he was just missing).
> As the story developed, and more details emerged, my son was horrified.
> He asked me how could someone do something like that to a little kid? I
> told him that there are just some people out there who are capable of
> anything, worse than any monsters in any book. Two men were arrested,
> and convicted (after one confessed).
>
> We don't have the death penalty here in Massachusetts, though it almost
> passed (lost by one vote) the last time around. Honestly, given the
> chance, I would probably take these two guys out myself. If they needed
> someone to throw the switch, I'd volunteer.
You know, I've heard a lot of people say that. I've also heard many
accounts of people who participated in executions, and then afterwards
felt guilty and disgusted with themselves. Some hangmen, such as
Albert Pierrepoint became ardent anti death penalty campaigners.
I have no doubt that you are a moral person, and as such if you
were to throw the switch yourself, you would not be able to live
with yourself afterwards.
> And you would consider me
> an immoral murderer?
Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said you
were a murderer. Those are your words. not mine.
> Why are you not more disgusted with the actions of criminals, than with
> a state that would want them put to death?
I am 10,000 times more disgusted by the actions of McGinn.
But that does not change the fact that I am also disgusted by
the actions of the state.
Ricky McGinn is a cold-blooded killer, a monster who is
willing to kill without the slightest trace of guilt or mercy.
I, however, am not.
Are you?
Rev. Don Kool
Peter Morris wrote:
> "Natsam" <nat...@my-deja.com> wrote...
> > > Because it is impossible to kill him without turning ourselves
> > > into killers.
> >
> > But it is possible to *execute* him without turning ourselves
> > into *murderers*.
>
> But it is impossible to *kill* him without turning ourselves
> into *killers*.
Sorry to break it to you, Pete, but just the act of living makes us
"killers". Being a "killer" can be good or bad based on the
circumstances. Being a murderer is always bad. As a matter of fact
it is so bad that the just Death Penalty is the only appropriate and
morally right punishment for those that choose to murder.
Rev. Don Kool
Peter Morris wrote:
> "Ron Bargoot" <ronald....@tufts.edu> wroteu...
> > OK, I'm going to go over this. I will not be sarcastic, if my tone
> > seems abrupt, it's just the way I think, nothing personal.
>
> That's fiine by me, and its pretty much what I did in my post.
>
> >
> > Peter Morris wrote:
> >
> > > Because it is impossible to kill him without turning ourselves
> > > into killers.
> >
> > Do you believe all killing is wrong? Such as killing animals for food?
> > Would you kill someone to defend your own life, or that of a family
> member?
>
> There is a pretty big difference between killing to ensure
> immediate survival, and killing for the sake of making someone
> dead.
Indeed. Then there is "killing" to uphold Justice -- a throughly
noble activity.
> > >We would become tainted in the process. It
> > > would be a permanent stain on our immortal souls.
> >
> > What religion are you that considers a lawfully applied death sentence a
> > sin? I'm assuming this is what you mean by "stain on our immortal
> > souls". Are you a devout Christian?
>
> I was raised a Christian, and devoted a lot of time to
> studying it as a child and as a young man. As I grew older
> I began to question whether Christianity is the one true
> religeon out of all the religeons in the world. Currently,
> I'm agnostic.
That explains much of your confusion, my lost sheep. Most of you
murderer lovers are godless. It is your rejection of the Lord that
binds you together in your love of murderers and the crimes they
commit. Fortunately you are but a small part of the lunatic fringe
and those we elect to high office embrace God and the Constitution
of the United States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth,
BTW). That is the basis for their strong support of the just Death
Penalty.
[...remainder snipped...]
Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
Ron Bargoot
> There is a pretty big difference between killing to ensure
> immediate survival, and killing for the sake of making someone
> dead.
>
So, you will admit that there are times when it is necessary and
appropriate to take the life of another human being?
> I was raised a Christian, and devoted a lot of time to
> studying it as a child and as a young man. As I grew older
> I began to question whether Christianity is the one true
> religeon out of all the religeons in the world. Currently,
> I'm agnostic. I still believe in God, but I dont know which
> God. I still believe that we have souls, and every evil act
> marks our souls. As a matter of moral philosophy I greatly
> respect the teachings of Jesus Christ, and try to follow them,
> and they still provide the basis for my personal concept of
> whats right and whats wrong. And I find the teachings of
> Jesus Christ to be incompatible with a killing that serves no
> purpose other than punishment.
>
Ummm, I am somewhat of a student of religions. I have read the Bible,
cover to cover, 3 times. Without going through it quote by quote, I can
tell you that while he preached peace, Christ had no problem with
killing for self defense, the right cause, or as punishment. Using the
Bible to justify anything is pretty risky, it contradicts itself over
and over. You have to pick and choose what you are going to believe in
and what you are going to disregard. I am not a follower of any of the
major organized religions. I follow Wicca.
>
> > I'm curious, do
> > you have any children of your own?
You didn't answer this question. I would like to know. It is important
for me to understand where you are coming from.
>> If they needed
> > someone to throw the switch, I'd volunteer.
>
> You know, I've heard a lot of people say that. I've also heard many
> accounts of people who participated in executions, and then afterwards
> felt guilty and disgusted with themselves. Some hangmen, such as
> Albert Pierrepoint became ardent anti death penalty campaigners.
> I have no doubt that you are a moral person, and as such if you
> were to throw the switch yourself, you would not be able to live
> with yourself afterwards.
You don't know me. You don't know what I am or am not capable of.
Believe me when I say that I would not lose 1 minute's sleep over
executing the two pieces of living garbage I spoke of. No moral
dilemma, no internal conflict. Just the satisfied feeling of a job well
done.
> > And you would consider me
> > an immoral murderer?
>
> Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said you
> were a murderer. Those are your words. not mine.
OK, what you said was "Killer", not murderer. So that's what you would
consider me, an immoral killer.
> I am 10,000 times more disgusted by the actions of McGinn.
> But that does not change the fact that I am also disgusted by
> the actions of the state.
>
> Ricky McGinn is a cold-blooded killer, a monster who is
> willing to kill without the slightest trace of guilt or mercy.
>
> I, however, am not.
>
> Are you?
In the right circumstances, yes. And so are you. And if I understand
your very first statement, You agreed that you would kill in self
defense, or to protect a loved one, did you not. Or perhaps you mean
that, if you had to kill in self defense, you would feel guilty, is that
so? Would you show mercy to someone trying to kill you or your child?
So you agree that there are indeed times when it is necessary and proper
to take a human life. What we disagree on is, what is the proper time.
I find this most curious.
I will tell you why I support the death penalty. Most people find it an
odd reason, but it is what I believe. I believe that, by executing the
criminal, we are doing what the victim should have been able to do, but
could not, kill their attacker. I do not see it as retribution or
punishment or a deterrent. I see it as, in a Karmic sense, Justice.
--
Ron Bargoot
http://rbargoot.50megs.com
Natsam
"Peter Morris" <morr...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> "Natsam" <nat...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8p8a9c$n6p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > > Because it is impossible to kill him without turning ourselves
> > > into killers.
> >
> > But it is possible to *execute* him without turning ourselves
> > into *murderers*.
>
> But it is impossible to *kill* him without turning ourselves
> into *killers*.
So what? This is a useless "truism."
The same statement could be made about someone who
kills a rapidly approaching, knife wielding, crazed
psychopath who is threatening to kill him. The same
statement could be made about a police sniper who
shoots and kills a crazed hostage taker who appears to
be ready to start reigning gunfire on his hostages.
Using "kill" when there are more precise words like
"execute" and "murder" is a common tactic used by
antis who either don't want to or can't understand the
difference between crime and punishment.
>
> > > We would become tainted in the process.
> >
> > How so?
> >
> > > It would be a permanent stain on our immortal souls.
> >
> > How so?
>
> read the Bible and see.
Wow, thank you for going out of your way to back up
your claims. Funny, in another post you said you
were agnostic. Now you're telling me to read the
Bible???
Seems like *you* don't even know why you oppose the
DP.
>
> > > It would
> > > *not* "make us as bad as McGinn" but it would take us one
> > > small step in his direction.
> >
> >
> > A crime and a punishment for a crime are two different things.
> > Does imprisoning a kidnapper "taint" us or "stain ... our
> > immortal souls?" If not, why not?
>
> Oh good grief, what a tired cliche. There is no realistic
> comparison between kidnapping and imprisonment.
There is no realistic comparison between murder and execution
either.
> In order to make imprisoning a criminal truely resemble
> kidnapping we would have to ...
>
> - not tell his family where he is held
> - not allow him to communicate with the outside world
> - not give him adequate food
> - give no facilities for exercise or recreation
> - keep him blindfolded so he cant see his guards
> - release him upon payment of a certain sum of money.
>
I'm no legal expert, but I doubt you're definition
of kidnapping matches the legal definition.
(ie, ransom, inadequate food, and blindfolding are not requirements
for a kidnapping charge.)
> So the resmblance between the two is slight at best.
No, as I said, I believe your assumptions about
what constitutes kidnapping are wrong.
> Also,
> imprisonmentn is a standard punishment used for a wide
> variety of offences. The fact that it bears a superficial
> similarity to one particular crime is merely a coincidence.
Poor logic. So if the DP is expanded to more crimes, that
would make it more acceptable to you?
> The death penalty for murder is the only punishment where
> there is a deliberate attempt to make the punishment fit
> the crime, which is a really immature concept anyway.
Not sure what you are saying here. Making the punishment
commensurate with the crime is "immature?"
And funny how you try to pick at the differences between
imprisonment and kidnapping, but at the same time
you don't do it for murder and execution.
Murderers don't give their victims Miranda rights, attorneys
to represent them, a trial by jury, 10-20 years of appeals,
and a quick, painless death.
>
> > How does it "stain" my soul, Peter, when
> > a vicious murderer is executed? Please explain in more
> > detail how I am "tainted" when this multiple murderer is
> > put to sleep?
>
> For an example, look at Don Kool.
You didn't answer the questions. I am not
Don Kool.
>
> >
> > >
> > > This is not a sarcastic post either. I'm serious too.
> >
> > I'm being serious, too. Seems like whenever all the digressions and
> > strawmen are put aside, and anti's are directly asked why
> > we should allow brutal murderers like McGinn to live, they start
> > telling me how I (and others and "society") am/are negatively
affected.
> > Maybe you can clear things up, Peter, and all of us DP supporters
> > are negatively affected by the death of a brutal murderer.
> >
> >
No comments here, Peter? Sounds like you don't even know why
you oppose the DP.
> > >
> > > To help you understand the way I feel, consider the following
> > > situation. Just suppose an armed robber hits the local
> > > Kwick-E-Mart, and shoots a customer dead. It is later
> > > discovered that the dead customer is a criminal, a serial
> > > rapist, a drug dealer, a paedophile or whatever. Probably
> > > the world is better off without him. But that does not change
> > > the fact that the killer has committed a terrible act of murder.
> > > Doubtless, many people would be appalled and disgusted by
> > > the murder, but have absolutely no sympathy for the victim.
> > > And this is exactly the way I feel about the execution of
> > > Ricky McGinn.
> > >
> >
> > You analogy fails because the "killer" committed murder (ie, a
crime.)
> > Execution is a punishment for a crime.
>
> My analogy does not fail. What if the victim were a a drug
> dealer whose customers have died from overdoses, a rapist-killer,
> a paedophile killer, or other murderer. (I suppose I should
> have specified akiller in my previous post) Then your objection
> would be meaningless.
>
> The analogy still stands - disgust at the action, but no sympathy
> for the victim. You have not shown anything wrong with this.
>
But you haven't explained why you are disgusted by
the *execution* of a brutal murderer. All you've said
is that exectuion somehow "taints us" and "stains our
immortal souls"(even though you are agnostic,) and you
seem unwilling or unable to explain in more detail.
Peter Morris
> Using "kill" when there are more precise words like
> "execute" and "murder" is a common tactic used by
> antis who either don't want to or can't understand the
> difference between crime and punishment.
As a matter of fact I was being precise in my language.
That's why I said "kill" rather than murder" . You
of course are just playing with words. A common tactic
by pros who don't have any argument.
> > read the Bible and see.
>
> Wow, thank you for going out of your way to back up
> your claims. Funny, in another post you said you
> were agnostic. Now you're telling me to read the
> Bible???
How like a pro to take one part of what I said and quote
it out of context, dishonestly. If you read my post you will
see that "As a matter of moral philosophy I greatly
respect the teachings of Jesus Christ, and try to follow them,
and they still provide the basis for my personal concept of
whats right and whats wrong." So yes, go read the Bible.
> > Also,
> > imprisonmentn is a standard punishment used for a wide
> > variety of offences. The fact that it bears a superficial
> > similarity to one particular crime is merely a coincidence.
>
> Poor logic. So if the DP is expanded to more crimes, that
> would make it more acceptable to you?
Non sequitur and a straw man. No connection whatsoever
with what I wrote. No logic at all in your statement.
> > The death penalty for murder is the only punishment where
> > there is a deliberate attempt to make the punishment fit
> > the crime, which is a really immature concept anyway.
>
> Not sure what you are saying here. Making the punishment
> commensurate with the crime is "immature?"
The idea that justice depends on the punishment being
similar to the crime is kind of childish, yes.
> And funny how you try to pick at the differences between
> imprisonment and kidnapping, but at the same time
> you don't do it for murder and execution.
A prisonner has much more freedom than a kidnap
victim. Big difference.
An executed criminal and a murder victim are equally
dead. No difference.
> Murderers don't give their victims Miranda rights, attorneys
> to represent them, a trial by jury, 10-20 years of appeals,
> and a quick, painless death.
cliche
>
>
> >
> > > How does it "stain" my soul, Peter, when
> > > a vicious murderer is executed? Please explain in more
> > > detail how I am "tainted" when this multiple murderer is
> > > put to sleep?
> >
> > For an example, look at Don Kool.
>
> You didn't answer the questions. I am not
> Don Kool.
Lucky you. And lucky us too, one's enough.
> > > > This is not a sarcastic post either. I'm serious too.
> > >
> > > I'm being serious, too. Seems like whenever all the digressions and
> > > strawmen are put aside, and anti's are directly asked why
> > > we should allow brutal murderers like McGinn to live, they start
> > > telling me how I (and others and "society") am/are negatively
> affected.
> > > Maybe you can clear things up, Peter, and all of us DP supporters
> > > are negatively affected by the death of a brutal murderer.
> > >
> > >
>
> No comments here, Peter? Sounds like you don't even know why
> you oppose the DP.
If we were to provide an answer to every line of every
post, the length of post would doulble with each reply.
Pretty soon, they would become as long as a Dickens
novel. I have to be selective over which parts I respond
to. The fact that I let an occasional line go without
responding doesn't prove anything.
If it comes to that, do you know why you support it?
Can you tell me wthout sheep-like quotation of tired old
cliches ?
It seems to me to be a simple enough statement. If you dont
understand, I cant see how to make it any simpler for you,
any more than I could prove that 2 + 2 = 4. To quote
Louis Armstrong, "If you have to ask, you aint never
gonna know"
In the example I gave, can you understand why I would be
appalled and disgusted at the murder, even though the
victim is a drug dealer, rapist, paedophile,killer or whatever?
Peter Morris
> Peter Morris wrote:
> > There is a pretty big difference between killing to ensure
> > immediate survival, and killing for the sake of making someone
> > dead.
> So, you will admit that there are times when it is necessary and
> appropriate to take the life of another human being?
Actually, I said I was willing to kill animals for food. But
since you ask, I might kill in self defence, or in defence of
my child, but I would still feel guilty about it. Yes there are
times when it might be "necessary" but this isn't one of them.
>
> Ummm, I am somewhat of a student of religions. I have read the Bible,
> cover to cover, 3 times. Without going through it quote by quote, I can
> tell you that while he preached peace, Christ had no problem with
> killing for self defense,
wrong. when the Roman soldiers came to arrest Christ,
and St Peter raised his sword in self defence, Christ
healed the injured soldier, and said "He that lives by
the sword shall die by the sword" Then He surrendered
without further resistence.
> the right cause, or as punishment.
Where does the Bible say that? The way I read it, killing
someone for protection is just barely acceptable in Christian
morality. Killing someone for the sake of punishment is not.
> Using the
> Bible to justify anything is pretty risky, it contradicts itself over
> and over. You have to pick and choose what you are going to believe in
> and what you are going to disregard.
Agreed.
> > > I'm curious, do
> > > you have any children of your own?
>
> You didn't answer this question. I would like to know. It is important
> for me to understand where you are coming from.
My family matters are irrelevant to the current debate,
and are absolutely none of your business.
>
> You don't know me. You don't know what I am or am not capable of.
> Believe me when I say that I would not lose 1 minute's sleep over
> executing the two pieces of living garbage I spoke of. No moral
> dilemma, no internal conflict. Just the satisfied feeling of a job well
> done.
I know that many prison guards have felt the same way you do
before attending their first execution, then have felt totally sick
afterwards.
Ron Bargoot
> Actually, I said I was willing to kill animals for food. But
> since you ask, I might kill in self defence, or in defence of
> my child, but I would still feel guilty about it. Yes there are
> times when it might be "necessary" but this isn't one of them.
>
So you agree that there are times when it is necessary to take the life
of another human being. You feel that it should be accompanied by a
feeling of guilt. I do not.
> wrong. when the Roman soldiers came to arrest Christ,
> and St Peter raised his sword in self defence, Christ
> healed the injured soldier, and said "He that lives by
> the sword shall die by the sword" Then He surrendered
> without further resistence.
Not having access to my notes at the moment, I will not go into this.
Suffice it say that, without a doubt, for every example you can pull out
of the Bible, I could pull one out to counter it. Christ was not the
pacifist many think him to be. When I have time, I will respond to this separately.
> > Using the
> > Bible to justify anything is pretty risky, it contradicts itself over
> > and over. You have to pick and choose what you are going to believe in
> > and what you are going to disregard.
>
> Agreed.
> > > > I'm curious, do
> > > > you have any children of your own?
> >
> > You didn't answer this question. I would like to know. It is important
> > for me to understand where you are coming from.
>
> My family matters are irrelevant to the current debate,
> and are absolutely none of your business.
While it may be none of my business, it is relevant to this debate.
Bearing the responsibility for creating a human life changes you to the
core.
> I know that many prison guards have felt the same way you do
> before attending their first execution, then have felt totally sick
> afterwards.
And I'm sure that many, many more attend the execution of a convicted
murderer, and sleep just fine afterwards. They don't seem to have any
problem finding people to take the job.
--
Ron Bargoot
http://ronbargoot.50megs.com
Shane in UK....
> In article <8p7uur$hvt$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>,
> "Peter Morris" <morr...@lineone.net> wrote:
> >
.
>
> But it is possible to *execute* him without turning ourselves
> into *murderers*.
>
How would it? You are advocating state sponsored killing. That would
make *YOU* as bad as the killer if not worse as you have *Government*
backing.
> > We would become tainted in the process.
>
> How so?
Because its guilt by association.
>
> > It would be a permanent stain on our immortal souls.
>
> How so?
Because its guilt by association.
> > It would
> > *not* "make us as bad as McGinn" but it would take us one
> > small step in his direction.
>
> > To help you understand the way I feel, consider the following
> > situation. Just suppose an armed robber hits the local
> > Kwick-E-Mart, and shoots a customer dead. It is later
> > discovered that the dead customer is a criminal, a serial
> > rapist, a drug dealer, a paedophile or whatever. Probably
> > the world is better off without him. But that does not change
> > the fact that the killer has committed a terrible act of murder.
> > Doubtless, many people would be appalled and disgusted by
> > the murder, but have absolutely no sympathy for the victim.
> > And this is exactly the way I feel about the execution of
> > Ricky McGinn.
> >
>
> You analogy fails because the "killer" committed murder (ie, a crime.)
> Execution is a punishment for a crime.
And the other person killed is as pure as driven snow right?
--
Rev. Shane
"Personally I don't approve of the blasphemous fake ordinations you
have applied for."
"Rev" Don Kool 03.08.2000 on alt.activism.death-penalty.
Anti Death Penalty Supporter.
A Planet Visitor
we have tainted the process of justice, self-protection,
and the awareness of INNOCENT human lives. We are
quite obviously, in my view, placing more value on GUILTY
human lives than innocent human lives, and more value on
"OUR" view of WHOSE human rights have been violated and
may be violated in the future. And, IMHO, the world is a
worse place when we allow that to happen. It isn't hard
for me to imagine those who I feel, if executed, would not
"taint" any part of my morality or humanity... and Ricky
McGinn fits right in there. You'll notice I claim this as an
opinion and not a statement of fact, as you seem to have
done.
A PV
A Planet Visitor
> into killers. We would become tainted in the process. It
> would be a permanent stain on our immortal souls. It would
> *not* "make us as bad as McGinn" but it would take us one
> small step in his direction.
>
>
> situation. Just suppose an armed robber hits the local
> Kwick-E-Mart, and shoots a customer dead. It is later
> discovered that the dead customer is a criminal, a serial
> rapist, a drug dealer, a paedophile or whatever. Probably
> the world is better off without him. But that does not change
> the fact that the killer has committed a terrible act of murder.
> Doubtless, many people would be appalled and disgusted by
> the murder, but have absolutely no sympathy for the victim.
> And this is exactly the way I feel about the execution of
> Ricky McGinn.
>
>
words, you are appalled and disgusted by the murder he
committed, but you have absolutely no sympathy for his
victim, a 12 year old girl? Exactly what ARE you trying
to say?
A PV
A Planet Visitor
I see you still claim no sympathy for the 12 year old victim of
McGinn!
But let me tell you my OPINION as to the DP when used by
society -- essentially, in that case, your description applies:
disgust at the action we must take, but no sympathy for the
victim. If you claim we have no sympathy for a victim, who
is one of those types you claim have been murdered (or the
12 year old victim of McGinn), what sense does it make to
have sympathy for the murderer's sentence?
A PV
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <st_george99@ŁŁŁnetmatters.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8p9r7p$fbc$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
If one believes that someone THOROUGHLY DESERVES to be
executed, then In a totally perfect world, one always receives
what they DESERVE, be it good or bad. "For every action there
is a reaction," totally perfect and totally appropriate in the absence
of friction. If the state does not have the authority to perform this
perfect reaction, then who does? And don't say God, because
we live in a temporal world, requiring secular decisions as to secular
acts. God is well capable of handling his/her end when that end
arrives. We have to concern ourselves with what to do prior to that
end, to insure our safety and well-being in this imperfect world, as
well as we can.
But I'm surprised you didn't see through the analogy Peter presented.
The victim of McGinn, a 12 year old girl, compared to a serial killing,
drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer, as supporting his view that
no sympathy should be extended to the victim. Tsk... tsk.
A PV
Lucas Stults
> Most of the people who opposed the original execution date for McGinn did so
> on the basis that new tests were available which would prove or disprove
> McGinn's guilt, and that for some reason, the state was opposing conducting
> those tests.
Hey Dave;
This is an interesting topic. Let's look at it from the other side: I
for one have grown a bit weary of some folks instantly assuming that
anyone that hasn't had a DNA testing is defacto innocent. In the
McGinn case, it seemed to me that the state "opposed conducting more
tests" simply because they knew it was a delaying tactic. It's not
like anyone that even halfway followed the case seriously thought the
guy was innocent. Yet there they were, in all their wrongheaded glory,
claiming that the fact that McGinn was willing to submit to a DNA test
'proved' he was innocent.
Personally, I tend to think that DNA testing should be mandatory in any
case where biological evidence exists. But I also know the difference
between my opinion and actual Due Process.
> The costs of the tests were far less than the amount expended
> by the state in fighting it, and if they had been conducted when they were
> first requested, woudl not have delayed the execution.
Woudl?!? What the heck is Woudl?!? Are you under the influnence
again? ;) Heh. But seriously, I'm not sure that the cost is the
issue here. The issue is: Was he "owed" DNA testing? Certainly I
think he was, but then, I also think he was owned a molten lead enema
right after the tests came back positive.
> So a question for you: What possible motive could the state have for
> refusing to conduct an easily available and cheap test, one which would not
> delay the execution if it was found to prove guilt, and instead spend far
> more than the cost of the test in fighting it in the courts, thereby
> delaying the execution?
Too easy, Dave. (But keep in mind that I'm TOTALLY in favor of
mandatory testing whenever it can be done.) The state probably
thought, and perhaps rightly so, that they'd ALREADY proved the guy was
guilty. Since they were under no real obligation to accomodate the
whims of a child murdering rapist, they more than likely decided to
ignore him. I see no conspiracy at work. However, if a law were
enacted (as I support) that made testing automatic in all possible
cases, this situation would never occur again.
Dave Proctor
news:080920002334422896%stu...@ebold.com...
> Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Most of the people who opposed the original execution date for McGinn
did so
> > on the basis that new tests were available which would prove or disprove
> > McGinn's guilt, and that for some reason, the state was opposing
conducting
> > those tests.
>
> Hey Dave;
> This is an interesting topic. Let's look at it from the other side: I
> for one have grown a bit weary of some folks instantly assuming that
> anyone that hasn't had a DNA testing is defacto innocent. In the
> McGinn case, it seemed to me that the state "opposed conducting more
> tests" simply because they knew it was a delaying tactic.
And if it had been conducted when it was first requested, there would have
been no delay - his guilt (of the rape, which is what made it capital
murder) would have been proven well before his original execution date, and
he would now be dead and in his grave.
> It's not
> like anyone that even halfway followed the case seriously thought the
> guy was innocent.
Nobody thought him innocent of the murder, but some were not sure of his
guilt WRT the rape. And if it was murder only, it would not have been a
capital offence. So the issue came down to doing the test to determine his
guilt of the crime of rape.
> Yet there they were, in all their wrongheaded glory,
> claiming that the fact that McGinn was willing to submit to a DNA test
> 'proved' he was innocent.
I never said anything of the sort. Although it did strike me as weird that
the state refused, and spent so much on fighting, the conducting of the
test. Little conspircay theories started ringing in my head (you know the
sort, they had already conducted the test privately, knew he was innocent,
and were trying to hide it - heck, he was guilty of the murder - but not
capital murder - and what's another dead murderer anyway!)
Agreed.
Dave
Lucas Stults
> And if it had been conducted when it was first requested, there would have
> been no delay - his guilt (of the rape, which is what made it capital
> murder) would have been proven well before his original execution date, and
> he would now be dead and in his grave.
Hiya Dave;
I kinda hate this topic, because it sounds like I'm arguing with you
when in fact I'm in total agreement: They should have done the darn
test. =) In fact, I'll go you one better: He shouldn't even of had
to REQUEST the test. It shoulda been done the -moment- it was possible
to do so. There shouldn't be a judgement call at ALL. "Got a
biological sample? Run the test." S
> Nobody thought him innocent of the murder, but some were not sure of his
> guilt WRT the rape. And if it was murder only, it would not have been a
> capital offence. So the issue came down to doing the test to determine his
> guilt of the crime of rape.
Nods. Again, I'm not sure how I managed to look like I was on the
opposite side of the issue. Nobody supports DNA testing more than me.
> I never said anything of the sort. (regarding a passage that I meant rhetorically)
I know you didn't, and I apologize that I phrased it in such a way as
to make anyone think I was referring to you. I was talking generally,
but failed to make it clear. Again, my apologies. Oh, and thanks for
not mentioning that I said McGinn was "owned" a molten enema when I'm
pretty sure I meant "owed". ;)
LibGal
>is overwhelming evidence of the accused person's guilt, and the crime is
>so heinous, how can people object to ending this guy's life? What
>possible reason could there be to allow this man to draw another breath?
> Please, one of you abolitionists, explain this to me. Not in broad,
>general arguments. Just this ONE specific case. Why should this man
>not be put to death?
>This is not a sarcastic post, I'm serious.
They are all heinous killers, whether they rape and kill a 12 year old or shoot
and kill the store clerk during a robbery. My opposition to the death penalty,
unlike those who support it, is not based on emotion. I have no sympathy for
murderers. Lock them up and throw away the key. But I do have sympathy for a
society that believes killing its citizens is "justice." I have sympathy for a
society that believes the correct response to violence is more violence. I
have sympathy for a society that believes vengeance should be a normal aspect
of our justice system. And I especially have sympathy for a society that
doesn't realize we are all harmed when we support a justice system that has
little truth or justice.
87 men and women were wrongfully convicted and sent to death row. When it was
discovered that an innocent man had been wrongfully convicted in Canada, there
was a two year investigation and reforms made to the system. There's very
little or no accountability in our system when a prosecutor withholds
exculpatory evidence; when a police officer lies on the stand; when a defense
lawyer sleeps or is stoned during trial; when the appeals court rules that "the
constitution doesn't say the lawyer has to be awake;" or when a DA's office
trains prosecutors on how to keep blacks off the jury.
When I hear about what Ricky McGinn did, my first reaction is "fry the
bastard!" It's human nature to want to kill the bastard who rapes and murders
a little girl. But as "overwrought by emotion" is not a defense for me were
*I* to kill McGinn, neither should it be for the "people." And, I think of
Hank Skinner or Michael Blair where there are serious doubts about their guilt.
Or, David Wayne Spence, Odell Barnes, and Gary Graham (who we all know is a
thug but how can ANYONE feel comfortable executing based solely on one
eyewitness? FIVE eyewitnesses testified that they saw Kirk Bloodsworth with
the victim the day she was murdered. Five. He was later exonerated by DNA
testing.) Even rape victims have IDed the wrong person.
There is absolutely no way to ensure that all who have been convicted are
guilty. Some of those exonerated were days away from execution. And in most of
those cases, it was forces outside of the system that found their evidence. In
quite a few in Illinois, it was students from Northwestern University. Twenty
year old students doing what seasoned prosecutors, defense attorneys, police,
and investigators failed to do: Find the truth.
And the absolute worst part of DAs rushing to convict innocents (far too many
times based on little evidence) for another notch on their "tough on crime"
re-election belt is that the real murderer is still on the streets. That's
justice?
A Planet Visitor
"LibGal" <lib...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000909102216...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
Lots clipped.
>
> They are all heinous killers, whether they rape and kill a 12 year old
or shoot
> and kill the store clerk during a robbery. My opposition to the death
penalty,
> unlike those who support it, is not based on emotion. I have no
sympathy for
> murderers. Lock them up and throw away the key. But I do have sympathy
for a
> society that believes killing its citizens is "justice." I have
sympathy for a
> society that believes the correct response to violence is more
violence. I
> have sympathy for a society that believes vengeance should be a normal
aspect
> of our justice system....
I clipped large chunks of your overly emotional post, mainly because
they are your opinions and not germane to the question I have about the
last sentence of your comment that I left in. You seem to claim that
"vengeance" is not a reasonable, normal action of the state as an
aspect of our justice system. I disagree, and rather strongly do so.
Punishment... all punishment... is vengeance which the state takes as a
response to crimes committed against the state and members of that
state. In a civilized society, the Justice System is the ONLY avenue to
seek "vengeance," thus the name "Justice." Old ground, but always
needing clarification.
You may well claim you "have sympathy" (read: feel sorry) for a society
that believes in the DP, but punishment IS "vengeance," and if you "have
sympathy" (read: feel sorry) for a society that believes in "vengeance,"
taken by the state to exact justice, in the form of punishment, then you
must feel ALL punishment is wrong, and you can easily see where that
leads.
A PV
LibGal
>they are your opinions and not germane to the question I have about the
>last sentence of your comment that I left in. You seem to claim that
>"vengeance" is not a reasonable, normal action of the state as an
>aspect of our justice system. I disagree, and rather strongly do so.
>Punishment... all punishment... is vengeance which the state takes as a
>response to crimes committed against the state and members of that
>state. In a civilized society, the Justice System is the ONLY avenue to
>seek "vengeance," thus the name "Justice." Old ground, but always
>needing clarification.
>You may well claim you "have sympathy" (read: feel sorry) for a society
>that believes in the DP, but punishment IS "vengeance," and if you "have
>sympathy" (read: feel sorry) for a society that believes in "vengeance,"
>taken by the state to exact justice, in the form of punishment, then you
>must feel ALL punishment is wrong, and you can easily see where that
>leads.
>
>A PV
>
prison because of vengeance, but to protect society and/or to punish in a way
that encourages appropriate behavior, as you would punish a child for
wrongdoing by sending him to time-out. Parents don't seek vengeance when they
punish a child. The police officer does not seek vengeance when he or she
hands out a speeding ticket and certainly, paying a fine is punishment. But we
do seek vengeance when we fry them.
I noticed you didn't respond to my "overly emotional" facts about the problems
with our justice system that sends innocents to death row.
A Planet Visitor
dictionary... and in fact every dictionary, defines 'avenge' as --
"...to take 'vengeance or extract satisfaction for..." And,
'vengeance,' 'avenge,' and revenge,' have the definition of
"inflicting pain or harm in RETURN for pain or harm inflicted
on others..." which is the exact definition of punishment. The
STATE has every right to seek and demand "vengeance,
avenge or revenge," with punishment imposed by the
Justice System. Who else can claim to exact punishment
for crimes? Only two solid facts emerge from this punishment
scheme. (1) We should not punish (take vengeance) without
a prior act which demands that punishment, and (2) victims,
victim families, mobs, vigilantes, and other groups, NOT
constituted by the STATE as legal to exact such punishment
(vengeance), cannot claim that right, and can only use the
legal means of VOCAL protest.
You trying to compare a time-out of a child with a crime against
society is ludicrous, and follows the thread I see from some of
those who oppose the DP, as believing that the crime of murder
is every bit as innocuous as a time-out. You should not make
comparisons that defy any connection to the level of morality
or immorality involved in either the act or the punishment. We
punish to punish: "To subject to pain, loss, confinement, death,
etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault."
That's straight out of definition 1 of the English word,
PUNISHMENT. All other pursuits which might ACCOMPANY
such punishment - contemplation, protect from society,
encourage appropriate future behavior through rehabilitation
efforts, are seen as reasonable attempts to insure the
RECIDIVISM of the criminal is reduced. But punishment is,
as it is defined, not as you would wish it to be defined.
Our Justice System does not sentence someone to "A
term of 10 years of time-out," they are sentenced to
"Punishment for a term of 10 years..." What would you
call 'punishment,' if not having those elements of pain, loss,
confinement, death, etc? Nevertheless, I should mention
at this point, that I, IMHO, consider the DP, as more
than punishment, but also as a self-defense act of society...
others may have different opinions and different views and
they are welcome to them.
But, IMHO, down the road of "no vengeance," "vengeance
for no prior acts," and "vengeance through other than legal
means," lies no punishment, immoral punishment, and
anarchy, in turn.
Now turning to your last remark about my not responding to
your "overly emotional," facts.... I would suppose the use of
the words "when we fry them," just prior to making the remark
doesn't constitute "over emotion," in your view? I thought not.
Nonetheless, I did not respond to your "facts," because in
truth, they did not represent "facts," but your "opinions,"
which you are welcome to, thus I felt no response was
necessary. However, since you bring up the "facts,"
what about the "facts," of murderers released to murder
again? What about the "facts," that the average convicted
homicide criminal spends an average of 7 years incarcerated.
What about the "facts" that a 6% recidivism rate for those
released after homicide conviction, exists, where they kill
again? And what about the "facts" that the title of this
thread is "The Real Story of Ricky McGinn?" Would you
claim he is one of the innocents you seem to be trumpeting
about?
A PV
LibGal
>truth, they did not represent "facts," but your "opinions,"
>which you are welcome to, thus I felt no response was
>necessary. However, since you bring up the "facts,"
>what about the "facts," of murderers released to murder
>again? What about the "facts," that the average convicted
>homicide criminal spends an average of 7 years incarcerated.
>What about the "facts" that a 6% recidivism rate for those
>released after homicide conviction, exists, where they kill
>again? And what about the "facts" that the title of this
>thread is "The Real Story of Ricky McGinn?" Would you
>claim he is one of the innocents you seem to be trumpeting
>about?
I see. Your litany of "facts" about the system are true but mine are
"opinions."
In other words, the justice system is a mess EXCEPT when it handles death
penalty cases.
Obviously, McGinn is guilty. I think ALL murderers should get a life without
parole sentence.
A Planet Visitor
> >Nonetheless, I did not respond to your "facts," because in
> >truth, they did not represent "facts," but your "opinions,"
> >which you are welcome to, thus I felt no response was
> >necessary. However, since you bring up the "facts,"
> >what about the "facts," of murderers released to murder
> >again? What about the "facts," that the average convicted
> >homicide criminal spends an average of 7 years incarcerated.
> >What about the "facts" that a 6% recidivism rate for those
> >released after homicide conviction, exists, where they kill
> >again? And what about the "facts" that the title of this
> >thread is "The Real Story of Ricky McGinn?" Would you
> >claim he is one of the innocents you seem to be trumpeting
> >about?
>
>
> I see. Your litany of "facts" about the system are true but mine are
> "opinions."
Ah, but mine ARE facts, if you'd care to investigate the claims
I make.
Average time served for homicides: 7 years (World
Almanac 2000, page 907).
DOJ web page:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf
page 2, column 1, wherein it was "estimated that
6.6% of released murderers were rearrested for
homicide."
>
> In other words, the justice system is a mess EXCEPT when it handles
death
> penalty cases.
It's a mess in every case, IMHO, if you'd care to read
some of my past posts. Nevertheless, the word "mess"
is a relative term, and I feel (IMHO) that the "mess"
which would be created in our society by the abolition
of the DP, far exceeds the "mess" we have to endure
with its presence.
>
> Obviously, McGinn is guilty. I think ALL murderers should get a life
without
> parole sentence.
>
Speaking of getting a life....
A PV
LibGal
>I make.
>
I don't disagree with your claims. And if you'd bother to check out mine,
you'll find them to be true also.
>> In other words, the justice system is a mess EXCEPT when it handles
>death
>> penalty cases.
>
>It's a mess in every case, IMHO, if you'd care to read
>some of my past posts. Nevertheless, the word "mess"
>is a relative term, and I feel (IMHO) that the "mess"
>which would be created in our society by the abolition
>of the DP, far exceeds the "mess" we have to endure
>with its presence.
In what ways? Specifics please.
>> Obviously, McGinn is guilty. I think ALL murderers should get a life
>without
>> parole sentence.
>>
>
>Speaking of getting a life....
>
>A PV
Awww, now I'm upset.
A Planet Visitor
> >Ah, but mine ARE facts, if you'd care to investigate the claims
> >I make.
> >
>
> I don't disagree with your claims. And if you'd bother to check out
mine,
> you'll find them to be true also.
>
What claims? All we do is execute the innocent? Ricky
McGinn is just a misunderstood youth, who was sexually
assaulted by his 12 year old step daughter, and only
acted in self-defense? Give me a clue?
> >> In other words, the justice system is a mess EXCEPT when it handles
> >death
> >> penalty cases.
> >
> >It's a mess in every case, IMHO, if you'd care to read
> >some of my past posts. Nevertheless, the word "mess"
> >is a relative term, and I feel (IMHO) that the "mess"
> >which would be created in our society by the abolition
> >of the DP, far exceeds the "mess" we have to endure
> >with its presence.
>
> In what ways? Specifics please.
>
Quite simply, IMHO we have executed no innocents
post-Furman. You may believe otherwise, but I think
the appeals process in place in the use of the DP, lends
little credence to the claim that more than one innocent
having been executed is possible. Giving you that one
innocent, only for the sake of argument, I further hold
the opinion that of the murderers we have executed, if
we had not done so, no matter what you may believe
L wop accomplishes, some number of those murderers
who were NOT executed would have somehow been
returned to society, through one means or another,
and would have murdered another innocent, through
recidivism. Whether you believe more innocents are
executed or you believe more innocents are murdered
through recidivism, should guide your opinion as to the
utility of the DP as an effective tool of society to reduce
the number of innocent lives lost. Thus my view that
the elimination of the DP would cause a larger "mess"
then presently exists with the use of the DP.
Now why do you oppose the DP? And since you
don't seem to believe in "society must execute NO
innocent," nor the value of "human rights," in the
examination of the equation of the DP, since you
support abortion on demand, those two excuses
would not seem to me to be valid as reasons you
would claim opposition to the DP.
> >> Obviously, McGinn is guilty. I think ALL murderers should get a
life
> >without
> >> parole sentence.
> >>
> >
> >Speaking of getting a life....
> >
> >A PV
>
> Awww, now I'm upset.
>
As well you should be, if you think ALL murderers should get a
Life without parole sentence, as that completely negates ANY
belief in redemption, rehabilitation or any possibility of return
as a productive member of society. Even I am not that
draconian. There are those murderers - spousal abuse and
crimes of passion springs quickly to my mind - which certainly
do not qualify for L wop, and certainly exhibit little possibility
of recidivism, yet you would lock them up forever. Shame...
shame... on you.
A PV
St.George
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:c8au5.28133$K4.12...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
In a totally perfect world, no-one would ever kill anyone, so there would be
no d.p. debate whatsoever!
Anyway, PV, you may have noticed that this world isn't quite totally perfect
:-)
Hence, one may quite rationally believe that the murderer thoroughly
deserves the chop, but that society suffers so from the state carrying out
an execution (brutalisation effect, perhaps) that the just desserts of the
murderer are outweighed by the societal good of NOT executing.
BTW, there's a similar, but even better argument - at least from a purely
utilitarian standpoint. This is that the just desserts of a criminal,
murder or otherwise, may well NOT coincide with the societal good, and hence
society should not give him his just desserts. If there is a brutalisation
effect, therefore, the utilitarian throws the d.p. straight out the window.
However, if there is a deterrent effect, however, the utilitarian says
'String 'em Up!'
n.b. If there is a LARGE deterrent effect, the _pure_ utilitarian says
'String 'em Up - whether they did it or not!!'
The point is, to the utilitarian, so-called 'justice' or 'deserved
punishment' for the individual are neither here nor there compared to the
overall societal good. The whole concept of prison, BTW _appalls_ the pure
utilitarian, who sees it as massive wasted resources, and would probably
empty the prisons tomorrow, by stringing up half of the prisoners, and
letting out the other half; depending on whether they were likely to be of
benefit or cost to society during the remainder of their lives!!
"For every action there
> is a reaction," totally perfect and totally appropriate in the absence
> of friction. If the state does not have the authority to perform this
> perfect reaction, then who does? And don't say God, because
> we live in a temporal world, requiring secular decisions as to secular
> acts. God is well capable of handling his/her end when that end
> arrives. We have to concern ourselves with what to do prior to that
> end, to insure our safety and well-being in this imperfect world, as
> well as we can.
>
> But I'm surprised you didn't see through the analogy Peter presented.
> The victim of McGinn, a 12 year old girl, compared to a serial killing,
> drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer, as supporting his view that
> no sympathy should be extended to the victim. Tsk... tsk.
Come now, PV - you don't expect me to actually _read_ posts, do you?
The only reason I am here is to benefit you all with my opinion, so I just
glance at the first paragraph of posts, and if it vaguely seems relevant I
allow you all to hear my undoubted and superior truth....
St.George
<snip>
Oh, and thanks for
> not mentioning that I said McGinn was "owned" a molten enema when I'm
> pretty sure I meant "owed". ;)
"Molten enemas"?!?
Yet more evidence of evil and uncivilised deathie barbarity...
A Planet Visitor
undoubted and superior truths to myself, always limiting each of my
comments to clear, concise, polite and quick analysis of 50 words
or less. Sometimes I want to let it all out, but my reserved nature
and refined background prevents me from anything other than those
civil and reasonable, short, refined comments. And I thoroughly read
and examine all the comments from my detractors, since they
provide valuable advise I use to maintain my flexible view of
all sides of the issue, and in every case, I welcome, and return
a compliment to them, as to the guidance and wisdom they
offered me.
Lucas Stults
<st_george99@ŁŁŁnetmatters.co.uk> wrote:
but... but... I'm an ANTI now!
St.George
That's what they all say.
You racist, sexist, jingoistic, evil, slavering savage! Don't you realise
that the wheels of capitalism are oiled with the blood of the workers, you
imperialist running-dog??
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:c8au5.28133$K4.12...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> But I'm surprised you didn't see through the analogy Peter presented.
> The victim of McGinn, a 12 year old girl, compared to a serial killing,
> drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer, as supporting his view that
> no sympathy should be extended to the victim. Tsk... tsk.
That of course is complete bullshit. I know that you are slow
of mind, PV, but please do try to follow. I did NOT compare
Stephanie to a serial killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic
murderer, I compared the execution of McGinn to the
death of a serial killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer.
"no sympathy should be extended to the victim" where the
hell do you get that from ? I say that no sympathy should
be extended towards McGinn.
Peter Morris
.
> I see you still claim no sympathy for the 12 year old victim of
> McGinn!
That is completely untrue. I have great sympathy
for Stephanie, and for her mother, as I have already said.
> But let me tell you my OPINION as to the DP when used by
> society -- essentially, in that case, your description applies:
> disgust at the action we must take, but no sympathy for the
> victim.
Good. It seems we have some common ground, at least.
> If you claim we have no sympathy for a victim, who
> is one of those types you claim have been murdered (or the
> 12 year old victim of McGinn),
You are making that association, I am not. As far as I
am concerned the two are totally different.
Why do you keep referring to Stephanie as "the 12
year old victim of McGinn" Don't you know her name?
It seems to me that you're just using her in a pitiful
attempt to score points, which is disgusting, IMHO.
> what sense does it make to
> have sympathy for the murderer's sentence?
I don't. This was the whole point of my post. Please do try to
follow what is written.
Peter Morris
>
> > This is not a sarcastic post either. I'm serious too.
> >
> > To help you understand the way I feel, consider the following
> > situation. Just suppose an armed robber hits the local
> > Kwick-E-Mart, and shoots a customer dead. It is later
> > discovered that the dead customer is a criminal, a serial
> > rapist, a drug dealer, a paedophile or whatever. Probably
> > the world is better off without him. But that does not change
> > the fact that the killer has committed a terrible act of murder.
> > Doubtless, many people would be appalled and disgusted by
> > the murder, but have absolutely no sympathy for the victim.
> > And this is exactly the way I feel about the execution of
> > Ricky McGinn.
> >
> >
> Let me get this straight. Using your analogy, and your
> words, you are appalled and disgusted by the murder he
> committed, but you have absolutely no sympathy for his
> victim, a 12 year old girl? Exactly what ARE you trying
> to say?
No, I am saying that I am disgusted and appalled by the
cold blooded act of violence that would be the execution
of McGinn, but have no sympathy for McGinn himself.
Please do try to follow, it is simple enough.
Rev. Don Kool
Peter Morris wrote:
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote...
> > I see you still claim no sympathy for the 12 year old victim of
> > McGinn!
>
> That is completely untrue. I have great sympathy
> for Stephanie, and for her mother, as I have already said.
Then you support the just and imminent execution of the murderer
McGinn?
Yours in Christ,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
A Planet Visitor
out of what is clearly, IMHO, a grievous error in morality
through another stupid analogy, clearly again showing what
is abject ignorance, and insensitivity to the VICTIM, need I
point out that McGinn is not a VICTIM... he is what is referred
to in all cases as the PERPETRATOR. The 12 year old girl
was the VICTIM. You should say 'Perpetrator,' if that in fact
was your intent. And I refuse to give a name to the VICTIM,
in any dialog with you, because you have trivialized her
existence by comparing her murder to the murder of a serial
killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer. You really don't
deserve to even know her name, after making that comparison.
And in any case, read your original comment where you
say "...have absolutely no sympathy for the victim," and in
your present post claim that this implied "...no sympathy for
McGinn himself." Exactly who is it you have no sympathy
for? (1) the serial killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer,
(2) the 12 year old girl, or (3) McGinn himself? You seem to
keep changing who you have no sympathy for, like those
innocents on the trolley track. Perhaps it's difficult to follow
along because you seem to be lost.
A PV
Peter Morris
Thats only because YOU dont know the difference
between right and wrong.
> through another stupid analogy, clearly again showing what
> is abject ignorance, and insensitivity to the VICTIM, need I
> point out that McGinn is not a VICTIM...
Nor did I say that he was. YOU said that, not me.
> he is what is referred
> to in all cases as the PERPETRATOR. The 12 year old girl
> was the VICTIM. You should say 'Perpetrator,' if that in fact
> was your intent. And I refuse to give a name to the VICTIM,
> in any dialog with you, because you have trivialized her
> existence by comparing her murder to the murder of a serial
> killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer.
YOU did that, not me.
> You really don't
> deserve to even know her name, after making that comparison.
> And in any case, read your original comment where you
> say "...have absolutely no sympathy for the victim,"
The victime _in_that_particular_case_ being an evil man
similar to McGinn. Please try to understand. The situation
I described was analogous to the execution of McGinn
not to the murder of Stephanie.
and in
> your present post claim that this implied "...no sympathy for
> McGinn himself." Exactly who is it you have no sympathy
> for? (1) the serial killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer,
corect, no sympathy
> (2) the 12 year old girl,
wrong, great sympathy here. Her name was Stephanie, by the way.
Did you know that ?
> or (3) McGinn himself?
correct, no sympathy here.
You see, I used (1) as a metaphor for (3). You, and
you alone thought I was using it as a metaphor for (2).
You seem to
> keep changing who you have no sympathy for, like those
> innocents on the trolley track.
Still obsessed with that, are you? Still desperately trying
to find something, anything at all where you can prove
me wrong? Still twisting my words around, and attacking
me for what I never said?
> Perhaps it's difficult to follow
> along because you seem to be lost.
Perhaps its difficult for you to follow because you're as dumb as mulch.
Natsam
>
> > Using "kill" when there are more precise words like
> > "execute" and "murder" is a common tactic used by
> > antis who either don't want to or can't understand the
> > difference between crime and punishment.
>
> As a matter of fact I was being precise in my language.
> That's why I said "kill" rather than murder" .
Yes, and as I pointed out, your statement could apply
to all types of killing.
> You
> of course are just playing with words. A common tactic
> by pros who don't have any argument.
As a matter of fact you snipped your original statement
and my criticisim of it that preceded the above.
Your original statement could be said of any type of
"killing", including self defense or a police sniper
wasting a crazed hostage-taker who is about to start
shooting his hostages. I guess if you can't rebut a point,
ignore it.
>
> > > read the Bible and see.
> >
> > Wow, thank you for going out of your way to back up
> > your claims. Funny, in another post you said you
> > were agnostic. Now you're telling me to read the
> > Bible???
>
> How like a pro to take one part of what I said and quote
> it out of context, dishonestly. If you read my post you will
> see that "As a matter of moral philosophy I greatly
> respect the teachings of Jesus Christ, and try to follow them,
> and they still provide the basis for my personal concept of
> whats right and whats wrong." So yes, go read the Bible.
No, how about you tell the ng why you oppose the DP.
I am not religious, and even if I were, I wouldn't
be Christian. My family is of another religion.
But if you are going to use the Bible for support,
you are on pretty shaky ground. There are a heck of
a lot of quotes from the Bible *supporting* the DP.
>
> > > Also,
> > > imprisonmentn is a standard punishment used for a wide
> > > variety of offences. The fact that it bears a superficial
> > > similarity to one particular crime is merely a coincidence.
> >
> > Poor logic. So if the DP is expanded to more crimes, that
> > would make it more acceptable to you?
>
> Non sequitur and a straw man. No connection whatsoever
> with what I wrote. No logic at all in your statement.
Huh? You are the one who brought up that "imprisonment is
a standard punishment used for a wide variety of offences."
What is your point? The DP could just as easily be given
to rapists and serial child molesters. There is no universal
law that requires the DP *only* be given to murderers. That the
convicted murderer ends up dead is not because the victim ended
up dead per se, but because the crime of murder, under current
societal view, is the only crime severe enough to warrant a penalty
that results in death for the perpetrator. You are still having
trouble distinguishing between crime and punishment.
>
> > > The death penalty for murder is the only punishment where
> > > there is a deliberate attempt to make the punishment fit
> > > the crime, which is a really immature concept anyway.
> >
> > Not sure what you are saying here. Making the punishment
> > commensurate with the crime is "immature?"
>
> The idea that justice depends on the punishment being
> similar to the crime is kind of childish, yes.
Again, you fail to see the obvious.
>
> > And funny how you try to pick at the differences between
> > imprisonment and kidnapping, but at the same time
> > you don't do it for murder and execution.
>
> A prisonner has much more freedom than a kidnap
> victim. Big difference.
An executed murderer had much more freedom, rights,
advocates, and chances to avoid their deaths than
murder victims. Big difference.
>
> An executed criminal and a murder victim are equally
> dead. No difference.
An imprisoned criminal and a kidnapping victim are
equally held against their will. No difference.
>
> > Murderers don't give their victims Miranda rights, attorneys
> > to represent them, a trial by jury, 10-20 years of appeals,
> > and a quick, painless death.
>
> cliche
No, it shows your hypocrisy.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > How does it "stain" my soul, Peter, when
> > > > a vicious murderer is executed? Please explain in more
> > > > detail how I am "tainted" when this multiple murderer is
> > > > put to sleep?
> > >
> > > For an example, look at Don Kool.
> >
> > You didn't answer the questions. I am not
> > Don Kool.
>
> Lucky you. And lucky us too, one's enough.
Still avoiding the serious questions.
>
> > > > > This is not a sarcastic post either. I'm serious too.
> > > >
> > > > I'm being serious, too. Seems like whenever all the digressions
and
> > > > strawmen are put aside, and anti's are directly asked why
> > > > we should allow brutal murderers like McGinn to live, they start
> > > > telling me how I (and others and "society") am/are negatively
> > affected.
> > > > Maybe you can clear things up, Peter, and all of us DP
supporters
> > > > are negatively affected by the death of a brutal murderer.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > No comments here, Peter? Sounds like you don't even know why
> > you oppose the DP.
>
> If we were to provide an answer to every line of every
> post, the length of post would doulble with each reply.
> Pretty soon, they would become as long as a Dickens
> novel. I have to be selective over which parts I respond
> to. The fact that I let an occasional line go without
> responding doesn't prove anything.
>
> If it comes to that, do you know why you support it?
> Can you tell me wthout sheep-like quotation of tired old
> cliches ?
Yes. I support it because it is a fair and appropriate
punishment for certain heinous crimes. It is a just
punishment for certain heinous crimes. If you think
that's a "cliche", then that's your decision.
>
> > > > > To help you understand the way I feel, consider the following
> > > > > situation. Just suppose an armed robber hits the local
> > > > > Kwick-E-Mart, and shoots a customer dead. It is later
> > > > > discovered that the dead customer is a criminal, a serial
> > > > > rapist, a drug dealer, a paedophile or whatever. Probably
> > > > > the world is better off without him. But that does not change
> > > > > the fact that the killer has committed a terrible act of
murder.
> > > > > Doubtless, many people would be appalled and disgusted by
> > > > > the murder, but have absolutely no sympathy for the victim.
> > > > > And this is exactly the way I feel about the execution of
> > > > > Ricky McGinn.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You analogy fails because the "killer" committed murder (ie, a
> > crime.)
> > > > Execution is a punishment for a crime.
> > >
> > > My analogy does not fail. What if the victim were a a drug
> > > dealer whose customers have died from overdoses, a rapist-killer,
> > > a paedophile killer, or other murderer. (I suppose I should
> > > have specified akiller in my previous post) Then your objection
> > > would be meaningless.
> > >
> > > The analogy still stands - disgust at the action, but no sympathy
> > > for the victim. You have not shown anything wrong with this.
> > >
> >
> > But you haven't explained why you are disgusted by
> > the *execution* of a brutal murderer. All you've said
> > is that exectuion somehow "taints us" and "stains our
> > immortal souls"(even though you are agnostic,) and you
> > seem unwilling or unable to explain in more detail
>
> It seems to me to be a simple enough statement.
> If you dont
> understand, I cant see how to make it any simpler for you,
> any more than I could prove that 2 + 2 = 4. To quote
> Louis Armstrong, "If you have to ask, you aint never
> gonna know"
Sorry, I guess I mistook you for someone who actually
wanted to have a somewhat serious discussion. You accuse
me of using "cliches", yet all you've done to back up your
support for the DP is make a couple vague comments about
our "souls" being tainted.
I'll ask you one more time:
How is my "immortal soul" tainted when someone like
Ted Bundy is executed?
Can you back up *your* claim, or will you continue to
dance around it?
>
> In the example I gave, can you understand why I would be
> appalled and disgusted at the murder, even though the
> victim is a drug dealer, rapist, paedophile,killer or whatever?
>
Sigh. Are you even reading what I wrote? I said, "But
you haven't explained why you are disgusted by
the *execution* of a brutal murderer. All you've said
is that exectuion somehow 'taints us' and 'stains our
immortal souls (even though you are agnostic,) and you
seem unwilling or unable to explain in more detail."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
A Planet Visitor
Are you truly insane, or just delusional. Go to about 20 lines
above, where you say, in reference to this thread of
crime and victim: "No, I am saying that I am disgusted and
appalled by the cold blooded act of violence that would be
the execution of McGinn, but have no sympathy for McGinn
himself." Now return to your original post of crime and
victim, where you say, "Doubtless, many people would be
appalled and disgusted by the murder, but have absolutely
no sympathy for the victim." Now essentially, if you are
claiming one to be a clarification of the other, since I asked
"EXACTLY what are you trying to say?" it would seem
you have no idea what you were trying to say, since you
seem to mix up WHAT you would be appalled and disgusted
by, and WHO you feel the victim is. In the original, even
given the REMOTE possibility that you knew nothing about
the moral consequences of your statement, you could only
have been referring to being appalled and disgusted by
the murder of either the serial killing, drug dealing,
pedophilic murderer OR the murder committed by McGinn,
and could only be referring to the VICTIM as that same
serial killing, drug dealing, pedophilic murderer OR the
12 year old girl, who YOU would now put a name to in
some attempt to salvage what little dignity you possess,
as the one you have no sympathy for. But in your
following post, which was supposed to clear up the first
statement you made, you now change horses and identify
the execution of McGinn as the act you would be appalled
and disgusted by, and the VICTIM who you have no sympathy
for, being that same McGinn. It seems certain to me that
you have no idea WHAT act you would be appalled and
disgusted by, and WHO the victim that you would have
no sympathy for is. You just seem to change the roles
of WHAT and WHO, as it suits you, without understanding
the necessity to remain CONSISTENT and LOGICAL in
your statements. Apparently you have no sympathy for
one of the 3, so which one is it? And apparently, at
one time or another you seem to feel each of the
3 are victims, but inconsistently connect events to
who you claim are the victims of those events.
>
> > he is what is referred
> > to in all cases as the PERPETRATOR. The 12 year old girl
> > was the VICTIM. You should say 'Perpetrator,' if that in fact
> > was your intent. And I refuse to give a name to the VICTIM,
> > in any dialog with you, because you have trivialized her
> > existence by comparing her murder to the murder of a serial
> > killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer.
>
> YOU did that, not me.
Actually you did it when you made a comparison of the murder
of a serial killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer, to the
murder that McGinn committed. Isn't that what you did in
your first post? Certainly, when you said in closing of your
post, "And this is exactly the way I feel about the execution of
Ricky McGinn." it claimed to be a comparative analysis of
two facts which you felt exactly the same way about.
>
> > You really don't
> > deserve to even know her name, after making that comparison.
> > And in any case, read your original comment where you
> > say "...have absolutely no sympathy for the victim,"
>
> The victime _in_that_particular_case_ being an evil man
> similar to McGinn. Please try to understand. The situation
> I described was analogous to the execution of McGinn
> not to the murder of Stephanie.
Comparisons, right?? Exactly then, what events were you
trying to compare? What were you comparing with either
of the murders (your imaginary one, and the true one), and
which victims were you comparing with those events, in
saying you have no sympathy for (the serial killing,
drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer; the 12 year-old girl,
or McGinn)? Of course, you will now claim apples and
oranges (wiggle, wiggle, wiggle) in your 'clarification,'
but the fact remains that your original statement and
your clarification of that statement are just, in your
words, 'bullshit.' And any further attempt to 'clarify'
your original statement and your subsequent 'clarification,'
will only once again show your ass to the general public,
for what that ass really is.. a hypocrite.
>
> and in
> > your present post claim that this implied "...no sympathy for
> > McGinn himself." Exactly who is it you have no sympathy
> > for? (1) the serial killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer,
>
> corect, no sympathy
Then why compare that murder with the murder committed
by McGinn? Because we have no sympathy for the murder
victim in the example you provide, how can you claim any
connection to the murder victim in the McGinn murder??
There is no connection. McGinn=Murderer, 12 year-old
girl=victim. Your case=Murderer, serial killing, drug-dealing,
pedophilic murderer=victim. Executions need to be
compared against other executions, murderers need to
be compared against other murderers, and victims need
to be compared against other victims.
>
>
> > (2) the 12 year old girl,
>
> wrong, great sympathy here. Her name was Stephanie, by the way.
> Did you know that ?
Yes, but I'm sure you had to look it up.
>
>
> > or (3) McGinn himself?
>
> correct, no sympathy here.
So then the execution can proceed as scheduled, folks,
PeePee concurs.
>
> You see, I used (1) as a metaphor for (3). You, and
> you alone thought I was using it as a metaphor for (2).
>
You wouldn't know a metaphor if it hit you with a two-by
four (Hey, that rhymes -- maybe I'll write a country song
using that. Like the last song I wrote about my try to get
rid of my old girlfriend, called, "Get your tongue out of my
mouth, 'cause I'm kissing you goodbye.")
>
> You seem to
> > keep changing who you have no sympathy for, like those
> > innocents on the trolley track.
>
> Still obsessed with that, are you? Still desperately trying
> to find something, anything at all where you can prove
> me wrong? Still twisting my words around, and attacking
> me for what I never said?
I attack you for what you ALWAYS say, not what you never
say. And yes, I'm obsessed that anyone would believe it
to be more moral to stay passive, and allow a greater loss of
innocent lives, than take an active response, to prevent
that greater loss of innocent lives, regardless of the legal
consequences. Is that twisting your words around, and
if so, perhaps you can say why you think so? Even your
ridiculous claim of legal consequences could be easily
refuted even now, and I could easily show counter-examples
proving otherwise, but I've already seen that you are too
dense and full of yourself to comprehend anyway, and the
futility of pursuing the discussion was obvious to me, to be
the same as pursuing a dogmatic argument with any zealot...
Just a waste of time on my part. I just became disgusted
that you could believe in the possibility that there exists a
body of knowledge, of any level of so-called morality or
superior insight, who would believe that to be passive in the
face of a clear moral responsibility is better than if we take
action to avoid greater consequences. History, not
pseudo-philosophy bears out the truth of my claim.
Believe me, I let the trolley problem drop, not because
I could not have provided reams of proof that it is based
on a principle of immorality, but because you are too
stupid to see it as such, and I have left the opinion to
others, who, I know, see you as the ass that I see you as
(except for Mitchell Holman perhaps, who is only a
slavish clown, having nothing better to do than correct
spelling mistakes, anyway. And by my saying this,
will probably incur the wrath of St.George, since there
seems to a cliquish mentality present at times).
>
> > Perhaps it's difficult to follow
> > along because you seem to be lost.
>
> Perhaps its difficult for you to follow because you're as dumb as
mulch.
>
>
Even if this were to be true, the fact that you do not
have the ability to make your point clear and consistent
to EVERYONE, only casts doubt on your ability to
make your point clear and consistent, regardless of
your reader. But, although I claim to be no savant,
I feel it isn't much of a stretch to feel superior to you.
In fact, I'm glad you're around just to show others that
greater stupidity then mine, resides close by, in the
person of PeePee Morris.
A PV
Odagnop
A Planet Visitor wrote:
<snip>
> So then the execution can proceed as scheduled, folks,
> PeePee concurs.
Only Planet Visitor would think of rolling indecent exposure and
ventriloquism into the same act.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Anarchy, The Return of Nemesis
You are in luck.
McGinn will never have to worry about parole at all.
anarchy
Lucas Stults
<st_george99@ŁŁŁnetmatters.co.uk> wrote:
t's what they all say.
>
> You racist, sexist, jingoistic, evil, slavering savage! Don't you realise
> that the wheels of capitalism are oiled with the blood of the workers, you
> imperialist running-dog??
Yes, well, I DID know that... However, I prefer the term 'limping
dog', as our military isn't quite what it was back in the 80's...
Lucas Stults
Personal story here boys. I used to fight with Dan Hogg all the darn
time. Called him names. Cast aspersions on his parentage. Got all
hot under the collar.
Then one day something magic happened. He and I started a thread, and
seriously tried to look at the issues at hand from the other persons
perspective. After that day, not only did I regret every single insult
I'd hurled at him, I... I... I started agreeing with him! =)
Now, I've read lots of messages by both of you. And as I recall, I've
even traded ill-tempered shots across Peter's bow back in my Rabid Pro
phase. But I tend to think that both of you are reasonable
individuals, so it honestly surprises me that you could show this level
of hostility toward each other.
Oh well, just a thought.
Anarchy, The Return of Nemesis
<morr...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
snip......
>> Let me get this straight. Using your analogy, and your
>> words, you are appalled and disgusted by the murder he
>> committed, but you have absolutely no sympathy for his
>> victim, a 12 year old girl? Exactly what ARE you trying
>> to say?
>
>No, I am saying that I am disgusted and appalled by the
>cold blooded act of violence that would be the execution
>of McGinn, but have no sympathy for McGinn himself.
>
>Please do try to follow, it is simple enough.
Absolutely.
Your concerns for our collective welfare are laudable, but
inappropriate.
His execution will not only serve the cause of justice, but society
will undoubtably recover from whatever imaginary ills you think result
from this much delayed application of justice.
Thank you for your concern.
anarchy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
JIGSAW1695
From: Lucas Stults stu...@ebold.com
Date: 9/11/00 11:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <110920002141529824%stu...@ebold.com>
================================
"Imperialist running dog"???? I havent heard that one in years.... How about
they ever popular "Wall Street Lackey" and "Paper Tiger".
Wow! Those phrases bring back memories...... "Better Red then Dead"....
"Kill a Commie for Christ"...
A Planet Visitor
Because we represent two diametrically opposed views
of MORALITY, regardless of our differences regarding
the DP. The basic difference is our use of WORDS to
convey this morality. For example, Peter believes a
passive action is more moral than an active action, even
if the passive action results in the loss of an infinite
number of more innocent lives, compared to the loss
of one innocent life. I believe history proves him wrong.
He also believes, as he has said in a post between
Richard and himself, that if one supports the DP, then
choosing L wop for themselves if faced with the choice,
is a possible moral choice, which I obviously see as a
conflict between the morality of what you would choose
for others, and what you would choose for yourself.
But essentially, the reason I get to Peter, is just that
he is so easy, it's almost a crime to do so. For
example, I know what he was TRYING to say, it's
just that he doesn't know how to say it. Look at his
ORIGINAL sentence, which I reduced to absurdity.
He said: "Doubtless, many people would be appalled
and disgusted by the murder, but have absolutely no
sympathy for the victim. And this is exactly the way I
feel about the execution of Ricky McGinn." Now, I
knew what he was TRYING to say, but he was
comparing a murder to an execution and McGinn to
a victim. Can you see this ludicrous comparison for
what it is? A murder is not an execution, and McGinn
is not a victim. Pure and simple... no equality, no
value to compare. What he should have compared
is quite simple to illustrate. A sniper kills a hostage
taker on command from his superiors. Quite
simply, the sniper executes, his orders to execute
come from his superiors, which can equate to an
execution determined by society to be necessary.
And the hostage taker, in this case the "victim,"
only in name, and clearly not in the context we
view in this newsgroup, is the one executed. So
we can then make the correct comparison to an
execution. And the qualification remains the same,
that many people would be appalled and disgusted
... but have absolutely no sympathy for the victim.
Yet few, even being appalled and disgusted, would
claim that the execution was unnecessary in a
moral sense. And that is the relationship that an
execution morally represents. Appalled and
disgusted, yes. As to both the act and the
necessity for the DP. Sympathy for McGinn,
not on your life. But comparisons by example
- of a murder and an execution - and a depraved
killer as the victim of that murder, or McGill as
the "victim," of an execution - cannot be compared.
Murder is an act without basis in approval in
Law. Execution is an act WITH basis in approval
in Law. The victim of a murder, regardless of
how depraved, is nevertheless a victim of
murder, for reasons NOT connected to their
depravity. McGinn is a "victim" of execution,
for reasons DIRECTLY connected to his
depravity. As I said, apples and oranges.
A PV
"Lucas Stults" <stu...@ebold.com> wrote in message
news:110920002148122721%stu...@ebold.com...