The risk to innocents if we don't execute
Sharpjfa
We have overwhelming proof that living murderers harm and murder again, in
prison, after improper release and, as we so recently experienced, after
escape. No one disputes that living murderers are infinitely more likely to
harm and murder again than are executed murderers. And, there is no proof of an
innocent executed within the US since 1900. Yet, some supporters of a
moratorium and death penalty opponents claim that a concern for innocents is
why they want to halt executions. Any temporary or permanent end to executions
will always put more innocents at risk.
Furthermore, any assertion that the death penalty is not a deterrent is false.
Those studies not finding for deterrence do not say it doesn't exist. Those
studies finding for deterrence state such. A statutory challenge caused a
temporary halt to executions in Texas, in 1996. The result? "The (Texas)
execution hiatus, therefore, appears to have spared few, if any, condemned
prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net 90 additional innocent
lives lost to homicide. Politicians contemplating moratoriums may wish to
consider the possibility that a seemingly innocuous moratorium on executions
could very well come at a heavy cost."(5)
In the past year, at least three innocent people were murdered by escaped
murderers. That is three more than we have proof for innocents executed since
1900. At least 8% of those on death row had committed one or more murders
prior to the murder(s) which put them on death row (14), suggesting that with
7,000 sentenced to death, since 1973, that 600 additional innocents were
murdered by those who we failed to properly restrain after their original
murder(s). Justice Department studies suggest that it is likely that some 2
million innocents have been harmed, 100,000 murdered, since 1973, by criminals
while "supervised" by US criminal justice systems (parole, probation, mandatory
release, furloughs, pre trial releases, etc.) (6).
In any review of criminal justice practices and their failings, we are looking
at errors in judgment and procedure. Yet, with such catastrophic harm to
innocents, coming from other criminal justice shortcomings, some politicians
have chosen to pursue a moratorium on executions -- a criminal justice practice
lacking proof of an innocent killed, at least since 1900. Is the priority of
our elected officials to protect innocent lives or to get rid of the death
penalty? A review of criminal justice realities makes that a very reasonable
question.
It already takes 12 years to execute those sentenced to death. And some elected
officials are debating a moratorium on executions. Yet, under all debated
scenarios, halting executions will put more innocents at risk.
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.
John Rennie
"Sharpjfa" <shar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010527235300...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
Sharpe - do you think that all murderers should be executed not just capital
murderers?
Jim McCulloch
shar...@aol.com wrote on 5/27/2001 10:53 PM:
> We have overwhelming proof that living murderers harm and murder again, in
> prison, after improper release and, as we so recently experienced, after
> escape. No one disputes that living murderers are infinitely more likely to
> harm and murder again than are executed murderers.
Dudley, allow me to make a perfectly reasonable (and, in the light of a
recent Texas jailbreak, highly accurate) modification of your above
statement:
"We have overwhelming proof that living robbers, rapists, and non-capital
murderers harm and murder again, in prison, after improper release and, as
we so recently experienced, after escape. No one disputes that living
robbers, rapists and non-capital murderers are infinitely more likely to
harm and murder again than are executed robbers, rapists and non-capital
murderers."
The statement as modified is actually much more relevant to the real world
than the one you made. The number of murders committed by capital murderers
who have escaped or been released is minuscule compared to those committed
by non-capital murderers and members of the general prison population who
have escaped or been released.
As you know.
Do you, Dudley, advocate killing _all_ the prisoners who might escape or be
released and go on to murder?
If not, why not?
Best regards,
--Jim McCulloch
A Planet Visitor
"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:B7382328.12870%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu...
My opinion... even though no one asked for it ---
"We have overwhelming proof that living humans, who have never
murdered will murder at some point in the future. No one disputes
that living humans are infinitely more likely to harm and murder
again than are executed humans"
The number of murders committed by capital murderers who have
escaped or been released is minuscule compared to those committed
by the general population having never committed murder.
Do you, Jim, advocate killing _all_ of the general population who
each might go on to murder?
If not, why not?
Best regards,
PV
> Best regards,
>
> --Jim McCulloch
>
>
>
>
Jim McCulloch
Visitor at abc...@abcxyz.com wrote on 5/28/2001 4:28 PM:
(snip)
>
> My opinion... even though no one asked for it ---
>
> "We have overwhelming proof that living humans, who have never
> murdered will murder at some point in the future. No one disputes
> that living humans are infinitely more likely to harm and murder
> again than are executed humans"
>
> The number of murders committed by capital murderers who have
> escaped or been released is minuscule compared to those committed
> by the general population having never committed murder.
>
> Do you, Jim, advocate killing _all_ of the general population who
> each might go on to murder?
No, of course not.
> If not, why not?
Because I am not insane--but also because I am not obliged by the logic of
my own views on the DP to advocate such a thing. Dudley, as far as I can
see (perhaps he will speak for himself, though I will not hold my breath)
_is_ so obliged.
That is, he is concerned about the risk of capital murderers to (a) the
prison population and (b) the rest of us, if the DP should be abolished.
Such a concern is truly perplexing, since the vast majority of murders by
convicted felons, both in prison and out, are committed by felons who were
never convicted of capital murder. If I remember right, only 3 percent of
murderers in the US are sentenced to death row. Those 3 percent spend many
years on death row before execution, and the number of prisoners or guards
they have killed in the past decade is quite small. The number, like the
number of people killed by escaped DP prisoners, may in fact be zero, but I
am not sure of that. In any case, given that there have been hundreds of
murders committed in that time in our prisons by "less dangerous" prisoners,
one has to wonder about the genuineness of Dudley's concern--and of the
concern of those who take a similar line in defending the DP.
Obviously, if Dudley's concern for the safety of us all were genuine-- and
I, personally, having followed his arguments off and on for several years,
do not believe they are-- he would then be obliged to advocate measures so
draconian that no one would accept them. So he has a certain vested interest
in not following out the implications of his supposed concern.
Best regards,
--Jim McCulloch
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:IpzQ6.331190$fs3.53...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
question to Sharpe? It was Sharpe who stated "In the past year, at least
three innocent people were murdered by escaped murderers." None of these
murderers were capital murderers. I asked Sharpe and Jim has asked Sharpe
if he, Sharpe, advocates the killing of all murderers. Jim thought it
germane to add other types of convicted criminals. The question could well
be directed to you with your well known views on recidivism. Do you think
all murderers should be executed? Now I know you don't but you
continually stress the risk to innocents that the release of these murderers
represent - so come clean - what should be done with them?
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message news:9eum51$5ne$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Innocent people murdered by escaped murderers, ONLY proves
that the POSSIBILITY of a murderer who remains alive can
murder again. It is a refutation of any claim that L wop is of
the same degree of protection as the DP for this to happen.
Retentionists hold up examples of POSSIBLE innocents
executed post-Furman. I hold up examples of POSSIBLE
innocents SAVED by our having executed OTHER murderers.
This does not imply that we need to execute EVERY murderer.
This is the conclusion that abolitionists WOULD like to draw
from those who support the DP. But quite the opposite is
true. We have executed ~700 murderers post-Furman. We
have PROOF that some murderers we DIDN'T execute have
murdered again. We can use this PROOF to establish the
firm possibility that those ~700 we DID execute WOULD HAVE
murdered 'X' number of innocents had they NOT been
executed. We use this in the same way that abolitionists
offer PROOF that 'Y' number of innocents sentenced to
the DP who had their sentences overturned establishes
the firm possibility that we HAVE executed an innocent.
When an abolitionist states that 'Y' number of innocents had
their sentences overturned, tends to indicate we MIGHT
HAVE executed an innocent... I truthfully cannot refute this
POSSIBILITY. On the other hand, when I can show that
'some' number of innocents were murdered by those murderers
we DID NOT execute, this tends to provide an indication that
those we HAVE executed would have murdered 'X' number of
innocents again if NOT executed.
As to what should be done to murderers we do not execute:
I do not believe L wop is appropriate. We should sentence
to an indeterminate time, with some minimum certainly
appropriate. And then we should evaluate them more often
than a parole board does, with the understanding that the
faster they progress in our view, the more quickly they are
reexamined, and positive feedback by this more aggressive
evaluation hopefully providing better incentive. Those that
don't show progress, we should evaluate less frequently.
Rehabilitation is a minefield, creating a whole different
agenda than 'The DP - yes or no.' My basic opinion is that
someone COULD spend their entire life in prison for a murder.
But doing so would be UP to THEM. And certainly just
claiming someone is rehabilitated and giving them $10 to
get on the bus, isn't going to keep them rehabilitated for
very long. Rehabilitation would have to continue well after
release. I do not believe the DP serves a purpose in
family murder, rage, and probably not even in a robbery
gone bad situation. But don't talk to me about serial killers,
pedophile murderers, or those who shoot teenagers in
execution style when robbing a pizza hut for $200. Trust
me... the DP HAS a PURPOSE.
Of Course... as ever.... IMHO.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:B73840A4.12883%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu...
> in article IpzQ6.331190$fs3.53...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> Visitor at abc...@abcxyz.com wrote on 5/28/2001 4:28 PM:
>
> (snip)
> >
> > My opinion... even though no one asked for it ---
> >
> > "We have overwhelming proof that living humans, who have never
> > murdered will murder at some point in the future. No one disputes
> > that living humans are infinitely more likely to harm and murder
> > again than are executed humans"
> >
> > The number of murders committed by capital murderers who have
> > escaped or been released is minuscule compared to those committed
> > by the general population having never committed murder.
> >
> > Do you, Jim, advocate killing _all_ of the general population who
> > each might go on to murder?
>
> No, of course not.
>
> > If not, why not?
>
> Because I am not insane--but also because I am not obliged by the logic of
> my own views on the DP to advocate such a thing. Dudley, as far as I can
> see (perhaps he will speak for himself, though I will not hold my breath)
> _is_ so obliged.
>
I simply extrapolated your truism into an absurdity of a truism. It
has nothing to do with Sharp... because the central element of
anyone who supports the DP, is the FACT that a murderer is
prevented from murdering again, with the use of the DP. It is
FUNDAMENTAL to its use. When others reduce such fact to
absurdity I simply note that absurdity. We execute SOME
murderers because they have MURDERED. We do not execute
petty thieves, or even those who YOU might believe WOULD murder.
Murder constitutes the foundation for using the DP, and without
murder we have no need for the DP. When you suggest that
because we execute SOME murderers we should consider
executing others who are NON-murderers, because you think
you're saying so to prove some point, I find it necessary to point
out that it is MURDERERS who murder, not petty thieves, nor
even rapists. If you would say those others COULD murder,
then you must also consider EVERYONE who COULD murder.
Murder is a UNIQUE crime, and sometimes requires
a UNIQUE penalty.
> That is, he is concerned about the risk of capital murderers to (a) the
> prison population and (b) the rest of us, if the DP should be abolished.
I believe we should ALL be concerned about that risk.
> Such a concern is truly perplexing, since the vast majority of murders by
> convicted felons, both in prison and out, are committed by felons who were
> never convicted of capital murder.
As a percentage of murders committed by former felons, those
who have been convicted of MURDER are far more likely to be
rearrested for the crime of homicide. I base that on a DOJ report
which I will provide the URL to if you're interested. This report
confirms that
Former murderers are rearrested for homicide at 6.6%
Former Rapists are rearrested for homicide at 2.8%
Former Robbers are rearrested for homicide at 2.9%
Former Assaults are rearrested for homicide at 1.7%
Former ALL Offenses are rearrested for homicide at 1.6%
This VAST majority you speak of is ONLY because there are MORE
rapists, robbers, assaults, and all offenses in NUMBER rather
than percentage of recommission of that particular crime. This
is the point to be made if we would enlarge our view of those
who necessarily deserve the DP to the entire population. We
may ALL commit murder... it is not impossible. But if the
entire population committed murder at the rate previously
convicted murderers do, we would have around 18.5 MILLION
arrests for homicide.
> If I remember right, only 3 percent of
> murderers in the US are sentenced to death row. Those 3 percent spend many
> years on death row before execution, and the number of prisoners or guards
> they have killed in the past decade is quite small. The number, like the
> number of people killed by escaped DP prisoners, may in fact be zero, but I
> am not sure of that. In any case, given that there have been hundreds of
> murders committed in that time in our prisons by "less dangerous" prisoners,
> one has to wonder about the genuineness of Dudley's concern--and of the
> concern of those who take a similar line in defending the DP.
>
Actually there is ANOTHER National study of DR inmates that were
commuted to lesser sentences as a result of Furman. In this
study of ~558 DP commuted DP sentences ~300 of those were
commuted to general prison sentences. While in the general
prison population those ~300 committed 6 additional murders
WHILE IN PRISON. Against prison officials and prison
inmates.
> Obviously, if Dudley's concern for the safety of us all were genuine-- and
> I, personally, having followed his arguments off and on for several years,
> do not believe they are-- he would then be obliged to advocate measures so
> draconian that no one would accept them. So he has a certain vested interest
> in not following out the implications of his supposed concern.
>
Someone doesn't NEED to advocate draconian measures to support
concern for our safety. I'm not talking about Sharp now... his views
are rather extreme to me. I'm talking about MYSELF I do not
advocate draconian measures. But neither do I advocate NO
measures. Don't tell me that L wop works. It doesn't. Nor do I
believe it is more humane or moral than the DP. Is it a GOOD thing
or a BAD thing that we ONLY execute 3% of convicted murderers?
If it's a bad thing, then perhaps YOU believe we need to execute
more of those who murder. I'm satisfied with 3% or even less,
if those we execute truly demand that we execute them to
maintain our own self-respect. I do not believe our Justice
System uses sufficient care in its selection of those 3%, and
would hope that the system improves. I would be against any
opinion that says 100% of murderers should be executed, as much
as I would be against any opinion that say 0% of murderers should
be executed. And I would certainly be against any opinion that
would say we should execute those who exhibit a POSSIBILITY
that they WILL murder. The only certainty that establishes such
a truth is the fact that they ALREADY HAVE murdered.
Jim McCulloch
Visitor at abc...@abcxyz.com wrote on 5/28/2001 10:04 PM:
>...When you suggest that
> because we execute SOME murderers we should consider
> executing others who are NON-murderers, because you think
> you're saying so to prove some point, I find it necessary to point
> out that it is MURDERERS who murder, not petty thieves, nor
> even rapists.
Well, gosh, I rarely see someone providing their own statistics to prove
that a position they hold, and with which I disagree, is wrong. But to my
astonishment you have done so, below. Please refer to them.
> If you would say those others COULD murder,
> then you must also consider EVERYONE who COULD murder.
Indeed so. That was the general point of my question to Dudley Sharp.
> Murder is a UNIQUE crime, and sometimes requires
> a UNIQUE penalty.
That is in the first instance a non-sequitur, and besides that leaves us in
the dark as to which murders require the "unique penalty" (by which I
presume you mean death). Is is all murders or just some? What you have
just said implies we should execute them all, unless I misunderstand what
you are trying to say.
>> That is, he is concerned about the risk of capital murderers to (a) the
>> prison population and (b) the rest of us, if the DP should be abolished.
>
> I believe we should ALL be concerned about that risk.
The risk, considered empirically, is very slight compared with the risk you
are not willing to carry out draconian penalties to prevent. I confess I
just do not understand your concern, given the absence of a concern for a
much greater risk--assuming, of course, that we measure concern by a
willingness to impose the death penalty.
>> Such a concern is truly perplexing, since the vast majority of murders by
>> convicted felons, both in prison and out, are committed by felons who were
>> never convicted of capital murder.
>
> As a percentage of murders committed by former felons, those
> who have been convicted of MURDER are far more likely to be
> rearrested for the crime of homicide. I base that on a DOJ report
> which I will provide the URL to if you're interested. This report
> confirms that
> Former murderers are rearrested for homicide at 6.6%
> Former Rapists are rearrested for homicide at 2.8%
> Former Robbers are rearrested for homicide at 2.9%
> Former Assaults are rearrested for homicide at 1.7%
> Former ALL Offenses are rearrested for homicide at 1.6%
I thank you for this information. The one statistic you do not give us is
the in-prison murderous recidivism rate of post-Furman death row felons,
which is approximately zero. We have a good baseline because of the length
of time we have kept a very large sample in prison awaiting execution. That
being so, it is in principle (as proven by actual practice) possible to keep
the in-prison murder rate just as it stands today by keeping these
individuals in prison instead of executing them.
Your concerns, then, are ill founded.
> This VAST majority you speak of is ONLY because there are MORE
> rapists, robbers, assaults, and all offenses in NUMBER rather
> than percentage of recommission of that particular crime. This
> is the point to be made if we would enlarge our view of those
> who necessarily deserve the DP to the entire population. We
> may ALL commit murder... it is not impossible. But if the
> entire population committed murder at the rate previously
> convicted murderers do, we would have around 18.5 MILLION
> arrests for homicide.
But if I understand you correctly, you are not in favor of the draconian
penalty of killing all the murderers. But surely your remarks here imply
that you should be. This is very puzzling to me.
> Actually there is ANOTHER National study of DR inmates that were
> commuted to lesser sentences as a result of Furman. In this
> study of ~558 DP commuted DP sentences ~300 of those were
> commuted to general prison sentences. While in the general
> prison population those ~300 committed 6 additional murders
> WHILE IN PRISON. Against prison officials and prison
> inmates.
Not only that, at least one of them got released and went on to commit a
dreadful murder about six blocks from where I lived in Austin, Texas. I am
certainly not in favor of that. But we have proved, with our death row
inmates, that we can avoid this. Previously you advocate special treatment
for all murderers--clearly we can avoid the problem you have just brought up
by continuing the special treatment that capital murderers already get in
their present prison accommodations. I don't see a problem there.
> Someone doesn't NEED to advocate draconian measures to support
> concern for our safety. I'm not talking about Sharp now... his views
> are rather extreme to me. I'm talking about MYSELF I do not
> advocate draconian measures. But neither do I advocate NO
> measures.
Nor do I.
> Don't tell me that L wop works. It doesn't.
I haven't told you whether I advocate LWOP, but why do you say it doesn't
"work"? I don't know of any evidence that it doesn't "work", other than the
sort of statistics which you have just brought up, which certainly do not
demonstrate anything of the kind. I do not know how many non-DP states have
LWOP. I suspect some do and some don't, but I am not sure. In any case, I
would be willing to bet the non-DP states have no higher murder rate inside
or outside the prisons than we have in Texas, where I live, or for that
matter on average in DP states. I would also be willing to bet that the
murder rate both inside and outside prison did not go up when the non-DP
states abolished the DP.
Do you have any figures on that?
>Nor do I
> believe it is more humane or moral than the DP.
I have said nothing about my views about how people should be treated in
prison. I think the brutality of our present prison system engenders much of
the crime behind bars that seems to concern you. Our guards are poorly
paid, overworked, intimidated by the inmates. We have filled our prisons
with vast numbers of drug criminals and given amazingly long sentences to
them. The average drug dealer spends more time behind bars than the average
murderer. If we reformed our prisons, and gave shorter sentences, or no
prison time at all, to drug offenders, we could reduce the prison population
greatly, pay enough to attract a better quality prison guard, and in general
regain control of the prisons in a way that would reduce crime inside the
prison and possibly even give those individuals who are going to get
released a skill such that they can get a job and make a living on the
outside.
Also, while I think LWOP might be appropriate for a very few prisoners, in
general a very long sentence will do as well, and makes prison management
much easier and safer for everyone, for obvious reasons.
It is clear that making prisons inhumane, as we presently do, is
counterproductive, regardless of whether you think it is appropriately
punitive.
>Is it a GOOD thing
> or a BAD thing that we ONLY execute 3% of convicted murderers?
> If it's a bad thing, then perhaps YOU believe we need to execute
> more of those who murder. I'm satisfied with 3% or even less,
> if those we execute truly demand that we execute them to
> maintain our own self-respect.
I don't believe our self-respect is the issue here. Where did that come
from? Perhaps where it came from is the same place Dudley Sharp is coming
from. Dudley professes to believe it would be unsafe to abolish the DP, but
his real reason for advocating capital punishment (as he used to be willing
to admit, and probably still is) is his view that the death penalty
constitutes appropriate justice.
That is a very different issue from the ones you have brought up here.
Best regards,
--Jim McCulloch
A Planet Visitor
"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:B7388F93.12A34%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu...
> in article nlEQ6.341464$o9.52...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> Visitor at abc...@abcxyz.com wrote on 5/28/2001 10:04 PM:
>
>
> >...When you suggest that
> > because we execute SOME murderers we should consider
> > executing others who are NON-murderers, because you think
> > you're saying so to prove some point, I find it necessary to point
> > out that it is MURDERERS who murder, not petty thieves, nor
> > even rapists.
>
> Well, gosh, I rarely see someone providing their own statistics to prove
> that a position they hold, and with which I disagree, is wrong. But to my
> astonishment you have done so, below. Please refer to them.
>
and other statistics from a post-Furman commuted study.
It's all well and good to SAY they prove the contrary to my
position, but you have provided NOTHING which would SHOW
they do so. Convicted and released murderers are rearrested
for homicide at a much higher rate than offenders previously
convicted of other crimes. Didn't you say the opposite was
true?
> > If you would say those others COULD murder,
> > then you must also consider EVERYONE who COULD murder.
>
> Indeed so. That was the general point of my question to Dudley Sharp.
>
But then your 'general point' was that OTHER criminals could
also commit murder. And my 'general point' was that assuming
those who COULD commit murder should be executed leads
to the general conclusion that EVERY LIVING human should be
executed. You called it insane. But YOU were the first one
who raised the bar of those we should consider for POSSIBLE
execution.
> > Murder is a UNIQUE crime, and sometimes requires
> > a UNIQUE penalty.
>
> That is in the first instance a non-sequitur, and besides that leaves us in
> the dark as to which murders require the "unique penalty" (by which I
> presume you mean death). Is is all murders or just some? What you have
> just said implies we should execute them all, unless I misunderstand what
> you are trying to say.
>
Certainly NOT. All human justice is 'in the dark.' We do not
sentence ALL robbers to a specific sentence, nor ALL rapists
to a specific sentence. Why would you feel we MUST sentence
all MURDERERS to a specific sentence? As in the case of
penalties for EVERY crime, we are NOT automatons. We
EXAMINE each case for an APPROPRIATE penalty, using
our imprecise human abilities judging the crime and the
possibility of the perpetrator recommitting the same crime.
Those who HAVE murdered, and go on to MURDER again,
because we mistakenly failed to identify them as such, are
examples of our failures. But the EXISTENCE of such
behavior forms the proof that those murderers we HAVE
executed, could quite well have murdered again, had we
NOT executed THEM. Yet, we fully realize that if we
execute EVERY murderer we are no better than computers,
and might as well do away with the penalty phase for
EVERY crime, and just give out the same sentence for
each guilty judgment. Would you consider it equally
suitable that we execute those women who murdered
their abusive husbands after 15-20 years of abuse, and
a Ted Bundy? If you do... you are not in agreement with
my belief.
> >> That is, he is concerned about the risk of capital murderers to (a) the
> >> prison population and (b) the rest of us, if the DP should be abolished.
> >
> > I believe we should ALL be concerned about that risk.
>
> The risk, considered empirically, is very slight compared with the risk you
> are not willing to carry out draconian penalties to prevent. I confess I
> just do not understand your concern, given the absence of a concern for a
> much greater risk--assuming, of course, that we measure concern by a
> willingness to impose the death penalty.
>
If you can't understand my concern about the fact that we
average greater than 10,000 homicides a year (conservatively),
then we're obviously not on the same page. I'm willing to
impose the death penalty because of this concern. I am not
willing to execute ALL murderers, nor am I willing to execute
ANYONE who has, at the LEAST, not already murdered.
> >> Such a concern is truly perplexing, since the vast majority of murders by
> >> convicted felons, both in prison and out, are committed by felons who were
> >> never convicted of capital murder.
> >
> > As a percentage of murders committed by former felons, those
> > who have been convicted of MURDER are far more likely to be
> > rearrested for the crime of homicide. I base that on a DOJ report
> > which I will provide the URL to if you're interested. This report
> > confirms that
> > Former murderers are rearrested for homicide at 6.6%
> > Former Rapists are rearrested for homicide at 2.8%
> > Former Robbers are rearrested for homicide at 2.9%
> > Former Assaults are rearrested for homicide at 1.7%
> > Former ALL Offenses are rearrested for homicide at 1.6%
>
> I thank you for this information. The one statistic you do not give us is
> the in-prison murderous recidivism rate of post-Furman death row felons,
> which is approximately zero. We have a good baseline because of the length
> of time we have kept a very large sample in prison awaiting execution. That
> being so, it is in principle (as proven by actual practice) possible to keep
> the in-prison murder rate just as it stands today by keeping these
> individuals in prison instead of executing them.
>
But I provide that information below extracted from "The Death
Penalty in America," edited by Hugo Bedau (certainly NOT a
DP advocate). It showed a POSITIVE recidivism rate of
2% (6 murders by ~300 formerly sentenced to the DP, but
commuted to other prison sentences). Now how many murders
do you believe those ~300 would have committed if left in
the GENERAL population of society? To my mind, it is
MUCH more difficult to murder IN prison, then outside
prison, even given the fact that those inside are more PRONE
to murder. The security aspects of prison, are alone sufficient
to show this fact to me. If the DP were to be abolished, what
do YOU propose to do with those murderers now no longer
sentenced to death? Do you think confinement in TOTAL
segregation for a lifetime is moral and humane?
> Your concerns, then, are ill founded.
>
I don't think 2% is zero. Nor do I think that a lifetime of
confinement is the answer. Nor do I think that EVEN total
segregation is CERTAIN. A case in point, which makes
your zero claim FALSE, is Jarmarr Arnold... who while
on DR, murdered ANOTHER DR inmate.
> > This VAST majority you speak of is ONLY because there are MORE
> > rapists, robbers, assaults, and all offenses in NUMBER rather
> > than percentage of recommission of that particular crime. This
> > is the point to be made if we would enlarge our view of those
> > who necessarily deserve the DP to the entire population. We
> > may ALL commit murder... it is not impossible. But if the
> > entire population committed murder at the rate previously
> > convicted murderers do, we would have around 18.5 MILLION
> > arrests for homicide.
>
> But if I understand you correctly, you are not in favor of the draconian
> penalty of killing all the murderers. But surely your remarks here imply
> that you should be. This is very puzzling to me.
>
Sorry if the concept of executing ONLY SOME of those who
MURDER, is beyond your understanding. The fact that we
execute ONLY 3% of all murderers does not prove my belief
in the DP is WRONG... it only proves that executing ALL
murderers is counterproductive and immoral, and executing
NO murderers is counterproductive and immoral. Of course...
IMHO.
> > Actually there is ANOTHER National study of DR inmates that were
> > commuted to lesser sentences as a result of Furman. In this
> > study of ~558 DP commuted DP sentences ~300 of those were
> > commuted to general prison sentences. While in the general
> > prison population those ~300 committed 6 additional murders
> > WHILE IN PRISON. Against prison officials and prison
> > inmates.
>
> Not only that, at least one of them got released and went on to commit a
> dreadful murder about six blocks from where I lived in Austin, Texas. I am
> certainly not in favor of that. But we have proved, with our death row
> inmates, that we can avoid this. Previously you advocate special treatment
> for all murderers--clearly we can avoid the problem you have just brought up
> by continuing the special treatment that capital murderers already get in
> their present prison accommodations. I don't see a problem there.
>
I believe you're referring to Kenneth McDuff. He was from a
different part of the group in question. Not one who was
sentenced to an alternate prison term, but who was released.
We have proved NOTHING, unless you suggest a LIFETIME
of TOTAL and ISOLATED segregation for murderers. Something
I consider approaching INHUMAN treatment for a human being,
to have to endure for 40-50 years. I don't see where I advocate
'special treatment' for all murderers. I advocate society
determining 'beyond rehabilitation,' thus a humane execution,
or 'possibly capable of rehabilitation,' thus rehabilitation treatment
commencing. No L wop... only sentences of INDETERMINATE
length depending on the progress of the murderer. Of course,
murderers who AGAIN murders in prison form a unique group,
that I believe prove THEY are beyond rehabilitation. In fact,
I see this type sentencing pretty much useful in MANY crimes.
Although other crimes must NOT qualify for the DP, and
must certainly be capped at a SPECIFIC length.
> > Someone doesn't NEED to advocate draconian measures to support
> > concern for our safety. I'm not talking about Sharp now... his views
> > are rather extreme to me. I'm talking about MYSELF I do not
> > advocate draconian measures. But neither do I advocate NO
> > measures.
>
> Nor do I.
>
You've imposed a LIMIT to the measures. Only those LIMITS
which are defined as 'cruel and unusual' punishment represent
limits in our society. I view a lifetime of TOTAL segregation from
all of humanity as 'cruel and unusual' to an extreme, when
compared against the DP. IMHO, I would rather that the
Supreme Court declare L wop as 'cruel and unusual,' rather
than the DP.
> > Don't tell me that L wop works. It doesn't.
>
> I haven't told you whether I advocate LWOP, but why do you say it doesn't
> "work"? I don't know of any evidence that it doesn't "work", other than the
> sort of statistics which you have just brought up, which certainly do not
> demonstrate anything of the kind. I do not know how many non-DP states have
> LWOP. I suspect some do and some don't, but I am not sure. In any case, I
> would be willing to bet the non-DP states have no higher murder rate inside
> or outside the prisons than we have in Texas, where I live, or for that
> matter on average in DP states. I would also be willing to bet that the
> murder rate both inside and outside prison did not go up when the non-DP
> states abolished the DP.
>
You confuse 'cause' and 'effect.' Non-DP States have decided
that they NEED no DP. The fact that they HAVE no DP does
not lead to the conclusion that they have lower homicide rates.
The opposite is the true examination. High homicide rates
tend to JUSTIFY in the minds of the legislators and the public
the NEED for the DP. Certainly a non-DP State SHOULD have
a lower murder rate inside or outside of prison.
> Do you have any figures on that?
>
What FIGURES are you prepared to offer?
> >Nor do I
> > believe it is more humane or moral than the DP.
>
> I have said nothing about my views about how people should be treated in
> prison. I think the brutality of our present prison system engenders much of
> the crime behind bars that seems to concern you. Our guards are poorly
> paid, overworked, intimidated by the inmates. We have filled our prisons
> with vast numbers of drug criminals and given amazingly long sentences to
> them. The average drug dealer spends more time behind bars than the average
> murderer. If we reformed our prisons, and gave shorter sentences, or no
> prison time at all, to drug offenders, we could reduce the prison population
> greatly, pay enough to attract a better quality prison guard, and in general
> regain control of the prisons in a way that would reduce crime inside the
> prison and possibly even give those individuals who are going to get
> released a skill such that they can get a job and make a living on the
> outside.
>
All of this is quite interesting, and I mentioned parts of it in passing
to John Rennie in this same thread, last night. However, it has
little to do with the SPECIFIC subject we address here - "The DP
yes or no." All of the aspects you touch on, bear on characteristics
of our JUSTICE SYSTEM, which are often seen by me as
profoundly flawed. Legalizing drugs has always been supported
by me in opinions I've presented here. Rehabilitation is an area that
deserves its own newsgroup. If someone CAN be rehabilitated...
society believing such is possible... then certainly we must use
every effort to rehabilitate. But L wop ASSUMES no rehabilitation
is possible. Thus, I find any assumption that we MUST not
execute, but MUST incarcerate for a lifetime, in TOTAL human
segregation (to achieve the same level of protection afforded
by the DP), to be implausible, unworkable, and immoral.
> Also, while I think LWOP might be appropriate for a very few prisoners, in
> general a very long sentence will do as well, and makes prison management
> much easier and safer for everyone, for obvious reasons.
>
> It is clear that making prisons inhumane, as we presently do, is
> counterproductive, regardless of whether you think it is appropriately
> punitive.
>
Apparently you have me confused with someone else. I never
suggest that we MAKE prisons inhumane. Quite the contrary.
INHUMANE in my opinion, is L wop, consisting of TOTAL human
segregation for perhaps 40-50 years to prevent recidivism.
> >Is it a GOOD thing
> > or a BAD thing that we ONLY execute 3% of convicted murderers?
> > If it's a bad thing, then perhaps YOU believe we need to execute
> > more of those who murder. I'm satisfied with 3% or even less,
> > if those we execute truly demand that we execute them to
> > maintain our own self-respect.
>
> I don't believe our self-respect is the issue here. Where did that come
> from? Perhaps where it came from is the same place Dudley Sharp is coming
> from. Dudley professes to believe it would be unsafe to abolish the DP, but
> his real reason for advocating capital punishment (as he used to be willing
> to admit, and probably still is) is his view that the death penalty
> constitutes appropriate justice.
>
I think our 'self-respect' is the issue in EVERY human activity
we undertake as a collective society. Certainly in my view
the DP DOES constitute appropriate justice, IN SOME CASES
OF MURDER. If we claim that we CANNOT execute ANY
murderer, we certainly lose sight of our self-respect for
each of our lives. Execution is not the 'do-all end-all,' answer.
Such answers do not exist for ANY of life's problems. The
DP is simply a partial solution... and being such certainly
has to be used with care. By using our capacity as humans
to EXAMINE each case of murder -- making the most
meaningful decision we can in evaluating the extent of the
murder, and the possibility of recidivism.
> That is a very different issue from the ones you have brought up here.
>
So is the issue of rehabilitation.
Jim McCulloch
Visitor at abc...@abcxyz.com wrote on 5/29/2001 9:46 AM:
(some snipping)
> 'MY' Statistics are NOT 'MY' statistics. They are DOJ statistics
> and other statistics from a post-Furman commuted study.
> It's all well and good to SAY they prove the contrary to my
> position, but you have provided NOTHING which would SHOW
> they do so. Convicted and released murderers are rearrested
> for homicide at a much higher rate than offenders previously
> convicted of other crimes. Didn't you say the opposite was
> true?
No, I didn't say the opposite was true. We seem to be going around in
circles here.
What I said was simple, and was this: If your statistics show that capital
murderers should be executed to protect society, they show that murderers in
general, and indeed felons in general, should be executed. If not, not. You
have not refuted that. You have simply claimed that arbitrarily executing
one segment of the murderer population is justified by the danger they
present to society. I use the word "arbitrarily" precisely because the
aggregate danger capital murderers represent to society is necessarily quite
small in comparison with the general murderer population or the general
prison population, _even if_ you can show that they are individually more
dangerous than other felons.
The claim that we should kill 3 percent of the murderers to protect society
from future murder is illogical if we believe that it is justified to
execute felons to prevent this, because we are also justified in killing the
other 97 percent for the same reason. And indeed we are required to, on the
basis of the protection-of-the-public argument.
(snip)
You seem to be oscillating between a "we should kill them because they
deserve it" argument and the argument that we should kill them to protect
society. These arguments do not buttress one another.
> Would you consider it equally
> suitable that we execute those women who murdered
> their abusive husbands after 15-20 years of abuse, and
> a Ted Bundy? If you do... you are not in agreement with
> my belief.
Well, your prison statistics show that non-capital murderers, presumably
including the women above, are more likely to kill again than similar
individuals in the general population. In this case, you do not seem to be
concerned about the risk. Or, to put it another way, you are willing to take
the chance. In an unknown but finite percentage of cases, your willingness
to take the chance will result in disaster. Your willingness to take the
chance obviates the rationale you want to use for killing Bundy. I am pretty
sure Bundy could have been kept from killing others while in prison. I may
be wrong, just as you may be wrong. My point is, your actual argument has no
logical basis for making the distinction between your willingness to take a
chance and mine.
(more of the same, snipped)
> Sorry if the concept of executing ONLY SOME of those who
> MURDER, is beyond your understanding. The fact that we
> execute ONLY 3% of all murderers does not prove my belief
> in the DP is WRONG... it only proves that executing ALL
> murderers is counterproductive and immoral, and executing
> NO murderers is counterproductive and immoral. Of course...
> IMHO.
This is the crux of our disagreement. Executing 3 percent of murderers, or
100 percent of them, does not "prove" anything at all, in a logical sense.
The proof must go the other way. You must prove that execution, whether of 3
percent or 100 percent, makes sense. To do so, you must provide some
reasons. The only reasons you have given do not give us (you, me, or anyone)
a logical basis for limiting executions to the 3 percent.
Quite commendably, you do not want to execute 100 percent of murderers. But
the reasons you yourself have given (protection of society) really give us
no reason not to, and every reason to execute all those who statistically
represent more of a threat to society than the average person.
(more snipped)
>I advocate society
> determining 'beyond rehabilitation,' thus a humane execution,
> or 'possibly capable of rehabilitation,' thus rehabilitation treatment
> commencing.
This is an altogether different argument for execution. Your concern for the
humane is commendable. There may be some convicts who will say, if given
life without parole, "execute me". I doubt if very many will. In any case,
that does not mean that LWOP is more inhumane than execution. Many ordinary
prisoners in the county jail for drunkenness try to commit suicide, but that
fact does not mean that execution for drunkenness is more humane than
throwing a drunk into the drunk tank.
As I indicated in my previous post, I believe prisons could be and should be
more humane. I very much hope that those (hopefully few) prisoners serving
LWOP should be treated decently, although I would prefer long sentences
with the possibility of parole, depending on behavior. I personally don't
think LWOP is _intrinsically_ more inhumane than a long prison sentence, but
I do think it presents an unnecessary prison management problem, because it
removes one incentive for good behavior.
(still more snippage)
> I think our 'self-respect' is the issue in EVERY human activity
> we undertake as a collective society. Certainly in my view
> the DP DOES constitute appropriate justice, IN SOME CASES
> OF MURDER. If we claim that we CANNOT execute ANY
> murderer, we certainly lose sight of our self-respect for
> each of our lives.
How does that follow? There are some hidden premises here. Perhaps if you
make them explicit we can discuss this intelligently.
Best regard,
--Jim McCulloch
Peter Morris
>
> >
> Actually there is ANOTHER National study of DR inmates that were
> commuted to lesser sentences as a result of Furman. In this
> study of ~558 DP commuted DP sentences ~300 of those were
> commuted to general prison sentences. While in the general
> prison population those ~300 committed 6 additional murders
> WHILE IN PRISON. Against prison officials and prison
> inmates.
I have a few comments to make about this.
But first, please specify your point. What, exactly is
the significance of the above figures?
Last time you posted this figure, I assumed that you
meant "If all Furman prisonners had been executed,
these six lives would have been saved" In response I
got a long abusive rant in which you denied that you had
meant that at all.
So, this time, before I comment, I want to know exactly
what you mean. Given that you are not claiming that the
death penalty would have saved these lives, what are you
talking about? Or maybe you DO mean that.
And by the way, weren't there a number of Furman-commuted
prisonners who actually turned out to be innocent a few years
later?
--
_____________________________
/___________________________(_)
| ___________________________ email to
| | |________________________(_) Peter_Morris_1
| |/__________________________ at Hotmail dot com
|___________________________(_)
A Planet Visitor
"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:B739491B.12A8C%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu...
> in article lDOQ6.342621$o9.53...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> Visitor at abc...@abcxyz.com wrote on 5/29/2001 9:46 AM:
>
> (some snipping)
>
> > 'MY' Statistics are NOT 'MY' statistics. They are DOJ statistics
> > and other statistics from a post-Furman commuted study.
> > It's all well and good to SAY they prove the contrary to my
> > position, but you have provided NOTHING which would SHOW
> > they do so. Convicted and released murderers are rearrested
> > for homicide at a much higher rate than offenders previously
> > convicted of other crimes. Didn't you say the opposite was
> > true?
>
> No, I didn't say the opposite was true. We seem to be going around in
> circles here.
>
> What I said was simple, and was this: If your statistics show that capital
> murderers should be executed to protect society, they show that murderers in
> general, and indeed felons in general, should be executed. If not, not.
Of course that's nonsense. If statistics show that felons in general
commit felonies, should we sentence THEM all to the same sentences?
Should we sentence everyone who rapes to EXACTLY the same
sentence? Statistics PROVE that 1) murderers commit murder, and
2) murderers recommit murder at a higher rate than ANY OTHER
group, felon or otherwise. Those two crucial elements DEMAND that
we EXAMINE the extent of their crime, AND the possibility of
recidivism, as we do with ALL felonies. And presently WE have
decided that ONLY 3% of those who commit murder necessarily
demand that we execute them. We have DIFFERING sentences
for EVERY crime. And two of the elements we examine in those
felonies are the extent of the crime, and the possibility of recidivism.
Statistics show that larceny/theft offenders are rearrested for THAT
crime at a rate of 33.5%. Does that mean because 1/3 of them
reoffend we MUST sentence each of them to EXACTLY the same
sentence? Should we execute THEM to protect society FROM
MURDER? If you believe so, then as I said, we might as well
execute all humans, because EACH of us can commit murder.
> You
> have not refuted that. You have simply claimed that arbitrarily executing
> one segment of the murderer population is justified by the danger they
> present to society. I use the word "arbitrarily" precisely because the
> aggregate danger capital murderers represent to society is necessarily quite
> small in comparison with the general murderer population or the general
> prison population, _even if_ you can show that they are individually more
> dangerous than other felons.
>
My point then returns to the first post I made. If we would execute
ALL who might murder, we essentially self-destruct. The fact is that
murderers murder at a higher RATE than any other group of society.
This proof forces us to the conclusion that such acts REQUIRE a
closer examination of the murder and the murderer. But we
NEVER... for any crime... establish a de facto standard that we apply
to EVERY crime. Every crime has different circumstances which
force us to EVALUATE the crime in question. In this respect ALL
sentences are arbitrary, depending on the view of those who sit in
judgment. But certainly this aspect is obvious in ALL criminal
sentences.
> The claim that we should kill 3 percent of the murderers to protect society
> from future murder is illogical if we believe that it is justified to
> execute felons to prevent this, because we are also justified in killing the
> other 97 percent for the same reason. And indeed we are required to, on the
> basis of the protection-of-the-public argument.
>
We are NOT required to execute ANYONE. Even with a DP on the
law books, many states allow it to remain unused. We ARE required
to examine every crime and every murder, as part of our Criminal
Justice System. We are NOT justified in executing those that society
determines should NOT be executed. No case can be made, that
contains ANY logic, for a principle that EVERYONE committing a
CERTAIN crime MUST receive a CERTAIN penalty. There is
a heightened sense of awareness that protection-of-the-public is
MORE at risk, from certain murders and murderers then other
murders and murderers. We use our BRAIN (as limited as our
Justice System is in its use of its brain), to examine this fact. And
from this fact, we DETERMINE an appropriate sentence, including the
DP, if we feel it appropriate, but at the same time, NOT excluding
other penalties. BTW - we do that with ALL criminal penalties.
> (snip)
> >>> Murder is a UNIQUE crime, and sometimes requires
> >>> a UNIQUE penalty.
> >>
> >> That is in the first instance a non-sequitur, and besides that leaves us in
> >> the dark as to which murders require the "unique penalty" (by which I
> >> presume you mean death). Is is all murders or just some? What you have
> >> just said implies we should execute them all, unless I misunderstand what
> >> you are trying to say.
> >>
'Sometimes' hardly means 'all the time.'
> > Certainly NOT. All human justice is 'in the dark.' We do not
> > sentence ALL robbers to a specific sentence, nor ALL rapists
> > to a specific sentence. Why would you feel we MUST sentence
> > all MURDERERS to a specific sentence? As in the case of
> > penalties for EVERY crime, we are NOT automatons. We
> > EXAMINE each case for an APPROPRIATE penalty, using
> > our imprecise human abilities judging the crime and the
> > possibility of the perpetrator recommitting the same crime.
> > Those who HAVE murdered, and go on to MURDER again,
> > because we mistakenly failed to identify them as such, are
> > examples of our failures. But the EXISTENCE of such
> > behavior forms the proof that those murderers we HAVE
> > executed, could quite well have murdered again, had we
> > NOT executed THEM. Yet, we fully realize that if we
> > execute EVERY murderer we are no better than computers,
> > and might as well do away with the penalty phase for
> > EVERY crime, and just give out the same sentence for
> > each guilty judgment.
>
> You seem to be oscillating between a "we should kill them because they
> deserve it" argument and the argument that we should kill them to protect
> society. These arguments do not buttress one another.
>
Says who??? Of course they buttress one another. Should we
execute simply because they deserve it? Of course not. But
it forms a leg of the principles we use to determine who we
should execute. Those NOT deserving it, are certainly NOT
those we should execute. Such as an abused wife who murders
a husband who has abused her for 15-20 years. But even if 'I'
feel they deserve it, society has to first agree with this, and then
has to further agree that we MUST also protect ourselves from
further acts by the murderer. Either one or the other principle
standing by itself, is not sufficient to justify the DP, IMHO. And
that's why I find 3% of murderers executed a reasonable number.
I only wish that the murderers which constitute those 3% were
more to my view of WHO we should execute. But NO executions?
Sorry... I'll never buy that.
> > Would you consider it equally
> > suitable that we execute those women who murdered
> > their abusive husbands after 15-20 years of abuse, and
> > a Ted Bundy? If you do... you are not in agreement with
> > my belief.
>
> Well, your prison statistics show that non-capital murderers, presumably
> including the women above, are more likely to kill again than similar
> individuals in the general population. In this case, you do not seem to be
> concerned about the risk.
All felons are MORE likely to kill than ANY individual in the general
population. It's a strawman argument to claim that such has ANY
validity in our use of the DP. It's exactly what you first stated.
So let's take a look at ACTUAL numbers from the DOJ report
I cited. Table 9 of the report examined 106,216 convicted felons
of which 3,258 were convicted murderers. Those 106,216 felons
were rearrested at a rate of 1.6% for homicide. This is 1,700
rearrests for homicide. The 3,258 convicted murderers were
rearrested at a rate of 6.6% for homicide. This is 215 rearrests
for homicide. Now you would say since 1,700 new homicides
are greater than 215 new homicides we should execute 106,216
felons, if we hold that we should execute SOME murderers. I
don't think I need to pursue this any further to show how insane
such a proposal actually is. Abused wives who murder their
abusive husbands 1) do not meet MY particular standard of
DESERVING the DP, and 2) do not meet MY particular standard
of those we need execute to protect the public.
> Or, to put it another way, you are willing to take
> the chance. In an unknown but finite percentage of cases, your willingness
> to take the chance will result in disaster.
Isn't EVERYONE willing to take a chance on a finite number
of cases resulting in disaster? Isn't our entire principle of
justice based upon taking a chance that 'beyond a reasonable
doubt,' provides us adequate protection while also protecting
the innocent?
> Your willingness to take the
> chance obviates the rationale you want to use for killing Bundy. I am pretty
> sure Bundy could have been kept from killing others while in prison. I may
> be wrong, just as you may be wrong. My point is, your actual argument has no
> logical basis for making the distinction between your willingness to take a
> chance and mine.
>
My logical argument had EVERYTHING to do with this thread.
You may hold an opinion concerning the use of the DP, and I
might as well. Certainly we have those rights. But when you
SUGGEST that because we execute SOME murderers this
provides any proof that that we should execute ALL or NONE,
we come to a LOGICAL impasse. First, you would by saying
this, claim that we have NO right to judge on an INDIVIDUAL basis.
I disagree. As members of society WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT.
Second, your claim that it makes as much sense to execute
all felons as it does to execute SOME murderers, falls flat
on its logical face, in view of the fact that everyone MAY
murder. And third, your argument that the fact that a murderer
DESERVES to be executed, and the fact that we examine
murder and murderers as a self-defense mechanism are mutually
exclusive terms, is absurd.
> (more of the same, snipped)
>
> > Sorry if the concept of executing ONLY SOME of those who
> > MURDER, is beyond your understanding. The fact that we
> > execute ONLY 3% of all murderers does not prove my belief
> > in the DP is WRONG... it only proves that executing ALL
> > murderers is counterproductive and immoral, and executing
> > NO murderers is counterproductive and immoral. Of course...
> > IMHO.
>
> This is the crux of our disagreement. Executing 3 percent of murderers, or
> 100 percent of them, does not "prove" anything at all, in a logical sense.
> The proof must go the other way. You must prove that execution, whether of 3
> percent or 100 percent, makes sense. To do so, you must provide some
> reasons. The only reasons you have given do not give us (you, me, or anyone)
> a logical basis for limiting executions to the 3 percent.
>
The logical basis is society DETERMINING that the murderer
DESERVES to be executed, and the execution will enhance our
self-protection through prevention of that PARTICULAR murderer
ever murdering again.
> Quite commendably, you do not want to execute 100 percent of murderers. But
> the reasons you yourself have given (protection of society) really give us
> no reason not to, and every reason to execute all those who statistically
> represent more of a threat to society than the average person.
>
Statistics are based on (number in group recidivist)/(population of the
group).
I would think that you wouldn't keep repeating this refrain because
if the general population were rearrested for homicide at the RATE
that convicted murderers are, we would have 18.5 million arrests
for homicide. This, and the fact that murderers have ALREADY
proven they are capable of murder constitute sufficient reasons
to examine EACH of them with the POSSIBILITY of execution as
the MOST extreme of punishments.
> (more snipped)
>
> >I advocate society
> > determining 'beyond rehabilitation,' thus a humane execution,
> > or 'possibly capable of rehabilitation,' thus rehabilitation treatment
> > commencing.
>
> This is an altogether different argument for execution. Your concern for the
> humane is commendable. There may be some convicts who will say, if given
> life without parole, "execute me". I doubt if very many will.
Hardly any point. Since NO criminal gets to PICK their punishment.
WE determine which is most humane, while still serving the purpose
of assessing guilt and determining recidivism possibility. We do NOT
let the animals run the zoo, picking what is behind door #2 as opposed
to door #1.
> In any case,
> that does not mean that LWOP is more inhumane than execution. Many ordinary
> prisoners in the county jail for drunkenness try to commit suicide, but that
> fact does not mean that execution for drunkenness is more humane than
> throwing a drunk into the drunk tank.
>
I certainly fail to see your point, again. Are you suggesting that
we do away with ALL incarceration because prisoners might try
to commit suicide?
> As I indicated in my previous post, I believe prisons could be and should be
> more humane. I very much hope that those (hopefully few) prisoners serving
> LWOP should be treated decently, although I would prefer long sentences
> with the possibility of parole, depending on behavior. I personally don't
> think LWOP is _intrinsically_ more inhumane than a long prison sentence, but
> I do think it presents an unnecessary prison management problem, because it
> removes one incentive for good behavior.
>
I personally disagree. Putting that argument clearly to bed.
> (still more snippage)
>
>
> > I think our 'self-respect' is the issue in EVERY human activity
> > we undertake as a collective society. Certainly in my view
> > the DP DOES constitute appropriate justice, IN SOME CASES
> > OF MURDER. If we claim that we CANNOT execute ANY
> > murderer, we certainly lose sight of our self-respect for
> > each of our lives.
>
> How does that follow? There are some hidden premises here. Perhaps if you
> make them explicit we can discuss this intelligently.
>
I see no hidden premise. All crime has a source. The crime
itself. Murder is the source of the DP. Obviously without
murder we have no need for a DP. By simply abolishing the
DP we are in effect saying "We know you committed the most
egregious crime possible that a human may commit. But we
can't hold your life in forfeit, even if we BELIEVE we SHOULD
do so, and even if we have grave concerns as to our future safety
with you still alive." Let's see where our concern for our
self-respect leads us.
Two guys abduct a young girl from a car wash rack in
broad daylight. They take turns in rape, sodomy and torture of
her, throughout the entire night until the first light of morning.
They apply the car's heated cigarette lighter over and over to
her various and intimate body parts. They use pliers to squeeze
and rip apart various parts of her anatomy. They slam and break
her various body appendages with a hammer. They exalt in her
screams of pain. One of the two guys drops his partner off at his
house, and in a final, impossibly inhuman statement, tells the
other he is now going to 'use her up.' As one might say when
beating on the bottom of an empty bottle of ketchup to extract
the last drops.
Do you believe that such vermin need to be comforted and cared
for, the rest of their natural lives? Where do the 'human rights'
of these murderers end? Where does their insanity end and
ours begin? Where does our responsibility for our own self-respect
begin? Do we serve a useful purpose for humanity by perpetuating
the existence of such monsters? Have we fulfilled our obligation
to the general members of society by NOT even CONSIDERING
the DP, as would be the case in abolishing the DP? Have we
KEPT our self-respect, by validating their actions as NOT
deserving of the DP in ANY respect?
This is my concept of keeping our self-respect. Self-respect
to the concept that some human acts are truly inhuman, and
deserve the DP, thus forming one leg of the principles we use to
examine those who DEMAND to be executed.
Best regards,
PV
> Best regard,
>
> --Jim McCulloch
>
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9f0tr9$3to$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:nlEQ6.341464$o9.52...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
>
> > >
> > Actually there is ANOTHER National study of DR inmates that were
> > commuted to lesser sentences as a result of Furman. In this
> > study of ~558 DP commuted DP sentences ~300 of those were
> > commuted to general prison sentences. While in the general
> > prison population those ~300 committed 6 additional murders
> > WHILE IN PRISON. Against prison officials and prison
> > inmates.
>
> I have a few comments to make about this.
>
> But first, please specify your point. What, exactly is
> the significance of the above figures?
>
> Last time you posted this figure, I assumed that you
> meant "If all Furman prisonners had been executed,
> these six lives would have been saved" In response I
> got a long abusive rant in which you denied that you had
> meant that at all.
>
saved had all post-Furman commuted murderers been
executed instead of given alternate prison sentences.
Although that CERTAINLY would have been the true
consequences of them HAVING been executed. My
entire argument is based on the fact that it clearly
demonstrates a proven recidivist rate of 2% of those
murderers who ARE NOT executed. That being said,
SOCIETY determines who should be or who should NOT
be executed. My entire point is that the ~700 we HAVE
executed in ~25 clearly could have murdered 14 other
innocent humans having been returned to a general
prison environment. And might also clearly have murdered
many more innocents had they been returned to the
general population. Certainly you cannot provide the
names of 14 innocents among those ~700. Society
determines WHO are selected for the DP, not I. I
simply support the fact that we DO execute as a
by-product of murders committed. Not all murderers,
and not all murderers who recommit murder. We do
the best we can, as a society... and in my eyes, removing
the DP from the arsenal we possess to prevent further
murders is just tying one hand behind our back. With
the understanding that we can NEVER eliminate murder.
> So, this time, before I comment, I want to know exactly
> what you mean. Given that you are not claiming that the
> death penalty would have saved these lives, what are you
> talking about? Or maybe you DO mean that.
>
See above.
> And by the way, weren't there a number of Furman-commuted
> prisonners who actually turned out to be innocent a few years
> later?
No.
BTW.
1) Are you Plenary Verbositor?
2) Did you previously post under the nic of Premier Sort?
A 'yes' or 'no' to each will suffice for me to go off the edge again.
PV
St.George
<snip>
> > And by the way, weren't there a number of Furman-commuted
> > prisonners who actually turned out to be innocent a few years
> > later?
>
> No.
Really?
I'd just _love_ to see your source on this one, PV!
'They All Did It' by D.Sharp, perhaps?
Or perhaps 'I'm Talking Out Of My Arse Again' by Paul Visitor, esq?
Jim McCulloch
Visitor at abc...@abcxyz.com wrote on 5/29/2001 3:35 PM:
>
>> What I said was simple, and was this: If your statistics show that capital
>> murderers should be executed to protect society, they show that murderers in
>> general, and indeed felons in general, should be executed. If not, not.
>
> Of course that's nonsense. If statistics show that felons in general
> commit felonies, should we sentence THEM all to the same sentences?
> Should we sentence everyone who rapes to EXACTLY the same
> sentence? Statistics PROVE that 1) murderers commit murder, and
> 2) murderers recommit murder at a higher rate than ANY OTHER
> group, felon or otherwise. Those two crucial elements DEMAND that
> we EXAMINE the extent of their crime, AND the possibility of
> recidivism, as we do with ALL felonies. And presently WE have
> decided that ONLY 3% of those who commit murder necessarily
> demand that we execute them.
I guess your pseudonym means what it says. "We", whoever we are, cannot
decide that those we send to death row have "demanded" that we execute them.
That's doubletalk. We can indeed send them to death row, but we certainly
cannot "decide" what others "demand". This is a kind of political rhetoric,
designed I suppose to convince by misuse of language, that there is a kind
of inevitability such that the executed are somehow executing themselves.
But as you say here, and throughout your post, we have great leeway in
sentencing. Your original claim was that the protection of society requires
us to kill these 3 percent. You have now modified this claim to be "the
protection of society plus the fact that these guys are pretty hard core"
(if I may sum up what you are saying more clearly than you have done)
requires us to kill them.
But if you actually attach any but rhetorical significance to the danger to
society represented by, say, murderers in general, you would be morally
remiss in letting all those other murderers live. But it seems to me that
you are actually more concerned about the fact that these guys are pretty
hard core, and deserve to die. The only relevance to the protection of
society in such an argument is that, if any additional protection accrues to
society through executing those who already deserve to die, so much the
better-- if they already deserve to die.
Perhaps this is your true argument. If so, then the question becomes "do
they already deserve to die"? I am certainly willing to discuss this.
(snip)
> We are NOT required to execute ANYONE.
I absolutely agree
>Even with a DP on the
> law books, many states allow it to remain unused. We ARE required
> to examine every crime and every murder, as part of our Criminal
> Justice System. We are NOT justified in executing those that society
> determines should NOT be executed.
Even with the strange circularity in the final sentence, I agree.
> No case can be made, that
> contains ANY logic, for a principle that EVERYONE committing a
> CERTAIN crime MUST receive a CERTAIN penalty.
I certainly have not suggested that they should--my point was, and remains,
that I can see no logical reason how you can avoid it given your societal
protection justification of the DP. But if you are now saying that death row
felons deserve execution, and that societal protection is an additional
boon, I have to disagree on both counts, because I am prepared to argue that
they do not deserve to die, and that society can be protected adequately
without killing them.
>> You seem to be oscillating between a "we should kill them because they
>> deserve it" argument and the argument that we should kill them to protect
>> society. These arguments do not buttress one another.
>>
> Says who??? Of course they buttress one another.
Demonstrate how, please. If they deserve to die, that is sufficient reason
to execute them. If they do not deserve to die, then...? You finish this
sentence. (Will it be that "we should kill them to protect society?" But
wait. I thought you had abandoned that position. Please help me out, here.)
>
> Isn't EVERYONE willing to take a chance on a finite number
> of cases resulting in disaster?
I don't know. A lot of folks seem to want certainty in protecting society,
at least rhetorically.
(some plowing of old ground snipped)
>...And third, your argument that the fact that a murderer
> DESERVES to be executed, and the fact that we examine
> murder and murderers as a self-defense mechanism are mutually
> exclusive terms, is absurd.
This interests me. I personally don't believe anyone deserves to die, so
this is a rather hypothetical argument, as far as I am concerned. But it has
become fairly clear to me that you believe some murderers deserve to die
based on the heinousness of the crime, their unrepentence, their potential
for rehabilitation, and so forth. But you seem to be wanting to say that
someone who is not _quite_ deserving to die, becomes somehow
deserving-to-die when we consider the additional weight of a menace to
society--which I might point out we cannot in individual cases quantify, and
is not an individual quality, unlike deservingness. "Deserving" do die is
not a statistical concept, it is one that has to do with the felon's moral
condition. The "justice" of executing someone must surely (right? do you
disagree with this?) have to do with that person's crime itself, and the
moral condition that led to it. How can a statistical prediction add to a
moral decision that we must speak of as "deserving execution" or "not
deserving execution"? Certainly, as you point out, we should consider many
different factors in deciding whether to execute someone. But if we are
going to decide whether to execute based on whether someone _deserves_ it,
we cannot arrive at a conclusion that they deserve it by considering factors
that are not part of the constellation of factors that (as far as I know)
everyone considers to be specific to that individual.
And if we step away from "deservingness" to consider statistical
probability of future harm, we cannot find a _logical_ way (your way is
arbitrary, rather than logical) to avoid killing a great many other
not-deserving-of-execution people on the same basis. Clearly I am not
advocating that, and you don't want to. But I see no consistent way for you
to avoid it. And as I have just shown, you can't "buttress" your
considerations of whether someone deserves to be executed with your
protection of society argument.
>> This is the crux of our disagreement. Executing 3 percent of murderers, or
>> 100 percent of them, does not "prove" anything at all, in a logical sense.
>> The proof must go the other way. You must prove that execution, whether of 3
>> percent or 100 percent, makes sense. To do so, you must provide some
>> reasons. The only reasons you have given do not give us (you, me, or anyone)
>> a logical basis for limiting executions to the 3 percent.
>>
> The logical basis is society DETERMINING that the murderer
> DESERVES to be executed, and the execution will enhance our
> self-protection through prevention of that PARTICULAR murderer
> ever murdering again.
At last it becomes explicit. Thank you. So what we really need to discuss is
whether not a murderer deserves to die. If he does, then any protection to
society that may also accrue is all to the good. But on the other hand if he
does not, then no amount of protection-of-society can justify killing him.
Do you agree?
>>
>>
>>> I think our 'self-respect' is the issue in EVERY human activity
>>> we undertake as a collective society. Certainly in my view
>>> the DP DOES constitute appropriate justice, IN SOME CASES
>>> OF MURDER. If we claim that we CANNOT execute ANY
>>> murderer, we certainly lose sight of our self-respect for
>>> each of our lives.
>>
>> How does that follow? There are some hidden premises here. Perhaps if you
>> make them explicit we can discuss this intelligently.
>>
> I see no hidden premise. All crime has a source. The crime
> itself. Murder is the source of the DP. Obviously without
> murder we have no need for a DP. By simply abolishing the
> DP we are in effect saying "We know you committed the most
> egregious crime possible that a human may commit. But we
> can't hold your life in forfeit, even if we BELIEVE we SHOULD
> do so, and even if we have grave concerns as to our future safety
> with you still alive." Let's see where our concern for our
> self-respect leads us.
In other words, you would feel personally diminished if society, acting in
your stead, were not able to take revenge on a heinous murderer. But the
fact that your "self respect" would be diminished in the absence of societal
revenge, does not mean that the self respect of those who do not believe in
societal revenge would be diminished. In any case, it is irrelevant to the
DP. In the old south, to allow an African American who raped (but did not
kill) a white woman to go un-lynched would have sullied the self respect of
the members of the lynch mob. And even if he were not lynched, if he were
not ultimately executed under auspices of law, the self respect of the white
citizens would have been (in their view) intolerably diminished.
Does societal "self respect" justify either lynching, or judicial execution,
of a rapist?
Clearly not. I hope you will agree.
Best regards,
--Jim McCulloch
A Planet Visitor
"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:B739A369.12ABB%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu...
> in article kKTQ6.337869$fs3.54...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> Visitor at abc...@abcxyz.com wrote on 5/29/2001 3:35 PM:
>
> >
>
> >> What I said was simple, and was this: If your statistics show that capital
> >> murderers should be executed to protect society, they show that murderers in
> >> general, and indeed felons in general, should be executed. If not, not.
> >
> > Of course that's nonsense. If statistics show that felons in general
> > commit felonies, should we sentence THEM all to the same sentences?
> > Should we sentence everyone who rapes to EXACTLY the same
> > sentence? Statistics PROVE that 1) murderers commit murder, and
> > 2) murderers recommit murder at a higher rate than ANY OTHER
> > group, felon or otherwise. Those two crucial elements DEMAND that
> > we EXAMINE the extent of their crime, AND the possibility of
> > recidivism, as we do with ALL felonies. And presently WE have
> > decided that ONLY 3% of those who commit murder necessarily
> > demand that we execute them.
>
> I guess your pseudonym means what it says. "We", whoever we are, cannot
> decide that those we send to death row have "demanded" that we execute them.
> That's doubletalk. We can indeed send them to death row, but we certainly
> cannot "decide" what others "demand". This is a kind of political rhetoric,
> designed I suppose to convince by misuse of language, that there is a kind
> of inevitability such that the executed are somehow executing themselves.
>
'We' operates in the sense of a collective society that has determined
that the DP is lawful, and has enacted such a penalty for murder.
Certainly 'I' am part of that society, and have every right to claim
myself and other members of my society as the collective 'we.'
I wouldn't have a problem if you associated yourself with a
collective group of those who are abolitionists, so what's the
problem? Unless you find the term somewhat intimidating.
Perhaps you should understand that ANY criminal through THEIR
act, provides the 'cause' behind every 'effect' of any penalty. As
such the murderer has 'asked for action which is just, proper and
necessary' (one of the definitions of 'demand'). Certainly you
can't believe that murderers, at least on a subconscious level
don't weigh the cost/benefit of the act they take. And quite true,
murderers DO execute themselves. Certainly if one murders they
then place themselves in the position TO BE judged by society.
The act of murder that THEY commit provides the reasoning behind
society taking WHATEVER action it feels appropriate. If society
determines that the murders they commit demand they be executed
(in the view of such a society), the murderer has accept the possibility
of action which is just, proper or necessary (demanded). And they
certainly must EXPECT such to be POSSIBLY forthcoming if they
are convicted.
> But as you say here, and throughout your post, we have great leeway in
> sentencing. Your original claim was that the protection of society requires
> us to kill these 3 percent. You have now modified this claim to be "the
> protection of society plus the fact that these guys are pretty hard core"
> (if I may sum up what you are saying more clearly than you have done)
> requires us to kill them.
>
Puh...leeze. 'Sum up more clearly!!' Get real. Only you claim I've
MODIFIED my understanding of what I believe is required for the DP
to be applied. It is: Society's decision. Totally and absolutely. To
have the DP or to abolish the DP. To execute those who murder or
not to execute those who murder. My belief in other respects has
only the limited scope of being my opinion. And I believe that such
determinations by SOCIETY should rest on two principles, IF society
decides to employ the DP. 1) The murderer must fit a certain definition
of DESERVING such a penalty as demonstrated by their acts, and 2)
The murderer must fit a certain profile which would indicate a definite
and extreme propensity to recommit such murders if afforded ANY
opportunity to do so. You keep putting words that I haven't said into your
weird translations, and then in patronizing tone say "If I may sum up..."
No... you may not sum up! I NEVER said it is REQUIRED that ANY
society execute 3% of murderers. That's about the most ridiculous
statement you could accuse me of. The protection of society requires
that we PROTECT society. If in doing so, we need execute no one, I
have no problem with that. If in doing so, we need to execute a certain
NUMBER (not a percentage), of those we consider the most certain of
meeting the two criteria I've stated, I can tell you that I find a PURPOSE
to the DP. In MY society I hold the opinion that we NEED the DP. I
hardly give a hoot what OTHER societies do. And in Xanadu, perhaps
it isn't even necessary. But do not try to claim that is the SOLE reason
I support the DP in MY SOCIETY. Because 1) I oppose the alternate
penalty of L wop, as being less humane, 2) I believe some murderers
DEMAND to be executed, and 3) Self-protection of society is a fundamental
right of society.
> But if you actually attach any but rhetorical significance to the danger to
> society represented by, say, murderers in general, you would be morally
> remiss in letting all those other murderers live. But it seems to me that
> you are actually more concerned about the fact that these guys are pretty
> hard core, and deserve to die. The only relevance to the protection of
> society in such an argument is that, if any additional protection accrues to
> society through executing those who already deserve to die, so much the
> better-- if they already deserve to die.
>
Since when have YOU become the judge of MORALITY? I'm concerned
about my society, and the effect murder has on my society. Morality is
a subjective view and you cannot claim that 'I' would be morally remiss
in letting all those other murderers live. I can certainly then claim YOU
are morally remiss in not supporting execution for all murderers, to a
much LARGER extent that I am, because you do not support the
execution of ANY murderer.
> Perhaps this is your true argument. If so, then the question becomes "do
> they already deserve to die"? I am certainly willing to discuss this.
>
You fail to understand that I DO NOT JUDGE who deserves to die. My
society does... and I support my society in that respect, because I support
the DP as a CONCEPT. In my opinion, I do not feel we should execute
those who society (in the form of the jurors, the judges, and due process),
does not feel DESERVE to be executed. Nor do I feel we should execute
those who society does not feel would be highly probable recidivist. As for
the Justice System, it is imperfect... we accept that imperfection as a part
of our being human... and we do the best we can under those known
limitations. We should always work toward improvement in our Justice
System with the understanding that there is NO other alternative, other
than vigilante justice.
>
> (snip)
>
> > We are NOT required to execute ANYONE.
>
> I absolutely agree
>
But above, you claimed I stated that I REQUIRED we execute 3%
of murderers. You said "Your original claim was that the protection of
society requires us to kill these 3 percent." Certainly I NEVER
made such a claim.
> >Even with a DP on the
> > law books, many states allow it to remain unused. We ARE required
> > to examine every crime and every murder, as part of our Criminal
> > Justice System. We are NOT justified in executing those that society
> > determines should NOT be executed.
>
> Even with the strange circularity in the final sentence, I agree.
>
Don't patronize! Society determines who should be executed. We
are not JUSTIFIED in executing ANY OTHERS. Believe me, such
events in other societies, are NOT THAT RARE.
> > No case can be made, that
> > contains ANY logic, for a principle that EVERYONE committing a
> > CERTAIN crime MUST receive a CERTAIN penalty.
>
> I certainly have not suggested that they should--my point was, and remains,
> that I can see no logical reason how you can avoid it given your societal
> protection justification of the DP. But if you are now saying that death row
> felons deserve execution, and that societal protection is an additional
> boon, I have to disagree on both counts, because I am prepared to argue that
> they do not deserve to die, and that society can be protected adequately
> without killing them.
>
Argue away. Of course, you're arguing in the face of SOCIETY, when
those who sit on DR have already been judged as DESERVING of
execution by others -- others far more knowledgeable as to the ACTUAL
acts which required such a choice, than you or I will ever be. I don't
see how you could LOGICALLY argue over that fact, and if you wish
to argue morality I'm prepared to argue that point quite readily.
>
> >> You seem to be oscillating between a "we should kill them because they
> >> deserve it" argument and the argument that we should kill them to protect
> >> society. These arguments do not buttress one another.
> >>
> > Says who??? Of course they buttress one another.
>
> Demonstrate how, please. If they deserve to die, that is sufficient reason
> to execute them. If they do not deserve to die, then...? You finish this
> sentence. (Will it be that "we should kill them to protect society?" But
> wait. I thought you had abandoned that position. Please help me out, here.)
>
I seriously don't know where you're going here. You seem to
believe that one argument NEGATES the other argument, when
quite clearly they act TOGETHER to provide the TOTAL
examination of who should be executed. Because they
DESERVE to die, doesn't ALWAYS provide the proof
necessary to execute them, if we believe they can be
rehabilitated. For example... the 'poster child' for what I mean.
Karla Faye Tucker. She certainly DESERVED to die. No one
could do what she did and expect not to receive that penalty.
But should she have been executed? I believe not. Because
she could possibly BE rehabilitated. And Ted Bundy? Certainly
he met BOTH criteria that I believe in. All of this of course, is
IMHO. The arguments buttress each other, not in the fact that
one supports the other, but in the fact that both buttress
the concept of the DP, and without both that edifice collapses.
We certainly cannot execute someone who does not DESERVE
to be executed, and we certainly cannot execute someone who
represents only a very small threat to society's protection. Of
course.... IMHO.
>
> >
> > Isn't EVERYONE willing to take a chance on a finite number
> > of cases resulting in disaster?
>
> I don't know. A lot of folks seem to want certainty in protecting society,
> at least rhetorically.
>
I doubt that ANYONE wants the certainty that you presented in your
first argument with Sharp in this thread, where you suggested the
idea of executing some murderers could be morally and logically
extrapolated to executing all felons because they MIGHT murder.
>
> (some plowing of old ground snipped)
>
> >...And third, your argument that the fact that a murderer
> > DESERVES to be executed, and the fact that we examine
> > murder and murderers as a self-defense mechanism are mutually
> > exclusive terms, is absurd.
>
>
> This interests me. I personally don't believe anyone deserves to die, so
> this is a rather hypothetical argument, as far as I am concerned. But it has
> become fairly clear to me that you believe some murderers deserve to die
> based on the heinousness of the crime, their unrepentence, their potential
> for rehabilitation, and so forth. But you seem to be wanting to say that
> someone who is not _quite_ deserving to die, becomes somehow
> deserving-to-die when we consider the additional weight of a menace to
> society--which I might point out we cannot in individual cases quantify, and
> is not an individual quality, unlike deservingness.
Quite untrue. IMHO... both criteria NEED to be FULLY established to
execute. One does not add weight to the other, but they are intertwined
in the fact that they BOTH must meet a certain standard. Either lacking
such a standard forces us to eliminate the DP as a suitable penalty.
The first standard provides the certainty that we are selecting someone
who DESERVES to be executed. The second standard automatically
eliminates ALL those who haven't already murdered (they cannot be
RECIDIVIST murderers), and all those murderers who don't reach the
necessary standard of a large degree of certainty that they WOULD be
recidivist. Of course.... IMHO.
> "Deserving" do die is
> not a statistical concept, it is one that has to do with the felon's moral
> condition.
Of course not. It is a subjective analysis by those who sit in judgment.
> The "justice" of executing someone must surely (right? do you
> disagree with this?) have to do with that person's crime itself, and the
> moral condition that led to it. How can a statistical prediction add to a
> moral decision that we must speak of as "deserving execution" or "not
> deserving execution"?
I never claim that 'deserving to die' is a statistical prediction. Wherever
do you get these ideas?
> Certainly, as you point out, we should consider many
> different factors in deciding whether to execute someone. But if we are
> going to decide whether to execute based on whether someone _deserves_ it,
> we cannot arrive at a conclusion that they deserve it by considering factors
> that are not part of the constellation of factors that (as far as I know)
> everyone considers to be specific to that individual.
>
Look. Twelve people sit on a jury. If all 12 decide that the murderer
DESERVES it... that constitutes sufficient proof TO ME, that the
murderer deserves it. Certainly when we sit and read a newspaper
account of the murder, we form our own opinion as to whether the
murderer DESERVES it... We don't do a 'statistical analysis.' But
that's meaningless in the context of WHO should be executed.
SOCIETY determines who DESERVES it. Keep in mind that in
my opinion, deserving it does not meet the total criteria I believe
should be examined.
> And if we step away from "deservingness" to consider statistical
> probability of future harm, we cannot find a _logical_ way (your way is
> arbitrary, rather than logical) to avoid killing a great many other
> not-deserving-of-execution people on the same basis. Clearly I am not
> advocating that, and you don't want to. But I see no consistent way for you
> to avoid it. And as I have just shown, you can't "buttress" your
> considerations of whether someone deserves to be executed with your
> protection of society argument.
I certainly don't have any idea how to make it more clear that the
two arguments are mutually exclusive yet totally dependent. Each have
NOTHING to do with the other, and if you mean 'buttress' in that
respect than certainly one cannot provide MORE validity to the
other. But one cannot EXIST independent of the other and still provide
sufficient proof to ME, in my opinion, that we SHOULD execute
that particular murderer.
>
> >> This is the crux of our disagreement. Executing 3 percent of murderers, or
> >> 100 percent of them, does not "prove" anything at all, in a logical sense.
> >> The proof must go the other way. You must prove that execution, whether of 3
> >> percent or 100 percent, makes sense. To do so, you must provide some
> >> reasons. The only reasons you have given do not give us (you, me, or anyone)
> >> a logical basis for limiting executions to the 3 percent.
> >>
> > The logical basis is society DETERMINING that the murderer
> > DESERVES to be executed, and the execution will enhance our
> > self-protection through prevention of that PARTICULAR murderer
> > ever murdering again.
>
> At last it becomes explicit. Thank you. So what we really need to discuss is
> whether not a murderer deserves to die. If he does, then any protection to
> society that may also accrue is all to the good. But on the other hand if he
> does not, then no amount of protection-of-society can justify killing him.
> Do you agree?
>
>
I'm finding it difficult to dumb-down my reply so you don't find it necessary
to 'sum up' my words. Apparently I still haven't met this goal. Discussing
whether a murderer DESERVES to die, is mutually exclusive to any
protection that might accrue. If he doesn't deserve to die, it does not
matter what protection to society might accrue, he simply doesn't deserve
to die, and he should NOT be executed. And if he deserves to die, but little
protection would accrue (as in the case of Karla Faye), then little protection
to society would accrue, and he should also NOT be executed. Only when
he BOTH deserves to die, and a large measure of protection to society
would accrue should the DP even be CONSIDERED. Of course... IMHO.
There is no self-respect in vigilante justice. And you know that's my
position quite well, since I ALWAYS refer to 'we' as 'society,' and
not an angry mob. I feel personally diminished if society, acting in
my stead, does not take MORAL action when a heinous murderer
is perceived to reach a certain level of depravity. If you think that
using the word 'revenge' puts you in some moral light, you're wrong
you know. The entire principle of justice is predicated on the meaning
of 'revenge,' which is 'to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on
behalf of." That IS the function of Society's Justice System. All the
way down. Look at my post today to Jürgen, re: question for all.
Look at the murderer Theodore Frank's murder. Tell me if you think
we can maintain our self-respect by ABSOLVING him of his crime
with a sentence LESS than we can possible give? Trust me.. the
first step to absolution is to limit the response. Response must
ALWAYS be appropriate to the crime and the element of safety
to society. Not more and not less. And when we limit such, we are
also limiting our expression of outrage over the acts someone has
perpetrated. Tell me if you think that Theodore Frank DESERVES
the DP, and tell me that the possibility of him being returned to
society, under the most bizarre of circumstances, would protect
another child as much as the DP will?
And finally, if you look above you again say 'In other words.' I don't
need you to put my thoughts 'in other words.' If you're unclear on
a point, I'll be glad to dumb-down my response, but you have the
habit of saying 'in other words,' and actually saying 'other words,'
with 'other meanings.'
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9f1du1$pp4$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Bedau. Chapter 10 - A National Study of the Furman-Commuted
Inmates-Assessing the Threat to Society from Capital Offenders.
The study involved 558 Furman-commuted inmates - 315 of which
had not been released - of those 39 died, and 3 escaped and had
not been recaptured. The remaining 243 had been released to
society. Of these 191 have not been returned to prison. 147 were
on their original parole, 19 discharged their sentences, 17 successfully
completed their parole, 6 died in the community and 2 were pardoned.
52 of the 243 had been returned to prison.
If you have information as to any of the 315 who had not been
released and where later found to be innocent, it is not in the
study. So perhaps YOU would enlighten us. Or perhaps you're
talking through your ass.
PV
Jim McCulloch
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>I seriously don't know where you're going here. You seem to
>believe that one argument NEGATES the other argument, when
>quite clearly they act TOGETHER to provide the TOTAL
>examination of who should be executed. Because they
>DESERVE to die, doesn't ALWAYS provide the proof
>necessary to execute them, if we believe they can be
>rehabilitated.
Look, if they deserve to die, they deserve to die. If they don't,
they don't. What you are saying is simply meaningless. Has it
occurred to you that if they can be rehabilitated, and that if you are
willing not to kill them on that basis, that _what that means_ is that
they don't _deserve_ to die? Evidently not.
Really? How so? How is the sense of being morally diminished that
the DP crowd feels if someone is not executed any different from the
mob members' sense of being morally diminished in the example in
question? In both instances you feel diminished. Are you saying that
the difference lies in your actions being right and the mob's wrong?
That's fine, except that you are using "self respect" as a proof of
the goodness of the DP. This is what is called begging the question,
or a circular argument.
It is all well and good to say that legal societal revenge makes you
stand tall, but the fact that you cannot use that same feeling, when
felt by a lynch mob, as a justification for lynching, should be a clue
to you that you cannot use that feeling, when felt by you and people
like you, to justify the death penalty.
Best regards,
--Jim McCulloch
A Planet Visitor
"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:3b14ec21...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 03:09:51 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
>
> >I seriously don't know where you're going here. You seem to
> >believe that one argument NEGATES the other argument, when
> >quite clearly they act TOGETHER to provide the TOTAL
> >examination of who should be executed. Because they
> >DESERVE to die, doesn't ALWAYS provide the proof
> >necessary to execute them, if we believe they can be
> >rehabilitated.
>
> Look, if they deserve to die, they deserve to die. If they don't,
> they don't. What you are saying is simply meaningless. Has it
> occurred to you that if they can be rehabilitated, and that if you are
> willing not to kill them on that basis, that _what that means_ is that
> they don't _deserve_ to die? Evidently not.
>
die? Certainly not I, and certainly not you. The determination
is made by society when a sentence of death is given,
and all due process has been exhausted. EVERY party
to that DETERMINATION has AGREED that they DESERVE
to die. Simply put - which I seem to have to keep doing here -
Societies that have NO DP have determined that NO murderer
DESERVES to die. Recidivism thus can play no part in any
examination of a possible 'death sentence.' And that's certainly
their right. But a society that has determined that SOME
murderers deserve to die, may also quite logically determine
WHICH of those murderers DESERVE to die. We form our
own opinions as to those WE believe deserve to die. But that
is our subjective individual analysis and has no meaning in the
context of administering the DP, because such would be vigilante
action, which society rejects as a meaningless, and immoral
concept. Barring such vigilante action, our only LEGAL means of
protest as to WHO of those deserve to die, if any, is through
our elected legislators who enable such determinations. And
through vocal and written protests, such as some here would
voice.
I certainly do not feel diminished by any mob action which results
in death, because I do not support mob action. I feel diminished
if 'my' society fails to take responsible action AGAINST those who
take such action. The mob IS NOT 'me.' I don't feel diminished by
a murderer who murders. Because the murderer IS NOT 'me.' I
feel diminished by a society that would fail to take responsible
action AGAINST those who murder. Because society IS 'me.'
I feel diminished because 'my' society has diminished the act of
murder, by LIMITING its response to murder - that most egregious
act that one human can perpetrate upon another human. Certainly
we are ALL diminished by the CONCEPT of murder. Recognizing
that some humans can be base beyond description. But those
who murder are not 'me.' They cannot diminish me unless I
ALLOW them to do so, by telling 'my' society that we MUST forgive
them up to a certain point (no DP), forget the victim with Christian
'forgiveness,' and forget the possibility of any future victims. Yes,
I would feel diminished if 'my' society decided to abolish the DP.
> It is all well and good to say that legal societal revenge makes you
> stand tall, but the fact that you cannot use that same feeling, when
> felt by a lynch mob, as a justification for lynching, should be a clue
> to you that you cannot use that feeling, when felt by you and people
> like you, to justify the death penalty.
>
But of course I believe you're wrong here. Legal societal revenge
is a CONCEPT. Is it your claim that because we expect society
to 'punish those who commit crimes,' we are WRONG to do so?
If so, then your basic, bedrock philosophy is that ALL criminal
justice is flawed, and ALL concepts of punishment for ANY
crime is unnecessary. Obviously, in this dialog you're now
reduced, as often happens, to connecting the LEGAL and society
indorsed DP, to lynching... and the next step for you will be to
try and connect it with slavery and/or the holocaust. Of course,
nothing could be further from the truth, but don't let that stop
you. The DP actually works to REDUCE any possibility of
lynching, because those who would become mobs are made
less effective because of a perception that justice IS being
served.
Jim McCulloch
On Wed, 30 May 2001 14:40:46 GMT, in alt.activism.death-penalty "A
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:3b14ec21...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
>> Look, if they deserve to die, they deserve to die. If they don't,
>> they don't. What you are saying is simply meaningless. Has it
>> occurred to you that if they can be rehabilitated, and that if you are
>> willing not to kill them on that basis, that _what that means_ is that
>> they don't _deserve_ to die? Evidently not.
>>
>Follow along now.
Gladly.
>Who DETERMINES that they deserve to
>die? Certainly not I, and certainly not you. The determination
>is made by society when a sentence of death is given,
>and all due process has been exhausted. EVERY party
>to that DETERMINATION has AGREED that they DESERVE
>to die.
So what else is new? Surely you understand that this newsgroup is not
actually a capital trial jury, it is a discussion group devoted to
questions surrounding the DP. We are all presumably aware of that.
Thus, we are quite entitled (given that neither you nor I is actually
part of a jury) to second guess actual juries, and if their decisions
are illogical, immoral, ignorant, or for that matter the opposite, we
have every reason to say so. The point of our discussions is to
discover if the legal rationale for the DP, or for that matter any
other rationale, is sound.
So, if your statement above means anything at all, it is that the
jury's determination constitutes everything that can be said about
whether a felon deserves to die. But that is not the case. Otherwise
you are wasting your time as much as I am.
>Simply put - which I seem to have to keep doing here -
>Societies that have NO DP have determined that NO murderer
>DESERVES to die.
Correct. And those who believe in the DP have a right, perhaps even an
obligation, to try to convince members of those societies that they
should change their mistaken ways.
>...But a society that has determined that SOME
>murderers deserve to die, may also quite logically determine
>WHICH of those murderers DESERVE to die.
Certainly. And the question before us is not whether such a society
has the power to do this, or the legal "right" to do this, but whether
those murderers do indeed "deserve" to die. Surely you agree.
Otherwise, why are you here?
>We form our
>own opinions as to those WE believe deserve to die. But that
>is our subjective individual analysis and has no meaning in the
>context of administering the DP, because such would be vigilante
>action, which society rejects as a meaningless, and immoral
>concept. Barring such vigilante action, our only LEGAL means of
>protest as to WHO of those deserve to die, if any, is through
>our elected legislators who enable such determinations. And
>through vocal and written protests, such as some here would
>voice.
That is all correct. And I try to influence my legislators, my fellow
citizens, and my society, by examining, carefully, the questions
surround the dp so as to be able to come to reasonable conclusions
about these questions, and thus be able to articulate those
conclusions clearly. So far I find nothing to disagree with in what
you are saying, and I am rather mystified by your saying it. Could it
be that you are saying that, since "society" makes the actual
decisions, we should sit down and shut up? Surely not.
(snippage concerning whether "self respect" justifies the DP, or
lynchings, or both)
>> >There is no self-respect in vigilante justice.
>>
>> Really? How so? How is the sense of being morally diminished that
>> the DP crowd feels if someone is not executed any different from the
>> mob members' sense of being morally diminished in the example in
>> question? In both instances you feel diminished. Are you saying that
>> the difference lies in your actions being right and the mob's wrong?
>> That's fine, except that you are using "self respect" as a proof of
>> the goodness of the DP. This is what is called begging the question,
>> or a circular argument.
>>
>I certainly do not feel diminished by any mob action which results
>in death, because I do not support mob action.
This statement has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. My point is
that if your (or a jury's or society's) "feeling diminished" justifies
killing the person whose existence diminishes you, then that feeling
of being diminished justifies mob action and legal execution equally.
So loss of self respect (assuming that "feeling diminished" is
synonymous with such a loss) cannot be an argument for the death
penalty unless it can also be used as an argument for lynching. And
since it is clearly not a valid argument for lynching, it is
necessarily not a valid argument for legal execution.
>I feel diminished
>if 'my' society fails to take responsible action AGAINST those who
>take such action. The mob IS NOT 'me.' I don't feel diminished by
>a murderer who murders.
So? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is whether
your loss of self respect, or your feeling diminished, by someone's
continued existence justifies killing him. If it does, you have yet to
explain why the same feeling does not justify mob action. Are you
saying all mobs are insincere, and only pretend to feel diminished by
the existence of the person they intend to kill? That is quite
absurd. If you are saying that the mob's action is wrong, and hence
their rationale for killing is not adequate, then we are in agreement,
but, you see, that necessarily implies that your own rationale for
legal execution is also inadequate. We only need one contrary example
to prove that "feeling diminished" by someone's existence is
insufficient reason to kill that person--assuming of course, that you
disapprove of mob action, which you have said you do.
>Because the murderer IS NOT 'me.' I
>feel diminished by a society that would fail to take responsible
>action AGAINST those who murder. Because society IS 'me.'
>I feel diminished because 'my' society has diminished the act of
>murder, by LIMITING its response to murder - that most egregious
>act that one human can perpetrate upon another human.
It doesn't really matter (insofar as any possible justification of the
DP is concerned) whether you feel diminished (although I am personally
sorry you feel that way), for the reasons already given, but I am
struck here by your return to the absolutist rhetoric that, taken
literally, implies an unlimited (i.e, execution? or what?) response to
murder. What happened to the limitations you suggested before (such
that we limit our response to murder based on factors like the
egregiousness of the crime, repentance or lack of it, potential for
rehab, etc. etc.)? I'm puzzled.
>Certainly
>we are ALL diminished by the CONCEPT of murder. Recognizing
>that some humans can be base beyond description. But those
>who murder are not 'me.' They cannot diminish me unless I
>ALLOW them to do so, by telling 'my' society that we MUST forgive
>them up to a certain point (no DP), forget the victim with Christian
>'forgiveness,' and forget the possibility of any future victims. Yes,
>I would feel diminished if 'my' society decided to abolish the DP.
I trust you would. No Christian forgiveness from you. But
nevertheless, as we have seen, your feeling diminished if the DP were
abolished is not good enough logical reason to keep it.
>> It is all well and good to say that legal societal revenge makes you
>> stand tall, but the fact that you cannot use that same feeling, when
>> felt by a lynch mob, as a justification for lynching, should be a clue
>> to you that you cannot use that feeling, when felt by you and people
>> like you, to justify the death penalty.
>>
>But of course I believe you're wrong here. Legal societal revenge
>is a CONCEPT.
So is every word in your posts, except for some which are self
contradictory, and don't make sense. That is hardly news. What is the
point, here?
>Is it your claim that because we expect society
>to 'punish those who commit crimes,' we are WRONG to do so?
Depends on what you mean by punished. The word has its roots in the
concept of inflicting pain, and I do not think inflicting pain is a
legitimate goal of the criminal justice system. Our legal system is
of two minds about this--after all, we prohibit cruel and unusual
punishment, but if in fact punishment is the deliberate inflicting of
pain (which is what we mean, in English, by "cruelty"), then perhaps
all our constitutional prohibition forbids in reality is "unusual"
punishment. It is my hope that one day the DP will be seen as unusual.
That is not to say I am opposed to imprisonment, in many cases
(certainly in the case of murder), but I don't think that the purpose
of prisons should be punishment. I have for several years been very
interested in what is usually called restorative justice, which I
won't try to elucidate here, but which very definitely proposes that
criminal justice should proceed on a basis other than punishment as
usually understood.
Best regards,
--Jim McCulloch
Peter Morris
> 1) Are you Plenary Verbositor?
Absolutely, and unequivicably denied.
> 2) Did you previously post under the nic of Premier Sort?
Lets think about this, shall we. A few months ago, somebody
posted a few anagrams to this newsgroup. For example, he
pointed out that 'A Planet Visitor' is an anagram of
'A vile pro taints' and so on. This person used an alias that
was a very ovvious anagram of his own name, dfeliberatelty
m,aking his true identity very very ovvious. Posting anagrams
under an alias that is an anagram, geddit? By unscrambling the
letters of the nic 'premier sort' we can discover his true identity.
And obviously, that person's real name is ...... Mister Roper.
Does that answer your question?
Peter Morris
Well, Pv, since you have stated your point so explicitly
I can answer it, and the fact is that your conclusion is just
plain wrong. In the first place, it is not "2% of those
murderers who are not executed" it is : "out of the small
percentage of murderers considered dangerous enough
to execute, only 2% or one in 50 the assessment proved
correct". Secondly You have in fact misstated
the figures, giving a higher recidividsm rate than accurate.
Let us review the figures.
After Furman, 613 death sentences were overturned, or 558
excluding Illinois. (Illinois data is incomplete, but what information
is available is included)
Of the 613 death sentences,
527 for murder, 82 for rape, 4 for armed robbery.
At the time of the study, 242 had been paroled, 315 remained
in prison, 39 had died and 3 had escaped
The 615 Furman comutees went on to commit another 7
murders, six of these in prison and one outside. Four of
the victims were prisonners. The study states that six of
these were committed by felons serving time for capital
murder. (This strongly implies that the seventh was a first
time murder committed by a paroled rapist, not a *recidivist*
murder)
According to the report, FOUR later turned out to
be innocent. (in fact, it was seven, but four will do
for the moment)
Now, lets analyse your claims. You have stated that 300
who remained in prison killed 6 people, and from that you
claim a recidivism rate of 2%. This is misleading. Of course,
one could cite the fact that 250 parollees committed 1 murder,
and claim a recidivism rate of 0.4%. But for accuracy we should
say that 615 commutees committed 7 murders. This gives an
accurate recidivism rate about half of what you claim.
Also, a few other points that need to be mentioned.
Even before Furman only a minority of murderers were
sentenced to death. These 615 were picked for death
because they were supposed to be especially dangerous.
Yet this estimation only proved to be true in about 1%
of cases.
It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
murders were criminals. The report does not specify
what their crimes were, but it is a reasonable speculation
that they were also Furman-commuted criminals.
The report provides little evidence that convicted murderers
prove any great publiuc threat. Mostly they threaten each other.
Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number
of other criminals does not make sense, to me. Especially
if the "saved" criminals are the same ones that would be
executed anyway.
You oppose the DP for any crime other than murder.
Yet 86 of those sentenced to death were rapists and
armed robbers who had never killed. According to
you, it would have been "insane" to carry out these
executions.
And, did I mention that FOUR later turned out to
be innocent?
So, PV, in order to prevent the murders of three
i9nnocent people and four dangerous criminals
you would have had to accept :
- Four innocent people executed
- The "insane" execution of 86 non-murderers
- The deliberate, cold-blooded killing of 523 other
people. Not nice people, admittedly, but still human
beings.
> That being said,
> SOCIETY determines who should be or who should NOT
> be executed. My entire point is that the ~700 we HAVE
> executed in ~25 clearly could have murdered 14 other
> innocent humans having been returned to a general
> prison environment. And might also clearly have murdered
> many more innocents had they been returned to the
> general population. Certainly you cannot provide the
> names of 14 innocents among those ~700.
Wrong. To begin with, you have overestimated the recidivism rate.
An accurate estimate might be around 7 or 8, not 14. And, of
course, most of those would have been murderers anyway.
Also, since YOU are speculating about what "could have" happened,
then I am also entitled to counter with speculation about what
"could have" happened. In the same time, about a hundred
innocent people have been released from death row. If nobody
had been fighting against the death penalty, every one of these
people "could have" been executed. Probably a great deal more.
While both of us are speculating without conclusive proof
either way, the evidence for the anti side is certainly a lot
stronger than the pro side. We can name specific individuals
whose lives have been saved by opposing the DP. Can
you name even one person that the DP has saved?
This is why it makes much more sense to oppose the
DP, if you are truly concerned about protecting
innocent life.
> Society
> determines WHO are selected for the DP, not I. I
> simply support the fact that we DO execute as a
> by-product of murders committed. Not all murderers,
> and not all murderers who recommit murder. We do
> the best we can, as a society... and in my eyes, removing
> the DP from the arsenal we possess to prevent further
> murders is just tying one hand behind our back. With
> the understanding that we can NEVER eliminate murder.
>
> > So, this time, before I comment, I want to know exactly
> > what you mean. Given that you are not claiming that the
> > death penalty would have saved these lives, what are you
> > talking about? Or maybe you DO mean that.
> >
> See above.
>
> > And by the way, weren't there a number of Furman-commuted
> > prisonners who actually turned out to be innocent a few years
> > later?
>
> No.
This point I will address in a seperate post.
Peter Morris
I have called you dishonest before, PV. Mark disagrees.
Perhaps this will change his mind.
The plain simple fact is that the study DOES state that
there were innocent people among the Furman comutees.
It states it clearly, directly and unambiguously. There is
no possible way that you could have misunderstood.
Here are two quotes from the report.
<quote> Incapacitation advocates would insist that
the execution of every Furman-offender would have prevented
the one subsequent murder [committed by a parolee] Further,
the executions would have prevented six prison murders (four
inmates and two guards) This evidence supports permanent
incapacitation as a means to prevent future capital crimes
However four imates on death row at the time of Furman were
innocent according to a study by Bedau and Radelet. These four
individuals could possibly have been executed had it not been for
Furman <unquote>
This study by Bedau and radelet is the basis for the first part
of the DPIC innocence list. Several years later, the second
part of the DPIC list added several more Furman commutees,
bringing the total to seven. (so far)
and at the very end of report, YOUR source of information
we find
<quote> Seven Furman- commuted prisonners were responsible
for seven additional murders. Certainly, execution of all 558 prisonners
would have prevented these killings. However, such a "preemptive"
strike" would not have greatly protected society. In addition,
four innocent prisonners would have been put to death. The question
then becomes whether saving lives of the seven victims was worth
the execution of four innocent inmates <unquote>
PV, you always get very angry when I call you a liar.
But when you do this sort of thing, what else am I
to say?
Mark, do you still consider PV to be honest?
--
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9f3lch$fpv$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:3wUQ6.338343$fs3.55...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> > 1) Are you Plenary Verbositor?
>
> Absolutely, and unequivicably denied.
>
> > 2) Did you previously post under the nic of Premier Sort?
>
> Lets think about this, shall we. A few months ago, somebody
> posted a few anagrams to this newsgroup. For example, he
> pointed out that 'A Planet Visitor' is an anagram of
> 'A vile pro taints' and so on. This person used an alias that
> was a very ovvious anagram of his own name, dfeliberatelty
> m,aking his true identity very very ovvious. Posting anagrams
> under an alias that is an anagram, geddit? By unscrambling the
> letters of the nic 'premier sort' we can discover his true identity.
> And obviously, that person's real name is ...... Mister Roper.
>
> Does that answer your question?
>
Yes, it does. Your answer is thus 'YES,' to this question. And it
also proves the point that you referred to 'buggery,' which you
claimed you had NOT done. Therefore, I expect an apology.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:3b15513e...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
It constitutes MY meaning of what provides the determination of
DESERVING to be executed. Certainly I never expected it to
provide YOUR meaning. I fail to see exactly what you're implying
here? My statement certainly does MEAN something. If this is
a court of opinion... then it obviously provides my opinion. If you
expect me to provide a specific example of someone 'I' believe
DESERVES the DP, you would also have to provide me the entire
court transcript and place all the evidence physically before me
(Except in the most horrendous of examples). What you keep
hoping to see, and you will NOT see, is that I will GENERALIZE
who should be executed and who should not. The only
generalization you will get from me is that we should hold to
the possibility that we COULD execute SOME convicted murderers,
depending on the circumstances. In fact, if we expect ANY
generalization from either of us, it will come from you, who
expresses the view that NO ONE should be executed. Of the
two views - 1) We should execute NO ONE, and 2) We should
execute based on INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES of the murder
and the possibility of recidivism - I find yours to be more dogmatic
and generalized than mine.
>
> >Simply put - which I seem to have to keep doing here -
> >Societies that have NO DP have determined that NO murderer
> >DESERVES to die.
>
> Correct. And those who believe in the DP have a right, perhaps even an
> obligation, to try to convince members of those societies that they
> should change their mistaken ways.
>
I would suppose that the DP is an effort to convince member
of society to change their mistaken ways, even if deterrence is
questionable. What manner of 'convincing' would you suggest,
if the DP is not sufficient incentive to change their mistaken ways?
Pass out bibles, perhaps?
> >...But a society that has determined that SOME
> >murderers deserve to die, may also quite logically determine
> >WHICH of those murderers DESERVE to die.
>
> Certainly. And the question before us is not whether such a society
> has the power to do this, or the legal "right" to do this, but whether
> those murderers do indeed "deserve" to die. Surely you agree.
> Otherwise, why are you here?
>
I am here to express my opinion... why are you here? And my
opinion, which I have said here a number of times is that society
has both the LEGAL RIGHT and the LEGAL POWER to impose
the DP. Whether I agree with EACH and EVERY act they take
is immaterial to the argument. I support my police, but not every
act I see them take. I support the space program, but certainly
didn't support the Challenger disaster. I support my President..
who ever the present idiot is occupying the position... but certainly
don't have to agree with every decision he makes. I support the
DP, but doing so does NOT require me to support EVERY
execution. I AM agreed that SOME murderers do indeed
'deserve' to die, based upon those certain crimes I've recognized
they have committed. I am agreed that Theodore Frank is one
of those who deserves to die. Shall we argue the specifics of
THAT particular murder?
> >We form our
> >own opinions as to those WE believe deserve to die. But that
> >is our subjective individual analysis and has no meaning in the
> >context of administering the DP, because such would be vigilante
> >action, which society rejects as a meaningless, and immoral
> >concept. Barring such vigilante action, our only LEGAL means of
> >protest as to WHO of those deserve to die, if any, is through
> >our elected legislators who enable such determinations. And
> >through vocal and written protests, such as some here would
> >voice.
>
> That is all correct. And I try to influence my legislators, my fellow
> citizens, and my society, by examining, carefully, the questions
> surround the dp so as to be able to come to reasonable conclusions
> about these questions, and thus be able to articulate those
> conclusions clearly. So far I find nothing to disagree with in what
> you are saying, and I am rather mystified by your saying it. Could it
> be that you are saying that, since "society" makes the actual
> decisions, we should sit down and shut up? Surely not.
No... I'm stating my opinion, as you do. And if you AGREE with
that opinion there really is nothing further to be read into that
opinion. I certainly didn't say 'sit down and shut up.' In fact,
I can argue all day long, without EVER telling you to 'sit down
and shut up.' Posters here, quite frequently tell ME to 'sit down
and shut up,' but I make it a point not to tell them to do so.
Why would you be mystified by my saying what you agree with?
Because we're 'at loggerheads' as to the use of the DP by society,
doesn't mean that certain principles which humans enjoy can't be
recognized by both of us.
>
> (snippage concerning whether "self respect" justifies the DP, or
> lynchings, or both)
>
> >> >There is no self-respect in vigilante justice.
> >>
> >> Really? How so? How is the sense of being morally diminished that
> >> the DP crowd feels if someone is not executed any different from the
> >> mob members' sense of being morally diminished in the example in
> >> question? In both instances you feel diminished. Are you saying that
> >> the difference lies in your actions being right and the mob's wrong?
> >> That's fine, except that you are using "self respect" as a proof of
> >> the goodness of the DP. This is what is called begging the question,
> >> or a circular argument.
> >>
> >I certainly do not feel diminished by any mob action which results
> >in death, because I do not support mob action.
>
> This statement has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. My point is
> that if your (or a jury's or society's) "feeling diminished" justifies
> killing the person whose existence diminishes you, then that feeling
> of being diminished justifies mob action and legal execution equally.
> So loss of self respect (assuming that "feeling diminished" is
> synonymous with such a loss) cannot be an argument for the death
> penalty unless it can also be used as an argument for lynching. And
> since it is clearly not a valid argument for lynching, it is
> necessarily not a valid argument for legal execution.
>
Not if one possesses a modicum of morality and intelligence.
Mob action and legal execution can no more be equated than
murder and the DP. Due process is FUNDAMENTAL to every
moral, ethical and societal code we live by. Mob action only
diminishes those in the 'mob.' Just as murder only diminishes
those who murder. Mob action is defined as unlawful.
Someone who does something unlawful, certainly can't diminish
me. But justice is defined as lawful. And when justice is
perverted (when in my OPINION I see it as perverted), I am
diminished in my opinion of myself and my society. Because
it is a lawful policy that I support.
> >I feel diminished
> >if 'my' society fails to take responsible action AGAINST those who
> >take such action. The mob IS NOT 'me.' I don't feel diminished by
> >a murderer who murders.
>
> So? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is whether
> your loss of self respect, or your feeling diminished, by someone's
> continued existence justifies killing him. If it does, you have yet to
> explain why the same feeling does not justify mob action. Are you
> saying all mobs are insincere, and only pretend to feel diminished by
> the existence of the person they intend to kill? That is quite
> absurd. If you are saying that the mob's action is wrong, and hence
> their rationale for killing is not adequate, then we are in agreement,
> but, you see, that necessarily implies that your own rationale for
> legal execution is also inadequate. We only need one contrary example
> to prove that "feeling diminished" by someone's existence is
> insufficient reason to kill that person--assuming of course, that you
> disapprove of mob action, which you have said you do.
Look, if a mob action that you had no part in occurred in another
part of the country, would you personally feel diminished? You
might, but I wouldn't. Now, say you are assaulted, robbed and
beaten on the street. You go to the police, and they reply,
"So what. People get assaulted, robbed and beaten every day.
We have bigger fish to fry. Get out of here!" Would you feel
diminished? You might not, but I would. This is how I base
what I feel regarding this issue. I have no control over the mob
that takes vigilante action. They are NOT me. They are unlawful,
and I do not support what they do. They cannot affect my
opinion of MYSELF. Although I may grieve for humanity in
general, as I do for murder itself. But I DO have control over
what my Justice System does (as little as that actual control is).
I have that minute responsibility for EVERY action it takes.
It IS me. I am minutely responsible for the possibility that an
innocent MIGHT be executed, because I support the DP,
recognizing that it is an imperfect human method in identifying
murderers. And you should feel the same (IMHO) in support of
YOUR opinion. Suppose that a murderer is viewed by you as
DESERVING (such as Theodore Frank) of the DP, and certainly
a threat to every child should he ever be released. And in your
opposition to the DP, you oppose his execution, and he
subsequently escapes and murders another child. Shouldn't you
be diminished? After all your opinion formed a minute part of
the basis that Frank was NOT executed. That makes that minute
part of you RESPONSIBLE for the new murder. Anyway, it does
in MY opinion. Just as my opinion makes a minute part of me
RESPONSIBLE for any possible execution of an innocent.
Certainly I don't expect you to agree with this opinion. So
I need to clearly state it is ONLY my opinion.
>
> >Because the murderer IS NOT 'me.' I
> >feel diminished by a society that would fail to take responsible
> >action AGAINST those who murder. Because society IS 'me.'
> >I feel diminished because 'my' society has diminished the act of
> >murder, by LIMITING its response to murder - that most egregious
> >act that one human can perpetrate upon another human.
>
> It doesn't really matter (insofar as any possible justification of the
> DP is concerned) whether you feel diminished (although I am personally
> sorry you feel that way), for the reasons already given, but I am
> struck here by your return to the absolutist rhetoric that, taken
> literally, implies an unlimited (i.e, execution? or what?) response to
> murder. What happened to the limitations you suggested before (such
> that we limit our response to murder based on factors like the
> egregiousness of the crime, repentance or lack of it, potential for
> rehab, etc. etc.)? I'm puzzled.
>
You misunderstand the meaning of my feeling diminished.
Certainly I don't become shorter in stature, or lesser in my view
of my own morality. As I explained with other CONCEPTS of what
I support, even though I don't support all ASPECTS of those
concepts. I am diminished when I see a murderer that I truly
believe, on a most personal level, meets my criteria of those who
should be executed, and my society disagrees. I am diminished
when I see a murderer that I truly believe, on a most personal level,
DOES NOT meet my criteria of those who should be executed,
but my society still executes. I have on a personal level weighed
these factors, and have decided on that personal level, that I
would be MORE diminished should I hold an opinion that a lawful
penalty for murder should NOT exist. As I support various functions
of our society, I certainly don't have to endorse EVERY aspect
of that function. I only need to feel that a greater good is
inherent to the existence of that function, then if that function
were NOT to exist. And that only has to be... IMHO.
> >Certainly
> >we are ALL diminished by the CONCEPT of murder. Recognizing
> >that some humans can be base beyond description. But those
> >who murder are not 'me.' They cannot diminish me unless I
> >ALLOW them to do so, by telling 'my' society that we MUST forgive
> >them up to a certain point (no DP), forget the victim with Christian
> >'forgiveness,' and forget the possibility of any future victims. Yes,
> >I would feel diminished if 'my' society decided to abolish the DP.
>
> I trust you would. No Christian forgiveness from you. But
> nevertheless, as we have seen, your feeling diminished if the DP were
> abolished is not good enough logical reason to keep it.
>
Christian forgiveness for murder lies on the other side of our
existence. God and Christ have given us a covenant on this
level of our existence, and free will to provide for ourselves in
our secular existence. You also seem to make up the rules as
you go along. My feeling diminished is every bit as good as
a logical reason to keep it, as your belief that it should be
abolished, for which YOU have provided no rationale
whatsoever. You were the first to put words in MY mouth,
as to 'diminished' when you wrote: "In other words, you would
feel personally diminished if society, acting in your stead,
were not able to take revenge on a heinous murderer."
Notice that YOU reworded what I had said! This was the
first mention of 'diminished,' which YOU manufactured,
as MY meaning. I simply defended myself in explanation of
how I would be AFFECTED when murderers that I felt
should be executed were not. Tell me... are YOU
diminished when a murderer somehow avoids the DP, and
murders again? Or is that just 'bad luck' in that case?
> >> It is all well and good to say that legal societal revenge makes you
> >> stand tall, but the fact that you cannot use that same feeling, when
> >> felt by a lynch mob, as a justification for lynching, should be a clue
> >> to you that you cannot use that feeling, when felt by you and people
> >> like you, to justify the death penalty.
> >>
> >But of course I believe you're wrong here. Legal societal revenge
> >is a CONCEPT.
>
> So is every word in your posts, except for some which are self
> contradictory, and don't make sense. That is hardly news. What is the
> point, here?
>
Perhaps you should point out WHAT is self-contradictory, rather
than just pontificating. Believe me, I see a large amount of
self-contradiction in your comments. The point is, that you
don't seem to have one. If anyone is rambling on, it seems
to me its you, having no specific point, except a feeble attempt
to make some illogical connection between a lynch mob and
society legal justice. Trust me... as long as lynch mobs are
unlawful, and society's laws are lawful, there IS NO connection.
There is that fundamental chasm which lies between the two.
> >Is it your claim that because we expect society
> >to 'punish those who commit crimes,' we are WRONG to do so?
>
> Depends on what you mean by punished. The word has its roots in the
> concept of inflicting pain, and I do not think inflicting pain is a
> legitimate goal of the criminal justice system. Our legal system is
> of two minds about this--after all, we prohibit cruel and unusual
> punishment, but if in fact punishment is the deliberate inflicting of
> pain (which is what we mean, in English, by "cruelty"), then perhaps
> all our constitutional prohibition forbids in reality is "unusual"
> punishment. It is my hope that one day the DP will be seen as unusual.
>
Crap. IN LAW, the word has its roots in this most basic definition:
"A penalty inflicted by a court of justice on a convicted
offender as a just retribution, and incidentally for the purposes
of reformation and prevention"
See:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=punishment
Do you also make up definitions in law as you go along?
It is MY hope that the day when the DP is seen as unusual
in the U.S. comes AFTER the roots of violence which create
murder are snuffed out.
I'll repeat a few of those roots:
1. The media: Self-policing does NOT work. I do not advocate
censorship, but I do advocate restricting violent content of media
from minors, through LAWS. LAWS with teeth in them.
2. The abdication of parental responsibility: Why is it that
teachers are forced into the role that parents MUST play?
Nowadays, when teachers tell parents of the actions of their
uncontrollable children, the teachers are generally met with
a response from the parents of "You handle it." It isn't the
teacher's role to SUBSTITUTE for parental control. And it
ends up being assumed by peers. While parents wonder
WHY Johnny built that explosive device with his buddies in
the garage, or broke into the gun cabinet for 'show and
tell' at school.
3. The drug problem: One word - legalize. Our current
problem is a abysmal failure. Legalization may not work,
but we have NOTHING left to try! The current Supreme
Court decision regarding medicinal use of marijuana is a
total disgrace, IMHO. We have only put our head FURTHER
into the sand.
4. Our disenfranchised: One word again - Disgrace. We
are a nation without honor, until we fulfill our commitment
to equal rights to the LAST FULL MEASURE. We've
taken relatively baby steps in achieving equal rights in
my lifetime, IMHO. I can only hope that the next
generation does a better job than my generation has
done. My father's generation did not even pay lip
service to equal rights, lacking even an understanding
of what it MEANT. My generation has ONLY paid lip
service to equal rights. The next generation needs to
IMPLEMENT TRUE HUMAN RIGHTS.
When you solve these 4 problems (by no means inclusive
to all the problems related to violence in our society),
perhaps then you can speak of the DP being abolished.
Until we do solve these problems, the DP will always
remain the 'effect' of the 'cause,' which is violence and in
excess of 10,000 homicides a year in our nation.
> That is not to say I am opposed to imprisonment, in many cases
> (certainly in the case of murder), but I don't think that the purpose
> of prisons should be punishment.
I'm so glad to hear you don't oppose prison! It's so
reassuring to me that your opinion is for us NOT to
chuck the entire Justice System.
> I have for several years been very
> interested in what is usually called restorative justice, which I
> won't try to elucidate here, but which very definitely proposes that
> criminal justice should proceed on a basis other than punishment as
> usually understood.
I find myself in agreement with this entire concept, EXCEPT
for those who CANNOT be rehabilitated. I believe, IMHO,
that society has the RIGHT to make such a determination.
So I support the DP. I also oppose L wop, because if a
person is truly not capable of being rehabilitated it serves
no purpose, morally, or logically to confine them to a cage
for life, for the next 40-50 years. I would sooner agree to
abolishing L wop, then I would to abolishing the DP. In fact,
I support abolishing L wop. I believe in a principle that, if a
person is judged as possibly able to be rehabilitated, as
determined by society, every effort should be made in that
respect. Sentences should be of indeterminate length
based on PROGRESS. The faster the progress the less
time between each evaluation for release. The release
depending on the PERSON. And releasing them with a
$10 bill, and advise to not be back... only insures that they
will be back.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9f3lht$fqm$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> Let us review the figures.
>
> After Furman, 613 death sentences were overturned, or 558
> excluding Illinois. (Illinois data is incomplete, but what information
> is available is included)
>
> Of the 613 death sentences,
> 527 for murder, 82 for rape, 4 for armed robbery.
>
> At the time of the study, 242 had been paroled, 315 remained
> in prison, 39 had died and 3 had escaped
>
> The 615 Furman comutees went on to commit another 7
> murders, six of these in prison and one outside.
No. The 315 who remained incarcerated COMMITTED 6
additional murders, while the 242 paroled were convicted
of 1 additional murder. We have CERTAIN evidence of
the former, and only evidence of CONVICTION in the
latter. If 315 committed 6 additional murders in prison,
I find it less than compelling to believe that 242 paroled
only committed 1 additional murder. Keep in mind that
it is several magnitudes easier to avoid detection for a
murder in the general population that a murder within
prison. In addition we have NO evidence as to the 3
escapees, since they were not recaptured.
> Four of
> the victims were prisonners. The study states that six of
> these were committed by felons serving time for capital
> murder. (This strongly implies that the seventh was a first
> time murder committed by a paroled rapist, not a *recidivist*
> murder)
The 6 murders were all committed by capital offenders. See
Table 10-5. The one convicted murder after release I
believe was the rather infamous McDuff, who WAS a
convicted murderer. Actually, I wish this were not so in
the study, because if NONE of the paroled murderers had
committed murders after release, while 315 incarcerated
murderers had committed 6 murders I would have viewed
the study as being even more deeply flawed. The ONLY
concrete evidence that I, IMHO, can glean from the study,
is that 6 murders were committed WITHIN the prison
environment... certainly an environment not conducive to
free movement, and easy access to weapons, regardless
of how we may feel about lax control within prison. I
don't see how ANYONE could believe that a weapon could
NOT be more easily obtained in the general population,
then within the confines of prison.
>
> According to the report, FOUR later turned out to
> be innocent. (in fact, it was seven, but four will do
> for the moment)
Actually it was reported as 4, by Bedau in "Miscarriages
of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases." And I believe
he was later challenged on those cases. Nevertheless,
who were those 4? What were their crimes, and what
was the final disposition? Certainly they don't form a
part of the 315 who remained incarcerated.
>
> Now, lets analyse your claims. You have stated that 300
> who remained in prison killed 6 people, and from that you
> claim a recidivism rate of 2%. This is misleading. Of course,
> one could cite the fact that 250 parollees committed 1 murder,
> and claim a recidivism rate of 0.4%. But for accuracy we should
> say that 615 commutees committed 7 murders. This gives an
> accurate recidivism rate about half of what you claim.
>
Isn't it STRANGE that 6 murders were committed within
prison (murders hard to hide). While only 1 murder was
committed outside of prison. And certainly I do not
advocate executing EVERY murderer. Something you
continually avoid addressing. I can well imagine that
I would not support executing those who obtained parole,
while I would look a lot harder at those who could not.
> Also, a few other points that need to be mentioned.
>
> Even before Furman only a minority of murderers were
> sentenced to death. These 615 were picked for death
> because they were supposed to be especially dangerous.
> Yet this estimation only proved to be true in about 1%
> of cases.
>
I repeat.. I never suggest that we execute ALL murderers.
In hindsight... I would suggest that we would have only
needed to execute the 7 who murdered again. Unfortunately,
none of us have hindsight. Nor have I EVER suggested that
we should execute any but the most select group of capital
murderers. Thus any suggestion that the consider rapists
to be part of the problem here is wrong. The Supreme
Court was right, and we needed to start over completely.
And we still have a long way to go.
> It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
> murders were criminals.
Why is that so, Peter? Perhaps you'd now like to look
at their race, and ethnic background as well? I look at
them as innocents. NO ONE DESERVES to be murdered.
To say that 'It has to be said,' is to sanction vigilante
justice as well.
> The report does not specify
> what their crimes were, but it is a reasonable speculation
> that they were also Furman-commuted criminals.
Please 315 furman-commuted criminals spread across the
entire U.S. are murdering EACH OTHER. Get real.
> The report provides little evidence that convicted murderers
> prove any great publiuc threat. Mostly they threaten each other.
> Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number
> of other criminals does not make sense, to me. Especially
> if the "saved" criminals are the same ones that would be
> executed anyway.
>
> You oppose the DP for any crime other than murder.
> Yet 86 of those sentenced to death were rapists and
> armed robbers who had never killed. According to
> you, it would have been "insane" to carry out these
> executions.
>
Yes, it would have, and I've always felt that way. The
Supreme Court was right to decide that issue. It was
insane that the Los Angeles Police beat Rodney King
to a pulp. But I don't wish to abolish the Police.
> And, did I mention that FOUR later turned out to
> be innocent?
>
Proof... other than Bedau... a known distorter of fact.
Names... crimes... how proved innocent.
> So, PV, in order to prevent the murders of three
> i9nnocent people and four dangerous criminals
> you would have had to accept :
> - Four innocent people executed
> - The "insane" execution of 86 non-murderers
> - The deliberate, cold-blooded killing of 523 other
> people. Not nice people, admittedly, but still human
> beings.
>
> > That being said,
> > SOCIETY determines who should be or who should NOT
> > be executed. My entire point is that the ~700 we HAVE
> > executed in ~25 clearly could have murdered 14 other
> > innocent humans having been returned to a general
> > prison environment. And might also clearly have murdered
> > many more innocents had they been returned to the
> > general population. Certainly you cannot provide the
> > names of 14 innocents among those ~700.
>
> Wrong. To begin with, you have overestimated the recidivism rate.
> An accurate estimate might be around 7 or 8, not 14. And, of
> course, most of those would have been murderers anyway.
>
Wrong. You have no proof whatsoever that any of the
4 murdered were murderers. In fact, I would call you a
liar for claiming such, unless you can provide PROOF.
In addition, those who were in the study, were 80 rapists,
certainly less dangerous than the most current crop of
~700 murderers executed. And in case you haven't
noticed we don't execute rapists anymore, nor should
we ever have, IMHO.
> Also, since YOU are speculating about what "could have" happened,
> then I am also entitled to counter with speculation about what
> "could have" happened. In the same time, about a hundred
> innocent people have been released from death row. If nobody
> had been fighting against the death penalty, every one of these
> people "could have" been executed. Probably a great deal more.
>
> While both of us are speculating without conclusive proof
> either way, the evidence for the anti side is certainly a lot
> stronger than the pro side. We can name specific individuals
> whose lives have been saved by opposing the DP. Can
> you name even one person that the DP has saved?
>
I can name you a litany of those who were murdered by
murderers that SHOULD have been executed.
> This is why it makes much more sense to oppose the
> DP, if you are truly concerned about protecting
> innocent life.
>
That's why we have more than 10,000 homicides a year?
Your sense would allow Bundy, Gacy, Frank and a
multitude of OTHERS to roam and murder at will. I've
always stated that the Justice System has flaws. Flaws
at EVERY level. But the DP is NOT one of them.
>
> > Society
> > determines WHO are selected for the DP, not I. I
> > simply support the fact that we DO execute as a
> > by-product of murders committed. Not all murderers,
> > and not all murderers who recommit murder. We do
> > the best we can, as a society... and in my eyes, removing
> > the DP from the arsenal we possess to prevent further
> > murders is just tying one hand behind our back. With
> > the understanding that we can NEVER eliminate murder.
> >
> > > So, this time, before I comment, I want to know exactly
> > > what you mean. Given that you are not claiming that the
> > > death penalty would have saved these lives, what are you
> > > talking about? Or maybe you DO mean that.
> > >
> > See above.
> >
> > > And by the way, weren't there a number of Furman-commuted
> > > prisonners who actually turned out to be innocent a few years
> > > later?
> >
> > No.
>
> This point I will address in a seperate post.
>
Along with that apology for lying about WHAT YOU SAID, in
reference to 'buggery,' I would hope.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9f3lkf$fr9$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
for accuracy in his interpretation of what constitutes INNOCENCE.
And if any of those innocent were rapists, the point is lost on
me, since I have never supported executing rapists.
> and at the very end of report, YOUR source of information
> we find
>
> <quote> Seven Furman- commuted prisonners were responsible
> for seven additional murders. Certainly, execution of all 558 prisonners
> would have prevented these killings. However, such a "preemptive"
> strike" would not have greatly protected society. In addition,
> four innocent prisonners would have been put to death. The question
> then becomes whether saving lives of the seven victims was worth
> the execution of four innocent inmates <unquote>
>
I guess that, even were the actual figures to be true, would
boil down to whether we consider 7 lives more valuable than
4, wouldn't it? In addition I need to note that you said in your
other post... "It needs to be said..." regarding the 4 murdered
prisoners. Well, if you feel so strongly that prisoners somehow
DESERVE to be murdered, perhaps those 4 innocents, that
you and Bedau cite, were not actually SOOO innocent.
> PV, you always get very angry when I call you a liar.
> But when you do this sort of thing, what else am I
> to say?
Apologize for your past transgressions, perhaps???
>
> Mark, do you still consider PV to be honest?
>
Let's see: Peter wrote a few days ago to me:
Where is the word "buggered" then PV. You attack me
based on a single word. Where is that word then?
It wasnt there, so you changed what I said, then
attacked me for things I never wrote. How many times
is this now? I stopped counting after 50.
I then cited where he HAD used the word a few months
back, when he wrote:
"Well, no. You, PV, have repeatedly accused Desmond of
buggering sheep. The 'Dolly and Desi' crap that you have
posted here on numerous occasions is some of the vilest
stuff I have seen on this newsgroup."
So, Mark... do you still consider Peter to be honest?
And where the hell is my apology, Peter, you lying sack
of shit?
St.George
<snip>
> PV, you always get very angry when I call you a liar.
> But when you do this sort of thing, what else am I
> to say?
>
> Mark, do you still consider PV to be honest?
PV is interpreting this document in a way highly favourable to his own
position. As are you, Peter.
Neither of you is lying, and neither of you is 'wrong', as such.
There is only one person who IS wrong in this little contretemps, and that
person is, unfortunately, me :-(
I could certainly argue that I was talking about 'factual' innocence when I
mocked PV, and use the study as you did to justify that. However, that was
not my honest meaning, which was _legal_ innocence - being as I was under
the evident misapprehension that one or more were actually formally cleared
of their crime, or certainly that PV didn't have proof otherwise.
But he did have proof, I mis-spoke, and I'm very, very sorry. I have
slapped each of my wrists quite hard, and have sentenced myself to sixty
minutes without sex, as punishment...
[...unless my girlfriend wakes up within that time, of course, when I have a
funny feeling that the court will look kindly on my appeal....]
Neil
> But he did have proof, I mis-spoke, and I'm very, very
> sorry. I have slapped each of my wrists quite hard, and
> have sentenced myself to sixty minutes without sex, as
> punishment...
>
> [...unless my girlfriend wakes up within that time, of
> course, when I have a funny feeling that the court will
> look kindly on my appeal....]
Why is it that we are constantly subjected to Mark's stories
about his so-called girlfriend and him having sex with her?
Enough about his right hand already!
-N
Jim McCulloch
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>... What you keep
>hoping to see, and you will NOT see, is that I will GENERALIZE
>who should be executed and who should not.
What I keep hoping to see, and what I have not seen, is a statement of
what principles, if any, justify your elusive and
depending-on-the-circumstances views that someone, sometime, should be
executed. After that, I would like to see you focus on a discussion of
whether those principles can be known to be true, and if so how, and
if those principles are internally consistent such that they do not
logically self-destruct.
Originally, you took the position that the danger to society by those
given the death penalty was the reason why we should kill them. You
were, and are, unable to show why, using that principle, we should not
kill a great many other felons as well. When that difficulty arose,
you took the position that the reason we should kill them was the
danger _plus_ the fact the those sent to death row deserve to die.
(How we know that, was, naturally, unstated). The problem here of
course is that if they deserve to die (and you have said nothing about
whatever principles, if any, would cause you to so conclude) we do not
need to weigh a statistical probability--because they already
(according to you, for reasons you cannot or will not give) deserve to
die. If someone personally, deserves to die, then he deserves to die.
Or he doesn't. So your logic fails on both counts. Surely you follow
this. This is not rocket science.
Then we have a lot of vague talk about how if a jury decides that
someone should die, that's good enough for you. _Why_, one might ask
rhetorically (and certainly without result, so far) is that good
enough for you? We still must face the issue of what principles
justify society's killing someone.
Best regards, and hoping for a tiny bit of generalization such that I
can distinguish your considered views on the DP from a random walk
through your opinions, your earthling friend,
--Jim McCulloch
A Planet Visitor
"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:3b163bb7...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 23:34:29 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >... What you keep
> >hoping to see, and you will NOT see, is that I will GENERALIZE
> >who should be executed and who should not.
>
> What I keep hoping to see, and what I have not seen, is a statement of
> what principles, if any, justify your elusive and
> depending-on-the-circumstances views that someone, sometime, should be
> executed. After that, I would like to see you focus on a discussion of
> whether those principles can be known to be true, and if so how, and
> if those principles are internally consistent such that they do not
> logically self-destruct.
>
> Originally, you took the position that the danger to society by those
> given the death penalty was the reason why we should kill them. You
> were, and are, unable to show why, using that principle, we should not
> kill a great many other felons as well.
Of course I showed why. I extrapolated your assumption that 'IF we
execute SOME murderers, we should ALSO hold to the PRINCIPLE
of executing ALL felons' to an even more absurd conclusion. And if
yours contains any validity, than my even more absurd comment
does as well. I destroyed your 'conclusion' with my comment:
"The number of murders committed by capital murderers who have
escaped or been released is minuscule compared to those committed
by the general population having never committed murder.
Do you, Jim, advocate killing _all_ of the general population who
each might go on to murder? If not, why not?"
And you replied:
"No, of course not. Because I am not insane--but also because I am not
obliged by the logic of my own views on the DP to advocate such a thing."
Well... neither am I obliged by the logic of my views on the DP to advocate
executing specific murderers.
Now clearly, with your first extrapolation, that was clearly a measure of insanity.
Thus my post was to find that level. Apparently using YOUR logic,
you feel that a comparison of supporting the execution of SOME
MURDERERS falls somewhere between executing all felons (which you
proposed as a suitable comparison) and executing everyone (which you
claimed was insane). Exactly at what point does your assumption of
comparisons end?
> When that difficulty arose,
> you took the position that the reason we should kill them was the
> danger _plus_ the fact the those sent to death row deserve to die.
> (How we know that, was, naturally, unstated).
Because of the nature of our being HUMAN. Can you tell me
how many EXACT years we should send EVERY criminal to prison
for the crime of assault, for example? Don't some DESERVE longer
sentences than others?
> The problem here of
> course is that if they deserve to die (and you have said nothing about
> whatever principles, if any, would cause you to so conclude) we do not
> need to weigh a statistical probability--because they already
> (according to you, for reasons you cannot or will not give) deserve to
> die. If someone personally, deserves to die, then he deserves to die.
> Or he doesn't. So your logic fails on both counts. Surely you follow
> this. This is not rocket science.
Actually.... it's pseudo science. Mumbo-jumbo essentially. I do not
DETERMINE who deserves the DP. Society does. Lacking the
independent knowledge of every specific example of a murder, I
would be remiss if I were to JUDGE each of them. Here's an
underlying principle of DESERVES. My opinion is that every convicted
capital murderer DESERVES to be examined by society as POSSIBLY
DESERVING to be executed. Thus I believe the DP should exist as
a lawful penalty for murder. I believe no other group DESERVES to be
even examined for this possibility. I accept and acknowledge those
societies that feel this examination is unnecessary, who have thus
abolished the DP. I feel my society has not reached that point.
>
> Then we have a lot of vague talk about how if a jury decides that
> someone should die, that's good enough for you. _Why_, one might ask
> rhetorically (and certainly without result, so far) is that good
> enough for you? We still must face the issue of what principles
> justify society's killing someone.
>
Umm... that would be murder. That is the underlying justification.
The only justification in peacetime IMHO. But justifying the examination,
is not justifying EACH and EVERY result of such an examination.
> Best regards, and hoping for a tiny bit of generalization such that I
> can distinguish your considered views on the DP from a random walk
> through your opinions, your earthling friend,
>
Let's examine SOME generalized examples of TYPES of murderers that
I consider in general DESERVE the DP. Keeping in mind that
circumstances and characteristics of the specific murder(s) need
to be examined, rather than just 'putting them all in the barrel.' Thus,
my reliance and belief in DUE PROCESS.
1) Serial murderers - ala Bundy.
2) Pedophile murderers - ala Gacy, Theodore Frank.
3) Those who execution-style murder a number of teenagers in a
fast-food chain outlet robbery methodically, ONLY to eliminate witnesses.
Now, you've asked for those I consider DESERVING of the DP. And
in general, I would support the execution of any of these type murderers,
as both deserving and exceptionally dangerous of recidivism.
So now let me ask you! WHY would you NOT support EVEN ONE
of ANY of those 3 types of murderers for the DP? What generalized concept
do you maintain that would CERTIFY that not EVEN ONE serial murderer/
pedophile murderer/execution style murderer SHOULD BE EXECUTED?
Certainly, I find it almost impossible to believe that you would claim that of
EVERY ONE OF THEM, not even ONE is both DESERVING of execution,
and easily perceived to be absolutely recidivist if ever within a general
population of any sort.
Best regards,
PV
> --Jim McCulloch
>
Jim McCulloch
>"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:3b163bb7...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
>> Originally, you took the position that the danger to society by those
>> given the death penalty was the reason why we should kill them. You
>> were, and are, unable to show why, using that principle, we should not
>> kill a great many other felons as well.
>
>Of course I showed why.
Good. I must have missed it. Let's look closely here, and see how you
did it.
>I extrapolated your assumption that 'IF we
>execute SOME murderers, we should ALSO hold to the PRINCIPLE
>of executing ALL felons' to an even more absurd conclusion.
Excellent. So far, so good. We have shown, with your active
cooperation, that it is crazy to execute everyone on the basis of a
general principle that we should kill those who statistically
represent a threat to society. How then, can this alleged principle
justify killing _anyone_ on that basis? Well, using this alleged
principel alone, all by itself, we can't. We must, instead, do so on
the basis of the deservingness of the individual, to be executed.
>And if
>yours contains any validity, than my even more absurd comment
>does as well. I destroyed your 'conclusion' with my comment:
>
>"The number of murders committed by capital murderers who have
>escaped or been released is minuscule compared to those committed
>by the general population having never committed murder.
>Do you, Jim, advocate killing _all_ of the general population who
>each might go on to murder? If not, why not?"
>
>And you replied:
>
>"No, of course not. Because I am not insane--but also because I am not
>obliged by the logic of my own views on the DP to advocate such a thing."
>
>Well... neither am I obliged by the logic of my views on the DP to advocate
>executing specific murderers.
That's true--if and only if you abandon the principle that the danger
to society represented by anyone, including death row residents,
justifies killing them. If you don't abandon that alleged principle,
then that principle, by itself, as you yourself agree, leads to absurd
conclusions. So the principle, by itself, is wrong. Therefore, you
cannot use the principle, by itself, to justify killing anyone. You in
fact admitted that, somewhere up the road. You must use other criteria
_in addition to_ your alleged principle.
But we have a problem at that point. Let's say that someone _almost_
deserves to be executed, but not quite. Can we use your principle to
nudge him over into death row? No, of course not. Let me give an
example why. Let us say that we have a murderer who fits the "almost
executable" criteria, whatever they are. Let's say that that person
also belongs to a group that statistically, is much more likely to
commit murder than average. That is, the felon is African American.
Does that fact that he belongs to a group that is (as is regrettably
the case, for a variety of historical causes) more murder prone than
the average US citizen, push him over into your category of being
executable. In that case, you would be executing him, in part, because
of his race. Not good. But if we cannot nudge him over for belonging
to one group more prone to murder than average, how can we do so if he
belongs to another? Well, we can't, with any logical consistency. Not
that logical consistency seems to trouble you. But it does concern
many of the rest of us.
But wait. Perhaps we can make an _individual_ prediction, rather than
a statistical one! What a wonderful idea. We can call on God to make
it, who alone has that capability. No, perhaps I am mistaken. We can
call on James "Dr. Death" Grigson, a psychiatrist who has never met a
murderer who was not certain to kill again. Indeed, Dr. Death did not
even need to meet some of the murderers that he made this prediction
about, in court, with complete certainty. But unless you have God, or
Dr. Death (who, alas, the last I heard had had his licence removed for
misconduct) in your corner, you are not going to be able to safely
make an accurate individual prediction.
>
>> When that difficulty arose,
>> you took the position that the reason we should kill them was the
>> danger _plus_ the fact the those sent to death row deserve to die.
>> (How we know that, was, naturally, unstated).
>
>Because of the nature of our being HUMAN. Can you tell me
>how many EXACT years we should send EVERY criminal to prison
>for the crime of assault, for example? Don't some DESERVE longer
>sentences than others?
I am not proposing that everyone be given the same sentence for a
given crime. I think we should take individual characteristics into
account in sentencing. That still leaves us with the question of
whether the DP is an appropriate sentence for anyone. Does the need
for individually tailored sentences mean that we should return to
drawing and quartering to give us more options? Sounds like you think
so. In other words, the need for individually appropriate sentencing
does not by itself justify the DP any more than it justifies cutting
off the hands of robbers.
>...I do not
>DETERMINE who deserves the DP. Society does. Lacking the
>independent knowledge of every specific example of a murder, I
>would be remiss if I were to JUDGE each of them. Here's an
>underlying principle of DESERVES. My opinion is that every convicted
>capital murderer DESERVES to be examined by society as POSSIBLY
>DESERVING to be executed. Thus I believe the DP should exist as
>a lawful penalty for murder. I believe no other group DESERVES to be
>even examined for this possibility. I accept and acknowledge those
>societies that feel this examination is unnecessary, who have thus
>abolished the DP. I feel my society has not reached that point.
Suppose it should reach that point. Would you object? If so, why? If
not, why not?
>Let's examine SOME generalized examples of TYPES of murderers that
>I consider in general DESERVE the DP. Keeping in mind that
>circumstances and characteristics of the specific murder(s) need
>to be examined, rather than just 'putting them all in the barrel.' Thus,
>my reliance and belief in DUE PROCESS.
>
>1) Serial murderers - ala Bundy.
>2) Pedophile murderers - ala Gacy, Theodore Frank.
>3) Those who execution-style murder a number of teenagers in a
>fast-food chain outlet robbery methodically, ONLY to eliminate witnesses.
>
>Now, you've asked for those I consider DESERVING of the DP. And
>in general, I would support the execution of any of these type murderers,
>as both deserving and exceptionally dangerous of recidivism.
I suggest to you that _if_ these people deserve to be executed, their
potential for recidivism has nothing to do with it, and should not be
considered, for reasons given above.
>So now let me ask you! WHY would you NOT support EVEN ONE
>of ANY of those 3 types of murderers for the DP?
No, I would not. I would support the execution of a terrible serial
killer if I thought his victims would spring back to life or the loved
ones of the victims would be made whole and their loss eliminated.
But I don't see how that could happen. Nor would I get any personal
satisfaction out of killing anyone, nor do I believe that it is right
to kill anyone to give satisfaction of those who feel the need of such
supposed consolations for whatever misfortunes they have in life.
Since I can see nothing good that an execution accomplishes, and since
I can see people who are debasing themselves and perhaps even
contributing to societal violence through self-righteous anger being
mired even deeper in something that can only lead to an uglier and
more dangerous world, I oppose executing even serial killers.
Best regards,
--Jim McCulloch
A Planet Visitor
"Neil" <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.01053...@general2.asu.edu...
Come on, Neil. Mark is just having fun. You need to read
his posts in a different light... I've pointed out before
that Mark is a drunk... obese... chain smoker... general
lecher... lazy layabout Socialist schemer... double-dealing,
two timing skunk to his former girlfriend... and possessed
of other less than redeeming qualities... not the least of which
is being a dedicated troll. Although he has denied being a
Socialist. but no one can say he's not interesting at times.
To be truthful, I rather enjoy Mark, at times, and you should
perhaps remember about that SOH. Because damned if I
don't forget it at times, myself.
Mark's flown off the handle a number of times, but by and large,
he's not nearly the ogre you've made him out to be. And
you'll find if you wait just a little while, all is kissy-kissy and
you will find another post of his to argue about, thoroughly
forgetting what it was that first caused you to disagree. Your
argument with him is not on the same level as 'dirtdog' and
myself, which began in obscenities, and can never heal. You
both need to come out, shake hands, look each other in eye,
spit at the ground in front of each other, and began a new round
of insults, rather than just grabbing at any old post.
And Mark, you old dog you.... IT'S NOT IN THE GENES.
<smiley face off>
PV
John Rennie
Socialist schemer . . . .yes that should get him going.
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:3b16a510...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
> >
> >"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:3b163bb7...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
>
> >> Originally, you took the position that the danger to society by those
> >> given the death penalty was the reason why we should kill them. You
> >> were, and are, unable to show why, using that principle, we should not
> >> kill a great many other felons as well.
> >
> >Of course I showed why.
>
> Good. I must have missed it. Let's look closely here, and see how you
> did it.
>
> >I extrapolated your assumption that 'IF we
> >execute SOME murderers, we should ALSO hold to the PRINCIPLE
> >of executing ALL felons' to an even more absurd conclusion.
>
> Excellent. So far, so good. We have shown, with your active
> cooperation, that it is crazy to execute everyone on the basis of a
> general principle that we should kill those who statistically
> represent a threat to society. How then, can this alleged principle
> justify killing _anyone_ on that basis? Well, using this alleged
> principel alone, all by itself, we can't. We must, instead, do so on
> the basis of the deservingness of the individual, to be executed.
>
only to those who murder. We LIMIT rather than expand the scope
of our examination to a finite number of those who have
DEMONSTRATED that they HAVE murdered. Having murdered,
forms the statistical base. Such a base CANNOT be expanded and
still be expected to remain valid. I've never said we must execute
everyone who represents a statistical threat to society, nor have I said
that we must execute every felon who represents a statistical threat to
society. You were the one who presented that as supposedly proving
that IF we execute ANYONE, we must execute ALL, in some
STATISTICAL examination of 'threat to society.' Certainly, if we
restrict our examination to ONLY murderers, we need not even execute
ALL of them, and perhaps need execute NONE of them. But examine
them we must! Because you've claimed that broadening the scope proves
insanity, which I well agree with, and demonstrated with my comparison,
does that mean we also cannot narrow the scope? If it can be shown
that it is insanity to execute all living humans to prevent murder, does
that lead us to the proof that we can execute NO living humans to
prevent murder? I don't think so. We narrow the scope until we find
an acceptable range of those we believe possibly fit the pattern of both
deserving and recidivist, by ELIMINATING all who have NOT ALREADY
murdered. And after NARROWING the scope to that statistically SPECIFIC
group, statistics no longer plays a part in this examination. Statistics were
resolved by limiting our examination to CONVICTED murderers.
From then on it becomes an INDIVIDUAL examination. We (society) now
consider first - do the circumstances and depravity of the murder in question
justify believing that the murderer DESERVES the penalty (as a subjective
analysis by those members of society that society has tasked with this function)?
And second - does the murderer represents a grave threat to society (The
same subjective analysis applies here as well)? We're human you know.
We have the technology.
> >And if
> >yours contains any validity, than my even more absurd comment
> >does as well. I destroyed your 'conclusion' with my comment:
> >
> >"The number of murders committed by capital murderers who have
> >escaped or been released is minuscule compared to those committed
> >by the general population having never committed murder.
> >Do you, Jim, advocate killing _all_ of the general population who
> >each might go on to murder? If not, why not?"
> >
> >And you replied:
> >
> >"No, of course not. Because I am not insane--but also because I am not
> >obliged by the logic of my own views on the DP to advocate such a thing."
> >
> >Well... neither am I obliged by the logic of my views on the DP to advocate
> >executing specific murderers.
>
> That's true--if and only if you abandon the principle that the danger
> to society represented by anyone, including death row residents,
> justifies killing them. If you don't abandon that alleged principle,
> then that principle, by itself, as you yourself agree, leads to absurd
> conclusions. So the principle, by itself, is wrong. Therefore, you
> cannot use the principle, by itself, to justify killing anyone. You in
> fact admitted that, somewhere up the road. You must use other criteria
> _in addition to_ your alleged principle.
>
Why? The principle that penalties examine the danger represented
by anyone is part and parcel of our system of justice. But that principle
cannot stand by itself. Certainly we can't ASSUME that the danger of
a robber perhaps murdering in the future is cause to execute them.
They don't DESERVE execution in ANY case. But quite clearly when
someone has demonstrated that they have robbed, we examine the
possibility that they might ROB again in any sentencing, not that they
might rape or murder. Nor do we sentence EVERY robber to exactly
the same sentence. In those cases, we do just as I suggest in the
argument of the DP. We (society) examine the extent of the crime
(does the robber DESERVE the sentence we wish to impose), and
the possibility of recidivism for THAT specific crime, and adjust the
sentence accordingly. And in fact, I've always considered the two factors
as essential to the DP. Perhaps you didn't recognize it, or perhaps you
didn't understand that it was implied by me, or perhaps I have not
always made that clear, but I did NOT invent it as we went along, which
you DO seem to imply.
> But we have a problem at that point. Let's say that someone _almost_
> deserves to be executed, but not quite. Can we use your principle to
> nudge him over into death row? No, of course not. Let me give an
> example why. Let us say that we have a murderer who fits the "almost
> executable" criteria, whatever they are. Let's say that that person
> also belongs to a group that statistically, is much more likely to
> commit murder than average. That is, the felon is African American.
> Does that fact that he belongs to a group that is (as is regrettably
> the case, for a variety of historical causes) more murder prone than
> the average US citizen, push him over into your category of being
> executable. In that case, you would be executing him, in part, because
> of his race. Not good. But if we cannot nudge him over for belonging
> to one group more prone to murder than average, how can we do so if he
> belongs to another? Well, we can't, with any logical consistency. Not
> that logical consistency seems to trouble you. But it does concern
> many of the rest of us.
>
There is no nudging involved. And it's disgraceful that you would now
interject race into this dialog. We are talking about murder and
murderers... without regard to ANY other characteristic, save the murder
they committed and the penalty they should be given. Every other
aspect you might expect to employ is ALSO relevant or non-relevant to
EVERY part of the Justice System, thus using it does your argument
no good whatsoever in respect to the DP. And we are talking specifically
of the DP. If you wish to go on a rant on racism we can end it here and now,
and declare me the victor... because losers fall back on those types of flimsy
excuses. Racism, lynch mobs, slavery, the holocaust. All strawmen... all
smoke and mirrors. Racism is not an aberration of the Justice System. It is
a disgraceful aberration of mankind, and the U.S. in particular. The
disenfranchisement of a race is the source of violence which leads
to murder. Not the other way around. Don't try and put the burden
of racism on the DP... it belongs on us all. Abolitionist and Retentionist
alike.
Now to your point. The only principle that nudges over the edge is
the judgment of the jury, the judge, and all of the principles to the due
process involved in the execution. Certainly there is a clear point
at which the 'executable' criteria is met. And that point is AT THE
IMMEDIATE EXECUTION POINT. Prior to that point, at least one
person, usually many more, are enabled to state the murderer is
NOT at this time DESERVING OF EXECUTION. Some would call it
'due process.'
> But wait. Perhaps we can make an _individual_ prediction, rather than
> a statistical one! What a wonderful idea. We can call on God to make
> it, who alone has that capability. No, perhaps I am mistaken. We can
> call on James "Dr. Death" Grigson, a psychiatrist who has never met a
> murderer who was not certain to kill again. Indeed, Dr. Death did not
> even need to meet some of the murderers that he made this prediction
> about, in court, with complete certainty. But unless you have God, or
> Dr. Death (who, alas, the last I heard had had his licence removed for
> misconduct) in your corner, you are not going to be able to safely
> make an accurate individual prediction.
>
You either need to get a grip or start putting smiley faces at the end of
your comments.
> >
> >> When that difficulty arose,
> >> you took the position that the reason we should kill them was the
> >> danger _plus_ the fact the those sent to death row deserve to die.
> >> (How we know that, was, naturally, unstated).
> >
> >Because of the nature of our being HUMAN. Can you tell me
> >how many EXACT years we should send EVERY criminal to prison
> >for the crime of assault, for example? Don't some DESERVE longer
> >sentences than others?
>
> I am not proposing that everyone be given the same sentence for a
> given crime. I think we should take individual characteristics into
> account in sentencing. That still leaves us with the question of
> whether the DP is an appropriate sentence for anyone. Does the need
> for individually tailored sentences mean that we should return to
> drawing and quartering to give us more options? Sounds like you think
> so. In other words, the need for individually appropriate sentencing
> does not by itself justify the DP any more than it justifies cutting
> off the hands of robbers.
>
Sentences are justified when they represent the will of the people.
In fact, the justification for cutting off the hands of robbers is beyond
our examination as a moral issue. All morality is subjectively based.
There certainly is no ABSOLUTE moral concept. The cutting off of
hands of robbers is abhorrent to me, as I imagine it is to almost
every person in the Western world. But trust me... we cannot claim
it is immoral, except in the context of OUR INDIVIDUAL subjective
morality. The justification for the DP, as with the cutting off of hands
of robbers, lies within the roots upon which our society is based.
You are certainly welcome to your moral and supposed logical arguments
opposed to the DP. But you would do better to stick to expressing
such as your own moral code, because logically the existence of
the DP, is firmly embedded in the principles of many societies.
And when societies remove it, it is almost always because of a
MORAL decision, rather than a LOGICAL decision. In my moral view,
If we RESTRICT our examination of what penalties we should apply to
a certain group (those who have COMMITTED SPECIFIC CRIMES),
it is certainly LAWFUL, and in fact meaningful to do so. Thus, restricting
our examination of the DP to only those who have already COMMITTED
murder, is also lawful, and meaningful, IMHO. Whether it is MORAL
or not, is an argument which has no answer. I would argue that in
MY individual subjective moral code it is moral. Others certainly
disagree. But logically, not much of anything can be made of
whether ~700 executed murderers in 25 years would have murdered
'x' number of innocents had they not been executed, or whether 'y'
number of innocents were a part of those ~700 executed, in any
logical analysis. 'x' and 'y' will ALWAYS be, as is morality, a
subjective view of each individual.
> >...I do not
> >DETERMINE who deserves the DP. Society does. Lacking the
> >independent knowledge of every specific example of a murder, I
> >would be remiss if I were to JUDGE each of them. Here's an
> >underlying principle of DESERVES. My opinion is that every convicted
> >capital murderer DESERVES to be examined by society as POSSIBLY
> >DESERVING to be executed. Thus I believe the DP should exist as
> >a lawful penalty for murder. I believe no other group DESERVES to be
> >even examined for this possibility. I accept and acknowledge those
> >societies that feel this examination is unnecessary, who have thus
> >abolished the DP. I feel my society has not reached that point.
>
> Suppose it should reach that point. Would you object? If so, why? If
> not, why not?
>
Object is perhaps too strong a word. I wouldn't stamp my foot and cry
foul. I would not lose any sleep over it. Nor would I call those now in the
majority immoral or soul-corroded or monsters or barbaric or 'deathies'
as I and other retentionists have been called. I'm an activist, NOT A
FANATIC. I would ACCEPT such as the will of my society, and respect
that will. Supporting it through voting for those who helped make such a
course possible, is quite another matter. That wouldn't happen. And of
course, as you oppose the DP, I would continue to oppose the abolition
of the DP in my society, in my own small way, in vocal terms in forums
where I felt it necessary to do so. And as some abolitionists point
to the possibility of the execution of an innocent, you can be sure I would
point out a convicted murderer who somehow is permitted to murder again.
> >Let's examine SOME generalized examples of TYPES of murderers that
> >I consider in general DESERVE the DP. Keeping in mind that
> >circumstances and characteristics of the specific murder(s) need
> >to be examined, rather than just 'putting them all in the barrel.' Thus,
> >my reliance and belief in DUE PROCESS.
> >
> >1) Serial murderers - ala Bundy.
> >2) Pedophile murderers - ala Gacy, Theodore Frank.
> >3) Those who execution-style murder a number of teenagers in a
> >fast-food chain outlet robbery methodically, ONLY to eliminate witnesses.
> >
> >Now, you've asked for those I consider DESERVING of the DP. And
> >in general, I would support the execution of any of these type murderers,
> >as both deserving and exceptionally dangerous of recidivism.
>
> I suggest to you that _if_ these people deserve to be executed, their
> potential for recidivism has nothing to do with it, and should not be
> considered, for reasons given above.
>
Are you saying that THE 'potential for recidivism' should NOT be
considered in punishment imposed for crimes? In any crime... in
any sentence? Or have you just singled out the DP for this unique
exclusion? If the DP were to be abolished, would you propose
EXACTLY the same penalties for a pedophile murderer convicted
of murder, and a weaponless robbery gone bad murderer, who
was himself shot and wounded during a struggle for the weapon
of the shop owner? Do you think the possibility of recidivism should be
EXAMINED in the SENTENCING phase of these two individuals?
Seriously now... Which of the two do YOU think would possibly be
more certain of murder recidivism?
> >So now let me ask you! WHY would you NOT support EVEN ONE
> >of ANY of those 3 types of murderers for the DP?
>
> No, I would not. I would support the execution of a terrible serial
> killer if I thought his victims would spring back to life or the loved
> ones of the victims would be made whole and their loss eliminated.
But that can't happen. The moving finger writes and having writ
MOVES ON. So what you're essentially saying here is 'we need to
forget it and move on, because we can't bring back the victim.' I
don't believe that's LOGICALLY a reasonable conclusion. It's a
truism certainly, every bit as much as 'an executed murderer cannot
murder again.' But it's a senseless conclusion. Of course we can't bring
back the dead. But society still has a responsibility to THE MURDERED
victim. Who speaks for the victim? Certainly not I, certainly not you,
certainly not the murderer, certainly not the victim's family and friends,
certainly not the murderer's family and friends. But with the victim having
been murdered, unable to speak for themselves, does that mean the
murderer WINS? Suddenly NO ONE can speak for the victim? Only
the murderer now has a voice? Well... that's total crap to me. Society
speaks for the victim. And until the murderer has completed the entire
punishment that society has imposed 'on behalf of' the victim, the victim
continues to have a voice.
> But I don't see how that could happen. Nor would I get any personal
> satisfaction out of killing anyone,
This is the problem with many abolitionists. They think it's about
satisfaction on the part of the retentionist. Do you think I find any
satisfaction in taking a life? The taking of any life is abhorrent to
me. Even in self-defense or in war. It is not satisfaction I derive
from the DP. It is the belief that the victim has been recognized as
having existed as a person, the murder has been recognized as one
of the most extreme examples of murder, the murderer has been
recognized as deserving of execution by my society, and the murderer
has been recognized as fully capable of murdering again if somehow
returned to any form of general population inside or outside prison.
The DP provides me no satisfaction, only a disgust that a human could
commit an act so depraved that his execution is EVEN considered. But,
I am in fact more appalled, by seeing a murderer spend 40-50 years in a
cage, then I am by any execution. Consider L wop: Living a lifetime
with social contacts of depravities from other prisoners and some
guards, being someone's or a group's 'bitch' for life, or looking for
someone to be your 'bitch.' Alternating that with sometimes humane
strokes from guards who extend an occasional hand of pity, in their wish
to assuage their own moral disgust at a system that requires them to
tend to other humans as some sort of animal trainers for the entire
life of that human. I see such an existence(??) as similar to a dog whose
owner alternately beats, and then pets him. Have you ever seen how a dog
reacts to such treatment? It's the most pathetic sight of an animal your
eyes will EVER see. That's your L wop. No, thank you kindly. It's bad
enough that we even use 30-40 year prison sentences. If not the DP, then
a person is viewed as 'can be rehabilitated.' And as such, indeterminate
sentences are the only true meaningful sentences to impose.
> nor do I believe that it is right
> to kill anyone to give satisfaction of those who feel the need of such
> supposed consolations for whatever misfortunes they have in life.
> Since I can see nothing good that an execution accomplishes, and since
> I can see people who are debasing themselves and perhaps even
> contributing to societal violence through self-righteous anger being
> mired even deeper in something that can only lead to an uglier and
> more dangerous world, I oppose executing even serial killers.
>
But of course, you would. Nevertheless... I detect a moralistic emotional
tone emerging from you now, rather than any logical argument. So be it.
Jim McCulloch
What you just wrote is complete gibberish. What on earth are you
trying to say?
>And we are talking specifically
>of the DP. If you wish to go on a rant on racism we can end it here and now,
>and declare me the victor... because losers fall back on those types of flimsy
>excuses.
Gosh. I point at a logical example and you feel I have given you the
finger. Surely you don't think I am ranting about racism, whether it
be yours, mine, the justice system's or anyone else's. Read what I
wrote. I assumed, for the purposes of my example, that you were _not_
a racist, and that a proper justice system would not be racist. That
being so, we can then examine whether it would be proper to consider
whether membership in _any_ group that has a higher murder rate than
average is a reason to give a convicted murderer (or a convicted felon
of any kind) a more severe sentence. Since we are excluding race from
consideration as a reason to give a longer sentence, then all that
remains is whether your belief that we should give more severe
sentences based on a statistical tendency of _any_ group toward
murder, is valid. Than answer, if no in this case (and you agree that
it is) has to be no in all cases. QED.
>Racism, lynch mobs, slavery, the holocaust. All strawmen... all
>smoke and mirrors. Racism is not an aberration of the Justice System. It is
>a disgraceful aberration of mankind, and the U.S. in particular. The
>disenfranchisement of a race is the source of violence which leads
>to murder. Not the other way around. Don't try and put the burden
>of racism on the DP... it belongs on us all. Abolitionist and Retentionist
>alike.
This is a very fine speech, but it has nothing to do with what I was
talking about.
>Now to your point.
At last.
>The only principle that nudges over the edge is
>the judgment of the jury, the judge, and all of the principles to the due
>process involved in the execution. Certainly there is a clear point
>at which the 'executable' criteria is met. And that point is AT THE
>IMMEDIATE EXECUTION POINT. Prior to that point, at least one
>person, usually many more, are enabled to state the murderer is
>NOT at this time DESERVING OF EXECUTION. Some would call it
>'due process.'
So, you are saying that there are no reasons at all for judge and jury
to determine that someone should be executed, except that when they
do, they do. Did I get that right? That certainly is what you are
actually saying, regardless of what you may be _trying_ to say. You
must be trying to say something else, I charitably hope.
>> >
>> >Now, you've asked for those I consider DESERVING of the DP. And
>> >in general, I would support the execution of any of these type murderers,
>> >as both deserving and exceptionally dangerous of recidivism.
>>
>> I suggest to you that _if_ these people deserve to be executed, their
>> potential for recidivism has nothing to do with it, and should not be
>> considered, for reasons given above.
>>
>
>Are you saying that THE 'potential for recidivism' should NOT be
>considered in punishment imposed for crimes? In any crime... in
>any sentence?
Yes, and I have gone into some detail as to why, as you may remember.
>Or have you just singled out the DP for this unique
>exclusion?
No.
>If the DP were to be abolished, would you propose
>EXACTLY the same penalties for a pedophile murderer convicted
>of murder, and a weaponless robbery gone bad murderer, who
>was himself shot and wounded during a struggle for the weapon
>of the shop owner?
No, and I believe I have gone into that, too.
>Do you think the possibility of recidivism should be
>EXAMINED in the SENTENCING phase of these two individuals?
I don't think the issue of (future) recidivism should be considered in
sentencing for any crime, because we cannot know whether our judgment
is correct. The nature of the crime, and _past_ instances of
criminality, should certainly be considered.
>> >So now let me ask you! WHY would you NOT support EVEN ONE
>> >of ANY of those 3 types of murderers for the DP?
>>
>> No, I would not. I would support the execution of a terrible serial
>> killer if I thought his victims would spring back to life or the loved
>> ones of the victims would be made whole and their loss eliminated.
>
>But that can't happen. The moving finger writes and having writ
>MOVES ON. So what you're essentially saying here is 'we need to
>forget it and move on, because we can't bring back the victim.'
I don't think we should forget it and move on. But pretending that the
DP fixes the real problem is foolish.
> It's a
>truism certainly, every bit as much as 'an executed murderer cannot
>murder again.' But it's a senseless conclusion. Of course we can't bring
>back the dead. But society still has a responsibility to THE MURDERED
>victim.
Let's say society has a responsibility to all the victims, who not
only include the murdered person, but those who are left behind, loved
ones, friends, and so on. If you are saying that, I agree. I disagree
that our responsibility is to kill the perpertrator.
>Who speaks for the victim?
Well, to start with, there usually is more than one victim, when
someone is murdered. An old friend of mine's son was brutally
murdered a about 3 years ago. My friend and his wife and their
daughter were very much victims, as well as the son. So, some victims
can speak for themselves. They did so, as a matter of fact, expressing
very eloquently their feellings that they did not wish the killers to
die. More commonly, survivors express a wish that the killers be
executed, thinking that somehow the execution rectifies what has
happened.
But "speaking for" the dead person is an exercise in presumption.
Surely society can no more speak for the dead than any particular
individual can. Why do you think society is capable of that?
> But with the victim having
>been murdered, unable to speak for themselves, does that mean the
>murderer WINS?
Not if the murderer is apprehended, and sentenced to prison. You have
already said that a long prison sentence is more punitive than death
(which seems a little off-kilter to me, but even if the normal
viewpoint that prison is preferable to death is true, that does not
mean that the murderer wins. Does it? How so?)
> Suddenly NO ONE can speak for the victim? Only
>the murderer now has a voice? Well... that's total crap to me. Society
>speaks for the victim.
And how does "society" know what the victim (whom you falsely believe
is limited to the dead person) wants to say? The answer is, society
does not know, and so does not truly speak for the victim at all. And
even if the deceased had improbably left a will with instructions that
anyone who murdered him be disemboweled, the fact that he has a voice
does not mean that his words should be followed. Speaking for the
victim is simply a false issue.
This whole very emotional screed is posited on the proposition that
prisons must be inhumane. And surely if you believe any of it, you
must prefer that pickpockets be executed rather than be subjected to
such inidignities.
Best regards,
--Jim McCulloch
John Rennie
of a flame war. Now PV does write a lot of gibberish
but we find it best to ignore him when he does as he gets
rather personal when it is pointed out to him. This
is an excellent thread so keep the insults out of it.
crystal slover
John Rennie wrote:
You are right. "Gibberish" is insulting, and I apologize. I was simply carried
away by my inability to construe the following to have any meaning at all, no
doubt through my own failure of imagination. Perhaps PV will accept my
apology and clarify what it means:
>...We are talking about murder and
> >murderers... without regard to ANY other characteristic, save the murder
> >they committed and the penalty they should be given. Every other
> >aspect you might expect to employ is ALSO relevant or non-relevant to
> >EVERY part of the Justice System, thus using it does your argument
> >no good whatsoever in respect to the DP.
Even taking this in context, which I snipped here for brevity, I am at a loss.
Best regards,
--Jim McCulloch
A Planet Visitor
"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:3b17aa03...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
it permeating EVERY aspect of our society. We can't simply point our
finger at the DP, and say "see... that's racism. Get rid of the DP, and we
can rid ourselves of racism." That's 'head in the sand' philosophy. Because,
if the DP IS racist (which I don't for one moment agree with, since the basic
criteria for the penalty is that a MURDER has been committed), than that racism
permeates the ENTIRE Justice System, and society in turn. Thus I would
suppose that eliminating the Justice System would serve as much purpose
as eliminating the DP toward reducing racism. Attack the damn cause,
not the effect. We have racism ==> disenfranchisement ==> frustration ==>
anger ==> rage ==> violence ==> murder ==> DP. Eliminate one of the
links in this chain, and you might eliminate what that link LEADS to. And
I am saying that interjection of any possibility of racism in the DP is a
strawman argument. Now if you still find that I haven't dumbed down my
explanation of racism vis a vis the DP, you might as well just delete the
whole thing, and leave me shaking my head in pity for you.
> >And we are talking specifically
> >of the DP. If you wish to go on a rant on racism we can end it here and now,
> >and declare me the victor... because losers fall back on those types of flimsy
> >excuses.
>
> Gosh. I point at a logical example and you feel I have given you the
> finger. Surely you don't think I am ranting about racism, whether it
> be yours, mine, the justice system's or anyone else's. Read what I
> wrote. I assumed, for the purposes of my example, that you were _not_
> a racist, and that a proper justice system would not be racist. That
> being so, we can then examine whether it would be proper to consider
> whether membership in _any_ group that has a higher murder rate than
> average is a reason to give a convicted murderer (or a convicted felon
> of any kind) a more severe sentence. Since we are excluding race from
> consideration as a reason to give a longer sentence, then all that
> remains is whether your belief that we should give more severe
> sentences based on a statistical tendency of _any_ group toward
> murder, is valid. Than answer, if no in this case (and you agree that
> it is) has to be no in all cases. QED.
>
Blacks were seven times more likely than whites to be homicide victims
and eight times more likely that whites to commit homicides.
Eighty-five percent of white murder victims were killed by whites,
and 94% of black victims were killed by black. (DOJ report Jan 99,
Homicide trends in the U.S.) You simply fail to understand that the
ROOT of the problem lies in disenfranchisement which leads to
violent behavior. If subjective opinions create ANY disparity in
sentencing, such permeates the ENTIRE Justice System, not
only the DP. Eliminating the DP goes exactly nowhere in reducing
the root of racism.
> >Racism, lynch mobs, slavery, the holocaust. All strawmen... all
> >smoke and mirrors. Racism is not an aberration of the Justice System. It is
> >a disgraceful aberration of mankind, and the U.S. in particular. The
> >disenfranchisement of a race is the source of violence which leads
> >to murder. Not the other way around. Don't try and put the burden
> >of racism on the DP... it belongs on us all. Abolitionist and Retentionist
> >alike.
>
> This is a very fine speech, but it has nothing to do with what I was
> talking about.
>
Your point is that you would ignore the 'cause' and focus on the 'effect.'
When quite the opposite is how we approach EVERY problem in
society.
> >Now to your point.
>
> At last.
>
> >The only principle that nudges over the edge is
> >the judgment of the jury, the judge, and all of the principles to the due
> >process involved in the execution. Certainly there is a clear point
> >at which the 'executable' criteria is met. And that point is AT THE
> >IMMEDIATE EXECUTION POINT. Prior to that point, at least one
> >person, usually many more, are enabled to state the murderer is
> >NOT at this time DESERVING OF EXECUTION. Some would call it
> >'due process.'
>
> So, you are saying that there are no reasons at all for judge and jury
> to determine that someone should be executed, except that when they
> do, they do. Did I get that right? That certainly is what you are
> actually saying, regardless of what you may be _trying_ to say. You
> must be trying to say something else, I charitably hope.
>
Once again... I aparently need to dumb down my reply... you just seem to
NEVER get it right. Every aspect of the sentencing of ANY penalty is open
to examination by those given such powers by our society. Juries can
acquit... Parole boards can pardon... Governors can commute... judges
can overturn. This applies to the DP and ALL sentences.
> >> >
> >> >Now, you've asked for those I consider DESERVING of the DP. And
> >> >in general, I would support the execution of any of these type murderers,
> >> >as both deserving and exceptionally dangerous of recidivism.
> >>
> >> I suggest to you that _if_ these people deserve to be executed, their
> >> potential for recidivism has nothing to do with it, and should not be
> >> considered, for reasons given above.
> >>
> >
> >Are you saying that THE 'potential for recidivism' should NOT be
> >considered in punishment imposed for crimes? In any crime... in
> >any sentence?
>
> Yes, and I have gone into some detail as to why, as you may remember.
>
A VERY STRANGE opinion, in my view. Apparently you believe
society has NO RIGHT to consider whether a specific crime will be
recommitted by the one convicted of that specific crime. Perhap
we should thus discard all evidence of ANY recidivism, as totally
meaningless in our process of Justice. But in a previous post
you said "I am not proposing that everyone be given the same
sentence for a given crime. I think we should take individual
characteristics into account in sentencing." Isn't the possibility
of recidivism an observable individual characteristic?
Nevertheless, that seems to now be your opinion, and I would
guess that's why we have opinions... regardless of how
strange those opinions are.
> >Or have you just singled out the DP for this unique
> >exclusion?
>
> No.
>
Duly noted.
>
> >If the DP were to be abolished, would you propose
> >EXACTLY the same penalties for a pedophile murderer convicted
> >of murder, and a weaponless robbery gone bad murderer, who
> >was himself shot and wounded during a struggle for the weapon
> >of the shop owner?
>
> No, and I believe I have gone into that, too.
>
Ah... because one DESERVES a starker penalty than the other?
> >Do you think the possibility of recidivism should be
> >EXAMINED in the SENTENCING phase of these two individuals?
>
> I don't think the issue of (future) recidivism should be considered in
> sentencing for any crime, because we cannot know whether our judgment
> is correct. The nature of the crime, and _past_ instances of
> criminality, should certainly be considered.
>
You've already said that as your opinion. But certainly we are
not even ABSOLUTELY certain if our judgment is correct in the finding
of guilt/innocence. That's why we use 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
So why is it now necessary that we use only CERTAINTY in the
examination of the penalty to be imposed? Why is it not possible
to have a belief in recidivism of the convicted in terms of 'beyond
a reasonable doubt' in an examination in that phase as well? In your
opinion, of course.
> >> >So now let me ask you! WHY would you NOT support EVEN ONE
> >> >of ANY of those 3 types of murderers for the DP?
> >>
> >> No, I would not. I would support the execution of a terrible serial
> >> killer if I thought his victims would spring back to life or the loved
> >> ones of the victims would be made whole and their loss eliminated.
> >
> >But that can't happen. The moving finger writes and having writ
> >MOVES ON. So what you're essentially saying here is 'we need to
> >forget it and move on, because we can't bring back the victim.'
>
> I don't think we should forget it and move on. But pretending that the
> DP fixes the real problem is foolish.
>
In your opinion. But, certainly the DP does have SOME aspect of
'fixing' the problem. That's rather hard to deny. What needs to
actually be determined is does or or does it not fix more problems
than it creates. After all, there's 'that' truism. That certainly 'fixes' the
problem to a greater extent that ANY other penalty. If you need,
I can provide a number of examples of those convicted murderers
who DID murder again, regardless of any sentence less than the
DP. And deterrence is still up for grabs, depending upon one's view.
If you'd like I can provide you with a recent study from Emory University,
showing a deterrence effect of the DP to be 18 murders prevented
per execution, plus or minus 10. And then there's that feeling that
justice has been served by many members of the society. Not
satisfaction, but a perception of our recognition of 'right' from 'wrong.'
And at least society has found 'closure,' even if no other specific
individual finds it. And the resolution of the murder is FINALIZED.
> > It's a
> >truism certainly, every bit as much as 'an executed murderer cannot
> >murder again.' But it's a senseless conclusion. Of course we can't bring
> >back the dead. But society still has a responsibility to THE MURDERED
> >victim.
>
> Let's say society has a responsibility to all the victims, who not
> only include the murdered person, but those who are left behind, loved
> ones, friends, and so on. If you are saying that, I agree. I disagree
> that our responsibility is to kill the perpertrator.
>
No... society has NO responsibility for anyone or anything other than
the judgment of the murderer as the voice of the victim. The responsibility
for all others affected by ANY criminal act rests with the perpetrator.
Don't try to put THAT on the back of society. Society should not feel
GUILTY for anything it does, in place of someone who has murdered.
This is the familiar cry we hear lately... 'It's society's fault. Not the
murderer's. They're just misunderstood.' Society is NOT responsible
for the pain CAUSED by the murderer which is suffered by those on
either side of victim or perpetrator. Our responsibility is to do whatever
the LAW provides for. Because the law is the bedrock of our
civilization. We make human decisions, of course. But that doesn't
release us from the responsibility to MAKE those decisions. And
society, through its laws, determines what those responsibilities are.
And we recognize that we are imperfect in making those decisions.
Thus we do have the responsibility for possibly executing an innocent
person, by establishing the DP. That responsibility is enough by itself
to make the fact that we do use the DP almost overwhelming.
But nowhere, will you find ANY law which claims that we have a
responsibility for the victim's or the murderer's family or friends. The
murderer is responsible for their pain. I feel pain for them, certainly
nowhere near the pain they themselves feel, which I can hardly
fathom... but absolutely no RESPONSIBILITY.
> >Who speaks for the victim?
>
> Well, to start with, there usually is more than one victim, when
> someone is murdered. An old friend of mine's son was brutally
> murdered a about 3 years ago. My friend and his wife and their
> daughter were very much victims, as well as the son. So, some victims
> can speak for themselves. They did so, as a matter of fact, expressing
> very eloquently their feelings that they did not wish the killers to
> die. More commonly, survivors express a wish that the killers be
> executed, thinking that somehow the execution rectifies what has
> happened.
>
Their son was the victim. Victims are those for which lawful crimes
exist. Their son was murdered... it's a crime... he was a victim.
There is NO LAW, which would claim that family and friends of
victims are victims themselves. It's an illogical extension... quite
emotional of course... but not factual. I can claim I'm a victim of
EVERY murder, because I'm a member of the same society.
We need to focus on the 'CAUSE,' rather than find excuses for
the murderer. I can't say I don't pity someone who is connected
to a victim. The pain is obviously intense and lifelong. And I
don't pretend to understand, even slightly, the depths of
despair felt by those impacted by a murder. Anyone, who has
not experienced what they have, would be a hypocrite to claim
otherwise. And no one can offer me anything, which would
induce me to accept that same level of tragedy into my life.
There are no words of advice or console which would provide
answers as to 'why us?' Indeed, there are no answers.
Murder to me is indescribably devastating to all involved. A
family goes from a peaceful, carefree existence to just putting
one foot in front of the other for the rest of their lives. And
neither the DP, nor ANY penalty, provides any REAL closure.
The subject we discuss here is so profound on a moral level, it
often overwhelms us. Murder is overwhelming, and the DP
is certainly a morally profound dilemma. All that being said,
SOCIETY is not responsible for the pain felt by those affected
by murder. The murderer is. We may feel intense PITY toward
those others, but let's never believe that we are RESPONSIBLE
for that pain.
> But "speaking for" the dead person is an exercise in presumption.
> Surely society can no more speak for the dead than any particular
> individual can. Why do you think society is capable of that?
>
Because we accept that society speaks for us when we become
members of society. Society certainly provides the direction to
our lives... even to the point of telling us when and when not to
proceed, with the installation of stop lights at intersections. There are
actually only two false presumptions. 1) A victim may speak for
themselves (obviously impossible), or 2) Any individual living
can speak for the dead victim (also obviously impossible). So
recognizing that the murderer CANNOT win in such an act as
murder... recognizing that the victim MUST still have something
to say as to their existence... we establish laws in which society
speaks for the victim. As members of society we accept that
society may do so. Who else would you expect to speak for the
victim? Who else would you expect to say 'this is what your
punishment is for the murder you have committed?'
> > But with the victim having
> >been murdered, unable to speak for themselves, does that mean the
> >murderer WINS?
>
> Not if the murderer is apprehended, and sentenced to prison. You have
> already said that a long prison sentence is more punitive than death
> (which seems a little off-kilter to me, but even if the normal
> viewpoint that prison is preferable to death is true, that does not
> mean that the murderer wins. Does it? How so?)
>
But society having apprehended the murderer and sentenced them to
prison DOES SPEAK FOR THE VICTIM. You would claim that
society can ONLY speak for the victim up to a certain point. My
contention is that society can speak for the victim, up to any
point that society decides the victim WISHES to speak. Thus
if the question of the DP arises, and society uses such a penalty
it is quite lawful and proper to do so. Society has a responsibility
to the victim... I think we agree on that. Where our argument begins
is at what point does that responsibility END. You believe it ends
short of the DP. I believe it does not. Generally speaking... we
will never resolved this argument because it is totally subjective.
> > Suddenly NO ONE can speak for the victim? Only
> >the murderer now has a voice? Well... that's total crap to me. Society
> >speaks for the victim.
>
> And how does "society" know what the victim (whom you falsely believe
> is limited to the dead person) wants to say? The answer is, society
> does not know, and so does not truly speak for the victim at all. And
> even if the deceased had improbably left a will with instructions that
> anyone who murdered him be disemboweled, the fact that he has a voice
> does not mean that his words should be followed. Speaking for the
> victim is simply a false issue.
>
Our laws speak for the victim. And I doubt you will find any law showing
that family and friends of victims are themselves victims... so that
analysis is both emotional and flawed. In any case, such 'victims'
become so through the act of the murderer. And for every 'victim' who
opposes the DP for the murderer of a family member or friends you
will find another who supports it... thus it's a total wash. For example,
we previously had two members in this group. One - Denise - had a
brother who had been murdered. She opposed the DP on religious
grounds but found many of her questions in a secular sense left
unanswered. She will probably NEVER find 'closure.' The other -
Beverly - had a son who had been murdered. She totally supported the
DP, and was STILL searching for ANY answer as to 'why.' She too, will
probably NEVER find 'closure.' I believe neither of these two would
find answers in ANY penalty, including the DP. Perhaps you should ask
your friend what HE believes would provide 'closure,' to him and his family.
I believe you will find he really doesn't believe ANYTHING will provide
FINAL closure for him, short of his own passing. I do not believe law
provides any answers to 'closure' to individuals. Although it likes to
think it does. It only provides 'closure' to society itself. Those members
who are LEAST affected on a personal level. Others need to find
'closure,' if even possible, within themselves. Society can only speak
for the ACTUAL victim.
Hey... you were the one who claimed you'd get no 'satisfaction' from the
DP, obliquely inferring that retentionists do.
Prisons ARE inhumane. They only vary in DEGREE. By definition, we
have REMOVED one of the basic tenets of the rights we believe all should
have. 'Life,' and 'liberty,' follow immediately one upon the other, in almost
every document expressing what we as humans have established
as our rights. And in that context prisons are to some degree, large or
minute, MEANT to be inhumane. If we have no right to execute - we have
no right to imprison. I contend that both rights are forfeit depending on what
we humans as a society, determine what acts would constitute such forfeit.
We set up the rights themselves by ourselves. Nothing in the firmaments or
in nature would PROVE that such rights DO EXIST as some absolutes of
nature. We decide they exist, thus we have the right to decide when they DO
NOT exist. Surely YOU don't believe any sentence we give to pickpockets
can be equated with L wop? Surely you don't believe that an ENTIRE life
spent in incarceration, regardless of how humane we may believe we have
made that incarceration, is TRULY humane? Surely you don't believe that
clustering together certain groups with a high propensity for violence for an
entire lifetime, can even be seen as 'life?'
A Planet Visitor
"crystal slover" <slov...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:3B17DF96...@mail.utexas.edu...
thread. In any case, my point is that IF (I say IF) the DP is racist, it
is not so because of any flaw in the DP. It is a flaw which permeates
the entire Justice System. In fact, racism DOES permeate our entire
society. Thus it is rather illogical to blame the problem of racism on
the DP. We could equally well recognize the disparity in prison
population, and thus claim ALL prison sentences are racist. So if
the point is to eliminate the DP because it is racist... we must also,
following such logic... eliminate ALL prison sentences. We need to
recognize that racism is not a special phenomenon of the DP, and
eliminating IT will not solve any problem we might perceive exists
(which most certainly DOES exist) in our society. Excusing murderers
in the name of racism, is in itself inexcusable. If it is racist, solve
THAT problem, rather than just assuming that ALL murderers are
undeserved of the DP.
Neil
> <Smiley face on> Come on, Neil. Mark is just having
> fun. You need to read his posts in a different light...
> I've pointed out before that Mark is a drunk... obese...
> chain smoker... general lecher... lazy layabout
> Socialist schemer... double-dealing, two timing skunk to
> his former girlfriend... and possessed of other less
> than redeeming qualities... not the least of which is
> being a dedicated troll. Although he has denied being a
> Socialist. but no one can say he's not interesting at
> times. To be truthful, I rather enjoy Mark, at times,
> and you should perhaps remember about that SOH.
> Because damned if I don't forget it at times, myself.
>
> Mark's flown off the handle a number of times, but by
> and large, he's not nearly the ogre you've made him out
> to be.
I don't think he's an ogre. I do think he is a troll,
hypocritical, intellectually dishonest, insecure, in
desperate need of approval by others (which is why he's
always telling us about his "girlfriend"), and completely
ignorant about the United States.
-N
Jim McCulloch
Visitor at abc...@abcxyz.com wrote on 6/1/2001 2:32 PM:
>"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:3b17aa03...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
So many fallacies, so little time.
I have to say that what you have said here is a remarkable tour de force of
non-engagement with what I had thought was an easy concept. First of all,
my objection to the death penalty is not that it is racist, even if it
should turn out to be so--something I have no certain opinion about. That
disposes of about half of your paragraph. The other half, that we should
attack the causes of racism, rather than its effects, is not something that
I object to, although I see no reason not to attack both, since it is not an
either/or choice.
Could it be that you are avoiding the issue I have raised? I usually snip
all but the immediate antecedent remarks in a thread as a courtesy to
readers, but I have left my original paragraph that you went off on a
totally irrelevant tangent about, and my reformulation of what I was
saying, below, which provoked your present reply that is even less to the
point. Please look back over this material and try to address what I am
actually saying--I see no reason to rephrase it a third time; it is clear
enough as it is.
>>>And we are talking specifically
>>>of the DP. If you wish to go on a rant on racism we can end it here and now,
>>>and declare me the victor...because losers fall back on those types of flimsy
Now, come on, PV! Where, and when, did I say that I think eliminating the
DP will root out racism, or even reduce it? If you are honest, and I think
you are, you will see that I said nothing of the kind. Nor did I say that
the DP was racist. I made an altogether different point, which you
evidently feel you don't need to address, even though (or perhaps
_because_) the point is that your views are contradictory.
>> >Racism, lynch mobs, slavery, the holocaust. All strawmen... all
>>>smoke and mirrors. Racism is not an aberration of the Justice System.It is
>> >a disgraceful aberration of mankind, and the U.S. in particular. The
>> >disenfranchisement of a race is the source of violence which leads
>> >to murder. Not the other way around. Don't try and put the burden
>>>of racism on the DP... it belongs on us all. Abolitionist and Retentionist
>> >alike.
>>
>> This is a very fine speech, but it has nothing to do with what I was
>> talking about.
>>
>
>Your point is that you would ignore the 'cause' and focus on the 'effect.'
>When quite the opposite is how we approach EVERY problem in
>society.
Again, I said nothing of the kind. I said simply that your belief that the
assessment of the DP should be based on both the nature of the crime _and_
the likelihood of recidivism, is flawed. I gave some reasons, which for
whatever reason has provoked a long digression on racism, a subject I never
brought up.
>> >Now to your point.
>>
>> At last.
>>
>> >The only principle that nudges over the edge is
>> >the judgment of the jury, the judge, and all of the principles to the due
>> >process involved in the execution. Certainly there is a clear point
>> >at which the 'executable' criteria is met. And that point is AT THE
>> >IMMEDIATE EXECUTION POINT. Prior to that point, at least one
>> >person, usually many more, are enabled to state the murderer is
>> >NOT at this time DESERVING OF EXECUTION. Some would call it
>> >'due process.'
>>
>> So, you are saying that there are no reasons at all for judge and jury
>> to determine that someone should be executed, except that when they
>> do, they do. Did I get that right? That certainly is what you are
>> actually saying, regardless of what you may be _trying_ to say. You
>> must be trying to say something else, I charitably hope.
>>
>
>Once again... I aparently need to dumb down my reply... you just seem to
>NEVER get it right. Every aspect of the sentencing of ANY penalty is open
>to examination by those given such powers by our society. Juries can
>acquit... Parole boards can pardon... Governors can commute... judges
>can overturn. This applies to the DP and ALL sentences.
Actually, God bless my soul, I see what you are saying. I'm stunned. Your
reply to my point about the contradictions in your own views is that no
matter what the criteria for execution are, since the execution can be
nullified at any point in the appeals process, then it doesn't matter if
the criteria make sense or not. I.e. it makes no difference whether your
own views, or the views of the judge and jury, are flawed, because we have
due process. That makes me want to go right out and salute the nearest
American flag, which as it happens is flying not far from here, larger than
the one over Fort McHenry, over a nearby gas station. As Don Kool might
say, if he had a sense of irony, "is this a great country or what!"
Sorry, I digress sometimes.
>> >> >Now, you've asked for those I consider DESERVING of the DP. And
>> >>>in general, I would support the execution of any of these type murderers,
>> >> >as both deserving and exceptionally dangerous of recidivism.
>> >>
>> >> I suggest to you that _if_ these people deserve to be executed, their
>> >> potential for recidivism has nothing to do with it, and should not be
>> >> considered, for reasons given above.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Are you saying that THE 'potential for recidivism' should NOT be
>> >considered in punishment imposed for crimes? In any crime... in
>> >any sentence?
>>
>> Yes, and I have gone into some detail as to why, as you may remember.
>>
>
>A VERY STRANGE opinion, in my view. Apparently you believe
>society has NO RIGHT to consider whether a specific crime will be
>recommitted by the one convicted of that specific crime. Perhap
> we should thus discard all evidence of ANY recidivism, as totally
>meaningless in our process of Justice. But in a previous post
>you said "I am not proposing that everyone be given the same
>sentence for a given crime. I think we should take individual
>characteristics into account in sentencing." Isn't the possibility
>of recidivism an observable individual characteristic?
I actually did address that. I said that the possibility of backsliding can
be considered statistically, (in which case it is not an "observable
individual characteristic") or it can be considered based on what we know
with certainty of an individual's specific future behavior. I pointed out
that the second case requires that we be omniscient. I don't much approve
of omniscience on the part of mortals even when applied to determining
prison sentences, but it seems very unwise indeed to rely on mortal
omniscience when killing someone because of future misdeeds.
>
>You've already said that as your opinion. But certainly we are
>not even ABSOLUTELY certain if our judgment is correct in the finding
>of guilt/innocence. That's why we use 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
>So why is it now necessary that we use only CERTAINTY in the
>examination of the penalty to be imposed? Why is it not possible
>to have a belief in recidivism of the convicted in terms of 'beyond
>a reasonable doubt' in an examination in that phase as well? In your
>opinion, of course.
Tell me, on your planet do they know beyond a reasonable doubt what a
criminal's future behavior will be? On our planet, the standard "beyond a
reasonable doubt", if it
is indeed knowledge, is applied in retrospect, in deciding if someone has
already done something. Even in the case of drunk drivers, who
statistically are more likely--or so I read somewhere, I am not setting
myself up as an expert here-- more likely than any other criminal offender
to repeat the crime, we do not base our sentencing on their future
behavior, but on their past behavior. There is a widespread sentiment that
some kinds of criminals, like drunk drivers or child molesters, are always
going to do more of the same--but even then, we don't just _assume_ that,
in our sentencing. If we did, we would have LWOP for both, and as far as I
know, that is not something anyone seriously suggests.
In any case, killing someone out of a certainty of their future behavior
seems to me to require that we really be certain. And in reality, we are
not.
>> >> >So now let me ask you! WHY would you NOT support EVEN ONE
>> >> >of ANY of those 3 types of murderers for the DP?
>> >>
>> >> No, I would not. I would support the execution of a terrible serial
>> >> killer if I thought his victims would spring back to life or the loved
>> >> ones of the victims would be made whole and their loss eliminated.
>> >
>> >But that can't happen. The moving finger writes and having writ
>> >MOVES ON. So what you're essentially saying here is 'we need to
>> >forget it and move on, because we can't bring back the victim.'
>>
>> I don't think we should forget it and move on. But pretending that the
>> DP fixes the real problem is foolish.
>>
>
>In your opinion. But, certainly the DP does have SOME aspect of
>'fixing' the problem. That's rather hard to deny.
What actually _is_ the problem, that needs to be fixed? I know of several
problems. One is that someone is dead. That can't be fixed. Another is
that survivors suffer grief. That can in some cases be briefly assuaged by
executing the killer, but if the grief is real it cannot be actually fixed
by execution. Another is that the fabric of public safety and trust has
been rent. This can't be fully repaired, but it can be repaired as well
my way as yours--perhaps better, if my belief should turn out to be true,
that execution itself contributes to a higher level of belief in justified
homicide, which, not very paradoxically, will increase the level of
paranoia and cheapen our regard for life. One can of course argue that the
lower homicide rates generally prevailing in non-DP states and countries
does not necessarily reflect a cause and effect situation--but on the other
hand, it may.
> What needs to
>actually be determined is does or or does it not fix more problems
>than it creates. After all, there's 'that' truism. That certainly'fixes' the
>problem to a greater extent that ANY other penalty. If you need,
>I can provide a number of examples of those convicted murderers
>who DID murder again, regardless of any sentence less than the
>DP. And deterrence is still up for grabs, depending upon one's view.
>If you'd like I can provide you with a recent study from Emory University,
>showing a deterrence effect of the DP to be 18 murders prevented
>per execution, plus or minus 10.
An economist, whose name I forget, proved much the same thing in 1969, if I
remember right, on the basis of the assumptions economists make about human
choices about risk, benefit, and cost. Unfortunately, (for the economists,
not for the rest of us) those figures have never found any empirical
verification in actual murder statistics, if we consider those statistics
worldwide, in the many jurisdictions where the DP has been abolished, or
for that matter reinstated. I wouldn't get too excited about such studies,
if they are deductive in nature, as it sounds like this one is.
>And then there's that feeling that
>justice has been served by many members of the society. Not
>satisfaction, but a perception of our recognition of 'right' from 'wrong.'
>And at least society has found 'closure,' even if no other specific
>individual finds it. And the resolution of the murder is FINALIZED.
The closure argument is similar to my rending of the social fabric
argument, which does not necessarily--or, if examined carefully, even
plausibly-- require the resolution that you suggest (that is, execution).
Why should it?
> > It's a
>> >truism certainly, every bit as much as 'an executed murderer cannot
>> >murder again.' But it's a senseless conclusion. Of course we can't bring
>> >back the dead. But society still has a responsibility to THE MURDERED
>> >victim.
>>
>> Let's say society has a responsibility to all the victims, who not
>> only include the murdered person, but those who are left behind, loved
>> ones, friends, and so on. If you are saying that, I agree. I disagree
>> that our responsibility is to kill the perpetrator.
>>
>No... society has NO responsibility for anyone or anything other than
>the judgment of the murderer as the voice of the victim. The responsibility
>for all others affected by ANY criminal act rests with the perpetrator.
I don't follow your reasoning at all, here. Maybe you could flesh this out a
little. As it stands, these seem to me to be simply arbitrary assertions.
>Don't try to put THAT on the back of society. Society should not feel
>GUILTY for anything it does, in place of someone who has murdered.
>This is the familiar cry we hear lately... 'It's society's fault. Not the
>murderer's. They're just misunderstood.' Society is NOT responsible
>for the pain CAUSED by the murderer which is suffered by those on
>either side of victim or perpetrator.
I think you misunderstand. I am not saying that society is responsible for
the murderer's acts. I am saying that if society owes anything to the
victims of crime, there is usually more than one victim when someone is
murdered. You have yourself said that we owe something to the victim. But
regardless of who the victim or victims are, it is not established merely by
the fact that we have some responsibility to the victim, that that
responsibility is discharged by bumping off the killer.
>Our responsibility is to do whatever
>the LAW provides for. Because the law is the bedrock of our
>civilization. We make human decisions, of course. But that doesn't
>release us from the responsibility to MAKE those decisions. And
>society, through its laws, determines what those responsibilities are.
>And we recognize that we are imperfect in making those decisions.
>Thus we do have the responsibility for possibly executing an innocent
>person, by establishing the DP. That responsibility is enough by itself
>to make the fact that we do use the DP almost overwhelming.
I would agree with much of this, but I would modify your last sentence by
taking out the word "almost". It seems to me to fit better that way with
the rest of what you just said.
>But nowhere, will you find ANY law which claims that we have a
>responsibility for the victim's or the murderer's family or friends. The
>murderer is responsible for their pain. I feel pain for them, certainly
>nowhere near the pain they themselves feel, which I can hardly
>fathom... but absolutely no RESPONSIBILITY.
Again, I would be interested to know why you feel this way. By the way,
aren't you confusing "responsibility for" (as in "society is responsible for
crime") with "responsibility to" (as in society has a "responsibility to the
victim or victims")? The latter is your view--which I agree with-- but
because I think there may be multiple victims to a single murder, that does
not mean that I believe that society is responsible for the murderer's
crime. Far from it.
>> >Who speaks for the victim?
>>
>> Well, to start with, there usually is more than one victim, when
>> someone is murdered. An old friend of mine's son was brutally
>> murdered a about 3 years ago. My friend and his wife and their
>> daughter were very much victims, as well as the son. So, some victims
>> can speak for themselves. They did so, as a matter of fact, expressing
>> very eloquently their feelings that they did not wish the killers to
>> die. More commonly, survivors express a wish that the killers be
>> executed, thinking that somehow the execution rectifies what has
>> happened.
>>
>
>Their son was the victim. Victims are those for which lawful crimes
>exist.
OK, I see. You are using the word in its legal sense. I was using the word
in a normal English sense, and I thought you were too. I can accept the
narrow usage you wish for the word, but you know, that presents a problem
for your view that we owe something to the victim, because the _legal_
murder victim can't be compensated, or helped, or repaid, in that he is
deceased. If we are responsible to the victim--what does that mean? It
sounds like you are using the concept of society being "responsible" to the
victim as a cover for a view can be more accurately expressed as the notion
that society should carry out retribution to make the members of society, or
some of them, feel better for a moment--but in the name of the one person
who cannot possibly appreciate it.
>
>> But "speaking for" the dead person is an exercise in presumption.
>> Surely society can no more speak for the dead than any particular
>> individual can. Why do you think society is capable of that?
>>
>Because we accept that society speaks for us when we become
>members of society.
Who is "we"? I don't accept that. Most of the natives of our planet don't.
We prefer to speak for ourselves. It is one thing to believe in civil
government, as I do, and grant that we have obligations to society as I also
do. Quite another to believe that society is entitled to speak for us. I
think that's baloney.
>Society certainly provides the direction to
>our lives... even to the point of telling us when and when not to
>proceed, with the installation of stop lights at intersections. There are
>actually only two false presumptions. 1) A victim may speak for
>themselves (obviously impossible), or 2) Any individual living
>can speak for the dead victim (also obviously impossible). So
>recognizing that the murderer CANNOT win in such an act as
>murder... recognizing that the victim MUST still have something
>to say as to their existence... we establish laws in which society
>speaks for the victim.
I don't think so. To be quite frank, as far as I know there are no laws
--since we are being legalistic here-- that say that society speaks for
murder victims. Even the benighted legislators of my native state of Texas
are not so daft as to enshrine such nonsense in our criminal code.
"Society" is an abstract concept with a cluster of meanings related to
government, custom, and law, but it is not actually a kind of entity which
speaks, or possibly could speak, for anyone at all. And any
responsibilities of "society" must be expressed through some concrete
mechanism, one of which is government. It is my hope that one day those of
us who oppose the death penalty will convince "society", by which I mean
people who vote, to change the mechanism of government so that we express
our responsibility to those harmed by crime (I will here abandon the word
"victim" for a concept we can both, I think, agree on) in a way that does
not involve killing the criminal.
>As members of society we accept that
>society may do so. Who else would you expect to speak for the
>victim? Who else would you expect to say 'this is what your
>punishment is for the murder you have committed?'
I expect government to do that very thing. I also see very well that it is
neither inevitable nor right that government execute the criminal to fulfill
its responsibility.
>
>> > But with the victim having
>> >been murdered, unable to speak for themselves, does that mean the
>> >murderer WINS?
>>
>> Not if the murderer is apprehended, and sentenced to prison. You have
>> already said that a long prison sentence is more punitive than death
>> (which seems a little off-kilter to me, but even if the normal
>> viewpoint that prison is preferable to death is true, that does not
>> mean that the murderer wins. Does it? How so?)
>>
>But society having apprehended the murderer and sentenced them to
>prison DOES SPEAK FOR THE VICTIM. You would claim that
>society can ONLY speak for the victim up to a certain point. My
>contention is that society can speak for the victim, up to any
>point that society decides the victim WISHES to speak. Thus
>if the question of the DP arises, and society uses such a penalty
>it is quite lawful and proper to do so. Society has a responsibility
>to the victim... I think we agree on that. Where our argument begins
>is at what point does that responsibility END. You believe it ends
>short of the DP. I believe it does not.
OK, I agree with this, more or less.
>Generally speaking... we
>will never resolved this argument because it is totally subjective.
Well, I dunno. In carrying on this fairly difficult conversation, I think I
see to a greater extent where you are coming from, and I think it is
certainly useful to me to do so. I have no actual animosity towards people
who think as you do, and I may --who knows?-- even be able to convince some
of them, speaking to them in a friendly way, that there are some problems
with the death penalty such that they might agree at least that it should be
less commonly used, if not abolished. I suppose I am an optimist.
(screed snipped, because this has become a very long post)
>> This whole very emotional screed is posited on the proposition that
>> prisons must be inhumane. And surely if you believe any of it, you
>> must prefer that pickpockets be executed rather than be subjected to
>> such inidignities.
>>
>Hey... you were the one who claimed you'd get no 'satisfaction' from the
>DP, obliquely inferring that retentionists do.
It was not my intention to imply such a thing. My intention was to make
clear that I had no personal reason to support the DP, because I could
neither see a good "societal" reason to execute murderers, nor did I have a
desire to get back at murderers by killing them (some people do, and
although by definition they would be retentionists, it is not a legitimate
inference from that that all retentionists, or even a majority of them, are
so motivated).
>
>Prisons ARE inhumane. They only vary in DEGREE.
The degree can be very large. I am an optimist also in thinking prison
reform is possible, even though historical example is not on my side.
"Penitentiaries" were a product of a reform movement, whose intention was to
rehabilitate prisoners, make them good citizens, and return them to society.
That reform failed. But the goal was commendable, and may someday even be
partially achieved. I certainly don't think prisons need to brutalize
inmates the way they presently do, and prison reformers have a good chance
of reducing the inhumanity of our present prisons simply by pointing out the
obvious fact that our present prisons breed crime and violence, and the more
brutal we make them the more crime and violence they breed.
>By definition, we
>have REMOVED one of the basic tenets of the rights we believe all should
>have. 'Life,' and 'liberty,' follow immediately one upon the other, in almost
>every document expressing what we as humans have established
>as our rights. And in that context prisons are to some degree, large or
>minute, MEANT to be inhumane. If we have no right to execute - we have
>no right to imprison.
Actually I disagree, but for me to expand on that here would be a burden on
anyone who has not already fallen asleep trying to read this. Suffice it to
say, that even if we have a right to both imprison (personally I think we
do) and to execute (I think we don't), it does not follow that we have a
_duty_ to make prisons hellholes, or a _duty_ to execute at all.
>Surely you don't believe that an ENTIRE life
>spent in incarceration, regardless of how humane we may believe we have
>made that incarceration, is TRULY humane?
I have little enthusiasm for LWOP, and believe a long but indeterminate
sentence will do as well. I prefer LWOP to execution, and would advocate it
only as one of many lesser-of-two-evils choices that we must make in the
real world. A murderer who behaves well, is able in the prison environment
to control his tendency toward violence, and who goes to school or learns
and trade and makes himself employable, should eventually be able to get
out. But it think it is reasonable that quite a long period of observation
take place--lasting perhaps until late middle age-- before some murderers
get out. Of course if they don't behave well, they have themselves chosen to
remain in prison indefinitely.
>Surely you don't believe that
>clustering together certain groups with a high propensity for violence for an
>entire lifetime, can even be seen as 'life?'
You'd have to ask those who are "living" it if they want to exchange it for
"death", wouldn't you?
Best regards,
--Jim McCulloch
A Planet Visitor
"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:B73DB767.12D95%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu...
> in article i5SR6.357373$o9.57...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> Visitor at abc...@abcxyz.com wrote on 6/1/2001 2:32 PM:
>
> >"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:3b17aa03...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
>
> So many fallacies, so little time.
>
Oh... I'm sure you'll spend the time to spread a few more.
Then, pray tell, why did you propose it as a possible 'nudge' factor?
Certainly I made no mention of any racial effects of the DP, so you
must believe that what you said had at least SOME validity. And
because efforts to attack the effect, usually end up allowing the weed
to grow even stronger, and certainly take away resources that could
be better used attacking the cause.
> Could it be that you are avoiding the issue I have raised? I usually snip
> all but the immediate antecedent remarks in a thread as a courtesy to
> readers, but I have left my original paragraph that you went off on a
> totally irrelevant tangent about, and my reformulation of what I was
> saying, below, which provoked your present reply that is even less to the
> point. Please look back over this material and try to address what I am
> actually saying--I see no reason to rephrase it a third time; it is clear
> enough as it is.
>
And I see no reason to explain to you again. Certainly I've tried very
hard to dumb down my answer to your comprehension level, while you
just keep repeating that 'you don't understand my answer.' We can keep
at this all day, if you desire.
You certainly implied that some evidence of racism exists in the
effect that possibly we are using it to 'nudge' those who are black
toward the DP. And you used that argument saying "In that case,
you would be executing him, in part, because of his race." I think
I see your view as contradictory now, since you now say "First of all,
my objection to the death penalty is not that it is racist..." But
obviously that IS one of your objections or you would not have
presented it as the possible 'nudge' factor.
> >> >Racism, lynch mobs, slavery, the holocaust. All strawmen... all
> >>>smoke and mirrors. Racism is not an aberration of the Justice System.It is
> >> >a disgraceful aberration of mankind, and the U.S. in particular. The
> >> >disenfranchisement of a race is the source of violence which leads
> >> >to murder. Not the other way around. Don't try and put the burden
> >>>of racism on the DP... it belongs on us all. Abolitionist and Retentionist
> >> >alike.
> >>
> >> This is a very fine speech, but it has nothing to do with what I was
> >> talking about.
> >>
You, you, you... It's all about you... isn't it? Most of the time I hardly care
what you're talking about, because you make little sense, and then
accuse me of making little sense. So I generally ignore your points,
which you make very ineffectively, and just give my canned speech.
> >
> >Your point is that you would ignore the 'cause' and focus on the 'effect.'
> >When quite the opposite is how we approach EVERY problem in
> >society.
>
> Again, I said nothing of the kind. I said simply that your belief that the
> assessment of the DP should be based on both the nature of the crime _and_
> the likelihood of recidivism, is flawed. I gave some reasons, which for
> whatever reason has provoked a long digression on racism, a subject I never
> brought up.
>
What reasons? Talk about being obtuse. You've hardly addressed
specifically what is your problem with DESERVING. Isn't that the
principle we use in all sentences, not just the DP? And the issue of
recidivism not being part and parcel of the sentencing strikes me as
odd to say the least, that you believe it should have no effect on such
a sentence. Pardon me, but humans are not only supposed to be
backward looking, but forward looking as well. And we do all of those
processes using our reason, rather than a statistical computerized
printout of who should and who shouldn't receive this sentence or
that sentence. That's specifically why we have sentences for specific
crimes that VARY in length. We determine the limiting parameters
through our laws, and we evaluate each to determine where, within those
parameters, a specific convicted falls. What you really expect to do,
as I see it, is prove that we CAN'T set those parameters. If that's the
case... WHY can't we?
Take a pill. Look... it's my opinion that we should base our judgments
on DESERVING and recidivism. You may hold a different view, although
you've clearly failed to explain WHY to me, as you seem to believe I
haven't explained WHY to you. But my WHY, is simply that it's my
opinion that's the way it SHOULD work. And it's my opinion that's
the way the DP generally DOES work. Everyone in due process sees the
process through their subjective eye. But that's simply the Justice
System. It happens with ALL sentences. If you wish to refute my
opinion YOU need to provide PROOF why someone BOTH deserving
of a specific penalty and clearly showing a high possibility of recidivism
for that crime, CANNOT be sentenced to that specific penalty.
So far, you've failed miserably. Now you can claim that YOUR opinion
is BETTER than mine, but I really haven't seen WHAT your opinion even
is, concerning ALL penalties for crimes. What criteria do you believe that
our Justice System uses in the penalty phases of all crimes? Can that
same criteria be used for the DP? If not... why not? What's the UNIQUE
quality that the DP has, that other penalties do not have... aside of course
from the fact that we extract a life.... rather than liberty. Because if that's
your reasoning then just clip everything and I am quite willing to address
that issue specifically.
Well, we just have a fundamental disagreement here, because I
feel it is REASON, rather than omniscience, which would cause us
to examine POSSIBILITIES, rather than exclude them totally as
beyond our grasp to even consider. We prepare for war, based
on the possibility. Less possibility, less preparedness... often to
our distinct disadvantage. We carry umbrellas based on the fact it
might rain, because of having rained earlier in the day. In fact, just
about every action we take examines the future possibility. There is
NO certainty in ANYTHING we do. Certainly, as I pointed out,
we realize that we cannot even convict with any degree of certainty
better than 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' So this lack of omniscience,
certainly doesn't preclude us from even CONSIDERING what possibly
lies ahead. It becomes even MORE essential that we do so in cases
such as murder, IMHO.
> >
> >You've already said that as your opinion. But certainly we are
> >not even ABSOLUTELY certain if our judgment is correct in the finding
> >of guilt/innocence. That's why we use 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
> >So why is it now necessary that we use only CERTAINTY in the
> >examination of the penalty to be imposed? Why is it not possible
> >to have a belief in recidivism of the convicted in terms of 'beyond
> >a reasonable doubt' in an examination in that phase as well? In your
> >opinion, of course.
>
> Tell me, on your planet do they know beyond a reasonable doubt what a
> criminal's future behavior will be? On our planet, the standard "beyond a
> reasonable doubt", if it
> is indeed knowledge, is applied in retrospect, in deciding if someone has
> already done something. Even in the case of drunk drivers, who
> statistically are more likely--or so I read somewhere, I am not setting
> myself up as an expert here-- more likely than any other criminal offender
> to repeat the crime, we do not base our sentencing on their future
> behavior, but on their past behavior. There is a widespread sentiment that
> some kinds of criminals, like drunk drivers or child molesters, are always
> going to do more of the same--but even then, we don't just _assume_ that,
> in our sentencing. If we did, we would have LWOP for both, and as far as I
> know, that is not something anyone seriously suggests.
>
But we certainly DO do it (look at recidivism possibilities), in the case
of child molesters. In fact, we've gone so far as to make them register
and announce their presence in communities after release. And trust
me... those sitting on a jury may not SAY they do it... but I'd disagree
with that analysis. Now drunk drivers I feel we don't do ENOUGH
forward looking analysis in our sentencing. Someone who's been
convicted a few times for DWI, and then goes out and kills someone
while drunk, is a second-degree murderer in my mind, and we SHOULD
be forward looking in our sentencing. I think the reason we're often not,
is that many of us, abuse alcohol ourselves <hic> and subconsciously
relate to the drunk driver at least a bit, while we totally reject any
connection and abhore even more the child molester.
> In any case, killing someone out of a certainty of their future behavior
> seems to me to require that we really be certain. And in reality, we are
> not.
>
Well, I'm certain that many, many murderers who we HAVEN'T executed
have gone on to commit further murders. I won't bore you with the list
that I have of those who have. But it exists in others threads with my
other posts.
Just a minute... the fact that someone has been MURDERED, is a
problem, that can't be fixed? Fixed is a rather relative term. Certainly
when we punish we 'fix' to some extent. No crime can be 'undone.'
If a penalty - any penalty - can't be described as a 'fix' that society
can employ, then we can just junk ALL penalties. We can't undo the
rape, nor the robbery, nor the assault, nor the murder. Bringing
things back to the way they were in ANY crime is not possible. So
in that respect we can 'fix' nothing. Thus your answer seems to be
throw up our hands and say "we can't fix this, because we can't make
things the way they were." Survivors exist for ALL crime, and society
is not responsible for crime. And one can argue just about any point,
but usually we allow for some substance to enter into the argument.
Higher murder rate => Heightened awareness of problem by
members of that society => Heightened pressure on legislators
of the society to solve this problem => Increased possibilities
of harsher penalties for murder => (perceived) need for DP =>
Enactment or retention of DP laws. Certainly the arrows cannot be
drawn in the opposite direction. Higher levels of violence never
lead to calls for REDUCED penalties.
> > What needs to
> >actually be determined is does or or does it not fix more problems
> >than it creates. After all, there's 'that' truism. That certainly'fixes' the
> >problem to a greater extent that ANY other penalty. If you need,
> >I can provide a number of examples of those convicted murderers
> >who DID murder again, regardless of any sentence less than the
> >DP. And deterrence is still up for grabs, depending upon one's view.
> >If you'd like I can provide you with a recent study from Emory University,
> >showing a deterrence effect of the DP to be 18 murders prevented
> >per execution, plus or minus 10.
>
> An economist, whose name I forget, proved much the same thing in 1969, if I
> remember right, on the basis of the assumptions economists make about human
> choices about risk, benefit, and cost. Unfortunately, (for the economists,
> not for the rest of us) those figures have never found any empirical
> verification in actual murder statistics, if we consider those statistics
> worldwide, in the many jurisdictions where the DP has been abolished, or
> for that matter reinstated. I wouldn't get too excited about such studies,
> if they are deductive in nature, as it sounds like this one is.
>
In other words... NO conclusions can be drawn as to deterrence. It
MIGHT be, and it MIGHT not be. This study was much more recent.
Like February of this year, I believe. But I did say it was 'up for grabs.'
Nothing PROVES it is a deterrent, but nothing DISPROVES that it
is a deterrent.
> >And then there's that feeling that
> >justice has been served by many members of the society. Not
> >satisfaction, but a perception of our recognition of 'right' from 'wrong.'
> >And at least society has found 'closure,' even if no other specific
> >individual finds it. And the resolution of the murder is FINALIZED.
>
> The closure argument is similar to my rending of the social fabric
> argument, which does not necessarily--or, if examined carefully, even
> plausibly-- require the resolution that you suggest (that is, execution).
> Why should it?
>
Rending of the social fabric argument? I love that. As if murder doesn't
rend the social fabric. I just love it when logical arguments are reduced
to appeals to emotions.
> > > It's a
> >> >truism certainly, every bit as much as 'an executed murderer cannot
> >> >murder again.' But it's a senseless conclusion. Of course we can't bring
> >> >back the dead. But society still has a responsibility to THE MURDERED
> >> >victim.
> >>
> >> Let's say society has a responsibility to all the victims, who not
> >> only include the murdered person, but those who are left behind, loved
> >> ones, friends, and so on. If you are saying that, I agree. I disagree
> >> that our responsibility is to kill the perpetrator.
> >>
> >No... society has NO responsibility for anyone or anything other than
> >the judgment of the murderer as the voice of the victim. The responsibility
> >for all others affected by ANY criminal act rests with the perpetrator.
>
> I don't follow your reasoning at all, here. Maybe you could flesh this out a
> little. As it stands, these seem to me to be simply arbitrary assertions.
>
There is NO law in place established by society which provides for
the examination of peripheral effects to the families of victims or
murderers, in sentencing. Certainly that isn't an arbitrary assertion.
If you know of such a law, which provides for taking into account the victim's
or murderer's family and friends I'd be interested in seeing that particular
law. Such effects would best be left to social studies 101.
> >Don't try to put THAT on the back of society. Society should not feel
> >GUILTY for anything it does, in place of someone who has murdered.
> >This is the familiar cry we hear lately... 'It's society's fault. Not the
> >murderer's. They're just misunderstood.' Society is NOT responsible
> >for the pain CAUSED by the murderer which is suffered by those on
> >either side of victim or perpetrator.
>
> I think you misunderstand. I am not saying that society is responsible for
> the murderer's acts. I am saying that if society owes anything to the
> victims of crime, there is usually more than one victim when someone is
> murdered. You have yourself said that we owe something to the victim. But
> regardless of who the victim or victims are, it is not established merely by
> the fact that we have some responsibility to the victim, that that
> responsibility is discharged by bumping off the killer.
>
No, I said society SPEAKS for the victim in a murder, because the
voice of the victim has been silenced by the murderer, LEAVING
no one other than society to speak for the victim. The only one who
OWES anything to the victim is the murderer. Society owes only
to collective society, and speaks for the victim to that society, in
determining the appropriate punishment for the murderer. Once
again you've changed the MEANING of my words. You will find
the word 'owe' in none of my previous posts in this thread, until now.
> >Our responsibility is to do whatever
> >the LAW provides for. Because the law is the bedrock of our
> >civilization. We make human decisions, of course. But that doesn't
> >release us from the responsibility to MAKE those decisions. And
> >society, through its laws, determines what those responsibilities are.
> >And we recognize that we are imperfect in making those decisions.
> >Thus we do have the responsibility for possibly executing an innocent
> >person, by establishing the DP. That responsibility is enough by itself
> >to make the fact that we do use the DP almost overwhelming.
>
> I would agree with much of this, but I would modify your last sentence by
> taking out the word "almost". It seems to me to fit better that way with
> the rest of what you just said.
>
That's why it represents MY words, rather than yours. ALMOST, but
not quite there, because we are MORE overwhelmed by the
catastrophic effects of > 10,000 homicides per year... EVERY year.
>
> >But nowhere, will you find ANY law which claims that we have a
> >responsibility for the victim's or the murderer's family or friends. The
> >murderer is responsible for their pain. I feel pain for them, certainly
> >nowhere near the pain they themselves feel, which I can hardly
> >fathom... but absolutely no RESPONSIBILITY.
>
> Again, I would be interested to know why you feel this way. By the way,
> aren't you confusing "responsibility for" (as in "society is responsible for
> crime") with "responsibility to" (as in society has a "responsibility to the
> victim or victims")? The latter is your view--which I agree with-- but
> because I think there may be multiple victims to a single murder, that does
> not mean that I believe that society is responsible for the murderer's
> crime. Far from it.
>
Certainly I do not believe society is SPECIFICALLY responsible FOR
crime. Of course, social injustice LEADS to crime, and to even
murder. But that's the nature of the beast, and we constantly work
to improve our society (I would hope). We realize that without
society we are totally rudderless, and anarchy and vigilantism is
the only other avenue. A course we fundamentally reject, unless
we become hermits. Only an individual can ACTUALLY commit
a crime. So in that respect we are NOT responsible FOR that
individual action. You certainly can't hold society responsible for
an individual act of murder. Further, I still think you're confused
about our responsibility TO the victim. Our responsibility within
the Criminal Justice System extends only to SPEAKING for the
victim. I don't know how far you believe I intended to say our
responsibility extends TO the victim. We certainly OWN them
nothing... we were not the cause of their demise or the grief
of their family. Obviously certain social services aspects OUTSIDE
of the Criminal Justice System have some responsibility to victims
and victim's families. But we're really going far afield now, because
this has nothing to do, at least as far as I can see, with sentencing
a murderer to the DP. Our OBLIGATION is to society IN GENERAL,
rather than a specific individual or group of individuals. Our
responsibility to the victim extends to speaking for the victim, because
the victim can no longer speak for themselves. We OWE nothing to
any specific individual, dead or alive. We own Justice to society in
GENERAL. We administer that Justice through our LAWS.
> >> >Who speaks for the victim?
> >>
> >> Well, to start with, there usually is more than one victim, when
> >> someone is murdered. An old friend of mine's son was brutally
> >> murdered a about 3 years ago. My friend and his wife and their
> >> daughter were very much victims, as well as the son. So, some victims
> >> can speak for themselves. They did so, as a matter of fact, expressing
> >> very eloquently their feelings that they did not wish the killers to
> >> die. More commonly, survivors express a wish that the killers be
> >> executed, thinking that somehow the execution rectifies what has
> >> happened.
> >>
> >
> >Their son was the victim. Victims are those for which lawful crimes
> >exist.
>
> OK, I see. You are using the word in its legal sense. I was using the word
> in a normal English sense, and I thought you were too. I can accept the
> narrow usage you wish for the word, but you know, that presents a problem
> for your view that we owe something to the victim, because the _legal_
> murder victim can't be compensated, or helped, or repaid, in that he is
> deceased. If we are responsible to the victim--what does that mean? It
> sounds like you are using the concept of society being "responsible" to the
> victim as a cover for a view can be more accurately expressed as the notion
> that society should carry out retribution to make the members of society, or
> some of them, feel better for a moment--but in the name of the one person
> who cannot possibly appreciate it.
>
Once again, you will find no mention from me of 'owing' anything to the
victim. We SPEAK for the victim, we have a RESPONSIBILITY to
the victim which extends to speaking for the victim, BECAUSE they
are unable to speak for themselves, and no other individual could
possibly do so. And, as in the case of ALL victims we have a
responsibility to prosecute the offender, because they have broken
laws that society has established. But this responsibility is not
what I would say we 'owe' the victim... because we 'owe' them
nothing. We owe 'ourselves.' All of general society. And we fulfill
that obligation through our Laws and our Justice System.
> >
> >> But "speaking for" the dead person is an exercise in presumption.
> >> Surely society can no more speak for the dead than any particular
> >> individual can. Why do you think society is capable of that?
> >>
> >Because we accept that society speaks for us when we become
> >members of society.
>
> Who is "we"? I don't accept that. Most of the natives of our planet don't.
> We prefer to speak for ourselves. It is one thing to believe in civil
> government, as I do, and grant that we have obligations to society as I also
> do. Quite another to believe that society is entitled to speak for us. I
> think that's baloney.
>
I think it's baloney to say that 'the victim is dead,' we can't 'fix'
that. I've asked the question... Who DOES speak for the murdered
victim? No one? You don't accept that society speaks for US,
in just about EVERY social interaction? What do you believe the
LAW IS, if society doesn't speak for US? You need to understand
that if society is NOT speaking for YOU, because the rules or laws
don't meet your expectations, then society IS speaking for others.
And you would do well to heed those rules and laws, because society
IS entitled to do so. 'We' in the sense of plurality government. If I
had meant 'you,' I think I would have said 'you.'
> >Society certainly provides the direction to
> >our lives... even to the point of telling us when and when not to
> >proceed, with the installation of stop lights at intersections. There are
> >actually only two false presumptions. 1) A victim may speak for
> >themselves (obviously impossible), or 2) Any individual living
> >can speak for the dead victim (also obviously impossible). So
> >recognizing that the murderer CANNOT win in such an act as
> >murder... recognizing that the victim MUST still have something
> >to say as to their existence... we establish laws in which society
> >speaks for the victim.
>
> I don't think so. To be quite frank, as far as I know there are no laws
> --since we are being legalistic here-- that say that society speaks for
> murder victims. Even the benighted legislators of my native state of Texas
> are not so daft as to enshrine such nonsense in our criminal code.
> "Society" is an abstract concept with a cluster of meanings related to
> government, custom, and law, but it is not actually a kind of entity which
> speaks, or possibly could speak, for anyone at all. And any
> responsibilities of "society" must be expressed through some concrete
> mechanism, one of which is government. It is my hope that one day those of
> us who oppose the death penalty will convince "society", by which I mean
> people who vote, to change the mechanism of government so that we express
> our responsibility to those harmed by crime (I will here abandon the word
> "victim" for a concept we can both, I think, agree on) in a way that does
> not involve killing the criminal.
>
Puh...leeze... we're certainly NOT talking in a legal sense. Do you really
think I meant that the prosecutor goes before the jury and says "Sue
Ann Hackenpepper wants me to tell you that Billy Bob Bubba really
murdered her, and he should be put to death. Yes... I'm just speaking for
her, and telling you what she said to me. Oh Lordy... I feel her talkin' to
me now" Our System of Justice speaks for the victim, THROUGH the
LAWS we establish. I too hope for exactly what you do, as soon as
I see that the murderers have stopped or at least slowed down in
committing murder. But I fear that day will NEVER come in my
lifetime, as long as I see Bundy, Gacy, Frank, Greenawalt, Arnold,
McDuff, etc. etc. etc.
> >As members of society we accept that
> >society may do so. Who else would you expect to speak for the
> >victim? Who else would you expect to say 'this is what your
> >punishment is for the murder you have committed?'
>
> I expect government to do that very thing. I also see very well that it is
> neither inevitable nor right that government execute the criminal to fulfill
> its responsibility.
>
Why??? I've provided you dialog after dialog... some meaningful, and
as usual a lot meaningless. But I STILL have not heard a single
argument from you as to WHY we do not have such a right. You
have been very adept at countering some of my arguments, but
you hardly present ANY argument of your own, that doesn't rely
on emotional appeals to 'racism can nudge,' 'families of victims,' 'it's
not right,' 'we can't fix it so a victim can be restored to life,' 'Rending
of the social fabric,' 'we can't be omniscient.' and other sundry snipes
at MY arguments, but I've seen little of yours.
Trust me... I have been pushed to the edge a few times. When I first
came to this newsgroup, a certain David (not BLANTOTO, the other
David), who no longer contributes, gave me some very thoughtful
reasons to analyze what I realized, after a dialog between he and I,
was a very unstructructed argument I had in my support of the DP.
I saw, through him, that I had more of a gut feeling than anything else.
Unfortunately, as I looked closer, a lot of my perceptions changed,
but not my overall belief that the DP is both moral and necessary at
this stage in this society. My view might still be unstructured in the
opinion of many here, but I feel that in my mind I've become aware
of a number of aspects from both sides of the issue, that I never
realized existed before. My basic dilemma is always those 716 executed
in ~25 years, and the perception of how many murders have been
prevented by the executions. Obviously, this is a highly personalized
objective view. Certainly we could do magnitudes better in those we
do execute. I once said that if those 700 could be brought back to
life, and 'I' could judge them, given sufficient time and the entire record
of their murders and past history, as is provided in the sentencing
phase... that I could pick 100 of them to be executed, and I am certain
that only the most hard core abolitionist (perhaps yourself), could find
any problem with my choices. Those 100 would be guilty, totally
deserving, and almost certainly recidivist were they ever to be put
with the general population. Those other 600 or so? You could leave
them to heaven or spank them for all I care. Any normal justice would
handle them... the ass of those 100 belongs to our own self-respect
as to what LIFE is really worth. Of course, that's IMHO... for whatever
that's worth.
I think it's a most difficult task, but I agree with you. One of the largest
problems is SEPARATION. Certainly in a general prison population
you have the incorrigible. And they infect the entire atmosphere for
both guard and prisoner.
> >By definition, we
> >have REMOVED one of the basic tenets of the rights we believe all should
> >have. 'Life,' and 'liberty,' follow immediately one upon the other, in almost
> >every document expressing what we as humans have established
> >as our rights. And in that context prisons are to some degree, large or
> >minute, MEANT to be inhumane. If we have no right to execute - we have
> >no right to imprison.
>
> Actually I disagree, but for me to expand on that here would be a burden on
> anyone who has not already fallen asleep trying to read this. Suffice it to
> say, that even if we have a right to both imprison (personally I think we
> do) and to execute (I think we don't), it does not follow that we have a
> _duty_ to make prisons hellholes, or a _duty_ to execute at all.
>
Of course I agree with this. My entire outlook is that someone is either
'toss in the trash' or 'save and try to rehabilitate.' And I believe our
Justice System throws far too many of one group into the other, and a
few from the other group into the other (if you get my drift). It's also why
I oppose L wop (in addition to my belief it is even more immoral and
inhumane than the DP, under ANY conditions of incarceration short of
daily conjugal visits, projection size TV in every quarters, separate
quarters including private baths and buzzed entry system, and other
amenities we would need to call a 'cell' a 'home.'). I believe the
concept of 'lock em' up and throw away the key' is devoid of any
sense. I believe in a system of 'indeterminate' sentencing with release
within the capability of the offender, even murderers, and DEPENDING
on the offender's progress, rather than 40 years before we even look at
them for parole.
>
> >Surely you don't believe that an ENTIRE life
> >spent in incarceration, regardless of how humane we may believe we have
> >made that incarceration, is TRULY humane?
>
> I have little enthusiasm for LWOP, and believe a long but indeterminate
> sentence will do as well. I prefer LWOP to execution, and would advocate it
> only as one of many lesser-of-two-evils choices that we must make in the
> real world. A murderer who behaves well, is able in the prison environment
> to control his tendency toward violence, and who goes to school or learns
> and trade and makes himself employable, should eventually be able to get
> out. But it think it is reasonable that quite a long period of observation
> take place--lasting perhaps until late middle age-- before some murderers
> get out. Of course if they don't behave well, they have themselves chosen to
> remain in prison indefinitely.
>
Well, there... you see. We hardly disagree on anything if we just substitute
L wop for the DP. :-)
> >Surely you don't believe that
> >clustering together certain groups with a high propensity for violence for an
> >entire lifetime, can even be seen as 'life?'
>
> You'd have to ask those who are "living" it if they want to exchange it for
> "death", wouldn't you?
>
No... we do not ask the convicted which sentence they would prefer. We
are the judges... not they. We decide if clustering together for an entire
lifetime, can even be seen as 'life?' Because we set the rules, not the
murderer. I have the opinion that such is NOT 'life.' Certainly you're free
to hold another opinion. I simply ASKED you if that was what you
believed in my astonishment mode. I'm surprised, of course... but you're
certainly welcome to your opinion that such is BETTER than the DP.
And I should make it clear, that EVERYTHING I say here, is opinion
based... hopefully containing some measure of logic as to our human
behavior, but fully realizing that ALL of the Justice System doesn't work
as we expect it to at all times. I support the DP because I believe it's
logical, moral, and effective as far as humans can achieve those goals.
I believe the Justice System is sorely flawed... but that isn't symptomatic
of the DP... it permeates the entire Justice System, and we MUST
work on THAT problem, and not miss the forest for the trees. I also support
the space program, but realize that the Challenger was a disaster. That
disaster did not cause me to suggest that we abandon our space program.
Best Regards,
St.George
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:3oCR6.363491$fs3.57...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
> Nor would I call those now in the
> majority immoral or soul-corroded
Wha-hey, there it is!
[And DON'T think I read through that, PV - 'twas merely my 'SUPERpvDELETOR
v3.2' search-function.
Unfortunately, although I run it on a pair of Crays, previous versions of my
programme proved incapable of handling the sheer volume of your material,
despite the fact that they could also plot the velocity of every neutrino in
the universe until the end of time, with less than three seconds
calculation...]
St.George
<snip>
> What you just wrote is complete gibberish.
Thanks a bunch, Jim - that's my server down for the next week....
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9fa2gv$ftu$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
to break my record 55 KB to Peter Morris of some time ago. But rest assured,
Mark... I WILL keep trying.
___|___
|
^
PV
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9fa2lt$bet$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
System crash in progress.
PV
St.George
news:i5SR6.357373$o9.57...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
> Blacks were seven times more likely than whites to be homicide victims
> and eight times more likely that whites to commit homicides.
> Eighty-five percent of white murder victims were killed by whites,
> and 94% of black victims were killed by black. (DOJ report Jan 99,
> Homicide trends in the U.S.) You simply fail to understand that the
> ROOT of the problem lies in disenfranchisement which leads to
> violent behavior.
No, you're COMPLETELY wrong, PV.
In fact, the black folks are all more murderous simply because of their
inferior genes. Over the years, you see, there has been a complete division
of different kinds of humans, and it is simply down to one single gene.
This one is the biggest bit of DNA in the chain, and also has links on it
for big lips, drug-dealing, and fast sprinting.
The fact is, PV, that we have all been made different colours, by God, as a
sort of code, because that enables you to tell everything about a person
straight away. It says so in the Bible, you know, AND in the US
constitution! Science has proved it, too.
And frankly, the sooner pinko PC loons like you stop rattling on with silly
ideas like 'equality' the better. It's all your sort's fault with your
'rights' and 'enfranchisement' malarkey - the negros are a simple folk
really, and were far happier when they were left alone to sing merry songs
in the cotton fields, and didn't have to bother their heads with figures and
such that are better left to us.
[...turns, ducks for cover, and runs for the hills...]
St.George
Sorry, PV, it's only showing as 50KB on my server, which is the final
arbiter.
You are still, however, a complete waste of virtual space. I am Brainitor,
and yet I doubt I could muster 50KB if I wrote down every intelligent
thought I had for an entire day!
Hence, one of the following logically must be true:
(1) You are the most intelligent and interesting person in the world; or
(2) A large amount of what you churn out is complete drivel.
I simply cannot decide which is true...
St.George
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:9f6ohh$l72$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>
>> I've pointed out before
> > that Mark is a drunk... obese... chain smoker... general
> > lecher... lazy layabout Socialist schemer... double-dealing,
> > two timing skunk to his former girlfriend... and possessed
> > of other less than redeeming qualities... not the least of which
> > is being a dedicated troll.
You're a damned liar, PV - I'm NOT a socialist.
St.George
<snip>
> <Smiley face on>
> Come on, Neil. Mark is just having fun. You need to read
> his posts in a different light... I've pointed out before
> that Mark is a drunk... obese... chain smoker... general
> lecher... lazy layabout Socialist schemer... double-dealing,
> two timing skunk to his former girlfriend... and possessed
> of other less than redeeming qualities... not the least of which
> is being a dedicated troll. Although he has denied being a
> Socialist. but no one can say he's not interesting at times.
> To be truthful, I rather enjoy Mark, at times, and you should
> perhaps remember about that SOH. Because damned if I
> don't forget it at times, myself.
>
> Mark's flown off the handle a number of times, but by and large,
> he's not nearly the ogre you've made him out to be. And
> you'll find if you wait just a little while, all is kissy-kissy and
> you will find another post of his to argue about, thoroughly
> forgetting what it was that first caused you to disagree. Your
> argument with him is not on the same level as 'dirtdog' and
> myself, which began in obscenities, and can never heal.
You're right, it's not on the same level.
Your argument is completely frivolous. Even if you weren't both anonymous,
you still wouldn't know each other, and so your troll insults would still be
wholly irrelevant.
OTOH, my problem with Neil is as serious as it gets on Usenet, because he
involves himself in serious discussions, but his conduct makes it impossible
to carry on a serious discussion!
You've seen the evidence, PV - he simply refuses to avoid wanton
dissembling. It is not just a case of arguing strawmen, or avoiding
issues - almost everyone does those to some extent - but the way he wilfully
lies about what has been said. Not 'misinterpreted', not 'taken licence
with', not 'creatively argued', but just lies.
It wasn't as if I lack in proof. I have gone through a whole series of
reactions, starting with no comment, then gentle chiding, then sarcasm, then
irritation, then anger; as I travelled slowly from pointing out, to accusing
of 'selectivity', misinterpreting, then 'misquoting', being 'deliberately
misleading', 'dissembling', 'wilful dishonesty', and finally outright
'lying', and after egregious examples, even 'fucking lying'!
John said that Neil is the most dishonest poster he has ever seen on this
NG, and he is quite right. Simply, there have been so many examples - so
many chances given - that the possibility of it all having been just
mistakes is nil.
After all, you know how moderate John is, and how he certainly won't be
dictated to by me in his opinions, so if he is so irritated by Neil, then it
is evidently far more than just "insults". After all, who do I ever
killfile? I even read Koolio, for God's sake - Neil is the only person I
can ever remember doing this to.
You
> both need to come out, shake hands, look each other in eye,
> spit at the ground in front of each other, and began a new round
> of insults, rather than just grabbing at any old post.
I certainly don't mind a bit of flaming, PV, but there has also got to be a
time for genuine intellectual debate. Neil not only flames me, but shows
little or no humour as well as extreme dishonesty. I could certainly put up
with the lies if he ever cracked a joke, but his SOH is as non-existent as
his integrity.
After all, PV, how will dialogue with Neil enrich my existence?
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9fa4ms$ha4$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
The existence of (1) does not preclude the existence of (2) as well.
In fact, throughout history it has been recognized that (1) almost
invariably leads to (2).
Case in point..... the poster I am responding to.
___|___
|
^
PV
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9fa3v8$gqe$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
you are even the SLIGHTEST bit racist. Quite the opposite is the truth
in my view. Most of your comments, as here, represent nothing more
than your zeal to flaunt the fact that you SEE racism, and ridicule it. I
do believe it caused you to get yourself in deep do-do, with the 'genes'
argument, because I and others took you very seriously in the WORDS
you used. Nevertheless, your present post is more representative of
the true disgust you feel for racism, rather than any ACTUAL racism
on your part.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9facrj$vtr$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:upyR6.361218$fs3.57...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> <snip>
> After all, who do I ever
> killfile? I even read Koolio, for God's sake - Neil is the only person I
> can ever remember doing this to.
>
Somebody has killfiled Don Kool???? That's news to me!!!
I'd rather miss 'Shoe' in the comics than Don Kool. Trust me,
Don has provided me many a laugh. For comparison, let me
relate today's 'Shoe' comic, for those who don't receive it.
In the first panel, the two birds are in a boat fishing, and one
is pouring a bottle of scotch into the water, and the other says
"What the heck are you doing?" And in the second panel the other
replies "They're easier to catch when they're relaxed." Now,
THAT'S Don Kool humor. And the thing is that I don't write a
'letter to the editor' every time I see one of the humorous
comics... and we should (IMHO), not killfile Don Kool, but
neither should we stir the pot with responding to him. Personally,
I hope he NEVER leaves, regardless of what I see as sometimes
offensive postings.
In fact, Mark... doesn't the latest 'Shoe' comic I described remind
you of another troll????
PV
A Plenary Verbositor
Since "Planet Visitor's" brain is both a wildlife refuge and a gas
reservoir, exploiting it would seem to be the environmentally safe
alternative to the Bushmens' head jobs about arctic caribou
molestation.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A Planet Visitor
"A Plenary Verbositor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message news:3B192021...@abcxyz.com...
Some people search for the Fountain of Knowledge... Plenary Verbositor
is still looking for the toilet paper.
PV
Neil
> OTOH, my problem with Neil is as serious as it gets on
> Usenet, because he involves himself in serious
> discussions, but his conduct makes it impossible to
> carry on a serious discussion!
>
> You've seen the evidence, PV - he simply refuses to
> avoid wanton dissembling. It is not just a case of
> arguing strawmen, or avoiding issues - almost everyone
> does those to some extent - but the way he wilfully lies
> about what has been said.
My response:
Throughout our discussions, we've disagreed about many
things. On a few occasions, Mark has made a few colossal
blunders, such as his Clinton/media accusation. I pointed
those blunders out and even went so far as to document them.
In the course of my sometimes lengthy explanations of why he
was wrong, Mark claimed that a few factual assertions here
and there in my posts were wrong. He then built those
supposed errors, most of which had very little or no
relevance to the issue we were discussing (and almost all of
which I do not agree were errors in the first place), into
what he claims were "deliberate" lies by myself. He then
used that accusation as an excuse to killfile me, which is
understandable because most people react to being made a
fool of in public by burying their heads in the sand and
running away. The usenet equivalent of doing that is
employing the killfile.
To be a bit more detailed and provide an example of his
method of avoiding the issues, once again I'll repeat the
most prominent disagreement we have had:
Mark claimed the US media was liberal-biased while the UK
media was not. As evidence he pointed to a British columnist
accusing Bill Clinton of conspiring with Arkansas drug
dealers to commit a litany of horrendous crimes, and the
fact that the US media had failed to report such matters.
I did something people on Usenet are not accustomed to
seeing: I used the tools I have available to me, did the
research, and produced every relevant article in both the UK
and the US on the issue. My research revealed the following:
(1) the British columnist Mark cited as evidence of the
British media's neutrality was a right-wing partisan and not
a pure "journalist"; (2) the columnist's accusations were
not based on factual evidence but rather on what various
"anonymous" individuals in Washington had told him (i.e.,
rumour); and (3) the US media had picked up the accusations
3 years prior to the British columnist's attack on American
media bias, and rejected the accusations due to their
groundlessness.
Faced with this, how did Mark respond? What happened to his
battle cry of American media bias versus British media
"neutrality"?
He never responded to it. Instead, he tried to disassociate
himself from the stupidity of his compatriot columnist's
accusations. Among other things, he claimed that he'd never
reported the columnist's accusations as "facts", but merely
as allegations.
Of course, once those allegations have been debunked, any
claim involving how the US and UK media have reported such
allegations as evidence of their respective biases is just
plain stupidity, and that was my entire point: it was simply
stupid to claim there was a significant difference in media
bias in the 2 countries, and the evidence he cited of such
bias was laughable. (John Rennie by the way chimed in at
some point to blindly agree that bias exists in the US where
it does not in the UK. Idiot.)
Did Mark ever admit to this blunder? No. Instead, he went
into a raging fury over whether my post correctly described,
to his personal satisfaction, whether he technically
reported the columnist's accusations as facts he believed in
or not. If you have to read that sentence twice to
understand what the hell it means or how it's important, you
won't be the first.
It's these kind of semantical, irrelevant tangents Mark gets
into when he paints himself into a corner with his own
incompetency and ignorance. And, I'm sorry to say, John
Rennie has also employed similar tactics. The pair are what
I consider to be typical of Usenet debaters: they are
intellectually dishonest and they don't like to be proven
wrong in public.
I have no interest in having dialogues with them, and if
they choose to disable their ability to read my criticism of
them, more power to them. Britain apparently has a thriving
population of ostriches.
> After all, PV, how will dialogue with Neil enrich my
> existence?
It won't, as long as I am here to point out your errors,
attack your groundless assertions, and laugh at your English
arrogance.
-N
St.George
<snip>
> Not at all, Mark. I can state here and for the record, that I do not
believe
> you are even the SLIGHTEST bit racist. Quite the opposite is the truth
> in my view.
Damn - you've seen through my trolls...
Most of your comments, as here, represent nothing more
> than your zeal to flaunt the fact that you SEE racism, and ridicule it. I
> do believe it caused you to get yourself in deep do-do, with the 'genes'
> argument, because I and others took you very seriously in the WORDS
> you used. Nevertheless, your present post is more representative of
> the true disgust you feel for racism, rather than any ACTUAL racism
> on your part.
Actually, I wouldn't say that 'true disgust' is my reaction, as such.
Frankly, I have extreme difficulty taking _racialist_ sentiments seriously
enough to be actually disgusted by them.
You view anyone who wishes to actually discriminate against individuals
based of the colour of their skin as _immoral_.
That's fine, but frankly I don't even get that far in consideration. The
first test I apply to any proposition is a test of logic - does the
sentiment stand up to pure reason?
If it passes this test, then the notion can proceed to the second stage - of
subjectivity and value-judgements, politics and morals. However, racialism
doesn't even _qualify_ for a moral judgement from me - it quite literally is
beneath contempt, not even reaching the standard required to earn an
emotional reaction of ANY kind.
This is why I bandy around 'non-PC' terms and do not care - because I know
that any rational reader will not imply anything from them that will get me
"...in deep do-do...".
Unfortunately, the reaction I got here, from virtually everyone,
demonstrates that I _vastly_ overestimated the levels of intelligence and
reason on this newsgroup.
Silly me...
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9fhvtc$th2$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:op7S6.365732$o9.58...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
<clip>
> > Nevertheless, your present post is more representative of
> > the true disgust you feel for racism, rather than any ACTUAL racism
> > on your part.
>
>
> Actually, I wouldn't say that 'true disgust' is my reaction, as such.
> Frankly, I have extreme difficulty taking _racialist_ sentiments seriously
> enough to be actually disgusted by them.
>
You don't take racism seriously? You may well express your 'true
disgust' with sarcasm and irony... but I find it IMPOSSIBLE to not take
seriously a destructive social phenomenon which has been responsible for
everything from slavery to lynching to rage to violence to murder to God
knows what....
> You view anyone who wishes to actually discriminate against individuals
> based of the colour of their skin as _immoral_.
>
> That's fine, but frankly I don't even get that far in consideration. The
> first test I apply to any proposition is a test of logic - does the
> sentiment stand up to pure reason?
>
But how do we react to a proposition that does not stand up to pure reason,
yet fundamentally impacts on a personal level, a large number of the
members of our species? Do we simply say --- "Oh, well, that proposition
certainly doesn't meet pure reason, therefore I will ignore it?" Logic
may be all well and good in the theoretical world, but in the REAL world
illogical phenomenon has been responsible for more tragedy that one
can imagine.
> If it passes this test, then the notion can proceed to the second stage - of
> subjectivity and value-judgements, politics and morals. However, racialism
> doesn't even _qualify_ for a moral judgement from me - it quite literally is
> beneath contempt, not even reaching the standard required to earn an
> emotional reaction of ANY kind.
>
Yes, but this is the part where having NO emotional reaction to a REAL
phenomenon fails to fulfill our obligation to each other. For example...
how would YOU feel, toward your fellow man, if you were BLACK-BLACK,
and found just about every social door closed to you, solely BECAUSE
you were BLACK-BLACK? Holding something beneath contempt as you
claim, doesn't ACTUALLY provide any contempt for the phenomenon at all.
You've essentially IGNORED it. And as your older countrymen will tell you,
ignoring a phenomenon (by words such as 'Peace in our time'), NEVER
works. There is actually no such thing as 'beneath contempt.' It is contempt
'all the way down.'
> This is why I bandy around 'non-PC' terms and do not care - because I know
> that any rational reader will not imply anything from them that will get me
> "...in deep do-do...".
>
But that's the point.... you 'should' care.
> Unfortunately, the reaction I got here, from virtually everyone,
> demonstrates that I _vastly_ overestimated the levels of intelligence and
> reason on this newsgroup.
>
It is when one 'underestimates' the level of intelligence that one finds themselves
in deep do-do.
> Silly me...
>
Well, if you claim that 'racism' is not logical and so is beneath your contempt, and
can thus be ignored... I think you are somewhat silly.
PV
John Rennie
Agreed. Racialism is an enemy to be fought not ignored. Mark's attitude
here may go some way to explaining his peculiar view of Mandela.
David Marc Nieporent
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> Such a concern is truly perplexing, since the vast majority of murders by
>> convicted felons, both in prison and out, are committed by felons who were
>> never convicted of capital murder.
>As a percentage of murders committed by former felons, those
>who have been convicted of MURDER are far more likely to be
>rearrested for the crime of homicide. I base that on a DOJ report
>which I will provide the URL to if you're interested. This report
>confirms that
>Former murderers are rearrested for homicide at 6.6%
>Former Rapists are rearrested for homicide at 2.8%
>Former Robbers are rearrested for homicide at 2.9%
>Former Assaults are rearrested for homicide at 1.7%
>Former ALL Offenses are rearrested for homicide at 1.6%
Is there a reason you use an irrelevant statistic like "percentage
rearrested" when the correct statistic would be "percentage reconvicted?"
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
A Planet Visitor
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message news:nieporen-DA29EF...@news.fu-berlin.de...
that in the aggregate rearrest is the most reliably reported measure of
recidivism." (DOJ study, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983).
Other measures such as you suggest ignore the possibility of neither
arrest nor conviction for crimes ACTUALLY committed. Of course,
AN INDIVIDUAL is innocent until proven guilty, but in measurements
of factors such as recidivism these possibilities MUST be accounted
for, thus the difference represented by rearrests would tend to hopefully
cancel out.
Nevertheless, I find it somewhat ARROGANT of you to claim a
statistic is IRRELEVANT because you don't LIKE what it portrays.
The statistics portray what they are MEANT to portray and no hidden
meaning was contained in the statistics, as you would perhaps imply.
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:fDtT6.403761$o9.63...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
statistic,not very well hidden but still hidden.
You use it to persuade us that murderers that are
released are a danger to society-more so than
the average man in the street. 6.6% are recidivist
you have proclaimed for many, many months.
Well its just is not so! What is hidden is the
difference between arrested and convicted.
Until you can provide the
convicted figure 6.6% remains a highly unreliable
statistic and you shouldn't use it. Surely it is
not beyond the collective wit of the posters
on this news group to provide
the 'convicted' figure ?
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message news:9fm1so$6vj$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Whoa... if the 'average man in the street' were arrested
as many times for homicide as those who have been
convicted of murder we would have 18,480,000 arrests
for homicide (280,000,000 X .066). Let me understand
what you're trying to say here. A convicted murderer
is NO MORE dangerous than 'the average man in the
street???'
> What is hidden is the
> difference between arrested and convicted.
> Until you can provide the
> convicted figure 6.6% remains a highly unreliable
> statistic and you shouldn't use it.
'I' do not USE it. The DOJ USED it. I simply reported it.
I believe that the source is just a little more believable
than other sites containing the word 'abolish' within
their URL. I would suppose that you would only consider
recidivism to have happened if a murderer was executed,
rose from the grave, murdered again, was convicted again,
and executed again. And even then you'd probably claim
a certain percentage of THEM were TRULY innocent.
Perhaps you and Mark can get your stories straight with
half-hang Smith and Patrick 'The mummy that walks.' Until
then, let's stick with what 'criminologists have concluded'
rather than what you've concluded.
> Surely it is
> not beyond the collective wit of the posters
> on this news group to provide
> the 'convicted' figure ?
>
Be my guest. But please, not from a site containing 'abolish'
in its URL.
PV
John Rennie
Are sites containing 'retain' that more reliable?
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message news:9fmh4q$h14$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
___|___
|
^
PV
St.George
<snip>
>
> Agreed. Racialism is an enemy to be fought not ignored. Mark's
attitude
> here may go some way to explaining his peculiar view of Mandela.
What IS my view of Mandela, exactly, John?
After all, you must be reading my mind, because nothing I wrote is remotely
"peculiar". But hey, let's see YOU make it look peculiar by referencing
ACTUAL things I have SAID, rather than what your senility-hampered memory
and political extremism combine irrationally to ascribe some non-existent
subtext that you have plucked from thin air.
You'd better move on to another topic and regain those lost IQ points
quick-smart, John, because I don't think people as retarded as you can
vote...
St.George
<snip>
> You don't take racism seriously?
I don't take the _argument_ for it seriously; i.e. there is no rational one.
Obviously, someone putting racialism into practice in a hostile and illegal
is indeed a serious matter. Of course it is. Yet again we have the problem
that many people drop about eighty IQ points as soon as this topic is
mentioned. Having previously discussed my feelings on the Nazis, for
example, and my feelings for the concept of racialism as "beneath contempt",
how could you ask the sort of question above if in control of your full
faculties?
I simply would have been quite certain that no-one could possibly take a
description of the argument as "beneath contempt" as tolerance of the
ACTION, for God's sake! Yet that is what you imply above. Maybe eighty
points is an understatement - I don't know your normal IQ, but you wouldn't
qualify for the d.p. even in Texas by this evidence.
<snip>
> But how do we react to a proposition that does not stand up to pure
reason,
> yet fundamentally impacts on a personal level, a large number of the
> members of our species? Do we simply say --- "Oh, well, that proposition
> certainly doesn't meet pure reason, therefore I will ignore it?"
Congratulations. You just recorded the first negative IQ ever.
I'd just LOVE you to show me where I said that racial crime should be
'ignored'....
<snip>
. For example...
> how would YOU feel, toward your fellow man, if you were BLACK-BLACK,
> and found just about every social door closed to you, solely BECAUSE
> you were BLACK-BLACK?
What on earth is BLACK-BLACK? Doesn't 'black' do?? Besides, your question
is a strawman. You're implying that I should want to 'cure' people of
racism, but I am yet to hear how this should be done.
Holding something beneath contempt as you
> claim, doesn't ACTUALLY provide any contempt for the phenomenon at all.
> You've essentially IGNORED it.
Crap.
And as your older countrymen will tell you,
> ignoring a phenomenon (by words such as 'Peace in our time'), NEVER
> works. There is actually no such thing as 'beneath contempt.' It is
contempt
> 'all the way down.'
>
> > This is why I bandy around 'non-PC' terms and do not care - because I
know
> > that any rational reader will not imply anything from them that will get
me
> > "...in deep do-do...".
> >
>
> But that's the point.... you 'should' care.
I don't care about irrational counter-arguments, and I'm certainly not going
to moderate my arguments or language simply to satiate the PC desires of
some anonymous handles who might misinterpret.
> > Unfortunately, the reaction I got here, from virtually everyone,
> > demonstrates that I _vastly_ overestimated the levels of intelligence
and
> > reason on this newsgroup.
> >
>
> It is when one 'underestimates' the level of intelligence that one finds
themselves
> in deep do-do.
Eh? Had you all been less dim-witted, I would have saved myself the boredom
of making countless tedious, repetitive and childishly obvious
counter-arguments. Hence, I conclude that some of the people on this NG
find themselves in very little danger of having their intelligence
"underestimated" by anyone, ever.
> > Silly me...
> >
> Well, if you claim that 'racism' is not logical and so is beneath your
contempt, and
> can thus be ignored... I think you are somewhat silly.
Well, I think you're more than somewhat silly - you can be idiotic beyond
belief in fact.
Let us analyse the line above:
(1) You point out that I claim racialism is "not logical"
(2) You point out that I view it as 'beneath contempt'.
(3) You conclude that I therefore claim it can "thus be ignored"
To conclude (3) from (1) & (2) is a quite breathtaking achievement.
Neil
> What IS my view of Mandela, exactly, John?
>
> After all, you must be reading my mind, because nothing
> I wrote is remotely "peculiar".
As I recall, you seem to think he is a criminal, deserving
of severe punishment, for committing acts of violence
against the racist and tyrannical apartheid regime in South
Africa.
-N
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9fn3f7$qlm$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:fa6T6.391921$o9.62...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > You don't take racism seriously?
>
>
> I don't take the _argument_ for it seriously; i.e. there is no rational one.
>
> Obviously, someone putting racialism into practice in a hostile and illegal
> is indeed a serious matter. Of course it is. Yet again we have the problem
> that many people drop about eighty IQ points as soon as this topic is
> mentioned. Having previously discussed my feelings on the Nazis, for
> example, and my feelings for the concept of racialism as "beneath contempt",
> how could you ask the sort of question above if in control of your full
> faculties?
There being 'no rational argument for it,' and being IYHO 'beneath contempt,'
is hardly a reason to pretend that it DOESN'T EXIST, and thus requires
'no emotional reaction of any kind' from you.
>
> I simply would have been quite certain that no-one could possibly take a
> description of the argument as "beneath contempt" as tolerance of the
> ACTION, for God's sake! Yet that is what you imply above. Maybe eighty
> points is an understatement - I don't know your normal IQ, but you wouldn't
> qualify for the d.p. even in Texas by this evidence.
>
Your tolerance lies in the statement that it (racism) requires 'no emotional reaction
of any kind' from you.
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > But how do we react to a proposition that does not stand up to pure
> > reason,
> > yet fundamentally impacts on a personal level, a large number of the
> > members of our species? Do we simply say --- "Oh, well, that proposition
> > certainly doesn't meet pure reason, therefore I will ignore it?"
>
> Congratulations. You just recorded the first negative IQ ever.
>
> I'd just LOVE you to show me where I said that racial crime should be
> 'ignored'....
>
>
Let's see. 'Ignored' would be to have NO emotional reaction whatsoever. Well,
your words in the post past:
"it (racism) quite literally is beneath contempt, not even reaching the standard
required to earn an emotional reaction of ANY kind." Thus you find it
doesn't even 'qualify' for a moral judgment from you.
> <snip>
>
> . For example...
> > how would YOU feel, toward your fellow man, if you were BLACK-BLACK,
> > and found just about every social door closed to you, solely BECAUSE
> > you were BLACK-BLACK?
>
>
> What on earth is BLACK-BLACK? Doesn't 'black' do?? Besides, your question
> is a strawman. You're implying that I should want to 'cure' people of
> racism, but I am yet to hear how this should be done.
>
>
Racism certainly is often a matter of skin tone and appearance. Whites
who are racist feel less uncomfortable meeting light-skinned black.
When seeking employment and those hiring are white, interviewing
blacks, the 'black' has a better chance than the 'black-black' if the
interviewer is bigoted. In any quote system, such actions meet the
strict requirements of any quota system, but fail to look any deeper
into the TRUE problem. Trust me, racism is an insidious disease,
which CANNOT be ignored. And I never imply that you are a doctor,
able to CURE it. But that does not mean you can't comment on the hypocrisy
of what you consider 'beneath contempt?' Hitler was 'beneath contempt'
on 1 Sep 39. Would England have been correct to 'have no emotional
reaction,' to that act? Murder is 'beneath contempt.' Must we also 'have
no emotional reaction' to that act?
qui tacet consentit - He who is silent consents.
> Holding something beneath contempt as you
> > claim, doesn't ACTUALLY provide any contempt for the phenomenon at all.
> > You've essentially IGNORED it.
>
> Crap.
>
This is certainly one of your problems, Mark. You often don't recognize
that you've been thoroughly shown to have overstepped the bounds of
reason, but you continue to argue futilely. Look... you clearly stated racism
is 'beneath contempt.' Being such you further remark that it has not
earned the distinction of requiring 'an emotional reaction of any
kind,' on your part. How DO you determine that you have ignored
something, if not that you have 'no emotional reaction of any kind?"
> And as your older countrymen will tell you,
> > ignoring a phenomenon (by words such as 'Peace in our time'), NEVER
> > works. There is actually no such thing as 'beneath contempt.' It is
> contempt
> > 'all the way down.'
> >
> > > This is why I bandy around 'non-PC' terms and do not care - because I
> > > know
> > > that any rational reader will not imply anything from them that will get
> > > me
> > > "...in deep do-do...".
> > >
> >
> > But that's the point.... you 'should' care.
>
>
>
> I don't care about irrational counter-arguments, and I'm certainly not going
> to moderate my arguments or language simply to satiate the PC desires of
> some anonymous handles who might misinterpret.
>
The arguments you don't care about are those that show you are
somewhat arrogant in many of your comments. But truth is, you
DO care. Otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to claim that I misinterpreted
your VERY CLEAR implication in the words you wrote. You've
even implied as much when you posted another comment to me... saying
"I don't know WHY I care?"
> > > Unfortunately, the reaction I got here, from virtually everyone,
> > > demonstrates that I _vastly_ overestimated the levels of intelligence
> > > and
> > > reason on this newsgroup.
> > >
> >
> > It is when one 'underestimates' the level of intelligence that one finds
> themselves
> > in deep do-do.
>
>
>
> Eh? Had you all been less dim-witted, I would have saved myself the boredom
> of making countless tedious, repetitive and childishly obvious
> counter-arguments. Hence, I conclude that some of the people on this NG
> find themselves in very little danger of having their intelligence
> "underestimated" by anyone, ever.
>
>
Ah yes. Attack the messenger... when you have no logical response
to the MESSAGE.
> > > Silly me...
> > >
> > Well, if you claim that 'racism' is not logical and so is beneath your
> contempt, and
> > can thus be ignored... I think you are somewhat silly.
>
>
>
> Well, I think you're more than somewhat silly - you can be idiotic beyond
> belief in fact.
>
Sure... sure... sure. It couldn't be that YOU'RE slightly idiotic in your
claim to have 'no emotional reaction of any kind.'
> Let us analyse the line above:
>
>
> (1) You point out that I claim racialism is "not logical"
>
> (2) You point out that I view it as 'beneath contempt'.
>
> (3) You conclude that I therefore claim it can "thus be ignored"
>
>
> To conclude (3) from (1) & (2) is a quite breathtaking achievement.
>
No... your EXACT words: "it (meaning racism) quite literally is
beneath contempt, not even reaching the standard required to earn an
emotional reaction of ANY kind."
Lacking no 'emotional reaction' from you is CERTAINLY the same as
saying it can "thus be ignored."
PV
Peter Morris
"St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9facrj$vtr$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
A few brief thoughts, Mark.
I can sympathise with you to a certain extent. But
it seems to me that you have it easy, compared to what I
have had to endure. For a whole year now Planet Visitor
has been carrying on an insane wendetta against me.
Every accusation you make about Neil, PV has done
multiplied by a thousand. Time after time after time,
PV has made attack after attack on me, almost every
one based on a direct misrepresentation of what was said.
Now, whenever I try to discuss anything at all, my posts
will invariably be met with an abusive response from PV
attacking me for something he falsely claims I said in a
previous post. Of course, he has added words, or removed
words, totally altering the meaning.
I certainly disagree that "Neil is the most dishonest poster...
on this NG " That honour has to go to PV. Certainly
on the sheer quantity of lies, PV leaves Neil standing.
Also, Neil is a much more reasonable person than
PV has ever been. He certainly seems a lot more
polite, a greaty deal more intelligent, and obviously
less verbose. Much of the stuff that PV comes out
with are really appalling vile thingsd that really
disgust me. I simply cannot see Neil stooping to PVs
depths in a million years.
Essentially, take Neils worst features, multiply them
by a hundred, remove all his good points, add large
quantities of waffle, vitriol and obsession, and you
have Planet Visitor. So I renew a question I've asked
you before, but not received a satisfactory answer to.
Why do you respect PV? If you dislike Neil for the
lies he tells, why not PV who is *much* more dishonest,
IMHO.
And BTW, not that I don't believe you when you say
that Neil lies, but what specifically are you referring to?
I've had a couple of encounters with Neil myself, and while
he is certainly no Richard Jackson, I dont think he deserves
what you say about him. Can you cite a specific example of
his dishonesty? Something you said, and what he claims you
said.
One final point. You have killfiled Neil. I think this is a
big mistake. I would never killfile PV. Doing so would
save me from having to read his vile drivel, but it would
also give him the chance to say anything he wants behind
my back, which would go unchallenged. Of course,
answering every one of PV's lies would be a full time job,
but once in a while I have to point out just how dishonest
he really is. I would strongly suggest you treat Neil the same
way.
--
_____________________________
/___________________________(_)
| ___________________________ email to
| | |________________________(_) Peter_Morris_1
| |/__________________________ at Hotmail dot com
|___________________________(_)
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9folhi$dc1$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
>
> "St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:9facrj$vtr$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
<mindless drivel clipped>
I would suppose, Peter that you do not consider what you just posted to
be insulting. But... Know thyself, fool.
Nevertheless - two specific questions.
1) Did you not FIRST accuse me of being a coward?
2) Did you not FIRST accuse me of posting the word 'buggery' in respect
to Desmond, and then deny that you had done so?
I rest my case, you SSOS.
PV
wankyfish the exterminator
PETER MORRISSS HAS'NT GOT A CLUE BECOS HE SEEMS TO LIKE EVIL PEOPLE.
THE EXTERMINATOR
A Planet Visitor
"wankyfish the exterminator" <wank...@thesea.com> wrote in message news:8820its64s3kr5mha...@4ax.com...
PV
St.George
My answer is the same as before - I just don't really see these
characteristics in PV. However, I am absolutely prepared to concede that
the lack of notice by me of something does not in itself deny that it
exists!
I will say one thing - that the specific examples you quote that I have seen
are less than totally convincing. Most recently, I think, was when I made a
mistake (an honest one!) in thinking PV was wrong to claim that none of the
Furman-freed had proved to be innocent after all, IIRC.
Anyway, the specifics are hazy, but I had made some sort of a 'technical'
mistake; you accused PV of dishonesty, and I concluded that IMHO you had
both interpreted the facts in a way seriously favourable to your arguments,
but neither of you could be accused of actually lying. I am very reluctant
to bandy that accusation about, which is why I use it about only two people
here (Sharp being the other), and I only escalated euphemisms until I was
convinced that the accusation was justified.
I wouldn't even classify PV as even 'wilfully misinterpreting', yet, which
means he would have to go through that stage, as well as 'dishonesty', then
'dissembling', 'deliberate misrepresentation', and finally 'inexcusable
gross dishonesty' before qualifying for the L-word....and later an F-word
before it!
However, PV has certainly recently increased in cantankerousness, senility
and illogicality, and decreased in humour....but I still personally believe
he is an idiot before he is a liar. That said, you accuse him of having
"added words". If you have an example of him having clearly misrepresenting
you by dishonestly and deliberately passing off as _verbatim_ something that
you did not write, then you have a cast-iron case of lying.
If, however, he has simply summed-up your words in a way highly favourable
to him, then it is less clear. The use of double quotemarks, for instance,
is unambiguous. If you are motivated to convince me, find an example of
this conduct, and I will challenge PV to justify it or show that you did in
fact say it. If he fails to do either then I shall happily proclaim him an
L-word!
> And BTW, not that I don't believe you when you say
> that Neil lies, but what specifically are you referring to?
> I've had a couple of encounters with Neil myself, and while
> he is certainly no Richard Jackson, I dont think he deserves
> what you say about him. Can you cite a specific example of
> his dishonesty? Something you said, and what he claims you
> said.
No, I'm not playing that game, I'm afraid. Apart from anything else, it is
just not worth the time and trouble it would cause. What could it gain me
except more hassle from Neil? I'm afraid I have little inclination to
convince you of my opinion, and no inclination whatsoever to antagonise
Neil. I have no negativity towards him - I just don't care, save for the
desire that he would stop irritating me by replying to almost every post I
make, almost invariably rudely, and usually inaccurately.
If you are very interested, there are many examples in the archives. I
can't see how it would enrich your life, however....
Alternatively, you can take John Rennie's word on the subject, it being him,
not me, who described Neil as the most dishonest poster he had come across
in three years on the NG.
> One final point. You have killfiled Neil. I think this is a
> big mistake. I would never killfile PV. Doing so would
> save me from having to read his vile drivel, but it would
> also give him the chance to say anything he wants behind
> my back, which would go unchallenged. Of course,
> answering every one of PV's lies would be a full time job,
> but once in a while I have to point out just how dishonest
> he really is. I would strongly suggest you treat Neil the same
> way.
I agree, which is why I removed him (the only KF resident) a couple of days
ago.
Neil
> "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
> news:9folhi$dc1$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> > And BTW, not that I don't believe you when you say
> > that Neil lies, but what specifically are you referring to?
> > I've had a couple of encounters with Neil myself, and while
> > he is certainly no Richard Jackson, I dont think he deserves
> > what you say about him. Can you cite a specific example of
> > his dishonesty? Something you said, and what he claims you
> > said.
>
> No, I'm not playing that game, I'm afraid.
The reason he will not "play that game" is because he makes
the accusations without any rhyme or reason, as an excuse to
avoid admitting he was wrong or just giving up on an
argument (which I do all the time btw, for various reasons).
His theories of how I "deliberately distort his meanings"
(his words) are pretty much impossible for him to explain.
When I responded to points made in various posts of his, he
dug out a few words I said and claimed they were maliciously
being used against him by somehow misrepresenting his sacred
gospel, and that these misrepresentations were deliberate
lies.
I'll repeat the most prominent example once more: he claimed
the British media reported something bad about Bill Clinton
that the US media did not (because it has a liberal bias); I
discovered that the "something bad" story was groundless
which was why the US media had ignored it, and berated him
for relying on such an obviously false story. His defense of
himself was that he technically hadn't SAID that the false
story was true, and that all he'd said was that the story
was REPORTED as true in the British media.
Thus, Mark is not a fool for buying the story, and I am a
deliberate liar, distorter of his meanings, the Son of
Satan, et cetera. :)
-N
Peter Morris
>
> My answer is the same as before - I just don't really see these
> characteristics in PV. However, I am absolutely prepared to concede that
> the lack of notice by me of something does not in itself deny that it
> exists!
>
> I will say one thing - that the specific examples you
> quote that I have seen are less than totally convincing.
> Most recently, I think, was when I made
> a mistake (an honest one!) in thinking PV was wrong
> to claim that none of the Furman-freed had proved to
> be innocent after all, IIRC.
Lets address that point. You were not mistaken. You were right.
PV told several direct lies there. He quoted from a report, and
said that <quote> My source is "The Death Penalty in America."
Edited by Hugo Bedau. Chapter 10 ... If you have information
as to any of the 315 who had not been released and where later
found to be innocent, it is not in the study. <unquote> This
however is a lie. I have read the same chapter, and in fact
the sdtudy DOES state that four furman commuted prisonners were
later proved innocent. I have quoted two passavges from this
chapter regarding Furman-commuteted innocents. PVs answer
directly denies the existence of these passages. He made a direct
statement that these passages do not exist. He lied. This was a lie on
PV's part, and no mistake on yours.
If you wish to see it for yourself, email me your address, and
I'll send you a copy.
> However, PV has certainly recently increased in
> cantankerousness, senility and illogicality, and
> decreased in humour....but I still personally believe
> he is an idiot before he is a liar. That said, you accuse
> him of having "added words". If you have an example
> of him having clearly misrepresenting you by dishonestly
> and deliberately passing off as _verbatim_ something that
> you did not write, then you have a cast-iron case of lying.
>
> If, however, he has simply summed-up your words in a
> way highly favourable to him, then it is less clear. The use
> of double quotemarks, for instance, is unambiguous. If
> you are motivated to convince me, find an example of
> this conduct, and I will challenge PV to justify it or show
> that you did in fact say it. If he fails to do either then I shall
> happily proclaim him an L-word!
I will give you two examples of such, the worst, and the most recent.
These are just two examples among literally hundreds. Replying to
each and every one would take forever.
=================
THE WORST LIE
=================
The situation
---------------
This was around the time of the execution of Ricky McGinn,
who had raped and murdered a little girl. Somebody posted
a message demanding an explaination why we should oppose
the execution.
What I really said
------------------
I pointed out that my opposition was based on objection
to committing an act of violence, not on sympathy for
McGinn. I gave an analogy, a hypothetical case of an
armed robber killing a victim, who happens to be a drug
dealer. I stated that the emotion I would is disgust at the
violent actions of the murderer, without actrually being
sorry for the dead drug dealer.
What PV claims I said.
-----------------------
PV claims that I called McGinn a victim. This is a lie.
The word victim applied to the imaginary dead drug
dealer, who is a victim of murder.
PV claims I said I have no sympathy for murder victims.
I was specifically talking about an imaginary case of a
dead drug dealer, but the way PV twisted my words,
he made it sound like I have no sympathy for the little
girl McGinn murdered.
THe entire point of my post was that I have no sympathy
for McGinn. But PV took the words 'no sympathy'
and quoted them, having removed the word 'no' from
the quote, and left the word 'sympathy' there.
He then proceeded to repeatedly flame me, based on this
very twisted version of what I wrote. Many flames followed.
Every time I would try to discuss anything with anyone,
there was PV posting highly abusive messages. I would
talk about deterrence, PV would respond with - ignore
Peter. He thinks McGinn is a victim. He has more sympathy
for McGinn than for McGinn's victim. Anything he says about
deterrence must be wrong. No need to even try to answer it,
we can just dismiss it because its Peter that is saying it.
There were a lot of attacks like that, based on his
version of what I said about McGinn. and put in the most
offensive, abusive language possible with spite and hatred by
the bucketload, really vile stuff. It made my skin crawl to
read it.
because of PV's presence, it isnow impossible for me
to to conduct any sensible discusssion. Every time I try,
PV flames me with an accusation of something I said in
another thread. Just for example, an attempt to discuss
innocents who were saved by the Furman case, and
PV flames me with a twisted version of what I said
in a totally seperate thread a couple of weeks ago.
Which brings us neatly to ...
========================
THE MOST RECENT LIE
========================
This one is mild by PV's standards. But its worthwhile
including, because it is an attack he is making right NOW
in the current thread.
It is also quite difficult to follow, since it refers to PV
telluing lies to cover up lies he told to dodge criticism for
trollish and cowardly behaviour. He then calls me a liar for
truthfully poining out that he is a liar. I hope its not too
hard to see what I mean.
The situation
--------------
An earlier occasion on which I called PV a liar. He had
responded to one of my messages, and did a cut and
paste job, inserting words from a different thread several
months previously. He then pretended that I had only
just used the words. He then proceeded to object to
the use of the word 'buggered', even though this only
occurred in the part that HE had inserted. He made a long
and abusive attack on me for using the word 'buggered'
although I had not done so.
What I really said
-------------------
<quote>
Here is what really happened, this is the truth, which PV
is allergic to. In a previous post, a few weeks or months ago,
I criticised PV for his disgusting behaviour, including the
quote above. PV flew into a rage and flamed me,
screaming hysterically that he had only accused "Desi"
of *nmarrying* a sheep, not actually having sex with one.
So, in this thread, when I critisised PV again, I was careful
to be accurate. I said "marrying" and avoided any implication
opf sex. In response to this, PV re-wrote what I said by
re-inserting the sexual references. He cannot disagree
with what I wrote, so he changed it
<unquote>
and in a seperate post I wrote
<quote>
Actually, what happens is that PV changes my words quite
frequently. Lets look at what I wrote shall we :
<quote within quote>
"Remember your own behaviour, PV.Just to remind you it
went something similar to this :
<quote within quote within quote>
HA HA HA Desi, you married a sheep, Desi. Hows
your wife Dolly the sheep then Desi? Ha, ha ha, I know
who you are, Desi, but you don't know who I am. Im
just Planet Visitor, Desi, and you'll never know who I
really am. What would your wife say, Desi? She'd say
'Baah', eh Desi? Desi, I'm going to follow you Desi. I'm going
to hound you and harass you for ever Desi. I hate
you Desi. You married a sheep Desi. Ha ha ha ha.
<unquote within quote within quote>
Where is the word "buggered" then PV. You attack me
based on a single word. Where is that word then?
It wasnt there, so you changed what I said, then
attacked me for things I never wrote. How many times
is this now? I stopped counting after 50.
<unquote>
And here's PV's version
------------------------
(PV says )
Let's see: Peter wrote a few days ago to me:
(PV quoting peter)
Where is the word "buggered" then PV. You attack me
based on a single word. Where is that word then?
It wasnt there, so you changed what I said, then
attacked me for things I never wrote. How many times
is this now? I stopped counting after 50.
(PV says )
I then cited where he HAD used the word a few months
back, when he wrote:
(PV quoting Peter)
"Well, no. You, PV, have repeatedly accused Desmond of
buggering sheep. The 'Dolly and Desi' crap that you have
posted here on numerous occasions is some of the vilest
stuff I have seen on this newsgroup."
(PV says)
So, Mark... do you still consider Peter to be honest?
And where the hell is my apology, Peter, you lying sack
of shit?
There are three lies in PV's version.
1) He quotes only a few of my words, taken out of context.
He removes all references I made to these words having been
spoken MONTHS previously. The few words he leaves
are carefully picked, to give the impression that I deny
saying them. And this is a lie, by implication. I never
denied saying them, what I say is that PV cut and pasted
them from one post into another post several months later.
2) PV claims that he "cited where [Peter] HAD used
the word a few months back," This is a direct lie. In fact
it was ME telling HIM that the word had been used months
previously. That is, with the emphasis on MONTHS before
and not the day before, as PV falsely claimed.
3) PV then offers proof that the word had been used months
previously. He claims that this contradicts what I said. In
fact, he has confirmed what I said.
Unbelievably, he then demands that I apologise to him.
There have been hundreds of other examples of this,
literally hundreds, and I'm not exagerrating. He has been
waging a vendetta against me for a year, and this sort of
thing has been continuous. It is particularly upsetting when
people I respect critisise me because they believe the lies
PV tells about me.
Well, Mark, do you still think that Neil is the most dishonest
person on the newsgroup? I have a couple of minor issues
with Neil myself, but in terms of quantity or of foulness,
he cannot hold a candle to PV.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:b%ST6.413043$o9.65...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
news:9folhi$dc1$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> >
> >
> > "St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:9facrj$vtr$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
>
> <mindless drivel clipped>
>
> I would suppose, Peter that you do not consider what you just posted to
> be insulting. But... Know thyself, fool.
>
> Nevertheless - two specific questions.
>
> 1) Did you not FIRST accuse me of being a coward?
Yes, and I stand behind the statement 100%. A great
deal of your behaviour on this newsgroup has been
extremely cowardly, IMHO.
> 2) Did you not FIRST accuse me of posting the word 'buggery' in respect
> to Desmond, and then deny that you had done so?
Objection, your honour. Compound question and argumentative.
I will answer your question in two parts.
1) "Did you not FIRST accuse me of posting the word 'buggery' in respect
to Desmond"
Yes.
Now I have already admitted this was a mistake. I accused you
of saying 'Desi buggered a sheep' What you really said was
'Desi married a sheep' and even though 'marriage' strongly
implies sex you never explicitly stated it.
This is a trivial distinction, IMHO, but I admit my error on this.
Either way, you are still a disgusting perverted little troll, too
much of a coward even to post this stuff under your own name.
IMHO, of course.
2) "and then deny that you had done so?"
No
Several MONTHS after the events mentioned in part 1 above,
the subject of your behaviour came up again. I once again made
reference to the 'Dolly and Desi' episodes. I was VERY careful
to not repeat my earlier error, and carefully used the word 'married'.
I did not repeat the word 'buggered'. YOU then replied to my
message. YOU cut a piece of my earlier message, several months
previously, and pasted it into the new thread. The piece that YOU
inserted contained the word 'buggered' , which you then pretented
that I had used again. You then wrote a long and abusive piece,
flaming me for using the word 'buggered' even though I had not
done so.
In my reply I pointed out that the word 'buggered' was only
found in the part that YOU had inserted. I pointed out that
it had been cut and pasted from a different thread several
months previously. At no stage did I deny that it was my words.
> I rest my case, you SSOS.
case dismissed.
St.George
<snip>
> I believe that the source is just a little more believable
> than other sites containing the word 'abolish' within
> their URL. I would suppose that you would only consider
> recidivism to have happened if a murderer was executed,
> rose from the grave, murdered again, was convicted again,
> and executed again. And even then you'd probably claim
> a certain percentage of THEM were TRULY innocent.
> Perhaps you and Mark can get your stories straight with
> half-hang Smith and Patrick 'The mummy that walks.' Until
> then, let's stick with what 'criminologists have concluded'
> rather than what you've concluded.
Sorry, PV, but much as you would like to ignore the instances I posted of
those who survived execution proceeding to kill again, as it destroys your
argument utterly, it is not a story, but a simple, referenced _fact_.
Tell you what, though - I agree let's stop worrying about 'conclusions',
whether by criminologists or others, because they are just opinion, aren't
they? Instead, let's stick to the FACTS, and to LOGIC.
There are ONLY three possible courses of action open to you now...
(1) Ignore the issue/post a strawman/post abuse/dismiss as 'goblins and
spirits'/not answer; or otherwise fail to address the issue.
(2) Cast doubt on my reference for Half-Hanged Smith, either alleging that
I have been dishonest or mistaken, or that the 'Newgate Diaries' are
dishonest or mistaken.
(3) Admit that the assertion that 'the death penalty ensures a recidivism
rate of zero' is disproven, and wrong.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9fr6n8$l87$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:b%ST6.413043$o9.65...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
> news:9folhi$dc1$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> > >
> > >
> > > "St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9facrj$vtr$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> >
> > <mindless drivel clipped>
> >
> > I would suppose, Peter that you do not consider what you just posted to
> > be insulting. But... Know thyself, fool.
> >
> > Nevertheless - two specific questions.
> >
> > 1) Did you not FIRST accuse me of being a coward?
>
> Yes, and I stand behind the statement 100%. A great
> deal of your behaviour on this newsgroup has been
> extremely cowardly, IMHO.
>
And an even greater deal of your behavior on this newsgroup
has been stupidity... IMHO. But I claim to know NOTHING about
you further than you being stupid. Apparently you have some
magically insight into some deeper facet of my true persona.
> > 2) Did you not FIRST accuse me of posting the word 'buggery' in respect
> > to Desmond, and then deny that you had done so?
>
> Objection, your honour. Compound question and argumentative.
>
> I will answer your question in two parts.
>
> 1) "Did you not FIRST accuse me of posting the word 'buggery' in respect
> to Desmond"
>
> Yes.
>
> Now I have already admitted this was a mistake. I accused you
> of saying 'Desi buggered a sheep' What you really said was
> 'Desi married a sheep' and even though 'marriage' strongly
> implies sex you never explicitly stated it.
>
Where did you admit this was a 'mistake,' on your part?
> This is a trivial distinction, IMHO, but I admit my error on this.
>
I doubt very seriously whether ANYONE would consider the
words 'married' and 'buggery' a 'trivial distinction.' But there
are a lot of things that you've said here, that when proved wrong
you claim are 'trivial distinctions.'
And NOW you admit your mistake!!
> Either way, you are still a disgusting perverted little troll, too
> much of a coward even to post this stuff under your own name.
> IMHO, of course.
>
I think that it's been amply demonstrated with the presence of
yourself, dirtdog and keith, that it would not take courage to post my
true identity, but stupidity. With your claim that I 'lack courage,'
dirtdog's references to my mother, and keith's continued obscenity,
it's obvious all three of you are serious mental defectives, seeing
me as less of a Usenet opponent, but more an ACTUAL serious menace
to your views, requiring MORE than just responding with ideas which
might show my thoughts to be defective. You all need to inject PERSONAL
invectives... referring to me as more than having stupidity as my guide,
but cowardly behavior as well. Creating web sites, posting obscene pictures,
lying, attacking parental sources (one small step from racism, I might
add). OBSESSING... all three of you... OBSESSING. Should I reveal
my true identity to you and dirtdog and keith? Should I subject myself to
such attacks in my PERSONAL life? Next, I could expect that one of you
three in your delirious obsession as to my true persona, would begin
research into my address, and telephone number. I could expect hate
mail through snail mail, calls at 3:00 AM (9:AM to you three), screaming
obscenities. Perhaps even a little firebombing, or anonymous postings on
lampposts in my neighborhood, during your vacations, which would
consume your lives. It's obvious to me, that you three are so emotionally
warped and filled with rage toward those who oppose your views that you've
all become dangerous and need only pity... you've ALL lost any semblance
of rationality and reality. I am reminded by you three of those who bomb
abortion clinics in their desperation to prove their point... having lost all sane
contact with reality. I don't care to investigate further in my personal life, that
deep sense of paranoia that I recognize in comments from all three of you.
So by providing any further information on my part I realize would surely be
opening a door into my private life and inviting you further into that life, with
all the attendant dementia from any of you three that might accompany that
decision. And that would be shear stupidity, rather than cowardly on my
part.
> 2) "and then deny that you had done so?"
>
> No
>
> Several MONTHS after the events mentioned in part 1 above,
> the subject of your behaviour came up again. I once again made
> reference to the 'Dolly and Desi' episodes. I was VERY careful
> to not repeat my earlier error, and carefully used the word 'married'.
> I did not repeat the word 'buggered'. YOU then replied to my
> message. YOU cut a piece of my earlier message, several months
> previously, and pasted it into the new thread. The piece that YOU
> inserted contained the word 'buggered' , which you then pretented
> that I had used again. You then wrote a long and abusive piece,
> flaming me for using the word 'buggered' even though I had not
> done so.
I certainly did NOT 'cut it into' the thread. This was the context --
EXACTLY.
I posted EXACTLY what you had previously written. The
quotes denote that fact SPECIFICALLY. You HAD written -
"Well, no. You, PV, have repeatedly accused Desmond of
buggering sheep. The 'Dolly and Desi' crap that you have
posted here on numerous occasions is some of the vilest
stuff I have seen on this newsgroup."
In response to this DIRECT quote which was true accurate
and complete, you responded:
"Like all PV's asttacks on me this is based on a direct
misrepresentation of what I wrote. PV cannot
find fault with what I wrote, so he have to make
somethiong up. He claims that I said those words "above".
By reading my post, it is obvious that it is not so."
Now - did you or did you not post what I had directly quoted
from you? If so, it is hardly misrepresentation on my part.
It is misrepresentation on YOUR part, to deny it.
>
> In my reply I pointed out that the word 'buggered' was only
> found in the part that YOU had inserted. I pointed out that
> it had been cut and pasted from a different thread several
> months previously. At no stage did I deny that it was my words.
>
So a 'direct quote' from you is MISREPRESENTING you? No
wonder everyone sees you as a liar.
> > I rest my case, you SSOS.
>
> case dismissed.
>
More than once you have brought more to our argument than should be
brought to this forum:
For example, just a few days ago, you wrote to dirtdog -
"Just because I despise PV it doesn't follow that I have any greater
respect for you."
So obviously your argument with my comments runs DEEPER than
any logical view. Were I to provide my true name to you, where would
that despise lead? As with your claim that I'm a coward, you now feel
it necessary to 'despise' me as a PERSON, rather than despise my
comments. And I should post my REAL name???? You truly are an idiot.
And now I need to remind you of some other exact words you
wrote:
"The thing I pointed out was that victims of recidivist
murders are the same people that you want to execute
anyway."
Clearly stating that YOU believe I do not differentiate between
the murder of ANYONE in prison, and a murderer lawfully
executed. Let me state to you, clearly and unequivocally, I do
not see ANY similarity to the murder of ANYONE with the
lawful execution of a murderer. They are as different as 'black'
and 'white,' and are BEYOND being compared in ANY respect.
But you clearly state here that YOU see prisoners in a DIFFERENT
light from other innocents. A fact you FURTHER substantiate with
your other statement, later on, where you say:
"It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
murders were criminals."
Obviously, the murder of drug dealers and prison inmates isn't near
as troubling to you as the murder of those you see as 'upright citizens.'
As you've remarked before, you don't see it as 'black and white.' It's
all 'shades of gray' to you. And apparently murders of drug dealers and
prison inmates are a little more justified, a little less 'black' in your POV,
than those 'other' murders. Perhaps you even believe they 'deserve'
to be murdered.
And then there's the McGinn and drug dealer quote of yours.
Where you compared the murder of a drug dealer and the execution
of McGinn, by saying.
"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."
Apparently no murderer deserves to be executed. But some slimy
drug dealer or a prisoner does deserve to be murdered because
you certainly claim that you would have no sympathy for the 'victim'
in this particular case. We are SUPPOSED to have sympathy
for all victims of murder. You claiming that in these cases you
DON'T have sympathy for some victims of murder says a world about
you, Peter. And once again, proves that you lack understanding of the
difference between 'innocent' and 'guilty.'
And I'll end it with that most absurd post of all which you've presented
here:
"I have said that to kill "brutally and inhumanely" may be legitimately
called murder, even if it is done legally."
You may say it, Peter. No one can stop you... but no one can stop
you from making a complete fool of yourself either.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9ftv33$ao5$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
response to such stupid assertions. Do you even know the DEFINITION
of 'HANG?' Of course not.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9fr6fa$l7b$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "St.George" <god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:9fpmjg$poo$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
<clip>
> =================
> THE WORST LIE
> =================
>
> The situation
> ---------------
>
> This was around the time of the execution of Ricky McGinn,
> who had raped and murdered a little girl. Somebody posted
> a message demanding an explaination why we should oppose
> the execution.
>
> What I really said
> ------------------
>
> I pointed out that my opposition was based on objection
> to committing an act of violence, not on sympathy for
> McGinn. I gave an analogy, a hypothetical case of an
> armed robber killing a victim, who happens to be a drug
> dealer. I stated that the emotion I would is disgust at the
> violent actions of the murderer, without actrually being
> sorry for the dead drug dealer.
>
Obviously finding it impossible to feel sorry for a murder
victim because of who they are. Certainly assuming that
the victim DESERVED somehow to be murdered. Clearly
Peter, you feel NO murderer deserves to be executed, but
you cannot feel sorry for them if they are murdered. If you
don't see a logical and moral inconsistency here (I'm sure
you don't since you also believe 5 dead is better than 1
dead), I pity you.
<clipped>
>
> There are three lies in PV's version.
>
> 1) He quotes only a few of my words, taken out of context.
I need only quote ONE word... and that word is 'buggering.'
I said you had said it. You said you hadn't said it. I showed
you accurately where you had said it. You wiggled and
squirmed.
> Unbelievably, he then demands that I apologise to him.
Not that I ever expected it. But you should realize Peter
that when I put Double Quotes around words... they
represent DIRECT quotes of what you've said. Because
your memory is failing is not MY fault. But yours.
My first post in this effort referred to all the times I had
referred to Desmond and Dolly. At the conclusion I
noted your exact words from another post.
You had said:
"Well, no. You, PV, have repeatedly accused Desmond of
buggering sheep. The 'Dolly and Desi' crap that you have
posted here on numerous occasions is some of the vilest
stuff I have seen on this newsgroup."
You responded to THAT post with:
"Where is the word "buggered" then PV. You attack me
based on a single word. Where is that word then?
It wasnt there, so you changed what I said,"
You were basing your 'where is' on my post. Which I clearly
had put double quotes around.
> There have been hundreds of other examples of this,
> literally hundreds, and I'm not exagerrating. He has been
> waging a vendetta against me for a year, and this sort of
> thing has been continuous. It is particularly upsetting when
> people I respect critisise me because they believe the lies
> PV tells about me.
Boo hoo hoo. And the lies and insults you spread about me are
okay, I would suppose.
>
Let me tell you the core element of this, Peter. You're a
disgusting nitwit, who continually lies and distorts. It began
when you first accused me of saying that the DP was moral,
simply because it was used. It was stupid on your part to make
such a claim because you knew nothing of my philosophy and you
just threw it out there because you perceived me to be your
enemy, and felt I was easy pickings. You even said as much.
Now you think you may call me a coward, because I post under
an anonymous handle (somewhat changing your reason for
having called me that). But it's quite obvious that if I opened up
to you, It would not be bravery but stupidity. Because you've
clearly taken this to a higher level, and it's become an obsession
with you. Do not think I will stop pointing out the false logic and
morality you often present here.
> Well, Mark, do you still think that Neil is the most dishonest
> person on the newsgroup? I have a couple of minor issues
> with Neil myself, but in terms of quantity or of foulness,
> he cannot hold a candle to PV.
>
You have a couple of MAJOR issues, Peter. And they revolve
around your mental well-being.
PV
Jerome Kingfisher
saying. What does he know anyway because he is from europe and they are'nt
as advanced as us yet so they should keep theyr'e opinions to thenselves
because we wont listen to them because henry VII had very many wives and he
was very bad man to all of them i think all the british are like this today
because when i went to britain (I went to Belfast ) they were all idiots and
they all spoke funny i thought they were meant to speak like hugh grant but
they do'nt. He is a shit actor anyway and i dont know why that woman was
dating him because he is'nt funny.
This applies to anyone else in here who is'nt from america if they dont
agree with the death penalty because none of you know what you are talking
about and you have shitty educations and have to leave school at 14 or even
earlier if your families have'nt got money for you to eat and if you get ill
you don't get looked after bby doctors if you havent got any money either.
What sort of countries are these? How do you think we should listen to you
if you cannot look after the poor people.
Jerome
A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:dSLT6.412185$o9.64...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
A Planet Visitor
"Jerome Kingfisher" <jking...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9g3p3l$iiu$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> You are right here a planet visitor as the britishman doesnt know what he is
> saying. What does he know anyway because he is from europe and they are'nt
> as advanced as us yet so they should keep theyr'e opinions to thenselves
> because we wont listen to them because henry VII had very many wives and he
> was very bad man to all of them i think all the british are like this today
> because when i went to britain (I went to Belfast ) they were all idiots and
> they all spoke funny i thought they were meant to speak like hugh grant but
> they do'nt. He is a shit actor anyway and i dont know why that woman was
> dating him because he is'nt funny.
> This applies to anyone else in here who is'nt from america if they dont
> agree with the death penalty because none of you know what you are talking
> about and you have shitty educations and have to leave school at 14 or even
> earlier if your families have'nt got money for you to eat and if you get ill
> you don't get looked after bby doctors if you havent got any money either.
> What sort of countries are these? How do you think we should listen to you
> if you cannot look after the poor people.
>
> Jerome
>
PV
John Rennie
"Jerome Kingfisher" <jking...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9g3p3l$iiu$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
is
> saying. What does he know anyway because he is from
Jerome Kingfisher! Now what sort of a poncy name is that?
Peter Morris
>
> >
> I think that it's been amply demonstrated with the presence of
> yourself, dirtdog and keith, that it would not take courage to post my
> true identity, but stupidity. With your claim that I 'lack courage,'
> dirtdog's references to my mother, and keith's continued obscenity,
> it's obvious all three of you are serious mental defectives, seeing
> me as less of a Usenet opponent, but more an ACTUAL serious menace
> to your views, requiring MORE than just responding with ideas which
> might show my thoughts to be defective. You all need to inject PERSONAL
> invectives.. blah blah blah blah blah.
No, PV, I have never needed to do so. Please dont assume
that I will ever descend to your level. I'm so much above that.
Let us just consider our respective behaviour to show
that I have no need of the things that PV accuses me of.
P.V. presented a certain opinion, with certain 'facts'
to support this opinion. The source he cited for these 'facts'
was "The Death Penalty in America." Edited by Hugo Bedau.
Chapter 10.
I have no need of personal invective to defeat his argument.
All I had to do was to quote his own source, The Death Penalty
In America, Chapter 10 and showed that PV had deliberately
misrepresented the figures. PV had stated that there were NO
innocents among the Furman commutees. He claimed that there was
no information about it in chapter 10. But I quoted chapter 10,
and showed that PV had lied. The fact that PV's conclusions are
based on fraudulent figures destroys his whole argument.
Of course, PV had no answer to this. He never does. Instead,
he does what he always does when confronted by logic
and facts that he can't answer - he changed the subject. Rather
than discuss the subject of recidivism, or address the fact that
he'd been caught lying, he instead brought up the subject of our
last debate.
This serves two functions. In the first place, it draws attention
away from the fact that he had told a lie and been caught out.
Secondly, he had been brooding about the debate for a while,
and nursing a grudge against me. By starting up an old debate
again, he hoped that he might do better the second time. There
were things that he wishes he'd said at the time, but just didn't
think of them until too late.
Of course, again I didn't resort to personal insults. I addressed
his points, calmly and rationally, and showed that PVs account
of what I said in another thread is every bit as dishonest as his account
of what Bedau says in The Death Penalty in America, chapter 10.
Of course, PV exploded with rage, as he always does, and
launched an abusive attack on me, and chalked up yet another
grudge on an ever growing list. This has been the pattern of
my debates with PV over the last year: me using logic, fact
and reason, while PV gets ever angrier. On rare occasions,
when PV posts material such as that below, I have allowed
myself to be drawn into responding in kind. Very occasionally.
Never again, though.
I'm not going to allow you to draw me into trading insults PV.
But just consider this. Six months ago I made a certain remark
about your courage (lack of). Since then, YOU, not I have been
constantly raging about the word, bringing up the matter again
and again and again. My poor friend, it is YOU and not I
who are obsessed and paranoid.
A Planet Visitor
threads, rather than responding to the old thread itself.
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9gdfrg$lcg$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:daxU6.428351$o9.67...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
>
> > >
> > I think that it's been amply demonstrated with the presence of
> > yourself, dirtdog and keith, that it would not take courage to post my
> > true identity, but stupidity. With your claim that I 'lack courage,'
> > dirtdog's references to my mother, and keith's continued obscenity,
> > it's obvious all three of you are serious mental defectives, seeing
> > me as less of a Usenet opponent, but more an ACTUAL serious menace
> > to your views, requiring MORE than just responding with ideas which
> > might show my thoughts to be defective. You all need to inject PERSONAL
> > invectives.. blah blah blah blah blah.
>
> No, PV, I have never needed to do so. Please dont assume
> that I will ever descend to your level. I'm so much above that.
>
Hello... aren't we the moral one??
Would that be your "Do you now understand why I despise PV ?"
comment to Mr. D? Or to dirtdog - "Just because I despise PV
it doesn't follow that I have any greater respect for you."
Nothing about despising my POSTS but a PERSONAL invective
against my PERSONA. Me, as PV, rather than what this imaginary
PV says. And further you are quite aware of the comment
I have referred to more than once, where you called ME a
coward (not PV, but ME - Personal? You're damned right). Or
when you claimed that I had accused Desmond of buggery.
Certainly that can ONLY be taken in the context of a PERSONAL
invective, unrelated to my comment. And then we have the change
of the subject in a thread to 'More PV Lies." How impersonal is that?
Clearly, Peter...I do think YOU are SPECIFICALLY one of the
reasons I don't post my e-mail address. Not that I fear any PHYSICAL
attack, but I don't need my e-mail address flooded with the
obsessive postings that you offer here. I could expect a ten-fold
increase in your postings to me, if you felt you could speak without
OTHERS seeing how stupid you actually are. If you have anything
to say... say it here. That's what I do. I never ask anyone to provide
any personal information to me. And try to keep PERSONAL invective
out of it. Try to keep my courage, my mother, your despise of ME
(God... I'm imaginary, you nitwit), any claims that I accused Desmond
of buggery out of it, and the subject on track. And please, no more
'murder for organs' as a comparison to the 'trolley problem.'
> Let us just consider our respective behaviour to show
> that I have no need of the things that PV accuses me of.
>
> P.V. presented a certain opinion, with certain 'facts'
> to support this opinion. The source he cited for these 'facts'
> was "The Death Penalty in America." Edited by Hugo Bedau.
> Chapter 10.
>
> I have no need of personal invective to defeat his argument.
> All I had to do was to quote his own source, The Death Penalty
> In America, Chapter 10 and showed that PV had deliberately
> misrepresented the figures. PV had stated that there were NO
> innocents among the Furman commutees. He claimed that there was
> no information about it in chapter 10. But I quoted chapter 10,
> and showed that PV had lied. The fact that PV's conclusions are
> based on fraudulent figures destroys his whole argument.
>
The source claimed ONLY that it was 'according to a study by
Bedau and Radelet.' Unless you can provide SPECIFIC data on
exactly who you're talking about, it remains 'according to.' Clearly.
the 6 murders are not 'according to.' Do some research and get
back to me.
> Of course, PV had no answer to this. He never does. Instead,
> he does what he always does when confronted by logic
> and facts that he can't answer - he changed the subject. Rather
> than discuss the subject of recidivism, or address the fact that
> he'd been caught lying, he instead brought up the subject of our
> last debate.
>
Actually, it was you who changed the subject by claiming that
4 of the 6 murdered somehow DESERVED it because they
were guilty of another crime. And then you ACCUSED me of
being unreasonable for mentioning it, because those in prison,
were somehow the same people that I wanted executed. Don't
tell me that's not PERSONAL. Nor try to tell me that's NOT A
LIE on your part. I have always.... always.... always... supported
only a lawful execution of a murderer as determined by my society.
I DO NOT, and MORALLY COULD NOT support the MURDER
of ANYONE. Not Jeffrey Daumer, nor ANYONE. Nor the drug
dealer that you seemed not necessary to feel sorry for in your
comparison to his murder with the execution of McGinn It seems
to me that philosophy is closer to yours than mine, with the 'It has
to be said....' comment concerning those in prison somehow
DESERVING to be murdered.
> This serves two functions. In the first place, it draws attention
> away from the fact that he had told a lie and been caught out.
> Secondly, he had been brooding about the debate for a while,
> and nursing a grudge against me. By starting up an old debate
> again, he hoped that he might do better the second time. There
> were things that he wishes he'd said at the time, but just didn't
> think of them until too late.
>
How's about that trolley problem related problem that I presented to
you? Never heard back from you on that one.
A terrorist has rigged a nuclear device in New York which
will be activated by a switch he holds in his hand. You are
facing him with a weapon which will penetrate through steel
like butter. Unfortunately, he is shielding himself with an
innocent victim. His finger is depressing the switch which
will destroy New York City. Do you kill him, by also killing
his hostage, saving New York City or do you allow him to
press the button, and with your inaction allow the city to
be laid to waste? Act or not act... which is RIGHT and which
is WRONG?
> Of course, again I didn't resort to personal insults. I addressed
> his points, calmly and rationally, and showed that PVs account
> of what I said in another thread is every bit as dishonest as his account
> of what Bedau says in The Death Penalty in America, chapter 10.
>
Oh yes.. Peter the principled and reasonable debater. Calmly
and rationally, calling others 'liars,' (even changing web subjects
to reflect such).' Remarking that I've claimed that Desmond engaged
in Buggery, and then denying having said it.' Calling me a 'coward.'
Saying he despised ME (Good Grief... I'm imaginary... how can
one despise that which DOESN'T EXIST?). Claiming I support
the MURDER of prisoners. Know thyself, Peter.
> Of course, PV exploded with rage, as he always does, and
> launched an abusive attack on me, and chalked up yet another
> grudge on an ever growing list. This has been the pattern of
> my debates with PV over the last year: me using logic, fact
> and reason, while PV gets ever angrier. On rare occasions,
> when PV posts material such as that below, I have allowed
> myself to be drawn into responding in kind. Very occasionally.
> Never again, though.
>
Promises... promises. I can imagine then your insults will be
directed obliquely, to others, rather than to me. As you did with
your post to Mr. D. Looking for some kind of crutch to be provided
from OTHERS.
> I'm not going to allow you to draw me into trading insults PV.
> But just consider this. Six months ago I made a certain remark
> about your courage (lack of). Since then, YOU, not I have been
> constantly raging about the word, bringing up the matter again
> and again and again. My poor friend, it is YOU and not I
> who are obsessed and paranoid.
>
Oh... so we should just forget it... You called me a coward... but
we need to move on. You claim I accused Desmond of buggery,
but we need to move on. You despise ME (God... I'm imaginary),
but we need to move on, You've claimed I wish prisoners to be
murdered, but we need to move on. I'm willing, ONCE you
APOLOGIZE or at the least acknowledge that you have NOTHING
to base such accusations on. Infections don't heal by being ignored.
They only fester. I don't despise YOU, Peter. You may well personally
pet your dog, love your wife and kids, and be the most pleasant
person to know. I do despise what you've written here at times,
as your moral philosophy. And I will continue to hammer away at
that philosophy. But even then, I believe you're just trying to appear
respectful of life to the views of others. And confused when confronted,
causing you only to become further confused in your desire to appear
RIGHT and MORAL. Finding it difficult or impossible to adjust to an
argumentative style of dialog. And I find it hard to believe that you
would ACTUALLY be a moral coward, in the trolley problem. I really
believe that ACTUALLY confronted with the trolley problem, or a
similar moral dilemma, you would switch regardless of what you say
here. You've just been boxed in morally, and don't know how to extract
yourself, without raising it to that PERSONAL level, of calling me a
coward, or claiming to despise me (I'm imaginary, you know). And
you know I've never claimed to be other than argumentative.
PV
<clipped>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
wibble snipped
OI PETER. GET YOUR FILTHY HANDS OFF PV.
HE'S MY BITCH.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dogo...@ilovemyseed.net> wrote in message news:7gokitcr2eti1h7os...@4ax.com...
Speaking of that -- have you been hypothetically 'bitch slapped'
by Neil anymore today?
PV
> w00f
>
>
JIGSAW1695
>From: dirtdog dogo...@ilovemyseed.net
>Date: 6/15/01 3:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7gokitcr2eti1h7os...@4ax.com>
Dawg, thou art a dawg who fornicates with junkyard hounds.