Why the death penalty is wrong
EverQuestsDaBest
The death penalty is the most barbaric thing i have ever heard of, and it
should be illegal to kill someone........why........it IS illegal to kill
someone. I believe that it is wrong to kill someone (or an animal for that
matter, chickens, deer, or even an ant, etc) the Bible says you should not
kill. it doesnt say you shouldnt kill people , or you shouldnt kill people but
kill animals. it says simply DO NOT KILL. and it makes sense, in a way.
I personally believe that it is wrong to kill someone, but who am I (I being
myself and any other civilized human being) to make a judgement about that
persons actions? I dont have the right to judge them, I dont have that right at
all. The reason I am against the death penalty is that the people putting these
people to death are just as guilty as the person who commited a crime in the
first place. Also , that brings me to another point....
Are they really guilty? Its been proven that there are people who were put to
death who were later found innocent. Thats why i think that everyone should be
not guilty , period. Why punish people? Its just revenge, and thats wrong. The
prison system in this country is really messed up. Its there to put people in
there who are a threat to society, yet there are people in there for 20 years
because they dont pay taxes on time, or there are people who are there who have
a small burst of anger and end up hurting someone, and instead of getting them
on medication, that would help their outbursts (i am one of the people who have
an anger managment problem and with medication, i am perfectly fine, and have
not had a mood change in 3 months, and my mother noticed the difference). The
prison system is wrong, but ill get into that another time because this is
about the death penalty.
Things that irritate me are the greedy people who had thier parent or sister or
brother or friend murdered, so what do they do? they sue for millions of
dollars. That, is just plain greed. Money will not bring your loved ones back.
it will make u feel better, but that is a false feeling of greed and
accomplishment, the revenge of getting money for someones cruel actions.
Also, there is no way to prove 100% that someone is guilty. take the osama bin
laden case. the news has it where they say he talked about the world trade
centers, they show video, but with movie magic, and technology, its easy for
the government to make up a video like that, that is not even real, in an
attempt to accomplish thier own greedy need to make osama as "the bad guy" when
he isnt that big of a deal. i personally dont think he was responsible at all
for anything, its just religious fanatics that dont understand , they did it.
So the death penalty? People have gotten killed and found out they were
innocent after they were put to death. Youre not supposed to kill. Anyone with
common sense knows that. That is why the death penalty is wrong.
My two cents
JIGSAW1695
From: everques...@aol.com (EverQuestsDaBest)
Date: 1/16/02 10:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <20020116101417...@mb-co.aol.com>
My two cents
===============================
hmmmm... after reading the above rant, I would say that the time has come to
increase the dosage of your medication.
BCarley978
agree with most of what you have said. My full opinion on the subject is
articulated at the following URL, which hopefully will add some verbal
ammunition to the reservoir of readily available thoughts:
http://users.aol.com/BCarley978/deathpen.htm
Naturally you can expect some retentionists to make efforts to demean your kind
of statement, as they have demeaned mine, and to mince no words doing so. I
take their lame insults with a grain of salt when they come. When you're right,
you're right, and punitive killing is wrong; that is my attitude.
The very fact that DNA testing has been exonerating death row inmates is proof
enough that innocent people are being executed. Yet I see this point as
relatively incidental, since it is equally abominable to execute the guilty. As
you have said, punishment is revenge, and revenge is unethical.
EndlsRayne
>the Bible says you should not
>kill.
[a bunch of other Xtian moralizations snipped]
In the USA, we have Freedom of Religion (and thank Goddess for it!!)
So, you can't expect the Bible to be put into law.
I'm going to leave it at that. The rest of your post speaks for itself.
>Are they really guilty? Its been proven that there are people who were put to
>death who were later found innocent. Thats why i think that everyone should
>be
>not guilty , period. Why punish people? Its just revenge, and thats wrong.
>The
>prison system in this country is really messed up. Its there to put people in
>there who are a threat to society, yet there are people in there for 20 years
>because they dont pay taxes on time, or there are people who are there who
>have
>a small burst of anger and end up hurting someone, and instead of
>getting them
>on medication, that would help their outbursts (i am one of the people who
>have
>an anger managment problem and with medication, i am perfectly fine
>and have
A Planet Visitor
"BCarley978" <bcarl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020116112217...@mb-df.aol.com...
> Thank you for your excellent statement. I too oppose the death penalty, and I
> agree with most of what you have said. My full opinion on the subject is
> articulated at the following URL, which hopefully will add some verbal
> ammunition to the reservoir of readily available thoughts:
>
> http://users.aol.com/BCarley978/deathpen.htm
>
> Naturally you can expect some retentionists to make efforts to demean your kind
> of statement, as they have demeaned mine, and to mince no words doing so.
Quite wrong... I think no one demeans your right to say what you
say. We simply demean your intelligence in WHAT you say.
> I
> take their lame insults with a grain of salt when they come. When you're right,
> you're right, and punitive killing is wrong; that is my attitude.
>
Self-defense is a punitive act against someone intent on murdering
you. I would suppose having the Bible in one hand and a gun in
the other, you'd open the Bible are begin reciting the Lord's Prayer,
if you were so threatened.
> The very fact that DNA testing has been exonerating death row inmates is proof
> enough that innocent people are being executed. Yet I see this point as
> relatively incidental, since it is equally abominable to execute the guilty. As
> you have said, punishment is revenge, and revenge is unethical.
>
So you oppose ALL punishment??? All punishment is unethical??
Whatever do you suppose we should do with those who cause harm
to others? According to you, we can't even have them go stand in
the corner, since that's punishment.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"EverQuestsDaBest" <everques...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020116101417...@mb-co.aol.com...
Not short enough!!! You only needed to say "I'm a fruitcake, who
thumps the Bible 5 times a day, while self-flagellating myself in the
nude for 20 minutes each time."
PV
Exador
> "BCarley978" <bcarl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020116112217...@mb-df.aol.com...
>
>>Thank you for your excellent statement. I too oppose the death penalty, and I
>>agree with most of what you have said. My full opinion on the subject is
>>articulated at the following URL, which hopefully will add some verbal
>>ammunition to the reservoir of readily available thoughts:
>>
>>http://users.aol.com/BCarley978/deathpen.htm
>>
>>Naturally you can expect some retentionists to make efforts to demean your kind
>>of statement, as they have demeaned mine, and to mince no words doing so.
>>
>
> Quite wrong... I think no one demeans your right to say what you
> say. We simply demean your intelligence in WHAT you say.
>
>
>>I
>>take their lame insults with a grain of salt when they come. When you're right,
>>you're right, and punitive killing is wrong; that is my attitude.
>>
>>
> Self-defense is a punitive act against someone intent on murdering
> you. I would suppose having the Bible in one hand and a gun in
> the other, you'd open the Bible are begin reciting the Lord's Prayer,
> if you were so threatened.
Self-defence is most certainly NOT punitive PV. It is, as the name
implies, an action intended to prevent harm to oneself when credibly
threatened by an assailant. Note the word "credibly", this is very
important. It seems to me that most murderers do not offer a credible
threat to society within the prison system, and in fact even outside
that system. As I have tried to debate with Richard and I think with you
as well, there are conceivable technological solutions to reduce or
remove the credibility of that threat as posed by a small number of
murderers. The problem with such solutions in the US is that they do not
provide the retributive aspect that is so essential to the American
psyche. IMO naturally.
Cheers,
Craig
[Clipped]
Brian Henderson
(EverQuestsDaBest) wrote:
>The death penalty is the most barbaric thing i have ever heard of, and it
>should be illegal to kill someone........why........it IS illegal to kill
>someone. I believe that it is wrong to kill someone (or an animal for that
>matter, chickens, deer, or even an ant, etc) the Bible says you should not
>kill. it doesnt say you shouldnt kill people , or you shouldnt kill people but
>kill animals. it says simply DO NOT KILL. and it makes sense, in a way.
Nope, it's illegal to MURDER someone. Killing is perfectly alright.
You can do it in wars, you can do it in self-defense, you can do it in
plenty of legally-sanctioned ways. The DP happens to be a
legally-sanctioned method of putting someone very deserving to death.
IBen Getiner
the huge guilty majority would be able to keep on breathing, thereby
cheating their victim's families out of their revenge.
Peter Morris
"IBen Getiner" <Lapp...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10953-3C...@storefull-298.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> It's better that a few innocents should die. If the DP were abolished,
> the huge guilty majority would be able to keep on breathing, thereby
> cheating their victim's families out of their revenge.
Dudley take note next time you want to say that the DP isn't about revenge.
--
______________________________
/____________________________(_)
| ___________________________ email to
| | |________________________(_) Peter_Morris_1
| |/__________________________ at Hotmail dot com
|____________________________(_)
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3C467549...@hotmail.com...
Please.. are you suggesting that the killing of ANY human is not
punitive? Do you know the DEFINITION of 'punitive'?
From the OED --
PUNITIVE "Awarding, inflicting, or involving punishment; retributive,
punitory. Also, in weakened sense: injurious in such a way as to have
a deterrent effect."
Do you believe that killing someone who is intent on killing you
is NOT 'inflicting punishment' on that person? It continues to be
a mystery to me how those with an agenda can presume to define
the English language as THEY wish to define it. The point is that
it CANNOT be stated that there is a difference between
INDIVIDUAL self-defense and SOCIETY self-defense, except
that which society defines to be the difference. And that
difference is certainly not in terms of 'punitive,' since both the
DP and individual self-defense 'inflict punishment' on the offender.
PV
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
> [Clipped]
>
>
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:EnF18.21365$_w.27...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
I dispute your interpretation of the word punishment and I
think that that quote from the OED supports Craig and not
your good self. In no way is self defence, an award or
retributive. How can it be?
A Planet Visitor
killing of ANY human is not punitive?' Naturally there ARE killings that
are NOT punitive... but a self-defense killing is NOT one of them.
A killing which is NOT intentional in ANY manner, such as an accidental
killing, is of course, NOT punitive. It must be INTENTIONAL to be
'punitive.'
PV
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:EnF18.21365$_w.27...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
BCarley978
of common decency, I consider them not worth the effort. My website makes clear
where I stand.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9xF18.37623$WQ1.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
nor does it have to be to meet the definition of 'punitive.' Notice
the 'or' in the definition, rather than 'and.' And it certainly IS
'punishment,' as much as you having your child sit in the corner
as 'punishment' for committing what you consider a fault against
you.
PV
John Rennie
You Sir, are a prig.
John Rennie
I don't agree.
BCarley978
>legally-sanctioned method of putting someone very deserving
>to death.
>It's better that a few innocents should die. If the DP were abolished,
>the huge guilty majority would be able to keep on breathing, thereby
>cheating their victim's families out of their revenge.
Some of you vindictive retentionists may feel differently when you find
yourselves on death row for something you know you didn't do.
BCarley978
Good to hear from you too, John Rennie. You must be a retentionist, or you
wouldn't be calling me names. If you are trying to tell me that you are annoyed
by what you see as a lack of tolerance on my part for a retentionist's way of
thinking, I consider that a compliment.
A Planet Visitor
And I have a few for you which make clear where I stand --
http://serial-killers.virtualave.net/books1.htm
http://serial-killers.virtualave.net/books2.htm
http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/archives.html
http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/BaldwinApr99.pdf
http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/serial2.html#shawcross
http://www.smu.edu/~deathpen/victims.html
And what Rosseau had to say --
http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.2/bookid.615/sec.16/
And what Mill had to say --
http://ethics.acusd.edu/Mill.html
And we all know what a ton of other philosophers have to
say in support of the DP for murderers.
My belief in 'common decency,' suggests that one should not
try to place murderers on some sort of pedestal, presuming they
have the same rights as those who DO NOT murder. It lacks
'consistency' when you do.
PV
A Planet Visitor
PV
A Planet Visitor
find your wife murdered, or yourself threatened with murder,
for something YOU didn't do (such as protect and defend
yourselves).
PV
A Planet Visitor
retentionist at heart. BC seems to believe that abolitionists are
'above' referring to another as a 'prig.'
PV
JIGSAW1695
From: bcarl...@aol.com (BCarley978)
Date: 1/17/02 3:17 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <20020117151723...@mb-dd.aol.com>
===============================
ROTFLMAO....... Welcome aboard, John....LOL....
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <20020117144438...@mb-dd.aol.com>
===============================
Listen kid, if that is the best that you can do, you are going to be eaten
alive on this NG.
Yours in Liberal Solidarity;
Jigsaw
P.S.: I give me three weeks before he leaves and is never heard from again.
The BOFH
I hope that you care that you're mangling the English language, PV. In a
war, for what offence are you "punishing" an enemy soldier? I can hear
the yew creaking if you claim that they are being punished for opposing
you and yours because the converse is certainly true as well.
Self defence is not, of itself, punishment. Nor is wartime killing. Both
of these things are, ideally, intentional.
John Rennie
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna4eehi.a1.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le 17 Jan 2002 20:17:23 GMT, BCarley978 <bcarl...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
> >>You Sir, are a prig.
>
> > Good to hear from you too, John Rennie. You must be a retentionist,
>
> over the past fortnight or so, I don't blame you for wondering ...
>
> { snip }
>
I haven't changed and I'm afraid you haven't either. Still as wildly
anti-American as ever, still seizing on any nonsensical ploy to promote that
view. You do more to further the retentionist cause than any retentionist
poster which is why PV and Jiggy are so pleased to have you back with us.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:38:53 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Some of you vindictive retentionists may feel differently when you find
> >> yourselves on death row for something you know you didn't do.
>
> > Some of you naive abolitionists may feel differently when you
> > find your wife murdered, or yourself threatened with murder,
> > for something YOU didn't do (such as protect and defend
> > yourselves).
>
> United States, than in (abolitionist) Europe.
>
That's why OUR DP is fully justified.
> Ain't capital punishment just dandy ..?
>
No, it's not. But it is certainly necessary. And you should perhaps
take a hard look at some of the people you claim are just 'good
folks,' caught up by 'bad times.' Justify keeping Theodore Frank
alive for me.
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
> Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
>
BCarley978
>alive on this NG.
>
>P.S.: I give me three weeks before he leaves and is never heard from again.
Before who leaves, Jigsaw? If you mean me, you are going to be frustrated, and
I dare say it is your type of attitude that will be eaten alive here. To that
end, my fully considered opinion is posted at the URL below. I am glad you feel
threatened by my writing ability, Jigsaw.
A Planet Visitor
"The BOFH" <ro...@emerson.its.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.30.02011...@emerson.its.utas.edu.au...
That would be because you have PURPOSELY killed that soldier!
What else would you call it -- 'tender, loving care, perhaps'? You
are confusing 'punishment' with 'retribution,' which needs an
overt act to support such 'retribution' in the mind of one
providing such retribution. Punishment can be a part of retribution,
but it also includes 'punishment' administered NOT in retribution.
Such as that of a serial-killer who 'punishes' his victim by torture
before murdering them, simply for personal pleasure. When you kill
an enemy soldier you are doing so with the intent to 'punish' him,
whether you feel it is 'retribution' or not 'retribution.' The same applies
to the use of self-defense. You might NOT feel it is properly 'retribution.'
But YOUR act, whether justified or not, is INTENT on 'punishing'
your attacker with at least incapacitation of that attacker, and at
most the use of deadly force.
> I can hear
> the yew creaking if you claim that they are being punished for opposing
> you and yours because the converse is certainly true as well.
>
Of course the converse is also true. They are CERTAINLY intent
on 'punishing' someone they intend to murder. How much more
clear can that be? You think they are intent on giving you this
week's winning lotto numbers? Are you saying because they
intend to 'punish' you, you have no right to 'punish' them?
> Self defence is not, of itself, punishment. Nor is wartime killing. Both
> of these things are, ideally, intentional.
>
Ideally, 'punishment' MUST be intentional. One can of course punish
for NO REASON, such as a serial-killer torturing his victim, but his
INTENTION is of course, to inflict 'punishment.' Your presumed
argument that 'punishment' is NOT intentional is crazy. You cannot
say you are inflicting 'punishment' on someone when you have an
auto accident and someone is injured. Because you had NO INTENTION
to inflict harm. An accident is not punishment, but an act which INTENDS
to 'harm,' from the most benign to the most egregious is intended
to 'punish.' If you DO have such an intention, it is 'PUNISHMENT.'
I don't see how you can disagree that when we INTEND
to harm someone, we INTEND to inflict punishment. From the
boxing ring to giving your child a 'time-out,' for something that he did, to
killing an attacker bent on murdering you, for something HE did (he
INTENDED to murder you).
PV
A Planet Visitor
strong possibility that he will bust a gut laughing at your posts.
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> "The BOFH" <ro...@emerson.its.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
The above poster is me. I marked the group as "read" and couldn't be
arsed going through 3000-odd messages (which I got once I marked it as
unread) so my only recourse was to go to PINE on one of my other boxen.
I gather that you guessed that it was me and I'm only trying to make it
clear that no deception was intended. _That_ I save for taunting
Frankie.
> > I hope that you care that you're mangling the English language, PV. In
> > a
> > war, for what offence are you "punishing" an enemy soldier?
>
> That would be because you have PURPOSELY killed that soldier!
> What else would you call it -- 'tender, loving care, perhaps'? You
> are confusing 'punishment' with 'retribution,' which needs an
> overt act to support such 'retribution' in the mind of one
> providing such retribution.
From the Concise Oxford:
Punish v.tr. 1 cause (an offender) to suffer for an offence. 2 inflict
a penalty for (an offence)
and so on.
> Punishment can be a part of retribution,
Definitionally, punishment must involve an offence.
> but it also includes 'punishment' administered NOT in retribution.
> Such as that of a serial-killer who 'punishes' his victim by torture
> before murdering them, simply for personal pleasure.
How is this _punishment_, PV? Was an offence committed by the victims
of such monsters?
And you people call _us_ murderer lovers! (_huge_ ;) )
> When you kill
> an enemy soldier you are doing so with the intent to 'punish' him,
What offence has that soldier committed? Did American soldiers commit
some kind of wrong when they were "punished" by the Germans in WWII, the
Chinese in Korea, the Viet Cong and NVA in Vietnam?
> whether you feel it is 'retribution' or not 'retribution.' The same
> applies
> to the use of self-defense. You might NOT feel it is properly
> 'retribution.'
> But YOUR act, whether justified or not, is INTENT on 'punishing'
> your attacker with at least incapacitation of that attacker, and at
> most the use of deadly force.
Incapacitation for sure. When you aim to incapacitate an opponent (up
to and including the use of deadly force) that is all you wish to do.
You don't necessarily want them to "suffer for an offence," as the
dictionary definition has it.
[snip naughty PV's continuing abuse of his mother tongue [1] ]
Mr Q. Z. D.
[1] - Oo-er! Sounds a bit rude! ((o))
---- ((O))
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be.
So I became a complete bastard."
JIGSAW1695
Date: 1/17/02 6:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <GJI18.39489$_x4.62...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
===============================
Amen!
Desi is our secret weapon.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 1/17/02 6:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <20020117183356...@mb-mj.aol.com>
===============================
The gauntlet has been thrown down and the challange accepted. Cry havoc, and
let slip the cyberdogs of war.
IBen Getiner
could know the true sweet feeling derived by an eye for an eye.
If someone I knew casually was murdered and their killer was executed,
I would be imparted no vengeance. But I would be happy for their family
that they were having theirs, And I would sleep better at night knowing
that the homicidal individual was where they couldn't be released or
escape.
Group: alt.activism.death-penalty Date: Thu, Jan 17, 2002, 5:08pm
(EST+5) From: no_sp...@se.com (Peter Morris) <wrote>
Exador
Two points:
First, definitionally, self-defence is an action intended to prevent
harm to oneself from someone posing an immediate and credible threat. If
the action includes an element of punishment it is no longer a defensive
action, it is an aggressive one. If you admitted to an intent to
"punish" during a claim of self-defence in court, I suggest you could
expect to spend a significant period of time in prison or at least
subc\stantially weaken your case
Second, it is possible to incapacitate even an an assailant bent on murder
without killing them. Obviously this is dependent on the relative capacities
of the parties, but it illustrates the point.
Come on PV, accept you made an injudicious choice of words and let's
move on.
Cheers,
Craig
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
......The point is that
>it CANNOT be stated that there is a difference between
>INDIVIDUAL self-defense and SOCIETY self-defense, except
>that which society defines to be the difference.
:-)))))))))
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:diablo-B9F9F4....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <CyK18.23665$_w.32...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
> Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> > "The BOFH" <ro...@emerson.its.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> The above poster is me. I marked the group as "read" and couldn't be
> arsed going through 3000-odd messages (which I got once I marked it as
> unread) so my only recourse was to go to PINE on one of my other boxen.
>
> I gather that you guessed that it was me and I'm only trying to make it
> clear that no deception was intended. _That_ I save for taunting
> Frankie.
>
> > > I hope that you care that you're mangling the English language, PV. In
> > > a
> > > war, for what offence are you "punishing" an enemy soldier?
> >
> > That would be because you have PURPOSELY killed that soldier!
> > What else would you call it -- 'tender, loving care, perhaps'? You
> > are confusing 'punishment' with 'retribution,' which needs an
> > overt act to support such 'retribution' in the mind of one
> > providing such retribution.
>
> From the Concise Oxford:
>
> Punish v.tr. 1 cause (an offender) to suffer for an offence. 2 inflict
> a penalty for (an offence)
>
> and so on.
>
> > Punishment can be a part of retribution,
>
> Definitionally, punishment must involve an offence.
>
offense. Although it is immaterial that it does not require such
in respect to the argument of self-defense inflicted punishment,
since self-defense IS in reply to an offense committed against
your person, namely an 'attempt to commit murder.' But, you
have ONLY cited one definition. This does not CONFLICT
with other definitions that do not require an offense. PUNISH
must ONLY require an act of a superior or of public authority.
And in keeping with self-defense principles one may respond
to force with SUPERIOR force. And in keeping with serial
killer torture, the serial killer is operating from a position of
superiority. It does NOT need to come from 'public
authority.' From the OED --
----------------------------------------------
PUNISH --
1. a. trans. As an act of a superior or of public authority:
To cause (an offender) to suffer for an offence; to subject to
judicial chastisement as retribution or requital, or as a
caution against further transgression; to inflict a penalty on.
3. transf. To handle severely; to inflict heavy damage, injury, or loss
on.
----------------------------------------------
TORTURE is defined in the OED as
----------------------------------------------
TORTURE --
1. The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means
of persuasion; spec. judicial torture, inflicted by a judicial or
quasi-judicial authority, for the purpose of forcing an accused
or suspected person to confess, or an unwilling witness to give
evidence or information; a form of this (often in pl.). to put to
(the) torture, to inflict torture upon, to torture.
2. Severe or excruciating pain or suffering (of body or mind);
anguish, agony, torment; the infliction of such.
----------------------------------------------
I don't think you would deny that a serial-killer is intent on
'torturing' his victim without regard to any offense committed
by that victim. And I don't think you would deny that
killer is operating from a position of superiority without
regard to his victim having committed an offense.
> > but it also includes 'punishment' administered NOT in retribution.
> > Such as that of a serial-killer who 'punishes' his victim by torture
> > before murdering them, simply for personal pleasure.
>
> How is this _punishment_, PV? Was an offence committed by the victims
> of such monsters?
>
Are you presuming it is NOT TORTURE? See the definition of
torture.
> And you people call _us_ murderer lovers! (_huge_ ;) )
>
> > When you kill
> > an enemy soldier you are doing so with the intent to 'punish' him,
>
> What offence has that soldier committed? Did American soldiers commit
> some kind of wrong when they were "punished" by the Germans in WWII, the
> Chinese in Korea, the Viet Cong and NVA in Vietnam?
>
The 'offense' is that your attacker intends to kill you, when engaged in
combat. The 'offense' that a 'prisoner of war' commits is simply the offense
CREATED by the other side to JUSTIFY administering punishment.
They are IN a position of SUPERIORITY.
> > whether you feel it is 'retribution' or not 'retribution.' The same
> > applies
> > to the use of self-defense. You might NOT feel it is properly
> > 'retribution.'
> > But YOUR act, whether justified or not, is INTENT on 'punishing'
> > your attacker with at least incapacitation of that attacker, and at
> > most the use of deadly force.
>
> Incapacitation for sure. When you aim to incapacitate an opponent (up
> to and including the use of deadly force) that is all you wish to do.
> You don't necessarily want them to "suffer for an offence," as the
> dictionary definition has it.
>
Of course you do. If you wish to HURT someone
"HURT --
A knock, blow, or stroke causing a wound or damage."
for an 'offense' being committed against your person, you
are aware that you are attempting to punish that offender.
And clearly the 'offense' which required such a 'punishment'
was the fact that the attacker expected to commit an 'offence'
against YOU. Society does not PERMIT individual self-defense
WITHOUT the existence of such an offense being attempted
against you. It is the offense of 'attempted murder,' or
attempted harm, which must be SUBSTANTIATED by society
before it accepts the conditions of self-defense. Self-defense
requires PROOF that someone committed an offense against
you, such as an attempt to murder.Without such an offense being
attempted, and validated by society, it CANNOT be claimed as
self-defense. There is NO requirement for a judge and jury to
DECIDE that an offense is being committed BEFORE
one uses self-defense. But that fact certainly must be post-validated by
society before it ACCEPTS that your act was in self-defense.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:a29ksh$o5u$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
PV
A Planet Visitor
That obviously DOES NOT mean there is no intent to inflict
PUNISHMENT on your attacker. You are speaking of the
REASON we use individual self-defense, and NOT of
the METHOD we use to provide that self-defense. Those are
certainly two different aspects. We may have a REASON to
travel to another town. But the METHOD we use can vary
between a large number of travel conveyances.
> If
> the action includes an element of punishment it is no longer a defensive
> action, it is an aggressive one. If you admitted to an intent to
> "punish" during a claim of self-defence in court, I suggest you could
> expect to spend a significant period of time in prison or at least
> subc\stantially weaken your case
>
Inflicting punishment can well be an act of defense, without being
aggressive as 'aggressive' is defined. Obviously one is NOT the
aggressor when being attacked, but the RESPONSE while not
defined as an aggressive response is usually intent on providing
punishment to the aggressor with the intent to dissuade that
aggressor from completing his act. Or even REPEATING his
act, as society employs 'punishment' in respect to the commission
of crimes for which convicted. Certainly you would not deny
that society 'punishes' for offenses. An individual may do so
as well, if being OFFENDED by an attacker, when society
determines that the 'punishment' provided was justified.
> Second, it is possible to incapacitate even an an assailant bent on murder
> without killing them. Obviously this is dependent on the relative capacities
> of the parties, but it illustrates the point.
>
What point??? What does THAT have to do with the argument that
self-defense inflicts punishment on the aggressor because of the presentation
of a SUPERIOR position by the defender? From the OED -- "To 'Punish'
is an act of a 'superior'... to cause (an offender) to suffer for an offense."
Your problem is quite apparent to me... you cannot accept 'punishment'
as a means of 'self-defense,' because it implies that a society may well
exact punishment to those who offend as that means of 'self-defense'
of society. You expect me to buy that load of horse manure.
>
> Come on PV, accept you made an injudicious choice of words and let's
> move on.
>
Yes... let's. But there's nothing wrong with my choice of words.
PV
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
<....>
>Do you believe that killing someone who is intent on killing you
>is NOT 'inflicting punishment' on that person? .........
Punishment has either retributive or educational character. Punishment is a
planned reaction to any misbehavior and can be avoided either without direct
consequences for the punishing, choice is given to punish or not.
Self defense has no retributive or educational characteristics and is
motivated exclusively in the THREAT against the delf-defender. While self
defense is an urgency punishment is not.
J.
Exador
The bow's getting longer PV :-). Creeaakk.
>
>>Second, it is possible to incapacitate even an an assailant bent on murder
>>without killing them. Obviously this is dependent on the relative capacities
>>of the parties, but it illustrates the point.
>>
>>
> What point??? What does THAT have to do with the argument that
> self-defense inflicts punishment on the aggressor because of the presentation
> of a SUPERIOR position by the defender? From the OED -- "To 'Punish'
> is an act of a 'superior'... to cause (an offender) to suffer for an offense."
> Your problem is quite apparent to me... you cannot accept 'punishment'
> as a means of 'self-defense,' because it implies that a society may well
> exact punishment to those who offend as that means of 'self-defense'
> of society. You expect me to buy that load of horse manure.
If you claim self-defence, one of the criteria, in Australia anyway, is
use of reasonable force, I assume the US is similar? In other words, it
is unlikely that your claim of self-defence would be regarded as
credible if, for example you bashed an unarmed assailant with a baseball
bat, or shot a baseball-bat-wielding assailant several times etc, etc. A
reasonable force is a minimum force consistent with removing the
imminent danger. To move beyond that gets into the realm of vigilantism,
which is most definitely NOT self-defence.
In terms of the justice system, if one successfully claims self-defence,
then the assailant must be presumed to have attacked or otherwise
presented a threat, and would be tried by the State accordingly. Any
punishment then becomes the province of the State and justice works.
Under your schema, justice becomes vigilantism all too easily. All quite
in accordance with American history nonetheless; the vigilante is an
honoured tradition in the US.
Cheers,
Craig
[Clipped]
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:a2a0v8$p0i$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
> <....>
>
> >Do you believe that killing someone who is intent on killing you
> >is NOT 'inflicting punishment' on that person? .........
>
>
> Punishment has either retributive or educational character. Punishment is a
> planned reaction to any misbehavior and can be avoided either without direct
> consequences for the punishing, choice is given to punish or not.
Having such a limited grasp of the English language... how the hell
would you know what 'punishment' is? You will find nowhere that
claims 'punishment' must be PLANNED. It can be a knee-jerk
reaction of superior force to an offending attack.
> Self defense has no retributive or educational characteristics and is
> motivated exclusively in the THREAT against the delf-defender. While self
> defense is an urgency punishment is not.
>
Self-defense is what society DECIDES is self-defense, Mr. Manipulator.
If you kill someone in what YOU perceive is self-defense, you'd better
be able to SHOW that it was NECESSARY that you did so.
PV
> J.
>
>
>
John Rennie
Yes there is. You are wrong, hopelessly wrong, in your use of the word
punishment when you ally it with self defence. Even your quote from the
OED fails to substantiate your case. You fail to see the difference
between obstinacy and pig-headiness. I wouldn't have you any other way
though.
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3C488E88...@hotmail.com...
I never claimed that 'punishment' must be UNREASONABLE force.
Nor should you, because that would be silly. Punishment may well be
VERY reasonable in many of its applications. Certainly you 'punish'
your children in many benign ways, perhaps taking away certain
privileges, when they commit what you consider offenses. You can
do so because you function from a 'superior' position, which is
what self-defense is about. Do you consider that 'unreasonable'
punishment on your part? And yet, its application may well be
unreasonable in other circumstances. But that only makes it
'unreasonable' punishment, and is generally considered an 'unlawful'
application of punishment as well. When applied in a 'defensive'
posture in both individual and society use, the application of punishment
must be JUSTIFIED as a response to the commission of an offense
against the individual or society. Are you denying that much of the
purpose of punishment is incapacitation, either temporarily or permanently,
of the offender? Obviously, when one is ACTUALLY attacked (offended
against), a use of superior force which results in incapacitation of the
offender, which is punishing to that offender is viewed by society as
reasonable.
PV
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
> [Clipped]
>
A Planet Visitor
for an offence..."
Now, when you are ATTACKED you are being offended. It can be no
other way, or you CANNOT act in self-defense. There MUST be an
'offender' against your person. In retribution to that offense you, as
well as society, have every right to 'inflict a penalty' on that offender.
And the infliction of that penalty for offending or attempting to offend
you is rightly called 'punishment.' Society uses it as shown in the
criminal justice system which defines its purpose as 'public safety.'
We can well claim individual self-defense is 'private safety,' and can
require the SAME response that society takes in its concern for
'public safety.' Which is DEFINED as punishment of the offender.
PV
PS --- And I love you as well. But I refuse to enter into a dialog on
the differences between 'obstinacy' and 'pig-headiness.' :-)
Jürgen
How many KB The Master might have written for to louse up another term?
John Rennie
Ancients 'If you throw a penny at a one eyed beggar and strike out his one
good eye, was your action a good or bad one?"
>
>
A Planet Visitor
PV
Sharpjfa
THE DEATH PENALTY - INNOCENCE ISSUES
A thorough review finds that the risk of executing the innocent has been
significantly overstated by death penalty opponents, that such risk is
extraordinarily low and that the cessation of executions will, unnecessarily,
put more innocents at risk.
The Innocent Executed
Some death penalty opponents claim that 23 "innocents" have been executed in
the US since 1900. The authors of that 1987 study, in response to a
deconstruction of their work, stated, in 1988, that "We agree with our critics
that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent; we never
claimed that we had."(1).
Barry Scheck, cofounder of the Innocence Project and featured speaker at the
National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty
(11/13-15/98), stated that he had no proof of an innocent executed (in the US
since 1976) (2).
Not even the nation's leading source for anti death penalty information, the
Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), says there is proof of an innocent
executed. They list 5 "doubt" cases (3): Gary Graham, Joseph O'Dell, Roger
Keith Coleman, Leo Jones and David Spence. A review shows how deceptive the
DPIC case descriptions are (4) and how lacking any proof of innocence is.
The Texas case of Lionel Herrera, like others, nationally, has been labeled, by
many death penalty opponents, as an innocent executed. I believe that Herrera,
once upon a time, was also included in a previous incarnation of the DPIC list.
A comment from Supreme Court Justice O'Connor. "[T]he proper disposition of
this case is neither difficult nor troubling.... The record overwhelmingly
demonstrates that petitioner [Herrera] deliberately shot and killed Officers
Rucker and Carrisalez the night of September 29, 1981; petitioner's new
evidence is bereft of credibility. Indeed, despite its stinging criticism of
the Court's decision, not even the dissent expresses a belief that petitioner
might possibly be actually innocent." Herrera v. Collins, 506 US 390,
421(1993)(O'Connor, J.,concurring)
Of all the world's social and governmental institutions, that do put innocents
at risk, I am aware of only one, the US death penalty, that has no proof of an
innocent killed since 1900.
The Risk to Innocents if We Don't Execute
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
some 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.
Innocents Sentenced to Death: A Critical Review of the Claims
Currently, anti death penalty groups present uncorroborated claims that 95
death row inmates have been released from death row after their innocence has
been proven. (NOTE as of 1/4/02, that number has risen to 99)
The foundation for these claims begins in 1993, when a study, released by US
Rep. Don Edwards, purported to find that 48 innocents had been released from
death row since 1973 (7). Rep. Edwards concluded that "Under the law, there is
no distinction between definitively innocent and those found innocent after a
trial."
Although Rep. Edwards was free to make the obvious distinction between the
factually innocent (The truly "I didn't do it cases") and the legally innocent
(the "I got off because of legal error"), he chose not to. In addition, Rep.
Edwards selected an anti death penalty group, the DPIC, to conduct the study,
thereby negating objective confidence in the results.
The source for the updated 95 innocent number is also the DPIC (8). Richard
Dieter, head of the DPIC, recently confirmed, again, what their "innocent"
means:
" . . . according to death penalty opponents, who say they make no distinction
between legal and factual innocence because there is no difference between the
two under the law and because there is no objective way to make such a
determination. 'They're innocent in the eyes of the law,' Dieter says. 'That's
the only objective standard we have.' " (9)
What nonsense. As this public policy debate is about the factually innocent, we
need not speculate as to why DPIC fails to make such an obvious distinction --
they wish to expand their "innocents" claims. Furthermore, for many years, the
US Supreme Court, in a number of cases, has enforced the obvious distinction
between the factually innocent and the legally innocent. Mr. Dieter is well
aware of this.
The DPIC standards get worse. If an accomplice doesn't actually commit the
murder, death penalty opponents consider them "innocent", as well (10). The law
often finds such criminal accomplices legally guilty for their involvement in
murders, even if they, themselves, didn't "pull the trigger". But the DPIC, so
devoted to alleged legal standards, in one circumstance, abandons that standard
when doing so can further increase "innocents" claims.
With remarkably few exceptions, neither the media nor public policy makers have
required death penalty opponents to support their claims or to define their
standards. Possibly, in the future, both the media and policy makers may
inquire:
-- For how many of these claims is there proof of factual innocence, were those
innocents unconnected to the murder and what level of proof supports those
assertions?
-- How many of those factual innocence claims do the appellate courts and the
district attorneys agree with? (11)
A review of the DPIC 95 case descriptions finds that only about 30 claim
factual innocence, with alleged proof to support the claim. One would expect
them to post those cases in the most favorable light. That is 30 cases out of
about 7000 death sentences since 1973, or 0.4%. According to DPIC, one of those
"exonerated" has been removed from their list because he was reconvicted for
the relevant murder.
Furthermore, Northwest U. Law Prof. Lawrence Marshall, a death penalty
opponent, who organized the National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the
Death Penalty in Chicago in 1998, stated that, "In a good half of these 75 (now
95) cases, the exoneration is so complete that it erases any doubt
whatsoever." (12). Prof. Marshall's uncorroborated claims find proof of
factually innocence in 38 cases. I am unaware of any documentation, produced
by Prof. Marshall, or anyone else, that objectively establishes factual
innocence in those cases where "it erases any doubt whatsoever".
Assuming that death penalty opponents continue a standard of allegedly having
proof for 50% of their "innocent" claims, that would be 48 out of those now 95
"innocent" cases, or about 0.7% of all death penalty cases since 1973.
Based on those uncorroborated claims, by these two anti-death penalty sources,
we might be looking at from 30-48 factually innocent.
However, 7 of the DPIC listed cases were prosecuted prior to 1973 and have no
relevance in a discussion of the modern death penalty and an eighth case,
Creamer, should not have been on the list because he was not sentenced to death
(13). So the 30-48 cases become the 22--40 "innocent" cases sentenced to death
since 1973, or 0.5%.
I am unaware of any independent, unbiased verification of factual innocence in
those 22-40 cases. Nor has anyone produced a study revealing how many of those
cases may have a consensus of opinion, whereby the evidence, the prosecutors,
defense counsel and the appellate courts agree on the factual innocence issue.
Due Process and The Risk to Innocents
Is there any other criminal sanction, anywhere in the world, where one could
find a 99.5% guilt accuracy rate, after 28 years of biased, unverified review
by opponents of that sanction, wherein all those allegedly innocent had been
secured from their punishments by post conviction review?
The US Supreme Court has stated that those subject to the death penalty in the
US receive super due process. It is easy to see why. From 1973-1999, 6707
people were sent to death row. 2379 of those cases, or 35%, were overturned on
appeal or had their sentence commuted. 598, or 9%, were executed, after an
average of nearly 10 years on death row. The time between sentencing and
execution has risen from an average of 8 years in 1989 to nearly 12 years in
1999 (14).
Consideration of error, be it the factually innocent convicted or procedural,
is why we have appeals and the commutation/clemency process. While the
factually innocent convicted is a horrible result, in the subject cases, none
have been executed.
Few dispute that death penalty cases have the greatest level of due process
protections. Therefore, if your objection to execution is the possibility of
irreversible error, such due process concludes that it is much more likely that
an innocent sentenced to a life term will die, as an innocent in prison, than
it is that an innocent will be executed. Both irreversible error, but one much
more likely than the other.
It appears that the US death penalty is that criminal justice sanction which is
the least likely to find the innocent guilty and the most likely to correct
such error when that rare circumstance occurs.
OK to Execute the Innocent?
Some death penalty opponents have wrongly interpreted that the US Supreme Court
decision in Herrera v Collins (113 S. Ct. 853, 870{1993}) found that executing
the innocent was quite all right.
"Justice (Sandra Day) OConnor's concurring opinion makes clear that Herrera
does not stand for that proposition. Justice OConnor stated, I cannot disagree
with the fundamental legal principal that executing the innocent is
inconsistent with the Constitution and the execution of a legally and factually
innocent person would be a constitutionally intolerable event. As Justice
OConnor stated, the Court assumed for the sake of argument that a truly
persuasive demonstration of actual innocence would render any such execution
unconstitutional and that federal habeas relief would be warranted if no state
avenue were open to process the claim. Id., at 874. That is the holding in
Herrera, and any claim to the contrary is simply not correct." (Kenneth S.
Nunnelley's Congressional testimony, July 23, 1993)
Future innocence considerations
The DPIC alleges that 10 of their 95 "innocents" were proven factually innocent
because their DNA screenings were negative. Based on the DPIC's standards, we
cannot be sure of all such innocent claims because, in some of the cases,
"non-matching DNA is consistent with the prosecution's theory of multiple
perpetrators.."(15) and, therefore, may not signify innocence.
In any future cases, where DNA is determinative of guilt or innocence, any such
innocent cases will never go to trial. For many reasons, including DNA testing,
the US death penalty, is much safer today than it has ever been.
As the best predictor of future performance is past performance, what will the
future risk to innocents be? Based on the evidence we have today, using anti
death penalty standards and their uncorroborated claims, with the next 7000
death sentences given, nationwide, we may sentence 12-30 (16) factually
innocent persons to death, or 0.3%, and the alleged innocent will all be taken
off death row via post conviction review or, otherwise, not be executed. What
this doesn't take into account is that many jurisdictions have, for quite some
time, already raised the qualification level for defense counsel and
prosecutors and some also require two defense attorneys to be appointed in
capital cases.
Almost without exception, those few highly publicized death penalty cases,
which have caused great public rancor, were prosecuted 15-25 years ago. More
recent cases are much less likely to provoke controversy or false claims of
innocence. Why? There is a higher quality of prosecution and defense in these
cases and new death penalty law, which began after Furman v Georgia (1972), is
more settled than it had been from 1973-1985. Finally, a review of many of
those earlier highly publicized cases revealed that many of the anti-death
penalty claims are false or highly deceptive.
Conclusion
No one disputes that an innocent sentenced to death is a horrible result.
Appeals and commutation/clemency deliberations are an integral and inescapable
part of a criminal justice system that both anticipate error and provide
remedy. Both sides of the death penalty debate are equally concerned about the
moral implication of executing an innocent. Those of us who support execution
recognize that any innocents sentenced to death or executed injure our
position.
A concern for the innocent will result in a rejection of a moratorium and more
support for executions. Either by a moratorium, or by outright repeal, stopping
executions will always put many more innocents at risk. Death penalty
opponents knows this. Their alleged concern for innocents is but another
distortion based campaign to get rid of the death penalty.
When reason and ALL the facts prevail, the support for executions will rise.
If all the footnotes don't come through, please let us know
1. Bedau & Radelet, The Myth of Infallibility: A Reply to Markman and
Cassell, 41 Stanford Law Review. 161, 264,1988
2. Matt Lauer interview, Today Show, 11/13/98
3. "Executed despite doubts about guilt" list
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocothers.html#executed
4. See Joseph O'Dell & Roger Keith Coleman within "McGinn Execution Tomorrow:
DNA Confirmed Guilt--Typical in Capital Cases", Criminal Justice Legal
Foundation, 9/26/00 at www.cjlf.org/releases/McGinn.htm . See Gray Graham
case, "Hollywood, Murder and Texas" at www.prodeathpenalty.com/graham.htm . See
David Spence within case 57, Muneer Deeb, fn 10
5. "EXECUTION MORATORIUM IS NO HOLIDAY FOR HOMICIDES", Dale O. Cloninger
and Roberto Marchesini at www.prodeathpenalty.com/Moratoriums.htm and published
as
"Execution and deterrence: a quasi-controlled group experiment", Dale O.
Cloninger; Roberto Marchesini, Applied Economics, 569 -576 Volume 33 Number 5,
April 2001
6. "Prisons are a Bargain, by Any Measure", John J. DiIulio, Jr., The New
York Times, !/16/96
7. "Innocence and the Death Penalty: Assessing The Danger of Mistaken
Executions," Staff Report, Subcommittee on Civil & Constitutional Rights,
Committee on the Judiciary, 103 Congress, 1st Session, 1993
8. "Cases of Innocence: 1973 - Present", DPIC Website, last updated
2/27/01, at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoccases.html
9. "Death Knell for the Death Penalty?", ABA Journal, June 6, 2000, at
www.abanet.org/journal/jun00/deathpenalty.html
10. "Critique of the DPIC List", www.prodeathpenalty.com/DPIC.htm.
11. " 'Exoneration' Hype Exaggerated", Dudley Sharp, The debate over
wrongful convictions, within Taking Sides, ABCNEWS, 3/13/00. Second essay down
at www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/TakingSides/takingsides7.html
12. "Wrongly Condemned to Death", Newsweek, 11/9/98
13. "Critique of DPIC List", at www.prodeathpenalty.com/DPIC.htm
14. "Capital Punishment 1999", Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000
15 ibid, 4.A., above
16. from the previously calculated 22-40 allegedly factually innocent minus
the 10 DNA cases
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.
A Planet Visitor
>
> to respond with that ??!!
>
made ya look.... made ya look... made ya look.
PV
> Desmond Coughlan
> desmond @ noos.fr | http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
>
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:a2a64r$aib$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
PV
BCarley978
death row inmates is proof enough that innocent people are being executed and
that there is something "questionable" (to say the least) in your position.
Rev. Don Kool
Actually it is "proof enough" that the system works. There has not been
even a single case of an "innocent" man being mistakenly executed in the
United States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW) since
the just Death Penalty was reinstated in the late 1970s.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Don
--
*********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
*********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
BCarley978
name, which stands for "Reverend," unless you are abbreviating a different
word. If you are a God-fearing preacher of Christianity, how can you reconcile
yourself to endorsing death as punishment and claiming that the system works?
That would seem to miss the whole point of Christianity, would it not, Rev?
What would your Lord and Savior have done, if not forgive the offender and
charge him to make an about face in his ways? Why not imitate Him by your
views?
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <20020119162621...@mb-ct.aol.com>
===============================
Actualy bcarley, personally I am a christian and also consider myself a liberal
in many way. I also support the death penalty for those whose actions indicate
that such a penalty is reasonable.
I see no contridiction, and I invite my fellow liberals and men of good will of
all denominations to join me in seeing that the good in men flourish while
their evil towards society is punished.
Yours in Liberal Solidarity
Jigsaw
Jürgen
Essence of Christianity? <No elaboration needed, just a one-liner>
J.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>>
>A few less than you use to louse up the word 'many.'
>
A Planet Visitor
prefer 849 executed and NONE exonerated?
PV
Exador
From Webster's Third
"self-defence n: the act of defending oneself or something that
belongs or relates to oneself. esp:a plea of justification for
assaulting or killing a human being sustained under very technical rules
of law after examining the surrounding circumstances and considering
such factors as whether the defendant was the initial aggressor or free
from fault, whether he had a reasonable opportunity to retreat to a
place of safety, and whether the force used by him was reasonable and
used to protect himelf or those under his protection. "
Please note, there is no concept of punitive motives in the act of
self-defence according to Webster's.
>
>>Cheers,
>>Craig
>>
>>
>>[Clipped]
>>
>>
>
>
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>news:a2d1q9$nqf$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>> >> How many KB The Master might have written for to louse up another
term?
>> >>
>> >A few less than you use to louse up the word 'many.'
>> >
>> Hmmmm...many. Perhaps 99 exonerated in comparizon to 750 executed are
>many?
>>
>No... 24 stabs are NOT 'many.'
For to come to an appropriate sentence and particularly to an establishment
of Continuing Threat or not one unfortunately has to compare crimes and to
understand the origin of brutalities.
But perhaps you would
>prefer 849 executed and NONE exonerated?
>
??????????????????????
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
> news:slrna4hn69.fq.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> > Le Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:49:59 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com>
> > a écrit :
> >
> > { snip }
> >
> > > That all depends on your 'point of view.' :-)
> >
> > Do you _really_ have to leave over 230 lines of the previous post, just
> > to respond with that ??!!
> >
> made ya look.... made ya look... made ya look.
*guilty chuckle*
Now hold out your hand, PV. I really am getting quite tired of this
routine.
*smack*
Now DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
Mr Q. Z. D. ((o))
John Rennie
Now Craig, trying to get PV to reverse his position vis-a-vis self
defence/punishment is a lost cause. He has already quoted from the
complete Oxford English Dictionary on 'punishment' which in no way supported
his
definition and the OED's definition of self-defence "self-de_fence.The act
of defending oneself, one's rights or position; spec. in Law" supports
Webster. I think he is confused, that happens more than occasionally,
between the primary defensive act and the attitude of teaching the assailant
a lesson so that the aggression is not performed again. (PV - when you are
in a hole, stop digging.)
Sharpjfa
>Message-id: <20020119145438...@mb-cq.aol.com>
>
>Mr. Sharp, the very fact that DNA testing has exonerated a large number of
>death row inmates is proof enough that innocent people are being executed and
>that there is something "questionable" (to say the least) in your position.
To be precise, 11 death row inmates have been freed via DNA testing.I don't
know if all of those were innocent, simply becasue multiple offender cases
cannot necessarily prove innocence, for obvious reasosns. In the future, none
of those cases will even go to trial, making the death penalty and all other
setences, that much more sure.
And be a bit more specific, OK? What is questionable about my position? Please,
be specific.
Sharpjfa
>Message-id: <20020119162621...@mb-ct.aol.com>
there is no contradcition between eternal forgiveness and earthlu punishment.
In fact , there is no contrdiction between earthly punishment and earthly
forgiveness, not is any such contradiction found in biblical text. Secondly, it
is very difficult for a murder vicitm to provide earthly forgiveness to their
murderer. They may have something to do with the biblical mandate for
murderers.
Sharpjfa
unfortunately, Jurgen writes:
>Hmmmm...many. Perhaps 99 exonerated in comparizon to 750 executed are many?
Jurgen, no need for you to blindly acept anti deth penalty fraud, unless you
are compelled to.
Here is a little reality for you.
Jürgen
Sharpjfa schrieb in Nachricht
<20020120091857...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: Why the death penalty is wrong
>>From: "Jürgen" K.J.H...@t-online.de
>
>unfortunately, Jurgen writes:
>
>>Hmmmm...many. Perhaps 99 exonerated in comparizon to 750 executed are
many?
>
>Jurgen, no need for you to blindly acept anti deth penalty fraud, unless
you
>are compelled to.
>
>Here is a little reality for you.
>
<little reality once more read and snipped>
There are three possible reasons for to write a lenghty text.
(1) The issue is complex
(2) The text deals with more than one point
(3) The author tries to introduce a pseudo-complexity for to explain away a
simple and clear point.
The evidence against the 99 *innocents* formerly sentenced to death and
freed a posteriori was so weak that the verdict could not be upheld. This is
the only statement of relevance at this point. *ANY* claim, assumption,
supposition of their "actual guilt" equates a personal (Sir Sharp's) guilty
verdict against people explicitely declared for innocent by the jurisdiction
that formerly wanted to kill them.
A "Technicality" can mean for instant that a formerly conviction-relevant
confession is declared for not admissible lately. Such a declaration has
bone-hard backgrounds, like no witnesses for the confession or the
investigation's denial to call a lawyer after the arrested's request. What
is entitled "Technicalities" are actually SEVERE and often INTENTIONAL
irregularities that make the evidence against the accused totally worthless.
>I am unaware of any independent, unbiased verification of factual innocence
in
>those 22-40 cases.
Who could even perform such a verification? JFA, perhaps?
Nor has anyone produced a study revealing how many of those
>cases may have a consensus of opinion, whereby the evidence, the
prosecutors,
>defense counsel and the appellate courts agree on the factual innocence
issue.
Ah...innocence in the end might be given if the very last guy in the US
finally could be convinced about?
Jürgen
Sharpjfa
>Message-id: <a2fdo1$ir3$06$1...@news.t-online.com>
>
>
>Sharpjfa schrieb in Nachricht
><20020120091857...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
>>>Subject: Re: Why the death penalty is wrong
>>>From: "Jürgen" K.J.H...@t-online.de
>>
>>unfortunately, Jurgen writes:
>>
>>>Hmmmm...many. Perhaps 99 exonerated in comparizon to 750 executed are
>many?
>>
>>Jurgen, no need for you to blindly acept anti deth penalty fraud, unless
>you
>>are compelled to.
>>
>>Here is a little reality for you.
>>
>
><little reality once more read and snipped>
>
>There are three possible reasons for to write a lenghty text.
>
>(1) The issue is complex
>(2) The text deals with more than one point
>(3) The author tries to introduce a pseudo-complexity for to explain away a
>simple and clear point.
or the reality which is that anti deception takes a lengthly and detailed
review. Which is exactly what I did.
>The evidence against the 99 *innocents* formerly sentenced to death and
>freed a posteriori was so weak that the verdict could not be upheld.
You may be unaware that the evidence of guilt may have been very strong,, but
that some error, not even connected to innocence, overturned the case and made
it impossible to responsibly try the case, again.
This is
>the only statement of relevance at this point. *ANY* claim, assumption,
>supposition of their "actual guilt" equates a personal (Sir Sharp's) guilty
>verdict against people explicitely declared for innocent by the jurisdiction
>that formerly wanted to kill them.
If you can find any declaration of innocence in these cases, please present it.
Those who publish these alleged innocent cases cannot do so.
>
>A "Technicality" can mean for instant that a formerly conviction-relevant
>confession is declared for not admissible lately. Such a declaration has
>bone-hard backgrounds, like no witnesses for the confession or the
>investigation's denial to call a lawyer after the arrested's request. What
>is entitled "Technicalities" are actually SEVERE and often INTENTIONAL
>irregularities that make the evidence against the accused totally worthless.
that is important of course and likely why those claiming any innocents within
those 99 have failed to prove the cases in the overwhelming number of them and
have admitted that factual innocence may not have even been an issue.
>
>>I am unaware of any independent, unbiased verification of factual innocence
>in
>>those 22-40 cases.
>
>Who could even perform such a verification? JFA, perhaps?
How about those who make the claim of factual innocence. You may be unaware,
but it is up to those who make the claims to prove them. And even they have
admitted that they MAy only have any evidence of innocence in 30 or so of those
cases. Maybe.
>>Nor has anyone produced a study revealing how many of those
>>cases may have a consensus of opinion, whereby the evidence, the
>prosecutors,
>>defense counsel and the appellate courts agree on the factual innocence
>issue.
A Planet Visitor
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >
> >"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> >news:a2d1q9$nqf$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >>
> >> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >> >> How many KB The Master might have written for to louse up another
> term?
> >> >>
> >> >A few less than you use to louse up the word 'many.'
> >> >
> >> Hmmmm...many. Perhaps 99 exonerated in comparizon to 750 executed are
> >many?
> >>
> >No... 24 stabs are NOT 'many.'
>
> For to come to an appropriate sentence and particularly to an
establishment
> of Continuing Threat or not one unfortunately has to compare crimes and to
> understand the origin of brutalities.
>
devious way to avoid what you DID say. It is IMPOSSIBLE
to claim that '24 stab wounds' were NOT 'MANY.'
> But perhaps you would
> >prefer 849 executed and NONE exonerated?
> >
>
> ??????????????????????
>
You seem to be over-concerned that we've exonerated
99, while only executing 750.
PV
Jürgen
Sharpjfa schrieb in Nachricht
<20020120173251...@mb-cj.aol.com>...
>>>unfortunately, Jurgen writes:
>>>
>>>>Hmmmm...many. Perhaps 99 exonerated in comparizon to 750 executed are
>>many?
>>>
>>>Jurgen, no need for you to blindly acept anti deth penalty fraud, unless
>>you
>>>are compelled to.
>>>
>>>Here is a little reality for you.
>>>
>>
>><little reality once more read and snipped>
>>
>>There are three possible reasons for to write a lenghty text.
>>
>>(1) The issue is complex
>>(2) The text deals with more than one point
>>(3) The author tries to introduce a pseudo-complexity for to explain away
a
>>simple and clear point.
>
>or the reality which is that anti deception takes a lengthly and detailed
>review. Which is exactly what I did.
It anytimes is amusing to see the outcome of legal courts, normally of
sacred means and untouchable integrity in the eyes of retentionists, in a
sudden mutates to "anti-deception" if the result is the contrary of a death
sentence.
>
>>The evidence against the 99 *innocents* formerly sentenced to death and
>>freed a posteriori was so weak that the verdict could not be upheld.
>
>You may be unaware that the evidence of guilt may have been very strong,,
but
>that some error, not even connected to innocence, overturned the case and
made
>it impossible to responsibly try the case, again.
Nope. This is a gross distortion of the reality. If the evidence of guilt
was/is very strong then a new trial is ruled and a new guilty verdict plus a
new sentence is spoken. Is this not the case then the evidence is too weak
for a conviction, and a new trial makes no sense.
And should actually the situation be that after 17 years for *ABSOLUTELY NOT
ANY NEW POINT*, for *FACTS KNOWN EXPLICITELY FROM THE VERY BEGIN ON* a
verdict has to be overturned then it is the *SYSTEM'S* responsibility if
evidence might be lost today.
>
>This is
>>the only statement of relevance at this point. *ANY* claim, assumption,
>>supposition of their "actual guilt" equates a personal (Sir Sharp's)
guilty
>>verdict against people explicitely declared for innocent by the
jurisdiction
>>that formerly wanted to kill them.
>
>If you can find any declaration of innocence in these cases, please present
it.
>Those who publish these alleged innocent cases cannot do so.
We will do something other at this point. I will search for a list of all
exonerated and you, Sir, will state publicly whom of them you would like to
accuse of a crime. You claim innocence in maximal 40 cases, then there are
59 people which you would like to charge.
>
>>
>>A "Technicality" can mean for instant that a formerly conviction-relevant
>>confession is declared for not admissible lately. Such a declaration has
>>bone-hard backgrounds, like no witnesses for the confession or the
>>investigation's denial to call a lawyer after the arrested's request. What
>>is entitled "Technicalities" are actually SEVERE and often INTENTIONAL
>>irregularities that make the evidence against the accused totally
worthless.
>
>that is important of course and likely why those claiming any innocents
within
>those 99 have failed to prove the cases in the overwhelming number of them
and
>have admitted that factual innocence may not have even been an issue.
>
>>
>>>I am unaware of any independent, unbiased verification of factual
innocence
>>in
>>>those 22-40 cases.
>>
>>Who could even perform such a verification? JFA, perhaps?
>
>How about those who make the claim of factual innocence. You may be
unaware,
>but it is up to those who make the claims to prove them. And even they have
>admitted that they MAy only have any evidence of innocence in 30 or so of
those
>cases. Maybe.
>
NOPISSIME. The claim is not made by me, but by the various US-American
Justice Systems. THEY claim for ANY case of the 99 exonerated INNOCENCE
according to the only definition that makes any sense: THEIR GUILT CAN NOT
BE PROVEN. More is not to discuss. All claims: 'But they are not really
innocent' are private verdicts and mean exactly nothing. For to get one
thing straight about who claims what here: YOU, Sir, are claiming
persistently guilt of exonerated people and nothing else: Thus, if anyone
owes proof right here and now then this is Sir Dudley Sharp.
Jürgen
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>In any case, NOTHING in the definition of 'self-defense'
>implies that it cannot RESULT in 'punishment' to the
>attacker, as a result of using 'self-defense.'
What a thoroughly strange path of argumentation. Because the definitions of
two entirely independent terms do not mention the terms' fundamental
difference just this difference should not exist in the end. One should get
aware what with this system can be proven.
I really
>think it's beneath you to employ such a meaningless
>argument to something that's quite clear. Someone
>attacking you, which results in you killing him, has
>most certainly been 'punishment' to them for the offense
>of having attacked you. 'Punishment' DOES NOT have
>to be even 'lawful' nor does it have to have resulted
>from an offense.
>
>I have already went through the definition of 'punishment'
>in the OED, and nothing there conflicts with the argument
>that actions taken in 'self-defense' CANNOT result in
>'punishment' to the offender. In respect to 'punishment,'
>the OED Definition 1. is "the infliction of a penalty in
>retribution for an offence;" Definition 2. is "pain, damage,
>or loss inflicted (without any retributive or judicial character)"
>
The contrary makes sense:
Self Defense just FINDS IT'S LIMITS at the point where punishment begins.
Quite clearly SD is an act of urgency, born of the need to get out of an
imminently threatening situation.
Is the threat no more existent then any *further* violent action becomes a
sanction, then it is no more SD, from exactly this point on it is Punishment
if aiming to educate the offender or Revenge if demanding for retribution.
J.
A Planet Visitor
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
> >In any case, NOTHING in the definition of 'self-defense'
> >implies that it cannot RESULT in 'punishment' to the
> >attacker, as a result of using 'self-defense.'
>
> What a thoroughly strange path of argumentation. Because the
definitions of
> two entirely independent terms do not mention the terms' fundamental
> difference just this difference should not exist in the end. One
should get
> aware what with this system can be proven.
>
fails you miserably in that comment.
When faced with the FACTS as provided by definitions,
resort to DEFINING your counterargument as based on
'sense' rather than 'fact.' Actually, you make NO sense.
Since we DO inflict a 'pain, damage or loss' (From the
definition of 'punishment') on someone who has attempted
to 'hurt, harm, injure or damage' us (From the definition of
'offense'). We are most certainly inflicting 'pain, damage
or loss' (punishing) that offender when we do so. I know
how HARD it is for most abolitionists to realize this, but that's
TOUGH.
PV
> J.
John Rennie
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
The only question of any remote interest is whether The Master believes
himself in his stuff.
Sharpjfa
longer avaialble in a new trial, not if new legal foundations have made
prosecuting the case impossible, which appears to be a huge percentage of
cases.
Jürgen
Sharpjfa schrieb in Nachricht
<20020121150444...@mb-fn.aol.com>...
>The case cannot be retried if the evidence, taken away by the appeal, is no
>longer avaialble in a new trial, not if new legal foundations have made
>prosecuting the case impossible, which appears to be a huge percentage of
>cases.
Well, now it's getting a bit melodramatic, is it? "....the evidence, taken
away by the appeal,....". Nasty appeal takes away the evidence for to set a
murderer free. I already pointed out the nature of your so-called
Technicalities, Sir. After you repeated your accusations and Bruce Carley
posted coincidentally a link to the DPIC's list of people freed from Death
Rows, come on and start to accuse individuals. Put up names of murderers
freed by the appeals and if you are good then with anything like evidence.
J.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
>
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>news:a2ed3n$8aj$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>> >
>> >"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> >news:a2d1q9$nqf$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> >>
>> >> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>> >> >> How many KB The Master might have written for to louse up another
>> term?
>> >> >>
>> >> >A few less than you use to louse up the word 'many.'
>> >> >
>> >> Hmmmm...many. Perhaps 99 exonerated in comparizon to 750 executed are
>> >many?
>> >>
>> >No... 24 stabs are NOT 'many.'
>>
>> For to come to an appropriate sentence and particularly to an
>establishment
>> of Continuing Threat or not one unfortunately has to compare crimes and
to
>> understand the origin of brutalities.
>>
>That has NOTHING to do with it, and is simply a rather
>devious way to avoid what you DID say. It is IMPOSSIBLE
>to claim that '24 stab wounds' were NOT 'MANY.'
Court and appellate courts wanted to derive from a spectacular number of
stabs an intent of not only Karl but - most absurd - Walter to torture the
victim Mr Hartsock. After now crimes committed a) under rage or panic and b)
with knives are generally showing a huge number of stabs this claim holds no
water.
>
>> But perhaps you would
>> >prefer 849 executed and NONE exonerated?
>> >
>>
>> ??????????????????????
>>
>You seem to be over-concerned that we've exonerated
>99, while only executing 750.
OVER-CONCERNED ????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????
J.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:GtZ28.98820$_x4.10...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Bullshit baffles brains, but self defence does NOT equal punishment.
>
which is the method used by Jürgen. My argument is that self-defense
can often RESULT in 'punishment' to the offender. It obviously
doesn't HAVE to do so. Certainly 'society self-defense' in the way
we employ military self-defense to DETER those who would
attack us has no element of 'punishment' within. But once it
becomes NECESSARY to respond to an attack, as a nation..
we certainly INTEND to inflict punishment on our attacker.
But yours and Craig's and Jürgen's argument has been that it
CANNOT contain 'punishment.' And that's just so much
rubbish. The definitions clearly bear this out -- Punishment =
'inflict pain, damage or loss.' Offense = hurt, harm, injure
or damage.' Self-defense = The act of defending oneself,
one's rights or position. When we 'defend our position'
(which is our life in individual self-defense), we are
defending against hurt, harm or injury (an offense against
us), and our intent is NOT to quote the Bible to our
attacker, but to inflict sufficient pain, damage or loss
(punish) which will incapacitate them from further
hurting or harming us. I know how HARD it is for most
abolitionists to realize this, but that's TOUGH. And
only goes to show the fallacy of Desmond's claim that all
the intelligence is on the abolitionist's side.
PV
John Rennie
And I never said you said 'it equals'. I didn't have to. Because what
you have said several times in different ways is this "Self-defense is a
punitive act against someone intent on murdering one". Or put in another
way, self defence is an act of punishment. To most, be they retentionist
or abolitionist, the meaning is clear except, of course, to a visitor from
another world.
A Planet Visitor
Manipulator? I can only present the truth. Whether you
want to see it or not is something I have no control over.
PV
A Planet Visitor
Well... you DID ask the question "Perhaps 99 exonerated in
comparizon to 750 executed are many?" Are you presuming
that is 'too' many? You certainly had no idea what 24 stab
wounds are in respect to 'many.'
PV
> J.
>
>
>
>
John Rennie
What! Not even a IMHO?
A Planet Visitor
respect, I apologize. Although I'd be interested in the
exact quote which you feel implies that ALL self-defense
results in 'punishment' to the offender. Certainly, in ALL
my MANY arguments regarding 'society self-defense,'
it is obvious that I believe NO evidence of 'punishment'
MUST be used in such 'self-defense.' We routinely create
military forces for a self-defensive posture. And clearly an
individual who carries a firearm for 'self-defense' has not
'punished' anyone by so doing. BUT.... IF he is forced
to use that weapon as a result of being attacked, that
act is certainly meant to 'inflict pain, damage or loss'
(punishment) on the offender, as a means of incapacitation
of the offender. And a society which is attacked, is
certainly responding to that attack with their own
self-defense forces with the purpose of inflicting pain,
damage or loss on their attacker as well.
PV
John Rennie
forever and ever; sad isn't it?
>
>
A Planet Visitor
What the hell???? THIS is what you said Quoting again
from above -- "Because what you have said several times
in different ways is this "Self-defense is a punitive act against
someone intent on murdering one". Or put in another way,
self defence is an act of punishment."
Now you will notice the word 'IS' that you use. This certainly
implies that you claim I've said ALL self-defense IS punishment.
And clearly that is NOT my implication. Self-defense... 'IF' it
inflicts 'pain, damage or loss' to the attacker IS 'punishment'
APPLIED to the attacker.
This argument started with my claim that self-defense is
'punitive.' Now, certainly I did not mean (you may have
assumed that to mean, but that would be rather silly on
your part, since carrying a firearm for defense can certainly
not be considered 'punitive' if NOT used) that all self-defense
MUST contain a 'punitive' response. I was clearly referring
to the 'act' which is in response to an actual attack,
not the defensive mechanism in place to use to defend
against such an attack. The DP, for example, is a
'society self-defense' mechanism in place in 'case' of an
actual attack, as are military defense forces. The DP
is implemented when we (society) perceive we are
being attacked, by a murderer. And it is certainly,
both punitive and punishment. It's unfortunate that you
and some others have distorted my meaning, because
you cannot accept that self-defense MAY well be
'punitive' and 'punishment, and usually IS when it
becomes necessary to use 'force' against 'force.'
In fact, YOU said quite the opposite, when you
posted - "In no way is self defence, an award or
retributive. How can it be?" Clearly, in many ways it
can be and is retributive. When it becomes necessary to
apply counter-force it is intended to 'punish' the person
attacking you, by inflicting 'pain or damage,' thus
incapacitating that person.
PV
John Rennie
to point out that it was you that had confused the primary point of self
defence i.e to protect oneself, with the secondary point, to make sure you
were not attacked again.
A Planet Visitor
trouble
> to point out that it was you that had confused the primary point of
self
> defence i.e to protect oneself, with the secondary point, to make
sure you
> were not attacked again.
>
So you now admit that an 'act' of self-defense against an
ATTACKER, is intent on 'punishing' that attacker by
way of inflicting 'pain or damage,' on him, to incapacitate
him. Great.... I win!!!!
PV
Exador
PV, as usual, you are obfuscating. In this case by correlating three
separate and distinct motives for actions carried out by two distinct
entities. As usual, I will clarify things for you.
The first case you are raising is that of an individual who is directly
attacked and acts to defend himself. As a result, there is harm done to
the assailant. In this case, the motive was purely immediate prevention
of harm, therefore, no punitive action occurred.
The second case is a similar individual who is once again attacked and
acts to defend himself. He then acts again to inflict further harm on
the assailant. In this case, the motive is initially defensive and then
becomes retributive and punitive.
In the third case, the individual perceives a threat and acts
preemptively to prevent harm to himself, even though no immediate attack
has taken place. In this case, his actions may well include both
defensive and punitive motives. There is certainly no retribution,
because no initial assault took place. Obviously, courts in most
civilised countries would throw this out if a defence tried to base a
case on it. Essentially it is vigilantism.
Now to the situations as described above WRT nations.
World War 2 was clearly a case of case 1 above as far as the Allies were
concerned, in that Germany/Italy and Japan were aggressors and the
Allies acted in self-defence to stop the aggression. Hostilities stopped
in each theatre when the aggressor agreed to stop.
Iraq is a good example of case 2 above, as the punishment continues,
despite any evidence that it is ameliorating the threat. The immediate
action in self-defence was concluded over 10 years ago.
Grenada was a good example of case 3 above and the US hasn't repeated
such a stupidly aggressive action to date. In this case there were dual
motivations; the excuse of a "perceived threat" to American students at
the University, and the intention to punish a pro-Castro regime. The
actual self-defence component was negligible, while the punitive
component was the real motivation. The action was virtually universally
condemned.
As I said previously, the US has a strong tradition of vigilantism as
well as a strong focus on individual rights. Your attitude is probably a
cultural artefact, but that doesn't make it right.
Please note that I agree there is a corollary between individual actions
and societal actions. To argue otherwise would be stupid. There is the
danger too that strong societies without sufficient self-control can
become bullies, just as in the individual case. This is particularly the
case whaen there is no counterbalancing agent. The US needs to be very
self-vigilant over the next several years if it is to avoid that trap.
This is of course somewhat OT, but you raised the issue of societal
actions. :-)
Cheers,
Craig
Exador
Nothing humble about PV John. You should know THAT. :-)
Cheers,
Craig
Rev. Don Kool
> Don Kool, I could not help noticing that you place the title "Rev." before your
> name, which stands for "Reverend," unless you are abbreviating a different
> word.
Yes, I am an ordained minister.
> If you are a God-fearing preacher of Christianity, how can you reconcile
> yourself to endorsing death as punishment and claiming that the system works?
> That would seem to miss the whole point of Christianity, would it not, Rev?
> What would your Lord and Savior have done, if not forgive the offender and
> charge him to make an about face in his ways? Why not imitate Him by your
> views?
As "a God-fearing preacher of Christianity", how could I not endorse just
punishment for proven crimes? As the Holy Bible states, "He that
smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death".
Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
Don
--
*********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
*********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
John Rennie
"Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3C4D7FC5...@home.com...
> BCarley978 wrote:
>
> > Don Kool, I could not help noticing that you place the title "Rev."
before your
> > name, which stands for "Reverend," unless you are abbreviating a
different
> > word.
>
>
> Yes, I am an ordained minister.
>
as I am and as my dog Leo is.
Rev. John Rennie
John Rennie
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna4r1sd.8o.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:24:40 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Ain't capital punishment just dandy ..?
>
> > No, it's not. But it is certainly necessary. And you should perhaps
> > take a hard look at some of the people you claim are just 'good
> > folks,' caught up by 'bad times.' Justify keeping Theodore Frank
> > alive for me.
>
> I don't have to justify it. _You_ want him dead, _you_ have to justify
> it.
If I had the opportunity to kill Frank, or Brady for that matter, without
their deaths meaning that anyone else would be subjected to the death
penalty I would. They are not only not fit to breath the same air as
ourselves, they are a source of horror to those who have to feed them, care
for them and protect them against their fellow prisoners. I would dispose
of them painlessly and feel the better for it. However in the real world I
have, reluctantly to support their continuing existence because I believe
the DP to be an unfair penalty, capriciously applied and with the very real
possibility that innocents can be executed. I have stated my attitude as
baldly as I can to emphasise the great difference between your attitude to
the death penalty and my own.
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna4r1sd.8o.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:24:40 GMT, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Ain't capital punishment just dandy ..?
>
> > No, it's not. But it is certainly necessary. And you should
perhaps
> > take a hard look at some of the people you claim are just 'good
> > folks,' caught up by 'bad times.' Justify keeping Theodore Frank
> > alive for me.
>
> I don't have to justify it. _You_ want him dead, _you_ have to
justify
> it.
http://www.wtv-zone.com/LadyMaggie/AmySueStory.html
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
> Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
>
BCarley978
John Rennie
> Le Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:52:04 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> I don't have to justify it. _You_ want him dead, _you_ have to justify
> >> it.
>
> > If I had the opportunity to kill Frank, or Brady for that matter,
without
> > their deaths meaning that anyone else would be subjected to the death
> > penalty I would. They are not only not fit to breath the same air as
> > ourselves,
>
> like the above. Until then, you just look like a dithering old fool.
>
> { snip }
You have absolutely no idea what I look like whereas I have seen your
picture. For what it is worth I think you look like a nerd.
John Rennie
"BCarley978" <bcarl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020122125110...@mb-mf.aol.com...
> Some have called you a troll, Don Kool. It appears they were right.
P..L..O..N..K The sound of a penny dropping after a very, very long time.
John Rennie
> Le Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:21:37 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> When you've qualified as $DEITY, John, then you can make statements
> >> like the above. Until then, you just look like a dithering old fool.
>
> > picture. For what it is worth I think you look like a nerd.
>
>
And now. . .?
enigmacat
wrote:
>
> Yes, I am an ordained minister.
i'm certainly glad not to be Protestant then.
>
>> If you are a God-fearing preacher of Christianity, how can you reconcile
>> yourself to endorsing death as punishment and claiming that the system works?
>> That would seem to miss the whole point of Christianity, would it not, Rev?
>> What would your Lord and Savior have done, if not forgive the offender and
>> charge him to make an about face in his ways? Why not imitate Him by your
>> views?
>
>
> As "a God-fearing preacher of Christianity", how could I not endorse just
>punishment for proven crimes? As the Holy Bible states, "He that
>smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death".
>
> Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
> Don
>
>i believe that quote is from the Old Testament, written before the birth of Christ. It's chock-full of blood, guts and gore. It portrays God as an avenging, angry deity who wiped out
drowned nearly everyone and nearly all animals in that big flood of
his.
sincerely,
jane
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3C4D2372...@hotmail.com...
> PV, as usual, you are obfuscating. In this case by correlating three
> separate and distinct motives for actions carried out by two distinct
> entities. As usual, I will clarify things for you.
ho ho ho. That'll be the day!!
> The first case you are raising is that of an individual who is directly
> attacked and acts to defend himself. As a result, there is harm done to
> the assailant. In this case, the motive was purely immediate prevention
> of harm, therefore, no punitive action occurred.
Thus you do not understand the meaning of 'punitive.'
i.e., -- 'concerned with or inflicting punishment.' If there is
'harm' done to the assailant, by DEFINITION, we have
punished them -- punish - 'to inflict heavy damage, injury, or
loss on.' Nor do we concern ourselves with 'motive,' which
of course is 'self-preservation.' We are speaking of the
METHOD used to insure that 'self-preservation.' And
when attacked, and that 'self-preservation' is threatened
that METHOD inflicts injury on our attacker if we
possibly can. Thus it inflicts 'punishment.' I am not
attempting to obfuscate, but you are, with the introduction
of 'motive,' which is totally separate from 'method.'
Unless our 'motive' is self-preservation, it is not self-defense.
> The second case is a similar individual who is once again attacked and
> acts to defend himself. He then acts again to inflict further harm on
> the assailant. In this case, the motive is initially defensive and then
> becomes retributive and punitive.
The MOTIVE is again 'self-preservation.' You are confusing
motive with 'action.' It is absurd to claim a 'motive' is defensive.
Motive is something that 'prompts a person to act.' HOW they
act is NOT 'motive,' but 'method.' The motive is 'self-preservation,'
or 'self-defense,' if you will. The method may well be defensive
at first and then become retributive and punitive. Which was my
point all along. Carrying a firearm, can be seen as a defensive
act, as is establishing a military defense force for a nation. But
that 'method' FAILS when ACTUALLY attacked, and our
purpose then becomes to incapacitate. And however you wish
to cut it, we intend to inflict injury on the attacker if we see that
it becomes necessary to use our defense mechanism to prevent
them from inflicting injury on us.
> In the third case, the individual perceives a threat and acts
> preemptively to prevent harm to himself, even though no immediate attack
> has taken place. In this case, his actions may well include both
> defensive and punitive motives. There is certainly no retribution,
> because no initial assault took place. Obviously, courts in most
> civilised countries would throw this out if a defence tried to base a
> case on it. Essentially it is vigilantism.
>
But that's NOT self-defense. We have moved from being
'under attack' or 'defending against attack,' to becoming THE
ATTACKER. But get the definition of 'motive' down, please.
And understand that vigilantism is NOT 'self-defense.' Because
you have been wandering all over this logical examination.
> Now to the situations as described above WRT nations.
> World War 2 was clearly a case of case 1 above as far as the Allies were
> concerned, in that Germany/Italy and Japan were aggressors and the
> Allies acted in self-defence to stop the aggression. Hostilities stopped
> in each theatre when the aggressor agreed to stop.
> Iraq is a good example of case 2 above, as the punishment continues,
> despite any evidence that it is ameliorating the threat. The immediate
> action in self-defence was concluded over 10 years ago.
>
What the hell are you talking about, again??? You have
tried to make an axiom, out of an opinion... most especially
in respect to case 2. Clearly, an agreement was made BY
IRAQ in respect to ceasing hostilities, which were a result
of case 1. Having VIOLATED that agreement, there is
every right to even INVADE to insure compliance. That
was, of course, the REASON hostilities ceased. Barring
that, there is every right to insure that short of such an
invasion, efforts are made to BRING Iraq into compliance
with the agreements they have violated.
> Grenada was a good example of case 3 above and the US hasn't repeated
> such a stupidly aggressive action to date. In this case there were dual
> motivations; the excuse of a "perceived threat" to American students at
> the University, and the intention to punish a pro-Castro regime. The
> actual self-defence component was negligible, while the punitive
> component was the real motivation. The action was virtually universally
> condemned.
>
The U.S. invasion of Grenada can in no way be considered
a 'self-defense' act. That IS what we're talking about, yet
you skip all about the logical graveyard. It was an aggressive
act, not in self-defense, but meant to right what was perceived
to be a wrong. You may form any opinion regarding it you
wish... except you cannot, and I cannot, refer to it as
'self-defense.' That's about as silly as one could imagine Nor
is vigilantism, 'self-defense.' Good grief. You'll try to have us
believe the holocaust was 'self-defense' next. What your
purpose actually is, is you just wish to get your hits in again,
against the U.S., and that's rather transparent. Stick to
'self-defense.'
> As I said previously, the US has a strong tradition of vigilantism as
> well as a strong focus on individual rights. Your attitude is probably a
> cultural artefact, but that doesn't make it right.
>
At least I know what 'motive' is. And one begins to
wonder what your 'motive' is? You seem to be carrying
an excessively heavy load of hate for the U.S. Perhaps,
being in the 'loveless marriage' with your country that
you've expressed, you are somewhat envious of those
who do 'love their country.'
> Please note that I agree there is a corollary between individual actions
> and societal actions. To argue otherwise would be stupid.
Thus, you obviously agree that there is a corollary between
'individual self-defense' and 'society self-defense,' and since
individual self-defense can justify the taking of a life, society
self-defense can also justify the taking of a life in the DP.
Thank you.
> There is the
> danger too that strong societies without sufficient self-control can
> become bullies, just as in the individual case. This is particularly the
> case whaen there is no counterbalancing agent. The US needs to be very
> self-vigilant over the next several years if it is to avoid that trap.
> This is of course somewhat OT, but you raised the issue of societal
> actions. :-)
Yeah, right.... Simply put... one (or a nation) can prepare
themselves 'passively' in self-defense for a perceived attack.
Without BEING attacked, one cannot react 'actively'
against such a perception. That is no longer self-defense.
It may even be 'justified' in the mind of the individual or a
nation -- but it is NOT self-defense. Once attacked,
one can react 'actively' in self-defense against such an
ACTUAL attack. When doing so, the intent is to
incapacitate the attacker. And that incapacitation involves
inflicting punishment on the attacker. Such as the DP, in
which a murderer has in fact attacked our society, by
murdering one of our members. And such as in
Afghanistan, where it is clear we were attacked. So
regardless of any arguments such as 'war,' which are only
intended to distort the focus of the threat to the U.S.,
the U.S. HAS been attacked, and our response is
of a self-defense character.
PV
> Cheers,
> Craig
BCarley978
inconsistent. There are bats in here who appear to side first with birds, then
with beasts, hence the sense of caution toward friendly strangers. What is
certain is that "punishment" is Stone Age mob justice, whereas professional
limit-setting with humanity to all parties is infinitely more becoming of the
human potential. (Let's hear from some of our vindictive redneck fossils about
that one.)